The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-02-08

turn out that the dismissal was unjust, he
would reinstate Mr.. Niedhammer. me
Claude Bower Was removed Aug. Is, 1893.
without information OF any charges. Mr..
Rockhill stated to us that there were
charges against him. but he did not remem-
Der what they were. Norville w. Wright
ton would be accepted. to take effect at
once. He was sick at the time: He did not
resign, but his place was filled by another;
He told Mr.. Rockhill he thought he should
not have been discharged when he was sick.
Rockhill answered that the discharge was
fixed up before, that he did not know SWw 81
am situated. there are so many after posi-
tons Wright was never notified OF any
thought there were charges against Mr..
Wright, but he did not know what they
I'm other instances the charges were of
a general character, incapable of refuta-
ton John II. Reitze, letter carrier was
Assistant Postmaster-general, asking the
charges. He was told that he was re-
moved for being inattentive and negiectfui.
and that his services were unsatisfactory
10 the people, but no specifications were
given.
MORE AUGUST REMOVALS.
"In other cases the charges were specific.
but seemed to have been prepared with a
view to secure the dismissal Of the employe
quite irrespective of the justice OF the COM
plant. Frederick W. Gallmeier was dis
charged on Aug. 10. and asked Mr.. Rock
hill if there were any charges against him,
and Mr.. Rockhill answered. Not any in the
world except for the good OF the service
Afterwards he wrote to the First Assistant
and was informed Nov.
% that he was removed for the nondelivery
OF "A certain letter to 4. +. Evans, 80 East
Berry street. and several other failures OF
like character; that he was physically DIS
abled for the position, and that II was I'M
possible for him TO keep pace with the re-
quirements of the service with regard 10
the Evans letter, he states that he tried to
deliver ii when II came, about the mlddle
of June. The house was closed, and he
states that he brought 1T back to Mr.. Hig-
gins, who was then postmaster, and asked
what ne should do with it, that he had heard
that the family had gone to California, that
they had left him no address, and he knew
of none. Mr.. Higgins told him to keep the
letter i'm his case until they sent an order.
He did SO. and went on his vacation the LIST
of July. The family had not tnen re-
turned, nor had any address been given so
far as he knew. He could never learn OF
any other failures of like character He
had no physical disability except that he
had been hurt in the left arm, but for the
purposes OF his duties II was as good as
the right. He had always performed his
tiicatc. which he forwarded 10 the depart
ment, that his house was closed on June Ia.
26, that he had made no charges against
Gallmeier Mr.. Higgins, who was then the
postmaste certified that he directed Call
&c " AfCAA AbAo hhhAh $3.50
order was received, which did not come While
he was postmaster; and, further. certified
that Mr.. Evans was particular not TO nave
that he told the mail carrier not TO leave
the mail at the house. MIR. Nell, the sue
cessor of I'M who was called be-
fore us at Rockhilrs request. stated that
he found two letters in GallIneiers case ad-
dressed to Evans; that they were then
letters. but did not know whether they
had been back a day or a month; that he
spoke TO Evans about ii, and that Evans
said that he had left an order for hts mail
to be delivered at the Hoosier Manufactur-
ing Company. Postmaster Rockhill stated
that Evans made the same statement to
him, but that neither of them could say
that Mr.. Gallmeier had ever received or
been Informed Of such a Forwarding order
from MIR. Evans.
MORE LIGHT ON GALLMEIER'S CASE.
9TH testimony of Rev. II. G.Saur throws
some light upon Gallmeier's dismisal. He
says that he went to MIR. RockhiH and
asked him to keep Gallmeier; that Rock
hill stated that he had no complaint against
Gallmeier, but he said: AS you know, ev-
eryone has his friends Mr.. Rockhill in
formed us that this was before the dismis-
sal of Gallmeier was contemplated, and
that he did not believe he said this. The
facts i'm the case indicated, however, to us
a disposition to dismiss Gallmeier quite ir-
respective Of the charge against him We
saw Gallmeier, and his physical incapactty
was certainly not such as to warrant
the postmaster, Mr.. Higgins. to keep the
letter and knew nothing of the forwarding
order (as the uncontradicted statements
show), he was certainly not to blame. And
if ii were otherwise, the rule adopted. in his
case would seem quite different from that
applied in the case of Mr.; Manuel, a Dem
ocrat, who was appointed in place of Mr..
Re.tze, who had hidden some twenty-five
letters under his case. When Mr.. Rockhill
was asked whether If MT IN Manuel aiScha bad nsd
for so doing, he declined to say.
And again when Mr.. Rockhill was asked
| kind. such as failure to deliver one letter.
would cause the dismissal of the new car
riers, he would not say.
CLEARLY A TRUMPET UP CHARGE.
Another case is that of George l.. ASH
ley, who was informed on Aug. 10 by Amos
x. Mehl. one of the new men. that Gall
meier. Wright and himself would be dis
missed; that if Richter was put on his
| route when he went on his vacation he
would not come back again. He was mott
| fed on Aug. Is to take out his vacation,
and Richter took his place, and Mehl's
prophecy was fulfilled. He was dismissed
| on Aug. q and on the following day, when
he asked Rockhill what the charges We're,
| service. He asked whether the good of the
| service required the appointment In his
% Rlsss Of HAD 9 % deiive %eG' f dTIir Masonic son PrfTS emPis5
mail to the Newspaper Union. RockhiI
asked him If he had never made any mis-
take. He answered not such a break as
that. Rockhill said, Well, ! have dis.
missed you for the good of the service.
In answer to his inquiry the First Assist
ant Postmaster-general wrote hin
R Tor neglect that inei he was and demG ins.
| bility to cover his route in a reasonable
time: that one of the substitutes made
better time and did more satisfactory serv-
ice; that the postmaster had specified an
instance of finding in his desk a letter adj
dressed to c. II. Van Gorder, 221 Main
street, which should have been delivered
a month prior TO the date Of finding 1t
Van Gorder voluntarily furnished Ashley
prompt carrier ever on his route; that the
letter specified was detained at the Fort
WAYNE postoffice at his Wan Gor1er > owl
request during his absence at The worlds
fair. Ashley states that he never failed &c
cover his route under PostmaSter iSochhlI
were stated 20 Mr.. Rockhill the postmaster
showed to US q postal card dated July .
stating that Van Gorder was gone 10 the
worlds fair TO be absent a week. and ask
ing that his mail be held until his return
And Mr.. Rockhill stated 20 US that, in,
stead of keeping 1t a week, Ashley haC
kent il more than "A month. In confima'
tion of this Mr.. Rockhill sailed before u
one of the new letter carriers. Richter
who stated that he began TO carry or
Gorder family had then returned from Chi
cago. and that after Aug. % he found 8
letter i'm the case addressed To Mrs. Val
Gorder. which he delivered To her. That or
the same day he told this TO Mr.. Mehl
and Mehl states that he told Mr.. ftockhu
cording to the statement OF all OF then
thjs information was communicated afteI