UonAKr 
 
 ^NIVERSHYoflLLINOt 
 
 AN OPEN LETTER 
 
 To the Honorable G, H. Grosvenor, 
 
 IN REPLY TO 
 
 RECENT ATTACKS 
 
 i 
 
 ON 
 
 The Civil Service Law and Rules. 
 
AN OPEN LETTER. 
 
 OFFICE OF THE 
 
 National Civil Service Reform League, 
 
 54 WILLIAM ST., NEW YORK. 
 
 To the Honorable C. H. Grosvenor, 
 
 House of Representatives , 
 
 Washington , D. C. 
 
 Sir: 
 
 You are the author of an address of some fifty-two columns 
 length, not as yet delivered, but printed in the Congressional 
 Record of i\ugust n, last, with the permission of the House. 
 In this paper, which you entitle “ Civil Service Reform Run 
 Mad,” you attack the existing civil service law and rules in 
 language somewhat violent, declaring in conclusion that you 
 will “ ask the Congress of the United States to ‘ modify ’ the 
 law,” threatening to repeat the speech itself, by way of argu¬ 
 ment to that end, and adding that no Committee on Reform 
 in the Civil Service, or any other power, shall “ smother” you. 
 Since the reassembling of Congress you have given further 
 evidence of your intentions in this regard. You have assum¬ 
 ed the position of leader in a movement to induce your party 
 to repudiate its pledges, and to take those “backward steps” 
 it has given its word of honor it will not take. 
 
 You will pardon me, therefore, if, in view of your promi¬ 
 nent relation to this highly important matter I address to you 
 publicly, as the occasion requires, certain exceptions to your 
 arguments, and to your methods, that I trust will have fair 
 consideration. 
 
 You have based your attacks on the law, and your 
 justification for your course, on a series of either untrue or ir¬ 
 relevant statements peculiarly flagrant in their character and 
 calculated to deceive to a serious degree those who are inter¬ 
 ested in the subject, both in and out of Congress. These 
 statements are contained in your printed speech. It is of 
 the greatest moment, just at present, that they be pointed out 
 plainly, for it is not to be conceived that any considerable 
 proportion of your fellow members, when in possession of the 
 actual facts, will aid you in such a movement as you are en¬ 
 couraging. The merit system in public administration, devel¬ 
 oped by successive Presidents, and consistently maintained 
 by the President whose policy you are now opposing, is too 
 valuable to the people of this country to be sacrificed, or in 
 any degree impaired, through a campaign of false pretences. 
 
4 
 
 Let me select from your collection those misstatements 
 that you are in the habit of employing most frequently: 
 
 THE SCOPE OF THE CIVIL SERVICE ACT. 
 
 (I.) The civil service law now applies, approximately, to 
 87,000 officers and employees in the Executive Service, in a 
 total of 178,000. It covers all positions except those in the 
 Legislative and Judicial branches, those filled by the Presi¬ 
 dent subject to confirmation by the Senate, the fourth class 
 post-offices, the common laborers, and several thousand mis¬ 
 cellaneous places of minor grade. The rules except also, from 
 competitive examination, certain deputies, attorneys and private 
 secretaries to the number of 1,200. The examinable classes 
 include, in short, positions the incumbents of which have 
 nothing to do with the carrying out of the political policies of 
 the government, and that are of a business nature only. The 
 law requires that appointments to all of these shall be thrown 
 open, on equal terms, to all citizens, the ultimate selections to 
 be made from among those who are proven by careful exam¬ 
 ination to be most fit. You declare that this condition has 
 been brought about “ illegally ” and “ fraudulently,” and you 
 add: 
 
 “It (the law) was never intended to cover anything but the De* 
 partments in Washington, and that alone in its application to the cleiical 
 force.” 
 
 The law declares, practically in its own terms, that it was 
 intended to cover exactly the positions to which it now applies. 
 There are. as you are probably aware, two principal acts regu¬ 
 lating the administration of the civil service. The first is known 
 as Section 1753 of the Revised Statutes, and became a law on 
 March 3, 1871. It provides that the President may “pre¬ 
 scribe such regulations for the admission of persons into the 
 civil service of the United States as may best promote the effi¬ 
 ciency thereof and ascertain the fitness of each candidate in 
 respect to age, health, character, knowledge, and ability for 
 the branch of the service into which he seeks to enter,” adding 
 that the President may also establish regulations for the conduct 
 of such persons, after appointment. You will observe that this 
 grant of authority is very sweeping. The act of January 16, 
 1883, conferred very much the same authority, but went 
 farther, in that it prescribed the methods to be followed and 
 expressly directed that certain parts of the service should be 
 classified at once; leaving the others to be brought in gradual¬ 
 ly, in the discretion of the President. The parts immediately 
 affected comprised the departmental service at Washington— 
 including “subordinates, clerks and officers ,” and those Post- 
 offices and Custom Houses outside Washington, having fifty or 
 more employees. The act then required that the Postmaster- 
 
5 
 
 General should “ from time to time, on the direction of the 
 President/’ arrange in like classes clerks and persons in the 
 postal service, “ in connection with any other post-office,” and 
 that the Secretary of the Treasury should perform a like duty 
 with regard to the smaller Customs districts. To provide for 
 all other extensions the act contained the following perfectly 
 explicit language (Section 6, Sub-div. 3): 
 
 From time to time said Secretary, the Postmaster-General, and each 
 of the heads of departments mentioned in the one hundred and fifty-eighth 
 section of the Revised Statutes, and each head of an office, shall on the 
 direction of the President, and for facilitating the execution of this act, 
 respectively revise any then existing classification or arrangement of 
 those in their respective departments and offices, and shall for the pur¬ 
 pose of the examination herein provided for, include in one or more of 
 such classes, so far as practicable, subordinate places, clerks, and offices in 
 the public service pertaining to their respective departments ?iot before 
 classified for examination. 
 
 To fix the limit beyond which these extensions should not 
 pass, it was provided that “Any officer not in the Executive 
 branch of the Government, or any person merely employed as a 
 laborer or workman” or, unless by the direction of the Senate, 
 “ any person who has been nominated for confirmation by the 
 Senate,” should not be required to be classified. Then, to 
 make more plain, if possible, the authority granted within these 
 limits, it was further provided (Section 7) that “Nothing herein 
 contained shall be construed to take from the President any 
 authority, not inconsistent with this act, conferred by the 
 1 753 ^ section of the Revised Statutes.” 
 
 Referring to the plan and scope of the act, the Senate 
 Committee on Civil Service and Retrenchment of 1882, in 
 their report on the subject to the Senate, wrote as follows: 
 
 It is conceded that the party in power must fill the higher official 
 places, which fairly represent its principles and policy, and subject to 
 whose legal instructions the whole subordinate administration is to be 
 carried on. But the subordinates in the Executive departments, whose 
 duty is the same under every administration, should be selected with sole 
 reference to their character and their capacity for doing the public work. 
 This latter class includes nearly all of the vast numbers of appointed of¬ 
 ficials who carry into effect the orders of the Executive or heads of de¬ 
 partments, whether at Washington or elsewhere. 
 
 The Committee then proceeded to explain, what, as we 
 have seen, is so perfectly patent from an examination of the 
 statute itself, that the plan was “ tentative ” in that it was to 
 be applied first under limitations; that it could be “ extended 
 readily at any timeand that ultimately it was to embrace 
 within its scope all of that class of officers mentioned in the 
 paragraph I quote. 
 
 Following a course that you proclaim to be “illegal ” and 
 “ fraudulent,” successive Presidents have,“ from time to time,” 
 revised the classification, until it now covers a large 
 
6 
 
 proportion of the classifiable offices, though not all. The last 
 of the series of revisions made by Presidents Arthur, Harrison 
 and Cleveland, dated May 6, 1896, contains the following 
 preamble: 
 
 In the exercise of power vested in him by the Constitution, and of 
 authority given to him by 1753d section of the Revised Statutes, and by 
 an act to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States, ap¬ 
 proved January 16, 1883, the President hereby makes and promulgates 
 the following rules, and revokes all others. 
 
 You will not, except at the risk of chaffing from your legal 
 friends, repeat your charge that the several grants of author¬ 
 ity therein cited do not cover every extension of the civil ser¬ 
 vice rules that has as yet been made. 
 
 EXTENSIONS HAVE NOT GIVEN PARTISAN ADVANTAGE. 
 
 (II.) The next statement to which exception must be taken 
 is that, through the several extensions that have been made, 
 and more particularly through those of the last preceding ad¬ 
 ministration, undue advantages have been secured to either 
 one party or the other—secured, in fact, to such a degree that 
 the intervention of Congress is needed to correct abuses. You 
 say, for instance: 
 
 “ Before I get through I will attempt to show that the greatest brutal¬ 
 ity of spoilsmanship that ever disgraced the American people was under 
 the head and cover and mask of civil service reform, by a technical and 
 absolutely accurate following of this law and the orders of its promulga¬ 
 tion and enforcement by the recent administration.” 
 
 This, I take it, is at once an inadvertent admission that 
 you were not quite right about the authority for extensions, 
 and a charge that the orders of the last administration, such 
 as they were, served the ends of “ spoilsmanship.” It is not 
 my purpose to defend Mr. Cleveland; I am not sure that in 
 this regard he needs defense; but when you make his orders 
 one of the bases of your attack on the general system I am 
 bound to consider them. Let us have the facts: 
 
 Mr. Cleveland during his second term, extended the rules 
 to 33,169 positions not previously subject to examination. 
 The exact nature of these positions I shall explain farther on. 
 For the present, it suffices to say that, practically, not one of 
 the incumbents affected was protected from removal for any 
 reason within the judgment or caprice of his superior officer, 
 whether the latter might be a Democrat or a Republican. 
 Your statement that any such employee was “ protected ” by 
 his inclusion in the classified service is absolutely and unquali¬ 
 fiedly false. Such a charge could be made neither against the 
 last administration or any of its predecessors. 
 
 In view of the exceptionally keen interest you have shown 
 in the operations of the civil service law, I cannot doubt that 
 
7 
 
 you have long since discovered that until the orders issued by 
 President McKinley on the 27th of July, last, the civil service 
 rules contained no provision that had been practically oper¬ 
 ative in preventing a dismissal for any reason a superior officer 
 chose to assign. 
 
 You may say that even though Mr. Cleveland did leave 
 the power of removal practically unrestricted, he had filled so 
 many offices with Democrats before classifying them that the 
 appointment of the successors of these through competitive 
 examination—which is the real result of the extensions—will 
 not equalize the political proportion for some time to come. 
 That, however, would be equally untrue and unfair. As a 
 proof of this I could offer nothing better than a list of the 
 actual classifications since January 16, 1883, arranged with 
 reference to the political character of the administrations under 
 which they have taken effect. The official records show that 
 13,924. officers and employees were embraced in the original 
 classification in 1883, that 57,707 have been added through 
 Executive extensions, and that 15,467 have come in through 
 the natural expansion of the service. President Cleveland’s 
 order of May 6, 1896, while nominally classifying 31,372, in 
 reality covered 5,063 Navy Yard employes—placed under 
 the rules by Secretary Tracy in 1890—as well as 5,536 Treas¬ 
 ury employees, in the Revenue Cutter Service and other 
 branches, who had been under examination regulations for 
 many years. It included also 5,216 field employments in 
 the War Department, that had been in no sense political. 
 The new classification was made comprehensive for the sake 
 of uniformity. It is to be remembered, as well, that the 
 inclusion of the Railway Mail Service in 1888, was deferred 
 until May, 1889, and must therefore be credited, so far as the 
 actual application of the rules is concerned, to the administra¬ 
 tion of President Harrison. 
 
 The record of classifications, therefore, will read as fol¬ 
 lows : 
 
 republican: 
 
 1883-5. 
 
 Original Classification 13,924 
 
 1889-93. 
 
 Extensions of President 
 
 Harrison, . . 8,690 
 
 Railway Mail Service (Ap¬ 
 plication suspended to 
 May 1, 1889), . 5,320 
 
 Navy Yard employees, 
 placed under rules by 
 Secretary Tracy, . 5,063 j 
 
 32,987 I 
 
 DEMOCRATIC.: 
 
 1885-9. 
 
 Extensions of President 
 Cleveland, less Railway 
 Mail Service, . 1,939 
 
 1893-7. 
 
 Extensions of President 
 Cleveland, prior to May 
 6th, 1896, . . 10,396 
 
 Extensions of May 6, 
 
 1896, less Navy Yard 
 employees, . . 26,309 
 
 38.644 
 
(Republican.) 
 
 32.987 
 
 (Democratic.) 38,684 
 
 Less Non-political bran¬ 
 ches, Treasury Bureaus 
 previously under exam¬ 
 ination systems. 5,536 
 
 Employees of the Engi¬ 
 neers and others in War 
 
 Department, . 5,216- 
 
 io,752 
 
 32,987 
 
 27,892 
 
 Recapitulation : Under Republican Administrations, 
 Under Democratic “ 
 
 Non-political, 
 
 32,987 
 
 27,892 
 
 io,752 
 
 Natural Growth, 
 
 71,631 
 
 15,467 
 
 87,098 
 
 The Republican party, which was responsible principally 
 for the enactment of the civil service law, is as clearly entitled 
 to credit for the extensions that have since been made as is 
 the Democratic party; and, I may add, that whatever at¬ 
 tempts you may make to deny that credit, are bound to be 
 profitless. 
 
 If it is to be assumed that all of the persons classified from 
 time to time have been adherents of the party in power, it will 
 be seen, on examination of the table given above, that the 
 relative proportion has been pretty evenly maintained. What 
 justice there can be in a charge that the extensions of the last 
 administration subserved political ends any more than those 
 of the preceding administrations, it is difficult to conceive. 
 Furthermore, an analysis of the extensions of the Cleveland 
 administration shows an even lower proportion of inclusions 
 that you might term political, than appears from the table 
 itself. Besides the War and Navy employees, 2,061 were 
 Indians employed in the Indian Service, and subject to 
 non-competitive examination only; 4,120 were pension exam¬ 
 ining surgeons, paid by fees and removable from the classified 
 service by a reduction in the amount of such fees. Perhaps 
 18,000 were of a class either exceeding or approaching in im¬ 
 portance those classified originally in 1883. These are not 
 speculative figures, you will understand; they may be verified 
 with very little trouble if you are disposed to consult the offi¬ 
 cial records. 
 
