The times., 1899-07-31


ury Derartment-Intcrn Revenue
Appointments and other Matters.
George McAneny, Secretary OF the Ma
tionaI Civil Service Reform League. contin-
ues his controversy with Secretary Gage
in the following letter, made public yes
tsrday:
To the Hon. Lyman ]. Gage, Secretary OF
tho Treasury:
Sir: In your letter to the Civil Service
Reform League, dated July H. you have
challenged the accuracy OF certain of the
statements contained in my open letter of
the llth Your references are not to tns
facts presented in disproof of your charge
that the League, in its comments on ths
Presidents c-y:l service order, had beer
guilty OF false representation. So far a.
appears, you have dealt with those subjects
Introduced TO snow that ths attitude of the
Treasury Department toward civil service
reform has not been consistent. and that
your own view Of the merits OF the order
could not, therefore, be accepted without
reserve.
In assuming, rs you seem TO do, that the
entire conduct of your department had been
criticised, you are. assure you, in error.
In branches where the merit system has
been longest established, ii has been faith
fully upheld. You have, too introduced
number of reforms in matters of depart
ment administration that have proved to
be of very material value. On the other
hand, in branches where the civil service
rules have been more recently applied
principally outside of washington-they
have not been faithfully upheld. and other
opportunities that have been afforded to
strengthen and extend the system have not
been taken. We have doubted your own
full knowledge Of some of these things. But
when you defended the recent order as
measure distinctly in the interest OF civil
service reform, it was but natural that at
. tsntion should be called to apparent incon-
sistencies. and that in meeting your charge
against the league it should be shown that
! You spoke with perhaps unconscious pre1u-
dice.
! The necessity for any difference with
you on this subject Is as regrettable as it
has been unexpected: 1t is of first conse-
| quence, however, that the public should
! have the clearest understanding of the
situation. and while important details
remain in dispute, further discussion seems
unavoidable. Your letter, being addressed
TO the league, has been properly referred.
Those questions of fact alone that you
still raise l shall answer personally
The Internal Revenue Service.
| l showed in my letter that the most i'm
perative call for strict application of the
/ civil. service rules. under the present con-
! troll of the Treasury Department, had been
/ in connection with the administration OF
/ the Internal Revenue Service. 1t was
pointed out that since this branch Of the
civil establishment had SO greatly ex-
panded-S273 coo, coo, or more than half of
the annual income OF the Government, now
being collected through its agency-it had
become more than ever important that
subordinate officers and employees should
be selected for aseertained fitness OILY.
and that the force should be as free as
possible from the interference or the
mutations of party politics. l then stated
that Notwithstanding the fact that the
rules did apply to the entire service when
you took Office, there have since been
I sweeping changes in the force of agents
and clerks known commonly as deputy
collectors. - and that the new appoint
ments were made generally in open dis
regard of the law, and in most cases fol-
political reasons. On this subject YOU
make the following comments:
a. There are no such clerks and agents
! His remarks are without application TN
less it be to deputy collectors OF internal
revenue, and do him the credit to believe
that It is these he had in mind"
This presents, at the outset, the con-
sideratioa Of the character and relative I'M
portanee Of this force. That / referred tc
the deputy collectors was plain, for
so stated. The merely descriptive term tc
which you refer was used, however, ad-
visedly These ofhcers- who, since the
opening OF the war, have numbered ap-
proximately 1900. may almost be SAID tC
constitute the working force of the In
ternal Revenue Service. The majority art
engaged in calvassing the districts t'
which they are assigned, TO discover OBJ
jects of taxation, and to make reports, FOL
the collectors guidance. Others, how.
ever, perform duties that are purely cleri
cad similar, in a sense, to these of III,
higher clerks in postofiices. Few of tn.
minor officers Of the Government have {
greater variety OF functions to perform, o.
functions requiring more general educa'
tionaI and technical qualifications. 1t is il
this highly important and diversified class
1 asserted. that the spoils system has beer
revived at time when the need of tn;
merit rule has been peculiarly urgent.
Speaking with reference to the entirt
revenue service, you add:
(2) Very few removals Of any kind havt
in fact been made, and when made they
have been in strict conformity with this
Presidents order OF July 27. 1897. which re-
charges and the opportunity for defence
There were 3,2S2 officers and employees il
this branch cn February ] last. Up q
that date-and since March l. IS97-ther.
had been reported to the Civil Service Com
mission 1852 separations including remov
ais and designations, or about SO per cen
of the whole. AS the collectors in man,
. districts had for long time failed to max
monthly reports of changes, as required b,
law, the actual proportion, no doubt, wa
greater. The meaning of these figures will
be more plain when it is considered tina
among the force of letter carriers-wh
have been long under the civil service rule
the separations through removal. resig
nation, and DEATH in the years 1861
were 2.5 per cent, and in the years 1S97-9S
90 per cent.
Concerning Removals.
Concerning removals made ''in con
formity with the Presidents order of July
1887" + will show merely what has bee
the practice in the cases directly in point
those OF the deputy collectors-without at
tempting to rehearse the complaints mad
. respecting other classes / offer the fol
lowing specimen extracts from the officif
reports Of the Civil Service Commission
these cases:
"Richmond, Va.-Collector Brady drop
ped nine depty collectors. who immediaiel
filed protests with the Commissions
: against their separation by the act OF th
) collector without compliance with th
civil service rules. Following this, IN
fsn,z,t,icsEr,,ar nf Trfarnal