them were not made until September 23, nearly ten days after the requests for their resignations were made. This in itself shows that the intent of the collector was to procure the resignations of the three mon, presumably for political reasons, but certainly in violation of the order of the President of July 27 and the provisions of circular 480, issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in pursuance of that order.

"Deputy McMichael having tendered his resignation in accordance with the request of the collector, no charges were preferred against him; but Deputy Bochert and Bond Clerk Howley refused to hand in their resignations, and therefore, ten days later, charges were preferred against them.

"There is nothing to show that at the time of requesting the resignations the collector was aware of any circumstances upon which to base charges. The charges appear to be of a trivial character. They are vague and indefinite, especially in the case of Bochert, and it is not believed that they conform to the requirements of circular 122, issued by your Department on August 11, and circular 480, issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in that they do not contain specifications detailing fully and explicitly any dereliction of duty, or delinquency or misconduct.

"It would appear that the collector, failing in his effort to secure voluntary resignations, resorted to this method of procuring the dismissals of the deputies.

"The three persons referred to--McMichael, Bochert, and Howley-were still in the service at the time of the investigation, but it appears that both Bochert and Howley, who refused to tender resignations, have since been removed from the service.

"As regards the case of Mr. Bochert, the Commission has to state that in his letter of October 8, addressed to the Commission, he alleges that on September 14 the collector requested him to hand in his resignation because he was a Democrat, and for that reason only. Mr. Bochert further alleges that the collector told him that his conduct of the office was satisfactory. It is shown in the collector's statement to the Commission's representative that the charge against Deputy Collector Bochert was preferred by Mr. Wheelock, a special deputy of the Treasury Department. It appears that this same special deputy has expressed himself as being of the opinion that the rest of the Democrats in the collector's office at Pittsburg would have to go. In the Pittsburg Times of October 6, 1897, George W. Wheelock, a special agent of the Internal Revenue Service, while on an official investigation at Pittsburg, is quoted, in discussing the removals anticipated by the incoming collector of that city, as predicting removals by the new collector. The Times adds:

"Mr. Wheelock is not an admirer of the civil-service law that keeps a man in office when his superior, the collector, who is under very heavy bonds, finds that an employee is not in sympathy with him, and in some cases is not to be trusted.'

“Mr. Wheelock is quoted as saying that it was entirely within the line of probability that some reports he might make would furnish ground for preferring charges should it be necessary to do so in order to get rid of incompetent or careless employees.

"Again, in the Pittsburg Chronicle-Telegraph of June 29, 1897, D. D. Spaulding, an inspector in the Internal Revenue Service, with whom Mr. Wheelock filed his charges in the Bochert case, is spoken of as follows:

"Mr. Spaulding, although in the civil service himself, does not believe in the law to an extent that it is being carried out now. He thinks that it is wrong that a collector of internal revenue shall be compelled to give a heavy bond and then not be allowed to select his own employees.' 'I believe,' said he to a Chronicle-Telegraph man, 'that if a collector should have the sand to discharge employees regardless of the law and put in men whom he could trust, he would win his case in the Supreme Court. I do not think the law will hold if tested, for it does not appear to be reasonable.'

"Mr. Howley, in his letter of October 8 addressed to the Commission, alleges that on September 14, 1897, the collector requested him to hand in his resignation because he was a Democrat and because he wanted to appoint a Republican in his place;

that when asked whether there were any charges against him he (the collector) said that he had no fault to find with the performance of his (Howley's) work, and that he had requested the resignation solely for political reasons.

"The inference seems irresistible, in view of the report of the Commission's examiner who made the investigation, and of subsequent information, that the collector desired to create vacancies in the positions held by Bochert and Howley, and, failing to secure their resignations, he preferred charges against them to secure their removal. The examiner reports that the charges are indefinite and trivial, and the Commission requests that the Department will inquire into their sufficiency.

"Respecting the statements alleged to have been made to the press by Messrs. Wheelock and Spaulding, it should be said that Congress and the President, in the civil-service act and rules, have made it the duty of officers such as Mr. Wheelock and Mr. Spaulding to aid in all ways in carrying the rules into effect. Instead of this, we find these officers seeking to discredit them, and to prejudice public opinion against them and the declared policy of the Secretary of the Treasury."

Under date of December 6, 1897, the Secretary of the Treasury replied, inclosing a copy of a letter from the Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the matter. The Secretary said:

"I agree with the views expressed by the Commissioner [of Internal Revenue] that it is neither practicable nor consistent with the rules governing departmental work to report to your Commission day after day as to the manner in which the law and rules made thereunder are administered by subordinate officials of this Department.

"Section 2 of the act of January 16, 1883, provides that your Commission 'may make investigations concerning the facts, and may report upon all matters touching the enforcement of said rules and regulations, and concerning the action of those in the public service in respect to the execution of this act.'

"It will not be contended, I presume, that said provision of law authorizes the Commission to institute semijudicial investigation into every complaint that may be made by officials who have been removed from office.

"This Department can, I believe, be safely trusted to enforce all laws and rules relating thereto covering appointments and removals under its jurisdiction. Whenever it shall appear that improper or illegal action has been taken in connection with appointments or discharges, this office will take proper measures to correct the error so made, but it will be impossible to continue the practice of making detailed reports in such cases."

