Wikisource

The Civil Service and the Patronage/Chapter 10

< The Civil Service and the Patronage
←
The Civil Service and the Patronage
by Carl Russell Fish
Chapter X. Period of Civil Service Reform. 1865-1901.
→
1347409The Civil Service and the Patronage — Chapter X. Period of Civil Service Reform. 1865-1901.Carl Russell Fish


CHAPTER X.


PERIOD OF CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.

1865-1901.


Two fundamental errors had characterized all important plans devised in the United States for the reform of the civil service prior to 1860: first, they aimed rather to hinder removals than to control appointments; and, secondly, they tended to shift the power from the shoulders of the president to the Senate, and by dividing the burden to do away with all sense of personal responsibility. There had been, to be sure, some suggestions that did not share these errors, — Noah Webster, for example, had suggested to Jefferson that he make local appointments according to the advice of the judges and selectmen of the neighborhood,[1] and pass-examinations were introduced in 1853; but Webster's scheme was not adopted, and pass-examinations proved but the merest palliative, so that the history of effective reform begins after the Civil War.

In taking up this history, moreover, we have to break the continuous course of development, the steady progress from cause to effect, which we have been studying; for the first practicable plan of improvement was not the result of internal evolution, but was an instance of what Professor Lamprecht would call “reception.” A really comprehensive story of the civil service reform movement should be, not national, but international; it was not so much a local peculiarity as a manifestation of a stage of national growth.[2] England was ready for the change before the United States, and attacked and solved the problem, while we profited by her experience. A good illustration of the non-American origin of the system finally adopted is the fact that its expansion has been from the national government to the states, and not, as is the case of nearly all native reforms, from state experiment to national application. Yet, though the progress of reform was accelerated and its form in part determined by the English movement, it would not have obtained so sudden and so substantial a victory in America if conditions had not been ripe for its success.

The bloated civil list, and the unusual irregularities produced by the Civil War, for the first time attracted serious attention to the problems of administration; and though the majority of congressmen still held to the plans of 1826 and 1836, and multiplied restrictions upon the power of the president, some men of influence began to cast about for new remedies. It was natural at this time, when foreign travel had so greatly increased, and so many Americans were acquainted with the excellences of the public service in many countries of Europe, that the systems which had succeeded there should be investigated for our behoof; and in 1863 Secretary of State Seward requested John Bigelow, consul-general at Paris, to report on French methods of collecting the customs. Mr. Bigelow's reply described and warmly recommended a system of appointment by competitive examinations; but it led to no immediate result, unless it be that it stirred Charles Sumner to introduce, in 1864, his bill, “to provide for the greater efficiency of the civil service.” It is more probable, however, that Sumner's action was taken independently, and was based upon knowledge of English conditions and correspondence with his many English friends. His bill provided for a board of examiners, appointment by competitive examination, promotion by seniority, and removal for good cause only; it received some favorable comment from the press, but was dropped without action.[3]

The first man to grapple with the question of administrative reform in a thoroughly practical manner, and to give to it the continued and single-minded devotion that so complex and vital a problem demanded, was Thomas Allen Jenckes of Rhode Island. A lawyer of marked ability, a man of wealth and belonging to a family of much local consideration, he assumed a position of importance from his first entrance into the House of Representatives in 1863. His attention seems to have been at once attracted to the conditions of the civil service; and finally, as member of the retrenchment committee, he made the subject peculiarly his own. He spared no effort in making a thorough study of the problem, and entered into correspondence with Sir Charles E. Trevelyan and Sir Stafford H. Northcote, who had played an important part in the English reform movement. On December 20, 1865, he introduced his first bill. It shared the fate of Sumner's; its novelty was too great to allow of speedy acceptance, and many other things demanded attention.

The matter was not dropped, however; and in July, 1866, a concurrent resolution charged the joint select committee on retrenchment to examine into the “expediency of so amending the laws under which appointments to the public service are now made as to provide for the selection of subordinate officers after due examination by proper boards; their continuance in office during specified terms, unless dismissed upon charges preferred and sustained before tribunals designated for that purpose; and for withdrawing the public service from being used as an instrument of political or party patronage.” The committee was enlarged in 1867; and on May 25, 1868, Mr. Jenckes, for the subcommittee on civil service, presented an elaborate report, which may be considered as the effective starting-point of reform in this country.[4] It contained a thorough discussion of the existing service, careful summaries of the systems employed in China, Prussia, France, and especially England, and to it there was appended a bill intended to adapt the best points in these systems to American conditions.

