of votes received by any candidate or measure except that for governor. It provided for the appointment, by the governor alone, without reference to the senate, of three commissioners, for six years, with overlapping terms, and salaries of not less than $2,500. An important provision was that in default of any appropriation by the assembly, all salaries and other expenses incurred by the commission in administering the law should be paid the same as all such expenses were paid for all the elective offices of the state, thus for the first time securing a very large degree of independence from the general assembly. This constitutional amendment provided for the classification of all appointive positions in the state service, including the heads of institutions and of state departments, but excluding legislative employees and a few other designated exceptions. This measure was a great step in advance over any previously enacted, but it has failed to realize the will of the people of the state for causes hereinafter set forth.

Now, a word as to the personnel of the several commissions appointed by successive governors, equally divided between political parties under the various enactments just described.

The first commissioners appointed by Governor Buchtel under the act of 1907 were James H. Pershing, Charles R. Brock, and Henry Van Kleeck, for two, four, and six years, respectively. As vacancies occurred, Governor Shaffroth, during his two terms, appointed Sarah S. Platt Decker, E. L. Regennitter, and Horace N. Hawkins. In like manner Governor Ammons appointed William W. Grant, Jr., Henry A. Hicks, and Frank McLaughlin.

Under the act of 1915, repealing the acts of 1907 and 1912, under which the commissioners had received no salaries, a nominal salary of $50 per month was provided for the commissioners. Under this law Governor Carlson reappointed Frank McLaughlin and appointed Imogene E. Clark and Arthur R. Morrison as commissioners. As might have been expected, nothing permanent was accomplished under this law by the commission, and it failed to make the usual biennial report.

In the various enactments for the merit system, prior to the amendment of the state constitution of 1918, no limitation was placed on the governor in his selection of commissioners to administer the law except, to quote from it: "That at no time shall more than two of them be adherents of the same political party."

That the confidence thus expressed in the governor of the state had been fully justified was impressively demonstrated by the unusually high character and devotion to the public interest of the commissioners appointed by all the governors of both political parties from 1907 to 1915. Relying on this experience, the constitutional amendment was drawn so as to place the selection of the commissioners with the governor alone, without reference to the senate, but required that they should be "persons of known devotion to the merit system."

Here we must call attention to the influence of the personnel of Colorado's

chief executives upon the whole fabric of state government. In direct violation of the letter and spirit of this clear and positive mandate of the people so recently expressed by a large vote, within sixty days thereafter Governor Gunther, a democrat, on the eve of retiring from his high office, in agreement with Governor Shoup, the newly elected republican governor, and in wilful disregard of the protests of many leading citizens, appointed as commissioners three of the most active politicians in the state, to wit: the chairman of the democratic state committee, a notorious republican organizer, and an active democratic party worker, than whom no greater opponent of the merit system could be found. As someone has said, "as well intrust the enforcement of the prohibition law to barkeepers!" The two vacancies occurring in Governor Shoup's second term were filled by him with the same character of appointments.

Thus, through the connivance of the very men elected by the people to secure the enforcement of all law, has the purpose of this constitutional amendment been completely frustrated, and a bipartisan political machine established at the state capitol, which has become a scandalous center for pernicious office distribution, irrespective of party. This commission has, for over six years, been paid liberal salaries and received large appropriations of money-in strong contrast with any previous commissions-which the commissioners have misapplied for the violation, instead of the enforcement, of the law.

The three biennial reports published by this commission show that they have refrained from holding competitive examinations to fill vacancies in the public service, and have permitted the appointment of personal and political favorites by non-competitive or pass examinations; that for this purpose they have allowed the abuse of non-assembled examinations and temporary appointments, and have not held promotional examinations. The false excuse advanced for this neglect and violation of the spirit and letter of the law is, forsooth, the lack of sufficient appropriation by the legislature, when the plain reading of the constitution gives them a free hand independent of the legislature, as it provides, to quote from its provisions, "that, in the absence of such adequate appropriation, the salaries and expenses of the Commission shall be paid as are the salaries and expenses of the executive officers of the state government.' It is evident that their chief purpose was, and is, to receive their salaries while rendering the law as little obnoxious as possible to the political office seekers of all parties. They have deliberately kept their friends in employment by refusing to permit the discharge of seasonal employees when their work was done, as in the state highway department; but, worse than all, they have deliberately and repeatedly prevented the discharge for cause of employees by the heads of departments, notoriously so in the recent attempt by ex-Governor Sweet to remove the warden of the penitentiary, in which case, in absolute contravention of much of the evidence, they exonerated the warden and allowed him to retain his office. It is to the credit of Governor Sweet that, prior to his retirement in January of this year, he attempted to reorganize the Civil Service Commission

through the replacement of two of these travesties in office by making two excellent appointments, but his effort was thwarted through an adverse decision of the supreme court as to one of them, thus leaving the majority of the commission still directly opposed to the proper enforcement of the law.

The friends of the merit system in Colorado would prefer to have no law at all rather than the continuance of the present scandal at the state capitol, and are considering the advisability of submitting to the people a second amendment to the state constitution, with provisions carefully prepared to safeguard the merit system against such flagrant abuses of a law which had been proved, during the first eight years of its enforcement by high-class public-spirited citizens, to be beneficent alike for economical administration and good government.

