The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-09-15
DIsMrssEs THE COMPLAINT.
John G. Wood Thrown Out Of Court
at Washington.


Washington, Sept. 14.-Judge Cox, of
the supreme court of the District OF
Columbia, today dismissed the bill of
complaint of John G.. Wood, SUPER
intendent of mails at Louisville, asking
that Postmaster General Gary and AS
sistant Postmaster General Heath be
enjoined from removing him from office.
The case has been considered in the ma
ture of a test of the power of removal
and the delivery of the opinion drew to
the court room many public officials,
including members of the civil service
commission. Judge Cox's decision was
an elaborate review Of the law bearing
on removals of federal employees. He
held at the outset that it was not
within the power Of a court of equity
to grant relief in matters of appoint
ment and removal from Office. Then
taking up the merits of tine case, Re
stated that it was settled law that the
power of removal was an incident to
the power Of appointment and that
both could be exercised by the head of
a department in reference to subordf-
nate officials.
THE BREWER DECISION.
Concerning the civil service law.
Judge Cox held that it must not be con-
strued to grant authority, either to the
civil service commission or to the pres
ident, to make rules contrary to the
law itself or of q legislative character.
He quoted With approval the decision
of Justice Brewer that congress could
not delegate power to le9islate to any
administrative body. The decision
sums up as follows:
1.-THE real inquiry is whether the rules
involved by the complaint, whether the
president of the commission or both be
the authors of them, are such as the
civil service law authorized to be eStab-
lished- In my Judgment they are ultra
wires and void. I have no doubt that
the president may lay down rules for
the internal policy of his administration
and may require his chief executive Of
f1cers, dependent upon his pleasure for
their terms of office. to conform TO them
or else to sever their official relatins
with him and in that sense the rules
relied upon by the complainant were
within his political and executive au-
thority. But the enforcement of such
rules is matter between the president
and his cabinet and not a matter for
the courts or one in which the COM
plainant has any legal interest. All
that I mean to state in this opinion is
that the rules were not such as the
civil service act authorizes and do not
derive any efficacy from that act.
M "A L Ell VI NTLS1-<Al
81 know Of nothing more important
to the interests of the country than the
policy which the civil service legislation
was intended to initiate and to promote
and it is, perhaps, q matter of great
regret that the civil service act has not
gone further than it does. But it is my
duty to construe the law asrit is. TIC
sum up conclude that apart from the
civil service act the postmaster genera
had the authority TO remove the COM
pIainant from Office at his pleasure;
that this law makes no change in this
respect, except to forbid removals fol
refusal to contribute to partisan
objects; that the power given the com
mission and the president to establish
rules to carry that act into effect does
not authorize any rule which shall
make q change in the law in this re.
spect. and consequently that, even j.
this court has Jurisdiction in a case like
| the present one, the complainant is NO
entitled to the relief prayed"
! It is probable that an appeal will bt
taken and ultimately the United State
supreme court will be asked to pass OF
| the question involved.