termining or comparing the qualifications of applicants. The scrutiny of candidates and the inquiry into their character and physical condition is no doubt more complete than the returns of the examiners to the Commission indicate, but on the whole the system as now administered is of very little value for the purposes for which civil service examinations were instituted. I believe that the schedule of positions in Class III should have a thorough revision and that the method of treating these positions should be completely reorganized. The Commission has power, under section 1 of Rule XX, to transfer positions from this class to Class II" whenever it shall be determined that a competitive examination therefor is practicable." This has already been done in the case of the position of storekeeper, and I think should be done also in the case of many other positions, such as the foremen and examiners in the manufacturing departments of the State prisons, all the employes of the Onondaga Salt Springs, and the firemen in all State institutions. Many of the attendants and officers having direct contact with the inmates of the various State institutions might also properly be subjected to competitive examination. In all the cases mentioned, the compensation is as high or higher than that given many persons now appointed from competitive examination, and the duties are such as to furnish a sufficient basis for a competitive examination. Although the money compensation in many cases is apparently small, it is to be remembered that most of these employes receive maintenance at the expense of the State, which is equivalent to an addition of about $200 per annum to the money compensation. The advantage to be gained by placing such positions in the competitive class would be that they would be thrown open to all applicants, and many competent persons would probably apply for them who now think they have no chance of appointment. The examinations for similar positions would be made uniform in the various institutions, and the friction between appointing officers and the Civil Service Commission, which now frequently arises over the appointment of persons to positions in Class III and their assignment to duties cov ered by the examinations held for Class II, would be lessened. For another class of positions, mainly those of skilled workmen, a scheme somewhat similar to the labor registration system in force in many of the cities might properly be put in force. Candidates who satisfy the requirements of experience and skill should be placed upon the waiting list in the order of their application, and such list be treated as the merit list from which selections could be made by the head of the institution. In this way applications could be received at all times and there would be an opportunity for the investigation of the candidate's character and proficiency before placing his name on the list. COURT DECISIONS. Several points of immediate interest to the Commission have been decided by the courts during the past year. In the case of Van Petten v. Cobb, the question was as to the power of the Civil Service Commission to strike from the eligible list the name of a veteran who had passed the examination but was afterwards shown by the appointing officer interested to be physically very feeble and properly unfit to perform the duties of the position for which he was examined. It was decided that a nanie could not be so stricken from the list, at any rate not without notice to the candidate and an opportunity offered him to appear before the Commission. The court further said that the proper remedy for any mistake in placing a name on the eligible list is the probationary appointment. Following this came the decision in the case of Sweet v. Lyman, in which the relator Sweet, a war veteran, had been removed from the position of special agent in the department of excise during the probationary term of appointment without a hearing. Chapter 821 of the Laws of 1896, provides that no veteran "holding a position" in the service of the State or any political division thereof can be removed from such position except for cause and after a hearing upon notice of the charges. It was held by the Supreme Court that a veteran during the term of his probationary appointment was not "holding a position" within the meaning of this statute, and that he could during that period be removed without notice or a hearing. The court in this case seems to have followed out the theory laid down in the Van Patten case, that the probationary term is the proper remedy for mistakes in placing names upon the eligible list. In the case of Chittenden v. Wurster, the effect of the provisions of the Constitution of 1894 upon the existing Civil Service legislation was considered in all its phases. The decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the lower courts really turned upon the form of action brought, deciding that a taxpayer's action could not be maintained under the circumstances in the case. The court, however, discussed at length the meaning of the constitutional provision that appointments are to be made by competitive examination "so far as practicable." The language used in regard to the so called confidential positions is very broad, and the court intimates, although it does not actually decide, that all classes of positions which bring the incumbent into more or less confidential relations with his chief were not intended to be subject to competitive examination; in fact it would be possible within the language of this decision to assign to almost any subordinate some duties which would render his position a confidential one. It may be said, however, that all this discussion of the court is outside the case, as it was not upon these principles that the case was decided, and in an actual case before it, the court might not be willing to go as far in authorizing exemptions as its language in this case seems to indicate. The question of demarcation between the Civil Service of the State and that of the cities and other political divisions has been before the courts in two cases. In the case of Sears v. Tobey, the question was whether the clerk to the police justice of the city of Syracuse, who is also clerk of the police court, was in the Civil Service of the State or of the city. The position had been classified by the city Civil Service Commission as belonging to the city service. The State classification covered this position only under the general heading of "The Courts," but it had always been considered that all the courts were part of the State judiciary system and, therefore, under the jurisdiction of the State Civil Service Commission. Under the city classification the position was subject to competitive examination, and the relator was a veteran who had qualified in such examination. The Court of Appeals affirming the decisions of the lower courts held that the position belonged to the city Civil Service and not to that of the State, and that the relator being the only veteran on the eligible list furnished by the city Civil Service Commission, was entitled to the appointment under its rules. Another phase of this question arose in the case of Williams v. Worth. The relator Williams, had been examined by the State Civil Service Commission for the position of assistant county clerk of Kings county on the nomination of the judges of the county court. Having failed in such examination, certification of his appointment to the comptroller of Brooklyn was refused, and the comptroller declined to pay his salary. The cases of three other appointees were exactly similar. The four appointees made application to the court for a writ of mandamus to require the county clerk, Jacob Worth, to allow them to continue to perfom the duties of the position, and raised the issue that the positions were in the county service and not subject to the jurisdiction of the State Civil Service Commission nor to that of the city of Brooklyn. The court granted the writ, sustaining the claim of the four appointees. Following these decisions of the courts, the Attorney-General was asked for his opinion in regard to the employes of the surrogate of Kings county and those of the city court and court of general sessions in the city of New York, and in each case decided that such employes were not in the State service, but that those of the city court and the court of general sessions belong to the civil service of the city of New York and should be classified by the local civil service commission. Following these decisions the secretary has stricken from the roster of State employes the names of all persons connected with the minor civil and criminal courts in the several cities, the county and surrogate's courts of Kings county and the city court and the court of general sessions of New York. A portion of these positions have been classified by the New York city civil service commission. These decisions have removed a perpetual source of contention and have placed the jurisdiction over the positions involved in the hands of those who can most readily and satisfactorily administer it. The text of these opinions along with such others as have been given affecting civil service questions, will be found printed in full in the appendix of the report. APPENDICES. There have been added to the appendices published in previous reports, the following: a table of statistics of the candidates entering competitive examinations during the past year, as to their birthplace, education, previous occupation, age, etc.; a table showing the results of the various competitive examinations conducted under the new civil service law, and a table showing the approximate number of positions in the various classes in each department and institution, as reported to his commission. The other statistical information contained in the appendices of previous reports has been repeated in substantially the same form. Respectfully submitted, CHARLES S. FOWLER, |