Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-05-12
It's So-Called Excess of De-
partmental Appointments.
DUE TO PRESENT LAW
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT BY
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
Of 511 Appointments All but Thirty
Three Were Made by Special
Provisions Of Law.


In compliance with many requests from
members of Congress, the civil service COM
mission has prepared an exposition Of GER
tain recent communications to the Senate
on the apportionment of appointments in
the departmental service. The effect Of this
sta tement is to explain the so-called excess
of appointments made in favor Of residents
of the District of Columbia.
detailed outline of the mechanics Of ap-
portionments and the laws relating thereto,
together with table showing the present
number of appointments accredited to each
state and territory precedes the body Of the
statement. The paper then continues in
part follows:
at appears from this table that the
states of Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, New
Hampshire, Vermont, Virginia and Wyom-
ing, and the District Of Columbia. have re-
ceived more than their full share Of ap-
continents under the present allotment.
In the aggregate, the states and District
named were entitled to 43S appointments
under the present allotment. It will be seen
of appointments subsequently credited on
account of the separation of the appointees)
$50 appointments, or about two and quar-
ter times their aggregate quota under the
present allotment
ION the other hand, the states of Louis
lana, Montana, North Dakota, South Da-
| kota, Texas, Utah and Washington, and
the territory Of Oklahoma, which to-
under the present allotment, have re-
| ceived exclusive Of separations credit
ed only 359 appointments, or less than
90 per cent of their aggregate quota under
the present allotment. Thus it appears that,
taken all together, the eight states farthest
in excess have received about four times
number to which they were entitled under
the appOrtionment, as have been received
similarly by the eight states farthest be-
hind.
Disparity Due to Many Causes.
This unevenness in the actual working
of the apportionment has attracted much
attention. and it has frequently been asked
why the commission has permitted certain
states to receive appointments far in excess
| of the number to which they were entitled,
while other states were equally far behind
their proportionate share in the appoint
| meAts received by them. In explanation Of
this disparity In the apportionment, atten-
ton is invited to the following:
L The law providing for the apportfon-
ment does not require that 1t shall be pre-
served with mathematical precision, but
only "as nearly as the conditions of good
administration will warrant" Therefore,
where technical or scientific positions are to
be filled and there are no eligibles for such
appointments who are residents of states
next in order of preference under the ap-
portionment, "the conditions of good adj
ministration' require such positions to be
filled by the appointment of eiigbles from
other states. And If Gas sometimes happens)
there are no eiigibles except residents of
states which have received an excess of
their entire allotments, the conditions Of
good administration would evidently require
that even in this case the eligibles that
| could be obtained should be appointed
rafh ar fhnf he crnt
entirely lack services which it needs.
But the practice of the commission has
been to limit this tendency as far as pos
sible, consistently with the interests Of
good administration When it is required
to fill positions requiring only ordinary
clerical qualifications for which there are
abundant eligibles, certiflcation Is confined
to eligibles who are residents Of the states
next in order Of preference under the ap-
portionment. Even in the case Of technical
and scientific positions, states which have
received certain excessive share OF ap-
pointments are excluded from certifcation
unless there IS an entire lack Of eligibles
from other sta tes''
The fact that the eligibles with technical
and scientific qualifications have been al
most entirely lacking in some of the states,
while they have been most abundant in the
District of Columbia and certain eastern
states in which technical schools are To-
Gated, explains in part, therefore, why
such states and the District are almost
necessarily in excess Of their allotment.
Preferences for Military Service.
90 By section 1854 Of the Revised Statutes
preference in appointment is given to per-
sons who are otherwise qualified and who
have been honorably discharged from the mill
tary or naval service of the United States on
account of disability resulting from wounds
or sickness incurred in the line Of duty;
and the civil service act specifically pro-
vides that nothing therein contained shall
take away any preference granted under
this section. 1t has been held, therefore,
that the provision Of the civil service act
in regard to the apportionment Of appoint
ments should not in any case prevent the
appointment Of persons to whom this pref
erence was given, provided they were other
wise qualified.
Therefore eligibles who are entitled to
this preference are certified for appointment
even when the states of which they are
legal residents have already received an
excess of appointments under the appor-
tionment and all other eligibles from the
same states are for that reason excluded
from certification But it is entirely consis-
tent with the intent Of the law to charge
these appointments against the allotments
of the states of which the appointees are
legal residents; and this Is accordingly the
practice.
The Effect of Reinstatements.
"3. Reinstatements in the department.
al service at Washington being appoint
ments,' are properly chargeable to the ap
portionment. Prior to July 1, 1897. how
ever no credit was given on account of
separation from the service, and conse-
quently no charge was made on account Of
reinstatements; but since that date separa-
tons from the service have been credited
and reinstatements have been charged in
the following manner:
Whenever a person whose appointment
has been charged to the allotment of any
state is separated from the service. the al
iotment Of that state Is credited according
ly; that Is, the charge which has been
made against the allotment of q state on
account Of the appointment Of any person
Is Cancelled when that person Is separated
from the service OF course, then, If there
has been no charge. as in the, case Of a
person who was in the service prior to the
passage of the civil service act. no credit is
made; there Is no charge to be Cancelled.
Then, when a person whose separation has
been thus credited Is subsequently rein
stated. the charge to the apportionment is
renewed; but where there had been no pre-
vious credit, as In the case of persons sepa-
rated nriOr n I obo