Year: 1877

The theory of civil service reform upon
which the administration is acting or is about
to act is so ill-deined that its well-wishers
meet as much difficulty in finding something
to admire as its opponents do something to
criticise. Wanting the Imagination of the
good knight Of la Mancha, the advocate of
reform is in doubt whether he is bestowing
his affections upon the peerless dame of the
castle or the kitchen wencb, and the oppo-
nent whether he is fighting windmill or
veritable giant. TIE one is deferred from
hearty sympathy by his distaste for ancillary
amours, the other from hearty opposition by
his uncertainty in regard to the nature of his
opponent.


1t scarcely needs to be said that the great
majority of the people ardently desire an hon
est and efficient civil service. The reasons for
that desire are too patent to need mention.
Only those oppose it whose selfish interest is
in dishonesty and ineficiency, At its latest
national convention the Republican party
voiced in unmistakable language this wish of
the people, resolving that ''the invariable
rule for appointments should have reference
to the honesty, fidelity and capacity of the
appointees, giving to the party in power
those places where harmony and vigor of ad-
ministration require its policy to be repre-
sented, but permitting all others to be filled
by persons selected with sole reference to the
efficiency of the public service" That the wish
of the administration is to carry this resolu-
tion into effect may be taken for granted;
but it has not been fortunate as TO all its
methods. Indeed so confused was its first
statement of methods that 1t has been en-
gagged in making explanations ever since, and
now it is occupied with the task of explain
ing the explanations. He who seeks to
understand the rules has his labor for his
pains, and is no wiser than before.


One rule however is so plain that there is
no opportunity for misunderstanding. 1t is
that which forbids men in the employ of the
government to take an active part in politics.
BY this rule the man who holds a govern.
ment office is in effect forbidden to attend
caucus or convention, to work with voice and
pen for the measures which he deems essen
tial to the prosperity of the country, or for
the men whom he looks upon as fittest to
carry his views into practical effect. A ban,
mark Of dishonor is placed upon him, and
he is set apart from his fellows as one unfit
to exercise the right Of appeal and discussion.
Now this is neither justice nor civil service
reform. There is no justice in debarring
from active participation in public affairs the
man who is doing honorable and faithful
work for government The prohibition is
certainly not in the line of the much talked
about reform, for the very essence of civil
service reform is the freedom which 1t gives
to the public servant. If he is honest and
efficient, and faithfully discharges the duties
of his post he is not to be removed because of
his political belief, he is not to be required to
render political service TO the appointing
power, but he is to be given full liberty TO
vote, and speak, and write as he pleases upon
public affairs, either in favcr of or against
the appointing power as his convictions die
tate. But the Administration holds to the
contrary, and forbds the ofice-holder to take
part in affairs of government in which he is
as much interested as any other citizen. The
friends of an efficient public service may,
while giving the Administration credit for
good intentions, be pardoned for doubling
the justice and good sense of this rule.