qJS        f
1'234'A 58108 7
*A4- fV      STATE OF NEW YORK
19 15
t2r          REPORT.^


3ir;    }  -.'
r;,   i
SO,


OF AN.1.i
'!I:;.-i"
1
i.I:r
t:'_
i-... k:;:,
''rf


Investigation of the Municipal Civil Service
Commission and of the Administration of the Civil Service
Law and Rules
IN THE
CITY OF NEW YORK
TRANSMITTED TO THE LEGISLATURE FEBRUARY 1, 1915
ALBANY
J.. B. LYON- C6MPANY, PRINTERS
1915




'HEl


LL1.1111HIJ LLIALUUM   LH L1.1.1-111 LIA   1-1.1 
I                                                     Irmw~hJr~~Yr~uu~~ull


|| 'llC'  0*v1"'v1'c. j
_tom ^     _




STATE OF NEW YORK (-),, h.:-^'i-e
RP  pv -; t1. ORT.Ar
REPORT               \t\s


OF AN, 
Investigation of the Municipal Civil Service
Commission and of the Administration of the Civil Service
Law and Rules
IN THE


CITY OF NEW YORK
TRANSMITTED TO THE LEGISLATURE FEBRUARY 1, 1915
ALBANY
J. B. LYON COMPANY, PRINTERS
1915




I,




STATE OF


NEW YORK


No. 35
IN SENATE
FEBRUARY 1, 1915
Report of an Investigation of the Municipal Civil Service Commission and of the Administration of the Civil Service Law and
Rules in the City of New York
STATE OF NEW YORK
OFFICE OF STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
ALBANY, N. Y., January 28, 1915
Though an examination of each local civil service commission
is required to be made at least once in two years, it appears that
no formal inspection of any matter has been made in New York
city for nine years, and that no general examination has been
made within present memory.
As this Commission began to consider the duty of examining
civil service conditions in municipalities, its attention was directed
to the many exceptions and exemptions from examination made
by the New York City Civil Service Commission, and the numerous requests of the local officials for rulings which required. the concurrence of the State Civil Service Commission. Such
r concurrence had been freely given, relying upon the judgment and
care of the local commission, until abuse became apparent and
curtailment necessary. This abuse reached a climax when the
6 municipal commission permitted the appointment of forty-seven
examiners of charitable institutions ignoring an appropriate eligible list containing 110 names.
3 335126




4


The spirit and letter of article V, section 9 of the Constitution
was evaded and ignored by this action. This section is as follows:
"Appointments and promotions in the civil service of the
state, and of all the civil divisions thereof, including cities
and villages, shall be made according to merit and fitness to
be ascertained, so far as practicable, by examinations, which,
so far as practicable, shall be competitive; provided, however, that honorably discharged soldiers and sailors froth
the army and navy of the United States in the late civil
war, who are citizens and residents of this state, shall be
entitled to preference in appointment and promotion, without regard to their standing on any list from which such
appointment or promotion may be made. Laws shall be
made to provide for the enforcement of this section."
On the appearance of the State Commission in the City of
New York, to undertake its examination of the records, it began
to receive complaints in large numbers from individuals and from
societies, specifying violations and evasions of the Civil Service
Law in many departments, and the duty of this Commission to
make an investigation soon became evident. The State Commission learning that the city officials would have the assistance of
the corporation counsel, requested the Attorney-General to assign
counsel to its service. He did secure and designate Frank Moss
of New York city as a special deputy and Mr. Moss has remained
with this Commission throughout the inquiry; the city officials
being represented at times by the corporation counsel, Frank L.
Polk, and constantly by his assistant Josiah Stover and by special
counsel Frederic R. Coudert, and near the end also by Howard
Gans.
Early in the inquiry one of the prominent commissioners of
the city, who claimed to be advised by the corporation counsel,
challenged the right of this Commission to require the attendance
of employees of his department by subpoena except at regular
sessions of the Commission, and recognizing the antagonism of
some of the officials towards the proposed inquiry, it was determined to make the proceedings absolutely formal and to give




privileges not usually accorded in investigations. All the testimony reported herewith was taken in open public session, and was
reported by competent stenographers and full transcripts thereof
were furnished from day to day to the local commission at the
expense of the State Commission. The fullest privilege of counsel was accorded; cross-examination at length was permitted; at
many points in the inquiry officials were permitted to take the
stand and to present witnesses to explain matters. The engagements of counsel in court and elsewhere were recognized and
adjournments were frequently granted. Counsel for the city officials many times stated their desire to have two days at the end
for rebuttal not perfected as the inquiry progressed, and six days
were allowed by this Commission, with the expressed willingness
to hold night sessions for the uses of the said officials.
At the end of the inquiry on January 22d, the corporation
counsel requested another week for further rebuttal, which request
we were compelled to deny, because our resignations to take effect
on February 1, 1915, had been forwarded to the Governor and
it was clear to us that the intervening week would be needed to
formulate and present our report.
At a meeting of the State Commission held September 18,
1914, the formal investigation was ordered under the authority
vested by section 6, subdivision 3 of the Civil Service Law.
Between September 29, 1914, and January 22, 1915, we held
forty-five sessions, and an inspection of the record will show how
fully the privilege of cross-examining and of rebutting was accorded, and how large a proportion of the time was taken by the
cross-examinations, the testimony, the speeches and the exhibits
offered by the local department heads.
It has been the earnest desire of this Commission to conduct
an inquiry which would be fair to the local officials, free from
prejudice and partisanship, and likely to benefit the city, the
State and the army of public servants. There has been no design
to discredit the local administration as some have declared; but
we have desired rather to aid it to become a shining exponent of
true civil service policies and practices. While there have been
points where opinions clashed, yet there have been many instances where the local commissioners were in accord with us,




6


and expressed appreciation of our help in revealing conditions
which had not been recognized or realized by them and it is fair
to say that this Commission has found no evidence of malfeasance
in the local board, and that some of the matters criticized have
come down from earlier administrations unchecked by any action
of former State Civil Service Commissions, which evidently have
refrained from investigating the New York City Commission
through fear of attack for interference.  The nonpartisanship of
our inquiry was safeguarded by the bipartisan character of our
organization, for two of the commissioners are Democrats, while
the other commissioner and the counsel are Republicans; all have
been in unanimous and hearty agreement throughout the proceeding.
While the inquiry has centered about the municipal commission,
it has included a large part of the public service, and has comprised the whole field of civil service.  So wide an inquiry has
not been accomplished easily and has provoked resentment in some
quarters.
Violations of the law and of the spirit of the law have been
found in many offices and departments, some, to the expressed
surprise of the local commission. In several notable instances
specified hereafter, the local commission has amended and improved its methods in particulars revealed by the hearing.
'Some of the violations of law are of long standing and have
continued without apparent effort to discover or to correct them.
This is not strange, for the local commission itself has violated
the law in many particulars. These violations have produced a
distrust of the merit system in many persons, and a belief that
the law is manipulated for favorites or to accomplish certain
ends. At our very last session Commissioner Keogh voluntarily
stated in substance that the local commission realize that they
have been imposed upon by heads of departments in their applications for exception of particular appointees, and that special
plans have been formulated lately by which the Commission will
proceed to inform itself of the qualifications of candidates for
exception and not be compelled to rely upon the statements of
commissioners who desire to make the appointments.




7


The general administration of the city and the character of
its officials are so high, that an example of laxity or of unfair
uses of the powers and resources of the law, is unfortunate.
Under such an administration civil employees and those who
aspire to public employment should have no doubt that the law
will be obeyed in its spirit and purpose. The exponents of unselfish good government should set an example in administering
the Civil Service Law in the interest of all the people and all
the employees rather than for the benefit of heads of departments
and personal friends.
EXEMPTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
We endeavored to ascertain the number of employees who Jiad
been excepted from examination during 1914 under Rule 12. The
local commission up to the last session stated its inability to make
a complete answer to our inquiry. It furnished the names of 621
persons, and said there were many more whom they could not tabulate for want of time. Commissioner Keogh at the last session
made a long statement of the reasons for many of the exceptions
under paragraph 6, and it was evident that the desires of the heads
of departments who wished the exception of candidates had generally prevailed without independent inquiry by the civil service
commission. Some of these exceptions will be discussed under
appropriate heads.
UNFAIR AND FAULTY EXAMINATIONS OF CANDIDATES
Many complaints of unfair examinations were made to this commission. Wle were compelled to give considerable time to the subject, though we closed with much unused material.
1. Physical. In the report of the municipal commission to the
mayor dated July 1, 1914, it was said "A more rigid standard of
physical requirements has been adopted upon the ground that the
municipal departments should be manned by the physically fit and
that the employment of the unfit is not the direction in which the
city should express its charity." * * *
"A complete set of standards of physical requirements are
being formulated, showing in detail the physical conditions
required for all positions subject to examination. It is the




8


intention of this Commission to publish these standards of
physical requirements in such form that any candidate may
know before examination what physical qualifications are
necessary."
The good intentions of the commissioners have been executed in
such ill-balanced and impractical ways as to produce confusion and
to work injustice to many persons.
a. Tests for policemen and firemen remain practically as they
were.
b. When large numbers of applicants have appeared, as in the
finger-print expert examination, requirements have been increased
- for instance, alleged flat-foot was an insuperable barrier, though
the applicant was successfully operating as finger-print examiner
in a magistrate's court under temporary appointment.
c. In certain examinations the printed announcements have
stated requirements such as freedom of heart and lungs from organic disease, freedom from flat-foot, varicose veins, hernia, etc.,
and yet no proper or sufficient tests have been applied to the candidates to determine these conditions. No doubt many were deterred by the printed announcements which were ignored.
d. The lifting of a 40-pound dumb-bell has been required of
candidates for mental alienists and finger-print experts, with examinations of feet, legs, heart and lungs; while for other positions
30-pound dumb-bells have sufficed, and for such a position as foreman of sewer cleaners, whose occupation is trying and hazardous,
no examination whatever for heart, lungs, legs and feet has been
given.
e. There are two physical tests which bar the way to all positions: these are (1) the test of picking up and raising a 30 or 40 -pound dumb-bell above the head; (2) the ability to read a line or
more from a chart of No. "20" letters, at a distance of 20 feet.
The candidate may do this with or without glasses, and as to
glasses, he may use magnifiers or window glass, it makes no difference. In the great majority of the examinations, these are the
only tests, except such cursory observation as the attending physician may make of the candidates as they approach and pass him on
line - large numbers in a room, and men or women passing rap



9


idly, so that each candidate has passed his two tests in about five
minutes.
We found numerous cases, where candidates in obvious good
health and efficiency were blocked by the inability to elevate the
dumb-bell above the shoulder (often through lack of the knack of
doing it), or through failure to read one or two letters in a line;
regardless of the application of those particular tests to the work
to be done in the employment.
f. In many cases it was demonstrated to us that the examinations, such as they were, were faulty, and that the rulings of the
doctors were erroneous.
g. It was perfectly clear that even among candidates who passed
before the doctor's eyes and lifted the dumb-bell, and read the line
of letters with or without glasses, that there must have been persons with hernia, and with heart and lung diseases, diseases of the
circulation, and many other undisclosed affections.
h. Candidates testified that physical tests were given by persons
not physicians, and without the oversight of physicians.
i. The arbitrary requirements of the dumb-bell and the reading
chart automatically shut out persons who were efficient, in good
health, and of such mental qualities as to make ideal workers.
We found that many rejected candidates appealed to the local
commission, and generally their appeals were denied. In the late
fall we began to examine the records of physical examinations and
to take off the names of rejected candidates, and as some of these
were called we discovered that without appeal, the municipal
civil service commission was sending for them, re-examining them,
and in many cases, passing them. On inquiry into the matter
we found that the municipal commission became satisfied that the
methods in use were working injustice to individuals and stated
they were striving to make an improvement. The president expressed his appreciation of the inquiry in this particular and assured us that improvement would be made in this feature of examination.
We have learned that the dumb-bell and eye (chart) tests are
as old as 1902, and it is evident that the promise of the report of
July 1, 1914, for improved physical examinations has not been
fulfilled.




10


Annexed hereto is TABLE A, showing some of the cases under
this heading.
PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS: POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN
Very properly the physical examinations of policemen and firemen are more exacting than those of other civil employees, but they
are not different from those of past years. There are physical barriers at the very entrance to the examinations.
The evidence of many candidates shows that the tests of height,
weight and strength are given mainly by a clerk named Joseph
Ruddy, without the effective oversight of a physician. It is said
that he has had experience in athletics, but that does not meet the
requirement that a doctor shall give these examinations. A doctor
signs the certificates, but on the evidence before us he does not give
these tests, and that fact has led to many doubts and criticisms
by persons interested in these examinations.
It was impracticable to go very deeply into this subject, but we
were able to examine into it sufficiently to ascertain reasons for the
distrust that has come to our knowledge.
In heights and weights there are certain arbitrary requirements
which seem to be entirely proper; out of which we instance the
minimum height of 5 feet 71/2 inches, and the minimum weight
for that height of 140 pounds. On the examinations given by
Mr. Ruddy, we found many candidates who had passed at exactly
5 feet 71/2 inches and 140 pounds, we found many failed to pass
on the certification by Mr. Ruddy, their height being only 5 feet
7 2/5 inches (a shortage of -fo of an inch); we found some who
passed Mr. Ruddy at 5 feet 7 3/5 inches; we found some who
failed on 1391/2 pounds (a shortage of half a pound).
In many cases we found that candidates had called again, and
had made up height or weight or both. In some cases disproportion was made up on re-examination by increasing height and reducing weight at the same time, so as to reach the required standard proportion.
In one case a candidate in December, 1913, was measured at 6
feet 31/2 inches, and his weight was light for his height; on a remeasurement by Mr. Ruddy in March, 1914, his weight ran up,
and his height came down to 6 feet 21/2 inches, and he then passed.




11


On a measurement by MIr. Ruddy for this Commission in November, 1914, the candidate was measured down to 6 feet 11/, inches.
This was an apparent shrinkage of the candidate on the standard
measuring rod, measured by an expert athlete measurer, of 2 inches
within a year, although the candidate said he had tried to stand
right each time.
Dr. Warbasse, the chief medical examiner, said this was all
right (3217, etc.), quite natural, as were many similar cases with
smaller variations. He said it was due to the way the man stood.
He and Ruddy both declared that they let the men stand as they
will; they give no instruction; the man may present the top back
of his head or the top front of his head to the top check of the rod;
he may slouch or stiffen up as he pleases, so long as he keeps his
feet down; he may have a bump on his head -the measuring rod
takes in the bump; he may have thick hair, thin hair or no hair,
or may dress up his hair; he may even have his head paddled with
a wooden spoon, it is all right.
Mr. Ruddy said that in athletics he had seen candidates carried
through the measuring tests by hitting their heads with a spoon.
He volunteered the information that he could raise counsel's height
by hitting him on the head (scientifically of course). He said,
though he had done it in athletics, he never had done it in policemen's or firemen's examinations, but he didn't look too closely at
what the men did by way of preparation. (3051-3064, etc.) He
said he had reported men to Dr. Warbasse with lumps on their
heads and Dr. Warbasse told him to measure them as he found
them. (3061.) With this delightful carelessness of preliminary
activity, and willingness to take artificial conditions of smart candidates, there goes the arbitrary limitation of the measuring rod
so that a shortage of Y1 of an inch there, absolutely bars the candidate, no matter what may be his strength, ability and endurance,
no matter what his mental and moral qualities.
In many cases new examinations are given in a few months;
heights and weights change, eyes are repaired, even flat feet are
corrected.
Assistant Chief Examiner Murray testified (p. 3353, etc.), that
on November 26, 1913, on his recommendation he was directed by
the former municipal civil service commission to make an exami



12


nation into the methods of holding physical examinations and report possible improvements. He said he visited examinations of
patrolmen, and there developed a difference of opinion between
him and Dr. Warbasse, and the president (meaning Dr. Moscowitz, see 3357) directed him to discontinue his investigation. He
expressed the opinion that a physician should be present at all
parts of the physical examination-it did not seem to him this
was done. He said, " the biggest part of the physical examining
was done by a clerk, Mr. Ruddy." (3356.)
It appeared that the witness had a disagreement with Dr. Warbasse about the general physical examinations (outside of police),
and recommended that the advice of the Academy of Medicine be
taken.  (3359.)
The inquiries by this Commission into specific cases necessarily
were limited and hurried, but some very interesting facts will be
found in Table B.
Without doubt the methods of examination as formerly conducted
by the examiners, still continued, are faulty, and the improvements
recommended by the Assistant Chief Examiner have not been
adopted. The re-examinations made under the present Commission in March, 1914, were just as faulty as were the examinations
made in 1913, and previously.
EXAMINATION FOR FINGER PRINT EXPERT
The faults of this examination were found on both the physical
and mental sides. The examination was held to supply an eligible
list from which to make appointments to half a dozen positions in
magistrates' courts which were occupied temporarily. Immediately after its close a large number of the candidates protested to
the municipal civil service commission claiming that the examination was faulty and unfair. The local commissioners held an investigation, took testimony, overruled the protests and prepared to
promulgate the list and certify persons from it. We stumbled
upon this examination through a complaint brought to us by one
of the candidates who claimed that he was rejected at the outset
for flat-foot, though his feet were all right, and that his appeal to
President Moscowitz had been overruled. We found on file a protest specifying a number of irregularities in the examination and




13


signed by forty-nine persons who had entered the examination.
On July 27, 1914, President Moscowitz directed a letter to George
T. Chattaway, the first objector, as follows:
"After a thorough investigation of the charges in the petition submitted by your committee relating to the examination
for finger print expert, the Commission has come to the conclusion that the charges are without weight."
The State Commission took the testimony of the physicians and
examiners who conducted the examination and of a number of persons who were examined and it received written communications
from many of the candidates whom it had not time to hear on the
stand. On the physical side of the examination surprising inaccuracies and errors were discovered. As already shown, the examination was much more rigorous in physical requirements than
were other examinations. Out of the two hundred and ninety-five
candidates who appeared for examination, one hundred and fiftyeight were rejected for alleged physical defects. Forty-three of
these were given re-examinations and of those thirty-eight were
again rejected. The examination of individuals by this Commission showed that in many cases the rejections were improper. A
considerable part of the physical examination was assisted in by a
clerk of the local commission, named Scott, and a police attendant.
In a majority of the cases examined by us it appeared that the
physical marks were recorded by Mr. Scott on the papers of the
candidates, and yet Mr. Scott and the policeman were themselves
candidates in the examination, went through all the tests and were
examined physically in the presence of some of the very men whom
they had examined physically. It appeared that examinations of
the feet, legs and chests of men who were candidates, were performed by a woman physician.
The eye-sight tests were peculiar in that some individuals were
rejected for defective vision and not told they might use glasses,
while others were passed with the aid of glasses. An important
element in the eye-sight test was the counting of ridges in the impression of fingers. This was so faulty a test of eye-sight that
one of the commissioners, during the investigation, remarked that
it was more of a practical test than an eye-sight test. Candidates




14


who were examined by us declared this to be the fact and that candidates had been rejected for alleged imperfect eye-sight when the
difficulty was technical as to the starting points and the number of
lines to be included. The testimony of one of the examiners, Mr.
Taylor (page 6842), made it clear that ridge counting is a technical matter in the classification of finger prints, and that it has to
be done under certain regulations which are distinctly expressed
at considerable length in the standard text book of Mr. Henry. It
was apparent to us that candidates with good eye-sight were turned
down upon this test, which, had it been given in the practical examiination, would not have counted as an absolute bar but merely
as one of the elements in the general marking. Table "C" will
show interesting cases under this subject.
On the list which resulted from this examination the first person
was a Miss Sullender, the second was Lieutenant Kuhne, who for
six years has been a member of Captain Faurot's finger print
bureau at police headquarters, and who has been a recognized expert in that bureau, testifying in capital cases. The finger print
experts who conducted the examination were Mr. Taylor of the
Naval Finger Print Bureau at Washington, D. C., and Dr. De
Forrest, one of the regular medical examiners of the Municipal
Commission, who has some knowledge of the finger print science.
It appeared that Miss Sullender, who was a witness, had been a
nurse in the employ of Dr. DeForrest and she was employed again
on one of his cases after the examination. Some time before the
examination occurred, Miss Sullender, with Dr. DeForrest's
knowledge, went to Washington and obtained the permission of
Mr. Taylor to study in the files of the bureau there. She was
assisted by the persons employed in that bureau and for one or two
months was present at the bureau about every other day studying
and classifying finger prints. She had no previous or other experience in the actual work but had done considerable reading and
studying of literature of the subject. At the examination she was
recognized by the examiners. In the examination room Miss Sullender had a position which protected her against the delays in the
giving out of papers, which handicapped many of the applicants.
Her experience paper showed substantially what has been stated
and on it she was given a rating of 90 per cent. The experience




15


paper of Lieutenant Kuhne, above referred to, was marked 90 per
cent.
In explanation of Miss Sullender's high rating for experience
it was stated by Dr. DeForrest that her experience in high school
and in a nurses' school entitled her to a higher preliminary rating
than could be given to Lieutenant Kuhne, who had only an education obtained in the public schools, in his father's real estate office
and as a New York policeman. On examining the papers it was
found that another lady, Mrs. Merchant, had superior schooling
and had been doing actual finger print work in one of the magistrate's courts; also that she had a wide and varied experience as a
stenographer. It was conceded that her schooling, her business
and her finger print experience was superior to Miss Sullender's,
but she was given 88 per cent. for experience.
Among the faults and errors which were specified by witnesses
in addition to those above mentioned, were the disarrangement of
the filing case, which trapped unsuspecting candidates, a shortness
of time allowed for certain matters, the cutting down of some of
the time allowances, by delays in the distribution of papers, interference by monitors, the failure of some candidates to receive cards
which were required for some of the work, discrimination against
those candidates who had been instructed in a certain school, concerning which Dr. DeForrest made disparaging remarks during
the examination in the presence of candidates. For a long time
the local commission attempted to sustain the examination, crossexamining the witnesses sharply and at length introducing the testimony of their own examiners; but finally they reversed the position which they had taken in rejecting the protest above referred
to and cancelled the examination and the list which had resulted
from it, notwithstanding the fact that the great majority of individual candidates who had appealed were rejected on their second
examinations and that they had turned down the protest.
Referring to the counting of ridges in a finger print as an eyesight test above mentioned, Dr. DeForrest testified (page 704)
that the "candidates were allowed to use a microscope or not as
they pleased." They were also allowed to use a pointer if they
desired, so it is evident that it was not a real test of eye-sight.
Referring to the crowding for time, even Miss Sullender, who came




16


out first and had an advantageous place in the room, admitted that
she was rushed (page 815).
EXAMINATION FOR STATISTICIAN IN EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT
President Moscowitz testified (page 6532) that it was his
"special duty to supervise the work of the examiners." In the
examination for Statistician in the Educational Department, Dr.
]Moscowitz appointed as special examiners, Professor E. L. Thorndike and Dr. L. P. Ayres. The result of the examination was
that a Mr. Buckingham who was a student of and assistant to
Professor Thorndike passed at the head of the list and was appointed to the position at a salary of $4,000; that a Mr. Clark
whose application was endorsed by Dr. Ayres as a voucher, came
out second on the list and that a Mr. Kelly, whose application
was endorsed by Professor Thorndike as a voucher, came out third.
Professor Thorndike was also voucher for Mr. Buckingham. Of
the thirty-four candidates who were rejected on their experience
sheets, not one of them had the endorsement of either Professor
Thorndike or Dr. Ayres. Of the ten candidates who passed the
experience test but failed in the written examination, only one
had the endorsement of either Professor Thorndike or Dr. Ayres,
and he was a Mr. Kavanagh, an employee of the Municipal Civil
Service Commission, who was endorsed by Dr. Ayres but who
could not pass the questions.
Mr. G. P. Watkins, assistant chief statistician in the Public
Service Commission, failed in the final examination. He testified that he called on President M1oscowitz on May 13, 1914,
(the day the eligible list was promulgated). His testimony ineluded the following (page 5600):
"Q. You called his attention to the fact at that time that
Mr. Buckingham was a pupil of Professor Thorndike? A.
I did, yes, and also to the fact that he was evidently a personal friend of Mr. Ayres,
*        *       *        *        *       *        *
I am sure that I mentioned that because when I saw him I
told him that the first knowledge I had that Mr. Ayres had
anything to do with the examination, was through a remark




17


of Mr. Buckingham that Mr. Ayres and Professor Thorndike,
that they were rating the papers and would probably have
it done in a few weeks and were making good progress, something to that effect."
He gave similar testimony of information received that Mr.
Ayres had stated a third person had been " jacked up" and said
he gave the name of the person to Dr. Moscowitz, who did not
ask that she be brought to him to confirm the information. It
appears that at the very time that Mr. Watkins says he had a
conversation with Dr. Moscowitz, the eligible lists were out and
President Moscowitz did not refer to the fact. The witness said
that Dr. Moscowitz seemed excited that there should be what he
called a " leak."  The witness went on to say:
"After making all the elaborate preparations and pains
that they had taken to prevent the identification of the papers
by the examiners, the essential fact had not been taken into
consideration that the examiners were well acquainted with
a number of the people taking the examination and would
identify a lot of papers or particular paper from the handwriting of the paper and under those circumstances I consider that the precautions taken at the examination room
to detach the name of the writer of the paper from the
paper and that the paper be labelled only by number and
so forth was a farce and a fraud."
He said that he knew that in the case of Mr. Buckingham he
was a favorite student of Professor Thorndike.  The witness
testified that he had been a public school teacher, had taught two
years in Trinity College and two years in Cornell on Economics
and Statistics. He testified that Professor Thorndike had developed a rather peculiar method in statistics and that, of course,
his students would be trained in that sort of statistics. Mr. Buckingham, being asked whether he had practical experience as a
statistician before he took the position, testified that he had
worked with Dr. Thorndike in some of his investigations of
schools, and had written a book on the matter of education measurements which was largely statistical in its character. He said




18


he had told Professor Thorndike that he was taking the examination.
A letter was read in evidence from Mr. Kavanagh, above mentioned, who passed on experience but failed in the written test,
endorsing the examination as a "noteworthy example of the
efficiency of the merit system." Others wrote in criticism and
condemnation of it. Miss Ida M. Metcalf employed as statistician on school matters in the finance department was rejected on
her experience sheet though she had three college degrees, had
taught public and private school most of her life and had been
statistician in the department of finance over two years. She
testified that her work during the last two years had been entirely
on civic problems, so that she believed she had the requisite qualifications for the privilege of entering the written examination
(page 5779). Another candidate, Frank L. Van Cleef, rejected
on his experience paper, testified that he had taught in the University of Wisconsin and the University of Cornell for six years;
that he had the degree of lBachelor of Arts from Oberlin College
and from Cornell University and the degree of Doctor of Philosophy from Bonn University, Germany. Ile said (page 5785):
"I am convinced my qualifications for a position in educational employment (particularly in higher mathematics)
and experience in matters pertaining to statistical work are at
least equal to those of the two candidates who were high
enough to make them eligible for the examination."
The percentage marks received by the candidates who head the
eligible list of three are Burdette R. Buckingham, 82 per cent.,
Earle Clark, 78 per cent. and Frederick J. Kelly, 75.51 per cent.
There is an implied rule among civil service examiners that when
candidates in a particular examination are few in number and
any are known to them, that the examiners will not serve in the
examination. President Moscowitz testified that he was informed
by Professor Thorndike that he was acquainted with some of the
candidates, and it was apparent that both Professor Thorndike
and Dr. Ayres vouched for some of the very candidates they were
expected to examine, and he said that it was entirely satisfactory
to him and that he was proud of the examination. (Page 5603,)




19


lVe are of the opinion that the conduct of this examination was
reprehensible, an injury to the merit system and calculated to
produce distrust of the administration of the Civil Service Law.
ADDITIONAL CASES OF UNFAIR OR FAULTY EXAMINATIONS
A number of complaints of unfair examinations in individual
cases were made of which we select two illustrations.  As an
example: Edward T. Ernst and Thomas M. Wood were candidates
in the examination for electrician (pages 2770-3273). These two
papers were compared and it was found that Mr. Ernst was
marked 50 per cent. for experience and Mr. Wood 83 per cent.
On the expressed opinion of Mr. Saxton, Chief Examiner of the
State Commission, to the effect that the difference in values was
not sustained on examination of the papers, Commissioner Keogh's
attention was called to the situation, but no explanation of it was
made. Of course, it is difficult to sustain criticisms of this kind
when the matters depend upon the individual judgment of the
examiners, and perhaps such things are bound to occur, but in
our opinion the complaint of Mr. Ernst was well-founded and is
typical of a class of people who feel they have poor chances of
success in the examinations. Mr. Ernst has had sixteen years of
practical experience as electrician.
Another case that may be used as an illustration is that of Mr.
Van Wert who was a candidate in the examination for salaries and
grades examiner. Mr. Van Wert was examined June 2, 1914,
and was rejected on a mark of 59 per cent. He was examined
in a provisional examination, noncompetitive. He was examined
again on June 26, 1914, and passed on a rating of 70 per cent.
It appears (page 4329) that such re-examinations are given with
considerable frequency.  The examiner who rated the papers
declined to express an approval of the policy of such re-examinations.  Mr. Belcher, secretary to the municipal commission,
stated (page 4332) that there is a rule against the practice, but
that the commission may waive it. The rule in question is paragraph 12 of Rule 7, which provides that a candidate for a noncompetitive position shall not be re-examined'within nine months
of a failure unless for reasons stated in the resolution, that the
provision be waived by the commission with relation to all can



20


didates who fail, but not to any individual. An inspection of the
ratings showed that on the first examination Van Wert was rated
90 on experience, but on the second, 80; on the first examination,
80 on education, but on the second, 75, — that on his first examination the ratings on questions were: 80, 40, 0, 70, 0, 0, 90 and
that on the second examination with the five questions he was
rated on them: 60, 70, 30, 70, 80.
In the case of Anthony P. Ludden, the municipal commission
ignored the judgment of its examiners and ordered that Mr.
Ludden be marked qualified as a noncompetitive appointee for a
$4,000 position after he had failed on his examination; and
President Moscowitz defended the order. Mr. Ludden was secretary of the market committee of the board of estimate. He was
appointed temporarily under Rule 12, paragraph 4 on July 15,
1914. His payroll was passed on special certification pending
the result of a noncompetitive examination under Rule 12, paragraph 3. That examination was held on September 10, 1914,
and Mr. Ludden received a mark of 40 per cent. for experience
which disqualified him for the position. Under Rule 12, paragraph 4, Mr. Ludden could hold his temporary position without
examination no longer than thirty days. His period of temporary
service extended from July 15th to September 10, 1914. Mrr.
Ludden appealed from the decision of the examiners in the noncompetitive examination and his appeal was rejected by Special
Examiner Cyrus C. Miller and by Chief Examiner Ireland. Mhr.
Miller wrote:
"On the face of the statements made in the appeal by Mr.
Ludden he was engaged from March, 1909, until October
13, 1913, in the Customs Service of the United States making inquiries into certain affairs of the Customs Department.
The scope and importance of these inquiries do not appear
not does it appear that they had any relation to affairs of
civic importance beyond any business of the Customs Service.
An auditor of any railroad or steamship office might do the
same work but it would not be called of civic importance.
An affair which touches directly the civic life of the City and
State or the United States would be of civic importance, but




21


the mere routine business of a department, any one of them,
would not be of civic importance.  It appears that Mr.
Ludden was employed in the Bureau of one of the departments of the United States Government doing the routine
work of that Bureau. lHe has not shown experience in
matters of civic importance."
Mr. Ludden requested a reconsideration of his appeal and on
reconsideration he was again rejected by the examiners. On the
second rejection of Mr. Ludden, Mr. Miller wrote (on November
28, 1914):
" The theory of the Civil Service Law is that all employees
of the City shall be appointed for merit and upon competitive
examinations. A ny exception to this rule is made only when
the appointee has exceptional knowledge and ability for a
particular place. It does not comply with the spirit of the
law when a person lacking such qualifications is given an
exempt position and thereafter acquires his knowledge of the
duties of the place at the public expense. It is quite evident
that the appointee in this case has no special qualifications
which entitle him to hbe an exception to the rule. However,
the propriety of his original appointment or of his retention
on payroll after his application for examination had been
denied several times by the examiners is something for which
the examiners are not responsible. *  *  *  My attention
has been called to the concluding paragraph of the advertisement in the City Record. * * * ' Candidates must submit evidence of an extended experience in the management
of markets or extended purchase or handling of food stuffs
or that they have made an extended practical study of the
problems with which this Committee will have to deal.' It
is urged on behalf of Mr. Ludden that he can qualify under
the provision of having made an extended practical study of
the problems with which this Committee will have to deal.
This paragraph is of recent date and was not in existence
when the application was denied by the examiners. The
record shows that Mr. Ludden has acted as Secretary for a
Market Committee organized by the President of the Bor



ough of Manhattan during part of the year 1914. The
labors of this Market Committee have been directed chiefly
towards the establishment of better markets in the City of
New York. Such work embraces but a small part of the
problems of marketing with which the City of New York
is confronted through chiefly railroad and shipping and retail
distribution problems which have little to do with the question of open markets. I am unable to see that the employment of the applicant in such work for a portion of the year
1914 is of such a character as to entitle him to an examination for a position requiring the payment by the City of
$4,000 for special knowledge."
Mir. Ludden's rating of 70 per cent. qualifying him for the
position, pending a competitive examination was directed by the
Commission itself at a meeting on December 3, 1914, and was
stated by the secretary of the Municipal Civil Service Commission to have been taken after consideration of the experience shown
in the federal service and as secretary of the citizens' committee
on markets. Mr. ILudden said he volunteered his services as
such secretary in February, 1914, he had just begun the practice
of law in New York city (October, 1913), having been an investigator for the customs department during the preceding four and
one-half years. He had served as secretary of the market committee from February until July 15th, when he was appointed
temporarily to the position at the salary mentioned. His payroll was passed on special certification pending the result of the
non-competitive examination given under Rule 12, paragraph 3
on September 10th. It was not until December 3d that he was
actually rerated by order of the Commission in their opposition
to the judgment of its examiners and was given the passing mark
of 70 per cent. He had exceeded the thirty-day limit of his appointment by twenty-five days and as a result of his failure to
pass the non-competitive examination and of the subsequent arbitrary action of the Commission itself he was permitted to remain
in office at the rate of $4,000 a year for nearly three months additional. Mr. Ludden could not have been paid for his temporary
services until he had qualified in the noncompetitive examination




23


and he testified that he received his first paymllent, $(j6, on December 7th, four days after the Municipal Commission ordered
him qualified. (Page 3999).
Mr. Ludden is still in office. President Moscowitz commended
the examiner, Mr. Miller, as one of the best men he could find.
(Page 4012.)  Assistant Chief Examiner Fuld, in a report dated
December 3, 1914, addressed to President MIoscowitz, said:
" In my opinion Mr. Ludden's services as secretary to this
committee from February to July, during which period he
devoted about an hour a day to the duties of his position,
do not constitute such ' extended practical study of the problems with which this committee will have to deal' as is required by the printed advertisement of the Civil Service
Commission of candidates in competitive examination for
this position."
THE CASE OF KERNER EASTON
Mr. Easton was exempted from examination for the position
as secretary of the committee on port and terminal facilities of
the board of estimate and apportionment and was appointed at
$5,000 a year under Rule 12, paragraph 5. The spirit and purpose of civil service were flagrantly violated. Mr. Easton had no
exceptional qualifications whatever for the position and his exemption is an injustice to those who might compete for the place.
Mr. Easton is a young man of social position and was engaged
in the practice of law prior to his appointment. Mr. Easton
testified that Dock Commissioner Smith had stated that he was
one of the "most available and one of the most desirable candidates " before the committee at that time; that for two or three
months prior to his appointment he familiarized himself with
" all the undertakings of the board of estimate for six years in the
matter of port improvements and examined reports in connection
with South Brooklyn and became familiar with the layout and
general plans," and that he familiarized himself with those matters to qualify for the position.  (Page 5897.)  He said he did
this so that when he appeared before the committee he would not
be talking at random and would know what he was talking about,




24


and that for two or three months he pursued the information
diligently.
In paragraph 5 of Rule 12, under which Mr. Easton was appointed without competition, it is provided that:
"When there is a vacancy in any position in the competitive class demanding peculiar and exceptional qualifications of a scientific, professional or educational character
and upon satisfactory evidence and several specified reasons
competition in such special case is not practicable and that
the position can best be filled by the selection of some disinterested person of high and recognized attainments and
such qualities, that the commissioner may suspend the provisions of the rule requiring competition in such case, but
no such suspension shall be general in its application to such
position."
Mr. Easton's testimony shows conclusively that his selection
as secretary of the committee on port and terminal facilities without competitive examination was not contemplated under this provision of the civil service rules. Mr. Easton stated (page 5901)
that he gathered information during the two or three months preceding his appointment and following the filing of his application,
by reading reports relative to terminal matters in order to qualify
for the position. The attitude of the Civil Service Reform Association may be seen in the statement of Secretary Keyes opposing
the exemption of Mr. Easton (page 5905). He emphasizes the
fact that satisfactory evidence was not submitted to show that
competition for the position was not practicable. The Municipal
Commission yielded to the desire of the dock commissioner, expressed orally before them in behalf of his personal choice. Un,
doubtedly this is one of the cases referred to by Commissioner
Keogh in his testimony. A number of similar cases will be exhibited elsewhere in this report.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The departments of public works are under the jurisdiction
of the borough presidents, with bureau of sewers, bureau of highways, bureau of design and survey, chief engineer's office, etc.




