JK 766 .P5 1913 63d Congress ) ^**Py ^ 1st Session ) SENATE / Document \ No. 50 APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING >/ ■ , REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMIS- SION ON ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY ON THE APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINT- MENTS MADE FROM THE REGISTERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE APPORTIONED SERVICE AT WASHINGTON May 29, 1913. — Read, referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, and ordered to be printed WASHINGTON 1913 9. OF D, MESSAGE. To the Senate: In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of May 26, 1913, requesting the President "to send to the Senate, if not incompatible with the public interest, a copy of the report submitted to him on March 25, 1913, by the President's Commission on Economy and Efficiency on the apportionment of appointments made from the registers of the Civil Service Commission of the apportioned service at Washington/' I transmit herewith a copy of the said report. WooDROw Wilson. The White House, May 29, 1913. MEMORANDUM. A brief statement of the subject matter of this report and of the recommendations will be found in the introduction. TABLE OF OOIsTTEI^TS. Page. I. Introduction 7 II. Methods adopted by the Civil Service Commission for determining relative order of States and Territories for certifying eligibles 14 III . Method of certifying from State registers 17 IV. Questions raised as to whether results obtained are in harmony with purpose of act 21 V. Lower marks obtained on examination as evidence of less fitness 26 VI . Rating in examination as index of future efficiency 44 VII. Conclusions 50 APPENDIXES. A. Correspondence relating to qualifications of eligibles certified by the Civil Service Commission 51 B. Letter of the Civil Service Commission dated January 28, 1913 62 C. Letter of the Commission on Economy and Efficiency, dated March 25, 1913 65 5 APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. Maech 25, 1913. The President: The Commission on Economy and Efficiency has the honor to sub- mit the following report on the apportionment of appointments in the District of Columbia made from the registers of the Civil Service Commission : I. INTBODTJCTION. The fundamental purpose of the civil service act is to provide for more efficient administration by making provision for appointments based on merit. In this law it was provided that the rules to be made pursuant to the act should provide for apportionment of appointments. Appointments to the public service * * * in the departments at Washington shall be apportioned among the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia upon the basis of population as ascertained by the last preceding census. This direction as to the rules to be made was, however, subordinated in specific terms to the dominant purpose of the act by the qualifying phrase : As nearly as the conditions of good administration will warrant. One of the conditions of good administration prescribed by the act itself is : That it shall be the duty of the said commissioners * * * to aid the Presi- dent * * * in preparing suitable rules for carrying this act into effect * * _ *• And, among other things, said rules shall provide * * * for open, competitive examinations for testing the fitness of applicants for the public service now classified or to be classified hereunder. INTERPRETATION GIVEN TO THE ACT PRIOR TO MAY 14, 1910. Prior to May 14, 1910, the Civil Service Commission interpreted and administered this act ia such a manner as to make the rule pre- scribing the apportionment of "appointments to the public service * * * in the departments at Washington" dominant, completely ignoring the controlling clause of the law itself, ' ' as nearly as the con- ditions of good administration will warrant," and, furthermore, the interpretation given ignored the spirit and purpose of the prescription setting forth the condition that appointments are to be based on examinations which are held ''for testing the fitness of applicants for the public service." This was done by slavishly following what in the office is known as the "order of appointment"; that is, eligibles were certffied from each State in turn, beginning with the lowest in the order of apportionment, and by completely exhausting the list in each State down to the lowest passing mark before eligibles were '7 8 APPOKTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. taken from the next State. In other words, the interpretation and practice of the Civil Service Commission operated to set aside all grades established "for testing the fitness of applicants for the public service," except the passing mark and except, further, to make the eligibles competitive within each State. A department wishing to have a clerk or a stenographer certified, therefore, in many instances has been required to take persons from the list who had just managed to pass at or just above 70, when there were many others available whose educational qualifications and experience enabled them to pass above 90, thereby impairing the service and lowering the efficiency of the personnel, on which ''good adminis- tration" must depend. RUi.E OF MAY 14, 1910. So vigorous was the opposition to this practice that on May 14, 1910, the commission passed a rule which permitted departments to secure ''scientific assistants" by first taking the highest of all persons who were eligible from all the States that were below their pro rata until an average passing mark of 75 had been reached; then to take applicants from one State at a time above the pro rata until 75 per cent had been reached; then to return to the States below the pro rata and take applicants who had passed between 74.99 and 73 per cent; and then again to take applicants from one State at a time which were above the pro rata between the same marks; then to return a third time until the list of States (outside of a group composed of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia) had been exhausted, after which applicants might be certified from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia in the order stated. Had the commission stood on the ground that the practice prior to May 14, 1910, was the only fair interpretation to be given to the act the practice would have been consistent at least; but the passing of the rule was a recognition of the fact that the prior practice was open to criticism and that the grades or ratings of persons who had been examined should be taken into consideration as indicating the rela- tive standing or efficiency of eligibles. The rule when passed was limited to one class, namely, ''scientific assistants"; later it w:as broadened to include typewriters at a salary of $1,000 per annum and above. It is further to be noted that with respect to certain classes the rule of apportionment has been disregarded altogether, the classes to which this exception applies being called the "nonappor- tioned" service. Such were the rules and the practices of the com- mission at the time this inquiry was begun. INQUIRY BY THE COMMISSION ON ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. One of the subjects to which the President's Commission on Economy and Efficiency was asked to give attention was that of the method of making appointments to the public service. For the pur- poses of this inquiry applicants for appointment were divided into two general classes, namely, (1) appointments to be made by the President "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate," and (2) appointments to be made from the registers of the Civil Service Commission. APPORTIONMENT OP APPOINTMENTS. \) Report on the first class of appointments was submitted to the President by the commission on December 5, 1911. That report, with recommendations, was sent to Congress April 4, 1912, and was published as Appendix I of House Document 670, Sixty-second Con- gress, second session (p. 17 et seq.). Inquiry into the second class of appointments included: First, those to be made to positions in the departmental service at Wash- ington; second, those to be made to positions in local offices and field services of the various executive offices throughout the United States. While a report has not yet been prepared and submitted on the latter class, namely, those to positions in local offices and field services, one fact is to be noted, viz, that this class comprehends approximately 90 per cent of all appointments, whereas the appointments which are made to departments in Washington comprehend only about 10 per cent. A further fact is pertinent to this report — that the appoint- ments which are made to local offices and field services of the various executive departments throughout the United States are at the present time approximately in proportion to population. That is, the practice in such cases is to make appointments from the locality or district; and since the personnel of local offices and field services of the various executive departments is approximately in the same proportion as population this local practice results in a distribution on population lines. In the city of New York, for example, it was found that the Government of the United States regularly employs quite as many persons as are employed in Washington. Here is a great center of population in which the Government recruits itself almost entirely from its own labor market or immediate environment. The same is true of Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco — every large city in the United States. It is also true of the smaller towns, even down to the crossroads post offices. If there is any institutional reason for having the States and Territories proportionally repre- sented in the service, therefore, this can not be urged as a reason for depriving the departments at Washington from availing themselves of the benefits which are accorded to New York, Philadelphia, or other large cities — the utilization of its own labor market. In planning this inquiry, the practice pertaining to appointments to positions from registers of the Civil Service Commission in the departmental service at Washington was again divided into two parts, namely, (1) those relating to the apportioned service and (2) those relating to the nonapportioned service. This report is a description and discussion of the methods employed and of the results which have been obtained in the application of the civil service act to the ''apportioned service" at Washington. RESULTS OP PRACTICES APPLIED TO THE APPORTIONED SERVICE. After an exhaustive study of the records of the CivU Service Com- mission and of the evidence which was obtained from the depart- ments (the results of which are shown in the pages that follow), the President's commission has come to the conclusion that the inter- pretation which has been given to the act by the Civil Service Com- mission has been such as practically to defeat its primary purpose; that instead of giving to applicants the benefit of competitive exami- 10 APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. nations, and instead of giving to the service the benefit of rules adopted for ''testing the fitness of apphcants"; instead of making available to the Government persons who had by the rules estab- lished been given a rating of superior merit, every ''condition of good administration" has been made subordinate and subservient to de- mands that can find no explanation except a desire to contmue a system which the law was designed to supplant. Practically the only effect of the law as interpreted had been to eliminate from the possibility of appointment to positions in the classified service such persons as had entirely failed to obtain any standing whatever — i. e., to obtain an average above the passing mark. This conclusion — - that the result has been to defeat the purposes of the act — is amply supported by the facts which are shown in detail below. REPORT SUBMITTED AS A STATEMENT OF FACT. In submitting this report the thought has been that its chief value will lie in statements of fact. In order that controversy might be confined entirely to critical comment and constructive recommen- dation, the statements of fact are entirely separated in the text. To the end that all controversy might be eliminated from the de- scriptive statement this portion of the report was prepared and sub- mitted to the Civil Service Commission with the request that it be reviewed and corrected or enlarged upon, if need be, in order that it might be accepted without question as a basis for discussion. This descriptive text having been returned, after making such modifica- tions as would eliminate every recital concerning which question had been raised, critical comment and constructive recommenda- tions were submitted. On January 28, 1913, the comment of the Civil Service Commission, as an answer to the critical statements and constructive recommendations, was returned (Appendix B), together with a proposed change in the rules. To this answer the President's commission filed a reply (Appendix C) which in brief calls attention to the fact that the answer or comment of the Civil Service Commission avoided the issues which had been raised and that the proposed memorandum (while it was in the nature of an admis- sion of past interpretation and practice that have been adverse to ''good administration") does not reach nor correct the evil results that are clearly written on the face of the record as a matter of experience. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION. The Commission on Economy and Efficiency recommends that the Civil Service Commission's minute of May 14, 1910, be amended in such manner as to cover all classes of eligibles and provide for the following procedure in certifying eligibles: (1) Certify the highest eligible from the entire group of States and Territories that have not received their full share of the total number of appointments actually made, and continue so to do until all the eligibles from such States, Territories, and the District of Columbia have been certified with average percentages as much as 85. APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 11 (2) After all the eligibles described in (1) above have thus been certified, then certify from the other States, in their order under the apportionment, eligibles with an average percentage of as much as 85. (3) After all the eligibles described in (2) above have thus been certified, then certify the highest remaining eUgibles from the entire group of States in arrears of their share, in the order of percentages, who have percentages of as much as 85.50. (4) After all such eligibles described in (3) above have been thus certified, then certify as described in (2) above down to and in- cluding eligibles with percentages of as much as 82.50. (5) After all the eligibles described in (4) above have thus been certified, then certify the highest remaining ehgibles from the entire group of States in arrears of their share, in the order of percentages, who have percentages of as much as 80. (6) After all such eligibles described in (5) above have thus been certified, then certify as described in (2) down to and including ehgibles with percentages of as much as 80. (7) After all the ehgibles described in (6) above have thus been certified, then certify the highest remaining ehgibles from the entire group of States in arrears of their share, in the order of percentages, who have percentages of as much as 77.50. (8) After all such eligibles described in (7) above have thus been certified, then certify as described in (2) above down to and including eligibles with percentages of as much as 77.50. (9) After all the eligibles described in (8) above have thus been certified, then certify the highest remaining eligibles from the entire group of States in arrears of their share, in the order of percentages, who have percentages of as much as 75. (10) After all such ehgibles described in (9) above have thus been certified, then certify as described in (2) above down to and including, eligibles with percentages of as much as 75. (11) After all the eligibles described in (10) above have thus been certified, then certify the highest remaining eligibles from the entire group of States in arrears of their share, in the order of percentages, who have percentages of as much as 72.50. (12) After all such eligibles described in (11) above have thus been certified, then certify as described in (2) above down to and including eligibles with percentages of as much as 72.50. (13) After all the ehgibles described in (12) above have thus been certified, then certify the highest remaining eligibles from the entire group of States in arrears of their share, in the order of percentages, who have percentages of as much as 70. (14) After all such eligibles described in (13) above have thus been certified, then certify as described in (2) above down to and including eligibles with percentages of as much as 70. 12 APPOKTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. Reduced to tabular form the recommendations of the Commission on Economy and Efficiency are that the minute of May 14, 1910, of the Civil Service Commission be so changed that all certification of eligibles from the registers for appointment to the apportioned service at Washington shall be according to the following formula : Order of certifica- tion. States. Order of certifica- tion. States. In arrears. In excess. In arrears. In excess. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 100.00-85.00 (E.R.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 79.99-77.50 (O.A.) 100.00-85.00 (O.A.) 77. 49-75. 00 (E.R.) 84.99-82.50 (E.R.) 77.49-75.00 (O.A.) 84.99^82.50 (O.A.) 74.99-72.50 (E.R.) 82.49-80.00 (E.R.) 74.99-72.50 (O.A.) 82.49-80.00 (O.A.) 72.49-70.00 (E.R.) 79.99-77.50 (E.R.) 72.49-70.00 (O.A.) (E. R.)=Certification from highest on entire register of all States in arrears. (O. A.)=Certification in order of apportionment. In order that the purpose of the civil-service law may be accom- plished, viz, that appointments in the departmental service at Wash- ington shall, so far as the conditions of good administration warrant, be apportioned among the States, etc., in accordance with the popu- lation, the Commission on Economy and Efficiency also recommends the payment of mileage to all persons coming to Washington to accept employment in that service. CLAIMS MADE FOE THE RECOMMENDATIONS SUBMITTED. In considering what recommendations this commission would make, two questions were discussed: (1) Whether it was desirable to recom- mend a change in law; (2) whether favorable results which should be attained could be reached by Executive order alone. The conclusion arrived at with respect to the first question was that the clause requir- ing an apportionment of appointments to the service at Washington could not stand in the way of good administration without doing violence to the language of the law; for this reason it was a matter for Executive determination as to what provisions or orders were necessary to accomplish the best results. The conclusion reached with respect to the second question was that the ends of ''good administration" could be reached by some such form of Executive order as is recommended. In brief, it was thought that a rule could be promulgated which would enable the Civil Service Commission to give a prefcrance to such States and Territories as were below their quota, and at the same time not in any perceptible manner interfere with the principle of merit. The character of the rule through which it is thought this end could be reached is exemplified above. Concretely, it was proposed that all States and Territories, including Maryland, Virginia, and the Dis- trict of Columbia, should be divided hito two classes: (1) those "in APPORTIONMENT OP APPOINTMENTS. 13 arrears" in appointments, and (2) those '4n excess" in appointments; that by enabling the departments to select theii- employees first from the highest on the list of all States ''in arrears" down to an average of 85, then to turn to those States "in excess" and select down to the same average, and by permitting those "in arrears" to have the first opportunity, at each step downward of 2 J per cent in the average ratings, the principle of selection based on merit and the principle of apportionment both could be conserved. This suggested rule has the advantage of simplicity and equity as well as being in conformity to the spirit of the act. Tms conclusion is based on a careful study of the records; it is sup- ported also by the opinions of others long in the service with whom the subject has been discussed. It is thought that if such a rule were adopted every defect which was found to have obtained, as reflected by the record, would be cured. A further reason which moved the commission was that the rule of apportionment was entitled to receive very small consideration, in view of the fact that only a small percentage of the appointments are made in the departments at Washington. If, therefore, an interpretation were given which gave to States "in arrears" a preference, it was thought that there could be no foundation whatever for the claim that this rule should take precedence or be operated in a manner to perceptibly interfere with the rule of merit. The dominant reason which has guided the commission has been that any rule such as that which has obtained (or that which is pro- posed by the Civil Service Commission as a substitute for the recom- mendations of the Commission on Economy and Efficiency) would necessarily continue to operate to defeat the rule of merit and would continue to seriously interfere with efficient administration. It would operate quite as seriously against the Government as it would against a private concern employing a similar practice. As has been pointed out in the reply (Appendix C) the new rule proposed by the Civil Service Commission is not offered as a substitute for the old rule of May 14, 1910, but it is an endeavor to apply some rule to the classes other than "scientific assistant" and "typewriters" receiving a salary of $1,000 or more. In the opinion of this commission, the proposed rule would not operate in such a manner as to give precedence to the rule of merit ; it would not prevent lowering of the moral tone and the esprit de corps of the service. If, therefore, there is any reason, political or other, which might be urged against such an Executive order as has been recommended by the Commission on Economy and Efficiency, it was thought that the sooner the issue was squarely raised and settled the better it would be for the service. The facts concerning which there is no dispute and the corre- spondence setting forth the issues concerning which the two com- missions have failed to agree are submitted to the President for his information. As set forth in Appendix C, it appears to be the practice of the Civil Service Commission not to allow residents of nine States and the District of Columbia to be examined for clerical positions in the departments at Washington, nor if examined, to be appointed if they be residents of Virginia, Maryland, or the District of Columbia, no matter what their qualifications or how inferior may be the qualifi- 14 APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. cations of those from other States. It is thought that this practice violates the letter and the spirit of the civil-service law in an effort to force a mathematical apportionment regardless of efficiency in ad- ministration. II. METHOD ADOPTED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION' FOR DETERMINING RELATIVE ORDER OF STATES AND TERRI- TORIES FOR CERTIFYING ELIGIBLE S. From the beginning of its history the Civil Service Commission has endeavored to make a strict mathematical distribution of appoint- ments to the departmental service at Washington, and to that end it has employed several methods to determine the number of appomt- ments to which each State and Territory is entitled. At the time when the civil service act was passed there were 332 Representatives in Con- gress. Each State and Territory was at first allotted that proportion of 332 appointments that its population bore to the total population of the country, and the commission made certifications as nearly as possible in such a manner that each State approached the fulfillment of its quota at the same rate. In less than two years 332 appoint- ments had been made, and from that time to January 6, 1911, the practice has been followed of apportioning among the States, etc., from time to time, according to the population of each, some arbi- trary number, larger than the number of appointments, and of en- deavoring so to certify eligibles that each State should approach its quota of the arbitrary number at the same rate. This method was thought to be defective because the quota thus assigned each State was its true quota only on the day when the total number of appointments reached the arbitrary number. The method was thought to be misleading and at times made it appear that a State had received more or less than its due share of appoint- ments when the opposite was true, and on January 6, 1911, the commission adopted a method based upon the theory that each State is entitled to the same per cent of each appointment as its population is of the total population. This system, which was con- sidered a great improvement over the one first used, can be explained best by the use of the following partial table, taken from the com- mission's report of June 30, 1911 (p. 138): state or Territory. Per cent of to- tal population, which Is also the per cent due of each and all ap- pointments. Times share of one appoint- ment involved in each ap- pointment received. Number of ap- pointments received. Times share of one appoint- ment re- ceived — Rela- tive order for certification. 2. 383345 . 156368 1.277191 1. 194212 9. 763204 100 5. 106906 8. 211456 1.308156 . 795284 41.9578 639. 5170 78. 2968 83. 7372 10. 2425 1 19. 5813 12. 1781 76.4434 125. 7412 224 15 125 117 971 10, 182 521 846 143 57 9, 398. 54 9,592.76 9,787.10 Connecticut 9,797.25 9,945.46 United States 10, 182. 00 Ohio 10,201.86 10, 302. 