« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
Doctor Hill. We should do that anyway; but I do not see any objection to that.
Mr. HIRSCH. I do not suppose any question could be raised by the comptroller about paying the bills before Congress approved it.
Mr. RANKIN. We will take the chances on that.
Mr. TRUESDELL. There is the possibility of a lot of delay in our getting out the figures if Mr. Rankin's suggestion carries with it the requirement of submitting the figures to Congress for approval.
The CHAIRMAN. The figures might be prepared when Congress was not in session.
Mr. RANKIN. I understand; but they would not be regarded as the official census until Congress did approve them.
Mr. TRUESDELL. It seems to me there is danger in that kind of provision.
Mr. RANKIN. That has been in the law before, has it not? Mr. TRUESDELL. There has been no requirement that they be submitted to Congress for approval; but they have been submitted to Congress as a matter of information.
Mr. RANKIN. I think that is part of the organic law, that Congress shall have supervision of census returns. In other words, I do not see how you can avoid that conclusion.
Mr. TRUESDELL. In the case of other statistics collected by various offices of the Government, it is not required that they be submitted to Congress before they are official.
Mr. RANKIN. I understand. I am not raising a question as to those.
Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Is it not the fact that the purpose and intention in submitting them to Congress is to acquaint Congress with the material? Is that not the main purpose? Mr. RANKIN. That is one of them.
The CHAIRMAN. It says in the first section merely, “That a census of population, agriculture, and distribution shall be taken."
Mr. TRUESDELL. But not that it be submitted to Congress.
Mrs. KAIIN. And the Constitution says it shall be for purposes of representation and taxation.
Mr. JACOBSTEIN. So that it really ought to be submitted to Congress in a very official way.
Mr. RANKIN. I want to show you the dilemma you would get into if that was not done: You would be transferring by this measure the reapportionment to a bureau of the Government.
Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, do you remember, when the bill came up on the floor of the House last year? I should say that the strongest argument against the reapportionment bill at the last session was upon that point of surrendering our authority to an administrative department—that Congress was relinquishing its authority. Is that not correct, Mr. Rankin?
Mr. RANKIN. Yes.
Mr. JACOBSTEIN. As I recall it, that was the main objection to the reapportionment bill at the last session of Congress. And are you not faced with the same objection now, unless you do call upon the Census Bureau for that information in a very official way to be furnished to Congress?
Mr. RANKIN. I think your reports, Doctor Hill, will have to be submitted to Congress before they are official, and I think they ought to be.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rankin, will you submit that matter in executive session? Mr. RANKIN. Yes, I will take that up in executive session.
The CHAIRMAN. We can consider that when we get down to a discussion of the bill. You can insert that in the record now if you wish.
Mr. RANKIN, I will insert it in the record.
Doctor HILL. As I said before, we always have certified to Congress the population of the States as soon as the tabulation is completed. But this will be a new feature if it is proposed that before those figures can be accepted they must receive the approval of Congress, a political body; and as a statistician, I believe I should feel some reluctance in approving that procedure. Where would we be if Congress should say, “We do not accept those figures”?
Mr. RANKIN. Every department of this Government and every member of the Cabinet is subordinate to Congress.
Doctor Hill. That is true. Mr. RANKIN. And Congress is the final arbiter to settle controversies arising over these reports.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rankin, Congress does assign to certain agencies of the Government the duty to perform ministerial work. Mr. RANKIN. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. And this is purely ministerial; it is done in an administrative way. And in doing that Congress is not delegating its powers at all. It is simply directing certain agencies of the Government to do certain things. Congress always retains its authority; but in order that that certain thing may be accomplished within a reasonable time, and properly accomplished, Congress directs an agency of the Government to do that thing. Now, if all of these agencies of the Government are to be required before their findings may be recognized, or may become real—if they are obliged to report every one of those things to Congress and wait until Congress approves them, where is it going to end? You would have a large number of unofficial things in the archives of the various departments?
Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Does Mr. Rankin mean that they shall get the approval of Congress, or merely that they shall be submitted finally to Congress?
Mr. RANKIN. That they shall be submitted finally to Congress for their approval and use.
Mr. JACOBSTEIN. What do you mean by "approval?”
Mr. RANKIN. I simply mean that if there is any question raised about
Mr. JACOBSTEIN. (interposing). The accuracy of the census, for instance?
Mr. RANKIN. The accuracy of the taking of the census.
Mr. JACOBSTEIN. What interest have we in accuracy except for purposes of reapportionment; and then when we fail to reapportion we thereby say we do not accept the accuracy of the figures?
Mr. RANKIN. Now, Mr. Jacobstein, that is exactly the point. That was the strongest argument against the reapportionment under the census of 1920.
Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Well, does not the power of approval or disapproval still reside with us when we can fail to reapportion? I am just wondering whether it is necessary to require the approval of Congress. If you simply say that it is to be submitted officially at the opening of the next session of Congress, have you not said all that is necessary; because nothing can be done with those figures officially until we do actually take action officially on them?
Mr. RANKIN. Then this proposed language could not hurt anything whatever.
Mr. JACOBSTEIN. It might hurt in some ways. For instance, some of the branches of the Government, for taxing purposes or otherwise, would be denied the right to use the figures until Congress had approved them; and our approval may be withheld for some time, for political or other resaons. Mr. RANKIN. They would not be denied the right to use them.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, they could not use them if they required the approval of Congress and did not receive it.
Mr. RANKIN. Well, you might say that the approval of Congress would be implied if there was no objection made to them.
Mr. LOZIER. May I make this suggestion? The primary purpose of this census, as in the case of the last census, is for reapportionment?
The CHAIRMAN. No, it is not. It is to ascertain the population of the country.
Mr. LOZIER. Well, it is to ascertain the population of the country for the purpose of apportionment. Of course, it is largely a technical procedure; and we must, in the very nature of things, depend on the statistical information furnished us and the work of the statisticians. But I can conceive of a situation which would require affirmative action on the part of Congress. I call the attention of the committee to the fact that in one of the censuses, there were great frauds charged and proven and admitted in the taking of the census in certain cities, and as a result of the flagrant padding of the census rolls, the census was retaken. I believe, in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and also in the city of St. Joseph, Mo.
Now, that is a vital matter; and it is a question that Congress has a right to pass upon, if the report of the Census Bureau to Congress is not satisfactory. For instance, Congress might be convinced that there had been padding in a certain city; and the Census Bureau would, of course, have the power to take that census again, But suppose, notwithstanding the facts, that the Census Bureau declines to take that census in that municipality again and Congress is convinced that there has been padding or a grossly inaccurate census taken in that particular city. Now, Congress would have the right to disapprove the census and the statistics of population of that particular city or community; and I think that it is folly to say that Congress must accept the statistics prepared by the Census Bureau, while in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of a thousand Congress would probably be convinced that the statistics were accurate. But we do know that census statistics are padded; and if the Census Bureau should refuse to take action to remedy that evil, Congress would have the right to disapprove the statistics
as to the population of that community. And that is a vital matter, because it goes directly to the election of Representatives in the lower House.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lozier, do you not think it would be advisable just to go ahead with the taking of this testimony and thresh this out in executive session when we get through with the hearings?
