NORTH DAKOTA. Driscol, case of Howard A. Thomas, fourth-class postmaster. Charge: Political activity. Date of charge: February 11, 1919. Result: While postmaster of Driscol, Mr. Thomas was elected and held the office of justice of the peace. He held one session of the court in the rear of the post office and allowed his political friends access to the workrooni. He admitted being a staunch supporter of the Nonpartisan League and held the office of bill clerk during a session of the legislature as a result of his political endeavors. He told of being precinct committeeman for a political organization and of his name being authorized to the political circular letter as executive committeeman of Burleigh County. An inspection of the office disclosed many irregularities. During his absence from the office, due to his pursuing various other means of supporting his family, his 16-year-old daughter assumed charge. Because of his actions in general he was in disfavor with the business and professional men of Driscol. The commission recommended that Mr. Thomas be removed and the Post Office Department appointed Edwin C. Ruble as his successor. Epping, case of Lewis H. Levitt, rural carrier. Charge: Political activity. Date of charge: March 23, 1920. Result: Mr. Levitt was charged with serving on the election board of the town of Epping and of uttering sarcastic remarks of a political nature. He admitted serving on the board in a nonpartisan capacity; but the charge of making sarcastic political remarks could not be substantiated. The commission recommended that the Post Office Department reprimand Mr. Levitt for his serving on the election board and warn him that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. OHIO. Canton, case of Frank H. Darr, city letter carrier. Charge: Political activity. Date of charge: May 28, 1919. Result: Mr. Darr was appointed delegate to the labor convention to be held at Atlantic City, N. J., by his branch of the Letter Carriers' Union. The commission investigated the charges of political activity and found them without foundation. Mr. Darr was then appointed a member of the Canton board of health by the mayor of that city. The position being nonpartisan and nonremunerative, the mayor informed Mr. Darr that he would be eligible. When he learned of his violation of the civil-service laws Mr. Darr immediately sent his resignation to the mayor. The commission decided that Mr. Darr should be cautioned against taking a too prominent part in public affairs in the future. Ashland, case of Clifton Weaver, city letter carrier. Date of charge: October 1, 1919. Result: Mr. Weaver, charged with signing and circulating a petition advocating a political candidate, stated that he had no intention of infringing upon the rules of the commission. The charges against him of electioneering were unfounded. He signed a petition, as an individual, and handed it to several friends standing near by. The Post Office Department warned Mr Weaver, as the commission recommended, and the case was filed. PENNSYLVANIA. Philadelphia, case of Bernardo Buongiorno, handyman, Navy Yard. Date of charge: September 14, 1919. Result: When charged with political activity, in that he served as registrar on three different occasions, and announced his candidacy for assessor, Mr. Buongiorno admitted the charges, but stated that it was done without the knowledge that he was acting contrary to the rulings of the commission. He also stated that he did all in his power to withdraw his name from the check list when he became aware of his wrongdoings. The case was closed when the Navy Department reprimanded and warned Mr. Buongiorno, as the commission recommended. SOUTH DAKOTA. Marion, case of Henry J. De Groot, rural carrier. Charge: Political activity. Date of charge: April 19, 1920. Result: Mr. De Groot had his name entered on the ballots as a candidate for councilman. This act was in violation of both the postal laws and regulations and the civil-service rulings on political activities. The Post Office Department acted upon the recommendation of the commission, that Mr. De Groot be reprimanded and warned that a repetition of the offense would be just cause for his removal from the service TEXAS. Stoneham, case of Reuben P. Hill, fourth-class postmaster. Charge: Political activity. Date of charge: December 27, 1918. Result: When interviewed, Mr. Hill admitted that he had been active politically; that being an avowed prohibitionist, he considered the liquor question of vital importance. He also admitted that he had a preference of candidates for Congress in the first campaign, this preference based entirely upon the liquor question; that he considered it his duty, as a citizen, to assist every movement for the betterment of the South, even though it jeopardized his position as postmaster. At the request of the commission, the First Assistant Postmaster General cautioned Mr. Hill against a continuance of this political activity. Bowie County, case of Print L. Cassady, railway postal clerk. Charge: Political activity. Date of charge: April 30, 1920. Result: Mr. Cassady was charged with being a candidate for the nomination of county attorney. His candidacy was announced in two of the daily papers of Texarkana. The Post Office Department, upon the recommendation of the commission, informed Mr. Cassady that he must either withdraw as a candidate or resign his position as railway-mail clerk. The case was closed upon word from the department that Mr. Cassady had withdrawn as a candidate. Fort Worth, case of Walter J. Edmonston, post-office clerk. Charge: Political activity. Date of charge: September 2, 1920. Result: Mr. Edmonston, while acting secretary of the Fort Worth Musicians' Union, wired the musicians' unions in near-by towns to refuse to play at a Fort Worth political rally. The commission upheld the action of the Post Office Department in reprimanding Mr. Edmonston and warning him against similar action in the future. VIRGINIA. Norfolk, case of Benjamin L. Shepherd, machinist, navy yard. Date of charge: September 22, 1919. Result: Mr. Shepherd, not knowing that his actions were contrary to the rules of the commission, made political speeches in behalf of a Mr. Davis in the contest for the State senate. He stated that his effort was more one of friendship than of a political motive. Upon the recommendation of the commission, he was reprimanded by the Navy Department and cautioned against a repetition of the offense. WEST VIRGINIA. Captina, case of Lawrence C. Timmons, rural carrier. Charge: Political activity. Date of charge: March 1, 1920. Result: An investigation of the charges against Mr. Timmons showed that he was inclined to enter into political discussions while distributing his mail. It showed also that he took a firm stand against the bond issue for new roads, he being a taxpayer on property in that community. The commission recommended to the department that Mr. Timmons be reprimanded and warned that political discussions on his part in the future would be a just cause