Mr. BROWN. If that were to be included in the bill, we would have such ample time to prepare our lists that we would have them ready when the Census Bureau wanted them.

Mrs. KAHN. I do not mean to criticize; but I want to ask how long this work would last for these special agents, etc.? About how long would the employment of the average person be? I ask that because they do not come under this census period. As I understand it, they are not included in this three-year period.

Mr. BROWN. It would be about six months, would it not?

Mr. HIRSCH. Some of those clerks would be employed from 3 to 5 days; some would be employed a week or 10 days; and some 3 weeks or a month.

Mrs. KAHN. What are you going to do with those 10,000 employees afterwards? Would the Government be compelled to absorb them, or would you simply let them go?

Mr. BROWN. No; we would simply make up lists of those persons and notify them; and they would clearly understand that they would be let out when the Census Bureau was through with them.

Mrs. KAHN. Are you sure they would understand that?

Mr. BROWN. I think so. But so far as special agents are concerned they carry them through 10-year periods.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to make a motion to adjourn. Doctor Hill is on the stand and the other gentlemen can be heard after we finish with him. So that when we meet again, may it be understood that Doctor Hill is to be allowed to finish his statement?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; and these other gentlemen can be heard later.

Before we adjourn, I would like to refer again to the question of having the act covering the Fourteenth Census printed alongside this bill which is now before us, for the Fifteenth Census. I do not know in what exact shape we would have those two printed together, for purposes of comparison. I am informed by the Census Bureau that they have no funds for printing that. But I think that as a committee we could have that done.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes; I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. In that case, I will take it up with the Printing Committee or the Public Printer.

Mr. RANKIN. We can leave it with the chairman.

(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned until Thursday, January 12, 1928, at 12.30 o'clock p. m.)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS,
Thursday, January 12, 1928.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. E. Hart Fenn (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor Hill, will you proceed?

Mr. THURSTON. Before Doctor Hill proceeds, Mr. Chairman, let me ask why they did not include the Philippine Islands in the bill providing for a census, so that we could know about the population, agriculture, various tribes, illiteracy, and a number of other matters relating to the Philippines?

The CHAIRMAN. Because there is a separate census provided for the Philippine Islands.

Mr. THURSTON. Do you mean we will have a separate bill?

The CHAIRMAN. No; I do not think there is any bill this session. I think that is under a general statute.

Doctor HILL. I do not know whether it is under a general law or a special law. It was taken by the Philippine Government in 1919. The CHAIRMAN. There is some process by which they take a census there, because I made inquiries about that yesterday.

Mr. THURSTON. There should be an accurate census of the Philippine Islands and data that we can rely upon.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the War Department does take a census. I think they are the only ones who could take it probably.

I understand that the gentlman from the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Morgan, desires to make a statement before Doctor Hill.

resumes.

Mr. MORGAN. This is in regard to the preference provision on page 3 of the bill H. R. 393. I find that the preference law is found in the deficiency act approved July 11, 1919, and it covers all the provisions of this bill as to preference, and there does not seem to be any special reason for saying anything about preference in this bill, although I see no objection to doing so. I will give the clerk a copy of the law and a copy of the Executive order under the law.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not want the entire pamphlet which you have there printed?

Mr. MORGAN. No; just the act of July 11, 1919, and the Executive order.

The CHAIRMAN. Those will be inserted in the record of this hearing. (The material referred to is as follows:)

1. Statutory provision, and benefits.-The deficiency act approved July 11, 1919, provides as follows:

"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."

The President, on March 3, 1923, issued an Executive order under which the benefits granted to veterans by this act shall be as follows:

66 (a) For eligibility, a rating of 70 per cent is required of all applicants. Veterans are given five points and disabled veterans ten points in addition to their earned ratings in examinations. In examinations where experience is an element of qualification, time spent in the military or naval service of the United States during the World War or the war with Spain shall be credited in an applicant's ratings where the applicant's actual employment in a similar vocation to that for which he applies was temporarily interrupted by such military or naval service but was resumed after his discharge. This will mean that the veteran's papers will be rated, giving due regard to the military service, and that he will then have five points (or if a disabled veteran) ten points added to his earned ratings and his name will be placed on the register with other eligibles in the order of his augmented rating. A nonveteran must earn a rating of 70, while a veteran who is not disabled must earn a rating of 65 to have his name entered on the register. A disabled veteran need earn a rating of only 60 per cent to have his name entered on the register.

66 (b) An appointing officer who passes over the name of a veteran and selects a nonveteran with the same or a lower rating from a certificate of eligibles must place his reasons for so doing in the department's records.

66 (c) The veteran is released from all age limitations, except for the positions of fireman and policeman of the District of Columbia, and is released from many of the physical requirements.

60 (d) The veteran is certified without regard to the apportionment among the States of appointments in the apportioned service in the District of Columbia.

Mr. MORGAN. I would also like to include in the record these figures on the veteran preference law as it stands. There is no use taking up the time of the committee by reading these figures, but I would like to have them inserted in the record. They are the figures for the fiscal year 1927, showing the practical results of the veterans' preference law and the Executive order under the law, giving effect to the law.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you think this provision is necessary in this bill in regard to preference?

Mr. MORGAN. I do not think so; because they would have the preference just the same under the present legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. The statement giving the figures is as follows:

During the year ending June 30, 1927, 245,535 persons entered examinations for the classified service, of whom 48,114, or 19.59 per cent, were given preference. Of 38,777 appointments, 9,947, or 25.65 per cent, were of preference eligibles, whereas only 19.59 per cent of all the applicants were in the preferred class. The number of preference eligibles appointed is 20.67 per cent of all preference applicants, whereas the number of nonpreference appointees is only 14.6 per cent of the whole number of nonpreference applicants.

For eight representative occupations 3,484 veterans, whose earned ratings were below 70 per cent, were allowed eligibility by the addition of the 5 or 10 points, and in these occupations 505 veteran eligibles were appointed who had earned ratings below 70 per cent.

Mr. MORGAN. That is in answer to the chairman's question as to whether, veterans are getting any real preference.

Mr. RANKIN. Whose question?

Mr. MOORMAN. I think that was the question that I asked.

Mr. THURSTON. Have you any figures to show the number of persons selected by somebody outside of the commission itself-for instance, those selected by a Congressman for rural carrier or postmaster?

The CHAIRMAN. Rural postmasters do not come under the civil service. The fourth-class postmasters do.

Mr. THURSTON. I mean those that come under the civil service? Mr. MORGAN. Fourth-class postmasters.

Mr. THURSTON. What proportion of those are selected by Members of Congress?

Mr. MORGAN. I do not believe that we have any figures on that. The situation as to rural carriers and fourth-class postmasters—well, you might call it anomalous; it is certainly unsatisfactory. Our certification of eligibles-and I am speaking of the rural carriers and fourth-class postmasters-is made to the Post Office Department, as is done in all cases for all departments, for the selection of one of these three. It is a well known fact that the Post Office Department consults a Member of Congress or another distributor of patronage in the territory affected as to the person to be selected. Frequently, and I think I may say almost usually, some one is selected in advance, with the hope that he will be rated among the high three.

The CHAIRMAN. Submitted to whom in advance?

Mr. MORGAN. To the Congressman or other distributor of patronage. The CHAIRMAN. That certainly does not apply to the First District of Connecticut.

Mr. MORGAN. It does in many districts.

Mr. RANKIN. It does apply in Mississippi; and not only that, but the offices are bought and sold before they come up here.

The CHAIRMAN. The only difficulty I find in Connecticut is to get the fourth-class post offices filled; that is, to get somebody to take the position. I think you will find the same difficulty exists elsewhere.

Mr. THURSTON. To get back to my question, what proportion of them are designated by Members of Congress?

Mr. MORGAN. The majority, I think.

Mr. MOORMAN. I wish you would get the figures.

The CHAIRMAN. I think they are all submitted to him.

