Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-02-27
MIR. BAILEY,S PROMOTION.
A Theme That Occupied the Civil Ser.
vice Committee Today.


A Theme That Occupied the Civil Ser
vice Committee Today.
TIE ADVANCEMENT OF Mr. BAILEY N THE OFFICE
KxAMrNKp N AL IT'S AsPEcrs-THR TRANSFER
OF xR. sruRars-ALL TIE ooNnIssIoxrns ON
TIE STAND AGAIN.
The civil service investigating committee
continued its work this morning. Mr.. Lyman
was put upon the stand Mr.. Ewart read from
the commissioner report 70 the effect that
promotions should be made in accordance with
the spirit OF the law-that is, after test, such
test being an examination-and asked had he
recommended the promotion of Mr. Bailey with
this declaration.
PRACTICAL TESTS or FITNESS.
Mr.. Lyman replied that the promotion OF
Mr.. Bailey was made in accordance with the
practice at that time and since. The commits
sion construed the rules and the Law to require
sucn test OF fitness for promotion as would
procure the qualifications Of the per-
son to be promoted The test might be
formal examination or by observation Of
practical work week after week and month
after month. The commission had observed
the WORK OF Mr.. Iailey and we're fully satisfied
OF his fitness and Of the propriety and justice
OF his promotion.
Mr.. Ewsrt asked If the witness did not regard
MIR. Holtz as q better stenographer
Il have no doubt" the witness replied. s.that
Mr.. Holtz Is q more rapid stenographer than
was Mr.. Bailey at the time of his promotion"
The prosecution said that they had no more
questions.
Mr. LYMAN SUPPLEMENTS HIS STATEMENT.
Mr.. Lyman then made q statement that the
promotion was made in accordance with the
law and in the best interest Of the service The
commission had made satisfactory test of Mr..
Bailey's service and had made the promotion
because they thought him competent in all re-
spects for the position and that his promotion
would be in the interest Of the service. To
have refused to make the promotion would
have been to the detriment Of the service.
BAILEYs EXAMINATIONS.
Mr. Boatner asked if Mr.. Bailey had at any
time taken a written civil service examination.
MIR. Lyman replied that he had taken such an ex-
animation some years ago and that he had been
examined as . stenographer since his pro-
motion.
Witness was asked what percentage he had
made in this examination in stenography.
He replied that he had made seventy two and
fraction, as he recollected He was asked
how this compared with the grading of others
on their examinations. 1t was higher than
some and lower than others. It was higher
than the grading Of Mr.. Holtz.
THE USE MADE OF MR. BAILEY.
The next witness was Mr.. W. s. Sturgis,
stenographer in the War department, formerly
steno grapher in the civil service commits
sion He testified that he had been associated
with Mr.. Bailey III the commission. and did not
know that he was used as a stenographer He
thought he would have known If Bailey had
Deen so used. Mr.. Lyman asked il he knew
that Mr.. Bailey was not used as a stenographer
Witness replied that he could say only that
he did not believe that Bailey had been used
as stenographer or amanuensis.
Mr.. Roosevelt asked if he did not know that
Maj. Webster frequently used Bailey as stem
ographer at that time.
Witness said he did not know it. and did not
believe it. He knew that Mr.. Webster told Mr..
Bailey what he wanted written and Bailey
wrote the letters.
Witness was closely cross-examined and
stated that he did not occupy the same room
with Mr.. Bailey and Mr.. Webster, but had
general knowledge of their work He could
not answer as TO how he, being in one room,
could tell what was going on in the next
drudge AGAINST MAI. WEBSTER.
In response to questions by Mr.. Roosevelt
witness said he had personal feeling against
Mr.. Webster; that he did not think Webster
had treated him fairly. He had been dis
missed from the service on report from Mr..
Webster for making mistakes in his work
Mr. Roosevelt asked if it was not for making
repeated mistakes.
Witness said he did not admit repeated mis-
takes. He had denied the first charge of hav-
ing made mistakes, but had admitted the
second.
Witness added that he was transferred to the
War department on the recommendation of
Mr.. Roosevelt The mistakes he had made
were In marking examination papers, but Mr.
Roosevelt thought that he would be able to do
the work in the War department and secured
the transfer.
ACQUISITION OF COMPETENCY.
Mr.. Ewart asked il it was true that after max
ing mistakes in the commissions work. and was
incompetent, he had been recommended by
Mr.. Roosevelt for position in the War depart
ment
Witness said he did not admit incompetency.
and that Mr.. Roosevelt had said he thought he
was qualified for the work in the War depart
ment.
Mr. Roosevelt then asked questions which
brought out the fact that his mistakes had re-
suited IN persons being marked above their
dues by his carelessness in marking papers;
that his carelessness was said to be due to the
circumstances of his appointment, having been
appointed by Mr.. Edgerton, and the charge
being made that his appointment. was due to
favoritism.
Mr.. Roosevelt said that in recommending
him to the Secretary Of War he made a state
ment or all the facts in the case and that he
acted merely on account Of sympathy for a
young man.
MIR. BAILEY EXAMINED.
Mr.. Bailey was next examined. He said he
began short hand when a boy and did some
newspaper work when young. He had done
stenographic work from his first entrance into
the service and took dictations regularly long
before his promotion to stenograper. He
meanwhile freshened himself in stenographic
work. He said he would be willing to take the
report OF this investigation. In fact, he had
taken it on the first day Of the investigation.
he was asked if he would be willing to turn
his notes over to an expert stenographer. He
said he would do so if the committee desired.
With regard to his examination taken after
the promotion he said he had expressed wish
to one OF the commissioners Mr.. LYMAN that
he had taken an examination. and after that
the commissioners had sent for him and ordered
him to take the examination. His papers were
marked by Mr.. Shiveley.
Mr.. Ewart asked if he regarded Mr.. Holtz as
an expert. One of the committee objected
MIR. Ewart then said: He (witness) is an ex-
pert"
Mr.. Greenhalge said that settled this charge,
as MIR. Ewart admitted that Mr.. Bailey was an
expert
Witness, being questioned further, said that
ne had had no chance to compare his work with
that Of MIR. Hoitz. He did his work and Mr..
Holtz did his. He did all that was required of
him and had expressed q willingness to do