The National tribune., 1883-09-13
Comrade Van Dervoorrs Removal.

this lime, through the Associated Press
announcement, Paul Van Dervoort, Past
Commauder-in-ehief of the Grand Army, has
been summalily removed from the Office of
chief clerk Of the United States Railway
Mail Service at Omaha, Neb, upon the per-
sonaI order of General Gresham
himself a cornrade of the Order The
news win be a great shock 10 our comrades
Of the Grand Army everywhere, and they
viii naturally demand to know-and with
just reason, too-the true cause and motive
Of this surprising action. Indeed, we already
have evidence of the feeling which this pro-
cedure viii arouse among our veterans in
the fact that at the Hastings (Neb.) Reunion,
last week, twenty thousand ex-soldiers
united in q resolution deploring the removal
of Comrade Van Deryoort and demanding
his reinstatement But with the eonse-
quences Of this removal we shall not at
present concern ourselves. The question of
immediate importance is as to whether the
action Of the Postulaster-General was justi-
fable, and we shall proceed, therefore, to
examine the reasons which he gives for it.
Aad by way Of ex PLANTATION we may say that
a representative of THE TRIBUNE called in
person on the Postmaster-General,a and, with
view to asoertaining thereal facts in the case,
requested permission to examine the record
the papers, reports, complaints (if any and
recommendations upon which official action
was based-but was denied access to ii, and
instead was furnished with statement pre-
pared at the instance of the Postmaster
General, after consultation with Chief
Thompson, of the Railway Service, and
characterized by him as authoritative. That
statement is as follows:
Paul Van Dervoort, who was recently removed
by the Hon Postmaster General from the position
of chief clerk of the Railway Mail Service at
Omaha, Neb has been absent from his post OF
duty the grester portion of his time for year past.
During this time he has visited nearly if not quite
every part Of the United States and its Territories.
His official duties at Omaha have received from
him but very little attention. The matter has been
left almost entirely 20 his clerk. His Division
( Superintendent has frequently reported that the
service in that section delnoralized and in an
unsatisfactory condition by reason Of AIr Van Der
Voorf's neglecl Of duty.
The chief clerks of the Railway Mail Servics are
required to make daily reports TO their Division
Superinfendents of their whereabouts and the ma
ture OF t9eir work on each day. These reports have
been made out By 1Ir Van Dervoort in advance and
left at Omaha TO be forwarded from tat point after
his departure. lie was absent during the year
ending July 81. 1888, about 265 days according TO
his own statement. When demonstrated with by
his Division Superintendent in regard to his alb
senee he promised that Immediately after the ad.
iournment of the meeting Of the g. A. r. al Den.
YER Colorado he would so TO Omaha and attend
to his official duties. Instead Of doing so he inlme
diately took his family and went to Soda Springs
Jdaho where he remained until the time Of his re
| movaI A portion Of this time he falsely reported
himself at Omaha doing Office work, when it wa:
known that he was at Soda Springs. lie also re
ported portion of the time while at Soda SPRING.
that he was arranging the service on the Oregon
short line and he telegraphed to Omaha directing
his clerk to come and do that work. IN view 0
this and other negieets Of duty and unfaithfuness
the Postmaster General removed Mr. Van Dervcort
April q 1883, Mr.. Van Dervoort asked for a'leav,
Of absence for thirty days from april 18th with pay
and Jeff for the Pacific Coast without hearing from
his application FOR leave, which the Postmaster
General declined to grant. May 2s 1888, Eir. Val
Dcryoort wrote the Postmaster-GeneraI urging
that the order Withholding leave without pay b
/ revoked which the Postmaster General declines
to do. On the Ist Of June he made a similar re
quest. which was also declined. Captain White c
Chicago aIr. Van Dervoort's Division Superin
tendeHt, has complained TO the Department 70
more th2n a year OF his neglect Of duty and gen
eral inefacency. IN short. he has insisted that be
cause OF his connection with the g. A. r. he shoul
= be allowed to draw pay as chief clerk withou
performing the duties of the Office.
This is, TO say the least, curious docu
ment, and one that seems to US to requir
much explanation. weshould like to know
for instance, how it happens, if Chief Cler
Van Dervoort was absent from his post th
greater portion of the time for year past,
that he was not removed Immediately upo
this alleged neglect becoming known, ir
stead Of after he had resumed his duties, q
shown in this Department statement. Wa
: it understood" that a certain liberty as 1
! his movements would be allowed him, c
d was his absence entirely without the know
s edge or consent of his superior officers, an
: have tLey but just discovered that for mol
a than year past he has been absent frol
his post? We really do not understan
how such an oversight could have occurre
in the Department. Had Comrade Va
p DerYoort been removed while acting
9 Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Arm
p and openly travelling through the count1
. in its interest, it woold have been su
prising, but the Department appears TO ha7
just learned of his movements. As to b
e making daily reports from his Office whe
> be was not there in person, that is also
mysterious thing, Did he Willfuliy decei'
u the Department, or was it well understoc
> by the latter that this was mere formalit
, and that he was not In fact at his post
And if it was so understood, how comes
- that he is charged with reporting falsely
!" How can the Department now claim TO ha'
u been deceived when by its own admissio
"a il was not deceived a particle?
And then as to the statement that aft