antine attendant, or acting assistant surgeon, or sanitary inspector on quarantine vessels, or in camps or stations established for quarantine purposes during epidemics of contagious diseases in the United States or beyond the seas.

The reasons for this amendment were the special exigencies of the Marine-Hospital Service, owing to the change in quarantine stations and the necessity for immediate temporary appointments of acting assistant surgeons and sanitary inspectors during epidemics of contagious diseases.

March 13, 1902.

Section 7 of Rule II was amended by adding thereto the following as a proviso:

Provided, That no such person shall be transferred from any department, office, or branch of the service to a position in another department, office, or branch of the service until he has passed the examination prescribed for original entrance to the position to which transfer is proposed.

The section, as amended, reads as follows:

7. A person holding a position on the date said position is classified under the civil-service act shall be entitled to all the rights and benefits possessed by persons of the same class or grade appointed upon examination under the provisions of said act: Provided, That no such person shall be transferred from any department, office, or branch of the service to a position in another department, office, or branch of the service until he has passed the examination prescribed for original entrance to the position to which transfer is proposed.

All the extensions of the classified service have been made by including within that service the persons who were in office at the time the classification was made, and the rules provided that a person holding a position when such position was classified should be entitled to all the rights and benefits possessed by persons of the same class and grade appointed upon examination. In case of transfer, however, when such person leaves the branch of the service in which he is employed to enter another branch, it is believed that he ought properly to be subject to an examination equal to that required for the appointment of persons outside the classified service, and the above amendment accordingly provides that no such transfer shall be made until the person to be transferred has passed the examination prescribed for original entrance to the position to which transfer is proposed.

March 13, 1902.

Rule X was amended by adding at the end thereof the following section, numbered 11:

11. No person in any department, office, or bureau who has entered the service by reinstatement shall be transferred to any other bureau or office of the same department or to any other department, office, or bureau until he has actually served six months after such reinstatement in the department, office, or bureau in which he was reinstated.

It was found that many persons who had formerly been in the service sought reinstatement not for the purpose of going back to the position they had formerly held, but in order to be transferred to some place in another Department or other branch of the service. Thus persons who had been separated from the service for cause, but without any actual record of delinquency, were often able to secure reinstatement and transfer. The Commission believed that unless the appointing officer under whom the person to be reinstated was formerly employed was willing to accept his services again he should not be reinstated. The above amendment was accordingly recommended, forbidding all transfers of reinstated persons until they had performed actual service for six months after such reinstatement in the Department or office in which they were reinstated.

April 30, 1902.

Rule III was amended by striking out all of clause (i), paragraph 8, in relation to positions and employees in or under the Navy Department.

(See Executive order of this date, p. 75, ante.)

The purpose of this change is: (1) To place the positions and employees affected

on the same footing with relation to the civil-service rules as all the other positions under navy-yard regulation; (2) to do away with their unnecessary and accidental exception, and thus reduce by several hundreds the number of excepted positions; (3) to leave said positions and employees, as heretofore, under the navy-yard regulations.

May 29, 1902.

The following declaration of the meaning of section 8 of Rule II was promulgated: Whereas certain misunderstandings have existed in regard to the proper construction of section 8 of Civil-Service Rule II, which provides as follows:

"No removal shall be made from the competitive classified service except for just cause and for reasons given in writing, and the person sought to be removed shall have notice and be furnished a copy of such reasons and be allowed a reasonable time for personally answering the same in writing. Copy of such reasons, notice, and answer, and of the order of removal, shall be made a part of the records of the proper department or office; and the reasons for any change in rank or compensation within the competitive classified service shall also be made a part of the records of the proper department or office."

Now, for the purpose of preventing all such misunderstandings and improper constructions of said section, it is hereby declared that the term "just cause, as used in section 8, Civil-Service Rule II, is intended to mean any cause, other than one merely political or religious, which will promote the efficiency of the service; and nothing contained in said rule shall be construed to require the examination of witnesses or any trial or hearing except in the discretion of the officer making the removal.

