V "
to
Conservative * 5
enough indicated the vehemence of the
current excitement.
The crime of the half-crazy Guitoau
disclosed to a horror-stricken people the
possibilities of the situation.
In my researches of the congressional
literature of which I have spoken , I have
found several allusions by spoils orators
to the circumstances under which the
Pondleton bill became a law. Hero is
one of them :
"In 1885J the civil service law was en
acted in a burst of hysterics following
the assassination of Garfield. "
It seems to bo a pet notion with the
enterprising members who favor either
the entire abolition of the merit system ,
its serious curtailment , or its gradual ex
tinction , to ascribe the passage of the
Pendleton bill to hysteria in the con
gress over the death of the president.
The stpry is recent , but the orators have
blundered as to its facts. There was no
hysteria until the people had been heard
from ; and then it set in with great violence
lence in congress , especially in the lower
house. The president was murdered in
July , 1881. The Pendletou bill was not
passed till January , 1888. Mr. Curtis ,
in one of his annual addresses to the
league at Newport , has told the story in
these words :
"When we met here a year ago , con
gress was still in session. The Pendlo-
tou bill had been reported to the senate ,
but no action had been taken. The
house of representatives , with ribald
sneers at'the project of reform , had con
temptuously granted the president three-
fifths of the pittance which ho had 'ur
gently' asked , to enable him to continue
efforts of reform which had been begun.
The record of the proceedings upon this
subject in the house of representatives
last summer is one of the most disgrace
ful passages in the history of congress.
Members wholly ridiculed the sugges
tion of reform in administrative meth
ods , but they summarily swept aside the
president's veto of extravagant appropri
ations. At the annual meeting of the
league I venture to say that they were
singularly ignorant of the tendency and
force of public opinion , and that reckless
defiance of public intelligence was a per
ilous record on which to go to the coun
try. The issue was plainly made , and an
appeal taken at the polls. The result of
the election was startling and impres
sive. The most conspicuous enemies of
reform were dismissed by their constitu
ents from the public service ; and , though
it is not always easy precisely to define
the significance of a general election , it
was universally conceded that whatever
else the result might mean , it was a
clear and decisive demand of the coun
try for civil service reform.
"Tho response of congress was imme
diate , and never was the flexibility of a
popular system more signally displayed.
The congress which had adjourned in
August , laughing at reform , heard the
thunder of the elections in November ,
and reassembled in December. If mem
bers had been draped in sheets and had
carried candles , they could not have
borne a moro penitential aspect. "
Having detailed at some length the
congressional proceedings , ending with
a vote of 155 yeas to 47 nays , by which
the bill was passed , Mr. Curtis adds :
' 'The house was so eager to make the
bill a law that it would not tolerate de
bate , and loudly cheered the proposal of
anjmmediate vote , was the sumo house
that five months before had derisively
and angrily refused to give a paltry sum ,
and to aid a single experiment of reform.
Members , who could not laugh loud
enough at the ridiculous whim of trans
acting the public biisiuess upon business
principles , now tumbled over each other
in their breathless haste to make that
whim the national policy. "
I commend this study of congressional
hysteria to the spoilsmen of the present
congress.
Does it not seem a far cry from the
edifying attitude toward civil service re
form so graphically described by Mr.
Cartis to that of the congressional pro
phet who now threatens the republican
party with being "torn and scattered by
a cyclone of public indignation , born of
justice and love of liberty , " unless they
relinquish the worship of the demoralis
ing merit system ?
Then the house would not tolerate de
bate. It had heard from the people.
Today its successor sits and listens ap
parently with patience , if not with
pleasure to wild outcries against the
system which , no matter with what
haste the house adopted it at the last ,
had been before the people for years , and
which then , as now , though not by so
large a majority as at present , had with
it the intelligence and patriotism of the
country.
From a largo assortment of pebbles
gathered hastily and at random from the
stones lately thrown by the spoils orators
tors in congress I cull the following.
They have all been flung at the friends
of the system inaugurated by the Pen
dleton bill. Separately stated one might
doubt whether they were not intended
as compliments. So I hasten to assure
you that the context indicates quite the
reverse :
Apostles , high priests of the civil ser
vice cult , ouuuchs and sissies of Ameri
can politics , missionaries , canting pre
lates , pious and holy gentlemen , pharisees -
sees , monopolists of wisdom , foul politi
cal demagogues , self-appointed guar
dians of Christendom , gentle shepherds ,
of hope and progress , charlatans , drillmasters -
masters of Providence , hypocrites and
Pharisees , squaw men , wet and dry
nurses.
I stop there.
Of the merit system we learn that
"it was conceived in iniquity and born
of hyprocrisy , has boon administered
infamously , and is sustained by coward
ice and demagogy. "
The spoils system is described by the
same orator as "tho wise and patriotic
policy that obtained from "Washington
to Grant , inclusive. "
Gentlemen , those are samples of per
haps a hundred pages of congressional
oratory ; and , smile at thorn as wo may ,
wo must ask what they mean. Has the
federal civil service law broken down ?
Has it proved a practical failure ? Is it
true that the people are tired of it , and
want it either wholly repealed or seriously -
iously curtailed of its powers ?
If neither of these questions can be
answered in the affirmative , then what
is the explanation of the late emculf in
congress ?
Has the law proved a failure ? On the
contrary , there is an absolute consensus
of testimony from presidents and secre
taries and bureau chiefs , from every of
ficer responsibly connected with its exe
cution , that , wherever it has been hon
estly executed , it has stood the test of
experience and has been a success. By
this I do not mean that in every instance
it has given a bettor result in actual
service than the former system of pat
ronage. Nobody claims that it has done
this : nobody over claimed that it would
do this. But it cannot bo successfully
denied that , on the whole , it has given
us a better official service ; that it has
relieved the president and other appoint
ing officers from much harassing impor
tunity , and made it fairly possible for
the president to live out his term ; that
it has also greatly relieved members of
congress from their most irksome and
dangerous function ; that it has brought
peace into the ranks of the hard-worked
employees , and it has saved to
the government a largo amount of
money. The moral effects upon officers
and people , upon elections and govern
ment , may not bo so easily seen ; but wo
may rest assured that every office res
cued from the corruption fund of poli
tics is a gain. Every man who obtains '
a place by competitive examination on
his merits , and not by a "pull , " must bo
a more self-respecting and independent
man than ho would bo if coinpelled-to got
it the other way. Every man who
knows ho is safe from removal , and that
the wolf cannot reach his door or his
flock so long as ho does his duty , must
be a bettor official than ho would bo if
ho held his place at the mercy of politi
cal campaigns and dependent upon party
or personal influence. In the nature of
things this must bo so.
Why , then , for the first time in years
has an assault been made in congress
upon the reform system an assault ,
too , chiefly by republican members ?
The answer is easy. There has never
boon a moment when the active politic
ians and "workers" of either party were
in favor of the reform law.
This ought to go without saying , and
should disturb nobody. These are the
