nation by the Commission. The Commission, on September 15, 1897, in a communication to the Department informing it of the result of the investigation and of its action, requested the Department to consider the facts in the case with a view to the removal of Mr. Wright from the service, and was advised by the Department on November 22, 1897, that Mr. Wright's name had been dropped from the roll of employees at the Anderson post-office, and that the postmaster had been notified of this action.

Anderson, Ind., Post-Office. File 1097.

Since Postmaster Small assumed charge of the post-office at Anderson, Ind., on April 10, 1897, several alleged violations of the rules have been investigated by the Commission, among them the complaint of one Thomas McCullough, charging Postmaster Small with removing him from the service for political reasons. On a joint investigation on August 24, 1897, by a representative of the Post-Office Department and a representative of the Commission, it was found that this case had its inception on the date of the retirement of Postmaster Crittenberger. It appears that on this date, before turning the office over to Mr. Small, Postmaster Crittenberger had transferred mailing clerk Thomas McCullough to the position of moneyorder clerk, and advised the Department of his action. Mr. Small, knowing that he would assume charge of the office on that day, objected to the transfer, and before assuming charge of the office, telegraphed the Department to suspend action pending correspondence in explanation of his request. Upon this request the Department suspended action and finally decided that the transfer should not be made. Pending this decision, however, McCullough served in the capacity of money-order clerk until the close of business on April 20, and on the following day, on declining to perform the duties of mailing clerk, his resignation was reported to the Department by the postmaster. Later McCullough communicated with the Commission, alleging, with offer of proof, that he had been removed from the service for political reasons-that Postmaster Small in dismissing him had stated that his work was satisfactory, but that he had promised the place to another, and that politics was back of it. In the investigation, however, McCullough failed to substantiate his charges, and, from evidence adduced therein, it was shown that in his desire to retain the position of money-order clerk after Postmaster Small had assumed charge of the office he had, by his statements and actions, forfeited his rights to the position of mailing clerk. No inquiry was made into the motive of Mr. Small in requesting the Department to suspend action upon the transfer of McCullough, recommended by his predecessor on the last day of his incumbency, it being considered that he had the right to exercise the judgment as to the proper distribution of the force that would in a few hours pass under his control and that he had committed no overt act in requesting the Department to suspend action in a transfer that did not meet his approval. The Commission accordingly dismissed the complaint, October 30, 1897. Anniston, Ala., Post-Office. File 9634.

In September, 1896, complaint was received charging one Dr. J. C. Le Grand with soliciting and Postmaster M. A. Smith with receiving, in the fall of 1894, in the Government building in Anniston, Ala., contributions for political purposes. After due investigation by a representative of the Post-Office Department and a representative of the Commission, a recommendation was made to the Attorney-General that both persons be prosecuted for violation of sections 11 and 12 of the civil-service law. The matter was laid before the grand jury in March, 1897, but no bill was found.

Bridgeton, N. J., Post-Office. File 9360.

At various dates in April and May, 1896, complaints were received by the Commission charging Samuel A. Laning, postmaster at Bridgeton, N. J., with violating sections 11 and 12 of the civil-service law, relating to political assessments; with

violating section 5 of said law relating to frauds, and with usurping the prerogatives of the Commission's board of examiners at that place. The facts relating to the investigation of this case, to the establishment of conclusive evidence of the postmaster's guilt, and to his prompt dismissal by the Postmaster-General on recommendation of the Commission, are briefly outlined in the Commission's Thirteenth Report. The case was at once referred for prosecution to the Attorney-General, who directed the United States attorney for the district of New Jersey to investigate the matter and take proper action thereon. On November 21, 1896, the Attorney-General transmitted to the Commission a copy of a letter from the district attorney at Trenton, in which he informed the Department of the failure of the grand jury to indiet Laning when the case was laid before it in September. From this letter the following extract is taken:

"When the cases were called the papers which you sent me were laid before the grand jury, and that body, after hearing a number of witnesses, directed that no further witnesses be called, and proceeded to dismiss the matter themselves. After quite a long discussion the grand jury unanimously refused to find a bill in either of the charges, and directed that the witnesses be discharged. I say 'unanimously'; that is, of all the members voting. One member did not vote, as he was excused, not having heard all of the testimony."

case.

The fact that all of the witnesses subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury had not been called, as appears from the above extract, seems to lend color to information received by the Commission from outside sources to the effect that some of the important witnesses had not been called at all, and to give reasonable ground for the belief that the prosecuting attorney had permitted the defense to manage the The Commission on December 22, 1896, in a letter to the Attorney-General, requested an investigation of the matter for the purpose of determining whether, in failing to cooperate with the Department in its efforts to punish a violator of the law, the district attorney had carried out the letter and spirit of the law, and received a reply January 4, 1897, wholly irrelevant thereto. The Commission forthwith proceeded to obtain evidence in confirmation of the information referred to, and discovered that not only had the witnesses subpoenaed not been called to testify before the grand jury, but also that those who had been called had not been questioned on points which would in any way lead to the exposure of Laning, and that a relative of Laning had been a member of the jury. On March 6, 1897, the Commission, in a communication to the Attorney General reviewing the case at length, and calling attention to these facts, requested him to send some one from the Department to join with the district attorney at Trenton in making a complete reinvestigation of the case, and on May 20, 1897, was advised by the Department that the charges against Laning had been resubmitted to the grand jury at the spring term of court at Trenton; that upon the charge of violating section 5 of the civil-service law, one vote was in favor of returning a true bill, the remaining votes being for no bill; and that upon the charges of violating sections 11 and 12 of said law the jury were unanimous in refusing to indict. The Commission, in view of the unsatisfactory results attending the prosecution of this case, has taken no further action in the matter.

Brooklyn, N. Y., Post-Office. File 83.

On January 15, 1898, complaint was received from T. E. Johnson, late superintendent of Station E of the Brooklyn, N. Y., post-office, charging Postmaster Wilson with removing him from his position on the above date in violation of the civilservice rules. The matter was referred to the Department on January 26, and pending the reply of the Postmaster-General, a detailed statement of the case was made by Mr. Johnson. It appears from this statement that Mr. Johnson was officially notified by Postmaster Wilson, on January 14, that pursuant to instructions from the First Assistant Postmaster-General, dated January 12, he was dismissed from the service, the dismissal to take effect on January 15. On January 20, five days after

such dismissal, he was notified that his dismissal was recommended and given three days to present reasons why the recommendation should not be acted upon. "Surely," said Mr. Johnson in his communication to the Commission, "this is hanging a man and then trying him." Johnson further alleged that political considerations operated in his removal, inasmuch as he had been informed fully six months prior to this event that a certain Congressman had promised his place to an employee in Station E, and it was common report that the postmaster had signified his intention to secure an executive staff in accord with his political views.

On February 23, the Post-Office Department replied to the Commission's reference of January 26, to the effect that Johnson had been removed from his position for carelessness, neglect of duty, and general, inefficiency. The Department's letter further stated that "the charges show that it was customary for the clerk on the mail car to throw off the pouch for Station E at the corner of Pennsylvania and Atlantic avenues, and a clerk from said station was supposed to be on hand to receive same when it was thrown off. From Mr. Johnson's report and the investigation made by the postmaster after the occurrence, it was shown that but one clerk was on duty at the station at the hour the pouch was due to arrive, and that he was expected to be on hand to receive the pouch. On this occasion, however, the clerk was engaged in selling stamps and did not arrive at the point at which the mail was thrown off until after the train had passed, and although a search was made by him at the time, and the police notified, no trace of the missing pouch has since been discovered. Mr. Johnson was clearly guilty of negligence and carelessness in failing to provide a messenger at the point at which the mail was received, other than the clerk on duty, as the force assigned to the station easily permitted him to do. As there was but one clerk on duty, it necessitated leaving the station unguarded while he went to receive the mail. Mr. Johnson was furnished a copy of the charges, and his reply to same is on file in this office."

