The Cape Girardeau Democrat. (Cape Girardeau, Mo.) 1876-1909, 1897-09-18
D 0 X DECISION,
The Case of John G. Wood Ad.
versely Passed Upon.
The Court Holds the Power of Removal
to be an Incident to the Power of
Appointment A Lack of
Jurisdiction.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 1~5.-Judge Cox,
of the supreme court of the District OF
Columbia, dismissed the bill of com
plant of John G. Wood, superintendent
of mails at Louisville, KY, praying
that Postmaster-General Gary and As
sistant r-General Heath be
enjoined from removing him from of
fee. The cast has been considered in
the nature of a test of the power of re-
moval, and the delivery of the opinion
drew to the courtroom many public of
fcials, including members of the civil
service commission.
Judge CoX'S decision was an elabo-
rate review of the law bearing on re-
movals of federal employees. He held
that it was not within the power of a
court of equity to grant relief in mat
ters 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
incident tc the power of appointment,
and that both could be exercised
by the head of a department IN refer
ence to subordinate officials. Concern
ing the ciyil-service 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 rules contrary to the law itself,
or of a legislative character. He quoted
with approval the decision of Justice
Brewer, hat congress could not dele
gate its power to legislate to any admin
lstrative body.
The decision sums up as follows:
The simple inquiry is whether the rules in
voked by the complainant, whether the preSi-
dent or the commission, or both, be the authors
of them, are such as by the civil service law are
authorized to be established. In my Judgment,
they are ultra vIres and void. L have no doubt
that the president may lay down rules for
the internal policy of his ad-
miniStratiOn, and may require his
chief executive officers, dependent upon
his pleasure for their terms OF ohce. to con-
form to them or else to 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 a matter between
the president and his cabinet, and not a matter
Tor the courts, or one in which the complain
ant has any legal interest. The rules in
luCNblOh 'dlC " SuCh hS lLlt CINll-StENI dCL
authorizes and do not derive any efficacy from
that act.
know Of nothing more important to the in
tereSts Of the country than the policy which the
civil service legislation was intended to initi-
ate and promote, and it is perhaps q mat
ter OF great regret that the act of January
10. 1888 (the civil service act), has not
gone further than it does. But it is my duty to
conStrue it as it is To sum up. 1 conclude
that. apart from the civil-service act. thu post
master general had the authority to remove the
complainant from office at pleasure; that this
act makes no change in this respect, except to
forbid removals for refusal to contribute to
partisan objects; that the power given to the
commission and the power to establish rules to
carry that act into effect does not authorize
any rule which shall make a change in the law
in this respect; and. consequently. that even il
this court had jurisdiction in a case like the
present one, the complainant is not entI tied to
the relief prayed.
1t is probable that the United States
supreme court will be asked to pass on
the question involved.