Rule XIX, paragraph 11, and by the needs of the service of the city of New York. The employment was continued pending the establishment of an eligible list for automobile enginemen, and as soon as such list was established all temporary employment ceased.

Criticism of the Municipal Commission in regard to the employment of Girdell V. Brower, is not justified in view of the statement made by Commmissioner Talley, representing the Municipal Commission, at the close of the investigation. Defining the position of the Municipal Commission on this point, he said: "The position of the Municipal Civil Service Commission in reference to the matter which is known to the State Commission and to us as the 'Brower Matter' is this: The attention of the Commission was called to the general circumstances surrounding the position of superintendent of ponds and reservoirs in Nassau county and the employment of Mr. Brower as a foreman of laborers. The Commission investigated thoroughly the entire situation and arrived at the determination that in its opinion, it was highly important to the good of the city and the department of water supply in its efficient conduct of that highly important part of its work, that the position of superintendent of ponds and reservoirs should be made an exempt place. It accordingly renewed the application to your Board which had previously been denied. It was denied a second time. The Municipal Commission is still of the opinion that the best interests of the city should be conserved by making that an exempt place by reason of the peculiar duties which must be performed; but in view of your Commission's denying its exemption, this Commission has since ordered that an open competitive

examination for the place be held, and that is the position of the Municipal Commission at the present time."

Inasmuch as the examination for the position of superintendent of ponds and reservoirs has been held, and the eligible list established, it would appear that the incident had been closed.

The table of appeals considered from January 1, 1902, to June 1, 1905, presented in the joint report on this matter by the secretary and the chief examiner of the State Commission shows that in 1902, out of a total of 1,776 appeals received, 898 were granted; that in 1903, out of a total of 4,368 appeals, 2,199 were granted; that in 1904, up to October 5, out of a total of 2,166 appeals received, 697 were granted; that from October 5, to December 31, out of a total of 1,153 appeals, 467 were granted, and from January 1, 1905, to June 1, 1905, out of a total of 653 appeals received, only 65 were granted by the present Commission. In other words, during the years 1902, 1903 and 1904, an average of 50 per cent of the appeals received were granted, while from January 1 to June 1, 1905, under the operation of the new rule promulgated by the present Commission, less than 10 per cent of the appeals were granted. Surely a word of commendation is due to the present Municipal Commission, either for so largely cutting down the number of appeals granted, or for adopting a stricter rule in regard to the granting of appeals than was ever before in force. The instances cited where appeals were granted were in each case appeals received before March 17, 1905, when the new appeal rule went into effect, and the Municipal Commission ought not to be criticized for not doing what the State Legislature itself cannot do, to wit: make a retroactive law or ruling. The report of the secretary and of the chief exam

iner of the State Commission, on this point, contains the follow

ing statement:

"The falling off in the number of appeals granted by the present Commission would clearly indicate that it is strictly complying with the letter and spirit of this provision of the rules, and so long as it maintains this attitude, complaints such as that above noted will no longer be presented."

That part of the investigation in reference to the question of transfers, was entrusted to the secretary of the State Commission, who, after a careful examination of the records of the Municipal Commission sums up his report in the following language:

"An examination of the minutes shows that the Commission has denied very 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 which 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.”

The testimony taken in regard to efficiency records shows that the Municipal Commission had adopted every possible means within its power to compel the various departments to comply with the rule which requires that records of the efficiency of the various employees of city departments be furnished at stated times to the Municipal Commission. It was shown that repeated communications had been sent by the Municipal Commission to said departments demanding that they observe this rule, and that finally a resolution was passed, under date of May 12, 1905, in which it was determined that no further promotion examina

tions would be held by the Municipal Commission for any department that had failed to furnish its efficiency records in accordance with the rule. This is as far as the Municipal Commission is empowered to go.

The Municipal Commission extended every courtesy to the State Commission in the course of the investigation and its members repeatedly stated that they were ready and anxious to adopt any suggestions that the State Commission might make whereby the work of preserving the integrity of the merit system in New York could be improved. I can find in no single instance during the public hearings and in the examinations by our secretary and chief examiner that anything was brought out reflecting in any way upon the efficiency or honesty of the Municipal Commission.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN E. KRAFT.

Albany, N. Y., September 27, 1905.

REMOVAL OF MUNICIPAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF TROY AND APPOINTMENT

OF THEIR SUCCESSORS.

EXTRACTS FROM MINUTES.

A report from the secretary and chief examiner, dated February 7, 1905, upon their inspection of the records of the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the city of Troy, was considered. On motion the report was accepted and the following resolution adopted: Resolved, That copies of said report be transmitted to the Mayor and to the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the city of Troy, and that the members of said Commission be cited to appear before the State Civil Service Commission at its next meeting to show cause why they should not be removed under the provisions of section 10 of the Civil Service Law, for incompetency, inefficiency, neglect of duty and violation of the provisions of the Civil Service Law and of the rules and regulations in force thereunder in and concerning the matters set forth in said report. (February 10, 1905.)

Robert T. Smith, Thomas F. Duffy and David L. Beattie, the, members of the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the city of Troy, who had been cited to appear before the State Commission at this time to show cause why they should not be removed from office in accordance with the provisions of section 10, of the Civil Service Law, for incompetency, inefficiency, neglect of duty and violation of the Civil Service Law, as charged in a report of the secretary and chief examiner, dated February 7, 1905, came before the Commission and were heard.

The members of the Municipal Commission stated that they waived any technicalities with reference to the citation to appear, and admitted that they were regularly before the Commission to make personal explanation in self defense in accordance with the provisions of the law referred to.

Joseph F. Hogan, Mayor of the city of Troy, also appeared before the Commission and was heard in defense of the Municipal Commissioners.

After hearing the Municipal Commissioners and the Mayor at some length, the Commission reserved decision.

(March 17, 1905.)