The CHAIRMAN. We can consider this in the executive session. Mr. LOZIER. Yes, I think that is all right. But I want to make myself plain. I would not want accuracy of the census, or the work of the statisticians, to be subject to political control, as was suggested by Doctor Hill. But undoubtedly, Congress and the American people have the right to put their approval or disapproval upon the accuracy of this census. Suppose, in the case of Minneapolis and St. Paul and St. Joseph, to which I have referred, the Census Bureau had said, “We are not going to take this census over," when the whole Nation was convinced that those figures had been padded? Now, in a case of that kind, if Congress did not have the right to consider and pass upon and approve or disapprove the work of the Census Bureau, there would be an apportionment based upon a confessedly false registration.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think, Mr. Lozier, that if that were done; if you were to throw it as a political question more into Congress than it is at present, we would be as dilatory in approving the census as we have been in approving the reapportionment bill? What guarantee have you that it would not be made a political question, and that the representatives of Minneapolis and St. Paul and St. Joseph, or whatever the cities might be where it was alleged that there was padding, would not insist upon that padded roll and perhaps be able to carry it through? I think you would be throwing a political question into Congress which would go far beyond the political questions in regard to the last reapportionment bill. If we have been dilatory in regard to that, would we not be more so under such a provision?
Mr. LOZIER. I think, Mr. Chairman, that Congress would be disposed to disapprove the work in the Census Bureau only in those cases where the evidence was so overwhelming and persuasive that it would shock the moral conscience not to do otherwise..
The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask Doctor Hill one other question in that connection. I do not want to delay on this paragraph particularly, because it will all be taken in executive session: How many different subjects do you report, Doctor Hill, aside from population? I see on the walls of this room, on the shelves (and I have them also in my own room) 10 or 12 volumes, each as large as Webster's Dictionary, for each census of the United States. The first of these volumes is on population. What are the other volumes on? How many different things do you make a report on? - Doctor HILL. There were 11 volumes at the last census and one of these volumes, that of agriculture, was published in three parts, each separately bound.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, how many different subjects are there? You have agriculture and manufactures, and what are the others?
Doctor HILL. We have population and manufactures, and agriculture; and the last time we had irrigation and drainage.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Rankin, would you have all of those things reported to Congress? Mr. RANKIN. Certainly.
The CHAIRMAN. You would have the census of agriculture brought before Congress for debate and discussion and ascertainment through this committee or some other agency, as to whether that agricultural report was correct or not?
Mr. LOZIER. I do not think there would be any necessity for that. The CHAIRMAN. Why not? Mr. LOZIER. Because, if there was no great error in it no permanent injury would result.
The CHAIRMAN. It would be an injury to agriculture if it was wrong?
Mr. LOZIER. If the population is incorrectly enumerated, that may amount to a denial of representation to some sections of the country.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have been denying representation here according to population for eight years, to my personal knowledge. I do not think we can prevent that in that way.
Mr. LOZIER. I would like to ask Doctor Hill, Mr. Chairman, what he would do in a case such as we have in Minneapolis and St. Paul and St. Joseph, where the enumeration lists were so padded that the moral conscience of the community and the Nation demanded a retaking of those censuses?
The CHAIRMAN. Was there not a retaking of the census there? Mr. LOZIER. Yes; but, I say, suppose the Census Bureau would refuse to do that?
The CHAIRMAN. Then the census officials would be subject to an investigation by Congress, and such removal or punishment as they should receive the same as any other ministerial agency of the Government would be responsible if it failed in its duty.
Mr. LOZIER. But if you punish the officials of the Census Bureau, that would not furnish Congress with the correct statistics.
The Chairman: But they ascertained themselves, I think, that the census of those cities was improper and padded, as you say, and of their own volition took a new census there. My presumption is that the governmental agencies want to find out the exact facts. I do not know of any governmental agency that does not, whether they be in the Treasury Department, the Post Office, or the Department of Commerce. Take all the great reports that come out of the Department of Commerce as to our imports, exports, etc. I think they try to ascertain the correct figures in every way possible; and if they find that false figures have been furnished to them, they see that they are corrected.
Mr. JACOBSTEIN. May I make one observation, at this point, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. JACOBSTEIN, Under the present procedure we failed to reapportion even though there was nothing in the law which required that the census data have the approval by Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr JACOBSTEIN. Now, if you actually stated in the law that the data had to have official approval of Congress, you throw another obstacle in the way of reapportionment; and that would make it still more difficult, because somebody would have to introduce &