25


Our attention was directed to the department of public works in
the borough of M.anhattan, controlled by Commissioner E. V.
Frothingham, with engineers and bureau heads, all holding over
from a former administration. We found in said borough, the
only one we had time to examine, serious violations of the Civil
Service Law. These violations were mainly these: The consulting engineer, E. P. Goodrich, appointed without examination
under section 386 of the charter, does not act as consulting engineer in the true sense of the term, but is the practical directing
and executive engineering head of the department. There also is
an assistant consulting engineer, Mr. Schaeffer, though the charter
allows only one consulting engineer. Mr. Goodrich is also consulting engineer of the court house board. He receives $7,200
a year from the borough of Manhattan and $7,500 a year from
the court house board. Until recently he has been consulting
engineer of other cities, some of them being on the Pacific coast,
and he conducts a private engineering business, does the work for
the inebriety board, and is the practical head of the sewer plan
commission, which is planning new sewers in Manhattan estimated
to cost from fifty to one hundred million dollars. Charles E.
Gregory, chief engineer of sewers, and very closely associated
with Mr. Goodrich, is secretary of said sewer plan commission,
which place and others he holds at Mr. Goodrich's suggestion.
Mr. Goodrich's executive control, shown by his own testimony
and by that of Engineer Gardiner, has been effected largely by
the selection of engineers of his personal acquaintance to hold important posts, and exempting them from competitive examinations
through resolutions of the Municipal Commission passed without
hesitation under the system criticized by Commissioner Keogh,
as before stated. He said he was not concerned about the law; he
wanted to put the men he wanted to the work he wanted done.
In bureaus cliques of men have secured control by ignoring the
plain provisions of the Civil Service Law; men in these cliques
often holding positions in which their work is entirely inappropriate to their civil service titles. In this situation, of gravest
import from the standpoint of civil service principles, the payrolls have been made out and certified falsely, both by the representatives of the department and the employees of the Municipal




26


Civil Service Commission, after offending payrolls were produced
and exhibited to the commissioners, their secretary and their
counsel. The borough president learning of some of these conditions has appointed a new deputy commissioner to succeed the
one who certified most of the offending payrolls, and has appointed
a new engineer in charge of the bureau of highways to supersede
the engineer in charge, who, though appointed as an " expert" in
paving, was so inexperienced in the paving required in New York
city that previously to his coming to the city he had not laid a yard
of asphalt, wood-block or granite pavement (though in Panama,
from whence he came, he had laid considerable macadam and
brick pavement). A "clerk" who was acting as chief of the
bureau of maintenance of sewers has gone to another department
to work truly as a clerk, and two sewer cleaners, who assisted
him in the office, have been sent out into the field to clean sewers.
These changes have occurred within about a month, and since the
facts were publicly developed by this investigation. This commission makes no reflection whatever on the borough president,
who alone has acted, while the Municipal Civil Service Commission has stood supine - inactive - still passing the payrolls untruly certified.
Attention will now be directed to certain engineers who were
brought into the department without examination, or competition,
under said rule 12, on the ground of "peculiar and exceptional
qualifications of a scientific, professional, or educational character " and that the persons designated are of " high and recognized
attainments."
These men went over the heads of good, experienced engineers,
acquainted with New York city problems, some of whom had
grown gray in the city's service.
Henry W. Durham (p. 5303) was appointed chief engineer of
highways, an exempt position, with salary of $5,000. He worked
for the Panama Canal Commission in charge of the waterworks,
sewers, streets, roads and pavements in the city of Panama. As
stated above, he had no experience in the pavements required in
New York city, though for four years he was assistant engineer on
the subway construction. Since he has been chief engineer, a
hundred miles of pavement have been laid in Manhattan borough,




'27


much of which is wood-block in which he had no experience (and
the specifications for which have been shown to be very technical
and subject to great suspicion). Mr. Durham was recently superseded by a new appointee of the borough president.
John C. Wolfe (pages 2641, 2645 and 5206) was an assistant
engineer in the Public Service Commission, and was acquainted
with Mr. Goodrich, at whose request, in 1910, he came over into
the service of the Borough of Manhattan, Department of Public
Works, without an examination. He claimed that his work for
the Public Service Commission gave him a knowledge of sewer
conditions and he claimed to have done some sewer work at the
Bush Terminal Stores, in Brooklyn, under Mr. Goodrich, who had
charge of the work (and who is related to Mr. Bush). Some time
after he was placed in the city's service, he took a promotion examination. On promotion examination efficiency marks count
most, and these are given by the head of the bureau in which the
man works. Mr. Wolfe having entered the service without examination on the ground of a superior knowledge of sewers, and
having been assigned to Mr. Goodrich's office, was set to work on
building the asphalt repair plant in Manhattan, and when that uncertain affair was finished, he was assigned to the superintendency
of the vast Municipal Building-though he had never had any
experience in the management of a great office building-and he
still holds that responsible position without special qualification.
and with no examination of candidates for that place. Upon being
pressed (p. 5208) he said, "I really don't know what the special
ability I was exempted for was."
The request for the exemption of Mr. Wolfe and of Mr. Appleby
and AMr. Sullivan was made by the borough president in September,
1910, on the ground that Mr. Goodrich wished to organize a new
bureau of subway engineering and traffic observation and desired
to appoint these three men because of their peculiar fitness, etc.
Henry D. Appleby (pp. 2662, 2677) came into the department
of public works with a salary of $3,000, without examination, and
never has taken an examination. His salary has been increased
to $3,500. He now has charge of the Bureau of Design and Survey, though at first he was assistant to Mr. Goodrich. His first
work was in the analysis of subway traffic, and in traffic regula



28


tions, and in indexing and filing maps and records of the department. Hie claimed that he came without examination as an " expert" in knowledge of the designing of subways, in standardization methods, and in control of men. He said he started to work
inside of a month after his appointment in making a new method
of filing and indexing maps, though he had never before done that
sort of work (p. 2667). I-e was asked what were the peculiar
scientific qualifications he had for getting his position without examination (p. 2888). tie evaded the question and finally said the
first peculiar and scientific thing he did was to analyze the subway
traffic-which he explained as the drawing of a topographical
chart with a sheer curve showing the fluctuations of traffic to determine the " average haul " of passengers. This was made up from
the records of the Interborough Company and the Public Service
Commission. Being further pressed (p. 2678) he said, "Well, I
cannot tell you what qualifications the people who appointed me
considered I had." Then he proceeded to say he had a general
knowledge of engineering covering sixteen years, but he wouldn't
say he was the only man who had such experience. He said probably there were others who could do the same things that he, Wolfe
and Sullivan did (p. 2680). He was simply invited to come in
and he went in the way it opened (p. 2684).
John F. Sullivan (p. 2693) came from the Public Service Commission into the Department of Public Works and into Mr. Goodrich's office at a salary of $2,100 without examination. He was
transferred to the Board of Estimate, where he is receiving $5,000,
at the request of Tilden Adamson, director of the Bureau of Contract Supervision. Mr. Sullivan had a promotion examination in
19,11. Nobody was examined but himself (p. 2695). He had
increases of salary from $2,400 to $5,000 without any other examination and without any request. The most important work he
has been engaged upon is the New York Central Railroad track
plan on Eleventh Avenue.
John H. Weinberger (p. 2636), an assistant engineer, was transferred from the Borough of Queens to the Bureau of Sewers in
Manhattan, where he was appointed to a vacancy as the first assistant engineer, over the head of a veteran engineer, Norman B.
Gardiner, to whom the place had been promised by the engineer




29


in charge, who had the appointing power. His qualifications for
sewer work were inferior to those of Mr. Gardiner, and his coming over into the Manhattan office blocked the opportunity for
promotion that seemed to have come to a faithful and experienced
engineer.
The responsibility of Charles E. Gregory, chief engineer of
sewers, for conditions herein described, and his dependence upon
Mr. Goodrich will be seen in his testimony (pages 2571, 2600,
2628, 2640, 6392), and the responsibility of Commissioner Frothingham will appear in his testimony (p. 1317, etc.) and in the general record.
On March 26, 1914, the president of the Municipal Civil Service Commission received a letter charging that various employees
were doing work inappropriate to their titles in the Sewer Bureau,
and specifying fourteen names, including T. J. McCarthy, sewer
cleaner, doing clerical work; J. A. Hartnedy, clerk, acting as
superintendent of the cleaning division; Joseph Frank, transitman
in charge of permits (for street openings); H. Dreyfus, telephone
operator, acting as elevator dispatcher (in Municipal Building),
and others.
Examiner Fuld investigated and rendered a report finding that
a number of the specifications were true and recommending that
the titles of four men should be changed, that four other men
should be assigned to appropriate duties, and he advised promotion
examinations for four others. Among these were Joseph Frank,
transitman at present performing the duties of chief of the permit
division or assistant engineer (he is still doing the same work
under the same title), and John A. C. Hartnedy, who was performing the duties of maintenance manager or superintendent of sewer
cleaning.  (He continued under the same title doing the same
work until he was transferred as clerk to the commissioners of
accounts, January 1, 1915.) He reported that examinations be
advised for Thomas J. McCarthy, sewer cleaner, doing the work
of foreman of sewer cleaners, and 0. J. Swenson, inspector, doing
the work of chief inspector or supervising inspector. He advised
that the services of William James Smith, emergency bookkeeper
doing clerical work be dispensed with, and that an inquiry be made




30


whether the work done by Mr. Smith was such as to require special
training and experience as a bookkeeper.
On June 5, 1914, a letter was received by President Moscowitz
from the Preferred List Clerk's Association, calling attention to
the continuance of said conditions. It declared that a Stephen
Kelly (civil service clerk) had managed to secure the continuance
of his friends in their places to the detriment of the members of
the Preferred List Clerks whose chances of certification would
expire. It called attention to sewer cleaners still performing clerical work, and a clerk (Hartnedy) supervising the maintenance
force. Said letter contained a list of nine specific violations of
law in continuance, including Hartnedy, Clifford, McCarthy,
Swenson, Frank and Berrigan, hereinafter referred to. Examiner
Fuld submitted another report, in which he found matters reflecting severely upon sewer cleaner McCarthy. He said that on April
10, 1914, he had reported that said McCarthy was performing
work inappropriate to his title and that he had applied for promotion to foreman of sewer cleaners, and suggested that the derogatory facts be submitted to MIcCarthy's superiors.
Stephen Kelly is the civil service clerk of the Public Works
Department, and is expected to keep that department and its employees straight in all civil service matters. Mr. William  J.
Smith is his old friend and associate. Through his knowledge of
vacancies, rules and opportunities, he was able to keep Mr. Smith
on the payroll for two years without competitive examination and
he is still there, though Smith is no " expert" in anything —just
a plain bookkeeper.
In August, 1912, Smith was appointed an inspector at $1,200
a year, held the position one month and failed on a noncompetitive
examination. He then became an axeman at $900 a year, under
temporary appointment, which he managed to continue for a year,
checking inspectors' reports of pavement conditions. He never
carried an axe or went out with a party. He passed a competitive
examination for axeman, and not being appointed took a noncompetitive examination because he had secured the appointment. As
a noncompetitive axeman, he worked a year under a transitman
named Joseph Frank, who had charge in the office of the bureau of
permits (mentioned above). He passed from axeman to book



31 
i) 


keeper, and under that title he remains acting as a clerk in the
bureau of permits. As a bookkeeper he checks paving reports, the
same as he did when he was an axeman. He has one book showing refunds, containing about 400 pages. His temporary appointment as a bookkeeper has run a year, at $1,500 salary. He passed
directly from $900 to $1,500 without any change of duties.
President MIoscowitz (p. 1415) said that the bookkeeper's examination had been delayed.
John A. Hartnedy has been a clerk since 1906, and was in the
sewer bureau from 1910 to January 1, 1915, when he was transferred to the Conmmissioner of Accounts. Mr. Hartnedy was absent from his position for long stretches of time on sick leave;
nevertheless he maintained a close hold upon the important bureau
of maintenance of sewers, and was its active and actual head, working through others when he was absent. He made and kept the
efficiency ratings of the men assigned to his bureau, ratings which
counted heavily for or against promotion. This mere clerk did
not simply assume the functions of direction and control,- but he
was secured in his anomalous position by direct action of the Chief
Engineer, and with the recognition of the so-called bureau of efficiency. It is inconceivable that the commissioner and his deputy
did not know of the illegal situation, yet his payroll was regularly
certified by the deputy commissioner, Mr. Patterson, with the
statement that he as clerk had not performed duties inappropriate
to his title. The letters received by President Moscowitz mentioned Mr. Hartnedy and his violation of law in detail, and the
report of Examiner Fuld confirmed it, yet.the municipal civil
service commission passed his pay on those untruthful certificates
down to the day of his transfer, January 1, 1915.
The responsibility of Chief Engineer Gregory for this condition
is evidenced by his own writings, several of which appear in the
record (pp. 2602-5). On March 30, 1914, he wrote a letter to
eleven bricklayers and foremen directing them to accept all orders
and instructions from Mr. IHartnedy, and directing them to obey
him in letter and in spirit as to the orders which he might issue
from time to time. Letters written to the general inspector and
general foreman, and to an assistant foreman, stated that the repair forces, field and office, must report to Mr. Hartnedy and be




32


under his jurisdiction, and that the general foreman must turn
over to him all papers and records relating to the repairs division.
At the same time the general foreman, William Klein, was relieved
of a large part of his duties, which were transferred to Jeremiah
Lynch, a mason, who became the practical general inspector, while
William Klein's duties were so changed as to make him a general
foreman in name only.
That Mr. Hartnedy'took the full value of this designation by
the chief engineer appears not so clearly in his testimony as in his
letters. His letter books were put in evidence, and showed him
issuing written orders on all kinds of executive matters to all persons in the bureau, and making regular reports of the operations
of the bureau, which with men, officers, carts, wagons and tools,
did the physical work of maintaining sewers. He signed usually
as "Chief of the Bureau of Maintenance."  (See extracts from
Hartnedy's letter books, pages 6543-4 and 5937.)  Mr. H!artnedy's unusual and remarkable absences from duty for sickness
appear in the record (p. 952).
Thomas F. McCarthy (p. 956, etc.), a sewer cleaner mentioned
above, was an important factor in Mr. Hartnedy's clique bureau
and holds the same post, though Hartnedy is gone. He is an effective force in the rating and handling of the men in that bureau.
In 1911 sewer cleaner McCarthy was transferred from the field
to Mr. Hartnedy's office (p. 957), and he attended to the business
of the office done by telephone, such as complaints of sewer flooding and the like. He hands out the work to the sewer gangs, maps
out their work, and handles the inspectors' reports under Mr. Hartnedy. Mr. Hartnedy told him he was trying to have a title made
for him that would fit his work. In the fall of 1914 Mr. McCarthy did take a promotion examination for foreman of sewer cleaners and passed. It is very doubtful whether that title includes the
work he is doing.
This bureau of sewers was organized with its personnel, by the
efficiency bureau of the commissioner of accounts office, of which
Mr. Welton is the head (pp. 967-8).
In October, 1914, Mr. McCarthy testified that sewer cleaner
Thomas Roach had been in the office acting as a messenger for a
year. Engineer Gregory testified to the same fact (p. 6393). A




33


foreman named Cathie was acting as general foreman. Mr. McCarthy, being fresh from the physical examination for foreman of
sewer cleaners, was asked about it. He declared that there was
no examination of feet, legs, heart, lungs or body; no inquiry for
disease, but only the dumb-bell test and the eye card test. He
said he was asked by the examiner to read the first line on the
card (20 feet away) and that he did so easily and readily; —it
was the word EXAMINATION. When he repeated it, he said
the examiner told him it was all right. Tihe medical examiner
produced the medical record which showed he had been marked
perfect for the slip number one which was some way down the
board and showed the letters T L 0 T D E X C, a jumble of
small letters (pages 999-100, 970-6, etc). I-e thought all the
candidates were allowed to read the word " examination" because
as a class they have poor eyes; it was an easy test (pages 1001-3).
He said the work (for which so slight a physical examination was
given), was underground and dangerous, men sometimes being
overcome by gases, that they needed good hearts, and that there
was strain on the eyes,- that they have to be on their feet all the
time.  (No examination for flat foot or varicose veins, though
such examination was required for finger print examiners.)
Mr. McCarthy was all the time number two on the eligible list
for assistant foreman, but a veteran named Hamill was first on
the list so it was not used. Hamill is a laborer acting as a watchman (p. 987). The witness specified Hayes, Hogan and Moynihan as men who were acting as foremen, though not foremen, and
said that Darragh, whose title is general foreman, is simply in
charge of the yard, while Foreman Cathie does the work which
legally devolves on Darragh.
'Mr. McCarthy was not promoted to be foreman of sewer cleaners until December 21, 1914, and yet he remained as a sewer
cleaner in the office ordering and directing other sewer cleaners
and supervising their twork, and doing all the work under Mr.
Hartnedy that had been complained of in March, 1914, and reported by examiner Fuld at or about that time to President Moskowitz as a clear violation of the Civil Service Law, while his
superiors and the Municipal Civil Service Commission certified
his payroll on false certificates.
2




34


With a bureau of maintenance organized and operated in defiance of law, by the famous " efficiency bureau," and all the authorities ignoring the protests of the preferred clerks, who were discriminated against by this illegal action, it cannot be wondered
at that the men in the department of sewers who are not in the
favored circles are disgusted with civil service and look upon it
not as a protection for honest workers, but as a device for the
exercise of pull and privilege. That distrust is not limited to
the ranks, but goes into the higher positions.
Ralph Lewis is a transitman (p. 5228). As a transitman he
was raised from $1,500 to $1,800 on a temporary promotion.
He took a promotion examination for a higher grade and failed
and about the same time took an examination for assistant engineer and passed, number one, but has not been appointed. Failing to pass the examination in the higher grade of transitman,
which he held temporarily, his salary fell back to $1,500, but he
made no refund of the additional money drawn at higher rate.
Now as a transitman in an inferior grade, he has charge of the
highway division of the bureau of design and survey, supervising
the work of that division. It is purely an engineer's position
(p. 2231). For about seven months he thus has been doing
an engineer's work. Other persons in the department are doing
the same kind of work, but they are engineers- he specified their
names. Mr. Lewis superseded an engineer named Charles Levy
who was demoted and placed under him, with a salary of $2,100
- $300 more than Mr. Lewis now is receiving. He put the responsibility for the situation on Engineer Appleby, which is quite
natural considering the way that Mr. Appleby came into the department (p. 5232).  Mr. Lewis' regular appointment as engineer is blocked by a preferred list of 40 engineers laid off from
other departments. If he were not doing the work under his title
of transitman, one of those laid-off engineers would get the position - so they conspire to nullify the law and violate its spirit,
in the interest of Lewis, and they are allowed to do it.
Otto J. Swenson (p. 5235), referred to in the complaints
above mentioned, is an inspector, but he is doing the work of an
engineer, having supervision of the record division of the smoothpavement maintenance division, and of the passing of plant



35


materials and supplies. He is general assistant to the chief engineer and investigating complaints. He is making computations
for the annual report, showing different costs, and has made computation of the strengths of granite, etc. He is a graduate engineer, and exercises his engineering knowledge in his work
(p. 5236). He admits that it is engineering work. His salary
is $2,250 a year, but he remains an inspector, and has done so
since 1912. He specifies four engineers who are doing the same
kind of work as his-their salaries varying from   $2,100 to
$4,000. HIe failed in two examinations for assistant engineer
(page 5239).
Charles C. Jabureck (p. 5315) is an assistant engineer. He
started as a draftsman in the department of public works in 1911,
having been appointed after examination for that position which
he took while holding the position of civil engineer in the Public
Service Commission. In 1914 he was promoted to assistant engineer after a promotion examination, and has been increased in
salary. He is an assistant to Mr. Appleby. Careful examination
failed to reveal the doing of real engineering work, except the
construction of two sheds, which occupied relatively but a small
part of his time.
Michael J. Berrigan (p. 5327) is an inspector of complaints
by title, but is actually a clerk, performing clerical duties and
doing little if any inspecting. He was included in the original
complaint mentioned above.
Joseph Frank (p. 5331), also mentioned in said complaints,
has already been described as the transitman, who has charge of
the permit division in the general office.
Patrick Clifford (p. 5560) is a foreman who did clerical work
under Mr. Hartnedy until he was put out in the field, January 1,
1915. He was mentioned in the old complaints.
William McGillick (p. 5407) is a sewer cleaner who does
night duty attending the telephone and writing reports.
Harold C. Todd (p. 2164) has the title of supervising inspector but he has charge of fifty-nine public buildings (except
the Municipal Building which is in Mr. Wolfe's care). He selects,
appoints, discharges the employees, and attends to the maintenance and operation of the buildings. His present title was




36


obtained in August, 1914; before that it was "confidential inspector." He entered the city's service February 1, 1911, under
that title at $1,800 a year, exempted from examination. His
position as supervising inspector at $3,000 a year, in charge of
said buildings was also provisional and without competitive examination, though an examination for permanent appointment
has been called.
This gentleman's experience in the management of buildings,
to enable him to compete with others for the permanent appointment, is that which he has gained in his temporary and provisional
appointments, for he did not graduate from Columbia University
until June, 1910. His present duties differ from those which he
performed as "confidential inspector" (exempt) only in that
they increased as he assumed more authority - so he says: Mr.
Todd by steady assumption of authority has become the practical
czar of the public buildings; his word is law. Mr. Coudert was
led to remark: " Pretty nice young men we turn out of Columbia
*  *  * It's hard to beat them. You have to get up early to get
ahead of a Columbia young man;" which doubtless is true if he
makes the right connections.
Jeremiah Lynch (pp. 906 and 2065, etc.): The story of Mr.
Lynch is an interesting one. He was a mason, but instead of
working under his title, he acted as general foreman - supervising the work of masons and bricklayers and supervising the
work of foremen masons and foremen bricklayers -indeed in
the program of the " efficiency bureau," which put Mr. Hartnedy
the clerk in as chief of the maintenance of sewers, with his friends
as office assistants regardless of their titles and duties as sewer
cleaners, etc., Jeremiah Lynch was put into the duties of the old
general foreman, Mr. Klein, who was relegated to the backyard.
This assumption of authority by Mr. Lynch over men of his own
title and standing, and over bricklayers as well, caused much
friction and the labor organizations intervened. During all this
time while Mr. Lynch was doing the work of a general foreman
under the express directions of clerk John A. Hartnedy acting
as chief of maintenance, the officials of the department falsely
certified the payrolls, to the effect that he was performing only
the duties appropriate to his title, and was doing no other work,




87


and the municipal civil service commission was passing said payrolls. The assigning of this mason to the important work described was made with the knowledge and approval of Chief
Engineer Gregory.
On June 11, 1914, the Bricklayers' and Masons' International
Union protested to the Municipal Civil Service Commission, and
no relief being had, they protested again on October 31, 1914,
the written protests following consideration of the matter in their
regular meeting.
The protest informed the Municipal Commission that the procedure in Mr. Lynch's case was a " peculiar manipulation of
favoritism." It showed that in April, the work of repairing
sewers which was in the hands of a practical mechanic, was put
in the hands of an " efficiency clerk " who assumed the office title
of Supervisor of Maintenance, though he knew nothing of bricklaying from a practical standpoint (meaning the clerk Hartnedy,
who was off duty a third of his time). This clerk selected a stone
mason (Mr. Lynch) to direct this brick work, ignoring all bricklayers, foremen bricklayers and foremen masons in the department. Matters became strained under the violation of law, and
the clerk requested a promotion examination for his friend so that
he might be made a foreman mason. This examination was
formally requested by the Commission on April 20, 1914. The
examination being for foreman mason it was limited to the three
masons in the department and excluded the bricklayers, of whom
there were many, for nearly all sewer work is of brick.  On
account of the protest of the Union, this scheme was dropped,
and another examination was requested in which bricklayers might
compete. This, however, was arranged for the bricklayers and
only one stone mason (Lynch), for the other stone masons could
get no application blanks (p. 1912). Again the Union protested,
and on July 31, to meet the emergency, Commissioner Frothingham requested the Civil Service Commission to allow the masons
to change their titles to bricklayers, which request was granted on
August 12, 1914, and a practical test was ordered, though an
eligible list and preferred list were in existence. After all these
arrangements the examination was ordered for foreman bricklayer. The Union closed its protest with these words (p. 1914):




38


"We say plain and simple the most flagrant violations of the
civil service law have been carried on."  It asks "WVhy such
flagrant abuses of the civil service laws are permitted at the
behest of those desiring to place a favorite? " It asked the reason
for the discrimination against the foreman mason in the bureau
of sewers who also is legally eligible.
Mr. Lynch stated positively that clerk Hartnedy acted as
superintendent and foreman and had full charge of the basin
cleaning gangs- himself taking full charge of the work. (See
the style of orders and letters issued by him, pages 5937 etc.,
6543 etc.) He had seen the provision in the new budget for a
new position of foreman of bricklayers - and hoped he would
get it through the examination he has taken. We are informed
that Mr. Lynch is still rated as a mason, and is still acting as
general foreman.
Joseph J. Kletchka (p. 2832) was an engineer in the Department of Public Works for twenty years. In the early part of
1913, he was laid off by Chief Engineer of Sewers, Mr. Durham,
on the ground that they were putting on high priced inspectors,
and had too many engineers. The formal dismissal was based on
alleged lack of work. However there was more work than usual
and Kletchka was busy at that time. Mr. Kletchka protested on
the ground that if some man had to go it should be a new-comer
like Wolfe, Appleby or Sullivan. "Seeing that it was no use,"
he said, " I took my medicine."
Previous to his being laid off, Mr. Kletchka had condemned
190,000 granite paving blocks not up to specifications, furnished
by a contractor named Fitzgerald. Mr. Kletchka now holds a
responsible position in a private concern.
(Payrolls referring to some of the cases above mentioned were
put in evidence-see pages 6550, 6617.)
John B. Wild (p. 5240) is an inspector in the department of
public works. He was appointed, temporary, non-competitive,
September 12, 1911, at $1,200 a year. He stayed so about a
year and then became permanent through competitive examination. In New York city he inspected the laying of asphalt paving
- his only previous employment in that line was for about eight
months on and off, inspecting the laying of macadam pavement




89


in Passaic county, New Jersey. He had been employed previously
in the Rogers Locomotive Works, where he was a mechanic and
became a draftsman. Just prior to coming into employment in
New York city he was a bookkeeper.
He admitted that when he came into the service of New York
city he had no expert knowledge of pavements.
In June he began to do special work for New York city, inspecting the manufacture of wood blocks for paving, being assigned to that work as an expert by Engineer Sullivan at $10 a
day, and travelling expenses.  This alleged "expert" in the
manufacture of wood blocks for paving was absolutely unqualified.
He admitted that all he knew of the subject was picked up in the
American Creosoting Company's plant at Newark, while he was
inspecting their manufactured blocks for the city of New York.
This is one of the associated companies hereinafter mentioned,
and his assignment to it was by Engineer Sullivan. He admitted
that when he went there, he had no practical experience whatever - that nobody instructed him - all he learned he " picked
up." He had no idea how Engineer Sullivan imagined he knew
anything about it; he had no training in chemistry, and knew
nothing of the oils, creosote, coal derivatives, etc., etc., or anything
else connected with it (though highly technical knowledge of the
treatment of wood in particular with special oils is required for
proper inspection). He said: "Well, I knew in a rough way
that there was a certain treatment given to wood, and was put
in under pressure and that is all I know."  The work in New
Jersey was done under his regular salary as inspector of asphalt
paving ($1,200 per year), and then he was sent to Indianapolis
and to Norfolk at $10 a day and expenses and remained at those
places for several months.
Wood-block paving has long been a subject of suspicion as to
the meaning and purpose of specifications, and it has been charged
for years that so-called closed\ specifications are devised and
adopted by the engineers of various cities, in which there are
clauses so worded as to limit the oil substantially to that which is
produced mainly by a great combination of related corporations
operating throughout the nation. The importance of competent




40


and careful inspection is evident. Mr. Wild said that the engineers who selected him as an expert inspector, at expert's pay,
were Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Durham. This being so, their action
was reprehensible.
A. W. Dow, a chemist, is employed in the Borough of Bronx as
an expert on asphalt, and was employed in the Borough of Manhattan as expert to instruct inspectors (of pavements). Two witnesses of standing and repute testified that he was known throughout the country as a representative of the wood-paving trust and
interests; one of them testifying that he admitted the receipt of
money from one of said wood-paving companies for advocating
the kind of specifications in the City of New York that favored
its heavy oil. Mr. Dow was asked to appear as a witness but
preferred to attend an engineers' convention.
(The subject of wood-block paving in the City of New York is
treated in an appendix to this report.)
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Unlicensed Physicians in Charge of City Hospitals - Unregistered Nurses Control Hospital Wards and Supervise the
Work of Registered Nurses, and Civil Service Rules Generally Ignored in Health Department Hospitals.
Besides acknowledging under oath that he employs unlicensed
and nonresident physicians to treat patients in the public hospitals,
Dr. Robert J. Wilson, medical director of the health department,
testified that nonregistered nurses were in charge of sick wards
and were directing and supervising the work' of graduate and
registered nurses. He said that this condition was general in the
institutions under his jurisdiction and he acknowledged that civil
service regulations were generally disregarded so far as the disposition of the hospital force is concerned. The State Commission
had received lengthy complaints about the civil service irregularities in the health department hospitals and asked Dr. Wilson about
them. The doctor testified on November 25 and January 8, and
each time his testimony disclosed flagrant disregard of civil service
provisions. On January 8, 1915, Dr. Wilson admitted that Dr.
Green, assistant resident physician at the Willard Parker Hos



41


pital, was unlicensed, and that Dr. Dixon, the resident physician,
was a Canadian and not a citizen of the United States.
"Q. (p. 5868) And still you continue employing him
(Dr. Green)? A. Yes.
" Q. Do you think it is a proper thing? A. I do not
think it is an advisable thing."
Dr. Wilson acknowledged that Dr. Westmoreland, at 'Riverside
Hospital, and Dr. Cannon, at Kingston Avenue Hospital, were
unlicensed physicians in the employ of the health department.
Protest had been made to the municipal civil service conrmission about the fact that unregistered nurses were advanced in
salary and were in authority over nurses registered in this State,
and these complaints were repeated to the State Commission. The
investigation disclosed the fact that at least six of the health department nurses in charge of wards, floors or hospitals, superintending the work of other nurses, were not registered and that
they were increased from $600. to $720 a year during the summer
of 1914. Dr. Wilson testified that he increased these nurses of
his own volition; that he held an examination in which half the
nurses (150) in the health department entered, and he formed
his judgment on the result of the examination. The position of
nurse is in the noncompetitive class, and there is a board of promotion for noncompetitive employees in the department whose
actions are subject to the approval of the municipal civil service
commission. This board, however, according to Dr. Wilson, had
no responsibility whatever for the elevation of the unregistered
nurses over those who are registered. Dr. Wilson testified that he
was a member of the promotion board (p. 5889), that the board
keeps the efficiency ratings of all noncompetitive employees, and
the constitution and by-laws of the board were adopted by the
municipal civil service commission as a " model " for all city departments (p. 5890). In spite of this fact, the civil service commission, through the promotion board, had no control whatever
over the promotions made and acknowledged by Dr. Wilson.
Dr. Wilson was asked with reference to at least a score of employees in the hospitals under his jurisdiction and he acknowledged that in each case the civil service law was violated, the in



42


dividual being engaged in other service than that indicated by the
civil service title. In one case an orderly was serving as electrician; in another case a " laborer " was serving as laboratory assistant; orderlies were engaged as mechanics and laborers; hospital clerks do stenographic work; laborers serve as watchmen,
attendants, painters, telephone operators and carpenters; and domestics serve as cooks, assistant cooks, chambermaids, seamstresses,
attendants, helpers and telephone operators (p. 3582).
Dr. Wilson acknowledged that he was responsible for the distribution " of the labor of all of the employees" and that he signs
all the payrolls of the hospitals.
Listening to the testimony of Anna Fennell, a domestic who
has operated the telephone for seven years, he was asked:
"Q. Do you certify that she works as a domestic when you
sign the payroll? A. I certainly do. I wish to make an
explanation on that whole thing."
Then he testified that he called the attention of the civil service
commission to the fact that " domestics " worked in various other
capacities and that the board of estimate declined to vote appropriations that he might employ persons according to their civil
service designations. Dr. Wilson testified that the board of estimate has consistently denied himr  money to employ telephone
operators to relieve the orderlies, and domestics doing that work
(p. 358). The testimony disclosed that domestics were paid the
same amount as civil service telephone operators.
Dr. Wilson testified that he prepared the annual budget for all
hospitals within the jurisdiction of the health department, that
he increased his own salary in the tentative budget last summer
from $3,000 to $6,000 and that it was passed at $5,000, and that
the board of estimate declined to fill the position of lay superintendent at Otisville Sanitarium at $3,000 because of insufficient
funds (p. 3,576), though the institution has 585 patients and an
examination for the position was held and list established. The
position has been vacant since Jan. 1, 1914. Dr. Wilson testified
that with the increase in salary his title was changed to medical
director from  superintendent though the duties remained the
same.




