In the event of the death of an employee just prior to becoming eligible for a retirement his family would raise the claim for a pro rată share of the pension. Once the principle is established of granting such claims on a pro rata basis, every employee's death, even though he were in the service but a few years, would be brought to the attention of Congress for a share of the pension due the decedent.

A straight pension or noncontributory plan would, in my opinion, defeat the very purpose that makes the establishing of some system so necessary, namely, to increase the efficiency of the service. No department head would feel justified in dismissing an employee and thus deprive him of his pension rights. The same condition that prevails to-day, the withholding of discharge orders because of humanitarian motives, would continue to keep inefficient men on the pay rolls.

Any pension or retirement system that makes continuous service only a requirement for eligibility might tend to make the employees servile and subservient. The possibility of the loss of his long-sought pension, particularly in the latter years of service, would intrude on the thoughts of the employees to a demoralizing extent.

The power to deprive the employees of their pensions by removal from the service might foster the creation of a governmental bureaucracy. The political party in power might easily coerce the employees into partisan activity by even the implied threat of loss of pension interests.

Under the contributory plan, whereby the savings of the employees were available at the time of termination of connection with the service there would be little inclination for anyone, after realizing by a practical trial their unfitness for civil-service duties, to remain in an uncongenial work for the selfish purpose of participating in an annuity which would automatically follow a certain number of years of service. Also, under this plan, a department head would have no compunction about dropping from the rolls those whose efficiency fell below the standard.

It has been suggested that a straight pension plan could be made less objectionable by placing an annual valuation on the pension so the employee severing connection with the service could receive a pro rata share of his annuity. This, in effect, is an indirect contributory plan less attractive than the direct because the employee would get no benefit of accumulated interest.

Regardless of what system of retirement is finally found best suited to the requirements of the Federal service, the Government is confronted with the necessity of retiring those now at the age of superannuation. This is the only recourse, the only humane, economical, just way to correct the past mistake of not providing for a way out of the dilemma that now faces us.

Those now eligible for retirement should be granted an annuity which would have been theirs had the system been in vogue when they entered the service. Others who will become eligible before they have had an opportunity to accumulate a sufficient amount for retirement purposes must also be provided for by special legislative features. President Wilson in his book, The New Freedom, gives an illuminating thought of the question of pensions, saying:

They have been the stoutest and most successful opponents of organized labor, and they have tried to undermine it in a great many ways. Some of the ways they

have adopted have worn the guise of philanthropy and good will and have no doubt been used, for all I know, in perfect good faith. Here and there they have set up systems of profit sharing, of compensation for injuries, and of bonuses, and even pensions; but every one of these plans has merely bound their workingmen more tightly to themselves. Rights under these various arrangements are not legal rights. They are merely privileges which employees enjoy only so long as they remain in the employment and observe the rules of the great industries for which they work. If they refuse to be weaned away from their independence, they can not continue to enjoy the benefits extended to them.

If, as our President thinks, a pension in a private corporation makes for the loss of the independence of the beneficiary, it would affect in a still greater degree the civil-service employee, whose knowledge is of value, in many instances, only to the Government.

That the civil-service clerk is a most necessary part of the governmental machinery will be attested to by any departmental chief, The wheels of the great national institution keep turning in much the same fashion regardless of which political party is in the ascendency. An election, with all its noise and clamor, does not disturb but slightly the actual work of the Government. Call it routine, if you will, it is nevertheless an essential, important work. New political officials come into power with a determination to revolutionize the particular branch of the service placed in their control. At the end of a few months, after finding out the excellent, business-like manner in which affairs are conducted, after vainly looking for some real improvement to be made, they cheerfully follow the lead of all predecessors, turn the office over to the civil-service underlings, and confine their official activities to dinner and banquet acceptances or Chatauqua bookings.

Take our Postal Service as an illustration. Postmaster Generals come and go, each playing his part, but the volume of mail goes on forever. Each one experiences the same feeling; he is amazed at the vastness of the organization; its perfection, its numerous ramifications; and he is content to let it run on with an occasional tentative suggestion for its improvement.

