EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, March 21, 1888_.
_To the United States Civil Service Commission_.
Gentlemen: I desire to make a suggestion regarding subdivision
(_c_), General Rule III, of the amended civil-service rules
promulgated February 2, 1888. It provides for the promotion of an
employee in a Department who is below or outside of the classified
service to a place within said classified service in the same Department
upon the request of the appointing officer, upon the recommendation of
the Commission and the approval of the President, after a noncompetitive
examination, in case such person has served continuously for two years
in the place from which it is proposed to promote him, and "because of
his faithfulness and efficiency in the position occupied by him," and
"because of his qualifications for the place to which the appointing
officer desires his promotion."
It has occurred to me that this provision must be executed with caution
to avoid the application of it to cases not intended and the undue
relaxation of the general purposes and restrictions of the civil-service
law.
Noncompetitive examinations are the exceptions to the plan of the act,
and the rules permitting the same should be strictly construed. The
cases arising under the exception above recited should be very few, and
when presented they should precisely meet all the requirements
specified, and should be supported by facts which will develop the basis
and reason of the application of the appointing officer and which will
commend them to the judgment of the Commission and the President. The
sole purpose of the provision is to benefit the public service, and it
should never be permitted to operate as an evasion of the main feature
of the law, which is competitive examinations.
As these cases will first be presented to the Commission for
recommendation, I have to request that you will formulate a plan by
which their merits can be tested. This will naturally involve a
statement of all the facts deemed necessary for the determination of
such applications, including the kind of work which has been done by the
person proposed for promotion and the considerations upon which the
allegations of the faithfulness, efficiency, and qualifications
mentioned in the rule are predicated.
What has already been written naturally suggests another very important
subject, to which I will invite your attention.
The desirability of the rule which I have commented upon would be
nearly, if not entirely, removed, and other difficulties which now
embarrass the execution of the civil-service law would be obviated, if
there was a better and uniform classification of the employees in the
different Departments. The importance of this is entirely obvious. The
present imperfect classifications, hastily made, apparently with but
little care for uniformity, and promulgated after the last Presidential
election and prior to the installation of the present Administration,
should not have been permitted to continue to this time.
It appears that in the War Department the employees were divided on the
19th day of November, 1884, into eight classes and subclasses, embracing
those earning annual salaries from $900 to $2,000.
The Navy Department was classified November 22, 1884, and its employees
were divided into seven classes and subclasses, embracing those who
received annual salaries from $720 to $1,800.
In the Interior Department the classification was made on the 6th day of
December, 1884. It consists of eight classes and subclasses, and
embraces employees receiving annual salaries from $720 to $2,000.
On the 2d day of January, 1885, a classification of the employees in the
Treasury Department was made, consisting of six classes and subclasses,
including those earning annual salaries from $900 to $1,800.
In the Post-Office Department the employees were classified on February
6, 1885, into nine classes and subclasses, embracing persons earning
annual salaries from $720 to $2,000.
On the 12th of December, 1884, the Bureau of Agriculture was classified
in a manner different from all the other Departments, and presenting
features peculiar to itself.
It seems that the only classification in the Department of State and the
Department of Justice is that provided for by section 163 of the Revised
Statutes, which directs that the employees in the several Departments
shall be divided into four classes. It appears that no more definite
classification has been made in these Departments.
I wish the Commission would revise these classifications and submit to
me a plan which will as far as possible make them uniform, and which
will especially remedy the present condition which permits persons to
enter a grade in the service in the one Department without any
examination which in another Department can only be entered after
passing such examination. This, I think, should be done by extending the
limits of the classified service rather than by contracting them.