The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-08-21
THE CASE OF AQUILLA JONES.
las He Violated the Civil-Service Law,
and Is lie an Offensive Partisan?
The Mugwumps Make Statement Concern
Jig the Alleged Investigation of the
Charges Against the Postmaster.
Lucius B. Swift, in New York Times.


have noticed in q recent issue of the Times
an interview with Mr.. Dorman B. Eaton,
lating to the charges against Postmaster Jones'
of this city. There are some statements in this
interview as we'll as in the report of the Civil
service Commission tending to obscure the
issues raised. These were two-frst, in the adj
ministration of his Office had Mr. Jones been an
offensive partIsan2 and second. had he, by dis
mssals from the classified service. violated the
spirit and intent of the civil-service act NO
eteps have yet been taken in regard to the charge
of offensive partisanship supported by Mr..
Jones's wholesale dismissal of sewing women
and Iaborers. including the discharge Of every
person not in the classified service, except two.
one OF whom resigned; and the further charge OF
turning his public Office to private uses by the
appointment of his sons and Of Mr. Hendricks
relations, and the cutting down of the distr:but
Ing force in order to obtain salary for his own
son. Judgment, therefore upon this issue should
be withheld. Now, as to the second issue. Mr.
Jones made q number Of removals from the
classified service which seemed to US without
cause, using these words lin their we'll Under
stood meaning We investigated the cases of
two men-Wood and Whining ton-and, being
convinced OIL tUeIE ulRu anu eulCieHCy,
Mr.. Louis Rowland and myself took their names
to Mr.. Jones and asked him plainly why he had
dismissed them, and what objections, if any,
there were to them. Mr.. Jones answered US just as
plainly that there was no manner of objection
to Wood and Wilmington except that they
were Republicans, and that he had re-
moved them because he had promised their
places to Democrats, and that before the civil
service examination he had promised their places
to the very Democrats to whom he had since
given them, provided that they should pass the
examination. Upon these facts--that is, his
acts and his words explaining his acts-we
charged Mr. Jones with violating not the letter,
but the spirit and intent. of the civil service law,
and our charge is so worded. We had never any
suspicion, as the commission ntimates, that
Mr.. Jones had violated the form of the law in
making his appointments. The question we
raised solely question of removals. And
on this the charge reads ''the discharge of Wood
and Wilmington plain and deliberate
violation of the spirit and intent of the civil
service law" We intentionally worded the
charge relating to that law so that if the facts
charged did not constitute a no investi
CATION would be necessary. The facts are AS
stated In our petition, and we believe they
SO appear In the evidence taken by the
commission, and that Wood and Wilmington
are left unscathed by the inquiry made here
and that it is fairly proved that Mr.. Jones dis
charged them for no other purpose than to give
their places to two Democrats. If this is true
IS it not violation of even the letter Of the
lawl The President had frankly expressed him
self that he would protect faithful employees, and
we knew that he had full power to grant the
competent relief but that with him there would
be no attempt to hide under quibbling interpre-
tations of the civil service law, and that he
would give to that law the full strength which
its letter and spirit warrant; therefore we filed
all the charges with him Now as to the inves
ba pnTnF iccin cay hoy IN n11ip
into the second issue and into some structures
we had made upon the last examination. They
came without notice TO US, and when two i'm
portant witnesses were out of the State. They
announced that their investigation would be
mostly confined to records. They declined to
allow us to examine or to cross examine wit
nesses or to be present when the testimony was
taken, or to know what evidence was introduced.
The only clew was the written reply to our
charges. They said they had power
to request the attendance of wit
nesses but that they would hear
any voluntary statements any one wanted to
make; that they would. however, hear. evidence
only upon certain points, and that they would
draw out the evidence by questioning the wit
nesses upon those points. We are willing to be
put to any fair test of our offer to prove the
charges we made, but decline to be held re-
sponsible for anything which the commission
pursuing this method, did not find out No such
investigation is thorough and complete" We
knew that many facts could not be shown except
witnesses by counsel analogous to the manner in
courts, and we felt that we were entitled TO that
privilege A simple request from the commits
sion would have secured the attendance Of any
witness we desired. Being thrown upon the
voluntary" system. we had to abandon all
attempt to make proof regarding the examina-
ton, answering only such questions as the com
mission asked. Under proper method of inves-
tigation we should have paid little attention to
records and examination papers, not regard
ing them as reliable. We should have intro
duce6 evidence tending to show that Browning
Democrat, who finally got Wuinetons
place, had picked out that place weeks before
the examination, and had been promised it
being the only place he wanted, and that On the
day of the examination, before the result could
honestly have been known, Morgan, the nephew
of the Nice-presldent and one of the local board.
reported that Browning had passed very high
exami uaton; that none but Democrats passed
the examination; that those Democrats stood
highest who, before the examination, had been
specially promised places; that certain persons
had been told about the time of the examination
to hand their names and numbers to Mr.. Ben
Jones' the son of the postmaster, and that they
would be fixed all right" and that they did so
that persons in no way connected with the local
board including Mr.. Ben Jones. were moving
about among the applicants at the examination.
and had abundant opportunity to obtain the num-
bers of such as they desired; that the reputation
OF John W. Dodd, secretary of the local board
such in this community as to make him an
unfit person to have charge of a civil service
examination. These and other facts taken in
connection with the lack of supervision which
the commission admits would hardly have
justified that body il finding that the action of
the examiners ''creditable to their nteli-
gence and sense of justice" much Of this testi
mony would have been drawn from unwilling
but honest witnesses. We did endeavor to
prove the violation of the civil-service law as
charged. To do this we had to maintain the
clear record of Wood and Wilmington, and to
show that they had been discharged for political
reasons as have stated. At the last moment
to justify his dismissal Mr.. Jones made certain
charges against these two men He made q
charge against Wood and then after some hours
substituted different one. Against Wilmington.
he got six men to sign statement that they knew
Wilmington that he was an active Republican.
and had hpan n challenger at the last preslantiaI