Evening star., 1903-07-27
'PR0CTER HITS BACK
Sarcastic Reply to Charles
Emory Smith.
DISCUSSES: r O. ROLLS
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS
SAYS THEY WERE LOADED.
Denies the Charge That He Assisted
Relatives Into Fat
Positions.

ington post Office, and also to an editorial
article in the Philadelphia Press. The re-
ply to Mr.. Smiths formal letter is as fol-
lows:
WASHINGTON, D. c.. July a. 1903.
The Honorable the Postmaster General.
Sir: My attention has been called to the
letter, dated July IA. of Hon. Charles
Emory Smith, as 1t appeared in the public
press of July 20. commenting on the recent
letter of the commission in regard 70 the
administration of the public service in the
Washington post office. If this letter were
based upon the facts disclosed by the
records or 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
reply. Under the circumstances. there are
certain parts of Mr.. Smiths letter which
Seem to demand attention.
Ihe relevancy OF portion of the COM
missions letter has been denied by Mr.
Smith. although the essential facts 1t con-
tatned have not been controverted. Con-
cerning the question of relevancy, 1t may
be stated that the present Postmaster Cen
eral requested the commission to investi-
gate and report whether the civil service
law and rules had been and were being
complied with in the Washington post
office. and that, as the investigation dis
closed the fact that the post Office Occu-
pied. to a considerable extent, the relation
OF bureau to the department. in the mat
ter OF appointments and other changes
some of the departmental affairs neces-
sarily came within it's scope. This was
especially true with regard to persons ap-
pointed to outside offices for the purpose
of classification and afterward transferred
to the Washington post Office and later to
the department. as well as In the cases of
persons appointed as laborers but irregu-
larly assigned to classified duty In the
Washington post office. who were afterward
appointed in the rural free delivery service
just before It's classification
Mr. Smith states that the one third of
Mr. Procter's letter which Immediately
concerns the Washington post office may
properly be left to answer to the post-
master whom 1t directly concerns
The facts as disclosed by the investiga-
tion, show that the department, and not
the postmaster, was responsible for most
or the violations and evasions of the civil
service law and rules I'm the Washington
post Office. 1t is, therefore. an evasion and
not a refutat1on of the facts recited in
this part of the letter to say that 1t NAV
properly be left to the answer of the post
master The answer of the postmaster is
already recorded in the report of the in
vestigat1on In statements signed by him
When questioned as to the responsibility
for the infractions of the civil service
rules in the Washington post Office, he
said:
"As most of the appointments of the
people who have In any degree violated the
civil service regulations have been desig-
mated or made by the department. 1t seems
to me that the responsibility for violation
OF the regulations should be located with
the parties directing the appointments"
Again, he said
People that had proved inefficient in the
department had been unloaded upon
the post Office on several occasions as Is
instanced by the case of -"
The postmaster also stated that, in his
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.
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:
1T 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"
This statement begs the question. 1t Is
civil service rule promulgated by the
President. which provides for the classih-
cation OF clerks at free delivery offices,
and the commission construes this rule as
recognising only bona f1de employees
acquiring a clessfcable status 1t was the
department and not the statute or the
rules that placed the names Of eighteen
residents of Washington it's vicinity on
the rolls OF post offices in various parts OF
the United States. without reference to
the needs of those offices. and in most
cases without their ever serving in those
offices, for the sole purpose oe getting
them into classified positions In the Wash
ington post Office or the department. The
department in making those appointments
without doubt reverted to the practice
which the civil service act was designed
to prevent. and to this extent nullifed the
law.
Mr.. Smith says in reference to the same
subject:
in 1897, before I became Postmaster
General, some persons were appointed to
Offices about to be classified and after
classification transferred to other parts
of the service. The practice thus intro
duced continued in q limited degree"
AS a matter of record there were only
four such appointments made during the
latter part of 1897 and the early part of
1885, prior to the appointment Of Mr..
Smith and lA under his administration, .
Mr.. Smith says:
mo rule, even at this time, forbids trans
fer at any time in the exactly parallel
case where small unclassifed ofices are
classified by being consolidated with larger
classified Offices"
This assertion ignores the fact that Sec
ton OF civil service rule II forbids the
classification of an employe in an offlce
which is to be consolidated with a classi-
fed Office unless he has actually served
therein during the sixty days next pre-
ceding the consolidation or was appointed
through competitive examination
He also quotes his letter OF December
q 1900. to the commission, in which he
agreed that admissions to the service
should. as far as practicable, be made only
upon examination, and stated that direc-
tions had been given which would remove
all just ground of complaint. Mr. Smith
now states bis belief that the commission
never answered this letter. and declares
that he will not comment ION the peculiar
candor which made no acknowledgment
OF the removal of all just ground of COM
plant then, and seeks. to suppress the
truth about 1t now"
sufficient reply, to this statement will
be found on page 3O0of the seventeenth an
nual report of the commission. published in
the early part of 1891. tn which this state
ment follows the full quotation of Mr..
Smiths letter: =;
1T 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"
The letter of December n. 1900. was a dec
laration of intention on the part of the de-
partment to observe the intent Of the law,
after six written appeals from the COM
mission. ranging from May 49, 1893, to May
"a, 1890 two references Of the matter to
the President. and the appointment and
transfer OF 124 employees by the objectiona-
BILE method.
Mr. erifh resenfs the statement thaf the