Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-09-15
THE WOOD BILE DISMISSED.
Power of Removal from Office
Probably an Appeal.

WASHINGTON September 4.-Judge
Cox, of the Supreme Court of the Dis
trict of Columbia, to-day dismissed the
perintendent of mails at Louisville, pray
ing that Postmaster-General Gary and
Assistant -Postmaster-G General Heath be
enjoined from removing him from office.
The case has been considered in the
nature of a test of the power Of re-
moval and the delivery of the opinion
drew to the courtroom many public Off
cials. including members of the Civil
Service Commission.
Judge Cox's decision was an elaborate
review of the law bearing on removal
Of Federal employees. He held that II
was not within the power of courl
of equity TO grant relief in matters CT
appointment and removal from office
Then. taking up the merits of the case,
he stated that it was settled law that
the power of removal was an incident
of the mower of appointment, and that
both could be exercised by the head OF
a department with reference TO subor-
dinate officials. Concerning the civil
service law. Judge Cox held that II mhst
not be construed TO grant authority
either to the Civil-Service Commission
or to the President, to make rules con-
trary to the law itself, or of a lesisia-
tive character. He quoted with approVal
the decision of Justice Brewer that Con
gress could not delegate its power 10
legislate TO any administrative BODY.
IT is probable that an appeal Will be
taken from the decision, and 1t Is SAID
that ultimately the United states gu
nreme Court will be asked 10 pass on
tha question involved.
That the Civil-Service Commission does
not regard the decision of Judge COX aS
inimical TO the success OF the service
Is indicated by the following statement
made by one of the members of that BODY
ATTITUDE OF COMMISSION.
.orbe opinion of Judge Cox in no way
affects the binding character OF the fres'-
dents order upon all officers of the SER
vice. The President has authority in
herent i'm his office to make removals.
The intent was that the appointing OIL
dcer. IN making removals should be put
an record as to the grounds of his action,
and give the accused an opportunity 10
ne heard in his own defence. 1t was
deemed that this action would prevent
removals for other causes than the good
Of The service. Such an order does not
I'm the least impair the power OF discipline
nor impede the proper exercise OF the
mower of removal. 1t simply serves as
a check upon an appointing officer who
acts from political or less worthy mo-
lives The appointing officer who acts
with sole regard TO the best interests OF
the service will deem it but just to the
nublic and to the employee affected that
a record be made.
"1t was the lack Of just such RECORDS
os those that has given opportunity 10
,ho critics of the civil-seryice law, since
,ts enactment. TO charge that removals
from the public service have been mace
mainly for political reasons. The fact
a., tbot the majority of removals nave
heen made for perfectly proper reasons;
h,,t because these reasons were not put
mon record, different administrations
have exposed themselves TO much unjust
criticism. ..,.,s 90 tho
",rhe practice of making record OF the
roasons for removals has existed TOT
.s.,,,, vears in some parts of the service
,',,th In highly beneficial results, and the
"ar order merely makes this practlce
roandatory in all parts of the service
I-ndouhtedly many employees have been
roooved for political reasons, because
80 reason was required TO be given py
,Sose in authority In requiring reasons
nanccforth 10 be given. the new order
Ian II is believed. largely check TINS