67 10,931.41 10,939.48 APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 15 The total population of the States and Territories and the District of Columbia, including Alaska, Porto Rico, and Hawaii, according to the census of 1910, was 93,346,543. The second column shows for each State its per cent of the total population and its due share of each appointment. To illustrate the working of this system it may be said that on March 17, 1911, 10,182 appointments had been made to the appor- tioned service at Washington, and each State was therefore entitled to 10,182 times its share of each appointment. As a matter of fact, some States had received more and some less. The number of times its share of one appointment which each State has actually received is shown in the fifth column, and this determines the relative order for certification under the present system. The third column shows the value to each State of each appoint- ment received by it. For example, Iowa is entitled to 2.38 per cent of each appointment. When it receives an appointment it receives 41.9578 times its share of each appointment. The number in the third column opposite each State is, therefore, a factor to be added to or subtracted from the corresponding number in the fifth column every time a resident of the State is appointed or separated from the service. For example, an appointment given to Nebraska increases its number in the fifth column by 78.2968, or to 9,856.39, and drops it below Connecticut in order of certification. On March 17, 1911, the United States as a whole had received 10,182 appointments in the apportioned service at Washington, which is 10,182 times its share of one appointment. Any State which has received more than 10,182 times its share of one appoint- ment was in excess, while any that had received less than 10,182 times its share of one appointment was in arrears. The number of appointments to which a State is entitled at any time may be found by multiplying the total number of appointments by its per cent of the total population. The per cent of its share which any State has received may be found by dividing the number in the fifth col- umn, showing the total number of times its share of one appointment received, by the total number of appointments received by all the States and Territories. Using this method the condition of the apportionment is shown from day to day, as it varies with the occurrence of vacancies and the appointment of new eligibles. A sheet is made up daily showing the order of the States and Territories under the apportionment, and this sheet is followed in making certifications to the apportioned service. 16 APPOETIOISTMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. The following is a copy of the apportionment sheet for March 17, 1911: Condition of the apportionment Mar. 17, 1911. State. IN ARREARS. Alaska Hawaii Porto Rico Oklahoma Washington North Dakota.. Idaho California Oregon New Mexico Texas Utah Arkansas Montana Louisiana Alabama Mississippi Nevada South Dakota.. Florida Wisconsin Illinois Colorado Tennessee Kentucky Georgia South Carolina. Arizona Re- ceived. 6 38 88 62 .33 19 146 42 21 258 25 106 26 116 150 129 6 46 62 195 477 68 192 205 241 140 19 Relative order. 2,900.94 2,918.47 3,172.74 4,956.98 5, 067. 89 5,3.38.20 5,447.19 5, 7-32. 18 5,82r.53 5,989.21 6, 180. 69 6, 250. 60 6,284.57 6, 453. 91 6,537.22 6,548.82 6, 700. 57 6,840.72 7,354.06 7,689.81 7,799.34 7,896.70 7,944.14 8,20.3.31 8, 356. 69 8,622.25 8, 623. 77 8,679.00 29 y30 31 32 a33 34 35 36 37 ya38 39 a40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 2V.50 a51 52 State. IN ARREARS— COntd. Minnesota Missouri Michigan New jersey . . . . Kansas Indiana North Carolina. Iowa Wyoming Nebraska Coimecticut New York IN EXCESS. Ohio Pennsylvania West Virginia Maine '... New Hampshire . . . . Rhode Island Massachusetts Vermont Delaware Virginia Maryland District of Columbia. Re- ceived. 193 (308) 307 262 240 (159) 160 260 214 224 15 (125) 125 117 (970) 971 521 846 143 87 53 67 430 65 37 (424) 422 (445) 446 1,059 •Relative order. 8, 679. 38 8, 701. 61 8, 702. 95 8,829.98 8, 832. 58 8,985.99 9,054.18 9, 398. 54 9, 592. 76 9,787.10 9,797.27 9,945.44 10, 201. 85 10,302.72 10,931.40 10,939.48 11,491.23 11,526.14 11,923.35 17,045.73 17,070.99 19, 107. 48 32, 141. 11 299,590.75 ■Gains: A. By appointment. . B. By transfer 0. By reinstatement . Losses: X. By transfer Y. By separation. Total salary loss $4, 540 Total salary gain 2, 940 Net salary loss 1 , 600 Total appointments ^ 10, 182 ( ) number on preceding day. Under this method of debiting and crediting appointments and separations every State and Territory is placed from day to day in exact mathematical order accordmg to the strength of its claim for an appointment, the State having the fewest appointments in pro- portion to population being shown at the top of the sheet and the State having the largest number of appomtments being shown at the bottom. By certifying from the top of this list of States down to the bottom there is a constant tendency to equalize appointments among the States. The eligibles from States farthest in arrears are certified first, while the eligibles from the States farthest in excess are certified last. This method of keeping the record of appointments and separations is simple and accurate, and answers admirably the purpose for which it was devised. There can be no just criticism of a method for deter- APPOKTIOlSrMEISrT OF APPOINTMENTS. 17 mining with mathematical accuracy the relative order of States and Territories according to the number of appointments with wliich they stand charged. It is, however, in the opinion of the Commission on Economy and Efficiency against the interests of good administration to follow this arrangement of States absolutely in making appoint- ments, except when all States furnish eligibles of equal merit. When the eligibles are of unequal merit, "good administration" demands that the order of States should be disregarded and the eligible of superior attainments be offered the appointment. III. METHOD OF CERTIFYING FROM THE STATE REGISTERS AFTER MAY 14, 1910. Prior to May 14, 1910, the general method of certifying eligibles to the apportioned service at Washington was to certify those from the State having the first claim as long as there were any eligibles on the registers down to a bare passing mark of 70. Civil Service Rule VI provides, among other things, that examination papers shall be rated on a scale of 100, and that all competitors rated at 70 or more shall be eligible for appointment, and their names shall be placed on the proper register according to their ratings; but those honorably discharged from the military or naval service of the United States, rated at 65 or more, are placed above all others. Certifications are made from the top of each register thus arranged. This method naturally resulted in dissatisfaction on the part of heads of departments and bureaus because they were unable to secure the certification of the eligibles with the highest ratings when such eligibles were residents of States not in order of certification. In fact, it frequently happened that the departments were forced to be content with eligibles with bare passing marks when the registers of States not in order of certification carried eligibles with highly creditable ratings. The greatest difficulty under this method seems to have been experienced by the Civil Service Commission in supply- ing satisfactory eligibles for scientific and technical positions. To meet this difficulty, the Civil Service Commission, on May 14, 1910, adopted a minute modifying their method of certifying eligibles for techmcal and scientific positions, and on October 18, 1911, extended the provisions of the minute to eligibles for the position of stenographer and typewriter at initial salaries above $900 a year. (Under sectio^i 262 of the Civil Service Commission's Manual of Exam- inations for the fall of 1912 the minute of May 14, 1910, is made to apply to stenographer and typewriter eligibles for appointment at $1,000 or more. This section also limits the scope of the minute in the selection of eligibles for technical and scientific positions to those who are to receive an initial salary of $1,000. This increases some- what the difficulties of the departments in securing competent eligibles at the salaries they are able to pay.) The following is a copy of the minute: CERTIFICATION — APPORTIONMENT. 1. Certify the highest eligibles from the entire group of States and Territories that have not received their full share of the total number of appointments actually made, and continue so to do until all the eligibles from such States and Territories have been ■certified with average percentages as much as 75. S. Doc. 50, 63-1 2 18 APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 2. After all the eligibles described in (1) above have thus been certified, then certify from the other States, in their order under the apportionment, eligibles with an average percentage of as much as 75 down to the two States and the District of Colmnbia having the largest excess of their share of appointments. _ 3. After all the eligibles described in (2) above have thus been certified, then certify the highest remaining eligibles from the entire group of States in arrears of their share in the order of percentages who have percentages of as much as 73. 4. After all such eligibles described in (3) above have thus been certified, then certify as described in (2) above down to and including eligibles with percentages of as much as 73. 5. After all eligibles have thus been certified with averages as much as 73 down ta the two States and the District of Columbia that have received the greatest excess of their share, then certify the highest remaining eligibles from the entire group of States and Territories in arrears of their share; and after all eligibles from such group of States have been certified, then certify from each State in its order under the apportionment. The following is a list of registers from which certification will be made in accordance with the above directions: Aid, Coast and Geodetic Survey. Assistant chemist. Assistant chemist, Public Roads. Assistant chemist, Bureau of Standards. Assistant curator. Assistant examiner. Assistant dairyman. Assistant in -dry-land agriculture. Scientific assistant. Soil chemist. Farm management. Physiology and nutrition of man. Soil physics. Rural engineer, drainage. Rural engineer, irrigation. Horticulture. Agronomy. Plant pathology. Soil surveying. Pomology. Agrostology. Dairying. Plant breeding. Animal bacteriology. Food bacteriology. Animal husbandry. Seed testing. Library science. Computer. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Nautical Almanac Office. Miscellaneous, Naval Observatory. Supervising Architect. Draftsmen. Architectural. Copyist topographic. Electrical engineer. Engineer. Heating and ventilating. Junior architectural. Mechanical and chart. Editor. Experimental Station, Agriculture. Bureau of Education, Interior, Junior Animal Husbandry. Laboratory aid. Plant Industry. Engineer physicist. Laboratory assistant. Experimental engineering. General chemistry. Theoretical and experimental electricity. APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 19 Laboratory assistant, Agriculture. Library cataloguer. Physiologist, Poisonous Plant Investigation. Plant physiologist. Telegraph operator. Telephone operator. Tariff clerk. Translator. French, German, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese. And from kindred registers that may be established when approved by the com- mission. From the following registers certification will be made in accordance with the apportionment: Law clerk Machinist. Messenger. Skilled laborer. Stenographer and typewriter. Watchman. Bookkeeper. Clerk. Clerk examiner. Elevator conductor. Engineer Fireman. Laboratory helper. And from kindred registers that may be established. (Minute 5, May 14, 1910.) The Civil Service Commission thus showed that they recognized the impracticability of securing good administration by requiring at all times a strict mathematical apportionment of public offices. Under this minute certification is first made from the entire group of States and Territories which have not received their full share of appointments in proportion to population. Certifications from the States thus in arrears are continued until all eHgibles down to an average of 75 per cent have been certified. Then the States which have received more than their quota of appointments are taken, each in its order, and the ehgibles of each State are certified down to an average of 75 per cent, excluding Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, which are most in excess of aU. After all eligibles from all the States, except Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Colum- bia, have been certified down to an average of 75, then the process is repeated by returning to the group of States and Territories that have received less than their full quota of appointments and certifying all eligibles down to an average of 73 per cent, and in turn the eligibles from the States that have received more than their share are certified in their order of apportionment down to 73 per cent, again excluding Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. After all ehgibles from aU. the States, except Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, have been certified down to an average of 73, then the process is repeated by returning to the group of States that have received less than their fuU quota of appointments and certifying all eligibles down to the passing mark of 70, and in turn the ehgibles from the States that have received more than their share of appointments are certified in their order of apportionment down to the passing mark of 70. The minute thus specifically bars the certification of any eligibles from Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, where many of the the best quahfied ehgibles are found, until after all eligibles from every other State have been certified down to a bare passing mark of 70. The operation of the minute may be illustrated by the following diagram : 20 APPORTIONMENT OP APPOINTMENTS. Method of certification of aids and scientific assistants under Civil Service Commission's minute of May 14, 1910. Order of States. certifica- Virginia, tion. In arrears. In excess Maryland, and (see note). District of Columbia. 1 100. 00-75. 00 (E.R.) X X 2 100. 00-75. 00 (O.A.) X 3 74.99-73.00 (E.R.) X X 4 74.99-73.00 (0. A.) X 5 72.99-70.00 (E.R.) X X 6 72.99-70.00 (O.A.) X 7 ~ 100.00-70.00 (O.A.) Note. — Exclusive of Viiginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. (E. R.)=Certl£ication from highest on entire register of all States in arrears. (O. A. )= Certification in order of apportionment. X=No possibility of certification. — =Registers exhausted down to lowest number immediately above. Under this minute the various registers of eUgibles are, for the pur- pose of certification to the departmental service at Washington, divided into two groups, as follows: (a) Scientific and technical assistants and stenographers and type- writers, for appointment at initial salaries of $1,000 or more, are certified in the order provided by the minute as described above. (b) Scientific and technical assistants at initial salaries of less than $1,000; bookkeepers, clerks, clerk examiners, elevator conductors, engineers, firemen, laboratory helpers, law clerks, machinists, mes- sengers, skilled laborers, and watchmen, and eligibles from kindred registers that may be established, and stenographers and typewriters for appointment at initial salaries of less than $1,000 are certified from the States and Territories having the greatest claim for an appoint- ment at the time the certification is made, or in other words, from the State which has the fewest employees in the apportioned service at the time the certification is made. Certifications are made from the State having the greatest claim for an appointment down to a bare passing mark of 70. The following statement shows that, during the year 1911, 1,741 appointments were made to the service at Washington. Of that number 633 were in the nonapportioned service, and 1,108 were in the apportioned service, of which only 321, or a little more than a fourth, were appointed under the minute of May 14, 1910. Appointments to the departmental service during the year 1911. Nonappor- tioned. Appor- tioned. Minute. Total. Educational test: General examiaations 319 420 J 220 14 100 290 »31 1,029 251 Stenographer and typewriter Stenographer 14 Typewriter 100 Total educational test 319 314 754 33 321 1,394 Noneducational test: General examination 347 Total p.xaminatlons . . 633 787 321 1,741 1 Distribution estimated. APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 21 While the method of certifying under this minute of May 14, 1910, undoubtedly gives the heads of departments and bureaus a better class of ehgibles from which to make their selections where it applies than was possible under the older methods, it is thought by the Com- mission on Economy and Efficiency that the minute does not benefit the service as greatly as it should, because it does not go far enough. It is manifest from the letters received from department officials, which are given in Appendix A, that the Government is still fre- quently deprived of the services of the ehgibles passing highest, and the work of the Government is thereby retarded or injured. It is also apparent from the tables which have been prepared by the com- mission that there is just ground for complaint if it is assumed that grades count for anything. Another fact is to be noted — the practice of appointing all ehgibles from the preferred State before taking eligibles from the next State on the fist results in the loss of many, of the highest ehgibles, for the more capable the ehgible the less hkely he is to wait for months after he has passed his examination to receive an appointment in the Government service. An ehgible with high marks who is a resident of a State or Territory that may not be reached for months after examination, if at all, is hkely to secure employment outside of the service and be unwilhng to accept Government employment when his name is finally reached. This fact is noted in the twenty-seventh annual report of the commission in the following language: The maximum result of an examination is obtained through the possibility of certi- fication at the earliest practicable date, since the number of declinations increases in proportion to the time which elapses after an examination (p. 13). In its twenty-eighth annual report the commission says : At best the eligible list is a waiting list, and the longer the period of waiting from the time of holding examination the less likely are the eligibles to be available for appointment when their names are reached for certification. Because of their supe- rior qualifications, those who attain the highest averages are usually available for a shorter period of time than those who attain the lower ratings (p. 35). IV. QUESTION RAISED AS TO WHETHER RESULTS OBTAINED ARE IN HARMONY WITH PURPOSE OF ACT. To determine whether "good administration" ''warrants" the present method of certification, two questions must be answered: (1) How much below the highest are the marks of those certified; and, (2) Are the lower marks of those certified an evidence of less fitness for appointment than those marked highest ? In order to throw light on the first question, the following tables were made up from the records of the Civil Service Commission. They cover the commission's certifications durmg the year 1910 from four registers — those of clerk, bookkeeper, female stenographer and typewriter, and laboratory helper — and show the general averages of those certified compared with the averages of those who would have been certified if the commission had certified the highest avail- able without regard to residence. They are arranged in two sets. It wiU be noted that the first set immediately following this text compares the examination ratings of the three persons certified under the apportionment rule with the three persons who passed the highest in the examination but who were not certified because residents of States or Territories which had, at the time, their fuU quota of appointments. 22 APPOETION^MENT OF APPOINTMENTS. It will be seen in the case of the clerks that on only one certificate (Commerce and Labor No. 3636) was the average of the three eligibles actually certified as high as the average of the three eligibles standing highest among all the States and Territories. The average rating of the eligibles on the other 45 certificates was from 0.42 to 15.19 points below the average of the highest among all the States and Territories. The average rating of clerks for the year was 8.45 points below the average of the highest available from all the States and Territories. Table 1. — Average examination rating of clerks certified under the present system of certifying from States having the greatest claim for appointment at time certification is made, the average examination rating of clerks who were the highest available from all ike States at time certification was made, and the difference hetiveen ratings of clerks actually certified and highest available. / [All departments, year 1910.] No. of certifi- cate. Examination ratings (average of 3 persons certified). Salary (average of C certified). persons Department. Under appor- tionment. Highest eligibles. Differ- ence caused by rule. Offered. Accept- able to persons certified. Accept- able to highest eligibles. State 1239 251 1389 425 1427 1428 435 1437 1446 3363 .3381 3472 3473 13636 6529 6846 6959 17006 7151 7225 7353 18586 18617 18652 18731 18917 18934 9017 9034 79.72 73.85 76.32 80.53 81.27 89.40 79.00 83.37 79.78 78.25 73.85 80.27 80.20 80.27 77.73 76.48 77.22 81.22 77.70 77.70 81.. 55 77.57 80.20 77.60 75.13 75.78 76.85 76.43 78.33 78.67 78.17 75.20 78.43 80.97 83.97 75.47 80.15 81.00 77.47 76.57 79.98 77.28 75.63 76.37 78.95 74.28 90.32 86.72 88.35 86.80 90.32 89.82 84.63 87.98 87.15 86.97 88.08 87.28 86.83 86.62 77.73 81.07 86.62 88.48 88.27 87.75 86.90 86.52 86.43 85.97 90.32 89.82 88.77 89.40 88.80 88.70 88.60 88.02 87.85 87.77 87.70 87.22 86.47 85.75 85.18 84.70 83.97 86.55 80.40 84.60 88.80 87.75 10.60 12.87 12.03 6.27 9.05 .42 5.63 4.61 7.37 8.72 14.23 7.01 6.63 6.35 S900 900 1,020 840 840 900 1,020 840 840 840 900 720 840 720 840 840 840 720 600 720 720 600 720 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 900 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 780 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 900 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 S620 900 880 560 640 680 800 740 680 740 900 653 640 660 747 667 753 740 500 560 600 560 640 880 900 933 933 660 967 1,000 1,000 933 SiS 833 860 840 640 833 833 800 860 820 800 800 933 1,000 $667 Do 900 900 Civil Service Commission Do 747 667 600 Interstate Commerce 827 Civil Service Commission Do 640 807 Do 740 Commerce and Labor 800 Do 600 Do 680 Do 600 Do 747 Navy 4.59 9.40 7.26 10.57 10.05 5.35 8.95 6.23 8.37 15.19 14.04 11.92 12.97 10.47 10.03 10.43 12.82 9.42 6.80 3,73 11.75 6.32 4.75 7.71 8.13 3.99 9.27 4.77 8.23 9.85 13.47 747 720 640 Do 600 Do 640 Do 600 Do 600 Do 620 War 767 Do 667 600 847 680 Do 747 Do 767 867 740 800 Do 800 900 727 640 Do 860 Do 880 847 773 800 Do 847 Average for all certifica^ 880 880 867 78.52 86.97 8.45 898 777 745 1 Certificates on which appointments were made. It will be seen in the case of the bookkeepers that on only one certificate (Civil Service Commission No. 451) was the average of APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 23 the three ehgibles actually certified as high as the average of the three eligibles standing highest among all the States and Territories, and in this case the advantage of 7.39 points in favor of the appor- tionment does not in fact exist, for the high eligibles making up the average of 91.09 shown in the apportionment column were included in_ previous certifications shown in the column headed "Highest eligibles." In this case these high eligibles were finally reached under the apportionment, but not as early as they would have been reached without the apportionment. The average rating of the eligibles on the other 40 certificates was from 2.22 to 16.01 points below the average of the highest among all the States and Territories. The general average for all certificates for the year was 6.88 points below the average of the highest available from all the States and Territories. Table 2.