Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

III. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

1. Clerks to commercial attachés, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce.5

2. Trade commissioners, commercial agents, experts, and special agents to investigate trade conditions abroad and in the United States, including the insular possessions, with the object of promoting the foreign commerce of the United States.

IV. WAR DEPARTMENT.

1. Aeronautical engineers, aeronautical mechanical engineers, aeronautical chemists, and aeronautical mechanical draftsmen.'

2. Positions of military storekeeper in the Signal Service at large, the Medical Department at large, and the Quartermaster Corps of the Army when filled by retired noncommissioned officers of those branches of the service.

3. Production experts in the Signal Service at large."

4. Not to exceed 10 clerical positions in the War College Division, during the continuance of the war only, for highly confidential service.1

10

5. Not to exceed 20 clerical positions in the Military Intelligence Branch, Executive Division, General Staff, during the continuance of the war only, for highly confidential services."

V. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

Any competitive position at a United States penitentiary when filled by a paroled prisoner who is recommended for such employment by the officers of the penitentiary in which the employment is proposed, by the board of parole, and by the Department of Justice.

VI. INTERDEPARTMENTAL SOCIAL HYGIENE BOARD.12

1. Not to exceed 15 positions to be filled by persons engaged on confidential and protective work.

5 Amendment of Sept. 28, 1914.

• Amendment of Sept. 28, 1916.

7 Amendment of Apr. 14, 1919.

8 Amendments of Oct. 31, 1916, and May 9, 1917.

* Amendment of Oct. 27, 1917.

10 Amendment of Jan. 26, 1918.

11 Amendment of Apr. 4, 1918. 12 Amendment of Nov. 25, 1919.

HISTORICAL REGISTER

OF THE

UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

COMMISSIONERS:

MARTIN A. MORRISON, Indiana, President.

GEORGE R. WALES, Vermont.

MRS. HELEN H. GARDENER, District of Columbia.

HERBERT A. FILER, Chief Examiner.
JOHN T. DOYLE, Secretary.

List of commissioners, chief examiners, and secretaries since 1883.

Name.

Whence appointed.

Date of oath
of office.

Date of retirement.

COMMISSIONERS.

[blocks in formation]

Resigned Apr. 17, 1886.
Resigned Nov. 9, 1885.
Do.

Resigned Apr. 17, 1886.
Removed Feb. 9, 1889.
Resigned Oct. 10, 1888.
Resigned May 24, 1895.
Resigned June 23, 1892.
Resigned May 5, 1895.
Removed Nov. 28, 1893.
Died Dec. 12, 1903.
Resigned Jan. 19, 1898.
Resigned Nov. 14, 1901.
Died Mar. 18, 1901.
Resigned Mar. 31, 1902.
Resigned Apr. 30, 1903.
Resigned Feb. 25, 1903.
Resigned Nov. 6, 1906.
Resigned Apr. 30, 1909.
Resigned June 10, 1913.
Resigned Feb. 28, 1919.
Resigned May 25, 1909.
Resigned June 30, 1913.
Resigned Sept. 7, 1919.
Resigned Mar. 16, 1919.

Apr. 17, 1886.2
Died Mar. 23, 1896.
Resigned June 7, 1903.
Died Oct. 26, 1908.
Resigned Mar. 16, 1919.

[blocks in formation]

1 Mr. Wales, when appointed by the President as commissioner, had served on the force of the commission for 14 years as clerk, examiner, law clerk, chief of division, and assistant chief examiner and 10 years as chief examiner.

2 Appointed commissioner.

3 Mr. Filer when appointed by the President had been on the force of the commission for 22 years as clerk and examiner.

4 Mr. Doyle was appointed stenographer to the commission Mar. 9, 1883, and promoted upon appointment by the President from that position to secretary.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

MANDATORY REINSTATEMENT OF FORMER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO ENTERED THE MILITARY SERVICE.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
November 3, 1919.

