The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1901-12-27
MACLAYS REMOVAL
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION on
THE SUBJECT.
PRESIDENT HAD THE RIGHT
HISTORIAN GETS COLD COMFORT
FOR HIS INQUIRY.

Civil Service Act-Incompetent
Persons Need Not BE Retained
and the Necessity of Discipline Is
Evident-Its Purpose to Prevent
Removal for Political, For Relis-
ious Reasons ON Secret Charges.
Washington, Dec. 26.-The Civil Serv-
ice Commission to-day notified Edgar
S. Maclay. the historian recently en-
ployed in the Brooklyn navy yard, that
his removal from his position at that
point was not in violation of the civil
service act. This notification is con-
tanned in letter written to Maclay by
President Proctor of the commission,
and is in reply to an inquiry from him.
Mr.. Maclays letter is as follows:
"Office of the General Storekeeper,
Navy Yard, New York, Dec. "a, 1901.
Hon. John r. Proctor, president, Civil
Service Commission. Sir: On Dec. %,
yesterday, 1 received the following
the Navy:
Sir: l am directed by the Presi-
dent to ask Edgar S. Maclay, special
laborer, general storekeeper's office,
navy yard, New York, to send in his
resignation. (Signed.) John D. Long,
Secretary
This communication was addressed
to the commandant of this navy yard
and was duly forwarded to me. l de-
sire to get an authoritative opinion
from the Civil Service Commission OH
the following points:
First. Has the President of the
United States any authority under the
laws governing civil service to demand
the resignation of a civil service en-
ploye in the classified list?
Second. Has the President the au-
bhority or power to cause the dismissal
of any civil service employe without
preferring charges in writing and CIV
ing said employee an opportunity in
which to make a defense? Very re-
spectfully yours,
Edgar S. Maclay."
The Reply to MacIay.
To this the commission replied:
Washington, Dec. &C. 1901.-Mr. Ed
gar S. Maclay, Office of the General
Storekeeper, Navy Yard, New York
Sir: The commission is in receipts of
your letter of Dec. "a, 1901, asking it's
opinion upon the following questions:
HAS the President of the United
States any authority under the laws
governing civil service to demand the
resignation of civil service employee
in the classified list?
Has the President the authority or
power to cause the dismissal of any
civil service employe without preferring
charges in writing and giving said
employe an opportunity in which to
make a defense?'
"In response you are informed that it
is contrary to the practice of the COM
mission to undertake to answer hypo-
thetical questions. Your separation
from the service according to the facts
in your case as they appeared in the
public press, was made upon the order
of the Secretary of the Navy, in whom
the power of removal rests. The de-
mand for your resignation, followed by
your removal, upon the direction of the
President, through the Secretary of the
Navy was not in violation of the civil
service act and rules, in view of the
we'll known facts in your case.
"The object of the rule requiring no
tice and a hearing was to prevent po-
litical removals or removals upon Sc
cret charges. No issue of this kind is
involved in your case. Very respect
fully, John r. Proctor,
president"
The Law Explained.
President Proctor also gave out the
following statement bearing upon the
case:
The commission has always held, as
shown in it's thirteenth report, Jan.
/, 1897:
1.-The civil service act did not intend
that incompetent persons should be
retained in office. The authority for
1A
reasons are necessary for the disci-
pline and the efficiency of the public
service. The power of removal is not
affected by the law or the rules, fur
ther than that they provide that re-
movals shall not be made for political
or religious reasons
"The rule of the President July 81,
1897 requiring that a persons should
only be removed for just cause and,
upon reasons in writing and after an
opportunity for making an answer,
was for the purpose of preventing pollt-
ical or religious removals or removals
upon secret charges, but was in no way
intended to curtail the power of re-
moval for just cause. Under this rule
the reasons for a removal are to be
a matter of record, but II does not
impair in the slightest degree the
prompt exercise of the power of dis
tipline. In discussing this rule in the
fourteenth report of the commission,
Dec. 81, 1897, II is stated that If the
reasons are sufficient the officer will
not hesitate to make the removal IL
cannot be asserted that Maclay's re-
mcval was for political or religious
reasons or upon secret charges, as the
| reasons for the departments action
are well known, both to Maclay and
to the public"