The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-12-11
THE CrvIL-sERvIcE LAW.


A correspondent at Charlottesville takes
issue with the Journal in regard to the
civil-service law and thinks editors are not
as likely to know the true sentiments of the
people as congressman, who are dependent
upon the vote of the people for their re-
turn to Congress" I'm this city, he says,
'it is the absolute truth that nine-tenths
of the voters. irrespective of party, are OPP
posed to the civil-service fw." Mere as
sertion is not evidence, and the Journal
takes leave to doubt that any such major
ity as nine-tenths or any majority what
ever, of the voters of Charlottesville, ire
spective of party. are opposed to the civil
service law. Furthermore, we venture the
assertion that the correspondent has never
read the law nor had copy of it in his
hands, and that his opposition to it is based
on some of the rules made by the President
which, if they do not work well, can be I'M
made by the same authority. The Journal
recognizes the fact that congressman have
excellent opportunities for knowing the SEN
timent of 1.-THE people" who are in politics,
but the number of these is comparatively
nose correctly the sentiments of the far
more numerous class who are not in poll
tics. A memorable instance of this was the
SALARY grab of 1873. Congressman could
not be made to believe that the people were
opposed to it, yet it's passage cost scores
of them seats and the law was repealed
at the next session. Editors are liable to
be mistaken too, but remembering the story
of the "Three tailors of Tooley street."
they do not often fall into the error of mis-
taking a small and interested class for 1.-The
people,"
1t is interesting to note the different
points of view from which the friends and
gard it. The former base their support of
1t solely on considerations of public welfare.
They claim that under it the government
and people get better service than they
did or could under the wide-open spoils sys-
TEN, and that by relieving heads of depart
ments from the continual pressure for
places it gives them more time to attend
to their legitimate duties. Secretary of the
Navy Long puts it we'll in a statement
published yesterday:
The government gets better service. The
civil-Service examinations are much better
than represented, but even at their worst,
they result in furnishing most competent
clerks, who, instead of looking to political
influence for their retention in office, know
that that depends on their merit and good
work The power of removal which hangs
over them all the time, and which should
never be impaired, and which the heads of
departments are constantly invoking in
cases of inefficiency, keeps them up to the
mark.
On this or similar grounds the law has
had the approval of every President, every
Cabinet officer and every head of bureau
its opponents do not pretend that repeal of
the law would benefit the public service,
the government or the people at large in
any way. Their opposition to it is based
sweeping removals from Office for political
reasons and easy appointments as a reward
for political services. There is marked
difference in these views and the motives
that prompt them.
The Journal draws a distinction between
the civil-service law, the rules under it, and
the system. The rules may possibly have
become too cumbersome and may call for
some notifications; if so, it is within the
power of the President to change them.
The law itself could perhaps be improved
by some amendments, but the system is
pre-eminently right and essential to the
INF of