Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1886-01-07

APPOINTMENT CLERK HAssIER HoI Ds TIA,
srCM rAfERs ARE CONFIDENTIAL

APPOINTMENT CLERK HAssLER HoLDs THAT
srCH PAPERS ARE CONFIDENTIAL
A great many people think that they have the
right 10 examine the papers filed I'm the depart
ments of the government by applicants for ap-
pointment, and frequent demands OF this cl,ar.
acter are made upon the officials The rule has
been that all such matters are confidential be-
tween the applicant and the head oi the depari.
menu, IL, however, being generally conceded
that members oi the House had n right 10 zee
the papers of applicants living i'm their own dis
trict or Tor appointment IN their district and
Senators OF applicants OF the entire state which
they represented. The reason for this exccp-
ton Is that the appointing power is supposed 10
consult senators and Representatives win ref
erence TO the fitness OF candidates for posiiions
lying within their districts. At times the
rigid enforcement of this rule has been relaxed
ana access 10 such papers has been allowed 10
persons other than Members Of Congress Cant
Hassler, the appointment clerk OF the Interior
department., has revived the rigid enforcement
%; this rule, and in consequence there have
been some complaints made TO him that ne
was going beyond his authority. In order o
ascertain what had been the custom OF the de-
partment Capt. Hassler looked through the
records ana found the following letter. which
defines very clearly the policy of the depart
ment upon the subject at the present time.
The letter was written by Alex. III. H. stuart
Secretary of the Interior, under date OF Novem.
city:
II have reflected on the subject of your com
munlcaton Of yes, eriay, and have come othe
conclusion that IT would not be proper to permit
the letters recommending any candidate Ior
Office 10 he inspected. They should In NV
opinion, be regarded as confidential. They are
written Tor the purpose of cnlighteuing the
Judgment OF the appointing power In regard 10
The merits OF the person proposed for office and
4 can see no more reason for calling on the head
of a department TO show what written iestimo-
mails were beiole him than To require him to
stale what oral communications were ma6e Ia
him on the subject. Moreover, IL would to-
impos Slble To ascertain what weight should tie
Influenced the Judgment OF the secretary. L
presume IL would he entirely competent for
him, II he thought proper, TO return ali such
letters 10 the applicants, or 10 destroy them. IL
Tor his own purposes he thinks IL best TO leave
them In the department, cannot regard that
Tact as investing them with the character of
Puoilc records, open 10 the inspection of those
VINO may feel sufficient Interest in the subject
10 desire 10 examine them. As the appoint
ment IN the paItIcuiar case referred by YOU
was made under a former administration, 4
leel particularly reluctant TO depart from what
regard Ia Ice the sale rule oi treating all recon-
mendations a. of "a confidential character 4
have not looked into them myself, nor do I
know the nature OF them nor by whom they
were given, ana therefore my refusal To permit
them 10 be eNainin rests upon a general prin-
ciple, and has no reference TO the circumstances
OF this particular case III be in error in this
opinion, II viii toe easy 10 test il judicialy by
applying To the court Tor SUbp0ad dnoes tecun.
10 the chief clerk of the department. 4 viii
cheerfully yield obedience 10 the order of the
court.