orders to collectors throughout the country that in filling office vacancies of stenographers and other clerical employes under the designation of "deputy collector" appointments, should be made first by promotion of subordinate employes in the classified service; second, by transfer of classified employes from other bureaus and departments; and third, by selection from the eligible registers of the United States Civil Service Commission. Under this direction from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue a great many deputy collectorships were filled in accordance with the civil service law. In order that these persons might not lose their rights under the federal retirement law, which became effective in 1920, the designations of such deputy collectors were changed to other designations which are recognized in the classified civil service. Since the new administration has come into power the solicitor of internal revenue has ruled that a bond may not be required of an employe in the classified civil service, and that a collector of internal revenue has the right to demand a bond from subordinates charged with the duty of handling money. Under these rulings of the solicitor clerks and other subordinates appointed to classified positions have been transferred to deputy collectorships, thus losing their rights under the retirement law and in some cases have been removed from the service entirely without the right to formal charges preferred against them.

Government employes with the highest degree of fiduciary responsibility are regularly appointed through the examination system in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and other jurisdictions where civil service laws are in existence. There is nothing in the nature of the duties of a collector of internal revenue or a United States marshal which is not susceptible of test through up-to-date civil service examining methods. Civil Service Commissions the country over are continually holding high-grade examinations, many of them of the non-assembled type, for the selection of responsible executives, with the result that competent persons with recognized standing and, ability are secured as permanent employes.

The host of employes hired to enforce the Volstead Act continues exempt from the provisions of the civil service law. With the change in the administration at Washington the old force has been almost entirely swept out and a new force put in. The

supervisors in most of the large cities have been changed several times and the labor turnover generally throughout this service is enormous. The enforcement of the Volstead Act is popularly considered a farce. The recognized difficulty in enforcing all liquor laws makes it all the more important that the employes engaged to do this work should be selected with infinite pains and absolutely protected from any political or factional influences. Such protection cannot possibly be secured as long as the exemption clause in the Volstead Act stands. For two years the League has been urging upon Congress the passing of a bill which would bring all these employes within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. That the Commission is competent to secure efficient employes is shown by its success in furnishing the corps of men employed to enforce the Harrison AntiNarcotic law. Until the bill to classify enforcement agents is acted upon all other attempts to secure adequate enforcement of the Eighteenth Amendment will remain unavailing.

The officers enumerated in all the exemption clauses in the acts of Congress have, with very few exceptions, nothing to do with the determination of policy. Their duties are of a purely administrative character. Their exemption from the provisions of the civil service law was only made to provide additional patronage for the party in power. Under these exemptions positions were created and multiplied without regard to the public need and with a reckless waste of public money. The competitive classification of all these offices would save millions of dollars to the taxpayers every year. Here is offered a splendid opportunity for President Harding to fulfill his pledge to the League to extend the "merit system of appointment and promotion to a larger group of federal employes" and for the Republican party to "give relief not only in words but in deeds."

Veteran Preference.

While we believe that veterans should receive full credit for all military and naval service which adds to their qualifications for office, we hold that absolute veteran preference has proved itself to be disastrous to the service. The disastrous effect of veteran preference legisla tself felt in the

administration of the federal civil service. For two years veteran preference has been in operation in the federal service and its operation thus far is cause for much concern. Investigation of the records of the Federal Civil Service Commission shows that in some cases non-veterans are virtually excluded from receiving appointments because of the preference. In other cases appointing officers are compelled to take less competent persons from the bottom of the list in preference to many others with far better qualifications.

Nor is the preference working any less harm in other jurisdictions where absolute preference prevails. It is clear from reports from other jurisdictions that preference legislation discourages competent persons from competing in the examinations and tends to compel the more ambitious employes to give up their careers in the public service when they find their chances for promotion blocked.

In New York State a proposal to amend the Constitution to grant an absolute preference to veterans of all wars was voted upon November 8. The New York Civil Service Reform Association spared nothing in its efforts to defeat the proposal. A state committee was formed consisting of most of the leading civic, business, civil service and other organizations to educate the public as to the real meaning of the proposal. A state-wide canvass of voters was made; meetings of clubs and societies were organized; public meetings were arranged for discussing the proposal. In New York City the campaign was conducted most intensively. The newspapers of the state with few exceptions have advocated its defeat.

The Council record with gratification that at the time this Report goes to press the Veteran Preference Amendment to the New York State Constitution appears to be defeated.

It is encouraging to note that leaders among the veterans themselves have come out strongly against the proposal because it is so unfair and such a detriment to the administration of public business. It is gratifying, too, that a number of American Legion posts in New York have taken a stand squarely against the amendment in spite of the opposition of the Legion officers and in the face of the adoption of a resolution favoring the

amendment passed by the New York State Legion at its annual convention in September.

A Civil Service Clause in the Louisiana Constitution.

It is with pleasure that the Council records the inclusion of the following clause in the constitution of the State of Louisiana: "The legislature shall provide for civil service in municipalities having a population of 100,000 or more, and for the recognition and adoption of the merit system in the employment or appointment of all applicants; and shall provide against the discharge of employes or appointees without good and sufficient cause."

This enactment by the late Constitutional Convention of the State of Louisiana, which was accomplished with the cooperation of the office of the League, represents the fourth state in the Union to incorporate a civil service clause into the state constitution. What is of greater importance is the fact that this is the first occasion that a state south of the Mason and Dixon Line has recognized the merit system in its fundamental law.

The Council of the League congratulates the cities of the State of Louisiana and the State Constitutional Convention upon its progressive stand and assures those cities and the state government the full cooperation of the League in the maintenance of thoroughgoing civil service laws to provide for the enforcement of the principle now written in the Constitution.

The Council regrets to record the loss by death during the year of two Vice Presidents-General Frederick C. Winkler of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Hon. Charles J. Bonaparte, of Baltimore, Maryland.

A discussion then followed on the following subject:

Should the appointing authority have the privilege of selection of one out of the first three names on an eligible list, or should the law compel the appointment of the first name on the list in every case?

The argument for the appointment of the first name was presented by Hon. Robert Catherwood, and the argument for the selection of one out of the first three was presented by Hon. William Gorham Rice. The arguments presented by Messrs. Catherwood and Rice and the discussion of the subject is as follows:

THE RULE OF ONE

By Hon. Robert Catherwood

It is hardly worth while to discuss the rule of one and the rule of three, except as they may be parts of civil service laws embodying comprehensive and coherent systems of employment and unless we may assume that they are to be administered by competent and properly equipped civil service commissions. A city or state or indeed any concern, public or private, which is known to have a defective incoherent employment system, offering no particular inducements to professional or vocational merit, cannot successfully compete with its rivals in the labor market. Competent persons avoid it and it becomes in the main a political service and this usually means that it is a harbor for the incompetent; this defect is not cured by installing an examination system, because no examination, however excellent, can rise higher than its source; which is the best applicant and whether one, three or a dozen incompetents are sent the appointing officer makes little difference. So too, if the employment department cannot or will not make its examinations practical and searching tests and investigations into qualifications applying the various. grade standards of professional or vocational merit with nice reference to the duties required and the pay offered, and directing its machinery with intelligence so that the result may be relied upon-in short, if the civil service commission doesn't know its business or lacks the funds and expert service essential to its work, the differences between the rule of one and the rule of three are not important. It is not instructive to compare two hit and miss jumbles.

When, however, we have an employment system with adequate administrative facilities, the benefits to the service provided by the rule of one are much greater than those afforded by the rule of three. Now what is the rule of one?

The Illinois civil service acts, the state, county, city and parks laws, require that the appointing officer shall notify the commission of each position to be filled separately. He alone has discretion to fill or to leave vacant. Each position is filled as an independent and separate transaction. Then the Commission must certify to him the candidate standing highest upon the register for the class or grade to which the position belongs.