This was a new phase of the question, and quite staggered me. With my accumulating correspondence around me, I began to feel as if I had ignorantly committed a serious blunder which I must lose no time in explaining. The fact that the Commission already had on file the names of many women, with a bare possibility of the list being exhausted at a remote period, was an aspect of the case which I had not adequately considered.
The reason for the great excess in the number of women’s names over those of men left on file, is officially stated to be that, whenever vacancies occur in any of the departments a demand is usually made for a male instead of a female clerk. I think that I am not mistaken in saying that appointments have hitherto been made in the ratio of six to one. The Commission has been allowed no discretion. When a demand was made for a male clerk, a female could not be supplied. With my observation and experience among department clerks, this appears to me an unjust discrimination. I have often asked the reason for this of those who ought to be able to furnish intelligent opinions upon the subject, but have never succeeded in eliciting anything satisfactory. One general argument used is that it is more difficult to enforce discipline among women. This, however, is such a weak statement, though oft repeated, that I am not inclined to discuss its merits or demerits. A really strong point is made in their average loss of time. It is claimed by some of the aggrieved class that this would be rectified by a just apportionment of salary as it would relieve them of much additional labor after office hours. I am not prepared to suggest the remedy, I only desire to speak of the service as it exists. Whenever a proposition is made to introduce a woman clerk into one of the cosy, well-furnished apartments occupied by three, four or six clerks of the opposite sex, it is met by a prompt and indignant protest.
Why? Well, this is a question I will answer myself, and if it be treason, I am absolutely indifferent to the consequences. Pass along the corridors and glance through the half-open doors into these pleasant offices; observe the occupants engaged with fresh newspapers, their chairs tipped back, barely preserving a perilous balance by making footstools of the desks; observe also the clouds of fragrant smoke; if the weather be warm, graceful negligé costumes will not escape you; a vacant chair, perhaps many vacant chairs will be sadly suggestive to the unenlightened, but if you inquire, the answer will be reassuring: “He has only stepped out” (for an hour or two). Paradoxical as it may appear, the affairs of an entire department may be administered while the $8,000 head, accompanied by his bureau officers, is fishing in the Adirondacks, making an excursion to Florida, crossing the plains, or summering at Mount Desert; and all along the line there are delicious masculine privileges which the ambitious female must not even cherish a profane desire to possess. In the light of these exclusive dispensations I have often seriously considered the tenets of the Arcadian settlement upon the bayou Têche. No woman is allowed to enter its peaceful borders who can read and write, consequently they are lovely cooks and have no wrinkles. The difficulty seems to begin when they are allowed to master the alphabet—after that there is no stopping them. In a word, the intelligent, deft, skillful, conscientious women workers of the departments have trespassed alarmingly upon the ancient, solidified rights of the original “lords of the territory,” and that, too, just as they were most aggressively and menacingly arrayed. The passage of the Civil Service act was “a trumpet pealing news of battle above the unrisen morrow”—to women. Visions of the beautiful “equal work, equal pay” doctrine rose thick and fast beyond the dark limit line of a hitherto narrow horizon; visions of regular promotions for well performed work. Alas, instead of this, the departments are permitted to discriminate in favor of male clerks, and no laws have yet been enacted in reference to promotion. In view of these two truths perhaps I ought to take back all that my former article contained. If the operation of the law is to practically exclude women, while it offers no opportunities of advancement to those already within the gates, certainly I owe it to my readers to admit it. But this admission—even with the six to one, or even greater ratio confronting me, I am not prepared to make. I have shadowed forth the reasons for this state of things, and I shall continue to hope and to believe that wise legislation will regulate the system, and time will adjust it to harmonious working order.
In reading the complete and exhaustive work upon the Civil Service of Great Britain, by the Hon. Dorman B. Eaton, chairman of our own Commission, I find that when women were first employed in that enlightened land they were considered too dishonest to be trusted with letters that had not been first cut open by men clerks, and all valuables removed! They were also under the constant surveillance of a “matron.” Now they fill numberless places of trust and responsibility, and a large class of earnest, self-reliant, independent women has been the outgrowth of an experiment which had this puny, almost despicable beginning. Therefore, despite facts and figures, we need not be discouraged in this country. It ought to be comforting to those clamoring upon the outside that there are friends and allies within. It is said that there are twelve hundred women in the Treasury alone, while those in the other departments must aggregate many hundreds more. A certain historian affirms that the Bourbons mainly owed their restoration to the throne of France to the following message sent by Prince Talleyrand to the allied sovereigns and their generals: “You may do everything and you dare nothing; for once, then, be daring.” I repeat the warlike sentiment to women desiring work here. If you do not ask for it, assuredly you will not receive it. If you do ask—you, or you, my sister—from the North, East, South or West, may be successful. Some of you certainly. In direct response to questions which have been asked me by numerous correspondents, I make the following statements: Each state and territory is entitled to a quota of appointments based upon its population, without reference to present incumbents who were appointed under the old system. Examinations are held in various places, thereby affording all who desire an opportunity to attend. A letter addressed “Civil Service Commission, Washington, D. C.,” containing a request for information, will obtain a printed form containing full particulars as to every step of procedure. Age, moral character, previous employment, where educated, etc., must be testified to under oath, and each applicant must be endorsed by not less than three nor more than five reputable persons to whom he or she must be personally known. All applicants will be informed when and where the first examination most convenient to them will be held. A thorough, rudimentary education is all that is necessary for the $900 examination. For the $1,200 places something more is required; a knowledge of book-keeping, and our civil government, and wider historical and geographical information. There are special and technical examinations for linguists, mechanical experts, etc. The ordinary work—by which I mean all that is usually performed by clerks of the lower grades—is never of an intricate character. It is easily learned, whether it be keeping books of records, copying or briefing letters, counting money or reckoning percentages. I do not wish to convey the impression that there is any child’s play in the matter—far from it. There is an abundant field in which industry and intelligence can exhibit themselves advantageously. The extracts appended are from the first annual report of the Commission, submitted to the President in February, 1884. I have endeavored to outline the difficulties that lie all along the way, and to show that long waiting may follow even a successful examination. I am not conscious of being even at heart a strong partisan, and think that I have presented a calm and impartial statement. In conclusion, I may add that although good penmanship may be considered as a rather low accomplishment, it is an important factor of success in this special direction.
APPENDIX No. 5.
The questions below are an example of those used in the grades which fall under the first and fourth clauses of Rule 7, known respectively as the general and limited examinations. They are a fair sample of all those used in those grades. It is at one or the other of those grades that fully 95 out of every 100 applicants have been examined under the rules. The questions are frequently varied, indeed almost at every examination, without materially changing their grade, and there are special adaptions of them to various places in the postal and customs offices. For the sake of brevity the ample spaces for the answers on the examination papers are omitted.
GENERAL EXAMINATION UNDER CLAUSE 1 OF RULE 7.—FIRST SUBJECT.
Question 1.—One of the examiners will distinctly read (at a rate reasonable for copying) fifteen lines from the Civil Service Law or Rules, and each applicant will copy the same below from the reading as it proceeds.
Question 2.—Write below, at length, the names of fifteen states and fifteen cities of the Union.