after the failure of Mary Conaghan, Mary O'Rourke, and Katherine Haenlein, in physical examinations, the secretary ordered mental examinations, giving as his authority a resolution of the Commission of March 16, 1904, though no such resolution appears on the minutes. Then he ordered reexaminations physically on the strength of a resolution of June 29, 1904, which does not apply to the cases, having reference solely to persons who had never taken the physical examination. Similar irregularity in the cases of Nicholas J. Flanagan, John M. Nason and Patrick J. Sullivan is attributed by the secretary, in his testimony, to the orders of the committee on appeals, but in his letter of December 30, 1904, to the Municipal Commission, he says he acted under orders of the Commission. Such transactions show a looseness in business methods if nothing worse. Taken in connection with his failure to live up to the spirit of the rules in keeping efficiency records, and his action with reference to transfers, discussed elsewhere in this report, they may properly suggest to the Municipal Commission the question whether he is a fit man to fill the position of secretary. However anxious the commissioners themselves may be to enforce the rules strictly, and avoid all favoritism, a secretary who is not animated by their spirit may use the law to serve personal or political ende

Secretary Berlinger admitted that he had used his desk at the headquarters of a political club of which he is an officer from which to distribute application papers to prospective candidates for positions in the city service, notwithstanding the provisions of rule VIII, paragraph 7, that "application forms shall be furnished to intending applicants upon personal or written request, at the office of the Commission, and shall be procurable there only."

It is manifestly improper, whether permitted by the letter of the rules or not, for the secretary of a civil service commission, whose sworn duty it is to carry out the law making merit and fitness the sole qualifications for public office and specifically prohibiting consideration of political opinions or affiliations in appointment or selection to or removal from such office, to act as an officer of a political organization and transact even the simplest of official duties at its headquarters. While his right to his own political opinions is unquestionable, the man who stands in the most confidential relations to the department of the city government thus particularly charged with the duty of securing a square deal for every aspirant for a position in the public service is bound to hold himself and his office free from even the suspicion of extending political favors or showing political pref

erences.

In regard to the employment of expert examiners, it appears that there has been abuse of the rule authorizing such employment in "an examination of a special or technical character." The records and the testimony show that the Municipal Commission, acting within its legal right, reduced men like Collingwood and Bonnett, who held regular positions as examiners and whose qualifications for work on engineering papers, for instance, were undoubted, from a salaried to a per diem basis, and thereafter gave them employment only at intervals, while it appointed George E. Weller, John B. Moore, Austin T. Byrne and F. W. Hyslop, "expert" examiners, under authority of the resolution mentioned, without examination as to their qualifications, and has given them practically continuous employment in the exami nation of papers on a great variety of subjects, including many not properly classified as of "a special or technical character."

Messrs. Moore, Byrne and Hyslop were appointed by the present Commission, while Mr. Weller was appointed by the former Commission, but has been continued in his so-called "expert" employment by the present one. It is safe to assume that the dictation papers of clerks, and those on arithmetic of messengers, assistant dump inspectors, and similar subjects, could have been intelligently rated by members of the regular force of examiners, and that those on the most technical subjects could have been properly handled by appointees from eligible lists, already in existence or that it was feasible to establish. The appointment and employment of Weller, Moore and Hyslop were irregular in form and not in accord with Rule III, paragraph 3, which provides that "the Commission may, whenever necessary, secure the assistance of experts in an examination of a special or technical character." The record shows that they have been treated as part of the regular staff, continuously employed for ordinary work, and not as “experts" secured to assist in "an examination of a special or technical character." Nineteen persons have been designated or employed as expert examiners since January 1, 1905. Eight of them are on the official roster, while the records show that at least six others have been contemporaneously employed, although the rules allow only ten expert examiners in the exempt class. All this time there have been eligible lists from which general examiners could have been appointed. Rule VII, paragraph 4, provides that the chief examiner shall assign the examiners for a given exami nation or for a given subject except when experts are employed. The assignment of work for "per diem" examiners has, however, been taken away from the chief examiner and assumed by the Commission, which has likewise through its function of assigning "experts," practically deprived the chief examiner of his indepen

dent conduct of some examinations for which regular examiners would naturally be employed.

Upon the efficiency and integrity of the examining force depends the whole merit system. If favoritism or political considerations controlled appointments to this force, or assignments of it, as might easily be the case under the system of employing examiners now followed, the eligible lists would inevitably be subject to suspicion. With "expert" examiners chosen for the purpose, it would be quite possible through arbitrary ratings or reratings of examination papers to make the eligible lists the avenue through which political services could be rewarded by those "higher up," and, while preserving the form of the merit system, to subvert to degrading ends the machinery through which it is administered.

MONITORS.

Examination into the case of Emanuel E. Keyser, employed as, monitor at examinations held under the direction of the Municipal Civil Service Commission, which was brought to the attention of the State Commission by the third specification in the presentment of the Civil Service Reform Association, develops a peculiar state of affairs. The eligible list was established in January, 1904. The Municipal Commission rightly held it a violation of the rules to appoint those at the head of the eligible list to successive assignments of duty in this capacity, requiring irregular but frequent service, and on March 9 adopted the alternative of appointing a force of regular official monitors. These were taken from the eligible list in the order of their rating, with some slips which were later made good on the record, and there was thus organized a force of about 150 monitors, including men and women. So far the proceedings had been regular in form, but

on March 31, 1901, the secretary of the Municipal Commission, acting without authority so far as it appears in the records, selected from the monitors so appointed a preferred list of thirtyseven, and instructed the chief examiner to employ the persons so listed whenever the service of such officers should be thereafter required. Those so listed have since been employed in preference to all other appointees, and work has been assigned to them in rotation so that they have obtained substantially equal amounts of employment, except, and this occurred under the present Municipal Commission, in the latter part of January, 1905, Chief Examiner Ireland was instructed through his subordinate, Assistant Chief Examiner Conway, to give Emanuel E. Keyser, above mentioned, certain further preferment. This consisted of five days employment each week, at $5 per day, and later, in March, the chief examiner was further instructed to reduce Keyser's employment to three days per week and to employ Hubert Kelly two days per week; at a yet later date, the employment of Keyser was discontinued, but that of Kelly continued at last accounts. In February, Keyser received $95 compensation as monitor, and Kelly $5; in March, Keyser $75, and Kelly, $25; in April, Keyser $80 and Kelly $35, and in May, Keyser nothing, and Kelly $45. During this time no other monitor received more than $10 in any one month. Keyser and Kelly were employed on some days when no examination was in progress, and it is inferred at duties somewhat different from those of the regular force, but no reason appears why the positions should not have been filled from the head of the eligible list instead of selecting for them the 25th and 96th men on it. The preferred list of monitors, ostensibly selected because the persons named had "called at this office and indicated their willingness to accept employment as monitors at