— Average examination rating of bookkeepers certified under the present system of certifying from States having the greatest claim for appointment at time certification is made, the average examination rating of bookkeepers who were the highest available from all the States at time certification was made, and the difference between ratings of bookkeepers actually certified and highest available. [Al] departments, year 1910.] Department, No. of eertifl- cate. Examination ratings (average of 3 persons certifiecl). Salary (average of 3 persons certifled). Under appor- tionment. Highest eligibles. Differ- ence caused by rule. Offered. Accept- able to persons certifled. Accept- able to highest eligibles. Civil Service Commission. Do Do Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do Commerce and Labor. Navy Interior War Do Do Do Do Treasury War Do... Treasury . War Treasury. Do. Do. War. Do. Do. 1426 142S 429 1434 437 1439 441 1 444 1450 1451 13470 16624 17193 8588 18600 18616 18875 8894 18911 18914 18936 18944 18962 18958 19015 19028 19036 84.90 78.91 78.11 83.90 83.38 77.33 78.41 74.20 77.38 75.54 78.34 80.93 91.09 78.30 76.71 74.79 78.40 77.61 78.54 78.30 74.62 77.20 78.86 77.42 76.43 79.23 79.74 82.70 76.83 81.86 80.83 77.81 74.94 80.44 77.33 75.35 78.37 78.10 78.39 78.33 77.16 88.09 87.49 86.79 86.60 86.60 85.12 82.42 90.21 86.30 82.51 83.79 83.75 83.70 86.06 86.93 88.43 85.19 88.63 87.30 87.63 87.30 86.85 86.60 86.45 85.71 85.31 85.55 84.92 84.50 84.20 86.14 85.38 84.71 84.95 84.25 84.06 83.81 83.81 83.77 83.67 83.60 3.19 8.58 8.68 2.70 3.22 7.79 4.01 16.01 8.92 6.97 5.45 2.82 -7.39 7.76 10.22 13.64 6.79 11.02 8.76 9.33 12.68 9.65 7.74 9.03 9.28 6.08 5.81 2.22 7^67 2.34 5.31 7.57 9.77 4.51 6.92 8.71 5.44 5.71 5.38 5.34 6.44 840 840 720 840 840 840 840 840 900 1,000 900 900 1,000 900 1,000 1,000 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 700 900 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 660 900 900 900 713 900 900 767 640 707 747 843 818 760 747 853 720 873 780 900 900 900 720 950 833 833 833 800 767 723 740 600 720 680 640 640 600 640 600 680 620 680 S807 780 780 720 720 680 680 720 ■ 747 790 800 720 747 900 987 760 767 873 800 1,000 987 820 720 747 840 840 900 867 600 880 673 680 640 680 640 640 660 620 767 707 787 General average for aU certi- fications 78.71 761 1 Certificates on which appointments were made. 24 APPORTIOlSrMElSrT OF APPOINTMENTS. It will be seen in the case of the female stenographers and type- writers that in no single instance was the average of the three eligioles actually certified as high as the average of the three eligibles standing highest among all the States and lerritories. The average rating of the eligibles was from 0.59 to 14.83 points below the average of the highest among all the States and Territories. The general average for all certificates for the year was 8.39 pomts below the average of the highest available from'^ all the States and Territories. Table 3. — Average examination rating of female stenographers and typewriters certified under the present system of certifying from States having the greatest claim for appoint- ment at time certification is made, the average examination rating of those who were the highest available from all the States at time certification was made, and the difference between ratings of those actually certified and highest available. [A 11 departments, year 1910.] Department. No. of certifi- cate. Examination ratings (average of 3 persons certified). Under appor- tionment. Highest eligibles. Difler- ence caused by rule. Salary (average of 3 persons certified). Offered. Accept- able to persons certified. Accept- able to highest eligibles. Post-Office Do Commerce and Labor. Mavy Do Agriculture Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Interior Do Agriculture Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do..... Interior Do Agriculture. Do Do Interior Agriculture. Interior Do Do Treasury. . . General average for all cer- tifications 11674 1734 13407 6363 16370 6703 16726 16738 16755 6860 16887 6950 16963 17007 17036 17062 7074 17116 17133 7163 17166 7182 1 7206 17231 17331 1 7350 1 7378 7392 7398 7415 17425 7433 17443 1 7458 7479 17484 1 7493 7498 7512 81.11 77.63 82.09 79.75 80.23 76.87 78.11 81.28 78.13 76.31 76.80 78.13 75.78 79.12 83.32 78.55 78.10 77.81 78.08 75.72 77.63 77.08 77.40 77.47 75.65 80.47 75.71 79.21 79.13 77.06 74.90 76.50 75.67 75.31 75.59 85.40 77.58 74.61 75.14 76.53 80.96 86.44 88.15 89.66 85.19 85.09 85.66 88.23 87.57 86.98 86.59 85.96 85.48 85.96 84.89 84.65 88.50 87.22 88.57 87.85 87.85 88.64 87.19 86.48 85.87 88.51 85.29 85.04 84.73 84.30 84.21 84.23 87.93 90.50 86.33 84.03 85.99 85.24 84.68 84.14 83.98 88.30 5.33 10.52 7.57 5.44 4.86 8.79 10.12 6.29 8.85 10.28 9.16 7.35 10.18 5.77 1.33 9.95 9.12 10.76 9.77 12.13 11.01 10.11 9.08 8.40 12.86 4.82 9.33 5.52 5.17 7.15 9.33 11.43 14.83 11.02 8.44 0.59 7.66 10.07 9.00 7.45 7.34 78.00 86.39 8.39 $900 900 900 840 840 600 720 840 840 720 840 720 840 840 840 900 900 720 720 720 900 660 720 720 900 840 720 720 720 720 480 900 900 840 720 840 840 840 840 840 900 800 827 720 ,720 700 840 827 600 667 640 640 720 740 660 800 700 700 720 880 620 720 640 860 747 640 673 673 681 600 780 780 660 600 807 680 600 720 680 900 $760 900 807 560 520 640 720 760 760 720 680 600 627 600 680 900 780 640 640 640 880 600 600 600 900 640 600 640 643 643 480 900 867 806 643 760 760 720 800 760 900 712 1 Certificates on which appointments were made. , It will be seen in the case of the laboratory helpers that on only two certificates (Agriculture Nos. 7318 and 7336) were the average of the three eligibles actually certified as high as the average of the three APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 25 eligibles standing highest among all the States and Territories, and in these two cases the advantages of 0.90 and 0.23 points in favor of the apportionment do not in fact exist, for the higher eligibles making up the averages of 82.05 and 82.70 shown in the column headed ''Under apportionment" were included in previous certificates in the column headed ''Highest eligibles." In these cases those higher eligibles were finally reached under the apportionment, but not as early as they would have been reached without the apportionment. The average rating of the eligibles on the other 21 certificates was from 0.30 to 11.30 points below the average of the highest among all the States and Territories. The general average for all certificates for the year was 4.78 points below the average of the highest available from all the States and Territories. Table 4. — Average examination rating of laboratory helpers certified under the present system of certifying from States having the greatest claim for appointment at time certi- fication is made, the average examination rating of laboratory helpers who were the highest available from all the States at time certification was made, and the difference between ratings of laboratory helpers actually certified and highest available. [Department of Agriculture, year 1910.] Department. No. of certifi- cate. Examination ratings (average of 3 persons certified). Under appor- tionment. Highest eligibles. Differ- ence caused by rule. Salary (average of 3 persons certified). Offered. Accept- able to persons certified. Accept- able to highest eligibles. Agriculture. Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do 16732 6773 6879 7015 17027 17090 7097 17106 7150 7193 7210 0) 7286 17318 7336 7387 7388 7389 7441 7451 7456 83.00 79.33 77.60 80.03 79.60 79.32 78.70 80.27 84.17 82.10 79.67 78.83 82.33 78.83 82.05 82.70 75. 93 78.67 78.40 80.77 78.40 82.63 91.30 90.00 88.90 87.10 80. 20 85.57 85.17 84.90 84.83 84.53 83.83 83.10 82.63 85.93 81.15 82.47 80.47 79.57 81.90 87.50 86.10 85.40 8.30 10.67 11.30 7.07 6.60 6.24 6.47 4.63 0.66 2.43 4.16 4.27 0.30 7.10 -0.90 -0.23 4.54 0.90 3.50 6.73 7.70 2.77 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 900 480 600 600 600 500 500 900 600 567 567 567 600 567 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 540 600 600 600 600 600 800 600 600 600 600 560 560 560 600 600 600 600 600 600 700 480 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 General average for all certificates 80.15 84.93 4.78 600 594 1 Certificates on which appointments were made. While differences of from 1 to 16 points in averages may not seem to some people to be worth considering, it should be borne in mind that these differences mean that the person receiving the lower average has made more mistakes in his papers than the one receiving the higher average. By people who value accuracy such differences are very important. It would seem to be evident that the apportionment rule as now enforced makes it impossible for those passing highest to be generally certified first. It may happen occasionally that the person passing 26 APPOKTIONMENT OP APPOINTMENTS. the best examination is also a resident of the State having the greatest claim under the rule of apportionment, but the law of probabilities is strongly against such a chance; in fact, since there are 50 States and Territories from which eligibles may be certified, there would be but one chance in 50 that the State having the highest eligible would also stand first for appointment if one eligible were certified at a time, except when two eligibles from different States had the same rating, Smce, however, three names are usually certified for each appoint- ment, the chance that the three highest eligibles would be certified is so remote as to be almost negligible. In compiling from the original certificates the four tables shown in this report (Tables 1-4) this commission found that in no instance did a certificate contain the names of the three persons who stood the highest on the register at the time certification was made, notwithstanding the fact that those eligibles standing highest were qualified in every respect save that of residence. V. LOWER MARKS OBTAINED ON EXAMINATION AS EVIDENCE OF LESS FITNESS. It is sometimes contended by the advocates of the present appor- tionment system tha t persons entering the service with low examina- tion marks are quite as likely to make efficient clerks as are those who enter with high marks, and cases are sometimes cited to prove this con- tention. To admit the soundness of this argument is, however, to deny the merit of the competitive system. It will be admitted, of course, that ' 'temperament" sometimes prevents an individual under the strain of an examination from doing himself justice, while a less capable person not so handicapped by temperament may make a better showing on the same examination. But the real question is to determme whether such cases are exceptions or whether they are the rule. If such cases are not exceptions but are the rule, then our system of competitive examinations is illogical and farcical. If such cases are exceptions, however, then those passing highest are, in fact, best qualified for office, and, after appointment, will stand highest on department efficiency ratings if such ratings are fairly made, thus proving that the system of competitive examinations is sound. Wliat is m fact shown when the entrance examination marks received by a candidate for appointment are compared with his efficiency record after appointment ? To answer this question the efficiency records of the War Depart- ment and the Department of Commerce and Labor were selected for study. The records of these departments were chosen for that purpose because those departments have maintained a careful recOrd of the work of their employees, and it is generally believed that promotions have been made in those departments in accordance with such records. The War Department was requested to prepare a statement showing by offices, all clerks, stenographers and type- writers, and bookkeepers appointed between January 1, 1905, and December 31, 1908, the salaries at which they were appomted, the civil service registers from which they were certified, their civil service examination ratings, their salaries on September 1, 1911, and their departmental efficiency ratings on September 1, 1911. The APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 27 statement submitted by the War Department is shown in columns (a), (b), (c), id), {e), (/), and {g) of the following table. For reasons which will be explained hereafter, column (Ji) was added by the Commission on Economy and Efficiency to show the relative standing of each clerk among all the clerks of various salaries. Similar tables were prepared by the Department of Commerce and Labor covering employees appointed since the organization of that department. A clerk's efficiency rating in the War Department is one of relative standing in his salary grade. Appointments are made at the lower salaries, and promotions are made from one salary grade to the next higher in the order of relative standing. Thus the clerk standing highest in any salary grade is first to be promoted to the next higher salary grade, and when so promoted is placed at the bottom of the group of clerks in the grade to which he is promoted. The person thus promoted can not be promoted again until all the persons above him m his salary grade are promoted, unless he is advanced above others in that grade as the result of his semiannual efficiency rating. The War Department's efficiency ratings for each office show the standing of each employee with respect to the other clerks receiving the same salary. Thus the table shows in column {g) that clerk A in The Adjutant General's Office stands 74 from the top of a list of 232 clerks in the $1,200 grade, and clerk B stands 81 from the top of a list of 94 clerks in the $1,400 grade, while clerk H stands 10 from the top of a list of 61 clerks in the $1,000 grade. Since all clerks in the $1,200 grade are above those in the $1,000 grade, and all clerks in the $1,400 grade are above those in the $1,200 grade, it was nec- essary to reduce the different groups to a comparable basis by adding together the clerks in each grade and to add to the number repre- senting the relative standing of each clerk the number of clerks in all the grades above his grade. Thus clerk A stands 168 from the top of a list of 387, clerk B stands 81 from the top of a list of 387, while clerk H stands 336 from the top of a list of 387. The table as presented by the War Department — in the order of dates of appointment — would appear to indicate very little, further than to emphasize the exceptions previously referred to, namely, that a person passing low in a civil-service examination may prove to be more efficient than a person passing higher. Thus, in the table presented, clerk D, who entered the service with a civil-service rating of 81.90, stands 91 from the top of the list of 232 clerks in the $1,200 grade, while clerk E, who entered the service with a civil-service rating of only 74.51, stands 7 from the top of the same list, or 84 places above clerk D, notwithstanding the fact that they entered the service within 10 days of each other in June, 1906. 28 APPOKTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. Table 5. — Clerks certified to the War Department by the Civil Service Commission between Jan. 1, 1905, and Dec. 31, 1908, the salaries at which they were ajjpointed, the civil- service registers from which they were certified, their civil-service-examination ratings, their salaries on Sept. 1, 1911, and their departmental efficiency ratings Sept. 1, 1911. OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL. Date appointed. Name. Salary at which ap- pointed. Civil-service - Register. Rating. Salary Sept. 1, 1911. Departmental efficiency rat- ing Sept. 1, 1911. Relative standing among clerks of same salary. Relative standing among clerks of various salaries. Relative standing among them- selves. (a) 1905 Apr. 19 May 29 1906, May 19 June 4 June 14 Dec. 15 1907, Feb. 12 Feb. 14 Feb. 18 Apr. 8 May 1 June 11 June 12 June 24 Do Do Sept. 3 Oct. 3 Oct. 16 Nov. 7 Nov.25 Do 1908, Jan. 4 Do Feb. 1 Feb. 3 Feb. 10 Do Feb. 11 Feb. 17 Do Mar. 9 Mar. 18 Apr. 15 Apr. 18 Apr. 28 May 2 May 4 May 7 May 15 Do May 22 May 23 June 15 June 19 Julyl July 20 Sept. 1 Do Sept. 10 Sept. 11 Sept. 14 Oct. 30 Oct. 1 Dec. 14 Do (6) A B C. D E F G H I. J. K L M N O P, Q R S. T, U V w.. X... Y... z... AA.. AB.. AC. AD.. AE.. AF.. AG.. AH. AI.. AJ.. AK. AL.. AM. AN.. AO.. AP.. AQ.. AR.. AS.. AT.. AU.. AV.. AW., AX. AY.. AZ.. BA.. BB.. BC. BD.. (c) 81,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 id) S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. S. & T. S. & T. S. & T. Bk. Bk. Bk. Clk. S. & T. Clk. Clk. Clk. Clk. Clk. Bk. Clk. Clk. S. &T. Bk. S. &T. Bk. Bk. Bk. S. &T. Bk. Bk. Bk. S. &T. S. &T. Clk. Clk. Clk. Clk. Clk. S. &T. Clk. Clk. Clk. S. &T. Clk. Clk. Clk. Clk. Clk. Clk. S. &T. S. &T. Clk. Clk. Clk. Clk. Clk. S. &T. S. &T. («) 82.65 80.47 76. 78 81.90 74. 51 78.74 76.92 77.80 83.70 77.70 82.62 71.75 75.40 81.60 74.60 70.40 76.00 80.20 77.15 79.69 82.15 87.47 78.75 71.22 76.73 85.56 80.92 74.85 75.03 83.15 78.17 74.45 73.75 84.10 76.95 83.85 78.21 84.15 74.00 84.15 80.71 76.10 80.85 74.55 76.10 87.20 83.00 80.17 80.04 84.47 81.82 80.73 81.55 80.85 82.57 81.84 (/) 351,200 1,400 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,000 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,000 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,200 (g) 74-232 81- 94 93-232 91-232 7-232 21-232 129-232 10- 61 28- 61 135-232 140-232 18- 61 188-232 177-232 183-232 181-232 176-232 20- 61 186-232 175-232 124-232 63-232 120-232 226-232 86-232 6-232 105-232 118-232 205-232 45-232 127-232 211-232 115-232 147-232 200-232 75-232 182-2:32 24- 61 197-232 163-232 62-232 202-232 184-232 209-232 178-232 198-232 169-232 109-232 165-232 192-r232 159-232 193-232 143-232 110-232 68-232 117-232 (ft) 168-387 81-387 187-387 185-387 101-387 115-387 223-387 336-387 354-387 229-387 234-387 344-387 282-387 271-387 277-387 275-387 270-387 346-387 280-387 269-387 218-387 157-387 214-387 320-387 180-387 100-387 199-387 212-387 299-387 139-387 221-387 305-387 209-387 241-387 294-387 169-387 276-387 350-387 291-387 257-387 156-387 296-387 278-387 303-387 272-387 292-387 263-387 203-387 259-387 286-387 253-387 287-387 237-387 204-38? 162-387 211-387 23 52 56 24 25 63 41 34 38 36 33 54 40 32 21 7 20 51 11 2 14 19 48 5 22 50 17 27 46 10 37 55 44 29 6 47 39 49 35 45 31 15 30 42 28 43 26 16 8 18 APPORTION'MEN'T OF APPOINTMENTS. 29 Table 5. — Clerks certified to the War Department by the Civil Service Commission between Jan. 1, 1905, and Dec. 31, 1908, the salaries at which they were appointed, the civil- service registers from which they were certified, their civil-service- examination ratings, their salaries on Sept. 1, 1911, and their departmental efiiciency ratings Sept. 1, 1911 — Continued. OFFICE OF THE QUARTERMASTER GENERAL. Date appointed. Salary at Name. wtiich ap- pointed. (6) (c) A 840 B 840 C 840 D 840 E 840 F 840 G 840 H 840 I 840 J 840 K 840 L 840 M 1,000 N 840 O 900 Civil-service- Register. Rating. Salary- Sept. 1, 1911. Departmental efficiency rat- ing Sept. 1, 1911. Relative standing among clerks of same salary. Relative standing among clerks of various salaries. Relative standing among them- selves. (a) 1905, Sept. 12 Oct. 16 Nov. 27 1906, May 17 Dec. 17 1908. Feb.l Mar. 2 Apr. 1 Apr. 3 Apr. 13 May 11 May 19 May 25 June 29 Oct. 12 {d) S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. 80.41 80.96 78.32 84.27 76.68 73.95 77.10 77.07 78.16 79.90 71.46 74.86 77.79 77.01 79.84 (/) 1,200 1,400 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 900 1,000 1,000 900 1,000 1,000 (?) 14- 58 18- 27 13- 58 15- 58 47-58 6- 40 55- 58 49-58 54- 58 5- 14 3- 40 4- 40 6- 14 5- 40 7- 40 (ft) 41-139 18-139 40-139 62-139 74r-139 91-139 82-139 76-139 81-139 130-139 88-139 89-139 131-139 90-139 92-139 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSARY GENERAL. 1906. Feb. 12 A B C D E 900 900 900 900 900 S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. 78.39 82.27 75.27 80.12 76.30 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,000 11- 20 3- 20 16- 20 14- 20 2- 16 11- 36 3-36 16-36 14- 36 22- 36 2 Oct. 26 1 Nov. 1 4 1908. Mar. 17 3 July 13 5 BUREAU OF INSULAR AFFAIRS. 1905. !». Mar. 20 Apr. 27 Nov. 13 1907. Apr. 22 Dec. 16 1908. May 14 June 15 July 17 July 27 A 900 B 900 C 900 D 900 E 900 F 900 G 900 H 1,000 I 900 S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. S. &T. Bk. S. &T. Bk. S. &T. 79.84 81.50 77.60 76.83 80.91 75.83 72.67 80.37 76.19 1,200 1,400 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,000 1,000 1- 19 3- 10 2- 19 5- 19 17- 19 18- 19 19- 19 1- 16 13- 16 11- 45 3- 45 12- 45 15- 45 27- 45 28- 45 29- 45 30- 45 42- 45 By rearranging these efficiency ratings, however, according to entrance examination averages, and taking the average of the ratings thus arranged, a different result is obtained. In the following table the efficienc}^ ratings of these clerks are arranged according to civil- service ratings. All clerks who entered the service on civil-service ratings below 75 are placed in the first column; all clerks who entered the service on civil-service ratings at 75 but less than 80 are placed 30 APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. in the second column; all clerks who entered at 80 but less than 85 are placed in the third column; and all clerks who entered at 85 or higher are placed in the fourth column. The table shows that in the Office of The Adjutant General the 10 clerks who entered on civil-serv- ice examinations general averages below 75 have an average relative standing of 263.7 from the top of a list of 387 clerks; that those who entered at 75 but less than 80 have an average relative standing of 249.6, or 14 places higher than the first group; that those who en- tered at 80 but less than 85 have an average relative standing of 231, or 19 places higher than the next lower group, and that those who entered at 85 or above have an average relative standing of 183, or 48 places above the next lower group, or a total difference between the highest and the lowest group of 81 places on a list of 387 clerks. Similar tables showing the standing of clerks in the office of the Quartermaster General, the Commissary General, and the Bureau of Insular Affairs prove that the results in the office of The Adjutant General are not an exception, for in every other office in the War Department, even where so few as five clerks are considered, the test demonstrates that one's abffity to pass a civil-service examina- tion is a fair test of his probable future efficiency as a clerk. Table Q.— Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerks appointed to the Office of The Adjutant General, War Department, between Jan. 1, 1905,. and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. • Civil-service examination general averages. 70 but less than 75. 75 but less than 80. 80 but less than 85. 85 and over. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 387 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 387 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 387 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 387 clerks. E L P AB.... AF.... AG.... AM.... AR.... X 101 344 277 275 212 305 209 291 303 320 C F G H J M I-.:::::: T W Y AC AE AI AK AP AS 187 115 223 336 229 282 270 280 269 214 180 299 221 294 276 296 272 A B D I K N R U AA AD AH AJ AT/ AN AO i§-.:::: AV AW AX AY AZ BA BB BC BD 168 81 185 354 234 271 346 218 199 139 241 169 350 257 156 278 263 203 259 286 253 287 237 204 162 211 V AT Z 157 292 100 10 3,637 17 4,243 26 6,011 3 549 Departmental average relative standing among 387 clerks. 263.7 249.6 231.2 183.0 I APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 31 Table 7. — Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerks appointed to the Office of the Quartermaster General, War Department, between Jan. 1, 1905, and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. Civil-service examination general averages. 70 but less than 75. 75 but less than 80. 80 but less than 85. 85 and over. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 139 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 139 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 139 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 139 clerks. F K L 91 88 89 C E G H I J M N 40 74 82 76 81 130 131 90 92 A B D 41 18 62 3 268 9 796 3 121 Departmental average relative standing among 139 clerks. 89.3 88.4 40.3 Table 8. — Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerks appointed to the Office of the Commissary General, War Department, between Jan. 1, 1905,\cLnd Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. Civil-service examination general averages. 70 but less than 75. 75 but less than 80. 80 but less than 85. 85 and over. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 36 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 36 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 36 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 36 clerks. A C E 11 16 22 B D 3 14 3 49 2 17 . Departmental average relative standing among 36 clerks. 16.3 8.5 32 APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. Table 9. — Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerks appointed to the Bureau of Insular Affairs, War Department, between Jan. 1, 1905, and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. Civil-service examination general averages. 70 but less than 75. 75 but less than 80. 80 but less than 85. 85 and over. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 45 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 45 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 45 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 45 clerks. G 29 A C D F I 11 12 15 28 42 B E H 3 27 30 1 29 5 108 3 60 Departmental average relative standing among 45 clerks. 29.0 21.6 20.0 The following tables are made up of the relative standings of clerks appointed in the various offices of the War Department between Jan- uary 1, 1905, and December 31, 1908. The numbers representing the relative standing of the clerks are those covering the entire personnel of each office, including clerks who entered the service prior to January 1, 1905, and also subsequent to December 31, 1908. The numbers representing the relative standing of clerks who entered the service prior to January 1, 1905, and subsequent to December 31, 1908, are, however, not included in the tables, because it was beheved it would not be fair to compare clerks who had been in the service a very long time with those who had been in the service a very short time. The comparison, therefore, is made between clerks entering the service during the four years beginning January 1, 1905, and end- ing December 31, 1908. Recognizing the possibility that a use of only a part of the numbers representing the relative standings of all the clerks in their numerical order might be claimed to distort results, the following tables were prepared, covering only those clerks who entered the service between January 1, 1905, and December 31, 1908, and instead of using the numbers representing their relative standings among all of the clerks in their respective offices, each clerk is given a new number so that the clerks are shown in the order of relative standing among themselves, from 1 to 56, the number 1 being given to the person standing highest, number 2 to the second, 3 to the third, and so on, and 56 to the person standing lowest. These tables show even greater differences than did the previous tables in the efficiency of the clerks entering on high and on low ratings and are corroborative of the results shown by the first tables. APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 33 Tabi.^ 10.— Average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerics appointed to the Office oj I he Adjutant General, War Department, between Jan. 1, 1905, and Dec 31 1908 on various civil-service examination ratings. ' ' Civil-service examination general averages. 70 but less than 75. 75 but less than 80. 80 but less than 85. 85 and over. Depart- Depart- Depart- Depart- mental mental mental mental relative relative relative Name. standing Name. standing Name. standing Name. standing them- among them- among them- among selves. selves. selves. selves. E 3 C 13 A 9 V 7 L 53 F 4 B 1 Z 2 38 G 23 D 12 AT 45 P 36 H 52 I 56 X 51 J 24 K 25 AB.... 19 M 41 N 34 AF.... 50 Q 33 R 54 AG.... 17 s 40 U 21 AM.... 44 T 32 AA 14 AR.... 49 W 20 AD 5 Y 11 AH 27 AC 48 AJ 10 AE 22 AL 55 AI 46 AN 29 AK 37 AO 6 AP 47 AQ 39 AS 35 AU AV AW AX AY AZ BA BB BC BD 31 15 30 42 28 43 26 16 8 18 10 360 17 528 26 654 3 54 Average relative standing among themselves. 36.0 31.1 25.2 18.0 Doc. 50, 63-1 -3 34 APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. Table 11. — Average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerics appointed to the Office of the Quartermaster General, War Department, between Jan. 1, 1905, and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. Civil-service examination general averages. 70 but less than 75. 75 but less than 80. 80 but less than 85. 85 and over. Depart- Depart- Depart- Depart- mental mental mental mental relative relative relative relative Name. standing Name. standing Name. standing Name. standing among among among among them- them- them- them- selves. selves. selves. selves. F 12 C 2 A 3 K 9 E 5 B 1 L 10 G H I J M N 8 6 7 14 15 11 13 D 4 3 31 9 81 3 8 Average relative standing among themselves. 10.3 9.0 2.7 Table 12. — Average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerics appointed to the Office of the Commissary General, War Department, between Jan. 1, 1905, and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. Civil-service examtaation general averages. 70 but less than 75. 75 but less than 80. 80 but less than 85. 85 and over. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among them- selves. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among them- selves. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among them- selves. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among them- selves. A B E 2 4 5 B D 1 3 3 11 2 4 Average relative standing among themselves. 3.7 2.0 APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 35 Table 13. — Average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerks appointed to the Bureau of Insular Affairs, War Department, between Jan. 1, 1905, and Dec. SI, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. Civil service examination general averages. 70 but less than 75. 75 but less than 80. 80 but less than 85. 85 and over. Name. Depart- mental relatiA'e standing among them- selves. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among them- selves. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among them- selves. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among them- selves. G 7 A C D F I 2 3 4 6 9 B E H 1 5 8 1 7 5 24 3 14 Average relative standing among themselves. 7.0 4.8 4.7 A similar study of the efficiency records of the Department of Com- merce and Labor gives similar results. The following table, furnished b;^ the department, gave the dates of appointment, the names (by initial) of all employees appointed from various registers, the general averages received by the employees in their civil-service examination, their salaries on September 1, 1911, and their efficiency rating at that time: Table 14. — Clerics certified to the Department of Commerce and Labor between date of organization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, the salaries at which they were appointed, the civil service registers from which they were certified, their civil-service examination ratings, their salaries on Sept. 1, 1911, and their departmental efficiency ratings Sept. 1, 1911. Date ap- pointed. Name. Salary at which ap- pointed. Civil service- Register. Rating. Salary Sept. 1, 1911. Depart- mental efficiency rating Sept. 1, 1911. Relative standing among clerks of various salaries. (o) (6) (c) (d) (e) (/) (<7) (A) Office of the Secretary. 1904. Feb. 24 1907. Apr. 1 July 1 Nov. 26 1908. Mar. 26 Aug. 3 A S900 B 900 C 900 D 900 E 900 E 900 Stenographer and typewriter Clerk ....do stenographer and typewriter Typewriter ....do 80.48 $1, 600 96.2 78.65 82.50 75.32 1,000 1,200 1,200 90.5 100.0 97.8 81.33 77.66 1,400 1,000 95.5 92.5 36 APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMEISTTS. Table 14. — Clerks certified to the Department of Commerce and Labor between date of organization of department and Dec. 31, 1908. the salaries at which they were appointed, the civil service registers from which they were certified, their civil-service examination ratings, their salaries on Sept. 1, 1911, and their departmental efficiency ratings Sept. 1, i9ii— Continued. Date ap- pointed. Name. Salary at which api- pointed. Civil service- Register. Rating. Salary- Sept. 1, 1911. Depart- mental efficiency rating Sept. 1 1911. Relative standing among clerks of various salaries. (a) (6) (c) {d) (e) (/) ig) (h) Bureau of Statistics. 1904. Sept 10 1905. Jan 13 1906. Oct. 11 Nov. 5 1907. Mar. 20 June 1 July 10 Aug. 1 Aug. 30 A B C. D E F, G H I. 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 Stenographer and typewriter. Bookkeeper Clerk.. do- Stenographer and typewriter Bookkeeper do Clerk do 72.92 SI, 200 93.5 76.82 1,400 97.6 79.48 78.45 1,200 1,400 94.9 100.0 78.06 75. 15 83.45 73.35 78.50 1,200 1,000 1,200 1,000 1,000 94.5 94.1 99.8 91.0 94.5 Bureau of Corporations. 1904. Feb 24 Mar. 1 July 1 July 1 Aug. 29 1905. Aug. 16 Nov. 21 1906. Aug. 6 Aug. 20 Sept. 4 1907. Jan. 15 May 1 May 1 Aug. 5 Aug. 12 Aug. 12 Oct. 28 Nov. 18 1908. Feb. 24 Mar. 2 Apr. 13 Apr. 21 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 720 720 720 900 900 840 840 900 900 720 720 720 900 720 Stenographer and typewriter. do ...do Clerk Stenographer and typewriter. Clerk Stenographer and typewriter. do Clerk Stenographer and typewriter. Stenographer Stenographer and typewriter. Clerk do do do Typewriter Clerk .do. .do. Stenographer and typewriter. Typewriter 81.43 SI, 800 100.0 81.14 1,600 100.0 82.63 1,600 100.0 70.35 1,200 92.5 82.17 1,800 97.2 71.05 1,380 98.2 77.12 1,200 98.2 79.89 1,620 99.8 70.00 1,200 87.7 76.55 1,260 100.0 77.62 1,200 100.0 79.37 1,260 98.8 82.65 1,440 99.2 79. .55 1,200 94.9 77.90 1,440 99.0 81.85 1,260 99.8 83.09 1,200 99.6 80.90 1,200 94.5 82.56 1,200 95.2 78.20 1,000 90.9 73.10 1,200 98.2 70.03 900 100.0 APPOKTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 37 Table 14. — Clerks certified to the Department of Commerce and Labor between date of organization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, the salaries at which they were appointed, the civil service registers from which they were certified, their civil-service examination ratings, their salaries on Sept. 1, 1911, and their departmental efficiency ratings Sept. 1, 1911 — Continued. Date ap- pointed. (a) Name. (6) Salary at wliich ap- pointed. (c) Civil service — Register. (d) Rating. («) Salary Sept. 1, 1911. (/) Depart- mental efficiency rating Sept. 1, 1911. Bureau of the Census. (Editorial clerks.) (g) Relative standing among clerks of various salaries. (ft) 1905. Nov. 1 A $900 Nov. 9 B 900 1906. Aue. 1 C 900 Sept. 14 D 900 190S. May 4 E 900 Nov. 7 F 900 Nov. 23 G 900 (1) « (0 (1) Editor ....do. ....do. 82.50 76.50 72.50 75. 00 77.11 77.29 83.38 $1,600 1,400 1,200 1,600 1,200 1,200 1,200 99.4 99.8 92.5 87.2 97.8 92.3 Clerks and stenographers and typewriters. 1904.- July 20 1905. July 1 1907. Mar. 7 Apr. 26 May 7 July 1 Aug. 5 Aug. 24 Dec. 6 Dec. 6 1908. Jan. 21 Feb. 15 Feb. 24 Feb. 27 Sept. 1 Dec. 1 A B C. D E F. G, H I. J. K L. M N O P, 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 Stenographer and typewriter Clerk .do. Stenographer and typewriter Clerk do Stenographer and typewriter do... - Clerk do Stenographer and typewriter. do Clerk do Bookkeeper , do - 85.68 $1,200 94.3 78.04 1,000 80.8 84.22 1,200 90.2 95.46 1,200 87.2 82.86 1,200 95.5 85.62 1,200 88.0 85.62 1,200 99.4 81.86 1,200 83.6 85. 85. 1,200 96.4 83.85 1,200 91.5 82.69 1,200 86.6 80.27 1,200 93.3 83.67 1,200 92.3 81.70 1,200 98.8 73.25 900 86.4 83.62 1,200 99.0 Bureau of Standards. 1905. May 25 1906. Nov. 5 Nov. 19 1907. Jan. 21 Oct. 9 Jan. 14 July 7 A B C. D E F G ■1720 900 720 900 720 720 720 Stenographer and typewriter. do Typewriter. Stenographer and typewriter. do Typewriter. do 75.10 $1,600. 100.0 73.01 71.42 1,200 1,200 91.9 100.0 80.41 75.95 1,400 1,200 92.5 96.4 72.50 79.53 1,000 900 92.3 90.9 1 Editorial and statistical. 38 APPOKTIOFMElSrT OF APPOINTMENTS. Table 14. — Clerks certified to the Department of Commerce and Labor between date of organization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, the salaries at ivhich they loere appointed, the civil service registers from which they were certified, their civil-service examination ratings, thdr salaries on Sept. 1, 1911, and their departmental efiiciency ratings Sept. 1, W 11— Continued. Date ap- pointed. Name. Salary at which ap- pointed. Civil service- Register. Rating. Salary Sept. 1, 1911. Depart- mental efficiency rating Sept. 1, 1911. Relative standing among clerks of various salaries. (a) (6) (c) (d) (e) (/) (9) (ft) Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization. 1905. June 3 July 1 1906. Aug. 1 Aug. 8 1907. Mar. 28 July 1 July 1 July 1 July 8 Aug. 5 Aug. 14 Nov. 20 Dec. 12 Dec. 18 1908. Jime 11 July 2 Oct. 26 Dec. 21 A .S900 B 900 C 900 D 900 E 900 F 900 G 900 H 900 I 900 J 900 K 900 L 900 M 900 N 900 O 900 P 900 Q 900 R 900 Clerk Stenographer and typewriter. .do. .do. Typewriter Clerk Stenographer and typewriter. ....do ....do Typewriter Stenographer and typewriter. Clerk Stenographer and typewriter. Typewriter Stenographer and typewriter. do do ....do... 89.29 81,800 99.6 80.77 1,400 87.0 80.35 1,800 99.4 79.85 1,800 99.0 81.33 1,000 77.8 83.97 1,600 94.7 85.22. 1,600 96.6 77.98 1,400 87.8 77.64 1,200 87.6 77.12 1,200 99.6 75.02 1,200 89.2 85.05 1,200 88.6 77.00 1,000 93.5 85.61 1,400 93.5 81.49 1,200 88.4 80.86 1,200 93.0 77.72 1,000 93.5 80.95 1,000 93.9 Coast and Geodetic Survey. 1904. Oct. 13 1906. Feb. 1 June 21 1907. Sept. 3 Oct. 15 1908. Mar. 11 A S720 B C 720 720 D E 720 720 F 720 Typewriter. ..do. .do. .do. .do. .do. 72.82 $1,200 98.0 79.00 78.58 1,200 1,000 99.8 98.0 71.14 78.70 900 900 100.0 93.2 75.06 900 98.0 Lighthouse Service. 1906. July IS July 20 Dec. 24 1908. Jan. 2 A B C. D 720 720 1,000 Stenographer and typewriter, ....do ....do ....do 76.99 76.60 80.00 .11,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 99.4 99.6 100.0 94.2 In the following tables the departmental efficiency ratings for vari- ous bureaus under the Department of Commerce and Labor are presented, arranged according to civil-service entrance examination averages. The averages of the ratmgs given at the bottom of each table APPORTIONMENT OP APPOINTMENTS. 39 show the same results that are shown on the tables covering the War Departnient: It is that, on the average, the clerks doing the most efficient work in the departments are those who passed the highest entrance examinations. While here and there an mdividual is found whose standmg is comparatively high while his entrance examina- tion rating was comparatively low, yet the average relative standing of the employees corresponds with their relative standing in the examinations. The average relative standing of employees in the Secretary's office who received between 80 and 85 in their examina- tions is 2, whereas that of those who received between 75 and 80 is 5. In the Bureau of Statistics those whose average on entrance examina- tions was between 80 and 85 have an average relative standing of 3, those whose examination average was between 75 and 80 have an average relative standing of 4.5, and those whose examination aver- age was between 70 and 75 have a standing of 7.5. In the Bureau of Corporations, those whose examination average on entrance was high, that is, between 80 and 85, stand ahead of the others on the efficiency record, their average relative standing being 8.3 as against 11.9 m the case of those with examination ratings between 75 and 80, and 16.6 in the case of those with examination averages between 70 and 75. The showing is the same in all the tables except the one covering editorial clerks in the Bureau of the Census, and the one for the Coast and Geodetic Survey. The averages of the editorial clerks show a slight irregularity, but as between the averages of those who entered highest and of those who entered lowest the results correspond to the other tables. The table for the Coast and Geodetic Survey is an exception, due perhaps to the fact that not more than two of the clerks were appointed in any one year, and to the further fact that the number of clerks is too small to msure true averages. Table 15. — Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerics appointed to the office of the Secretary, Department of Commerce and Labor, between date of organ- ization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. Civil-service examination general averages. 70 but less than 75. 75 but less than 80. 80 but less than 85. 85 and over. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 6 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 6 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 6 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 6 clerks. B i) F 6 4 5 A C E 1 3 2 ■ ' - -1 ■■' ■ 3 15 3 6 Departmental average relative standing among 6 clerks. 5.0 2.0 40 APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. Table 16.- — Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerics appointed to the Bureau of Statistics, Department of Commerce and Labor, betweendate of organ- ization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. Civil-service examination general averages. 70 but less than 75. 75 but less tban 80. 80 but less than 85. 85 and over. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 9 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 9 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 9 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 9 clerks. A H 6 9 B C D E F I 2 4 1 5 8 7 G 3 2 15 6 27 1 3 Departmental average relative standing among 9 clerks. 7.5 4.5 3.0 Table 17. — Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerks appointed to the Bureau of Corporations, Department of Commerce and Labor, between^date of organization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. Civil-service examination general averages. 70 but less than 75. 75 but less than 80. 80 but less than 85. 85 and over. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 22 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 22 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 22 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 22 clerks. D F I U V 19 8 20 14 22 G H J K L N T 15 3 9 12 11 17 7 21 A B C E M P Q R S 1 4 5 2 6 10 13 18 16 5 83 8 95 9 75 Departmental average relative standing among 22 clerks. 10.6 11.9 8.3 APPORTIONMENT OP APPOINTMENTS. 41 Table 18.— Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of editorial clerks appointed to the Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce and Labor between date of organization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examina- tion ratings. Civil-service examination general averages. 70 but less than 75. 75 hut less than 80. 80 but less than 85. 85 and over. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 7 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 7 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 7 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 7 clerks. C 5 B D E F 3 1 7 4 A G 2 6 1 5 4 15 2 8 Departmental average relative standing among 7 clerks. 5 3.3 4.0 Table 1^ .—Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerks and stenog- raphers and typewriters appointed to the Bureau of the Census, Department of Com- merce and Labor, between date of organization of department and Dec. 31 1908 on various civil-service examination ratings. ' ' Civil-service examination general averages. 70 but legs than 75. 75 biit less than SO. 80 but less than 85. 85 and over. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 16 clerks anc stenog- raphers and type- writers. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 16 clerks and stenog- raphers and type- writers. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 16 clerks and stenog- raphers and type- writers. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 16 clerks and stenog- raphers fnd type- writers. 16 ■B 15 C E H J K L M N P 10 5 14 9 13 7 8 3 2 A D F G I 12 11 1 4 1 16 1 15 9 71 5 34 Departmental average relative standing among 16 clerks and stenographers and typewriters. 16.0 15.0 7.9 6.8 42 APPOETIOISTMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. Table 20. — Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerics appointed to the Bureau of Standards, Department of Commerce and Labor, between date of organi- zation of department and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. Civil-service examination general averages. 70 but less than 75. 75 but less than 80. 80 but less than 85. 85 and over. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 7 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 7 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 7 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 7 clerks. B C F 5 3 6 A E G 1 4 7 D 2 3 14 3 12 1 2 Departmental average relative standing among 7 clerks. 4.7 4.0 2.0 Table|21. — Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerks appointed to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, Department of Commerce and Labor, I between date of organization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. CivU-service examination general averages. 70 but less than 75. 75 but less than 80. 80 but less than 85. 85 and over. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 18 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 18 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 18 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 18 clerks. D H I J K M Q 3 7 14 9 11 16 15 B C E F P R 8 2 18 5 13 10 17 A G L N 1 4 12 ti 7 75 7 73 4 23 Departmental average relative standing among 18 clerks. 10.7 10.4 5.8 APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 43 Table 22.— Departmental average relative standing on Sept. i;i911, of clerhs appointed to the Coast and Geodetic Survey, Department of Commerce and Labor, bettveen date of organization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. Civil-service examination general averages. 70 but less than 75. 75 but less than SO. 80 but less than 85. 85 and over. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 6 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 6 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 6 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 6 clerks. A D...... 2 4 B C E F 1 3 6 5 2 : 6 1 4 15 Departmental average relative standing among 6 clerks. 3.0 3.8 Table 2^.— Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerks appointed to the Lighthouse Service, Department of Commerce and Labor, between date of organ- ization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. Civil-service examination general averages. 70 but less than 75. 75 but less than 80. 80 but less than 85. 85 and over. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 4 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 4 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 4 clerks. Name. Depart- mental relative standing among 4 clerks. A B D 3 2 4 C 1 3 9 1 1 Departmental average relative standing among 4 clerks. 3.0 1.0 It might be pointed out in this connection that the results shown by this comparison of efficiency records with examination ratings are in line with conclusions reached by eminent educators that the men who take highest rank in college work are the most successful men in after life. Prof. Edwin G. Dexter, of the University of Illinois, pub- lished in the Popular Science Monthly for February, 1903, an article entitled "High-grade men: In college and out," in which he gave the results of comparing the membership in Phi Beta Kappa, the honorary Greek- letter college fraternity, with the mention in "Who's Who in America," the annual biographical cyclopedia published in 44 APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. Chicago. His conclusion was that the Phi Beta Kappa man's chances of success are nearly three times those of his classmates as a whole. "Who's Who in America" having been criticized as a criterion of success, a new standard was taken for comparison. The Nation of December 15, 1910, gives the following account of that investigation, the results of which would seem to confirm Prof. Dexter's inquiry: The class of 1894 at Harvard was selected for analysis. Three men, one of whom was Dean Bdggs, were asked to select from this class the names of those men who, during their 15 years since graduation, had achieved distinct success, each judge determining for himself his definition of that term. Twenty-three members of the class were agreed upon as deserving of this recognition by at least two of the three judges. The college records of these men were then compared with those of 23 of their classmates chosen at random, and it was found that there were between three and four times as many "A's" among the former as among the latter, the exact figures being 196 and 56. The following quotation from an article by President Lowell, of Harvard, on ''College studies and professional schools" is also inter- esting in this connection : The conclusions to be drawn from the whole matter are these: That it makes cona- paratively little difference to what subject a man devotes himself in college, but it makes an immense difference how good a scholar he is; and that the men who are destined to take the highest rank in the law and medical schools are markedly better scholars both in the preparatory schools and in college than their fellows. In intel- lectual power, as in other things, the boy is the father of the man. VI. RATING IN EXAMINATION AS AN INDEX OF FUTURE EFFICIENCY. The remarkable degree to which the efficiency ratings of the employees correspond with their entrance examination marks would seem to be proof that the Civil Service Commission's examinations for testing the relative fitness of apphcants are effective and practi- cal, and that they are a fair index of the applicant's probable future efficiency as a clerk. The Civil Service Commission would seem to have been not unmind- ful in the early years of its histor}^ of the fact that a strict mathe- matical apportionment of appointments among the States is not con- sistent with the best interests of the Government. In its third annual report the Civil Service Commission laid stress on the "general rule" that ' ' a man taken from the head of a register is far more hkely to be a valuable public servant than one taken from the foot." The argu- ment at that time was as follows: It could be shown statistically that those who pass highest in the examinations are likely to make the most useful public servants. The first person to enter the public service anywhere under the present rules — a young man at the post office at St. Louis — was the first in the competition, and he Avas the first to be promoted for merit at the end of his probation. The first person appointed under the rules to a depart- ment at Washington was a lady, who stood first on the competitive list of her sex. Her practical capacity has proved to be as excellent as her attainments. These cases but illustrate the general rule. A man taken from the head of a register is far more likely to be a valuable public servant than one taken from the foot, and therefore the examinations do test superior capacity for the public service. Already evidence on these points has so far appeared that the appointing officers object to going far down in grade on the registers. They prefer new examinations, which bring in some whose grade is higher. "There is probably not an appointing officer under the Government who would not object to the certifications to him for appointment being taken from the foot rather than the top of the registers. In these facts we have a practical estimate of the schoolmaster's test, and the expression of a general con- viction on the part of those best informed that the examinations test business ca- pacity. * * * (Third Annual Report, Civil Service Commission, pp. 34, 35, 36.) APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 45 It would seem to be evident from this quotation that the Civil Service Commission has from the beginning realized that the mathe- matical apportionment of civil-service positions among the several States was a menace to the efficiency of the public service. The creation of the "nonapportioned service" and the adoption of the minute of May 14, 1910, would seem to indicate also that, in later years, it has not altered its opinion. That, during the past year, the commission has tacitly acknowledged the superior efficiency in office of those who pass highest in the entrance examinations is evidenced by the fact that in certifying eligibles for its own work, it has appar- ently so timed its certifications as to draw eligibles whose entrance marks on the average are considerably above the averages of eligibles certified to other offices. Table 24. — Average examination ratings of clerks certified to the Civil Service Commis- sion, the average examination ratings of clerks certified to other departments, and the difference between those certified to the Civil Service Commission and the other depart- ments. [Year, 1911; salaries offered, $720 to $1,020.] nepartment. Civil Service Commission Interior Treasury Interstate Commerce Commis- sion Commerce and Labor Navy War Agriculture other departments 2 Number of certifi- cations. Average of all certifica- tions to depart- ment. 86.43 72.96 76.58 76.58 76.70 77.46 77.74 78.69 Difler- ence.i 13.47 9.85 9.73 8.97 8.69 7.74 Average of high- est certifi- cation to depart- ment. 86.82 75.18 76.58 76.58 78.90 78.50 82.62 79.05 Differ- ence.! 13.64 12.24 12.24 9.92 10.32 6.20 9.77 Average of lowest certifica- tion to depart- ment. 83.58 71.30 76.58 76.58 75.33 76.42 73.57 78.33 Differ- ence.! 12.28 7.00 7.00 8.25 7.16 10.01 5.25 1 The amount shown in this column is the difference between the average of the certifications to the CivU Service Commission and the average of the certifications to the other departments. 2 No certifications. Table 25. — Average examination ratings of bookkeepers certified to the Civil Service Com- mission, the average examination ratings of bookkeepers certified to other departments, and the difference between those certified to the Civil Service Commission and the other departments. ■ [Year, 1911; salaries oflered, S700 to $1,440.] Department. Number of certifi- cations. Average of all certifica- tions to depart- ment. Differ- ence.! Average of high- est certifi- cation to depart- ment. Differ- ence.! Average of lowest certifica- tion to depart- ment. Differ- ence.! Civil Service Commission 3 2 3 7 8 23 5 4 5 3 84.26 75.43 75.94 76.66 77.64 77.81 77.87 78.26 78.71 82.70 88.95 78.26 77.41 79.77 81.93 84.56 81.29 80.70 81.85 89.60 78.82 72.60 74.91 72.93 74.44 72.24 74.47 76.85 74.75 73.75 Interstate Commerce Commis- sion 8.83 8.32 7.60 6.62 6.45 6.39 6.00 6.55 1.56 10.69 11.54 9.18 7.02 4.39 7.66 8.25 7.10 - .65 6.22 Treasury 3.91 War 5.89 Commerce and Labor 4.38 Post OflBce 6.58 Navy 4.35 Agriculture 1.97 Justice 4.07 Interior .07 other departments 2 1 The amount shown in this column is the difference between the average of the certifications to the CivU Service Commission and the average of the certifications to the other departments. * No certifications. 46 APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. Table 26. — Average examination ratings of clerks certified to the Civil Service Commis- sion, the average examination ratings of clerks certified to other departments, and the difference between those certified to the Civil Service Commission and other departments. [Year, 1910; salaries offered, S720 to Sl,020.] Department. Number of certifi- cations. Average of all certifica- tions to depart- ment. Differ- ence.! Average of high- est certi- fication to depart- ment. Differ- ence.! Average of lowest certifica- tion to depart- ment. Differ- ence.! 6 2 1 2 23 6 6 82.10 76.79 77.22 77.66 77.77 78.13 79.32 89.40 79.72 77.22 79.00 83.97 80.27 81.55 78.25 73.85 77.22 76.32 74.28 73.85 77.57 State 5.31 4.88 4.44 4.33 3.97 2.78 9.68 12.18 10.40 5.43 9.13 7.85 4.40 1.03 Interstate Commerce Commis- 1.93 War 3.97 Commerce and Labor 4.40 Agriculture 0.68 1 The amount shown in this column is the difference between the average of the certifications to the Civil Service Commission and the average of the certifications to the other departments. 2 No certifications. Table 27. — Average examination ratings of bookkeepers certified to the Civil Service Com- mission, the average examination ratings of bookkeepers certified to other departments, and the difference between those certified to the Civil Service Commission and other departments. [Year, 1910; salaries offered, $660 to $1,000.] Department. Number of certifi- cations. Average ofaU certifica- tions to depart- ment. Differ- ence.! Average of high- est certi- fication to depart- ment. Differ- ence.! Average of lowest certifica- tion to depart- ment. Differ- ence.! 13 1 1 14 1 11 80.19 74.79 76.71 77.80 78.30 78.70 91.00 74.79 76.71 80.83 78.30 82.70 74.20 74.79 76.71 74.94 78.30 74.62 Interior 5.40 3.48 2.39 1.89 1.49 16.30 14.38 10.26 12.79 8.39 .59 Navy 2.51 Treasury .74 4.10 War .42 1 The amount shown in this column is the difference between the average of the certifications to the Civil Service Commission and the average of the certifications to the other departments. * No certifications. APPOKTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 47 ■^ -^ OS CO CO cc o o h- 00 -^ -^ to 00 y:; o lo Oi CO :i; oo CO lo i-HC^i'-^oi'OCOCO'^C^lOOl lO ococoQOcooiiococo-^oJ 'rt^ Tp CO CO 'tM '" lOiO C^ O IQ >- OcJiO-rOOOOOOiOiOOooo ^ o o w ^ o o o o CO o o o o o o'O'd fi K Td xJ 'C^ Td '^ 'O ^o xJ 'O 'O ^ • : ^ 1— lOf-COOC^CStiOCOOt^f^OOi— iQit^ (3,[^,— lioCO-^rHOiiOOCIiiOiOCSIOiOi i-HC^t-^OOOiOCO'^'— '-H^iOC^oJO'"^ ACA SmS ■ft ;-^ rfi O Tt^ '^ Tt< '^ Tf lO CO »0 iQ 'Q "O O o i6 o o o oo ic M tc r^ cc lo 00 i-H ^ (M OS (M (M r-t '^ cq -^ '^ ^ 'i^ oi t^ 00 t-- b- t^ O I> g fi <^ I ^Ph5^ OOCOt~-i— 'iCCJlCOOCOOl'-J-^COOOOOit^i— fb-Ot^C^t-- Ir^O»0'*(NiCoo^-t^l^-c^^-^^ooGO^>-t>.t^t~^^>.^-ooool^-l>•^^-l>• 3 i:^ 31: 3 fl 03 >-i o tj .2 m M 'm g ^ „, .„, ;S> ;:z;sSph>o:z; cr'^'--roo"or.--rcr».o"F-ro''-r oT oTt-Tc^cTocoio.— ii-h;o(n CC T-l T— I CO r i-H 1-1 CSI i-H <^<-^;^;^:^>: o i^fe £ >-e f^<^o i-^cocooot-c^oo-^iot^ PI ^ 60 =a >. ■a CO 48 APPOETIOISrMEISrT OF APPOINTMENTS. It is possible that, in the beginning, the Civil Service Commission may have been justified in ignoring the good-administration clause in the law and insisting on an exact mathematical distribution of public offices with only secondary attention to the merits of candi- dates, because there was at that time very bitter opposition to the merit system, and "good administration" was therefore interpreted by the commission as any procedure which might be necessary to insure its continuance and thus avoid a return to the spoils system. The mathematical distribution of offices may also have been justffied in a measure because at the time the law was passed the educational facilities in certain of the States had not developed to a point to enable worthy persons to prepare themselves to compete with the citizens of other States, and it was argued that since the residents of all States were taxed alike they should be given reasonable oppor- tunity to secure positions in the Government service if they cared to have them. Whatever justffication there may have been for such reasoning on the part of the Civil Service Commission in its early days, it is mani- fest that conditions do not justify it now. In the first place the merit system has been so thoroughly well established not only in the Federal service, but also throughout the States and municipalities of the various States, that the opponents of the system have come to be a small minority. Again, the educational advantages throughout the country have so improved that little justffication can be found for an enforced distribution of appointments, for among the population of every State can be found a large number of persons qualffied to compete for appomtment on even terms with the residents of every other State if they care to do so. Again, in the earlier years of the commission much lower salaries prevailed throughout the country than are paid at this time, whUe the salaries offered in the Govern- ment service were the same or a little higher than those paid now. The Government was then in a more favorable position to compete with the commercial enterprises of the country, and therefore less difficulty was experienced in securing satisfactory registers of eligi- bles. In the early days of the commission those States that were generally m arrears in their quotas had fewer residents who possessed the necessary qualffications to fOl positions in the service, but because of the more attractive salaries paid by the Government, as com- pared with commercial institutions, the Government positions were much more to be desired. Again, the standard of efficiency in the Government service has steadily advanced as elsewhere, so that better work is demanded of employees for a given salary than was formerly required. To sum it up, the Government positions are less attractive to the public generally than formerly because salaries throughout the coun- try have advanced while the salaries paid by the Government have practically remained stationary. It should be understood that, in criticizing the present method of apportioning appointments to public offices, no attack is made upon the provisions of the law requiring, subject to the demands of good administration, a distribution of appointments among the several States and Territories. This provision is not to be regarded as a sop to spoilsmen. It is instead, if properly administered, a wise provision to safeguard the interests of all the people in the General APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 49 Government. It is scarcely debatable that, in a republican form of government, the activities of the Government should be conducted by individuals from all sections of the country, rather than from any one section, and that the selection of employees from any particular section of the country would be inimical to the mterests of the public. The framers of the civil-service law recognized this fact, and wisely provided for a distribution among the several States and Territories m proportion to population. Manifestly the framers of the law did not contemplate, however, that this distribution should be the prime consideration, but only "as nearly as good admmistration shall warrant" — ^that is, as between applicants of equal merit. It is evi- dent also that they did not desire an exact mathematical distribution of appointments, for such distribution is wholly inconsistent with the interests of "good admmistration," since in only one chance in fifty would the State having the first claim for an appointment at a particular moment also furnish the best qualified' eligible, except when two or more States furnished eligibles of equal merit. The fact that congressional representation is mathematically distributed is no ground for believmg that Congress contemplated a similar dis- tribution of appomtments within the departments. Such an appor- tionment of congressional representation is necessary, for the reason that all matters of legislation are decided by the votes of the repre- sentatives of the several States. The employees in the departments are never required to exercise any such important functions or to decide as a body, by vote or otherwise, any matter affecting the people at large. Their tasks are prescribed by their superior officers under laws passed by Congress and are at most admmistrative in character or in the nature of scientific mvestigations. No justification exists at the present time for forcing a mathe- matical distribution of appomtments according to population. It would seem that the intent and spirit of the law should now be carried out by the selection of the most competent eligibles available. There is no reason now to fear that any State would suffer a disadvantage if only the best qualified eligibles were selected. Furthermore, the registers of the Civil Service Commission for any general examination show that if the best qualified eligibles are selected without regard to the residence of the eligibles a fair distribution of appointments would result. Finally, the experience of the Civil Service Commission tinder the minute of May 14, 1910, confirms this belief. In its last annual report it says: No noticeable alteration has taken place in the relative position of the States with reference to the apportionment by reason of the change in method of certification outlined above (minute of May 14, 1910), and it has undoubtedly resulted in the certification of a higher class of eligibles, it not infrequently occurring that the highest three names on an entire register go to a department on the first certification. (Twenty- eighth Annual Report, Civil Service Commission, 1911, p. 17.) In the opinion of the Commission on Economy and Efficiency one of the difficulties in the way of a fair apportionment among the States, etc., of the appointments at Washington is the expense which must be incurred by appointees from States at a distance from the seat of government. This difficulty may, however, be removed if Congress will adopt the practice, which is followed in the case of enlisted men in the Army and Navy, of paying the expense of transportation to Washington of all persons who are appointed from outside of the S. Doc. 50, 63-1 4 60 APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. District of Coltimbia. A mileage rate might well be established for this purpose. A precedent for this can be found in the practice of transporting men who enlist in the Army or Navy. The followmg table, based on the number of appointments made to the departmental service during the year 1911, shows the approximate cost of mileage at different rates for bringing appomtees to Washing- ton. The amounts shown opposite the various rates per mile were obtained by giving to each State the proportion of 991 appointments which the State's population bears to the whole population of the United States, and multiplying the number of appointments thus given to each State by the mileage from the center of the State to Washington over the shortest usually traveled route and summing the amounts so obtained. The per capita cost was obtamed by divid- ing the total cost for the year by the number of appointments given to each State. Table 29. — Approximate cost of transpoi'ting appomtees to the classified service from their places of residence to Washington, D. C; number of apjjointments 991, distributed among the States and Territories in proportion to population as shown by the Thirteenth Census. Amount allowed (in cents) per mile. Total cost of trans- porting 991 appointees. Cost per capita. 1 2 3 4 5 S8, 691 17,383 26,074 34, 766 43,457 $8.77 17.54 26.31 35.08 43.85 The expenditure of even $43,457 a year is justified on two grounds: (1) It would place the eligibles of all States on an equality, and (2) it would increase the attractiveness of the service to the residents of distant States and thus aid in securing a more equitable distribution of appointments on merit. VII. CONCLUSIONS. From the foregoing, two facts are established: (1) That the present method of apportioning appointments to public offices does not result in the certification of the eligibles who pass highest m the civil-service examinations ; and (2) That the marks obtained by an eligible in a civil-service exami- nation are a fair index of his probable future efficiency as a Govern- ment employee. The conclusion to be drawn from these facts is that the present method of apportioning appointments to public, offices is to a con- siderable degree an mterference with the merit system. The Gov- ernment is not getting the full benefit of the elaborate and really effective competitive-examination system which has been built up by the Civil Service Commission. The element of competition has been minimized in over two-thirds of the appomtments made m the apportioned service at Washington with the result that people are appomtcd daily to office hi the executive departments who are less capable of fillmg those offices than others equally desirous of obtain- APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 51 iii^ them who have also qualified for them. The United States is being deprived of its due — the best talent available for its work. While there has been and still is more or less dissatisfaction ex- pressed by the heads of departments and bureaus in regard to the certifications of the Civil Service Commission, there are several reasons why complaints have been less numerous than they other- wise would have been: (1) The Civil Service Commission has in the interest of "good administration '^ where it is thought desirable, established a "nonapportioned service"; (2) it has departed somewhat, under the mmute of May 14, 1910, from a strict mathematical appor- tionment m making certain classes of appointments, so that the qualifications of eligibles certified under the minute are generally satisfactory, even when the eligibles are not the best available; (3) the rigid enforcement of the rule of apportionment by the Civil Service Commission, where it has applied the rule, has created the impression throughout the service that the commission is powerless in the matter and has to certify eligibles in a certain order regardless of whether the best-c[ualified eligibles are thus made available or not. The general impression throughout the departments is that it is use- less to complain because the Civil Service Commission is powerless to change matters and is compelled by law to certify as it does. That the impression is not correct is evidenced by the fact that it has felt obliged, under the '^ good-administration '^ clause of the law, to adopt paragraph 2 of Rule VII creating the nonapportioned service and to adopt the minute of May 14, 1910, in regard to appointments in the apportioned service. The commission thus not only has the power but also is under the law bound to extend the provisions of that minute to the whole of the apportioned service; for it is authorized by the law to apportion appointments to the service at Washington among the States, etc., only "as nearly as the conditions of good administration will warrant." To assume that it is more important to secure an apportionment of the appomtments to the departmental service at Washington than to secure good administration is to assume that the policy of the law is different from what the law says that it is. To act upon such an assumption and to sacrifice good administration in the interest of an exact apportionment is a violation certainly of the spirit of the law of which administrative authorities ought not to be guilty. • Frederick A. Cleveland, Walter W. Warwick, Merritt O. Chance, Commissioners. Appendix A. Department op State, October 18, 1911. ■ The Civil Service Commission, Washington, D. C. Gentlemen: I retiu-n to you lierewitli the examination papers which accompanied your certificates numbered 274, 275, and 276, without having made selections there- from, and request that you certify to this department the names of those male eligibles upon the stenographer and typewriter register having the highest averages, without regard to the apportionment. I think It hardly necessary to make specific objections, individually, to each of those certified — on the score of low averages in those subjects a proficiency in which 52 APPOKTIONMEN'T OF APPOINTMEISTTS. is important, or on the score, in one case, of the loss of an arm — but believe that you will agree with me that a mere recital of the average percentages of these eligibles, 74, 71, 72, 75, and 70, clearly shows a lack of qualification for appointment under this department. The peculiar nature of the principal duties of the Department of State makes necessary a particularly intelligent clerical force capable of rapid, well appearing, and correct work and of future development. Since the examination papers must be the only criterion of an eligible's efficiency, the persons whose names appear on the papers returned herewith are not deemed properly qualified for appointment to this department. This request that you make certification without regard to the apportionment is made only after the most careful consideration. In view, however, of the needs of this department, I feel it my duty, in the promotion of the greatest efficiency of that part of the public service which is under my direction, to make this request. Since the department is in immediate need of the services of these three additional persons, yoiu most prompt action in this matter is requested. I am, sh, Your obedient servant, P. C. Knox. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR. Memorandum in re law of apportionmeiit. In a letter dated February 23, 1910, to Hon. Albert B. Cummins, chairman Com mittee on Civil Service and Retrenchment, United States Senate, the department stated as follows: * * * "There are many restrictions imposed upon the department, either by law, rule, or regulation, as interpreted by the Civil Service Commission, which do not make for efficiency or economy in administration. As an example, the law relating to apportionment may be cited. Section 2 of the civil-service act of January 16, 1883, provides that: ' ' ' Appointments to the public service aforesaid in the departments at Washington shall be apportioned among the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia upon the basis of population as ascertained at the last preceding census.' "In my opinion it may well be doubted whether the benefits of this law outweigh its manifest disadvantages. While the change to an apportionment among the States and Territories is undoubtedly an improvement upon the system which had pre- vailed, the present method provides that each State or Territory shall have an inherent right to a certain number of appointments to civil office. Admitting that the civil- service tests are not perfect, they undoubtedly furnish the ])est guaranty for appoint- ment upon merit, and the demand for geographical distribution necessarily restricts the freedom of choice. I fully appreciate that for many reasons it is desirable to have the employees of the civil branch of the Government represent the various States and sections of the country, but I doubt whether such a policy, however desirable, is of sufficient importance to outweigh the tests which the law now provides to determine the merit and qualifications of applicants for the service. "In a number of instances this department has been inconvenienced because the Civil Service Commission has not felt at liberty to authorize transfers from the non- apportioned to the apportioned service on the gi'ound that the persons whose transfers were requested were residents of States or Territories which had received an exces- sive share of appointments under the law relating to apportionment. In some in- stances the persons were selected and their transfers proposed on account of their special qualifications for the work of the positions to which it was proposed to assign them, and in no instance has a transfer been requested that was not clearly in the interests of good administration. While under Rule X, section 8, clause (c), the Civil Service Commission apparently has authority to waive the restrictions relating to apportionment, there have been a number of cases in which it has felt constrained to deny such transfers, and the operation of the law as construed, so far as this de- partment is concerned, has not secured the best interests of the service. * * *. " ' Other officers of the Department of Commerce and Labor have expressed their views with respect to the law of apportionment as follows: The chief clerk of the department: "The civil-service rules now governing entrance into the ser\ice are in the main excellent, but there are certain requirements that should be changed. For one thing, I am opposed to the present method of apportionment, unless it can be shown from the experience of the Civil Service Commission that the existence of section 2 of Rule VII, with its numerous exceptions, is a real advantage. If the GoA'crnraent service is to be maintained on that high plane of efficiency which is so generally demanded, it seems APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 53 only fair to urge that the departments be granted the privilege of selecting clerks who have attained the highest marks on examination and not be compelled to consider appli- cants with poor markings who must be preferred simply because they claim legal resi- dence in States the quotas of which are not exhausted, although they may not have resided in such States for many years." The Commissioner of Corporations: "The application of the 'State quota' principle frequently results in the certifica- tion of men from remote points, where business and other conditions are such that their' quahfications are not, as a rule, as satisfactory for the special work of this bureau as- are the qualifications of the average man from the States whose quota is more apt to be full. "In this connection also, speaking purely from the standpoint of an efficient Govern- ment service (which I take it is the thing desired and is the true object of the civil- service system), the application of any principle which tends to recognize a certain property right inherent in each citizen to a chance at public office is extremely un- fortunate." The Director of the Census: "The apportionment of the civil service is not in the interest of good administration. This seems to be generally conceded by those familiar with the results of its operation."^ The Director, Bureau of Standards: "To secure the ablest assistants is the need and aim of every department and bureau in the service. Yet at the outset they are somewhat handicapped by the apportion- ment plan. It is hardly in the interest of efficiency that a clerk eligible rated at 70 be appointed in preference to one rated at 85 merely because of geographical location. Yet this is the practice under the law. If a register is exhausted within a year, the labor involved in the apportionment is practically wasted, for it does not affect the status of the personnel. If, on the other hand, the register is not wholly used up during the year, then the principle of apportionment operates to prevent the selection of the best men on merit alone. In either case it is a barrier to effective selection. Clerks in some States having excellent business colleges hesitate to take the civil-service examinations because of the slight chance of appointment under a plan which places location above merit. If certifications were made in the order of standing, recommen- dations could be made on merit and fitness alone. It is believed that the modifica- tion of Ithe law in this respect would be only of advantage to the service." In his annual report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1910, the Secretary of the de- partment makes the following comment upon the law of apportionment: "It is generally conceded that although far from being perfect the present civil- service method of securing employees possessing proper qualifications for the per- formance of the work required by the Government is the best system that has yet been de- vised for the purpose, but there are many restrictions i mposed by law, rule, or regulation which do not make for efficiency and economy in administration. The provision of law requiring that appointments in the departments at Washington shall be apportioned among the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia upon the basis of population may well be cited as an illustration. It is very doubtful whether the benefits of this particlar provision of law outweigh its manifest disadvantasres. While the civil-service tests undoubtedly furnish the best guaranty for appointment upon merit, the demand for geographical distribution necessarily restricts the freedom of choice. For some reasons it may be desirable to have the employees of the civil branch of the Government represent the various States and sections of the country, but it is a question whether such a poKcy is of sufficient importance to outweigh the tests which the law provides to determine the merits and qualifications of applicants. If the serv- ice is to be maintained on that high plane of efficiency which is so urgently demanded, it seems only fair to grant to the departments the privilege of selecting the persons who have attained the highest marks on examination, and not be compelled to consider ehgibles with poor markings simply because they claim legal residence in States whose quotas are not in excess." EXCERPT FROM REPORT BY THE BUREAxf OF PLANT INDUSTRY TO THE COMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT METHODS APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT JUNE 2, 1908. Personnel. ******* 15. Difficulty has been experienced at times by the Bureau of Plant Industry in securing scientific, clerical, and other assistants, in two particulars. ******* (2) Sufficient attention is not paid by the Civil Service Commission to the state- ment of requirements set forth in the request for a list of eligibles. 54 . APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. (3) The third difficulty results from the impossibility of knowing in advance the eligibles to be certified or of securing particular persons who are known to be compe- tent and otherwise desirable. Furthermore, the practice of certifying eligibles geo- graphically makes it impossible to select the highest on the list; that is, the eligible who stands highest on the list of a particular State may be inferior to others on the lists of States from which no certification can be obtained at that particular time. In other words, certification is not based on excellence, but on geographical distribution, which makes it impossible to secure the best men on the registers. 16. The civil-service registers usually supply persons having requisite qualifications except in cases of mechanics. For illustration, we recently requested certification from which to appoint a gardener, and names of eligibles were sent to us who were not at all fitted for our work. Men eminently qualified for the work of the department passed the examinations at much higher ratings than those who were certified, but on account of the law of apportionment were not certified. We have had similar expe- rience with carpenters, painters, plumbers, etc. It can readily be seen that the law of apportionment prevents the department from getting the best available material. The best mechanics of distant States do not seem to take civil-service examinations. Correspondence and files. ******* 20. Stenographers are used in the preparation of all correspondence when they are available. The force of stenographers often proves inadequate to handle the work and it is sometimes necessary to prepare letters with a pen, carbon and press copies being retained as in case of typewritten letters. EXCERPT PROM THE REPORT ON PERSONNEL OF THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY TO THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY OP AGRICUL- TURE TO EXAMINE INTO THE EFFICIENCY OF THE VARIOUS BUREAUS AND OFFICES OF THAT DEPARTMENT. 10. The law of apportionment prevents the bureau from getting the best possible eligibles obtainable. We think the present method of certification is wrong; in other words, we think that certification should be based upon excellency and not upon geographical distribution. It is believed that a much higher grade of clerical help would be secured in this way. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry, Decembei- 18, 1908. Hon. James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture. Sir: I return herewith civil-service certificate No. 5912 for a clerk- typewriter and respectfully recommend that no appointment be made therefrom, as the eligibles certified on this certificate do not appear to have the qualifications required in the position for which certification was requested. The highest eligible on the certifi- cate states in his examination papers that he is troubled with catarrh in the head and has practically no use of his right ear, which would be very undesirable in the position under consideration. In fact, none of the eligibles certified on the certifi- cate have the neatness, speed, and accuracy desired in this position, and I have decided, therefore, to try the female eligible list for stenographer and typewriter. Certification from the female register has been requested in another communication of even date. Very respectfully, • , Chief of Bureaut APPORTIONMENT OP APPOINTMENTS. 55 Department op Agriculture, Bureau op Plant Industry, June 8, 1911. Hon. James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture. Sir: I return herewith civil-service certificate No. 7772 for a male clerk, stenog- rapher, and typewriter, at a salary at the rate of $800 per annum, and respectfully recommend that no appointment be made therefrom. One of the eligibles certified on this certificate, Mr. • — , has but one arm, his left arm being off below the elbow, which fact would make his appointment undesirable. Mr. ■ — ■ , the second-named eligible, is 50 years of age — rather older than we would care to appoint a minor clerk. In fact, the papers of all the eligibles accompanying this certificate have been exam- ined, and none of them come up to the standard required in this bureati. Under the circumstances it has been decided to return this certificate without selection and request certification from the female register in the hope of getting higher class eligibles. Very respectfully, , Acting Chief of Bureau. Department op Agriculture, Bureau op Soils, Washington, D. C, December 18, 1911. Prof. Frank J. Goodnow, The President's Commission on Economy and Efficiency, The Winder Building, Washington, D. C. My Dear Sir: You asked me in a conversation a few days ago to prepare a state- ment of some specific cases in which the enforcement of the apportionment rule of the Civil Service Commission had militated against the securing of the most competent assistants for the Government service. The case of a soil bibliographer. — On October 24, 1910, Mr. A, coming to us from the Congressional Library through presidential order, was transferred from the Bureau of Soils to the Bureau of Plant Industry to fill a vacancy in that bureau carrying a higher salary than paid in the Bureau of Soils for which it was believed Mr. A had exceptional qualifications. There being no list of eligibles from which to select a successor and the position being unique in that there were no men known to this office as having been trained along these particular lines, the bureau, after careful inquiiy and correspond- ence and personal interviews, decided that Mr. B, of the Library of Congress, was the man best qualified by experience, habits, and training, and requested the President through the Honorable Secretary of Agriculture to have the place filled by Mr. B. through a Presidential order. (See copy of my letter of Mar. 7, 1911.) In the mean- time between the resignation of Mr. A and the preparation of my letter of May 11, Congress had passed the appropriation bill with an emergency fund put in on the floor of the House for the exploration of this country with reference to the possibilities of obtaining the sources of supply of potash and other fertilizer materials, with the under- standing on the part of the Committee on Agriculture that a preliminary report should be made on the assembling of Congress in December. This left a period of about eight months in which to gather the data for such a report and the need was imperative that a suitable person be at once assigned to the bibliography of the subject to give our field men at the earliest possible time all references to possible localities where their search could be most profitably conducted. This matter was referred by the President to the Civil Service Commission and they acted adversely. (See copy of their letter of Mar. 23 — Appendix B.) Their suggestion that Mr. A be returned to the Bureau of Soils was taken up and found to be impracticable. Under the last clause of their letter giving permission for the temporary employment of a man, they suggested a man from Brentano's, but after looking into the situation and finding that it was a temporary job and that Brentano was not willing to loan him to us, he declined. The commission then advised us to take the matter up with the Librarian of Congress and see if he would be willing to loan us Mr. B for a period of three months, but this he declined to do. We then found Mr. C, who had been working for the Geological Survey for per diem compensation. Mr. C is a man well advanced in years and while a very good man for routine work of this kind he was not the man that we would have selected; however, in view of the pressing need of the work, he was taken on the force. The commission has had three examinations without a single applicant in any case, as I understand it. Mr. B was asked to take one of the examinations, but on being told by the commission that he would stand no chance of certification, residing as he does in the District of Columbia where the apportionment is full, in the event that anyone else from any of 56 APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. the States where the apportionment was not full should pass the examination, he declined to enter the contest and confirmed that when the subsequent examinations were held. The bureau has, therefore, been unable to do better than to keep Mr. C, although we recognize that he is not the best man for the position. The case of a confidential stenographer to the chief of the bureau.- — In order to fill a vacancy in the position of confidential stenographer to the chief of the bureau, caused by the transfer of Mr. D to the Division of Accounts, the Civil Service Commission was asked on November 23, 1910, for permission to transfer Mr. E from the Army War College at a salary of $1,000 per annum. The officials of the Army War College sig- nified their assent, Mr. E was anxious to take the position, and a careful investigation of the matter indicated that he would prove a highly desirable man for the place — one of consideral)le importance in the bureau — but the request was declined by the- Civil Service Commission on the grounds of Mr. E while in the civil service, being a resident of the District of Columbia, and therefore not eligible under the rules of the commission for transfer to a classified position in another department in spite of the fact that he had served considerably more than three years in the War. Department. (See copy of my letter to the Secretary of Agriculture under date of November 18, 1910, and of the commission's letter of November 23, 1910.) The case of a topographical draftsman. — In August, 1909, it was found necessary on account of the increase of work in our drafting department, to secure the services of an additional draftsman, and, the lists of the eligibles in the possession of the Civil Service Commission having been examined and found to contain no names with the necessary qualifications, Mr. F recommended by the Geological Survey, where he had been trained, was selected, and under authority of the conmiission was given a temporary appointment of six months at a salary of $1,200 per annum. At the end of six months' service, the permanent appointment of Mr. F was desired on account of his ability, his extensive experience in similar lines of Avork in the Geological Survey, and the further fact that during his ]3eriod of service with this bureau he had obtained quite an intimate knowledge of our requirements and had shown himself to be especially adapted to this line of M'ork. Furthermore, his experience as a field traverseman was such as rendered him particularly valuable in the work at headquarters. It was desirable to secure Mr. F as a permanent employee, but this was found impossible, due to the fact that Mr. F's name had been erased from the civil-service register, owing to the length of time that had elapsed since his examination, and the further fact that while a resident of the State of Maine it would have been necessary for him to have returned to that State and remained one year in order to have taken an examination there and been accredited to that State. It would, of course, have been possible for him to have taken an examination in the District of Columbia. This would, however, have necessitated his recognizing the District as his permanent residence in Avhich event it was practically certain that the commission would not have certified his name on account of their apportionment regiilations. In case of another topographic draftsman.— AX the same time, in August, 1909, Mr. G likewise recommended by the Geological Survey, where he had been trained, was, through the authority of 'the Civil Service Commission, given a temporary appoint- ment as a topographic draftsman at $1,200 per annum for a period of six months. This period was extended from time to time until, in December, 1910, the commission established a list of eligibles covering positions of this character, and it was then found necessary to make a selection from the register. I can say very conservatively that Mr. G has turned out to be oaie of the best, if not the best, topographic draftsmen that we have ever had in the bureau, and is to-day doing the very highest grade of work which we have and in a manner which is thorouglily satisfactory. When the certification was received Mr. G's name was fourth on the list, although oiitranking by far all other applicants in the matter of grade coming from States having a low apportionment. It was a matter of necessity at that time with the crowded condition of the drafting work that his services should be retained rather than to take on an inexperienced man. In order to do this, howeyer, it was necessary for the bureau to make two appointments from this list; that is, we were compelled to appoint one of the first three names before Mr. G's name could be reached, and, after a delib- erate study of the necessities of the case, this was done. This man whom we were compelled to appoint ahead of Mr. G is a draftsman of ordinary ability, who can only do the more ordinary routine work, and his work has to be constantly and carefully su])ervised. The fact of Mr. G's name having been placed fourth on the list, even though he had a higher percentage than any of the other names thereon, was due to his haying taken the examination in the District and being accredited thereto. Mr. G's residence up to that time had been in the State of New York, but he had been away from there for some time and to have taken an examination in the State of New York it would have APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 57 been necessary for him to have returned to that State and Hved there for a year, and even then it is questionable, under the apportionment regulations, whether a residence in New York would have been of much more service to him than one in the District of Columbia. Mr. G's experience with Government map construction has been large and varied. "While not a regularly classified employee, he had worked from time to time with the Geological Survey, with the Army Engineers, and in some of the other map-making bureaus of the Government, which had given him an exceptional training in this line of work. The case of a clerk-stenographer. — In August, 1911, Mr. H, one of our best stenographers, at 11,200 per annum, resigned on account of illness. There was a possibility of his being able to return later and a temporary appointment was given to Mr. I on certifica- tion from the Civil Service Commission to fill the vacancy pending the return of Mr. H. It has just been learned that Mr. H will not return, and it is necessary to make a per- manent appointment on our statutory roll of a clerk-stenographer at $1,200. Mr. I has proved himself to be a very capable and painstaking man. He has obtained a great deal of information regarding the nature of our work audit would be very desirable to retain his services. Unfortunately Mr. I claims a residence in the District of Columbia and it is useless for us to attempt to secure him permanently. It will be necessary for us to go to the commission and ask for a certification and take our chances on securing some one from a distant point whom we have not seen and who will have to go through the course of training and experience that has been given to Mr. I because Mr. I is a resident of the District. Very truly, yours, Milton Whitney, Chief of Bureau^ Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C, December 27, 1911, Mr. F. A. Cleveland, The President's Economy Commission, the White House, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: As requested by you, I am making a statement in writing of some of the- inconveniences of the present civil-service system. The bureau is having considerable difficulty with appointments for two classes of employees — assistant chemists and laboratory helpers. It is believed that these difficulties would be remedied, in part, by removing the classes in question from the apportioned list. It sometimes happens that there is on the eligible list the name of a man who would be valuable to the Bureau of Chemistry in Washington, but who is not particularly adapted to the work in some of our branch laboratories and who is not interested in the class of work done there. Perhaps the Civil Service Commission would waive its regulations and permit the appointment of such a man to Washington if the necessity were pointed out. This fact does not remedy the matter, however, as we do not usually know when such a man is on the list. If we do know it it is only by accident. Again, appointments can not be made for two or three months after the date of the examination. On this account many of the men who take the examinations secure other appointments in the meantime and by the time positions are tendered them as a result of their civil-service examination they are not available for appointment. Naturally enough the best men, the ones we want most, are usually those who are first appointed. Any delay, therefore, in the certification of the best names on the list decreases the probability of their accepting appointments tendered them. For this reason it is of the utmost importance that the best names on the list be certified first in order that there may be the least possible delay in offering them positions. We are not in position to cite illustrations that adequately present this case, for, as aheady stated, it is only by accident if we happen to know the qualifications of men on the list in advance of their certification. Moreover, it frequently happens that appointees have peculiar qualifications which we only learn after their appointments. The following cases will serve to illustrate the difficulties referred to: Dr. J passed the civil-service examination for assistant chemist in the spring of 1910, I believe. We happened to learn from a member of the faculty of Johns Hopkins University that Dr. J was on the eligible list and also that he had particular and unusual qualifications in both organic and physical chemistry. For years we have not been able to get men enough of that type in the bureau at Washington and at that time we were particularly in need of them. Dr. J was not certified for appointment in Washington, however. He was certified to us for appointment in the food and drug inspection laboratory at Galveston, Tex., work for which he was not particularly well suited and in which he was not interested (civil-service certificate No. 7329, 58 APPOETIONMENT OF APPOHSTTMElSrTS. Oct. 8, 1910). Finally, a position arose in one of the branch laboratories to which he was well adapted and he was appointed to the food research laboratory in Philadelphia from civil-service certificate No. 7576, March 7, 1911. It happened that in this case Dr. J was not lost to the bureau because he had a position as research assistant in Johns Hopkins University. If he had been looking for a position at the time he took the examination, as is usually true, it is ob\'ious that he would have been lost to us before the position arose to which he could have been appointed under the ordinary rules. Another case is that of Dr. K. Dr. K was a man of good training and of experience far superior to that of the average eligible for the position of assistant chemist. It was believed that he would make a valuable man for the bureau; at the same time the appointing officers of the bureau were doubtful about his ability to serve success- fully as a witness in court cases. On this account, and also because of the fact that his experience did not include the examination of foods, it was deemed inadvisable to appoint him to any of our food inspection laboratories. At the time we might have used him advantageously in Washington, but he was certified on civil-service certificate Nos. 7787, 7870, 7920, and 8138, for various locations in the field service in our food inspection laboratories. Meantime it was desired to appoint a man of mature years and experience at special work in the Bureau of Chemistry in Washington in order that he might familiarize himself with our work here preparatory to taking up work in the field. To fill this position a request was made for certification to the bureau in Washington, but those certified did not appear suitable for the work. By accident we knew something of the work of Dr. K and believed that he would fill our requirements. We therefore requested his appointment in Washington with the provision that after receiving preliminary training he should be detailed to field service. This appointment was authorized by the Civil Service Commission. As in the case of Dr. J, therefore, we did not entirely lose the services of Dr. K. Here again it appears to have been because he already had a position which he could hold as long as he desired . Another illustration showing the necessity for prompt action is the case of Dr. L. Dr. L was recommended by members of the chemical faculty in Cornell, as the ablest man in his line they had turned out for years. Because of their statement regarding him we were anxious to secure his appointment. Because of his unusual ability he received repeated offers of positions, but was desirous of entering the Government service and for a time declined them. It happened that he was from a State which permitted his early certification and his name was received on the first certificate and an appointment promptly tendered him. Notwithstanding this fact, he had begun to feel that he could not longer run the risk of declining positions that were being tendered him and had written a letter accepting another position when he received notification of his appointment to the bureau in time to permit him to telegraph recalling the letter just mentioned. If Dr. L, therefore, had been certified from Maryland or the District of Columbia his name would not have appeared on the first certificate and the bureau would not have been able to secure his services. These cases are probably sufficient to illustrate our difficulties with the position of assistant chemist. With the poorest men on the eligible lists we probably do not have much difficulty. They do not have so many tenders of other positions. The effect of placing the scientific positions in the apportioned service is therefore to lower the standard of the men we are able to employ. The same objections apply to placing laboratory helpers in the apportioned service. The position of laboratory helper is not of a scientific nature. The helpers are intended to be a high class of laborers. They need have no knowledge of chemistry, but should be familiar with chemical apparatus and should have a sufficiently delicate touch to be able to handle delicate apparatus in cleaning it or putting it together. Under civil service certificate No. 4763, August 29, 1907, Mr. M was certified for appointment as laboratory helper in the Bureau of Chemistry at Washington. At that time it was the custom of the bureau to obtain certifications to Washington and appoint men and detail them to the positions which seemed most advisable. Mr. M was a Washington boy and was instructed to report for dutya month or so after his appointment. In the meantime an emergency arose in Washington and M's appoint- ment was changed in such a manner as to permit him to go to work at once in the Bureau of Chemistry in Washington, and subsequently he was transferred to Chicago. It was after that time, I think, that the laboratory helpers were placed in the appor- tioned service; at any rate we did not then know they were in the apportioned service. Mr. N, of Chicago, was certified for appointment as laboratory helper under civil service certificate No. 6491, October 1, 1909. Vacancies had at that time occurred in Washington, and it was thought best to grant M's request for a transfer to Washing- ton, the transportation to be paid by himself, and fill his place in Chicago by the APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS, 59 appointment of N, a Chicago boy. This recommendation was made but was not approved by the Civil Service Commission because of the fact that M was in the non- apportioned service and was not eligible to Washington. This decision was made notwithstanding the fact that M was originally certified for Washington and appointed in Washington but transferred subsequently to Chicago. A short time after this M resigned and secured another position in Washington. He was a good helper, and the bureau thus lost his services by reason of the position being in the apportioned service. Several years ago Mr. O was appointed laboratory helper in the Boston laboratory. Mr. was a college graduate and had had almost enough scientific training to permit him to pass an examination as either chemist or bacteriologist. His training was not quite sufficient, however. He was an energetic, reliable man, and at his request was transferred as laboratory helper to Washington, where he had opportunity to take an advanced course in an institution having work at night. A number of months after this the Civil Service Commission notified us that Mr. O's transfer to Washington was illegal, but it so happened that in the interim had passed an examination for assist- ant bacteriologist and his name had been recommended for appointment to that position. We do not get the class of people we need as laboratory helpers. The position is not intended as a stepping stone for scientific workers. Several years ago we believed that we had found a solution to the difficulty and recommended that the grade of laboratory helper junior be established, appointments to be made from the messenger boy roll. These boys were expected to do some messenger work but to learn the duties of a helper and while so employed to acquire experience which would enable them, after a time and without subsequent examination, to be promoted to the posi- tion of laboratory helper. This grade was approved by the Civil Service Commission, but the placing of laboratory helpers within the apportioned service makes it imprac- ticable, because the messenger boys are in the nonapportioned service and, therefore, as we understand it, they are not eligible even to take an examination for the position of laboratory helper in the Bureau of Chemistry in Washington. It therefore appears that in this position, for which there should be so many applicants, it often takes us several months to fill a vacancy satisfactorily. If we could appoint boys in the manner indicated above it would facilitate the work of the bureau very much . Our messenger boys have no incentive to grow up in the service. Most of them live here and some of them, living at home, could study at night if there was a possibility of promotion. They can not accept a promotion and leave Washington without giving up all hopes of studying at night, for then it would require almost their entire salaries to support them. Some time ago, when we were having unusual difficulty in securing satisfactory helpers, Mr. P was a messenger boy in this bureau. He was a boy of unusual ability and fidelity and one who gave promise of developing into an able man. He was a graduate of the McKinley Tech- nical High School of this city and was on the eligible list for appointment as laboratory helper. He, however, could not be certified for appointment in Washington. We could not ask for his certification as laboratory helper by way of promotion because lie was in the nonapportioned service. Mr. P resigned and accepted, outside of the bureau, a position less desirable than that of laboratory helper in the Bureau of Chemistry and at the same time our vacancies in the positions of laboratory helper were filled, after considerable delay, by men whose qualifications were far inferior to his. The Bureau of Chemistry is not particularly inconvenienced by the fact that stenog- raphers and clerks are in the apportioned service. It is probable that the salaries we pay are necessarily higher than would be the case if local stenograi^hers could be employed but the work is not hampered thereby. The eligible list always contains a considerable number of able stenographers, so that there is no great delay in filling vacancies with properly qualified people. On the other hand, in positions of assistant chemist and laboratory helpers the number of eligibles is not sufficient to meet our needs, and it is believed that placing such positions in the apportioned service is an unnecessary obstruction and results in seriously hampering the service. Respectfully, H. W. Wiley, Chief. 60 APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. Department of Agriculture, Bureau op Chemistry, Washington, D. C, January 25, 1912. Mr. F. A. Cleveland, The President' s Economy Commission, the White House, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: There is one matter which has occurred to me recently which probablj^ I did not cover, or only covered inadequately, in my letter of December 27, 1911. I am informed that at the present time the quota of the following States is full: Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Virginia, Mary- land, Vermont, and Delaware. I am also informed that the States of Pennsylvania and New York are very near the line and that their quota is likely to be full at any time. A person taking an examination, for instance, as assistant chemist, in any of the States mentioned, therefore, will not be certified for appointment until almost the end of the list is reached. Now, it happens that many of our best universities and colleges are located in the States mentioned. It is, of course, true at the present time that good training is given in a large number of States, but if a student from a State which is very poorly equipped with colleges happens to be taking a post-graduate course in one of the institutions in the States mentioned above, he can not take the examination for assistant chemist and be eligible for certification in Washington unless he returns to his home State for that purpose. Now, the Bureau of Chemistiy is continually placed in controversy with someof the best-paid experts the country produces, and we require for the benefit of the service the best material which the educational institutions of the country are graduating from year to year. If we must appoint first even relatively inferior men from States whose quota is not filled, it is evident that by the time we have reached the men from the States whose quota is filled, and many of whom are of superior training, the best of the latter class will have already obtained positions. In our leading institutions the best men in the class usually have positions awaiting them upon graduation. I consider that the condition mentioned above, which follows from placing the position of assist- ant chemist in the apportioned service, is prejudicial to the interests of the depart- ment, contrary to business principles, and subversive of the civil-service principle. Respectfully, H. W. Wiley, Chief.. Department of Agriculture, Division of Publications, Washington, D. C, December 26, 1911 Mr. Brown, President's Commission on Economy and Efficiency. Dear Sir: In compliance with your request, I inclose herewith a statement show- ing the experience of this office in connection with the present system of certification of employees by the United States Civil Service Commission under the regulations- with regard to apportionment. Very respectfully, Jos. A. Arnold, Editor and Chief. STATEMENT. When persons living in Washington but credited to the several States were certified by the United States Civil Service Commission, we were always able to fill vacancies more promptly and to secure a better class of employees than at present. There are many persons who are residents of Washington and near-by States who have been found capable and efficient, but they are certified for temporary positions only. We have had quite a number of these temporary employees and have found most of them exceptionally well suited for the work, but we have not been able to keep them beyond the six months. Wlien a vacancy occurs, however, in the position of clerk or skilled laborer we are obliged to wait several days before receiving a certification, very often the persons certified living in California, Washington, Colorado, and in other far-distant States. For instance, a man in Honolulu was certified. _ Some of those certified are not suited for the work to be performed, judging by their papers, and it is necessary to write those who appear to be satisfactory and ask whether they would accept the place if offered them and when they can report for duty. Asthe entrance salary is only $720 per annum, and promotion slow, and inasmuch as it is likely to cost a month's salary to get to Washington, few are willing to accept the positions, and it is necessary to ask for another certification, write more letters, and APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 61 wait for some one who may, perchance, be willing to accept. On this account the places often remain vacant for weeks, when we are in need of assistants to get out the congressional mail. Persons residing in Washington can better afford to accept low salaries, and at the same time we can see them and judge of their ability to perform the services required. A few specific instances may be cited as follows: Mr. Q, of Tennessee, residing in Washington, D. C, was appointed a temporary clerk at $720 per annum August 16; 1910. Mr. Q proved to be an excellent stock clerk, having had considerable experience in that line. We had had his time extended for three months and made every effort to have it made permanent, but could not do so. A young man in another bureau was appointed to the place, but he had to be instructed in the duties of the position. Mr. R, of the District of Columbia, was appointed a skilled laborer at $720 per annum March 17, 1911, and we were able to have his time extended for three months, "but were obliged to terminate his appointment September 16, 1911. Although he was an excellent employee we could not keep him. The Civil Service Commission certified three persons to fill the place, and of the three the only one who seemed likely to prove satisfactory resided in Honolulu, while the other two were in the far West. It was necessary, of course, to write to the one having the best papers and ask him if he would accept the place. He declined. In the meantime we found a young man in the department and secured his appointment, but he is not as capable a man as Mr. R. If we had not found the young man, we would have been obliged to ask for another certification of persons probably residing in far-off States, so that we would have had to wait 10 days to 2 weeks to ascertain whether they would take the position if offered to them. Meanwhile the position would have been vacant and the division deprived of the services of the employee. Department of the Interior, Office Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Washington, June 17, 1912. The President's Commission on Economy and Efficiency, Washington, D. C. Gentlemen: I inclose a memorandum prepared in this office on the workings of the apportionment rule. While perhaps my own personal reasoning is a little different in this matter from one or two of the points expressed in the memorandum, my conclu- sion is the same, and I particularly invite your attention to the modified plan suggested in case you still feel it necessary to keep a certain degree of apportionment. I assume that one of the reasons for the apportionment was that it was felt, in a long view ahead, through the decades, the gathering of people in as nearly as possible equal numbers from the different sections of the country would have a good reactive effect on those communities, and be an efficient part of the building up of our all- round democracy. While no one is more enthusiastic than myself about a long vie'w ahead in public "affairs, I think that possibly this particular good has been overrated as compared with the steady and definite evil of not being able to command the most efficient work available. On the whole, I should urge the complete abandonment of the apportionment system as regards the District. Sincerely, yours, R. C. Valentine, Commissioner. December 13, 1911. memorandum. The rule of apportionment of employees by States and Territories is a prominent feature in the civil-service law of January 16, 1883, reading as follows: Section 2, clause 2, paragraph: "Third. Appointments to the public service aforesaid in the departments at Wash- ington shall be apportioned among the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia upon the basis of population as ascertained at the last preceding census. " In my opinion the law of apportionment brings to pass a condition of affairs which would not be permitted to exist by any reputable business house in the country. There should be no reason why the Government should not be permitted to enter the market the same as a business concern to secure the services of the best people, always bearing in mind, of course, that these people are to be eligible for appointment through civil-service examination. 62 APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMElSrTS. If we admit that the civil-service examination is such as to prove that a man is qualified or disqualified for a position we must reach the conclusion that this same examination should show that one person is better qualified to fill a certain position than another. The law of apportionment saj's to us: "You must select and appoint this man whose average is 71, but who happens to live in Florida, when at the same time you can not select and appoint a man whose average is 91, but who lives in Mary- land, the District of Columbia, Virginia, or some other State which has received its share of the appointments allowed it under the rule of apportionment. " The only excuse possible for the law as it now stands is that it distributes "pat- ronage." It is true that if the law were repealed and the appointments given to those standing highest on the registers, irrespective of their places of residence, a large majority of the appointments would go to those people who happen to reside in States near the seat of government. Considering this condition of affairs purely from the standpoint of the efficiency of the service, I can not see that this would in any way injure the service, and, on the other hand, it might be possible that the service would be benefited by reason of the fact that all those persons who live in those near-by States who enter the service would do so with a clear understanding of what the conditions would be, etc., which would probably render them more satisfied than would be a man who came from a more distant point with the idea that he was going to receive a stated sum of money for performing a minimum amount of work (this being the popular idea of the Government service) and afterwards found out that he would be expected to earn the coin. I have given this subject a great deal of thought at different times and have a plan in mmd that would obviate any objections that persons might raise to giving appointments to the highest qualified eligibles. My plan is about as follows: Divide the present register into three registers, register No. 1 containing the names of all those persons who receive an average of 90 and upward, register No. 2 containing the names of all those persons who receive an average of between 80 and 89-0-, and register No. 3 containing the names of all those persons who receive an average of between 70 and 79^^. When a request is received for eligibles, the Civil Service Commission should certify from register No. 1, but strictly under the apportionment rule, exhausting all of the names on that register from the States which had received their excess as well as those which had not before considering any persons on register No. 2. If such a plan as this could be suggested and adopted by the powers that be, a big step in the right direction would be taken, as under the present rule the only reason why an eligible from the State of Maryland or Virginia, or the District of Columbia, with an average of 95 or 96, receives any consideration at all in connection with an appointment is when the registers for the other States have become exhausted and all persons thereon receiving an average as low as 70 have been appointed. I can not see but that the law of apportionment works to the detriment of the Gov- ernment service in Washington, D. C. C. V. Stinchecum, Assistant Chief, Education Division. Appendix B. United States Civil Service Commission, Washington, D. C, January 28, 191S. The President's Commission on Economy and Efficiency. Gentlemen: With reference to your letters of December 22, 1912, transmitting^ proposed report to the President relating to certifications of eligibles to positions in the departments at Washington, and of January 25, 1913, the Civil Service Commis- sion submits herewith comment and a plan of action relating to appointments to positions in the apportioned service, Avhich it will thank you to embody in your report to the President, in accordance with your "suggestion. Of the following quotations from the civil-service act the portions in italic are material to the consideration of the matter of appointments in the apportioned service: "And, among other things, said rules shall provide and declare, as nearly as the conditions of good administration will tvarrant, as follows: ******* "Second. That all the offices, places, and employments so arranged or to be arranged in classes shall be filled by selections according to grade froin among those graded highest as the results of such competitive examinations. "Third. Appointments to the public service aforesaid in the departments at Washington shall he apportioned among the several States and Territories and f APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 63 the District of Columbia upon the basis of population as ascertained at the last pre- ceding census. * * *." It will be observed that the two pro\dsions of the statute, one providing for selections according to grade from among those graded highest in examniation, and the other providing that appointments in the departments at Washington shall be apportioned, are coordinate, that the observance of each is required, "as nearly as the conditions of gobd administration will warrant," and that the provision relating to apportionment is not subordinate to the other. It seems to the commission that in the conclusions reached in your report to the President the fact has been overlooked that the provision of law, ' ' as nearly as the conditions of good administration will warrant, ' ' applies with equal weight to the requirement that selections shall be made from those graded highest in examinations and to the requirement of apportionment. Of course if any consideration is given to the provision relating to apportionment, the eligibles who pass the highest in an examination held throughout the country may not in all cases be certified. There are, in the opinion of this commission, sound reasons for the continuance of the law of apportionment, and as no suggestion to modify or repeal it is made in your report, the presumption is that such reasons need not be stated at this time. Recent references to the apportionment may be found in the reports of the commission. In any plan of certification the fact must not be overlooked that the law clearly contemplates eqtial recognition of the two requirements — one for selection from the highest in examination and the other for selection in accordance with the apportionment. A distinction is made between the registers of eligibles having ordinary clerical and subclerical qualifications and registers of eligibles with technical, professional, and scientific qualifications. In the ordinary registers a difference of a few points in rat- ing is not so important as in the case of registers of experts. Nearly every State and Territory is represented on the ordinary registers, but for most of the technical registers a few States only furnish eligibles. The method proposed by your commission would not recognize this distinction, but would make all certifications in the same manner, regardless of whether registers are richly supplied with eligibles as in the case of clerk registers, or whether the qualifications are unusual. And further, the plan which you propose modifies the present method of certifying from technical registers. Under the plan adopted May 14, 1910, the commission recognizes the great disparity in the number of appointments made from the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, when compared with other States and provides against the tendency to increased excess on the part of other States which have received an excessive share of appoint- ments. The plan submitted in your report does not make this distinction, but pro- poses that certification be made from all registers, first from those States not in excess with averages of from 100 to 85 per cent, and next of eligibles within the same range of averaee from all the States in excess, irrespective of the gross disparity in the cases of the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. Thus an eligible from the District of Columbia under the present plan might not soon be reached, if at all. whereas under the plan which you propose he would be reached almost in the order of his grade. The net result of the proposed change would be an immediate increase in the excessive share of appointments to the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and other States in excess. It is evident, therefore, that much more recognition is given in your commission's plan of certification to the requirement of selection from those rated highest than to the requirement of selection according to the apportionment, and that eligibles from the District of Columbia and States in excess of their quotas would be certified before eligibles from States materially in arrears of their quotas, although such ehgibles from States in arrears have high percentages. In fact, the plan of yoiu- commission gives such slight consideration to the appointment provision of the law that it is believed its adoption would be contrary to the statute. This commission therefore is unable to agree with the conclusions reached inyom: report. The commission has always made a distinction between expert and ordinary positions in the matter of certification. Certifications of eligibles for scientific and technical positions have generally been made by groups of States, while certifications of eligibles for ordinary positions have been made by individual States. Not being responsible for the administration of the civil-service act, subordinate officials have generally been in favor of practically ignoring the law of apportionment in the matter of certifications and appointment of eligibles. Their testimony as to the method oi procedure preferred by them can not, of course, be allowed to control. The comniis- sion is constantly being called upon to waive the apportionment, without convincing reasons being given that such action is in the interests of good administration, and without due regard being had to this mandatory provision of the law relating to appor- tionment. 64 APPOETIONMEISTT OF APPOIlSrTMElSrTS. Equal recognition of both requirements of the law affecting certification to the apportioned service being essential to good administration, the commission after years of careful study and after carefully observing the operation of the minute of May 14, 1910, has adopted a plan of certification for ordinary positions. This plan is a modifi- cation of the present plan of certification from the technical registers as outlined in the commission's minute of May 14, 1910, and differs therefrom, first, in dividing the States and Territories into five groups instead of three, and second, in providing that the first step in certifying from the various groups of States in the order of groups shall end with percentages as much as 80 instead of 75. The purpose of this plan is to give first consideration to eligibles with high averages from States most in arrears. The commission is satisfied that with the application of this plan of certification to the ordinary registers, such as that for clerk, there will be a freer-use of such registers, with the practical result that States in arrears will receive a proportionately greater nuinber of appointments hereafter. It does not seem either advisable or necessary that this commission refer in detail to the proposed report to the President. With reference to Chapter VI, the commission, of coiu'se, has an advantage in selection from registers. As soon as papers are rated certification can be immediately made to any vacancy on the force of the commission while the registers are new. As to the certification of a one-armed stenographer and tyj)ewriter, the commission does not debar persons with such physical defects from examinations for clerical posi- tions in the departments. Because he obtained a rating in examination which entitled him to certification in his turn and the commission certified him to some offices should not be charged to any fault in administration. Appointing officers are at liberty to select one of three names, and are not obliged to appoint any particular one of the three certified. The object of a three-name certification is to permit latitude in making selection for appointment. His name was not reached for certification in a great majority of the requests made for certification of stenographers and typewriters, the office of the commission being among the number. During the period covered by the table his name appeared on only 18 certificates; it did not appear on the remain- ing male stenographer and typewriter certificates, approximately^ 200, 5 of which were to this commission. The commission feels called upon to give these data in view of the incomplete statistical table relating to this matter contained in the report, from which erroneous inferences might be drawn. By direction of the commission: Very respectfully, John C. Black, President. PLAN OF CERTIFICATIONS FROM REGISTERS OTHER THAN THOSE FROM WHICH CERTIFICA- TIONS ARE MADE UNDER THE MINUTE OF MAY 14, 1910. 1. Certify the highest eligibles from one-half of the entire group of States and Territories that have not received then full share of the total number of appointments actually made (if the number of such States and Territories is uneven, take the lesser number), and continue so to do until all the eligibles from such States and Territories have been certified with average percentages of as much as 80. 2. After all the eligibles described in (1) above have thus been certified, then certify in the same manner from one-half of the remainder of such group of States and Territories. 3. After all the eligibles described in (2) above have thus been certified, then certify in the same manner from the remainder of such group of States and Territories. 4. After all the eligibles described in (3) above have thus been certified, then certify as described in (1) above down to and including eligibles with percentages of as much as 75. 5. After all the eligibles described in (4) above have thus been certified, then certify as described in (2) above down to and including eligibles with percentages of as much as 75. 6. After all the eligibles described in (5) above have thus been certified, then cer- tify as described in (3) above down to and including eligibles with percentages of as much as 75. 