men of generally recognized standing and esteemed character. There should be none among them about whom any intelligent citizen would have occasion to ask: “Who is this man? Why was he selected for so important a place?” For, when such questions can be asked, others are certain to follow, such as these: “What are the influences that may have induced the President to select just him? Who are his friends, or what are the interests behind this man that were so potent with the President?” and so on. This would not be well; under existing circumstances it might be positively harmful, for such impressions sometimes go deep and last long, and they might endanger that confidence which you will need and which upon your own merits you would be certain to win.
Another consideration which is looked upon as important in the formation of a Cabinet is that of locality. Of course, no one section of the country ought to be designedly favored, but geographical reasons should after all not stand too much in the way of more important ones. The principal thing is the quality of the men. Of the four members of Washington's Cabinet two were from Virginia. In Jefferson's Cabinet there were for several months three men from Massachusetts, two of whom he kept. Grant's Cabinet had two men from Massachusetts at the same time, and, if I remember rightly, five of the seven members from States east of the Alleghany mountains. There is always some geographical grumble which, however, lasts only a day or two, while, if there is a well-founded grumble about the character or ability of a Cabinet Minister appointed perhaps just to satisfy geographical considerations, it lasts as long as he is in office. There seem to be certain superstitious notions, that the Secretary of the Navy should be from the seaboard, the Secretary of the Treasury from New York, the Secretary of the Interior from the West, etc., but such notions have
