methods. Superannuation existed before the merit d it has not noticeably increased as a result of that it is believed that the greater freedom which apise in removals as a result of the merit system tends annuation. Neverthless the improvement of methods proper adjustment of pay can not be effectively pront system is established which will make provision s as a definite incidence of employment such as is and coming to be accepted in public and private ore being recognized that employment systems, both protect the employer against the old age or infirmity arles as hi The CH on that su Mr. GAL The CHA Mr. GAL The CH Mr. GAL Dent about a letter fro ber 1, 1909 Commission DEAR GEN plete, but it by no means the three-sco workers. T knowledge of that a contributory plan is the only just and practiit of public employees and earnestly recommends its service. Under such a plan the persons to whom reted would be required to make definite periodical ries or to consent to deduction therefrom as conom which the allowances are to be paid, not as a e measure for securing efficiency apart from sentihat private services have almost without exception ory principle of pensioning employees in order to ns on the part of employees, but public services are stablishing retirement systems on the contributory treasury and the employees sharing the cost of the erences between public and private services require of retirement. In a public service a pure pension king difficult the dismissal of incompetent employees the employees, because being regarded as deferred red class it exercises an adverse influence upon to fresh claimants insistent in their demands for utory system, on the other hand, would meet with public acceptance as freer from liability to abuses or securing efficiency by enabling appointing officers with the superannuated and the inefficient. It is in cy as also of the employee that savings should be nent is benefited in obtaining increased efficiency ompensated in bearing a part of the cost of a retirethe entire burden of making provision for supercime of adopting the system. It is proven by experisare ineffectual for provision for old age and that ed upon employees to make deductions from their atrolled administration of a retirement system just he Government and the employee established under and valuable many of the s high as $4,800 a year. CHAIRMAN. Have you made yourself or had made anj t subject? GALLOWAY. Yes; along that line. CHAIRMAN. I would like to have those figures. GALLOWAY. I will be very glad to submit them. CHAIRMAN. You may include them in your hearings GALLOWAY. Yes, sir. In connection with Gen. McCain bout the value of men past 70 years of age, I wish to r from the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, dated 1909, and addressed to the then president of the Civil ission. This is very brief (reading): S. GENERAL: The efficiency test in the Treasury Department is ut it already demonstrates clearly to us that old age and ineffi means synonymous. We find in the department clerks who ha ee-score years and ten, and are, nevertheless, among our mos The fact is that in a great department like this exper dge of customs and of what has been done in the past is an luable factor. But, aside from that consideration, the actual a of the older clerks is fully equal to that of many younger men. CHARLES D. NORTON, Assistant Se Chairman, I will be very glad to submit these figures on when I have opportunity to get a copy of the hearin - CHAIRMAN. Do you favor a central board to pass on it GALLOWAY. Yes, sir; I am heartily in favor of a centr ss on questions of retirement. CHAIRMAN. How would you appoint them? GALLOWAY. I think they should be appointed by the P CHAIRMAN. By and with the advice and consent of the GALLOWAY. By and with the advice and consent of th e CHAIRMAN. Would you have any restrictions about GALLOWAY. Yes, sir; I think the board should be com persons, not more than two of whom should be membe party. In my opinion this board should pass upon relating to retirement. › have about 260 employees, and I think we rs of age. nany that are incapable? ve none that are incapable. è well, fit, and in good shape. as far as your division is concerned, they . I should like to submit here, Mr. Chairexcerpt, from the thirty-third annual report reference to retirement. to from the thirty-third annual report of inted in full, as follows:) han the civil-service act, and any increase does not em. That system does not protect incompetents. thods and the standardization of salaries can not etirement system is established which will provide es. The commission believes that a contributory icable and earnestly recommends its adoption. statement you have previously put into the t would be a half-and-half plan, or what? tributory plan. tributory plan? ou not think that is the only way? - you ever looked into the question to see ay, 25 years from now? ir; I have not gone that far into it. This to you about retiring those persons drawing d result in a considerable saving. confident of that. to will be submitted to the committee by Mr. of the Bureau of Efficiency, at a later date.) Mr. BA Mr. Ba BAITY. Well, the salaries of these people run from à to $1,800. I have three clerks of that age who draw recently they were reasonably worth it. They are and not worth it. The rest of them would run dow to $900. CHAIRMAN. How many employees-you said you h ere absolutely incapable of working? BAITY. Yes. CHAIRMAN. How many have you that are just ca a little work. BAITY. Out of that 62, I would say there were 30 per that were worth very little to the office. -CHAIRMAN. Yes; and what would be the average 30? BAITY. $1,200 to $1,400. e CHAIRMAN. $1,200 to $1,400. Your idea is you can ge 00 to $1,000 who would do the work very much better? BAITY. About a year ago that number of clerks were y office about $99,000. If I had been at liberty, I cou oned these people at $600 a year and not had to expen e left-over balance for employees able to do the wor saving. e CHAIRMAN. You would pay those 62 people $38,000 a would have $61,000, and your idea is that how many cler I the work of these 62? . BAITY. I think with half that number. e CHAIRMAN. Thirty clerks? . BAITY. Yes. They could have been employed at $900. e CHAIRMAN. That would be a saving to the Governn ng to your figures? r. BAITY. Yes. From the standpoint of economy in 1 irement bill would save the Government money. I do n her that would apply in all Government offices, becau position, I am not right keen in favor of a Could never convince myself that the Gov1 reasonably well paid and properly housed rs is any better entitled to pension than a a blacksmith, who are producers and have us. That is a general proposition; I have of it. But as a question of economy and nment, I am sure that so far as our office is e Government money. e looking at it purely from a Government very much obliged to you, Mr. Baity. ence Etheridge, of the Bureau of Indian ard. ell. 'LORENCE ETHERIDGE, EMPLOYEE OF IAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE hairman, I have only a few words to say. myself particularly to the great need that rnment service is so apparent. It happens Federal Employees' Union, which is offiVadsworth-Dale retirement bill, though I n individual this morning. I can not see bill, or any other scientifically cast bill, nature or of what is called the straight nt with the Keating bill, which purports mediate necessities of relieving the superthe Government service of them. nk, professedly only a war measure, and is ve after July 1, 1919. Just at this time, tween 35 like to v ment em small the they are The C salaries d ploy of p Miss F However gives the although figures u District i women. The C Miss E The Ci Miss E The C are few w Miss F not know if I am v not absol Treasury receive n The C ment sta of it som Bureau d know, bu largely c Miss E erence in |