each, for the purpose of influencing or controlling the result of an election in violation of Civil Service Rule II. And the said inspector in charge, Sullivan, is further guilty of an attempt to coerce the political action of carriers belonging to the letter carriers' association * * *by letters, threatening them with discipline for preferring charges against Logan, for furnishing such information, and for retaining fellowship in an organization which preferred such charges against him; all of which is contrary to section 2, clause 2, subdivision 6, of the civil-service act. In conclusion the Commission said: * * * "It is needless to speak of the injury that may be done to carriers by means of political lists where individuals are designated as 'Anarchists,' 'Socialists,' 'Pop.,' etc., as Sullivan says was done in the list furnished to him, especially at the hands of political superiors and such political inspectors as Sullivan and Doran have shown themselves to be. It seems evident to the Commission that they have violated the civil-service law and rules, and are not fit persons to be retained in the service. Immediately upon receipt of the Commission's communication the inspectors referred to were suspended and ordered to report at Washington to make answer. The Department investigated the charges, and in a letter to the Commission, on June 26, the Postmaster-General said that report had been made to him that Inspector Charles L. Doran did furnish to a United States Senator from Colorado a list of the carriers employed in the Denver post-office, showing to a certain extent their political affiliations. The letter then continued as follows: In explanation Mr. Doran asserts that he had not realized that the complying with this request would be in violation of any law, and it is evident that he did not feel at liberty to decline the request made by the Senator. As to the charges made against Inspector in Charge William T. Sullivan, the case is somewhat more complicated and confusing, by reason of circumstances and events which had transpired and were transpiring at this time in connection with the postal service at Denver. The Department had had a great deal of trouble_and annoyance in endeavoring to furnish a proper carrier service to the people at Denver, arising from what appeared to be a conspiracy on the part of the letter carriers to force a modification of the rules and the law governing the hours of employment of letter carriers. The whole subject was referred to Inspector Sullivan for investigation, report, and recommendation. It appears from the report of Mr. Machen, superintendent of the free-delivery service, that by reason of the attitude of the carriers there was more embarrassment and difficulty in the offices of the Department obtaining correct information and facts. * This embarrassment was due almost entirely to the attitude of the letter carriers. It was incident to this investigation and the discipline administered by the Department that caused Inspector Sullivan to write the letters to the carriers' association to which reference is made in our letter under reply. * * * * * Viewed from this standpoint, I believe it would be very unjust to Inspector Sullivan to remove him, and so to do would be very subversive of the discipline necessary for the proper administration of the postal business in the city of Denver. It would seem that Inspector Sullivan's connection with the list of carriers furnished was perfunctory and consisted merely in transmitting it received from Inspector Doran. Regarding Mr. Doran, I think, considering the circumstances, that dismissal from the service would be altogether too severe a punishment. * * * * * * * * * when A full statement was made by Inspector Sullivan, from which it appeared that on February 7, 1901, Letter Carrier Logan made complaint that the letter carriers, at a meeting held on February 2, had preferred charges against him for giving information to a post-office inspector; that Sullivan asked Logan what was the nature of the charges preferred, and that Logan said he was not present at the meeting and did not know, but was told it was for giving information to a post-office inspector; that Sullivan asked who was the author of the charges, and Logan told him that Cokayne, a discharged letter carrier, had preferred the charges and that several officers of the branch and ex-letter carriers, whom he named, were pushing the charges. Sullivan requested Logan to bring a copy of the charges when received. He further states that he did not then know that Logan had assisted in preparing a political list of the carriers or had anything to do with that list, and that his own connection with the list was so casual and limited that it had passed from his memory, and Logan's complaint did not recall it. Mr. Sullivan states that he was impressed from Logan's statement, and his reference to discharged letter carriers, that they were accusing Logan of giving information against them in the investigation which he was then conducting, and that a combination or conspiracy was being formed to discipline Logan for giving such information; that it was some days afterwards before he knew the exact nature of the charges. Mr. Sullivan's statement as to an existing conspiracy among the letter carriers is corroborated by other testimony. As Mr. Sullivan had had a long and honorable service as inspector, had justly earned his promotion, and bore an unblemished reputation for truthfulness, it was believed by the Post-Office Department that his statement should be accepted and that no further action should be taken in the premises. The attention of both the inspectors was called to the impropriety of furnishing the political lists in question, and it is believed that similar action on their part will not occur hereafter. Eagle Pass, Tex., Custom-House. File 6027. In July, 1901, a statement was filed with the Commission alleging irregularities in the civil-service examinations for the customs service at Eagle Pass, Tex., and charging the collector of that port, C. C. Drake, with having levied political assessments and with having discharged employees for political reasons. An investigation showed that the charge of irregularities in examinations was groundless, and it was therefore dismissed. With regard to the second charge, however, it was conclusively shown that Collector Drake and Cashier R. A. Harvin had solicited and received assessments from the employees of the custom-house for use in Drake's Congressional campaign, in violation of the civil-service law. Drake's case was accordingly brought to the attention of the President, under date of December 27, 1901. On January 15, 1902, he was removed from office. The Treasury Department was informed on the same date as to the evidence against Harvin. He was removed on March 20. The prosecution of both Drake and Harvin for violation of the civil-service law was barred by the statute of limitations, the offenses having been committed in 1898. Guthrie, Okla. POLITICAL ASSESSMENTS IN OKLAHOMA. On December 30, 1901, the Commission received a letter, signed by one J. H. Holmes, dated at Guthrie, Okla., December 28, inclosing typewritten copies of two circulars, as follows: Hon. REPUBLICAN TERRITORIAL CENTRAL COMMITTEE, Guthrie, Okla., September 1, 1900. DEAR SIR: The finance committee appointed by the Territorial Republican Central Committee have carefully prepared a list of prominent Republicans who are zealous for the success of Republican principles, including those who are now and have been beneficiaries of Republican success. In order that we may carry on a successful campaign and pay the legitimate expenses connected therewith we will ask you to contribute, as your equitable proportion, the sum of $We only expect a remittance of $- at this time, and will solicit no further payments unless absolutely necessary. Please remit to Mr. J. W. McNeal, at Guthrie, who is the duly elected treasurer of said committee. Thanking the Republicans of the Territory for the hearty cooperation always received, and assuring you that the present campaign will receive our very best endeavors, we are, Respectfully and confidentially, T. B. FERGUSON, Chairman. Mr. REPUBLICAN TERRITORIAL COMMITTEE, FINANCE DIVISION, DEAR SIR: On September 1 the committee sent you an invitation to contribute as you have been prospered to the Republican campaign fund for the present election. The letter may have been miscarried or been mislaid. In any event we have not heard from you. The calls on the committee have all been met up to this date. The outlook is very bright for our Territory to remain in line with the nation for the next four years. We will need all our resources and energy so that nothing may be left undone. The amount of your subscription yet unpaid is $- dollars, and we hope you will send it to Mr. J. W. McNeal, treasurer, at Guthrie, at once, as the committee have contracted certain obligations which must be paid. Thanking you in advance, we are, yours for success, THE REPUBLICAN FINANCE COMMITTEE. Holmes alleged that at the time these circulars were sent out Ferguson was postmaster at Watonga, Okla., and Renshaw was clerk of the United States district court of Oklahoma, and asked whether, in view of these facts, the circulars did not indicate a violation of the civil-service law. On January 4, 1902, the Commission wrote to Holmes, asking for further information and evidence upon which to determine whether there had been a violation of the law, but this letter was returned unclaimed. One of the Commission's examiners, while on the regular spring tour of examinations, was instructed to visit Guthrie and make further investigation of the matter. He was unable to find any such person as J. H. Holmes in Guthrie, but on inquiry he found that the circulars had been actually sent out substantially as alleged by Holmes. J. M. McNeal, who was treasurer of the "finance committee," stated that he and another member of that committee had prepared the circulars in question on their own responsibility as members of the committee and without the knowledge of either Renshaw or Ferguson. He stated further that very soon after these circulars had been sent out Ferguson and Renshaw came to him and required that all the circulars that remained upon which their names appeared should be destroyed, as