Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-11-25
Summary Dismissal.

When the Presidents summary dismissal
order was promulgated a few weeks ago
there was a belief in some quarters that
the general expressions of disapproval of
It's radical departure from the true spirit
of civil service reform would eventually
cause its modification. On the contrary,
time has brought only a stiffening OF It's
terms. The order, as finally amended, now
reads as follows. constituting new civil
service rule No. II:
. Il. In making removals or reductions,
and in other punishment, penalties like In
character shall be imposed for like offenses.
20. No person shall be removed from a
competitive position except for such cause
as will promote the efficiency Of the service.
When the President or head Of an executive
department Is satisfied that an officer or
employee In the classified service Is ineffi-
cient or incapable. and that the public serv-
ice will be materially improved by his re-
notice to such officer or employee, but the
cause of removal shall be stated In writing
and filed. When misconduct is committed
in the view and presence OF the President
moval may be made summardly, and no
statement of reasons need be filed.
'3 Where a recommendation for removal
or reduction in grade or compensation Of an
officer or employee is made to the head of an
executive department by a bureau chief or
other subordinate officer, the said head OF
department may, In his discretion. require
that the person sought TO De removed De
furnished with a statement in writing Of
the reasons for such action. and be allowed
a reasonable time for personally answering
the same.
~ The civil service commission shall
have no jurisdiction to investigate any re-
moval unless IL Is alleged that the pro-
cedure required by section Of rule IL has
not been followed or that the removal was
made for political or religious reasons
10. tcfip
CARDS the filing of records, between an or
binary case OF dismissal and one arising
from an act of misconduct personally
viewed by the head Of the department or
the President? Is a man who misbehaves
in the Presence so vile that he deserves
not even an official epitaph?
Again. why should there be a distinction,
or rather discrimination, between certain
cases and others In the matter Of furnish
ing the man slated by has immediate su-
perior for dismissal with a statement In
writing for the reasons for such action,
and granting time for answer? This Is q
very decided grant Of power. 1t consE-
tutes the head of the department doubly a
Judge as to the merits of the dismissal and
the rights of the accused. -.
Once more, why should the cloak of Sc
creey be drawn so tightly around the whole
proceeding that not even the civil service
commission can investigate cases of dis
missal unless it is alleged that the removal
was made for political or religious reasons?
Why should not the civil service commits
sion be furnished, indeed, with memoranda
of all the cases of dismissal as they occur?
Why should 1t not be taken completely into
the confidence OF the executive department
heads in this matter? Why should the
President be so evidently anxious to elm
mate one of the surest checks against
the misuse of the public patronage and the
improper punishment of clerks?
The tendency in these days Is to devise
checking systems so that the element of
human frailty may be Offset to the fullest
possible extent. Here is the government of
the United States adopting star chamber
methods, weakening the safeguards against
petty tyranny and vesting the executive
chiefs with an absolute power which, in
the course of things. Will inevitably be
welded unjustly. The whole proceeding
Is discouraging to the friends of civil serv-
fee reform and business-like administration