351-Ucfnd 
 
 ) | aijLt y\ (& } 4 C r Jl o f2tu &T *W bjlA 
 
 *■■“ r * »i. 
 
 UN‘VE>SiTV .»i ; ; . u ;r ; 
 
 
 X 
 
 AN OPEN LETTER 
 
 To the Honorable Lyman J. Gage, 
 
 SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 
 
 IN REPLY TO 
 
 CERTAIN STATEMENTS CONCERNING 
 THE RECENT CHANGES 
 
 In the Civil Service Rules . 7 
 
 July 11, 1800. 
 
 tf WVERS/7y 
 
 GF ’LUHOIS LiiiRARv 
 
 SEP 3 0 1915 
 
 
 \ 
 
X 
 
 ▼ 
 
 4 
 
fcCW/O 
 
 to.jp 
 
 AN OPEN LETTER. 
 
 OFFICE OF THE 
 
 NATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE REFORM LEAGUE, 
 
 54 WILLIAM ST., NEW YORK. 
 
 July ii , i8qg. 
 
 To the Honorable Lyman J. Gage, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury: 
 
 Sir: —The Civil Service Reform League, on June 5, pub¬ 
 lished a review of the recent Civil Service order of the Presi¬ 
 dent, explaining its scope and effect, and declaring that “ a back¬ 
 ward step of the most pronounced character” had been taken. 
 You have since, in an authorized interview, characterized cer¬ 
 tain of the statements contained in that review as “ malicious 
 misrepresentations,” as “ absolute falsehoods,” and, again, as 
 “ false interpretations having basis only in the wish to find 
 something in the action of the President to condemn.” 
 
 The question of motive which you have seen fit to raise 
 might safely be disregarded. The President knows, and no 
 doubt you know, or can easily learn, how earnestly and re¬ 
 peatedly the League and its affiliated organizations protested 
 against the deplorable measure that has been adopted, or, to 
 speak more correctly, against a measure of the same general 
 character, but of far narrower scope, which he was understood 
 to contemplate. If, with this knowledge, it is supposed that 
 the recent action was inspired only by “ the wish to find some¬ 
 thing to condemn ” in the President’s official conduct, discus¬ 
 sion of the subject with you must be fruitless. On the other 
 hand, I do not believe that the public is interested to know 
 why our statements were made, but whether those statements 
 are true or false, and what are the nature and the need of the 
 present situation. 
 
 It is of considerable importance, however, that the public 
 should understand what has been your own attitude towards 
 the Civil Service law and rules since you took office. You 
 then announced that the law would be upheld by every means 
 within your power, that it would be your chief aim “ to see 
 that a business-like administration is given the country so far 
 as the duties devolving upon the Secretary of the Treasury are 
 
concerned,” and that your appointments would be exclusively 
 “ with regard to merit, and not political obligations.” Many 
 worthy citizens, recalling this pledge, but ignorant as to man¬ 
 ner in which it has beerf kept, doubtless still believe that your 
 official course has been consistently in accord with it, and at¬ 
 tach no little weight to your assurances regarding the harmless¬ 
 ness of the new order. It is in every way desirable that such 
 citizens should form their judgment in the premises with know¬ 
 ledge of the facts, and in addressing you publicly, as I now 
 do, I shall first point out what has been, under the present ad¬ 
 ministration, the attitude of the Treasury Department: 
 
 THE INTERNAL-REVENUE SERVICE. 
 
 You found the Internal Revenue Service wholly subject 
 to the Civil Service rules. With the exception of the princi¬ 
 pal deputyships—one in each of the sixty-three districts—all 
 of the subordinate offices in that highly important branch 
 were to be filled, when vacancies occurred, only through com¬ 
 petitive examinations or by promotion. Experience had shown 
 that the force engaged in the levying and collection of the in¬ 
 ternal taxes should not only be as well trained and as per¬ 
 manent as possible, but free from political dependence of any 
 sort. The classification of the service had been ordered with 
 this end in view. Nothing hindered the weeding-out of in¬ 
 competents; that was to be encouraged. It was required 
 merely that new appointments should be made after careful 
 tests of character and fitness, and with the guarantee to the 
 person accepting appointment that he would be retained so 
 long as his duties were efficiently and faithfully performed. 
 The furnishing of bonds, the usual guarantee against losses 
 through dishonesty, was required as a matter of course in 
 every case. By these means it was expected that the expert 
 organization needed so urgently would be developed. When, 
 as a result of the Spanish war, the internal taxes became the 
 chief source of the government income, the need of this sys¬ 
 tem became even more manifest. Following the incoming of 
 the new administration, however, there were sweeping changes 
 in the force of agents and clerks known commonly as “ dep¬ 
 uty collectors,” in many districts. The new appointments 
 were made generally in open disregard of the Civil Service 
 
3 
 
 law, and in most cases, for political reasons. • One collector, 
 in the Nashville district, admitted under oath that he had 
 been governed by political considerations, and the same frank 
 admission was publicly made by others. After a number of 
 these violations were brought to the attention of the Treas¬ 
 ury Department, especial instructions were sent to collectors 
 bidding them to comply with the lav/; but without appar¬ 
 ent effect. 
 
 In July, 1897, the President altered the situation some¬ 
 what by excepting 500 of these employees through an order, 
 which was erroneously believed at the time to have extended 
 the area of the classified service. On the same date the rule 
 forbidding arbitrary removals was promulgated, and a second 
 circular was issued by the Commissioner of Internal Rev¬ 
 enue, pointing out the application of this to all positions re¬ 
 maining classified ; this, too, had no effect. At various times 
 it was suggested to you and to the President that offending 
 collectors be removed; but in no case was such action taken. 
 Finally, in September, 1897, when the practice of violation 
 had become almost general, all effort to enforce the law within 
 the department was abandoned. Although this was twenty 
 months before the signing of the recent order excepting all 
 deputies, the force was thereafter treated as though actually 
 outside the classified service. The Civil Service Commission 
 continued to hold investigations where complaints were made, 
 and to submit its recommendations for the correction of the 
 • evils arising, but the status remained unchanged. In the 
 course of one of these proceedings—that at Lancaster, Pa.— 
 the results of the political method of filling these offices 
 were strikingly shown by the testimony of a special agent 
 of the Treasury, as follows: 
 
 The extent of the revenue paid depends very largely upon the effi¬ 
 ciency of the deputy collectors. The present system of treating places 
 as party spoils results in failure to secure an adequate observance of the 
 revenue laws. ... A new man, unfamiliar with the difficult and techni¬ 
 cal work of a deputy, would hardly succeed in collecting twenty per 
 cent, of the amount due the government, especially under the war rev¬ 
 enue lav/. ... I called on one of the deputies to go with me to visit 
 some of the wholesale liquor-dealers in York. The fellow actually did 
 not know who the wholesale liquor-dealers in the city of York were. 
 
4 
 
 He did not know whether they had paid special tax as wholesale dealers, 
 or whether they had paid as retail dealers, and yet this city was his 
 headquarters, and had been for four years. 
 
 This man, who had been appointed before these places 
 had been classified, was clearly a fit subject for removal. 
 The same agent also testified, however, that the Collector 
 had admitted to him his intention to u put his political friends 
 into the offices of Deputy Collector, if the President would 
 rescind or modify the existing rules.” This was early in the ad¬ 
 ministration. The Collector, following the example of others, 
 did not wait for the modifying order. He proceeded to make 
 the majority of his appointments, in his own way; though it 
 is true that he has made still other changes since the order ap¬ 
 peared. For the future it may be expected that the entire 
 force will be liable to complete disorganization in this manner, 
 with each change of party. 
 
 You have said that this revival of the spoils system in the 
 Internal Revenue Service and the rejection of the merit plan, 
 have been excusable for the reason that, “ according to the 
 highest legal opinion, the Treasury Department could get ”— 
 which it seems could have been discovered only after the 
 greater part of the mischief had been done—these officers 
 should not have been included in the classification. If a 
 lawyer has been found who supports the proposition that the 
 law granting the power to appoint is not modified by the lat¬ 
 ter enactment of the Civil Service law, fixing the viethod of 
 appointment, the public would be interested to learn his name 
 and his views. The Attorney-General, to whom application 
 was first made, declined to give an opinion. The Civil Ser¬ 
 vice Commission, on the other hand, produced the opinions 
 of a number of leading lawyers, including a former President 
 of the American Bar Association, and a former Solicitor- 
 General, all to the effect that the application of the law was 
 unquestionable. To advance the theory in any case that a 
 statute that is in operation may be ignored merely because 
 some interested person has challenged its validity is an un¬ 
 usual, not to say a revolutionary proceeding. 
 
 The disregard of the law in this branch of the Treasury 
 Department during the past two years has served, in many 
 
5 
 
 parts of the country, to bring the entire Civil Service system 
 into disrepute. 
 
 THE WAR EMERGENCY APPOINTMENTS. 
 
 Since the opening of the war with Spain, the number of 
 appointments in the Washington offices of the Treasury De¬ 
 partment, through competition, under the Civil Service rules, 
 has been insignificant. The number of appointments through 
 other means—chiefly under the war acts—has been very large. 
 When the urgency-deficiency bill was passed by Congress, in 
 June, 1898, a clause was inserted permitting the employment 
 of certain clerks in the War and Treasury Departments, for 
 a period not to exceed one year, “ without compliance with 
 the conditions of the Civil Service act.” 
 
 In response to questions from various members, the chair¬ 
 man of the appropriations committee, Mr. Cannon, stated 
 that “ a few,” only of such clerks would be needed, and that 
 he had been assured by officers of the Treasury Department that 
 in the emergency existing it “ would not be practicable to get 
 them under the Civil Service rules.”. (Cong. Record, June 
 21, p. 6180). This was the beginning. When the number of 
 emergency employees grew, and the same argument was used 
 to secure further exemptions, I addressed a letter of inquiry 
 on the subject to the Civil Service Commission. The Com¬ 
 mission in its reply, dated October 22 last, declared that the 
 representations of the Treasury officials, as repeated by Mr. 
 Cannon, were utterly without foundation; that when the defi¬ 
 ciency bill was passed, the registers of eligibles contained the 
 names of 6,834 persons, whose fitness had been tested by exam¬ 
 ination, and from among whom the clerical employees required 
 might have been secured at the shortest notice, and that the 
 facts were so reported to Congress at the time. It was pointed 
 out that in 1890 three hundred clerks had been appointed in 
 one day for the increased work of the Pension office, and 
 that on many other occasions in the past emergency forces 
 had been organized with the same expedition. These state¬ 
 ments were widely published. Nevertheless, in every sub¬ 
 sequent act passed by Congress authorizing increases of 
 force, the same exempting clause was inserted, and both the 
 War and Treasury Departments, failing to correct the erro- 
 
6 
 
 neous statements of the Treasury officials, continued to make 
 their appointments without resort to the Civil Service Com¬ 
 mission. I find, on examining these acts, that the “few” 
 clerks mentioned by Mr. Cannon have become many hundreds, 
 and that the appropriations made within the year for addi¬ 
 tional “temporary'” service to the civil branch amount, ap¬ 
 proximately, to $2,200,000. 
 
 The act of February 24, 1899, extended the period of all 
 appointments made under the previous acts for a second 
 year. Finally, in the urgency-deficiency bill of March 3, 
 1899, it was provided that “ hereafter”—without limit of time 
 -—all additional employees, “ rendered necessary because of 
 the increased work of the war with Spain,” may be appointed 
 “ without compliance with the conditions of the Civil Service 
 act.” 
 
 From March 4, 1897, to September 30,1898, there were but 
 fourteen appointments from competitive lists in the Treasury 
 Department, not including the Bureau of Engraving and Print¬ 
 ing. I believe that there have since been eight or ten. Dur¬ 
 ing the same period ninety-four appointments of clerks were 
 made in the same offices under the war acts—exclusive of 
 promotions and .transfers—some after “ pass ” examinations. 
 There have since been many more. The six hundred ap¬ 
 pointed in the Washington offices of the War Department— 
 whose unfitness as a class has been proved by the best of 
 testimony—I need not mention here. I add no comment to 
 the figures given. Whatever may have happened within the 
 department, it is clear that so far as the operation of the 
 Civil Service law is concerned, the old system has been to a 
 very appreciable degree reestablished. I offer no speculation 
 as to the character of individual appointees, or the influences 
 that have led to their selection. One of the “ temporary ” 
 clerks, whose salary has been increased since his original em¬ 
 ployment, is, I am told, the son of the Second Assistant Sec¬ 
 retary of the Treasury. Whether or not these employees are 
 retained permanently, through successive acts of Congress, 
 or through other means, it is the fact that an effective 
 method of defeating the ends of the Civil Service law has 
 been freely employed, and that the rights of many hundreds 
 of men and women who entered the examinations without a 
 
7 
 
 doubt of the good faith of the government have been 
 ignored. 
 
 THE USE OF TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS. 
 
 Many positions in the Treasury Department have been 
 filled without competitive examination, through “ temporary ” 
 appointments, in the absence of eligible lists. That this 
 practice had become an abuse prior to the issuing of the 
 President’s recent order is a matter of common notoriety. 
 While due in part to the inability of the Commission, for lack 
 of funds, to hold certain special grades of examinations 
 promptly, it seems attributable in larger part to the lack of 
 cooperation of appointing officers, and to the frequent indis¬ 
 position of such officers to end the term of service of their 
 “ temporary” employees by facilitating the preparation of lists 
 from which permanent selections must be made. 
 
 I offer such an instance that illustrates incidentally, the 
 spirit in which some of the higher offices have been treated. 
 
 You displaced Mr. Worthington C. Ford from the office of 
 Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, making no charges, and giv¬ 
 ing no reason except that you wished the position for another 
 man. For many years this important post served as a sort of 
 adjunct to the campaign committee of whichever party hap¬ 
 pened to be in power. Mr. Ford removed it wholly from pol¬ 
 itics, and gave it a standing similar to that of corresponding 
 departments in European governments. With the view of 
 continuing this status, it had been placed, in 1896, in the 
 classified service. You appointed “ temporarily,” to the va¬ 
 cancy you had created, not a known commercial expert or 
 student of political economy, but a former employee of a 
 political press bureau. An examination was ordered by the 
 Civil-Service Commission, and the papers for this were pre¬ 
 pared. The holding of the examination was deferred, how¬ 
 ever, and successive “ temporary ” appointments of the same 
 person were allowed, until the President, by the recent order, 
 placed the office in the excepted list. 
 
 THE REMOVAL RULE AND OTHER MATTERS. 
 
 I will refer to other instances of circumvention of the rules 
 in the Treasury Department—as, for instance, the employ- 
 
8 
 
 ment of “ laborers ” to perform classified work—as I proceed. 
 
 The inconsistent conduct of the department with reference to 
 
 the rule regulating removals should, however, be mentioned 
 
 here. No doubt that rule has been fairlv construed and en- 
 
 * 
 
 forced in many cases in the Treasury Department. In others 
 —quite apart from those in the Internal Revenue Service—it 
 has not. Your own attitude respecting the latter class is in¬ 
 stanced by the following: 
 
 More than eighteen months ago the newly appointed Col¬ 
 lector of Customs at Port Huron dismissed W. F. Muir and 
 three other persons whom he found serving as deputies. Each 
 of these had been told that if he did not resign he would be 
 removed on the charge of having paid political assessments 
 some five years before. Each refused to resign, and his 
 removal followed. It happened that in 1896 the Civil-Service 
 Commission had secured the conviction of certain officers at 
 this port for collecting assessments, two years before, from the 
 whole force of subordinates. Although those who had paid 
 technically violated the law, their actual innocence was clearly 
 proven, and after having given the testimony on which the real 
 offenders were found guilty, each was promised full immunity 
 by both the Commission, and by the District Attorney. When 
 Muir, for instance, was removed on the preposterous reason 
 assigned, not only was the President’s rule that no removal 
 should be made except for “just cause” violated, but the good 
 faith of the government was broken. On ascertaining that 
 Muir had been a highly qualified officer, well fitted for reten¬ 
 tion, the Commission urged repeatedly upon the Treasury 
 Department the importance of correcting the wrong that had 
 been done. But although the matter had your personal atten¬ 
 tion you declined to interfere. 
 
 THE WHOLESALE CONDONEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW. 
 
 But the action, perhaps, the most damaging to the merit 
 system, to be charged to the Treasury Department under your 
 administration, is the decision that persons placed in positions 
 in any branch in disregard of the Civil-Service rules shall not 
 be deemed to have been appointed in violation of the law, and 
 shall be paid their salaries as though introduced to the service 
 in a wholly regular manner. 
 
9 
 
 In August, 1897, the Civil-Service Commission asked your 
 aid in establishing the system in successful opeiation in the 
 Civil Service of the states of New York, Massachusetts, and 
 Illinois, under which disbursing officers are permitted to pay 
 salaries only to those shown by certificate to have been ap¬ 
 pointed in legal manner. It was explained that such a check 
 would put an end to many rapidly growing abuses. You did 
 not agree to this plan, but you stated, in effect, that salaries 
 should not be paid to those whose irregular appointments 
 might affirmatively be shown. On October 17, 1898—this by 
 way of instance—the Commission sent to the department the 
 names of 271 persons holding positions in the Department of 
 Justice, whose illegal appointments were thus shown, asking 
 that these should not be recognized. The receipt of this list 
 was acknowledged, but the salaries were paid. During this 
 entire period, in fact, so far as can be learned, there was no 
 case in which a payment of salary was refused. Finally, in 
 April last, the Comptroller of the Treasury gave formal notice 
 that thenceforth violation of the Civil Service rules would not 
 be considered as a sufficient reason for refusing payments in 
 any case. As a basis for this decision, the following remark¬ 
 able doctrine was put forth : 
 
 “ This violation or disregard, as before said, is not of the law, but 
 of an executive regulation, and by the agent of the Executive, who is 
 alone responsible to the Executive for such action. The head of an exe¬ 
 cutive department is simply an instrument, the hand of the Executive. 
 The power which makes the rule or regulation can waive its enforce¬ 
 ment as certainly as the power which appoints an officer can remove such 
 officer at its pleasure, unless prohibited by the law itself.” 
 
 The “ opinion ” was given in the face of an unbroken line 
 of Supreme Court decisions of directly opposite effect. It 
 means that, according to the the theory of the writer, any ap¬ 
 pointing officer may disregard the law as freely as he may wish, 
 without interference by the 'Treasury Department and so long 
 as he is not himself removed by the President. While it 
 stands, it will tend inevitably to encourage those practices that 
 have in the past proved so demoralizing, and that are now 
 condoned, and to take away the most necessary guarantee of 
 faithful enforcement. 
 
10 
 
 It does not appear that any steps have been taken to dis¬ 
 place the officer who thus stands in the way of correct admin¬ 
 istration, or to set aside his disastrous ruling. 
 
 THE STATEMENTS OF THE LEAGUE. 
 
 To say the least, Sir, your own position in this controversy 
 is seriously weakened by the fact, which I think I have made 
 fairly plain, that many of those abuses most severely censured 
 by the press and the public have arisen in the department over 
 which you preside, or are due to the laxity or open hostility of 
 your official subordinates. Noting this, and also that since the 
 appearance of your interview time has been allowed for 
 the voluntary correction of those among your assertions which, 
 on reflection, you might recognize as inaccurate or unjust,and 
 that opportunity has been taken also to make inquires of the 
 Civil-Service Commission concerning matters that may de¬ 
 pend for substantiation upon its authority, I shall show : 
 
 (I.) That the statements of June 5 concerning the Presi¬ 
 dent’s order were absolutely correct; (II.) that the failure of 
 the administration as yet to redeem its pledges to enforce the 
 law “ thoroughly and honestly,” and to extend its application 
 “ wherever practicable,” is more than ever grave and mani¬ 
 fest ; and (III.) that the future welfare and integrity of the 
 merit system, as well as simple good faith, demand that the 
 recent order, in the main, be revoked. 
 
 The specifications of the League’s address to which you 
 have referred I will repeat and discuss seriatim. The first of 
 these was as follows: 
 
 NUMBER AND CHARACTER OF POSITIONS EXCEPTED. 
 
 “(1) The order withdraws from the classified service not merely three 
 thousand or four thousand offices and positions, but, as nearly as can 
 now be estimated, 10,109. It removes 3,693 from the class of positions 
 filled hitherto either through competitive examination or through an 
 orderly practice of promotion, and it transfers 6,416 other positions, in 
 the War Department, filled hitherto through a competitive registration 
 system under the control of the Civil Service Commission, to a system 
 to be devised and placed in effect by the present Secretary of War.” 
 
 The figures given are based on the tables of the Official 
 Register of the United States, summarized in House Docu- 
 
II 
 
 ment 202, Fifty-fourth Congress—the latest definite authority. 
 Of the total of 10,109 positions affected, those hitherto sub¬ 
 ject to competitive examination and now withdrawn are as 
 follows: 
 
 Treasury Department:—Deputy Collectors of Internal Revenue, 
 
 900 ; Storekeepers and gaugers, 600 ; Shipping Commis¬ 
 sioners, 27 ; additional deputies in Customs Service, 13 ; 
 the Alaska Service, 50 ; Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, 1; 
 employees at Mints and Assay offices, 42 ; Miscellaneous, 
 
 11. 1,644 
 
 Interior Department:—Pension Examining Surgeons, 606; Land 
 Office clerks, 198; Clerks at Pension Agencies, 18; Finan¬ 
 cial clerks at Indian Agencies, 57; Examiners of Indian 
 timber lands, 23; special Inspectors and Agents, 68; Super¬ 
 
 intendents of Logging and Irrigation, 18; Reservation Sur¬ 
 veyors, 10; Miscellaneous, 35. 1,033 
 
 Department of Justice:—Office Deputy Marshals, 204; assistant 
 attorneys, 30; private secretaries to District Attorneys, 76; 
 Examiners, 8. 318 
 
 Post Office Department:—Financial clerks, 248; Physicians to 
 act as clerks, 174; private secretaries, 24; Miscellaneous, 
 
 1. 447 
 
 Dept, of Agriculture:—Agents and Experts, 40; State Statisti¬ 
 cal Agents, 41. 81 
 
 War Department:—Employees of Military Parks, 58; Army 
 
 Paymasters’ clerks, (indefinite),. 58 
 
 Navy Department:—Assistant Civilian Inspectors. 50 
 
 All Departments:—Private Secretaries, 40; Officers appointed 
 
 by the President without confirmation, 22. 62 
 
 3,693 
 
 I will not rehearse the arguments that have been made for 
 the retention in the competitive classification of the most of 
 the offices and positions in this list. I will merely emphasize 
 the fact that, as in the case of the internal-revenue deputies, 
 each is taken outright from the stable, non-political class, and 
 placed in that class which is notoriously subject to frequent 
 and arbitrary change. The competitive entrance test is but 
 one feature of the merit system. The offer of opportunity for 
 advancement and the protection against removal except for 
 
12 
 
 fair reasons, and atter an opportunity for an explanation, and, 
 finally, the exclusion of politics where politics has no place, 
 are features no less essential. 
 
 The movement for civil-service reform in the past has 
 been constantly forward. Through the action of successive 
 Presidents the time has been brought gradually nearer when, 
 m the language of the Senate committee that reported the 
 civil-service bill, the merit system should include “nearly all 
 of the vast numbers of appointed officials,” whose duties are 
 not political, but “ who carry into effect the orders of the 
 Executive or heads of departments, whether at Washington or 
 elsewhere.” When this advance not only is checked, but 
 when thousands of positions are restored to the old basis, 
 what could more fittingly be termed a “ backward step ” ? 
 
 THE USE OF “ PASS EXAMINATIONS.” 
 
 In discussing these withdrawals you have attached im¬ 
 portance to the fact that persons appointed to some among 
 the positions affected are to be subjected to non-competitive 
 or “ pass ” examinations. This requires a word. In the 
 development of the merit system nothing has been shown 
 more clearly than the fact that for its most important pur¬ 
 poses the “ pass ” test is ineffectual and generally worthless. 
 Under this system in the consular service, for instance, there 
 were 112 candidates examined during the first year of the 
 present administration, and of these m passed successfully 
 and were appointed. During the same period nearly 90 per 
 cent, of the salaried consuls were removed for political 
 reasons and new men put in their places. Again, in except¬ 
 ing the internal-revenue deputies of higher grade, in July, 
 1897, the President laid down the non-competitive rule. The 
 results of this attempt, I am told, were even less satisfactory. 
 It appears that the appointments were invariably made first 
 and the examinations held afterward. Moreover, while in 
 this case a large proportion of the persons appointed failed to 
 pass. I am told that some at least of these have been re¬ 
 tained in the employ of the Treasury Department, the failure 
 notwithstanding. I have asked the permission of the Civil- 
 Service Commission to examine the records that would prove 
 or disprove this allegation. The Commission has so far 
 
*3 
 
 treated the League and its representatives at all times with 
 perfect courtesy. Its records have been invariably opened to 
 us, as 1 have been led to believe they have been to all re¬ 
 sponsible parties. Many of the references in this letter are 
 proof of that fact. In the present instance, however, it has 
 declined to grant the permission asked, for the reason that 
 this would be, in its judgment, “against public policy, and 
 not in the interests of the public service.” 
 
 It is to be hoped that whatever investigation maybe made 
 under your authority will prove that the statement in question 
 is not borne out by the facts. 
 
 THE CHANGES IN THE WAR DEPARTMENT. 
 
 The positions withdrawn from classification in the field 
 and construction branches of the War Department include 
 those of superintendents, overseers, sub-inspectors, and store¬ 
 keepers, down to the various classes of mechanics. 'I he 
 numbers affected, compiled from the official authority above 
 mentioned, are as follows : 
 
 Quartermaster’s Department at Large . 622 
 
 Medical Department at Large. 28 
 
 Ordnance Department at Large. 4,377 
 
 Engineer Department at Large. 1,389 
 
 6.41 G 
 
 The language of the order relating to each of these classes, 
 is as follows: 
 
 “ Appointments to these positions shall be made hereafter 
 on registration tests of fitness prescribed in regulations to be 
 issued by the Secretary of War and approved by the 
 President ” 
 
 You say that the effect of this is to place these positions, 
 “ in exactly the condition that similar places in the Navy De¬ 
 partment have been in for several years.” The navy-yard 
 rules are under the control of the Civil-Service Commission, 
 and cannot be altered without its consent. They were so 
 placed by President Cleveland, chiefly that they might “ be 
 given stability independent of changes of administration.” It 
 is most significant, moreover, that, as the League indicated, 
 
14 
 
 the commission had established the navy-yard plan in the 
 War Department, under the immediate control of local 
 boards of engineers, nearly two years ago, and that this plan 
 was being successfully extended at the time the order was 
 issued. The rules were embodied in circular No. 13 of the 
 Engineers, issued August 16, 1897. Col. Alexander Mac- 
 Ivenzie, assistant chief, gave testimony as to their results be¬ 
 fore the Senate civil-service committee in February, 1898, as 
 follows : 
 
 ‘ * There are a few officers of the Corps of Engineers whose unfavorable 
 impressions of the Civil Service law, formed in advance of a full knowl¬ 
 edge of its requirements, have not been changed by experience, but 
 correspondence with officers leads me to believe that the large majority 
 prefer a competitive merit system of securing employees, rather than 
 one in which personal opinions or wishes are to control.” 
 
 Notwithstanding this expert approval of the plan under 
 development, the Secretary of War, in May, 1898, addressed 
 a letter to the Civil-Service Commission, asking that each of 
 these classes be excluded absolutely from the operation of the 
 law. His request was not granted. When at the suggestion 
 of Secretary Alger, the registration system, so far as it had al¬ 
 ready been established, is set aside, and this force, instead of 
 being “ placed in exactly the same condition ” as that in the 
 navy-yards, is made subject to the control of Secretary Alger 
 alone, do you believe that an enlightened public opinion will 
 accept the change as intended to establish a satisfactory, non¬ 
 political system ? Mere “ registration tests of fitness,” with¬ 
 out the essential elements that have made the navy yard plan 
 work so well, must prove relatively worthless. If, following 
 this public discussion of the subject, an equivalent to the 
 navy-yard plan is indeed established, that will be a cause for 
 congratulation. 
 
 THE VALIDATION OF TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS. 
 
 The second specification of the League was as follows: 
 
 “ (2.) It declares regular at least one thousand additional appoint¬ 
 ments made temporarily, without examination—in many cases in direct 
 disregard of the law—in branches that are not affected by the exceptions, 
 but that remain nominally competitive.” 
 
The positions thus filled are, for the most part, of a special 
 character, and in branches outside of Washington. You do 
 not dispute the statement of the number affected, so I shall 
 not need to justify that. In each instance, the Civil-Service 
 Commission had permitted an appointment without examina¬ 
 tion pending the preparation of an eligible list. Without 
 wairant for such unusual action in the law itself, the order 
 declares that competition in each such case may be waived, 
 and the appointees permanently retained. The number of 
 “ temporary ” appointments during the first year of the 
 present administration increased threefold over that of the 
 year preceding. Some appointing officers construed the rules 
 as authorizing them to make “ temporary ” appointments to 
 fill any and every vacancy, regardless of the existence of 
 lists. Others, as, for instance, the Appraiser at New York, 
 refused to appoint from the lists, even where new ones were 
 especially created. While the Commission had no difficulty 
 in meeting the demand for eligibles in most brandies, in these 
 special cases it needed support to properly conduct its work. 
 As I have pointed out, the co-operation of appointing officers 
 was often lacking. Again, although in asking Congress for 
 the small additional sum needed to cover its increased work, 
 the Commission showed clearly that the operation of the rules 
 in branches originally classified had saved three millions an¬ 
 nually in the Washington offices alone, its request was denied 
 —after an extended debate that you may recall. It does not 
 appear that at that critical time the President or any head of 
 a department urged upon Congress the importance of provid¬ 
 ing for the emergencies in question. As it is, when a thou 
 sand persons are admitted permanently to the classified 
 service, after a failure to facilitate properly the holding of 
 examinations, the precedent established must be viewed as 
 most unfortunate. 
 
 THE WAR-EMERGENCY APPOINTMENTS. 
 
 The League said also concerning the effect of this feature 
 of the President’s order : 
 
 “(3) It permits the permanent appointment of persons employed, 
 without examination, for emergency purposes during the course of the war 
 with Spain, thus furnishing a standing list of many thousands frotr 
 
i6 
 
 which positions in the War Department may be filled, without tests of 
 fitness, for a long time to come.” 
 
 In the several provisions made by Congress for additional 
 clerks and others for war purposes these employees were in¬ 
 variably styled as “ temporary,” and as such were placed on 
 the government rolls. That part of the President’s order here 
 in question reads as follows: 
 
 “ All persons serving under temporary appointments at the date of 
 the approval of this section may be permanently appointed in the dis¬ 
 cretion of the proper appointing officer.” 
 
 You say that this language is not to be applied to the em¬ 
 ployees in question. It is gratifying to learn that this is the 
 construction the administration has decided to adopt, for no 
 doubt you speak with authority. When, however, you declare 
 the statement that it “ permits ” of a different construction to 
 be “absolutely false,” you are in a different position. The 
 view taken by the League as to the effect of this rule was the 
 view taken universally. On May 29, the Washington Star, 
 for instance, announced that: 
 
 “ There is great joy on the part of the temporary employees of the 
 War Department because of the fact that under the President’s Civil 
 Service order issued to-day they may be given permanent appointment 
 in the classified service at the discretion of the Secretary.” 
 
 This impression was not corrected, I am told, until after 
 the subject had been seriously debated by officers high in 
 authority, and until after your interview had appeared. 
 
 The original appointment of these emergency employees, 
 and the manner of their retention, to the present time, I have 
 already discussed. 
 
 THE EFFECT OF THE TRANSFER RULE. 
 
 The bearing upon future appointments of the rule govern¬ 
 ing transfers, is covered by the fourth specification : 
 
 ‘(4) It alters the rules to the effect that in future any person appointed 
 with or without competitive examination, or without any examination, 
 may be placed by transfer in any classified position, without regard to 
 the character or similarity of the employments interchanged, and after 
 non-competitive examination only.” 
 
*7 
 
 You argue, in effect, that the opportunities provided for 
 evasion of the law by this and similar changes are not so 
 serious as we have stated, for the reason that the administra¬ 
 tion does not intend to use them. But you should appreciate 
 that this argument cannot alter a literal or legal construction 
 in any case. Neither can the professed belief of appointing 
 officers that they will successfully resist the pressure for the 
 employment of those opportunities, which, sooner or later, 
 will be brought to bear, be accepted as reassuring. 
 
 You say that “ the one change which has been made in the 
 rule permitting transfers has been the dropping of part of the 
 last sentence of that rule as it stood, the clause: 
 
 “ Or, if in said position there is not required, in the judgment of the 
 Commission, the performance of the same class of work or the practice 
 of the same mechanical trade performed or practised in the position from 
 which transfer is proposed.” 
 
 Exactly so, but the clause that you quote was the very 
 essence of the rule, the one thing that prevented its misap¬ 
 plication for other than its legitimate purposes. It marked 
 the difference between transfer and promotion, allowing the 
 former method for the interchange of positions of similar 
 character, but requiring competitive examination, so far as 
 practicable, in every case—whether for promotion or original 
 appointment—as the regular method for filling positions of 
 higher grade. To enable employees to reach positions for 
 which they were not in line for promotion, but for the duties 
 of which they might show especial talent, to permit of “ mo¬ 
 bility,” in short, the rule provided expressly that a person em¬ 
 ployed in any grade should not for that reason be debarred 
 from competitive examination for any other grade. The effect 
 of the change is exactly as has been stated. A person ap¬ 
 pointed after having passed one of the lower grades of com¬ 
 petitive examination, or having gained a position subject to 
 registration merely, without examination, can now be trans¬ 
 ferred, after a “ pass ” examination only, to any competitive 
 position in the classified service. The Civil-Service Com¬ 
 mission is already permitting transfers between grades, which 
 under the old rules were denied. The effect of this practice 
 is likely to be that the higher grades, in time, will be placed 
 on a virtually non-competitive basis. 
 
It is notorious that the use of evasive means to get into the 
 service becomes common as soon as such means are fairly 
 discovered. As an illustration : During the past year it has 
 become a frequent practice to send persons to be appointed, 
 without examination, as clerks at post-offices about to be pro¬ 
 vided with the free delivery—and thus to be included in the 
 classified service—and immediately following, to transfer these, 
 again without examination, to similar posts in other offices or 
 other departments for which they have actually been intended. 
 A clerk appointed at the post-office at Napa, Cal., was within 
 a few days transferred in this way to the San Francisco Mint; 
 another appointed at Greenville, O., was brought' at once to 
 Washington, and at least four others were brought from cities 
 in Virginia, Florida, and Colorado, to serve in the department 
 of which you are the head. 
 
 The employment of persons without examination as “ la¬ 
 borers,” and their subsequent assignment to classified duties, 
 constitute an abuse of long standing. The cases in the Ap¬ 
 praiser’s office at New York are fair instances : and if you will 
 cause inquiries to be made in the New York Immigration 
 offices, you will find others of very similar nature. So serious 
 has this evil grown under this administration, in fact, that the 
 Civil-Service Commission gives nearly a page and a half of its 
 recent annual report to its discussion. Referring to the 
 rule of June, 1896, forbidding the practice, it says: 
 
 “ The Commission regrets to report, from information received 
 from time to time in the shape of complaints and protests, that while 
 perhaps this Executive order operated as a check for a time upon this 
 practice, yet it has been resumed and the assignment of persons ap¬ 
 pointed to unclassified positions to the regular performance of classified 
 duty is again being made to a considerable extent .... It is noted 
 that the number of unclassified labor positions increases out of all pro¬ 
 portion to the need for mere unclassified labor while in some cases the 
 number of persons actually engaged in such labor is reduced to the 
 smallest proportions.” 
 
 When such practices exist, in the face of inhibitory pro¬ 
 visions of law, do you not think they will tend to increase, 
 or even become the rule, when they are given nominally, or 
 constructively, sanction of law ? 
 
1 9 
 
 THE EFFECT OF THE RE-INSTATEMENT RULE. 
 
 The last specification concerns the removal of another im¬ 
 portant safeguard against abuse : 
 
 (5) It permits the re-instatement, within the discretion of the 
 respective department officers, of persons separated from the service a 
 any previous time for any stated reason. 
 
 The President’s new rule on this subject is as follows: 
 
 “ Any person dismissed from the service upon charges of delin¬ 
 quency or misconduct may be re-instated, subject to the other conditions 
 of these rules, without regard to the one-year time limit of this rule, upon 
 the certificate of the proper appointing officer that he has thoroughly 
 investigated the case and that the charges upon which the dismissal was 
 based were not true.” 
 
 When it is considered that a review of any such case—from 
 one to twenty years, perhaps, after the removal has been made, 
 must necessarily be of an ex parte character, and that all 
 the influence the candidate for re-instatement may be able to 
 secure will be brought to bear upon the officer whose judg¬ 
 ment is to decide the matter, the dangerous character of this 
 rule is perfectly patent. Removals have frequently been 
 made in the past for insufficient or trumped-up reasons, and 
 against these the League has repeatedly protested, but the 
 effort to right such wrongs in this manner will lead to 
 the commission of other similar wrongs in the future, and, 
 eventually, to political reprisals with each change of party. 
 There will be constant temptation to make vacancies in order 
 to permit re-instatements. The service will suffer from the 
 return of relatively incompetent and unfit men, and the prob¬ 
 lem of superanuation will be further complicated. That these 
 will be the results can be shown by example; In one division 
 of the Pension Bureau, following the last change of adminis¬ 
 tration, nineteen special examiners were dropped to permit the 
 reinstatement of veterans, to whom the time-limit has never 
 applied. Of the men dismissed, eighteen were Democrats, 
 and one a Republican; all I believe, had been appointed after 
 examination, and the fitness of none had been questioned. 
 That such occurences will multiply when the pressure for rein¬ 
 statement under the new rule begins to be felt—and particu- 
 
20 
 
 larly at the time of a change of party control—cannot be 
 doubted. 
 
 Your statement that the Commission, by its own practice, 
 indicated approval of this plan, is incorrect. 
 
 THE PRESENT NEED. 
 
 In its address, the League stated that the reduction of the 
 area of the competitive system, and these retrogressive changes 
 in the rules that I have shown followed a long succession of 
 infractions of the letter or spirit of the law, and must be con¬ 
 sidered in their relation to these. A special committee has 
 been engaged in the collection of the facts on which this 
 statement is based Except in so far as has been necessary 
 for purposes of illustration, I have not given these facts in 
 detail, for the report of that committee will shortly be 
 published. 
 
 You have said that it had become generally understood 
 that the extensions made in 1896 were “ too sweeping,” and 
 that President Cleveland, finding this to be the case himself, 
 “ almost immediately took out some officers.” President 
 Cleveland, six months after the date of his principal order, 
 excepted seventy-eight attorneys, understood to be engaged 
 in the preparation of cases for trial. The extensions were 
 made nearly a year before the close of his term ; during all of 
 that period there was no other change. The pledge of the 
 Republican party to maintain the law as it stood, and to ex¬ 
 tend its application wherever practicable, was given after the 
 revised rules had gone into effect. The direct relation of that 
 pledge to the then existing situation was questioned at no 
 time during the campaign of 1896. It is the evident judg¬ 
 ment of the people—a judgment expressed with remarkable 
 emphasis by leading journals, without regard to party—that 
 it is as binding to-day as it was when it was made, and that 
 in its present action the administration has committed a grave 
 e; ror. 
 
 I am, yours, very respectfully, 
 
 George McAneny, 
 Secretary. 
 
3 0112 
 
 99016492