National Republican., 1877-05-01
CIVIL SERVICE REFORK-THEOBY
AND PRACTICE.

There has been good deal Of talk Of
c,vil service reform; commissions have
been appointed to consider and determine
the best means Of accomplishing 1t; rules
have been adopted and competitive exam.
nations have been tried, and still we are
experimenting. The theories are all very
pretty, but somehow or other there seems
to be q great deal Of difficulty In the way
of starting the machinery and putting the
theories into practice. The object Of re-
forming the civil service is, rs we under.
stand It, to have the business Of the Gov
ernment in all its departments conducted
in better and more efficient manner.
This can only be done by removing ap.
pointments from political influences, by re-
tanning good and efficient officers without
reference to the time they have beea in Of
flee or the States from which they come.
1t Is not, therefore, in the direction of civil
service reform to remove efficient heads Of
bureaus In order to make place for gentle.
men from other States. Nor Is 1t in the
direction Of reform to get rid of faithful
and welltried clerks because the States
they come from havo more than their
"quotas" in the Departments. We have
heretofore expressed our disapprobation Of
the law distributing clerkships geognph-
ically. Let the best man be selected in
every case, whether he comes from Maine,
Maryland or Mississippi. In their efforts
to work reform our Cabinet officers are
examining the rules that govern the civil
service in France and England. Do they
find in these rules any evidence that the
offices are distributed geographically, and
that appointments are made to represent
particular provinces or countiesi Let our
civil service be like theirs, national in its
character, and not subject to distribution
and division according TO State lines.
And let the civil service rules prevail
with all officers, and not yield to the pres
sure Of politicians, as was the case q few
days ago, when F. G. HUMPHREYS was ap-
pointed collector Of customs at Pensacola,
Florida, in the place of Mr.. HIRAM PoT-
TER, JR. The latter had been an efficient
officer. His faithfulness In the discharge
OF his duties was upquestioned. But he
had been in office eight years, which was
supposed to be long enough. Now, our
view would have been that eight years Of
experience would have made the incum.
bent more efficient. Was 1t because Mr..
HUMPHREYS was q Presidential elector
that he was able to carry off the prize
What makes the matter worse Is, that Mr..
HUMPHREYS was appointed once before
and was unable to give the required bond.
In 1871 Gas the records Of the Department
will show) he succeeded by misrepresenta.
ton In having Mr.. POTTER displaced. His
bond was worthless, and Mr.. POTTER was
reinstated. After his recent appointment
by President HAYES he sent q bond to the
Treasury Department which was also
found to be straw" Instead of being
dismissed for attempting to palm of such q
fraud upon the Government. he was given
an opportunity to procure other sureties,
which he did, and his commission was
issued to him. We don't think that the
Government will be able to collect much
upon tie last-nsmed bond, in the event OF
defalcation. Is this appointment Of
HUMPHREYS practically carrying out civil
service reform?
Nor is there any more practical civil
service reform in the case of Mr.. RUSSELL,
who is still recogized by this Government
as the Minister to Venezuela. That he