The times., 1897-09-05
promotions.
examinations. I

examinations, promotions, reductions,
transfers, etc, seek to inject into himseif
power that section 169 placed III THE
heads of departments" nor clog the power
lodged in those heads, except as limited by
section 13. 1t is an invasion of the power
of the aeaas OF depar tnents;t an attempt
10 place in the act Of 1888 something
which Congress declined to lodge there,
and it cannot be put there by any rule
which II ast relate 10 examinations and
not 20 appointments or removals. IL Is ior
Cann,ress and not the President, TO say
wherner it desires that the heads d
departreents'' shall remove for cause only,
IL is for Congress TO say how far it may
desire I'd clog or enjoin the power OF re-
moyall
The President and the "Civil Service
Trnst," in their zeal 10 reform, seea 10
have overlooked the one great feature of
all civl service laws, including those Of
1853, 1871 and 1888. and that is, that in
none Of them texcept section 13, OF 1889
did Congress confer any power whatcyero on
either the Trust" or the President, over
departmental removals. That power went
with the power of appointment 10 the
heads Of departments under section 1bs,
X. S until Congress shall act, asst may or
may not desire. Examinations and not ap-
pointEents and removals are what all
our civil service laws deal with, except ds
stated in section 3 of the act of 1888.
The President would seem to have 'n-
invaded the legislative domain; lie has
reached for power which Congress, by
lodging the power to appoint, left IN "'he
heads Of departments, free aud un-
tIamineled, except as restricted by sec
ton 13- Beyond that 1.-The heads Of &C.
partInents" ma yremoye without cause, and
any attempt of the President, through a
rule which presupposes some law author
izing it TO restrict a power lodged ar left
Dy Congress in the heads of departments,
is not warranted by law.
1t may be said that the President could
have reached the object which he seems TO
nave desired through an exercise of his po-
litical power; in other words, by verbal
order or other manifestation OF his wist
To the various department officers. Posi-
bly,, headsof departments would not care TO
disobey political order OF the Executive
but suppose d department officer should re-
move a clerk without cause! The President
might remove that officer; but that would
not prove that the department officer did
not have the power. But he has not sought
| ia reach result i'll that way, and we seri
dusly doubt whether any order to heads oi
| dcpartme To remove only for cause, TO DC
/ stated and ad judicated, is within the po-
| lilical powers even OF the President, be
| cause leaving the power of appointment
with the heads OF departments is The
| eNeFcise o! ie. 'slaiive iu,eit. and hav'u-
been exercised, and The power of remoya
! having followed 1t, until Congress shall
check its eS ercise we do not see wuy
even political order from the President
would not be an attempt at usurpatioL
of powerl
We nave only 20 cite the case of cx-
! President johnson 70 discover now jealous
| Congress is of its power of removal, TO
show how important this question may
become. The grasp for power by the
| CiviI Service -.iIu>J has gone far enough
but wien it invades the legislative domain
in search Of " hat has been denied il,
the RENE ~ for a persistence shouid n
swift and effective. 1t occurs 70 ma
that tie President has made MISTAKE
and that. 10 avoid ali evidence Of delib
crate pprpose to absorb power-after
| his attention has been called to it-.le
should revoke his recent order.
Washington, Aug. 23. E.HAM.