Mr. MORGAN. In the matter of fourth-class postmasters, as the Chairman said, it is frequently a question of getting some one to take the job. In the case of rural carriers, the situation I have described obtains almost generally. Some one is selected in advance, in the hope that he will be rated among the high three. It is known in the territory of the office that that is done, and therefore the competition is limited.

Mr. THURSTON. Is it not a matter of fact that 20 or 30 persons take those examinations for rural carriers?

Mr. MORGAN. Not usually, I think.

Mr. THURSTON. I can supply you with information that they do take it.

The CHAIRMAN. I have had several experiences with regard to rural carriers, where a postmaster desired to retain a rural carrier who had been in the temporary carrier service and the postmaster wished to retain him on account of his efficiency; but the man was unable to pass the civil service examination. And in all of the cases that have come to my attention of that kind, that man has not been appointed. They follow the civil service examination. But there have been cases of that character where the postmaster wanted to retain a man who had been put on as a temporary carrier and was unable to do so on that account.

Mr. MORGAN. That is also true. But I think you will find, Mr. Chairman, that in a large percentage of cases some one is selected in advance, with the hope that he will be among the highest three in the civil service examinatior.

Mr. THURSTON. As a matter of fact, it does not make any difference if he does not get on the eligible list, does it?

The CHAIRMAN. No.

Mr. MORGAN. It limits competition by having it noised about that some one is selected for the job. It is a fact that politics usually controls in rural-carrier appointments.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have some definite information in regard to that statement you have just made.

Mr. MORGAN. We can give it to you at any time.

The CHAIRMAN. If that procedure is followed, it certainly is not followed in the matters that I have had to do with in the last seven or eight years throughout the country. I know the general belief in

the country is that these appointments are made on account of "pull," as it is called. Now, I have never known the name of a proposed rural carrier, or a proposed fourth-class postmaster, so far as my recollection goes, until the recommendation was submitted to me, or the list, or whatever you might call it. But I have known of cases where we have had to go out and try to induce people to take these fourth-class postmasterships.

Mr. MORGAN. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. And it was difficult to get anyone to take the job. I will cite a case that occurred across the river from where I live. We solicited a clergyman to take the place, and he took it. And he was one of a denomination where they change their sphere of duty every two years. And he took it; and at the end of two years, he had to leave. And he was a very conscientious man; and he came to me and said, "I have read the regulations very thoroughly." And I think the compensation was about $300 a year, which was an inducement to him to take it, although I do not think he considered that when he took it. And he said, "I have read the regulations very thoroughly; and I have performed all the duties of the office; and I have worked eight hours a day"; and he said, "There is not enough business in the office to keep me at work eight hours a day," and I said, "Well, you can go in there and write your sermons while you are there."

Mr. RANKIN. As I understand you, Mr. Morgan, you do not confine that statement to the fourth-class postmasters; it applies to all of them?

Mr. MORGAN. May I explain? The situation as to fourth-class postmasters is much as the chairman has described it. Fourthclass postmasterships are in many cases undesirable. Rural carrier jobs, on the other hand, are very desirable.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I understood.

Mr. MORGAN. Our difficulty is principally with the rural carriers, so far as the classified service is concerned. However, when we get into the postmasterships of the first, second, and third classes, which are presidential appointments, everything that I have said about rural carrier jobs applies. The situation with respect to presidential postmaster appointments is most unsatisfactory, from the viewpoint of the Civil Service Commission. The system of appointments to presidential postmasterships has done more to discredit the Civil Service Commission and the merit system as a principle than anything that has occurred in my 25 years with the Government.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that perhaps we have drifted away from the purposes of this bill; and I think we should confine ourselves to the bill. This is outside of the sphere of this bill entirely.

Mr. MOORMAN. Inasmuch as Civil Service has received the amount of attention that it has this morning, however, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman about a certain case.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it in connection with this bill?

Mr. MOORMAN. It is, in a way. That is, connection with the application of the civil-service rules.

The CHAIRMAN. But we are not discussing the civil-service rules; we are discussing this bill.

Mr. MOORMAN. We have discussed them considerably.