Gambar halaman

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 the 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?


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. Kain. 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. Kain. 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. 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 obligation of the Director of the Census in making an appointment when three men were certified to him, all having an equal standing or rating of 80 per cent, and one of them was an ex-service man and two were not?

Mr. Brown. We would simply fall back on the Executive order.

Mr. MORGAN. Yes. This provision does not change the present procedure. This is the wording of the present law, under which the present Executive order has been issued.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. This law having been passed subsequently to that order?

Mr. MORGAN. Not subsequently; no.
Mr. Rankin. This act would be subsequent?
Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Yes, this would be subsequent.
Mr. MORGAN. That is correct.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. That being so, would the Director of the Census be compelled to employ the ex-service man with three men of equal rating?

Mr. MORGAN. If it is a fact that the present preference law is a part of the act providing for the Census of 1920, then the preference provision should be included in this bill. I will look the matter up and inform the committee later.

Mrs. Kaun. By putting this provision in, then, we are really safeguarding the ex-service man? Mr. MORGAN. You are giving him the same protection he has now. The CHAIRMAN. Which he did not have in the last census act? Mr. MOORMAN. You are not giving him any real advantage by putting it in there, are you?

Mr. Morgan. Do you mean in this act?

Mr. Morgan. Yes. If it originated in the act that this bill takes the place of. I think that is a very good reason for putting it in this act.

Mr. MOORMAN. But even though this was incorporated in the act, the ex-service man would not necessarily be appointed?

Mr. MORGAN. Not necessarily; no.
Mr. Moorman. Then the truth is that it does not mean anything?

Mr. MORGAN. I would not say that. There are very substantial advantages given to the service men under the present law and the Executive order. He gets 5 per cent added to his earned rating, or 10 per cent if he is disabled. The State apportionment is waived in the case of veterans. Age limits are waived. Physical requirements may be waived in the discretion of the Civil Service Commission. He may not be dropped or reduced in rank-he gets a preference, I should say, in a reduction of force, or reduction of rank.

The CHAIRMAX. That is, the others go out before he does, if neces

Nir. ORGAX. Yes; if his record is good. And if a preference eligible appears on a certification of three names, and if a nonpreference eligible of the same rating or a lower rating is appointed and not the preference eligible, the department making the appointment must state the reasons for it in the record.

Those, in general terms, are the preferences that are given him under the law.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, you are dealing here with about the only accurate bureau connected with this Government. You are hunting men of technical ability. And when you come to appoint a man to one of those positions, the Director says, “I am going to recommend this man here; although he is not an ex-service man I know he is thoroughly equipped for this work.” The Congressman representing the district that the ex-service man comes from will put his finger on that and say, “You can not do that under the law."

Mr. Hirsch. This is under civil service, however.

Mr. RANKIN. I understand that. But this law, as Mr. Jacobstein has pointed out, would be passed subsequently to the enactment of the civil service rules. Now, it seems to me that if you are going to put this in there you ought to limit this preference to the same preference that is allowed under the civil service rules. If you do not, it seems to me that you are going to find yourself in the very predicament that I am pointing out.

Mr. MORGAN. This the exact wording of the law that was enacted for the preceding census, is it not?

Mr. HIRSCH. That is it right up to date.
Mr. MORGAN. I mean, as to preference, is that not the same?

The CHAIRMAN. That is in section 3.
Mr. HIRSCH. In the 1920 act it says:

That hereafter in making appointments to clerical and other positions in the executive branch of the Government in the District of Columbia or elsewhere, preference shall be given to honorably discharged soldiers, sailors, and marines, and widows of such, and to the wives of injured soldiers, sailors, and marines, who themselves are not qualified, but whose wives are qualified to hold such positions.

I will state that in 1902, when they were about to discharge me, I received that preference, myself, and a similar law was in effect at that time.

Mr. RANKIN. Well, since that time, the Government has seen fit to clarify that provision by stating in the rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission just what that preference means?

Mr. HIRSCH. Yes. And I will state that the only reason we put this provision in was to bring the law up to date. Mr. RANKIN. I understand.

The CHAIRMAN. This clause provides that "Preference shall be given to honorably discharged soldiers, sailors, and marines, and the widows of such, and to the wives of injured soldiers, sailors, and marines,” etc.; and it also provides that such appointments shall be made in conformity with the civil service laws and rules.

Now, Doctor Hill, will you proceed with the rest of the bill?
Doctor Hill. The nextparagraph provides:

That special agents, supervisors, supervisors' clerks, enumerators, and interpreters may be appointed by the Director of the Census to carry out the provisions of this act and of the act to provide for a permanent Census Office, approved March 6, 1902, and acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto, such appointments to be made without reference to the civil service or the classification acts.

That is substantially the same, I believe, as it was before, except that the supervisors were appointed by the Secretary of the Department on the recommendation of the Director of the Census. It was virtually an appointment by the director just the same. Otherwise this is just the same, is it not, Mr. Gosnell?

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »