« ForrigeFortsett »
precluded the admission of Chinese to citizenship. The only points in which a naturalized citizen is not on an equal basis with a native-born citizen, are that he can never be eligible as President or Vice-President, and that he cannot become a Senator till he has been a citizen of the United States nine years, nor a Representative till he has been a citizen seven years. (Constitution, Article 2, section 1, clause 5; Article 1, section 3, clause 3, and Article 1, section 1, clause 2.) (See Naturalization.)
Citizens' Law and Order League of the United States.—This is an organization having for its aims to enforce existing laws that are often disregarded, and to secure the passage of additional legislation, especially in regard to restricting the sale of liquor, preventing its sale to minors and on Sunday, and the like. Its work is done chiefly through the local Law and Order Leagues.
Civil Rights Bill was introduced into Congress in 1866. Its object was to protect the civil rights of the Southern negroes, then recently emancipated. It declared all persons born in the United States and not subject to a foreign power, except Indians, to be citizens enjoying the same rights as white citizens in regard to property, contracts, and entitled to all the civil rights of citizens. A violation of the civil rights of the citizens before mentioned was made a misdemeanor, the cognizance of which was given exclusively to the Federal courts; Federal officers were designated to enforce the execution of the law; the President was empowered to send these officers to any point at which such violations were feared, and to use the military and naval forces of the United States, or militia, in enforcing the act. President Johnson vetoed the act March 27th, and early in April it was passed over the veto. An amendment to this act, seeking to prevent discrimination against negroes on the part of common carriers, inn-keepers, theater managers and school-teachers was proposed as an amendment to the Amnesty Act of 1872 by Senator Charles Sumner, of Massachusetts, but it failed. A
similar bill failed in December, 1872, and again in April, 1874; at length March 1, 1875, the bill became a law. In October, 1883, the Supreme Court declared as much of the act of 1875 as related to its operation in the States to be unconstitutional, leaving its operation unhampered in the District of Columbia and the Territories.
Civil Service Reform.—The civil service of the United States includes all, except military and naval officers, but in general use the term is applied only to appointive officers in the executive branch of the government and not to those in the legislative and judicial departments. It seems to have been the intention of the founders of our government that civil officers should retain their positions during good behavior. Jefferson was the first President to depart from this policy and to inaugurate the system of removals and appointments for political . reasons; in a letter to a committee of New Haven merchants on this subject in 1801, he used the following well-known sentences: “If a due participation of office is a matter of right, how are vacancies to be obtained? Those by death are few; by resignation none." (This is sometimes wrongly quoted, “Few die and none resign.") But the system of removing and appointing public officials for political reasons only was not thoroughly inaugurated till Jackson's time. Then, was introduced from New York politics the full depth and breadth of the "spoils system,” so called from the phrase descriptive of its aims, “to the victor belong the spoils of the enemy” (which see); from that time on public office was considered a reward for party service. Jackson maintained that every citizen had an equal right to public office; he advocated “rotation in office,” which involved frequent changes; and his removals numbered far more than those of all previous Presidents together. These doctrines have been defended on the ground that a long tenure of office creates a bureaucracy of office-holders, who forget that they are servants of the public, who assume an undue importance in their own estimation to the annoyance and obstruction of the public, and who are loath to adopt new and improved methods of transacting business; it is also claimed that the officers of an administration should be in sympathy with its policy which the people have approved by their suffrage. The real reason, however, of the support for so long by politicians of the doctrine of rotation in office, seems to have been the desire to have at their command rewards for the political services of their followers, a patronage, by the promise of which they might aid their efforts at elections. Many politicians, however, have come to see that the advantages to them of the spoils system are accompanied by great disadvantages; their lives are made burdensome by constant solicitations for their influence in obtaining office for their friends and constituents. Added to this the civil service reformers have urged more weighty reasons. They maintain that public office is a public trust; that it should be conducted as economically and efficiently as possible; that the sole way of accomplishing these ends is to appoint to office only persons who are duly qualified, to promote them as they show themselves worthy, and to remove them only for misconduct or inefficiency; thus officeholders will be encouraged to devote themselves in earnest to their work. They assert that only a few important officials need to be changed with each administration in order to insure the adequate carrying out of its policy, and the subordinates should be free from the fear of removal for partisan reasons, which is entirely unnecessary. They point to the great success in every way which the adoption of these principles in the British civil service has effected. Another great evil of the spoils system was political assessments; as a condition of retaining their positions officials were made to contribute largely to the campaign fund of the party which was in power, thus infringing their individual rights and increasing the means of corruption in elections. It gradually came to be felt by the better class of citizens that these evils must be cured. The first important step in this direction was taken by the act of 1871 which appointed a civil service commission to ascertain the fitness of candidates for public office; but Congress soon refused appropriations for it; its work was consequently suspended, and it proved of little value except in paving the way for a more complete measure. About the same time competitive examinations were commenced by the Naval Officer at New York, and the Custom House at that place gradually came to adopt the system with excellent effect; but this was a merely local attempt and not required by law. Notwithstanding Grant's message to Congress urging the support of the commission authorized in 1871, the messages of Hayes, Garfield and Arthur calling for an efficient measure to reform the civil service, and executive orders forbidding political assessments (which orders soon became dead letters), nothing was accomplished till the latter part of 1882. Then a bill (often known as the Pendleton Bill) was introduced by a Democrat, Senator Pendleton, for reforming the civil service. It passed the Senate December 27th by a vote of thirty-eight to five; of the majority twenty-three were Republicans, fourteen Democrats and one Independent; of the minority all were Democrats. The House passed the bill on January 5, 1883, by a vote of one hundred and fifty-five to forty-seven; of the majority one hundred and one were Republicans, fortynine Democrats and five Independents; of the minority seven were Republicans, thirty-nine Democrats and one Independent. It was approved by President Arthur January 16, 1883. This bill prohibited all political assessments and the appointment of more than two members of the same family to public office. It created a Civil Service Commission, consisting of three persons, not more than two from one political party, to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate; the present commission consists of Theo. Roosevelt of New York; H. S. Thompson of S. Carolina, and Chas. Lyman, of Connecticut. The rules framed by the commission for carrying out the purposes of the act are subject to the approval of the President. The act applies to offices of more than fifty persons in the departments at Washington and in the customs and postal services, with certain exceptions, such as confidential clerks of heads of departments or offices, cashiers, and some other financial positions, deputy collectors, chiefs of bureaus or divisions, professional officers, officers required to be confirmed by the Senate, laborers and workmen. Local examining boards are appointed by the commission from officials at the respective places. Open and competitive examinations are held, but non-competitive examinations may be held when competent persons do not compete after due notice. Vacancies are filled by the selection of one of the four highest names on the eligible list, which are furnished to the appointing officer; persons honorably discharged from the army and navy are given a preference in appointments. Appointments are made for a probationary term of six months and are made permanent, subject to removal for cause, if the probationer has proved satisfactory. Promotions are also made as the result of examinations. The workings of this act have proved successful in the main in raising the efficiency of the service, and some of the States have adopted in their own jurisdictions similar systems. Both the Democratic and Republican party in their platforms uphold the principles of Civil Service Reform, but accusations of partial execution of the act will probably continue to be made against the party in power for the time being. (See Term and Tenure of Office.)
Civil War, otherwise called the Rebellion.—The essential cause of the Civil War was slavery; the ostensible reason, the doctrine of State Rights; the final pretext, the election of Lincoln. The growth of slavery in the South, and the resulting political conflicts between the South and the North for and against the protection and territorial extension of slavery gradually made the South the champion of the doctrine of State Rights, and led that section to maintain the right of any State to secede from the Union. (See Slavery; State Sovereignty.) The election of Lincoln showed that the power of the Democratic party was broken, and the South feared a vigorous policy against the extension of slavery and its