acts of misconduct could not be established by sufficient evidence to authorize dismissal. The President, therefore, upon the recommendation of the Commission, issued on May 29, 1902, an order declaring that the term "just cause as used in the rule was intended to mean any cause, other than one merely political or religious, which would promote the efficiency of the service, and that nothing contained in the rule should be construed to require the examination of witnesses or any trial or hearing except in the discretion of the officer making the removal.

The right of removal therefore remains, as it has always been, discretionary on the part of the appointing officer, the only limitation being that it must be to promote the efficiency of the service, that it must not be for political or religious considerations, and that nothing shall be done in the dark, but the reason shall be stated and notice given to the person removed, who shall have his opportunity to make answer and to place on file his side of the case.

In order that he may do this, the reason must be stated with sufficient definiteness to enable him to understand the exact cause for which

his removal is sought and to make a proper answer. A meré general statement of inefficiency, misconduct, negligence, inattention to duty, etc., would not be sufficient.

It is believed that the construction thus promulgated on May 29, 1902, has been in the interest of good administration.

OBSERVANCE OF THE ACT AND RULES.

The Commission notes with satisfaction a far more general and uniform observance of the law than has previously existed. This is due in great measure to the fact that those who have violated it have been called to account either by removal, as in the case of Moses Dillon, collector of customs at El Paso, Tex., and of W. F. Wakeman, appraiser at the port of New York; by proceedings leading to their resignation, as in the cases of Charles E. Sapp, collector of internal revenue at Louisville, and D. A. Nunn, collector of internal revenue at Nashville; or by failure to receive reappointment after the expiration of their terms, as in the cases of Thomas L. Hicks, postmaster at Philadelphia, and Joseph Perault, surveyor-general of Idaho. Cases showing the results of the Commission's investigations will be set forth in greater detail in the appendix.

EXCEPTIONS FROM EXAMINATION.

Twenty-one special exceptions have been made from the requirement of examination and other requirements of the rules. These are also set forth in detail in the appendix, together with the reasons for making them.

REVISION OF THE RULES.

The last general revision of the rules was made in 1896. Some of the provisions therein are now obsolete, and numerous amendments have been added disjointedly as occasion therefor arose. A new revision will be submitted at an early date for your consideration.

COOPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENTS IN ENFORCING THE ACT.

The Commission desires to express its gratification at the spirit of friendly cooperation which exists in all the departments of the Government in the enforcement both of the letter and the spirit of the civil-service act.

FOURTH-CLASS POST-OFFICES.

There has been a marked change in the policy of the Post-Office Department regarding the tenure of fourth-class postmasters, of which there are upward of seventy thousand in the country. Hitherto these officers have been subject to change every four years, although their tenure is.indefinite and the law seems to contemplate that they should hold their places during good behavior. While the Administration has not promulgated a definite rule in regard to this subject, yet the policy now is to consider all fourth-class postmasters as appointed for an indefinite period and subject to removal for cause only. The effect of this policy has been to reduce to a minimum the changes in such offices. It is gratifying to note that this has met with the cordial cooperation of members of Congress, as they are relieved from the pressure to make changes at the expiration of the four-year period. The Department has found from the experience of the last year that this policy has in a marked degree promoted efficient and economic administration in connection with the fourth-class post-offices.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY.

President Cleveland on July 14, 1886, issued an Executive order warning officeholders against active participation in political movements. This order is still in force in the various departments and branches of the Government. It was, however, issued at a time when it had been so long the practice for Federal officeholders to take an active part in political manipulation that its universal and immediate enforcement was found to be impracticable. Men were removed for pernicious activity and obtrusive partisanship when they belonged to the opposite party, while under very similar circumstances men belonging to the party in power were not disturbed. By attempting to apply the rule equally to classified and unclassified positions it was found impracticable to give general effect to it. It was, therefore, with sincere gratification that the Commission received from the

President on June 13, 1902, the letter found in the appendix, drawing a distinction between classified and unclassified positions.

In the classified service, where the choice is made without reference to political considerations, and the tenure of office is unaffected by the change of parties, it is perfectly practicable to provide that the officer or employee, while retaining his right to vote as he pleases and to express privately his opinion on all political subjects, should not take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, for precisely the same reasons which a judge, an army officer, or a regular soldier is debarred from taking such active part; while in the case of officers appointed through patronage and upon political considerations, the proper limitations, in the present state of public opinion, are different. They must not coerce the political action of their subordinates; they must not use their offices to control political movements or influence the result of elections; they must not neglect their public duties, nor cause public scandal by their activity.

The Commission believes that the standards here adopted are the highest which are practicable at the present time, and that in enforcing them performance may always keep pace with promise, which would not be true if a more exacting standard were now adopted. It is obviously unwise to apply the same rule to a fourth-class postmaster in a small village who has no employees to intimidate, and who wishes to continue to act in political affairs as he has always acted, and to the head of a great Federal office, who may by his conduct, or even by his mere example, coerce and intimidate hundreds of his subordinates.

