Mr. DIES. Here in the District of Columbia we pay $2 a day for labor, and we all are beset by common laborers who want to get the $2 a day. Is it your idea that that which they can not get outside should be raised to $3 a day?

Mr. AINSWORTH. Might I not answer that by not being disrespectful?

Mr. DIES. I hope you will not be disrespectful.

Mr. AINSWORTH. I do not wish to be disrespectful, but I do not think there is any position in the Government service in which you can not find men clamoring to get and who would serve for less pay than those receive who now occupy them.

Mr. DIES. For the same quality of service?

Mr. AINSWORTH. I am not prepared to pass on that.

Mr. MADDEN. It seems to me that one of the most essential things that this committee should have is information which will give us facts, and we have not had any so far. I think we ought to have a statement of facts here showing what the increase in the cost to the Government would be if this bill was enacted, what is the average compensation of like employment in the field of private endeavor, and all things of that sort.

Mr. AINSWORTH. I quite agree with the gentleman.

Mr. MADDEN. And until we have that we just waste time.

Mr. AINSWORTH. I realize that, but there are some elementsMr. MADDEN (interposing). We would like to get the other elements; you have not stated them yet.

Mr. AINSWORTH. I have sought to state one of the inequalities in the different rates of pay. I will state some other facts.

Mr. MADDEN. Just give us one fact; we have not had any yet.

Mr. AINSWORTH. I will state one fact, that since the present scale of pay has been established for the civil service the increased cost of living is 46 per cent.

Mr. MADDEN. And that has not been reduced?

Mr. AINSWORTH. I am not prepared to go into that.

Mr. LOBECK. The gentleman from Chicago heard the hearing in the Rules Committee the other day that the grain combine in Chicago made the low products in 1896.

Mr. AINSWORTH. I will answer in a measure by referring to a report from Director of the Mint George E. Roberts, which appears in this morning's paper and which states the increased cost of living is still 50 per cent.

ROBERTS TALKS OF LIVING COST-DIRECTOR OF MINT SAYS RAW MATERIALS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PRESENT PRICES-ROADS MUCH IMPROVED NOTHING BUT REVOLUTION WOULD OFFSET RISE OF 50 PER CENT IN COST OF NECESSITIES.

In his report on the finances of the United States Government, issued yesterday, Director of the Mint George E. Roberts discusses, in the thorough manner which has made his reputation international, the enormous relative increase in the cost of raw material.

The discussion may be said to be the most authoritative yet contributed on the cost of high living and the influences governing.

"A study of all price tables," says he, "will show that the level of prices under review has been carried up by the rise in articles of food and raw materials. Manufactures have either not risen at all or have risen by a lower percentage than the raw materials and labor which have entered into them. The greatest rise of all in the last 15 years in the United States has been in lumber, but it is not necessary to resort to the gold hypothesis for an explanation in this case. All of the products of timber have been going higher because near-by supplies were being exhausted. And so all

of the products of the soil have been going higher because the cheap, easily tilled prairie lands of this country have been occupied, while our population continues to increase.

FARMING NOT POPULAR.

"Meats are dearer for the obvious reason that cattle can no longer be pastured free on the public domain; the great ranches and herds have been broken up, and for some years the supply of meat animals in the United States has not been increasing. In all price tables these products of the farms and forests and public lands are very important factors.

For a long time, during the period of land settlement in the United States, when it cost but little to open new farms, the prices of farm products were so low as to afford very small compensation to the producers. The desire to own land, which was expected, ultimately to increase in value, was the chief inducement for the opening of new farms, and it was sufficient to keep the price of products down close to the bare labor cost, upon most farms, of producing them. With the cheap and easily tilled lands occupied, there was a slowing down in agricultural expansion. Since then development in agriculture has not kept pace with progress in manufacturers or transportation.

"Since the Baring crisis in 1890, caused by overfree investments in Argentine railways, there has been no extensive railway construction opening up large areas of cheap lands until the Canadian construction began a few years ago. And while there has been an important movement of farmers into the Canadian Northwest the results of the development expenditures have only begun to make themselves felt. It is, however, true that wheat, the principal crop of Canada, is one of the farm staples that has made the smallest advance.

"The expenditures of capital upon the railways of the United States during the last 15 years have been enormous, but they have been mainly directed to the improvement of the existing lines and not to the opening of new territory, as in the decade from 1881 to 1890. The roads have been straightened, grades have been reduced, additional tracks have been provided, heavier rails have been laid, new and stronger bridges have been built; and along with these betterments upon the roadways have come more powerful and more economical locomotives and freight cars of much greater capacity.

NECESSITIES TAKE JUMP.

"These improvements have called for a vast amount of labor and materials and have had an important influence upon wages and prices. They have undoubtedly been very effective for the purpose for which they were made, to wit, an economy in labor and power in the operation of the lines. Judged by the higher efficiency obtained, these outlays were well worth making, but the rising prices of timber, ties, and various supplies, and the higher wages required of the companies by reason of the higher cost to their employees of food and clothing, have apparently more than offset all the gains accomplished by reconstruction and improved equipment.

66

And the situation of the railways is illustrative of what has occurred throughout the industries. In all lines heavy investments of capital have been made for the purpose of reducing labor costs, and results have been obtained which would have naturally appeared in lower prices if the higher costs of raw materials and of the food and clothing of the operatives had not intervened and overbalanced them. Indeed, it would require nothing less than a revolution in the methods of industry to offset in importance a rise of 50 per cent of the food staples and of such common commodities as cotton, hides, and lumber."

Mr. DIES. Some people say the cost of living has increased more than that, and some say a good deal less.

Mr. SCOTT. May I ask a question? In response to a question from Mr. Dies, you said you thought there was no position now under the Government that men would not willingly take at a less compensation than those in the service are now receiving. Is that not true because the Government is paying better compensation than private individuals in business are paid for a like service?

Mr. AINSWORTH. In the State of California the Government pays less for like service. In California we have $3 a day for eight hours work for the street sweeper, and the skilled stenographer will get $75 a month in the Government service.

Mr. SCOTT. What temptation is there to enter the Government positions for less pay?

Mr. AINSWORTH. A great deal in the honor of serving the Gov

ernment.

Mr. LOBECK. And steady employment?

Mr. AINSWORTH. Yes, sir.

Mr. LOBECK. A man goes into the civil service employment because he knows he has a straight employment as long as he is able

to serve.

Mr. SCOTT. That is hardly in accord with the fact, Mr. Lobeck. Mr. LOBECK. That is why men want to get into the civil service employment, because they know it is steady employment for life. Mr. SCOTT. Subject to change of administration. You will have to qualify that, will you not, by the statement, subject to change of administrations?

Mr. LOBECK. That does not affect the civil service.

The CHAIRMAN. No; the changes of administration do not affect the civil service.

Mr. DIES. The civil service implies a job for life. It is the abuse of the civil service that makes it otherwise.

Mr. AINSWORTH. If I may proceed, Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. We ask that Congress take some affirmative step in this direction. If it does not think $3 a day is enough, let it say what is the proper sum for a man to receive who serves the Government, to bring up his children and live in a decent manner, and put all these men on the same basis, and then to give some recognition to the higher paid men, and I presume that will come last; give some recognition to the difference in condition the last 20 years, and give us the same consideration you have to all others in the employ of the Government. We are like a big family, and the elder brothers have gone out in life and have been well taken care of by their fathers. The class I belonged to had a nurse-the Civil Service Commission has been our nurse who has taken care of us to a certain point, but we are now grown to manhood and would like some of the recognition that has been given to our elder brother.

Mr. MADDEN. Who is the elder brother?

Mr. AINSWORTH. We are substantial citizens of the United States, and we have to wear clothes and live in houses, and our children have to wear shoes, and all those things, and we want Congress, in its wisdom, to make some provision for the civil service in which we have no protection now.

There is another thing: Congress is being asked to take up the pension matters. Gentlemen, you are pensioning a large number of people right now. I refer to Mr. Dies's quotation on pages 36 and 37 of the Congressional Record, showing that in some parts of the Government men are being paid full salary, and only earn 50 per cent of it. Who is doing the work for which the other 50 per cent is being paid?

Mr. DIES. What I said is taken from the Efficiency and Economy Commission appointed by the President of the United States, and it is an official document. It is not my statement.

Mr. AINSWORTH. It is quoted in the gentleman's speech.

Mr. MADDEN. Do you favor the discharge of the men who are only doing 50 per cent of their efficiency?

Mr. AINSWORTH. I can not answer that categorically

Mr. MADDEN (interposing). You can not give any categorical answer to that. I only asked one question.

Mr. AINSWORTH. If I may be permitted to make an illustration: I am like the witness whom Lord Russell asked to answer yes or no, and he said, "I can not answer yes or no." Lord Russell had asked him whether he beat his wife or not, and asked him to answer yes or no, and the witness replied that he could not answer yes or no. I will say this, that the civil-service people have not received the compensation in the last 20 years equal to that paid to other branches. of the Government or commensurate with the increased cost of living, and, therefore, I am in favor of taking every man who is incapacitated by virtue of his service to the Government and retiring him on a pension which will take care of him in his old age.

Mr. MADDEN. What would you do with the laborer who does not earn over a dollar or so a day? After he is 60 years old would you throw him into the scrap heap?

Mr. AINSWORTH. I am not in favor of a general civil-service pension.

Mr. MADDEN. You would not pension them when they get to be 70 years old?

Mr. AINSWORTH. There may be some sort of a middle ground. A great many men who are 70 occupy those positions and are still vigorous while others are feeble at 57.

Mr. DIES. Can not you obviate the necessity of a pension by having a fixed tenure of office?

say

Mr. AINSWORTH. I can not answer that, but I will that if you gentlemen will agree upon salaries in the civil service that are commensurate, the employees can, with propriety be required to look out for their own pensions. The pension clamor is an effort to get half a loaf if you can not get the whole loaf. Those low-paid men do not know what to do with their children. When they get old they get apprehensive. A man when he gets old and has four or five children does not know what to do if anything should happen to him. Mr. MADDEN. Does that apply to the Government employees alone? Mr. AINSWORTH. No, sir.

Mr. MADDEN. Do you not know that there are about twenty million men in the United States who are employed at every kind of hazardous work, and the average compensation of these men is not over $500 a year?

Mr. AINSWORTH. Yes, sir.

Mr. MADDEN. And that these men have families of 5 and 6 and even as high as 10 or 12?

Mr. AINSWORTH. Yes, sir.

Mr. MADDEN. And that their limit of efficiency is up to 50 years of age, and when they get to be 50 they are in the scrap heap, and these are the men who have to face this danger. Do you want to take it away from the man who is getting $500 a year and give it to the man who is getting $1,000?

Mr. AINSWORTH. Why do you give pensions to some employees and not others? I can only answer that by saying that we only ask equal treatment.

Mr. SCOTT. That is not a suggestion; that is an illustration.

Mr. AINSWORTH. This is an illustration of a case I know myself, if I may be permitted to state it. I know of a widow woman who has two daughters, one 14 and one 16. She works for the Government of the United States at a pay of $45 a month as a stenographer. She was on the list and passed the examination and took a temporary appointment at $75 a month. She heard of another position which she hoped would pay her equally as much. She took it, and therefore lest her place on the civil service list. That was her own fault, but she was pressed for money and she had to live. She took that position for $45 a month and her children have to go to work.

Mr. MADDEN. How about the man who works for $2 a day and loses every day it rains, and works about eight months in the year, and has a family to keep, and has no pension, and has to pay his proportion of the taxes?

Mr. AINSWORTH. In California our men get $3 a day.

Mr. MADDEN. You know that is not the average rate that men are paid who work.

The CHAIRMAN. $1.50 is the average.

Mr. AINSWORTH. I understand the gentleman's position, and we want to be helpful.

Mr. MADDEN. You can not be helpful if you are going to take it away from the man who has need of it.

Mr. AINSWORTH. You do that with the other branches of the Government.

STATEMENT OF THOS. F. FLAHERTY, SECRETARY-TREASURER NATIONAL FEDERATION POST-OFFICE CLERKS.

Mr. FLAHERTY. As a representative of post-office clerks, all o whom would be benefited by legislation such as the Nolan bill pro poses, I earnestly urge the committee to give this measure the careful consideration it merits.

In section 1 of the bill it is provided that all civil-service employees who are employed by the year shall receive not less than $1,080. Section 2 provides a 5 per cent increase yearly for four years to those employees receiving more than $1,080, with certain limitations and provisions to prevent inequalities and insure justice to the employees affected.

Thus it can be seen that the postal employees are, in common with other Government workers, vitally interested in this bill, because it pertains to their salary classification, a most important matter to all of us.

f

The entrance salary in the post-office service is $800. At first thought one might think that this is an exceptionally high rate of pay to give to a beginner. One unacquainted with the facts might think the Government was more liberal toward the new employee than private corporations, but such is not the case. This $800 wage is not really an entrance salary. It is only reached by male clerks and carriers after an indefinite period of substitute work, a period of uncertainty, a period of precarious living, during which the income of the clerk and carrier fluctuates from day to day.

When consideration is given to the method adopted by the Post Office Department in having a long list of substitutes, who must necessarily wait years for regular employment, the $1,080 minimum