New-York tribune., 1899-07-31
MANENY ANSWERS GAGE.
c1vIr. SERVICE REFORM LEAGUES
SPOKESMAN DEFENDS HIS POSITION
REFuTEs THE sECRETARYs AsPERsioNs oN
HIS ACCURACY, AND SAYS THE PREsi-
DENTS RECENT ORDER is EVEN
WORSE THAN HE AT FIRST
THOUGHT u

WORSE THAN HE AT FIRST
THoUGHT IT.
coorso NcAnenv secretary OF the National CV'
service Reform League, has addressed an ope"
letter TO Mr. Gage the Secretary or the lreasui
in reply TO Mr. Cages letter to the LEAGUE 80
July IA concerning the scope ana enec' Vi 80 ao
McKinley's famous Civil Service order Oh may -
last which has aroused so much dlscusslo"' a"
this last contr0ution TO the controversy MI w
Ane,v takes up one by one Mr.. CAGES comments
on Mr. McAneny's former letter OF June H. ny
which Mr. Gage challenged the accuracy Oh MT
NcAnenv's statements. and refutes the secretary
challenges categortcally 49,,
"I stated" says Mr.. McAneny. referring 70 MS
letter OF June II, that Notwithstanding the iact
,hat tho rules did apply to the entire service when
Won took Office there have since been sweeping
changes IN the force OF agents and clerks known
commonly as deputy collectors and that the ne"
appotntments were made generally In open oisre
gard Of the law. and In most cases Tor poh'icai
reasons On this subject you make the following
comrents. There are no such clerks and agents
His remarks are without application unless 1t be
10 deputy collectors of internal revenue. ana 40
him the credit TO believe that 1t is these he had IN
mind That I referred TO the deputy collectors
was plain. for so stated"
REMOVALS ARE NUMEROUS.
Another OF Mr. Cages comments, speaking IN
reference TO the entire Revenue service ""'
.Very few removals OF any Kind nave IN lact' oee
made and when made they have been IN strlce
conformity with the Presidents order OF 1uF 1'
1897 which requires antecedent to removal 'he
filing OF charges and the opportunity Tor oelehce,
To this Mr. McAneny replies: There were SZH1
officers and employees in this branch on Feoruary
last Up to that date and since March J. lo'"
there had been reported to the Civil Service 'oh-
mission 1852 separations. including removals anu
res,rnatons or about so per cent OF the whole As
In
.oied TO make monthly reports OF changes as re-
ouired by law the actual proportion, no douot' was
greater The meaning of these figures VIII De more
plain when Il Is considered that among ire force
of letter carriers who have been long uhuer tle
Civil Service rules the separations through removal
ros,gna,ion and death in the years 1867 were 25
nor con, and in the years lSs7'9S 2.9 per cent
,oncernine removals made In conformity Win
the Presidents order Of July. 1897 MI McAhehy
,efreshes Mr. Cages memory with some specific
and particularly fragrant cases Of removals Oh
deputy collectors. and then proceeds thus;
"Respecting my statement that new appoint.
rnents were made generally in open disregard OF
the law YOU say: He knew when writing thls
that there is and long has been a contention as 10
the legal right Of collectors to appoint their uep
uties' I not only knew this but stated both me
fact and the attendant circumstances. certain
collectors had indeed made the novel claim tha'
the law giving them the right TO appoint deputies
was not modified by the later enactment fixing the
method Of appointment. This proposition had'
however been promptly rejected by eminent law
yers whose opinions had been asked by the Civil
Service Commission. while the Attorney General
10 whom the Department had made apphcauoh'
declined TO give any opinion at all Whatever
other authority may have been invoked mas ho' "s
yet been published"
MAKES FLAT DENIAL.
Mr. McAneny comes out next with fiat denial
some of these appointments: But they were made
I'm view Of Section S,14S r. G. 0he law granting
the right to appoint, an authority invoked by COL
lectors for their Independent action in the prem
ises and as he must well know. In some Instances
sustained by the courts
To this Mr.. McAneny retorts: There are no
cases whatever in which the courts have sustained
the contention TO which you refer
Mr. Gage in speaking Of the final withdrawal Of
the entire force Of deputies from classification,
said: "He (McAneny) had excellent opportunity
for knowing that the Civil Service Commission
recommended this very exemption, but yet failed
10 show the fact" To this Mr.. McAneny an
swers: The Commission did recommend this
action: but have you been unaware of the fact
that It did so because Of the opposition Of the
Department to the application Of the rules, and
for the that they preferred absolute exemp-
tion to a continued state OF systematic disregard
of the law"
FIGURES CONIRADICI
In closing his mention Of the Internal Revenue
Service Mr.. Gage said: with all the assertions
OF right and power made by the collectors to ap-
point their deputies. a claim which has been
put In practice in certain cases, II still remains
true that the restraining influence Of the Treasury
Department has been such that out Of total Of
SS3 such appointees 752 deputy collectors ap-
pointed. and on May 20 last held their positions
under the provisions OF the Civil Service law and
< In Mc lphf octic
over this. saying: These figures can hardly be
intended TO represent in their proportion. the
operation of the law under the present Administra-
ton The records of the Civil Service Commits
sion. with which they are quite irreconcilable
show that during the period from March 1897 TO
June. 1898. there were not more than twenty-nine
deputies appointed from competitive lists. Up
TO October 1925, there were three more so
been none Seo since From March, 1897. Feb
ruaIy eI % ~ on the other hand 2@ appoint
made under the contention that these Offices
others were so appointed. in districts from which
reports were lacking, cannot be stated. 1t may
up to @Pf Il last the m oSer PsT9d or
appointed, without examination, under the war
Referring to the partial suspension Of the Civil
service rules during cur war with Spain Mr.. Nc
exempting act was passed as the result Of repre-.
senations made by Treasury officials to the effect
that the CiVil Service Commission was not pre-
pared TO meet the emergency" whereas the Com
mission was able to furnish all the "eligibles"
needed Mr. Gage said on this head ut appears
10 me his citation that member of Congress said
that such appointments would be few. and that
he had been assured by officers Of the Treasury
Department that in the emergency existing II
would not be practicable TO get them under the
civil Service rules is too vague and uncertain a
specification to merit any notice How many off,
GERS so assured him? Who We're they and II he
can nar1e them. what has it to do with the case?"
HE NAMES MR. CANNON.
Mr.. McAneny answers that the member referred
70 Was Mr.. Cannon chairman OF the House Appro-
priations Committee. and refers Mr. Gage to The
Congressional Record" for June o. 1898 for the rest
Of the Information asked for.
In showing the number Of persons appointed
under this and subsequent exempting acts-pers DIS
whose employment has already been continued for
second year and now seems apt TO continue in
.1ehntely-Mr. McAneny referred for purposes OF
comparison 10 the number appointed in the Treas-
uly department after competitive examination
under the Owl Service laM aud ME- Gaca Ii nI.