Or anything of that sort. If we believe in the merit system, and I say we do, is it not desirable to remove from the public mind any confusion, any misunderstanding and misconception in connection with appointments to the public service? At the present time, when we make some appointments through the civil service commission and some on another basis, can we blame the public fear being confused, for not
understanding the situation and assuming that when an appointment is to be made it will not be exclusively under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission? The result is that in connection with appointments that are under the commission some people have the suspicion and the belief that something can be done by the sitting member to secure the appointment for them. The result is the exercise of pressure; representations are made, and the membeir or defeated candidate is subjected to the difficulty of convincing an applicant that the appointment is to be made by the civil service commission and he cannot do something about it. If we approve the merit system, the sooner we cause the public to understand that that system prevails in appointments to the public service, that no other influence can intervene or be exercised, but that all appointments are made on that basis-the sooner that is done, the better, for the civil servant, for the public, and for men in public life. For this reason I find myself opposed to section 8 of the report, which recommends that all positions under $700 a year should be excluded from the operation of the Civil Service Act. It is an arbitrary line to draw.
Subtopic: MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND AND FINAL REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE