The San Francisco call., 1897-11-09
VARIED VIEWS
OF OFFICIALS
What Federal Officials
Think Of the Lynch and
Jackson Opinions.
Collectors Not Responsible for
Negligences of Subor-
dinates.
But There Should Be a Reform in
the Matter of Financial
Responsibility.

The interviews with Internal Revenue
Collector Lynch and Collector of Customs
Jackson recently published in The CALL
concerning needed changes in the civil
service regulations have attracted much
attention and have provoked much dis
cussion among politicians and Federal
employees.
All admit that the reforms asked for, so
far as requiring certain subordinates to
give bonds to the Government, should be
inaugurated, but there is a difference of
opinion on the proposed plan of allowing
heads of departments to appoint their
more important subordinates. In the
postoffice and in other branches of the
Governmental service the opinion is ex-
pressed that such system would be re =
turn to all the evils which the civil service
system was designed to abolish, and, in
stead Of the heads of departments ap-
pointing their deputies, those officials
would be appointed as they were in the
good Id days before the civil service was
lntrod uced-namely, by the Senator'S and
Representatives in Congress, and only
os tenSlbly by the heads of The departments
The civil service adherents say also that
while it is true that heads of departments
are responsible for financial delinquen cies
of their subordinates, it is also true tn at
they are not responsible for the official
acts of those subordinates in the way of
damages for neglect OF duty, carelessness,
etc. To back this assertion they quote
decision of the Supreme Court OF the
Uni;eI States found in Treasury Depart
ment reports for May 81. 1888 The matter
in issue was the liability of the Collector of
the Port OF New YORK for damages caused
hV 10 of fruDlx NV fire " Ubila N thn
custody of the Government. The follow
ing is synopsis of the deCision:
The SUIT was Instituted to recover the
value OF a trunk and contents on the
claim, as it is understood. OF alleged per-
sonal negligence on the part of the Col
leCtor Of Customs by reason of the trunk
being ordered by the customs officer in
charge of such steamer to the public
stores for examination upon the arrival OF
the plaintiff, who was passenger by the
steamer Egypt from Liverpool, on the
ground that it contained duuable articles.
The trunk, however, never reached the
public stores, inasmuch as it was de-
stroyed by fire on The pier of the ship by
which ii arrived.
The United States Supreme Court held
that the Collector was not liable for the
wrong, if any, committed by his subor-
dinates, and there was nothing in
the evidence to connect him person
ally with any such wrong; that
while the subordinate who was guilty
of the wrong, If any. would undoubtedly
be liable personally for the tort. yet re-
covery agains: the Collector on the facts
as shown in this case would be to establish
principle which would paralyZe the
public service, inasmuch as competent
persons coulo not be found to fill posi-
tions of the kind if they knew they would
be held liable for all the torts and wrongs
committed by large body of subordinates
in the discharge OF duties which it would
be utterly impossible for the superior
officer to discharge IN person.
The Government itself is not RESPONSE
BILE for the malfeasances or wrongs or
negligences or omissions of duty OF the
subordi mates employed in the public
service. for it does not undertake to guar
antee 10 any person the fidelity of any of
the officers or agents whom it employs,
since that would involve it in endless en-
barrassments and difficulties and losses,
which would be subversive of the public