Patronage Monopoly and the Pendleton Bill [pp. 185-207]

The Princeton review. / Volume 1, 1882

PA TRONA GE MONVOPOLY AND THE PENDLE TON BILL. I99 Mill said that in England they only arrested the dunces; and for these reasons, which are equally true here: I. The examinations were not comparative or competitive, but were mere "pass" or "test" examinations of single officeseekers. Outside influence or inside official favor brought forward one from the crowd to be tested for the vacancy. There were no means of ascertaining relative merits, no facility for selecting the best. The patronage-mongers and monopolists aided each other in pushing their single favorites past the isolated Board of Examiners. 2. The examining boards were mere clerks or heads of bureaus in the departments-as they still are with us-with no prestige, independence, or authority for standing up against pressure or enforcing a high standard. They had neither cooperation nor union among themselves. Especially in our ser_ vice, their own places were daily at the peril of the great politicians, officers, and monopolists whose incompetent vassals and favorites they were expected to arrest at the gates of office. A bankrupt cousin or troublesome dependant is pushed all the more because unable to take care of himself. 3. But most important of all, there were no provisions that would secure to any but such'vassals, favorites, and henchmento any but those labelled and recommended by the patronage monopolists themselves-either a right or an opportunity of being examined at all. If the examiners were fearful of their own fate, as they generally were, only the mere dunderheads were kept out; and at best the same old monopolists kept all the places for their minions, even when the worst were excluded. Not a few very worthy men are even thus pushed in-some because they were thought worthy, but more perhaps in ignorance of their worth. We can see why the monopolists and politicians made no great ado about such examinations. Now when the reform threatens more effective tests, they incline even to praise "pass" examinations. A little experience rendered it plain that the old monopoly, made more respectable by having the worst of its camp-followers thus cast out, could flourish continually under such examinations. It was not less clear that what was needed for a real reform was

/ 364
Pages Index

Actions

file_download Download Options Download this page PDF - Pages 197-206 Image - Page 199 Plain Text - Page 199

About this Item

Title
Patronage Monopoly and the Pendleton Bill [pp. 185-207]
Author
Eaton, Dorman B.
Canvas
Page 199
Serial
The Princeton review. / Volume 1, 1882

Technical Details

Link to this Item
https://name.umdl.umich.edu/acf4325.3-01.009
Link to this scan
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moajrnl/acf4325.3-01.009/203:12

Rights and Permissions

The University of Michigan Library provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes. These materials are in the public domain in the United States. If you have questions about the collection, please contact Digital Content & Collections at [email protected]. If you have concerns about the inclusion of an item in this collection, please contact Library Information Technology at [email protected].

DPLA Rights Statement: No Copyright - United States

Manifest
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/api/manifest/moajrnl:acf4325.3-01.009

Cite this Item

Full citation
"Patronage Monopoly and the Pendleton Bill [pp. 185-207]." In the digital collection Making of America Journal Articles. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/acf4325.3-01.009. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 25, 2025.
Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem? Please contact us.