officers by political or personal influence. This so-called “discretion” is a mere fiction. The service, therefore, gains nothing by allowing them such discretion. On the contrary, it loses in point of efficiency as well as of morals, because political influence usually cares little about the true interest of the service.
Another newspaper report has it that you are considering the abrogation of the one year limit for the reinstatement of persons who have been removed without sufficient cause. This matter was discussed during Mr. Cleveland's last term, when it was moved for the benefit of the railway mail clerks who had been dismissed just before the extension of the rules over the railway mail service went into effect at the beginning of General Harrison's Administration. There seemed then to be peculiar reasons for the abrogation of the one year rule, but the Civil Service Reform League opposed it most earnestly because the example of numerous reinstatements once set would serve as a precedent, and throw the service into no end of confusion. We are as earnestly opposed to the abrogation of that rule now for the same reasons.
I would submit to you also that if you make any of these concessions, each of which would be construed as a backward step, the end of appeasing the opponents of the present civil service system would not be reached. According to universal experience your regular spoils “hunter” or patronage monger would not be satisfied by any partial concession. He will continue his clamor until he gets all he wants; and if you give him anything he will construe this only as a sign of a yielding disposition on your part and become all the more urgent and unmanageable.
The only thing that will make him stop his importunity is the conviction that there is for him no hope of getting any concession at all. I beg leave to repeat, therefore,
