Where a removal or reduction is made relating to the internal administration of the service not contrary to clauses 3 and 6 of Rule II, cited above, the Commission has no authority to interfere. In view of the statement of the Secretary of Agriculture and the evidence which he submits, the Commission feels that with its limited force and the pressure of work it can not at this time make an investigation of its own into the matter. Very respectfully, Mr. W. S. WHITE, South Omaha, Nebr. JOHN R. PROCTER, President. UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Washington, D. C., January 21, 1897. SIR: Referring to your communication, previously acknowledged, with reference to the removal of Mary A. Dalton and John Zeller from the Bureau of Animal Industry at South Omaha, Nebr., for alleged political reasons, you are informed that the Secretary of Agriculture has stated to the Commission that the removals were made for good reasons; that he did not know who any one of the persons removed supported for President; that he made no inquiry, nor did he care whom they supported. He has laid before the Commission a number of sworn statements, from which it would seem that the removals related solely to the internal discipline of the service, in which this Commission has no authority to interfere. Later, the Secretary of Agriculture addressed the Commission, inclosing copies of additional affidavits, adding: "I think these affidavits show conclusively that my action was for the good of the public service." The civil service rules contain the following provisions respecting dismissals or changes of rank: "Rule II. "3. No person in the executive civil service shall dismiss, or cause to be dismissed, or make any attempt to procure the dismissal of, or in any manner change the official rank or compensation of any other person therein because of his political or religious opinions or affiliations. * "6. In making removals or reductions, or in imposing punishment for delinquency or misconduct, penalties like in character shall be imposed for like offenses, and action thereupon shall be taken irrespective of the political or religious opinions or affiliations of the offenders." Where a removal or reduction is made for reasons relating to the internal administration of the service not contrary to clauses 3 and 6 of Rule II, cited above, the Commission has no authority to interfere. In view of the statement of the Secretary of Agriculture and the evidence which he submits, the Commission feels that with its limited force and the pressure of work it can not at this time make an investigation of its own into the matter. Very respectfully, Mr. ED. P. SMITH, 923 New Life Building, Omaha, Nebr. JOHN R. PROCTER, President. UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Washington, D. C., January 21, 1897. MADAM: Referring to your communication previously acknowledged with reference to your removal from the Bureau of Animal Industry at South Omaha, Nebr., for alleged political reasons, you are informed that the Secretary of Agriculture has stated to the Commission that the removals were made for good reasons; that he did not know who any one of the persons removed supported for President; that he made no inquiry, nor did he care whom they supported. He has laid before the Commission a number of sworn statements, from which it would seem that the removals related solely to the internal discipline of the service, in which this Commission has no authority to interfere. Later, the Secretary of Agriculture addressed the Commission, inclosing copies of additional áffidavits, adding: "I think these affidavits show conclusively that my action was for the good of the public service." The civil service rules contain the following provisions respecting dismissals or change of rank: "Rule II. "3. No person in the executive civil service shall dismiss, or cause to be dismissed, or make any attempt to procure the dismissal of, or in any manner change the official rank or compensation of any other person therein because of his political or religious opinions or affiliations. "6. In making removals or reductions, or in imposing punishment for delinquency or misconduct, penalties like in character shall be imposed for like offenses, and action thereupon shall be taken irrespective of the political or religious opinions or affiliations of the offenders." Where a removal or reduction is made for reasons relating to the internal administration of the service not contrary to clauses 3 and 6 of Rule II, cited above, the Commission has no authority to interfere. In view of the statement of the Secretary of Agriculture and the evidence which he submits, the Commission feels that with its limited force and the pressure of work it can not at this time make an investigation of its own into the matter. Very respectfully, Miss MARY FLYNN, Omaha, Nebr. JOHN R. PROCTER, President. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY, South Omaha, Nebr., January 26, 1897. DEAR SIR: Your communication of January 21 received, and I am greatly disappointed to know I will have no opportunity to prove to your honorable Commission that every charge against me is false. Secretary Morton tells you he did not remove me for political reasons. His private secretary writes me he did. I know Secretary Morton a great deal better than any member of your Commission. Have had a long personal acquaintance with him. The Secretary's friends tell me that he, the Secretary, feels that my course during the recent campaign was a personal insult to him. Secretary Morton is a brainy man and thinks his way of looking at things just "the way." I am surprised at Secretary's course in this matter. He said to me in his own home last September that he "had never heard a word against my department." I had charge of the microscopic department here a little over three years, and during that time there was at least twelve months there was no microscopic work to be done. In that idle time I made calls when asked to do so. Some of the affidavits in your possession were given by parties visited at the above time. You also have affidavits from persons who will swear I never visited them during working hours. There is no justice in this one-sided affair. I will be greatly obliged for a copy of the charges against me, days and dates of duty neglected. I think I am entitled to them. Nothing but justice to me. Yours, respectfully, Hon. JOHN R. PROCTER. W. S. WHITE. UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, SIR: In reply to your letter of January 26, I am to state that the Commission has no duty to furnish you a copy of the charges against you, and must refer you to the Secretary of Agriculture for such a copy. Very respectfully, Dr. W. S. WHITE, JOHN T. DOYLE, Secretary. South Omaha, Nebr. OMAHA, NEBR., February 3, 1897. GENTLEMEN: Your letter of date January 21, 1897, in reply to the appeal of William Holmes and Mary A. Dalton to your Commission for an investigation of the alleged charges of "neglect of duty," for which they were discharged on November 15, 1896, from the Bureau of Animal Industry at South Omaha, came to hand in due time, but owing to absence from the city