Bay City, Mich. Custodian Service. File 9918.

In December, 1896, complaint was made by one Octave Ardouin, janitor of the Federal building at Bay City, Mich., charging the publisher of the Bay City Democrat and another person with violating the civil-service law by soliciting contributions, for campaign purposes, inside the post-office building, with the sanction of the postmaster; and also charging several persons with conspiring to secure his dismissal from the position of janitor because of his refusal to contribute to the campaign fund as requested. Later, on being removed from his position, he filed statements to show that he had been removed on account of his political and religious affiliations, and an investigation of the charges was made by a representative of the Commission. It was found that the charge of religious prejudice as a factor in Ardonin's removal was especially unfounded, that his other statements had no foundation in fact, and that he had been removed solely because of inefficiency and neglect of duty upon charges filed by the custodian of the building and supported by the statements of many reliable and disinterested public officials.

The case was accordingly dismissed and Mr. Ardouin notified June 7. 1897.

Denver, Colo. Custodian Service. File 9659.

In October, 1896, complaint was made that William E. Morley, an engineer in the post-office building at Denver, Colo., had solicited, from employees in the post-office, money to be used for political purposes. Upon investigation, under the direction of the Commission, conclusive evidence of Morley's guilt was established, whereupon the Commission, on November 23, 1896, requested the Treasury Department to remove him from the service under the provisions of section 1 of Rule II, and on November 25, 1896, was notified by the Department that its request had been complied with. The matter was then referred to the Attorney-General for prosecution under section 12 of the civil-service law, but the grand jury, when the case was presented to it in June, 1897, failed to return a bill.

Worcester, Mass. Custodian Service. File 9660.

In October, 1896, complaint was made that D. F. Rourke, custodian of the Federal building at Worcester, Mass., was implicated in the solicitation of campaign contributions from post-office employees in that city in violation of section 11 of the civil-service law. A circular bearing the signature of one John O'Gara, a candidate for Congress, had been addressed to these employees, soliciting their contributions to the campaign fund and stating that such contributions might be addressed to Mr. Rourke. On request of the Commission, the Treasury Department investigated the matter, and dismissed Mr. Rourke from the service November 18, 1896.

(4.) MISCELLANEOUS COMPLAINTS.

Appointment of J. W. Crawford, assistant to photographer, Treasury Department. File 13 B.

On July 30, 1896, the Treasury Department made request of the Commission for certifications of male eligibles for filling two vacancies in the position of assistant to photographer in the office of the Supervising Architect of the Treasury.

It is not the practice of the Commission to keep registers of eligibles for positions in which vacancies occur very infrequently-which is true of the position of assistant to photographer-but to hold an examination after due advertisement in the public press. An examination was held by the Commission, resulting in two persons passing-Cassius F. Blacklidge, of Colorado, with an average of 88.91, and Nelson H. Kent, of Virginia, with an average of 77.04. The names of these persons were, on October 5, 1896, duly certified to the Department, and on October 8, 1896, the certificate, with the accompanying papers, was returned without a selection being made therefrom, with the statement that the positions for which the certification was made were filled by appointments August 3, 1896.

The Commission's records showed that W. R. Sharpe, one of the men appointed assistant to photographer, might properly be promoted to such position, but it appeared that the other person appointed, J. W. Crawford, was not in the classified service. The Department was informed of this and its attention called to the fact that the position of assistant to photographer was in the classified service, and therefore, unless filled through reinstatement, transfer, promotion, or reduction, was required to be filled as the result of the competitive examination of the Commission. After further correspondence with the Department upon the question whether permanent appointments might be made to classified positions in the absence of registers of eligibles, and whether the fact that the appropriation from which the salary of this position was paid, being what is termed a “lump appropriation," changed its status, rendering it unclassified, the matter was referred to the AttorneyGeneral, who rendered an opinion holding that J. W. Crawford's position was classified, and therefore subject to the civil-service act and rules. On December 6, 1897, the Department reported the separation from the service of Mr. Crawford.

