the standard of duty established for the present Administration.

The Republican platform of 1876 lagged far behind. It merely said:

We rejoice in the quickened conscience of the people concerning political affairs, and will hold all public officers to a rigid responsibility and engage that the prosecution and punishment of all who betray official trusts shall be speedy, thorough and unsparing.

Here was no rule of appointment, no exclusion of political considerations-nothing but a promise to prosecute those who violate the criminal law.

But during the administration of President Hayes, Mr. Dorman B. Eaton presented his admirable report upon the history of the Civil Service in Great Britain. The Jay Commission had shown the advantages of the system in the New York custom-house. Mr. James had established the reform in the New York postoffice.

In 1880-the Garfield and Hancock campaign-the Democratic platform promised a thorough Reform of the Civil Service without, however, stating what that was to be.

The Republican platform was more definite. The convention adopted the declaration of President Hayes that the Reform of the Civil Service should be thorough, radical and complete.

To this end it demands the coöperation of the legislative with the executive department of the Government, and that Congress shall so legislate that fitness ascertained by proper practical tests shall admit to the public service.

This declaration acquires additional meaning from the fact that the particular Reform to which President Hayes referred was the one providing for a Civil Service Commission and for competitive examinations. The demand. for the coöperation of the legislature meant that the classified system should be established by law, and it was in pursuance of this platform that the federal Civil Service Act was passed during the following Presidential

term.

But it is with the platforms and promises of candidates

since that time that we have principally to deal to-day. In 1884 the classified system had just been established. In the Republican convention of that year was the greatest of all Civil Service Reformers, Mr. George William Curtis. To his hand was entrusted the drafting of the resolution. From his skillful pen there came the fullest, completest and most definite declaration upon this subject which has ever found place in any political platform:

The Reform of the Civil Service, auspiciously begun under a Republican Administration, should be completed by the further extension of the Reform system, already established by law, to all grades of the service to which it is applicable. The spirit and purpose of Reform should be observed in all executive appoint. ments. All laws at variance with the objects of existing Reform legislation should be repealed, to the end that the dangers to free institutions which lurk in the power of official patronage may be wisely and effectively avoided.

Here there was nothing left out and there was no ambiguity. It was the particular Reform begun by the federal Civil Service Law which should be thus extended. The language was so certain that it would not be difficult for an honest and candid man to determine by fair and just construction what it meant in any given case, either within the classified service or elsewhere.

The Democratic platform of 1884, on the other hand, was distinctly weaker than several of its predecessors. All that it said was, "We favor honest Civil Service Reform." Now, Civil Service Reform with an adjective is an object of suspicion. The qualification indicates something different from the thing already set on foot. There is no spoilsman, no party hack, who does not vociferously proclaim his devotion to honest Civil Service Reform, real Civil Service Reform, genuine Civil Service Reform-indeed, any kind of a variation from the unqualified thing to which this National League is devoted. That single phrase was all that the new Democratic President could adduce in support of his efforts.

Upon the face of the platforms the Republican party would have been entitled to the undivided support of all Reformers. But the candidates were Mr. Blaine and

Mr. Cleveland. Mr. Blaine said many good things in his letter of acceptance. Impartiality in the mode of appointment, to be based on qualification, and security of tenure, to be based on faithful discharge of duty, were the two ends to be accomplished. The public business would be aided by separating the legislative branch of the Government from all control of appointments, and the executive department would be relieved by subjecting appointments to fixed rules, and thus removing them. from the caprice of favoritism. The law which arbitarily limited the term of the commission offered a constant temptation to changes for mere political reasons. The essential modification of that law would be in many respects advantageous. The rule of impartial appointment might with advantage be carried beyond any existing provision of the Civil Service Law. It should be applied to appointments in the consular service, and to secretaries of legation. The people had the right to the most efficient agents in the discharge of public business, and the appointing power should regard this as the prior and ulterior consideration.

