mediately applicable to the personnel of this commission, none of whom will become eligible for retirement under existing legislation during the ensuing decade. However, it is believed that the amendment proposed to Senate bill No. 15 is in the public interest, and the commission would be favorable to its enactment into law.

Samuel Goodacre, secretary United States Shipping Board:

With reference to your communication of July 25 (Retirement Circular No. 62), you are advised that after due consideration it is the belief of this organization that the proposed amendment to the retirement act, leaving the matter of the continuance of employees reaching the retirement age for a period of two years after the retirement age is reached to the discretion of the department would be advantageous, as it might in some instances create a hardship both on the employee and the department in the event there was no possibility of the continuance of the service.

It is not believed that this contingency would arise often, as far as the Shipping Board is concerned, but it is believed, as cited above, occasion might arise where it would be advantageous to the public service to grant a two years' extension in some particular instances.

John F. Bethune, secretary United States Tariff Commission:

Receipt is acknowledged of your Retirement Circular No. 62, dated July 25, 1929, in reference to proposed amendment of the retirement act of July 3, 1926, with a view to providing for extension of service of those who may have reached retirement age.

The Tariff Commission sees no objection to the proposed amendment set out in your circular, and it is believed that such an amendment will be in the interest of the public service.

David Lynn, Architect of the Capitol:

I have received and considered Retirement Circular No. 62, and in compliance with the request for an expression of opinion desire to state that I approve of the proposed amendment by the addition of a new section to be numbered 4 to Senate bill No. 15, and would be gratified if the bill as amended can be enacted into a law at the coming session of Congress.

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.

Herbert Putnam, Librarian of Congress :

With reference to Retirement Circular No. 62, dated July 25, 1929, which I only now have opportunity to answer:

The question raised by it is as to whether paragraph 1, Section II, of the retirement act, which after the year 1930 would preclude continuance in the civil service of the United States of any employee beyond the ages of 74, 69, or 66, within the respective groups, shall be amended so as to permit exceptions to be made in especial cases where the head of the department certifies that a continuance of the employee will be advantageous to the public service.

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 interpretation 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 relation 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 distinguished service rendered by individuals of our staff, distinguishing 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.

George F. Bowerman, Librarian District of Columbia Public Library:

Thank you very much for sending me a copy of your Retirement Circular No. 62, in which it is proposed to amend the retirement act so that on the affirmative recommendation of heads of departments, branches, and independent offices, if the Civil Service Commission agrees, employees may be continued in the public service beyond the ages of 74, 69, and 66, as the case may be.

Of course, I have long been on record as not believing in the provision of the law by which, after August 20, 1930, no employee may be continued beyond the age of retirement for more than four years. My views on this subject were last presented to the House Committee on Civil Service on February 2, 1928, and will be found in the printed hearings on the civil service retirement act, Seventieth Congress, first session, pages 157-158.

66

It seems to me that the Government will be the loser, in many cases, if the present provision of the law is not repealed. I would call attention to an article by Dr. Eugene Lyman Fisk in the August number of the Review of Reviews entitled How Long Will You Live?" This article by the head of the Life Extension Institute clearly shows that old age is not a cast-iron matter by which at the arrival of a certain number of years of life a person is incapacitated but depends on the health of the individual. The article gives pictures of a number of men well beyond the age of 80 who are engaged in active pursuit of their businesses or professions. 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 present provision of the law is unreasonable and unscientific. Arthur G. Froe, Recorder of Deeds of the District of Columbia :

Replying to letter (Retirement Circular No. 62) of July 25, 1929, relative to the provision in the retirement act of July 3, 1926, that after August 20, 1930, no employee shall be continued in the civil service beyond the age of retirement for more than four years, I have the honor to state that I believe such provision should be so modified as to prevent such compulsory retirement where, in the opinion of the head of an executive department or independent office, because of the employee's unimpaired physical and mental condition, and long experience and knowledge, such compulsory retirement would not only not conduce to efficient administration but would also be a detriment to the public service; such opinion to be subject to the approval or disapproval of the Civil Service Commission.

Therefore, I approve of the proposed amendment of section 2 of the act of July 3, 1926, providing that "Except that 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, further extension of two years may be granted."

George H. Carter, Public Printer:

There are exceptional cases where it would possibly be to the benefit of the Government to retain an employee in the service for several years after reaching an age four years beyond the retirement age. It is believed that an amendment similar to that suggested in Civil Service Retirement Circular No. 62 would bring about this change.

Joseph S. McCoy, Government Actuary:

The Retirement Circular, No. 62, has been handed to me with the request for an opinion as to the amendment therein proposed.

The most convincing example with which I am cognizant of the value to the Government of employees who are in excess of 74 years, is that of the late Hon. John A. Kasson. He was Assistant Postmaster General in Lincoln's first cabinet. Afterwards he was a Congressman, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for years, Minister to Austria and to Germany. My personal knowledge of his ability and value to the Government was obtained 40 years after his appointment to the Post Office Department. At the age of 79 he was selected by President McKinley to aid the Department of State along certain complicated lines. All questions relative to our foreign trade were passed upon by him. I was detailed to work with him, and did so for some three years, and found that, even after he had passed his eightieth birthday, he was unquestionably the ablest official in my experience. Again, the present Secretary of the Treasury, Hon. Andrew W. Mellon, at the age of 74 years, is unequaled. Senator F. M. Warren, at the age of 85, is yet thoroughly competent and efficient.

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. The success of age is based upon knowledge and experience, while that of youth is often the result of energy and ambition, which, without the existence of fortuitous conditions, generally result in disaster. 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. J. Clawson Roop, Director, Bureau of the Budget:

Replying to your circular letter of July 25, relative to the proposed extension of service for certain Federal employees prior to retirement, 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.

RETENTION BEYOND RETIREMENT AGE

Statistics pertaining to retirement and refunds of deductions will be found in reports of the Commissioner of Pensions, but those relative to continuances are within the province of the commission.

Continuances in service beyond retirement age under the act of May 22, 1920, as amended July 3, 1926, by fiscal years

Number of first continuances approved..

1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 Total

2,965

Number of second continu

ances approved....

Number of third continuances

approved...

432

314

332

354 361

1, 793

Continuances beyond retirement age are authorized in 2-year periods. At the end of the second year an employee must be again continued or dropped. The second and third continuances swell the figures in the table for 1923 and 1925, and the provision in the amendatory act of July 3, 1926, that employees shall be continued "as of course" if they are fit and desire to remain, swelled the numbers continued in 1927 and 1928. The services of 578, or 4.67 per cent, of the 12,375 who were continued, terminated by death. The services of 4,913, or 39.70 per cent, terminated otherwise, leaving 6,884, or 55.63 per cent, still in the service.

The whole number of employees subject to retirement is approximately 395,000. The number of employees serving under continuance is 6,884, or 1.74 per cent, of the whole number of employees. Those under continuance are beyond 62, 65, or 70 years of age.

Table used in calculating present worth of a deferred annuity, or rate of immediate life annuity, beginning at age 55, for one involuntarily separated after 15 years of service, not by removal on charges

[The computation is made just as though the employee had reached the retirement age, and that per cent is taken which is found opposite his age in the column headed by the retirement age of his position]

PRESIDENTIAL POSTMASTERS

Under the civil service law, positions which are filled through nomination by the President for confirmation by the Senate are not included in the competitive classified service. Positions of postmaster at first, second, and third class post offices are filled in this manner. For such positions, however, examinations are held by the Civil Service Commission, at the request of the Postmaster General, under an Executive order issued May 10, 1921, revised July 27, 1921, November 5, 1926, June 22, 1928, and May 1, 1929, which provides as follows:

"When a vacancy exists or occurs in the position of postmaster of an office of the first, second, or third class, if such vacancy is not filled by nomination of some qualified person within the competitive classified civil service, the Postmaster General shall certify the fact to the Civil Service Commission, which shall forthwith hold an open competitive examination to test the fitness of applicants to fill such vacancy, and when such examination has been held and the papers submitted therewith have been rated the commission shall furnish a certificate of not less than three eligibles, if the same can be obtained, to the Postmaster General, who shall submit to the President the name of one of the highest three eligibles for appointment to fill such vacancy: Provided, That the Postmaster General may reject the name of any person or persons so certified if he shall find that by reason of character or residence such person or persons shall have become disqualified after said examination, in which event he may request said commission to complete the certificate of three names: Provided, That no person who has passed his sixty-fifth birthday at the date for close of receipt of applications for such examination shall be permitted to take the same unless he has been continuously in the Postal Service for two years immediately preceding such date: And provided further, That no person shall be examined for postmaster who has not actually resided within the delivery of the office for which application is made for two years next preceding such date: And provided further, That at the expiration of the term of any postmaster, or anticipating such expiration, the Postmaster General may, in his discretion, request the Civil Service Commission to hold an examination, or he may submit the name of such postmaster to the President for renomination without examination,