furnish the best evidence of their fitness for the positions they are to occupy if elected. We have to choose between Mr. Davenport and Mr. Hill for the governorship. Both have been in conspicuous positions which tested their qualities. Mr. Davenport has proved himself a man of ability and high character, thoroughly devoted to his public duties, and in sincere sympathy with those reform movements which aim at the improvement of the public service and the elevation of our whole political life. Mr. Hill has on many occasions proved that he looks upon official power as a means of party service and of personal advancement, regardless of the public interest, and that he is in thorough accord with that class of politicians who do all in their power to obstruct and defeat a healthy reformation of our public concerns, and thus to keep alive those demoralizing practices which for so long a period have degraded our political life and endangered the public welfare. They are both partisans, but Mr. Davenport represents the best tendencies, not only in his own, but in both political parties, and Mr. Hill the worst.
These are well-known facts, which might be regarded as sufficient to induce us as citizens of New York, whose duty it is to look to the good of the State, to prefer Mr. Davenport to Mr. Hill. The candidates for the other State offices should be treated, respectively, according to the same principle.
In the second place, we have to consider how the result of our State election may affect the general interests of the country. We have a President who is honestly and earnestly endeavoring to carry out certain reforms of the highest importance. In this endeavor he is embarrassed and obstructed by a very active element in his own party, which insists upon the distribution of the public offices as spoils, upon the organization of the public service as a party machine and upon breaking down whatever stands
