60. Citizenship.-The attitude of the executive and legislative departments of the Government has been, and is, that the native inhabitants of Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands did not become citizens of the United States by virtue of the cession of the islands by Spain by means of the treaty of Paris.

The act for the temporary government of Porto Rico did not confer Federal citizenship upon the inhabitants of that island. (Opinion of Jan. 23, 1901; 23 Op., 370.) 61. Citizenship.-There is nothing in the recent decisions of the Supreme Court (in the insular cases) that would modify the view taken by the Attorney-General regarding the proposed amendment to the civil-service rules that every applicant for examination for appointment to the executive civil service of the United States in Porto Rico must be a citizen of the United States or a citizen of Porto Rico, and that every applicant for appointment to said service in the Philippine Islands must be a citizen of the United States or a native inhabitant of said islands. (Opinion of June 18, 1901; 23 Op., 458.)

62. Reinstatement-Reduction of force.-The third proviso of Rule IX of the civilservice rules, as amended May 29, 1899, which provides that any person who has been separated from the service by reason of a reduction of force specifically required by law may be reinstated without regard to the length of time he or she has been separated from the service, does not authorize the restoration theroto of a person who has been employed to do a particular service, to be paid out of a specific appropriation, after the work which the person has been employed to perform has been completed and the appropriation therefor exhausted.

The reinstatement permitted by that rule is a reinstatement in the same department or office and to the same branch of the service. (Opinion of July 17, 1901; 23 Op., 463.)

63. Testimony in investigations by Civil Service Commission.—It is within the power of the President so to modify the civil-service rules as to impose upon all officers and employees in the public service the duty of giving to the Civil Service Commission or its authorized representatives all proper and competent information in regard to all matters inquired of, and to subscribe to and make oath to such testimony before some officer authorized by law to administer oaths.

The imposition of such a duty upon every officer and employee in the public service is neither unreasonable nor unsuitable. It is clearly within the exercise of the Executive power, and its legality can not be doubted. (Opinion of Dec. 2, 1901, 23 Op., 595.)

64. Government employees influencing legislation.-The order of the President of January 31, 1902, forbidding all officers and employees of the United States to influence legislation by Congress in their own interest, prohibits "The Navy-Yard and Arsenal Employees' Protective Association," of Washington, from seeking to influence Congress or its committees to pass a pending bill granting an additional fifteen days' leave of absence to the employees who constitute that association. (Opinion of Feb. 21, 1902, 23 Op., 637.)

65. Political assessments.—Although rendered after the period covered by this report, the following opinion of the Attorney-General, which was published in an Executive order under date of October 18, 1902, is given below on account of its timely interest:

Your note of the 15th instant requests me to advise you relative to the subject of political contributions, as shown by the respective correspondence which you inclose between the Civil Service Commission and officers of the Republican State committees of Pennsylvania and Ohio.

In the Pennsylvania case it appears that recently a circular letter was issued by the Republican State committee signed "M. S. Quay, chairman," stating that financial assistance is needed in the coming Congressional and State election, and that the committee will be greatly obliged if the addressee will aid to the extent of his ability and inclination. This circular letter bore in its caption as well the name of Senator Quay as chairman and of W. R. Andrews (clerk to the Senate Committee on Immigration) as secretary, and was sent by mail to various Federal officers and employees

at their home addresses. Upon advice from the Commission, that because of their official relations neither Senator Quay nor Mr. Andrews could properly serve upon a committee concerned in soliciting and receiving political contributions from Federal officials, or permit their names to be held forth in letters making such solicitation, the circular letter, so far as addressed to Federal officials, was withdrawn. Immediately thereafter another circular letter was issued in identically the same form, except that it bore the signature of the treasurer of the committee, who is not a Federal officeholder. The Commission pointed out the illegality of this circular, because it carried on its heading the names of Senator Quay and Mr. Andrews, and directed its recall; and this ruling is now contested by Mr. Andrews.

In the Ohio case a circular was issued by the Republican State executive committee, bearing the names of Hon. Charles Dick (member of Congress) and of various Federal officials, and stating that any assistance which the addressee "can give as one of those directly interested in party success in Ohio will be gratefully acknowledged." It seems that this circular was sent to certain Federal officials, that the Commission demanded its withdrawal, and that the executive committee declines or neglects to accede to this demand.

The question presented is covered by section 11 of the civil-service act, which provides: "That no Senator or Representative or Territorial Delegate of the Congress, or Senator, Representative, or Delegate elect, or any officer or employee of either of said Houses, and no executive, judicial, military, or naval officer of the United States, and no clerk or employee of any department, branch, or bureau of the executive, judicial, or military or naval service of the United States, shall, directly or indirectly, solicit or receive, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting or receiving, any assessment, subscription, or contribution for any political purpose whatever, from any officer, clerk, or employee of the United States, or any department, branch, or bureau thereof, or from any person receiving any salary or compensation from moneys derived from the Treasury of the United States."

Whatever the particular form of words adopted in such circulars in order to show a request rather than a demand and to give to responses a quasi-voluntary character, the explicit and comprehensive words of the statute forbidding those barred by their public relations to solicit from Federal officials, directly or indirectly, or to "be in any manner concerned in soliciting or receiving any assessment, subscription, or contribution for any political purpose whatever," unquestionably condemn all such circulars. They should not be sent to Federal officials, or else they should not bear the names of the public officers and employees designated in the act. In 21 Op., 300, Attorney-General Harmon said:

"All who are in the Government service are thus protected against the possibility of actual coercion and from that of the coercion implied in the relation of the person soliciting or receiving to the Government or implied in solicitation or receipt in a public office; but Congress did not attempt to prohibit solicitation by or payment to persons not in the Government service otherwise than in Government offices." It is also pertinent to notice section 14 of the act, viz:

"That no officer, clerk, or other person in the service of the United States shall, directly or indirectly, give or hand over to any other officer, clerk, or person in the service of the United States, or to any Senator or Member of the House of Representatives, or Territorial Delegate, any money or other valuable thing on account of or to be applied to the promotion of any political object whatever."

Your power to direct, by appropriate order, under the mandates of these sections, all persons in the executive service of the United States, is clear.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF OFFICEHOLDERS.

Under date of June 5, 1902, the Commission addressed a letter to the President, in which it called attention to the omission in the new postal regulations, issued April 1, 1902, of former section 435, providing that

*

Officeholders should not offend by obtrusive partisanship, nor assume the active conduct of political campaigns. * * This is in consonance with the order of President Cleveland of July 14, 1886.

This omitted order had been made in pursuance of the executive instructions of President Cleveland of July 14, 1886, as follows:

The influence of Federal officeholders should not be felt in the manipulation of

political primary meetings and nominating conventions. The use by these officials of their positions to compass their selection as delegates to political conventions is indecent and unfair; and proper regard for the proprieties and requirements of official place will also prevent their assuming the active conduct of political campaigns. The Commission also called the President's attention to the following statement in its Eleventh Report:

The Commission feels strongly that whatever rule is adopted should apply equally to adherents of all parties, and that it would be safe to adopt as such a rule the requirement that the adherents of the party in power shall never do what would cause friction in the office and subvert discipline if done by the opponents of the party in power. A man in the classified service has an entire right to vote as he pleases and to express privately his opinions on all political subjects, but he should not take any active part in political management or in political campaigns, for precisely the same reasons that a judge, an army officer, a regular soldier, or a policeman is debarred from taking such active part. It is no hardship to a man to require this. It leaves him free to vote, think, and speak privately as he chooses, but it prevents him, while in the service of the whole public, from turning his official position to the benefit of one of the parties into which that whole public is divided; and in no other way can this be prevented.

The Commission recommended either that a general Executive order upon the subJect be issued by the President, or that recommendation be made to the heads of Departments for the establishment of regulations similar to the post-office regulation which had been omitted.

The following reply was received under date of June 13, 1902:

GENTLEMEN: As the greater includes the less, and as the Executive order of President Cleveland of July 14, 1886, is still in force, I hardly think it will be necessary again to change the postal regulations.

