10 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XXIII. No. 575. 



changed once in four years and that the 

 new presidents had power to change the 

 policies of their predecessors at once. One 

 conld easily imagine that scientific work 

 would suffer. 



The permanency of tenure in the govern- 

 ment is supposed to be secured by the civil- 

 service regulations and these regulations 

 have undoubtedly improved the condition 

 and raised the quality of government em- 

 ployees, but, so far as secixring trained sci- 

 entific men is concerned, the system, how- 

 ever well it may work in the case of clerks 

 and loAV-grade positions, is not one which is 

 so well adapted to the cases of positions 

 requiring special scientific training. The 

 recommendations of those under whom a 

 man has studied or for whom he has 

 worked would appear to be of more value 

 than successful answers to a number of 

 more or less stereotyped questions. The 

 system, while it may keep out a very poor 

 man, does not necessarily secure a very 

 good man, unless, in some way unknown to 

 us, the difficulties of a rigid system are 

 softened by a beneficent interpretation of 

 the rules. The civil service system, al- 

 though acting somewhat to the disadvan- 

 tage of a scientific man so far as entering 

 the service is concerned, is on the other 

 hand undoubtedly a protection to him dur- 

 ing his service. 



A recent executive order, however, seems 

 to us to be a most unfortunate step back- 

 ward, and, whatever may be said, must 

 inevitably cause a feeling of insecurity. 

 From the somewhat vague accounts given 

 in the papers at the time of its promulga- 

 tion one would perhaps not have been war- 

 ranted in forming an opinion concerning 

 the precise object which it was designed to 

 accomplish, but the explanation of the order 

 given in the president's recent message is, 

 of course, authoritative. It is as follows: 



Heads of executive departments and members of 

 the commission have calle^J, my attention to the 



fact that the rule requiring a filing of charges and 

 three days' notice before an employee could be sep- 

 arated from the service for inefficiency has served 

 no good purpose whatever, because that is not a 

 matter upon which a hearing of the employee 

 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 heads of departments and bureau chiefs to go 

 through this required procedure. Experience has, 

 sho^^^l 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 some- 

 times 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 Icnowledge 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 

 removal rests where it always has rested, with the 

 head of a department; any limitation of this abso- 

 lute right results in grave injury to the public 

 service. 



The justice of the last sentence is beyond 

 qiiestion. There is, however, another ab- 

 solute, moral right which is not mentioned 

 in this connection, viz., the right of a per- 

 son accused to be heard in his own behalf 

 by the one in whom the power of removal 

 is vested. The expression inefficiency or 

 incapacity coming within the personal 

 knowledge of the head of the department, 

 taken in connection with the previous state- 

 ment that experience has shown that the 

 rule requiring three days' notice is wholly 

 ineffective to save any man, if a superior, 

 for improper reasons, wishes to remove him, 

 suggests several unpleasant possibilities. 

 In the first place one regrets hearing that 

 it is not only possible that persons might 

 be removed for improper reasons, but espe- 

 cially that experience has already shown 

 that the previoixs rule was powerless to pre- 

 vent such removals. Stated baldly, ex- 

 perience has shown that persons have been 

 removed for improper reasons since the 

 establishment of the rule. By M'hom, one 