These declarations were admirable. The separation of the legislative branch of the Government from control of the appointments meant the abolition of Congressional patronage. Mr. Blaine's remarks upon the four-years tenure of office show how clearly he understood the demand of the platform for the repeal of inconsistent legislation. If the mere declarations of the platform and candidate had been conclusive, the election of Mr. Blaine should certainly have been satisfactory to Civil Service Reformers. But there were a large number of men devoted to this cause who deeply distrusted the Republican candidate. Although many supported him, yet others, and some of the most eminent, preferred a man who, upon a weaker platform and with a declaration less explicit, gave, as they believed, better assurances in his past record. These were the words in which Mr. Cleveland accepted the nomination:

The selection and retention of subordinates in Government employment should depend upon their ascertained fitness and

the value of their work, and they should be neither expected nor allowed to do questionable party service. The interests of the people will be better protected; the estimate of public labor and duty will be immensely improved; public employment will be open to all who can demonstrate their fitness to enter it. The unseemly scramble for place under the Government, with the consequent importunity which embitters official life, will cease, and the public Departments will not be filled with those who con. ceive it to be their first duty to aid the party to which they owe their places instead of rendering patient and honest return to the people.

Not long after Mr. Cleveland's election and previous to his inauguration, he gave, in his letter to Mr. Curtis, a still more definite declaration. After pledging himself to the enforcement of the law he declared that there was a class of positions not within the letter of the statute, but so disconnected with the policy of the Administration that a removal of incumbents should not be made during the terms for which they were appointed solely on partisan grounds and for the purpose of putting in their places those in political accord with the appointing power. But many holding such positions had forfeited all just claims for retention because they had used their places for party purposes in disregard of their duty to the people, and because, instead of being decent public servants, they had proved themselves offensive partisans and unscrupulous manipulators of local party management. lessons of the past should be unlearned, and such officials, as well as their successors, should be taught that efficiency, fitness and devotion to public duty were the conditions of their continuance in public place.

These are but few of many declarations then made by Mr. Cleveland in favor of Civil Service Reform. He was far in advance of his party, and for some time he re sisted with firmness the importunities of spoilsmen. Yet as time went on and pressure was continued, there were serious breaches made in the defences. He promised the enforcement of the Pendleton law; yet in Indiana, in Maryland, in Chicago, in the Philadelphia postoffice and in other conspicuous instances, that law was signally evaded and nullified. He declared that removals would not be made on partisan grounds during the terms for

which the incumbents were appointed; yet the displacement of such employees to make room for Democrats was well nigh universal. Thousands were removed upon secret charges, which were not seldom false, preferred often by irresponsible and interested parties, and these men were so dismissed without opportunity for defence, denial or explanation. Officials should be taught, he said, that efficiency, fitness and devotion to public duty were the conditions of their continuance in office. Yet the offices were largely filled by the unscrupulous politicians whom he had himself denounced. Republicans forfeited their places for offensive partisanship, yet offensive Democratic partisans were retained. Places were given out as the booty of Congressmen in disregard of fitness, and federal officeholders continued to manipulate conventions. Some few extensions of the classified service were made during Mr. Cleveland's term, yet it was not until he had been defeated in the election of 1888 that a really important extension was made by him—that which included the Railway Mail Service, embracing some six thousand employees.

In 1888, when the Democratic party was in power, the Democratic platform was practically silent. It merely affirmed the very debatable proposition that honest Reform in the Civil Service has been inaugurated and maintained by President Cleveland.

In this year the Republicans, as we all remember, repeated the admirable declaration of 1884, with the vituperative addition that the Mugwumps had deserted pretty much everything that was good and especially Civil Service Reform, and with the tautological assurance, "We will not fail to keep our pledges because they have broken theirs or because their candidate has broken his." Subsequent events would indicate that in this the party did "protest too much." And doubts may well be entertained whether an agreement not to break one's word adds to the value of the original promise.

Four years ago, at the conference in Baltimore, I took occasion to discuss the meaning of the promises then made and what we might expect in the fulfillment of