The civil service law: a defense of its principles

Front matter

ixip^rtg^t !f u*

Slielf .__ J..r:xA^ V' I

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Preface

The chief object of this work is to defend the principles of the Civil Service Law. It is not a criticism of the law, nor does it treat to any great extent of civil service economy as such, except in so far as the subject is expounded incidentally, but with ability and in the aggregate with great success, by many American statesmen, extracts from whose works embellish and enrich its pages. These extracts in fact constitute a great part of the civil service history and literature of the country, particularly its early history and literature, and therefore constitute much of the value of this volume. This is well, and is besides opportune, for the subject of civil service reform is one of the greatest issues of the day, and too much light cannot be shed upon it. A work that even aids in elucidating such an important subject ought to be acceptable ; indeed it appears to be one of the needs of the times. The fact that one chapter of the work is mostly devoted to corruption at elections and remedial election laws, only adds to its value, for the subject is not only collateral but of great importance, of as great importance perhaps as civil service reform itself. Whatever may be said of the original parts of the volume, the compiled parts are certainly both useful and instructive reading, and ought to aid in elevating and purifying American politics.

The importance of a sound civil service policy was never better illustrated perhaps than by the New York Times, when criticising in 1864 Senator Sumner's civil service bill. It said the subject was second in importance only to the crushing of the then rebellion. The Times was then under the editorial direction of Mr. Henry J. Raymond, a statesman and one of the best known editors of his day.

I am indebted to Mr. George William Curtis, the President of the National Civil Service Reform League, for valuable suggestions and encouragement to persevere in my researches, and also to the Astor Library for the use of many books. Other obligations are acknowledged here and there throughout the volume.

This work, it should be understood, refers to the natioiml civil service law. The civil service laws of New York and Massachusetts are patterned after the national law, but of course contain provisions peculiar to themselves.

W. H. C.

New York, July, J888.

Contents

PAGE

INTRODUCTION— History of Civil Service Legislation, Summary

of the salient points of the Civil Service Law, &c 7

Chapter I. Fruits And Facts

The law promotes Education, Efficiency, and Economy. — Its chief Object. — Its Constitutionality. — In harmony with the Teachings of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. — Aids instead of Hampers the President, who makes his own Rules for its Execution 17

CHAPTER XL

COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS.

Trial by Probation. — Appointees independent of Politicians. — Competitive Examinations superior to non-Competitive. — The Education required. — Competitive Examinations in large firms. ... 26

CHAPTER m.

SOME OF THE LAW'S PROMISES.

Reforms of priceless value Probable. — The danger of Bribery at Elections. — Opinions thereon of Messrs. Buchanan, Harrison, Benton, Jefferson, Barton, Bell, and Graves. — The chief English Election Laws from 1275 to 1883 38

CHAPTER IV.

THE PATRONAGE AND MERIT SYSTEMS COMPARED.

The Merit System more favorable to ex-Soldiers and Sailors. — Other points of difference between the two Systems. — How the President and Congressmen were harassed under the Patronage System. — Congressman Kleiner of Indiana declines a repomination on account of the annoyance of Ofiiceseeking 53 vi CONTENTS.

CHAPTER V.

DANGEE OF AN OFFICEHOLDERS' ARISTOCRACY. pAGE The importance of the Subject.— The Cause of and Remedy for Aristocracies.— No danger in Life Tenures when based on Merit.— George William Curtis's opinion of them. — Insolence of Office.— Great depravity of the Roman Aristocracy (note). . 61

CHAPTER VI.

THE PATRONAGE SYSTEM.

The practicability of the System only Apparent. — General Jackson versus President Jackson. — Probable causes of his Radical Change. — Probable cause of Senator Marcy's use of the word " Spoils." — The spoils doctrine Undemocratic and Ruinous. — Appalling Corruption at Washington after the Civil War. — The Civil Service Law a Rock to build upon 71

CHAPTER Vn.

LEADING STATESMEN'S PRINCIPLES.

The Merit System both Preached and Practiced by the six first Presidents (forty years). — Powerful blows at the Patronage System. — A profound disquisition on its Evils by William Paley, D.D., of England (1Y85).— Justice James Wilson on Patronage and Official Appointments 91

CHAPTER VHI.

THE POWER OF REMOVAL.

A remedy for its Mistakes or Abuse.— The salient points of the great debate in the first Congress (1789) on the Power of Removal.— The congressional decision then made criticised by Benton, Webster, and others.— The Four-years' Term Law and some opinions of it (note) 113

CHAPTER IX.

COMPARATIVE POLITICAL ECONOMY.

Its Utility.— The Civil Service Systems of England, Canada, British

India, Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, and China 177

Introduction

The Civil Service Law was passed January 16, 1883. The bill, which was introduced in the Senate by Senator George H. Pendleton of Ohio, and is commonly known as "the Pendleton bill," was drawn originally by Mr. Dorman B. Eaton of New York, as Chairman of the Committee on Legislation of the New York Civil Service Reform Association. The law was preceded by two other laws, namely. Sections 164 and 1753 of the United States Revised Statutes (printed on page 23). Sec. 164 was passed March 3, 1853 ; Sec. 1753 March 3, 1871. The latter was originated by Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois.

The civil service law bill was preceded by three other bills, all of which failed to pass Congress. The first was introduced, in 1864, by Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, whose only recorded words are (Cong. Globe, 1864, p. 1985) : "The object of the bill is to provide a competitive system of examination in the civil service of the United States." The bill, which is only a good foundation on which to build, may be found in Charles Sumner's Works (Boston, 1874), vol. viii, p. 452. The bill^ owing perhaps to the pressure of other btisj-

Viii VARIOUS CIVIL SERVICE BILLS.

ness, never came up for discussion by the Senate. The second bill, which was wider in its scope than Senator Sumner's, was introduced, in 1865, by Representative Thomas Allen Jenckes of Rhode Island, and again, with improvements, in 1866. Mr. Jenckes advocated his bill ably, argumentatively, and earnestly during several sessions of Congress. The third bill was introduced, in 1869, by Senator Carl Schurz of Missouri. It gave the President the option of selecting from among the men who passed the Board, or of ordering men of his own selection before it, and required five and eight year terms of office. The object of the five-year term was to prevent such appointments from being made on the year of the inauguration of the President. The idea was, as explained by Mr. Schurz, that appointments, as a rule, should not be made until the administration was well settled down to business. Senator Schurz's bill required a year of probationary service, Representative Jenckes's six months. Both required competitive examinations. Congress did not distinguish itself by substituting Section 1753 for these bills, and that is saying a great deal. Other civil service bills have been introduced at different times by Senators Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts and George F. Edmunds of Vermont, and Representatives John A. Kasson of Iowa, Albert S. Willis of Kentucky, and Thomas M. Bayne of Pennsylvania.

It is noteworthy in this connection that Representative Samuel Brenton of Indiana, on August 11, 1852, offered an amendment to a resolution proposing to in-

THE LAW'S CHIEF PROVISIONS. IX

crease the pay of civil service clerks in Washington, the concluding part of which is as follows (Congressional Globe, vol. xxiv, pt. iii, p. 2189) : " No removals shall be made except for incompetency, or cause shown to the satisfaction of the President of the United States. And in the selection of said clerks, they shall, as far as practicable, be taken from the several States and Territories in proportion to the number of Senators, Representatives, and Delegates from each in the Thirtythird Congress."

This is practically the same, so far as it goes, as the civil service law. Mr. Brenton said his object was to secure permanency, to prevent sectionalism in the selection of clerks, and to " break down party spirit as much as possible."

The provisions of the civil service law concerning examinations are : It provides that in any State or Territory " where there are persons to be examined," at least two examinations shall be held each year, and in such places " as to make it reasonably convenient and inexpensive for applicants to attend before them." It provides that the examiners, " not less than three," shall be chosen from among United States officials* " residing in said State or Territory." It requires the Commissioners to make regulations for examinations and annual reports of their proceedings, with such sug-

* This is required not only in the interest of economy but to secure examiners who are familiar with the real needs of the offices for which applicants are examined. The examiners receive no extra compensation. (Third Annual Report, p. 43.)

