fers, not only in August, but, owing to the disruption of the Com mission, up to October 4, 1904, notwithstanding the fact that on or about July 30, 1901, his attention had been called specifically to the decision of Justice Gaynor. It does not appear that when the present Commission met in October he reported this action, and though the Commission has withheld formal approval of these transfers, the pay rolls for the persons transferred since the decision, as well as those transferred before who would be affected by it if sustained, have been certified. The secretary is open to censure for thus violating a decision of the Supreme Court, as is also the Commission for not overruling his action when it came into office and found what he had done since the last meeting of the former Commission. The decision of the Appellate Division just handed down affirming Justice Gaynor's ruling and thus invalidating all these transfers, leaves those responsible for the payment of salaries to persons transferred in defiance of Justice Gaynor's construction of the law in an embarrassing position. In new cases the record of the present Commission is good. Secretary Birdseye reports that "an examination of the minutes shows that the Commission has denied many applications for transfer, and that a consistent attempt has been made to abide by the transfer rule, the rulings of the court and the opinions of the corporation counsel. It is true that the transfer rule allows transfers that would not be permitted under the state rule, but so long as there is authority for the action taken by the Municipal Commission we have no complaint to make." Concerning the transfers improperly granted by Secre tary Berlinger, however, Mr. Birdseye reports:

"The persons involved in the transfers have been drawing the increased salary and we believe are performing the duties of the

positions to which assigned for more than eight months in direct violation of a decision of the Supreme Court, and the Municipal Commission has purposely withheld approval although certifying the pay rolls. We contend that in the light of the Gaynor decision the only proper and regular course of the secretary would have been to refuse the certificates of transfer, or if issued the Commission should have made the report of the secretary a matter of record and disapproved the transfers which were contrary to the holding of the court, and refused to longer certify the accounts for salary."

EFFICIENCY RECORDS.

The complaint as to the failure of the Municipal Commission and the heads of other city departments to comply with the rule as to efficiency records is well founded. In most of the departments the rule specifying in detail the character of the record to be kept has been ignored, or observed in a perfunctory manner, valueless as an aid in determining the relative qualifications of candidates for promotion. The Commission has ruled that no promotion examinations should be held for departments which have neglected to file the required transcripts of their efficiency records, and is to be commended for its energy in enforcing at least formal obedience to the rule, but it has taken no steps to compel the keeping of records that would constitute a real comparative test of efficiency. It has accepted without protest records in which all employees were given the highest mark under practically all the headings. Secretary Berlinger admitted on his examination by the State Commission that all the employees of the Municipal Commission itself were marked "A" (the highest mark) on every subject except punctuality. Such a record of course affords no

basis for comparison between the various employees, and the result is the practical elimination of this important part of a promotion examination, to which a percentage of 40 is allowed. In the law department, noted as an exception to this general evasion of the rule, an effort has been made apparently in good faith to follow the system of rating prescribed but the clerk in charge, Mr. Greener, informs the State Commission that even when thus carefully observed the present system is open to objection in several respects and that it is impracticable to mark the efficiency of employees by rule, day by day, suggests changes in the form of the record, and advises the requiring of transcripts to be filed with the Municipal Commission at more frequent intervals. It is evident that a system of keeping efficiency records that will be at once practical, impartial, and of real value in estimating the qualifications of candidates for promotion, is yet to be devised. In the meantime it is clearly the duty of the Municipal Commission to comply itself, and to enforce compliance on the part of other departments, with the rules as they stand. Such a record as that kept in the law department, even if it may be improved upon, presents a commendable contrast with the lax methods followed by other departments in this respect.

APPEALS.

The State Commission has also conducted through its secre tary and chief examiner an inquiry into the methods followed by the Municipal Commission in determining appeals. The amended municipal rule, approved by the State Commission March 17, 1905, provides that no examination paper or other record or statement rated as a part of an examination shall be subject to review, alteration, or rerating, except that the Com

mission "may correct any manifest error or mistake of marking or rating appearing in any such paper or report, the nature of which it shall set forth in its minutes." The Commission which, under the presidency of Mr. Coler, passed this rule, is entitled to commendation for thus taking steps to remedy an abuse which, in 1903, amounted to the granting of 2,199 appeals out of 4,368 applications. From October 5 to December 31, 1904, 467 appeals had been granted out of 1,153, while from January 1 to June 1, 1905, only 65 out of 653 were granted by the present Commission. The secretary and chief examiner early in the investigation commented favorably on this reduction in the number of appeals, but subsequent examination into the appeals which were granted and the methods by which new ratings were fixed led them to report:

"Our examination shows that of the appeals considered since March 17, 1905, there are possibly two cases in which the Commission had a right to act under the rule. In none of the other cases is the granting of the appeal based on anything except a change of judgment on the part of the examiners, and according to the reports of the examiners these changes are not made upon the rerating of any specific questions and answers, but are purely arbitrary conclusions upon a consideration of the papers as a whole. The nature of the reports filed by the examiners to whom appeals were referred indicates that the examiners did not have any definite or exact reason for rating the papers as they were rated in the first instance. If these reports fairly show the kind of rating that is practiced by the examiners of the Municipal Commission upon original rating papers, they offer a sufficient explanation of the magnitude of the appeal abuse which has existed for years, and indicate that correction of this abuse must

go to the bottom of the whole system of marking papers, which would seem to be incompetent to the last degree."

In some instances the increase is allowed on grounds quite different from that on which the candidate based his appeal. The reports indicate also that the original rating was, to say the least, largely a matter of conjecture, rather than the result of a well considered system. The rerating seems to have been undertaken for the sole purpose of getting the candidate on the eligible list, and the reports of the examiners indicate that they have been bent on attaining that end by hook or crook. No entry appears upon the minutes setting forth the nature of any error corrected, as required by the rules in force when these reports were made.

To take for example the case of Harry L. La Fetra, who appealed, December 5, 1904, from the rating accorded him in the examination of August 12, 1901, for assistant engineer. His original rating was as follows: Record, 45; arithmetic, 39; technical, 80; experience, 60; general average, 64.6. Mr. La Fetra's appeal is dated December 5, 1904, and asks for a rerating on the mathematics and record papers, and gives as grounds for the request lack of time in the examination and interference of the monitors. The appeal was referred to examiner Hildreth, who is the only one of the regular force of examiners qualified to rate engineering papers who has received continuous employment since the Commission has relied so largely upon "expert" examiners appointed without regard to the restrictions of competitive examination, as hereinbefore discussed. Examiner Hildreth, under date of April 8, 1905, reported: "I find that he writes an excellent technical paper and am of the opinion that there is considerable merit in his appeal. I therefore recommend that his rating be increased on the record