Report of the Commission in the Matter of Investigation

Concerning the Removal of Earl H. Gallup

STATE OF NEW YORK-STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

In the Matter of an Investigation Held by the State Civil Service Commission upon Affidavit of Earl H. Gallup, Verified April 29, 1909, Relative to Violation of the Provisions of Section 25 of Chapter 7 of the Consolidated Laws, by Hon. Charles H. Gaus, Comptroller, State of New York.

This matter comes before the Commission on the affidavit of Earl H. Gallup, who complains that he was removed by Comptroller Charles H. Gaus on April 10, 1909, from the position of Chief Transfer Tax Clerk in the office of the State Comptroller on account of his political affiliations, in violation of section 25 of chapter 7 of the Consolidated Laws (formerly section 23 of the Civil Service Act) which provides:

No recommendation or question under the authority of this chapter shall relate to the political opinions or affiliations of any person whatever; and no appointment or selection to or removal from office or employment within the scope of the rules established as aforesaid, shall be in any manner affected or influenced by such opinions or affiliations.

Mr. Gallup was appointed Chief Transfer Tax Clerk in 1907, under the administration of Comptroller Martin H. Glynn. At that time the position was in the exempt class. In August, 1908, the Civil Service Commission adopted a resolution placing it in the competitive class. This action was not taken at the request of

either Mr. Gallup or Mr. Glynn, but was incidental to a general reclassification of the State and county service which involved the transfer to the competitive class of more than 200 positions in various offices. The new classification received the approval of the Governor and took effect on December 28, 1908. Comptroller Gaus took office on January 1, 1909. Mr. Gallup was informed on February 17th, by Deputy Comptroller Otto Kelsey, that his place was wanted, and at the same time Mr. Kelsey informed him that there was absolutely no criticism of his work, but that it was perfectly satisfactory. On learning that two prominent Republicans, Mr. Howard N. Fuller, the comptroller of Albany, and Mr. Arthur L. Andrews, the corporation counsel of Albany, were his friends, Mr. Kelsey advised Mr. Gallup that their influence might be valuable and that he would do well to have them intercede for him with Comptroller Gaus and Mr. William Barnes, Jr., the Albany member of the Republican State Committee. Both of these men saw Mr. Barnes, and Mr. Fuller saw Mr. Gaus, but to no purpose, except that the Comptroller extended Mr. Gallup's service one month, and on April 10th he was dismissed by Mr. Kelsey, acting under orders previously given by the Comptroller, who was at the time absent in Florida.

Owing to the illness of Comptroller Gaus the Commission was unable to take his testimony, as it was advised that the excitement incident to answering questions, even at his home, might be very serious. It was therefore compelled to rely upon the evidence of those who had talked with or received instructions from him, or who had been otherwise concerned in the case. Four witnesses had discussed the removal with Mr. Gaus, and we quote the essential parts of their testimony as to the influence of Mr. Gallup's political opinions and affiliations.

Deputy Comptroller Kelsey testified:

Mr. Gallup, when I came into the department on the 14th of February, was there as the chief of the Transfer Tax Bureau. Mr. Gaus, I think, had already discussed the matter of his continuance. I do not know that I could properly say that Mr. Gaus had discussed the situation because he never talked with me in detail beyond the direction to have the serv

ices terminated. One of the first things he talked with me about was the efficiency of the office, inquiring into the work of the Transfer Tax Bureau, and his feeling that Mr. Gallup had been put in in an irregular way, and subsequent to his being put in the office was put in the competitive class, and that it being, as he considered, a confidential position, that he thought that he ought not to continue him.

in?

Mr. Brown.

What do you mean by being irregularly put

A. As I understand the facts to be- I have not verified them at the time Mr. Glynn came in the chief clerk was exempt and there was a position they called special attorney, and I think another minor position that they called — I can't remember the name of it — he was merely an ordinary clerk. Mr. Gallup was put in in the place of Mr. Porter Merriman who held the exempt position at $1,300. He held that position until August, when he was promoted to the chief clerkship, Mr. Alger being removed.

Mr. Brown.- Do I understand, Mr. Kelsey, that Mr. Gaus' reason for the removal was that he objected to the classification?

A. No. I do not know that I ought to say anything about his reasons, because there was very little talk between him and me. He felt that Mr. Gallup was put in solely for political reasons and was in a hostile camp and would not work in harmony with him in the way the employees ought to. So far as Mr. Gallup is concerned, I have no criticism to make against him.

Mr. Brown.- Have you any knowledge of Mr. Gallup in any way failing to show loyalty to his superior and act in harmony with the policy of the office?

A. I have not.

Q. Did Mr. Gaus ever intimate to you that he had? A. No, sir. Mr. Gallup was put in through a subordinate exempt position and jumped over the others, and it was not satisfactory to the Comptroller to have him continue.

Mr. Brown.- Did you have any conversation with Commissioner Kraft about this case?

A. I would not attempt to give it. I did not know that he was talking officially.

Mr. Kraft.- Let me refresh your memory. I said that at our last meeting some news had wafted in that Gallup was to be removed on account of his politics, and that we had just held an investigation of the Comptroller's office in New York upon the question of removals for political reasons, and you said that yes, Gallup's removal was contemplated because it was believed that the place should be held by a man of the same political party as the Comptroller. That a man from the opposite camp I think you used the work "camp"- would not be regarded as one so well fitted for a place of this confidence as one of the same political party.

Mr. Kelsey. Well, that would be true.

Mr. Kraft.— Well, that was substantially what you said. I said I hoped if Gallup had done his work all right, I hoped he would not be removed. You said he had done his work all right. You said that this place was originally exempt, but just before the Comptroller came in that had been changed to the competitive class and the Comptroller did not like that, and said it ought to be changed and he ought to have the appointment of this man.

Mr. Kelsey. That is substantially our conversation. I have said to others that it was really a confidential position; and that is just as I felt.

Q. Was the place held by Mr. Gallup one in which his knowledge of the assignments of attorneys for the collector's office, or the fees paid them, of a confidential nature that could be used to the disadvantage of the Comptroller?

A. No, it could not be used to his disadvantage; they are all matters of record.

Q. But I mean could not the knowledge be used to disadvantage?

A. Why, any man could use his knowledge to disadvantage; any clerk could.