Removal of William E. Ryan, clerk, Treasury Department. File 1 B.

The removal of William E. Ryan from his position as clerk in the Treasury Department for alleged political reasons gained considerable notoriety at the time by reason of the publicity given to his contentions by partisan newspapers.

Mr. Ryan was dismissed from the Treasury Department on the day following the Presidential election of 1896, having been defeated for Congress in the Rochester (N. Y.) Congressional district. He was reinstated at a reduced salary on December 2, 1896, and on February 2, 1897, was again dismissed from the service.

It appears that in order to look after his interests in the campaign Mr. Ryan obtained leave of absence without pay from October 8, 1896, to November 5, 1896, on which date, on returning to his desk, he found a notice of dismissal, dated November 4, assigning no cause. Later he learned that he was considered absent without leave, but after some delay matters were apparently explained in a satisfactory manner and he was reinstated. On January 13, 1897, Mr. Ryan served notice on Mr. Brewster, who had defeated him for Congress, of his determination to contest his seat. On February 2 Mr. Brewster's reply was served on him, and later in the day he was again dismissed from his position. Mr. Ryan at once notified the Commission, charging Assistant Secretary Curtis and Chief Clerk Logan Carlisle, of the Treasury Department, with violating the civil-service law and rules in causing his dismissal for political reasons, and requested an immediate investigation of the charges. The matter was referred to the Department, and on February 24 the Commission's communication was returned with an affidavit from Mr. Logan Carlisle, in which he stated for the Assistant Secretary and himself that, even conceding the truth of Ryan's allegations, they were not sufficient to constitute a violation of any part of the civil-service law or rules. He stated, however, that the action of the Department had not been for political reasons; that its action was based upon the statement of Ryan to him to the effect that there was nothing for him (Ryan) in his proposed contest for a seat in the House of Representatives except the fees, referring to the practice of Congress relative to defraying expenses of contests for seats in that body, and upon the belief of the Secretary of the Treasury that it was improper for Ryan to remain in the public service while prosecuting said contest, in view of his admission. In an affidavit filed March 11, 1897, Ryan denied the truth of these statements and reiterated his former contentions. On May 28, 1897, on his request, the Commission referred the papers to the Treasury Department, and on November 10, 1897, they were returned without action by the Department. Inasmuch as no evidence was submitted to the Commission by Mr. Ryan, either in substantiation of his own allegations or in rebuttal of those of the Department, no further action in the case seemed warranted.

Removal of B. E. Sampson, chief of division in the office of the Auditor for the War Department. File 188 B.

Complaint was made by B. E. Sampson, of Beaverdam, Wis., late chief of division in the office of the Auditor for the War Department, charging Auditor Brown with removing him from his position on August 12, 1897, for political reasons and in violation of the President's order of July 27, 1897. Mr. Sampson filed with his complaint copies of correspondence between himself and the Department with reference to his removal and his rights under the order of the President above mentioned, from which it appeared that the Department considered his case fully disposed of before the order of the President was issued, inasmuch as it had notified him on July 13, 1897, that his services would be discontinued after August 12, and had issued the order for his separation on July 13, and given him the usual leave of absence, to take effect from that date. The complaint, together with the papers in the case, was referred to the Department for remark and return on August 13, and on September 1, the Commission received from the Secretary of the Treasury a communication relative thereto, inclosing the reply of the Auditor for the War Department, to whom the matter was referred. In this letter dissatisfaction with Mr. Sampson as an executive officer was expressed, and for this reason largely a change was deemed desirable. Mr. Sampson was advised of the contemplated change early in July, and asked to take a position in a lower grade. He replied that he would accept nothing lower than chief of division; that he was not dependent on any Government position for a livelihood, and that he had often thought of resigning, but would not do so then. For these reasons, and not because of Mr. Sampson's politics, the Auditor alleged, the Department was forced to take the action complained of.

On September 7 the Commission called the attention of the Department to the closing paragraph of a letter written to Mr. Sampson by Auditor Brown, which reads, "Certainly you understood that it was my desire to change the chiefs of all the divisions," and to the fact that the chiefs referred to were all reputed to be of one political party and those appointed to succeed them were reputed to be of another political faith, and suggested that the Secretary of the Treasury investigate the matter, inasmuch as section 3 of Rule II may have been violated in making such changes. Acting Secretary Spaulding replied on September 25 to the effect that Mr. Sampson's removal was ordered after a careful investigation as to the capacity and character of Mr. Sampson by a committee of the Department, of which Assistant Secretary Vanderlip was chairman. The letter went on to state that the political or religious opinions of Mr. Sampson were not a factor in his removal; that the reasons given by the Auditor for changing his chiefs of division were entirely satisfactory to the Department, and that the efficiency of the service was notably increased by reason of these changes. On October 6 the Commission advised Mr. Sampson of the result of its correspondence with reference to his removal, and stated that unless evidence rebutting the correctness of the Department's statement were submitted by him it could give the matter no further consideration. Since that time no evidence has been submitted.

Bureau of Immigration. File 65 B.

On June 16, 1897, a former Chinese inspector, with headquarters at Olympia, Wash, filed an affidavit with the Commission, through Representative Lewis, of Washington, to the effect that he had been removed from his position by the Department ostensibly for the purpose of reducing the force, but in reality for political reasons, inasmuch as an appointment had been made to a similar position in the district but a short time previous to his removal. The matter was referred to the Treasury Department, and on July 2, 1897, the Commission was notified that the discontinuance of the services of the employee was directed, with others, for the purpose of reducing the force of immigrant inspectors. Representative Lewis was notified of the Department's statement on July 3, and immediately replied, reiterating the statement of the deposed employee relative to the appointment of an inspector

at about the time of his dismissal. This letter was referred to the Treasury Department and a reply received to the effect that no inspector had been appointed to the Puget Sound district since the services of the employee in question were discontinued. Mr. Lewis was again notified of the Department's statement, and immediately communicated with the Commission, stating that an appointment had been made in this district a short time prior to the removal in question, which appointment seemed to have made the force too large, requiring the dismissal in order to reduce it to the proper number. A reference to the Department on the 4th of August resulted in a reply similar to that made to the former letter on the subject, and Mr. Lewis was again notified of the result. No further action has been taken in the matter.

Treasury Department.

202 B.

Removals and appointments of laborers.

File

On August 21, 1897, the Commission communicated with the Treasury Department relative to the complaints of William Oldham, W. H. Long, and W. L. Holmes, employed as classified laborers in that Department, concerning their removal and the appointment of Ernest Williams without examination to the position made vacant by the removal of Oldham. Each of the persons removed was classified by the President's order of May 6, 1896, as laborer doing assistant messenger work, and was so reported by the Department. The Department, however, made no report of their removal, as required by Civil Service Rule XII, nor of the appointment of Williams. The Commission called attention to pages 73 and 74 of its Thirteenth Report, giving reasons for classifying laborers doing classified work, and stating:

"The Commission understands that all laborers regularly assigned to classified work, who are at this time declared by the head of the Department, in obedience to the Executive orders, to be in the classified service, will thereby become classified, and all others will remain unclassified. The action of the head of a Department under its interpretation of the Executive order will be final. Vacancies in those places which are thereby classified can hereafter be filled only by certification from the appropriate registers of eligibles, and hereafter it will be unlawful to assign any unclassified laborer to any classified duties.

"The Commission believes that if the departments designate by name those so-called laborers who become classified by the Executive order and those who remain unclassified the line will be so distinctly drawn that it will hereafter be clearly maintained, and there will be no repetition of the evil which has grown up in the absence of a specific rule to prevent it."