Apart from illegal political contributions, the coercion of employees, and the influencing of elections by officeholders, the Commission has no power under the civil-service act and rules to restrain political activity, this power being lodged in the respective departments, yet the subject is one so closely connected with the matters which fall within the Commission's jurisdiction that it has made it a rule to furnish to the President or to the appropriate executive department all information in its possession in respect to each case that may arise.

POLITICAL ASSESSMENTS.

While some political managers still attempt to evade or violate the law forbidding the solicitation or collection of political contributions, the great majority of Federal officials feel neither any obligation to make them nor fear of any personal consequences from their refusal to make them. The Commission has endeavored rigidly to enforce the law, and it is gratifying to know that public sentiment warmly supports its efforts.

NEEDS OF THE COMMISSION.

Attention is again invited to the urgent need of an increase in the regular force of employees of the Commission in lieu of the clerks and

others detailed from the departments, to the need of an increased appropriation for traveling expenses for the purpose of conducting examinations and investigations, and to the need of suitable books of reference for the examiners of the Commission in the preparation and rating of high-grade examinations involving professional, technical, and scientific knowledge.

No increase in the regular clerical force of the Commission has been provided for by Congress since 1894, when 36 additional clerks were allowed in lieu of the clerks then detailed from the departments. At that time there were 37,684 classified positions; now there are over 120,000 classified positions and the work of the Commission has been proportionately increased. This great addition to the work has necessitated calls upon the departments for detailed clerks, which number has been increased from year to year during the last eight years. At this time there are 72 clerks and others detailed to the Commission in addition to its regular force of 62 employees. The present plan of relying upon detailed clerks is most unsatisfactory, as it has been found practically impossible, except in a few instances, to secure such clerks with the necessary qualifications for the work. The Commission requires not only competent clerks, but expert examiners in various lines, as accountants, mathematicians, draftsmen, civil engineers, letter critics, etc.

Many thousand sets of examination papers accumulate, and months of delay occur in the rating of these papers simply because there is not a sufficient force of qualified examiners for the work. The Commission has estimated for an increase of 62 in its regular force, in lieu of 72 clerks and others on detail.

PROMOTION REGULATIONS.

The history of promotion regulations appears on pages 101-105 of the Sixteenth Report. Since the date of that report no further action has been taken by the Commission for the amendment of the promotion regulations. The matter has been left to each department to work out its own system, nominally under the regulations promulgated. There has, however, been a wide difference in the method of enforcing such regulations. In some of the departments they have been entirely ignored, while in others there has been either a partial or nominal compliance with the regulations. The result, however, shows that in most cases promotion regulations under existing conditions are far from satisfactory. The elaborate system of efficiency ratings and records, based, as it necessarily must be, upon the individual opinion of the officer giving the marks, has become little more than the mathematically expressed opinion of such officer as to the relative standing of the clerks under his supervision. In nearly all cases the clerk at the head of the list receives a rating of 100, and the remainder of the list

is graded by differences of two-tenths of 1 per cent in the standing of each clerk, the head of each division in the great majority of cases. giving the highest ratings possible in order to put the clerks in his division ahead of or at least on equal plane with the clerks of other divisions in the same bureau or department. There are of course some bureaus in which the work done is capable of mathematical rating; as, for instance, the counting of money orders, where a standard day's work can be determined and the clerks rated in accordance with their ability to attain that standard. But whenever there is a question of personal efficiency in work other than that which can be mathematically marked the efficiency rating rests solely upon the personal opinion of the head of the division, and is of no value other than expressing that opinion.

The underlying cause which operates against promotion regulations based upon merit is the fact that there is no standard classification of clerical work. Promotion does not mean advance in grade of work, but simply an increase of salary; hence the difficulty of comparing the work of clerks for promotion. Throughout the departmental service we find that there are many instances of clerks doing exactly the same grade of work at $1,600 or $1,800 that they were doing when they entered the service at the lowest salary. Hence before there can be a uniform system of promotion upon merit there must be a reclassification based upon the character of the work done. Promotion would then be made from one grade to another; and the work of persons employed within a special grade could be fairly and justly compared. There should be subdivisions within the grades, these subdivisions to be based upon a difference in salary, so that there would be opportunity for rewarding an efficient clerk within his special grade, by gradual increase up to the highest salary within the grade.

The question of promotion examinations likewise rests upon the reclassification of work. In some divisions the work is now so classified that promotion examinations have been found very successful; as, for instance, the examining division of the Patent Office, where the work is of a purely technical character, and the examination shows accurately the ability of the clerk. But examination for promotion must be confined to subjects which do not test the executive or administrative qualifications required in the position for which the examination is taken. If such qualifications predominate, a competitive examination is useless, because those qualifications are developed by experience and are best known to the appointing or promoting officer. Under existing conditions each department must adopt such a system as will most nearly meet its special requirements. Wherever the character of the work can be classified, and promotions made from grade to grade, in such instances examinations should be held. Where the amount and quality of the work is susceptible of mathematical deter