Under the late flat pension system of England only one employee in seven lives to receive a pension, whereas in our service, under a similar system, only one in eight or nine employees would live to become a pensioner. A further reason for advocating the joint resolution submitted for your consideration as a modus vivendi to meet the present emergency, I consider such a course at this time would meet the exigencies of present superannuation, especially in the departmental service in the District of Columbia, thereby enabling reorganization in the various departments to be immediately entered upon and so tending to greater efficiency in the public service. This would relieve the question of the present superannuated employees from any complication likely to arise by the precipitating of the whole question of civil service, upon the presentation by your committee to the Congress of a scientific bill for the retirement of civil-service employees of the Government. Should your committee adopt the suggested joint resolution for your mode of action, you would provide a modus vivendi for the retirement of the present aged and infirm civilservice employee, especially in the District of Columbia, no matter what may be the ultimate decision of the Congress in regard to the civil service, or the tenure of office; especially you will agree with our executive committee that the elderly infirm employees should not only be retired for the good of the service but also provided for by some method of sustentation.

In regard to a continuation of the stipend, or annuity, upon the death of the employee, to the widow I am heartily in accord with this manly and generous suggestion. Might I add that the wife of the Government employee is not only the "helpmate" of your public servant, but the "handmaid" of the Government, and is equally deserving of consideration in the generous provision made for her husband by the act of an appreciative Congress. Such continued provision for the widow would be the highest philanthropy and true democracy, and, whilst not too much to be expected of your committee, was more than the members of our executive committee were allowed to ask, as the commission issued to the executive committee of our association restricted our propaganda of any retirement method to the "expressed" or "known wishes" of the administration, but is left to a Democratic administration to present to us, through your honorable committee, this added thought, this generous suggestion, to which we must cordially and graciously respond. Respectfully submitted.

NEILSON FALLS,

Library, Surgeon General's Office, War Department.

N. B.-In the event of the passage by the Congress of this joint resolution, and until such time as a bill shall have been passed for the retirement of the civil-service employees, should the President, in his discretion, see fit to order that the employees subject to retirement under the 70-year clause be permitted to elect demotion instead of retirement at 50 per cent of present salary, I apprehend that the number of employees accepting demotion would greatly lessen the amount required to meet the annuities of those accepting retirement.

House joint resolution.

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 fifty per centum 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 moneys 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 first day of July next following the passage of the same.

[Hearing continued from February 20 to March 6, 1914.]

The committee resumed its sitting.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will now proceed to the consideration of House bill 11522, introduced by Mr. Nolan.

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like the committee to hear Mr. F. H. Ainsworth, the president of the civil-service employees of San Francisco. I am not prepared to go on within a reasonable space of time. I want to be ready when I come in with some facts and figures to present to the committee as to what this bill will mean in the way of appropriation. I presume the committee will want that information as far as I can possibly get it. I would like you, therefore, to hear Mr. Ainsworth now.

STATEMENT OF MR. FRANK H. AINSWORTH, PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES, PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO.

Mr. AINSWORTH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have here a little memorandum concerning this bill which my organization would like to have incorporated in the hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be incorporated without objection. (The papers referred to are as follows:)

FEDERATION OF FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES, PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO. [Report upon H. R. 11522, being a bill introduced by Hon. John I. Nolan, of California, for the purpose of changing, and in many instances increasing, the pay of employees of the Government who are known as civil-service employees.]

HISTORY OF BILL.

This bill originated with an organization of Federal civil-service employees located in San Francisco, Cal., whose members are employed in the various departments of the Government having branches in that city. The organization was formed in the latter part of the year 1912, as one of the results of the act of August 24, 1912, known as the Lloyd-La Follette bill, which was passed as a rider to the post office appropriation bill.

Shortly after being organized this association was confronted with a condition wherein it was proposed to reduce the salaries of a number of its members who were employed in the customhouse and known as customs guards. This was under a general plan of reorganization of the Customs Service passed and approved by former President Taft March 3, 1913. The organization immediately sought to impress upon Congress and the Treasury Department that the proposed reorganization, in so far as it affected the customs guards, was of a nature that would work a great hardship, because it, in effect, proposed a 10 or 12 per cent reduction in the pay of this classthat is to say, men who were receiving seventy, eighty, and ninety dollars a month were to be reduced to sixty, seventy, and eighty dollars a month. The Members of Congress from California, to whom the organization applied, took the matter up, with the result that the Treasury Department did not put that part of the plan in force and the salary of those customs guards remained undisturbed.

33324-14- 7

It very soon became apparent, as the members of the organization discussed their relative positions, that many inconsistencies existed in the way of pay and hours of service for essentially similar duties. As a result the bill above referred to was introduced and adopted by the organization. It was then adopted by the San Francisco Labor Council, and last of all by the American Federation of Labor in its thirtythird convention held at Seattle, in November, 1913, in the form of a resolution introduced by Delegate F. H. Ainsworth, who represented the Federation of Federal Civil Service Employees. After this preliminary work was accomplished, the bill was sent to Hon. John I. Nolan, Member of Congress, fifth congressional district of California, and he was requested to introduce it, which he did shortly after the first of the year, when it was referred to the Committee on Civil Service Reform, where it now rests.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

The Civil Service Commission was organized in January, 1883, and in the organic act provision was made for the examination and appointment of those who sought employment under the Government. Since then its scope has been enlarged from time to time by Executive order and otherwise, so that, according to the twenty-fourth report of this commission, on June 30, 1912, there were approximately 395,460 officers and employees of the executive civil service, 236,061 of whom held their appointments after competitive examination, and of whom 6,500 were unclassified laborers subject only to tests of physical fitness under special rules. When the original classification was adopted under the act of 1883, much of the classification which then was in operation was taken over, and the grades so taken over and the classifications in some instances had been in force since 1858. In 1896 there was a reclassification, based upon section 163 of the Revised Statutes, and adopted by direction of the President on June 9 of that year. This classification divides the employees of the Government into 11 groups, whose salaries range from a minimum of less than $720 per annum to $2,500 or more. The foregoing simply indicates some of the existing conditions which will be found in the civil service to-day, and are mentioned because of an effort later on to show that readjustments have not taken place to keep pace with changed living conditions during the past 20 years.

Another set of conditions, which are also stated as facts, will be mentioned here. An examination is called by the Civil Service Commission for, say, the grade of watchman, and an eligible list established. When a vacancy occurs in the customs branch, at the port of San Francisco, for example, a watchman will be certified and appointed at an initial salary of $65 a month, but if it happens that the immigration office wants one at the same time, he will be certified and will receive $55 a month. This is a fact illustrating an inconsistency. Another: In the custodian service of San Francisco a laborer receives $60 a month, being employed in the post-office building. In the same building, doing essentially the same work, a laborer of the Post Office Department receives $70 a month. Two men, working side by side, doing the same work, with no particular difference, receive different salaries. And so many examples could be cited showing inconsistencies that ought not to exist. An attempt will be made later on to show why they should not exist and to offer some solution.

ARGUMENT.

The organization in presenting this bill and asking for support seeks to show that the civil-service employee of the United States has not been treated equitably in the matter of compensation or hours of work. It is asserted that one of the reasons for this situation is a practice which exists to a large extent, and which no legislator attempts to defend on principle, though many avail themselves of it in practice—that is, the practice of legislating by the method of riders on appropriation bills. For example, in the last Post Office appropriation bill there was attached a rider which provides that a certain group of Government employees shall be given compensation if they shall become injured or sick in line of duty or if they lose their lives in line of duty their beneficiaries shall be compensated. The matter itself is meritorious, and expediency no doubt justifies its presentation in that shape as a rider on the Post Office appropriation bill. But what an unfair and unscientific method it is to enact legislation which places certain employees of the Government in a preferential position. In other words, if an employee of the Post Office Department in this particular class should become incapacitated by injury in line of duty he is taken care of in a very substantial manner, if this legislation should prevail. If another employee in another branch of the post office, equally entitled to consideration and equally faithful in the performance of his duties, should become incapacitated from a similar cause, he must shift for himself. Is there any defense for legislating in this manner? This organi

zation thinks there is none, except, as before stated, that it is more expedient to get this sort of legislation passed on an appropriation bill than not at all.

Another reason for some of the inconsistencies which exist in the civil service, in the way of pay and hours of labor, is the method of origin. To illustrate, we will say that in a department of the Government it is found that a new grade of employee is needed; after that has been demonstrated it is decided that Congress will be asked for this employee, and the matter of his compensation is passed upon. Very frequently the rate of compensation is fixed by the judgment of the particular chief of division who has the contemplated work under his supervision. This in no sense is said as a reflection upon the motive or the intent of this officer, but simply to illustrate the method. When such salary question is being discussed it is seldom that the other occupations of the civil service in other departments are referred to as standards, but rather the law of supply and demand, that is to say, when new positions necessitating the employment of say 50 persons are created and the matter of salary is under discussion, a statement will be made something like this: "I believe we can get suitable persons for these positions for $75 a month.' That is likely enough to prevail and the pay for that place be fixed at that particular amount. Now it may so happen that that position, or perhaps the identical position, exists in another department of the Government for which $85 a month is paid or $65 a month is paid. But that particular information is not available to those who are fixing the rate of pay in the present instance, and therefore they act on their own judgment and in perfectly good faith. The matter then goes to Congress and Congress is asked to appropriate for 50 new positions at $75 a month. The men who are doing the same work in another department and receive $65 a month very soon become aware of this situation and they are dissatisfied on the one hand; on the other when this $75 class is established they come to find out that in another branch of the Government the same character of work is paid $85 a month, they are dissatisfied. So that this method of appointing and establishing salaries is one of the causes of inconsistencies in the pay of Government employees in the civil service.

The purpose of this organization in presenting the bill above referred to is to take an initial step in a general readjustment of the civil service which it is expected will be urged in two ways: The first way, as this bill indicates, in a readjustment of salaries; the second way, which will be presented later, will ask for the creation of a temporary commission for the purpose of reclassification and equalization of the various grades now existing in the civil service. In referring to the bill under consideration statement has been made, in another part of this report, that the present classifications were adopted in June, 1896, and the rates of pay established at that time have prevailed. Therefore, in order to compare the conditions which existed at that time with the conditions which exist now, there is introduced a statement made by Mr. Underwood on May 3, showing the increased cost of living since 1897, or one year after the classification above referred to.

WASHINGTON, May 3.

In justification of the Democratic tariff reductions, Mr. Underwood discusses the increase in the cost of living in this country. He says:

"Probably the most striking economic change since 1897 has been the tremendous increase in the cost of living-a situation which has attracted the anxious attention of economists the world over. The following figures represent the relative advance in living costs that has taken place during the critical part of the period in question in the United States:

Relative wholesale prices and per cent of increase over 1897.

As will be seen by the foregoing, the increased cost of living during that period has been 46 per cent. Those who work for the Government in the civil service have received no increase in compensation, and are forced to meet the demands made upon them by the increased cost of living. Congress itself, recognizing the necessities of the occasion, found it proper to increase its own pay 50 per cent. The pay of the Army, the Navy, the Public Health Service, the Revenue Cutter Service, and those appointed as executive officers of the Government, have all been increased substantially during the 20 years. No uniform increase has been accorded the civil service employees. It is true that in the above-mentioned objectionable method some special classes of employees have had promotion; for example, during the consideration of the last appropriation bill provision was made for increase of the pay of 2,400 postal clerks. Congressman Buchanan, on the theory that if 2,400 were entitled to increase of pay others were also entitled to it, sought to have the number increased to 7,400. This was defeated, presumably on the theory that the Government was not prepared to spend that amount of money for that purpose. Congressman John I. Nolan then proposed an amendment whereby 5,400 would receive an increase, but the committee amendment prevailed, increasing the pay of 2,400 from $1,200 to $1,320 per annum. This is another illustration of the method of legislating by means of a rider to an appropriation bill, and it at once increases dissatisfaction and a feeling of unfairness among these who are not increased and who are equally entitled to increase on the basis presented. Of course, if Congress will adopt the principle that increases will be made as a result of competitive examination and increase will be given to those who pass a certain examination, or if it will establish the practice of granting a small increase for years of satisfactory service, then a definite situation exists. But to take out of a group of 7,400 postal clerks 2,400 and promote them arbitrarily and with no qualification except the recommendation of a superior officer is a method hard to defend under civil-service procedure. Of course, it is held by some that the pay of the civil-service employee is too high. One of the exponents of this idea, who very forcibly presents this contention, is Hon. Martin Dies, of Texas, a member of the civil service committee. He states in effect that Government employees are well and sufficiently paid and that "I recognize the fact that if 90 per cent of Government jobs were vacant to-day we would have 100 applicants for each one of them." No doubt that is true, but it is not only true in civil-service positions but also in the elective positions, and we have no doubt, and say it in no disrespectful sense, that if the position of Member of Congress were vacant many could be found to take it at less pay than Congressmen now receive, but that is no valid argument that Congressmen should not be paid in a manner commensurate with the duties they perform. Senator McCumber in his speech of January 19 states that the average pay of clerks in the city of Washington is over $1,200 a year and the average price for the same kind of service throughout the country is less than $600 a year. Whatever truth may be in that particular statement regarding Washington city, it is the judgment of this organization that taking it by and large throughout the country while some positions may pay more in the Government service than elsewhere the majority of positions pay less. That is conspicuously true in California, where throughout the State a minimum wage of $3 for an eight-hour day largely prevails. Of course, if reference is made to the department stores, where a salary of $6 or $7 a week is paid, there can be no answer to that statement, but it is not thought that anyone will seriously argue that the rate of wage paid in the average department store should be a criterion upon which to base Government salaries.

Many employees of the Government under the civil service are called upon to work 10 and 12 hours a day, and numbers of them work Sundays, some having one Sunday off in two weeks and some work every Sunday. We have in mind one particular office where the employees work 35 days continuously and then get one day off. Hon. James Mann, in a speech in the House in June, 1912 (p. 8785 of the Congressional Record), states this:

"A district attorney or any other official, except Members of Congress, is employed upon a basis that he works about so long in a day and is not expected to do extra work which goes with a great lawsuit, and there is no design that he should." That is his view on what should constitute a day's work. Hon. John J. Fitzgerald in his speech January 20, 1914 (p. 2051 of the Record), states that "any person considered for appointment of postmastership must understand and must agree to devote eight hours a day to the work of the office, and that unless after he be appointed he devote eight hours a day to the work of the office he can not continue in the service of the Government.' Here are expressions from two prominent Members of Congress of opposite parties concerning the day's work, while in many instances civil-service employees are required to work many more hours than eight, six days a week. This is not germaine, precisely, to the bill under consideration, but is illustrative of the more general situation and will come in for specific attention when the organization prepares its other bill providing for the reclassification of the civil service.