Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-10-19
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.
The Hasty appointments In the Railway
Mail Service Entirely Legal.

The Hasfy Appointments In the Railway
Mail Service Entirely Legal.
WASHINGTON. October 18-In compliance
with the request Of the President, Solicitor
General Chapman has rendered an opinion
upon question submitted by Civil Service
Commissioners Roosevelt and Thompson under
date of September "a, 1889. The facts In the
case are stated as follows:
On April 20 1889, one j. M. Taylor was ap-
pointed In the regular ways railway postal clerk
and upon that day the appointment papers were
regularly made up. executed and recorded and,
as is customary. were at once forwarded to the
superintendent or the fifth division and notice ss
well given Taylor. There was nothing unusual In
the method observed in the making out Of the ap-
pointment papers, neither was there anything out
Of the usual course In connection with the for
warding of the appointment and the notice to the
appointee. This appointment was approved by
the signature Of the First Assistant Postmaster
General on April 20. Taylor, however, did not
take the oath Of office until May IS 1885, 1t SO
happens that ON March H. 1889, upon the repre-
sentation of the civil service commission that it
was necessary in order to make proper arrange
ments therefor, the President extended the time
March Is 1889, to May !, 1889, when the rules
which had been amended SO as to include the rail-
way mail service should 70 into effect
Upon this state Of facts the question is asked
Apr e. 50 that lis unsr the cg V
service rules is not required, whether the time
Of taking the oath Of office and entrance upon
duty is decisive as to the requirement of an exam
ination. The Solicitor General finds that under
section 4025 of the Revised Statutes the Postmas-
ter General had the right on April 20 to appoint
Taylor In the way he was appointed. His ap-
pointment, at the time 1t was made,
and 1t only remains, says the Solicitor General,
to see whether the mere fact that be did not take
the oath required until after May in any way
affected the completeness and fnality OF the ap-
pointment. The Sup-em. Court decision In the
of the United States versus LeBaron Is quoted
conclusive upon this question. In this case the
question was considered whether 3 deputy post
masters appointment was in force at the time OF
his giving his bond. It appears that his nomina-
tion had been confirmed BY the Senate and HIS
commission had been signed by President Tyler,
having been delivered to him at the time Of ex-
ecuting his bond. The Court held that as from an
accident the commission failed to reach him. his
possession of the office was as lawful as II It were
in his custody.
The Solicitor General finds that there Is no
material dstinc ction apparent between the case Of
an appointment by the President after confrma-
tion by the Senate and an appointments by the
Postmaster General. The opinion in effect holds
office until after May l 10 immaterial upon the
question Of his right to hold oce of which he was
appointed on April %. 1t is understood that q
large number of appointments were made to the
railway mail service just prior to May l. and in .
large percentage Of these cases the appointees
were, owing to the shortness of the time unable
to take the necessary oath, which fact 1t has been
contended, rendered their appointment void.
The opinion was approved by the Attorney Gen.