Gambar halaman

SEC. 2. (a) If the Congress to which the statement required by section 1 is transmitted fails to enact a law apportioning Representatives among the several States, then each State shall be entitled, in the second succeeding Congress and in each Congress thereafter until the taking effect of a reapportionment on the basis of the next decennial census, to the number of Representatives shown in the statement; and it shall be the duty of the Clerk of the last House of Representatives forthwith to send to the executive of each State a certificate of the number of Representatives to which such State is entitled under this section. In case of a vacancy in the office of Clerk, or of his absence or inability to discharge this duty, then such duty shall devolve upon the officer who, under section 32 or 33 of the Revised Statutes, is charged with the preparation of the roll of Representatives elect.

(b) This section shall have no force and effect in respect of the apportionment to be made under any decennial census unless the statement required by section 1 in respect of such census is transmitted to the Congress at the time prescribed in section 1.

The CHAIRMAN. First, I think I will call attention to the changes in the bill that the committee has printed, from the House bill.

Senator BURTON. That is, they are incorporated in the Senate print?

The CHAIRMAN. They are incorporated in the Senate committee print; not in the form, however, of amendments, but as an original part of the bill.

I will call the attention of the committee first to the change made on page 1, in line 4; after the word “distribution” in line 4 on page 1, insert the word "unemployment."

Then on page 3, lines 2 and 3, reading as follows:

That census employees who may be transferred to any such temporary positions shall not lose their permanent civil service status by reason of such transfer

That was not in the House bill.
On page 3, line 11:

Provided further, That all such temporary appointments shall be made in conformity with the civil-service laws and rules.

The language of that is a little bit different from the language in the House bill, but the meaning is the same.

Senator SIMMONS. You mean that they both provide for the retention of their civil-service status?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; they both put them under the civil service.

Page 4, line 1—this is put in in place of the House text and there is very little difference except that this takes care of the proposition of law prohibiting two salaries of more than $2,000—there is this language:

Employees of the Department of Commerce and other departments and independent offices of the Government may, with the consent of the head of the respective department or office, be employed and compensated for field work in connection with the Fifteenth Decennial Census, and, when so employed, shall not be subject to the provisions of section 1765 of the Revised Statutes, or to the acts of May 10, 1916, and August 29, 1916 (Thirty-ninth Statutes, page 120, section 6, and page 582, section 6).

In line 12 on page 4, the words “per diem or piece price," are left out. Those words were in the House bill. They are left out. The Director of the Census will explain the reasons for that when we come to it.

On page 5, line 6, the words "to unemployment,” are inserted. They were not contained in the House bill.

On page 6, line 13, the words "1st day of November” appear. In the House bill that was “1st day of May.'

Senator VANDENBERG. This refers to the 1st day of November, 1929, Mr. Chairman; that is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. That probably should be corrected there.

Mr. STEUART. That was put in, on page 6, as the 1st day of November, because in the first section it says clearly that the census shall be taken in the year 1929; so that that covers that.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is correct.
In lines 16 and 17, on page 12, there is the following proviso:

Provided, however, That punch cards shall not be considered as printing within the meaning of this section.

In line 9 on page 13, I think there is a typographical error. I think that should be, that there shall be," instead of "begin;" that is, “that there shall be, in the year 1934,” and so on.

Senator Tyson. Where is that, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. On page 13, in line 9. That is simply a typographical error.

On page 15, section 19 is a new section, which reads as follows:

SEC. 19. That the Director of the Census may authorize the expenditure of necessary sums for the actual and necessary traveling expenses of the officers and employees of the Census Office, including an allowance in lieu of subsistence not exceeding $6 per day during their necessary absence from the Census Office, or, instead of such an allowance, their actual subsistence expenses, not to exceed $7 per day: Provided, That employees of the bureau may be paid in lieu of all transportation expenses not to exceed 7 cents per mile for the use of their own automobiles or not to exceed 3 cents per mile for the use of their own motor cycles when used for necessary travel on official business.

