Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1888-02-04
THE AMENDED RULES.
what C0asmissioners Oberiy ana EA.
geftOA Say About Them.
THEY EXPLAIN THE REVISED c1vII~sERvIcE REGrLA-
TONS ARD coNnRNr ON TIE CHANGES xADs-
TIE LIST OF KxBNPTs REDUCED.


In conversation with a STAR reporter to-day
upon the subject of the revised and amended civil
service rules, Commissioner Oberly said: 1.-THE
old rules provided that the four names standing
highest on the eligible lists should be certified to
the appointing oficer, and that from these four
he must select one for appointment. The new
rules reduce the number TO be certified up from
four TO three, and we think It q much better plan.
Under the rules no one name can te certified to
the same department more than three times.
To illustrate the operation OF the old
rule for certifying four names, suppose
we sent up four say to the Treasury Department;
one was selected leaving three. On the next Call
we Would send up the three names OF the former
certincation with one new one added; next time
cation, and upon the thea appointment Of one the
fourth would be left out entirely and could not
again be Certified TO that Department.,
HvHN THOUGH HI MIGHT BE WANTED
SNOW" he continued, I'VE certify three, and II the
appointing power objects to all OF them he may
return the names to the Commission with writ
ten statement Of his objections. II In the judy
ment OF the Commission those reasons are good,
three other names will be certified. Another OBJ
1t there was provision that after q name had
been certined three times the appointing ofncer
sea Ga f S that name and it had tS a be
when a man ascertained that his name
nad oeen certified three times he would rally all
anu LQat OF MS IrlenQS prevail upon
the appointing officer to call for his name, and in
obedience to such pressure the appointing onicer
Yielded his own Judgment and wishes and took a
man ne DID not want"
WHAT MIGHT Be UNDER TIE NEW RULE.
'Cnder the new rule" asked THE STAR reporter,
"may not the appointing power continue to reject
certincations by threes until he gets somebody
whom ne wants, possibly for political reasons?"
You must remember" replied the Commits
sioner that ne must submit his r. asonS for rejec-
Commission each
shat the head OF Department states that his
such as TO assure him they would not suft?"
well" replied the Commissioner, 81 presume II
the head Of an Executive Department, and they
are the officials with whom we transact this busi-
ness, should make such statement upon his OIL
ciai obligation the Commission would accept IT.
But we would have the right, and 1t would be our
duty, 10 carefully Examine into the matter"
THE LIST OF ExEMPTs RESTRICTED.
"Is not the list OF officials exempted from exam
nation enlarged BY the new rues7" asked TIE STAR
reporter.
ION the contrary, 1t IS very much restricted.
The old rules admitted OF construction that In
cluueo among exemptions some who were intended
10 De examined. The new rules are very specific,
and curtail the number who may be appointed
contributing money for political purposes, employ
Ing official power to coerce or influence political
action &c as prescribed in sections II, IL, H. and
IA OF the clyil-serv1ce act
In the new rules is that they declare emphatically
that the official violating these sections shall be
dismissed, while the Old rules merely declared that
such violation should be cause for dismissal
The new rules under each head OF examination
prescribe the subjects for examination, and the
Commission can neither enlarge nor curtail them.
For instance for appointment as lettercarrier the
applicant must be examined upon photography,
copying, penmanShip, fundamental rules or af1th-
metic, knowledge OF the locality or the post-orce
delivery, and physical tests must be applied. The
maximum age limitation Is abolished In all cases
except that OF letier-carriers. In prescribing ex
emptlonS and preferences for honOrably discharged
soldiers and sailors the rules follow the letter and
spirit OF the law"
REASONS FOR DISMISSAL
ut seems, however, that the President rejected
your rule to require officials to give their reasons
for dismissal Of any subordinate"
Yes" answered the Commissioner, "the Presi-
dent did not approve it. He has a mind Of his
own"
WHAT COMMISSIONER EDGERToN SAYS.
The STAR reporter called upon Commissioner
EdgertOn, who said:
aside from the proposed rule to require an ofri-
Ger to file mis- written reasons for making dis
missal, approve the new rules. All the rest was
merely as TO routine details, and cared nothing
about that. But from the 1rst fought that un-
lawful and unjust proposition TO compel an officer
to explain disElssals, and the President agrees
with me-"
The rule which the President rejected read
as follows: whenever a dismissal from the
executive civil service Is made written statement
OF the dismissal must be filed in the Department or
Ofice from which tine dismissal is made, and be-
come part OF the records OF such Department or
of1ice."
MORE ABOUT THE REJECTED RULE
A STAR reporter was Informed that this rule was
In part at least the suggestion Of some Of the lead
ing "mugwumps," and that 1t had the earnest ap-
proval OF all OF Them 1t is also stated that strong
influence was brought bear by civil service or
CARNATIONS upon the President to prevail upon
m n I'M ri lfuf,,
TALLY the same as those he gave TO the Senate
early In his administration for his refusal to SUBJ
NIT reasons for removals he rejected the rule. The
O6ery and Lyman, and opposed BY Commissioner
Edgert0n.