Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-06-20
He Was Not Lawfully Appointed
Letter Carrier.
His PETITION FOR A MANDAMUS DENIED
The Facts on Both Sides Fully
Set Forth.
JUDGE BRADLEY'S OPINION.


| STAR, rendered this morning his long expected
decision in the Pulaski case, which decision,
because OF its construction of the civil service
| laws and regulations, had been awaited with
great interest, not only here. but throughout
| the country. In the first stages of the case
Mr.. Pulaski appeared to have somewhat the
best of the case, but his hopes and those who
pinned their faith in the case were dashed to
the ground by Judge Bradley's decision of this
morning, when he dismissed the petition for
the prayed-for mandamus The facts in the
case are fully set ont in the decision, which ID
| AS follows:
Full Text of the Decision.
the petition in this matter shows that the re-
lator was duly examined under the civil service
rules for the position of substitute letter car.
rier," and in August. 1892, his name was duly
placed upon the list Of those who. having passed
the required examination. eligible for ap-
pointment that on the Esd DAY of January.
1888, Henry Sherwood. the postmaster Of the
city OF Washington. made requisition upon the
civil service board of examiners for the certif-
cation to him of the names of three persons
from the list Of eligibles for appointment as
substitute letter carriers, and that petitioner
was selected from that list, with another, and
upon the I'd of March, 1898, he received from
the postmaster notice of his appointment; that
he purchased a uniform, gave bond and entered
upon the performance of his duties, which he
| In every respect performed satisfactorily until
unlawfully ordered by the postmaster to stop
work April l3, 1898; that the postmaster under
the unlawful direction of the Postmaster Gen.
eral, and under the unlawful instructions Of
the civil service commission. dismissed him;
that he was ousted of hi, Office by the failure
OF the postmaster. the Postmaster General and
the civil service commission TO perform their
legal duty under tine act Of Congress; that he
had applied to the postmaster and Postmaster
to have his appointment recorded. and had
been refused and be prays fer q writ of man.
damus against each of said parties.
demurrer was filed. and the matter was
presented upon partial argument of such de-
murrer. The demurrer was overruled and the
parties required to make return. all questions
Of law being expressly reserved. the court
merely holding that there was enough in the
petition TO justify the rule to show cause
Each party has made return. the rule to show
cause was by stipulation OF counsel agreed to
be taken as the alternative writ and the matter
was thereupon heard upon the motion OF the
relator to quash the returns. By the motion to
quash the facts set out in the returns are con-
ceded. and the question now is whether upon
those facts and the undisputed averments Of
the petition the relator is entitled to the writ
prayed.
THE FACTS REHEARSED.
BY the returns it appears that on January %,
1898, the postmaster had three vacancies to
fill among the substitute letter carriers, and
that thcreupon he drew his requisiton upon the
secretary OF the board Of examiners for names
from which to make selections; that list of
three names was sent him, from which be Sc
lected two. and thereupon called for another
list OF three names from which to select n third
that such list was furnished him, which con-
tanned the names Of the relator and OF one
Gerhauser; that OF. the same day both lists
were furnished, and the postmaster notified the
secretary OF the board of examiners that he
had selected Gerhauser from the last certifi-
cate and two other from the first certificate.
which notification was duly reported
by such secretary to the civil ser
vice commission, and was by it duly recorded:
that prior to the appointment of the reator
and after his name had been certified upon the
list to the postmaster, on the 9TH day Of Feb
ruary, 1898, the board of examiners held a
competitive examination, in which forty-two
persons obtained higher averages than the re-
lator and under the law were entitled 20 prefer
ence over relator in certifcation: that after the
relator was dropped his place and other yacan-
cies were filled from certified lists of persons
entitled to priority over him: that when the
postmaster notified the secretary of the board
ofexaminers that he had se.ec ted Ger rhauser from
the list containing the namo OF the relator all
the Postmaster General or the postmaster had
no right to make any further appointment
without new equsition and certification
because Of the civil service rules ard regula-
tions. and because of the right OF other elgibles
under the law which had interviewed II is
denied by the returns that the relator was
selected from the certified list and il is denied
that notice of such selection was given to the
commission, but the report of the postmaster
of changes in his Office during the month Of
March. 1898. disclosed this irregular appoint-
ment OF the relator, of which irregulari.y the
commission notified the postmaster April IL,
1893. and thereupon. and because of such ir-
regularity, the relator was dropped from the
rolls by the postmaster.
ERROR IN NorIFfcArIoy
BY the record it appears that on january 23,
1893, there were three vacancies to be filled by
the postmaster, and that he filed them from
names selected from two successive lists fur
nished him by the board Of examiners on that
day; that later. on March 2. 1898. the relator.
whose name was one of the three upon the last
list was appointed. and that the civil service
commission was first advised of the appoint
ment by the report of the postmaster to the
commission OF chagnes made in his Office dur
ing March, 1888 1t is insisted by the respond
ents that by civil service regulation il
was the duty of the postmaster to give notice
OF his selections for appointment within three
names; that when be reported the selec-
ton OF Gerhauser alone from the
list containing the name of the relator, that
list became exhausted. and that Is matter of
law the postmaster could not appoint the re-
lator without and unless he obtained a new
list OF names of eligib!es from the board Of
examiners containing that name. The reiator
insists that a list con aiming his name having
been certified to the postmaster. that officer
acted within the law when he appointed him.
and that he was under no necessity of making
requisition for new list
The civil service law is made up partly of
direct enactment by Congress, and partly of
rules authorized by the act of January l6, 1883,
to be promulgated by the President of the
United States By this same act it is made the
duty of the civil service commissioners to aid
the President IN preparing suitable rules for
carrying the act into effect and il is made the
duty Of all officers Of the United States in the
departments and Offices to which the rules re-
late to aid in carrying them into effect. (Sec.
2, first.)
The commissioners are authorized by this
act. subject to the rules that may be made by
the President, to make regulations for and have
control Of the examinations OF all persons seek
ing to enter any branch OF the civil service. and
to supervise and preserve records of such ex-
aminations and to keep minutes OF their pro-
ceedings. No other statutory authority to the
commission to make regulations exists in this
act.
b,.rz