ried Montgomery county around in his pocket" for the Republican party. It must be said in partial defense of the Superintendent of Prisons that he did not wish to make this notoriously unfit appointment, but he was compelled to do so by political pressure from the center of power.

In contrast with this occurrence, the calling of Mr. Joseph F. Scott to Elmira is an illustration of how the best man may be sought and found when that is the main object in an appointment. Mr. Scott was well situated at Concord, Massachusetts, where he had been for years the Superintendent of the State Reformatory. He had no desire to leave. He has an independent income. He was quietly approached by a member of the board of managers of Elmira and, recognizing a great opportunity to do a new work, he accepted the call. The board of managers paid no attention to State lines, but determined to have the best man to be found anywhere in the country for the money the State had to pay. In the opinion of experts, Mr. Scott has revolutionized the Reformatory in the last eight months, and is making it worthy of an even greater reputation than it has ever before enjoyed.

The lesson in this contrast is not so much that a particular agency should make appointments, though this factor is not insignificant, as that appointments should be made in the right spirit. When under political pressure from the former State boss the same board of managers had, it would seem, not been entirely fortunate. The ideal is to give to competent boards of managers power to select, from any portion of the land, and without dictation from the center of power, administrative officers who have made charity or penology a profession, and who have demonstrated their fitness. An appointment of a non-resident is not necessarily better than one of a resident of the State, but such a method as that followed in this case is strong evidence that the appointment is made upon merit and not for partisan

purposes.

PUBLIC SENTIMENT.

The fundamental fact in the administration of the State's benevolent institutions is public opinion. Conditions in this branch of the service will be just as good as the whole people

deserve and just as bad as the people permit them to be. Politicians are the people's choice. If the people are indifferent to the policy of spoils, only spoilsmen can succeed in politics and the man of higher ideals of public duty is quickly eliminated from public life. The pressure upon the higher officials with appointing power is so strong that they can not resist the greedy grafter, unless the mass of the citizens demands and recognizes good public service. The corruptionist and the vote catcher are ever on the alert; and the citizen who is ready to put party service above public welfare is the unconscious accomplice of the crimes and corruption of government. The apparent trend of things in this State during the past few years has caused men to exclaim with bitterness: "The facile adept in machine politics becomes the arbiter of the State administration; legislators by threats compel State officers to employ men ludicrously incapable of fulfilling the duties of their positions; public office for public service, and not for personal or party gain, seems now to have passed entirely from the public mind."

But there are many hopeful evidences of the spread of the sounder sentiment, and in certain important ways the past year has been a notable one. The particular policy which has so alarmed the philanthropists of the State has been everywhere repudiated and discredited, and there is promise of a resumption of progress toward better things.

The evil in the recent policy of centralization is only in part the particular device of organization or machinery of government adopted, though that evil is a great one in that it exposes the Governor, or the political boss (or perchance both combined) to an irresistible temptation to use his power for partisan ends. The still more fundamental evil is that steady and healthy progress in the charities of the State is made impossible. It must be recognized that the policy of centralization applied to benevolent institutions is grossly unpractical because it overlooks the spiritual aspects of philanthropy, without which no machinery of business organization can be more than an empty shell. The self-styled business Governor is peculiarly liable to blunder at this point if he has not knowledge to guide, sympathy to suggest, and patience

to stop for counsel and the voice of experience. Better methods can grow only out of experience, and in a republic only as a result of an intelligent public interest in the subject and of a demand from the progressive friends of the institutions. The policy of centralization, when first sprung upon the Legislature, had not been an issue in a campaign, was not in response to popular demand, and was in opposition to the unanimous judgment of the philanthropic workers of the State, regardless of party, religion or personal bias. Its wisdom was doubted by many of the legislators, who were forced by the demand for party regularity to vote for it. When a Governor forces an unwilling Legislature to accept an unwise measure, it is a denial of representative government. When a Governor ignores all reasonable advice from public-spirited citizens it is a defeat of free institutions, which must be shaped by public opinion.

