concerned, it is a sufficient answer to say that under the spoils system while in theory he has such right, in practice he has not, because in practice his subordinates are selected for him by the managers of the political party to which he belongs.

To judge from the arguments that are urged to-day in this State against the adoption of civil service reform, one who was not informed on the subject would suppose that its advocates were attempting to impose upon the State a theoretical, utopian system, born only in the minds of dreamers, and advocated only by those who believe in "lunar politics." The truth, however, is that with the exception of Turkey and Morocco and certain South American Republics, the only civilized nation upon the face of the globe which adopts the spoils system, with respect to municipal government, is the United States; and it is one of the remarkable inconsistencies of the present American situation that on a subject which is largely practical in its nature, the American people, whose progress in the last century has shown them to be the most practical people of the world, possessing what may be termed a very genius for practical work, should be found in this department of practical life to be so far behind the civilized world as to rank with Turkey and Morocco.

The States of Massachusetts and New York, both of which have adopted the merit system, and the City of Chicago, have begun the advance. In these places, with the exception, I believe, of New York City, where the law has not been faithfully enforced, the new system has given the greatest satisfaction. Shall Ohio lag behind? Shall a State whose boast is that it contains more colleges than any other state in the Union still continue to do business upon Turkish principles ?

At the last session of the Legislature in 1896 a civil service bill prepared by the local association was presented to the Legislature but was defeated. It passed the Senate, but was reconsidered there and defeated and never reached the house.

Another bill will be presented this winter. It does not impose the merit system upon the municipalities but leaves it to popular vote in each municipality to determine whether it shall be adopted. Can the Legislature of Ohio give any valid reason why the people of Cincinnati, Cleveland and the other cities of Ohio should not be permitted to vote upon this ques

tion and if they deem it best to adopt the merit system? If the majority are opposed to it the measure will be defeated. In either event the popular will only will prevail. And whatever may be true of any other measure whose advocates are urging that it be submitted to a vote of the people, there is no danger in this case that any corrupt influence or influences will be exerted to secure the adoption of the merit system.

I have not time to go into the details of the bill. It may be that its advocates may be compelled at first to make concessions which they would regard as important. It seems to me that it would be the part of wisdom to make many concessions, provided they are not of a vital character, in order that the system may secure a foothold trusting to its merits to rapidly bring it into popular favor when amendments to the law may be easily secured. Our experience in Ohio has demonstrated that one of the vital features of the bill is that when once appointments are made they shall continue until the appointees are removed for cause relating to the competency or efficiency of the appointees upon charges filed before and heard by a tribunal different from that which has the power of appointment to the vacancy. It is the absence of this provision that in many cases has made non-partisan boards so unpopular in this state. For with the power of appointment and removal in the same board, even though it be non-partisan, unless public sentiment is such that it will not tolerate a removal other than for cause, it is found that one of two results follows: Either two political machines are built up, or what is the more usual result, by the appointment of men from the opposing party who are willing for the salary of the office to subordinate themselves to the political wishes of the appointing power one huge political machine is built up which embraces all parties in its wide embrace.

The fate of the bill in any form is problematical. It remains to be seen whether the people of the State require further and more disastrous object lessons in the spoils system before they realize its nature and effect. You may be "babblers to your own times" but the "prophetic voice" will yet be heard. Selfish interests, loose reasoning, ignorance and prejudice may delay the adoption of the principles of civil service reform; but its principles are founded in truth and

justice and in the end they must prevail-their ultimate triumph is assured.

The subject invites to further discussion, but the limit of time forbids.

In closing I desire to express to the local association my appreciation of the honor shown me by its invitation to address the National Association upon this occasion. The names of many of the members of the National Association and the work of its members are familiar to every one who watches the progress of the better forces in American life. The distinguished services and high purposes of the association pursued with no motive but that of a patriotic desire of its members to benefit their fellow countrymen, gives assurance that in the future as in the past, the time will never come to this nation when the political abuses of the day will not find in opposition to them a disinterested and fearless class of men against whom "the gates of Hell shall not prevail." Upon such men the taunts and sneers which every movement for reform encounters, seem only to strengthen their arms and purpose and to clarify their brains. If at any time there come to such persons moments of depression, let them remember the words of a former president of this association now dead, but whose soul is marching on,-George William Curtis,who, in reply to the sneers against the Pharisees of reform said:

"No American, it seems to me, is so unworthy the name as he who attempts to defend any national abuse or tries to hide it or who derides as pessimists and Pharisees those who indignantly disown it or raise the cry of reform. If a man proposes the redress of any public wrong he is asked severely whether he considers himself so much wiser and better than other men that he must disturb the existing order and pose as a saint. If he denounces an evil, he is exorted to beware of spiritual pride. If he points out a dangerous public tendency or censures the action of a party, he is advised to cultivate good humor, to look on the bright side, to remember that the world is a very good world, at least, the best going, and very much better than it was a hundred years ago. Undoubtedly it is, but would it have been better if everybody had then insisted that it was the best of all possible worlds, and that we must not despond if sometimes a cloud gathers in the sky

t

.. When the sea is pouring into the ship through an open seam, everybody is aware of it. But then it is too late. It is the watch who reports the first starting of the seam who saves the ship.

"It is an ill sign when public men find in exposure and denunciations of public abuses evidences of the Pharisaic disposition and a tendency in the critic to think himself holier than other men.

"To the cant about the Pharisaism of reform there is but one short and final answer. The man who tells the truth is a holier man than the liar. The man who does not steal is a better man than the thief."

CONSTITUTION

OF THE

National Civil-Service Reform League.

I.

The name of this organization shall be the National CivilService Reform League.

II.

The object of the National Civil Service Reform League shall be to promote the purposes and to facilitate the correspondence and the united action of the Civil Service Reform Associations.

III.

The League shall consist of all the Civil Service Reform Associations in the United States which signify their willingness to become members thereof. Any association hereafter expressing such willingness shall become a member of the League upon its being accepted as such by the League or the Executive Committee. Any member of any such association may be present at any meeting of the League and take part in the debates or discussions as the by-laws may provide.

IV.

At any meeting of the League, each association belonging to it shall be entitled to one vote upon every question coming before the League; such vote may be cast by a personal representative designated by each association, or by proxy, as the by-laws may provide. If no such designation be made the delegates from such association present at such meeting, or a majority of them, may cast the vote of such association.