time that a judge of the court of last resort should sit. THE frequency of resignations from high positions in the government service suggests the query whether an official is under any moral obligation, after accepting a public office, to continue therein until the expira tion of his term, or at least as long as the appointing power wishes. If an official is of* any account at the head of a department, it must certainly he a disadvantage to have a rotation in the office. Attention has recent ly been called to the numerous changes that have taken place in the cabinet of the present President. Of the eight cabinet officers in herited from his predecessor in office less than four years ago, five have resigned; and a new cabinet position created last winter has already had one change of head. The proper management of a great depart ment at Washington requires time to learn, and length of service should mean efficiency. A year's time is not too much to master the details. Yet some cabinet officers are hard ly warm in their seats before they are out again, their official connection made an asset in securing another position. A man is cer tainly not to be deprived of the prestige that high public position gives him. Rut is the public service entitled to no consideration? Of course, if cabinet officials are merely polit ical advisers, it may matter little how often they are changed. The departments can run as well with one as with another. But that is not what the government pays them for. Public opinion should frown upon these selfish resignations from public posts, and particularly when a man is taken from the head of a great department of government to manage a party campaign. It belittles high position and renders public service ineffi cient. A change was recently made in the office of Attorney-General of the United States. The accumulated knowledge and experience of the former head of that department is lost to the government. His successor will have
to serve his apprenticeship, though it i? openly announced that he expects to resign within a year and enter a large law firm Another member of the cabinet is said to be holding on to his office merely as a stop-gap until after election, when the position he holds is to go to a man who has recently re signed a cabinet position to engage actively in politics. This is keeping the letter of the civil service law but doing violence to its spirit. If public office is a public trust, the trustee should not throw aside the duties of his office at the first opportunity of private or party gain.— The Law Register. LORD Curzon is reported to have exhorted the Eton boys about the necessity of making the office of the Indian Viceroy permanent. It is only appropriate that Lord Curzon should reserve such novel ideas for an as sembly of schoolboys. Lord Curzon is an accomplished speaker. But the one great drawback of his speeches is that they never convince anybody. Even a schoolboy might have pointed out to him how the Roman pro-consuls often got beyond the control of all constitutional authority. The taste of irresponsible powers made them hanker for empires for themselves. The history of In dia tells the same tale. Most of the perma nent Viceroys under the Moghul Empire be come Sovereigns themselves. The English constitution, which is almost the ideal of the whole world, has, therefore, been far-sighted enough to make the governorships of the Colonies and of India terminable every five years. Countries with an organized form of government have no necessity for a perma nent ruler. The infusion of fresh blood into their constitution by the party in ascendency in England serves only to keep them from decay and degeneration. But Lord Curzon believes only in his personal rule and little cares for any constitutional form of govern ment. It is, therefore, only natural for him to long for the permanent Viceroyalty of In dia. This unconstitutional craving on his part ought to be sufficient reason for cancel
