The administrative weakness of a democracy, namely, the tendency towards a government by job-hunters, was disclosed even in the early days of the United States, when the official machinery was simple and the number of offices few. Washington at once foresaw both the difficulties and the duties that the appointing power imposed. Soon after his inauguration he wrote to Rutledge: "I anticipate that one of the most difficult and delicate parts of the duty of any office will be that which relates to nominations for appointments." And he was most scrupulous and painstaking in his appointments. Fitness for duty was paramount with him, though he recognized geographical necessity and distributed the offices with that precision which characterized all his acts.
John Adams made very few appointments. After his term had expired, he wrote: "Washington appointed a multitude of Democrats and Jacobins of the deepest die. I have been more cautious in this respect."
The test of partizan loyalty, however, was not applied generally until after the election of Jefferson. The ludicrous apprehensions of the Federalists as to what would follow upon his election were not allayed by his declared intentions. "I have given," he wrote to Monroe, "and will give only to Republicans under existing circumstances." Jefferson was too good a politician to overlook his opportunity to annihilate the Federalists. He hoped to absorb them in his own party, "to unite the names of Federalists and Republicans." Moderate Federalists, who possessed sufficient gifts of grace for conversion, he sedulously nursed. But he removed all officers for whose removal any special reason could be discovered. The "midnight appointments" of John Adams he refused to acknowledge, and he paid no heed to John Marshall's dicta in Marbury versus Madison. He was zealous in discovering plausible excuses for making vacancies. The New York Evening Post described him as "gazing round, with wild anxiety furiously inquiring, 'how are vacancies to be obtained?'" Directly and indirectly, Jefferson effected, during his first term, 164 changes in the offices at his disposal, a large number for those days. This he did so craftily, with such delicate regard for geographical sensitiveness and with such a nice balance between fitness for office and the desire for office, that by the end of his second term he had not only consolidated our first disciplined and eager political party, but had quieted the storm against his policy of partizan proscription.
During the long regime of the Jeffersonian Republicans there were three significant movements. In January, 1811, Nathaniel Macon introduced his amendment to the Constitution providing that no member of Congress should receive a civil appointment "under the authority of the United States until the expiration of the presidential term in which such person shall have served as senator or representative." An amendment was offered by Josiah Quincy, making ineligible to appointment the relations by blood or marriage of any senator or representative. Nepotism was considered the curse of the civil service, and for twenty years similar amendments were discussed at almost every session of Congress. John Quincy Adams said that half of the members wanted office, and the other half wanted office for their relatives.
In 1820 the Four Years' Act substituted a four-year tenure of office, in place of a term at the pleasure of the President, for most of the federal appointments. The principal argument urged in favor of the law was that unsatisfactory civil servants could easily be dropped without reflection on their character. Defalcations had been discovered to the amount of nearly a million dollars, due mainly to carelessness and gross inefficiency. It was further argued that any efficient incumbent need not be disquieted, for he would be reappointed. The law, however, fulfilled Jefferson's prophecy: it kept "in constant excitement all the hungry cormorants for office."
What Jefferson began, Jackson consummated. The stage was now set for Democracy. Public office had been marshaled as a force in party maneuver. In his first annual message, Jackson announced his philosophy:
"There are perhaps few men who can for any great length of time enjoy office and power without being more or less under the influence of feelings unfavorable to the faithful discharge of their public duties.... Office is considered as a species of property, and government rather as a means of promoting individual interests than as an instrument created solely for the service of the people. Corruption in some, and in others a perversion of correct feelings and principles, divert government from its legitimate ends and make it an engine for the support of the few at the expense of the many. The duties of all public offices are, or at least admit of being made, so plain, so simple that men of intelligence may readily qualify themselves for their performance.... In a country where offices are created solely for the benefit of the people, no one man has any more intrinsic right to official station than another."
The Senate refused Jackson's request for an extension of the Four Years' law to cover all positions in the civil service. It also refused to confirm some of his appointments, notably that of Van Buren as minister to Great Britain. The debate upon this appointment gave the spoilsman an epigram. Clay with directness pointed to Van Buren as the introducer "of the odious system of proscription for the exercise of the elective franchise in the government of the United States." He continued: "I understand it is the system on which the party in his own State, of which he is the reputed head, constantly acts. He was among the first of the secretaries to apply that system to the dismission of clerks of his department... known to me to be highly meritorious... It is a detestable system."
And Webster thundered: "I pronounce my rebuke as solemnly and as decisively as I can upon this first instance in which an American minister has been sent abroad as the representative of his party and not as the representative of his country."
To these and other challenges, Senator Marcy of New York made his well-remembered retort that "the politicians of the United States are not so fastidious.... They see nothing wrong in the rule that to the victor belong the spoils of the enemy."
Jackson, with all his bluster and the noise of his followers, made his proscriptions relatively fewer than those of Jefferson. He removed only 252 of about 612 presidential appointees. * It should, however, be remembered that those who were not removed had assured Jackson's agents of their loyalty to the new Democracy.
* This does not include deputy postmasters, who numbered
about 8000 and were not placed in the presidential list
until 1836.
