Doctors and Politicians, 
BY 
I . _ 
L 
ROBERT H. M. DAWBARN, M. D., 
Lecturer in Operative Surgery, New York Polyclinic. 
A Series of Letters reprinted from the Medical Record, of December 7th, 1889, 
and from several subsequent numbers of this Journal. 
NEW YORK: 
M. J. Rooney & Co., Printers and Stationers, 
COR. BROADWAY AND 357N STREET. DOCTORS AND POLITICIANS. 
By ROBERT H. M. DAWBARN, M.D. 
Lecturer in Operative Surgery, New York Polyclinic. 
A series of letters reprinted from the Medical Record of December 7th, 1889, and from 
several subsequent numbers of this journal. 
To the Editor of tJie Medical Record. 
Sir :—In your issue for November 2d, I notice the fol- 
lowing editorial paragraph: “ It is we1l known that the 
state of civil service reform in New York is not what its 
friends could wish it to be ; and that it would be well if 
some clear presentment of the facts were made by those 
who have had occasion to know best, as to the details and 
as to abuses—in the interests of better sanitation. It looks 
as if the only answer to the question was, ‘What are you 
going to do about it ? ’ ” 
Having had personal experience in the ways of alleged 
Civil Service Reform and its workings as applied to New 
York City, I have determined, in the interest of the medical 
fraternity, to respond to your appeal, hoping that some 
ultimate good may result therefrom. 
It is evident to those who have had occasion to ap- 
proach the machine that there is “something rotten in 
Denmark.” Possibly a permanent coryza may afflict the 
members of the Civil Service Board, and they do not 
observe the stench. Possibly they are imcompetent, or 
perhaps so occupied by other and to them more important 
cares and duties, that their subordinates have opportunities 
for disreputable acts which pass unobserved. 
No one, I think, questions the personal honesty of the 
gentlemen who compose this board. But when a battle is 
fought, the responsibility, on the defeated side, rests with 2 
the general in charge; and he cannot shift the load to 
other shoulders by complaining of a lack of efficiency or 
discipline in his subordinate officers. The simile holds 
good in the struggle between reform on the one hand, 
and political “pull” and “inflooence” on the other. The 
people have reason to be thoroughly dissatisfied with the 
commanding officers on the side of justice. They have 
been laggards in the fight, and should be replaced by men 
who are Argus-eyed : men not alone who are conscientious, 
but who also will put the same energy and. determination 
into the cause ot the right as are necessary to compass and 
maintain the success of any great business firm. 
As to the politicians—we have no just reason for com- 
plaint. As found in New York they are “statesmen” for 
revenue only—for the money there is in it. To a man 
they hate the Civil Service laws, formulated to cut away 
their patronage by removing appointments from their 
hands. And as they find many a loophole of escape, they 
also despise these laws and the weak supporters thereof. 
We have herein no cause for complaint, as we cannot 
expect assistance nor anything but keen antagonism from 
“our friends the enemy.” He would be a fool or a coward 
who laments because the enemy does not give him aid. 
But we do have just cause for indignation when we find 
indifference, or something worse, within our own camp. 
Let me speak only whereof I know. Concerning Civil 
Service as applied to others than medical men, I know 
nothing. But in respect to physicians I have had some 
experience which I now propose to lay before the pro- 
fession. 
And here let me say that I have no axe to grind. My 
own days of examinations are long past. Such personal 
grievance as I have had has not been hastily thrust before 
the public, either for sympathy or for any other reason. 
This must be admitted without argument, since my own 
experience dates back nearly five years ; and yet not from 
that day until now have I published a word regarding the 
matter. Nor would I do so even now except for the hope 
that your editorial, serving as a text and an incentive, may 3 
lead others to do likewise; and that together we may 
accomplish something more than one alone can do. 
The first Civil Service examination for permanent posi- 
tions for medical men, ever held in New York City, I believe, 
was that of February 3 and 4, 1885. There was a vacancy 
in the number of Police Surgeons owing to the death of a 
member of this corps. The position is a desirable one, 
being of certain tenure, and the salary being $1,500 at first, 
later, $2,250 per annum ; with abundant time for private 
practice, as the duties are generally light. 
This examination was duly and properly advertised 
beforehand in The Medical Record and The Medical JournaJ; 
and thirty-nine physicians, of whom I was one, competed 
for the appointment. We were examined for the greater 
part of two days upon the seven main branches of medicine, 
by three physicians selected by the board, as I was told, 
each to represent one of the three great medical colleges of 
this city. 
In the event, I was so fortunate as to stand first, with 
a rating of one hundred per cent, in each of the branches. 
My friend Dr. Condict W. Cutler, then recently of Bellevue 
Hospital, stood second, with ninety-eight per cent.; and 
Dr. Charles S. Mack, then recently of Chambers Street 
Hospital, was third, with ninety-three per cent. 
According to the law, the Police Commissioners should 
appoint one of the first three. In my innocence and fresh- 
ness I actually supposed that the heads of the municipal 
police-force would do as they should do—that they would 
obey the law as a matter of course. 
As I look back upon the affair, this belief—this child- 
like trust on my part in official honesty of intention—strikes 
me as most ludicrous and amusing. But at that time I 
really supposed that the result of Civil Service rules was to 
give the appointment to the candidate reaching the highest 
rating. 
Time passed, and no appointment was made. At last, 
becoming worried, I took several letters of introduction 
from eminent business men and called upon the Police 
Commissioner—since retired from office—whose turn it was to appoint (the four commissioners appoint in rotation). 
I saw him alone in his room at Police Headquarters. 
He read my letters, also the paper announcing my stand- 
ing. Then he said: “Civil Service Reform be damned! 
I will not, as we say, hang you up, but will tell you plainly 
that neither yourself nor any doctor who passed that 
examination will be appointed. I have promised that 
place to a doctor who did not take that examination, and 
after your period of eligibility has expired there will be 
another examination, and my man will go in.” 
If the commissioner had knocked me down he could 
not have surprised me more than he did by that speech. 
In reflecting upon it, I can only account for his surprising 
frankness by the remembrance that we were alone, and 
any subsequent repetition on my part would probably be 
met by a simple denial on his part, and there the matter 
must rest. Though I felt bitter enough at the time, I am 
now rather grateful to this rascal in one respect, for he 
might have hung me up (kept me in suspense by postpone- 
ments and false promises) indefinitely, instead of giving me 
a prompt despatch, as he did. 
I called next upon all the individual members of the 
Civil Service Board, gave a brief statement of the facts just 
narrated, offered to make affidavit thereunto, and asked 
them to endeavor to prevent such a wilful and contemptuous 
infraction of the spirit of the law, by prolonging the period 
of eligibility of successful candidates for medical positions 
until at least some one member of a given eligible list had 
received an appointment. This certainly was a reasonable 
request, and would, if carried into effect, have blocked the 
Police Commissioner’s scheme to violate the law. 
These gentlemen listened to me politely, seemed not to 
care about the matter particularly, and nearly a month 
later sent me a note, through the secretary of the board, 
stating that they would not take any action at present. 
That ended the matter so far as my efforts were con- 
cerned. I did not appeal for justice to the public, because 
the use of the daily papers for such a purpose is not open to 
self-respecting physicians. 
4 At length the time arrived—one year—when we who 
had passed that examination were no longer eligible. And, 
of a truth, none of that list were ever appointed. Shortly 
thereafter I heard that there had been another examination. 
Differing from the first, this examination was not, as it 
should have been, advertised in the medical journals. I am 
told that it was only advertised in the City Record, the 
official and legal organ of New York City appointments. 
Certain it is that not more than half as many doctors 
appeared at this examination as at the previous one, they 
being mainly those who had political friends to notify them. 
Very few of the first list were present, or had even heard of 
the second examination until it had actually been held. 
