52

DR. SATTERLEE'S PLAIN, TRUTHFUL WORDS. "If the voter takes a ballot-paper out of the pollingstation, or deposits in the ballot-box any other paper than the one given him by the officer, he will be guilty of a misdemeanor, and be subject to imprisonment for any term, with or without hard labor.""

Notwithstanding this admirable law, the elections, on account of the immense and corrupt use of money, often miscarried. A remedy was sought, and it was found in the Prevention of Corrupt Practices Act of 1883-84, an act (originated by Sir Henry James) that limits the sum of money that may be used for election purposes by a candidate or his agent; defines bribery, treating, and undue influence; forbids the use of liquor saloons for committee-room purposes, &c. The act had almost phenomenal results. In 1880, with about 3,000,000 voters in 419 constituencies, the election expenses exceeded £3,000,000. In 1886, with an increased vote, they were only £624,086. In 1880 there were 95 charges of corruption; in 1885 there were only 2; in 1886 only 1.

The principles of the two preceding laws should be adapted to all American elections. What has been done in Australia and England can and must be done in America. It is fortunate for the nation that we can profit by England's 600 years of experience in battling for pure elections. Pure elections are the pillars of liberty! *

* Every man has a right to barter or sell or exchange a commodity that belongs to him; but no man has a right to barter or exchange or sell a trust. If a vote is a trust, then it demands positive as well as negative action, for a trustee is responsible not only for what he has done but for what he has left undone. If a country appeals to her best citizens for assistance in maintaining good government, then it is the duty of those citizens to respond to that appeal before all other duties. *** Viewed in the light not only of Christian morality, but of that common code of honor which governs the business of the civilized world, the buying of the votes of others, or the selling of one's own, or condoning or making light of, or taking any part, however indirect, in such transactions, is the kind of fraud which places the participator on a level with the lowest criminals in the land. No traitor to his country is so dangerous in his treason, for he teaches men to betray the holiest trust that their country has committed to them. No greater enemy to the community exists.-REV. DR. HENRY Y. SATTERLEE.

It is the duty of every American to take an active personal interest in the welfare of his country, State, and city, and to see that the best citizens are elected to offices of honor and trust.-CARDINAL GIBBONS.

t

CHAPTER IV.

THE PATRONAGE AND MERIT SYSTEMS COMPARED.

The superiority of the Merit System shown by various Contrasts.-Picture of an extraordinary Officeseeking Drama (page 58).-How the President and Congressmen are harassed by Officeseekers.

SEC. 1754 of the U. S. Revised Statutes gives preference of appointment to office to only such properly qualified soldiers and sailors as have been discharged on account of "wounds or sickness incurred in the line of duty." The national civil service law rules are more favorable to the veterans than this, while the laws of New York and Massachusetts* give preference to all honorably discharged and properly qualified veterans.

Under the patronage system partisanship and interference at elections were the surest means of retaining an office. Under the merit system they are the surest means of losing it.

Under the patronage system officeholders were almost invariably appointed with regard to politics, and usually had to vote with their party or lose their offices. Under the merit system they are appointed without regard to politics, and can vote as they choose.

Under the patronage system officeholders, as a rule, cannot command that degree of public respect and con

*The Massachusetts Civil Service Commissioners say (Third Annual Report, p. 22): "The veterans have triumphed by being able to show that they possess qualifications equal to or higher than their competitIt has been a triumph in a fair field, with no favor, except that of preference in case of equality." This speaks well for the Massachusetts soldiers who were educated over a quarter of a century ago.

ors.

54

LOSS OF TIME UNDER PATRONAGE SYSTEM.

fidence that is essential to goud government.* As the mode of obtaining office under the merit system is the reverse of that of the patronage system, officeholders appointed in accordance with its provisions ought to command both the respect and confidence of the people. They can have self-respect at least; and self-respect begets self-confidence as well as the respect and confidence of others.