If Jackson did not inaugurate the spoils system, he at least gave it a mission. It was to save the country from the curse of officialdom. His successor, Van Buren, brought the system to a perfection that only the experienced politician could achieve. Van Buren required of all appointees partizan service; and his own nomination, at Baltimore, was made a foregone conclusion by the host of federal job-holders who were delegates. Van Buren simply introduced at Washington the methods of the Albany Regency.
The Whigs blustered bravely against this proscription. But their own President, General Harrison, "Old Tippecanoe," was helpless against the saturnalia of office-seekers that engulfed him. Harrison, when he came to power, removed about one-half of the officials in the service. And, although the partizan color of the President changed with Harrison's death, after a few weeks in office,—Tyler was merely a Whig of convenience—there was no change in the President's attitude towards the spoils system.
Presidential inaugurations became orgies of office-seekers, and the first weeks of every new term were given over to distributing the jobs, ordinary business having to wait. President Polk, who removed the usual quota, is complimented by Webster for making "rather good selections from his own friends." The practice, now firmly established, was continued by Taylor, Pierce, and Buchanan.
Lincoln found himself surrounded by circumstances that made caution necessary in every appointment. His party was new and composed of many diverse elements. He had to transform their jealousies into enthusiasm, for the approach of civil war demanded supreme loyalty and unity of action. To this greater cause of saving the Union he bent every effort and used every instrumentality at his command. No one before him had made so complete a change in the official personnel of the capital as the change which he was constrained to make. No one before him or since used the appointing power with such consummate skill or displayed such rare tact and knowledge of human nature in seeking the advice of those who deemed their advice valuable. The war greatly increased the number of appointments, and it also imposed obligations that made merit sometimes a secondary consideration. With the statesman's vision, Lincoln recognized both the use and the abuse of the patronage system. He declined to gratify the office-seekers who thronged the capital at the beginning of his second term; and they returned home disappointed. The twenty years following the Civil War were years of agitation for reform. People were at last recognizing the folly of using the multiplying public offices for party spoils. The quarrel between Congress and President Johnson over removals, and the Tenure of Office Act, focused popular attention on the constitutional question of appointment and removal, and the recklessness of the political manager during Grant's two terms disgusted the thoughtful citizen.
The first attempts to apply efficiency to the civil service had been made when pass examinations were used for sifting candidates for clerkships in the Treasury Department in 1853, when such tests were prescribed by law for the lowest grade of clerkships. The head of the department was given complete control over the examinations, and they were not exacting. In 1864 Senator Sumner introduced a bill "to provide for the greater efficiency of the civil service." It was considered chimerical and dropped.
Meanwhile, a steadfast and able champion of reform appeared in the House, Thomas A. Jenckes, a prominent lawyer of Rhode Island. A bill which he introduced in December, 1865, received no hearing. But in the following year a select joint committee was charged to examine the whole question of appointments, dismissals, and patronage. Mr. Jenckes presented an elaborate report in May, 1868, explaining the civil service of other countries. This report, which is the corner stone of American civil service reform, provided the material for congressional debate and threw the whole subject into the public arena. Jenckes in the House and Carl Schurz in the Senate saw to it that ardent and convincing defense of reform was not wanting. In compliance with President Grant's request for a law to "govern not the tenure, but the manner of making all appointments," a rider was attached to the appropriation bill in 1870, asking the President "to prescribe such rules and regulations" as he saw fit, and "to employ suitable persons to conduct" inquiries into the best method for admitting persons into the civil service. A commission of which George William Curtis was chairman made recommendations, but they were not adopted and Curtis resigned. The New York Civil Service Reform Association was organized in 1877; and the National League, organized in 1881, soon had flourishing branches in most of the large cities. The battle was largely between the President and Congress. Each succeeding President signified his adherence to reform, but neutralized his words by sanctioning vast changes in the service. Finally, under circumstances already described, on January 16, 1883, the Civil Service Act was passed.
This law had a stimulating effect upon state and municipal civil service. New York passed a law the same year, patterned after the federal act. Massachusetts followed in 1884, and within a few years many of the States had adopted some sort of civil service reform, and the large cities were experimenting with the merit system. It was not, however, until the rapid expansion of the functions of government and the consequent transformation in the nature of public duties that civil service reform made notable headway. When the Government assumed the duties of health officer, forester, statistician, and numerous other highly specialized functions, the presence of the scientific expert became imperative; and vast undertakings, like the building of the Panama Canal and the enormous irrigation projects of the West, could not be entrusted to the spoilsman and his minions.
The war has accustomed us to the commandeering of utilities, of science, and of skill upon a colossal scale. From this height of public devotion it is improbable that we shall decline, after the national peril has passed, into the depths of administrative incompetency which our Republic, and all its parts, occupied for so many years. The need for an efficient and highly complex State has been driven home to the consciousness of the average citizen. And this foretokens the permanent enlistment of talent in the public service to the end that democracy may provide that effective nationalism imposed by the new era of world competition.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
There is no collected material of the literature of exposure. It is found in the official reports of investigating committees; such as the Lexow, Mazet, and Fassett committees in New York, and the report on campaign contributions by the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections (1913). The muckraker has scattered such indiscriminate charges that great caution is necessary to discover the truth. Only testimony taken under oath can be relied upon. And for local exposes the official court records must be sought.
