women, were unknown; of the 51 persons removed 35 were Democrats, 1 was a Republican, and the politics of 15, seven of whom were women, were unknown; and of the 59 persons reinstated 43 were Republicans and the politics of 16, six of whom were women, were unknown. The investigation also showed that those persons reduced or dismissed, with the exception of the soldiers, were almost uniformly active and vigorous men, apparently entirely competent to perform their duties in the Government Printing Office, while some of the persons reinstated appeared to be past the age of efficiency, and some had not followed the printer's trade since their separation from the Government Printing Office some years before. Relative to the statement of the Public Printer to the effect that five-sixths of the employees of the office were Democrats an examination of the roster of employees of the office, furnished by Public Printer Benedict at the time the office was classified, showed that out of the 2,710 employees classified on August 1, 1895, 1,203 were appointed by Mr. Palmer between the years 1889 and 1894, or 44 per cent of the whole number, 842 were appointed by Mr. Benedict during 1894 and 1895, or 31 per cent of the whole number, and 665 persons had been appointed prior to 1889, when Mr. Palmer was first appointed Public Printer, and had served both under Mr. Palmer and Mr. Benedict. In other words 1,868 persons, or 69 per cent of the whole number employed in the Government Printing Office, were either appointed by Mr. Palmer, the present Public Printer, or retained by him during the entire five years of his previous term. From this it would appear that adverse comment as to the political complexion of the office at the time of its classification will not bear inquiry. Mr. Oyster testified before the Senate Committee on Civil Service and Retrenchment that the statement of the Public Printer that in the specification division, of which Mr. Oyster was foreman, there were 158 Democrats and 46 Republicans, must have been based on misinformation. Mr. Oyster testified that a majority were Republicans and that there probably had been an equal number of Republicans all through Mr. Benedict's administration.

Removal of E. W. Oyster, Foreman Specification Division.

Under date of October 20, 1897, Mr. E. W. Oyster, foreman of the specification division of the Government Printing Office, addressed a letter to the Commission complaining that he had been dismissed by the Public Printer from a position subject to competitive examination, in disregard of section 8 of Rule II, forbidding a removal except for just cause and upon written charges, with an opportunity to make .defense. In his letter Mr. Oyster made the following statement:

"On October 6, about 3 p. m., I received a message by telephone that the Public Printer desired to see me. I immediately obeyed the summons. On entering his office he handed me a sheet of unsigned typewritten statements alleging, first, that I had disobeyed his instructions to discontinue the keeping of a record showing the quality of work performed by compositors; second, that I had demoralized the division by instructing proof readers to follow the style of the office as approved by the Patent Office in marking the proofs of compositors (see notice herewith); third, that I had permitted canvassing in my division in violation of the rules of the office; fourth, that I had shown favoritism in the selection of employees for certain work in the division.

"I emphatically denied the truth of each and every one of the statements, and offered to furnish evidence, if he desired me to do so, that they were entirely without foundation, but he gave no intimation that he desired such action on my part or that he intended to pursue the matter further, and therefore I was much surprised when, on the following day, my dismissal was handed to me by the Foreman of Printing. "The Public Printer did not inform me that he considered the statements referred to as charges under the President's order regulating removals from office, and for that reason I did not then request a copy of charges and specifications.

"Since my removal I have once in person and twice by letter requested a copy

of such charges as may have been filed against me. To my verbal request the Public Printer replied: 'I am under no obligation to give you any statement whatever.' To my written communications for a copy of charges and specifications I have received no reply.

“Conscientiously believing that I was dismissed without just canse, and that I am clearly entitled to a copy of any and all charges and specifications which may have been filed with the Public Printer, and the names of my accusers, I respectfully place my case in your hands for such action as you may deem right, just, and proper in the premises."

A copy of Mr. Oyster's letter was sent by the Commission to the Public Printer on November 2, 1897, with a letter asking to be informed of the facts in the matter. Under date of November 5, 1897, the Public Printer made reply, stating

"The action of this office in Mr. Oyster's case was in all respects in strict compli ance with the rules of the civil service."

As bearing upon this case it should be said that on May 15, 1897, the Public Printer appeared before the Senate Committee on Civil Service and Retrenchment, which was then investigating the operations of the civil-service law, and stated that if it were left to his discretion he would abolish the civil-service rules as far as their application to the Government Printing Office was concerned.

On July 8, 1897, Mr. Oyster appeared before the committee and stated under oath that, from his experience, the merit system was very beneficial to the public service, and that it was a great improvement over the old system. He testified that the persons appointed through the examinations in his division of the Government Printing Office were a superior class of workmen, and that there was an improvement of nearly 54 per cent in the work of those who came in through the examinations over that of certain others. He added:

"The 33 compositors who came in through examination earned in 1896 $10,164 more than the 33 whom Mr. Benedict discharged would have earned in the same time. They actually performed 45 per cent more work, and the quality of their work was a great improvement over the quality of the others. I bave no doubt whatever that there is a very large percentage of improvement, even by putting in the men appointed under the civil-service rules against the average employees of the office who came in under the old system. The improvement in favor of those who came in under the civil-service rules is probably 6 or 8 or 10 per cent.

*

"From 1861 to 1897, since the establishment of the Government Printing Office, there have been about $84,500,000 expended for public printing; that is, through the Public Printer alone, and about 66 per cent of the total amount of money is * paid out to employees of the office for labor-from 65 to 68 per cent. I put it at 66 per cent, and that would be $55,777,000 for wages. I put at 10 per cent only what I consider loss to the Government, although I am satisfied that the loss to the Government is very much greater than that by not conducting the office on a business basis, but through political influence and as a political machine. Ten per cent of that would be $5,577,000. The amount left, then, to have been expended for material would be $28,730,000, and up to very recent years-up to the time Mr. Benedict came in the first time-they paid full market rate for material in the office; that is, they did not get the discount which came to private parties when buying material. Although the Government bought ten or twenty times as much as a private office they got no discount, while a private office would get 10, 15, or 20, and as high as 30, per cent discount. I calculated 10 per cent of loss to the Government on material by not having proper business methods; and, putting the two together, there would be $8,450,000 which the Government has sunk by conducting that office not on business principles but as a political machine. I think the old system is threefourths bad; I think the new system is one-fourth bad, and the bad part about it is

that part where it does not protect a good and efficient and faithful employee after it puts him in.”

Following this testimony, on October 6 Mr. Oyster's removal took place. On January 25, 1898, Mr. Oyster addressed a further communication to the Commission, referring to his letter of October 20, and requested such action as the Commission might deem proper in the premises. On January 13, 1898, Mr. Oyster appeared before the Senate committee and testified respecting his discharge from the Government Printing Office. He stated that he had been dismissed without charges being furnished in writing, with the names of his accusers, or such an opportunity to make defense as was evidently intended by the President in his order of July 27, 1897, respecting removals. The committee took no action in this matter.

Mr. Oyster had been in the Government service for twenty years, and during that period his record has been excellent. He is a veteran of the civil war and an intelligent leader in the work of the American Federation of Labor and of high standing in his trade. The Commission has the case of Mr. Oyster under consideration.

Removal of Robert T. Bibb, in charge of Navy Branch.

On April 17, 1897, Mr. Bibb made complaint to the Commission of his removal. He stated that he was appointed compositor in the Government Printing Office on April 3, 1893; that on June 4, 1896, he was promoted to the position of assistant foreman of the Navy branch, the title of which position has since been changed to foreman, and had charge of the branch continuously until April 10, 1897, when he was discharged in the following manner:

"About 2.30 p. m. that day (April 10, 1897) I was ordered by telephone to report immediately to the office of the Foreman of Printing When I arrived the Foreman of Printing said: "The Public Printer wants your resignation this evening, to take effect this evening,' without giving any further explanation. I requested an interview with the Public Printer in regard to the matter. The message came back that he was busy with Congressmen and Senators, and that I could not see him. Thereupon I wrote him a note in which I stated that I knew of no charges having been preferred against ine, and, as my record in the position had been good, I would respectfully decline to resign. The Foreman of Printing took this note in to the Public Printer, and when he returned he had one of the usual discharge blanks of the office filled out, and it was handed to me by a clerk."

Mr. Bibb stated that he believed his discharge was solely because of his political faith. He had full charge of the Navy branch, doing work exclusively for the Navy Department, and no complaint against his efficiency could properly be entertained by the Public Printer unless it came from the Navy Department. No such complaint or charge had been made. He exhibited letters from Captain Sigsbee, who had been in charge of the Hydrographic Office, the Chief Clerk of the Navy Department, and a number of other chief clerks and officials, commending the manner in which the business of the office had been conducted. Captain Sigsbee said that the work required expedition and extraordinary care, and that Mr. Bibb had managed his branch with such tact and ability as to give entire satisfaction.

These facts were the subject of a communication of the Commission to the Public Printer, and in reply the Public Printer, under date of April 27, 1897, said:

"The reasons for all of the changes which have been made by my authority in the working force of this office during the month of April, including the name of Mr. Bibb, will be duly forwarded to your board according to the usual custom of this office."

In the monthly report referred to appeared the following entry:

"Robert T. Bibb, assistant foreman, discharged April 10, 1897, for cause."

IN THE MATTER OF THE ORDER OF THE PREsident dIRECTING THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.

