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 for answering the needs of the public business. For both these reasons a requirement that the applicant graded highest be taken would be in. defensible. Still we have reason to think that in the great majority of cases the highest in grade among the four certified has been appointed. Those who have attained a grade showing fitness for appointment at Washington are placed upon the proper registers kept by the Commission for the service there; and at other places by the examining board there. (See Rules 13, 14, and 16, and Regulations.) These reg isters are permanent books of record showing the age, grade, residence, date of entry thereon, as eligible for appointment for all parts and grades of the service. When a vacancy occurs at Washington, the Commis sion, and when at a post-office or customs office, the examining board for the same, certifies from the proper register four persons who are graded highest among those entered thereon for the grade or part of the service in which the vacancy exists. In the latter offices, where no apportionment is required, the four graded highest must in every case be certified. At Washington, the Commission takes the four names from the list of those from one or more States (having names upon the reg ister) which have the strongest claim on the basis of the apportionment. But the highest in grade, from the State or States which have such claim, must be taken; and the whole action in that regard appears of record. choice in their favor. Selections on party grounds alone would be made easy. Suspicion and distrust would be general. The result would be but a mitigated form of the old abuses, which made both examinations and certifications indispensable. The limited trials of general certifications thus far have been in various ways unsatisfactory and vicious in their influence.

#

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.

Any departure from this order, if the Commission were reckless enough to allow it, would be shown and condemned by its own records. Nevertheless, the old theory about the "State quota" and the old faith in the potency of mere "influence" so far survive as to cause some persons to think that by resorting to them the order of certification may be changed for their own benefit. Some applicants urge their necessities, which not infrequently appeal strongly to the sympathies of the Commissioners against their duty to be governed solely by the official records of their office.

The delusive hope created by the old lottery of " influence" and favor drew many to Washington who staked everything upon the chances of winning and keeping an office. Under the new system, nothing being gained by coming here to push and plead for a place, there is reason to think that the number of needy place-seekers at the capital is diminishing, but many remain. Some of them still go to members of Congress and to other men of influence, in the hope of bringing about an earlier certification; but the practice is steadily diminishing. In no case has it availed anything to the applicant, nor could it without a gross violation of duty on the part of the Commission, by which the rights of every more competent applicant would be defeated. Under the old system the applicant believed in the utility of going personally to the appointing officer and in having his "influences" go there often to press his claims and extort some kindly words, which he readily interpreted to be a promise to select him next. There have been some attempts at Washington to apply this method under the new system by soliciting promises that if a particular applicant shall be upon a certification, he or she will be selected from the four names it must contain. There are plain reasons why this kind of solicitation can avail little, even if the appointing officers should not feel it to be their duty to resent it:

First. The class of persons who are most ready to seek and who most need such a prostitution of official authority to gain a place are generally those least likely to succeed in an open, manly comparison of capacity and character in a competitive examination.

Second. An applicant cannot know to which of the eight Departments he or she will be certified. If such a promise should be made by one Department, the chances are several to one that the certification will be made to another.

Third. Even if a promise had been made at every Department, if the members of Congress or other "influences" invoked were ready to urge its fulfillment, and if, when the plan was ripened, the applicant's State was one from which a certification must next be made, even then the chances would be against the success of the scheme, since a person graded higher might go upon the register of that State just after the scheme ripened and before the certification; or the request for the certification might be for one of the other sex, or for a person who had

passed a different grade of examination, or for one who could speak a particular language, or for a type-writer, stenographer, or draftsman, or for one who had passed any of the five different special examinations. The selection, from whichever of these various classes of applicants made, would be charged to the State, and thus throw it back in the order of claim for a certification.

When the uselessness of all such attempts to forestall selections for appointment shall be well understood, they will hardly be thought worth the trouble and vexation which they cause. What is certain in the matter is this: That the just claim of every one for an appointment according to the record of merit which each has made for himself or her self in the application and the examination papers will be alone regarded, and will secure a place as soon as there is any right to claim it, and that each State will, as heretofore, have its due proportion of appointments in due season.

There is no more need of "influence" or of the intervention of third persons for securing the rights of those upon the register than there is for securing an examination, and such intervention is as unjustifiable and unavailing in one case as in the other. The Commission is in duty bound to treat the claims of all persons and of every State with exact justice and impartiality, irrespective alike of political opinions, of party interests, of influence however formidable, and of solicitation and appeals to favor however pathetically urged. As it is of public interest that it should be known whether this duty has really been performed, a report of a committee of Congress on the subject is given in the note.*

Tables No. 5 and 6, in Appendix No. 6, show the apportionment of appointments thus far made. The small excess secured by the District of Columbia was inevitable, in the first stage of a new system, mainly by reason of the need of securing well-trained experts in certain offices.

