The civil service proposition will be next to the candidates on the ballot which the voters will receive tomorrow.

This proposition will be at the top of the ballot and beside it there will be found two squares with the words "Yes" and "No". Those who are against this resolution will place a cross in the square marked "No"; those in favor of it will mark a cross in the square designated by "Yes."

This is a very important question. It concerns thousands of people holding city positions. The Civil Service Bill, which has already been passed by the state legislature at Springfield, can be applied to the city of Chicago only 2after a majority of the votes have been cast in favor of it. This Bill will replace the present system of appointing men to city jobs, thus eliminating political influence. Instead of appointments, competitive examinations will be held, and those with the highest grades will be given preference. Thus, an applicant who passes the tests and gets the appointment has a permanent position from which he cannot be removed because of a change of political parties in charge of the city administration, but only by insubordination or personal laxity. Assessments and other fees which were levied on the political appointees will be eliminated.

This, therefore, is a complete bureaucratic system parallel to that of Europe.

The proposition is very simple and presents definite improvements and advantages. First of all, it gives steady employment, even lifetime work, under pleasant circumstances. It offers the city better employees, for the examinations help to choose those who have had training in a special field; this excludes the tampering of the political machine for political purposes.

3

From the other point of view, according to the claims of the opposition, it will bring about heavy European formalities and bureaucracies which have shown their defectiveness many times. Civil service will create a professional class of officials, thus far not so well known in free America, who are enclosed in the sphere of their bureaus, removed from the political light and not aware of any party responsibilities, but dependent and liable only to their superiors, who are riveted to their monotonous and snail-like interests. (sic) This is the road that the mandarins of China have plied; the active autocracy in Russia is organized on these same lines, more or less.

We have, therefore, arguments for and against civil service. These arguments are presented to the readers for consideration and evaluation, although we feel that we ought to point out that as much as civil service is convenient for the people born in this country or those who speak English and have been trained in English Schools, it also is equally inconvenient for the various immigrant groups who have lately become rooted in American soil. Among these groups are the Poles.

4

No matter how well the Germans, Czechs, Italians, Swedes, Poles, etc. may be versed in English later on, this law will not be the same for them as for the American or Englishman, for the examinations, oral and written, will be given in the English language. In this lies the advantage for the American or Englishman and the great handicap to the immigrant groups. A Pole, German, Czech, Swede, etc., although better trained and qualified, is in this group and will fail in the examination, whereas the former will pass. Though the immigrant may receive a low passing grade, the large number of candidates on the list will ruin his chances of ever getting a job.

That this is not an exaggerated point of view is plainly shown by the recent police examinations held in Chicago. Out of the three thousand that took them, only two hundred failed to pass; most of these were foreigners. Of the thirty or forty Polish officers who did not take the test, seventeen were relieved of their duties. Among them were capable persons who were well versed in their work, but were handicapped by the lack of English educational training.

5

This may and will happen in the other city administrative positions if the civil service proposition wins--and this will be disadvantageous to the Poles.

We have presented both sides of the question from an unbiased point of view. We do not wish to influence our fellow citizens in this respect. They will judge for themselves which side of the proposition will be best for them.