R E P O R T IN THE CIVIL SERVICE RELATIVE TO CHARGES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JANUARY 27, 1890. WASHINOTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE,, 1890. / REPORT OF THE w m REFORM IN THE ClYIL SERVICE RELATIVE TO CHARGES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION UNDER EESOLUTION PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF KEPEESENTATIVES JANUARY 27, 1890. WASHINGTON: OOVEKNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 1890. . JAN 1S06 B. ot 0. T\ 51st Congress, ) HOUSE OF EEPEESBNTATIYES, j Eepoet 1st Session. J ( Ko. 2445. EEFORM l^ THE CIVIL SEEVICE. June i;^, 1890. — Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. Mr. Lehlbach, from the Select Committee on Eeform in the Civil Service submitted the following REPORT: The Select Committee on Eeform in the Civil Service, who were in- structed by the House, by resolution passed January 27, 1890, to inves- tigate charges against the United States Civil Service Commission, and the workings and results generally of the civil service law, respect- fully submit the following report : On the 27th day of January of the present year the House passed the following resolution : Whereas it is openly and repeatedly charged by persons of responsibility and by prominent journals throughout the country that the law pertaining to the civil service is being extensively evaded by the Civil Service Commissioners ; and Whereas charges of partiality shown by said Commissioners in making selections for appointmeiits have caused uneasiness in the minds of many, and to such an ex- tent that new legislation as to the manner pf making appointments is advocated ; and Whereas it is deemed exiiedient that the acts and doings and practical workings of the said Civil Service Commission and the results thereof, and also the practical workings and results generally of the present law relating to the civil service, should be thoroughly investigated : Therefore, Be it resolved, That the Select Committee on Reform in the Civil Service is hereby authorized and directed to investigate said charges, and to examine and report the practical workings of the system, and to report the evidence and the conclusions thereon to the House, and that said committee is hereby authorized to send for and examine persons, books, and papers, and administer oaths to witnesses, and to em- . ploy a stenographer; the expenses of said investigation to be paid out of the contin- ' '>nt fund of the House. It was the judgment of the committee that the investigation should oe conducted in two branches: the one to embrace the charges against he personal actions of the present and former Commissioners; the other branch of the inquiry to examine into the workings of the civil service w. Your committee has completed its examination relating to the ■St branch of the inquiry, going as far as seemed necessary to obtain ' practical conclusion. The charges against the Commission affecting the personal fitness of ] e present Commissioners were deemed proper by your committee to " ;; investigated at once and a report submitted to the House as speedily as possible, the same to be accompanied by a resolution. The committee have examined twent^'^-four witnesses, and have come to the following conclusions, deduced from the testimony of those wit- nesses : On the first charge, affecting the conduct, retention, and j)romotion II CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. of Alex. C. Campbell, the committee recite the following facts and con- clusions which they have reached in the case : It appears that the said Campbell (a brother-in-law of Commissioner Lyman), some time during the tall of 1887, coioied certain arithmetical questions of the general examination series for departmental service, together with their answers, at the request of a Mrs. Isabella Smith, to whom he gave them. These pai)ers came into the hands of one Flynn, a person engaged in coaching applicants for office about to take the civil service examinations. It appears from the evidence of Miss Emily M. Dabney that Flynn offered to sell these questions to her, she being about to take an examination. She refused to purchase them, attended the examination, and failed. She recognized the questions as being the same shown to her by Flynn, and consequently these questions were used in the examination held December 3, 1887. The attention of the Commission was called to the conduct of Camp- bell. Mr. Oberly, Mr. Lyman, and Mr. Doyle severally investigated, to a greater or less extent, the charges preferred against Campbell, found hioi guilty of a breach of discipline, and he was reprimanded. But these gentlemen, as it appears from the testimony, failed to ascertain definitely whether the questions copied by Campbell and given Mrs. Smith were obsolete or not. They gave it as their belief, however, that the questions were obsolete. It occurred that they directed their in- quiry to ascertaining whether the copy of the questions was in the handwriting of Campbell — an inquiry that was of little consequence if the questions were in fact obsolete. The real offense consisted in copying and giving out questions that could be used in the examination to take place thereafter, and not in copying questions that were obsolete, and hence worthless to Mrs. Smith to use or sell. And it is not probable that Mr. Campbell copied questions and answers merely to give Mrs. Smith an idea of the charac- ter of the examination, since, if that was so, it would have been quite enough to have copied the questions only. The omission to ascertain whether the questions were for use or to be used at an ensuing exami- nation was a palpable neglect of duty, since the fact not inquired about was obviously the one controlling fact essential in d.etermining the de- gree of Campbell's culpability. Obsolete questions are published now. They might have been prh lished then without injury to the i)ublic service. Not only is IV Dabney clear and explicit in her statement that she recognized • questions shown her by Flynn to be the same that confronted her the examination, but all the circumstances confirm her statement. 5 Smith could have no use for questions and answers unless they "v^ such as she could use for some purpose. Flynn could hardly h ■ hoped to find a market for questions and answers that were obsoh- and it was not so important whether Campbell did the copying whether what was cojiied was of consequence as pertaining to su quent examinations. It is clear to your committee that Campbell copied the questions, that they were not obsolete. An investigation properly conducted w( have disclosed the fact. If the administration of the Civil Service not to fall into disrepute Mr. Campbell should have been dismissed. retention indicated gross laxity in discipline and shows that the admin- istration of the Commission was not such at that time as to receive or merit public confidence. One of the charges against the Commission was that Mr. Campbell CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Ill \vas not oulj' retained, nothwithstanding his offense in the matter of copying' and giving out the questions, but that he was promoted. In view of the fact that Campbell had been guilty of conduct which was calculated to destroy confidence iu the integrity of the administration of tbe Commission, his promotion would seem not to have been defeu- sible. Mr. Lyman, however, implies that the conduct of Campbell in giving out questions cut no figure in the matter of his promotion ; that that matter had been disposed of loug prior to the promotion, by Mr. Oberly, to whom the charges against Campbell had been referred for investigation and such further action as the facts disclosed might warrant. It was stated that Mr. Oberly did make the investigation and con- demned Campbell's conduct and reprimanded him and there was an end of the matter, and when the question of his promotion came up Com- missioner Lyman seems not to have regarded Campbell's conduct with reference to the giving out of the questions he had copied as being an item worthy of consideration. It is admitted that it was a question for the Commissioners to determine what punishment should be visited upon Mr. Campbell in case he was found guilty of a breach of discipline, as he was; but your committee can not avoid the conclusion that either the investigation was very superficial, and hence failed to disclose the gravity of the offense, or that the administration of the affairs of the Commission was not such as to commend it to favor ; possibly both. It is submitted that if the Commission had discharged its duty with proper vigor and regard for the public, it would have become manifest that Campbell's retention was not defensible, and it would seem to follow that if his retention was not proper his promotion was not warranted. Your committee can not accept as satisfactory the answer of Messrs. Oberly, Lyman, and Doyle, that they believe that the questions Camp- bell copied were obsolete. The facts disclosed to your committee con- vince them that the omission to ascertain the truth was as reprehensible as to have disregarded it after it had been ascertained, and is little less culpable; and whether they failed through indifference or partiality to learn the facts, or, knowing them, failed to take such action as the public service obviously demanded, is not a matter of great consequence; the neglect of duty in either case is condemned. It has been suggested that Commissioners Roosevelt and Thompson are deserving of censure for not having taken action in the Campbell case. Your committee do not share in that view. On the contrary, there is nothing in their conduct to challenge criticism. When their at- tention was called to the matter by the newspaper reports, they called the parties concerned before them, separately and without the oppor- tunity of their conferring with each other, and there was a concurrence of statement that the matter had been fully investigated and Mr. Camp- bell punished ; and it being, as to them, res adjudicata, they did not take further action in the matter, and in that we think they were thoroughly justified. Your committee has further investigated certain charges against the Commission in relation to the promotion of Edwin D. Bailey, another clerk of the United !Si;ates Civil Service Commission, to the i^osition of stenographer, and in relation to the appointment of Thomas Mitchell, of Connecticut, to a i)osition in the Pension Office. They have found that the action of the Commission in both these cases was not contrary to the law and rules of the Commission, and in no way are they cen- surable. IV CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. A charge was also preferred against the Commissioners reiiecting against the course pursued by them in the case of one Shidy, who was an employe In the post-office at Milwaukee. It appears that Shidy was employed in the post-office at Milwaukee, and was charged with the duty of conducting examinations, or at least in preparing the list of eligibles from which appointments to positions in the Mil- waukee office were made ; that gross irregularities occurred in the preparation of the list of eligibles and the certification of names there- from. It seems that Shidy acted under the direction of the postmas- ter in facilitating the appointment of certain applicants for position in controvention of the plain letter and spirit of the civil-service law. The Civil Service Commission learning of these irregularities re- ported the same to President Cleveland, who immediately directed a thorough investigation. An investigation was prosecuted by Webster and Doyle, employes of the Commission, and in the investigation it was made clear that the irregularities complained of really existed. Subse- quently Messrs. Eoosevelt and Thompson, who had been appointed mem- bers of the Commission, had their attention called to the violations of law in the Milwaukee office, and proceeded at once to make a searching investigation. They summoned Mr. Shidy, who appeared before them and expressed his willingness to testify fully as to what had taken place in the Milwaukee post-office, but feared that it would result in his los- ing his situation, and as a consequence his means of livelihood, as he de- pended upon his salary for the support of himself and his family. The Commissioners desired to have him state fully and in detail every fact essential to the exposure of the irregularities that had taken place so far as the violation of the civil-service law was concerned ; and they further stated to him that they would use their influence to protect him and prevent his losing his situation as a result of his disclosing the truth He did testify fully and at length, and was useful in exposing the frauds that had been practiced in the Milwaukee office and vindi- cating the, law. He was discharged by the postmaster for so doing ; at least there seems to have been no other ground for his discharge. The Commissioners ielt, and it was apparent, that Shidy was being pun- ished for disclosing the truth and felt it to be their duty to aid him by their influence in securing employment, and thereupon recommended him for appointment in the Census Office, and he was appointeaper8 came into the possession of a Miss Dabney, who went to the Commission to ascertain if they were the ques- tions to be used at the examination. Investigation showed that the papers were in the handwriting of Mr. Campbell, but the result of the investigation was his reten- tion in office by Commissioners Oberly and Lyman, because disclosures would have an injurious effect upon his sister, Mrs. Lyman. Mr. Campbell has since, and re- cently, been promoted by Commissioner Lyman, sole Commissioner, from $1,000 to a |1,200 salary. There are matters connected with the office of chief examiner which would not bear a close examination, and to such an extent are they known that the integrity of ex- aminations is questioned. There is altogether too much left to the discretion of the Commission, for through regulations which the Commission itself has power to make and by simple orders and varying opinions almost any desired result can be secured. I do not give you this information for the purpose of inviting any action upon it, but that you may be advised that there are ways of wrong-doing it is well for the President to understand. Very respectfully, A. P. Edgerton. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 3 By Mr. Ewart : Q. Please state your name, and official occupation. — A. My name is Charles Lyman; I am president of the Civil Service Commission. Q. How long have you been connected with the Commission ■? — A. Since shortly after its organization in 1883. Q. In what State do you reside? — A. Connecticut. Q. What is your political status? — A. What am I to understand by that question. Q. What is your political party? — A. I am a Eepublican. Q. Did you cast your vote at the last Presidential election ? — A. I did. Q. Are you acquainted with Alexander C. Campbell ! — A. 1 am. Q. What relation is he to you ? — A. He is my wife's brother. Q. When was he employed by the Commission? — A. I think in 1885. Q. In what capacity ?— A. As laborer. Q. Was he required to pass any examination when he was first em- ployed by the Commission ? — A. He did not pass an examination before he entered the service of the Commission. He had however, passed an examination by the Commission, and was at that time on the eligible list. Q. When was he promoted to the position he now holds ? — A. I can not state from memory the precise date ; but I have a memorandum in my pocket, if I may be permitted to refer to it. Mr. EwART. Certainly. The Witness (after referring to memorandum). From this, I see that the date of his last promotion was April 2, 1889. Q. What was the date of his first promotion ? — A. I think I have the date of his first promotion, but it is not far from the 1st of July, 1886. I do not give that as the precise date, but it was near that time. Q. Who constituted the Commission when Mr. Campbell was pro- moted?— A. The first time? Q. At the time he was promoted, who constituted the Commission ? — A. I think the Commission at that time was Mr. Edgerton, Mr. Oberly, and myself. Q. That was when he was first appointed ? — A. When he was first appointed, the Commission consisted of Mr, Eaton, Mr. Gregory, and Judge Thoman. Q. Can you say as to whether or not he was promoted when you were the sole Commissioner ? — A. Yes, sir ; he was. Q. What was the date ? — A. I have given it as April 2, 1889. Q. Was he required to pass any examination at that time ? — A. He was not. Q. W^hy not? — A. The civil-service rules which apply to the office of the Civil Service Commission, did not require an examination for pro- motion, and it has not been the practice of the Commissfon to require any examination for promotion in any case, the promotions being made on the personal knowledge of the Commissioners as to the qualifications of the person promoted. Q. Is that the case now ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you ever seen the handwriting of Mr. Campbell? — A. I have. Q. You are familiar with it? — A. I am. Q. Was it ever called to your attention as a Commissioner, that at any time when Mr. Campbell was clerk, that the examination questions were improperly furnished to any outside parties ?— A. It was called to my attention when I was Commissioner, that examination questions, 4 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. believed to be questions of the Commission, had been furnished to an outside party. Q. I will ask yon to give, as near as you can, the exact date when this matter was first called to your attention, and by whom? — A. I am not able to state the precise date, but apjDroximately, I should say the date was in January or February, 1888. Q. By whom was your attention called to it ? — A. By Mr. Oberly, then a Commissioner. Q. Will you state what Mr. Oberly said to you, and what your reply was 1 — A. Mr. Oberly handed me some ]3apers and stated in substance that the papers had come into his possession through a person whom he did not then name, and asked me if I would look at them and state whether I thought they were questions of the Commission. Q. What was your reply *? — A. After an examination of the questions, I said that I thought they were questions of the Commission. Q. .Do you recollect saying to Mr. Oberly on that occasion, that " who- ever the guilty party is, man or woman, he or she should be punished?" Did you use that language 1 — A. I do not remember the precise words which I used on that occasion. I did say something to this effect, that if the questions of the Commission were being given out by any one in the office of the Commission, it was a serious matter, and that the per- son who was guilty of giving out the questions should be punished. Q. In other words, whoever the guilty man or woman was, he or she should be punished ? — A. I say that 1 stated in substance what 1 have said, without pretending to recall the precise words, that if the questions given out were the questions which had not been used in an examina- tion (my remark referred to that state of things), it was a serious matter. Q. You made that remark before the questions were shown to you ? — A. I do not remember whether I made it before or after. Q. Your recollection is not clear upon that point ? — A. It is not per- fectly clear upon that point. Q. The list of questions was shown to you, was it not ? — A. The list of questions was shown to me. Q. At the same time was a copy-book or any book of record shown you? — A. No sir. Q. When you first saw the questions, in whose handwriting did they appear to be ? — A. The handwriting did not attract my attention at that time. I did not recognize the handwriting when I first saw the questions. Q. I understand you to say that you are perfectly familiar with the handwriting of Mr. Campbell ? — A. I am. Q. Was it in the day-time or the night ? — A. The day-time. Q. Did you make any examination of the list of questions ? — A. Yes, sir ; more especially with reference to determiuing in my mind whether they were i)repared in the office of the Commission. Q. Had you any suspicion that Mr. Campbell had written these ques- tions ? — A. I had not. Q. You did not notice the questions close enough to say whether or not the handwriting was that of Mr. Campbell ? — A. My mind was upon the questions themselves and not upon the handwriting. 1 did not pay attention to the handwriting. Q. Were you at all excited upon that occasion ?— A. No, sir. Q. Were you indignant at the party, when the list was shown you ? — A. I am not in the habit of getting excited ; I am not in the habit of showing it even when I feel so. I am more apt to be quiet thaw de- moostj^ative, CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 5 Q, Being' perfectly cool on that occasion, do you recollect whether or not you asked Mr. Oberly whether he recognized the handwriting? — A. 1 have no recollection of having asked that question at the time. Q. Did you have any discussion on that point with Mr. Oberly "? — A. My recollection is that the question of the handwriting was not con- sidered at that meeting. Q. Did you suspect any one ? — A. My suspicions were not fastened upon any one in the office at that time. Q. How long after that was it before you discovered that the ques- tions were in Campbell's handwriting *? — A. I think the next day ; that is my recollection. Q. In what way did you make this discovery and by whom was your attention called to if? — A. Allow me to state connectedly what oc- curred. My recollection is, and I think I am positive in that recollec- tion, that I handed the questions to the chief examiner, with the request that he should examine the questions which had been prepared for the Commission and ascertain whether those were Commission questions or not, and what series of questions, whether they were new questions, or had not been used, and to report to me. It was ascertained that they were questions w4iich had been used by the Commission. Mr. BuTTERWORTH. Had been used or were to be used ? The Witness. Had been used. I so reported to Mr. Oberly. The pai)ers were then placed in the hands of the Secretary by Mr. Oberly with the request, as he stated to me (I did not hear this conversation), that he would compare them with the handwriting of the clerks in the office for the purpose of determining in whose handwriting they were. Soon after that, just how long I do not remember, Mr. Doyle brought the papers to me and attracted my attention to the handwriting, and stated that he had no doubt as to whose handwriting it was ; and, upon inspection of the papers with reference to the handwriting, I myself had no doubt in whose handwriting the papers were. By Mr. EwART : Q. Please state to the committee what Mr. Oberly said to you when he ascertained the fact that the questions were in the handwriting of Mr. Campbell. — A. If you will put the question in another form I can state the facts better ; if you will ask me what I said to Mr. Oberly. Q. I will ask you, then, what you said to Mr. Oberly and what reply he made to you ? — A. I told Mr. Oberly that they were in the hand- writing of Mr. Campbell ; that I was satisfied of that. I sent for Mr. Campbell. Q, Immediately? — A. Immediately; and had a conversation with him concerning those papers and repeated that conversation in sub- stance to Mr. Oberly, Q. In the course of that conversation, do you recollect Mr. Oberly using this language. Did he not say, " I leave you to reflect over this matter ? " — A. ISTo, sir ; he did not. Q. Did you not know, when you referred the case to Mr. Oberly, that the questions were in the handwriting of Mr. Campbell ? — A. At this time I knew they were. Q. When you referred the case to Mr. Oberly you knew the ques- tions were in Campbell's handwriting ? — A. A direct answer to your question might give a wrong impression as to the order of events. You remember that I stated that Mr. Oberly first called my attention to the matter that there were examination papers of that kind, and to de- termine whether they were questions of the Commission or not. That 6 CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. they were afterwards referred to the chief examiner to settle that point, and that subsequently they came into the possession of Mr. Doyle, through Mr. Oberly, and came back to me from Mr. Doyle, the question of the handwriting having been determined. Mr. BuTTERWORTH. Who is Mr. Doyle ? The Witness. Secretary of the Commission. After the question of the handwriting had been determined, it was then that the j)apers were handed back by me to Mr. Oberly. By Mr. Ewart : Q. I understand that you sent for Mr. Campbell? — A. I did. Q. And Mr. Oberly was present ? — A. He was not. Q. I understood you to state a few moments ago that you sent for Mr. Campbell and he came "? — A. Mr. Oberly was not present. Mr. BuTTERWORTH. Is there objection to stating the interview ? By Mr. Ewart : Q. Please state to the Committee exactly what occurred between yourself and Mr. Campbell. — A. I laid the papers before Mr. Campbell and asked him if he had ever seen them before. Q. You refer now to the examination papers? — A. Yes, sir. Mr. Campbell, after a brief examination of the pajjers, said that he had seen them before. I asked him if they were in his handwriting, he said they were. I think I said in substance this — I do not pretend to reproduce the precise words, but I think they are very nearly, if not exactly, the words which I used : " Campbell, this is a serious matter, and I do not know what will come of it 5 but I want you to tell me frankly the his- tory of these ijapers." Mr. Ewart. I would like to know whether the witness is giving his recollection of the matter exactly, or whether he is reading from a writ- ten memorandum. The Witness. I am stating the facts, Mr. Chairman, and I am refresh- ing my memory from a memorandum which I prepared some time ago. The Chairman. I understand that the witness is stating the facts. Mr. Butterworth. You are giving your independent recollection, after refreshing your memory 1 The Witness. After refreshing my memory, I am giving my recol- lection. The Chairman. I do not think there is any objection to that. The witness is refreshing his memory. By Mr. Butterworth : Q. When was this memorandum prepared 1 — A. It was prepared some time last fall. Q. How long after these events took place of which you are speak- ing "? — A. I think in October last. Q. Does the paper give a complete record of what took place ? — A. It substantially gives a record of what took i)lace. Q. Do you rely upon what took place on an independent recollection of that matter ? — A. I rely upon an independent recollection of the mat- ter. I have used this memorandum. The Chairman. What were you going to sa,y1 The Witness. I think I had finished the statement. The statement I was making was that I relied upon an independent recollection about these matters. After these charges were made I went over this matter, called up the facts to my mind, and carefully wrote out my recollection of those facts. CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 7 By Mr. Ewart : Q. I would like to ask this question : Do I understand the witness to say that he regarded this of sufficient importance to himself that at that time he made the memorandum ? — A. JSTot at that time. Q. Now, having made them several months afterwards, it does not occur to me, as a lawyer, nor do I believe it would to any lawyer, that a witness in court must speak from his recollection without consulting any memorandum as to dates and names. By Mr. Stone : Q. This memorandum was prepared in October last, and when was it you held this conversation ? — A. Probably ia January or February, 1888. Q. Then it was nearly two years afterwards ? — A. Very nearly two years afterwards. Q. Who prepared that memorandum ! — A. I prepared that paper. Q. How did you happen to prepare it ? — A. Because of the public statements in the newspapers concerning this matter. Q. With what view did you prepare it 1 — A. Am 1 required to answer that 1 Mr. Stone. I do not insist upon it. A gentleman in the room. Answer it. The Witness. I prepared this paper for the information of the Presi- dent of the United States. Mr. Ewart. At his instance ? [So answer.] Mr. Ewart. I think this is inadmissible for him to read from a writ- ten memorandum. The Witness. I have no objection to stating my recollection without the memorandum. The Chairman. Suppose you give a history of how that memorandum was made, and what it was made for. The Witness. Mr. Campbell replied in substance this : " I wrote those papers for a lady, a friend of mine, a clerk in the Pension Office, who has some idea, at some time in the future, of taking an examina- tion for promotion. She asked me if I could assist her in any way in preparation for that examination. I told her I did not know of any way in which I could help her. What she wanted was something that would give her an idea of the general character of the questions that were asked in the examinations for promotion. I finally said that I might give her an old set of questions that had been used in former examinations, and that in their gej^eral features would embrace the same subjects that were embraced in the examinations for promotions. I therefore copied this set of papers and gave them to her with the understanding that when she looked them over they were to be de- stroyed. I know nothing of the papers since that time until you now show them to me. I supposed that they had been destroyed." Mr. Greenhalg-e. Were they printed ? The Witness. The questions then were printed. I said, " This mat- ter will have to be investigated. You tell me that these are the facts." He said, "Yes, they are the facts." 1 said, "This matter will have to be looked into, and I propose to have it investigated for the purpose of ascertaining whether you have told me the truth about these papers." I then took the papers to Mr. Oberly, and in substance repeated to him what had taken place between Campbell and myself, and said to Mr. Oberly : "These are the facts, as Campbell states them to me. In view of his relationship to me, I do not think it proper that I should conduct 8 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. this investigation. I prefer that you should do it ; and my wish is that you should ascertain the exact facts, and find out just what there is in it." He took the papers, and at once began the investigation. I had no further connection with it until he had completed it, and reported to me what he had discovered. Mr. BiTTTERWOETH. Was the report in writing? The Witness. It was a verbal statement. That is all the conversa- tion that took j)lace. By Mr. Ewart : Q. Just before you had that conversation, was Mr. Oberly there? He was in the room a few minutes before? — A. Whether he was in the room a few moments before or not, I do not remember. I had seen him that morning. Q. When your attention was called to the fact that it was in Camp- bell's handwriting, as soon as Mr. Oberly left, you sent for Mr. Camp- bell? — A. I do not know that Mr. Oberly left that morning, i^othing took place between us. Q. How long after you had the conversation with Mr. Oberly was it until you satisfied yourself that the list of questions was in the hand- writing of Mr. Campbell, before you sent for Mr. Campbell ? — A. I did not become satisfied of it in consequence of any conversation with Mr. Oberly. The conversation with Mr. Oberly occurred on the afternoon or on the morning of the next day. Q. At the time that you had the conversation with Mr. Oberly you knew that the questions were in the handwriting of Mr. Campbell ? — A. I do not know. 1 have stated that I became convinced of that fact when the papers were brought to me by Mr. Doyle on the morning after the conversation with Mr. Oberly. Mr. Butterworth. Before you saw Mr. Campbell ? The Witness. Yes, sir. By Mr. Ewart : Q. When you referred the matter to Mr. Oberly, you knew positively that the questions were in the handwriting of Mr. Campbell ? — A. I did. Q. You say the questions were obsolete, or that Mr. Campbell told you they were obsolete ? Mr. Greenhalge. He said they were an old set. The Witness. They were questions that had been used in a former examination. By Mr. Ewart : Q. Mr. Campbell in this conversation told you, in explanation of his giving these questions to this lady in the Pension Bureau, that they would i^robably be of some advantage to her in an examination to be held at some subsequent date ? — A. It was to give her a general idea of the questions that might arise. I suppose the general character of the questions. Q. Did he mention the name of this lady ? — A. He did. Q. She had a position, and desired a position in some other bureau? — A. No, sir. She had been ajDpointed in the Pension Office upon an examination. Q. And desired promotion? — A. Her iDurpose was to obtain promotion at some time in the future. Q. And to aid her Mr. Campbell had furnished her this list of ques- tions ? — A. He had given her this list of questions, as they stated to me, because they might afford her a general idea of the general scojie of the examination. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. » Q. Did Mr. Campbell state how lie got possession of the examination papers'? — A. He did not. I did not ask him how he got the questions. I was satisfied that they were questions of the Commission. I had no doubt of that. Q. You did not ask him whether or not he took them from the files'? — A. I did not. Q. Was it not a very improper thing for any employ^ in any Depart- ment or In the Civil-Service Commission to take questions from the files and give them to outside parties '? — A. I should say it was a serious breach of discipline. Q. It was such a serious breach of discipline as would cause you to dismiss any employe whom you found guilty of such an act. In other words, do you not consider the taking of those questions from the files a very disreputable act *? — A. I think such a characterization of it as I have given, it properly deserves. I think it was a serious breach of discipline. Q. Then you think the taking of questions from the files and letting outside parties have them with a view of enabling them to post them- selves for an examination to be held at some subsequent date was only a breach of discipline '? — A. I have answered that question. Q. Would you regard it as an offense calling for punishment ? — A. I regarded it as an offense calling for punishment. Q. Is this the view the present Commission would take of if? — A. The other Commissioners are present and they can speak for them- selves. Q. Was this breach of discipline, as you characterize it, followed by any punishment ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What was the punishment? — A. A reprimand. Q. That was all ? — A. That was all, except the suffering imposed upon the young man in consequence of his act. Q. How long after the reprimand did the promotion follow"? — A. Something over a year, I think. Q. I will ask you this question : At what time was the rule altered changing the age from eighteen to twenty ? — A. The 1st of March, 1888, I think. ' • Q. Before that rule went into effect did any connection or relative of yours make any application for any position in any bureau ? — A. I sup- l)ose I know what you want, and, if you will allow me to state the rule without questions, I have not the slightest objection to telling it. My daughter some time before that (I do not remember the date) filed an application for examination and subsequently took an examination, which she passed, and her name was entered upon the eligible list of the Commission. Mr. Stone. What date was that "? The Witness. I think the rule was changed on the 1st of March 1888. By Mr. Geeenhalgb : Q. What was the date of the application ? — A. I can not state the date of the application, but my recollection is that the date was some time before the change of the rule. Let me state all the facts. Q. How long was the rule made before it went into effect '? — A. I think two or three weeks, probably. Q. Fot longer than that ? — A. That is my recollection. Mr. Butterworth. Is there a charge or suggestion that there was any irregularity'? 10 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. The Witness. There was an iusinuation in the Post to that effect. Mr. G-REENHALG-E. Insinuations are not charges. The Witness. I want to state the facts about this case. Mr. BuTTERWORTH. Unless some irregularity is suggested, there is no reason for it. I have no objection. The Witness. My daughter made application for examination at a time when she had a right to make that application. She made it on her own motion and without any suggestion from me. She was not then twenty years of age, but the application was filed before the change of the rule. The Commission held, and has always held, that the filing of an application is the beginning of the examination. The actual written examination did not take place until after the change of the rule which fixed the limit at twenty years of age, it having previously been eighteen. But under a rule, made long before that, she was allowed to take the ex- amination notwithstanding that she was not then twenty years of age. Several other cases of the same sort occurred at the same time. By Mr. EwART : Q. The application was made before the rule was changed and before it went into effect*?— A. Yes, sir. I could not give the date. Q. Have you any memorandum of it ? A. No, sir; it would not make any difference whether the rule were changed or what time it went into effect. The rule went into effect on the 1st day of March, and any appli- cation filed by any person prior to that date would have been good. Q. Did she receive an appointment before the expiration of the year 1— A. She did not. Q. Was she re-examined before the expiration of the year? — A. About the time of the expiration of the year. I do not remember the precise date. Q. Why before the end of the year ? A. I do not know whether it was before or after the expiration of the year. Q. Was her name placed on the eligible list a second time? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Who composed the Commission then ? — A. I think I was the only member of the Commission. Q. At the time she passed the last examination you were the acting Commission 1 — A. Her case was not the only case of that sort. If gen- tlemen desire to make favoritism out of that they will have to look pretty close. It was done in this case and it would have been done in other cases. Q. Do you know a party by the name of Charles McCaffery, clerk in the city post-office ? — A. I do not know that I do. Q. Do you recall that he made application for examination °? — A. I do not. Q. Do you know whether he made any application ? — A. I have no recollection of ever having heard the name. Q. Do you know of an instance of this kind, or can you recall an in- stance, where a party by the name of McCaffery was examined and it turned out that it was some other party and that his name was not McCaffery *? — A. I have heard of cases of substitution. I have heard of such cases, where one person took an examination for another. Q. You know of no instance of that kind, except as you have heard of it ? — A. One or two instances occurred in New York. Q. Do you know of any instances that occurred in Washington ? — A. I do not recall any in Washington. Mr. Greenhalge. I would like to know whether the questions which are propounded to the various applicants are j)rinted ? CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 11 The Witness. They are. Q. You have a set of questions which are printed ?— A. Yes, sir. Q,. And submitted to the applicants ? IsTow, after an examination has taken place, what becomes of those questions ?— A. The questions are not again used. That is the rule of the Commission, that a set of ques- tions once prepared and used for an examination then becomes obsolete, and the Commission, I may state, now publishes these questions, after they have been used, for the information of the public. Q. Is there any secrecy about questions which have been propounded in a given year, after they have been propounded and the examination has taken place %—A. Absolutely no secret. By Mr. Ewart : Q. If there is absolutely no secret, why should it be considered a breach of discipline to take them away ?— A. To take out any set of papers would be a breach of discipline. By Mr. Boatnbe, : Q. I understand you to say that after your interview with Mr. Camp- bell, before he acknowledged that he had furnished these papers, you turned the matter over to Mr. Oberly ?— A. Yes, sir. Q. Were there three members of the Commission at that time ?— A. There were. Q. Was Mr. Campbell's action considered by you, or taken care of by other members of the Commission ?— A. It was investigated by Mr. Oberly. Q. Was Mr. Campbell reprimanded ? — A. He was. Q. What I want to get at is, whether or not you acted upon the matter, or whether you turned it over to your associates on the Commission? — A. I turned over the investigation to Mr. Oberly, then Commissioner, and Mr. Oberly, in the absence of Mr. Edgerton, conducted the inves- tigation. The question was asked as to what had taken place when Mr. Oberly returned the finding to me and with the permission of the committee I will state it. Mr. Oberly reported to me the state of facts, which corresponded substantially with Campbell's statement to me. He stated that he had examined the lady in question separately, and 'that he had examined Campbell separately; that he brought the two together, and questioned them together, and that he had seen the lady who obtained the questions from Mr. Flynn ; that he had probed the matter, as he believed, to the bottom, and the statement which Camp- bell had originally made to me had been substantially confirmed, show- ing that Campbell had told me the truth about it at the start. He said, " My conclusion about it is, inasmuch as these questions were not ques- tions of the Commission to be used again, and the integrity of the Commission's examinations is in no manner touched by this matter, and as this lady obtained no information which she could have used, no one else had been wronged, and' no harm had been done, the offense is not a serious one, though it is a serious breach of discipline ; but it did not involve serious moral delinquency, and my judgment is that all that is necessary is to reprimand Mr. Campbell and drop the matter." I agreed with him in that conclusion, and that course was taken. By Mr. Ewart ; Q. What was the character of this reprimand, and where and how was it administered % — A. I do not remember the precise words used. Q. Was he called up before the Commission and reprimanded? — A. My recollection is that it was done by Mr. Oberly. 12 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. Do you recollect his words'? — A. I do not remember the words used. Q. It was such as to impress Mr. Campbell that the matter must not occur again, as it was a gross breach of discipline "? — A. A serious breach of discipline. By Mr. Butteewoeth : Q. By whom are these questions prepared ? — A. They are prepared under the direction of the chief examiner. Q. By whom ? — A. They are prepared by a number of persons. A certain number are prepared by the examiners, and occasionally mem- bers of the Commission prepare questions. I have prepared them myself. Q. What I desire to know is this : For instance, a gentleman applies to be appointed in the Treasury Department or the Pension Office: are questions prepared by the members of the Commission or by the clerks under them, or are they prepared outside 1 — A. Questions for the general examinations of the Commission, those of a non-technical character, are prepared in the office of the Commission. Many of the technical questions are prepared there ; but for certain classes of ex- aminations a number of questions are prepared by the particular offi- cer that has to do with those examinations. Q. The questions in the main are prepared either by the Commission or by heads of bureaus'? — A. Yes, sir. All questions are submitted to the Commission for approval before being adopted. Q. Are any questions prepared by any persons not connected with your bureau ? — A. Ko, sir. Q. How many persons are connected with the preparation of ques- tions — I do not want a schedule — say from a dozen or half a dozen '? — A. I should say six or eight are connected with the office of the Com- mission. Then other questions are prepared by the board of examiners that are not in tbe office of the Commission, but work under the direc- tions of,, and are responsible to, the Commission. Q. Where are those persons ; are they in Washington "? — A. In the boards of the eleven custom-house districts, and there are local boards of examiners at each. Most of the questions are prepared in tbe office of the Commission. The same is true of the questions used in the post- office examinations. There are now forty-four classified post-offices, and the questions used in all these post-offices are prepared in the office of the Commission, except as to the locality in the States where the examinations are to be held. Q. Under the supervision of the Commission? — A. Always. Q. How is it with reference to the questions to be propounded here ,in Washington '? — A. They are prepared generally in the office of the Commission by those acting under the directions of the Commission. Q. How long prior to this are the questions prepared ? — A. Long enough to admit of their being printed; sometimes it is very close. Q. Are they ever used more than once'? — A. In exceptional cases they are used more than once ; but as a rule, no. Q. Illustrate what you mean by " exceptional cases." — A. I mean this : Under a general examination the questions are never repeated, but I dare say that a set might be used which had previously been used if we were satisfied that the person never had any opportunity of seeing them. Q. What disposition is made of them after you get through '?— A. We keep them for sometime ; and those that are of any consequence or CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 13 that may give no information are destroyed. The reason for destroy- ing them is that if they were cut np and made into tablets for reasons of economy they might get scattered around and might excite sus- picion. Q. Where are they printed ?— A. In the printing ofBce of the De- partment of the Interior, which is a branch of the Government Print- ing Office. Q. You print different sets of questions for each grade ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. The lowest being whatf — A. The copyist's grade; one grade lower is that of printers' assistants in the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Q. How long have you been connected with the Commission ? — A. Since its organiz^ation ; first, as chief examiner. Q. Are you able to, or will you, supply the committee with a list of the questions used at examinations during the last two or three years of the different grades 1 — A. You mean the questions '? Q. I mean copies of the questions f- — A. Certainly. Q. And indicate to what grade they belong ? — A. The questions are headed so as to show that. Mr. BoATNER. Are not the questions preserved for sometime ? The Witness. Questions used by the applicant and the answers are always preserved. By Mr. Butterworth: Q. Have you in any wise changed or modified the system within a year or two f — A. The system is undergoing evolutions constantly. Q. What is the nature of the evolutions "? — A. You mean as to the character of the examinations"? Q. Yes, sir. — A. The whole question of the state of the Departments, the needs of the service, and the adaptation of the questions to the general scheme and requirements. Q. Is there any effort made on the part of the Commission to so pre- pare questions as to determine whether the applicant is fit for the par- ticular duty he is called upon to discharge '? — A. It is the object the Commission has in view. It has no other object in view. By Mr. Lind : Q. Are the questions for the several Departments, the Interior and the State, War and Navy, and the Agricultural Department, not the same? — A. The clerks' and copyists' questions are the same for every Depart- ment, except the Department of State. Examinations for the Depart- ment of State have more especial reference to the requirements of that Department, in addition to the general subject embraced in the exaoi- inations for the other Departments. They contain questions in inter- national law and diplomatic history, and also in gCMcral geography. The regular examinations are confined to the United States. Q. What you call "clerks' examinations" include the eligible places by subsequent promotion up to $1,800 ? — A. Yes, sir. Mr. Greenhalge. When examiners start out on a work The Chairman. I would like to call attention to the fact, before go- ing into those outside questions, that the committee have decided to examine, first, the charges against the present Commission ; second, the charges against prior Commissions, and then as to the general method of proceeding, going into the questions of the workings of the Oom- laission, 14 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. By Mr. Butterwoeth : Q. How long had Campbell been in the employ of the Commission? — A. I think since 1885. Q. What were his duties ? — A. He was then appointed as a laborer, but the Commission has never been able to use a laborer as such. The duties were clerical, and have always been so. Q. I understand the Commission itself, in the matter of making pro- motions, is not controlled by the law in force and applicable to the other Bureaus and Departments'?— A. The Commission did not require ex- aminations for promotions in the Commission. The rules for promotion have been applied to the War Department only. Q. In the matter of the promotion of Mr. Campbell, was it in ac- cordance with the rules ? — A. It was in accordance with the rules. Ee has done his work under the immediate supervision of the Commission, and under their daily supervision. Perhaps I do not make myself per- fectly understood on one point. I think I said in answer to a question here of Mr. Butterworth, or Mr. Greenhalge, that after the questions have been once used, they are never used afterwards. That is now the practice, but it has not always been the practice. Ther-© have been times in the history of the Commission when it was not practicable to have new questions for every examination. By Mr. Greenhalge : Q. What year was that ? — A. That year was 1888. By Mr. Butterworth : Q. Is there anything else in reference to the Campbell matter that you desire to state ? — A. I do not know that I have anything else to state. By Mr. Ewart : Q. You say that the promotion of Campbell was not an unusual thing. I would ask you this question : were there other employes in your Bureau who were equally as competent as Mr. Campbell ? — A. Oh, yes. Q. Had any of them been guilty of any breach of discipline '? — A. Not of a similar kind ; but we have breaches of discipline occasionally. Q. But none as serious as the abstraction of examination papers from the files ?— A. I think not. Q. How do you exx3lain why other parties were not promoted ? — A. They were promoted. Allow me to state that the Commission exer- cises its best judgment as to promotions, the first consideration being seniority, then other considerations, such as questions of fitness, adapt- ability to this kind of work, or that, and then the exigencies of the office are considered. He was next in line of promotion, and a failure to have promoted him at that time would have been a marked thing. In my judgment (and I say it wholly independent of his relationship to me) it would have been an outrage not to have promoted him. Q. E"ot with standing this breach of discipline? — A. A punishment for that oifense was meted out at the time. Q. What constituted that reprimand ? — A. That, in the judgment of the persons concerned, was sufficient punishment for that oifense at that time. It was not considered necessary to continue to pursue him ever afterwards. By Mr. Butterworth : Q. Was this matter, with reference to Mr. Campbell, called to the at- CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 15 tention of the full Board ?— A. I do not know whether Mr. Edgerton's attention was called to it or not. I have reason to believe Q. Was there any criticism of your course in that matter in the Board? A. ¥0, sir; 1 never heard criticism on that until I read this Edgerton matter in print. Q. Did you meet in full Board afterwards? — A. We met for nearly a year afterwards, almost daily, when the Commissioners were in the city. Q. And you never heard of it ? — A. The matter never was mentioned at any meeting of the Commission afterwards, to my knowledge. Mr. EwART. You were the sole Commissioner at that time ? The Witness. Yes, sir. Mr. BuTTEKWOETH. It seems that these questions passed into the hands of some gentleuian named Flynn, who sold them for a money consideration. The Witness. I do not think he sold them for a money considera- tion; but, on the other hand, his statement was that they had not been sold. By Mr. Stone : Q. How old is Mr. Campbell ? — A. I think he is about forty-eight or fort3^-nine years old; I think that is about his age. Q. What was your connection with the Commission at the time he first entered the service? — A. I was chief examiner. Q. How did .Mr. Campbell happen to be employed as a laborer ; at whose instance? — A, I believe the facts are something like this: The Commission always having more work than workers, needed some extra assistance when they were located in the Agricultural Department, and the Commission asked the Commissioner of Agriculture to loan them somebody to help them. Mr. Campbell had been employed in a sub- ordinate position in the Agricultural Department, and he was sent to the Commission by the Commissioner of Agriculture, and assigned to temporary duty as a per diem clerk. He remained there until Congress appropriated for a laborer for the Commission, and then the Commission appointed him to that place. I had no agency in his getting into the Commission, nor in his appointment. I was absent at the time he was detailed to assist the Commission. I had no agency in it. Q. Were his duties at first those of a clerk ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. But he was there as a laborer ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What salary did he receive ? — A. He was paid by the Depart- ment of Agriculture. Q. Was he a clerk in the Department of Agriculture? — A. He was employed in the seed division at that time. Q. Had he made application for examination ? — A. He had made ap- plication, had been examined, and was on the eligible register. Q. How long was it before he was appointed ? — A. I think he was appointed in July. That was in March or April, and the appropriation which provided for a laborer took eifect on the 1st of July, and he was shortly afterwards appointed to that place. Q. You were the sole Commissioner at that time ? — A. I was not. By Mr. Ewakt : Q. By whom was he examined ? — A. By the Commission. Q. By whom was his examination conducted? — A. I can not recall whether it was by the chief examiner, or whether it was conducted by some other person. 16 CIVIL HEKVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. Is there any memorauduin of it ? — A. I might find one by getting the papers. Let me make this statement, that I never participate in the marking of the examination papers. Mr. BuTTERWOETH. Explain how examinations are conducted. The Witness. Examinations were at that time generally conducted by the chief examiner when he was present in Washington. The papers are printed, and the applicants are seated in the room, sheets are given out to them, the questions are answered in writing, and the sheets are turned in at the desk and turned over to a number of examiners for marking. The applicant is not permitted to put his name on any but the declaration sheet. That sheet is inclosed by him in an envelope, which he seals. The practice is to retain them in that condition until the papers are graded. In the process of marking the only identifica- tion of papers is a number. Mr. Stone. The questions I was asking a moment ago were intended to reach not only the facts connected with this particular charge, but to develop the method of this Commissioner himself; that is, his public acts as a Commissioner. The Witness. I am perfectly willing to go into that. By Mr. Stone : Q. If you were present and superintended the examination of Mr. Campbell, it was conducted in this way, as you have indicated, by giv- ing him some printed questions'? — A. Yes, sir. Q. He wrote out the answers on the same paper, folded them, and sealed them "? — A. No, sir. Q. What did he do with the paper when he completed it ? — A. The paper came back to the examiners. The written answers to the ques- tions came back to the desk. The paper that was folded and placed in the envelope is what is known as a declaration. The name of the candidate is inclosed in another envelope and does not appear except by the other papers. Q. What becomes of the, examination papers ? — A. They pass into the hands of the people who mark them. Q. Did you turn them over to the markers ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. I will ask you the direct question whether you remember seeing those papers after that examination was completed and before Mr. Campbell's grade was fixed ? — A. I have no recollection of ever having seen those i^apers. Q. Do you know who the markers were who examined those papers? — A. I do not. Q. Did you ever have any conversation with any of them about if? — A. No, sir ; I have no recollection of any conversation with the mark- ers about those papers. Q. Was Mr. Campbell appointed under this examination before you went on the board ? — A. He was not appointed under an examination. He was simply appointed as a laborer in the office, which did not require an examination. The office of the Commission was not at that time a classified office. Appointments might have been made in the office of the Commission to any grade without examination. The office was not classified until afterwards. Q. What was the salary of Mr. Campbell when he was first em- ployed ? — A. He was a laborer at $660 a year. Q. I mean when he was first employed as a clerk.— A. Nine hundred dollars. Q. What was the salary of the office to wbicli he was Ksubsequeutly CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 17 Q. Is he in the service now ? — A. Yes, sir ; at $1,200 a year. Q. Then he was promoted three times ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. When was the last appointment "? — A. 1 think it was the 2d of April, 1889. That was the promotion made by me when I was the sole Commissioner, Q. How was it discovered that these papers about which Mr. Ewart questioned you, had been furnished to this lady, or whoever they were furnished to? — A. I think the lady brought the information to Mr. Oberly that she had reasons to believe Mr. Flynn had in his possession certain questions of the Commission. Q. This charge, as I remember, states that Mr. Campbell sold these papers to some one. Do you know anything about that f — A. He de- nies that he sold them, and the investigation did not show that he sold them. Q. What was the name of the lady receiving them ? — A. Mrs. Smith. Q. Was she examined by any of you in regard to it*?- — A. She was examined by Mr. Oberly. Q. Bid she take an examination soon after that ? — A. 'No, sir. Q. Has she ever taken one since f — A. ISTo, sir. Mr. Ewart. Has she been promoted since ? The Witness. I think she was. By Mr. Stone : Q. Did Mr. Flynn subsequently state, or at any time state, to you or any member of the Commission that he did not purchase the ques- tions ? — A. I have never seen Mr. Flynn. Q. Did he write letters to that effect ?— A. I have seen it published that there was no consideration whatever paid. Q. I understand you to say that your daughter was eighteen years of age when she made application for examination? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And that the minimum limit was eighteen years of age ? — A. Yes, sir. Q, And you afterwards changed the rules so as to make the minimum twenty years ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. She was not examined until after you made that change *? — A. I think not. Q. You say the Commission has ruled that where an application is filed, that would establish a right in an applicant to any benefits under the rules at that time"? — A. Yes, sir. In other words, the rules are not retroactive ; that the applicant was legally entitled to file an application at the time it Msas filed. Q. If you had a rule fixing the minimum age at eighteen, and a per- son examined was put upon the original list under those rules, and sub- sequently the rules were changed so that no person should be appointed under the civil-service rules who was under twenty years of age, would that person be eligible to appointment? — A. We have so construed it. I want to give you the theory of the law adopted by the Commission. An examination is in three parts, the application, the written examina- tion, and the period of probation, and after the probationary period a permanent appointment. When an application is filed the examination is taken by the applicant in accordance with the requirements of the rules. Q. Has your daughter been appointed ? — A. No, sir. 3117 2 18 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. TESTIMONY OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT. Theodore Eoosevelt sworn and examined. By Mr. Butterworth : Q. What do you know about this Campbell affair? — A. All I know is that some time early in the fall — I have no memorandum with which to refresh my recollection — but I should say Q. When did you become a member of the Commission ? — A. About May 10 last. Q. When did you first learn officially of this Campbell matter, and what do you know about it ? — A. About the 1st of October last — of course I can not give the date exactly — but about the 1st of October last there were two or three articles in the Washington Post concerning the conduct of Mr. Campbell, who was then charged with "stealing" examination papers and giving them out to some woman who wanted to pass an ex- amination. I think the articles first appeared as preliminary, and then grew to two or three columns on the subject. Mr. Lyman at the time was away ; I think he was making some investigations. It was early in October, and Governor Thompson and myself at first disbelieved the story, but on making some inquiry — I think of Mr. Doyle — we found that there was a foundation for it. We also found, for the first time, that Mr. Campbell was Mr. Lyman's brother-in-law. We had never known of that before, at least I had never known of it. We then examined Mr. Doyle, and summoned Mr. Campbell and Mr. Doyle (the secretary of th« Commission) before us, and also questioned Mr. Lyman as soon as he came back to the city. We found that the offense had been committed two years before or thereabouts, and that at the same time the acting president of the Commission, Mr. Oberly, had carefully gone into the charges and had investigated the case and had decided that he should not ask for Mr. Campbell's dismissal , and the Commission had accord- ingly-retained him. We made up our minds that, whatever might be our personal judg- ment upon the equities of the case as far as we could get at them,^ we were not willing on secondary evidence two years after the event to reverse the decision of the Commission of two years before when it had all the facts before it. Governor Thompson and myself discussed the question at length on more than one day — I should say probably on five or six different occasions. Of course it annoyed us very much, and we could not get the story in a satisfactory shape so as to tell ex- actly what had happened. It was two years after the event. It was res adjudicata. We knew the custom was that one administration does not criticise the acts of a preceding one, and we w^ere reluctant, unless on the strongest evidence, to reverse the decision made by the previous Commission, and that previous administration of a different political faith, with primary evidence, while we would reverse on secondary evi- dence. We did not feel that we would be justified in adopting such a course. To dismiss Mr. Campbell would mean a severe retiection upon our colleague, and a much more serious reflection upon the gentleman who had investigated the case two years before, and who was the act- ing head of the Commission, Mr. Oberly, and we did not feel that we ought to take such action. Governor Thompson suggested to me, or I to him, that I should go home and write a statement of our views of the matter to be spread on the minutes, and that we should also urge Mr. Lyman to write down from recollection a full statement of the facts CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 1^ to be spread on the minutes. I was called back to my home at Oyster Bay, Long Island, where I wrote out a statement and submitted it to Governor Thompson. When I came back I found that the President had called for a full statement from Mr. Lyman, and we thought that^ that was a further reason why we should take no further action in the matter, and we did not spread our memorandum on the minutes. With the permission of the committee I will submit that memorandum, or would you like for me to read it 1 This is simply a rough draught of what we decided upon, but which was not used nor put on the min- utes : Oyster Bay, Long Island, Ocioher 14, 1889. Memorandum of course pursued by Governor Thompson and myself in reference to the Post's charges against Campbell. As soon as we heard of the charges, and found out that they had some basis, we called Campbell himself, and afterwards Doyle, before us, and later on questioned Mr. Lyman. We found that the offense was committed two years before ; that at the time Mr. Oberly, acting president of the Commission, had fully investigated it, and that, with all the evidence fresh before him, he had decided that it did not call for Campbell's dismissal, and had accordingly continued the latter in his position, with the express or implied approval of his colleague or colleagues. This was the first time that either Governor Thompson or myself had known that Campbell was Mr. Lyman's brother-in-law, or had known that there had been any charges against him. We decided that, whatever might be our opinion as to the original equities of the case, we could not venture to decide, on secondary evidence, two years after the event, about a matter which had already been adjudicated by the former acting head of the Commission, with all the facts fresh at his disposal. An adverse decision on our part would have been a condemnation of the entire old Commission, including that member of it who is at present our colleague. T. E. P. S. — November 23. — We were confirmed in our ideas as to the proper position to take by the fact that the President had requested from Mr. Lyman a full state- ment of the matter, which is now before him. (The first date was put down from memory at the time I wrote the appendix.) I have read this paper, and I concur in the statements. H. S. T. During the reading of the memorandum Mr. Eoosevelt made the fol- lowing explanation : I was present in Mr. Campbell's room when a former lady clerk of the Commission^! think Mrs. Lockhart — was in there speaking to him. As well as I can now recollect it, she said that Mr. Oberly had told her that he had told Mr. Edgertou of the matter and that Mr. Edgerton had pooh- poohed it. I do not know anything about that. Some weeks after writing the first part of this I added this about the President. Governor Thompson put on this paper: " I have read this paper, and I concur in the statement. H. S. T." Q. On the statement appearing in the daily press that the conduct of the Commissioners with reference to this action of Campbell was reprehensible, and on that being called to your attention the subject of making a suitable investigation seemed to you proper, and at the con- clusion you thought you were not justified in opening up the case? — A. Precisely. Q. That it was res adjtidicata and should rest there ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. He has been continued in office ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What is his character ? — A. He receives the mail and sorts out the different letters. He brings in the mail to my room every day. Q. Is he regarded as a faithful em ploye ? — A. He is, as far as I know. Q. There is nothing (and I put it in a leading form) in the course of the investigation which required any action other than that which you have taken? — A. No, sir; none whatever. There were all kinds of 20 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. conflicting statements as to what had been the exact facts of the case. From the evidence we can not find out whether there was any danger oftheparticnlarexaminationpaper ever being used again. It was just about the time the Commission stopped using examination papers twice. 2!^owada,ys every man who comes in and wants to look into the system there can do so. I will take down any old papers and hand them over to him. That has been the policy. I think several of you gentlemen on this committee have been shown examination papers. Of course that was never proper while there was any danger of the papers being used a second time. We made up our minds that all those facts must have been fresh in Mr. Oberly's mind. That he must have known all the facts, and that we could not on secondary evidence overrule a de- cision he had made when the thing was fresh in his memory. For that reason we took no action in the matter. By Mr. Gkeenhalge : Q. 1 will ask you whether this promotion came while you were in office '? — A. 'So, sir. Q. You stated to the committee your chief reason for accepting the decision of the former Commission was that it might reflect upon them. "Was that your chief reason, or was that one of the reasons"? — A. The chief reason was the fear lest we might do injustice in the case. It is a pretty serious matter to turn a man out on as grave a charge as that, and discredit Mr, Oberly and Mr. Lyman for keeping him in, and I was not willing- on the secondary evidence before me to take that ground. By Mr. Ewart : Q. You did not investigate any further to find out if it was res adju- dicataf — A. The exact course followed, as well as I can now recollect, was to find out who in the oftice knew anything about the matter. I found that Mr. Campbell himself and Mr. Doyle did, and I believe one or two other employes had heard rumors of it, but nothing definite. All the evidence that amounted to anything was from Campbell, Doyle, and Lyman. Q. Did you examine the matter to ascertain if it was res adjudicaia, or did you simply relj^ upon the fact that Commissioner Oberly had decided the matter"? — A. Not entirely on that fact. I decided that, on the evidence that we had before us, we did not think it was sufiicient to justify reversing his action. Q. Did you examine Mr. Campbell ?~A. Yes, sir. Q. What statement did he make? I presume he admitted that he was guilty of the charge 1? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you consider it a gross offense ; did you attach any import- ance to it ? — A. I certainly did. Q. Would you characterize it as a breach of discipline or a quasi- criminal offense"?— A. I can not answer that question, because I could not find out definitely what the offense was. Q. The Commission as at present constituted — whom we all admit are able and distinguished gentlemen — suppose that one of your employes in the bureau abstracts questions, conceding the questions are obsolete, how would you characterize that offense, and what terms would you apply to it "? — A. Gentlemen of the committee, in answering that ques- tion, I am afraid that I may answer — I will state perfectly frankly that I should certainly move to dismiss any employ6 of the Commission who gave any special advantage to any one. Q. Would you follow it with immediate and instantaneous dismis- sal "? — A. Yes, sir. I am not saying this with reference tc Mr. Camp- CIVIL SERVICE INVESliaATION. 21 bell's offenses because I can not be aware of what Mr. Cami^bell's offense was. Q. Any employe who would be guilty of such an act as Campbell had been guilty of; would you follow it with immediate and instantaneous dismissal? — A. I have heard six or eight allegations about it. Q. We hud the only allegations that have been made are that he abstracted papers from the files and gave them to iudividaals on the outside. Suppose you ascertained that an employe in your bureau had been guilty of that action ; would you not follow it with instantaneous dismissal f — A. It is a hard thing to answer that question. These were old papers, and I do not know but circumstances might come out that would favorably incline me to forgive the man. Q. Then you do not consider it any offense to take papers from the files?— A. Yes, I do. Q. How do you consider it? — A. I want to answer the question, but I would say I want to know all the circumstances of the case. Q. Suppose his guilt was proven beyond any sort of question or doubt ?— A. Guilty of what ? Q. Abstracting these questions from the fites. — A. I would want to know all the circumstances of the case before I could pass judgment upon it. Q. Suppose an employe had given questions out with a view of assisting a party, what would you say about it as a Commissioner 1 — A. Well, as I say, it would depend upon the circumstances of the case. I am inclined to think I should dismiss the offender. I want you to understand that it is embarrassing to be asked these questions. I can not answer any more definitely than I have done. By Mr. Butterworth : Q. It was the question of intent ? — A. Yes sir, it was the question of intent. For instance, if it was a man who had just come in and was ignorant of the rules, I would not have dismissed him immediately. Mr. EwART. That case was not given you. I am putting a plain simple case where the party had given out papers. The Witness. Tou are supposing, I know, how Mr. Campbell acted. I do not. Mr. LiND. Is not this argument ? Mr. Butterworth. I understand him to say this: That when these charges were made he looked into the matter to see if there was anything that called for further investigation, but he found it res ad- judicata. There was nothing which prompted him to make a further investigation. Mr. EwART. Then I followed that statement with this : Did you stop with the investigation when you ascertained it was res adjudicata, and he replied, I brought Mr. Doyle and Mr. Campbell before me. Mr. Darqan. You do not know whether the act was immoral or not? The Witness. I do not. If you ask me whether I consider Mr. Campbell's act improper or not, I say I do not know. Mr. Ewart is asking hypothetical questions. The thing occurred months ago as well as I can recollect, and I am not perfectly certain even now that I am getting it straight. I should like to hear what Governor Thompson says about it. We examined Mr. Campbell for some time before we found that Mr. Oberly had adjudicated the matter. I am inclined to think, though I do not recollect, that we had Mr. Campbell in and that he said something about Mr. Doyle's knowledge of the case, and that from Mr. Doyle we got the idea (I think, though I may be incorrect, 22 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. but I think it was from Mr. Doyle) that Mr. Obei-ly had adjiKlicated the matter. I think we had Campbell in twice and Doyle in once, and that we went all through the thing and talked it all over ourselves. ByMr. EwABT: Q. You got the idea from Doyle that Oberly had adjudicated the matter 1 — A. I believe so. I remember we first examined Campbell and Doyle in Governor Thompson's room, and saw Mr. Lyman in his own room. I think we brought up Mr. Doyle again on the consecutive day, Q. How did you become satisfied that the matter had been adjudi- cated by Oberly? — A. It was the unanimous statement of Campbell, Doyle, and Lyman. Q. You became satisfied that the matter was adjudicated"? — A. I be- came satisfied from the statements of Doyle and Campbell. Q. Campbell had been charged as the guilty party and Lyman was charged with, being his brother-in-law ? — A. And the damaging fact had been admitted. Q. You became satisfied of it from the evidence of Doyle 1 — A. Yes, sir ; corroborated by the statement of Lyman. The w^itnesses we exam- ined were Campbell, Doyle, and Lyman, and the one whom I spoke of in the person of Mrs. Lockhart who was in Mr. Lyman's room early in October. There were four witnesses. One was Mr. Lyman, one was Mr. Campbell, and two were disinterested outsiders. Their statements agreed entirely with what Mr. Oberly had investigated, and he had continued Mr. Campbell in office. I did not say I only investigated it until I found it was res adjudicata. I do not think we definitely decided it until the witnesses had left and we had consulted with one another. I think my statement will show that, and then as for the evidence on which I was convinced, it was the examination of the three people and subsequently the testimony of Mrs. Lockhart as to the statements made by two or three people as to what they had heard. By Mr. Hatton : Q. Mr. Lyman under oath testified that Mr. Campbell had confessed to stealing these questions ; also the questions stolen and furnished Mrs. Smith. Did Mr. Lyman make that statement to you? — A. I can not now exactly recollect what Mr. Lyman said. I certainly have no recol- lection of his making statements of that kind. Q. You say that you decided not to look into the offenses committed before you came in as a Commissioner? — A, 1 said that we were very re- luctant to take that up. Of course if we felt i^arricide had been com- mitted, we might have taken it up. Q. Have you not as a Commissioner recommended the removal of Dem- ocratic office-holders because of offenses committed before you became Commissioner? — A. Yes, sir. Q. This offense has been condoned? — A, ISo, it has not. This offense had been investigated by a former Commissioner and a decision reached. Q. You have recommended dismissal for offenses committed before you became Commissioner? — A. Yes, sir ; but never where the previous commission had examined into the alleged offense and acquitted the alleged offender. We would not reverse such a decision unless new evidence showed beyond all doubt that the original decision was wrong. Of course, we would have to look into offenses which had never been investigated or where the investigation was still pending. By Mr. Stone : Q. On political grounds ? — A. For collecting political assessments. CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 23 Q. I understood you to say you recoinmeuded the dismissal of Demo- cratic officials'? — A. Both Democratic and Republican officials were found guilty of violating the law. We have recommended the prose- cution of certain gentlemen in New York. We learned they were mak- ing collections to elect Mr. Cleveland. We have also recommended the prosecution of Virginians who were making collections to elect Mr. Ma- hone in 1889. We have meted out justice on each side. Q. What I want to know is whether you based these recommenda- tions on the fact whether the incumbent was a Democrat or a Eepub- lican ? — A. Of course not. All the recommendations I made were con- curred in by Governor Thompson. I presume it is hardly necessary to answer a question like that of Mr. Hatton's. Mr. BuTTEEWORTH. Tou do not want to punish a man for being a Democrat ; his punishment will come hereafter "? The Witness. My main object is to keep Democrats in office.' I do not punish a man for being a Democrat ; our aim has been to get Dem- ocrats to come forward and be examined for civil-service appointments. The Chaieman. Your knowledge of this Campbell matter — was it derived officially or through the newspapers *? The Witness. Merely through the newspapers. By Mr. Ewaet : Q. What statement did Campbell make to you when you interrogated him as to those charges ; can you give his exact statement 1 — A. I could not give his exact statement ; I could tell you probably what he said. He said that he had been asked by a woman who wanted to take a promotion examination, and that he took out his paper and copied the questions and answers. We publish the questions at the end of the year. Campbell not being a bright man, did not want to work out the answers himself, and he took some papers where the answers were already worked ; if the papers had been used they would have been of no use to this woman. He took a set of questions that had been already worked out, and he copied them off. Otherwise he would have had to work out the answers. Q. Would those questions, from the statement that he made, have assisted an applicant in an examination"? — A. From the statement that he made I should have thought not, for one of the things that struck me was the aimlessness of the act; I could not see where the great advantage to the woman came in. Mr. Andrew. Could not the woman get an idea of the scope of the questions'? — A. She could examine the printed lists precisely similar to these questions. Mr. Darg-an. The printed lists were not given out ? The Witness. Samples of the questions are from time to time printed in the paper. I do not believe that they had been printed at the end of the report, but they certainly had been in the papers, all kinds of printed sample papers. Mr. EwART. Did it occur to you to ask Mr. Campbell what purpose he had in taking the questions out of the office "? The Witness. Yes, sir; his reply was she wanted them and he gave them to her. I believe he said she bothered him until he gave them to her. The Chairman. How are appointments made in your office, by pro- motion or otherwise ? The Witness. I can only speak of the time the governor and I have been in. The settled policy is to commence at the lowest grade and pro- mote them steadily up to the highest. There are seven grades. Three 24 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. of those grades have but one man in them and four have two each. We can not hold competitive examinations where there is only one. Even where there are two in a grade they are usually engaged in such dif- ferent occuxjations that no common test could be ax)plied to them ; for instance, one may be a stenographer or copyist and tne other a man skilled in docketing the different letters or answering applications. Whenever capacity warrants we promote in the order of seniority. We take them in the order of their certification. For instance, we wanted a messenger and we found there was a vacancy in the ISI'orth Carolina list and we wrote to one man from Korth Carolina named Bunn to take the position. We had originally signified that we would give him the ap- pointment. He is now serving as our messenger. He can not be pro- moted for a year under the rules because he must serve in the $900 place for a year. Mr. EwAET. The next charge is, appointments are said to have been made in utter disregard of the law. The Witness. That is absolutely false. I am going to ask the com- mittee what the charges are against us. Mr. Hatton. I charge this, and if I can get a chance I can prove it, that the present Commission have manipulated the rules. It charges the present Commission, and I charge it here and now, and am perfectly willing to formulate those charges. I did not formulate the charges here. I say, and I will j^rove it, that there is a clerk in the city post- office who was personated by another clerk. We will prove that the present president of the Commission was notified of that fact. TESTIMONY OF HUGH S. THOMPSON. Hugh S. Thompson, sworn and examined. By Mr. Butteeworth : Q. You are one of the Civil Service Commissioners ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. When were you appointed ? — A. I was appointed on the 7th of May and took the oath on the 9th of May. Q. Will you state, if you please, what you know and what connec- tion you have had with this Campbell matter? — A. I read an editorial in the Washington Post which charged Campbell with stealing ques- tions and selling them. I did not believe it, and 1 thought if there was any foundation for it it was a gross exaggeration. We decided to look into the matter. We examined Doyle and Campbell, and as soon as Mr. Lyman returned to the city we had a conversation with him, and asked him to make a full statement about it. We asked him to submit a statement in writing. The testimony of Lyman and Camp- bell, whom we examined separately, agreed completely, and they con- firmed each other. Mr. Doyle was totally disinterested. We found that the matter had been settled after Mr. Oberly had investigated it, though there wa« no record of any action having been taken. Camp- bell had been retained in the service, and it seemed clear that Mr. Oberly had decided that the offense did not deserve dismissal, but only called for a reprimand. Mr. E-oosevelt agreed with me that, while it was painful to him to find that such a charge was made and to have a man of that sort in the office, he thought we could not under the cir- cumstances re-open the question, since Mr. Oberly had practically de- cided the man was not to be dismissed. Q. In your best judgment the public service did not require any other actf — A. Precisely 5 I thought it would be going too far to re-open the case. Mr. Campbell I found to be diligent and faithful. I only re- CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 25 ji^retted that such charges could be made against an employe of the Commission. Q. At the time you began this examination, you did not know the subject had been investigated f — A. Ko, sir. Q. You had examined carefully these four witnesses ? — A. We had examined three witnesses. Q. And you found the matter had been given such an investigation as you would give to it if you had been in Mr. Oberly's place? — A. There was the testimony of Doyle that Oberly had investigated it. What conclusion Oberly had come to Doyle could not tell us. The fact remained that Campbell was still on the force and there was no record that Oberly desired his dismissal. Q. Were any formal charges preferred ? — A. Never, except this edi- torial in the Post. I should say that this man Flynn, whom I have never seen, in an interview, as 1 recollect, and in a letter purporting to be signed by him, stated distinctly that he had never paid anything for the papers. Mr. Stone. Does Mr. Oberly live here! The Witness. I do not know whether he does or not. I saw him on the street so»me little distance away. I do not think I have seen him twice in a year. Mr. BuTTBRWOETH. Have you seen Mr. Edgerton ? The Witness. Mr. Edgerton did not confer with me a great deal. I did not know Mr. Oberly was here. However, the non-action of the Commission indicated that we thought it had been settled to suit them in some way. Mr. EooSEVELT. Mr. Oberly was one of the people charged. Charges were made with great looseness. The Witness. We made a full inquiry and examined Doyle and Campbell and had several conferences and came to the conclusion that the matter was not one we could properly reopen. We took this ground, that if Campbell was morally entitled to remain, he was mor- ally entitled to j)romotion, and if that was the case, he was morally fit for an $1,800 clerkship. By Mr. Ewaet: Q. Under the rules would Campbell have been promoted? — A. It is a question of efficiency. 1 do not know; it would depend on who was in competition with him. Q. Suppose he had abstracted papers from the files ? — A. If morally fit to stay, he was morally fit for promotion. It is simply a question of efficiency. Q. Would you deem it an offense to abstract papers ? — A. I would regard it as a breach of discipline. Q. You would not have promoted a man guilty of that? — A. I see the President only this morning disapproved the finding of a court- martial in the case of a man guilty of a grave breach of discipline. He is going to allow the man to be promoted in the Army. Under the cir- cumstances I think it is right. Q. That is not a breach of discipline such as Campbell was guilty of? — A. It depends on what Campbell did. If he took an old set of papers I would not think it a serious breach of discipline; otherwise I would. Something was said here just now in regard to an investiga- tion and Democratic dismissals at Milwaukee. In regard to that mat- ter, as a Democrat I would hang my head, but as a Civil Service Com- missioner I would invite an investigation. Adjourned. 26 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Wednesday, February 26, 1890. The Chairman. Before calling any witness, Mr. Lyman wishes to make some corrections or explanation as to liis former evidence. Mr. Lyman. In the testimony which I gave at the last sitting of the committee, I stated, as I remember, that these questions were brought to my attention on the afternoon of one day, and that the handwriting- was not discovered until the following day. Circumstances have been brought to my attention since, that indicate that a longer interval may have elaiised between the time the questions were first brought to my attention and the time of the discovery as to whose handwriting they were in. I know I have now reason to believe that several days, possi- bly three or four days, may have elapsed. I am not certain as to the number of days. The facts that impressed this on my mind, and which have become fixed there, are that apparently questions of the Commis- sion had been copied and that they were in the handwriting of a relative of mine, and that an investigation was needed and should be had. I wish to state further, as I recollect the testimony, that I used this ex- pression : '' Commissioner Edgerton being absent.^' There are some circumstances which lead me to believe that several days may have elapsed between the time the questions were first brought to my atten- tion and the time when they were discovered in the handwriting of my relative, and that Mr. Edgerton may have been present at the office of the Commission during this time. I am not prepared to state posi- tively that he was or was not, but I correct that expression " being absent," because I am not prepared to say whether he was absent or present. TESTIMONY OF JOHN H. OBERLY. Mr. John H. Oberly sworn and examined. By the CHAIRMAN : Q. You were formerly one of the Civil Service Commissioners. Will you please state how long ? — A. From April, 1886, until October, 1888. Q. Do you know a man named Campbell, a brother-in-law of Mr. Lyman ?— A. I do. Q. Do youremember thatcharges were miide against Mr. Campbellfor having abstracted examination papers from the Bureau at one time? — A. No charges were ever made to me against Mr. Campbell of ab- stracting questions from the Civil Service Commission files at any time. Q. It has been stated here before this committee that Mr. Campbell had abstracted papers or copies of papers from the files and furnished them to an outside party. That offense was examined into by yourself and the conclusion was reached by you that Mr. Campbell should be re- tained in office. Will you state as briefly as you can your connection with the matter ? — A. In the first part of 1888, I think it was, informa- tion reached me that examination questions of the Civil Service Com- mission were being copied by some person connected with the Commis- sion and were being sold to a civil service coacher of this city. Believ- ing that if that statement were true the i^arty guilty of the offense of copying and selling such questions should be known to the Commission and dismissed from the service, I concluded that it was my duty to as- certain as much concerning the matter as possible. I thereupon asked the jierson who brought that information to me to procure for me the copies of the questions wliich it was said had been called to the atten- tion of this person by Mr. Flynn, of the Ivy Institute. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 27 The person who gave me the iuformation stated, as I remember, that Mr. Flynn proposed to guaranty her passage of the clerk's examina- tion upon the payment of $15 for the entire examination, or $10 for the arithmetical examination. Understanding by that statement that he desired $15 for the questions, I told the lady that if she would get the questions and had to pay $15, I would re-imburse her out of my own pocket. At that time I had an impression that possibly Mr Flynn had procured the questions of some examination and had them copied or printed and was selling copies of them. In the course of a week or so probably the lady (who is present here) came to me with a roll of manuscript saying that this roll of manuscript was a copy of certain questions of the Civil Service Commission, and that she had been in- formed that some person connected with the Commission had furnished that copy to Mr. Flynn. She stated to me that I might have the ques- tions to examine upon condition that they should be returned to her within a certain specified time — I have forgotten the time fixed, but it was a week or so, that they might be returned to Flynn — and that I should not in my investigation do anything that would give Mr. Flynn information concerning the fact of the transmission of the questions to me at that time. I think she stated the questions had been furnished without any condition on his part. I agreed to these conditions, and immediately after her departure from my room I went into the room of the president of the Commission, Mr. Edgerton, and the Com- mission being in session, I laid the manuscript upon the desk and stated the charges that had been made and said : " I believe we should miake an investigation to ascertain whether what has been said con- cerning the manuscript is true, so that we may see if any person is copying or selling questions and making a traffic of that kind." Mr. Eclgerton immediately said that he would have nothing to do with any such investigation as that ; that it would amount to nothing, that there- was nothing in it, and pushed the manuscript aside with his hand in a very determined manner. When I put this roil of manuscript on the desk and stated the condi- tions on which I had received it, I said if the Commission would ac- cept this copy upon the terms on which I had received it, that they could have it. Commissioner Lyman, after Mr. Edgerton refused to have anything to do with it, said he thought an investigation should take place; that we should accept the questions, and proceed to an investi- gation to ascertain if any person had made copies of questions and had sold them; stating that any person who would do so oughtto be punished, and he would be in favor of the punishment of such a person whoever he might be. Thereupon he examined the questions. He took up the manuscript and examined it. After he had completed his examination, I said : "Gentlemen, what do you want to do with this matter? Shall we go on with the investigation and accept this manuscript on the terms proposed by me?" Mr. Edgerton again said he would not do so. He said he would not enter into it. Mr. Lyman said it was a serious matter and required consideration. Then I pressed for an explicit answer to my inquiry, whether the manuscript should be accepted upon the conditions I had stated. Some conversation took place between the Commissioners, Mr. Edgerton continuing to deprecate the proposed investigation. The Commissioners talked together. The secretary of the Commission, Mr. Doyle, being present and also saying something in reference to the matter, as I remember. Finally, I said, " Well, the Commission does not appear to be ready to settle this question to-night;" and turning to Mr. Doyle, I continued: "Mr. Secretary, you take this manuscript 28 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. and lock it in tbe safe and allow it to remain there until the Commis- sion determines whether it desires to go into an investigation." There- upon Mr. Doyle took the manuscript from me and went into the certifi- cation room wliere the safe was and put the manuscript in the safe and locked it, he having the combination. I accompanied him and noticed him do this. Then the question was dismissed from the consideration of the Commission. After a number of days, I have forgotten how many, I sent for the secretary and stated to him that it did not seem that the other Com- missioners were ready to go on with the investigation, and I said : " I think I will make an investigation of my own for the purpose of satis- fying myself, and I would like you to aid me in it." It may be in the meantime Mr. Edgerton had gone away. Mr. Edgerton may have left the city after the meeting to which I refer. Mr. Doyle told me he would be very willing to aid me in any way. I said to him, "You get speci- mens of the handwriting of every person employed in the Commission, and let nobody know what you are doing it for. Get them without cre- ating suspicion on the part of anybody." I wanted them for the pur- poses of the investigation. Mr. Doyle said he would do so, and proceeded to obtain specimens of the handwriting of every person connected with the Commission. Having done this he compared the handwriting with the manuscript that he had taken from the safe, and havibg completed his investigation he brought to me the manuscript with the copy of a letter that had been copied by Mr. Campbell a couple of years before, and a book in which the letters received were registered, which book was kept by Mr. Campbell at that time. Mr. Doyle laid this copy of this let- ter and manuscript before me and said, " I think I know the person who made the copy." Then I looked at the three writings and said, "The person who wrote any one of these wrote the other two, and I see from the book, letter, and manuscript that the writing is Mr. Campbell's, Doyle, he having stated that the copy of the letter was in the hand- writing of Mr. Campbell." I then said to the secretary, Mr. Doyle, " Take this manuscript and copy of the letter to Mr. Lyman, and say, as coming from me, that I have investigated this matter, and that I am convinced that Mr. Camp- bell copied the questions." Mr. Doyle went into Mr. Lyman's room, at least he left my room with the book, letter, and manuscript, and in a short while afterwards, half an hour or so, 1 went into the room of Mr. Lyman, having ascertained that Campbell had been in, there with Mr. Lyman. I said to Mr. Lyman, " Well, Mr. Lyman, what of this "? " He replied, " I have compared the writings, and have had Mr. Campbell with me and have gone over the matter, and there is no doubt that the copy was made by Mr. Campbell. He has confessed all about it and told me all about it." I asked Mr. Lyman to make a statement to me of what Mr. Campbell had said about it, and Mr. Lyman stated to me that Mr. Campbell had told him that he made the copy of those questions for a lady acquaintance of his who was then in the Pension Office, holding a copyist's place at $900 a year, and who desired to have a promotion as soon as she could have one under the rules ; that after having been appointed from the copyist's register she would have to remain in that position for a year before she could be promoted, and even then could not be promoted after the expiration of a year unless she passed the gen- eral examination now called the clerk examination ; that being very anxious that she should pass the examination, and it being evident that she could get a recommendation for promotion, she desired to know what kind of an examination she would have to pass. She said she CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 29 would coach herself, or be coached, or study the different subjects in order to pass the examination ; that she was rusty, particularly in arith- metic, and desired to know what the arithmetical questions would be. He stated that he had no printed questions to give her, but finally was persuaded, and did copy the questions outside of office hours, and gave them to her with the understanding that she should use them for her purpose she had intended and then destroy them, and some other details concerning the matter of this kind. Then Mr. Lyman said to me, " Now, Mr. Oberly, this is rather a deli- cate position that I am placed in. I do not wish to do Campbell an injustice, but I am of the impression that he has done a serious wrong. 1 wish that you would take this matter into your hands and make an examination and investigation, and ascertain whether he is culpable and what should be done. I will be satisfied with whatever report you make." Thereupon I called Mr. Campbell into my room and asked him to make a statement of the circumstances under which he had copied these questions. He did so, stating to me almost exactly what Commissioner Lyman had informed me was the statement of Mr. Campbell to him. Then it occurred to me that I ought to see the lady in question before Mr. Campbell should see her, so that I might ascertain whether she, with- out collusion with Campbell and without having an opportunity to dis- cuss the question with him, would tell the same story that Campbell had told, and immediately 1 went to the Pension Office and requested the Commissioner of Pensions to have this lady called into his room. She came in response to that call, and I then stated to her in sim- ulated anger that she had been procuring questions from the Civil Service Commission. I looked at her very severely. I told her that, in an improper manner, she had lately obtained from Mr. Campbell a copy of examination papers and that she had taken them to a Mr. Flynn and had sold them to him, and that I understood she was making a traffic in such things, and that having discovered her in the matter and also Mr. Campbell, that both of them were to be discharged from the service immediately. I pretended that I knew a great deal more than I did for the i)urpose of frightening her into a confession. The lady had seemed much pleased to see me at first, but when the conversation occurred she was changed in her demeanor. I saw at once after I had spoken that she was sorry I had come, and was rather anxious I should go away, but she became indignant and declared I was making charges I had no right to make. 1 had something of a wrangle with her at that time. Then I said, "IsTow, Mrs. Blank, tell me exactly how this matter happened, and if my impression is not correct tell me what is the truth." Thereupon she made a statement to me almost identical with the statement Campbell had made to me so far as her intended examination for promotion, and the taking of the questions was concerned, how it had come about, and how the questions were found in the hands of the coacher. She said, " I had a good education in my youth, but I have forgotten a great deal of what 1 knew, and if I am dull in anything it is arithmetic;" and she said, '' when I looked over these questions I was satisfied I could not pass the examination until I had freshened up on this subject." She said, " When I took these questions to Mr. Flynn, they were simply copies of questions which had been used." She said to him that she would have to pass an examina- tion if she got a i)romotion, and she wanted him to instruct her in the arithmetical part of the questions, and wanted to go over that branch of the examination. 30 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. I said, " Did lie j)ny you. anything for these questions when he received them from you?" She said no, but oa the contrary, she paid him for the lessons. I said, " How many lessons?" I think she said three. I said I thought she ought to quit it. After some other conversation, in which she desired me to undertand that she and not Mr. Campbell was to blame, for she had persuaded him, etc., I left. I then investigated the matter of the questions. I sought to ascertain and did ascertain whether the questions had been used after that time. The investigation that I made led me to believe that at the time the questions had been furnished they had never been used in any exam- ination except the one. Then I ascertained that no person who was an applicant for a civil service examination for admission to the service had been injured by this act of Campbell. I satisfied my- self that the public service had been in no manner injured by this act; that no wrong had been done to any individual or any public officer in the public service, and I concluded, after taking into consid- eration all the facts, it would be too severe a punishment to dismiss Mr. Campbell from the service. I was led to that conclusion by other con- siderations which- I wished to mention to you gentlemen, so that you may know why this lady applied to Mr. Campbell and not to other per- sons for copies of questions. Mr. Campbell was a clerk in the office when I became commissioner. He was then, I presume, performing the same duties he is now. It was his duty as a clerk, a duty had been imposed upon him by the Commission to take all letters contain- ing requests for blank applications for examinations and reply to them by sending to each applicant for examination a blank form and accom- panying the blank form with a pamphlet which contained specimen copies of examination papers of the Commission, marking the particu- lar examination that the person desired to take, as, for instance, if a request was for blank applications for copyist examination, he would mark what we then called the limited examination and turn down the leaf there, and in other ways call attention to that particular exami- nation,' so the party might be informed as fully as possible the charac- ter of the examination he would have to take when he came before the board of examiners. It was also the custom almost every day for i^er- sons in the city who desired examination blanks to come into the office and get blank applications and information concerning the examination which they proposed to take, and they were always referred to Mr. Campbell. Mr. GEEENHALaE (in the chair). In whose charge were these par- ticular questions which Mr. Campbell copied ? The Witness, They were in charge of the secretary, and Mr. Camp- bell was under him. The secretary had charge of Campbell's books and all examination papers of persons who had become eligible by reason of having passed examinations. Persons who came into the office would be referred to Mr. Campbell. The secretary and the Commissioners would refer them to Mr. Campbell. We would say, "If you want specimen questions go to Mr. Campbell and he will give them to you." It was Campbell's duty to speak to the applicant and call the person's particular attention to the specimen questions printed in the book, and answer all questions which he could, and they gener- ally asked as many as they could. As far as the Commissioners had printed five editions of one of the reports for the simple purpose of sup- plying the demand for sample questions. We meant to print another edition, but the Commission had run out of money and it had gotten into some controversy, I think, with the Secretary of the Interior, or a CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 31 clerk of tlie Interior Department who had some peculiar ideas about printing, and we could not print any more; so that persons who made personal application to the Commission were met with the reply that copies of the book containing specimen questions had been exhausted, and we had no money to print more and could not furnish them. Some of them thought it was a hardship) that they had to be ignorant of the scope of the examinations, and it was suggested to the applicants some- times when they came in and they were told that they could sit in the room and read, and if they wished to even copy, the papers of the last examination made by the person who had passed the highest and given the most satisfactory answers to the questions; that in this way they could see exactly what kind of questions were being asked, and what was necessary in order to pass an examination. We would tell them, "Tou can sit here and read and even copy these papers." Mr. Hopkins. To what point is the witness directing his testimony? The Witness. I was asked when this matter was investigated, whether I investigated it, and whether I arrived at certain conclusions, and if I did, why and how, and I am stating it. I consider this charge made as much against me as against anybody, because I had charge of the whole matter and took the whole responsibility. By Mr. BoATNEE, : Q. I understand you to say that according to the best of your judg- ment you did investigate and pass upon this matter on your respon- sibility and upon your best judgment upon it as an officer? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What punishment, if any, was inflicted upon Mr. Campbell for this breach of discipline? — A. I do not agree with Mr. Lyman that he was guilty of a gross breach of discipline. Mr. Hopkins. The point I was making was that he was dwelling on Some matters which might be very interesting as a matter of reminis- cence, but I did not see the revelancy of it. Mr. Gkeenhalge. State the material facts. The Witness. I am endeavoring to do that. It was Mr. Campbell's duty to give out specimen questions. Questions were taken from the files of the office by Mr. Doyle, Mr. Campbell, and myself, People were sometimes told that they might,if they wished, copy them and carry them away. Because Campbell was in that position it led the lady to make application to him, I presume. Anyhow, he was in that position and it was his duty to furnish specimen questions. I thought he had no right to copy those questions. The fact that they had gotten into the possession of a person who was using them in his business showed that it was an improper thing for him to do. I made this report. I did not think that Campbell as a clerk ought to be dismissed. I think proba- bly I said, "I will see him and talk with him and tell him what I think about this thing." I did not after this insist on the Commission mak- ing any investigation. Mr. Hopkins. Was it anything that in your judgment required dis- ciplining or speaking to on the subject? The Witness. Yes, sir; it was, under the circumstances. If I had found these questions in Campbell's hands, I never would have thought anything of it. I would have thought Mr. Campbell was doing a good deal of gratuitous work, but I would not have thought there was any- thing wrong in the mere fact that he had copied the questions. Mr. Geeenhalge. You did not know of any like practice of an em- ploy6 of the Commission furnishing copies of examination papers? The Witness. N'o, sir ; I never did. I would frequently hear that per- sons had questions of the Civil Service Commission, and had boasted of it. 32 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. By Mr. Hopkins : Q. How did you hear that they had boasted that they had questions of the Commission? — A. There was a case in the post-office. Q. Who was the person ? — A. I can not tell the names. Q. From whom did you learn it ? — A. I learned it by an anonymous letter. Q. Was that all your information "? — A. That was all. Q. Did the writer of the anonymous letter make such boasts ? — A. He did. Q. Do you remember what the boast was ? — A. I do not. Q. Where is that anonymous letter ? — A. I do not know. Q. What did you do with it ?