43


Anna M. Gaynor, a clerk in the health department, testified (p.
3524), that she had her title changed from "hospital clerk" to
clerk, making her eligible for third grade clerkship in any city department. The position of "hospital clerk" is noncompetitive
and that of " clerk" is in the competitive class. She made application with other hospital clerks in the department for a change
of title and the civil service commission by resolution in 1914,
made the change in her favor (p. 3831). Dr. Wilson subsequently
testified that the change requested by the other hospital clerks
was denied though each of them was as much entitled to the change
as was Miss Gaynor (p. 3570). One of the three other hospital
clerks whose request was denied, had qualified through civil service
examination, for the position of "hospital clerk" and was in
charge of the storeroom at Willard Parker Hospital with a force of
six clerks and laborers under him.
Besides the violations of the civil service law in the health department acknowledged by Dr. Wilson, the investigation disclosed
that four physicians hold office and draw pay at the rate of $1,200
per year each, without proper classification. These physicians are
Drs. Scouler, Weed, Stoney and Frick, each of whom conducts a
clinic in some part of Brooklyn. The State Commission summoned Dr. Ambrose A. Scouler who conducts the clinic in Brownsville. Dr. Scouler testified that he began work in the tuberculosis
clinic without pay in 1907, that he afterward received $300 a
year and $600 per year and that since January, 1912, he has received $1,200 a year (p. 4639).
There is a civil service classification of "hospital physicians
with maintenance, $1,800." Dr. Scouler testified that he was not
attached to any hospital, that he conducted a clinic, and that he
received $1,200 a year without maintenance (p. 4641). There
is a position " attending physician without maintenance at tuberculosis clinic at $600 per year," but the four physicians mentioned
received $1,200 a year each. The attention of 'Commissioner
Keogh and Secretary Belcher was called to this condition, and
neither of them could properly explain it. Dr. Scouler testified
that he spent from 11 to 12 o'clock in the morning and from 2
to 4.30 in the afternoon at his clinic, and the other physicians when
asked if their situation was the same with regard to compensation




44


and service as that of Dr. Scouler, acknowledged that it was and
their testimony under oath was not requested.
PENSION EXPERTS
A Clerk and an Accountant Appointed as "Pension Experts"
and Permitted to Violate Civil Service Rules in the Offce
of the Municipal Commission Itself-An Actuarial Clerk
and a Stenographer Also Excepted as "Experts" and Ordinance Against Non-Residents Evaded.
In the appointment of Robert Von lteutlinger and George B.
Buck as " iension Experts ' the municipal commission abused
the provisions of rule 12, part 6. iN either of these appointees was
qualified in the degree required by law. i1r. Buck was slightly
over 23 years of age when appointed on Mlarch 17, 1914, and
one year and three months prior to that time, he was receiving at
the rate of $1,200 a year as " clerk " in the employ of the efficiency commission in Washington, of which Dr. Frederick A.
Cleveland, director of the bureau of municipal research, was
chairman. Mr. Von Reutlinger was also employed by that commission, according to the payroll roster for December, 1912, as
accountant at $1,800 per year. Mr. Buck testified (p. 4191) that
he worked as actuary for the bureau of municipal research up to
November, 1913, at $1,800 per year, that work terminating four
months prior to hi;s employment by the City of New York under
rule 12, paragraph 6, as a " pension expert." The appointment
of both Von Reutlinger and Buck was brought about by Henry
Bruere.
Mr. Von Reutlingeir was appointed on the same day as Mr. Buck
and he was made chief of staff of the pension commission which
he testified has 80 employees. He has been in the United States
eight years, a citizen three years, and though recorded as an accountant with the efficiency commission in Washington, he acknowledged that his knowledge of bookkeeping was acquired while
working as bookkeeper and clerk for a newspaper in Los Angeles
(p. 4301) prior to his appointment with the tariff board in Washington in 1911. Secretary of the Treasury William McAdoo, in
1913, refereed to Mr. Von Reutlinger as "inspector" for the




45


tariff board when he requested the federal civil service commission to permit the establishment of an " efficiency commission " in
the custom house, New York city, in the summer of 1913, at the
request of John Purroy Mitchel, who was then customs collector.
With reference to Mr. Von Reutlinger's employment as "pension expert " by New York City, he testified as follows (p. 4302):
" Q. You were never classified as an expert on pensions
prior to your coming to New York City? A. Never; as far
as I know, there are no experts on pensions anyway.
"Q. What were you classified as when you were on the
efficiency commission in the custom house (summer 1913)?
A. I do not remember exactly; efficiency expert; that was
it, I believe."
In the conduct of the office of the pension commission Mr.
Von Reutlinger has flagrantly violated civil service law with the
consent of the municipal commission. In the case of Alexander
Grant, the violation was particularly reprehensible.
Grant was appointed as temporary clerk on August 6, 1914,
though he is recorded on the civil service roster as "Hollerith
machine operator" for temporary service under 12-4. On Septmbner 16 (ten days beyond the limit of provisional service), he
was nominated for noncompetitive examination as "Hollerith
machine operator" and qualified for examination as such on
October 2. He acknowledged in his testimony that he knew nothing about operating a Hollerith machine (p. 4506), and that he
was assigned to clerical work, his compensation being the same as
second grade clerk, $600 per year. He further testified (p. 4508):
"Q. How long did you do clerical work before you were
finally put on experimental work on the machine? A. I
should say it was about two weeks.
" Q. Then you practiced on the Hollerith machine? A.
Yes, I practiced at that, yes, sir.
"Q. And you learned to work it? A. Yes, sir.
"Q. And you have done some work on the machine since?
A. Yes, sir."




46


In the face of Mr. Grant's testimony it is clear that the municipal commission permitted his appointment as " Hollerith machine operator " when he knew nothing whatever about the operation of such machine, and that he first learned it after his employment and while acting as clerk. An explanation of this condition is obtained from Mr. Grant as follows (p. 4509):
" Q. How did you get your appointment to your present
position? A. From Mr. Von Reutlinger.
"Q. Did you know him? A. No, sir.
"Q. How did you get introduced to him? A. My wife
met his wife, and his wife introduced me to him and he got
me the position."
Mr. Grant testified that his wife was working as clerk in the
office of the pension commission until the day before he testified
(December 16), her employment having lasted thirty days. She
was not selected from an eligible list. In explaining the appointment of Grant, Mr. Von Reutlinger testified (p. 3944):
"Q. Was he taken from the civil service list? A. No,
the civil service list was exhausted for tabulators, and we
tried to do the best we can with outsiders.
" Q. The civil service list of tabulators was exhausted? A.
Yes, sir.
" Q. And yet he is not doing tabulating work, is he
exactly? A. Not at the present time, but he will do so probably tomorrow, and he has done it probably two or three days
ago."
Mr. Grant in his application for noncompetitive examination
for tabulating machine operator, states that he was employed as
" temporary clerk " in the office of the Pension Commission. Yet
the municipal civil service commission permitted him to continue
as "clerk," though he was appointed as "Hollerith machine
operator," and permitted him to be nominated for noncompetitive
examination, though his only knowledge of that machine was
what he acquired in the office of the Pension Commission after
appointment.




47


The municipal commission also permitted the violation of
civil service rules in its own office, in connection with the work
of the Pension Commission. The State Commission on December 10th summoned Ernest Smith in charge of a clerical force
in room 1438 of the municipal commission. He testified that
he was supervising the work of this clerical force, filling in pension cards with data obtained from roster cards in the possession of the municipal commission, and that he had been so engaged
since the middle of August (p. 3814). The record of the municipal commission shows that Mr. Smith was transferred as
" structural steel draughtsman" from the bridge department to
the Pension Commission on August 18, 1914, and no change of
title thereafter is recorded, though the secretary of the municipal
commission says that the title was changed subsequent to Mr.
Smith's transfer to that of " draughtsman." His work was purely
clerical. Similar work, that of transferring data from cards in
various city departments to cards used by the Pension Commission, was done under the direction of Abraham Lazinsk, also a
"structural steel draughtsman " transferred from the bridge department, and by Charles Baumgarten, also "structural steel
draughtsman" who testified (p. 3884) that he instructs girls to
fill out pension cards from data taken from other cards. He also
operates a tabulating machine (p. 3885) and says his title has
been changed to " draughtsman."
Another abuse of the merit system in the Pension Commission
was the appointment of Leonard Stott Blakey as "statistician
with special knowledge of economics" under rule 12, paragraph 6. Dr. Blakey secured employment as a volunteer with the
commission during the summer of 1914, and engaged in correspondence with the officials of various cities with reference to
pension matters, the purpose being to gather information on the
subject (Von Reutlinger, p. 3932) " Q. Did Dr. Blakey see you
or Mr. Bruere when he came here first? A. He saw Mr. Bruere
and myself. Mr. Bruere referred him to me. Q. What did Mr.
Bruere tell you about him? A. He just said - that is, what Mr.
Bruere told me? Q. What did he tell you about him? A. He
said, 'Dr. Blakey is going to see you, and if there is any work
that he can do there that is of interest to him and the commission,
tell him to do it.'"




48


Mr. Von Reutlinger testified that he recommended that Dr.
Blakey be put on salary of $2,000 per year after two months of
volunteer service (p. 3927) the municipal commission accepting
him as an " expert." The ordinance relative to the employment
of nonresidents was ignored by the commission which could only
have sanctioned Blakey's employment under 12-6 as an " expert."
Mr. Von Reutlinger's testimony indicates clearly that Dr. Blakey
was not only not an expert, but that all he learned about the work
required was during his service as volunteer during his college
vacation. No "evidence in writing" could have been furnished
the municipal commission that no one could be found in New
York City competent to do the work, so Dr. Blakey was appointed
as an " expert " to evade the ordinance.
In the case of Ralph Van Name, the municipal commission
permitted the employment by the Pension Commission of a stenographer and typewriter at the rate of $1,800 a year without examination in the face of an eligible list for stenographers, without
attempting to find out if any of those on the list were capable of
doing tabulating work on typewriting machines. In order to permit this breach of Civil Service Law and rules, the municipal
commission classified Van Name as all "expert" and covered
his employment under 12-6. Van Name was not eligible for
designation under 12-6 which permits the employment only of
persons " engaged in private business." Van Name was employed
by the city of New York as stenographer and typewriter for four
years prior to his designation under 12-6 and was not engaged in
"private business." He was stenographer in the office of President of the Board of Aldermen who suggested that he seek a
transfer to the Pension Commission. Mr. Van Name wa;s not in
the competitive class then and could not be transferred. His engagement under 12-6 beginning April 1, 1914, was unwarranted
and the testimony shows that Van Name did no other work than
was done by other stenographers and typewriters in the office of
the Pension Commission, except that he was in charge of that
branch of service. His employment under 12-6 which was concurred in by the State Commission on the statement of the municipal commission, was an imposition on the state body, a breach of




49


principle of civil service and an injustice to stenographers and
typewriters on the eligible list.
In attempting to justify his appointment the witness claimed
that it required a knowledge of pension literature to properly
lay out the work for other stenographers and tabulators (p. 3897)
" Q. Where did you get your special knowledge of pension literature? A. Since coming with the commission. Q. Then you
didn't have that knowledge when you got this appointment? A.
I did not, no, except I worked in a life insurance company for
three or four years." (P. 3894). "Q. There are other stenoggraphers and expert tabulators doing the same work you are
doing? A. Not experts. Q. They are stenographers and tabulators? A. Yes, sir. " Q. Working on the typewriting machines
the same as you do? A. Yes, sir, similar machines. Q. Are the
others employed under the same conditions that you are? A. No,
sir. Q. They are civil service employees? A. Yes, sir. Q.
At what salary? A. The two that I mentioned received $900 per
annum."
The appointment of George B. Buck as "pension expert" at
$3,600 per year merits further discussion. He was employed in
1910 and 1911 " or the beginning of 1912 " at $1,000 a year in
the census bureau in Washington (p. 4184). Then he worked
for the Efficiency and Economy Commission in Washington
(1912) at $1,200 per year, as "clerk" (p. 4186); then on the
police pension fund, New York City, for the Bureau of Municipal
Research (1913) at $1,800 (p. 4191). Then a short partnership
with Herbert D. Brown, actuary, in Washington; then to the Pension Commission, at $3,600 per year as "expert." Prior to his
partnership with Mr. Brown, Mr. Buck worked as actuarial clerk
for Mr. Brown and he testified (p. 4207). "Q. How long had
you been in partnership with Mr. Brown? A. About six months
I should say. Q. And you left him entirely to come to Newr
York? A. Yes, sir. Q. You are making more in the City of
New York than you made as partner of Mr. Brown? A. Yes,
Mr. Brown and I are not on good terms so I have to verify my
statements otherwise." Mr. Buck testified that he was not a member of the Actuarial Society of America, the recognized organization for actuaries, but that he joined an actuarial organization




50


in New York city two months previous to the date of his testimony, Dec. 14, 1914, and seven months after he begun work as
"pension expert" for the city. Mr. Buck was living in Washington, D. C., at the time of his employment by the Pension
Commission, according to his testimony (p. 40.69).
Mr. Buck's advent to this city brought Edith B. Mangum, also
from Washington, as "actuarial expert" under rule 12, paragraph 6, on April 15, 1914. The Municipal Commission excepted her under the $750 limitation and subsequently on November 28 raised the limit of compensation to $1,500 per year. Miss
Mangum testified that she came here at the request of Chamberlain Bruere through Mr. Buck; that she was assured her salary
would be $1,500 per year; that she was receiving $900 a year in
Washington and was offered $1,020 per year if she remained with
her employer there; but she declined (pages 4032-3 and 4). Her
employment under 12-6 is unwarranted.
COMMISSIONER OF ACCOUNTS
In connection with the work of the Pension Commission, James
McGinley, Chief Examiner of Accounts in the Commissioner of
Accounts' office, testified (p. 4314) that 17 of the employees of
his office, clerks, accountants and examiners, were detailed for a
period of two months (some of them longer) to assist in organizing the work of the commission in the spring of 1914. These men
were assigned to various city departments to have cards prepared
by the Pension Bureau, filled out by city employees. The information of these cards was subsequently transferred to other cards
by clerks in the employ of the Pension Commission. The testimony of Von Reutlinger (p. 3926) shows that 120,000 cards
were used by the Pension Commission for gathering preliminary
information. Mr. McGinley testified (p. 4315) that the Commissioner of Accounts loaned the Pension Commission at the
request of Chamberlain Bruere, the services of two $3,000 a year
men, one or two $2,500 a year men, some $2,100 a year men and
some other employees drawing $1,800 or under. Harry F. Shields,
a civil service fourth grade accountant attached to the Commissioner of Accounts' office, testified that he worked from June to
October, 1914, for the Pension Commission, that he was assigned




51


to the Borough of Queens and that he had charge of a squad gathering data on cards. "Q. (p. 4267) Had them filled in by employees in Queens Borough? A. Yes, sir. Q. And then brought
them back to whom? A. To Mr. Von Reutlinger in charge of the
Pension Bureau. Q. How many entirely, of the Commissioner of
Accounts' office that you knew of, who worked with you for the
Pension Commission? A. I think there were sixteen, if I am not
mistaken. Q. Some of them accountants? A. Some of them,
yes, sir. Q. Some of them examiners? A. Yes, sir. Q. Some
of them clerks? A. Some clerks.
CITY PLAN EXPERTS
"Experts" appointed on Committee on City Plan, who Duplicate the Work of Other City Departments and Bureaus
-Ordinance Prohibiting Employment of Non-Residents
Ignored by Municipal Commission.
With the employment of George B. Ford as " expert consultant" to the Committee on City Plan of the Board of Estimate,
began a series of exceptions from competitive examination which
led to an appropriation of $30,000 for the work of the committee
during the current year. The testimony of Mr. Ford and R. H.
Whitten, secretary of the committee, discloses a duplication of
work done by other branches of the city government. Mr. Whitten
was exempted under Rule 12, paragraph 5, as a person "of high
and recognized attainments," and Mr. Ford was appointed as an
"expert" under Rule 12, paragraph 6, each at $5,000 a year,
Mr. Ford's appointment beginning May 17 and Mr. Whitten's
July 1, 1914. Mr. Ford testified that he made reports to the
Committee on City Plan, of which President McAneny of the
Board of Aldermen is chairman, among them being a report on
the widening of Jackson Avenue, Queens Borough, to 100 feet.
"Q. (p. 5747) What did you recommend? A. I don't believe
I am called upon to say that. Q. That is a public matter,
Mr. Ford; there is no secret about planning city streets.  Q.
(p. 5748) How did your recommendation differ from the recommendation of the engineer in the Highways Dept. in Queens, the
Topographical Bureau of Queens? A. I think it was confirma



52


tory. Q. Confirmatory? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then your work was
duplicating their work, wasn't it? A. It was confirming it from
another angle, from a general and different standpoint. Q. Who
was the engineer of the Board of Estimate who went with you?
A. Mr. Deutsch was there. *   *  *  Q. (p. 5749)  Did Mr.
Lewis (chief engineer of the Board of Estimate) make a report
on Jackson Avenue Boulevard in Queens? A. He did. Q. The
Board of Estimate requested him to make such report, didn't it 
A. Yes. Q. Do you know what recommendation was his? A. It
is the same. Q. That has been the function of the chief engineer
of the board of estimate many years. A. Yes, sir."
Mr. Ford testified that most of his reports to the committee on
city plan are verbal. " Q. (5735) No record kept of what you
report to them at all, just tell it to them orally and they act upon
it; is that the way it is done? A. I should say that is the way
the majority of it is done."
Mr. Ford testified that he was sent to investigate the request of the
Botanical Society for an additional 150 acres in the Bronx. He
declined to say what he reported on the ground that his report
was " confidential" to the committee. " Q. (p. 5739) What report did you make on the Ft. George property? A. That was on
the question of whether - of the extension of the city park area in
the neighborhood of Ft. George. Q. Was your report in favor or
against it? A. That is not a matter of public record yet; it is in
committee.
*   *     *   -*    *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *Q. (5741) How long ago did you make your Ft. George report
to the committee on city plan? A. I have not brought it up to the
whole committee yet, only to the chairman of the committee; it
has not been discussed by the whole committee. Q. (5742) Just
by the chairman of the city plan committee? A. Yes, sir. Q.
Mr. McAneny? A. Yes, sir.     Q. Were you directed by Mr.
McAneny to make a report with regard to the botanical gardens?
A. Yes, sir. Q. Any other member of the commission direct you
to make such a report? A. No."
Mr. Ford testified that he was working on a comprehensive
plan for all matters which have to do with the physical development of the city and that by direction of Mr. McAneny he was




53


" working on schemes for the laying out of the district around the
court house " (p. 5759).
" Q. (p 5752) Do you understand that your plan was to be
adopted by the board of estimate? A. Not necessarily. Q. (p.
5753) What do you understand is to become of your plan for the
court house site? A. Submit it to the various people who are interested in it, and they have a right to do as they want witll
it, they are not bound to accept it.
Q. The court house board did not ask you to do that work, did
it? A. No. Q. No one but Mr. McAneny asked you to do that
work, did they? A. No. Q. Do you make your reports; you
must make your reports of your plan to Mr. McAneny? A. Yes,
sir."
Mr. Ford testified that he had worked for the city planning
commission in Newark and Jersey City (p. 5759); that he was not
an engineer but an architect (p. 5763); that he had had nothing
whatever to do with the laying of asphalt, wood-block or granite;
that he never prepared specifications for any such pavements;
but he acknowledged (p. 5761) that he recommended the laying
of wood-block on Broad street, Newark, and that he had recommended various pavements for various streets in Jersey City, in
conjunction with E. P. Goodrich, consulting engineer for the
Borough of Manhattan.
Mr. Ford was questioned fully with reference to his knowledge
of the ingredients in wood-block and asphalt, and he answered
plainly that he was not familiar with them. All of which is cited
to show that as "expert consultant" for the city-planning committee of New York City, Mr. Ford might make recommendalions not based solely on his own judgment or experience.
Mr. Ford was employed as secretary of the heights of buildings
commission during most of the year 1913, under ta 12-6 appointment, at the rate of $3,000 a year. He is a member of a firm of
architects which entered in competition with twenty-two others
on plans for the new court house in Manhattan.
Besides Mr. Ford, the committee on city plan employs two other
-so-called " experts," each at the rate of $3,000 a year; both under
the 12-6 rule. Though the compensation of one thus far is limited




54


under the original appointment to $2,000 within the year, he is
paid at the rate of $3,000. These " experts" have served continuously since their appointment, Mr. Ford on May 17, Herbert
S. Swan on May 27, and the third, John P. Fox, on July 9, 1914.
The provision of the rule under which they were appointed, provides only for " occasional" employment.
Herbert S. Swan was employed as " special investigator and
expert statistician" by the heights of buildings commission, and
his work terminated on December 31, 1913. He received compensation at the rate of $225 per month. Prior to that employment, which continued during most of the year 1913, he was in
the service of the bureau of municipal research.
He testified that he was compiling the historical development
of the street and park system in Manhattan Borough, which was
part of a report that he was preparing for the committee on city
plan. The data from which he is compiling his report was obtained from the records of various city departments and various
public officials, and found in the public library or in the municipal
reference library.
" Q. (p. 6231) And all your information can be obtained from
the city departments or from the records of the city, city records
somewhere   A. Yes, but that is only one of the features that
of the work that I have been doing. We have been doing work
for the building district and restrictions commission."
Mr. Swan testified that he has resided in New York City five
years (p. 6233), and that Mr. McAneny appointed him to the
position of " expert investigator " for the committee on city plan.
He was employed as " indexer " for the heights of buildings commission from February 26 to March 10, 1914, under rule 12,
paragraph 4, preceding his engagement by the committee on city
plan. His employment with the city plan committee was requested by President McAneny in a letter dated May 1, 1914,
asking his exemption on the ground of " expert knowledge of city
planning." This exemption was not allowed by the municipal
civil service commission, which, however, permitted his engagement under the 12-6 rule. The municipal commission differentiates the 12 —5 appointment as permanent and 12-6 as tempo



55


rary, but the practical result of most appointments under 12-6 is
the same as under 12-5 -permanent employment.
In the case of Sylvester Schattschneider, the rules were strained
to permit his employment. Mr. Schattschneider testified (p.
3846) that he was employed in Harvard University to do " research work in sanitary engineering and vital statistics," prior
to his employment by the committee on city plan on July 28, 1914,
as "demographer;" (p. 3846) that he was engaged on "vital
statistics " for the committee on city plan (p. 3848); and that he
could not reconcile the work he was doing with the dictionary
definition of the word " demographer," the title under which he
was excepted by the municipal civil service commission and which
means one who analyzes " vital and social statistics in their application to ethnology and anthropology." " Q. (p. 3849) How does
that apply to your work, Mr. Schattschneider? A. That has no
application to the work I am doing here. Q. Then you are not
a demographer referring to the definition in the Standard dictionary. A. Not according to that definition. Q. But you are
a vital statistician? A. Yes."
Mr. Schattschneider testified that he procured his appointment
with the city plan committee (3849) through Prof. Geo. C. Whittle, a member of the commission on building districts and restrictions; that he was engaged by Mr. Whitten, secretary to the committee on city plan (p. 3850); that Mr. Whitten told him he
wanted a man to make a study of the population of New York
City (38.51).
" Q. (3852) And he went to Massachusetts to get him. A.
Yes, sir. Q. You were a resident of Massachusetts and had not
been in New York but how long? A. I never resided in New
York."
Mr. Schattschneider testified that since he entered upon his
employment he has been engaged on a map of the City of New
York indicating the census by putting " spots - black dots " on
the map, each spot indicating twenty-five persons (p. 3844). He
also uses other dots to indicate less than twenty-five persons each.
"Q. (3843) Then you are going to have as many spots as twentyfive goes into the population, is that right? A. No, sir, in the
outlying districts I have established a different or a smaller ratio




56


of 10 or 5, because in the outlying districts the ratio of five would
show us better."
Mr. Schattschneider testified that he was employed at the rate
of $125 per month ($1,500 per year) (p. 3848), and that "the
work I am doing now requires only a knowledge of a vital statistician."
Mr. Schattschneider was appointed under the 12-6 rule as
"expert demographer" and the limit of his compensation had
not been raised from $750 at the time he testified. In order
that Mr. Schattschneider might be added to the city payroll, it
was necessary for some one in authority to furnish " evidence in
writing" that no one could be found in the City of New York to
perform the services required, and the consent of the mayor had
to be obtained to his appointment. In a letter to Mayor Mitchel,
dated July 24, 1914, R. H. Whitten, secretary to the committee
on city plan, makes this assertion: " It is impossible for the committee to secure a resident of New York City having the peculiar
and exceptional qualifications possessed by Mr. Schattschneider
for the particular work required" (p. 3862).
Secretary Belcher was asked if any effort was made by the
municipal commission to ascertain if the statement made by Mr.
Whitten was the truth, and he replied (p. 3867); "I do not
know that any effort was made, any investigation."
Mr. Schattschneider could not have been employed by the city
under the 12-4 rule, providing for emergency appointment for
a temporary period, because of a city ordinance prohibiting the
employment of persons who are nonresidents and noncitizens of
the State of New York. His employment could only have been
secured under rule 12, paragraph 6, classifying him  as an
" expert " for temporary service, and this was done by the municipal commission, which accepted the statement of Secretary Whitten that no resident of New York City could be found to do the
work satisfactorily. Mr. Whitten's assertion, "having the peculiar and exceptional qualifications possessed by Mr. Schattschneider," is not a compliance with ordinance barring nonresidents
from employment. The ordinance reads, "evidence in writing
must be furnished that the services or work to be performed cannot be well done by any citizen and actual resident of the State




57


of New York who can be discovered."  No such evidence was
furnished the municipal commission, judging from the testimony
of Mr. Belcher (p. 3867).
By President Neu: " The only thing that you had was the
letter of Mr. Whitten saying that such a person was needed? "
Mr. Belcher: "And Mr. Schattschneider's qualifications."
Mr. John P. Fox was appointed " expert and consulting engineer at $2,000" under rule 12, paragraph 6, according to the
roster card of the municipal commission on July 9, 1914. He
testified that he was being paid at the rate of $250 per month.
The card shows that he was first employed by the city on May 28,
1908, as "expert statistician" for the metropolitan sewerage
commission at $10!0 a month under rule 12, paragraph 6; that
this rate was increased to $1,500 per year on September 9, 1908;
that he was again employed as " building and sanitary expert"
for the board of estimate and apportionment on December 16,
1912, and that his rate of compensation was raised to $2,250 a
year on July 2, 1913. Mr. Fox was asked:
" Q. (p. 5845) Are you an engineer? A. I am not a civil engineer; I have no civil engineering degree. Q. Where do you
get the title of engineer? A. Why, that comes through experience.
* * *. Q. Was it allotted to you by any institution or college, or
did you assume it yourself? A. No, sir; it was bestowed upon me.
Q. By whom? A. I think Professor Swain of Harvard was one
of the first ones to call me that. * * *. Q. Do you hold yourself out as a consulting engineer? A. Yes, sir. Q. And do you
charge and collect fees? A. Yes, sir. Q. As a consulting engineer? A. Yes, sir. Q. Notwithstanding the fact that you have
no degree as such, as a civil engineer or otherwise? A. Yes, sir.
I prefer the title of 'municipal expert,' but the other title of
'consulting engineer' is more commonly used, and so I use that.
Q. (p. 5852) Who gave you the designation of 'engineer' with
the city planning commission? A. The committee on city plan.
Q. Did they inquire of you whether you were or were not a civil
engineer before they appointed you? A. No, sir. Q. Did you
tell them that you were a civil engineer? A. No, sir. * * *. Q.
(p. 5853) This is the first time it has been officially used with




58


reference to your work, isn't it, 'consulting engineer?' A. Why,
as far as I remember, yes."
Mr. Fox is a member of the city plan commission of the City
Club and of the city planning committee of the Citizens' Union.
Robert H. Whitten, who was exempted as secretary of the committee on city plan, at $5,000 per annum, has been a resident of
New York State seven years, part of which time he lived in
Albany. On May 6, 1914, the municipal commission gave a
hearing on the proposed amendment to the civil service classification to exempt the secretaries of various new committees of the
board of estimate, including the committee on city plan. This
proposed amendment was opposed by Samuel H. Ordway, representing the Civil Service Reform Association, and George T.
Keyes, assistant secretary of the association. July 1 Mr. Keyes
again appeared before the municipal commission and opposed the
exemption of Mr. Whitten on the ground that it had not been
demonstrated that competition for the position was impracticable.
Mr. Keyes said: "I concede Mr. Whitten's qualifications and
enter the same argument with this addition: that competition
has not been demonstrated to be impracticable. That is the one
position which I was convinced ought to be filled through an examination, if not all of them, and this was the first one which converted me to competition —the secretary to the committee on
city plan - and I think that commission has received from the
first assistant chief examiner a plan for an examination for the
position of secretary to the committee on city plan, which communication has received some consideration from this commission
- a non-assembled plan."
Mr. Whitten was exempted under rule 12, paragraph 5.
EFFICIENCY ENGINEERS
Civil Service Rules Suspended to Permit the Employment of
" Efficiency Engineers" and to Continue Them in the City
Service.
The mania for " efficiency" produced a flood of 12-6 appointments in the "efficiency " bureau of the commissioner of accounts' office. One of these appointees is Samuel Thomas Goodwin, who was originally appointed in August, 1913. His rate of




59


compensation was raised on October 29, 1913, to $1,500 and
again increased on February 11, 1914, to $2,400. Mr. Goodwin
was attached to the " efficiency bureau " of the board of estimate,
which was afterward transferred back to the office of commissioner
of accounts.
" Q. (p. 4169) You have been continuously employed Mr.
Goodwin in the same bureau since August, 1913? A. Yes, sir,
in the same bureau. Q. At what salary? A. From August until
the latter part of - I guess until the end of 1913 at $2,700 and
from then on at $2,400."  Mr. Goodwin testified that he was
engaged to make studies of the labor methods of the maintenance,
highway and sewer bureaus of Richmond borough (p. 4171); that
he made " suggestions" to one of the assistant engineers in Richmond with reference to " work programs " and that he "assisted
in the design of a method for the control of work of the bureau
of sewers and basin cleaning" (p. 4175). Witness testified that
he was twenty-four years old and that his rate of pay was $8 per
day during four or five months in 1912, when he worked for the
commissioner of accounts (efficiency bureau) in the borough of
Queens. Mr. Goodwin was changed to an emergency appointee
(12-4) on August 1, 1914, and on September 2,9, his appointment
was changed to 12-3 pending a competitive examination. Mr.
Goodwin continued twenty-nine days beyond the specified time of
thirty days as emergency appointee and he was carried beyond
the stated period of two months pending competitive examination, the secretary of the municipal commission testifying that
the examination would be held in " about a week " from the date
the witness gave testimony, December 11 (p. 4163).
Albert J. Frohock, a resident of Philadelphia was engaged at
$25 per day as " an expert with special knowledge of office procedure" on May 4, 1914. The limit of compensation under his
original appointment was raised from $750 to $1,500 on May
28th, to $2,250 on July 22d, to $3,000 on September 2 and to
$3,500 on November 18, 1914. Mr. Frohock testified that for
one week subsequent to his employment, he commuted from Philadelphia to this city; that he afterwards boarded in East Orange,
and then moved to New York City '(pp. 4247-8). Mr. Frohock
testified that he was engaged to investigate the mayor's depart



60


ments (p. 4230'); that he recommended changes in payroll and
stenographic methods (p. 4230-1) and in office management in the
tenement-house department (p. 423,6); and that he was assisted
in gathering material on which to base reports by an employee
of the office of commissioner of accounts (p. 4240). Mr. Frohock
testified that lie was recommended to the acting commissioner of
accounts, whom he did not know, by a man named Black who lived
in Camden, iN. J.; that Black had been requested to do some
"efficiency work" for the city and that he! (Black) brought Mr.
Frohock to acting commissioner of accounts McGinley (p. 4248).
" Q. Did you understand at the time of your original appointment that your compensation was not to exceed $750? A. No, I
understood it will be possible an extension might be granted.
Q. Was there an extension? Were you told it would be granted?
A. They said they might possibly want me for another month."
Four extensions in compensation were granted Mr. Frohock by
the municipal commission until the State Commission notified
the local commission that no further extension would be approved.
The final approval of the State Commission was obtained November 14, and Mr. Frohock was dropped from the service though
he continued for seventeen days until December 2d (p. 4252).
" Q. Were you relieved on December 27th? A. I had no - 
understood whenl that extension was granted that the State Board
would not grant any more, and that the time ended on the 2d of
December. I received no notification from the office or from anybody else, until T asked Mlr. McGinley about a week later."
Mr. McGinley testified (p. 4310) that he did not know Mr.
Frohock prior to engaging him; that Mr. Black was suggested by
Mr. Bruere or Mr. Lewis (deputy commissioner of corrections)
and that he accepted Mr. Black's endorsement of Mr. Frohock as
an " efficiency expert" though he did not know either (p. 4311).
Mr. McGinley also testified that several employees of the office of
commissioner of accounts worked with Mr. Frohock on his " efficiency" plans (pp. 4348-9).
Another " expert " who was engaged under 12-6 by the commissioner of accounts was Louis Ortner who was employed as " fuel
expert and efficiency engineer" on February 6, 1914, at $10 per
day. The limit of compensation was raised to $1,500 on April




61


8, to $2,250 on July 8 and to $3,000 on November 25, the final
increase being concurred in by the mayor and the State Commission. Prior to his engagement as "expert " Ortner was employed
in the department of water supply, gas and electricity as general
inspector (exempt) at $3,000 per year, having been out of the
city's employ a little more than a month before he was re-engaged
as " expert." M'ir. Ortner testified that he took no examination
to enter the city service or to advance in it (p. 5191); that he
passed from the water department to the commissioner of accounts
and that he expected (December 28, 1914) to be transferred to
the department of correction as " fuel expert and economical engineer " the first of the year. " Q. (p. 5196) Did Deputy Commissioner Lewis of the correction department tell you how much you
would receive if you were appointed there?  A. I believe he
stated some estimate as between $2,500 and $3,000 - I believe."
The State Civil Service Commission declined to approve any extension of Mr. Ortner's compensation beyond $3,000 and he had
received no pay for "five or six weeks" (p. 5196).
An eligible list foir economical engineers in the correction department containing twenty-four names was in existence at the time
Mir. Ortner testified and the lIst is good until November 14, 1915.
T'he failure of the municipal commission to limit Mr. Ortner's
services to the "temporary " period contemplated in the 12-6
provision, made it necessary for the State body to decline further
extension in pay.
John L. Mann was approved for emergency appointment as
"Associate Efficiency Engineer " on July 22, 1914, at $2,700
per year and continued until September 29, one month and twelve
days beyond the 30-day limit provided in rule 12, paragraph 4
under which he was appointed. He was then continued under
rule 12, paragraph 3 pending competitive examination and
again exceeded the'time limit under this provision (two months)
without having entered a competitive examination. His employment under 12-3 should not have extended beyond November 29,
two months after non-competitive assignment. The competitive
examination had not been held at the time Mr. Mann testified
(December 11).




62


Mr. Mann testified that he was a friend of Mr. Welton, chief
of the Efficiency Bureau of the Commissioner of Accounts' Office
(p. 4154) and that he was assigned to work on Staten Island.
" Q. (p. 4154) Had you ever been an 'associate efficiency engineer' anywhere else besides in the city service? A. I had
nothing to do - I had never had that title, no. Q. (p. 4155)
How long have you lived in the city of New York, Mr. Mann?
A. Why, since - this last time since about the last of November,
but I have more or less been here, I did not have a residence
here. *  *   *  Q. Where did you live prior to that time? A.
Why, I lived in Santo Domingo in the West Indies."
Witness said he lived in Santo Domingo six years prior to coming to New York and was engaged in engineering work there
(p. 4155), that he was "conducting a survey or physical audit
to obtain work quantities, the physical and functional work qualities in the maintenance of highways in the Borough of Richmond "
(p. 4156); also that he had been engaged on a scheme for "locational control of the work in the same borough" (p. 4158).
" Q. (p. 4159) You are trying to devise such a scheme? A
similar scheme was laid down in the Borough of Queens by the
Commissioner of Accounts —when was that, 1912, wasn't it?
A. I think it was in 1912. *  *  *  Q. (p. 4160) Was the
scheme developed in Queens? Was it adopted there? A. I do
not know, I think not, I think the scheme was rather complicated.
Q. (p. 4160) You do not know whether your scheme of control
will work out yet, do you? A. I have only been working on it
a week and a half; I got just recently started on it. It will take
some months to try it out."
The witness is employed as " expert " on work which is new
to him and of which he had no knowledge whatever prior to
his service with the city, and the civil service rules were violated
in two particulars by the municipal commission to continue his
employment.   There is no reason to believe that witness's
ability as engineer is greater than that of hundreds of assistant
engineers in the city service, some of whom receive less than
$2,700 a year salary.
The case of Frederick R. Leach, shows a similar state of facts.
Mr. Leach was appointed under 12-6 rule on November 1 last




63


at $5,000 per year as "expert efficiency engineer" in the office
of the Commissioner of Accounts. He testified that he was in
charge of a squad of five other employees of the Commissioner
of Accounts' office and that they were " installing a consolidated
purchase system" in the twenty-eight departments of the city
government controlled by Mayor Mitchel (p. 6020). He was
working he said under an advisory committee of five members
of whom Henry Bruere, City Chamberlain, is one. Mr. Leach
testified that he was director of a Bureau of Municipal Research in
Cleveland, five years prior to November 1 last; that he is working
in conjunction with the Supply Division of the Bureau of
Standards which is "standardizing" specifications for all city
supplies. "Q. (p. 6029) How does it happen that you got that
title (' expert efficiency engineer')? A. I don't know how it was,
they just asked me to take up the work and I didn't pay much
attention to the —"
At this point Commissioner Wolff of the State Commission
called attention to the fact that Mr. Bruere had requested that the
position occupied by Mr. Leach be exempted for that incumbent.
" I told him I did not see how we could take a competitive place
and put it into the exempt class," he added. Mr. Leach testified
he did not know how long his work would last, but indicated that
it could not be completed in a year (p. 6024). He is engaged
under a provision for temporary employment.
The records of the municipal civil service commission show
that James J. Pierson was employed by them on November 16,
1912, as " expert examiner" at $10 per day (exempt); that he
was re-employed as "emergency civil service examiner" on
February 1, 1913, under rule 12, paragraph 4, and on May 1,
1914, as " expert investigator " by the Commissioner of Accounts
at $2,250 per year, under rule 12, paragraph 6. Mr. Pierson's
testimony shows that he was entirely unfamiliar with the work
to which he was assigned by the Commissioner of Accounts and
at which he was engaged when summoned to testify on January
12, 1915. He testified that he was devising " score cards" for
record of the work done by tenement house inspectors; that he
had advised the consolidation of work done by food and milk
inspectors in the Health department and that for the Charities




64


department he reported on the " adaptability of the power house
and coal bunkers" (p. 6421).
Ie also testified that before he began work for the Municipal
Civil Service Commission, he was consulting engineer for the
General Motors Company in Lansing, Michigan. He acknowledged (p. 6425) that he knew nothing whatever about the work
to which he was assigned as follows: "Q. Do you know anything
about what you have just described with reference to the taxicab
inspectors prior to your being engaged by the city of New York?
A. Oh, no, prior to being engaged. Oh no. My attention had
not been drawn to it. Q. Did you know anything about the work
done by the tenement house inspectors of the city of New York,
prior to your being engaged by the city of New York? A. The
tenement house inspectors -no."
DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY, GAS AN:D ELECTRICITY
Civil Service Employees Dropped for " Economy" and Another
Employed at Large Salary, Without Competitive Examination-  Stationary Engineers Acting as Supervisors in Spite
of Eligible List.
Under the administrations of Engineers Brush and Laase, employees are doing work inconsistent with their civil service titles.
(pp. 5946, 6014, 6020, 6234, 6096, 6103, 6298, 6110-Brower
January 21.) These violations include Thomas J. Norris, chairman, who has charge of the changes in the field, appointments,
rejections, transfers; the preparation of budget estimates as to
supplies and materials, statistical data, investigations of materials,
etc.; Wilbur V. Gould, inspector of pipe laying, but is supervising the methods of ordering supplies and equipment; Carl A.
Nolte, inspector of pipe laying, whose time is devoted almost entirely to litigation work, examinations of records, preparations for
trials, attending on trials, etc. - in which work he really performs expert service far in advance of his civil service title and
compensation; Harry S. Wooden, a topographical draftsman,
most of whose work is clerical.
The testimony of Mr. Birower showed that there are three
laborers in one of the Long Island divisions acting as stenog



65


raphers and clerks. We were, not able to go deeper into this situation but learned that the payrolls go on as in other departments
with improper certifications. Two employees, Mr. Claussen and
Mr. Brower, recently were forced out of places on Long Island,
evidently because of personal feeling of the engineer, but ostensibly
for lack of work. The work is now done by the engineer in charge
of the division with the assistance of a clerk, through telephone and
occasional visits, but the work must continue, and will have to be
provided for in a short time by filling the places from which these
men were dismissed.
Assistant Engineer Elmer G. Manahan was examined (p.
5985). He testified that in August, 1911, he was appointed assistant engineer in charge of the filter work at Jerome Park. He
had no idea how he got the place; did not take civil service examination; he simply received a letter directing him to report to the
chief engineer, and he found his salary fixed at $5,000. That
filter work was discontinued and Mr. Manahan was out of a job,
but one came as mysteriously as before, without request, and without knowing how it was done, he found himself transferred to
take charge of the division of designing, in the department, at
$4,500, with no examination. The division was in charge of
Assistant Engineer Joseph Goodman, (salary, $3,250), who was
doing well. He went in over Goodman's head and the two are now
doing the work that one did before. Quoting:
" Q. Can you explain, Mr. Manahan, how it all happened? A.
I think the explanation for that would have to come from my
superiors. Q. You have just taken the good things Providence has
sent you? A. That is all I have done. I have never made application to be retained or to have anything done for me since I was
appointed." He said the bureau of municipal research had been
there- he had seen them.
'Charles J. Clark (p. 5995), an assistant engineer, was on the
filter works with Mr. Manahan. When the filter was discontinued,
he was transferred with Mr. Manahan to the division of designing - with the same salary, $2,400. He displaced no one and was
added to the force (which was getting along all right before he
arrived).
3




66
William Drew and Harold H. Hlavill, stationary engineers in
the water department, testified that they perform the services of
supervising engineers, though a list for that position containing
the names of several employees of the water department is in existence. Mr. Drew testified (p. 6100) that he has been doing supervisory engineers' work more than a year, and that he entered a
promotion examination on December 28th (he testified on January 9, 1915), and that about twenty engineers entered the examination.
Mr. Havill testified that he took the same promotion examination and that he had been " advised " by Mr. Hancock, the supervising engineer, that it would be a good thing for him to do, to
protect himself (p. 6109). Secretary Belcher of the municipal
commission was asked if a complaint had been made during the
preceding summer with reference to Messrs. Drew and Havill
serving in a supervisory capacity in preference to those who were
eligible for promotion, and he replied that such a complaint had
been received and that in the case of Mr. Havill, a promotion examination was ordered to correct the assignment (p. 6100). "In
the case of Mr. Drew, we were informed that the assignment had
been corrected and that is under re-investigation.  I do not
think the report has been made yet."
The complaint to the municipal commission was made in the
summer of 1914, and it was not until December 28th that the
promotion examination to correct the wrong complained of was
held. Those on the eligible list for supervising engineer will
not be advanced unless it is as a result of the promotion examination. Mr. Drew testified that his salary as " assistant supervising
engineer" was $2,500 a year, while the salary of other stationary
engineers in the department is $1,750 or $1,800 per year." (See
also pp. 6249, 6300.)
COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
Five "Experts" Excepted from   Competitive Examination in
One Small Committee of the Board of Estimate.
Another commission created by the Board of Estimate during
the year 1914, which resulted in further abuse of the merit system,
is the Committee on Taxation, of which Laurence Tanzer is sec



67


retary. Mr. Tanzer was appointed under 12-6 as an expert on
" investigation of public questions" on June 26th, and he appointed a stenographer and a clerk. The Committee on Taxation
which includes several prominent advocates of the single tax program, appointed Dr. Robert Murray Haig as "expert," to visit
various cities in the United States and Canada, "to make an investigation of the system of adjusting or relieving improvements
from taxation," and Mitchell P. Talmage "to investigate systems
of special assessments in force in various cities." (P. 4517.) Dr.
Haig has two assistants also engaged under the "expert" provision of Rule 12, one of them a student at Columbia University
who is arranging his statistical data, and the other who is acting
as stenographer (p. 4520); the former at $1.00 and the latter at
75 cents per hour. Mr. Talmage was still on his tour of investigation when Secretary Tanzer testified on December 16. His
compensation agreed in advance, is $600 and expenses for three
months, the compensation for Dr. Haig being $1,000 and expenses.
Dr. Haig's tour was finished at the time Mr. Tanzer testified and
he was preparing his report for the committee. The records of
the municipal commission show that Mr. Talmage was employed
by the Bureau of Municipal Research prior to his employment as
" expert," and that he studied for six months in the office of the
tax commissioner. Beyond that, his interest in taxation was confined to the management of his own property. Mr. Talmage is 28
years old.
Secretary Tanzer, whose salary is $4,000 per annum, was.asked
if he consulted the records of the municipal reference library for
information on taxation in various cities. He testified (p. 4532):
"There was a good deal of information there.   Q. Covering
many cities in the United States? A. Yes. Q. Canada?    A.
Yes. Q. Europe? A. Yes. Q. Australia? A. Yes.       Q. Did
you find information there covering the cities visited by Dr.
Haig? A. Some of them. Q. Which cities that Dr. Haig visited
did you find reports on or material with reference to the taxation in
those cities, in the municipal reference library? * * * A.
I am unable to state that. It may be that the municipal reference
library contained information from all of those cities, but I am




68


quite sure it contained none of the information which Dr. Haig
was sent out to get."
A commission to develop new sources of city revenues sat for
three years during the administration of the late Mayor Gaynor
and rendered a report within two years including special assessments.
STANDARDIZATION EXPERTS
"Assistant Salary Standardization 'Experts"' Changed Into
"Salary and Grade Examiners" and Maintained in "Emergency" Positions in Violation of Civil Service Rules.
The provisions of the Civil Service Law and rules were repeatedly violated by the municipal commission in order to enable the
Bureau of Standards of the Board of Estimate to continue the
services of so-called "experts  in "standardizing" salaries of
city employes. In practically every case, the witness testified that
he had no knowledge whatever of the work for which he was employed at $6, $8 or $10 per day, and several of them testified that
they lived outside of New York city prior to their appointment.
Practically all of them testified that they were appointed through
influential friends and that they were unacquainted with the head
of the Bureau, (then the Committee on Standardization of Salaries,) when they received their appointment under the Rule 12,
Par. 6. This was during the year 1913 and their designation as
"expert " under the 12-6 clause, was renewed by the present municipal commission in 1914.
In every case where such appointment was renewed, the municipal commission violated the provisions of Rule 12, paragraphs 3
and 4, in continuing these so-called "experts" in office as temporary and provisional appointees beyond the allotted period.
In two cases, the Municipal Commission continued the employment of provisional appointees who were barred from entering the
competitive examination because they were over age.
The case of George W. Francis, is probably the most flagrant
because Mr. Francis acknowledged on the witness stand that he
had collected political campaign contributions from employes of
the bureau, in the fall of 1913, and turned the full amount, $475,




69


over to a superior in the office. Mr. Francis was still employed as
"salary standardization expert " at $3,000 per year, at the time
the investigation closed (January 22, 1915). He testified before
the State Commission on December 9, 1914, as follows: (p. 3796.)
" Q. Did you not collect any contributions in the office —in the
building during office hours? A. Did I collect any contributions?
By President Neu:
Q. You understand English, you don't have to ask the question
again? A. I did not have to collect it, the money was passed to
me.
Q. Who gave it to you? A. The man who volunteered the contributions. Q. Who were they?
Q. How much did Mr. Pemberton give you? A. I don't remember. *   *   *  Q. How much did Mr. Newell give you?
A. I don't remember.
Q. How much did you contribute? A. $20. Q. Did each of
the others contribute the same amount? A. I don't think so. Q.
Some more? A. Some less. Q. Some $15? A. Yes, sir. Q.
Some $10? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many contributed? How
much did you receive entirely? A. The sum total of $475. Q.
What did you do with the money? A. It was given to the campaign committee of the comptroller. Q. Who was the campaign
committee? A. Mr. Hervey was chairman, I believe. Q. To
whom did you give the money? A. Mr. Hervey. Q. Do you
know what Mr. Hervey did with it? A. No, sir. Q. The money
was contributed by how many employes in the Standardization
Bureau? A. I won't say positively, I don't remember exactly
but it was around 20 to 22, probably 25. Q. Did any refuse to
contribute? A. They volunteered the contribution. *  *  *
Q. Who made the collections? A. They came to me with the money.
Q. Who gave you the money? A. They gave me the money.
Q. (p. 3806.) Did you give any receipts to any persons that
contributed to the campaign? A. No, sir. *  *  *  Q. Did
you know that it was a misdemeanor to make these collections?
A. If a man volunteers it? Q. Did you know it was a misdemeanor to take it in your office? Did you know this is a violation
of section 26 of the State Civil Service Law? A. I candidly
admit, I did not."




70


Half a dozen " salary and grade examiners " testified that Francis sent them out in automobiles several days during the political
campaign of 1913, to distribute slides of a candidate for re-election, to moving picture houses throughout the city, and one-of
them testified that he and others in the office addressed thousands
of circular campaign letters to members of the Knights of Columbus organization by direction of Mr. Francis.
Mr. Francis was appointed an assistant salary standardization
"expert" at $10 per day on February 1, 1913, under the 12-6
rule excepting him from competitive examination. He testified
that prior to that time he had worked in Panama; that he was an
inspector for the government and that his work in Panama ceased
in January, 1913 (p. 3792). He said he had been in New York
city only three weeks prior to his appointment in the city service.
Q. (p. 3792.)  How did you get your position? A. As what?
Q. The position you now hold? How did it originally come to
you? A. Appointed by Mr. Tirrell and Mr. Hervey. Q. How
did you get to him? A. Let us see - I don't know just how,- 1
was told by Mr. Sands of the Bureau of Municipal Research that
there were certain positions that would be open, and that Mr.
Hervey and Mr. Tirrell would be the men to appoint.
" Q. Mr. Sands sent you over to Mr. Hervey and Mr. Tirrell?
A. He did not send me; he gave me his card to Mr. Hervey and
to Mr. Tirrell. * * *. Q. Were you employed at once? How
long before you were employed? A. No; it was probably two or
three weeks."
Mr. Francis was continued as a 12-6 appointee until the end
of 1913 and his services were renewed under the same provision
as "expert" until April 29, when the position of salary and
grade examiner was created by the board of aldermen. He was
then appointed under rule 12, paragraph 4, providing for emergency appointment, which was continued under paragraph 3 of
the same rule on June 29, pending the promulgation of an eligible
list for the position. The municipal commission deliberately violated the provisions of both paragraphs 3 and 4 of rule 12 when
they retained Francis more than one month as an emergency appointee and when they permitted him to remain longer than two
months as a provisional pending the promulgation of the eligible




71


list. Francis remained a provisional from June 29th to December 9th, the date he testified, a period of more than five months,
and an emergency appointee from April 29th to June 29th, a
period of two months.
In the case of William Van Wert, also salary and grade examiner in the same bureau, the municipal commission not only violated the provisions of rule 12, paragraphs 3 and 4 to permit him
to continue in the service but they favored Van Wert with a
second noncompetitive examination after he failed to pass the
first, to make him eligible for the competitive examination. Van
Wert could not have been legally paid for the period of his provisional appointment under 12-3 had he not been passed in the
noncompetitive examination.  Mr. Van Wert was employed at
the rate of $6 per day on July 1, 1913. His employment was
renewed under 12-6 as an " expert" by the present municipal
commission until May 1, 1914, when he was changed into an
emergency appointment under 12-4. He continued under 12-4
until July 2 (one month longer than the rule allows), when he
became a provisional appointee under 12-3, and he was still carried as a provisional appointee when he testified on December
11th, exceeding the limit of time prescribed by more than three
months.
Mr. Van Wert's mark in the first noncompetitive examination
was 59 per cent, and then, by waiving rule 7, paragraph 12, the
municipal commission ordered a re-examination. Examiner Fuld,
who marked the papers in both examinations, testified he prepared both sets of questions and that he gave Van Wert the
passing mark of 70 per cent. on the second examination. "Q.
(p. 4330) On what ground was he re-examined? Why did the
re-examination take place? Why was he re-examined, that is the
question? A. I do not know; the commission decided that another examination should be given to him. * * *. Q. How
often does it occur that those who fail in noncompetitive examinations are rerated? You say it happens frequently. How frequently? A. Well, it is pretty hard to say; I should say perhaps
half a dozen times a year."
The first examination for Van Wert was on June 2, 1914. The
second on June 26th. The provision of rule 7, paragraph 12,




72


which was waived by the commission to enable Van Wert to take
a second noncompetitive examination, provides that no person who
fails in a noncompetitive examination shall be permitted to take
a second examination until after nine months, provided that
" for reasons to be set forth in its minutes this provision may be
waived by the commission with relation to all such candidates in
a given examination, but not to any individual."
'Secretary Belcher of the municipal commission contends that
since Van Wert was the only candidate in the noncompetitive
examination who failed that he was not barred by the rule from
another examination to qualify for provisional appointment. If
more than one person failed, Mr. Belcher contends, Van Wert
could not have been given a second examination alone.
Mr. Fuld was asked (p. 4337): "Q. Do you consider that
the questions asked in the first examination papers aided Mr. Van
Wert in his answer to the second examination? A. It is rather
difficult to answer that question because naturally the taking of
one examination would be of assistance to any one in taking a
subsequent examination. However, the questions were entirely
different in the two examinations so far as they could be made
different and yet maintain the proper parallelism."
The minutes of the municipal commission for June 17, 1914,
contain a communication from the director of the bureau of standards requesting that Van Wert be given a second opportunity to
qualify for temporary appointment under 12-3 on the ground
that the questions asked in the noncompetitive examination on
which he failed had to do with matters relating to departments
with which he had no experience as salary standardization " expert." The letter from Secretary Belcher to the State Commission on December 8 bearing on this point explains that Mr. Van
Wert had given practically all his attention to the department of
public charities, and for that reason his knowledge was " specialized." The second examination included questions relating to the
departments of charities and health, in both of which Mr. Van
Wert had been employed.
Mr. Van Wert was asked (p. 4045):    Q. Had you learned
anything from your first examination that was of value in answering the questions on your second examination? A. Why, some



73


what; I knew the method under which the examinations were
held and some of the questions as to duties of other employees in
other departments I had gone over and studied. Q. Some of the
questions were almost alike, weren't they? A. Some of them were.
* * *. Q. (p. 4046) You were helped in answering the questions in your second examination by your experience in the first
examination to some extent? A. A limited extent, yes."
Mir. Van Wert testified that " someone" recommended him for
the position and that he took a letter of introduction from this
" party" to Mr. Tirrell and Mr. Hervey, who appointed him.
lle was put to work drawing " functional charts" of various city
departments under direction of Mr. Francis (p. 4054), and in his
experience paper on the noncompetitive examination he mentions
the fact that he had had one year's experience drawing " rough
detail service charts of several departments " and "by continued
assignment to these duties at Bellevue and allied hospitals and
hospitals controlled by the department of health."
Fulton Colville, who lives in Atlanta, Ga., up to two and a half
years prior to his being employed by this city as " assistant salary
standardization expert " at $10 per day on January 7, 1913, testified that prior to his employment he was engaged in writing articles
for magazines and newspapers (p. 4060). " Q. Had you any experience in appraising the value of employees in city, state or
nation? A. No, not as such. Q. Had you any business with any
department of the City of New York prior to your appointment?
A. I had not. Q. (p. 4059) How did your appointment come
about, Mr. Colville? A. Why, I wanted a position and asked
some of my friends who were connected with the city, who knew
the place and one of them suggested this. They called up Mr.
Tirrell over the telephone and introduced me and I went over
and had a chat with him and he asked me my qualifications and
that I should write him a letter, and state what I had been doing
and give reference."
Mr. Colville was continued as an " expert " under rule 12, paragraph 6, by the present municipal commission, until the position
of " salary and grade examiner" was established on April 30,
after which he was changed into a 12-4 emergency employee and
then into a provisional appointee under 12-3, violating both pro



74


visions of rule 12, the same as was done in the case of Francis
and Van Wert. He was put on a $2,400 salary basis when the
new positions were created.
Edward H. Osborne was another " assistant salary standardization expert " turned into a " salary and grade examiner " when
that position was created. Mr. Osborne testified that he was appointed on December 31, 1912, under rule 12, paragraph 6, at $8
per day and that his limit of compensation was raised and he was
carried along under that provision until May 1, 1914, when his
compensation was changed to $2,100 per year. Mr. Osborne was
asked if he entered the competitive examination for the position
of salary and grades examiner held shortly before he testified on
December 9, he replied (p. 3770): "They would not let me.
Q. Because you are too old. A. Yes. Q. You are still continued
as a provisional employee? A. Yes."
Besides being carried longer than one month, from May 1 to
June 29, 1914, under rule 12, paragraph 4, he was continued for
more than five months under 12-3, his service under that provision
being limited to two months. Rule 12, paragraph 4, provides for
appointment to fill a vacancy in case of emergency and no
" emergency" existed in the case of Mr. Osborne or the other
"salary and grade examiners" who were appointed on April 30
or May 1 under 12-4. Mr. Osborne was asked what created the
emergency (p. 3777) and he replied that he knew of no
" emergency " because he had not been dropped from the service.
"I have never been dismissed, that is all I can answer to that
question."
There is no record that either Mr. Osborne or any of the other
12-4 appointees who were working under the 12-6 provision,
were dropped from the service prior to their 12-4 appointment.
It may be contended that the emergency was automatically created
when the position of "salary and grade examiner" was established by the board of aldermen. The contention rests only on the
supposition that the chief of the bureau of standards had it in
mind to dismiss his 12-6 and 12-4 appointees and reappoint them
at the same time. No such intention is visible in any of the
records submitted at the examination. Mr. Osborne was asked
(p. 3780) "Q. Never had anything to do with standardization




75


of salaries or grades?  A. No, sir. Q. Whatever you know or
learned about that you learned after you went into this position,
didn't you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It didn't require any exceptional or especial scientific knowlQ. It didn't require any exceptional or especial scientific knowledge, did it  A. No, I don't think so. Q. Did you have any experience in city or state employment before you went there? A.
No, sir."
Though Mr. Osborne, like Mr. Colville, was prohibited from
entering the regular competitive examination for the position of
" salary and grade examiner " because he was over 50 years of age,
neither he nor Mr. Colville were prohibited from continuing in
their position as provisional appointees and acquiring experience
that qualified them for the work.
Fred T. Newell, another "salary and grade examiner" testified that he was in the insurance business prior to his appointment
in February, 1913, that he lived out of town up to about a month
before he was appointed "assistant salary standardization expert" at $8 per day; that he was raised to $10 per day in August,
1913, without examination (p. 3828) and that he continued on
that basis until put on an annual salary the end of April, 1914,
when the position of "salary and grade examiner" was established. His salary is $3,000 per annum. Mr. Newell testified
that he had known Mr. Tirrell, director of the bureau of standards " ten or twelve years " (p. 3829), that he learned " they were
going to make an investigation of some of the city departments"
(p. 3830) and that he applied for a position. The provisions of
paragraphs 3 and 4 of rule 12 were violated in his case, by the
present municipal commission, the same as in the cases of other
" salary and grade examiners " just cited.
Mr. Newell was asked (p. 3831) "Q. You never worked in
any of the city departments or any of the state departments? A.
No, sir.  Q. Know nothing about the inside workings of the
municipal or state offices? A. No, not when I came in. Q. Not
until you got the job? A. No. Q. You learned it after that?
A. Yes."
The commission examined eleven other " assistant salary standardization experts" appointed in December, 1912, or in 1913 at




76


$4, $6 and $8 per day. None of them knew anything about the
work they were engaged to perform prior to their appointment as
"experts" and practically all of them testified they were ap
pointed through influential friends. (See testimony of Walter A.
Johnson, p. 4093), Hoey and Jennessy (p. 3629), Peter B. Scanlon (p. 3644), Walter F. Clayton (p. 3662), Mortimer Green (p.
3680), Wm. L. Kavanagh (p. 3693), Julian B. Thomas (p. 3720),
Frederick C. Schmidt (p. 3736), Wm. W. Colne (p. 3740), James
C. Wilson (p. 3784), and Walter A. Johnson (p. 4093). Some of
them were dismissed after the election in November, 1913, and the
remainder in February, 1914. Two or three of them, according
to Mr. Tirrell, director of the bureau of standards, were dismissed
soon after their appointment on the ground that they were not
qualified.
BOARD OF EDUCATION
"Inspector of Masons' Material " Buys Pianos- "Inspectors of
Masonry and Carpentry" Buy Furniture in Board of
Education.
The building bureau of the board of education furnishes a
grotesque violation of civil services in the case of Caleb Cameron
"inspector of masons' material." Mr. Cameron is a relative by
marriage of C. B. J. Snyder, superintendent of buildings, and
has occupied a position in the bureau since 1895. He receives
$2,860 per year, which is nearly $1,000 more than is paid to other
" inspectors of masons' material," and has never passed a civil
service examination for his position.
Mr. Cameron testified that he was not a mason by trade when
appointed to the position (p. 3602), and that part of his time
is occupied purchasing pianos and writing specifications for
pianos for the new schoolhouses; also preparing the city's defense
for the corporation counsel in suits brought by contractors on new
school buildings (p. 3594). Mr. Cameron testified that he has
purchased pianos for new schools for many years, and he acknowledged that he had never constructed a piano or organ though he
prepares the specifications for these instruments. " Q. (p. 3598)
How do you qualify to write specifications for pianos when you




77


are an inspector of mason&' material? A. Well, I am a musician.
I have been an organist.  *  *   *.   Q. (p. 3602) What are
your qualifications for inspector of masons' material?  Did you
pass an examination for the position?  A. No.   *  *   *  Q.
What is your trade? A. I had not any trade. Q. You are not a
builder, a mason, a stone mason or anything of that kind? Never
worked at any of those things before you became inspector? A.
No, sir."
Mr. Cameron testified that he inspects the cement, limestone,
enamel brick and bluestone received by the city for use in its
school buildings, and that he occasionally goes out of town to
inspect materials before they are sent to see that specifications
are complied with.
Trimble Foster, an "inspector of masonry and carpentry,"
testified that he was in charge of the furniture division of the
building bureau; that for seven years he has inspected furniture,
not masonry or carpentry, and that he has other "inspectors of
masonry and carpentry " inspecting furniture for him, such as
desks, chairs, etc. Mr. Foster's roster card gives his designation
as "building inspector," though he is entered on the payroll of
the board of education as " inspector of masonry and carpentry."
(See Payrolls, pp. 6552-3).
Several other "inspectors of masonry and carpentry testified
before the commission that they were performing the duties of
general inspectors on new school buildings," that they were responsible for all the work done by subcontractors on these buildings; that they inspect iron work, steel, plastering, all kinds of
repairs, the installation of plumbing, electrical and steam heating
plants and the construction of fireproof stairways.  (iSee testimony of Samuel Lord (p. 3612); Daniel J. Gillespie (p. 3616),
James R. Mulligan (p. 3621), James Quinn (p. 3624), Patrick
F. Harney (p. 3626).
Payrolls were inspected by the State Civil Service Commission
and it was found, as in other cases, that'the officials of the department had made the usual false certificates that the inspectors
had performed only the work appropriate to their civil service
titles.




78


LAW DEPARTMENT
Law Department Employees Favored by Questions in Examination for "Law Examiner."
On November 9, 1914, the municipal commission held an examination for " examiner law department," and complaints were received by the,State Commission that two of the ten questions
favored candidates in the office of the corporation counsel. The
questions complained of are, " What is meant by' vouching in?' "
and " What is meant by ' an action over?' "
In explaining the reason for these questions, Examiner Elmer
G. Story, in a letter to the chief examiner of the municipal commission, to whom the complaints were referred, wrote: "The
expression 'vouching in' is a familiar one in connection with the
duties of the position, also it is one frequently used in law offices
and claim departments having to do with negligence cases." He
also says, with reference to the other question, "What is meant
by ' an action over,'" as follows: " I think the expression is
known to investigators outside as well as inside of the corporation
counsel's office."
The State Commission wrote to the claim department of the
Brooklyn Rapid Transit Railroad asking if the two expressions
used in the examination were known to them and received the
following response (p. 6313):
" Replying to your favor of the 21st instant, I beg to say that
the terms 'vouching in' and ' an action over' has never been used
by this department." Signed, I. Isaacson Gen'l Claim Ag't.
In view of this statement the municipal commission should
revise the questions in the examination so that no advantage is
given to candidates employed in the city's law department where
the two expressions are commonly used.
CIVIL SERVICE RULES VIOLATED IN CITY'S LAW DEPARTMENT
The provisions of the civil service rules are violated in many
departments of the city government, including the municipal
civil service commission itself; and there are violations even in
the city's law department. Joel J. Squier, assistant corporation




79


counsel in charge of the bureau of street opening, was summoned
as a witness. He testified frankly and acknowledged that fully
a dozen employees in his bureau were working outside of their
civil service titles. He told of a clerk in his office who is generally engaged in preparing legal papers, and who examines the
qualifications of condemnation commissioners before the Supreme
Court; of a clerk who does computer's work though there is a
civil service classification for both; and of computers who do
clerical work (p. 3515); of two clerks who do stenographic work
though there are lists for both clerks and stenographers in existence; and of other employees whose services are not according
to their civil service designations.
POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS
Many assignments of uniformed policemen and firemen to
duties other than those performed by the rank and file in the departments, were reported to the State Commission, which obtained
from both departments lists of uniformed men so detailed. In
most instances, the detail seemed unavoidable though in others
the detail was improper. On the whole, this commission is satisfied that the wrong assignments will be or have been corrected.
" OCCASIONAL " SERVICE FOR LONG PERIODS
"Experts" Appointed for "Occasional" Service.   Have Held
Office Several Years By Consent of Municipal Commission.
A striking illustration of the abuse of the 12-6 rule is the
case of W. Richmond Smith, chief of the Division of Supplies,
Bureau of Standards of the Board of Estimate. Mr. Smith was
appointed on May 1, 1910, as "expert statistician" at $3,600
per year and his 12-6 designation renewed each year including
1914, when his compensation was raised to $5,000. During the
past two years he was designated on the roster cards of the municipal commission as " expert in charge," his function of " statistician " having descended to a successor at $3,000 per year.
Mr. Smith testified on December 21, last, that he was not a
citizen of the United States (p. 4857); that he had been in this




so


country since 1907 (p. 4859); that he secured employment on
a New York newspaper and after two years was employed by the
comptroller as "expert," in 1910.  Mr. Smith testified that
he was not originally appointed as " expert statistician," but as
" expert in charge of the bureau of standards " (p. 4834) though
he acknowledged that when first appointed he took the minutes
of the meeting of the Commission of "experts" who were
appointed to " standardize " specifications for supplies. Two of
these "experts " had been appointed under the 12-6 rule, while
the others on the commission were drawing pay from the city
through various city departments, or were giving their services
as " experts" gratis. One of these " experts" appointed under
12-6 was Col. Charles N. Swift, who appeared as a witness and
testified (p. 4872):
" Q. What did the Committee do when it organized  A. Well,
when the committee was first organized, it appointed a clerk, the
chief clerk, Mr. Smith was brought in, and Mr. Fisher said:
' This will be our chief clerk. He has some knowledge as an
expert.' Q. Did Mir. Fisher say what kind of an expert Mr.
Smith was? A. No, he did not. Q. Did Mr. Smith take the
minutes of the meeting? A. Yes, he always took the minutes."
Mr. Smith's employment under 12-6 is a clear violation of
the intent and purpose of the rule which contemplates only
"occasional" services and not such as rendered continuously by
XMr. Smith. Mr. Smith testified that following his employment
as "expert" without civil service competition, he acquired considerable knowledge of the work required for the conduct of the
supply division of the bureau of standards. " Q. (p. 4857) You
learned a great deal about standardizing after you were appointed
to the position, didn't you, Mr. Smith? A. Naturally."
The municipal commission made no effort to correct the method
of Mr. Smith's employment, continuing him throughout the year
1914 as a 12-6 appointee, after four years of service under the
same classification. The fact that Mr. Smith acquired "expertness " in the service is no vindication of his appointment which
contemplates only " occasional " and temporary service.
A further abuse of the merit system in the division of supplies,
bureau of standards, is the case of John F. Donovan "expert




81


statistician" at $3,000 per year. Mr. Donovan was appointed
under 12-6 in 1911 at $1,800, and he has been carried under the
exception clause ever since. Donovan's exception was renewed
by the present municipal commission, on January 1, 1914 and
1915.
The division of supplies also employs a "price expert" at the
rate of $2,000 per year, his appointment under 12-6 having begun
on November 12, 1912. It was renewed a year later and was
continued through the year 1914 by the present municipal commission. It was not until November 16, 1914, after two years
as a 12-6 appointee, that the municipal commission ordered an
examination for the position held by Mr. Roure, the "price
expert" (p. 4551); this action being taken three months after
the investigation of the municipal commission began.
Prior to his employment as a "price expert " Mr. Roure was
engaged following the ticker in a newspaper office and reporting
the fluctuations of the stock market. He had no experience whatever in the purchase or sale of commodities or in the fluctuation
of prices through service in any of the commercial exchanges.
The title of " price expert" is a misfit and should be changed to
more closely apply to the position.
The intent and purpose of rule 12, paragraph 6, was violated
in the appointment of J. Raymond Kiefer as " expert examiner "
on June 9, 1914, at the rate of $8 per day. Mr. Kiefer had
been a 12-6 appointee as " special investigator" since August 18,
1913, employed by the bureau of standards, supply division. His
appointment was a renewal of his previous engagement. The
12-6 rule provides for the employment of persons "in private
life." Mr. Kiefer was an inspector in the bureau of highways,
Manhattan, prior to his appointment in August, 1913, and
previous to that was for four years inspector and engineer in the
board of water supply. His rate of compensation was changed
from $8 per day to $2,100 per year in September, 1914, when
the grade of "examiner of purchase and supplies" was established, but no record of his emergency appointment under 12-4.
No request for the extension of his compensation beyond the
limit of $750 provided under 12-6 has been made to the
municipal commission, and Kiefer swore (December 16) that he




82


had drawn no pay since September when the limit of the $750
compensation was reached (p. 4661).
No competitive examination for the position of " examiner of
purchase and supplies" has been called by the municipal commission and Kiefer and another person, Joseph Byrne, hold that
position without civil service warrant.  They are both 12-6
appointees and Kiefer testified (p. 4651) they have been doing
the same work since and before their re-appointment in June,
1914.
"EXPERTS   WHO DREW FANCY SALARIES FROM THE CITY
A flood of light was shed on the subject of "experts" employed by the city by the testimony of F. C. Rippon, who was
engaged as " expert accountant" for the committee on school inquiry, of which John Purroy Mitchel, then president of the board
of aldermen, was chairman. Mr. Rippon's compensation was $8
per day and he continued under rule 12, paragraph 6, from December 23, 1912, to January 24, 1914, when he became secretary
of the department of correction. Mr. Rippon testified that he
was glad he did not have to serve as an " expert " any longer. He
felt more comfortable as a plain secretary (p. 5454). Mr. Rippon testified that he received $2,400 per year with the Efficiency
and Economy Commission in Washington in 1912, and that following that employment he came to this city, having been introduced by a Mr. Proctor, who worked with him in Washington.
He said he lived in Philadelphia prior to going to Washington
and that he lived in New York City only from the time his employment began. He secured his appointment as secretary to the
correction department through Deputy Commissioner Lewis, and
his salary was increased from $2,500 to $3,000 on January 1,
1915. As secretary he is a member of the promotion board in
the department, though not a competitive civil service employee
himself.
Mr. Rippon testified that he understood an "efficiency engineer" to be one who was able "to criticise and invent new
methods " and that if he didn't find anything to criticise he would
not have a job. He said "efficiency engineers" made many reports and wrote up many statistical cards, and that very often the
data compiled by them is filed away and never used (p. 6453).




83


In this connection, the testimony of Edmund D. Fisher, deputy
comptroller, and George L. Tirrell, director of the bureau of
standards, is interesting. Both said they had little faith in the
title of "expert" or "efficiency engineer;" that the title meant
nothing to them with regard to the relative ability of individuals.
The school inquiry committee, which finished its work in December, 1913, employed many high-priced "experts," one of
whom, Dr. Frank P. Bachman, employed through the influence
of the bureau of municipal research, drew more than $7,000 up
to the end of 1913, and he drew $1,560 from January 1 to June
24, 1914. He was carried as an "expert" under rule 12, paragraph 6, up to December 31, 1913, and on January 1, 1914, was
continued under 12-3 as a provisional employee until his services
ceased, more than six months later. The spirit of civil service
law and the intent of the provision under which he was appointed
were violated by the municipal commission, which continued him
under 12-3 four months longer than provided under the provision.
Efforts to locate Dr. Bachman were unavailing.
W. F. Clowes, another " expert " for the board of estimate, was
carried under 12-6 at $8 per day as "manuscript editor" until
July 9, 1914, having drawn $2,140, and Tristram W. Metcalfe
and George W. Goeller have continued as " publicity experts " for
the board of education for several years, the limit of their compensation being $750 a year.
Another "expert" was employed by the committee on school
inquiry at $20 per day for nine months. Deputy Commissioner
of Correction Lewis, who represented Mr. Mitchel on the committee, said the money paid to him was wasted, because his report
was rejected.
Louis B. Blan, who conducted an educational news service, was
engaged by the committee on school inquiry as "educational expert " at $15 per day on January 24, 1913. He was continued
under that designation and the limit of his compensation raised
from $750 to $3,970 within the year. 1Blan was re-employed as
an " examiner of accounts" in the office of commissioner of accounts in April, 1914, and he has drawn at the rate of $3,000
per year since. The position of "examiner of accounts" is exempt, because the service performed by such employees is con



84


sidered confidential. The testimony of Mir. Blan shows that he
has virtually acted as publicity agent for the municipal administration since he became " examiner of accounts" (p. 5014).
FINANCE DEPARTMENT'S EMPLOYEES WORKING AS "EXEMPT"
IN SPITE OF FACT THAT EXEMPTIONS WERE DENIED
The State Commission discovered that in the case of Paul
Loeser, Joseph H. Eustace and Robert G. Newbegin the denial
by the municipal commission of the request for their exemption
under 12-5 was circumvented by their retention on the payroll
of the comptroller's office though they were doing the service for
which their exemption was requested. Mr. Loeser, who holds an
exempt position as "expert accountant" in the finance department, testified on December 14th that since April, 1914, he has
been employed in the bureau of standards of the board of estimate (p. 4258) as assistant to Director Tirrell. According to
the minutes of the municipal commission, read in evidence (p.
4260), the board of estimate organization committee, of which
the comptroller is a member, requested the exemption of Loeser
and the two others mentioned. The request was denied on June
3d, two months after ILoeser began work with the bureau of standards, and Eustace and Newbegin in the bureau of contract supervision of the board of estimate, under Director Adamson. Neither
Loeser nor Eustace nor Newbegin have been restored to their
former places in the finance department and were at work in their
new positions at the time they were summoned to testify, Loeser
on December 14 and Eustace and Newbegin on a subsequent date,
in spite of the fact that their exemptions had not been granted.
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN
flow Peter Ward Brennan Became an Exempt Supervisor of
Recreation.
By action of the Municipal Civil Service Commission, March 4,
1914, Peter Ward Brennan was excepted from examination under
the provisions of clause 5 of Rule XII, for appointment as supervisor of recreation in the department of parks, Borough of Brooklyn, salary $1,200 per annum. The commissioner of parks, in




85


that borough, requested that the position be exempted under the
title supervisor of play-grounds, but the request was denied, without prejudice to the submission of an application for suspension
of the rule requiring examination in the case of a particular individual. The refusal of the municipal commission to exempt the
position was based, on the ground that the compensation was too
low to make competition practicable. The municipal commission
states that it was satisfied with Brennan's qualifications and,
therefore, approved his appointment. Later in the year, when the
State commission raised the question as to the propriety of this
action, the municipal commission concluded, quoting from its
annual report, that its action " had not been strictly in keeping
with the provisions of the rule and it, therefore, rescinded its
action and ordered a competitive examination."  The excuse for
the error in the case of Mr. Brennan, is given in the language of
the municipal commission as follows: " In the past, exceptions
under rule XII, clause 5, have been allowed without full and detailed information as to the candidate's qualifications."
The investigation into the case of Brennan came about through
the suspension of Herman Fels, who was gymnasium attendant, for
alleged neglect of duty. It appears that he had an unfair trial.
He was " undesirable " because he insisted that Mr. Brennan was
not professionally qualified for the place to which he had been
appointed, and that some of his statements with reference to previous employment, were not true. He and a Mr. Friedman considered that they had a right to compete for the position. Fels testified that Brennan, who made the alleged false charge against
him, said that he would make an example of him because he was
keeping a diary (of events in the department). This matter was
pending before our commission and the witnesses were present at
many hearings before they were called. The action of the local
commission was not taken until after the witnesses, Fels and Friedman, had been seen in the hearing room and the local commission
was fully aware that the matter was to be taken up by our commission.
Mr. Brennan was dropped from his position by order of the
local commission, but he was still continued in the employ of the
park department in Brooklyn when this investigation closed.
(See pp. 2920, 2922, and 2942.)




How Henry Wilkens was Changed from " Food Inspector" to
"Inspector of Repairs and Supplies" and to "Confidential
Inspector."
An interesting witness before the commission was Henry Wilkens, employed as " confidential inspector " in the charities department. Mr. Wilkens testified that he was employed on January 19, 1914, as "food inspector" at $1,200 per year; that he
continued under a 12-4 designation until April 17, when he became a 12-3 provisional appointee, and continued as such until
September 6, when he resigned because an eligible list was promulgated. He was not on the list, not having entered the examination, and he was carried for four and a half months as a provisional appointee when the limit of time provided under the rule was
two months. Mr. Wilkens testified that his non-competitive examination included twelve questions on food, but that he was not
examined as to his feet, heart, lungs or body though the position
of food inspector requires considerable walking.  (p. 1215.)
From September 6 to October 6 Mr. Wilkens was carried as an
"inspector of repairs and supplies" at $1,650 per year, and that
from October 6 to the time he testified, he was "confidential inspector" in the Charities Department at $1,350 per year. He
acknowledged that though he has had three titles and salaries
since his services began, his work has never been changed. Mr.
Wilkens was asked how the change to confidential inspector was
made and he replied (p. 1213) "I was merely notified by Mr.
Borden that my services as 'inspector of repairs and supplies'
terminated. I then asked him- I said 'I walked out then.' I
was notified by Mr. Borden to wait a few days, and then I was appointed confidential inspector."
Examiner Instructed to Give Credit for Experience to "Temporary" Salary and Grade Examiners.
In connection with the examination for " Salary and Grade Examiner" recently held, the testimony of special examiner Thomas
Garrett, Jr., shows that special advantage was given those who
were appointed temporarily to the position with the consent of
the municipal commission. Mr. Garrett testified on January 15
(p. 6499): " Q. Did you take into consideration and give credit




87


for experience to those who were working on the Board of Estimate
Committee as salary and grade examiners  A. Yes. Q. What
was your instruction in reference to that  A. I was instructed
by the Commission to give credit for the service in that position.
* * * Q. Did you understand that those persons who were
working as salary and grade examiners were temporary employees?
A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you say in advance to your co-examiner, Mr.
Storey, or to the Commission, that you did not think any credit
should be granted for such experience? A. I knew the rules were
such that under ordinary circumstances credit should not be given
for experience in some positions of that sort, on account of the holding over under temporary appointment. Q. And when you began
to mark the papers did you begin with instructions to give credit
for such experience, and did you mark them without giving credit
for such experience? A. I marked them without giving credit at
all at the beginning. Q. And then what? A. And then I received
instructions to give credit for such service. Q. From whom were
those instructions? A. I have forgotten whether it was a letter
from Mr. Murray or from Mr. Ireland, I have forgotten which.
Q. From the Commission? A. From an officer of the Commission; it might have been Mr. Murray or Mr. Ireland; it might have
been the secretary; I have forgotten which."
CIVIL SERVICE RULES EVADED TO PROMOTE ENGINEER
C. U. POWELL
Civil Service rules were evaded and the evasion was concurred
in by the municipal commission, when Charles U. Powell was appointed assistant engineer in the Borough of Queens at $3,000 per
year on April 22, 1914, as a provisional appointee. Mr. Powell
continued under that provision until August 27th, when he was
favored with a promotion examination in which he himself was the
only candidate, passing with a percentage of 85.83. After that
date Mr. Powell became a permanent appointee as assistant engineer, Grade E, in charge of the Division of Substructure and Franchises in Queens Borough.
Mr. Powell failed to pass the promotion examination for assistant engineer, Grade E, held on June 10, 1913, at the request of the
president of Queens Borough. Nine candidates entered that ex



88


amination, of whom three passed, first on the list being Leon M.
Schoonmaker. Mr. Powell's mark was 67 per cent. on technical
knowledge, which disqualified him. In December, 1913, following this examination, the acting borough president of Queens requested the municipal commission to recognize the division of substructures and franchises, newly created, in promotion examinations.
On April 6, 1914, President Connolly of Queens Borough, requested that a promotion examination for assistant engineer, Grade
E, in the Division of Substructure and Franchises, be called. The
only person eligible was Mr. Powell, who, as stated, received a
passing mark. His salary was then increased permanently from
$2,250 to $3,000, at which rate he was paid since April 22d, when
he was provisionally appointed to the higher grade.
The work performed by Mr. Powell as chief of the division of
substructure and franchises was formerly performed by an assistant engineer in the topographical bureau, and the commission
is informed that the position was again incorporated in that branch
of the engineering service in Queens on January 1, 1915. It
would seem as if the division was created rather for the purpose
of advancing Mr. Powell than for facilitating or improving engineering service in Queens Borough. Mr. Powell was the only
engineer employed in the division since it was created. Mr.
Schoonmaker, who passed first on the promotion examination in
June, 1913, was promoted to principal assistant to the engineer
in charge of the topographical bureau.
Mr. Powell's provisional appointment from April 22 to August
27, 1914, exceeded the limit provided in paragraphs 3 and 4 of
rule 12, under which he was appointed, by one month. There
were other assistant engineers in Queens qualified for the promotion examination which Mr. Powell alone took, but the decision of
the commission to recognize the new division as a separate entity
in promotion examinations, debarred others from entering. (pp.
6314 and 5185.)
STATE COMMISSION'S REFUSAL To EXEMPT POSITIONS INFLUENCED MUNICIPAL COMMISSION
President Moskowitz prides himself on the fact that the municipal commission denied the request of President McAneny of the




89


board of aldermen, representing the members of the board of estimate, for the exemption of the positions of secretaries to the six
newly created committees of the board of estimate: the committee
on city plan, committee on social welfare, committee on port and
terminal facilities, committee on education, committee on markets
and committee on revision of city charter.
The request was not denied until after Samuel H. Ordway,
chairman of the executive committee of the civil service reform
association and George T. Keyes, assistant secretary of the association, appeared in opposition to the request at the meeting of
the municipal commission on May 6, and not until after the
State Commission declined to exempt from competitive examination, the position of assistant secretary to the mayor which had
been created for two incumbents.  This request to exempt the
positions was submitted to the State Commission by the municipal
commission early in the spring of 1914, and the State Commission
replied that it saw nothing of a confidential nature in the work
to be performed by these two assistant secretaries, particularly
since the mayor now had two exempt secretaries. Mayor Gaynor
had no assistant secretaries in his office.
In the case of the secretaryship of the committee on city plan,
the appointee, Robert H. Whitten, was excepted under 12-5 by
the municipal commission in spite of the protest of Mr. Keyes of
the reform association and in spite of the report of the advisory
board of the municipal commission composed of the assistant chief
examiners, who drew up a plan for an examination. In explaining why this plan was not carried out, President Moskowitz said
(p. 6479): " The commission- you see, when it considered the
name of Whitten, they thought that he represented such a high
type of person, such a high calibre, one of the leading men in the
city planning of the country, and in view of the fact that this
was a new departure, it wanted to experiment with some examinations, and it did, and in view of Mr. Whitten's very high
qualifications he was passed under the 12-5." (See section on
city plan committee.)
In the case of the committee of the board of education, Mrs.
Mathilda Ford, who is a civil service employee, was appointed to
the position which was classified, and Moses Altman, a civil




90


service employee, became secretary of the committee on charter
revision, which was also classified. That left only the committee
on social welfare, committee on markets and committee on port
and terminal facilities without secretaries. The request of Comptroller Prendergast and Dock Commissioner Smith to exempt
Kerner Easton, secretary to the committee on port and terminal
facilities, was granted by the municipal commission in spite of
Mr. Easton's confessed disqualification for the exemption (see report on Kerner Easton's exemption elsewhere); and the appointment of Anthony P. Ludden as secretary to the committee on
markets under 12-4, as an emergency appointee, was unwarranted
in the face of the adverse reports made by the examiners and
special examiners for the municipal commission (see report on
Ludden elsewhere).
The municipal commission, according to Dr. Moskowitz, has
advertised the examination for the position of secretary to the
committee on social welfare, and this is the only new secretarial
position in the board of estimate that has not yet been filled by
the person originally selected by the board when it requested
that all new secretarial positions be exempt. The net result of the
municipal commission's action in these cases is the same as if the
positions were exempted; the incumbents desired for them under
such exemption now occupy the positions. In order to accomplish
this result, the municipal commission deliberately violated the
intent and purpose of civil service rules when it permitted the appointment of Kerner Easton and Anthony P. Ludden to the secretaryships above mentioned.
After the State Commission denied the request of the municipal
body to exempt the two new positions of assistant secretary in the
mayor's office, Mayor Mitchel appointed E. Stagg Whitin as a
" temporary " assistant secretary on May 18. The municipal commission classified him under rule 12, paragraph 4, which permitted
his appointment for thirty days. He was carried under that provision until June 16 and his services were not discontinued until
October, exceeding the limit of the provision of paragraph 3, under
which he was continued from June 16, by about two months. In
order that the mayor might employ two new assistant secretaries,
it was necessary to create those positions by action of the board




91


of estimate and board of aldermen, and it was also necessary for
these two bodies to provide the funds. On a report submitted by
the comptroller, $13,250 was transferred from the department of
charities and from the bridge department to provide salaries for
the mayor's new secretaries and for other additional expenditures
by the mayor. E. Stagg Whitin was paid at the rate of $4,000
per year until it was decided to dispense with his services, a protest having been lodged with the municipal commission against
his appointment by fifth grade clerks on the preferred list, Coffey
and Curtis. The municipal commission ordered an examination
for the position of assistant secretary to the mayor after the request for exemption was denied by the 'State Commission, and
143 applications were filed. Twenty-three of these applicants
passed the experience test, when the examination was canceled.
The municipal commission spent time and money preparing for
the examination, and the applicants, including many newspaper
men, devoted considerable energy preparing for test before it
was called off. The refusal of the State Commission to exempt
these two places resulted in saving several thousand dollars in
salaries, and caused the mayor to suddenly realize that he could
get along without the assistants he so anxiously desired. (Probf
that he did not need what he said he needed.)
PROVISIONAL APPOINTMENTS UNDER MUNICIPAL 'CIVIL SERVICE
RULE XII, PARAGRAPH 3
From information furnished the State Civil Service Commission by the Municipal Civil Service Commission, during the
month of September, 1914, it appears that there were forty-five
provisional appointees holding positions at that time, as shown
by last payroll submitted, who had been designated during the
year 1913. These employees held the positions of bookkeeper,
chemist, assistant chemist, junior chemist, finger print expert,
inspector of sewer construction, probation officer, assistant pharmacists, steward and topographical draftsman. The appointments
date from March 24th for finger print expert to December 24th,
for bookkeeper. Lists for many of these positions were not established until late in the year 1914, and the provisional appointees
continued in office in most cases for a year or more, or until ap



92


pointed from the eligible list or superseded by other appointees.
In two cases, however, lists have not been established, namely,
chemist, department of health, and steward, department of charities. The three persons who were appointed provisionally to the
position of chemist, May 27, July 18, and December 9, 1913,
respectively, each at a salary of $1,200 per annum, we assume
are still in office, as the commission is informed by the chief payroll clerk, under date of January 15, 1915, that "up to the
present time there has been no list promulgated to fill vacancies
for this position."
One provisional appointment was made July 27, 1913, to the
position of steward, department of charities, salary $960 per
annum. The State Commission is advised that no list had been
promulgated for this position up to January 15, 1915, and that the
provisional appointee " is still retained in the service." It appears, therefore, that the chemist, who was appointed provisionally
in the department of health, May 27, 1913, has served approximately one year and eight months, and that the steward, who was
appointed provisionally in the department of charities, July 27,
1913, has served approximately one year and six months, notwithstanding the fact that the provisions of section 15, subdivision 1, of the Civil Service Law, provides that " provisional appointment shall not continue for a longer period than two
months."
During the year 1914, 345 appointments were made under the
provisions of civil service rule 12, paragraph 3, covering about seventy-five different kinds or groups of positions. In a great majority
of these cases, the lists were not established within the required
period of sixty days, particularly in the cases of bookkeeper, inspector of plumbing, hospital clerk (department of health), nurse
(department of health), finger print expert, assistant photographer, inspector of foods, trade instructor, auto truck driver,
pathological chemist, gardener, and many others. With the exception of the provisional appointees to the position of finger
print expert, list for which position was established September
23, 1914, and subsequently canceled, provisional appointees who
exceeded the statutory limitation ranged from sixty-three days
for the position of nurse, department of health, to 321 days, for
the position of bookkeeper, finance department.




93


There are still other positions which were filled by provisional
appointment during the year 1914, for which lists had not been
established up to January 15, 1915.  Among these are the
following:


Postion
Inspector of Fire Alarm  Boxes (Fire
Department)......................
Morgue Keeper (Department of Charities)..............................
Probation  Officer....................
Lumber Inspector, Department of Docks
and Ferries........................
Chemist, Department of Health........
Junior  Chemist.....................
Resident Physician, Department of Charities..............................
Resident Physician, Department of Correction...........................
Salary and Grade Examiner...........
Inspector, Board of Water Supply......
Gymnasium Attendant, Public Recreation  Commission..................
Superintendent of Asphalt Repairing
Plant.............................
Supervising Inspector, Borough President,  Manhattan..................


Provisional Appointment
June 19, 1914.
March 16, 1914.
April 16 and June 22, 1914.
April 17, 1914.
April 17, 1914.
June 8, 1914.
April 25 and May 1, 1914.
May 13, 1914.
June 29 and July 2, 1914.
July 21 and August 19, 1914.
August 11, 1914.
August 1, 1914.
August 19, 1914.


The periods of provisional employment vary, the longest being
for position of morgue keeper, department of charities, covering
approximately ten months.
In this connection, it seems pertinent that we briefly discuss the
so-called " special certificate," which was prepared by the municipal civil service commission in the year 1903, and which has
from time to come, been attached to payrolls. The certificate
reads as follows:
"I hereby certify that this payroll has been examined and in
so far as it applies to.................... for services rendered   as....................  from....................
to.................... is for a period subsequent to such
time as the municipal civil service commission could attach its
regular certificate; that, under the law and rules made in pursuance of law, no appointment for the period mentioned could
be made, that the services of the person named were immediately
necessary; that at the time these services were rendered, no eligible
list for the position in question could be or was certified by the
municipal civil service commission to the appointing officer to




94


fill such position, and pending the establishment of an eligible
list for temporary or permanent appointment, the payroll of the
person above named for services rendered, is owing to the peculiar
and unusual circumstances certified by the municipal civil service
commission, upon the grounds that the decisions of the courts
require payment of employees of the city who have performed
work for it and when no certification of an eligible list could be
made to fill the position.
MUNICIPAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
By.....................
Assistant Secretary."
The certificate is used in order to permit the payment of compensation to persons appointed under the circumstances mentioned
therein, for services which they had actually rendered to the city,
and its use followed an opinion rendered by the corporation counsel to the municipal civil service commission, in reply to an
inquiry as to its authority to certify accounts for services rendered after the sixty-days period permitted by the statute. The
adoption and use of this "special certificate" must encourage
delay in holding examinations and promulgating lists in cases
where provisional appointments have been made.  We hardly
believe that the corporation counsel ever contemplated the use of
the certificate except in most extreme cases, and to have a stamp
ready at hand to place upon the payroll of any person whose
salary could not otherwise be certified, is a misuse of the privilege.
This is especially true when the stamp is used on payrolls of
provisional appointees who have never been examined, when
apparently there was no reason for delaying their examination.
PROVISIONAL APPOINTMENTS TO POSITIONS TO BE FILLED AFTER
PROMOTION EXAMINATIONS
During the course of the investigation, it was discovered that
it was the practice of the Municipal Civil Service Commission to
accept provisional appointments to positions to be filled after
promotion examination. The only authority for this procedure
is found in section 15, subdivision 1, of the Civil Service Law,
which provides for filling positions in certain cases without com



05


petitive examination. We consider that the construction given
by the municipal commission to said provision of the statute, is
unwarranted. Nowhere in the State, other than in the city of
New York, where the Civil Service Law and rules apply, are
provisional appointments accepted preliminary to promotion examination. Even the promotion rule governing the New York
city service does not refer in any way to provisional appointments.
In fact the promotion rule seems to run contrary to this practice.
Section 1 of rule XIV, which relates to promotions, provides that
" vacancies in positions above the lowest grade in any part of
competitive class  *  *  *  shall be filled by promotion, based
so far as practicable, on competitive tests."
Section 2 of the rule, provides that " examinations for promotion shall be ordered as often as may be necessary to meet or
anticipate the needs of the higher grades."
Section 3 provides that no person shall be eligible for promotion
"who lacks any of the preliminary requirements for original entrance to the position to be filled."
Under no logical construction of the Civil Service Law in the
judgment of the State Commission can temporary or provisional
selection be made for positions which are required to be filled by
promotion through competitive examination. The spirit, if not
the letter of the law, is contrary to such procedure, as it gives an
appointing officer undue advantage in designating presumably the
person whose promotion is desired; and while giving the appointee
opportunity to familiarize himself with the duties of the position
to which promotion is sought, acts as a deterrent to other candidates as well as a delay to the holding of the examination.
RATING SHEETS
Civil Service Commissions are frequently criticised for methods
which seem mysterious or difficult to understand. Methods of
examination or of rating papers which are not easy of comprehension should be avoided in order to satisfy candidates and
the public at large, that everything is open and above-board;
contrary methods undermine confidence and weaken the merit
system in the eyes of the people.




96


The Municipal Civil Service Commission in rating papers does
not put the credit allowed answers on the papers themselves, but
a " rating-sheet " is used to which one must refer in order to
understand the ratings; this is unsatisfactory to the candidates
who very naturally wish to know exactly the amount of credit
allowed for each answer.
A competitor reviewing his examination papers sees only the
lump mark given for the entire paper, but if there are ten questions, he naturally desires to see the rating allowed each question;
this " rating-sheet " system should, in our opinion, be abandoned
for the reason indicated above, and for the further reason that it
increases the possibility of error in computing averages.
Furthermore, a "make-up " sheet should be attached to each set
of papers showing exactly how much the competitor is credited
in each subject of the examination, weights allowed, and the computations necessary in computing the average. This system of
marking each answer in plain figures and computations on a makeup sheet for each competitor is the system used by the United
States Civil Service Commission, and the New York State Civil
Service Commission, and should be adopted by the Municipal
Civil Service Commission.
" EXPERTS " AT A COST OF ONE MILLION DOLLARS IN 1914
The municipal commission permitted the appointment during
the year 1914 of 196 persons under rule 12, paragraph 8, which
provides for the employment of "experts" whose compensation
and period of service cannot be determined in advance. Among
these was Delos F. Wilcox, formerly head of the Franchise Bureau
of the Public Service Commission. Mr. Wilcox was appointed by
Mayor Mitchel " in connection with regulating the rates at which
private water companies shall deliver water to customers in
Greater New York."
Mr. Wilcox testified (p. 6403) that he organized a staff of
engineers in the Water Department to begin an appraisal of the
private water plants from whom the people of Queens and part of
Brooklyn purchase water. He continued as " expert " 12-8 from
July 9 to October 15, 1914, and was then appointed Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Water Supply, Gas and Elec



97


tricity, to continue the work of appraisal. His salary as Deputy
Commissioner is $6,000 per year. As Chief of the Bureau of
Franchises of the Public Service Commission his salary was
$4,000.
Under Rule 12-8, the Municipal Commission permitted the
appointment of detectives and others at a total cost to the city of
many thousands of dollars during the year 1914. With all the
12-6 appointments the total cost of "expert" service in 1914
approximates $1,000,000.
LABORERS (NON-COMPETITIVE) ASSIGNED TO COMPETITIVE
POSITIONS
Many persons are concerned with this matter. We received
numerous complaints, and found that many complaints were filed
with the local commission. A large part of Examiner Fuld's time,
during 1914, has been occupied investigating these complaints
and complaints regarding employees working outside of their
titles (see his testimony, p. 6783, etc.), which indicates how
general throughout the departments was this kind of violation
during the year 1914.
The first witness on this subject was Edward J. McInerney,
President of the Interborough Association of eligible male attendants, and a clerk in the employ of the city (p. 2997). His testimony showed a serious condition in the Department of Parks,
Dock Department and other branches of the city government.
Laborers were acting as attendants in public comfort stations and
in some cases were unable to understand or speak the English
language, or to give proper directions.
Laborers in the Dock Department were doing clerical and other
work, not appropriate to their title, and other laborers were acting as janitors. This commission pressed the matter in the hearings, and as a result of that pressure, the Municipal Civil Service Commission has stiffened up and considerable improvement
has resulted. There are still many violations in this direction.
On principle and in fact, the spirit of civil service (which is
the real protection of the law) may be more seriously injured in
those humble places than in higher ones.
4




98


The practice of holding promotion examiniations froml labor
positions to comnpetitive,positionJs is questionable as it does al injustice to those who would otherwise have an opportunity to coinpete for the higher grade places.
An amendment to the rules to change this procedure is recommended.
(On the main question, see testimony of Birdseye 3024, McDonald 3034, Fuld 3390 and 6783, MAclnerney 3396, Vesce 5926,
McNally (153, D)ock laborers 3462 to 3499, etc.)
-MONITORS.
Robert W. Belcher, Secretary of the Municipal Civil Service
Commission, was formerly Secretary of the Civil Service Reform
Association, and as such he transmitted the protests of that organization against the conduct of the former commissioners who retained certain individuals employed as monitors to do clerical
and investigating work. On this the association made a strong
point, and the letters of protest were emphatic. Mr. Belcher became secretary of the Municipal Commission last May, and the
new commissioners practised exactly the same violation of law.
The Civil Service Reform Association did not protest, and Mr.
Belcher as secretary of the Commission, made the certifications on
the payrolls stating that said monitors had not been doing work
inappropriate to their titles, when in fact they had been doing
that very thing.
It is not to be wondered at that other departments come to regard the Civil Service Law as a convenience, to be used when it
serves their purposes and to be ignored when it does not. (See
testimony of Secretary Birdseye (page 426) which shows that
the work of monitors is to attend examinations, watch the candidates, distribute and collect papers, aind aid the examiners on the
day of examination.)
On January 5, 1914, Chief Examiner Ireland wrote the Mlunicipal Commission that monitors were employed in doing clerical
or quasi-clerical work. This report was referred to Commissioner
James, who reported to President Moskowitz that it was illegal
and should not be allowed. He suggested that the secretary (then
Mr. Spencer) try to formulate a plan for changing their titles -




99


or pIossibly to continue one or two monitors and dispense with the
others as clerks. (n Jalnuary 26, 1914, the president, the secretary and the chief examiner were appointed a committee to report
on the matter. The Committee did not report, but Mr. Spencer
gave the commissioners a list of the monitors and a detail of their
work. He recommended that their positions be made competitive. No further action was taken.
Evidence showed that a number of monitors, some of whom had
been with the commission several years, were really doing work
not appropriate to the title. Following written announcement that
the State (Comnmission was about to examine the local commission
these monitors were all dropped, on September 5, 1914.  (The
preliminary inspection began September 8th.)
The provision of the statute which was violated is section 14
of the Civil Service Law, which provides "that no person shall
be appointed or employed under any title not appropriate to the
duties to be performed."  The former secretary, Mr. Spencer,
says (page 450) he told the commissioners it was a violation of
law.
Payrolls for July and August, 1914, are shown in the record
(page 486) and President Moskowitz's signature is on it with
that of Mr. Belcher. Mr. Belcher testified (page 490) and admitted that the certificate signed by him was not true (page 493);
he said he had followed an old custom. He admitted that previously on behalf of the Civil Service Reform Association, he had
written the local commission in condemnation of the illegal practice.
" Q. (page 499.) Do you mean to say that as an official you
would sign an incorrect statement, just in order that people may
be paid? A. That is the way the statement was signed. Q. Of
course you having a good purpose, it might be construed as a
precedent that would be followed by other officials with a bad
purpose. I)id you ever think of that? A. Yes, but the fact is,
it is done in. every city department."
Here is the excuse for the evil - to be prevalent in the departmnents - and which, as shown in the Department of Public Works,
is a powerful means of working injustice and wrong. Their example was right in the Municipal Civil Service Commirsson, and




100


it did not reform until this State probe began to work; then it
reformed suddenly. Other reforms in that commission and other
departments have accompanied the investigation, so that in the improving of civil service conditions the investigation justified itself
as it went along.
Mr. Belcher said (page 526): " Whatever I did, I understood I
was carrying out the policy of the commission."
The answer of the commission to many of the specifications of
violation of plain provisions of the civil service law, is that they
are inherited by this administration; so was its own monitor system. There was more need of attention to these plain violations
of law than there was to meddling with physical examinations that
left them worse than before. They let their own violations run till
the moment of the day of judgment. They have withheld action on
flagrant violations revealed to them in the hearings, such as those
in the Department of Public Works, even putting through untruthful payrolls.
Small wonder is it that in some public offices the employees tell
us they have lost all faith in the law and in the purpose of the
local commission to enforce it, when its enforcement would annoy
friends. The stopping of a few payrolls would quickly end the
general violation of law.
THE CASE OF SAMUEL BROCK
In the case of Samuel Brock, executive clerk in the office of
the president of Queens Borough, the municipal commission deliberately prepared the way for him and certified his payroll for
the month of January, 1914, at the rate of $2,250 a year as
fourth grade clerk, when no such position existed in the office of
the Queens Borough president. The commission also accepted
Brock's own certification to that payroll when the payroll clerk,
Miss McGee, declined to sign it. Brock's payroll for the succeeding month, February, was accepted and certified by the municipal
commission at the rate of $4,000 per year, though the position of
executive clerk at that salary was not created by the board of
aldermen until February 11th, and Brock was ineligible for emergency or provisional appointment until July 9th succeeding.




101


Brock, who was a fourth grade clerk in the office of the comptroller, was appointed secretary to the Borough of Queens at
$4,000 per year in March, 1913. His salary as fourth grade clerk
was $2,250 per annum. His term as secretary to the borough
expired on December 31, 1913. He continued in the employ of
the president of the Borough of Queens, his position of secretary
to the borough being filled after December 31, 1913, by another
incumbent. Brock was therefore without a position in the office
of the borough president in Queens, and though he worked in the
office as clerk from then until February 11th, when the position
of executive clerk was created by the board of aldermen, there
seems to be no legal ground for his service or justification for
compensation during that period.
The payrolls of Mr. Brock for the months of January and February, 1914, show that he was paid at the rate of $2,250 per year
for the entire month of January and at the rate of $4,000 per
year for February. It was on the same date, February 11, 1914,
that the position of executive clerk in the Borough of Queens was
established by the board of aldermen, that the municipal civil
service commission amended clause 3 of rule 14 to apply to the
case of a civil service employee " appointed" to an exempt position, restoring such employee " either to the position originally
held by him or to any position to which transfer could be made
therefrom."
Brock testified that his reinstatement to the position of fourth
grade clerk in Queens occurred on January 9, 1914, under a
ruling of the municipal commission (p. 2030). Brock's payroll
for the month of January, which he himself certified, is divided
into two periods by the municipal commission, the first period
from January 1 to 8, the second from January 9 to 31. Both
periods of employment are certified by the municipal commission,
and the first period is noted in writing and so specially certified.
The amount of the payroll is $187.50, covering the entire month
at the rate of $2,250 per year. In connection with this fact, the
testimony of Lawrence A. Byrne, chief payroll clerk of the Municipal Civil Service Commission and of Frank A. Spencer, then
secretary of the commission, is explanatory. Mr. Byrne testified
(p. 5935) that from January 1st to 8th, the municipal commission




102


approved Mr. Brock's appointment under Rule 12, paragraph 4
and that Brock was reinstated as fourth grade clerk on January
9th. His appointment as executive clerk at $4,000 per annum
was approved by the commission for the entire month of February,
in spite of the fact as previously stated, the position was not
officially created until February 11th and that Brock was ineligible for appointment. Mr. Byrne also testified that as fourlii
grade clerk in the finance department, Mr. Brock was receiving
$2,100 per year (p. 5937).
Mr. Spencer testified (p. 3039) that while he was secretary
of the municipal commission, the president asked him several
times " what could be done in the Brock matter," that he advised
the president that an appointment under rule 12, paragraph 5,
exempting Brock as " executive clerk" was improper. He said
(p. 3040): " The President then asked me whether he could not
be appointed from the position of fourth grade clerk to this position of executive clerk, he having been appointed in the meantime
to a position as clerk at $2,250 in the borough president's office.
To that position he was eligible at $2,250, he having been a $2,250
clerk within a year in another department. I told the president
in response to that, that I did not see how a promotion examtination could be given him because he had not been three months iln
the department as required under the promotion rule."  * *  *
"I think it is six months, in the department, yes. As a result
of that there was no promotion examination held at that time.
I remember telling the president - Brock had asked for it." He
said that Brock was ineligible for provisional appointment as
"executive clerk" prior to July 9th, because he was ineligible
for promotion prior to that date. The records of the municipal
commission and the testimony. of Payroll Clerk Byrne show that
Brock was certified as " executive clerk " and drew pay at $4,000
per year for the month of February.
The resolution of the board of aldermen of February 11th, establishing the position of " executive clerk " in Queens at $4,000
per year, shows that Borough President Connolly had a particidar
appointee in mind when the position was established. Tile
minutes of the board of aldermen read (p. 6308): " That President Connolly informed the committee that this official was neede(l




103


particularly in connection with the establishment of the maintenance of a cost data system of records requiring the services of
an experienced and highly capable man such as he proposed to
appoint."  Brock himself testified (p. 2042), that there was an
eligible list for fifth grade clerk (the grade for executive clerkship) in existence in Queens (p. 2042); that one person was on
the eligible list and " Mr. Connolly did not care to appoint that
ilan." That person was Harry K. Vought, who appeared as a
witness before the State Commission on January 7, 1915. Mr.
Vought had advanced in the service in Queens for more than ten
years. lie testified that he took an examination in August, 1913,
for fifth grade clerkship in Queens, because the chief clerk had
died and there was a vacancy in that grade (p. 5713). No appointmlent was made to the chief clerkship and the position was
abolished by the board of aldermen on February 11th succeeding,
when they created the new fifth grade clerkship to which Mr.
lBrock was appointed first provisionally, then permanently. Mr.
Vought and another fourth grade clerk in Queens entered the examination for fifth grade clerkship with Brock in October, 1914,
but neither Vought, nor the other candidate, Murray, qualified.
Brock was the only candidate who passed the examination, having
held the position since February and drawn the pay for that
month.
The testimony shows that the examination for the position of
fifth grade clerk in Queens borough was delayed until Brock
became eligible by the lapse of six months from January 9, when
he was officially reinstated as fourth grade clerk. The examination was ordered by the municipal commission on July 9, exactly
six months after Brock's reinstatement, and the earliest date on
which he became eligible. Some of the questions in the examination were written to fit the duties of the office of executive clerk
which Brock had held in violation of the rules since February 1,
with the approval of the municipal commission. Brock was asked
(p. 5396) why he did not reimburse the city for the extra month
which he received after January 1, as fifth grade clerk. "Because," he said, "The city never asked me for it."
The testimony quoted above was given on January 6, 1915. On
November 5, 1914 (p. 2026) Mr. Brock had testified that the




104


" $4,000 rate started early in the year, and under the ruling of
the Civil Service Commission, made on the report by the secretary,
which provided for a reinstatement into the service instead of
another process which we thought was proper, there was a period
there when the salary of $4,000 was paid." He said: " Then
upon a report which ruled that I was not eligible until six months
after January 9, which was the date fixed as having been my date
of reinstatement, there was a question as to whether this process
of reinstatement was a correct one at all. We had another idea
over there, but this was the first time I ever saw this process
worked out this way, and it was a matter of judgment as to which
was the proper procedure, and it was simply a ruling of the
commission that I was not entitled to draw the salary from the
early part of the year, due entirely to their ruling as to my method
of coming back into the classified service."
Mr. Brock was asked about his personal relation with President
Moskowitz when he was re-examined on January 5, 1913. I[e
said: " I never knew him as a personal friend * * * nothing
more than to meet him in the restaurant and say " How do you
do? " He visited him in his home once, he said, and stayed there
about twenty minutes.
Mr. Brock finally acknowledged that he walked with President
Moskowitz from the latter's office in the Municipal building to
the Henry Street Settlement and then to the president's house,
but denied that he told anyone he had supper there. He then
acknowledged that he had taken dinner with Dr. Moskowitz in a
public restaurant with other people, several times, and that he
had sat at a table with him while this examination was pending.
He said he did not recall what he talked to him about but that he
knew he did not discuss the examination.
Lewis Mayers, civil service examiner who prepared the questions in the competitive examination in which Brock alone qualified, was asked during the examination of Brock if the data which
he received from the Commissioner of Public Works in Queens,
with reference to the duties of the position of "executive clerk "
was incorporated in the questions used in the examination. He
said (p. 5403): "It is very difficult to say whether the data was




105


incorporated. Of course some consideration was had for the duties
of the position in making up the questions; that was necessary."
William J. Murray, fourth grade clerk in Queens, who took the
examination for fifth grade clerk with Brock and Harry K. Vought
on October 9, 1914, testified (page 5355):
" Q. Do you consider that a large part of the questions were
written to conform with the duties of the office that Mr. Brock
was filling? A. IVell they were more of an executive character
than one would meet as a fifth grade cleric. He said that had he
occupied the place Brock did, possibly he could have answered
the questions more accurately."
Harry K. Vought, the other candidate in the examination with
Brock, who failed with Murray, testified on January 7 (p. 5718):
"Q. Were some of the questions in the second examination
written around the duties that Mr. Brock was performing for the
six months previous, or for several months previous to the examination? A. I think so: yes, sir.
Q. What part of the questions were written around the duties
fulfilled by Mr. Brock during that time? A. As regards executive
ability and office management and such things as that."
In testifying with reference to the delay in calling the competitive examination for the position, former Secretary Spencer
said (p. 3041): " I told the President I did not think he could
afford to stand the criticism of delaying a promotion examination
for Brock. Brock would not be qualified until about July, and to
delay a promotion examination would no doubt cause criticism.
That is about the last I heard of it." He said that conversation
with Dr. Moskowitz was in January or February, and that the
examination was called in July.
At the time Brock was appointed fifth grade clerk in Queens
provisionally, there was a preferred list for fifth grade clerkship
in existence containing the names of said Philip Coffey and Claude
Curtis who has been dropped from the labor bureau of the municipal commission when the bureau was abolished. Before Brock
was appointed temporarily on July 9, though he received the
salary of the office for the month of February, the municipal commission obtained an opinion from the corporation counsel enabling




106


them to set aside the preferred list and appoint Brock. Cofl'ey is
an exempt fireman and has brought suit for reilstatement agailst
the city. The list for fifth grade clerkship in Queens, containing
the name of Harry K. Vought, was in existence 7when Brock?was
appointed.
PAYROLL OF JOSEPit T. WILLIAMS AS " EXLPE XI'E-   A PPI?'OVEI) FI'oi
MORE THAN Two MtONTHIS \V.IEN Hl E W\AS INELIGIBLE IOR()1
EMPLOYMENT.
Joseph T. Williams was permitted through the neglect of the
Municipal Commission to draw two and a half months pay from
August 17, 1914, at the rate of $100 per month before the colmmission discovered that the appointee was not qualified for employment under rule 12, paragraph 6, under which he served. Mr.
Williams was at work during that period in the Domestic lRelations Bureau of the Charities i)epartment and his name appears
on the payrolls of the department for August, September and
October, according to the testimony of Commissioner Keogh. Mr.
Williams testified that he also received $100 per month during
that period from the Association for Improving the Condition of
the Poor, making his total compensation two hundred dollars a
month, which he is now receiving from the charitable organization.
The Municipal Civil Service Commission had no roster card
showing Mr. Williams' employment by the city, though under the
rules, a roster card must be kept of every person drawing pay
from the city of New York. After Mr. Williams' name appeared
on three monthly payrolls, the -Municipal Commission decided that
Mr. Williams was not eligible for exception and removed his name
from the roll. This action was taken more than two months after
the investigation of the Municipal Commission by the State body
was begun. Mr. Williams testified that while working for the
city he sent a copy of his reports looking to a " reorganizationl 
of the management of the D)omestic Relations Bureau, to the
A. I. C. P., the private charitable organization which paid half
his salary during that period, and all of it subsequently. Mr.
Williams was employed by that organization (p. 6400) prior to
drawing pay from the city.




107


Commissioner Keogh, in explaining tile Williams appoilntment,
said (p. 6409): " Mr. Williams was paid for two months and a
half. There was no roster card, because he was never appointed,
but he did the work from the 17th of August and was paid by
the city for the two and a half months' work that he did."
President Neu: "He was paid because he did the work?"
Commissioner Keogh: "It came in with all the others, under
the 12-6, the forty-five or forty-six (charity examiners in the
charities department), and it was approved by the payroll clerk,
although his name had never been approved, under 12-6 and his
application when it came in here, was finally disapproved and his
name was deducted from the payroll from that time on."
Commissioner Wolff: "You mean he was working before your
board acted on his case?
Commissioner Keogh: 'Before that 12-(i was approved."
Commissioner Wolff:   And he was working for two and a half
months before there was any action by your board?"
Commissioner Keogh: " Enough to pass his payroll for those
two and a half months, that was passed."
LABOR BUREAU
The municipal civil service commission showed that it was able
to play at practical politics, though it was against the wishes of
one of the commissioners.
A part of the established system of the Commission was a very
efficient labor bureau. It was organized about fifteen years ago by
the veteran secretary Mr. Spencer, who was an expert in civil service matters. Associated with him early was Philip Coffey and
later Claude F. Curtis.  These men made the labor bureau, which
was considered to be a model, and Mr. Coffey was called upon by
other cities as an expert. Tile labor service is noncompetitive;
it provides nearly one-third of the city employees. In numbers
it fluctuates and changes suddenly at times, for in emergencies
and on occasions great numbers of men are hired or discharged.
It deals with large numbers of uneducated, unintelligent and un



108


skilled men, and physical and practical requirements have to be
administered in a way of its own by persons accustomed to the
class of unskilled workers.  Tact and experience are necessary to
manage the applicants; care is required in keeping and maintaining the records in order that men shall have their civil service
rights and that the city shall be protected against claims which
sometimes are of large amounts. Specialized care in this particular is likely to save the city much more than the amount expended
in salaries for the bureau. There is such a difference between the
competitive class and the noncompetitive labor class that efficient
management in the long run requires separation.
It so happened that these men who had built up this work and
had become recognized as efficient experts were Democrats.  The
commissioners had the right to discharge the secretary and they
did so, at the same time expressing their appreciation of his character and ability; but 'Coffey and Curtis were within the supposed
protection of Civil Service Law. It was not possible to dispose of
them without proven charges, so it was worked on the ground of
economy. Some young man connected with the bureau of municipal research and who had no practical connection with labor,
" poked around " for a day or two and made an " efficiency " report on which the commissioners took action for a consolidation of
this noncompetitive labor bureau with the competitive work and
records, and they abolished the bureau and dropped Mr. Coffey
and Mr. Curtis after their years of faithful service, without making any real effort to place them in other positions, compelling
them to seek redress for reinstatement at law on the ground that
they are veterans. This action was based on a claim of saving
$8,000 a year in salaries, which on examination and proper allowances comes down to $5,900. The city, however, is likely to lose
much more in the long run through law suits in which its rights
are not conserved by the care and attention which the labor bureau
exercised in those matters.
One commissioner was opposed to the ousting of Coffey atnd
Curtis and several commissioners of former administrations who
were politically opposite to these men appeared and expressed their
disapproval of the abolition of the bureau and their confidence in
the men who were dropped.  These included Mr. Creelman, ]Mr.




10)9


Welling and Mr. Gallagher. Corporation Counsel Polk testified
to his confidence in Mr. Coffey and to the effort he made to save
him in the service. It appeared that a well known politician
called Gene Driscoll had notified these men that they would have
to go unless they went to the city hall and arranged with " John."
Mr. Coffey answered and said that he did not need to see anyone,
that he could stand on his record, but he said sadly, he found he
was mistaken. According to the testimony, after delivering one
of these remarks in the hallway of the municipal building, Gene
said he was on his way to see " Henry." Subpoenas were issued
for Driscoll but he was not found, and though the testimony was
published he never appeared to contradict it. Mr. Sheehan, a
clerk, was called by the local civil service commission, and he admitted that he was sent by Dr. Moskowitz to "collaborate" with
Mr. Coffey, but really to learn the business, to learn the things
that Mr. Coffey had in his head (so that Coffey's work could be
taken by Sheehan after Coffey's departure). It is evident that
Sheehan is the man who is to fill Coffey's place.  (Sheehan was
the teacher of Driscoll's children.)
Mr. Coffey and Mr. Curtis being placed on the preferred list
had hopes of being appointed to a vacancy in the Queens county
borough president's office, but that was filled by Samuel Brock,
above mentioned, the provisional appointee who was nursed along
to a permanent appointment. So these skilled and faithful city
employees are out of the public service on account of politics, and
those who point out the injustice will be accused by the insiders
of being moved by political spite in pointing to the evasion of civil
services principles by the Civil Service Commission itself.
But if the civil service be not maintained in strength and spirit
by reformers, who shall preach to the practical politicians?
Example teaches, and for the sake of that example, in such a
municipal administration as the present, it is a pity that so questionable an act was done, and that such an indefensible piece of
spoils-politics should have been performed.
DELAYED EXAMINATIONS
The work of any civil service commission is largely determined
by the number and character of competitive examinations and the




110


promptness with which lists are established, in order to enable
appointing officers to fill places without being obliged to make
temporary or provisional appointments.
There have been great delays in examinations for the municipal service, some of which have been caused by the attempt to get
experts in various subjects not only to suggest questions but also
to manage the examination. Men may be experts in particular
subjects and still lack the practical experience of examiners —
which supplies a special tact in ascertaining the knowledge of
candidates and reporting the same expeditioulsy.
President Moskowitz was asked about his effort to " elevate"
the examination for " examiner of charitable institutions," for
which purpose he secured the organization of a committee of
"social workers."  He testified (p. 6532): " Then the subcommittee was appointed to consider the question, the problem of the
examination. This subcommittee consisted of Mrs. John M.
Glenn, Mr. Sidney Goldstein and Dr. Edmond Butler, of the
Catholic Home Bureau. They then sent those questions to the
Commission. I submitted those questions to Miss Upshaw (examiner), and the idea being that if necessary the Commission
might appoint an expert either from among those three or somebody else in co-operation with the regular examiners who give this
examination. It was thought best after a while that we have our
own people who would do this work and we did not use any experts for the preparation of those questions, and in fact our own
examiners thought that the questions were not practical, and used
their own questions, that is the whole - that is the story of this
whole matter."
" Q. (P. 6534) All questions submitted by the experts were rejected? A. They were rejected by our examiners. Our examiners did not - they thought they would make out their own
questions and they made out their own questions."
Examiner Lewis Mayers testified that two of the questions used
in the examination for "Examiner of Charitable Institutions"
were prepared by him. " Q. (p. 6511) What became of the questions that they submitted, or were submitted to you and the rest
of the examiners? A. Mfiss TJpshaw showed them to me and we
looked them over and' decided they were absolutely valueless for the
purpose, because of very patent defects in the way they had been




I11


made up, because they were not calculated to bring out the type
of answer that we desired, and 1 discarded that paper entirely. *      *  Q. Well, the questions in the examination were
not repeated in the questions in the examination, were they ' A. I
do not recall anything on that paper that appeared in the questions
in the examination."
From figures obtained from the mlunicipal commission, it appears that the number of examinations held from January 1, 1913,
to January 1, 1914, was 418, with total number of 24,246 candidates. The number of examinations held by the present commission, from January 1, 1915, was 336, with 21,348 candidates.
A comparison of these figures shows a decrease in the number of
examinations of approximately 20 per cent., with a decrease in the
number of candidates of about 13 per cent. During the same
period the number of employees of the commission increased.
That unusual delays occur in holding examinations after the
samne are ordered, and (when held) in completing the ratings and
promulgating the lists, is shown by the following examples:


Examination
Yiddish interpreter................
Italian interpreter.................
Statistician (Gr. E.)................
Hospital clerk.....................
Chemist and bacteriologist..........
Laboratory assistant...............
Police matron.....................
Photographer (X-ray) (re-ordered by
present Commission April 1, 1914)
Civil Service examiner (engineer)....
Finger print expert.................


Ordered        Held
Oct. 29, 1913 Mar. 26, 1914
Oct. 29, 1913 Mar. 24, 1914
Oct. 22, 1913 Mar. 17, and
19,1914
Oct. 6,1913   May 4, and
5,1914
Aug. 20, 1913 April 23, 1914
Nov. 12, 1913  May 29, 1914
Sept. 17, 1913 July  7,1914
Dec. 15, 1913 Aug. 14, 1914
Dec. 23, 1913  July 14, and
Nov. 10, 1914
Dec. 23,1913  July  8,1914


List
promulgated
Dec. 9, 1914
Dec. 2, 1914
May 13, 1914
Aug. 10,1914
May 13, 1914
Aug. 5,1914
Oct. 21,1914
Nov. 25, 1914
Dec. 9, 1914
Sept. 23, 1914


The present local commission ordered
and promulgated lists as follows:


and held examinations


Examination
Telephone operator................
Engineer chemist..................
Fireman (volunteer)................
Attendant (female)................
Automobile engineman.............
Bookkeeper (third grade)...........
Superintendent Municipal Sanatorium
Draftsman, Grade C...............
Photographer....................
Examiner of charitable institutions..


Ordered
Jan. 17, 1914
Feb. 4, 1914
Feb. 18, 1914
Jan. 7, 1914
Mar. 4,1914
Feb. 25,1914
April 1, 1914
Mar. 11, 1914
Jan. 7, 1914
April 29, 1914.Held
Mar. 31, 1914
July 1, 1914
May 29, 1914
July  2,1914
Aug. 13, 1914
July  9,1914
July 23, 1914
June 23, 1914
July 30, 1914
Sept. 24, and
Nov. 24, 1914


List
promulgated
tJuly  8, 1914
Aug. 7,1914
Aug. 5,1914
Oct. 7, 1914
Dec. 2,71914
Dec. 2,'1914
Sept. 23,F1914
Sept. 28,r1914
Sept. 16,1914
Dec.r31, 1914




112


The time elapsed between the date examinations were ordered
and the date the lists resulting therefrom were promulgated, vary
from 165 days in the case of firemen (volunteer) to 1 year and 41
days for the position of Yiddish interpreter.
From testimony of Assistant Examiner Murray of the municipal commission, given near the close of the hearing, it appears that
since our investigation was commenced a new plan has been devised for expediting examinations. It consists of the keeping of a
book in the nature of a timetable with blank columns for the
various steps in the examination to be filled out as they are taken.
Strange as it may seem, there was no provision for doing this
natural thing until recently, when it became necessary to overcome
the evil of delay which our Commission has complained of since
last fall. Mr. Murray also testified that more has been accomplished in the last three months of the year 1914 than during the
previous nine months. It is to be hoped that the stimulus of our
investigation will last.
Late in our investigation Assistant Chief Examiner Upshaw
gave a list of examinations that have been pending for six months
or over. The records of the municipal civil service commissions
show the following open competitive examinations ordered
January 1, 1914, to July 15, 1914, the eligible list for which have
not been promulgated:


Examination
Supervising Nurse...................
Chemist, Food and Drugs............
Engineer Inspector, Architectural, G'rades
" C"  and  "D "....................
Resident Physician, Grade 2...........
Salary and Grade Examiner..........
G ardner...........................
Temporary  Clerk....................
Director, Bureau of Food Inspection....
Supervising Inspector, Grade 5........
Inspector of Meters and Water Consumption, Grade 2.................
Inspector of Carpentry and Masonry,
G rade   2..........................
Court Stenographer, Grades 4 and 5....
Electrician.........................
Examiner, Law   Department..........
Playground and Gymnasium Attendant.
Firem an............................
Topographical Draughtsman, Grade" C "
Tabulating Machine Operator..........
Farm   Instructor....................


Date Ordered
February 4. 1914.
March 4, 1914.
April 29, 1914.
April 29, 1914.
May 6, 1914.
May 13, 1914.
June 3, 1914.
June 10, 1914.
June 10, 1914.
June 17, 1914.
June 17, 1914.
June 17, 1914.
June 17, 1914.
June 17. 1914.
July 1, 1914.
June 24, 1914.
July 8, 1914.
July 8, 1914.
July 8, 1914.
July 15, 1914.




113


Examiniation.              Date Ordered
Investigator.........................  July  15, 1914.
Steward.............................  July  15,  1914.
Secretary to Committee oil Social Welfare..............................  July  15, 1914.
Secretary to Committee on Markets... July 15, 1914.
Superintendent,  Municipal  Lodging
House.............................  July  15,  1914.
From the testimony of 1Miss Upshaw, it appears that the examiners in the year 1913 passed on 30,000 papers left over by
the former commission and did their regular work also. (They
were not then handicapped by fads and fancies, including special
" expert examiners.")
FRE.E EMPLOYMENT BUIREAU
Age Limit for Superintendent Removed by Municipal
Commission
The municipal commission advertised an examination for superintendent of the Free Employment Bureau in November, 1914.
Sixty-three applicants were filed in response to this advertisement,
and one application was received from an individual residing in
Boston, named Walter L. Sears.   The application of Sears was
rejected, and he was barred from entering an examination because he was over age, the age limit of candidates being fixed
at fifty years, and so stated in the advertisement. Among those
who filed applications to enter the examination were the managers and directors of private and quasi-public employment agencies in the city of New York, including Willis Hawley, director
of the Employment Bureau of the Y. M. C. A. in Brooklyn, and
Sarah J. Atwood, director of the Atwood Employment Agency
in Manhattan. Both of these applicants were considered particularly competent for service as head of an employment bureau
by Commissioner of Licenses George H. Bell, whose jurisdiction
includes supervision over the city's free employment bureau and
private employment agencies. (See Mr. Bell's testimony, page
5144).
The fact that Mr. Sears was a non-resident of the city also
barred him from employment in New York city until such disability was removed as provided in 'the ordinance by presentation
of evidence that no one in New York could be found to properly
perform the services required.




114


License Commissioncer lBell testified that lie had gone; to Boston
to consult Mr. Sears about accepting the position of superintendent of the Free Employment Bureau. He said that he had inquired diligently in New York for "almost a year" to find
someone who could " do the job." Mr. Bell made it a point that
he wanted someone who had had experience in running a public
employment bureau (p. 5136) and for that reason, after surveying the situation, he interviewed Mlr. Sears and offered him the
position temporarily. Following this interview Sears filed his
application with the municipal commission.
When it was found that candidate Sears was over age, though
he was holding the position under a 12-4 designation, the municipal commission decided to waive the age limit and throw open
the examination to all candidates, including non-residents. Following this action, twenty-nine additional applications were received by the municipal commission when the time for filing
applications expired onl I)ecember 30th.  Of these twenty-nine
additional applicants, Secretary Belcher of the municipal commission testified (p. 6480) that nine were over 50 years of age,
and that six were non-residents; a total of ninety-two applications accepted under both advertisements.
President Moskowitz and Secretary Belcher both testified that
the applications of candidates under the first advertisement were
submitted to Examiner Mayers, who tabulated them and found
that but one person had had experience in a " public employment
bureau."  This person was not AMr. Sears, whose application had
been rejected. Both President Moskowitz and Secretary Belcher
were asked if such experience was essential to qualify for the
position and neither would acknowledge it though both testified
that "not enough applicants were qualified to enter an examination," and that for that reason the restrictions against age and
residence being removed.
Mr. Sears testified on December 22d that he has acted as temporary superintendent of the Free Employment Bureau since
September 16, 1914, having exceeded the time limit of the emergency provision of his appointment by six days, at the time he
gave testimony. When the State Commission closed its investigation on January 22, 1915, the written examination for the




'115


p)osition of superintendent of the Free Employmnet 1Blureau had
not been held, and Mr. Sears was then in his position one month
and six days beyond the period of time allowed under the terms
of his appointment - rule 12, paragraphs 3 and 4.
Mr. Sears testified that Commissioner Bell visited him in the
BoIston office of the Free Employment Bureau of the State of
Massachusetts on May 4, 1914, and that he spent the entire day
with him.
" Q. (P. 4985) How did he learn of you, did he know you?
A. Couldn't help but know of me, I am known all over the country.
*  *  *
"Q. Iow did you become known? A. Through 20 years and
7 months of publicity work. "Q. You were a publicity agent,
were you, for the employment bureau? A. I have been a publicity
agent prior to accepting my position in Boston."
Mr. Sears testified (p. 4987) that he received $1,800 a year
in Boston; that MSr. Bell visited him again in Boston on Labor
Day and told him that the salary provided for the position in
New York was $3,500 a year, and that AMr. Bell showed him a
copy of the city ordinance establishing the free employment
bureau. Mr.!Sears was asked what method he used for finding
employment for unemployed in Boston, and he replied (p. 4988)
"we got in touch with employers through publicity mainly."
"Q. (P. 4991) Were you furnishing the employees during the
industrial disturbance at Lawrence, the strike-breakers that were
used there? A. Surely.
Q. You did? A. Yes, sir. I might explain that lest a bad
impression might go out; the office maintained the position of
absolute neutrality. We took the order from the employer if
there was a strike just as if there was none, always notifying the
applicant of all the conditions surrounding it."
The Governor of Massachusetts appointed a committee to investigate the conditions of employment offices in the state. This committee reported on May, 1911, and charged that out of five hundred and five persons reported as having been placed in positions
by the Boston free employment bureau of which Mr. Sears had
been head for five years, during the month of October, 1910, they




116


ascertained: (4995) " the employers of twenty-four had moved and
were not found; letters to two were returned unknown; fifty-eight
did not reply to letters; the employers of seventy-six workers replied by letter, and employers of three hundred and forty-five were
interviewed.  Of the four hundred and twenty-one employees
about whom the Commission obtained information, 60 never applied for the position and certainly were never employed, and 8
were known to have applied but were not employed. Thus, 36
per cent. never entered upon engagement."
Mr. Sears was asked if this statement which appears on page
72 of the report of the Massachusetts State Commission was correct. He replied " No" (page 4996). Mr. Sears was also asked
why he did not co-operate with the Y. M. C. A. in this city and he
replied (page 5006). "iSome body from over in Brooklyn called
me up, a gentleman, I don't know what his name was, a Mr. Henry
or AMr. H. Somebody. It was H. Hawley -he called me on the
telephone and said that he wanted to place an engineer, he wanted
an engineer and he wanted us to send somebody over to him.
I said we could not undertake to do that, as they were a fee agency
and it might be implied that we were co-operating on that proposition. I said 'give us the name of the employer and we will do
the business direct.'
Q. You didn't co-operate with him in that respect? A. We
could not consistently do it.
Q. Are you co-operating with other agencies now? A. No; if
the employer will come to us direct, yes.
Q. Are you co-operating with the Atwood agency? A. Yes, we
did, because Mrs. Atwood told me that she would waive the fee
and that no fee would be charged.
Q. And was not that the case with the Y. M. C. A. Didn't
they offer to do the same thing? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ask them to. A. Yes, sir."
Mrs. Atwood was called as a witness and testified on December
28th (page 5103), that she called up the Free Employment
Bureau, some time previously, asked for Mr. Sears and spoke
to the person on the telephone telling him that she " wanted some
waiters for a shift, and prepared for going out on a voyage, and
I gave him the wages and conditions, etc., and I asked him if they




117


can send some men of that character, for we needed a large number and needed them quick." Thirty minutes later she was called
up by the same persons with whom she spoke previously who said
that they could furnish the help they wanted, and the next morning they sent her two men.
" Q. Did they ask if you would waive the fee? A. No, sir,
the waiving of a fee was not mentioned and under no conditions.
(. You made no suggestion to the persons over the telephone
that you would waive the fee? A. No, sir, there was no condition and no suggestion made of this kind on either side.
(. And if Mr. Sears testified- I read from his testimony:
'Are you co-operating with the Atwood Agency? A. Yes, I am,
because Mrs. Atwood told me that she is waiving the fee and that
no fee would be charged,' is that statement correct? A. I think
not.
Q. It is not. A. No, I have not talked fee to Mr. Sears, I have
never talked to him but that once regarding any men and there
was no suggestion in regard to any fee at all.
Q. No suggestion made to you about waiving your fees? A.
None whatever."
Willis Hawley testified on December 28th that he called up the
Free Employment Bureau by telephone and asked for a third class
engineer (page 5110). "Well, I said that we had co-operated
with the Bureau on Lafayette street in several instances and that
we would waive the preliminary fee as we have done, and that we
would like to furnish our clients with these men, and that if he
had a man on his lists, and if he could send us a man who was investigated and was all right, we would waive the preliminary fee."
Q. (Page 5111) Were you asked by Mr. Sears to waive the fee?
A. Why not exactly asked, he stated that he could not co-operate
with us if we charged fees.
Q. Did you then offer to waive the preliminary fee? A. I
offered then to waive the preliminary fee if the man was investigated and would be guaranteed by him to be all right.
Q. What did he say to that? A. My recollection is that he
said, ' well, if anybody happened to come in' he would send him
over.




118


Q. l)id he send anyone?  A.:No.
Q. I:idl you hear from him after that? A. iNo."
In view of Mr. Sears' denial of the accuracy of the statenents
made in the report of the Massachusetts investigating commission,
the contradictions of his testimony by Mrs. Atwood and Mr. Hawley must be considered. Mr. Sears' own veracity is in question.
Mr. Sears was asked with reference to the removal of the age
restriction in the second advertisement for the position of Superintendent of the Free Employment Bureau (page 5009).
" Q. And didn't you believe the second one was for the purpose
of enabling you to enter the examination, you then being in the
city's employ temporarily as head of this Bureau? A. Why it
was to enable me, with others, it made it possible for me to take
the examination, I don't know whether it was done for my special
benefit."
Secretary Belcher was asked by President Neu (page 5012):
" Q. Was not Mr. Sears mentioned in the discussion between
yourself and the president of the municipal commission and the
State Commission at the time the question of raising the age limit,
when that was mentioned? Mr. Belcher: Yes.
President Neu: And wasn't it said that it was desired to have
Mr. Sears admitted to the examination? M r. Belcher: It was, I
think, but that is not the statement which you made, k[Mr. President.  The examination was not readvertised for the purpose of
admitting Mr. Sears.
President Neu: It was readvertised, wasn't it, for the purpose
of admitting Mr. Sears, with others? Mr. Belcher: Yes, certainly, the facts of the nmatter were that we had a dearth of applicants who had the lqualifications, even qualifying cxperience, to
say nothing of experience whlich( would count in their favor."
Mr. Sears testified tlllt since lie has held the position of Superintendent of the Free Employmenlt lBureau, that he spent money
advertising in the daily newspapers for positions and that the coiporation counsel informed him that this was in violation of the city
charter (page 5014).  Since then the expenditure of public money
for this purpose stopped.




119


License Conmmllissioner Bell was asked (page 51;7):
"Q. Would not a person who had charge of a great employment
bureau, semi-public employment bureau, such as the Y. IM. C. A.,
fit into the position of that kind, and be able to carry that on just
as well as a person who had acquired some knowledge from having
run a public employment bureau? A. It might be quite possible.
I do not think tlat such a mana should be debarred at all from competing for such a position, but the fact is that if I had an opportunity to pick, I would go pick a man that had experience along
exactly the lines I needed in the line of running my bureau.
*  *  *
Q. You think a man from out of town coming to the city of New
York can operate a bureau of that kind as well as a man with six
or seven years' engagement in similar work, although not in a public bureau? A. Well, I think his viewpoint would be better and
that he would very speedily get in touch with conditions here.
Q. Wouldn't the other man get in touch with conditions here,
knowing the city as he does, and the man who had run a public
employment bureau outside of the city, knowing nothing of the
city's conditions, wouldn't they be about on an equal basis in getting along? A. Well, one man of course would have an advantage on one side while the other would have an advantage on the
other."
Miss Marion White, a clerk in the Free Employment Bureau,
testified she was employed as an emergency appointee by Commissioner Bell, that she had worked just one month to December 18th
at the rate of $900 per year. Secretary Belcher of the municipal
commission acknowledged (page 4896) that a list of temporary
clerks, male and female, was in existence. Miss White was not
taken from the list. She testified on December 21st, that she had
worked in the city's employment bureau two days beyond the limit
of 30 days specified in paragraph 4 of rule 12 under which she
was appointed, but that her services those two days were as a "volunteer."  Miss White was still working as a "volunteer" in the
Free Employment Bureau the day Commissioner Bell testified,
December 28th.




120


DEPARTMENT OF CHARITIES
Charities Commissioner Kingsbury committed an act of gross
injustice when he dismissed Samuel Bernstein, for fourteen years
a faithful employee of the department, on charges of " inefficiency,
neglect of duty and unbusinesslike methods," and the Municipal
Civil Service Commission failed in its duty when it permitted the
Commissioner to ignore the eligible list when appointing Bernstein's successor.
For twenty years the position of Purchasing Agent in the
Charities Department was held by a civil service employee until
last December when the Commissioner appointed his former
secretary after dismissing Bernstein.
Mr. Bernstein was purchasing agent of the department for
a year and two months prior to November 25, 1914, when he was
served with charges handed to him by Alfred E. Rejall, private
secretary to the Commissioner. He was ordered to defend the
charges on the morning of the 27th, the day intervening being
Thanksgiving, the order stating " You will be allowed an opportunity of making an explanation in answer thereto before me at
the central office of the Department of Public Charities, Municipal Building, Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, at
10:15 in the forenoon on the 27th day of November, 1914, at
which time and place you are hereby directed and ordered to be
present and prepared to submit your explanation." He was not
permitted to have counsel present, and he was found guilty by
Commissioner   Kingsbury  on  the   testimony  of  Deputy
Commissioners Wright and     Thompson, the latter having
been in the department only twenty-five days.   Mr. Bernstein testified: "Q. (P. 5646) Had Commissioner Kingsbury
or Commissioner Thompson or Commissioner Wright ever
rebuked you or reproved you for failure to perform
your duty   as purchasing  agent prior to the service of
these charges? A. Yes, sir, about the early part of August. I
was called into Commissioner Kingsbury's office and the commissioner wanted to know why the people of the City Home were not
furnished with clothing and the like. I told him at the time that
there were not any funds and when I called the attention of Commissioner Ireland at the time * *  * he told me not to issile




121


any orders if the appropriation was exhausted, but to hold on and
they could wait a while, and I have written them letters time and
time again stating that the appropriations were exhausted, without
results. I was not authorized to purchase in the open market and
send out orders for that. * * *. Q. You would violate the law
if you wrote an order when there was no appropriation? A. I
would violate the law if there was not sufficient amount in the
appropriation."
Mr. Bernstein testified that the supply accounts for all the
institutions under control of the Charities Department were exhausted before August, 1914, and added (p. 5651) "on the 19th
of June I wrote a letter to Commissioner Wright, the first deputy,
reporting that certain appropriations were exhausted. ' Some of
the accounts are very important and a request for transfer should
be made at once.'    *   *. On June 30th, I wrote another
letter: 'Supplementing my letter of the 19th in re: 1914 appropItions overdrawn, would state that it is urgent to have these
accounts replenished at the earliest possible moment. Below find
list showing the condition of each appropriation for which a transfer is requested and the amount required for the balance of the
year.' 
Mr. Bernstein testified that his trial lasted from 10:15 to 12
o'clock on the morning of November 27th, and that he received
his notice of dismissal at 4:30 that afternoon. Quoting: "Q.
(5667.) Who prosecuted and presented the charges against you?
A. Commissioner Kingsbury himself. He brought up all the
facts and then asked Commissioner Thompson a few questions
and then called in Commissioner Wright. Commissioner AWright
was not in at the time and when that second clause there, neglect
of duty came up, when I questioned the fact that Commissioner
Wright instructed me to follow that out, they called Commissioner
Wright in."
Bernstein testified that he explained that whatever he did on
which the charges against him were based, was done under orders
from one of the Commissioners. He continued (p. 5658): "When
Commissioner Kingsbury came in he consolidated both Brooklyn
and Richmond and Manhattan and made it under one central
purchasing bureau. That was in July, 1914. It meant at least




122


two clerks additional that I ought to receive, and when the matter
was brought up to my attention and they asked my opinion on it,
I told them it was a very good scheme to consolidate all the purchases, but I would need at least two clerks, a stenographer and a
clerk additional. It was promised me at the time by Commissioner Wright, but I never got it."
Bernstein who was an assistant purchasing agent for a year and
a half before he took charge of the bureau, was superseded by
Alfred E. Rejall, who up to that time had acted as Commissioner
Kingsbury's private secretary, in spite of the fact that an eligible
list for purchasing agent of the (Clarities Department existed.
The position of purchasing agent in the department had been
filled from the civil service list for twenty years.
Mr. Rejall testified that he had no experience whatever in the
purchase of supplies of any description prior to his appointment
to the position. Rejall was acting as purchasing agent thirty days,
on a provisional appointment, when questioned by the S,te
Commission.
Mr. Bernstein read in evidence letters to the deputy commissioners dated in May and August, suggesting the transfer of necessary help to the central purchasing bureau, and he testified that
as purchasing agent he was responsible for the expenditure of
about $450,000 a year, of which about $200,000 was spent on
open market orders, the balance going to the State's prisons for
material manufactured there. The total expenditure of the department for supplies which he endorsed on contract and open
market order was about two and a half million dollars a year (p.
5640).
Mr. Rejall who succeeded Bernstein as purchasing agelt, testified that lie became secretary to the commissioner in February,
1914, at $2,250 per year; that his salary was increased to $3,000
in April; that he had known the commissioner since lie was a
student in Columbia University in 1907, and that he was working
in the Department of Psychology there prior to his appointment.
" Q. (P. 5676.) How is it that you were taken away from your
duties as secretary and made acting purchasing agent, how did
that come about? A. There was an understanding in February
when I was appointed secretary to the Commissioner-  * *.
Q. (P. 5677.) Then you understood that you were to give way




123


for the new secretary to the commissioner? A. I won't put it
that way sir, by any means. * * *. Q. The Commissioner told
you that he intended to appoint a new secretary, didn't he? A.
Not that lie definitely intended to, that he had il mind the appointment of a certain man providing he might obtain him.
* * *. Q. (P. 5'678) The agreement was that either you were to
make room for this man, for this new secretary, or you were to
go out and get another position? A. He would secure me, by a
matter of recommendation, provided my services were satisfactory
to him, he would secure me some aid in obtaining another position.
Q. Mr. Kingsbury kept his word in that respect by giving you
this position as acting purchasing agent, he kept his agreement
with you in that, is not that so? * * *. Will you answer that
question now please, will you say yes or no? A. He appointed
me acting purchasing agent; there was no understanding in the
beginning that I would be appointed to any position in the department, nothing definite, there was no particular position mentioned by the Commissioner,- no position mentioned, nor was
there any mention made that I would receive a particular position,
if this other person would come on into the department and serve.
Q. You were simply to be taken care of? A. In the sense that
anybody, provided I had been satisfactory, would recommend me
to anybody else. Q. (P. 5683.) What experience did you have
as purchasing agent prior to securing your present position?
A. I said I had never been in a position as purchasing agent.
Q. And when did you first if ever -when, if ever, did you ascertain that Bernstein was not satisfactory as a purchasing agent?
A. Why it was I who gave Mr. Bernstein the letter asking him to
appear at the hearing; I don't recall the exact date."
How BERNARD J. LALLY WAS KEPT OUT OF A POSITION IN THE
CHARITIES DEPARTMENT
Bernard J. Lally, who is employed as " hospital helper " on
Blackwell's Island, was on the list for deputy lay superintendent
at Sea View Hospital on Staten Island. Hie was notified by Secretary l'orden of the Charities Department on February 11, 19,14,
that his name had been certified for appointment and he replied he
would take the place. He received a letter dated March 11th,




124


from Deputy Charities Commissioner Ireland notifying him that
his certification from the municipal civil service commission ex.
pired before Commissioner Kingsbury acted upon it. Lally had
" looked over " the place on Staten Island prior to receipt of this
communication, at the suggestion of Secretary Borden. On April
3d, he wrote to President Moskowitz of the Municipal Civil Service Commission telling him of what had transpired, that he had
not been appointed though he signified his willingness to take the
place and was the only one on the eligible list who had done so.
He received no response from President Moskowitz and a copy of
his letter to the president was read in evidence (p. 5837). Lally
is still employed as " hospital helper " in the workhouse on Blackwells Island at $480 per year and maintenance. The position
at Sea View Hospital pays $600 per year and maintenance. Lally
has been in the employ of the city six years; three years with the
Charities Department and three years with the Department of
'Correction. His name was on the eligible list for " hospital clerk "
as well as for " deputy lay superintendent of hospitals " and in
his letter to President Moskowitz, Lally informs that official, that
another person had been appointed " temporarily " to fill the latter
position, the title having been changed to " supervisor."
A MEDICAL DIRECTOR AT $6,000 A YEAR FOR THIRTY INEBRIATES
Charles Samson, secretary to the inebriety board, an exempt
position, testified that he came to this country in 1904, that he
became a citizen in 1907, and that he has been in his present position at $3,000 per year since October 1, 1912. He testified that
for five years prior to that time he was secretary to Dr. John W.
Brannan, President of Bellevue and Allied Hospitals, and that
prior to that time he worked under Dr. William H. Allen, former
director of the Bureau of Municipal Research, who was general
agent of the Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor.
The position of secretary to the inebriety board was exempted for
his predecessor Dr. William Morrison, but that since Morrison
resigned he had occupied the position.
The appropriation for the inebriety board for 1915, is $26,000
and Mr. Samson testified that there were thirty patients in the
colony at Warwick, N. Y., where the city owns 800 acres (p.




125


5814), of whom six were drug victims and the others addicted to
drink. The board of inebriety is under the jurisdiction of the
Charities Department and Commissioner Kingsbury requested
an appropriation of $54,000 for the current year. This was reduced by the board of estimate to the sum allowed. The municipal
commission exempted Dr. Charles S. Stokes, as medical director
of the Board at $6,000 a year and Mr. Samson testified on January 7th, that " we expect to have an average of at least 100 patients
throughout the year" (p. 5816).
COMMISSIONErt KINGSBURY'S FRIEND A "TEMPORARY" BOOKKEEPER FOR ONE YEAR
Another instance of civil service abuse by Charities Commissioner Kingsbury is the case of Carl Johnson, who was appointed
bookkeeper in the Charities Department in January, 1914, at
$900 per year.
Johnson knew the Commissioner in Seattle, and was in New
York city six months when appointed. He said he asked the
Commissioner for a job and that there were vacancies in the
bookkeeping staff at the time.
Johnson testified on January 11, 1915 (p. 6240). There had
been an examination for bookkeeper toward the end of 1913 and
the eligible list was about to be promulgated when the municipal
commission went into office January 1, 1914. President Moskowitz explained (p. 6245) that he "cancelled the whole examination and then we gave a new one. Because I cancelled it,
naturally it took some time to prepare the new examination, and
those who had been acting as ' provisionals ' acted still further as
'provisionals,'" violating the provisions of their appointment.
HOSPITAL HELPERS FOR ALL KINDS OF SERVICE
This title covers an extensive and systematic violation of law
and of civil service principles.  The original purpose and
reason for these employees was to obtain inexpensive help in city
hospitals in menial grades of employment. The salaries are small
and the places were occupied by convalescent persons, or those
who had nothing better to go to. It has been a matter of comment
and conceded by city officials who were witnesses that the grade




126


of ordinary hospital helpers is low, and that they are not ideal
attendants upon the sick. Their salaries range from $180 to $480
with mlaaintelane and occasionally run to $60:0 or $720 without
maintenance.  The custom of using the more intelligent and reliable of these persons for clerical services had a natural origin in
the hospital, but the custom has been pushed to such an extreme
that it amounts now to a gross violation of law.
"HOSPITAL HELPERS" WORKING IN         MANY   CAPACITIES IN
DEPARTMENTS OF CHARITIES, HEALTH AND B3ELLEVUE AND
ALLIED HOSPITALS
The title is frequently used to circumvent the law, and in many
instances it affects seriously the rights of persons on eligible lists
and the rights of laboring men, because in some of the hospitals,
hospital helpers are working as mechanics alongside of real mechanics, and their payrolls passed on false certifications.  The evil
has gone so far that in some instances where a commissioner desires to employ a friend and has no appropriation or other position available, he appoints the individual as a "hospital helper "
(though he never visits a hospital) and is employed as clerk or
stenographer or something similar in spite of the fact that he is
certified as "hospital helper."  In the ordinary situation the
Municipal Civil Service Commission does not know that the payroll certificate is false, but in many instances the facts were shown
publicly to the municipal commission in our hearings; but the
violations continued.
Mr. Spencer, former secretary of the local civil service commission testified (page 444) that about two years previous an agreement was reached between the hospital authorities and the civil
service commission then in office that hospital helpers who were
performing clerical work in hospitals and in the offices of the heads
of the departments of Charities, Health and Bellevue and Allied
hospitals should be classed as "hospital clerks."  If they received
more than $480 a year they would fall into the competitive class -
indicated by an eligible list. Notwithstanding this agreement the
"hospital helper" is a worse evil to-day than ever before, and this
is largely due to the attitude of the Charities Commission which
has not been effectively checked by the Municipal Civil Service




127


Conmmissionh. I2he 11unicipjal Co nm lission surrendered iLi  the
'matter of the forty-seven examiners and it has surrendered in
nlearly every otiler insta;nce, thereby oecoming,party to the w!rong.
On October 21, 1914, Florence Rowland was called as a witness (page 212).  She had been employed in the central office of
the Department of Charities in the Municipal 1Building since June
22, 19,14, as stenographer and typewriter. She was paid as " hospital helper."  Miss Lohman (confidential secretary to Commissioner Kingsbury) tested her as a stenographer and she was employed at $50 a month, and worked there steadily until she appeared before us as a witness, September 29th; she signed the application for employment as " hospital helper " was carried oil the
payroll as " hospital helper " and was so certified.
Clyde 1). Iose was examined (p. 218). Ile had known Commissioner Kingsbury in Seattle. He came from Seattle to take
part in the boat races at Poughkeepsie. Iie was in New York
city one week when lie was employed by Commissioner Kingsbury. He opened the Commissioner's mail and classified it for
reading, worked on his tickler system and executed special assignments as an investiglator, examining requisitions and the like.
He had no notion of doing hospital work and said if it were
required of him lie would resign. He thought himself too good
for menial work, he said though he was willing to start in the
Commissioner's office at $50 a month. But, he had to sign an
application for appointment as " hospital helper," was appointed
as such, was put on the payroll, certified and paid as such. Secretary Borden (p. 225) who as one of the Board of Examiners of
the Charities Department had certified that he was free from
physical disease, was morally competent, etc., had given him no
examination whatever.  It developed that those certificates are
habitually so made out by said local board, and are false, because
there is no such examination as certified.  (See Wright, p. 225;
Ireland, p. 270.) The form so certified states that the board has
examined the candidate and finds that he or she is free from
physical disease or defect which is likely to interfere with the
discharge of duties; that general character is satisfactory; that
candidate possesses the requisite knowledge, ability and experience, and that "such person is appointed to perform the duties




128


appropriate to their titles and are not to be assigned to perform
duties appertaining to another title."  It is signed by Henry (.
Wright and   Gordon Ireland, Commissioners, and J. McKee
Borden, Secretary, acting as a board of examiners for non-competitive classes. It was absolutely and knowingly false.
The same form of certificate was made for Miss Rowland, and
for all the persons who were set to clerical, stenographic and
similar work. As no physical examinations are given by this
board the certification is false as to the mass of real hospital
helpers appointed from time to time, and this fact is important
in view of the well founded statements and testimony that the
ranks of the real hospital helpers are infested with "rounders
and habitual drunkards."  These two unfortunate persons, Miss
Rowland and Mr. Rose, had upset things with their unexpected
testimony, and all hands ran to cover.  On October 8th, the
municipal commission notified Commissioner Kingsbury that Mr.
Rose and Miss Rowland were doing work " manifestly in violation of the Civil Service Law," that their payrolls would not be
passed and that they had informed the Comptroller of their action
under section 20 of the Civil Service Law. The notification concluded with these words: "Assignments of hospital helpers similar
to the assignments of Mr. Rose and Miss Rowland will be treated
in the same manner by this commission."
But again the civil service commission surrendered to the charities commissioner, and though many of these cases were revealed
and their payrolls exhibited, the commissioner never acted again.
These two poor, young witnesses, and Miss Wallace, next mentioned, completed the sacrifice. If our commission had accepted
the brave promise of the local body and let it go at that, the system
of violations would have gone on undiscovered and unchecked.
The cases of Miss Rowland and Mr. Rose were supposed at the
time to be exceptional and we treated them only incidentally (p.
293), but being informed that Miss Anna Wallace was engaged in
the commissioner's office in the same way and capacity as Miss
Rowland, a process server was sent to subpoena her.  The commissioner personally interfered, created a diversion by a closed door,
Miss Wallace got away without being served, left her position,
and never afterwards could be secured as a witness. (See pp.




129


155, 165, 167, 169.)  It appeared that Miss Wallace was one of
the special forty-seven charity examiners appointed by Commissioner Kingsbury as previously shown.  Being dropped from
that position on September 1st she was assigned to do stenographic
work for Deputy Commissioner Wright and was appointed as a
hospital helper.
(NOTE.- Commissioner Wright was assisting the process server
to find Miss Wallace who was in the office when Mr. Kingsbury
or someone else in his presence interfered.)
On January 11, 1915, when the investigation was nearly ended,
the main office of the commissioner of charities in the Municipal
building was again called upon, and we saw how futile was the
lesson of October, 1914, and the sacrifice of Rose, Rowland and
Wallace, and the brave letter of the Municipal Civil Service
Commission.
(1) Cletus R. Conway, rated, certified and paid as a " hospital
helper," was found to be the stenographer and copyist for the
purchasing agent at $720 a year, and entirely innocent of hospitals. She had been working previously under the title of
"clerical assistant," why her title was changed she didn't know
but she continued to do the same work (p. 6207).
(2) Helen Ryan, rated, certified and paid as a "hospital
helper," was found to be serving the same person in the same
capacity as Miss Conway, at $720 (p. 6209).
(3) Anna McCann, rated, certified and paid as "hospital
helper," was found to be acting as stenographer to the chief engineer, Mr. Herrick, at $720. This lady is on the civil service
eligible list for typewriter copyist, but never accepted a position,
receiving more money as " hospital helper." She never visited
a hospital (p. 6212).
(4) Marian G. Regan, is rated, certified and paid as a " hospital helper," is the stenographer and typewriter for Mr. Borden,
secretary of the department, at $600 (p. 6214).
(5) Carrile R. Weaver is rated, certified and paid as " hospital
helper" but is actually general clerk and stenographer to Mr.
Dunwoodie, one of the general inspectors in the department, at
$600 (p. 6217).   She was an "emergency stenographer" in
5




130


Brooklyn, was dropped, and then came to New York as " hospital
helper."
In these cases consider the intentional false certifying: First
the application of the candidate is falsely certified, then the payroll is falsely certified. That payroll goes to the Municipal Civil
Service Commission and is again certified. If the commission
doesn't know the facts it ought to. What is the result?  The
comptroller pays out the salary warrants on the strength of those
false certificates, but if he knew the facts as he did in the cases
of Miss Rowland and Mr. Rose he would refuse payment on all
of them. It is not within our function to discuss the question of
criminality.
At the same hearing instances of the same evil were shown in
the same department, in other offices than in the Municipal
building.
(1) Julia C. Clark, hospital helper, has charge of the application book and interviews and enrolls patients at the tuberculosis
hospital (p. 6246).
(2) Ida M. Robins, chief of the forty-seven charity examiners,
whose work is entirely in the office in Schermerhorn street, Brooklyn, is rated, certified and paid as a "nurse" for September,
October and November, 1914, after she was dropped as " charity
examiner," though she continued to do the same work. This false
certification was permitted by the Municipal Commission, her
change of title from " charity examiner " to " nurse " having been
disclosed in her testimony in October and previously.
(3) Matilda G. Reamer was another of the forty-seven dropped
for some reason.  She continued to act as application clerk at
the Schermerhorn street office, but she was rated, certified and
paid as " hospital helper" (p. 6847).
As to Mrs. Reamer, Commission Kingsbury said: Her " payroll title is hospital helper, and the office title is application clerk,
and there was a vacancy in the positions of application clerk and
hospital helper and she was appointed to the place by (deputy)
Commissioner Doherty " (p. 6891).
A list of " hospital helpers " furnished by the commissioner of
charities early in the investigation (October 14, 1914) by direction of the State Commission, showed 1 35 " hospital helpers " who




131


were doing work inappropriate to their titles.  The commissioner
certified that they worked as stenographers, typewriters, clerks,
employment agents, reception agents, index clerks, milk inspectors,
messengers, application clerks, audit clerks, file clerks, registers,
attendants, caretakers, matrons, telephone operators, storekeepers,
storehouse and ledger clerks, file clerks, bookkeepers, information
clerks, payroll clerks, chief clerks. Twenty-one of these were in
his own office in the Municipal building as employment agents,
stenographers, and typewriters, reception agents, clerks, milk inspectors, etc. A similar condition, he stated, existed in the central
office in Brooklyn (p. 744 to 758.)
This report was produced before the representatives of the
Municipal Commission and was summarized in their hearing.
At one of our last sessions President Moskowitz was asked
whether his commission had stopped the payrolls of any other
"hospital helpers" beside that of Mr. Rose and Miss Rowland
and he replied that he had not.
The International Brotherhood of Stationary Firemen (p. 738)
protested against the employment of Henry Hassenbeck, Thomas
O'Connell and Charles Weaver, "hospital helpers," as boiler firemen and oilers in the Metropolitan Hospital. They were being
paid $120 a year and were doing the same work for which regular
workmen in same place were receiving $3 a day. The protest
was made to the Municipal Commission several times without
result (p. 740). The grades of oilers and boiler firemen are
classified (p. 7421). Hospital helpers are noncompetitive.
A report from Bellevue and Allied Hospitals shows 181 persons
listed as "hospital helpers" at salaries ranging from $300 to
$480, 4 at $600, and 1 at $720, working as telephone operators,
clerks, stenographers, typewriters, property clerks, copyists, pharmacists, chemists, assistants in X-ray laboratory, gatemen, foremen, laborers, etc., assistants in shops, elevator runners, storekeepers, registrars, laboratory assistants, morgue keepers, storekeepers, and carpenters (p. 2251).
MUNICIPAL LODGING-HOUSE RUN BY PROVISIONAL APPOINTEE
WHITING AND A " HOSPITAL HELPER "
William A. Whiting had conducted an investigation into the
affairs of a lodging-house for the charities commissioner and on




132


this report charges were made against the incumbent who was
suspended on April 26th, at which time Whiting succeeded him
as temporary superintendent. On June 10th Whiting was appointed under Rule 12, paragraph 4, to fill an emergency. On
July 29 he was given a noncompetitive examination to qualify for
provisional appointment under Rule 12, paragraph 3, and was
holding that position under such appointment on the day he testified (October 23), no competitive examination having been held
up to that time. Whiting exceeded the time limit of his Rule 12,
paragraph 4 appointment by eighteen days and he was in the position as provisional appointee a month beyond the time allowed in
Rule 12, paragraph 3 at the time he testified. His payroll was
passed under special certification by the Municipal Commission
pending the outcome of the noncompetitive examination and there
was no prospect at the time he testified that a competitive examination for the position would be held by the end of the year.
Mr. Whiting was asked if he hoped to get the position of superintendent in the event of the dismissal of the man he was investigating and he replied, "I expected to get it, yes" (p. 1223).
He said he wanted the job because "of the opportunity it gave
for social service " (p. 1224), and he acknowledged that he spoke
about it to Commissioner Kingsbury before he was appointed on
April 26th. He said the commissioner asked him with reference
to his general qualifications and experience before he undertook
the investigation of the administration of the lodging-house (p.
1225). " Q. And thereafter you were appointed to investigate?
A. Yes."
Whiting's noncompetitive examination was conducted in violation of Rule 7, paragraph 9, which specifies that " all examinations
shall be in writing except such as relate to physical qualities and
except as herein otherwise provided." The provision requires that
a stenographic record of oral questions and answers be filed.
President Moskowitz of the Municipal Commission testified that
there was no stenographic record of the noncompetitive examination given to Whiting and Whiting testified that the only " examination " he was subjected to was when an investigator named
Simpson called at the lodging-house and asked him questions about
the duties of the position.




133


Whiting was assisted in his investigation by a man named Sigmund Simon whom he " picked up " at the lodging-house, and
who acted as " assistant superintendent" (pp. 1350 and 1351).
Simon is recorded on the payroll of the charities department as a
"hospital helper" at a salary of $720 a year. He first received
$480 a year, which was increased, he said, September 1. Simon
testified that he first met Whiting in March and that he assisted
from that time until he was appointed " hospital helper." In that
capacity Simon acted as the " strong-arm " of the institution. He
said that he was subjected to no examination other than questions
put to him by Whiting, and that Mr. Whiting "talked casually
about different affairs connected with the lodging-house " (p. 1353).
Mr. Whiting was one of the persons to whom Simon referred as
a " character reference" on April 22, when he filled out a statement which is filed with the Civil Service Commission and Whiting signed the statement as a witness. That statement and the
references were never verified by them. Recently, as stated above,
Simon disappeared from the lodging-house with $180 belonging
to a lodger. Third Deputy Commissioner Thompson testified
that he investigated the charge of Walter J. Sloane, former
steward, that he was beaten at the lodging-house by Simon in the
presence of Whiting, and he recommended Simon's dismissal for
conduct unbecoming an employee of the city. This recommendation was made three weeks before Simon disappeared and it was
not acted upon by Commissioner Kingsbury. That commissioner
kept Simon in his place as assistant superintendent after he had
been notified publicly that it was illegal to allow him to do such
work under the title of hospital helper. In Commissioner Kingsbury's violation of law the Municipal Civil Service Commission
participated with full knowledge, certifying and passing him on
the payrolls. It appears that many of the inmates of the lodginghouse have money and that special arrangements are made to care
for it.
THE FORTY-SEVEN EXAMINERS OF CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS
For many years the Department of Charities has maintained a
force of "Examiners of Charitable Institutions" whose duties
included the re-examination of cases in which children had been




134


committed as defectives and otherwise, to Randall's Island and
to the various child caring institutions. These employees operated mainly through three bureaus controlled by Superintendents
Thorne, Bauer and Dodworth. Children supposed and known to
be mentally defective have been referred by the various courts
and societies to a bureau organized by an eminent specialist, Dr.
Schlapp, through whose clearing house for mental defectives,
their status and condition were determined, and if proper they
have been sent to the hospital for children on Randall's Island.
These superintendents are men of experience, tact and ability
and the work of re-investigation has been very faithfully performed with the force of examiners at their disposal. While
there has been no social service program (as understood in certain
lately developed circles) there has been a plain and practical social
work done by these investigators as far as they have been able
to do it, incidental to their work. There has been sensible and
practical co-operation between the examiners and the various
private charities of the city so that the cases of need and distress
have been referred to these societies for their very effective
treatment.
Recently Dr. Edward T. Devine has accepted a temporary ap
pointment in the Department of Charities for the purposes among
others, of developing a more definite social service program in connection with the work of the examiners whose numbers have been
enlarged, and he testified that he has found excellent material
among the old examiners, and that in his grouping of the examiners, his instructing them and his urging for the new, social service program, he is receiving encouraging assistance from a large
proportion of these old examiners.
Early in 1914, it appears that the Commissioner of the Department of Charities began to proceed with a program for enlarging
his force of examiners. There was an eligible list in existence
from which appointments easily could be made upon the transfer
of funds to the Charities Department to provide for their salaries.
This eligible list contained many persons of good practical experience,- people who had lived in the City of New York for
a long time and who were familiar with practical problems of
life in crowded parts of the city. Many of these have done




135


volunteer work for years in the charitable societies connected with
churches and synagogues. But it was not part of the commissioner's program or desire to accept candidates from that list.
He desired to make personal selections and personal appointments
and he and his advisers turned to rule 12 for help. Paragraph 6
of that rule provided that:
" The Commission may by resolution except from competitive examination any person engaged in private business
who shall render any professional, scientific, technical or
expert service of an occasional and exceptional character to
any city officer and the amount of whose compensation in
any one year shall not exceed $750."
It was designed in appointing under this clause, if the local
civil service commission would permit it, to have the employments
run for six months at the rate of $1,200 a year (which would be
within the $750 provision), and in the meanwhile to procure another eligible list to follow the old list on its expiration near the end
of the year. The first problem was to secure a transfer of funds
to pay the salaries. A long and careful statement was made to
the comptroller who, in turn, presented it to the board of estimate
and apportionment and on that statement $42,750 was transferred from the food and supplies account (used by hospitals,
etc.) of the Department of Charities to pay the salaries. In the
comptroller's report it was stated that this proceeding was most
unusual and would be subject to criticism unless there was a very
good reason for it and that reason was stated to be the claim by
the commissioner of charities that if his force of examiners were
enlarged so that adequate re-examinations could be made, the additional re-examinations would result in the removal from child
caring institutions of so many dependents that the cutting out
of the allowances made for the care of those children would result
in a saving to the city of many times the salaries, and at the same
time discourage those who suffered their children to be placed as
charges upon the treasury of the city. There was no word expressed in the report of the commissioner upon which the comptroller's report was based nor in the comptroller's report, expressive of any intention to organize a social service program with




136


the new examiners. No doubt there were men in the board of
estimate and apportionment who understood that that project was
included in the proposition, but it is just as certain that there
were other men in the board of estimate and apportionment who
were not informed of this relatively expensive program, nor of
the new social service scheme that was to be built up, by a transfer
of food supply funds.
The money being appropriated, the next step was to evade the
eligible list upon which many worthy people had been long waiting for appointments.  When the commissioner of charities addressed the Municipal Civil Service Commission asking that his
appointees be excepted, it did except them upon a proposition
not mentioned to the board of estimate and apportionment,
namely, that it was intended to do a new work of social service -
of the rehabilitation of families which would require just the kind
of people as examiners who are described in paragraph 6 of rule
12. It appears that the persons whom the commissioner had
selected to appoint were already known and designated when the
resolution was adopted. That resolution was not put through the
Municipal Civil Service Commission without discussion and
division of opinion and it seems clear that the resolution was
passed without the concurrence of one of the commissioners who
held that the proposal was not lawful.
The State Civil Service Commission examined a large proportion of the forty-seven persons who were appointed to these important positions without competitive examination, and who by
their temporary service gained practical advantages which helped
them materially to get upon the new eligible list which recently
was made up to supersede the old eligible list. Conceding that
several of the forty-seven were persons of good qualifications and
experience, it was perfectly plain that in general these new examiners did not meet the requirements of section 6, which was
tortured to permit their appointment. The report of the commissioner of charities upon which the financial provision for the
forty-seven was made by the board of estimate, contained a careful
computation of the number of cases that must be re-investigated,
in the time (six months) in which it must be done, of the average
number of cases per day that an investigator could handle, with




137


the final straight result that it required just that number of
examiners to re-investigate that number of cases. The computing
was so carefully done as to run into decimals. It was conceded
by the commissioner and his subordinates that rehabilitation work
requires very much more time than investigating and that the
average number of cases that can be handled for social service is
very much fewer than those which can be handled for reinvestigating.  Our investigation showed clearly that if the forty-seven
were to be used for the purposes expressed to the board of estimate and apportionment they could not do social service or rehabilitation work, and also that if they were to be used for social
service and rehabilitation they could not accomplish the reinvestigation which was urged as the basis for the financial provision.
The persons who were appointed were relatively young and
lacking in the experiences of life. Relatively they had more college and special training than the old examiners or eligibles but
that was discounted by their lack of experience in the world
and in the real problems of life. Two of the persons appointed
were under twenty-one years of age and two of them were not
citizens.  Some had to be dropped soon, because they did not
qualify in the service. They had come largely from the employment
bureau associated with the School of Philanthropy where they
registered and paid a fee. One of those dropped had been recommended by President Moskowitz of the municipal commission.
He rendered false reports. It might be supposed that to qualify
forty-seven appointments upon the ground of "peculiar and exceptional qualifications of a scientific, professional or educational
character," that there would have been a careful examination
made and recorded of each one of the appointees. The fact as
developed in the testimony given before us, and the admissions of
the commissioner and his assistants, was that the examinations
were short and perfunctory, lasting in some cases five minutes
and occasionally twenty minutes, that no record was kept of
those examinations, that nothing could be shown to indicate what
the inquiries and answers were and that in some cases the selection
proceeded upon the ground of personal acquaintance and recommendation.
Several of the persons upon the eligible list were examined by
us in order to get a view of their personalities. Some of the old




138


examiners were questioned and it was found that without special
instructions they had been doing some social work (until the fortyseven were appointed), that there was relatively as much humanitarianism among the old examiners and the persons on the eligible
list as could be found in the forty-seven, with as much probability
of responsiveness to a definite program of organization and instruction upon the new notion of social service in the Charities Department. As the claim for the exception of the forty-seven was
based upon a claim of very special and extraordinary qualification, quite a number of cases were examined in which the new
temporary examiners had worked and wherein it was found that
their conduct was distinguished by a failure to appreciate and act
upon the principles of humanity. It was found that ordinarily
the new examiners had proceeded with the main proposition in
view of accomplishing a reduction of the city's expenses by removing dependents from the children's hospital and from child
caring institutions, and that their primary purpose was not the
relieving and helping of persons afflicted with poverty and sickness. " Social service " was forgotten. There were some instances
shown where the new examiners had done helpful work while investigating, but it was no greater in degree and quality than that
which appears to have been done regularly by the good oldfashioned examiners, moved by humane impulses which attend
them while they are upon their duties.
It was not with any intention of overhauling the general conduct of the Department of Charities that these cases were examined, but entirely for the purpose of observing in action the
new force of examiners excepted from competitive examination,
upon the ground of peculiar qualities and qualifications and likely
to be permanently grafted upon the city's civil service list through
the competitive examination which they were to take, with the
advantage of several months' experience in the positions temporarily held and with the specialized training and acquired terminology of charity experts who organized the new movement.
A summation of the whole matter is this: A complete reinvestigation to determine whether there were unworthy cases in
the children's hospital and in the child-caring institutions re



139


quired exactly the old force of investigators, plus the forty-seven
who were provided for in the action of the board of estimate on
purely economical grounds - and on no program of social service,
and who might just as well have been taken from the standing
eligible list. They could have done the social work on the side as
they have been doing by the use of kind words and helpful suggestions and by referring cases of need and distress to the A. I. C. P.
the dispensaries and other charitable institutions. The ignoring
of the eligible list and going to the Municipal Civil Service Commission for an exception under Rule 12 paragraph 6 was simply
a device to beat the list and did not result in securing " experts "
such as are described in the rule. It did not open a real program
of social service any different from that which was carried on by
the old examiners and which is being followed and enlarged by
Doctor Devine with the effective help of the old examiners, for
carrying the humane spirit into their work. The augmented force
is no greater than necessary to do thorough re-investigating of
dependent cases with humanity and helpfulness on the side.
The temporary excepted examiners were not specially humane,
and their conduct in many cases shown in our subjoined Table D,
shows that some of them were heartless and were more intent on
putting children out of places and thereby saving money for the
city, than they were of helping the poor and the distressed.
To do a real inspirational social work among the poor properly
and effectively, would require a much larger force than has been
provided for or contemplated, and would impinge on the excellent
work of private organizations that are all within reach by an
enlargement of the policy of coordination between the examiners
and the societies that has long existed.
The view of the Board of Estimate is shown in the fact that the
salaries for the new social service investigators coming from the
new list that has been established have been fixed at $900 to $1,050
and $1,200 (instead of all at $1,200).
James P. Conway (1419, etc.), who was formerly Assistant
Chief Examiner of the Municipal Civil Service Commission, took
part in preparing and rating the examination for the former
eligible list. He had considerable experience in social service




140


(p. 1550). He made a comparison of the papers of 40 of those
candidates, with the statements of 35 of the 47 made to the State
Civil Service Commission, as to their experience and qua.lifications.
He said (p. 1425) that those on the eligible list were in general
well qualified by age, experience and fundamental education, and
some were exceptionally well qualified. Out of 40 examined, 30
were between 26 and 40 years of age, and only 2 were under 26.
As for the new appointees, they had good fundamental schooling,
but lacked in training after leaving school a:nd in business matters,
and were particularly lacking in investigation experience. Of the
35 examined, 10 were under 26 years of age, and 19 were under
35. Twelve of these had not been employed since leaving school,
or their occupations were meagre. On the whole, the qualifications of those on the old eligible list for practical work, were
superior. That opinion is sustained on all the evidence in the
case.
The Commissioner of Charities on August 6, 1914, wrote to the
Municipal Commission and said:
" The persons whom we desire to enlist in the work are
real experts within the meaning of Rule 12, Clause 6. The
service which they are to render is distinctly, ' expert service
of an occasional or exceptional character.'"
On July 25 he had notified that commission that the appointment of the 47 had been made, and referred to July 7 as the date
of an agreement for their appointment. On that letter one of the
clerks of the commission endorsed a reference to the existing
eligible list, and did the same on a similar letter dated August 6,
1914.
John A. Daly, one of the old regular force of examiners testified (p. 4726) that he protested directly to President Moskowitz
against the appointment of the 47 as an injury to those who had
entered the department in the regular way. He said (p. 4730)
there was dissention, antagonism and disorganization of the employees by the reflection upon them (that they were not fitted for
the kind of work to be done); that the examiners felt they were




141


not getting a square deal. At a conference of the examiners attended by Commissioner Kingsbury, he declared that the social
service idea was nothing new, and that the old examiners had been
working on those lines. He said: That since that time he had
not been invited to conferences, and he has been transferred to
Staten Island and has the whole of that island to cover alone.
CONCLUSION
In concluding our report, we regret to have to say that the
Municipal Civil Service Commission has shown itself in many
respects to be weak and inefficient. The integrity of the law lies
with the local commission. In some cases the Commission has
neglected its duty; in others it has not seen its duty; in others
it has concurred in evasions and violations; and it has violated
the law itself. The dominating member has been the President,
and on him rests the greatest share of the blame. He has demonstrated himself to be temperamentally incompetent and impractical, while the other members failed to grasp opportunities to
offset these defects and resultants thereof.
The Commission expresses its high appreciation of the services
of Special Deputy Attorney-General, Frank Moss, and of Henry
H. Klein, whom it employed as investigator.
JACOB D. NEU, President.
MEYER WOLFF, M. D.,
JAMES A. LAVERY,
State Civil Service Commissioners.
TABLE "A "
CASES IN PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS
Note. When Mr. Curtis was examined and showed an absence
of physical tests except dumb bell and eye chart test in the examination for salary and grade examiner, President Moskowitz said
(1012) that if it was true, the examination was not up to the
standard; that the notice specifying many requirements that were
not really exacted on the examination, was not right. He said,




142


" I am very grateful because I am going to find out why the man
didn't get the examination indicated on the card " (1017). He said
he didn't see why there should be a difference between that examination and the finger-print examination. He said, " We want
physically sound bodies in the city's service" (1023). Mr. Coudert intervened and said, " He says this now, that as soon as you
point out anything bad, he will try to carry it out."  (Mr.
Coudert's language was unusually ambiguous, but no doubt he
meant, well.)
President Neu responded: " That is what we are here for"
and Mr. Coudert answered, " That is what we are all here for."
But the proofs as we went along showed that the promise of
the early report was not kept, and that in most of the examinations, despite the advertisements, there were no physical tests
except the old ones of dumb-bell and eye chart, and that those often
were administered and marked unfairly and wrong.
Cases. Michael J. Gannon (905), Claude F. Curtis (914),
Fred W. Taylor (1083), Leo Reich (2013), Mrs. B. Irvine
(2411),Miles S. Vickery (2815), James A. Burns (2903),Walter
F. Tracy (2906), WVm. E. Schuster (2910), Rose Webber (2912),
J. C. Lyons (2914), Benjamin Schwartz (2917), Flora Biddlecomb (2818), Adrian D. Stevenson (2880, 2873), Lillian Wolf
(2880), Carroll Klein (2897), Sidney W. Reeves (3090, 2848),
Nathan Applebaum (3076), Frank H. Hinnin (3079), Edw. F.
Cooney (3096), David Scott (3112), Victor J. Matthews (3124),
Thomas A. Kennedy (3127), Bertha Herbig (3224), Theresa
Heslau (3227), Barbara Brown (3228), Catharine Northrop
(3231), Thos. Dunworth (2393), Isaac Levy (3246), Catharine
A. Washkey (3249), Anna K. Solan (4907), Esther Polinsky
(4914), Mary A. Greenberg (4916), Geo. P. Burke (4921), John
O'Connor (4923), Francis M. O'Keefe (4931), Nina Prey
(4935), Leopold A. Greco (5084).
See statement of strict physical examination for elimination
purposes where there are many candidates (2894).
See the sending out of invitations for re-examination after rejection, without requests from candidates, when the State Commission was " poking into " the physical examination books (2880-1).




