of Samuel T. Cantelon and George W. Hilton, pensioners, for the purpose of defrauding them of their right to draw pensions.' (3) That I am ‘a person of bad character and ill-repute in the community where he [I] lived before being appointed,' etc.

"I have prepared and filed with Mr. Avery my defense, under oath, to these charges, and have denied in toto the first charge, which is certainly false. You perhaps may remember that I was a witness and made a statement to you in the matter of the investigation concerning political assessments in June of 1896, and no matter what was done prior to such investigation, certainly no political assessment was paid by me during the campaign of 1896 or subsequent to such investigation.

"On the 21st instant Mr. Avery called me into his office, asked for my resignation, and threatened, in case I did not see fit to hand it in, that he would file a charge against me for paying political assessments and prosecute the same to a finish, and that he wanted my place for one of his own political friends.

"After taking time to consider this threat I refused to resign, and, true to the promise, the charges are preferred.

"As to the second charge, whatever action I may have taken with regard to either pensioner named, it certainly was neither willful nor malicious, nor done as an officer of the United States Government, but as a citizen thereof, for the protection of the Treasury.

"I have no recollection of making any statement whatever concerning Cantelon, and charged no offense against Hilton, except that I understood he was drawing a pension for mental incapacity, and had during that time served on a jury in a murder trial. Upon investigation Hilton's pension was reduced.

"As to the third charge, I have annexed 10 affidavits of good character from some of the most prominent residents of Huron County of both political parties, and can get as many more as is thought desirable.

"The charges are preferred against me 'to make room for some political friend,' for Mr. Avery, in my said talk with him, said he had no fault to find with me as an officer, and I am not charged with inefficiency or dereliction of duty."

A fellow employee of Mr. Burrows wrote as follows in regard to his case: "The officer in question is one of the best inspectors at this port, which fact can readily be established by every officer, except possibly the collector; and I doubt if he would claim that he was not an efficient and faithful officer."

The request to resign was in this case, as in the case of Mr. Mustard, followed by the threat that prosecution would follow.

On October 30, 1897, the Commission wrote the Treasury Department concerning Mr. Burrows, and inclosed a copy of his letter of October 26. The Commission stated: "Since the authority of determining the sufficiency of the charges of the collector rests with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commission will take no further action in the case for the present, awaiting your decision, of which it begs to be promptly advised. The Commission, however, reserves to itself the authority of making further inquiry into this matter under the civil-service act and rules upon the charges that the removal of Mr. Burrows is sought for political reasons, and that the charges against him are merely trumped up to cover the underlying political motive."

On the day the above letter was written Mr. Burrows wrote the Commission, complaining of the generality of the charges preferred against him, especially that of being of ill-repute in the place in which he formerly lived, and showed how any disreputable person might be prevailed upon to make affidavit to any charge which might be drawn, and he (Burrows) be unable to rebut such an allegation or the proof offered to substantiate it, unless he were informed of the specific charge to be met. (As a matter of fact, the Commission was later informed that one of the charges against Burrows was that of stealing chickens.) Mr. Burrows states: "The spirit, and indeed the letter, of the civil-service law seem to contemplate that the accused shall be given an opportunity to make defense."

On November 27 Mr. Burrows wrote, in part, as follows:

"If Mr. Avery can make false and malicious charges against me, not in any manner verified by oath, and be sustained therein after the most complete refutation of each and every charge under oath, and backed by the affidavits of the most prominent citizens of Huron County, and if a simple letter of recommendation is of more effect than an answer under oath to the effect that Mr. Avery himself said the removal was for political reasons only, then the civil-service law is simply an expensive farce. A decree or order has been entered against me in an ex parte hearing, which, if entered in a court of law or equity upon such a record, would cause an uprising of the people."

On December 6, 1897, Mr. Frederick E. Finster, the president of the local board of civil service examiners for the Port Huron custom-house and post-office, wrote the Commission the following letter:

"Collector Avery called me into his private office this morning and told me that he had made up his mind to appoint my successor in office, and that he thought he would give me an opportunity to go the easiest way (I suppose he meant for me to offer my resignation), or the hard way, by which I understand he proposes to file charges and take my chances with the Treasury Department. I have not yet received a copy of his charges. It looks like an effort to have the local

*

board of examiners arranged to his liking." Written charges were later served upon Mr. Finster, and were as follows: That he had between January 1 and June 1, 1896, paid over to Deputy Collector Terney, monthly, a sum of money equal to 5 per cent of his monthly salary, the said Terney being at that time an associated officer in the service of the United States, the money to be used for a political object, and that he was "illtempered, discourteous, disobliging, and ungentlemanly in the extreme at times when engaged in business with the public."

In his reply, Mr. Finster admitted the charge of making political contributions, but says:

"I was an inspector of customs under the immediate supervision of one John Terney, deputy collector in charge of the customs force at the Tunnel Depot, and to whom I reported as my immediate superior; the said Terney demanded of me the payment of a sum of money for political purposes; and being somewhat acquainted with the practice in vogue prior to that time, and being fully satisfied that if such demand was not met I would be removed from my situation, and especially in view of the fact that prior to the amendment to Rule II, July 27, 1897, it was only necessary to charge that a person was removed from office for the good of the service, I was practically compelled to pay whatever was asked or forfeit my position. I chose the former, and at various times and places paid different sums of money to the said Terney as he would demand it.