Following this was the request that the Department report to the Commission, in accordance with Rule XII, all changes in the service, whether affecting classified or unclassified employees, and furnish a statement of the facts relative to the removals and the appointment referred to. The reply of the Department showed that the removals were made for sufficient cause and not in violation of civil-service rules. Relative to the appointment of Williams, the Acting Secretary of the Treasury stated:

"This office is of opinion that the assignment of a laborer to so-called classified work, resulting in his being designated as a classified laborer under the rules adopted May 6, 1896, does not result in classifying the place he occupies to such an extent that when he vacates same it can only be filled by the process of certification. The place formerly occupied by Mr. Oldham was designated in the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation act approved May 28, 1896, as a 'laborer.' The same designation was given to the place in a like act approved February 19, 1897. This was done in response to an estimate by this Department for a laborer. The distinction between skilled laborers and mere laborers is clearly drawn by Congress. Therefore, while it was possible, under order of May 6, 1896, to extend the benefits of the civil-service laws to a person originally employed as a mere laborer, but who was then doing classified work, there could not be a per

manent change in the official title by which his place was designated sufficient to outlive his employment, or to affect any place appropriated for under the title of 'laborer.' The act of January 16, 1883, did not contemplate the classification of mere laborers, and while an exigency undoubtedly existed in many cases, which resulted in the assignment of laborers to clerical work, this office now finds that there is such a pressing necessity for laborers that the evident intent and purpose of Congress in appropriating pay for a certain number of mere laborers was to comply with the demand of the Department for such class of employees. When, therefore, a person now designated as a classified laborer vacates his or her position, this office will be compelled to employ a mere laborer to fill such vacated place, unless Congress shall otherwise direct."

The letter further stated that the reference to which the attention of the Department was called in the letter of the Commission could not be accepted as a guide in the matter at issue.

In a like case the Commission later said in a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury: "Under the order of classification of June 10, 1896, 'all positions whose occupants are designated as laborers or workmen, and who were, prior to May 6, 1896, and are now, regularly assigned to work of the same grade as that performed by classified employees, shall be included within this classification.' In the memorandum on June 30, 1896, issued to the Departments relative to this order (see Thirteenth Report, p. 73), it was stated that one of the objects of the order was 'to require all vacancies in positions of classified laborers or workmen to be filled in accordance with the civilservice rules, through examination and certification by the Commission.' In view of the language of the President's order, the Commission does not concur in your view 'that the persons and not the positions at that time were classified.' The order says 'positions, shall be included within this classification.""

The questions raised in these communications are still a subject of consideration by the Commission.

II. COMPLAINTS AFFECTING THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT.

(1.) BUREAU OF PENSIONS.

SPECIAL PENSION EXAMINERS AND CLERKS.

P. R. Hilliard, under date of July 7, 1897, wrote that he was appointed a special examiner in the Bureau of Pensions on July 9, 1894, after passing the special pension examiner examination of this Commission; that after working in the Bureau of Pensions until February, 1895, he was assigned to duty in the field; that his official record has always been good, and that during twenty-nine months' service in the field he had only once been charged with faulty work, and in this single instance its merit or fault was a matter of opinion as to what constituted sufficient evidence; that he has always carefully avoided any reference to political matters, and has relied wholly upon conscientious work to insure his retention in office, but that on June 28 he received a telegram from the Commissioner of Pensions stating that his services would be dispensed with, no reason being assigned; that he came to Washington and called upon the Commissioner of Pensions in regard to his discharge, and that officer made the following reply, in effect: "To be frank with you, the reason for your discharge, and that of others, is to make room for the old soldiers who were discharged four years ago;" that the reason first assigned by the Commissioner was that the appropriation for field service was reduced by $50,000. Mr. Hilliard stated, however, that the work of the Pension Bureau at Manchester, N. H., the scene of his labors, is sufficient to keep one special examiner busy all the time, and during a portion of the year the services of two are required; and, further, that his successor was never in the Army or Navy of the United States. Mr. Hilliard cited his record for each month of his service in support of his statements concerning efficiency.