Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-11-15
DIR. Pardon Upon Civil Service.

To the Editor Of The Eyering Star:
Your paper yesterday published an inter-
view with Civil Service Commissioner
Proctor relative to my remarks, as pub
lished upon a certain resolution consid-
cred by the board of trade at its recent
meeting relative to the application of the
present law to appointments under the
District Commissioners.
While / have no personal acquaintance
with Mr.. Proctor, am aware that he is
an excellent gentleman, a scholarly man
and an honest civil service commissioner.
1 have no reason to cross swords with him.
l have no doubt / would fully indorse a
civil service law that he would draft as
substitute for the cunning and imperfect
one now in force / want an honest law.
or, at least, law drawn with honest in
tentions; not a law where Senator John
Doe or Representative Richard Roe, or any
other officer of the government can certify
to the good character and residence OF the
applicant. which we all know is considered
equivalent to Recommendation for Of
flce."
While the civil service commission Is a
non partisan board. the officer to whom
three names are certified for appointment
is always a partisan. If under republ-
can administration, republican,; under a
democratic one a democrat II Senator
Doe is of the same politics as the admin
fstration then In power, and certifies to
the character and residence" of Mr.. A,
and Representative Roe of the opposite
party certifies, &c, to b. and c., Mr.. A.
gets the appointment. / would prohibit by
law any officer of the government in any
way certifying or intimating any knowl-
edge of the applicant, and, instead Of GER
tifying three Names certify but one, and
thus close the door the politicians pur-
posely left open when they enacted the
law.
Then as to removals for "cause or in
efficiency" i think Mr.. Proctor will agree
with NE that II is very remarkable how
many clerks in the executive departments
here, and in government service all over
the country, under. for instance, a demo-
cratic administration, are very efficient,
with no cause for removal but imme-
diatey become in Efficient, with glazing
cause for removal, when the administra-
ton becomes republican, and vice versa.
How m.-ny clerks and other employees of
the government, with excellent characters
and high efficiency in the last admnistra-
ton have suddenly become inefficient, with
good and sufficient" cause of removal I'M
der thisi What a peculiar disease that
attacks government employees when adj
ministrations change If they are not in
political accord with 1t! 1t not only affects
their efficiency, but their industry, habits,
character, &c.
Can the present law apply any remedy?
No! Give us a law, with honest, non-par-
tisan appointments and honest, non-parti-
san promotions and discharges. The civil
service commission certifies to the fitness
of an applicant for appointment. If he
proves inefiicie 1t, let specific charges be
made, give the employe a chance to an
swer them, let them, If you please, be in
vestigated by the commission. If true, let
him be removed. If false, let him not be
removed, only to make place for another.
Relative to appointments under the Dis
trict government, l am in favor of home
rule and home appointments, and opposed
to embracing them under the present law.
Mr.. Proctor says that under the law the
dead wood" would be weeded out and the
places filled by efficient people," / think
there is very little dead wood in the en-
ploy of the city government-the Commits
sioners are watchful in that respect, and
industry and efficiency is the rule-because
the board is non-partisan.
i have no objection, in fact, / am In IA
vor, of a special law for the District gov
eminent under the civil service, combining
it's applicants and appointments to the
actual residents of the District and not
upon the quota" plan of apportioning
them to all the states and territories of the
Union. There are only a few points in
Mr.. Procter's interview, as published, that
! do not indoTse; but in the main l do not
think We are SD very wide apart.
Very respectfully,
A. p. PARDON
Washington, d. c., November ii, 1894.