The civil-service act places no limit upon the power of removal from office except that it shall not be exercised for a refusal to make political contributions or render political service. But section 8 of Rule II provided that no removal should be made from the competitive classified service except for just cause, and for reasons given in writing, and the persons sought to be removed were to have notice and be furnished with a copy of such reasons, and allowed a reasonable time for personally answering the same in writing. This rule was adopted by President McKinley on July 27, 1897, in pursuance of his general executive authority rather than of any requirement of the law. It was adopted for the purpose of discontinuing a practice which had theretofore existed of removing persons from the classified service upon secret charges which they were not permitted to see or to answer. Such secret charges had frequently been a cloak for purely political removals, and great injustice had been done thereby. After the adoption of this rule removals upon secret charges were no longer made, and the beneficent effect of the rule was generally recognized. At the same time, certain misunderstandings arose in regard to its proper construction. It was claimed by some that the "just cause" mentioned in the rule meant that some willful act of misconduct must have been committed by the person whose removal was sought. It is evident, however, that persons in the service can be and ought to be removed in many cases where they are not willfully at fault-in cases, for instance, where they have become disqualified through physical or mental disability, or cases in which their services are no longer required. It was further believed by many that the provisions requiring written reasons, notice, and an opportunity for answer required, substantially, a trial, the taking of testimony, and proceedings similar to those in a court of law. To require this would give a permanency of tenure in the public service quite inconsistent with the efficiency of the service. But so widespread was this misapprehension that appointing officers often hesitated to remove subordinates who had become useless, or had lost the confidence of their superior officers, because it was feared that specific acts of misconduct could not be proved by sufficient testimony to authorize their dismissal. The President, therefore, upon the recommendation of the Commission, issued on May 29, 1902, an order declaring the meaning of section 8, that the term "just cause" as used therein 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 limitations 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; that the reasons 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 reasons must be stated with sufficient definiteness to enable him to understand the exact cause for which his removal is sought and to make an appropriate answer. A mere general statement of inefficiency, misconduct, negligence, inattention to duty, etc., would not be sufficient. It is believed that the construction promulgated on May 29, 1902, has been in the interest of good administration, and no case of the removal of any person from the public service for improper reasons has since been brought to the attention of the Commission. The Commission, on the contrary, believes that even under the present construction a far greater number of employees who ought to be removed will be retained in the service than the number of removals of those who ought to be retained. Appointing officers are usually very reluctant to make removals which involve hardship upon the persons removed.

June 2, 1902.

The following special rule was promulgated:

SPECIAL RULE.

An appointment to the vacancy now existing in the position of assistant commissioner of immigration at the port of New York may be made without examination under the civil-service rules.

It was believed that at the port of New York the position of assistant commissioner of immigration involved the exercise of administrative functions of a character which could not be well provided by competitive examination, and the condition of the immigration office at the time this rule was made was believed to be such that the discretion of the President should not be limited in regard to the appointment of the assistant commissioner.

June 21, 1902.

The following special rule was promulgated:

SPECIAL RULE.

The vacancy now existing in the position of clerk of class 4, for designation as disbursing clerk in the Department of Justice, may be filled by the transfer of Mr. Alexander C. Caine from the excepted position of examiner which he now holds in the same Department.

The reason for this rule was the belief of the Department of Justice that the financial responsibility involved in this place was such as to require a larger latitude in making the selection than was permitted by the transfer rule.

June 28, 1902.

Section 1 of Rule V was amended by adding thereto the following as a proviso: Provided, That in order to secure a sufficient number of eligibles to meet the needs of the service, foreign-born persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States may be admitted to examinations for the position of copperplate map engraver.

Notwithstanding repeated efforts, the Commission had failed to secure a sufficient number of qualified persons for the position of copperplate map engraver who were citizens of the United States. It was understood, however, that while in this country this work is practically confined to the Government bureaus, in England, Scotland, and Germany there are a number of private establishments in which it is done and from which qualified persons might be obtained. For these reasons and on account of the necessities of the case the above amendment was recommended.

EXCEPTIONS MADE TO THE RULES, WITH THE REASONS THEREFOR.a

March 6, 1902..

Albert H. Clark had been a laborer in the office of the Chief of Engineers, War Department, on the regular rolls since March 16, 1898. His work had been mostly as an assistant in the copperplate printing of maps; and, on account of his ability, experience, and knowledge of the general work of the office, he was particularly fitted for the position of assistant messenger. On February 17, 1902, a letter was received from the Engineer Corps, indicating that Mr. Clark, in the performance of work to which he had been assigned, had ruptured himself in such a manner that he was not able to do the heavy work required in the position he then occupied, and that it was the desire of the Department to promote him to a position for which he was better qualified physically.

Mr. Clark had been examined for the position of messenger on October 1, 1901, and passed with a grade of 85.80, and was on the register for the State of New York, there being at this time about 35 persons, not including preference claimants, ahead of him. The State of New York, under the apportionment, was entitled to 726 appointments, and had received 83+ per cent.

