There are, perhaps, few men who can for any great length of time enjoy office and power without being more or less under the influence of feelings unfavorable to the faithful discharge of their public duties.  Their integrity may be proof against improper considerations immediately addressed to themselves, but they are apt to acquire a habit of looking with indifference upon the public interests and of tolerating conduct from which an unpracticed man would revolt.  Office is considered as a species of property, and government rather as a means of promoting individual interests than as an instrument created solely for the service of the people.  Corruption in some and in others a perversion of correct feelings and principles divert government from its legitimate ends and make it an engine for the support of the few at the expense of the many.  The duties of all public officers are, or at least admit of being made, so plain and simple that men of intelligence may readily qualify themselves for their performance; and I can not but believe that more is lost by the long continuance of men in office than is generally to be gained by their experience.  I submit, therefore, to your consideration whether the efficiency of the Government would not be promoted and official industry and integrity better secured by a general extension of the law which limits appointments to four years.

In a country where offices are created solely for the benefit of the people no one man has any more intrinsic right to official station than another.  Offices were not established to give support to particular men at the public expense.  No individual wrong is, therefore, done by removal, since neither appointment to nor continuance in office is matter of right.  The incumbent became an officer with a view to public benefits, and when these require his removal they are not to be sacrificed to private interests.  It is the people, and they alone, who have a right to complain when a bad officer is substituted for a good one.  He who is removed has the same means of obtaining a living that are enjoyed by the millions who never held office.  The proposed limitation would destroy the idea of property now so generally connected with official station, and although individual distress may be sometimes produced, it would, by promoting that rotation which constitutes a leading principle in the republican creed, give healthful action to the system.

No very considerable change has occurred during the recess of Congress in the condition of either our agriculture, commerce, or manufactures.  The operation of the tariff has not proved so injurious to the two former or as beneficial to the latter as was anticipated.  Importations of foreign goods have not been sensibly diminished, while domestic competition, under an illusive excitement, has increased the production much beyond the demand for home consumption.  The consequences have been low prices, temporary embarrassment, and partial loss.  That such of our manufacturing establishments as are based upon capital and are prudently managed will survive the shock and be ultimately profitable there is no good reason to doubt.