The changes that have taken place since the Government was organized would justify the shortening rather than the lengthening of the Presidential term.

The means of communication are such that two years may give the mass of the people better means for judging men and measures than could be had in four years at the opening of this century.

There is no form of education that more fully justifies its cost than the education that is gained in a Presidential canvass.

The voters are converted into a great jury, and after full allowance is made for weakness, corruption and coercion, they are advanced at each quadrennial contest in their knowledge of men, in their ability to deal with measures of policy…

The people have an opportunity to see and hear the men who are engaged in public affairs and questions are discussed upon their intrinsic merits.

When great questions are under debate appeals are made to the principles of government and proportionately the education of the people is of a higher grade.

A serious objection to a long term in the Presidential office is the fact that a spirit of discontent, that always exists, will develop into insubordination or even revolution.

The contests that are sure to arise among a mercurial people would thus be transferred from the battle-field to the ballot- box.

Who could have answered for the peace of the United States in 1868 if President Johnson's term had been six years instead of eight months?

During my administration, as far as I know, there was never the loss of a sheet of paper nor was there a fraud committed in connection with the business of the bureau.

For further security, I made arrangements by which two bank note companies in the City of New York prepared sets of plates for a single printing on each security, the red seal being imprinted in the Treasury Bureau.

The expense of printing was increased by this arrangement, but it seemed to be more important to attain absolute security against fraud than to save money.

I created a commission and all the officers except a few who were too old for active service were subjected to an examination and those who were found incompetent were discharged from the service.

I have come to the conclusion that Pleasanton is not succeeding in his office.

I learned that the commissioner was engaged through the agency of Ward in making a contract with a Connecticut firm that was in my opinion at once improvident and irregular.

I went to the Executive Mansion and asked General Babcock to go to Long Branch and say to the President that the business of the Internal Revenue Office was in such a condition that immediate action was necessary.

I stated the facts, and he said he would send for General Pleasanton and ask him to resign.

Pleasanton may have been, and probably was, a good military officer, but he did not possess the qualities that are essential in the discharge of important civil trusts.

Neither from my experience in Congress nor in the Treasury Department can I deduce much support for the doctrines of the class of politicians called Civil Service Reformers.

From their statements it would appear that every member of Congress was the recipient of an amount of patronage in the nature of clerkships that he could and did control.

They are as nearly indispensable as one man can be to another, or to the safe management of business.

No prudent administrator of a public trust will venture upon such experiments.

Even a fresh man at the head of a department will soon find that the fancied political advantages are no adequate compensation for the trouble that he assumes and the risk of error and fraud that he runs when he takes new and untried…

It is essential to a proper administration that the Secretary or the President should have the power of removal, and it should never be coupled with the duty of making a statement of the cause.

My active radicalism had alienated the conservative Republicans.