The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-12-27
NO VIOLATION Of
CIVIL SERVICE ACT
Ihe Commission Answers
Mac|ay's Questions.
THE CHARGES NOT SECRET
Removal Not For Political or Re
ligious Reasons.
MACLAY IS SuMMARiLY DISCHARGED
He Leaves The Navy Yard at Once But Says He
win Return Today. Prepared to 60
on With His Work
Ihora
(By the Associated Press. !,

Washington. Dec. 26-The Civil Scr
vice Commission today notified Edgar S.
Maclay, the historian recently employed
in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. that bis re-
moval from his position at that point
was not in violation OF the Civil Service
letter written to Mr.. Maclay by President
Proctor, Of the Commission, and is in re-
ply to an inquiry from him.
Mr.. Maclay's letter is as follows:
Office of the General Storekeeper, Navy
Yard, New York. December "a.
Hon. John r. Proctor, President Civil
Service Commission.
Sir:-On December 30 yesterday, l re-
ceived the following communication from
the Secretary of the Navy: Sir am
directed by the President to ask Edgar S.
Macay, special laborer, general store
Keepers office, Navy Yard, to send in his
resignation.
JOHN d. LONG,
Secretary"
This communication was addressed 10
the commandant of the Navy Yard, and
was fully forwarded to me. l desire TO
get an authoritative opinion from the
Civil Service Commission On the follow
ing points:
/. Has the President of the United
States any authority under the laws gov
erning Civil Service to demand the resig-
nation of a Civil Service euploye in the
classified list?
2. Has the President the authority or
power TO cause the dismissal CT any Civil
charges in writing and giving said en-
pioye an opportunity in which to make
a defense?
Very respectfully yours,
EDGAR S. MACLAY.
To this the commission replied
December 90, 1901.
To Mr.. Edgar S. Maclay Office of the
General Storekeeper, Navy Yard, New
York.
Sir:-The Commission is in receipt of
your letter of December a. 1901, asking
its opinion upon the following questions:
HAS the President of the United
States any authority under the laws gov
erning Civil Service to demand the resig-
ration of a Civil Service employe 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 en-
ploye 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 hypothct-
ical questions. Your separation from the
service, according to the facts In your
case as they apeared in the public press,
was made upon the order Of the Secre-
terry of the Navy in whom the power of
removal rests. The demand for your
resignation, followed by your removal,
upon the direction of the President,
through the Secretary of the Navy, was
not i'll violation of the Civil Service Act
and rules, in view of the well known facts
in your case.
The object of the rule requiring notice
and hearing was to prevent political
removals upon secret charges. No issue
of this kind is involved in your case.
Very respectfully,
JOHN r. PROCTOR.
President
President Proctor of the Civil Service
Commission, also gave out the following
statement bearing upon the case:
The Commission has always held, as
shown in it's thirteenth report, January |
1, 1897:
'"The Civil Service Act did not intend /
that incompetent persons should be re- |
tanned in office The authority of re-
moval and its exercise for proper reasons
are necessary for the discipline and the |
efficiency of the public service. The pow
er of removal is not affected by the law
order although the rule, further than that |
they provide that removals shall not be
made for political or religious reasons. |
"The rule of the President, July 27, !
1897, requiring that person should only
be removed for just cause and upon rea
sons in writing and after an opportunity !
for making an answer, was for the pur-
pose of preventing political or religious
or removals upon secret |
charges, but was in no way intended to |
curtail the power of removal for just :
cause. Under this rule the reasons for
a removal are to be matter Of record,
but it. does not impair in the slightest de-
gree the prompt exercise of the power of
discipline. In discussing this rule in the
report of the Commission.
December 81, 1897, it is stated that If
the reasons are sufficient the officer will
not hesitate to make the removal "
1t cannot be asserted that Maclay's re-