statement to the newspapers was that in view of the discussion of the criticism by the Association of the State Commission and its own administration of the law and in view of the fact that the State Commission had stated that it had made an answer to the Governor as to the points raised, it seemed proper to make all the facts public.

The facts leading up to the correspondence of the State Commission and the Association with John G. Saxe, Counsel to Governor Glynn, as reviewed formerly in GOOD GOVERNMENT, are given here briefly.

On March 19, 1914, the Civil Service Reform Association transmitted to the Governor its correspondence with the State Civil Service Commission in respect to certain alleged irregularities in the official conduct of the State Commission. The Governor, in due course, referred the matter to John G. Saxe, his counsel. On April 29, 1914, Mr. Saxe wrote to the State Commission requesting it to report in detail whether it denied the various allegations or, if not, what explanation it desired to make. The correspondence up to this point had already been published. On June 26, 1914, the State Commission made its report to Mr. Saxe and Mr. Saxe duly transmitted a copy of the report to the Association. On July 23, 1914, the Association wrote to Mr. Saxe pointing out that the State Commission had wholly failed to meet the charges of the Association and reviewed some of the facts supporting this assertion.

Under the law as procured to be amended by the State Commission itself during the administration of Governor Sulzer the governor has no power of removal over the State Civil Service Commission without the consent of the Senate. A conference was arranged between Mr. Saxe and Hon. Nelson S. Spencer and George T. Keyes, Esq., representing the Association. At this conference the representatives of the Association made it clear that Governor Glynn was in no way responsible for the appointment of the present state civil service commissioners nor for the present reading of the civil service law. They urged upon Mr. Saxe, however, the necessity of a proper amendment of the law in 1915, in case of Governor Glynn's re-election.

It will be recalled that the charges of the Association included six main points: (1) that many of the routine matters formerly passed upon by subordinates were acted on by the Commission with resultant delays to important matters; (2) that during the year 1913, 198 places were put in the exempt class without valid reason; (3) that the rule allowing suspension of competition in exceptional cases had been applied in certain cases without justification; (4) that the rule exempting from examination experts who shall render service of an occasional character not to exceed $300 in any year had been allowed in 436 cases and in 22 cases for a period of at least a year; (5) that particularly in positions under the jurisdiction of the state. hospital commission provisional appointments had been allowed to exist beyond the period of sixty days and that examinations had not been held for these positions six months after the temporary appointments had been authorized; and (6) that relatives and close friends of the Commission had been employed without examination either in the service of the Commission or in other state departments.

In its reply to these charges the State Commission did not attempt in any instance to deny the facts set forth in the Association's letter. It endeavored to excuse the number of its exemptions by the fact that former commissions had exempted more positions and that in any event the

Governor, who had approved them, was equally responsible with the Commission. In defense of its action in granting special exceptions from competitive examination in appointments to such positions as stenographer, financial clerk and billing machine operator, it stated that "it did not feel that it could argue" with Governor Sulzer in regard to the stenographer and that there was immediate need of persons to fill the other positions. In reply to the fourth point made by the Association the Commission stated that many of the cases complained of were inherited from the previous state commissions, and as to its abuse of the provision of the law allowing provisional appointments the Commission blamed an investigation of the Gowanda state hospital and delays in securing advice from officials of the hospital commission for the delays in its own action. The Commission offered in extenuation of the practice of appointing without competitive examination relatives and friends of the commissioners to lucrative positions the fact that the practice exists in other state departments. The efficiency of the commissioners' relatives so employed was certified to by the Commission.

The Association pointed out to Mr. Saxe that the ninety-five exemptions granted in 1913 had been exceeded only three times between 1900 and 1911, and that in specific cases, cited at length the facts did not justify the exemptions. With regard to the special exceptions made by the state commission and its defence of its action the Association answered that positions such as stenographer, financial clerk and billing machine operator obviously did not require persons with "qualifications of a scientific, professional or educational character" and that examination for them was certainly not shown to be impracticable and therefore they could not be filled under the special exception clause of the rules of the commission. The Association pointed out that the commission's excuse that cases complained of in the matter of temporary appointments and excused by the state commission by the fact that they were inherited from the previous commission included twentytwo cases where temporary cases ran twelve months or more, and that the present commission had had ample power to cancel these appointments at any time. The Association also called attention to the fact that the investigation of the affairs of the Gowanda state hospital had nothing to do with the conduct of the examination for the position of steward in the state hospital service and that under no circumstances should the provisional appointments have been allowed for nine months. With regard to the State Commission's excuse for the employment of relatives and friends of the Commissioners the Association pointed out "the melancholy fact that the Commission seems to fail utterly to appreciate the seriousness of its actions in approving the employment of relatives and friends." The Association's letter referred to this matter as follows:

The Commission admits that appointments in all cases have been made without examination and with its approval. The disingenuous manner in which the Commission endeavors to meet the charge of nepotism is apparent by the statement that the Civil Service Commissioners are not 'the only state officers who had relatives or close friends employed in the service.' The fact that similar conditions exist in other departments of the state government does not in any way diminish the damning effect of the charges against the Commission; nor does the statement that former civil service commissioners have employed their relatives as stenographers without examination take anything from the force of the Association's criticism of the present Commission. Whether or not such be the fact, we shall not here undertake to discover. And whether or not we can appeal to a specific provision of law which the Commission has violated in this respect is not important. Their practices are practices universally condemned by public opinion and cast suspicion on all their acts. A commission engaged in cultivating graft is not a commission which should be permitted to endure. The fact is

patent that the present Civil Service Commission has used every loophole of the civil service law to place in office relatives and friends of the members of the Commission. D. Kern Einfurer, stenographer in the office of President Neu, has been acting as stenographer to the Commission and its President. Mrs. L. D. Wolff, the wife of Commissioner Wolff, has rendered stenographic services to her husband, receiving $50 monthly from June to December, and Charles Lavery, a brother of Commissioner James A. Lavery, has been acting as the latter's stenographer, receiving regularly $50 per month from June to December.

Alfred J. Gilchrist, a law partner of the President of the Commission, received $150 for 'professional services' rendered in connection with the drafting of Assembly Bill No. 2260 which amended the civil service law by increasing the salaries of the commissioners from $3,000 to $5,000; provided for the appointment of the individual members of the commission for overlapping terms, prevented the removal of a member of the state civil service commission except with the approval of the Senate; and took the position of secretary of all civil service commissions in New York State out of the competitive class, where it had been placed the previous year. The Commission in its letter to you, replies to our statement that the Commission has 'no authority by law to employ counsel' by declaring that 'Senator Gilchrist was not engaged as counsel but merely as an expert.' If such were the case, our charge would in no way lose its force, but an examination of the vouchers on file in the comptroller's office will show that Mr. Gilchrist was paid for professional services.' His profession is the profession of the law. The Commission admits the appointment of Warren C. Neu, son of the President of the Commission, to the position of counsel in the license bureau, department of agriculture, at $1,500 per annum after the place had been placed in the exempt class by its action. It also concedes the appointments of Isidor Wolff, a relative of Commissioner Wolff, in the state architect's office, and Theodore A. Moolton, a brother-in-law of Commissioner Wolff, as examiner in office of the comptroller.

New York City

The state civil service commission in its investigation of the municipal commission spent a great deal of time. bringing out the facts with relation to the holding of an examination for finger print expert in July, 1914. This examination was held in the offices of the municipal commission and was conducted by Dr. Henry DeForest, physical examiner for the municipal commission. Dr. DeForest had made a technical study of finger printing abroad and was considered by the municipal commission as qualified to conduct the examination. The subjects and weights as announced in the advertisement of the examination were experience, 2; technical, 8; practical, 3; written, 5. The percentage required was 75 on the practical and 75 on the written. A percentage of 70 on the total examination was required in order to pass. A physical examination preceded the mental and no person rejected at the physical examination was allowed to take the remainder of the examination. The practical test followed the physical test and persons who failed to pass the practical

test were not allowed to take the remainder of the examination. The minimum age set for entrance was 21 and the requirement that persons who had entered a competitive examination and failed or had withdrawn should not be allowed to enter an examination within nine months of such failure or withdrawal was waived in this examination. The announcement stated that candidates should be familiar with the making of finger print records, with their classification, both primary and secondary, and with the combination test for use in searching files for suspected duplicate records. Over one hundred candidates took the examination and thirteen passed and were placed upon the eligible list promulgated September 23, 1914. Although there are four vacancies to be filled in the magistrates courts in the various boroughs in the Greater City no ap pointments have been made pending the outcome of the investigation now being conducted by the state commission.

Dr. DeForest used the following system for rating candidates: Those persons who passed the practical and technical tests were given a flat rating of seventy per cent on experience. To this was added five points for grammar school education, five points for high school education, and five points for any other special or professional training, making a total of fifteen possible points for educational training and fifteen other possible points for actual experience in finger printing, all to be considered in rating experience. Taking in order the three persons who stood highest on the eligible list, the first person was Miss Sullender, who was given five points for her grammar school education, five points for her high school education and five points for her degree as a registered nurse. To this rating Dr. DeForest at first added a total of 15 points for one month's experience in finger printing work in the navy department at Washington. This rating was subsequently cut down to five points as Dr. DeForest explained, "upon revising the papers it seemed to me that in view of the shortness of the time stated in her experience paper-her knowledge of the subject by a study of one or two years and practical work in a bureau for one or two months. though this was greater than that of any other candidate. with one exception-this mark should be reduced. . .. This made Miss Sullender's rating on experience ninety. The second person on the list, Mr. Kuhne, had had a limited education and was given no points for education. He was, however, given twenty points for his seven years' experience as a finger print expert in the police department. where he had taken the finger prints of over 7,000 criminals. Mr. Kuhne's final rating on experience was therefore also 90. The third person on the list, who holds the degree of bachelor of laws and master of laws, under the state of New York, was rated five points for grammar school education, five points for high school education and five points for her professional training. To this was added three points for her experience in taking finger prints in the woman's court in Brooklyn, thus making her rating for experience 88.

In conducting the examination Dr. DeForest had alScott, who is a stenographer assigned to the physical bulowed an employee of the Civil Service Commission named

reau and who himself was a candidate in the examination for finger print expert, to assist in making the physical tests of various candidates. Scott testified before the State Commission that he had actually marked ratings in the physical test on the papers of various candidates. It was also brought out during the State Commission's investigation that the practical test was conducted for various groups of candidates at different times and that candidates in one group could profit by what they could learn in regard to the test of those in the group or groups which had preceded. One candidate who had passed the practical test with a high mark testified that he had benefited by the experience of candidates who had taken the test before him..

It was also brought out in the testimony at the investigation by the State Commission that Miss Sullender, who was given the highest rating in the examination, had been known to Dr. DeForest for some time and had done nursing for him in her professional capacity. Dr: DeForest admitted that he knew whose papers he was marking when. he rated Miss Sullender's paper.

The State Commission in its investigation of this examination went into the work of the physical bureau in great detail and heard considerable testimony alleging incompetent and ineffective supervision on the part of the medical examiners in charge of the bureau.

GOOD GOVERNMENT

PUBLISHED ON THE FIRST DAY OF EACH MONTH BY THE NATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE REFORM LEAGUE

SUBSCRIPTION RATES: One dollar per year; single copies, ten cents

PUBLICATION OFFICES: 79 WALL STREET

NEW YORK CITY

Entered at the New York Post-office as second-class matter.

NEW YORK, NOVEMBER, 1914

The Record of the Sixty-third Congress

"The law pertaining to the civil service should be honestly and rigidly enforced to the end that merit and ability should be the standard of appointment and tion rather than service to a political party."

When the Sixty-third Congress began its legislative labors the Democratic majority was pledged to the honest. and firm enforcement of the civil service law. The public had been given to believe that the civil service plank of the Democratic platform as quoted above would be a fundamental part of its legislative program. Was this pledge to be torn up when opportunities were presented to make jobs for Congressional pets? The answer to this question is found in the record of the Sixty-third Congress, which is soon to give way to a new Congress at the close of the coming short session.

The first important piece of legislation considered by the special session was the tariff bill. A large force to administer the income tax act was created and Congress baldly decreed the spoliation of the field force, all the new employees except clerks in Washington being removed from the classified service under the provision that their appointment for a period of two years should be controlled by regulations fixed by the secretary of the treasury. Against this exemption business organizations were solidly arrayed. While the President undoubtedly had the authority to order that these appointments be made under the merit system, he did not exercise the power. The income tax force, with its large powers over the private books and papers of corporations, was thus placed in the hands of political employees. "Service rendered to a political party" was recognized in this legislation and the "law pertaining to the civil service" was ruthlessly disregarded.