7. After all the eligibles described in (6) above have thus been certified, then certify from the other States, in their order under the apportionment, eligibles with an average percentage of as much as 75, down to the two States and the District of Columbia having the largest excess of their share of appointments. 8. After all the eligibles described in (7) above have thus been certified, then certify the highest remaining eligibles from the entire gi-oup of States in arrears of their share, in the order of percentage, who have percentages of as much as 73. APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 65' 9. After all the eligibles described in (8) above have thus been certified, then certify as described in (7) above down to and including eligibles with percentages of as much as 73. 10. After all eligibles have thus been certified with averages as much as 73, down to the two States and the District of Columbia that have received the gi-eatest excesS' of their share, then certify the highest remaining eligibles from the entire group of States and Territories in arrears of their share; and after all eligibles from such group of States and Territories have been certified, then certify from each State and Territory in its order under the apportionment. Appendix C. March 25, 1913, The United States Civil Service Commission, Wahington, D. C. Gentlemen: The Commission on Economy and Efficiency has given consideration to your letter of January 28, 1913, upon the subject of the report it proposes to make to the President relative to certification of eligibles for positions in the departments at Washington. The statements made by your commission and the plan proposed by it do not remedy the evils which this commission believes exist in the present system of certifica- tion. In the first place, in your letter of January 28 reference is made to the "appor- tioned service" and you quote from the civil-service act certain portions which you believe are material in a consideration of the matter of appointments in the "appor- tioned service." From this it might be inferred that there was established by law an apportioned service, thus making it necessary to take into consideration the needs of such apportioned service whenever the civil-service act is being construed. This is clearly erroneous. The civil-service act relates to appointments of employees for duty in every State, and has no more relation to those in service in the District of Columbia than it has to those in service in any other part of the country. Keeping in mind this obvious purpose of the law, which is not admitted or referred to in your letter, it gives to the civil-service act a somewhat different meaning from that which- you place upon it. In other words, the law requires that the rules to be made shall provide, as nearly as the conditions of good administration will warrant, for selections according to grade from among those graded highest, and also that such rules shall provide for the creation of what may be called an apportioned service in the depart- ments at Washington. Neither the requirement as to selection from those graded highest nor the requirement as to the creation of an apportioned service is an absolute requirement of the law. Both are to be covered by rules to be made, and those rules are to go no further in carrying out either purpose than the conditions of good atlminis- tration will warrant. This has been the practical interpretation of the law by the Civil Service Commis- sion, for it has from time to time made rules looking to the apportionment of appoint- ments in the public service in the departments at Washington, and has excluded from such apportionment rules certain positions in the departments. The question is not, therefore, one of consideration of "the matter of appointments in the apportioned service," as you state it, but one of the extent to which the rules (made from time to time and changed as conditions of good administration warrant) shall provide for the operation of the apportionment principle upon positions in the departments. Taking this view of the civil-service law and having in mind that this is the view which is clearly required by the letter and spu'it of the law, and is the view that has been accepted and acted upon from the beginning by the Civil Service Commission itself, and without question by anyone, it is proper to proceed to the consideration of what changes, if any, are requu'ed in the existing rules relating to apportionment in order that the conditions of good administration may be advanced and the efficiency of the service improved, all being done within the letter and spirit of the law and without violating its provisions in any way. AVhile the plan proposed by the Civil Service Commission in its letter of January 28 is a slight improvement over its former method, it does not mend the main evil of the present system of certification against which complaint was made, i. e., the appointment to the public service of those whose abilities are shown to be of mediocre order when others are available whose talents are of a superior order. In a statement herewith will be. found a tabulation showing the plan proposed by the Civil Service Commission . The contention of the Commission on Economy and Efficiency has been that no fault is to be found with the civil-service act itself. The language is plain and the H. Doc. 50. 63-1 5 66 APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. meaning clear. The intention of the statute was to promote "good administration," and there is nothing in any clause of the law that need be or should be twisted to mean otherwise. This commission holds, therefore, that the law is violated when the Civil Service (Commission certifies indi\dduals of inferior merit, since the appointment of such individuals is clearly not in the interest of '"good administration." The Civil Service Commission, on the other hand, ignores the main provision of the law in regard to "the conditions of good administration," and holds that the third minor provision to be included in rules under this general provision, i. e., the provision that appoint- ments shall be apportioned among the seveial States and Territories, must have precedence over all other provisions, even when such action is plainly against "the conditions of good administration," which is specifically the main provision. The Civil Service Commission goes so far as to hold not merely that it is justified by the law in appointing to public office people of inferior qualifications, but that it is actually required by the law so to do, and it has succeeded in creating that impression in the minds of many department officials who would otherwise have complained more frequently than they have of the Civil Service Commission's methods. The investigation made by this commission warrants the statement that the fault is not with the law, but with the erroneous interpretation of it insisted on by the Civil Service Commission. In its letter of January 28, 1913, the Civil Ser\-ice Commission quotes the civil- service law as follows: "And, among other things, said rules shall provide and declare, as nearhj as the con- ditions of good administration will v)arrant, as follows: ■X- ■)«•«■*■* -X- * "Second. That all the offices, places, and employments so arranged or to be ar'-anged in classes shall be filled by selections according to grade Jrom among those graded highest as the result of such competitive examination. "Third. Appointments to the public service aforesaid in the departments at Wash- ington shall be apportioned among the several States and Territories and the District of "Columbia upon the basis of population as ascertained at the last preceding census * * * " And then says: "It will be observed that the two provisions of the statute, one providing for selec- tions according to grade from among those graded highest in examination, and the other providing that appointments in the departments at Washington shall be appor- tioned, are coordinate, that the observance of each is required, 'as nearly as the condi- tions of good administration will warrant,' and that the provision ^elating to appor- tionment is not subordinate to the other." While these two provisions that are to be covered in the rules are coordinate they are also absolutely antagonistic to each other and would not be susceptible of har- monious enforcement if they were not subordinated to the "good administration" clause of the law. The provision requiring selections to be made "according to grade from among those graded highest" is in perfect accord with the purpose of the law, 1. e., "to improve the civil service." On the other hand, the provision requiring appointments to be apportioned among the States according to population is opposed to "good administration," since rarely does it happen that the eligibles graded highest are also from the State having the greatest claim for an appointment. In recognition of the conflicting character of these provisions, the framers of the law wisely provided that each of these two provisions should be included in rules and not in an inflexible law, and should be mandatory only "as nearly as the conditions of good administra- tion will warrant," and no more. The Civil Service Commission's contention that "the law clearly contemplates equal recognition of the two requirements, one for selection from the highest in exami- nation and the other for selection in accordance with the apportionment," is clearly not the fact, and were it the fact, the law could in the nature of things not he enforced. In actual practice the Civil Service Commission does not and can not give equal recognition to these two clauses. What it actually does is to give the apportionment clause precedence over the competitive clause. This commission therefore repeats the conclusions set forth in its report on the apportionment, namely, that there can be but one reasonable interpretation of the provision of the law relating to apportionment, and that is that as between candidates of substantially equal merit the one coming from the State having the fewest residents in the service in proportion to its population shall be given the preference; bxit it can never be in the interest of "good administration" to appoint the candidate of less merit on the mere ground of residence in some particular State. To do so is to put the Civil Service Commission in the position to juggle with places in the civil service in such a way as to gain political advantage; in other words, to promote the very thing it was created to prevent— partisanship in the distribution of offices. APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 67 The Civil Service Commission next objects, in its letter of January 28, to the method of certification proposed in the report of this commission on the ground that it would make all certifications in the same manner, regardless of whether registers are richly supplied with eligibles, as in the case of clerk registers, or whether they are poorly supplied because the qualifications demanded are unusual. Under the Civil Service Commission's present method a distinction is made between the registers of eligibles who have ordinary clerical and subclerical qvialifications and the registers of eligibles who have technical, professional, and scientific qualifications. The Civil Service Commission holds that a difference of a few points in rating is not so important in the ordinary registers as in the case of registers of experts. Since nearly every State and Territory is represented in the ordinary registers while only a few States furnish eligibles for the technical registers, it holds that it is justified in drawing practically all eligibles to merely clerical positions from the States that do not furnish eligibles for technical registers. This course might possibly be defended, if it were not against the interests of "good administration," as abundantly proved by the tables compiled from the actual records in the report submitted by this commission, which show that there is a remarkable connection between examination ratings and efficiency records. This commission thus finds nothing in the law and nothing in the situation to war- rant the distinction made by the Civil Service Commission in certifying eligibles for scientific and clerical positions. It is surely no more in harmony with "good admin- istration" to certify poorly qualified clerks than it is to certify poorly qualified scien- tific assistants. The difference is only one of degree. The law does not warrant either, if well-qualified eligibles are available. The Civil Service Commission then adds : "And further, the plan which you propose modifies the present method of certi- fying from technical registers. Under the plan adopted May 14, 1910, the commission recognizes the great disparity in the number of appointments made from the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, when compared with other States, and provides against the tendency to increased excess on the part of other States, which have received an excessive share of appointments. The plan submitted in your report does not make this distinction, but proposes that certification be made from all registers, first from those of States not in excess with averages of from 100 to 85 per cent, and next of eligibles within the same range of average from all the States in excess, irrespective of the gross disparity in the cases of the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. Thus an eligible from the District of Columbia under the present plan might not soon be reached, if at all, whereas under the plan which you propose he would be reached almost in the order of his grade. The net result of the proposed change would be an immediate increase in the excessive share of appointments to the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and other States in excess." This commission believes that the Civil Service Commission's present method of certifying eligibles for technical and scientific positions, under which every eligible in the entire United States is certified down to a bare passing mark of 70 before eligibles from the two States and the District of Columbia are certified, is a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the civil-service law and wholly contrary to every principle of "good administration." The "net result" of the present system is indeed far more disastrous than what the Civil Service Commission says would be the "net result" of the change proposed in the report submitted by this commission, i. e., "an immediate increase in the excessive share of appointments to the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and other States in excess." The "net result" at present is the deliberate preference of inefficiency in the public service to efficiency . ' ' Reward for mediocrity " is the legend that might truthfully be attached to a very large number of the Civil Service Commission's certifications. Nor does it follow by any means that there would be an immediate increase in the number of people from the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia appointed to office, if superior efficiency were the sine qua non of admission to the service. It only follows in case the Civil Service Commission continues to neglect its obvious duty in the matter' of stimulating residents of States that are behind in their quota to take the civil-service examinations. It would be possible, for instance, to secure a larger and more efficient class of eligibles from the Southern States than is now secured, but although the Civil Service Commission must have long been aware that few white persons living in Southern States are willing to sit alongside negroes in the same examinations, it has never undertaken to solve the matter in a practical way by pro- viding separate examination quarters in Southern States for white and black candi- dates. The actual result of their neglect to do so is that there are not as many south- ern whites on the civil-service registers as might be. Interest in civil-service positions would be much stimulated in Western States also if Congress would adopt the practice which is followed in the case of enlisted men in 68 APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. the Army and Navy, of paying the expense of transportation of successful candidates to the place of employment. A table contained in the report submitted by this commission shows that the total cost of transporting the 991 persons appointed in 1911 would have been from |8,691 to $43,457, depending on whether the amount allowed was 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 cents a mile. The expenditure of even $43,457 a year is justified on two grounds: (1) It would place the eligibles of all States on an equality, and (2) it would increase the attractiveness of the service to the residents of distant States and thus aid in securing a more equitable distribution of appointments on merit. Until the Civil Service Commission has besought Congress to thus put the residents of distant States on an equality with residents of nearby States in the matter of appoint- ments to the civil service, it is not justified in lamenting "the excessive share of appointments to the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia," etc. Instead of thus trying to harmonize the difficulties of the situation with the principles of "good administration," it has violated certain parts of the law that are plainly mandatory about which there is absolutely no question. Section 3 of the civil-service act dis- tinctly says: "Such boards of examiners shall be so located as to make it reasonably convenient and inexpensive for applicants to attend before them; and where there are persons to be examined in any State or Territory, examinations shall be held therein at least twice in each year." In direct violation of this provision the follow- ing paragraph, in fat, black type, is found on page 7 of the Manual of Examinations for the Fall of 1912, issued by the Civil Service Commission: "Residents of the following-named States and District will not be admitted to the clerk examination: Connecticut, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. " In the letter of January 28, the Civil Service Commission goes on to make a curious statement. First acknowledging that department officials have not generally ap- proved of the apportionment clause in the civil-service act, the Civil Service Commis- sion declares that "their testimony as to the method of procedure preferred by them can not, of course, be allowed to control. " The passage is as follows: "Not being responsible for the administration of the civil-service act, subordinate officials have generally been in favor of practically ignoring the law of apportionment in the matter of certification and appointment of eligibles. Their testimony as to the method of procedure preferred by them can not, of course, be allowed to control. The commission is constantly being called upon to waive the apportionment, without con- vincing reasons being given that such action is in the interests of good administration and without due regard being had to this mandatory provision of the law relating to apportionment. " In answer, it should be pointed out that since department officials are held respon- sible for the good administration of the offices to which the eligibles are appointed, it is their judgment which should control as to the qualification of eligibles. Surely, the civil-service law was intended to improve, not to obstruct the administration of the public service, but there is bitter complaint among department officials of the arbi- trary manner in which the Civil Service Commission compels the appointment of people with inferior qualifications while withholding the certification of others merely on the ground that the State in which they happen to reside has received appointments in excess of its mathematical quota. The Civil Service Commission's explanation of the 18 certifications of the one-armed typewriter does not explain. The Civil Service Commission's statement that during the year this one-armed eligible was on the register approximately 200 certifica- tions were made has nothing to do with the case . The facts are as stated in this com- mission's report that, although the Civil Service Commission made 5 certifications to itself during the time this one-armed typewriter was in order of certification, the Civil Service Commission did not certify him to themselves in a single instance, although his name appears on no less than 18 certificates to other bureaus. The tables in this com- mission's report show conclusively that the Civil Service Commission does not enforce its own rules against itself. The regulations require the certification of 3 eligibles in order to give the departments the latitude in selection which the law contemplates. In the case of these 18 certificates bearing the name of this one-armed typewriter, the certificates might as well have borne but two names, since it is obvious that a one- armed man could not by any possibility be an efficient typewriter, and good adminis- tration would not warrant his appointment. In conclusion, it should be noted that the report submitted by this commission com- mended the principle of distributing public offices among the residents of the several States and Territories, but it did so on the ground that such distribution is desirable as stimulating interest throughout the country in the General Government at Washing- ton. The Civil Service Commission, on the other hand, takes the ground that distri- bution of public offices amounts to distribution of ]K)litical patronage and must be con- APPORTIONMENT OP APPOINTMENTS. 69 ducted with mathematical exactness. Recognizing the value of having all sections of the country represented in the executive departments of the Federal Government, it is nevertheless apparent that when choice must be made between two candidates, one of whom lives at Rock Island, 111., and the other directly across the Mississippi River at Davenport, Iowa, the "conditions of good administration" are served and the principle of apportionment is in no wise violated if the candidate chosen is that one of the two best qualified for the position, regardless of the fact that his State may be far in excess of the other in the number of residents who hold positions under the Govern- ment. This interpretation of the meaning of the apportionment rule, subordinate as it is to the clause in the law providing for "good administration," commends itself especially to the reasonable mind when attention is directed to the fact that Govern- ment employees are never called upon, as are Members of Congress, to vote upon any public question, sectional or general. They are, indeed, distinctly restrained from political activity. An exact mathematical distribution of public offices could serve no useful purpose, then, and does actual harm in keeping alive in the minds of the peo- ple of the several States the idea that public offices are political spoils or a species of lottery prizes, which a certain number of lucky people in every locality have a chance to win. Instead, the idea should be inculcated that the public service is an honor- able career open to every qualified person in every one of these United States. If any State fails to furnish the necessary number of qualified persons, it should be the effort of the Civil Service Commission to stimulate the educated element of that State to take the civil-service examinations rather than to lower the efficiency of the public service by forcing the appointment of poorly qualified persons. By the action of the Civil Service Commission, hereinbefore referred to, in excluding from the clerk examinations held in the fall of 1912 all persons residing in the 9 States and the District of Columbia, it has but emphasized its purpose not to allow such persons to enter the clerical service at Washington, no matter how well qualified they may be, nor how inferior may be the qualifications of those residents of other States who pass the examinations. That purpose is shown also by the action heretofore taken, as the Commission on Economy and Efficiency is informed, by which persons residing in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia are refused certification after passing clerical examinations with high averages, although remaining on the eligible list after all persons thereon from all other States have been appointed. The Civil Service Commission evidently has decided that there are no "eligibles" on a register to fill a call for an employee when the only persons remaining on such register are residents of the two States and the District. To carry the rule of apportionment, or rather the interpretation of it, to this extent is to defeat an effort at good administra- tion, and to make wholly misleading the plan proposed by the Civil Service Commis- sion in its letter of January 28, 1913, by which it is made to appear that eligibles in the two States and the District are to be certified after all eligibles from other States passing at 70 or more are appointed. In practice such near-by eligibles are not ap- pointed in any event or under any circumstances. By direction of the commission: Respectfully, F. A. Cleveland, Chairman. 70 APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. Tabulation showing the Civil Service Commission's modified method of certifying eligibles for appointment to all positions in the apportioned service at Washington except those of scientific assistant and stenographer and typewriter at a salary of.f!l ,000 a year. Order of certifica- tion. States in arrears. States in excess. First and second Third Foiu-th quarter. Except Vir- ginia, Mary- land, and Virginia, Maryland, and the quarter. quarter. the District District of of Columbia. Columbia. 1 100-80 (E. R.) X X X X 2 100-80 (E. R.) X X X 3 — 100-80 (E.R.) X X 4 80-75 (E.R.) X X X X 5 80-75 (E.R.) X X X 6 — 80-75 (E.R.) X X 7 — — 100-75 (O.A.) X S ^Tn\ X X (to 7i) (E. R.) 9 — — 75-73 X 10 (O.A.) X X (73 70) (E.R.) 11 — 73-70 (O.A.) X 12 100-70 (O.A.) (E. R.)= Certify from highest on entire register of all States in group. (O. A. )=Certify in order of apportionment. X=Not in order of certification. — = Registers exhausted down to lowest number immediately above. o LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS wm 011 795 904 1