Owing to the death of yet another Police Surgeon, dur- 
ing my year of eligibility, and to the fact that the commis- 
sioners now retired a couple of surgeons who were over 
sixty-two years of age, there were four vacancies. These 
were filled from this second eligible list, by selecting four 
men, one of whom was the physician who, as I have stated, 
had been promised the appointment more than a year 
before. This gentleman is the nephew of an eminent states- 
man, to whom the commissioner aforesaid was under obli- 
gations. (I would not have it supposed that he was 
unworthy. I have reason to believe him an excellent 
physician.) Another appointee was a close relation by 
marriage to the leader of one of the city political factions ; 
and this leader secured his appointment. The remaining 
places went to two men who had served in the army during 
the war. They were both near the foot of the list, having 
shown a poor standing. But the commissioners in this case 
had no choice, the law being mandatory regarding veterans 
of the late war. 
The two candidates who had stood highest upon this 
eligible list, respectively, Drs. Charles PT Quimby and 
Condict W. Cutler, not having enough “pull,” were ignored, 
passed over, and never received an appointment. 
Some little good to others came out of my own dis- 
comfiture, in this wise : I wrote the Hon. John Jay, 
Chairman of the State Civil Service Board, saying that it 
5 seemed to me only courteous that all the successful can- 
didates of a given examination should be specially notified, 
when their eligibility has expired without appointment, of 
the time and place of the next examination. 
Mr. Jay in his reply stated that he agreed with me, and 
would endeavor to have this point carried into effect 
throughout the State. This, I am told, has since been 
done. 
Between the time of which I have been writing—1885 
and thereabout—and the present date, I have heard from 
various sources, authentic, I believe, occasional reports of 
medical appointments to our city departments of which 
we cannot be proud. During these years I have had 
quite a number of applicants for quizzing in preparation 
for the city Civil Service medical examinations; and I 
have always advised the gentlemen in question, as in con- 
science bound, not to waste their time. If they have a 
“pull,” seventy per cent.— the under limit—will suffice. 
If they have not a “ pull,” a higher per cent, will not avail 
anything. 
It may perhaps interest your readers to know of the 
latest proof of the kind whereof I speak. I give it with the 
brief preface, that it is only a fair assumption that it is not 
the only case of its sort. There are probably others of 
which I do not happen to know. 
Dr. A B C, a former student of mine, did not, until 
after the fact, hear of the examination held this summer 
for the “ Summer Corps” of physicians to assist the regular 
corps of the Board of Health. He was but a day or two 
late, and determined to try political influence. In this he 
was successful, for a well-known city official, of his own 
language and religious belief, procured for him a copy of 
the questions, which he answered at his leisure, at home, 
and doubtless to his own satisfaction. His paper was then 
duly handed to his political friend, was slipped in among 
the other papers, and in a short time he received his ap- 
pointment as a member of the “ Summer Corps,” in which 
he remained throughout the season. 
I have reason to believe what the doctor said to me. In 
6 the first place, he had no reason for deceiving me. But, 
aside from this, I know that he was elsewhere when the 
regular examination was held, and I know also that he was, 
nevertheless, in the Summer Corps. 
If it should be said that I owe it to the profession to re- 
port, publicly, the names of such flagrant violators of the 
law, I can only reply that I would gladly do so ; but that 
this and such other instances as have come to my notice 
were told in confidence, which, although unsought on my 
part, I cannot break. 
I presume that the Civil Service Board will find it easier 
and simpler to disbelieve my statements than to keep that 
sharp watch over the personnel of their department and the 
purity of their “ reform ” which they devote to their private 
finances. 
The medical profession in this country seldom bestirs 
itself in public matters even where its own weal is con- 
cerned. More is the pity. We can hardly expect others 
to show a greater interest in our own affairs than we our- 
selves display. 
If such a large body of educated men as the physicians 
of New York were really to take some concerted action, 
and maintain it loyally, what could they not accomplish in 
the way of abating political abuses ? If a standing com- 
mittee, wisely selected, from the Academy of Medicine, or 
the County Society, or both, should make earnest and con- 
tinued endeavor, perhaps the public at large might come to 
understand—as an example—that their lives might be bet- 
ter protected against plague and pestilence than at present; 
that the health-officer to a great port should be one in fact, 
and not alone in name : one who has demonstrated some 
ability in preventive medicine, not one who is selected 
solely for political and partisan reasons—his office being 
merely a source of revenue to his party. 
It may be, too, that such a fighting committee might 
succeed in wiping from our name the stain and reproach 
which is conveyed in the exclusion of a phy'sician and the 
appointment always of some politician as the head of our 
Board of Health. Even such serious matters as life and 
7 8 
death have their ludicrous side at times ; and what could 
be more grotesque and worthy of comic opera than de- 
barring a medical man from the head of a department 
which absolutely demands for the protection of our citizens 
a thorough medical training ? 
It would be well for our standing committee to keep 
an eye upon the Civil Service Commissioners with regard 
to the various medical examinations, and the resulting ap- 
pointments. Such scrutiny would not be pleasant for these 
gentlemen, but, in view of the facts, who shall say that it 
would be time ill-spent? 
I am told that the board have not always been wise in 
their selection of physicians as medical examiners. That 
is a matter wherein, necessarily, their judgment cannot be 
of the best. It would be a modest and becoming admis- 
sion of fallibility on their part if they would request the 
Academy — for instance — to name responsible and able 
men, annually, for this purpose; and these examiners 
should endeavor to give their examinations as practical a 
cast as possible. 
And finally, one — possibly two — further reforms are 
needed in our vaunted Reform. First, the man who heads 
the successful list should be the man appointed; and the 
wording of the law should make this inevitable. Other- 
wise, as now, the thing is a farce and a sham reform. 
Regarding the second, I speak with much hesitation. 
It has reference to the preferment of veterans over men 
who may have been shown by the examination-test to be 
the more able physicians. 
I would not have it thought for a moment that I do not 
feel hearty respect and admiration for these brave men, 
as every true American must do. And I sympathize with 
the public sentiment which shows them honor in every 
proper way. But is this a proper way ? I would not be 
dogmatic. Perhaps my views herein are wrong ones. 
But reflection would seem to show that this clause is an ex- 
crescence in Civil Service laws. So far from being a proper 
part of them this provision seems to me to antagonize directly 
the theory on which the whole fabric of examination rests ; which is, as I understand it, that the man of greatest 
demonstrated fitness is the proper man. Sympathy, grati- 
tude, admiration of personal bravery, or other emotion, is 
quite foreign to the matter. If it be objected that the vet- 
eran should nevertheless be appointed because examination 
is often a fallacious test of real ability—which is, up to the 
present time, certainly the truth—that is largely the fault 
of the examiner and the kind of examination. It could be 
made a very fair test, if sufficiently practical and not too 
brief and hurried. 
It is probably expecting too much to hope for a change 
for some years to come in the law regarding veterans. And 
it is very probable that some of your readers would support 
the present law, and disapprove any change in this regard. 
As I have said, this may well be considered ground for 
amicable difference of opinion. But in all other respects I 
feel sure of the earnest concurrence of a united profession 
in what I have indicated as a line of true reform. 
Very respectfully, 
Robert H. M. Dawbarn, M. D. 
343 West Fifty-sixth Street, New York. 
9 
In the Medical Record of December 21st were published 
two letters. That of Mr. Ackerman I reproduce here, to- 
gether with my reply, in which Dr. Peterson’s letter also 
receives such attention as it requires : 
To the Editor of the Medical Record. 
