changes in the rule in form and wording have been proposed and are now under consideration by the Commission.

The most important changes effected by the President's order and the revised rule is that which makes it no longer necessary in cases of removal to allow the person sought to be removed to be furnished with a copy of the reasons for removal and to allow him an opportunnity for personally answering the reasons for his removal in writing. The requirement of the old rule that the reasons for removal should be made a matter of record, is retained, except in the case where "misconduct is committed in the view and presence of the President or head of an executive department." Such cases must be rare. A discussion of the President's order, therefore, narrows itself down to the question of the advisability of permitting the employee charged with misconduct or delinquency to place his answer before the appointing officer for consideration and to have it made a matter of record.

The article which appeared in the November number of GOOD GOVERNMENT, the official organ of the League, under the caption "The President's Order Modifying the Removal Rule," makes it unnecessary for the committee to review the history of the regulation and restriction of removals in the Federal service and in other jurisdictions, or the attitude which the League has adopted from time to time in regard to this subject. It is sufficient to say that the United States Civil Service Commission, after many years experience, declared itself unqualifiedly in favor of a restriction which would require the appointing officer not only to record the reasons for removal, but also to give the employee an opportunity to reply thereto before the removal was made. The League also, in formal resolutions adopted at its annual meetings, approved the same policy, and these resolutions were discontinued only when. these restrictions had been embodied in the Federal civil service rules. Indeed these restrictions were first adopted by President McKinley for the whole Federal service in 1897 at the instance of the League and with the co-operation of the Civil Service Commission. The committee is unconvinced as yet that such a restriction is undesirable

from the point of view of administrative efficiency and discipline, but in view of the President's order and the unquestionably sincere feeling of a number of high administrative officers in whose devotion to civil service reform principles we have the highest confidence, that the rule had proved unduly restrictive and led to the retention of inefficient employees, the committee believes that the new rule should be given a full trial before a judgment upon its merits or demerits should be pronounced. It is confident that the rule will not be abused under the present administration, and, indeed, is of the opinion that the change will not to any marked extent increase the usual percentage of removals in the Federal service.

The committee reiterates the declaration made by the League in the past that any requirement for a trial or for the hearing and examination of witnesses in cases of removal, is undesirable from a point of view of discipline and efficient administration. It does believe, however, that in the case of the removal of a classified employee the true reasons for removal should be filed as a record, not only in his own department, but also with the Civil Service Commission-which is charged with the duty of enforcing the prohibition against removals for political or religious consideration-and that as a general rule it is further advisable to give the employee a reasonable opportunity to file a reply before action is taken. It is also very clearly of the opinion that in fairness to the employee and to obviate a possible abuse in removals on secret charges, the employee should have access to the record or reasons or be furnished with a copy of them.

Respectfully submitted,

SAMUEL H. ORDWAY, Chairman.

WILLIAM W. VAUGHAN. GEORGE MCANENY.

ANSLEY WILCOX.

ROBERT D. JENKS.

Resolutions of the Council Upon the Foregoing Report.

Resolved, That the report of the Special Committee on Removals be received and submitted to the League at its meeting of December 15, and be it further

Resolved, That the Special Committee on Removals be continued with a request to investigate the question further and particularly with reference to the advisability and practicability of placing the virtual power of removal in the Federal service outside of Washington in local executive offices.

MR. WILLIAM W. VAUGHAN-I think that perhaps I might be permitted to add a word to the formal reading of this report. The report is, to a certain extent, as such reports often are, a compromise report, because there are frequently and always have been in this League certain differences of opinion, and the ground occupied by the report is common ground on which all men stand. That is, other things might have been added but were not because we were not all united on them.

We are all perfectly clear, in the first place, that the new order of the President, and the new rules founded on it, should be given a full and careful trial, because whether they conform to the views held by all the members of the League or not, they are formulated by men of great experience and men who have the greatest interest in the cause, and they ought to be thoroughly tried for some time before the League ventures to express any opinion adverse to them.

That is the substance of the report as far as the President's order is concerned.

As to the opinion that reasons should be filed, and that there should be an opportunity to reply, that is scarcely at present open to discussion, because that has been the recorded position of the League for many years. A number of the members of the committee do not agree with that, yet at the same time that is the official position of the League, and it is bound to be maintained until some cause is shown in open meeting to change that expressed will.

That is the explanation of the two parts of the report. Now one word as to what is intended by the resolution of the Council. A difficulty has been found in practice in the matter of allowing a reply to be filed by the person who is to be removed. Take the instance of a postmaster, for example, in a town a thousand miles

from Washington, who desires to remove an employee. He recommends a discharge; he may file his grounds for that; but he does not make the removal. It is made at Washington by the postmaster general. The result is that when the matter finally comes up for action the postmaster is not present, and it is perfectly possible that through the strength of representations on the other "side the postmaster may be overruled, which naturally tends to increase the breach of discipline. If the person whom the postmaster has sought to remove comes back to his post, snapping his fingers at his principal, saying: "I propose to stay, and I shall stay," the result is demoralizing. Now it is thought that if the removal question could be settled at local towns by the postmaster, or whoever is in authority, and the reasons and replies there filed, and the matter finally considered then and there by the postmaster at that spot, subject of course to review at Washington, if so desired, local feeling and local pressure would prevent any wrong being done to any employee; and I think all of the committee believe that under the new order, since it is only discretionary on the part of the removing officer to state reasons and allow a reply, it would be much safer and much wiser if the whole action could be taken in the local town where the removal is sought.

MR. ALFORD W. COOLEY-I find myself so nearly in accord with the report of the committee and with the reasons which have been advanced for that report, that there is but little to be said. I suppose that I am perhaps more responsible than any other one man for this new removal rule in the civil service, and perhaps it might be of interest to state very briefly just what led me to recommend that, and just what I believe has led a number of high administrative officers in Washington to approve it.

The difficulty in the Federal service to-day, and it is a very real and serious one, is not that there are too many removals, but that there are too few removals. Political pressure for removals has practically been eliminated. It is almost an unheard of thing in Washington,

or almost anywhere else (that is, in the classified service of course) to hear of political removals. We all know that political removals are made constantly in the unclassified service, but there is practically no pressure for removals for political reasons in the classified service.

The practical result is that there are a large number, or at least a considerable number, of relatively incompetent people all through the service who are kept there sometimes because they have political pull, much more often through sheer force of inertia. There is no one who is enough interested in getting them out to make the move.

During the last two years I have had occasion to visit pretty nearly every State in the Union, and to talk with a large number of postmasters and collectors and other heads of offices, and there is no one complaint that has been so frequently made as that it was practically impossible to get a man out of service under the old rule.

Theoretically that complaint is not justified, but there does not seem to be any way to get it into the head of the average Federal official that he has the right to remove, until there practically has been a trial. It seems to me wise, therefore, that there should be some steps taken looking to giving a wider power of removal, and I believe that this rule is likely to have a good effect -in fact, I think it has already had a good effect in toning up the service, because not only does that feeling exist among the heads of departments, but also among the people in the classified service. I could easily recall half a dozen cases where the old rule worked badly, and these cases are illustrative of innumerable instances. recollect one case, for example, where a stenographer in one of the bureaus informed the Commissioner on one occasion that he could not remove her because she was in the classified service. Mr. Shonts told me also of a case of gross insubordination on the Isthmus of Panama, where it is so necessary to have good discipline. A man who was charged with insubordination replied that he was in the civil service and that he would like to see them remove him; and, as Mr. Shonts expressed it, they promptly obliged him!

I