*A committee, consisting of eight Democrats and five Republicans, made a unanimous report to the House of Representatives on the 7th of June last, from which the following are extracts:

"The Select Committee on Reform in the Civil Service, to whom were referred the bills (H. R. 3205 and H. R. 3509) to repeal an act to regulate and improve the civil service in the United States,' beg leave to submit the following report:

"The committee have diligently investigated into the workings of the Commission appointed to execute the law passed by the Forty-seventh Congress to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States,' and heartily commend it for its intelligent and efficient administration of this important branch of executive power. "The legislation of the Forty-seventh Congress to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States' was a step in the right direction, securing as it does to the Government, by the application of judicious tests in the examinations provided by the Civil Service Commission organized under it, the opportunity to obtain for the various subordinate positions to be filled the very best intelligence and capacity the country affords, without regard to the party affiliations of the accepted applicant, establishing a high standard of responsibility, both in determining the qualification of the official and in the character of the work guaranteed by the mode of selection while employed in the public service. The standards of examination have been rated high enough to command good service from any applicant holding the certificate of the Commission. And the practice under the system established in every iustance

WAITING FOR APPOINTMENT.

The Government, through the examinations, promises no one an ap pointment. The rules and this report plainly set forth the conditions and chances of obtaining one. Each applicaut must judge for himself. The very fact that the Government seeks and takes first the most competent on the registers implies that the least competent will be last taken, and hence will have the longest to wait, if, indeed, they are taken at all. Every applicant, by the merit or demerit of his answers, makes his own standing on the register, which may be anywhere between 65 per cent. of complete proficiency, the lowest grade for going on a register and consequently for getting an appointment, and 100, which is the highest grade attainable. It is plain that a certification for appointment, subject to the other conditions explained in this report, will be relatively early or late for each competitor according as his or her marking is near 100 or near 65. The Commission has no discretion in that regard. But as the competition for the ordinary clerkships in the Departmental service is practically between applicants from the same State, obviously the greater the numbers who compete in any State the smaller the chances for an appointment.

It will require more experience under the new system before all those who have little or no chance of success will cease to try the examinations, or the whole number who apply will be duly proportioned to the chances of an appointment; but experience, in places where the system has been long tried, suggests that this adjustment is sure to be made. The law which tends to adjust supply to demand in due time prevails. everywhere.

There are some persons, probably quite as many as the public service to the present time-has enabled the Government to secure the highest ability as the best fruits of their examinations.

"Since the organization of the Civil Service Commission great good has been accomplished in many directions, and a better feeling pervades the dominant public sentiment upon the subject of reform in the civil service, inspiring the hope that at no distant day the benefits of similar laws may extend throughout the several States, and by a harmony and homogeneousness of sentiment and action much of that which now contributes to the bitterness of political contests and the scandal of our free institutions shall be forever eliminated and destroyed, State and National.

"Your committee, entirely satisfied with the thorough, conscientious, and non-partisan work of the Civil Service Commission, are justified in the belief that its continuance, to a large degree, will aid in eradicating the prevalent evils of the civil service of the Government, remove just complaints, and restore public confidence in the work performed by these subordinate officials, and can see no wisdom in the proposed repeal of the law. Your committee unanimously recommend an adverse report upon bills 3205 and 3509 to repeal an act to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States,' approved January 16, 1883, and that they do lie upon the table."

The Select Committee of the House of Representatives on Reform in the Civil Serv. ice has just made (January, 1886) a unanimous report against a bill for the repeal of the Civil Service Act.

12435 C S——4

requires, who will do well to enter it, but the Commission would not advise any one having a fair opportunity for private employment to decline such employment for the chance of obtaining an office. Many circumstances have combined to induce an excessive number to press for the public service. Among them may be mentioned misleading advice from prominent men who resort to this method of ridding themselves of applicants for their official favor. This tendency and habit has been diminishing, and will before long we think come to an end in the light of the fuller information which the reports of the Commission supply. Those who meet disappointment with a knowledge of the facts, or through ignorance which is their own fault, have no right to complain. What is said elsewhere relative to "Dropping from the records" should be read by every applicant.

WOMEN IN THE SERVICE.

The Civil Service Law makes no distinction on account of sex. The examinations under it are open alike to men and women. Whatever inequality between the sexes may be found in the numbers appointed arises from the needs and conditions of the service itself, and not from any provisions of the Civil Service rules or any restrictive action of the Commission.

It is now generally recognized that women can successfully perform the duties of many of the subordinate places under the Government. In many cases they have shown eminent fitness for the places they have held. There is simple justice in allowing them to compete for the public service, and to receive appointments to places suitable for them, when, in fair competition, they have shown superior merit.

But the determination of the question whether a woman or a man shall be selected to fill any given vacancy must be left, under the law as it existed before the Civil Service Act, to the appointing officer, who alone knows the situation and who is responsible for the successful administration of his office. The Commission can do no more than send persons of the sex asked for. It would be inexcusable to continue to invite to examinations hundreds beyond the needs of the service, and thus to hold out to them hopes that cannot be realized. The Commission can neither create offices nor vacancies. It cannot consider personal misfortunes or necessities, however great. It cannot be guided by sympathy. It performs but a plain duty, in showing that it is quite impossible for every one wishing to live in Washington or anxious to earn a salary to obtain an office there. The excess of female applicants above the number who can be examined is far greater than that of male applicants. In the Postal and Customs service but very few women ever have been employed; the work there being in only small measure prac ticable for them. See further, on this subject, what is said under the head of Dropping from the Records.