— A. I destroyed it. Q. You made a statement about certain persons making these boasts. — A. I would frequently hear such rumors. Q. Can you give the name of any person ? — A. They never made any such boast to me. Q. Can you name any person that did f — A. I can not. I have seen it published in the newspapers, but I can not tell you now what papers. The Chairman. Was anything said to you by your colleague, Mr. Edgerton, as to the examination that you were conducting? The Witness. 'No, sir ; because the examination that I was conduct- ing did not last long, and my impression is that at the time Mr. Edger- ton was out of the city, but I do not know that that is a fact. Mr. EWART. Mr. Chairman, before I enter upon the cross-examina- tion I desire to make a brief statement. There have been intimations made by members of the committee that at the last session of the committee a great many unnecessary and use- less questions were asked. I have no desire whatever to detain this committee unnecessarily. I am perfectly aware of the fact that we can not be bound by the hide-bound rules of evidence. As an instance, I may state that legally we are not allowed to contradict our own witness, but in this investigation we will be compelled to do that. I should be glad t6 see the Commissioners vindicated, and I say frankly that when this evidence is all in, and a perfect case has not been made out by our side, I shall frankly state that, not only to this committee, but on the floor of the House when the report is brought before the House. By Mr. EwAKT: Q, You say that no charges were ever made against Mr. Campbell to you ? — A. No, sir. Q. When you first heard it, you did not call the attention of Mr. Lyman or Mr. Edgerton to the matter ? — A. On the same evening I called the attention of the Commissioners to the matter while they were in session. Q. You say that Mr. Edgerton ridiculed the idea of having anything to do with it! — A. I do not know that he said that. He said he would have nothing to do with the proposed investigation. Q. Did he assign a reason to you why he considered there was noth- ing in it ? Mr. Greenhalge. The witness represented him as saying that an in- vestigation would not amount to anything. By Mr. Ewart. Q. Did he assign a reason at that time why he was unwilling to go into an investigation ?-^A. No, except that he would not have any- thing to do with it; that he did not believe it amounted to anything. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 33 Q. Did he assign any reason whatever? — A. He said he would have nothing to do with it. Q. At that time you regarded it as a serious matter I — A. I did, and so stated to the Commission. Q. You have read Mr. Edgerton's letter, have you nof? — A. I have. Q. You are aware of tlie substance of that letter "? — A. I am. Q. You recollect, do you not, that Mr. Edgerton's charges are that the questions were taken out by Campbell ? — A. 1 do. Q. And that he was re-instated by you Avitliout any investigation either by yourself or Mr. Lyman? — A. He said Campbell was retained in the service. Nothing was said about re-instatement because he was never dismissed. Q. I understood you to say that you submitted a copy of a manuscript, or whatever it was, to Mr. Lyman 1 — A. It was a roll of manuscript. Q. Did Mr. Lyman examine that closely ? — A. He took the manu- script up and turned the sheets over and examined it to ascertain what it was. Q. Did he examine it a sufficient length of time, in your judgment, to enable him to tell the handwriting of the party? — A. I should think he did. Q. Did he tell you at that time that he had any suspicion as to who wrote it? — A. After that he did. Q. How long after that? — A. It was after the matter had been taken to his room bj^ Mr. Dojde a week or so, I can not remember how long. He told me, and I think he told the same to Mr. Doyle, that at first he thought the handwriting resembled that of a member of the board of examiners. After looking into it further he ascertained it was not. I think ho said he had an impression that it was Campbell's writing. Q. How long after this conversation were you apprised of the fact that it was Campbell's handwriting? — A. Not until I was informed by comparison that it was Campbell's handwriting. Q. The comparison made by Mr. Doyle? — A. Yes, sir. I bad no idea it was Campbell's handwriting until then. In my recollection it was a week or ten days, though I may be mistaken. It was several days after I laid the questions before the Commission. Q. Did you know at that time that these questions were obsolete ? — A. "Obsolete questions" is a term that I do not exactly understand. It is generally used, but it does not mean much. No questions are obsolete entirely, because the Commission can take them and use them at any time it wishes. Q. Had this particular set been what is called obsolete? — A. Not entirely. They were obsolete in the sense that they were never used again. They would not have been used again. Q. Were they used at any other time? — A. Not within my knowledge. Q. They had been used in Washington ? — A. They had been used in W^ashington, Mr. Hopkins. Mr. E wart's point is as to whether they were used in any other part of the country. They were used in Washington. Were they used in Baltimore, Buffalo, New York, Chicago, or in any other place ? — A. Not within my knowledge. I will state what was the cus- tom of the Commission. Formerly we used to have examinations fre- quently and we had no one in the Commission who had time to prepare questions for each examination, and therefore we would have to use the same questions more than once. Then we postponed examinations to once a week, and then to once a month, and finally we got so that we would have them only once every three months. Then we adopted the rule that we would never use the same questions twice at the same 3117 3 34 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. place, but questions used, for instance, in Washington might be used again in different parts of the country. It was not presumed that anybody could know where the questions would go. Q. Are you perfectly familiar with the questions that were pro- pounded to applicants? — A. I can not say that I was perfectly familiar with them. Q. The question is whether or not you were familiar with the char- acter of the questions'? — A. All questions prepared by the chief exam- iners were submitted to the Commission and the commissioners read, criticised, and changed. Q. When your attention was first called to this list of questions, I asked you if you did not recognize that they were the list of questions that had been used by the Commission. — A. I think I recognized them as new questions, as questions that had been used by the Commission lately. Q. Why did you attach importance to an investigation "' — A. I wanted to see if any person in the Commission was making copies of questions and selling them. Mr. GREENHALaE. We do not care particularly to know the frame of mind of these Commissioners. We want to get at the facts. Mr. EwART. I sincerely hope that it is not the opinion of gentlemen of the committee that we desire only to make an attack upon Mr. Thompson or Mr. Roosevelt. We want to state frankly at this stage that we desire to get at the whole facts in this matter, no matter whom it hurts. Here is a witness, Mr. Oberly, who says Mr. Edgerton, when this matter was called to his attention, distinctly stated that there was nothing in it. Here is a letter of that Commissioner in which he dis- tinctly says that those questions were stolen, and that this man Camp- bell was re-instated to his position or appointed to an important place in the Commission without any examination. Mr. Greenhalge. If you desire to contradict this witness by some other witness, would not it be well to wait until you produce the other witness ? Mr. Hopkins. That is not the point. It is an old saying that a wit- ness takes his character in his hand when he goes upon the stand. Mr. Oberly has made certain general statements, but the good faith of his testimony is one of the elements in this case. I have faith in Illinois men, for they are all good men. If Mr. Ewart desires to examine him on that point, I think he ought to have the right do so. The Witness. If Mr. Ewart understood me to say that I called the attention of Mr. Edgerton to the fact tbat Mr. Campbell had done this, he is wrong. I never did. I did not know then who it was that gave out the papers. By Mr. Ewart: Q. You regarded it as of suflBcient importance to investigate it at that time, and I want to know whether you ascertained that the ques- tions were a list of questions that had been used in an examination ? — A. I would have considered it just as important if it had been questions a year old. Q. Why so ? — A. Because, as I said before, the charge was not par- ticularly that he had copied specimen questions and given them to any person, but that he had sold them. Q, Suppose he had given them away ? — A. He had a right to give them away under certain conditions. Q. Under what conditions? — A. If a person had gone in and asked for them, he would have had a right to give them out. CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 35 Q. Then the investigation was directed to whether or not he had sold the questions ? — A. Yes, sir. I wanted to know whether he was selling them. Q. You did not consider it an ofiense to give them away ? — A. I con- sidered it an indiscretion. Q. An indiscretion merely ? — A. In one sense — if it was done with- out informing the Commission. Q. Did you hear that Mr. Lyman characterized this as a serious breach of discipline ? — A. It was a breach of discii^line in a person to copy something out of office hours ^Yithout the knowledge of the Com- mission, which he [CampbellJ had no authority to do at tbat time. Q. Did Campbell iu his conversation tell you why he had instructed or requested this lady to destroy the questions? — A. No, except that they would be of no further use. He told her either to destroy them or return them to him. The manuscript was in an undisguised hand- writing. Q. Did you ever at any time administer a reprimand to him*? — A. I talked to him. Q. The evidence was that you administered a reprimand. — A. It was called a reprimand. Q. What was the character of that reprimand "? The Chairman. Was it as severe as the one you gave the lady in the Pension Office? The Witness. I was more serious with Campbell than with the wo- man because I was sorry he had got into the trouble. I called his at- tention to the fact that such actions might lead him into something that would be worse than that. I scolded him some. Q. When you administered that reprimand you seemed to have re- garded it a little more than an indiscretion. — A. It was an indiscre- tion that amounted to a breach of discipline, of course, but that it was so serious as to demand his expulsion and dismissal from the Commis- sion, I did not believe. Q. It has been charged by a journal having special facilities for ob- taining news from the Cnramissiou that you furnished the information upon which these charges are based. — A. I understand that charge has been made by the Evening Post of New York, that I was the per- son who had been furnishing Mr. Hatton the information on which these charges are based. I wish to say I never furnished Mr. Hatton any information on which he based his broadsides or any of the edito- rials in his paper or otherwise, and I consider this as a matter against myself because I had the Campbell matter in my hands and acquitted Campbell. I did think then I was right and I now think I was right. I never furnished any information. Q. Did you ever recommend the promotion at any time of Mr. Campbell after this investigation? — A. No, sir; I did not. Q. As to the act of Mr. Lyman in appointing Mr. Campbell when he was the sole Commissioner, will you give us your views upon that matter? — A. As to the propriety of it or the legality of the act? Mr. EwART. This is a matter of strictly legal construction. We de- sire to invite the attention of the Commission and of the committee to section 1 of the act which distinctly provides that the Commission shall be composed of three members. . We take the position that Mr. Lyman's act was illegal because there was only one Commissioner. 36 CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. TESTIMOHY OF WILLIAM J. VICKEKY. William J. Vickee y, sworn and examined. By the Chairman : Q. Please state your name. — A. My name is William J. Vickery ; I reside in Evansville, Ind. Q. State as briefly as you can any personal knowledge you may have in the matter of this copying of papers in the Civil Service Commission by Mr. Campbell. — A. I have no personal knowledge of the matter at all. The only knowledge I have is hearsay of the case obtained from one or two persons, which was a garbled account of the statement Mr. Oberly has just made. Q. Was any statement made by Mr. Lyman or by either of the Com- missioners to you "l — A. To me there never has been such statement or admission made. I never conversed with either of the Commissioners or the ex- Commissioners about it. It came to me in a shape in which I was asked not to mention anything about it. It came to me in a way that was misleading in two or three particulars. Q. Were you employed by the Civil Service Commission"? — A. I was with them from July 25, 1885, until July 1, 1889. Q. You say you have no personal knowledge of this transaction ? — A. It would be hearsay all the way through. By Mr. Ewart : Q. Please state exactly what you heard about this matter. You were in the office of the Commissioners as an employe. State whether or not this report of Campbell's taking these questions created any excite- ment, and if so, what it was. — A. I was told in a conversation some time early this year, perhaps the chief examiner gave the information to me, that it had been charged that questious of the Commission were leaking out and had been furnished to Mr. Flynn. It led to the idea that some of the members of the board of examiners were under sus- picion. As 1 had read the proof sometimes of the questions, I naturally supposed that I was under suspicion. This was early in the year. Early in March I left Washington on a tour of examination and 1 did not get back until the 9th or lOth of June, Soon after getting back I asked some one, perhaps the chief examiner, whether they had found out who had given out the questious. I never knew what kind of ques- tions they were that were giv^en out, but the charge came in a general form that questions had been given out and that Mr. Flynn was coach- ing people on questions. As 1 say, I had taken an interest in it be- cause I had access to the questious before they were printed. I knew of no excitement, but one of the employes told me the story somewhat in detail, not perhaps in full detail, but somewhat .misleading and not as full as Mr. Oberly has given it here to-day. 1 will say these ques- tions were furnished in advance of their use, and the fact is I think that at the time I did not put very much belief in the story because it seemed to me improbable. It came to me under promise of secrecy. The person seemed to have obtained his facts from Mr. Oberly. Mr. Hopkins. Did the person who conveyed this information to you make the statement that these questions Avere gi-zen out and being used ? The Witness. I could not say ; the statement was made in that way. My impression was from the, chief examiner first that the examiners had given out the questions. It was found that a woman had furnished CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 37 them to Mr. Fly nil. I was not aware it was the last set of qnestions. Afterwards, the charge was that the woman referred to had obtained them from Mr, Campbell and had furnished them as a regular thing for pay. By Mr. EWART : Q. Was it regarded as an offense in the office? — A. Certainly; no member of the lioard of examiners would have given out any questions used or unused. Q. Do you know of any instance, while you were clerk in the Civil Service Commission, of any one giving out questions'? — A. While I was clerk with the Commission, the Commission used to i)ublish specimen sets oi questions. For some reason the supply of specimen questions ran short, and I know that for a long time there was great impatience because the applicants were not furnished with an idea of the kind of examination they would have to take. 1 think that afterward provision was made by which certain jjersous could see the whole sets of ques- tions down-stairs. Q. Do you recollect whether, about this time, just before this inves- tigation, Campbell showed any special interest about the time new sets of questions were to be out ? — A. After hearing the story, 1 did recall the fact that at one time this man Campbell perhaps asked me how many times we used questions, and when we would have a new set of questions out. MR. J. H. OBERLY— Recalled. By Mr. Hopkins : Q. 1 desire to ask Mr. Oberly a question or two. Were you a mem- ber of the Commission when Mr. Campbell was promoted? — A. No, sir. He was promoted once while I was a member of the Commission. Q. Was he promoted on a civil-service examination ? — A. At the time he was promoted the Civil Service Commission was not under the rules that required him to be examined. Q. Was he examined for promotion, or was he promoted without an examination as to fitness for promotion ? — A. He was promoted at t-he time, I think, without any examination. Q. Then he was promoted from one position to another without any questions being put to him to see whether he was qualified for the place? — A. Yes, sir; he was taken from one place and put into an- other. Q. The Commission itself was not then under the rules required to examine him 1 — A. Not under the rules. Mr. Hatton. Did the rules and regulations require an examination before promotion at any time when Mr. Campbell was promoted? A. 1 think the rules did require an examination. The Commission violates the rules when it makes promotions without examination. It is not a fair construction of the law and the rules. Mr. BoATNER. Do you give this opinion as an expert? The Witness. I give my views because the Commission itself has determined so. The Commission has repeatedly decided that no pro- motion can be made without an examination in any department. Mr. KoosEVBLT. You think every promotion should be accompanied by any examination in every departmenc ? The Witness. Section 7 of the law says that no promotions to the classified service shall be made and no promotions therein shall be made without examination. 38 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Mr. Lyman. I think it is due to the Commission and due to Mr. Oberly that I should read the statutes and the rules. Mr. Lyman here read section 7 of the civil service act. Mr. EwAKT. There was one question I failed to ask you in the cross- examination and it was whether or not you regarded this list of ques- tions furnished by Mr. Camj^bell to this lady as of imi)ortance and would they have improved her chances of promotion 1 A. No more than similar questions furnished to any person and any person was entitled to get similar questions. Q. Was that information given as special information or as a secret 1 — A. I do not know. Q. What conclusion did you reach about it? Certainly you reached a conclusion upon it at that time. — A. The information that was given was information given in an irregular way that might have been given in a regular way. He did not furnish anything for j^ay, and that is the reason he was not condemned and blamed. TESTIMONY OF MISS EMILY M. DABNEY. Miss Emily M. Dabney, sworn and examined. By the Chairman : Q. Please give your name, residence, and occupation. — A. Emily M. Dabney. I reside at 1015 Twentieth street, and am employed in the Department of Labor. Q. Have you personal knowledge of this matter of obtaining copies through Mr. Campbell of examination papers, and if so, will you state to the committee what that knowledge is? — A. I will. I had a mother and three sisters to take care of. I was earning only a small salary, and I naturally wished to get as much as I could. My mother is in delicate health and doctors" bills were coming in. J wished to pass an examina- tion, as I thought that would be the only way by which I could be pro- moted. I asked a friend to advise me. There was a friend of mine in the Second Auditor's Office and she advised me to undergo an ex- amination, saying that she and her daughter would help me. She had passed a good examination. She told me to get a book of reports of what the examination would be and told me to study hard. I found that I was backward in what was the hardest part of the examination, and I went to see Mr. Flynn and studied under him. 1 have a receipt here for the money I paid him for coaching me. I went to him in August, but my mother was ill and I told him I could not come regularly. I asked him if I might come later, and he said I could do so. I commenced taking lessons in November and took them twice a week. Just before the examination, which was in December, on Tuesday be- fore the examination was to come oft' I said to him, "I feel nervous about this examination." He said, " I do not think you will have any difficulty. I think you are fully prepared ; but if you are not, I have examination questions which are those to be asked." He said, "If you will promise not to say anything about it, I will give you these exami- nation questions for $25." I said, " I have no money, and do you think it is riglit for me to buy these questions ? " He said, " Other people buy them. I have these questions, and if you will pay the money for them you can have them." I said, " I have no money, but I might borrow it. Tliat is a temptation. I will think over it." He said, " I will keep the questions for you." I said, " Then I will think over it." Afterwards I CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 39 said, "Tbis thing is not square, and I will not buy these questions," and I did not. I went to the examination room of the Commission. I had to be up until 4 o'clock, and I was feeling very badly, as I say. When the question was asked if I felt badly, 1 made no reply to it, not because I did not feel well, but because I wanted to get through with it. I did not get through. I did not do some of the sums. There were five examples. lu about three weeks after, I met Mrs. Lockhart on the street and I told her I did not get through. I said to her, " Well, if I did fail, I had the consciousness of knowing that I did not buy the questions." She said, "What do you mean by that?" I said, "Professor Flynn offered me some questions concerning it, but I did not buy them." She said, " It is a fraud, and you ought to mention that you had been offered these questions." I said, " It is none of my business, and I do not wish to get mixed up with it." I saw Mr. Oberly, and he asked me if Flynn had offered me these questions. I told him he had. He said if I did not have the money and I could get these papers for $15 he would pay the money himself. I thought I would ask Professor Flynn if he would let me see the questions. I went to Professor Flynn and told him I did not get through on the examination ; and I told him I was sick. I said, " By the way, will you let me look at those questions?" He said, " Well, if I can find them, I will ; " and finally he produced the questions. I said, "Are these the ones you were going to sell me? " He said, " Yes, those are the ones." I said, " Would you mind work- ing some of the examples'? " And he did so. I then said, " Do you mind my taking these home?" He said, "No; but I would like to have you bring them back." I mpt Mrs. Lockhart and I told her about it. I said to her, " Would you be willing to take them down to Mr. Oberly ? " She said, " No ; " that she was on the examining board, and she did did not wish to be implicated in it. I then told her to tell Mr. Oberly I would be down after office hours. Mr. Oberly waited and I saw him. I said, "Mr. Oberly, before I give these questions to you I want to say to you that I do not want to have my name mentioned. I do not care to have anything to do with telling that the questions were being bought. I went at once with the questions and gave them to him, and told him I wanted them back on Thursday. I went down on Thurs- dav and he gave them back to me. He said he had copied them. I did not see Mr. Campbell. Mr. Oberly said Mr. Campbell had broken down and had confessed that he had given the question out, and Mr. Oberly said he had condoned the offense. Q. Were these arithmetical questions ? — A. They were. I know they were the questions asked me. By Mr. Hopkins : Q. You think they were the identical questions that were propounded to you ? — A. I know they were. Q. Do I understand that you learned they were in the handwriting of Mr. Campbell ? — A. I know nothing about it. I did not know who gave them to Mr. Flynn. I knew they were the same arithmetical ques- tions asked me. By the Chairman: Q. What was the date of the examination that you underwent? — A. December 3, 1887. Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr, Campbell yourself? — A. None whatever. Mr. Oberly knows I did not. I did not know he had 40 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. anything in the world to do with it. I merely knew the questions were offered to me. By Mr. BoATNEE : Q. They were oifered to you before the 3d of December, and they ware the questions asked you on the Sdof December. If you had been posted by them you could have passed the examination'? — A. I could have passed the examination on the 3d of December if I had known the answers to the questions. Q. How many days after your examination was it before you went up there ? — A. It was about three weeks afterwards. Mr. Chairman. Did you state that to Mr. Oberly? — A. I did. I went to him with the questions and told him I knew they were the questions I was asked. Mr. Andrew. Did you remember them ? — A. I did. By Mr. Hopkins : Q. What did Mr. Oberly say to you when you told him you knew they were the identical questions asked you? — A. He said, "■ I will go and show these to the other commissioners." Q. Did Mr. Oberly say anything about the impropriety of Campbell giving those questions out? — A. He did. He said it was wrong, and Campbell should not have done it. Q. Did he condemn Campbell to you ? — A. He did. Q. Did he slate in your presence at that time that the questions were in the handwriting of Camj^bell? — A. He did not, because he did not know. By Mr. Andrew : Q. What kind of an examination was that? Were there a number of questions, or was it only the arithmetical questions ? — A. It was a general variety of questions. Q, This copy which Flynn presented to you contained all the ques- tions, did it ? — A. No, sir ; only the arithmetical questions. Those were the only ones I was afraid of. Q. How many questions were there? — A. All the arithmetical ques- tions on the examination, also on his paper. Q. And none of those questions you answered? — A. I answered some of them. Mr. Lyman. Did you take the clerk or copyist examination? — A. I took the general examination. Mr. Oberly. How long was it after I returned them to you? — A. It was Thursday that you returned the papers to me. The Chairman. Could you state precisely any one of those arith- metical questions now ? — A. I could say they were the same. The Chairman. I would like to know who has possession of the ques- tions which were alleged to have been copied by Mr. Campbell, and whether they can be identified ? Mr. Boatner (to Mr. Oberly). Did I understand you to say that they were questions that had already been used? Mr. Oberly. They were questions that had already been used. Q. I understood you to state in your testimony that you found at the time that Mr. Campbell gave out the questions that they were questions that had already been used ? Mr. Oberly. Yes, sir. Q. This witness states they were questions to be used and were actu- ally used in an examination occurring thereafter. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 41 Mr. Obbrly. The witness states that Professor Flynn told her they were to be used, but she says she said she did not come iuto possession of the questions until three weeks after the examination. Mr. BoATNER. The witness says she went to Mr. Flynn to be coached; that Flynn proposed to her that if she had any doubt about passing that he would sell her the questions which would be used at the coming ex- amination ; that she declined to buy them ; that she found they were questions asked at that examination, and that if she had been able to answer them she would have passed. I understood you to say that in your investigation you discovered that these questions were obsolete ; that is to say, they had been used at a previous examination. Mr. Obeklt. My recollection is the questions had been printed only a day, and therefore they could not have been furnished to Mr. Flynn by Mr. Campbell any time before that. These identical questions had been used in an examination. My investigation showed that the ques- tions had been copied after the examination in which they had been used and had been furnished this lady, who had taken them to Mr. Flynn after that examination. Mr. BoATNER. Campbell had given them out before and not after ? The Witness. He confessed to have given them out to Mrs. Smith, who was in the Pension Office. Mr. Thompson. How many examinations did you take 1 The Witness. I took one in December, 1887, and I took one in Feb- ruary. Mr. Thompson. For promotion or entrance into the service ? The Witness. Entrance into the service. Mr. Thompson. Was it competitive or non-competitive ? The Witness. Competitive. Mr. Andrew. What became of this set of questions which the wit- ness said she received from Flynn after she got done with them"? Where are they now ? The Witness. I took them back to Mr. Flynn. I told him I would carry them back, which I did. Mr. Oberly. You gave me to understand that I was not to mention it. The Witness. I did. I did not wish my name to appear in that case, and I did not care to be mentioned in It. I had brought proof to sub- stantiate what I said. The Chairman. Are you in office now ? The Witness. I am in the Department of Labor. TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM E. MORGAN William E. Morgan sworn and examined. By the Chairman: Q. What is your name and where do you reside? — A. William E. Morgan ; I reside at 906 Fourteenth street northwest. Q. Are you in the Government emjiloy "? — A. Yes, sir. Q. In what capacity *? — A. I am a stenographer in the Bureau of the Mint, Treasury Department. Q. State to the committee what you know about this Campbell mat- ter. — A. Of my own knowledge I know nothing except w hat was told to me by Commissioner Oberly. Q. State what it was. — A. Mr. Oberly told me that information bad reached him that questions were being given out and that he had ob- tained a set of questions from Miss Dabney. That he had laid the 42 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. matter before the Commission, and that Mr. Edgerton had refused to investigate it ; that Mr. Lyman had told him it was a serious offense, and he said that Mr. Lyman said that any person in the Commission who had been guilty of such an offense should be punished. He said that Mr. Lyman was inexorable. Mr. Oberly finally found that it was Mr. Campbell who had given out the questions, and told Mr. Lyman, and that Mr. Lyman then said that his wife was in bad health, and if this thing was made public it might result seriously. Mr. Oberly said Mr. Campbell was a good clerk, and he did not think the matter amounted to much and the offense had been condoned by Mr. Ewart. Q. Were you employed by the Commission at that time? — A. I was. Q. Did the abstraction or taking of these questions cause any excite- ment? — A. It was a secret. Q. You say it was a secret? — A. We were told not to make it public. I guess it was a secret. Q. Why was there so much secrecy about it ! — A. This I could not answer ; I do not know. Q. Who told you not to say anything about it? — A. Mr. Oberly. Q. And Mr. Lyman, too ? — A. No, sir. By Mr. Ewart : Q. Could you give the reason why? — A. No, sir. An investigation was then being made. Q. Did he state that these questions were worthless ? — A. No ; he did not. Q. Did you know what the questions were? — A. I did not know, and I never saw the questions. I heard they were questions that had been taken from the files. Q. Would you have given out those questions if any one had called for them ? — A. I should not. I would have thought that I had no right to, and besides my sense of honor would not have allowed me to do so. I would say further that Mr. Oberly's statement coincides substantially with what he told me. He said on the stand about what he told me. Mr. Oberly. I told you not to say anything about it. The Witness. Yes, sir. By Mr. Ewart : Q. There was a great deal of secrecy about the transaction, was there not? — A. Oh, yes. I understood that he took the questions surrepti- tiously from the files of the Commission. Q. He did not let you know anything about it ? — A. No, sir. Q. Did any of the employes in the office know anything about it? — A. I think not. Q. Do you know how or when he took these questions ? — A. I did not see him take the questions, and therefore I can not say, but I under- stood that he took a set of questions of an eligible in the files. Mr. Doyle had supervision of the room. Campbell, I think, had the run of the room, and he could have taken out whatever he saw fit. Q. Do you know why he copied them ? — A. I do not. Mr. Boatner. Were these questions copied by Mr. Campbell before or after they had been used ? The Witness. That I do not know. Mr. Roosevelt. They must have been used. The Witness. In this way ; I understand the questions were copied from a set of papers of an eligible, and therefore the questions must have been used. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 43 The Chairman, You always speak of them as questions. Were they not questions and answers on the same paper ? The Witness. Yes, sir; the questions and answers both were copied from the same paper. Mr. Roosevelt. The answers were answers made upon an examina- tion of a man whicli bad already taken ])lace'? The Witness. Yes, sir. Mr. BoATNER. Had you seen the questions and answers, and did you see them after they were brought back ? The Witness. No, sir. Mr. Hopkins. Do you know whether they were questions, or ques- tions and answers 1 The Witness. I only know wliat I was told by Mr. Oberly, that they were questions and answers. The Chairman. This witness is simply stating what Mr. Oberly said to him, which is that these questions had been taken. Mr. Oberlt. Mr. Morgan has said that if he were guilty of that of- fense that he thought he would have been dismissed from the olfice of the Commissioner. (To Mr. Morgan) Do I understand you to say that if you had been guilty of that offense and I had investigated into the facts and the facts were similar to the offense under consideration that 1 would have insisted upon having you put out "? — A. Judging from that action in Mr. Campbell's case I do not think you would. By Mr. Lyman : Q. You had charge of the certification room? — A. Yes, sir. Q, While this list of eligibles were in your possession, did you ever show any of those papers to any people who came into the office ? — A. To no one except the eligible himself, and then it was the practice. I was allowed to do so, but to no others. Q. Did you show papers to others? — A. No, sir; except on the order of the Commission or the Secretary. Mr. Oberly. Have you, under my directions, allowed persons to see papers as to the general drift of questions'? The Witness. I think only to the eligibles themselves. Mt. Oberly. Don't you remember the practice was to allow persons to sit down in the room and to see the scope and character of the ques- tions, but that they must not take them away f The Witness. I do not recollect that, sir. TESTIMONY OF S. WALTER FLYNN. S. Walter Fly'nn sworn and examined. By the Chairman : Q. Please state your name. — A. My name is S. Walter Flynn. Q. Where do you reside "? — A. I reside at the southwest corner of Eighth and K streets northwest. Q. Do you know the handwriting of Mr. Campbell, the gentleman referred to in this investigation? — A. No, sir; I do not know that I ever saw it. Q. Did you ever offer Miss Dabney any set of questions ? — A. No, sir. Q. Therefore you did not make any representation to her about a set of questions or let her have a set of questions to be used in a future examination"? — A. No, sir. I would like to explain myself. 44 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. By Mr. Hopkins : Q. You listened to the evidence of Miss Dabiiey 1 — A. Tes, sir. Q. Did you give her a receipt for tlie money she paid you "? — A. Tes, sir. Q. Is that the receipt? — A. Yes, sir ; that is my handwriting. Q. How long did you instruct her prior to the examination *? — A. Miss Dabuej^ came to me in August, 1887. She continued lessons for one month. She discontinued for want of means to pay me further. She called upon me three or four times, and she repeatedly spoke to me of her want of means and her little pay and of her sick mother. She worked up a certain kind of sympathy in my mind for her. She would occasionally bring questions for me to work out, and I would work them out for her. I did it as a matter of charity and I thought her a worthy object of charity. About Christmas Mrs. Smith came with some questions to the insti- tute. I remember these matters very well because something occurred to impress it upon my mind. She stated she wanted them explained to her. They were questions that had been asked at a previous examina- tion. We place no importance upon the questions. I supposed from her manner that the questions had been given her by someone who had passed an examination. I explained these questions to her. Miss Dab- ney came to me for the last time about New Year's. She asked about undergoing an examination in arithmetic. I showed her these ques- tions. She immediately begged me for them. I consented to give her a copy of them and I did not consent to give her the original. I said to her, "It would be a great indiscretion for me to give out those papers in an unknown handwriting." At that time Miss Dabney left immedi- ately. The matter went out of my mind. But in three or four days after this I remembered I had promised to copy these questions for her. When Miss Dabney failed to return immediately I suspected she had taken the original copy when I saw her name in connection with it. This matter has been explained, but the lady that got the questions from me was represented to me as a clerk in the Treasury Department. The newspaper rej^orts did not verify my suspicions. I never saw Miss Dabney until last spring, when she applied to me. This is all I know about it. Q. You are in the habit of coaching people for civil-service examina- tions; that is your business? — A. Yes, sir; that is part of my occupa- tion. Q. What was wrong in your giving Miss Dabney the original ques- tions ? — A. I placed no value on them. Q. Why did you decline to let her have the original? — A. I think any business man would decline to give out those papers, not knowing in whose handwriting they were. Q. What was there about the unknown handwriting? — A. Nothing at all. It was to me an unknown handwriting. Q. Was there anything that led you to believe that it would give you or anybody any trouble if Miss Dabney took the original papers ? — A. No. Q. Why did you object ? — A. On the ground of ordinary discretion. If you asked for a paper and I did not know the handwriting I would not give it to you. Q. That is a practice of yours ? — A. I never had any experience of the kind before. Q. How many days after Miss Dabney left did you discover the origi- nal questions were gone? — A. Three or four days, or two, may be. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 45 Q. Did you go to Miss Dabney and ask lier if she bad taken them 1 — A. No, sir; I placed no particular value upon them. I never supposed she was going to make use of them. Q. You say you discovered somebody had taken them and you in- ferred she was the one ? — A. Not necessarily, I suspected her because she was the last person I had shown them to. Q. Did you follow them ? — A. No, sir. Q. Where did you say you got those questions "? — A. From a lady by the name of Mrs. Smith. Q. Where did she get them 1 — A. I supposed she got them from some one who had passed an examination. Q. You did not know where they came from ? — A. No, sir. By Mr. Boatner : Q. You heard Miss Dabney's testimony ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. She stated that you offered to sell these questions for |15 or for $25 "^ — A. That is not true. I considered Miss Dabney too poor to pay for them. I never offered to take one cent for them. That is the whole matter. Q. Was that after she failed to pass *? — A. I suppose so. She said she had taken the examination on December 3, and this was later than that. By Mr. Hopkins : Q. How much later ? — A. I could not say. Q. You did agree with Miss Dabney to coach her? — A. Yes, sir. Q. You agreed with her that if she was poor and unable to pay for her instructions that you would wait upon her? — A. Yes, sir. Q. You also agreed in December that if she took an examination and failed you would give her these questions 1 — A. No, sir ; I did not know anything about it. By Mr. Lind : Q. 1 believe you stated that you considered the questions of no value? — A. Yes, sir. Q. You have also stated that you gave them to Miss Dabney as a matter of charity ? — A. I told her they were questions that had been asked at an examination, hence they were more or less important to her in so far as the questions would be of the same general kind. Q. I understand you to say she came and asked you to work out some examples for her? — A. Yes, sir. Mr. Hopkins. When did she come and ask you to work out ex- amples ? The Witness. Her month expired in September. After that several times she came to see me, and came to take instructions again about New Year's. She took the examination in December. By Mr. Bwart : Q. Did you ever see those questions again ? — A. No, sir. It is false that Miss Dabney brought back those questions. Q. Were your sympathies at work when you charged this lady $8 for instructions ? — A. No, sir; not at that time. Mr. Thompson. Did I understand you to say that you left the room, and that Miss Dabney had left when you came back and the questions were missing? — A. I left the room, and immediately upon m.y return Miss Dabney left, and afterwards I found the questions were missing. Q. Have you seen the questions from that time to this ? — A. Never. 46 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. By Mr. Hopkins : Q. Did you make any investigation about it ? — A. No, sir ; such would not be my practice. Q. Did you ever speak to anybody about your suspicions of Miss Dabney? — A. I did not suppose this investigation referred to Miss Dabney until I saw her name in the Star. The lady was spoken of as a clerk in the Treasury Department, and I supposed Miss Dabney to be a clerk in the War Department. By Mr. Lind : Q. Did you ever have a sign in the windows of your institute, or about the door, stating that civil service questions were accessible there ? — A. I never had such a sign on my house. Q. Did you ever have anything of that tenor ? — A. 1:^0, sir. By Mr. Hopkins : Q. Did you advertise in any manner to the public, or those who were seeking civil service examinations, that they could get questions from you ? — A. I have a standing advertisement in the paper. I suppose you have seen that advertisement. By Mr. Eoosevelt: Q. What is the wording of it ? — A. " Civil service questions. Send 10 cents. S. Walter Flynn, Ivy Institute," etc. Q. Did that advertisement say that you furnished special questions that were to be used in future 1—A. No, sir. Q. Those questions were such as were printed every year in our an- nual report ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. You have a little pamphlet of questions and answers? — A. Yes, sir. Mr. BoATNER (to Mr. Oberly). Please state whether or not the ex- amination papers which were brought to you were questions which were to be asked or had been asked and answered. Mr. Oberly. My conclusion and investigation was that they were questions that had been used in a preceding examination, and the exam- ination had been given by a certain candidate who had passed. Eecess until half past 2 o'clock. At the expiration of the recess the committee resumed its session. Mr. Eoosevelt. I should like to make a statement in the nature of a question of privilege, and it is more to avoid a misapprehension of the remarks of Mr. Oberly, which you will recollect, Mr. Chairman, in reference to promotions being illegal than anything else. As I under- stood Mr. Oberly, and I invite correction if I make any misstatement of what Mr. Oberly said, it was that the law required examinations in all cases of promotion. Am I stating it accurately 1 If not, correct me at once. As a matter of fact it was not a charge against the present Com- mission by Mr. Oberly, as I understand, because what he referred to has been the practice steadily from 1883, when the Commission was first organized, to thepresenttime, the practice under all the preceding Com- missions, with the full knowledge and approval of Presidents Arthur, Cleveland, and Harrison. The present Commission construei. the law as the preceding Commissions construed it, with the knowledge and assent of Presidents Arthur, Cleveland, and Harrison. And the law was so construed by the Commission of which Mr. Oberly was a mem- ber and acted upon by that Commission without, so far as we know, any formal protest or anything but acquiescence on Mr. Oberly's part. CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 47 It is a questiou of the construction of tlie law which Mr. Oberly now says has been misconstrued by all the preceding Commissioners, Includ- ing himself, and by the Presidents. But it is something thac reflects in no manner on the present Commissions, for we have simply con- strued the law and followed the precedents of all preceding Commis- sions under preceding administrations. In the present force of the Civil Service Commission we follow ex- actly the course pursued in the other Departments of the Government like the Navy, the Interior, the Post-Office, etc. — we follow the same course in promotion in all these with the exception of the War Depart- ment. TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER C. CAMPBELL. Alexander C. Campbell sworn and examined. By the Chairman : Q. What is your fall name?— A. Alexander C. Campbell. Q. Are you now employed by the United States Government ? — A. Yes, sir, Q. In what capacity ■? — A. As a clerk of the Civil Service Commis- sion. Q. How long have you been an empIoy6 of the United States Gov- ernment ? — A. I first entered the Agricultural Department. I think it was in the year 1883. I remained there until the spring of 1885. Then I was detailed from the Agricultural Department to the Civil Service Commission. I think it was in January or February, along in the spring. The same year, in July, 1885, I was appointed as laborer in the Civil Service Commission. Q. Were you promoted after that time"? — A. I was on the roll as laborer until — I could not tell you the date. A year or more after that I was promoted from laborer to a position of $900. Q. What was that position! — A. The same position that I have always held in the office. Q. Messenger? — A. No, sir; clerk. I was first appointed as laborer and assigned to clerical work. I did the same work when I was ap- pointed as laborer as I am now doing as clerk. Q. Although you are receiving a higher salary ? — A. Yes, sir. I was ajjpointed from laborer to a position at $900, but I can not tell you the date, and from that I was appointed to a $1,000, and on the 2d of April last I was promoted to a position of $1,200, which I now hold. - Q. It has been charged here before this committee that you at one time abstracted papers from the files of the office, copied the papers, examination papers, together with the answers, and gave them to a third party, to be used in preparing for an examination ? — A. No, sir. Q. You know what the nature of this investigation is ; you know what you have been charged with. Will you give the committee a full account of what transpired ; what you did in relation to these examination pa- pers that have been spoken of here ? The Witness. Is it necessary for me to state what my duties have been heretofore f The Chairman. You can state that, but that is not the question. The question is " Did you ever copy any papers ? " — A. Yes, sir ; I did copy a set of j^apers, but Q. What purpose had you in copying them ? — A. I copied them for my own use ; that is, I copied them simply because I wanted a copy. 48 CIVIL SEEYICE INVESTIGATION. Q. What did you want the copy for? — A. I did not copy them for aijy particular purpose at the time. Q. What reason had you in copying them ? — A. I had no particular reason at first for copying them. I admit that I did make a copy of the questions with the answers. Q. Do you know what year and what month that was in 1 — A. I am not sure whether it was in December, 1887, or January, 1888. But I am confident, and I will state under oath, that the papers I did copy were papers which had been used in the previous examination and that 1 thought at the time that they would be of no use to anj^body. In fact, I told the i)arty to whom I gave them at the time that they would be of no use to them, and they simply wanted them in order that they might see what the questions were. Q. What is the name of the party f — A. Mrs. Smith. Q. When did she ask you for a copy of those papers'? — A. I can not tell you the date. Q. Before you copied them ? — A. No, sir ; it was afterwards, but I can not tell you the date. It has always been by instructions Mr. LiND. We are not talking about instructions. By the Chairman: Q. The committee wants to know why you took the trouble of copy- ing these papers, and for what purpose they were delivered to a third party. Who was this party who asked you for these pa])ers 1 — A. The party who asked me for the papers was Mrs. Smith. She is the only one who got the papers. Q. Did she ask you for them for the purpose of aiding her in an ex- amination to be had thereafter ? — A. ISTo, because I told her at the time that the papers would be of no use to her in any future examination. She so understood it ; that the papers had already been used and would not be used again, and she so uuderstood it when I gave her tlie papers. Q. When was the examination made on the part of Mr. Oberly and Mr. Lyman concerning your conduct in copying these papers ? — A. I can not tell you the date of that. Q. Did you give them a full statement of the facts ? — A. I did. Q. When you made a copy of these papers you had no particular ob- ject in view ? — A. Not when I made the copy. Q. Did you ever make any copies of any other papers, except these ? — A. No, sir. Q. The questions and answers were copied ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember whose examination ijapers they were? — A. I do not. Q. How did you happen to tell Mrs. Smith that the papers would be of no particular use to her 1 — A. I knew they were old papers and would not be of any use. Q. She expected they would ? — A. No, sir. She understood when I gave her the papers that they would be of no use to her in any future examination. All that she wanted was to get at the nature of the questions. By Mr. BoATNER : Q. She wanted to get the general scope of the examination 1 — A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Ewakt : Q. What did you copy this set of questions from ? — A. I copied them from an old set of examination papers. CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 49 Q. In what office ? — A. Well, in the secretary's office, in the certifica- tion room, adjoining. I got the papers from the certification room. Q. Where did you find them 1 — A. I found them lying with other papers in the room. Q. Who was in charge of those papers ? — A. I do not know that there was anybody particularly in charge. Mr. Morgan was certification clerk. Q. Did you ask him to be allowed to copy them 1 — A. I do not think he was there. Q. Was any one there ? — A. No, sir. Q. Was there any one there at all when you copied these pajiers ? — A. I would not say whether there was or not. Q. Let me refresh your recollection about that. What time of the day did you go into the room to get the papers ? — A. Late in the after- noon. Q. After office hours *? — A. We had no office hours at that time. Q. After 4 o'clock ? — A. It might have been 4 o'clock, but we seldom got away before 5 or 6 o'clock. Q. After 5 o'clock ? — A. I can not tell you. Q. Now, can not you give the committee some recollection about the hour? — A. I will say that I do not think I made a full copy at the same time. I think it was on two different occasions that I made the copy. Q. From a printed list 1 — A. From the set of apj)lication papers that were lying in the certification room. Q. Printed ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. How many copies did you find in the room ? — A. I can not tell you. Q. A dozen copies ? — A. I do not know. There might have been a dozen or there might have been fifty. Q. How was it tliat you did not get a copy of these printed questions and give it to this lady? What was your object in copying them? Why was it when you found that number of x>i'i»ted copies that you went to the trouble of copying them ? — A. As I have alreadj^ said, I copied those long before Mrs. Smith made any request for them. Q. How long f — A. I can not tell. Q. A month before"? — A. I can not tell you. Q. Two weeks before ? — A. I will not say whether it was two weeks or not. Q. Can you not give the committee some idea? — A. I will simply say that I copied these papers before Mrs. Smith made the request. Q. What object did you have in copying those papers when it was no trouble to secure a printed copy ? — A. I could not have obtained a printed copy. Q. What object did you have in copying them ? — A. I copied them just simply for my own satisfaction. Q. How did you propose to be satisfied by copying them ? What ob- ject did you have, Mr. Campbell? — A. I had simply the object of copy- ing them. The Chairman. He has already stated that he had no object in view when he copied them. By Mr. Ewaet : Q. Is it your habit, Mr. Campbell, to copy questions in that way just as mere pastime? — A. No, sir j I do not have time. Q. How did you have time in this particular instance ? — A. I can only say this, that I had leisure time and made the copy. 3117 4 50 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. Where did you make the copy?— A. At the office. Q. It is impossible to give to the committee any idea as to the day *? — A. Yes, sir. Q. The copy was made one evening, and there was no one in the room"? — A. I would not say there was no one in the office. The secre- tary may have been there, and there might have been some one in the other room. Q. At the time you took the copy of these questions you say you had no object in doing so. Did you inform any one that you intended to make a copy?— A. No one. Q. Why did you keep it a secret 1 — A. I did not think I needed to tell any one about it. As I was giving out instructions to applicants, giving out information to aj^plicants, I did not think I needed to tell any one. Q. You made the copy of these questions three or four weeks before Mrs. Smith asked you for them ? — A. I will not say as to the time. Q. At the time yon made a copy of those papers they were not being used in the examination-room? — A. No, sir. Q. You swear to that positively ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you occupy a position in the Civil Service Commission that enabled you to know what questions were being used? — A. No, sir; I will state here that during the whole time I have been in the Commission. I have never yet seen a set of questions that have not been used in some examination. 1 have had no way and no desire to see any questions. Q. How was it that you had a desire to copy these questions? — A. As I have already stated, I copied them for my own satisfaction ; that was all. Q. Who first apprised you of the fact that there were some harsh comments being made as to the abstraction of these papers ? — A. Mr. Lyman. Q. In what way was your attention called to the matter? — A. He called me into his room one evening late after Q. Can you fix the date ? — A. No, sir ; I can not tell you. He pro- duced the papers and handed them to me and asked me if I had ever seen them. I looked at them and told him I had. He then said he wanted me to make a full statement of the facts ; how I came to give out the papers. I made a full statement to him and we had quite a lengthy conversation. Then he started for home, and that was the only interview that I had with him before seeing Mr. Oberly. Q. Please let the Commission have that statement, The Witness. I do not quite understand you. Mr. EwAET. State the conversation that occurred between yourself and Mr. Lyman when your attention was called to the fact that these papers had been abstracted and Mr. Lyman wanted an explanation. — A. Mr. Lyman handed me the papers and asked me if I had ever seen the papers before. Q. You have been over that. Statue the rest of the conversation. — A. He then said — I can not remember the exact words — but he said in substance that it was a serious matter and that it should be investi- gated. Q. "A serious matter and that it should be investigated " ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What was your reply to that ? — A. My reply was that I made a copy of these papers and that I had given them to — giving the party's name — and that I supposed that the papers were destroyed. Q. Did you instruct this Mrs. Smith to destroy these p.g,pers ?— rA. She told me she would. CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 51 Q. Did you request her to"? — A. I did. Q. Why ?■— A. Because I did not want the questions to go any farther than they had. Q. Whj'^ 1 — A. I can not give any reason for that. Q. You had some object in telling her to destroy them I — A. Because I did not think that they would be of any use to anybody at all, and I did not want to have them spread out in my handwriting. No doubt the same questions had been published in one of the reports. Q. Did Mr. Lyman appear to be agitated when he called your atten- tion to this matter ? — A. He seemed to feel it very much. Q. He was very much disturbed about ib 1 — A. Yes. sir. Q. Very indignant ? — A. He felt very much hurt about it. Q. Do you not know that Mr. Lyman used some pretty strong lan- guage on that occasion ? — A. I can not tell you what language he used. Q. I ask you if he did not use some very severe language to you on that occasion ? — A. I do not know but what it might be considered strong language by some. Q. Did he not reproach you bitterly for taking the papers from the files and copying them? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you tell him then that you had no object whatever in copying those papers ? — A. I think I told him this Q. I ask this question : Did you tell him then that you had no object in copying the questions ? — A. I do not think I told him By Mr. LiND : Q. What did you tell him 1 — A. I think I told him this, that in copy- ing the questions and giving them to the person I did it with no wrong intention at all. By Mr. Ewart : Q. Did you tell Mr. Lyman at the time when he was using this re- proachful language to you that you had no object in copying the ques- tion, except merely to satisfy your curiosity, or to satisfy yourself? — A. I do not know whether I did or not. Q. You must recollect what you told him ? — A. Well, I do not. Q. You did not feel very comfortable that day yourself"? — A. No, sir; and I have not since. Q. You felt agitated ?— A. Yes, sir ; I felt agitated, because I did not know what the result would be. At the same time I did not feel that I had violated the law at all. I had no such intention, and I did not feel that I had committed any violation of the law. Q. Was your attention ever called to these sections of the civil-serv- ice law, which forbid any employe in the service to give out any special, general, or secret information to any person who would probably be an applicant for examination ? — A. Never. Q. At the time you abstracted these questions and gave them to this lady in the Pension Office, you did not think you were violating any law at all ? — A. No, sir. Q. Nor any rule of the Commission ? — A. No, sir. Q. Mr. Campbell, I will ask you this question, going back to the de- struction of these questions: Did I understand you to give any reason why you requested this lady to destroy these questions ? — A. 1 will state, that I did not want the questions to go any further, because they were in my handwriting. I did not know what might come out of them. The questions were given to her confidentially, and she was to destroy them. 62 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. Why did you give them to her confidentially ? — A. Because she asked for them. I gave them to ner with the distinct understanding, as I have already said, that the questions would be of no use to any- body at all in any future examination. After she had looked them over and got through with them she was to destroy them. Q. Do you recollect giving a set of questions to any one else? The Witness. A copy ? * Mr. EwART. Yes, sir. The Witness. No, sir. By Mr. EwART: Q. At any time? — A. No, sir. By the Chairman : Q. Either the original or a copy "^ — A. No, sir, no further than this. I will state that I have been always instructed to give an applicant as much information as I could concerning the examination. When we have had reports that contained specimen questions, I have given them to applicants, such as a set of questions in arithmetic, dictation, or any particular subject that they thought they might fail on. I would mark the specimen questions in blue pencil and turn down the leaf. By Mr. EwAET : Q. Did you ever furnish any copy of questions ? — A. No, sir ; never in my life. Q. Did you hear Mr. Oberly's evidence? — A. I did. Q. Were you reprimanded by Mr. Oberly ? — A. I was. Q. Can you give the committee about the substance of that repri- mand ? — A. No, sir ; not any more than about Mr. Lyman. He told me that he had made a thorough investigation of the case, and he did not think that 1 had committed any wrong. Q. And hence did not reprimand you? — A. He did reprimand me. Q. He told you he did not think you had done any wrong, and then proceeded to reprimand you ? — A. No, sir; I will not say that. He told me that he did not think I had done any wrong at all, only he thought that I ought to have consulted him or the Commission before I gave out the questions, or something to that effect. Q. What did he rebuke you for? — A. lean not recollect what his reprimand was any more than that he called me into his offi.ce, and I was there quite a while. Q. He told you that he did not consider that you had been guilty of any serious offense ? — A. He did not think that I had been guilty of anything that would cause my dismissal. Q. When Mr. Oberly had this talk with you did he show any indica- tion of being indignant? — A. I do not know. Q. At any rate you did not feel very much reimmanded ? — A. Yes, sir ; I felt a good deal reprimanded. Q. Did Mr. Oberly seem to be at all indignant in any way? Did he exhibit any indignation in admonishing this good-natured reprimand to you? — A. I think after he made the ftill investigation he was con- vinced that there was nothing iu it. Q. Did he not regard it as a serious breach of discipline? Mr. LiND. It strikes me that that is rather immaterial. Mr. BoATNER. I would like to have the resolution under which we are proceeding read. The testimony of this witness has been a reca- pitulation of conceded and admitted facts, and this examination can have no object except to humiliate the witness, and I do not think that this committee ought to lend itself to anything of that sort. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 53 The Chairman. I think this witness has been charged with taking papers illegally and copying them, and giving the copies to outside par- ties, and the question directly before this committee is whether he did an illegal act, and whether the Commissioners were justified in condon- ing that act; and I think the examination in that regard is perfectly proper, so as to show fully the character of the witness. I think that ought to be gone into very thoroughly. By Mr. Stone : Q. 1 wish to ask one or two questions which may not be entirely ap- propriate on this branch of the inquiry, but while the witness is here I will ask him. I understand you to say that you had been employed in the Agricultural Department before going to the Commission? — A. Yes, sir. Q, In what capacity were you employed ? — A. I was in the seed di- vision. Q. You were transferred as a laborer to the Civil Service Commis- sion"? — A. While in the Agricultural Department, before the Commis- sion had any funds to appoint anybody as a laborer, I was detailed from the Agricultural Department to the Commission. Q. As a laborer? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And you were put to work at a desk at clerical work ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. At a salary of $060 ?— A. Yes, sir. Q. How long did .you continue in that capacity? — A. I continued in that capacity for about a year ; I should think it was about a year. Q. Then you were promoted under the rules then in force to aperma- ment clerkship ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. At 1900 ?— A. Yes, sir. Q. You continued then under the $900 salary at the same desk and in the performance of exactly the same duties you had been discharging at the $660 salary ?— A. Yes, sir. Q. You have since been promoted to a $1,200 place ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you still occupy the same desk ? — A. Yes, sir; and do the same work I did when 1 originally entered the Commission. I have always been in the room of the secretary. Q. What is the general character of yocr employment; the work you are required to do ? — A. My work is giving out application papers and the rej^orts. I give applicants such information as I have time to give them as regards specimen questions, which are printed in our re- ports. Q. Let me go back a moment. When you were promoted from the $660 place to the $900 place, did some other person take your place ? — A. No, sir. Q. When you were promoted to the $1,200 position, did some other person take the $900 place? — A. No, sir ; I am doing the same work now that I did when I first entered the service, in 1885. It is merely an increase of salary and an increase of work. Q. Do I understand that there was a $900 clerkship provided for in that bureau ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And you filled that place? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Has that clerkship been abolished ? — A. No, .sir ; it has been filled by promotion. Q. Well, then, it was filled when you passed beyond it? — A. When I was appointed to the $1,000 position somebody else, I forget who, got the $900 place. 54 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. Now your duties as a clerk require you, among other things, to furnish applicants for examination with such information as the board authorizes you to give out? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What is that information, and in what form does the board per- mit it to go out ? — A. In the report there are printed specimen ques- tions of all examinations held by the Commission. Q. The annual reports of the Commission ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. The information you furnished then, or were authorized to fur- nish, was simply to deliver a copy of the report to applicants ? — A. Well, if an applicant should come in, if anybody in town, for instance, should come into the office and make a request for a set of application papers and a report and ask me to give him information concerning the examination, I would turn to the report, and, as I have already stated, mark the questions and give him such information as I had time to give about what the examination would be, and also furnish him the necessary papers. Q. The papers containing an examination already passed by some applicant were put on file and are constantly kept on file in the rooms of the Commission'? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Who has charge of those papers'? — A. The certification clerk has charge of those papers ; they are not in the room I am in. Q. You are not, then, in the room where those papers are kept; you are nob employed there'? — A. No, sir. Q. Have you any official connection with that room"? — A. Yes, sir; I very often have to go in there, if a person comes in and wishes to look at his papers. Q. Does the character of your employment authorize you to examine those papers to which I have just referred — the examination papers? — A. No, sir. Q. Was it a breach of the rules of the Commission for you, on your own motion, to go and examine any of those papers? — A. No, sir; I did not consider that it was. Q. Did you consider it within the range of your authority to look at those papers whenever you pleased ? — A. I did. Q. You state it as a fact that you did have that authority ? — A. I had that authority as much as any clerk. Q. Well, the certification clerk had charge of them. — A. I know he has charge of them, but if a i^erson should come into our room — the sec- retary's room — and wish to look at his papers, I have always had author- ity to go and get the papers for him, take them from the files, instead of asking the certification clerk to do it. Q. t)o I understand you to say that if any person who has passed an examinatiou, who has been examined, and whose papers are on file in the room of this certification clerk, comes to you and desires to examine those papers personally, that you have authority to go and get them and let him look at them — A. I think I have, but I should not take that authority on myself; I should first ask the certification clerk for the papers, and nine times out of ten he would tell me to go and get them. Q. When you got the papers of which you made a copy, did you do it secretly ? — A. No, sir. Q. Did you go into the room and abstract them from the files when no one else was present ? — A. No, sir. Q. Then who else was present ? — A. I could not tell you who was present. Q. When you took them from the files what did you do with them ■? — A. I took them to my desk and made the copy. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 65 Q. But- 1 understood you to say that you did not make the whole copy in one day ^ — A. No, sir. Q. You took them from the files and copied some of it ?— A. Yes, sir. Q. And then you got them again on some other day and finished them? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And put them back f — A. Yes, sir. Q. ISo-w how long was it between the first time you got them and when you got them again '? — A. The next day or the day after that. Q. The next day or the day afterwards you returned to the certifica- tion room and got those papers again ?— A. I would not swear that I had the same papers. Q. Well, the same class of papers ? — A. Ves, sir. Q. What did you do with them ?— A. I kept them in my possession until! gave them to my friend. Q. The original papers did you take them to the desk and complete the copy ? — A. The copy was all made at my desk. Q. Did you take the original papers from the house in which the Commission hold their sessions ?— A. No, sir ; 1 never took them from the building. Q. After you made this copy, what did you do with it ?— A. The copy I retained. Q. Where did you keep it ?— A. I kept it in my desk. Q. Did you examine it 1 — A. No, sir. Q. Were you expecting to take an examination yourself? — A. No, sir. Q. Were you expecting, at the time you made the copy, to permit any person to examine it ? — A. No, sir. Q. I understand, then, that you had absolutely no motive in making the copy *? — A. No, sir. Q. Who was this lady to whom you gave these papers ? — A. A clerk in the Pension Office. Q. By the name of Mrs. Smith ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you acquainted with her at the time you made this copy ? — A. Yes, sir ; I had known her for a long time. Q. Intimately ? — A. She was a friend of mine, and I was a friend of hers ; there was no great intimacy that I know of. Q. Were you connected with her in any way *? — A. No, sir. Q. She had never spoken to you up to this time about procuring her a copy of these papers 1 — A. No, sir ; I do not think she had. Q. Had she been consulting you up to this time touching an antici- pated examination ? — A. When she first took the examination and Avent into the service she came to me and I gave her a set of blanks and the report which contained the specimen questions. She took what is called the limited examination. I marked the questions and turned down the leaf, and gave her the necessary papers. Q. How long was that before she was expecting to take an examina- tion for promotion ? — A. I do not know. Q. Had she said anything of that sort to you? — A. I do not remem- ber that she had. Q. About the time you made this copy ? — A. No, sir. Q. Had she been discussing the question of her promotion with you before that time ? — A. No, sir. Q. But you remember the fact that she desired or expected a promo- tion. — A. I knew that she would probably expect to take an examina- tion for promotion whenever her time expired so that she could. 56 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. How long after you made the copy was it before you had any con- versation with her about it ? — A. 1 could not tell you. Q. How long"? — A. I could not tell you. Q. A long time or a short time "? — A. I should think it was some time. Q. In the mean time this copy was lying in your desk. How long did it lie in your desk "? — A. 1 could not tell you how long the papers laid in ray desk. Q. How did Mrs. Smith find out that you had this copy at all ?~A. I think I told her I had a copy. Q. How did you happen to tell her f — A. I could not tell you how I happened to tell her, any more than that we had a conversation and she said she wanted to see a set of questions. I told her, if I remember rightly, that I had a copy of the questions which I had copied from an old set, but that they would be of no use to her or anybody else ; that they had already been used and would not be used again. Q. Right in that connection, unless there is something more you wish to say The Witness. No, sir. Q. Do you know how long before the date of your making the copy the questions had been usedf — A. No, sir; I do not. Q. Do you know whether they had been recently used ? — A. I could not tell anything about the time. I only know that they were questions which had been used, and I knew, at least I had every reason to think, that they never would be used again. I told Mrs. Smith so when I gave them to her. By Mr. Lind : Q. At that time those seeking promotions in the Department were required to pass a written examination ? — A. Tes, sir. Q. I believe you stated awhile ago that you knew nothing about the questions prior to the time they were printed "? — A. No, sir. Q. You knew nothing about the formiilatiou of questions'? — A. I have never- seen a set of questions Q. You knew nothing about the formulation of questions *? — A. No, sir. Q. Did you know anything about the regulations as to how questions were to be used ? — A. No, sir. Q. Did you at that time know that questions used in a general exami- nation might be used in a promotion examination 1 — A. No, sir ; I did not. Q. What did you think about it ? — A. I had no knowledge about it at all. Q. I did not ask you for any knowledge. What did you think about it ? — A. I did not think they would, from the fact that I had been told that the questions once used were not to be used again. Q. I thought you said a moment ago that you knew nothing about the regulations in regard to questions ? — A. I knew nothing further tkan what I say now. Q. You had been told that they would never be used again ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Never again for a promotion examination ? — A. No, sir. Q. Were these questions of such a character that you could have made the answers yourself? — A. Yes, sir; I think I could. Q. Without any coaching or assistance at all '? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you ever passed a written examination since you have been in the service ? — A. Yes, sir. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 57 Q. When? — A. I took an exaniinatiou iu 1883, I think it was, while I was in the Agricultural Department. Q. I had reference to the Civil Service Commission. — A. No, sir; but I was on the eligible list when I was appointed in the Civil Service Commission. Q. Since then you have never taken a written examination ? — A. No, sir. Q. Do you remember whether the answers in these papers and ques- tions that you selected for copying were graded high or not "^ — A. No, sir; I do not remember anything about it. By the Chairman : Q. You never looked as to that point? — A. No, sir. By Mr. Lind : Q. You did it simply mechanically ? — A. That is all. I took the first set of questions that 1 came to. I could not tell whether the grade was high or low. By Mr. Andrew : Q. When you copied that set of questions what was in your mind ? — A.. When 1 made the copy of them I made it after the business of the office was over. At that time I had to remain there to do the copying of the letters, and very frequently I would not get out until 5 or 6 o'clock. When the business of the office would be closed the Commis- sion would be in session and I would have to wait for the letters. As I have already stated, 1 had no particular object in copying them. By the Chairman : ., Q. Did you have access to the room where those papers were kept after 5 or 6 o'clock ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And you returned the same night ? — A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Lind : Q. I believe you said that you cautioned this Mrs. Smith to destroy the questions ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, if you were so careful about your handwriting why did you not ask their return 1 — A. Because I had confidence enough in her to believe that she would do as I requested. Q. Why have them destroyed instead of having them returned ? — A. I did not want them. " Why I requested that they should be destroyed," because I did not want that anybody else should see them but her. By Mr. Andrew : Q. Do you want the committee to understand that you copied that set of questions because you had nothing else to do — merely as a pas- time? — A. Yes, sir. By the Chairman : Q. Is it for this reason, that they might be taken advantage of here- after, that you wanted them destroyed °? — A. Yes, sir. Q. In what way ! — A. They would have been of no use to anybody. Q. Were you afraid that anybody might get hold of them ? — A. The papers being in my own handwriting, I did not want anybody else to see them. Mr. Oberly. Do you mean to say that you made to Mr. Lyman and myself the statement, in substance, which you have just made to this committee ? The Witness. No, sir. 58 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. By the Chairman: Q. In what way do your statements differ? — A. I have not thought that I was making the same statement. I am simply stating the fact to you about how I came to copy the papers. Q. Were you not called upon to make the same statement to Mr. Ly- man and Mr. Oberly ? You were examined by Mr. Oberly and Mr. Ly- man ; were you not called upon to tell the truth and the whole facts in the case ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. You say now that your statements differ ; in what way do they dif- fer ? — A. I do not know in what way they differ. Mr. Oberly. You stated to this committee that you made a copy of the questions before you were requested to do so by Mrs. Smith. Did you state that to Mr. Lyman and myself, that Mrs. Smith asked you for a copy of those questions after you had made them and that you did not know at the time you made the questions that they were for Mrs. Smith ? The Witness. I do not know as I said that. Mr. Oberly. Did you not tell me that you made them for Mrs. Smith at her request ? The Witness. I will state this, that Mrs. Smith had asked me pre- vious to that if I could not get her a set of questions. Mr. Oberly. As a specimen of the questions to be used in the ex- amination that she might take for promotion. The Witness. I told her that I could only get her a set of the ques- tions which had previously been used and which would be of no use to her. Mr. Oberly. You mean no use to her in the sense that those identi- cal questions would not be used in any examination that she might take for promotion 1 The Witness. Yes, sir. By the Chairman : Q. If what you stated at the time to Mr. Lyman and Mr. Oberly is true, how did you come to make this statement before the committee, that you made a copy of these papers before anybody ever asked you to make a copy °? You certainly made that statement, did you not ? — A. If I did I did not understand the question. Q. You have been examined here. You have made the statement here repeatedly. You make a positive statement that you made the copy, and that at the time you did not make it for any particular object; you had not been asked by anybody to do so. You made that statement here, as the evidence will show. You say now you did not understand the questions. — A. Yes; I did not understand them in the light you put them now. Mr. Lyman. I would like to ask if you did not say to me, when I questioned you about this matter, that Mrs. Smith had asked you for the questions, had asked you for any information or questions that would give her an idea of the character of the examination, and that you had taken these questions to her? The Witness. Yes, sir ; I think I did. Mr. Lyman. In your statement to me it may have been my fault in not questioning you on that point. In your statement to me at that time you stated that you copied these questions for Mrs. Smith, leav- ing the impression on my mind that you copied them after she had asked you for them. You have stated to the committee that you made the copy before Mrs. Smith asked you for them. The Witness. When Mrs. Smith asked me for the questions I think I had the copy then. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 59 By the Chaieman : Q. Are you positive? — A. I thiuk I am. I tbink I told Mr. Oberly and Mr. Lyman both that Mrs. Smith asked me for the questions. Q. I understood you to say just now that j'ou told ex-Commissioner Oberly at the time that the way you came to make a copy of these pa- pers was that Mrs. Smith asked you for a copy of the papers. — A. Mrs. Smith asked me for a copy of the questions that she might see the nature of the examination. Q. The whole point is this, Mr. Campbell, we do not want to get you to make any misstatements here before this committee. We take it for granted that you intend to tell the truth The Witness. 1 do. Q. To give the facts just as they are, but you certainly have made two statements before this committee within a half an hour. You have stated to this committee that you took those papers and copied them without having any object in view. Mr. Andrew. For a pastime. The Chairman. He did not use that word. Mr. Andrew. I put a question to him that wav, and he answered " yes." The Chairman. Then you stated in reply to a question put by Mr. Oberly that at the time the investigation was going on before the Com- mission you told both him and Mr. Lyman that the way you happened to copy these questions was because you were asked for the questions by Mrs. Smith. We want to reconcile those two statements if we can before you get off the stand. Have you any explanation to make*? Mr. Oberly. Did you not state to me that you made this copy of the questions and gave them to her and that you did it in accordance with her request 1 The Witness. I will not deny it. Mr. Oberly. She did not ask you for these identical questions ? The Witness. No, sir. Mr. Oberly. She did ask you for such questions as she would have to answer when she asked for promotion, which would take place prob- ably two or three or four months afterwards "? The Witness. Yes, sir. By Mr. Andrew : Q. Was the statement that you made to Mr. Lyman and Mr. Oberly true? — A. Yes, sir. By Mr. LiND : Q. Then what you have stated here is untrue ? — A. I do not know what you refer to. Q. The statement you made to the committee to-day is untrue to the extent it conflicts with the statement you made to Commissioners Ly- man and Oberly? Mr. Oberly. I do not think the witness understands the question. By Mr. Lind : Q. Now, as we understand your evidence, Mr. Campbell, we under- stand that you went before the Commissioners and explained to them that upon the repeated requests of Mrs. Smith you copied certain ques- tions and answers and gave them to her at her instance. As we un- derstand your testimony given here to-day it is, in substance, that hav- ing leisure one evening and believing it not to be wrong, not having been cautioned against it, you stepped into the certification room on two 60 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. or three diiferent evenings as your time permitted, copied certain ques- tions, put them away in your desk, and afterwards, Mrs. Smith having asked you for sample questions of the character of examinations, you gave them to her. Now, which one of these statements is right, and which one is misunderstood by the committee? — A. The evidence that I gave to Mr. Oberly and Mr. Lyman are the facts in the case, what- • ever testimony 1 have given here now By the Chairman : Q. Is incorrect so far as it conflicts with the statement made to Mr. Oberly and Mr. Lyman? — A. Yes, sir. Mr. EoosEVELT. Mr. Campbell, you recollect being called before Governor Thompson and myself in regard to this matter, do you not? The Witness. Yes, sir. Mr. Roosevelt. Some time last fall. Did you not then tell us, in substance, that you had copied these questions at the request of Mrs. Smith ? You remember coming before Governor Thompson and my- self last fall 1 It is my understanding — and I think I may say Governor Thompson's — that you then testified to us (correct me if I am misstating the facts) that you copied these questions at the request of Mrs. Smith. Is our understanding correct? The Witness. I do not remember whether it was put in just that way or not. I think I told you at the time that I copied the questions and gave them to Mrs. Smith, and that you thought best that she should be summoned Mr. EoosEVEi-T. You testified that you copied the questions and gave them to Mrs. Smith. The V/iTNESS. Yes, sir. Mr. Roosevelt. Now, did you copy them a long time ahead for your amusement? The Witness. No, sir ; I do not know as I did. Mr. Roosevelt. I do not recollect, and I believe I am correct in stating that Governor Thompson does not recollect, that you said any- thing to us about a request to destroy those paj)ers. The Witness. I think I did. Mr. Roosevelt. I do not recollect it. Mr. Thompson. I do not either. The Chairman. I will ask at this point if the Commissioners have decided to examine any one 1 Mr. Doyle is here and ready to be ex- amined. TESTIMONY OF JOHN T. DOYLE. John T. Doyle sworn and examined as follows : By the Chairman : Q, What is your name ? — A. John T. Doyle. Q. You are now in the Government service? — A. I am. Q. In what capacity ? — A. I am secretary to the United States Civil Service Commission. Q. Will you state to this committee, briefly, all that you know in relation to this abstraction of a copy of papers which you have heard discussed here ? — A. My first knowledge of the matter was obtained at a meeting of the Commission at which I was present as secretary, and of which 1 made minutes of the proceedings. Messrs. Edgerton and Lyman were present. It was at a meeting, as nearly as I can remember, early in February, of 1888 j either a ^&w weeks before or a few weeks after that CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 61 time. Commissioner Oberly came into the room with a manuscript, which he laid before Commissioner Edgerton, who was president of the Commission, and stated that they were a copy of questions which had come into his hands upon the promise that he would return them. He laid them before the Commission for its investigation. Commissioner Edgerton showed a disposition not to go into the matter to investigate whether the questions had been written by some one connected with the Commission for an improper purpose. Mr. Lyman took the manu- script from the table, examined it, and I think, in answer to a question by Mr. Oberly, stated that they were questions that had been used in examinations of the Commission. Q. In order to save time I would like to put this question to you. Have you been present during the examination to-day ? — A. I have. Q. Did you hear the statement made by Mr. Oberly "? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you agree with him in all points? — A. 1 agree with him in all points of which Mr. Oberly stated that I had cognizance, with one ex- ception. Q. Give the exception. — A. I can not recall distinctly the interval of time that elapsed between the meeting of the Commission at which Mr. Oberly brought the attention of the Commissioners to the fact of his having this manuscript and the time when the questions were taken from the safe for the purpose of comparing the handwriting of the ques- tions with the handwriting of a clerk to the Commission. Q. What is your recollection about that ? — A. I can not state the length of time further than it was certainly not more than a few days. It may have been the following day, or two or three days subsequently, or four days subsequently. I know it was a short interval of time. Q. With that exception do you agree with Mr. Oberly ? — A. With that exception, and in all matters in which Mr. Oberly stated that I had personal knowledge, I agree in his statement. The Chairman. Are there any other questions to be asked ? By Mr. Lind : Q. Did you know Campbell's handwriting? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you know it at that time ? — A. I had not examined the manu- script Q. Did you know his handwriting at that time? — A. When I first took up the manuscript for the purpose of ascertaining in whose hand- writing it was, it occurred to me it was in the handwriting of Mr. Campbell. Q. Had this manuscript been in the hands of Mr. Lyman previous to that time ? — A. It had. It was in the hands of Mr. Lyman at the meet- ing of the Commission at which Mr. Oberly brought the manuscript to its attention, and it was at 5 o'clock in the afternoon on a winter day Q. I simply want to know whether it was in his possession ? — A. He saw the manuscript. Q. He did not recognize it Or conjment upon whose handwriting it was ? — A. I have no recollection now of his saying so at that time. Q. What has become of those papers ? — A. At the time I brought Mr. Lyman's attention to the handwriting, and said that I believed the handwriting was that of Mr. Campbell, Mr. Lyman made a remark in turning over the manuscript that it had occurred to him when he had first seen the papers that it might have been Mr. Campbell's handwrit- ing — that the possibility had occurred to him then. Q. Do you know what has become of those pax^ers? — A. I do not. 62 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION, Q. It is your duty as secretary to keep the files of papers of the Commission, is it not I — A. It was ; but this was a manuscript copy of questions. Q. We know what it was very well. You did not place it on file. — A. No, sir. Q. You do not know in whose possession it went, do you 1 — A. I parted with the paper. It was left with Mr. Lyman. Q. Can you tell us, from your recollection, as to whether the hand- writing was natural or at all disguised ? — A. It did not occur to me that it was disguised. By the Chairman : Q. Did you examine the i)aper in such a way as to mark the questions and answers that were on the paper for the purpose of knowing whether these questions had been used at that time for an examination ? — A. -Ko, sir. Q. You did not look at the questions and answers for the purpose of determining whether the Commission at that time had examined persons on questions similar to those ? — A. No, sir. Q. Was that examined by any one in the Commission at that time ? — A. I understood that it was the subject of investigation by Mr. Oberly j and the chief examiner. By Mr. Oberly : Q. Did you hear Mr. Campbell's statement to me, made at that time, in regard to the manner in which, and the reason why, he made this copy of the questions ? — A. No, sir ; I was not present. Q. Did you ever have any con versation with Mr. Camjibell on that sub- ject ? — A. No, sir. Q. Did he explain to you the reason ? — A. No, sir. Mr. Stone. That does not seem to be a subject of controversy any longer. ' By Mr. Boatner : Q. Does this witness recollect whether the answers were upon those papers as well as the questions ? — A. It is my recollection that the an- swers were copied. Q. These lists of questions were printed, were they not ; I mean this list which Campbell copied ? — A. The list that he made the copy from ? Q. Yes. — A. I did not make an investigation 5 it was usual for the questions to be r>rinted. Mr. LiND. He does not know whether these questions were printed or not? Mr. Boatner. He knows that all the questions are printed. By Mr. Ewart : Q. Do you know how many copies are generally made ? — A. The num- ber of copies printed of any series will vary according to the number of applicants to be examined. Q. Just give us an idea of the number of copies generally made ? — A. From three to five hundred copies as the exigencies may require. Q. At the time that this list of questions was abstracted from the files by Campbell did you know whether there was a large number of copies on file? — A. 1 did not. The copies were in the possession of the chief examiner. Mr. Campbell would not have had access to tbera. Q. Would it be possible for you to procure for us a list of those ques- tions printed ? — A. Not without consulting the chief examiner. . CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 63 Q. Upon consulting the chief examiner could you furnish this com- mittee with a list of those questions ? Mr. LiND. Let me understand what questions you refer to. Mr. EwART. The identical list of questions copied by Campbell. Mr. LiND. I understand the copy is not in existence. Mr. EwART. I do not mean the copy which Campbell made, but I mean the printed copy. There are a number of printed lists of these questions always on file with the Commission. By Mr. Lind : Q. Do you know what list these questions were copied from ? Could you go to your file and take out the list of questions copied by Mr. Campbell 1 — A. If I knew the series. Q. Do you know the series ? That is what I asked you. Do you know what list of questions was copied ? — A. No, sir. Q. Who examined that "? — A. Mr. Commissioner Oberly, and I think Major Webster examined it. By Mr. Ewart : Q. Say, in December, 1888 ; could you not procure a copy of the questions used in that month ? — A. If the Commission would have on its record unused examination questions printed of that series. Q. What disposition is generally made ot those printed lists; are they destroyed ? — A. They are destroyed, but we reserve a small num- ber of copies. It is the practice to preserve ten or fifteen. Mr. LiWD. The witness has already said that he has no knowledge of where those questions are. Q. I am asking this question for my own information, to ascertain if it would not be possible to get a copy of these printed lists. He says that they always kept on file fifteen or twenty copies. Mr. Lind. He has stated that he did not know wliat series it was. Mr. Ewart. He says that you can ascertain the fact. December, 1887, is the date. Mr. Lind. What purpose would they serve if we had them ? The Witness. It is absolutely impossible to identify the papers. I can not get them. Mr. Lind. The written questions are lost and it is impossible to tell which set of printed questions were used, as I understand it. By Mr. Andrew : Q. Yousawthismanuscriptcopy of questions which was presented? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What was the examination on ? — A. I did not make an inquiry into what the examination was or what the questions w^ould cover. It was a matter left to Commissioner Oberly. Q. Have you any idea as to about what subjects were embraced ? — A. I have understood that it was Mr. Lind. Of your own knowledge ? A. Of my own knowledge I can not state. Mr. Lind. The witness has already stated that he does not know the subject-matter of the examination for he did not examine the manuscript paper. Mr. Andrew. It has been said here that this manuscript contained only questions on arithmetic. Can you state whether or not that is true? Mr. Oberly. The lady said so. Mr, Andrew. Miss Dabney stated to-day in answer to me that there 64 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. was nothing upon the manuscript which was given to her and which was brought to the Commissioner except questions upon arithmetic, as she was weali in that branch and wanted the questions on arith- metic. Mr. LiKD. Can you state whether, according to your recollection, that is correct"^ A. According to my recollection the portion of the questions which I examined with a view of determining whose hand- writing they were in were questions in arithmetic. I do not know whether the manuscript contained questions upon other subjects of examination or not. Mr. LiND. Did you notice whether the questions and answers on the manuscript were in the same handwriting? A. To the best of my recollection they were. Mr. RoosKVELT. Do you remember being called in by the governor and myself to state the facts about this case last fall *? A. I do. Mr. EoosEVELT. Your testimony then was substantially to the same effect as the statement of Commissioner Oberly to-day, was it not? A. It was. Mr. Thompson. You stated to us that Mr. Oberly had investigated the matter and decided that nothing more than a reprimand was nec- essary ? A. Yes, sir. Mr. EoosEVELT. And Mr. Campbell has been retained accordingly ? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Roosevelt. The only people in the office who knew of this in the sense of taking personal part in the investigation were Commissioners Oberly, Lyman, Mr. Campbell, and yourself"? A. And Mrs. Smith. Mr. EOOSEVELT. But Mr. Smith was out of the office when you came in? A. Those were the only persons connected with the Commission who had knowledge of the fact at that time and knew of the occurrence. The Chairman. Mr. Ewart wishes to obtain information as to whether or not the papers copied by Mr. Campbell were delivered to the Com- mission. Is that true? Mr. Lyman. The manuscript copy. The Chairman. Where is that manuscript ? The Witness. I don't know. The Chairman. What became of it ? Mr. Lyman. The last knowledge I had of it was that it was in the possession of Commissioner Oberly. Mr. Oberly. Now that manuscript has been traced further than that this morning, when you were out. Mr. Boatner. The lady who testified this morning said that she took the manuscript from Ex-commissioner Oberly and returned it to Mr. Flynn. Mr. Flynu testified that that was false. That is as far as it has been traced. Mr. LiND. Now I ask that this be stricken out. Mr. Oberly. I have made several statements concerning that paper. I never delivered the manuscript to the Commission because they would not acce])t it from me upon conditions. The condition as imposed by Miss Dabney was that I would return them to her. Mr. LiND. I understand that perfectly well ; and now I ask that these questions and answers be stricken out, simply because it encumbers the record. CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 65 The Chairman, ^here is no harm in allowing it to remain. Is it the pleasure of the committee to go on with the second charge at present '? Mr. EwAKT. That is all the evidence on the first charge with regard to the abstraction of the questions. The Chairman. Let Mr. Morgan take the stand. Mr. EwART. Before the charge is read let me briefly call the atten- tion of the committee to the section of the statute which we insist was violated. The said section says as follows : Sec. 3. That said Commission is authorized to employ a chief examiner, a part of svhose duty it shall be, under its direction, to act with the examining boards, so far as practicable, whether at Washington or elsewhere, and to secure accuracy, uni- formity, and justice in all their proceedings, which shall be at all times open to him. The chief examiner, shall be entitled to receive a salary at the rate of three thou- sand dollars a year, and he shall he paid his necessary traveling expenses incurred in the discharge of his duty. The Commission shall have a secretaiy , to be appointed by the President, who shall receive a salary of one thousand six hundred dollars per annum. It may, when necessary, employ a stenographer and a messenger, who shall be paid, when employed, the former at the rate of one thousand six hundred dollars a year, and the latter at the rate of six hundred dollars a year. The Chairman. Now read the charge. The charge is as follows : It is further charged against the Commission as now constituted, that one Edward Daniel Bailey, in violation of the civil-service law, which inhibits the promotion of persons in the classified service without examination was promoted by said Commis- Bion without any examination to test his fitness, as required bylaw, from a clerkship to the position of stenographer, an important position in the said Commission, when it was notoriously known at the time that said Bailey was not competent to fill the said position of stenographer. That this promotion was made when there were several other clerks in the said Commission who were expert stenographers, and under the principle governing pro- motions undoubtedly entitled to the position. Mr. EwART. 1 should liave stated that, in addition to this statute, there is a clause in the appropriation act which provides that the Com- mission shall have the power to employ a fourth-class clerk, who shall \>Q the oi^cial stenographer. Mr. EooSEVELT. Who shall be a stenographer. Mr. EwART. Yes, sir; that is right; "who shall be a stenographer." 'A^e would like Mr. Lyman examined iirst on that charge. TESTIMONY OF CHAELES- lYMAK. Commissioner Lyman, recalled and examined. By Mr. EwART : Q. Mr. Lyman, who is the ofificial stenographer of the Civil Service Commission at that time ? — A. There is no official stenographer in one sense, and in another sense there is. Mr. Bailey is the stenographer ap- propriated for, as such, by law. Q. When was he promoted ? — A. He was appointed in September last. Q. In September, 1889 ? — A, I think it was ; I have the date of his appointment here- Q,. Was he required to pass any examination ? — A. At the time of his promotion he did not pass any examination. Mr. BwART. What are the duties of the official stenographer? — A. The duties of the stenographer to the Commission are various in their .character. If it is desired by the committee I will make a general state- 3117 5 66 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. ment, which will bring out just what the situation is iu the Commission with reference to the employment of a stenographer. Mr. BOATNER. I suggest that we will get through a great deal more quickly if counsel will ask specific and pointed interrogatories. Mr. EwART. I can not ask any more pointed question than that. Mr. BoATNER. Let the counsel ask specific and pointed questions and then, when the examination is finished, if the witness desires to make any explanation he may make the statement on re-examination. The (3HAIRMA.N. Suppose you answer the questions directly as you can and afterwards make such explanations as you desire of any answers you may have given to a direct question. Mr. EwART. I repeat the question. What are the duties of the offi- cial stenographer? — A. Such duties as may be assigned to him by the Oommission. Q. Taking the testimony in this case? — A. The Commission exercises its own judgment as to who shall take the testimony in this case. Q. Is this the official stenographer who is now taking this testi- mony? — A. He is one of the stenographers of the Commission. Q. Is he the official stenographer ?--A. He is a stenographer. He is not the fourth-class clerk appropriated for as a stenographer. Q. Why do you use this gentleman as a stenographer ? — A. Because it suits our convenience. Q. In what respect ; why does it suit your convenience ? — A, Because he is a stenographer and available. Q. Is he an expert ? — A. I think he is. Q. Mr. Lyman, you are certainly iu a position to know. — A. I think he is ; I supposed you were inquiring about Mr. Holtz. The Chairman. You were referring to Mr. Bailey in your question ? Mr. EwART. No ; I am referring to Mr. Holtz. Is Mr. Bailey an ex- pert stenographer ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Was lie at the time of his promotion ? — A. I think he was. Q. You think he was ?— A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know the fact that he was ? — ^A. I know that he was a stenographer. Q. Do you know the fact that at the time of his promotion he was an expert stenographer? — A. What do you mean by that? Q. A man who can take evidence rapidly, quickly, and accurately. — A. He was a stenographer. Q. Was he an expert stenographer ? — A. If you will define to me pre- cisely what you mean by an expert I will answer the question. Q. I will ask you this question : Did you take any steps to satisfy yourself that he was an expert stenographer ? — A. I did sir. Q. Was he subjected to any examination ? — A. ^ot before his pro- motion. Q. Did you subject him to any examination to test his fitness and ac- curacy as an exx^ert, before his promotion ? — A. He has been repeatedly tested as to his fitness. Q. Did you take any steps to test him ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Was it in the form of an examination ? — A. It was in the form of dictations. Q. Was it in the form of an examination such as is prescribed by the Civil Service Commission ? Mr. BoATNER. Let him state what kind of an examination it was. Mr. EwARTS. Did you satisfy yourself in conducting his examination that he was expert enough to take down evidence rapidly and ac- curately ? — A. I satisfied myself that he was such a stenographer as CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 67 might be put in that place in conformity with the requirements of the statute. Q. Was Mr. Holtz a clerk in that Bureau at that time? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you regard him as good a stenographer as Mr. Bailey "? — A. I think he is. Q. Do you regard Mr. Bailey as a better stenographer than Mr. Holtz ?— A. I do not. Q. How then do you explain his promotion ? — A. Because he was Mr. Holtz's senior. Q. Then you promoted him because he was an older man? — A. l^ot because he was an older man. Q. You did not make the promotion then on merit? — A. I did. Q. I just understood you to say you made the promotion on account of his seniority in the service. — A. That is a part ot" it, sir. Q. I will ask this question : I will ask you whether at the time you made that promotion you did not know that Mr. Holtz was a better stenographer in every respect than Mr. Bailey, the gentleman whom you did promote ? — A. 1 don't know that I specially compared the two men in that respect. By Mr. Stone : Q. Inform me, if you please, who Mr. Bailey is and who Mr. Holtz is — I mean officially 1 — A. Mr. Bailey is a fourth-class clerk with the desig- nation of stenographer. Q. Was he appointed under this appropriation act? — A. Yes, sir; he was promoted. Q. Who is Mr. Holtz ? — A. Mr. Holtz is a third-class clerk employed in the office of the Commissioner, at this moment taking notes at the table. Q. Is he acting as as a stenographer in the Commission ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you what you term your official stenographer ? — A. We do not term any one the official stenographer. Q. What are the duties of Mr. Bailey as stenographer? — A. Mr. Bailey, as stenographer, takes dictation from the Chief Examiner and from the Commissioners. Q. What are the duties of Mr. Holtz ?— A. Mr. Holtz performs a variety of duties. Q. I mean as stenographer ? — A. Mr. Holtz frequently takes dicta- tion for letters and he does other stenographic work in the Commission as the Commission requires. Q. Both of these gentlemen have been appointed to the position of stenographer? — A. No, sir. Q. Either of them ?— A. Mr. Bailey has. Q. Mr. Holtz then is simj)ly drawing a salary as a third-class clerk? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Does Mr. Bailey draw the salary of stenographer ? — A. He draws the salary as a fourth-class clerk. Q. He was a fourth-class clerk before? — A. IsTo, sir; he was a third- class clerk at the time of his last promotion. Q. Then he gets no additional salary by reason of being S: stenogra- Ijher ? — IsTo, sir. Q. What I want to get at is the matter which Mr. Ewart was examin- ing you about as to the appointment of this man Bailey as a stenogra- pher and concerning your examination of him? — A. I think I can give you the information you want and economize the time of the comuiittee if you will allow me to make a statement. 68 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. I wish you would. — A. The civil service law provided that the Com- mission might employ a stenographer when needed. Mr. Doyle, the present secretary oi' the Commission, wasemj^loyed as that stenographer at that time and subsequently, in the appropriation act from year to year, a clerk is appropriated for, "who shall be a stenographer. " One is now so appropriated for at a salary of $1,800 per annum, the appro- priation being for one clerk of class 4, who shall be a stenographer. Long, long ago the business of the Commission demanded more than one stenographer, and the gentleman who has been employed in the position of stenographer according to the statute in this particular case, has never been, in the history of the Commission, exclusively em- ployed in that work but has been assigned to various other duties from time to time. As business has increased it has become necessary to .have other stenographers, and at the present moment, in addition to Mr. Bailey, there are employed Mr. Holtz, who is a stenographer and is used as such ; Mr. Swank, who is a stenographer and is used as such ; Mr. Culver, who is a stenographer and is used as such, and Mr. Doyle is occa'Sionally used as a stenographer when his other duties will per- mit. I am not certain but what Mr. Leadley is a stenographer also. There are at least live stenographers in the employ of the Commission, all of whom are used to do such work as occasion may require. No one of them is regarded or treated by the Commission as the official stenographer, that is, as the man to do that kind of work, for no one man can do the whole of that work. Q. Stenography is a branch of learning that is made the subject of a special examination under your rules ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you understand that this clerk, who is to be a stenographer, au- thorized to be appointed by the appropriation act, should be examined as to his qualiucations before appointment ? — A. If a man were appointed directly from the outside to this place, unquestionably the law and the rules of the Commission would require that the person should be cer- tified from the register of the Commission from the persons who have been examined as stenographers. Q. If he is already in the employ of the Commission, then, your idea is that he would require no examination ? — A. It is a question of promo- tion, and his fitness for the position is a matter to be tested by a written examination or the knowledge of the Commission on his qualifications for the place. Q. You apijointed this man, then, not upon an examination, but upon personal knowledge? — A. By promotion, because of our knowledge of his qualifications for that place. Q. Did you have i)ersonal knowledge touching his qualifications as a stenographer prior to his promotion *? — A. I did, sir. Q. flow had you obtained that knowledge ? — A. Because I had seen him write stenography. Q. You said in answer to Mr. Bwart that you had examined him in some way by dictation. — A. I had tested him. Q. You tested him by dictation ? — A. Every stenographer is tested by dictation. Q. Did you do that before or after the promotion "? — A. He was tested before in practical work. Q. By you 1 — A. By me. Q. In that way you satisfied yourself before the i)romotion of his qualifications 1? — A. Before his promotion I satisfied myself thoroughly that he was a stenographer. Q. Could he have passed the examination in stenography at the date of his promotion *?— A. I tliink he could. CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 69 Q. And obtained the grade tbat would have entitled him to go on the eligible list *? — A. I think he could. By Mr. Stone : Q. There is one additional question which 1 desire to ask. I under- stood you to say that where a clerk was promoted, who was already in the employ of the Commission, that then a special examination in stenog- raphy was not required ? — A. The rules do not require a special ex- amination where the Commissioners have kno wled ge of the qualifications. Q. Is that the practice in the other Departments "? — A. I think it is. Q. In other words could the Commissioner of Pensions promote a clerk of the third class, as you did in this instance, to a higher class — requiring among other qualifications that tbe employe should under- stand stenography — could that promotion be made by the Commissioner of Pensions without the person receiving the promotion having been first examined f — A. If you substitute for " the Commissioner of Pen- sions " the "Secretary of the Interior " I will say yes. Q. Making that substitution you would say yes 1 — A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Boatner : Q. You have just stated, Mr. Lyman, that the appointing officer in any department might promote a clerk from one grade to another with- out an examination or without any additional examination to show his fitness for the place to which he is promoted. — A. I mean to say tbat the Commission has jjrescribed regulations which apply to tbe War Department, under which promotions take j)lace ; but tbe Commission does not attempt and the rules do not attempt to regulate promotions in the other Departments, excej)t so far as to regulate the promotion of those who have been appointed^ from the copyist register to the thou- sand-dollar grade. Q. What rule, if any, have you for appointment in the clerical force of the Civil Service Commission? — A. The rules which apply to tbe other Departments apply to the Civil Service Commission. Q. I do not mean in a general way. I mean have you any special rules which apply to the appointment of clerks °! — A. No special rules. We are bound by the same rules which apply to the other Departments. Q. What I want to get at is this : Suppose there is a vacancy, do you call in a new man from the outside, or do you fill tbat vacancy by promotion, and by taking in a new man at the bottom ? — A. The gen- eral practice of the Commission is to fill vacancies in tbe higher grades by promotion, and to make the original appointments at the bottom. Q. Is there any rule which regulates the appointments in the office, or is tbat merely at the option of the Commission ? — A. It is the matter wholly within the discretion of the Commission except in so far as it is controlled by the departmental rule. Q. I want to get at this : Suppose it becomes necessary, or you have an opportunity, to promote one of your clerks from an inferior to a su- perior position, and you have two or more men in the service and in the same grade who are competent to fulfill the duties of the position to which the promotion is to be made, and one has been in the service longer than tbe other, or they have been in the service different lengths of time, is there any rule which would require you to select one which has been longer in the service? — A. There is no rule; but other things being equal, tbe Commission would undoubtedly give the preference to the man who was the senior in the length of service. It is a matter of judgment, however. 70 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q„ You said that the Commission, all things beiug equal, gave the preference to the employe who has been longest in the service"? — A. That would be my personal opiniou. Q. Is there any regulation to that effect? — A. I may say that has been the general i)ractice of the Commission. It has varied in indi- vidual instances ; but it is the general practice of the Commission. The Chairman. In making this appointment of Mr. Bailey, in point of fact was he entitled to it by being the longest in the service "? — A. Yes, sir. Mr. vStone. Would he be qualified to come here and take this testi- mony, in your opinion ? — A. Well, gentlemen, I think he could come here and take this testimony. But I wish to impress upon the com- mittee one fact, that the Commission employs five stenographers and that the gentleman who is designated by his appointment as stenogra- pher is not now and never has been exclusively employed as stenog- raj)her ; that the Commission has been obliged, I may say, by the stress of its work to utilize in the best possible manner the employes to accomplish the work, and in doing that sometimes what you would call an official stenographer would be doing stenographic work and sometimes he would not. Mr. EwART. Which one draws the $1,800 salary I— A. Mr. Bailey. Mr. LiND. I would like to ask right here one question, which is this: Does your stenographic work consist principally of taking letter dic- tations or have you much taking of evidence to do 1 — A. The greater part of it consists in taking letter dictation and dictation for the min- utes and of ruling and of decisions, and ail that sort of ordinary current office work, Mr. LiND. Office work? — A. Yes, sir ; occasionally when the Commis- sion makes investigations it takes one of the stenographers, or they employ another stenographer who is not connected with the Commission at all, as has been done in several instances. By Mr. Hatton : Q. When was Mr. Bailey originally appointed to a position in the Com- mission ? — A. I can give you the exact date by consulting a memoran- dum I have. Q. How long was it from the time he was promoted ? — A. I think it was 1886 when he was appointed. Q. When was he promoted? — A. He was jiromoted two or three months ago. Q. Was he a stenographer of any kind when he entered the Commis- sion ? — A. I have no doubt he was a stenographer when he entered the Comnnssion. Q. In making an examination of a stenographer would you ask how long he had been a stenographer ? — A. Ko, sir. Q. The appropriation bill provides for a fourth -class clerk, " who shall be a stenographer?" — A. Yes, sir. Q. Has that fourth-class clerk ever been recognized as the official stenographer ? You say that he has not been recognized as the official stenographer? — A. He has never been exclusively so, nor exclusively used for that jiurpose. By Mr. Ewart : Q. I see in your fourth report here the name of William E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, given as stenographer. Was he regarded as the offi- cial stenographer and the only one?-^A. He was appropriated for as steuograplier. CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 71 Q. AkS the official stenograpbor ? — A, You may use that word, Ibut I do DOt. Q. As a fourth-class clerk '? — A. Yes, sir. Q. His uameis the only stenographer's name which appears here? — A. His is the only name which appears there, but at that time there were others in the employ of the Commission. Q. After the publication of this report and before you issued your fifth report, you decided to strike this official from the list 1 — A. That is simply a matter of publication of names. Mr. LiND. Is Morgan still there ? — A, No, sir. Mr. Stone. Is that the place Bailey has nowf By Mr. Hatton : Q. Mr. Lyman, at the time this report was issued Mr. Morgan was occupying the place which Mr. Bailey has now; is not that so"? — A. Yes, sir. Q. When the report was issued his name was the one that was em- braced in the list of the officers of the Commission 1 — A. After the filth report was issued Mr. Morgan's name was left out. Q. You give it as your opinion that, if you had put Mr. Bailey to a test examination, he would have passed 1 — A. Yes, sir. Q. Bo you give it as your opinion that he would have passed at a higher grade than Mr. Holtz ? — A. I am not making com]3arisons, as that can be determined only by examination. Q. You can give an opinion with regard to Mr. Holtz as well as with regard to Mr. Bailey. I am only asking for your opinion. — A. Mr. Holtz is a good stenographer. Q. You will not say then that, in your opinion, he would pass any higher grade than Mr. Bailey would have i^assed at the time he was promoted ? — A. I think it quite likely that at that time and very prob- ably now Mr. Holtz is a more rapid stenographer than Mr. Bailey. Q. When the Commission has any very imijortaut and rapid work which they want done, like taking the testimony in any investigation of a post-office case, does Bailey do that work ? — A. He has not been doing that work because he has been charged with another kind of work which takes his whole time. Q. If you had to choose stenographers there at this time and had to choose between Holtz and Bailey to take this testimony, I would like to ask which one of the two you would select to take it? — A. That is a matter which would be governed by the convenience of the office. The Chairman. The witness has said that Mr. Bailey does other work which occupies his time. Mr. Hatton. That is all. The Chairman. Are there any other questions "? Mr. LiND. I would ask, under these specifications, if you have any testimony to offer which differs from this"? Mr. Hatton. The testimony we have to offer is to the effect that this man v/as promoted without an examination, and to show that at the time of his promotion, and by men qualified to judge better th;m Mr. Lyman, because they are stenographers themselves, he was utterly in- competent as a stenographer and could not possibly have passed an examination. That is the opinion of stenographers, experts in the busi- ness. 72 CIVIL , SERVICE INVESTIGATION. TESTIMOI^Y OF WILLIAM E. MOEGAH. William E. Morgan sworn and examined : By Mr. Bwaet : Q. Please state your place of residence and your occupation ? — A. I am now living at No. 906 Fourteenth street, Wasbiugton, D. C, I occupy a position in the Bureau of the Mint at the Treasury Department, as stenographer to the Director of the Mint. Q. Were you ever connected with the Civil Service Commission ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. In what capacity? — A. As stenographer. I hold here my com- mission as such dated Februa,ry 18. Q. You were not under the Commission at that time"? — A. Yes, sir. Q, How long have you been employed here as a stenographer, in Washington and other cities ? — A. Ever since I have been in Wash- ington, and that was in the latter part of ] 885. I was employed before that in Philadelphia for three or four years, Q. I presume you would consider yourself an expert ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you know Bailey at the time he was appointed as stenog- rapher ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What is your opinion, as an expert, of Mr, Bailey as a stenog- rapher"? — A. Well, in the sense that the stenographers are named in the Civil Service Commission, under the appropriation act, which means that he shall be competent to take testimony in any investigation the Commission is empowered to make, I do not think that he was com- petent to perform that work. In fact I never thought of calling him a stenographer any more than a man who could play a scale on the violin could call himself a violinist. Q. Do you know Mr. Holtz f — A. Yes, sir. Q. Was he in the service of the Commission at the time you were employed there ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What do you know of his knowledge of stenography? — A. I think he is a man of considerable ability in his line. Q. What comparison would you make of Mr. Holtz and Mr. BaHey ? — A. Mr. Holtz is infinitely superior. They can not be compared at all. Q. There is no comparison to be made? — A. iN'o, sir. The Chairman. Mr. Morgan, when did you leave the Civil Service Commission ? — A. I went to the Treasury Department on September 12, 1889. By Mr. Andrew : Q. Last September ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. How long were you a stenographer to the Commission ; how many years "? — A. From September, 1886, to September, 1889 ; about three years. Q. Why were you transferred to the Treasury Department ? — A. I left the Civil Service Commission because I felt that I was not treated properly by the Commission. My work was taken away from me and I was assigned to cori*espoudeuce up stairs at a type-writer, and persons who were not designated as stenographers in the Commission were as- signed to stenographic work in making investigations. I was put in such a position that I felt that I was doing work that was not commen- surate with my salary, and that it would be a question of but a very short time before I would be asked to leave. I forestalled that by get- ting transferred. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 73 Q, You resigned "? — A. I resigned. By Mr. Lyman : Q. Mr. Morgan, when were you appointed as stenographer to the Commission f — A. I think it was on December 18, 1886. Q. Who signed that commission 1 — A. John H. Oberly, Commissioner in charge. Q. What was your occupation at the time you were i)romoted ? — A. I was the stenographer in the Bureau of the Mint. Q. Was this place appropriated for a stenographer in the Commission at that time*? — A. Yes, sir. Q. When you were employed at Washington did you take an exam- ination'? — A. No, sir; at the time I was appointed all stenographers in the classified service were exempt from examination. Q. How did Mr. Oberly, when he signed your appointment, know that you were a stenographer ? — A. Because I was examined for that posi- tion in the Bureau of the Mint, and he questioned me as to my ability as a stenographer ; whether I was competent to take investigations. Q. Did he test you in any way ? — A. He did not. Q. So that when you were appointed stenographer to the Commission you were not examined ? — A. I was not examined. I took an examina- tion when I was transferred this last time. Mr. EoosEVELT. That was after you left the Commission "^^A. Yes, sir; I ])assed the examination when I was transferred. By Mr. Lyman : Q. While you were stenographer to the Commission, and so desig- nated, did you do stenographic work steadily? — A. No, sir; in con- nection with my duties there I was certification clerk. Q. Did that require stenography"? — A. No, sir. Q. That was your main work, was it not? — A. Yes, when I was not engaged in stenographic work. Q. What proportion of your time while you were employed as ste nograiiher was devoted to stenography? — A. I was called in right along, for a long while, as stenographer to the Commission, to take the minutes. Q. That only took from a quarter of an hour to a half of an hour ? — A. Some days it took from 2 o'clock till 5. Q. That was only occasionally. Generally it was for a short time? — A. Not always; always more than ten minutes. Q. Sometimes the Commission had long discussions and you did not have very much to do while waiting. During the last year and a half or two years of your connection with the Commission did you do very much stenographic work?— A. Not towards the latter part, because other stenographers were assigned to do my work. Q. What do you mean by the latter part? — A. When you were sole Commissioner. Q. Did you not do as much stenographic work then as you had done before that? — A. No, sir. Q. How much stenographic work had you done six months before that or a year before that? — A. I could not say. A year before that I took the Philadelphia investigation. Q. Is that the only investigation that you took? — A, That's the only one I took. Q. How many investigations did the Commission make during the time you were stenographer? — A. They made several. You made several in New York. 74 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. 1 am speaking now of the old Commission and not of the time when this Commission was formed. — A. I do not think there was any other investigation excepting the one in the New York custom-house by Mr. Oberly. I did that while I was there. Q. Was there an investigation made in Chicago"? — A. Yes; there was an investigation made in Chicago, and I was assigned to go there; but Mr. Edgerton objected on the score of economy and said that he did not think a stenographer was necessary. When the Commission arrived there they found it was necessary to have a stenographer and I supi)ose they employed one out there. Q. You were regularly employed as a stenographer. That was not your main business? — A. I went to the Commission with the intention of being a stenographer and I was informed that that was my position there. Q. How long was it after you were appointed stenographer before the i)romotion of Bailey took place? — A. Mr. Bailey swore in before I resigned. I came back and found that he had taken the oath of office. I went upstairs and said that I thought he was a little premature, that I had not resigned and would not until the next day. By Mr. Ewart : Q. What was the date of that? — A. That was on the 30th of August, I think. Q. Of what year ? — A. Last year. Q. When were you appointed ? — A. September 18, 1886. Q. Then your resignation was about three years afterwards "2 -A. YeSj sir. By Mr. Roosevelt : Q. Yv^ere you appointed by Mr. Oberly when he was the sole Commis- sioner ? — A. Yes, sir ; but he had telegraphed to Mr. Edgerton for his concurrence and received that. Q. But you were appointed by Mr. Oberly when he was the sole act- ing Commissioner, having received the concurrence by telegraph of the other members ? — A. So I understood ; yes, sir. Q. He did not test you by examination when you were appointed ? — A. Ko ; lie did not. Q. Had you made your entry into the service by examination f — A. As I told Mr. Lyman, examinations were not required by the Civil Serv- ice Commission at that time for stenographers, although I was exam- ined by the Director of the Mint as to my competency to take that posi- tion as stenographer. Q. But you have not had any civil service examination ?— A. No, sir. Q. What was your salary just before you were promoted by Mr. Oberly ? — A. I was a $1,400 clerk, appropriated for as stenographer. Q. You were then promoted from a $1,400 position to an $1,800 position ? — A. I was not promoted. I was transferred. Q. You were transferred from a $1,400 position to an $1,800 position without examination ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. By Acting Commissioner Oberly, with the concurrence of his col- lengue or colleagues ? — A. Yes, sir. By Mr, Thompson : Q. Do you remember a conversation you had with me about two months ago ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember of saying in that conversation that you had a grievance against any niember of the Commission ? — A. Yes, sir. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 75 Q. What did you 8ay to me'? — A. I naid 1 bad a grievance against the Oommission, iuasmuch as they had not treated me ])roperly. Mr. Lyman and Mr. Webster were both very courteous to me personally. Q. Did you state that you had any grievance against Mr. Roosevelt and myself? — A. No, sir. Q. You did not say that "? — Yes, sir ; I said that I had not. Q. Did you say that you did not propose to make yourself iirominent in this matter, but if called upon you intended to testify ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. In that conversation did you tell me Bailey was, in your opinion, not a stenogTai)her 1 — A. Yes, sir. Q. And that he was improperly appointed "? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you tell me that Holtz ought to have had that place? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it your opinion now that Bailey is not a stenographer. You said just now that you were an expert"? — A. Yes, sir; 1 think he can act as an amanuensis. Q. Do you think that he could pass the examinations that are re- quired for stenographers in the Civil Service Commission'? — A. I don't think he could. Q. Did you ever tell Holtz that you thought he was entitled to this promotion and ought to have if? — A. I don't recollect. I may have told him that. Q. I would be glad if you would remember. — A. I could not say; there was a great deal of discussion, and he spoke in strong terms against the promotion of Mr. Bailey to the position of stenographer. Q. You don't remember whether you ever told Holtz that he was en- titled to it and ought to have if? — A. No, I don't; but I think he was entitled to it. I do not recollect of saying it to you; but I would just as soon say it now. Q. What I want to bring out is whether you did not say so to Holtz?— A. If Mr. Holtz will testify that I did, I will not deny if Q. It is important to know v/hether Mr. Morgan did not say so to Mr. Holtz. — A. I have no recollection on that subject. Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Bailey that you thought he was entitled to this place and ought to have it '? — A. No, sir. Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Johnson that you thought Bailey was en- titled to it and ought to have it '? — A. No, sir. Q. Nothing like that "? — A. No, sir. Q. Do you know Mr. Wallace '? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you ever tell him you thought Bailey ought to have this place'? — A. No, sir. Q. I propose to contradict you on this point and I want to give you fair notice. I ask you again if you did not, in one of the rooms in the second story of the Commission, call Bailey to one side and say to him, I am going to resign and am going to the Treasury, I am going to get out of the way, and 1 hope you will get this place"?— A. I recollect of speaking to him. Q. One day in going to lunch and returning from lunch in company with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Wallace did you not tell them that Bailey was entitled to this position and ought to have it "? — A. I have no recol- lection. Q. I would like to have you answer the question directly yes or no 1 — A. How can I answer it yes or no when I have no recollection about it '? The Chairman. Might you have said so'?— A. I might have said so; hut I do not think I did and I have no recollection on the subject. 76 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. By Mr. Thompson : Q. I understood you just now to say that you did not say so to John- son ? — A. I would not be positive. Q. Do you positively say that you did not say so to Bailey ? — A. I am pretty positive on that point. Mr. Bailey, being the oldest clerk there, was entitled to the next promotion ; but not to the position of stenographer, unless he was qualified for it. Q. That was only the $1,800 place I— A. Yes, sir. By Mr. EoosevblT : Q. Do I understand you to say that Mr. Holtz had told you that Bailey was not entitled to the promotion? — A. Yes, sir 5 there was a conversation on that promotion and we both concurred in that idea. Q. Your statement was that Mr. Holtz told you that Bailey was not entitled to the promotion *? — A. Yes, sir; he felt aggrieved himself , and thought that he was entitled to it and I thought so too. Q. You say that was what Holtz told you ? — A. That is the sum and substance of it 5 yes, sir. By Mr. LiND : Q. Mr. Morgan, were you acquainted with the relative capacity of these two men, Bailey and Holtz, as clerks? — A. As clerks ? Q. Yes ; for ordinary office- work, — A. Well, I thought they were on an equality in th^t respect as ordinary clerks, outside of their steno- graphic qualifications. Q. I asked you whether you were acquainted with them ? — A. Yes, sir ; I have been with both of them. I have seen them both at clerical work in the office. Q. Did you work in the same room ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And handle papers alongside of them? — A. Yes, sir; with Mr. Holtz, but not with Mr. Bailey. The only information I had of Mr. Bailey was that I was detailed upstairs, and they assigned me to act as stenographer for him to take down his dictations and correspond- ence. 1 objected to that. Q. I do not care about that ; you were more familiar then with the capacity of Mr. Holtz than you were with the proficiency of Mr, Bailey for ordinary clerical work? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And your general information is that they were about the same? — A. Yes, sir. Q. As a matter of fact much the larger portion of your time and the time of any one who acts as a stenographer or is known as a stenog- rapher in the Civil Service Commission is occupied in performing other duties ?— A. A great portion of the time. Q. The greater portion ? — A. Yes, sir; the major portion of it. By Mr. Stone : Q. Is this paper which I hold in my hand the original commission given to you by Mr. Oberly? — A. Yes, sir; I think that is the one. Q. Have you a copy of this? — A. No, sir; that is the original. Mr. Stone. I will read this and ask the stenographer to take it down. United States Civil Service Commission, Washington, September 18, 1886. William E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, is hereby appointed stenographer of tbe Civil Soivice Commission, i*s provided for by section 3 of an act to regulate and improve tlic civil service of tbe United States; this appointment to take etiect, as soon as he sball lile the oath of office, for the probationary period of six mouths. John H. Oberly, Commissioner in charge. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 77 Mr. BoATNER. I understood you to say awhile ago, in answer to a question about the comi^etency of Mr. Bailey, that you considered him competent as an amanuensis. — A. Yes, sir; I think I saw him take dic- tation from Major Webster. That is the only stenographic work I ever saw him do. By Mr. Lyman: Q. Just in that line, what opportunity had you for knowing whether Mr. Bailey was or was not a stenographer ? — A. During my sojourn up- stairs I was in communication with Mr. Bailey every day and 1 saw him do stenographic work on several occasions and I sat down and saw Major Webster dictating to him. I took the dictation myself to see whether Mr. Bailey was a stenographer or not. He took a good many notes and filled out his letters in his own language, which Major Web- ster approved ; but I do not think he ever took it down verbatim. Q. That is your only means of knowing? — A. That is my only means of knowing ; yes, sir. I never saw him do any stenographic work and never beard of him doing any. Mr. Oberly. Mr. Eoosevelt asked the question evidently with the intention of showing that Mr. Morgan was transferred from the Treas- ury Department by transfer without examination. I want to bring out that point. Mr. LiND. That is immaterial on this specification. Mr. Oberly. No examination for transfer was then necessary or could be made. Thursday, February 27, 1890. TESTIMONY OF CHARLES LYMAH— Recalled. Mr. Charles Lyman, recalled. Mr. EwART. I want to recall Mr. Lyman in order to examine him in reference to the appointment of Mr. Bailey. Mr. Lyman. I was not on the stand yesterday when the testimony closed. By Mr. Ewart : Q. I believe I understood you to say yesterday that Mr. Bailey was appointed without any examination ? — A. I said that Mr. Bailey was appointed without the usual examination. Q. Then that appointment was made by yourself under Eule 6, which prescribes that no promotion shall be made in any Department without a test of fitness ? — A. The appointment was made by the Com- mission. Q. Under Eule 6 ?— A. Under Eule 9. Q. Eule 6 prescribes that promotions may be made upon any test of fitness t — A. In the last report it is Eule 9. Q. That being the case, how do you reconcile that action in the case of Mr. Bailey with the language used in the report of July, 1887, where you say the test of fitness is required? Please explain that apparent variation in your appointment of Mr. Bailey, and theJanguage used as a Commissioner in making that report '? — A. I will say that the appoint- ment of Mr. Bailey was made in conformity with the general practice of the Commission, both before and after that time. 78 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. That is not an answer to the question. I am asking yon to ex- plain the variance between the language used in making that report and the action in the appointment of Mr. Bailey without requiring him to pass the examination. — A. If I may be allowed to answer the ques- tion in my own w\ay, I will say that I am stating the lact that the pro- motion of Mr. Bailey was made in conformity with the practice both before and after his promotion — a practice pursued in the office of the Civil Service Commission, and a x^ractice which was in effect at the time this report was written, and a practice which has continued since that time, not only in the office of the Commission, but in the Depart- ments. My understanding of this language is that every promotion must be made in conformity with the law under the provisions of the rule referred to. My understandiug of what the Commission means to say here is that every promotion must be made in accordance with the requirements of the statute under the provisions of the rule referred to, or any rule which is made to apply to the subject of promotions ; and that the law and the rule require that some test should be made. The rule itself says (and the rule must be construed to be in harmony with the law) that it may be upon a test of fitness determined by the pro- moting officer. That test of fitness, according to this language, should be an "examination. That examination may be a written examination made at the time, or it may be an observation of the fitness of the can- didate for promotion made from day to day, from week to week, and from month to month, under the direct supervision of the promoting officer. Either of these methods would be in harmony with the law, the rule, and the practice. Q. Then what you had reference to when you said in your report, the test of fitness required by the rule must be made in accordance with what is quoted there, that the test of fitness must be an examination, had reference to such examination as the promoting officer might choose to make ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. How many stenographers were in the office at the time this pro- motion .was made ? — A. Five, at least. Q. Was your personal observation of these stenographers such as to satisfy you that Mr. Bailey was a superior officer to any of them ? — A. I have not taken that position, Q. Was your i)ersonal observation of these five stenographers such as to convince you that Mr. Holtz was a better stenographer than Mr. Bailey "? — A. I think I said so yesterday. Let me state, once for all, that under this language of the rule which vests the power and respon- sibility with the promoting officer to make promotions upon any test of fitness determined upon by him, the Civil Service Commission in the matter of Mr. Bailey's appointment made such an examination as to satisfy it that his promotion would be in conformity with law, and with the best interests of the service. Q. That is not an answer to my question. — A. That is a statement of the fact, and the Civil Service Commission rests its responsibility, so far as 1 am concerned, upon that statement. Q. There were five stenographers in the office. I ask you if your per- sonal observation was such as to satisfy you that when Mr. Bailey was appointed to this position, with a salary of $1,800, he was a superior stenographer, or more expert than Mr. Holtz, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Will- iams, or Mr. Culver i? The Chairman. I think Mr. Lyman answered that fully yesterday. Mr. BoATNEE. He said there were other duties than stenographic duties. That Mr. Bailey was appointed, and while this gentleman ve- CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 79 ferred to (Mr. Holtz) was probably a more rapid stenograph er, lie re- garded the young man Mr. Bailey as competent and worthy to fill this place. By Mr. Ewart : Q. In other words, a more competent one. I ask him if his personal observation was s«ich as satisfied him that Mr. Bailey was a more ex- pert stenographer than Mr. Holtz, Mr. Williams, Mr. Morgon, or Mr. Culver. He can say yes or no. — A. I have answered that several times, but I have no objection to answering it again.- I think that Mr. Holtz was a more rapid stenographer than Mr. Bailey was at that time. I have no doubt on that subject. I think it is due to myself and to the Commission — I have stated it it in J) art before — but yesterday I said that the Commission had five stenographers. J said also that long ago the work of the Commission became such that more than one stenographer was needed. It fre- quently happens that three or four are in requisition at the same time. One man can not possibly do all the work required in the commission. The stenographer who was appropriated for as such has never been em- ployed exclusively as a stenographer, but has been assigned to other duties such as the requirements of theofdce demanded, The work has increased rapidly, and is of such a great variety that it has been im- possible to make an accurate division of the duties — to assign one man to this particular line of work, and keej) him at it. A man may be do- ing one work to day, and another to-morrow, He may be doing steno- graphic work one day, and in entirely different kind of work another day. The pressure upon the Commission has been such that this great variety of work has been demanded of the employ <§s, and it has been a question of judgment with the Commission, in view of the necessities of the public work, whether this man or that or the other man should do this, that, or the other kiftd of work. Mr. Bailey has been several years in the Commission. He has proved himself to be an exceedingly valuable clerk. He has been trusted with very responsible work in the office of the Commission. He has performed that work to the entire satisfaction of the Commission. He was, at the time this promotion was made, the senior clerk of the office, and had been for a long time. In view of all the circumstances, in view of his position in the office, in view of the work he had performed, in view of the fact that he was a stenographer, and that his appointment would satisfy the require- ments of the law, and in view of every consideration of right and jus- tice, and the interest of the public service, he was fairly and justly, in my judgment, entitled to this promotion. His promotion did not vio- late any law, rule, or precedent. It did not in any way do violence to the public service or the public interest. A failure to have promoted him at that time would have been, in my judgment, not only a great outrage upon him, but a detriment to the public service. By Mr. Hatton : Q. The appropriation act says that the clerk shall be a stenogra- pher? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Has the Commission at any time made any degree of rank as be- tween the various stenographers'? — A. No, sir. Q. When Mr. Doyle was a stenographer, did his office appear as such in the report"? — A. I think that might have been ihe case. Q. When Mr. Morgan was a stenographer, did his name apj^ear 1 — A. I think so. 80 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. I think it has always been inserted, until the last report. — A. No importance was attached to that. Q. Mr. Morgan was the stenographer at the time of the last report, was he not? — A. Yes, sir. Q. That was a short time before Mr. Bailey had been appointed ?— A. It was some time before. By Mr. Boatner : Q. Was Mr. Bailey promoted by law, or by the Commission? — A. By the Commission. Q. Did he undergo a civil service examination at any time before he was appointed? — A. He took the clerks' examination. He was ap- pointed in the War Department, and was subsequently transferred to our Commission. Q. I understand that he did not undergo any other examination at the time of, or after, his promotion, and the only test of fitness applied was the observation of the Commission as to his fitness and qualifica- tions for the position ? — A. I have not said that. I said that at the time of his promotion no written examination was required of him. Q. I understood you to say just now, in answer to the question of Mr. Ewart, that you considered that the law was complied with ? — A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Ewart : Q. I asked you, in view of the fact, whether or not Mr. Bailey had a written examination with reference to this promotion, either before or after the promotion, and you said he did not. — A. I did not say that. My testimony has been to the effect that at the time he did not have such a written examination. He did have it after. Q. How long after 1 — A. Some little time after this question came up. Q. What was the result of that examination ? — A. He passed the examination. Q. Asa stenographer ? — A, Yes, sir. Q. Before his promotion 1 — A. ]No, sir. By Mr. Stone : Q. I understood you to say yesterday that Mr. Morgan was receiving, while in the employ of the Commission, a salary of $1,800, and that he was appointed under the iiuthority of the appropriation act. Mr. Oberly said that he was appointed official stenographer under author- ity of the third section of this act of January 16, 1883, known as the civil service act? — A. Yes, sir. Q. I find on reference to that third section that the Commission has authority to employ a stenographer who shall be paid, when employed, at the rate of $1,600 a year. — A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you say that he was appointed under authority of that act? — A. I have never seen the letter of his appointment. I was not in Wash- ington at the time it was made, and 1 am in no way responsible for it. Q. I was simply asking in order to understand whether that was a mistake, or how it was. — A. I should say that it was a mistake. Q. Did the appropriation act authorize the appointment of an addi- tional stenographer ? — A. No, sir -, I think not. Q. There was no appropriation then for any appointment under this act? — A. Eot under the terms of that act. Q. Was there any appropriation for more than one stenographer for your Commission ? — A. No, sir. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 81 By Mr. Hatton : Q. Do you remember, ou the examination of Mr. Bailey as a stenog- rapher, at what grade he passed 1 — A. I think at the grade of 72 and a fraction. Q. Do you remember whether it was higher or lower than the grade of the other gentlemen examined as stenograj)hers ? — A. 1 do not re- member the different grades. It was a higher grade than the grade attained by Mr. Holtz on. his examination. It was a lower grade than was attained by some others. Mr. BwAET. As I understand it, the heads of bureaus in other De- partments can make promotions from their personal obser\7^ation '? The Witness. They are doing it every day. Mr. BoATNBR. I would like to ask some questions as to the general scope of the civil-service law. The Chairman. Would it not be better to postpone that until we are through with these charges ? This witness will have to be recalled, TESTIMONY OF W. S. STURGES. W^. S. Sturges, sworn and examined. ' By Mr. Bwart : Q. Please state you name, residence, and occupation. — A. W. S. Sturges ; my legal residence is ISTew York City ; I am a clerk in the office of the Adjutant- General. Q. Were you ever in the employ of the Civil Service Commission f — A. Yes, sir; from the 1st of August, 1.S88, to the 1st of February, 1890. Q. Do you know Mr. Bailey? — A. Quite well. (^. At present stenographer in the Civ^il Service Commission 1 — A. Yes, sir. Q. What position does he hold!— A. I believe he is stenographer, an. I an $1,800 clerk. Q. Did you occupy a desk in the room with him ? — A. I occupied a de>k in an adjoining room for a year previous to his promotion. Q. Did he do any stenographic work at that time? — A. JSTot to my knowledge. * Q. Were you in a position to know if he had ?— A. lam quite sure of it. Q. State if he was ever called upon to do any stenographic work of any kind. — A, Not for a year preceding his promotion. Q. Do you know that Mr. Bailey was not called upon as a stenogra- plicr? — A. He was not, to the best ol my knowledge. Q. You say you know he was not? — A. I had a good opj)ortuuity to know it. Mr. Roosevelt. Do you know that Major Webster frequently used him as a stenographer? The Witness. IsTo, sir. By Mr. Boatner : Q. If Major Webster had used him as a stenographer, you would have known it? — A. I know that he wrote a great many letters, but I do not think that Major Webster used him as an amanuensis. He told IMr. Bailey what he wanted written. Q. Were you ever present? — A. After he was appointed steuog- ra})her. Q. You say you h)i02v that he was not called upon to do stenographic . 3117 6 82 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. work. Were you present at any time when Major Webster dictated to liim ? — A. No, sir. Q. Did you occupy the same room Major Webster did ? — A. I occu- pied the adjoining room. Q. Are you aware that Major Webster frequently used him as an amanuensis during that period ? — A. No, sir. Q. J3o you know that he frequently wrote letters for Major Webster ? — A. I know that he wrote a great many letters. Q. You say Major Webster did not dictate letters to him, but fre- quently told him what he wanted him to write ? — A. That was my observation. Q. Were you present on any occasion when Major Webster told him what he wanted him to write ? — A. 1 think I have been. Q. On how many occasions 1 — A. On some; I don't remember how many. By the Chairman : Q. Did you observe whether he was taking down notes when he wrote letters "I — A. He may have taken notes, but I don'r think that he took them in short-hand. Q. You don't know whether he did or not ? — A. I do not think he did. By Mr. Greenhalge ; Q. Where was Major Webster's room, as regards yours? — A. It was adjoining. Q. Do you undertake to say what Major Webster and Mr. Bailey were doing when they were in an adjoining room? — A. My work was quite closely connected with theirs. Q. How closely was it connected with theirs 1 — A. I had charge of all the applications and everything in reference to an examination, and Mr. Bailey had general charge of the examinations and wrote letters. Q. You mean that you worked together in the same room ? — A. I do not say that we worked in the same room, Q. Did the work which you did in connection with the work of Major Webster and Mr. Bailey enable you to tell what they were doing, and the manner of their work, when you were in a different room "? — A. I had to go into their room quite often. Q, Do you mean to say with any distinctness that you can remember as to the employment of Mr. Bailey with the work of Major Webster— whether it was dictation, copying, or otherwise? — A. I do not think he ever copied anything for Major Webster. By Mr. Eoos'EVELT : Q. Have you any personal feelings against Major Webster?— A. Yes, sir ; I have. Q. On what grounds ? — A. I don't think he treated me fairly. Q. Have you any feelings against Mr. Bailey? — A. None at all. Q. You were formerly with the Commission ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. For what were you dismissed ? — A. Making mistakes in marking examination papers. Q. On the report of Major Webster to the Commission ? — A. On one of his reports to the Commission, Q. Reports which the Commission investigated? Mr. EwART (interposing). I want to know what connection his feel- ings have with this matter. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 83 Mr. EoosEVELT. 1 want to show that the witness has an animus. Mr. EwART. He has just testified that he has no feelings against Mr. Bailey. By Mr. Eoosevelt : Q. "Your connection with the Commission was severed in consequence of certain errors repeated on more than one occasion ? — A. I do not think so. They were errors made in one set of papers, Q. Do you not know that you were twice reported to us by Major Webster for errors committed "? — A. I was reported twice. Q. When you were first reported by Major Webster, and the matter was investigated, and we determined to remove you, \ou came down and entreated to be allowed to stay, did you not ? — A. I did not entreat to be allowed to stay. Q. You saw Governor Thompson, and you said that you hoped the fault would be forgiven ? — A. I did not confess to any fault. Q. You asked to be allowed to stay and see if you could not do per- fectly satisfactory work? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And about a month afterward you were again reported as doing unsatisfactory work ? — A. I was transferred to the War Department on the request and recommendation of Commissioner Eoosevelt. Mr. Eoosevelt. And we told the Secretary of War all the facts. Mr. EwART. This is entirely irregular. By Mr. Eoosevelt : Q. You were transferred to the War Department. Do you recollect coming to Govenor Thompson and myself and admitting frankly that you had committed these faults, and that you had nothing to say about it? — A. I had something to say about it. Q. You admitted that you had made the mistakes, and you made no complaint against the justice of the action of the Commission ? — A. I can not say that. Mr. Eoosevelt. I can. By the Chairman : Q. Youhave no recollection of that? — A. No, sir. Mr. Eoosevelt. And you requested that you should be given a couple of weeks to see if you could not arrange for a transfer at a lower salary. The Witness. The Commission stated that I would have until the 15th of February in which to resign. By Mr. Thompson : Q. Did you not make a special request that the reasons should not be given out ? — A. I did not want them to be put ou the minutes until after I had been transferred. Q. What did we say about that?— A. The last time I saw you, you said you had not come to any conclusion about it 5 but they were not put on the minutes. Q. Don't you remember coming and making a request after your first offense that those reasons be -not given out, for if they got out you could not get employment? You came to me and made a request, or an appeal, for mercy. Did I not say to you that it had always been mypractice to help and not to hinder young men; thati could for myself, and I believed I could say for the Commission, that we would give you another trial ; that I would report to them and ask that you shoukl be allowed another trial ? — A. You also told me that it was reported that 84 CIVIL BEEVICE INVESTIGATION. the papers were tliree mouths behiud. I suggested that I could not be responsible, because I had only been sis weeks on the board. Q. Do you not know that you came back to me and said that you had a sister depending upon you, and that it was important for you to have some employment, and that you would like to get transferred"? — A. I told you that I would like to get transferred. Q. Did I not say that we would be willing to exchange you ? 1 sug- gested to you that possibly we could get a place in the War Depart- ment for you ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. I think I told you that 1 did not know the Secretary of War, and did not have much intiuence with him ; that I felt Mr. Eoosevelt would be glirul to help any young man, and would probably go to the Secretary of War in your behalf"? — A. Yes, sir; that he would certify that I was of good character. By Mr. EWART : Q. Do I understand that, after you had been given several trials in the Civil Service Couimission to test your capacity, and after you had been pronounced comparatively incompetent, you were recommended by Mr. Eoosevelt for a clerkship in another Department?— A. 1 was given several trials. They said I could not mark examination papers to their satisfaction. Q. And a member of that Commission recommended you to a position in tlie War Dei)artment ? — A. He recommended me to a position in the War Department, stating that it was very likely I would satisfy them. In addition to the first report, I was charged by Governor Thompson with having sneered at the Commission. By Mr. Stone : Q. What position did you hold'?— A. A $1,600 clerkship. Q. What were your duties as a 1 1,600 clerk ? — A. I had charge Of all the applications uiade by persons for examinations. Q. Was any objection ever raised to your accuracy when you were at work as a clerk"? — A. None, whatever; if so, it was never brought to my attention. Q. What work was it which was objected to? — A. I was in charge of the clerical work from the 1st of August, 1888, to the 19th of July, 1889, when I took a vacation. I came back on the 18th of September, and I was told by Major Webster that I would not be put on again. I made five complaints to the Commissioners. The Commissioners finally assigned me to the board of examiners. Q. You were first appointed to a clerkship? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And you were afterwards appointed to the board of examiners. What work did you do on the board of examiners? — A. I marked papers. Q. You graded papers"? — A. Yes, sir. Q. This, then, was the work which was not satisfactory to the Com- mission? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What were the duties of an examiner? — A. The board of ex- aminers marks all the papers for examination in the Kailway Mail Service. Q. You were appointed on the board of examiners when? — A. I was aj)pointed on the -51st of October last. Q. Are ai(i)ointments made to that board under civil service rules"? — A. The a[)pointments are made by tbe Civil Service Commission. Q. What was the salary ? — A. I had the same place on the pay-roll. Q. Sixteen hundred dollars ? — A. Yes, sir. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. OO Q. You spoke of Major Webster not treating you fairly. Was it ou aceount of the reports made or the character of your work ? — A. It was his refusal to give me regular duties for a whole month. Q. How did you happen to get out of the place you were in at first 1 — A. Major Webster told me that I could not come back. Q. How long were you on your vacation? — A. Thirty days. The morning after I came back, Major Webster came to me with some mes- senger work. Q. Why did he not let you come back ? — &l. He never gave any rea- son to me. Q. Did you complain to the Commission 1— A. Yes, sir. Q. What reason did you give"? — A. 1 told the Commissioners that I did not care about doing that work. Q. Why wexe you not permitted to come back, and what reason was assigned ?— A. Major Webster never gave any reason. Q. Did anybody 'i? — A. I was copying this report. He said the work had never been done by a person graded as high as I was. He said my penmanship was bad, and that a $900 clerk could do my work. The Chairman. As an examiner ? The Witness. My work as a clerk. By Mr. Stone : Q. Where did you come from when you entered the Civil Service Commission "? — A. I was a clerk in the Treasury Department. Q. And you were transferred to a $1,600 place in the Commission ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And you held it only a few weeks'? — A. I held it for eighteen months. « Q. You did not do the work of the i)lace for eighteen mouths I — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you do the work for eighteen months before you went ou the vacation ? — A. I was transferred to the place in August, 1888, and I staid there until the 15th of this month. Q. You were really removed from that position as examiner on ac- count of incompetency ? — A. The charge made was that I was careless. Q. No fault was found with you as a clerk ? — A. Not to my knowl- edge. By Mr. Roosevelt : Q. Your last instance of carelessness was the marking of a series of papers for printers' assistants "! — A. Yes, sir. Q. You overlooked a number of errors made in those jDapers ? Mr. BoATNER (interposing). If the purpose is to show the bias of the witness, I think this has gone as far as it is necessary. I do not consider it as pertinent. The Chairman (to Mr. Eoosevelt). You may ask the question. By Mr. Roosevelt : Q. I would like to prove to the satisfaction of the committee what he was dismissed for. (To the witness :) You made errors in marking these papers. Do you not remember that all those errors being in favor of the applicants, in consequence those applicants were entered on the eligible list at higher averages than they were entitled to, and they were notified of the fact that they had passed ? When we came to look over those papers we found those errors, and found that those persons lowest on the list, instead of having passed, failed, and we liad to notify the applicants that they had failed. This was after you 86 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. bad been once reported to us for removal, aud your offense had been j^assed over by tbe Commission. — A. I never acknowledged that I was incompetent. Major Webster reported that I was inefficient. Q. Those are the facts"? — A. Yes, sir. Q. You came to me, or rather you came to Governor Thompson and he came to me, and stated that so far as he knew your past charac- ter and capacity were good ; that you were careless on the Commis- sion and that that was probably due to the fact of the circumstances connected with your appointment, which was said to be due to Mr. Edgerton, and it was alleged (with what truth I do not know) that your appointment was a piece of favoritism on the part of Mr. Edgerton ; that you were, therefore, brought into continual clashings with the other members of the force. — A. I did not have any clashings with anybody except Major Webster. Mr. EwAET. After that you were recommended to the War Depart- ment ? The Witness. The Commission wrote to the Secretary of War about me. Mr. EoosEVELT, State fully why we did not want you. I did simply, as a favor to a young man and stated to the War Department the facts. Mr. EwART. I object to this form of procedure. By Mr. Thompson : Q. You said that I charged you with sneering at the Commission ?— A. Yes, sir. Q, Think a moment ; did I not say sneering at the whole civil-serv- ice law ■? Did 1 not say that the report was that you were speaking contemptuously of it? — A. '•You did not give me to understand so. Q. Did I not say to you to go on and do your duty, and the Commis- sion would forget what was past ? — A. Yes, sir ; I think you did. Q. To go along and do your work ? — A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Hatton : Q. Mr. Eoosevelt wanted you to state what you were dismissed for. Were you dismissed 1 — A. They said they would dismiss me with two week's leave. Q. But you were not dismissed ? — A. ]^o, sir. TESTIMONY OF EDWIN D. BAILEY. Edwin D. Bailey, sworn and examined. By Mr. Ewart : Q. Please state your place of residence, occupation, name, etc. — A. Edwin D. Bailey. I am forty years of age. I reside in the city of Washington, and am a clerk and stenographer in the ofhce of the Civil Service Commission. Q. What salary do you receive? — A. Eighteen hundred dollars ayear. Q. Do you hold the position of stenographer provided for in the ap- propriation bill? — A. Yes, sir; clerk and stenographer. Q. When did you commence to study stenography? — A. When I was a boy I made some progress in it, but had very little occasion to use it except in some work as a reporter for newspapers. When I was ap- pointed to a place in the office of the Civil Service Commission, I found that my duties would be to take dictations of letters, aud in view of that fact, I took a full course in stenography; employed a private teacher. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 87 Q. When did you receive your appoiutment? — A. July 19, 1887. Q, Were you appointed as a clerk 1 — A. Yes, sir; a clerk at $1,600 a year. Q. Did you do any stenographic work there? — A. Yes, sir; from the very first I was required to take dictations. Q. From the Commissioners or from the chief examiner'? — A. From both. As I say, when I entered the office of the Civil Service Commis- sion, I at once commenced the study of stenography and I continued the study which I had left off years before. I have continued it up to the present time, Q. Woukl you consider yourself as an expert now? — A. It would de- pend on the definition of the word "expert." I do not think I could take two hundred and fifty words a minute. Q. Could you take this testimony ? — A. I did take it at the first ses- sion of the committee. Q. Would you be willing to take it now ? — A. Yes, sir ; I would be willing to take it. Q. Would you be willing to take it and turn your notes over to an expert? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Would you take this testimony and get your notes up next morn- ing? — A. If the committee required it, I should probably be compelled to. Q. Would you be willing to do it ? — A. I have no apprehension but what 1 could successfully do it. I would do the best I could. I think I could do it. The Chairman. When were you appointed stenographer ? The Witness. I should say I have been stenographer of the Com- mission for three months. I have not refreshed my memory on that point. By Mr. Ewart : Q. Were you examined when you were first promoted? — A. No, sir; I was not. Q. Your promotion was made by Mr. Lyman ? — A. It was made by the Commission. Q. You afterwards passed an examination, did you not? — A. Yes, sir; I afterwards passed an examination. Q. What was the date of that examination? — A. Probably the first or second week in January. I do not remember the date exactly. Mr. Andrew. How long have you been in your present position? The Witness. I presume about three months. I did not fix the date. By Mr. Ewart : Q. After receiving this appointment as stenographer, why was it nec- essary for you to have any examination? — A. I did not suppose it was necessary. I had fitted myself and I thought I was a competent stenog- rapher. I did not make a request for an examination, but I remember expressing to one of the Commissioners a wish that I had been exam- ined before I was appointed in order to quiet the apprehensions of cer- tain gentlemen. Q. Did you first call the attention of the Commissioners to the fact that you desired to stand an examination, or did the Commissioners first call your attention to it ? — A. I first suggested it to one of the Commis- sion. I have said that on one occasion I said to one of the Commission- CBS that I regretted that I had not been examined. Q. To which one of the Commissioners ? — A. Mr. Lyman. 88 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. Did Mr. Lyman advise you to stand this examination ? — A. No, sir, I think not. Q. Did you request liim to fix a date for an examination ? — A. No, sir, I did not. Q. How was the matter brought about? — A. I was examined before the Commission. I knew nothing about the discussions of the Commis- sion on the matter. Q. How did you come to decide to stand this examination ? — A. I did not decide to stand the examination. If you will permit me, I will state the facts. I was examined before the Commission sometime after I had expressed this desire to be examined. No reasons were given me why I was to be examined. I was simply asked to come before the Commis- sion and stand an examination. I did so and they dictated the matter to me, and I sat there and wrote out in long hand what they had given me, and I passed an examination. I do not know what the reasons for it were. I do not know whether they expressed a wish in regard to it. By Mr. Stone : Q. Who graded -that examination ? — A. I have understood that a member of the board of stenography and typewriting, Mr. Shively, graded my papers. I have nev^er seen the papers and merely know from hearsay that Mr. Shively marked them. Q- Since you passed that examination, have you been doing the work in the office as a stenographer? — A. My work has not been very mate- rially changed. Really I was correspondence clerk. I was continued in that position with some miscellaneous duties in addition. I have one class of work which I did not have before. Some of the Commis- sioners had given me regularly their official correspondence, and I have done other work. I could not do it all, as my other duties would not permit, and there are several stenographers in the Commission. One takes the minutes of the board, and occasionally some are sent out with investigating committees. So far as the work of the Commission is concerned, I do not know that I did as much as any other one man. Q. HTave you ever been out with any of these investigating commit- tees? — A. No, sir. Do you mean out as a stenographer? Q. Yes. — A. No, sir ; I have not. My duties were of such a charac- ter that it was very difficult for me to be away constantly. Q. How long have you known Mr. Hoitz ? — A. I think I have known him ever since he came upon the Commission. It is probably over two years. Q. Would you consider him an expert stenographer ? — A. I should want to have the word "expert" defined. Mr. LiNB. The law and regulations of the Commission do not require an expert, and I think this is wholly immaterial. Mr. EwART. All I want to know of this witness is, does he consider himself as good a stenographer as either Mr. Holtz, Mr. Williams, or Mr. Culver ? The Witness. I have never had any opportunity of comparing my work with theirs. I have done all I was required to do. Mr. Greenhalgb. Are you any relation to any member of the Com- mission ? — A. No, sir ; 1 was a stranger to the Commission when I took my first examination. By Mr. Thompson : Q. Have you not duties in addition to that of stenographic work? — A. I have. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 89 Q. In the absence of Major Webster are you not the acting chiefl — A. Yes, sir. Q. And when he is present .voii are his principal assistant ? — A. Ybs. sir. Q, Did you hear Mr. Morgan's testimony yesterday ?— A. No, sir, I did not, Q. 1 will ask you if Mr. Morgan ever told you he hoped that yo-i would get the promotion to the place of stenographer in the Commisi> sion? 1 will ask you to state whether Mr. Morgan ever said that W you f — A. In answer to that I would like to state the circumstanceis.. Mr. Morgan came to me one day Mr. Stone. This is that irregular sort of testimony on which I thini the rule ought to be enforced. The question was asked Mr. Morgan if, about the date of this appointment, in one of the rooms occupied bj the (Jommission or its clerks, Mr. Morgan said to you that he hoped that you would obtain this appointment, or words in substance. The Witness. He did. Mr. Stone. I think that ends it. Mr. Thompson. I have two witnesses on that point. One of them is sick. Mr. Hatton. I would like permission to ask Mr. Bailey one question. Mr. Bailey has been asked in regard to what Morgan said to him, and I want to ask Mr. Bailey one question in regard to what he said \j Morgan. The Witness. Would it be fair to state all the circumstances ? The Ohaieman. Lot the question be asked. By Mr. Hatton : Q. Do you remember at any time that Mr. Morgan said he was going to leave the Commission, and you said that you were very sorry and that he had been badly treated? And did you state to him, "This is our hash and we must have charge of the platter?" — A. I remember Mr. Morgan saying that he believed he had been unfairly treated, and I remember saying to him that in my opinion he had not been, and when he stated to me certain facts which he thought were in the nature of grievances, I endeavered to make an explanation of those facts and to show that there was no intentional slight. I said I was sorry he was going. I presume I said it. I had the kindest feelings toward Mr. Morgan, and feeling so, I presume I said this. Q. Do you remember saying that the reason was that he was a Dem- ocrat? — A. I do not think the word "Democrat" was used. I do not think the question of politics was used. Q. He is a Democrat ? — A. I have heard so. Q. He is a friend of ex-Commissioner Oberly ? — A. Yes, sir. I would not be too certain as to what I did say to him. I remember that we talked on that subject. I do not think I could have said it. Q. Did you say, "This is our hash and the present Commissioners must have charge of the platter?" — A. Xo, sir; I am not in the habit of talking about hash and platters, and had nothing of that sort to say. Q. Y^ou did not say that ? — A. No, sir. Q. Are you engaged in any business during office hours outside of your duties with the Commission? — A. No, sir, no other business. 90 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. TESTIMONY OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT— Recalled. Theodore Roosevelt recalled. Mr. EwART. Before this witness goes on with his testimony I desire to state here that I want the rule strictly enforced. I would be glad to hear anything Mr. Eoosevelt has to testify to, but anything in the way of a statement is entirely irregular. The Witness. I am pleased to hear that the rule is to be enforced. By the Chairman : Q.— It has been stated that you discharged or were about to dis- charge a clerk in your Commission by the name of Sturges, and that you afterwards obtained for him a transfer to the War De- partment. Will you please state how you came to make that recom- mendation ■? — A. Mr. Sturges had come to me two or three times du- ring last summer to explain that there was a prejudice against him in the Commission. On the other hand, I had heard from at least four or five employes of the Commission that he was doing bad work in the Commission. He was reported to us twice by Major Webster for dis- missal for bad work. The first time he came it was to Governor Thomp- son, and Governor Thompson came to me. He came to Governor Thompson and spoke in a very humble manner, stating that he was just starting in life, and that it would give him a black eye if he were turned out of the Commission. He admitted that we were justified in our action, but asked that we should have mercy on him. At the re- quest of Governor Thompson I agreed that Sturges should be con- tinued a month longer. We had nothing against his capacity, nothing against his character or his habits. I, for one, and I believe the rest of, the Commission felt the same way, thought that he was careless, and that while holding this place he was not doing his work. The case was again brought to our attention. We found that even after our last warning to him another complaint came from Mr. Webster. His mother had been to see me to get me interested in his behalf. I told him that he would have to go. He then came to Governor Thompson, and Gov- ernor Thompson spoke to me and said that Sturges had got down on his marrow-bones and hoped that he would not be dismissed without a chance to be transferred, and Governor Thompson said he hoped that no obstacle would be placed in his way. I concluded that Mr. Sturges was a round peg in a square hole. I thought that he might do good work in some other office. Mr. Morgan does good work in the mint, but he certainly was not a satisfactory clerk to the Commission, although per- sonally I always got along with him. Mr. Morgan did not do good work on our Commission. Governor Thompson came to me and stated that Sturges had arranged for a transfer, and wanted to know would I be willing to go to the Secretary of War, explain this to the Secretary and see if they would be willing to take him on my statement. I went there. I did not see the Secretary of War, but I saw a gentleman in the Adjutant-General's office. I stated what the case was. They said they would be perfectly willing to give him a trial. Sturges was ex- changed for a man who was detailed as a stenographer in our office. By Mr. Stone : Q. Is it the custom of the Commission to visit the Departments with the view of having persons appointed, or see that they have preferences in the matters of transfers, or anything of that sort"? — A. In the case of our own employes it is an eminently proper thing, and we always do it. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 91 Q. If tliis man Stnrges had been employed in some other Bureau or Department and was unsatisfactory there, would you consider it aproper thing to go to a difierent Department and ask that he might be trans- ferred to the Department? — A. No, sir. Q. Then you make a difference where the employes of your Commis- sion are concerned ? — A, Yes, sir ; our Commissioners are the only men who can speak for them. Mr. Greenhalge. Is there any waiver of examination ujion a pro- motion or transfer to another Department 1 — A. No, sir ; this was a per- fectly regular transfer. By Mr. Stone : Q. The transfer was regular, but what I was trying to get at was the practice of the Commission in soliciting departmental ofticers. — A. I will give you a statement on that subject. We have detailed to our Department a number of men from the boards of examiners in the dif- ferent Departments. They frequently come to me to aid them. In con- sequence of being detailed from the other Departments they are losing their chances of promotion, especially in the Post-Office Department and the Pension Bureau. If our Commission did not go and speak for those clerks we would be basely ungrateful to them. Q. I am not criticising your action. I am only inquiring as to the system. — A. That has been the practice in the past and will be in the future. By the Chairman : * Q. The fact in this case is that the Commission thought that Mr. Sturges was a competent and efBcient clerk as a clerk, but not a man qualified to work as an examiner in your Commission, and therefore they recommended this transfer 1 — A. That is precisely the case. Those are the terms of our letter. The letter stated he was capable, of good habits and of good character. I think those are the three things mentioned. By Mr. Stone : Q. If he was not competent as a clerk in your Commission, upon what theory would you recommend him to the Adjutant-General's office"? — A. Because I think in our Commission Mr. Sturges labored under the disadvantage of having been a great protege of a former Commissioner. It was currently reported that he got his place through favoritism, and he was all the time thinking that he was being slighted. Complaints were made to us by Major Webster that he would smoke and read dur- ing office hours, and I thought myself and I believe 1 expressed that opinion to Governor Thompson, that it was entirely due to his being- disgruntled with the Commission. I thought he was a round peg in a square hole. Q. All this was done out of the purest kindness ? — A. It was done out of the purest kindness to Mr. Sturges. Q. Without reference to his qualifications or efficiency ? — A. With absolute reference to his qualifications and efficiency; with direct and studied reference to it. Q. I want you to state whether or not you said that Sturges had been guilty of serious and gross irregularities ? — A. I answer that question by saying that 1 can not recollect precisely what I stated. I can not answer that yes or no ; I do not recollect it. I told him that Sturges was not satisfactory to us. I told him the reason he was unsatisfactory to us I believed to be due to exceptional circumstances connected with his position in the Commission j that it was currently believed his ap- 92 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. poiutinent was due to the favoritism of Mr. Edj4erton, and that it im- paired Ms service with us ; that he was no longer useful to us, but I did not think it would interfere with his being useful in the War De- partment. I would like to make a brief statement in reference to Mr. Bailej'. We have no official stenographer at present. There was one appointed by the old provisions of the api^ropriation act for the Civil Service Oom^ mission. That has been dropped by Congress. Congress now appro- priates for eleven clerks and messengers, and makes the stipulation thai at least one of those shall be a stenographer; one of the fourth-class clerks shall be a stenographer. As a matter of fact we have three stenographers. At the time of Mr. Bailey's promotion I was away, but I concurred in it fully. We had at the Commission at that time, as far as I know, only three men able to do stenographic work. I had seen Mr. Bailey employed by Major Webster doing stenographic work. Mr. Swank did the bulk of the work, and he is a $900 clerk, I have no means of knowing which of the stenographers is the most efficient. I should say that Mr. Swank is, merely because he has been doing the bulk of the work. I believe Mr. Holtz is a better stenographer than Mr. Bailey. We chose him (Bailey) with relerence to his efficiency as a clerk and stenographer, and not purely with reference to his efficiency as a stenographer alone. Since T have been on the Commission we have tried always to make promotions from grade to grade. We have eleven employes and seven grades.' Unless there was a good reason for it, we would object to jumping a grade. We would object to jumping a $1,600 man over an $1,800 man. If we considered purely the question of stenography, we might have promoted the man at $900 over the head of all the others to the $1,800 place. Mr. Swank is an excellent man. He is well fitted for his position, but he was not the best fitted nuan for Mr. Bailey's po- sition at all. What we wanted was a clerk and stenographer combined, and it was my belief that it would have been a great injustice to have passed over Mr. Bailey and taken Mr. Holtz from a $1,400 place and given him the $1,800 position over Mr. Bailey. Mr. Bailey was doing a higher grade of work, and had been longer on the force. We have always striven to make promotions according to grade. It is not always practicable to do that. No examination for promotion was required under the law. ISTow we certify a clerk. He can be appointed to a $1,400, a $1,600, or an $1,800 position. We can appoint him to an $ 1,800 position right away. There is no rule of law preventing that. A written examination for passing from one grade to another is not required, except at the War Department, where that system has uniformly been tried, and 1 think it is a failure. That is my private opinion. In an office like our office with seven grades, where three are filled by only one man and the other four by two each, doing entirely different kinds of work, any competitive system is out of the question. It is like a county fair; you can not make a competition between a racehorse and a short-horn bull, as no common test will not apply. You can have a test for a race-horse and a test for a short-horn bull. Mr. Bailey, as I say, was promoted to this position in my absence. When I came back I was informed of his promotion, and agreed to it. I had seen that he was a stenographer. I had never looked at his examination papers; nor had I looked at those of Mr. Holtz and Mr. Swank. I had taken it for granted that he had ])assed an examination. Later it was called to my attention — about three months afterwards (I think by Gov- ernor Thompson, but I may be in error) — that Mr. Bailey was charged with not being a stenographer. I then made some investigation, CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 93 and I heard that Mr. Morgan had told Governor Thompson that Mr. Bailey was not a steuograpber. Several pieces had appeared in the papers aboat that time in reference to the Civil Service Commission. I then went to Mr. Lyman and asked him if Mr. Bailey had taken a stenographic examination. I said that I thought we ought to have a man as stenographer who could pass an examinatiou. That was a per- sonal opinion of mine. I think that was the opinion of the other Com- missiouers also. We talked the matter over, and we agreed that Mr. Bailey should be tested as a stenographer, and I said on my own re- sponsibility I did not know how the other members felt, that I would not be willing to keep a man who could not pass an examination. Accordingly, we examined Mr. Bailey, Governor Thompson reading in the regular form one paragraph of the stenographic examination and Mr. Lyman reading the next paragraph. We examined him and sent the paper to the ordinary board of markers. They marked the i)apers and it was found that he passed at 73. Mr. Holtz's grade was 67. Mr. Swank's (the $900 clerk) was 81. It would have been a self-evident ab- surdity to have given Mr. Holtz the position which Mr. Bailey now holds. Mr. Bailey holds the highest and most important position in our Bureau. Since he passed this examinatioQ all of my stenographic work has been given to Mr, Bailey. I have written some letters to the chairman of this committee ; I have written some to Mr. Boatner and some to most of the members within the last two months, and those which do not appear in my own handwriting have been vvritten by Mr. Bailey. Every letter in a different handwriting from the signature has been the writing of Mr. Bailey. He occupies the most important position of any member of our force. As an 1 1,800 clerk, he must be a stenographer. He has been employed for two months doing my work, and I submit that that is more than complying with the requirements of the law. By Mr. Lind : Q. Do you think that your personal appeal to the officer in the War Department had the effect of securing this transfer in behalf of Mr. Sturges ? — A. Yes, sir ; because if we had simply declined to allow him to be transferred, of course he could not have been. By Mr. Greenhalge : Q. The personal appeal was irrespective of competency '? — A. Oh, no. TESTIMONY OF HON. HUGH S. THOMPSON—Ecvcalled. Hon. Hugh S. Thompson, recalled and further examined. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, I shall detain the committee but a moment, for 1 shall be brief. In regard to the question that I asked Mr. Sturges, whether or not he was charged with sneering at the Com- mission, 1 have no doubt that he meant to say what the facta were ; buc he is mistaken. When an order was made to dismiss Mr. Sturgis, in January, he came to me and made an appeal for mercy, and I sa>id to him, " Sturges, I have looked into this matter, and I am satisfied that you are not in sympathy at all with this Commission ; that you do not believe in the civil service law; and I believe, therefore, that you are not discharging the duties of your place, except in a perfunctory way." I had a great many employes under me in the Treasury (as it will be remembered that I was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury), and I had had some experience in these matters. lu the Treasury I promoted 94 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 8ome clerks and reduced others. I told Mr. Sturges I am satisfied that you have the capacity to go on with this work, but I believe the reason you are not succeeding is that you are not in sympathy with your work. I advise you to go to work like a man. If you have made yourself ob- jectionable to your fellow-clerks, try to overcome those troubles. I told him that if he would go ahead and do his work, we would give him another trial. He assurred me that there would be no further trouble. By Mr. Hopkins : Q. When was this talk with Sturges ? — A. It was in January. We thought we could not retain him. I got a letter from a friend of mine, a Democrat and a general in the late war, making an appeal for Stur- ges. I answered that letter, but kept no copy of th e reply. I remember stating that Sturges was an unsatisfactory clerk. He had been appointed by Mr. Edgerton, and that after Mr. Edgerton left he seemed to be more careless than ever. I remember that I was a little influenced by this feeling, l^ou may remember that Mr. Cleveland appointed me at that time. I was not confirmed by the Senate, and President Harrison ap- pointed me afterwards. It will be remembered that Mr. Edgerton had published some strictuies against me, and certainly he had said some very harsh things about President Cleveland. I think that feeling caused me to lean back a little bit. I did not want to feel in my own conscience that I had been harsh to the friend of a man who had been unfr.endly to me. That was one reason why I asked the Commission to give Mr. Sturges this trial. My colleague reminds me that I felt exceedingly sorry for the young man. I said that Sturges had "come down off his high horse." He claimed that he was there as a law clerk, and that he had passed a law examination. His idea was that he was to write legal opinions for the Commission. I did not think that the Commission needed clerks for that purpose. We did not need any legal opinions anyhow. When- ever we wanted a legal opinion we sent the case to the Attorney-Gen- eral for, his opinion. We did not really need a law clerk. When Mr. Sturges came to me the last time, I think he said that he had no prop- erty in the world, and that if he were dismissed from the Comuiission it would be a "black eye." With that view, he asked to be trans- ferred. We concluded that we would ask for a transfer for him, as we thought he might do his work well in other Departments. I told him that I had no influence with this administration, and I knew but one or two members of the Cabinet. I said that Mr. Roosevelt was a gen- erous, magnanimous man, and I had no doubt that he would speak to the Secretary of War in his behalf. We selected that place because we had a clerk from the War Department detailed to do our work, and he was satisfactory, and we wanted to get that man on our roll. In the Treasury Department I had repeatedly reduced men for similar offenses. One of the last cases I had in the Treasury was to reduce a clerk who was reported to me for neglect of duty and inefficiency. I reduced a $1,G00 man to a thousand-dollar place, and he was turned out soon after I left, showing that I was right, and that I did not go quite far enough. I did not want to do any harm to any man. By Mr. Hatton : Q. Your impression was that Sturges was a favorite of Mr. Edger- ton! — A. My impression was that he had become soured on the Cora- mission. He would smoke and read papers during olfice hours and was not satisfactory. Q. But he was a protege of Mr. Edgerton! — A. He was a j)rot6g6 CIVIL SERA^ICE INVESTIGATION. DS and persoual friend of Mr. Edgertou. I do not mean to charge any- thing improper in his apx^ointment. By Mr. Boatner : Q. You heard the statement of Mr. Roosevelt this morning'? Do you differ with him as to the objects and purposes of the Commission in the action he took with reference to Mr. Sturges ? — A. No, sir. By Mr. Ewaet : Q. How is it that you did not assign him to a clerkship in the Civil Service Commission 1 — A. We had no strictly clerical service to which we could assign him. Q. Could you not assign him to the place of a copyist or some other position in your Bureau 1 — A. He had been tried in two or three places and had not succeeded. Mr. Sturges is a man of inaccurate mind. By Mr. Boatner : Q. Do you think a man of inaccurate mind can be a good lawyer 1? — A. He claimed to be a pretty good lawyer, and I thought it possible that the War Department might use him in preliminary examinations of legal questions. I think probably he could examine some character of claims that they have. 1 think Sturges could make a preliminary re- port on questions of law, but I would not trust him to make a final report on anything. By Mr. EwART : Q. You would not trust him to do any of the work on your Commis- sion ? — A. No, sir ; not as it is now constituted. On account of the great variety of work that we have, we have to arrange the duties of the difltereut clerks, and he could not perform the services of any one of them. By Mr. Lind : Q. It has been stated that he was a poor penman. — A. I do not know as to that. Mr. EoosEVELT. When we recommended Sturges to the War Depart- ment, we did so on a fair statement of his case, and asked him to give him a trial. Mr. Thompson. I think it was to General McKeever, or a clerk in his department, and it was upon a full and frank statement. He did not go there with a clean bill of health. If we had had a lower place in our force, I do not know but that I would have been willing to have reduced him and given him another trial there. By Mr. Boatner : Q. He does not seem to have reciprocated your kindness? — A. I was surprised myself when I heard what he said. The clerk with whom he exchanged was Mr. Hoyt. Mr. Hoyt came to me and said, " Sturges wants me to make an exchange with him, and 1 said to him I will make this exchange if you will keep your mouth shut." I said, "He can state anything he knows; our record is perfectly clear. If you choose, you can exchange with him, but let him talk all he wants to. Our record will show whether we are right or not, and make no compact with him. We do not want to drive him from employment," When the vacancy to which Mr. Bailey was appointed occurred, Mr. Koosevelt was absent from the city. I didnot know that theapproijriation bill specified that our $1,800 clerk should be a stenographer. I had read the whole law carefully. I must say I have never read an appropriation 96 CIVIL WEEVICE INVESTIGATION act in Congress, except so far as it affected my duties. I did not know tliat there was anything iu the appropriation act which required that the place shoukl be held by a stenographer. Mr. Lyman is clear in his recollection of that matter, and I am equally clear iu my own recollec- tion. I had a couversation with Mr. Morgan and he surprised me very much in the remark which he made about Mr. Bailey. He said that he did not think Mr. Bailey could write hfty words a minute. I knew that any man who could not write fifty words a minute was not a good stenographer. I said, " I, for one, am not williug to have a man hold the place unless he complies with the spirit of the law." I thought that we ought to examine him, and if he failed we ought to give the place to somebody else. Accordingly, we ordered Mr. Bailey to stand an ex- amination. He did stand an examination and the board of examiners took Bailey's papers. They did not have any means of knowing whose papers they were, and could not possibly know whose papers they were marking. They were not in the Commission, but the papers were sent jnst as any other papers are, and they reported upon them. Their report satisfied me that Mr. Morgan's opinion as to Islr. Bailey's quali- fications was worthless. The stenographic examiners of the Commis- sion testified that Mr. Bailey was a stenographer. By Mr. Bwaj?,t : Q. Do I understand you to say that the reason why you subjected Mr. Bailey to this examination was that there was doubt iu your mind as to whether or not Commissioner Lj^man had a right to promote him f — A. No, sir; I did not know that the appropriation bill called for a stenographer until late in December. One day in talking with Mr. Doyle, the secretary^ of the Commission, he mentioned the fact that the appropriation act required that our $1,800 man should be a stenog- rapher. I said, " I am surprised at that." Mr. Lyman said that he had called my attention to it at the time. I was surprised when Mr. Doyle told me. I was satisfied I had not kuown of it. Mr. Morgan said Mr. Bailey' was not a stenographer. I regarded Mr. Morgan, and I think his reputation was that of being a good stenographer. When he an- nounced this opinion in regard to Mr. Bailey I was astonished, and I determined to see whether it was so. If I had found that Mr. Bailey was not a stenographer I would have opposed his retention and would have voted to put somebody else in. Q. What is your construction of this rule which prescribes how ap- pointments can be made for promotion"/ — A. During the three years that I had special charge of appointments, promotions, and dismissals in the Treasury Department, I presumed that I had a right to make them without examination. I did not make them without examination, and could recall where a man of very great intiuence came to me and ap- pealed to me not to require certain persons to stand examinations. I did not do it because 1 did not intend to have any special pressure brought about such matters. Q. Then in your opinion you thought an examination ought to be held 1? — A. I think it is expedient in a place like the Treasury Depart- ment, where they have so many clerks. I remember one instance, the case of a lady — I suppose there was not another person in the entire country who could do what she could. I knew that an ordinary exami- nation could not test her fitness, and I allowed her a special examina-^ tion. My construction of the law is that it was within the discretion of the head of the Department to say what the examination should be, and whether there should be any at all. He is the sole judge of that. CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 97 By Mr. Hatton : Q. Were you in the city when Mr. Bailey was promoted ? — A. Yes, sir; and consented to it. Q. Had you any knowledge at the time that he was a stenograi)her'? — A. I was not aware the law required that he should be a stenographer. This clause of the appropriation act I did not know about. Q. Do you know whether he was promoted as a stenographer or a clerk I — A. I thought he was promoted as a clerk. I thought we were following the precedent. I did not know what the law was about it at the time, and I want to do my colleague justice. Mr. Lyman insists that he told me so. I do not contradict him on that point. The first person that ever I remember speaking to me about it, and making any impression on my mind, was Mr. Doyle. Q. To whom were these papers referred ? — A. The regular board of examiners. They are not clerks of the Commission, but outsiders. Q. How are those examinations conducted? — A. Anybody about the office may read the dictation exercises. The result is entered upon the report. Then the report is sent to this stenographic board and marked, without their knowing whose papers they are marking. Mr. EwART. We would iDrefer not to go on with this charge until we get certain examination papers of T. E. Mitchell. The Chairman. Mr. Mitchell's papers are here. Mr. EwAET. I would like very much to have an opportunity to ex- amine into them somewhat before we put Mr. Mitchell on the stand. TESTIMONY OF H. T. HOLTZ. H. T. HoLTZ, sworn and examined. By Mr. Thompson : Q. You are a clerk of the Civil Service Commission ?— A. Yes, sir. Q. What salary do you receive?— A. One thousand six hundred dol- lars. Q. What salary did you get when Mr. Bailey was promoted ? — A. One thousand four hundred dollars. Q. Did Mr. Morgan ever say to you that you ought to have the pro- motion to this $1,800 place ? — A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Ewart : Q. When did that conversation occur, and where ? — A. It was last August, or September, when Mr. Eoosevelt was out of the city. It was the latter part of August or the first part of September. By Mr. Eoosevelt : Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Morgan that Mr. Bailey was not a stenog- rapher? — A. No, sir. Mr. Hatton (to Mr. Thompson). Is this [indicating] the regular form of the examination for stenographers? Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. Mr. Hatton. Is this the form which was always used ? Mr. Thompson. That I can not tell you ; I am not present at exami- nations. Mr. Hatton. Were these the same dictations that Mr. Bailey was examined upon ? Mr. Thompson. Those are the papers he was examined upon, 3117 7 98 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Mr. Stone (to Mr. Thompson). I observe, in looking over these papers, that the dictations given Mr. Bailey were all made from this paper ? Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. Mr. Stone. Were these read to liim by some member of the Commis- sion ? Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir; and he wrote them ont. Mr. Stone. Has he been in the habit of dictating from those papers ? Mr. Thompson. I do not know. Mr. Stone. Was he familiar with them ? Mr. Thompson. I should say not. He could not have been fiimiliar with them, 1 think. A man can not take dictation from memory, be- cause he has to follow the words. Mr. Bailey did not know what he was going to be examined upon. You will see yourself that he could not take stenography from memory. Whether he had ever seen the papers or not I do not know. He may have seen them, and he may not have seen them. Friday, February 28, 3890. TESTIMONY or HUGH S. THOMPSON— Continued. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I desire to make a statement in regard to some portion of my testimony on yesterday which seems to have been either misunderstood or mis- represented. I distinctly intended to say, and I thought I did say, that there was nothing wrong in Mr. Sturges's transfer to the Civil Serv- ice Commission. I never meant to charge that Mr. Sturges has gotten there improperly or that Mr. Edgerton had done anything improper. My understanding was that Mr. Sturges passed the civil service examination at a high grade, and was appointed to one Department, I am not sure which, and transferred to anotlier Depart- ment. I have always understood he was a close personal friend of Mr. Edgerton, and that on Mr. Edgerton's leaving the Commission he rec- ommended him, and 1 never supposed for a moment there was any irregularity so l^ir ats Mr. Edgerton's conduct was concerned, and I cer- tainly did not mean to charge it. My own opinion about Mr. Sturges was that in a large othce like the War Office, where he would have a chief of division over him to watch the work, he might be made a use- ful clerk, but I did not think he could be made a useful clerk in our office, a small office where we did not have men enough to correct his mistakes. Now on another point. A gentleman stated to me that he understood me as using the word "influence" yesterday in the sense of political influence. Now, if the committee will remember, this was simply an exchange of clerks. I stated to Mr. Eoosevelt that I did not know the Secretary of War, and I thought it would be better for him to see the Secretary of War, as I, not knowing him, would not receive the consid- eration which he would receive, from the fact that he knew him very well. If it had been the Treasury Department I am free to say I would have gone myself; 1 would have gone to see Mr. Windom at his re- quest. He was with daily intercourse with him on important matters, and in a matter not referring to politics I believed those gentlemen would give him theirordinary consideration, and in the case of a transfer CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 99 to the Treasury I probably should liave gone to Mr. Windom and lie would have given me the same respectful consideration. Mr. Stone. The expression used by Governor Thompson, as I remem- ber, was that he said to Mr. Sturges that he " had no influence with this administration." — A. Perhaps I used that expression with the adminis- tration generally. The only member of the Cabinet I know is Mr. Win- dom. I have been introduced to the Attorney-General and Postmaster- General. I would not know Secretary Tracy or Secretary JlSToble if I saw him. That is, I have been introduced to Mr. Blaine, Ijut I meant I have no personal relations with the Department that would give me consideration at the Department. At the Treasury Department I would be treated with consideration because I am known, but at the War De- partment I did not know that I would, because I am not personally known. Now, I want to say directly on that line. In the Sturges matter I want to say this. Hoyt, who was a clerk in the War Department, as- signed to the Commission, agreed to make an exchange with Mr. Sturges if it could be agreed upon — I think Mr. Sturgis had some friends there, but I do not know that; but they were willing to make the exchange. Hoyt subsequently handed me a production to be used, stating he was a good clerk and efficient, and had done satisfactory work. I never used that; ignored it; but I wrote and found, yesterday, the Secretary had kept the original which was sent to the Secretary of War. This is a copy of the original letter : United States Civil Service Commission, February 8, 1890. The requests for the transfers of G. B. Hoyt and W. S. Sturges are approved and respectfully forwarded to the Secretary or War. Mr. Sturges entered the service under civil-service rules, attaining a high mark at his entrance examination. He is a young man of good habits, character, and capacity. The Commission desires that these transfers be made for the reason that Mr. Hoyt is specially qualified for the duties to which the Commission proposes to assign him, and al-sofor the reasons given orally by Commissioner Eoosevelt to General McKeever and Mr. Tweedale. If these transfers are approved by the Secretary of War the Commission requests that they be made to take effect on the 15th instant. Chas. Lyman, President, I say, in addition, so far as the action of the Commission was con- cerned, we did not intend to bring it out, but in his testimony he made such an unfavorable impression upon me after he had gone upon the witness stand, that I turned to Mr. Eoosevelt and said to him we had better bring out the whole thing. It was our intention to give him an opportunity to tell the whole story ; we had nothing to conceal. He anticipated the very question which we wanted to show, the considera- tion with which he had been treated. Some persons may think, Mr. Chairman, that Lfor my part made a mistake in my action toward Stur- ges. I do not think so, and I never thought so, and whatever errors I may have committed in public life or private life, this is one thing I am perfectly willing to stand by, and I hope no more serious charge can be made against me than that I listened to the earnest request from a young man and I tried to help him when in this difficulty. By Mr. Hatton : Q. In that transfer of Sturges to the War Department as originally intended, would it not promote somebody on the eligible list to have done so ? — A. Oh, yes. Q. You referred to the Secretary of the Treasury in your testimony on yesterday and you stated you never made a removal for political reasons 1 — A. I did not say that. 100 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. I understood you to say so. — A. That is true, but I did not say it; I never made a removal for i^olitical reasons. I am perfectly willing- to say I made a good many and a good many reductions. If that case of Sturges had occurred in the Treasury Department I would have re- duced him. I have reduced men in the Treasury Department for just such reasons. I would have reduced him in the Civil Service Commis- sion but the fact was Sturges was not useful, he made mistakes and a lot of trouble and we had not force to correct his mistakes. I never re- garded them as offenses of moral character because I thought he was under such influences as rendered him absolutely useless. I thought his neglect of duty was rather due to his mental condition than to any deliberate purpose to do any wrong. Q. Of course you have made appointments for political reasons ?— A. Very many, but I never made any in the classified service. Outside of the classified service I made appointments myself for political reasons. Let me explain, I made appointments when Democratic Senators and members came to me with proper representations in regard to a man out- side of the classified service. I do not remember that I have, I can not say I have appointed Republicans, but I have promoted them. I can grant that. I never was asked by a Eepublican to make an appoint- ment. Q. Did you promote any Republican without an examination ? — A. No, sir; never without an examination. There were two cases in which I waived them. One I referred to yesterday was the case of a lady who was an expert in replacing mutilated bills. The other was a case of a young lady who was deaf and dumb and the examination was waived. She was known to be a bright girl who graduated at the institute of Washington. The examination was modified in her case so as to meet her infirmity. Q. When a clerk is transferred from one department to the other in the classified service, does it require an examination I — A. If not ex- amined before. For a transfer there is an examination made ; for a promoti6n there is another examination made. By Mr. Stone : Q. The impression you made on my mind yesterday was different from that as made in your statement this morning. I will say this, I assumed from your observations yesterday the inference that Mr. Koosevelt was requested to see the Secretary of War because he was supposed to have influence with the administration. I presume it was personal influence ? — A. 1 never meant political influence. Q. You never meant any thing of that sort ? — A. I meant he had personal influence with members of the Cabinet because he knew them. Q. I simply wanted to understand distinctly.— A. I repeat, gentle- men, what I stated just now, that if it had been the Secretary of the Treasury I would have gone in person. I would have asked it on reas- onable personal influence, but I would not have asked it on account of political influence. I did not refer to politics at all, it was simply a ques- tion of exchange of clerks and Mr. Roosevelt being well known to the Secretary of War could go to see him and have a personal explana- tion about the matter. It was for no other reason Q. That was the question in your mind "?— A. I meant to say his per- sonal relations with the administration enable him to reach members of the Cabinet in a Avay which I could not do. I did not care to go to the War Office and sit for half an hour in the anteroom waiting my turn, when I knew Mr. Roosevelt would be admitted at once or as soon as the Secretary could see him, on account of his personal relations with CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 101 him. I did not know him at all and Mr. Eoosevelt knew him very well. I did not know the Secretary at all. Kow, sir, before I leave the stand, I want to say in reply to the ques- tion that Mr. Hatton asked just now whether I ever made appointments for political reasons, I will state that I have no recollection that any Re- publican ever asked me to make an appointment. I have several times been asked by Republicans to consider cases of promotion, a thing which anybody had a perfect right to ask me and to say, " Such and such a person is up here for promotion and I would like for yoii to con- sider it favorably." I have always replied and stated that he or she must stand an examination and that we could not settle it until the ex- amination was taken. Now, as to the matter about politics, I am a good deal of a partisan myself, but I have never appointed a man simply be- cause Senators and members of Congress said he was a Democrat, tliougb I knew perfectly well when Democratic Senators and Representatives recommended a man for appointment they recommended him because he belonged to the party. If they did not I took it for granted more or less. Outside of the classified service I do not recollect that 1 ever appointed a Republican to office. I am quite sure I never have. Possibly in minor appointments like messengers or assistant messen- gers I may have done so, but I know in a high office like a chief of a division or places above the classified service I could make affidavit that I never appointed any one but a Democrat. Q. You do right about that. I just wanted to ask this question. You said you never made a promotion without an examination ? — A. No, sir. Q. Why did you insist upon the examination ? — A. Because, as I recollect, there were fifteen to eighteen hundred people in the Treasury Department, and it was impossible for me to know the fitness of all these men. Q. Because the civil service law required the examination? — A. No; because I thought the examination was the best test for promotion where there were so many clerks. Mr. Fairchild never interfered in these things much at all ; he never knew that appointments were made. Sometimes I would tell him about these matters, but he turned them over to me almost entirely. I could not possibly know all these clerks, as I had an immense amount of work to do. I sometimes signed fifteen hundred papers a day — twelve to fifteen hundred a day. 1 had a great many duties to perform. Mr. Fairchild was absent a great deal and I would be Acting Secretary, and it would be impossible for me to inves- tigate all the clerks and to know anything about the merits of those people — of this man and that man. I could not always trust to the judgment of my subordinates, and when they recommended a man or woman I always insisted upon an examination, and, so far as I can recollect now, I never waived any examination except in two cases. One was the special case of a woman — I do not know her name, I never saw her in my life — which case I have stated here before, where I or- dered her to be examined on her work. The other case was that of a girl who was deaf and dumb, appointed in the Treasury, whose knowledge of mathematics was limited. You gentlemen know that it is very difficult to teach mathematics to deaf-mutes. The work she had to perform was not mathematical, and to have given her a rigid examination in that might have excluded her. So I may say I never promoted clerks without an examination at all, except in these two cases. 102 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. By Mr. LiND : Q. While we are on this subject. While you had charge of appoint- ments to the Treasury Department did you make original appointments and promotions from the Civil Service Commission exclusively? — A. In theclassiiied service, sir; outside of the classified service, no. There is a large number of appointments outside of the classified service. If an applicant was not in Washington it would be a great hardship for her or him to come here to be looked at, and then for me to say I am not satisfied with them. I have to have the recommendations of political friends in the matter. When I say political friends I mean Democrats. Q, Were not promotions frequently made from the messenger service, made in the Second Auditor's OfBce; I mean were not persons, employed as messengers and appointed as laborers, frequently promoted to desks ? — A. Yes, sir : that was frequently done until Mr. Cleveland stopped it. I urged it upon Mr. Cleveland for a long time. I told him it was a regular violation of law that had prevailed in the Departments as 1 was informed from time immemorial to appoint messengers and laborers and then assign them to clerical work. I first brought the matter to Mr. Manning, and Mr. Manning consented that I should stop all that. I mentioned that to Mr. Fairchild, and he looked at me and smiled, and ifeaid, "Have you got that all in writingf I said I could get it, and I took the hint and went back to Mr. Manning. It was said that I would have appeals brought to me by members of Congress and it was said I would certainly surrender. The appointment clerk laughingly said, "You have got yourself into a hornet's nest," and I said, "I do not care what members of Congress do ; I will stand by that." For a week I had api^eals made by members of Congress in regard to the mes- sengers and laborers. It was stated that it had been done time out of mind and there was nothing wrong about it. I stated that in my judg- ment Congress had made an appropriation for messengers and laborers and that they must be paid for that work and not for clerical work, and from the time Secretary Manning issued the order until I left in April, 1889, I never appointed a messenger to do clerical work. I think I can claim that I induced Mr. Cleveland to do it. He made an order the 29th of June, 1888, that no person aj)pointed as a messenger or laborer should do clerical work. Q. Is it not a fact that hundreds had been appointed to desks prior to that time?— A. Yes, sir; the way would be this: The chief of the division would have a man assigned as messenger or laborer and then the chief of the division would assign him to clerical work without the knowledge of the Secretary. The Secretary has nothing to do with bringiugthis about. It was only to stop what I believed to be a bad l^ractice that I broke up the entire practice at the Treasury. By Mr. EWAUT : Q. Followingyour invariable rule that you would not make promotions in the classified service except upon examination, if he had been exam- ined prior to his appointment or promotion, would you have required an examination to be made?— A. If the Treasury was no larger than the Civil Service Commission I think there would be no use for the civil- service law at all. We have eleven clerks in the Civil Service Cora- mission, whereas as fromfifteen hundred toeighteen hundred in theTreas- ury Department it is utterly impossible for a man to know the qualifi- cations of each. Q. By the same reasoning could not the head of the Department know who had only twenty clerks under him ?