Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-10-09
RULING ON OFFICE TENURE
Civil Service Reform League at Issue With
Deputy Commissioner Wilson.
Point Raised by the Collector of In
ternal Revenue I'm Virginia.
The Deputy Collectors.


tention Of the deputy commissioner Of in
ternal revenue that the terms Of internal
revenue deputies expire with those of the
collectors who appointed them, and that
accordingly the standing of such employees
is not affected by the civil service rules.
This point was first raised by Collector
Brady at Richmond, Va. Mr.. Brady on
Assuming office September 1 notified a
large proportion of the subordinate en-
ployes that their services would be no
longer required. He claimed subsequently
that he had not removed these persons.
but that he had merely declined to re
appoint them. The displaced deputies con-
tested this construction, and claimed the
protection guaranteed by the executive
order of July last, requiring that reasons
for removal shall be stated in writing and
opportunity afforded to the person re-
moved to make a defense The point made
by Mr.. Brady is upheld by Deputy Commits
sioner Wilson. but not as yet by the Secre-
tary of the Treasury.
1t is understood that the department is
still considering the novel question raised,
but that some decision may shortly be ex-
pected.
Gus other positions in the civil service
more or less analogous in character. which
will be affected by the ruling in this case,
the matter is viewed as of the highest i'm
League.
Secretary McAneny's Views.
Secretary McAneny of the league, In a
letter to The Star, argues at length that
the ultimate source of appointment in re-
spect to the deputies is under the Consti-
tuition in the Secretary of the Treasury and
not the collector: that the authority for
the classification of these deputies under
the civil service rules Is undisDuted; that
the deputies have been thus classified by
executive order, and that President Nc
kinley's rules concerning removals in the
classified service apply to these officers and
were intended thus to apply.
las l understand it, Mr.. McAneny con-
tinues, the application of these rules to
actual removals is not disputed. the COR
tention being confined to the claim that
there Is distinction between removal
and the expiration of a deputys term,
and that his term expires when the i'm
mediate superior-the collector-resigns or
Is removed. There seems to be a total alb
sence of authority. however, for the claim
that there is distinction between the two
methods of separating the employe from
the service.
The statutes clearly show and public
policy certainly requires that a deputy
shall hold Office until his commission is re-
voked in the prescribed manner Under no
provision of law does the term of a depu-
ty cease with that of collector. No such
construction has hitherto been put upon
the statutes. and If it were now to be ad-
vanced and upheld by the courts the gem
eral effect would be serious At each of
the classified Iost offices. for instance,
there are large number of employees act
ing In hduciary capacity who give bonds
to the postmaster. These bonds are per
sonal in character, and expire with the
term of the postmaster to whom they are
given.
Upon the advent of new postmaster
these employees may be required to give
new bonds, but their status in the CLASSIFIED
service has never been questioned nor has
1t ever been contended that they go out
with the postmaster under whom they have
been appointed. There are numerous other
instances of the sort throughout the SER
vice. The original authority for appoint
ment In the case of any of these subordin-
ates Is derived, however, from the head OF
the department, and it is so derived in the
case OF the internal revenue deputies.
The Collectors Authority
Section 314S authorizes the collector to
appoint as many deputies as he may think
proper, but this power is not in fact exer-
cised by the collector. The number of depu-
ties to be employed is fixed by the Treas
ury Department, with which rests the au-
thority to prescribe the amount of COM
pensation. The actual right to appoint is
derived only from the Secretary no matter
what the language of the statute may be.
mat right cannot be vested by Congress in
any subordinate officer in such a manner
that the status Of the person appointed will
depend on the tenure of that subordinate
officer. 1t would seem that the collector, in
appointing. acts as the agent of the Secre-
tary merely, and he is further bound, both
in selecting his subordinates and in con-
trolling their tenure, by the provisions of
the civil service rules
ut will be highly gratifying to those who
have applauded the recent admirable order
of the President If such a view is upheld
by the department and II the civil service
system is not permitted to be impaired
pending a possible settlement OF the ques-
ton at issue by the courts"