Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-10-28

formed by classified employees and by their
ming the position as though it were I'M
classified and then either failing to report
the appointment or reporting it as an ap-
pointment to an unclassified position.
In the absence of requirement that the
particular duties pertaining to the position
should be stated there was little opportu-
nifty for the commission to detect improper
appointments. To remedy this defect so
far as the departments and offices at Wash
lngton were concerned it was provided that
every nominating and appointing officer
there should furnish to the commission a
list of all employees and positions which
had been treated as below classification
that the duties pertaining to each position
should be stated in detail sufficient to en-
able the commission to determine whether
it was classified position and that all es-
sentfal changes of duties pertaining to these
positions should also be reported at once.
Under this rule the commission has re-
ceived complete lists of all persons and po-
sitions now In the departmental service at
washington which have been treated as
below classification. with the duties per-
tanning to EACH and will receive a similar
report in the case of each person appoint
ed hereafter to a position regarded as I'M
classified. 1t may be stated in general
terms that the commission regards all posi-
tions of classified grade where the du-
ties require either special qualifications and
experience or knowledge of reading and
writing. The evil of appointing persons
mere laborers, without examination, to do
classified work has in the past been wide
SpIcdu anu even general. 1t Is D6llSVeu
that under this rule. taken in connection
with the system for the registration of la
borers recently established at Washington,
the evil may be substantially eliminated.
The commission explains that since the ex-
piration of the year covered by the report
system Of labor registration has been pro-
vided for the departments at Washington.
Removals Upon Charges.
The civil service act places no limit upon
the power of removal from office, except
that 1t shall not be exercised for refusal
to make political contributions or render
political service. But section s of rule II
provided that no removal should be made
from the competitive classified service ex-
cept for just cause and for reasons given
in writing, and the persons sought to be
removed were to have notice and be fur
nished with copy of such reasons and al
lowed a reasonable time for personally an
Swering the same in writing.
This rule was adopted by President Nc
Kinley on July q, 1897, in pursuance of his
general executive authority rather than of
any requirement of the law. 1t was adopt
ed for the purpose of disseminating a prac-
tice which had Heretofore existed of re-
moving persons from the classified service
upon secret charges which they were not
permitted to see or to answer Such secret
charges had frequently been cloak for
purely political removals, and great injus-
tice had been done thereby.
After the adoption of this rule removals
upon secret charges were no longer made
and the benefcent effect Of the rule was
generally recognized. At the same time GER
tain misunderstanding arose in regard to
it's proper construction. 1t was claimed By
some that the Just cause" mentioned in
the rule meant that some willful act of mis-
conduct must have been committed by the
person whose removal was sought. 1t is
evident however, that persons in the ser
vice can be and ought to be removed in
many cases where they are not willfully at
fault-in cases, for instance, where they
have become disqualified through physical
or mental disability, or cases in which their
services are no longer required.
1t was further believed by many that the
provisions requiring written reasons notice
and an opportunity for answer required,
substantially, trial, the taking of testi-
mony and proceedings similar to those in
court of law. To require this would give a
permanency of tenure in the public service
quite inconsistent with the efficiency of the
service, but so widespread was this misap-
prehenson that appointing officers often
become useless, or had lost the confidence
of their superior officers, because 1t was
feared that specific acts of misconduct could
not be proved by sufficient testimony to au-
thorize their dismissal.
The President, therefore, upon the recon-
mendation OF the commission, issued May
% 1902, an order declaring the meaning or
section SHAT the term lust cause as
used therein was intended to mean any
cause other than one merely political or re-
ligious which would promote the efficiency
of the service, and that nothing contained
in the rule should be construed to require
the examination of witnesses or any trial or
hearing except in the discretion of the Of
ficer making the removal
The right of removal. therefore, remains
| as 1t has always been-discretionary on the
part of the appointing officer, the only linn
! itations being that it must be to promote
the efficiency of the service. that it must
not be for political or religious consid-
erations. and that nothing shall be done
in the dark; that the reasons shall be
stated and notice given to the person re-
moved. who shall have his opportunity to
make answer and to place on file his side
of the case. In order that he may do this
the reasons must be stated with sufficient
definiteness to enable HIM to understand
the exact cause for which his removal Is
sought and to make an appropriate answer.
| A more general statement Of inefaciency,
misconduct, negligence, inattentlon to duty.
etc, would not be sufficient. It is believed
that the construction promulgated on May
%, 1892. has been In the interest OF good
administration and no case of the removal
] of any person from the public service for