The fact that 20.87 per cent of all annuitants now on the roll were retired for total disability before they reached retirement age indicates that there are many in the service whose efficiency is impaired but who can not now be retired, their disability not being total. A lowering of the retirement age and an optional retirement, say at the age of 60, after long service, would make for greater efficiency.

A LOWER AND UNIFORM RETIREMENT AGE

Seventy years as a retirement age for clerks is too high, as nearly 30 per cent of all annuitants in that group were retired for total disability before reaching 70, and a large per cent of that group still in the service must be partially disabled. Sixty-five years as a retirement age for post-office clerks and carriers is too high, as over 25 per cent of those on the rolls as annuitants were retired for total disability before reaching 65. The Government must carry these partially disabled clerks, either as employees or annuitants. At present it is carrying them at full salary for impaired services. The above table and facts suggest a flat optional retirement age of 60 years for all groups of employees.

THE VARYING COSTS OF EQUAL ANNUITIES

The unfairness of charging a $3,000 employee twice as much as one at $1,500 for the same annuity, and requiring an employee who entered the service 40 years below retirement age to pay deductions 10 years longer than one appointed 30 years below retirement age, for the same annuity, still continues. Deductions should cease after 30 years of service, and should not be levied on any portion of salary in excess of $1,500.

TOTAL DISABILITY

A total disability annuitant who is subsequently rated as recovered goes off the rolls after 90 days, whether he is able to secure reinstatement in the service or not. As his separation for disability

was just as involuntary as though he had been separated by a reduction of force, with the additional handicap of illness, he should, if 45 years old, be entitled to a deferred annuity to begin at the age of 55.

FORCED RETIREMENT FOUR YEARS BEYOND RETIREMENT AGE

The provision in the act "That after August 20, 1930, no employees shall be continued in the civil service of the United States beyond the age of retirement for more than four years" will force many separations within the next year, unless the law is modified at the December session. Of the 19,745 continuance certificates issued by this commission since the act was passed, 2,571, or over 13 per cent, were for those who had served four years or more beyond retirement age.

The commission, being satisfied from its experience with the administration of the civil service act and the retirement act that mandatory retirement would in some cases be detrimental to the service, suggested an amendment of the act in letter of May 10, 1929, to Senator Porter H. Dale, chairman, Senate Committee on Civil Service.

This commission on July 25, 1929, sent out to 45 heads of departments and independent establishments, a circular letter inviting their views on a proposed amendment to make possible continuance for more than four years "in special cases where the head of the department, branch, or independent office concerned, certifies, and the Civil Service Commission agrees, that the continuance of the employee would be advantageous to the public service." Eight departments and 14 other establishments replied. The Interior, Navy, Post Office, Agriculture, Commerce, and Treasury Departments are adverse to the amendment; Justice and Labor favor it, and the Departments of State and War did not reply. The General Accounting Office and Office of the Director of Public Buildings and Public Parks, are adverse; but the Architect of the Capitol, Federal Power Commission, Interstate Commerce Commission, Librarian of Congress, librarian District of Columbia Public Library, Panama Canal, recorder of deeds, Shipping Board, and Tariff Commission, favor the amendment. The Smithsonian Institution has already recommended to Congress the exemption of research workers from the 4-year limitation. The replies appear in full in the appendix to this report.

The statements adverse to the amendment are that the departments, during the past 10 years, have had time to train employees to take the places of those who are to retire; that the employees due to retire have had time to adjust their affairs; that the proposed

change is not needed; that the service will be improved by the retirement of most of the employees at age of 70, and that the few retained beyond 70 should all be retired on or before they reach 74 years. This reasoning seems to ignore the fact that many employees reach retirement age from 5 to 8 years below age of 70.

66

Favoring the amendment, the Department of Justice states that some employees at 74 are as able as ever, physically and mentally, and of much greater value to the Government than ever because of their long experience. To compel the retirement of such employees at any arbitrary age can not be for the best interests of the Government."

The Governor of the Panama Canal says, "a number of our employees who are scheduled for compulsory retirement next year possess qualifications, through training and experience in canal work, which fully warrant continuance of their service for the public good." He refers also to the fact that their annuities would average less than $60 per month, as raising a serious problem in connection with their reestablishing themselves in the United States. These canal employees will be forced out at age 66, as they reach retirement age at 62 years, after 15 years' service in the Tropics.

The Shipping Board believes that compulsory retirement might create a hardship both on the employee and the department.

The Architect of the Capitol says, "I believe that the heads of departments in connection with the assistance of the United States Civil Service Commission, are better able to determine the questions of retirement or retention in service in relation to the needs of the departments than can be determined by a general law of limitation."

The librarian of the District of Columbia Public Library says, "By all means the Government ought to retain in its employ persons beyond the age of 74 who are still vigorous physically and mentally, who are desirous of continuing their work, and whose service is of such character that their superior officers wish to retain them.”

The Librarian of Congress says, in part, "Speaking for the Library of Congress, my answer is that not merely will such an amendment be desirable, but that the exceptions which it proposes are indispensable to the efficiency of our service. So clear has this been to me from the actual observation and experience of that service, that I had in fact intended at the appropriate time to ask for some exemptions applying to it.

"It is to the professional grades that they would particularly apply. This is not to say that they might not be desirable to some extent in the clerical and administrative service also. The professional service of the Library, however, includes the application to our work, especially in the development of the collections, and the interpreta

tion of them to the public, of an accumulated knowledge of the material and experience, in making it useful, that can not possibly be replaced by a newcomer. The loss of a veteran in that relatior is therefore the loss of an asset which can not be made good in a new appointee.

"This does not mean that the efficiency of every employee continues indefinitely. There are points at which his initiative and his administrative efficiency will diminish. If his work involves the conduct of a department for which initiative, physical vigor, and those other qualities that make for administrative efficiency are indispensable he should, of course, be discontinued or his relation and pay readjusted. But in numerous instances, even these qualities continue beyond the age of 74, for during the past 50 years the age of efficiency has itself been prolonged. A large, important, and distinctive service rendered by individuals of our staff, distingushing the Library from an ordinary executive bureau, is an advisory service in the development of the collections and a responsive service to inquiries in the interpretation of them. And this service, depending, as I have stated, upon accumulated knowledge of the literature, of the collections in the Library, and of the apparatus for their use, is apt to continue practically undiminished for a period considerably beyond the age of 74.

"In exceptional cases it is certain to do so, and as the amendment leaves the rule as it stands, providing only for exceptions upon a specific certificate, and for periods of two years at a time, I believe that it should by all means be adopted.

"And this belief is based not upon sympathy for the employees, but upon the benefit to our service.”

Mr. Joseph S. McCoy, Government actuary, Treasury Department, states that the late Hon. John A. Kasson, with whom he worked for three years, at the age of 82, was the ablest official in his experience. Mr. Kasson was Assistant Postmaster General in Lincoln's first Cabinet, Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Minister to Austria and Germany, and at the age of 79 began three years of service under President McKinley aiding the State Department, passing upon all questions relating to our foreign trade. Mr. McCoy further refers to a present Cabinet officer, who, at the age of 74, is unequaled, and to a United States Senator who at the age of 85 is yet thoroughly competent and efficient. He says further:

"My experience is that ability and efficiency gained in many lines of work, can not be passed on, but can only be acquired by long and laborious service. * ** Age has balance, youth has vim. Both are necessary. For these reasons I am in favor of retaining in the service, by mutual consent, civil employees so long as such service is of value to the Government."

Mr. J. Clawson Roop, director, Bureau of the Budget, says: "I am of opinion that continuance in the service for certain specially qualified employees would be very advantageous to the public service, and that it is desirable that the amended retirement act should contain such a provision."

Some of the department and office heads deem it necessary to retain experienced employees, whom they regard as indispensable, as long as they are efficient. The proposed amendment would permit this if the Civil Service Commission agrees that their retention would be advantageous to the public service, leaving the compulsory retirement provision unchanged in its general application to departments not appealing to the exception. Certifications of efficient employees for continuance have been thus far, in the language of the act, "as of course. Continuances for more than four years will be "exceptional" if the proposed amendment is adopted.

The fact, if it be a fact, that in some offices the need to retain an employee more than four years beyond retirement age will never arise can not justify compulsory retirement in other parts of the service of those who should be retained in the public interest.

CHARACTER INVESTIGATIONS

It may be accepted as fundamental that no law, however worthily conceived, can be more honestly and effectively enforced than those entrusted with its enforcement are themselves disposed and able to enforce it. This principle is especially applicable in the selection of honest and qualified persons for appointment to law enforcement positions.

With a full appreciation of the many perplexing difficulties which have attended the Government's efforts in prohibition enforcement, the commission, in its selection of personnel for that service, has required from the outset a character investigation for all applicants. In the general field of law enforcement, it is vital that those appointed shall be persons whose conduct, associations, and reputation shall give assurance of honest and conscientious effort at enforcement of the law. This applies with special emphasis to those positions which relate to prohibition enforcement.

In the first examination for agent, inspector, and investigator positions, the character test eliminated as unsuitable somewhat less than a half of the whole number of competitors who had qualified under the preceding requirements. Some of the more common grounds for the rejection of applicants were: False statements under oath, immorality, use of intoxicants, criminal records, grafting or other dishonesty, failure in previous public service, bad reputation. etc.