Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-02-08
DEMOCRATIC DEPUTIES MUST GO.
An Important Decision by Judge
l<Ratrfck.


Judg, Andrew Kirkpatrick of the United
States district court yesterday at Tren-
| ton. N. j., rendered a decision which will
| have the effect. to compel the democra tic
United States deputy Internal revenue COL
lectors to reinquish their offices to the re-
publican deputies selected by Isaac Moffet,
recently appointed by President Mckinley
collector of internal revenue for the dis
trict comprising the lower counties
He dismisses the injunc ton that they up
piled for, and decided that the courts have
no jurisdiction.
1t was thought that this opinion would
| not be rendered for some time, because
there is now pending n the United States
Supreme Court an appeal from the deciso on
of United States District Court Judge Jack
democratic collectors bow in office could
not be removed but for cause.
The decision given by Judge Kirkpatrick
makes the third decision given. The one in
West Virginia, sustaining the democratic
ircumbent and one in Indiana sustaining
the newly appointed republican deputies
The case was brought into the court on a
rule to show cause why an Injunction
should not be issued restraining the nav
republican collector, Isaac Moffet, from
removing Harry Page, w. ]. Caspar and
B. B. Worthley as deputy collcc :ors They
contended that they were subject to civil
service rules and regulations.
The Decision
In discussing the contention of the COM
plainants that they are protected by the
civil service law, at will aid u.s." said the
judge, 'fn determining the force and effect
to be given to these presidential rules and
regulations to look at the power which is
vested in the President by section 1913 CT
the Revised Statutes, and the civil service
act under which they ware professedly is
sued.
THE former authorizes the President to
prescribe such regulations for the admission
Of persons into the civil service of the Unit
ed States as may best promote the efficien-
cy thereof 1t nowhere makes mention of
removal. The civil service act merely pro-
Eides the machinery for full and suitable
examination by which there may be pro-
cured a list of persons properly qualified to
perform the duties of the several offices of
the government, and from which those in
trusted with the duty of appointment
should make their selections. It's object
was to make more efficient the public SER
vice by limiting the power of appointment
to d class of qualified applicants to take
away the right or privilege of any one to
nominate persons whose fitness is purely
political; to provide for each vacant office
for the public service as it occurred, some
person, who had in a competitive examina-
ton, shown himself best adapted to the
discharge of its duties, that having so OBJ
tanned his office this person was not to be
opiSed 10 contribute 10 any pontlcal 1und
or render any political service. nor to be
subject to removal because he failed to do
so. Nor because he refused to make con-
tribution of money or other valuable thing
for any political purpose.
No Restriction on Removal.
THE act puts no restriction upon the
power of removal it leaves the appointing
power as free as before its passage to make
removals at will, save only for refusais to
contribute to political funds or neglect to
render political service.
"In prescribing regulations to promote
the efficiency Of the public service the Pres
ident may, no doubt, promulgate rules re-
lating to the removal of persons in office,
which should be observed by his subord-
mates, in order that there may be har-
money of action throughout the several de-
partments of the government of which he
is the head, and he may in various ways
compel obedience to these rules by his sub
OrdinateS.
He may make these rules accord with
his views of the proper administra-
ton of the law. He may modify or even
revoke them today, and he may change
them from time to time at his pleasure.
They cannot therefore be regarded as laws
which can only be repealed by the joint ac-
ton of the legislative and executice de-
partments of the government.
While these rules and regulations may
have force and effect of law upon subordi.
rate administrative officers they cannot give
to officeholders vested rights in their office,
nor can a court of equity regard them as
conferrng property rights which 1t is with
in their province to protect.
The restraining order heretofore grant
ed will be dissolved, and the motion for an
injunction denied and the present incum
bents must vacate the offices held by
Them