No man should be the incumbent of an office the duties of which he is for any cause unfit to perform; who is lacking in the ability, fidelity, or integrity which a proper administration of such office demands.  This sentiment would doubtless meet with general acquiescence, but opinion has been widely divided upon the wisdom and practicability of the various reformatory schemes which have been suggested and of certain proposed regulations governing appointments to public office.

The efficiency of such regulations has been distrusted mainly because they have seemed to exalt mere educational and abstract tests above general business capacity and even special fitness for the particular work in hand.  It seems to me that the rules which should be applied to the management of the public service may properly conform in the main to such as regulate the conduct of successful private business: 

  Original appointments should be based upon ascertained fitness.

  The tenure of office should be stable.

  Positions of responsibility should, so far as practicable, be filled by
  the promotion of worthy and efficient officers.

  The investigation of all complaints and the punishment of all official
  misconduct should be prompt and thorough.

The views expressed in the foregoing letter are those which will govern my administration of the executive office.  They are doubtless shared by all intelligent and patriotic citizens, however divergent in their opinions as to the best methods of putting them into practical operation.

For example, the assertion that “original appointments should be based upon ascertained fitness” is not open to dispute.

But the question how in practice such fitness can be most effectually ascertained is one which has for years excited interest and discussion.  The measure which, with slight variations in its details, has lately been urged upon the attention of Congress and the Executive has as its principal feature the scheme of competitive examination.  Save for certain exceptions, which need not here be specified, this plan would allow admission to the service only in its lowest grade, and would accordingly demand that all vacancies in higher positions should be filled by promotion alone.  In these particulars it is in conformity with the existing civil-service system of Great Britain; and indeed the success which has attended that system in the country of its birth is the strongest argument which has been urged for its adoption here.

The fact should not, however, be overlooked that there are certain features of the English system which have not generally been received with favor in this country, even among the foremost advocates of civil-service reform.

Among them are: 

1.  A tenure of office which is substantially a life tenure.

2.  A limitation of the maximum age at which an applicant can enter the service, whereby all men in middle life or older are, with some exceptions, rigidly excluded.