connection with the internal-revenue service in the capacity of employee will terminate at the close of this day."

The Commission, on November 23, 1897, referred the matter to the Treasury Department, stating the allegations as outlined above and calling attention to the contentious of Mr. McKee relative to the questionable methods employed by the collector in securing his removal and appointing his successor, and requested a statement with reference to these matters, it being understood that the Department had investigated the case.

On December 11, 1897, the Commission transmitted to the Treasury Department a communication from Mr. John W. Ela, inclosing papers containing the charges against McKee, together with his reply thereto, and his contentions concerning his removal, and requested an early reply covering the issues contained in said inclosures, as well as in its letter of November 23, 1897, to which no reply had been made. In a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, dated December 14, 1897, the Commission was advised that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to whom its letter of November 23 was referred, had replied to the Secretary with reference thereto as follows:

"The answer of Mr. McKee to the charge preferred against him by Collector Coyne, of breach of discipline in disregarding the office rules, was examined by this office, and the collector advised to proceed to dispense with his services as deputy collector on the 28th of September last."

The Commission was also advised that since that date the Department had approved the collector's request to make the place formerly held by Mr. McKee an excepted place under Rule VI.

It seems, however, that the Department had not received the Commission's letter of December 11 when its letter of December 14, referred to above, was written, inasmuch as the Secretary of the Treasury, under date of December 31, transmitted the following letter to Commissioner Rice:

"I have held yours of December 11 for reply until I could get better information regarding the removal of Mr. McKee from his position in the collector's office in Chicago. The papers inclosed by you speak for themselves and need not here be particularized. It appears that, rightly or wrongly, the charges made by Collector Coyne were, in the opinion of the Department, sustained, and Mr. McKee was removed. This is an accomplished fact. The letter of Mr. Ela (with whom I have been acquainted many years and in whose statements I have great confidence) raises the question whether Mr. McKee was not treated with unmerited harshness, but, admitting that to be so, I do not know how the action could be considered or revoked, since he is now out and has for some time been out of the service."

A copy of this letter was transmitted to Mr. Ela on January 1, 1898, since which date no further action has been taken.

Camden, N. J., Internal-Revenue District.

File 811.

On November 26, 1897, a complaint was filed with the Commission charging Collector Moffitt of the Camden, N. J., internal-revenue district with violating the civilservice rules by removing three deputies without preferring charges against them, as contemplated by the President's order of July 27, 1897. This communication also charged the collector with appointing to the vacancies thus created men of his own selection, without examination and certification, at a time when the names of eligibles were available for selection. Action in the matter was suspended pending the arrival of the November report of the collector, which did not reach the Commission until late in January. This report showed the temporary appointment of three deputy collectors. The Commission at once communicated with the Department to the effect that temporary appointments had been made in this district at a time when the names of two eligibles were available for selection; that these persons should have been given the benefit of temporary appointments in the event that the

collector did not desire to make a selection for permanent appointment from an incomplete certification, and that the Commission could not approve the temporary appointments mentioned. It further stated that the present register would permit of a full certification, and requested that steps be taken to stop temporary appointments.

On February 18, 1898, the Commission notified one of the complainants that it would consider any evidence that he might submit tending to show that the civilservice rules had been violated by Collector Moffitt, but no reply has as yet been received from him.

Leavenworth, Kans., Internal-Revenue District. File 829.

In a letter to the Commission dated August 12, 1897, a former deputy collector in the Leavenworth, Kans., internal-revenue district, and an honorably discharged soldier of the war of the rebellion, charged Collector Sutton with removing him from his position without preferring charges against him or giving him an opportunity for a hearing, and appointing as his successor an ex-Union soldier who some sixteen or eighteen years ago served for a time as a revenue collector. The complainant inclosed a clipping from the Leavenworth Times showing that two other Democratic deputies had been removed in this district and their places filled by Republicans. The Commission communicated with the Department on August 21, 1897, requesting a statement as to the changes made since Collector Sutton took charge of the office, whether the Department had authorized the separation of the three deputies referred to, and whether official approval had been given to the appointment or reinstatement of their successors.

On September 23 the Department stated in response to this inquiry, that the terms of the deputies mentioned expired on August 10, 1897, when Collector Sutton succeeded Collector Morris, and that certificates for the reinstatement of those persons alleged to have been appointed in contravention of the rules would be forwarded at once. The Commission accordingly notified the complainant of the attitude of the Department, and of the fact that the question of the status of deputy collectors of internal revenue is the subject of a conference between the Commission and the Treasury Department.

Certificates for reinstatement were issued upon request of the Department to cover two of the positions named, but no request for such certification for the other position has yet been received, although the attention of the Department has been called to the matter repeatedly.

Baltimore, Md., Internal-Revenue District. File 805.

The report of Collector Parlett's changes in the service for the month of October, 1897, shows the removal of twelve deputy collectors on September 30. These removals were not confined to deputy collectors who were required to give bonds to the collector, one of the points emphasized in the contentions of the other collectors, inasmuch as one of the deposed employees, who was merely designated as deputy collector for convenience in administering oaths, performed only clerical duties in the office of the collector, handled no money, and gave no bond, was among those removed. This deposed employee filed a complaint with the Commission early in October, charging the collector with removing him for political reasons and in violation of section 8 of Rule II, no charges having been filed against him. Other complaints followed, and on November 8 investigation of the administration of the civil-service law and rules in that office was ordered by the Commission. It appears from the report of this investigation that Collector Parlett, whose supervision extends over four branch offices also, made removals from all the excepted places in his district and filled the vacancies with deputies of his own selection. With the exception of two deputies who were retained as a business necessity, all the other deputies whose places were not excepted from examination were also removed, thus leaving twelve vacancies-ten of division deputies and two of clerical deputies

(including those of the four branch offices). There was a full register of eligibles for this district at the time, but the collector made no appointments, either because he expected an early decision favorable to the contentions of Collector Brady, of the Richmond district, relative to the status of deputy collectors of internal revenue, or because he wished to avoid the responsibilities attending appointments in violation of the civil-service rules in case an adverse decision were rendered. Thus it appears that during the month of October but five men, three of whom were newly appointed, were employed in connection with deputy duties at the Baltimore office. The report of changes for the month of November, which reached the Commission early in December, showed the reinstatement of seven of the twelve deputies removed by him on September 30. In reinstating these deputies, however, no certificates of reinstatement were requested of the Commission, as required by the rules. The Commission has requested the Department to comply with the requirement of the rules in this particular, but it has thus far failed to do so.

Dallas, Tex., Internal-Revenue District. File 817.

Several removals and appointments in apparent violation of civil-service rules in the Dallas, Tex., internal-revenue district in the summer of 1897, led to an investigation of the collector's office last October by a representative of the Commission. From his report it appears that when Collector Hunt assumed charge of the office on August 10, 1897, he removed W. S. Muse, the chief deputy, and appointed G. D. Hunt in his stead. This position is excepted from examination. At the same time he removed W. J. J. Zerroll, R. W. Miers, P. Q. Russell, and George L. Patrick, deputy collectors, whose positions are not excepted from examination. No charges were preferred against them, as required by clause 8 of Rule II, the collector merely informing them that their services were no longer required. In filling the vacancies thus created the collector reinstated Theodore Hitchcox and temporarily appointed Charles C. Flanagen, A. McCampbell, and William Hageman, assuming authority to do so under the provisions of clause 12 of Rule VIII, when there were nine names on the eligible register. The collector also requested the resignation of R. C. Wood, a clerk in his office, but Wood declined to resign. The persons removed were Democrats and those appointed were Republicans.

The Commission accordingly communicated with the Treasury Department under date of November 8, calling attention to these facts, and requested that the four deputies improperly separated from the service be immediately restored, that the auditing officers of the Treasury be informed of the illegal appointments, and that the collector himself be removed from the service. The collector, it appears, contends that no removals were made by him; that the terms of the deputies expired with the term of the collector by whom they were appointed. With reference to this contention the Commission went on to say:

"Admit that the deputies have a term which expires with the term of the collector. The mere expiration of the term can not affect the incumbent's qualifications. Not to appoint an honest and competent officer to a position which is in no sense whatever a political position is virtually to remove him. It is obviously a cardinal principle of efficient service that the mere expiration of a term shall not be equivalent to dismissal. All of the division deputies were dropped from the service. Either, therefore, such deputies were unfit for their places, or they have been practically removed without just cause. If the former supposition be correct, and all of the deputies are found at the end of a few years to be unfit for their places, it is a conclusive condemnation of the system under which they were appointed. It proves that system to be utterly inadequate and disgraceful. Or if the deputies were removed, not because they are unfit, obviously some other reason than the welfare of the service has caused the removals. In either case the system, the continuance of which is repugnant to the aim of the civil-service act and which should no longer be tolerated, stands condemned either as admitting 100 per cent of unfit deputy officers into the service, or as displacing for political or personal or private reasons

the same proportion of honest and efficient public servants. It is no mere accident that all the outgoing deputies are of one political party and all of those appointed of an opposite political party. The proof is conclusive that political reasons controlled the removals and appointments, and that in so doing Collector Hunt violated the civil-service act and rules, and should himself be removed from the service.

"Treasury circular 122 and internal-revenue circular 480 were issued for the avowed purpose of preventing removals in violation of the civil-service rules. It is apparent from the complaints that have been received by the Commission and from the reports of its representatives who have made personal investigations that the instructions contained in the circulars referred to are being flagrantly violated by the officers to whom they were issued.

"While the Commission is aware that the question of the removal of deputy collectors has been submitted to the Attorney-General, it still remains the duty of collectors of internal revenue to carry out the rules of the President and the orders of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue thereunder. Until the act and the rules have been set aside by competent authority the collectors should respect and obey them."

The Commission receiving no reply to this letter, again communicated with the Department with reference to the matter on March 4, 1898. No satisfactory reply, however, has yet been received.

VIEWS OF HON. GEORGE S. BOUTWELL.

In his argument in the trial of Andrew Johnson on articles of impeachment, Hon. George S. Boutwell said:

"This policy, as yet acted upon in part, and developed chiefly in the civil service, has already produced evils which threaten the overthrow of the Government. When he removed faithful public officers, and appointed others whose only claim to consideration was their unreasoning devotion to his interest and unhesitating obedience to his will, they compensated themselves for this devotion and this obedience by frauds upon the revenue and by crimes against the laws of the land. Hence it has happened that in the internal-revenue service alone-chiefly through the corruption of men whom he has thus appointed-the losses have amounted to not less than twenty-five and probably to more than fifty million dollars during the last two years."

(2.) CUSTOM-HOUSE SERVICE.

New York, N. Y., Custom-House.

File 9687.

On December 5, 1896, a few days prior to the opening examination for promotions in the New York custom-house, the secretary of the local board of examiners at this custom-house obtained evidence tending to show that certain questions to be used in the examinations for the different grades were in the possession of one or more persons who were to take part in the examinations. He immediately conferred with the Commission relative to the advisability of holding the examinations under the circumstances, but in view of the fact that the evidence could not be readily verified, and even if verified the extent of the fraud could not otherwise be ascertained, it was decided to hold the examinations, with the expectation that developments therein would throw light on the matter. By following certain lines of investigation during the examinations and afterwards, the secretary, Mr. Babcock, was enabled to trace the origin of the leakage to one Thomas F. Murphy, employed in a clerical capacity in his own office, who later admitted his guilt. It appears that he had opened the secretary's desk with a duplicate key in his possession, and copied the examination questions prepared by the local board of examiners and awaiting transmission to the Commission for consideration and approval. He had furnished one Samuel E. Demarest, a clerk in the collector's office higher in grade than himself, with a copy of the questions pertaining to the examination for such grade, with the alleged motive

that, Demarest's promotion being assured, he (Murphy) would be promoted to the vacancy occasioned by Demarest's promotion through Demarest's supposed influence with the collector. An exhaustive investigation by the collector, by Mr. Babcock, and by Mr. Bunn, of the Commission's force, failed to show conclusively that the motive of Murphy was otherwise than alleged or that others were implicated. As he alone was responsible for the violation of the law, he was immediately suspended from duty by the collector pending the result of the investigation, and removed from the service by the Treasury Department on its receipt of the collector's report of the facts in the case. In view of the circumstances, the examination papers of all the competitors were ordered canceled, and another examination, commencing March 22, 1897, ordered. The case was then referred to the Attorney-General with the recommendation that Murphy be prosecuted for violation of section 5 of the civil-service law. He was thereupon arrested, and on March 9, 1897, the grand jury found an indictment against him. When the case came to trial on March 26, 1897, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay a fine of $500. The United States attorney urged a sentence of imprisonment, but the court preferred to impose a severe fine.

On June 8, 1897, Murphy's name was entered upon the list of persons barred from civil-service examination until further orders of the Commission.

Removal of Fergus G. Malone, Special Inspector of Customs. File 9 B.

Complaint was made on March 10, 1897, by Fergus G. Malone, of Philadelphia, Pa., late special inspector of customs, charging the Secretary of the Treasury with removing him from his position on May 31, 1896, for political reasons. Mr. Malone requested the Commission to investigate his case with a view to his reinstatement. Mr. Malone exhibited to the Commission a letter written to him by Logan Carlisle, chief clerk of the Treasury Department, in explanation of his removal. In this letter the following statement appeared: "I sent to Mr. Harrity extracts from quite a number of letters that are on file in the Department showing you to be a strong partisan Republican, the kind of man for which I have great respect, but a man I do not think ought to hold office under a Democratic administration." On March 12 the Commission invited the attention of the Department to the communication of Mr. Malone, and to the statement made by Mr. Carlisle with reference to his removal as in violation of section 3 of civil-service Rule II, and requested that the matter be investigated, and that it be informed of the results. On May 4, 1897, the Commission received a request for a certificate of reinstatement for said Malone, it appearing that he had been removed through no fault or delinquency on his part, and purely for political reasons, and such certificate was forthwith issued.

Bridgeport, Conn., Custom-House. File 709.

On December 8, 1897, complaint was received from one Walter T. Buckingham, a former employee of the Bridgeport, Conn., custom-house, alleging that the position he had occupied had been improperly excepted from the requirements of competitive examination for the purpose of securing his removal and the appointment without examination of a successor of a different political faith.

It appears that Mr. Buckingham was removed from the service on November 30, 1897, and that his successor was appointed on the day following. The position occupied by Mr. Buckingham, that of deputy collector and inspector of customs, was not reported as excepted while he was the incumbent, but on reporting the appointment of his successor the Department stated that the incumbent of the office had been excepted by reason of his performing the duties of cashier. Buckingham stated that he had not performed the duties of cashier, and his statement was corroborated by the Department in a report of excepted positions transmitted to the Commission but a short time previously, in which the name of one W. A. Smith appeared with the remark that he performed the duties of cashier and special deputy. An investigation of the case by a representative of the Commission disclosed the fact that while said Smith had performed the bulk of the cashier's duties,