— A. There isnosuchDe- CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 103 partment that I Iciiow of. I know of no Departm( ut in wliicli there are only twenty clerks. Q. Say a chief of division, an officer of that kind who has twenty clerks under him. Why would he not be equally competent to test the fitness by actual observation 1 — A. The Secretary of the Treasury would be turning over practically the power of appointment to his subordinate and the power of promotion. Q. That is not the question. I asked if in your opinion he would not be equally competent, being familiar with the parties from actual observation. — A. Chiefs of divisions do not make promotions, the Sec- retary makes them upon recommendation of the chief. Q. I understand that. — A. I doubt whether there is. I do not know. I could not say how many clerks they have. By Mr. Hatton: Q. What time did President Cleveland stop the promotion of messen- gers to clerkships 1 — A. He stopped the appointments on the 29th of June, 1888. Q. How long was that before he went out f — A. He went out the fol- lowing March. Q. If, when you were Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, either a Democrat or a Kepublican had applied to you for promotion, you thought the best method of getting at his fitness was from an examination ? — A. Yes, sir ; I think so. By Mr. Stone: Q. I understand you to say that this custom or practice of appointing persons or messengers and laborers and assigning them to clerical work •was an old practice in the Department which had been pursued for many years ? — A. Yes, sir ; I do not want to go on record Q. What I want to get at is whether prior to Mr. Cleveland's admin- istration this was a fact? — A. This is a direct answ^er to your question. When Mr. Manning made this order, the Washington Post, the next raorniug, came out and attacked Secretary Folger. The Washington Post the next morning came out and stated that this practice had grown to be a great outrage, especially under the administration of Secretary Folger. Someone. Was the Post conducted by our friend, Mr. Hatton, at that time ? — A. I do not think it was. Mr. EwART, Before we go on with this investigation I would like to make this suggestion, and I do it in the most respectful manner to the committee. IsTow we have been favored with a good many statements in this investigation. We have avoided making any comments upon the testimony, and very properly so. Had we done so it would have been the duty of the chairman or any member of this committee to have ])romptly stopped us. We think we liave no right to comment upon anything and have no right to interjectanythingin the testimony "while it is being conducted — any comments on these Commissioners who are now being investigated. Now I would respectfully suggest that these explanations and statements and corrections of testimony are be- coming very alarming every morning. We were favored with a long statement from Commissioner Eoosevelt yesterday which was a cor- rection of a statement. We have been favored with another long state- ment by Governor Thompson, and we are still to be inflicted with an- other statement, an argument by Mr. Eoosevelt. I respectfully submit that we will clearly make little progress in this investigation if these 104 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. statements are to be constantly made. If these gentlemen desire to correct their evidence, I think they have a perfect right to appear on the following morning, ask the stenographer to read the evidence and correct it, but I think it is not the proper time to make the statements. When the evidence is all in and the Commissioners desire to make any statement I think it would be proper for them to do so, but at this par- ticular time I think we will make better progress by allowing these statements to go over until the evidence is all in. The Chairman. Mr. Roosevelt wishes to make a statement concern- ing the testimony of yesterday. Mr. EwART. To correct any evidence ? Mr, EooSEVELT. To make an addition. Mr. LiND. I think, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ewart has stated a practical proposition. The committee, I think, would rathei' hear the bare statement of facts — not an argument. Now, for instance, the state- ment made yesterday was purely a statement of fact, because it ex- plained the reasons of action to the committee. The Chairman. That is what I understand Mr. Roosevelt proposes to give us now. It is merely an addition to the testimony given on yes- terday. Mr. Roosevelt. I was asked by Mr, Ewart yesterday certain ques- tions as to what I said to General McKeever and Mr. Tweedale, the chief clerk in the War Department, to whom I spoke about the transfer of Sturges. Of course, I could recollect only the substance of what I said. I went around yesterday afternoon to see the two gentlemen named, to see if their memory coincided with mine as to what I stated, and if I could refreshen my memory. I can now give you substantially what I told those gentlemen. Of course, after a lapse of three weeks, I could only give the substance of it. I went around — this is the state-* ment referred to in that paper read by Commissioner Thompson, as being made to Mr. Tweedale and General McKeever — I went around and told them we had in our office a clerk, Mr. Sturges, whom we in- tended to dismiss if he could not be transferred; that Mr. Sturges was a round peg in a square hole; that he was reported to have been a spe- cial favorite of Commissioner Edgerton; that this feeling produced much friction between himself and other members of the force; that he was insubordinate towards his immediate superiors; that he was a young man, however, as far as I knew, of good capacity, good character, and good habits, but that he had become entirely unfitted for any work in our office; for a small office, such as ours was, with less than a dozen employes, there was no position in which we could assign him where we thought he could do good work; and that the immediate thing we were going to dismiss him for was for an act of gross carelessness which we could not excuse; but we did not think that the faults he had com- mitted were faults of a moral character, or were such as would prevent him making a perfectly good officer in a minor position in a great department where there were several hundred clerks. At any rate the man had made a personal appeal to us, and that if we could show any mercy to a young man appealing like that we would be glad to do it. 1 told him also — there is one particular I can not recall ; at any rate, that is the substance. This is the substance of what I told him. Oh, yes, this is it : I told them it would be a good deal of a lesson to him, anyhow, to be reduced from $1,600 to a 1 1,200 clerkship, Avhich would probably act as a warning to him, and he might be very willing to take the opi)ortunity to turn over a new leaf and do very well. In other words, I told them frankly all the reasons why we were convinced he CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 105 would not auy longer be of any nse to us, why we did not wish him to be dropped out, and prevent liim from having another such position in some other Department where he might do good work. I also want to make a little statement in reference to what the gov- ernor spoke about with regard to influence with the administration. Now my understanding was not quite the same as the governor's about that, i had never known Secretary Proctor until he came here, but I have met him since. I have felt that I, going around there and being known as a party Republican, and saying this much for a Demo- cratic clerk appointed under the last administration, that it would show that there was no party bias in what I was asking. Kow if it had been the Secretary of the Treasury, where Governor Thompson is well known, I would have suggested that he go himself. If, on the other hand, we had been under the Democratic administration, and either had known the Cabinet officer, I would have suggested that Governor Thompson would go merely because he was of that political faith, and that would give it a certain locus standi, and in the same way I would go as I thought I said in answering a question on the subject yes- terday by Mr. Stone. I went about Mr. Sturges — I went about two other clerks, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Van Hauken. Mr. Wallace is a Dem- ocrat and Mr. Van Hauken is, I know not what. I was undoubtedly in- fluenced in the case of both Mr. Wallace and Mr. Sturges by the fact that as they were Democrats and I was a Eepublican there could be no possible construction put upon my act except my being interested in a measure of justice given them which I considered as right and i)roper. The Chairman. Are there any questions to be asked? By Mr. Hatton : • Q. Was Mr. Lyman a member of the Commission when the Commis- sion decided to get rid of Mr. Sturges ? — A. Yes. Q. Did he say to you that Mr. Sturges had been an indifferent and in- subordinate clerk during the time of the former administration of the Commission, the one that proceeded your administration ? — A, I do not know. I recollect either Mr. Lj'^man or Mr. Doyle saying that Mr. Stur- ges had always been a bit of a lame duck. Q. Did he give any reason why he was retained as a lame duck ? — A. I think with great mercy — we were trying constantly to err on the side of mercy towards Mr. Sturges, because of the fact that Mr. Edgertou's relations toward his two colleagues were reported not to have been always pleasant, and we wanted to err on the side of mercy to a i)roteg^ of Mr. Edgerton rather than Q. As a matter of courtesy one Commissioner will be very lenient where another was concerned ? — A. If you feel hostile — you are simply asking my opinion "? Q. Yes. — A. My opinion is, that as an honorable man, if I feel hostile to another man I am particularly careful to do no injustice to any friend of his. Q. Did Mr. Lyman ever say to you he had ever recommended the dis- missal of this clerk because of his insubordination and indifference — that he was a lame duck as a clerk ? — A. If Mr. Lyman had recom- mended his dismissal he would be dismissed immediately. Q. Did he recommend to his colleagues the complaint made of Mr. Sturges, Mr. Edgerton, and Mr. Oberly "? — A. I know nothing about it, Q. Mr. Lyman never said that ? — A. He never told me if he had. 106 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. TESTIMONY OF W. T. WALLACE. W. T. Wallace, sworn and examined. By Mr. Thompson: Q. What is your position 1 — A. An examiner. Q. In what department are yon ? — A. Civil Service Commission. Q. You do not belong to the Civil Service Commission? — A. I belong to the Interior Department, the Pension Office. Q. Do you know Mr. Morgan, formerly a stenographer of the Com- mission?— A. I do sir. Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Morgan about the time of his leaving the Civil Service Commission to go to the Treasury as to who should be promoted to fill the vacancy caused by his removal 1 — A. I did. Q. Did he state to you any particular person ought to be promoted, mention any name? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Whom did he say ought to be promoted? — A. Mr. Bailey. By Mr. Ewart : Q. Did Mr. Morgan at that time make any complaint as to the man- ner in which he had been treated by the Commission ? — A. I think not at that time; he had prior to that, I know. Q. How did you happen to speak of Mr. Bailey at that particular time; what were you talking about? — A. I brought the subject up my- self. Q. What did you say to him? — A. It was while his transfer was pending; I did not know he would be transferred and I hoped he would be promoted. Q. Did Mr. Morgan say he was an efficient stenographer? — A. I could not answer to that. Q. He told you he expected a transfer? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he give you reasons why he expected that transfer? — A Yes, sir. Q. What did he say ? — A. He felt that he was not treated altogether right. Q. He felt that he had not been exactly treated well by the Comniis- sion. Why did he say he had not been treated well by the Cojnmis- sion? — A. I could not answer that. Q. Certainly he must have assigned some cause ? — A. I do not re- member if he did. Q. Did he tell you he felt aggrieved at the Commission and did not make any statement in explanation of why he felt aggrieved ? — A. That was a general remark he made, that he had not been treated right. Q. Did he not give any explanation ? Mr. Andrew. You should give the witness a chance, you do not give him a chance to get more than half an answer. Let us hear what his answer is. By Mr. EwART : Q. Did he assign any reason at all? — A. Yes ; he assigned a reason, but what the reasons were now I do not recollect. Q. He did not tell you then at the time he felt aggrieved at the Com- mission because Bailey was to be promoted over his head, an incompe- tent stenographer ? — A. No, sir ; he never assigned that as a reason. Q. He did not assign as a reason that he felt aggrieved at the action CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 107 of the Commissioners at the time tvas because he was not pro- moted"?— A. That he was not promoted'? Q, That Morgan was not promoted to the position of stenographer. — A. But he held the position of $l,8ii0 ; there was no promotion Q. If he had been retained, 1 should have said. Did he assign that as a reason?— A. No, sir; I think not. By Mr. Hatton : Q. Did Mr. Morgan say to you that he thought Mr. Bailey ought to be the official stenographer or would be ?— A. No, sir; his exact words, if my memory serves me correctly, and I think it does was that he hoped that Mr. Bailey would get it. He did not say that he was entitled to it, or that he ought to have it, but that hoped that he would get it. By Mr. EwAKT : Q, That is what he said, that he hoped he would get it?— A. Yes, sir. Q. He did not say he ought to have it ?— A. No, sir ; he did not tell me he ought to have it. By Mr. Hatton : Q. He did not say he ought to have it because he was a sufficiently qualified stenographer? — A. No, sir; we never discussed Mr. Bailey's qualifications at all. By Mr. Thompson : Q. What State are you from ? — A. Mississippi. Q. What are your politics ? — A. I am a Democrat. By Mr. Stone : Q. When did you leave the Civil Service Commission ? — A. I never left it at all ; I am still detailed there. Q. I thought you said you were at the Pension OlBce. — A. I am de- tailed to the Pension Office, but I belong to the Civil Service Commis- sion. Q. When did you go there ? — A. I think it was in 1886. Q. You have been there ever since 1886 ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And in the employ of the Civil Service Commission ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. That is, actively employed there ? — A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Hatton : Q. You are practically an officer of the Commission ; do you consider yourself practically an officer of the Commission? — A. Yes, sir; I reckon I may consider it such. Q, You are one of the board of examiners ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Your duty is to report to the Commission any violation of the law that comes under your observation? — A. I should feel it my duty to do so. TESTIMONY OF 0. N. JOHNSTON. O. N. Johnston sworn and examined. By Mr. Thompson: Q. Please state what is your occupation. — A. Clerk in the Civil Service Conimission. Q. What State are you from ? — A. Maryland. Q. What are your politics ? — A. I suppose Democratic, or they will be. 108 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. The Chairman. How old are you? — A. Twenty. Q. You never have voted ? — A. No, sir. By Mr. Thompson : Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Morgjan about the time of his leaving the Civil Service Commission and goiug to the Treasury with regard to the promotion of Mr. Bailey to the position of stenogra- pher"? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What did he say ? — A. He said he hoped Mr. Bailey would get it. By Mr. Ewart : Q. Did he say Mr. Bailey ought to have it ? — A. No, sir ; he said he honied Mr. Bailey would get it. Q. At that time did you know lie had applied for a transfer *? — A. Yes, sir; I knew that. Q. Did he state to you whether he had any grievance at that time against the Commission 1 — A. No, sir ; he just stated he thought he had not been treated exactly right, but he did not give any reasons at all to me. By Mr. Hatton : Q. Did he say he hoped Mr. Bailey would get it on account of his superior qualilications as a stenographer, or why "? — A. He did not say why, but he said he hoped he would get it. Mr. Thompson. Some questions have been asked that would intimate that Mr. Bailey was specially favored in his examination as a stenog- rapher, because of his opportunities to examine the papers. 1 wish to make a brief explanation. The applications of one or more people ap- plying for stenographers are required to go to a desk where written matter is furnished them, and the examiner connected with the Com- mission may be the Commissioner, or may be any clerk, may be a man who knows nothing whatever about stenography, and generally is. He is required to read from certain exercises, from certain printed exer- cises, speeches, letters, and things of that sort. These i)apers when turned in by the applicant are folded up and sent to the board of exam- iners, who consist of stenograj)hers. They mark these papers without knowing whose papers they mark. Now, I shall show to you shortly whether Mr. Bailey had been in the habit of reading these dictation ex- ercises. We propose to prove that Mr. Morgan had precisely the same examination that Mr. Bailey had, and he had the same opportunity to see the papers; in o.ther words, that Mr, Morgan, who on leaving the Commission complained that he had a grievance, had precisely the same examination, and the same opportunities of knowing what he was to be examined on as Mr. Bailey, who is charged with having special advantages in seeing these papers. The Chairman. Examination before his transfer to obtain the posi- tion he now holds. Mr. Thompson. Exactly ; that Morgan had exactly the same, had pre- cisely the same as Bailey. I really never saw one of the examinations conducted for stenographers. Mr. Stone. You say you propose to prove. Are you making a state- ment of proposed proof, or are you making a statement of facts ? Mr. Thompson. I can state the fact and prove it. I can not i)rove that Mr. Morgan had seen these papersdirectly before the examination myself, but I can prove it by others that he had seen them ; that he liad the same means of knowing what was in the papers as Mr. J5ailey. I will say this for myself; lam personally ignorant of stenography, but CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 109 I have always regarded it as an art which a man is bound to take down word tor word, and that the exercises of memory would not be of auy assistance to him. Stenographers say that when a man is familiar with the subject it gives them an advantage. My experience with stenogra- phers has been generally, gentlemen, that when 1 ask a stenographer in regard to what has been said, he could not tell. He would have to go and read his notes. I confess I have not had very much experience with them ; that is, I have generally dealt with those who are not gen- erally regarded as experts. I have had a good deal of experience with stenographers in my own home. I remember the man who takes the letters in the office never could tell what the letters were, and he was an exceedingly bright and capable young man. Mr. Hatton. If I am not mistaken, you stated yesterday that shortly following the promotion of Bailey, you had no personal knowledge of whetherhe was a stenographer or not ? Mr. Thompson. Ko, sir. Mr. Hatton. Do you know there are cases where stenographers were dictated to by the Commission ; is that always the rule that whoever does the examining does the dictating*? Mr. Thompson. Not always. Mr. Hatton. It has often been done before ? Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. Mr. Hatton. In what cases "? Mr. Thompson. For instance, Mr. Lyman has given stenographers examinations. I think Mr. Lyman had taken several trips. I know he asked me to take a trip. Mr. Hatton. You do not understand the question. Had any other candidate except Mr. Bailey, who passed an examination in stenography, been dictated to by the Commission 1 Mr. Thompson. Not to my knowledge. I do not recollect it. There were three commissioners present when Mr. Bailey was examined. Mr. Lyman. I would say in answer to Mr. Hatton's question that 1 have repeatedly given dictation to stenographic examiuatious ; any number of them. I do not know how many, but a great many. TESTIMONY OF E. D. BAILEY— Continued. E. D. Bailey, recalled and examined. By Mr. Thompson : Q. When you were examined in stenography had you received from auy one any information what dictation exercises would be submitted to you ■? — A. None whatever. Q. None whatever ? — A. No, sir ; none whatever. Q. Do you know whether or not Mr. Morgan, while he was clerk in the office, used the ordinary dictation exercises which are generally used in examination of stenographers, for applicants ? — A. I know he has. The exercise from which selection was taken on which I was examined was on a sheet which I believe contained the only exercises used by the Commission for about two years past and I know he has dictated many times from the same sheet. Mr, Stone. Was Mr. Morgan examined for stenographer on the same dictation? — A. Mr. Morgan was examined a little while before I was in stenography. He had never been examined in stenography by the Commission previously. 110 CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. By Mr. Ewart : Q. Was he examined on the same dictation? — A. I do not know; I could not say certainly about that. There are many selections on the Ijrinted sheet. Q. Then it was different from your examination ? — A. It was from the same set of dictations, probably not the same selection; in regard to that I could not say certain. That could be ascertained, however, by examining the papers. Q. Do I understand you to say you know the fact that Mr. Morgan had been examined on this same set of questions on which you had been examined 1 — A. The question asked of me was whether Mr. Mor- gan had dictated from this same set of exercises, and I answered to my knowledge that he had. Q. How did you know that ? — A. Because I many times when acting as chief examiner requested him to get for the candidates the same identical sheet. Q. This one sheet gi^en you, you recognize as the same dictation given to Mr. Morgan ; how did you recognize it ? — A. I recognized it from the ai)j)earance of the sheet. Q. Then you are perfectly familiar with the questions asked ? — A. I have some familiarity with the questions; yes, sir. Q. Then you stood an examination that virtually you had seen be- fore ? — A. I had seen these dictation exercises. By the Chairman : Q. Mr. Morgan had access to this paper and he had seen the ques- tions? — A. Precisely the same as I had. Q. Do I understand you to say Mr. Morgan occupied the position as it was called here of official stenographer, or stenographer to the board, before having passed an examination, and that was only within a mouth or two before he was discharged that he was examined ? — A. That is the fact. Mr. Morgan came into the Commission without any examina- tion in stenography. By Mr. Stone : Q. There was no examination in stenography required at that time; it was not in the classified service. The question I want to ask you is this; you had dictated from these same exercises yourself before the date of your examination ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did that fact accrue to your advantage when you were examined ? — A. Only to a limited extent. It is possible from having read over these exercises it might have been easier to transcribe the notes, but that would only be to a limited extent ; it would be a help by that fact. If it had been possible to commit these exercises to memory, in tran- scribing the notes it would have been an aid. Mr. Thompson. Do you know from memory any one of the dictation exercises? — A. No, sir; that portion of my mental make-up is such that I can not commit to memory anything with any readiness. I have never attempted to commit any of the exercises to memory, and I doubt whether I could repeat successfully a line of any exercise on that sheet. By Mr. Hatton : Q. Why was Mr. Morgan examined before his transfer? — A. He had never been examined before as a stenographer, and in order to be trans- ferred under the rules of the Commission he had to be examined. Q. He was required to pass an examination in order to accept the position ot steuograj^her in the Treasury Department ?— A. 1 believe CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. Ill bis positiou was to involve work in stenography, and for that reason he took what we call a basis examination, either clerk or copyist, I do not remember exactly which. Q. You were promoted to his place, which involved stenographic work without an examination ? — A. I was promoted without an examination. TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM H. WEBSTER. William H. Webster, sworn and examined. By Mr. Thompson: Q, Will you please state your position in the Civil Service Commis- sion ! — A. Chief examiner. Q. Who made the appointment ? — A. President Cleveland. Q. When "?— A. In August, 1886. I took the oath of office the 27th of August. Q. What are your politics ?— A. I am a Republican. Q. Do you know auything about Mr. Morgan having had access, ordinary access as a clerk would have, to these examination papers in stenogra])hy, and whether he had occasion to use them or not before his examination ? — A. He gave dictation from them. Mr. Roosevelt. That is, Mr. Morgan had the same advantages, if advantages they were, in his examination as Mr. Bailey had. The Witness. Certainly. Mr. EwART. What was Mr. Morgan's grade in his examination ? — A. I do not remember the grade. Mr. Stone. It was less than 70 ? Mr. Roosevelt. No ; Mr. Morgan's grade was 88. The Witness. The papers will show that fact. By Mr. EwART : Q. The question was asked, what facilities Mr. Morgan had to ascer- tain what the dictation questions would be ; what facilities did Mr. Bailey have to ascertain that same fact? — A. He would have just the same facilities in getting the dictation from these sheets. The sheets contained several selections from speeches and letters and they are taken at random here and there. Q. So when he had an examination by the Civil Service Commission he certainly knew pretty much what the examination would be and he recognized it at once ! — A. He would recognize the sheet, but he would not know at all what the dictation, would be ; there are a large number of sheets, I think. By Mr. Stone : Q. There is a fact I would like to put into the record at this point for whatever it may be worth. When was Mr. Holtz examined ? — A. I think it was 1887. I am not sure about that. He was taken from the eligi- ble register for appointment by the Commission before the force of the Commission was classified and had to pass his examination, having failed on the previous examination. Q. Then the examination on which he obtained the grade of about 68 was hiHd something like two years prior to the examination of Mr. Bai- ley? — A. Yes, sir; two years prior, probably more than that, but I do not know; probably more than two years. 112 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. By Mr. Koosevelt : Q. Mr. Holtz has greatly improved in stenography since ? — A. Very much, very greatly. Q. 1 simply bring that out to show in my question to Mr. Webster that the examinations that were given to Mr. Bailey and to Mr. Morgan were precisely such as and was no more advantage to them than the similar examinations in the past two years. — A. No more. Q. Another question; you had used Mr. Bailey as a stenographer habitually for about a year prior to his appointment as such? — A, Ever since his appointment I have used him almost every day, sometimes for a short letter and sometimes for a loug letter. Q. During the period Mr. Sturges testified he did not think you had used bim as a stenographer, at the same time you had habitually used hiui as stenographer. — A. Mr. Sturges was across tbe ball from me and if be bad attended to his duties there he would never have known whether Mr. Bailey was being used at all. The hall was between my my room and Mr. Sturges's room. By Mr. Ewart : Q. You say you used him habitually as a stenographer ? — A. Every day. Q. Did you hear Mr. Bailey's evidence ? — A. I did. Q. Did you hear him testify that the bulk of the work was clerical work ? — A. He was called the correspondence clerk. Q. That being the case how could he have the leisure or time to do your stenographic work ? — A, To explain in regard to the matter of work, he is my correspondent clerk and writes part of the letters because they are familiar with those duties and one requires about the same answer as another. In answering such others as he is not able to attend to I dictate to bim. Q. Do I understand you to say he does the bulk of the stenographic work of that bureau ? — A. No, sir ; my business does not require the bulk of the stenograi)hic work. Q. What percentage ? — A. I could not tell you that. We have two methods of correspondence there ; the correspondence he does is in a great part of that which he can attend to from previous instruction, letters that are of similar purport and that he has written hundreds of times. By Mr. Hatton: Q. As a life-long civil-service reformer and a brother in the cause, do you not think it would have been better for both Mr. Bailey and Mr. Morgan if they had been examined on questions which neither had seen and which neither had access to before their examination 1—A. I doubt whether they could have memorized the several papers ; there is quite a large number. Q. Do you not think it would Jjave been more fair and more in the line of the merits of the system? — A. I do not think it would have made any difference to them. In regard to these questions, they have a large number and they are dictated, and people constantly have opi)ortuuities to gain information about these. We know this set of papers may be known, but there are so many dictation exercises, so many selections from different speeches, from different letters that it is hardly practical for any person to memorize all of them. It is like using an arithmetic; if you say to a man, "We will examine you out of an arithmetic," that man will not know on what portion of that arith- CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 113 metic you are goiug to examine liira. Ifc is no advantage to him to know that you are going to tise Davies's Arithmetic. Q. We are talking abont stenography. — A. The same principle ap- plies to stenography. Having several number of exercises it is not practicable for any person to memorize them, not knowing where he is to be struck. I suggested to Mr. Lyman when the report was made — having a large number of questions Q. What do you mean by large number of questions ? — A. Series of questions of all sorts of examinations. When we had Mr. Andrew. You are not talking of stenography ? — A. Stenog- raphy with the rest. Q. There are no questions in stenography ; there are exercises. — A. There are exercises ; they amount to the same thing. We call them question sheets ; it is exercises. Q. It makes a dilierence in my mind to say you give exercises for dictation and having known beforehand what was to be dictated to a person. I only wanted to know what you meant. One was all right and the other seemed to me ridiculous. — A. We have had forty-one series of questions which have been prepared and furnished. There is such a multiplicity of these questions that a candidate could not mem- orize them all. By Mr. Stone : Q. These examinations in stenography are not all held herein Wash- ington f — A. Oh, no. Q. Would there be any advantage to an applicant here for examina- tion in stenography if he had been i^reviously employed in your office and he had been handling these very papers time and time again and dictating from them to be examined himself from those papers ; would he have any advantage over the applicant say for examination in New York or St. Louis ? — A. No, I do not see how he could under such cir- cumstances. Q. Are the examinations there from entirely diiferent dictations ? — A. We have a number of them and if it were practicable for the candidate to memorize all of those he would have an advantage. We go upon the theory that it is absolutely impracticable for a man to memorize all the series and he would not know which one is to be selected. There are successions of exercises to be selected and the candidate not know- ing which one is to be given to him upon that theory that special can- didate would not have much advantage. If he was able to memorize the whole thing he would. If it was a competitive examination outside we would take more precaution than in a promotion or transfer. Q. You say as much'advantage ; it ought to be no advantage at all. — A. Not in the competition. Q. When there is a competition you put them upon the eligible list and certify the same according to the amount of grades. — A. In promo- tions they are examined without any competition at all. Q. Well, for promotions 1 — A.-For original appointments we do 5 they are all competitive there. Q. My question, if it has any force to it, would apply to original ap- pointments as well as promotions. — A. But this case was only promo- tion. Q. It would not apply to those cases ? — A. For an outsider we would have dictated ; we would have preferred a dictation that had never been seen by the party, that he had not seen the sheet at all. 3117 8 114 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. By Mr. Hatton : Q. Would an applicant for examination in stenograpby in the War Department have any opportunity to get at the exercises before ex- amination 1 — A. No ; not in the War Department. Q. Would any outside applicant for examination in stenography have any chance to get at the examination exercises? — A. Only those who had been examined before or who had friends who had been ex- amined. Q. If he had not been examined ? — A. If he had not been examined he may have friends who have been examined on these sheets. Q. If I understand you, you say that it makes no diflerence whether they had them or not ; why would it not be in the spirit of accommoda- tion to furnish the speeches before ? — A. They are printed in the Q. They have no chance to get at them as Bailey and Morgan ? — A. They have only the chance to get at the books or printed matter from which this may have been taken. Q. Suppose in the annual report were a list of questions and the Commission decided to change it after the annual report was issued and substitute a new set of exercises ? — A. He would not see thesej he would not have the chance. Mr. EoosEVELT. But as a matter of fact we have not changed them? — A. No, sir. Mr. Hatton. But you could change them if you wanted to. The Chairman. The next charge is the Mitchell charge. There are four witnesses here — Thomas Mitchell, A. B. Toner, M. Smith, and Cyrus Bussey. TESTIMONY OF THOMAS MITCHELL. Thomas Mitchell, sworn and examined. By the Chairman : Q. Where are you employed at present ^-^^-i I am filling the posi- tion, the desk, of an examiner at the Pension Office. Q. How long have you been in the office?— A. Since last September. Q. Were you in that office before that time?— A. I was a special- ex- aminer in that department for seven years. Q. Were you discharged ? — A. I was dismissed September, 1887. Q. What reasons were assigned for your dismissal ?— A. None what- ever. Q. In what manner did you obtain re-appointmeni; ? — A. Through a civil-service examination. Q. When did you take that examination? — A. I first applied in the spring of 1889. Do you want me to give a statement? Q. Certainly, give a statement. — A. I think it was in May, 1889, 1 made application to be designated for examination. On the 17th day of June I received notice that I could appear at the regular examina- tion to be held in the city of Washington on the 9th df^ of July, 1889. I went to that examination ; there were some ninety candidates in the room. I presume you are acquainted how these examinations are con- ducted. The Chairman. You can just give a statement. — A. At 4 o'clock the gentleman in charge, whoever it wdn, I do not know his name, told me my examination was finished, and that I could go home. Ten days after that I received a letter from the Commission asking me to come there. I went there. This letter was signed by Mr. Thompson, one of CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 115 the members of the Commission. His door was locked, and I then went to see Major Webster and I asked the purport of that letter. He said, "Were you examined in common law at the regular examination on July 9 ? " I said, "IsTo, I did not know there was a law examination." He said there was, and took the trouble to give me a paper, and suggested then that I take a seat there, and he handed me a paper of printed questions. I should say that that morning I got out of a sick bed, and I was not in a condition to be examined, either physically or mentally. I sat down and endeavored to answer these questions, and handed them back to him. Some time after that, I do not know the precise date, I received notice that my examination had been rated — I would like to have the letter which I wrote to the Commission on appeal from that rating. Mr. Andrew. Was the rating too high or too low ? The Witness. The first appeal was August 1, 1889, addressed to the Civil Service Commission : Washington, D. C, .No. 805 Tenth Street, Northioest, August I, 1889. U. S. Civil Service Commission, Washington, D. C. : Gentlemen: In the matter of my rating in civil service examination. No. 7277. I have the honor to appeal to you for a review of said rating, in relation to paper Noj 7, "Questions on Law," or other papers of said examination. Very respectfully, Thomas Mitchell. That was refused. I then put in a second protest, and this is under date August 3, 1889, addressed to Civil Service Commission, Washing- ton, D. C. Washington, D. C, No. 805 Tenth Street, Northwest, August 3, 1889. To the United States Civil Service Commission, Washington, D. C. : Gentlemen : In the matter of my examination, No. 19837, of date of July 9, 1889, I have the honor to request that I may he permitted to appear for re-examination be- fore you, in view of the facts : First, that sheet No. 8, on the subject of law, was not given to me at the time of holding said examination, bufc afterwards upon notice re- ceived by me on the morning of July 19, 1889, and without any prior knowledge that a paper of the character referred to, was a part of the examination. Second, I was not in a proper mental or physical condition to be subjected to the ordeal of an ex- amination on the morning of July 19, 1889, when I gave answers to the questions pro- pounded in Sheet No. 8, as designated. The production of this paper, at that time, was a surprise to me, and in the hurry and excitement of the occasion, without time for deliberation, many of the questions were not properly understood. The original proceedings were irregular, all of the examination not having been conducted at the time indicated in the certificate of rating. Under all the circumstances I trust that you will grant me a re-examination. Very respectfully, Thomas Mitchell, I handed that paper to Mr. Lyman, the president of the Commission. Mr. Lyman told me I would receive my answer in writing. On the 7th day of August I received a communication in writing from the Com- mission, stating I could go in the next regular examination to be held in the city of Baltimore, Md. I went there and went through an entirely new examination, and on the 13th of September I received a commu- nication from the Commission stating that I had passed the examina- tion of a chief examiner in the Pension Office, which is a high grade of examination. My understanding is, that is, in addition to the classihed service, a very stringent examination in common law and in the statute law of the United States Government and administration of the Pension Oface. 116 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. By Mr. Stone: Q. What year was tliis 1 — A. What year ? Q. That you took this examination ? — A. August 12, 1889. Mr. Thompson. And how soon after that were you appointed ? — A. On the 23d day of September, 1889. By the Chairman : Q. So you took two examinations, as I understand it, and on the first examination your rating was below the average. — A. A paper was left out. I was notified by the Commission ten days after that that paper had not been given me. Q. And you were examined on that paper and the result of that ex- amin'ation was you failed ? — A. Altogether. Q. You afterwards took another examination ? — A. An entirely new examination. Q. Were the questions identical ? — A. They were entirely different from beginning to end. Q, And you passed the second examination ? — A. I was so notified. I had no communication with the Commission from the date of my no- tice to appear in Baltimore until I received the notification that I had passed the examination. Mr. Andrew. Is this charge true, " That the said Mitchell failed on his examination held prior to his last appointment and that this failure becoming known to the parties desiring his restoration to the service, his papers were remarked and he was restored from the ineligible to the eligible list ?" — A. There is not a word of truth in that to my knowl- edge 5 there is not a word of truth in it. By the Chairman : Q. Who interested himself in your re-instatement, any member of Congress or Senator ? — A. No, sir. The Chairman. I think we will turn the witness over to Mr. Ewart at this time. By Mr. EwART : Q. Up to the time of your discharge or removal from office you had been in the departmental service for how many years? — A. Thirty years, in various positions. Q. Ton were removed under the administration of Mr. Cleveland ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. When Mr. Lamar was Secretary of the Interior, you were in the Intf'rior Department '? — A. I was special examiner in the Pension Office in the field. Q. Were you removed for political reasons ? — A. I believe my place was needed for somebody else. That is the only reason I can offer. Q. You have always been a Eepublican ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. There was no cause assigned for your removal ? — A. No, sir. I will say I was on a thirty days' leave of absence at the time, and it was a mere accident that I knew that such an order had been issued. I came to Washington and went to see the Commissioner of Pensions. He refused to see me, and I then went to Mr. Muldrow and he said that he knew nothing about it, that it was the action of the Commissioner, I ai)i)ealed to Mr. Muldrow and Mr. Lamar sent his private secretary and made an appointment to see me, but I have never seen him from that day to this. Q. Did you address a communication to Mr. Lamar on this subject, CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 117 complaining that you had been unjustly treated ? — A. Yes, sir ; and asked for a hearing, that I might have a hearing. Q. Did you at any time give any reason to any public official why you were removed from your position at the time ? — No, sir ; beyond a i)olit- ical reason. Mr. Andrew. I do not think that Mr. Lamar ought to be dragged into this matter. Mr. EwART. I may say it is immaterial. Do I understand you to say you never addressed any communication to Mr. Lamar fA. — I did not say so. Q. Or any other person in regard to your removal. I would like to read — 1 understand you to swear you have always been a EeiDublican *? Washington, D. C. , 709 Twelfth Street, Northwest, April 2, 1889. Hon. James Tanner, Commissioner of Pensions: Deak Sir : I have the honor to state that I was appointed from the army as law clerk in the office of Second Comptroller of the Treasury, in 1869, on the recommenda- tion of GoYernor Buckingham, of Connecticut, which is my legal place of domicile. In 1878, at the personal request of Secretary Schurz, I resigned my position in the Treasury Department and accepted the appointment as chief of the Indian division of the office of the Secretary of the Interior. I was subsequently transferred to the Pension Office, and there served consecutively for seven years as special examiner in the field, until peremptorily dismissed by your predecessor, John C. Black, without recourse, charge of any character being made against my character as a public officer, or any reason given to me by said Black for his course of action, although I continu- ously and persistently sought a reason from him. Afterwards, Mr. Black stated to Mr. Robert J. Vance, then member of Congress, from lirst Connecticut district, "that he had removed me on account of my Repub- licanism, and on the approval of Alfred E. Burr, editor of the Hartford Times, the leading Democratic paper of Connecticut." Mr. James W. Orme, one of the directors of the Washington Gas-Light Company, having recommended me for employment by that corporation, on his own volition, called at the Pension Office to ascertain the cause of my removal from the public serv- ice. At that place he met Mr. William E. McLean, First Deputy Commissioner of Pensions, who informed him " that I had been removed from the Pension Office solely on iiolitical grounds ; that I was an offensive Republican." Mr. Black also gave currency to the report "that while a si)ecial examiner in his office I had made Republican speeches in the field." In evidence of my efficiency, the quantity and quality of work rendered and a scrupulous regard for the integrity and best interest of the public service, I point with pride to the public records of the Pension Office itself. No charge has at any time, to my knowledge, been made against me personally as to the integrity of my character as an officer of the Government, or otherwise. My only offense, as far as I know, has been my allegiance to the tenets of my po- litical faith in the principles of the Republican party, which I have held since 1857, and for which I was without a moment's warning summarily and remorselessly thrust out of employment, upon the cold charity of the world with my wife and aged leather depending upon me for support. My wife being a sister of General John M. Brannan, U. S. Army, retired, and whose family are certainly entitled to consideration for his services rendered the Republic on many a hard-fought field. Now, esteemed sir, I pray that I may, through your kindness and by the virtue of your position, be restored to my right on the rolls as an employ6 of the Pension Office, and detailed for service as a special examiner in the field. I court any investigation that may be had as to my public or private character, and do not fear that any individual act of my life should see the light of day. I am, very respectfully, Thomas Mitchell. Mr. EwART. Did you write that letter? The Witness. I would like to understand your first question. Mr. EwART. In this letter you stated you had been a Eepublican since 1857. Mr. Andrew. What difference does it make whether he was Eepub- lican 118 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. Mr. Hatton. We certainly will not read these letters unless the com- mittee give us the privilege. Mr. Stone. He has read one, so he had better read them both. Mr. Hatton. We certainly will have to have a chance to put in a coupling-pin. Washington, D. C, No. 1104 Maryland Avenue, September 28, 1887. Sir: While on a leave of absence for the month of September, 1887, I accidentally received your letter, dated September 5, stating "That upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Pensions my services as a clerk in the Pension Bureau would be dispensed with from and after September 30, 1887." The cause of this action on the part of the Commissioner of Pensions is unknown to me. It was not ascertained by me upon my personal inquiry at the Pension Bureau, but I was informed by the Chief of Division that my removal was the act of the Com- missioner; from him alone could knowledge of the cause be obtained, and owing to his physical infirmities he could not be interviewed by me. The present incumbent, for some reason, of which I am entirely ignorant, has mani- fested a personal antipathy to me from the very advent of his term of office. I pray you, sir, that the order for my dismissal may be revoked and that you will cause me to be transferred, by appointment, to some other bureau of your Depart- ment. Inclosed herewith please find letters in relation to my status, political and other- wise, addressed to you by Hon. A. E. Burr, editor of the Hartford Times, Conn., and from Hon. R. J. Vance, M. C, First district of Connecticut. Others of a similar char- acter will be forthcoming from other members of our Democratic delegation in Oon- I have, sir, the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, Thomas Mitchell. Hon. L. Q. C. Lamak, Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Hatton. Did you write that letter? The Witness. Allow me to see the letter. That is not my writing ; that is a type-written letter. Q. Tou say it is type- written 1 — A. I will state that I wrote a letter of that character. Mr. Stone. Did you write one of this character ? — A. I wrote one of similar character. I do not know whether that is correct or not. Mr. Stone. Did you write such a letter ? — A. I wrote such a letter. Q. Do you believe it to be correct? — A. In the maiu, I do. Mr. Hatton. Did you write any letter in which you stated you in- closed letters of the Hon. Mr. Vance, Mr. French, etc. ? Mr. EwART. I desire now to read the letters inclosed. Mr. Andrew. Are these the original letters ? Mr. Ewart. These are the copies, type-written. The Witness. Where did you obtain these ? Mr. EwART. I am not on the witness stand. Keep cool, my friend, and you will have fun enough. The Chairman. Why are these letters material? We do not desire to take up the time of the committee. We are not investigating the former Commissioner of Pensions. Whether the man was discharged or not, he had a right to use such influence to try to get back in a legitimate way. We are investigating the Commission. Mr. EwART. He says he was removed for no cause at all. Then in a letter asking reinstatement he says he was removed because he was a Kepublican, and at the instance of a Democratic member of Congress and editor of a Democratic newspaper; and then he writes a letter to Mr. Lamar, inclosing letters showing that this man wliom he had stated had been removed Mr. Stone. I suppose the purpose is to show that he was removed for cause. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 119 Mr. EoosEVELT. Allow me to state that this is wholly irrelevant. If he was removed for cause, after one year elapsed he could make an application for re-examination and enter the service again. Mr. EwAKT. I think we have a right to show the character of the witness. Mr. Andrew. If they wish to show the character of their own wit- ness, and impeach the character Mr. EwART We put some up with that intention. The Chairman. If this man was removed for cause, for incompe- tency, for any reason whatever, he had a perfect right if he was out of office for one year to apply for re-examination and enter the service again provided he could pass the examination. Mr. Hatton. This letter is a letter written to Mr. Lamar, just to show that in stating in his former letter that he had been removed — which letter has been admitted, that he stated what was false. The Chairman. I have no objection personally to allowing the let- ters to go in, but I did not desire to encumber the testimony. The Times, Hartford, Conn., Septemher 23, 1887. Hon. L. Q. C. Lamar, Secretary of the Int&i'ior: Dear Sir : Mr. Thomas Mitcliell, son of my old Democratic friend, the Hon. Henry A. Mitchell, of this State, a life-long and respected Democrat, and formerly a judge of our county court, has been dismissed from the Pension Office. He informs me that he does not know the reason of his dismissal and that his record of years of service in the Department stands high. As he is a Democrat of a highly respected family of Democrats of this State, and is capable and efficient, the friends of Mr. Mitchell in Connecticut are astonished at the news of his- dismissal without any alleged cause. He is to go out September 30. If consistent we should esteem it a favor if the Secretary would withdraw his dis- missal and transfer him to another position, Very respectfully, yours, A. E.BURR, Editor, Hartford Times. September 23, 1887. Dear Sir: The bearer, Mr Thomas Mitchell, son of Judge Mitchell, of Bristol, has been, by General Black, for some reason, recommended for dismissal from the Pen- sion Department. He is well known here and we can conceive of no reason why this action was taken. He now desires to be transferred to another position in yonr De- partment, and this is written in the hope that you may see fit so to do assuring that such an act on your part would please many here and give me personally much gratification. I am, sir, yours, etc., E. J. Vance. Hon. L. Q. C. Lamar, Secretary of the Interior. September 27, 1887. Hon. L. Q. C. Lamar, Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D. C. : Sir: I write in behalf of Mr. Thomas Mitchell, a clerk in the Pension Office of Washington, D. C, whose dismissal has been ordered. Mr. Heury A. Mitchell, of Bristol, this State, father of Mr. Thomas Mitchell, has long been an active and pow- erful factor in the Democratic party of Connecticut, and is entitled to some consider- ation. Thomas Mitchell has been in Government service off and on thirty years but always a Democrat. His record is first-class; also his letters on file from prominent Democrats of Connecticut. I therefore hope you can see fit to revoke the order of dismissal, and if possible transfer him to some other bureau of the Interior. Very respectfully, Carlos French, Member of Congress, Second District. 120 CIVIL SEEVICIJ INVESTIGATION. The Times, Hartford, Conit., October 1«, 1887. ^ Hon. L. Q. C. Lamar : Dear Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your esteemed favor of the loth. I beg leave to say that my letter requesting a promotion of Thomas Mitchell was so far giiarded as to make the request only in case it could be done ia the interest of the public service. I was not aware that there were objectionable personal reasons for the suspension of Mitchell, and I thank you for so kindly takiug an interest in the case and letting me know the truth, I do not desire any further investigation. Very truly, yours, A. E, BuKK. The Witness. Do you say I filed that letter ? Mr. Hatton. I S!iy you stated The Witness. Did you say I filed that letter ? Mr. Hatton. I did not say anything of the kind, and I am not on the witness stand. The Witness. You seem to think you are on trial ? Mr. Hatton. I think that is the difference between you and myself. Mr. Stone. Now, these letters have been put into this record- The Witness. May I explain how these letters were obtained ? Mr. Ewart. Now, I will ask this question. It seems from the letter written to Mr. Lamar by Mr. Burr that you were removed for cause, that there were personal reasons, and you stated in your examination that you were not removed for cause. The Witness. I do not know anything about that letter. By Mr. Hatton : Q. Do you deny utterly that you were removed for cause ? — A. I do, sir. Now, I would like to state how the letters read from Mr. Vance and Mr. Burr were obtained. They were obtained by my father. My father was an aged man, poor in fortune, and I was supporting him. He was a life-long Democrat, and when I was removed he tried to get me a hearing. Mr. Burr does not know me personally, and all these allega- tions as to politics were made in regard to my father. Q. Why did you write Commissioner Tanner you were removed at the instigation of these two men, who attempted a few months before to keep you in office ? — A. They did not attempt to keep me in office. By the Chairman : Q. When you said you were not removed for cause, what did you un- derstand by that; for any dereliction of official duties ? — A. I under- stand by that I have no knowledge of any charge having been made against me. Q. Against your character ? — A. In any manner or shape, either my character as a man or as a public officer. Q. Do you believe you were discharged because you were a Eepub- lican °? — A, I believe I was discharged because my place was wanted for somebody else. Q. That is not the question. I asked you, do you believe you were discharged because you were a Eepublican 1 — A. Yes, sir. Q. And you did notconside-r that a legitimate cause, and that is the reason you have stated you were not removed for cause"? — A. Merely political cause. By Mr. EwART : Q. Are you connected with any one in the Interior Department ? — A. How connected % Q. Have you any family connection, any relationship, with any offi- cer in the Interior Department? — A. With Mr. Charles B. Mitchell. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 121 Q. What is the relationsMp ? — A. He is a distant relative. Mr. Hatton. Are you connected with any member of the Commission in any waj^*? The Witness. No, sir ; I have no acquaintance with them. TESTIMONY OF A. C. TONNER. A. 0. ToNNER sworn and examined. By the (Jhaieman : Q. Where are you employed ? — A. Chief of appointment division, Interior Department. The Chairman. I think it would save time to turn the witness over to Mr. Ewart, and let him ask the questions. Will you ask the ques- tions, Mr. Ewart ? By Mr. Ewart. Q. Have you the records of the appointment of Mr. Mitchell with you? — A. Yes, sir; I anticipated the pur))ose for which I was called here and I thought the best way would be to bring the records, and 1 have them right here. This is only a part of it. 1 have the certifica- tion papers here. Q. That is what I want to see more specifically. Just be kind enough to read that. — A. This is a certification, Civil Service, No. 665. (See exhibit A.) Q. This appears to be a certificate of a copyist. — A. Yes, sir; if you will allow me to state in this connection that upon the request of the Commissioner of Pensions there were — if you will hand it to me 1 will read directly from the files. Then I will give it to you exactly as we be -. ... The request was made for fifteen originally from the grade or special examiners. Mr. Hatton. On what date? — A. September 17. The request was made September 6; the certificates were dated September 17 ; and the Commissioner of Pensions, 1 remember, asked for fifteen of the grade of copyists which could be taken from the register of special examiners. Please note that, for it is an important item. Mr. Stone. I do not exactly understand it. — A. I will explain that to you. As I stated, the request from the Commissioner ot Pensions was for fifteen in the classified service as copyists at $900, to be taken from the special examiners' register. Of coarse I do not know what the motive existing in the mind of the Commissioner was except by in- ference, unless from this higher grade of service from which he wanted these people called, he could get a better class of people — for instance he will take a $900 copyist and test him in a lower grade until he as- certains his ability, and then promote hiui in this special examination work. That, I presume, was his motive in it. It is assumable at all events. By the Chairman: Q. I want to understand that. Was the Commissioner in want of special examiners at that time? — A. Y^es, sir. Q. How many? — A. He was in want at the time he wrote his letter of September 6 of fifteen, but he snbseqnently modified it to eleven. Q. I understand he called for certifications of ijersous who had passed examinations as special examiners, and called for those to fill $900 posi- tions as clerks ? — A. In the grade of copyists $900 salary. He asked for eleven by a modification of his first order trom the register of those who have passed the special examiner's grade. 122 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. The Chairman. I think the committee wanted to understand that, and I did. Mr. EoosEVELT. I think I can bring out the question. Was it not presumable that the idea of the Commissioner was that he wished a high grade or men who would be willing to take these $900 places "? We have two or three registers which give men specially fitted for the duties of the Pension Bureau, and was it not with that idea of getting men from one of these registers who would be willing to take the pay and do the work of the lower grade until he was able to test them I The Witness. That was the idea I wished to enforce upon you ; that by drawing from the special examiners' register, he was getting the highest grade of ability. Very often we will call from the copyist reg- ister and i)ut in $600 places, as you will see by the civil service rules. Mr. BuTTERWORTH. Let me ask a question In that connection. Would not that result, then, in giving the higher appointments to those who passed examinations for the lower grades of labor? The Witness. It might take that direction in time. Mr. EooSEVELT. On the contrary it would cause the appointment from the higher grades to the lower position. The special pension ex- aminer examination is very difficult, and these were certified from that examination to a lower place. Mr. Stone. Well, go ahead, we understand this. By Mr. EwART : Q. I find this mark on the papers. Although Mitchell was a certified copyist, it seems by that mark, he was to be appointed to a $3,000 po- sition. "Appoint Thomas Mitchell, of Connecticut, clerk at $2,000 in office of the Secretary of the Interior, to date January 20." — A. I do not know anything about this mark. It is without signature and how it could have gotten upon it I do not know. Mr. Mitchell never occu- pied a $2,000 position. Q. Do you know what position he had 1 — A. I think it was a $1,400 position. He was special examiner in the Pension Office previous to his removal. Q. I do not find among these ijapers some papers which I thought you would have brought. I presume you can give some explanation of why they are not here, showing the cause of his removal. — A. There was no cause given. We have nothing whatever on file in relation to his removal except the mandatory order from the Commissioner and the recommendation and indorsement of Mr. Muldrow on the back of it. Q. Did you hear a letter read written to Secretary Lamar ? — A. Yes, sir; I heard that letter read. Q. In which he alleges that to be a removal for personal reasons, not political? — A. The letter is the only thing we have in regard to his re- moval. We know nothing of any charges at all. Q. Do you know of any papers having been recently withdrawn? — A. Yes, sir; I think I have a receipt here for several. Q. Do you know where these papers are? — ISTo, sir. Q. Would it be possible to get those papers ? — A. They may be in the possession of Mr. Mitchell or the i)arties who have withdrawn them for him. Q. Is the receipt in Mr. Mitchell's name? — A. No, sir; the receipt for the letters withdrawn is in the name of Miss Shedd, who, I think, is a phonographic clerk in the office of the Commissioner of Patents. Mr. EwART. Mr. Chairman, we will have to have those ])apers. The Witness. They are the legitimate property of Mr. Mitchell, be- cause they are not relevant to tlie case. They were letters in relation to his re-instatement, as the receipt shows, and thej'^ not being the predi- CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGA.TION. 123 cate of any action taken, he is entitled to them. If Mr. Mitchell had been re-instated in ofQce none of those letters could have been with- drawn; but under the rule of the of&ce they are allowed to withdraw any papers where no action has been predicated upon those papers. Q. Can it be possible that the letter of Secretary Lamar or the rea- sons assigned for his removal are on Q.\e ! — A. I say frankly the orig- inals of the letters you read here ought to have been in this file, but previous to last fall there was a rule between my division and the Pension Bureau that was very confusing. They held in the Pension Office part of the files, and we held in my division part of the files ; and I had an order issued by which everything was brought to my division. I do not know whether those papers there were the papers involved in this receipt or not. If they were, they are in relation to his re-in statement, and they are his property under the rule. Mr. Hatton. Would not the letter of the Secretary of the Interior ordering the dismissal of the man and giving the reasons for his dis- missal be on file ? — A. Certainly ; you have just read it : September 3, 1887. Hon. H. L. MxTLDROW, Acting Secretary of the Interior : Sir : I have the lienor to recommend most respectfully thiat the services of Mr. Thomas Mitchell, as a clerk of class 2 in this Bureau, be dispensed with from and after the 30th instant. Very respecefuUy, John C. Black, Commissioner. (Indorsed.) Approved: H. L. Muldrov?-, Acting^ Secretary. September 5, 1887. Dismissed. Q. You know nothing about the records of the Interior Department, but know what is the general rule of the Secretary of the Interior to keep copies of letters to any outside persons, giving the reasons why a particular person is removed"^ — A. There is occasionally some corre- spondence between some outside parties in relation to appointments and removals and re-in statements that might possibly be upon the private files, but ordinarily all that correspondence comes in my custody and becomes part of the files ; but as I said before, the originals ought to have been in these flies, and perhaps may have been accounted for by this receipt, because he was entitled to them. Q. When did you say a requisition for this was made? — A. I think the requisition was made on September 6. Q. When was Mitchell appointed ? — A. He was appointed immedi- ately following — wait until I see it — September 23. Q. Now, when did you send an order to the Acting Commissioner of Pensions for a transfer of the papers on file in that case relating to his removal and attemiit to be re-instated ? Do you remember the date ? You sent an order signed by yourself to the Acting Commissioner of Pensions, requesting that all the papers relating to this particular case, where this man attempted to be re-instated to this office, to be trans- ferred to your office. — A. I presume I signed such' a letter — I usually write no letters myself. Q. This is a copy addressed to the assistant chief clerk of the Pension Office. Sir : Please transfer to the files of this division all papers in the files of your office recommending the transfer of Dr. Thomas Mitchell to the Pensiou Office about two years ago to some other bureau. Very respectfully, A. C. Tonner, Chief of Appointment Division. 124 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. A. I have no doubt that letter is correct, never having been re- turned. If there had been any return in answer to that, they would and should have been in here. Q. Is it not the custom at all times to keep these papers until some officer sends for them ? — A. Certainly. Charges were never returned in regard to the character of the applicant. Q. I called on you the other day and asked about this. At that time where were these papers ? — A. Which papers °? Q. The papers in this case. — A. In my possession. Q. jSTo, you told me at the time there was a receipt. — A. This is the daily tile. I hold Miss Shedd's receipt. One clerk wrote in here : " Ke-instatement in Pension Office in 1887." By this he was entitled to Q. At the time these fifteen examiners were called for, how many examiners were at the Commissioner of Pensions ? — A. I could not tell you. Q. How many is he entitled to ? — A. Several hundred. One hun- dred and fifty in the field ; any more are clerks detailed. Mr. BuTTEEWOETH. It ruus into the hundreds. — A. Of course we keep watch of that, and do not let them go beyond the limit. I do not remember all the data. I would have to be an encyclopedia to do that Mr. EwART. One hundred and fifty ? — A. These are in the field. I believe they are limited to that number. Q. You do not know if any other papers were taken from your office, if any other papers were removed or not ? — A. No, sir ; I do not. Q. You do not examine them closely when they come to you "? — A. iNo, sir, I could not take the time to examine the bushels of papers that come in there every day. They are distributed by the various clerks. Q. Why was the order made to remove these papers and no other papers ? — A. I could not tell upon what motive. I could not tell. I have no recollection, because I would never have known of this case except by its being especially brought out. Q. Do you know when he made application for restoration ? — A. Ko, sir ; that was in 1887. He was promoted in 1887. Q. How long had he been out when he was restored? Do you know that ? — A. He was removed in 1887, and made appbcation shortly there- after, as I understand it. No, I do not know whether he made applica- tion under rule 10. It was required to be within a year, unless a soldier ; then under rule 10 as amended. Q. Did you say within a year ? — A. He was, in fact, eligible under rule 10 for restoration and could have made application under rule 10. I do not kuow whether he applied under rule 10, being a soldier and eligible. Q. The allegation was he had been removed for cause. — A. He could not possibly come in possession of any cause from our files, because if any charges were on file we would not have permitted him to see them. Mr. EwAKT. Suppose I recall the witness at that point and ask why he did not make application under the soldier rule. Mr. Hatton. In such a case, in such an appointment in the Interior Department where a man is removed for cause and applies for re-instate- ment, it is customary for the Civil Service Commission to send and as- certain what the cause is? The Chairman. Do you know anything about that *? — A. No, sir. The Chairman. Y ou are not acquainted with it ? Mr. BuTTERWORTH. In the order of dismissal which I understand CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 125 you to hold in your baud, the order for dismissiug Mr. Mitchell, is it usual or not wheu a man is dismissed for cause to say so "^ — A. I do not know what rule prevailed at that time, but we have a rule in our office now that no removal from any bureau shall be entertained Avithout cause. We send recommendations back often and ask them to state the cause for the recommendation of removal. Q. Your recommendations now always declare and state the cause 1 — A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Thompson: Q. In our transactions with officials, when there has been a request for reinstatement, the request has always been made to know as to whether there was cause and then we replied requesting you to state the facts ? — A. You mean under the meaning of rule 10. Yes, sir; I had a little racket with some of you on that subject. I thought you were too rigid Q. We have reached an understanding upon statements being made? — A. Yes, sir. I mean in explanation about rigid that when we referred a case under amended rule 10 to the civil service, I held that we meant that there were no charges of misconduct or delinquency. Q. And insisted we must repeat that °? — A. Yes, sir. I said I did not want so much correspondence. I thought I did enough. Mr. BuTTEEWORTH. Rule 10 certifies only such facts ? — A. That there were no charges for delinquency or misconduct, and I refer the case to you. By Mr. Stone : Q. Where a removal is made by a Commissioner of Pensions, for in- stance, do you report that fact to the Civil-Service Commission, that cause of removal ? — A. No, sir ; we do not. Q. Do you understand the Civil Service Commission has any charge over the question of removals'? — A. No, sir; I do not. I do not know that the Civil Service Commission can compel an appointing officer to keep anybody in the service unless he sees fit to keep them there. Q. I do not understand you that on that i)oint is where you had the racket 1 — A. No, sir ; under amended rule 10 for re-instatement of sol- diers that are eligible for re-appointment, we must state there was no misconduct or delinquency. Q. Do you think that had anything to do with the appointment of Mr. Mitchell? — A. Nothing; we got this return from the Civil Serv- ice, taken from the list of eligibles. Q. Did you make a selection of Mitchell from those three names ? — A. No, sir ; I sent that list directly to the Commissioner of Pensions, and he made the selection. Q. That is practically all you had to do with it ? — A. In regard to the selection, that is all. Mr. Andrew. Are you in charge of this case about Mitchell's re-in- statement ■? — A. No, sir. By Mr. Stone : Q. Do you know what salary Mitchell was to receive when ap- pointed 1 — A. Not then certainly. Nine hundred dollars I have since understood. Q. That is what I understood. When was that appointment made? — A. On the back, here it is " appointed September 23, 1887." Q. Do you know what salary he is receiving now 1 — A. I think $900. 126 CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. Mr. EwAET. As a special examiner I — A. He has not passed the pro- bationery period yet. Mr. Stone. What was the memorandum about $2,000 salary ? — A. That memorandum I do not know anything about at all. By the Chairman : Q. Let me ask you here ; this paper certifies three names and one of these three appointed was Mr. Mitchell ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. He was not the highest in percentage ? — A. (taking paper and looking over it.) 71, 71, 72. That I take it to be a pretty good grade on this examination ; 77, 79, 74, and one at 77. Mr. BoATNER. You do not know the way the names were appoint- ed ? — A. Here is a list of those selected on the back. They were noted on the back from those selected. Mr. BuTTERWORTH. He is allowed to exercise his discretion ? — A. Most assuredly ; and if the highest rated man was a man he did not know anything about, and one near it was a man he did know a good deal about, he could exercise his discretion, most assuredly. Mr. Hatton. Who selected them after the list was sent in 1 Who selected Mr. Mitchell? — A. I could not tell you that; I do not know anything about it at all. The Chairman. I would suggest to Mr. Bwart that he ought to bring witnesses here to state what charges were against this man. Mr. EwART. We have brought our witnesses here, but they have not brought the records. It seems there are no records here. Mr. Andrew. This witness says that he has no knowledge of any cause for removal. Mr. EwART. I expected this witness to bring certain papers which he has not brought. The Chairman. You brought the records in your olflce ? — A. Yes, sir. Mr._ Hatton. The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts de- cided that this witness did not know anything about it. I Avould like to put a member of the Commission on the stand and ask in regard to the promotion and rein statement of men who have been dismissed for cause. The gentleman from Massachusetts shut me off on this ques- tion because he said this witness knew nothing about the Commission, and a minute afterwards some member of the committee asked about the Commission. I propose to be perfectly fair, and I want to be al- lowed to put a member of the Commission on the stand. Mr. Andrew. I am willing to admit the distinguished part, but I am not willing to admit the declaration as to what the witness knows. I asked a question and he said he did not know. Mr. Ewart. He said Mr. Andrew. I asked if he knew anything about- Mr. Hatton. To be fair, I want to put a member of the Commission on now. [To Mr. Thompson.] Governor, what is the rule of the Com- mission where a man is removed for cause, and the cause is stated, and there is an application ^for re-appointment ? Mr. Lyman decided this very year that re-in statement inquiries ought to come under rule 10. Mr. Thompson. The cause of removals is never reported to the Com- mission. If a removal is made, and there is no statement of cause, this application is made for re-instatemeut. For example, if the Secretary of the Treasury desires to restore a man who has been discharged from his service—not a woman, and not in case of an honorably discharged soldier, but assuming that the case is without any limit of time — he CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 127 writes a letter to the Commission, stating lie desires to restore Mr. Blank, under rule 10; that Mr. Blank was a clerk in such and such a grade, and resigned or removed without cause, affecting his character or standing at such and such a time. Sometimes the letters fail to make good that statement. There is one case now pending before the Commission where there is a conflict between the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commission, where he asked for the restoration of a lady. We called the attention of the Department to the fact that they failed to state in this letter whether she was dismissed for cause. The Secretary never answered the letter, and we refused to certify her. Q. Is it the duty of the Commission to ascertain whether a man who makes application for another place was dismissed for cause, and fi.nd out the charges ? — A. No, sir. If he says he was dismissed for cause, then we can not certify. If he says not, we are bound to certify him. I have certified a man that if I regarded I had the discretion I should have protested against his restoration. Q. Has there been any rule of the Commission requiring Department officers to give the Commission the cause of removal — was there a rule of that kind adopted by the Commission? — A. I am not aware of any such rule. Q. I would like to hear Mr. Lyman or Mr. Roosevelt in that respect. — A. I am sure there is not. Mr. EoosEVELT. There is no such rule and never has been. Mr. Hatton. Was a rule of that kind adopted by the Commission? Mr. Thompson. I can not say in regard to rules adopted in the past. Now, I would like to explain to the committee while I am on this sub- ject, that the Post-Office Department has a regular printed form, audit contains these words in stating the cause: that the man was dismissed at such a time, though without cause affecting his standing as a citizen. Now, several times the mail has brought me letters in which these words were stricken out, and it stated the man resigned at such a time. I wrote to the Superintendent of the General Railway Mail Service to state whether these words were stricken out because the man might have resigned under some charge, and they informed me that when they struck out these words they meant that the person's resignation was voluntary and he was not compelled. We do not wish to have any un- necessary correspondence, and since then we understand from the Rail- way Mail Service that indicates a resignation ; that where the words were stricken out that it meant the person resigned voluntarily and not for cause, and we have been very particular in this respect. The Com- mission has a casein which a distinguished Republican Senator two or three times interested himself, asking the restoration of a man ; there was a letter charging he was dismissed for certain acts, and the Secre- tary in charge of that Department will say he has no evidence, which convinces him he was mistaken in dismissing him and dismissed the man unjustly. The Chairman. As far as the Mitchell case is concerned, this ques- tion can not come in at all for this reason : Supjjose that a man had been removed for cause. If it was a year after he had a perfect right to apply for examination, and if he passed the examination he had a right to be certified by your Commission, no matter what he was discharged for. The Witness. If he was dismissed for murder we could not question it. Q. He had a perfect character, etc."? — A. I think under ordinary . Q. As far as the man is concerned is the oixestion whether he was re- moved for cause or not. 128 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATIOlf. Mr. Hatton. I am satisfied with this statement. By Mr. Stone : Q. Governor Thompson, did you ever hear of Mr. Mitchell at the time you certified his appointment"? — A. Well, no, sir; I never heard of him in my life until I heard of him here. I turn to the minutes and read the charges, and I find this entry, which I made myself: " The appeal in the case of Mr. Mitchell requesting a re-rating," and the words inserted "dismissed." Then on another minute I find 1 recorded this— I will state here that usually I dictate the minutes — but I find on another date I made this entry: "Examination of Mitchell. Eead his paper here this morning. Re-examination of Mitchell granted for reasons given in the letter," that he was sick, and not having the proper time. That is all I know of Mitchell. The Commissioners do not ordinarily know; we have a certification clerk who usually answers these letters. Q. I want a statement of fact. Did you ever hear of the fact of his having been dismissed from the service ? — A. Never a word. Q. Was the Commission — was any member of it to your knowledge — approached by any person in Mr. Mitchell's behalf with a view to cer- tifying his appointment ? — A. Positively not in my knowledge. I never heard his name, and as far as I know, none of my colleagues. 1 know they expressed as much surprise as I did, and we had to look up the records to see what he was. Q. Would the fact of his having been dismissed, even for cause, from the service two years and a half before he was certified, or before his examination, if you had known it, as a matter of fact influence you in any way 1 — A. It could not under the law. The rule is that a man dis- missed for cause would not be examined within one year; but this is not the question, for the man had been out for two years, and if he came up the Commissioners would be required, under the law, to ex- amine him. Q. I understand that. — A. We had no right to go behind it at all. Mr; Oberly. Suppose this man had made a statement in his appli- cation paper that he had been removed for cause, and you had known that there was cause. Would that in any way affect your determina- tion? — A. Yes, sir. Q. I understood you to say you had no right to know whether he was removed. — A. I did not mean to express it in this way. In several cases men have made statements in answer to question 8: "Have you ever been indicted for offenses ?" Sometimes they have said "yes," and we have made further investigation. For instance, the other day a man said he had been indicted for carrying concealed weapons. The case was referred to the Commission, and they ruled out the case of the man who was indicted for carrying concealed weapons, because, if that was held to be true, a great many of the people in the United States might be indicted A Voice. South Carolina. The Witness. I know it is true down there, and I believe it is true somewhere else. By Mr. HATTON : Q. In the application for re-rating on the ground that he was exam- ined when he was physically and mentally demoralized from being sick, did he furnish a physician's certificate of that fact ?— A. No, sir ; we did not require it. Q. You took his word ?— A. Yes, sir. Major Webster remembers the circumstance, and the fact he had made an omission of a paper, and the CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 129 man complained he was badly treated, and I confess, when I read the letter the other day, I thought his first examination was not a fair test. By Mr. Stone : Q. In the application which Mr. Mitchell filed, and all the applica- tions filed, is he required to state whether he had been previously in the service of the Government ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did his application show he had been dismissed'? — A. I presume it did; but I do not recollect the fact now. I can not recall the fact. Q. In making the certifications do you examine all these papers be- forehand, or simply take the record showing the grade? — A, That cer tification that the witness has just shown is a copy of the examination paper that goes to the Department of the Interior. These officers — the Commissioner of Pensions in this case, and the chief of division, whom he consults in these matters, take these papers and read them over. The chief of division and head of the office take the papers and read them over. I am giving my own experience in the Treasury. Q. What I want to get at is this : I make application to day for an examination in the civil service. When I state that I have here- tofore been in the departmental service and have at a certain time been dismissed without stating the cause of dismissal or anything of that kind ; now, what effect does that statement have — what purpose does it serve ? — A. If we had anything that caused a suspicion that he was a man of bad moral character we would make a further investigation. Q. At what point would you make this investigation ? — A. If any- thing in his answer conveyed the impression he was dismissed on ac- count of bad character we would probably investigate it. Q. But at what point ? — A. When he made application. Q. That would be done before examination? — A. Yes, sir. We have applicants who come there with application papers, and where they are regular we file them, and where they are irregular we regard them in the commission exactly as in the case of a man carrying concealed weapons. They are referred to a commission clerk who has full juris- diction to act upon it. Mr. TONNEK, resumed. By Mr. HattoN : Q. Is it a general rule when ten or twelve appointments are called for in the Pension Bureau do you know who makes the selection ?— A. Presumably the chief of the bureau — that is if the request emanates from that bureau. Q. Is it a general rule when ten or twelve or more are selected for the Pension Bureau they are sent to you ? — A. All communications for the Civil Service Commission come directly to my room. Q. If ten or twelve or more are sent to your room are they gener- ally in one handwriting ? — A. That I never observed. Q. Will it not be pretty much the case?— A. I do not examine the certificates at all. Q. Well, say of these ten names ; were all written in the same hand- writing except Mr. Mitchell's? Are you familiar with the handwriting of the officers of the Interior Department ? — A. No, sir ; not very. This indorsement was not made by the civil service. The Chairman. I think that the proof should be entirely in this line: Whether the Commissioners committed an illegal act in allowing this man to be examined, and whether they gave the certification when he was not entitled to it. Mr. Datton. With all respect to you I would like to submit this question to the committee : If the charge is that the Commission by 3117- — 9 130 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. manipulation of examination and registry lists and certification lists was influenced by some man in the Department who was supposed to have nothing to do with the selection of the man at all, is it i^roper for us to show that possibly when the list gave as certified ten names and one blank, that an officer of the Interior Department filled that blank ? I submit that to the committee. Mr. EwART. We would like to recall Governor Thompson to ask a question in connection with this application. The Chairman. Certainly. Mr. EwART (to Governor Thompson). You see the application of the Civil Service Commission and signed Thomas Mitchell,that in an- swer to the question: " Were you ever dismissed for any cause, and if so, what cause ? State it in full;" that the answer is: "Dismissed United States Pension OfSce, August, 1887." You will note he does not answer the question in full, and does not give the cause why he was dismissed. Now I want to ask you, Governor Thompson, who ex- amines those application papers ? — A. They are examined by the clerks in that office. Q. By the clerks entirely ? — A. Yes, sir ; and whenever the clerk is instructed Q. Suppose the answer is made, as in this case, " dismissed United States Pension Office, August, 1887," which does not answer the ques- tion fully, and does not give the cause of dismissal. Suppose that that clerk in the office had informed you that the answer had not been an- swered fully, and he was in doubt of the cause he was dismissed for, is it the practice of the Commission then to go into an investigation to ascertain what the cause ^vas for which that man was dismissed? — A. I do not think we would do that. Q. I will follow that with this question : Does it not seem to you that this is a lame place in the law ? Suppose you found out on examina- tion made in the Interior Department that this man had been guilty of burglary or raj)e or something of that sort, and was dismissed for cause of that kind. Does it not strike you as a lame place in the law ? — A. Possibly some injustice might be done by that; but I doubt it very much. Mr. KoosEVELT. Look at the preceding question. It says : " Not dismissed for delinquency or misconduct." Mr. EwART. This I understand. These applications as far as the Commiss^ioners are concerned are conclusive, and you never go back of them ? — A. No, sir ; but wherever we have any ground to believe it is not conforming to the truth then we investigate it. Q. That is what I wanted to know. In this particular case you took no pains to ascertain in regard to it ? — A. Not that I am aware of. The Chairman. If the committee desire to know what the j>ractice of the Commission is under the rules I have no objection, but we have an objection to going into the whole subject. Mr. EwART. I would like to say this in explanation of the question I asked. It does seem to me if it is the practice of this Commission as now stated not to investigate whether or not an applicant for a position in the classified service states over his oath why he was dismissed when he was dismissed from the bureau — it does seem to me that blame would necessarily attach to the Commission for not taking the necessary steps to ascertain for what reason that man was dismissed. Mr. Lind. That is not a matter to be brought out by testimony. The witness in liis api)lication says that he was discharged for no miscon- duct or deliu(][uency in office. lie has sworn here he was not dis- charged for any cause except being a Kepublican. That is all. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 131 Mr. EwART. The Commissiouers said that they were satisfied and they did uot make any other investigation ; that the very applica- tion Mr. Lyman. May I say a word here ? The Chairman. Is it necessary to take up the time to hear Mr. Lyman ? I think it is perfectly clear Mr. Lyman. There is only one point. The Chairman. What is it, then ? Mr. Lyman. The statement has been correctly made that the rules provided that where a man has been dismissed for delinquency or mis- conduct he was not to be examined within one year thereafter. This application is dated more than one year subsequent to his dismissal, and the Commission would not inquire into the cause of his dismissal, and especially in this case, as he was certified to the same office from which ho was dismissed. He is making application to come back to the very office from which he was dismissed, and if he was ever certified the official records would be there to confirm it. Mr. Stone. I will ask you one question while you are on the stand. Do you know whether any member of the Commission was ever ap- proached by anybody in Mr. Mitchell's interests with a view to urging his certification? — A. No, sir. Q. Did any person approach any member of the Commission within your knowledge in Mr. Mitchell's interest ? — A. I will state the fact. Mr. Charles E. Mitchell, the Commissioner of Patents, came to me and stated that Mr. Thomas Mitchell had said to him that he had taken the examination under unfavorable conditions, and had made an appeal from that examination ; and that he was fearful that he could not get justice from the chief examiner who would review the appeal, as he thought the chief examiner had some feeling against him. Commis- sioner Mitchell asked me whether I knew anything about it. I said to him that I did not know anything about the relations between Mr. Thomas Mitchell and the chief examiner, and that furthermore I knew the chief examiner well enough to believe that he would give those papers the full justice which they deserved if he reviewed the case on appeal. Mr. Mitchell, the Commissioner of Patents, said, as nearly as I can remember, " I have no favor to ask, and I know it would not be granted if I asked it. All I ask is that justice should be done." Are you answered? Q. And that is the only time he approached you on the subject? — A. That is the only time. I saw him but once. Q. That is the substance of it — what you said ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And that was in reference to his examination ? — A. In reference to his appeal; and incidentally the question came up whether under the circumstances, if they were correctly stated by Mr. Thomas Mitchell, whether he would be entitled to a re-examination. TESTIMONY OF J. T. DOYLE— Continued. J. T. Doyle recalled and examined. By Mr. Ewart : Q. From the hasty examination I gave to the eligible list in your presence this morning showing the list of those parties who had passed the copyist examination^ I noticed there were a large number marked on the eligible list from Connecticut. Can you give the number on the eligible list in September, 1889?— A. From a casual examination of the register thi« morning in your presence 1 notice there were a few— I thiute 132 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. three or four or five on the male copyist register from Gonuecticut — eligible iij^poiutmeuts, places of $900 and less Q. In the month of September, 1889"? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Canyon give the committee any idea of the number of eligibles from Connecticut on the same list the preceding mouths — say a year in-ecediug? — A. I do not know that I could. Q. Approximately ? — A. I forget — there were a few names on the register. Q. As many as twenty-five? — A. From Connecticut on that same register ? Q. Yes. — A. I doubt whether there were as many as that. Q. Twenty ? — A. I think there we^re fewer. Q. Will you please explain to the committee, Mr. Doyle, how it was when there were fifteen or twenty names directly from Connecticut on the eligible list of copyists why the name of Mr. Mitchell, who ap- ])ears to have passed an examination, should have been certified to the Interior Department for appointment ? — A. Mr. Mitchell took the ex- amination proper for the ])lace of special examiner of what is known as the clerical examining force in the Pension Office. From the begin- ning of the examinations in the Pension Office the eligible register for special examining officers has been treated as available also for filling clerical places in that office without regard to salary. Mr. Mitchell was eligible on the special 'registry and could be certified to either a special- place or to an ordinary clerical place. Q. Could not any of the other parties from Connecticut also have been certified as a copyist! — A. Tliey might have been. Q. Those who passed long before he had been examined 1 — A. If the request from the Department did not state that those particular qualifi- cations were disirable. Q. They wanted special examiners. Were not there parties on that eligible list from Connecticut who had passed the examination for special examiners ? — A. I do not know, sir. Q. The same examination that Mr. Mitchell passed % — A. I do not remember. Q. You can give us information on that point by an investigation 1 — A. It would not be material since the highest, without regard to State, would be certified. Q, It would be material on this j)oint. Would it not explain how it was Mitchell passed an examination only in the last few months— in Sej)- tember — when many others from Connecticut passed the same examina- tion ? — A. The time of the examination is not counted in making a cer- tification, for you must certify the highest. Q. Was he the highest of those parties 1 — A. There were two differ- ent registers. The register I si)oke of to you was tbe register of copy- ist and those who had taken examination for an ordinary clerical place. Mr. Stone. Well, there may have been others from Connecticut on each register. That is a fact, is it not 1 — A. They do not come in com- petition with the copyist register from Connecticut. A VOICE. Gentlemen of the committee, understand that the certifi- cation was made from those who had passed the examination as a special examiner, and that Mr. Mitchell was the highest. Mr. EoosEVELT. Let me state this Mr. Stone. He does not say that. Let us see if he says so. Mr. EoosEVELT. Let me state right here The Chairman. Was it not a fact that these men who were certified to the Commissioner of Pensions had passed their examination and CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 133 were the highest in percentage? — A. They were the highest, and they have received that certification. Q. If Mr. Mitchell had been certified that he had only received 70 per cent., and another person had passed say at 75 per cent., the other person would have been reported eligible by the Commissioners ? — A. Certainly. By Mr. Thompson : Q. Had the date of the examination anything to do with the certifi- cation? — A. No, sir; because in addition to the order of merit was still the apportionment among the States required by the civil service acf. Q. And by that provision you say Mr. Mitchell was certified ? — A. Certainly. By Mr. Boatnee, : Q, It has been stated here that the name of Mr. Mitchell, on a list which was sent by the Commission to the Department, is written in a different handwriting from the other names. — A. Not in the certifica- tion made by the Commission. The Chairman. Let me call your attention to the fact in regard to this action in the Pension Office. What I want to get at is this : The man was certified from the Commission to the Department without any request from the Department that he should be so certified. — A. There was a request from the Department for filling a certain number of va- cancies in the clerical examining force, and the names to be certified were taken from a list of special examiners, and the name of Mitchell at the time was among the three highest on the register in general aver- age, and was entitled for that reason to the certification which he re- ceived, having regard, as I say, to the apportionment among the States according to the population. Mr. BoATNER. The reason I asked the question the name was re- ported to be in another handwriting. The Chairman. That has nothing to do with the civil service. By Mr, Oberly : Q. There were fifteen places to be filled at the time. How did the Commissioner of Pensions make selections for these fifteen places'? Upon certifications regularly made out each in its order, or by taking the papers to him and submitting them to him in groups of three? — A. For the convenience of the Department and for the convenience of the Commission they had printed requisitions of the Department for filling these places. The papers of a sufficient number of eligibles from the special register were taken to the Commissioner of Pensions and handed to him in the order of certification, according to the general average, in order that he might indicate in advance the selections he desired. Q. That is to say, you took the three papers of the eligibles highest upon the list and handed them to the Commissioner in that way say- ing: " You will please make selection of one of these three ?" — A. Yes, sir; and upon his indicating Q. And you made a note of that upon the paper, whereupon you took the two remaining papers if still entitled to certification, not having re- ceived three certifications before, and you added to these the papers of the eligible next upon the list in grade, and handed these tliree to the Commissioner and directed him to make a selection from these three? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Then he having made a selection from these three after he took 134 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. one of tlie eligibles whose paper has been certified on his demand you made a note of that"?— A. Yes, sir. Q. Then you took the two remaining pa|)ers and added the papers of the fourth eligible to the list and handed the list to him and he made another selection? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And yon continued that process until you got to the bottom of the list and had filled the fifteen places? — A. Yes, sir. Q. That is the modus operandi ? — A. Yes, sir. • Q. Let me ask you — then you made up the regular certifications from the notes you had taken? — A. Yes, sir; the formal certifications in the order of standing and States. Q. And the Commissioner of Pensions in making his selections in that way for appointment selected Mitchell as one of the persons he had de- termined should be appointed ? — A. At that time he did not. He did not indicate Mitchell as one of the persons to be selected in that in- formal method. Q. How, then, and when was Mitchell selected for appointment and by whom ? — A. After the selections for appointment had been indicated in this informal way the Commissioner of Pensions when the formal certifications were made and sent to the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior notified the names of the persons selected from these certifications, and among the persons thus indicated as selected appeared the name of Thomas Mitchell. Q. The name of one of the persons selected for appointment by the Commissioner of Pensions having been stricken off the list, you added the name of Thomas Mitchell, whom he substituted ? — A. It was not stricken oft" the list. It did not appear upon the notifications for the reason the name of Thomas Mitchell did not appear Q. I understood you took back with you a memorandum of the fifteen whom the Commissioner of Pensions desired to be put into fifteen va- ' canciesaud waited until you had ascertained by ofiicial notice whether these selections for appointment had been confirmed by the Interior De- partment by the appointing officer ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, one of the persons selected by the Commissioner of Pensions, who generally does this thing, was omitted by some person in the In- terior Department, and the name of Thomas Mitchell substituted by some person for his own reason ? — A. That might have been the case. Q. The fact is it was stricken off. Some name was omitted from the selection made by the Commissioner of Pensions and the name of Thomas Mitchell was put in in that way ? — A. Tliat may have been the case. I merely know the name of Thomas Mitchell was selected. Q. In making out certificates in that way some pressure might have been brought in the Interior Department to have a person selected upon his merits by the Commissioner Mr. Roosevelt. There is no charge against the Commissioner of Pensions, as I understand. Mr. Obbkly. You must excuse me for going into this thing, but I do it in order to make it clear to the committee. Mr. BuTTBRWORTH. That indicaces a change may have been made in this handwriting, as I understand it. Mr. Oberly. This requisition for these fifteen came in on what date ? I think it was the Cth of January. The Witness. No ; September the 9th. Q. When was the examinatiou in Baltimore held ? — A. The 12th of August. ClVtL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. l35 Q. That was three days after the requisition for these fifteen "? — A. No ; a month before. Mr. Obbely. The requisition was made a month before? The (Jhaiuman. The requisition was made in September. The Witness. The requisition was not made until September. In the meantime Mitchell's name had been marked and. had gone on the register. Mr. Oberly. 1 understand the requisition came in before the exam- ination f — A. No; a month afterwards. Mr. Thompson. I want the liberty of stating this to the committee : The charge is that Mitchell when his friends fonnd that lie was on the ineligible list, that he was re-rated and put on the eligible list. I am prepared to prove from the official report of the chief examiner, if de- sired, that Mitchell's appeal for a re-rating was dismissed ; that practi- cally the only thing in the charge these papers prove was not done. Mitchell swears to that. Here are the ofiflcial records of the Commis- sion, and I can produce the official minutes showi'ug the appeal of Mitch- ell for a remarking. The Chairman. Ho was allowed a re-examination ? Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. Thereupon the committee took a recess until 2.30 p. m. afternoon session. The committee met at half past 2 o'clock, pursuant to adjournment. TESTIMONY OF CYRUS BUSSEY. Cyrus Bussey, sworn and examined. The Chairman. Mr. Bwart, will you please ask the questions you desire to have answered by this witness? Mr. Bwart. Mr. Hatton desires to examine the witness- By Mr. Hatton : Q. What is your position? — A. Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Q. Do you make appointments for the Interior Department, for the Pension Office ? — A. In part, I do. Q. Did you appoint Mr. Thomas E. Mitchell ?— A. I believe I did. Q. Did you know at the .time his name was certified his relative standing as a clerk, the rating he had as a clerk ? — A. At the time I presume I knew from the report of the Commission. Q. How many names were sent to you ? I do not expect an exact answer. — A. I can not remember at this time. I think fifteen or twenty names. Q. Was Mr. Mitchell's name sent to you from the Pension Office ? — A. His name was not sent from the Pension Office. The blank was left, and the Commissioner wrote me to fill in Mr. Mitchell's name. Q. When did you write it? — A. When they sent the papers. Q. Do you know why the name was not sent up ; for what reason ? — A. Because there was some doubt as to whether he was the party who desired to be appointed. Q. Having Mr. Mitchell on the eligible list, you desired to have him appointed? — A. Mr. Mitchell had been to see me some time before. I had looked into the case, and was satisfied that he was an efficient clerk, and it is a rule of the Department where we know a person who is effi- 136 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. cient we would rather give preference to him than to one whom we do not know. Q. How did you satisfy yourself? — A. From the records in the office. Q. Did you know at the time he had been dismissed from the serv- ice °? — A. I did not. Q. You did not know at the time whether he had been dismissed or Boti — A. No, sir. Q. Would the records of the Department show whether or not he was dismissed for cause? — A. The records, perhaps, in the Pension Office show that fact, but at the time in the Interior Department it showed that he was an old clerk, and had been an efficient clerk. Q. If you had known you would have inquired into the case? — A. I would always. Q. Did any of your associates in the Interior Department see you in regard to the appointment of Mitchell? — A. I do not think they did. When Mr. Mitchell first came to me he first wanted a position in the Census Office and brought himself to my notice before that, and I at- tempted to interest myself in his behalf to get him a place in the Cen- sus Office, and told him his name was on the eligible list and as it came up from the civil service he would be selected. Q. When did you first know Mr. Mitchell? — A. I can not tell you that. Some time, two or three mouths, perhaps, prior to his appoint- ment. He came frequently to me, as did everybody else who wanted a place. Q. Who introduced him to you? — A. He introduced himself. Q. Did he have a letter to you from anybody ? — A. No, sir ; he did not. Q. If you had known at the time you made the appointment he had been dismissed for cause, would you have appointed him ? — A. I do not think I would without knowing the cause of his removal. Q. When names were sent up from the Pension Office one on the list was left blank? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And you wrote Mr. Mitchell's name in? — A. I do not know whether I did or somebody else did. The Commissioner of Pensions informed me that that blank was left for Mr. Mitchell. Q. Have you got that list ? — A. My recollection is I did not write it. Q. It was written by somebody in the Interior Department ? — A. I think I did not write it. Q. Would the papers come directly to you? — A. Yes, sir; and the name might have been filled in by my direction, and I think jirobably it was. Q. You have no idea who probably did write it? — A. I have not. Q. Was it anybody outside of your office ? — A. No, sir ; somebody connected with the office ; perhaps it was Mr. Allen, the gentleman in charge of appointments in the office. Q. Do you know any method of obtaining clerks whom they may de- sire to obtain after they have i^assed the examination by refusing to appoint clerks certified until they get down to his name ? — A. There has never been a list of appointments sent up from the Civil Service Commission that a name has not been selected to my knowledge. Q. Out of three one is taken ? — A. Yes, sir 5 always, and some times more. Q. And then another name is added to the two rejected and sent to you again ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And then they could take also a name again, and reject the other two ? — A. Yes, sir. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 137 By Mr. Boatner : Q. This is the charge : That with the knowledge of its members on the 19tli day of September, 1889, Thomas Mitchell, of Connecticut, was appointed to a position in the Pension Office as a copyist ; that the said Mitchell was on September 30, 1887, dismissed from the service for cause ; that the said Mitchell failed in his examination held prior to his last appointment; that this failure becoming known to the party desiring his resto- ration to the service, his papers were remarked and he was raised from the ineligible to the eligible list. Do you know anything as to the truth or falsity of that charge? — A. I do not. Q. You do not know whether Mr. Mitchell was ever on the ineligible list or nof? — A. I do not. Q. Was any influence from your office that you know of brought to bear to have this man Mitchell pass an examination in order that his name might be sent up ? — A. I can say positively I never used one word of influence with the Oivil Service Commission in connection with Mr. Mitchell or any other man since I have been in office, posi- tively. Q. Do you know of any other influence having been used 1 — A. I do not. Q. Do yon know of any parties who were desirous of his restoration to the service"? — A. I do not. I think Commissioner Mitchell one day asked me if there was a prospect there would be a call made by the Civil- Service Commission for appointments. I told him 1 did not know anything about it, that they were likely to call at any time, but I could not tell. By Mr. Stone : Q. Do you know whether any person, any Commissioner, head of any Bureau, or Secretary or Assistant Secretary, has attempted to use any influence in any way with the Civil-Service Commission to procure cer- tifications? — A. I do not know of any. Q. Have you ever advised with any applicants for appointment as to any method by which they ought to proceed to procure certifications ? — A. I do not remember that 1 ever did. I told parties who have ap- plied that they would have to go and take the civil-service examina- tion. Nothing beyond that. I have never advised any one how he could have his name advanced and how certified, because I never have known of any way to have done so. Q. That covers my inquiry. [To Mr. Ewart.] That completes this charge ? Mr. Ewart. Yes, sir. TESTIMONY OF HAMILTON SHIDY. Hamilton Shidy sworn and examined : By Mr. Bwart : Q. Have you been connected with the Civil-Service Commission in the last few years'? — A. I have been secretary of the local examining board. Q. Where ■?— A. At Milwaukee, Wis. Q. How long since ? — A. Until the 1st day of July of the past year, 1889. Q. When did you become secretary f — A. Shortly after the passage of the act. I think it was in 1883, and 1 was one of the original ap- pointees under the act. 138 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. And you continued to act as secretary of the local board of the Milwaukee post-office until what date! — A. Until the 1st day of July, 1889. Q. By virtue of holding that position as secretary of the board you were an officer of the Commission 1 — A. I judge so ; to that extent I was. Q. What compensation did you receive as acting secretary ? — A. Abuse and loss of place. Q. 1 did not have reference to that. — A. This is all I received. Noth- ing. Not one penny. Q. In salary 1 — A. No, sir. Q. Did you have any position in the office? — A. My official designa- tion was superintendent of registered mail. Q. What salary did you receive for that ? — A. One thousand three hundred dollars. Q. Now, Mr. Shidy, I am going to state to you frankly, as it is my purpose to do, as suggested by Mr. Boatner, that the questions I am going to ask you, if answered in the affirmative, will subject you neces- sarily to more or less disgrace and odium, and will, in my opinion, sub- ject you to a criminal prosecution, and you may answer them or not as you please. (Objection was raised to this by Mr. Boatner and other members of the committee, and the question was debated.) The Chairman. Let the question be asked, and I think this witness is fully advised by this time of what he should do. Let him take the responsibility of answering. He has a right to decline to answer. Mr. EwART. I make the request of the committee that whenever I ask a question which, in your judgment, has a tendency to criminate the witness let the witness be advised as to his rights. (To the witness.) What were your duties as secretary of this examining board ? — A. To keep the books and papers of the Commission. Q. Did you have entire charge of the books and papers'?— A. Nomi- nally I did ; really not. Mr. LiND. That is not a complete answer. By Mr. Ewart : Q. Explain what you mean by that. — A. Because the books and papers were not always in mv possession or absolutely under my con- trol. Q. Did you keep the books ? — A. You mean as a book-keeper ? Q. Yes.— A. Yes. Q. Were entries made from certifications and so on in your hand- writing'? — A. Yes, sir. Q. To that extent the books were under your control "? — A. Yes. Q. Do you know, Mr. Shidy, if there were any irregularities in the .vorkings of this office in the year 1888*? — A. Of the Milwaukee office'? Q. Yes. — A. I wish you would be more explicit, please, in the scope of the question. It seems to me Q. I am not going to specify the irregularities now. — A. Just name the kind of irregularities, whether you mean special violations of the civil-service rules and regulations, or general irregularities. Q. I will say eitlier. — A. There were irregularities in the Milwaukee post-office. Q. In the year 1888 '?— A. I think so. Q. Do you know that to be a fact "? — A. If you could specify more par- ticularly some irregularity CIVIL SERVIOE IKVESTfGATION. 139 Q. Any class of irregularities, general or special. — A. In a general ■way, yes. Q. Did you report these irregularities to the Civil-Service Commis- sion? Mr. LiND. That is one of the questions you need not answer unless you see fit. Mr. Stone. That depends somewhat on the nature of the irregulari- ties at least. Mr. LiND. That is why I suggested the law should be read to the witness. The Chairman. Are you ready to answer the question! — A. I want you to distinctly understand I am ready to testify of any matter of fact I may know of in regard to this matter.^ The Chairman. Answer the question. By Mr. EwART : Q. Did you report these irregularities you mention in the workings of the oiiice in 1888 to the Civil-Service Commission*? — A. I did not, at least I am not aware that I did. Q. Was it your duty as an officer of the Commission to make a report of these violations or irregularities "? — A. Constructively so. Q. Was it not actually so? — A. Now you are bringing in Q. Just answer the question. — A. No; it was not actually so. Q. Then if there were violations of the law and you were perfectly cognizant of that fact, was it not .your duty as an oflticer of the Commis- sion to report the facts to the Commission in Washington? — A. It was not. But, excuse me, gentlemen, the chief conditions Mr. EwART. Make any explanation you want to make. The Witness. The line of questions is a narrow one, and confines attention only to one part of my duty, whereas my duty was double, and in view of the whole situation I will answer according to my judg- ment which is correct. I owed a duty to the Milwaukee postmaster as well as the Civil Service Commission. They conflicted. I regarded my allegiance as paramount to the postmaster; he paid me and the Civil Service Commission did not. I simply exiDlain it that 1 may be understood. Q. You say the postmaster paid you. The Government pays you, of course ? — A. That is a question I do not wish to quibble on. Q. You say you owed a duty also to the Commission as well as the postmaster? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What was the duty you owed to the Commission ? What do you mean by that ? — A. The faithful performance of the duties assigned to me. Q. Do you not think a faithful j)erforraance of the duties assigned you would require you to report to your superior officer the violations of law ? — A. 1 do, and would have so reported if there were nothing to prevent, if some higher duty did not prevent. Q. What higher duty in this particular instance prevented? — A. My duty to the postmaster. Q. Then the position you take is that being cognizant of these viola- tions of law in the workings of this office, you considered you owed your first duty to the postmaster and not to the Commission ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. As clerk, or secretary, rather, of that board, will you please state to the committee whether or not at any time while yon were acting as secretary you made false certifications upon your records ? — A. That 140 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. question is not entirely fair. I made certifications which were not ac- curate. That is, they did not conform as to date, and they were not iu harmony with the civil-service rules ; but that false certilications were made, no. Q. You answer that emphatically, no ? — A. Yes, sir ; with that under- standing. Q. State whether or not while acting as secretary of the local examin- ing board you ever tortured the records so as to make the list of eligi- bles come into line ? — A. That was made part of my duty. Q. Answer the question. — A. That was done. The Chairman. It was part of your duty. — A. Excuse me The Chairman. You do not mean to say it was part of your duty as an official of the Civil Service Commission ? — A. Gentlemen, you forget my dual character. You are examining me purely as being part of the Civil Service Commission, whereas in reality I was a part of the Mil- waukee post-office there. Mr. Ev^ART. But in making these certifications Mr. LiND. It was that part that did the torturing. The Chairman. You were really acting as an official of the board ? — A. Ko, sir; as an official of the Milwaukee post-office; assuredly as an official of the Milwaukee post-office. Mr. EwART. When you made this list of eligibles come into line, you did that in your capacity as a subordinate of the postmaster, and not as an officer of the Copimission ? — A. Assuredly. Mr. Stone. Would it not be of importance at this point for the wit- ness to explain just what this torturing process was ? The Chairman. Let Mr. Ewart get it. By Mr. EwART : Q. That is a question I was going ask him. Explain to the commit- tee what this torturing process meant. You did that as a clerk in the office under Postmaster Paul, and not in your capacity as an official of the Commission. You became a sort of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde ? — A. Most unfortunately. Q. Please explain what you mean by torturing the record. — A. I mean that the records did not conform to the rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission always, and exactly in spirit and in fact; that they were not made at the time when they should have been made; that the dates were not harmonious with the facts, certain records being made after the fact instead of before the fact, as they of right should have been made. These were not purely my own acts, although I recorded them. Q. In other words, Mr. Shidy, you made certifications on your records after or before appointments, which ■? — A. They were made in both ways. Those that were made before appointments were correctly made, and where certification was made after the appointment it was incorrectly made. Q. That was torturing the records'? — A. I presume that is what you mean by that word. Q. In other words, it was a false certification ? — A. Ko, not probably with the construction which you place on the words " false certification." It was a certification and statement of fact, but it was not false except- ing in its date and the time at which it was made. Q. Now, Mr. Shidy Mr. Andrew. Will you give the witness a chance to explain ? The Witness. The course of appointment under civil-service rules is this : When a vacancy occurred in the office in was the duty of the CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 141 postmaster under the civil-service rules to notify uie in writing that a vacancy existed. I then, as secretary of the board, was required to certify the three highest names on the eligible list from which he should make a selection. The Chairman. What was done in point of facf? — A. In point of fact, appointment was made sometimes, and these certifications were made to cover appointments previously made. The Chairman. Appointments were made before the postmaster noti- fied you ? — A. Without notification and without certification. The Chairman. And then you made the certification to agree with his appointment ? — A. Afterwards 1 made the certification to agree with his appointment. He would tell me who had been appointed, and I would make the certification to cover the appointment. Sometimes it was long after the fact. Mr. LiND. Were these appointments made by the postmaster from the eligible list invariably ? — A. To places covered by the civil-service rules ? 1 think yes. There was a large class of exceptions claimed By Mr. EwART : Q. Mr. Shidy, did you give Postmaster Paul free access to the list of eligibles ? — A. Mr. Paul had free access to the list of eligibles. Q. Did he have a right to have free access under the law? — A. No, he did not. Q. Why did you allow him to have access to those lists ? — A. I was not in a position to gainsay him. Q. Why? — A. Because I was his subordinate, and my oificial life depended purely on his will. Q. You knew then that his demand to see these lists of eligibles was a violation of law and you could not refuse to allow him access to the list because your position was dependent on his pleasure ? — A. I kne»v that fact, and I called his attention to it. I gave him the printed cir- cular of the Commission, the only copy which I had, and emphaiically called his attention to that fact. Q. You had control of the entire work of this board, did you not ? — A. Only as secretary. Q. But it is generally conceded you did all the work. — A, As sec- retary. Q. Did other members of the board have anything to do with it? — A. Assuredly. I was not the Milwaukee board ; 1 .was secretary of the board. Q. I deem it my duty to caution you in making your answer. The question I asked you is, if the other members of the board had anything to do with this work. — A. Assuredly. Now, Mr. Ewart by " this work," I understand youto mean the civil service work in the Milwaukee post- ofiice. You may apply it in some other way, but if you have some special meaning — if you mean to keep the records, I keep the records. Q. So far as the records were concerned the other members of the board had little or nothing to do with them. By Mr. Andrew : Q. You were a member of the board ? — A. The civil-service board ? Assuredly, I was secretary of the board. Q. Does that constitute you a member of the board ? Mr. Ewart. It makes him an officer of the Civil Service Commission. Mr. Andrew. What I wanted to know was whether the secretary of the Milwaukee board was a member of the board. 142 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. A. CertaiDly ; there were three members of the board. They chose 'oue president and one secretary, and the secretary keeps the minutes. Mr. LiND. Were they all employed in the office 1 A. Of necessity, the regulation being, or part of the law being, that they must be Government employes. By Mr. Ewart : Q. From whom did you hold your commission as secretary ? — A. From the Civil Service Commission. Q. Going back to the line of investigation before we were interrupted, do 1 understand you to say you made these false certifications or that you tortured these records because you were compelled to do so "? Mr. BoATNER. I would suggest that the witness objected to the use of the words "false certifications," and when you put a question- in that shape you compel him either to refuse to answer your question or evade it. Mr. EwAKT. Well, then, I will use the expression " torturing the record." A. I will take your question again. Q. This torturing of the records ; was that done because you felt you were obliged to do it? — A. Assuredly. Q. At the instance of Postmaster Paul ? — A. Assuredly. Q. Your position depended upon it? — A. I had no interest whatever in changing any record in the post-of&ce, or in making a certification out of time. Mr. Andrew. I would like to ask what he means by making certifi- cations out of time ; is it not merely technical ? The Chairman. He has explained. The certification should precede the appointment. I understand that the proceeding was that the post- master made the appointment, and after the appointment of these gen- tlemen you made the certification ? A. The certification followed the appointment, instead of preceding it. The Chairman. Practically the postmaster was the Civil Service Com- mission. Mr. Andrew. They were not competitive examinations I A. Yes, sir; the results of competitive examinations. By Mr. LiND : Q. Did these irregularities in dates prejudice other eligibles? Did this irregular method of doing what you did prejudice the chances of eligibles on your list, if you know?— A. I think not, so far as that fact alone is concerned. The mere fact that an entry was made after in- stead of before an appointment would not prejudice the condition of other eligibles. Q. It is your duty — with the permission of the committee ; I do not desire to take up the time of this committee unless it is conceded — as I understand it you were required under the rules to report their names to the postmaster when a vacancy occurred, but instead of doing that, he chose a man of his own accord and appointed him, and then applied to you for the certification of an eligible covering that identical case with the name. JSow, then, did that practically prejudice the cases of eligibles on your books who should have received the appointment had it been regularly made and reported by you? — A. In some cases it did unquestionably, and others not. For ordinarily the names chosen would fall Avithiu the three which would have been certified, and in that case had it been certified beforehand it could not h ave affected the case at all. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 143 By Mr. EwART : Q. Did you not state in the presence of Mr. Johnson, who was a member of the board, and Mr. Paul, the postmaster at Milwaukee, and also in the presence of the three Commissioners, that the reason you had for changing the grades of some of these applicants was to get them out of the way of other men whom the postmaster desired to ap X)oint? — A. Giving that as being my reason? Q. Did you not state that as a fact ? — A. That being my reason for doing so ? Q. As being the reason why it was done. Mr. BoATNER. Did you state that? — A. I stated that that was the reason why it was done, with that understanding. By Mr. EwART: Q. You stated it in the presence of these commissioners ? — A. That my reasons Q. That it was your reason and Mr. Paul's ? — A. That is the reason it was done ? Q. That it was done for the purpose of getting unfortunates out of the way of the eligibles. By the Chairman: Q. It was done under the instruction ot the postmaster ? — A. As- suredly. Q. He instructed you to do it? — A. I had no possible interest in it. Q. He instructed you and you merely carried out his wish ? —A. As- suredly so. Q. Even if it was against your duty as an official of the Civil Serv- ice Commission, when you were instructed by the postmaster wherever the two conflicted? — A. Where they conflicted my allegiance was to the postmaster. Mr. EwART. Whether it was a violation of the law or not in your judgment ? — A. Precisely so. I was not making these appointments, and I was not responsible for them. You will understand me, gentle- men, because I am only one of that board of persons, and this was clearly understood between myself and my colleagues. We were iu no position to withstand Mr. Paul, and 1 repeatedly brought these matters to the attention of Mr. Johnson and the other members of the com- mission, the question being not what we could do about it, but what we should do about it, and I was asked more than once was I ready to fight. It was an absurdity and we could not do it. It was simply to let Mr. Paul have his own way. Mr. BoATNER. It was simply a question of bread and butter against the civil service rales, and the bread and butter prevailed ? — A. Pre- cisely. That is the matter in a nutshell. By the Chairman : Q. Did you ever mark up the percentage which different candidates had obtained, that is to say, where a man passed only 40 per cent, did you mark it up to 70 per cent, in order to make his standing so he could be selected ? — A. There were a few instances in which papers were re- viewed for the purpose of changing the rating. In some cases they were raised, and in one case they were lowered. Q. They were raised arbitrarily. Understand what I mean by that. Was that done for the purpose of correcting errors or done for the pur- pose of putting a man on the eligible list who had no right to obtaiu 144 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. if? — A. It was done for the purpose of finding a reason for advancing the man. Q. That is no answer to the question. Was the reviewing done for the purpose of having the man marked higher? — A. He was marked probably with a biased judgment. The judgment was biased by the knowledge that the postmaster wanted that man and wanted him badly. Mr. BoATNEE.. You considered that case with a decided leaning ? — A. That is the size of it, gentlemen. The Chairman. Whenever such marking was made it was made at the instance of the postmaster *? — A. It was, and with the knowledge that he wanted that man and was bound to have him. By Mr. EwART : Q. That is what is called gerrymandering the list ? — A. That is what is alluded to by that term. Q. And that is done for the purpose of producing a stuffed t^ertifica- tion ? — A. Not exactly that term " stuffed" Q. Explain what is meant by stuffed certifications. — A. The stuffing was merely padding so as to make the certification seem round and full. Gentlemen, you have had your laugh too soon. Names were sometimes added to the certification after it was known that the man was- defi- nitely and permanently selected and had been at work for some time. Now, when that name was selected, it was wholly immaterial what names went with him. Those names were simj)ly stuifiug and padding to the certification. That is the sense in which that word is used in the written i)aper you have before you. By Mr. Boatner : Q. You knew when you sent three names that of those three one had been already selected and employed ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And the other two were sent along as a matter of form. — A. That is all. , Q. In order to comply with the letter of the law ? — A. Yes, sir. By the Chairman : ' Q. To what extent were the records falsified"? I should call it a falsifi- cation of the record ; that is legitimate I should say. In raising the per- centage of different persons who were examined, to what extent was that done ? Was it done in one case or in two cases, or was it done wherever it was required to be done? — A. It was not done as a general thing. That remedy was used sj)aringly. Q. Was it used whenever necessary to use it ? That is the point. — A. I i)resume so. Q. Whenever it was necessary to use that remedy it was used *? — A. I presume so. Q. You know so ? — A. No, I do not know so. Excuse me. Now I recollect one case in which an effort was made to liave the grade raised, but no pretext could be found in the papers for raising the grade. In that case it was not raised, so it would not aijply in every case where it might have been desirable to have done so. Q. This was an exception?— A. Yes, sir. Q. Was that the only exception ; only that one case? — A. I think so. Q. The committee would like to find out how far this matter went, whether the postmaster and the Civil Service Commission as repre- sented by the three members or officials had that matter in charge, whether they evaded the law in every instance where it was necessary CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 145 to evade it in order to carry oat the will of the postmaster. — A. The postmaster had his way in makiDg these ai)poiutments, absolutely. Q. With the exception of one case. In one case he did not have his way ? — A. In that case he did not, but he got his way in another. By Mr. Lind : Q. So it was not a hopeless case then ? — A. I do not want the im- l)ressiou to be made here that this class of cases frequently occurred. The cases in which there was a change or remai'king of papers were few. Q. But there were such cases on both sides, in which the rating was raised ? — A. And in which it was lowered, but they were not many. It was not a general practice. These cases did not require anything of the kind. Mr. BwART. I will ask you if it is not a fact that the offlcial records which you kept as secretary of that board do not show beyond any possibility of dispute that the list of eligibles was twisted and garbled in almost every conceivable manner in order to ])roduce false certifica- tions by which men could be rejected and others appointed who had no rightful claims to the chance"? — A. In answering that question, I want to make a little statement simply calling attention to the facts. When men were found to be at work in the ofQce, and it became necessary to cover their appointment by certification, that is to make their ap- pointment formal it sometimes was quite difficult to do so. The task remained to do it, and to do it in the least objectionable manner. Still, it had to be done, for the men were at work. Mr. BoATNER. Does it appear they were competent ? Mr. Lind, What we want is to know just how you did do it. — A. Un- less some special case is brought up The Chairman (to Mr. Bwart). Give him a special case. The Witness. Sometimes there would not — for instance, if there were three names on a given register, none of which would include a chosen man, the fourth name on the register being the one chosen, one of those names would have to be drox)ped out for some reason. He might be marked " objected to." By Mr. Ewart : Q. Do you recollect the case of a man named Wakeman, who was examined April 14, 1887! — A. I remember the name, but not the num- bers. Q. Do you remember the name of Trump ? — A. Yes, sir; I do. Q. Explain how he was gerrymandered. — A. In Mr. Trump's case, as far as I or any other member of the Commission is concerned, I do not think there was any irregularity at all. This is a typical case. Mr. Trump was examined at a certain date. He was put to work before his examination papers were marked, before the postmaster knew of his Q. Let me refresh your recollection here, Mr. Shidy. He was ap- pointed March 1, 1888. He was not examined until March 17, not cer- tified until April 14. Now, explain how that happens. — A. That happens exactly in the manner I was going to state. He was appointed be- fore Mr. Andrew. Will you please give those dates again"? Mr. Ewart. He was appointed March 1 and began work March 23; he was not examined until the 17th of March, and was not certitied until the 14th of April. — A. He was not examined until March 17, My 3117 10 146 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. recollection tallies with that, exactly. He was put to work on March 23. Now, the interval between the 17th and the 23d day of March was not sufficient for the board to mark and rate those examination papers. Mr. Trump's standing was not distinctly known at that time. Still, he was appointed on the 1st day of March, and on the 23d day of March he went to work. On the 17th day of March he was examined. His record was not known until the 23d of March, but on the 23d day of March he was put to work, and reported as having been at work on tbe 23d. By the Chairman: Q. Did he draw his pay from the 1st of March ? — A. I should think so. Q. Do you know, as a matter of fact, he drew pay from the 1st of March? — A. I know the general custom is that appointees are paid from the day of appointment. Q. Keally he did not go to work until the 23d of March ? — A. He was not connected with the office until then. Q. Did you certify the papers back to the 1st of March ? — A. I think not. I do not know what the certification in that case is. Q. Would not the record show that his certification was made either on the day after or the day of his appointment? — A. It would. Q. Did you not falsify the records as far as that is concerned? — A. No, sir; those certifications which I matle where they have dates ap- pended to them — I guess all have dates appended — are true dates on which I submitted those certifications to the postmaster. The date of the appointment would vary in many cases with the date of certifica- tion. That is the point of discrepancy between them. If I had falsified these dates then there would have been no room for discovery, but I put in the correct dates. Q. As far as the dates are concerned, you always put the correct dates, and if there was any change it was made afterwards by some one else? — A. I think there is only one instance in which the date was changed, and that was by requirement of the postmaster, in which he absolutely insisted on the chauge. Q. Who changed it? — A. I changed it. Q. Then you changed the date at his request ? — A. Yes ; at his re- • quest. Q. If he changed the date so that a falsification of the record was made, you falsified the record at the request of the postmaster? — A. Precisely so. There was no reason why I should do it of my own voli- tion in any case. By Mr. EwAET : Q. I will ask you if it was not often the case that the postmaster would cancel certifications ? — A. Sometimes. Q. Was it the case that these void certifications were employed and used by candidates on the three certifications? — A. I am not sure now, but by looking over the certification book I could tell. I do not know that certifications were ever made for that purpose. I do not recollect that it was. Q. You would not answer positively about that? — A. I could not an- swer positively. Q. Was it the case that men were ever singled out of a higher list and certified in a lower list, and that others were certified from a lower to a higher witli superior advantages to the favored one ? Was that rlone with your assistance ? — A. Men were taken from a higher to -^ CIVJL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 147 lower list. I do not mean to answer your question iu full by this be- cause as to their qualifications and requirements I do not know exactly. Q. Why were they talien from a higher to a lower list ? — A. The rea- son was that the postmaster where he chose such a man — I never asked him Q. That is another question, where he compelled you to do it. — A. I never questioned his choice of a man. By the Chairman : Q. These questions were furnished you by the Civil Service Commis- sion f — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you ever know of any of your associates to your knowledge giving questions out to candidates before examination ? — A. i^ever. If they did 1 never knew of any such case. Q. Did the postmaster have access to these questions ? — A. No, sir, he did not. Q. Who kept them *? — A. The questions only reached me as a rule the day before the OKamiuation. Sometimes on the very morning of 1 he examination. They came. there under seal and the seal was not broken until in the presence of the class. So these questions were never tampered with. Q. 1 (lid not know but that the postmaster running the whole Com- mission had the papers as well as doing the marking? — A. He did not have the papers. Mr. LiND. Show how these disclosures came to be made to the Civil Service Commission, how the Civil Service Commission got notice of this state of aftairs. The Witness. Do you ask that now ? Mr. EwART. Yes. The Witness. In answer to the first question, I remained in the office until the 1st day of July, 1889. The Commission made their report public, I think it was the 25th day of June, or about that time ; it must have been June. By Mr. EwJlRT : Q. Please state to the committee how those disclosures were brought about. — A. I think that would be very competent for the Civil Service Commissioners themselves, for they know how they got it. I know I did not give it to them ; I did not bring it to their attention. Q. You never did call their attention to it at any time f — A. I did act. Q. To any of these violations of the law ? — A. Now you are pinning me down too closely. I hope you gentlemen will understand me when I speak I mean to say just what is the fact. After this matter was opened uj) and the Commission began to examine into these things 1 may haye called their attention to some of the irregularities, but what I mean is I did not start this investigation or instigate it iu any way. That is what 1 mean to say. Mr. LiND. You say after the matter was opened up ; then have you any knowledge how it was opened up? — A. I can state all I know about it. Along in the midsummer of 1888, Mr. Doyle dropped in on me one pleasant summer afternoon, I think it was late in June, and asked to see the books of the Commission, which he did. I placed them at his disposal and helped him all I could. He made some short-hand notes as this gentleman is doing, and presently took his departure. His visit was followed by a visit some forty or fifty days later by himself and Mr. Webster who came as an investigating committee to examine into 148 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. the conduct of affairs iu the office. I then was quite severely ques- tioned. I made the statements which I thinly: are before the committee. 1 have the impression I stated then just what was the fact. I meant to state exactly the facts. By the Ohaikman : Q. Who made the examination ? — A. Mr. Webster and Mr. Doyle. Later on in 1889 the Commission as constituted at present j)aid us a visit — Mr. Lyman, Mr. Eoosevelt, and Mr. Thompson ; at that time we were submitted to some examination. I do not think my testimony on the two occasions conflict at all. I have the impression I told the facts in both cases as I meant to do. I was reluctant to testify and it was only when 1 was obliged to do so or when I was called upon to do so that I did so. I knew the results would be just what they were, and I so stated to the Commission. Q. What was the result ? — A. The result would be my dismissal. Q. Why were you not dismissed iu 1888, then 1 Mr. Eoosevelt. The reports were not made public. By the Chairman : Q. Mr. Paul knew what you stated ? — A. No, sir : he did not know the statement I made then. He stated to me that he had called for a copy of my testimony, but I think he never got it. I do not know, for he never stated he had got it. Later he probably knew what I had testified to. Q. Was there any action taken by the Commission in 1888, after you had stated substantially what you had stated to the Commission in 1889, concerning these charges, to your knowledge? — A. I am not nware of any. I do not know what was done in that respect. I think 1 liey considered the testimony which was taken at that time and di- gested it, but what they did I do not know ; 1 mean what the Commis- sion did. Q. Mr. Paul was not investigated, neither was he removed. — A. No; he was not. Q. And you made exactly the same statement in 1888 that you made to-day ? — A. So far as the ground was covered. By Mr. Boatnbr : Q. The time you were examined by Webster and Doyle is the time you refer to ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What time in 1888 °? — A. It must have been either August or Sep- tember, probably early in September or late in August. Q. You were investigated by the Commission when "? — A. That was the investigation by the Commission. The Commission must have been there Q. You state that after Mr. Doyle and Mr. Webster left that the Commission came on. How long was that after "? — A, They wefre there, I think, in May ; I think it was May the following year. These dates can readUy be fixed. Mr. EwART. What was the date of the investigation made by Mr. Doyle?— A. September 4, 1888. Mr. Andrew. One was made in September and the other in May. — A. In May, or it might have been June, 1889, the year following. By Mr. Boatner : Q. How loBig after the second investigation before Mr. Paul was re- moved f — A. Mr, Paul was not removed until late in August or Scptcm- CIVIL SEiRVICE INVESTIGATTOK 140 ber. The Commission made a report requesting liis removal, whicb was made public, I think, about the 25th day of June. Q. How long after that report was made public requesting his re- moval before you were removed ? — A. I was removed on the 1st of July. Q. By whom «— A. By Mr. Paul. The Chairman. As soon as these charges became known I — A. Prob- ably as soon as they became kuown. By Mr. Ewart : Q. You do not mean to say that Postmaster Paul did not know of your evidence taken before the Commission? — A. I do not know what occurred between Mr. Doyle and Mr. Webster and Mr. Paul. I know Mr. Paul was not present when 1 gave that testimony. Q. Do you swear that Mr. Paul knew nothing about it? — A. No, sir, I do not know at what time he had knowledge of it. I did not mean to intimate that at all. Mr. LiND. He simply stated so far as he is concerned he aid not make his statement in Mr. Paul's presence. Mr. EwAET. He does not pretend to say that Mr. Paul does not know. — A. I know I did not know anything about it. Q. Are you in Government employ now ? — A. I am. Q. What bureau ?— A. In the Census Bureau. By the Chairman : Q. This examination was made by the three Commissioners, in 1889. Were not Mr. Eoosevelt, Governor Thompson, and Mr. Lyman the three Commissioners present? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you have any conversation with any of these Commissioners before giving testimony in relation to what would be your position if you gave the testimony ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What was it f — A. The point was brought out that if I should testify it would provoke a collision between myself and my superior officer. Q. Who brought that point out ? — A. I did, I think. Q. Did you say you would give this testimony provided you would be taken care of? — A. I did make a bargain of that sort. Q. State what took place. — A. Such assurances of protection were afforded me. Q. At your request ? — A. It followed as a corollary or result of what I had stated. No, I do not know that I had specially requested it. I may have so requested it, but I do not recollect distinctly whether I requested protection, but assured the Commission — I think I did not request protection, but assured them it was necessary. However, the fact remained I was assured protection by the Commission. That I should be protected from the result of my testimony. Q. Were the Commissioners or any one of them at the time they gave you that assurance aware of what your testimony would be"? Had you told them what you could prove*? — A. No, I had not. They knew, of course, what I had testified to on the former occasion ; that was a matter of record. This was subsequent to when I testified before Doyle and Webster. By Mr. Lind : Q. Was the former testimony under oath or merely a statements — A. It was a statement. I was not under oath, and yet to me it would not have been changed at all had I taken oath. I meant to state the 150 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATIOK. facts just as mucli as I now mean to state the facts and the oath wonld have had nothing to do with it. I believe there was no oath adminis- tered. By the Chairman : * Q. How long- were you altogether in this Milwaukee post-office ? — A. Thirteen years to the day and hour. Q. Always in the same capacity? — A. Noj I served in various capacities. Q. What was your business before you went in that office ? — A. I was a physician. I am educated as a physician. Q. After you were discharged from the Milwaukee post-office did you come to Washington ? — A. I did. Q. In what way did you obtain a position in the Census Office ? — A. I obtained a position in the Census Office by the friendly office of the Commission. Mr. Eoosevelt particularly being friendly and kind to me in that respect. Q. What position do you occupy there ? — A. I occupy — I went in as the very tail to the kite, at a $720 position in the ninth division of the Census Office, my official designation being computer, which ranks lower than a copyist. Q. What position do you now hold ? — A. It is rather an anomalous one. On the records of the Commission I rate as a computer at the pay of $900. I have from twenty to twenty-one men under me, some of whom are drawing $1,200 and more for aught 1 know to the contrary. I am directing the tabulation of statistics of wealth, debts, and taxa- tion of cities of 2,500 i^opulation and over, a somewhat important posi- tion. By Mr. Ewart : Q. You said you had assurances of protection. From which one of the Commissioners did that come ? — A, Mr. Eoosevelt was the spokes- man of the Commission. Q. What do you mean by that ? In what manner were you to be pro- tected ? Were you to be protected from any prosecution ? — A. Oh, no. Q. Were you to be protected from any removal from your position you held in the Milwaukee post-office 1 — A. I judge that to be the object of the protection as far as they had any power to do anything. Q. Did you infer from these assurances that Mr. Roosevelt gave you in the presence of the other Commissioners that they would not permit you to be removed, or they would take steps to prevent your being re- moved from the office as clerk in the Milwaukee post-office? — A. Not absolutely ; not that they would not permit me to be removed, because I do not think that, that was in their power, but that they would exert themselves to prevent my removal. Q. You were removed?— A. I was removed. Q. Do you know whether they ever exerted themselves to prevent your being removed ? — A. I have reasons to think they did. Q. What reasons have you assigned ? — A. Because some of them have told me so. Q. Which one of the Commissioners told you so 1 — A. Mr. Lyman has stated that he Q. Mr. Eoosevelt never made any such statement to you?— A. He might have done so. Q. Did he do so ? — A. I do not recollect now. Q. Governor Thompson never made any such statement to you, did he ? Just answer yes or no. — A. I want to clear my mind. I am in- CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 151 cliiLcd to think Governor Thompson did say sometbing of that kind, but just what it is now I am honestly in a cloud about it. Q. But you are inclined to think, at any rate, he made that impres- sion upon your mind ? — A. However, I have a telegram from the Com- mission which perhaps might be of interest. The Chaieman. Let it be read. The Witness. It does not amount to anything. Mr. BoATNER. It is historical, 1 suppose. The Witness. That is all. Here is the telegram which reads — it was sent to me at 921 Walnut street : Commission will bring your matter to attention of proper authorities as soon as possible. Charles Lyman, President. and is dated July 3, 1889, which you will see is three days subsequent to my removal. I also have a letter of the secretary of the Commis- sion from the Commission, which I will read if it is desired. Here is the type-written letter of the Commission, under date of August 15, addressed to me : United States Civil Service Commission, Washington, D. C, August 15, 1889. Sir : In response to your communication of July 31, stating the circumstances con- nected with your service as superintendeut of the registry division of the Milwaukee ]»()st-offico and yonr dismissal from that office, and asking that the Commission will take such action as it may to secure your re-appointmeut to the place from which yon were dismissed, I am instructed to state that the Commission will take all proper steps in its power to remedy the injustice that has been done you. Very respectfully, John T. Doyle, Secretary. Dr. H. Shidy, Milwaulcee, Wis. Mr. EwAET. The injustice done you was your rem oval? — A. That was the i)oint. Mr. Stone. It was signed by whom ? — A. The secretary of the Com- mission, signed by Mr. Doyle. Mr. Ewart. The injustice referred to your removal from office by Postmaster Paul? — A. That was the injustice. By Mr. Boatner : Q. Who were your colleagues on this examining board? — A. Mr. Jerome B. Johnston and Mr. Charles Fahsel. Q. Were either of these parties examined by the Civil Service Com- mission? — A. Yes, sir; they were. Q. Did they corroborate your statement? — A. I have not read their testimony, but I do not see how they could do otherwise. Q. Was either one of them dismissed from the service at the time you were ? — A. They were not. Q. Are they in the service now ? — A. Mr. Johnston I think is, but Mr. Fahsel is not. Q. Did they hold a higher or lower position in the service than you did ? — A. That is difficult to determine. Q. I mean in point of salary. — A. In point of salary, yes. They were both heads of divisions and Mr. Johnston was in charge of the mail, and as such received a higher salary than I did, who was in charge of the registered mail, although I handled a large quantity of very valuable matter. 152 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. The Chairman. How much salary did he receive 1 — A. I think his salary was $1,000. Mr. Andrew. What was yours? — A. One thousand three hundred dollars. Mr. EwAET. What cause did Mr. Paul assign for your dismissal ? — A. Mr. Paul assigned in his letter to me the jDublication of an article in a newspaper. It was not the real cause as understood between him and me clearly. It was understood not to be the real cause. Mr. LiND. Did you j)ublish the article 1 — A. The article had been published; yes, sir. By Mr. Hatton : Q. You tried to withdraw that article, after writing it, from the print- ing office ? — A. At Mr. Paul's request. Mr. Paul told me, " There is no use to carry this matter further ; I have written, here is my resigna- tion," showing me a paper which I did not examine, " I wish you would suppress this matter." I went to the publishing house and made that statement to the editor. He was rather loath to give out my manuscript, but stepped to the usual little hole in the wall and telephoned, and pres- ently returned to me, and of course he did not directly refuse to give up my manuscript but he declined to do so, and requested that I allow it to remain with him, under the assurance that he would not then publish it but he might do so later. It was considered that he simply tabled it. I went from his office to the office of another newspaper, to still another, and the city editor of that paper brought a copy of the Even- ing News, or the Evening Wisconsin it was called, in which it was stated in flaming head-lines " Mr. Paul has resigned," " It was stated on the authority of Dr. Shidy that Mr. Paul had resigned," and so on. They had agreed not half an hour before when he had that conversation at the hole in the wall. JSTow, Mr. Paul had made that statement to me, and the editor with whom I was in conversation detained me there and sent his city editor over to the post office, which was but a short distance, to see about Mr. Paul's resignation. He came back and reported that Mr. Paul had not resigned, and that he did not care any- thing about my publication, and that he would just as soon have it published as not, and so on. 1 said, " Mr. Coleman, if Mr. Paul has no objection I have no objection, and you can go ahead." The result was the article appeared in the newspaper the next morning. That is the story of the suppression of this article. Q. And the time you attempted to withdraw the letter you thought Mr. Paul resigned 1 — A. I was told so. Q. You still considered your duty greater to him than you did to the public f — A. I did not see there was any object in persecuting him, I had no ill feeling toward Mr. Paul, none whatever. By the Chairman : Q. When was Mr. Paul removed ? — A. He was removed, I think, about — I think he hung on until September. Q. Before you came to Washington 1 — A. Before I came to Wash- ington. Mr. EoosEVELT. His resignation was accepted, that of the Milwaukee postmaster, Mr. Paul. His dismissal had already been determined upon, and he would have been removed if he had not resigned. The Chairman. That is immaterial. I want to iind out whether he was removed and his successor appointed before you came to Wash- ington. — A. Yes, sir. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 153 Q. How long before? — A. I came to Washington on the 13th day of November. Q. I am not j)articular about the date at all, I merely wanted to know. Did you make an effort to get in the post-office again 1—A. No ; I did not. 1 did not ask to be reinstated in the Milwaukee post-office. Q. Why not ? — A. Because of the anomalous state of affairs there. Mr. Paul had a life-long friend who, although of a different political complexion, sustained him, I think, for personal reasons, he being Mr, Paul's friend was naturally my enemy. Mr. Paul had further told me that he would see to it that I should not hold a position again under any Republican administration. He told me in so many words that he would persecute me, Mr, LiND. Have you got that article here that you sent to the pa- per ?-^ A. No ; I have not. It was in reply to an article. I would state that Mr. Paul published a personal article about myself. Mr. LiND, I do not care about going into this unless the committee desires it. By Mr. Boatner : Q. Was the successor of Mr. Paul in the post-office a friend of Mr. Paul's °? — A, I do not know. I know they were acquainted. Q. What influence could Mr, Paul bring to bear on the succeeding postmaster which would prevent your being retained in the office or being reinstated, — A, The succeeding xiostmaster was absolutely de- pendent upon a Congressman for apioointment. The friend of Mr. Paul was Mr, LiND. What was his name ? — A. Van Schaick. Mr, Boatner. The i)ostmaster was connected with a friend of Mr. Paul's, and on account of the connection between the three you do not think you had any chance? — A. Precisely so. By Mr. Hatton : Q. In the letter of the Civil Service Commission to you they say, '■We will take such action to procure your reappointment in the office after you were dismissed." If you had been restored to that office and a new postmaster like Mr. Paul had attempted to violate the law and asked you to make false certifications, would you consider your duty to him higher than your duty to the Commission, and gone on doing as you did before? — A. Now you are inquiring into a state of facts that are simply suppositions, cases that you may imagine. Is this a question of fact I Q, I will ask another question. — A. I presume I might imagine my- self under these conditions and I will answer this gentleman fairly and squarely. After the lapse of many months and after time for amply considering my course and conduct in the matter I do not see I could have done one whit different from what I did do and if I was placed under the identical circumstances I would pursue a similar line of con- duct. Q, If you had been restored and the new postmaster had asked you to make false certifications, you would have gone on making them? — A. If the conditions were the same as before the results would have been the same. Q. After securing the removal of Mr. Paul through the Commission you would have gone on and made up a case against the next post- master in the same way ? — A. I did not secure Mr. Paul's removal. Q. It was partly done through your evidence. — A. My evidence was simply the facts. I had nothing to do with that. I was not responsi- 154 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. ble for the fact. The facts probably removed Mr. Paul. I did not make the facts. Q. As a civil service reformer and an officer of the Board The Chairman. He does not say that he was a civil service reformer. Mr. Hatton. Well, as a former officer of the Board — I do not mean to reflect on the Board Mr. BoATNEE.. You mean to say had you been retained in your place that you would have repeated the violation of the civil service law which you have stated that you have been guilty of? — A. That would depend upon the conditions ; if they would not be the same it might not be necessary to repeat it. I served under Mr. Payne and he,did not compel me to do so. The Chairman. If the conditions were the same you would see noth- ing wrong? — A. I have not stated that I did not see anything wrong. I think my appreciation of right and wrong is equal to most people. I have stated, gentlemen, that if the conditions were the same the results would be the same. I can not see why like causes should not produce like results. By Mr. Hatton : Q. Did you report to Commissioners Lyman, Edgerton, and Oberly any violation of the postmaster in which you assisted him ? Did you ever make any report? — A. I did not start the investigation. Q. You stated one reason why you did not was that this was a mat- ter of bread and butter to you. Mr. BoATNER. He did not say that, it was myself. Mr. Hatton. He answered you that it was practically so. Could not you, as a sworn officer of the Commission, have taken the chances on one sandwich and sent these Commissioners word without Mr. Paul's knowl- edge that he was violating the civil service law? Could you not have sent word to the Commission here ; had not you many opportunities to do that ? — A. I was not exactly disposed to act on that line, although you may think I have done worse. In the first place, Mr. Hatton, you must realize and understand that when these violations of law began they were a very small thing, and if at once I had withstood them, and if I had called the attention of the Commission to them, it would have been to bring down a rebuke, and the Commission would have admonished Mr. Paul to adhere more strictly to the law, and he would have turned on me for calling the attention of the Commission to these matters. Having condoned one of them it is a very easy matter to condone another and another, and by and by there comes to be a mountain. I state the matter fairly. The Chairman. You condoned his offense ? A. Precisely so, because By Mr. Hatton: Q. What were Mr. Paul's politics ? — A. He was appointed a Demo- crat. Q. What are your politics ? — A. I am a Eepublican. Q. If it was a matter of bread and butter under your present condi- tions and the Superintendent of the Census should ask you to make false register and false returns, would you comply with him; would you consider your duty greater to the Superintendent of Census than it is to the Commission and President The Witness. And the public. The Superintendent of Census knows how he wants the reports. CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 155 Q. If you were satisfied in your mind you were doing an im- proper Mr. BoATNER. Let him answer. The Witness. If the Superintendent of Census wants a false report he knows that matter. I am his servant, and he can direct me in these matters and in regard to all matters. In regard to the post-ofiice aftairs, Mr. Paul was my superior officer, and directed me. In regard to the Civil Service Commission matters, he ought not to have been my superior or directed me in any way; but unfortunately it was impossible to separate the two IPs, I being one and the same individual. Q. But you know the law gives the Civil Service Commission, in which you were an officer, the right to come in and investigate the affairs of the post-office, and to that extent made the Commission supe- rior to the postmaster. — A. Did they do it "? Q. Not through any active agency on your part. — A. If I had insti- gated this movement and had brought charges while they were small and inconsequential, would not I have been s'*igmatized as conspiring against my superior officer, and would not it have been alleged that because Mr. Paul was a Democrat and I was a Republican, therefore I was trying to get a Democrat out of office, or some such reason as that 1 I had no ill-will against Mr. Paul. I did not try to get him out of office, nor do I. What I testify to is simply fact. Q. Understand that I was assuming that the Commission is above politics, and of course your political influence and his political influence ought to have nothing to do witli that. — A. I think not. Q. You never reported to Mr. Lyman any of these false certifications or any violation of law ?— A. I think I have answered that question be- fore. Q. Did not yon consider it your duty to report these violations of law to Mr. Lyman so that he should have an opportunity to make an in- vestigation of the case in order, if this man had violated his duty, to dismiss him ? — ^A. A report to Mr. Lyman would have been a report to the Commission. I do not distinguish between the two. I did not re- port to the Commission because I was not in a position to do so satis- factorily. By Mr. Oberly : Q. Why were you not ? — A. Because my position was wholly depend- ent upon pleasing my superior officer. Q. I wish to know why you believe that to be the fact? — A. Events have borne me out. Q. Did it ever occur to you that you should have informed the Com- mission that these abuses were going on; that you were in danger of removal; that an investigation and ascertaining of facts might be made without implicating you, and would show you were anxious to do your duty? — A. No, I do not think that state of aflairs presented itself to me as being in conformity with the facts ; in fact I know it did not. The letter which I wrote to the Commission very hastily, after Mr. Doyle and Mr. Webster's examination there, on the spur of the moment and while suffering from considerable excitement, being afraid of the course which would then be taken — I sat down and wrote a letter, in which I summed up the condition of affairs, and I stated, I think, there were but three courses open to me ; the first was to call the attention of the Commission to the existing state of affairs and to take the consequences; the second was to resign and drop the load ; the third was to wait until the Commission, through its own motion, should discover the fact and 156 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. then simply to let them take all the responsiMlity of the result. The latter was the course I took. Mr. LiND. Did you mail that letter to the Commission I A. No, sir ; I gave it to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Webster during the exam- ination. I think it was the final act of that afternoon. That was the first examination. I think it is part of the record here. Mr. Andrew. Who were the Commissioners then *? A. Mr. Oberly, Mr. Lyman, and Mr. Edgerton. Mr. LiND. Is that letter in evidence ? The Chairman. Do you know where this letter is ? The Witness. The Commission has that letter. Mr. EoosEVELT. It is on the table. Mr. Hatton. We will wait for that. In the meantime I would like to hear one question. You stated your construction of your duty duty as an officer The Witness. (Taking up paper, see Exhibit B.) This is marked Ex- hibit R. Communication to the Civil Service Commission from Hamil- ton Shidy, secretary of the board of examiners of the post-office at Milwaukee, and dated September 10, 18S8, which is also the date of my letter. Mr. Oberly. This is an exhibit ? The Chairman. Yes, sir. Mr. Oberly. Of what^ The Witness. I think it is part of the evidence. Mr. EoosEVELT. It is an exhibit to the report of last July. Mr, Oberly. What is the date of the report which Mr. Webster made of which this is an exhibit! The Chairman. He is referring to a letter sent to the Commission in September, 1888. Mr. Oberly. He means an exhibit to something. Mr. LiND. This witness is entitled to have this in the record. The Witness. This is a letter which, as I have stated, I wrote after the testimony was taken in the examination conducted by Mr. Doyle and Mr. Webster. The examination had closed late one afternoon. I went home feeling ill at ease at the turn which affairs had taken. I rose early the next morning, it being understood between Mr. Doyle and Mr. Webster that they were going on the 1 L o'clock train and I must be at my desk at work before 8 o'clock in the morning, so I sat down and rapidly dashed off this statement, which I had not occasion to read until I read it before that committee. Mr. Andrew. What committee? — A. Messrs. Doyle and Webster, who were then the investigating committee, and I put this in their hand as an explanation how it came that I allowed things to be in the con- dition in which they were. I shall simply read an extract from this : Three courses ouly were open to nie under the circninstances — (1) To resign my position on the board. This I talked of on several occasions with Mr. Johnson, president of board, and even wrote out my resignation, bnt it was withheld, as we both thought it wonhl prejudice my position in the office, as of course I would be asked for reasons. (2) To call the attention of the Civil Service Commission to the manner in which the rnlcs were being violated. This would have been to invite an investigation and conflict with the postmaster, with loss of place. (;i) To lot matters take their course until such time as the Commission should dis- cover, of its own motion, the existence of irregularities and deal with them as they saw lit. This I have done! I have been loyal to my chief and have done the best I was permitted to do for the Commission, being heartily in sympathy with the reform movement. Now, gentlemen, you may laugh, but it is a fact nevertheless. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 157 Mr. Oberly. What is the date of that letter? The Witness. It is dated the 10th day of September, 1888. By Mr. Stone : Q. I would like to ask a question or two, in view of getting matters that have been traveled over in a scattered way together again. How many employes of the Government are at Milwaukee? — A. Do you refer only to the post-office ? Q. Well, altogether. — A. I can not say. Q. Were there any persons employed in the Government service at Milwaukee other than those connected with the post-office'? — A. I think so, although 1 would be at a loss to specify. Yes, assuredly ; there is the custom-house; at present they collect internal revenue at Milwaukee. Q. This board, of which you were secretary, was composed exclusively of ])ersons connected with the post-office ? — A. It was for the greater part of the time. In its incipiency there was a member, a Dr. Kane, who was connected with one of the departments, I thjnk the internal- revenue department. The requireinenfc was that tliey should be Gov- ernment employes. Q. From whom did you receive your appointment as secretary of this board ; from the Civil Service Commission f — A. From the Civil Serv- ice Commission. Q. And you held you had a duty then to the Civil Service Commis- sion distinct from that you had to the postmaster ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you take oath as a member of this board I — A. I think not ; in fact, I understand not. According to my memory it is not required. It is not likely there was any set oath. I am informed a set oath is not required, so I presume I did not take any oath. Mr. Oberly. Is not the performance of the duty of the secretary of a board of examiners made by the civil service law part of his official duty ; does not the discharge of these duties therefore come under your oath to do that ? By Mr. Stone : Q. I was going to ask that question, but you can answer it now. — A. I think there is a provision in the civil service law — you will not be surprised if I am not altogether familiar with the manifold provisions of the law — I think there is a provision making it a part of the public work to be done. I believe that to be so. Q. In certifying persons for appointment as being on the eligible list who were not on it, in changing the grades of persons who were on the list by increasing some and diminishing that of others, did you under- stand that it was a violation of your obligation, of your duty as a public officer f — A. My duty was twofold. If I could have separated the part of me which was civil service officer from the part of me which was post office attache I would not have had any difficulty whatever in discriminating between the two, but unfortunately I could not. Q. Do you mean to say that you did not regard your conduct as an official wrong and involving any moral turpitude because a different course might have resulted in your removal from office? — A. Because, considering the situation in its entirety, taking all things into consid- eration, that was right for me which was not right and proper if there was only one cause. I have been taught that of two evils to choose the least, which I believe is a correct lioe of conduct. Q. I think we understand fhat. IsTow you have explained this whole business, and your connection with the present Civil Service Commis- sion is as you have stated. — A. Yes, sir. 158 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. Soon after your removal do I understand you to say that these gentlemen with full knowledge of your conduct recommended you for appointment in another branch of the service of the Government ? — A. No; knowing I had been a faithful servant in the place in which I had been placed, no charge being against me, and it can be testified to that in thirteen years I have handled large sums of money, and I am here and not in Canada. Q. Did you go into your present employment under civil service rules and regulations ? — A. I suppose I did. That is, in the early stages of the process I suppose I did, but I learned since that branch of the civil service is not under what is known as the regular civil-service rules. Q. In other words, the ap])ointment can be made without civil serv- ice examination and certification under the provisions of the law? — A. They have a certain form of examination over there which probably tbey regard as a substitute and equivalent to the civil service exami- nation." It is not the regular civil service examination. 1 was required to take such au examination, and when I took it I supposed I was con- forming fully to the civil service law. Q. Is it a fact that Mr. Roosevelt or either of the Commissioners went to the Superintendent of the Census, or to whoever makes these appoint- ments, and personally interviewed him in your .behalf to your knowl- edge 1 — A. To my knowledge, no ; because I have no knowledge of that fact whatever. Q. What is your understanding? — A. I understand that. The Chairman. You will see, Mr. Stone, it is a fact that Mr. Eoose- velt got this appointment acting for the Commission. By Mr. Stone : Q. What were the politics of Mr. Johnston ? — A. He is a Republican. Q. What was your other associate ? — A. Mr. Fahsel ? Q. What were his politics ? — A. I do not know. He was appointed by Mr. Paul, so I judge he was a Democrat. Q. He is not now in the service 1 — A. No, sir. Q. Mr. Paul is no longer in the service? — No, sir. Q. He was a Democrat '? — A. He was a Democrat ; at least he was appointed as a Democrat. Q. Is Mr. Johnson still in the service?— A. I believe he is; I think he is; I may say I know he is. Q. What did I understand you to say the place is you are filling now in the Census Office? — A. My position by official designation there is a copyist. Mr. BoATNER. I thought you stated it was a computer. — A. I was appointed as a computer, which I think is a less grade than a copyist. I have been advanced, and I now get $900. By Mr. Stone : Q. Did you say you have now under you fifteen or twenty men ? — A. I have, but that does not appear in my official status. Q. And you say many are receiving a larger salary than you? — A. Many are; the most of them, I think. Q. What are you engaged in doing? — A. Tabulating statistics of wealth, debt, and taxation of cities of 2,500 population and over. Q. You are comi)uting or tabulating statistics of taxation ? — A. Yes, sir; and of wealth, debt, and taxation, referring to the financial Q. You are in charge of that division ?^— A. I am not in charge of the division, because, understand me, Mr. Copelar.d is in charge of the divis- ion. In the division of wealth, etc., I take the place of Mr. Copelaud, CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 159 in charge of these statistics, Mr. Copeland being in charge of the divis- ion. By the Chairman : Q. You have stated that yon have charge of some fifteen or twenty men, what are your duties'? — A. My duties are to outline the work for them to break the way before them and see they do as I sa3' shall be done. There can no work at present proceed until I map it out. I break the way for their work. Q. The men who do the work you designate are paid in some instances $300 per annum more than you receive at present? — A. Yes, sir; I have stated that. Understand I am not complaining at all, but that is simply the fact. By Mr. Hatton : Q. After you were turned out of the Milwaukee post-office did you ever make application to the Civil Service Commission for a position ? — A. I requested them to do what they could for me. Q. I know that, but what I mean is by examination ? — A. To take the regular civil-service examination. Q. Yes.— A. No. Q. Why I — A. Because I knew there were a great multitude who were doing that then, so that I would have a very small chance, a drop in the bucket. Q. Are you familiar enough with the rules of the Commission to say whether or not after having been dismissed from the service you could have been so certified by the Commission °! — A. I see no reason why I should not have been certified by the Civil Service Commission. When I made application for this place I stated fully and explicitly the fact that my connection had been severed from the service. 1 filled out a regular application blank. Mr. Andrew. This is a more argumentative question. The Chairman. In this way the question comes jiroperly that the witness is asked whether he did not make application, and whether for whatever cause he had been discharged Mr. BoATNER. He has stated it. The question is whether his char- acter is good enough to go through, that is a question of opinion. It is unfair to ask a man to stultify himself. By Mr. Stone : Did this examination held by Messrs. Doyle and Webster— this was in September, 1888, 1 believe you said ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know anything about when these gentlemen made their report to the Commission? — A. No, I do not. By Mr. Thompson : Q. When Mr. Lyman, Mr. Eoosevelt, and myself called on you at your office at Milwaukee and began to inquire of you about these thiugs, did you or not beg to be excused from saying anything ? — A. I did ; I stated the result would be disastrous to me. Q. These assurances Mr. Eoosevelt gave, which Mr. Lyman and ray- self assented to, was it not that if you would tell us frankly the whole truth about this matter we would protect you as far as we could from being dismissed for testifying if you told the truth. — A. That was the substance of our first conversation. Q. Did I not at that time somewhat severely upbraid you for this misconduct you had been guilty of? — A. You asked me some very pointed questions, I know. 160 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. Did you not express contritiou and repentance and say to tbe Oommissiou you had been taught a severe lesson and in future nothing of this kind would occur'? — A. I do not remember making that state- ment, although I might have made it ; I do not remember it. Q. Did you not send me after 1 had left Milwaukee a newspaper in which there was high praise of you by the former postmaster, Mr. Payne !— A. No, I think flot. Q. You recollect that newspaper ?— A. Yes, sir. Your question was simply — I brought that paper here, here it is. Do you wish the paper read ? Q. Before your appointoient to the Census Office you submitted to us as evidence a fact that you had the confidence of your superior officer, the postmaster, Mr. Payne, the Republican incumbent, who preceded Mr. Paul?— A. I did. Mr. KoosEVELT. Will you submit the newspaper marked in evidence here ? — A. I have the paper here. Mr. Thompson. I shall read that portion which Mr. Payne testi- fied to his character and capacity. [From Yenowin's Sunday News, Milwaukee, Sunday, May 31, 1885.] THE FOURTH DIVISIOX. The registry department was separated from tlie money department in 1878, and is in charge of Dr. Hamilton Shidy. This branch is rapidly gaining in public favor, as will be seen by its great increase. In 1876 but 45,204 pieces were handled, while in 1884 the number reached 266,995. When we consider that 'every one of these let- ters or packages is of more or less value, the great importance of this department will be understood. To Dr. Shidy is due the credit of having originated the idea of simplifying the method of doing the registry business by the use of the postal card. Its adoption by the Department was earnestly urged by me, and it has resulted in a great saving of time and labor, and consequently improving the service throughout the entire country. A. This copy is dated May 31, 1885. It shows the farewell address of Mr. Payne on his turning over the office to Mr. Paul. By Mr. Ewaet : Q. What is the date of that paper ?— A. Sunday, May 31, 1885. Q. Before you were engaged in the certification business? — A. Yes, sir. No, sir; it was not, for the civil-service rules weut into effect, if I remember, about the spring of 1883. The Chairman. That was before any irregularities were committed '? — A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Thompson : Q. Did you not tell the Commission when we called your attention to this violation of law which we regarded as very gross, did you not tell the Commission that you had done it under duress ? — A. I did. Q. And the duress was that of the postmaster? — A. I did. Q. Did you not then, in regard to this re-marking — I beg you now to listen carefully to this question — state that you had never re-marked a paper or marked it up where you did not feel there was a justification in marking it up ? Just answer this, — A. I so stated. Q. That you never marked a man up that you did not believe, when the review was made, that you had sufficient justification for re-marking; and where a review was suggested by the postmaster you had never marked a man higher than, in your deliberate judgment, he was entitled to? — A. Not higher than we could allow hiiu properly. As a rule those cases were only a fraction of a per cent., just enough to change the relative standing of two person^. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 161 By the Chaieman : Q. You stated that in one or two instances the marking had been made, that the rate of per cent, had been raised? — A. I state so now. I refer to that that there were changes which were not great, as from 40 to 70, but they were generally only a minor chaiage in marking, enough to change the relative position of two persons. By Mr. Thompson : Q. You stated that day you had never marked a paper that you did not conscientiously believe, on a review, was entitled to be marked up. Did you or did you not say that ? — A. I do not remember positively. I know what the effect was, that that marking these papers sometimes caused Q. I just want you to answer the question. Did you not tell the Com- mission while Mr. Paul sometimes called upon the board to review ques- tions, you had never marked a man higher than you lionestly believed on a second review he was entitled to ? — A. I do not remember, but in point of fact it is so whether I did or did not. Q. Did not you distinctly say to the Commission you had admitted your faults, your dereliction of duty, and that you deeply regretted it, and that it should not occur again if you remained in the service ? — A. I did state to the Commission that I admitted the fault, and I accepted the verdict of censure which they passed upon me as being just from their stand-point. Q. Did you not tell the Commission in some of these matters where Mr. Paul had ordered you to do things he stated that to be his opinion of the law, and there was a conflict of opinion between you and Mr. Paul, and you yielded to him, being tlie inferior officer, and it was done upon the responsibility that his construction of the law was right *? — A. He did in some instances ; many instances. Q. Did you not tell the Commission that in a decision where you dif- fered that Mr. Paul, the postmaster, said, " I have the right of the law to do thus and so," and that while you were disposed to differ from him in opinion that it was only upon such questions that the postmaster insisted and you yielded your judgment to his? — A. That unquestion- ably covers some cases. Q. I only wanted to know whether you did not tell us that -, that where you and Mr. Paul came in conflict in regard to the construction of the meaning as it sometimes occurred, you gave your construction and Mr. Paul his, and that you yielded your judgment to his? — A. I have never tried in any way to conceal the state of affairs whatever here. I simply did not bring up the law Mr. BoATNER. The question is about fact. Did you tell him these things or not ? By Mr. Thompson. Q. Did not you tell the Commission, at the time you pleaded for mercy, that you were a poor man with a wife and children, absolutely dependent upon your salary for support ? — A. Yes, sir ; I did. Q. And did you not, in stating these facts, admit your errors and say that if you were continued in office it would not occur again ; that you had consulted your colleagues of the Board, and they knew what the irregularities and the derelictions that you committed were ? — A. What- ever was known to me was known to the members of the Board — any- thing of importance. There may have been some little trifle that occurred which was not known, but there was nothing of importance 3117 11 162 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. which was not known. If I thought there was anything of importance that was not known to the other members of the board I reported it to the board, if any discussions especially between myself and Mr. John- ston, until it became to be monotonous. By the Chairman : Q. Did you tell the Commissioners, at that time that you considered the matter, that you were acting in two capacities, and under the same conditions you were then acting you would act in the same manner again *? — A. I do not remember that I made that statement. Q. You made a statement here that you would consider under the same conditions, that under the same conditions you would act exactly as you did act ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you state that to the Commissioners at that time ?— A. I do not remember that I stated that ; I do not remember that that phase of it came up at all. Q. Did not you acknowledge you did wrong, and that it never would happen again?— A. I acknowledged I did wrong, just as I now do. Q. Did you not tell the Commissioners that you would never be guilty of such an act again? — A. I probably did ; I do not recollect that par- ticular statement. I do not know, yet I might have said so. I do not seem to recollect at present that I did make use of that particular ex- pression, but that was the frame of mind in which I was in at that time. Q. You are positive you never stated to those gentlemen that if you were called to a public position again under the same conditions as those, you would do the same as you had then acted ? — A. I do not re- member that phase was brought up at all. I do not recollect having made any such statement as that. I do not recollect that particular question was brought before me; still, it may have been. By Mr. Eoosevelt. Are you not positive you never said anything of the kind ? — A. No, I do not recollect that matter positively ; from the fact there is a blank in my mind in regard to it I should think I had not made the statement, but it is hard to state in the negative. I sim- ply do not know. It may come to me. By Mr. Hatton : Q. Were you a member of the Board when Henry Payne was post- master 1 — A. Yes, sir. Q. He is the author of the complimentary notice about you which has been read. — A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you ever obliged by him to make false certifications ? — A. No, sir. Mr. EviTAET. Before the adjournment of the committee, I would put in evidence and read to the committee the report made to the Commis- sioners by Messrs. Webster and Doyle, especially one part of the re- port. The Chairman. You can put it in evidence, at least such portion of it as you think necessary. A portion of the testimony was then read to the committee and it was filed in evidence. (See Exhibit C.) CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 163 Saturday, March 1, 1890. TESTIMONY OF ROBERT P. PORTER. EoEEET P. Porter sworn and examined. By Mr. Lind (in the chair) : Q. Yon are Superintendent of the Census ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. You may state briefly what you know in relation to the appoint- ment in your office of Mr. Shidy ; also the matters which actuated you in making that appointment. — A. I think the first time my attention was called to Mr. Shidy was by Mr. Eoosevelt, who spoke to me about him. Mr. Eoosevelt said that he was a man who had been employed in the Milwaukee post-office, and that in consequence of his having given some testimony which rather aided the Commission to find out certain facts they were interested in, he had been dismissed (Mr. Eoosevelt thought unjustly dismissed), and he asked me if I could find a j)lace in my office for such a man. I said I was going to employ a good many clerks, and if he would bring Mr. Shidy on, that we would examine him, and if he was found to be competent I would recommend him for appointment. I said as he had been dismissed from the Post- Office Department, as a matter of courtesy it would be necessary to ask the Postmaster-General if he had any objection to my appointing the man in the Interior Department, and I think the Postmaster-General said he had no objection. Mr. Shidy passed an examination and was recommended for appointment. He was appointed and went to work. That is all I know about it. By Mr. Eoosevelt : Q. He was appointed at $720 and has been promoted to $900 since? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Here is a letter from T. Campbell Copeland, superintendent of the ninth division in your office. This letter says " He is one of our most valuable clerks." This is a letter handed to us the other day in reference to Mr. Shidy. Mr. Lind. It would be improper to put it in evidence in this con- nection. (To the witness.) Do you personally know anything about his standing and efficiency in the office? — A. Yes, sir ; he has passed a fair examination. It is not what I would consider a first-class one. I think it was about 67 or 70. He had had some experience as an executive man in a small way. He has been found to be a useful man a little above the average. I know exactly what he does. By Mr. Ewart : Q. I understood yon to say that Mr. Eoosevelt told you that Shidy had been unjustly dismissed i — A. I understood that from what Mr. Eoosevelt told me. That was my impression about it. Q. Did Mr. Eoosevelt inform you at the time that this man had been an officer in the Civil Service Commission, and as such had repeatedly violated the law 1 — A. No, sir. Q. Did he tell you this man had been engaged, while a member of the board of examiners, in gerrymandering the list of eligibles and making- false certifications 1 — A. I did not understand that he was in any way connected with the Civil Service Commission. I thought he was an employe of the post-office at Milwaukee in the money-order depart- ment. 164 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. The only information Mr. Eoosevelt gave you was that this man in his opinion had been unjustly dismissed ?-- A. That was the main idea. Q. It was upon that recommendation you allowed Shidy to take an examination ? — A. Yes, sir. Some responsible person has to make a recommendation 5 an examination is made and that is graded, and af- terwards an appointment follows or does not, as the case may be. Mr. Stone. Did Mr. Eoosevelt state to you the reasons for his dis- missal? — A. I think not in detail. I have so many of those cases that I would not be sure about that. I think he simply stated that Shidy was dismissed. By Mr. Ewart : Q. If Mr. Eoosevelt had told you that this man had persistently vio- lated the law, had stufled the list of eligibles, had mutilated the records and made false certifications, would you have appointed him in your bureau ? — A. I certainly should not. Mr. EwART. I know you would not. Mr. Stone. You say you know you would not ? Mr. EwAKT. I say Mr. Porter would not. That is what Mr. Shidy here called an anomalous statement. By Mr. Stone : Q. This man Shidy testified on yesterday that he was now receiving a salary of $900 a year, and that he was practically in charge of twenty- odd men engaged in tabulating and arranging statistics of indebtedness on cities of 2,500 and over, and that there were persons under his control receiving much larger salaries. What I want to know is what system is it that gives a subordinate a larger salary than the man in charge, the responsible man ? — A. That is easily explained in the cen- sus work. It has to be done rapidly. We are just beginning our bu- reau. I think Shidy has not been, in charge of that more than two or three weeks, and some other men may have been in the office longer and perhaps good at figures, and he may have been chosen within the last few weeks, and I think he has been. I do not make any more pro- motions until the first of April. If we find a man has changed his posi- tion, which a great many do in the Census Office, we have no time to wait. 1 try to equalize it the next time I make promotions. Q. He occupies relatively the position of the chief of the division? — A. I think he has charge of certain tabulations that they are making. Q. He simply gives out the work then ? — A. He gives out the work. Q. These persons in the room with him are, in a certain sense, under his control ? — A. He might simply be the man that takes around these sheets when finished, giving them to another and keeping the general run of the work. Q. Is he responsible in that room? — A. No; I do not think he is even the responsible man in that room. Q. Who is the responsible man? — A. The responsible man is the chief of the division. Q. Was Mr. Shidy mistaken in saying he had charge of the men in the room ? — A. I should think he was. He may give out the work. Mr. Andrew. I think he used the expression " gave out the work," and had "twenty men under him." — A. That is hardly a fair statement. I do not think he keeps their time or anything of that kind. That is kept by another clerk. He has. not been there more than two or three weeks. The schedules have not been out more than three weeks. Q. He does occupy some position of control or superiority in the CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 165 room. It may be of a low o^rder. Who conferred that authority upon him ? — A. The chief ot the division, Mr. Copeland. To-morrow he may confer it upon some one else. Q. To-morrow Mr. Sbidy may not be in the office? — A. It is a matter that does not necessarily come under the superv^ision of the Superin- tendent. We hold the division responsible for its work. By Mr. Koosevelt : Q. It was some time after I first spoke to you before Shidy was ap- pointed ? — A. It was about six weeks. Q. Protests were made against the appointment by a number of gen- tlemen ; was not that the case ? — A. Some protests were made. Q. The protest was made by Mr. Yan Schaick?— A. Yes, sir 5 he was one. Q. Then one or more Senators referred to it ? — A. Senator Spooner I think did. Q. So that you told me once or twice that there was great opposition to it "? — A. I told you there was some opposition. Q. And you showed me, did you not, a number of letters from differ- ent places ? — A. There was one letter and there was another letter in- closing a clipping from a newspaper. I remember two letters, one from Kansas opposing Mr. Shidy in a general way. Q. Saying he had been treacherous to Mr. P aul ? — A. Yes, sir j had committed some fault. Q. For six weeks the matter was hung up or in abeyance while the protests were made against the appointment ? — A. That is true. Q. And while I was asking for the appointment I told you that this man Shidy had been removed from office in consequence of giving testi- mony concerning the condition of affairs at the Milwaukee post-office where he and the postmaster had been mixed up in some matters that we had reported upon, my report being at that time public. I had re- ported in June and that was long after June that I spoke to you. — A. It must have been about the 15th of September. Q. It must have been after my report was published broadcast, and after there had been a very great deal of discussion about it by Con- gressman Yan Schaick and the Senators, and after the Postmaster-Gen- eral, with the consent of the President, had notified Mr. Paul he would have been removed if he had not resigned which was done in August. It was after that time ? — A. It was in September. I could not give you the facts about the Milwaukee post-office matter. Q. You knew that I had made a report on the subject? — A. I knew that and that Shidy and Paul were implicated in that report, and the report was public and that the Postmaster-General had in writing indi- cated to you his approval of Shidy's transfer, he having known all about my report and having acted upon it. That is true, I think. Q. I sent you a letter of the Postmaster-General approving the transfer and saying in substance that he would be glad if Mr. Shidy could get this position, and I told you that you would receive a formal letter from the Postmaster-General on the subject saying it would be satisfactory to him to have the appointment made ? — A. Yes, sir. Mr. LiND. Shidy having testified that he had been a party to viola- tions of law and the regulations of the Civil Service Commission while in the office at Milwaukee, was asked : " Do I understand you to say that if you had been retained you would have repeated these violations of the civil service law which you stated you had done heretofore ? " To that question he answered : " If the conditions were the same, I 166 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. would see no wron,;^ in it." Suppose that Shidy had been re-appointed under the new postmaster at Milwaukee and the conditions had been the same as they were under Paul, and he had continued in doing what he did. If you had had knowledge of his views (I might call them moral views upon that question) would you have made this appoint- ment ? — A. That is rather a hard question because I have not read his testimony, and I do not know exactly what he said. Mr. Stone. Mr. Hatton asked him if the Superintendent of the Census Bureau should ask him to make false returns, would he comply with that request, and he answered: "If the Superintendent of the Census wants false returns made he knows that matter. I am his servant. In regard to the post-office Mr. Paul was my superior officer. In regard to the civil service matter it was impossible to separate my two lis." Mr. LiND. Assuming that the witness was candid in this statement and that those were his convictions in regard to a man's public duty, with a knowledge of those facts before you, would you have appointed him ? — A. I do not think I would. But the point is this : If the Super- intendent of the Census was a kind of man that wanted false returns, a man that would make false returns would be the kind of a man he would want to have. This is rather a difficult question to answer, directly or otherwise. That presupposes the Superintendent of the Census wants false returns. By Mr. Hatton : Q. Did any of these letters recommending the appointment of this man state in any way that he had been guilty and had testified before the Commission that he had made false certifications 1 — A. l^o, sir ; the letters protesting against Shidy were of a general character ; that he was treacherous. Q. Did anybody interested in his appointment ever tell you how he had committed these offenses *? — A. 1 am sure they did not. Q. If you had been informed of tbem would you have appointed him? — A. Really I do not know what he has done. Q. Believing in Mr. Roosevelt, and his friends do believe in him, if you had heard that this man had been guilty of making false returns, stuffij^ig the eligible list and committing crimes of that character, be- lieving in Mr. Roosevelt, would you have appointed him ? — A. You are going back to the same proposition you had up a minute ago. That would be attacking Mr. Roosevelt. If he was that kind of a man of course he would not have said anything but that. The chances are he did not know it. Q. Who did not know it ? — A. Mr. Roosevelt. I told him to send this man in and I would be glad to have him examined and appointed. Q. Suppose you yourself had known it ? — A. The point is this, if I had known he had done what *? Q. That he had testified to false returns, stufiing the eligible list, and violating his oath of office. — A. I do not know whether he has or not. I have not read the testimony on that point. Mr. LiND. It is on the assumption that you knew the statements were true. The Witness. What I want to express upon the committee is that I do not know anything about the statements. I just read the para- graph referring to the Superintendent of the Census. That is all I have read. Mr. Thompson. If Mr. Roosevelt had stated to you when he came to you with this application for the appointment of Shidy that Shidy was a member of the local board of examiners, and was assigned to this CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 167 extra work; that he had allowed himself to be improperly influenced loj his superior officer who had the absolute power of removal ; that ho had confessed his fault most humbly, craved for forgiveness, and given assurance that if he was forgiven he would not again be guilty ; and, if Mr. Boosevelt had said in addition to that, that he was dismissed not for cause but for telling the truth when he came before the Commission, and saying that "if I testify I will be removed," and he was subse- quently dismissed not for misdeeds but for telling the truth ; and if Mr. iioosevelt had stated all these facts so far as he knew, and that Shidy was not a corrupt man but yielded to his superior officer, under all these circumstances would you have given him a trial ? The Witness. I think under those circumstances I should have looked more carefully into the matter. I do not know that a man in my position has a right to take the word of another man in a matter of that kind. Q. Suppose that you were satisfied that Mr. Roosevelt was telling the truth ? — A. It was one of those cases I should want to pass upon by itself. Q. If you were satisfied that this man had been removed not for doing wrong but for doing right, under those circumstances, if you had looked into the matter, would you not have been willing to give him a trial ? — A. I would not say I would not give a man a trial under those circumstances. I do not think I can answer your question one way or the other. I should prefer not to answer it. By Mr. Eoosevelt : Q. At the time I spoke to you about this man all these facts were made public in my official report and had been published broadcast in the press ; and, you were very busy at one time when I went to see you. Yon said you had received a protest from Mr. Van Schaick ? — A. I did not receive a written protest. He had spoken about it but did not go into the details. Q. I told you I would not go into the details, that they were in my report ; that the circumstances were that Shidy and the postmaster had been mixed up in wrong-doing in the post-office ; that Shidy liad come forward and confessed, and that he was being persecuted for it, and that we were anxious to protect a man who had come forward to tell the truth. — A. That is what you stated to me. Q. And I referred to that in full in my report. I knew that Paul had been dismissed ? — A. I have so many of these, cases ; some days we have as many as fifty or sixty appoint^ments to look into. My impres- sion was that this man had been dismissed. I did not know that he himself had been mixed up in any wrong-doing. I did not know he had been in the employ of the Commission. Q. Do you recollect my saying to you that he was mixed up in this wrongdoing, and that he was the only man who had the manliness to come forward and tell about it"? — A. That may be true, but I thought you referred to the post-office matter. I did not know that he was a member of the Civil Service Commission in any way. Mr. Roosevelt I have not jurisdiction in any post-office matters. All I would have a right to speak about was his connection with the Civil Service. I would not have a right to speak of his connection with the post-office, and all my remarks were in connection with the Com- mission. You will remember once that I came to speak to you with Reporter Dodge, of the Milwaukee Sentinel? — A. I think you did. Mr. Hatton. Mr. Roosevelt stated to you that this man was mixed 168 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. up with the Milwaukee post-office, and did he refer you to a copy of his report, or did he send for one ? The Witness. I have never seen a copy of his report. I regret to say I have not had time to read a copy of Mr. Eoosevelt's last report. Mr. EoosEVELT. Do you remember that I told you this man was a weak man, who had yielded to the importunities of Mr. Paul, and that Paul had turned him out in revenge for his testifying to the truth? The Witness. I think that is what you said. Mr. Hatton. Did he say what offenses had been committed ? The Witness. 1 gathered from Mr. Eoosevelt's statement that he had been guilty of helping. Paul to make some political appointments that he should not have made. I understood that in a general way. TESTIMONY OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT— Recalled. Hon. Theodore Eoosevelt recalled and further examined. The Chairman. Mr. Shidy has testified how he came to be appointed a clerk in the Census Bureau. Will you state as briefly as you can your knowledge of that matter. The Witness. If you will permit me, I will make a brief statement of the whole case. Mr. Paul, the postmaster at Milwaukee, has been investigated four different times ; the first time by Mr. Doyle, the sec- retary of the Civil Service Commission, under Mr. Cleveland. His re- port disclosed such a damaging state of affairs that a further investiga- tion was ordered, in which Mr. Doyle and Mr. Webster took jjart. The papers of that investigation are before you. When Mr. Thompson and myself came into office we found this testimony, and this matter still pending. Our Commission went up there, and made a report upon that office. About that time, or shortly afterwards, the post-office inspector, Mr. Fleming, a Democrat — at least he was appointed in 1887 under Mr. Yilas-r-also went and examined the office, and reported officially that the postmaster ought to be dismissed, on the ground that he was dis- honest, a fraud, and scientific prevaricator. By the Chairman ; Q. What was the date of that report? — A. That was shortly after, or before, we made our report. I have forgotten the exact date. It went into all his faults and misdeeds. I think it would be well, and I would request that you send to the Post-Office Department, and get that report. Mr. Paul sent affidavits to the Postmaster-General in answer to the charges that we made, and I believe also in answer to the charges of the post-office inspector. After reviewing in full the matter, the President or the Postmaster-General (I have forgotten which) indicated that his resignation would be demanded, Mr. Paul having resigned, they accepted his resignation, adding that his removal had already been determined upon on the strength of the report made by the Commission and the post-office inspector. This is preliminary to what I want to say about the case. When we went up there, we found that there had been systematic and repeated violations of the civil-service law, which had been done by the board of examiners acting under collusion with the postmaster. The postmaster, as he himself testified, though he afterwards retracted it, would appoint a man, and then would have an illegal certification made to cover that appointment. There were two parties to that wrong- doing: one was the postmaster, and one the local board. It was the postmaster, and the postmaster alone, who was benefited. It could be CIVIL SEE VICE INVESTIGATION. 169 of 110 benefit to the local board. We were anxious to strike at the head criminal, and not at the tools of the criminal. We have always, where possible, tried to get the man who is ultimately responsible for wrong-doing, and not the poor devil whom he coerces into it. The actual labor of the board had been done by its secretary, Mr. Shidy. It was done, however, with the full knowledge of the chairman of tlie board, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson testified before us. He tes- tified before Governor Thompson, Mr. Lyman, and myself, that Shidy had consulted with him, and told him that he was under the duress of the postmaster, and that he was compelled to make up these stuffed certificates. Johnson being at that time chairman of the board, was fully aware of the wrong, and stands guilty with Shidy in doing it. Jotinsor. would not testify to the facts. He admitted certain things, but would not come forward to testify. As soon as Shidy was given a chance he at once came forward and told all the truth. I think they were there together in the office. They were reluctant to testify, Shidy saying, "If I do testify to this I will be dismissed fordoing it." I then told Mr. Shidy we would protect him from the consequences of telling the truth 5 not from the consequences of the wrong-doing. He then testified. We told the same thing to Mr. Johnson, but Johnson would not testify. Johnson rightly thought it would be to his interest to keep still, for he knew that he would be punished if he certified. We then came back and made a full and complete report, showing the guilt of Paul, Shidy, and Johnson. We also mentioned that Fahsel was guilty, but he resolutely declined to know anything about it at all. Johnson admitted of knowing of the wrong-doing. As soon as the first report was made public Mr. Paul removed Shidy. Our feeling was this, that we wanted to condemn the man who was the head devil in the deed, and the man who was really responsible for it. Every one knows that if a head of an office wants to go wrong, he can readily place his subordinates under duress. It is a hard thing for a man to fight against. He ought to do it, a,nd if he has character he will do it. Weak men will not do it. Our report was drawn mostly against Paul. We also reported strongly against Shidy and Johnson, and I beg to call particular attention of the committee to this part of the report. It will be noticed that we asked for Shidy the same pro- tection meted out to Johnson and Fahsel. We had no intention what- ever of doing anything except to prevent punishment being meted out to him for doing right, and had no intention of protecting him for his wrong-doing. Mr. Paul dismissed Mr. Shidy immediately; and John- son, who was equally guilty with Shidy, was not dismissed, has never been dismissed, and is now in the ofiSce in the same position in which he was then. Whether Fahsel is or is not I do not know. If he has been removed it has been for something entirely unconnected with this. By Mr. Stone : Q. Do you speak of your absolute knowledge when you say that if he has been removed it has been for something unconnected with this? — A. I do not know. I presume I would have been informed il three hak been any change; and if he has been removed, it has been for some cause unconnected with this. I do not know that he has been removed. We asked for the removal of Paul. We thought that the facts of the case warranted his removal fully. We felt that his subordinates were less guilty than he was. We were willing to leave the measure of their punishment, as of course we had to do in any event, to their superior officers. Whatever punishment these men should have been found to 170 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTiaATION. have deserved, well and good, let them suffer it. If we had undertaken that investigation without knowing the facts set forth by Shidy, we might not have been fully informed. I can not say that weVould have asked for the removal of Mr. Johnson, as he might have been under such duress that we might have thought to reduce him to a half salary might have been sufficient punishment. I am not making that state- ment absolutely. In Shidy's case tlie circumstance that he had come forward and frankly conlessed when an opportunity was given him, should undoubtedly have weight as a mitigating circumstance, and I should not have been in favor of inflicting upon him an equal punish- ment with the other man, unless I was absolutely certain that he de- served it. I do not believe in hitting the tool rather than the man who wields the tool and who alone is responsible. Shidy was timid. He was dismissed for no delinquency ; but, on the contrary, for having testified to the truth, and under the civil service law he could have been re-in- stated at any time. He was not dismissed for having done badly. He had tried to atone by doing well. He was dismissed for trying to atone and doing well. My two colleagues went to the Postmaster-General, as they informed me, and asked that Shidy be re-instated. They had no intention of pre- venting any punishment that might ultimately be visited upon him for his wrong-doing, but merely to see that he was not punished for having told the truth to us. He was not re-instated. Shidy had come forward frankly and told Governor Thompson, Mr. Lyman, and myself, when we were up there, the circumstances of this case. He did tell us that he had committed the wrong-doing, and that he regretted it extremely. When he testified before us there was no flippancy or levity in his testimony. He did not admit that he would do a like thing under the same circumstances again. On the contrary, he expressed a deep, sincere, and humble regret for what he had done. He said he would hereafter do, or aim to do, as uprightly as any public officer ever had done. ,He explained that he was a poor man wholly dependent upon his salary, and had a wife and two young children ; that Paul had his fate in the hollow of his hand, and could at any time turn him out ; that Paul had forced him to do these things and that he had yielded, being in Paul's power ; that did not excuse his offense, but it certainly pal- liated it. Accordingly, having failed to have him re-instated, I went to the Post- master-General myself and laid the case before him, the Postmaster- General having before him our full report. The Pestmaster-General must have known all these facts. I told him that Shidy was being persecuted for having had the manliness to come lorward and tell the truth. I asked him if he could not have him re-instated ; would he be willing that Shidy should have a position in the Census Bureau, I lay- ing stress upon the fact that we were simply trying to protect Shidy on this account. I said that Shidy had been punished for doing right, and not for doing wrong. The Postmaster-General said he was willing that Shidj^ might be given a place in the Census Bureau. 1 went and saw Mr. Porter, Our report had been made out, and had been spread broadcast through the press. It contained a full and spe- cific account of all of Shidy's wrong-doings. Mr. Paul had answered it two or three times, and had been answered back. There was a great deal of discussion about it through the press of the country. Finally, after a month or two, the Postmaster-General or the President had acted on the post-office case, and it was a matter of ]niblic notoriety. I went up to see Mr. Porter, who was very busy, and 1 told him that I CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 171 had a favor to ask on behalf of the Civil Service Commission, stating that it was with the consent of my colleagues; that through testifying in our behalf to the truth Mr. Shidy had been turned out of the post- office at Milwaukee, and we wanted to protect him, and did not want to see a man punished for having told the truth. As Mr. Porter said to you to-day, I told him that Shidy had done wrong under coercion, and that he had repented and confessed. I did not go into theminutia of the case because Mr. Porter was in a great hurry, and I referred him to my report, which I supposed he must have seen. I gave him prac- tically a resume of the case just as he has testified to it here to-day. The case was hung up for six weeks. Mr. Van Schaick protested against Mr. Shidy's appointment, and Senator Spooner and one or two outside parties wrote letters protesting against it, so that I had every reason to believe that Mr. Porter knew all the facts that he cared to know in reference to it. All that was said against Mr. Shidy was be- cause he had testified against Paul. So far as the facts were concerned I believed they were all in Mr. Porter's possession. Mr. Porter said he would give him an appointment conditional ui3on his passing an exam- ination. I had seen the report of the former postmaster at Milwaukee which was in the evidence and it said that Mr. Shidy had been nine years in the post-office and that he was a peculiarly efficient and competent man. Shidy had expressed the deepest penitence for his misdeeds. He ad- mitted that he had yielded to temptation and showed how strong the temptation was and how completely he was in the power of the post- master. He had aroused our sympathies. To come back to the vital point, he was being punished, not for his wrong doing, but because he had done right in trying to atone for his wrong. He came on and passed an examination and is now serving credita- bly, Mr. Porter stated above the average, having been promoted and is now acting chief in his division. In so far as his efficiency and his ca- pacity as a public servant went he justified entirely the opinion of the Commissioners and has made a capable public servant in his new posi- tion. In conclusion I will say this : The Government must protect its wit- nesses who are being persecuted for telling the truth. I felt that we would be derelict to a ijublic duty if we did not strive to protect him. We have always striven to protect persons under similar circumstances. I again wish to call the attention' of the committee here clearly to the intent of our report, which was to ask that no punishment should be visited upon Shidy for telling of these misdeeds and none visited upon Johnson and Fahsel who were equally guilty but had not told the truth. I did not want him punished while no punishment was inflicted upon the others for their wrong-doings. By Mr. Lind : Q. Has the Commission compnlsory process for the attendance of witnesses I — A. No, sir ; all our attendants are purely voluntary. They can not be forced to attend if they do not wish to. Q. Have you tested the question by making application to the circuit court for process in your behalf? — A. We have always understood that we had not that power. We have embodied a request that we should be given power to subpoena witnesses and to administer oaths. We have power to do neither. By Mr. Greenhalge : Q. Is there anything in the terms of the act providing what shall be 172 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATIOK. done in this respect ? — A. The act provides we shall investigate and re- port to the President, but makes no provision how we shall follow that out. When I was in New York last summer I consulted the attorney of the Civil Service Commission, who said that we had no power to administer oaths or compel the attendance of witnesses. Q. Then if a witness did not appear voluntarily, you had no power to compel him? — A. If a witness does not choose to testify, we cannot make him. Mr. LiND. Have you submitted that question to the Attorney-Gen- eral ? The Witness. We did not, because the Commission proceeded on the assumption that it could not, and it never occurred to me that we could. Mr. BoATNEE,. Did Mr. Paul deny the statement of Mr. Shidy ? The Witness. Mr. Paul has denied every fact and has denied his denial of the fact. He has further denied his denials of the denials. He has denied everything. By Mr. Hopkins : Q. Those are three removals of denials 1 — A. He has made compli- cated denials. I will state that in our report we explicitly say we have taken nothing against Paul on the unsupported statement of Shidy. In two instances we took the word of Jackson and Shidy when both testi- hed to the same state of facts. Mr. BoATNER. Have you any fear that you may have done Paul an injustice? The Witness. I have absolutely none. By Mr. Stone : Q. When was Mr. Doyle appointed secretary of your Commission ? — A. I believe he was appointed when it was first organized in 1883. Doyle is a Democrat. He was then the stenographer of the Commis- sion. Q. He has been connected with it a long time ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. When was this report made by Mr. Doyle and Major Webster filed with the Commission ? — A. The first report of Doyle was filed some time in 1888. The report of Major Webster and Mr. Doyle, which was the first complete statement of the matter, was probably not pre- pared and put in shape until some time in the fall of 1888, about the time Mr. Oberly went out of the Commission. Mr. Oberly. It was after the time. The Witness. It was after the time. I believe Mr. Oberly vaguely knew there were charges against Paul, but never bad any specific facts laid before him, Mr. Stone. Is it a fact that at that time Mr. Lyman was the sole Commissioner and was absent from the city quite awhile? The Witness. Mr. Lyman was not then the sole Commissioner. Mr. Edgerton and Mr. Lyman were both on the Commission. 1 have un- derstood that Mr. Edgerton was absent quite often at that time. Mr. GreenhalGtE. This is not within your knowledge? The Witness. I am simply answering Mr. Stone's question. By Mr. Stone : Q. What I was endeavoring to get at was to see why this matter was not acted upon sooner ? — A. That I can not tell you. " Q. When you went to see the Postmaster-General about Mr. Shidy, did you go alone ? — A. I did, sir. CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 173 Q. Were you the only one who visited him upon that subject ? — A. Mr. Lyman and Governor Thompson had i^reviously visited him on the subject. Q. Did you ever in your conferences with him state to him just what Shidy had said about this matter "? — A. I told the Postmaster-General that Shidy was penitent in the matter. Q. Did you state as to what he had done in the matter of making false certifications "? — A, This report was offlcially laid before him and he had acted upon it. I presume he had read it, and I think that is a fair presumption. Q. Did he discuss it as if he was familiar with it ? — A. I do not think he discussed it at all. I think he said he had notified Mr. Paul that his removal had been determined upon. Q. I understood you to say that the Postmaster-General at your so- licitation wrote a letter to the Superintendent of the Census recom- mending the appointment of Mr. Shidy to a position there 1— A. I would not say he recommeuded him. Mr. Porter got a letter of the usual form. The Postmaster- General wrote two letters, one to me saying he would be glad to do auythiugin his power — I could not recollect the exact expression he used, but something like this — " to atone for the hard- ships done Shidy," or some such expression. What we originally wanted was that Shidy should be re-instated, and that whatever pun- ishment was meted out should be visited upon them all. Q. Do you mean that you wanted the Postmaster-General to have him re-instated? — A. Yes, sir; although I never spoke about it to him. Q. Can you state to us the reason why the Postmaster-General re- fused to interfere in Shidy's behalf as requested? — A. Of my own knowledge I can not. I can not recollect distinctly the details of my conversation with the Postmaster-General beyond the general facts I have stated. I think I spoke to him about the hardship it was to us to feel that a man who was equally guilty with Shidy was kept in oiSce because he did not tell the truth, and that Shidy was turned out be- cause he did tell the truth. I had learned that Congressman Van Schaick was hostile to Mr. Shidy on account of Mr. Van Schaick being a warm friend of Mr. Paul, the statement having been made to me that Paul, though a Democrat, had given an active support to Yan Schaick. I know nothing of that beyond the fact that it was told to me that Mr. Van Schaick was the champion of Paul, and of his having made the statement that we had interfered with his prerogative, or making some such statement as that. By Mr. Ewart : Q. In all this time was Shidy secretary of the board of local ex- aminers in the post-ofi&ce at Milwaukee ? — A. Certainly. Q. And an officer of the Commission ? — A. He was a subordinate of the Commission. Q. Was it not his duty, as an officer of that Commission, to report to you at once any violation of law 1 — A. I think it was. I have not re- cently looked into the duties of the secretaries of local boards, but I con- clude that any employ^ of the public service ought to report any wrong- doing he sees, Q. Whether on account of duress or not ? — A. Whether under duress or not. Q. Did Shidy ever make any report to you or any officer of the Com- mission while he was under duress ? — A. He did. 174 " CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. When did he first make that report % — A. It must have been to Doyle. Q. "Was the statement made under oath? — A. We have his original letter handed to Doyle at that time. Q. Was it made voluntarily? Mr. LiND. Why not ask Mr. Doyle that question? It would only be hearsay with Mr. Eoosevelt. By Mr. Ewart : Q. In all this time he had an opportunity or a "chance," as you preter to call it in your evidence, to make this report, did he not?— A. In a certain sense he always had a chance. There are plenty of weak, timid men who would not volunteer themselves to report a wrong-doing, but who undoubtedly are conscientious enough to report it as soon as cir- cumstances arise where it is possible for them to do so, and there are other men, like Mr. Johnson, who when these circumstances arise would not report it. Mr. Shidy came under the first class. Q. What is the reason he did not make this rej)ort earlier than he did % — A. I can only give my suppositions on that. Q. Did the substance of his testimony satisfy you that he persistently and repeatedly violated the law?— A. Yes, sir. Q. That he had made false certifications ? — A. We have stated that. Q. That he had mutilated the records ? — A. I do not know that we said that. Q. That he had tortured the records ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. That, in a word, he had repeatedly violated his oath of office ? — A. Precisely. Q. After you became aware of these facts that he had stuffed the list of eligibles, that he had violated his oath of office, made false certifica- tions, and that he was a weak man, and you claimed he committed these violations because he was forced to do it by his superior officer, you asked for his re-instatement in that office? — A. We did, not with any reference to these violations, but because he was removed for having tried to atone for them. Q. When a man commits perjury by the violation of the law he has sworn to enforce and when he confesses he has made false certifications and has persistently and repeatedly violated the law, is it your theory as a civil-service reformer that, because he has frankly confessed that he has violated the law, expressing an intention to reform, that he should be re-instated in office? — A. Do you mean in the same position? Q. The same position or any jjosition in the Government? — A. That would depend on the circumstances of the case. Q. Take the circumstances in the Shidy case ? — A. I mean to say my action was right in the Shidy case. Q. Then I take it that in any case where the circumstances are the same as in the Shidy case, where if it were called to your attention as a civil-service reformer, that you would unhesitatingly recommend that man for a position in the Government employ or re-infetate him in the position in which he had repeatedl^^ violated the law? — A. Not at all, sir. Q, I ask you if this is your theory, supposing the same state of facts as existed in the Shidy case? — A. I think not. It is the first case of its kind that came to our attention. Q. I understood you to say that if a similar case arose you could not take the course you took in the Shidy case, altiiough the circumstances might have been identically the same? — A. That I can not answer. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 175 By Mr. Boatner : Q. I understood you to say you made no objections to removals on account of these violations °? — A. I explicitly stated that. Q. Shidy was removed because he told about it 1 — A. That is pre- cisely my statement. I do not want to be misunderstood. Mr. Ewart is evidently wishing- me to state that if these circumstances arose I would not act as I did then, giving the impression that I was sorry for what I had done. On the contrary, I think I was precisely right, and I am glad I took that stand. By Mr. Ewakt : Q. Do you mean that you would take the same course with other cases "'. — A. There has been full and ample warning given now, and we might not behave with such leniency in the future. In this case I felt that we treated Mr. Paul himself with great leniency. One thing I had forgotten. I told you Mr. Paul not only denied this, but denied his denial. When we went to see Mr. Paul he told us his term of office was over and that he was simply hanging on until his successor should be appointed. After we returned I drew up a short and rather scath- ing report. "Don't shoot at dead ducks," said Governor Thompson. " He has gone. Let us simply make a report that he had been guilty of gross misconduct, and not recommend his dismissal." We wanted to be just strong enough to make his case an example, and yet not be too harsh. Paul was foolish enough to try to fight back. We found he had not been removed nor had he served his time out, but had sev- eral months yet to serve, all of which is stated in the report which we then drew up. In future, in any case, if we found a number of persons engaged in wrong- doing and one repents, I say I would regard that as a strong circumstance in his favor, and I say it would be my purpose to practically take it into account when judgment is meted out. I could not hold my head up if I had allowed Shidy to be turned out and persecuted for having told the truth, in spite of his wrong-doing, when other men who had been just as bad were not turned out. I would have felt I was doing great injustice to him. By Mr, 8tone : Q. This report made by Webster and Doyle was filed, I believe, some time in October, 1888? — A. I think it was filed in November. I think it was after Mr. Oberly left. Q. Did you or your colleagues of the Commission examine that report before you went out to Milwaukee ? — A. The matter was first brought to my attention by Major Webster, on the eve of our departure for Chicago. I believe there was a remark made by Mr. Lyman that there had been a case of a man in Milwaukee, Mr. Paul, and the only account that I read before going there was this analytical statement of Paul, the certification book and other records, and a statement of Paul him- self. I did not read Mr. Shidy's testimony at all that I know of. Q. YOu had read it somewhat?— A. I had looked over the papers, but how much I had read of them I could not tell you at this moment. By Mr. Em^ART : Q. Why was it necessary to offer protection to this witness Shidy?— A. I do not know that it was necessary for me to do it. When the man came forward and said, "Gentlemen, I do not want to testify; I am de- pendent on my sadary, and I will be ruined and turned out if I do tes- tify," I naturally said (I believe I was the spokesman), " Mr. Shidy, we will protect you for telling the truth." We did not promise him protec- tion for any of his misdeeds. We promised to protect him from any 176 CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. punishment which might be visited upon him by Mr. Paul for telling the truth. Shidy was much afraid, because he knew that Paul had as- sisted Mr. Van Shaick for Congress, so that he had a " pull" with the Re- publican Congressman who would undoubtedly name ^^aul's successor, and so Shidy felt that if Paul got down on him he would be killed, not only with Paul but with Paul's successor. That is the reason why he was reluctant to testify. Johnson did not tescity and has been kept in, showing that Shidy's fears were warranted. Mr. BoATNER. Would you not consider yourself under somewhat of an obligation to do for Shidy what you have done, whether you made any promise or not? Would not the justice of the case warrant it? The Witness. I think I should have. I would be very reluctant to see a man punished who had come forward aud told the truth for the Government, even if he had done wrong before. I think Shidy has been greatly punished. He has lost five month's salary and then got an ap- pointment at $720, while his original place paid him $1,300. He has been badly punished for it. Mr. Stone. For what has he been rewarded by this treatment ? The Witness. I did not consider it in the light of reward. 1 consid- ered it in the light of an injustice, dismissing a man not for dereliction, but for having testified to the truth. By Mr. Butterworth : Q. You wanted to make it equally as advantageous to tell the truth as to tell a lie? — A. Yes, sir. I think it due to myself to say one thing, and that is, that Shidy did not boast of what he had done. On the contrary, he expressed sincere contrition. Q. He stated here that he would do the same thing under the same circumstances ? — A. He did. I now believe him to be unfit for any public position. By Mr. EvfART : Q. And utterly untruthful ? — A. I am not perfectly certain about that. I have not made up my mind about that. Mr. BoATNER. I suppose that when you examined him you were sup- posing the sentiment to apply that " so long as the lamp holds out to burn the vilest sinner may return ? " The Witness. Yes, sir. I asked him if he did not appreciate what we had done for him, and if he did not appreciate the gravity of his offense, and if given another chance wouldn't he always do right, and he said " Yes." He seemed to feel very sorry about it, and said he would always try to do right. He said this in the presence of Governor Thompson. By Mr. Ewart : Q. Coming back to your interview with the Postmaster-General, did I understand you to say that you requested him to re-instate this man Shidy as a clerk in the Milwaukee post-office 1 — A. I suppose I said I was very sorry he could not be re-instated. The Postmaster-General practically refused to re-instate him. I went to Mr. Wanamaker and I chink I said to him that I was sorry that Shidy could not be re-instated. I may be wrong in my recollection about that. I think he said some- thing or other about waiting to see Congressman Van Schaick, or ex- pressed some regret. I have explained that already. Q. Do you recollect saying anything about the removal of Johnson or Pahsel ? — A. We simply made this report. We did not make specific recommendations for their removal. We reported the case and laid it CIYIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 177 before the Postmaster-General for his action. That was the course we took in this case. Paul we wanted removed. Q. In this interview with the Postmaster-G-eneral do you recollect whether or not you specifically stated to the Postmaster- General that this man Avas guilty of making false certifications, etc. ? — A. I am very confident I did not. I may explain that the Postmaster-General had our report before him. Q. You do not know whether he had read the report ? — A. He acted on the report. I did not read it aloud to him, but he had acted on it, and the presumption is fair that he had read it. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I simply want to confirm what my colleague, Mr. Eoosevelt, has said about the circumstances of the interview between the Commission and Shidy when he gave this testimony for which he was subsequently dis- missed. He was very reluctant to testify, and stated that he thought he would be dismissed if he did so. Mr. Eoosevelt gave him this as- surance, that we would protect him as far as we could if he made a frank statement. I remember Mr. Eoosevelt calling his attention to the fact of his gross dereliction of duty, and asked him what statement he had to make. He said, " I have no excuse to offer, except that I acted under the direction of the postmaster, and I thought he would dismiss me if I disobeyed his orders." I never saw a man more contrite and penitent, or a more humble man than he was at that time ; and he touched my sympathies in spite of his misdeeds. I say unhesitatingly that I would have been disposed to help a man, if I could have done it, in any public or private way, who had expressed repentance and prom- ised in the future not to do so again. I never saw a man in my life to whom I was more inclined to say, " Go and sin no more." I sympa- thized with his condition, and I knew that he was under a powerful temptation. I cannot state that he said it in words, but I think he probably did say it in words, that it was a great relief to him to come before us and to be able to tell this whole thing. He said it had been a burden upon his mind. [At this point the witness was interrupted in order that the com- mittee might hear the Postmaster-General.] 'testimony of HON. JOHN WANAMAKER. Hon. John Wanamaker sworn and examined. By Mr. Ewart : Q. I want to ask you with regard to the recommendation of one Shidy to a position in the Census Bureau and in reference to an interview which Mr. Eoosevelt had with you on that subject, and whether at any- time in the course of the interview he stated that Shidy, for whom he wished to secure a position, had made false certifications of the Civil Service Commission, had repeatedly violated his oath of office, had stuffed the list of eligibles, and had mutilated or tortured the records of which he was the custodian as secretary of the local board of exam- iners of the post-office at Milwaukee ?— A. He did not. Q. Please state exactly what he did say to you when he came to you and asked you in reference to the appointment of Shidy to a clerkship in the Census Bureau.— A. So far as I can remember, he said that Shidy had aided in an investigation at the Milwaukee post-office, and that the postmaster had taken offense and had dismissed him ; that he felt an interest in Shidy, because he did not want any one who had as- 3117 12 178 CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. sistecl the Civil Service Commission in the exercise of its duties to be punished, and therefore he was interested in securing a place for Shidy, and asked whether 1 had any objection, to which, of course, I answered that I had not. Q. Did he state in what manner Shidy had aided in this investiga- tion ? — A. He said that Shidy had given the Civil Service Commission all the assistance that he could ; and he conveyed the impression to me that Shidy was an excellent man and worthy of the interest he was feeling in him, and that he wanted to help him because he had aided the Civil Service Commission in the exercise of their duties, and he did not want to see him suffer for it. Q. In the course of that conversation, did he refer to a report he had made, or a report the Commission had made with regard to the work- ings of the post-oflice at Milwaukee "? — A, It is possible that he did. I do not remember that he called my particular attention to anything, but simply asked whether I had any objection to his being tried, if a place could be found, for Shidy. Q. Do you remember whether or not he called for that report at the time? — A. I am very sure he did not. Q. Have you read that report *? — A. I have. Q. Had you read it at that time ? — A. I think I had — without refer- ence to Shidy, but with reference to the post-office. I was interested in any question in reference to the duties of the postmaster. Q. You have a great many reports of that kind constantly before you °? — A. Yes, sir. Q. In this particular instance your attention was directed more partic- ularly to his peuitency than to the office that Mr. Eoosevelt wanted him to Lave"? — A. I took it for granted that Mr. Roosevelt knew the gen- tleman he was acting for, and the impression he gave me was that he was one of the men who had been badly treated by reason of his testimony. Q. Did Mr. Eoosevelt state anything as to the reasons why Shidy was dismissed from his position in the Milwaukee post-office? — A. I think on a previous occa.^ ion he had spoken about it. Q. Did either of the other Commissioners request you to re-instate Mr. Shidy in his position ? — A. JSTot that I can I'emember. Q. You have no recollection as to that ? — A. I feel sure they did not. By Mr. Stone : Q. I think you are mistaken about that. — A. It may be possible. I have no recollection of having spoken to Mr. Lyman or Mr. Thompson on the subject. By Mr. Ewaet : Q. At any of these interviews, either with Mr. Roosevelt or the other Commissioners, did either of them ever request you to remove Mr. Johnson and Mr. Fahsel, or other members of the board at Milwau- kee. — A. I think not. Mr. BtjtteRw^orth. I understood you to say in giving an account of the interview with Mr. Roosevelt, that you did not give the language, but rather the impression ? Mr. Wanamaker, Only the impression. Mr. Lyman. Do you recollect that one afternoon Mr. Roosevelt and myself went to your room and showed to you two telegrams that we brought with us concerning Mr. Shidy's dismissal from the Milwaukee post-office, which you read ; and we asked you what, if anything, could be done about it ? Mr. Wanamaker. It is possible that that might have occurred, but I can not remember. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 179 By Mr. Lind : Q. There is one question that the committee, perhaps, does not fully understand. Did you recommend the appointment of this man Shidy, or did you simply report that your bureau had no objections to his ap- pointment ? — A. My letter will show that. I think I simply said that I had no objection to his appointment. I have the letter. I was look- ing into a drawer last evening, as it is the end of the month, and I found a letter. Q. Do you desire to submit the letter? — A. It bears on this point. I understood that Mr. Eoosevelt was endeavoring to ascertain whether I would object to his employment, aud I simply took the position that 1 did not object 5 and I could not object to it. By Mr. Ewart : Q. The letter stated that he was a worthy and honest man ? — A. That he esteemed him as such. By Mr. Stone: Q. Were you requested by Mr. Eoosevelt to have Mr. Shidy re-in- stated in the post-office at Milwaukee ? — A. I think not officially. I think that I recall a conversation with Mr. Eoosevelt in which he dep- recated the condition of things whereby a man who assisted the Civil Service Commission should be punished for it, and that he thought the man ought to be reinstated. Q. You say that you have no remembrance of a conversation with either of the other Commissioners at that time ? — A. I can not recall a conversation with either of the others in this case, except Mr. Eoose- velt; though it is possible that I did have. Q. Did Mr. Paul resign, or was he removed ? — A. We accepted his resignation, but notified him that it came at a time when we were con- sidering his removal, which we thought was justified by his conduct. Q. Did you read, while considering that report, the report made to the President by the Civil Service Commission ? Mr. Eoosevelt. Do you know that in that letter I say that his re- moval had been determined upon in consequence of a report of the post- office inspector, and a report of the Civil Service Commission ? The Witness. The removal had been determined upon. Mr. Eoosevelt. Can you not get that letter ? The Witness. Certainly. By Mr. Ewart : Q. What I wanted to know was whether you were familiar with it by reason of the examination made in that Milwaukee post-office? — A. I knew generally of the matter at the Milwaukee post-office. Q. You were familiar with the facts which had been developed by the investigation made there ? — A. Certainly, and I examined the report of the inspector. Q. W^ith your knowledge of Mr. Shidy's action in this transaction from the reports made to you would you have been willing, on a request of the Civil Service Commission, to have directed his retention in that office? — A. The question never came before me. The question which was brought before me by the inspector was whether Mr. Paul was a proper man. That was the only question that came before me. Q. It has been said here in the testimony that you were requested by the Civil Service Commissioners to have Mr. Shidy retained in his place in the Milwaukee post-office, and that you declined to do it. Now you say, that you do not remember about that I — A. I do not remember the 180 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. telegram which has been mentioned. It is possible that I may have read it. A telegram might not make an impression u]3on my mind. It is clear to me that if it had been isroper to have re-instated Mr. Shidy, that the order would have been given to do so, regardless of the request of Mr. Lyman and Mr. Thompson. We would have considered our way clear to do that. Q. They having requested it, and you having declined to yield to their request, do you not think your action was proper ? — A. I would have considered the request to take up the case, but it seemed to me that if he had been dismissed, the postmaster who had dismissed him was going out, and that it would have been improper to take any action at that time, but let the man who was coming in settle it. We have frequent cases of that kind. Q. Do you remember stating in your letter to Mr. Porter, Superin- tendent of the Census, that you would be pleased if Mr. Shidy were ap- pointed to a position in that office ■? — A. I have not the letter with me. I send four or five hundred letters a day, and it would be impossible to carry in my mind the terms of a letter; but on general principles I would say that I always express myself as pleased if employment is given to a person that Mr. Eoosevelt would recommend. Q. Knowing the purity of your life, public and private, I will put the question in this way : If at any time in the course of these interviews between you and Mr. Roosevelt, or Mr. Lyman, or Mr. Thompson, it had been stated to you that this man Shidy, for whom Mr. Roosevelt desired to secure a position in the Census Bureau, had been guilty of persistent violations of law, and had violated his oath of office — in other words had perjured himself, to use plain English, had mutilated the records, stuffed the list of eligibles, and all that, would you have felt justified in entertaining any request to give such a person a position in any De- partment 1 — A. I certainly should not. I should have regarded it my duty to have opposed the appointment of any such a man. Mr. Eoosevelt. All these facts which Mr. Ewart speaks of, in so far as he quotes them correctly, are in a report that we made to the Presi- dent of the United States on this matter. You had that report, and had acted upon it when I spoke to you, had you not ? The Witness. We had the report. Mr. Eoosevelt. And you had acted upon it, had you not *? The Witness. How do you mean "acted upon if?" Mr. Roosevelt. You referred to it as the reasons why the removal of Mr. Paul had been decided upon in your letter notifying Mr. Paul that you had accepted his resignation. If there is any doubt in your mind, you can produce the letter, I presume ? The Witness. The determination to remove Mr. Paul would be made upon the report of the post-office inspector. I can not say how much influence the report of the Civil Service Commission had upon me, inas- much as it was a "report made to the President, and I did not feel the same responsibility about it. In receiving a copy of it, I considered it a matter of courtesy merely, in a measure. Mr. Eoosevelt. Would you send a copy of the letter that jpn sent accepting the resignation of Mr. Paul ? My memory is very cl^r that in that letter you referred to this report. The Witness. I will furnish it with pleasure. By Mr. Hatton : Q. As a matter of fact, did not you order the removal on the report of the post-office inspector ? — A. It was because of the report of the post-office inspector. CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 181 Q. Did Mr. Roosevelt ever request you to remove Johnson, a member of the local board, who was a partner of Shidy in the matter of the manipulation of the eligible list ? Mr. LiND (interposing). That has been asked twice of the Postmaster- General. The Witness. I have already answered that question. ByMr. Hatton: Q. Of course you have power to order the removal of a clerk in the Post-Of&ce Department ? — A. I think so. By Mr. Butterworth : Q. If in your letter accepting the resignation of Mr. Paul you men- tioned the fact that your request for his resignation was predicated (if there was a request) upon the report of the inspector, and a report also of the Civil Service Commission, would not that indicate that you were familiar with the fact that this request had been from information de- rived from both sources ? — A. The letter will show what I said upon that point, and I will send a copy of it. TESTIM02JY OF HOK HUGH S. THOMPSON— Eecalled. Hon. Hugh S. Thompson, examination resumed. By Mr. Stone : Q. Did you go with Mr. Lyman, after Shidy had been dismissed by the Milwaukee postmaster, to see the Postmaster-General and request that Shidy be re-instated ?— A. I went with him, I think, about the first of July. My recollection is that it was early in July, at least. My impression is also that it was to prevent the removal of Shidy. There were two telegrams received about it ; I think one stating that he was about to be removed, and another that he had been removed, and we wanted to stop it until the whole matter could be gotten before the Postmaster-General. Mr. Lyman and I went to see him one afternoon. That is the only conversation that I had with the Postmaster-General. Q. Did you discuss the matter of his re-instatement, or recommend the retention of Shidy ? — A. Yes, sir ; but not fully. The Postmaster- General declined to interfere. Q. What reason did he assign ? —A. I do not know that he gave any reason. I know that he stated, and from his manner he showed rather plainly, that he would not interfere. I think he said he had not seen our report. My recollection is that Mr. Lyman said to him, " We have sent you a copy of our report." We afterwards learned that there was a report sent to the Postmaster-General, but he had not received it. Q.' Did you approve of Mr. Eoosevelt's visit to Mr. Porter in the in- terest of Mr. Shidy ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you desire that he should receive this appointment 1 — A. Yes, sir. Q. Why ? — A. Because I thought he had been unjustly punished for doing right. Q. Do you think now, after hearing his testimony, that he ought to be retained in that position "? — A. I do not think he ought to be re- tained in any position. Q. Why? — A. I think the manner and assurance of the man was something astounding. Q. Is there any material difference in the substance of what he said here yesterday, and what he said to you gentlemen ? — A. Not as to the 182 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. wrong-doing ; but yesterday he undertook to explain, if not to justify, the wrong- doing. Before us he was humble, and begged for forgive- ness. Here he practically admitted that under similar circumstances he would do what he had already done at Milwaukee ; and said that if called upon to make false certifications, he would do it. That is not the kind of a man that 1 thought I was trying to help. Mr. Lyman. I agree fully with the statements that my colleagues have made this morning. TESTIMOITY OF JOHN T. DOYLE. John T. Doyle, sworn and examined. By the Chairman : Q. Did Mr. Shidy put every facility in your way for ascertaining the truth when you were in Milwaukee *? — A. He did. . He laid all the books and paj)ers before me at the first investigation, June 29, 1888. He laid the records before me, and fully gave every explanation asked, and offered facilities for the examination. There was no hesitation or con- cealment. Mr. Roosevelt. His conduct was in marked contrast with that of Johnson ? The Witness. I saw Mr. Johnson after I had got from Shidy the records and an explanation of ^the manner in which the work had been done. My interview with Johnson was brief, and confirmed the state- ment of Dr. Shidy. By Mr. Stone : Q. What was the date of your first visit to Milwaukee ? — A. June 29, 1888. Q. Did you ascertain on tiiat first visit the facts which have since been developed ? — A. I did. Q. Fully 1 — A. Quite so ; all the record disclosed. Q. Did Shidy make any confession to you at that time ?— A. He said to me at that time substantially what he said to the committee yester- day. Q. When you returned did you make a report ? — A. I made a report in writing of my investigation. Q. Did you state the condition of affairs ? — A. I did. An extract from my report appears in these papers. Q. What was then done about it ? — A. Major Webster and myself were directed to visit the office, take testimony, and make a statement concerning the matter. Q. How did you happen to go there in the first place ? — A. I was sent out there to visit twenty-eight post-offices and investigate gener- ally into the conduct of the work of those offices. Q. You had no knowledge of these irregularities prior to that visit f — A. None. Q. After your return, when you made this report, you and Major Webster were sent by the Commission to make a full investigation ? — A. We were. The report of Major Webster is here before you. My recollection is that we returned about the 1st of November, 1888. Q. Was any action taken on that report ? — A. The report was laid before the Commission. Q. Who constituted the Commission then 1 — A. Mr. Edgerton and Mr. Lyman. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 183 Q. When did Mr. Edgerton go out of the Commission ? — A. Mr. Edgerton left the Commission, I believe, in February — the 9th of Feb- ruary, 1889. Q. Do you know from your connection "with this Commission why no action was taken on that report ? — A. I do not, further than the fact that the Commission had an immense amount of work, far more than the force could admit of its full performance. Mr. BuTTERWORTH. It had no work more important than this, if this thoroughly rotten condition of affairs existed. The Witness. If the Commission was fully informed of its gravity. By Mr. Stone : Q. Were the Commissioners here in Washington at that time, from November to February, when Mr. Edgerton went out*?— A. The Com- missioners were not all the time in Washington. Q. They were generally here ? — A. Generally, yes, sir ; to the best of my recollection. Q. This matter was laid before them ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What was the date of the appointment of Commissioners Eoose- velt and Thompson ?— A. May 10, 1889. Q. When was this matter laid before them ? — A. I do not know, sir. Mr. EoosBVELT. I believe it was laid before us the first of June. By Mr. Butterworth : Q. You returned from Milwaukee about the first of E'ovember? — A. About the first of November. Q. And with a knowledge of the disclosures made there *? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And no action was taken until after the advent of Messrs. Eoose- velt and Thompson "? — A. No action that I am aware of. Q. Of course it is one of your duties after making a tour to report irregularities that may have come under your observation ? — A. It is ; and that duty was performed. Q. That is the end of your duty in that particular ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Yours ended and theirs began ? — A. Yes, sir. TESTIMONY OE CHARLES LYMAN— Ilecalled. Charles Lyman, recalled and further examined. By Mr, Butterworth: Q. I would like to ask Mr. Lyman why no action was taken by the Commission between November and the date of the action by the new Commission 1 — A. The investigation which resulted in these disclosures was made early in September. I think Major Webster and Mr. Doyle re- turned from Milwaukee about the 10th of September. I was anxious at that time that the matter should receive prompt consideration, and urged Major Webster for a preparation of his report at the earliest possible date, so that the Commission might have it in order to take action. There was a great pressure of work upon the Commission, and, as you have observed, there was considerable involved in the preparation of that report. I have reason to believe that Major Webster proceeded with the preparation of this report as rapidly as he consistently could, with the performance of his other duties in the Commission. I think this report is dated the 30th of October, the investigation having been early in September. It came to the Commission, if I remember cor- 184 CIVIL SEE VICE INVESTIGATION. rectly, on the 11th of ]S"ovember, or I -will say about the first of Kovem- ber. It was dated the 30th of October. It may have been a day or two after that before it came to the Commission. I left Washington on the day before the Presidential election, to vote. The election was held on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November. On my return, having been gone three days I think, this report was before the Commission. Mr. Edgerton, who was then a Commissioner, did not re- turn until some days after that. He was in Indiana at the time of the Presidential election. I do not remember just how soon he returned, but it was some days after 1 returned. As soon as he returned, I called his attention to the report and suggested that immediate action was desirable on this report. In the meantime, between the time when the investigation was made and the time when the report was completed I submitted it to the Com- mission. Commissioner Oberly having been appointed Commissioner of Indian Affairs had gone out of the Commission and Mr. Edgerton and myself remained on the Commission. At the first opportunity after Mr. Edgerton returned to Washington I brought to his attention this report and asked for its consideration. He said he could not attend to it then but would consider it soon, as I remember, or something to that effect. Some days passed and I felt nervous and uncomfortable about it. I did not wish the report to remain unacted upon and I again called his at- tention to it. He gave some excuse, and I repeatedly thereafter called his attention to this report with the view of getting action upon it, but I could never secure his co-operation for action upon that report. In the meantime I had received an order from the President which involved a great stress of work and which required not only the utmost amount of labor which I was capable of giving it during office hours but far into the night. In that condition of affairs this report was not acted upon. Mr. Edgerton persistently neglected to co-operate with me in any ac- tion upon it. -By Mr. Stone: Q. Eufusing to do so ?— A. If that neglect after his attention was repeatedly called to it was refusal then he did refuse. Q. Did' you carry it to the attention of the president himself? — A. I did not. Q. Why ? — A. I did not feel that under the circumstances the offenses which had been brought to light by the investigation, and the question being a punishment to be meted out to the guilty, that it was my duty, in view of the fact that I was not the sole Commissioner. Q. Soon after that you became the sole Commissioner, did you not ? Did you consider that you had authority then to take action in this matter 1 — A. I presume I had. Q. But you did not ?— A. I did not. Q. Why not"? — A. I do not know that that matter impressed my mind at that time. I do not think I formulated in my mind the reason why. During all this time the pressure of the work of the office was simply overwhelming. I was burdened with an amount of labor and responsibility which was almost crushing. By Mr. Butterworth : Q. Who was the ranking Commissioner when you came in ?— A. Mr. Edgerton was president of the Commission. Q. And he was exclusively the head of the office ?— A. Yes, sir. CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 185 TESTIMONY OF HUGH S, THOMPSON— Recalled. Hugh S. Thompson recalled and further examined. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I never saw this report or had an opportunity to read this report until the morning of the day on which I went to Milwaukee with other work. That morning I borrowed the papers from my colleagues for the pur- pose of reading them. I read, as I recollect, the preliminary report of Major Webster. I did not read the testimony of Mr. Paul or Shidy. 1 did not know what Mr. Shidy had testified to when we got to Milwaukee. Mr. Lyman. One reason why I desired especially the co-operation of my colleague on the commission in the consideration of this report was that in reading it I discovered serious conflict in the testimony itself, and 1 did not feel that I could take the responsibility of acting upon a report in which there was such serious conflicting testimony. TESTIMONY OF JOHN H. OBERLY— Eeealled. Hon. John H. Obbrlt recalled and further examined. Mr. Oberlt. Mr Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I wish to state that at the time my attention was first called to the condition of affairs in the Milwaukee post-ofiice by the report of the secretary, Mr. Doyle, after his return from the investigation of custom-houses and post-offices in the West — that was, I think, in August or before — the statement of the condition of affairs there led me to believe that there ought to be a more thorough investigation than he has been able to make, and 1 consulted with Commissioner Lyman upon the matter, and we both concluded that an investigation, more thorough than Mr. Doyle had been able to make, ought to take place. Shortly after our consultation we determined to send an examiner who was familiar with such matters to Milwaukee to go into a more deliberate investigation, and make a more thorough report. And I went to see the President of the United States, and reported what had been said of the condition of affairs at that post-office. Mr. Cleveland expressed his astonishment, and said that Mr. Paul had been appointed for one reason, because he was a man who believed in the principles of civil service reform, and a man who was, I think, secretary of some civil service association in Milwaukee. Mr. EoosEVELT. I think he was president of a local civil service as- sociation. It was a '' happy family" up there. The Witness. The President thought Mr. Paul was a man whose character was respected and esteemed in his community, and he was astonished that such reports should be made of the conduct of the ofBce, particularly with reference to the execution of the civil service law and rules. But he said that it was proper a thorough investigation should be made as speedily as possible, so that the facts might be ascertained and action taken. This conversation I reported to Mr. Lyman. By Mr. Lind : Q. About what time was that ? — A. That was some time before these gentlemen went out, a week or two, I think. That is my recollection about it. It may have been longer. It was soon after Mr. Lyman and I had this conversation. I remember that at first it was discussed as to which member of the Commission should go, and I had expressed my willingness to do so. About this tiaDe I was nominated Commis- sioner of Indian Affairs, and my attention was divided between the two offices, so I declined. Commissioner Thompson to ex-Commissioner Oberly. Let me sug- 186 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. gest what you said to President Cleveland, that there was some one in the office who had the information and was afraid to give it. The Witness. My understanding was that these offenses had been going on for a considerable time. Mr. Doyle had ascertained these ir- regularities by an examination of the books, and, being an expert him- self, the secretary, Mr. Shidy, nor any other member of the board could well have concealed from him the facts. And in the conversation that was had at the time it was said that Mr. Paul was domineering the per- sons in the office, and they were afraid of their positions if they were not complaisant and obedient to his will. In my conversation with the President, I said there was probably some fear on the part of employes there that testimony given freely might operate to their disadvantage and result in their dismissal. The President said that the investigation should go on, and that no person in the post-office should be disturbed for any performance of duty or the exposure of any wrong-doing that had been done there. By Mr. Ewart : Q. Did you read Major Webster's re'porf? — A. No, sir; because it was not made. I read Mr. Doyle's report. The Chaieman. I understand that when Mr. Oberly was in the Com- mission the investigation was ordered, and before the report was made he was out of the commission? The Witness. Mr. Doyle and Mr. Webster went out to Milwaukee, and returned about the 15th of September. 1 was still in office. Major Webster went there and found a pretty bad state of affairs — that the law was being systematically disregarded. By the Chairman : Q. When did you leave the Commission? — A. On the 10th of October. We asked Major Webster to prejjare this report so that we might form- ally consider it. Q. But the report was made after you left the office! — A. It was made after I left the office, and I had no opportunity of acting upon it further. Mr. Lyman had gone away from the city upon an examina- tion tour. Mr. Lyman. I left on the 24th of September. Mr. Oberly had been Commissioner of Indian Affairs several days when I returned. The Witness. Before taking that office, I divided my attention be- tween the two places. By Mr. Ewart : Q. After reading Mr. Doyle's report, did you think that the Commis- sioners were iustitied in extending i^rotection to Shidy, he giving no additional evidence ?— A. No. I do not think there was any necessity for extending protection to him. He could not have concealed any facts. TESTIMONY OF HON. T. H. B. BROWNE. Monday, 31arch 3, 1890. Hon. T. H. B. Browne, sworn and examined. By Mr. Hatton : Q. Where do you reside ?— A. At Accomac Court-House, in the First Congressoual district of Virginia. Q. What is your business ?— A, I am a member of Congress and a lawyer. Q. Are you acquainted with Miss Emily Dabuey ?— A. I am. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 187 Q. Please state to the committee what is her general reputation. — A. I have known Miss Dabney, I think, since the spring of 1888. I have known the family a long time. She has a sister who resides in my dis- trict, and is postmistress of Spottsylvania Court-House. She held the office during Mr. Cleveland's administration and she still holds it. The family is a very old one. The father of this lady was a clerk of our court for a number of years, and, I think, died since the war. From what I know of the character of her people generally, they are as good as any in the State of Virginia. Q. Do you believe she is truthful ? — A. She is a woman of good char- acter, perfectly good character. Senator Daniels had recommended her for appointment in the Government service, and if he were here I am quite well satisfied he would corroborate my statement. I think that politics has nothing to do with it, but they are all Democrats. TESTIMOlfY OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT— Recalled. Theodore Eoosevelt, recalled and further examined. Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I wish to make a statement in reference to Mr. Wanamaker's testimony before this committee on Saturday, with your permission. So much latitude has been given to the other side and for the reason that I have sent a copy of this to Mr. Wanamaker, I desire to read from this printed matter. (See Exhibit D.) TESTIMONY OF CHARLES LYMAN— Recalled. Charles Lyman recalled and further examined : Mr. Lyman. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, when the Postmaster-General was on the stand on Saturday I asked him if he remembered of Governor Thompson and myself calling upon him, and he said he may have done so, but he did not recall the incident. I desire to make this statement confirmatory of what has already been said. On Saturday, the 29th of June, I received a telegram from Doc- tor Shidy stating that he believed he would be removed from office on the next daj. On the 1st of July, which was Monday, we received another telegram from Doctor Shidy, 1 am not certain what was the date, Sunday or Monday, stating that he had been removed. Late in the afternoon Mr. Thompson and myself went to see the Postmaster- General, and found hiui in his office, and we said to him that we had received two telegrams, and asked him whether anything could be done in this matter. The Postmaster-General replied that he could no noth- ing at that time ; that the matter having been reported to the President was iDractically out of his hands at that time. Upon that statement we withdrew. Nothing further of material character occurred at that interview. By Mr. Stone : Q. I understand that you went to see the Postmaster-General with the view of having Shidy re-instated *? — A. That was our purpose in case we should be clear on the subject. Q. You stated your purpose ? — A. We stated that Shidy had been removed, according to the telegrams which the Postmaster-General read, and we asked him whether, in view of the fact that he was evi- 188 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. dently being persecuted for what he had told the Commission, he could not in some way be protected either by his reinstatement then or at a later date. Q. Did you give the Postmaster-General to understand that you de- sired or thought it was a proper thing for Shidy to be re-instated ? — A. The purpose we had in view was simply to call the attention of the Postmaster-General to the matter and leave it to his judgment. We did not press it. Q. And he declined to interfere *? — A. He declined to interfere. By Mr. Boatner : Q. This man Shidy had, at the solicitation of the Commission, testi- fied as to the workings of the civil-service system in that post-office, and had disclosed irregularities which be said had been committed by direction of Mr. Paul. Did you not bring these facts to the attention of the Postmaster-General that Shidy had testified as to these irregu- larities and in consequence Paul had removed him from office? — A. Several days before the visit of Governor Thompson and myself the report of the Commission had been in the hands of the Postmaster- General. Q. I want to know whether you verbally called this to the attention of the Postmaster-General *? — A, Yes, sir ; we did. Q. Please state whether or not you expressed a desire to the Post- master-General that Shidy should not be discharged. — A. We under- stood he had been discharged. Q. You immediately called to see the Postmaster-General and sub- mitted the matter to his judgment, making no suggestion of your own ? — A. We stated that Shidy should not be punished for having given the Commission information. The Chairman. Did you practically recommend his re-instatement? The Witness. I do not think we made any recommendation. By Mr. BoATNER : Q. Was it not your object to obtain his re-instatement 1 — A. Unques- tionably it was our object to call the attention of the Postmaster-Gen- eral to the matter, and if practicable to secure his re-instatement. By the Chairman: Q. Did you recommend that he be given some other place 1 — A. We went there to bring this matter to the attention of the Postmaster-Gen- eral with the view of having him re-instated if practicable. Q. Did you so state to the Postmaster-General ? — A. Not in precisely that form. The Postmaster- General at once impressed Governor Thomp- son and myself with the idea that this matter at that moment was not in his possession in such a shape that he could act upon it, and we did not pres» the matter beyond that point. By Mr. Stone: Q. Have you gentlemen of the Commission had any conference with Mr. Shidy since this examination began 1 — A. I have seen Shidy once since the examination began. Q. Where did you see him "? — A. In my office. Q. Did you gentlemen of the Commission send for him to come to your office, or did you not write a letter to the Superintendent of the Census asking that Shidy be sent down to your office ? — A. I have not written such a letter. Mr. Eoosevelt. I did. CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 189 Q. Did. he go down to your office in response to that request *? — A. I believe he did. Q. Did you see him? — A. I think I saw him, but the interview was between Shidy and Mr. Eoosevelt and Mr. Thompson. Q. Did you take part in it 1 — Not of any consequence. Q. Did you hear the interview 1 — A. ISo, sir ; 1 think not. Q. Did you know for what purpose he was sent for? — A. I shall be obliged if you will ask Mr. Eoosevelt that question, as he sent for Mr. Shidy. By the Chairman : Q. Do you not know ? — A. I believe that he was sent for ; in fact, I thmk I may state that I know he was sent for to confer in regard to the Milwaukee matter. By Mr. Stone: Q. ^o ascertain what his testimony would be before this committee? — A. Mr. Shidy desired to read over the testimony he had given at Mil- waukee, and he was permitted to do so. TESTIMONY OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT— Recalled. Theodore Eoosevelt recalled and further examined. Mr. Eoosevelt. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: After Mr. Ewart had made the attempt to see Shidy's testimony, I wrote at the suggestion of Governor Thompson to Mr. Porter to let Shidy come down there, and he came down and I recollect perfectly what was said to him. I said : " Mr. Shidy, you are certain to be cross-examined and their purpose will be to threaten and confuse you, and we want you to try and give your answers clearly. I want you to testify to the exact truth." I said to Shidy: '' They are going to try to bully and confuse you and try to make you contradict yourself." I said : " Try to be cool aud clear and testify to the exact truth." I do not know whether I said "1 want you to tell the exact truth " or not, but one or two gentlemen who have been witnesses here have tried to benefit their cases by telling a little more than was true, and making it lean on their side. I think if Camp- bell had stuck to the exact story, which was undoubtedly the truth as Mr. Oberly rej)eated it in his testimony, Campbell would have been clear. 1 do not believe that Campbell ever had prepared those papers in the manner he stated, but I think he had an idea that he was going to get some benefit. By Mr. Hatton (to Mr. Thompson) : Q. Did I understand you to say that you accompanied Mr. Eoosevelt to Milwaukee when he went there to investigate the post-oflice ? — A. I did. Q. At what time of the day did you reach Milwaukee?— A. About 2 o'clock. Q. Do you remember what officer you called on first ? — A. Mr. Paul, is my recollection. Q. Did you state to Mr. Paul the object of the visit of the Commis- sion ? — A. I really do not remember now ; I think we did. Q. After calling on Mr. Paul and telling him the object of your visit, what other officer did you see?— A. We saw Shidy and Johnson. I do not think we saw any others. 190 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. Did you state to those gentlemen the object of your visit ? — A. I think we did, sir ; this is my recollection about it, but I am not posi- tive. We examined carefully the records of the office. Q. Did you state to any members of the local board of examiners where you obtained the information on which you proposed to make the investigation ? — A. Not at that time. Q. Did you examine the other members of the local board f — A. We wanted to examine Fahsel, but he could not be found. Q. Did you examine any of the examining board except Shidy ? — A. We examined Mr. Johnson. Q. Did you examine him fully in regard to it ? — A. I think so. We got all he would tell. He was a reluctant witness. Q. Have you got any record of the evidence that you got from John- son ? — A. We had no stenographer and no attempt was made to take it down. Q. Why? — A. My purpose was to see whether Fahsel, Johnsoil, and Paul would confirm the statements which were in the report of Web- ster and Doyle. Q. How did you get Shidy's testimony since you did not have it taken in shorthand ? — A. No testimony was taken in shorthand by the Com- mission. Q. You examined Shidy and Johnson, and did you not examine Paul at the same time"? — A. We asked him a great many questions how it occurred, and all that. Q. Did you object to Mr. Paul making a statement ? — A. We made not the slightest objection to that. Q. When was Shidy's testimony completed 1 — A. Not until the next morning. Q. How long were you in Milwaukee during the next day — A. I think we left a little after midday. Q. Did you speak to Mr. Paul about the nature of the testimony se- cureti from Shidy? — A. No, sir; except in this way: When we called Sbidy and Johnson, there was some conflict betwen the postmaster and Johnson as to the re-marking of papers. Q. At any time before you recommended the removal of Paul did you give him an opportunity to see the testimony on which you based your conclusions ? — A. We did not. When we examined him upon the evi- dence we called his attention to certain statements and he made his ex- planation. Q. Has it been the practice of the Commission in cases where charges have been preferred and you have taken testimony and reached a con- clusion on the testimony, have you notified the postmaster of the nature of the charges against him ? — A. I do not recall anything at all to be the practice. Sometimes clerks have written to us about charges against postmasters, and in that case we would write to the postmaster and ask for an explanation. Q. I mean in important charges such as this, where it would be such a serious matter, what was your custom ? — A. We have never had any of a like gravity. No postmaster has ever been reported by us for re- moval. 1 n regard to this Shidy matter, he came to my office two or three times before this examination and made some statements in reference to this Milwaukee matter. Mr. Uoosevelt wrote to him at my request and asked him to come down. He wanted to refresh his memory about the matters he had testified to in Milwaukee. 1 told him that all he had to do was to keep cool and tell the truth. ,Q. Have you seen Jiim since f— r-A. He api^roached me the other day. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 191 Q. Have you any objection to statiug whether or not you have seen Shidy since he has given his testimony here *? — A. Yes, sir ; he called on me next morniug. Shall I state what occurred? I told him, "I think your testimony made an impression. I never heard such a lot of fine-spun theories of ethics and morals as you gave to the committee the other day." Mr. KooSEVELT. I told him, " I do not care to talk to you alone any more. You have cut your own throat." By Mr. Hatton : Q. Have you recommended the removal of Shidy, having recom- mended him as a very superior man in the first instance ? — A. That I deny. Q. I will withdraw the "superior" part. Have the Commissioners recommended his removal ? — A. Kone whatever, and I do not propose to. By Mr. BoATNER : Q You heard Mr. Lyman's testimony with reference to the interview with the Postmaster-General. State whether or not you concur in this statement. — A. I recall some things. I remember distinctly that we stated that we wanted to prevent the removal of Shidy until the Post- master-General could have all the facts before him. We informed him that a copy of our report had been sent to him, and we afterwards learned that it had been received at the Department, but the Post- master General had not seen it. Tbe Postmaster-General expressed, if not iu words, by his manner, that he was not exactly satisfied with the Milwaukee matter. He said : " Gentlemen, how do you know that I am not investigating that matter*? You introduce confusion into the service." We told him that the civil service rules and law required that we should investigate all violations of the law. He said : " Ihave sometimes had as many as five hundred men under me." 1 think he said the number was five hundred, " and if some outside man came in there and interfered, it would destroy the discipline of the men and I could not carry on my business." I said, " I do not think this is a par- allel case." The motive in my mind was to have him hold up this mat- ter until it could be thoroughly laid before him. TESTIMONY OF GEOEGE H. PAUL. George H. Paul sworn and examined. By the Chairman : Q. What is your full name '? — A. George H. Paul. Q. You are a resident of Milwaukee ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Formerly postmaster there 1 — A. Yes, sir. By Mr. EwART : Q. How long have you been a resident of Wisconsin ? — A. For the last forty years. Q. Did you ever hold any public position besides postmaster at Mil- waukee"? — A. I have held public positions always continuously. Q. What positions 1 — A. I was postmaster at Kenosha, Wis., and was mayor of that city and postmaster for eight years there, and at Burlington, Vt., previously. I have been a member of the legislature for many years. Q. Have yoq hej(i any local positions in Milwaukee? — A. Yes, sir: 192 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. I was superintendent of the schools and president of the board of re- gents of the State 'University for sixteen years. Q. How were those places selected ? — A. Appointed by the governor each three years. Q. Confirmed by the senate ? — A. Ko, sir ; not confirmed by the sen- ate. My appointment was made at the unanimous request of the sen- ate, however. Q. You have held other places? — A. Yes, sir; many others. I do not care to enumerate all the places I have held. I was railroad com- missioner of the State at onetime under what was called the Potter law. Q. Appointed by the governor ? — A. Yes, sir ; and confirmed by the senate. 1 was a member of the commission about three years, I think. Q. When were you appointed postmaster ? — A. In May, 1885. Q. By whom ? — A. By President Cleveland. Q. When would your term of office expire under that commission ? I believe you were appointed for four years? — A. The commission com- menced after confirmation by the Senate. That commission would have expired in the month of February this year. Q. Had the four years for which you were appointed expired when you left the office? — A. I took the jjosition on June 1, 1885, and had held the ofiice until June 1, 1889. Preceding that date I practically re- signed the office before the visit of the Commission by requesting my successor to be named, and at that time also I made my resignation under an arrangement with the Eepresentative in Congress to forward my resignation at the time he forwarded the name of my successor. Q. That was Mr. Van Schaick?— A. That was Mr. Van Schaick. That was my volunteer motion. I did not wish to continue in office. Q. On whose recommendation were you appointed postmaster? — A. On the recommendation of the entire State nearly. Q. Were you appointed when Mr. Vilas was Postmaster-General? — A. Yes, sir. . By Mr. Stone : Q. At the time of your appointment were you not connected with some local civil-service association ? — A. Yes, sir; I have always been con- nected with the civil-service from the origin of the system. I was vice- president, and I think I am still. Q. Vice-j)resident of what? — A. Of the civil-service association of that locality. By Mr. Hatton : Q. Was it State or local ? — A. I think it is State, but I am not positive about that. I have always acted with it. Q. Are you acquainted with Mr. Hamilton Shidy ? — A. I do not know whether I know Mr. Shidy or not. I have had plenty of oppor- tunities of knowing him. Q. He was a subordinate of yours ? — A. In one sense he was. He was clerk. By Mr. Boatner : Q. Which part of Shidy are you questioning this witness about ? Mr. Hatton. I think the Hyde part. Q. He was secretary of the local board of examiners? — A. Yes, sir. I would like to bring out the construction of that board of examiners. Q. I would like you to state what are the full duties of the board of examiners, and I desire to know whether the committee have any ob- jection? CIVIL SEE VICE INVESTIGATION. 193 The Chairman. I do not see auy objection to the question. Q. As postmaster of an office which was working under the civil- service law, I will ask you what were your ideas of the duties of the local hoard of examiners ? — A. I do not precisely understand your question, Q, As a postmaster, working under the civil-service law (some officers are not under the law), what is your idea of the duties of the local board of examiners ? — A. I will say what I think the question intends. I understand the board of examiners of an office to be the representa- tives of the Commission. That they in fact are the Commission as to that locality. That is my construction. If you will permit me to state, I will say no recommendation or change in the board was ever made by me. Two of the members of the board, both Eepublicans— Captain Johnson and Mr. Shidy — remained from the beginning until nearly the end of my administration. Their duties were discharged independent of myself as postmaster, as is well known in the city of Milwaukee. The third member of the board besides Mr. Johnson and Mr. Shidy when I came in was Dr. Kaine, of the Milwaukee Sentinel, and after I went into office Mr. Fahsel, superintendent of the money-order division, was suggested in place of Mr. Kaine. He was for a considerable time a prominent member of the city school board. Both Johnson and Fah- sel, if the committee will permit me to say it, are men of high reputa- tion. Shidy was a stranger in the city. Johnson had been in the serv- ice, at the head of the mailing division, over twenty-five years. He was, perhaps, one of the best known men in connection with the serv- ice in the country. Mr. Johnson was president of the board j Shidy was secretary, and Fahsel was the third man. Q. How many employes were there at the Milwaukee post-office at the time you took charge ? — A. One hundred and fifty to 160. Q. How many post-office employes are subject to the civil-service law ? — A. I could not give you the exact figures, but something more than one-half. Q. At the time you took charge of the office did you make pretty general removals of clerks not embraced in the classified list ? — A. jSTo, sir; I ^ have a statement here of the exact number removed since my term began. Q. How many removals did you make during your incumbency of the office ? — A. I think [referring to statement] the Milwaukee office has been found from the records to stand at the head of all of the offices in the country in that respect. By the Chairman : Q. How do you mean ? — A. I mean the removals are less than they are in any office of the same size in the United States. Mr. Andrew. Do you mean since the organization of the office. The Chairman. He means from the beginning of his administration that the removals in his office have been less than in any other office of the same size. By Mr. Hatton : Q. Froiji what records did you secure that information that the Mil- waukee office stands at the head of the list, so far as the observance of the civil-service law is concerned ? — A. I got it from various sources. The reports of the Civil Service Commission are very limited upon that point. The last report, 1888, will show a comparative statement of re- movals for a year and a half, I think, preceding July, 1887 or 1888. In that case, I think, the Milwaukee office stands at the head, as I cou- 3117—13 194 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. strue it, and the New York Times published a statement giving all the offices under the civil, service in the United States, or nearly all, and the Milwaukee office, according to my construction, was the least liable to censure. The changes of clerks in the Milwaukee post-office, not in- cluding civil-service places, I mean those not classified, from June 1, 1885, to August 23, 1887, was twenty-seven. Of these changes there were six removals, all for specific causes. Q. Were there any for political causes ? — A. No, sir. By Mr. Andeew : Q. In what length of time 1 — A. From June 1, 1885, to August 23, 1887. Q. Was that in the unclassified service ? — A. That was in the clas- sified service. By the Chairman : Q. How many clerks did you have 1 — A. I could give them, but the removals in the unclassified service are generally considered as a basis for an estimate. Mr. Andrew. What proportion of the unclassified service is thirty- seven ? Is it the entire service ? Mr. LiND. This is only a portion of the number. Would it not be more satisfactory for you to give the changes in the entire number ? This is only from June 1, 1885, to August 23, 1887. Mr. Andrew. I am talking about ttie unclassified service. The Witness. There are sixty clerks in the office, of which more than half are classified. They come under the civil service. They are all under the supervision of the civil service. Q. I thought these thirty- seven were outside of the civil-service rules. — A. The unclassified clerks are not subject to the i)rovisions of the civil- service law. In the case of unclassified clerks, selections are not required. There is a popular impression that clerks are exempt from the provisions of the civil-service law, but that is erroneous, as I understand it. By the Chairman : Q. For instance, a clerk who is selling stamps is not required to be under the civil service law. — A. He is on the unclassified list. Q. How many are exempt in your office out of the sixty? — A. There are many men in many occupations. For instance, the register office and the money-order office are not in the classified service because the postmaster is responsible for them. There are some others in the office for which the postmaster is financially responsible, as, for instance, the money-order department. By Mr. Andrew : Q. I understood you to say you have in your office about thirty in the unclassified service ; there are sixty in all, and about one-half are in the unclassified service. You say also that in the period you have mentioned you made thirty seven changes. — A. This includes the period from June, 1885, more than two years. Q. In more than two years you made thirty-seven changes ? — A. I made thirty-seven changes. If you will allow me I will give the causes of the changes and I think it will throw some light on this question. The causes of the changes were, resignations, sixteen — and I wish to make a remark here that the resignations were not invited in any case but one. On one occasion I advised a man to resign for his own sake. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 195 TFio removals were six, additional appointments seven, transfers three, and olficcs abolished fourteen. Mr, Andrew. That is in the unclassified service. The Witness. That is the unclassified service. 1 have here also the classified service. The changes in that were, promotions three, resig- nations twenty-nine, removals six, additional appointments eight, trans- fers four, and abolished four. By the Chairman : Q. How many resignations were there altogether? — A. Twenty- nine. Q. Do you mean to state to this committee that during your term of office forty-five gentlemen resigned and left the employment of the Government ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. For business reasons, or what ? — A. Yes, sir ; for business reasons. I wish the committee to distinctly understand that the compensation of clerks is so poor and the labor so hard, in our western offices particularly, where we have a rapidly increasing population, that the clerks will not remain in those offices for any great length of time. They are generally anxious to get in, but they are soon anxious to get out and go into other business. A qualified man will always resign. By Mr. Hatton : Q. During the term of your office as postmaster, did you ever have charge of the record book or certification papers of the secretary of the local board ?— A. No, sir ; never in any way. Q. Have you read the testimony of Mr. Shidy ? — A. I glanced over it hurriedly as I saw it in your paper. Q. Are you aware of the fact that he charges all false certifications, and all violations of law that he did as secretary of the examining board to you ? — A. I am aware of the fact that he charges all his errors, and I will call them blunders for such they were, upon my intimidation. Q. Did you ever assist Shidy in making false certifications °? — A. JSTo, sir. Q. Did you ever assist him in remarking examination papers ? — A. Never. Perhaps I ought to explain that last answer by saying that on one occasion some papers were remarked. They were remarked, and the occasion of that remarking was a fact unconnected with the iDublic service as everybody knows, and unconnected with myself in particu- lar. That remarking was originally erroneous and I will state further with regard to that, that the matter was considered by the entire board of examiners and a new marking was ordered. I recognize the fact that the marking which had been made was apparently unjust. I will say further in addition to the explanation I gave the Commission at the time with regard to that which I had forgotten at the time, that that marking of those papers as I am now informed, was made not by the board but by one individual alone, and that the board considered it en- tirely improper^ The only real suggestion I made was to Mr. Shidy, and it was to this effect, that if he had ever improperly marked those papers that he should state all the facts as they occurred, to the Com- mission, and ask its approval, and under no other circumstances. Perhaps I ought to complete what I have to say about it. The board came together of its own accord to consider the whole question of the original marking by one member of the board. It came to the con- clusion, without any suggestion from me, that the marking was not quite right by a fraction. Q^hey changed that accordingly, I think, before. the marking went on record. I had no part in that remarking 196 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. at all. When the Commissioners asked me about this case they took me by surprise. Commissioner Koosevelt had great difficulty in remem- bering the names. I finally ascertained the name of the gentleman. I knew that there was a charge of interference with the proper author- ity of the board in the case, but there never was. I suggested to Shidy to send immediately to the Commission a statement of the facts of the remarking and ask for its aj^proval under the rules, and he requested me to give him in full a memorandum of what I thought proper to say in such a case on the ground that he assumed I could better prepare such a memorandum than he could, and I did that, and the first sen- tence, according to my recollection, that I suggested was simply that the board of its own motion entirely had acted on it. I did not want it understood that I had anything to do with the matter in the way of controlling the board. Q. Did you ever in any way assist Shidy as secretary of the local board of examiners in stuffing the list of eligibles and making them " round and full ?" — A. No, sir ; I never did in any case influence Shidy and I want to make a full response to that, that I never in any way in- fluenced Shidy in the discharge of his duties improperly in any case. I wish to make that broad denial that the whole thing is purely a fletion and an assumption. I believe that I ought to make a remark, perhaps in that connection, that the Commission were wholly misled by the cunning and want of veracity of this man Shidy. Q. Did you ever state to Shidy in what way you would like to have certifications made "? — A. I have no recollection of having done any- thing of the kind. By the Chairman: Q. Did you do it ? — A. I did not do it. I will say further that this whole question of intimidation or fear of the postmaster by the clerks in the post-office will not bear scrutiny. I never dreamed of discharg- ing Dr. Shidy until shortly after the Commission were up there, and his discharge had no connection with his testimony, but it was caused by another matter. Q. Did Shidy ever say to you why he violated the civil-service law 1 — A. iSTever. The rules make it the duty of the board of examiners to re- port to the Commission every month. The rules further make it the duty of the secretary of the board to report dates of certifications every month, as I understand it. I had no idea that he undertook to cover the consequences of his laziness and indolence and dilatory habits by making dates really not the true dates on the book. Q. Did he ever at any time indicate to you before this examination that he expected to leave the office and secure a j)lace somewhere else ? — A. He often in a friendly way said to me that his relations with the Commission were such that he hoped to secure a better position at Washington in due time. I think that was the impression he gave me. Q. What time was this ? — A. I think he frequently spoke of his spe- cial relations with the Commission, and I am 'rather inclined to think that he thought he had been of special service to the Commission, and that he deserved from them moje consideration than he had received from that body, and that he was the special representative of the Com- mission in the Milwaukee office. He was inclined to indulge in dreams of that kind, and that he was a special favorite of the Department. He claimed to ine that one of the inducements for his retention would be, I do not know how true it was, that he had invented much of the ma- chinery of the Post-Office Department, and that he hoped to be rewarded for it. CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 197 , Q. Did be ever claim that be iuveuted tbe macbinery of tbe Civil Service Commission"^ — A. I tbink be regarded bimselfas a si)ecial rep- resentative of tbe great interest of tbe country in tbat particular. Q. Is tbere any trutb at all in any of tbe statements of Mr. Sbidy tbat you in any way assisted bim in tbe violation of tbe law, or making false certifications or stuffing tbe eligible list? — A. No, sir, tbere is no trutb in it tbat lever assisted bim in any way or any manner, or ad- vised or controlled bim. E will, in justice to bim, say tbat I do not tbink be intended to do anytbing wrong, all tbe way tbrougb. Tbat as an original proposition 1 tbink it was mere carelessness and blunders. He was a man wbo claimed to be in ill bealtb and very poor, and I at- tribute it to bis careless business methods. By tbe Chairman : Q. Did you ever appoint a man to office as a clerk before be bad passed a civil-service examination, in violation of law ? — A. Tbat was a point I was coming to. I never did sucb a tbing as tbat. Any sucb tbing as tbat could not bave been done witbout making trouble for myself and tbe entire office. I will state just bow tbose tbings occurred. Tbe Commission bas referred frequently to tbe record of certifications in its reports, and its blundering record makes all tbe trouble. I do not tbink it is a criminal record. I do not accuse Sbidy of crim- inality in tbat matter. Tbe cbarges are perfectly explained by tbe fact tbat tbe Commission did not make an investigation except by Sbidy. It was Sbidy's misrepresentation to cover bis own faults. He was intimidated by tbe Commission, and especially by Mr. Eoosevelt. Sbidy stated in tbe presence of witnesses tbat wben bis errors became known to tbe Commission, tbey would recommend bis removal at once. Sbidy said be was a poor man and could not afford it. Tbat is tbe explana- tion be made to me. Q. Mr. Sbidy testified bere, and I believe tbat was one of tbe cbarges brougbt against your office by tbe Commissioners, tbat you appointed a man to office, and tbat be served and drew a salary for some two or tbree weeks, and tbat after baving made tbe appointment in tbe legal way, you set it aside ? — A. I tbink you will find tbat I am quite rigbt about tbat. It was tbe case of Miss Wbitehead. Q. I do not recollect tbe case. I beard it stated. — A. I bave never seen tbe official testimony of Sbidy. I asked tbe Commission for it but never could get it. I bave only been able to guess for many montbs wbat tbat testimony was. Tbe Commission kept it from me and tbe testimony is still in tbeir possession. I understand tbe case referred to was the Wbitebead case, Miss Wbitebead, of tbe money-order de- partment. Miss Wbitebead was examined for a civil-service place. Sbe was appointed to a civil-service position at first, but under tbe rules and practice of tbe Dej)artment at tbat time, tbe post-office was permitted to give partial employment in tbe money-order service, and sbe baving passed a civil-service examination and standing very bigli was appointed as a stamper. Sbe entered upon ber duties and performed tbat work. Sbidy supposed, because tbe money-order clerks are not now performing tbe service, tbey were not tben allowed to do it. Tbe fact is tbey were allowed. Q, Wbat year was tbat *? Mr. LiND. It is August 1, 1885, tbat Miss Wbitebead was appointed. Q. At tbe time it was perfectly rigbt? — A. Yes; it was autborized by tbe Department. Sbidy did not know all my arrangements by any means. 198 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION, By Mr. Lind : Q. After you called for a name for the appointment of a clerk as stamper, did you know there was a vacancy in the stamper's division which you desired to fill? — A. At that time or subsequently ? Q. Subsequently 1 — A. Many times vacancies occur. Q. Do you remember calling for a name to fill one of those vacancies in the stampers' division? — A. I can remember calling for names, but I do not remember special cases. Q. Did you ever see that before [handing witness a paper] ? — A. I do not know. Q. Is that the slip that was reported to you to fill a vacancy in the stamper's division? — A. I can not tell. I think it was early in March, 1886. Q. Do you remember whether you called for a report of three names to supply the vacancy that then existed in the stamj) department, and whether there was three names sent in as the law required or whether it contained only one ? — A. I think on one or two occasions Q. I am speaking of this case. — A. I can not speak definitely as to that case. I have no doubt the name was properly certified. Q. You are not clear as to the facts? — A. I think Dr. Shidy would be a proper witness in that case. Q. You do not recollect whether, when a vacancy occurred in March, 1886, you requested names to be certified for the purpose of filling that vacancy? Do you know whether the certification contained only one name, and that was Miss Whitehead, or whether it contained three, as the law requires? — A. I can not say. I feel quite confident there were no remaining persons on the list of stampers, which was always short, and they probably certified to me only one name. Q. Are men as well as women employed in the stampers' division ? — A. Not women as a rule. This is the only case of a woman employed in the stampers' division. She was mainly in the money-order division. Q. Are not men usually employed in that capacity? — A. Yes, sir. Q. 'Were there not eligibles on the list at that time? — A. Yes, sir; matters of that kind were continually occurring, and I could not re- member particular cases. Dr. Shidy would be a good witness on that. There was no partiality. Q. Of course you are quite clear upon that point, and I simply want to know the facts. Have you any recollection of making any remon- strances ? AFTEKNOON SESSION. The committee met pursuant to adjournment. TESTIMONY OF GEORGE H. PAUL— Continued. The Ghairman. Mr. Hatton, wdl you proceed to ask the questions of this witness ? The Witness. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I would like to give a table I have here in place of the testimony which I gave this morning, this forenoon, as to the number of appointments. I read from my letter-book a record of the proportion of the appoint- ments, but the statement I have here covers the entire period and it is more intelligible by far, and I would like to submit it in place of that given this morning, inasmuch as there might be some interest in it. CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 199 . The Chaieman. I nnclerstancl that covers the entire period during which you filled the office of postmaster. A. Yes, sir ; entirely, and up to the time the Commission was at my office. The Ghateman. Suppose you give that, so the stenographer may take it down. The Witness. These are statistics of appointments and removals in the Milwaukee post-office from June 1, 1885, to July 15, 1889, complete. The number in classified service, June 1, 1885, since separated : resigned fourteen, removed five, died one, making twenty changes in the classi- fied service in the entire time of four years and a month and a half. Number in unclassified service, as I term it — those not required to pass the examination — June 1, 1885, since separated: resigned six, removed four, abolished one, making a total change of eleven. ISTumber in clas- sified service by my appointment, since separated: resigned eight, removed five, died one, making fourteen changes. Number in unclas- sified service, appointed by me, since separated: resigned eleven, removed one, died one, making thirteen. The total certification, including of course the dismissed since June 1, 1885, was one hun- dred and four, and of the total number holding places July 15 was one hundred and forty-one. That does not include stamp agents and special delivery messengers, but it would come practically about as I stated this morning. That would make the total removals by me — it would make the total removals of all kinds fifteen. The Chairman. The total of number of removals during your entire service was fifteen ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. That does not apply to the positions of clerks and letter-carriers ? — A. For all officials. Q. All persons ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Fifteen ? — A. Yes, sir ; in my four, years. Q. That includes the entire number of removals in four years'? — A. Four years, one month and a half, the entire number of removals. Q. How many resignations were there during that same time? — A. The resignations in the classified service are fourteen in that whole time. In the unclassified it is six. In the classified service of my appointment eight, and in the unclassified service of my appointment eleven ; that mskes the whole number. Mr. LiND. But that does not correspond with the number given in the first two years'^ — A. I do not know; that is correct, I know. The Chairman. Mr. Paul has a statement here, to which he is now referring, which gives the entire changes of the office for the whole term of his office, that is, up to the time he was examined. Mr. LiND. I know it, but it shows less than half the number he reports for the first two years. The Chairman. When we come to examine him maybe he will be called to account for it. Is there anything further you desire to add before you begin ? The Witness. No, sir. By Mr. Hatton : Q. Mr. Paul, you said this morning that you never had access to the records of the secretary of the board of examiners. — A. The question this morning was whether I had any access to the record of certifications, I think. Q. I understand you had not. — A. No, sir. Q. These certifications were made by Mr. Shidy, secretary of the board. — A. Yes, sir. 200 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. In what way were these certifications madel Will you explain to the committee, if there is no objection on the part of the committee, what way these certifications were made by the secretary of the board of examiners'? — A. Well, sir, the way is the one prescribed by the rules of the Commission ; simply that the secretary shall submit the highest four names — it was four originally, but it is three now — to the apx)Oint- ment officer for selection. Q. Have you with you any certifications made by the secretary of the board of examiners? — A, Yes, sir 5 I have sami^les. Mr. Hatton. I would like to ask permission of the committee for Mr. Paul to submit these copies of certification papers made by the secretary of the board of examiners, and that they be left with the committee. The Chairman. There is no objection to that. The Witness. That is the ordinary style of a certification. Mr. LiND. This is blank ; there is nothing on this. Mr. BoATNEE. There is something on the other side. The Witness. There is a case of four certifications in the same manner. Sometimes they were made out in full form, but generally without any regular form for making these certifications. Q. Was there any regular form for making these certifications ? — A. There has been regular forms since provided more recently, but not originally. I would like to have the committee understand — — The Chairman. These are certification papers *? — A. Yes, sir. There are some which show the manner in which the work was done. Q. Who drew up these papers ? — A. The Secretary. Q. Mr. Shidy? — A. Yes, sir 5 they are in his handwriting. Q. Have you submitted the certification papers you desired to ? — A. Yes, sir. Mr. BoATNER. Do you submit the samples of certification which you furnish as The Witness. I think they are good samples. I wish to explain to the committee further that Mr. Shidy, as I understand, in his testimony makes a sort of discrepancy in the certifications as to the date by assum- ing that the book of record of certifications, as we were in the habit of calling it, was the certification. Up to the time of the visit of Major Webster, I think Major Webster, at my office, Dr. Shidy regarded these papers as the proper certification to furnish me for any name and stand- iug and that it would have been no violation of rules ; he furnished me these papers as the certifications and I never understood until Major Webster came there that the book itself, the record of the certification, was intended to be the certification. I think I am right, Major Web- ster, in that. But in order to prove further that this is Mr. Shidy's con- struction of the rule, both to the Commission and me, as to what con- stituted a certification, I have here his letter dated Septeuiber 1, 1886, addressed to me as postmaster, in which he si^ecifically declares — I have the honor to certify the following names as being those of the four having the highest standing on the list of eligibles for appoiutrueut as stamper. and then ensues the names. This fixes the fact of that construction. Mr. LiND. Is that intended to be put in evidence? — A. Yes, sirj if you will allow it ; I have no objection. The Chairman. There is no objection. The Witness. Under his instruction, having served from the organiza- tion of the Commission on the board of examiners, of course I assumed that that was the intended certification, but under the instruction of Major Webster subsequently, in 1888, Dr. Shidy changed his view and CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 201 practice and after that date the book itself was submitted as the certi f],cation. I do not know to this day where the rules for certificatious require the submission of the book to the postmaster as the original and primary certification ; it may be in the book or in the instructions to the board of examiners. The instructions to the board of examiners, I will explain further, were never submitted to me as a rule by the sec- retary of that board. I was not supposed to be interested in the duties of the board of examiners. It was a fact understood by everybody that I had nothing to do with its duties in any manner. By Mr. Hatton : Q. During the first year of your service as postmaster did you ever receive a notice from the Commission here or through its officer, the secretary of the local examining board, that you were violating the law in any way in the removals and appointments f — A. No, sir. The first intimation, the first criticisms, perhaps, unless something merely tech- nical and informal, that I ever received from any board or any author- ity during my entire term was after the visit of the Commission itself in 1889. Q., After the visit of Mr. Eoosevelt and Mr. Thompson? — A. Yes, sir ; at the time Mr. Eoosevelt and Mr. Thompson and Mr. Lyman were present. After they left Q. Mr. Doyle and Mr. Webster did not notify you ? — A. Mr. Doyle and Mr. Vv'ebster were in my office in September, 1888, and I did not understand this from them or infer from anything that occurred that any question had arisen as to the postmaster's duties. I supposed the investigation or examination related almost strictly- or entirely to the manner in which the records had been kept and how the duties of the examining board had been performed. There were some minor matters to which i^erhaps Major Webster called my attention, but I have no recollection of what I regarded as any serious criticism upon the of- fice. I wish to state to the coinmittee further that the duties of the postmaster of an office under civil-service law are very simple and very limited. The duties include simply, on the presentation of the certi- fication to the ijostmaster, the selection of one of the men certified for the position, and reiDort the appointment to the examining board, so that it may make wp its record. I think this is about all any i30stmaster under the civil service laws is required to do. That is the end of the matter practically, at least, and I have always so regarded it, and 1 fol- lowed implicitly the rules in that respect. Q. Did Mr. Doyle and Mr. Webster, when they were there, before leaving tell you the nature of the investigation they had made? — A. The nature 1 Q. Tes, sir. — A. Only by leaving me to infer from interrogatories relating very largely to the duties of the examining board. Q. Did they tell you that the testimony taken in that examination implicated you in any way? — A. I did not so understand it in any way. I never heard from it again, and I did not understand that I was im- plicated in any manner. I stated there perhaps, under those circum- stances, to Major Webster that which I would not have stated under the present circumstances. I was rather disposed to apologize and explain for Mr. Shidy. I did not think he had been anything more than techni- cally guilty. I did not know, and when cases were presented to me for explanation relating to his duties I gave the best explanation I could under the circumstances, from my little knowledge of his affairs, and 202 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. in that way I possibly gave quite a little testimony. I did not suppose it affected my duties in any serious way. Q. Do you know whether there was a report made of the testimony taken by Messrs. Doyle and Webster ? — A. The report "I Q. Yes, sir ; by the Commission.— A. No, sir ; I never knew there was any report ; to the President, do you mean 1 Q. Yes. — A. I understand there was no report of the Commission at the time, but from what source T can not now remember. I since under- stood directly by information, if proper to state the fact, from Mr. Edgar- ton to this effect, that the report was examined, and its consideration indefinitely postponed at that time. Mr. LiND. Examined by whom ? — A. By the Commission. I think the Commission was not then full ; that is my impression. By Mr. Hatton : Q. Did he make a statement of that kind in writing to you 1 — A. I think he has ; yes, sir. Q. Have you a copy of this letter ? — A. I have not that letter with me by a mere accident ; I intended to have brought it. Q. Did the Postmaster-General ever notify you a report had been made which implicated you in any violation of the civil-service law in any way *? — A. No, sir. The Postmaster-General — no, sir ; but 1 had words of commendation from the Post-Ofiice Department about that time. Q. At the time the three commissioners were there in 1889 they did not notify you in regard to the object of their visit, you stated this morn- ing. Did you know at that time whom they examined? — A. Yes, sir; I knew it ; it was commonly reported that they examined Mr. Shidy, as I understand it. Q. Did you understand they examined anybody else ? — A. No, sir. Mr. Fahsei, who is a member of the board, I remember distinctly I re- quested to remain in that office until the Commission might want him, and Mr. Fahsei informed me the next morning that he remained until aboiit dark, after a hard day's work, and then he went to his supper. Q. Do you know whether Mr. Fahsei was notified by the Commission to give any testimony at all? — A. No, sir; he was not ; I think not. He was in the office the next da3\ Q. Do you know whether Mr, Johnson was notified to give any tes- timony? A. Only from information from Mr. Johnson to the effect that he was asked one or two questions and that the answers he gave in the case were from information he derived from Shidy and not from any other source ; that he gave the answers, not thinking it was an in- vestigation, merely assuming or believing it to be a fact when he gave those replies. That is what Mr. Johnson afterwards told me soon after the Commission left. Q. What was the first intimation you had that the investigation had taken place, official information? — A. That the investigation was tak- ing place? Q. Had taken place?— A. It was through the Associated Press, when the report was made to the country by which I was censured and con- demned for everything but political errors and mistakes, and crime; that is, for general violation of law without any specification. That re- port was sent broadcast through this country and was the first intima- tion I ever had and the first criticism I ever had in any formal manner from that office. CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 203 Q, Did you ever make an effort to secure from the Commission the tesilmony upon which you had been convicted ? — A. Yes, sir; I wrote a formal letter requesting a copy of any testimony which affected my official duties, and I never received that testimony to this day ; to this day I am ignorant of the testimony except from inference. Q. Did you ever receive any reply at all to your letter making an ap- plication for this testimony 1 — A. I can not tell, but my impression is I received a brief lormal acknowledgment. That is my impression; I can not state positively ; no other reply. Q. You had a conversation w^ith Mr. Roosevelt the morning after Shidy gave his testimony ? The Witness. The morning after ? Q. Yes, The Witness. I can not say ; it would be after che testimony. I had a conversation on the morning after he came into the office ; a short one ; a very brief one. Q. Can you give the nature of that conversation 1 — A. I presume you refer to the question with regard to the expiration of my term ? Q. Yes. — A. That was the evening before. It occurred on the even- ing before. Q. The Commissioners testify you stated to the Commission you had already tendered your resignation. — A. When the Commission first came into the office — Mr. Yau Schaick is here and he can confirm what I say as to the facts — I said to the Commission that I was tired of office and had other duties inconsistent with my remaining there; that I had been there over four years and that I had requested the Eepre- sentative of the district to get his man as soon as possible. That is the substance of my information as near as I can repeat it; and that I re- garded my term of office as about up, having served more than four years, and having requested Mr. Yan Schaick to select his man and place him in my place, as I wished to be relieved. I did not say, as the Corn- mission seem to have apprehended — there is certainly very great room for misapprehension under such circumstances — I did not say my last commission had expired. Mr. BoATNER. You considered the election had something to do with your term, didn't you ? Mr. Paul. No, sir ; not much, because there was no intention of re- moving me at all at that time by any representatives of the administra- tion there that I ever heard of at all. It was my voluntary resignation at that time, and then, when the Commission commenced its charges, the Eepresentative from that district refused to forward my resignation at all until that matter was cleared up. Mr. Hatton. Who was the Representative at that time 1 — A. Rep- resentative Van Schaick, and he himself applied to the Department for a re-investigation of the facts with many others, which was never had. The Commission published its first report through the Associated Press, and I presume sent it to the President also, and very soon made a very lengthy supplementary report, as it was called. The first report did not recommend my removal at all on the ground that there was no evidence that I had made any political appointments or removals sub- stantially. Then I replied to that by interviews through tlie local news- papers. The Commission then made a supplementary report and gave as a reason for so doing, and recommended my removal in the supple- mentary report, that I had falsified facts as to the expiration of my commission as postmaster, which was probably a misapprehension on 204 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. the part of the Commissioners. I am very willing to concede the Com- missioners misapprehended my statement. Q. In the second report did they assign as one of the reasons why they recommended your removal the part you had taken with Shidy in making these false certifications ? — A. Well, they gave the whole — em- bodied about the whole of Shidy's testimony. Q. The report will show the fact itself? — A, Assuredly. Q. After you first heard of the report of the Commission, based on their interview, that of Messrs. Thompson, Lyman and Eoosevelt, did you have a conversation with Shidy ? — A. Yes, sir. Mr. Hatton. Is there any objection on tbe part of the committee to his giving the nature of the conversation ? Mr. LiND. Not at all ; that is proper. A. Mr. Shidy came into my office, I think, voluntarily, and I asked Shidy what he had been saying to my discredit to the Commissioners ; that I inferred from what had occurred that lie had been testifying to very extraordinary facts, or facts that were not facts. He immediately commenced to apologize and to explain to me how very sorry he was that he could not have seen me before he gave his testimony and had it arranged in some way, I do not know how. He said that he had been caught in a corner by the Commissioners without any method of escape. He said that if the facts had to come out as I understood them, the Commission would undoubtedly have recommended his removal from office, etc. He talked in that strain and expressed very great regret that the matter had occurred. I asked Shidy why he could not be more honest and brave under those circumstances, and I thought it would be much better for him in every way, and he seemed to be very much ex- cited at the suggestion. He stood up in the middle of the floor imme- diately and addressed me in his peculiar and emphatic manner. "Why," he says, "Mr. Paul, you can be brave, you have resources; you are a healthy, strong man, and I am a poor, sick man here, dependent upon my salary for a living, in j)overty," and he says, " I can not be brave ; you have no right to ask me to be brave under these circumstances." That is the sum and substance of his speech to me, and almost the ex- l^ress words as near as I can recollect them. A day or two after, as this comes in connection, I then informed him distinctly that I should not remove him for any testimony he had given to the Commission, that it was his right to give that testimony, and that in doing so he was not undei my jurisdiction but under that of the Commission, that I did not intend to remove him for it or censure him in any way, but I should leave that question entirely for the Commis- sion to judge. But I think it was on. the ensuing day, it was on Satur- day morning, I took uj) a German paper, one of the leading newspapers of Milwaukee with a very large circulation — the Herold — and I saw there a statement of Shidy. A great deal of contempt had been ex- pressed for him editorially by that paper on the ground he was a Ger- man originally but he ignored the Germans i^ractically. I think there was quite a bitter feeling in regard to Shidy's German nationality, but Shidy made a statement in that paper, a very extraordinary one, many insinuations in it and many untruths in it. I held a special conversa- tion with Mr. Shidy about that article. I have a copy of the article here which can be submitted to the committee if they would like to see it. It is an open letter. He called it an open letter. Shidy confessed to me that he had done me an injustice in that letter. It is not only false, but very disrespectful. I told him I did not see how it would be con- sistent for us to continue our official relations in that office, ^that I CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 205 tbought it would make a laughiug-stock of me with the public to attempt to do so, aud I suggested to him the propriety of correcting it as to those things where he thought he had done me an injustice, Shidy proposed to do so, and also proposed of his own accord to recall that letter from two or more English j)apers where he had taken it. He said he wrote it under a state of excitement and said more than he ought to have said. I think he undertook to withdraw the letter. I have the im- pression very strongly now that one paper — the Evening Wisconsin — at least one of them refused to publish such a scandalous statement. One paper did publish it and it had considerable circulation, whereupon I — this is the letter, if any one wishes to see it, published with illustrations. By Mr. Boatnee, : Q. It that Shidy's letter ? — A. That is the letter Shidy wrote for the press. Q. You say it is illustrated with wood cuts ? — A. Yes sir, it is inter- spersed with wood cuts. Mr. Stone. Do you wish to put that letter in? — A. I have no objec- tion if the committee think it is proper. I then wrote to Shidy a formal letter dismissing him, in which I gave him distinct reasons. I have a copy of his letter here, and I have the letter-press copy here somewhere of the letter to Shidy in return. I did not consider it consistent with my own self-respect and the dignity of the office after the publication of that letter to retain him. Erom the statements in that letter I might call attention to the fact in regard to my having violated the law in the appointment of Mr. Trumpff, who was paying teller in the money-order office to a civil-service position with- out certification, which he charges in the letter. Mr. Trumpff makes affidavit (I have the affidavit) that he never was appointed to any civil service position at all ; that he never was. He was appointed and ac- cepted the position which Mr. Shidy misaj^prehended and understood to be a civil service position— supposed it was a civil-service position at the time [reading], " Milwaukee, June 30" — this was nine days after the Commission was there and I think very nearly a week after the publication of the report. The letter to Shidy was as follows : Milwaukee, Wis., June 30, 1889. Dear Sir : Some of the newspapera of this city contain a letter from you, in which you impugn my integrity in the administration of the civil-service law. You have kindly conceded to me that this letter does me injustice in many particulars, aud that you regret its publication; but, though aiibrded a generous opportunity to tell the public what you have told me in explanation of this letter, you have omitted to do so, and leave me to endure the consequences of your injustice or repel them as I can. As I have already said to you, the continuance of our official relations under these circumstances is impossible, and you will accordingly consider those relations discontinued from this date. Truly, Geo. H. Paul, P. M. H. Shidy, Esq., Suverintendent Begistry Division. That had not the slightest or remotest connection with the testimony at all, and I did not intend it should. Mr. Chairman, while on the sub- ject of certifications I might as well, having the document here in my hand — Imightas well presentto thecommitteethepublicationby Shidy of the entire list of eligibles. It has been stated, I think, that when I was asked if I had ever seen the list of eligibles I smiled. I certainly did smile, for there is the whole list, after the examination, published by Shidy in the Milwaukee Sentinel, I think, or in one newspaper, directly ill the order of their standing, and I did see it. Here it is if any one 206 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. wishes it ; it is a clear, palpable violation of law, of wliicli I knew noth- ing until I saw it in the press. I do not think he intended anything wrong about it. but I think it was simply a part of his slovenly manner of doing all business. The list was as follows : Clerks.— Art^nv S. Howard, Albert L. Triimpff, Frederick J. Weber, Eicliard J. Hickey, Howard S. Hills, EichardL. Harney, Frank Stockliausen, John J. McGucken, Frank Pepkorn, George J. Holt, Miss Alice McGuigan. Junior messengers.— Charles F. Hurley, Wm. Gillis, Patrick McCormack, Joliu W. O'Brien, Joseph Holland, Thos. J*. O'Neill, Carriers.— Evan H. Jones, F. J. Meckelburg, Wm. M. Eeilly, F. K. Knebel, Edward A. Dittmar, Peter S. Juneau, James P. Mellon, John H. Eyan, Joseph Klein, E. E. Schoenleber, J. E. Nnzem, J. H. Williams, S. T. Tabert, Joseph H. O'Malley, 13. W. Lloyd, E. H. Joers, W. Leihammer, Wm. H, Linke, F. C. Ghent, George W. Lindorf, G. S. Joyce, C. F. Stray. Mr. Hatton. You stated this morning in a conversation that Shidy had said something about being transferred to a position in Washing- ton. Was that conversation before the Commission went to Milwau- kee. — A. Yes, sir. Mr. LiND. Had not the witness better fix the date of that publication? That may be material. The Witness. I think the date is on the paper. Mr, LiND. ]f not it will be well to have it. The Witness. (Examining paper.) Ko, it is not here. I think it was in the original paper ; this has been cut out. But that does not affect the fact. Mr. LiND. But if you could give us the date it would be an aid to the committee, perhaps, in considering your testimony. The Witness. 1 can not give the precise date of that. Mr. Stone. Can you give it in reference to the visit of any of this Commission 1 — A. Yes, sir ; it was before any certifications were made or anything of the kind. By the Chairman : Q. Before the certifications were made to you ?