« AnteriorContinuar »
Summary by divisions of the country.
Number of Number of appointments
to which ento which enti
titled of the tled of the Number
ments 11,746 in an of officers
3,881 in an
exact appor. and em. exact appor- through
tionment tionment ac- examinaployés. cording to the tion.
the popula. population of
tion of the the Eleventh Census (1890).
census under which made.
North Atlantic: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New
York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.. South Atlantic (except District of Columbia): Del.
aware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida. North Central: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas. South Central: Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma Terri. tory, Indian Territory, Arkansas Western: Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado,
New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, California... District of Columbia.....
Contrast of apportionment of appointments under civil service act with those made without
Percentage of variation:
Under merit system=ill, or 3 per cent. Under patronage system=18, or 40 per cent. * Omitting the District of Columbia the variation from an exact apportionment for the entire country is only 29, while for the patronage system it is 970.
APPORTIONMENT UNDER PATRONAGE SYSTEM.
The above table is especially noteworthy because of the showing it makes as to the equalization of appointments in the different States under the civil-service law. Under the old patronage system there was only the roughest approximation toward equalizing the quotas of the different States. Under the civil-service law the Commission has succeeded in keeping these quotas very nearly even.
Of course, as explained above, there are certain kinds of appointments which necessarily disturb this apportionment. Positions like those of printer's assistants, where the salary is very small, ought not to be and are not considered in making the apportionment, as it would be impossible to bring people here from remote States to fill such positions. Again, there are many highly technical places, notably in the Department of Agriculture and in the scientific bureaus, where there may be only one or two men in the United States fitted to fulfill the duties required. In cases of this kind the Commission certifies from the eligible registers in disregard of the apportionment, and it is almost wholly in cases of this kind that the excess of appointments from the District of Columbia arises. Disregarding these two sets of cases it is possible to apportion the appointments with substantial equality.
This table shows how near the Commission has come to making this equal apportionment and how far short the Departments have come of doing so as regards appointments not made under the control of the Commission. Take the State first mentioned in the list, Alabama. Under the Commission it has had 93 appointments, while it would have 97 if the apportionment had been exact. It is, therefore, 4 short of its quota, a deficit which will probably be made up in the certifications in the next few months. But of the appointments under the patronage system Alabama has had only 66 out of the 187 to which it was entitled (assuming as correct the statement in the Blue Book, and assuming also that the present residence is the same as that of the appointee when he took office, which, however, is probably not always the case). This leaves a deficit of 121. The injustice done to Alabama under the patronage system, therefore, amounted to 121 appointments, whereas under the civil-service law it has received within 4 of its proper number. Passing over the next two Territories (in which the aggregate of the appointments under the civilservice law is precisely what the two Territories are entitled to) we come to the State of Arkansas. Under the civil-service law Arkansas has received 62 appointments but is entitled to 64. It has, therefore, had a deficit of 2 appointments, the deficit in this case being very small, exactly as was the deficit in the case of Alabama. Of the patronage appointments Arkansas has only had 4 out of 147, so that its deficit is 143. Taking Alabama and Arkansas together we find that under the civil-service law they have had only 6 appointments less than they were entitled to; whereas outside of the civil-service law they have had 264 less. California, under the civil-service law, was entitled to 68 appointments. It has received 67, or 1 deficit. Of patronage appointments it has received only 37 out of 158, so that it has received 121 less than its share where the law did not guarantee it its rights, but has received 1 less than its due share where the Commission had control.
Turning to Maryland we find the exact reverse of this state of affairs. Through the Commission Maryland was entitled to 70 appointments, and has received 77, an excess of only 7. Taking into account patronage appointments it was entitled to 125, and has received 475, so that it has received 350 more appointments than were due to it under the old system, whereas it has received within 7 of its proper number under the new.
In the same way Connecticut has received under the civil-service law exactly the 47 appointments to which it was entitled but where the law does not obtain it has 109, although only entitled to 92. For the reasons given above the District of Columbia is certain always to have an excess. Thus, under the civil-serva ice law, it has received 103 appointments instead of the 14 to which it was entitled, 80 that it has had 89 excess. This excess is, however, necessary and legitimate. Taking into account patronage appointments it is entitled to only 29, and has had 2,244,
80 that though it has had 89 more than its share, made according to a strict numer. ical apportionment under the civil-service law, it has had 2,215 more than it was entitled to of the appointments made under the old system. The other States, as will be seen by an examination of the table, stand substantially on an equality with those mentioned.
TABLE 14.-Showing appointments to the classified departmental service made from the
several examinations during the year ended June 30, 1893.
Transfers under departmental Rule VIII, 1 (c). Classified post-office, or
Railway Mail Service to Post-Office Department
II, 4 ...
Returns office clerk, Interior Department
TABLE 15.-Showing the number of separations from the classified departmental service,
by removal, resignation, or death, and the number of reinstatements for the year ended June 30, 1893.
| All of these were printers' assistants.
TABLE 16.--Removals, etc., in the classified departmental service from July 16, 1883, to
June 30, 1893, showing proportion removed, etc., to numbers appointed after examination.
of this number 70 were special examiners in the Pension Office, 31 of whom were dropped at the expiration of the term for which they were appointed.
* of this number 21 were special examiners in the Pension Office, 10 of whom were dropped at the expiration of the term for which they were appointed.