The idea which commonly prevails as regards frequency of elections being the effective remedy for all abuses of government, though plausible, is sophistry and the height of fallacy according to the lessons which experience have taught. It is all very easy and fine to contend for short terms of elections—all very captivating to contend that if one officer well performs his duty, he can either retire into private life with all the grateful honors of his country, or, for meritorious services, he can be re-elected for another term, all of which is the most powerful incentive to do right, and, at the same time, the most formidable barrier against intentional wrong. But what does experience loudly proclaim? “For the short term you will be in office, make all you can, scruple at nothing, laugh justice in the face, trample on the principles of rectitude, and you will be admired in the present and immediate future only as a consummate political trickster which may, without shame, be imitated by other succeeding actors. But if you mean to be honest, and tender of just rights and claims, with a desire for the common good of your country in rewarding meritorious services and encouraging the sources of true national prosperity, you will only be laughed at for your folly.” These constant elections, as it were, open the store-houses for a general scramble, for a wordy warfare of frothy declamation, for abuse and misrepresentation of all the nobler traits of human nature—making virtue a crime and fashionable vices respectable. The most expert in business of this sort, are generally the successful ones in the contest. Before the excitement of one election is over, another more intense begins. Under present circumstances, no one can calculate with any reasonable probability of continuance of the present form of government beyond a period of four years while there is no security for keeping wild and inflamed passions within proper bounds. Correct public sentiment, when free to choose, is apt to have a government of the same nature. Is it public sentiment that forms the character of government, or government which forms the character of public sentiment? Both of these considerations may be true. It is quite possible to conceive how a few intelligent and well-meaning persons, commanding a sufficiency of power, can improve the character of a nation; and under other circumstances, _vice versa_.