Under the patronage system nearly all the chief officials of the government, outside of as well as in Washington, were forced to devote a large part of their time to the selection of subordinate officials, of whose qualifications, either theoretical or practical, they knew little or nothing. The merit system has not only stopped this waste of valuable time, but it is supplying the public service with officials of proved ability and fitness.

Under the patronage system an officeholder whose tenure depended on the mere caprice of an official superior, or perhaps a Ward or some other kind of politician, was little better than a slave. Besides, under such cir cumstances, he was constantly tempted to do wrong. Under the merit system the conditions of tenure are precisely the reverse, and are therefore conducive not only of a feeling of freedom, but of self-respect and manly independence.

Again, under the patronage system chief as well as subordinate public officials were assessed to raise money for partisan purposes, and as a natural consequence they

*A few years ago the Rev. Dr. Crosby said a person would as soon think of admitting the small-pox into his house as some New York City politicians. The only thing that can be said in extenuation of their of fenses is that they are the victims of a corrupt system of politics, and that is saying a great deal. We should fight corrupt systems; not the victims of them. Like the physician, we should fight the disease; not the individual afflicted with it.

INTELLIGENT VERSUS IGNORANT OFFICEHolders.

55

were sometimes tempted to do wrong in order to reimburse themselves. Under the merit system assessments for partisan purposes are not allowed.

Under the patronage system many honorable and meritorious persons were deterred from even attempting to enter the public service, because, as a rule, only politicians, or the subservient henchmen of politicians, applied for office. Under the merit system the rule is practically the reverse of this.

Under the patronage system many of the subordinate public officials were incompetent. Under the merit system applicants have to pass a competitive examination, and then prove their competency by trial by probation before appointment. Therefore all, or practically all, are competent.

Under the patronage system some officeholders did not know even the rudiments of the business of the offices they held. Some years ago a newspaper correspondent called at a public office in Washington to get some official information. The officeholder whom he chanced to meet could not give him a word of the information he desired, but he could and did, so the correspondent said, tell him precisely how the election was going in Ohio the next fall! Under the merit system the case ought to be about the reverse.

Under the patronage system officeholders whose tenures depended on the success of their own political party naturally favored members of it in preference to members of an opposite party, especially about election time. Favoritism is a form of injustice that cannot be wholly eradicated. It is an inherent if not necessary fault of humanity. A law may restrain a man, but it cannot change his nature. Yet in this case the merit system will have a beneficial effect at least, for there is one reason less for showing favoritism.

56

THE DANGER OF SWEEPING REMOVALS.

Under the patronage system the public service was injured by sweeping removals from office. Under the merit system no sweeping removals are made. The injury caused by sweeping removals is of course in proportion to the number of offices. As these are constantly multiplying, the injury, under the patronage system, would in the course of time not only be serious, but in case of the success of a party with corrupt leaders, it would sooner or later become a source of absolute danger. Under the merit system, with solid, tranquil, educated men guarding the thousands of minor but important offices, whose tenures depend solely on efficiency and fidelity, the country is comparatively safe, with or without the President. Further, even if the President should remove every chief official in the service, the public business would not be much injured, for the subordinate officials, owing to security of tenure, can transact all ordinary business as well during as before or after the change of the chief official.

In 1883 Governor Cleveland sent the name of ex-State Senator William H. Murtha of Brooklyn to the Senate of New York for confirmation as Emigration Commissioner. But as Mr. Murtha would not promise patronage in advance, the Senate refused to confirm him. Under the merit system this disgraceful action of the Senate would not occur, for under it there is no patronage to either promise or bestow. The execution of the then new law which was designed to correct abuses at Castle Garden, depended on Mr. Murtha's confirmation. Therefore a few minutes before the final adjournment of the Senate, Governor Cleveland sent a special message to that body urging Mr. Murtha's confirmation, in the course of which he said of the then management at Castle Garden: "The present management of this very important department is a scandal and a reproach to