Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-06-08
Court # Appeals Passes on
Miss faylor's Case.
OPINION RENDERED
APPELLANT "A CLERK IN THE
M A
War DEPARTMENT.
Was Dismissed for Criticising Govern
ment Policy and Sought Rein
statement in Service.

The Court Of Appeals this afternoon
handed down an opinion affirming the ac-
ton Of former Chief Justice Bingham of
the Supreme Court of the District Of Column
bia in the case of the United States ex rel
Rebecca J. Taylor appellant. against the
Secretary OF War.
Miss Taylor was clerk in the classified
civil service of the United States and as
such was employed in the War Department.
While In such service there appeared in a
local newspaper an article which severely
reflected upon the President Of the United
States and to which article the name of
Miss Taylor was appended. A few days
later the Secretary Of War directed that
an inquiry be made Of Miss Taylor con-
corning the authenticity of the article in
question and to learn whether she admitted
that she was the author of 1t. then, in that
event. to have her attention directed to
civil service rule No. IL, and that she be
given three days In which to submit any
explanation or statement she might desire
to make concerning It,
Miss Taylor answered admitting that she
had written the article, but offering no
statement or explanation concerning 1t.
She took the ground that no charge had
been preferred against her, and. therefore,
she was not called upon to make any fur
Their answer under Rule IL.
The Prayer Denied.
Upon the receipt Of Miss Taylor's answer.
the Secretary of War issued an order dis
missing her from the service, assigning as
his reason the publication of the article in
question. Miss Taylor thereupon petit
toned the District Supreme Court for the
writ OF mandamus to compel the Secretary
10 reinstate her. After long hearing Chief
Justice Bingham denied the prayer for the
writ OF mandamus and dismissed the petit
tion. Miss Taylor then appealed.
% I'LL
preliminary to them all, according to the
court or Appeals. Is that of the authority
OF the courts to review the action of the
pc Syecretary or War in removing her. That
the courts have noA such jurisdiction is an
nounced to be entirely clear to the Court
OF Appeals. which adds: THAT the right of
appointment carries with 1t the right of re-
movai has been determined 50 many times
tnat II would be useless to cite authority
IN support of the proposition. This power
or removal, therefore, would seem to he
unrestricte9t except as controlled by leeis-
Iat1on of Congress.
This the appellant contends has been
done by the civil service act of January 16
1855 but D1 inspection Of that act shows
tina. ina, the only restriction placed upon the
right Of removal is that: No officer or en-
ploye of the United States mentioned in
this act shan discharge any other officer or
employee for giving or Withholding or neg
lectlng to make any contribution of money
or other valuable thing for any political
Further the Court of Appeals says: ut
Is perfectly plain from the reading Of the
act that Congress never intended to limit
the power or removal except for the single
cause of failure to- contribute money or
services to a political party.
The entire policy OF civil service has been
to restrict5the' power of appointment. not
removal. because QRce the right to appoint
Is restricted wtthip certain defined 5classfi-,
cations the reason TOR political removals
has ceased; ana. therefore, the right of re- re-
the political CAUSES assisned e Not on nIr
has the statute made this plain, but reason
is with it. ~ '"t
Authority Of Department Chiefs
The question Of ftness, capacity, atten-
ton to the duties Of an officer is necessarily
to be determined BY the heads of the de-
partments.s 3, -.i- -..s'--'
This determination is only arrived at by
the exercise OF discretion and Judgment,
and will 1t be seriously contended that the
courts can, by proceedings in mandamus.
review his discretion and Judgment. VIII
1t be asserted that the thousands OF en-
plOyes in the classified service of the gov
eminent can appeal to the courts for the
review of the action Of their superior
of8cer whenever he may find cause to re-
move one or more of them for inefficiency,
whether 1t be, in the total failure of the
employe to pfqfprm his or her duties, Or
whether 1t be for acts which in the judg
ment of that superior officer are detri-
mental to the discipline of the service?
1T seems to us the very statement Of the
contention Is It's own .refutation. Any other
conclusion would encourage inefficiency and
n competency in Office and be fruitful of In
subordination. We understand our conclu-
sion Of this question to have the support
of the Supreme Court of the United States"
The opinion was written by Chief Justice
Clabaush Of tile Supreme Court of the Dis
trict of Columbia, who sat a member of
the Court of Appeals during the argument
of the APPEAL stn
Opinion In "Zoo' Case.
In an opinion also written by Chief Jus
tice Clabaugh of the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia the Court of Appeals
lower court in the case of Hannah Jackson
against DR.. Frank Baker. superintendent
of the National geological Park
The cause came up upon demurrer filed
to the declaration of the appellant which
charges that Dr. Baker has the custody
and was the keeper Of certain wild beast
of. the wolf kind. In the Zoo, and that the
wolf escaped from his custody and keep
ing and came upon the premises of Mrs.
Jackson and seriously injured her daugh-
ter The court below sustained demurrer
to the declaration. from which action a
special appeal was allowed by the Court OF
Appeals ..-l.~.
the arguments before the Court of Appeals
it was evident that the lower court based
it's decision upon a concession that DIR.
Baker was the superintendent Of the Ma
tional Geological Park, and as such officer
was the keeper Of and had the custody of
the wolf The real question argued was,
was 1t necessary under such circumstances
to ailege tfjzf. thu wolf aecaped through the
negligence OF DR.. Baker.
Decided Upea Record In Case.
The Court of Appeals says:
There Is nothing in the record, however.
to show thAtrsuch Vas tine contention, and
we are. stheRsfOEes compelled to decide the
case, upon the record as we find it. 1t is
manifest thai. Thea demurrer ought not to