it is doubtful if prosecution, conviction and sentence of individuals can ever repair the harm done to the service of the city of Chicago. The legislature of California approved a bill which would take from the civil service commission its power of investigation. The legislation also specifically exempted certain offices under the state board of control. After a public hearing, Governor Hiram Johnson declared that the establishment of the merit system was one of the accomplishments of his administration and he killed the bill by a "pocket" veto. While these hostile attacks were being made in other states, the Republican legislature of Kansas, under the inspiration of Governor Arthur Capper, passed a civil service bill applying to the state service. Similarly in New Jersey a Republican legislature after an active campaign conducted by the New Jersey Civil Service Reform Association, made a record of progress which has not been equalled since the adoption of the law in 1908. The legislature of Louisiana passed a bill creating a civil service commission to have jurisdiction over the employees at the port of New Orleans. The people of San Diego, California, by a majority of over 3,000, in a total vote of about 10,000, amended their charter by establishing the merit system. In New York State Governor Whitman was able to secure the resignations of the notorious Sulzer-Glynn Commissioners and has consistently upheld the merit system by vetoing bills which sought to weaken the effect of the law. The Civil Service Commission appointed by Governor Whitman has gone far to restore the merit system in the state and its personnel is the best evidence of the sincerity of Governor Whitman's inaugural address, in which he urged the consistent application of the merit principle as embodied in the constitution. In New York City the Commission appointed by Mayor Mitchel has made notable advances in methods of civil service examinations, filling by competitive nonassembled examinations conducted by experts high-grade positions to which hitherto the competitive classification has not applied. Nor is the Council unmindful of the notable record of progress in efficient administration of the merit system by the Civil Service Commission in Philadelphia, attention to which will be called by separate papers. If this legislative record means anything, it indicates that the merit system is not losing ground and that progress has actually been made in a year replete with hostile attacks upon social legislation. The Council of the League again affirms the declaration of principles formulated by one of its former Chairmen, who said: "The public service is the people's service, to be used in the people's interests, and not in the interests of individuals, parties or cliques; that is the essential principle of civil service reform." RESOLUTIONS OF THE NATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE REFORM LEAGUE Notwithstanding the fact that the year has been marked by serious attacks on reform legislation, yet progress in the merit system has been made in several important jurisdictions. Among these, the League calls special attention to: (2) The adoption of the competitive system for the (4) The passage by Congress of the Stone-Flood The League denounces the laws passed by the legisla tures of Connecticut, Colorado and Ohio, which seek to limit materially the scope of the merit system in those states. In this connection, however, it is important to note the defeat of hostile legislative measures in the states of California and Wisconsin. The League calls public attention to the method pursued by many civil service commissions investigating the education, training, achievements, character and personality of candidates, with the aid of eminent specialists, by which method these commissions have continued to select with great success experts of high technical knowledge and marked executive ability and in increasing numbers. The League urges: (1) The classification by law of the higher administrative officers, particularly the collectors of customs and internal revenue, United States marshals and postmasters of the first, second and third class. (2) The passage of legislation extending the merit system over all positons in the District of Columbia. (3) The termination of special exceptions through Executive order, save in cases where the need of such exception has been shown in public hearing to the approval of the United States Civil Service Commission. (4) The extension by law of the merit principle to the consular service and diplomatic secretaryships, so far as consistent with the Constitution. (5) The limitation of appointment to civil service commissions, boards, and administrative offices to persons of experience in or special knowledge of such service, familiar with its history, and in sympathy with its purpose. (6) Provision for federal, state and municipal civil service commissions of funds sufficient to enable them to command the services of skilled assistants, without whom there can be no hope of doing the efficient work which the public has a right to demand. (7) The development of the exercise of efficiency functions so as to get rid of the incapable, raise the tone of the service, standardize salaries and work, and to give effect to complaints of any citizens as to the misconduct or inefficiency of public employees. (8) The defeat of all legislation granting preference in appointment and promotion in the civil service of the nation, the states and the cities to special groups or classes, such as the Spanish War veterans. Those who fought for the nation in time of war deserve well of a grateful country, but such recognition should take some other form than a law which would largely impair the usefulness of the merit system. (9) The extension of the merit system of appointment and promotion to employees of legislative assemblies, national, state and municipal. (10) A full and practical recognition in all commission and city manager charters of the merit principle. protected by the safeguards of civil service examinations, in the choice of public employees and the conduct of public business. Democracy and Efficiency RICHARD HENRY DANA, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE REFORM LEAGUE The belief is widespread that democracy means and must mean inefficiency, that we in America "are freer than we are strong" and in the words of Walter Lippman "have more responsibility than we have capacity." Some in their despair urge the suicide of democracy and the birth of an empire, saying that it is a choice between freedom and strength. Now what we need, I believe, is not loss of freedom but a partnership with expert service. "Does that not mean," someone will ask, "substituting government by experts for government by the people?" No; I answer it means that to help us in self-government we avail ourselves of the experts both for advice in settling our policies and also when settled, in carrying them out. But to get the full benefit of this partnership with the expert we must give the new partner his full share of power and authority. He should be free both from the well-meaning, amateur interference and from selfish and partisan dictation. In other words, we would first put ourselves in the hands of the best physician obtainable, and when we have done that refrain from neutralizing his prescriptions by swallowing all the quack remedies suggested by well-meaning friends or advertised on the billboards by designing proprietors of patent medicines. This use of the expert to aid us in governing ourselves is not an idea of your president alone. It is advised by the best authorities on government in growing numbers. One of the most eminent, Dr. A. Lawrence Lowell, President of Harvard College, says: "A democracy, like every other community, needs the best tools that it can find, and the expert of high grade is the best living tool of modern civilization." There is, however, another school of advisers that tells us it is only necessary to fix responsibility and elect good executives. It is no doubt a good thing to fix responsibility and so it is to elect good execu |