You have recently referred to me a letter from the Civil Service Commission, dated September 25, 1919, requesting of me an expression of my opinion upon several questions involving a construction of the following provision of the act approved July 11, 1919:

"That all former Government employees who have entered the military or naval service of the United States in the war with the German Government shall be reinstated on application to their former positions if they have received an honorable discharge and are qualified to perform the duties of the position." The questions and the answers thereto are as follows:

1. Is the above provision restricted to reinstatements in navy yards, naval stations, naval ordnance plants, and naval ammunition depots within the terms of the appropriation to which it is attached or is it general legislation applicable to all branches of the Government service?

It seems clear that this provision is applicable to all branches of the Government service.

2. Is the above provision mandatory as to the reinstatement to their former positions under the Government of persons commissioned from civil life—that is, persons who were neither drafted nor enlisted?

It requires reinstatement to their former positions of persons commissioned from civil life. The urgent deficiency appropriation act of February 25, 1919, contained a provision practically identical with the one under consideration, except that instead of the words “who have entered" the expression "who have been drafted or enlisted was used. In construing that clause I have held in two opinions, dated April 14 and May 12, 1919, that the provision applied to all who were either drafted or who enlisted as privates, although they may have subsequently been commissioned as officers, but did not include those who were commissioned from civil life without having previously enlisted for any purpose. But the words "who have entered" are clearly broad enough to include persons commissioned from civil life, and the debates in Congress on this measure (vol. 57, Congressional Record, p. 2865) show that they were substituted for the words "who have been drafted or enlisted" contained in the clause as originally introduced for the express purpose of making it so applicable.

3. In what way, and to what extent, if any, is the above provision mandatory when the former position of the employee has become nonexistent by reason of cessation of the war emergency, completion of work, exhaustion of funds, or change of administrative policy?

As I said in my opinion of May 12, 1919, such a provision requires the restoration of a former Government employee only if his former position is still in existence. It does not require his reinstatement if for any reason the position he formerly occupied has ceased to exist.

Respectfully,

22

92

A. MITCHELL PALMER,
Attorney General.

ELIGIBLES WITH MILITARY PREFERENCE PRECEDE ALL OTHERS.

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

April 13, 1920.

You have recently referred to me a letter from the Civil Service Commission dated April 5, 1920, requesting of me an expression of my opinion upon the question of law arising out of the following state of facts:

To avoid the loss of the services of civil-service employees who have been separated from the service because of a reducton of force and who have been recommended for further employment by the Government because of demonstrated efficiency in the offices from which they have been separated, an Executive order was issued on November 29, 1918, requiring the Civil Service Commisson to establish separate reemployment registers from which such employees may be certified for vacancies in other offices at the request of the department making the requisition.

By the act of July 11, 1919, it is provided:

"That hereaftetr in making appointments to clerical and other positions in the executive branch of the Government in the District of Columbia or elsewhere preference shall be given to honorably discharged soldiers, sailors, and marines, and widows of such, and to the wives of injured soldiers, sailors, and marines who themselves are not qualified, but whose wives are qualified to hold such positions."

For the purpose of giving effect to these provisions the Civil Service Commission has established a reemployment and a regular register of eligibles with military preference and similar registers of eligibles without miltary preference. The question now raised is whether appointments may be made from the reemployment register of eligibles without military preference before the regular register of eligibles with military preference is exhausted, notwithstanding the above-quoted provision of the act of July 11, 1919.

The preference given by that provision is a preference over all other persons who may be eligible to appointment. No exceptions are expressed and none can be read into the act. Its provisions are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. Your question must, therefore, be answered in the negative. Respectfully,

A. MITCHELL PALMER,
Attorney General.

COURT DECISION.

FALSE TESTIMONY BEFORE A CIVIL-SERVICE EXAMINER CONSTITUTES

PERJURY.

[United States v. Crandol (233 Fed. Rep., 331), District Court, E. D., Virginia, June 9, 1916.]

Penal Code (act Mar. 4, 1909, c. 321, sec. 125, 35 Stat., 1111, Compt. St., 1913, sec. 10295) declares that whoever, having taken oath in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify truly, who shall willfully and contrary to such oath state or subscribe any matter which he believes untrue, shall be guilty of perjury. The civilservice act (act Mar. 3, 1871, c. 114, 16 Stat., 495) authorizes the President, with the aid of the Civil Service Commission, to prescribe such regulations for the admission of persons into the civil service as will best promote the efficiency thereof, while act August 23, 1912 (c. 350, sec. 1, 37 Stat., 372, Comp. St., 1913, sec. 3273), authorizes members of the Civil Service and its duly authorized representatives to administer oaths to witnesses in any matter pending before the commission. An applicant for a position in the civil service made false statements in an application under oath before the recorder. Held that, as the Civil Service Commission was entitled to make inquiries concerning the applicant's qualifications, such false testimony constituted perjury; the right to administer oaths, in matters depending before the commission, not being limited to witnesses at formal hearings.

(ED. NOTE. For other cases, see Perjury, Cent. Dig., secs. 4-6; Dec. Dig. Key, 5.)

Carl Crandol was indicted for perjury. On demurrer to indictment. Demurrer overruled.

Richard H. Mann, United States attorney, of Petersburg, Va., and Hiram M. Smith, assistant United States attorney, of Richmond, Va.

Bowden & Heard, of Norfolk, Va., for defendant.

Woods, circuit judge. The defendant, Edward Crandol, alias Carl Crandol, demurs to an indictment charging him in the first count with a violation of section 125 of the Penal Code, in that he falsely stated in an application_required by the Civil Service Commission of the United States "that he had never been indicted for or convicted of any crime or misdemeanor or arrested upon any charge," and in the second count charging him with a violation of the same section in that he falsely stated in his application "that he had never been in the military or naval service of the United States." The oath is alleged to have been taken before F. M. Brewer, recorder.

The demurrer to the indictment must be overruled for these reasons: The statute authorizes the President of the United States, with the aid of the Civil Service Commission, " to prescribe such regulations for the admission of persons into the civil service of the United States as may best promote the efficiency thereof, and ascertain the fitness of each candidate in respect to age, health, character, knowledge, and ability for the branch of service in which he seeks to enter." (Comp. St., 1913, sec. 3213.) The regulations thus authorized may embrace the requirement that an applicant shall answer under oath questions bearing on his fitness in the respects mentioned in the statute. The questions propounded in the application in this case were authorized by the regulations prescribed by the President in accordance with law. The act approved August 23, 1912, provides:

"Members of the Civil Service Commission and its duly authorized representatives are hereafter authorized to administer oaths to witnesses in any matter depending before the Civil Service Commission." (37 Stat., 372.)

To hold, as is contended, that the words “ any matter depending before the Civil Service Commission " are restricted in meaning to matters involving formal hearings, would be to limit unduly the meaning of the words and distort their natural sense. When one becomes an applicant for a position in the civil service of the United States, his application is a matter depending before the Civil Service Commission.

The position taken that "witnesses" means in the statutes those testifying in a judicial or other formal inquiry is also unsound. The word "witnesses " is used in its ordinary sense, and includes all persons whose declarations under oath are received for any legal purpose, and embraces deponents in affidavits. The Recorder is a representative of the Civil Service Commission, duly authorized by it to administer oaths of witnesses, and is therefore a person authorized by the laws of the Unietd States to administer oaths.

A number of authorities have been cited by counsel on both sides more or less pertinent to the questions involved, but the latest and highest authority I think clearly supports the conclusión reached. (United States v. Smull, 236 U. S., 405, Sup. Ct. 349, 59 L. Ed., 641.) In a well-considered opinion, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia has reached the same conclusion. (Johnson v. United States, 26 App. D. C., 128.)

« AnteriorContinuar »