Grover Cleveland was chosen Governor of New York State in 1882 by a majority of 192,854, a majority of magnitude until then not conceived as possible.

One of his first acts as Governor was to further the passage of the State Civil Service Law. No better indication of the importance he attached to the merit system exists than the type of the three men he chose as members of the first State Civil Service Commission. For the presidency of the commission he selected the distinguished statesman Andrew Dickson White, of Ithaca, and when Mr. White found himself unable to accept the honor, John Jay, of New York, was named. As the other members of the commission, the Governor appointed Augustus Schoonmaker, of Kingston, and Henry Richmond, of Buffalo. Any one of these three men might have been, indeed at different times I think they all were, suggested as fit nominees for the governorship itself.

In 1895 I became a United States Civil Service Commissioner, having been appointed by President Cleveland to succeed Theodore Roosevelt, who had resigned to become a Police Commissioner of New York City.

In the course of a letter to President Cleveland some months later I asked him whether he cared to make any suggestion as to a magazine article I was preparing. His reply closed by saying:

I think if I were writing an article on Civil Service Reform, I should make its strong points:

1st. A contrast between its fairness to applicants and its benefits to the Public Service, and the selections made through political preference and influence.

2nd. An insistence that the system is abundantly justified when it can be demonstrated that it leads in the direction of good government aside from any other consideration based upon sentiment or moral speculation.

While vindication of the system must necessarily condemn practices opposed to it, I would not cheaply and to tiresome iteration harp on "Spoils," "Spoils System" and "Spoilsmen."

Incidentally, it should be said that veteran preference not infrequently resolves itself into a certification of one name only, inasmuch as the appointing officer is compelled to select, to promote, to reinstate the only veteran whose name appears on the certification, I believe this possibility had something to do with the defeat of veteran preference last month in New York State by a majority of over 390,000 in the largest vote ever cast

upon a constitutional amendment. This victory for the merit system in which the League and the New York Civil Service Reform Association largely bore the brunt of the battle was the conclusion of perhaps the most important contest involving the civil service that has ever been carried on in the United States. And I believe that the general esteem in which the work of the New York State Civil Service Commission now is held was a material factor in the satisfactory result of this state wide referendum. An important part in that general esteem is the attitude of fair-minded appointing officers to that State Commission's procedure. Many such appointing officers would assuredly have felt antagonism to the competitive system had the commission or the law compelled the appointment of the one, the highest eligible rather than allowing a choice from three.

Without going further into our satisfactory relationship with the officers of the state, I will progress to the statements of three or four authorities earlier referred to.

Mr. George R. Wales,

Member of United States Civil Service Commission

1. Under the federal civil service rules, selection for appointment from a certificate containing only one name cannot be forced and can be made only upon relinquishment by the appointing officer of his Constitutional right. Such practice was followed in the rural carrier service for several years after classification of that service, with this modification; that protest by the patrons of the office against the appointment of the eligible certified would be followed by investigation. In 1910 the Postmaster-General recommended that the rule providing for the certification of three names for all other parts of the service should be applied to the rural carrier service. The Commission could not very well oppose the proposition for the reason, as pointed out above, that a provision of the civil service act, based upon the constitutional_right, provided for the certification of more than one name. In addition, the following considerations appeal to the Commission:

2. The provision for the certification of more than one name supplements the requirement of competitive examination on the principle that an examination is not infallible, and that so far as concerns the qualifications tested by the examination

those rated highest are practically equally qualified. The personality of the second or third eligible on the register might be such as to make his appointment most desirable, but it is evident that no competitive rating on such an element as that of character is feasible.

3. Under a certification of more than one name the appointng officer, who is also the officer exercising administrative control over the appointee, shares with the Commission responsibility in making selection for appointment; and under such a system better results are naturally expected because the appointing officer, realizing his responsibility, will, if he is conscientious, exercise greater interest in both his efforts to select the best of those certified and in the efficiency of the force after appointment. If the Commission should be charged with the entire responsibility of selection, as in the case of the certification of a single name, it would be necessary, in order to discharge this responsibility properly, to supplement the examination with a personal and unbiased inquiry concerning the eligible.

4. In all the arguments pertaining to the rural carrier service, it was contended that the character and acceptability of an appointee in the rural carrier service especially ought to be known with reasonable definiteness before his appointment, and that the Commission was not in a position to undertake to ascertain positively the character and acceptability of appointees for this service. Personal inquiry on the ground by a Government representative seems to be the only sure method of securing definite knowledge of some essential elements of fitness, which should be available before appointment; and in certification of three names the responsibility of such personal inquiry is shared by the department.

5. I cannot speak with reference to the civil service of the States or municipalities. Conditions may be so different that the certification of a single name may be preferable. I am satisfied that the application of the rule requiring the certification of a single name for the federal service would add much to the work of the Commission without any corresponding benefits. It would doubtless result in greater restrictions with reference to age limits, physical conditions, and also add to the number of examinations; and the Commission would doubtless receive numerous objections to individuals which under the present rule are rare.

6. A majority, and perhaps two-thirds, of the selections made are of the highest name on a certificate. The reason for failure to select the name standing highest is often evident, and is due to the person's age, health record, instability in previous employment, or deficient rating in some particular subject of the examination. The Commission does not believe that as a rule selections are influenced by political considerations.

Mr. Seward C. Simons,

Member of Council, National Civil Service Reform League

1. Peculiar Temperamental Conditions. It very frequently happens that there are certain personal antipathies which materially affect the efficiency of work. The head of a department, for example, may be adversely affected by some given race or color to such a degree that he could not work readily with an appointee of this kind.

2. Special Abilities. In a formal examination, even when supplemented by a careful oral test, the one at the head of the eligibles may not possess that special ability or experience which may be peculiarly desirable in or suited to a given position. The appointing head is more likely to find some of these special abilities among the three highest eligibles.

3. Personal Friendship. Some of our more orthodox friends would be scandalized at the thought of appointing anybody because of personal friendship. Nevertheless, in business, this is a very important factor, and given three persons of absolutely equal efficiency, personality and experience, the department head should be permitted to appoint his personal friend, knowing him and having confidence in him, if such appointing officer feels better work will so be done.

4. Co-operation Between Department Head and Civil Service Commission. Experience has shown that it is always difficult to bring about entire co-operation between the appointing power and the Commission. The former almost invariably feels that his prerogatives are being diminished by the Commission. This is much heightened by a requirement forcing the department head to accept the single individual certified to the position. If on the other hand, he is made to feel that the Commission is really a help in bringing to his consideration properly qualified persons, then he is more likely to welcome the Commission's work and to assist it in co-operating in the proper spirit.

5. Department Responsibility. When a department head has been limited to one eligible, he cannot be held responsible for the actions and efficiency of his appointee to the same degree as where he is given a freer hand.

Mr. Joseph J. Reilly,

Chief Examiner, Massachusetts State Civil Service Commission 1. No system of examination, no matter how carefully devised, is certain to guarantee that the best man comes to the top of an eligible list.

2 An appointing officer naturally feels that the responsibility for the conduct of his office rests upon him and accordingly he does not take kindly to any move which entirely destroys his right to have something to say about the selection of his employees. By limiting his choice to three, we are not absolutely abrogating his right of selection which we would be doing if we should certify only the first name on the list. It seems to me good psychology to refrain from such an absolute limitation.

3. The certification of three names places a certain amount of responsibility on the shoulders of the appointing officer, a highly desirable thing to do.

4. It may be said that the limiting of the names certified to one is as logical as the limiting to three, but this argument is unsound. I believe the Supreme Court of New York State substantially said when it announced that should one name only be certified, that such civil service provision would deprive the appointing officer of his rights, since in effect it was the actual naming of an appointee.

5. The physchological argument mentioned in the second paragraph is valuable and too often ignored. If the answer to the other objections raised were adequate, that remaining argument would still prove powerful. As Mr. R. H. Dana pointed out at the convention in Ottawa in 1916 "civil service supporters must beware of driving their theories too far ahead of the people's acquiescence in them."

Mr. Charles F. Smollin,

Chief Clerk, New York Transit Commission

1. The leaving to an appointing officer of the discretion to choose one of the three, approaches as near as may be the procedure followed in private employ. The choice is necessarily