EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 22, 1888_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I return without approval House bill No. 2088, entitled "An act for the
relief of W.S. Carpenter."
This bill appropriates the sum of $126.26 to be paid to the beneficiary
named therein for his salary as an employee in the Railway Mail Service
from the 3d day of October until the 20th day of November, 1882.
Mr. Carpenter was employed as a railway postal clerk at a salary of $800
per annum. He abandoned his route about the 2d day of October, 1882,
without any leave of absence or explanation at the time, leaving his
work in charge of one Jones, another railway postal clerk. He appears to
have been paid for all the work he did, unless it be for two or three
days in October, for which he apparently makes no claim.
There is nothing in the Post-Office Department showing that the absence
of Carpenter was claimed to be on account of sickness, though there are
a number of communications relating to the case.
The regulations of the Department permit the performance of the duties
of a postal clerk by an associate in case of sickness, but never without
the written permission of the division superintendent after an
arrangement between the parties in writing, signed by them and filed
with the superintendent.
Among a number of communications from Railway Mail Service officials
relating to the conduct of Carpenter, all tending in the same direction,
there is a letter from the chief clerk of the Railway Mail Service at
Peoria, Ill., under whose immediate supervision Mr. Carpenter performed
service, written to the superintendent of the sixth division of said
service at Chicago, and dated November 16, 1882, containing the
following statement:
I desire to call your attention to the case of W.S. Carpenter, Gilman
and Springfield R.P.O., as follows: October 10 he was requested to
appear at the post-office at Springfield, Ill., for examination on
Illinois scheme. I went to Springfield for the purpose of examining him,
but he failed to put in an appearance. Upon my return home I found a
letter from him stating that he did not expect to remain in the service,
hence his failure to report for examination; and, furthermore, that he
would send in his resignation to your office by the first of the
following week. This he had not done the 12th instant. He has not been
on duty but two days since October 1. He left the run in charge of Mr.
Jones, of the same line, telling him he did not know when he would
return, and for Jones to keep up the run. He has no leave of absence,
either verbally or otherwise. What his motives are for conducting
himself in this manner I can not imagine. I have written him on the
subject, but can not hear from him. When in Springfield the 3d instant,
I requested the postmaster there to not pay Carpenter for October until
he received notice to do so. I then notified you of the facts in the
matter. I would respectfully recommend that Carpenter be relieved from
further duty and a successor be appointed. He is of no account at the
best; he has no interest in the work, and should be removed. I would
also recommend that he be paid for but the two days' run in the month
of October.
Four days after the date of this letter Mr. Carpenter was notified that
an order had been issued discontinuing his pay and services.
These facts stated present the case of an employee of the Government
abandoning his duties without leave or notice, in direct violation of
rules, and claiming compensation for work done in his absence by another
employee whose entire services were due the Government.
To allow a claim so lacking in merit would endanger discipline and
invite irregularity and loose methods in a very important branch of the
public service.