tried a state bill again and got it through the Senate, but the Legislature adjourned before we could reach the House. Again we tried another year and our bill was never taken out of the hands of the Committee. Last year, having a somewhat better legislature than usual, we tried a state bill again, prepared on the model of the Wisconsin law by the aid of Mr. Jenks, of Philadelphia, and Mr. Goodwin, but we again met the opposition of the country members, on account of the expense, and late in the session we went back with a local option bill, but it was too late to bring it to a vote. We now have our bill ready for the next session of the Legislature and shall keep at it until we succeed.

Professor Henry W. Farnam submitted the following report from the Civil Service Reform Association of Connecticut:

Since the last meeting of the League no legislature has been in session in Connecticut, and, therefore, we have taken no part in promoting new legislation. At the elections held in Hartford last spring, it was encouraging that Mayor Henney was re-elected, and in his inaugural address he made so strong a plea for the introduction of the merit system into the city government of Hartford that one of the departments of the city government voted, even without waiting for a law, to adopt the merit system in the appointment of its own employees.

In New Haven two vacancies occurred in the municipal board, which were excellently filled by the appointment of Professor Edward B. Reed and Dr. E. R. Whittemore. The term of office of the late clerk of the board, the method of whose appointment was criticized by our association two years ago, having expired, the board held a civil service examination and appointed as clerk Mr. J. F. Donovan, who, though not the first on the eligible list, was among the highest, and is believed to be well qualified for the position. Our association has been increasing its membership, which is now over 340. Our annual dinner was held in Waterbury on April 28th, and was addressed by the Secretary of War, Hon. William. H. Taft, who was received with great enthusiasm.

Mr. Harry J. Milligan submitted the following report from the Civil Service Reform Association of Indiana:

I thought when I came here that I would keep my seat because I know you have been entertained usually by accounts of revolutions and reforms in many places and I felt that I could not say anything of a dramatic or sensational character. However, I should like to say this, that while Indiana has no civil service law, as has been stated heretofore, and as stated in the report of the Chairman of the Council, the state in its institutions is largely governed by the merit system, and that has been done simply by the good sense of the men in power in both parties. They found by experience that any other rule brought very unsatisfactory results and, in some cases, scandals in the State institutions, and so it came about that they voluntarily adopted the practical rules of the merit system as a means of promoting good government. And I am pleased to say that there are indications, that party leaders whom it would be fair to suppose would oppose a civil service law, are now themselves considering the advisability of offering such a law to the next Indiana legislature. The matter has not gone far enough to speak with any authority upon that subject, but there are indications that something of that kind will emanate from a source where it least might be expected and from a source where ordinarily there would be opposition. When supposed enemies of the cause become its advocates there is certainly great encouragement to all its friends. I think the cause is winning its way because it is reasonable, fair and necessary. Any law of this kind which is forced too much-which is enacted before the people are ready for it-is often illadvised, and forcing not infrequently works delay. But the law once enacted is a schoolmaster. So the word from Indiana is encouraging.

Mr. William W. Vaughan submitted the following report from the Civil Service Reform Association of Massachusetts:

The annals of Massachusetts have not been very exciting. Some few violators of the law have been brought to book and have either been punished or their resignations accepted; but most of the work has been devoted to

contests in the legislature.

So far as these were entered into to obtain new legislation we got very few victories and a number of defeats; but so far as they were defensive they were entirely successful. We succeeded in holding our own, and so far as any change was made there was a slight gain in our position, because we succeeded, with other friends of the Reform, in getting the Governor to veto two very undesirable bills-one taking the fireman practically out of the classified service, and the other fixing arbitrary percentages for examination and practically tying the hands of the commissioners.

There has been absolutely no dramatic event in the year, and it has been the same wearing, inevitable but valuable fight against the spoilsmen and their attempt to get a firm hold of the few possibilities left. But looking back several years we can see an enormous gain. Then we were fighting occasionally the repeal of the law, always the attack of the veterans' preference, and, most of all, a certain public indifference to the matter. Thanks very largely to the Woman's Auxiliary, the interest throughout the State has enormously gained—and even the partisan newspapers are now taking up the question.

The scandals in the Fenway contract have brought vividly before the public the gain that would result from having heads of department selected for real capacity and scientific fitness, and there is a distinct possibility that we may carry in the legislature this winter our bill to put the heads of department into the classified service.

Mr. V. Mott Porter submitted the following report from the Civil Service Reform Association of Missouri:

Our Association has very little to report, a fact that may not be unacceptable in view of the lateness of the hour and the other reports to follow. The Missouri Association has not been very active of late, not because of any sluggishness, nor unwillingness to do work, for our members are ready to do whatever may be practicable, but because there has really been very little to do that could possibly be done, in the local field. This statement may sound strange, coming from a State which has not yet tried to adopt the merit system. Our Association, created originally for the main purpose of improving a

bad state of affairs in the St. Louis post-office and other local Federal offices, has seen the abuses remedied and regards that part of the work as practically accomplished.

The people of the State of Missouri have not yet awakened to the value of the merit system. They believe that the state offices have been fairly well administered and as long as the offices seem to be in capable hands they seem to be satisfied. They regard the conduct of the offices as of greater importance than the tenure of the office-holders. As a matter of fact there has been till lately almost a life tenure, due to the continuance of one party in power, but its recent overthrow by the "Mysterious Stranger," has brought in some new officials, and I am glad to say that the service is as good as heretofore. Whether or not our reform Governor will see fit to recommend a merit system remains to be seen, but I have not heard any one prophesying that he will do so.

In the City of St. Louis the situation is somewhat different. Here there is a distinct need of a merit system not because of present conditions, which are fairly good, but because there is not much hope that they will continue. During the last few years the city has washed a great deal of dirty municipal linen, which is now on the line drying. The elections have been close, with the result that good men had to be put forward for heads of departments and they have made reasonably good appointments. It looks now, however, as if one party wil likely get the upper hand for some time to come and we may expect to see the municipal service get into worse hands. Against this contingency we wish to interpose the barrier of a merit system. The city of St. Louis, as you may know, has no connection with the county of St. Louis, but operates under a special scheme and charter as a quasi-county. To introduce the merit system would require an amendment to the charter, initiated in the State Legislature and referred to the people of the city at some election. Such an amendment, it is believed, if specially voted on, would draw the fire of the politicians and be killed. There is, however, a movement to revise the whole charter, which is now antiquated in many par

ticulars, and already steps have been taken to frame a new one. The drafting of this is in competent hands, friendly to us, and we have reason to believe that in this new charter, which will probably come up for adoption in another year or so, there will be a provision for the merit system for the whole of the municipal service and we expect that in view of the many other provisions to be voted on our little amendment will have a better chance to slip through.

Hon. Jacob F. Miller submitted the following report from the Civil Service Reform Association of New York:

The situation created by the election of Charles E. Hughes as Governor of New York gives great encouragement to the friends of civil service reform in this State. Mr. Hughes is one of our own people, a member of the Association for a number of years, who has proved his sincere interest in the cause by undertaking and conducting for the Association without remuneration important civil service cases. We know that he can be counted on to fulfill to the extent of his power and influence his promises made during the campaign, to maintain and enforce the civil service law, and we look forward condently to an administration of the merit system in the State, counties and cities on a much higher plane than we have known or had a right to expect for a number of years.

Not that we have so much to complain of at the present time. The State Commission has shown a disposition to go at least as far, and perhaps somewhat further, in enforcing the letter and the spirit of the law as their superior, the Governor, who controls their appointment and removal, was willing to go. Governor Higgins is certainly not to be regarded as an enemy of civil service reform. Indeed, in accordance with his recommendations, the law has been extended to new fields, and in most things which the State Commission has undertaken in the way of improvements, they have had his support. Were it not for the unfortunate and incomprehensible attitude that he took towards his Commission in regard to the enforcement of the provisions of the law prohibiting political assessments in the Bender case, we should