SIR :—My attention has been called to the following 
paragraph, clipped from your issue of December 7, 1889: 
* * * * “ Dr. A. B. C., a former student of mine, did not, 
until after the fact, hear of the examination held this sum- 
mer for the ‘Summer Corps’ of physicians to assist the 
regular corps of the Board of Health. He was but a day or 
two late, and determined to try political influence. In this 
he was successful, for a well-known city official, of his own 
language and religious belief \ procured for him a copy of the questions, which he answered at his leisure, at home, and 
doubtless to his own satisfaction. His paper was then duly 
handed to his political friend, was slipped in among the 
other papers, and in a short time he received his appoint- 
ment as a member of the ‘ Summer Corps,’ in which he 
remained throughout the season. * * * * 
“(Signed) Robert H. M. Dawbarn, M.D., 
“ 345 Wst Fifty-sixth Street, New York.” 
Will you kindly permit me space to characterize this 
statement as utterly false ? 
Respectfully yours, 
G. K. Ackerman, 
Secretary and Executive Officer. 
New York City Civil Service Boards, Cooper Union, 
New York, December 16, 1889. 
10 
(Reprinted from the Medical Record, Dec. 28, 1889.) 
To the Editor of the Medical Record. 
Sir :—During the weeks which have followed the publi- 
cation of my letter concerning Civil Service matters, in the 
Record of Dec. 7th, I have received many communications 
from physicians, both in New York and places far away. 
The writers have gratified me exceedingly by upholding 
heartily the position I there took regarding certain munici- 
pal medical abuses ; and in several instances they referred 
to other and additional Civil Service obliquities which they 
had experienced. I wish these gentlemen would publish in 
this journal the same statements which they have made in 
private. Such public evidence of approval would doubtless 
help in abating the abuses of which we are all aware. 
To those gentlemen whose kindly messages I have 
received, but through stress of work have not answered, I 
take this means of tendering my thanks and my apprecia- 
tion. 
In the latest number of the Record there appear letters 
from Dr. Frederick Peterson and Mr. G. K. Ackerman. 11 
Regarding the first, it interested me, as I had not before 
heard of the examination in 1884 for a chief-assistant physi- 
cian’s position in the State Asylum for the Insane, which this 
gentleman so creditably passed. However, my paper re- 
ferred to New York City (not State) examinations; and so 
far as these are concerned, my statements were, I think, 
correct. 
Perhaps the profession would have been more interested, 
and some good might have resulted, if, instead of devoting 
an entire article of more than a column to the details of his 
examination and to laudation thereof, the doctor had said 
just a few words regarding present examinations—1-inefficient 
because hasty and not practical—and their accompanying 
political queerness. 
Regarding Mr. Ackerman:—This gentleman, in his 
communication mentioned, cuts out a portion of my pub- 
lished letter, and pronounces it a falsehood. This he does 
with such emphasis and brevity as to be equivalent to say- 
ing “ damn ! ”—and that is all. 
The portion to which he refers was, as I stated, simply 
a quotation on my part, which I have reason for thinking 
true. How it will surprise and even sadden the doctor who 
told me how he attained the “Summer Corps” when he 
learns that Mr. Ackerman contradicts him ! 
In the Evening Post of Dec. 17th is an interview with 
Mr. Ackerman, in which this gentleman practically admits 
the more important of the alleged facts, barring the taking 
of the papers home by the doctor. That is, he admits that 
a certain few physicians were allowed a special examination 
a day or two later than the regular one. 
If a certain one or two are as a favor allowed to take 
their examination a day or two days later than that of the 
vulgar herd, and are—as we are informed—asked the same 
questions as the latter, what fairness is there in this arrange- 
ment ? Even if different questions are asked, what fairness ? 
It is, for obvious reasons, a simple travesty on a competitive 
examination, and the political cloven hoof is apparent. 
If the men who were allowed a later examination in this 
instance were not asked the same questions as the others, it ought to be easy for Mr. Ackerman to prove this by 
allowing to reporters free access to the examination-papers 
written both by these favored doctors, whose names were 
given in the Evening Post, and by the rest of the class. 
J have no personal quarrel with Mr. Ackerman. He is 
probably a politician of much probity ; and therefore there 
are a few points on which, in common with many other 
physicians, I find myself puzzled. 
Will not some other among the professional readers of 
the Record add his personal quota to the problem under dis- 
cussion, as, at the request of the editor, I have done? 
Very respectfully, 
Robert H. M. Dawbarn, M.D. 
j'45 West Fifty-sixth Street, New York., 
12 
[.Editorial from the “ Medical Record,” January 4th, 18 go.'} 
MEDICINE AND THE CIVIL SERVICE. 
The letters of Dr. Dawbarn and our other correspond- 
ents regarding the competitive examinations of the Civil 
Service have excited considerable interest and comment. 
All who have read this correspondence will, we think, agree 
that while Civil Service examinations may have been im- 
perfectly and unfairly conducted in some departments, yet 
it is not the system which is at fault, but its misapplication 
at the hands of politicians. The appointment of medical 
men in the Civil Service, solely on political grounds, has for 
years been a source of scandal and disgrace. Physicians 
should therefore encourage the thorough enforcement and 
wider application of the law. On the other hand, some of 
those who are at present engaged in carrying out this law 
seem unduly sensitive to criticism, although they are by no 
means above it. We are quite convinced of the essential 
accuracy of Dr. Dawbarn’s statements. It has long been 
known that the methods of appointment of police surgeons 
have been essentially political. 
In the Medical Record for January 18, 1890, appears the 
following letter from Mr. G. K. Ackerman. Those who have read the foregoing letters attentively will indeed 
sympathize with him in his evident annoyance. I print 
what he has to say, knowing that he would wish it. 
Mr. Ackerman was secretary during the recent episode 
which we have been discussing. He was appointed, as .he 
herein states, on April ist. As to date, this was neither 
auspicious nor felicitous, but regrettable. I feel for him; and 
in his behalf let me say, that we should not hold him, but 
his superiors in office, responsible. Out of his own mouth 
they stand convicted of allowing him to use unfair and im- 
proper practices in Civil Service examinations. This was 
shown in my last letter to the Record. And if they still 
remain complacent, why should his heart be troubled ? 
Evidently, however, he has felt that my letter or the 
recent editorial in the Record compels him to say some- 
thing. Under such unhappy circumstances he speaks. 
And as his letter contains no arguments or proofs at all, 
being merely his previous effort made a trifle longer, I do 
not answer it, but willingly give him the last word. 
Robert H. M. Dawbarn. 
13 
Mr. Ackerman's Letter. 
MEDICAL CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS. 
To the Editor of the Medical Record. 
Sir :—I do not believe that any controversy between 
Dr. Robert H. M. Dawbarn and myself will be of any inter- 
est either to yourself or the readers of your journal. Dr. 
Dawbarn’s grievance as to his candidacy some years ago 
for a medical position has no interest for me, and his 
strictures upon the methods of conducting Civil Service 
examinations, being simply his opinions as against those of 
gentlemen who have given much time and thought to these 
matters, and whose reputation, character, and knowledge 
are unimpeachable, are not much more interesting. 
But Dr. Dawbarn’s charge that a candidate came to 
this office and procured a set of questions, took them home, and answered them there at his leisure, being a plain and 
palpable violation of law, if true, deserves the fullest pun- 
ishment of the law. 
This charge, it appears, is made by Dr. Dawbarn, not 
upon any knowledge he has upon the subject, but upon the 
mere say-so of a candidate who is now in Europe. When 
he returns, Dr. Dawbarn may depend upon it that the 
charge will be proved or retracted. 
I have been connected with the Civil Service of this city 
since the first day of April, 1889. I have endeavored to treat 
every candidate, whether professional or lay, with courtesy 
and fairness, and I would be glad to hear of any case since 
that time where any candidate has been dealt with in any 
other way. 
The editor of the Medical Record, or any physician, will 
be welcome to any examination of the system, working, 
and records of this office at any time, whether he may have 
a grievance or not. 
Respectfully, 
G. K. Ackerman, 
Secretary. 
New York City Civil Service Boards, Cooper Union, 
New York, January 13, 1890. 
14