SECTION 5. And be it further enacted, That the Board shall determine, after consultation with the President, courts, or heads of departments, as the case may be, upon the subjects of examination, and also whether the examination shall be oral, written, or both, and shall have full discretion as to the regulation of the examinations, and may employ such learned and honorable men as they may see fit to assist in the examinations, or to superintend examinations in their absence, and shall report their doings annually to Congress.

SECTION 6. And be it further enacted, That the Board, after the examination, shall assign the rank of the applicants, according to the degree of merit and fitness. shown; and he who stands at the head of the list shall have the choice of vacancies in the particular department or branch for which he was examined, and so on down the list to the minimum of merit fixed by the Board, beyond which no certificate shall be given. The Board may, if they see fit, assign the right of seniority as a result of the first examination, or may require a further examination, the result of which shall determine seniority.

SECTION 7. And be it further enacted, That, after the appointment of a candidate recommended by the Board, he shall not be removed except for good cause, and promotions shall be according to seniority, which shall be determined in all cases by the dates of the recommendations of the Board and the rank therein assigned; but it shall be allowable to make one fifth of the promotions on account of merit irrespective of seniority.

This bill found an unexpected response from the public press. The National Intelligencer, at Washington, welcomed it.

"The object of this bill commands our entire approval, and we hope it

may equally receive the approval of Congress. Its passage, more than any other single decision that could be taken by Congress in the way of needed reforms, would tend to correct abuses which threaten our whole political system with wreck and ruin."

The Evening Post, of New York, was equally explicit.

"This bill, if passed, would do away with what has become one of the most serious vices in our political life, the 'Spoils system,' as it has been appropriately called. Congress should, as soon as possible, provide some rules for the reformation of this universal evil. The patronage of the President and his Cabinet officers has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished; it has become, by the extension of the country, the increase of population and wealth, and especially through the circumstances of the present war, so vast as to be dangerous to the nation, if it should chance to fall into the hands of unscrupulous and wicked men. But, besides this, it is manifestly impossible to carry on the immense business of the Government without extraordinary and ruinous loss and waste, under the old system of turning out the occupants of civil offices every four years. The Government thus virtually refuses the services of trained men, familiar with the office routine. If we desire public affairs to be administered honestly and economically, Congress must provide for the numerous servants of the Government regular grades of promotion, retention of office during good behavior, and, if possible, a small retiring pension, which might be arranged in the shape of an annuity and life insurance combined."

The New York Times noticed it at length, beginning,

"Mr. Sumner has introduced a bill into the Senate, which, owing to the general absorption of the public attention in the great events which are taking place in the field, will probably not attract much notice; but it nevertheless attempts to deal with a matter which is of more importance, we venture to say, to the stability of this Government than any other one thing except the extinction of the Rebellion. It is neither more nor less than a sweeping measure of administrative reform, obliging all candidates for situations in the public service to pass an examination before a board appointed for the purpose, giving them their offices during good behavior, and with promotion through the various grades in the order of seniority, and a retiring pension after a certain term of service."

The New Nation, of New York, said :

"Mr. Sumner has recently brought a bill in the Senate to regulate the conditions of admission to public offices of the highest importance to the country. This bill is based upon the most equitable, the most sincerely republican, and the most progressive principles as yet adopted in any country. We have not sufficient space to review this project at present. At the first glance we find it deficient only in one respect, namely, in carrying respect

for seniority to too great an extent. If this bill is passed, the era of inefficiency and favoritism, hitherto prevailing, will be at an end."

"Mr. Sumner's bill will cure the evils of which every sensible man now complains, and avert the terrible dangers which menace us. It contemplates a return to the practice of the better days of the republic, and making that practice the rule. 'Is he capable? Is he honest?' were the inquiries propounded by Jefferson, when a candidate for office was named."

The New York World devoted a leading article to the bill, which it criticized.

