ble to
cities and villages as well. In Massachusetts an act was passed on the
3rd of June 1884 which in its general features was based upon the
Federal act and the New York act. Similar laws were passed in Illinois
and Wisconsin in 1895, and in New Jersey in 1908; the laws provide for
the adoption of the merit system in state and municipal government. In
New Orleans, La., and in Seattle, Wash., the merit system was introduced
by an amendment to the city charter in 1896. The same result was
accomplished by New Haven, Conn., in 1897, and by San Francisco, Cal.,
in 1899. In still other cities the principles of the merit system have
been enacted into law, in some cases applying to the entire service and
in others to only a part of it.

The application of the merit system to state and municipal governments
has proved successful wherever it has been given a fair trial.[6] As
experience has fostered public confidence in the system, and at the same
time shown those features of the law which are most vulnerable, and the
best means for fortifying them, numerous and important improvements upon
the pioneer act applying to the Federal service have been introduced in
the more recent legislation. This is particularly true of the acts now
in force in New York (passed in 1899) and in Chicago. The power of the
commission to enforce these acts is materially greater than the power
possessed by the Federal commission. In making investigations they are
not confined to taking the testimony of voluntary witnesses, but may
administer oaths, and compel testimony and the production of books and
papers where necessary; and in taking action they are not confined to
the making of a report of the findings in their investigations, but may
themselves, in many cases, take final judicial action. Further than
this, the payment of salaries is made dependent upon the certificate of
the commission that the appointments of the recipients were made in
accordance with the civil service law and rules. Thus these commissions
have absolute power to prevent irregular or illegal appointments by
refractory appointing officers. Their powers being so much greater than
those of the national commission, their action can be much more drastic
in most cases, and they can go more directly to the heart of an existing
abuse, and apply more quickly and effectually the needed remedy.

Upon the termination of the Spanish-American War, the necessity for the
extension of the princ