The letter of the Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G. W. Wilson, referred to by the Secretary, is dated December 1, 1897, and is as follows:

"The action of Collector Fruit in these cases was in strict accordance with the terms of Department circular No. 119, and is believed by this office to have been based on good and sufficient grounds, and to have been absolutely necessary for the maintenance of discipline by the collector, to enable him to sustain himself in his proper efforts to administer the affairs of his district in the interest of good service. "It is respectfully suggested that it is hardly the prerogative of the Civil Service Commission to call in question the acts of appointing officers in the removal of their subordinates under authority of law and in accordance with the rules of the President. In August last this office embodied in a circular to collectors the restrictions imposed by the President in Executive order of July 27, 1897, upon the power of removal conferred upon them by section 3148, Revised Statutes, and in all cases it requires evidence that the conditions of that order have been complied with before it approves the dismissal of deputy collectors. Having taken that action, this office does not recognize the right of the Civil Service Commission to call for explanations or further action in cases which have been finally settled in accordance with the President's order and the circular referred to.

"I submit that when a collector of internal revenue, with the approval of this

office, dismisses a deputy on charges which he has had full opportunity to meet, as directed by the President, and has not met satisfactorily, the action taken is not a proper subject for review by the Civil Service Commission. I am also of the opinion that the dismissal of a gauger or storekeeper on charges investigated by the collector in accordance with said circular, examined by this office, and made the ground of a recommendation for such dismissal, is not properly before the Commission for criticism or comment.

“I venture to submit this opinion in the interest of the service, which can hardly be advanced by the present practice of the Commission of granting a hearing to any subordinate dismissed on charges, referring complaints to the Secretary, by whom they are in turn referred to this office for remark, involving a reiteration of the facts in the case, making endless and apparently useless work, and at the same time impairing discipline in the force. The attempt of the Commission to review and supervise the administration and discipline of the Internal-Revenue Service entails on this office as above stated a burden of unnecessary correspondence which has become a serious obstruction to important routine work; it impairs the efficiency of the force in the field and endangers the collection of the revenues, and is not only a violation of official ethics, but an invasion of responsibility under the internal-revenue laws, a responsibility imposed upon the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, not upon the Civil Service Commission. An earnest protest is entered against any further encroachment upon the prerogatives of this office in this regard."

Inasmuch as these letters did not meet the direct issues outlined in the Commission's letter of November 4, the attention of the Department was again called to the points at issue in a letter from the commission dated December 17, 1897, a part of which follows:

"In its letter of November 4, the Commission brought to your attention certain apparent violations of the rules. In your reply you state that it is neither practicable nor consistent with the rules governing departmental work to report to this Commission day after day as to the manner in which the law and rules made thereunder are administered by subordinate officials of the Department; that you presume it will not be contended that the provision of section 2 of the act of January 16, 1883, authorized the Commission to institute a semijudicial investigation into every complaint that may be made by officials who have been relieved from office; that whenever it shall appear that improper or illegal action has been taken in connection with appointments or discharges, this office will take proper measures to correct the error so made.

"The Commission begs to submit that among the specific duties imposed upon it by section 2 of the act of 1883 is to investigate all cases touching upon the nonenforcement or violation of the civil-service rules, and that this duty clearly includes an investigation of alleged violations of the rules prescribing the methods to be pursued in making removals.

"The Commission has consistently pursued this policy of conducting investigations whenever the allegations made seemed to it to warrant such action. A number of these investigations have been made at different times, both under the present and preceding Administrations, and as a result the Commission has recommended the removal of certain employees and the prosecution of others, and upon these recommendations some dismissals have been made and some offenders indicted and convicted. The most wholesome effect has been produced in many offices of the Departments by the prosecution or removal of delinquents, as a result of the Commission's investigations and recommendations. Even in cases where the law has been disregarded through mere ignorance, the bringing of the matter to the attention of the proper Department by the Commission has resulted in a correction of the irregularities.

"It is readily seen that the Commission would find itself greatly embarrassed in the performance of its duty under the law if it could not have the cooperation of the

heads of Departments in its investigations. It would seem that the framers of the act of 1883 fully realized this in inserting in this act the following provision:

"It shall be the duty of all officers of the United States in the departments and offices to which any such rules may relate, to aid in all proper ways in carrying the said rules and any modifications thereof into effect.'

"It seems to be the clear intent of the law that there shall be intercourse and cooperation between the Departments and the Commission in correcting violations of the rules. As the duty and interests of the Department and the Commission are similar under the law in this respect, there should, of course, be no clashing, and, as a rule, there has not been.

"In the Pittsburg case the investigation made by one of the Commission's own force disclosed apparent violations of the rules. In pursuance of its duty imposed by law the Commission again begs to bring to your attention its findings in the investigation in the Pittsburg case, and to request that it be informed of the result of your consideration of the matter."

*

Further consideration of this case was necessarily postponed on account of the action of the Department outlined in the report of the Richmond, Va., investigation. Two other complaints in the matter of removals in the Pittsburg internal-revenne district have been received, but these have not been considered by the Commission, as it did not appear that the removals had been made in violation of the civil-service rules.

Nashville, Tenn., Internal-Revenue District. File 836.

Complaints charging the collector of internal revenue in the Nashville internalrevenue district with removals and appointments in contravention of the civilservice rules led to an investigation of that office on October 6, 7, 8, and 9, 1897, by a representative of the Commission. The report of this investigation shows that when David A. Nunn succeeded Frank P. Bond as collector in this district, July 31, 1897. there were twenty employees, exclusive of storekeepers and gaugers, in this district, distributed as follows:

Eight engaged in office work, seven in field work, three employed as stamp deputies at branch offices, and two employed as fruit-brandy deputies under 90-day appointments.

Immediately upon assuming charge of the office, Collector Nunn removed two deputy collectors and the three stamp deputies, whose positions he treated as excepted, four field deputies and one temporary field deputy, whose positions were treated as nonexcepted, and transferred one field deputy to the position of brandy deputy. No charges were made against the persons removed from nonexcepted places as contemplated by the President's order of July 27, 1897, and the vacancies occasioned by these removals were filled regardless of the requirements of the civilservice rules in the matter of examination and certification.

The motive of the collector in making the removals is frankly brought out in his statement to the civil service examiner who conducted the investigation.

"I am," said he, "a Republican, and much prefer having Republicans associated with me in the administration of my office. When I took charge I was confronted with an office full of Democrats. I came in with the determination to put Republicans in every position possible, keeping within the bounds of the law as I construed the law. The employees dismissed by me are all Democrats and the men who took their places are all Republicans. I take a great pride in having my office up to the highest standard, and want men associated with me who are politically in sympathy with me. As to the appointment of Messrs. Priest and Lattin to the two most important positions in the office, I simply say that I appointed them without hesitation because they are men of the highest ability and had been associated with me in my previous administration of the office, and because the position of chief deputy was an excepted place under President Cleveland's rules, and the position of general bookkeeper was excepted by the order of President McKinley, my office force con

sisting of more than four employees. I had no special objection to the predecessors of Messrs. Priest and Lattin, nor did I make any special inquiry about them. The deputies of the stamp offices were also excepted, and I appointed men of my choice in the places of the incumbents when I took charge. As to the other changes, viz, five field deputies, I felt that I had a perfect right to discontinue the services of any employee of the office who gave bond to the collector, and I proceeded to make changes as I saw proper. I retained Deputies Rutledge and Anderson (both Democrats) because they were most efficient officers. As to the deputies dismissed, I had complaints of a more or less serious nature of the manner in which they discharged their duties. I made no specific charges against any of them, however, but simply made the changes because I deemed it best for the public service. I appointed their successors outside of the civil-service list, because there was no eligible list at the time, as I was informed by the president of the board. There were only two names on the eligible list as I subsequently learned, and I had confidence in my appointees, and they were Republicans besides. They all took the examination on September 14, as I wanted them to be in a position to be appointed from the eligible register if I should be forced to comply with the strict letter of the civil-service rules. As to the two brandy deputies appointed by me, I took them from the eligible list, but without regard to their relative standing on that list. One reason for taking them that way was that they were both efficient men (one of them having served under me before); my other reason was that they were both active Republicans. Provided the man is efficient I would take a Republican every time, but I would not appoint an incompetent Republican."

On October 29, 1897, the Commission, in a communication to the Treasury Department, called attention to the fact that removals had been made in this internalrevenue district in violation of the President's order of July 27, 1897, and for political reasons; that appointments without examination had been made to places which the Department had not considered as excepted from examination, and that temporary appointments had been made, regardless of the fact that there were sufficient names upon the eligible register of the Commission to meet the full requirements of the office, and requested the Department to take such action as would result in the immediate separation from the service of those illegally appointed. It also requested that the accounting officers of the Treasury be informed that these persons had not been appointed in accordance with the law, with a view to withholding compensation for their services.

This communication was followed by another dated November 3, 1897, in which the Commission dwelt at length upon the questions discussed in its letter of October 29, and requested the removal of Collecter Nunn for gross violation of the provisions of the civil-service law and rules.

Further consideration of this case was postponed pending the decision of the Solicitor of the Treasury, to whom a question as to the status of deputy collectors of internal revenue and the rights of collectors under section 3148 of the Revised Statutes was referred for an opinion, as stated in the report of the investigation of the Richmond (Va.) office.

One of the deputies of Collector Nunn brought suit in the Federal courts to enjoin removal. Judge Lurton, of the United States circuit court for the middle district of Tennessee, decided that his court was without authority to enjoin the removal of Collector Nunn's subordinates. Extracts from this decision will be found in the Decisions of Courts at p. 205, ante.

Knoxville, Tenn., Internal-Revenue District. File 826.

Soon after A. J. Tyler assumed his duties as collector of internal revenue in the Knoxville internal-revenue district, on July 1, 1897, several complaints were made charging him with making wholesale removals of deputy collectors for political reasons and with ignoring the eligible register of the Commission in appointing their These charges led to an investigation of that office by a representative

successors.