ance in the Republican Convention, of 1884, in his twenty-sixth year, at the head of the New York Delegation. Grant and Garfield were two of the four Presidents who took the oath of office when under fifty years of age-Grant forty-seven, Garfield forty-nine. The twenty-fifth President, at the age of forty-two years, ten months and two weeks, was a full Presidential term younger than any predecessor in the great office.

Two of the youngest men in the country, who entered the National army as boy soldiers, were McKinley, who was seventeen, and Foraker, sixteen, at the time of enlistment. There were rare cases of boys of fourteen and fifteen years getting into the ranks, and to the firing line, but there was no show for Theodore Roosevelt as a three-year-old boy. If he had been twelve years old, the probability is he would have reached the front through even greater difficulties than he experienced when he fought his way to the firing, fighting line.

CHAPTER V.

STARTING CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.

Very Interesting Testimony-Business Advantages Gained-Funny Questions and Answers The Conspicuous Lead of Roosevelt in the Crusade-Important Official Letter from Him.

THE

HEODORE ROOSEVELT was appointed by President Harrison a member of the National Civil Service Commission, in May, 1889, and served to May, 1895. When he took office, the only Commissioner was Mr. Charles Lyman, of Connecticut. Honorable Hugh S. Thompson, ex-Governor of South Carolina, was made Commissioner at the same time Roosevelt was, and after serving for three years, resigned. He was succeeded by Mr. George D. Johnston, of Louisiana, removed by the President in November, 1893, and replaced by Mr. John R. Proctor, the former State Geologist of Kentucky.

It was a matter of fitness that Roosevelt was in substance chief of the Commission, and he took satisfaction in saying it "never varied a hand's breadth from its course" in all his six years. He had pleasure in making the remark: "In the Fifty-First and Fifty-Second Congresses, Mr. Lodge, of Massachusetts, led the fight in the Lower House. He was supported by such party leaders as Messrs. Reed, of Maine, and McKinley, of Ohio, among the Republicans; and Messrs. Wilson, of West Virginia, and Sayers, of Texas, among the Democrats."

In his "American Ideals" and other essays, Mr. Roosevelt said it seemed of interest to "show exactly what has been done to advance the law and what to hinder its advancement, during these six years, and who have been the more prominent among its friends or foes." He continued, "I wish to tell 'the adventures of Philip on his way through the World,' and show who robbed him, who helped him, and who passed him by. It would take too long to give the names of all our friends, and it is not worth while to more than allude to most of our foes, and to most of those who were indifferent to us; but a few of the names should be preserved, and some record made of the fights that have been fought and won, and of the way in which, by fits and starts, and more than one setback, the general advance has been made." It was an honor President McKinley appreciated, that his name was

placed by Theodore Roosevelt in the few he gave of the Representatives in Congress who were helpers of "Philip" on his way.

The Charleston, South Carolina, News and Courier said of the appointment of Civil Service Reform members of the Commission, that Harrison deserved credit, yet the delay in making appointments had been harmful; but, "at any rate," Harrison appointed two of the best men in the United States Civil Service Commissioners. The News and Courier added: "In character, ability, and devotion to the cause of reform, the new Commission is all that could be desired. Mr. Lyman, the hold-over member of the Commission, is thoroughly in sympathy with his work. In his recent address before the Civil Service Reform Association of New York, Mr. George William Curtis referred to Mr. Roosevelt, one of the new Commissioners, as one of the few 'recognized local leaders of the dominant party who have publicly insisted that the declared policy of the party on this subject shall be rejected.' The peculiar fitness of ex-Governor Thompson, of South Carolina, for the office to which he has just been appointed was recognized by Mr. Cleveland."

The Baltimore "American," May 27th, 1889, observed:

"Civil Service Reform is likely to receive more practical attention from the new Civil Service Commission appointed by President Harrison, and to make more progress under their wise supervision, than at the hands and through the methods of those who have somewhat superciliously proclaimed themselves its custodians."

In the Century Magazine for February, 1890, Theodore Roosevelt defined his Civil Service Reform position to be, "If a party victory meant that all the offices already filled by the most competent members of the defeated party were to be thereafter filled by the most competent members of the victorious party, the system would still be absurd, but would not be particularly baneful. In reality, however, this is not what the system of partisan appointments means at all. Wherever it is adopted it is inevitable that the degree of party service, or more often of service to some particular leader, and not merit, shall ultimately determine the appointment, even as among the different party candidates themselves. Once admit that it is proper to turn out an efficient Republican clerk in order to replace him by an efficient Democratic clerk, or vice versa, and the inevitable next step is to consider solely Republicanism or Democracy, and not efficiency, in making the appointment; while the equally inevitable third step is to consider only that peculiar species of Republicanism or Democracy which is implied in adroit and unscrupulous service rendered to the most influential local boss."

