man on earth to desire that reappointment. I should openly applaud his rejection.
But in that event, permit me to suggest, the Administration would owe it to itself as well as to the public, to let it be understood what the real reasons for Mr. Pearson's rejection were. This is no ordinary case. It has been widely and with unusual interest discussed in the press as well as in private. The friends of civil service reform have earnestly advocated this reappointment because it would greatly advance the cause they have at heart. The spoils politicians in the Democratic party oppose it because they do not want that reform. Your enemies in the Democratic party and the more unscrupulous Blaine men wish it should not be done because they do not want you to have the credit of it and do want to spite the Independents. Among the best class of citizens it has been generally expected as the proper thing. If it is not done, the naked fact of Mr. Pearson's rejection would be understood by the public as a victory of the partisan spirit which opposes your principles over the public spirit which upholds them.
This would be deplorable. Nothing but public knowledge of the facts in Mr. Pearson's career which rendered his rejection necessary will remove that impression. We here have been led to believe that the charges made against Mr. Pearson under the last Administration were a mere flimsy contrivance on the part of a Republican faction to get rid of a good public servant because they could not use him—just the reason why a true reform Administration would insist upon keeping him. That contrivance did not seem to Mr. Arthur sufficient to serve even as a decent excuse for Mr. Pearson's removal. The matter would have to appear, of course, in an aspect far more grave to cause his rejection now. The worst thing for the character of the Administration would be the use of insufficient charges against Mr. Pearson as a mere pretext; the next
