political reasons. On January 18, 1898, an affidavit of the former postmaster was filed to corroborate the statement of Moore, and on February 8, 1898, the Commission referred the matter to the Post-Office Department, calling attention to the allegations in the case and to the apparent violation of section 3 of Civil Service Rule II. The Postmaster-General replied on February 24 to the effect that the matter had been taken up with Postmaster Dunlop, who reported that his sole and only reason for dispensing with the services of Mr. Moore was a business one; that the position in question is a confidential one, and he desired to have a man in it who had his entire confidence. Mr. Moore was accordingly notified on February 26 that, inasmuch as it appeared that Postmaster Dunlop's action in removing him was based on reasons affecting the internal administration of the Kankakee post-office, the Commission had no authority to take action on the complaint.

This is a type of numerous complaints received of removals from excepted places for alleged political reasons, where the Departments have claimed that the changes were made for the improvement of the service.

Kansas City, Kans., Post-Office. File 9386.

On June 6, 1896, one M. C. Shields was examined for the position of clerk in the Kansas City, Kans., post-office, and in a letter to the Commission on July 20 complained that the card-reading sheet had been tampered with after the examination. The local board of examiners practically admitted that the sheet had been tampered with, but could offer no clew as to the person or persons responsible. Certifications from the June 6 register were immediately suspended and Shields was given a reexamination in card-reading before the board at Kansas City, Mo., on August 17, which resulted in changing his grade on the sheet in question from 59.50 to 98.50, thus raising his average in the examination from 82.48 to 92.23, and placing his name at the head of the eligible list. Certifications from the register were then authorized to be made. Instead of making an appointment from the register of males, however, the postmaster made an appointment from the register of females, whereupon Shields filed statements with the Commission alleging that this was done because of his political and religious affiliations.

A joint investigation of these matters was made by Commissioner Harlow and a representative of the Post-Office Department, who reported on October 21, 1896, that, while suspicion pointed to a person who had since been removed from the service as having tampered with the examination sheet in question, they had been unable to secure evidence sufficient to warrant action with a view to his prosecution, and that the charge of political and religious discrimination was not well founded. They also investigated a complaint made by the postmaster, charging one Carl Mensing, at the instance of a dismissed employee of the Kansas City post-office, with representing himself as the agent of the Commission to investigate affairs at Kansas City, in order to embarrass the postmaster, and found the charges fully substantiated; but in view of the fact that the matter had not been carried far enough to involve such a violation of the act of April 18, 1884, as could be successfully prosecuted, they recommended that no further action be taken. The case was accordingly dismissed.

Louisville, Ky., Post-Office. File 2192.

A few cases of removals and reductions in different branches of the service have attracted widespread attention by reason of the fact that the employees so removed or reduced have sought relief from the courts. First among these is the case of John G. Woods, formerly superintendent of mails at the Louisville, Ky., post-office.

It appears that on August 25, 1897, Mr. Woods, who since June, 1893, had occupied the position of superintendent of mails, at $2,500 a year, at the Louisville post-office, received notice from the General Superintendent of the Railway Mail Service of his appointment as railway postal clerk, class 3, at $1,000 a year, in place of Lewis O'Donnell, who had resigned in order to accept the position made vacant by Woods's

removal. Mr. Woods felt that as no charges had been filed against him and as he had not been given opportunity to make defense as contemplated by the Executive order of July 27, 1897, his removal was solely for political reasons, and immediately made formal protest to the Commission against the action of the Post-Office Department. In the meantime he had employed counsel, who filed an action in the supreme court of the District of Columbia seeking to enjoin the Postmaster-General and his First Assistant from removing him from his position. The opinion of Justice Cox, of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, that an equity court had no jurisdiction to enjoin the defendants from removing the complainant, will be found in the Decisions of Courts at p. 206, ante.

Philadelphia Post-Office. File 2320.

During the early part of Postmaster Hicks's administration the public journals of Philadelphia questioned the legality of many changes in employees that were being made. Several complaints were also received from the Civil Service Reform League, the employees affected, and citizens. One of these complaints stated:

"The number of changes made in the positions of the post-office employees of this city, as chronicled in the inclosed cutting from the Philadelphia Ledger of the 9th instant, are the result of the change of administration, and, as far as political reasons go, may be all right, but I am informed that in making these changes the civilservice rules have been violated, as those discharged or reduced have not been furnished with a list of the charges against them, and thus given a chance to answer to you against such charges, as provided for in the rules; nor have those promoted to responsible positions been compelled to pass an examination as to their fitness. If such has been done, I ask that your Commission take immediate steps to investigate and prevent such changes, if made on the 15th instant, and to see that the law which created your Commission and guaranteed protection to these postal employees is fully carried out."

Another complaint ended as follows:

"In the name of all that is just, is it not time to stop this flagrant violation of the spirit of civil-service reform? Your report of a few years back shows that Philadelphia stands alone of all the large cities in its disregard of the civil-service law. Is it not time that this was stopped and the headsmen of Philadelphia made to respect the law as they do elsewhere? This man Hicks has not been confirmed. Get the President after him, and it will be a lesson that will check every spoilsman from the Atlantic to the Pacific."

The Public Ledger of December 4, 1897, had the following editorial:

"It is reported, without denial, that there is to be a general 'shake-up' in the Philadelphia post-office, and a reduction in the force at the Philadelphia mint. So far as the post-office is concerned, this rearrangement, or whatever it may be called, bears every indication of being nothing more than a partisan scheme to give good places to partisan workers or others with strong political influence. A dispatch from Washington says that there is to be a reorganization of the post-office force, with a view to 'correcting wrongs, injustices, and mistakes committed under the late Administration.' If it be true that a general overhauling of the office is necessary, the fact remains that Postmaster Hicks, during the brief time he has held that position by favor of Boss Quay, has scarcely had opportunity to sufficiently acquaint himself with the routine of the post-office and the relative efficiency of the clerks and carriers so as to prepare a comprehensive and well-digested plan of reorganization. Mr. Hicks is one of the moving spirits in the Leaders' League, and has devoted a great deal of attention to the proceedings of that combination of greedy officemongers. The public will be loth to accept as truth the report that there is to be a general rearrangement of the post-office force at a date so close to the acceptance by Mr. Hicks of the postmastership as to give rise to the conviction that partisan politics, and not the good of the service, is the instigation of the 'rearrangement.""

H. Doc. 314——26

Arrangement was made for a conference by the Commission with the First Assistant Postmaster-General, and an examiner was sent to Philadelphia to confer with some of the persons who had made complaint. The report of the examiner showed: (1) That a great many demotions and promotions had been made, as a rule the former going to Democrats and the latter to Republicans, except that the last list of promotions seemed to have been given (perhaps for a purpose) to Democrats.

(2) That there was only presumptive evidence to show that the changes had been made for political reasons.

(3) That the postmaster had explanations to offer for all the changes made. (4) That the complainants had no positive evidence to show that the changes had been made for political reasons.

(5) That the proposed preliminary investigation before the Post-Office Department would probably convince the Commission that some of the changes were made for the good of the service and that the remaining changes would probably require investigation at Philadelphia.

On January 11 a preliminary investigation of the complaints was made in the office of the First Assistant Postmaster-General in the presence of representatives of the Department, the Philadelphia post-office, and the Commission. The investigation was continued at the office of the Commission on January 12 in the presence of the same officials. In this investigation Postmaster Hicks denied that the demo tions and promotions had been made for political considerations. He claimed that there had been no real demotions, and that the recent changes were made in the nature of a reclassification of positions and were absolutely impersonal; that outside of the cases of superintendents there were no changes in the character of work performed by any clerk, but simply a reclassification of the salaries to conform to the intricacy, quality, and quantity of work performed. He declared upon his honor that at the time of making the changes he did not personally know the politics of any of the employees whose status had been changed, and that in the plan which he adopted in making the changes he could not have shown partiality even if he had desired to do so.

With reference to the charge that the demotions all went to Democrats and that the promotions all went to Republicans, Mr. Hicks claimed that a close investigation would show that such was not the case. He believed that more Democrats were reduced, because he had since learned that of a clerical force consisting of 800 persons there were only 180 Republicans. In making the promotions he had been guided by seniority in the service. This course resulted in the promotion of more Republicans than Democrats. He declared, however, that of the last 32 persons promoted 30 were Democrats.

The preliminary investigation seemed to convince the officials of the Post-Office Department that the changes had been made upon a purely business basis and for the good of the service. The representatives of the Commission reserved its decision until further investigation had been made.

A synopsis of the Commission's findings, based upon the preliminary investigation, was furnished to a special committee of the National Civil Service Reform League, the members of which had waited upon the President, and had received assurance from him that he would be willing to receive and consider a report made by them upon the charges preferred against Postmaster Hicks. The members of this committee met in Philadelphia on January 22 and made such investigation into the facts as the circumstances and their unofficial character would permit. Its results were considered by their colleagues of the National Civil Service Reform League, and a report adverse to the action of Mr. Hicks was sent to the President on behalf of the entire committee. A copy of this report was submitted to the Commission about March 15.

The members of the committee representing the National Civil Service Reform League, having informed the Commission of their intention of making the investigation referred to above, the Commission decided that it would postpone its own

investigation at Philadelphia, in order that it might have the advantage of reviewing the testimony before commencing its own investigation.

Since February 1 few complaints have been received. It has not been possible for representatives of the Commission to visit Philadelphia to make the proposed investigation, owing to the pressure of other matters. All of the cases are under consideration, and a final investigation will be made at the earliest practicable date.

Terre Haute, Ind., Post-Office. File 2386.

