The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1886-06-26
THE CIVIL SERVICE.
Speech of Hon. Frank II. Shaw.

L. OudH, vi tHC OCCOh0 4AoA yA1hA
the House of Representatives, June 9th, the
Legislative, etc., appropriation bill being
under consideration, and in which there was
a provision that the salaries of the Civil
Service Commission were only available
when the rules should be so changed that all
eligibles should be certified to the appoint
ing power, instead of the four standing
highest, as at present:
81 arise to advocate the conditions mem
toned in this bill upon which the salaries OF
the Civil Service Commission are made avail
able.
Section of Article II of the Constitution
disposes of the appointing power as follows
but the Congress may by law vest the ap-
pointment of such inferior officers, they think
proper in the President alone in the courts of law,
or in the heads of Departments.
The appointing power conferred by Con-
gress upon the heads of Departments IN pur-
suance of this constitutional provision, l re-
spectfully submit, can not be interfered with
or abridged by legislative enactment Yet
Rule XVI of the amended civil-serviee rules
provides that
Whenever an officer having the power ofappoint-
ment employment shall SO request there shall be
examining board four names for the vacancy
specified, and from the said four selec-
ton shall be made for the vacancy.
The last clause read of this rule says, land
from the said four a selection shall be made
for the vacancy Does not this rule inter-
fere with and abridge the exercise OF the con-
stitutional right of appointment by limiting
the number from which selection may be
made? The appointing power is essentially
a power of choice. Suppose, for the sake OF IL
lustration, that only one name be certihed ior
appointment, is not the right of choice
altogether destroyed? Does it not follow
that when but four names are certified that
the right of choice is curtailed, and the power
of appointment abridged in degree not con-
tempiated BY the constitutional provision
from which the power is derived? Are not
all qualifications and limitations upon this
power by Congress a usurpation OF authority?
It NAV be argued that the President in
preparing and promulgating rules to make
effective the civil-service act consented to
such notifications of his constitutional
power in the premises as the rules effected.
But while his right to do so may be seriously
questioned, no appointment of his falls with
in the scope of the act, and the argument
does not apply to either of the heads of the
several Departments of the Government in
whom Congress, in pursuance of the con-
stitutional provision, has vested the power to
appoint.
But in addition to the constitutional OBJ
lection Just mentioned, am wholly unable to
understand in what way the interest OF the ser
vice is promoted by compelling selection Tor
appointment to be made from so small num-
Der of names as is now certified for that pur-
pose. If, as is conceded by the Civil Service
Commission. ''the head of the Department
knows best the kind of excellence needed In
a particular vacancy" the larger the NUMBER
of those found duly qualified on examination
q L. ba paada the
likely is such excellence to be obtained.
1t may be urged that to afford an opportu-
nity to the appointing power to make selec-
ton from the whole list of eligibles belong
ing to any one State will endanger the sue
cess OF those graded highest upon the list.
Although this be true, it is in no wise lncon-
sistent with the civil.service law, for the COM
mission does not rely upon the examination
as an infallible test of merit, and has PROV.
ded by its rules for probationary service OF
six months before an appointment is made
absolute.
Under the law as it now exists it is not
certain that the one graded highest upon the
list will be first certified, for when vacancy
occurs the rules require that the selection to
fill it shall be made from the State or Terri
tory which has received the least proper
tional share of all the appointments then
made under the act, regardless of the grad
ing of applicants from any other State or
Territory.
So we find that in making this demand for
the names of all the eligibles from which to
make a selection, we are only extending
principle already approved by the Civil Ser
vice Commission, and bringing the practice
under the law nearer in accord with the con-
stitutional power of appointment.
| will now pass to the consideration of the
age Limitation, which as at present prescribed
by a civil. service rule Iregard as an UNJUST
and oppressive discrimination against more
than seven millions of reputable American
citizens. thus placing them in the same cate
gory with convicted felons and furnishing men
for growing old. Those who are convicted of
certain high crimes and misdemeanors while
holding Office under the United States and
few who are adjudged guilty of certain inta-
nous crimes in her courts of law are forever
deprived of the right to hold Office. Yet
without trial and without the Intervention of
a Jury a large class of our fellow citizens are
placed on level in this one respect with the
most degraded in the land.
The trainers of our Constitution in their
wisdom did not see proper to apply this test
to the high Office of President of the United
States or Senator or Representative In Con-
gress; but it was left for the Civil Service
fication for him who aspires to be a night IN
spector in the customs service or copyist in
one of the Departments of the Government,
in this way depriving vast number OF
persons at once and forever of one of the
privileges of American citizenship, and that,
too, without relieving them of any OF Its
burdens.
What will be the result, Mr.. Chairman, if
this odious discrimination be continued?
Will it not render apathetic and indifferent a
very large class of our people to the results OF
our elections and thereby put in jeopardy our
Republican institutions?
class is made up of those whose passions have
been subdued by age, whose intellects have
been matured by time, and whose judgments
have been perfected by experience, is 1t wise
to thus bar them from the public service /?
This, Mr.. Chairman, is, in my humble
Judgment, one of the very worst features of
the civil service law as at present administer
ed. 1t is certainly not civil-service reform.
Why shall we not then avail ourselves of the
opportunity here offered to apply the proper
corrective? 1t has been alleged here upon
this floor that this is not manly way in
which to right the wrong complained of In
vindication of this course | now send to the
Clerks desk, to have read, a portion of the
proceedings of the Senate upon the passage
of the civil-service law:
TThe proceedings read related to motion by
Senator Sherman TO strike out ofthe Civil Service law
when it was being first considered in the Senate a
provision making permanent appropriation for
the salaries, compensations and necessary expenses
in administering it. Mr.. Sherman said he did not
want the bill to start out with weakness so palpa
BILE as that it claims for itself all exemption from
that examination to which all branches of the pub
lie service subjected every year by the necessity
of an annual appropriation. As matter, of course,
he said Congress may discontinue the service when
it chooses do it, either by repeating the law or
fusing appropriations
Gas a matter of course" says Senator
Sherman, Congress may discontinue the
service when it chooses to do it, either by re-
pealing the law or refusing appropriations.
Here we have authority for the course we are
now pursuing, which ought to commend itself
to our Republican friends upon the other side
of the Chamber. But this is not an effort to
repeal the law, rather to amend the regula-
tons, so as to harmonic them, in degree
at least, with our Republican form of govern
ment"
Political Notes.
Gen. James A. Beaver is assured of the
-. n - De-.