The San Francisco call., 1898-03-11
COnSternatiOn in the Inter- nal Revenue Collect
 Or's Office.
Far Reaching Decision by Two Judges of United States
 Courts.
Civil Service Rules Are Not the Law of the Land, but Mere Execu-
 tive Orders.


 are much exercised over a circular re- ceived yesterday from the Commission CT of Internal Revenue at Washington calling attention to a decision just made by Judge Lurton of the United States Circuit Court for the middle dis trict of Tennessee. The decision upsets all the notions at present held with ref erence to the tenure of office under civil service regulations. The decision says that the civil service act pre- scribes no tenure of office, and does not deny the power of removal except in the particular mentioned. Under the rule promulgated by President Cleve- land November 2, 1896, it was provided that no person should be dismissed nor have his official rank changed because of his political or religious affiliations.
 This rule was amended on July 27, 1897, by President Mckinley, who added paragraph in these words:
 No removal shall be made from any position subject to competitive exam ination except for just cause and upon written charges filed with the head of the department or other appointing of- ficer, and of which the accused shall have full notice and an opportunity to make defense
 The court assents to the statement | that the civil service rules, so far as | they deny the unrestrained power of removal, are not the law of the land, | but are merely executive orders, de- pendent for their force upon the vigil | lance and earnestness of the chief ex- i ecutive in compelling his appointees to | regard and obey regulations VOlun- | tarily imposed by him as voluntary regulation by the appointing power of its otherwise restrained liberty of re- | moval. These civil service rules, so far l as they deal with the executive right of | removal-a right which is but an incl 1 dent of the power of appointment-are | but expressions of the will of the Presi- | dent, and are regulations imposed by | him upon his own action or that of i heads of departments appointed by | him. He can enforce them by requir- | ing obedience to them on penalty of re- | moval; but they do not give to the em- | ployes within the classified civil serv- 1 ice any such tenure of office as to con- l fer upon them a property right in the office or place.
 Judge Kirkpatrick of the United States Circuit Court of New Jersey has decided that the power of removal of | Deputy Collectors of Internal Revenue rests with the appointing power, the | Collector, subject to such requirements | as to notice as the Commissioner of In- l ternal Revenue may prescribe, and can i not be reviewed by an appeal to the l courts.
 The law expressly says that Collec- l tors of Internal Revenue have power | to appoint their deputies and to re- yoke said appointments, giving only | such notice of changes as the Commits sioner of Internal Revenue may require. | It holds such Collectors responsible for every act done or neglected to be done by their deputies it gives a deputy in l his particular district all the powers vested in the Collector himself; and it further provides that in case of disa- bility, absence or death of the Collec
 tor the deputy senior in service shall l act as Collector, and of two or more deputies appointed on the same day the one residing nearest the Collector at the time the vacancy occurred shall discharge the duties of the Collector; and it further provides that the Secre- tary of the Treasury may designate any one deputy to act in the absence Of | such Collector, and that for the acts | and default of the deputy acting as l Collector remedy shall be had on the l official bond of the Collector as in other cases.
 The law regarding the appointment | of deputies in the customs service Is very different It authorizes the Collec- | tor of Customs, with the approval Of | the Secretary of the Treasury, to en- ploy persons as deputies, and provides that he shall appoint, also with the ap-
 proval of the Secretary Of the ireas- | ury one deputy (knOwn as special dep- ,,tyl for whose acts he shall be reSpOn- sible.
 The Secretary of the Treasury says
 in the customs regulations that the
 powers and duties vested by law in Collector are also py law as iuItS rGaa ,,staa ed in his special deputy, duly appointed
 and discharging the functions of his | prineipal and in the event or death, disability or absence of Collector the
 snecial deputy is authorized ana re-
 ouired to perform the duties or Col,
 lector: and should there be no special
 dan,,tv the duties of Collector deVolve
 11,on the Naval Officer or upon the
 Snrvevor. if there be no Naval Ofhcer;
 and if no Surveyor, then upon the sur
 yeyor at the nearest port
 The customs regulations further say
 the+ every Collector, Naval Officer and
 Surveyor Is required by law immedi-
 ate,v after his entry into office to con
 stitI1te and appoint, to be approved py
 the Secretary of the Treasury, speciai
 denuty. to act in the name ana iuli au- | tboritv of his principal during hls ao-
 no,,a or disability. The law does not
 toIa Inc Collector or the other chief of | 6cer of customs reSDonSlDle TOT the | acts of his deputies other than the one
 snecially designated, whereas IL does
 hold Collectors of lnternai ; RevenuT 5s,,s+ios
 snonsible for acts of all thelr deputles.
 The law authorizes collectors of cus-
 
 toms to employ deputies with the ap-
 nrovaI of the Secretary of the Treasury. whereas it permits collectors of internal
 ravenue to appoint and remove deputies ,i+ho,,t the approval of any one. On May 31, 1888, the Treasury De- partment promulgated synopsis of a decision by the United States Supreme | Corrt which court decided that collect are of customs are not responsible for , tbe misfeasances, positive wrongs, neg ligences or omissions of duty of subor-
 dinates properly employed in the dis
 charge of official duties.
 Private information has been received
 froro washington that the law regard
 inc internal revenue deputies has been ) read to the President and he has been l convinced that such deputies should be taken out of the civil service rules, and , that he has almost been persuaded that all deputies under all officials come un- der similar provisions or law, ana that } chief officers are responsible for the
 antc of their deputies, notwithstanding