Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-11-08
Judge Jackson's Decision Regarding
Removals in Public Service.
PRESIDENTS Late ORDER UPHELD
"Good Of the Service insufficient
Cause for Removal.
VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFFS
Special Dispatch to The Evening Star.

| Special Dispatch to The Evening Star.
MARTINSBURG, W. Va, November s.
| Judge Jackson of the United States dis
| trict court for this district today issued a
perpetual injunction against A. B. White,
collector of internal revenue, restraining
him from removing certain employees con-
nected with his office. In his decision
Judge Jackson says that the employees are
| protected by the civil service law and that
''for the good of the service' is not a suffi-
GENTLY specific charge under which to
make removals.
In considering the denaurrers set up by
Collector Whites attorneys Judge Jack
sons decision covers the following points:
First. That the act known as the civil
service act is constitutional
Second. That Congress has not delegated
to the President and the civil service com
| mission legislative powers
Third. That by rule 3, section 1 the in
ternal revenue service has been placed I'M
der the civil service act and rules made in
pursuance of it,
lions are officers of the government in the
internal revenue service.
Fifth. That they cannot be removed from
their positions except for cause other than
political, in which event their removal
must be made under the terms and pro-
visions of the civil service act and the
rules promulgated under it, which, under
| the act CT Congress, became part of the
law.
Sixth That the attempt to change the
position and rank of the officers in these
cases is in violation of law.
Seventh. That court of equity has i'll
riSdiction to restrain the appointing power
from removing the officers from their posi-
lions If such removals are in violation of
the civil service act.
Origin of the Suit.
1t has been customary for years for the
internal revenue bureau to rotate and
change about its employees, numbering some
900 in the entire service whose services
are sometimes all needed when the distiI-
leries are all in operation, and at other
times 80 per cent of them are idle 1t is
claimed that these officers are changed
about to prevent collision and fraud and
for other good reasons, and to give work
to as mary as possible.
When the changes in West Virginia were
agreed upon for October, late in September
a day storekeeper at the Hannis distillery
or this place was transferred to the posi-
ton of additional storekeeper; the store
keeper who, for three months, had been on
DUTY as additional Storekeeper was laid Off
and a reinstated storekeeper assigned az
day storekeeper. The withdrawal gauger
vas also laid off and refrstated gauger as
signed to duty. By an injunction in one
case, issued September 90, and in the other
two cases, October l, the collector and all
others were enjoined from interfering
with the three officers who had been on
duty.
The cases were argued before Judge
jackson on October Is, and the parties
seeking to have the injunctions made per-
nanent took the ground that a transfer of
assignment could not be made under the
civil service rules because II was equiva-
lent to a removal, and that the Presidents
order Of July 81, 1897, prevents removals
except for cause. They also alleged that
these changes were made for political pur-
poses. y=-H--G.-
For the Good of the Service.
The internal revenue department claimed
that the changes were for the good of the
service and not for political reasons, and
that owing to distilleries starting up and
closing down, and the varying needs of the
service, assignments and revocations of as
signments were frequent and necessary.
In the argument of the cases, Senator
Faulkner Of West Virginia appeared for
the Plaintiffs, ex-Commissioner John w.
Mason for the commissioner of internal
revenue, and District Attorney Joseph II.
Gaines for the collector.
On the question OF the bureau to make
transfers of its employees the court says:
But It is insisted that this is not a re-
rioval, but a transfer, and that, under the
provisions of section 31Ji, passed August
10, 1876, the commissioner may transfer
any gauger or storekeeper That section
provides that the commissioner may also
transfer any inspector, gauger, storekeep-
er or storekeeper and geuger. from one
distiiiery or place of duty, or from one col
lection district, to another This section is
mandatory and binding upon every officer
OF the United States who comes within its
terms, but IL does not authorize the ap-
pointing power to make the changes pro-
posed by the defendant collector.
Powers of the Commissioners.
1T is obvious from the reading of that
section that it only authorizes the COM
missioner to transfer the officers mentioned
in 1t from one place CT duty to another
place of duty in the same district, or from
one collection district to another. 1t does
not in express terms say that you may
transfer the officers mentioned in it from
one position to another in the same d:stil-
lery. 1t VS. evidently the intention Of
congress in the enactment of this clause
OF that section to permit transfers. as I
nave Indicated, but there is no provision
for the reducing of man in the grade or
position that he has held
he effort to remove these officers seems
to be In violation of the executive order of
july -, 1897, amendatory to civil service
rule which provides that 10 removal
snail be made from any position subject to
competitive examination, except for just
cause, Upon written charges filed with the
Eead OF the department other appoint
ing of1cer, OF which the accused shall have
Iuii notice and an opportunity to make de-
Tense.
For the Good of the Service.
Now, it seems to me no grounds have
been shown for the removal of these in
cumbents except for the good of the pub
lie service. This is a reason that was
employed by the officers of the govern
ment when they desired to remove any one
that was obnoxious to them long prior to
the passage of the civil9service act. 1t is
too general, vague and indefinite to au-
thorize the removal of an officer under ex-
isting law. By the very terms and pro-
visions of the rule just referred to. he has
to be confronted with the charges that
are made against him and to have full no.
tice and an opportunity to make defense.
To my mind it is clear that storekeepers
and gaugers are employees of the govern
ment that are protected by the rules and
regulations promulgated under the civil
service act by the executive1and the COM
mission; that a revocation of the assign
ments or transfer of the plaintiffs in these
actions is in effect removal, and that a
removal for political reasons falls within
the inhibition of the civil service act, and
the rules promulgated unGertit; that there
can be no appointment to any position un-
there . q Tn,,d hot he