The statement that the examinations are not practical in character is based on a misapprehension of the practice of the Commission.  The departments are invariably consulted as to the requirements desired and as to the character of questions that shall be asked.  General invitations are frequently sent out to all heads of departments asking whether any changes in the scope or character of examinations are required.  In other words, the departments prescribe the requirements and qualifications desired, and the Civil Service Commission co-operates with them in securing persons with these qualifications and insuring open and impartial competition.  In a large number of examinations (as, for example, those for trades positions), there are no educational requirements whatever, and a person who can neither read nor write may pass with a high average.  Vacancies in the service are filled with reasonable expedition, and the machinery of the Commission, which reaches every part of the country, is the best agency that has yet been devised for finding people with the most suitable qualifications for the various offices to be filled.  Written competitive examinations do not make an ideal method for filling positions, but they do represent an immeasurable advance upon the “spoils” method, under which outside politicians really make the appointments nominally made by the executive officers, the appointees being chosen by the politicians in question, in the great majority of cases, for reasons totally unconnected with the needs of the service or of the public.

Statistics gathered by the Census Bureau show that the tenure of office in the Government service does not differ materially from that enjoyed by employes of large business corporations.  Heads of executive departments and members of the Commission have called my attention to the fact that the rule requiring a filing of charges and three days’ notice before an employe could be separated from the service for inefficiency has served no good purpose whatever, because that is not a matter upon which a hearing of the employe found to be inefficient can be of any value, and in practice the rule providing for such notice and hearing has merely resulted in keeping in a certain number of incompetents, because of the reluctance of the heads of departments and bureau chiefs to go through the required procedure.  Experience has shown that this rule is wholly ineffective to save any man, if a superior for improper reasons wishes to remove him, and is mischievous because it sometimes serves to keep in the service incompetent men not guilty of specific wrongdoing.  Having these facts in view the rule has been amended by providing that where the inefficiency or incapacity comes within the personal knowledge of the head of a department the removal may be made without notice, the reasons therefor being filed and made a record of the department.  The absolute right of the removal rests where it always has rested, with the head of a department; any limitation of this absolute right results in grave injury to the public service.  The change is merely one of procedure; it was much needed, and it is producing good results.