for a more severe penalty. Charleston, case of Jonathan W. Sevy, storeman, naval ordnance plant. Date of charge: May 13, 1920. Result: Mr. Sevy was a candidate for clerk of the county court, and was defeated for the nomination. In answering the inspector's letter, Mr. Sevy promised to refrain from future political activities. The commission recommended to the Secretary of the Navy that Mr. Sevy be reprimanded, and warned that a repetition of the offense would be a just cause for more severe penalty. WISCONSIN. Milwaukee, case of Stanley M. Gorski, temporary assistant custodian, Federal building. Charge: Political activity. Date of charge: March 26, 1920. Result: Mr. Gorski acted as inspector at the spring election in 1919, but he denied that he conducted an active political campaign from his office in the Federal building. As to his being a candidate for alderman, he stated that his friends used his name in the campaign to prevent the Socialists from securing a position on the ticket for their candidate. The commission recommended to the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury that Mr. Gorski be reprimanded, and warned that further actions along the same lines would be sufficient for his removal from the service. CRIMINAL CODE. ILLINOIS. Chicago, case of Reverdy E. Cooley. Charge: False statements in application. Date of charge: May 2, 1919. Result: Among the statements made under oath by Mr. Cooley in his application for position as clerk qualified in accounting, were those of past employment with three different concerns. He stated in the same application that he was 22 years old. In an application for position as resident auditor he made the same statements regarding employment and age. Two of the concerns referred to were not in existence; the third employed him in a different capacity than stated, and at a much lower salary. Mr. Cooley was found to be much under the age he claimed. These statements were made with the intention of defrauding the Government; and successfully, in that Mr. Cooley was appointed to a position as a result of these examinations. The commission ordered that he be removed from the service and debarred from future examinations. A report of further action has not yet been received. Chicago, case of Maurice M. Renehan. Charge: Forgery and false swearing. Date of charge: December 22, 1919. Result: Mr. Renehan at different times filed four applications with the commission for positions as assistant to business manager, junior accountant, senior cost accountant, and resident auditor, respectively. In each application he related past employment and the salary received. He gave a general account in each one of the details of the work, the number and class of employees under his supervision, and the duration Result: In connection with his application for appointment to the position of assistant in marketing, Hayden submitted a thesis which he falsely swore was his own composition. It was discovered that this thesis was copied almost word for word from a bulletin published by the Department of Agriculture. The case was therefore presented to the Department of Justice for prosecution. The district attorney at St. Paul, to whom the case was forwarded, reported that when brought before the grand jury in December, 1919, a no bill" was found. 66 STATISTICAL INFORMATION. The compilation of information with respect to the number of persons appointed to the classified service during the year ended June 30, 1920, was made by mechanical means with a view to giving much more information than merely the number of appointments, by sex, made in the departments and independent establishments at Washington and in the field service. The time available for the preparation of statistics has been too short and it has been impossible, therefore, to prepare all the statistical information which might prove to be of interest and which could have been prepared had time permitted. Some of the subjects, which are of timely interest, are: Number of veterans appointed; age of appointees; salaries of appointees and number of appointees grouped according to examination requirements. Tables bearing upon these subjects are submitted, but there has been insufficient time to analyze them. The following explanatory notes are to be used in connection with the tables which follow. The column headings, "Register 1," "Register 2," etc., have the following meanings: "Register 1" includes all persons without military preference, appointed from current open, competitive examinations. 66 Register 2" includes all eligibles with military preference under the act of July 11, 1919, appointed from registers resulting from open, competitive examinations. 66 66 'Register 3" includes all persons without military preference, appointed from reemployment registers, under the Executive order of November 29, 1918. 'Register 4" includes all persons with military preference, appointed from reemployment registers. (Reemployment registers are made up of efficient persons formerly in the service who were dropped because of reduction of force.) 66 Register 5" includes all persons certified for reinstatement without special request. (The reinstatement rule was amended on July 18, 1918, to permit reinstatement in any part of the service of a former employee who had entered the war with Germany and had been honorably discharged.) The commission made public the fact that it would replace the names of such veterans on such registers from which they were originally appointed, and would submit their names to the departments for consideration for appointment. At the same time it was suggested that it would be preferable for the veterans to personally make application for reinstatement, which most of them did. The comparatively small number shown in the table is due to this fact as the records show that 1,453 veterans were reinstated upon request, some of the departments naming the individual whose reinstatement was desired. The following explanation is made with reference to examination groups: It was thought that some interesting facts might be developed through presentation of statistics concerning appointments based upon examinaion requirements. The proper grouping of positions, had it been undertaken with a view to showing information other than on broad lines, would have been very difficult. It was advisable to keep the groups within reasonable limits as to number, and for that reason there were some examinations which did not fall with any of the groups; but to avoid meaningless, miscellaneous groups, all were placed in some of the groups shown. Another difficulty was the fact that many examinations could have been properly included in one or two or more groups, and doubtless many were improperly included in a certain group. It is believed, however, that the information will be of considerable interest. The following shows broadly the examination groups: Group A. Agriculture and food. Group B. Accounting and auditing. Group C. Architecture. Group D. Chemistry, mineralogy, and physics. |