Gambar halaman


To show more in detail the actual living expense in New York or any other large city, I beg to advise you how my salary of $1,400 was spent in the year 1913. That year my family needed no new heavy winter clothing, as we were provided from the year before, and we have been remarkably free from sickness or other unforeseen expenditures.

My wife makes all her own and the children's dresses, does her own washing and household duties; a dressmaker is an unknownq quantity in my home. The only real pleasure we have is when I procure my annual leave of absence or vacation of 15 days, which makes it a real necessity to take my hardworking wife and studious children out into the country to live in the open air and sunlight in order to recuperate from their year of hard work and confinement within four stone walls.

I live in a flat of five rooms about 87 miles from my work, in a high and healthy neighborhood.

Some of the items appear to you as unnecessary, but I wish to add that in a large city these things have become a part of life, and I desire to and have a right to live and not merely to exist. We live, dress, and eat plainly, attend lectures, and try to make our lives of some use to our fellow beings. Salary for year of 1913_ $1, 100.00 Presents, including Christ

12. 03 Food 442. 15 Charity articles.

4. 10 Rent 360.00 Society dues

5. 80 Gas

18. 56 Newspapers and magazines. 7. 26 Electric light6. 20 Laundry (collars).

4. 16 Clothes. 72. 49 Bond.

1. 50 Shoes 25. 63 Charity (cash)

5. 00 Lunches 54. 00 Laundry, bed sheets.

2. 40 Fare to work.. 33. 40 Fire insurance

4. 16 Dentist for four 19. 50 Luxuries

14. 23 Sundries

39. 68 Vacation for four, 18 days_ 59. 65 Life insurance policy for

Education (public school, $2,000

58. 40 boy, 7 ; normal high Mutual and sick aid.

25. 50 school, girl, 16): Lodge

2. 50 Fare

$18. 65 Doctor, three visits..

3. 00 Stationery

4. 51 Medicines and toilet

23. 16 ticles.

12. 85 Daughter's musical educaHousehold articles_. 21. 15 tion

30. 10 Extra car fares

16. 65 Pleasure

14. 79

1, 400.00
The net result of this expenditure is :
Clean and wholesome living.
Son at the head of his class, intelligent, and will make a good citizen.

Daughter the recipient of gold medal in mathematics, three honors in other subjects, and holder of a letter from board of education for having taken 100 per cent in English and grammar in three tests.

Money saved to provide against old age, none; but I trust the world and our community has lost nothing by my family having lived.

That, gentlemen, is my argument.

Mr. DIES. That is a splendid argument; the best I have heard since I have been a member of the committee.

Mr. GOLDSCHMIDT. It has all been prepared with the same idea in view.

Mr. ALCORN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. J. W. McConnell will also speak on the question of retirement.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. McConnell,



GUN FACTORY AT WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. McCONNELL. I would like to say, Senator, in the beginning, that we are deeply appreciative of your interest in this matter and the motives which actuated you in calling this hearing. I take it the object of this hearing is to bring out by successive hearings the

[ocr errors]

views of those who will be affected by superannuation legislation in order to get something which is practical and satisfactory.

I will say that I do not believe that the magnitude of the problem of retiring United States civil-service employees has been realized by those directly interested. There are two great divisions, the contributory plan and the straight pension plan. These divisions are,

in my opinion, almost irreconcliable. I believe that the employees in the executive departments would be willing to accept a contributory plan on a modest contribution, and on the other hand I do not believe the industrial employees of this Government would accept anything but a straight pension plan. In view of these conditions it does not seem practicable or wise at this time to undertake any general scheme of civil-service retirement. There is a condition, however, which requires imperative action, and that condition is the urgent need for the retirement of the superannuated employees to be found in all departments. It is no trouble for anyone who wishes to investigate to go into any of the departments here and the different offices and find them choked with elderly people who are inefficient and incompetent through superannuation. After long and mature study it is my sincere judgment that action should be taken at once upon the question of retiring superannuates now in the civil service.

The CHAIRMAN. What age limit would you fix, Mr. McConnell?

Mr. McCONNELL. Our ideas of the ultimate system would set the age limit at 65 for voluntary retirement. We would also set the age at 60 years at whch disability ceases and superannuation begins.

The CHAIRMAN. You are like Dr. Osler. You would have a man chloroformed when he passes 60.

Mr. McCOXXELL. Oh, no; but I do not think he should be retained at his work when he has to be assisted to his desk, and, when the stress of the day's work is done he has to be assisted to leave it. To take care of the immediate situation it is strongly recommended to your committee that the present superannuates be retired upon a supporting annuity, and that the problem of devising a permanent system of retirement shall then be taken up more leisurely and with a great deal more care than can be given to it at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you let me interrupt you a moment, Mr. McConnell? It was suggested that there were 7,000 that would be immediately retired in the event of the passage of such a law. What age limit does that contemplate? Mr. JORDAN. Seventy. The CHAIRMAN. No; there would be more if the limit were set at 65. Mr. JORDAN. That is right.

Mr. McCONNELL. No matter how many, they should be provided for, and in connection with that matter, we are only asking that Congress provide for retiring at a certain age limit, and also those who have reached a certain degree of superannuation, to relieve them as they become inefficient and no longer profitable employees for the Government.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you have that determined by means of a physical investigation? Would that be your idea of how to arrive at those who are superannuated ?

Mr. McCONNELL. I would have that determined very easily by physical and mental examination and by the evidence of the heads of the departments and the evidence of the employees themselves. I

[ocr errors]

think we should take it as a fundamental rule that no man should be separated from his employment as long as he was able to do efficient work no mattter what the age may be. We may have to fix an age for administrative purposes because we inay not be able to separate those who are inefficient from the service by other means, but I do not believe we ought to separate them from the service simply because they have reached a certain age. Such a course is not founded upon our understanding of the science of retirement in the civil service. I think that the bill should go this far, that when a man is drawing a salary which he is not earning because he is superannuated, that man should be retired upon a supporting annuity. If this is done, the element of cost will not enter into the retirement system; and in perfecting any action at this time the element of cost, so far as the Government is concerned, becomes a matier of judgment in keeping your accounts; instead of paying salaries not earned, you take a part of that salary and turn that over in the form of an annuity, and if you have any means of telling the amount that would be saved by this procedure you would find that the Government would not be a loser, and the amount paid in pensions would be very much smaller than the amount you would pay in salaries to superannuated employees for services not performed. It is the same as if you were paving a high rate of interest on Government bonds and retire them and reissue the bonds at a lower rate of interest.

That is precisely what happens if the superannuated employee is retired on a portion of his salary which you turn over to him in the form of an annuity.

I wish to say briefly that I do not believe there would be any widespread objection to the enactment of a retirement measure something similar to the one represented in the Keating bill in the House. There are some provisions there which should and would be modified, but it embodies practically what we desire at this time, and that is the retirement of the present class of superannuates in the service. It is going to take a number of years to work out a satisfactory retirement system because the principles are not broadly understood. The administrative officers of the Government are not interested in a thorough understanding of the matter. Congress is not interested to any great degree upon legislation of that kind, and yet we are facing a condition with offices choked with superannuated employees, and something must be done. For that reason we are urging as the most practical method now the retiring of the superannuates on a supporting annuity.

The CHAIRMAN. How many civil-service employees are there or were there on the 1st of January, 1917?

Mr. McCONNELL. Senator, in that connection I desire to call attention to the fact that we have in the United States Government a Bureau of Efficiency. This bureau, under a Senate resolution, was required and requested to get certain data concerning civil-service employees—their ages, salaries, length of service, and other things pertaining to them, with the object of working out the cost of any retirement system that might be proposed. The bureau has had ample time to get this data together for this specific purpose, and it should be made public so that we may all see about what is required.

The city of New York has revised its pension schemes and made an accurate estimate of its cost, based on facts and experience, and


[ocr errors]

the Carnegie fund for teachers has had to revise its system on a scientific basis. And here we are, working on the biggest retirement plan of them all, almost absolutely without information of any kind to help us to an equitable solution of the matter. If the Bureau of Efficiency has this information it should be furnished, and if they haven't it we should ask why.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brown is the head of that bureau, and I have invited him to come before the committee.

Mr. McCONNELL. In conclusion, there are anumber here who wish to say other things. I wish to say this, that it seems to us that the Senate is the father of the civil service. It takes more interest in and protects it to a greater extent than the other branch of Congress. It is certain that the Senate has given more time and consideration to this matter than the House, and it is there we finally look for retirement action. It is necessary that we shall undertake this work in all seriousness that we have provided a thorough and equitable retirement bill, and it is to the Senate that we look for such action.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you make it obligatory? I have in mind, I do not know her, except that she is one of the finest old ladies that I ever saw up in the lost-money department of the Treasury. She is one of the greatest experts in the world, I reckon, in putting money together, and determining what kind of a piece has been lost and reproducing it and the like; and the law authorizes it to be reproduced. Would you absolutely retire her? She looks to me to be of retiring age. Would you require her to be retired?

Mr. MCCONNELL. Senator, I believe everyone of the speakers has stated the fundamental principle that nobody should be retired who is capable of performing his or her work.

The CHAIRMAN. I would not like to say as to that lady's age, but she seemed to be an elderly lady and one of the most competent ones that I have ever come in contact with. It was a perfect surprise to me that a woman would have the marvelous capacity to put together and arrive at a conclusion from the small facts that she had before her. She was a marvel to me.

Mr. McCONNELL. Our first plan is to provide for superannuation, for inability to perform work, to be determined by the report of administrative officers and evidenced by an examination of the persons themselves.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not think it should be wholly voluntary or wholly involuntary, but determined upon the facts ?

Mr. McCONNELL. Not for the present, but we want to get something started to relieve those who have to hobble to their desks. Every morning there goes past my house at 8 o'clock an old man on crutches, and it takes him an hour to reach his place of work at 9 o'clock. I do not know his name, but I do know from his appearance that that man can not perform the work he has to do.

The CHAIRMAN. You represent the industrial workers !
Mr. McCONNELL. To some extent; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You say the industrial workers are in a different position from what those in the clerical forces are?

Mr. McCONNELL. That is my opinion, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that the industrial workers would be willing to any plan, such as an assessment plan?

Mr. McCONNELL. I do not think they would at the present time. It is just my own opinion I am stating.

The CHAIRMAN. I might state in this connection that I asked Mr. Brown to appear at the hearing.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. Brown estimated one year ago that the Government would save $2,000,000 to retire these superannuates.

The CHAIRMAN. Two million dollars; that is the estimate of the Bureau of Efficiency?

Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We will have Mr. Brown before us to tell us more exactly

Mr. McCONNELL. I thank you very much, Senator.

Mr. ALCORN. Mr. Chairman, the next gentleman is Mr. Edward Murphy, of the Post Office Department.



Mr. MURPHY. I represent the Post Office Department in this matter. I have been in the Post Office and have seen it grow from a very small affair to its present dimensions. I have been there for 31 years. The CHAIRMAN. If you are not ashamed of your age as


am, suppose you tell us. I never tell mine. I am a bachelor, that is the reason. What is your age, sir?

Mr. MURPHY. Sixty-seven.
The CHAIRMAN. All right; proceed.

Mr. MURPHY. The bill that we propose would not cost the Government anything. We only want this for the Postal Service.

The CHAIRMAN. Has that bill been introduced ?
Mr. MURPHY. No; this bill-

Mr. FLAHERTY. Mr. Murphy is referring to the Rouse-Hughes bill applying only to the Postal Service.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I am acquainted with it.

Mr. FLAHERTY. That bill has been referred to the Senate Post Office Committee, of which you are a member, Senator, and while it is not specifically in front of you this morning, yet I think the information he can impart to you would be most useful.

The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will procure the bill for me and we will have it before us.

Mr. MURPHY. The bill we propose had at first 4 per cent, but we cut it down to 2.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean 2 per cent assessment on each employee?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes; and afterwards we cut it down to 11. And now we find that i per cent from the employees in the service will be more than sufficient to carry it through, if there is any deficit.

There are about 140,000 in the Postal Service, and $1 a month makes $140,000, or $1,680.000 in each year. Out of this number we would retire on a scale of 25 years' service. Men will be retired after 25 years' service so that about 4 per cent, after the flood is over, that is for the first time, would be dropped after 25 years' service, those over 70 years of age would have to go, and it would be 65 to 66, it would be up to 90 years, if there are men of that age in the service from the first. Of course, the first year there will be some trouble,


« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »