The times., 1899-07-31

civil service rules are in effect. l showed
that the Civil Service Commission had
proposed to you the adoption of an ate-
quate system for this purpose, but that
apparently no official recommendation on
the subject had been made to the appro-
pirate officers, and that, finally, the Comp
troller of the Treasury had declared that
salaries should be paid TO all persons Ger
titled by department officers, whether their
appointments had been regularly made Of
not. Concerning this you say:
% ''The Comptroller OF the Treasury,
while related to the Treasury Department,
is the most Independent person in it.
President Grant once said, The only way
to change the decision of the Comptroller
OF the Treasury is TO change the Comptrol-
ler.' From his decisions the Secretary las
no appeal
Whatever may be the limit OF the power
of initiative the Secretary possesses IN this
respect. l may remind you that TIE remedy
OF President Grant was that which l in
pliedly suggested. l said that it had not
appeared that ANY steps had been takel
10 displace the officer who thus stands in
the way of correct Administration, or TO set
aside his disastrous ruling
The civil service act, in section Z, con-
tains this provision;
After the expiration of six months
no officer or clerk shall be
appointed, and no person shall be employed
TO enter or be promoted in either of said
classes now existing or that may be ar
ranged hereunder until he has passed an
examination or is shown to be specially ex-
empted from examination in conformity
herewith
l respectfully submit that an officer who
holds that an appointment made in contra
vention of these terms is a lawful appoint
ment, and may be so recognized by disburs-
ing officers Of the Government, is hardly
fitted for continued service in position of
I such unique responsibility. 1t is not over
stating the case to say that the future
| effectiveness of the civil service law de-
( pends, more than 1t does on any other
/ one thing, on the reversal of this policy,
/ and repeat that the failure OF the Treas
! ury Department. as such. to make any ef-
, fectivc move toward that end must be ac-
cepted necessarily as an indication of an
attitude by no means consistently favorable
/ toward civil service reform.
Navy Department Exceptions
| While again addressing you publicly l
shall take the opportunity to modify GER
! tain statements contained in my former let
| ter and to show that. in certain respects.
! the results of the changes in the rules made
through the order of May 20 are NOR.
serious than had been supposed.
l wish first to point out an inadvertence
through which fifty special mechanics and
civilian assistant inspectors, employed at
| navy yards, were mentioned as among
/ those transferred by the order from the
competitive to the excepted class. In this
case the effect of the change was merely
TO place the employees in question in the
competitive class, under the navy yard reg
uiations. So far as examination is concern
Cd fhar iz Writ tttoll. ahn in hair
status. 1t may be added that the Secre-
tary OF the Navy asked for no exceptions,
either in anticipation OF this order or at
the time Of the Senate enquiry into the sub
ject year ago. The one exception ordered
in the Navy Department, that of private
secretary to the Assistant Secretary, was
not requested, and the present incumbent,
/ understand, is not to be disturbed.
In justifying the statement of the
league concerning the effect of the rule
permitting the reinstatement of persons
removed for delinquency or misconduct, "
without regard to the length OF time elaps-
ing since their separation from tae service.
pointed out that the way had been opened
for the practice of wholesale political ie-
prisals at each change of administration,
involving the multiplication of removals in
order to permit reinstatements. / allowed.
however, fer some limitation on this rule
imposed, it was supposed, by the nature OF
its terms. The Treasury Department has
virtually abolished all limitation by adopt
ing the following construction. to be found
in Treasury Decisions, under date of
June 29 No. 21313:
4 referring to this clause of rule 8, 1t
is evident that if persons dismissed from
the service on false charges are lein-
statable without regard to the one-year-
| time limit those persons who have been
suInmarily dismissed without the formality
of charges preferred, without delinquency
or misconduct, and for no just cause are
equally entitled to reinstatement at any
| time, and 1t is held that the rule appues
. | to the latter class
The effect of the rule, as thus construed,
will be to permit the reinstatement, with
out examination. of any person dismissed
from the service at any time, with or with
out the statement of cause, and for reasons
altogether within the discretion OF depart
ment officers. 1t applies to the whole SER
vice the policy against which the Civil
Service Commission and the league sue
cessfully contended, during the second
Cleveland Administration, when it was pro-
posed to permit the reinstatement of the
| railway mail clerks dismissed at the outset
g., | of the Administration of President Har-
, rison The evil effects OF such plan were
pointed out with exceptional clearness in
! the statements made by Commissioner
! RGOSeNSii Ut LHdl
1t has been said that the changes in the
removal order of July. 1897. to which
, have not as yet alluded. have added to the
effectiveness OF that rule. 1t now appears
that the reverse is true. 1t was pointed
out to the President some time ago that
. in certain departments it had been claimed
that this rule-requiring the statement OF
reasons for removal, and an opportunity
for explaration-did not relate to removals
| da from Dartjcular DOsitiOQS hut only to
. those taking the employe altogether out oi
the service. 1t was shown that under
this construction, in order to evade that
rule department officer might reduce the
. employe to a salary that he could not af-
ford to accept, and thus force him out by
indirection. In the Philadelphia postofIicC
, alone fifty such reductions were made, af-
, fecting among others, superintendent
who the year before had received a medal
for the highest degree of efficiency in his
, work 1t was suggested that the only
way in which to remedy this practice would
, | be to apply to reductions the same reason
able rule that governed removals. con-
struction already adopted under the Treas
, ury rules 1t was supposed by some thai
the language contained in the revised rule
, was intended to accomplish this result.
month ago. however, superintendent o
station in the New York poStoffce. who
had secured his position by successive pro-
motions. was notified, while at work, thai
a he would be reduced that same day to
. low-grade clerkship. involving change II
: | salary from 81 600 to 81, 900. The procedur,
: prescribed for cases of removal was no
!, followed The case was taken to tn,
: ! Postoffice Department, and a formal deci
> sion given that under the rule as revised
= reductions even of this extreme sort, ar,
: not to be considered as removals The onl,
effect of this change. therefore. is to repea