New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-09-15

SERVICE COMMISSIONER
u,s,.ngton Sept. H-Judge Cox. o. the supreme
d, the District O: Columbia, to-day dismissed
Gu al, NJ COMPLAINT OF John 6. Woods. superir-
'".,ent OF mails a, Louisville praying that FoS'-
teN- General Gary and Assistant Postmaster
nSs, 10Th be erioned from removing him from
Cen rbs case IN, been considered a test OF the
o"' =, rep,oy2l and the delivery OF the opinion
pow" =, The courtroom many officials including
..hors Of the Civil Service Commission
1,see Coxs decision was an elaborate reV'e" o.
Ieu hearing on removals OF Federal employees.
the - :. .ba ou-se, that 1t was not within the
NJ - cour; Of equi,y 10 grant relief in matters
po"s ,oent and removal from office. Then taxi
" -, the merits OF the case. he SAID that II was
,,,ed law that the power OF removal was lh1i'ehI
. ,be mower OF appointment, and that po'h cou'u
~ .rc,ssd by the head o. department IN reter-
" 80 .ubordnate' officials. Concerning the Civil
. iou Judge Cox held that II must not De
s.s.rrsd 10 grant authority either to the Civil
S,yce Commission or TO the President 70 MAKE
is contrary to the Law Itself or OF Ies1s'dItNe
s"-,o,e- He quoted with approval tho decision
'" T-s,,oe Brewer that Congress could not delegate
,,s ,over 10 legislate 10 any Administrative oou9'
tIo summed up the case as follows;
~. simple inquiry is whether The rules INVOKED
~ me Complainant whether the PRESIDENT or me
TS;ommissou OF both be the authors o. mem, are
.h az the Civil Service act authorized 10 De
Established In my Judgment they are Gt Ira, WI -
and void have TO doubt that tne Ftesiaeit III
fy down rules .or the internal policy OF MS AGmlI
tsi-ation and may require ms cnlet 80,
Scers dependent upon ms p.easuIS Iot ne ~
Of Once TO conform 20 them or else 10 seer 'i ,h
rules relied by the cOmpainahI w ~, nforre
,oi,ical and executive authority But the eI o
nent Of such rules u mS'tSo . stter FOR the
Gem ,, a or one in which the complainant has any
egai hs' tbst the rules in question not such
az The Civil Service act authorizes anu "' "''
knoS Of nothing more important 20 the inifrssrs
IT, I'D
mote and Il is perhaps m ,9dd 0' e seryce
Tat the act Of January TO- iS IN" Goes II is my
sso has Ia .G not s9nf +, iar' II Is '1" '
duty 10 ,.3 conclude that apart from the Civil
seryice act the Pos nlaster-Ceneral mas tae "u
.Soritv 70 remove the complainant from o'iSe NJ
his pisaseTTSc A 10 forbid removals for refusal 20
contribue % partisan objects that the power glHeh
"a The Commission and the President 10 esaon a
10 ~ N csrry that act into effect does not au-
.sorize any rule which shall make chanRe ,'if
Law in THIS respect. and consequently mat even II
sIs Court had Jurisdiction in case IKE the pres
eni one the complainant Is not entitled 10 'he IT,
lief prayed .,.. e-o..
Is probable that an appeal will be taken from
,ss decision and It is said that ultimately the
United States Supreme Court Will be asked 10 pass
on the question involved
That the Civil Service Commission does net re-
gard the decision of Judge Cox as nimical TO the
service is indicated by the following statement
made bv ore of the members OF that body:
The opinion of Judge Cox in no way affects me
binding character OF the Presidents order upon an
officers Of the service. l ne II"S4utI4
Inherent In his office to make removals. i ne IN
tent tina; the appointing officer IN HaA,t asif
movals Should be put record as 10 the SrounIs
OF his action and give the accused an opportunity
10 be heard m his own defence. Il was deemed
mat this action would prevent removals from olaer
causes than the good Of the service. Such an oH-I
does not in the least impair the power OF discipline
nor impede The proper exercise or the power Oh re-
rnovaL IL simply serves as a check upon the ap-
pointing officer who acts from pohtlca! or less
worthy motives. The appointing officer VINO acIS
with sole regard 10 the best interests OF 5he 81
vice will deem Il but just TO the pubic ana 10 me
emnloye affected that a record be made. II was
the lack OF lust such records as these mat mas
given opportunity TO the critics Of the civil service
law s.rce its enactment TO charge that removals
from the public service have been made NANNY roy
political reasons. The fact is that the majority o.
removals have been made for perfectly proper iea-
sons but because these reasons were not put u1on
record different Administra lions nave exposed
themselves to much unjust criticism
The pracuce of making a record OF the reasons
for removals has existed for many years IN some
parts OF the service. with highly beneficial! results
and the new order merely makes this practice man
datorv in all parts OF the service. CndoUoiediy
many employees have been removed for political
rea sons because no reason Was required 10 De
given by those in authority In requiring reasons
henceforth 10 be given the new order VIII II Is
believed largely check this abuse.