Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-11-23

CIVIL Service ana the bOuru VI lruues
| To the Editor Of the Evening Star:
All honor to The Star for its stout and
| sensible advocacy Of civil service reform.
| not only in general but especially In con-
| nection with the government of the Dis
| trict of Columbia. To enc who has been In
| a position to observe the working OF the
| system of spoils and that of merit, the OPP
position to the reform resolution In the
| board of trade appears simply incompre-
hensi5le. So far as the question Of poll
tics Is concerned, your editorial Of the 10th
| sums up the points completely. No one, I
presume, doubts either the sincerity of pur-
pose Or honesty Of erdeavor OF the gentle
men of the board In their devotion to the
interests Of the District. What Is strange
is that they cannot see that every Ques-
ton OF public policy or reform, especially
the latter, must, under a government Of
parties like ours, take on q political char
acter The outs are always fighting the
ms whenever Office rewards service; and
the most wholesome measures must expect
the opposition of those who desire defeat
and disgrace for the party in power. And
the board Of trade, however much IL may
deprecate the necessity, must always face
the hostility of strongly partisan ele-
ment. no matter how beneficial may be
the projected legislation. As to the Dis
trict offices, the real point for considera-
ton by the board should have been, is the
District business a business to be trans
acted on business principles. or is 1t a
| snap to furnish fodder for the partisan
| crib? And IL :he former, would not a nom
partisan home-rule mode Of selection give
| us better service, more satisfactory
source of appointment, and a system inur-
| ing to the greater prosperity of the Dis
trict? If So 1t is the plain duty of the
| board as representing the best practical
thought of the District, to formulate its
nj in lai 10 M, 90 nd tn "a
notice to the citizens of the United States
| that this community, denied the right OF
suffrage. demands the right to have its
public servants selected from its own ranks
and by a merit system that shall COM
pletely exclude partisan politics.
As to the criticisms on the merit system
row In partial operation In the depart
ments. they are really arguments in favor
OF the reform. since for the most part they
merely sum up its defects. and these de-
| fects arise from the determination of the
spoilsmen, when the civil service act was
passed in 1888, to render 1t as Ineffective as
possible. An experience of thirty years In
the public service. including a member
ship Of examining boards and some years
duty as head Of division, thoroughly con-
WINGED the writer that the only defect OF
the present system lies in its incomplete
ness. II 1t be true. as has been alleged,
that hostile heads Of departments violate
the law by placing unworthy persons on
the rolls without examination, or through
| a fictitious designation Of them as EEK
perts:" that heads of bureaus sometimes
hold the names certified by the civil SER
vice commission till the political character
OF the candidates can be ascertained; that
ignorance and incompetency frequently
find their way to responsible positions
among the excepted" places; If promo
lions, reductions and dismissals are still
made the media of political reward OF pun
ishment: what does all this prove, but that
the law reeds Strengthening, and that the
rules need stricter construction? More than
this, ii proves that the Importance of the
merit system must be brought home to
the people by campaign Of education. 80
that politicians will learn that Ii is danger
Gus to tamper with 1t. And In such a cam
paign the Importance of a sturdy stand
by dignified and trusted body like the
board of trade cannot be overestimated.
A comparison of the two systems seems
almost superf1uCus, since a selection based
en- intelligence must strike even the most
ordinary mind as far superior to one based
on mere party adherence. After serving
in the various grades Of clerkship, and as
division chief. unhesitatingly assert that
the merit system gives 80 per cent more
efficiency to the employed force than does
that of "spoils;" to say nothing Of the
sinecures permitted under the latter. For
instance, take the position of chief of d.
vision. Prior to 1885 chiefs were usually
selected by promotion from the lower
grades. the orly way by which competent
and experienced men could be assured. But
on the false plea that these positions were
confidential in character, they were except
ed from the 6XdfnlHdtlOnS required law
for other grades and have since been fill
ed politically. under the administrations of
both Cleveland and Harrison. The result
Is that a chief-the very man whose know
ledge and experience should enable him to
direct others-enters on his work ignorant
of his duties. remains four years without
learning them. and departs to give place
to another who plays the same farcical
role. There are now on the rolls Of the
Treasury Department some forty-odd chiefs
Of division to whom nearly a hundred thou
sand dollars is paid In salaries, and this
money might as well, for all the good II
does the people, be thrown into the treas
ury macerator, 1t Is easy to see that IL, as
one of your correspondents intimates, the
public work is nevertheless done. 1t is done
In spite of the spols system, not because
of 1t. Against such a policy of waste and
dishonesty 1t behooves every good citizen
to protest. and especially every organised
body Of good citizens, like the board Of
trade.
The writer is not a sorehead; he was
OF put OUT" he has no ak to grind, or
favor to court: but in the interest Of this