— A. Before any certi- fications were made from that list. Q. And your information regarding the eligibles was obtained from newspapers ? — A. Well, sir, I aid not ask for any information ; I sim- ply was amused at the very lax hianner in which he performed his duty in the case, and I cut it out of the paper and pasted it away. I never used it for information. Q. What I wanted to get at was whether this publication antedated the visit of the Civil Service Commission at Milwaukee? — A. Yes, sir. Mr. Boatner. How much *? — A, I referred to it in my talk to the Commission. By Mr. Stone : Q. Had you any other reason for removing Mr. Shidy other than the fact that he had been disrespectful to you as his superior oificer ? — A. No, sir. I should not have removed him because of his giving testi- mony to the Commission at all. I did not intend it, and he had no apprehensions on that point. He never had apprehensions of removal by me or any penalty because of his course in the ofiQce. "Q. At the time you wrote this letter dismissing him, did you know then the nature of his testimony, whether it implicated you ? — A. Know of its character *? Q. Yes. — A. Yes, sir; 1 knew of its general character, and I took this view of it : That Shidy in that respect was acting entirely out- CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 207 side of his postal duties, as an officer of the post-office, entirely; that he was acting as agent of the Commission, and I had no control over him, and I could not punish him properly. I think I so stated that whatever he said or did, it was not my province to punish the act myself, because he obeyed the Commission, to whom he was subject. That was my view of the case then. I know others take a different view, but the view that I took of it was that as a subordinate officer of the Commision I thought his conduct was subject to their supervision properly. Of course it was very unpleasant, the whole matter. Q. I asked you, but I did not get your answer, when your conversa- tion with Mr. Shidy occurred in regard to his coming to Washington, had the Commission visited Milwaukee or afterwards? — A. I did not intend to speak of a definite conversation, but he frequently expressed a desire or expectation that ultimately he would be transferred to Wash- ington, That seemed to be his pet ambition. I wish to say further, perhaps without interfering with your matter, in way of explanation of Shidy's frequent statement that I had examined and controlled the rec- ords, I have never denied that occasionally I have seen the record — not the list, but the record of eligibles after an examination — when placed before me by Shidy. I never saw that register of eligibles, as it is properly called, except when he brought it to me directly or by his au- thority. I never made any use of it. I never expected or wished to see it in any manner whatever 5 but Shidy was running around the office with that book under his arm very frequently, and when making the certifications there he was likely to come to my table, so that I can say that I have seen it; but that I have seen it for any improper pur- pose, or that I myself used it or obtained it during his absence, I wish to say that anything of the kind I utterly deny. I have a letter-press copy of an affidavit of one who kept charge of this register, confirming my statement, and also of another, being the only two to whom the register was accessible save Shidy. Shidy kept the register in the safe where these other parties were, his associates in the office, and I could not have gone to that register without their knowledge and consent, and they are ready to come before this committee and testify that I never saw the register in Shidy's absence, for no one else could have given it to me except Shidy or one of these two clerks. . Q. Was there no excuse given you by Sbidy about the publication of this assault upon you personally"? — A. Publication of what? Q. Of that article in that paper. — A. Well, I do not know, except that he said he was excited and inspired to do it, as it was likely to in- jure him if he did not comply with what he seemed to think was the compulsion of the Commission. In fact, while he was telling the Com- mission that he was under my duress he was telling me that he was under their duress in the matter. My theory is that the real reason was, that is, the real object in the matter was, a very natural one for a man in his class. I think, in the first place, he was very anxious to conceal the fact as to his own actions, and, as I told him, I did not think those facts implied any actual guilt, any actual intention to violate the law, but simply a laxity and want of order and a want of sense of pro- priety in the matter. That is about the view I took of it. I think he would have done almost anything rather than confess the real facts in the case, that is, in regard to his carelessness and the looseness of his methods of business. I always felt a sympathy for him and a disposi- tion to aid him as much as 1 could ; but still he says he was coerced by me there through the entire term of four or five years. The universal public understanding in the office and outside the office was that no 208 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. man would be removed from that office who performed his duties prop- erly, and he understood it more particularly thau any other person, for he exhibited more interest in the result. Not only that, but Shidy's young son was on the eligible list and came up on certification, and I offered to make that selection of his son. I think he declined in due form, because he could get a better place. 1 was very anxious, as far as I could lawfully, to assist him. He never had any reason to com- X)lain. He can not bring a single person — I challenge him — who served in that ofi&ce, or who is in that post-office now under my successor, or my successor himself, or my predecessor — not one — to corroborate any portion of the testimony reflecting upon my official integrity, not one. Of course it is a question as to veracity between Shidy and myself. Q. Did you ever hear at any time that the Commission or any mem- ber of the Commission had brought pressure to bear on the Postmaster- General and the President to compel your resignation? Mr. LiND. Well, that would be mere hearsay. I do not think that is proper. Mr. Hatton. All right. The CHAiTiMAN. What'is the question ? Mr. BoATNER. Have you any knowledge of that fact ? The Witness. No, sir. Mr. Hatton. The question was, had the Commission or any member of the Commission ever caused or brought pressure to bear on the Post- master-General and President to compel your resignation ?— A. No, sir. My resignation had been continually before the Department^ ever since my reply to the Commission, to the President. I have intima- tion of the fact that pretty strong influences were brought to bear upon the President. Q. You do not know that of your own knowledge? — A. No, sir. Q. Mr. Paul, in Mr. Eoosevelt's testimony he said you made a state- ment and denied it and then denied your denial. Have you any idea what he meant in regard to that? — A. 1 might say to him that I did not hold a report nearly a year, and then divide it and make two re- ports ; certainly. I have no knowledge of having denied anything I have said. The committee, of course, will understand and the Com- mission would naturally understand that the details of an office like mine are very multitudinous ; that in referring to individual questions in detail it is very difficult for any person to remember the precise facts bearing upon the case, and it is a very possible fact that I may at times have given one explanation of a state of facts when upon reflection I could give a fuller explanation. I was taken by surprise, and did not understand this was a formal investigation when the Commission came to my office. There was no stenographic reporter. By Mr. Boatner : Q. Excuse me for interrupting you right there, but did you under- stand when these officers were out there, that they were investigating you, or that they were investigating the local board of civil-service examiners ? — A. 1 had not the slightest idea that that Commission Avere investigating me, I did not know anything of the investigation and I do not know now. As I said, the duties of a postmaster are exceedingly simple. The Commission came to my office late in the after- noon, about 3 o'clock. They came into the office and I presume I had been in town an hour, and Commissioner Thompson — 1 had been out the night before to some public duties at Madison, and on reaching my office very sooii lifter, the Commission came into the office, and I CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 209 explaiuetl to tliein I was very miicli exhausted physically, and if an examination was to be had and testimony taken, that I was in a very l^oor condition to give it; but they did ask a number of questions, and I think we occupied about an hour or so about that matter, or per- haps three-quarters of an hour or more and 1 then asked to be excused. I answered almost at random, not supposing it was a particular exami- nation, because there was no stenographer present at all. I answered off-hand, and the next morning they were there a few minutes longer, but a few minutes ; I think they were in the office the entire time about three hours in the examination of myself and Shidy and in other busi- ness they had with the records. I think it would not exceed three hours the entire time for an examination covering details of appointments and changes of more than four years. I think to call that an examina- tion — I never regarded it as such. Q. During that examination of yourself, did they ask you whether you violated the civil-service law ? — A. I do not remember any such question as that and nothing to intimate that I had violated it. Q. Did they ask whether you assisted Shidy in making false certifi- cations 1 — A. They asked me about Shidy 's aifairs, as I regarded it, about Shidy's method of doing business, and it was all about Shidy, etc., wholly, I think, wholly. Commissioner Thompson very kindly said to Mr. Eoosevelt, " What has the postmaster to do with all these matters you are questioning him about *? He says it does not come within the province of the postmaster." That was the extent of his remarks, as I so recollect. Q. I have but three other questions to ask you. During your four years' term as postmaster did you ever intimate in any manner what- ever to the secretary of the local examining board that you would like him to make false certificates ? — A. 'No, sir. Q. Did you ever say to him that you would like to have him pad the eligible list? — A. No, sir; I never knew that he did. I think the records of certification was produced during this visit of the Commis- sion, and I examined it for the first time subsequently. I have no recol- lection of ever knowing anything of the kind before. I never examined that book before. The Commission is under misapprehension. The Commission stated the book was always brought to me for my signa- ture. That is practically true, that when an appointment had been made Mr. Hatton. I do not care about your explaining anything more about the appointments. Did you ever intimate to the secretary of the local board that he could oblige you by marking up or marking down examination papers ? — A. Ko, sir ; never. I would have resigned my olfice first. Q. Did you ever assist in any of these offenses of which Shidy has charged you 1 — A. No, sir. Q. In charging you with these oifeuses, this making of false certifica- tion, the stuffing of the eligible list, and by marking the ineligible up to the eligible list, and by marking eligibles down to the ineligible list,' did Mr. Shidy tell the truth or did he tell a falsehood ?— A. He told a falsehood if he stated anything about the list in any manner implicating me as to any wrong in any certification. The Chairman. Is there anything further ? Mr. Hatton. I have nothing further. I would like the Commissioners to ask some questions. 3ni 14 210 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION, By Mr. Boatner : Q. I would like to ask the witness a few questions. Mr. Paul, for the purpose of bringing the matter in proper shape before you, I will state Mr. Shidy's testimony. Mr. Shidy has stated that you required him, contrary to the provisions of law, to allow you access to the eligi- ble list; is that true 1 — A. No, sir; that is not true. Q. He has stated that you required him, contrary to the provisions of law, to furnish you with the certifications of men who had already been appointed to office, who were already filling their positions ; is that true? — A. No, sir. Q. He has stated that you required him to furnish you with certifica- tions containing names of men you wanted and that other names which were merely dummies were put there in accordance with law, when in truth and fact the man you wanted had been previously selected and appointed upon certification by your direction; is that true"?— A. No, sir ; he never had any direction from me on that subject at all, of any kind. Q. He has stated that, under your direction and duress, the names of eligibles who stood high, whom you did not intend to appoint, were marked down so that others you did want to appoint could be furnished you on the list of eligibles ; is that true *? — A. No, sir; I never did any- thing of the kind. Q. Now, when the Commission came out to Milwaukee for the purpose of looking into this matter, did they inform you charges had been made or information had been given by Mr. Shidy with regard to these derelictions of the civil-service examination board? — A. When they were in Milwaukee I Q. Yes, sir. — A. No, sir, not by direct information. Before the close of the day I discovered that Mr. Eoosevelt held in his hand the testi- mony which had been taken the year previous by Major Webster. That is the first time I knew that testimonj^ was in any manner in investiga- tion, and I learned that — 1 felt positive by mere inference from remarks made by the Commissioners between themselves. I never was formally informed that this question pertained to that testimony of the preced- ing year, which I supposed was dead and buried. I did not suppose it related to me in any way, but a remark was made, I think, by Mr. Eoosevelt towards the close of the matter, when he held in his hand some papers which undoubtedly was that testimony. I was not in- formed in advance of my answers that that investigation was directed to me. That is about the whole of it. I think the Commission will confirm it. Q. Please state whether or not the Commission informed you at that time or at any time before they made their report that Mr. Shidy's con- fession or statement of his own derelictions of duty involved you and that made you a partieeps criminis in those derelictions 1 — A. I never understood that at all ; there was, however, in the conversation between the Commissioners and myself reference to some technical, what you might call technical, violations of law, in the later conversation, that might possibly involve me without explanation. I forget now what they were. The main thing relating to me was the question asked with regard to whether I dictated the remarking of the papers of one man on one occasion. I think that is all I considered involving me properly. I thought the Commission were rather overreaching the mark x)erhaps in endeavoring to involve me on the basis of the facts relating to the secretary. The construction which I Q. What I wanted to get at is this^ the general tone of your testi- CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 211 moiiy here would indicate that you were not aware that the Commission were investigating you but that they were rather investigating the ex- amining board there? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And that you endeavored to explain some technical violations of law made by the board '? — A. Yes, sir ; the circumstances under which Q. And did not understand that they were investigating you. Now, I want to know if that is the impression you wanted to create on the committee that you did not know that they were investigating your of- ficial conduct and therefore you had no opportunity to defend your- self? — A. I mean to say that I did not realize Q. You did not realize that they were investigating you 1 — A. No, sir ; not in any way. Q. When did you realize or ascertain the fact that they were investi- gating you as well as the examining board 1 — A. In the Associated Press, the report containing the expressions of the Commission. By Mr. Lind : Q. I want to ask you one or two questions. As a matter of fact you had access — that is, access in the sense that you knew what the names were on the eligible list right along — that is, from newspaper information, and from the fact that Shidy came around with the book and showed it to you ? — A. No, sir; I never had knowledge of the list at all, not even from the newspaper list. I voluntarily put that away in my scrap-book there, or some clerk did it, and I never referred to it again and I never saw it from that day to this until I hunted it up. Q. Do you remember how many changes, the figures differ — do you remember how many changes were made in the office in the aggre- gate during your term ? — A. It is all in this list, the tabulated state- ment I gave. The Chairman. He has already stated that. Mr. LiND. The figures he gives for the first two years exceeds the aggregate of the entire term and there is a discrepancy somewhere. The Witness. No, sir; I think there is a misapprehension there. Mr. LiND. Well, we will waive that testimony. To your knowledge, was any Eepublican appointed during your incumbency 1 — A. Yes, sir; very many. Q. How many '? — A. Well, sir, I can only say this, that the office was estimated at the time I retired ; that the majority of the whole number of employes of each department were Republicans or so classed. The Chairman. When you went out of office ? — A. Yes, I never in- quired the politics of any man. Mr. Lind. I do not suppose you did. — A. They were so classed and appointed in the office according to the best estimate. Mr. Shidy was one who hung very high on the fence. I think he told that he was di- rectly related to Mr. Cleveland, he is certainly a very rampant advocate of free-trade. Some one. Well, that is a good sign. By Mr. Lind : Q. Now, did you have any private memoranda of names that you de- sired to appoint ? — A, Never any private memorandum, sir. Q. Well, did you have any public memorandum? — A. I never had any public memorandum of the eligible list. Q. That is not what I asked for. I asked whether you had any memoranda of names that you desired to be appointed in the service 1 — A. No other way than this. I. do not think I ever had any memoran 212 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. dum except in my brain, at all. I Iiave no recollection of it. It is not possible — if tbe list was certified to me it was necessary for me to make some investigation as to tbe cbaracter of tbe man certified. Mr. LiND. Yes. — A. And I sometimes inquired of proper men, botb Democrats and Republicans, wbo knew tbe bistory of tbe men as to tbeir qualifications, tbeir relative qualifications. I considered tbat my duty and rigbt, Q. Certainly, I did not criticise tbat.— A. But beyond tbat I never kept any formal memoranda in any way. I may sometimes bave made tbese memoranda on paper ; I naturally would do tbat. Q. But wbat I bad reference to — I did not criticise any action of tbat kind as improper, I tbink a man sbould exercise bis judgment in re- gard to appointments. I simply want to ascertain tbe facts. Now, did you not bave any memoranda of persons wbo desired and wbo would be proper to appoint tbat you were familiar witb before tbe va- cancies occurred? — A. No, sir; I bad only tbis. I bad in my office a file of petitions and recommendations as bigb as my bat, unquestionably, but otberwise I bad no memoranda, I bad no cboice. Q. Well, tbat answers my question completely. You bad petitions and recommendations on file. — A. Yes, sir; every appointing officer bas tbem, but I ignored tbem all, as a rule, exceiit wben a man wbo was sometimes certified as standing bigb, and nearly all were strangers to me, watside of my associates, nearly all tbe appointees in tbe classified service ; sometimes I would go back and see wbat was said about tbem, as any business man would, but no furtber tban tbat. If your question is intended to ask tbis, if ever I went to tbat eligible list Q. No ; I do not care about tbe eligible names. Tbe committee under- stand by tbis time tbat you bad public access to tbe eligible list at any time you bad tbe curiosity to see it; in fact, you bad one of tbem. I mean, as a matter of fact, you could ascertain wbo was on tbe eligible list at any time? — A. No, sir; I could not, and tbat is a mistake to say I could. Tbat eligible list, or register of eligibles we preferred to call it, was kept locked in a safe in tbe registry department, and I do not know bow I could ev^er know anytbing of it witbout consent of parties in cbarge of it. Q. Did not you state awbile ago tbat Mr. Sbidy would time and again sbove it under your nose, bring it to your table, and sbow it to you*? — A. Yes, sir ; be would bring it in tbe office, it is true, but not at any time. Tbat question imi3lies tbat I could take tbat list and examine it at my pleasure. Q. Wbat I asked, wbat I say is, tbat for practical purposes, if you wanted to be familiar witb it you bad an opportunity to do so ? — A. I do not see bow I could get it except tbrougb Sbidy. Q. Well, tbat is wbat I meant. You had every opportunity if you wanted it to get it tbrougb Sbidy ? — A. I tbink if I bad asked Sbidy to examine and look at tbe list tbat be would, probably, judging from bis usual actions and conduct, bave brougbt it all to me, but I pur- posely avoided tbat. Q. Did not you state awbile ago you frequently did see it ; tbat be carried tbe book under bis arm — I am trying to get tbis for tbe benefit of tbe committee — tbat be frequently placed it on your table and pro- duced it before you, and tbat you were in tbe babit of seeing ? A. Yes, sir ; wben be took tbe names from tbe bead of tbe list, but I never considered it niy rigbt to take advantage of tbat opportunity. Q. Wben be was taking tbe names from tbe bead of tbe list be would tben bave to make out tbe certifications in your presence, did be not? — A. Not very often ; only on one or two occasions, I think, altogether j CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION 213 but this I never did do under any circumstance, and that is examine that list, what you call an examination of the names on the list, because I knew it was an improper thing to do. I think Shidy trusted me as to that when he brought his book to give the names, which accidentally thus came under my observation. I think he is the last man in the world to believe really that 1 would take that list and examine the names on it. I certainly would not do it, and I never did do it. Q. Then he really kept the list cautiously and carefully. — A. Yes, sir 5 I thought he did pretty fairly so far as that eligible list is con- cerned. Q. Then this eligible list did not cut much figure in the ofiBlce, did it? — A. No, sir; I do not think it did. I do not think this whole matter cuts much figure in my office one way or another. I think it is very much of a tempest in a tea-pot, except so far as it involves the technical opera- tions of the civil service. Q. And if you consider the civil-service principles as applied to the actual working of your office, if there was a vacancy, and you had rec- ommendations on file in regard to a man, you consulted them for the purpose of ascertaining his character.— -A. Yes, sir, in evidence. Q. And you made the appointment accordingly?— A, I would go to the list and get the names. Q. I mean you consulted for private information'? — A. Yes, sir; and it was my private information in part as to qualifications of candidates. Q. That is all? — A. I think it is proper for me to state to the com- mittee as to the large proportion of the errors in the record of certi- fications of eligibles, that is as to how they occurred. This is informa- tion that has come to me since the Commission was there. I think it explains largely the case of Shidy at any rate, and it certainly explains how he came to get into the difficulty by the testimony of the record. I have handed to the committee certifications showing how they were made. Abundant testimony can be produced in addition to this to show that Shidy in his hurry, in his illness (which he claimed), and in his indolence, or all three together; in his long dinners, and all that — he did not work near as many hours as I did, or half as hard, he often sitting day-dreaming in the office about some speculation or something else, and the actual fact is, as I have positive information, and which I did not know until after the Commission examined me, that when these appointments were made he took these slips of paper and made another copy and entered it against the names selected on the slips, the word "app."; no date on the certification at all, and took these slips into his office and threw them into a drawer of his own desk, and that often these certifications remained there — the dates show from one day to thirty days, one day too many. Now, when Shidy got around to the time when he felt disposed to make his report to the Commission, he entered these certifications of appointments on his record of certification, and brought the open books for me simply to put my signature against the person appointed in due form, but in order to conceal — I will scarcely say con- ceal — but in order that it might not appear to the Commission that he had been neglectful in making his entry or in making his report (I think the rule requires the report of certifications to be made the same day, but I am not positive, but I think that is the rule), but in order that the Commission should not have any occasion to censure him, he made the date of the certification to correspond with the date of his re- port to the Commission and not with the date of his certification in fact. Then the result and the natural proper consequence of all that is, that 214 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATIOlSr. Shidy's record shows many cases — I think thirty- five are reported by Mr. Johnson, the president of the board — I think thirty-iive cases in which the dates of certification were not the dates of appointment by the record. Now, that was no fault of mine, surely. It was simply the laxity in his methods of doing business. By the Chairman: Q. When he sent this book to you, did you notice the date?— A. After he sent the book? no, sir; for the reason that I would not have the dates in my mind. He would come around at the close of the mouth to make up his record, and made that record often from my record of appointments for the Department from my letter-book. That was his frequent habit, to ask for my letter-book, and from that he would make these entries, having before entered the certifications on the record of certifications. He would make up the record of appointments from my book, and not from his own knowledge of the facts. ISTow, that in great part explains the inconsistency of the record, according to my theory. Now there is another thing which accounts, possibly in part, to a very limited degree, for the discrepancy in the dates of appointment. It is the practice in large post-oflices when a vacancy occurs for instance on the 1st (and the appointment never can be made instantly, for a day or two) to have the succession continuous. There is one annual allow- ance for clerk hire by Congress, and in order to keep accounts straight at the Department and at the post-office it is necessary that there should be no hiatus in the date. Q. You said successor ; you mean jDredecessor, continued. You said it is necessary to let the successor continue ; you mean the predecessor. — A. JSTo, sir; we do not continue. He resigned, for instance, on the 1st. Now we have an annual allowance for clerks in a certain posi- tion in the Department, and the appointment, when made — for instance, when made on the 4th of the month — we would put the date so that it will take effect three or four days before, so as to make the line contin- uous. ' Q. Certainly, I understand; it but you mean the man resigning con- tinues performing the duties until the new man is installed. — A. Not necessarily. We will say the allowance is, for instance, $500 for clerk. Suppose, for instance, he is entitled to the $500, and the Department allows $500 for that position. Say he clears out and goes to Minnesota, for instance, on the 1st of the month, and on the 3d, perhaps, I have had my certification to select a man for the place, and it is dated back and the name reported to the Department, so as to make $500 apply to the whole year upon the annual salary for the place. That is done in all post-offices in the country. Mr. Stone. One question, if you please, on that, relative to this par- ticular point. When Mr. Shidy testified, he stated a fact concerning one appointment (the name of the appointee I can not now recollect), but this is his testimony upon this : That this person was appointed on the 1st of March ; that he was not examined as being in the classified service until the 17th of March, and was certified on the 23d of March. — A. He was entirely mistaken in the facts. I would like to know the name of the man. Mr. BoATNBE. He said it dated back to the 1st, and he received pay from the 1st. The Witness. I think he referred to the fact Mr. Stone. Mr. Chairman, I will not press the question. Governor Thompson says he is familiar with the facts. The Witness. He was never in a civil-service position. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 215 By Mr. Andrew : Q. That letter published in the newspapers here, I did not have time to read it through. Was that letter written prior to your severing your connection with the post-office or not ? — A. Prior to my Q, That letter, the picture in it — the illustrated letter? — A. Yes, sir; the examination of the committee was on the 21st of July. Q. The letter looked to me, from a hasty glance I made, as if it was a reply to some letter written by you after y©u left the office, but I do not so understand it. The Chairman. It was written prior, it was testified here. The Witness. I did not leave the office untd three or four months The Chairman. That letter dated January something ? The Witness. ISTo ; June. The Chairman. It was on that letter Mr. Sliidy was discharged from the office by Mr. Paul during July. Mr. Andrew. Is not that letter a replv to a letter written by you, Mr. Paul ? Mr. Paul. No, sir ; oh, no, sir. Mr. Andrew. It says it was. The Chairman. This is not a letter in reply? The Witness. This letter is a cold, unprovoked attack, without prov- ocation of any kind. Mr. Andrew. I did not read it then. The Chairman. Now, Governor Thompson, will you examine the witness, or Mr. Eoosevelt? Mr. BoATNER (examining letter) . Let me call your attention to this : Mr. George H. Paul: I am grieved and surprised at the attack made on me by you in tills day's Herold, grieved because my sympathies are always deeply excited by misfortune or Injastice, and the picture you present of your beiug led as the lamb to the sacrifice, for my sin strikes me as too pathetic for description. I am surprised that you ventured to misrepresent facts so broadly, when you must know that I still have some papers in my possession, notwithstanding your abstracting certain papers from the files during my absence June the 25th. This seems to be a reply to some letter in which you attacked him in the Herold on that day. — A. He refers undoubtedly to some statement by the Herold itself, not under my own signature. I made none. Mr. Andrew. That is the reason I asked the question. I thought it was a reply to a letter. The Chairman. Was it a reply to an interview? Mr. Andrew. What I wanted to get at was, what was it a reply to. The Witness. It was a reply to some interview or something of that kind, in which I probably included Shidy with the testimony of the re- port of the Commission. The Chairman. Do you remember that that was an interview, that article in the Herald ? — A. I know it was not anything directly from me, signed or authorized by me in any way. Probably it was an inter- view, and in that way got in the paper. The Chairman (to Mr. Thompson). Will you now take the witness? By Mr. Thompson : Q. Do you remember that on the afternoon when we first began this examination in your office in Milwaukee whether or not I asked youhow much longer of your term you had to serve, how much more of your term you had to serve ? — A. On the commission ? Q. How much more of you term as postmaster was unexpired ? — A. I told you my service was about up. I made no statement 216 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. I just want you to answer the questions briefly. — A. I remember something was said, to whom I do not know. Q. It is immaterial. Well, now, Mr. Paul, did not you say to the Com- mission that day substantially this, "1 am already out of office, I am merely waiting for my successor to be appointed and qualified "? " — A. No sir, nor qualified. Q. Well, be appointed *? — A. Yes, sir. Q. You said, " my term is out, I am merely waiting for my successor to be appointed ? " — A. " My time is out, " it was used in that sense, that I had served four years and over. Q. But you did not explain anything to us, you simply made that answer. — A. I did not suppose the question was formed to indicate any exact information. Q. But still you undertook to give the exact information and said " my term is out*?" — A. I intended to give simj)ly the information that my time of four years of service had expired. Q. That is all I want, sir. Now your recollection is not that The Witness. And I was asking my successor to be appointed. Mr. Thompson. Now, I want to read something you said this morn- ing. I take it from the strenographer of the Commission, who is the present stenographic clerk of the Commission. If you do not agree en- tirely with what he has reported you as saying, I will ask the official stenograj)her to read from his notes. The Witness. Yes, sir. Q. By this you stated : I did not tnow the act committed l)y Sliidy, that would go directly to the Commis- siou if he performed his duty. I do know he undertook to cover the consequences of his laziness and indolence and dilatory habits by making dates that were untrue. Did you say that this morning? The Witness. I do not understand I made precisely that statement. Where did that come from ? Mr. Thompson. It was taken down by the stenographer for the Com- mission.- The Stenographer (Mr, Holtz). Yes; and I compared it with the notes taken by the reporter for the Post, and they are identical. Mr. Thompson. I will call upon the official stenographer to produce his notes. The Chairman. The official stenographer who reported this this morning is not present this afternoon. Mr. Thompson. Did you say this, this is the material part : " I did know that he [referring to Shidy] undertook to cover the consequences of his laziness and indolence and dilatory habits by making dates that were not true ? " — A. I have no recollection of saying it this morning. Q. I understand two stenographers agree you did say precisely that ? — A. That is not my understanding of it. What I intended to say Q. Yon did not say that 1 — A. I did not say that. I did not say that I did know he undertook- to cover the consequences, etc., but that I had no idea at thattime that he undertook to cover the consequences of his lazi- ness and indolence and dilatory habits by making dates really not the true dates on the book. Q. You retract that ; that is if you said it this morning ? — A. I do not retract at all. Q. But if you did say it you now retract it ? — A. Yes, sir, if I said it. Q. Do you remember the afternoon of the first day when you were about to leave the office, what you said wben we were about to call Shidy in and question Shidy ? — A. Yes, sir. Q.' What was it?— A. To whom ? Q. To any member of the Commission about that, when we were about CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 217 to seud for Shidy, when we dismissed yoii. — A. The question of Sleutz's remarking 1 Q. I do not wish to waste time on that, hut what you said about Shidy as a clerk and about the examination we were about to make ? — A. I do not remember. Q. I will try to refresh your memory. Did you not say, " Gentlemen, be generous and light on Mr. Shidy" — I am only repeating this sub- stantially — "he is a faithful and obedient man but overworked?" — A. I think I did say something to that effect. I think so still, as to his duties as a postal clerk theretofore. Q. Thatwasyour opinion, I think, on the 20th of June. — A. Of course, I was not then familiar with all the facts. Q. 1 simply wanted to call your attention at this time that he was " faithful and efficient, but overworked." Do you concur with me in the recollection that that was on the 2l8t of June? — A. I knew that from the Associated Press, but whether it was on the 20th Q. We were there two days ?— A. Y"es, sir. Q. We were there about the 20th. In this letter of Shidy, which is dated Milwaukee, June 27, 1889, " I am grieved and surprised at the attack made on me by you in this day's Herald." And this is six days after you said to the Commission that he was a faithful and efficient man, but overworked. There must have been some allegation or some strictures upon him before that. — A. I think I was interviewed by re- porters, and I think I gave the impression that Shidy had betrayed the office. Q. Betrayed how ? — A. By misrepresentation. Q. What I wanted to get at is when you dismissed Shidy ; you dis- missed him shortly after that, did you not ? — A. The date of that let- ter ■ Q. As to that, we can prove that ; before you dismissed Shidy you had information which made you believe he had betrayed your office to the Commission ? — A. I wish that particularly understood, by misrep- resentation. Tes, sir. Q. You stated that you dismissed him on account of the newspaper letter, and now you admit you knew when you dismissed Shidy that he had betrayed the office to the Commission. I would like to be sure about that. I do not think I have misrepresented you, sir. — A. I do not like the language limited to " betrayed my office to the Commission." Q. Say what you think is right. — A. I am very naturally subject to misconstruction in this, and if that is the purpose I protest against it. Q. It is not my purpose; state what you wish to. — A. I simply wanted to say by that time I knew very well, or supposed and believed, that Shidy had misrepresented the facts in the case to the Commission. Q. That was before you dismissed him ? — A. Yes, sir ; before I dis- missed him. Q. That is not the exact point. You said Shidy published a list of eligibles which you cut out of a newspaper, and a copy of which you have shown. How did you know Shidy published that list *? — A. I knew it from the fact that the reporter informed me. Q. The reporter told you Shidy did, and he did not say Johnston may have done it ? — A. JSTo, sir. Q. Well now, Mr. Paul, at that time, under the rules of the Commis- sion, the lists of eligibles were not published, is not that true that they could not be made public? — A. No, sir; they were not to be made public. Q. You knew the fact that Shidy, a clerk in your employment, had violated the rules by publishing the list of eligibles ? — A. i^o, sir ; I did not. Mr. Shidy was in the employ of the Commission, 218 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. But didn't you say a reporter told you Shidy bad published a list of the eligibles ? — A. 1 think he did. Q. You knew from the reporter that Shidy had given out this list"? — A. That Shidy, who was the secretary of the Commission, fur- nished this list. Q. And this man, who, in violation of the rules and in violation of law, had given out this list of eligibles was the same man of whom you spoke to the Commission and said, "Gentlemen, do not be hard on Mr. Shidy; be light; he is a faithful and efficient clerk, but overworked ? " — A. Gov- ernor Thompson, you are using language 1 do not remember; that is, as to his faithfulness and efficiency. I never regarded him as an effi- cient man. Mr. Thompson. I would ask the official stenographer to see what Mr. Paul did say. The stenographer read as follows : A. I think I did say something to that effect. I think so still. Mr. Thompson. I did not propose to have a discussion The Witness. I think so still. Q. You spoke about Shidy's being under the control of the Commis- sion. What authority had the Commission over the workings of the Milwaukee post-office and Shidy as secretary of the local board "? I will ask you, did we pay him any salary ■? — A. i^o, sir. Q. Could we dismiss him from the office ? — A. You could recommend his dismissal. Q. But could we dismiss him 1 — A. Practically, I think you could. If your Commission recommended his dismissal, I should have dismissed him. Q. You would, but we could not dismiss him of our own order if you did not concur with us "? — A. Not directly, but you had authority to dismiss him from the board of examiners, certainly, and disgrace him. Q. For which he received no pay for doing extra work °? — A. Yes, sir. Q. So far as the complaint that he was under the duress of the Com- mission was concerned, the fact is the Commission had no control over him whatever so far as dismissing him or cutting down his salary is concerned ? — A. The condition, and fact as I understood it at that time, as expressed by Dr. Shidy to me, was that the Commission could help him or hurt him. Q. Now I would like the committee to understand, really I did not know it when I was at Milwaukee, you appoint your clerks yourself, does not the i^ostmaster appoint every clerk of the office? They are not appointed by the Postmaster- General are they ? — A. I think that is rather a misapprehension existing with the Civil Service Commission. They speak all the while of appointments made by the postmaster when in fact the postmaster has no more say in appointing the man than the man in the moon, and the Civil Service Commission did not know it and did not know anything Q. We will be glad to learn if you will be kind enough to tell us ? — A. The postmaster can not appoint a boy a messenger, he can not ap- point anybody. Q. Who does the appointing"? — A. The Department. The post- master recommends simply, that is all, and the law is Q. Do I understand you to say that in a classified i>lace in that office that the Post-Office Department makes the appointment and not the postmaster? — A, Certaiuly, even special-delivery messenger boys. The CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 219 matter is submitted to the Department, tbe Department makes the a,])- pointmeut, aucl then he is put to work. Q. Has not the postmaster in an oiiice as hirge as the office in Mil- waukee what you call lump sum, where he employs so many clerks, all that is necessary A. Yes, sir ; there is a lump allowance made by the allowance division of the Post Office Department, a lump allowance for running that office for the various expenses, so much for clerk hire, so much for money-order office, so much for carriers, etc. Q. I do not wish to interrupt you, but you say the appointments were made by the Postmaster-General °? — A. The appointments T>robably are made by the heads of divisions. In the divisions, for instance, the car- riers are all appointed by Mr. Bates. That is, in his name as superin- tendent of the free-delivery system, and other appointments are made by other divisions of the Post-Office Department. By the Chairman : Q. Eight there let us have a fair understanding. Is it not the rule virtually that it is the postmaster that makes the recommendations and his recommendations are always concurred in ? — A. No, sir ; not al- ways. Q. Well, as the general rule, with very few exceptions ? — A. I have had orders from the Department to remove and I have had Mr. EoosEVELT. Mr. Paul, let me The Chairman. I would like to get at this thing. How many ap- pointments have you made during the four years you have been in office that has not been concurred in by the Department 1 — A. Very few. Q. Well, how many ? — A. A number. Q. Can. you give us an instance ? — A. Yes, sir ; I can give you an instance. Q. Well how many '? — A. I can not tell precisely, but I should think several. I can give you one instance and that is the superintendent of the free delivery who was removed on the order of the Department. Q. In regard to the system of removals and appointments when you recommend for appointment, say, the superintendent of the free delivery or the superintendent of carriers, or any clerk, or any letter carrier, how many were rejected by the Department on your recommendation; *how many appointees were rejected "? — ^A. I do not think they ever re- jected one. Q, That is what I wanted to get at. By Mr. Thompson : Q. Do not the postmasters employ the clerks ? — A. They employ them under authority of the Dejiartment. Q. Who dismissed Dr. Shidy? — A. The Department properly. Q. The Department properly? — A. Yes, sir 5 in this case the letter was sent to Dr. Shidy, and the facts were immediately reported to the Department, and the act is confirmed. By the Chairman : Q. Did you dismiss him ? — A. Yes ; just as you Mr. Thompson. Who gave the order ? The Chairman. We want to have a fair understanding. The Witness. Certainly. The Chairman. In the workings of these offices I think I understand something how appointments are made by postmasters, and how re- movals are made. They are made solely on the recommendation of the 220 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. postmasters, are they nof? — A. ]^ot solely. I do not think — the De- partment always reserves the right Q. Oh, certainly. — A. But practically the postmaster recommends and his recommendation is ordinarily approved. Q. Every recommendation that you have made during the four years you have been in of&ce for appointment has been concurred in, has it not ? — A. I think so. By Mr. Thompson : Q. I only wanted to bring out for the information of the committee the point in regard to the statement that Mr. Shidy complained that he was under the duress of the Commission, that really the only authority the Civil Service Commission had over him was to deprive him of his secretaryship of the local board of examiners, which gave him no pay and which only added additional work ; that so far as his dismission from the office was concerned that you had entire control of that mat- ter? — A. Yes, sir ; that is as far as recommending process is concerned. Q. And you did control him virtually *?— A. Yes, sir. Q. In that conversation in the post-office between the Commission and yourself, I think it was on the morning of the second day^or possi- bly it was the afternoon of the first day, did not Mr. Eoosevelt make this statement to you in regard to the irregularities of certification and ap- poiMments to which your attention was called; did he not say substan- tially, "Mr. Paul, these are very grave charges and we would like to hear any explanation you have to make ?" — A. Not as to myself, ac- cording to my understanding, sir ; not at all. Q. But we were speaking of appointments which you alone could make f — A. Well, sir ; I supposed the Commissioner referred in general remarks to the methods of the board in examining certifications. Q. He handed these papers, I remember particularly, and read from them, and do you not know Mr. Eoosevelt said, which was concurred in by his colleagues, ^'Mr. Paul, these are very grave charges and we would be glad to hear any explanation you have to make ? " — A. I do not know whether Mr. Eoosevelt said it or not. Q. Do you deny that he could have said it I — A. No, sir ; he said a great many things that I can not remember, as he talks very rap- idly. Q. But you do not deny it *? — A. I think he did almost the whole talking. Q. Was your office inspected at any time, a very little before or a little after the Commission was there, by a post-office inspector 1 — A. It was inspected frequently all through my term of office. Q. Do you remember an inspection made by a man named Fleming about that time ? — A. I do not think Fleming came there until after- wards. Q. About that time ? — A. After that. Q. Have you ever seen Fleming's report of your office ? — A. No, sir. Q. You say you resigned and your resignation was accepted ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know what the letter accepting your resignation con- tained ; what was the purport of it ? — A. Of my letter ? Q. The letter from the Postmaster-General, accepting your resigna- tion. — A.. Yes, sir; I do. Q. Will you be kind enough to tell the committee about what it was. — A. I treated that letter very lightly for several reasons. After the President CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 221 Mr. Andrew. Is this the contents of the letter you are giving now "? — A. I am trying to get at it so the circumstances will be better under- stood. It was intimated to me — published by the Associated Press — that the President would accept my resignation. Some time afterwards I received a letter from the Postmaster-General, who was no authority in the case more than any child in the country, and he said to me after notifying me of the acceptance of the resignation — he said to me in substance this : " If you had not resigned, I would have removed you on the charges of the Civil Service Commission hero referred to, and on account of the report of the inspector." Q. That is all I wanted, sir. Then I understand you to say that the Postmaster-General stated in this letter that if you had not resigned you would have been removed on charges made by an inspector of the Post-Office Department and you never saw the charges that were sub- mitted by the Civil Service Commission ? — A. Ko, sir ; I would not have the slightest respect for that kind of charges made. The inspector was not entitled to the slighest respect. Q. Do you mean to say A. There were five or six inspectors sent there in succession in order to trump up charges against my office. The man you referred to refused to accept any testimony where he could get it and went about the streets at night and called on persons he sup- posed or presumed would be hostile to me to try to cook up a case, j^ow, I do not fear that kind of testimony from any man living or dead. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, I would ask permission of "the com- mittee for Major Webster to continue the cross-examination of this witness. By Mr. Webster : Q. Do you remember making a statement to me when I was at your office in September, 1888 ? — A. Yes, sir ; I remember the examination. Q. You read that statement through carefully and signed it. — A. If I signed it I certainly did, but I do not definitely recollect. I was trying to recollect as to that fact whether I did sign that testimony, and my impression is I finally did it. I will take your word for it, Mr. Webster. Q. You added a short paragraph at the end of the report and then signed it ? — A. 1 remember distinctly that report, I added something or wrote something, declaring my right absolutely to remove so far as the postmaster has the right to remove the employes under me without in- vestigation by the Commission ; that I was not responsible to them. Q. You have just stated here that you did not have access to the register of the eligibles, that you did not see them, and that you had no means of seeing them. Do you remember saying to me A. I do not understand I made that statement. I simi)ly stated the facts as they were. That Shidy frequently brought the register around where 1 could have seen it, but I never made any regular examination, what you would call an examination of that register, not that I had never seen the register at all. Q. Did not you state to me in that examintation that you sometimes went to that register when Mr. Shidy had gone to dinner to get infor- mation from it ? — A. That is not my impression as to the fact or state- ment ; the statement would show if it is Q. That is the statement that you made. — A. I may have done so by his authority, but never without his authority. Q. And when he was gone to dinner, when he was out of the office, you stated to me you sometimes went there. — A. In his absence the registry of the eligibles was in charge of his assistant and the two 222 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. clerks in that same office, and they declare they never knew of my doing so, making oaths, or they would make oath if summoned be- fore this committee. I do not pretend, I can not say The Chairman. His question is whether you stated to Mr. Webster at the time of the examination that you did examine the register during the absence of Mr. Shidy. Did you make such a statement to him at that time or not ? — A. I do not remember making that statement, I think there is some misapprehension about it. Mr. Webster. You read that statement through fully and made al- terations in it, or alterations were made at your suggestion, and you finally signed it ? A. Yes, sir ; that was a very long statement and very difficult to read critically. The Chairman. Have you that statement here ? The Witness. I will not say I did not, but if I did so, I either ought to or should explain that I never examined that register for the purpose of making selections from the register. Q. Do you remember making this statement to me, that you made a personal investigation in regard to the character, etc., of candidates, to see what men would properly be eligible for appointment soon after you knew they were likely to be certified to you for the next vacancy, and that you endeavored generally to keep well posted in advance. You say you did not have access to the register and did not know the order in which they stood upon that register, then can you explain how you could do that, how you could make this examination in advance of that certification, and how you could keep well posted in advance? — A. Just as all business men do. It is a very simple affair. The appli- cants for examination were filing into my office always to file their ap- plications, and I usually turned them directly over to the secretary, or else sent them with a clerk of my office directly to the secretary to get the matter out of my hands. Of course these applicants Q. That does not seem to be an answer to the question at all. I wanted to know how you were able to make this investigation in ad- vance of the certifications, if you did not know of the certification in advance. — A. if ot always. Q. How were you enabled to do that ; how were you enabled to tell of the certification in order to do this in advance ? — A. For instance, a man coming to the office and would not be familiar with the civil service Q. That has not anything to do with answering the question. I w,ant to know how you were enabled to make an investigation in advance of the certification ; how you would know what certifications were to be made, and when or what certification was to be made, for, as you say, you kept well posted in advance in the order of certifications; how could you do this if you knew nothing of the order of certifications f — A. For instance, if a man makes application for appointment, or would seek appointment there, I took it into consideration, and the question naturally would come up in regard to the qualification of the man. It does not mean I have been examining the list of eligibles to see if he was to be appointed at all, and such inference is not in accordance with the facts. Q. That is your own knowledge ? — A. Yes, sir. Such a thing is not in accordance with the facts. Such an investigation as that is proper, I think. I think all this comes from the fact that the Commission has heretofore assumed that every x)ostmaster is a rascal instead of assum- ing that he is trying to do the best he can. CIVIL SEE VICE INVESTIGATION. 223 Q. You are familiar with the rules and regulations of the Civil Serv- ice Commission ? — A. Well, I can not say that 1 am as familiar with rules and regulations as I ought to be. I am familiar with many of them, most of them. Q. Do you know there is a regulation of the Commission, or there was during the time you were in olfice, probibiting postmasters from giving out any applications or receiving applications from candidates or would-be candidates'? — A. I think I was first made aware of that by yourself. I had nothing to do with it. Men would come in there ; Shidy brought applications there in my office and kept them on his desk probably, in all kinds of ways for anybody who came after them. Q. Shidy brought them to your desk 1 — A. Personally brought appli- cations and left them at my desk, and they were left at the window of the registry desk and anywhere so they could be circulated and people could get them. Q. Did you not state in your statement made to me that you fre- quently sent for these a]3plications to Mr. Shidy and gave them out to the parties ? — A. I frequently sent men for them or asked the clerk for them, or to conduct a man to the proper place to get the application. That is what I did, I do not know what I said. Q. Were these applications returned to you after they had been filled up •? — A. Sometimes, a fact for which I am not responsible, and further. Major Webster, an applicant might come in and leave an application on my table and I would send it to the place where it belonged. I am not going to stand there with a club to keep men out of my office. Q. Did these parties state what they wanted in your office — what, po- sition they were willing to have ? — A. There was no discussion of that kind. Q. You stated to me in your examination that all such inquiries natur- ally came to you about parties who wanted places, that you necessarily knew about these parties before they were certified to you. — A. That is perfectly legitimate. There is no other way to do the business or to keep the stream of office beggars out of that office except by locking the door. You know how many come making application for place, but it is a thing I had nothing to do with, and it is a thing I always said, " It is not my appointment. You must go to Dr. Shidy, fill up your ap- plication, and pass your examination, and that not until then will the question come before me." Q. You admitted to me you knew all about it before they were certi- fied. — A. I admit just that fact, that a man comes here and applies for an office; I know him from that date; at least I recognize that man as an applicant for a place in my office, and I naturally in the course of business know something about his associations and character. Q. You knew his politics? — A. No, sir; I never inquired as to his politics ; I very rarely ever knew his politics. Q. If you did not inquire his politics you were informed in regard to them? Mr. BoATNEE. You ought to any way. A. No, sir ; unless accidentally. I never in my life asked a man his politics who made an application for an appointment. Never. The record shows I never did; the record shows that. I do not see any oc- casion for trying to bring up Q. Do you remember Thomas F. Keaveny ? — A. Thomas F. Keaveny ; yes, sir. Q. lie was certified to you for the position of stamper on the carriers' register on the 20th of January, 1888, three other carriers' names being 224 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. included in that certification, ail of whom had higher averages than Keaveny. You made no selections from that certification. Can you explain why you did not make a selection when a vacancy existed at that time in the force of stampers ? — A. I think I can, but I must pro- test, Major Webster, against being asked details on what consideration I have given as to the administration of that office for nearly five years, nearly five years ago. Q. I want you to explain why you did not make a selection on the certification made to you for the position of stamper, all the names on that certification being from the carriers' register, a higher register of eligibles — I want to know why you did not make a selection, there being a vacancy at that time. — A. I do not believe there is a man in the United States who could answer that from recollection. As to the case of Keaveny, Mr. Johnston, one of the board of-examiners, has volunteered an affidavit. I have not the original affidavit here, but Mr. Keaveny himself has made an affidavit afitecJting the statement directly. If you want these affidavits I will furnish them. After the taxing of my re- collection to a mere frivolous matter of that kind I do Q. As to whether it is frivolous or not is immaterial. I want to know whether you recollect anything about that appointment and why you did not make that appointment at that time. — A. What was the date of the appointment f Q. It was certified to you on the 20th day of January, 1888 ; four car- riers were certified to you that time for selection at that time, and no selection was made from that certification. It stands ujiou the certifi- cation book that no selection was made. — A. Do you know the number of the certification *? Q. It is number fifty-four. — A. Well, sir, I can give you the substance of Mr. Johnston's statement to me in regard to the condition referred to. It seems that Shidy for some reason entered the name of Keaveny on the book for certification number fiftj^-four, and that in his own hand- writing he marked opposite there " void." You must ask Mr. Shidy about that, how that record is made. Q. It appears from the record, after your failure to select a stamper from the certification of January 20, nearly a month afterwards, on the 18th of February, the name of Thomas F. Keaveny was again cer- tified to you from the carriers' register for the position of stamper, and this time three names from the stamper register were certified to you, that all three were higher averages than Keaveny, and the three carriers which were certified on certification fifty-four were left off. On this occasion you selected Mr. Keaveny, with a very low aver- age. Can you explain that ? — A. I think I can. I think I have the explanation among my pajDcrs. I wish to ask the direct jjurpose of this inquiry ; I am not being investigated. I do not so understand it. Mr. EoosEVBLT. Who is being investigated, I would like to find out? The Witness. I would like to know if I have got to go through your investigation the second time ; if so, I decline to do it. The Chairman. Mr. Paul, from your testimony given here to-day your testimony as taken will show that the Commission had acted very harshly with you, to say the least of it, and brought charges against you which they ought not to have brought against you. They are un- der examination and they have the right to ask you such questions to show they had good reason for coming to the conclusion to which they did. If you do not remember it you can state so, or if you have rea- sons to give you may state them. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 225 Mr. BoATNBR. This is understood as a cross-examiuation of the wit- ness; it is really a cross-examination. The Witness. I have not introduced Mr. Keaveny. I made a broad statement here, which I have sworn to, that I never made any appoint- ment except upon certification, and the Commission proposes to re- vise Mr. EooSEVELT. You stated, you made the broad statement that you had never made an appointment except upon certitication A. Pre- vious certification. Mr. EooSEVBLT. That you never have made any appointment ex- cept upon previous certification ? The Witness. Previous certification, certainly, sir; no appointment in the classified service. I think you had bettor let Mr. Webster get on ; if you give me time, that is all 1 ask — all I ask is time. The Chairman. But you state you really never made any appoint- ment at all ; that you made a recommendation, according to j^our state- ment. You have said no postmaster makes appointments. The Witness. Made any selection, I should say. I deny in toto the allegation that I made selection j)revious to certification. Phis is a point I want to make quite clear now. If the Commission Mr. Webster. What I ask is, why you did not select Keaveny from the certification of January ? ISTow, 1 ask, how you happened to make a selection of that man with a very low average from a certification con- taining only one name from the carriers' register with three names thrown in, perhaps to pad, from the stampers' register. The Witness. Let us see what Keaveny says. Mr. Boatner. Allow me to ask for information. Has the appoint- ing officer the right to select any from the list, or is he required to select the highest? Mr. Webster. He is allowed to select one from the list. Mr. Boatner. Can he select any one ? Mr. Webster. Any one. It is only in taking these two certifica- tions together that I ask that question. The Witness. What is the question involved in this matter ? Mr. Webster. It appears from the record that after your failures to select a stamper on certification on January 20, that a month after, on February 18, the name of Thomas F. Keaveny was again certified to you for the position of stamper from the carriers' register, together witli three others who were taken from the stampers' register, being higher averages than Keaveny. The Witness. What is the date ? Mr. Webster. The first was on January the 20th, and the last was on February the 18th. The Witness. I was trying to get the first certification. Mr. Webster. January the 20th. The Witness. W hat evidence have you he was certified '? Mr. Webster. The certification book. The Witness. The certification record shows the whole thing is one of Shid.\^'s blunders. For instance, here is Mr. Keaveny's statement. State of Wisconsin — this is a letter-press copy of his affidavit submitted to the President. The letter gives Mr. Webster. I did not ask that. I only wane to know about the selection, why Keaveny was not selected from the first certification on January the 20th, when a vacancy then existed, but he was selected from another certification on February the 18ih, the first certiticatiou being all names of carriers for stamper place, the second certitication 3117 15 226 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. having three from the stampers' register with higher averages and one carrier with a lower average. The Witness. Does the book show thatKeaveny was certified on the 20th of January ? Mr. Webster. Yes, sir. The Witness. Does the book show that ? Mr. Webster. Yes, sir. The Witness. In Shidy's handwriting also that no appointment was made, marked " void." Mr. Webster. It is in his handwriting, i)robably. The Witness. He has never reported to me, as a matter of course. Mr. Webster. The certification book shows that afterwards you did sign certificate for his appointment. The WiiNESS. Subsequently 1 Q. On February the 18th you made a selection from that oue. — A. January the 20th, No. 54 — Mr. Keaveny does not appear at all. Mr. V/EBSTER. His appointment? The Witness. He does not appear, no, sir ; he does not appear to certify. Mr. Webster. The certification No. 54 contained four names of carriers for stamper place 1 The Witness. I will read you what Mr. Keaveny says, Mr. EoosEVELT. Here are the names: Gumming, Smith, Gaulke, and Keaveny. Gumming, 89; Smith, 87; Gaulke, 82^; Keaveny, 82. Mr. Webster. On February the 18th, No. 65, we" have the ihree highest carriers dropped entirely, and we have three from the stampers' register put on with Keaveny, and Keaveny is appointed. Mr. Stone. Was Keaveny on both certifications ? Mr. Webster. On both certifications and appointed on the second certification in preference to the three carriers with higher averages who were on the first. Mr. Stone. What I was trying to ascertain was that on the first certification would it have been proper for the postmaster to have se- lected Keaveny? Mr. Webster. Gertainly, I was going to ask that very question in in a moment. He was taken from the higher registry, and could not be put upon the lower registry, and could not be appointed to a lower place without his consent, and I was going to ask that question later. I want to know now in regard to his selection. Vf hy it came about that he was not appointed on the first certification, it being all proper, and that a month afterwards he was appointed, the same man was selected, the vacancy existing in the first certification as in the second. I want to find out why you did not make a selection from a certification that seems to be perfectly straight, as far as the book shows, and on another occasion took the name of a lower eligible from that certifica- tion? The Witness. You are asking me now about Shidy's matters. Was this certified at the same time Mr. Shidy entered it upon the record? Mr. Stone. As far as this question is concerned, I would like to un- derstand it while we are going along. Did you have the right on that certification made in January, the 20th, according to the theory of the Gommissiou, did you then have the right to select Keaveoy at all, or any man of the four if you desired to do so ? The Witness. Not under ordinary circumstances; I certjiinlj' would not. Q. But did you have the right to do it; under the rules had you tUe r:.H:t todoit? CIVIL SEE VICE INYESTIGATION. 227 The Witness. Yes, sir, at the time when there was Mr. Stone. The statement, Mr. Paul, is this, on January the 20th, four names were certified to you, of which Keaveny was one, and that he had the lowest standing' of the four certified and you did not select either of these names but postponed apparently the selection for a month. Mr. BoATNEK. He says that certification is marked " void." Mr. Stone. And then four other names were certified to you of which Keaveny was one again. The Witness. At this time four names were entitled to be certified if I understand — I do not see what the question is. In the first place Mr. Webster. There was a certification on that book, you could take under the rule one person for the position, you could take anyone of the four from the top to the bottom, but you are bound to take one from the certification, and you took no one, it is marked " void." I want you to explain in that special thing. The Witness. I suppose you — I want to know if you intend to hold me responsible for void certifications of Shidy's which were never made at all. Mr. Webster. The certification was there in the book, you ought to have known why it was marked void. You had the book before you. March 4, 1890. GEORGE H. PAUL — Examination resumed. By Mr. Webster : Q. You stated yesterday that you remembered making a statement before me, that you read it over carefully, amended it, and then signed it. — A. That is the case. Q. That statement made by you, as signed, was a true statement? — A. I have no doubt that it was supposed to be true at the time. I think that answer should be qualified. I was talking of things of which I knew but little. Questions relating to the manner of the action of the board of examiners, and my disposition being, as far as possible, and as far as I consistently and properly could, to apologize for the action of that board and the action of Mr. Shidy. Q. Then every material point of that statement was ratified by you ? — A. That the fact was not known to me is the point I want to bring out. I was talking of things of which I knew but little. Q. I will make the statement which I made yesterday, in a little fnllcr form, and I wish you would pay strict attention to it. It will state all the points I wish to bring out. — A. I wish to know whether the state- ment relates to matters concerning my duty, or the duty of somebody else? Q, It relates to your action with the post-office, and your duties in that office. The matters a^ppear from the records of the office. 228 CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. (4) It appears from the records of your office that on the 8th of De cember, 1887, a vacancy existed in the grade of stamper. To fill this vacancy four names from tbe carrier register were certified to y,ou on the 20th of January, 1888, certificate No. 54. In your statement before me you said that these carrier eligibles, or at least two of them, had consented to take lower grade (stamper) positions. The name with the lowest average on this certification was Thomas F. Keaveny. You made no selection. The vacancy was apparently not filled at this time. On February 18, 1888, another certification, No. 55, was made for the position of stamper, which contained three names from the stamper register proper, two of them with very high averages, and the name of Thomas F. Keaveny, the carrier eligible from the pre- ceding certification with the lowest average, although there was at least one other carrier on that former certification who had, accord- ing to your admission, signified his willingness to accept a lower place, and whose name should therefore have been placed upon certification No. 55 instead of Keaveny's. You selected Keaveny and dated the ap- poiufment back to December 8, 1887. On February 18, 1888, another certification. No. 56, was made to fill a position of stamper, which contained the names of three eligibles for stampers and one name from the carriers' register, not one of those which had been used on the canceled certification No. 54, but one with a very much lower average, only 68, Michael Cramer, whom you se- lected, and dated his appointment February 1, 1888. to fill the vacancy caused by the promotion of Keaveny to the position of carrier. On February 18, 1888, a third certification of the same date. No. 57, was made for the position of stamper, on which appeared two names, with high averages, from the stamper register proper, and two names, Eaush and Reilly, with very low averages, the eighih and ninth in order, from the clerk's register. The names of the carriers from the unused certification 54, with high averages, being kept out. You se- lected from this certification one of the clerks, Eaush. On February 18, 1888, a fourth certification of the same date. No. 58, was made to fill a position of carrier on which appear the three names from carrier register left over from unused certification of 54, together with one name from the clerk register — Eeilly, the same name, with low average, that was used on certification 57 for stamper place. You se- lected Eeilly. On February 18, 1888, a fifth certification of the same date, No. 59, was made for the position of stamper, on which appeared one name from the stamper register pit)per and three names from the carrier reg- ister, two of them being names from the unused certification No. 54, and a new name, Weber, with a very low average, which had already been certified as many times as the rules permitted. You selected Weber. On February 18, 1888, a sixth certification on the same date. No. 60-, was made to fill a position of stamper, which contained four names from the carriers' register, three of them being the names left over from un- used certification No. 54, one of whom, Louis Smith, was finally selected. By these seven certifications, Nos. 54 to 60 inclusive, five eligibles for stamper, the most of them with very high averages, and one eligible for carrier, with a very high average, were pnt out of the way by certifica- tion—were used for " padding " in certifications for the positions for which they had actually been examined, while men who had passed for other ]>ositious, but with very low averages, were appointed to theplaces — four carriers and one clerk eligible were appointed as stampers, and one CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 229 clerk eligible was appointed as carrier. Not one securer! the position for which he was examined. Please explain tlie manner in which these appointments were made. A. So far as it relates to my duty, I wish to say broadly in the first place, as a broad fact, that in no case have I made any selection from any certification made to me except in the manner provided by law and the rules. If you will allow me, I will state the facts. Major Webster will concede that the duties of a postmaster are simply to make selec- tions from the certifications. I wish to reply to thati)roposition, that in no case was any selection made by me for any appointment until after the certification came to me and the selection was made. About those certifications, of course I can not know. I have no official knowl- edge, and I am not permitted to have any. By Mr. Lind : Q. The committee is not inquiring for your official knowledge. You have used that term several times. — A. Well, personal knowledge. As to this record I had no personal knowledge, and can not properly have, and that covers a very large proportion of these questions. I have had since some knowledge of the subject from the examiners, knowledge founded on the examination of the testimony. If you will allow me to take a blank certification, I will give the committee to understand how . easy it is to introduce confusion into these certifications. The certifi- cation made of four names, for instance. There are three now, under the rule of the Board. Then the balance of the names are carried along and selections are made of the new names until each person when not appointed has been certified three times. The introduction of an error, for instance, in certification 145 creates confusion in all the suc- ceeding certifications, does it nof? Mr. Webster. It probably would. The Witness. I wish to say that no testimony in my possession, sworn to by the secretary of the board of examiners, did make in that case an egregious error in a certification, to start with. I, perhaps, ought to read Captain Johnson's affidavit on that point. Q. I want to get from you an explanation of how you made these ap- pointments. A vacancy existed on the 8th of December, and a certifi- cation was made on the 20thL of January, 1887. — A. Certification was made on the 20th of January. I want to see if I understand it, siftcel have stated positively no appointment was made except from the regular certification. Your certification No. 54, Thomas F. Keaveny, was made Januaj-y 20. The secretary of the board himself, Shidy, on the face of that, says that it is an improper entry. It was, in fact, as I understand it here from the testimony of Captain Johnson, that no such certification occurred. That is all I have to do with that question. In Shidy's own handwriting it stands on the record, which you have seen. It is written " void" all the way through. ' By Mr. Lind : Q. How did the man get the appointment? — A. At the time that cer- tifications was made Keaveny had already been appointed nearly a month, and am I here to be responsible for such blunders as that ? Not at all. Mr. Roosevelt. You have said here that when the first certification was made to you, Keaveny had already been appointed a month. The Witness. Certification number 54 marked "void" on the record, and still you assume it to have been made. 230 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIOATION, By Mr. Webster : Q. That is your explanation in full of that point. Please go right on to Ko. GO. — A. That changes your whole group. Q. No, it does not. There is a group of seven. The Chairman. This is a matter between you and the postmaster, and has already been repeatedly explained. Q. 1 will leave that point, and go on to the other that will take 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, and 60. Please explain how tour carriers and one clerk were ap- pointed stampers, when the original register of stampers, which was put out of the way by these certifications to get rid of them, while these other men, carriers and clerks, were appointed stampers and a, clerk w^as ap- pointed carrier, not one man being selected from the proper register. That is the point I am trying to get at in this question ? — A. So far as I know the facts in the case I am willing to give them to you with a great deal of pleasure. You know perfectly well that you are talking of matters of which I can not know anything. I simply know certitications as they come to me. I do not know how they are made. I would be guilty if I did. Q. Ton do not know how it happened that these four carriers and one clerk were appointed to stampers' positions'? Can you explain this at alH — A. I do not know but what I can, if you will give me the facts. I do not propose to be held responsible for Shidy's certifications at all in that particular. It is full of blunders. Q. You do not know how it happened that these clerks and carriers were appointed to places below the place for which they were ex- amined?— A. I know the jirinciple on which it may have been done. He was acting under the construction of the letter of 1885. Q. You do not know anything about it. I want to find out how you made these selections of carriers and clerks 5 instead of taking the stamp- ers — you made the appointments. Did you take all these men from a higher grade ? — A. No. Q. You selected them! — A. They were selections of yours. You made the appointments by the secretary, in due order. If you wish to have me explain some of the blunders, it is possible that I can do so. Mr. Webster. Not on this point. The Witness. I think it would throw some light on this whole mat- ter to read Keaveny's letter. Q. The certification shows that Thomas F. Keaveny was appointed to the position of stamper December 8, 1887, and promoted to the posi- tion of carrier February 1, 1888, but not certified to you by the secretary of the board until February 18, 1888. Canyon explain how it happened that he was selected from the book as a stamper after he had beem pro- moted to the position of carrier? — A. Keaveny, who was duly certified in December by the secretary of the board, and appointed from the cer- tified list as a stamper, is the first appointment to my personal knowl- edge and positive recollection. By the Chairman : Q. Does it appear so on the certification book '? — A. That I can not say. By Mr. Lind : Q. Was it not your duty to sign the certifications ? — A. When pre- sented to me. It is not my duty to hunt up the certification book. Q. Was it not your duty to sign it? — A. No, sir, not until it was presented to me. OlViL SEfeVICE INVESTlG^ATION. ^31 By Mr, Webster : Q. Was it not yonr duty to sign tbe certification book? — A. It was, when I was called upon to do so by the secretary of the board. Allow me to make a little explanation : It appears from the statement of Gap- tain Johnson and others, and Mr. Keaveny himself (but especially Captain Johnson), that Mr. Shidy omitted to enter his original certifi- cation in its i^roper place on the record. I am not explaining my action, but yhidy's. He made no certification in the proper form, as I now understand it. It was on one of those little slips, and he carried it oft' in his pocket, and never entered it on the record. Subsequently, he proposed to enter it on his record, and when he got to JSTo. 54, he i)ro- posed to enter this certification, which contained the name of Keaveny as an appointee. His practice was at that time — say at the time of the entering of the record — to enter from slips. Now he got that entry on liis record as under date of January 20. Then it occurred to him, with- out my knowledge at all, that Keaveny had been appointed a month before, on the 8th of December; and then Shidy, supposing he had. already entered his certification, and did not wish to make it twice, made this memorandum: "No appointment; void." It is written right across it. This is the way the first and original error occurred in the case. It is clearly by his own negligence, and of course entirely unknown to me. This is a chapter of blunders by Shidy, which the committee ought to see. After having made this entry there, and find- ing the appointment was made December 8, instead of January 20, he finds on looking back that the certification was made and entered from this little slip which he carried around in his pocket. So he goes and enters No. 55, containing the certification of Keaveny. Who was with him I do not know. He enters against that name on the record, "ap- pointed stamper December 8, 1887." It is in his own handwriting. He brings that to me to sign, and that I did sign. That explains the whole matter, so far as I can. Q. You did not examine that as to dates'?— A. I never did. Q. As a business man, of the business experience that you have spoken of to the committee, you think you allowed a subordinate to hoodwink you and make false certifications right under your nose? — A. No, sir; I wish to make this point: Is it allowable to ask me to ex- plain the action of the examining board in matters which I can not know? Mr. BoATNER. Anything you do not know, we do not wish you to state. Anything you do know from information, you can speak of. Of course, no witness is expected to answer beyond what he knows. The Witness. I protest against this commission holding me respon- sible for any action of the board of examiners. Mr. LiND, It is the committee who will hold you responsible for your testimony and action. The Witness. Certainly; but I have not the slightest objection to your inquiring into all the blunders of the secretary. By Mr. LiND : Q. At the time you signed this certification in February, did you know that Keaveny was already in the service ? — A. I knew of his ap- pointment. By Mr. Boatnbr : Q. Was your attention called to the date ? — A. No, sir; 1 think the dates were made after my signature. 232 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. By Mr. Lind : Q. Did yoLi sign that certification of the record in December ? — A. No, sir ; no record was made in December. Q. When did you sign the record ? — A. When the book was brought to me. Q. In February? — A. I presume so. Q. You say at the time you knew that Keaveny had been in the service for several weeks ? — A. Yes, sir ; that is the fact in the history of the case. Q. Did you know that that was contrary to law f — A. I do not know that it is contrary to law. There is no rule that I know of which requires my signature until the secretary makes a report. It is entirely in the hands of the secretary. Q. You say that you signed this record when it was presented to you in February ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What I want to get at is whether you knew or suspected that this was an irregular ])ractice ? — A. Soon after that I did. Q. To make papers out after a man had been actually appointed; did you know that that was an irregular practice"? — A. It was not an irregular practice. Q. As a matter of law, as a postmaster discharging your duties you would say that that was a regular method? — A. I think not. I would like to explain. Q. You can answer my question. I say that this is irregular. — A. I say that my signature was not irregular.*^ If you will allow me to state I will show how the business was done. There was no impropriety in anything that I did. Q. The question which I was asking was, is it irregular ? — not whether it is culpable, or anything of that sort. — A. Shidy entered the certifica- tion at the wrong time. Q, And you signed it at the wrong time 1 — A. I did not sign it until after it was presented to me. Q. Was it irregular? — A. No, sir ; I signed it when it was brought to me. When the secretary brings that to me it is my duty to sign it. Q. Did you know that he acted irregularly ? — A. Not at that time; I know it now. Q. Did you know that it was irregular on his part to present the rec- ord to you for signature long after that appointment had been made? — A. He did it continuously. Q. That is not an answer. Did you know that to be irregular? — A. No, sir ; I did not. Q. But it was irregular? — A. It is the secretary's duty to know the law. ' Q. I am not discussing what his duty is. I am discussing your un- derstanding of his duty. — A. My understanding of his duty would throw some light upon it, if you will allow me to make a candid explanation. Allow me then to state, as I understand the law, the secretary each month must report to the Commission. Now the practice of the secre- tary has been in my ofiice, and in other otfices also I think, before he njakes his report, at such time as he pleases, to bring to me the regis- ter for my name. He brings that, and lays it down before me, and points to the place where I am to sign, I look at the name and see if the man is in the service. It is simply a question as to the signature and the appointment. I signed that as a certitication that this man is appointed. Now I can not say that the postmaster should compare the CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 233 dates of the appointment with the dates ot the record. That is not the practice. It is impracticable almost. Q. Did you understand then that it was his duty to report this within thirty days to the Commission ? — A. I understand it was his duty to report within thirty days. I do not keep track of his time. The post- master can not do it, as he has other matters to attend to. Q. You did not pretend to keep track of his reports ? — A. I have no jurisdiction over the civil-service reports, or his books, any more than you have. I could not see his books in any way. Q. That book you had legal control of as much as he had. — A. The register certification 1 By the Chairman : Q. The certification book you have a right to examine at any time? — A. No, sir; I do not so understand it. I have no right to examine the records of the secretary, or interfere with the secretary. I do not propose that Major Webster's statement with regard to the rules shall be submitted without furnishing the rules themselves. You intimated that I had some control of the books. The rules prescribe that the secretary of the board shall safely keep, etc., all the books, papers, and records, and make reports. Mr. Lyman. Mr. Paul has a copy of the rules not in force when these transactions took jilace. The Witness. J think that Mr. Lyman's remark gives a false im- pression, and I think he has given false impressions repeatedly. That is my opinion. I think that when Mr. Lyman rises here and says that these were not the rules in force at that time, he is wrong. Then I wish to present both rules. I think his making that remark gives a wrong impression to this committee. By Mr. Webster : Q. You said that the secretary was required to make a report once a month, and that he brought this book to you for signature. — A. You have not got that quite right. The practice of the secretary in making his monthly report was to come to my room and call for my official let- ter-book with the letter-press copies. From that book he could make a memorandum of the appointments made, and make his entries accord- ingly. Anything in that book was reliable. Then, when he has made the record of his monthly report, he brings that record with, perhaps, half a dozen names upon it of appointees during the preceding month. He would bring that record to me, and I would sign my name succeed- ing the names of the appointees. That shows the practice. I wish to have the committee understand that my signature is not made to the certifications by the secretary, but simply to the fact that that man was appointed. The records show the number of certifications, as Major Webster knows ; but the name of the appointee is on the face of the certification, and I put my signature opposite that of the name of the appointee ; and that is all I have to do with it. That I have always regarded as a proper thing, and I never examined it in my life. I never supposed I had a right to do anything, except to sign my name. Q. You had to examine it to make your selection. You could not make a selection without that"? — A. That has been explained to this committee. Shidy regarded his slip as a certification, and says him- self on one of these certificates, " I hereby certify." Shidy regarded this slip of paper as a certification, and it may be well for the informa- tion of this committee to show that it is so regarded in many of the principal post-offices of this country, to my personal knowledge. 234 C1?IL SERVICE lNTESTiOATIO^f. Q. This certification was made to you two mouths aud a half aftet you had actually appointed and selected the man ? — A. I undoubtedly signed it February 18. As I understand it, Shidy's memorandum in the right hand column of that record, as furnished me by Johnson, is " appointed stamper December 8, 1887." My signature appears against Keaveny's name in each case on that record ; and I wish to say farther: Suppose that Shidy neglected to bring that record to me in the proper time, I believe my duty would be to sign it when he did bring it. Q. On the same date, February 18, the certifica1»on of three stampers and Michael Kremer, carrier, were made to you February 18, and you selected Kremer for the position of stamper of February 18, his appoint- ment being dated February 1, to take the place of Keaveny, who had then already been promoted to carrier ? — A. He was appointed stamper on the 18th of February ; the record of Dr. Shidy shows that. The entry of the date of his appointment on my books is February 1. Kow whether this is a misdate by Shidy of the certification, like many others, or whether the appointment is dated to take effect from February ] , ac- cording to the usual practice, I do not know. Whether it was a blunder or an improper date of the time, that the secretary should confess, I do not know. I guess it is a blunder of Shidy's. Q. Both these certifications were made on the same date, and signed on the same date. — A. There is no evidence of that. I have shown alreadj'^ that three of those were misdated. Q. You signed that in blank, did you ?— A. I do not know as to that. Q. As a business man, would you ever sign that in blank f — A. As a person observing the law ; and you are at fault if I am required to do anything more., Q. But you signed it in blank ? — A. I signed it as you have required me to sign it. Q. On the same date you selected this stamper for the position which he had been filling, and he having been promoted, and you also made a certification for the appointment of Kremer. — A. I think that is a mis- statement. Q. Did you on this same day, February 18, sign a certification for the appointment of Keaveny to the position of stamper December 8, he hav- ing already been promoted to the position of carrier on the same date ; and signed a certification for the appointment of Kremer to the position of stamper to fill the vacancy caused by the promotion of Keaveny 1 — A. The question is, whether I signed the book with reference to Keaveny and Kremer on the same date. I can not tell on what dates I sign books. I have no doubt, the case occurring, that the copy of the record is cor- rect. My impression about the matter of Keaveny is that Kremer suc- ceeded him as stamper. I think Keaveny was transferred to the duties of carrier on the suggestion of Shidy. That he transferred Keaveny to the duties of a carrier, the place for which he had been examined on the 1st of February. I think that is probably the case. He commenced his duties as carrier at that time, having been certainly selected as a stamper; and Kremer on the 18th of February succeeded him as stamper, these having been properly dated back to the Jst of February. The question of the promotion or transfer of Keaveny to the place of a carrier had been submitted to the board, and was considered by that board. Q. Now, on that same date, February 18, from certification ^o. 57, on which there were these two stampers and two clerks, you selected one of those clerks for, the position of stamper, and dated his appointment CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 235 back to February 1. — ^^A. I know the fact that Eoiish was appointed stain i)er. Q. And you signed the certification, and dated it bacli for him ? — A. Undoubtedly I signed the record but dated no certification back, unless you refer to date of appointment instead of certification. I do not know- why I should not. I wish to give the facts in the case of Roush, He was regularly certified by the secretary of the board, and selected from the proper number of names at the time. If there is any impropriety about his appointment, I would like to know it now. Q. He was selected by you on February 18 from the certification No. 57, being a man from the clerk's register, and yet you selected him for a stamper's place?— A. I do not mix him up with selections from the clerk's register. Where a carrier desired to accept a lower position in the absence of any vacancy above, his application was referred to Shidy in precisely the same manner that the law was supposed to permit, and as it is construed by the board of examiners, and by the Commission itself. I had nothing to do with certifications at all. If a man applied at his own request, the circular says he could be transferred from a higher to a lower service, at his own request, and when that request was made by any clerk or carrier, the secretary was supposed, and it certainly was his duty under this construction, to transfer the names to the other register, and certify this name in accordance with that principle. Q. I will ask you if you did not testify before me in September, 1888, that all those requests for transfer from higher to lower registers necessarily came to you, because all the parties came to you for appoint- ment, and for that reason all such requests came "? — A. Unquestionably every candidate for appointment habitually comes to the postmaster, and the postmaster's duty in such case is very clear, which is, if he wishes to have an applicant transferred to a lower register, to refer that ai)plicant to the secretary of the board of examiners, and this was done by me in every instance that I have any recollection of. Q. You knew every man that wanted to be transferred from clerks to stampers'? All such requests came to you f — A. In that way. A man comes into the office and wants an appointment. I say to him there is no vacancy. I want to explain that. I tell him that I can not appoint him, that there is no vacancy until his name comes lip in the regular way. He wants to know if there is a lower place that he can have temporarily, or something else, and it is the duty of the postmaster under those circumstances, and I have always regarded it so, to refer the applicant immediately to the secretary of the board for transfer at his own request under its construction. I think that explains my testi- mony sufficiently. Q. Did you state to me that where parties came to you and signified their willingness to accept a place in a lower grade, that you told the secretary to send his name to you next time with the other names? — A. 1 do not know but I may have said that. I think it is possible that I may have said to the secretary, " Give me the best qualified men that you can lawfully certify to." 1 think that would be my duty. Q. You directed tne secretary to certify these men? — A. Not individ- ual names, not persons. The i^rinciple of certification is all I have ever talked to the secretary about. Q. You said if you found a man who seemed to be qualified who was willing to take a place below his grade, you told the secretary to send that name to you? — A. Not that name except as to be embraced in the principle of a certification from a higher to a lower register. Q. You have explained about Roush, who was appointed from a clerk 236 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. to a stamper's place from certification 57, and who had been certified you as a stamper, and you dated liis appointment back to February 1. — A. I do not give these as absolute facts except from my theory of the facts. I wish that understood. Q. Under that {provision did you consider yourself at liberty to make selections from higher-grade registers without regard to there being eli- gibles on the lower-grade list of eligibles? — A. When a higher- grade eligible has expressed his willingness to accept a lower place, I have told him that under the ruling of the Commission he would insert the name of such person in such certification if he would take a lower xjosi- tion, being entitled to the privilege. I told the secretary that, but that does not refer to one individual. It referred to the principle. Q. We will come to the certification I^To. 58. This is the same date, February 18. There was in that certification to you three carriers and one clerk with a low grade. You selected that clerk on February 18, and dated his appointment February 15, did you not, three days prior? This is under the head of Eiley. — A. This is the case in which Shidy misdated the certification on February 18, and the appointment was made previous. February 15. The letter to the Department appointing Riley is dated February 15, and the certification was made previously on ' the slip of paper. The date, February 18, is unquestionably the date on which he was entered and was reported by the secretary. Q. The certification No. 59 is of a similar character, where there were certified Weber, from the carriers' list, for the position of stamper, and he was appointed by February 15, three days prior to that. — A. Weber declined, did he not ? Weber was certified to me as a stamper previous to February 15, and the appointment dated on the 15th, the date of the record of certification is on the 18th, in the same manner and in the same way as Riley. I would be glad if all these men could speak for themselves, as I can show by the affidavit of Weber that he was ap- pointed and certified on or before the 15th. There is no question about the facts. Q. Had he not been certified the full number of times prior to that without being selected?— A. That is not a question for me to deter- mine. Q. Wouldn't you know whether his name had been before you ? — A. I may have had his name before me previously, but how many times I can not know. Q. Uu the same date was certified to you a list of stampers from which you selected a Mr. Smith ?— A. Weber declined the place, and Mr. Smith was appointed from another certification in lieu of Weber. Q. We have all these five certifications on February 18, signed by you apparently on that date, from which you have made selections; "first of a carrier of a low grade, certified with three stampers to you and dated back, and you promoted him before a selection was made Febru- ary 1 ; then the appointment of another carrier, Cramer, to the position of stamper, dating his appointment back to February 1, to fill the va- cancy caused by the promotion of Keaveny ; then on the same date the appointment of Riley, a clerk, to the position of carrier, and dating him back only to February 15 ; then on the same date the selection of a carrier and promotion to the position of stamper, and dating him back to February 15. On the same date the selection of Smith, a carrier, for the position of stamper, dating and securing the appointment of four carriers to the position of stampers "? — A. Securing ? You mean result- ing. I do not wish you to use words implicating me. Q. Resulting in four ; four carriers having been appointed to theposi- CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 237 tion of stamper, the certification having put out of the way five stampers on the eligible list and at least one carrier? — A. I.do not know whether the stampers were on the list or not. Q. I want yOu to state what you know about these. Is it a fact that four carriers were appointed to the position of stampers; one clerk appointed to the position of stamper, and one to the position of car- rier?— A. I presume so. I cau not understand what the criticism is in the case. The board of examiners certifies to me the names of certain ■ parties. Among these parties are the names of those who had been ex- amined for higher i)ositions, and they are certified to me as stampers. Under a construction of the board of examiners at that time, right or wrong, they felt that they had sufficient authority for it, and 1 knew nothing to the contrary under the letter of 1885. Under that letter every applicant who came to me for a position and expressed his will- ingness to take another position lower, as I understand, such could be properly transferred to the lower position. For instance, from carrier to stamper. Then the secretary as a rale, if he performs his duties, would certify the names of those belonging to the stamper list, includ- ing those examined for carriers, for the place of stamper ; and I consider that the service is very much improved by taking a man from a higher and putting him in a lower grade, but I can not understand what the criticism would be under such circumstances. Q. I will ask you if, when you saw these certifications, it did not look a little strange to you why all these persons were being certified out of the way so that they could have no other chance, and these names picked out ? — A. Do not say '' picked out. " Q. They were picked out from low down on the clerk's register where they were out of reach, and put in among these stampers and were always selected. Does it not look a little strange that these should be before you and you not notice it ? — A. I do not think it will be strange when you hear my answer. I think, practically, I know about as much as the Civil Service Commission in postoffice matters. I hope I do. Q. You think you know about as much as the Civil Service Commis- sion, you say "? — A. I know as much as the Commission ever stated to me. 1 will state my reply to Major Webster's question. As to the number that was certified and as to the class of persons that were trans- ferred from a higher grade to a lower: We have a vacancy, say, in the place of stamper in a post-office, and a person desires to be transferred — it does not make much difference, the lower the place the more this is true — and the friends of the person are gene'rally informed, through the person who is about to take some other place and the boys in the office, that a vacancy is about to occur. The result is an onslaught u[)on the postmaster of applications to till that place. I did not know where they came from. The postmaster is not bound to know. He does not make a distinction about their grade. In this way, when a vacancy occurs in an office at any time, under the old rule of the Commission there would be quite a number of applications for the place. The post- master does not know whether it is for one place or another. Quite a large number of applications are made, and that accounts for the num- ber that is on the carriers list. Nearly all of them, especially those low down on the list, are willing to accept any place. They are out of business, perhaps. That accounts for the number that flock in about that time. Mr. Andrew. Doyourememberthequestionyou were asked? Your answer seems to have no bearing on it. The Witness. Mr. Webster asked how I accounted for so many being certified from the upper list. 238 CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. Mr. Webster. All to the lower list. The Witness. 1 will explain farther. I wish the committee to un- derstaud this. In the transfer from an upper to a lower list, the- fact was the secretary deemed the rank of a carrier, for instance, when he was transferred to the starai)er's place, as being much higher on the stampers' list than on the carriers' list. It was the opinion of Secretary Shidy to me, on which, on consultation with me, I have known him al- most invariably to act, so far as I have known anything about the matter, when a carrier went to Shidy to ask to be transferred to a lower list, the grade on the lower list was increased. Q. All of these requests for transfer lirst came to you ? — A. Not all the requests. Q. You said they necessarily came to you. — A. I say so now. I do not question the testimony. Naturally they came to me. I do not mean to say I sent for them. When a transfer was made to a lower list, it was the habit, I believe, of the secretary not to change actually the mark- ing, but transfer the name to the stampers' list and put him higher than those of the same mark standing as stampers, and I think that is natural. I think it would be impossible to pursue that system to trans- fer carriers or clerks to a lower grade without bringing them almost invariably to the top. These are only a few cases. I think that per- fectly answers Major Webster. Q. This is only an illustration. This is one of the cases to illustrate the manner in which it was done. You say there was a rush for these places'? — A. Always. Q. These were apparently made on different dates ; one December 8, one February 1, and another February 1 -, three more February 15, that are certified February 18. When did that rush occur? — A. That is begging the principle as to two or three appointments, but I wish to say to you it makes no difference. In every instance, without exception, without qualification, these transfers and certifications were made by the secretary of the board and without my instigation. Q. In regard to this certification from a higher to a lower grade place, who was lower upon the register, I want by a question here to show the effect and ask you to explain it. The records of your office show that Thomas F. Keaveny, who stood much lower than several other eligibles on the carriers' list, was appointed by you to the position of stamper December 8, 1887, and promoted by you to the position of carrier before he was certified to you, and was thus actually appointed to the i)Ositiou of carrier over those of higher average who were entitled to certification and appointment. I will ask you how it was that this appointment was made in violation of the rules ? — A. Before he was certified for carrier! Q. Before he was certified as a stamper he was appointed carrier by you February 1, 188S. The Ohaieman. Do you understand the question. The Witness. I do not understand his statement of facts, because they are not facts. By the Chairman : Q. The question is this : How did it happen that Keaveny was really promoted to the position of carrier, having a lower percentage, in prefer- ence to others who were on the eligible list having a higher percentage as carriers; whether it was done by having him appointed stamper and then promoting him, in that way evading the law "i — A. That is an in- timation of the Commission that there was some violation of the law. The Chairman. How do you explain it 1 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 239 The Witness. The question is as to the promotion of Keaveuy from the place of stamper to that of carrier. The exact fact was, how long did Keaveny serve as a stamper ? Mr. Webster. He was appointed December 8, 1887, and promoted to carrier February 1, 1888 ? — A. He served as stamper from December 8 to February 1. Keaveuy was a very competent man, and I can give the reason for his promotion. I repel the idea that there is any impro- l>riety in the matter. He served from December 8 to February 1, as I understand it, as a stamper. He is a man weighing 250 pounds. This fact has a bearing on the motive for his promotion. He then applied for promotion to the place of a carrier, and I doubted whether that could be done under the rule. I submitted the question formally to the board of examiners so that they might take that question up and determine it. I looked at the rules and could not determine whether it was proper or not. The board took the Cj^uestion under consideration and examined the rules for themselves. You understand that I always regarded the board as essentially the Commission in the office. On a certain occasion Secretary Shidy brought to my room, after a full and rather prolix consideration of the whole matter, a book of rules, which I intended to have brought with me, but by a mistake brought the wrong one. He said he thought it to be strictly proper, and he gave me that opinion as the opinion of the board. Under that opinion I consented to it, but had very much doubt whether it was author- ized. I thought it was rather an anomalous case, but that perhaps the Commission had made a lapse there in certain cases. They did not make a lapse for the reason that the instructions of 1885 had been changed, as you know. With the instructions of the letter of 1885, a person could go from a clerk's or a carrier's list to a stamper's, and then, under the then existing rules, the board claimed that he could be pro- moted to a different place from that for which he was originally exam- ined. Now I was in doubt about that. I think it is proper to allow me to state, if the committee have no objection, that the record of that pro- ceeding of the board of examiners was not in existence in any com- plete shape. The action of the board — I do not know whether it was the action of the board or one of the board — but I think it is referred to in an affidavit by Fahsel, one of the members of the board, which might be read by the committee. I wish to show why the record can not be produced showing the action in that case as to the promotion. Mr. Fahsel has stated to me in explanation of that, that a resolution offered by Shidy himself construing the case, or the principle covering the case, was adopted unanimously by the board, but is not to be found in the records at all. Those really are the facts as to the promotion. Q. You mean to say that Shidy forced upon you those appointments, notwithstanding that you had a knowledge of all those requests I— A. I do not see why you should not be candid. Q. Notwithstanding that the requests for certifications for lower places and requests for appointment by applicants were all made direct to you, Mr. Shidy forced upon you the appointment of all these people from the clerks' register, to the lower stamper register, and from the clerks' to the carriers' register, in spite of yourself, and prevented vou from getting any man from the proper register, and by his manipula- tions alone you were forced to take these men from the higher register ? You had nothing to do with the matter ?— A. Let me state it in my own language. I have not said in any testimony that I have given that applications were made to me by these men for transfer. I was igno- rant of applications and transfers as far as I practically could be. I 240 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. would tell tboin wlieii they wanted a transfer to go to the secretary. That was my duty plainly. If I wished to make an appointment as stamper, 1 did not care who was appointed as stamper. I knew none of these men personally. By the Chairman : Q. When you appointed this man Keaveny as a stamper, when you signed that certification appointing him as stamper, did you haveat^he time of it in you mind that yon would make a letter carrier of him and wanted him for that purpose? — A. JS^o, sir; I had in my mind this, which 1 always had in my mind, that certifications from a higher to the lower list were an advantage to the service. Q. This, man Keaveny had applied for a place as carrier "? — A. Yes, sir ; and had been examined. Q. Did you know him personally °? — A. 1 never saw the man before, never in mv life. I never saw any of these men and 1 do not ^think I would know Keaveny. I do not think I would know these m*en in the street to-day. I would not recognize them. I never allowed my- self to know a man in connection with any possibility of his appoint- ment. By Mr. Boatnee : Q. Is not this the same man we were asking you about this morning who was certified to in December on a slip, and appointed by you on one of those certifications which was not entered, and that you pro- moted him on the 1st of February, and after the promotion the book was brought to you and you signed that as an original appointment ! — A. It is the same case. Q. Was it the rule in your office that applicants for promotion had to be re-examined, or was one who was already in the service subject to promotion without re-examieaation and re-certification ? — A. There is a rule for promotion without re-examination. Q. On the 1st of February, if this man had been duly certified in December and appointed in December, would he have been subject to promotion on his grade under the rule, without re-examination 1 — A. The question of re-examination is not involved. Q. The gentleman asked you this question, how it happened that a man on the carriers' list was reduced to the stampers' list and ap- pointed as a stamper ; and, having been appointed as a stamper, was promoted to the carriers' list ?— A, That was a case of m.isapprehension. And as to whether such a system would have interferred with the rights of those on the carriers' list, that was the question that was submitted to the board. Q. At the time you appointed this man Keaveny, had he been certi- fied to you? — A. Yes, sir; when he was appointed. Q. Then you had appointed him as a stamper? — A. As a stamper. Q. Was there anything in the law or the rules which would i)revent you from doing that legally' 1-^A. I do not know. My testimony is this„ that Keaveny was regularly certified and selected on his first appoint- ment to the position of stamper. The question of promotion, which was a new question to me, was submitted to the board of examiners and the opinion given that he could be appointed to the position for which he was originally examined. That is the explanation. By the Chairman : Q. The official records show a wrong date. — A. The official records CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 241 show a wroDg date; there are thirty-five wrong dates on that record of one hundred and four. By Mr. Webster : Q. You signed this whole group at one time "? — A. I do not concede that. Q. The record was made up February IS?— A. I have no doubt he gave me that report in that way. I have no recollection of signing a batch in that way; but I do not remember. I would like to have you point me to the rule which relates to promotions of appointees to the places for which they are originally examined. Q. There is no rule which would prevent that, except where there was a detriment to others on the list of eligibles in those cases. — A. Then you mean to say there was no rule ? Q, Where it was to the detriment of others. — A. There are no such words in the rule. Q. There is not a rule 1 — A. I think there is a rule. I do not propose to be misled until I know. I have been misrepresented about as many times as I care to be. The provision refers to appointment and promo- tion under certain circumstances, uniil special certification may be made. By the Chairman : Q. Suppose there were ten men on the eligible list for letter-carriers and the postmaster desired to appoint a j)articulaT man as a letter- carrier, and the i)arty he desired to appoint was found to be ninth on the list. Under the rule, he could not appoint him, because others of a higher percentage would be first certified, would they not?— A. Yes, sir. Q. If you take a lower grade, and appoint a man as a stamper, and afterwards promote him, would not that be a violation of the law, be- ing a detriment to those that passed a superior examination ? — A. That would really be a detriment. 1 should object to it most positively. But in those cases referred to, you must understand that I got the opinion of the board a« to the transfer from the upper to the lower grade. Under present circumstances, it could not be made at all. But this was done under instructions of the Commission in 1885, which was the prevailing rule at our office until instructions were given to the con- trary. That could not be done now. By Mr. Webster : Q. You said, I believe, that you had no knowledge of the state of the register at the time these appointments were made. You did not know anything about them, and that Shidy made certifications to yon, and you did not know how they came, or what the state of the register was at the time f — A. That I so stated, and 1 never knew any- thing of the state of the register. There was an absence of names for stamiiers. Q. You did not know what was the state of the register? — A. No, sir; I gave that no consideration. I never influenced the rank of can- didates in any way whatever. Q. Do you remember Charles J. Cumming I — A. Yes, sir. Q. His name was at the head of this certification No. 54, which was void, and at the head of 58, 59, and 60. You remembered the man and the correspondence 1 — A. Yes, sir; in a 'general way. Q. In the correspondence that you had with the Department when you were eudeavoriiig to get his appointment made, you stated to the 3117 16 242 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Commission that Cnmming's iiame stood at the head of the list of car- rier eligibles. This is in the correspondence after the appointment. If you did not know anything about the state of the register, how were you able to state that he stood at the head of the list? — A. Mr. Gum- ming knew his own rank, and probably gave it to me. I think he was informed by iShidy of his rank. It was commonly known in the whole office. Q. Then you did know the state of the register ? — A. iSTot from the register. I did not know the state of the register. I simply knew of this remarkable case in which Gumming stood high. That is about all I knew of it. Q. You said he stood at the head. — A. I may have known that fact at the time. Q. What did you make your statement on ? — A. On common noto- riety in the office. Q. Simply on hearsay ? — A. I think on his own statement. I think Shidy spoke of it, that he stood at the head. Q. In this letter of May 30, you stated at the time that Gumming's name was certified to you from the carriers' register when the stamper register was exhausted 5 how did you know ? — A. I got my information from Shidy. He made a very full statement to me. I think it was very proper for him to give me that information. Q. In your letter of May 30, 1888, in which you speak of the certifi- cation of Gumming, notwithstanding that he had twice declined to accept the position of stamper, you say the list of stampers was nearly exhausted, and Gumming's name was merely used to make the certifi- cation as to number complete. — A. That is a matter for Shidy to explain. Q. This is your letter ; this letter you wrote officially to the office. — A. Shidy did use his name, whether rightly or not I do not know, and I do not care. Q. How did you know it? — A. From Shidy; he made that repre- sentation in favor of Gumming. He said injustice had been done him. He had declined a specific appointment as you remember, which was offered to him on a regular certification, and then Shidy informed me that he had carried him on his list of eligibles until he had been certi- fied three times without his knowledge. I think it was a j^eculiar proceeding and Shidy was responsible for it, and I did not approve of it, to the best of my recollection. Then Gumming came and asked for an appointment, and Dr. Shidy informed him, and he also informed me, that his rights had expired, or terminated, and I thought it was a hard case. I thought he should have a restoration under those circum- stances. Q. Were these certifications ever modified by Shidy at any time ^^ — A. No, sir ; not to my recollection. I do not recollect that certifications were ever modified. Q. Let me read a little piece of your testimony in which you say, "in , one or two cases the secretary modified the certifications to accord with , the rule ?" — A. I do not know that that is not correct. I did not recol- , lect about that. Gertifications have never been modified by me, or by njy dictation in any way. There were frequent conversations in regard , to certifications, and frequently Dr. Shidy would ask me as to whether , I thought it proper, and I did not answer as a rule, but referred the question to the whole board, and asked him to do that also. I have abundance of affidavits covering all these points from Fahsel, Johnsoij, and other parties affected. I should be glad, Mr. Ghairman, if you would get their testimony. I should like that every man concerned in .the Milwaukee post-office should .be. examined, as. a witness. There Js CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 243 not one who would not confirm ray testimony. 1 think it ou!?ht to be done in a case where it depends upon the veracity of iShidy and myself. I think other witnesses ought to be made to corroborate one or the other. Q. I, have confined myself to your own official records, without one intimation as to what Shidy has said or done. In the questions I have asked, I have not taken anything from what Shidy has said"? — A. Sometimes Shidy was Dr. Jekyll, and sometimes Mr. Hyde; 1 did not know him as both. Q. In regard to that Gumming matter in a letter from the Com- mission to you about Gumming, signed by Mr. Oberly, you were in- formed that the only circumstances which would justify his certifica- tion to the place of stamper then would be the depletion of the stamj^ers' register below the number required for a single certification. In reply to this, in your letter dated June 9, 1888, you said such was precisely the fact in the case of Gumming, and the depletion of the stampers' list could not well have been foreseen. Please explain, in view of the fact that there were five names yet on the stampers' register with Gum- ming"? — A. Yon say there were five names on the register? Q. There were five on the eligible register at the date on which he was reported. — A. What is the date of my letter ? Q. The letter to you was in regard to the certification of Gumming as stamper, though he had been certified for stamper, and had lost his chance by being certified and stating to you that he had no right to be so certified. Please explain, in view of these facts, why these were used for stuffing for certifications ? — A. My letter was a reply to you to show how it happened to be done, explaining how his name happened to be used. That was precisely the situation at that time. Q. You say, in answer, that such was the fact in the case of Gum- ming ; the depletion of the stamper list could not have been foreseen ? — A. That letter was in behalf of Gumming, on the suggestion of Shidy. I supposed at the time that was the exact fact. I know very well, and have a distinct recollection as to the circumstances, that I was informed that the stamper eligible list was deficient. I am positive of that; and I feel positive now that Shidy told me that that was the fact. You understand the matter at that time was changed. If you will state the five persons perhaps I can recollect. Q. I can give them to you. Bruno Losh, average 95, was a stamper; James F. Keen an, Patrick J. McGormick, Albert Klotz, jr.,and Frank L. Kocejia. Those were all upon the eligible register and were before you.— A. The information was given at the same time, and it may have been that the number was actually less than the number required; but I am positively sure that that was the information given me by the officer in charge of the register, and there may have been some misap- prehension about it. I have a positive recollection of these men re- maining on that list, although they were unavailable utterly from pre- vious records in my oiSce. One of them — I would not like to make a public charge — but one of them to my knowledge had run away while in the place of messenger, robbing the other people, etc., and had per- formed acts which were inconsistent with his appointment under any circumstances. The other two were just such cases. That would leave but three. The fact was understood by me from information furnished me, and it was precisely as I gave it to you. Q. But you had had them before you ; you could not have trusted to anybody's statement to you. Mr. Gumming's name had appeared upon these certifications with other people. When you had these certifi- cations you had these names along with Mr. Gumming's. You did not need Mr. Shidy's statement to you. You had the names here with you at the time vou were talking about ? — A. Whv ? 244 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. All these certifications bore these names. — A. I never took note of them, except in making my selection. My letter is written to i)rove that fact. I make a selection without looking to see whose name is on there. Q. You did not then take notice of it f — A. 'So, sir ; I could not do it in any way at all. I believe I am not in the habit of telling un- truths on matters of that kind, especially in writing. Q. On May 6, 1887, a certification was made to fill the position of carrier, and you received the names of two carriers and one clerk, Alexander H. Wigman, the latter having failed in an examination. You selected Wigman first, and afterwards promoted him as an auxil- iary carrier in August, 1887. — A. I do not know about the matter to which you refer; but I will say I have affidavits covering all the cases you have referred to. You do not seem to have the affidavits produced. I wish to say to the committee that I have affidavits here of the other two members of the board of examiners, and of other persons knowing all the facts sworn to, covering practically every individual and the par- ticular charges of the United States Civil Service Commission, and I think it is proper for me to ask you to accept them in evidence. They are letter-press copies of the affidavits sent to the President of the United States. I think that they would explain to the Commission iitself, if they cared to examine them, just the charges the Commission has made. It is testimony entirely of disinterested persons in every case. AFTER RECESS. GEORGE H. PAUL— Recalled. Mr. Paul, recalled and examined. By Mr. Webster : Q. Did you explain the appointment of Mr. Benjamin F.Langiand to the position of stamper? He was appointed to it July 1, 1887, without a certification. — A. Again, Mr. Webster, I think you continually do me injustice by saying he was appointed such and such a date without certification. If you would state what the fact is,he was appointed, and, according to the registry of certification, without certification, it would probably be i)recisely according to the facts. Q. There is no registry of certification ; it is the certification itself. — A. Well, I mean the original certification. Q, There is no original certification for his appointment. — A. But when your state to this committee here and to the public in your reports through the Associated Press, that such a thing did occur absolutely without certification it may not be true, as in this case, and I object to the language which you use under such circumstances. I do not want any false impressions to go out. I am very glad of anything which will bring out the facts in the case, and I rely upon that only. By the Chairman : Q. Was the man certified 1 — A. The man was certified. Q. Does it appear by the record that he was '?— A. I understand it does not; that no record of it was ever made by the secretary. By Mr. Webster : Q. Then, so far as the Commission is concerned, they hM no knowl- edge that the man had been certified?— A. They had no knowledge from the record that he had been certified ; but tlie truth is, the exact CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 245 truth is, it was one of the most responsible positions in my department, on account of the character of the man. He was certitied regularly, regularly examined, from the list, and I think the matter could be determined by an examination of the list showing that he would have been the proper appointee at the time. Q. He could not have been api^ointed at the time when you appointed him. — A. He may have been appointed- Q. ^o; because he had been certified out before. If you remember about his case the records show that he was certified to you four times from the carriers' register for the position of carrier, the last certifica- tion being dated May 6, 18S7. He was not selected by you from any one of these certifications. — A. What number was that? Q. Forty-one, I think, or 44, is the certification on which his name appeared J he had four certifications, one more than he was entitled to, which was an error of the secretary, as he explained to me on the fourth certification. — A. Certified four times. Q. By mistake he was certified four times ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And you did not take him; and two months later, after other cer- tificates had been made, did you not appoint him, not to the place to which he had previously been certified, that is to a carrier's place, but to a place for which he had not passed an examination, and for which he was certified? — A. Yes, sir. Q. According to the certification books he was never certified? — A. Well, I know that. That is in the usual form. He was certified to me and appointed from a certification. That much I do know. Q. Well, where is his certification of any kind ? — A. I do not know. There is undoubtedly no record of it. I find other cases of the same sort. Q. Where is the certification that you had ? There should be one somewhere ? — A. It should be in the record. Q. How, then, are you in possession of these scrap certificates that you testified here to-day about ? — A. Because they were not always taken back to his desk. My practice in business is to file every paper, particularly whenever the paper relates to a matter of business. If I have only one name especially I would bring this in and get back per- haps a memorandum or record — what we call a record — and leave the paper with him ; then I would call for it again. I remember very well that one or two of these laid in my drawer — in the drawer of my desk at my left hand, as I think I showed you. I think I showed you some that remained there that he had not taken away. I do not know that there is any obligation upon his part to take that certification away, but I think it would be the proper method of business. Q. You can not point to any certification now in regard to this man's appointment? — A, I do not know what you mean by " point." I know the fact that he was certified and selected. The Chairman. You mean any regular certification. By Mr. Webster: Q. There is no regular certification. There is nothing in existence to show that he was ever certified to you. — A. I examined that with reference to it. You say the date is what ? Q. He was appointed by you July 1, 1887. — A. Yes ; 1887. Q. Well, do you not know of the existence of any certification cover- ing his appointment? — A. I know that there was a certification ; but as to its preservation or record I do not know. I know of some other similar cases — one at least. 246 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. Do you remember about your explanation to me in regard to that appointment 1 — A. No, sir ; I do not. Perhaps that might refresh my recollection. Q. Did you not suggest to me that you thought Mr. Langland had been selected from one of those four prior certifications by you at a later date, but that in July you took up that old certification and selected his name from it? — A. I do not remember. Q. You stated to me at the time you thought you had selected him from certification No. 44 — the last time his name appeared before you ; you thought you had recalled that certification and had selected his name from it. I wish you would explain if that was not the case, and why there was no signature attached to that selection. — A. Forty -four; now, lean not tell you that case. That was Shidy's, not mine. Q. If that were the case the certification ought certainly then to have been made up in the certification book, so that there could be no need for any scrap papers about that. It was dated May 6, 1887, according to the book. You had selected this man, Alexander H. Wigman, who failed to pass the examination at all, and then you say you took from this certification — that you think you took from this certification — later on, the 1st of July of that year, there having been a number of other certifications, that you called for that boot and took Langiand's name for stamper. You would not have needed any scrap paper lor that. It was in the book. Then how can you account for your not signing for it? — A. I will say generally as to signing, I signed for the selections as they were presented to me by the secretary, as 1 explained in the fore- noon. If a man had been selected, certified, appointed, and reported to the department and the book had never been presented to me, I do not think I should be aware of the fact that he had not been signed for. I had no means of knowing Q. Well, if that were the case you would not have selected him from any scrap-paper certification ? — A. Why not ? Q. He was in the book by an old certification entered in May, 1887, and, if you had drawn his name from that, what necess.ity was there for any scrap-paper certification? — A. I do not know why there should not be a scrap-paper certification the same as in other cases. Will you be kind enough to read my testimony ? Q. Yes ; I have it here and will read it in a moment : The postmaster addressed the secretary of the board. As to the case of Laugland, previously referred to in this testimony, the record does not appear to show his selection. I have positive recollection that he was selected from a regular certifica- tion in the manner snch certiiicates were usually inade. My impression is that his certification, 44 — Wigman was first selected for the place of carrier, and in the meantime Langland had consented to take the place of stamper, and that the cer- tification was then recalled and Langland selected as the second man from that certification. My further impression is that the failure to enter on the record of cer- tification the selection of Langland arises from the fact that the second selection from the same certification was not the rule ia this office, and that in making up the rec- ord, the secretary, having received my signature to the'iirst selection of that certifi- cation, deemed the record satisfied and omitted to enter the second selection of Lang- land, and that 1, when such record was made, would have passed over the entry iu the same manner and for the same reasons in giving my signature. And you asked Shidy if that might not have been the way the error occurred? — A. He says that might have been the way the error oc- curred. That is all I know about it. I only know that he was selected from a regular certification. I forget the circumstances. Q. Would you have selected a stamijer from a carrier's certification CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. ^47 certified to you for a carrier f — A. ISTo, sir ; I would not. I do not think Q. Well, but if you did make the selection, why you made it from a certification for a carrier and appointed him to a stamper's place, did you not? — A. No, sir; I do not remember any such case. Q. Did you not appoint him to a stampers place ? — A. Who ? Q. Mr. Langland? — A. Yes, sir; I think so but I will not be certain. Q. And the selection was made from certification 44"? The selection was made from a carrier's certification "? — A. I do not know that I did that. I do not think that I did. do so. I do not think it was in that way. Q. But that is the statement you made to me in questioning Mr. Shidy. — A. Did I say he was selected as a carrier ? Q. You said that you first selected Mr. Wigman, and afterwards re- called that and took'Mr. Langland. Whether that was not the way ? — — A. That might have been the way of it. Q. He says you did that, and that the board concurred. — A. Let me see. As the case now Q. Not just now — just simply the appointment of Langland without certification so far as the records of your office go. — A. I am not aware that I ever used the word "recall." there. Langland came back to me, which is probably the meaning of it. Q. Would you, in your opinion, have the right to recall the certifica- tion ? — A. No, sir ; I never did to my knowledge. If Langland was se- lected from a carrier's certification it would have been what I call gross misconduct. Q. But you state in here in substance that you think we concurred by recalling that certification and took the name off of it. — A. There is some construction to be placed on that language. It is barely pos- sible that Langland was certified as a carrier, and subsequently he was selected and certified as a stamper. Q. That is not the case here at all. You are trying to get away from the statement as to the effect of this certification 44, which was recalled and Langland's name taken off of it, and you go on to explain that it was not the custom at your office to do that. — A. No, sir, it was not. I know Q. And that is the way in which it was done ? — A. The recall of him by himself or the secretarj^ ? Q. By you. — A. I think there is a misapprehension about that recall by the secretary. It probably means Q. No ; the secretary would not recall it. It is your recall. — A. He may have made a certification and recalled it. He might have done that for correction or something of that kind. Q. No, sir ; you had made your selection already from this certifica- tion.-— A. I only know this, that I never knowingly selected a stamper from a carrier's certification in my life. It would be simply Q. Well, this testimony is here. I wish you to explain that statement. It says A. He may have been coming back to me if you use the word " recall " iu that sense. It will possibly explain it, but I can not remember that. Q. You appointed Langland to the position of stamper? — A. I am not certain about that. Perhaps the official record shows that. Q. Have you the list ? By the Chairman : Q. Does it not show here on your list that you appointed him as stamper ? — A. No, sir. 248 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. What does it show ? — A. I thiak Mr. Lang^land's name did not appear on the list at all ; I think not. I do not think his name ap- jjears here at all. Q. Was he appointed to any position in yonr post-ofSce? — A. Mr. Langland, as I stated in my original testimony, was certified to me and appointed to a position. I have no recollection of his ever having been a stamper, although he might have been. Possibly he was in the lower department of the office. I do not think his name appears on the list at all. Does he appear on the record of certification ? By Mr. Webster : Q. He is on the record of certification. He is not on any certifica- tion except his certification which you had passed by A. He ap- pears on no record, as I understand it, of certification, as a selection from any certification. Q. No; there is no certification upon his selection. — A. The fact of his selection I remember distinctly, the certification to me. Q. WeM, but do not pass this. Here are four of them back here. He was four times certified to you back there. Do you recollect any other certifications than these four in May, or preceding May 6. I think they were in May. They were all in May — May 6 ? — A. How many did you say ? Q. The four. — A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, on this one from which the selection was said to have been made there were Langland, Bauch,and Byrne, carriers, and Wigman, a clerk, all certified for carriers' places, and you selected Wigman?— A. Yes, sir. My impression is that Wigman was examined for a clerkship. His percentage was certified by Shidy to be higher than the others. Q. Yes ; he failed to pass, and July 1, 1887 (I have the report here of the appointments in your office), July 1, 1887 — the date of this was August 10. He was appointed in the place of Mr. Wines ? — A. Stamper in the mailing division. What date? Q. July 1, 1887. — A. He was certified and selected ; there is no ques- tion about the fact at all. Q. You know of no certification to show that ? — A. I know of no record of certification ; no, sir. Q. That is the original certification that you call the scrap papers? — A. Those were never regularly preserved. Q. Nothing that you can produce now to show that fact? — A. Noth- ing that I could under any circumstances. Nothing that I could pro- duce in here about his appointment. It is not my business to preserve them. Q. Do you remember that Charles J. Gumming was appointed to the position of stamper May 1, 1888 ? Can you tell whether he was certified to you and selected from a regular certification ? — A, Yes, sir ; I think I can. The Chairman. What is the name ? Mr. Webs-ter. Charles J. Cumming, who was alluded to in another case. — A. He was the man who was restored by the Commission to the list. Q. I can give you something of the history of that case if that is what you are looking for there. I will give that if you desire it, or will quote your statement. We have already had him before us here on four cer- tifications — one, No. 54, void — the one that is spoken of as marked " void" — one. No. 58, for carrier; one, No. 59, for stamper, and one No. 60, for stamper ; four certifications that have been made. That was on CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 249 February 18 on the certification book. You appointed him May 1, 18S8. — A. Whom are you talking about ? Q. Gumming — to the position of stamper. — A. Do you mean that the record says so "? Q. Yes, sir. — A. Oh, well Q. Then you appointed him May 1, 1888 ! — A. 1888 — excuse me just a moment. You say that he was appointed on such a date. You have already said that twice, I believe, now. The Chairman. He says the record shows all that? — A. Yes, sir. What is the number "? Mr. Webster. The number of certification ? — A. On which his name appears ? Q. The number of his old certification — not the one from which you made his selection ; you did not select him from any one. They were 54, 58, 59, and 60.— A. Yes, sir. On the receipt of the order of the Commissioner restoring him to the list from the register of eligibles. (After a pause.) I was about to give that testimony, Mr. Chair- man. The secretary brought me the name of Mr. Cumming, as per the orden as he understood it, of the Commission as the person who was to T^e restored to the right of certification, as having been omitted. That was the action of the secretary. But Mr. Cumming was never appointed by me to any classified position in the world, and never held one. That is a fact. Q. IS'ever appointed to any classified position 1 — A. To any classified position at all. By the Chairman : Q. Well, what position did he hold ? — A. He held an exempted posi- tion — an excepted position. He was appointed to one of the excepted positions — excepted by the Department; the jiosition of custody of stamps — for the sale of stamps in the department. I have his affida- vit here to that effect. " Charles J. Cumming " The Chairman. He says his affidavit is there to the effect that he never was appointed to any position except the position of stamp- seller. — A. (Reading.) "After 1 had been certified three times I was re- stored to the list and made eligible for appointment by order of the Commission, but was never appointed to a civil service or a classified position before or after or since said order, as the place I tilled was de- clared exempt." That is the fact about it. By Mr. Webster : Q. Well, you appointed him on May 1, 1887, did you not ? — A. He said himself Q. May 1, 1888, I mean.— A. (Evading) : State op Wisconsin, Milwaukee County : Charles J. Cumming, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he has read a sup- plementary report of the Civil-Service Commission iu vrhich it is stated that after a man has been certified three times and was not chosen and therefore was not eligible, the postmaster truly proceeded to appoint him ; and said Cumming further deposes and says that if this statement refers to him, as he believes, from the circumstances, it wholly explained by the fact that after I had been certified three times I was re- stored to the list and made eligible for appointment by order of the Commission, but was never appointed to a civil-service or a classified position before or after or since said order, as the place I filled was declared exempt. Charles J. Cumming. Q. Well, you appointed him May 1, 1888. Did you not recommend or sign that as the date of his appointment ? — A. The particular date I can not state. 250 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. Well, there is that list you brought with you — this list ? — A. What is the number of the certification ? Q. Well, there was no certification for that, unless it was of a very late date 1 — A. Gumming appears here somewhere, does he not? This is the secretary's record. The certification shows that he was certified September 7. He was appointed to an excepted place, I think, May I. Q. To an excepted place. What was the place he was appointed to, then ? — A. Custody of the stamps. Q. What was his grade — what was the name of the place to which he was appointed "? — A. Appointed a clerk. Q. Stamper ? — A. No, sir. The Chairman. A clerk. Mr. Webster. But he never served in that way ? — A. I think Mr. Webster. This report was made August 10, 1888, and shows that Charles J. Cumming was appointed stamper May 1, 1888, and was certified three times without having his eligibility restored by the Com- mission. JSI"ow, that was an appointment as stamper at that time t The Chairman. Well, but he says he was never apijointed to that position. Mr. Webster. I want to know another thing [holding a paper in his handj. Mr. Stone. What is that ? Mr, Webster. That is the report made by the secretary of the board "1 — A. I will say further, and perhaps throw a little more light on it The Chairman. Just one moment ; answer this question so that the committee will understand it. Is this report made to the Civil Service Commission correct in the statement that Cumming was appointed on May 1 ; eighteen hundred and eighty what — what year is it ? Mr. Webster. May 1 , 1888. By the Chairman : Q. May 1, 1888 ; to the position of stamper. Now, one moment. Answer that; you stated here a few moments ago that he never held a position under the civil-service rules, but he was appointed. Now, was he appointed as a stamper or not ? If he was not appointed as a stamper, and this report says he was, is not the report incorrect in so far as it relates to that item ? — A. Yes, sir; if you will allow me state my recol- lection of it I think you will understand my testimony. I think when his name was certified as a stamper he was appointed, that is, nominally, and that he might have declined. He never served as stamper. That is my recollection of it. I think he declined the position very promptly. Q. I understood you to say A. It was my duty to make a selec- tion, you understand. Q. Yes; I understand. — A. And nominally he was appointed; but not actually, because he declined without going into the service. Q. Well, I understand you ; the reason I asked you that question was because I understood you a few moments ago to say that he was never appointed to the position A. Never held the position. The Chairman. Well, I understand you. By Mr. Webster : Q. You say he was apiwinted to the position of stamper, but never performed the duty ? — A. Never performed any duties of stamper, I am very positive. I know that he declined. Q. In your examination before me, I asked you questions in regard to Cumming. "• In the report of the secretary it appears that Charles CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION". 251 J. Gumming was appointepose Mr. Roosevelt. You have nothing to do with what I testified to • I am testifying to the committee. We intended to make no allusion to it at all. When we made the supplementary report Shidy had been al- ready dismissed, so we did not see any reason for not using his testi- mony,'; but we only used it in two cases where Johnson had corroborated it to us. Those are the only two cases, as you will find explicitly stated in the report as made, and I thinlc that if you will read the report you will see the answers there to many questions that had been put by us. I should say we examined Mr. Paul about nearly two hours one after- noon and something over an hour the next morning, as we explicitly stated in our report, and we examined him on the statements that had been given for this reason, to see it he could explain this evidence that had already been given ; we did not try to get any new evidence. Mr. Boatner. You did not declare what Mr. Shidy had told you ? Mr. Roosevelt. We did not inform him of anything Mr. Shidy told us, and we only used Mr. Shidy's testimony in making up the report on two points. Mr. Boatner. And Mr. Johnson's statement? Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Johnson testified to two cases which we under- 318 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. took to put in our report; that is as to the fact that Mr. Paul, has as Shidy stated, forced them, or, as he said, merely advised them ; they merely corroberated such testimony; and the other case was as to the custody of the eligible record. These are the two cases and the only two ones where we used their testimony at all. We did not use the testimony a bit otherwise in making up our reports. Mr, Hatt©n. I would like to ask the Commissioner one question. The Chairman. I think we have gone into this far enough. Mr. Hatton. I have not seen that anybody on the other side has been retused to ask a question. I understood Commissioner Eoosevelt to say that they did not rely to a great extent upon Mr. Shidy's testi- mony. I am correct, I believe, to that extent, and I would like to ask how Mr. Shidy, that being fact, was entitled to a reward or an ap- pointment in a department here? Mr. Roosevelt. I have already gone over that in the Shidy case sev- eral times, but I will answer that if the committee wishes. Mr. BOATNER. I object to this question as being an argumentative question. Mr. Roosevelt. I have stated it several times to him before. The Chairman. I am going to rule this question out; I am not going to open the case again. Mr. Roosevelt. I would be glad to answer, but I have answered it a dozen times before. The Chairman (to the stenographer). You need not take this now. Mr. Lyman. I wish to submit these papers. The Chairman. Just tell what the papers are. Mr. Lyman. It is part of the first charge that I made a certain pro- motion in violation of the law, being sole acting Commissioner. I de- sire to ofi:er in evidence certain papers which will show in fall the actions that I took when acting as sole Commissioner. I have here the certifi- cates made by the secretary of the Commission that while acting as sole Commissioner I made not one promotion but three promotions and an original appointment. I promoted Mr. Holtz from a clerkship of class 1 to a clerkship of class 2, that I promoted Mr. Campbell from a clerkship of $1,000 to a clerkship of class 1, that I promoted Mr. Culver from class $900 to class $1,000, and that I appointed Mr. Swank to a clerkship of $900. He was appointed as stenographer and typewriter. Un the day that Mr. Edgerton was removed as Commissioner I en- tered upon the minutes of the Commission a statement to that effect, so that the records of the Commission show that he was removed on the 9th of February and contained a copy of the order of the President removing him, with this comment made by myself as part of the record : "This action leaves the Commission with one Commissioner and two vacancies." That was the record made on the 9th of February. Mr. Stone. What year ! Mr. Lyman. 1889, the 9th of February. The Chairman. Do you desire to make any statement ? Mr. Lyman. That is all of that statement I desire to make, but there is another statement I wish to make. I wish to state the con- tents of these papers. The copy of this paper is simply to show that I assumed the functions of the Commission during this period when I was the only Commissioner. During this period, and the date will be shown by this paper, the Postmaster-General informed the Commission that certain post-offices had reached the number of 50 employes and were proper subjects for classification. I issued the necessary orders CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 319 for that classificatiou of these post-offices and reported the fact to the President. Mr. Thompson. Which President "? Mr. Lyman. President Cleveland, on the 21st of February, 1887. On the 1st day of March I submitted to President Cleveland a certain number of requests made by the heads of Departments for examination for proDiotion under general rule three, section two, class 3. The rules require that these promotions should be made with the consent of the President on the recommendation of the Commission. 1 submitted that recommendation to the President on the 1st day of March and on the same day he approved them. On the 11th day od;' March, 1889 — these acts took place under President Cleveland The Chairman. Well ! Mr. Lyman. On the 11th day of March, 1889, I addressed a com- munication to the President of the United States, Mr. Harrison, stating that the railway mail rules had been approved to go into effect on the 15th day of March ; that I would not be ready to put those rules into effect on that date for the reason it had been impossible to complete the necessary arrangements, and recommended that the date be postponed from the 15th day of March until the 1st of May. On the same day the President issued the necessary order approving this recommendation, in which occurs this statement : "Whereas it is represented to me by the Civil Service Commission, in a communication of this date, etc." On the 16th day of April I submitted to the President of the United States the recommendation for the amendment of special departmental rule No. 1, which the President approved. On the 25th day of April I submitted a further recommendation to the President of the United States for an amendment of special departmental rule No. 1, which the President approved. The amendments have been inadvertently omitted, but the letters are here and I will file the amendments which were approved by the President. Thesut the main fact which I wish to appear is that the majority of the board is the same as when I came into the office, and both Republicans. The other member has been changed only by rea- son of his change in his relation to the office. Q. Who has been secretary of the board since you became postmaster? — A. Dr. Shidy. He has been the most active member since the commencement. Q. Who has had the custody of the records of the board, especially the register of eligibles and the certification book? — A. The secretary. Q. Do you kuow in what safe place he has kept them deposited? — A. Only incident- ally, not officially. I do not think it a part of my official duty to know. I have never seen them but in one place — deposited in the safe in the registry office. Q. Have these books been accessible to you at all times and have you examined them whenever you wished?— A. I do not think I have ever examined them with reference to any appointment except upon application to Dr. Shidy himself. There may have been some occasion on which I have, during his absence at dinner, got the address of some party, but not on any other occasion of business. Q. Have you generally or at any time known the state of the register-the order in which the names stood before making appointments? — A. Yes, I think I have been aware, un- avoidably, of the last. In fact, they have been published iu the newspapers, perhaps on one or two occasions; names only. Q. The lists of eligibles have been published in the newspapers ?— A. I think so, and I must say as simply a matter of truth that the secretary has never regarded the list of eligibles after record as in anywise but a public record. Still that is a matter on which he should speak for himself. Q. Have these publications disclosed the grades and relative order of eligibles ? — A. Reporters are Irequently in the different departments of the office for news, and when examinations occur and applications are filed, etc., they get such such facts as they can. It is a mere matter of opinion, but I do not think the register has been regarded as strictly private matter. I do not think the lists have been published frequently, i prefer that Dr. Shidy should give his own statement. Q. Do you know how the lists of eligibles with averages have been obtained ? — A. I do not think the averages have been made public, but simply the names in the order of eligibility, perhaps on one or two occasions. I wish to add to my statement that the list has never been called for by me or shown by him with any reference to any discrimi- nation or deviation liom the supposed requirements of the law and rules on no occasion. CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 347 If it has been examined at all by me, it lias been with reference to what qualifications persons standing near the head of the list and likely to be recommended— coming within the range of immediate appointments — possessed, and with that reference solely. .Q. How have you made requisitions on the board for names to fill vacancies?— A. When a vacancy has occurred I have verbally requested the Secretary to certify to me the proper number of eligibles formally. Q. You have never made any written request on the secretary for a certification speci- fying the place to be filled? — A. No. Q. Have you seen the blank form of requisition prescribed by the Commission? — A. I do not think I have. There would have been no objection to its use on my part if my attention had been called to it. Q. Have you made requisitions on the secretary in all cases prior to the appointment or designation of the person for appointment ? — A. The requisitions on the secretary have always been made as a rule. I know of no variation prior to the appointment of any person, except, perhaps, in a single case — not the case of a single person, but on a single occasion. Q. Have certifications been made to you for all appointments prior to appointment, in writing? — A. The certifications have in all cases been made to me in writing or ver- bally, and I think in all cases prior to appointment, with possibly an occasional varia- tion, which may have arisen on a question of construction of the rules or something of that kind, in which case my impression is that in one or two cases — and a very limited number — ^the secretary would modify the certification to accord with the rule. Q. Explain the discrepancies in the dates in certification No. 29 — the date of the ap- pointment and the certification of Willett S. Cossett. — A. Without a distinct recollec- tion of the facts, my impression is that a vacancy having occurred, upon inquiry as to the character of the man, and knowing that he was eligible from the previous certifica- tion, I nominated him, dating his nomination from the time of the occurrence of the vacancy, upon official knowledge based upon the preceding certification. My inference is that the entry of the latter certification at a later date was made under these circum- stances. Whether or not these are the exact facts, there was no discrimination or intent of discrimination in his favor otherwise than is provided for by the rules. Q. State whether you made the same inquiries as to character aud fitness in the case of the other persons on certification No. 29 as you made in the case of Cossett. — A. I answer in the affirmative by saying that I never make an appointment from any cer- tificate without previous inquiry as to the relative capacity and fitness of the persons named. Q. In what form was that certification. before you at the time you made the selection, the book showing that it was not entered until August 5, while the appointment was made on July 1 preceding, it not apparently being then belore you in the form of a certifi- cation ? — A. I unavoidably know in many cases the names of the best qualified candi- dates ior examination. The blank ibrms of application have been uniformly given out with instructions to return them to the Secretary, but that injunction is almost in- variably disregarded, they being handed to me and passed to the Secretary directly. In the case of Mr. Cossett I have a distinct recollection that he made a kind of statement accompanying his application for carrier with reference to his previous business, having had a large business experience in the city, and that my attention was directed to him as a candidate through that original statement. There has never been any partiality exercised in the cases of person eligible for a]Dpointment that they may be by their own request taken from a higher register. Under the ruling of the Commission, as we have construed it, I have deemed it desirable that the eligible willing to accept a lower place from the higher register or proper standing should be appointed to the lower place, thereby getting better ability. Undoubtedly the Jact of his having been certified from a higher register was a matter of conversation between us. Q. By whom are the blank forms of application distributed? — A. The rule is that they are to be given out by the secretary, but he is often absent, and sometimes appli- cants come two or three at a time, aud I simply request my clerk to procure the blanks which are in the custody of the registry office, of course constructively in charge of the secretary, and to hand them out. My clerk goes into the registry office, gets the Iilanks and hands them to the men without even knowing their names or anything about them. Q. These blanks are returned to you on completion? — A. Candidates are enjoined to return them to the secretary of the board, but very frequently, and probably in a major- ity of cases, the injunction is utterly disregarded. Q. Yon necessarily know all of the candidates before they are examined?— A. Not in the sense of knowing anything about them and their personal history, relations, or opinions upon any subject. I purposely avoid knowing anything until after the exam- ination, until such a time that circumstances make it probable that they are to be eligi- ble for appointment soon. I then make a personal investigation, somewhat, as to their character and duties. 348 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Q. Alter yoii know they have passed? — A. Yes; after I knew they are likely to be certified to me, after the next vacancy or within two or three vacancies, I generally in- tend to keep well posted in advance. This office, as a general rule, has been so liable to depredations that I keep a very rigid account of all complaints to the minutest detail. I have endeavored, and considered it to be my duty to endeavor, to avoid the introduc- tion of any improper person to the aifairs of the administration of the ofSce. I do not believe that without such a prior investigation the office would be safe from depredation at any time of the year. I give that as my conviction and as an explanation of the reason for the rigid inquiry and investigation as to the personal character and habits of every person appointed. I will not appoint a man simply on a scholastic examination to take charge of any important portion of the office where he will be subject to constant temptation unless I know that his habits are correct and his moral principles reliable. Q. Do you understand that names can be taken from any higher register for certifica- tion to any lower place without limitation? — A. (Refers to letter of secretary of the board. to the Commission, dated September 16, 1885, and reply of the Commission dated September 18, copies of which are annexed hereto as Exhibits A and B* respectively.) I can not see any conditions except that they should be transferred on the list in their order according to average, and provided their grade was sufficient to entitle them to compete in the lower grades, and the Commission has been informed as a matter of course of my action under that construction and has never intimated any disapproval until a recent date when the whole matter was declared void, as being against the rules. I have no recollection of seeing the letter of the board, and so far as the reply relates to my duties I have accepted the statement of Mr. Graham as a general construction of the rule. It certainly is a general statement in terms. Of course, the treatment of the reg- isters is a matter which is not under my observation nor within my sphere of duty in making appointments. Q. Under that provision did you consider yourself at liberty to make selections for lower grade positions from higher grade registers without regard to there being a list of eligibles for the lower grade? — A. When a higher grade eligible has expressed a will- ingness to accept a lower place I have told the secretary, with request that under the ruling of the Commission of September 18, 1885, he would include such person in his next certification to me for the lower position if entitled to transfer. Q. Have you consulted with these persons before appointment ? — A. JSIo farther than to ascertain the general facts as to moral character and capacity. If a person has ap- plied to me for a place and was apparently a man of excellent qualifications, and there appeared to be an absence on the list certified to me of proper parties, in one or two in- stances I may have asked him if he would accept a lower position under proper certifica- tion from the examiners, but the number of such instances is very limited, in fact not the practice, always having reference to the rules and the construction of the Commission, as I understood them. Q. Have written requests been made in any case by eligibles for the transfer of their names to the lower registers, or any written notice of willingness to accept such lower places ? — A. I think in a few instances I have received such requests by way of letters begging for place, but they have in all cases been practically disregarded. Q. Whether made orally or in writing to you, they have have been communicated by you to the board ? — A. Generally that is the fact when a formal request for transfer has been made. All talk about appointment naturally and unavoidably comes to me. Q. Have such requsts been numerous ? — A. Quite numerous in comparison with the whole number of eligibles, but no record is taken of them. They are simply expres- sions of willingness to get anything to do. I refer to office-beggars generally and not to formal applications of eligible parties. Q. How have you been able to determine in taking a man from a higher resjister whether certification has been made to you of those highest on that register ? — A. I have always so presumed and understood — highest of those requesting transfer and eligible to transfer by examination. If, in the case of any proper person with whose character and capacity I had become familiar, a desire had been voluntarily expressed to me to ac- cept any position in the service lower than that lor which he had been examined, I would then request the secretary to include the name of such person in the certification for the place to be filled. Q. Certification 54 contains the names of four persons standing highest upon the car- rier register at its date, January 20, 1888. The vacancy was of a stamper. No appoint- ment seems to have been made. Opposite the certification in pencil is written the word " void." Explain why no selection was made. — A. I think it is merely a clerical mat- ter relating entirely to the secretary of the board. I can not say under what circum- stances the names appear as they do upon the register. Q. The next certification, 55, dated February 18, 1888, for stamper contains the name * Exhibits A and B are both in present Exhibit L with Mr. Doyle's report. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 349 of Thomas F. Keaveney, also contained in the previous certification. On the first cer- tification his name was certified with three others from the carrier register, but on the second, with three from the porter's register, Keaveney being selected. Why was not his selection made from the first certification ? A. lean not say. Mr. Keaveney was one of those who expressed a willingness to accept any position. My impression is that he stood quite high. Q. Was certification 54 ever before you ? — A. I can not say, except so far as that his certification certainly came before me when he was appointed. In what form I can not state. Q. When was Keaveney selected and assigned to duty? — A. He was employed on De- cember 8, 1887, as stamper, on proper certification under our construction. On February 1, 1888, he was appointed a substitute carrier. Q. Do you know whether, at the time Mr. Keaveney was certified with the three names from the porter register, he was the only one or the highest of the carriers then eligible who had signified willingness to take the lower place ? — A. My impression is that at least two of those certified with Keaveney on certification 54 from the carrier register had signified willingness. Q. Keaveney being already at work, why was he not selected from the first certifica- tion? — A. My impression would be, without a distinct recollection of the facts, that he was selected from the first certification on the ground of supposed superior qualification. Be- cause the appointment is dated December 8, it does not follow that he was in the service at that time. The selection may have come afterwards. Certification was made from the carrier register in order to get the best qualified man, with the knowledge that Mr. Keaveney, a thoroughly qualified man, would accept, and when the second certification was made it was made to include the stamper list. I do not think, it comes within the province of my duty to make the explanation. Certification 54, accordingto the record, is void and probably an error. As to that I have no personal recollection of the facts be- yond what the record shows. Certification 55 contains the names of three eligibles, Klotz, Lasche, and Keenan, from the porter register, besides Keaveney who had con- sented to serve in a lower grade. This certification appears to be regular under the prac- tice of theoflSce. Certifications 56 and 57 also appear to be regular under the same prac- tice and construction. There is evidently a confusion of dates owing presumably to the fact that the entries were not made at the proper time or under some misapprehension as to the dates of appointment and selection not affecting the merit of the selections or the proper order. Q. Certification 55 contains the names of Albert Klotz, jr., 95, third certification; Bruno Lasche, 94.5, first certification; James F. Keenan, 75.7. first certification, from the porter register, and Thomas F. Keaveney, 81.8, from the carrier register. Keaveney was selected for stamper from this certification. Certification 56 for stamper of the same date contains the names from the porter register of Bruno Lasche, second certification; James F. Keenan, second certification, and Patrick J. McCormick, third certification, average 73, and Michael Cramer, from the carrier register, ^8, first certification. Mich- ael Cramer was selected. Certification 57 of the same date for stamper contains the names from the porter register of Bruno Lasche, third certification; James F. Keenan, third certification, and from the clerk register Mathias S. Eausch, 71.3, first certifica- tion, and Patrick J. Eeilly, 70.8, first certification. Kausch was selected. State whether none of the lower-grade eligiljles, who passed Avith good averages, were competent to fill the position and whether all of the persons who were selected — two from the carrier and one from clerk register — had signified their willingness to take these lower places. — A. First, I presume the Civil Service Commission does not intend to inquire into the exercise of my discretion under the law. On a proper certification to me, of course the right of selection is absolute without supervision, except by the Post-Office Department. Secondly, as to each and every certification referred to, I voluntarily and cheerfully state that the best- qualified man was in each case of the four certified selected and intended to be selected. Thirdly, that the rank of a carrier and that of a porter on the eligible list is not to be de- termined by the mark appended to his name. The conditions of the standing are not the same under the rules, not only with reference to these special certifications, but as to all certifications from a higher to a lower grade. The actual rank in the higher grade has en- titled him to transfer and in the lower grade has entitled him to certification as made. My belief is the standing of the person taken from the higher list has been estimated for the lower list, giving him the privilege of certification, and that no person not so en- titled has ever been certified in this office. It is a further fact known to me that the duties of a stamper are determined in a less degree by the rank at the examination than by other qualifications not taken into consideraiion by the examining board, such as quickness of perception, bodily temperament, and habits of life. Daniel Webster would have made a poor stamper, but undoubtedly would have passed a magnificent examina- tion. I give these considerations entering into my selection for the intbrraation of the Commission, because I am never actuated by private, personal, or political considerations, 350 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. and not because I deem, the authority of the Commission competent to inquire as to their merit in determining the measure of my duty. Q. On certification 57 the names of Rauseh and Reilly certified for stamper were nearer the foot than the top of the list of eligibles. Were there any other clerk eligibles who expressed or were given an opportunity to express their willingness to accept a lower place? — A. The rule has been to give to the person of highest rank upon a higher list the first opportunity for certification when request has been made for employment in any grade of service, as far as I know. Personally I have been governed by this rule as to transfers. Often, however, a person on a higl^er list has signified a disposition to accept a lower grade of service and then withdrawn his assent because circumstances have in the mean time intervened, such as offers of employment at compensation greater than a lower grade would afford, or for some other reasons pertaining to his ovyu judgment, and those changes of disposition have been respected. Q. Do you know whether there were any other clerks eligibles February 18, 1888, who had signified a willingness to take a lower place? — A. I think not of equal grade. My conclusion as to that is based upon the fact that no others were certified at the time. If others had signified a disposition to accept a lower service they would not have been certified by the secretary probably, unless of equal actual grade with those of the lower grade who were certified, or sufficiently so to come within the certification. Q. Had any opportunity been given to others on the clerk register to signify such willingness? — A. The opportunity at all times and under all circumstances to signify any disposition of the kind has been equal to all persons whose names were upon the eligible register and unrestrained. In fact it has been deemed by me an excellent pol- icy, as already expressed to the Commission, to encourage appointments from the higher grades to the lower, for the reason that the better ability in respect to grade of service may thus uniformly be obtained, and farther, because of the great jiroportion of poor material wbich appears uniformly upon the eligible register, a fact due to the low com- pensation offered, lor the service on the average, and to the further fact that a large pro- portion of the applications come from a class which irom some deficiency in ability or education or habits of lile find it difficult to obtain employment elsewhere. Q. Explain the discrepancy in the dates on certification 36 for carrier. It purports to have been made February 11, 1887, and the selection and appointment January 1, 1887. As this is illustrative of many such discrepancies make your answer cover all such cases. — A. These discrepancies are a necessity of the circumstances in all offices situ- ated as this is. When a nomination is to be made the secretary is called upon for a cer- tification. He makes that certification in writing. Subsequently the persons certified must be investigated as to relative character and ability. This requires more or less time. Frequently one or more of the parties are absent from the city and can not be personally een. After investigation is made the selection is determined and the secre- tary is informed. The secretary of the board is chief of the registry department, person- ally responsible for all the valuables passing through it. The clerical force of the department is notoriously insufficient, and his time is lully occupied by his postal duties and responsibilities. In the case of several appointments they are treated by him often- times together from necessity, and the record made up when the time of the appointing officer and that of the secretary will mutually permit. In this way the actual record is oftentimes not made up until a considei'able time after the certification, and the dis- crepancy in every such case appears upon the register. Thisdifficulty can only ])e obvi- ated l)y a more liberal provision of law for the execution of the duties of the Commis- sion at offices of this class. Q. Certification 36, for carrier, contains the names of Burton W. Lloyd, 87.2, and James E. Bradley, 86.2, from the clerk register, together with Anton B. Elblein, 81.5, and William F. Reimers, 81.3, from the carrier register. Lloyd was selected. Explain why Lloyd and Bradlej^ were taken from the clerk register, there being at that time an ample register of eligibles for carrier. — A. On the principle already explained of tak- ing the highest on the carrier list together with those of sufficient grade on the clerk list to come into the same certification. Q. Do 3'ou remember that these parties made requests to have their names certified to the lovver places? — A. There is no question about it. I do not know the men. I have treated these men as entitled to certification on request by the instructions of the Commission. Q. Albert L. Trumpf was appointed as clerk on March 1, 1888, on a certification dated April 14, 1888. Explain that appointment. — A. Trumpf was appointed to a place re- garded by me as excepted, being personally responsible to the appointing officer ibr funds placed in his possession, as stamp clerk at the general-delivery window. At that time he was eligible to certification, I think. Subseciueutly for the first time my attention was called to the fact that in order that a position should be excepted it should be re- ported formally through the Post-Office Department to the Commission. This informa- tion came from a letter from the Commission, I think to Dr. Shidy. I immediately CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 3^31 called for a certification from the board and appointed Mr. Trnmpf under it iu addition to his previous appointment, until the position could be certified to the Commission through the Department at Washington, as an excepted one. Immediately alter such action I received from the Departmentitselfanotification to furnish a list of all excepted positions in the office for approval by the Commission, Avhich I did, including the posi- tion occupied by Mr. Trumj)f. Q. Benjamin F. Langland was appointed stamper July 1, 1887, without certification. He was certified lour times on certifications 41 to 44. inclusive, for carrier, but not se- lected. Explain this appointment. — A. No person has ever been appointed by me to such a place without certification. He was appointed stamper on regular certification from the carrier-list and on his expression of willingness to accept a lower place. Dr. Shidy. Certification 42 was the second one in which Langland's name was used. In making 43 in the column of "number of times certified " a " 2 " was erroneously in- serted instead of a " 3. " In making 44 I referred to 43, and finding that was the second time his name had been used, I put it in 44, marking it the third, whereas in reality it was the lourth time it had been used. By the Chief Examiner: Q. To what position was Langland appointed on February 1, 1888, vice Wines? The Postmaster. To a position of the same grade, with a slight advance in salary. Q. Iu the report of the secretary it appears that Charles .1. Cumming was appointed May 1, 1888, without certification. He had been certified three times without selection. His eligibility was restored by the Commission June 16, 1888. How was he appointed without certification of the date mentioned, his restoration not being until June 16? — A. The question of Mr. Cumming's appointment was referred to Commission. On re- ceipt of his restoration to eligibility the letter of the Commission was construed to cover the original appointment from May 1, and he was restored to his position in the office, his service having been suspended in the mean time, and the records should be duly cor- rected as to his eligibility in accordance with the decision of the Commission in case his eligibility is deemed not to date back to his original appointment. Q. In the same report the name of William Gillis appears as appointed May 15, 1888, as stamper without certification. Explain this appointment. — A, Mr. Gillis was ap- pointed to the excepted position of money-order clerk at the South Side Station. Q. Is his grade, strictly speaking, that of money-order clerk? — A. We have only two clerks in that office and he has to take turns with the other clerk in tending the money- order window. He is, strictly speaking, a money-order and a general clerk. He is a money-order clerk for whose fidelity I am responsible. Q. Is he borne on the rolls as a money-order clerk or stamper? — A. He should be en- rolled as a money-order and general clerk. Q. This report shows that Thomas J. O'Neill was appointed August 1, 1888, as stamper, yice Louis Smith, and not certified. Explain his appointment. — A. The record of certifications is only made up to July 30, and O'Neill has been since appointed. He would come in the next certification. Q. From what memorandum was the certification of O'Neill made? Can you furnish the group of names from which it was taken ? (Alter search made for the memorandum without finding it Dr. Shidy stated that the name was the last remaining on the list. ) Q. Certification 24 contains the name of Miss Josie Whitehead, certified for stamper from the stamper register and selected for that position March 18, 1886; but the register shows that she was already in the service, the entry, under the head of "permanent ap- pointment," reading " clerk in the money-order department August 1, 1885." Was that appointment to an excepted place ? — A. In fact she was never in any other than an ex- cepted place, but for a time she may have performed some postal duties as a clerk, prob- ably because of the want of a sufficient money-order allowance to cover the compensa- tion. Q. She is in the money-order division now ? — A. Yes; she is the issuing teller. Q. At that time she was a clerk in the money-order office and withdrew from that place to accept the stamper place ? — A. I think there ■^ere some changes in the money- order office at that time, and that she was carried on the list and certified as a stamper from her examination in order to adjust the allowance by the Department. I do not know that she ever received any clerk salary. I do not think she was ever classed as a stamper on any report. My rule has been to select for the excepted places from the eligible registers, and my impression is that when she passed the examination she was nominally appointed stamper and soon transferred to an excepted place. Q. Why was no selection made from certificate 30, September 1, 1886. for stamper? — ■ A. Ewer was offered the appointment, bat declined. The record should so state. Q. On certificate 31 note was made that R. Q. Cooley resided out of the delivery of the office, and no selection was therefore made. Have you always objected to appoint- 352 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. ing persons residing out of the city V — A. I have done it with the knowledge of the ex- amining board. A person residing out of the city limits is not usually qualified for carrier. He is au entire stranger to our streets and numbers. I have not considered it equitable or within the intent of the law. Q. In that case you had other names to select from ? — A. It seems to me a good ground of fundamental objection. The selection was made from the list as presented to me by the board of examiners. Q. Why was no appointment made from certification 72, of May 15, for clerk ? — A. The probability is that I was not allowed a clerk for the place I expected to fill. I have made no appointment since of a clerk. Q. Have you examined the circular in the front of the certification book and noticed the requirement that certifications should be entered before any selections were made? — A. This circular has now been shown to me for the first time. I have now examined the circular thoroughly, but I do not understand it to forbid the selection of eligibles for appointment belbre the record of certifications is made, nor do I understand how in cases of emergency it would be practicable and at the same time maintain the efficiency of the service. In the recent appointment of additional carriers under the eight-hour law, ordered to be provided for without delay, the only manner in which the whole number of appointments could have been made in a safe and satisfactory manner, in my opinion, was to obtain the certification of eligible names at once. Had I done otherwise, separate certification by record and separate investigation as to the candidates would have lieen required as to every appointment made, thus consuming a large amount of additional time on the part of both the secretary and the appointing officer. Q. Examine Postal Eule VIII and state whether, in compliance with the requirements of that rule, you have made reports of changes in the force. — A. I have observed the rule (but not precisely in its present form). Notice of all changes has been given orally to the secretary, as required by the rule. The Postmaster. I desire to state that in no instance has any appointment or removal been made at this office on the ground of partisan or personal preference, and in every case any change in the clerical or carrier force has had sole reference to the efficiency of the service. No technical error which may appear upon record or in the administration of the duties, in the testimony I have given upon this subject, is based in any instance upon partisan or personal preference relating to such changes. I ask Dr. Shidy to state iully and freely whether that statement is according to his observation as an appointee under the preceding administration. Dr. Shidy. Mr. Paul's statement in regard to the weight that should be given to any clerical discrepancy in the records is a just one, for many of these records are made la haste and under severe pressure. There is room for a certain i)ercentage of clerical error which I believe does not come to any considerable amount. I have not exercised any fiarticular supervision or everexercised my judgment upon the appointments which Mr. Paul has made. I think they have been good appointments and made for the good of the service. I think that has been his object in making those appointments. The mode of making appointments is all shown by our records except as to excepted places, of which I have taken no note. I believe them all to have been made in accordance with the rules. September 10, 1888. Statement by Mr. Paul explanatory of the foregoing iesHmony. When the foregoing testimony was taken, until near its close, I had never seen or heard of a circular of the Commission dated March 15, 1885. No copy of such circular has ever been sent me by the Commission from Washington, and no copy of it has ever been shown me by the board of examiners at this office previous to this examination. For more than three years I have been guided in all my actions by the distinct requirements of the laws, rules, and regulations of the civil service, with accompanying instructions and correspondence with myself direct, coming from Washington, and by interpreta- tions placed upon the same in (!ase of doubt by the representatives of the Commission constituting the examining board at this office. I have no recollection of ever receiving information from the Commission itself, or from the examining board, that the record of certifications was the certification itself. deferring to the circular dated March 15, 1885, now that I have seen it, I discover in it no distinct prohibition of selections from names regularly furnished me by the exam- ining board at this office when called lor. I have been unable to find any such prohi- bition in the laws, rules, or regulations or any document ever coming to my notice. My predecessor received the certifications in precisely the same manner as 1 have re- ceived them, and I have presumed all the facts to have gone regularly to the Commission at Washington and been noted by said Commission. For about three years these lact§ CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 353 have been without criticism of any kind. Morever, I find on my files a letter of Septem- ber 18, 1885, soon after I came in office, signed by Eobert D. Graham, secretary of the Commission, m which he states explicitly that the "examinations for porters, stampers, junior clerks, etc., provided for in Regulation 22 implies that the persons eligible under these examinations shall be included on a distinct register of eligihles from -which (mean- ing the 'register of eligibles') certifications maybe made to such positions as you de- scribe," construed by me to mean that certifications should be made by furnishing me naiues from the "register of eligibles, " as the rule of practice. Having given my previous testimony under this state of facts as to the practice re- quired, I have used therein the word "certification " in a sense quite different from the sense intended by the chief examiner in the questions asked. In all cases he seems to have referred exclusively to the book record of certification, while I referred in my an- swers to certifications made to me before the record of certifications was made up by fche secretary of the board. With this explanation, the reason of the discrepancies in dates upon what this office has regarded as the record of certifications becomes apparent. The certifications have been uniformly made from the "register of eligibles" direct to the appointing officer. The selections have been made when such certifications have been made, and subsequently the secretary of the board of examiners has made up his official record on the book of certifications, the selection dating from the time of actual selec- tion and the record dating from the time of actually making the record. No one at this office, to my knowledge, has ever dreamed that the Commission ever prescribed or ever intended any other method of certification than that I have described, either before or since my appointment; nor can I find any letter, instruction, law, rule, or regulation enjoining a different method from that pursued at this office, except the circular referred to of March 15, 1885, which I never saw, and which, in my opinion, unconstrued by the chief examiner, would net forbid the construction placed upon the practice by Mr. Graham in his letter of September 18, 1885, and which confirmed me in my impression of the correctness of the manner pursued at this office. The question of transfer from higher to lower positions was raised in this office early after my appointment in 1885, by myself. The examining board were in some doubt, and the question was distinctly submitted to the Commission, with the reply from Mr. Graham in his letter of September 18, 1885, including these words: ' ' Those who have taken higher examinations as clerks or carriers may, of course, be certified to these lower places, and for this purpose may be transferred to the lower reg- isters on their request." Now, I wish to say, broadly and positively, that I know of no law, rule, regulation, or instruction ever seen by me as coming from the general commissioners or the board of examiners which I have not strictly and rigidly obeyed in every particular, in letter and in spirit. In the execution of the law, further, the board of examiners has exer- cised uniformly an independent judgment, and in questions of doubt as to law or prac- tice I have accepted the decision of that board as the authorized voice of the Commis- sion itself. I have exercised no control of any kind over that board's action, and have never advised such board as to its duties, whether legal or ministerial, and do not sup- pose it proper for me to do so. If I had supposed, in my own opinion, that the certifi- cations intended a presentation of the record of certifications as the only form of certifi- cation that could be made, and the examiners had deemed another course in accord with the purpose of the Commission, I should have unhesitatingly surrendered my own opinion to that of the representatives of the Commission, on the ground of their superior authority in the interpretation of the wishes of the Commission. I add, further, that I know of no difference made or that could have been made in selections, because of the method of certifications adopted by the examining board at this office. It occasions a discrepancy in dates but not a difference in selections, as far as I can see. The discrepancy in dates is not in all cases by any means explained by the manner of certifications referred to as pursued at this office. Selections for nomination only are inade by myself. The appointments are made by the Department, and the dates of appointments are fixed by the Department. As a matter of official comity and con- venience these dates are often adjusted with some reference to dates of resignation or removal, so as to make the actual service continuous upon the roster. This is particularly so with reference to substitutes. As to the blank entitled Form No. 6 J, I have never seen a copy of the same until Saturday last, and was not aware that selections were not immediately reported to the Commission; In case any testimony is taken in this investigation in any manner affecting the state- ments I have made or impugning my official integrity in the execution of the civil-serv- ice lavF, I ask the privilege of an examination of such testimony and of cross-examining the witness or witnesses before any judgment in the case. 3117 23 854 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. By the Chief Examinee: Q. Have you preserved the memoranda of certifications which you say have been made in pencil prior to the formal certification on the book ? — A. No, for the reason that the certifications have been supposed by me to be a matter of record by the secretary as soon as he could, consistently with his official duties, enter them upon the record. They have been sometimes retained by me for the purposes of investigation of the eligibles as to char- acter and capacity, but oltentimes immediately returned to the secretary for the record. I know of no instance in which the certification made in the manner habitual at this of- fice has varied from the subsequent record made by the secretary, and all selections, I think, without exception, have been made in the manner regarded as formal and regular, and by uniform rule, in accordance with the language of Mr. Graham's letter, as under- stood and construed by me, and the certifications and selections as made were entered on the book of records by the secretary, as was supposed to be intended. Q. By what interpretation do you conclude that the letter of Mr. Graham authorized certifications to be made informally by pencil list prior to the formal certification on the certification book ? — A. I have understood from the letter and from the previous prac- tice that the furnishing of the names for selection from the register of eligibles consti- tuted the formal certification, the adoption of the written method in ink or pencil being not an informal but a formal certification, and the record of certifications constituting the actual record of the certifications or acts done or certifications ' ' posted up " as de- scribed in the circular of March 15, 1885. I think that a careful examination of that circular, now for the first time known to me since this examination, would necessarily lead to the impression that the record of certifications is a record of proceedings and acts done in the matter of certifications. I think, however, that had the circular been known to me iJijssibly a doubt would have been created in my mind by its language as to whether it was intended to regard the record itself as the certification or as merely a record of acts done in the matier of certification. Q. In furnishing the list of names for certification at any particular time has the list been confined to the four names under the old rule and the three names under the new rule to which you were entitled on a certification, or have you had more names be- fore you for consideration? — A. The number of Uiames certified in each case, according to my recollection, at one time has never varied from the regular number fixed by the Commission as the proper number for certification, either before or since the date of change m the number. In one recent case, when enjoined by the Department to make immediate preparation for carrying into effect the eight-hour law by additional carriers, I requested the secretary to certify to me all the eligibles on the old carrier list at once, but in separate certifications in their proper order, and the selections were made from such certifications, also in their proper order, the certifications each being made accord- ing to rule. Q. 'Have you always made written requests for certifications upon the blank form fur- nished by the Commission for the purpose? — A. I have no recollection of seeing a blank form of requisition for certification. I certainly should have used one if one had been in my possession, as preferable. I understand that the secretary has an impression that he received or showed me such a form, but I have no recollection of having seen the form, and if shown me by him it was done in the hurry of other business so that I did not become aware of the nature of it, and I certainly have no such form in my posses- sion or among my blanks. Q. While it is. a fact that the list furnished you on each certification comprised only the number of names authorized by the rules to be certified, is it not also a fact that the entire list of eligibles of all grades was known to you at all times? — A. No; the list was never known to me in any definite way. I have never examined the list with ref- erence to appointments until certification came before me, and then only as to the parties properly certified. I make this answer with the qualification that parties upon the list have frequently applied to me for appointment, often with their notices of standing in their hands. In that exterior way, or by the appearance of occasional names of exam- ined parties in the papers, not including their standing, I have had some general knowl- edge of parties on the list, but have sedulously avoided any formal knowledge of order and standing beyond the immediate necessities of the case. Q. On the register of carrier eligibles of names entered July 1, 1835, and certified Sep- tember 19, 1885, there appears opposite the names of Mathias Roth, John H. Tates, arid Charles Buscher the note, "objected to and not again certified." Were the objections in these cases such as came under the provisions of old Regulation 15, and were the objec- tions made in the form required by that regulation?— A. No; I do not know the ground of objection. Talking to the secretary as a representative of the views of the Commis- sion, I have repeatedly objected to the certification of non-residents, unless I deemed such certification necessary under the rules of the Commission, for the reason that I did not deem such persons, in fairness, or possibly in the intent of the Commission, eligible CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 355 to the places o' carriers in a city like this. I said this much to him with reference to a construction of the law, no limitation being expressed in this particular by the Com- mission itself as to the eligibility of candidates from any country or clime, but I did not object to any selection under the rule specified. The Postmaster (addressing the secretary of the board). As to the case of Langland, previously referred to in this testimony, the record does not appear to show his selection. I have positive recollection that he was selected from a regular certification in the man- ner such certifications were iisually made. My impression is that in certification 44 Wigmau was first selected for the place of carrier and meantime Langland had consented to take the place of stamper, and that the certification was then recalled and Langland selected as the second man irom that certification. My further impression is that the failure to enter on the record of certifications the selection of Langland arises from the fact that the second selection from the same certification was not the rule at this office, and that in making uj) the record, the secretary, having received my signature to the first selection from that certification, deemed the record satisfied, and omitted to enter the second selection of Langland; and that I, when such record was made, would have jyassed over the entry in the same manner and for the same reason, in giving my sig- nature. Dr. Shidy. That might have been the way the error occurred. The Chief Examinee. Has it been the practice to make an absolute appointment at the end of six months' satisfactory service by a probationer? The Postmaster. No. I have been in doubt as to the construction of the rule, for the reason that I merely nominate and the appointments are made through the Depart- ment. For that reason I have construed the failure to remove to ])e tantamount to an absolute appointment at the end of six months, and in this conclusion I have been sup- ported by the opinion of one or more of the examiners. An " absolute appointment " means a reappointment by the Department, in this case, of parties already in the service; and such " absolute appointment " would require a renomination by me to the Department and the confirmation of such nomination by the Department, a process which I have not supposed to have been contemplated by the Commission. As to that, I would be glad to receive the specific instructions of the Commission. I would a'so be glad to receive from the Commission specific instructions as to method of selections, and any other matters as to which the opinion of the Commission differs from instructions of the Commission now en file at this ofiice. Geo. H. Paul, Postmaster, Milwaukee, Wis. Exhibit K. [Exhibit K.] Correspondence relative to the appointment of Charles Ciimming to the j)osition of stamper in the post-office at Milwaukee, Wis., May 17 to June 16, 1888. No. 1. Milwaukee, Wis., May 17, 1888. SlES: Charles Cnmming, an eligible under the civil-service rules, was, on the 18th day of February, 1888, certified for apiiointment as stamper, which position he refused to ac- cept. He was again certified the same day for the same position. This was his third certification, as he had been twice certified previously. He has now reconsidered his re- fusal to accept the position of stamper, and the postmaster wishes to appoint him. Can he do so ? An immediate answer will greatly favor Yours, respectfully, H. Shidy, Secretary. Civil Service Commission, Washington, D. C. No. 2. Washington, D. C, 31ay 25, 1888. Sir: This Commission has received your communication of May 17, stating that Charles Cumming was certified on February 18, 1888, which position he refused to accept; that he was again certified the same day for the same position, which was his third certifica- tion ; that he has now reconsidered his refusal to accept the position of stamper, and the postmaster wishes to appoint him. S56 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. The Commission holds that when the position of stamper — the position for which he was examined — was offered to Gumming and declined by him his rights under his ex- amination were exhausted, and he was not entitled to further certification under the rules in force February 18 last. As soon as the position then offered to Gumming a.nd refused by him was filled by the appointment of another person, his opportunity to reconsider his refusal passed from him beyond recall. This practice isnow different, being governed by clause 4, Eegulatiou VII, but this reg- ulation is not retroactive and Gumming can take no benefit under it. Very respectfully, John H. Obekly, Acting President. H. Shidy, Esq., Secretary Board of Examiners, Fost-Office, Blilwaukee, Wis No. 3. Milwaukee, Wis., i\lay 2Q, 1888. Sir: Mr. H. Shidy, secretary board of examiners at this office, has shown me your letter of the 25th instant, in which you give the opinion that Charles Gumming is not entitled to further certification under the rales in force February 18 last, on the ground that "when the position of stamper — the position for which, he was examined — was of- fered to Gumming and declined by him, his rights under his examination were ex- hausted. ' ' I think the conclusion in this case is based on a misapprehension of the facts, arising from an imperfect statement of them by the secretary, and is, therefore, unjust to the person whose privileges are involved, and also to the public service. Referring to the record for verification, permit me to state: Charles Gumming was not examined for the place of stamper, but for that of letter- carrier. At the time he was first certified to me lor a stamper his name was at the head of the eligible list for the place of carrier, and, as the stampers' list was nearly exhausted, his name was used simply to make the certification as to number complete. This with- out his knowledge or request. On the same day, February 18, he was certified three times — first, as carrier, when an eligible for clerk wa3 appointed, and twice for stamper under circumstances as above stated. But he was not examined for stamper, did not then desire the place of stamper, and declined the place of stamper, simply because he preferred the place for which he was examined. He was not appointed a carrier l>ecause 1 did not believe him old enough and strong enough at that time lor the duty. Has he thus forfeited his "rights," as expressed by you? In other words, has the Government forfeited its rights to a first-class man, marking 89, by certifying his name to an inferior position without his consent"? Can the appointing official sacrifice all the eligibles on the list by calling for their certifications to inferior positions, which he must k;now they will not accept, without their knowledge or consent? Mr. Gumming declined lower positions while he thought the opportunity possible for appointment to the position to which he aspired: and now that such opportunity has passed away is willing to accept a lower place to the advantage of the service, and I ac- cordingly nominated him for the position of stamper, holding his acceptance subject to your opinion; but I had not dreamed that 1 he Commission had closed the door of public service against an eligible of higher grade. Respectfully asking further consideration of this case, I am Very truly, Geo. H. Paul, Podvutster. Hon. John H. Oberly, President Civil Service Commission. No. 4. WashixCtTON, D. C, June 6, 1888. Sir: In the ccse of Charles Gumming, and in reply to the letter of this Commission of the 25th ultimo, you state that Gumming was not examined for the position of stamper, but for thab of carrier; that the certification of his name for the former position, on February 18, was without his consent: that at that time his name was at the head of the list lor carrier; that the list of stamper was nearlj' exhausted, and Cumming's name was included in the certification to make the number complete; that on the same day he was certified three times, first as carrier, when an eligible for clerk was appointed, CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 357 and then for stamper; that he declined the place of stamper, because he preferred the place for which he was examined; and that he was not appointed a carrier because you did not believe him old enough and strong enough at that time for the duty. Before considering your communication, it is proper to say that the decision of the Commission in the case was based wholly upon the supposition that Gumming was ex- amined for stamper, which was justified by Secretary Shidy's statement as follows: " Charles Cumming,an eligible under the civil-service rules, was, on the 18th day of Feb- ruary, 1888, certified for appointment as stamper, which position he refused to accept. He was again certified the same day for the same position. This was his third certifi- cation as he had been twice certified previously." As this supposition was not true the decision of the Commission of course falls. Cumming's name does not appear upon any report of an examination held at your office on file in this office. The only examination not reported, held before the 18th of February last, is the one of October 19, 1887, which should long ago have been re- ported, and the Commission desires to call the attention of the board to its dereliction in the matter. It is presumed that Cumming was examined at that time. It would ap- pear from your statement that Cumming was first certified for the position of carrier, which was a proper certification; that he was then twice certified for the position of stamper without his knowledge or consent, and that when offered the position of stamper he declined it. These certifications being made without his consent were improper and should not be charged against him. He was and is entitled to three certifications for position in the grade for which he was examined. The only circumstance which could justify his certification to the position of stamper, even with his consent, would be the depletion of the eligible register for stamper below the number required for a single cer- tification, and such depletion should be guarded against by timely examinations. To make certification in this way is to break down the distinction between the examina- tions for different grades, introduce confusion, disorder, and uncertainty into the methods of the board, and violate the fundamental principles of equitable competition. It can not be allowed. In this connection attention is called to your statement that Cumming was on the same day certified three times, first as carrier, "when an eligible for clerk Avas appointed. ' ' Bj what authority was an ' ' eligible for clerk ' ' certified and appointed to the position of carrier ? What was the condition of the carrier eligible register at this time? Why this confusion of grades in certification? This communication is ad- dressed to you, but it is intended equally for the board of examiners, and the Commis- sion desires from that board atonce: (1) areportof the examination of October 19, 1887; (2) copies of the several eligible registers as they stood before the certifications of Feb- ruary 18 were made; (3) an explanation of why any persons have at any time been cer- tified to positions for which they were not examined. When this information is received the Commission will determine what the rights of Mr. Cumming are and will communi- catewith you further on the subject. Very respectful Ij^, John H. Oberly, Acting President. George H. Paul, Esq., Postmaster, Blilwaukee, Wis. No. 5. Milwaukee, Wis. , June 9, 1883. Sir: Replying to your communication of the 6th instant, permit me to state that Cum- ming's name appears at the head of the register of eligibles for carrier at this office, as having been examined October 19, 1887, with an average standing of 89.8, and that the secretary of the local board claims to have duly reported the examination of that date. Your statement of all the facts as to Cumming is accordingly correct, and your conclu- sion that "he was and is entitled to three certifications for position in the grade for which he was examined," accords with my opinion and action in this particular. I shall request the secretary of the board of examiners at this office to forward to you at once a duplicate report of the examination of October 19, 1887. You remark, further, that "the only circumstance which could justify his (Cum- ming's) certification to the position of stamper, even with his consent, would be the de- pletion of the eligible register below the number required for a single certification, etc." Such was precisely the fact in the case of Cumming, and the depletion of the stamper list could not well have been foreseen. In I'act, the depletion of lists as to competent men can rarely be foreseen or provided for without a considerable increase in the number of examinations, much to the inconvenience of the public service at this office, where cler- ical aid is limited to the last point of endurance. 358 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Moreover, to make certification from a higher to a lower grade is obvioasly a great advantage to the public service, since it not only provides for the deficiency of depleted lists, but enables the appointing ofiicer to secure a higher grade of service than other- wise. Furthermore, certifications from higher to lower grades was distinctly authorized at this ofiice, in a letter from the Civil Service Commission, dated September 18, 1885, and signed by Robert D. Graham, secretary, in which he says: "Those who have taken higher examinations as clerks or carriers may, of course, be certified to these lower places, and for this purpose may be transferred to the lower registers on their request." And certifications of this kind have been frequently made to me at this ofliice, under this au- thority, largely to the benefit of the service, inasmuch as it has in many cases secured a better ability and education in lower places than could otherwise be obtained, and also pertuitting more convenience in promotions on the ground of qualification and merit. This is illustrated iu the case of Gumming, standing at 90 on clerical list and accepting the place of stamper. Respectfully, Geo. H. Paul, Postmaster. Hon. John H. Oberly, Acting President Civil Service Commission. No. 6. Washington, D. C, June 16, 1888. SlE: Replying to your communication of June 9, relative to the certification of Charles Gumming, and calling attention to the letter of the Commission of September 18, 1885, which says: "Those who have tak<^n higher examinations as clerks or carriers, may, of course, be certified to these lower places, and for this purpose may ie transferred to the lower register on their rcqued,^' you are respectfully informed that the practice author- ized by this letter is not allowed under the new rules, except where the lower registers are exhausted and it is not practicable to replenish them in time to meet the demands of the service, and then only with the consent of the persons interested. It will be ob- served from the words underscored that consent was necessary under the old pratice. Instructions have been communicated to the board of examiners. Very respectfully, Jno. H. Obekly, Acting President. George H. Paul, Esq., Postmaster, Milwaukee, Wis. No, 7. Milwaukee, "Wis., June 12, 1888. Dear Sirs: In response to your communication of June 6, 1888, addressed to the postmaster at Milwaukee, Wis., and calling for copies of "Report of examination of October 19, 1887," and of our register of eligibles prior to certifications of February 18, 1888, and for certain explanations, I herewith inclose the copies desired, and would state that persons have been certified for positions for which they have not been examined, under authority of a letter from the Civil Service Commission dated September 18, 1885, in which it is explicitly stated that those who have taken higher examinations as clerks or carriers may, of course, be certified to these lower places, and for this purpose maybe transferred to the lower registers on their request. In order to correct the record as to the certification of Camming, in accordance Veith the views of the commission, it will only be necessary to direct that his name be stricken off the certification (No. 59) in which his name was used to complete the list, and to allow it to be again presented to the postmaster. Certification No. 59, so modified, will be satisfactory, as it still includes the name chosen. Respectfully, yours, H. Shidy, Secretary. Civil Service Commission, Washington, D. C. CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. o59 No. 8. Washingtox, D. C, June 16, 1833. Sie: Your communication, inclosing copies of report of examination of October 19, 1887, and of registers of eligibles prior to the certification of February 18, 1888, has been received. You state tliat persons have been certified for positions for which they have not been examined under authority of a letter of the commission dated September 18, 1885, in which it is explicitly stated that "those who have taken higher examina- tions as clerks or carriers may, of course, be certified to these lower places, and for this purpose may be transferred to the lower registers on their request, " and that in order to correct the record as to the certification of Gumming in accordance with the views of the Commission it will only be necessary to direct that his name be stricken from the certification No. 59, in which his name was used to complete the list, and allow it to be again presented to the postmaster. In reply you are respectfully informed that the proceeding suggested by your board is hereby authorized and directed, and that hereafter the rules and regulations now in force must be strictly observed in all particulars. Very respectfully, Jno. H. Obeely, Acting President. H. Shidy, Esq., Secretary, Board of Examiners. Post- Office, Mihoaukee, Wis. Exhibit L. Washington, D. C., 3Tarch4, 1890. Deae Sie: I did not read the published report of the testimony I gave before your committee February 28 until to-night. As published in the Post I am made to say in answer to the question "if the conditions were the same you would see nothing wrong in it? " "I did not say that I had done anything wrong." I beg to be informed if this is in accordance with the official record. I certainly thought I had said, " I did not say I had not done anything wrong." This it was my intention to say; I think I must be jDaisreported. Very respectfully, H. Shidy, 1607 Marion Street. Hon. Herman Lehlbach, Chairman Congressional Committee Investigating Civil Service Commission. Exhibit M. Department of the Inteeios, Census Office, WasMngton, March 1, 1890. Dear Sir: On returning to the Census Office this morning I made inquiry of Mr. Campbell Copeland, special agent and chief of the division on wealth, debt, and taxation, in regard to a statement made by Mr. Hamilton Shidy to the effect that he (Mr. Shidy) bad (Jharge of clerks in the above-named division, some of whom were receiving $1,200 per annum and more, for what he (Mr. Shidy) knew, while he (Mr. Shidy) was receiv- ing only Sp900 per annum as a copyist, in which capacity Mr. Shidy is employed in the Census Office. In answer to a question from a member of the committee (his name I do not now re- call), I stated that while this might be possible in the Census Office, from the fact that in the rapid organization of the office changes of this kind are sometimes made, but I likewise informed the committee that Mr. Shidy could not have been in the position, as stated by him, many weeks. Upon inquiry I find that Mr. Shidy entered upon this work February 11, ihat he is not in charge of a room, that he does give out the work for fourteen people, not one of whom is receiving more than $900 per annum, like him- self. Mr. Gopeland informs me +hat there was only one instance of a man receiving 360 CIA^L SERVICE INVESTIGATION. $1,200 per annum being placed under Mr. Shidy's supervision, and that was when said clerk was brought in and placed at a desk in order to discover his ability in the direc- tion of the work that was likely to be required of him. The committee will therefore see that Mr. Shidy's testimony as reported in the Post and as read to me this morning, is entirely misleading. As a matter of fact, Mr. Shidy has never had, except in the one instance referred to (for two days only), a man or woman- under his supervision who received more salary than himself. Very respectlully, Robert P. Poetee, Superintendent of Census. Hon. Herman Lehlbach, Chairman of Committee on Eeform in the Civil Service, House of Representatives. o /f^ LBJa'Ce