The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-07-10
POSTMASTER VEAZEY,
OF BALTIMORE, AND THE CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION.
The Rights Of an Appointing or
fleer, Under the Law,
Defined.

the Civil Services League OF Mary
land, to the alleged violation OF
the civil service act ard rules
by Mr.. j. Parker Veazoy, who was
at that time postmaster at Baltimore.
Commissioner Lyman considered 1t
his duty TO inquire into the founda-
ton for the charge made against him,
and accordingly called upon Mr..
Veazey aud Intercepted him in refer
ence to the number OF changes he he'd
made, and the manner in which he
had filed the vacant positions in his
Office. Upon his return from Balti-
more, Commissioner Lyman, under
date Of June 5th, made to the Civil
Service Comm s:ion statement
concerning the alleged violation OF
the civil service act and rules by Post
master Veezsy. After celebrating
upon the matter this commission
adopted a resolution that copy Of
Commissioner Lyman's report should
be forwarded to Mr.. Veazey, who
had rslinqnished his office on the 30th
Of May, with the request that he re-
ply TO the charges on the Sd inst. The
commission received from Mr.. Veazsy
long and elaborate reply, in which
he admitted the truthfulness OF most
OF the commissloner's cha'ges, and
justified himself in the dismissal OF
employees of the Bai fillmore postofiice
on the ground that they were Repub-
liCans. He also asserted that he bad
filed the vacancies with Democrats
obtained by him from the eligible reg.
listers Of his poatofiice after he had
made inquiries and obtained knowl-
edge of their politics. He stated
that he had appointed them
as Democrats, for the purpose Of max
ing his Office thorough Democratic
civil service office. He also asserted
that he had refused to appoint Repub-
licsns certified to him, for the reason
that he knew them to be Republican,.
He selted that he had right to
make removals for partisan reasons, or
for any other reasons satisfactory to
himself, and that the Civil Service
Commissioners had no right TO make
inquiry concerning his reasons for
such removals. The Civil Service
Commission, after considering the re.
port OF Mr.. Lyman aud the answer Of
Mr.. Yeazey, prepared, and this even.
ing made public, their opinion upon
the following questions raised by the
controversy:
First Has the right Of an appoint
ing officer to make emovals for par
tsan or other resso IS satisfactory to
himeelf been in an say abridged or
modified by the CT service act and
rules, and has H. commission any
authority to iuqui.e into the reasons
OF any appointing officer for making
removals2
iSecond.-Csn an appointing officer,
without violating the civil service ACT
and rules, refuse to appoint an eligible
applicant regularly certified to him
because the applicant is member Of
political party Of which the appoint.
ing officer is not a member; or can he
without violating the act and rules
appoint an eligible applicant regularly
certified to him for the avowed reason
that the applicant is a member Of the
political party to which the appoint.
ing officer beloDgs2
In replying to the first question, the
commits take the ground that
while II is contrary to the spirit of the
civil service act to remove any person
from the classified civil service fol
purely part san reasons, the fact re.
mains that the power OF removal it
practically unrestricted, and the com
mission has no right, except where
removals have been made fer refusal
to perform a political service or to pay
a political assessment, to make any in.
quiry or take any action concerning
removals.
In replying to the second question
the commission makes an emphatic
negative answer, and in summing NJ
concludes that Postmaster Veazey VIC
lated both the letter and spirit of TIE
civil service act; first, when, as an
appointing officer, he sought for inf,r'
nation concerning the political opin
ions aud affiliations OF the person who
while he was Postmaster at Baltimore
applied to him for entrance at hiE
office to the classified postal service
second, When, a. appointing officer, he
failed to discouctenance the disClo
su es made to him concerning the pc
htcal opinions and affiliations Of suCt
applicants; third, when, as an appoint
ing officer, ho selected from a ceriiti
cate sent to him by the Board of Elk
amiuers, with knowledge Of the fact
the name OF a Democrat, and then ap
pointed he Democrat because he wa
q Democrat; fourth, when, as an ap
pointing ilicer, he refused to appoint
a Repub lean regularly certified 10 hin
because the Republican was Repub
lean.
The other question: that have beer
raised by this contention, the com
mission does not see proper to discuss
1t is not blind TO the fact that the
classified civil service contains many
people who are inefficient public ser
wants, and who entered the servic
through the wide doorway from the
broad highway OF the "spoils system.
Toe commission is also conscious o.
the fact tuat thesa people are pro
teCt I'd in the positions they occupy by
the friendly voices OF mistaken friends
of civil service reform, mingling with
the alarming cries raised by uu'
scrupulous N embers OF the po
litical organization. Under the former
partisan methods OF which these peo-
PIE became at once the incompetent
aud uudutiiul servants of the
people, and the duii'ul, ever
ready, and skiIlful servants Of
politicians whose influence procure d
for them their places. And the com
mission is not agreed as to the current
ass lrtion tina the civil service act was
formerly administered entirely in the
interest Of one political party-an as
se,tion which, though ioundaiionless
is made plausible by the fact that The
civil service set was, until lately, sd
miustered almost exclusively by mem
bers of one party. With these mat
ters the commission cannot deal bu
iC is determined that in the present
the civil service act and rules shall bt
execut. d ia their spirit as well rs il
their letter; that with the knowledge
of N @ commission no board Of exam
iners It any Gus ON house or postotlic,
| ,lall ho 90 f,Fnnprlv gOmuOSpl entire