personal and official subserviency were enforced by party officials and leaders as conditions of that recommendation and influence without which an appointment was almost hopeless. In this way applicants for office, if not the whole community, have been made to think that, without the interposition of some great officer or politician even the first effective step towards an appointment cannot be taken. Hence, nothing is more natural than that many of those wishing to be examined should begin by invoking such interposition, especially on the part of members of Congress. It should, therefore, be plainly stated that under the new system no appeal to influence or official favor is needed, or can be useful to the applicant. It is troublesome to those appealed to, troublesome to the Commission, and tends to postpone the time of the applicant's examination by causing a roundabout, secondhand correspondence, which generally leads to mistakes, misconceptions, and delay. This intermediary correspondence is not only useless but pernicious in various ways. It suggests and tends to give credence to a false and vicious theory that influence is needed, and is likely to be, in some way, effective for securing an examination, and that the Commission has favors to dispense, the bestowal of which can be propitiated by an appeal to members of Congress or others in high authority. It is further becoming apparent that a class of persons think that if they gain access to an examination through the interposition of a member of Congress or other person of distinction they will have an efficient "influence" behind them, who will hasten their certification, compel their selection from the four certified, and prevent their removal if appointed. This would make members of Congress agents for distributing application papers and might lead them to favor persons of their own politics. Under such a practice there would soon be two classes in the service, the one protégés of members, and the others those who had won their places wholly by their own efforts and had no "influence" behind them. No more than this statement is needed to make plain the mischief of allowing such a revival of the old patronage system, or to make clear the duty of the Commission to firmly resist it. In the discharge of this duty the Commission relies on the co-operation of members them selves. It is confidently expected that such persons as apply to members for application blanks will be referred to the Commission for them, and such now is the practice of nearly every member of Congress. Due attention to the tenth section of the civil service act would show that members of Congress have in substance and from a sense of public duty condemned all such appeals to them, and that they can properly have no effect upon the action of the Commission.* *It is necessary, however, to say that the Commission sometimes receives letters or oral statements from members of Congress which show pretty clearly that they have forgotten that section. These letters generally recommend some lady as an excellent person, generally esteemed and well connected, who greatly needs or wants a place, and request an early examination or a prompt certification for appointment. NUMBERS OF APPLICATIONS AND EXAMINATIONS. It has been the purpose of the Commission to secure, as far as practicable, to every worthy applicant the opportunity to be examined for the public service. The interests of the service, as well as fairness to applicants, demand that the privilege of examination shall be extended to large numbers in order to gain the best talent for the service, and to give the best-fitted applicants the chance to show their worth. But it is evident that some restriction must be put upon the examinations; first, to save the boards of examiners from the oppressive and unnecessary labor which too frequent examinations would impose in requiring them to scan and mark the papers of hundreds of persons beyond the possible vacancies to be filled, and, second, to prevent the holding out of false hopes of appointment to large numbers in excess of all the vacancies likely to occur. In the cases of a large surplus of applicants for examination the Commission has authorized the holding of examinations only when the needs of the service require them. When the numbers on the registers of a high grade are ample for filling the vacancies likely to happen during several succeeding months, there seems to be no reason for examining more until these numbers have been reduced by appointments or withdrawals from the registers. No one is allowed to hold his place on the register more than one year, so that the progress of applicants for examination cannot be long blocked by those who are before them. The old facility and habit of foisting upon the service persons not well qualified for the work to be done naturally suggests to friends the sending to the examinations of persons who have small chances of passing successfully, and more who can pass only at a grade so low that their chances of securing an appointment are remote. TIME AND PLACE OF HOLDING EXAMINATIONS. Many applicants ask when and where the next examination will be held, before the Commission knows in what State they have their residence, what branch of the service they seek to enter, or whether they desire a general, limited, or special examination. It is only after the application has been sent in, giving exact information on these points, that the Commission has the facts needed for answering such questions. But no member has told the Commission what to do with such letters, or what an appointing officer is to do with similar letters of recommendation made to him. That section declares that "no recommendation of any person * which may be given by any Senator or Member of the House of Representatives, except as to character or residence shall be received or considered by any person concerned in making any examination or appointment under this act." * * Even if such recommendations could be received, to depart from the prescribed order, or to disregard the grade of capacity shown by the registers, would not only be a violation of the law and the rules, but an act of favor to one applicant and of injustice to others wholly repugnant to the merit system, though quite in the spirit of the old spoils system. Even then it is not always possible to state the date and place of holding the next examination which should be attended by any particular applicant. If he is seeking to be examined for any office in the customs or postal service, the only answer to his question must be, if an examination has not already been ordered for the office, that these examinations are held with such frequency as are necessary to keep an adequate number on the register, eligible for appointment, to fill the vacancies likely to happen. The examinations are not held at stated periods, irrespective of the fact whether they are necessary or not, but are held just as often as the public interests require. If he is seeking to be examined for the departmental service nearly the same observations apply, with these additional facts, that regard must be had to the need of apportioning the proper number to each State in the ratio of its population, as well as to the aggregate needs of the Departments. Examinations for the departmental service, using different grades of questions, are often held at the same time and place with examinations for the customs and postal service. Hence, in fixing a date, the convenience of more than one branch of the service is taken into account. When examinations for the departmental service are held for the local convenience of applicants, at points other than where they are held for the customs and postal service also, such points are selected as will best accommodate the applicants from parts of several different States if practicable. But these definite answers may always be given to the question: First, that every applicant will receive due notice in writing of the time and place of the proper examination for him to attend; and, second, that when all applicants cannot, by reason of lack of space in the examination room, be notified for the same day, they will be notified subsequently in the order of the reception of their applications. And it must further be borne in mind that a particular examination may be primarily for those from a single State deficient in the number on its register, or only for those applying for some one of the special examinations, or for those who can supply the deficiency in those eligible for appointment of one grade or sex; in which event, only those who can supply that need may be notified, but always in the order of the applications. In short, the examinations are held to supply the needs of the public service and not primarily for the purpose of examining every applicant at the earliest possible moment, but every one has his chance in due order without discrimination. It is but natural, perhaps, in the introduction of a new system, that the lack of familiarity with the practical methods essential should lead to the writing of needless letters of inquiry about such matters. EXAMINERS. The civil-service act requires the examiners, other than the Chief Examiner, to be selected by the Commission from among those in the official service of the United States. 10155 c S- -2 Their selection from among those in the public service was required by Congress in the interest of economy, as well as to secure examiners who should be familiar with the real needs of the offices for which applicants were to be examined. They are paid no extra compensation. "The Commission used the greatest care in the selection of the examiners, in order to secure gentlemen of candor, good judgment, and conscientiousness, united with a high order of intelligence and practical experience. We wish to bear testimony to the efficient and satisfactory manner in which, without exception, the duties of these boards have been performed. "The result has shown what those best acquainted with the public service anticipated. It has been made clear that many members of that service, ready to make sacrifices and efforts for its improvement, are glad to welcome such tests for admission as will substitute demonstrated merit for partisan influence and secret favor. We have found ample numbers in the offices fully competent for the administration of a system which they believe will improve alike the reputation and efficiency of that service of which they are a part, and to the honor of which they are justly sensitive. Even if an appropriation could have been secured to pay outside examiners, they would have known far less of the needs of the service, and their employment would have been justly regarded in the Departments and offices as an offensive and unwarranted condemnation of the capacity and fidelity of those serving there." The examiners have now become skilled in the discharge of their duties and are able to render far more valuable service than could be secured at the hands of persons without their experience. No inconsiderable part of that experience has been gained in hours of extra work, which, in some offices, their new functions have unavoidably imposed upon them. Their fidelity to the system intrusted so largely to their care merits the highest commendation. The Commission has yet to learn of the first instance in which any member of these boards has betrayed his trust, though cases have not been wanting in which it has cost both courage and vigilant effort to perform their duties. THE QUOTA OF A STATE. Under the old system a certain share of all the places was, with some rough measure of exactness, either by law or usage, assigned to a State, or to its members of Congress, and was by them, after a fashion, subdivided among the members or leaders of the party controlling the administration. This share or number was called the "quota" of that State. Every particular official belonging to that "quota" was known by name, and the member or leader who put in one of the "quota" was called the "influence." As soon as there was a vacancy in any one of these "quota" places, a competition arose between the various "influences" and applicants for filling it. That system has been super seded, but the theory of a "quota," with its mischievous and misleading consequences, still survives, though with diminishing effect. No State now has any claim over another upon any particular vacancy, or any "quota" upon the old theory. The civil service act requires all appointments to the classified departmental service made subsequent to July 16, 1883, to be apportioned among the States, Territories, and the District of Columbia in the ratio of their populations respectively. When a vacancy occurs, in whatever Department, the selection to fill it is to be made from the State or Territory which has received the least proportional share of all the appointments then made under the act, as will be more particularly explained. CERTIFICATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS. The making of the apportiontment just referred to is so intimately connected with certifications for appointment that both can be best explained together. Rule 16 provides for making the certifications in such order as to bring about the apportionment; but the certification has other conditions and objects of importance. Four persons and no more are always to be certified; except the Commission may, for good reasons, certify a different number from a special register which we have seen relates to only those very few places where special qualifications are required. The reasons for certifying as many as four are twofold: "First. The appointing power, conferred by Congress upon the heads of Departments under the strict terms of the Constitution, is a power of choice; a right of selection for appointment from among several. That opportunity of choice is inseparable from the power itself. On the other hand, it is the duty of the appointing officer to use that right of choice by selecting the most worthy and capable. Congress may by law facilitate such exercise of that right by a system which brings to the notice of the appointing officers persons proved to be both capable and of good character, together with the evidence of such facts. From these it may require the appointment to be made. To aid the appointing power in that way, and not to weaken it, is the principal object of the examinations. Congress and the Executive co-operated in aid of doing what the appointing officers have found it impossible to do alone. The laws of 1853 and 1855 affirmed the same principle by allowing no one to be appointed who had not been examined.* "Second. Inasmuch as the head of the Department knows best the kind of excellence needed in a particular vacancy, he is allowed a choice among several. A choice between four seems to preserve the authority of the appointing power, and to allow a sufficient variety of capacity * Several years before the passage of the civil service act, the then Attorney General held that the right of choice might be limited to three. |