Successful in its first attempt at "coal hod politics," Congress then turned to the urgent deficiency bill, and, in the face of great opposition, fastened a rider on this supply measure removing from the classified service deputy collectors of internal revenue and deputy United States marshals. This, the most serious attack on the merit system, which narrowly escaped defeat in the House, called for a smashing rebuke from the President.

obnoxious attacks on the civil service law, made clear its position, and, due to the disapproval of the President and the Postmaster-General, the tide was temporarily turned and the proposal defeated. For a few weeks public opinion backed the small group of the Democratic supporters of the platform pledge and checked temporarily the gradual repeal of the civil service law.

In February, 1914, the Democratic members of the House committee on post offices and post roads approved legislation requiring every assistant postmaster to enter a competitive examination in order to retain his classified status. Such a bill actually passed the House by a narrow majority, but never received committee approval in the

Senate.

The Indian appropriation bill was the next means of attack on the law, when the Democratic House attacked items on this supply measure exempting over one hundred physicians in the Indian service from the operation of the civil service law. The Senate declined to agree to this sordid desire to get jobs for the office seekers at the expense of the wards of the Nation and these positions were retained in the competitive schedule. The important position of superintendent of the Five Civilized Tribes was, however, turned over to the place hunters.

Without the approval of the business interests of the country, Congress next accepted the statement of the Secretary of Commerce that fourteen important positions of commercial attaches credited to American ministers abroad should be filled without regard to the civil service law. These positions are consequently permanently repolitics with each change of administration. moved from the merit system, to be made footballs of

Congress completed its record in the passage of the trade commission bill which exempts attorneys, special experts and examiners of the new board from the merit system. The closing Congress with its record of broken promises and bad faith with the supporters of the merit system, was willing to use its civil service plank as an aid to election, but upon induction in office regarded it as “a scrap of paper" to be destroved.

mission

The investigation of the New York City Civil Service Commission which is being conducted by the State Civil Service Commission proceeded laboriously throughout the month of October.

On the last day of September Mayor Mitchel issued a statement to the newspapers charging the State Commission with proceeding with the investigation in bad faith. The Mayor's statement was in part as follows:

The state commission under the existing law may recommend to the governor a removal of the local commission and with the governor's assent may appoint the successors for the unexpired period of the term, the law declaring that they are then irremovable by the mayor. It is apparent that a state civil service commission which chooses to serve partisan interests could substitute for the civil service commission appointed under the administration elected by the people of the city a commission representing Mr. Murphy and his interests. The local commission has reorganized the department and has closed certain channels of advantage to Mr. Murphy and his friends, which, of course, may be irritating and therein we find the possible motives for this attack.

It seems to me that the people of this city would resent any attempt through a technical interpretation of the rules of the civil service law to lay violent hands on the local civil service commission and to take it out of the jurisdiction of the mayor and put it into the hands of some other jurisdiction which was not the one to which the people by their votes committed it. If the State Commission takes any radical steps on such pretexts as these, it would be quite apparent that it was nothing but a political attempt to prostitute the civil service of the city as the civil service of the state has been prostituted in the last few years.

For some time the general understanding of the ultimate purpose of the investigation by the State Commission was that it was to lead to the removal of the present Municipal Civil Service Commissioners, as outlined by Mayor Mitchel. Governor Glynn on October 9, however, effectually silenced these rumors by issuing a statement in which he said: "Nothing of the sort will occur. The inquiry in question, I understand, is of a routine nature, though directed in part toward certain matters that have been the subject of complaint. The law lays the duty of periodical inspection upon the state board. During the year covered by its last report it appears that twenty-seven of the local city commissions were so inspected. The object is to secure conformity with the general standard the civil service law sets. If there have been any departures from such standards under the New York City rules, no doubt the state board will call the attention of the local body to them and suggest their correction. The inquiry

can have no other purpose.

"The power of removal which has been in the law since its passage was intended to be exercised only where a local commission through misuse of its powers shows itself generally hostile to the purposes of the civil service law and bent upon defeating them. Sanction of the use of the removing power except in such an extremity would, of course, be an invasion of the rights of the city that, so far as I am concerned, would be unthinkable.

"I hope that only good will come out of the inquiry in New York, and see no reason why the relation of the state and city commissions should not continue to be mutually helpful and harmonious."

President Neu of the State Commission also answered the charges of Mayor Mitchel denying that the State Commission had any political motives whatever in making its investigation and asserting that "the Commission is performing one of its most important duties; that of investigating complaints and of ascertaining whether a local board is complying with the law." President Neu went on

The Commission's inquiry during the month of October touched upon four important matters with which the Municipal Commission has had to deal during the past year. These are (first) the question of the employment of hospital helpers in clerical or other duties inconsistent with their titles in the department of public charities; (second) the employment of monitors assigned to duties inconsistent with their titles by the Municipal Civil Service Commission; (third) continued investigation of the abolition of the labor bureau by the Municipal Civil Service Commission; and (fourth) the examination for finger print expert held by the Municipal Commission in July, 1914.

The matter of the employment of hospital helpers has been a problem which has had the attention of previous municipal commissions. The testimony of witnesses brought out the fact that in 1909 an investigation of this question was made by Elliot H. Goodwin, Secretary of the Civil Service Reform Association, and F. A. Spencer, Secretary of the Municipal Civil Service Commission. The investigation consisted of a study of the conditions existing in Bellevue Hospital in the employment of hospital helpers. As the result of this investigation the Municipal Civil Service Commission included in the non-competitive schedule hospital helpers at $480 per annum without maintenance, or $300 per annum with maintenance. With reference to hospital helpers who had been mainly and in some cases exclusively employed in clerical work, the Commission decided to establish the new position of hospital clerk with salary not to exceed $900 per annum in the competitive class. It was at that time agreed that where clerical duties of hospital helpers were simply incidental and occasional, while the main duties remained those strictly of the hospital helper, the employment under the title of hospital helper might be regarded as entirely regular. Testimony of witnesses in the investigation now being conducted by the State Commission brought out the fact that persons were being employed in the department of public charities under the title of hospital helper and were performing duties entirely of a clerical or other character quite inconsistent with their title. Miss Florence Rowland testified that she had been engaged solely in doing the work of a stenographer and typewriter in the ofcharities and that she was employed under the title of fice of Hon. Gordon Ireland, deputy commissioner of hospital helper. Clyde B. Rose also testified that he had been employed under the title of hospital helper, but had done none of the actual work of a hospital helper. He had been a former friend of Commissioner Kingsbury in Seattle, Wash., and had applied to the department of public charities for work of any kind. He had been taken on as a hospital helper and given work of a clerical and investigative character.

Considerable time was spent in trying to show that the abolition of the labor bureau and the dropping of Messrs. Coffey and Curtis, who had been clerks in that bureau, was uncalled for and unnecessary. The testimony of Municipal Civil Service Commissioner Keogh showed that the absorption of the work formerly done in the labor bureau with the work of the other bureaus of the Commission was working satisfactorily. Asked to explain the circumstances leading up to the abolition of the labor bureau Commissioner Keogh said:

It first came up, as I remember it, in March or April, somewhere back in the early spring, when Mr. James said and

Dr. Moskowitz-but chiefly Mr. James-that he believed it was better administration to abolish the labor bureau as a bureau and to put all the certifications under one head, and all the applications under another. My contention was it was better to leave the labor class as one unit, everything connected with the labor class.

Question by President Neu. How is the change working, Mr. Keogh? A. It is working, I should say, all right at the present; it is working smoothly.

Q. Since the change has been made you have found it satisfactory? A. Yes, it has been working satisfactorily so far. Q. So experience so far has indicated that the Commission were right in making this change in administration? A. Well, it is working smoothly.

When questioning Commissioner Keogh as to how the Commission justified the lay-off of clerks in the labor bureau because there was lack of work, Frank Moss, counsel for the State Commission, tried to show that there was not a lack of work and that there was not a saving in the expenditures of the Commission. The testimony of Commissioner Keogh on this point was in part as follows:

By Mr. Coudert. Q. You were, in your desire to get Mr. Coffey something else, of course, influenced by the fact that he was an old employee, and you wanted to be kind to him. A. Oh,

yes.

Q. That was your dominant thought in suggesting some place might be found for him? A. Yes.

President Neu. That is in the Commission? A. Yes.

Q. Did the members of the Commission show evidence of their desire to afford both or either of these men opportunity to get transfers? A. Yes.

Q. And the other members of the Commission were desirous they should have transfers? A. Yes.

.

President Neu. Did they show a desire to retain them in the employ of the Municipal Commission? A. Both Dr. Moskowitz and Mr. James stated that they should be laid off for lack of work when the bureau was abolished, as they did not fit in.

Q. Was there lack of work? A. I think technically there was lack of work.

Commissioner Keogh brought out the fact that additional examiners had been employed since the abolition of the labor bureau not owing to the dropping of clerical help in the labor bureau but because of cutting down the assignment of per diem examiners as "it is the desire of the commission to use the regular examining force."

The commission went extensively into the matter of the employment of monitors in the clerical and investigative duties by the municipal commission. The fact was brought out that this question had already been considered at length by the municipal commission. The records showed that five monitors had been employed more or less continuously in the last three years in clerical work and that they had been dropped on September 5 after the investigation by the state commission had been started. The state commission endeavored to show that the reason why the monitors had been dropped was because of the investigation by the state commission. It was pointed out, however, by Mr. Belcher, Secretary of the municipal commission, that the Civil Service Reform Association had written the municipal commission concerning this matter before the investigation by the state commission had started, and that the municipal commission had taken the matter up as the result of the letter of the Association. Mr. Belcher was asked whether he had taken any action on this matter while secretary of the Civil Service Reform Association. Mr. Belcher's testimony in this connection was in part as follows:

By Mr. Moss. Q. Do you remember whether or not this subject of the employment of monitors in duties that were not

proper to their designation was considered and discussed in the Civil Service Reform Association? A. It was.

Q. And did the Civil Service Reform Association communicate with the municipal civil service commission its views about that way of doing things? A. It did. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you take any part in those discussions and in that communication? A. Yes.

Q. What part did you take, Mr. Belcher? A. That communication to which you refer was the result of an investigation made by the Civil Service Reform Association at the time I was secretary, into the character investigations in the police department, and in the course of that investigation. (Interrupting) Q. It was done when Mr. Creelman was in the Commission? A. Yes, while Mr. Creelman was President. In the course of that investigation we discovered that the commission had employed monitors to do the investigating work, and of course, the matter was discussed by me with the members of the Executive Committee of the Civil Service Reform Association, and with the members of the Committee on Administration and our views on it were embodied in a letter which I think came along in February, 1913.

Q. So that you had something to do even with the sending of the letter, didn't you? A. Yes.

Q. Well, did you while you were in the Civil Service Reform Association believe that the employment of monitors was illegal? A. I did.

Q. And did you believe that the certifications of monitors who were performing duties not appropriate to their position were misdemeanors? A. I don't know that I considered that particular certificate with reference to the provisions of the law or what signing it would constitute.

Q. That requires perhaps a technical consideration of the statutes? A. Yes.

The matter of the appointment without examination for a period of six months of 46 examiners of charitable institutions in the department of public charities in the face of an eligible list for this position was considered several times during the month. While Mr. Birdseye of the State Civil Service Commission was testifying he read into the record a stenographic report of a hearing held on October 14 before the Municipal Civil Service Commission which was participated in by State Civil Service Commissioner Wolff and Secretary George T. Extracts Keyes of the Civil Service Reform Association. from this testimony are as follows:

Commissioner Wolff: (Referring to persons whose qualifications as expert examiners were under consideration by the Municipal Commission. As far as their qualifications are concerned, I do not question the qualifications of these people whatsoever. That is not the point. I want to ask Mr. Keyes, now representing the Civil Service Reform Association, what their attitude is at this time. I would like to have your idea. I would like to get the views of your organization.

The President: Have you got the official views, Mr. Keyes? Mr. Keyes: The Civil Service Reform Association, represented by its Executive Committee, has no opinion on the appointment of examiners of charitable institutions under rule XII, paragraph 6. Pending the investigation of the local commission by the State Commisison, it took the position that facts which it has not at its disposal now might turn up during that inquiry, and that it was not in a position to go on record.

Commissioner Wolff: But there are new applications now before this body. What are your organization's views on these applications before this body at the present time?

Mr. Keyes: As I understand it, these are applications of a similar character to the other thirty-six, who are still in the service.

Commissioner James: Do I understand that the State Commission has never approved under the rule corresponding with rule XII, clause 6, an appointment for a temporary period, with stated compensation, of anyone for expert service, where the title was the same as a classified title or where there was an appropriate eligible list?

Commissioner Wolff: I am not here for the purpose of answering those questions.

Commissioner James: I am trying to get your point. Commissioner Wolff: I am here for one point alone-your XII-6 appointments. I am here for one purpose alone.