2140 VETOES

carding it here. If these procedures are bad, they should be
changed or abolished. If experience has shown that in the
case of the University certain special arrangements are needed,
they should be provided. The remedy would not seem to be to
retain the law as to purchasing for the Health Department, the
Department of Education, the State Roads Commission and
other branches, of the State government while wholly exempting
the University of Maryland alone. The argument that what
may be done at the University in the course of certain revenue
yielding activities is not costing the State any money, is more
plausible than true. As long as the State is in the position of
having to provide funds to meet any unmet need or to make
good any deficit, it is absurd to speak of any expenditure by
the University as "not costing the taxpayers money". When
the legislature is confronted by a fait accompli, it has no real
choice as to what should be clone; its action is forced. That has
been the experience in the past; the proposed change would
only make repetitions easier.

The bill would also free the University of all regulation in
the selection of employees—not only academic persons as to
whom a broad latitude may well be granted—but all other em-
ployees, too. It is difficult to see why stenographers, clerks,
bookkeepers, maintenance people, watchmen, messengers, etc.,
—in fact all outside the teaching staff—should not be selected
under merit system rules as are such employees in other depart-
ments. If civil service procedure has merit in the selection of
all other public employees why, it may be asked, should people
performing similar employment of a non-academic character
at the University not be chosen the same way?

The advantages and disadvantages of the civil service system
(for non-academic personnel) may be debated endlessly, but
it is firmly established practice in federal, state and local
government throughout the nation. The appointing power
may chafe under its restraints, but public opinion in favor of
civil service rests upon experience under civil service con-
trasted with experience under the spoils system. The elimina-
tion of civil service would open the door to patronage abuses
for political or other purposes unrelated to the public good.
There is no reason to believe that Marylanders are prepared to
sanction a general retreat from the merit system or that, if
they knew of the proposal, they would favor the grant of a
broad license to abandon this system at the University.

In support of the bill, it has been pointed out that it specifies
that employees, though not required to be under civil service,
shall, nevertheless, have protection against injustice by resort
to an appeal. This protection they will have anyway if they
remain in the civil service system, and there is no reason for
exempting the University from the requirement binding on all