The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1897-09-15
Judg e Cox ofthe District Supreme
Court COnstrueS the Civil
Service Law.
Refusal to Contribute For Cam.
paign Expenses Is About the
!. OILY Cause
For Which Government Employees
May Not Be Dropped---Law
Is Deficient.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15.-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, praying that
Postmaster General Gary and Assistant
Postmaster General Heath be enjoined
from removing him from office. The
case has been considered in the nature
of a test of the power Of removal, and
the delivery OF the opinion drew to the
court room many public officials, includ.
ing members CT the civil service com.
mission. -s:.ssI%=.
Judge Cox's decision was al elaborate
review Of the law bearing on removals
of federal employees. He held at the
outset that it was not within the power
of a our Of equity to grant relief in
matters 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 to the power OF appointment,
and that both could be exercised by the
head of a department in reference to
subordinate officials. Concerning the
civil service law, Judge Cox held that it
must not be construed to grant author.
ity either to the civil service commits
sion or to the president to make rules
contrary to the law itself, or Of a legis.
lative character. He quoted with ap-
prevail a decision Of Justice Brewer that
congress could not delegate its power to
legislate to Il administrative body.
The decision sums up as follows:
Legality of Rules.
"The simple inquiry is whether the
rules invoked by the complainant,
whether the president Or the commits
sion or both be the authors of them, are
such as the civil service act authorized
to be established. In my judgment
they are ultra wires, aud void. I have
have no doubt that the president may
lay down rules for the internal policy
of his administration, and may require
his chief executive officers; dependent
upon his pleasure for their terms Of Of.
fee, to conform to them or else to sever
their official relations with him, and in
that sense, the rules relied upon by the
complainant were within his political
and executive authority. But the en-.
forcement of such rules is a mat.
ter between the president and his
cabinet, and not a matter for
the courts OF n in which the
complainant has any legal interest.
All that l mean to state in this opinion
such as the civil service act authorizes,
and do not derive any efficacy from
that act.
Wishes 1t Were Different.
II know OF nothing more important
to the interests Of the country than the
policy which the civil service was in.
tended to initiate and promote, and it is
perhaps a matter Of great regret that
the act Of Jan. Is, 1888, (the civil serv-
ice act) has not gone further than it
does. But it is my duty to construe it
a. it is. To sum up, l conclude that
apart from the civil service act, the
postmaster general had the authority to
remove the complainant from Office at
his pleasure; that all this makes no
change in this respect, except to forbid
removal for refusal to contribute to
partisan objects; that the powe r given
to the commission and the president to
establish rules to carry that act into ef-
feet does not authorize any rule which
shall make a change IN the law in this
respect; and consequently, even if this
court had jurisdiction in a case like the
present one, the complainant is not en-
titled to the relief prayed
1t is probable that an appeal will be
taken from the decision. and, it is said,
that ultimately the United States su.
preme court will be asked to pass upon
the question involved.