nite improvement. The whole situation of these Senateconfirmed officers, however, is still unsatisfactory. Paid out of the public treasury as high government officials, they are really campaign managers of members of Congress and chosen for political and not official fitness.

Now, as to a remedy. Under the Constitution of the United States, the President is to nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate appoint these officials, and they cannot be made completely subject to the civil service rules and law without the Senate's consent. But it seems not impossible to take them out of politics in another way, and for this we have an excellent precedent, recently set by the President of the United States, in the appointment of the postmaster at New York. Instead of going outside, as is usually done, and taking some political supporter, or friend of members of Congress on their recommendation, the assistant postmaster was promoted to the head of that great New York office. Does not this give us the key to the situation? Why not always promote some one trained in the department? If the assistant postmaster, or some other subordinate, is not sufficiently capable, then why not promote the postmaster from some neighboring office, when he has shown unusual capacity, that is, fill these high positions by promotion on official records. This is substantially the English system, and in England it has succeeded in removing the postmasters wholly from political influences. As part of the plan it would be well to classify assistant postmasters under the civil service rules, following the precedent recently set of classifying the deputy collectors of customs. With such a system as this, we could kill several unsavory birds with one stone. Some of these unsavory birds are putting inexperience. at the helm, making custom houses and postoffices political headquarters, forcing subordinates into political work, making political assessments on their salaries, evasions of civil service rules, and the worst postal department of any highly civilized country in the world. We should have, instead, experience where it would do the most good, the ambition of subordinates stimulated by the hope of promotion, the chance of which would

attract and hold bright young men, who now resign too early, or keep out of the government service altogether, and, should we fill some positions of assistant postmasters general also by promotion, we might then make our postal service in time one of the best among the great nations of the world.

The policy established by the administration regarding the fourth class postmasters, not to make changes without good cause, which policy we commented on last year, has been extended according to Mr. Cortelyou, when he was Postmaster-General, to cases of presidential or Senate-confirmed postmasters. This is still another step in the right direction; but it is not embodied in any rule or order, and it is hardly to be supposed that the policy would be followed in case of a change of party, or of influence within the party.

The extension of the law and rules to the fourth class postmasters, which can be done by executive order, and which we at one time looked for, has not taken place. The Civil Service Commission recommends this extension. After noting that only one-half of 1% of the rural free delivery carriers, who are appointed by competition, have been removed, and less than one-tenth of 1% for violation of the postal laws and regulations, and that, at the same time, it has been found necessary to remove 2% of the fourth class postmasters, though there has been no change of party, the Commission then says it "believes that with a few slight modifications the same system that is so successfully operated in connection with the rural carrier service could be applied to fourth class postmasters with equal benefits to the government and to the public." Several associations of fourth class postmasters have passed resolutions in favor of the plan. If done at all, within this administration, it must be done soon, as the President has indicated, we understand, that he would make no considerable extension of the classified service at the end of his term. It has been calculated by experts that this classification will save the taxpayers at least a million a year, by getting rid of useless fourthclass offices, now kept up for political rather than postal purposes.

To take away the incentive for padding of payrolls just before the introduction of free delivery in a postoffice, and its consequent classification, an order was passed by the President March 14, 1907, that no employees would be included in the classification who had been appointed less than sixty days before that took place, without the express consent of the Commission.

The situation in regard to special exceptions to the national civil service rules must give us pause. Some of us who advocated the system first are beginning to change our minds. The argument in favor was illustrated by the case of a Cabinet officer coming to Washington with a trusted coachman of years of service in the family. It was urged that it would be better to allow this driver to be appointed by special exception than to make the case an excuse for exempting drivers generally, or even taking the coachmen of Cabinet officers out of the rules. It was supposed that such exceptions would be few, and only for very strong reasons, as the law requires that the reasons shall be given in each case and printed in the annual reports of the Commission. However, the number of them has been steadily increasing, from 12 in 1902 to the rate of over 100 in 1907; 12, 1902; 43, 1903; 39, 1904; 70, 1905; 71, 1906: 85, 1907 up to September 28, or at the rate of about 100 for the year. In seven cases this year, the Commission reports that it was not informed of the reasons for the promulgation of the orders. The provision of law requiring the reasons to be published in each case of special exception is the great safeguard against abuse. We are glad to state that President Roosevelt on August 3d last, established the procedure that hereafter the Civil Service Commission shall be requested to prepare a draft for each special exception, and if the reasons in the request are not so complete as to satisfy every reasonable inquiry, the omission is to be pointed out to the President before the order is submitted to him for his signature.

