Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-07-27
SMITH ANSWERED.
Continued from page ~


transferred to other parts of the serv-
ice. The practice thus introduced con-
tinued in a limited degree.
"As a matter of record, there were
only four such appointments made dur
ing the latter port of 1897, and the early
part of 1898, pior to the appointment of
Mr.. Smith, and 124 under his admins
tration.
Mr.. Smith says: "No rule even at this
time, forbids transfer at any time in
the exactly parallel case where small
unclassified offices are classified by be-
ing consolidated with larger classified
offices. This assertion ignores the fact
that Section of civil service Rule 2.
forbids the classification Of an employee
in an office which is to be consolidated
with a classified office unless he has
actually served therein during the 60
days next preceding the consolidation
or was appointed through competitive
examination"
He also quotes his letter Of Dec. 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
directions had been given which would
remove all just ground of complaint.
Mr.. Smith now states his 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 complaint then, and
seeks to suppress the truth about 1t
now"
A sufficient reply to this statement
will be found on page 800 of the seven
teenth annual report of the commission
published in the early part of 1901, in
which this statement follows the full
quotation of Mr.. Cmith's 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 Dec. q, 1900, was a de-
claration Of intention on the part of the
department to observe the intent of the
law after six written appeals from the
commission, ranging from May 16, 1898.
to May "a, 1900, two references of the
matter to the President and the ap-
pointment and transfer of 1874 employees
by the objectionable method.
Mr.. Smith reSents the statement that
the rural free delivery service was
packed with employees in the interest of
the individuals just before classification
as indicated by the fact that Sc were
appointed in the rs days just preceding
classification on Nov. o. 1901, while on
ly II were appointed between that date
and May, 1903 He attributes the large
number of appointments just before
classification to the great increase of
work and indicated by the fact that the
appropriation for the rural free deliv-
cry service for the year ended June
30, 1902, was double the amount for the
preceding year. He does not explain
why. although the appropriation was
again more than doubled for the year
ended June 80, 1903, it was necessary to
appoint but seven persons in Washing
ton from Nov. q, 1901, to May, 1903. 1t
seems fair inference that the appoint
nents prior to classification so far ex-
ceeded the needs of service that few
appointments were necessary even
when the appropriation was more than
doubled for the year ended June so,
1903.
Mr. Smiths letter closes with the
statement that Mr.. Proctor's inuendoes
justify personal statement which will
be more becoming in less formal
pa per-"
An editorial in the Philadelphia Press
of June 20. 1908. presumably contains
this personal statement. The article is
given almost entirely to abuse and
vituperation. One or two exceptions
will be noted in a supplementary state
ment I shall give to the public press
with copy of this letter.
AS the matters under consideration
had their origin prior to your induction
into office, this letter cannot properly
be regarded as referring in any way
to your administration of the depart
ment.
Very respectfully,
JOHN r. PROCTOR,