removal, except it be political, is sufficient to justify it. The intention is to protect the classified service from arbitrary and unjust removals by appointing officers, and to prevent removals for other than causes that will bear public record, after opportunity to make defense. Under this act the commission is made publicly responsible for every removal from the classified service.

The question involved in the recent decisions of United States courts, whether the President's order in respect to removals has the force of law, is less important than the question whether it ought to have such force. The answer to the first depends upon the extent of executive power under the civil service act to make rules that shall have the force of law. The answer to other must be sought in the further inquiry, whether public employment can be the subject of vested right, -whether office is a place of public service, or a castle to be privately held and enjoyed.

The merit system of appointment recognizes and protects the right of all to compete for public employment, the right of freedom of contract with the largest employer of skilled and unskilled labor. The Massachusetts act provides for the punishment of officials and others who shall "defeat, deceive, or obstruct any person in respect of his or her right of examination." (Sec. 18). The constitution of New York requires all appointments to be made upon "examination which, so far as practicable, shall be competitive." The Illinois act provides that "all applicants for offices or places in said classified service.

shall be subjected to examination, which shall be public, competitive and free to all citizens of the United States, with specified limitations as to residence, age, health, habits, and moral character." (Sec., 6.)

The Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in the case of Commonwealth vs. Perry, 155 Mass., 117, said: "There are certain fundamental rights of every citizen which are recognized in the organic law of all our free American States. . . . The declaration of rights in the constitution of Massachusetts enumerates among the natural

inalienable rights of men the right of acquiring, possessing and protecting property.' The right to acquire, possess, and protect property includes the right to make reasonable contracts, which shall be under the protection of the law."

The Supreme Court of Illinois, in the case of Braceville Coal Co. v. People, 147 Ill. 66, 70, said:

"The fundamental principle upon which liberty is based, in free and enlightened government, is equality under the law of the land. It has accordingly been everywhere held, that liberty, as that term is used in the constitution, means not only freedom of the citizen from servitude and restraint, but is deemed to embrace the right of every man to be free in the use of his powers and faculties, and to adopt and pursue such avocation and calling as he may choose, subject only to the restraints necessary to secure the common welfare."

The same court, in the great case of Ritchie v. People, 155 Ill., 98, 104, also said: "The privilege of contracting is both a liberty and property right. . . . The right to use, buy and sell property and contract in respect thereto is protected by the constitution. Labor is property, and the laborer has the same right to sell his labor, and to contract with reference thereto, as has any other property owner. . . . The right to labor or employ labor, and make contracts in respect thereto upon such terms as may be agreed upon between the parties, is included in the constitutional guaranty."

Thus it follows that the right of freedom of contract with the largest employer of labor, is a property right which is protected by the fundamental law. (See also Stimson's Handbook to the Labor Law of U. S., p. 10, etc.;) that all citizens, having the proper requirements of age, health and character, have a property right to compete for public as well as private employment. It is the great purpose of the merit system of appointment to give force and effect to this fundamental right of free

men.

We are now ready for the inquiry, whether the right to compete for public employment extends, on behalf of

the successful competitors, beyond the threshold of such employment, there to become a vested property right in the office itself. Unless offices exist to be held, the answer must be in the negative. A fundamental principle of civil service reform is that public office is a public trust. It is an opportunity to render a public service, and whatever of personal honor and profit attach to it is but incidental. The public has a right to the most efficient and devoted service, and to this end to continue competent and faithful officials in its employment. Thus the public need, not personal interest, becomes and is the basis and measure of a just tenure. Only in this view can the public service be, indeed, the public service," (Gladstone)—the property of the nation, not an asset of a party boss or machine.

We may, therefore, conclude that the right of competition for public employment is a property right of all; that this right is part and parcel of the fundamental right of freedom of contract; that a right of such importance ought to be given full force and effect by positive law. We have seen that this is the great purpose of all civil service legislation. It also follows, that public office is not properly a subject of vested right; that official position is an opportunity for public service, not a private property interest; and that its control is an executive, not a judicial, function. If these conclusions are sound, it remains for the executive to forbid removals except for just cause. It does not follow that the President's order is less wise because it is not properly enforceable by the courts. It will be to the lasting honor of the present administration if it shall firmly establish a rule of executive action to prevent removals without just cause.

The evolution of modern democracy is from the simple and primitive groups of kinsmen, known to us. as village communities. The crude democracy of these isolated communities gave way to the despotic feudal monarchy which molded them into the great nation having a definite territory, uniform laws and comparative freedom from local disorder. Then came the long

struggle for a democracy which should combine the great advantages of a wide national authority with as much as practicable of the local self-government and personal freedom of the village community. This struggle is marked by a long succession of popular victories over despotic privilege. The spoils system in our day is a mercenary survival of feudal privilege. Its destruction will remove another barrier that stands between the people and their government. The merit system, in its purpose "to intrench the principle and practice of Washington in the Law," seeks to recover a fundamental right of free men. To such a purpose, complete success is sure. It may be here and there delayed, but it will come.

Civil Service Reform and Municipal Govern

ment.

FIRST PAPER.

BY ALBERT SHAW.

WE have been talking much in this country of Municipal Reform; and that phrase, when applied to existing conditions in various cities, embraces obviously, a great range and diversity of specific needs. But it is well for us that we should understand clearly that, in the present stage of our progress, Municipal Reform means before all else civil service reform, and that the abolition of the personal and party spoils system from our municipal administrations is the one and only remedy for the worst of our present evils in city govern

ment.

Good government in itself is a fit and desirable thing, and patriotism demands it; for how can the citizen love his country as he ought if its administration is habitually corrupt and inefficient, and if there is altogether lacking in the exercise of public authority the attributes of disinterestedness, of dignity, and of equal beneficence towards all citizens, regardless of party, race, or other distinction? Nevertheless, while I do not fail to appreciate the fitness and the moral beauty of good government as an abstract consideration, I have always, in the application of government to local and municipal affairs, preferred to think of government as a means to an end rather than an object in itself.

Municipal government in our day has come to be Collectivism, on a vast and ever more diversified scale. I am familiar with the abstract discussions, current