The times., 1899-07-31

templated by the Presidents order OF July
81. 1897. and the vacancies created by these
removals were filled regardless of the re-
quirements of the civil service rules in the
matter of examination and certification.
Dallas. Tex.-when Collector Hunt as
sumed charge of the Office on August 10.
1897. he removed four deputy collectors
whose positions are not excepted from ex.
animation. No charges were preferred
against these. as required by section OF
rule > The collector merely informed
them that their services were no longer re-
quired."
Baltimore, Md-The report of changes
in the service for the month OF OctoDsr'
1897, showed the removal OF twelve deputy
collectors on September so. These removals
wera not confined to deputy collectors. who
We're required 10 give bonds to the COZ
lecter as one of the depOsed EN-
ployes, who was merely designated as dep
uty collector for convenience in admins
tering oaths, performed only clerical du-
itss in the Office of the collector. handled
no money. and gave no bond, was among
those removed. This deposed empsoye hied
a complaint early in octobsr. charging the
collector with removing him for political
reasons. in violation of section OF rune
.. Other complaints followed, etc
The records of these and CT other inyesti-
CATIONS dnlEtGuGuN W bSNI-aibN4'
given in the fourteenth report Of the Civll
Service Commission pages 292-32S). ] nave
no doubt that those of later origin, inciud-
ing the particularly fragrant cases at Port
land Ore, and Lancaster, Pa, Will be coY-
cred by the forthcoming fifteenth report.
Respecting my statement that new ap-
poiRtments were made generally in open
disregard of the law, you say:
(3) He knew when writing this that
.La- fe and Io.,r hnc hpeD a contention a
TO the legal right Of collectors to appoint
their deputies"
l not only knew this, but stated both the
fact and the attendant circumstances. Ger
tain collectors had indeed made the novel
claim that the law giving them the right
to appoint deputies was not modified by
the later enactment fixing the method OF
appointment This proposition had, how
ever, been promptly rejected by eminent
lawyers whose opinions had been asked BY
the Civil Service Commission, while the
Attorney General. to whom the department
had made application. declined to give any
opinion at all. Whatever other authority
may have been invoked has not as yet been
published. j suggested, moreover, that the
attempt to establish the precedent In these
cases, that a statute in operation may be
ignored merely because some interested
person has questioned its validity, was not
OHIN an uuuSu1i, Dul ii SOluchEaN A1fOsN-
tionary proceeding.
A Surprising ESplanation.
But the most surprising explanation Of
fered for some Of these appointments is
this:
"a But they were made in view OF
section 314S r. e. (the law granting the
1 tight to appoin) an authority invoked by
| collectors for their independent action in
| the premises, and as he must well know,
IN some instances sustained by the courts.
There are no cases whatever, in which
| the courts have sustained the contention
1 TO which you refer. The only cases arising
4 in the Internal Revenue Service have been
| these involving the right to remove. a rad
I ically different thing, and the decisions in
/ these are merely in keeping with previous
| decisions on the same subject relating &c
other branches. The civil service act Itself
| does not regulate the method of removal
I as 1t does that CT appointment 1t has beer
/ held uniformly. therefore, that the removal
/ rule of July, 1897 cannot be enforced by
( the judicial authority but that it can be
/ by the Executive. Part of the text of one
or two of the decisions in question should
be given for purposes in illustration, fol
! the subject has an Importance reaching
! far beyond the confines of the Interna
! Revenue Service. In the suit of Woods
| against the Postmaster General. the first t.
be determined, Judge Cox, of the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia, held a:
follows:
''The President may lay down rules fo
the internal policy of his Administration
and may require his chief executive off
GERS dependent upon his pleasure for thei
tenure of Office, to conform to them, o
( else to sever their official relations viii
4 him, and in that sense the rules relied ol
4 by the complainant were within his poliu
/ cal and executive authority. But the en-
forcement of such rules is a matter be
! tween the President and his Cabinet, an,
not matter for the courts, or one il
which the complainant has any legal in
terest''
This ruling was adopted in the subse
quent suits. In that of Morgan VS.. Nunn
one of the internal revenue cases. Judg
/ Lurton in Tennessee held as follows:
THE civil service rules, so far as the
deal with the executive right OF removal.
right which is but an incident of tn
power of appointment, are but expression
of the viii of the President, and are regu
lations imposed by him upon his owl
action. or that of heads of department
appointed by him. He can enforce then
by requiring obedience to them on penalt
of removal
In brief, the power of the Executive t
enforce the removal rule not on,y is up
held. but is emphasized by the courts. TIL
establishing of this fact was the princira
result of the litigation to which you hav
referred.
On November q. 1897, moreover, tn
claim of the right of unrestricted appoint
ment was in effect disallowed. when yo
issued general circular directing all col
lectors TO comply with the civil servic
the eighteen months between that date an
the date OF the Presidents order (no
twenty, as l have stated. collectors VIII
continued to make arbitrary appointment
were in open rebellion, not only agains
the law, but against the authority OF tn
department. 1t has been recalled that yo
were asked 10 end this condition by secur
ing the removal of offending officers; but
so far as appears, no corrective action c
this sort was taken.
Forced Exemption.
Speaking of the final withdrawal of th
entire force of deputies from classification
you say:
t5). He had excellent opportunity fc
knowing that the CIVIL Service Commlssio
recommended this very exemption, but y,
failed TO show the fact"
That had not been questioned The Con
mission did recommend this action; bI
have you been unaware Of the fact thi
it did so because of the opposition of II
department TO the application of the rule
and for the reason that they preferred al
solute exemption to 4 continued state
systematic disregard of the law? Is it nj
known that the Commission actually tol
the President that this was the case, an
that having exhausted its efforts with II
| department to secure compliance with Il
rules, the whole matter was thus submit
ted to him for settlement? Shortly aft
the issuance of the recent order | appeal
: l..l k.E..-l. IL.