force in the Department of Labor was signed by the Governor and became law. This act provided for eight new positions of supervising inspector, each supervisor to be assigned to a district of the state, in which he was to superintend and direct the inspection force under him.

This new grade was created on the recommendation of the Wainwright Commission, a body of eminent legislators and private citizens who conducted some time ago a thorough investigation into labor conditions in the state. In its report to the Legislature this commission was particularly careful to emphasize the importance of keeping the supervising inspectors free from the influence of political considerations, and it, therefore, specifically recommended that these positions be placed in the competitive class. On July 27th, six days after the passage of the act, the Commissioner of Labor requested the exemption of these eight positions, offering as his reasons for the request practically nothing more than that competition was impracticable because the positions were important. The Commission was meeting in Albany that day and was to take a vacation until September. No notice of these proposed exemptions had been given out and no hearing was held. The commission had before it no other evidence as to the practicability or impracticability of competition than the bare statement of the Labor Commissioner, but then and there, without more ado, it granted these exemptions and handed over to all the influences to which exempt positions are known to be open the places in the factory inspection force which according to the most expert opinion they could have obtained should be made competitive. The resolution for exemption was approved by the Governor immediately after its adoption by the Commission, and the Commission adjourned, not to meet again until September. This outrage stirred organizations interested in the factory and labor legislation to an effort to secure a repeal of the exemptions. On October 9th a number of these organizations wrote to the Commission asking them to reconsider the exemption. In response to this request the Commission granted a hearing, which was held on October 18th. There were present at this meeting representatives of a number of organ

izations, including the Civil Service Reform Association. Before the hearing it had been learned that the Commissioner of Labor had not yet made any appointments, and the Secretary of the New York Association therefore suggested to the Commission that it ask the Labor Commissioner to withhold his appointments until they had had time to reconsider. This the President of the Commission stated he did not think could properly be done, but the Labor Commissioner gave it to be understood that if the Commission wished to reconsider he would withhold appointments, and the Commission granted another hearing, which was held in New York City October 31st. This hearing was, perhaps, the most impressive protest which the Commission has yet listened to. About seventy-five persons were present, and for over two hours the Commission listened to arguments by persons thoroughly versed in the requirements of the positions of the supervising inspectors and in the possibilities of competitive civil service examinations. It has since been learned that three days before this hearing the Commission was informed by letter by the Labor Commissioner that if the Commission decided to reverse its action and make the positions competitive he would have no objections and would cheerfully abide its decision. This letter the Commission did not see fit to make public, although President Kraft did read a letter from the State Federation of Labor opposing competition. The Commission was unable to agree at this meeting and adjourned to meet in Albany November 6th, where again it was unable to decide. Meanwhile, on November 4th, Governor Dix in a letter to the Secretary of the New York Association, received November 6th, stated that he had decided that the positions should be made competitive rather than exempt. Of this decision of the Governor the Civil Service Commission was apparently not aware when it met November 6th. The letter was, however, given to the press on November 8th. The Commission met again November 14th; again it failed to act. Another postponement of action followed the meeting of November 16th, and then the Commission met in Albany November 29th, where it was hoped the final settle

ment of the question might be obtained. Its delay was preventing anything being done to organize the factory inspection force and it was even then in receipt of a telegram from the Labor Commissioner urging immediate action. At this meeting, however, after a conference with the Governor, the Commission announced that it had decided that representatives of labor organizations, which are known to be opposed to competition, ought to be given an opportunity to present their views, and it, therefore, decided to defer action until such a hearing had been held. This meeting was held on December 12th. Whether the Commission after all this has been able to make up its mind on a matter which in the first instance it disposed of in so cavalier a fashion, has not yet been learned.

The cases so far cited, are fairly typical of the policy which the Commission has followed. A full account of their work to date would include many other instances of equal disregard of their duty to the public. The total number of exemptions to date is 271, out of a total of 478 asked for, and represents patronage to the value of over $660,000. Of this number the exemption of 25 was made mandatory by the law, and 38 were positions previously exempt in other departments, or transferred from the jurisdiction of the New York City Commission. For the balance the Commission is directly responsible, and in the great majority of cases competition was entirely practicable. This responsibility the Commission cannot dodge. The decision as to whether these places should be kept free from the contaminating touch of a spoils machine, rested with the Commission. It is but fair to Commissioner Ludvigh, the minority member, to say that his sympathies have not been with this wrecking of the public service and he has done what he could to check it. The course of the other members has been characterized throughout by an utter disregard of their plain public duty and by a spineless surrender to the most indefensible pleas of spoils mongering officials and political leaders. Not a single piece of construction work has been attempted; the work of cutting down the exempt class which the previous Commission had begun, has been wiped out and the doors have been opened wide to the free entry of a

small army of political hangers-on and parasites on the public service.

There has been no such record of a disregard of the principles and spirit of the merit system on the part of any State Civil Service Commission under either Democratic or Republican administrations since the first civil service law was passed in the State of New York under Grover Cleveland in 1883.

Competition for the Expert Administrative Positions in City Government

BY HON. CLINTON ROGERS WOODRUFF.

That the city needs experts successfully to fulfill its functions ought not to require proof. Perhaps it may not, before an audience composed of members of the National Civil Service Reform League and of the National Municipal League; but how about the community at large? Is it sufficiently emancipated from the old idea that to the victor belong the spoils, and that offices should be used primarily to reward political service? A survey of the situation as it exists to-day in the average American city reveals the fact that many higher city officials and experts are appointed or removed for political reason.

Let me illustrate. In Milwaukee the appointment of the commissioner of public works has been chiefly a political one; so has been that of the commissioner of health and the city engineer.

In Boston "Of the 22 new appointments by the mayor to paid positions as heads of important departments, 15 appear to have been made, and 7 appear not to have been made, as rewards for political support given to the mayor," according to the Report of the Boston Finance Commission made in August, 1910. (Vol. VI., p. 115). Only three of these appointments were approved by the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission under the new system.

In Pittsburgh, the city treasurer was appointed not because he was an experienced banker and as such qualified to handle efficiently and capably the moneys of the city, but as a reward for political services. The assistant director of public health is a political appointee and is not qualified, either by experience or training, to direct his work. Indeed, according to one authority, "The practice in Pittsburgh has always been to make appoint