[Submitted to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary by the U. S. Civil Service Commission, 1898.]

any

The following resolution was agreed to in the Senate on February 9, 1898: "Whereas the Supreme Court has decided in the case of the United States v. Allison (91 U. S. Supreme Court Report, 303) that the Government Printing Office is not an Executive Department, nor a bureau or office of such Department; and "Whereas section 7 of the civil-service law provides: Nor shall person merely employed as a laborer or workman be required to be classified;' and "Whereas section 45 of the act of Congress approved January 12, 1895, provides that 'It shall be the duty of the Public Printer to employ workmen' who are thoroughly skilled in their respective branches of industry, as shown by a trial of their skill under his direction: Therefore

"Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be, and they are hereby, directed to inquire and report to the Senate whether or not the Executive order placing the Government Printing Office in the classified service is valid and of binding force." In this matter the following is respectfully submitted:

As to the first clause of the resolution. To find authority for the Executive order placing the Government Printing Office in the classified service, it is not necessary to regard that office as one of what are technically known as the Executive Departments, nor as a bureau or office of any such Department; nor has it been so regarded in connection with its classification under the civil-service rules. Section 1753, Revised Statutes (March 3, 1871), provides:

"The President is authorized to prescribe such regulations for the admission of persons into the civil service of the United States as may best promote the efficiency thereof, and ascertain the fitness of each candidate in respect to age, health, character, knowledge, and ability for the branch of service into which he seeks to enter; and for this purpose he may employ suitable persons to conduct such inquiries, and may prescribe their duties, and establish regulations for the conduct of persons who may receive appointments in the civil service."

It is seen that by this provision the President of the United States is authorized to prescribe regulations for admission to any position in any part of the civil service without exception or limitation. It would not be contended that the authority here conferred is confined to what are technically known as the Executive Departments, or to the bureaus and offices which are part of those Departments. It is clear that it extends to the entire executive civil service, including what are known as the Executive Departments, their offices and bureaus, and all independent Executive offices, commissions, and establishments, as well. And among these latter are, for instance, the Department of Labor, the Fish Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Civil Service Commission, and the Government Printing Office.

The act of January 16, 1883, commonly known as the civil-service act, practically confers upon the President the same authority, but goes into detail and outlines the method in which the President shall exercise his authority and expressly directs that certain parts of the service not before classified shall be classified and brought within its provisions within a specified time, leaving the remaining parts of the service to be brought in by the President from time to time in his discretion subject to the following limitation of section 7:

"Nor shall any officer not in the executive branch of the Government, or any person merely employed as a laborer or workman, be required to be classitied hereunder, nor, unless by direction of the Senate, shall any person who has been nominated for confirmation by the Senate be required to be classified or to pass an examination."

The act of 1883 not only does not repeal the authority conferred by section 1753, Revised Statutes, but, subject to the limitations just quoted, expressly reenacts that provision in the following terms of section 7:

"But nothing herein contained shall be construed to take from * the President any authority not inconsistent with this act conferred by the seventeen hundred and fifty-third section of said [Revised] Statutes."

It is thus seen that section 1753, Revised Statutes, as left in force by the act of 1883, gives ample authority to the President to classify all independent executive offices and establishments, of which, of course, the Government Printing Office

is one.

But this is by no means the only authority for such executive act. The general authority conferred by the civil-service act itself to extend its provisions is contained in the following provision of section 6, paragraph 3, of that act:

"That from time to time said Secretary, the Postmaster-General, and each of the heads of departments mentioned in the one hundred and fifty-eighth section of the Revised Statutes, and each head of an office, shall, on the direction of the President, and for facilitating the execution of this act, respectively revise any then existing classification or arrangement of those in their respective departments and offices, and shall, for the purpose of the examination herein provided for, include in one or more of such classes, so far as practicable, subordinate places, clerks, and officers in the public service pertaining to their respective departments not before classified for examination."

The language of this provision is clear and definite. From the enumeration "said Secretary, Postmaster-General, and each of the heads of departments mentioned in the one hundred and fifty-eighth section of the Revised Statutes and each head of an office" and again "their respective departments and offices," it is manifest that the authority conferred by these provisions was intended to extend not only to what are known as the Executive Departments and their branches but to any independent offices as well.

There is seen to be, therefore, two independent sources of statutory authority for an Executive order classifying an independent executive office which is not one of the Executive Departments, nor a part thereof. Furthermore, the Constitution would seem to confer general authority for such action by the President. It would appear that the President recognized these three sources of authority when he extended the provisions of the civil-service laws to the Government Printing Office and established rules therefor under the following promulgating order:

"In the exercise of the power vested in him by the Constitution, by the seventeen hundred and fifty-third section of the Revised Statutes and the act entitled 'An act to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States,' approved January 16, 1883, the President hereby makes and promulgates the following rules concerning the classified service of the Government Printing Office, to be known as the Government Printing Office rules."

As to the second clause of the resolution. The President, heads of Departments and offices, and the Commission have uniformly interpreted the language of section 7 of the civil-service act, "Any person merely employed as a laborer or workman," to mean any person who is employed as a mere unskilled manual laborer who is not required to exercise special mental effort or acquired skill; and no attempt has ever been made by the President to secure the classification and inclusion of such persons within the provisions of the civil-service laws. For example, in Rule II, section 1, of the rules established for the Government Printing Office when that office was classified by Executive order, the President distinctly said: "The classified service of the Government Printing Office shall include all persons employed in that office except those appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and unskilled laborers or workmen."

This interpretation has never been refuted, and is believed to be strictly within the meaning and intent of section 7 when read with other parts of the act of 1883 and