Happily, these facts are being generally recognized. The past three years have been richly instructive. The nonpartisan management of benevolent institutions was made an issue in the campaign of two years ago by one of the parties, and although the other party ignored the question the result of the election had its lessons. This year, therefore, for the first time, the subject became a prominent issue. The Democratic platform and candidate for Governor first expressed strong disapproval of recent tendencies. The Republican candidate, who had supported the so-called Odell charity program on every vote and occasion, was handicapped by that record in the fact of the rising sentiment. He met the situation promptly in his speech of acceptance, and in a number of his other utterances he virtually repudiated the recent policy and emphatically put himself on record as favoring a changed philanthropic program. Extracts from his speeches. were widely circulated as campaign documents. Among other things, he said: "If elected Governor I shall lose no opportunity to advise and coöperate with the great army of philanthropists." "Niggardly economy should not prevail against the health, wellbeing and cure of these charges of our State." "The management of the State charitable institutions should be absolutely free from partisanship, and they should be so administered as to retain the

active interest of philanthropic citizens." "I am in favor of reestablishing local boards of managers of State hospitals for the insane." If these things had been said before, instead of after the campaign opened, they might have quite disarmed the opposition of those members of his own party who for three years had in vain advocated such principles. As it was, many Republicans were irreconcilable and incredulous of Mr. Higgins' power to redeem such promises. But, unquestionably, a large number of Republican voters interested in this issue did, solely because of these declarations, accept and support the candidate of their party. Their decision on this question had no small part in the result.

The most significant fact is that tens of thousands of voters of both parties recognized that the non-partisan management of the benevolent institutions was one of the most important questions in the State campaign, and that both candidates put themselves so fairly and squarely on record in favor of the merit system. Even the present Governor, in expressions undoubtedly referring to this issue, spoke in the last days of the campaign of some mistakes of his administration which Mr. Higgins might correct if successful at the polls. The realization of the admirable pledges of the Governor-elect would mark an epoch in the history of the charities of this State, for whose development so much remains to be done. It may be proved here, again, that the darkest hour is just before the dawn. The recent period of rebuffs and discouragement bids fair to be followed by a new era of progress. In a moment bright with promise the philanthropic workers of the State await with hopefulness the events of the coming year, ready to assist and to applaud the good work which the new administration is pledged to accomplish, but ready to protest again in no uncertain terms if those pledges remain unredeemed.

CHAIRMAN FETTER: The first paper on the program is "The Civil Service Law as Applied to Penal and Charitable Institutions," by Charles S. Fowler, Chief Examiner State Civil Service Commission, Albany.

THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW AS APPLIED TO PENAL AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS.

When we speak of "Politics in Penal and Charitable Institutions" we have in mind, of course, the public institutions and the evil effects of treating their business, especially in the matter of appointment and employment, as political spoils. Much has been expected and something accomplished in the eradication of evil conditions through the Civil Service Law. The method of application of the law varies somewhat in the State, the cities and the counties.

The law requires that rules must be prescribed for the service of the State of New York and for each of its cities. The classification of the county service, on the other hand, is not required, but authority is given the State Commission, with the approval of the Governor, to classify and establish rules and examinations for the service of such counties and other civil divisions of the State "as after due inquiry shall be found practicable." For the State and county service the rules are established by the State Commission, with the approval of the Governor, and the examinations are conducted by the State Commission. For each city rules are to be made by a municipal commission, subject to the approval of the State Commission, and the examinations are wholly in charge of the municipal commission.

I shall attempt in this paper to show briefly what has been done. by the State Commission in the State and county penal and charitable institutions.

The law divides all positions in the civil service into two grand divisions-unclassified and classified. The unclassified service is enumerated in the law and includes all elective offices, legislative officers and employes, officers appointed by the Governor, heads of departments, teachers in public schools, and some others specifically described. The classified service covers all positions and employments not in the unclassified service. Then, following the language of the Constitution, that "appointments and promotions in the civil service of the State, and of all the civil divisions thereof, * 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," the Civil