The times., 1897-09-15

shall discharge or promote or in any man.
ner change the office or compensation OF
any other officer for giving or withhold
! ing or neelecting TO make contribution
/ Tor political purposes"
/ But 1t is claimed That the commission iB
| empowered To prepare rules IN AID OF The
/ President for carr yInS TINS act into effect
! There is no question Of bha power OF Con
1 greSS To delegate TO subordinate auUtoTl-
ties the Pc wer TO max rules, but IL any yrule
published by This commission should have
the effect OF replacing or moan yIng an
act Of Congress 1t would be an act of
| legislation and not q regulation OF Il mere
executive character which ~ was the ob-
! JecI of this law to establish.
/ 1t is a grave question whether Congress
! could delegate To the President, or to any
board of commissioners jointly with the
| President, the authority TO do any act
/ equivalent 10 legislation. There is uni
/ form current of authorities III the State
! courts against any such delegation.
Bur probably all courts would agree that
! no law rs TO he construedso 10 amount
/ To d delegation of Legislative authority
| that can be avoided.
There Is nothing IN the language OF the
! act or the objects which il Processes TO
attain which makes IL necessary to at
/ tribute such executive power TO the com
mission OF the President The act now here
+! requires that the power OF removal vested
+ IN tie head OF department should be
abridged. except in the single Iartic ular
/ Ot removal for refusal TO contribute Ior
partisan purposes.
/ the seConu seeJlOn provides an enumera-
4
/ TO provide. They are toT competitive eX-
animation for appointment by Selection
from those graded services OF those highest
the result OF such examination. Tor aB-
portionment of the appointments among
/ 5 SJttes and Territories ana the District or
Columbia, according 10 population; for
J period OF probation. Tor exemption Oi per-
sons in the public service OF obligation to
/ contribute TO political 1undS: Tor non-com-
I PetIuve appointments IL certain cases,
anu Tor notice to the commission OF all
4 appointments made by the appointing
! power.
II would be a very irrational interpreta-
! tion, which would give TO the words aud
among other thlugs,' which are prefIAed
to the enumeration, such a scope Of inean-
/ ing to convey bS implication unlimited
aCtlloaly TO establish raies bearing no
relation TO the OBJECTS OF the law.
1ne siinple inquiry is whether the rules
invoked by the culnu!ainant are such as tht.
act of January l6, 1888, known as the
/ civil service act, authorized to be estab-
1 listed In my Judgment, they are tdtra
vires and void. ] have no doubt that the
/ President may lay down rules for the Ia
/ ternal policy of the administration, an q
may require his executive officers to con
form TO them, or else 10 S eYeT their official
/ relations with hin, and in that SENSE The
( rules relied on by the complainant Were
within ms authority.
hut the enforcement of such rules is
matter between the President aud
! his Cabinet, and not one for the
courts, or one IN which the oonplafna mt
hak any legal Interest. All that i mean
! 10 state IN Lnls opinion is that the rules in
/ question were not such as the civil service
/ aCg authorizes, ana 90 not derive any eff
cacy from that act.
do not know anything more important to
/ the true interests OF the country than the
/ policy which the civil service legislation
| S1ntendeu TO Initiate and provide and 1t
! is perhaps matter Of regret that the actof
| January l6, 1853, has not gene further
/ than II does. But il is my duty TO con
/ StTue Ii as IL is.
/ To sum up. | conclude that. apart from
the. civil service act, the Postmaster Gen
eral had the authority 10 remove the com
1 plalnaht from office al pleasure, that this
/ act ma kes no Change IN this respect, except
! 10 forbid removals for refusals TO contribute
! To partisan FUNDS, that the power to the
/ commission and the President to esta ablish
1 rules to carry that act into effect does not
/ authorize any rule which shall make d
! Chaugeln thelaW in this respect; audco
! 4u2nuy that even II this court Isau Hills
| dicti0n in a ca Sc like the present the COM
plainant is not entitled TO the relief pra yed
First Assistant Postmaster General Perry
| Heath, uLder whose jurisdiction in the Post
| office Department the transfer Of Mr..
/ Woods Will now occur, was seen by re-
porterf for The Times last night with regard
to the decision of Judge Cox Mr.. Heath 5
view OF the matter is similar to and up
holds that of the Civil Service Commis-
sion He said:
There has been a misinterpretation of
the meaning Of this civil service law. The
rule was clearly meant simply to give to
a clerk chance to be heard in his de-
| fense before being separated from the
| service finally. This defense is Ia be
Considered before removal is made, but the
! rule was not intended in any way to
abridge the power OF the appointing of
ficer. 1 consider the decision OF J udge Cox
! a very clear exposition of the case. 1t is
not in any way an INJURY 10 the Civn
/ Service Commission or a hurt to the re
form movement. The rule is still as bind
| ing on the heads of the departments as it
ever was.
Secretary Bliss, in whose department are
the largest number of Government clerks
in this city, was also asked regarding the
decision by The Times reporter. His
opinion was similar to tha OF tie civil
Service Commission.
The decision Of Judge Cox is simply
20 the effect that the enforcement Of the
civil service rules is not a matter for the
! jurisdiction OF the courts. The rule
making it binding on thea appointing officer
not to remove clerk without charges is
not affected by the decision
This rule is u matter between the Pres'
| dent and his Cabinet officers The de
cision was taken up at the Cabinet r,ieet-
ing yesterday, and it is unders TODD that
| the meaning of the rules there express ed
was sipildf TO that held By the Civil
! Service Commission.
Neither the Civil Service Commission nor
any Of the departmental heaus are Of the
opinion that udge Cox's decision af-
fects the civil service reform law.
1t is said at the office Of the Civil
Service Commission that the orinion of
| Judge Cox will not in the least affect the
binding character OF the Presidents IS order
upon all officers in the civil service The
Commission issued tie following state.
ment yesterday:
''The President has authority inherent
in bis office, TO make rule governing
removals. The intent Of the order is that
the appointing officer shall put upon record,
in brief, the grounds of his action and
| give the accused an opportunity to bt.
heard in his own defense. 1t was deem
| ed that this actiAi would prevent reno walls
| for other CAUSES than the good OF the
service. Such an order does not impair in
the least the power Of discipline nor i'm
! pedo the proper exercise of the power of
removal 1t simply serves as a check
| upon the appointing officer. W no acts from
political OF less worthy motives
THE appointing officer, who acts with
sole regard 10 tie best interests of the
service, viii deem il tut just To the pEt
lie and to the employe affected that a
record be made. 1t was the lack of Just
sach records as these that has given oppor-