1724 VETOES.

MERIT SYSTEM.

Chapter 559 (House Bill 240). Upon the passage by the
General Assembly of House Bill 240, providing for a change
in the set-up of the office of State Employment Commissioner,.
I decided that the best way to arrive at a proper conclusion
was to approach the consideration of the entire matter with
calmness, deliberation and without haste. Inasmuch as the
law was not intended to be effective before June 1st, it was
apparent to me that no useful purpose would be served by
rushing or hastening to a conclusion. On the other hand, I
felt that time given to sober reflection and review, after the
more strenuous days of the Legislature, would be well spent.
I have adhered to this course and during the intervening
period I have obtained data from many other States, as well
as the Federal Government, concerning their set-up for the
administration of Civil Service laws. I have also analyzed,
to the best of my ability, the situation in this State and have
undertaken to estimate the possible benefits or losses to the
Merit System, which might follow from executive approval or
disapproval of this measure.

In announcing my present decision I wish to state emphat-
ically that I am not repudiating the action of members of the
General Assembly who voted for this proposed change. Neither
am I reflecting upon their motives, because my investigation
discloses that the particular type of system which they would
have instituted is working satisfactorily in other States.

Nor do I think that the members of the Legislature and
other persons who favored this proposed change were intent
upon "scrapping" the Merit System. Quite to the contrary,
they have proven to my satisfaction that they want to uphold
the Merit System because they have suggested that if the Bill
were approved a Commission composed of men of the type
of Charles H. Baetjer, William J. Casey, William L. Rawls
and Richard F. Cleveland should be appointed, thus assuring
the administration of our Civil Service Law on an undoubtedly
high plane.

I am persuaded, however, that such a drastic change, as
proposed in this measure, would receive an unfair test unless
it were backed at the outset by the controlling power of public
opinion. Such general support, if a change were desirable,
will only come if this proposal receives the most careful and
painstaking study, with public discussions and a full dis-
closure of all phases of the questions involved. It must be
demonstrated that the change is not to be made for political
reasons and that no attempt is being projected to reinstate
the "spoils system. " Our people are too far advanced in the
administration of public affairs to give approval to any change