143


TABLE " B 1
CASES IN POLICEMEN'S PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS
Our examinations included only a few of the cases that appeared
in the books, and we show the results of our inquiries into tt:em.
Policemen rejected on minimum height of 5 ft. 7 2/5 in.
(1/10 of an inch short); Fred Borho (3104); D. R. Breen
(3106); Arthur Lassen (3106); Louis F. DeMars (3342); B.
Marchesi (3347); Francis M. Morton (3349); John S. Haugh
(3351).
The above is noted because Mr. Ruddy's testimony quoted in
the main part of the testimony shows how careless he has been;
how candidates might stand as they pleased so long as their feet
touched the floor; how bumps, etc. were allowed. In some of the
cases above noted subsequent measurements showed the men tall
enough.
(3046, 3051, 3116, 3070, 3104, 3217, 3305, 3422. Dr. Warbasse and Mr. Ruddy. 3353 Mr. Murray as to interrupted effort
to improve the system.)
Jacob Katz (3145, 3161)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 71/4 il., rejected. March, 1914, 5 ft.
71/2 in., passed. November 18, 1914, 5 ft. 7-`7( in.
In this and following cases, the last measurement given was
made for the State Commission at one of its hearings, the candidate standing under the same measuring rod with bare feet.
Edward F. Devine (3151)
January, 1914, 5 ft. 71/4 in., rejected. March, 1914, 5 ft. 71/2
in., passed. November, 1914, 5 ft. 71/2 in.
This candidate had discharge papers of the U. S. A. and had
been measured at 5 ft. 71/2 inches; why was he rejected in
January, 1914?
Daniel W. Chrystie (3178)
January 9, 1914, 5 ft. 93/4 in. March 6, 1914, 5 ft. 91/2 in.
This candidate was rejected in January for flat foot, bought an
arch in a shoe store and in March the doctor passed him. He
declared he was 5 ft. 10 in.




144


Thomas A. Mulholland (3162)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 71/2 in., 136 pounds. March, 1914, 5
ft. 73/4 in., 140 pounds. November, 1914, 5 ft. 81/4 in. He was
first rejected because less than 140 pounds, but had weighed at
Church House gymnasium at 141 pounds, the night before and
the night after at 141/2 pounds.
Harold Steinhardt (3167)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 7 2/5 in., 1371/2 pounds. March, 1914,
5 ft. 71/2 in., 141 pounds. November, 1914, 5 ft. 7 6/10 in.
This candidate had been measured by Dr. Messenger (a well
known physician) at 5 ft. 78 in. and 140 pounds, and later at the
69th Regiment at 5 ft. 73/4 inches and 142 pounds.
Louis Oliver (3173)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 712 in., 136 pounds, rejected. March,
1914, 5 ft. 8 in., 140 pounds, passed. November, 1914, 5 ft.
7 9/10 in., 136 pounds, dressed.
Felix McKennaa (3186)
January, 1914, 5 ft. 10 in., 144 pounds, rejected, light. March,
1914, 5 ft. 91/2 in., 1461/2 pounds, passed. November, 1914, 5 ft.
9 in., 147~1 pounds, dressed.
On re-examination, March, 1914, this man's height was reduced,
and his weight was increased, so he passed.
Frederick Reichardt (3193)
December, 1913, 6 ft. 31/2 in., 171 pounds, rejected, light.
March, 1914, 6 ft. 2/ in., 175 pounds, passed. November, 1914,
6 ft. 1/2 in.
This candidate was measured shorter in March and weighed
heavier, so he passed; at the State Commission's hearing he was
measured even shorter. On the same scales, in the same year,
measured by an athletic expert, he varied two inches. His rejection in December included defective vision as a reason, but in
March defective vision was not discovered.




145


Thomas F. Byrnes (3201)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 71/2 in., 138 pounds, rejected. March,
1914, 5 ft. 71/2 in., 140 pounds, passed. November, 1914, 5 ft.
7 6/10 in., 1391/2 pounds dressed.
F. A. Ulschmid (3210)
January, 1914, 5 ft. 71/2 in., 1391/2 pounds. November, 1914,
5 ft. 7 6/10 in.
This candidate was rejected for one-half pound light weight and
didn't know enough to ask for re-examination in March.
William A. La Tour, Jr. (3310)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 71/2 in. November, 1914, 5 ft. 81/4 in.
A. J. Finamore (3314)
March, 1914, 5 ft. 71/ in. (in re-examination). November,
1914, 5 ft. 7 9/10 in.
John J. Hoffman (3317)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 71/2 in., 139 pounds, rejected. March,
1914, 5 ft. 8 in., 143 pounds, passed. November, 1914, 5 ft.
7 9/10 in., 142 pounds, dressed.
F. Rodenwald (3320)
March 2, 1914, 5 ft. 71/2 in., 140 lbs., re-examined and passed.
November, 1914, 5 ft. 73/4 in., 143 pounds, dressed.
William J. Cronin (3322)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 71/2 in., 140 pounds. November, 1914,
5 ft. 71/2 in. plus 1/10, 1403/4 pounds dressed.
This candidate passed in December, 1913, as to the exact minimum of height and weight.
William J. McCormick (3324)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 71/2 in. November, 1914, 5 ft. 73/4 in.
L. B. Jozwink (3325)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 71/2 in. November, 1914,,5 ft. 73/4 in.




146


J. J. Gunson (3326)
January, 1914, 5 ft. 71/2 in. November, 1914, 5 ft. 7 2/5 in.
In December this candidate was just squeezed in.
W. L. Moran (3328)
January, 1914, 5 ft. 71/2 in. November, 1914, 5 ft. 73/4 in.
Jos. Rudolph (3329)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 71/2 in., 1391/2 lbs., rejected. March,
1914, 5 ft. 73/4 in., 1401/2 lbs. November, 1914, 5 ft. 7/2 in., 136
lbs., dressed.
In December, 1913, this candidate was rejected for lack of 1/2
pound, but in March he had gained a pound. In November he
was woefully below weight, according to Ruddy's measurements.
Martin J. Palmer (3331)
January, 1914, 5 ft. 71/2 in. November, 1914, 5 ft. 7'3/ in.
John F. Murray (3333)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 71/2 in. November, 1914, 5 ft. 73/4 in.
Jas. J. Kiernan (3335)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 71/2 in. November, 1914, 5 ft. 73/4 in.
A. O. Kreiss (3336)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 71/2 in. November, 1914, 5 ft. 7 3/5 in.
L. F. De Mars (3342)
March, 1914, 5 ft. 7 2/5 in., rejected on re-examination. November, 1914, 5 ft. 7 4/5 in.
The measurement made for the State Commission by Ruddy, if
made in March, would have passed the candidate.
Fred Borho (3344)
The same measurement and comment as for De Mars.
John S. Haigh (3351)
The same measurement and comment as for De Mars.




147


B. Marchesi (3347)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 7 2/5 in., rejected. March, 1914, 5 ft.
7 2/5 in., rejected. November, 1914, 5 ft. 71/2 in.,Same comment as above.
Francis D. Morrow (3349)
March, 1914, 5 ft. 7 2/5 in. November, 1914, 5 ft. 71/4 in.
Jos. F. Walker (3350)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 71/4 in. November, 1914, 5 ft. 7 in.
H. E. Kennedy (3411)
December, 1914, 5 ft. 71/2 in. March, 1913, 5 ft. 71/2 in. November, 1914, 5 ft. 7 9/10 in.
This candidate was rejected in December for defective vision,
but passed in March.
H. lF. Scherenbrand (3413)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 71/2 in. November, 1914, 5 ft. 7 3/5 in.
John J. Donnelly (3414)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 71/4 in. March, 1914, 5 ft. 7 in. and 139
lbs. November, 1914, 5 ft. 71/4 in.
Candidate rejected in December for short height and defective
vision, but in March for short height and light weight.
Geo. F. Doherty (3415)
January, 1914, 5 ft. 71/2 in., 139 lbs., rejected. March, 1914,
5 ft. 71/2 in., 140 lbs., passed. November, 1914, 5 ft. 7 3/5 in.,
1391/2 lbs.
Wm. V. Ford (3416)
January, 1914, 5 ft. 101/2 in., 147 lbs. March, 1914, 5 ft.
101/2 in., 156 lbs. November, 1914, 5 ft. 101/2 in., 144 lbs.,
dressed.
In December, 1913, the candidate was rejected for light weight
which was made up in March, but he lost more than ever by the
next November.




148


1Vm. J. Hawthorn (3419)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 71/4 in., rejected. March, 1914, 5 ft. 7 in.
November, 1914, 5 ft. 7 in.
S. C. McFarland (3420)
March, 1914, 5 ft. 71/2 in. November, 1914, 5 ft. 7 3/5 in.
C. H. Goldberg (3421)
December, 1913, 5 ft. 101/2 in. November, 1914, 5 ft. 11 plus.
Philip J. Rudishauber (3426)
Rejected December, 1913, for flat foot; on examination by Dr.
Warbasse for the State Commission November, 1914, no flat foot
was found. He is member of National Guard and three years ago
passed his examination, including feet.
John A. Reinold (3428)
February, 1914, rejected by Dr. Warbasse for flat foot; examined November, 1914, and no flat foot found; took no treatment of
any kind.
Frank Anglin (3432)
Same kind of case.
Ernest C. Drosher (3434)
Rejected December, 1913, for defective vision; Novenmber,
1914, no fault found.
Joseph Mayer, Jr. (3434)
Same kind of case. Witness testified that after his rejection in
March, 1914, he went to the eye and ear hospital in 64th street and
the physicians there could find no fault in his eyes.
Geo. M. Bolles (3437)
Rejected December, 1913, for flat foot and insufficient chest expansion. In November, 1914, Dr. Warbasse finds insufficient
chest expansion but no fault with feet.




149


Jas. F. McKenna (3439)
January, 1914, rejected for flat foot. November, 1914, declared to have defective eyesight; but no fault found with feet of
candidate; had passed examination at Navy Yard-no flat foot.
E. H. Lehman (3442)
January, 1914, rejected, defective chest expansion, but passed
March, 1914, and no fault found November, 1914.
These men were examined November, 1914, and the same findings as before, to wit: (3447); A. G. Gustaveson, Robt. J. Kelly,
Chas. J. Huberer, Jos. E. Kiegan.
TABLE "C"
CASES IN FINGER PRINT EXAMINATION
Witnesses
Gottlieb (542, 838, 849); Kuhne (617, 643, 807); Sullender
(636, 643, 656, 758, 815); Merchant (682-5); Horn (812);
Mairs (822); Scott (841, 851, 864); McNulty (858, 871); Protest (884); O'Farrell (889); Hughes (897); Zlinkoff (1095);
Mirel (1119); Liddell (1122); Kelly (1126); Morell (1132);
Dr. De Forrest (644, 703, 886, 856, 870); Mr. T'aylbr (6821);
Examiner Ireland (938).
Letters
Containing details of complaints concerning the examination
(5201), by Rutherford Lewis, Metta F. Merchant, Chas. W. King,
I. Aronowitz, H. F. Lawlor, Geo. T. Chattaway, John A. Harrahill, A. A. Saeger, Chas. Juengst, C. E. Donnelly, Henry Weinberger, Wm. D. Cbllins, C. F. Ehrentreich, Otto A. Scholz, B. J.
Lally, J. Lyendecker, Geo. Conroy, Richard Zaworski, Thos. R.
Healy, Frank Firner, R. J. Corcoran, Wm. A. Purnhagen, John
J. Sullivan, Edward F. McCormack, Wm. H. Fielding, Paul
Kizenberger, Blanche A. Donohue, Florence G. Hayes, Edward
Christ, S. P. Murphy, John A. Byron, Edward J. Daly, Geo.
Elze, James G. Glennon, Thomas Fitzpatrick, Jr., Wm. E.
Barrett.




150


TABLE "D"
CASES IN CONNECTION WITH THE FORTY-SEVEN SPECIAL CHARITY
EXAMINERS
1. Cases of harsh dealing with poor people by some of the
forty-seven alleged social service charity examiners.
2. Special forty-seven examiners and their qualifications.
3. Individuals on old eligible list who were passed over when
the forty-seven were appointed.
4. Comparative figures, etc., and other matters.
TABLE "D" (1)
CASES OF HARSH DEALING WITH POOR PEOPLE BY SOME OF THE
FORTY-SEVEN EXAMINERS OF CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS APPOINTED WITHOUT COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION
Page 1103. Mezeita I]ellantoni, idiot boy forced back from
Children's Hospital into a poor Italian family, and compelled to
live with a large family of children in squalid and heart-breaking
circumstances.
Page 1111. Mary Grassa, daughter, 40 years old, mentally
defective; mother directed to pay $4 per month for her maintenance on Randall's Island; without sufficient means of support
and scarcely any income.
Page 1139. Lettie Luisi, "little mother" of family of seven
children; compelled to pay $4 per month for care of brother on
Randall's Island, they wanted $7 " week," she said. (Probably
meant month.)
Page 1147. Isidor Friedman, paralyzed child on Randall's
Island; one of two children at home paralyzed; told to pay $1
weekly for care of child or father would be " sent to Blackwell's
Island."
Page 1155. Joseph Brown, five-year old child on Randall's
Island; ordered to pay $8 per month or father would be " taken
to the law."
Page 1163. Lizzie Kerner, has boy 15 years old on Randall's
Island; told to pay $16 per month; compelled to pay $12; paid
$6 on instalment; couldn't pay more; she lives on fourth floor of
tenement and works to maintain family.




151


Page 1179. David Schorr, child on Randall's Island; wife
dead; sleeps in his one room shop; ordered to pay $2 weekly; told
he would " get arrested" if he stopped payment; paid $5 for one
month; can't earn enough to live on.
Page 1189. 0. J. Schutzman, ordered to pay $2 weekly on
threat of being taken to court; paid $4 per month for two months;
can't pay anything.
Page 1195. Samuel Papier, has six children at home; two
epileptic; ordered to pay $3 weekly for child on Randall's Island;
summoned to court and must report to probation officer weekly.
Page 1298. Mrs. A. Meyerhoff, 66 years old; takes in washing
to earn living; widow, 25 years; compelled to pay $5 monthly
for daughter on Randall's Island.
Page 1299. Annie O'Brien, ordered to pay $8 monthly for
daughter on Randall's Island; told if she didn't pay, she would
have to take child home; also threatened with the law.
Page 1483. Hilma Mustonem, janitress in tenement house; boy
on Randall's Island; cripple and paralyzed; ordered to pay $2
weekly or would send child back to Finland; paid $5 for one
month; can't pay more.
Page 1483. Helen Bonzan, domestic; boards with friends;
ordered to pay $5 monthly or take child away; said she " took
the money from her mouth " (meaning food); deserted by husband; no home.
Page 1577.   Christian Roesch-told to pay at least $10
monthly for sister on Randall's Island or sister would be sent
away; couldn't afford more than $5; compelled to pay $10.
Page 1766. Special Reinvestigation Bureau tried to compel
the discharge of Elizabeth and Edward Corrigan from St. Malachy's Home to relatives.  Case reconsidered on protest of
Father Higgins of Catholic Home Bureau and action rescinded.
Page 1809. Special Reinvestigation Bureau ordered the dismissal of Donald and Harold Clark from the Orphan Home,
Brooklyn. Action was rescinded on protest of Father Higgins.
Page 1821. Alexander and George Costigan ordered discharged
from the Convent of the Sisters of Mercy to a place outside the
State; and certificate of removal given without consulting State
Board of Charities; action rescinded after protest of Father
Higgins.




152


Page 1841. Special Reinvestigation Bureau ordered discharge
of boy known on the record as "Thomas V." to mother whose
character was questionable. Action rescinded after protest of
Father Higgins.
Page 1853. Special Reinvestigation Bureau ordered discharge
of "John and Joseph C." from Convent of Mercy, to parent of
questionable character. Action rescinded after protest of Father
Higgins.
Page 1863. Special Reinvestigation Bureau ordered discharge
of Hattie, Bertha and Gertrude Drehs from Orphan Home to
mother who was living with a man who she said was second husband, but failed to produce marriage certificate. Children remained in institution because of protest of Father Higgins.
Page 1878. William French, 11 years old was ordered discharged from St. John's Home by Special Reinvestigation Bureau.
Boy set fire four times to his mother's and sister's home after discharge and was committed to Randall's Island as mental defective.
Page 2135. Maria Trezza, 16 year old boy, helpless paralytic
discharged from Randall's Island because he could not pay " $10
weekly." Charities Department says this should be $10 monthly.
Was asked to pay $5 monthly; could not do it, and took boy
home.
Page 2223.   Sam Engelstein, son 12 years old, sent from
Randall's Island into family of six children; boy violent and
mental defective. Ordered to pay to keep the child on Randall's
Island; said he was impoverished and could not pay. Was told to
take child home.
Page 2357. Nathan Wandruff, ordered to take 7 year old son
from Randall's Island or pay $5 monthly. Signed agreement to
pay $5 though he could not read English; can't pay the money.
Page 2525. Kate Manneback, widow, whose sister, Mrs. Emscher, also widow, has three children in St. Michael's Home,
Staten Island; Mrs. Emscher is in Consumptive's Home. Special
Reinvestigation Bureau wanted children taken from home and
investigator suggested they would be "sent out West" if they
were not removed.
Page 6296.   Mrs. Dora London, Special Reinvestigation
Bureau wanted Mrs. Dora London to take her two children out of




153


charitable institution and suggested they would be deported if
she did not do so. Threat was withdrawn after remonstrance by
United Hebrew Charities.
These were sample cases; many others were reported to the
Commissioners.
In connection with these cases see testimony of Ida M. Robins,
1694, 1783, 2444; Mary Dunphy, 1495, 1538; Max Niklas, 1504,
1547, 1656; A. P. Thorne, 1588, 1668, 2353, 2438; F. R. Bauer,
1670; Katherine A. Ward, 1896; Dr. Schlapp, 2185, 2211.
TABLE "D" (2)
EXAMINATION OF SOME OF THE NEW FORTY-SEVEN EXAMINERS
AND THEIR QUALIFICATIONS
Page 2258. Bernardine Sherman.
Page 2292. Mrs. G. Gleason.
Page 2320-34. Edith Holman.
Page 2366. Matthew Spalletta.
Page 2388. Florence Baldwin.
Page 2410. Miss B. Irvine.
Page 2442-43. Charline E. Mayfield.
Page 2447. Laura C. Tobey.
Page 2470. Nellie Wise.
Page 2491. Mary Tinney.
Page 2509. Clara B. Flynn.
Page 2530. Eva A. Marty.
Page 2555. Max Rothschild.
Page 2569. Mary J. Van Hook.
TABLE "D" (3)
EXAMINATION OF INDIVIDUALS ON THE OLD ELIGIBLE LIST WHO
WERE PASSSED OVER WITH OTHERS
Page 2620. Elizabeth Mulholland.
2733. Catharine Haenlein.
2736. Mary F. Rita.
2748. Elizabeth A. Butler.
2760. Elizabeth Stevens.
3137. Julia Ryan.




154


Page 3260. Mary O'Connor.
3294. Cora Woelters.
3384. Mary F. Martin.
6179. Louise E. Webber.
TABLE "D" (4)
Comparative statements and figures showing that " Social Service " could not be undertaken on basis of appropriation asked for
by Charities Commissioner.
EXTRACTS FROM STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO FINANCE DEPARTMENT, PREPARED BY H. B. DINWIDDIE, GENERAL INSPECTOR,
CHARITIES DEPARTMENT, ON WHICH REQUEST FOR FUNDS FOR
FORTY-SEVEN SPECIAL INSPECTORS WAS BASED
An analysis of the work of the Bureau of Dependent Adults,
Brooklyn, for the first two months of the year 1914 shows that
the average number of cases completed in a full day for each
examiner in the field was only a trifle over 6. Although the field
work in Brooklyn would naturally require an Examiner to cover
more territory than in the congested districts of Manhattan, it is
felt that this average number of cases could be increased.
*      *      *   -*        *      *      *-     *      *
As the basis of the need for additional employees lies in the
additional amount of field work to be undertaken, an effort was
made to compute the number of field examiners first. The estimate of the number of other employees needed was then based
upon the number of additional field examiners required. The
complete showing for all employees needed will be found in
Table X. The number of employees of each class needed will be
found there also, both collectively and separately by bureaus.
*      *      *      -X-*   *      *      *-X-   *      *
The class of dependents excepted above as calling for more than
one investigation is the children in the Children's Hospitals on
Randall's Island. In view of the experience in the reinvestigation
in the children's work in the Children's Bureaus for the different
boroughs, it has seemed economical and important that a quarterly
investigation should be made of the family conditions of these




155


children. The number of children whose relatives or friends cannot be located upon annual investigation by the Children's Bureaus
is large. In the years 1911, 1912 and 1913 the Children's Bureaus in Manhattan and in Brooklyn were " unable to locate at
address given" the relatives or friends of committed children in
from 18 to 31 per cent. of the cases annually. A total of 8,470
cases of children for reinvestigation was involved.
It has been the rule of the Department of Public Charities to
make an investigation of these children annually.
In Tables I and X, appended to this report it will be found
that the number of persons involved in the initial reinvestigation
in the Department institutions for the Bureau of Dependent
Adults, Manhattan, was 8,390. At the rate of 11.45 cases for a
day of full work for an examiner, this would necessitate 724 full
days of work in investigation. Assuming that the additional staff
will be allowed for six months' work in 1914, there would be 5.5
examiners needed for this particular work in the 132 full days'
work in the half year.
The number of dependents to be reinvestigated in the Municipal
hospitals in Kings county will be found from Tables V and X to
have been 2,441. These 2,441 cases would require the time of an
additional examiner and.8 of the time of another one for six
months.
In the private hospitals there were also 795 patients remaining
January 31, 1914 that had been accepted as public charges by
the Brooklyn Bureau of Dependent Adults. To investigate these
at the rate of 10 cases a day would require.6 of an examiner's
time for six months. (See Tables VI and X.)
There were 1,236 such public charges remaining in institutions
that had been accepted by the Manhattan Bureau of Dependent
Adults on January 31, 1914 (see Tables III and X). At the
rate of 11.45 cases a day, it would take.8 of an examiner's time
for six months to do this work. The supplementary quarterly




1,56


reinvestigation would include only the inmates of the institutions
for special treatment of children who had been public charges
for three months and over. There were 280 such children as will
be seen from Table III. At the rate of 10 completed cases per
day, it would require.2 of an examiner's time to make a quarterly reinvestigation of those cases within six months.
There were 578 inmates remaining in the private institutions
for the special treatment of children and in the institutions for
unmarried mothers and friendless women on January 31, 1914,
who had been accepted as public charges by the Bureau in Brooklyn. At the rate of 10 cases a day, it would require.4 of an examiner's time in six months to investigate these.  (See Tables
VII and X).
There were 171 tuberculosis, cancer, chronic and home cases
remaining in private institutions on January 31, 1914, which
had been accepted as public charges by the Brooklyn Bureau.
At the rate of 10 cases per day, it would take.1 of an examiner's
time to complete this work in six months. (See Tables VIII and
X).
There were remaining in child-caring institutions on January
31, 1914, 12,418 children that had been committed by the Children's Bureau, Manhattan. The ratio of children to the families
involved is about 2 to 1, according to the recent annual reports
of the Bureau. This would make about 6,209 families to be reinvestigated. At the rate of 6 investigations a day, it would take
7.8 examiners to do this work in six months. (See Table X.)
According to the proportions found among the children committed by the Brooklyn Bureau of Dependent Children remaining
in institutions on January 31, 1914, three months and over,
11,308 of the 12,418 committed by the Manhattan Bureau had
been in the institutions over three months, representing an estimated number of 5,654 families. To make a supplementary
quarterly investigation of these at the rate of 6 cases a day would
require the time of 7.1 examiners for six months. (See Tables
IX and X.)
*      * xx *               *      *       *      *      *x




157


TESTIMONY   OF  COMPTROLLER    WILLIAM   A. PRENDERGAST
(PAGE 4351)
Q. It would appear from this report, Mr. Prendergast, that
-the transfer of $50,000 from the food supplies appropriation to this
particular need was an unusual transfer, and was recommended
upon special grounds. Have you a recollection of that? A. I
have a very clear recollection of the entire transaction, sir, as I
am largely responsible, in fact I might say wholly responsible for
it, and it was done under my direction.
Q. The purpose of making that transfer in order that these
appointments might be made, as you understood it, was that of
economy, was it not, and the saving of money to the city through
the removal of dependents from institutions who did not belong
there? A. The purpose of the transfer are fully explained in
the reports and deal with that very point, Mr. Moss.
Q. Was there anything else, Mr. Comptroller, that was present
in your mind in making these recommendations besides that which
was suggested in the report? A. Certainly not.
Q. No other purposes were expressed to you in the conferences
that you had with fellow members of the city administration, or
the board of estimate, no other purpose than that which is expressed in the report? A. None whatever.
TESTIMONY OF WOLF SCHEINBERG, EXAMINER IN FINANCE DEPARTMENT (PAGE 4386)
Q. Did you investigate the request of the Charities Commissioner Kingsbury, for the transfer of funds for the purpose of
appointing additional examiners of charitable institutions made
by him on June 26th last? A. Yes.
Q. What investigation did you make? A. I read the report of
the General Inspector Dunwoodie, and then went over to the
Bureau of Dependent Adults and Children, and made a partial
study of the number of applicants for the city's charity, especially
those with respect to the children and the public charges for the
purpose of getting a fair estimate of how many people would be
required to make the reinvestigation that was contemplated by
the Department, the way I understood it in their request (p.
4388).




158


Q. You found that there were needs for that additional reinvestigator force? A. F1or this work?
Q. For this particular work. A. For this particular work.
TESTIMONY OF EDWARD T. )EVINE, DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL INVESTIGATION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CHARITIES (PAGE 6382)
Q. Do you know Mliss Ida MI. Cannon? A. Yes.
Q. Did she estimate ten cases a month of complete social service? A. I do not know. I have not seen that report.
*   *-  *   *   *   *       *   * * **      *   *   *   *
Q. Do you remember a representative of the Finance Departmen who called at the office of the Charity Organization? A. I
do not remember that, no.
Q. If he reported that the C. 0. S. thought that thirty cases
could be completed a month, would he be right, or about right?
A. I think the answer I have already given would apply to that.
If you mean the kinds of investigation which the Charity Organization Society make with reference to the kind of help that they
try to give, then I think it would be perfectly possible to answer
that; I should say that thirty is rather a high estimate.
Q. You think it is less than that? A. Yes, but I think ten is
too low an estimate, but it certainly depends on the kind of a decision that you have to make; what it is you are trying to do.? One
investigation might require two or three days, and another might
require only a couple of hours.
TESTIMONY OF HENRY MOSKOWITZ, PRESIDENT MUNICIPAL CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION (PAGE 4439)
Q. Did you see a copy of the report that Comptroller Prendergast submitted to the Board of Estimate when it passed the final
resolution? A. I do not think I did then, no.
Q. Did you know that the request to the Board of Estimate was
simply for reinvestigators; that the request made of the Board of
estimate was simply for reinvestigators? A. Reinvestigation.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Q. The question is, Mr. President, did you know it? A. Did
I know it? I did not know it then, but if I had known it, Mr.
Moss, it would not have made any difference.




159


Reinvestigation plus social service at the rate of 30 cases a
month would have required the services of 700 investigators.
Mrs. Ida P. Upshaw, Superintendent of the Bureau of Domestic
Relations, of the Charities Department, furnished the State Commission with her report for the year 1914, which shows that 5,198
cases of abandonment and nonsupport were settled out of court
during that year. The work of family rehabilitation had been
carried on by Mrs. Upshaw in this bureau for many years.
The report of the Desertion Bureau of the United Hqbrew
Charities shows that 1,875 family deserters were traced in various
parts of the country during the past three years; that 575 of them
were reunited to their families and support was obtained from 427
of them for the families they deserted (pp. 6527-9).
Family rehabilitation is carried on by virtually every private
charitable organization in the city.
APPENDIX
WOOD-BLOCK PAVING MONOPOLY
The testimony of Mr. Wild, with his references to engineers
Sullivan and Durham, the references to Mr. Dow, the fact that
consulting engineer Goodrich is the controlling engineering head
of the department in Manhattan and takes full responsibility for
the specifications for wood-block paving, and the fact that in the
directions that have opened to us it is clear that the department
in Manhattan is running in contempt of the Civil Service Law
when it affects friends and cliques, and that until lately the
Borough President did not know of these violations - he now has
begun to secure control of these positions, which will eliminate
illegal and disadvantageous conditions - these facts show that a
discussion of wood-block paving in its relation to officials who
stretch and violate the Civil Service Law, is entirely in order.
Wood-block paving has been laid in New York City in large
quantities, and its use is on the increase. It is less noisy than
granite, and more enduring than asphalt. The subject is of
great importance and we felt it to be our duty to follow the line
that opened, related so closely as it is to the vital subject of the




160


administration of the Civil Service Law. On this topic we examined witnesses of prime importance. Consulting engineer, Goodrich (p. 5258), and Mr. Wild were carefully examined; the
eminent engineers, James W. Howard (p. 5409), and Richard E.
Lamb (p. 5511), and a prominent manufacturer, A. E. Mitchell
(p. 5464), and towards the end of the inquiry Mr. Goodrich
returned and brought a manufacturer of oil, Mr. P. C. Reilly.
They were examined and Mr. Howard and Mr. Lamb were
recalled.
The element considered was the oil with which the wood blocks
are saturated under heat and pressure to preserve them. Mr.
Howard and Mr. Lamb showed that the notable wooden pavements
which have endured for many years, such as Michigan Boulevard,
Chicago, and Tremont street, Boston, were treated with oils from
which the pitch was largely eliminated and which were high in
creosote and other chemical qualities. They said that there is
a combination of companies with interlocking directorates, the
members of which were shown, and that a combination of these
companies sued by the United States Government was ordered to
dissolve; that they produce an oil, which is derived from the coaltar by-product of coke ovens throughout the country operated
under certain patents, the royalty for which is this particular byproduct; also from gas works which largely are operated in harmony with the others.
This by-product contains a large proportion of pitch which is
useless and even deleterious for paving uses, but which if extracted
would be unsalable in this part of the country, and of little value
anywhere, though of large bulk. The problem for the producers
of this product is to save the expense of removing the pitch, and
to get a price for it. This is accomplished by including it in the
oil. Such an oil was not used in the streets above mentioned, nor
in the excellent old pavement on Broadway between Bowling
Green and Trinity church. There are no illustrations of good
pavements, maintained for many years, where this " pitch oil"
was used. When such an oil is to be marketed for wood-paving in
the cities, it must be included in the specifications, and if possible
the other (clean) oil must be excluded.




161


Ingenious chemists have devised formulas for specifications
designed to look like careful protection, but really to specify pitch
oil. Those engineers who have been employed to help the socalled " Trust " may be found going to the various cities on such
missions. They argue for a heavy oil (always meaning a pitch oil
such as the " trust " manufactures and sells), but they have difficulty in producing expert testimony for it except out of their own
set. The connections of men in various cities who work for the
pitch oils are interesting.
Out of the warfare have come two terms well recognized among
engineers, " closed specifications," and " open specifications."
Those terms were admitted by Mr. Goodrich. " Closed specifications " are those which favor the heavy (pitch) oils by various
static and chemical tests; "open specifications" give the alternative privilege of bidding for two kinds of oil, one heavy
(pitchy); the other light. The trust has so great an influence that
it has prevented any specifications that are closed to heavy oils;
the alternative specification is the only chance for the lighter oil,
and that oil which is more highly refined has to compete with the
pitch oil, even under open specifications. It was maintained by
Mr. Mitchell, president of the Wyckoff Pipe and Creosoting Company, that under the closed specifications it is substantially impossible for manufacturers and contractors to supply wooden paving blocks, except as treated by the heavy oil which, he maintained, was substantially controlled by the trust. Mr. Howard and
Mr. Lamb supported him in that claim.
Mr. Mitchell showed by facts, figures and personal experiences,
the truth of his claim, and he exhibited a long correspondence of
protest with the former borough president, who relied entirely
upon Mr. Goodrich, and followed the course laid down by Mr.
Goodrich in the use of the specification which Mr. Howard and
Mr. Lamb as engineers said, with Mr. Mitchell the manufacturer,
substantially closed out all but pitch oil, the oil of the trust. It
was shown that in New York City only Richmond borough has
open specifications, and Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Lamb said they
were able to compete and to work there. Some work done by
Mr. Lamb in Brooklyn was done with a small quantity of oil that
he had secured for a job at Atlantic City under closed specifi6




162


cations, which oil in a limited amount he obtained from a trust
subsidiary by a little shrewdness.
It was shown by Mr. Howard that in the cities which have good
and progressive governments, the open specification is used, and
that usually the presence of the closed specification is found in a
city where the government is selfish and under suspicion. He said
the presence of the closed specifications is sufficient to raise suspicion.
The qualifications of these three witnesses are extraordinary il
their knowledge of the subject and their experience in the cities
of the United States and in Europe, and their position has been
maintained by authorities and by the decisions of engineering
bodies.
As a part of the statements of these three witnesses amounted
to an allegation that through these specifications the coal-tar-trust
has a virtual monopoly of the oil that must be used, AMr. Goodrich
tried to refute that suggestion. He said (1) he had found that
the required oil can be obtained from the Kettle River Company,
located in the West, and (2) from Europe. Hie couldn't give figures or facts, or any report, or any transactions, but said the statement was based on an investigation which he made and reported
orally to the former borough president (who undoubtedly believed
him).
Mr. Lamb, however, showed from his personal detailed experience that help from Europe (even before the war) was practically
and commercially impossible; as for the other, during our investigation, a telegram was sent to the Kettle River Company asking if
they would sell some of their oil, and they responded that they
would not sell any oil but that they had delivered our telegram to
the Barrett Company which would answer us directly. The Barrett Company is the head and front of the Trust!
Mr. Goodrich produced Mr. Reilly, the head of the Republic
Company, which he said was not in the Trust. Mr. Reilly said he
had a large independent company and manufactured his own oil
from the tar which he bought direct from the coke ovens and gas
houses. He said that with this oil which he produced from these
materials, he was able to compete successfully in New York city
and to get contracts. He admitted that a light oil which he manu



163


factured could not be used. The point of his testimony was an
attempted refutation of the suggestion of a trust control. But his
testimony failed to touch the case because he said he obtained the
oil from the same ovens from which the Trust buys; and he mentioned one of the plants located in Indianapolis, which is operating under the very patents which form the basis of the Trust combination.
An interesting fact appeared in this - that in the contract for
heavy oil for Broad street, Newark, which was made over the
mayor's veto, the blocks used were furnished by one contractor,
who obtained them equally from Mr. Reilly's Republic Company,
and the American Creosoting Company- which is in the Trust
combination. It appeared that a number of years ago Mr. Reilly
fought the Trust for a chance to do business, and it is evident that
the companies now find it to their interest to allow Mr. Reilly to
buy the oil he needs, without interference. But Mr. Mitchell and
Mr. Lamb have found it impossible to get a supply fit for the needs
of business.
The short time at our disposal and the natural limitation of the
subject of inquiry, prevented us from developing the connections
of persons associated in these matters. Further information on
this line was not used for the purposes of the inquiry and of the
report.








JS
1234,A4
1915
V/


New York C,(..(f..t8e)...e....Y.o.    el.k.......A..f..~)...........
Civil service
commi ssion............................................................. Report of an
investigation..,..........................................................


335126




 eyg~? r ~.-~,
i
~"
L-.
13
~''
b~'S
-rr~
t- c
i
If,
r:r
kyZ
~x:
~-'~i
i.-:.
iV
~ r
*. IS-..;9
r
n
;an


-       I  1?,


i,
" c~;~
in s I';~- i
''-'
P:::~_~
i-;
~i-.,   _  '.* '"'.,:..t      *   ' X <S A  "'*
-~:~.~ i  j - t  '  '... *-   f x.~
~:
- i.?..  i:'^ '  *~
j - * -  -:*,: SA


~,~II.~
 *:,icS
- r
B';:;~
r~ ~
~__;t_,
'~~;..
~
It;~1
-- "i~1
-:.~~,"~~..;
-fl",Ts; i..      4.,:'
',V'     '.'  "  -.in?..
' -~:tL
~.c.
-~, ~ —: i.
'' ~lt:~;:.Y
".I. In- _'- ~ 1:~-i~~