That will be explained by Director Steuart. I think those are all the changes in this bill from the House bill. Secretary Lamont is here, and I think we will hear him first. We will hear you at once, Mr. Secretary, so as not to detain you.



The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, have you any general suggestions with reference to the census bill that you would like to make to the committee?

Secretary LAMONT. Mr. Chairman and Senators, the only suggestions I have will be very general. I do not know much about this matter in detail, and Mr. Steuart does.

Representatives of several of the agricultural associations have been to see me on this matter of dates. They regard it as very important that the time should be fixed in November instead of Maythe 1st of May—as has been the case in all previous censuses. They make the rather startling statement that the turnover from one farm to another—the change of tenants-runs as high as 14 per cent, and that those changes take place around the 15th of December to early in January, and that if the census is taken in May, the men are not where they were when the work was done in the previous year, and they know little about the crops—their memory is poor, perhapsand in fact, they know little about what was done on the farms which they happen to be occupying at that time. It is, therefore, very important that the date should be in November, when the men are on the farms that they have been working for the year, and know about it.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you designate some of these organizations?

Secretary LAMONT. I did not bring a list of them with me, but they were the well-known farm organization groups.

The CHAIRMAN. If you have that list, will you send it down to the committee?

Secretary LAMONT. Yes, I think I can find the names of the men and the groups that they represented.

I should like also to say a word about unemployment, which has been added. There is a great need of some information about unemployment. There is a lot of talk about it in recent years, some claiming large figures and others smaller figures, depending upon what was wanted to be proved at the time. We do not know. There is a big shift going on constantly on account of men being displaced by machines, and we do not know how long it takes for those men to be absorbed in other industries or in other services, and it would be very

valuable to have a basis to work on. If we can get a census this year, then the changes from year to year can be pretty well approximated; if we have a base to work on.

It is not an easy thing to do. It is not always easy to know when a man should be called, or can be said to be, unemployed. He might be crippled and not able to work; he might be sick and not able to work; and he should not be classed as unemployed. He might be temporarily out of employment, but still he should not be classed as unemployed. It would require a good deal of careful preparation of the questions to get the facts as they should be. But if the matter can be arranged now there will be time to do that for this next census. I believe it would be very valuable information to have.

Senator HARRIS. Mr. Secretary, I would like to get your idea about the matter of the temporarily unemployed not being counted as unemployed.

Secretary LAMONT. A man might be employed in industry in some plant that was temporarily shut down, just for a week or a month. He might be in some seasonal employment, some employment which kept him occupied most of the time, and he might be temporarily off due to a cessation of the particular work; so that I think then that he should not be included as and called unemployed. There are a good many rather close questions of that sort that would have to be guarded, so that the facts will be clearly represented; but we believe that can be done.

Senator HARRIS. I was just thinking, when you began to make exceptions like that, it would be rather difficult to draw the line, as you say

Secretary LAMONT. It is; but there should be some effort made to distinguish as to the men who really are not fit to be employed, who could not work except in very special cases, perhaps as watch

Senator HARRIS. I can understand that; but as to the other, I think it would be rather difficult.

Secretary LAMONT. The other would be rather difficult. Perhaps a note could be made, or perhaps special classifications should be made for men temporarily out of employment, or something of that


sort. What we would like to know particularly, and what I think it is important to know particularly, is as to men who are out of employment through the increasing use of machines.

Senator SIMMONS. Will not that be a very difficult thing to ascertain?

Secretary LAMONT. A pretty difficult thing to ascertain.

Senator SIMMONS. Is it not going on to-day as it has been going on for many years in the past?

Secretary LAMONT. Probably to a greater extent now than ever before.

Senator SIMMONS. Do you think it is to a very much greater extent than 10 years or 5 years ago?

Secretary LAMONT. Perhaps not as recently as that; but it is going on, undoubtedly, at an increasing rate--that is, we are going more and more to the use of machines in all lines of industry.

The CHAIRMAN. That has progressed over many years?

Secretary LAMONT. It has been going on for many years. It has been going on since the beginning of the industrial age. It has been going on for more than 150 years; but probably it is at an increasing rate now.

Senator SIMMONS. In any event, you want that information merely as explanatory of why a man is out of work?

Secretary LAMONT. Yes.

Senator SIMMONS. He is classified as being out of employment, and you want this to explain why?

Secretary LAMONT. Yes.
Senator SIMMONS. What does that accomplish?

Secretary LAMONT. It might accomplish this, Senator. Something might be done to help the situation. If we know enough in advance, or long enough in advance, if we can watch the trend, if we can keep track of the changes in certain industries where perhaps machinery is going in more rapidly than in others, where men are being displaced, if we can see, and we know of some cases now where, by the use of machines, certain large groups of men are going to be thrown out of employment, it might be there would be some shift that can be made. We do not know. It would be interesting to have the information, enough to have something to go on, to have a basis to work on. We have a good many demands; we hear a great many claims; we hear a lot about the displacing of men by machines.

Senator SIMMONS. It has been so for a long time.

Secretary LAMONT. Yes, it has; and as I say, it is probably going on at a greater rate now, if possible. At any rate, having the facts to begin with would be very helpful, If the number is not as large as it is commonly reported to be, that fact is worth knowing. If it is larger, we should know it. It would be very valuable to have the information. It would stop a lot of arguments that men have.

Senator FLETCHER. It is claimed by a very large group that the introduction of machinery does not bring about unemployment.

Secretary LAMONT. In the long run, no, sir. Senator FLETCHER. Yes. Secretary LAMONT. But temporarily; yes. The history of the whole industrial development has been that the machines in the end made for more employment. But you can understand that in some particular industry, or if a new machine is brought out, in that case one machine may do the work of 40 or 50 men, and where there are a good many of those machines in a plant, it displaces hundreds or thousands of men in industry.

Senator RANSDELL. I suppose we have a good deal of information in regard to the effect of those new machines on industrial development, but not so much on agriculture, have we? The improvements in machinery have been rather in the industrial lines than in agricultural lines?

Secretary LAMONT. No, sir; I think that the thing has been going on to fully as great an extent in agriculture as in industry. You take the modern combine which goes through a field and takes off the tops of the grain and threshes it and puts it in bags, and then think of the old days when a man cut grain with a cradle, bound it into sheaves, shocked it, loaded it on a wagon and carried it to somewhere near the barn, where it would be stacked until the itinerent threshing machine would come along, and then it would be handled again, put through the threshing machine, and so on; no doubt the combine has replaced many men.

Senator RANSDELL. That is so with regard to wheat, but not so much so in regard to cotton.

Secretary LAMONT. The agricultural employment people to-day are getting very close to a machine which will pick cotton. They have been working on it for years, and they think now that they nearly have a practical machine. They are all working on it, and some of them are pretty close to it. That will displace a lot of labor.

The CHAIRMAN. The use of tractors is increasing.

Secretary LAMONT. The tractor, with the gang plows and harrows behind, will clean out a swath 20 feet wide. Practically, it will till and practically finish 10 acres a day, where the man with a team, with a plow, would plow alone about 1 acre a day, and then all the other operations would have to follow that. There, again, the machine has displaced an enormous amount of labor.

Senator HARRIS. As to the machinery you have mentioned, for instance, that used in agriculture, most of those improvements are more than 10 years old. The greatest improvement was made more than 10 years ago.

What I am afraid of is that if you go into this and try to get the unemployed that are thrown out because of improved machinery, you will just get misleading statistics. The importance of census statistics lies in the relative value. You know what they are this year and 10 years from now; but you are going to say such an amount of unemployment is due to the improvements in machinery, and then this year a certain amount-a different amount; and then you do not get anywhere, and in my judgment you will just complicate the situation by trying to make statements like that, and the figures would not be of any value. I am willing that it should be done if it can be done, but I do not believe it is practical.

Secretary Lamont. That might be true 10 years ago, but they are coming into use at an increased rate. There are a good many tractors now, but I dare say that there is not 1 to 10 that there may be 10 years from now.

The same with the combine. The combine has come into use prominently only within the last two or three years, and I dare say that the total number of combines in use to-day as compared with

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »