3$\-(jdV3 
 
 fs\ 2ibr 
 
 THE RECORDS OF THE 
 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 
 
 REPORT OF A SPECIAL COMMITTEE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 National Civil-Service Reform League, 
 
 1900 . 
 
 DIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY 
 
 SEP 3 0 1915 
 
35 ) 
 
 )\)2J2>r 
 
 
 Report of the Committee on Access to the Rec¬ 
 ords of the Civil Service Comm is sion. 
 
 To the National Civil Service Reform League : 
 
 S OME two weeks after the President’s order of May 29th, 
 1899, the United States Civil Service Commission, for the 
 first time in its history, refused, by a vote of two to one (its 
 President, Mr. Procter, dissenting and stating his reasons for 
 dissent in a carefully prepared and out-spoken minute) to per¬ 
 mit access to its records to a representative of the League, for 
 the rather vague reasons that to grant this “ would be against 
 public policy and not in the interests of the public service.” 
 The League, represented in this instance by the Secretary of 
 the Civil Service Reform Association of the District of 
 Columbia, had asked for data with reference to reported vio¬ 
 lation of the rules in the Appraiser’s Department at New 
 York, to removals at certain of the larger Post Offices and 
 Custom Houses, and to the nominations made hy the Secre¬ 
 tary of the Treasury for non-competitive examinations under 
 the amended rules of July 27, 1897. 
 
 Why a disclosure of these matters should have been 
 regarded as peculiarly impolitic at that particular time can be 
 matter of conjecture only, but after some four months of 
 intermittent correspondence, and a hearing given the Secretary 
 of the League in the latter part of October, 1899, access was 
 again granted to all such records as the League had ever de¬ 
 sired to inspect. The decision of the Commission was set 
 forth in the following letter: 
 
 United States Civil Service Commission. 
 
 Washington, November 2, 1899. 
 
 Mr. George McAneny, 
 
 Secretary National Civil Service Reform League. 
 
 Sir : 
 
 In response to your communications of October 7 and 30, you are 
 informed that the Commission will allow an agent of your League access 
 to the records of the Commission as requested by you, as follows: 
 
4 
 
 
 1. Figures and statistics relative to the operation of the civil service 
 act and rules as derived from the periodical reports of appointing 
 officers. 
 
 2. The names of persons appointed, promoted or transferred to, or 
 reinstated in, or removed or resigned from positions in the classified 
 service. 
 
 3. Files relating to investigations that have been completed or 
 closed touching on the operation of the civil service act and rules,—with 
 the modification that the request shall specify the particular file desired, 
 and that such file shall be submitted to the Commissioners for their 
 approval before access is permitted. This restriction is made for pro¬ 
 tection of employees and others who may have written to the Commis¬ 
 sion in confidence. 
 
 4. The minutes of the Commission kept in pursuance of section 2 
 of the civil service act. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 John R. Procter, President . 
 
 V 
 
 Thereupon the League continued its investigations for 
 about a month, and, in the Spring of the present year, re¬ 
 sumed them, until it had ascertained and tabulated facts 
 which sufficiently showed, inter alia , the practical results of 
 the President’s order of May 29th, 1899, from its date to 
 January 1st, 1900. For reasons set forth in our second letter 
 hereinafter contained, it was subsequently determined to bring 
 the tabulation of these results down to May 29th, 1900; so as 
 to portray the working of the order in practice during a full 
 year ; but, shordy after this purpose on the League’s part be¬ 
 came apparent, the denial of access was repeated. On July 
 14 a new minute was adopted closing all records to any ex¬ 
 cept the Commission’s own employees, Mr. Procter again 
 dissenting, and the League’s investigations were necessarily 
 suspended. To test the scope and meaning of this minute the 
 League on July 23 made a written request for permission to 
 examine certain records clearly covered by the terms of the 
 letter of November 2nd. This was refused after a long delay 
 and several inconclusive replies on the part of the Commis¬ 
 sion. The undersigned had been meantime appointed a 
 Special Committee to take such further action on behalf of 
 the League as might seem appropriate in the premises; as 
 soon as informed of the Commission’s definitive refusal, we 
 addressed it the following letter: 
 
s 
 
 New York, September 12, 1900. 
 To the United States Civil Service Commission, 
 
 Gentlemen : 
 
 On July 23rd last, the Secretary of the National Civil Service Re¬ 
 form League, Mr, George McAneny, requested permission for a repre¬ 
 sentative of the League to examine such records of the Commission as 
 would show: 
 
 “ (1) The number of persons appointed from eligible lists to 
 competitive positions in the several Executive Departments and 
 offices during the period from May 29, 1899, to December 31, 
 1899. 
 
 “ (2) The number of persons appointed under temporary certi¬ 
 ficates to competitive positions during the same period. 
 
 “(3) The number of persons appointed to excepted positions 
 not subject to non-competitive examination during the same period. 
 
 “ (4) The names of persons holding positions in the Internal 
 Revenue and Custom services (excepting storekeepers and gaugers) 
 who have been appointed since May 29, 1899, or who were ap¬ 
 pointed prior to that date and examined after it, showing in each 
 case, (a) the date of appointment or nomination, (b) the date (where 
 entered) of the request of the Department for examination, (c) the 
 date of examination and (d) the rating received in percentage.” 
 
 At the same time Mr. McAneny further requested on behalf of the 
 League that its representive might be permitted to ascertain whether six 
 specified parsons were “still in the Customs Service ; if not, at what 
 dates they were separated therefrom.” 
 
 On November 2, preceding this request, you had informed the 
 League that its agents would be allowed access to your records, includ¬ 
 ing such as would show, inter alia : 
 
 “ 1. Figures and statistics relative to the operation of the civil 
 service act and rules as derived from the periodical reports of ap¬ 
 pointing officers. 
 
 “2. The names of persons appointed, promoted or transferred 
 to, or reinstated in, or removed or resigned from positions in the 
 classified service.” 
 
 Prior to the incident leading to the correspondence, of which your 
 letter of November 2 formed part, the Commission had acted consist¬ 
 ently upon a principle thus stated by your President in an official 
 minute : 
 
 “Nothing so much fosters the spoils system as secrecy in the 
 
 administration of patronage.People have a right 
 
 to know what their officials are doing, and if the records are closed 
 to their inspection they will imagine evils which do not exist.” 
 
 In the language of its Eighth Report, published during the admin¬ 
 istration of President Harrison by Messrs. Charles D. Lyman (now Ap¬ 
 pointment Clerk of the Treasury Department), Theodore Roosevelt (now 
 
6 
 
 Governor of New York and candidate for the Vice-Presidency) and 
 Hugh S. Thompson : 
 
 “ One of the chief aims of the Commission is to keep the 
 public thoroughly informed of the workings of the law, .... 
 to keep the public confident of the honesty with which the law is 
 administered.” .... 
 
 “ The books and records of the Commission and of all the local 
 
 Boards are open to any responsible person.No fraud can 
 
 be committed without leaving a record by which it can be found 
 out.” 
 
 Investigations made by the League into the immediate effects of the 
 President’s order of May 29, 1899, which was the first act of any Presi¬ 
 dent since the enactment of the Civil Service Law whereby the appli¬ 
 cation of the Merit System to the Federal Service was sensibly curtailed, 
 led on June 13, 1899, to the discovery that a majority of the present 
 Commission appeared to dissent from the views thus expressed by 
 Messrs. Lyman, Roosevelt and Thompson, and that the Commission, as 
 well as the President, had seemingly adopted a new policy. 
 
