The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-09-17
NOTHING SURPRISING.

NOTHING SURPRISING.
No intelligent student of the princi-
pies and progress Of civil service re-
form will be surprised or disturbed by
the decision of the supreme court CT
the District Of Columbia concerning
the application Of the law to the power
of removal. 1t has always been I'M
derstood and desired that the adop-
ton Of this reform should leave I'M
touched the power of removal Cor
cause. That power is absolutely es-
sential to good administration. Were
it to be prohibited. there would be real
justice in the at present absurd con-
tention that civil service reform tends
to build UP an aristocracy Of Office
holders having life tenure. The head
of any department must have control
over his subordinates and be able to
discard those who refuse to obey in
structions or who perform their duties
imperfectly.
One great purpose Of civil service re-
form is to improve the quality Of the
public service itself. That object would
be manifestly defeated if an unfaith-
full, incompetent or insubordinate en-
nitely, and defy the efforts of his SUI
perior officer to remove him. What
the law aims at is to prevent remov-
ais for partisan purposes 1t is shown
bIyt Of Ioo of
that this prohibition does not extend
as far as has been supposed. II we
read the opinion of Judge Cox correctly.
it is that a strict construction of the
law prohibits removals only for re-
fusal to contribute money to partisan
objects. BY implication we may sup
pose that this would still permit re-
movals of officials of one particular
party in order to make room for mem
bers of another. We do not suppose
that that loophole can ever be closed.
Public opinion is the only effective
regulator in such cases.
We believe it to be true that under
all our administrations there have been
strictly partisan purposes, where the
injured party had no redress. He can
have none. The head of a great de-
partment must have a certain liberty
of action. He must, as we have shown,
have the right to discipline his sub
ordnates, and you cannot always de-
termine his motive in a court of law.
When he makes a removal and de-
clares that it is for the good of the
service, no legal action is likely to ne
able to show that the real idea in his
mind was to put out Democrat and
put in a Republican, Or vice versa.
The satisfactory enforcement of civil
service reform must always depend
to large extent upon public opinion,
which shall insist that only persons in
sympathy with it are selected to con-
! duct the affairs of government 4
The case in question offers
another Illustration OF the at
tempted extension of the use
of injunctions. The petitioner had
prayed the court to enjoin the post
master general of the United States
from removing him from office If we
can cover the matter by legal regula-
ton and judicial investigation at all,
clearly this is not the way to do it. 1t
is precisely the same error made in
dealing with the striking miners, al
though not so serious in it's conse-
q L:
tice we should presently have every
public official in the United States who
had employees at his mercy, served
with as many injunctions as he had
clerks, each one forbidling him to
make that particular removal until he
could show cause. The thing is absurd
on the face of it. If employees are ever
| to be protected against the partisan
action of their superiors, it must be
| by actions brought after they have
| been ousted and not by injunctions
! that would tie up the whole admins
| trative force of the country in an i'm
| portant particular.
Probably, as shown by the decision
of the court, the civil service law needs
legislative extension and reinforce
ment in this direction. 1t would be
| well to provide for employees uniustly
| discharged a legal remedy afterward.
| We are Just as much opposed to firing
| iniunctions Unfortunately at fed
eral office holders as we are to load
ing them with bullets and firing them
at men walking peaceably along pub
lie highways.