lican newspapers have all been pleased to remark that
President Cleveland has done a very decent thing by refusing to
appoint as post-master at Mr. Blaine's home, in Augusta, the
Democratic editor, who "was virulently active in publishing particularly
unclean falsehoods concerning the Republican candidate last fall." Mr.
Blaine had a perfect right to object, and he exercised the right, to the
appointment of Morton; and likewise, the President had a perfect right
not to heed the objection,--a right, however, which he did not exercise.
The action of the President therefore commends itself to the
right-thinking men of all parties.

So far as the Editor's Table can remember, this is the first opportunity
that the Republican newspapers have improved to say anything good of
President Cleveland, who, it is not forgotten, was a target for
as virulent and uncalled for abuse as was ever heaped upon any known
American citizen. Magnanimity is always in order even in politics.

* * * * *

Civil Service Reform seems to-day to be the mare of the Mugwumps and the
nightmare of everybody else. The eloquence or, if you please, the waste
of words which the minority employ in advocating its deceptive
principles, is only to be contrasted with the almost ludicrous
indifference with which both Republican and Democratic majorities regard
it. Thoughtful people are, at this time, more concerned with the
prospective treatment of the tariff problem.

Now, it is neither our purpose nor desire to add to the literature of
discussion, on this important theme; but one thought which occurs to us
may here be submitted in the form of a question. People who talk much on
tariff topics are supposed to be interested in the same, and to have
some reason, good, bad, or indifferent, for advancing their diverse
arguments.

To all such, the inquiry may be addressed:--Are you sure that you
believe in a "protective" tariff because you think it is a _public_
benefit, or because you think it is a private benefit?

And again:--Does "protective" tariff protect? If it does,--whom?

Last autumn, the cry arose throughout the land that free trade meant the
destruction of home labor, and the "introduction of the pauper labor of
Europe," or at least a competition at home with the pauper labor of
Europe. Well, some very dismal pictures have been drawn of the condition
of the pauper labor of Europe, and when thinking of them, it must be
con