Democratic Sentinel, Volume 13, Number 28, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 August 1889 — ROUGH ON A POSTMASTER [ARTICLE]

ROUGH ON A POSTMASTER

MILWAUKEE’S MAIL OFFICIAL SEVERELY SCORED. The Civil Service Makes Another Report on Their Findings in Connection with That Office—What the Evidence Shows. A Washington dispatch says: The civil service commission made public its second report in the Milwaukee postoffice case. The commissioners say that Postmaster Paul was given every opportunity to explain the charges against him. and that his declaration that he was condemned without a hearing and without being informed of the charges against him is a gross misstatement. The report then recites the examinations made by Secretary Doyle and Chief Examiner Webster, whose reports showed such gross violations of the law that the three commissioners deemed the accusations of such importance as to warrant an investigation by the full board. The report continues: “Ext ept in two important cases we did not try to get at any new facts; we simply examined Mr. Paul to see whether he could disprove the statements or give any satisfactory explanation of the charges made in the two preliminary reports. He entirely failed to do so. That there has been crooked work in the office is admitted by all. The only question is where the resposibilitv lies. We examined the secretary of the local examining board, Hamilton shidy, and the chairman, J. B. Johnson. Shidy is admitted by all to have done the work of the board, the other members doing little save assisting in marking the papers and attending occasional formal meetings. Shidy testifies that he was compelled by the postmaster to give the latter free access to the list of eligibles, although such access was at that time strictly forbidden; and he further testifies that the postmaster, knowing those who were eligible, as well as their standing, appointed whomsoever he chose, and then forced him (Shidy) to torture the lists and certification books so as to produce a certification which should bear the appointees’ names The report further cites the evidence of Shidy and Johnson to show that they were forced against their own judgment to remark the papers of an applicant, and also the statement of Mr. Paul that he had not, forced them to alter the mark, but that {key had been altered btpuq? be expressed' great dissatisfaction at the mAncing?*’ Shidy, in the presence of both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Paul, as well as of the three commissioners, stated that the reason for their changing the grade of the unfortunate applicant was to get him out of the way of another man whom the postmaster desired to appoint. Continuing the report says: “In short, the official records show beyond possibility of dispute that the lists of eligibles were twisted and garbled in almost every conceivable manner in order to produce swindling certifications whereby certain men could be rejected, although entitled to appointment, and other men' appointed, although having no rightful claim to the chance. For Mr. Paul to plead innocence is equivalent to his pleading imbecility, for no sane man could have made appointments from a succession of such certifications without perceiving their character, and it is quite incredible that he could by mere chance have picked out from each certification the very individual to favor whose choice it was designed. Mr. t Paul alone benefited by the crookedness of these certifications, for he alone had the appointing power; there could be no possible object in Shidy’s conduct unless it was fear of thwarting the wishes of his superior officer.”