The national budget now amounts to approximately three billion dollars, which indicates the enormous possibility of waste in a system which is noteworthy for its disorganization rather than its organization. Mr. Hoover stated in a speech made in 1923 that there was a waste of from one hundred to one hundred and fifty million dollars a year, due to the lack of a properly systematized form of government.

The simplification of the federal government is not a new proposal, but the need for results has been growing constantly more pressing. The problem has commanded the attention of men in a position to know the inefficiency and waste involved. In 1910 President Taft recognized the situation and appointed a Committee on Economy and Efficiency which made a careful study of the question. President Harding, facing additional wartime bureaus and boards, appointed a Congressional Committee which after three years' work introduced the so-called Smoot bill. In 1922 the National Budget Committee promulgated a plan of reorganization, and in 1923 the Institute for Government Research also formulated one. Both President Coolidge and Secretary of Commerce Hoover have recently made public statements in favor of modernizing the government. Nevertheless, although all the plans that have been proposed, while differing in detail, concur in the need for simplification and coordination of activities, none of them has met with the favor of Congress.

The Civil Service Reform League believes that a campaign to put into effect a governmental reorganization on a modern and businesslike basis is but an extension of the traditional scope of its work. The constitution of the League declares that one of its objects is "to improve the administration of the civil service throughout the United States." It is convinced that the reor

ganization of the federal government is needed to increase efficiency of the civil service, to establish a more uniform system of employment, and to insure a greater measure of justice to the faithful and capable employes. At the same time, the League will continue its present activity in protecting the merit system in the federal government so as to avoid the detrimental effect of political appointment and promotion.

The League does not at the present time advocate any particular plan of reorganization, because of its conviction that the primary object to be attained is a simplification of the machinery of government and that this can be attained in many different ways. It purposes with the help of experts to analyze the various proposals and to be of such assistance to Congress as it can in developing the most satisfactory bill possible. At the same time its chief objective will be to secure at an early date some sound, workable system consistent with the principles which the League was founded to maintain.

The League announces the formation of a special committee for the purpose of studying the subject of organization of the departments of the federal government and to sponsor an educational campaign throughout the country to bring about Congressional action with respect to this subject. As a nucleus for such special committee, the League has secured the consent of the following persons to serve as members: Charles Francis Adams, of Boston; Edward W. Bok, of Philadelphia; Robert S. Brookings, of St. Louis; James F. Curtis, of New York; John W. Davis, of New York; Norman H. Davis, of New York; John V. Farwell, of Chicago; Edwin F. Gay, Cambridge, Mass.; Herbert Hoover, of Washington, D. C.; Charles E. Hughes, of New York; A. B. Lovett, of Savannah, Ga.; George Mc

Aneny, of New York; E. T. Meredith, of Des Moines, Iowa; Frank L. Polk, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Henry L. Stimson of New York; and Matthew Woll, of Chicago.

Further plans regarding the activities of this special committee will be announced at a later date.

The President's Power of Removal

The U. S. Supreme Court on October 25, 1926, in a decision in the case of Myers v. United States, held that the constitution permits of no limitation upon the chief executive with respect to the removal from office of presidential appointees. The decision is of far-reaching importance. The question before the court arose on account of the contention of the appellant, Myers, that he could not be removed from the position of postmaster at Portland, Oregon, without the consent of the United States Senate, because the statute under which he was appointed provided that he should be appointed and removed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The President, under the existing statute, is charged with the selection of over 15,000 postmasters of the first, second and third classes. He is also charged with the selection of over 5,000 other civil officials in other departments of the government, who perform purely administrative duties. Excepting the ambassadors and ministers to foreign countries, it is doubtful that any of these presidential appointees are in the strict sense of the term policy-determining officers. There is therefore no reason why their appointments should be subject to confirmation by the Senate. As long as that condition surrounds the selection of these appointees, it is apt to involve the selecting process in political entanglements. The League urges that with respect to the offices appointments to which are not specifically

controlled under the constitution, Congress place the power of appointment in the hands of the respective heads of departments, and that the appointments be made without term, and under the provisions of the civil service rules and regulations.

The League's work with respect to the federal civil service will be more active and effective than in the past, owing to the fact that it has opened a Washington office. It is the purpose of the League to maintain the present Washington office as a permanent part of its administrative organization. The difficulty in this regard is purely a financial one, and it is hoped that the friends of the League throughout the country will join with the members of the Council in an effort to make permanent this important feature of the League's work.

EMPLOYMENT METHODS IN GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY

Address of Hon. Thomas W. Swan, the Retiring President of the League

Civil Service Reform has two objects-one the purification of politics, the other the promotion of efficiency in the civil service of the government. When the small group of public-spirited citizens met to organize this league forty-six years ago, the object which I have mentioned first was the dominant one in their thoughts. Conditions were such that it was bound to be.

They were not the only men, nor indeed the first, to see the dangers toward which the spoils system was heading the ship of state. A story is told of President Lincoln that, pointing to the host of office seekers who thronged the White House, he said to a friend: "There you see something which in course of time will become a greater danger to the Republic than the Rebellion itself." The editor of Harpers Magazine, writing at about the same time, spoke of political corruption as of a thing so general that all his readers were aware of it. "To the victor belong the spoils" was an accepted slogan. Places in the government service were prizes for work in the elections, and without promises and arrangements as to offices and favors a candidate was beaten before he began to run.

This disgraceful condition of politics continued to grow worse after the Civil War and it was not until the assassination of President Garfield, which, in the words of George William Curtis, speaking as the first President of the League, "like a flash of electric light, revealed the nature and the peril of the spoils system to the whole country," that public opinion was aroused to a point which compelled action by Congress. In 1883 the civil service law, known as the Pendleton Act, was passed. That law has stood the test of all