X The efficacy of the new RtJLEg.

gestions as in their judgment will result in improving the service ; and it authorizes them to make investigations concerning all matters "in respect to the execution of this act." It requires that selections for office shall be from among the three competitors graded highest in the examinations. It forbids favoritism in examinations, and exempts officeholders from either political assessments or services, and makes a violation of either provision a misdemeanor, punishable by fine or imprisonment or both, and the new rules (adopted February 2, 1888) require that a violation of the latter provision shall be followed by dismission from the service. It exempts from examination — " (a) One private secretary, or one confidential clerk, of the head of each classified department, and of each assistant secretary thereof ; and also of each head of bureau appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, [b) Direct custodians of money, for whose fidelity another officer is under official bond ; but this exception shall not include any officer below the grade of assistant cashier or assistant teller, (c) Disbursing officers who give bonds, (d) Persons employed exclusively in the secret service of the government, (e) Chief clerks. (/) Chiefs of divisions." Other exemptions are : Deputy collectors who do not also act as inspectors, examiners, or clerks ; otherwise not ; cashier, assistant cashier, and auditor of the collector ; deputy naval officers ; deputy surveyors ; assistant postmasters, and superintendents, custodians of money, stamps, stamped envelopes, or postal-cards, who

are designated as such by the Postoffice Department. It provides for non-competitive examinations when competent persons do not compete, and for several other cogent and justifiable reasons. As said on page 27, competitors must answer 10 per cent, of the questions asked, except ex-soldiers and sailors, who are required to answer but 65, the old standard. Competitive examinations for promotion are compulsory, except for ex-soldiers and sailors, and the widows and orphans of deceased soldiers and sailors. These also receive preference in case of a reduction of force in any branch of the classified service. All who attain an average of 15 per cent, are eligible to promotion. The education required in examinations for ordinary offices embraces common- school studies only, and in many cases only a few of these. As to the age at which a person may be examined, in the Customs Department clerks and messengers must be 20 years old; all others 21. In the Postal Department clerks must be 18 years old ; messengers, stampers, and junior clerks must not be under 16 or over 45 ; carriers not under 21 or over 40 ; all others not under 18 or over 45. Enlisted men may be examined on the written consent of the Secretary of War or the Secretary of the Navy.*

Other important provisions of the law are : It declares that its officials sliall not " coerce the political action of any person or body, or interfere with any

* For further information about competitive examinations, and also some facts about trial by probation, as well as a few other facts pertinent to the above summary, see Chapter II (page 26).

election," and dismission is the penalty of a violation of the provision. It forbids any questions as to an applicant's political or religious opinions, and when such opinions are known, any discrimination on account of them. Further, it requires its officials to discountenance the disclosure of such opinions. And again dismission is the penalty. It forbids the appointment to office of persons who habitually use intoxicating liquors to excess. It limits the number of members of the same family who shall hold office in the grades covered by it. It forbids its three Commissioners, " not more than two of whom shall be adherents of the same party," from holding any other office under the United States. It authorizes the President to " remove any Commissioner." An appointing officer may, if he deems it for the good of the service, object in writing to making an appointment, and refer the matter to the Commission for investigation. No eligible person can be certified for appointment more than three times. When necessary, transfers may be made from one department to another. There are three branches of the classified civil service, namely, the departmental, the customs, and the postal.

Such is a summary of the chief features of the law and its rules and regulations. The whole is certainly a good foundation on which to build a sound civil service system. But the law, even in its present stage of perfection, should be increased in scope. There is probably no valid reason why all postmasters and employes of the railway mail service, internal revenue service.

KEASO:tfS :B*0II mOllEASlNG THE LAW'S SCOPE. xUi

mints, &G., should not be included within its provisions. Postmasters should be removed only for good cause known to the Postmaster-General or President and at the request of a majority of the business men of their place of office. Further, where it is practicable to hold promotion examinations, vacant postmasterships as well as subordinate positions should be filled by the person standing the best test. There are now about 2,500 postmasters drawing |1,000 or over a year, who have for this reason to be confirmed by the Senate. In from twenty to twenty five years more the number will probably be 5,000. It is impossible for the Senate to confirm this great number properly and attend to other business at the same time. Hence the necessity of bringing postmastershij^s under civil service law rules.

The increase in the number of examinations held year after year, State as well as national, is the best illustration of the progress of civil service reform.

In Massachusetts, in 1887, there were 145 examinations. Number examined, 1,433 ; qualified, 938 ; appointments, 403, 21 of whom were women; average age, 36 years; education — common-school, 919; collegiate, 19. In Hhe labor service of Boston'* the num-

* Mayor Hugh O'Brien of Boston, in a speech in 1885, said: " I can certainly testify that it has been a great relief to the city of Boston that the Civil Service Commission has taken care of the laboring population. No men have been more abused than the laborers. They have been made the tools of political tricksters ; and with civil service reform enforced they are no longer in the hands of political tricksters."

One of the best features of this ' labor service ' is that the men, when xiv HOW TO PKET:ENT: PEBSOKATiOI^S.

ber registered was 2,235 ; certified for employment, 1,998; employed, 1,615. Including the Boston laborers, the classified service of the State numbers 6,000, the aggregate expense being about $4,400,000. The total number of persons who have passed examinations during the past three years, says Secretary Warren P. Dudley, is : 1885, 1,292, of whom 958 passed with a percentage of 65 or over ; 1886, 1,035, of whom 791 passed ; 1887, 1,433, of whom 938 passed.

Mr. William Potts, who was Chief Examiner of the New York State Civil Service Commission during most of the year 1887, in his report to the Commission, says that 384 applicants were examined during that year, 148 more than for any previous year. He suggests that a roster of the employes be kept, stating by whom they are appointed, together with their functions and pay. Also that additional means be provided for the correction of irregularities in the service. To prevent personations at examinations he proposes that each applicant shall certify to the examiners in writing as to his identity, and afterward to the Commission that he passed the examination. The handwriting of the two certificates and the signature on the application paper, he thinks, will prevent fraud. He gives an instance of an applicant who, on account of false reports concerning the nature of the examinations, spent so much time in studying about mountains, the distance to the planet Venus, &c., that he failed in ten out of twelve wanted, are notified by mail. They thus lose no time in calling or waiting around for city work.

questions in arithmetic. He says the Commission received a letter from the civil engineer of a leading railroad company requesting a copy of a list of sixteen civil engineers who hjjid passed an examination, with a view to filling a position on the staff of that road.*

In the State of New York, in 1886, the classified offices numbered 15,895 ; number of persons examined 4,007 ; appointments, 2,035.

In the City of New York the number examined was 1,927 ; qualified, 1,479 ; appointments, 1,216. Average age, 30 years. Education : common-school, 517 ; academic, 54; private, 68; collegiate, 171. In addition to the classified offices (7,271), there were 3,635 laborers.

In Brooklyn the number examined was 1,241 ; qualified, 681 ; appointments, 258. Average age, 40 years. Education : common-school, 937 ; academic, 122 ; private, 39 ; collegiate, 143. There were 2,447 laborers employed at different times during the year.

In the smaller cities the education was nearly all

common-school.

In the national service the number examined in 1883

The American people had reason to complain of the evils of the patronage system many j^ears before the

* Mr. Potts, to whom I am indebted for the above information in advance of its publication, was removed from office without fault of his, and in violation of the spirit if not the letter of the civil service law. (See note, page 57.)

Declaration of Independence. Sir Thomas llrskine May, in his "Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George III," says that many of the colonial officeholders sent from England were of little account — were thought to be good enough for the colonies, but not for England.* The most lucrative colonial salary, he says, would often be earned by deputy. He quotes a letter of Lieutenant General John Huske, as follows (ii, 529) : "As to civil officers appointed for America, most of the places in the gift of the Crown have been filled with broken members of Parliament, of bad, if any, principles — valetsde-chamhre, electioneering scoundrels, and even livery servants. In one word, America has been for many years made the hospital of England." The letter was written in 1758.

* Such men were more mischievous in a colony than at home. * * * To allay discontent, the government finally surrendered to the local Governors all appointments under £200 a year, to be filled from among the citizens of the several colonies. — E. F. Waters.

THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW.

CHAPTER I.

PEUITS AND FACTS.

The law promotes Education, Efficiency, and Economy. — Its chief Object. — Its Constitutionality. — In harmony with the Teachings of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. — It Aids instead of Hampers the President, who makes his own Kules for its Execution.

The civil service law, judged by its fruits, is a useful and successful reformatory measure. Its fruits or reforms are necessarily limited in number, for it applies to only about a seventh of the more than one hundred thousand public offices. But notwithstanding this fact, it has made a good beginning in reforuiing the patronage system of distributing offices, and it promises well for the future. One of its best reforms is the relief of officeholders from compulsory political assessments. Another is the making of subordinate official tenures coequal with efficiency and fidelity, instead of their depending on the politics of chief officials. It has also greatly relieved the President, the Cabinet, Congressmen, and customs, postoffice, and other officials of the annoying and sometimes embarrassing burdens of officeseeking. The National Civil Service Commission, and also the State Commissions of New York and Massachusetts, have received encouraging reports of the utility of the system from nearly every city wherein it is applicable. The New York State Commissioners say

18 INSPIRED BY GENIUS OF OUE INSTITUTIONS.

(Second Report, p. 34) : '' Higher grade employes, better service, reduction in the number employed, and large economy in expenditure are among the prominent results already partially realized."

The law is certainly in harmony with the spirit of the times, for it both promotes and encourages education.* Mr. Everett P. Wheeler truly says: "So far from its being opposed to the genius of our institutions, it is inspired by that genius." Another good feature of the law is that it is, like all laws should be, nonpartisan in its character, having been originated by the best known men of both the Democratic and Republican parties. It makes no distinction on account of sex. The provision which requires that examinations for and appointments to office shall be controlled by separate sets of officials, these by a third set (the Civil Service Commissioners), and the Commissioners by the President, is certainly a wise one, for, like the government's legislative, executive, and judicial officials, one set checks as well as aids the other. For example, appointing officers are required to keep records of removals,

* Mr. Henry Sherwin, chief examiner of the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission, says (Third Annual Report, p. 11) : "It may be said truthfully that, in their way, civil service examinations form a part of a general educational system. The demands made upon applicants vary . in accoi'dance with the positions for which they are examined. A first examination has shown many of them their various deficiencies, and they have been stimulated to bring their education up to the required standard. In many cases this has been done with the help of friends, but more frequently by attendance at the evening schools which are maintained in many of the cities of the Commonwealth."

Many other Americans have made similar testimonials to the above, and Sir Charles Trevelyan and many other Englishmen have testified that the English civil service law has the same effect in England, Canada, Australia, British India, &c. To print even a synopsis of so many pimilar testimonials is certainly superfluous.

PUBLIC BUSINESS THE SAME AS PRIVATE. 19

rejections, resignations, transfers, and the name and residence of persons selected for trial by probation. This enables the Commissioners to check either unjust removals or rejections after trial by probation.

The chief object of the law is the application of the common sense principles of private business to public business. Public and, private business may differ more or less in detail, and even in mode of performance, yet their fundamental principles are the same.* For example, the violation of certain rules will be followed by more or less injur}'-, while the violation of certain others will be followed sooner or later by insolvency. One of these principles or rules is the retention in employment of efficient and honest men. Another is the removal of either inefficient or dishonest men. The foregoing being universally admitted facts, it is therefore self-evident that, the services rendered being satisfactory, and the exigencies of business permitting, the tenure of service of subordinate j)ublic employes, like that of private employes, should be during efficient and faithful service, which service should be rewarded, when practicable, by promotion and a reasonable increase of pay. In private business the removal of efficient and faithful employes to make room for untried men, who might prove to be

* The oft-repeated maxim that the public service should be conducted on business principles, means that accuracy, promptitude, honesty, economy, and efficiency are as essential in public as in private affairs ; but the methods of securing these qualities cannot be exactly the same. The merchant has a direct personal and pecuniary interest in his private affairs which leads him to make a careful selection of his employes ; but in the public service there must be substituted some more complicated agency in the form of laws, regulations, reports, and inspections. —Col. Silas W. Burt.

