Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1897-09-15
NEW RULE IS INVALID.
Decision of a Civil Service Case
That Has Been Considered
aTest of the Law.
HEADsMEN NEEDN'T GIVE REASONS

When They Want to Swing Their Ax-Not
Provision of the Law as 1t Stands and
the President Cannot Add Thereto-So
Decides Judge Cox in a Case similar to
That at Chicago-Comments on the DE.
cision by the Commission.
Washington, Sept. 15.-Judge Cox, OF
the supreme court of the District of
Columbia. yesterday dismissed the bill
Of complaint of John C. Wood, superin-
tendent of mails at Louisville, praying
that Postmaster General Gary and As
sistant 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 re-
moval. ard the delivery of the opinion
drew to the court room many public Of
ficials. including members of the civil
Service commission. Judge CoX's de-
cision was an elaborate review of the
law bearing on removals of federal en-
ployes. He held at the outset that it
was not within the power of a court of
equity to grant relief in matters of ap-
pointment and removals from office.
Commission Cannot Legislate.
Then taking up the merits of the
| case he stated that it was settled law
that the power of removal was an in
cident 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 au-
| thority, either to the civil service COM
| mission 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
that congress could not delegate its
| power to legislate to any administra-
| tive body.
| New Rules Are Ultra Wires.
The decision sums up as follows: THE
| simple inquiry is whether the rules in
voked by the Observation-Disclosures the
| president or the commission or both be
the authors Of them-are such as the
| civil service act authorized to be es-
tablished. In my Judgment, they are
| ultra wires and void. l have no doubt
that the president may lay down rules
for the internal policy of his admins
tration, and may require his chief ex-
ecutive officers, dependent upon his
pleasure for their terms of office, to con.
form to them or else to sever their of
fetal relations with him. and in that
sense the rules relied upon by the com.
plainant were within his political ant
executive authority. But the enforce
ment of such rules is a matter between
the president and his cabinet, and no
a matter for the courts or one in which
the complainant has any legal interest
| Construes the Law as 1t Is.
''All that l mean to state in this opin
ion is that the rules in question wer,
not such as the civil service act au
thorizes. and do not derive any efficac.
from that act. 1 know of nothing NOR,
important to the interests of the coun
try than the policy which the civil ser
| vice legislation was intended to initial
. and promote. and it is perhaps q matte
of great regret that the act of Jan
16. 1888 (the civil service acb. has no
gone further than it does. But it i
my duty to construe 1t as it is.
Rules Cannot Change the Law.
ITO sum up, 1 concluded that apar
from the civil service act the postmaste
general had the authority to remov
the complainant from office at hi
, pleasure; that this law makes no chang
, in this respect except to forbid re
| movalS for refusalS to contribute I
partisan objects; that the power give
l.. to the commission and the president I
establish rules to carry that act int
: effect does not authorize any rul
which shall make a change in the la,
, in this respect: and consequently tina
= even if this court had jurisdiction in
e case like the present one, the complain
> ant is not entitled to the relief prayed.