There is much humbug current on the civil service reform question. The Democratie and Republican national platforms have vied in setting up high pretensions of morality in regard to the civil service. Now the Democratie papers that were silent during Cleveland's violations of personal and party pledges, are howling at Harrison's violations; and the Republican papers that called Cleveland a spoilsman are defending Harrison. The Democrats say : "Look at that now ! " Certain Republican papers reply, "Well, it's no worse than Cleveland did." No Democratie paper that defended Cleveland's sweep can now consistently blame Harrison; and the Republican papers that now applaud Harrison for doing what they condemned in Cleveland, cut a sorry figure. There is no party advantage to bo gained in trying to prove that Harrison maken fewer remováis than Cleveland made. A violation of civil service reform pledges reets not upon the exact number of ofifenses. The truth is, both party platforms are hypocritical in regard to the civil service; the men who framed the platforms had no expectation that the civil service planks would be observed. The fault is not entirely with the politicians. The people, the mass of the voters, are yet strongly tinctured with the spoilsman's idea enunciated in Andrew Jackson's time. The vast sum of 880,000,000 to be distributed annually by the U. S. government in the way of salaries, is a bribe so great that it overtops public questions in interest. lts distribntion appeals to many people - those who hold the offices and those who want to hold them or want them for their friends. The idea that because the political character of the government changes, the 120,000 employees of the United States should be changed also, is one so utterly indefensibie and vicious that we cannot properly characterize it. But we can stand that with better grace than the party hypocrisy displayed in the platforms and in the press. If we are going to have the spoils system, let's be honest about it, and not try to make blameworthy in our opponents what is considered meritorious in ourselves. W. H. Brearley, proprietor of the Detroit Journal, who recently divided $5,907.09 between the 21 Detroit charities, making $281.29 for each (the net resulta of the four-days charity Floral Exhibition) is not satisfied with his first success, and is already planning for auother and much greater affair for 1890. New and immensely popular features are to be introduced, one of which is a musical festival on a scale broad enough to require the combined talent of all the musical societies of Detroit, assisted probably by those of many of the cities throughout Michigan.