It is gratifying to notice that an honest and intelligent effort is being made in Congress to bring about some needed reforms in the consular service. A bill[2] is before the present House of Representatives which provides that “appointments shall be made to grades and not to specific places”. “A consul’s station”, says one authority[3] commenting upon the bill, “should depend on the exigencies of the service, and should not necessarily be permanent. Good consuls may thus be obtained for undesirable places, a thing which is now well nigh impossible”. “It provides also”, says the same authority, that “removals shall not be made by caprice or for other than specified cause. To put a check upon appointments only or removals only is to leave at either end a loophole for evasion of the spirit of the reform. By crowding one man in, another may be crowded out”. Footnote 2: H. R. 1026, 56th Congress. A Bill to increase the efficiency of the foreign service of the U. S. and to provide for the reorganization of the consular service, by Mr. Adams of Pennsylvania. Footnote 3: See article by Mr. Gaillard Hunt, Independent, Oct. 26, ’99. One would be astonished that such common-sense measures as these have not been in operation this long time, were it not for the power of “practical politics”. The “practical politician” is discovered easily and in every precinct. You have only to speak of efficiency or merit as the chief test of a candidate’s fitness for office, and he will have something to say about “giving every man a chance”, “changing around”, “getting out of the ruts”, etc. Should a consul’s station depend upon the “exigencies of the service”? Certainly; what is the service for? May he not be “removed by caprice”? Certainly not; for again, what is the service for?