The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-07-27
.PROCTER REPLIES
 ID SMITH LETTER Defends Himself from Attack of Former Postmaster General  SAYS CHARGES ARE UNTRUE Points Out Defects of Civil Service and Denies That He Sought Ex-
 captions on Behalf of Rel
 atives and Friends.
SAYS CHARGES ARE JUN TRUE


 office and also to an editorial in the Philadelphia Press. The reply to MT Smiths formal letter is as follows:
 July 24 1903. The Honorable Postmaster General:
 sir-My attention has been called to. the letter dated July fl of Hon. 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 public investigation in the Washington post office. This letter was based upon the facts disclosed by the records and if it could be read in connection with the commissions letter and the report of the investigation upon which 1t was based, there would be no necessity for remark or reply Under the circumstances there are certain parts of MT. Smiths letter which seem to demand attention. The relevancy of a portion of the com missions letter has been denied by MT. | Smith, although the essential facts it | contained have not been controverted. l Concerning the question of relevancy, it may be stated that the present postmas- | ter general requested the commission to | investigate and report whether the civil | service law and rules had been and were | being compiled with in the Washington postoffice, and that as the investigation | disclosed the fact that the postoffice oc- cupied, to a considerable extent, the re- lation of bureau to the department In the matter of appointments and other changes, some of the departmental af- fairs necessarily came within It's scope.
 Department Is Responsible.
 The facts as disclosed by the investi- gation show that the department, and not the postmaster was responsible for most of the violations and evasions of the civil service law and rules in the Washington postoffice. It Is therefore an evasion and not a refutation, of the facts recited in this part of the letter to say that it may properly be left to the answer of the postmaster. The answer of the postmaster is already recorded in the report of the investigation in state- ments signed by him.
 When questioned as to the responsibility for the infractions of the civil service rules in the Washington postoffiee, he said: "As most of the appointments of the people who have in any degree violated the civil service regulations have been designated or made by the department 1t seems to me that the Responsibility should be located with the parties directing the appolntments.'
 Again he said:
 People that had proved inefficient in the department had been unloaded upon the postoffice of several occasions as in- stanced by the case of D."
 The postmaster also stated that, in his opinion, his office could have been run with the same degree of efficiency but with much greater economy if the depart ment had left the personnel of the force to his own selection.
 In commenting upon that part of the commissions letter which deals with the classification transfer method adopted by the department to evade the rules he avoids by a safe margin the facts dis closed by the investigation. He says:
 Tt is the statute, not the department that puts the clerks of new free delivery offices Into the classified service. Their classification Is a matter of law. Their transfer Is matter of rule"
 Statement Begs the Question.
 This statement Degs the question It is a civil service rule promulgated by the President which provides for the classifi- cation of clerks at free delivery offices and the commission construes this rule as recognizing only bonafde employees as
 
 department and not the statutory rules that placed the names of eight of residents of Washington or it's vicinity on the rolls of postoffices In various parts of the Unit ed States, without reference to the needs of those officers for the sole purpose of getting them into classified positions in the Washington postoffice or the depart ment. The department In making these appointments, without doubt, reverted to fha R..fN n nN-I. was designed to prevent and to this ex- tent nullified the law.
 MT. Smith says in reference to the same subject: Tn 1897, before I became postmaster general some persons were appointed to offices about to be classified and after classification were transferred to other parts of the service. The prac- tice thus introduced continued in lim- tied degree"
 four such appointments made during the latter part of 1897 and the early part of 1S9S iprior to the appointment of MT Smith and 124 under his administration
 Mir. Smith says:
 NO rule. even at this time, exists wherein transfers may be made at any time in the exactly parallel case where small unclassihed offices are classified by being consolidated with large classi- fled offices"
 He also quotes his letter of December 27. 1900, to the commission in which he agreed that admissions to the service should, as far as practicable, be made upon examination and stated that direc- tions had been given which would re- move all Just ground of complaint. MT. Smith now states his belief that the commission. never answered this letter, and declares that he will not comment lon the peculiar candor which made no acknowledgement of the removal of just ground of complaint then, and seeks to suppress the truth about 1t now"
 A sufficient reply to this statement will be found fin the seventeenth annual report of the commission in which this statement follows the full quotation of Mir. Smiths letter:
 Tt Is gratifying to the commission to be able to state that, since the date of the above letter, but one case of this kind has occurred"
 Resents Statement
 Mir. Smith resents the statement that the rural free delivery service was packed with employees in the interests of individuals just before classification, as indicated by the fact that fifty-six were appointed in the twenty-six days just preceding classification on November 27, 1901. while only seventeen were appoint ed between that date and May, 1903. He attributes the large number of appoint ments just before classification to the great increase of work.
 |. He adds: