The Washington times., 1915-01-05
THE BOURNE FLANAGAN

ceivers and registers of land Offices,
and the like, may be elected by the
people Of their several jurisdictions.
The Times protested that we have
too many officials to elect already,
and that getting the postoffices, ETC.,
into the thick of politics would not
help any.
Mr.. Bourne, writing to The Times
letter which was printed yester-
day, insists that to have these off,
cials elected would take the offices
out of politics; whereas they are now
in politics.
1t is difficult quite to grasp tho
Senator's meaning. If anything is
more in politics than the elective Of
fees, it would be interesting to know
what. Taking an Office out of poll
tics by making it elective would be
like refrigerating it by tossing it
into roaring furnace. At any rate
that's the way it seems to US. Mr..
Bourne doesn't agree, and thus far
our differences seem irreconcilable.
Let it go at that.
But as to the real and proper rem
edy for politics in the civil service,
the Senator is, really in accord with
The Times. He says:
No exception can be taken to your
ideal OF postoffice Department con-
do you find any justification for the
assumption that the appointment sys-
TEN places In office men who have come
up through the service and dcmonstra-
ted their qualifications? How many in
stances can YOU name of promotion Of
assistant postmasters to be postmas-
ters? What the people want Is good ser.
vice: not, political activity. and they
would select the man most likely to
give efficient administration reeardless
Of politics.
The Senator being agreed on the
idea Of a merit system for the post
offices, it seems unnecessary to go
farther. The Times perfectly un-
derstands that the merit ideal is not
applied in making postmasters; but
if The Times could have it's way, it
would be applied. Conditions being
bad now--we admit it just as freely
as Mr.. Bourne would have us-The
Times would recommend extension
of the merit system to the whole
business; all the way up through the
grades Of administrative positions.
Mr.. Bourne, instead, would put the
jobs into politics to the nth degree
by making them elective.
It is conceded that postoffices and
other enumerated jobs are now in
politics, under the political appoint.
ment system. Surely they would
not be taken out by an election sys-
tenn. The Times has not defended
the political appointment system; it
has merely objected to elections, and
proposed what it thinks is best of
all, namely, the complete merit sys-
TEN.
At the top, of course, must be a
group Of political offices, exempt
from the merit system; the Offices
which make policies; which are re-
sponsible for carrying out the pro.
gram to which the Administration
has pledged itself. The Postmaster
General, for instance, ought to be a
political appointee; but under him
the director of posts ought to hold
by merit alone.
Mr.. Bourne protests that he is not
a short-ballot advocate; so The
Times was wrong in supposing that
he indorsed that reform. Anyhow
the people of his section have pretty
literally cQnmitted themselves to
that theory, through adoption of the
commission plan of city government
and they seem highly satisfied will
results. The very essence of com
mission government for cities is the
short ballot. The city of Portland
metropolis of his State of Oregon, is
a commission-governed city.
Senator Bourne finds conclusive
testimony against the short-ballo
program in the fact that Woodrow
Wilson, William II. Taft. and Theo
dore Roosevelt are all advocates o.
it. Well, we somehow guess tina
the support of those three gentlemen
will not much hurt the cause. Tn,
fact that the last three men whom
the people have elected President
have favored this reform, isn't going
to drive us away from it.
In conclusion, Senator Bourne cs
pecially wants the patronage takel
away from the President. Therein
we heartily agree with him. An,
with some confidence we can ad,
that all three of the living men VIII,
have sat in the Presidential chai
would have been delighted to hav,
the patronage responsibility re