The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1897-09-15
AN IMPORTANT DECISION
Delivered by Judge Cox on the Power OF
Removal from Once in Connection
Win CivlI Service Law.

Delivered by Judge Cox on the Power OF
RsmSvaI from Once Ia Connection
Win civil Service Law.
WASHINGTON, d. c., Sept, A.
Judge Cox. of the supreme court of the
District OF Columbia, to-day dismissed
the bill OF complaint Of John G, Wood,
superintendent OF mails at louisville,
praying that Postmaster General Gary
and Assistant Postmaster General
Heath be enJolned from removing him
from Office. The case has been consider
ed in the nature OF a test OF a power OF
removal, and the delivery OF the opinion
drew to the court room many public Of
fclats, Including members OF the civil
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 II was not within the power
Of court OF equity 10 grant relief In
matters OF appointment and removal
from office. Then taking up the merits
of the case he stated that II was settled
law that the power OF removal was an
incident to the power OF appointment,
and that both could be exercised by the
head OF department In reference TO
subordinate officials.
Concerning the civil,service law, Judge
Cox held that 1t 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 legislative character. He quoted
with approval the decision OF Justice
Brewer that congress could not delegate
Its power to leglslate to any administra-
tive body,
The decision sums up as follows: The
simple inquiry Is whether the rules In
voked by the complainant whether the
President or the commissioner or both,
be the authors OF them are such as the
civil service act authorized to be estab-
iished, In my judgment they are ultra
wires and void. / have no doubt that the
President may lay down rules for the
internal policy Of his administration,
and may require his chief executive
offices, dependent upon his pleasure for
their terms of Office, TO conform to them
or else to sever their official relations
with him, and In that sense, the rules
relied on by the complainant were with
In his political and executive author
ity. But the enforcement OF such rules
is a matter between the President and
his cabinet and not q matter for the
courts or one In which the complainant
has any legal interest. All that mean
to state In this opinion Is that the rules
In question were not such as the civil
service act authorizes and do not de-
rive any efficacy from that act.
know Of nothing more important to
the interests OF the country than the
policy which the civil service legislation
was intended to initiate and promote,
and II Is perhaps a matter of great re-
gret that the act OF January 10, 1888
(the civil service ncD has not gone fur
ther than It does. But II is my duty 10
construe II as It Is.
To sum up, conclude that apart from
the civil service act the postmaster gem
eral had the authority 10 remove the
complainant from office at his pleasure:
that this oil makes no change IN this
respect, except to forbid removals for
refusal to contribute to partisan OBJ
jects; that the power given to the
commission and the President to estab-
lIsh rules to carry that act into effect
does not authorize any rule which shall
make n change In the law in this re-
spect; and consequently that, even if
this court had Jurisdiction In a case like
the present one, the complainant is not
entitled to the relief prayed"
II Is probable that an appeal will be
taken from the decision and II is said
that ultimately the United States su-
preme court will he asked to pass on
the question involved.