TABLE ILLUSTRATING THE PROGRESS OF ROTATION 
IN OFFICE TO 1835. 
CARL RUSSELL FISH. 
The development of the spoils system was in part a response 
to a popular demand for rotation in office. In early colonial 
days, when office was a burden, it was felt to be but just that 
no one be called upon to serve continuously. At the time of the 
Revolution, it was feared that continuous office-holding would 
create a class imbued with undemocratic feelings; that a peri¬ 
odic return of the office-holders to the level of the people was 
necessary for the orthodoxy of the former and the safety of the 
latter. Finally came the mid-nineteenth century attitude, that 
the offices were prizes and that no one should be allowed to en¬ 
joy the monopoly for any long period. 
This idea of rotation i,n office paved the way for the use of 
offices for political purposes, but was quite distinct from it, 
antedated it (in America), and, unlike it, found expression in 
legislation. The following table is intended, not as a graphic 
illustration, but as a condensed reference table of such legis¬ 
lation. 
The table is arranged chronologically by states. It ia 
divided by a double line into two parts, one treating of elective , 
and one of appointive offices. In the case of elective offices, ro¬ 
tation was obtained either by providing that the officer should 
hold so many years and then be ineligible for so many—which 
is indicated in the table by x — y; or by providing that he could 
hold so many years out of a given number—which is indicated 
by x: y ; or by providing that he could serve so many years 
and not again—which is indicated by x. In the case of the 
appointive offices, rotation was obtained sometimes by one of 
