V. COMPLAINTS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

South Omaha, Nebr., Bureau of Animal Industry. File 4 B.

On November 18, 1896, the Commission received the following from the Omaha (Nebr.) World-Herald of November 15:

"For what seems to be purely a manifestation of political spite, Dr. White, chief microscopist of the bureau of animal industry in South Omaha, John Zeller, a tagger, and Miss Dalton and Miss Flynn, stenographers [microscopists] in the same bureau, have been dismissed from the service by order of J. Sterling Morton, Secretary of Agriculture, for alleged neglect of work. It was done, it is alleged, at the instance of Euclid Martin, W. D. McHugh, and Lee Spratlen, all bolters from the Democratic party and supporters of the present Administration. Those who lost their jobs were supporters of Bryan and free silver. Dr. White has been in the bureau of animal industry ever since its establishment in South Omaha, and had lived in Otoe County, Morton's home, for twenty-five years. Zeller, although a Silverite, had frequently done the work of his gold-bug taggers while the latter were out howling for McKinley during the campaign. The stenographers [microscopists] had not used their influence either way, but Messrs. J. J. O'Connor and John Murphy, the men who indorsed them for their positions years ago, are ont and out silver workers, and the far-reaching hatred of the bolting Democrats apparently directed this as a slap upon the indorsers. The person held responsible in the office from which the young women were dismissed is said to be a sister of Tobe Castor."

Following this came appeals from the deposed employees for the protection of the civil-service law on the ground that the removals had been made for political reasons, and not for inefficiency or neglect of duty, as stated by the Department. These appeals were followed by a request from Senator Allen, of Nebraska, for an immediate investigation. He said that he had authority for the statement that the removals were made solely on the ground that the parties had supported Mr. Bryan for the Presidency at the late election. Shortly afterward three stock examiners were dismissed, and these also applied to the Commission for protection.

The matter was referred to the Department on December 24, 1896, and on December 29 the Commission received a reply from Secretary Morton, inclosing affidavits taken by a representative of the Department since the removals to show that the persons removed had been removed for inefficiency and neglect of duty, and not for political reasons.

These affidavits seemed to sustain the charges of the Department in every partienlar, but other evidence was received later in support of the contentions of the deposed employees, and the Commission decided to make a thorough inquiry into the matter. Accordingly an investigation was made by a representative of the Commission, beginning May 11, 1897. In the matter of efficiency no instance was found in the investigation in which the removed microscopists had neglected their duties. In fact, the weight of evidence tended to show that they had been efficient, conscientious workers, punctual in attendance, and good in deportment. It is safe to say, in view of these facts, that their removal can only be attributed to malicious reports of their partisan activity which had been brought by some of their co-laborers. The same may be said with reference to the removal of Zeller. The male employees of the bureau had been performing political service for years, some of them under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture. Zeller had done some party work during the year in question, as had the other employees, but it was not shown that

his party work interfered in any way with his official duties. His habits were excellent, he was considered efficient by those for whom and with whom he worked, and no just reason could be discovered for singling him out for punishment.

The charges against the three stock examiners appeared to be well founded, inasmuch as their efficiency rating was but 50 on a scale of 100, and instances were cited wherein one of them had been grossly negligent of his duties.

The evidence obtained in the case of Dr. White contains many peculiarly conflicting elements. The doctor, it appears, had for many years been a personal friend of Secretary Morton, and was appointed by him to the position of chief microscopist in the Bureau of Animal Industry at South Omaha on September 1, 1893. His official duties were largely supervisory. He had been a practicing physician in the western part of Otoe County prior to his appointment in this bureau, and since his appointment he is known to have devoted some time during office hours to the practice of his profession. His practice does not appear to have interfered with his official duties, while he states that it was carried on with the sanction of the Department. It is alleged that once, during the doctor's absence from the office, a tagger came in to procure the number of cases of meat infected with trichinæ, but failed to procure all the numbers, and in consequence some of the infected meat was packed for export trade. The doctor, however, claimed that he had corrected the matter so far as his office was concerned, and that the fault lay with the packers alone.

These matters, coupled with the fact that it appears that the Secretary believed that the doctor was imposing on his friendship and giving out the impression that because he had a friend at court he was not amenable to discipline, may have prompted the Secretary to dismiss him; but the letter of Mr. Morton's private secretary in reply to the doctor's request for the reasons for his dismissal would seem to give weight to the doctor's contention that he had been removed because of political bias, especially in view of the former attitude of the Secretary in the matter of the doctor's political service. The letter referred to reads in part:

"I take the liberty of informing you, for your own satisfaction, that the Secretary's recent action in your case was based on what he considered the strongest and most indisputable evidence from several reliable sources as to very decided pernicious political activity on your part in the recent campaign."

It may be stated in this connection that up to the year in question the doctor had always been an active party worker. His appointment to the position from which he had recently been separated was apparently a recognition by the Secretary of Agriculture of his value in this line, and from what may be gathered from the following extracts from letters written to him by the Secretary, before and after such appointment, it would appear that the Secretary did not endeavor to dissuade him from engaging in political work, at least on lines laid down by the Secretary himself.