 Whatever may have been the League’s regret at this change in the 
 Commission’s course, it adapted its action to the views expressed in the 
 Commission’s letter of November 2, above quoted. The information 
 for which it subsequently asked, from time to time, was precisely such 
 as the Commission had then announced itself ready to afford; moreover, in 
 obtaining this information, it was careful to guard against imposing any 
 expense on the Government or interfering in any wise with the current 
 work of the office. On July 23, it requested leave to ascertain, at its 
 own cost, from the very records mentioned in the Commission’s letter of 
 November 2, certain facts which were evidently calculated to shed light 
 upon the operation of “ the Civil Service Act and Rules ” since the Presi¬ 
 dent’s order of May 29, 1899. But this request, after along delay, has 
 been finally refused, and, consequently, at a joint meeting of the General 
 and Executive Committees of the League we were directed to lay before 
 you and the public, appropriate representations respecting this refusal. 
 
 We submit that officers of the United States, whatever their rank or 
 duties, are servants of the American people ; that they receive the peo¬ 
 ple’s pay and spend the people’s money ; that their business is to give 
 effect to the people’s will and protect the people’s interest ; and that 
 from their masters they have no proper secrets; what they do or leave 
 undone, in the work they are employed or paid to do, cocerns all 
 Americans and can rightfully be hidden from none. To this elementary 
 principle of free government there are, indeed, certain recognized quali¬ 
 fications, justified by the exigency of war or diplomacy, or the avoidance 
 of needless publicity for scandalous or confidential matters. With these, 
 however, we have no concern, for, in the present case, no such consider¬ 
 ations apply ; the information asked relates to no secret of State, to no 
 question of individual morals or private live. The League wishes to dis¬ 
 cover, and, if need be, to publish, results of certain action on the part 
 of the President, action taken in the discharge of his official duty ; 
 these are facts which in the public interest ought to be made known 
 
7 
 
 just as soon as they can be stated with certainty. We submit that your 
 refusal to permit the League’s representative to examine public records, 
 creates a gratuitous hinderance to the people’s knowing the truth as to 
 the conduct of their own officer. 
 
 In view of these very serious considerations, we hope that you will 
 rescind your recent action on this subject, and remain, 
 
 Yours very respectfully, 
 
 Charles J. Bonaparte, Edward Cary, Frederick L. Siddons, 
 Special Committee , National Civil Service Reform League. 
 
 This letter led to further correspondence as follows: 
 
 United States Civil Service Commission. 
 
 Washington, D. C., September 28, 1900. 
 
 Messrs. Charles J. Bonaparte, Edward Cary, and 
 Frederick L. Siddons, 
 
 Special Committee , National Civil Service Reform League , 
 Gentlemen : 
 
 This Commission is in receipt of your communication of September 
 12, transmitted by the Secretary of the National Civil .Service Reform 
 League, submitting certain statements concerning the furnishing of in¬ 
 formation to your League by the Commission. Reply to your letter has 
 been delayed in order to enable the Commission to determine to what 
 extent information had been furnished on request of the Secretary of 
 your League in the past. 
 
 Apparently your communication is the result of entire misappre¬ 
 hension, as this Commission is, and always has been, in full harmony and 
 accord with what is said and quoted in your letter respecting the desira¬ 
 bility of the widest possible publicity concerning the operation of the 
 civil service law and rules and the results of the work of the Commis¬ 
 sion ; and the Commission knows of no action on its part which, express¬ 
 ly or by any implication, could be regarded as contrary to these views, 
 and is not aware of any change of policy whatever in this respect; on 
 the contrary, the present Commission has gone further in the direction 
 of publicity than any previous Commission, notably in the opening to 
 persons in interest of registers which had previously been kept secret, so 
 that every appointment thereafter might be thoroughly scrutinized in 
 order to determine whether the law and rules in this respect were honestly 
 and fairly administered, and a much wider diversity and amount of infor¬ 
 mation has been published in the annual reports of this Commission than 
 heretofore. Moreover, the records of the Commission show that all of 
 the great amount of information requested by the Secretary of your 
 League since June 13, 1899. the date you allege as the beginning of a 
 change of policy, has been furnished as promptly as the condition of the 
 Commission’s business and the status of the matters involved would per¬ 
 mit, with the single exception of the last request made at the end of his 
 letter under date of July 23, 1900, for information concerning the con¬ 
 tinuance of six persons in the customs service, which request was evi- 
 
8 
 
 dently overlooked because not enumerated with the requests contained 
 in the body of his letter, As soon, however, as this item was brought 
 to the attention of the Commission, steps were taken to furnish the infor¬ 
 mation. 
 
 On July 14, 1 goo, the Commission adopted the following minute : 
 
 “Ordered, That hereafter whenever a request is received for 
 information concerning the Commission’s work, before the data for 
 such information has been prepared for the annual report or for 
 other public use, if the information desired be such as to justify it, 
 the Commission will furnish such official information and facts as 
 may be in its posession, as well as copies of its files and records, to 
 such outside parties or organizations as request the same, so far as 
 the good of the public service and the limited force of employees of 
 the Commission will warrant. 
 
 “It is further ordered, That hereafter no person who is not a 
 member of the Commission’s force shall have access to its files and 
 records for the purpose of preparing information for any unofficial 
 purpose.” 
 
 It will be seen that this minute again emphasizes the purpose of the 
 Commission to continue to furnish all possible information to the public, 
 so far as the good of the service and its limited force of employees will 
 warrant. At the same time, because of the embarrassment the Com¬ 
 mission has suffered throngh the action of persons not responsible to it 
 who have from time to time obtained almost unrestricted access to its 
 files and records, including some which at the time were of a nature which 
 the public interest demanded should not then be made generally known, 
 and because of the failure of the precautions which the Commission had 
 taken to prevent improper use of the privileges granted such persons, 
 and also the undue interference w'ith the transaction of its current busi¬ 
 ness, it was ordered that no persons not members of the Commission’s 
 force should have access to its files and records in order to prepare infor¬ 
 mation for unofficial purposes. This latter provision does not in any 
 way curtail or abridge the opportunity to secure all proper information 
 concerning the operation of the civil service law and rules, and it is 
 believed that through it the Commission will be relieved from the em¬ 
 barrassment and interference with its work heretofore referred to, as well 
 as the further liability of wide misconception and misrepresentation in 
 regard to its work occasioned by the many errors which have been made 
 heretofore by persons engaged in compiling information who had little or 
 no knowledge of the Commission’s work and consequently were prone 
 to fall into egregious errors concerning it, thus prejudicing and rendering 
 practically valueless their results. 
 
 Notwithstanding the statements made by the Secretary of your 
 League, the Commission’s files and records show that substantially all of 
 the information proper to be furnished to the public which was requested 
 in his letter of July 15, had already been furnished to him, and therefore 
 he was advised, under date of September 8, that because this information 
 had been furnished and because of the urgency of the public business, 
 
9 
 
 the transaction of which had been and would again be interfered with 
 by the presence of your agent, “ The Commission must therefore at 
 present decline to permit your representative to consult the records as 
 requested in your letter of July 23.” Inasmuch as your Secretary again 
 requested, under date of September 12, that the League’s representative 
 be given access to the files and records in order to again compile the in¬ 
 formation, he was informed under date of September 20, in pursuance 
 of the minute of July 14 above quoted, how the information desired 
 might be secured without causing the public interest to suffer and at the 
 same time furnishing information entitled to all the credit given to that 
 officially promulgated by the Commission, as it would be prepared by 
 the persons most competent and best qualified to accurately and cor¬ 
 rectly compile it. 
 
 In conclusion, this Commission desires it to be distinctly under¬ 
 stood that the files and records showing the operation of the civil service 
 law and rules and of the results of the Commission’s work continue to 
 be open to the public in the same manner and to the same degree as for¬ 
 merly, and that any person desiring information on any specific point, 
 not incompatible with the public interest, will be promptly furnished 
 therewith, and will be shown the file and record in relation thereto if 
 desired ; but, in the discretion vested in the Commission as the respon¬ 
 sible custodian of its files and records, it has determined, for the reasons 
 herein stated, that it is clearly in the public interest that this publicity 
 be given in the manner herein described, and that it clearly is not in the 
 public interest to allow unrestricted and indiscriminate access to its files 
 and records. 
 
 By direction of the Commission. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 John B. Harlow, 
 
 A ding President. 
 
 New York, October 18, 1900. 
 
 To the United States Civil Service Commission, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Gentlemen : 
 
 Your letter of September 28, in reply to ours of the 12th, with ref¬ 
 erence to the right of access to the Commission’s records, informs us 
 that: 
 
 “The Commission is and always has been in full harmony and 
 accord with what is said in the Committee’s letter .... and knows 
 of no action on its part which expressly or by implication could 
 be regarded as contrary to these views, or of any change of policy 
 whatever in this respect.” 
 
 This information is very gratifying, but we must add that it is no 
 less surprising. The policy of the Commission before the President’s 
 Order of May 29, 1899, was described by Messrs. Lyman, Thompson 
 and Roosevelt, as follows : 
 
IO 
 
 “ The books and records of the Commission and of all the local 
 Boards are open to any responsible person. No fraud can be com¬ 
 mitted without leaving a record by which it can be found out.” 
 
 In the minute of July 14, 1900, to which you refer, the Commission 
 declared its purpose to deny thereafter access to any of its records to all 
 persons “ not members of the Commission’s force” and added : 
 
 “ All orders or minutes heretofore made by the Commission in 
 conflict with the provisions of this order, are hereby revoked.” 
 
 This latter part of the minute you did not quote. 
 
 Until enlightened by your letter, we certainly regarded this action as 
 indicating a definitive abandonment of the policy of Messrs. Lyman, 
 Thompson and Roosevelt ; and no less certainly we were not alone in 
 that opinion, for, on June 13, 1899, when, for the first time in its history, 
 the Commission denied to the National Civil Service Reform League ac¬ 
 cess to its files, the President of the Commission (Mr. Proctor) said in 
 a dissenting minute: 
 
 “ The vote of the Commission to keep its records secret is an 
 absolute reversal, for the first time in the history of the Commis¬ 
 sion, of a policy which has been universally commended as wise.” 
 
 “ It has been the constant public boast of the Commission that 
 its records are subject to inspection and that the inspection is invited. 
 I can conceive of nothing which is calculated to do more damage 
 to the work of the Commission, and its power for good, than the re¬ 
 fusal to permit access to files of cases in which action has been com¬ 
 pleted.” 
 
 Since, however, you say that “misapprehension” exists as to the 
 consistency of the present with the past practice of the Commission in 
 this respect, we respectfully suggest that you can readily remove this 
 “misapprehension:” your predecessors, Messrs. Lyman, Thompson 
 and Roosevelt, told the public: “ The books and records of the Com¬ 
 
 mission .... are open to any responsible person ; ” you have only to 
 tell the public that this is still true. 
 
 You further tell us that : 
 
 “Notwithstanding the statements made by the Secretary of 
 your League, the Commission’s files and records show that substan¬ 
 tially all the information proper to be furnished to the public, which 
 was requested in his letter of July 23, had already been furnished 
 to him.” 
 
 This passage in your letter has caused the delay in its acknowledg¬ 
 ment by leading the Secretary of the League to request that we further 
 examine his somewhat voluminous correspondence with the Commission 
 before replying. 
 
 While we do not understand that the question as to what had or had 
 not been secured by the League at the time of previous examinations of 
 the records has any pertinence to the question really at issue, we feel 
 that the facts in this regard may be briefly stated : Having obtained 
 limited access to the files of the Commission in November, 1899, after a 
 
tedious delay of five months, the League ascertained and tabulated facts 
 which showed, with certain omissions, the practical working of the 
 President’s order of May 29, 1899, from its date to January 1, 1900. 
 It was subsequently decided to extend this investigation until the results 
 of a year’s application of the order could be shown, and, at the same 
 time, both to complete and verify the work already done, and to take up 
 certain additional subjects. Before the new work was finished however, 
 the Commission’s minute of July 14 was adopted. It was this that 
 led to the Secretary’s letter of July 23, asking directly for access 
 to records clearly covered by the Commission’s concession of Novem¬ 
 ber, 1899. 
 
 The particular omissions to be covered in completing tables were not 
 specified for the reason that this, very naturally, was not understood to 
 be necessary. The letter was met with a repetition of the denial of ac¬ 
 cess contained in the minute of July 14. Aside from the question of 
 pertinency, we do not see why the Commission should cite the incident 
 of July 23 as a reason for its action taken nine days previously ; nor can 
 we agree with the Commission if it holds either that ‘ ‘substantially all the 
 information” to be gained by twelve months’ experience is afforded by the 
 first seven , or that such information can be “ proper to be furnished to 
 the public” when it relates to the year 1899, and improper when it relates 
 to the year 1900. 
 
 It so happens that the additional enquiry referred to was under¬ 
 taken by reason of a conversation of our Secretary with the President 
 himself. The results of the League’s investigation, although incomplete, 
 were so startling that Mr. McAneny, by direction of the Executive Com¬ 
 mittee, obtained an audience of the President, and asked if he would 
 give consideration to a memorial, pointing out in detail the deplorable 
 consequences of his Order, and praying for its revocation. The Presi¬ 
 dent replied courteously that he would consider anything the League 
 submitted, but that he regarded any criticism of the Order’s working as 
 premature until it had been given a fair trial. The League then deter¬ 
 mined to await the expiration of the full year from May 29, 1899, before 
 preparing its intended memorial, and circumstances caused some further 
 delay. 
 
 Whilst the Commission has never said that the agents employed by 
 the League in its investigations are not “ responsible persons,” or that 
 in any specified instance the work of the Commission has been impeded 
 by their presence, the language it has used might well give this impres¬ 
 sion to a careless reader. We deem it proper, therefore, to mention in 
 this letter that the two gentlemen, Mr. F. B. Tracy and Mr. George A. 
 Warren, successively employed by the League for these purposes, are, 
 as you well know, men, not only of high standing and excellent reputa¬ 
 tion, but also exceptionally competent for this particular work, and that 
 tables originally prepared by them for the League are published, with 
 certain additions, among the appendices to your Sixteenth Annual Re¬ 
 port. The League has been glad to furnish copies of such tables to 
 the Secretary of the Commission, in reciprocation of his personal cour¬ 
 tesies, whenever they have been desired, and has been gratified to 
 learn that they have proved practically useful. 
 
12 
 
 In conclusion, permit us to say that the Commission’s professed 
 readiness to furnish such measure of information as “it is clearly within 
 the public interest to give ” and “so far as the good of the public service 
 and its limited force of employees will warrant ” is, again, quite beside 
 the question at issue. Everyone knows that you have confidential 
 records touching the character and antecedents of applicants for public 
 office ; to these the League has never asked or desired access. Your 
 remaining records, in the words of Messrs. Lyman, Thompson and 
 Roosevelt, of right “are open to any responsible person”, and for this 
 freedom of access no substitute will, we venture to say, be accepted as 
 sufficient by public opinion. We therefore respectfully renew the request 
 of our previous letter, that we may among other things, complete, in 
 accordance with the suggestion of the President, an accurate and adequate 
 statement of the operation and consequences of his order of May 29, 1899, 
 after it had been given a fair trial. 
 
 We remain, Gentlemen, Yours very truly, 
 
 Charles J. Bonaparte, Edward Cary, Frederick L. Siddons. 
 
 Special Committee, National Civil Service Reform League. 
 
 United States Civil Service Commission, 
 
 Washington, D. C., Oct. 25, 1900. 
 
