service of the city, first in one capacity and then in another, without having attained a place at the head of the eligible list in the first case, and without subjecting his qualifications to the test of a competitive examination in the second.

The character of the examinations for provisional appointments is open to criticism, from the fact that such examinations are limited to experience merely, and in cases noted appointees were passed as qualified after having failed in a competitive examination for positions of lower grade.

In case of the large number of provisional appointments to the position of tenement house inspector, to which attention was called by the Reform Association, the records show that the examination was called soon after exhaustion of the old eligible list, November 1, 1904, and before any of the provisional appointments were made, and that compared with other work of the Commission, the new list was established with reasonable expedition, April 5, 1905.

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LABOR RULES.

It is charged that through the certification of laborers under special titles, such as "laborer rockman," "laborer sounder," "tar and gravel roofer," etc., the head of a department is enabled to secure the appointment of a favorite by getting him to register under the special title. The State Commission finds that the special titles are entirely unauthorized by law or the rules. It would be difficult to prove perhaps that they have been made the way through which to advance political ends in contravention of the mandate of the constitution, but they afford an inviting door for such abuse.

Several laborers, employed under the title of foremen, testified were merely doing the ordinary work of their trades and

that they

not exercising supervision over other workmen. These men had registered as laborers, and being far down on the lists had secured speedy employment by registering as foremen, although regulation XIV forbids the registration of the same person under more than one title. On behalf of the Municipal Commission it was explained that with the large number of laborers this regulation was difficult of enforcement, but in some instances double registration had been allowed where the applicant's papers showed on their face that he was already on another list. Perhaps there should be no limit on a laborer's registration for any place that he is competent to fill, but if the regulation is important it should be enforced, and it could be, by an adequate card system, or the requirement of a statement in an application that the candidate is not registered elsewhere. The system by which men with evident special information of impending requisitions were enabled to register and secure places in advance of their fellows higher up on the trade lists, who had not received the hint, was on its face unfair and should have led to a prompt and thorough investiga tion by the Municipal Commission, of the manipulation of the labor lists by the city departments.

As an illustration of how the rules have been used to cover the employment of favorites through their registration as laborers with particular qualifications, reference may be made to the case of certain "automobile repairists." The Municipal Commission, under date of October 26, 1904, properly held that this position was in the competitive class, but it continued to certify the pay of the "repairers" under the title of laborers, and has approved their practically continuous employment as such under the color of successive emergency appointments. The rule provides that "in case of emergency, when it is not practicable to secure laborers from

an eligible list with sufficient promptness, or where a list is temporarily exhausted, an appointing officer may hire and employ for a period not exceeding five days as many persons as may be required." The Municipal Commission has construed this rule so as to permit reappointment of the same person for successive five day periods, as in the employment of Frank Schwarts (from October 26, 1904, to January 25, 1905) and Henry I. Taylor (January 23 to March 19, 1905), as machine automobile repairists in the department of street cleaning, and of Warren G. Pearce (August 5 to December 3, 1904) as automobile repairist to the President of the Borough of Manhattan. This was done in spite of the ruling above referred to that the position fell in the competitive class, and in spite of the secretary's notice that the Municipal Commission "could not approve any such appointments in future." The Commission was clearly right in this ruling, and it violated the spirit and letter of the law by continuing certification of the employees named. If they were properly in the labor class, then their practically continuous employment violated the spirit of the rule permitting emergency employment for a period of five days only. That limitation may be too narrow under some circumstances, but until amended the Commission is bound to ob serve its requirement.

Several of the practices criticised have been discontinued, the State Commission is glad to note, by the present Municipal Commission under the presidency of Mr. Baker. No further certifications are made under titles not covered by the classification in Part I, except in the single case of "stoker-marine." The Municipal Commission has continued to certify foremen of specified trades under the general title "foreman of mechanics,” and when these are confined to the trades listed in Part II, they would

seem to be within a fair interpretation of the rule. If the title, foreman of mechanics, was not intended to mean this, it is without meaning. But the title confined to this part does not cover the trades in which the city really requires the services of such officials, and so the Municipal Commission has assumed that the title applies also to the trades of blacksmith, carpenter, plumber, etc., listed in Part III, where the appointees are subject to trade examinations. This assumption, of course, has been unwarranted, but the State Commission is informed that through amendment of its rules the Municipal Commission now seeks to expunge the title of foreman of mechanics from Part II, and to limit the titles under which foremen in Part III may register to about eight special titles, in which there is bona fide need for such officials. These changes in the rules should operate to prevent a repetition of the abuses of which complaint has been made. The State Commission agrees with Mr. Fowler, its chief examiner, that “ the present Commission should be commended for limiting and specifying the titles under which foremen may register," and believes with him that it is closing the door to abuses which were permitted under rules of the Ogden and McCooey Commissions. cerning those who have, through favoritism and the abuse of the rules, secured employment, the Municipal Commission should make a thorough investigation. The examination of the few laborers. which the State Commission was able to make discovered several "foremen" not actually doing foremen's work, and suggested the probability that many others not examined had secured unfair advantages and were not doing work appropriate to their titles. These persons should not be permitted to reap any further benefit from such appointments beyond being retained in the exact positions which they now hold, and their transfer to any other

Con

positions on the strength of their present employment should not be permitted. To prevent this, a probing of the labor service is necessary and the Municipal Commission has full power to make it. Such investigation might also properly consider the politica! favoritism complained of in the employment of laborers, concerning which Chief Examiner Fowler reports:

"Mr. Birdseye and I have not felt that we were in a position to discuss various political features advanced by the Reform Association, finding as a rule that they do not affect the actions of the Municipal Commission itself in any direct way," but adds, "the mass of evidence along this line tends to convince one that there is a great abuse."

CASES IN THE COMPETITIVE CLASS.

In regard to the particular cases in the competitive class to which attention is called by the Reform Association, the State Commission finds that the alleged violation of Rule XIV, clause 11, is purely technical, that the Association and the Municipal Commission agree as to the propriety of admitting laborers to promotion examinations for the positions of section foreman, and that the latter expresses willingness to amend the rule if necessary to so admit them; also that the alleged violation of section 13 of the law in the case of Dennis Gerrity was technical and that occasion for criticism was removed by the Municipal Commission in action taken April 7; and that the questions at issue as to the classification of positions in the office of the Commissioner of Licenses have been determined by the action of the State and Municipal Commissions and that in the classification of positions in that office, held to be a department of the city government by the Attorney-General of the State, the law and the rules are now observed.