being in violation of the civil-service law; and that for this reason the names of Renshaw and Ferguson were omitted from the second circular, which was signed by the "finance committee." He stated that Ferguson was chairman and Renshaw secretary of the Republican Territorial Committee, but that they had had no connection with the solicitation of funds by the "finance committee." Mr. McNeal, treasurer of the finance committee, is president of a bank in Guthrie and is not in the Federal service. Mr. Ferguson (now governor of Oklahoma) afterwards confirmed the above statements, and said that his action in regard to the destruction of the circulars was taken as soon as he learned of their existence. He further stated that he had made no personal solicitation for campaign funds, and that in one case where a contribution was tendered him by another official he returned the money and called attention to the prohibitions of the civil-service act in that connection. Several others were interviewed by the examiner, but no testimony was obtained which was inconsistent with the truth of the above statements. It appeared, therefore, that the evidence obtained did not make a prima facie case of intent on the part of either Mr. Ferguson or Mr. Renshaw to solicit or receive political contributions from other Federal officials, and the matter was accordingly dropped without further action. Louisville, Ky., Internal-Revenue District. File 6335. In 1899 the Commission investigated the matter of the alleged collection of political assessments and coercion of political action of employees on the part of officials in the fifth internal-revenue district of Kentucky. It appearing to the Commission as the result of this investigation that the collector, Charles E. Sapp, was guilty of violating the provisions of the civil-service act and rules in regard to the solicitation and collection of political contributions and the coercion of the political action of subordinates, recommendation was made to the Treasury Department and to the President for his removal, and subsequently the whole case was referred to the Department of Justice for the institution of the proper prosecutions under the law. The matter was then submitted to the grand jury in November, 1900, but that body failed to find any indictments. The details of the case above stated in outline are given in the Commission's Seventeenth Report, at pages 243-256. In the early part of October, 1901, there appeared in the public press in Louisville statements indicating that the conditions which had been revealed by the Commission's investigation in 1899 still existed in that district. The Commission, by one of its examiners, made a further investigation in the latter part of October, 1901, and in transmitting to the President on November 7, 1901, the report of the examiner, said: It was clearly proved that the collector of internal revenue, Charles E. Sapp, has been violating, and continues to violate, section 11 of the civil-service act, in that he has practically supported and indorsed the action of one Joseph Potoning in soliciting and receiving political contributions from the revenue employees of his district, while by the section referred to he is prohibited from being "in any manner concerned in" such a soliciting or receiving. Joseph Potoning is authorized by the Jefferson County Republican campaign committee to solicit and receive contributions to its campaign funds. These contributions are assessed regularly at the rate of 5 per cent of the salary of each man in the Internal-Revenue Service in that district, payable monthly; but these monthly assessments are supplemented by calls made from time to time for contributions ranging from $50 to $100 from each man for some special occasion, such as the campaign just ended. Potoning demands these funds from the employees of the InternalRevenue Service both by personal interviews with them in their regular places of official employment and by communications sent through the mail and addressed to them at such places. He represents to them that he is authorized by the proper powers to solicit and receive such contributions, and to any recalcitrant urges that it is true economy to pay up because "it is better to give $5 than to lose $100.' The force of this argument of course depends upon the recognition by the person solicited that an understanding exists between Potoning and Sapp; but if such an understanding or working plan is known to exist, then the argument will be most effective with the very men who could least afford to contribute and who would therefore be least likely to contribute voluntarily, for it is in the power of the collector not only (as by change of assignment) to reduce a man's pay very greatly and at the same time separate him from his family, but also (by "laying him off") to deprive him of compensation entirely, while at the same time he is prevented by the statute from accepting any other employment without forfeiting his right to any future assignment to duty in the Internal-Revenue Service. That such a practical understanding does exist between Joseph Potoning and Internal-Revenue Collector Charles E. Sapp has been