The times., 1897-09-05

him from his position as superintendent %
the mails, was up before Judge Cox in
the equity court for two minutes yaster.
day While the Postoffice people were
filing j petition for Il postponement, II
torncy Low, for Mr.. Woods, was protest
ing and Judge Cox was signing the con
tinuance. Judge Cox allowed the case
to 10 ever until next Saturday on the plea
from the defendant that they We're not
ready to proceed on such short notice.
Nc Low also filed an amend ed bill yester-
day, Stating Mr.. Woods grounds more
fully.
Mr.. Woods is thus still in the same posi-
tion in the Louisville postoffice, and will
at least keep it and presumably draw It's
salary Cor one week longer. So FAR Mr..
Woods has been victorious.
The Woods case is now considered by
all the department and bureau heads, and
especially by those with an inclination
toward rewerding the faithful, as most
important affair. IL has been unanimously
decided TO make it test case of all the
quest ons that may possibly be involved
in the two civil service rules res tricting
the removal OF employees. These lates I
additions TO the rules have never been the
subject or legal discus sion, and their
status and scope are to a certain extent
not only underlined, but even not generally
understood
Wher this case has been decided there.
fore, there will have been either victory
for the departments in the breaking down
or evasioii OF the new rules or d 5 waepin <
defeat Of the attempt. The people who
desire spoils are, TO certain extent, thus
it4e In, ht.Al
a reporter for The Times called Oh Mfr.
Heath yesterday with reference 10 the
CGse. He said:
THE P0stoffice Department and the De-
partmcnt OF Justice, too, regard The case as
a test case. a test Of the whole matter Gon-
tended for.
We all wish tile new rules of the civil
service law defined. The Postoffice De
partmcnt, especially, is Interested, having
so many letter-carrers and clerks whose
places wiIl be involved in the decision more
than any other branch of the Government
perhaps. II is most important case
II viii he cause celebre."
The Civil Service Commission has nothing
to say, no matter what individual
opinions the commissioners may have to-
ward desire to see their new rules upheld
The Times reporter could secure no state
ment of any Kind from any of the commis-
sioneTs yesterday.
Opinions as to the outcome of the suit
vary Friends of civil service reform
contend that the Woods case is very clearly
covered by the new rules. 1t is said that
the Postnffice Department oa the other
sand viii make the argument that Mr.
Woods was simply an empIoye of the
Louisville postoffice, and that his position
there aS superintendent Of mails was only
| a designation for that special duty. Which
might be changed al any time, and not
an appointment to d certain grade The
department has apparently witbdrawn
from its first desire TO discharge Woods
| outright and now only seeks to reduce
| and transfer him.
Mr- Woods suit was filed on Thursday
September ?, and is now on the docket,
JOHN q. Woods VS.. James A. Gary, Post
Il aSter General, and Perry Heath, First AS
sistant Postmaster General"
The amendments to the bill filed yes
terday after reciting the circumstances OF
Mr.. Woods appointment in 1893. at q
salary of S1,700, and the fact that he is
| thoroughly efficient and faithful continue
3. That in pursuance of and by aut hority
| OF a statute of the United States entitled
An act 10 regulate and improve the civil
service Of the United States" approved
| January l6, 1888, commonly known as
| the civil service act there were pro
| mulgated certain civil service rules" on
| or about the I'd day of November, 1896,
of which clause 3, OF rule II, is as follows.
NO person in the executive civil service
| shall dismiss or cause to be dismissed OF
| make any attempt to procure the dismissal
| OF, Or in any manner change the official
rank or compensation of any other person
therein, because of his politica or religious
| opinions or Affiliations
4. That on or about July p, 1897, the
| said civil service rules were further
amended, and said amendment duly pro
| mulgated by adding TO said rule l / the fol
| lowing section: -. No removal shall bt
| made from any position subject TO com
| petitiye examination except for just ca use
| and upon written charges filed with the
| head OF the department or other appointing
| officer and of which the accused sha Hhavt
| full notice and an opportunity to make
| Defense"
.. That the said office and position
| OF the complainant is within the classified
| service of the poStoffice service or tn,
| United States, and is subject to competi
| tive examination.
8. That on the 2sth day of August
1897, the complainant received a lette
dated August 27, 1897, purporting to com
from o. I. Holloway, superintendent O
the fifth division of the railway ma
service OF the Postoffice Department {
the United States, notifying him of hi
appointment To 8 position in said railwa,
mail service, and notifying of the appoint
ment of another person to the position nov
held by the complainant.
| 8. That complainant has received n
i Of or q
posing him or of removing him from hi
| said position of superintend ent OF mails, O
any notice OF any written or other charge
| against him, or any notice of any time O
| place when and where he would have OF
| portunity to make defense.
10. That the complainant is informe
and believes that there are IN existenc
or on file no charges of any kind agains
him and no just cause for his removal, bu
| that an attempt is being made to remov
him from his said position because of hi
| political opinions and affiliations; tha
| he is a Democrat and the said defenda mt
are seeking his removal for the sole Pun
pose Of inducing q Republican into his sal
| position, and SO charges.
| IL. That the position to which it
| proposed to remove him is one of inferiC
rank in the Railway Mail Service and tn
compensation is much smaller than tha
of the office which he now holds and froI
which it is purported to remove him.
II. That the complainant believes tha
the letter of August 27, 1897 abov
referred to, and the appointments an,
changes of office therein mentioned, wer
written and directed TO be done by th
defendants or at their ord ers, and that a
attempt by defendants to remove him iron
his present position and induct anothe
person into his said office would resul
in irremedial wrong and damage to th
complainant, and SO charges.
| yjce ConsuI ot Rordaaux