 In the branches last mentioned, the political proportion 
 was in some cases preponderantlv Democratic, but in others 
 was fairly equal. There is the Government Printing Office, 
 for instance, concerning which I find abundant mention in 
 your speech. The roster of that office for August 1, 1895, the 
 
9 
 
 date on which the rules went into effect, showed that of the 
 2,710 employees, 842, or 31 per cent., had been appointed by 
 Mr. Benedict, the Democratic Public Printer then holding 
 office, while 1,203, or 44 P er cent., had been appointed by 
 Mr. Benedict’s Republican predecessor, Mr. Palmer, and 665 
 had served in the office over seven years, both under Mr. 
 Benedict and under Mr. Palmer. I will give a few other in¬ 
 stances: In the Post Office Department, the records show 
 that the total salaries of the superintendents, division chiefs 
 and chief clerks, classified under the order of May 6, was 
 $83,000, and that of this sum the appointees of the Cleveland 
 administration drew $38,300, and the former appointees $45,- 
 500. In May, 1894, a census of the Pension Office showed 
 that there were 266 Democrats and 1,160 Republicans on the 
 rolls, omitting from the compilation 421 women. On March 
 3, last, there were in the Sixth Auditor’s Office, according to 
 the sworn statement of Auditor Howard, 216 Democratic em¬ 
 ployees and 271 Republican, the former drawing $257,480 in 
 annual salaries, and the latter $308,560. In the office of the 
 Comptroller of the Currency, still under a Democratic head, 
 three-fourths of the clerks are Republicans, as Mr. Eckels, I 
 think, will cheerfully testify. These are fair illustrations. In 
 other departments-Democrats will be found in a majority, but 
 it is the average we are considering. In the Internal Revenue 
 Service, the Secret Service—an instance you cite—-and in 
 other branches, there is no doubt that the proportion of 
 Democrats left by Mr. Cleveland was large, but these cases 
 differ little in degree from that of the Free Delivery 
 Post Office Service, where the 7,600 employees classified 
 by General Harrison were Republicans almost to a 
 man. 
 
 The changes under the last administration that attracted 
 the most attention were, undoubtedly, those in the higher 
 offices of the Treasury and Interior Departments. There, 
 many good officers, division chiefs and others, were unjustly 
 removed, but the subsequent classification of the positions 
 did not prevent the correction of such injustices. The proof 
 of this is right at hand, for there have been many changes 
 among officers of this class under the present administration. 
 In the Pension Bureau there are but two of the old chiefs, 
 out of twenty, that remain. To recapitulate : Is there a case 
 in the entire list where a classified employee has been “ pro¬ 
 tected ” by Mr. Cleveland’s orders; is it not plain that the 
 political proportions of the service have been equally main¬ 
 tained, and if not,—and it were important that they should be, 
 —is it not perfectly patent that it has been wholly within the 
 power of the officers of the present administration, regardless 
 of President Cleveland’s acts, to correct as many inequalities as 
 they might have seen fit ? 
 
IO 
 
 REMOVALS NOT GOVERNED BY THE LAW : THEIR PROPORTION. 
 
 (III.) In another part of your paper you print a number 
 of tables showing in detail the changes in the departmental ser¬ 
 vice during the past administration. You declare that a careful 
 study of these figures will enable one to reach : 
 
 “ A comprehension of the magnitude of this sweep—all done under 
 the head of civil service reform. '’ 
 
 Herein you admit, perhaps again inadvertantly, that the 
 “ protection ” you have talked about does not exist, for the 
 removals mentioned occur in both classified and unclassified 
 places. It is necessary to remind you again, nevertheless, 
 that these things were not done “ under the head of civil ser¬ 
 vice reform,” for the reason that the rules at that time gov¬ 
 erned neither removals nor reductions. Why you should 
 charge the law with responsibility for failing to accomplish 
 that for which there was no provision in the law, is unfathom¬ 
 able. 
 
 Your own tables, however, convict you of other strange 
 conceits. They show that the changes made were relatively 
 few, and that your story of thousands of places vacated by Mr. 
 Cleveland, to be filled by his appointees, and placed “ under 
 the protecting aegis ” of civil service reform, is sadly at fault. 
 You include the figures for the Department of Agriculture, 
 which were prepared on a different basis from the others, and 
 covered many hundreds of crop reporters and similar em¬ 
 ployees, who are changed frequently and for all sorts of rea¬ 
 sons. For the sake of clearness I will leave out this Depart¬ 
 ment—which is a little one and can be spared—and give the 
 figures revised, as follows : 
 
 SEPARATIONS. 
 
 DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Removals. 
 
 Resigna¬ 
 
 tions. 
 
 Deaths. 
 
 Total Positions 
 in Departments. 
 
 Competitive. 
 
 Unclassified 
 
 or 
 
 Excepted. 
 
 Competitive. 
 
 Unclassified 
 
 or 
 
 Excepted. 
 
 Competitive. 
 
 Unclassified 
 
 or 
 
 Excepted 
 
 State. 
 
 2 
 
 T 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 J 1 
 
 Treasury. 
 
 395 
 
 728 
 
 376 
 
 290 
 
 86 
 
 3 1 
 
 4,443 
 
 War. 
 
 298 
 
 71 
 
 227 
 
 30 
 
 76 
 
 12 
 
 1,317 
 
 .Navy. 
 
 4 
 
 51 
 
 II 
 
 20 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 450 
 
 Post Office. 
 
 16 
 
 73 
 
 45 
 
 36 
 
 11 
 
 2 
 
 991 
 
 Interior. 
 
 353 
 
 301 
 
 296 
 
 245 
 
 IIO 
 
 16 
 
 3,556 
 
 Justice. 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 35 
 
 2 
 
 n 
 
 0 
 
 137 
 
 
 1,069 
 
 1,226 
 
 969 
 
 664 
 
 295 
 
 74 
 
 
 Totals. 
 
 
 2,295 
 
 
 U633 
 
 
 369 
 
 11,016 
 
 Totals 
 
II 
 
 APPOINTMENTS AND CHANGES OF STATUS. 
 
 DEPART¬ 
 
 MENT. 
 
 ♦Appointments. 
 
 Reinstate¬ 
 
 ments. 
 
 Promotions. 
 
 Reductions. 
 
 1 
 
 Competitive. 
 
 Unclassified 
 
 or 
 
 Excepted. 
 
 Competitive. 
 
 Unclassified 
 
 or 
 
 Excepted. 
 
 Competitive. 
 
 Unclassified 
 
 or 
 
 Excepted. 
 
 Competitive. 
 
 Unclassified 
 
 or 
 
 Excepted. 
 
 State . 
 
 9 
 
 19 
 
 j 
 
 — 
 
 21 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 T reasurv.. . 
 
 726 
 
 1,144 
 
 no 
 
 80 
 
 1,370 
 
 245 
 
 347 
 
 7 i 
 
 War. 
 
 152 
 
 133 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 375 
 
 12 
 
 268 
 
 2 
 
 Navy. 
 
 39 
 
 80 
 
 
 — 
 
 45 
 
 19 
 
 19 
 
 8 
 
 Post Office, 
 
 93 
 
 161 
 
 
 — 
 
 226 
 
 18 
 
 58 
 
 4 
 
 Interior.... 
 
 345 
 
 684 
 
 180 
 
 145 
 
 i, 34 i 
 
 228 
 
 630 
 
 38 
 
 Justice. 
 
 90 
 
 5 
 
 
 — 
 
 61 
 
 23 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 i ,454 
 
 2,226 
 
 291 
 
 225 
 
 3,439 
 
 547 
 
 1,329 
 
 127 
 
 
 
 3,680 
 
 
 516 
 
 
 3,98b 
 
 
 i, 45 b 
 
 * Not including reinstatements. 
 
 Total. —Separations by removal, resignation and death ..4.297 
 
 —Appointments and reappointments.4.19b 
 
 “ —Reductions.1,45b 
 
 “ —Promotions.3,98b 
 
 It will be seen that a majority of the removals occurred in 
 the unclassified branches—those covered in part by subsequent 
 classifications, but that even in the case of these, in the entire 
 departmental service, the total for the full period was but an 
 average of about 300 a year, with 664 resignations to be 
 added. The figures you give for the classified branches may 
 be explained briefly and conclusively. Of the 1,069 removals 
 in these, more than 800 were made in pursuance of the 
 Dockery Retrenchment Acts, mainly where positions were ut¬ 
 terly abolished. You could hardly have been ignorant of that 
 fact when you wrote that “ In the War Department 324 of 
 those covered by the civil service were actually removed and 
 239 resigned, and these places filled and seized upon by the 
 tidal wave of reform.” All but eight of the removals in the 
 classified service of the War Department were occasioned by 
 the Dockery legislation. 
 
 I might congratulate you on the fact that owing to the 
 patriotic action of President McKinley, even the unrighteous 
 removals of which you complain will occur less frequently in 
 the future, were it not for the strangely anomalous character 
 of your reasoning. You devote quite a third of your speech 
 to an exposition of the “ brutality ” of political removals, in 
 certain branches of the service, and another third, in the ag¬ 
 gregate, to an argument for the application of the same prin¬ 
 ciples to every branch. 
 
12 
 
 THE TREATMENT OF VETERANS. 
 
 (IV.) To return briefly to your tables, I quote you as fol¬ 
 lows : 
 
 “ They succeeded during this administration in getting out of those 
 departments 1,028 Union soldiers : 550 were appointed, but largely by 
 promotion from lower grades, and this is the performance that stands 
 to-day unrebuked, etc., etc.” 
 
 Again excepting the Department of Agriculture, it appears 
 that the total separation of veterans, by removal, resignation 
 and death, tvas 873, of whom but 513 were removed. During 
 the same period 375 were appointed and 329 were promoted. 
 The latter were not included in the total of appointments; 
 they were additional. 
 
 THE PRINCIPLES OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 (V.) As an excuse for indiscriminate political proscrip¬ 
 tion, with removals of officers of every grade at the end of a 
 stated period, and in the manner you have so sternly condemned, 
 you quote the following from a letter of Washington to Pick¬ 
 ering, then Secretary of War: 
 
 “ I shall not, whilst 1 have the honor to administer the Government, 
 bring a man into any office of consequence knowingly whose political 
 tenets are adverse to the measures which the General Government are 
 pursuing ; for this, in my opinion, would be a sort of political suicide. 
 That it would embarass its movements is most certain. But of two men 
 equally well affected to the true interests of their country, of equal abili¬ 
 ties and equally disposed to lend their support, it is the part of prudence 
 to give the preference to him against whom the least clamor can be ex¬ 
 cited. For such a one my inquiries have been made, and are still making. 
 How far I shall succeed is at this moment problematical.” 
 
 Having invoked this high authority you exclaim, with evi¬ 
 dent feeling: 
 
 “Little did he ever dream that the hour would come in American his¬ 
 tory when the President would have been forced by law to yield the ap¬ 
 pointing power, given him by the terms of the Constitution, to a bureau 
 independent of the President, and whose orders, if he shall violate them, 
 will lay him liable to indictment and impeachment.” 
 
 Is it possible, Sir, that you have not read the whole of the 
 letter from which you quote ? And are you really unaware 
 of the fact that the office which, according to the very language 
 of that letter, Washington had in mind, was the Attorney-Gen¬ 
 eralship—a place in his own Cabinet ? For you to resort to such 
 a precedent as a reason for turning out any officer now in the 
 classified service who may differ from the President in his 
 notions about the tariff or the currency, is manifestly absurd. 
 There is not a single officer having to do with the policies of 
 the government who is not selected to-day for Washington’s 
 reasons, and without restrictions of any sort except those fixed 
 by the Constitution. There are 4,800 such officers, appointed 
 
13 
 
 by the President, to whom the civil service act has no relation 
 whatever. 
 
 When we come to the ;z<?;z-political offices there is another 
 rule of Washington’s that you might have quoted more appro¬ 
 priately. He would consider, he declared, three things (Writ¬ 
 ings IX, 479): “ (a) Fitness, (b) Comparative merits and suf¬ 
 ferings in the service, and (c) The equal distribution of ap¬ 
 pointments among States.” You will find, I think, that these 
 principles agree fairly with those of the civil service system of 
 to-day. I hardly need add a reminder of Washington’s fami¬ 
 liar warnings against the excesses of party spirit, a thing that 
 you would encourage by offering a loot of the public service 
 as the prize, and even the issue of our political contests. 
 
 To return to your comment on the Pickering letter, let me 
 assure you that the President has not been “ forced by law ” 
 to yield any of his powers to “ an independent bureau.” On 
 the other hand, Presidents Grant and Arthur, under whom the 
 civil service acts were passed, asked Congress for them. Each 
 extension since made came of the voluntary action of the Ex¬ 
 ecutive, in pursuance of the authority given by Congress in 
 response to those requests. But the Presidents have not even 
 limited themselves their constitutional power of appointment. 
 The Constitution, as you may know, specifies certain officers 
 that the President may appoint, and adds: “ But the Congress 
 may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they 
 think proper in the President alone, in the Courts of Hav, or in 
 the heads of departme?itsP The offices covered by the civil service 
 law, with the exception of about a score of minor consequence, 
 are all of this third class. So far as these are concerned, the 
 United States Supreme Court has held (U. S. v. Perkins, 
 116 U. S. 483) that: 
 
 The head of a department has no constitutional prerogative ol’ ap¬ 
 pointment to offices independently of the legislation of Congress, and by 
 such legislation he must be governed, not only in making appointments, 
 but in all that is incident thereto. 
 
 The President, as the head of the Executive branch, con 
 trols, of course, the action of his department officers, but he is 
 responsible only indirectly for their appointments, and in pro¬ 
 mulgating the civil service rules he in no way infringes his own 
 authority. As the rules are his own, and not those of the Civil 
 Service Commission, the cases in which he will be impeached 
 for violating them will be rare. Of course, the appointing 
 power is not yielded in any event to the Commission. The 
 department officer makes his own selection, but from among 
 those certified by the Commission to be the most fit. The pro¬ 
 cess by which the candidate becomes eligible for certification is 
 in some measure automatic. His own merit gives him his chance, 
 and not the action of the Commissioners. To speak of the 
 Commission as an appointing body is flagrantly incorrect. 
 
14 
 
 THE FALLACY OF THE “LIFE TENURE” ARGUMENT. 
 
 (VI.) Having shown the wide difference in the relation of 
 the law to offices of the presidential class and those that are 
 ministerial only, permit me to take exception to one or two of 
 your statements concerning the relation of the latter to the 
 actual administration of the government. I shall show pres¬ 
 ently that through the establishment of a trained body of sub¬ 
 ordinates the public business has been expedited to a remark¬ 
 able degree, and that, as a direct consequence, many millions 
 of dollars have been and are being saved to the public 
 treasury. I shall show also that for this and other reasons, 
 the filching of a single office or branch from the merit system 
 at this juncture will be resented by the people as quickly as it 
 is understood. But another matter first: 
 
 You say that the continued employment of men who 
 are fitted and trained for the work they have to do 
 develops “life tenure in the public service,” creates a 
 “ class separated from the common people of the country ” 
 and “ saps the fundamental principle of a government 
 by the people.” Pardon me if I suggest that this is talk of 
 an exceedingly reckless description. There is no “life 
 tenure” in our civil service. An employee, even under 
 President McKinley’s rule, may still be dismissed for reasons 
 satisfactory to the department officer. He is permitted to pre¬ 
 sent a defence, but that must be in writing; it involves no 
 “ trial,” as you have persistently declared, and the decision of 
 the superior officer is final. The President’s rule, which by 
 the way did not exist on the date on which your sentiments 
 were written, but appeared before they were printed, guaran¬ 
 tees merely that so long as a man’s work is well done he is 
 to be rewarded by decent treatment. That is merit tenure, 
 not life tenure. If anything could be more essentially Ameri¬ 
 can you have not suggested it. Nor have you explained why 
 the non-political public servants form a “ class separated from 
 the people.” If you mean that they are snubbed, both sides 
 will resent it. If you mean that these clerks and mechanics, 
 and inspectors and scientific workers, form an “ aristocracy,” 
 both will be amused. If these officers and employees form a 
 “ class ” of any sort it is a class of faithful, honest and capable 
 men and women, from among whom the drones are rapidly 
 being driven, and the character of whose services is making 
 their calling constantly more honorable. To be a member of 
 the Civil Service will be as proud a thing to an American citi¬ 
 zen before very long as it now is to be a member of the Mili¬ 
 tary or Navy service.—You have not explained, by the way, 
 why for consistency’s sake you do not advocate the disband¬ 
 ing of the army every four years, and the handing over of the 
 ships to untrained men. 
 
 But while a reasonable degree of permanence has 
 
15 
 
 been secured in the government’s business force, the tenure of 
 each man and woman continues to depend solely on the faith¬ 
 ful and efficient performance of duty. If a clerk keeps his 
 books badly because he doesn’t believe in the tariff policy of 
 the administration, if a compositor sets his types face down¬ 
 ward for the same reason, or the chief of a counting room or 
 shop relaxes his discipline, that man is pretty sure to go, for 
 his fault will be quickly discovered. But these things do not 
 happen. Your own theory that employees of a different 
 political faith “ hate the administration and look forward with 
 hope and joy to its ultimate overthrow” I think will be 
 shared by very few of the gentlemen who compose the admin¬ 
 istration, and who are really the most directly interested. The 
 President, for instance, continues as Executive Clerk the 
 gentleman who held the same confidential post under his 
 predecessor, though he might transfer him to any other he 
 pleases. The Secretary of the Navy retains as private secre¬ 
 tary the gentleman he found occupying that office, and similar 
 instances might be related by the score. If such employees 
 may be safely retained and trusted, is it not fair to assume that 
 the occupants of the minor positions may also be ? 
 
 The many other reflections on the character of the men in 
 the service, contained in your speech, I may add, are quite as 
 unjust as this one. 
 
 That the classified service is permanent only so far as it 
 should be, to conform to the elementary rules of good business 
 administration, is shown clearly by the fact that the changes 
 in the personnel are not only quite up to the average of those 
 in private establishments—in connection with which, by the 
 way, we seem to hear no talk of <€ life tenure”—but often 
 beyond. 
 
 Many who, after a period in the Service, have the oppor¬ 
 tunity to better their condition in private employment, resign. 
 Many retire for other normal causes, and others are removed 
 in the course of necessary discipline. 
 
 The vacancies thus created are sufficiently numerous to 
 warrant a large number of annual appointments. Since 1884, 
 and up to January 30, 1896, there had been 48,421 persons 
 appointed under the provisions of the civil service act, 
 and the annual rate is now above 5,000. What do 
 you mean then when you say that this system “ bars access ” to 
 “ The voters, the electors—who stand absolutely equal before 
 the law ?” Are not these thousands who have secured ap¬ 
 pointment citizens of the United States ? And is it not true 
 that each of them have been received on an absolutely equal 
 basis and afforded an absolutely equal chance, according to 
 merit, to enter the service of the government ? And this, by 
 the way, brings me to an important subject: 
 
THE DEMOCRATIC CHARACTER OF THE SYSTEM. 
 
 (VII.) Speaking of the claims of the men who, in 1896, 
 “ marched thousands and thousands of miles to hear the words 
 of encouragement and instruction from the President,” you 
 sav: 
 
 J 
 
 “ They worked for the country and they worked for the candidates, 
 and I protest when I find that when they apply for admission to partici¬ 
 pation, on equal terms, in the administration of the government, a door 
 of a bureau is slammed in their faces, and they are told that they are 
 good enough to vote and march and carry banners and transparencies, 
 but they are not good enough to hold office under the government unless 
 they compete in scientific literary knowledge with the students of colleges 
 with wealth.” 
 
 Here, as in the last paragraph that I quote, you touch one 
 of the vital points of this discussion. You make it easy to 
 show that the competitive merit system is the most democratic 
 that could be devised, and that in seeking to restrict it you seek 
 to take from the young men of the country that very equality 
 of opportunity that you discuss with such strange logic; and 
 which, I may add, it is their right to enjoy. Let us consider 
 for a moment the actual nature of the system: A certain 
 number of men and women are required annually for the gov¬ 
 ernment service; it is announced that each office or employ¬ 
 ment, not filled by promotion, is open to free competition in 
 which any citizen of good character may participate. The 
 qualifications required in each case are stated by the officer 
 who is to appoint and advertised by the Civil Service Com¬ 
 mission ; those who believe they possess these qualifications 
 are permitted to enter applications, stating, where necessary, 
 their previous experience, and accompanied by testimonials 
 as to character and habits from a number of reputable persons 
 of their acquaintance; twice yearly, or, in special cases, as 
 often as necessity requires, these applicants are called together 
 at the city most convenient to their homes in order that the 
 qualifications they believe they have may be ascertained by 
 examination. The questions and tests relate directly to the 
 duties they will, if successful, be expected to perform. If the 
 applicant desires a clerkship he is examined with regard to 
 penmanship, copying, tabulating, or skill in some special 
 branch, such as book-keeping or stenography; if he is a me¬ 
 chanic, he is tested merely in the use of his tools, or possibly 
 with reference to his physical ability—such a man, not being 
 required to write his own name if it happens that he cannot; 
 if he is a scientific w r orker the examination relates to scientific 
 subjects, if a physician or lawyer, to the special practice for 
 which he is required, or, if he is to be a director of some special 
 work, to his experience, technical knowledge and ideas of ad¬ 
 ministration. The tests, in every important case, are prepared 
 after consultation with the department officers. If more convin¬ 
 cing proof of their practical nature is necessary, I would sug- 
 
17 
 
 gest a reading of the sketch contained in the admirable report 
 of the Chief Examiner of the Civil Service Commission, issued 
 a week ago. 
 
 When the candidates for a given position have been 
 marked and graded according to the ability they have shown, 
 those standing highest are given the earliest opportunity for ap¬ 
 pointment, the department officer selecting from the first three, 
 and the others taking the next turn for certification. If the position 
 is fiduciary in character, a bond may be exacted in any amount 
 the appointing officer deems necessary for his protection. An 
 officer who discriminates against such a candidate at this junc¬ 
 ture, however, because of his political or religious opinions is him¬ 
 self liable to removal. The appointee for six months serves on 
 probation. If there is any necessary quality that the exami¬ 
 nation has failed to disclose, and that he does not possess to a 
 sufficient degree, it is quite certain to appear during this period 
 and to result in his rejection. It is only at the end of the pro¬ 
 bationary period that the appointment is made absolute. After 
 that the employee depends on his own good work for retention 
 and if he fails, may be dismissed in the simple and proper 
 manner that President McKinley has prescribed. While it is 
 becoming the rule, as the system develops, that the places in 
 the higher grades shall be filled by the promotion of em¬ 
 ployees who have served best in those of the lower, thus offer 
 mg a further incentive to good work, the method of entrance 
 to the service, or of appointment in special cases as they arise, 
 remains as I have outlined it, 
 
 Plere is equality of opportunity that cannot be gainsaid. 
 And it is this system, opening the way on the fairest of terms 
 to the various branches of the public service, that you pro¬ 
 pose either wholly or in part to break down, substituting the 
 old plan under which the man who has the favor of a local 
 political potentate has the best, nay the only, chance of ap¬ 
 pointment, and under which the real equality of opportunity 
 is to be abolished. Your statement that the scheme you pro¬ 
 pose has “ popular ” support I deny unhesitatingly. 
 
 It may be added that, under the present system, the men 
 who marched “ thousands and thousands of miles ” to 
 Canton will be received on perfectly equal terms when 
 they apply for offices; but when they are given offices 
 it will be for the reason that they are able to perform the du¬ 
 ties attached to them, and not merely because they “ marched 
 and voted and carried banners and transparencies.” The 
 door of the Bureau you have in mind is not “ slammed in 
 their faces”; it is opened to them widely. I venture the sug¬ 
 gestion, moreover, that a great many of them went to Canton 
 from different motives from those you suggest, and that the 
 things that inspired these most were the principles for which 
 they and their leader were contending. 
 
The sole basis of your charge of inequality under the merit 
 system seems to be the exploded fiction about the “ college 
 graduate.” The Civil Service Commissioners will tell you that 
 eighty per cent, of the men they have passed have come from 
 the country’s common schools, and that ten per cent, more 
 have come from the academies and business schools. They 
 will give you the exact figures if you wish them, showing, 
 moreover, that the few college men who have been appointed 
 are employed almost wholly in those scientific and professional 
 positions for which only those who have had a college train¬ 
 ing would be eligible. To repeat that fiction, especially in the 
 •manner of language in which you have employed it, is a most 
 unfair proceeding. You give another illustration of the 
 “ injustice” the system works to the average citizen; you find 
 that he must pay 25 cents to the notary who witnesses the 
 signature to his application papers, and, in extreme cases, 10 
 cents for car fare, in going to and from the board rooms. This 
 you call “ obtaining money under false pretenses,” in as much 
 as the Commission admits many persons to the examinations 
 who never secure appointments; more, that the Commission, 
 by subtle pursuasion, induces such persons to compete, know¬ 
 ing that the sole result will be the enrichment of some notary 
 or street car monopoly. You may not know that the Com¬ 
 mission sends to each applicant a pamphlet, giving among 
 other things the table of examinations and appointments for 
 some years past and pointing out, as clearly as possible, the 
 chance that each will have to succeed. That should be 
 made plain, though your argument of the expense to the candi¬ 
 date cannot be taken seriously. You give two columns to it, but 
 do you not perceive that people of a statistical turn of mind will 
 begin to figure out the cost to the candidate under the former 
 plan, including in most cases railroad tickets to Washington, ho¬ 
 tel board, entertainment, and all the other items that bankrupted 
 so many zealous office seekers in those unforgotten days. There 
 are few who will not assure you that by comparison the 25 cents, 
 or the 35 cents, expense under the new plan is not immoderate. 
 
 HOW EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY HAVE BEEN PROMOTED. 
 
 (VIII.) However, Sir, now that the advantage of the open 
 competitive sytem to the citizen has been considered, let us 
 take up the equally important matter of the advantage to the 
 government. You say: 
 
 “There has never been a cool, deliberate, dispassionate and candid 
 and just argumeut made by these men why this law should be upheld 
 and vindicated. They have never yet dared touch the true test of the 
 efficiency or non-efficiency, the beneficent or non-beneficent character 
 of the administration of this law in the United States. I propose that they 
 shall have an opportunity now.” 
 
 When we consider your daily walk; how you are compassed 
 
19 
 
 about with the records and reports of many administrations, 
 bearing, as they do, testimony unlimited to the wisdom and to 
 the efficiency of this system, this must be set down as a some¬ 
 what bold and remarkable statement. There has hardly been 
 a President, ora department chief, or in fact, any officer who 
 has had a year’s experience in the direction of any part of the 
 business of the government, who has not added his commenda¬ 
 tion of the law. 
 
 But you are armed with an argument that is to set this tes¬ 
 timony at naught, and make you irresistible. You say: 
 
 “ In 1883, when the civil service law was passed, there were 131,800 
 members of the civil service of the government. In 1897 there were 
 178,717, an increase of 46,917 in thirteen years. This increase is largely 
 out of proportion to the increase in population in the United States, and 
 yet during that period we have had the Dockery act and the report of 
 the Dockery Commission, which was carried into execution, by which it 
 was supposed that a large lopping off of the employees was to take 
 place, but the growth of the civil service domination has been so great 
 that efficiency is no longer the rule.” 
 
 In brief, you give the increases in the classified and un¬ 
 classified branches, without distinction, and cheerfully charge 
 both to the operation of the civil service act. Though hardly 
 a tenth of the service was classified in 1883, and less than half 
 to day, you would have the people believe that the entire 
 growth during these fourteen years,—including even the fourth 
 class post-offices that multiply at the rate of several thousand 
 annually,—has been within the classified service and notwith¬ 
 standing the merit rules. Here, you say, is proof positive 
 that the system is expensive, and that, “with the growth of the 
 civil service domination,” efficiency is no longer possible. 
 
 Your ingenuous friend, Mr. Gallinger, figures out that 
 the Civil Service system is expensive because the per capita 
 cost of government has increased since i860 from $3 to $7, 
 including, of course, the expenditures for pensions, public 
 buildings, rivers and harbors, and all else. But with Mr. 
 Gallinger it has perhaps been an innocent failure to compre¬ 
 hend; in your own case I do not think that so much can be 
 * said. 
 
 The official records, that are ahvays easily accessible, show 
 that, while in those branches of the service that have not been 
 under the rules there have been material increases in the num¬ 
 ber of employees and in the appropriations for their salaries ; 
 in the branches originally classified there has been an actual 
 decrease, notwithstanding the expansion of the departmental 
 functions and the increasing volume of work. It is the un¬ 
 classified growth that has made up the whole of your total of 
 increase. A brief summary of the figures will make this fact 
 perhaps plainer. I give, by way of illustration, those for 
 the originally classified and unclassified Department Service, 
 and those for the Judicial and Legislative branches: 
 
20 
 
 Departmental Service. 
 
 1083 - 
 
 Officers and employees, unclassified. 7,847 
 
 Salaries paid.$6,792,377 
 
 Number of persons subject to competitive ex¬ 
 amination by original classification. 5,530 
 
 Salaries paid.$ 7 , 035,820 
 
 Number at present in same classes. 
 
 Salaries paid. 
 
 Judicial Branch. 
 
 Officers and employees . 6 
 
 Salaries paid . $ 15,000 
 
 Legislative Branch. 
 
 Senate officers and employees.154 
 
 Salaries paid. ..$276,044 
 
 House officers and employees.197 
 
 Salaries paid.$364,028 
 
 1896. 
 
 10,760 
 
 $9,746,252 
 
 5,414 
 
 $6,960,602 
 
 89 
 
 $114,150 
 
 326 
 
 $432,228 
 
 59 1 
 
 $624,022 
 
 These figures are not of course affected by the more recent 
 additions to the classified service; they are of date of April 
 r, 1896. 
 
 The municipal service of the District of Columbia is an¬ 
 other unclassified branch that may be referred to. The figures 
 in this case are as follows : 
 
 1883. 1896. 
 
 Officers and employees ... 1,145 2,575 
 
 Salaries paid. . . $912,826 $1,918,479 
 
 The total of all originally classified clerkships at Wash¬ 
 ington has decreased 3.9 per cent, since 1883, effecting a 
 saving of $228,200 annually. If the number of classified 
 employees had increased at a rate proportionate to that in 
 unclassified branches the additional cost to the government 
 would have been $3,100,620 anualiv at Washington alone. 
 
 There are several perfectly plain reasons for these figures. 
 In the first place, the withdrawal of the power to secure 
 positions through political, or social, or good natured personal 
 influence, has removed the principal cause for the unneces- 
 ary increase of the number of such positions. That you will 
 appreciate. Again, it is well known that one man, trained and 
 experienced in a particular kind of work will accomplish often 
 as much as two who are not so trained; and, finally, there is the 
 constant incentive to good work in a service in which tenure, 
 as well as advancement, depends upon proved merit 
 alone. It is not strange that with these simple forces at work 
 such figures may be presented. That they are not exception¬ 
 al may be proved, if that was necessary, by reference to other 
 branches. A file of the reports of the Civil Service Commis¬ 
 sion will give many instructive instances of increases effected 
 in both economy and efficiency. From this and other sources 
 I will give a few, for purposes of further illustration : 
 
 (1.) In the Treasury Department, at Washington, the 
 
21 
 
 number of clerks decreased after classification, from 1725 in 
 1883 to 1583 in 1896, a difference of 8.2 per cent. In the 
 sub-treasuries, outside Washington, that were unclassified 
 during the same period, the number increased from 76 to 122, 
 a difference of 46 per cent. 
 
