to turn out a candidate who may be thrown over more or less at the caprice of the individual, who, in Mr. Catherwood's scheme, is called an appointing officer.

Personally, I believe that any system which we may devise is going to be efficient to the precise extent in which it functions. In other words, if it is a workable system it should be adopted independent of any logic; if it is unworkable, we want to modify it so as to make it workable. The system which we have under the Federal law of 1883, and under the New York law of 1883, down to the present time, has proved to be, so far as we can judge from the testimony of a large number of people, a workable system. If they like a different system in Illinois, I am perfectly content that they should have it, but I am not content that they should come from Illinois to New York and impose their system on us because they think they are more perfect than we are.

We are satisfied with what we have. In the State of New York we have no particular discontent. So far as we know,—Col. Rice may correct me if I am wrong in that respect, there has been no criticism of the proposition that the appointing officers should have the choice of a certain number of candidates, which have been fixed by a decision of the Court of Appeals as being three in number; and in that connection, I might say that that decision was based upon a law which was drawn by the Civil Service Reform Association, and other people who were interested in Civil Service Reform, which proceeded upon Mr. Catherwood's theory, and provided that the first name on the list must be taken; and it was overthrown by the Court of Appeals because the court said the law in that respect was unconstitutional. We acquiesced and we gave up our theory; and on the whole we are satisfied with the general outcome. We are not particularly discontented as long as the system does work, and that is the situation in New York.

There is one other thing I would like to say, and that is with reference to the statement of Mr. Catherwood concerning the Mayor of New York. It is quite true that it was Mayor Gaynor who proposed to have the first-named on the list appointed. When he said that he was speaking specifically about the policemans' list, which is a very long list, and it did not very much matter in that case whether the policeman appointed was the first-named on the list or not. The fact was that there were so many names

available that sooner or later the head of the Department would get his chance to appoint a particular man. However, it is true that the first-named on the list ought to be appointed in many cases; and if any real appointing officer assumes what he ought to recognize as the best policy, he will appoint the candidate standing highest. Mayor Gaynor said such candidate must be appointed, because he, responsible for the city government, wished to deprive the heads of departments of all discretion. But the case of a policeman is a very different proposition from a case where there is only one man to be chosen for an important place. An appointing officer under these circumstances must, or at least ought to have the right to exercise some discretion in making an appointment. If he wants to exercise it, I see no reason why he should be deprived of that right.

The difficulty about making a rule which will fit all cases is that it would necessarily be a rule, with very numerous exceptions. The best we can do is to make more or less of a rule of thumb and say, that as a general proposition, the appointing officer shall have the right to take one out of three certified names. I am quite willing to agree that under certain circumstances it will not work advantageously, at least from our point of view; but we cannot make a rule to meet each particular case, and I don't think it is wise to attempt to do so. We may as well be content with the general principle.

MR. LEWIS H. VAN DUSEN:

After more than four years experience as a Civil Service Commissioner under the Rule of Four, two years as an appointing officer under the Rule of Three, and now two years again as a Commissioner under the Rule of Two, I am not nearly so decided as to what is best for the service as I used to be ten years ago. Then I was very much in favor of the Rule of Three and vigorously opposed Mr. Catherwood's advocacy of the Rule of One. Now I am rather glad that we have some men in the League's Council who are in favor of the Rule of One.

Pennsylvania Law now requires the appointment of one of the first two eligibles; which is a considerable improvement over our former Rule of Four, but I am not entirely clear in my own mind as to whether a Rule of One or a Rule of Two is best for the Service. However, each additional year's experience in the administration of a Civil Service law inclines me

more and more toward the Rule of One. I am thoroughly convinced that any effort to change the Pennsylvania law from the Rule of Two back to its former Rule of Four should be strenuously and vigorously opposed.

There are a few observations or thoughts which I should like to present at this time. Do we believe in divided responsibility? Personally, I think it fundamentally wrong, and to those who agree with me as to this, there is a very persuasive argument for the Rule of One. The employment department of the government, in my judgment, should be solely responsible for the kind of employes that it furnishes to the government. Of course that responsibility ceases at the end of the probationary (or try out) period, when responsibility is directly transferred from the employment agency (the Civil Service Commission) to the appointing officer, the latter having determined, after a three months' trial, to keep and permanently appoint the employe furnished by the Civil Service Commission. However, during the three months of the probationary (the try cut) period or until and after the appointing officer has had opportunity to obtain an actual every-day demonstration of the work to be performed and in the light of that demonstration has acted by permanent appointment or otherwise, it is my opinion that under the Rule of One, this sole responsibility is and should be on the Civil Service Commission. That is where the responsibility and the undivided responsibility for public employes belongs during the probationary or try-out period.

Now it is stated that under the Rule of One the appointing officer is forced to take one individual. As a practical matter, under the Rule of Three he is often forced to take one individual. Under the Rule of One, he is forced to take by operation of law, and if the Commission does its work properly, he is forced to take by processes of efficiency. Under the Rule of Three he is often forced to take by order of the politician. This latter is undoubtedly often true in the federal, state and city government when-by way of illustration-it frequently happens that a bureau chief, desiring eligible No. 1 because he knows or believes him or her to be more fit for the work than No. 2 or 3, nevertheless recommends No. 2 or 3 for appointment because a request so to do comes from the head of the department or from the chief executive, which request in the last analysis is due to the fact that a politician or politicians or friends of No. 3 wanted No. 3 appointed, regardless of No.

3's relative fitness for the work as compared with No. 1 or No. 2.

For eight years or more, it has been my privilege to help enforce three different Civil Service laws; two from the angle of the Civil Service Commissioner and one from the angle of an appointing officer, and my past experience does not impel me irrevocably or even definitely to any particular rule.

The Rule of Two now in force in the City of Philadelphia works well. However, I am inclined to believe that practical experience in the administration of Civil Service laws is gradually educating me into an advocate of the Rule of One.

I appreciate the opportunity of making these observations, and like the others present, I am grateful to Mr. Catherwood and Colonel Rice for their able discussion of the problem, the proper solution of which in federal, state and municipal government is so important to all citizens.

MR. ARTHUR J. LACY:

We are working under the rule of one. I am satisfied that the importance of the right of rejection by the department head for proper reasons during the probationary period is often underestimated by him.

It occurs to me that if the department head always understood thoroughly this right and exercised it, it would meet many of the objections presented against the rule of one. With the close opportunities they have for observing the work of the candidate in the position to which he is certified on probation, the department heads can guaranty the public against the retention of any probationer whose fitness for that particular position is not actually demonstrated. This observation completes the examination.

When our Mayor Couzens discovered they had the right of rejection within the six months' probationary period, he very explicitly informed department heads that excuses based on the claim that employes sent to them were not rendering satisfactory service, would not be received at the Mayor's office with very good grace in the future, and suggested that the responsibility was upon them to apply the test of fitness by observation and exercise their right of rejection in proper cases.

THE CHAIR: May I just ask a question for the purpose of enlightenment: Since the order has been understood by the heads of departments have there been many cases in which

they have objected to persons who stood first on the eligible list?

JUDGE LACY: I think there have not been many of such instances. I believe most of the department heads have paid closer attention to the situation, and the suggestion was a helpful one.

THE CHAIR: Have they done enough of it to make it look as though they were trying to work out the eligible list to arrive at some eligible employee further down on the list?

JUDGE LACY: I am informed by the Secretary of our Commission that such instances are very rare. They usually take what they get from us, and small deficiencies which are apt to be found in any employee in a new position are removed by departmental education and training.

MR. RICHARD H. DANA:

I am rather surprised that more has not been said about the English rule, which has for such a long time given complete satisfaction, i. e., the rule of selecting the one who stands the highest on the eligible list for each position. It is also a fact that in many United States post offices and custom houses they have adopted, as a measure to prevent waste of time by politicians, the rule of taking the highest, and it has worked very well.

I still hold to my opinion that we must not get too far ahead of public opinion, which I do not think has been yet educated up to the rule of one; but I think there is a tendency to come towards that, and it has seemed to me that the best way to proceed, at least for the present, is to work towards the rule of one, through executive orders.

Now, there is another argument which is constantly being used, and was used by Mr. Rice, and that is: When there is a difference of but a very small per cent, half a per cent, or onetenth of one per cent between one man and another, that is not really a test of their comparative ability.

But there is something more than getting a possible onetenth of one per cent extra ability, and that is eliminating the political pull and the waste of time both of the heads of the departments and of those legislators who ought to be devoting this squandered time to their legislative duties.

We urged President Harding, in issuing his executive order for the appointment of Presidential postmasters, to continue the