"We had supposed, that, in the opinion of Mr. Sumner, the disposition to be made of black men came nearest, in legislative importance, to the crushing out of the Rebels. . . . . Mr. Sumner's bill does not touch the evil in our clerical system. The difficulty is not in want of examination, classification, promotion, or pension, but springs, in the first place, out of the manner in which the President, through the heads of departments, exercises the appointing power, and, in the next place, out of the conduct of the clerks themselves, when in office. An examining board cannot change the general character of the men the President, directly or indirectly, sends before it."

These notices show the interest excited by this effort. In the various labors which occupied Mr. Sumner he was not able to give it the attention it required. Meanwhile the cause found an able advocate elsewhere.

The next step was by Hon. Thomas A. Jenckes, of Rhode Island, who introduced into the House of Representatives, December 20, 1865, a bill "To regulate the Civil Service of the United States," which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Subsequently a special committee was appointed on the Civil Service of the United States, with Mr. Jenckes as Chairman, and June 13, 1866, he reported his bill to the House. Then again, at the next session, he reported another bill, “To regulate the Civil Service of the United States, and promote the efficiency thereof," which he sustained by a forcible and elaborate speech ; but the bill was laid on the table, - Yeas 72, Nays 66. Other efforts followed at subsequent sessions, but without success.

Meanwhile, in the Senate, on motion of Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, March 3, 1871, the following section was attached to the General Appropriation Bill, then pending :

"That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations for the admission of persons into the

Civil Service of the United States as will best promote the efficiency thereof, and ascertain the fitness of each candidate, in respect to age, health, character, knowledge, and ability, for the branch of service into which he seeks to enter; and for this purpose the President is authorized to employ suitable persons to conduct said inquiries, to prescribe their duties, and to establish regulations for the conduct of persons who may receive appointments in the Civil Service." 1

Under this provision President Grant appointed the following Commissioners: George William Curtis, of New York; Alexander G. Cattell, of New Jersey; Joseph Medill, of Illinois; and Dawson A. Walker, E. B. Elliott, Joseph H. Blackfan, and David C. Cox, of the District of Columbia: who, after careful consideration during the summer and autumn, submitted a report December 18, 1871, with a schedule of rules and regulations, all of which was promptly communicated to Congress by the President.

1 Acts, 1870-71, Ch. 114, Sec. 9: Statutes at Large, Vol. XVI. pp. 514, 515.

COLORED SUFFRAGE IN WASHINGTON.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON BILLS TO AMEND THE CITY CHARTER, MAY 12, 26, 27, 28, 1864.

FEBRUARY 13th, Mr. Harlan, of Iowa, asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in a bill to amend section five of an Act entitled "An Act to continue, alter, and amend the charter of the city of Washington," approved May 17, 1848, and further to preserve the purity of elections and guard against the abuse of the elective franchise, by a registration of electors for the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia; which was read the first and second time, and referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

March 8th, Mr. Dixon, from the Committee, reported the bill without amendment.

March 17th, the bill was taken up and amended in unimportant par ticulars.

May 6th, it was again taken up, when, after an amendment mored by Mr. Dixon, Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, moved to amend the bill in the first section by inserting the word "white" before the word "male," so as to confine the right of voting in Washington to white male citizens. Mr. Sumner said at once, "I hope not." Mr. Cowan then spoke in favor of his amendment.

May 12th, Mr. Cowan remarked that the bill "would have the effect, in some cases, of admitting negroes to the right of suffrage, which, I may say, is obnoxious to the vast bulk of the people of the Border States." Mr. Harlan would vote for Mr. Cowan's amendment, "first, because it is manifest to the Senate that the bill, without that provision in it, cannot now become a law." Mr. Willey, of West Virginia, spoke elaborately against colored suffrage, winding up with this interrogatory : "Shall we, without any petitions from the people of this District, without anything before the Senate to indicate that this bill, in any of its parts, is required by the people of this District, undertake to say, of our own volition, that we will impose upon them a provision which is odious to them, and will, in my estimation, be disastrous in its results,