The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1903-07-27
AGAIN
UPON WARPATH
Reply to the Letter of ex-Post-
master General Smith.
FACTS STATED VERY CLEARLY
THE RESPONSIBILITY PLACED
WHERE IT BELONGS.

HIASHINGTON. July 26.-Chairmau
w Proctor Of the civil service COM
mission has made reply to the
recent letter of former Postmaster
General Smith concerning the Iatters
attack on his report on the investiga-
ton to the Washington postoffice and
also to an editorial article in the Phil
adelphia Press. The reply to Mr..
Smiths formal letter is as follows:
Reply Was Necessary.
July "a, 19OS.-The Honorable the
Postmaster General Sir. NY attention
has been called 10 the letter, dated
July 14th, of Hon. Charles Emory
smith, as ii appeared in the public
press OF July 25th. commenting on the
recent letter of the commission in re-
gard to the administration of the pub
lie service in the Washington postOffice.
If this letter were based upon the facts
disclosed by the records. or could be
read in connection with the commits
sion's letter and the report Of the in
NestigatiOn. upon which ii was based.
there would be no necessity for remark
or reply. Under the. circumstances
there are certait parts Of Mr. Smita D.
letter which seem TO demand atten-
ton.
Facts Not Controverted.
THE relevancy of a portion Of tbs
commissions letter has been denied
by Mr. Smith, although the essential
facts il contained have not been con-
trOverted. Concerning the question OF
relevancy, it may be stated that the
postmaster general requested the COM
mission to investigate and report
whether the civil service rules were
being violated in the Washington post
Office: and that as the investigation
disclosed the fact that. regarding the
rpl1 finn nf a h1rraorr 70 Ia
IN the matter of appointments and
other changes. some Of the department
81 affairs necessarily came within its
scope.
This was especially true with re-
gard 20 persons appointed to outside
Offices for the purpose of classification
and afterwards transferred to the
Washington postOffice and later to the
department as well as in the cases
Of persons appointed as laborers, but
irregularly assigned to classified duty
IL the Washington postofice who were
afterward appointed in the rural free
delivery service just before its classif-
cation.
Department Responsible.
Mr.. Smith states that the one-third
of Mr.. ProctOr's letter which irnmedi-
ately concerns the Washington post
Office may properly be left to this an
swer of the postmaster general, whom
it directly concerns. The facts as dis
closed by the investigation show that
the department and not the postmaster
was responsible for most Of the viola
tions and evasiOns of the civil service
law and rules in the Washington Office.
1t is therefore an evasion and not d
refutation Of the facts recited in this
part of the letter to say that il may
properly be left TO the answer of the
postmaster. The answer OF the post
ctr j. OH Il raanrdaH in 10 "a
port of the investigation in statements
signed by him. When questioned as
to the responsibility for the infractiOns
of the civil service rules in the Wash
| ingtOn office, he said:
d" 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,
| il seems to me that the responsibility
for violation of the regulations should
| be located with the parties directing
the appointments
Result of Interference.
Again he said:
" People that had proved inefficient
in the department had been unlOaded
uDOn the pOstOfFice on several Occa-
sions, as is instanced in the case Of
- ' The postmaster also
stated that in his opinion his Office
could have been 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 disclosed by the investigation
He says:
1t is the statute. not the depart
lment. that puts the clerks of new free
delivery offices into the classified serv-
ice. Their classification is a matter Of
law Their transfer is matter o.
rule
Nullifed the Law.
This statement begs the question
1t is d civil service rule promulgated bJ
the president which provides for tho
classification of clerks of the free deliv-
cry offices and the commission con-
strues this rule as recognizing only
bona fide employees as acquiring a
classifiable status. 1t was the depart
ment and not the statute or the ruler
that placed the names Of eighteen resi-.
dents of Washington or its vicinity OF
the rolls of pOstoffices in various parti
of the United States, without reference
to the needs of those offices, for the sole
purpose Of getting them into classified
Continued on Page TwO)