The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1897-09-15
Che aalih arly deduesday gHornug September Is 1897

tendent Of mails at Louisville, praying
that Postmaster General Gary and AS
sistant Postmaster General Health be
| enjoined from removing him from office
The case has been considered in the ma
| ture Of test of the power of removal
| and the delivery of the opinion drew to
the court room many public officials, in
| GLIDING members of the civil service
commission.
| Judge Cox's decision was an elaborate
I review of the law bearing on removals
of federal employees. He held at the out
| set that it was not within the power
of a court of equity to grant relief in
matters Of appointment AMI removal
from Office. Then aking up the merits
| Of the case he stated that it was settled
law that the power of removal was an
| incident the power of Appointment,
and that both could be exercised by the
| head Of a department in reference TO
subordinate officials. Concerning the
civil service law, Judge Cox held that it
must not be construed to grant author
ity, either o the civil service commits
sion or to the president, to make rules
contrary 10 he law itself, or OF a legis-
lativec haracter. He quoted with APP
prevail the decision of Justice Brewer
that congress could not delegates its
power to legislate 10 any administrative
body.
The decision sums up as follows:
The simple inquiry is whether the
rules invoked by the complainant,
whether the president or the commission
or both be the authors of them, are such
as the civil service act authorized TO Ioe
established 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 admins
tration, and may require his chief exec
utive officers, dependent upon his plea
sure for their terms of office. 10 conform
to them of else sever their official re-
lations with him, and in that sense. the
rules relied upon by the complainant
were within his political and executive
authority. But the enforcement of such
rules is matter between the president
and his cabinet and not a n1otter for
the courts or in which the complainant
has any legal interest. All that 1 mean
to state in this opinion is that the rules
in question were not such as the civil
service act authorizes and do not derive
any efficacy from that act.
Il know Of nothing more important to
the interests Of the country than the
policy which he civil service legislation
was intended to initiate and promote,
and it is perhaps matter Of great re-
great that the &C OF January 16. 1888 (the
civil service acO has not gone further
than it does. But it is my duty to con-
strue it as it is.
ITO sum up, I conclude that apart
from the civil service act the postmaster
general had the authority TO remove the
complainant from office at his pleasure;
that this act makes no change in this
respect, except 10 forbid removals for
refusal TO contribute o partisan objects;
that the power given to the commission
and he president to establish rules to
carry that &C into effect dones not au-
thorize any rule which shall make a
change in the law in this respect; and
consequently that, even if this court had
jurisdiction in a case like the present
one, the complainant is not entitled to
the relief prayed"
It is probable that an appeal will be
taken from the decision and it is said
that ultimately the United States su-
preme court will be asked TO pass on the
question involved