In excluding spoilsmen from public office, the reformers were, in a sense, engaged in a negative work:  that of “keeping the rascals out.”  But there was a second and larger phase to their movement, one constructive in character:  that of getting skilled, loyal, and efficient servants into the places of responsibility.  Everywhere on land and sea, in town and country, new burdens were laid upon public officers.  They were called upon to supervise the ships sailing to and from our ports; to inspect the water and milk supplies of our cities; to construct and operate great public works, such as the Panama and Erie canals; to regulate the complicated rates of railway companies; to safeguard health and safety in a thousand ways; to climb the mountains to fight forest fires; and to descend into the deeps of the earth to combat the deadly coal gases that assail the miners.  In a word, those who labored to master the secrets and the powers of nature were summoned to the aid of the government:  chemists, engineers, architects, nurses, surgeons, foresters—­the skilled in all the sciences, arts, and crafts.

Keeping rascals out was no task at all compared with the problem of finding competent people for all the technical offices.  “Now,” said the reformers, “we must make attractive careers in the government work for the best American talent; we must train those applying for admission and increase the skill of those already in positions of trust; we must see to it that those entering at the bottom have a chance to rise to the top; in short, we must work for a government as skilled and efficient as it is strong, one commanding all the wisdom and talent of America that public welfare requires.”

=The Australian Ballot.=—­A second line of attack on the political machines was made in connection with the ballot.  In the early days elections were frequently held in the open air and the poll was taken by a show of hands or by the enrollment of the voters under names of their favorite candidates.  When this ancient practice was abandoned in favor of the printed ballot, there was still no secrecy about elections.  Each party prepared its own ballot, often of a distinctive color, containing the names of its candidates.  On election day, these papers were handed out to the voters by party workers.  Any one could tell from the color of the ballot dropped into the box, or from some mark on the outside of the folded ballot, just how each man voted.  Those who bought votes were sure that their purchases were “delivered.”  Those who intimidated voters could know when their intimidation was effective.  In this way the party ballot strengthened the party machine.

As a remedy for such abuses, reformers, learning from the experience of Australia, urged the adoption of the “Australian ballot.”  That ballot, though it appeared in many forms, had certain constant features.  It was official, that is, furnished by the government, not by party workers; it contained the names of all candidates of all parties; it was given out only in the polling places; and it was marked in secret.  The first state to introduce it was Massachusetts.  The year was 1888.  Before the end of the century it had been adopted by nearly all the states in the union.  The salutary effect of the reform in reducing the amount of cheating and bribery in elections was beyond all question.