New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-05-14


made public the report OF Assistant Attorney
General Robb on the New-York Posrofice To-
/ day. It IS follows
uoas. have carefully reviewed the volunlinOus
ana exhaustive report OF the commission, COM
posed OF seven postofHce inspectors. that con-
/ Quoted the investigation into the conduct and
organization Of the postoflce al New York City,
and have also carefully reviewed all the ex-
nlolrs which contain The evidence upon which
that report was based. In addition 10 this, act
ing within the scope OF your Instructions. I went
10 New-NOrk and made such further personal
investigation Of the Office as deemed necessary
10 give me 8 thorough knowledge Of the situa-
assigned to positions inconsistent with their
roster titles The practice was in vogue 10 some
Office II ZS31. and while there is no legal justi-
1catiOn for such practice the postmaster
directs attention 10 the enormous increase in the
business 81 the Office and the consequent in
crease in the duties and responsibilities Of the
clerks as = moral justification for his very H6-
e-al interpretation OF the Classification law 1t
appears that George ". Beavers. late super
t1ts1dsnr OF tE.e salaries and allowances diVi-
sion. was formerly connected wiki the New
York Fostoflce- L further appears that he not
olIy proved, but encouraged, the policy Of the
pOstU-1=t-- With reference 10 the classification
OF TIL Cl4pl Jyez OF MS Office Il is my opinion
tia. I'D Bea sa-s exercised q proper super
vision ard infue-ce over the New-Yort Office
there would have >en strict coTrpr7-,4 with
the law.
find that Whitfield Van Colt. a brother OF the
postmaster. was. upon the recommendation OF
the postmaster. on March !. 1895. appointed as
= laborer. ard served IL such capacity until
May 81, 1898. and that there was paid 10 him
during this period tie sum OF Sl,So4 5S Whit
field Van COLc vas supposed 10 nave inspected
letter boxes. but I md THAI he performed
service whatsoever The postmaster says he
directed him 70 report 10 the person having
charge q the repairing Of letter boxes. This
person discla4Tns any knowledge Of the matter
Whitfield Van Colts Statements regarding his
employment are conflicting and unsatisfactory.
bur he finally claimed TO have reported to Rich
ard Van Colt, the postraster's son. Richard
Van Colt also stated that Whitfield reported 20
him, and promised 10 produce the reports, but
ne now says he Is unable n ind them No ac-
count was kept OF Whit1elds time and
in the postoffiCe so Ear 1 able 10 ascertain
clsburslng officers, knew that ne was employed
The negligence Of the postmaster In this mat
ter was inexcUsable, and the amount paid 70 his
brother should be charged back 10 the post
master n the settlement Of his accounts. Bea-
vers was also fully coEynizant OF this appoint
ment, which. on It's face. was unnecessary and
I find ina; IN 1862 the postmaster granted
his son, Richard Van Colt forty days leave OF
absence. with pay (Which he used BY going
abroad, to which he was not legally entitled
and that there paid the son during this
time S347 So which should be charged back in
the settlement OF the postmaster accounts
The postmaster says he received authority 70
grant this excessive leave Of absence 10 his
from the First Assistant Postmaster Gen
e-aL who. however is positive that he did not
attempt 20 grant such leave. II is unlikely
that i was Beavers Instead Of the First Assist
an Postmaster General from whom the post
master sought authority to grant such leave.
Assistant Postmaster Morgan testirss that when
The chiefs Of divisions in the New York Post
Office desired to go abroad. II was customary
10 grant leave Of absence with pay for such
purpose. While thia custom might relieve the
postmaster OF moral responsibility. he would
nevertheless BE legally liable, in my opinion,
for the S347 Sc paid Richard Var Colt for leave
~ excess OF that allowed by law.
RICHARD VAN Colts POSITION
The position Of Richard Van Colt in the New
York Postoffce is somewhat anomalous He
bears the roster title Of superintendent OF de-
livery and receives the salary Of that position.
Notwithstanding that A B. Maze is the super
intendent OF the mailing division, and receives
the salary as such, Richard Van Cott has the
nominal title Of general superintendent Of the
mailing division. designation rot authorized
by law Since he receives but one salary and
actually performs the dCties OF the position, the
only objection to his designation as general
SUPERINTENDENT Of the mailing division Is that
he usurps the functions OF the head CT that
division, to the injury of the service.
I find that in the matter Of appointments and
transfers in the whole office Richard Van Cott
has many occasions usurpec the functions
OF the postmaster, and that the service has suf
fered thereby. The correspondence between
Richard Van Colt and Beavers plainly discloses
that there was no attempt on the part Of Rich
ard Van Colt 10 comply with the classification
act and that he DID not hesitate 10 evade the
Civil Service law in appointments and transfer
as illustrating Richard Van Colts lack OF ap-
n-eciation OF the responsibilities OF his position
attention IS directed 10 the record of Joseph
Falvey, who an employe Of the Office and
u75e- rhe control Of Richard Van Colt from
tune 10 1900 TO March 9. 1902. The record
shows that he absent from duty during
th;s time and continued to draw salary 259 DAYS
The time book Sor thar period shows that Rich
ard Van Cott was responsible for the granting
Of this excessive leave OF absence
Feeling assured that Richard Van Colts FUR
ther connection with the New York Postofice
viii NOT be for the good Of the service. 7 re-
spectfully suggest that his resignation be re-
qGested.
THE POSTMASTER CRITICISED
While I am satisfied that Postmaster Van
Colt has permitted his son 70 exercise greater
control Of the Office than has been consistent with