St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-10-07
MADE A CLEAN SWEEP.
BaItimOre's PostOflIce Is Run on
the SpoiIs System.

Baltimore EOStOiUct Is nun OH
the SpoiIs System.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 5.-Civil Service
Commissioner Roosevelt, who. in July
last, investigated the Baltimore post
Office. has completed his report. He
finds that the postmaster has been in
the habit ef transferring eligibles from
one list to another, but this action, he
SAYS, was due to 'hOneSt mlSconcep-
ton" In regard TO the dismissal Of
pOstOffice employees, Mr.. Roosevelt has
this to say:
During The last four years there have been
two heads of the Baltimore postomce-Mr.
Veazey who held Office about year and was
then allowed to resign, and his successor, the
present incumbent, Frank Brown. Mr..
Veazey was one Of those products OF patron
age system whose antics would be comic
were it not for their deeply tragic effect
upon the public service and upon honest
political life; and great allowance should be
made for Mr.. Brown because OF ne ccnul-
ton in which tho office was handed over o
him by his predecessors: for all the evidence
tends to show that Mr. Eeazey'g administra-
ton can only be characterized as seandaloGs.
II seems Likely that he habItually ana grossly
violated the law as TO appointments ana
removals; he certainly. during ms
wear of Office turned out four-fifthS of the
old employees and filed their places with
men, many OF them of such evil character
as to greatly demOralize the service. Ae-
corGing 10 the report OF Chief inspector Z.
G.. RalhbOne, of which Mr.. Brown admits
the substantial accuracy, in total of 36.
carriers and clerks composing the classified
service of the Baltimore postoflce, there
are now left but eleven who were III the
public employ four years ago. TINS, SO far
as the records show, is greater proport on
than has ever been chaneed in the public
service taken as Il whole during similar
period. even in the worst days OF the pure
patronage system, and almost as near the
idea of clean sweep as can ever be prac-
ticalIy realized, So demoraliZed was the
office that Mr.. Brown was likewise forced 10
dismiss over half of Hr. Eeazey's appointees.
Even more extraordinary Is the fact that he
was obliged to dismiss more than one-tifth Of
his own.
Mr.. Roosevelt says that evidence as
to political assessments is conclusive,
and that from to per cent OF en-
ployes' salaries was voluntarily con-
tributed' to a campaign fund collector.
The report also says that Mr.. Brown,
in Diminishing employees for ''canse," Ie-
fused to state reasons and the Inference
is drawn that the ''cause'' in most
cases was of a political character. Con-
tinuing, the report says:
When, as under the present practice, no
cause for removal is as a rule stated, the
point at which it becomes improper must of
necessity be matter of presumption rather
than of proof. The removal Of 20 or 80 per
cent Of subordinates would not perhaps have
raised the presumption ofimproper conduit;
whereas the removal of so or 80 per
cent certainly would. and in such
case the burden Of proof ought
20 rest with the appointing officer
who should be compelled to show specific
ally and in detail that his removals were JUS
tifable. In view Of the condition of the Of
fee wien passed over to Mr.. Brown, and in
view also Of the aDserea hitherto of any set
policy in the matter Of removals. am IN
willing to make any recommendation in this
case''