The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1898-08-20
Objects TO. A DISCHARGE
Bailey's Trouble With the
Civil Service Commission.
MAKES A STOUT DEFENSE
The Old Controversy Growing Out
of Testimony Before the Senate
Investigating Committee - Some
Sharp Correspondence Made Pub
at Once.

The Civil Service Commission and for
mony before the Senate investigating COM
mittee last Winter relative to the work.
ings of the civil service law caused some
what of a sensation at the time. are
again engaged in controversy.
The struggle has now reached an acute
bers of the commission in communicating
with Mr.. Bailey requesting him to show
cause why, for stated reasons he should
not be removed from his present position.
The commission refers to an interview
published last July. in which Bailey
charged that his reduction from class
four TO a clerk of class three was the re-
suit of his testimony before the Senate
committee last Winter, and that it was
not because, as the commission alleged
that he had a low rating for efficiency.
The commission states that this is the
chief cause why he should be removed
The letter of the commission was writ
ten last Monday and gave Bailey until 2
O'Clock yesterday to reply and at the
hour named his answer was placed in the
hands OF the commissioners No action
VIII be taken on the case until the return
OF Commissioner Brewer, which will prob
ably be some time today.
The correspondence between Pai1e,, and
the commission, as given out yesterday. is
or a very sharp and spicy nature. The
commission alleges that during last July
Mr. Bailey used words in a newspaper
interview for the purpose of bringing dis
repnte and casting reproach on the mem
pers or the commission, and that by i'm
| plication he charged the commission with
! dishonorable act in the performance of
| its official duties
IL seems that some time prior TO last
July the commission directed the heads
a. several divisions under its iur,sdictio,
TO make up the efficiency ratings of the
eInp-oyes. and that such report was made
on July 20. and in accordance with the
acton of these division heads Mr. Raiiev
was reduced to-be a clerk of class three.
In an interview. Mr.. Bailey is alleged to
have said: =
Whatever the commission may saw
there can be no. doubt that their present
action is the result of the testimony,
which | gave before the Senate investiga-
ting committee. The testimony was very
damaging, of course. to the commission.
and remains unrefuted to this day
The commission asserts that in the use
of the language above quoted Mr. Bailey
indirectly charged the commission with
/ duplicity. and of beng so devoid Of char
| acter and yeracity that 1t based its action
| upon certain reasons other and different
| than those given IN the minutes. and
merely committing a dishonorab!e act.
Bailey, in his reply to the eomnunfca-
ton or the commission. states that he
still thinks his Interview was perfectly
1ustifiable under the circumstan He
says further. that when he was sum-
moned TO appear before the Senate inves-
tgating committee he was cautioned by
the president Of the commission against
giving testimony which would draw at
tention 10 the internal administration of
the affairs of the commission. He states
further that after his first testimony had
been given the president read a typewrit-
! ten document before the investiga ting
committee, making a personal attack
upon him. He also states that he was
| warned by the president of the commits
/ sion that his standing would depend upon
! the course which he pursued and that
| when his testimony had been completed
| he was reduced to a clerkship in class
number 3.
! In conclusion Bailey protests against
"the past injustice" of the commission
land against Its proposed action in dis.
! charging him for no other fault thar
! the utterance of a few words of self
! defense" when the commission publicly
| DETAINED him by allowing a report on his
alleged incompetency TO be published.