Brief for the Affirmative.G. S. Howe and G. B. Henshaw.

Question: Resolved, That the Civil Service Act ought to be by law extended to all departments of public service.

Best general references-Civil Service Act (Statutes at Large, vol. 22, p. 403);

Civil Sevice Record, vols 7 and 8; Nation, vols, 8, 13, 35, 37, 39, 41; W. E. Foster's Civil Service Reform Movement.

I. Great evils are caused by the Spoils System. (a) Degradation of national character. (b) Conversion of politics into mere place-hunting (c) Inefficiency of public service. (d) Despotism of political obligarchy-Saratoga Address by G. W. Curtis, International Review, 13, 261.

II. The Act should be extended by law. (a) It is now imperfect on account of its limited application-Nation, vol. 1, p. 108. (b) Rigor of stature necessary to check greed of office seekers. (c) Extension by executive regulation is insufficient. (e. g. Railway Mail and Census)-Address by G. W. Curtis, American Journal of Soc. Science vol. 14. p. 36.

III. A marked improvement in the department has been effected by the Act-Report of U. S. C. S. Commission 1886-87, p. p. 121-137, 498-540. (a) Effect of competitive examinations on the service-No. Am. 109, p. 443. (b) Effect on morals and politics.

Brief for the Negative.E. S. Griffing, '90, and M. F. Hill, '90.

Best general reference: Fifth annual report of Civil Service commission (1887-88).

Objections rest upon two grounds, expediency and constitutionality.

A. Expediency. There are two general kinds of offices, civil and political.

I. It should not apply to civil officers (a) Confidential clerks should be chosen by those whom they serve. (b) Skilled artisans should be chosen not for knowledge but for efficiency in their art-recognized in Civil Service Report, pp. 100-104.

II. It should not extend to political officers. (a) Examination system cannot determine fitness of men to act as heads of departments or divisions; or, (b) their capacity to act as diplomats-Federalist, No. 71, p. 502 and c., (Dawson edition.)

B. Constitutionality.

I. It would be contrary to the constitution, for it would limit the powers expressly given to the president and senate-U. S. Constitution, article 2, section 2; Congressional Record, vol. 14, pp. 470 et seq.

II. It would be contrary to the idea of American government. (a) There must always be a difference between civil and political officers; (b) The U. S. government is essentially a party government-Bryce, Am. Comm., I, 636-661; (c) good government demands that political officers should be in sympathy with the administration.