In July, 1897, a communication was received from one Michael J. Brophy, a former superintendent of carriers in the Terre Haute, Ind., post-office, alleging, with offer of proof, that he had on July 15, 1897, been removed from the service for political reasons. A joint investigation was made by a representative of the Post-Office Department and a representative of the Commission. It was found that in June, 1897, Postmaster Benjamin, of that place, filed with the First Assistant PostmasterGeneral a complaint against Brophy, charging him with disorderly conduct, the use of profanity, and conduct prejudicial to good discipline, in consequence whereof Brophy's removal had been directed by the Department. These charges were found to relate to the alleged conduct of Brophy several months previously, and prior to the appointment of Mr. Benjamin as postmaster, in a controversy with a subordinate, of which Benjamin had no personal knowledge whatever, and in which it appeared that the subordinate was the real offender. Other evidence was adduced tending to establish Brophy's innocence of the charges, and to show that he had been a reliable and efficient employee, and that had he been of the same political faith as the postmaster his removal would never have been recommended. As a result of the investigation the Department directed the postmaster to reinstate Brophy, but subsequently instructed him to suspend such reinstatement pending an investigation of additional charges. Later the Commission was notified by the Department that it had, on November 29, 1897, confirmed and made permanent Brophy's removal upon a charge, the salient features of which he admitted to be true, that he did not affix postage-due stamps to first and second class mail matter passing through his hands and delivered, as required by section 513 of the Postal Laws and Regulations. The Commission could therefore take no further action in the matter.

Impersonation and conspiracy of John J. Delaney and Henry K. Bunting in examination for the Philadelphia Post-Office. File 176 B.

A bold attempt at impersonation in the examination for the post-office service, held at Philadelphia, August 5, 1897, resulted in the arrest, conviction, and imprisonment of the would-be perpetrators of the fraud through the prompt and judicious action of the Commission's board of examiners in that city. It appears that some time in July, 1897, one Henry K. Bunting had made application for this examination and was notified by card to appear for examination on the above date. By previous arrangement, one John J. Delaney, a former employee of the Philadelphia post-office, whose application for this examination had but a short time previously been rejected, impersonating Bunting, presented himself for examination. He was recognized by the examiners, and after filling out the "declaration sheet," which contains questions concerning the applicant, and signing Bunting's name thereto, was immediately placed under arrest on the charge of impersonation and forgery. Bunting's arrest on the charge of conspiracy to defraud followed soon afterward. Both were indicted, Delaney for making and presenting a false paper, under section 5418, and for conspiracy, under section 5440, of the Revised Statutes, and Bunting for conspiracy under the above-named section.

Upon trial, September 21, 1897, they were found guilty as charged, it being clearly shown that each had attempted to perpetrate a fraud upon the Government. The court, before passing sentence, stated that the offense of the parties clearly came within the terms of those sections of the Revised Statutes under which they were

charged, and that section 5418, both literally and in spirit and intent, covered these cases; that it was a clear attempt to prejudice the rights of the United States in the operation of its government; that if the defendants had been successful one of them would have obtained a valuable right from the Government, would have become one of a privileged class, and would have had a certain advantage over his fellow-citizens who were not of such privileged class; that the United States had, under the laws, a right to provide means to regulate the selection and appointment of one of its servants, and that the fraud and deception of the defendants were undoubtedly in prejudice of that right. These being the first cases of the kind to come within the notice of the court, a light sentence was imposed, Bunting receiving a sentence of three months' imprisonment, and Delaney, who had been in jail since his arrest, a sentence of two months' imprisonment, both to pay the costs of the prosecution. In imposing sentence the court stated that any further case of the kind would meet with a much severer sentence.

VII. COMPLAINTS AFFECTING THE GOVERNMENT PRINT ING SERVICE.

Early in April, 1897, a committee representing the Columbia Typographical Union called the attention of the Commission to alleged violations of the civil-service rules in the matter of removals, reductions, appointments, and promotions in the Government Printing Office by Public Printer Palmer. Following its uniform practice the Commission replied that the charges must be accompanied with offer of proof. Such proof was duly offered, and after considering it the Commission concluded that a general conference with the Public Printer on the subject of the observance of the civilservice rules was desirable. It accordingly asked such conference, but was unable to obtain the same, the Public Printer ignoring its requests. Pending the attempts to obtain a conference with the Public Printer, the official reports of changes in the Government Printing Office for the months of April and May were received, showing 77 reductions, 91 promotions, 51 dismissals or resignations, and 59 reinstatements. From these reports it appeared to the Commission that the Public Printer failed to comply with section 8 of the Government printing promotion regulations, which reads:

"All changes, transfers, promotions, and demotions, and the reasons for such promotions and demotions, shall be reported to the Commission."

On June 15, 1897, no satisfactory response having been received from the Public Printer in reply to the repeated requests of the Commission for a conference, all employees of the office whose status had been changed during April and May were requested by letter to appear before the Commission to answer inquiries concerning the enforcement of the civil-service rules in the Government Printing Office. In response, 89 persons appeared and made statements relative to the enforcement of the rules, and in addition to these personal statements nine other statements were received from persons invited to appear who were unable to be present. Thus, in all, the statements of 98 persons were received and considered by the Commission, and represented fairly the persons reduced, removed, promoted, and reinstated. The Public Printer was then invited to appear before the Commission to meet the charges against him, and in order that the Commission might have all possible information before reaching a conclusion in the matter. This request the Public Printer also ignored.

An examination of the evidence adduced during the investigation disclosed the fact that of the 77 persons reduced 76 were Democrats; of the 91 persons promoted 82 were Republicans, 2 were Democrats, and the politics of 7, three of whom were