In such and other minor ways, then, the fourth-class postmaster may be a helpful instrument in the retention of power by the political party in power--the party from which he has received appointment. So it is good “practical” politics to keep such a party agent on the job. To that end, then, the party in power--the administration--places the fourth-class postmaster in the classified civil service, thus making his removal more difficult, if not impossible, in case an opposing party should win out at the polls and take charge of the government. The foregoing is said, of course, on the presupposition that every reader knows that a vast majority of the postmasters and other personnel of the postal service today is of the political party in power. In saying that the party from which these postmasters and other postal service employes received their appointments has been and is using a civil service classification largely, if not wholly, for partisan ends. I say only--in fact have already said--that the Democratic party or any other party would, if in national control, make similar use of the civil classification. And such partisan manipulation of a merit service classification will continue _so long as we fool people will stand for or permit it_. The chief “jokers” woven into most all civil service laws and executive orders are these: First: The law or “order” directing the application of a classification of a service into certain grades, places those holding positions at the time of the enforcement of such law or order, into the various grades _without any examination as to their merit or efficiency_. Second: Such laws and orders almost universally provide a promotion or advancement credit for “experience,” and the only factor or element recognized in the make-up of experience is _time_. The number of years an employe has been on his job or in the service is his “experience.” Third: Such civil service laws or orders always provide for examinations--usually an “entrance” and “promotional”--and for “examiners.” Seldom is anything said as to the qualifications of the persons selected as examiners. Their selection is invariably left to a “Civil Service Commission,” and the membership of such commission is as invariably left to _partisan appointment_. There is usually a pretense of making such commissions “non-partisan,” that is, one of three or two of five of the appointed commissioners are to be of the minority party. Nevertheless, they are _all_ appointed by the majority party--the party in power.