Congress, too, legislates for the Postal Service, puts a law upon the statute books, and then proceeds to let the civil-service clerks adapt it to the needs of the department and the public. After all, the lowly clerk is not to be too lightly held. He is human, he is a factor that should be considered as necessary in carrying out the wishes of Congress. He is not only the wheels of the Government, but the heart and brains as well.

It has been truly and aptly said that the Government, in its conduct of the civil service, keeps the front door locked and the rear door wide open. Entrance into the service is difficult. It is only gained by successfully passing the closest scrutiny as to mental qualifications, character, and general fitness. Once in, however, and the applicant is given free rein to escape. He may be signally qualified for an exacting duty, his retention may be desirable from an economic viewpoint, still no particular inducement is made to him to make the service his life's work. He finds the exit wide open. Thus the most efficient material that comes into the service filters through it because outside attractions are greater and more promising. From a business standpoint this is wrong. If Government work requires skilled intelligence, experienced, trained, expert workers, then it is an economic waste not to attract and hold this class of employees. It is a

mistaken policy to cheapen the Government service so that it is not a magnet for the best brains of the Nation.

The adoption of a contributory plan of retirement would first necessitate some reorganization of the present civil service. Such action would be in accordance with the Democratic platform plank of 1912, which says:

We favor a reorganization of the civil service with adequate compensation commensurate with the class of work performed for all officers and employees.

I urge that you adopt some equitable system to retire those now superannuated, and by the same token provide promotions for those who have been kept below their rightful sphere because of the absence of such needed legislation. I thank you for the consideration you have shown me.

Mr. RUSSELL. If I may test the indulgence of the committee further to ask permission for two or three more to make a statement as to what they favor?

The CHAIRMAN. Our time has already expired. You might introduce them and let them say in a few words what they want.

Mr. RUSSELL. Let me present John P. Dorney, who has already said a few words. He is the national president of the National League of Government Employees.

STATEMENT OF JOHN P. DORNEY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT NATIONAL LEAGUE OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES Resumed.

Mr. DORNEY. I will be very brief. I was not apprised of this hearing until yesterday morning when I received a telegram from Llewellyn Jordan, who is unfortunately detained in New York City on Government business, informing me that this hearing would assuredly occur, and urgently requesting that I attend. In consequence of this fact and in view also of the fact that my time has been so thoroughly occupied in other matters pertaining to the welfare of the Federal employee that it has been impossible to give to the question of retirement that consideration which so important a measure deserves, but there is one very important point in relation to the justice of a retirement measure of the contributory plan, which, so far as I can discover, has not yet been exploited, and that point is in relation to the equity involved.

The gentleman who has just preceded me, Mr. Alifas, has stated that he represents the mechanics in the employ of the Government; he further stated that at a late convention of his organization the Hamill bill or noncontributory measure was indorsed, and he then proceeded to state that the Hamill bill was indorsed for the following reasons; and I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that after the most diligent attention to his subsequent utterances I fail to recall any argument or statement of fact that could be properly dignified by the title of a reason.

I, like Mr. Alifas, also represent in a great measure the mechanics in the industrial establishments of the Government, but I wish to positively assert that I do not misrepresent them when I say that in their name I unqualifiedly indorse the Austin bill for these reasons: In no class of Government employees is the tenure of service so uncertain as among these engaged in the manufacturing establishments

of the Government. It is a matter of very recent history that the very existence of the Watervliet Arsenal was threatened by lack of sufficient orders to maintain it. I have seen over 500 men employed at one time at this arsenal, and I have seen this number reduced to a little over 100, and during these periods of fluctuations there have been many men who had served from 5 to 20 years who were never restored to the Government service. I am only citing this as an example, for the same thing has transpired at every arsenal and navy yard in the country.

In view of these facts and in view of the fact that a man in the mechanical service of the Government may be for one of innumerable causes separated from the Government service at any time, I can not see how any man whose interests lie in this direction could possibly indorse the Hamill bill, which provides that he shall attain the age of 65 years in the service, or shall have served 35 years or more in the service in order to obtain any of the benefits of the provisions of that act.

The CHAIRMAN. What bill do you favor?

Mr. DORNEY. We favor the Austin bill, which is predicated on the proposition that the Government employees should receive a wage adequate to provide for himself against superannuation and not impose this obligation on the Government, albeit that this provision is carried out under the supervision of the Government.

Again, should such employee through lack of employment, death, or other unforeseen cause, become separated from the Government, the Austin bill provides that all moneys set aside to provide for his retirement, together with all their accretions, shall revert to the employee, his heirs, or assigns.

Now, to come to the question of equity, and particularly as it relates to the mechanical employer, I think, Mr. Chairman, that I can best illustrate this with a case in point. You will recall that I mentioned a few minutes ago that the Watervliet Arsenal was a few years ago threatened with abandonment, and the employees of that plant, in their efforts to avert this condition, showed that the Watervliet Arsenal could produce the munitions of war at less than 50 per cent of the cost of identical articles of manufacture by private con

cerns.

Now, the Government is not engaged in manufacture for profit, nor did it at this particular establishment ever pay a higher rate of wages than the prevailing rate of wages in that particular industrial vicinity.

Again, there are men now employed at this arsenal who have been so employed for over 50 years, men who have given the best years of their life-yes, I might say their whole industrial life-to the Government and who have been participants in creating this large saving to the Government. And I want to ask you, Mr. Chairman, if all of the data which might be applied to this case were or could be definitely computed, would it not show that through the assiduous toil of these men through all these years that there had accrued to the Government an unearned increment which would justify Congress in passing a just and equitable retirement measure, such as the Austin bill? Mr. RUSSELL. I will now ask the indulgence of the committee to introduce Dr. Neilson Falls, member of the executive committee of the United States Civil Service Retirement Association.

STATEMENT OF DR. NEILSON FALLS, MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, WAR DEPARTMENT.

Dr. FALLS. Mr. Chairman, I had formulated a joint resolution to suggest to the committee, which would provide for the retirement in the District of Columbia of all superannuated clerks, by appropriating unearned salaries, which are converted into the Treasury each year, which I understand is $500,000. If it be desired to adopt it to apply to the whole country, you have only to strike out the few words "District of Columbia."

The CHAIRMAN. You may have your suggestion printed in the record. (The House joint resolution, as submitted by Dr. Falls, is as follows:)

Whereas the Committee of the Senate and House of Representatives on Reform in the civil service have under consideration the retirement of employees in the classified civil service; and

Whereas, there is not sufficient time at this session of the Congress to properly consider so important a measure, and because of the pressing need of immediate relief for the good of public business and its more efficient execution in the departments of the Government and presidential bureaus in the District of Columbia, and the saving of expense to the Government in the sustentation of many incapacitated and infirm employees, as well as for the retirement and provision of the same: Therefore, it is hereby

Resolved by the House of Representatives of the United States of America (the Senate concurring), That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, upon proper certification of retirement of an employee by the appointing officer under whom such an employee shall have last served, to every such employee now in the classified civil service of the Government, who, through the infirmity of age or long service has become incapacitated for official duty, an annuity, payable quarterly, equal to 50 per cent of his present salary, pay or compensation, between the date of the passage of this joint resolution and the enactment by the Congress of the United States of America of a bill for the retirement of employees in the classified civil service, and that none of the monies mentioned in this joint resolution shall be assignable either in law or equity, or be subject to execution or levy, by any legal process, and, further, that every such employee to whom this joint resolution applies be honorably retired from the service of the Government, subject to the discretion, approval, and designation of the President of the United States; and that the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized to pay for the carrying out of the provisions of the aforesaid joint resolution the sum of out of any unexpended balance in the Treasury. The provisions of this joint resolution shall take effect the 1st day of July next following the passage of the same.

Mr. RUSSELL. If the committee please, I will now introduce Mrs. Jennie L. Munroe.

Mrs. MUNROE. The time will come in this country, Mr. Chairman, when old people, men and women, will be given attention by the Government itself. The Government will do that.

The CHAIRMAN. You refer to old-age pensions?

Mrs. MUNROE. I refer to old-age pensions.

The CHAIRMAN. Without regard to service?

Mrs. MUNROE. And until that time I do not think the Government employees have any right to ask a straight pension from this Government, and I am opposed to a straight pension. I think we should have this pension to which we can contribute ourselves-a part, at least.

The CHAIRMAN. The bill does not provide for any contribution on the part of the clerks.

Mrs. MUNROE. The Austin bill is the one I am speaking of, and under this bill in the end, as I understand it, the Government em