Now do not misunderstand me. I am not saying this because the Republicans have been in control of things. Had Democrats been at the helm of the national craft, they would have done the same. The Democratic politicians might have done more or less than the Republicans have done to get the civil service of the government away from corrupt and corrupting partisan influences. The Republicans have done only what they have been compelled to do--compelled by general public demand. So the Democrats would have done, had they been in power. Politicians do not want a civil service free from party control. The “jobs” have been and _are_ a source both of spoils and of continued power to the so-called “practical” politician of either party--of any political party. That is why the party leaders--“bosses”--fight so persistently and craftily to retain control of the civil jobs. That is why almost every civil service law or “executive order” for placing civil employes under a merit or efficiency classification carries a “joker” somewhere about its clothes. That is true of most all such laws and orders so far enacted or issued, whatever be their field of application--city, county, state or nation. So I desire the reader to understand that there is no political or party animus in what I may say in adverse criticism of the jokes and jokers which so conspicuously decorate the Republican display of effort to place federal postal employes under classified civil service and which, it is said, “has taken them out of politics and will keep them out.” The Man on the Ladder believes in civil service, but he does not believe in either legislative or executive “jokers” which, under the guise and pretense of establishing a _protected_ merit classification of public servants, makes stealthy crooks and turns to keep their own partisans on the jobs, regardless of either their ability, merit or fitness. Now let us return to our subject--to the points which make much if not most of the alleged “progress” in the postal department toward the institution of a _merit_ classification of its office employes but little more than a move on lines to keep administration partisans on postal service jobs, and which makes this much-talked of progress toward efficiency conserve party more than service interests. But some readers may urge that this is mere assertion. Well, let me present a few facts and conditions which support the assertions, or which, to me, seem to make the statements assertions of fact. Mr. Hitchcock rightly asserts (page 13 of 1909-10 report) “that the highest degree of effectiveness in the conduct of this tremendous business establishment cannot be attained while the thousands of postmasters, on whose faithfulness so much depends, continue to be political appointees. The entire postal service should be taken out of politics.”