Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1897-11-20
<s+s
SENATOR FAULKNER
Interviewed on the Unfavorable Decision
of Judge jackson in Collector Whites


SreciaI to the Register.
Martinsburg, w. Va. November 10
The Register correspondent had an IN
terview to-day with Senator Faulkner
respecting unfavorable comment going
the rounds of the press of Internal Rev
enue Commissioner Foreman on the
late decision Of Judge Jackson IN the
cases of the government gaugers and
storekeepers at the Hannis dlstillery
here against Collector A. b. White.
Senator Faulkner was counsel for inc
plaintiffs, who were successful. Inc
interview follows:
Senator, have you seen the comments
of Commissioner Foreman on the de-
cision rendered by Judge jackson on
the civil service law?N
Oh, yes, l have read that criticism of
the Commissioner. and it shows a
lamentable ignorance on his part both
of the decision and the law which gov
ems his actions as Commissioner OF IN
ternal Revenue.
In what respects does the decision
and the law differ from the views OF the
Commissioner?
His interview seems to imply that by
the decision of Judge Jackson the Com
missioner of Internal Revenue has been
denied the right to transfer or assign
| storekeepers and gaugers from one as
| tillery to another in the same district,
| or from one distillery in II district to
| distillery in another district; and ne
| claims that this free and un trammelied
right of assignment sis essential to the
proper transaction Of the business or
! the Internal Revenue Bureau, to
! maintain discipline and honest method,
and to the full collection OF the reve-
nue." Judge Jackson's decision fully
agrees with him as to the\ necessity or
this power, and to its existence under
the law. holding, even, that its exer-
| else is net controlled or affected by the
civil service law or the rules and regu-
lations made in pursuance of its pro-
visions.
Judge Jackson, however does differ
with that distinguished official il his
assertion CT his prerogative," as he
designates' it, to dismiss from office
either storekeeper or gauger The de-
cision draws a clear distinction between
the powers conferred by law upon the
Commissioner CT Internal Revenue to
| transfer a storekeeper or gauger from
one distillery to another, or in the Ian
/ guage of the statute to be transferred
from one place Of duty to another and
removal from duty. for there is no au-
thOrity found in any of the provisions
Of the law bearing upon the ''preroga-
tives' of the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue. which authorizes him to dis
charge from duty a storekeeper or
gauger. This distinction made in the
10, ~
upOn, is [ conceive, the following rea-
son:
The appointment of storekd2pers
and gaugers is made by the Secretary
of the Treasury; the assignment to
duty at a particular distillery is by law
made by the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue AS a revocation or as
siqnmpnt to particular distillery
without a transfer from one place of
duty to another" is, in fact ana IN
law, under the statutes Of the United
States, az removal Of the officer, 1t can
only be done, under the decision OF
Judge Jackson, by the Secretary OF the
Treasury who made the, appointment
and hn ie 1;~~i+od in his power of re-
m0Val by reason of the civil service
act, and the rules issued in pursuance
thereof by the President of the
United States, all of which have been
promulgated by the Secretary himself
in his instructions to subordinates in
his department. 1t appears ridiculous
to legal mind for the Commissioner
to assert that you can deprive a pub-
lie officer of the honorS of an office.
of its emoluments, and create a va
cancy which can be filled by new ap-
pointment, and that such an act is not
in fact and in law a removal of the
officer. The judge simply held, in ac-
cordance with common sense and
legal principles, that the effect of such
an order, by whatever name it was
designated was in fact a removal and
that the power Of removal did not rest
with the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue His power Of transfer Of
these officers from one place Of duty
to another was not in any way cues
toned but fully upheld. In one of the
| cases he held, further, that the Com
missioner could not reduce the rank
or change the compensation of any Of
| these employees, when the motive and
purpose Of such reduction or change of
rank was based on political lr re-
ligiOus considerations alone. This is
the law, clearly and definitely laid
| down; and it was not for the court,
after reaching the conclusion it was
ccnsutut- t2 criticise the co-ordin-
ate departments of the government for
the exercise of its constitutional grant
Of power. 1t was for the court to de-
care what was the law, and not by
It's decision to make the law.
Under your view, then, Senator. you
seem to be Of the opinion that 7he de-
cision Of Judge Jackson will not inter
feTe with the proper administration of
| the Internal Revenue Service?
That is my opinion. If there are in
| competent men in that service, the law
! gives a full remedy to the departments
( through which they may be promptly
| removed. If the interests of the gov
eminent requires a change of these men
! from one point of duty to another. to
| avoid collision between them and a dis
! tiIer, the authority to carry out such a
| policy is not denied, but sustained by
| the decision. When Invested Of all its
| subterfuses and attempts Of evasion,
/ you may see that the only question de-
| cided by the Court was that under tho
| laws Of Congress and the rules pr0muI-
| gated by the President, approved and
| confirmed hy the heads OF departments.
| that pGpIc officials placed il tie cl1s-
| sifed service cannot be deprived CT
4