Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1905-11-28

Roosevelt, To-Day, removed lioill once
William S. Leib, assistant United
States treasurer at Philadelphia. for
constant and persistent violation of
the civil service law while in office.
In a formal statement issued at the
White House, today, by President
Roosevelt. Mr. Leib's removal is an
nounced. The President gave Mr.. Leib
a hearing last Friday. at the request
Of Senators Penrose and Jones OF
Pennsylvania. Mr.. Leib submitted a
long statement in answer to the
charges made against him and was
supported by Representative Patter-
son of Pennsylvania
After consideration of all the facts
developed by the inquiry the. President
desired to remove Mr.. Leib from office
it being shown, according to the state
ment that there was constant and
consistent effort on your tMr. L"ib'S)
part to evade the provisions Of the
civil service law to hamper its work
ings as far as possible, and to OBJ
Struct in every way the action of the
commission"
The President declared that the cvi-
dence showed fraud in the civil ser
vice examinations, the fraud in on in
stance duplicating Mr.. Leib'S sister.
President Roosevelt's statement,
which is in the form of letter to Mr..
I.cib, is as follows:
Il have carefully considered the pa
pers in your case ana the statements
made by you in your own behalf and
by Mr.. Cooley on behalf of the civil
service commission. 1t appears to me
very clear that there has been 4 con-
sthht and consistent effort on your part
to erade tho provisions of the civil ser
vice law, to hamper it's workings NS
far as possible and to Obstruct in every
way the action of the commission. Il
expect on the one hand that the COM
mission shall endeavor not to hamper.
but to aid the other public servants of
the government i'll doing their work
successfully, and on the other hand L
expect in return that the other public
servants shall cooperate with the COM
mission and aid them in their efforts
to carry out the civil service law.
"In your case it seems to me clearly
established that you have sought con-
tinually TO take advantage of every
kind of technicalites you have kept
upon the roll in almost continuous po-
sitionS certain of your own relatives
and at least one person whose appoint
ment was evidently pressed merely for
political reasons, instead of making all
proper effort to carry out the law as
IT applies to appointments within the
classified service. 1t clearly appears
that in one examination held upon in
formation furnished by your office there
was such clear evidence of fraud that
it had to be cancelled. The evidence as
to the fraudulent character of the eX-
animation implicated your sister, TWO
persons from your own town, ana one
person who was ut that time serving
i'm your Office under temporary ap-
pointInent and VINO was subsequently
dismissed from the service for swear
falsely. At the time of the .cancelints OF
this examination you were addressed
by the secretary of the treasury in z
| letter running as follows:
.Sir-rhe department has given
| car. full consideration to your letter of
| the 9th ultimo. answering the com
plant of the civil service commission
| of Jan. 8, 1905, relative to alleged irreg-
! uiarities in an examination held for
your office, Aug. 17,1s04. a copy of
which complaint was sent you from
this Office on the 5th ultimo.
| The civil service commission CANCEL
cd this examination for serious Irregular
| ties and this department believes TINS ac
ton to have been fully justified by The
facts disclosed in the testimony takel
during its investigation. From this tos-
timony and your own statement the de-
partncnt has reached the conclusion thai
your sister, Miss Esther p. L"ib. was
not eligible to take the examination be
cause she had not had three years eXpe
rience in duties similar to those pertain
ing to the position to be filled. until {
| reasonable construction of the regula
tions governing examinations for tn
| sub treasury service. From your sister
own statement, her claim to have had the
experience required cannot be allowed
The department cannot but feel that per
sonal coaching of Miss Leib by YOU fo
this examination was an. act Of impro
priety on your part. in view of your off
eial position and of Miss Leib's relation
ship to you.
The department is also of the opinion
that your giving to Miss Lille III. WaS
ncr. a temporary clerk in your office arc
an applicant for the examination abou
to take place, and known by you to b.
such. the keys or answers to the not
and coin counting tests in the form o
rcncil memoranda to be copied by hey
was grossly improper and cannot be to
severely ccnsured. Such an incident
known to your subordinate force, cou
not fail to be prejudicial to good feelir
and good discipline in your Office an
could not fail to impair the confidence o