2
674. 22, 2 & 2 × … z2, …,
T H E P E N D L E T ON B I LL
AND
T H E D A W E S B I L L
COMPARED
BY THE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION OF THE CIVIL-
SERVICE REFORM ASSOCIATION
NEW YORK
PUBLISHED FOR THE
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ASSOCIA
- --
-
- by
G. P. PU TNA M'S SONS
1882



Press of
G. P. Putnam's Sons
AVezw York
EXPLAN ATION .
THE report of the Senate Committee just made in favor
of the Pendleton Bill may reasonably be expected to unite
the friends of reform in its support. But it must not be
forgotten that plausible reasons were urged before the
committee and were widely disseminated in favor of a bill
introduced by Senator Dawes. It is not certain that the
latter bill will not be pressed before the Senate.
The need of harmonious opinions and united action to
insure success makes it important to do the utmost for
their attainment. While the great end sought is infinitely
more important than the means of reaching it, yet, so long
as different bills in any degree divide the forces of reform,
which is the better cannot be an immaterial question.
These considerations have caused THE CIVIL-SERVICE
REFORM ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK to instruct its Com-
mittee on Legislation to prepare the following Statement,
which covers the origin, the relative merits, and the probable
effects of the two bills. Both of them have been made the
subject of discussion in various journals, and especially in the
Civil-Service Record, the principal organ of the reform
movement, during the hearing in regard to them before the
Senate Committee. • .
The discussions in the Record were so thorough, and the
2 CZIZZZ SAEA' VACE.
conclusions it reached have been so generally accepted, that
we have quoted largely from its columns in the prepara-
tion of this Statement. It is with regret that the commit-
tee feel called upon to condemn the bill introduced by Mr.
Dawes, and they do so with the greatest possible respect
for his preferences and for his great interest in the cause of
reform.
DORMAN B. EATON, - -
- | Commezłzee,
EVERETT P. WHEELER, -
NEw York, May 15, 1882.
STATEMENT.
THE cause of reform will be best served by putting in
comparison the two bills, the Pendleton Bill and that in-
troduced by Mr. Dawes, quite irrespective of the fact that
the Senate Committee has made its report in favor of the
former.
I.—ORIGIN AND HISTORY.
Intrinsically considered, the origin and history of the
bills have nothing to do with their merits; but the specious
suggestion, that the Pendleton Bill is so identified with one
party that the other should distrust it, makes the facts on
those points material.
Early in the last session, Senator Pendleton, of Ohio,
feeling a deep interest in the cause of reform, and resolved
to do what he could to promote it, presented a bill for that
purpose, based upon the bill of the late Mr. Jenckes, and it
went before a committee of the Senate. But before any
action had been taken upon it, several gentlemen, who had
had most experience in giving practical effect to reform
methods, having become convinced that legislation, simpler
and less open to constitutional objections than Mr. Jenckes
proposed, could be made effective. had prepared another
bill—the present so-called Pendleton Bill. The original
/bill of Mr. Pendleton was still before the Senate Committee,
of which both he and Mr. Dawes were members. -
The new bill was prepared with great care. The Record
4. C/I/// S/EA? WZCAE.
truly declares that it had received the most careful scrutiny
and approval of an association of gentlemen of both parties
(though in majority Republican); and among them there were
two ex-members of the Cabinet, several persons who had
made the most thorough study of administrative questions,
and nearly every person in this country (if not as a member,
yet as an adviser) who had had any large experience in
carrying reform methods into practice. Every point cov-
ered by the bill, subsequently presented by Mr. Dawes, was
carefully considered, in framing the prior bill, by men who
had had the largest experience under all the reform methods
involved. . -
Mr. Pendleton knew nothing of the bill until it was
complete in the precise language in which it was approved
by the committee of the last Congress. No party consider-
ation shaped a sentence of it. The very reasons which now
cause all true friends of reform to regret the existence of
two bills, and to feel that all jealousy and partisan feeling
on the subject are unworthy, placed that bill in the hands
of Mr. Pendleton—though not without the approval of
distinguished Senators who were consulted. •
Mr. Pendleton's magnanimous surrender of his own bill,
and his acceptance of that tendered him in its place, after a
full discussion of both before the Senate Committee, which
convinced him that the latter was the better bill, justified
the placing of it in his hands. It was not by his instrumen-
tality that the bill he adopted came to be called the “Pen-
dleton Bill.” Nearly a year elapsed, and no other appeared.
The Pendleton Bill had received the approval of nearly every
intelligent friend of reform in the country. In a letter
which he contributes to the Springfield Republican, of July
29, 1881, Mr. Dawes says:
“I was myself of the Pendleton Committee, and helped
prepare and report the bill which goes under that name; and
C/ V// SAEA V/CE, 5
I am now ready to defend it for all the good it can accom-
plish, if not for all that some of its friends expect from it.”
In a letter which he contributed to the same journal, of
August 15, 1881, Mr. Dawes says of this same Pendleton
Bill ;
“The three main features of the bill, carried by proper
enactment into the civil service of the country, would be of
inestimable value,” etc.
The report of the committee in favor of the Pendleton
Bill, at the session a year ago last winter, was accompanied
with an elaborate statement of reasons, from which there
does not appear to have been any dissent.
The bill not having been reached at the last session, it
went again before the same committee at the present ses-
sion; some of the members of this committee had been
changed, but Mr. Dawes and Mr. Pendleton are still upon it. .
No other bill on the subject was referred to the commit-
tee until the 24th. of January last, when Mr. Dawes pre-
sented the other bill which we have referred to, the origin
of which is unknown to us. It was referred to the same
committee.
The Sénate Committee reported a second time in favor
of the Pendleton Bill, in April, 1882, after having taken the
testimony of several of the most experienced officers and
students of administration who were called before them,
not only to ascertain their opinions as to the comparative
merits of the two bills, but their views as to the practicabil-
ity of accomplishing the objects which they are both in-
tended to promote.
II.--THE COMMON OBJECTS OF THE BILLS.
Both seek to substitute a merit system of office in place
of a spoils system. Both require competitive examinations
6 C/ V/A, SAEA2 J//CAE.
for admission to the public service and for promotion in it,
but we shall find that the Dawes Bill” contains impraticable
provisions on these points.
While, therefore, the great purpose of both bills is to
arrest favoritism and proscription in the public service, and
both rely on competitive examinations as the most essential
means to that end, there are important conditions of success
omitted in the Dawes Bill, but contained in the other, which
we shall point out. -
III.--THE AIM, SCOPE, AND METHODS OF THE PENDLETON
BILL.
It is the duty of the officers having the appointing power
to appoint and promote the most worthy. But in the great
.departments and in the larger offices outside of Washington,
and especially in offices having more than fifty clerks, they
are not able to do so—partly from want of time and infor-
mation, and partly by reason of partisan coercion, or almost
irresistible solicitation. Examinations are intended to aid
the appointing power in ascertaining who are most deserv-
ing of appointments and promotions. While the more iso-
lated pass-examinations under separate department boards,
now required by the x03d and 164th sections of the Revised
Statutes, have been useful, they are yet entirely inade-
quate. But competitive examinations, under a Civil Ser-
vice Commission, both in this country and in England, have
brought into the service and promoted superior persons and
greatly improved the vigor and economy of the administra-
tion. Ample proof on those points appears in the evidence
referred to as taken before the Senate Committee.
* In speaking of the latter bill as the Dawes Bill, we simply mean that it
was a bill introduced by Senator Dawes; not that he prepared it, or is otherwise
responsible for it.
C/ / //, S/ZA’ l'A CAE. 7
When, by the law of 1871 (now U. S. Revised Statutes,
$1753), the President was authorized to make civil service
rules and to require examinations, feeling the need of more
effective examinations than those just referred to, President
Grant established competitive examinations, and created a
Civil Service Commission in aid of enforcing them ; though
the act gives authority to do this only by implication. Repeat-
ed messages which he sent to Congress, asking for appropri-
ations for continuing these methods, plainly and strongly
declare their beneficial results. And in his last message on
the subject before Congress finally refused a further appro-
priation in 1875, he declared that a suspension of the rules
and examinations would be a “mortification to him,” but
that it would be unavoidable if Congress should refuse a
further appropriation. It did refuse, and the rules and
competitive examinations were suspended. Congress re-
fused in silence, without a debate or a record of votes.
We leave the reasons to inference. The old patronage of
the members was thus regained. The law of 1871 did not
commit Congress to the essential conditions of a reform, but,
putting the whole burden upon the President, left its mem-
bers at liberty to censure and embarrass the efforts of the
President and to press the departments for the patronage
which competitive examinations tended rapidly to suppress.
President Grant, as has been the case with each President
since, desired Congress to give its much-needed support to
those conditions and to assume its proper share of respon-
sibility, as being essential to the success of a reform policy.
It is upon such principles, in reference to such needs, and
in the light of such experience, that the Pendleton Bill was
framed.
It requires public competitive examinations, irrespective
of political opinions of those seeking appointments in the
subordinate Executive service, which would enable the
~-
8 C/17// SAEA IV/CE.
Government, by bringing the merits of many into compari-
son, to secure the best of all who seek to enter that service.
Such free competition of merit would be substituted for
the private, isolated pass-examinations of the mere favor-
ites and nominees of members of Congress, patronage-
mongers, and great officers, who alone are now examined
under the 163d and 164th sections already cited. It
directly provides for a Civil Service Commission, with
properly defined authority, duty, and responsibility, in the
place of one of indefinite powers, which President Grant
had found it necessary to create, for exercising general
supervision, subject to the rules and orders of the Presi-
dent, over all the examinations. And there is imposed
upon it the duty of making full annual reports, covering
the execution of the law and its practical effects. It is
also a part of the duty of the Commission, subject to the
general rules which the President may lay down and to
the special instructions which he may from time to time
give, to see that the subjects upon which examinations
take place, the questions asked, the regulations enforced,
the examinations conducted, and all the methods for
selecting the more meritorious, as well as all the other details
of enforcing the law, shall at all times and places be just,
uniform, and reasonable; and also to annually set forth the
facts on these points in its reports so fully and clearly that
the President and Congress can see whether the law is prop-
erly administered and the results are just and beneficial.
And for these threefold reasons—(1) that a new system
ought not to be made general until most thoroughly tested;
(2) that the abuses are greatest in the largest offices; and
(3) that methods hostile to mere partisan, selfish interests
are sure to be bitterly attacked at first and need the most
careful supervision in the outset—the Pendleton Bill makes
competitive examinations compulsory only in the great
C/I/// S/EA2 1//CE. 9
departments at Washington and at such Post-Offices and
Custom-Houses as have fifty or more clerks; of which
offices there are less than thirty in all. But it allows the
President to extend such examination, from time to time,
to smaller offices, whenever, in his judgment, the good result
attained at the larger offices shall warrant such extension.
The bill, with that scope, will cause all vacancies which
may occur in about ten thousand subordinate Executive
places to be filled from the outset through competitive
examinations, and will require as much labor, care, and
Supervision, and as great a change in long, practised methods
as in the opinion of the most experienced and competent
judges it is either prudent or useful to attempt at the out-
set. And inasmuch as the President must (I) mature and
put in force his general rules, and (2) there must be an
examining board organized in each department at Washing-
ton, and one for nearly or quite all of the thirty offices out-
side that city (say about thirty-five boards in all), and (3)
subjects of examination adapted to the needs of each office
must be decided upon, and questions covering such sub-
jects framed, before the examinations can begin—the
Pendleton Bill allows six months for perfecting this pre-
paratory work; after which the selections and promotions,
within the scope of the bill, are to be only from among those
who have shown the highest merit in such examinations.
The Pendleton Bill contains these four other funda-
mental provisions: -
I. It confers authority upon the President (or recognizes
it) for making and enforcing suitable general rules for carrying
the act into effect, to which the Commission will be subject.
It leaves in force the aforesaid I753d section of the Revised
Statutes (so far as consistent with the bill), which provides
that these rules may extend to “age, health, character,
knowledge, and ability for that branch of the service in
IO C/ 12 // SAEA? WAC/E.
which he (the applicant) seeks to enter, " * * * as may
best promote the efficiency thereof, etc.—provisions quite
in harmony with the Pendleton Bill.
2. That bill requires that it shall be a part of these
rules—as it was of those made by President Grant—that
persons in the public service shall not be liable to pay
political assessments or be removed for failing to do so.
3. The bill also requires the rules to declare that no
Federal officer has any right to use his official authority to
coerce the political action of any citizen.
4. And for the very reason that the aim is to take the
Executive subordinates (whose duties are in no sense por
litical) out of party politics, and to bring into that service
competent persons of business capacity and adequate infor-
mation, irrespective of political opinions, the bill provides
that not more than three of the five members of the Com-
mission shall be of the same political party. -
As the members of the detached examining boards are to
be designated by the Commission, they are not likely to be
all of the same party. . And as they are to examine appli-
cants on subjects, through questions and subjects to gen-
eral rules, which the Commission (as authorized by the
President) has approved, the political views of the members
of the examining boards can be of but very little conse-
quence under the Pendleton Bill; and the fact, that the
members of the Commission are not to be all of one party,
yet are bound to report its whole action, might lead to
important disclosures in case an Administration should
attempt to use the authority conferred by the bill for its
own purposes or should attempt to limit the right of being
examined to its own adherents.
We think, and the evidence taken before the Senate
Committee shows it to be the view of all those competent
from experience for judging practically of competitive
C/ V// SEA’ I’AC/E. I f
examinations, that such provisions are adequate and well
devised for enabling those having the appointing power to
secure the persons who are best qualified for those parts of
the public service to which the bill extends; and that by
not requiring too sudden changes or attempting too much
at the outset, the reform may be introduced upon a sound
basis and without disturbance or serious inconvenience.
IV.--THE LEADING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PENDLE-
TCN BILL AND THE DAWES BILL.
I. There is, in the Dawes Bill, no commission or other
authority having any general Supervision of the examina-
tions, or any duty to see that they are uniform or just, and
no report concerning them is provided for. This is so im-
portant a defect, that it will be separately considered.
The President, under that bill, is to select the examining
boards for each department, and the head of each depart-
ment is to select the board for each office outside of Wash-
ington; and these boards—each of which, so far as its
sphere of duty is concerned, has all the authority of both the
commission and examining board under the Pendleton Bill
—may be wholly made up of members of the same political
party; there being no provision to the contrary. The pos-
sible action of boards thus constituted, taken in connection
with the fact that no reports and no real publicity are pro-
vided for, impart to these defects of the bill a grave and
obvious significance.
2. ‘I’mere are, in the Dawes Bill, no provisions—no con-
demnation even suggested—against the continued enforce-
ment of political assessments, which, as we have seen, the
Pendleton Bill has provisions for suppressing. -
3. There are, in the Dawes Bill, no provisions against the
continued coercions of elections by Federal officials, which,
I 2 C/ V// S/EA? I’MCAE,
as we have seen, the Pendleton Bill condemns. We have
not been able to learn the reasons for discarding provisions
which seem to us alike essential for the protection of the
liberty of the citizen, and the self-respect and manhood of
the public servant. Whether the failure of the framer of the
Dawes Bill to condemn such abuses was deliberate or was
the result of carelessness, we are not aware.
4. The Dawes Bill is made applicable at the outset to
the departments at Washington and to all Federal offices
elsewhere in which more than twenty persons are employed;
but no discretion is given the President for extending its
scope as experience may warrant. Now, as there are fully
a hundred Post-Offices, Custom-Houses, Sub-Treasuries, and
Naval Offices, and not less than thirty Internal Revenue
offices, where there are as many as twenty persons em-
ployed, this bill would enforce competitive examinations in
the outset in at least 130 offices outside of Washington |
In each of these offices there is to be an independent
examining board of three members; so that, including the
service required at Washington, there must be at least 137
examining boards created at once upon the bill going into
effect. The bill contemplates that, after that time, no ap-
pointment can be made in any such office or department,
except from among these competitively examined, and it is
proposed that so radical a change shall take place on and
after the first day of July next
The objections to so sweeping an application in the out-
set of methods, comparatively new in our practice, and the
danger from So many isolated independent boards, without
effective supervision or any general report of their doings,
are so numerous and grave, that we reserve them for sep-
arate consideration.
C/ P’AA, SA. A l’ACAE. I 3
V.—DEFECTS AND IMPRACTICABLE PROVISIONS IN THE
DAWES BILL, EVEN IF ITS THEORY SHOULD BE AC-
CEPTED.
I. The first section, which relates to applications for ex-
aminations, is not only needless, but, if retained, it would
be found so imperfect, and yet exclusive, that it would be
quite impracticable. While declaring what the applicant
shall state and forbidding more, it would not even show him
to be a citizen of the United States; nor would it contain any
prima facie evidence of health or ability for the service—
matters indispensable and expressly provided for in the
I753d Section already cited, and which all rules and practice
on the subject require in applications. If the Dawes Bill
would leave that section in force as to applications—as we
think it would not—then the first section of the Dawes
Bill would be not only superfluous, but embarrassing. The
Pendleton Bill wisely leaves the contents of applications to
be regulated by the President's rules. What may properly
be required in applications, will vary greatly in different
branches of the service.
2. The provisions in regard to applications in the first
section, taken in connection with what is exacted by the
third and fifth sections, would require every person seeking
a place in a Custom-House or Post-Office to make his ap-
plication to the head of the department at Washington.
Besides being a needless inconvenience, this would change
the universal usage on the subject, would greatly burden
the department, and would at the same time open a new
opportunity for intrigue and dictation at the capital
Every postmaster receives an aggregate sum for carrying
on his office. To him all applications for clerkships under
him are made, and he employs, within the limits of the appro-
priation, whomsoever he approves, without any application
I4 C/ V// SAEA’ pºſ(A.
or action by the Postmaster-General. The Dawes Bill would
work a revolution in this convenient and unbroken course
of public business, by requiring every person seeking to enter
the Post-Office at Portland, New Orleans, or San Francisco, to
first apply to and be approved by the Postmaster-General.
The change and inconveniences would be much the same at
the Custom-Houses and other local offices.
3. The provisions in the second, the third, and the
twelfth (and other sections), making the filling of places,
competition, etc., turn on the amount of salaries, are
highly objectionable. The salaries vary greatly, especially
in Post-Offices, but in the departments as well; so that
many clerks, intended to be embraced, would wholly escape
the provisions of the bill—a great part of all those em-
ployed at the New York Post-Office, for example. Section
12 makes the bill inapplicable to clerks having a com-
pensation of less than $900 ; yet they as much need to be
under it as almost any other. Every change of salary
would produce confusion. In the New York Post-Office
competitions are in part resorted to for the very purpose of
determining salaries / .
4. Of another provision of Section 2, of the Dawes
Bill, the Record well expresses our views, when it says that
“ the provision of that bill, that all promotions must be made
on the basis of competitive examinations; that al/applicants
serving at an office must be allowed to compete; and that,
on failure to secure a proper person within the office, al/
outsiders wishing to do so must be allowed to compete:
these provisions, or at least the two last are, I believe, with-
out precedent in the experience of any country; and I
should regard their enforcement as disastrous to discipline,
and sure to impair the harmony and efficiency of the public
service. In large offices all the more ambitious surboré
nates might be a quarter of the time engaged in examina-
C/ L // SAEA’ l’AC/. 15
tions. We need competition for promotion, but under
carefully framed rules, with various exceptions. These views
are shared by every experienced administrator of whose
opinion I am informed, and especially by Mr. Schurz, Mr. "
Burt (the Naval Officer at New York), Mr. Pearson (the Post-
master), and Mr. James (the late Postmaster-General). In
the Boston Post-Office, for example, the rules say that “only
those in the division in which the vacancy exists, or in
divisions having analogous duties,’ are allowed to compete;
and yet the right to make exceptions is expressly reserved
in these rules. More rigid competition than that for pro-
motion has never been enforced. Yet this so-called Dawes
Bill would give an impracticable, unprecedented rule for
universal competition the rigidity of law; it would make
Congress the court of appeal upon a mere department
regulation.” -
These are examples of the departures in method from
the carefully-considered clauses of the Pendleton Bill.
The right to compete for promotion should, as a rule,
be confined to the surbordinates in the same office or
bureau, and, when extended beyond, should be properly
limited so as not to call all the clerks of a department, but
only a reasonable number of those most experienced. . The
whole matter must be controlled by rules carefully matured,
and which can be modified by the executive as experience
may require. The provision that “all citizens” may com-
pete, without allowing any exclusion of those not prima
facie qualified, is utterly impracticable. The competition
must be restricted to those apparently qualified as to age,
capacity, and character. If great numbers apply, the com-
petition must be restricted to a convenient number in the
order of priority of their application.
5. The seventh section of the Dawes Bill requires all
appointments to be made from the three highest, as graded
I6 C/V// SEA V/CE.
and as the result of the competition. This is too rigid a
restriction of the appointing power to be made by law.
The Pendleton Bill allows the rules to make certain excep-
tions (the extent and reasons of which are to be set forth
in the annual reports), which will be found necessary; while
generally they will require the selections to be made from
the three highest.
6. But (says the Record) “the most important defect of
the new bill is its failure to provide for a Civil Service Com-
mission, or any sort of central authority for supervising the
examinations and insuring their harmony, justice, good
faith, and adaptability to the needs of the public service.
Every reader must see that if one method and standard
prevails at one office and department, and another at an-
other, according to the caprice of each examining board,
only confusion, distrust, and feebleness will be the result.
Adequate illustration on these points would require too
much space. I cannot assume that the old commission is to
be retained under the Dawes Bill, since it is presented by a
Senator who has declared himself strongly opposed to any
commission. The failure to see the need of a supervising
commission I must think springs from the lack of practical
experience of the work to be done.”
Let us glance at that work. It may be divided into five
parts: º -
I. The preparation of the general rules which regulate
all the applications, examinations, gradings, promotions,
and dismissals, and the keeping of them at all times properly
adapted to the various departments and offices. This re-
quires great discretion and care. The President has time
only for accepting or rejecting what has been matured for
his decision. - .
2. The determining of proper grades and kinds of
questions to be put and the amount of information to be
C/ W// SAEA IV/CAE. * 17
required for entering the various parts of the service. To
do this, the kind of work to be done and the information
needed in the different offices, divisions, and bureaus must
be from time to time taken into account. It is a responsi-
ble duty, quite beyond the capacity of the office subordi-
nateS.
3. The conduct of the examinations pursuant to the
standards of information to be enforced and the scale of
questions to be presented, and the making up of lists of the
relative standing as shown by the examination papers which
are presented.
4. The hearing of all complaints of partiality and in-
justice, on the part of the examining boards. There will be
charges of partiality, if not of gross favoritism ; and if there
be no opportunity for publicity and correction, except be-
fore the very examiners complained of, general suspicions
will bring the boards and the whole system into discredit.
The boards act, in a certain sense, as both judges and jury,
and there must be a means of correcting injustice and of
confuting damaging charges and fixing the responsibility
for wrong. The penal provisions of the Pendleton Bill are
based on this need, and British experience shows such super-
vision to be essential.
5. Annual reports of the results of all the examinations
showing the information exacted, the number who fail, and
for what reason, the kind of education of those who succeed,
the sort of men and women brought into the public service,
their ages, etc., etc., including all such facts as will show
whether the standard of attainment is too high or too low
to be consistent with the public interest; and the general
effects of the new system. It is this complete publicity and
these practical effects and the popular judgment upon them
upon which the fate of the new system will depend and
ought to depend. The Dawes Bill provides for no reports;
I8 C/ / / / SAE A L’ACA.
there could be no general publicity under it. The most
novel, the most suspected, and, at first, the most difficult
part of administration, would alone be without supervision
or reports or general publicity.
It is only the third class of the duties above enumerated
that would fall to the examining boards, and all the rest to
the Commission, which is not in any strict sense an examin-
ing board at all, but a body bound to see that justice is
done and action is prompt and wise on the part of all
boards.
We repeat that at the outset all sorts of charges will be
made against the examining boards by the hostile patronage-
mongers and politicians whose spoils the new system will
take away, and against the vast pressure of whom the boards
will have to stand. The boards will need the Commission
to fall back on. Such has been our experience and that of
Great Britain to this day. The Dawes Bill would require
about one hundred and thirty-seven independent examining
boards at the outset; yet it provides for no supervision, no
co-operation, nor even for mutual support. They are to be
made up of clerks in the separate offices. No compensation
even is provided for extra work and responsibility—a fatal
omission, we must think. It would be as safe to release the
Postmasters and Collectors from a common responsibility
and subordination to the heads of departments, as to allow
to a hundred isolated boards—entering upon delicate duties
of which they are ignorant—supreme authority, with no
chance for correcting abuses, and nobody responsible for
their wisdom or fidelity.
If it be said that Mr. Schurz, the Postmaster at New
York, and Mr. Burt, who has had charge of the Custom-
House and Naval Office examinations there, have been suc-
cessful when the Commission has not been very active, or
that there have been competitive examinations by the Post-
C/ 12 // SAEA PACAE, I9
master at Boston, the answer as to the latter is that in no
other community would there be a public sentiment any-
thing nearly so intelligent and friendly as have come to his
support; and as to all the other gentlemen, they have de-
clared their profound sense of the need and great utility of
such a Commission. That fact appears in the statements of
each of them (except Mr. Schurz, who has not been ex-
amined) before the Senate Committee; and Mr. Schurz has
considered and approved the Pendleton Bill, and also holds
the views we have stated.
They hold, we repeat, that the successful work accom-
plished at New York would not have been possible through
examining boards alone, and that a supervising Commission
is essential. The report circulated to the contrary concern-
ing Mr. Pearson, the Postmaster, is quite unfounded. Men
of the largest experience and capacity outside the boards
gave their time to the New York experiment, in order to
show Congress, which had refused appropriations, what
could be done, and to convert its members who sneered at
reform. Yet the boards have performed a great self-sacri-
ficing work, for which they should be paid, and we have their
appeal to secure them compensation. We cannot favor a bill
which expects such extra labors in the future, and yet ex-
pects them without compensation. -
The need of a Commission would never have been
doubted if there had been a clear conception of the work to
be done. Common speech has referred to that work as if
conducting examinations were the more important and ab-
sorbing part. Such is far from the fact. Before we reach an .
examination we have to decide such questions as these,_all
of which can have but a tentative answer at first, and
must be made the subjects of continuous observation, ex-
periment, and study: e
1. For what portions of the service should exam-
2O C/ l'A, SAEA' | TACA.
sinations be had—whether for original entrance or promo-
tion ?
2. Who shall be allowed to be examined? This raises
questions of sex, of age, whether too old or too young, of
evidence of citizenship, of adequate proof of good character,
of health, and of apparent capacity for the service sought.
For, surely, it is of no use to examine a person plainly inad-
missible to the service.
3. The many questions as to the proper subjects of ex-
aminations for the different branches of the service, because
the information needed for the duties of one place is very
different from that required in another.
4. Next, the extent of information, and hence the
grade and purport of the questions to be put upon each
subject, so as to secure the capacity needed, and yet not
for mere literary reasons exclude those who are in fact com-
petent for the service. The mere matter of the proper
kind and grade of questions is tenfold more difficult than
the conduct of the examinations after the questions are
decided upon.
5. When, for any grade of examinations, such matters
are decided, we still have the need of wise and just regula-
tions for notices of the examinations, for conducting them,
for marking, and for grading and certifying the results of
them, for determining the right of re-examination, etc., etc.
While the President, subject to the statute, must decide upon
all such matters, he needs the Commission to bring the
proper facts before him.
It will be seen, therefore, that the mere conducting of
the examinations and making up the results are but a sub-
ordinate part of the responsible functions to be performed.
Hence, to create a system of mere examining boards, and to
hold them up as everything needed, is to mistake and
fatally underestimate the practical methods of reform. It
C/ V/A. S/EA’ I’AC/E. *
2 I
is to forget their relations to the public interests and to the
great principles of justice on which the reform must rest.
The examining boards, scattered over the country, are
made up of clerks, to whose primary duties for which their
salaries are paid the examinations are but incidents. These
clerks may at any time be dismissed, promoted, or trans-
ferred, which contingencies, if they are the sole responsible
bodies, are fatal to consistency and uniformity of action,
and also to that thorough mastery of the subject which is
essential to success.
Such facts point to the need of a Central Commission
with some stability of tenure, by which the general and
more difficult duties shall be performed, and uniformity and
intelligence of action be enforced.
But, still more important, a local board of examiners,
made up of mere subordinates—which to the public eye
would decide who shall be examined, upon what subjects
and in what order, and which would also report the grade
of merit it has determined, and keeps the only record of
its own doings—would be peculiarly liable to suspicions
of unfairness. It would appear to be autocratic and ab-
solute. -
There must be something in the nature of an appeal or
rehearing allowed, in cases of apparent injustice or general
distrust. There must be investigations of alleged wrong in
the examinations and gradings. No judge ever decides ab-
solutely and finally, but everywhere there are appeals and
rehearings provided for in proper cases. Now, the Commis-
sion does not examine at all, but sees that all examinations
are fair and all markings are just, whenever called in ques-
tion. Whenever a complaint of any kind is made, it will
investigate the facts. To the Commission, every one feeling
wronged can appeal. Abuses are not likely to be corrected
by the same officials guilty of them. The people are sure to
22 tº C/ V// SEA PACA.
suspect boards which are the judges in their own cases.
The President, on his own motion or that of the head of a
department, can direct the Commission to look into the
doings of any board of examiners. The fear of this will
cause those bodies to perform their duty more faithfully.
We may be sure, and all experience has taught, that, as
the spoils are suppressed by competitive examinations, they
will be opposed and misrepresented—even in Congress—by
their enemies. Without some central body keeping itself
well informed and ready and able to present the truth when-
ever, in high quarters, it may be misrepresented, the new
system cannot succeed. Mere isolated boards of clerks will
have neither the time, the prestige, the ability, nor the
courage essential for meeting the combined assaults of the
enemies of reform. Members of Congress will be forced to
give expression to, even if some of them do not magnify,
the local discontent which the destruction of local patronage
will at first cause. *
The annual reports of an able Commission would be an
educational influence in behalf of the new system which its
friends cannot afford to overlook. It is, for example, a com-
mon belief that the new system will give the public places
to college-bred men and to bright boys and girls without
practical ability. It is not enough that the few familiar with
the facts know that such are not the results. The facts
proving the contrary must be spread broadly before the
people, or the new system will not be long tolerated.
It is only by comparing the results in many different
offices, and in different parts of the Union, that we can tell
whether the new system tends to economy and brings
higher character and capacity into the service. But that
information requires a Central Commission to gather and
compare the results in general reports, for which the Dawes
Bill makes not the least provision. That bill would leave
C/ V// SAEA V/C.E. 23
the action of its 137 boards the dark and suspected secrets
of their own separate records. -
The suggestion that the commission under the Pendleton
Bill is given excessive authority is without warrant. The gen-
eral rules which the President is to make will define the powers
of the commission itself, and with the special exceptions de-
fined in the bill they will be no greater or other than these
rules will declare. At his pleasure, within the discretionary
limits of the law, the President can, from time to time,
enlarge or diminish the authority allowed by the rules.
And surely it is proper for the President to thus define
those powers, because the sole purpose of a commission
and of examinations is to aid the Executive in the just
and intelligent exercise of the appointing power which
the Constitution confers. The only duty or authority of
the commission (save one other I shall mention), which
is not thus in the discretion of the President, is that of
making a full annual report. Does it need any argument
to prove that the President should have no power to
deprive the people of information as to the workings and
effects of the new system P -
It has been suggested that the right of reporting, or of
gaining knowledge for making the reports complete, would
interfere with the authority of heads of departments and
bureaus. There is no warrant for that suggestion, and .
those who have sanctioned it have occasion to examine the
Pendleton Bill more carefully.
Public sentiment will doubtless require that, under every
system, those who are given places in the public service
shall be taken from the different sections of the Union in a
ratio closely approximating that of population. This can
be done only by having the records of the appointments
kept in that complete and accurate manner which is pro-
vided for under the commission which the Pendleton Bill
24 - C/ / / / SAE /ø ſº"/C.E.
creates. That bill provides, in Section 2, that the appoint-
ments shall be apportioned in the ratio of population.
VI.-BUT IT IS SAID THE DAWES BILL IS SIMPLE AND CAN
BE MORE EASILY ENFORCEL).
We must regard these assumptions as a grave mistake.
The Dawes Bill has thirteen sections; the Pendleton Bill but
seven. The Dawes Bill is by far the more complex and
difficult to put in operation. Consider these facts. At the
outset, the Pendleton Bill requires, as we have seen, com-
petitive examinations in the departments at Washington,
and in all Post-Offices and Custom-Houses which have fifty
or more subordinates, of which there are about thirty.
The Dawes Bill requires competitive examinations at the .
outset in the same departments and in all Post-Offices, Cus-
tom-Houses, and various other offices where there are
twenty or more subordinates, of which there are as many as
one hundred and thirty, and it authorizes no extension.
The greatest work ever to be attempted is to be undertaken
at the very first, when the inexperience and the difficulties
are most formidable.
The Pendleton Bill allows six months after its passage
before admissions to those offices, otherwise than through
competitive examinations, are to be illegal.
Under the Dawes Bill no one, according to its intent,
can be admitted, save through such examinations, after the
first day of July next. Such examinations must be in com-
plete operation at that date, at one hundred and thirty dif-
ferent places, though the bill do not pass until the end of
June.
Under the Pendleton Bill there would be a commission
consisting of five members and an examining board of
three examiners for each department, and a like board of
C/ 1'ſ / SA. A l’ACA. 25
three members for each of the thirty separate Post-Offices
and Custom-Offices; making in all thirty-eight bodies and one
hundred and nineteen members to be arranged for and made
ready for work in six months. But, by reason of the im-
portant duties performed by the commission, the members
of these thirty-seven boards would need much less instruc-
tion and their organization and duties would be far more sim-
ple than would suffice for any board under the Dawes Bill.
To have one of the bodies to be created—that is, the
commission—a central one, always well informed and in
ready communication with all the others, and, with the
President and the heads of departments, would manifestly
contribute to facility, sufficiency, and harmony in the
examinations.
Under the Dawes Bill there is to be a board of three in
each of the seven departments, and also a board of three for
each office (one member of the department board to be a
member of the local boards), of the hundred and thirty where
examinations are to be held ; being in all one hundred and
thirty-seven bodies and two hundred and eighty members
in the outset to be provided for ; and there being no com-
mission to perform the duties which are general—which are
common to each board—every one of them must be made
competent for the entire work of a board at the outset. If
that is greater simplicity and ease of execution in the Dawes
Bill, which thus requires in the very outset of a delicate and
difficult work for which very few persons have the necessary
experience, so many additional boards to be created, and so
many additional members to be selected and instructed—
which compels a hundred separate Post-Offices and Custom-
Houses, and other offices scattered broadly over the coun-
try to be brought under a new system at the beginning, be-
yond everything required by the Pendleton Bill, then indeed
is the Dawes Bill the simpler and safer to begin with. Men
26 C/ / / / S.A.'A' V/CAE.
of experience in the practical difficulties of reform have
more moderate views of what is safe or practicable.
Let it not be forgotten that, outside of New York and
Boston—in which latter city President Hayes succeeded in
starting the competitive system in the Post-Office, but not,
I believe, in the Custom-House—there are not among the
officials at one of those hundred Post-Offices and Custom-
Houses altogether a dozen persons who have had the ex-
perience needed to prepare for or conduct a competitive ex-
amination, or a hundred who ever even attended one.
The officials at the head of nearly every one of the hun-
dred additional Custom-Houses and Post-Offices, at which,
under the Dawes Bill, the new system must be enforced by
the first of July next, are not only utterly inexperienced in
the new system, but in large part they are in the midst of
communities so strongly partisan that the competitive sys-
tem at the outset can have no change, unless perfect in its
methods, just and discreet in their enforcement, and strong-
ly backed by a wise supporting influence from Washington.
We must keep within safer limits, and make our good
work light the way as we advance. Confusion, deception,
and reaction of public opinion will be almost inevitable, if
the first work is badly done. This, English experience and
our own equally teach: We are not aware of a person of
experience in such matters who does not hold these views.
It was for these reasons that the friends of reform,
experienced in the enforcement of its practical methods,
felt it to be unsafe to extend them at the outset beyond the
thirty offices comprehended by the Pendleton Bill, and that
they now look with concern upon an attempt to embrace
a hundred more offices at the beginning. They feel that
the new system, for this decade at least, must stand or fall
by its first examples of practical work. They think it neccs
sary to make every new office where it is enforced an educat-
C/ V/A. SAEA’ WA CE. 27
ing influence for its own strength and extension, since
nothing can make it stable but a more enlightened public
opinion. They are surprised at the impetuous confidence of
those who have never considered the difficulties or tried the
new methods. Every failure, fraud, and foolish question at
any office or on the part of any board will be gathered and
denounced in Congress and in all partisan circles. They
know that competitive examinations in unworthy hands, and
not subjected to adequate supervision and publicity, may be
made to cover gross injustice. They could see that it was
entirely practicable, within the time fixed by the Pendleton
Bill—by bringing the more experienced men into co-opera-
tion under a commission—to put examinations in force
in the seven departments and the thirty larger offices, upon
such just principles and to so fairly and clearly conduct
them and to give them such absolute publicity under its
supervision, as to lay a stable foundation for the new system.
But, in the light of their experience, they feel that if its
enforcement at a hundred additional offices, without any
supervision, is to be attempted at once, only confusion,
injustice, and disaster will follow. An enemy could hardly
devise a more plausible scheme for wrecking the new
system.
The spoilsmen will resist and misrepresent at every
point. Why then create a hundred more salient points of
attack than the experienced advisers of the Pendleton Bill
thought safe, at which every folly and mistake of inexperi-
enced examiners will discredit the whole system P
We have no hesitation in putting on record our opinion:
1. That it is not possible, even in an imperfect manner,
to put the Dawes Bill in operation, until many months after
its passage, nor at any time to make it successful or safe.
2. That it would be far wiser to limit our efforts at pres-
ent to the departments and the offices in New York, Boston,
28 (C/IX/Z, SAE R V/C.E.
and Philadelphia than to go one office beyond those covered
by the Pendleton Bill.
VII.-IT IS SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT AND HEADS OF
DEPARTMENTS, OR, IF NOT, THOSE INTERESTED IN RE-
FORM, will SUPERVISE THE EXAMINING BOARD UNDER
THE DAWES BILL. -
This is an illusive hope. That bill would not only sweep
away the existing commission, but it is repugnant to the
creation of another under Section 1753 of the Revised
Statutes.
The President has no time for such supervision. He can
only lay down general principles in his rules. He is strug-
gling now for relief from overwhelming details. It is idle to
expect that he can investigate the charges that will be made
of partiality, of unfair marking and grading on the part of
more than a hundred and thirty boards scattered all over the
country. The heads of departments have no more time than
he for such work. They would not be experts in practical
methods. What they need is a commission which will supervise
the bringing before them of the best applicants from which
they will make the proper selections for appointments. In
carrying forward the competitive system at New York, private
individuals interested in the subject have thus far aided the
boards. These private sacrifices cannot be continued indefi-
nitely. The country now knows what can be done if mem-
bers of Congress will only follow the example of the mem-
bers of the British Parliament and surrender their patronage
to their duty. It is quite chimerical to expect a private super-
vision of these one hundred and thirty isolated boards
stretching from Portland to San Francisco, and from Galves-
ton to Milwaukee and Charleston, of their regulations, their
forms of application, their endless series of questions, their
C/ 1*}} SEA PACE, 29
markings, their gradings, their rulings on disputed points,
their conditions for selections and notices, their ways of
dealing with complaints, to say nothing of many other tech-
nical points, or of the vital need of means of redress in
every case of alleged or wilful injustice, upon which, under
a half-educated, if not hostile public opinion, at so many
points, the fate of the competitive system will in the outset
be staked. Such supervision is impossible, because, unless
backed by legal authority, it would be defied by the conniv.
ing partisan boards who would most need it; impossible,
because the passage of the Dawes Bill would be a declara
tion by Congress that supervision was needless and imperti.
ment; impossible, because, however great the zeal for reform,
private individuals cannot indefinitely execute a great func-
tion of government; impossible, because it is far beyond
the range of self-sacrifice to attend simultaneously to the
doings of so many new boards so widely separated. We
must decide deliberately, before the start, whether we will
trust ourselves in mid-ocean in leaky ships with land-lubber
CreWS.
Heretofore, almost everybody except those who have
stood by these competitive experiments and have under-
stood them, have been telling us that the spoils system is so
strong that to confront it would be hopeless, at least without
an “omnipotent public opinion” to be created. Experiments
have proved the contrary. And now it is suddenly proclaimed
that to withstand the system, to put it down and a new one in
its place, is so easy that it may be done at a hundred and thirty
hostile centres of politics at once, by mere boards of three
Custom-House or Post-Office clerks, all ignorant of their deli-
cate duties, each deciding who shall be examined, each de-
termining all grades of merit, each hearing all complaints
against its own alleged wrongs, each keeping in secrecy its
own record, no one making any reports of its doings, no one
30 C/ 1*/A, SAEA tº ZCAE,
subject to any supervision by intelligent authority, every one
told by a refusal of all pay that only perfunctory efforts are
expected or deserved.
VIII.--THE CLAIM THAT THE DAWES BILL INVOLVES
NO EXPENSE.
All the care and labor the new system will inevitably
cause ought to be paid for, and will be, directly or indirectly,
under the Dawes Bill or any other. Consider the facts.
Every Postmaster has his aggregate allowance for the carry-
ing on of his office. When the new work of preparing for and
conducting the examinations is added, the new labor will
be allowed its place and time, and be paid for as regularly
as any other. So it has been in the New York Post-Office.
Mr. Dawes' Bill would require one member of the Post-Office
board of examiners at Washington to go several times a
year, as often as the examinations may be held, to Portland,
to San Francisco, to Galveston, to Charleston, to Boston,
and to every other of the sixty or more Post-Offices where
examinations would be held, and to take part in them. The
whole time of this itinerant examiner would not enable
him to attend them all, even if the exigencies of the offices
did not require simultaneous examinations hundreds of miles
apart. Yet this examiner is to be a clerk in the Post-Office
department at Washington | Who is to perform his duties
there, who is to pay his travelling expenses and hotel bills
while journeying over the Union, if the Dawes Bill plan
is to involve no new expenditure? In the Treasury depart-
ment this plan of reform, on the basis of charity and
unpaid labor, is yet more impracticable and illusory. The
members of a board for that department cannot do the new
work even for Washington, while earning their salaries
besides. There are three thousand clerks at the Treasury.
The Dawes Bill also covers the Internal Revenue service, the
Light-house, the Signal Service, the Land Offices, the Life-
saving service, the Marine Hospital service, the Bureau of
Engraving, the Revenue Marine service, the service at the
Mints, the Assay Offices, and the Sub-Treasuries; nor are
these all which require peculiar examinations.
Now, one member of the Dawes Treasury board must
attend, in addition to all the Washington examinations,
every examination at every Custom-House, Internal Revenue
Office, Assay Office, Mint, and Sub-Treasury in the Union
where they are to be held, from California to Maine. All
this, too, is to be done without loss of time at the Treasury,
or a dollar for travelling expenses | No one man can attend
all these examinations. We must, in all candor, say that to
one acquainted with the care, labor, and responsibility of
such examinations, and the hostility they must encounter at
their first introduction, such a scheme appears, to say the
least, utterly impracticable It is a scheme which no person,
practically acquainted with the work to be done, would en-
tertain for a moment. Its execution is simply impossible.
Under the Pendleton Bill, no person from Washington is
a member of any local board; and either the chief examiner
or one of the three commissioners not otherwise in the
public service would attend the local examinations whenever
necessary, and their expenses are provided for. The writer
in the Record says:
“My own experience, not less than the magnitude of
the reform to be accomplished, has convinced me that we
must look upon it as a serious and difficult work, requiring
time, care, ability, quite beyond the unpaid devotion and the
untasked hours of a few department, Custom, and Post-Office
clerks. I venture to declare that hardly any department of .
the Government will, in the early stages of a really effective
reform, require at its head a more statesmanlike ability, a
32 C/ 1*// SAEA tº ZCA.
more thorough knowledge of our administrative system, or
more patience and discretion, than will be essential to guide
the practical work of such a reform, for which pecuniary
support and a central supervision are indispensable. Every
President who has come to understand that work has, by
his acts, condemned the frail charity system for doing it. In
the outset President Grant called for an appropriation,
which was granted. Several times subsequently he called
for $25,000 a year to carry on the work; and he refused
to go further, because Congress allowed him no money.
President Hayes repeatedly urged such an appropriation as
essential, and he also requested the means of paying the
local examiners at New York. In his last message, President
Arthur, who has had practical experience in administration,
says: ‘I earnestly request, should there be a failure to pass
any other act, an appropriatian of $25,000 per year to exe-
cute the law under which the Civil Service Commission now
exists.” Against these voices of experience, which the
Pendleton Bill embodies, no evidence and no opinions of
competent persons are cited. We are asked to reject that
bill and all that experience, on naked theory alone.”
It is reported that the Collector of Boston likes the
Dawes Bill for giving a board of examiners taken altogether
from the local office. Such is not the composition of the
boards under that bill. Under the Pendleton Bill, as under
the existing commission, the board of examiners at a Post-
Office or Custom-House (as is now the fact both at New
York and Boston) would be wholly composed of three
subordinates of the local office: whereas the Dawes Bill
(see Section 5) requires such boards to be made up of
one member from Washington and two from the local
office.
(T/ V//. .SA: /ø ſº"/C/E. 33
IX—OBJECTIONS TO THE PENDLETON BILL.
It is said that the commission under the Pendleton Bill
is (I) anomalous and dangerous in form and purpose; (2)
that the members of the commission are appointed differ-
ently from other officers or commissioners. -
I. Mr. Dawes has answered the first objection. This is
the language of his late speech in the Senate comparing
the two bills: “Neither introduced any new and untried
element into the civil service, nor authorizes any method
of administration, beyond mere details, not before known
to it. . . . The bill introduced by me, . . . taking that [of Mr.
Pendleton] as a basis, proposes to widen its scope.” We
have seen how and at what needless peril this widening is
attempted. Much more than what Mr. Dawes had occasion
to state is true. It is precisely the commission, thoroughly
tested in our service under General Grant (as has been the
case of an analogous commission in that of Great Britain),
which has been tried for enforcing competition which has
been successful, and against which there has never been
even a charge of infidelity or incompetency. It is precisely
the plan of autocratic, independent boards, proposed by the
Dawes Bill, which is untried, utterly anomalous, and ven
turesome. It is a commission, approved by three successive
Presidents, for carrying on the work under existing laws,
and for which President Arthur, in his last message, asks an
appropriation (in case no new law is passed), which is creat-
ed with safe limitations under. the Pendleton Bill, with the
same purpose and with substantially the same functions as
the former commission. The need for the new statute
arises almost solely from the fact that the existing law does
not commit Congress to the competitive system, but leaves
its members at liberty to denounce that system, and to put
the whole responsibility upon the President—a liberty the
34 C/ V// SA. A PACA.
disastrous exercise of which, added to their refusal of ap-
propriations, arrested the "work of reform in 1875.
2. But it may be asked, Are not the new commissioners
to be differently selected from the old P. Has not the
Dawes Bill alone kept within prudence and the Constitution
in selecting those who are to execute the law P No : there
is no foundation for such claims. They rest on mere as-
sumption or mistake of facts. The members of the old
commission and the new alike gain their places by the desig-
nation of the President, without any action by the Senate.
Every member of the seven Dawes Bill boards at Washington
and one of the members of each of the one hundred and thirty
other boards get their places in precisely the same way, by
the mere designation of the President, without any action
of the Senate. The others are selected by the heads of de-
partments. Either the appointing power is not involved at
all, but only the authority conferred by Congress (as I hold
to be the fact) to designate and employ, or else that power
is equally exercised in the selection of a commissioner and
of each of the members of those examining boards. The
members of the old commission were never held to be
officers. They had no commissions. They were simply
employed by and could be discharged by the President.
Their sole function is to facilitate the intelligent exercise of
the appointing power. It is true that, while both the existing
law and the Dawes Bill would alike leave the President at
liberty to select the members of the commission and of all
the examining boards from the same party, the Pendleton
Bill says that “not more than three of the five members of
the commission shall be adherents of the same party.”
This, certainly, is not giving new power, but is a limita-
tion of power, quite familiar in our Administration. It is a
limitation which has long prevailed as to the appointment
of marshals, from the law for which (United States Revised
C/ / // SAEA' V/CAE. 35
Statutes, Section 2012) the language of the Pendleton Bill is
borrowed. Will any one claim that it is fit in itself, or wise
as policy, in view of the need of carrying a bill in a Congress
nearly equally divided between the two parties, to connive
at a partisan commission or partisan boards for enforcing
non-partisan examinations? Has the Dawes Bill such ends
in view, when it drops out that significant provision of the
Pendleton Bill? -
In Mr. Dawes' late speech, in urging his bill as a substi-
tute for that of Mr. Pendleton, he assumes (1) that great
and dangerous powers are conferred by the latter and not
by the former; and (2) that the Pendleton Bill creates new
offices, and that the Dawes Bill does not, but merely em-
ploys persons. We have only to get a clear view of the
subject to see the fallacy of such theories. The two bills
seek to do the same things by methods not new or requiring
the delegation of new authority, as the Senator has himself
declared in the language just quoted.
The Dawes Bill attempts more at first, and hence de-
mands more aggregate authority in the outset. Under
both, the rules made by the President will, under the law,
be supreme over every person employed to execute them,
whether he be called commissioner or examiner.
The great difference in the bills, in the matter of
authority, is this: that the Dawes Bill distributes the
authority equally among several hundred examiners and the
one hundred and thirty boards for which it provides;
but the Pendleton Bill confers upon one board, called the
commission, that part of the authority demanding larger
information which is general in its scope, and the exercise
of which is necessary to secure harmony and efficiency,
leaving to the separate boards the authority they need for
the conduct of the examinations. It is too plain for argu-
ment, when we reflect a little, that this convenient division
36 C/ / / / SA: /ø I."ZC'A'.
does not make the authority given either more or less.
Would the authority for the care of a hospital or a ship be any
the less, if it were divided equally between the crew or the
nurses, instead of being largely concentrated upon the cap-
tain and the superintendent P or that for management of a
bureau be less, if every clerk in it had equal authority with
the chief? Is there more or less, except of strength, in a
wagon-wheel, merely because you insist on having the tire in
as many pieces as there are spokes?
One duty, ominously unprovided for by the Dawes Bill,
the officials, under the Pendleton Bill, certainly have put
upon them ; that of making an annual report to the Presi-
dent, setting forth what has been done and the ways of do-
ing it, what kind of persons have been brought into
the service, and how they have been brought in, the prac-
tical effects of the new system and the best means of im-
proving it. But, surely, the opening of all doings to the
public gaze, the presenting of all facts to criticism, which
are at once the highest guarantee of fidelity and the great-
est discouragement to injustice, will not be charged as an
increase of power on the part of those who are thus placed
in the light and deprived of all secrets.
Nevertheless, the whole argument of the learned Senator
is to the effect that, notwithstanding every one of his
boards has autocratic authority to do everything except
report and expose abuses, which both a board and the
commission by their united action can do under the other
bill, yet the members of these Dawes boards are not
officers at all. They have only innocent powers, com-
pared with those conferred by the Pendleton Bill. They
are only persons employed. He even insists that a mere
subordinate, to be employed by the commission and called
the chief examiner under the Pendleton Bill, is an officer,
and that he is clothed with dangerous powers, though hav-
C/ V/L SEA’ V/CAE. 37
ing an authority vastly less than that of either member of
the department boards under the Dawes Bill. When we
consider that nearly every commission yet created, that
every committee of the Senate, that, from the foundation
of the Government, every Postmaster needing clerks—the
Postmaster of New York having more than twelve hundred
persons serving under him, including an Assistant-Postmas-
ter, authorized any day to take his place—have been in the
habit of selecting and employing all their own subordinates
without anybody pretending that such selection was an
exercise of the appointing power, it seems strange indeed
that the Pendleton Bill should be attacked as unconstitu-
tional and dangerous, because the commission is allowed to
employ two assistants. -
Let us not rush from one extreme into another. All
but a few hopeful and courageous citizens have been long in
the habit of insisting that the evils in our civil service are
so great as to defy all attempts at their eradication. Now,
of a sudden, those evils are being treated as so slight that,
despite the lessons of all experience to the contrary, they
may be arrested by boards of mere clerks who are to per-
form the work of salvation in hours of extra labor without
compensation or concert of action. Both views are alike
unfounded, and it will be a serious calamity if we throw
back the cause of reform a decade, by trusting it to
incompetent hands and to methods utterly defective and
faulty.
g xvi. " .” - zºº f . . m. ...--
* 23 A •)
* **-, ;" r' s: “ º-
i
\
LETTE RS
[VII SERVIEREFORMASSOCATION OF NEW YORK
STATE OFFICES AND FOR THE STATE SENATE
AND ASSEMBLY
J)uring //e Campaign of 1883, wit/, such repſies as were received
from those subsequently eſcoted: together with a ſist of ~
- -S- º
f/lose addressed but not rep/ying. --
- 2 ſ

The following letter was addressed by the officers of the New
York Civil-Service Reform Association to the several candidates for
State offices upon the Democratic and Republican tickets. No reply
was received from either of the Democratic Candidates. All the
Republican Candidates made favorable replies: the only one of these
who was elected, however, was Gen. Carr, the Candidate for Secre-
tary of State, whose letter is appended. -
t
CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM ASSOCIATION,
4 PINE STREET.
GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS, President,
WILLIAM Potts, Secretary.
BENJ. H. BRISTOW,
HO WARD POTTER,
KOSWELL, D. HITCHCOCK,
OSWALD OTT END ORFER,
ORLANDO B. POTTER,
JOHN JAY,
ROBT. B. MINTURN,
} Vice-Presidents.
GEORGE B. BUTLER. J
Mew York, October 15, 1883.
SIR :—
In view of the universal interest in the question of adminis-
trative reform, and of the national and state legislation of the last
year upon the subject, we have the honor on behalf of the New York
Civil-Service Reform Association, and for the information of the
voters in the state, respectfully to propose to you, as a candidate for
public office, the following inquiries:
I. Do you approve the bill passed by the last Legislature
and which is now the law of the State, which provides for appoint-
ment in the minor public service only upon a free and open compe-
titive examination, and subsequent probation, with such exceptions
as may be found expedient; and which prohibits absolutely the
practice known as political assessments P --
4.
II. In the event of your election, would you aid in the
enforcement of the law both according to its letter and its spirit P
And in view of the fact that the law will become effective
on the fourth of January next, whereas you if elected will take office
upon the first of that month, would you during that interval obey the
spirit of the law in making or filling vacancies in your department,
thus acting as nearly as practicable as though its provisions were
already in force P
It will be our duty and our pleasure to give the widest
circulation to any answer to these inquiries with which you may be
disposed to favor us, and we shall be very grateful for any expres-
sion of your views upon the general subject.
We have the honor to be, very respectfully,
Your obedient servants,
GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS
EVERETT P. WHEELER
WILLIAM POTTS
ALBANY, Oct. 26th, 1883.
GENTLEMEN:—
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your
favor of the 15th inst. and to state in reply thereto that I heartily
approve of and am in full accord with the resolutions relating to
the Civil Service and political assessments, adopted by the Repub-
lican State Convention held at Richfield Springs.
If I am re-elected to the office I now hold, I shall
obey cheerfully, as well before as after it takes effect, the spirit
and the letter of the Civil Service law enacted by the last Legis-
lature. - Very respectfully, e
JOSEPH B. CARR
MESSRS. GEO. WILLIAM CURTIS,
EVERETT P. WHEELER, ,
WILLIAM POTTS,
Y
5
The following letter, or a letter of substantially the same tenor,
was addressed by the New York Civil-Service Reform Association,
or one or other of the several local associations, to the several Can-
didates for the State Senate and Assembly, whose correct names and
addresses could be ascertained. Much difficulty was experienced in
learning the addresses, and in a number of instances this was found
impossible. The replies received from such Candidates as was sub-
sequently elected, are appended. s *oe.
CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM ASSOCIATION,
4 PINE STREET.
BENJ. H. BRISTOw, \ GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS, President,
HO WARD POTTER, WILLIAM Potts, Secretary.
ROS WELI, D. H ITCHCOCK, -
OS WALD OTT END ORFER,
ORLANDO B. POTTER,
JOHN JAY,
ROBT. B. MINTURN, *
GEORGE B. BUT LER. J Mew York, October 18, 1883.
Sir ..
Vice-Presidents.
Both of the great parties having declared in their platforms
for a thorough Reform in the Civil Service, and it having been suc-
cessfully urged upon the attention of Congress .and upon the
Legislature of the State of New York, the citizens on whose behalf
we have the honor to address you concur in the demand arising
throughout this State that, without further delay, those party pledges.
should be fully redeemed, and that Legislative action be supplemented
by the complete fulfilment of the reform now so favorably begun. We
beg, therefore, respectfully to ask:
I.— Are you in favor of enforcing the law enacted at the last
session of the Legislature providing for the reform of the Civil Service
of the State of New York P Should you disapprove of any of the
principles or methods of the existing act, will you be good enough
to state your own views of the Reform to which your party stands
pledged, and of the methods by which, in your opinion, it should be
carried out in such manner as to raise the standard of the service, to
secure for the people competency and efficiency in their public servants,
6
and to make place in the service, whether of the Nation or the State,
the reward not of partisan activity, but of character, ability, and fit-
ness for the work P
II.—If elected to the Legislature, for which you have been
nominated, will you be prepared to vote for such measures as the in-
quiries instituted by the Civil Service Commission may show to be
necessary and expedient to more thoroughly carry into effect the prin-
ciples embodied in said Act and extend their application to such offices
not included in its provisions as may appear advisable, and for the
appropriation of such moneys as may be required for enforcing the
provisions of said Act P
III.—Your attention is respectfully called also to the maltreatment,
cruelty, and wrong to which children, paupers, the sick, the disabled,
the insane, and criminals are subjected through the ignorance,
inefficiency, or worse defects of officials and employees, who have
been appointed not from their fitness for the work, but without regard
to their fitness, by political favor—and to serve the purposes of party.
Vicious management resulting from such appointments is reported in
schools, asylums, and institutions of charity and correction existing
under State authority and sustained or' assisted from the public
treasury. Will you be prepared to vote for such measures as the
investigation held under the authority of said Commission may show
to be necessary to place all benevolent institutions authorized by the
State under the direction and management of persons of integrity and
capacity, without regard to their political opinions P
Iv.— Are you in favor of the prompt and stringent enforcement
of the recent Acts of the Legislature to prevent and punish fraud and
intimidation at primary elections, and bribery in all elections, and to
secure the purity and fairness of both P |
We beg leave to add that we will carefully consider any sugges-
tion with which you may favor us for the improvement of the Civil
Service in its various branches.
|
We are very respectfully yours,
GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS
EVERETT P. WHEELER
WILLIAM POTTS
S E N A T E .
From Albert Daggett, Republican Candidate for the Senate from
the 3rd District (Brooklyn.)
“I am in receipt of your circular letter of the 26th instant,
which in substance asks me whether I will support measures in favor
of Civil Service Reform; in favor of placing all benevolent institutions
authorized by the State under management of persons of integrity and
capacity without regard to their political opinions; and also whether
I favor the enforcement of the laws to prevent and punish frauds at
primary elections, etc.
“In reply I beg to state that after many years of practical ex-
perience in politics, I am most heartily in favor of these measures, and
shall most cheerfully co-operate with your society, or with any other
which has these ends in view.
“I shall hold myself in readiness at all times to consult with
your society as to the best way to bring about the results desired.”
From Frederic S. Gibbs, Republican Candidate for the Senate from
the 8th District, N. Y. City. -
“In accepting a nomination to the Legislature, I did so
without any pledges. Your letter suggests no reason why I should
change my determination to make none. If I cannot be trusted to
act according to my best judgment in representing my constituency,
I ought not to be elected. - -
“I am free to say, however, that in view of the fact that laws,
State and National, have been enacted, mainly through Republican
instrumentality, towards the elevation of the public service, I could
not consistently favor the abrogation of such laws until they had
received a fair trial. Moreover, I am in favor of a thorough investi-
gation of the whole subject of the influence of spoils, patronage,
and money upon our politics, by the present State Civil-Service Com-
mission exercising its full powers in that behalf; so that appropriate
legislation may be proposed towards purifying party action.
8
“While I respectfully decline to pledge myself to support the
measures proposed by any society, it will afford me pleasure, if
elected, to give careful consideration and fair treatment to any sug-
gestions offered by the Civil-Service Reform Association.”
From J. Hampden Robb, Democratic Candidate for Senate 10th
District, New York City.
“In replying to your circular of last year, I then stated
that I believed Civil-Service Reform was wanted in municipal matters
here quite as much as in the different departments of the Federal
Government at Washington. I also said that I was at all times
ready to help in a cause, the success of which I believe most closely
connected with the preservation of free institutions. These are still
my sentiments, only stronger if anything than they were a year ago.
Under the circumstances I readily favor the propositions named in
your circular of the 18th ulto., though, in regard to any law for re-
forming the Civil Service, I am totally opposed to anything which
interferes or obstructs a citizen from voluntarily helping a political
party whose principles he believes in.”
From John J. Gilbert, Republican Candidate for the Senate from the
20th District. -
“I am in favor, as I suppose all good citizens are, of an
honest and efficient Civil Service, and of such measures as seem best
adapted to secure that result. But as to specific measures which may
be proposed to the Legislature for such purpose, I have nothing to
say till the measures themselves are submitted. The law already
enacted should of course be enforced. As to the other questions, if
my record does not afford a sufficient answer, they must remain
wholly unanswered.”
From Frederic Lansing, Republican Candidate for the Senate from
the 21st District.
“To the first question I answer: I am in favor of enforc-
ing the laws you speak of, and all laws which tend to give us clean
political methods.
9
“To the second question I can give no answer. I could
not answer affirmatively without precluding myself from taking
my seat in the Senate, if elected, or committing perjury, either of
which contingencies I should exceedinghy dislike. If you will be good
enough to look at article XII of the State constitution, you will see
that the promise you desire me to make is treated as a bribe and is
made a ground of exclusion from the Legislature. &
“The fact that in the last Legislature I voted for the laws you
speak of, is evidence of my ideas on the subject.”
From J. Sloat Fassett, Republican Candidate for the Senate from
the 27th District. - -
“Three ‘yes’s’ will substantially state my views and answer
your questions seriatim ; but in making this reply I would not care to
commit myself to a rigid defense of the existing law, in case that ex-
perience and investigation demonstrate the wisdom of alterations
looking toward a better fulfillment of the results sought to be at-
tained.” -
From Thos. Robinson, Republican Candidate for the Senate from
the 28th District. * * -
“I have just read the law referred to in your communica-
tion. I am in favor of that law, and will do anything reasonable to
carry it into effect. I have always been in favor of taking our Prisons,
Asylums, and Poor-Houses entirely out of politics and of conducting
them entirely on business principles, and shall so vote if I am
elected.”
From Chas. S. Baker, Republican Candidate for the Senate from the
29th District. -
“I supposed it was generally understood that I am in hearty
accord with the movement in favor of Civil-Service Reform, and
hope to see the Act of 1883, chap. 354, enforced in its letter and
spirit. To your second question I answer affirmatively.”
From Robert C. Titus, Democratic Candidate for the Senate from
the 31st District. -
- “First. I am in favor of rigidly enforcing the law enacted
IO
by the last Legislature, providing for the Reform of the Civil-Service
of the State of New York. I favored the passage of the bill, and
recent events in our own city have strengthened my belief in the wis-
dom of the act, and the necessity of its more rigid enforcement. *
“Second. I am not at present advised what deficiencies exist
in the act, but if any supplementary act is necessary to accomplish
the reform intended, I shall most certainly, if elected, support it.
“Third. During my service in the Senate, I introduced and the
Legislature passed an act reforming the abuses and wrongs done to
children in the juvenile reformatories of this State, but for some
reason it failed to become a law. I also introduced and advocated
a bill intended to remove the pauper insane in the various insane asy-
lums in this State from the control of ignorant and inefficient em-
ployés, whose only recommendation to appointment was the fact that
they were capable of rendering the party some political service. I
regard this as one of the most serious and important measures to .
which the attention of the Legislature has been called. The present
system imposes unnecessary burdens upon the people, and subjects
the sick and irresponsible to cruel and inhuman treatment, such as an
enlightened sentiment cannot tolerate. If elected, I shall use such
ability as I possess in favor of reforming these abuses,
“Fourth. It follows from what I have written that, while not
being in a position to enforce the recent acts of the Legislature, I
must necessarily be in sympathy with such enforcement.”
g
A S S E M B L Y.
From Frederic W. Kruse, Republican Candidate for Assembly from
the 1st District of Cattaraugus Co.
“I am heartily in sympathy with all efforts to reform the
Civil Service, and accordingly I answer your questions in the affirma-
tive.” A :
*
Q I I
From Jonas S. Van Duzer, Republican Candidate for the Assembly
from Chemung Co.
“Without giving careful consideration to the questions con-
tained in your circular letter, I cannot say more than that I am in
favor of any practicable measures which have for their object the im-
provement of our Civil Service in State and Nation. Such legisla-
tion as will increase the efficiency of our public service, and make it
less partisan and more business like in its workings, should be en-
forced. All efforts to purify and protect the ballot and give freer
expression in the popular mind at primary and all elections, would
always receive my hearty encouragement. I say this much because
it is but the expression of sentiments long entertained. I have no
pledges to give further than my record and character will express
them. If elected to the Legislature, I shall go free from all compli-
cations, and with a desire and determination to perform the duties of
my position faithfully in the interest of good government and my
constituents.” - -
From Silas S. Cartwright, Republican Candidate for Assembly from
Delaware Co. - te
“To 1st interrogatory I answer yes.
“To 2d. I will to the best of my ability.
“3d. My profession as a physician is sufficient answer that I
would obey the dictates of humanity and carry its suggestions out to
the fullest extent. O
“4th. I am in favor of every man's casting his ballot as he sees
fit, and of having it côunted as cast, and of throwing all necessary
safeguards around elections, both primary and annual.”
From Geo. Clinton, Republican Candidate for the Assembly from
the 3d District of Erie Co.
“I would say that I heartily approve of the principles of
the act passed last winter, chap. 354, and that the methods of en-
forcing those principles adopted by the Legislature and contained in
the act appear to me as just and proper. Whether they are adequate
experience alone can prove. The law should certainly be enforced.
I 2 ()
“In reply to your second question I can only say that I shall
be prepared to vote for such further measures in aid of Civil-Service
Reform as experience, further investigation, and the inquiries of the
commission may show to be expedient, whether such measures merely
tend to the enforcement of the act mentioned or whether they tend
to an extension of its principles; but I must not be understood as
committing myself to all measures that may be urged by the com-
mission. To do so would be to violate the duties and obligations of
a member of the Legislature.
“To your third inquiry I would say simply, ‘yes,' reserving,
however, the right imposed by the duty of a member of Assembly to
exercise my own judgment upon particular measures, such judgment
being based upon my own knowledge and experience, and such in-
vestigation as I may be able to make, as well as upon the suggestions
of the commission. I may say that I heartily approve of placing be-
nevolent institutions under the direction and management of persons
of integrity and capacity, without regard to their political opinions,
so far as such institutions are public and under the control of the State.
“To your fourth inquiry I would simply say ‘yes.’ To your
létter as a whole I give the comprehensive answer that I sincerely
believe in the absolute necessity, for the purity and life of our public
institutions, that Civil-Service Reform should not only be made an
achieved fact, but that it should be preserved and strengthened by
constant vigilance.” .
- O
From N. C. Boynton, Republican Candidate for the Assembly from
Essex Co. s 4. e
“In reply to your. questions I have to say, to the first
question, I approve of the ‘Civil Service law' of 1883, having voted
for it. -
“To the second question I reply, I am in favor of making the
law effective. Should the amendments prepared by your association
meet my views, I would gladly advocate them, but I reserve the
right of judging for myself of that or any other bill which I may be
called upon to vote for, no matter how eminent the source from which
it comes. *
I 3
“To the third question I answer that I am in favor of and will
vote for any measure which shall make our almshouses and places of
refuge entirely free from political influence. -
*
“To the fourth question I answer, yes.”
From Isaac L. Hunt Jr., Republican Candidate for the Assembly
' from the 1st District of Jefferson Co.
“I had the honor of aiding in the passage of the act for the
reform of the Civil Service of the State of New York, also of the acts
to prevent and punish fraud, etc., at primary elections. They received
my support and my vote. It seems, therefore, unnecessary for me to
state that I am in favor of their enforcement. &
“As touching future legislation, my position in the past must be
the guarantee of my position in the future.”
From Peter J. Kelly, Democratic Candidate for the Assembly from
3rd District of Brooklyn.
“In answer to the first question propounded in your circu-
lar, I will say that I am in favor of enforcing all laws enacted by the
sovereign will of the people through their authorized chambers.
Concerning the details of the act in question I am in no position to
speak, having given it no critical examination. Generally I am in
favor of a civil service independent of parties or politics.
“To the second question I answer that any recommendation
from the body you mention shall receive my most respectful consid-
eration, if I be elected, and my most cordial support if it commends
itself to my judgment and conscience.
“To the third question I answer that any measure of the char-
acter described shall meet with the heartiest support I can give it;
provided it shall neither contain nor imply any provision likely to in-
terfere with the liberty of conscience of the unfortunate people who
are compelled to resort to public charity for sustenance.
& 4 Lastly I am in favor of the most stringent laws for the regula-
tion of party primaries, and for the punishment of bribery and other.
I 4
corrupt practices in all proceedings leading up to the full and free
expression of the will of the people.
From Alfred Hodges, Republican Candidate for Assembly from the
9th District of Brooklyn." -
“I am in favor of enforcing the laws enacted at the last
session of the Legislature providing for the reform of the Civil
Service of the State of New York. If re-elected, I shall vote and
work to perfect all measures in the interest of this subject.
“I shall heartily approve of any and all measures to place
benevolent institutions, authorized by the State, under the direction
and management of persons of integrity and capacity, without regard
to their political opinions. I of course favor the enforcement and
passage of all laws to purify our primary and general elections.”
- \
From James Taylor, Republican Candidate for the Assembly from
the Ioth District of Brooklyn.
“I am in hearty accord with you in every particular. I
believe that the reform of the Civil Service is the greatest issue or
principle before the people of the country to-day, and on its success
depends to a large extent the material advancement of free American
institutions. You can rely upon my giving my best efforts for its
progress and success.” -
From Henry Heath, Republican Candidate for Assembly from 11th
District of Brooklyn. - .
. “I am just in receipt of your circular letter of 26th ult.,
and have the pleasure to reply that I am, and have been, heartily in
sympathy with the principles and work of your Association. I
cheerfully answer your four interrogatories in the affirmative.”
From Kidder M. Scott; Republican Candidate for Assembly from
Livingston Co. -
“Reform in the Civil Service is a matter in which the
people are deeply interested. Nothing should be left undone or
untried to secure honesty, fidelity, and intelligence in the per-
I 5
formance of official duty. It should be the desire of every law-
maker, and his determination, to promote all needed legislation to
raise and maintain the standard of qualification for incumbents of
political station. I have heretofore favored such legislation, and, if
elected, shall expect to continue my efforts to enlarge and perfect
the work as may be deemed necessary.
“Approving what has been done, and favoring a rigid enforce-
ment of the provisions of existing law, I am willing to co-operate
with others to further the interest of the service.”
ſ
From Chas. R. Pratt, Republican Candidate for the Assembly from
the 2d District of Monroe Co.
“I have no hesitation in answering affirmatively to all of
them (the interrogatories), and also in expressing myself cordially in
sympathy with your Association and the objects it seeks to accom-
plish.” *
From Lucas L. Van Allen, Republican Candidate for the Assembly
from 7th District New York.
“I supported that bill (the Civil Service Bill) by advocating
its passage and voting for it, and my mind in relation thereto remains
unchanged. The elevation of the service to the highest standard
possible should be the delight of every true citizen. I shall aid any
attempt in the practical furtherance of the cause. -
“This I believe answers the 1st and 2d paragraphs of your
inquiry. !
“In reference to the third paragraph, permit me to say that I
shall exercise my energies for the amelioration of the unfortunate
classes referred to therein. I believe that the institutions in which
those persons are confined should be managed by men of principle
and who are the possessors of qualities worthy their selection, and
I shall always urge the appointment of such men.
“As to the fourth paragraph, I was in favor of the passage of
laws to which it refers, voted for their passage, am still in favor of
them, hence of necessity believe in their enforcement.”
I6
From Walter Howe, Republican Candidate for the Assembly from
I Ith District New York. -
“Being a member of your Association, and having always
been a supporter of its principles, I need hardly say that I fully ap-
prove its present attitude, and shall, if elected, give the measures ad-
vocated by the Association my cordial support in the legislature.”
From Isaac Dayton, Republican Candidate for the Assembly from
13th District of New York. y
“I am as a matter of course in favor of enforcing the act
passed at the last session of the Legislature, entitled “An Act to
regulate and improve the Civil Service of the State of New York.' I
do not, that I know of, “disapprove of any of the principles or
methods of the existing act.' I answer your questions numbered II,
III and IV in the affirmative. I will, if elected, contribute according
to my best judgment ‘to secure for the people capability and effi-
ciency in their public servants,’ and to make character and ability
above considerations of ‘partisan activity” the indispensable qualifica-
tion of appointments to office. |
- “I am quite sure that, if elected, I can be depended upon to use
my efforts “to place all benevolent institutions authorized by the
State under the direction and management of persons of integrity
and capacity without regard to their political opinions.”
“Any suggestion from me for the improvement of the Civil
Service would be of little value. If I should be elected to the As-
sembly, measures to that end will receive my earnest support.”
From Theodore Roosevelt, Republican Candidate for the Assembly
from 21st District New York.
“To all of your four questions I answer yes with the most
hearty emphasis. & -
“I have only to suggest that the present law should be extended
so as to apply to the subordinate employés in every branch of our
various municipal governments; making the examinations suit the
various cases, of course.” -
17
From Frank Rice, Democratic Candidate for the Assembly from
Ontario County. -
“I advocated and voted for the passage of the same (the
Civil-Service Law) and am in favor of its enforcement substantially
as passed, and I am in favor of all measures necessary to thoroughly
carry into effect the principles embodied in the Act.
“In my opinion, “all benevolent institutions authorized by the
State should be under the direction and management of persons of
integrity and capacity without regard to their political opinions,’ and
that legislation for the accomplishment of such result should be sup-
ported. I am also in favor of the punishment of fraud at primary
elections and bribery in all elections, and the enforcement of all laws
now in existence and the passage of all others necessary to secure
fair and honest elections.”
From Dewit C. Littlejohn, Republican Candidate for the Assembly
from the 1st District of Oswego Co. - * -
“I am so much occupied both by business and the canvass
that I have no leisure in which to give a reply in detail.
“It affords me pleasure, however, to say that I am heartily in
accord with the Association, in the reforms it advocates, and that I
respond cordially in the affirmative to the several interrogatories con-
tained in the communication.” -
From Gen. N. Martin Curtis, Republican Candidate for Assembly
from the 1st District of St. Lawrence Co.
“I respectfully decline to state what action I will take, in
the event of my election to the Assembly, on any specific measure,
in advance of such election; and for the sole reason that the oath to be
taken before entering upon the duties of a legislator requires the per-
son taking the same to swear that he “has not made any promises to
influence the giving or withholding of any vote.” While I have not
at any time sought the nomination and am not struggling to secure
my election, I nevertheless desire, in case I am chosen, to take the
required oath and discharge to the best of my ability the duties
which will devolve upon me in such an event. e
18
“I have given much thought to many of the questions referred
to in your letter, and I have no objection and see no impropriety in
stating to you what my action on some of them has been when they
came before me for official consideration.
“It is a matter of official record that I made determined resis-
tance to political interference with appointments and promotions in
my command as an army officer; that I was probably the first federal
officer in the State who took official action against coercive political
assessments, etc., in the year 1866 was among the earliest to resist
the interference and meddling of Federal and State administrations
in local affairs and State conventions, and ‘omitted to act upon
party considerations in making appointments and removals,’ in every
position I have held with power of nomination. Whether this record
can be taken as an indication of further action, time will disclose.
“While I look to the Republicans of the 1st Assembly District
of St. Lawrence for my election, I do not believe a member should
be restricted by personal, partisan, or local interests from giving
careful consideration and active support to any measure which may
tend to promote the welfare and prosperity of the people of the
whole State.” *.
From C. F. Barager, Republican Candidate for Assembly from
Tioga Co. .
“I answer yes to all questions submitted, but reserve the
right to use my judgment on all measures presented by the Commis-
sion for enactment.” - --
($
&s
From Norton P. Otis, Republican Candidate for the Assembly from
the Ist District of Westchester Co.
“Your favor of the 3oth ult, was misdirected, and did not
reach me in time to reply before the day of election.
“I may say now, however, that I am substantially in accord
with your society in the work it has undertaken. I have an impres-
sion—not founded on very accurate knowledge—that the system of ex-
amination generally followed does not properly measure the integrity,
latent energy, or fertility in resources—not to speak of spécial gifts—
I9
possessed by an applicant I should be glad to be enlightened on -
this point.” . .
|
The N. Y. Association sent questions to, but received no replies
from, the following elected candidates:
The Democratic Candidate for Treasurer, Robert A. Maxwell,
Albany. - -
The Democratic Candidate for Attorney General, Dennis O'Brien,
Watertown. . . .
The Democratic. Candidate for Engineer and Surveyor, Elnathan
Sweet, Albany. -
The Democratic Candidate for Comptroller, Alfred C. Chapin,
Brooklyn.
For the SENATE: Timothy J. Campbell (D), 5th Dist., N. Y. C.;
John J. Cullen (D), 9th Dist., N. Y. C.; Andrew Davidson (R),
23d Dist., Cooperstown; E. B. Thomas (R), 24th Dist., Nor-
wich.
For the Assembly: Allegany Co., Chas. S. Hall (R), Almond;
Broome Co., Wm. H. Olin, (R), Binghamton; Caffaraugus Co.,
Eugene A. Nash (R), Little Valley; Chenango Co., Chas. W.
Brown (D), Oxford; Franklin Co., Wm. T. O’Neil (R), St.
Regis Falls; Genesee Co., Lucien R. Bailey (R), Batavia;
Greene Co., Bradley S. McCabe (D), Greenville; Herkimer Co.,
Titus H. Sheard (R), Little Falls; Zewis Co., Chas. M. Allen
(D), Constableville; Madison Co., Edward F. Haskell (R), (let-
ter sent to Eaton instead of Morrisville); AVew York City, 1st
Dist., Patrick H. Duffy (D); 2d Dist., James Oliver (D); 3d
Dist., John C. Brogan (D); 4th Dist., Patrick H. Roche (D);
6th Dist., Peter H. Jobes (D); 8th Dist., Chas. Smith (R); 9th
Dist., Frederick B. House (R); Ioth Dist., Chas. A. Binder
(R); 12th Dist., Solomon D. Rosenthal (D); 14th Dist., John
E. Donnelly (D); 15th Dist., Jas. F. Higgins (D); 17th Dist.,
2O
w
Richard J. Lewis (R); 18th Dist., Thos. Murphy (D); 19th
Dist., Dow S. Kittle (R); 20th Dist., Jas. Haggerty (D); 22d
Dist., John T. McDonald (D); 23d Dist., Daniel M. Van Cott
(D); 24th Dist., John J. Clarke (D); Wiagara Co., Jacob A.
Driess (D), Lockport, and Thos. V. Welch (D), Niagara Falls;
Otsego Co, Wm. C. Ely (D), East Worcester, and Hartford D.
Nelson (D), Oneonta; Queens Co., Louis K. Church (D),
Hicksville, and Edward A. Darragh (D), Far Rockaway; Rock-
land Co., John W. Felter (D), Haverstraw; St. Zawrence Co.,
M. D. Beckwith (R), Colton, and George Z. Erwin (R),
Potsdam ; Saratoga Co., Daniel C. Briggs (R), Malta, and
Thos. Noxon (R), Saratoga Springs; Schoharie Co., Jas. H.
Brown (D), Summit; Schuyler Co., J. Franklin Barnes (D),
Watkins; Steuben Co., Geo. E. Whiteman (D), Wayland,
and A. B. Craig (D), Jasper; Suffo/* Co., Simon S. Hawkins
(R), Jamesport; Warren Co., Lorenzo R. Locke (R), Potters-
ville: Washington Co., Daniel M. Westfall (R), Cambridge;
Wayne Co., Ammon S. Farnum (R), Savannah, and Silas S.
Pierson (R), Arcadia; Yates Co., Henry Harpending (D)
Dundee.
The Brooklyn Association sent questions to, but received no re-
plies from, the following elected candidates:—
For the Senate — - …'
2d Dist., John J. Kiernan (D); 4th Dist., John C. Jacobs (D).
For the Assembly: - - -
1st. Dist., Michael E. Butler (D); 2d Dist., Richard Nagle (D);
did
5th Dist., Michael J. Coffey (D); 7th Dist., Geo. H. Lindsey
(D); 8th Dist., Geo. H. Nason (R); 12th Dist., Mortimer C.
Earl (D).
©
The names of those addressed by the other Associations who
not reply, have probably already been published in the local
papers.
£ George William Curtis, President.
'Everett P. Wheeler, Chairman of Executive Com. Ira Bursley, Treasurer, and Chairman of Finance Com.
E. L. Godkin, Chairman of Publication Com. Carl Schurz, Chairman of Com. on Legislation.
William Potts, Secretary.
CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM ASSOCIATION, //
4 PINE STREET, NEW YORK.
Sept. ZO, Y&#.
COWCERN/AWG POZ/7ZCA / ASS/ESSMENTS.
The attention of all the citizens of New York State, and especially
of all office-holders and employees of the State, or of any city, county
or other political division thereof, and of all members of any political
committee or other political organization within the State, is called to
the provisions of the following sections of the Civil-Service law touching
assessments and contributions, which are very stringent.
“SEC II. No officer, agent, clerk or employee under the government
of the State of New York or any political division thereof, shall directly
or indirectly use his authority or official influence to compel or induce
any other officer, clerk, agent or employee under said government, or
any political division thereof, to pay or promise to pay any political
assessment. Every said officer, agent or clerk, who may have charge or
control in any building, office or room occupied for any purpose of said
government, or any said division thereof, is hereby authorized to pro-
hibit the entry of any person, and he shall not consent that any person
enter the same for the purpose of therein making, collecting, receiving
or giving notice of any political assessment: and no person shall enter
or remain in any said office, building or room, or send or direct any let-
ter or other writing thereto, for the purpose of giving notice of, demand-
ing or collecting, nor shall any person therein give notice of, demand,
collect or receive any such assessment; and no person shall prepare or
make out, or take any part in preparing or making out, any political
assessment, subscription or contribution with the intent that the same
shall be sent or presented to or collected of any officer, agent or em-
ployee subject to the provisions of this act, under the government of the
State of New York, or that of any political division thereof, and no
person shall knowingly send or present any political assessment, sub-
scription or contribution to, or request its payment of any said officer,
agent or employee.”
“SEC. 12. Any person who shall be guilty of violating any provision
of the last section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall,
on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not less than fifty dollars
and not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for a term
not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the
discretion of the court.”
This Association respectfully requests that any one who is
able to give legal evidence of the infringement by any person of any
of these provisions will furnish such evidence to the Secretary of the
Association, by whom it will be brought to the attention of the proper
authorities to the end that the law may be sustained and this great
abuse forever stopped.
Whatever political changes may occur in the administration of
the government, and whatever party may be in power, we shall use our
utmost endeavors to secure the honest and impartial administration of
the civil service law and the rules promulgated by the Governor in pur-
suance of it.
GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS,
Aresident.
EVERETT P. WHEELER,
- Chair. Ex-Com.
WILLIAM POTTS,
Secretary
For the New York Civil-Service Reform Association.
LETTE RS
A N D R E PLIES
C A.N DIID A TES
1884
~~
NEW YORK
CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM ASSOCIATION,+.
N2
~
-
\-2'º
->
sº
- - -, *, *, - * - •.
*... . . / º Aº ‘’ -- . . . . . .
- A. *.
* Y - -
* - • - ... -
\ , --~ * -
* ~ *. - - - ~ /
- -- *-
2
.”
~. “ -
^e /
J’
. ‘A’
• , ~ .
/
Nº.
…” r
J.--> º
Z
*
s/3.3.
ºv : .
.* . . -
*º- • ‘’’
\. S. . . . . . .
* . . . . .
* ..'. : -
*-
**
2. ~~


A copy of the following letter was sent to each of the candi-
dates respectively, for the Mayoralty, the Comptrollership, and the
Presidency of the Board of Aldermen of the City of New York:
CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM ASSOCIATION,
4 PINE STREET,
NEw York, Oct. 22, 1884.
SIR : .
On behalf of the New York Civil-Service Reform Association,
and for the information of the voters, we respectfully ask your views, as
a candidate for (the Mayoralty), (Comptrollership), (Presidency of the
Board of Aldermen) of the City of New York, of the law of New York
passed in 1884, requiring appointments in the municipal service to be
open to competition and to be given to those found after examination
and trial to be the most competent, as provided by the Act.
Will the reformed system, in your judgment, promote the
efficiency and economy of the service, and tend to remove political
abuses P
And will you, if elected, aid in the enforcement of the law to
which we call your attention, to the end that offices under the city
government shall be filled by none but honest and fit persons?
Respectfully,
GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS,
EVERETT P. WHEELER,
WILLIAM POTTS. -
4
The following replies were received from the candidates who have been
elected :
MAYOR.
NEW YORK, Oct. 27, 1884.
George William Curtis, Esq., AEverett P. Wheeler, Esq., William Potts, Esq.,
representing the AVew York Civil-Service /&eform Association.
DEAR SIRS:—
I am in receipt of your circular letter dated Oct. 22, propound-
ing to me the following questions:
First: Will the Reform system, in your judgment, promote
the efficiency and economy of the service and tend to remove political
abuses P
To which my reply is that in my judgment it will.
Second : And will you, if elected, aid in the enforcement of
the law to which we call your attention, to the end that officers under
the City Government shall be filled by none but honest and fit persons?
To which my reply is that I shall.
Yours very truly,
W. R. GRACE.
COMPTFOLLER. * ,
NEW YORK, Oct. 25, 1884.
George William Curtis, AEsq., Evereſt P. Wheeler, Esq., William Potts
Asſy. -
GENTLEMEN:—
Your favor of the 22d inst. On behalf of the New York Civil
Service Reform Association submitting for my consideration and answer
the two questions recited below, came to hand yesterday.
In answer to your first question, “Will the reformed system in
your judgment promote the efficiency and economy of the service and
tend to remove political abuses P”, I have to say I consider it will.
In reply to your second question, “And will you, if elected, aid
in the enforcement of the law to which we call your attention, to the
end that offices under the City Government shall be filled by none but
honest and fit persons P”, I say that such is my purpose.'
Very respectfully yours,
- FDWARD W. LOEW.
*4
5
PRESIDENT BOARD OF ALDERMEN.
Oct. 24, 1884.
Messrs. George W. Curtis, Everett P. Wheeler, and William Potts.
GENTLEMEN :
Replying to your communication of the 22d inst. I would state
that I am heartily in favor of the provisions of the law of 1884 relating
to Civil Service; that the reformed system will, in my judgment, pro-
mote the efficiency and economy of the service and tend to remove
political abuses; and, if elected, I will aid in the enforcement of the law,
to the end that offices under the City Government shall be filled by none
but honest and fit persons.
Respectfully,
ADOLPH L. SANGER.
A copy of the following letter was sent to each of the candi-
dates for Congress from the State of New York, whose address could be
obtained :
CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM ASSOCIATION.
4 PINE STREET,
NEW YORK, Oct. 22, 1884.
SIR : *
On behalf of the Civil-Service Reform Association of New
York, and for the information of your constituents, we respectfully ask
your views, as a candidate for Representative in Congress, of the bill
for the repeal of the laws fixing the term of Collectors, District Attor-
neys, Marshals, and some other officers of the Federal Government at
four years. This repeal was unanimously recommended at the last
session by the Committee upon reform in the Civil Service.
We have the honor to transmit to you, with this circular, docu-
ments which show the scope of the laws referred to and the reasons for
*
6
their repeal; and we desire respectfully to ask whether, if elected, you
will favor the repéal.
Very Respectfully,
GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS,
EVERETT P. WHEELR,
WILLIAM POTTS.
The following replies were received from the candidates who have been
elected :
SECOND DISTRICT.
NEw York, Oct. 25, 1884.
Civil-Service A’eform Association,
GENTS:—
Your circular of the 22d inst. duly received. In reply I would
say that, if elected, my vote will be the same in the 49th as in the 48th
session of Congress, and that was in favor of the repeal of the law you
allude to.
Respectfully your
Obedient servant,
FELIX CAMPBELL.
THIRD DISTRICT. **
NEw York, Oct. 25, 1884.
Mr. William Potts, Secretary of Civiſ-Service Åeform Association, M. Y.
DEAR SIR :—
I am in receipt of circular of date of 22d inst. asking if I am
favorable to repeal of laws fixing term of office of Collectors, District
Attorneys, Marshals, and certain other officers of the Federal Gov't. at
four years. In reply I would say that I am and long have been an
earnest advocate of Civil Service Reform. My record warrants the
remark that I have practically stood by and advocated the existing laws
upon the subject. I presume I should see my way clear to vote for the
measure in question, and I promise to act with care and conscientiously
in the matter, in bringing the bill up for consideration, and voting upon
it if it comes up. I think there is an argument against as well as for
the change, but I will do what I think is in the best interest of Civil
Service Reform in this as in all matters.
Yours truly,
DARWIN R. JAMES.
7
EIGHTH DISTRICT.
NEW YORK, Oct. 24, 1884.
GENTLEMEN:—
My views are very thoroughly expressed about a better public
service in the public records. Being in the midst of a campaign, I
cannot tell you now what I think. What I desire is to have the merce-
nary element worked out of politics. In this, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Wheeler,
and Mr. Potts will coincide.
Yours truly,
Messrs. GEO. W. CURTIS, . S. S. COX.
E. P. WHEELER,
WILLIAM POTTS.
TENTH DISTRICT.
Oct. 24, 1884.
George Wiſ/ia/, Curſis, AEvereſt P. Whee/er, Wiſ/ia/, /offs, Committee,
AVo. 4 Pine St., City.
GENTLEMEN:—
In reply to your circular letter of the 22d instant asking whether
I am in “favor of the repeal of the laws fixing the terms of collectors,
district-attorneys, marshals, and some other officials of the Federal
Government for four years,” I reply that I have been the earnest sup-
porter of the repeal of these laws, and, if re-elected, will earnestly en-
deavor to secure it.
Very respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
ABRAM. S. HEWITT.
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT.
RIVERSIDE Ave. & 88th STREET,
NEw York, Oct. 31, 1884.
Messrs. George William Curtis, Everett P. Wheeler, and William Potts.
In reply to your favor of the 22nd inst., I beg to say that I am
in favor of reform in the Civil Service and of the repeal of such laws as
are obstructive of reform.
Very truly yours,
EGBERT L. WIELE.
FIFTEENTH DISTRICT.
CoRNWALL, N. Y., Oct. 25, 1884.
If my recollection serves me right, the Bill referred to above
was up in the last session and I voted in its favor.
LEWIS BEACH.
TWENTY-SIXTH DISTRICT.
BINGHAMTON, Oct. 25, 1884.
DEAR SIRS :—
Your printed letter of the 22d inst. at hand. I happen to be
one of the Committee on reform in the Civil Service, and was present
when the Committee considered the bill for the repeal of the laws re-
' ferred to in your letter, and voted not only to report the bill favorably to
the House, but for the passage of the bill when it came on for final action
in the House. The bill was opposed by both sides of the House, but
there is a determination on the part of every member of the Committee
to make another effort and secure its passage if possible.
Very truly,
S. C. MILLARD.
TO GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS.
EVERETT P. WHEELEER.
WILLIAM POTTS.
George William Curtis, President.
Everett P. Wheeler, Chairman of Executive Conn. Ira Bursky, Treasurer, and Chairman of Finance Com.
E. L. Godkin, Chairman of Publication Com. Carl Schurz, Chairman of Com. on Legislation.
William Potts, Secretary.
STR
%; CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM ASSOC] ATION, A y.
A3 4 PINE STREET, NEW YORK.
Sept. 3, 1884.
An impression seems to have gained some
currency both within and outside the Association
that its name and influence are being used in the
interest of one of the candidates for the Presidency
of the United States. Such is not the case. There
is a Constitutional provision which excludes such a
use, and, were this not so, the officers and Executive
Committee would still be absolutely opposed to the
advocacy, by the Association, of the cause of any
candidate. It is in no way responsible for the
personal opinions or individual political action of
any of its members. -
GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS, President
WILLIAM POTTS, Secretary
> . I
, C.J. 3
A 3
NO. 4 PINE ST., NEW YORK.
DEAR SIR,
The following Bill, carefully prepared by its Committee on Legisla-
tion, was unanimously adopted by the Executive Committee of the
º * e- º /. gº
N. Y. Civil-Service Reform Association at its meeting on Jan. 9, 1884,
->" //
and instructions were given to the Sub-Committee to take innmediate
steps for its introduction into Congress.
Yours very truly,
WILLIAM POTTS,
- Sec.
A BILL
to repeal certain sections of the Revised Statutes and for
Other purposes.
BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and House of Repre-
sentatives of the United States of America in Con-
gress assembled :
Section I. All those portions of the following sec-
tions of the Revised Statutes of the United States, to wit:
Sections 769, 1864, 22 17, 2244, 2613, and 3830, which
fix the term of office of the officers therein mentioned at
four years, are hereby repealed. Provided, however, that
the provisions of this act shall not apply to any of the
officers mentioned in the said sections, now in office, who
has given any official bond for the faithful discharge of
his duties as such officer, nor shall his tenure of office be
in any wise affected by the provisions of this act.
Section 2. The Chief Justice and the Associate Jus-
tices of the Supreme Court of every Territory hereafter
to be appointed shall be appointed to hold office during
good behavior or until the Territory shall be admitted as
a State, and all the other officers affected by the provis-
ions of this act shall hereafter be commissioned and hold
office during the pleasure of the President.
Section 3. Every officer affected by the provisions
of this act who is now required to give an official bond,
shall, before entering upon the duties of his office, give a
bond to the United States, with one or more sufficient
sureties, for the true and faithful discharge of the duties
thereof according to law. The said bonds shall be in
such form and under such penalty, and filed in such
offices, as is now provided by law in the case of each of
such officers, and such bonds shall be renewed once, in
three years.
A. J George William Curtis, President.
, C S 8
Everett P. Wheeler, Chairman of Executive Com. Ira Bursley, Treasurer, and Chairman of Finance Com.
E. L. Godkin, Chairman of Publication Com. Carl Schurz, Chairman of Com. on Legislation.
William Potts, Secretary.
civil-SERVICE REFORM Association, Wy.
4 PINE STREET, NEW YORK.
\
Aug. 26, 1884.
/*OA’ O/7/7/CAE-A/O/L/O/7/0.S.
Sir.
We understand that a circular has recently been sent to federal
office-holders, by authority and direction of the Republican National
Committee, asking for contributions for funds to be used by said
National Committee in the present political campaign; and it is said
that a circular of the same general character has been issued by the
Democratic National Committee. We are informed that similar requests
have been made by State Committees and other political organizations.
We desire to inform you that, in the opinion of counsel, you, as an office-
holder, are liable under Section 15 of the Act entitled “An Act to
regulate and improve the Civil Service of the United States,” approved
January 16, 1883, to punishment by fine or imprisonment, or both, in
case you make the payment requested, should any member of the Com-
mittee by which, or by the authority of which, the request is made, be
an officer of the United States Government. Section 14 of that Act
distinctly provides as follows: “That no officer, clerk, or other person
“in the service of the United States shall, directly or indirectly, give or
“hand over to any other officer, clerk, or person in the service of the
“United States, or to any Senator or Member of the House of
“Representatives, or Territorial Delegate, any money or other valuable
“thing on account of or to be applied to the promotion of any political
“object whatever.” The National Civil-Service Reform League proposes
to bring the matter to the attention of the Attorney General and other
prosecuting officers of the United States.
You are also informed that under Rule 23 of the Civil-Service
Rules, as promulgated by the President, every violation by any officer
in the executive civil service of this section of the civil service act is good
cause for removal.
We will only add that we do not call your attention to these pro-
visions of the statute and of the Rules for the purpose of promoting
the success of any of the political candidates. The whole object of the
civil service movement is to take out of politics the subordinate civil
offices of the government, to “promote efficiency and integrity in the
discharge of official duties, and to maintain proper discipline in the pub-
lic service.” In this connection we beg to call your attention to the fol-
lowing language of Mr. Chief Justice Waite, in delivering the opinion of
the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex Parte Curtis, Ioff U. S.
Rep., 371 -—“A feeling of independence under the law conduces to
“faithful public service, and nothing tends more to take away this feel-
“ing than the dread of dismissal.”
To set those in the official service of the United States free from
dependence upon political favor, and enable them to devote their entire
energies to the service of the government, for which labor their compen-
sation should be no more than adequate, is what we have from the first
endeavored to accomplish. The people of this country may be satisfied
that whatever political changes may occur in the administration of the
government, and whatever party may be in power, we shall use our ut-
most endeavors to secure the honest and impartial administration of the
civil service law and the rules promulgated by the President in pursuance
of it. *s
GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIs,
A'esident.
EVERETT P. WHEELER,
Chair. Ex-Com.
WILLIAM POTTS,
Secretary
For the New York Civil-Service Reform Association.
JR - * / 2/3 *
(, 74
C. s? %22+… zºz. & 22 S”---, 42-22-cºa 2.
3
(','º','! . . ; / ºr ſº "? / . . . º º / -
T WHAT THE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS
REALLY ARE. -
To correct certain misapprehensions and misstatements
in regard to the scope and character of the competitive ex-
aminations of applicants which have been held at the Cus-
tom-house in New York, the Civil-Service Reform Associa-
tion reprints two authentic statements. The first is from
the New York Evening Post of March 13, 1882, containing
the precise questions asked at an examination for admission
to clerkships with a salary of $1,200. The second is from
the New York Times of April Io, 1882, and contains the
questions at an examination for promotion to clerkships
with a salary of $2,000 in the “Liquidating Department’’
of the Naval Office. The articles show the difference be-
tween the general requirements for admission to the lower
grade of clerkships, and the technical and particular knowl-
edge required for promotion, a knowledge which is to be
obtained only by experience in a special department.
It should be understood, however, that in printing this
statement of the requirements which have been made in
the New York Custom-house in specific cases, the Associa-
tion does not make itself responsible for the various details,
but appears as the advocate of a method. For the pºr-
poses of the public service, an examination is inter:ded £o
ascertain the fitness of the person to perform-specific
duties, his general information and intelligence,—and his
* >
-* ~ *- ... - Sº
**
SJ / / ~
ºf f
^*.
** *
- ~ : * ~ N / *
~
* º
2 COMPAE 7/7"I WA: EXAM/AWA 7TWOAVS.
capacity with a view to possible future promotion. Ques-
tions should therefore be arranged in such a way as to elicit
information upon these points, and they should be rated ac-
cording to their relative importance. Experience will
doubtless be necessary to determine the best form of ex-
amination in all its details, while the examinations here
given deserve careful consideration, because, though experi-
mental in the main, they have been entirely satisfactory in
practical application.
Ever since the civil-service rules went into effect, a favorite
weapon of their opponents has been the assertion that the ques-
tions propounded to candidates for appointment were of a pre-
posterous character, not fitted in any way to test an applicant’s
fitness for the duties he wished to perform, and relating to mat-
ters with which only a college graduate could be expected to be
familiar. Ridicule has been largely employed, and it has been aver-
red that a man was deemed unfit for a $1,200 clerkship who was un-
able to answer questions concerning Sanscrit etymology or dates
in the Peloponnesian war; that a would-be inspector must be in-
timately acquainted with Greek literature and the geography of
Central Africa ; and that no one could hope to fill the position of
a night inspector, or watchman, who was deficient in a knowledge
of inorganic chemistry or of Egyptian chronology. Unsuccessful
candidates have occasionally written letters to sympathetic news-
papers justifying these charges by their own experience, and it
would not be strange even if some friends of the reform system
had begun to wonder what foundation existed for these continued
attacks.- .
The Board of Civil Service Examiners at the Custom-house
have been so careful to prevent any possibility of special “cram-
ming "for an examination that they have not dared to trust their
lists of questions to a printing-office, but have had their papers
copied by the electric-pen process. They have, however, yielded
to a request that the public might be permitted to see, and judge
~~
*_- - - -
COMPAE 7/7”/ WAE AEXAM/AWA 7TWOAVS. 3.
for itself, the kind of examination adopted, and have consented to
the publication of the full lists of questions used at the last exam-
ination in January. This examination was for admission to the
service in all of the three classes subject to the rules—clerks, in-
spectors, and night inspectors. In the examinations for promo-
tion the questions are chiefly of a technical character, relating to
matters within the competitors' official experience.
At every examination the candidates for admission to the service,
whose papers are known to the examiners by a desk number only,
are required to fill out blanks containing the following questions :
1. Desk number 2 2. Residence 2 3. Place of birth P 4. Date
of birth 2 5. State briefly as to your education. 6. What busi-
ness or professional experience have you had 2 7. Have you pro-
ficiency in any foreign language 2 (A knowledge of foreign lan-
guages is not essential, but is desirable in certain positions.) 8.
Have you ever been in the service of the United States ?
The first exercise required of all candidates is copying from
dictation. The rule on this point is as follows: “The article to
be copied will first be read rapidly by one of the Examiners, to
give an idea of its character and scope, and will then be read
slowly in paragraphs, for copying. Attention should be given to
punctuation.” At the last examination the subject of dictation
was, for clerks, an extract from a report to Congress on the need
of a reformed civil service, while for inspectors and night inspec-
tors it was a paragraph from the Treasury Regulations in regard
to the duties of those officers.
At the January examination the following questions were then
submitted to the candidates for CLERKSHIPS :
NOTATION AND NUMERATION.
Express in figures the following amounts :
I. Thirty millions, three hundred and thirty-one.
2. Forty-one billions, two millions and five.
3. Express in words the following figures : 3000600. 4.
200002Ooooo.2. . .
4 COMPETITY VE EXAM/AVA 77OAVS.
Add the following amounts :
6 9 5 7 9 3 8 2 I
9 5 I 3 7 9 7 8 3
7 8 3 2 1 7 9 6 5
3 2 7 8 5 9 6 3 2
4 7 2 9 4 7 3 9 7
7 9 3 7 4 9 2 7 4
8 4 9 8 6 7 9 4 7
6 2 I 5 4 6 8 9 5
2 7 8 6 5 7 9 6 8
7 6 9 9 8 6 4 7 2
9 3 5 o 7 8 6 9 8
COMMON FRACTIONS.
1. What is the total quantity of molasses in 4 casks containing
respectively 55%, 31%, 27#, and 49+ gallons f
2. If I own # of 4% of a ship, and sell # of my share, how
much of the whole vessel will I have left P * *- -
3. A grocer having a capital of $10,000 invested # of it in tea
at # of a dollar per pound, ºr of the remainder in coffee at # of
a dollar per pound, and # of the rest in sugar at 5:#; cents per
pound, what quantity of each did he buy, and how much money
had he left P
4. The ownership of a vessel was divided as follows : A owned
†s, B 3 as much as A, C 4 times as much as B, D # as much as C,
and E all the rest. What was the share of each
5. A piece of silk exceeds # of a yard in width by # of an
inch. What is its actual width 2
DECIMAL FRACTIONS.
1. In a mass of alloy, weighing 291.42685 pounds, was found
4o.o.921 pounds of silver, 16o.o.9090 pounds of copper, 22.o.o.2
pounds of iron, and .42690o pounds of zinc. The remainder was
lead. What was the weight of the lead
CO//A2/E 7/77 WZZ EXAM/AVA 7TWOAVS. 5
2. A merchant bought 30 pieces of cloth, each containing 41.5
yards, for $3.875 per yard, and 25 pieces of 36.8 yards each for
$4.125 per yard. He sold the entire lot for $3.96 per yard. How
much did he gain or lose 2 \
3. An importer received a box of chemicals weighing 122.49
French grammes, each gramme containing 15.432 English grains,
on which he paid a duty of .oS of a dollar per grain. What was the
amount of duty -
4. A dealer exported 374.3190 bushels of corn, receiving in
exchange coal at the rate of 1 ton of coal for 15.124 bushels of
corn, How much coal did he receive 2
5. A merchant bought {} of ; of a cargo, and sold # of his
share. What part of the whole cargo did he sell, expressed in
decimals 2
APPLIED ARITH METIC.
I. What will $546.72 amount to in four years seven months
and nineteen days at 6 per cent. simple interest per annum ?
2. An importer sold part of a cargo of tea at 90 cents a pound,
and made a profit of 20 per cent on the cost price. He sold the
rest at $1.1o a pound. What per cent. did he make on the last
sale P
3. A and B formed a copartnership. A's original capital was
to B's as 5 is to 7. A withdrew # of his capital and B # of his.
Their profits were $5,650. How should it be divided on the basis
of the reduced capital P
4. A goldsmith melts together 12 ounces of gold 22 carats fine,
60 ounces 20 carats fine, and 24 ounces 14 carats fine. He sold
it at the rate of $16 per ounce of pure gold (24 carats fine). What
was its fineness, and what was the amount received P §
5. A merchant imported 120 tons of English iron, costing 1% d
per pound, on which he paid a duty of 20 per cent. The freight
was 5s. Sterling per ton. What was the total cost in United States
currency 2 (The ton weighs 2,240 pounds. The 4 sterling is
worth $4.8665.)
6. What is the value of 5oo sheets of copper weighing 20 ounces
6 COA/AA, 77/7/VA. A. YA ///AVA 7TWOAVS.
avoirdupois per square foot, measuring 48 inches long by 15 inches
wide, and worth $150 per ton of 2,240 pounds 2
GEOGRAPHY.
I. Name one important city in each State of the Union.
2. Name the great lakes, and the rivers connecting them.
3. Name the principal foreign and domestic ports on the Gulf
of Mexico.
4. What large river flows into the Gulf of Mexico, west of the
Mississippi ?
HISTORY.
I. Who is the reputed discoverer of the Mississippi River, and
by what body of men was it first explored 2
2. What important battles were fought during the Rebellion
on the soil of Tennessee ?
GOVERNMENT.
I. In what countries does republican or partly republican gov-
ernment prevail at the present time 2 -
2. By what authority may post-routes and post-offices be es-
tablished 2
GRAMMAR.
Correct the following examples of false syntax :
He had best have went at once.
Our hope as well as our ambition are excited.
The Presidents opinions commands respect.
Money is a source of happiness as well as misery.
This sort of examples are easy.
i
LETTER.
Write a letter upon the following subject, in length not less than
this page [a large foolscap sheet] : Give some account of the life
and services of Abraham Lincoln. -
COMA’/2 7TM 7TW VE AEXAAM/AWA 7TWOMS. 7
The following is a list of questions submitted to candidates for
appointment as INSPECTORS:
NOTATION AND NUMERATION.
Express in figures the following amounts :
:
term :
:
:
One million, one thousand and one.
Two hundred and fifty thousand and sixty.
Twenty millions and twenty thousand.
Express the following amount in words: 3oo3O3Ooo3o.
Add the following amounts :
9 2 6 5 7 9 8 I 4 3 9
3 6 9 4 o 7 6 8 4
7 5 5 6 I 9 2 7 2 3 o
I 2 6 8 7 9 8 6 4 3
3 2 7 4 8 9 6
3 6 8 9 6 7 5 5
7 6 5 2 o 7 5 9 8
2 3 5 7 3 4 6 7 2 3
I 9 5 7 2 I 3 8 7 5 9
6 7 8 9 7 5 6 3
COMMON FRACTIONS.
Add together the following fractions and reduce to lowest
#, #, #, #'s.
From # of 4% of #} take of # of ºy.
Multiply # of fºr of Hºg by # of #.
Divide # of # by 4 of #.
Reduce 164 to eights.
DECIMAL FRACTIONS.
Add $16 62%, $3695, $10.5 mills, $3 tº and 25 cents.
From the sum of $9,862 25% and $324.oo56 take $54.or 25.
Multiply 836.o.o.42 by .125.
Divide 602. Io by 30.oo5.
Reduce # to a decimal form.
8 COMPAE 7/77 WE A2 XAM/AVA 7TWOAV.S.
APPLIED ARITH METIC.
I. A customs officer seized a lot of smuggled tobacco, which
brought at the Marshal's sale $932.20, less expenses $112.05. The
officer was awarded 12% per cent, of the net returns. What did
he receive P p
2. A vessel loaded with coffee lost 20 per cent. of her cargo
and landed only 2,000 bags. How many had she at first 2
3. An inspector discharged a cargo of salt in tubs containing
5 bushels each. The cargo weighed 112 t., 2 cwt., I qr., Io lbs.
(ton 2,000 lbs.). The bushel weighs 80 pounds. How many times
were the tubs filled P
4. Give the total cost of a lot of iron weighing 54 t., I cwt.,
3 qr., 20 lbs., at $45 per ton of 2,000 lbs., adding duty at 33% per
Cent.
5. A man bought 3 hogsheads of molasses for $94.60 and
found that one-third the contents had leaked out. At what price
per gallon must he sell the remainder to secure a profit of $9.35
on the original purchase ? A hogshead contains 63 gallons.
GEOGRAPHY.
1. What large seaport of the United States is situated east of
Boston P
2. Name the States and Territories on the Pacific coast.
3. Which of the United States produces the most rice, and
which the most sugar P
4. What two large rivers of the United States flow into the
Gulf of Mexico 2 --
HISTORY.
1. What historical incident near Harper's Ferry, Va., prior to
the Rebellion had an important influence upon the secession idea
in the South 2 .
2. Name four of the most important battles during the Revo-
lutionary War.
COMPAE 7/77 WE EXAM/AVA 7TWOAV.S. 9
GOVERNMENT.
I. How are United States Senators chosen, what are the pre-
scribed qualifications, and how long do they serve 2
2. How is the number of members of the House of Repre-
sentatives determined 2
SYNTAX.
Write the corrected sentence beneath the example.
1. Laws may and sometimes is repealed.
2. A competitor's success depends upon their exertions.
3. Him that is diligent will succeed.
4. Some of the candidates done excellent.
5. He is more worthy than me.
Then followed the requirement of a letter written by the can-
didate, the rule being the same as in the case of clerks, except
that a different subject was chosen. At the last examination the
candidates for inspectorships were instructed to write some ac-
count of the East River Bridge, and its probable effect on the
cities of New York and Brooklyn.
The following is the series of questions proposed to candidates
for NIGHT INSPECTORSHIPS :
ARITFHMETIC.
1. Add the following sums :
9 8 6 4 3 2 7 8 5 6
5 7 9 o I 4 2 3
6 3 2 1 9 6 7 6 9
I 6 7 6 5 2 o 5
2 I O 5 o 3
2. Subtract 4503 from Io962.
3. Multiply 24642 by 98.
4. Divide 682682 by 22.
5. If one pound of coffee cost 33% cents, how much will 99
pounds cost 2
IO COMPE 7/7/VE EXAMINA 7 ſoys.
GEOGRAPHY, HISTORY, ETC.
1. Give the names of five cities which are located on the Hud-
son River.
2. Name five rivers in the United States.
3. Name ten Presidents of the United States.
4. What great naval hero captured Mobile during the Rebel-
lion ?
5. For what term of office is the President elected 2
It is the duty of every night inspector to make a written report
of any attempt at smuggling which may take place during his
watch. Suppose such an attempt to have been discovered by you
while on duty, and write a report to the Surveyor of the Port de-
scribing all the facts.
The rules of examination contain the following provisions :
“The Examiners will always be ready to explain any illegibility
or ambiguity in the questions. The answers must be written in
ink in the spaces following the questions. In answers to arithmeti-
cal questions, the process of reaching results must be clearly in-
dicated by the statement, in order that it may be ascertained
whether an error is one of computation or one of imperfect knowl-
edge.
“No names must be signed to the papers, but the competitor's
desk number must be written at the top of each sheet.
“Although quickness is regarded as an important element of
‘general aptitude,” competitors are warned not to slight their
work in order to gain time. When preferred, the word ‘declined ’
may be written in lieu of a hopeless attempt to answer.”
The time allowed for the examination of the candidates in each
class is from 9 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. In considering the quickness
with which the work is performed, the Examiners have limited
the maximum mark of Ioo to papers completed by 12:30 P.M.,
making a deduction of 2 from this mark for every extra five
minutes employed. The maximum mark for the answers to all
questions and for the general standing of candidates is also Ioo,
the minimum general mark for a successful candidate being
COMPA2 7/7"/ WAE EXAM/AWA 7"/OAVS. I I
seventy-five. The following rules for marking papers have been
adopted by the Board of Examiners :
1. No process, and correct answer–deduct 25; 2. Fractions
not reduced—deduct Io ; 3. Correct answer with impracticable
process–deduct 25 ; 4. No process, and wrong answer, to count
o. 5. In decimals, wrong pointing off to count o. 6. Good pro-
cess—for each clerical error deduct Io. In dictation, deduct 5
for every error or omission, but allow Io for every fair attempt at
writing.
The Board have also adopted the following scale, fixing the
weight or importance to be attached to the various branches of
the examination in marking papers, so as to avoid as nearly as
possible any arbitrary or discretionary marking : &
For Clerks—Dictation, 2 ; notation, etc. (including addition),
2 ; fractions, 3 ; problems, 5 ; geography, etc., 2 ; syntax, etc.,
1 ; letter, 1 ; penmanship, 3 ; time, 2 ; general aptitude, 4.
Total, 25. -
For Inspectors—Dictation, 4 ; notation, etc., 3 ; fractions, I :
problems, 3; syntax, 1 ; geography, 2 ; letter, I ; penmanship, 3 }
time, 2 ; general aptitude, 5. Total, 25.
For Night Inspectors—Dictation, 4; arithmetic, 4 ; geography,
etc., 2 ; report, 2 ; penmanship, 4 ; general aptitude, 4. Total,
2O,
The following method has been adopted by the Board for de-
termining “general aptitude”: The total marks for all subjects,
including “time,” are added together, and divided by the number
of subjects. The quotient is then taken as “general aptitude,”
without the use of any discretionary estimate.
It is to be remembered that when the three highest candidates
on the list are reported to the Collector or Naval Officer, and one
of them is selected to fill a vacancy, this selection is not final. A
probationary term of service for six months is required in all
cases, and it is only after this practical test has proved satisfactory
that the Board of Examiners give the certificate necessary for a
permanent appointment.
I 2 COMPAE 7/7"I WA2 A3 (A MAVA 7TWOA/S.
CIVIL-SERVICE RULES.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO CANDIDATES AT A RECENT EXAMI-
NATION.
Below are the questions used March 21st in an examination of
candidates for promotion to the “liquidating department ’’ in the
New York Naval Office. It is in this department that the duties
on all entries of imported merchandise are finally adjusted on the
basis of the Appraiser's report. The work requires a general
knowledge of the tariff and of Customs regulations ; it involves
comparison, analysis, and difficult computations, a good mastery
of foreign weights, measures, and currencies, and general intelli-
gence. The questions are carefully framed, so as to elicit the kind;
of ability demanded in the position sought, and will be found of
interest to the general reader as well as,to the political economist.
Some of the problems, based upon actual Customs provisions,
illustrate very forcibly the absurd conditions of our complex
tariff. For instance, take “applied problem " No. 2, in which the
rate of duty depends upon actual cost. Three lots of wool are
specified in this problem, and the solution will exhibit facts quite
in consonance with the daily results of liquidation. On the first.
lot of wool, the value of which is $10,232 32, a difference of 41
cents in the total cost would produce a difference of $537 20 in
the amount of duty. On the second lot, value $49,978 88, a
difference of 7 cents in cost would reduce the duty $2,623 89,
while on the third lot, costing $5,792 64, a difference of 5 cents
would increase the duty $1,448 16. In problem 5, a variation of
. I of one pound in weight in one lot, and of .o.o.25 of one pound
in the other, would determine the classification for duty.
t
!
f
t
VU LG AR FRACTIONS.
I. On five hogsheads of Sugar, weighing respectively 9884%,
874++, 9354, 890+}, there was an allowance of #4 of each cask
for loss on the voyage of importation. What was the total duti-
able weight 2
COMPAE 7/7"I WA2 EXAM/AWA TVOAVS. I 3
2. Part of the contents of a bonded warehouse having been
injured by fire, Brown & Co. proved a loss on # of their
merchandise, and settled with the insurance company for $10,000
cash. They sold their damaged goods at half cost, realizing
$16,420. The sound portion they sold at a profit of 20 per cent.
on the cost. What was the total percentage of profit 2
3. A ship sails # of her voyage during the first week, 4 during
the second week, #5 during the third week, and 520 miles more,
reaching port at the end of the fourth week. At what average
rate per day must she sail P
4. A new locomotive on her trial trip ran # of a mile in 41+’s
seconds. How long would it take her to run from New York to
Philadelphia, the distance being 90% miles 2
5. A person bequeathed 4 of ºr of his estate to A, B, and C.
To A he gave #} as much as to B, and to B he gave #} as much
as to C, but C refused 4% of the amount coming to him and ac-
cepted only $20,000. How much was the whole estate worth 2
DECIMAL FRACTIONS.
I. A merchant withdrew from bonded warehouse at one time
975.2 yards of carpeting, at another time 450; yards, and left
642.9657 yards to be sold as unclaimed merchandise. How much
was there in all P
2. A man owning 4,280.0432 acres of land gave one of his
children .24 of the whole, to another .28, and the remainder to
another. How many acres did each receive 2
3. A manufacturer found that he could economize 14 pounds
out of every ton of material used. What decimal fraction of a
ton does that represent 2 (1 ton being 2,240 pounds.)
4. An importer got a damage allowance on a lot of silk of 6.25
per cent. The duty paid was 60 per cent. ad valorem. What did
he save on $10,000 of silk 2
5. A liquidating clerk spent 22.55 per cent. of his income for
rent, I 1.63 per cent. for clothing, 37.92 per cent. for food, 6.25
per cent for tobacco, or 6 per cent. for charity, and 58.25 per
I4. COMPAE 7/77 WE AEXAM/AVA 7TWOAVS.
cent. of the remainder for sundries. What per cent. would he
have left P
APPLIED PROBLEMS.
I. An invoice of steel bars contained 413 tons 18 hundred-
weight 3 quarters Io pounds, at £5 12s. 6d. per ton (no commis-
sions to be added), which was entered at 45 per cent. duty ad
valorem. The Weigher's return showed an increase in the weight
of 3 tons 4 hundred-weight I quarter I pound. By a decision of
the Secretary of the Treasury, the duty was changed to 2+ cents
per pound. What was the difference between the estimated and
the liquidated duty 2 The Custom-house ton, 2,240 pounds ; the
24, Sterling, $4.8665.
2. Make up the duty on the following invoice of wool : 14
tons 5 hundred-weight 2 quarters clothing wool, costing 24, 2,102
Ios. ; 69 tons 14 hundred-weight 2 quarters clothing wool, cost-
ing 24, Io,270 ; 21 tons II hundred-weight carpet wool, costing
24, 1,190 6s. (no commissions to be added). Clothing wool cost-
ing under 32 cents per pound pays Io cents per pound and II per
cent. ad valorem ; clothing wool costing over 32 cents per pound
pays 12 cents per pound and Io per cent. ad valorem ; carpet
wool costing over 12 cents per pound pays 6 cents per pound ;
carpet wool costing under 12 cents per pound pays 3 cents per
pound. -
3. Make up the duty on the following invoice at the rate of
5% cents per square yard and Io per cent. ad valorem (no com-
missions to be added): 750 pieces cottons, each 32 yards long
and 30 inches wide, at Is. I Id. per lineal yard ; 927 pieces cot-
tons, each 34 yards long and 31% inches wide, at 2s. 9d. per
lineal yard ; 2 Io pieces cottons, each 35 yards long and 32%
inches wide, at 3s. I+d. per lineal yard. The goods at 3s. Iłd.
per yard were advanced by the Appraiser to 3s. 4d. per yard.
All goods advanced Io per cent. above invoice value pay a penalty
equal to 20 per cent. additional duty.
4. State the total cost, including duty, of the following impor-
tation (adding commission at 24 per cent): 200 cases wine, 12
COMA’E 7/7'ſ WA: EXAM/AVA 7TWOAVS. I 5
bottles in a case, each bottle containing I litre, at 20 liras per
case ; 200 kilos of cheese at 50 rix marks per Ioo pounds ; 12
hogsheads ale, 120 imperial gallons each, at Is. Sterling per im-
perial gallon ; I litre = 1,025 quarts ; I lira = $.193 ; I kilo =
2.2046 pounds ; I rix mark = 23.82 cents ; I imperial gallon =
1.20 United States gallons. The duty on wine is $1.60 per case
of 12 bottles each containing I quart, and for any excess over I
quart in a bottle an additional duty of 5 cents for every pint or
fraction of a pint in excess. The duty on cheese is 4 cents per
United States pound. The duty on ale is 20 cents per United
States gallon.
5. Give the proper rates of duty to be charged on the follow-
ing worsted goods : 1 piece 1,219.4% metres long, 69 cm. wide,
weighing I 144*, kilos in all, and costing .855f. per mêtre, and I
piece 1,652 metres long, 120 cm. wide, weighing 268.866 kilos,
and costing 1.49f. per mêtre ; If. = $.193 ; I metre = 39.37
inches ; 1 cm. centimetre = +}r of 1 metre. The duty on
worsted goods is as follows : When costing under 20 cents per
Square yard, 6 cents per Square yard and 35 per cent. ad valorem;
when costing over 20 cents per square yard, 8 cents per square
yard and 40 per cent. ad valorem. But all weighing 4 ounces or
over per Square yard, pay 50 cents per pound and 35 per cent.
ad valorem.
GEOGRAPHY, ETC.
1. State some of the chief productions (including manufact-
ures) of each division of the United States, viz.: The Northern
(New England), Middle, Southern, Western, and Pacific States.
2. Name in order the 5 articles of import which produce the
largest Fevenue to the United States, and the 5 articles on the free
list which represent the greatest values imported, and name the
respective countries of production.
3. Name the ports in Europe which have direct communica-
tion by steam vessels with the United States.
4. Name the several routes by which merchandise is trans-
ported between New York and Hong Kong.
I6 COMA’AP 7/7"I WE EXA MZAVA 7TWOAVS.
5. What great mechanical inventions have affected commercial
methods and results during the past century P
6. What important wars have taken place on the continent of
North America P
7. By what authority is the constitutionality of any law de-
cided in the United States ?
8. What branches of the public service are under the jurisdic-
tion of the Secretary of the Treasury P
CUSTOMS QUESTIONS.
1. Pittsburg, Penn., is made a “Port of Delivery.” Being an
inland town, how can foreign merchandise be entered at the
Custom-house there 2
2. What is “Protest and Appeal,” and what is its effect if
granted, and what if refused ?
3. What are the official functions of the Surveyor of the Port 2
4. What is the value of a bill of lading in commercial trans-
actions f
5. What are the general duties of the Appraiser of the Port 2
6. In what cases are imported goods exempted from the pay-
ment of duty, and under what circumstances are duties rebated
or refunded ? -
7. What was the object of Congress in imposing discriminat-
ing duties on certain goods and vessels 2
8. What are manifests, and for what purpose are they filed in
the Custom-house 2
9. What are the penalties for fraud and for undervaluation in
invoices 2
Io. What is implied by the phrase “market value,” as used in
the tariff, and what constitutes “dutiable value " ?
PUTNAMS PRINT
. . . * **,
* /
/
A PRIMER OF CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.
THE Civil Service is that part of the service of the government which is not
military or naval. In the national administration of the United States it em-
braces more than one hundred thousand places which are mentioned in the
register called the Blue Book, but with these are to be included all kinds of
dependent places, which greatly swell the aggregate number. The annual
emoluments of the national Civil Service amount to more than sixty millions
of dollars.
Of this great number of offices or places, very few are political. Political
offices are those which are concerned with devising and enforcing a policy which
the people have approved at the polls. For example, legislative offices are
wholly political, but the greater part of the executive offices which make up
the Civil Service are not political. Their duties do not change with a change
of party administration. Whether the people elect a President who is friendly
to a high tariff or to a low tariff, the duties of the great multitude of clerks and
other officers in the postal or customs or Indian or land service, or in any other
branch of the government, are absolutely unaffected. It is not the policy of a
party, but the interest of all the people which these employés represent. There-
fore common sense requires that they should be selected solely for their fitness,
not for their politics, and that they should be removed only because of unfitness.
The Post Office is an excellent illustration of a non-political service. It is
the greatest of public business conveniences. Its duty is to receive and dis-
tribute to every part of the country, letters, newspapers, books, periodicals, and
parcels of every kind and for every purpose. But there is no political or party
way of doing this; and the routine does not change with a change of party
administration. Politics not only have nothing to do with it, but the moment
they are brought into it they injure it. All citizens resort to the Post Office,
and they are all taxed to pay its expenses. It is a public office, for the trans-
action of the specific business of receiving and transmitting mail matter, for the
whole public, no matter what their politics. The incumbent of it should find
no reason, in the situation of the service, to obtrude upon those who visit it
matters of party. But while the system of appointments to such offices is such
that the tenure of a postmaster's position depends, not upon the efficiency with
which he discharges the functions proper to his office, but upon the political
mplexion of the President, it will naturally follow that he will make the office
ome extent subservient to party ends—as serviceable as possible to the poli-
ns to whom he owes his place, and to whose aid he will look for securing a
1

prolongation of his tenure... . rse, when it is apparent, must necessarily
\ - *.
arouse the jealousy and party (ty of those who are of the opposite party.
Partisan strife cannot but be i ed by the fact that a public office is used
by its incumbent as a means to \te party ends; hence, whenever there is
a post office held by a partisan tenure, there is danger not only of a neglect of
public interests, but of intrigue and partisan strife. -
A noted politician in the State of New York acknowledged that the small
post offices were the stronghold of the dominant party throughout the State.
Yet in the character and business of a post office there is nothing whatever
political, and for the reasons just stated it is peculiarly a place which should be
kept free from the conflicts and passions of politics. There is no conceivable
public advantage to be gained by making it a party prize. No postmaster and
no postmaster's clerk is a more efficient officer or more acceptable to the public
because he is an active politician, and devotes himself to the interests of his
party instead of the public, in order to keep his place. It is obviously for the
public interest that every employé in the postal service should feel that his
retention and promotion depend upon his integrity, industry and efficiency, and
in no degree whatever upon his religious or political or scientific or philosophical
opinions. Of course, if he offensively obtrudes any of those opinions in any
way, he would be as justly and reasonably removed from the public service as
from any private employment.
This which is true of the postal service is equally true of the great multi-
tude of places in other branches of the public business. No good reason what-
ever has ever been offered why the incumbents of such places should be changed
with every party change of administration, and it is undeniable that they cannot
be so changed without serious evils. Among such evils is the necessary injury
to a service in which retention and promotion depend not upon the honesty,
ability, efficiency and good conduct of the officer, but upon the favor of another
person, which is gained not by faithful attention to the duties of the place, but
by personal and political services which are wholly unrelated to those duties.
Senator Ingalls, of Kansas, one of the most strenuous advocates of the spoils
system, says frankly:— 2
“There are thousands of men in my State whom I have never seen, yet who
make my course their own, who defend my acts and my words, who would fight
Ior me, who would sacrifice rest and spend money for me, who would get up at
midnight and ride a horse forty miles to set at work influence in my behalf.
Well, I am a very immoral politician. I want to give those men some of the
things we have won.” -
It is natural that Senator Ingalls should wish to reward those who have
served him. But why should he wish to pay them with the money of other
people? It is quite right that he should put his hand into his own pocket for
this purpose; but why should he put it into the public treasury Moreover,
not only are there not public places enough in his State to reward those who
render him a personal service, but if every Senator should make the same
claim they would leave very few places for the representatives and other public
officers, who have precisely the same right with the Senator to distribute pub
places as private rewards—that is, none at all. ---
The person who is appointed to the public service by the favor of a
3
l •
tician, upon whose errands he has run and whose personal fortunes he has
pushed, is naturally much more interested in pleasing his political patron than
in doing his duty effectively and honestly. Upon the investigation into the
notorious Swartwout swindles in the New York Custom House fifty years ago,
when the system advocated by Senator Ingalls was just beginning, the auditor
of the Custom House, when he was asked why he did not inform the Com-
mittee of the Senate that the Collector had not paid over to the Cashier $30,000
in his possession, replied frankly, “Because we clerks of the Custom House
consider ourselves in the service of the Collector, and not in the service of the
United States.” The Assistant Cashier declined to say anything, “in con-
formity with Custom House practice.” In the Hoyt investigation, ten years
later, the report, alluding to the employés in the Custom House says:—
“The Inspectors when absent from duty were generally engaged in election-
eering or in procuring the naturalization of foreigners in the interest of their
party, while a Custom House tax was regularly levied and paid in advance of
elections for City officers, Governors, and Representatives in the State Legis-
lature, for Members of Congress, and for President and Vice-President of the
United States. . . . A system of favoritism was uniformly extended to the
most violent political partisans, who earned their favor by their devotion to the
hand from which they received it.” - -
It is plain also that when public employment is regarded as ā proper payment
for personal and private services to members of Congress, they will enlarge the
public service in order to make places for them to distribute among their
favorites. Congress creates the public employments and appropriates the
money for salaries. In 1877 an investigation into the Bureau of Printing and
Engraving at Washington, which was a convenient asylum for the favorites
of members of Congress at the capital, disclosed the fact that fully a third of
the employés were superfluous. An inquiry into the New York Custom House
at the same time revealed a similar excess of useless employés, and in both
cases a large number of dismissals followed.
The result of such a system upon the public service is plain. But the evil
extends beyond the service. It affects the honesty of national politics by
making a general election a mere scramble for place and not a verdict upon a
public policy, which is the proper object of an election. A political party is a
voluntary association of voters who agree upon a public policy and organize
themselves to secure the election of legislators to enact laws in conformity to
that policy, and of executive officers to enforce such laws. The legitimate
methods of the party to obtain these results are addresses, arguments and
appeals to the intelligence of the country. The object is to win votes for the
policy. But whatever obscures that object tends to destroy the significance
of the election. If it be known that a majority has been secured by corruption
and bribery, it is evident that the election has no political significance. It does
not show whether the country approves or disapproves a particular policy.
It shows only that a number of voters large enough to decide the election have
been bought. The result is the same when millions of dollars, in the form of
the emoluments of place, are put up as prizes for party success at the polls.
The desire of securing a prize, that is, the money which a place represents,
will affect as many votes as are bought outright in the other cases, and thus the
4 tº-
election will equally fail to show the will of the people, which is the object of
an election.
This is all as true of the State and municipal service as of the service of the
national government. Indeed, the evils of a wholly partisan system are
nowhere more evident than in municipal administration. Ex-Mayor Low of
Brooklyn says truly, “A city is a business corporation rather than an integral
part of the State.” The proper business of a city government, the preserva-
tion of order by a police, the laying out and lighting and drainage and main-
tenance of streets, the management of charities and education and public parks,
and all its other functions, are as completely non-political as the business of
the national Post Office. But they are duties which require a great number of
employés of every kind, and which offer large opportunities of extravagance
and corruption and fraud. Such knavery is the more probable in cities because
of the larger proportion of ignorance, shiftlessness, and low moral tone in a
city population. Moreover, the fact that our great cities retain a large per-
centage of the most worthless part of the foreign immigration, which knows
nothing of American principles or institutions, which has no intelligent sym-
pathy with popular government or knowledge of its methods, much of which
can hardly understand our language, and which is therefore easily made the
prey of dishonest demagogues, make it all the more indispensable to surround
the government of the city with every practical safeguard which reason and
experience suggest.
It is agreed that the one practical problem which has thus far been least
satisfactorily solved in this country is the government of great cities. There
are more extravagance and waste and loss, there is the least public gain for the
enormous outlay, there are proportionally more fraud and corruption, in muni-
cipal administration than in any other. This is chiefly due to the fact that it
is intrusted to the control of political parties which are organized for objects
that have no connection whatever with city affairs, and which use for personal
and party advantage the various opportunities offered to them in municipal
administration. What could be more inconsistent with the reasonable prin-
ciples which govern the conduct of ordinary business than a recent decision of
the City Committee on Public Grounds and Buildings in Richmond, Va., that
the employment of stone-cutters, mechanics and laborers for work upon the
City Hall should be determined, by their political proclivities? If the Western
Union Telegraph Company, or any great railroad corporation, should adopt
such a rule, the stockholders would interfere and the management would be
universally pronounced unfit for its trust. The Tweed ring in New York is
the most conspicuous and familiar illustration of this abuse. But it was the
political and partisan basis and theory of the city government which made the
enormous crimes of that ring practicable. .
The city being but a great corporation for specific purposes, the safeguard
for its welfare which first suggests itself is the conduct of municipal adminis-
tration upon the general business principles which are observed by other cor-
porations. The substitution of the system of selecting city employés by proved
character, qualification and competency, for the system of appointment by
personal and political favoritism, is the first indispensable step in the establish-
ment of municipal administration upon a sound basis. The beginnings of such
5
a change, which have been made in New York, Brooklyn, Boston and a few
other cities, prove incontestably the entire practicability and the great benefit
of the change. This is true, indeed, of every department of the National,
State, or municipal government in which it has been introduced. The testimony
even of partisan heads of offices leaves no doubt whatever upon this point, and
it is not surprising because there is nothing mysterious, or whimsical, or theo-
retical, in the reformed system. It is applied common sense. It does in the
public service only what every intelligent and sagacious merchant or manu-
facturer, or manager of any great industrial enterprise, would do in the conduct
of his own affairs. . -
Now, is there any sound argument in favor of what is known as the spoils
system 2 Does the conversion of non-political public places into party prizes
secure a better public service? Is a man a more intelligent or efficient clerk
or employé because he was appointed for the purpose of rewarding him for
service to a politician, and not because he has shown himself better fitted for
his place than others? Is a postmaster a more satisfactory officer to the whole
community because he owes his office to the recommendation of a party com-
mittee or of a member of Congress? What is the reasonable way of selecting
for any employment one person from a crowd of fifty applicants? Is it not to
choose the one who seems to be most intelligent, and then to prove, by trial,
his fitness for the particular duty required 2 Is it not the worst possible way
to select the one whom some person recommends because the applicant has
rendered him a personal service with the purpose and expectation of receiving
the employment as his reward? There can be but one rational reply to these
questions.
But it is not argued or pretended that the spoils system secures a more
honest, efficient, or economical service. If that could be established, the con-
troversy would end at once. The spoils system is defended by two allegations:
one that our government is one of parties, that party organization and efficiency
can be maintained only by pecuniary rewards, and therefore that all places in
the public service must be treated as party prizes. In other words, that to the
victors belong the spoils. This is the first assertion. The second is, that
appointment by merit, ascertained by fair and equal methods open to all, and
removal only for the benefit of the service, would be un-American and un-
Democratic, and would create a privileged class or aristocracy, which is foreign
to the spirit of our institutions.
Let us consider these assertions. As a matter of fact, proved by experience,
parties are organized and maintained not by the hope of pecuniary reward in
the form of patronage, but for the purpose of establishing a national policy to
which the patronage is not essential. In the election of 1884, the party under
which the patronage had enormously increased, which had used it to the utmost
for its own benefit, and which, for a quarter of a century, had practically pro-
scribed the other party from any share in it, was nevertheless defeated by the
other party, which had no patronage whatever, and which, despite an equally
partisan use of it, had been also defeated twenty-five years before. In the
election of 1888, the party which had been successful without patronage in 1884
was defeated when in possession of all the patronage. In these instances the
overthrow of the dominant party was mainly due to the corruption and weak-
* ºr
ness consequent upon treating the patronage as spoils. In other words, the
practice of maintaining party organization by pecuniary bounties in the form of
patronage did not prevent the defeat of the party, but was one of the chief
causes of its defeat.
The experience of England also, which is governed by party, disproves the
assertion that parties can be effectively maintained only by pecuniary rewards
of place. Parties are as highly organized, and party spirit is as intense in Eng-
land as in this country. But the greatest party leader in England, Mr. Glad-
stone, declares that patronage is more injurious than helpful to a party, and he
adds that in England not more than seventy offices are changed by a party
change of administration. -
But if the American people should decide that the whole public service,
whether political or not, should change with every party change in the execu-
tive, in other words, that every place, including that of boatmen in the Cus-
tom House barges, and messengers and scrub women in the public offices,
should be regarded as the spoils of the victors, they would belong equally to
all the victors. In the late election there were nearly 5,200,000 votes cast for
the successful candidate. Every one of these voters contributed to the success
of the party. Every one is equally entitled, therefore, to his share in the
division of the spoils, or to allot it to some one whom he selects. If it be said
that some contributed more than others, the reply is, that there is no possible
way of deciding degrees of such service unless some definite money standard
be erected. Everybody who voted for the successful candidate and who wishes
an office declares, and his friends declare, that he did all that he could do, and
no man can do more. If the places are to be regarded as belonging to the
victorious party, he is one of that party, and has his equal claim to share in
the booty. Nobody is entitled to exclude anybody else from his share. A
member of Congress, or a party committee, or a leading politician, has no
authority whatever to decide that one voter shall be rewarded and that another
voter shall not. If the spoils belong to the victors, and ten victors demand the
same post office, it follows that, as the administration is sure to continue only
for four years, every one of the ten, under this rule, is entitled to hold the
office for about twenty weeks, unless other victors should prefer their equally
valid claims to the same prize, in which case the term of holding must be pro-
portionately reduced.
This is, of course, absurd, and the absurdity shows the folly of the practice
of making political views or party fealty or activity the condition of appoint-
ments to the public service. The impossibility of distributing places equit-
ably among all those who claim a place leads to the sheer favoritism and
injustice from which spring the anger and dissatisfaction and revenge which
make the patronage a source of weakness to the party.
The second allegation is, that a system of appointment by proved merit and
removal for some cause connected with the service is un-American, un-Demo-
cratic, and aristocratic. But why it is un-American and un-Democratic to
select clerks by ascertaining their qualifications in actual trial of the duties
to be discharged, and peculiarly American and Democratic to permit politicians
to quarter upon the public Treasury the men who run their errands, any
Senator of the United States may be safely defied to show. Nothing is so
',
American and Democratic as fair play, and what is such fair play in regard to
the public employment as that everybody shall enter it upon the same terms?
Under what is known as the spoils system, or appointment for political reasons,
no man, however intelligent and honest and capable, can be appointed unless
he has a “political pull.” That means, the favor of some influential politician.
Such a class is comparatively a very small part of the people of the country.
It is probably not more than 50,000 of the 5,000,000 and more of voters of
the successful party, which is a liberal estimate of the leading party politicians
and their immediate dependents. So far as the Civil Service is concerned,
they form a privileged class, from which all the rest of the people in the
country and in the party are excluded. -
How is an aristocracy or privileged class created by providing that every-
body who desires to be appointed to a place in the public service may apply for
examination to ascertain his qualification for the place he seeks, and, as places
are few and applicants many, that the one who shows himself by actual service
best qualified for the duties shall be appointed, and that he shall be removed
whenever the appointing officer thinks that the good of the service requires his
removal? Such an employé has no more privilege than a day laborer. So
long as he does the work of the people well, he is retained by their direction.
When he is negligent or unsatisfactory, he is dismissed by their agent. If this
be aristocratic, it is an aristocracy which exists in every private office and
workshop in the country. The public employé who is appointed has no wested
or special right in his office, as a journeyman and working carpenter in a house
has no vested right to the task to which he is assigned by the builder. The
public work must be done by somebody, and the reformed system is only an
order of the people that it shall be done not by those for whom politicians wish
to provide at the public expense, but by those who have shown that they can
do the work best, and who shall be employed as long as they continue to do it
well. If there be anything more fair and simple and reasonable, and therefore
more American and Democratic, than such a system of the public service, it
has not yet been proposed. -
The examinations are alleged to be difficult and abstruse, and it is said that
even members of Congress could not get into the Custom House if they were
obliged to pass them. This is merely an intentional or ignorant misrepresenta-
tion. The law requires that the examinations shall be practical and related to
the duties of the place. Their main object is to ascertain which one of a crowd
of applicants is the best informed in regard to those duties, and most versed in
the general knowledge essential to their proper performance. He is then put
upon probation, and if he shows that his practical ability is equal to his infor-
mation he is appointed. Does any intelligent American citizen deny that such
a method is better than that of allowing members of Congress, and party com-
mittees, and local politicians, to make such appointments at their pleasure and
for personal and party purposes? ~
Undoubtedly, examinations have been sometimes foolish, and the law has
been evaded in order to benefit a particular person. But this is the misfortune
of all laws. Laws against stealing do not prevent thieving, and examinations
of machinery do not correct all defects. But nobody doubts that such laws and
examinations are of the greatest benefit. The public service is not the service
} 8
#
w
of a party, but of all the people. Good citizens, therefore, will consider how it
can be performed with the greatest efficiency and economy, and with the least
injury to political morality and the public welfare. However strongly attached
to a party they may be, they know that there are certain great common public
interests which should be protected from the ravages of party spirit. The
public schools and charities are such interests, and such an interest also is the
whole minor routine administration of the public business which is called the
Civil Service. A reform in that service which requires appointments in it to be
made only for merit ascertained by simple and rational means, and removals to
be made for the same reasons that govern removals in private business, is dis-
tinctively the people's reform.—CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ASSOCIATION, 33
Liberty Street, New York.