Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-07-27
SMITH ANSWERED
By Chairman Proctor Of Civil
Service Commission
Concerning Formers Attack on Lat
ter's Report Of Investigation
OF Washington Post Office and a
Philadelphia Editorial.

Proctor Of the civil service commission
has made reply to the recent letter of
Former Postmaster General Smith, con-
corning the latter's attack on his re-
port on the investigation of the Wash
ington post office and also to an edi-
torial article in the Philadelphia Press.
is in part as follows:
July "a, 1908.
The Honorable Postmaster General.
Sir-My attention has been called to
the letter, dated July IA, of Charles
Emory Smith as it appeared in the pub
lie press of July 20, commenting on the
recent letter of the commission in re-
gard to the administration of the pub
tic service in the Washington post Of
flee. If this letter We're based upon
the facts disclosed by the records, or
could be read in connection with the
commissions letter and the report Of
the investigation on which it was baseo
there would be no necessity for re-
mark of reply. Under the circumstances
there are certain parts of Mr.. Smiths
letter which seem to demand attention.
The relevancy of a portion of the
commissions letter has been denied by
Mr.. Smith, although the essential facts
it contained have not been controverted.
Concerning the question of relevance,
it may be stated that the present post
master general requested the commits
sion to investigate and report whether
the civil service laws and rules had
been and We're being complied with
in the Washington post office: and that
as the investigation disclosed the fact
that the post once occupied, to con-
siderable extent the relation of Il
bureau to the department in the mat
ter of appointments and other changes,
some of the departmental affairs neces-
sarily came within its scope.
Mr.. Smith states that one-third of Mr..
Proctor's letter which Immediately con-
Germs the Washington post office may
properly be left to the answer of the
postmaster whom it directly concerns.
The facts as disclosed by the investi-
CATION, show that the department and
not the postmaster We're responsible for
most of the violations and evasions of
the civil service laws and rules in
the Washington post office. 1t is there
fore an evasion and not refutation
of the facts recited in this part of the
letter to saw that it may properly be
leftto the answer of the postmaster.
The answer of the postmaster is al
ready recorded in the report of the in
vestigation in statements signed by
him. When questioned as to the re-
'sponsibility for the infractions of the
civil service rules in the Washington
post office he said: LAS most of the APP
pointments of the people who have in
any degree violated the civil service
regulations have been designated or
made by the department, it seems to
me that the responsibility for violation
of the regulations should be located
with the parties directing the appoint
ments"
In commenting on that part of the
commissions letter which deals with the
ella ssification-trans method adopted
by the department to evadc the rules.
he avoids, by safe margin, the facts
disclosed by the investigation. He says:
1T is the statute, not the department
that puts the clerks of new free deliV-
cry offices into the classified service.
Their classification is a matter of law
Their transfer is matter of rule
This statement begs the question. 1t
is a civil service rule promulgated by
the President, which provides for the
classification of clerks at free delivery
offices and the commission CONSTITUTES
this rule as recognizing only bona fide
employees as acquiring a classifiable
status. 1t was the department and not
the statute or the rule that placed the
names of eighteen residents of Wash
ington or it's vicinity on the rolls of post
offices in various parts of the United
States in Difference to the needs of
those offices and in most cases without
their ever serving in those offices, for
the sole purpose of getting them into
classified positions in the Washington
post office or the department. The de-
partment. in making those appoint
ments without doubt reverted to the
practice which the civil service act was
designed to prevent and to this extent
nullifie1 the law.
Mr.. Smith says i'm reference to the |
same subject: I'm 1897, before |
became postmaster general, some per-
sons were appointed to offices about to |
CONTINUED on page %