In general, Jenckes's suggestions were not very different from those of Sumner, but the plan was more elaborately worked out. The most strikingly novel feature was the proposal to furnish employment for the vice-president by making him the head of a new department — that of the civil service. More pertinent suggestions were that there be periods of probation and regular promotions, and that the commissioners be authorized to hold examinations, not only for the inferior officers, but even for those of the presidential class if so requested by the Senate. Mr. Jenckes urged that his bill would throw the service open to every citizen, and that it was needed to relieve the president and heads of departments from pressure for office. It received some attention from Congress and some from the public; but it must be acknowledged that its novelty and the sweeping nature of the change suggested made defeat inevitable. It is rather surprising that the leading vote on the subject was as close as 72 to 66.[5]

Although Congress refused to act on the subject, agitation was persistent, and, while not perhaps very widespread, was powerful in the unselfish devotion of such men as George William Curtis and Carl Schurz. The report of 1868 made a good basis for argument; and occasional words of approval, from the few officials who made the pass-examinations count for something, freshly furnished the arsenal of the reformer.[6] Still victory was afar off, and it would have been long before the proposal received a trial had it not found an advocate in General Grant.

Between November, 1868, and March, 1869, the attitude of the president elect on this, as on other subjects, was eagerly canvassed, and before his inauguration he had expressed himself in favor of the suggested reform.[7] He not only favored it, but in his second annual message pressed upon Congress the advisability of a law which would “govern, not the tenure, but the manner of making all appointments.” Thus adjured, Congress devoted itself assiduously to the civil service; in fact, from that time on, only the session of 1878-1879 has passed without formal discussion of the question. Suggestions were numerous. Senator Trumbull proposed that any member of Congress or territorial delegate who recommended any one for office without having received a written request from the executive should be fined one thousand dollars, while Senators Wilson and Schurz introduced bills; but the majority seemed disinclined to take action. It was only by a rider, attached at the last moment to the appropriation bill, that provision was made for carrying out the president's wishes.[8]

The effect of this legislation was to leave everything to the president's discretion. He was “to prescribe such rules and regulations for the admission of persons into the civil service of the United States as will best promote the efficiency thereof, and . . . to employ suitable persons to conduct said inquiries”; twenty-five thousand dollars were appropriated to pay for the services required. Grant prepared to make the most of the opportunity: he appointed an advisory board of seven, with George William Curtis as chairman, to report on the measures to be adopted.[9] Its first report, presented December 18, 1871, was based largely on that of Mr. Jenckes; but it omitted the suggestion of employing the vice-president, and made one important advance by advising that no attempt be made to control the president's power of removal, thus completely separating the reform movement from the Senate's struggle for supremacy. On April 16, 1872, the rules thus formulated were applied to the departments at Washington and to the federal offices in New York, and a sincere attempt was made to give the new system a fair trial. President Grant, however, found it impossible to live up to the standard set for him by his new advisers, and an offensive appointment which he made in New York led to the resignation of Curtis.[10]

Congress vacillated in its attitude towards the new plan. It is probable that the provision for the advisory board owed its passage solely to the fact that it was attached to the general appropriation bill so late in the session that the effort to eliminate it would endanger the whole measure. At any rate, after two years the absolutely essential appropriation was cut off. President Grant continued his efforts, and constantly presented the matter to Congress, at last announcing on December 7, 1874: “If Congress adjourns without positive legislation on the subject of ‘civil service reform’ I will regard such action as a disapproval of the system, and will abandon it, except so far as to require examinations for certain appointees, to determine their fitness. Competitive examinations will be abandoned.” Congress paid no heed to this appeal. Yet in the same year it recognized the rules by placing under them certain clerks in the office of the secretary of war, and the passage of a law prohibiting the assessment of the salaries of government employees for political purposes showed the persistence of a desire to withdraw the service, in some measure at least, from politics.[11]

No one unfamiliar with the Washington atmosphere can realize how difficult it is for the president to administer the civil service with an eye single to merit, or how innocent are some acts which appear blameworthy on the surface; reformers, moreover, are always peculiarly suspicious, and Grant was lamentably unfortunate in appointing some unworthy men to office.[12] It is not surprising, therefore, that many of the most active supporters of civil service reform were found in the ranks of the Liberal Republicans, through whom the principle found its first expression in a national party platform in the following plank: “The civil service of the government has become a mere instrument of partisan tyranny and personal ambition, and an object of selfish greed. It is a scandal and reproach upon free institutions, and breeds a demoralization dangerous to the perpetuity of republican government. We therefore regard a thorough reform of the civil service as one of the most pressing necessities of the hour; that honesty, capacity, and fidelity constitute the only valid claims to public employment; that the offices of the government cease to be a matter of arbitrary favoritism and patronage and that public station shall become again a post of honor. To this end it is imperatively required that no President shall be a candidate for re-election.” The regular Republican convention of 1872 adopted a somewhat similar plank, but disclaimed any idea of “creating a life-tenure of office.”[13] The merit system may therefore be said to have been formally introduced into practical politics in 1872.