The experience of Colorado with the merit system is conclusive evidence of the dominating influence in a democracy of personnel in all public affairs.

This reform of the Civil Service embodied in the merit system means that the public business shall be conducted on business principles, but it has a far deeper and grander meaning than this. It means that self-seeking, unscrupulous men shall no longer, through their control of the patronage, be, and keep themselves, in power. It means that the people's money shall not be used to defeat the will of the people as expressed at the primaries or the polls. It means that elections shall no longer be a struggle for office merely. It means that men shall vote according to their calm convictions on public questions, uninfluenced by the hope of gaining office or by any fear of losing it. It means that political parties shall be no longer looked upon as hostile armies, but simply as agencies for expressing the deliberate judgment of the people on men and measures. It means, in brief, a new declaration of political independence for the people of these United States.

X. THE IMMIGRANT

THE IMMIGRANT AS A FACTOR IN SOCIAL
CASE WORK

IN THE FAMILY WELFARE FIELD

Ida L. Hull, Case Supervisor, Charity Organization Society, Bridgeport In the larger cities of the Northeast and the Middle West, family welfare societies have had for the last few years an increasingly large number of foreignborn families. This change is a natural result of similar changes in population. The actual figures vary. In Boston and Philadelphia immigrant families comprise about 60 per cent of the total number. In Cleveland they are about 70 per cent. In general, the average is well over 60 per cent.

While facts are readily obtained from case work societies as to number and nationality of their foreign-born families, what this change in constituency means is less readily learned. If we inquire what new problems have been created, the answer is apt to emphasize such obvious difficulties as a foreign language, strange customs, congested conditions of living. Yet fundamental problems cannot be expressed in terms of external appearances. Their true significance lies rather in the ways of thinking which have manifested themselves in ways of doing.

To assume that the problems of all immigrant families are alike is obviously absurd. Yet in spite of the different attitudes and customs which different nationalities bring with them, and in spite of the differences in the ways in which they react to American conditions, there are certain experiences and problems which they all have in common. All have suffered the pang of breaking the ties which bound them to the past, of parting-perhaps forever-with much that was dear. Whatever the reason for their emigration, whether economic pressure or actual political or religious oppression, the severing of the old bonds has been a painful experience, alleviated though it may have been by high hopes for the future. Again, in the early days in America, all immigrants have another experience in common. They suffer from a sense of being adrift, from a longing for the old home, from disillusionment as to what the new world offers, from difficulties in adjusting themselves in act, and especially in thought, to conditions of living here. Because of these common experiences all immigrant groups present, with various modifications, certain similar problems.

The first problem of which the family agency becomes aware is likely to be

the difficulty of getting any adequate picture of the immigrant as an individual and a member of a family. To advise him wisely it is essential to know about his heredity, his past successes and failures, the bent he has shown, his weaknesses. The immigrant's personal and family history is not really so inaccessible, so shut off from reach by the Atlantic, as many too hastily assume. In his national group are probably to be found fellow-countrymen who do know much about the family. Few case workers, unfortunately, have such an acquaintance with any immigrant group as to make it possible for them to use these sources of information and help. They too often regard the immigrant family as isolated both in time and space, as just here and now, rather than as the product of heredity and environmental influences. As a result, the family agency often advises its foreign-born clients on a quite insufficient basis of knowledge, and the immigrant family suffers accordingly from the lack of vision and courage and initiative on the part of the family society. Let us acknowledge quite frankly that in many case work problems the ignorance of the immigrant would not be so serious were it not for equal and much less pardonable ignorance on the part of the native-born case worker.

Another problem comes up as soon as the case worker tries to picture the social connections of an immigrant family. No family can be understood as a unit. It must be seen against its racial and national background. With nativeborn Americans this is a fairly simple problem. We know something about the social training of negroes from the cotton belt, of families from small New Hampshire villages or from western prairie towns. To picture an immigrant in his social setting is more difficult. We have no such definite knowledge of his former environment. Yet an understanding of the group to which a family belongsits traditions, its talents, its successes and its failures-is essential for the evaluation of any individual of the group.

To understand this social setting it is necessary to keep in mind more than the old-world experience of the immigrant. Quite as important is an understanding of what happens to him during his first years in America. This is particularly true, because the recent arrival is seldom the client of a family society. Very few who have been here less than five years ask for assistance, and the greatest number of applicants have been here from five to ten years or more. Before the immigrant ever comes to a family society he has, therefore, lived for several years in America.

As a newcomer, the immigrant turns for help first of all to those from his own land who have been here longer than he. However satisfactory in theory such guidance may be, in practice its disadvantages soon become clear. Through bitter experience the immigrant often learns that the help he gets from his mentors is far from solving his problem satisfactorily. His advisors may be as ignorant as he; or they may be interested chiefly in profiting from his misfortune. In any case the immigrant is disillusioned as to the ability or willingness of his fellow-countrymen to help him out of some of his difficulties.