*

*

On March 22 the Commission, in a letter to the Department, called its attention to Mr. Johnson's statements relative to his summary removal and the action of the Department in notifying him of the charges against him and giving him opportunity for defense five days after his separation from the service, as well as his allegations regarding political discrimination. The Department replied on March 29, to the effect that through a misunderstanding Mr. Johnson had not been furnished with a written copy of the charges, and under date of January 19 the case was reopened and a detailed copy of the charges forwarded to Mr. Johnson, with the intention that if he could successfully refute the charges his reassignment to duty would follow. His reply to the charges was received on January 21, and it was found that he had not made a successful defense to the charges against him, and his removal from the service was confirmed on February 23, 1898. The letter further stated that in view of these facts the Department could not see the necessity of again reopening the case for further investigation.

On April 7 the Commission wrote the Department, pointing out that its reply was an admission of the claim made by Mr. Johnson that he did not receive a written copy of the charges, as the rule requires, and that therefore his removal, no matter what the real reasons or motives might have been, was not in accord with the rule. The insufficiency and injustice of the reasons assigned, and that practically no opportunity had been offered for a defense were pointed out.

Calumet, Mich., Post-Office. File 9324.

After the examination for the post-office service, held at Calumet, Mich., March 7, 1896, Michael E. O'Brien, a member of the local board of examiners, broke open a desk in which the papers of the examination had been placed awaiting transmission to the Commission, and made changes in the papers of his brother, James O'Brien, one of the competitors in the examination. On investigatiou, O'Brien confessed his guilt, whereupon the Commission canceled his commission as member of the board of examiners and requested his removal from the service by the Post-Office Depart

ment for willful violation of section 5 of the civil-service law. The Department declined, stating that after a full investigation of the matter it did not consider the conduct of Mr. O'Brien as warranting his removal from the service, but that as a punishment the postmaster had been instructed to reduce his salary from $500 to $300 per annum for one quarter, a net reduction of $50. The Commission considered this punishment inadequate and referred the matter to the Attorney-General, requesting O'Brien's prosecution for violation of section 5 of the civil-service law. The United States attorney at Grand Rapids, Mich., was thereupon directed to investigate the matter and take such action as he deemed proper. The case was submitted to the grand jury July 16, 1897, but that body ignored the bill.

Chicago, Ill., Post-Office.-Removal of Charles Carr. File 2114.

On September 3, 1897, Mr. Carr received the following letter from Postmaster Gordon:

"It has been decided to transfer Superintendent Vreeland to Station O, to fill the place now occupied by you, on and after September 6, 1897.

"Auditor Matter has been instructed to make the necessary transfer of the books, moneys, and papers. On completion of this you will report for duty to the superintendent of the city division."

In a letter to the Commission dated September 4, 1897, Mr. Carr contended, through his attorney, that no charges or complaints had been filed against him; that he had no knowledge of the reasons for his reduction and transfer other than as explained in the letter from Postmaster Gordon, and by the articles which had appeared in the public press, and that he had not been given full notice and an opportunity to make defense against any charges which may have been filed against him, as required by the civil-service rules. In answer he was informed that the Commission regarded section 8 of Rule II as applying to reductions equally with removals from office.

On September 6 a temporary restraining order was procured from the court prohibiting the postmaster from removing or suspending Mr. Carr until the matter could be heard. At the same time a ruling was entered against the postmaster to show cause why a permanent injunction should not issue. Prior to the filing of his bill Mr. Carr.had been notified by letter of his removal from Station O, with an order to report to the superintendent of the city delivery of the Chicago post-office for further duty, and he ascertained that he was to be reduced in rank and salary. On September 13 the matter was argued before Judge Jenkins of the United States circuit court for the northern district of Illinois, who decided on September 16 that section 8 of Rule II (order of the President of July 27, 1897) was an authoritative expression of the President of his desire and command to his subordinates with respect to removal from office, but that a court of equity is not constituted to regu late the departments of the Government, and the injunction, therefore, could not issue. (See extracts from the decision in Decisions of Courts at p. 205, ante.) Immediately after this decision Mr. Carr's accounts were audited and he was compelled to surrender the position of superintendent. He then reported to the superintendent of the city delivery, in accordance with his instructions, who informed him that he was suspended from duty.