Again, in 1876, the programme of the leading parties included this reform. The Democrats called vaguely for reform in general; the Prohibitionists proposed to effect it by the election “of all civil officers, so far as practicable, by the direct vote of the people”; but the Republican candidate, Hayes, who in his letter of acceptance spoke of it as of “paramount necessity,” was the special favorite of the reformers. So important did William Cullen Bryant regard the issue that he refused the nomination of elector on the Tilden ticket because Tilden had not definitely pledged himself to forego a general sweep should he be elected.[14]

President Hayes devoted two paragraphs of his inaugural to the civil service, and in his first annual message called attention to the fact that the commission appointed by Grant still existed, but was paralyzed because of lack of money. He said that he had already done something in the way of reform, but could accomplish nothing really noteworthy without the active support of Congress. The new Republican administration was therefore fully committed to reform, and the president exerted himself to fulfil this pledge. The appointment of Carl Schurz as secretary of the interior, the commissioning of Dorman B. Eaton to write a history of the civil service reform movement in Great Britain, and the strict enforcement of the law against assessments[15] — all showed his favorable attitude.

It was in New York, however, that reform was most earnestly demanded, and there also the most vigorous resistance was to be expected, for it was the home alike of the most active of the innovators and of the most odious of the bosses. As a preliminary to action, the president appointed a committee, headed by John Jay, to investigate the custom-house. This committee recommended that one-fifth of the employees be dismissed, whereby three hundred thousand dollars a year would be saved; but in order to carry out the proposed reforms it was felt necessary to remove also the incumbent collector, Chester A. Arthur, and the naval officer, Alonzo B. Cornell. These men were supporters of Roscoe Conkling; and their removal enraged him beyond measure, and confirmed his opposition to the plans of the reformers. In the New York state convention he fell upon George William Curtis with the full force of his vituperative eloquence, and in the United States Senate he delayed the new nominations for the posts thus vacated. Confirmation came at last; and in 1879 competitive examinations were made the basis for appointments in the New York custom-house, under the rules drawn up by the new naval officer, the well-known reformer, Silas W. Burt. In 1880 the system was applied to the New York post-office, and the administration could congratulate itself on having taken some definite steps in advance.[16]

Congress was not disposed to do its share in the work. Although the president continually called attention to the matter, and gave assurance that such short, unsatisfactory trials as the new system had had proved its value, he was unable to secure any legislation to enable him to extend it or make it permanent. The House of Representatives made General Butler chairman of the committee on civil service reform, and in the Senate the president's nominations were frequently opposed.[17] President Hayes was held partly responsible for this inaction: his nominations were not all satisfactory to the reformers, and he ended his administration unpopular with many politicians of his party because of what he had done, and with the reformers because of what he had failed to do.[18]

Meantime, outside of Congress and government circles, the agitation for reform was active and was gaining the public ear. The first volume of Poole's Index, brought out in 1882, mentions about one hundred articles discussing some phase of the civil service problem. In May, 1877, the New York Civil Service Reform Association was formed, and in 1880 it claimed 583 members representing 33 states and territories. Other societies sprang up in Boston, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, San Francisco, and elsewhere; and in August, 1881, a “National League” was formed at Newport, with George William Curtis as president. This was followed by the organization of state societies,[19] and the movement was brought to the fighting stage. It is not by any means probable that the number of active reformers was so great as the number of their publications would lead one to think; but many of them were men highly educated and of literary tastes, and one such man wrote for ten. Nevertheless there was a widespread feeling of tolerant approval, and hopes rose high when James A. Garfield, known since 1870 as a friend of reform, was elected president on a platform which called for a change “thorough, radical, and complete.”

Garfield, however, found Congress still unwilling to commit itself to the measures he desired, and he died without having been able to bring about any change in the legal condition of the service. His successor, Chester Alan Arthur, was reputed to be a thorough spoilsman; he owed his nomination for the vice-presidency solely to the influence of Conkling, and the reformers felt that all was lost. It is evident, however, that Arthur's reputation was worse than facts would justify; moreover, President Arthur proved to be a very much stronger man than Collector Arthur. He did not, indeed, fully recommend the system of competitive examinations; he pointed out that there were, and must always be, some differences between the English conditions and our own, and that these might make differences of system necessary. He expressed, however, his willingness to execute whatever law Congress should see fit to pass.[20]

With the executive less favorable to the competitive system than it had been for thirteen years, its supporters pressed it with more vigor than ever before in the second session of the forty-seventh Congress. The tragic incident of the death of Garfield at the hands of a disappointed office-seeker deeply affected public sentiment; and the fall elections of 1882 frightened the Republican leaders, particularly as in several cases the determining factor seemed to be the question of civil service reform.[21] Therefore the bill drawn up by Dorman B. Eaton and presented by George H. Pendleton, chairman of the Senate committee on civil service reform, was urged with good hope of success.

The debate on this measure was entirely unworthy of the occasion, hardly touching any of the serious considerations involved; and in this fact as well as in its subject-matter it was characteristic of nearly all congressional discussions of the civil service. The larger part of the time was taken up in making predictions as to the effect of the bill on the two parties, and in arguments based thereon. Senator Vest said that what was needed was not legislation, but a change of administration. Senator Miller pointed out that, whatever was true of the Republicans, the Democratic party would survive without patronage.[22] Throughout the debate Jefferson was paraded, now on one side, now on the other, as the founder of the spoils system, and as demanding of applicants only honesty, capacity, and faithfulness to the constitution.

Senator Pendleton said that arguments in favor of his bill need not be presented, that the question was fully before the country. He confined his speech mainly to showing that there were good American facts to support the plan; that it was no longer an experiment; that within the last fifteen years it had become very common for congressmen to select their appointees for West Point and Annapolis by competition, and that the results were good; that since the introduction of the system into the New York post-office the volume of business had increased several times over, while the cost had grown but two per cent.

The best speech in favor of the bill was that of Senator Warner Miller of New York. He illustrated existing conditions by the case of the railroad mail service, in which men secured appointment through political influence. They were obliged to serve a six months' term of probation, and at the end of it from a third to a half of them were dropped, only those who were efficient being retained. The result, he said, was a good service, but the loss in trying inefficient men made it an extremely expensive one. He further urged the necessity of reducing the pressure for office upon the president and members of Congress. This point seemed to influence many, and Senator Hawley described how difficult it was, for men who had the power to aid, to refuse worthy but inefficient persons. The advocates of reform had to devote some attention to the question of the necessity of a bill at all. Did not the president have all-sufficient power to reform the service without the aid of Congress? In the previous session of this same Congress a bill had actually passed the House, appropriating fifteen thousand dollars to enable the president to enforce the clause adopted in 1871. Would not such action suffice? It was, however, very generally felt that this was a matter in which the legislature was in duty bound to guide the executive;[23] and it was evident to all that, without the support of Congress, no president could successfully make so bold an innovation.

The general attitude of the opposition was scoffing, as it usually is in such debates. “Sunset” Cox, in 1878, delivered the best comic speech on the subject, with allusions to the Chinese origin of the system; but the supposedly unsophisticated character of the reformers is always amusing, and the examination questions can always be so dovetailed together as to bring a laugh. Mr. Horr said that they were all humbug, and that he would prefer draw-poker or tossing coppers. Equally numerous were the objections to the new system on the ground that it was not an American product — was monarchical. Senator Brown expected that the officers of government would become a “prætorian guard,” and Senator Carpenter that they would become a fixed aristocratic class.[24]

Many counter suggestions were made: that what was needed was the weeding-out of incompetents; that preference in appointments should be given to candidates belonging to the party having the smallest number of members in government service (the plan, of course, of a Democrat); that entrance by examination should not be confined to the lowest grades; that examinations should be strictly confined to matters directly relating to the duties of the offices to be filled; that under the new rules those in office should be forced to compete on equal terms with other citizens.[25] The whole system was criticised as cumbrous; it was argued that the commissioners had too great power; some members found the whole bill unconstitutional, and could quote an opinion of Attorney-general Akerman to that effect; while Senator Ingalls was angry because it had not been devised by Congress, but had been forced upon it by a body of men “exceedingly holy and wise.”[26]

The most serious discussion was over the power of removal: many who favored the proposed bill as a whole did not believe, that it would prove sufficient simply to regulate appointments. John Sherman said that if removals were not mentioned, Hamlet would be left out; Senator Ingalls desired fixed terms during which removal should be made only for cause; and an elaborate list of legal causes was drawn up and a method of procedure arranged. In the end, however, this executive function was left untouched.[27]