The very men who advocate the spoils system for public business, would call a man a fool if he proposed the same system for private ^usinesg, — Thomas H, B?;nton.

20 EEASONABLE WAGES PEOMOTE HONESTY.

both inefficient and unfaithful, is deemed the hight of folly. Is it any less so in public business ? Do railroad or telegraph companies injure their business by changing their employes every time they change their presidents? Further, reasonable wages and employment during satisfactory service tend to promote honesty. Will not an accountant or weigher, public or private, who learns that he is to be superseded, be tempted to do wrong ?

The law itself is new, but its principles are as old as the government, if not in fact as old as civilization. The fact that its principles are in exact conformity with both the principles and practices of the founders of the government, is a good if not perhaps the best argument that can be made in favor of its constitutionality, for it is not reasonable that the founders of the government would both preach and practice doctrine that is in violation of the Constitution.* The law is certainly not unconstitutional. It in effect simply authorizes the President to appoint commissioners to aid him in discharging his constitutional functions. The President's powers are therefore really increased, not, as charged by the opponents of the law, diminished. Thus, instead of hampering the President, the law materially increases his facilities for transacting business ; and the increase of facilities is not greater than the increase of business.

* Daniel Webster says (iv, 196, 198): "I think the legislature possesses the power of regulating the condition, duration, qualification, and tenure of office in all cases where the Constitution has made no express provision on the subject. * * * If Congress were to declare by law that the Attorney-General or the Secretary of State should hold his office during good behavior, I am not aware of any ground on which such a law could be held unconstitutional. A provision of that kind might be unwise, but I do not perceive that it would transcend the power of Congress,"

Further, so far as tlie President is concerned, the enforcement of the law is optional instead of compulsory. In fact he can nullify it by merely refusing to enforce it. Thus everything is practically left to the President. This is precisely what the Constitution says Congress may do. Art. II., Sec. 4, says "the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officera as they think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

This is the modest, not to say timid, way in which the Congress of 1883 sought " to regulate and improve" a small part of the national civil service. But here is the way in which President Madison, one of the framers* of the Constitution itself, says he would proceed (iv, 385) : " The right of suffrage, the rule of apjDortioning representation, and the mode of appointing to and removing from office, are fundamentals in a free government, and ought to be fixed by the Constitution. An unforeseen multiplication of offices may add a weight to the executive scale, disturbing the equilibrium of the government. I should therefore see with pleasure a guard against the evil, * * * even hy an amendment of the Constitution.'^'*

Alexander Hamilton, another framer of the Constitution, not only advocated principles but even proposed a

* The opinions of the framers of the Constitution ought to have great weight. William E. Gladstone says : " As the British Constitution is the most subtile organism which has proceeded from progressive history, so the American Constitution is the most wonderful work ever struck ofiF at a given time by the brain and purpose of man." If this does not increase the weight of the framers* opinions, what can ? But the Constitution needs revising. Jefferson says (iii, 106) : " Every constitution and every law naturally expires at the end of every 34 ye^rs." Speaking of other omissions, he said he thought the Constitution ought to contain a provision for ** the restriction of monopolies." (ii, 229.)

22 HAMILTON'S PLAI^ AND JAY's PRACTICE.

plan very similar to both tiie plan and fundamental principles of the civil service law. Indeed it may be said that the law is only an enlargement and improvement of his plan. His " select assembly " would have been, what the Civil Service Commissioners are to-day, a material aid to the President, if not in fact a sort of second Cabinet. He says (" The Federalist," p. 355) : " It will be agreed on all hands that the power of appointment, in ordinary cases, can be properly modified only in one of three ways. It ought to be vested in a single man ; or in a select assembly of moderate number ; or in a single man, with the concurrence of such an assembly." He deprecated "party bargains" (p. 356) as a mode of distributing offices, because " party victories " would " be more considered than the intrinsic merit of the candidate" or ''the advancement of the service."