Page:Speeches, correspondence and political papers of Carl Schurz, Volume 5.djvu/406

382 has been in practice elsewhere, the two words “merit” and “fitness” have been used by everybody who has had anything to do with civil service legislation, as meaning substantially the same thing—as one of those tautologies so frequent in our legal vocabulary. Nobody has ever thought of making, as applied to the civil service, any distinction between them. But now, all of a sudden, the authors of this bill have made the startling discovery that the two words mean essentially different things—so different, indeed, that a candidate for office should not be examined as to his “fitness” by the same board that examines him as to his “merit.” This strikes me as if, when a candidate for a place were required to be “hale and hearty,” one physician should examine him as to whether he was “hearty,” and the other as to whether he was “hale.”

I hold in my hand a report of questions actually asked in civil service examinations conducted by the civil service board in New York City. Of these, I will give you an example:

(1.) Do you consider it the duty of a weighmaster in a city department personally to supervise all weighing of coal delivered to that department? Give the reasons for your answer.

(2.) In your opinion should all coal so delivered be weighed or would the weighing of samples be sufficient? Give the reasons for your answer.

(3.) What, in your opinion, would be a proper system of checks in order to prevent any collusion between the weighmaster and dealer?

(4.) To what points, in particular, would your attention be directed in order to prevent dishonest delivery?

(5.) If you were called on to superintend the issuing of stores from the general store-room for the use of the