Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-07-18
Col. SWitzlcr'A COuYixfS.

AN INQUIRY MADE BY THE CHIEF OF THE
BUREAU OF STATISTICS AND THE CRITICISMS
THAT FOLLOWED Ir-LAw OFFICERS WHO. II
Is SAID, DID Not READ THE LAW.
Col. +. w. SwitZlcr, the chief OF the bureau of
statistics, has been criticised, his friends think,
with undue severity ior his action in inquiring
of the Secretary of the Treasury whether the
Secretary was not ''nuthorized to appoint and
employ five copyists allowed the burenuff sta
tistic, ny tho appropriation act, approved
March Sd, 1888, for the fiscal year en ding June
3u. 1886. at the annual salary Of $40, Or less
each, and thus enable the department to select
such c"pyiots from persons qualified such,
examinations The act referred to Is the lceis-
lntve, judicial and executive appropriation
lating to the bureau of statistics is as follows:
,'fOr the officer iii charge of the bureau of
statistics. $4,000; chief clerk, $4,000; four
clerks of class four, four clerks OF class three.
five clerks ofclass two nine clerks of class one
three clerks at 81 900 each, five copysts, one
messenger; .s two iaborcrs, one female laborer at
In conformity to o suggestion by the Secrc-
tary coi switzier submitted his question to
views on the subject. He keid that the IS secre S~
salaries of $40. AS the act did not appear to
fix their salaries, the question of compensation
resting, III his opinion in the discretion Of the
Secretary. He held also that ii competent per-
sons could be employed at the salary named,
| it would not only be the right but the duty OF
the Secretary to employ them in the interest of
that ii Congress had intended to f. the salaries
Of cOpysts In this bureau, it would have done so
explicitly, as it had done in the cases Of other
bureaus.
Mr.. McCue, the solicitor of the Treasury, to
whom the inquiry OF Col. Switzler was referred,
gave an opinion sustaining Col. Switzler's view
of the case, and declaring that "under the terms
OF the act, and for the reasons stated by the
chief Of of the bureau the Secretary is SO author
with the opinion Of the solicitor, was then
referred by the Secretary to the first controller
of the Treasury, who In turn made answer sup
porting Co. SwitZlers opinion as to the Secre-
tary's discretion in this matter. subsequently,
however, Judge Durham made statement to
the Secretary explaining his opinion, and say
| Ing that his attention ''had been called TO that
1855, In which said copyists are provided for,
and find that the sum of 5000 Is allowed to
each, and not $72O, us stated In the inquiry. I
desire now to say II my opinion had been asked
| act the sum Of $500 to each, being therein
| appropriated, came under the civil service
| classification, would have said that under the
nsnt s'S made by the Treasury depart
| CLASSIFICATION and civil service law. Why Mr..
Swftzier IN MS question said salary OF $72O or
less less, when 5000 is provided for in the appro-
! Upon this statement by Judge Durham the
CRITICISMS untavorable to Col. SWitzfer have
been based: 1t Is said, in behalf OF Col. Switz-
, ler, mat the blame, If any, rests with the law
! tleman, who made an inquiry ia good faith, in
| regard to what he considered Doubtful passage
| OF law, and made full reference to tho laws
wnlcn Lne Jaw officers should have cOnsufted
tant matter. Col. Switzler did not state chat
these copyists were entitled to q salary of $720
each. put expressly remarked that tho statute
,e,S H,e nSe nA IN SO many words their salary ne,
ss20 or less. 's''>,'. = s,'''- - =.