In view of the fact that Mr. Clark was injured in the performance of the duties assigned to him in the service of the Government, the Commission believed his case to be a meritorious one, deserving of special action on the part of the Executive, and recommended that it be authorized to issue a certificate for his original appointment to the position for which the requisition of February 10, 1902, was made. This recommendation received the President's approval March 6, 1902. March 13, 1902.

Civil-Service Rule V provides that the minimum age limit for entrance to examination for the position of computer in the Naval Observatory and in the Nautical Almanac Office shall be 20 years. Mr. Richard D. Micou was an applicant for this examination fixed for March 25, 1902, and his application papers indicated him to be exceptionally well qualified for this work. He would not, however, reach the age of 20 years until some little time after the date of the examination. In view of the difficulty experienced by the Commission in securing a requisite number of wellqualified eligibles for these positions, the Commission recommended that the President authorize it to accept Mr. Micou's application, notwithstanding he had not yet reached the age required by the rule, and to take similar action in the case of all other applications for this position of like merit.

This recommendation was approved by the President on March 13, 1902. April 30, 1902.

William B. Dulany, a laborer on the rolls of the Post-Office Department, was detailed to the White House on October 2, 1901. A messengership in the White House at $900 becoming vacant, no person in the classified service in the Departments being found suitable for transfer to the vacancy, and Dulany possessing peculiar qualifications for such a place, a specific exception was made April 30, 1902, of this $900 messengership in order that he might be appointed to the position.

The various exceptions made under the provisions of section 3 (c) of Rule IV are presented in the form of a table, with full explanatory notes, at page 223, post.

a In section 2 of the civil-service act it is provided that "any necessary exceptions from said eight fundamental provisions of the rules shall be set forth in connection with such rules, and the reasons therefor shall be stated in the annual reports of the Commission."

REGULATIONS TO GOVERN TRANSFERS AND REINSTATEMENTS. a

NOTE OF EXPLANATION.

In explanation of the following transfer regulations, made necessary by the recent amendment to the rules restricting transfers to the same line of work, it seems desirable to state that one of the chief objects of the civil-service act is to establish a system of free, open, competitive examinations. The latitude given to transfers is in a large degree directly opposed to and is an exception to the general purpose and intent of the act. No specific authority for transfers is found in the civil-service act itself, and they are allowed only as necessary exceptions to competition. The first civil-service rules contained no provision for transfer. It was not until December 5, 1884, that a rule was made allowing transfers, and it was narrowly limited to the Departments at Washington. It required service of one year or more immediately previous to the transfer, and transfer was permitted only when the needs of the service required it. The rule also required an examination, unless the person had already passed an examination. The fact that the person had been in the service was not accepted as a substitute for examination. This based the granting of transfers upon public interests, and made the Commission the judge whether the circumstances were such as to justify an exception to be made. On November 27, 1885, the time limit of service preceding transfer was reduced to six months, and it was required that that service should be immediately previous to the transfer. Increasing latitude was given to the rules until May 6, 1896, when transfers were permitted only along the same line of work, as from a bureau of the Treasury Department in which business relating to the customs was transacted to a classified customs district, and vice versa; from a post-office to the Post-Office Department, etc. Examination was, however, dispensed with, unless the person was to go to a position requiring a different or higher examination. The provision of the rules of May 6, 1896, is restored by the recent amendment.

The regulations to govern transfers are intended to impose such restrictions as will confine transfers, as far as practicable, within the fundamental provision of the actthat is, that they should be warranted by the conditions of good administration. While it is true that nearly all transfers are made primarily for the convenience of the persons transferred, and upon the solicitation of themselves or their friends, and with but little or no direct regard for the public interest, still it is recognized that, with proper safeguards to prevent direct injury to the service from this source, the practice of allowing transfers is wise and warranted by the conditions of good administration, since, in theory at least, it affords opportunity for mobility and elasticity in administration and enables the Government to make use of its servants in the positions in which experience demonstrates their greatest usefulness lies.

APPORTIONMENT.

One of the chief things to be safeguarded is the apportionment. The recent amendment to the rules makes the Commission the judge whether the apportionment may be waived. The interests of good administration can very seldom require, though they may sometimes permit, a transfer unless the employee is possessed of some unusual or highly technical knowledge, ability, or skill which is required for the most efficient performance of the duties of the position to which he is to be transferred, and which it would be difficult or impossible to obtain through the ordinary means provided for filling such positions. To such transfers the provisions in relation to apportionment would seldom interpose any obstacle, inasmuch as persons possessing qualifications thus unusually desirable are more often to be found in

a For other regulations governing the classified service, see pp. 77-122, Eighteenth Report.