Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1894-02-02
TRAM II. JONES,
First Assistant Postmaster General.

! service rules, on July /, 1898.
Very respectfully,
FRANK II. JONES,
First Assistant Postmaster General
BRATr1EBoHo, VI, Aug. 2s, 1893
Mr.. FfdHk II. ZONES, First assistant Post
master General.
Dear Sir:-According to the ruling OF
the [. 5. attorney general, the Brattleboro
Once was in the classified list March :, as
the first examination took place on that
date, and they had an eligible list long be-
tore Lindsey was appointed to succeed p.
II. Lynch,
Yours truly,
SIDNEY II. FAIR.
] was misinformed by the first assistant
postmaster general regarding the date of
the classification of the Brattleboro post
office, as will be seen by the following let
ter which have just received.
L. 5. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
WA~HINGTON, d. &.
January 80, 1894.
Nu:-ln reply TO your inquiry of Jan.
p the commission has to inform YOU that
the classification of the Brattleboro. Yer
mont, post-ofiice, under the civil service
law and rules, was completed on Nav H..
1873, the date of registration Of the eligi-
bles resulting from the examination held
by the local board on March :. 1898.
Very respectfully,
joins X. PEOCTEE,
President.
Sidney H. Far, tLroDqL Secreta,V Of
Bo0rd Of Examiners.
BBArTLEBoEo. W.. Aug. rs. 1893.
President Grill >eyice Commission.
fdSbHgtoH, b. g.:
Dedr >u::-I am a substitute letter car
rier at the Brattleboro post-ofiice. and ever
since Aug. l, lSSS, was senior substitute
and so stood June 10, 1893, when there be-
came vacany in the list of letter carriers
by the removal of p II. Lynch. | was
not appointed to fill the vacancy, but John
A. Lindsey, another substitute. was. I'm
der the decision of the attorney general
of May D. 1893, was | not entitled to the
place? The first civil service examination
was held at this Office March :. 1893 and
there was an eligible list June /, 1893. as
! understand.
Very respectfully,
SIDNEY II. FABE.
|. 5. CIVIL SERVICE CoMMls>IoN.j
WA>HINGToN, ID. c.,
August 20, 1893.
>U:-The matter alluded to in your let
ter of August IS, namely, the appointment
OF letter carrier over your head at the
Brattleboro, Vt, post-oflice. will be prompt
ly investigated and any action that NAV be
necessary will be taken.
Very respectfully,
Gro. w. JOHNSTON,
1ctMg PrcSiieut.
BEAlrLEHoE", Vt. Sept. is, 1893.
PreN'de0t GIRL N'rrire Commission. U'aSL-
ilgtou. u. T.
Dear >r:-Yours of August % was du-
ly received Have you had time to in
yestigate the matter Of my rights as let
ter carrier?
Yours respectfully.
SIDNEY II. FAEE.
|. :. CIvH. SERVICE COMMISSION.
WA>uNGroN, d. C.,
sept. u, 1893
NT:-ln reply to your letter of Sept. Is.
relative TO the appointment of a successor
to Carrier p. II. Lynch at the Brattleboro
post-otiice, you are informed that the &C
ton OF the postmaster in making the ap-
pointment was approved by thi, commits
sion on sept I.
Very respectfully
CHA>. LYMAN, President
BRArrLEBoRo, VT, sept. p, 1898.
President GIRL >errice CoiymiNS;on. WASH
ingtoH, h. q.
Dear Nr:-Wil you please inform me
on what ground, or for what reasons the
commission have decided to approve the
action OF the postmaster in appointing Mr..
Lindsey instead of myself as successor of
+. II. Lynch, letter carrier, referring to
your letter of Sept. y, 1898.
Yours respectfully,
SIDNEY II. FARE.
l. ;. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
WASHINGToN, ID. c.,
Sept. -, 1898.
SU;-The commission has received your
letter of September % asking information
as to the grounds on which the action of
the Brattleboro postmaster in appointing
Lindsey instead of you as successor to Car.
rier 7. II. Lynch, was approved In re-
ply you are informed that Postmaster
Childs, on August 81, stated that he had
promoted John A. Lindsey, second in or
der on the substitute carrier list. before
you, for the reason that at the time the
promotion was made YOU were out of town
and not available. From the postmaster's
statement it appears that the appointment
OF Lindsey in this instance was a necessi-
ty in the interest of the public service. an
appointment being necessary
and his action was therefore approved.
Very respectfully,
CHA>. LYMAN, PrcSideHt.
Abiding to the above statement of
Postmaste~ Childs, l would like to inquire
if substitute letter carrier is Obliged to
remain in town in order to be promoted.
The letter carriers are each entitled to ff-
teen days vacation every year. and as |
understand can spend that vacation out of
town If they desire and yet not lose their
situation. So | do not understand why l.
as a substitute, could not be out of town
ten days and still be entitled to the an
pointment of letter carrier in case of va
cancy in the letter carrier force, as there
were two substitutes to fill vacancies dur
ing my absence.
Very respectfully,
SIDNEY II. FAIR.
THE OTHER SIDE OF 1T.