The daily morning journal and courier., 1904-06-09
AN APPEAL TO THE MAYOR
ACTION TAKEN BY STATE CIVIL
 SERVICE ASSOCIATION.
A Claim That Election of Samuel J.. Well to CIerkship of Local Board Was
 Defective-synopsis of statement Text May be interpreted as a Request

leXt Nlay De 1nteTpctcu us a hS4ucs- for Wells Removal.
 In letter Of some length sent to
 Mayor Studley of this city yesterday Iby a subcommittee of the executive committee of the Connecticut Civil Service Reform association, request is made that he examine the action Of the civil service board of New Haven, the only board of it's kind in the state,
 n reference to the appointment of it's secretary. The text of the letter con- tains what may be interpreted as de- Inand for the removal of the board u1l-
 der section 213 os the city charter.
 The letter in opening recites what is claimed to be the history of the selec- Ition of Samuel J. Well, as clerk of the leivil service board. It says in brief that in January last the office of sec- retary becoming vacant the board pro- ceeded without advertisement or ex- animation to elect Well; that the ex- Ieeutive committe of the Civil Service
 Reform association called the attention | of the board to its action, stating that
 the law required that the office be plac- ed under the civil service and that the lcorporation counsel upheld the execu-
 tive committee in it's opinion. The letter then makes these asser- tions:
 First-That the board made an ap-. Ipointment without examination when the charter requires one; that this lcould not have been due either to ig- lnorance or to a reasonable doubt as to the meaning of the charter. Second-That the board violated rule Is by allowing five weeks to elapse be- l tween the temporary and the final ap-
 pointment, though the rule itself limits such appointments to fuor weeks and l to cases in which there is not sufficient ltime to conduct an examination ac- lcording to law.
 1 The letter describes what is called the history of the examination of five persons for the clerksllip. It says that l all passed above the minimum of sev- lenty required by law, and that MT. Veil had the lowest mark. He was shortly afterwards permanently ap- pointed to the place. The letter says Ithat the board under the rules was le- lgally within it's rights fn making the
 Appointment, but nevertheless the ap-
 pointment was not only an improper Ione in itself but contrary to the spirit
 and intention os the charter" I The letter further says: We are lpreparad to offer, evidence, if necessa- Try to show that not only Is tn ap-
 pointee the kind of an active worker
 condemned by Resident Roosevelt, but
 that the examination which he passed
 was so easy as to furnish no adequate
 test of his capacity, and that the way
 in which he has filled the duties of
 his office shows him to be unable to
 maintain the standard of efficiency,
 which has hitherto prevailed in that
 department"
 Tn conclusion the letter says: We
 respectfully submit that this disregard
 both of the letter of the charter and
 of the standards of official honor hith-
 erto recognized on the part of the
 board, which exists solely for the pur-
 pose of maintaining a non-partisan and hconpetitive method of appointment, tends to dernoralize the whole system, and to compromise your own adminis- I tration, and we believe that the power Iof removal contained in section 213 of the charter enables you to apply an leffectual remedy.
 ] (Signed).
 Henry w. Farnham, chairman; Norris
 G. Osborn, Clarence Den1ing, Benja- l min R. English, John c. Gallagher, l Amory E. Rowland, H. G. Day, Chas. 1 c. Morris, secretary