87
removals or other drastic discipline of offenders against the letter or spirit of the civil service law, he let the officers of the government know that this law was not a mere harmless scarecrow, but a law with teeth and claws that must not be trifled with. Indeed, in some instances, as in the case of the Postmasters of Philadelphia and of New York, sterner action would have been highly desirable. But this is a matter of comparatively small moment in view of the unquestionable fact that, not only by making large and valuable additions to the classified service, but still more by undoing the mischievous practices which had crept into the administration of the civil service law, and by restoring discipline and infusing a wholesome spirit of loyalty into the whole service, President Roosevelt has greatly strengthened the reform cause and prepared it for new onward movement.
It is, therefore, with full confidence in the President's purposes as a civil service reformer that I invite attention to a practice which has recently sprung up, and which challenges examination. I mean the practice of suspending civil service rules in individual cases when a strict enforcement of them would seem to carry personal hardship with it or to be more or less prejudicial to the best interests of the service itself. The frequent occurrence of such cases of late has attracted public notice and given rise to some unfavorable criticism. That criticism may, in some instances, have been instigated by partisan motives, but there can be no doubt that much of it came from entirely friendly sources. Indeed, there was prima facie reason for it.
Civil service reformers are well aware that while the competitive merit system furnishes, on the whole, a public service vastly superior to that furnished by the spoils system, it may occasionally fail to present for appointment the fittest man for the place to be filled, especially when experience or other particular qualifications are required, and that a strict application of the civil service rules may now and then work a grievance, on individuals, exciting the sympathy of the appointing power.
How, in such cases, the interest of the public may be
