Two features of the amendment as finally framed were added to it after the form agreed on by the Civil Service Reform Association and the civil service committee of the convention had been reported, the application of the section to counties, towns and villages, and the veteran preference clause. The former cost the amendment 40 Republican votes, and it is believed that had the amendment been put on its passage without that feature the vote would have been very nearly unanimous. The ratification of the constitution followed in November of 1894, and New York became the first state of the union to embody the principle of civil service reform in its organic law. In 1912 Ohio followed New York's example by putting a similar civil service clause (except that the preference of veterans of the Civil War was omitted) into its constitution by a popular majority of more than 100,000.

One of the practical results of the adoption of the constitutional provision was the extension of the civil service rules to cover the 1200 employes of the public works and prisons departments who had been exempted since 1887 under a decision of the court of appeals holding it unconstitutional to vest the power of appointment elsewhere than in the official heads of the departments in question. These employes

formed at that time one-fourth of the state civil service. During the administration of Governor Morton a thorough revision of the rules and classification was made, which greatly reduced the number of exempt and non-competitive places.

Governor Black, who succeeded Governor Morton, declared that in his judgment "civil service would work better with less starch." Late in the session of 1897 the "Black civil service bill" appeared, which provided as radical a piece of reactionary legislation as could have been devised. The bill required that in all examinations for the state, county and municipal services not more than fifty per cent might be given for "merit" and the rest of the rating, representing " fitness," was to be designated by the appointing officer. While it was clearly shown that the passage of the bill would wreck the merit system, yet, as a party measure, it was placed on the statute books. The results of the operation of the Black civil

service act showed that in the larger cities department officers, with few exceptions, continued the old system of designating the civil service commissions to act as their examiners for "fitness" as well as for "merit." Wherever the act had been permitted to go into full operation in accordance with its spirit it was shown that the competitive scheme as understood by the framers of the constitution in 1894 had been destroyed, while a cumbrous and unsatisfactory system had been set up in its stead.

In 1899 all this was changed. The "Black act" was repealed and its operation in the state departments discontinued. A new law, general in its application and superior to any civil service statute theretofore secured in America, was enacted. The passage of this bill relieved an anomalous and confusing situation. As a result of the vicious legislation under Governor Black four systems of widely differing character had come into existence by January 1899. New York city had its charter rules, the state departments were conducted under two adaptations of the Black law, and in the smaller cities the plan of the original law of 1883 was followed. Owing to the firm attitude of Governor Roosevelt, a complete revision of the law was accomplished. Seventeen previous statutes enacted within the period from 1883 to 1898, including the Black law, were repealed and superseded. The state commission, after recasting its own system, was authorized to prescribe rules for the larger counties as rapidly as proved practicable. It was also given greatly increased supervisory powers over municipal commissions. For the purposes of investigation of the administration of the law and rules it was given all the power of a legislative committee. The law provided no substantial safeguard against the unwarranted removal of competent employes, but it was far superior to the statutes it repealed, and its passage was one of the valuable achievements of Governor Roosevelt.

Since 1899 the classification has been extended to the larger counties and villages, resulting in increased efficiency in those services.

The law in the hands of effective and sympathetic administrators has worked in the interest of good administration. In

the hands of its enemies the constitutional provision has been the bar which has prevented the complete debauchery of the service. The clause is sufficient to protect the essential elements of the merit system.

So much for the history of the provision. What are its essentials, and the principal suggestions which will probably be made for amendments? The provision reads as follows:

Appointments and promotions in the civil service of the state and of all the civil divisions thereof, including cities and villages, shall be made according to merit and fitness to be ascertained, so far as practicable, by examinations, which, so far as practicable, shall be competitive.

This provision starts out with a general statement of principle applying to all appointments and promotions, i. e., they shall be made for merit and fitness. It then proceeds to provide that merit and fitness shall be ascertained by examination, if practicable, and by the competitive method, if this is further practicable. In other words, it recognizes that examinations for appointment and promotion are not necessarily applicable to all positions by inserting the words "so far as practicable."

The provision is properly elastic. It provides for improved methods of examination for testing competency by which appointments under the competitive system formerly not practicable may, through the use of these methods, become practicable. It is brief in its statement, in accordance with recognized principles in drafting a constitution, and yet is comprehensive in applying to the state and all civil divisions thereof and to all appointments and promotions.

The principal suggestions which may be made for amendments to this provision are four in number:

1. An extension of the competitive principle to cover all appointive offices and employments. This means that all public officers and employes other than those elected by the people, including on the one hand heads of departments, election officers, appointive judicial officers, private secretaries, etc.,

and on the other mere laborers, shall be appointed as the result of some form of competitive examination. No half-way step between this broad proposition and the present constitutional provision for competition so far as practicable seems possible, for it is impracticable satisfactorily to name or specifically describe in the constitution the positions which shall be exempt. Moreover, there is at present no general agreement as to how far competition should be extended. Some civil service reformers believe, as suggested, that all positions should be filled as the result of competitive examination. Others just as sincerely believe that the higher and more responsible offices cannot be successfully filled by any form of competitive examinations yet devised. All the friends of the merit system desire to see the scope of competition extended as far and as fast as is practicable, and most of us hope that in time all public officers and employes who are not engaged in determining, as distinguished from executing, the policy of an administration, may be brought within the competitive principle. Great progress is being made in devising and conducting competitive examinations for very important and responsible positions, and the success achieved in that direction assures us that it will be found practicable in the future to extend the scope of competition far beyond the line now reached. For the present,

however, the writer believes that it will be wiser to leave the constitutional provision as it is, especially as it has been settled by the courts that the civil service commission has very broad discretion in determining that competition for any particular position is practicable, and that the courts will not interfere with the exercise of its discretion unless it is "palpably illegal."

2. An extension of the preference now conferred upon veterans of the Civil War to veterans of the Spanish War and other minor wars and military expeditions, such as those to China and Mexico, and possibly to the militia and to volunteer firemen. Civil service reformers are opposed to the creation of any privileged classes in the civil service, on the ground that it is unjustifiable and detrimental to good administration. The interests of the service itself should be para

mount to the personal interests of any class, however deserving of public recognition, and the interests of the service require that persons classified alike under the civil service law should be treated alike. We would not deny any proper recognition to those who fought in the wars of the country, but this recognition should take some other form than preference in the civil service, which makes for a privileged class and discriminates against other classes of employes equally competent to serve the state. It is true that Civil War veterans now have a preference in appointment and promotion. The history of that preference is interesting. Undoubtedly, it is not in accordance with the true principles of civil service reform. But those who fought in the defense of our country over 50 years ago had extraordinary claims to the country's gratitude. They were favored for office before the institution of the merit system, and the laws establishing that system simply continued the then existing preference. The Civil War veterans are old men, and do not take examinations in such numbers as to interfere seriously with the competitive system. It would be ungracious and have little effect upon the service to take now from these old veterans the preference they have so long enjoyed. This is not true as regards veterans of the Spanish War and other minor wars, or the militia and the volunteer firemen.

In giving to those who have rendered military service a preference in appointment which virtually amounts to an opportunity to monopolize the great mass of public positions, the way is open for further class distinction. Legislation creating class distinctions and preferences, especially based upon military service, is not consonant with the ideals of this nation, whose founders declared against the military being superior to the civil power and for equality of opportunity for all men.

If this preference were granted, persons who were not preferred would scarcely find it worth while to compete in the examinations, and the civil service would lose its representative character and be confined to a military office-holding class. The proposal to give this preference to veterans is based upon a fundamentally unsound theory of public office. Public office