Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1897-09-16
CON'S DECISION NOT lNlMlCAL
TO IT.
SO SAYS THE COMMISSION
Binding Character of the Presidents
Order Not Affected by the Opinion
Policy OF Civil Service Reform
Strongly Commended by the Judge
An Appeal Probable,


service commission does not regard
The decision of Judge Cox as inimical
to the service is indicated by the fol-
lowing statement made by one of the
members of that body: The opinion
o. Judge Cox in no way affects the
binding character of the presidents
order on all officers of the service.
The president has authority, inherent
in his Office. to make removals. The
intent was that the appointing officer
in making removals should be put on
record as to grounds of his action and
give the accused an opportunity to be
heard in his own defense. 1t is deemed
that this action would prevent the re-
movals for other causes than the good
of the service. Such an order does
not in the least impair the power OF
discipline nor impede the proper ex-
ercises of the power of removal 1t
simply serves as a check upon the APP
pointing officer who acts from polit-
zeal or less worthy motives.
The Decision.
Yesterday Judge Cox of the District
of Columbia dismissed the bill OF
complaint of John G. Wood, superin-
tendent of mails at Louisville pray
ing that Postmaster General Gary anu
Assistant Postmaster General Heath
be enjoined from removing him from
office, The case has been considered
re tns n the mower Oh
removal and the delivery of the opinion
drew to the court room many puhllc
officials including members of the civil
service commission.
Judge CoX's decision was an elapor-
ate review of the law bearing on re-
movals of federal employees. lie heia
at the outset that 1t was not WITHIN the
power of a court of equity 10 grant
/ elief in matters of appointment ana
removal from office Then taking up
the merits of the case he stated that IL
was settled law that the power Oh re-
moyal was an incident to the power Oh
anpointment and that both could DE
exercised by the head of department
| in reference 10 Subol uli"'1
Concernig the civil service law
1udee Cox held that it must be con
strued to grant authority, either 10 Tue
civil service commission or to the pres
ident to make rules contrary 10 the
law ;tse,f or of a legislative character
He quoted with approval the dec's'oi,
~ Justice Brewer that congress couia
not delegate its power to 'egisF''e "
any administrative BODY
rho decision sums up as lol'"s'
rho simple inquiry is whether the
niles invoked by the compla''','''
whether the president or the eoiii'l''9
.ion or both be the authors ol the'''
are such as the civil service a'' '"-
thori2ed to be established III III!
,ndoment they are ultra wires ana
void. | have no DOUBT thal inc p''9
ident may lay down rules Tor inc III
ternal policy of his administration, anu
nav require mis- chief executive Oh
/ fcers, dependent upon his pleasure LOT
| their terms of Office, to conform 10
! Them or else to sever their othclal re
latiOns with him, and in teat sell7e
The rules relied upon the complainant
we've within his political and executive
! authority. But the enforcement OF
such rules is 4 matter between the
president and his cabinet, and not a
matter for the courts or one in winch
! the complainant has any legal interest
/ All that mean to state in this Opin-
! ion is that the rules in question were
lot such as the civil service act au-
! thnriZes ard do not derive any efficacy
from that act. 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 1t is perhaps
matter of great regret that the act
Of Jan. 1G, 1889 (thN civil service acDt
has not gone further than 1t does. But
it is my duty to construe It, as II IL.
To sum lp, / conclude that apart from
the civil service act, the postmaster
general had the authority to remove
the complainant from Office at his
Measure. that this law makes no
change In t0lb malIeT except 10 lOi Dll
removals for refusal to contribute 10
partisan objects; that the power given
to the commission and the president to
establish rules to carry that act into
effect does not authorize any rule
which shall axe change in the law
iE this respect; and consequently, that
even If this court had jurisdiction in
case like the present one the complain
ant il not entitled to the relief
prayed.
1t is probable that an appeal will be
taken from the decision and II is said
that ultimately the United States su-
preme court will be asked to pass on
the question involved.
------------- ------~