“I emphaticallydeny in toto this charge (charge 7-being discourteous, etc.), and say that I have always and at all places endeavored to conduct myself as a gentleman in every respect; that I have never knowingly been discourteous, disobliging, or impolite. I believe I am as good-natured as the average man, and never before have had it charged or insinuated that I was ill-tempered; that the public, or the portion of it that my duties bring me in contact with, I am sure, will substantiate my claim for fitness for the position.

"That my services heretofore have been reasonably satisfactory to the Department is evidenced by the fact that I have held my present position since the year 1888, and since 1889 I have been a member of the local civil service board of examiners, customs district of Port Huron, and within the past two months have been designated as chairman of the consolidated board of examiners for the customs and post-office, and am now holding that position. And during my service in my present position my books and methods of transacting business have been examined by different officials, special agents, and others in the employ of the Treasury Department from all parts of the United States, Washington included, and I have repeat

edly been complimented by them upon the appearance and correctness of my books and records."

To the above it may properly be added that Mr. Finster has been faithful in the discharge of his duties as a member of the local civil service board; that he entered the service of the Government as the result of a civil service examination; that letters from those with whom he came in contact in the discharge of his official duties bear uniform testimony to his courtesy and gentlemanly conduct; and, lastly, a former collector of customs of Port Huron writes of him thus: "He received his appointment at a time when the letter and intent of the civil-service act were closely observed in the administration of that office (that of collector of customs) at Port Huron. He is a young man of good family, good character, good abilities, and good habits, but he is of no use whatever in politics, and I think no one in Port Huron will question that his place is wanted for this reason."

On December 10, Mr. William F. Muir, another of Mr. Avery's deputy collectors, wrote the Commission as follows:

"Inclosed herewith please find copy of charges filed against me by Collector Avery of this port for the purpose of obtaining my removal from office, and also my reply thereto. You will observe that I am number three on the list for removal. The charges against me are practically the same as those filed against Mr. Burrows and Mr. Finster, although I understand Mr. Avery also filed personal charges against both of these gentlemen. In view of the fact that Mr. Avery evidently uses affidavits, etc., against his victims without furnishing copies thereof to enable the defendant to make defense thereto, I thought it best to send to you a full copy of the charges filed or, rather, served upon me, and also my defense, which I served upon him on the 9th instant.

"I ask your kind offices and that of your Board or Commission in my behalf. It would seem that this case, as it really contains but one charge, and that for paying political assessments prior to your visit here, would be a good one to fight. I am prepared to make such fight as is possible."

On December 30 the Commission addressed the following letter to the Secretary of the Treasury:

"DECEMBER 30, 1897.

"SIR: This Commission is informed that Mr. William F. Muir, deputy collector and clerk in the customs service at Port Huron, Mich., has been removed, upon charges made by the collector, because of having paid certain political assessments levied upon him by superior officers in and prior to June, 1896. This matter was made the subject of an investigation by this Commission, and all the facts in the case laid before the Secretary of the Treasury on August 1, 1896. The Department at once took action in the matter by removing the officials who levied the assessments.

"The Commission presumed that the Department, having removed the guilty par ties, considered the case as closed. It seems, however, that the new collector is taking a technical advantage of the provisions of the civil-service act by obtaining the removal, for purely partisan reasons, of certain of the subordinate employees of this customs district who paid the assessments under fear of removal."

Under date of December 6, 1897, the Commission, referring to this matter, said: "This matter was investigated by the Commission in June, 1896, and by the grand jury in December, 1896, and resulted in the conviction of deputy collectors Springer and Terney and one other employee for having levied these assessments. The testimony clearly showed that the assessments were paid under duress and the fear of removal. The Commission and the United States district attorney assured Mr. Burrows and the other employees upon whom the assessments were levied that they would not be removed, indicted, or otherwise prejudiced in giving testimony to enable a conviction to be obtained of the officials who levied the assessments. The representative of the Commission, under its instructions, gave the strongest assurance to Mr. Burrows and his fellow employees that the Commission would use its utmost endeavors to see that they should not be removed or otherwise suffer in giving their H. Doc. 314- -22

testimony. The removal of Mr. Burrows by the collector, after having given such testimony in aiding in the enforcement of the civil-service act, will operate very unfortunately, not only so far as Mr. Burrows and his fellow employees are concerned, but in preventing further convictions under the law. Employees will not testify against their superior officers in these cases unless they are assured that they are not to be prejudiced for doing so.

"The sole charge made against Mr. Muir by the collector was of having paid the assessments. The issue is therefore clearly drawn whether the collector is to disregard the assurances of immunity given by the district attorney and this Commission. "In brief, Mr. Muir is removed solely upon charges which were investigated and closed in the last Administration. Nearly all the employees at the Port Huron customhouse paid these assessments. If one is removed for that reason, then all should be removed. The singling out of one employe is a violation of Rule II, clause 6, which requires that

"In making removals or reductions or in imposing punishment for delinquency or misconduct, penalties like in character shall be imposed for like offenses, and action thereupon shall be taken irrespective of the political or religious opinions or affiliations of the offenders.'

