Frawley, whom Mr. Skelly represented to be "almost blind," and on the strength of these alleged improper services urged upon Senator Frawley the desirability of securing Mr. Spencer's appointment as president of the Commission, saying, "we have a friend in Spencer, and a friend who can be relied upon, who is willing at any time to go the limit for us."

After careful consideration of all the testimony the Commission finds:

First. That there is no evidence presented of any improper conduct on the part of Mr. Spencer in this case. Mr. Spencer went to see the dock commissioner to discuss the proposed Flood transfer on the statements of Mr. Skelly that the commissioner desired to see him. It is a part of the routine duty of his office to discuss such matters with officials desiring to make transfers. While we think it would be highly improper for an official of the Civil Service Commission to go about begging transfers in the interests of individuals, it is his duty to give such information as to the service and the rules governing it as heads of departments may desire. It does not appear that Mr. Spencer did anything more than give such information to the dock commissioner, who was considering the possibility of bringing Mr. Flood into his department. He advised that no transfer such as Mr. Flood desired could be made and the matter dropped there. He had no connection whatever with the passing of Dennis McCarthy, and no knowledge of the case until the publication of the letters. Mr. McCarthy in company with eleven others was found by the surgeon to be below the general standard fixed for eyesight. The President of the Commission considered these cases and admitted all but three absolutely, and the others provisionally, to the mental examination, because the surgeon's standard was after consultation with the Police Department thought to be unnecessarily severe for men of the age and duties of lieutenant. Mr. McCarthy's eyesight was not the poorest among those passed absolutely, no request was made for special consideration in his case, and no special favor was granted. He was simply one of a class, whose admission was allowed by the

President in the exercise of his discretion, and neither Mr. Spencer nor Mr. Skelly had anything to do with that decision. Second. That there is no evidence of any improper conduct on the part of President Polk, either of the other commissioners, or of Dr. Warbasse, the examining surgeon in the McCarthy case.

Third. That the statements of Mr. Skelly in the letters were untrue and deserve severe condemnation. Mr. Skelly admits that they were untrue and says that they were made in joke in private letters to a man with whom he was accustomed to joke. He did not expect Senator Frawley to take them literally or believe that Mr. Spencer was really making special efforts, or at any rate improper ones, for his constituents. Nevertheless, he says he was serious in his desire to promote the advancement of Mr. Spencer who was not himself a candidate and desirous to commend him to Senator Frawley's favor. A motive for such activity is plain in the possibility that Mr. Skelly might be promoted from assistant secretary to secretary in case Mr. Spencer became a commissioner. Making all possible allowance for the claim of humorous exaggeration, it is impossible to believe that Mr. Skelly, cherishing as he says a sincere desire to push forward Mr. Spencer, did not make the untrue statements about Mr. Spencer's improper activities with the serious purpose of impressing upon Senator Frawley the political usefulness of Mr. Spencer. Mr. Skelly also evidently wished to fill Senator Frawley and his friends with a sense of obligation to himself as one who was busy in their behalf. We cannot regard as mere humor, the substance of which would not be taken seriously, the representation that extraordinary efforts were still being made to "dig up" a place for Mr. Flood after the impossibility of his transfer was determined, and the report that Mr. McCarthy was being passed by special and improper favor, when in fact he was receiving mere ordinary treatment. In their most innocent aspect as an exhibition of playful exaggeration in a private communication to a friend, accustomed to such humor, these letters were improper coming from an official who was in duty bound in all his acts, private as well as public, to safeguard the administration of the merit system from possible suspicion. He could not be ignorant of the common insinuations against the integrity of examinations, particularly in the Police Department. Yet, in a

spirit of frivolity or vanity, to put the most charitable construction. on his action, he was willing to foster the belief that favors could and would be done for politicians. The letters to Senator Frawley from Thomas Clark, to which the latter testified, showed that his oral professions of serviceableness were seriously regarded by persons interested in transfers even though they expressed doubt of his good faith in "digging up" things for them. However justly he may complain of the dishonorable methods by which his private letters became public, he must face the fact that being public, they inevitably awaken popular distrust of him and the administration of the Civil Service Law in which he had an influential part. Any interpretation of the letters which takes account of their acknowledged serious purpose of furthering Mr. Spencer's advancement still more clearly shows his obtuseness to the requirements of his position. He, an administrator of the Civil Service Laws, sincerely desirous to aid Mr. Spencer, commends him to the favor of a political leader professionally employed in furthering the desires of his constituents for public employment, on the ground that the leader could expect illegal and dishonorable favors from Mr. Spencer. If this was not serious it is impossible to conceive of the commendation of Mr. Spencer as serious, for it is all there is of the commendation. He made untrue and damaging statements about the secretary which could only injure the latter in the eyes of a political leader whose favor was not to be secured by the hope of a dishonest administration of the merit system. It is impossible to reconcile the alleged humorous and acknowledged serious features of these letters on any theory which does not discredit the good sense and discretion, if not the good faith and integrity, essential to the proper performance of their writer's official duties.

President Polk testified that Mr. Skelly had always been a faithful official, who was particularly acute in detecting and reporting attempts to evade the rules, and this testimony is entitled to weight in judging of his action. Nevertheless, he has impaired, whether in mere folly or by graver fault, the confidence which must be reposed in one called upon to discharge duties calling for as delicate sense of propriety and honor as the judicial office itself.

Under the provisions of the New York charter, Mr. Skelly can be removed only after he has had an opportunity to make an ex

planation to the Municipal Commission. We recommend that the Municipal Commission, which has already formulated charges, should proceed to a hearing and, with due consideration of any reasons which he may give why he should not be removed, should pass judgment upon his case.

CHARLES F. MILLIKEN, President,

ROSCOE C. E. BROWN,

JOHN E. KRAFT,

State Civil Service Commission.

NEW YORK, December 29, 1909.

Report of the Commission in the Matter of Investigation of the Administration of the Civil Service Law and Rules in the city of New Rochelle

The State Civil Service Commission, as the result of its investigation into the administration of the Civil Service Law and Rules in the city of New Rochelle, on Friday, September 10, 1909, dismisses the charge that any member of the Municipal Civil Service Commission gave out advance information as to the examination for the position of inspector of public works, held under its direction on or about May 25, 1909, but in view of the circumstances attending that examination and the facts hereinafter set forth advises that the eligible list thereby established be canceled and a new examination ordered if desired by the board of public works.

The State Commission finds that in communicating to a candidate, as a sample question of a former examination, a question which had been embodied in a paper prepared for the examination above mentioned, Commissioner Vernon committed a grave error, though there is no evidence that he was at the moment conscious that he had used the question in the new paper.

The State Commission finds also that the practice followed by the Municipal Civil Service Commission in using more than once the same or practically the same question paper in examination, is a dangerous and improper one; that the preparation of question papers long in advance of the date of an examination, as in the case under review, is open to serious criticism; that the failure to advertise the examination for the position of inspector of public works in the way commonly followed and the confining of that examination to persons who had responded to the notice inviting applications posted some weeks before the date of the examination was fixed, was an error of judgment on the part of the Municipal Commis

sion.

The State Commission also calls attention to the faulty method