Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1925-08-06

HELD APPO|NT|VE
Sargent Rules Traffic Dr.
rector Does Not Come Under
Civil Service.

The District Commissioners came
out victorious today in their conten-
ton that Traffic Director NJ. o. Ell
bridge and his staff are not subject to
the Jurisdiction of the Civil Service
Commission.
They received from the Civil Service
Commission today an opinion by
United States Attorney General Sar-
gent. holding that Mr.. Eldridge and
his assistants are not members of the
Police Department, and. therefore, not
subject to the act of 1919, which
placed the Police Department under
civil service.
Soon after Mr.. Eldridge was ap-
pointed the civil service authorities
raised the point that he should have
been selected under civil service re-
quirements, and there followed a pc
riod of correspondence between the
Civil Service Commission and the Dis
trict authorities, in which each side
held to it's contention. 1t was finally
agreed to ask the President to submit
the question to the Attorney General.
Were Not Against Eldridge.
When the matter was first brought
up officials of the Civil Service Com
no objection to Mr.. Eldridge personal
ly. and even pointed out that he had
formerly been in the Government
service as an official of the Bureau of
Public Roads for number of years.
They felt, however. that the legal
question of whether the Office of traffic
director is under civil service should
be settled.
The contentious of the Commits.
H,rM No No ,;~I
J. Donovan and Corporation Counsel
Stephens.
In his opinion today the Attorney
General said:
THE commissioners of the civil
service advance the view that the ap-
pointment of the director of traffic.
as well as the members of his clerical
force. are subject to the provisions of
the act of December 5, 1919. supra,
and that such appointments must,
therefore, be made in the same man.
ner as appointments to positions in
the classified civil service are made.
To Justify this position 1t must be
held that the director of traffc is a
member of the Metropolitan Police
force of the District of Columbia"
Not Member Of Force.
After quoting the paragraph of the
traffic act which empowered the Dis
trict Commissioners to appoint a
director who, under the direction of
the major and superintendent of police
of the District. shall perform the
duties prescribed in this act -
the Attorney General continued:
THE Il affic act makes no reference
to the act of December s., 1919. The
fact that the director of traffic is
authorized to make certain regu&'
lions respecting traffic of motor We
hicles in the District of Columbia
which regulations, when approved and
promulgated by the, Commissioners OF
the District of Columbia, become a
part of the police laws of the District,
does not make the director member
| of the Metropolitan Police force.
Saws Commissioners Have Power.
"If the Congress in creating the new
office of director of traffic had intend
| ed to make the director a member OF
| the police force, and his appointment
subject to the provisions OF the act
! of December 5, 1919, 1t Is reasonable
! to suppose that 1t would have ex
pressed its intent in clear and specif1S
! language. The traffic act gives full
power to the Commissioners OF the
| District of Columbia to appoint aSJi
rector of traffic and places no restrfc
| lions upon the appointment.
! II have the honor to advise you
therefore, that, in my opinion, neither
the director of traffic nor the person:
! on his staff are members of the Metro
politan Police force, and the Commits
sioners of the District of Columbia are
| not required by the act of December
S. 1919, supra, to appoint the director
j and persons on his staff in the same
.,anner 90 claSsified civil service EN-
ployes are appointed"