Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1886-07-09
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.
The Case of ROstn aseer veaav-

The Case 81 Postmaster Weary.
TWO POINTS ooNsrDKREp-RKMovALs AND Ap-
POrNTNENTs-rHE COMMISSIONERS uxANr-
NOUS IN rHEIR ooSoLusIoSa
On ths occasion Of visit made by Civil Ser
vice Commissioner Lyman 10 Baltimore on
the 21st and 22o of May to supervise examina.
tons for the customs service, attention was
called by the civil service league OF Maryland
TO alleged violations OF the civil service act and
rules by Mr.. ]. Parker vea1y, who was at that
time postmaster ~ Baltimore. Commissioner
Lyman considered It his duty to inquire into
the foundation for the charges made TO him.
and accordingly called upon Mr.. Weary
and interrogatsd him In reference
to the number OF changes he had
made and the manner he had filled the
vacant positions In his Once. Upon his return
date OF June s, made "a the civil service com.
violations OF the civil service sst and rules by
the matter the commission adopted resoiu-
ton that copy Of Commissioner Lyman's re.
reiinaushed his ussoe on The SON Of Nay, win
the request that he reply TO the charges.
THE REPLY OF PosTMAsTER vkAzY.
On the Sd Instant the commission received
nom Mr.. Weary long and elaborate reply, in
which he admitted the truthfulness of most OF
Tue com mtSSlOner6 charges, AUD Justtneu MINI
self In the dismissal of between 900 aud 800 OF
the employees OF the Baltimore posi- office, on the
ground that they were republicans. he also
asser led that he had filled the vacancies with
democracts obtained by him frum the eligible
registers OF tbs post Office after he had made in
curry and obtained knowledge of the politics.
crats tor the purpose II making bis ofice a
thorough democratic civil service office. lie
ALSO asserted that he had refused 70 appoint
THAI he knew them Ia be republicans.
He asserted that he had right TO MAKE re-
movais for partisan reasons, or for amy other
civil service commissioners had no right 70
make inquiry concerning his reasons Tor such
removals. He ALSO laid down the broad propo-
sition that he had right under the civil service
act and rules Ia appoint democrat, from elig bic
registers because they were democrats, aud 10
refuse 10 appoint republicans because they were
republicans.
THE TWO QUESTIONS INVOLVED.
The commission, after considering the report
Of Lyman and the answer OF Weary, has pre-
pared al opinion upon The two questions raised
by this controversy:
First Has the right OF an appointing officer
to make removals Tor partisan or other reasons
satisfactory to hImsel. Ueen ian any way abridged
OF uiodiIed 10y the cINIi service ACT anu rules,
and has the commission any authority la lu-
quIre INTO the reasons oi ANY appointing officer
iur man Ing REMOVALS?
scc.'nd. Can an appointing officer. without
Violating the civil service act and rules, refuse
10 appoint AN eligible applicant, regularly GER
titled to INN because The applicant Is mem brr
oI d political party of ~..icu the appointing
officer is not a nenoer; or eau he, wiluout rio-
iatIng the aci and rules, appoint an eligible
appiIcaut regularly certified Ia hIul Tor the
a,owed reason tuat THE appIicant Is a tneIneer
"a tue polite party 10 which the appointing
officer belUugs2
CONCLUSIONS OF THE COMMISSION.
In replying tO The lrst question ,ne com mis-
sion takes the grounds tuat while IL Ia contrary
10 The spirit oi the civli service act w remove
any person from The classified civil service Tor
purely PARTISAN rcasons, Lue iLct rein ANS that
tue power vi reinDNai IL praclicaiiy unre-
str.cleu, and the commission NO ris "a l.,
except In la L,uoes STAGED la The ol,iulou, 10
MAXI any Inquiry or lake ANY AcLiou coucern-
lug REMOVALS.
In replying to the second question the COM
mission mdhes an eupnatic negative answer,
aud IN SUNNI nS up couciudes TIA, PosLina ,ter
Neazy violated tue cIvI service acI aud rules
by has PARTISAN conduct rs postmaster ~ Balti-
more.
lue opinion deliberately discusses tue two
Questions stated aLuve and gives The posi- vi
tue commission On these Questions IA AN IN
mlsLAkaDle manner.
TINS opinion, prepared by Commissioner
Obcry, Was ubanimousiy adopted YESTERDAY
by tue commissioners aud Vas sisned % tnem.
Pension VetOes.
BILLS WHICH THE HOUSE CoNMIrTEE THINK
SHOULD PASS NOTWITHSTANDING THE PRES
IDEET's Obj ECTIoNs
The iuvaiid pensions committee of the House
considered hall dozen OF the veto messages to
day. Representative Morrill,, oi Kansas pre-
seuted a report, which was accepted, lavoriug a
passage VI the bill granting pension w SIM
NOUS w. Parien, OF Iowa, over the veto. Par
den filed two applicalious-ths first, i'm 1866,
based ON Injuries received in falling froiu "A
wagon while IN the service, and iue second, in
1850, Tor enlargement oi the lungs aud heart
from over-exertIon al u review. Tuey were re-
jected by the pension office, anu The bill Was
vetoed because OF the tnsuuicIency al tue EVIL
dence.
Representative OHara, of North Carolina,
made u similar report IN the Case OF Mary Nor
man, OF South Caroliua, aud AL effort Will he
maue Ia pass the bill Notwithstanding the Veto.
The record shows Lhat the woInan's husband
Was wounded, and he became partially deaf In
consequence. he failed 10 hear an alarm while
CROSSING ferry ana Was drowned. The bill
was vetoed because the President Was not salts
lied That the injury was received in the service.
In the cases oI Gen. Hualer aud Catnarlne Nc
Cartuy adverse reports were ordered, and no
eliort VIII be made 10 pass them over the veioes.
Tue case OF T.. \. Harrington, who Was Ia
jured by comrade, aas reserved Ior further
examination.