 Messrs. Charles J. Bonaparte, Edward Cary and 
 Frederick L. Siddons, 
 
 Special Committee , National Civil Service Reform League. 
 Gentlemen : 
 
 This Commission is in receipt of your communication under date of 
 October 18, 1900, in reply to the Commission’s communication under 
 date of September 28, 1900, and respectfully advises you that, after a 
 careful reading, your communication does not seem to contain or advance 
 any matters upon which the views of the Commission are not already 
 expressed in its communication under date of September 28, 1900. 
 
 As to your request contained in your communication of October 18, 
 that you “may, among other things, complete, in accordance with 
 the suggestion of the President, an accurate and adequate statement 
 of the operation and consequences of his order of May 29, 1899, 
 after it had been given a fair trial,” your attention is again respectfully 
 invited to the Commission’s communication of September 28 and to the 
 Commission’s communication to your Secretary under date of September 
 20, 1900, wherein it is pointed out in detail how all proper information 
 which is obtainable from the Commission’s records, and which you may 
 desire in the compiling of any statements which you may be preparing 
 or for use in connection with any investigations which you may be prose¬ 
 cuting, may, in the opinion of the Commission be best and most satis¬ 
 factorily obtained, and wherein it is stated that, in accordance with the 
 method pointed out, the Commission wili always be glad to consider re- 
 
*3 
 
 quests from your Secretary for such information as the League may 
 desire. 
 
 Therefore, if you, your Secretary, or any other member of your 
 League, will kindly indicate just what information is desired at this time, 
 the Commission will be pleased to have the same furnished in accordance 
 with its communications of September 20 and September 27. 
 
 By direction of the Commission : 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 John B. Harlow, 
 
 Acting President. 
 
 We deem no further comment necessary on the Commis¬ 
 sion’s attitude than is implied in plainly stating it. The 
 Commission offers to let its own employees obtain information 
 for the League from its files; it refuses to let the employees 
 of the League, to whose character and fitness for such work it 
 has no objection to offer, obtain this information at the 
 League’s expense, under whatever reasonable regulations may 
 be needful to prevent interference with the work of the office, 
 no complaint of such interference having ever been made in 
 the past or being made now. The Commission professes its 
 willingness to furnish information 1 if the information desired 
 be such as to justify it ’ and ‘ so far as the good of the public 
 service .... will warrant,’ but its decision on these 
 questions must be made when each application is received and 
 is not to be governed by any such general rules as were set 
 forth in its letter of November 2nd, 1899; so that precisely 
 the same data may be furnished at one time and denied at 
 another, or granted to one applicant and refused to the next. 
 Moreover, the information furnished on any subject will 
 be, not necessarily the whole truth, as shown by the Commis¬ 
 sion’s records, but the truth thus shown so far as in the judg¬ 
 ment of the Commission, ‘ the good of the public service will 
 warrant ’ its disclosure. 
 
 We have said that in our judgment this attitude, when 
 clearly defined, needs no comment, but one word may be fitly 
 said of it in conclusion; this was not the attitude of the Com¬ 
 mission when the present Vice-President elect was one of its 
 members. Then, in the words of the Eighth Report, ‘ the 
 books and records of the Commission ’ were ‘ open to any 
 responsible person’; now, under the minute of July 14, ‘no 
 person who is not a member of the Commission’s force shall 
 have access to its files and records ’; then, Mr. Roosevelt and 
 
14 
 
 his colleagues said: ‘No fraud can be committed without 
 leaving a record by which it can be found out ’; now, such a 
 record may perhaps be left, but whether its exists or not, no 
 one but ‘ a member of the Commission’s force ’ can know, 
 and whether the fraud shall be found out by the public de¬ 
 pends on the Commission’s judgment as to how far ‘ the 
 good of the public service will warrant ’ letting in the light of 
 day. In their Eighth Report, above quoted, the Commission¬ 
 ers then in office spoke like men conscious that they were 
 doing their duty and having the courage born of such con¬ 
 sciousness ; on the language of the majority of the present 
 Commission we have already declared comment needless. 
 
 Very respectfully submitted, 
 
 Charles J. Bonaparte, 
 Edward Cary, 
 
 Frederick L. Siddons, 
 
 Special Committee.