Experience has demonstrated the definite need for a searching inquiry into the qualifications and general suitability of persons seeking appointment to positions of responsibility and trust. Although the commission lacked the funds necessary to extend this investigative procedure to the whole field of law enforcement positions, it was able, during the current fiscal year, to apply the character investigation to 1,103 competitors for customs patrol inspector-a position which resembles the position of prohibition agent. A preliminary analysis of the cases thus far completed indicates that slightly more than 60 per cent of the competitors who, having met all antecedent requirements have been submitted to character investigation, will become eligible for customs patrol inspector. As the requirement of character investigation has been extended from the prohibition examinations to examinations held for a limited number of other law enforcement positions, the importance of this type of test has become increasingly evident. The commission believes that this examination procedure should be extended to the following law enforcement positions not under the Bureau of Prohibition: Inspector of customs. Immigrant inspector. Immigration patrol inspector. Junior naturalization examiner, law. Operative, Secret Service. Policeman, District of Columbia. Policewoman, District of Columbia. Guard, penal and correctional insti- Warder, correctional institution for women. INVESTIGATION OF FRAUDS In addition to violations of the rule prohibiting political activity on the part of classified employees, the commission takes notice of derelictions on the part of applicants. These include false statements in applications, copying or collusion in the examination room, and impersonation. False statements in applications cover concealment of police and bad business records, exaggerated and unwarranted claims of education and experience, and misstatement of age to meet entrance requirements. In cases of copying or collusion in the examination room, one or more competitors will copy the work of another, usually without the knowledge of the examiner, and in defiance of his orders. It occasionally happens that when one person is offered or selected for appointment, another person will present himself: Father for son, brother for brother, friend for friend. These cases are carefully investigated, and the following remedies applied when guilt is established: Prosecution of the more flagrant cases; cancellation of papers and debarment from examinations; and when the accused is an employee in the Government service, request or recommendation is made for his removal, suspension, or reprimand. Investigations are made by correspondence and personally, both with satisfactory results, and it seems necessary that the commission shall continue these investigations due to the fact that many persons attempt to secure appointment through fraudulent means. It is believed that few attempts at fraud escape detection. THE APPORTIONMENT Continued effort has been made to correct the inequality in the apportionment of appointments, but the constant failure of many of the States to furnish eligibles perpetuates the disparities. The civil service act, providing for an apportionment, is silent as to the method for bringing it about. It merely authorized the President to make rules to provide, as nearly as the conditions of good administration would warrant, among other things, for selections from among those graded highest as the result of open competitive examination, and an apportionment of appointments in Washington" among the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia, upon the basis of population as ascertained in the last preceding census." "Every application," it declared, "shall contain, among other things, a statement under oath, setting forth his or her actual bona fide residence at the time of making the application, as well as how long he or she has been resident of such place." Section 2 of civil service Rule VII provides the method of bringing about the apportionment: Certification for appointment in the departments or independent offices at Washington shall be so made as to maintain, as nearly as the conditions of good administration will warrant, the apportionment of appointments among the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia upon the basis of population, but eligibles who have been granted military preference shall be certified without regard to the apportionment * * Effect is given to the opposing provisos of the act by placing the names of eligibles upon the various registers in the order of their examination ratings, and then, as vacancies occur in Washington subject to the apportionment, by certifying those with the highest ratings from the group of States in arrears, followed, when depleted, by those with the highest ratings from States, singly, in excess. This order of State precedence is determined from a semimonthly table of the States arranged in inverse order according to the shares of appointments received, similar to that shown in the appendix of this report. Eligibles, except those with very low ratings, are certified from States in arrears before those from States in excess. No eligibles are certified from the two States most in excess, and the District of Columbia, until after all other eligibles with even the lowest ratings, have received certification. This method gives the States themselves the power largely to regulate the shares of appointments they shall receive, by the number and classes of eligibles they furnish. There are certain exceptions to this numerical order, in addition to veterans: Eligibles, of which the number is inconsiderable, who are already in the apportioned service, and therefore certified without regard to the apportionment, and surplus employees formerly in the apportioned service, with reemployment eligibility. Following drastic reductions in force after the war, reappointments from States in excess added much to the derangement of the apportionment, but the number is now negligible as there are only occasional reductions. Under the Executive order of March 2, 1929, disabled veterans, the wives of totally disabled veterans, and the widows of veterans, are certified for appointment in advance of other eligibles. These classes are also certified without regard to States, although they, like other eligibles, preference and nonpreference, are required to prove residence and domicile, and their appointments are charged to their State, whether or not in excess. The question of determining residence in connection with examinations for the apportioned service has assumed relatively greater importance and become the subject of more restrictive legislative action, as the increasing difficulty in maintaining an exact apportionment has become recognized. After the act of January 16, 1883, requiring nothing more than a statement under oath from the applicant, to establish claim to residence, the first pertinent statute was enacted July 11, 1890 (26 Stat. 235), as follows: That hereafter every application for examination before the Civil Service Commission for appointment in the departmental service in the District of Columbia shall be accompanied by a certificate of an officer, with his official seal attached, of the county and State of which the applicant claims to be a citizen, that such applicant was, at the time of making such application, an actual and bona fide resident of said county, and had been such resident for a period of not less than six months next preceding, but this provision shall not apply to persons who may be in the service and seek promotion or appointment in other branches of the Government. This provision was found later to permit the admission to the apportioned service, as residents of States, applicants whose only claim to such residence lay in the fact that they were the wives or children of Government employees living in Washington, appointed perhaps many years before from such States, and others whose claims 76059-29- 3 were equally debatable. Accordingly, the following provision was inserted in the Census Act of July 2, 1909: That hereafter all examinations of applicants for positions in the Government service, from any State or Territory, shall be had in the State or Territory in which such applicant resides, and no person shall be eligible for such examination or appointment unless he or she shall have been actually domiciled in such State or Territory for at least one year previous to such examination. The Attorney General, in a ruling of August 18, 1909, declared, in effect, that each applicant, under this act, must have been actually domiciled in the State or Territory where he applied for examination, for at least one year previous to such examination; that is, that he must have had his permanent home within that State or Territory, a home adopted for at least one year previous to the examination. He also ruled that "one year previous" meant next preceding. On March 27, 1918, the act was amended to permit applicants to be examined, while temporarily absent from their States. In its amended form, it was substantially reenacted in the census act of March 3, 1919, still in force. The present requirements are accordingly rigid enough to exclude, as residents of States, applicants whose claims are not shown to be recent and beyond question. By Senate Resolution 154 a committee of Senators was created to investigate illegal appointments and dismissals in the civil service. A report of the hearings has been published in a Senate document entitled "Appointments and Dismissals in the Civil ServiceSeventieth Congress, First and Second Sessions." The commission was not able to supply data concerning the methods pursued by appointing officers in the selection of employees to be dropped, as bearing on the apportionment situation. The commission may investigate dismissals only when alleged, with offer of proof, to have been made for political or religious reasons, or without observance of the statutory procedure. The attention of the investigating committee was, however, drawn to the fact that there is no requirement for an observance of apportionment in the separation of employees. The Executive order of June 4, 1925, based upon statutory requirements, sets up a system of efficiency ratings to be observed by department heads in reducing forces. Relative to appointments, lists were prepared for a representative period, the year ended December 31, 1927, being selected, showing: (1) That there were 3,598 original appointments, reinstatements, and transfers the entries into the apportioned service for which the commission was directly responsible-and 1,336 by Executive orders and acts of Congress. (2) That of the 1,836 original appointments during the year, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, Vermont, and Delaware, received 661. The registers from which 314 of these were drawn, although used actively, were so deficient in eligibles from other States, due to low salaries, as to give rise to the question of excluding the positions from the apportionment. Eligibles were also lacking for the better paid positions: Of 104 junior patent examiners appointed, 35 were from States in excess, the apportionment not operating effectively on this register, on the junior stenographer or typist register, nor registers for operators of various office devices, as the supply barely met, or failed to meet, the demand. Two hundred and eighteen appointments from States in excess came from these groups. The remaining 129 from States in excess were drawn from about 80 different registers, 46 of the appointees being veterans. Most of the other 83 positions were of a highly technical character, for which eligibles were available only from States in excess, many from distant States, as well are near-by States, declining to accept. (3) That in recognition of the value of experience and training to the Government, the apportionment is not a bar to reinstatement. Reinstatements of former employees from States in excess during the year were in general made to the same classes of positions for which eligibles on the registers were lacking from States in arrears. (4) That the conditions above described have existed for many years despite the recruiting methods of the commission, and the disparity has grown year by year. During the World War all eligibles had to be utilized, no matter from what States they came. Attention was also drawn to the fact that the apportionment does not apply to offices in Washington essentially local in character, such as the Washington post office, the Georgetown customhouse, St. Elizabeths Hospital, and others; also, to the fact that positions subject to the apportionment constitute little more than 6 per cent of the entire Federal executive civil service and that, in view of the participation of many of the distant States in local appointments, the District of Columbia and near-by States have no monopoly of Federal positions. ADVANTAGES ACCORDED INDIANS EMPLOYED IN THE INDIAN SERVICE It is required by statute that preference be given qualified Indians in employment in the Indian Service. In order to observe this requirement in the fullest measure the employment of Indians has been permissible without examination under Schedule A of the civil service rules or upon noncompetitive examination for certain positions under Schedule B of the rules. As educational facilities, both cultural and occupational, for these wards of the Government have become more general it was felt that preference in employment could be granted them and at the same time apply the competitive principles of the merit system to the |