already holds a lucrative office under another government, the law cannot operate on the first office and, to be given effect, must act as a disqualification for the second office. Thus it is often the case that the holding of a Federal office will render the holder ineligible to state office. It is also frequently provided that members of a legislature shall be ineligible to hold an office created or the emoluments whereof have been increased during the term for which they shall have been elected. Nor may an officer appoint himself to office. Thus in the case of People v. Thomas (16) the law devolved upon three justices of the peace the power of making an appointment to the office of supervisor and they proceeded to do so by appointing one of their own number, but the court said: "These three justices are the depositories of a public trust, and it is a principle of universal application, as well as of public decency, that neither of them should be permitted to discharge it for his own benefit or to promote his private interest," and so held the appointment invalid.

§ 18. Civil service requirements. Educational requirements such as the ability to read and write are sometimes requirements for the holding of office, and in the case of offices such as that of judge or engineer, professional or technical training and experience are common qualifications. The most important intellectual requirements, however, are those of the civil service. The act of Congress of 1883 has been the model of much of the state legislation. The President may require the taking of examinations by applicants for almost any position in the serv

ice of the government except laborers, and the rules laid down by him have gradually been extended so that there are now over 120,000 positions subject thereto. There are three general classes of examinations, those designed to test merely the general intelligence and adaptability of the competitors; those designed to test, in addition, the technical training of the applicants, as in the case of stenographers, draftsmen, etc.; and those designed to test technical skill, as in the case of mechanics, but without tests of an intellectual character. Neither the application nor the certificate required of the candidate shall contain any information with regard to his religious belief or political affiliations and, unless honorably discharged from the military or naval service of the United States, every applicant must be within the age limitations fixed for the positon desired. If the position belongs to one of the recognized mechanical trades, he must show that he has worked as apprentice or journeyman for such period as the commission may prescribe. The commission may refuse to examine or certify those physically unfit for the particular service, or who have been guilty of a crime or infamous or notorious and disgraceful conduct, or who have been dismissed from the service for delinquency or misconduct within one year preceding the date of the application, or who have intentionally made false statements as to any material fact, or been guilty of any deception or fraud in securing registration or appointment. Except in certain cases where extremely technical qualifications are required, a registration list is kept on which are placed the names of those attaining an average of seventy, in the order of their averages, except that those

honorably discharged from the army and navy need attain only an average of sixty-five and are given preference. The method of procedure is for the appointing officer to request the commission to certify to him the names of those eligible for the position, whereupon the commission certifies the three names at the head of the list unless they have been already certified three times to the same department or office. The person appointed is on probation for six months, when if satisfactory, his appointment becomes absolute (17).

§ 19. Same: Remedies thereunder. What remedies an applicant for a position in the Federal government would have in case his name were not certified by the civil service commission, or in the case of a veteran if it were not given preference, or what rights a person appointed contrary to the civil service rules would have as to salary, etc., has not received much attention at the hands of the United States courts but the decisions of the state courts on civil service legislation are numerous. Thus, in New York it has been held that the courts have a right to determine whether the exemption of certain classes from examination is within the constitutional provision that fitness for appointment shall be ascertained by examination where practicable (18), that an officer appointed in violation of the civil service law could not recover the salary attached to the position (19), and that a veteran may by mandamus compel a civil service commission to give his name the preference on the registration list required

(17) See Goodnow, Admin. Law of U. S., 264-281. (18) Hale v. Worstell, 185 N. Y. 247.

by law (20). It has been held unconstitutional, however, to give veterans a preference without undergoing any of the tests required of others (21), or to deprive the appointing officer of all power of selection by limiting his choice to the highest on the list when his power of appointment is constitutional and not statutory (§ 34, below).

(20) People v. Civil Service Board, 5 App. Div. 164.

CHAPTER II.

SELECTION, INSTALLATION AND TENURE OF OFFICERS.

SECTION 1. ELECTION.

§ 20. Registration. The right of suffrage is one of those fundamental rights dealt with in most constitutions so that comparatively little power is left with the legislatures with regard to it. Purity of election laws are within their proper province, but great care must be exercised in drafting these in order not to violate constitutional rights. Thus in the case of Attorney General v. Common Council (1) the Michigan statute required that boards of registration sit on the four days commencing with the first Monday of October and the fourth Monday of October, and that no ballots should be received by the inspectors under any pretense whatever unless the person offering to vote had been registered. The court pointed out that in October, 1888, the fourth Monday had been the 22d, while the general election day had been November 6, leaving fourteen full days between the last day of registration and election, whereas the constitutional requirement for residence in the township or ward was only ten days. Furthermore there was no provision for the registration of persons sick or absent on the day of registration. The court said: "The object of a registry law, or

(1) 78 Mich. 545.