and the press of other matters, we were unable to give it immediate attention. We exceedingly regret that the "Commission, with its limited force and the pressure of other matters," can not at this time make an investigation of these removals. If given the opportunity, we can show that the removals were made solely for political reasons; that the departmental force at South Omaha has at all times been used by the machine for political purposes; that the persons removed, as well as other persons in the service at this point, obtain their positions through Euclid Martin, postmaster of this city; that Martin is the head of one of the factions of the Democratic party in this State, and during the last campaign directed and coerced the political conduct of the Federal employees at South Omaha; that he has done this for years; that he is the Western agent of J. Sterling Morton, and no doubt was instrumental in having these persons removed. Not that he filed the charge himself, but was instrumental in having it done by others under his control-Rush, Sherlock, Leddy, Conoyer, etc. We can show that the Secretary of Agriculture not only asked, but directed men in the service at South Omaha to do political work; that these persons were also instructed as to the part they should take in primaries. None but Bryan Democrats have been removed. The charge of neglect of duty is false, and made only to cover up and excuse removals made because the persons removed chose to exercise the right of every American citizen, i. e., to determine their politics for themselves and not to take it from the Secretary of Agriculture. The per sons removed were among the most efficient in the service, frequently doing the work of Morton's spies while they were loafing in saloons, drunk, or absent without leave. Mrs. Ida E. Bushnell (a sister of Tobias Castor, one of the P. and B. Democrats) made her boasts (she is a microscopist at South Omaha before election that if the election went against Bryan she would see that certain persons were removed. She openly threatened and taunted her chief, Dr. White, with threats of removal, etc. We do not believe it possible that the Commission will pass over this case. The persons protesting and asking this investigation are refused a privilege given the meanest criminal in the land, viz, the name of their accusers, the nature of the accusation against them, and the opportunity of defending themselves. A removal under the circumstances and for the reasons stated implies a reflection upon the ability, the integrity, and faithfulness to duty of the persons removed. It is far worse than a removal for political reasons, which is accepted as the fate of all partisans. If we understand correctly the contents of your letter, there is no civil service in this country so far as removals are concerned. If a chief officer can remove and assign as a reason therefor a cause relating to the "internal discipline" of the service, and your Commission can not and will not go behind the cause assigned, then civil-service reform is a sham, and any pretensions of regard therefor rank hypocrisy. We learn this with surprise and regret, and yet, as we belong to a political party that was charged with declaring in favor of a return to the "odious spoils system," and denounced throughout the country for it, it is a source of no little gratification that we learn that we have never departed from the odious spoils system, and that a return to such is unnecessary. We can not believe that you will deny our clients an investigation; it will be an act of fairness and justice to all concerned. A removal and hearing based only upon ex parte affidavits made and collected by a party whose conduct is impugned will never satisfy the people that justice has been done. We know and can prove that the Secretary of Agriculture and the postmaster of this city by these removals have sought to revenge themselves upon those who would not do their political bidding. Again we ask you to grant us a hearing. Yours, truly, HERDMAN & HERDMAN. Washington, D. C. BOARD OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS, UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Washington, D. C., February 8, 1897. GENTLEMEN: In reply to your letter of February 3, in the matter of the removal of certain persons in the Bureau of Animal Industry for alleged political reasons, I am to request that you furnish affidavits covering the points in your letter, in order that the Commission may decide whether the evidence is sufficient to justify the sending of a personal representative to make an investigation. Very respectfully, Messrs. HERDMAN & HERDMAN, JOHN R. PROCTER, President. Attorneys at Law, Creighton Block, Omaha, Nebr. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C., February 15, 1897. SIR: I observe in the Congressional Record, which I received this morning, some correspondence relative to removals of certain employees of the Bureau of Animal Industry of the United States Department of Agriculture at South Omaha, Nebr. Among those letters is one from my private secretary, Mr. John Nordhouse. That communication probably was based upon a letter written to me by Dr. White, proposing that I should become a candidate for the Presidency, and that he would do all he could to secure a delegation. Dr. White's letter was turned over to Mr. D. MacCuaig, chief of this Department, to answer. The following is Mr. MacCuaig's answer: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF CLERK, Washington, D. C., January 22, 1896. DEAR SIR: Replying to your letter of the 15th instant, addressed to the Secretary, I have to inform you that he has neither time nor incli nation to influence people of Nebraska in any political action. The Democracy should act in the interests of the party, independent of the dictation or direction of anyone. Whatever may be done will be acquiesced in by the Secretary. Respectfully, yours, Mr. W. S. WHITE, South Omaha, Nebr. D. MACCUAIG, Chief Clerk. The foregoing may be indicative of some "pernicious political activity" which was proposed in behalf of— Yours, respectfully, Hon. JOHN R. PROCTER, J. STERLING MORTON, Secretary. President United States Civil Service Commission. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C., February 16, 1897. SIR: Further complying with your request as to causes for the dismissal of Dr. W. S. White, I give you herewith copies of letters which have been written to him from time to time admonishing him as to the importance of closer attention to the duties of his office as chief microscopist at South Omaha. I also inclose copies of two letters, dated December 3, 1894, addressed to Dr. Don. C. Ayer, in charge of the Bureau of Animal Industry at South Omaha, Nebr. Also a copy of a letter addressed to Dr. W. S. Devoe, dated December 3, 1894, who at that time was a traveling veterinarian instructed to report as to the service at each point where large abattoirs were doing business. A letter of special instruction, signed by the Secretary of Agriculture and addressed to Dr. W. S. White, dated February 14, 1895, is also sent, to show that Dr. White has been properly admonished to attend to his duties. |