Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-02-20

much ado over this question by the prosecution
some ole happened to ask when Mis-. LYMAN
had been appointed. The answer va. that she
mad never got an appointment, thoug'I she had
passed the examination At this a general en-
ciamation Of disgust escaped from the commit
tee men. Several members OF the COMMITTEES
began 20 grumble very loudly at the method
followed by the prosecution. as they thought
TO waste the time of the committee
NEVER HEARD or HIN.
The witness was questioned as TO whether he
knew . man named Charles ]. McCaffrey. a,
present q clerk in the city post Office and he re-
Piled that he not only did not know him but
had never heard of the name
MI Ewart then asked az he knew OF any one
! having secured place by being impersonated on
examination by another
Witness said he had known OF such cases in
New York and elsewere, but not in Washington.
In answer 20 questions by Mr.. Greenhalge n
was developed that papers once used in eXami-
NATIONS were not again used and that the
papers given out by Mr.. Campbell were some
that had been used. Now witness said. anv-
body could see such papers But the taking Of
any papers by subordinate without permits
| sion was breach of discipline. That was the
extent OF Campbel's ofense.
Mr.. Greenhslge-"A mere technical breach
OF discipline"
Mr.. EDGERroS's CRITICISM
At the opening Of the investigation the letter
Of Mr.. Edgerton to President Harrison CRITICS.
ing the commission was filed with the com.
mittee by Mr.. Ewart Speaking OF this criti-
cism Mr.. Lyman said that the board had held
meetings almost every day for year after this
oocurrance and that Mr.. Edgerton had never
uttered word Of criticism against Mr..
Oberly's disposal of the case.
HE GOT NO APPOINTMENT.
After great number of questions had been
asked and answered as to Mr. Campbelrs ex-
animation for the eligible list, all the answers
showing that the examination was in every
way regular, and that while il might have been
made by Mr. Lyman, then chief examiner, IL
was made with a number of others and the
marking not done by Mr.. Lyman. il was dis
covered that Mr.. Campbell had received no ap-
polntment on that examination
Witnes said that Campbell had denied selling
the questions and that all the witnesses in the
case had substantiated him in this. Mrs
Smith, for whom he got them. denied il and n
letter from Prof. Flynn, who was said TO have
bought them, denied the purchase.
DISAPPOINTMENT ASKED.
At the close of Mr.. Lymans testimony the
prosecution tried TO secure a postponement
They did not want any witnesses examined
until after Mr.. Oberly and Mr. yickery of Ohio
had been examined. Mr.. Nickery was too far
away to get to Washington in time TO testify for
for the subpoena of Mr.. Oberly until they
reached the committee room.
Mr.. Ewart and Mr.. Hatton both loudly pro-
tested against going on with the examination
before Mr.. Obery was called. The committee
wanted TO examine Commissioners Roosevelt
and Thompson. Mr.. Hatton said he did not
care TO have them examined. They might
leave at any time. but" SAID the chairman
I'VE do want TO hear their statements"
Mr.. Greenhalge protested that this action of
lrOsecutlOn ika frtii NTH .
committee. MIR. Hatton denied that they were
triiling, and said that they proposed TO show
that some of the statements made by Mr. Ly-
man were not correct
MR.. ROOSEVELT EXAMINED.
The committee decided TO go on and Mr..
Roosevelt was put on the stand He was aues-
toned by Mr.. Butterworth and said: About
the LIST of last October there were two or three
articles in the Washington Post concerning the
conduct Of Campbell, who was charged with
stealing examination papers and giving them
t. some woman who wanted to pass an exami-
nation. Mr.. Lyman was absent from the
city at the time of the publication, and Gov.
Thompson and myself at first disbeheved
the story. We made some inquiry of Mr..
Doyle, our chief clerk, and found that there
was some foundation for il. We also found for
the first time that Mr.. Campbell was Mr. Ly-
mans brother-in-law. We had never know N
that before. We then summoned Camp
bell and Mr.. Doyle before us and also
questioned MIR. Lyman when he came back.
We found that the offense had been
committed two years before; that at
the time the acting president Of
the commission had gone carefully into the
matter, and after an investigation had decided
that II did not call for Mr.. Campbell's dismissal
| and accordingly had retained him. We made
up our minds that whatever might have been
our personal judgment ms TO the equities of the
| case, as far as we could get at them,
we were not willing on secondary evidence, two
years after the event, to reverse the decision
OF the commission, two years before, with all
the facts before them.
The governor and myself discussed the aues-
ton at length on more than one day-on five or
SIX occasions-for, of course, il annoyed us
very much. He said that they decided TO put
their statement on the records of the commits
SION and he prepared such a statement He
submitted the statement to the committee"
THE CRoss-ExAMISATIoN.
Mr.. Ewart then began a most persistent
cross-examination.
"What would you do il man took papers as
Campbell did?" Mr.. Ewart asked.
Mr.. Roosevelt said il would depend on the
circumstances. If man stole papers from the
files OF the commission he would dismiss him.
For giving out papers without authority he
thought he would dismiss an employee.
Il would certainly move to dismiss any en-
ploye," he said, who gave out questions to
any one"
You would follow the discovery Of the act
with instantaneous DISMISSAL"
''Yes. sir"
He said, however, that papers might b
given out under misappreho nsion, or there
might be the excuse of innocence of motive,
&C., to change his view of the case. All de-
pended on the circumstances.
As the questions went on members of the
committee from time TO time protested against
the method followed by the prosecution. But
MIR. Roosevelts answers were direct and en-
phatic. He finally insisted upon knowing if
there were any charges against the
present commission, saying that he
could not tell whether or not
the charges were aimed at the present or past
commission. They appeared directed at the
present
He did not know whether the trouble was
that the editorials IN the past were lacking in
good English or in truthfulness. III they were
applied TO the present commission they were
false, he said. He read from the editorials
and asked that the charges be formulated in
proper way.
Mr.. Ewart replied: There are no charges
whatever against the present commission"
At this an exclamation of surprise burst from
the members of the committee and Mr.. Roose-
welt threw his hands in the air with amazement
MR.. NATIONS CHARGE
Mr.. Hatton then got up and stated that he
charged and wanted to prove that the present