"Before taking further action in this matter the Commission requests an explanation of the facts.

"Very respectfully,

"The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY."

"JOHN R. PROCTER,

"President.

A prominent citizen of Port Huron, who has on several occasions held high office as the candidate of the political party to which Collector Avery belongs, says, concerning the separation of Messrs. Mustard, Burrows, Finster, and Muir: "The good character, the honesty, the competency, and the efficiency of the men discharged, to my knowledge, can not be questioned."

In the month of January, 1898, the Commission received several communications stating that on January 1 Collector Avery, having received an order from the Treasury Department to reduce his force by five, called into his private office, singly, a number of his employees, variously estimated at from five to twelve, and, stating to them the substance of the order, told them that they could either give him their resignations to take effect the 1st of February or March or be discharged at once. Having obtained these resignations, Mr. Avery then discharged five other men-the number required by the Department. These statements were confirmed when the official report of changes in the force of the Port Huron custom-house for the month of February was received by the Commission, and further confirmation came later in the form of a letter from one of the inspectors named in the report, stating that his resignation and that of another inspector also therein named were obtained in the manner above indicated.

One of the men removed by Collector Avery subsequently made a statement, from which the following extracts are taken:

"I had watched the growth and extension of the merit system in the Departments at Washington and had made up my mind that I would apply for admission to the Government service should ever appearances indicate that the system was to be generally adopted in the various branches of the service throughout the country, as I had come to thoroughly believe in the system and its efficacy. Had I known that the provisions of the civil-service law were not lived up to in the customs service at this port I would have sought other employment.

"Later, Collector Avery called me into his private office and told me that he had made up his mind to appoint my successor and that he would offer me the 'easy way' or the 'hard way' of getting out of the service, meaning by the former that I could resign, which he recommended me to do, and by the latter that in case I should refuse to do so that he would prefer charges against me and have me

removed. He also threatened that in case I should refuse to resign that he would have me prosecuted for having paid political assessments.

In describing the manner of collecting these assessments, he adds:

"I had always been warned before by those in authority here that I must be careful as to what information I should give the Civil Service Commission, as the acknowledgment of having paid assessments would render me as liable to fine and imprisonment as it would the party who collected them. Up to this time I had taken their advice; and, had I continued to do so, I would probably still have been holding my position. However, as a continuation of that policy seemed to be driving every bit of manhood, morality, and decency out of the officials here, and rendering them mere puppets in the hands of their superiors, I made up my mind to do what I could to help the Commission clear up affairs at this point and take my chances. I believed there must be some honorable men in the departments at Washington, and I was in hopes that they would not be swayed by the same influences prevalent here; that if they rightly understood the condition of things at this port they would not harm or remove any of the men who were instrumental in bringing about a better state of affairs here, but would rather protect them. The men are becoming so that they are unwilling to stand upon their merits, but look solely to the bosses in either party to retain them in their positions. It has indeed been a sad state of affairs, and one which has reflected no credit upon the Government nor added to the esteem in which its employees should be held. I consider my removal was not honorable, and was illegal after making the above facts plain to the Department." This matter has been brought to the attention of the Treasury Department, with a request that the administration of the civil-service act and rules in the Port Huron customs district be officially inquired into by an inspector of that Department. This action has been taken, and the Department has now before it the report of its inspector and the report of a representative of the Commission, who made a supplementary investigation.

* * *

(3.) CUSTODIAN SERVICE AT FEDERAL BUILDINGS.

Columbus, Ohio. Custodian Service. File 93.

On July 10, 1897, the complaint of Nicholas Schwartz, late janitor of the Federal building at Columbus, Ohio, charging the custodian of said building with removing him from his position for political reasons on June 9, 1897, was referred to the Commission by Congressman Lentz. The Commission referred the matter to the Treasury Department, and on July 19, 1897, was advised that the removal had been made by the Department because of general inefficiency and neglect of duty, upon the recommendation of the custodian of the building. Mr. Schwartz was accordingly notified of the report of the Department, and soon after forwarded his own affidavit and the affidavit of another person quoting alleged statements of the custodian tending to show that the reason for his action was political. The Commission immediately referred the papers in the case to the Department, and on September 21, 1897, the Acting Secretary of the Treasury returned the papers, with affidavits of the custodian and others showing the incompetency of Schwartz. An investigation of the case was made by a representative of the Commission on October 19, 20, and 21, 1897. The report of this investigation shows that the custodian acted within the civil-service law and was justified in recommending the removal of Mr. Schwartz upon the charges heretofore named. No evidence was obtained to show that political considerations operated in his removal, while there was ample evidence of his inefficiency as a janitor.

The Commission therefore concluded that further action in the case was unwarranted, and invited Congressman Lentz to call at its office for the purpose of reviewing the papers in the case. Mr. Schwartz was advised of this action on December 8, 1897.