NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. ART. APRIL, 1881. I. REFORM versus REFORMATION. By Judge ALBION W. PAGE. II. THE THING THAT MIGHT BE. By the Rev. MARK III. RELIGION IN SCHOOLS. By the Right Rev. B. J. IV. THE OWNERSHIP OF RAILROAD PROPERTY. BY GEORGE 305 € 320 332 . 345 V. THE HISTORIC GENESIS OF PROTESTANTISM. By JOHN 356 VI. THE TELEGRAPH MONOPOLY. By WILLIAM M. VII. HENRY WADSWORTH LONGFELLOW. By ANTHONY . 369 383 NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. No. CCXCIII. APRIL, 1881. REFORM versus REFORMATION. REFORM, amendment; re-formation, making over, forming anew. Re-formation may be no amendment; amendment may be without re-formation. Reform embraces every change for the better, whether of form or substance. Re-formation includes all change whether for good or ill. The common derivation of these terms is responsible for much confusion of signification. Change is not infrequently denominated reform when it lacks any element of improvement, while reform is perhaps as often regarded as incompatible with the absence of change. A familiar instance of this is seen in the use of the term "Civil-Service Reform." As an article of political faith it signifies a proposed change in the organization of our civil service. As a weapon of offense or defense to the "reformer," it includes every possible amendment of our civil administration. The "reformer" proposes certain specific changes in the selection, promotion, and tenure of our minor civil officers. Whether these changes would be beneficial to the country may be a question of grave doubt. Yet the "reformers" invariably declare that any one who expresses such doubt is by that fact shown to be affected with a desire to prevent the reform-i. e., the amendment-of the civil service. The dual signification of this term has been the cause of no little harsh language which might otherwise have been avoided, and given rise to some apparent subterfuge which it is hardly pleasant to contemplate. VOL. CXXXII.-NO. 293. 21 Because of this ambiguity, "reform" has beco word of peculiar value to the advocate of mere cha in church or state. The implication of good to by the change proposed, and the quiet assumpti exalted motive and exceptional purity, which is inv adoption of this name, is peculiarly flattering to the of the one who assumes it, as well as irritating to th ness of equality on the part of the one who oppose: The "reformer," when once he has obtained undisp sion of this word, has always an immense advantage Anything which is susceptible of reform is, a prior of defense. Then, too, "reform" is a cloak which m to cover a multitude of sins. The motives of a "ref presumed to be above suspicion. Ambition, pride, s and revenge are altogether inconsistent with the ideas self-sacrifice, and devotion to principle implied by the former." It is but natural, therefore, that every one poses a change in existent methods of thought or act make haste to seat himself upon the hill-top of "ref whoever dares to question the wisdom of his propose is sure to be roundly denounced as obstructing progress to improvement, and desirous of promoting and cont the evils of the system which the "reformer" proposes t So, in reference to civil-service reform, one is con accept the specific changes proposed for better or wo held to favor the most flagrant abuses of the presen This is hardly fair, but it is, perhaps, unavoidable. A undoubtedly question the efficiency of a remedy without to promote disease; but he who has passed beyond the doubt in regard to any proposed change, is usually s and clear in his own conviction that he regards the 1 questions his theory, while admitting the evil, as eve than he who clings to the wrong he proposes to abolish. fought the See of Rome, but poured the fiercest vials of 1 upon Zwinglius for differing as to the method of assault. thundered for the right of private conscience, but struc with the Papal persecutor, and roasted Servetus for inv new theory of the operation of grace. It was this, no doubt, that led both of our great parties to insert in their platforms high-sounding declar favor of reform of the civil service. To suppose that eith meant to bind itself to support the peculiar changes prop ! the "reformers" is absurd. Such a construction is utterly inconsistent with the record of both parties in the exercise of their respective powers. The platforms were, no doubt, intended to be so taken by those inclined to favor the proposed re-formation, and by those unfavorable to this change, or doubtful of its policy, as meaning the amendment of the service by other and undefined methods. The draughtsmen simply played upon the double meaning of the word reform. They hid behind an ambiguity, and cheated with an undistributed middle. It was an artifice not at all creditable, yet by no means unusual in political definition. But the "reformers" cannot complain. It was but a repayment to them in their own coin. They had already been guilty of a like duplicity. They had apparently selected the ambiguous term for the very purpose of making capital out of its adjustable import. They were wounded by a two-edged sword of their own forging. Beyond question, very many of both classes use this term in its twofold sense without being conscious of the ambiguity. No doubt the average civil-service "reformer" believes that the proposed system will actually reform, if carried into effect, and it is beyond question that every thoughtful individual of both parties recognizes the fact that there are evils and abuses in our present civil service which are, presumably, curable by some means. It is probable, too, that the greater proportion of both parties desire that these evils shall be remedied. Some, no doubt, favor the proposed system; others as honestly doubt its efficacy or fear its results; while still others, without any distinct comprehension of its nature, vaguely regard it as a sort of millennial extinguisher of all forms of evil or abuse in connection with every branch of the civil service. On account of these diverse impressions, no doubt both of the great parties were afraid to declare themselves opposed to the re-formation of our service on the plan proposed, lest it should be construed into a declaration against the reform-i. e., the amendment of the service by any practical method, while entirely willing to assent to a general declaration in favor of the amendment of abuses not committing them to any specific method. The "reformer" may denounce this as a subterfuge, and so it is, but a subterfuge for which he prepared the way and issued the invitation. The constant iteration of the cry that those who oppose the plan laid down by them are in favor of "spoils |