The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-09-15
Case of superintendent of Mails
woods Dismissed and Action of the
Postmaster General Upheld.
TUESDAYS CABINET MEETING
SEVERAL MATTERS UNDER DISCUS
SION, BUT NO ACTION TAKEN.
The Union Pacific, San Pedro HarbOE
and KIOndike Questions-Change
I'm Color of Postage Stamps.

WASHINGTON, Sept. H.-Judge Cox, Of
the Supreme Court of the District of Co
lumbia to-day dismissed the bill of COM
plant of John G. Wood, superintendent OF
mails at Louisville, praying that Postmas-
ter General Gary and Assistant Postmaster
Heath be enjoined from removing him from
office. The case has been considered in the
nature Of a test Of removal, and the deliv-
cry of the opinion drew to the courtroom
many public officials. including members of
the Civi-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 appointment and removal from office.
Then, taking up the merits of the case, he
stated that it was settled law that the
power of removal was incident to the
power of appointment, and that both could
be exercised by the head of a department
in reference to subordinate officials. Con-
corning the civil service, Judge Cox held
that it must not be construed to grant au-
thority, either to the Civil-service Commits
sion or to the President, to make rules con-
trary to the law itself, or of a legislative
character. He quoted, with approval the
decision of Justice Brewer that Congress
any administrative body. The decision
sums up as follows:
'The simple inquiry is whether the rules
invoked by the OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES the
President or the commission, or both, be
the authors of tnem-are such as the civil
service act authorized to be 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 administration, and may require his
chief executive officers, dependent upon his
pleasure for their terms of office, to con-
form to them or else to sever their official
relations with him, and in that sense the
rules relied on by the complainant were
within his political and executive authority.
But the enforcement of such rules is a
matter between the President and his Cab
met, and not a matter for the courts, or
one in which the complainant has any legal
opinion is that the rules in question We're
not such as the civil-service act authorizes
and do not derive any efficacy from that
Il know of nothing more important to the
interests of the country than the policy
which the civil-service legislation was in
tended to initiate and promote, and it is
perhaps a matter of great regret that the
act of Jan. 16. 1888 (the civil-service acD,
has not gone further than it does. But it
is my duty to continue it as it is.
ITO sum up: l conclude that. apart from
the civil-Service act the postmaster general
had the authority to remove the complain
ant from office at his pleasure; that the
law makes no change in this respect except
to forbid removals for refusal to contribute
IL
to the commission and the President to es-
tablish rules to carry that act into effect
does not authorize any rule which shall
make change in the law IN this respect;
and that, consequently, even if this court
had jurisdiction in a case like the present
one. the complainant is not entitled to the
II is probable that an appeal will be
taken from the decision, and it is said that
ultima tely the United States Supreme Court
will be asked to pass on the question in
Volved
That the Civil-service Commission does
Cox as inimical to the service is
indicated by the following statement
mad made bod BY Ss of the 81 sna be ex of
no way affects the binding character of the
Presidents order on all officers OF the serv-
ice. The President has authority inherent
in his office to make removals. The intent
was that the appointing officer Ill making
removals should be put on record as TO the
an opportunity to be heard IN his own de-
Tense 1t was deemed that this action would
prevent removals for other causes than the
good of the service. Such an order does not
in the least impair the power of discipline
nor impede the proper exercise or the pow
er of removal. 1t simply serves as a cleck
upon the appointing officer who acts from
political or less worthy motives. The ap-
pointing officer who acts with sole regard
to the best interests of .he service will deem
1t but just to the public and to the en-
ploye affected that a record be maze. 1t
was the lack of just sucl records as these
that has given opportunity 20 the critics
of the civil-serVice law since Its enactment
to charge that removals from the pUhlic
service have been made mainly for politi-
cal reasons. The fact is that the majority
of removals have been made for perfectly
proper reasons, but because these reasons
were not put upon record different admins
trationS have exposed themselves to much
unjust criticism. The practice of making a
record of the reasons for removals has ex-
listed for many years ir some parts of the
service with highly beneficiin results, ard
the new order merely makes this practice
mandatory in all parts of the service. I'm
doubtedly many employees Lave been re-
moved for political reasons because no rea-
son was required to be given by those in
authority In requiring reasons henceforth
TO be given the new order will, it is be-
lieved, largely check this abuse