The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1897-09-16

body. The decisions sums up as follows;
The simple inquiry is whether the
rules invoked by the complainant,
whether the president or the commits
sion. or both be the authors OF the au-
thors of them, are such as the civil ser
vice act authority to be established IN
nv Judgment they are ultra wires and
void | have no doubt that the presi-
dent may lay down rules for the internal
policy of his administration and may re-
uuire his chief executive officers de-
pendent 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 within his
political and executive authority. But
the enforcement of such rules is mat
ter between the president and his cabi-
net and not a matter for the courts or
one in which the complainant has any
legal interest. All that | mean to state
i'm this opinion Is that the rules In ques-
ton were not such as the civil service
act authorizes and do not derive any
efficacy from that act.
81 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 it Is, perhaps, matter OF great
regret that the act of January III. 1898,
Cthe civil service acD has not gone
further than it does. But it is my duty
to construe 1t as it is.
'To sum up, | conclude that apart
from the civil service act the postmaster
general had the authority to remove the
complainant from office at his pleasure;
that this all makes no change In this
respect except to forbid removals for
refusal to contribute to partisan objects;
that the power given to the commission
and the president to establish rules to
carry that act into effect does not au-
thoriZe any rule which shall make q
change in the law in this respect; ana l
consequently maintain that even II TINS
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 VIII he
taken from the decision. and 1t Is SAID
that ultimately the United States SUI
preme court will be asked to pass on
the question involved.
That the civil service commission does
not regard the decision of Judge Cox as
following statement by one of the mem
bers of that body:
''The opinion of Judge Cox in no way
affects the binding character of the pres
idcnt's order upon all officers of the SER
vice. The president has authority inner
ent in his office to make removals. The
intent was that the appointing of an
officer in making removals should be put
on record as to the grounds of his action
and give the accused an opportunity to
be heard in his own defense. 1t was
deemed that this action would prevent re-
movals for other causes than the good
of the service. Such an order does not
in the least impair the power of disci--
pine nor impede the proper exercise of
the power of removal. 1t simply serves
ms a check upon the appointing officer
from political or less worthy motives. The
appointing officer who acts with sole
regard to the best interests of the ser
vice will deem it but just to the public
and to the employe affected that a record
be made. 1t was the lack of just such
records as these that has given oppor-
tunity to the critics of the civil service
law since it's enactment to charge that
removals from the public service have
been made mainly for political reasons.
The fact is that the majority of removals
have been made for perfectly proper rea-
sons. but because these reasons were not
have exposed themseve to much unjust
criticism.
"The practice of making a record of
the reasons for removals has existed for
many years in some parts of the service.
Undoubtedly many employees have been
removed for political reasons, because no
reason was required to be given by those
in authority. In recurring reasons hence
forth to he given. the new order will. it
is believed, largely check this abuse"