The annual proceedings of the National Municipal League contain a great deal of useful material on municipal politics. The reports of local organizations, such as the New York Bureau of Municipal Research and the Pittsburgh Voters' League, are invaluable, as are the reports of occasional bodies, like the Philadelphia Committee of Fifty.
Personal touches can be gleaned from the autobiographies of such public men as Platt, Foraker, Weed, La Follette, and in such biographies as Croly's "M. A. Hanna."
On Municipal Conditions:
W. B. Munro, "The Government of American Cities" (1913). An authoritative and concise account of the development of American city government. Chapter VII deals with municipal politics.
J. J. Hamilton, "Dethronement of the City Boss" (1910). A description of the operation of commission government.
E. S. Bradford, "Commission Government in American Cities" (1911). A careful study of the commission plan.
H. Bruere, "New City Government" (1912). An interesting account of the new municipal regime.
Lincoln Steffens, "The Shame of the Cities" and "The Struggle for Self-Government" (1906). The Prince of the Muckrakers' contribution to the literature of awakening.
On State Conditions:
There is an oppressive barrenness of material on this subject.
P. S. Reinsch, "American Legislatures and Legislative Methods" (1907). A brilliant exposition of the legislatures' activities.
E. L. Godkin, "Unforeseen Tendencies in Democracy" contains a thoughtful essay on "The Decline of Legislatures."
On Political Parties and Machines:
M. Ostrogorski, "Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties," 2 vols. (1902). The second volume contains a comprehensive and able survey of the American party system. It has been abridged into a single volume edition called "Democracy and the Party System in the United States" (1910).
James Bryce, "The American Commonwealth," 2 vols. Volume II contains a noteworthy account of our political system.
Jesse Macy, "Party Organization and Machinery" (1912). A succinct account of party machinery.
J. A. Woodburn, "Political Parties and Party Problems" (1906). A sane account of our political task.
P. O. Ray, "An Introduction to Political Parties and Practical Politics" (1913). Valuable for its copious references to current literature on political subjects.
Theodore Roosevelt, "Essays on Practical Politics" (1888). Vigorous description of machine methods.
G. M. Gregory, "The Corrupt Use of Money in Politics and Laws for its Prevention" (1893). Written before the later exposes, it nevertheless gives a clear view of the problem.
W. M. Ivins, "Machine Politics" (1897). In New York City—by a keen observer.
George Vickers, "The Fall of Bossism" (1883). On the overthrow of the Philadelphia Gas Ring.
Gustavus Myers, "History of Tammany Hall" (1901; revised 1917). The best book on the subject.
E. C. Griffith, "The Rise and Development of the Gerrymander" (1907).
Historical:
H. J. Ford, "Rise and Growth of American Politics" (1898). One of the earliest and one of the best accounts of the development of American politics.
Alexander Johnston and J. A. Woodburn, "American Political History," 2 vols. (1905). A brilliant recital of American party history. The most satisfactory book on the subject.
W. M. Sloane, "Party Government in the United States" (1914). A concise and convenient recital. Brings our party history to date.
J. B. McMaster, "With the Fathers" (1896). A volume of delightful historical essays, including one on "The Political Depravity of the Fathers."
On Nominations:
F. W. Dallinger, "Nominations for Elective Office in the United States" (1897). The most thorough work on the subject, describing the development of our nominating systems.
C. E. Merriam, "Primary Elections" (1908). A concise description of the primary and its history.
R. S. Childs, "Short Ballot Principles" (1911). A splendid account by the father of the short ballot movement.
C. E. Meyer, "Nominating Systems" (1902). Good on the caucus.
On the Presidency:
J. B. Bishop, "Our Political Drama" (1904). A readable account of national conventions and presidential campaigns.
A. K. McClure, "Our Presidents and How We Make Them" (1903).
Edward Stanwood, "A History of the Presidency" (1898). Gives party platforms and describes each presidential campaign.
On Congress:
G. H. Haynes, "The Election of United States Senators" (1906).
H. J. Ford, "The Cost of Our National Government" (1910). A fine account of congressional bad housekeeping.
MARY C. Follett, "The Speaker of the House of Representatives" (1896).
Woodrow Wilson, "Congressional Government" (1885). Most interesting reading in the light of the Wilson Administration.
L. G. McConachie, "Congressional Committees" (1898).
On Special Topics:
C. R. Fish, "Civil Service and the Patronage" (1905). The best work on the subject.
J. D. Barnett, "The Operation of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall in Oregon" (1915). A helpful, intensive study of these important questions.
E. P. Oberholtzer, The Referendum in America (1912). The most satisfactory and comprehensive work on the subject. Also discusses the initiative.
J. R. Commons, "Proportional Representation" (1907). The standard American book on the subject.
R. C. Brooks, "Corruption in American Politics and Life" (1910). A survey of our political pathology.
All books are sourced from Project Gutenberg