On the evening of the 17th, the visiting delegates were entertained by the Civil Service Reform Association of Cincinnati at a banquet given at the Hotel St. Nicholas. Justice William R. Taft, President of the Cincinnati Association, presided, and addresses were made by Carl Schurz; Senator James R. Garfield, of Cleveland; Gustav Tafel, Mayor of Cincinnati; Herbert Welsh, of Philadelphia; Col. John E. Ela, of Chicago; Lucius B. Swift, of Indiana; Lewis R. Gunckel, of Dayton, and Charles J. Bonaparte, of Balti

more.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE TREASURER.

Balance on hand, Dec. 10, 1896,

RECEIPTS:

Subscriptions from members of Massachu

setts Associations.... $1,400.00 Cambridge (additional)..

66

71.90

Newton,

50.00

250.00

$172.97

The Republican Party and Civil Service Reform.

BY HENRY HITCHCOCK.

Fifteen years, less one month, have now elapsed since the statute was enacted, which embedded in the framework and administrative policy of the national government the wholesome doctrine that public office is a public trust, and that public servants, charged with subordinate administrative duties, ought to be appointed, not because of political opinions, nor as a reward for partisan service, but for merit and fitness alone. That great legislative event was thus recorded in the Address of President Curtis, at the second annual meeting of this League:

"On the 16th of January, 1883, upon the earnest recommendation of the President, and by overwhelming majorities in Congress, the Pendleton bill became a law, and on the 16th of July, 1883, amid the general applause of the country, it went into effect."

That doctrine was not new. The fathers of the republic not only proclaimed but practiced it, as an axiom of political morals. Washington required of applicants for office proofs of ability, integrity and fitness. "Beyond this," he said, "nothing with me is necessary or will be of any avail to them in my decision." In at least one historic instance he preferred for appointment an avowed political opponent to a valued personal friend, upon the express ground that the latter did not possess the business qualifications of the former. Jefferson proclaimed it on the threshold of his first administration, declaring that of the thousands of officers in the United States a very few individuals only, probably not twenty- would be removed, and these only for doing what they ought not to have done. Again, in his famous letter to the merchants of New Haven, he declared that the only questions concerning a candidate should be," Is he honest? Is he capable? Is he faithful

to the Constitution?" And Madison, Monroe and John Quincy Adams so faithfully followed their example that the Joint Congressional Committee upon Retrenchment reported, in 1868, that after having consulted all accessible means of information they had not learned of a single removal of a subordinate officer except for cause, from the beginning of Washington's administration to the close of that of John Quincy Adams,- a period of forty years.

It is not the purpose of this paper to trace the steps by which, during the succeeding forty years, a very different doctrine gained ascendency and an opposite practice came to prevail. The history of the spoils system, its corrupting tendencies and the menace which it involves to the perpetuity of our government, are unhappily familiar to every student of American politics, - to none more than the members of this League, whose privilege and delight it was, year by year, to listen to the annual addresses of our lamented President, distinguished alike for their historic accuracy and fullness, their persuasive and manly eloquence and their captivating literary form. Those addresses, and other papers, not less brilliant and memorable, prepared by Mr. Curtis from the year 1869 up to the organization of this League, in August, 1881, contain also- and not only contain but to an important degree constitute,- the history of the struggle to overthrow the spoils system which began in 1867, and after fifteen years of determined effort, of varying success and frequent disappointment, was crowned with the sanction of law in 1883.

That Act, substantially unchanged, and, as we rejoice to know, honestly enforced, stands upon the statute book today. But the struggle and the conflict are not ended. Both before and since its enactment, in Congress and among the people at large, able men of all political parties have enlisted on one or the other side of the controversy. During all these thirty years, in presidential messages and declarations of policy, in Congressional debates and in the successive platforms of the great political parties, the reform of the civil service, the mischiefs and dangers of the spoils system and the methods by which they ought to be prevented, have been conspicuous topics. In Congress efforts have again and again been made, hitherto always

unsuccessful, to repeal the Civil Service Act of 1883, or to destroy its efficiency by refusing the necessary appropriations, in which members of both the great parties have joined.

In March last, a new Administration assumed the reins of government, and within the past ten days the 55th Congress has assembled for its first regular session. The election of its candidate for President in 1896, and of a large majority in the House of Representatives, assures to the Republican party, if not the absolute control of the legislation of this Congress, at any rate the power to prevent the repeal or modification of any existing law. Scarcely had that Administration assumed the responsibilities of office, and while the new Congress was occupied with questions of revenue legislation whose urgency had induced the President to call an extra session, when the formation of an anti-civil service reform league was loudly announced. During that extra session speeches were made, both in the Senate and the House, by members of that party, elaborately and savagely attacking and misrepresenting not only the methods and provisions of the Civil Service Act, but the principles upon which it is based. And, if the press reports are correct, on the second day of the regular session which begun last week, the deliberations of the House as to the proper reference of the various portions of the President's annual message were interrupted and delayed by speeches from two members, one a Democratic representative from Alabama, the other elected as a Republican from Ohio, both bitterly denouncing the Civil Service Act, advocating the abandonment of the merit system, and taking issue with the President's statement that it has the approval of the people.

Under these circumstances, the actual relation of the Republican party to civil service reform and the probable or even possible attitude of that party towards the system now established by law, are questions not only germane to the objects of this League but which may well receive the earnest consideration of its members, and of the people at large.

How shall those questions be answered? By what rules may we reasonably forecast the attitude of any political