In the Senate the bill passed 38 to 5, 33 being absent; in the House, where there was practically no debate, there were 155 for it and 47 against it, 87 not voting. The president approved, and the measure became a law, January 16, 1883. It provided for three commissioners to be appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a chief examiner, state boards of examiners, and minor officers. The commissioners were to aid the president in preparing rules to carry out the provisions of the law, which called for the classification of clerks and for open competitive examinations of a practical nature; if there were no competition, the commission should arrange for a non-competitive examination. The rules were to exclude drunkards from the service, and were not to admit more than two members of a single family; they were to give veterans the preference accorded them by previous laws, to provide for a fair apportionment of the positions at Washington between citizens of the various states and the District of Columbia. They were not to apply to laborers. Applicants were to bring no recommendation except as to character and residence; those selected were to serve a six months' period of probation, and were to be under no obligation to contribute to any political fund; while all officers were forbidden, under heavy penalty, to solicit or receive any such contributions. These rules were to apply to the departments at Washington, and to custom-houses and post-offices with more than fifty employees. The commission was to keep records, to investigate cases in which the rules were supposed to be violated, and to make an annual report to the president, which was to be submitted to Congress.[28] The president could extend these rules to other parts of the service at his discretion, and could provide for exemption from them.

President Arthur appointed an efficient commission, with Dorman B. Eaton as president; good rules were drawn up; and February 11, 1885, the president, who had doubted the expediency of the innovation, reported that it was a success,[29] while he was himself commended for his administration of a law which was not of his choice.

In the campaign of 1884 the Republican, Democratic, and Prohibitionist parties all declared themselves in favor of the new law. The Republican party claimed the credit for its enactment; and their candidate for president, James G. Blaine, in his letter of acceptance, expressed a desire to see its provisions extended.[30] Grover Cleveland, the Democratic candidate, was regarded as the most thorough reformer, however; and his election was largely due to the support of those enthusiastic young Mugwumps who cared more for good government than for party allegiance, and who left the party of their fathers because they doubted the good faith of its leader. After tariff revision, the reform of the civil service was the chief issue of the campaign.

The position of the new president was undoubtedly a difficult one. For twenty-four years the opposing party had been in power; and even the reformers acknowledged that it would be proper to bring about some approximation of equality between the parties, and were willing to agree with Cleveland that some men in office had “forfeited all just claim to retention.”[31] Yet when ninety per cent of the presidential officers were removed within sixteen months, and sixty-eight per cent of the unclassified employees of the interior department, besides the almost complete sweeping away of the fourth-class postmasters, many of the president's independent supporters began to cry out and to accuse him of breaking pledges. The civil service rules were very well observed, only six and a half per cent of the department officials being removed in sixteen months;[32] but the restrictions as yet applied to but a small proportion of the service, and the remainder was large enough to give rise to many old-fashioned squabbles over the patronage, which still further estranged the reforming element.[33] Yet the fact that the president, whether willing or unwilling, yielded to the pressure for a general sweep, did not mean that he had lost interest in the work of the Civil Service Commission. He was in constant communication with its members, made suggestions for the strengthening of the rules, and from time to time considerably extended the number of offices to which they should apply, finally including within them, at the end of his term, the railroad mail service.

President Harrison was inaugurated before this new order went into effect, and one of the greatest political weaknesses of the new system at once became apparent. The fact that, when the civil service rules are extended to a new class of offices, the incumbents are included within their protection without having to undergo the trial of an examination, has made it easier for presidents — has perhaps even tempted those who were retiring — to extend the classification and protect their party friends. When, however, the opposite party comes to power and finds its opponents securely lodged in offices which but just now were patronage and from which its own members may have been but recently expelled, a severe strain is put upon the belief in the morality of civil service reform; it seems like saying that to the vanquished belong the spoils. It is not surprising, therefore, that the order for enforcing the railway mail extension was postponed from time to time until, in fact, more removals had been made in this branch of the service than throughout President Cleveland's term,[34] and few, if any, Democrats remained to be protected.

In general there was a loud cry from Republicans for offices. One newspaper appeared with the headlines, “Hundreds of Offices,” “Places to Suit all Classes,” “Take your Choice.” In both Senate and House a committee was appointed to investigate the Civil Service Commission; and, though it found nothing to discredit that body, it did find enough instances of removals to furnish a good tu quoque argument for the spoilsmen. Clarkson as patronage officer of the post-office revived the old argument of rotation in office, dismissing 201 postmasters “upon expiration of four years' service, and second commission not yet expired.” By April, 1890, 35,800 removals had been made, about 15,000 more than in the previous administration; while the reformers had been alienated by the displacement of Silas Burt from the position in the New York custom-house which he had so long and honorably filled, and by the president's refusal to extend the rules to the census bureau of 189O.[35]

Although this broad sweep seemed a step backward in the progress of reform, President Harrison announced that he would firmly maintain the rules within their limits; and the appointment of Theodore Roosevelt as civil service commissioner, and soon as chairman of the commission, was a guarantee of his good faith. The annual reports at once revealed the presence of a new vigor and administrative power, and of a mind appreciative at once of ideal ends and practical possibilities.

The president himself was responsible for an important innovation in the rules, — that of providing for the keeping of efficiency records to be used in making promotions. It had been felt for some time that it was not well to rely entirely upon examinations in raising men from one class to another; the difficulty was to get a judgment and exclude favoritism. In his first annual message, President Harrison expressed his belief that some record of efficiency could be devised, and in 1891 announced that such a system had been established. As this was finally arranged, each officer was to receive a separate mark for attendance, industry, thoroughness, and general ability.[36]

In addition to this contribution to the system itself, the Harrison administration saw the extension of the rules over the Indian service, in which, perhaps, reform was more needed than anywhere else. Important also was the action of Secretary Tracy in applying to the navy yards rules for the registration of laborers, which had been devised in Massachusetts and had there proved satisfactory in improving the lower branches of the service and keeping them out of politics. So successful did this plan prove that it was extended by President Cleveland, in his second term, to many other departments, and became an established part of the system. Another order of Secretary Tracy, which forbade the employment of extra men in the navy yards during the sixty days before elections, put a stop to a long-established and convenient method of vote-buying.[37]

The second administration of Grover Cleveland brought mingled gall and sweetness to the believers in the non-political civil service. Congress was more eager for spoils than the government was to give them; and an investigation into the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriations resulted in a reduction of force which gave opportunity for partisan manipulation. Throughout the term, however, order followed order, extending the service by providing for the classification of light-house keepers, for the clerical force in the pension agency, ind culminating in the regulation of May 6, 1896, which simplified and improved the whole system, and added 29,399 officers the list of those under the commission, making a total of 185,000 out of a service of about 205,000.[38] Each of these extensions was hailed by most of the reformers with an enthusiasm tempered solely by a desire for more; but they might well have been disturbed by the fear that the Republicans, finding so many Democrats protected by the civil service fence, would attack the system itself. President Cleveland must, indeed, be accused of a grievous lack of tact, if not of a distinct discourtesy, when, as late as January 12, 1897, he placed under the rules the employees of the president's office. Jefferson's doctrine in 1801, that the president should make no appointments after the election of his successor, is, of course, frivolous; but definitely to bind upon the incoming executive a corps of clerks, with whom he must come into personal contact, is to invite rebuff.

When William McKinley became president of the United State, as a band of the faithful declared, “by the grace of God and the efforts of the workers and zealous friends of the Republican party,” an unusual number of the latter accompanied him to Washington in the hope of office. It would seem that never before, since the establishment of the new system in 1883, had it been subjected to such a strain; never before, indeed, had it kept so many choice places from the grasp of the politician. One Republican member of the House, in his eagerness, moved that all orders of the president between March 4, 1893, and March 4, 1897, be revoked; but the administration controlled the situation for the moment, and was not to be hurried. The unclassified service afforded some vent; and a rule promulgated by President Harrison, to the effect that a veteran dismissed from the classified service could be at any time reinstated without examination, afforded ground for a considerable number of changes.[39]

President McKinley, in his first annual message, affirmed that the system of competitive examination had been approved by the people, and that it would be his endeavor to “uphold and extend” it; that changes were needed, however, and that some places should be exempted. This led to a Senate investigation, and on May 9, 1898, a report was brought in which stated that the classification was too extensive, and recommended certain specific reductions, amounting in all to about 10,000; a minority reported in favor of about 3000 exceptions, and a second minority made no specific recommendations. Action was long delayed; the Spanish War served for a time to relieve the pressure for office by affording opportunity for temporary appointments, and itself absorbed the attention of the government. Its close, however, brought increased pressure. Effort was made to provide permanently for the men temporarily appointed; and finally, on April 29, 1899, the long-impending action was taken. A presidential order was issued by which 3693 places were removed from the classified service, 6414 transferred from the charge of the commissioners to that of the secretary of war, and 1000 temporary appointments made regular. It also removed some of the restrictions on transfers and reinstatements.[40]

As the first important retrograde step taken by any president since the inauguration of the system, it naturally was violently attacked. The best-informed assailant was Mr. McAnery, secretary of the National Civil Service Reform League, against whose attack Secretary of the Treasury Gage undertook to defend the administration in the columns of Good Government. The secretary of the League undoubtedly had the best of the controversy, as a controversy. President McKinley himself, in his second annual message, made a brief defence of his action. “The principal purpose of the order,” said he, “was to exempt from competitive examination certain places involving fiduciary responsibilities or duties of a strictly confidential, scientific, or executive character which it was thought might better be filled either by non-competitive examination, or in the discretion of the appointing officer.” This is doubtless true of many places; indeed, President Cleveland, at the time he made his blanket order of May 6, 1896, had stated to the commissioners that modifications would be necessary.[41]

It appears, however, that undue elasticity was allowed. Among the officers exempted were deputy collectors of customs, who could be appointed in great numbers, and many of whom were employed for mere clerical work.[42] The transfer to the regular list of those holding under temporary appointments was defended on the ground that the men had served long enough to demonstrate their fitness; and they have in fact proved entirely satisfactory. Yet it is evident that such a precedent is dangerous to the competitive system as a system; and it appears that these appointments need never have been made in the first place, as the commission, even in the short time available, could have furnished all the clerks required, if it had been asked.[43] Another disappointment to the advocates of a mechanical system of selection was the fact that the census bureau for 1900 was not included within the rules, appointments being left to the director of the census, with the tacit understanding that he would leave them to the members of Congress.[44] On the whole, it would seem that, while some exemptions were advisable, the order of May 29, 1899, went farther than was required — farther than was best for the health of the system.

The administration did not pass, however, without signs of a better mind. A presidential order established the rule that removals should not be made from the classified service unless written charges were filed, and that the officer to be dismissed should have an opportunity to answer them. The Taft Commission, moreover, provided a merit system for the Philippines; and Porto Rico, although left unsupplied by Congress, was encouraged to establish one for herself.[45]