But the reasons, even when given, are not always satisfactory. It was not originally proposed, for example, to allow charity appeals, but in the last nine months there were fourteen cases where the reasons

show the exceptions to have been made mainly, and sometimes wholly, on sentimental and charitable grounds, such as that the appointee was the widow or child of a faithful official, was the only one to support a decrepit war veteran and ex-official, or had several children and was in need. The order of Sept. 2, 1907, gives as the only reason for excepting two ladies, that they were "widows" of recently deceased clerks in the War Department, adding "The War Department made inquiries for the purpose of determining the qualifications of these persons, which were found to be satisfactory." We have often scoffed at the idea of the civil service law creating an office-holding class; but here we seem to have hereditary and family office-holding, or the government service made a sort of almshouse. All these sentimental and charitable exceptions were apparently made in the face of existing eligible lists of persons of proved capacity and fitness to fill the places.

If we once admit charity appeals, where shall we end? There are thousands of cases as deserving as some of these 15. We have felt obliged to say this much about the charity cases, especially as the President, a constant friend of the reform, has put himself on record as favoring them, provided there is no trace of political influence in the cases.

During the early part of 1899 many persons were found to be holding appointments contrary to the civil service law, sometimes having failed to pass non-competitive examinations, or not being submitted to them, and yet remaining in office. To take care of all these an omnibus or general blanket order was passed May 29, 1899, to allow all such persons in office to hold their places permanently and to be included in the classified service. To this blanket order there was a strong protest on the part of the civil service reformers, and we trusted that was the end of it; but, strange to say, it has now been given as the reason for making a number of special exceptions, on the ground that some persons irregularly in the service about May, 1899, had resigned just before, or for some other reason had not been included in the blanket order, and on account of this mis

fortune they are now at this late date given, by executive order, special appointment, in the face of eligible lists of persons competent to fill the positions.

Many of the reasons given are of the plausible kind, that the appointee, for example, is unusually fitted for the place. Perhaps this may have been true in almost every case; but the President is not in the position to determine this satisfactorily. He has not the time to test the qualifications. General recommendations to office, we know by experience, are most unreliable, and the only means he has at hand to ascertain fitness is the Civil Service Commission, of which, by the very special exceptions, the President does not avail himself.

It might be interesting to look into these cases, and see what peculiar qualifications these persons have really possessed to make them better for appointment than those on the eligible lists. We have one marked instance, however, as to how the President, acting in the utmost good faith, may be misled. A special order of June 11, 1907, allowed a transfer from a position in the Isthmian Canal service, not entered by examination, as we understand it, to a classified clerical position in the United States, contrary to the usual rules (this was one of the cases where no reasons were given). This order had to be revoked on August 3, 1907, because the appointee proved to be, as stated in the reasons for the revocation, "addicted to the excessive use of intoxicating liquors," and was found to be "suffering from acute alcoholism." On the whole, no advocate of the principle of special exceptions can read the list of them for this year, with the reasons given and the omissions of reasons, and not be made somewhat melancholy. There are perhaps a dozen (the number allowed in the year 1902) that appear to be thoroughly reasonable, a few more probably so; but the greater number not by any means necessary, and some decidedly harmful.

Such a large number of exceptions must seriously discourage those who have taken pains to pass the rigid examinations now required. Each special exception makes it harder to repel the still lingering suspicion that notwithstanding the civil service law, appointment largely