reports received have been few in number and not so complete as desirable. I hope delegates present to-day will encourage their associations to keep the central office informed more fully of what is being done in their several localities, because it is possible for the League directly to aid the several associations, and for the various associations through the instrumentality of the League greatly to aid each other in the continuance of this work.

In the absence of the custodian of the funds, a synopsis of his statement was read by Mr. Potts; and an auditing committee, consisting of Messrs. Rice of Providence and Lambert of Newton, was appointed by the chair to examine it.

Abstract of the report of the custodian of the funds:

In response to the Chairman's request that the delegates make reports of the work done in their several districts, Mr. Everett P. Wheeler of New York addressed the meeting. He said:

I have been requested by the New York Association to make a statement of what has been done during the last year. The work has been largely stated by your President in his admirable address, but I presume it may be of interest to briefly review the methods by which the results have been reached. Some of the gentlemen present may remember that we said a year ago we had made a very vigorous canvass of our State with the object of forming local State associations, and most of those now existing were formed last year as the result of that canvass. There have been, however, one or two formed during the current year carrying out the same plan of operations. We have endeavored by extensive correspondence to keep up the interest of the local societies in the reform, and whatever has been done for the promotion of legislation has been attained with their co-operation and support. Delegates from different parts of the State, notably from Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse, were present at Albany when the reform bill was pending before the Legislature. We have sent delegates, too, from our own association to other associations to confer with them and speak at public meetings held under their auspices, and generally, by the means I have indicated, have endeavored to keep up their interest and activity.

In reference to the passage of the reform bill through the Legislature, I should state that we met at first with very considerable opposition. When the bill came up first in the assembly, it failed. A majority of those present were in its favor; but, under the State constitution, it is necessary to have a majority of all the members elected in order to pass a bill, and there was not a sufficient number. That, of course, was a very great disappointment; and we immediately set about to see if it could not be remedied. For that purpose,

we had a meeting in the parlor of one of the hotels, where we invited about fifty prominent members of the assembly to confer with us personally in regard to the pending bill. We heard the protests of two or three as to the objectionable features of the bill, and their statements of what evils were to be remedied; and they listened to our explanation. We invited discussion on every part, and listened to what they had to say,--the difficulties they proposed and the suggestions offered,—and at length did modify the bill in several particulars to meet the objections. I think I may say (and it is important to bear in mind) that a great deal of the difficulty in legislative bodies is encountered not from men bitterly opposed to the reform, but from those who are indifferent and have not studied the question, and who, when enlightened in regard to the

true character of what is proposed, are willing to vote for bills offered by our associations. We found it so. And the consequence of that conference was that, when the bill next came up, it passed by a large and decisive majority; and, let me add, it passed in opposition to a very vigorous endeavor on the part of some of our local politicians, and I feel bound to say that that opposition was not confined to one party. In short, we found uniformly from the beginning that the machine workers, the professional politicians, and the men who make a living out of politics were the men on both sides whose enmity and opposition we had to encounter at every step. I cannot say we had in New York any more embarrassment in dealing with one side than with the other. I think it will be found so in the other States; and, as one of the New York men was credited with saying, "There is no politics in politics now," I believe that is true of other localities than New York.

After having in this way impressed the members of the assembly (which is a much larger body than the Senate in our State) with our convictions, the bill went up, and there were hearings before the committees. We then found that securing a favorable committee report was not sufficient: it was necessary to reach the members; and we made a personal canvass of the Senate, which is composed of only thirty-two members. We knew in the first place some were in favor of the bill,-cordially in favor, and some were irretrievably opposed to it. There were not many on the fence or indifferent, but some had not studied the subject and did not understand it. We urged all the arguments we could think of; and, by personal endeavor, we finally secured a favorable report to the Senate and ultimately a satisfactory vote. We were. much embarrassed by an endeavor to exclude from the provisions of the law the police and fire departments; we were embarrassed, too, by an effort made to exclude soldiers and sailors from examination. We were content to give them the preference; but to exempt them entirely from an examination was to give an advantage to soldiers who had political friends and backers, and exclude from possible employment veterans with no political backers. This argument finally prevailed; and, while there is now a preference under the law, there is no more than that accorded to honorably discharged soldiers and sailors under the federal law.

In justice I ought to say that, in all the stages of the passage of the bill through the Legislature, we had the most cordial support from the Governor of the State of New York. Nothing more probably could have been done by any executive to support our endeavors. Since that act was passed, we have felt it was necessary to go to work with reference to the adoption of rules by the city governments. In the city of New York, Mayor Edson sent for some members of our association, and expressed a desire to co-operate with us, and

asked for assistance and suggestions in the preparation of the rules. An advisory committee, consisting of Mr. E. L. Godkin, E. Randolph Robinson, and myself, was appointed to aid him in their preparation and assist in their enforcement; and we hope to have these rules in a shape to submit to him next week.

Of course there are a great many questions in regard to the rules on which we are not very clear, as to what restriction, for instance, can be placed on the employment of laborers. It is a well-known fact that in the several cities there has been a good deal of evil arising from the present method of appointing laborers by giving out of tickets to different political organizations, to be by them distributed to men who, for some reason or other, are entitled to their consideration. Of course, the result of that is expensive and bad service. Something should be done; and, though it would be absurd to subject day laborers to educational tests, we are trying to suggest some practical method, and we hope that the associations throughout the country will at least give a favorable consideration to the rules which will finally be adopted on this subject.

On the part of the Boston Association, Mr. Arthur Hobart reported in substance as follows:

The Massachusetts Associations are united in a League with an Executive Committee and officers similar to the National League, and finding before us the work of securing from the Legislature a reform measure, we thought best to act through the State League. The committee of the League chose a subcommittee composed of Moorfield Storey, Charles Theodore Russell, Leverett Sattonstall, Richard H. Dana, and Josiah Quincy, and upon the two younger of these, Messrs. Dana and Quincy, much of the labor fell. A bill having been carefully prepared and approved by the full committee was presented to a joint special committee of the Legislature appointed by Governor Robinson and called the Committee on Public Service, which gave three public hearings to those interested. The bill, being deemed too complex, was referred for revision to two active members of the Boston Association, Messrs. Uriel H. Crocker and Henry H. Sprague, who put it into more compact form, and the amended bill was subsequently passed by the Senate with but little modification and without much discussion. In the House it met with the almost united opposition of the Democratic members, and a considerable opposition from some of the strong Republican members-notably Mr. Beard, formerly Collector of the Port of Boston. A very radical substitute was offered by a Democratic member,—it was supposed for the purpose of killing off the whole movement. Both bills were referred to the Committee on Public Service, and another bill was constructed from the two, stronger and more comprehensive than that first

offered by the League, and without certain absurd features contained in the substitute. The bill reported in this form passed the House, receiving the support of nearly all the Republican members, including Mr. Beard, and being opposed by nearly all the Democratic members; and being then sent to the Senate, was passed by that body also. It will be found in the Civil Service Record for July. Its provisions apply to the state service and to the service of all the cities of the state, and it leaves to the discretion of the commission how far and how soon they shall apply it. The Governor has appointed as members of the commission, Robert R. Bishop, who was the Republican candidate for Governor in the year in which General Butler was elected, Mr. James M. Bugbee, who was Mayor's clerk during the administration of Henry L. Pierce, and Charles Theodore Russell, Jr., of Cambridge.

The participation in the work of the State League by the Boston Association has been its principal work. In addition, its energies have been largely enlisted in the conduct of the Civil Service Record in connection with the Cambridge Association. Of this six thousand copies are now distributed.

Not long since the Association received word from the Boston CustomHouse, that secret violations of the Civil Service Act were taking place there, and a sub-committee was appointed to investigate the same. No report has yet been received, and I do not know that there has been any violation of the law.

Mr. Charles J. Bonaparte of Baltimore, at the invitation of the President, spoke, and said:

I do not know that I amable to add much to the experience of the meeting in regard to the course of proceedings in our State. Civil-service reform is a plant which has to be acclimated at the South. It really is an abnormal growth, and it takes the seed some little time to develop in the warm atmosphere of Baltimore. I have not perceived any indications of its having been heard of further South. I hope it may come in the course of time. Our association has done what it could. It attempted to have passed by the Maryland Legislature of last year a bill for the application of civil service reform principles to the municipal appointments in Baltimore; also, a bill to prohibit political assessments in the State; it having been decided. after a very careful investigation by the executive committee of the association, that it would be impracticable for the moment to introduce a bill on broad principles, applying the civil service reform methods to the State service. In fact, the State service does not, as at present organized, admit of classification. Those bills came very much nearer going through than I personally supposed they would. I had not the faintest idea that they could pass. The members of the Legislature were in a state of the most hopeless ignorance as to the first principles of civil service reform;