The case was made the subject of correspondence with the Postmaster-General on October 7, 1897, with the request that a statement be made showing the action that had been taken by the Department. On October 15 the Acting First Assistant Postmaster-General replied as follows:

"I beg to advise you that Mr. Carr was formerly superintendent of Station O at Chicago, and in the interests of the service it was deemed advisable to transfer him to the main office and appoint a more suitable person to the position of superintendent of Station O. He was instructed by the postmaster to report to the main office for duty, which he failed to do, but instead secured from the court a restraining order upon the postmaster. The matter was brought to trial in Chicago, with the result, no doubt familiar to you, that the action of the Department was sustained. Charges were then preferred against Mr. Carr for failure to obey orders of the post

master, and he was given a hearing before the trial board of the Chicago office. Upon the findings of the said board his removal from the service was ordered by the Department."

Under date of December 6 the Commission replied in part as follows:

"You state that Mr. Carr was formerly superintendent of Station O at Chicago, and in the interests of the service it was deemed advisable to transfer him to the main office and appoint a more suitable person to the position. He was subsequently dismissed upon charges for failing to obey the order of the postmaster in reporting for duty in the new position. The failure, however, on Mr. Carr's part, seems to have been due to the refusal of the Post-Office Department to comply with the requirement of clause 8 of Rule II in affording Mr. Carr an opportunity of explanation in removing him from the superintendent position. You state that the matter was brought to trial in Chicago, with the result that the action of the Department was sustained. This statement, however, does not seem to be in accord with the facts. Judge Jenkins, in his decision in the Carr case, referring to clause 8 of Rule II, says: "This is an authoritative expression by the Executive of the United States of his desire and command to his subordinates with respect to removal from office of those coming within the scope of the civil-service regulations. The Executive has the right to regulate for himself the manner of appointment and removal; he may direct his subordinates, who exercise under him in certain cases the power of appointment, and removal with respect thereto, and may regulate the manner in which they may act for him.'

*

#

*

*

*

"This decision does not relieve the Post-Office Department from compliance with the President's order, and in the opinion of the Commission the order should have been complied with in Mr. Carr's case. Instead of this he appears to have been removed entirely from the service, merely for the effort to avail himself of a right conferred by the Chief Executive.

"The Commission trusts that you will take this matter into further consideration, in view of the manifest error in stating that the decision of the court sustained the Department.

"In a decision of a few days since in Butler v. White, in the United States circuit court of West Virginia, Judge Jackson says:

"A transfer from

*

the head or chief position to a secondary position is a change of rank in a public position, which is necessarily a removal that can only be made under the civil-service act and the rules promulgated under it. Is not a position from which the officer is transferred vacated, and is not he placed in a new position? What can be the object and purpose of a transfer unless it is to remove the incumbent from the position he occupies'?

*

"Under this decision Mr. Carr, when transferred from the position of superintendent of station, was entitled, under Rule II, clause 8, to a full explanation of the reasons for such transfer. Judge Jenkins's decision in the Carr case does not in the least controvert this view of the matter respecting the duty of the Post-Office Department."

The Department replied to the Commission's letter as follows:

"On September 4 Mr. Carr was directed to report to the superintendent of the city delivery division of the Chicago post-office for assignment. No assignment was made, however, as Mr. Carr failed to report for duty for almost two weeks after such notice had been served upon him. When he did report he was suspended, and finally removed for willful disobedience of orders. A copy of the charges was regularly served upon him, and his reply thereto, together with other papers in the case, is on file in this Department."

Kankakee, Ill., Post-Office. File 278.

On October 7, 1897, complaint was made by S. R. Moore, jr., late chief and moneyorder clerk (and therefore the occupant of an excepted place) in the Kankakee, Ill., post-office, charging Postmaster Dunlop with removing him from his position for