Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-06-23
ON THE,..:gAYLOR CASE
'coMxIssycHfH FouLKE TALKS
. OF TrsCfvfT SERVICE ASPECT. .
Rule as u aSdst Cause Was Not
- VI
Passedsto Cover This Particu-
5' s lar EFFICIENCY. So $50

= .5ff
| Mr.. Willi83n Dudley Foulke OF the civil
| service commission today gave out an in
| teryiew on the recent removal Of Miss Re.
becca TaylSf from the War Department.
His position is that the recent ruling of
President Roosevelt as to removals for
| just cause was not passed with particu-
/ lar reference to Miss Taylor's case, and that
the ruling was made at the request of the
civil service commission. The Interview fol-
| lows: .sss.--.,
Can you say anything in regard to the
discussion which is now going on respecting
1 the case of Miss Rebecca Taylor. recently
dismissed from the War Department.
Nothing. except that the criticism made
en- this removal has it's cheering side. 1t is
| delightful to find how many persons who
| never before cared for the competitive sys-
tenn are now filed with eagerness for the
| enforcement Of the civil service law. But
| whatever the foundation Of their zeal, we
| are only too happy to welcome our new
| friends"
7 rs the rule requiring that reasons shall
| be given whenever an employee is dismissed
is this rule a part Of the civil service
law?'" -.,.....s.
This rule is not prescribed by the civil
| service law at all. The power of arbitrary
dismissal was left absolutely intact by that
| law, and from 1883 to 1897 there were no
! limits whatever upon that power. In the
| latter year President Mckinley passed
| rue that no should be removed from
! the competitive classified service except for
| just cause, and after reasons given in writ
ing and an opportunity for reply
| Was this rule passed in pursuance of any
! of the provisions of the civil service act?"
| There is no provision which directly au
| thoriZes this rule. 1t was adopted by the
| President as part of his constitutional exec
utive power, and in pursuance Of section
1888 of the Revised Statutes rather than
the order in question recites all three"
What was the object in adopting this
| ruler"
To Prevent Secret Accusations.
sit was adopted to correct an evil
| which had long existed-the custom of re-
movals upon secret charges by unknown
accusers, without opportunity for denial
or explanation. These secret charges were
| made as cover for mere political remov
ais, and President McKinley's order was
| intended TO de away with this custom. 1t
| has, I think. succeeded, for the system of
removals upon secret charges, SO far as
| know, no longer exist. ....--
WAS any substantial change made in
the rule by the recent declaration of Pres
| ident Roosevelt on May 29?"
mo change whatever. The rule has al
ways been construed by the commission to
| mean exactly what the President declares
| it to mean. Just cause in the rule Is in
| merely political OF religious, which will pro-
| mote the efficiency of the service, and we
have never held that the rule required an
| examinationtsf witnesses or any trial ex-
cept in the discretion of the officer making
the removal3 20
| Did Not Refer to Miss Taylor.
| "Was thisnrule passed with reference to
| he case of Miss Taylor?'
1T was not The commission had sent a
| written recommendation n tho President
asking him to make this declaratoin more
| than two months ago, on account Of the
misconstruction which we found had been
| frequently given to President McKinley's
rule. The matter was postponed temporar-
| lily, but WHEN some other cases were
| Presidents attention to the matter. The
case of Miss Taylor was neither spoken of
nor thought Of Moreover, the notice given
to her by the War Department recites the
original rule"
Are there any other cases that have
come to your notice Of people who are re-
sisting removals under this ruler"
| 'Oh, yes Whenever there is a particu-
| larry bad case of some employe who has
been violating his duty and wants to stay
| in he Immediately sends his attorney to the
| things; wants to know whether the civil
service law means anything. and thinks II
| he can be dismissed the destruction of all
free institutions is at hand. and that the
| whole competitive system might as well be
| Immediately abrogated 1t Is a pretty old
| story. and It is astonishing how eager such
men become for the integrity of the civil
/ service law. And the worse the case Is the
| more strenuous Is the man for the mainte-
nance Of what he calls hts rights. My own
| view Of the matter Is that no man In the
public service has any right to place
which must not yield when It comes In CON
fict with the efficiency OF the service
| itself" 1880" - ~ (; d.
None Dismissed Unjustly.
| do you think that many persons in the
public service are unJustly dismissed?'
| "On the contrary. do not believe that
| there Is one person dismissed who ought to
| remain in to where there are a hundred who
/ OH In "a,