 (2.) In the Immigration Service, since the extension of the 
 rules to that branch in May, 1896, a saving has been effected 
 of $55,000 annually, by abolishing a number of the positions 
 classified, as they became vacant, for the simple reason that the 
 pressure for such positions had been withdrawn. 
 
 (3.) In the Philadelphia Mint, since the classification, al¬ 
 though the amount of work accomplished has increased very 
 materially, the number of men employed is 42 less, with an 
 annual saving in expense of nearly fifty thousand dollars. 
 
 (4.) Commissioner Carroll D. Wright, who assumed the di¬ 
 rection of the Eleventh census, some time before its completion, 
 testified recently that as the result of a careful judgment he 
 concluded that if the rules had been applied in the selection 
 of the clerks and collectors of statistics in 1890, the census 
 would have cost the Government $2,000,000 less. 
 
 (5.) The Secretary of Agriculture, in his report for 1896, 
 stated that although the work of his Department had been very 
 much broadened since the application of the rules, there had 
 been a reduction of 280 employees and that during three and 
 a half years there had been covered back into the treasury, 
 almost wholly in consequence of the greater efficiency shown, 
 a total of $2,066,661. 
 
 (6.) Postmaster-General Gary, in his report for 1897, 
 shows that since the application of the rules to the Railway 
 Mail Service, the number of correct deliveries of mail pieces 
 to one error has increased from 3,694 in 1888 to 11,960 in 
 1897. The gradual increase from year to year is as shown 
 follows: 
 
 1888. 
 
 . 3.694 
 
 1889. 
 
 . 3,954 
 
 1890. 
 
 . 2,834 
 
 1891. 
 
 . 4,261 
 
 1892. 
 
 . 5,564 
 
 1893. 
 
 . 7 U 44 
 
 1894. 
 
 . 7,831 
 
 1895. 
 
 
 1896. 
 
 . 9,843 
 
 1897 . 
 
 . 11,960 
 
 The low figures of 1890 followed the numerous changes 
 made in the service during the preceding year. 
 
 (7.) In his report for the year 1896, the Commissioner of 
 Internal Revenue used the following language : 
 
 “ I desire to call special attention tot he marked improvement of the 
 service in the field since the classification under the civil service law of 
 the various employees in that branch of the service. This is especially 
 noticeable in those districts in which there has heretofore been a dispo¬ 
 sition on the part of subordinate employees to enter into collusion with 
 persons engaged in the illicit manufacture and sale of distilled spirits. . . . 
 
 “ Under present conditions the employee has learned that a serious 
 
22 
 
 infraction of his duty renders him liable to peremptory dismissal from 
 the service, and that without any hope of reemployment. He has also 
 learned that a strict compliance on his part with the law and regulations 
 will place him in the line of promotion and enable him to be advanced 
 to the higher grades of the service.” 
 
 (8.) The report of the Superintendent of the Bureau of 
 Engraving and Printing, for the same year, shows that not¬ 
 withstanding the fact that the work of that Bureau has in¬ 
 creased over 77 per cent., the force has increased only ii per 
 cent. While this difference is accounted for in part by the in¬ 
 troduction of improved machinery, it is admitted that it is 
 due in greater part to the operation of the civil service law. 
 The difference between the old methods and the new may best 
 be shown by quoting the report made by a commission of 
 Treasury experts who investigated that Bureau prior to the 
 enactment of the civil service law. This will have particular 
 interest in view of the suggestion contained in your speech, 
 that at the time of the passage of the law “ There was no ne¬ 
 cessity for greater efficiency or purer morals in the Depart¬ 
 ments at Washington, or in the great bureaus in other cities.” 
 
 The passage from the report that I have in mind is as 
 follows: 
 
 ‘ ‘ The whole system seems to have revolved in a vicious circle. Ap¬ 
 propriations have been secured by making appointments for Congress¬ 
 men, without regard to the fitness of the appointees or the necessities of 
 the work ; and when secured they have been expended in such manner 
 as to retain the good will of those already friendly or to secure that of 
 others. Moreover, the Bureau has been made to subserve to a great ex¬ 
 tent the purpose of an almshouse or asylum. . . . 
 
 “ We can not condemn too strongly the system of patronage, which 
 is chiefly responsible for the extravagance and irregularities that have 
 heretofore marked the management of the Bureau, and which, it is safe 
 to say, has cost the people millions of dollars in this branch of the service 
 alone.” 
 
 (9.) In the Government Printing Office under the old sys¬ 
 tem, as late as 1894, there were 3,381 persons employed. Since 
 the classification, although the amount of work has increased 
 20 per cent., the force has been reduced to 2,828. One sim¬ 
 ple illustration of the growth of the work is afforded by the in¬ 
 crease in the amount of paper used. In 1894 there were 4,823 
 tons consumed, against 5,457 a year after the rules had been 
 applied, in 1896. 
 
 The foreman of the Specification division of the Printing 
 Office testified recently that by an actual comparison of the 
 number of eras of type set by compositors coming in under the 
 two systems, he found the new men from 10 to 50 per cent, 
 superior to the old. This same officer, who is one of the best 
 known printers in the country, testified that if the merit system 
 had been applied to the Printing Office during the full period 
 of its existence the saving to date would have been $8,500,- 
 000. 
 
23 
 
 ,■» (io.) General Tracy, Secretary of the Navy, said, in 1892 : 
 
 “ The persons appointed under this system are unquestionably more 
 efficient, as a whole, than those selected under any system of pure pat¬ 
 ronage.” 
 
 The Commissioner of Pensions, speaking of the order plac¬ 
 ing pension agencies under the rules, in 1896, said: 
 
 “ The wisdom of the change has been demonstrated in the increased 
 efficiency of the clerical force, and the decided improvement in the en¬ 
 tire agency service.” 
 
 Secretary of the Interior Noble added his testimony as 
 follows: 
 
 “The Department of the Interior, with its 7,500 clerks, could not 
 be run six months without the great body of the employees being under 
 the civil service rules.” 
 
 I will end these citations with two from other Cabinet of¬ 
 ficers, one a Democrat and the other a Republican, that I 
 am sure will be given weight. 
 
 Postmaster-General Bisseli, in the second year of his 
 term, gave his judgment as follows : 
 
 “Another year’s experience has served only to strengthen the con¬ 
 viction expressed in my last annual report as to the excellent working of 
 the civil service law in the Post Office Department, and my desire to 
 see its operation extended to every branch of the postal service to which 
 such extension is practicable.” 
 
 A few years earlier Mr. Windorn, then Secretary of the 
 Treasury, wrote: 
 
 “The beneficial influences of the civil service law in its practical 
 workings are clearly apparent. Having been at the head of the depart¬ 
 ment both before and after its adoption, I am able to judge by the com¬ 
 parison of the two systems and have no hesitation in pronouncing the 
 present condition of affairs as preferable in all respects.” 
 
 A volume might be filled with quotations of this sort, but it 
 is not necessary to repeat them. There is no voice of dissent; 
 no Secretary having had that important “ year’s experience ” 
 who does not give the same testimony. The Presidents, without 
 exception, from Grant to McKinley, have spoken in the same 
 tone, and from 1883 to the present day there has not been 
 one of them who has not had the consistent support of Con¬ 
 gress. Is it conceivable that their unanimous judgment will 
 be impeached, or that there are gentlemen who, like yourself, 
 in the face of the overwhelming proof to the contrary, will de¬ 
 clare that this system does not improve the service, or that it 
 has not saved millions of dollars of the people’s money ? 
 
