The age-herald., 1897-09-15
CIVIL SERVICE REMOVALS Discussed in a Verdict by Judge
 Cox at Washington. THE PRESIDENT HAS POWER To Make Removals and the Same Power Is Vested in Other Officials Where Cause
 PreyaiIs-Records Must Be Kept.

Washington, Sept. 14.-Judge Cox, of the supreme court of the District of Co., lumbia today dismissed the bill of com plsGnt of John G. Wood, superintendent of rnails at Louisville, praying that Post master-General Gary and Assistant Postmaster General Heath be enjoined from removing him from office. The case has been considered in the nature of test of the power of removal ard the delivery of ahe opinion drew to the courtroom many public officials, inc,ud- ing members of the civil service com mission.
 Judge Cox's decision was an elaborate review of the law bearing on removals of federal employees. He held at the out set that it was no5 within the power of court of equity ito grant relief in mat Eers 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 an inci- dent to the power of appointment and that both could be exercised by the head of department in reference to subordi- nate officials. Concerning the civl ser vice law, Judge Cox held that it must not be construed to grant authority, either to the civil service commission or to the president to make laws conrary to itself elf leglsla i've character. He quoted, with approval the decision of Justice Brewer that congress could nof delegate its power to lcgisiate to any ad- ministrative body.
 It is probable that an appeal will be taken from the decision and it is said ultimately the United States supreme court will be asked to pass on the ques- lion involved.
 That the civil service does not regard the service is indicated by the following sta tement made by one of the meeabers of that body:
 ''The opinion of Judge Cox in no way affects the bonding character of the presidents order upon all officers of the service. The president has authority in fhis official way to make removals. The gintent was that the officer making re- movals should be put on record as to tlhe ground of his action and give the &C., cuscd an opportunity to be heard in his own defense. It was deemed that this action would prevent removals for other causes than for the good of the service. Such an order does not in the least inn pair the power of the discipline nor inn pair the proper exercise of the power of removal. It simply serves as a check upon the appointing officer who acts from political or less worthy motives. The appoirking official who acts with sole regard to the hes. interests of the service will deem it but just to the pulp lie and to the employe affected that a record be made. It was the lack of just such records as this that has given op- portunfty to the critics of the civil ser vice law since its enactment to charge that such removals from the public ser vice have been made solely for political of removals have been made for perfect ly proper reasons, but because these req sons were not put upon record differ ent administrations have exposed them- selves to much unjust criticism.
 .sThe practice of making record of the reasons for she removals has existed for many years in some parts of the ser vice with highly beneficial results and the new order merely makes this prac- ticc mandatory in all parts of the ser vice. Undoubtedly many employees have been removed for political reasons be- cause no reason was required to be gwen by those in auphorD.y. In requiring req sons henceforth to be given the new or der will, it is believed, largely check this abuse"