frequently more or less directly indicated by testimony given the Commission in this and in former investigations. One witness, T. S. Givan, on November 1, 1901, testified directly and unequivocally to Examiner Kemp that Collector Sapp had himself, in substance, told said Givan that such an understanding did in fact exist, to-wit, that Sapp had said to him that Potoning was all right, that he (Sapp) was going to give his money to Potoning, and that Givan could tell the boys that they had better do likewise. On November 11, 1901, Collector Sapp resigned. Under date of November 12, 1901, the Commission wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury inclosing a brief of evidence obtained in its investigation, showing that Leonard Parsons, deputy collector of internal revenue, acting as assignment clerk in the office of the collector, had violated the provisions of sections 11, 12, and 13 of the civil-service act, and recommending his removal from the service. On January 31, 1902, Mr. Parsons resigned. Under date of November 15, 1901, the Commission again referred the whole matter as brought out in its investigations to the Attorney-General, and it was again presented to the grand jury at the spring term of 1902. Potoning was indicted singly, under section 12, and Sapp and Parsons were indicted jointly, under section 11 of the civil-service act. Sapp, Parsons, and Potoning were indicted, under section 5440 of the Revised Statutes, for conspiracy. The cases are set for trial at the fall term of court, 1902. Nashville, Tenn., Post-Office. File 5432. On December 31, 1901, William C. Baird, of Nasnville, Tenn., who was formerly a post-office inspector, charged that Postmaster A. W. Wills, of Nashville, Tenn., and his private stenographer, Miss Addie Vester, had been guilty of levying political assessments, and upon an investigation by the Commission the following facts appeared: In the campaign of 1900 Postmaster Wills secured the consent of Mr. Lee Brock, the then assistant United States district attorney at Nashville, to run for Congress in the Sixth Tennessee district. Mr. Brock, it seems, consented with the understanding that the money necessary to defray campaign expenses must be furnished by others, that he "did not have a dollar." Mr. Wills agreed to furnish the money and sent to Mr. Brock his personal checks to the amount of $150. Shortly after this five of the postmaster's subordinates proposed to contribute toward repaying him the amount he had given. Mr. Wills then drew up in his own handwriting a statement apportioning to each the sum he should pay, the amounts ranging from $5 to $15. The postmaster's stenographer, Miss Vester, without his knowledge or consent, showed this statement to the parties concerned. They paid their respective shares to her and she in turn paid the money to the treasurer of the campaign committee, who was not an officeholder. The treasurer subsequently returned to Mr. Wills $100 out of the $150 contributed, part of the money so returned having been collected from persons not in the service. No actual coercion on the part of the postmaster was shown. On the contrary, all the persons contributing stated in their affidavits that their contributions were entirely unsolicited. The fact that but five of the forty employees of the office were expected to participate in this contribution is further evidence that there was no actual coercion. In its report to the Presi lent January 27, 1902, the Commission said: "There would appear therefore to be at least two technical violations of the law on the part of Postmaster Wills: "First. He gave $150 to another official to be used for political purposes. "Second. He caused to be collected from his own subordinates the above-named sums to reimburse himself. This was not done directly, but through Miss Vester, also a Government employee, and through the agency of the treasurer of the campaign committee. 66* * * We told him there was undoubtedly a technical violation. The absence of anything like coercion would indicate, however, that this is not one of the cases against which the law was really aimed." Mr. Wills was subsequently reappointed postmaster at Nashville. Richmond, Va., Post-Office. POLITICAL ASSESSMENTS IN VIRGINIA. An investigation made by the Commission in October, 1901 (see file 5559), developed the fact that a considerable number of the employees of the Richmond, Va., post-office had received through the mai's and addressed to them at the post-office the following circular: BOYDTON, VA., September 5, 1901. DEAR SIR: The pending campaign is of unusual importance to the Republican party of Virginia, and strenuous efforts are being made to elect our candidates. The legitimate and necessary expenses of the contest will be very large, and it is hoped and believed that every member of our party who is in condition to do so would cheerfully embrace the opportunity of making a contribution to it. We believe that those persons especially who are receiving emoluments from party appointments should contribute at least 5 per centum of their salaries to be used for the purpose indicated above, and I have been commissioned by the proper party |