The Washington times., 1903-06-04
STATUTE CITED AGAINST
TESTIMONIAL HABIT"
A Times Correspondent Raises Question
of Law as to Langley Letter.

To the Editor Of The Washington Times:
The editorial in your issue of Monday
on The Testimonial Habit" was pecu-
liarly appropriate for this locality.
where the habit RACES most violently.
The practice years ago became so op-
pressive to it's victims that Congress.
by the act which is now section 1884 of
the Revised Statutes, endeavored to ex-
tirpate it, and no doubt thought it had
done So
Section 1874 provides as foIlows:
NO officer. clerk, or employe in the
United States Government employ shall
at any time solicit contributions from
other officers, clerks. or employees in the
Government service for a gift or present
to those in a superior official position;
nor shall any such officials or clerical
superiors receive any gift or present Of
fered or presented TO them as a contri-
button from persons in Government en-
ploy receiving a less salary than them
selves; nor shall any officer or clerk
make any donation, as a gift or present
to any official superior. Every person
who violates this section shall be sum-
marily discharged from the Government
employ
The spirit of this statute is constantly
violated. and even its letter. in the vari-
Gus Government departments. The
method of evasion is for those who take
the initiative in getting up the testi-
Il ..T,
or what MOTTO solicit the necessary
contributions while yet the party 70
whom the present is to be given is an
officer of the Government, but TO await
the severance of his relations with The
Government before giving the present.
Is argument needed to show that this
practice is forbidden by the statute?
The object Of the law was 70 protect
the Government employe from the
graft the blackmail that had from
time immemoriaI been cxacted to enable
private secretaries. chief clerks, and
familiars of bureau and department
chiefs TO make themselves solid with
one who. though lost TO sight, was 10
memory dear, and who often stepped
into another political position where his
Influence became of even greater i'm
portance to his friends left behind
in the bureau or department.
In the particular case OF the testi-
moniaI to the late chief Of the Census
Bureau, which was the subject OF your
editorial. I do not know when he severed
his Official relations with the Govern
ment II Mr.. John W Langley. his chief
clerk, who put forth the standand-de-
liver letter printed by The Times. So
Iicited any contributions while yet
his late chief was in official position. he
has violated the law, and I call the at
tention of the President OF the Civil
Service Commission to his case.
Whether an offense has been committed
Will depend upon the facts and dates
It is difficult to conceive OF a meaner
thing than that letter of Langley 10
clerks in a bureau where 100 discharges
are announced as due 10 be made by the
1st prox.
The case, however, illustrated the
necessity there is for either an amend
ment TO section 1854, or that the matter
be presented by the Civil Service Com
mission to the President with recon-
mendaton that an executive. order be is
sued which will absolutely stop the
graft IN the departments.
Why is it that these fellows always
want TO give costly presents TO their
retiring chiefs? Why would not COM
mandatory resolutions, with autograph
signatures of those who feel that Way.
answer every purpose? pause for
reply. HOMO.
Washington. June L.