New-York tribune., 1902-12-12
TrncuEyT rFRsTrs EXAMINATION.

The objections of Justice Hinsdale to the
merit system in the Civil Service which nave
heeu the result of an interesting correspond
erce narrow down 10 the old contention that an
sppointins officer should have chance 10 Sc
lect .'the sort Of man he wants for his work
The Civil Service Reform Association did not
oppose the exemption Of the probation offlcer TO
succeed Mrs Foster at the Tombs, nor does Ii
any more than Justice Hinsdale believe in the
veteran preference which clogs the service with
men of inferior efficiency. Neither are the par
1icular delays or mistakes of administration on
which Justice Hinsdale has dwelt objections TO
the system itself. AS well say that the whole
judicial system is an evil because instances OF
unreasonable delay and manifest injustice can
be found in its operation as TO condemn the
merit system because it is sometimes imper-
fectly administered. Passing by these, his first
objections 10 Civil Service reform, Justice Hins-
dale takes exception to the laws requirement
that one Of the three highest names on an ell
rihle list must be chosen to ill a vacancy. On
fhis point he says:
Ny contention is that the three highest on the
list who may chance TO have answered the ques-
tions of the commissioners or their examiners
10 their fullest satisfaction Is no evidence that,
on the whole. they best fitted for particu-
lar position Of any one the eligible list The
personality. the former experience the fitness Of
q candidate for a particular position that the
appointing power has in view. can never be so
well determined as by an examination on those
points by the appointing power 1t may happen
snd il has happened, that man well down on
the eligible list is by long odds the best fitted 10
Ill a particular place.
This is perfectly true. but Justice Hinsdale
cannot be unfamiliar with old proverb of
his profession that hard cases make bad law.
No law ever yet on the statute book that
die not in particular instances work badly. We
cannot. however, shape our legislation our
judicial decisions TO meet those special in
stances. If we could always or generally have
perfect appointing officers or even ordinarily
imperfect ones whose primary object in Sc
lecting subordinates was 10 get the fittest man
for each particular place, there would be no
need of civil service law. We should be bet
ter of without it. But, as everybody knows,
the majority Of appointing officers would not Sc
iect their subordinates by the exercise OF that
first class personal judgment which Justice
Hinsdale supposes- Experience shows that en-
tirely different considerations would most of
the time prevail Places would be filed with
less regard for the fitness of applicants than for
the political or personal pressure exerted on
their behalf We recall conspicuous example
OF this in the inheritance tax appraisers who a
few years ago were exempted on the ground
that their duties were SO peculiarly delicate and
important that the State Controller, in the ex-
ercise OF personal judgment, could get more fit
1nen than any examination paper could sift out
The way the Controller exercised his expert
judgment was 10 divide the appointments
around among influential politicians, naming
each cae's man, and the resulting list contained
some wretchedly unfit names. So were most
appointments notoriousiy made before the Civil
Service law was passed. So are they generally
made now whenever the door is open TO the
spoilsmeu.
judicial officers are likely to be OF a high
type, and doubtless Justice Hinsdale could have
been trusted In his court to make wise selec
ton Of suhordinates solely with a view to the
good of the service. That may be an arsu