 EXCEPTIONS BY LEGISLATION WOULD BE WITHOUT REASON. 
 
 (IX.) At the conclusion of your speech you announce your 
 programme as follows: 
 
24 
 
 *‘ I for one, deeply as I feel these wrongs, will not ask the Presi¬ 
 dent of the United States, even though my voice may be heeded, to incur 
 the responsibility of reversing the action of his predecessors, beyond that 
 to which his own good sense and good judgment may be commend¬ 
 ed : but I will ask the Congress of the United States to modify this 
 law.” 
 
 It is here that, after crying out from the quiet recesses of 
 the Record , “ Mr. Speaker! this voice .... this shout of de¬ 
 nunciation, has got to be recognized on this floor!” You 
 declare that you will not be “ smothered.” While your self- 
 control in the matter of the suggestions the President “ might 
 have heeded” is more or less commendable, it is not ap¬ 
 parent why you should now seek to force him by legislation 
 to do the things you have so generously refrained from asking 
 him to do. There is not a reason, founded in decency or 
 truth, that you can bring in support of the exception of a single 
 branch or office now subject to the civil service rules. If there 
 are individual positions that, for reasons having to do with 
 their peculiar nature, should be excepted, the President has 
 ample power to act, and he has said that wherever he is able 
 to find such a position he will act. He informs the Congress 
 that the discretion vested in the Executive will be exercised 
 justly and carefully in every proper case, and you respond with 
 a movement for a vote of “No confidence.” What you pro¬ 
 pose would, under the circumstances, amount to a personal in¬ 
 dignity offered the President. Coupled with a repudiation of 
 the party pledge to “take no step backward” on this ques¬ 
 tion, and to maintain and exte?id the application of the civil 
 service law, it would be received by the country in a way you 
 may not expect. 
 
 But aside from what may and what may not be the legis¬ 
 lative function in this matter, it is the fact, as I have said, that 
 not a single exception that Congress might order could be 
 justified. The rules work well in every case; wherever they 
 have been applied efficiency and economy have been promoted, 
 and, what is of equal moment, the offices they cover have, in 
 the best sense, been placed within reach of the people and be¬ 
 long to the people. 
 
 There are certain specific exceptions to which you have 
 frequently referred, and against each of which arguments may 
 be submitted as conclusive as any this paper contains. I may 
 add that as soon as it may be necessary I shall attempt to 
 give these arguments publicly, and will ask for them the 
 consideration of your colleagues. There are, as well, some 
 two score or more of what I may term your minor misstate¬ 
 ments, that may be treated in a supplementary letter, and 
 there is the highly remarkable system you propose to substi¬ 
 tute for the present one that is still to be set up for public in¬ 
 spection. This paper was intended to be sufficiently compre- 
 
25 
 
 hensive to cover these things, but it must serve, if useful for 
 any purpose, as a more general survey. 
 
 To your fellow members, many of whom have given you 
 sympathy or support for the reason that these statements of 
 yours have been accepted as true and entitled to credit, I 
 think the appeal may safely be made not to permit the taking 
 of a single backward step. 
 
 It has been shown that the system includes only those 
 branches and positions it was intended to include, and should 
 include, and that the two great political parties are almost 
 equally responsible for the extensions that, have been 
 made; it has been shown that no real partisan advantage 
 has been gained by any of these extensions, and that 
 even if the Democratic administration had not made those 
 of more recent date the incoming Republican administra¬ 
 tion would have stood pledged to make them; it has 
 been shown that the improper removals and reductions which, 
 such as they were, have given rise to so much criticism of the 
 system in past years, were not governed in any degree by the 
 civil service law—and it is obvious that if this were not the 
 case, President McKinley’s wise rule, which guards the future, 
 would not have been needed; it has been made plain that the 
 great body of officers having to do with the political policies 
 of the government are not affected by the law and that an ad¬ 
 ministration is helped, not hampered, by the regulation of the 
 business service through business rules; it has been made 
 plain, too, that the “life tenure” so much discussed does not 
 exist, and that the changes in the service for normal reasons 
 are sufficient to give employment to thousands of citizens an¬ 
 nually; it has been shown that these citizens are received on 
 a basis of absolute, democratic equality, and that the system 
 through which their qualifications are tested, and the best fit¬ 
 ted selected, is in the highest degree practical, quite free from 
 the imperfections and absurdities that are so frequently de¬ 
 scribed by those who ought to know better, and challenging the 
 most careful scrutiny; it hasbeen demonstrated that wherever this 
 system has been applied it promotes economy, that it improves 
 the efficiency of the work done for the government, that it 
 saves millions of dollars to the treasury, and that it frees de¬ 
 partment officers from the importunities of those who, in the old 
 days, often quite consumed the time required for the business of 
 administration; it may be shown that sound reasons for 
 withdrawing any part of the present classified service from the 
 operation of this system, or for the modification of the sensible 
 rules now regulating both appointment and tenure, do not 
 and cannot exist; it is so plainly true that the Republican 
 party is pledged not to make such changes that, as I have said, 
 it is inconceivable that a movement such as you are leading, 
 could have for an hour the support of a Member of that party. 
 
26 
 
 The President, having the power to modifythe 
 system practically as he pleases, has chosen to uphold 
 and to strengthen it. His course during the past nine 
 months in this regard has won him the applause and the 
 admiration of the people, and his courage and honorable deal¬ 
 ing will never be forgotten. It was said in General Grant’s 
 day that the administration that accomplished the final estab¬ 
 lishment of civil service reform would win a glory not less 
 lasting than that which ended human slavery. There can be 
 no doubt that this is true; nor that a large part of that glory 
 will be attached to the administration of Mr. McKinley. The 
 President has kept the party faith. When you ask the people 
 to believe that the Republicans in Congress will not do like¬ 
 wise, they refuse to credit you. 
 
 The pledge of the party at St. Louis, made when the 
 lines of the classified service were drawn as they are drawn 
 now, was most explicit: 
 
 “ The civil service law was placed on the statute book by the Re¬ 
 publican party, which has always sustained it, and we renew our repeated 
 declarations that it shall be thoroughly and honestly enforced and ex¬ 
 tended wherever practicable.” 
 
 Speaking in the House, on the 26th of February last, you 
 proclaimed as follows: 
 
 “ Mr. Speaker : Important declarations in political platforms are 
 never the result of accident, but are always the result of design. They 
 are always born of conditions existing in the constituents of the party 
 that gives the utterance. The Republican convention at St. Louis was 
 a representative body of a great party in the country, and the men who 
 went there and represented their several constituencies understood the 
 conditions at home. They did not go to St. Louis to declare a platitude, 
 nor to make a declaration that was not demanded by existing conditions, 
 and that was not in consonance with the opinions of their constituents. 
 
 It was an occasion that will be a warning to a great many 
 men in this country that they must obey party dictation and follow party 
 standards, or cease to be members of that party.” 
 
 If it is your purpose to repudiate, yourself, a pledge made 
 and reiterated by the Republican party for thirty years, and 
 thus to drum yourself out of its ranks; if you seek to set up 
 again the u spoils” system in the whole service or in any of 
 its parts, regardless of the interest of the government or of the 
 rights of the people, why not be more frank about it ? Make 
 the issue plain, forego your use of false pretences, and no one, 
 Sir, who has at heart the welfare of this reform, need fear the 
 result. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 George McAneny, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 December 15, 1897. 
 
4 
 
 * 
 
 i 
 
 f 
 
3 0112 061942592