Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-10-19
REPLY TO 4HEGcoMMIssIoN
CONTROVERSIAL REGARDING ACCESS
TO CIVIL SERVICE RECORDS.
Special Committee OF Civil Service Re-
Tor" League Hakft Plain 1t" Posi-
tlOn and Renews Request.

IL L
| tlOn and Renews Request.
| Messrs. Charles J. IBonaparte, Edward
Cary and Frederick l. siddons. constituting
the special committee ri the National Civil
Service Reform League, have addressed a
reply to the United States civil service
| commission and added another chapter to
the controversy regarding the right of ae-
cess to the commissions records Address
ing the commission, the members of the
committee acknowledge receipt Of let
| ter of September % in reply to a communi-
| cation from them. The commission is
| quoted as having made this statement in
its reply: >.
THE commission is and always has been
| in full harmony and accord with what Is
said in the committees letter and
knows of no action on it's part which ex-
pressly or by implication could be regarded
as contrary to these views or Of any change
| of policy whatever in this respect"
Regarding the above and other points in
the controversy. the special committee of
| the reform league says:
This information is very gratifying. but
we must add that 1t is no less SURPRISING
The policy of the commission before the
Presidents order of May %, 1899, was de-
scribed by Messrs. Lyman THOMPSON and
| Roosevelt as follows:
| The books and records Of the commits
sion and of all the local boards are open
to any responsible person. No fraud can
be committed without leaving a record by
| which it can be found out
| In the minute of July IA. 1900. to which
you refer, the commission declared its pur-
pose to deny thereafter access to any Of its
records to all persons not members of
the commissions force and added:
| All orders or minutes heretofore made
by the commission in conflict with the pro-
visions OF this order. are hereby revoked
| This latter part Of the minute you do
not quote Until enlightened by your let
ter we certainly regarded this action as
| indicating definite abandonment of the
| policy Of Messrs. Lyman. Thompson and
Roosevelt, and no less certainly we were
not alone in that opinion, for on June Is,
1892 when. for the first time in its his
tory. the commission denied to the Nation
| al civil Service Reform League access to
| its files. the president Of the commission
| said. in a dissenting minute:
| " The vote of the commission to keep
| It's records secret Is an absolute reversal
for the first time in the history of the COM
| mission, of policy which has been uni
Versally commended as wise
1t has been the constant public boast
| OF the commission that its records are sub
lect to inspection and that the inspection
| is invited. can conceive of nothing which
Is calculated to do more damage to the
work of the commission and it's power for
GOOD. than the refusal to permit access to
files of cases in which action has been
completed
Regarding u characterization.
Since, however, you say that 'misappre-
| hension' exists as to. the consistency of the
present with the past practice of the
| commission in this respect we respectfully
suggest that you can readily remove this
'n:lsapprehenson:' your predecessors
Messrs. Lyman, Thompson and Roosevelt
told the public: The books and records of
the commission g. are open to anv
responsible person:,'you have only to tell
the public that this is still true. You fur
Their tell Us thatw
Notwithstanding the statements made
by the secretary of your league. the COM
missions files and records show that sub
stanually all of the informant on proper to
BE- furnished to the public. which was re-
quested in his letter, of July 3d. had al
ready been furnished to him.
This passage IN your letter has caused
| the delay in, its acSnOwl edgment7 by, Lead
ing the secretary OF the, league to- request
luminous correspondence with the commits
son before replying. While we do not un-
derstahd that the question to what had
| or had not been secured by the league at
the time Of previous examinations Of the
records has any pertinsnce to the question
really at issue. we feel that the facts in
this regard may be briefly stated: Having
obtained limited access to the files of the
commission in November 1899 after a tedi-
Gus delay of five months. the league as
certained and tabuIated facts which showed
with certain omissions, the practical work
ing of the Presidents order Of May %
1888. from Its date to January 1, 1900 II
was subsequently decided to extend this
| investigation until the results of a years
application Of the order could be shown,
and. at the same time. both to complete
and verify the work already DONE and to
take up certain additional subjects. Be
fore the new work was finished: however.
the commissions minute of July IA was
adopted. 1t was this that led to the secre-
tary's letter of July .23 asking directly for
access to records clearly covered by the
commissions concession Of November, 1892
The particular omissions to be covered in
completing tables were not specified for the
reason that this. very naturally. was no.
understood to be necessary. The letter was
met with repetition of the denial Of ac-
cess contained in the minute OF July a.
Aside from the question of pertinency we
| do not see why the commission should cite
| the incident Of July % reason for its
| action taken nine days previously. Nor can
| we agree with the commission II 1t holds
| either that substantially all the informa-
ton to be gained by twelve months ex-
| perience Is afforded by the first seven, or
| that such informa ton can be proper to be
furnished to the public when 1t relates to
| the year 1899 and improper when it relates
| to the year 1900.
/ Waited More Than a Year.
| sit happens that additional inquiry
referred to was undertaken by reason Of a
| conversation Of our secretary with the
| President himself. The results Of the
leagues investigation. although incom-
| plete, were startling that Mr.. McAneny
| by direction OF the executive committee
obtained an audience Of the President and
asked If he would give consideration to a
memorial, pointing out in detail the de-
| plorable consequences Of his order. and
praying for its revocation. The president
| replied courteously that he would consider
| anything the league submitted. but that he
! regarded any criticism Of the orders work
| ing as premature until it had been given a
| fair trial The league then determined to
| await the expiration Of the full year from
| May .. 1899, before preparing its intended
| memorial, and circumstances caused some
| further delay. 90
whilst the commission has never said