New-York tribune., 1900-05-03
THE CIVIL SERVICE DECISION.

The decision of the Court of Appeals declaring
unconstitutional the provision of the White
Civil Service law depriving appointing Off
Ger of all choice in the appointment of subord-
mates in the competitive class may by some be
<regarded a setback to Civil Service reform 1t
is rather, we think. an advancement of its true
interests. When the White law was passed The
Tribune commended it immense improve
ment on the starchless system which it replaced,
but pointed out that the rule compelling the ap-
pointment in every of the single individual
standing highest on the list of eligibles was of
doubtful wisdom. Nobody questioned the mo-
tives of those who sought thus to surround pub
lie office with safeguards against spoilsmen, but
the method carried to what was plainly an
undesirable and is to be an unconsti-
tutional extreme.
The Court Of Appeals view is founded on
common sense. An appointing officer may be by
law regulated in his choice of subordnates but
he cannot be deprived of choice altogether. If
he could be our whole Government might Just
well be put in the hands of Civil Service
Commissioners. Their proper function is not to
make appointments, but so to sift out applicants
that only efficient and honest men may be ap-
pointed. and the more closely they confne them
selves to that duty and avoid being dragged
into the executive work of government the bet
ter for Civil Service reform. The temptation in
such atterS when a certain agency works we'll
is to attempt to throw extraordinary powers
into its hands. Thus the courts have been
found satisfactory in their performance of
certain administrative duties that reformers are
all the time trying TO impose new executive and
Legislative functions upon them. Wise Judges
resist this destructive Of the balance of gov
ernment and dangerous to the courts them
selves. Wise Civil Service reformers will like
wise be glad to see the appointing power kept
separate from the examining power Only so
can the latter maintain itself in the respect due
its semi-judical position and avoid a gradual
growth of just discomfort which some day in
attempting to restore the balance may do great
harm to the whole merit system. 1t is better
that the Court of Appeals should thus early de-
fine the relative fields of appointing officers and
examining boards.
The liberty Of choice among three eligibIes
allowed by the Courts decision does not affect
the virtue OF the merit system. provided the
Civil Service Commissioners do their work well
and certify only proper candidates. 1t does
| however. give the head of a department a
chance to avoid having inflicted upon him a
! subordinate to whom he objects. There Is a
great difference between getting 1.-The kind Of
| man he wants and rejecting the kind of man
he doesn't want. The former Is the desire of
! the sposmen whose favortes cannot pass ex-
amna tons. The latter is merely the exercise of
proper discretion by official charged with re-
sponsibity. He may have good reasons for not
! thinking a certain person desira bic assistant
| while perfectly willing to fill the office on the
| principles of the merit system. This plan of
! choice among three has been tried in the Fed
! eral system, and works well 1t satisfactory
! In this State in the days before Governor Black
took the starch out of our law, and there is no
reason to suppose 1t will not be adequate now
| Mr.. George cAneny, the secretary of the Civil
| Service Reform Association, takes philosoph-
! ical view Of the situation, though he is natu-
| rally inclined to give the Civil Service Commis-
| sioners all the powers they ought to have and
! possibly sometimes a little more. compared with
the other officers of government whom they are
created to assist and check. but not to SUPER
| sede