The Washington times., 1894-04-22
The East Gets the Largest Part Of
Government Patronage.
THE CIVIL SERVICE REPORT
Tho District Of Columbia Has Fifty Times as
Much Patronage a. It Is Entitled to
Have-Maryland Exceeds Her Quota
Nearly 200 Per Cent


ing how government Offices are distributed at
Washington. The object OF this statement Is
to prove how much fairer than the "spolis
system Is the system Of the Civil Service Com
mission. To what extent the statement will
carry this proof depends largely on the re-
ceptive condition Of the mind to which 1t Is
brought. great many people in and out OF
Congress will not believe any good OF the civil
service law. Others are as strongly prejudiced
in its favor.
Whatever the statement proves to any one,
1t isan interesting showing Of "who's got the
button" There is no doubt from the tables
presented by the commission that the east
ern states and the District OF Columbia have
the button. and that it is gold-plated button
set with diamonds.
The civil service act provides that zap
pointments to the public service aforesaid in
the departments at Washington shall be ap-
portioned among the several states and terri
tories and the District of Columbia upon the
basis of population as ascertained at the last
preceding census"
The idea was recognized and still is recog-
nized under the patronage system. But under
this system the apportionment is necessarily
onlyapproxiamate. That is how it happens that
some of the states and the District of Colum-
bia have i'll service at Washington a great
many more employees and officers than they
would be entitled to under an equitable dis
tributon proportioned to their population.
There are II, ,746 officers and employees in
the department service at Washington. OF
these 1881 are appointed under the civil SER
vice law, or ''the merit SYSTEM" as the COM
mission calls it, and 1865 are appointed under
the patronage system.
Naturally, it is impossible to make distri-
button of places exact. However elaborate the
machinery of apportionment there will be a
slight excess here or deficiency there as
changes are made. Then there is consider
able inequality growing out of the character
of some offices which makes the share OF the
District of Columbia always and Of the differ
ent states occasionally larger than it should be.
For example, there are many positions, like
that Of printers assistant, which are so unirn-
portant that people would not come TO Wash
ington from distant states to accept them.
These places are filled almost invariably from
the District of Columbia.
Then there are scientific places, notably in
the Department of Agriculture. which could
be filed by one of only three or four people
in the United States. perhaps. If Nebraska is
entitled to an appointment, the next vacancy
is in a scientific bureau, and there is no scien-
tist in Nebraska who could fill it, the appoint
ment of necessity will go to some other state.
In spite of these conditions the Civil Ser
vice Commission manages to make a very
equitable distribution OF appointments. The
greatest excess is found of course in the Dis
trict of Columbia. The District is entitled,
according to its population under the census
OF 1890, to IA places of the 1881 controlled
by the civil service law. 1t holds 103 of these
places, an excess OF 49, Next to this the
greatest excess is that of Maryland. which has
n places instead of 20. South Dakota has II
instead of 10. Connecticut 20 instead of II.
Nebraska, Vermont. Virginia and Wyoming
have each an excess of two and several states
an excess of one each over their quotas.
In the column OF deficits Iowa has ia
pieces instead of the 1874 to which she is en-
titled; Missouri has 145 instead of 15s; Illi-
nois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and Penn
sylvania each are seven short; Louis
lana. New York, Texas, and Wisconsin,
G; short, and so on. The disproportion
is not very great. 1t figures up a total
of us for all the states and territories and
the District, and emitting the District, the
variation is only twenty-nine.
In addition to the reasons which 1 have
named for the variation it is due to the ne
cessities of appointments by transfers and
various non-competitive examinations and
tine appointment of persons formerly in the
military or naval service, who are entitled to
preference.
In fixing the quota of the states the COM
mission has taken the arbitrary number 1000.
On the basis of 1000 appointments among
$685., ,250 people, every 81 .240 of population is
10 one appointment. l0lS TatIO
applied to the population of each state. The
difference between the aggregate of the whole
number obtained and the ratio OF representa-
tion is made up by assigning to the states
having the largest fractions addional num-
bers until the total Of 1000 is reached.
New York is entitled to 191 appointments
in 1000. Ohio to III, PENNSYLVANIA to 16S,
Wisconsin to 81 aud Arkansas to Sc. On the
1st OF February New York had received 12S,
Ohio II, Pennsylvania 109, Wisconsin 80 and
Arkansas % of this number. As the share of
Wisconsin was proportionately less than that
OF the others, she would be entitled to the
first appointment The order of preference
would be Wisconsin, Arkansas, Pennsylvania
and Ohio. The calculation is made by card
system, which puts the first state on top auto
matically and leaves the commission no dis
erection and no room for error.
The table showing the distribution of the
1866 appointments which do not come under
the civil service law develops an astonishing
condition of affairs. especially in the District
of Columbia. Under the patronage system
the heads of departments or of bureaus make
their own distribution Of offices. They fol-
low no fixed rule, though they usually make
some effort to equalize the favors given to the
various states.
But naturally the pressure for place from
the eastern states is greater than from the
West and the far South, and naturally some
OF the eastern states come in fo- great deal
more than their share of appointments. Mary
land is entitled by reason of her population to
l25 of the 1866 appointments. She actually
holds 475 appointments, an excess of nearly
200 per cent
Virginia is entitled to 1893 appointments;
she has 476.
West Virginia is entitled to 95: she has 1872.
Now York is entitled to 726; she has ST..
Vermont is entitled to SO; she has TO-
Maine is entitled to 76: she has 1l9
New Hampshire is entitled to 40; she has 81.
Texas is entitled to 292: she has "a
California is entitled to 15S; she has 37
Georgia is entitled to 227: she has n
Missouri is entitled to 3i4: she has llG
Ohio is entitled TO 4i6; she has 275
Illinois is entitled to $50; She has 23S
Iowa is entitled 10 aSi; she has IFS
Kansas is entitled to iSS; she has 9s
North Carolina Is entitled TO Ig7; she has o.
Tennessee is entitled to 2lI; she has 107
Michigan is entitled to 26G; she has l55
Wisconsin is entitled to al3; she has 1l3
Kentucky is entitled 10 225; she has 6S
But these appointments in excess Of the
quota are comparatively few and most of
them are comparatively small There is one
exception-the District of Columbia. As has
been explained, the District necessarily has
more than its exact proportion. In the case
OF patronage appointments it has 2244, when
under a strict construction OF the rule of dis
tribution according to population it is enti-
tied to 29-an excess of 2,215, or more than
200 per cent
This with the excess in the other states
aggregates 3,1S5-the variation from the
standard in apportioning 1855 appointments.
THIS loss, of course, must be made up from
tne quota of other states, and Of these the
chief sufferer is Arkansas. The population
OF the state of Arkansas entities her to 147
appointments. She holds just "A deficit
OF 143.
and SO it goes through almost the entire
iist OF western. central and southern states
anu territories. Indiana is one of the few |
states which nearly holds its own. Indiana |
Is Is entitled to 263 appointments, and has 223. |
INT ale H.,