The Review of Reviews for August, 1890, referred to the effort of Mr. Schurz to defeat Colonel Roosevelt for Governor, as an instance of the manner in which "a cause like Civil Service Reform may suffer its worst wounds

at the hands of its friends," and continued: "Mr. Roosevelt stands before the country as the most eminent and influential Civil Service reformer the country has produced, with the exception of the Hon. Dorman B. Eaton, whose pioneer position with regard to this reform is historic. There was certainly as strong reason why Civil Service reformers should have supported Mr. Roosevelt as why they should have supported Mr. Schurz himself if he had been running for the governorship. Moreover, it is to be remembered that the only possible alternative was the turning over of the State of New York to the absolute control of Tammany Hall. The election came at a time when the interests of the State imperatively demanded that the Governor should be courageous, disinterested, and a believer in the principle of appointing men to office on the ground of their honesty and fitness. Fortunately the attitude of reformers like Mr. Schurz did not succeed in bringing upon the State of New York the calamity of Mr. Roosevelt's defeat. The voters were true to the real issues. But although the foremost American Civil Service reformer was put into a position to effect a vast improvement in the public service of the State of New York, the conduct of officers and leaders of the Civil Service Reform League in opposing him was undoubtedly a serious blow to the cause."

It was officially reported that from July 1st, 1890, to June 30th, 5,251 applicants were examined for the departmental service at Washington, of whom 3,366 passed and 1,885 failed to pass. For the customs service 1,579 were examined, 992 passed, and 587 failed; for the postal service 8,538 were examined, 5,840 passed, and 2,698 failed to pass; for the railway mail service, 3,706 were examined, 2,588 passed, and 1,118 failed to pass. The whole number examined for the four branches of the classified service was 19,074, of whom 12,786 passed and 6,288 failed to pass. Compared with the previous year this shows a decrease of 3,920 in the whole number examined, a decrease of 1,161 in the whole number who passed, and a decrease of 2,759 in the whole number who failed to pass. The whole number appointed in the year covered by this report is as follows: Departmental service, 1,152; customs service, 320; postal service, 2,861; and railway mail service, 1,062; total, 5,395.

"An excellent feature in the Southern States," the report held, "was the elimination not only of the questions of politics and religion, but of the question of race. A fair proportion of the men appointed from these States has been colored, these successful colored applicants being in many cases graduates of the colleges or higher institutions of learning established especially for their race. They rarely belonged to the class of colored politicians which has hitherto been apt to monopolize such appointments as colored men received at all. On the contrary, they were for the most part well educated, selfrespecting, intelligent young men and women, who, having graduated from

their colored schools and colleges, found but few avenues open for the employment of their talents. It is impossible to estimate the boon to these colored men and women of being given the chance to enter the Government service on their own merits in fair competition with white and colored alike. It is noticeable that a much larger proportion of colored people receive appointments under the Civil Service law than under the old patronage system. The Civil Service law has been the means of materially enlarging the fields of pursuits open to those members of the colored race who have contrived to get a good education and to fit themselves for the higher walks of life."

This statement was signed by United States Civil Service Commissioners, Charles Lyman, Connecticut, President; Theodore Roosevelt, New York; Hugh S. Thompson, South Carolina.

Writing in 1895, Commissioner Roosevelt put the case in the words following: "Where we allow the offices to form part of an immense bribery chest, the effect upon political life is precisely the same as if we should allow the open expenditure of immense sums of money in bribing the voters. In New York State, for instance, there are over fifty thousand appointive offices under the National, State, and local governments. The average salary paid would be over $500. This means that the aggregate annual salaries must be in the neighborhood of $25,000,000. of $25,000,000. Suppose, however, that it is but $10,000,000. Think what it means to our political life in that State to have a corruption fund of such size as to be scrambled for at every election. If $10,000,000 were expended in bribery at every election, and the expenditure were allowed by law and connived at, or even applauded, by public sentiment, the effect would be to give immediate prominence to the men who had that money to spend, to the men who knew how it should be spent, and to the men who accepted it and did work in consideration of receiving it. In a very short time these three classes would monopolize nine-tenths of the influence and power in our political life, and decent people could overthrow them only in some time of special and great political excitement. This is precisely what happens under the spoils system.

"As soon as we cease to put a premium upon the political activity of the man who is in politics from the worst motives, and thereby remove the incentive for his political activity, we enormously, incalculably, increase the power for good. Now men feel that the struggle is hopeless because they are pitted against trained mercenaries paid out of the public chest. Remove these mercenaries from the political arena, and decent citizens will have the same chance that others have. The man most benefited by the Civil Service law is the plain, quiet citizen who does not want an office, but holds strong views on political affairs and believes that by every law of honesty and decency he is entitled to have his say in the management of our Republic."