The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-10-07
BOUNCED THE REPUBLICANS.
How the Baltimore Postoflce Was Prost
tuted in the Interests of the Higgins Gang.

How the Baltimore Postoflce Was Prosti-
tuted in the Interests of the Higgins Gang.
WASHINGTON. Oct 5.-Theodore Roose-
welt, of the Civil-service Commission, has
submitted to the full commission a report
of short examination, made by himself
two months ago, into the management of
the Baltimore, Nd. postoffice. in so far as
it is affected by tho civil-service law. The
report says:
During the last four years there have
been two heads of the Baltimore postotfice;
Mr. Veasy, who held caico about year.
and was then allowed 20 resign. and his
successor, the present incumbent, Mr.
Frank Brown. Mr.. Neasy was one OF those
products of the patronage system whose
antics would be conc we're it not for their
deeply tragic effect npon the public service
and upon honest Political Lie, and great al
lowance shonld b mtde for Mr. Brown be-
cause of the conditi0 n which the ofiice
was handed oycrto hiir oy his predecessor;
for all the eviaence tends to show that Mr..
Vesay's admin isiI atlOp cas only be char
acterizcd as scaida lous. II I seems hkely
that he has habituaDy anu grossly violated
the law both as tc appointments and re-
movals; he certainly, daring his year of
Office, turned out fou. -i,ftbs OF the old en-
ployes and filed th.is places with men.
many of them of such evil Character as TO
greatly dem0ralize the service.
spector 4. G. Rathbone. of which Mr..
Brown admits the substantial accuracy, IN
total of 367 carriers and clerks. composing
the classified service of the Baltimore post
office, there are now left but eleven-Mr.
Brown says thirteea-who were in the pub
lie employ four years ago. About hum
dred additional places have been created.
however, during this period, on account OF
the growth Of business. Therefore. OF the
original force of the Office. about 80 per
cent. has been changed during the last four
years. Most of these changes were due to
Mr.. Browns predecessor. Mr.. Veasy. Mr..
Brown states that when he took the otfice
he found 103 of the old employees still re-
naming OF this number, therefore, which
had survived the ordeal of Mr.. Veasy's rule.
Mr.. Brown himself removed IS per cent: 80
demoralized was the office that he was lke-
wise forced to dismiss over half or MT.
Veasy's appointees. Even more extra
ordinary is the fact that he was Obliged to
dismiss more than one-tifth of his own.
"One result of this system is shown by
the seeming almost universal payment or
campaign assessments at election time.
Almost all the clerks who were questioned
admitted that they had voluntarily paid
last fall for campaig gn purposes sums vary
ing from 20 to 40 per cent. OF their salaries.
Mr.. Brown states that all the removals he
has made were for cause, and all cases 10
promote the efficiency of the service;' and
denies that he was influenced by political
considerations. Twenty-Five of his dis
charged employees wrote hun recently, how
ever, stating that when they were re-
moved they supposed 1T was SIMPLY for
political reasons, and acquiesced without
complaint; but Mr.. Brown having publicly
stated that removals were made for cause,
they feel il due to their good name TO de-
mand the particular charges on which they
were severally dismissed. Mr.. Brown says
it would now be impossible for him to fur
nish such particulars. Whatever may DO
said in favor of not making charges against
dismissed man so as TO spare him the adj
ditional hardship of injurlng his character
and preventing his getting employment
elsewhere, it seems a cruel wrong 10 assert
that man has been dismissed for ample
cause, and yet to decline TO let him know
what the cause ls
In view of the condition of the Office
when passed over to Mr.. Brown, and in
view also, of the absence hitherto of any
settled policy in the matter OF removals. /
am unwilling to make any recommendation
in this case; but L am prepared TO recon-
mend what 1 deem the proper course OF
action for the future in all such cases. If
in the classified service an appointing
officer has made clean sweep in an Office.
as where 90-odd per cent of the old en-
| ployes have been dismissed, or If he has re-
moved Tor is removing a very large per
centage of the employes-whether 80 per
cent or less number. but at any rate one SO
| large as to raise the presumption that the
removals have been for political reasons
| and if he can give no adequate and salts
factory reasons therefor. then he should be
| deemed to have violated the ciyii-service
law, and should be himself dismissed. OF
his resignation requested"
This report has been forwarded 10 the
| acknowledgement by the fu.l commission
who append their approval. and suggest
| that the recommendations contained there
1 IN be adopted