On August 19, 1893, Secretary Morton wrote to Dr. White as follows:

"It is to be hoped that you will now see to it that delegates to the State convention from the west end of Otoe County are men who have sensible views on finance and who sustain the President's policy."

Another, on August 23, 1893, notifying him of his appointment to the position in South Omaha, contains the following:

#

"Do not forget your duties relative to the delegate convention, nor fail to see that men holding your economic and financial views are sent up to Omaha. Let me hear from you as to the possibility of free-coinage men taking possession of the State convention."

It seems, however, that the doctor entered upon his official duties with the belief that they were in part political, from the following caution written to him by the Secretary under date of September 16, 1893:

"Hereafter when you write me, I desire that your personal and political matters should be in letters entirely separate from all official duties and subjects.

#

#

Repeating, never mix your letters so that personal and political matters may be found in official communications which have to be put on file here to remain forever." Whether the doctor was afterward guilty of laches in this respect does not appear. From the following, however, it would seem that the Secretary did not wish to convey to him the impression that he was not to perform political work in connection with his official duties:

"It is important that you go down to Otoe County and attend to matters there, as I wrote you the other day. It seems that our friends are all asleep and inert, and the friends of free coinage are all awake and alert."

This letter was dated September 21, 1893 At various times since that date the doctor had received from the Secretary special directions to "use every reasonable effort to evangelize financially those people in Otoe County who had been misled by the felicitous fallacies of the money question," and at one time was told by the Seeretary that he and a fellow-worker would be held responsible to the State convention for the character of the delegation from Otoe County. It seems that the doctor used every effort to carry out the instructions of the Secretary up to the date of the Chicago convention, when on the ground of regularity alone, and not because he had been misled by the "felicitous fallacies of the money question," he was led to support Mr. Bryan for the Presidency. He had taken no active part in the campaigu, and it is difficult to see how the Secretary of Agriculture could reasonably construe the doctor's inactivity in the campaign as decided pernicious political activity, though it is easy to gather from the matter quoted above how he might possibly have construed the charge of inefficiency to cover the doctor's lack of success as an evangelist in a cause which the Secretary held dear, and the charge of neglect of duty to cover his inactivity in a political campaign when the mouetary policy of the nation was to be decided.

The weight of evidence tends to show that political bias operated largely in the doctor's removal from the service, but the state of affairs in the bureau at South Omaha revealed by this investigation seems to be of such a character as would render his reinstatement inexpedient in the interests of good administration.

The report of this investigation, together with the testimony taken, was referred to the Senate Committee on Civil Service and Retrenchment, which made an investigation of these removals, beginning October 21, 1897, in accordance with a resolution adopted by the Senate on March 23, 1897. The report of this committee was made public on March 9, 1898, and, with the exception of the cause of removal of two of the stock examiners, agrees with the findings of the Commission's representative. The concluding paragraph of this report reads as follows:

"While this committee would not undertake to state the motives by which Secretary Morton was governed, yet it appears to the committee from the evidence that political considerations were the basis of all the removals except that of Mr. Holmes. The committee is of the opinion that Miss Dalton, Miss Flynn, and Mr. Zeller might properly be reinstated should the present Secretary of Agriculture make a request to that effect."

On the return of the papers in the case by the Senate committee the Commission on March 31, 1898, following the course adopted in previous similar cases, directed that the attention of the Secretary of Agriculture be called to the conclusions reached by the Senate Committee on Civil Service and Retrenchment and the Commission's examiner; that he be informed that in view of these conclusions the Commission holds that the separations from the service of Miss Dalton, Miss Flynn, and Mr. Zeller were in contravention of the civil-service rules, that they were not in legal effect separated therefrom, and that the Commission offers no objection to their reassignment to duty at the pleasure of the Department.

Transfer of Cyrus B. Lower, Department of Agriculture. Transfer file 1380.

The case of Cyrus B. Lower, transferred from a position as clerk of class 1 in the Treasury Department to a clerkship of the same grade in the Department of

Agriculture, and promoted without test of fitness to the position of chief of the division of supplies in that Department, at a salary of $2,000 per annum, may be cited as one in which a Department has taken action against the protest of the Commission.

It appears that said Lower, who is a war veteran, was reinstated to the position of gauger in the Pittsburg internal-revenue district on April 19, 1897, from which position he was transferred to a position as clerk in the Treasury Department on June 21, 1897, at a salary of $1,200. On June 22, 1897, the Secretary of Agriculture made request of the Commission for a certificate of transfer of said Lower to the position of chief of division of supplies in his Department at a salary of $2,000. The Commission immediately returned the communication with the request that it be informed as to the character of the duties performed by the chief of such division, and called attention to the provisions of Rule X, section 2, prohibiting transfer without examination in all cases where there would be required for original entrance an examination involving essential tests different from or higher than those required in an examination for original entrance to the position from which the transfer is proposed. In his reply the Secretary stated that the qualifications for this position were integrity, business aptitude, and such others as are found in clerks of the lowest grade of the classified service, and requested immediate action. The following extract from the Commission's communication to the Department of June 24, 1897, will define its attitude in the matter:

"The Commission begs to suggest whether this proposed transfer is not in conflict with the promotion regulations of your Department, which contemplate that promotions shall be made from one class to the next higher class, and that entrance to the service, except in the case of certain technical positions, shall be in the lower grades. If the position of chief of the supply division were to be filled by promotion, a clerk of class $1,200 would not be eligible, as under regulation 1, clause 2, only those in the next lower class could be considered. The Commission would interpose no objection to a transfer from one Department to another in the same class, but when the transfer defeats the rights of promotion of those in lower grades it opens a serious door to the defeat of the promotion regulations. The Commission will be pleased to issue a certificate for the transfer of Mr. Lower to your Department in the same class which he now occupies in the Treasury Department, from which he may rise, through the promotion regulations of the Department of Agriculture, to the higher classes."

Mr. Lower was accordingly transferred on July 1, 1397, to a position in the same grade in the Department of Agriculture, aud on August 1, 1897, notwithstanding the protest of the Commission, was promoted to the position of chief of division of supplies at a salary of $2,000 per annum, without examination as required by Civil Service Rule X, and contrary to the rules and regulations governing promotions in the Department of Agriculture.

VI. COMPLAINTS AFFECTING THE POST-OFFICE SERVICE. Akron, Ohio, Post-Office. File 9461.

In August and September, 1896, complaints were filed with the Commission charging Postmaster Dobson and Assistant Postmaster Donohue, of the Akron, Ohio, postoffice, with extorting from post-office employees, in the fall of 1895, money to be used for campaign purposes, with political coercion, and with securing the removal of mailing clerk E. P. Humes for political reasons.

A joint investigation of these charges was made by a representative of the PostOffice Department and the Secretary of the Commission on September 15, 1896. From their report it appears that ex-carrier Newman, who charged these officials with

levying political assessments and with political coercion, failed to furnish any evidence tending to connect the postmaster in any manner with violating the law, while affidavits from every employee in the office were secured exonerating him from the charges. Some evidence was furnished tending to implicate the assistant postmaster with violation of the law, but its nature was not such as would warrant the Commission or the Department to take action thereon with a view either to his removal or punishment.

In the case of Humes it was found that he had been removed on the charges of insubordination and neglect of duty since these charges, with evidence in his defense, had been investigated by the Post-Office Department, and since he could not furnish other evidence than that already considered by the Department, further inquiry into the matter was not made. (After the change of administration Humes was reinstated.)

As a result, the complaints were dismissed October 5, 1896.

Anderson, Ind., Post-Office. File 20.

On August 24, 1897, a joint investigation was made into the merits of the complaint of George W. Bickford, charging Postmaster Small with refusing, for political reasons, to make absolute his appointment to the position of substitute letter carrier in the Anderson, Ind., post-office.

It appears that at the end of Bickford's probationary term Postmaster Small refused to give him absolute appointment on the alleged ground that he was physically incapacitated to perform the duties of carrier. Those conducting the investigation were unable to discover evidence tending in any way to contradict the reports of the physicians who had examined him and pronounced him without physical defects, or to substantiate the charge of the postmaster, and concluded that bis charge was not founded on fact. They accordingly recommended that the postmaster be directed to give Mr. Bickford absolute appointment and to furnish him with a proportionate share of substitutes' work, he having been prevented from receiving such work during the vacation season by the postmaster. The Commission requested the Department to take action in accordance with these recommendations, and on November 22, 1897, was notified that the Department had approved the recommendations; that Mr. Bickford had received his absolute appointment, and that since then he had been promoted to the regular force of letter carriers at the Anderson post-office.

Two other complaints charging Postmaster Small with political discrimination have been received and referred to the Department.

In addition to the joint investigations at the Anderson, Ind., post-office on August 24, 1897, the Commission's representative made an investigation into the application of civil-service reform in that office, in the course of which several matters of interest were disclosed. It appears that on July 22, 1897, three eligibles to the position of carrier in this office withdrew from the register of eligibles. On inquiry as to the reason for these withdrawals it was discovered to be generally known among the employees that one Alexander C. Wright, who had been appointed to the position of substitute carrier on August 16, 1897, had secured their withdrawal by representing to them through friends or relatives that they would not be appointed because they were Democrats, and by offering them a pecuniary consideration for their withdrawal in order that he, a Republican, standing lower on the eligible list than they, might be certified for appointment. On being sworn, Wright admitted paying two of the eligibles who withdrew from the register $50 each, but denied that he paid for the withdrawal of the third eligible. It was shown, however, that immediately upon the withdrawal of this eligible Wright had secured him employment lasting him for several months. Whether the postmaster was cognizant of Wright's action at the time of his selection as substitute carrier could not be determined. As a result, Mr. Wright and the three eligibles implicated with him were barred from further exami