  1. ↑ Webster to Jefferson, February 20, 1809, Good Government, October 15, 1894.
  2. ↑ Note the introduction of appointment by competitive examination into Canada in 1882, Victoria 1883, United States 1883, New York 1883, Massachusetts 1884.
  3. ↑ Jenckes, Report, Appendix K, p. 176; Sumner, Works, viii. 452-457.
  4. ↑ House Reports, 40 Cong. 2 sess. ii. No. 47. Also printed separately. The committee consisted of Edmunds, Williams, Patterson, and Buckalew from the Senate; and Van Wyck, Randall, Walker, Halsey, Jenckes, Benjamin, and Benton from the House.
  5. ↑ This vote was on Jenckes's earlier bill, February 6, 1867. Congressional Globe, 39 Cong. 2 sess. 1036; 40 Cong. 3 sess. 266, 269.
  6. ↑ Jenckes, Report, 19, and Appendix L; Secretary of the Interior, Annual Reports, 1870; Senate Reports, 47 Cong, i sess. iii. No. 576; Nation, December 10, 1868.
  7. ↑ Nation, December 3, 1868, February 16, 1869.
  8. ↑ Congressional Globe, 41 Cong. 2 sess. 17; 3 sess. 59, 594-595, 1935-1936.
  9. ↑ Cary, Curtis, 216. The other members were A. G. Cattell, J. Medill, D. A. Walker, E. B. Elliott, J. H. Blackfan, and D. C. Cox.
  10. ↑ Congressional Globe, 41 Cong. 3 sess. 217, 225; Lucy M. Salmon, Appointing Power of the President, 96-97.
  11. ↑ Congressional Globe, 40 Cong. 3 sess. 262; 42 Cong. 2 sess. 453; 42 Cong. 3 sess. 195; Senate Reports, 47 Cong. 1 sess. iii. No. 576, p. v; Richardson, Messages, gives the rules promulgated from time to time; Statutes at Large, xix. 143, and 43 Cong. 1 sess. ch. 328; Eaton, Civil Service in Great Britain, Appendix C.
  12. ↑ John Jay, North American Review, cxxvii. 273-287, gives a reformer's view of Grant.
  13. ↑ Stanwood, History of the Presidency, 343, 347; Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress, ii. 522.
  14. ↑ Bigelow, Tilden, i. 301-303; Stanwood, History of the Presidency, 365, 375.
  15. ↑ Richardson, Messages, vii. 444-445, 466, 561-567; Executive Journal, xxi. 4, 450; Lambert, Progress of Civil Service Reform in the United States, 14.
  16. ↑ United States Civil Service Commission, 15th Report (1897-1898), 464; Richardson, Messages, vii. 450; Executive Journal, xxi. 171, 455, 488, 502-503; Cary, Curtis, 257; Lambert, Progress of Civil Service Reform in the United States, 9; Eaton, Civil Service in Great Britain, pp. x, 447.
  17. ↑ Richardson, Messages, vii. 603-605; Massachusetts Reform Club, Report, 1888; John Jay, North American Review, cxxvii. 273.
  18. ↑ E. Cary, The Administration and Civil Service Reform (International Review, vi. 227-233); Congressional Record, 47 Cong. 2 sess. 246.
  19. ↑ Lambert, Progress of Civil Service Reform in the United States, 10.
  20. ↑ December 6, 1881, Richardson, Messages, viii. n, 60.
  21. ↑ Debate on Civil Service Reform before the Seventh Congress of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 11-12, 19; Lambert, Progress of Civil Service Reform in the United States, 16-18; Letters to Candidates (New York, 1882); Congressional Record, 47 Cong. 2 sess. 204, 280-281.
  22. ↑ Congressional Record, 47 Cong. 2 sess. 283, 463-464.
  23. ↑ Congressional Record, 47 Cong. 1 sess. 5704, 6016; 2 sess. 204-208, 241, 284, 316, 318; Congressional Globe, 41 Cong. 3 sess. 1936.
  24. ↑ Senate Documents, 55 Cong. 2 sess. i. No. 24; Congressional Globe, 42 Cong. 2 sess. 453 ff.; 42 Cong. 3 sess. 195; Congressional Record, 47 Cong. 1 sess. 6014; 2 sess. 207, 277.
  25. ↑ Congressional Record, 47 Cong. 2 sess. 465, 600, 471, 247-248.
  26. ↑ Congressional Globe, 42 Cong. 2 sess. 453-456; Congressional Record, 47 Cong. 2 sess. 354, 357-360, 463.
  27. ↑ Congressional Record, 210, 354, 227. The Tenure-of-Office Act, which was still in force, applied only to presidential officers.
  28. ↑ Statutes at Large, xxii. 403-407.
  29. ↑ Richardson, Messages, viii. 276.
  30. ↑ Stanwood, History of the Presidency, 430-444; Civil Service Record, June, 1884.
  31. ↑ Civil Service Reformer, April, 1887; Cleveland to Curtis, Ibid. August, 1885.
  32. ↑ H. C. Lea, Mr. Cleveland and Civil Service Reform. Independent, October 8, 1888; Wood, in National Civil Service Reform League, Proceedings, 1888, p. 66.
  33. ↑ Civil Service Reformer, April, 1886, April, 1887.
  34. ↑ Richardson, Messages, ix. 53; Congressional Record, 51 Cong. 1 sess. House Bill No. 3722; Civil Service Reformer, April, 1890.
  35. ↑ Civil Service Reformer, 1888 to 1891, passim; House Reports, 51 Cong. 1 sess. vii. No. 2445.
  36. ↑ Richardson, Messages, ix. 52-54, 179-180, 207, 513; Good Government, July 15, 1893, November 15, 1895.
  37. ↑ Richardson, Messages, ix. 176-178; C. T. Russell, Address to the National Civil Service Reform League, 16-20; Good Government, 1896-1897, passim.
  38. ↑ Richardson, Messages, ix. 614; House Reports, 52 Cong. 2 sess. ii. No. 2359; Massachusetts Reform Club, Report, 1898; Good Government, July 15, 1894, August 15, 1895.
  39. ↑ Congressional Record, 55 Cong. 1 sess. House Resolution No. 46; Good Government, December 15, 1897, to July 15, 1899, passim.
  40. ↑ House Documents, 55 Cong. 2 sess. i. No. 1, pp. xxxiii-xxxiv; Senate Reports, 55 Cong. 2 sess. No. 659; Good Government, December 15, 1898; July 15, 1899.
  41. ↑ House Documents, 56 Cong. 1 sess. i. No. 1, pp. lviii-lix; United States Civil Service Commission, 15th Report (1897-1898), 77-83.
  42. ↑ Commission, 17th Report (1899-1900), 17.
  43. ↑ F. A. Vanderlip, Scribner's Magazine, xxxiii. 400-410; Good Government, July 15, 1899.
  44. ↑ Congressional Record, 55 Cong. 3 sess. 419.
  45. ↑ United States Civil Service Commission, 18th Report (1900-1901), 8, 28-29; J. H. Hollander, Forum, xxxiii. 77-84.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=The_Civil_Service_and_the_Patronage/Chapter_10&oldid=12462190"