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 a

bill, which, presumably would go through this committee, saying that the figures were correct, and after Congress approved the figures then we would have to introduce a bill for reapportionment. In other words, we would be making it more difficult to reapportion than it is even at the present time, and that would cause still further delay.

Now, I would like to know whether it is in Mr. Lozier's mind, or Mr Rankin's, that they really want to accomplish that purpose by inserting in the law a provision that it shall have the official approval of Congress before reapportionment takes place?

Mr. RANKIN. No. I will answer that.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. You say "no"?

Mr. RANKIN. I say "no." But I want to submit it to Congress for their approval. I do not care if express approval is required. But I do want Congress to have the right, if there is any question raised about any part of the census, to consider that question and determine it before the census becomes official.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Well, Mr. Rankin, do we not have that right now, that when a man proposes a bill for reapportionment we can decide that we ought not to reapportion on that census? The census was not taken properly in 1920, and so we did not reapportion.

The CHAIRMAN. And this committee in 1924 agreed to that proposition?

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. This committee agreed to that proposition by failing to take action on the reapportionment. And is not that the way to meet that question?

Mr. RANKIN. I will stand by you on that proposition. I will say to you frankly that the census was not taken properly in 1920. In the agricultural States they took it in the winter time, when the weather was bad, and they could not count the people in the rural districts properly; and as a result the agricultural States suffered.

The CHAIRMAN. And this committee turned down the reapportionment bill principally on that ground.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. And as a matter of fact, the remedy is in thẹ hands of this committee. The failure to reapportion is evidence enough that Congress does have the right and does not need any further authority in this bill to pass the accuracy of the census data.

Mr. RANKIN. Why, certainly; I think you are really restating the fundamental law here. I do not think there is any question but that Congress has the right to approve or disapprove. But I want it understood now that this next census is going to be scrutinized by Congress either with this proposed amendment or without it.

Mr. PEAVEY. Mr. Chairman, may a new member ask a question? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly; that is what we are here for. Every member of this committee has an equal opportunity and right to ask questions.

Mr. PEAVEY. I would like to know from the older members, as I am not familiar with the work of the committee, whether there is any known instance in the minds of any of the older members where there has been inaccuracy or fraud or crookedness in the taking of the census where the Census Bureau itself did not correct that to the satisfaction of Congress and the general public?

85244-28

Mr. RANKIN. I suppose not. Congress has the power to make them correct it; it has the power to make them and the other bureaus correct what is wrong, so far as that is concerned.

Mr. PEAVEY. But has there been an instance in the past where the bureau has failed and neglected to correct an inaccurate census, even after it has been called to their attention by Congress, or Members of Congress?

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, let me raise my question again. I think we are going far afield, and instead of taking testimony we are threshing out what we ought to thresh out in executive session later. And these gentlemen from the department want to get back to their offices.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; this can be taken up in executive session. Mr. Peavey, you will have ample opportunity to take that up in executive session; and I am glad that you brought up the subject.

Will Doctor Hill proceed? And, Doctor Hill, as you go along, you might, for the information of the committee, inform us of the changes that have been made in the various sections of this bill, from the preceding acts of Congress about the taking of the census. We will have this bill and preceding acts printed together, so that they may be compared.

Doctor HILL. Now, regarding this clause that I read a few moments ago, it provides for the large temporary force which we have to have in taking the census. I suppose our present force is about 900. Then I suppose we should go up to about 7,000 or 8,000. The CHAIRMAN. Here in Washington?

Doctor HILL. Here in Washington.

Mrs. KAHN. Those employees would be under civil service? Doctor HILL. Those would be under civil service. Possibly it would not be more than 7,000. Perhaps I exaggerated the number. The CHAIRMAN. Section 3 paragraph 2, says that the Director of the Census may appoint "as many temporary employees in the District of Columbia as may be necessary to meet the requirements of the work." Then it says preference shall be given to honorably discharged soldiers, sailors, and marines. And then it says:

Provided further, That all such clerical, mechanical, and subclerical appointments shall be made in conformity with the civil service laws and rules. Mrs. KAHN. Those are for the census period, are they not? Doctor Hill. That is quite correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, is there any change in that provision? Doctor HILL. This is substantially the same as before, except in this respect: That last time under the salary system that prevailed then, the act gave a list of salaries-salaries running from so much to so much, as I recollect. But we have not done that this time, because the salaries are covered by general legislation. Is that correct, Mr. Hirsch?

Mr. HIRSCH. Yes. We usually pay according to the classification act.

Doctor HILL. That is the only point of difference, I think, between this paragraph and the old law.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, you are proposing to write into the law here a provision for preference to be given to ex-service men and their wives, widows, etc.?

Doctor HILL. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, there is a rule, as I understand it, in the civil service, that they are to have 5 per cent preference in the ratings? Mr. BROWN. That would be so whether this provision was here or

not.

Mr. RANKIN. It is merely a preference in the grading as I understand it?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, we will say there are three men on the list, and that you are an ex-service man; and suppose you all make the grade of 75 per cent. That gives you 80 per cent, does it not?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. But the department that makes the appointments is under no obligation to appoint you merely because you are an ex-service man?

Mr. MORGAN. Under the present Executive order, which was issued as a working procedure under the general provisions of the preference law, there is a provision, that, if a nonpreference eligible with an equal or lower rating than a preference eligible is appointed on the same certification, the department must state the reason for its action in its records.

Mr. RANKIN. Well, nobody would call up the question as it is now? Mr. MORGAN. That is what they are doing now.

Mr. RANKIN. I know that they are doing that in the territory that I represent. And I just want to call the attention of the committee to one thing about it; and I will ask the representatives of the Civil Service Commission about it. It looks to me as if that proposition is already taken care of in the rules of regulations of the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. MORGAN. It is taken care of in the general regulations.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, I am an ex-service man, and am in favor of the ex-service men. But if you are going to provide that in the law, you are going to create a great deal of disappointment among these ex-service men. It seems to me that the matter is already covered by the rules of the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. MORGAN. No.

Mr. HIRSCH. No. There was such a provision in the 1920 act, and we did not want to repeal it.

Mr. RANKIN. But we are here to legislate for the whole American people, and I do not see any real necessity for such a provision. Mr. MORGAN. Was that original preference law a part of the census act?

Mr. HIRSCH. Yes.

Mr. MORGAN. Then that should be retained in this act.

The CHAIRMAN. It is retained in this act.

Mr. MORGAN. I overlooked that very good reason for keeping the provision in this bill-because it originated in the act which will be repealed by this act.

Mr. RANKIN. But at that time the present rules of the Civil Service Commission with reference to ex-service men did not obtain? Mr. MORGAN. Not as broadly. There was a preference act, but it was not as broad as this act.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. How would you interpret this language in section 3 of the bill from a civil-service standpoint? What would be the