The trouble, of course, comes in the interpretation of this Executive order of President Cleveland. After sixteen years' experience it has been found impossible to formulate in precise language any general construction which shall not work either absurdity or injustice. Each case must be decided on its merits. For instance, it is obviously unwise to apply the same rule to the head of a big city Federal office, who may by his actions coerce hundreds of employees, as to a fourth-class postmaster in a small village who has no employees to coerce, and who simply wishes to continue to act with reference to his neighbors as he always has acted.

As Civil Service Commissioner under Presidents Harrison and Cleveland I found it so impossible satisfactorily to formulate and decide upon questions involved in these matters of so-called pernicious activity by officeholders in politics that in the Eleventh Report of the Commission I personally drew up the paragraph which you quote. This paragraph was drawn with a view of making a sharp line between the activity allowed to public servants within the classified service and those without the classified service. The latter under our system are as a rule chosen largely with reference to political considerations, and as a rule are and expect to be changed with the change of parties. In the classified service, however, the choice is made without reference to political considerations and the tenure of office is unaffected by the change of parties. Under these circumstances it is obvious that different standpoints of conduct apply to the two cases. In consideration of fixity of tenure and of appointment in no way due to political considerations, the man in the classified service, while retaining his right to vote as he pleases and to express privately his opinions on all political subjects, "should not take any active part in political management or in political campaigns, for precisely the same reasons that a judge, an army officer, a regular soldier, or a policeman is debarred from taking such active part." This of course applies even more storongly to any conduct on the part of such employee so prejudicial to good discipline as is implied in a public attack on his or her superior officers or other conduct liable to cause scandal.

It seemed to me at the time, and I still think, that the line thus drawn was wise and proper. After my experience under two Presidents-one of my own political faith and one not-I had become convinced that it was undesirable and impossible to lay down a rule for public officers not in the classified service which should limit their political activity as strictly as we could rightly and properly limit the activity of those in whose choice and retention the element of political considerations did not enter; and afterward I became convinced that in its actual construction, if there was any pretense of applying it impartially, it inevitably worked unevenly, and, as a matter of fact, inevitably produced an impression of hypocrisy in those who asserted

that it worked evenly. Officeholders must not use their offices to control political movements, must not neglect their public duties, must not cause public scandal by their activity; but out side of the classified service the effort to go further than this had failed so signally at the time when the Eleventh Report, which you have quoted, was written, and its unwisdom had been so thoroughly demonstrated, that I felt it necessary to try to draw the distinction therein indicated.

Sincerely yours,

UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

Washington, D. C.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT.

Copies of the President's letter, above quoted, have been furnished to the heads of the several departments and independent offices for their information and guidance.

INVESTIGATIONS.

During the period covered by this report, the Commission has made, personally and by correspondence, numerous investigations of alleged violations of the civilservice law or rules, political assessments, illegal appointments, frauds in examinations, etc.

Below are presented brief statements of the charges, the facts as developed in the investigation, the action of the Commission, and the results secured in each case. Minor investigations have been omitted as of no permanent importance or interest, and in a few other cases, where action by the departments or prosecution in the courts is still pending, the details have not been given as fully as they might be in a closed case.

These statements are arranged under two general heads, "Political Assessments and Political Coercion" and "Frauds or Irregularities in Connection with Examinations, Appointments, etc." Under these heads they are arranged alphabetically, according to the name of the place where the investigation was made.

POLITICAL ASSESSMENTS AND POLITICAL COERCION.

Boise, Idaho. Surveyor-General's Office.

In the Commission's Fourteenth and Fifteenth Reports (pp. 365 and 416, respectively) is presented an account of the suspension from duty, in violation of the civilservice rules, of five employees in the office of the surveyor-general for Idaho, Joseph Perrault, and the efforts of the Commission to have them reinstated.

In a letter dated January 21, 1902, Robert H. McCracken, who had been a clerk in the office, charged Surveyor-General Perrault, Chief Clerk Robb, and Chief Draftsman Forshay with violation of the provisions of the civil-service act concerning the collection of political assessments and contributions. In this letter he stated:

* * *

Mr. B. A. Robb, chief clerk, called each one of the clerks into his room, which I described in my letter of January 1, and asked us outright for a donation for campaign funds, saying that, while it was not a pleasant duty, yet "General Perrault has asked me to do so, as they are short of funds at Republican headquarters.' Early in the morning of that same day Elmer E. Forshay, chief draftsman, came into the room occupied by the clerks and asked us if we were not going to contribute something for the campaign fund, but we said that we felt that we had done enough already, or words to that effect. He said no more to us, but went back to the drafting room and there he solicited four draftsmen for $15 each, viz, Axel Nixon, Oren G. Elder, Henry Nieberding, and Ernest Hesse. Both Messrs. Nieberding and Nixon told me that they had been solicited for the amount I have named.

After Forshay had collected the money he went to the surveyor-general's room, and I saw him put the money into the General's hands with these words: "I have collected quite a little wad, General."

In view of these charges, etc., the Commission determined upon an investigation of the office of the surveyor-general, under section 2 of the civil-service act. The appropriation which the Commission can devote to investigations was, however, altogether inadequate, so that it was compelled to postpone the investigation until it could be made in conjunction with one of its regular examination tours. In the meantime the Commission laid the information in its possession before the President and the Secretary of the Interior. The information was laid before the President for the reason that the term of office of the surveyor-general had recently expired, and as he was an applicant for reappointment it was deemed proper that the President should know of the charges made against him and the intention of the Commission to conduct an investigation. The Department of the Interior also conducted an investigation through one of its inspectors. The surveyor-general refused to testify on the investigation made by the Commission because a public hearing was not given. The letter containing his refusal to testify being brought to the notice of the President, Mr. Perrault was not reappointed. The evidence taken on both investigations showed that Robb and Forshay had been concerned in the solicitation and collection of political assessments. Robb resigned and Forshay was removed. Denver, Colo., Post-Office. File 5178.

In April, 1902, charges of having used their official positions in coercion of the political action of their subordinates in the Denver post-office and of having used their official authority for the purpose of influencing or controlling an election were made against Post-Office Inspector in Charge W. T. Sullivan and Post-Office Inspector Charles T. Doran. The matter was investigated by the Commission, and the following developed:

About two weeks before the election in 1900, Substitute Carrier Logan, of the Denver post-office, was requested by Inspector Doran to submit to him a list of the carriers of that office showing the political affiliations of each. This Mr. Logan did, with the assistance of others whose names do not appear. This list was obtained with the knowledge of Inspector in Charge Sullivan, and upon its completion it was given to him by Inspector Doran, and he turned it over to a United States Senator, then a candidate for reelection, for whose use it had been procured.

*

*

Early in February charges were brought against Logan in the local carriers' association for having revealed the political affiliations of members of the association contrary to its constitution, and it appears that upon learning this fact Inspector in Charge Sullivan, on February 7, 1901, addressed letters to various members of the letter carriers' association, in which he charged them with being members "of a conspiracy organized against the interests of the postal service." * "One of the functions and purposes of such organization being the punishment of any letter carrier, or substitute letter carrier, who shall impart any information to a postoffice inspector when called upon for the same." In certain of the letters the addressee was charged with having been present at a meeting of the association on February 2, 1901, and "with consenting, aiding, and abetting, and lending his influence" to the end that a substitute letter carrier be punished for giving information to a post-office inspector. These letters further directed that a written statement be made showing cause why the person addressed should not be disciplined or recommended for removal from the service. In others of the letters the addressee was merely charged with having been present at the meeting and with having opposed the punishment referred to above. In these cases an explanation only was requested. In a letter to the Postmaster-General, on May 28, 1902, the Commission said: It appears that William T. Sullivan, inspector in charge, and Charles L. Doran, inspector, at Denver, Colo., have been guilty of most reprehensible conduct and a violation of the civil-service laws and rules in procuring one Frank P. Logan, a substitute letter carrier at the Denver post-office, to prepare * * * a list of the carriers and other employees of the Denver post-office, with the political affiliations of