Page images

(Witnesses: Olmsted, Zappone.)

pine government and employed by it. They were not upon the United States Treasury at all. That is very positive.

The CHAIRMAN. By the Bureau of Insular Affairs?

Mr. OLMSTED. By the disbursing officer, who was also the agent of the Philippine government in this country for the disbursement of their funds.

Mr. ZAPPONE. Mr. Chairman, those appropriations are entirely separate and distinct. The United States does not make appropriations for the Philippine service.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course I do not know anything about it. I am simply inquiring

Mr. OLMSTED. Well, that is the fact.

Mr. ZAPPONE. Therefore it would not be in the nature of double compensation under the law, so far as an employee of the Department of Agriculture was concerned.

Mr. OLMSTED. If you will allow me to explain: At the time I was asked to come back to the Department of Agriculture to take charge of affairs there in the tabulating division I demurred, on the ground that possibly it would interfere with my work on the Philippine census tabulations and compilations. The request to come was reiterated several times, and finally my work in the Philippine bureau got to such a point that I saw I could do it by working outside of the United States Government office hours.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. From whom did those requests come?

Mr. OLMSTED. They came from Mr. Hyde, the chief of the Bureau, direct, personally.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hyde, of course, knew that you were receiving . compensation in the Insular Bureau?

Mr. OLMSTED. Oh, yes; and that is what I was coming to. When I finally came to the point where I saw that I could carry on both works without the one interfering with the other, I told Mr. Hyde, the next time he came to see me, that I could do it now if it was agreeable, but that I would not- abandon the Philippine work; that if he could not agree for me to take this position and still carry on my Philippine work outside of office hours, I would have to continue it, because that work must be finished. I had undertaken to finish it, and I was going to finish it. After consideration-I suppose he consulted with the secretary, though I do not know--he finally said that would be all right; that the salary that I received for the work in the Philippine Islands was not paid by the United States Government, nor from the United States Treasury. Then I went to the director of the Philippine census, General Sanger, and explained the situation to him; and he likewise, after thoroughly considering the matter, agreed to the proposition.' Then, after I was appointed, the disbursing officer of the Department of Agriculture, who was then Mr. Evans, took the matter up, and I explained it to him. He said that if my explanation was all right, as he had no doubt it was, that there was nothing wrong in it; it was all right; and that he would investigate it. He afterwards did investigate it, because I saw him later, and he told me he had looked into the matter and found that there was nothing reprehensible or wrong in it at all; that my action in the matter was perfectly proper, and there was no violation at all of any law in my drawing a salary from the Philippine government

(Witnesses: Olmsted, Zappone.)

and at the same time drawing the salary here, provided the duties of the one did not conflict with the duties of the other, or interfere with each other in any way. So that the matter was thoroughly understood all around.

The CHAIRMAN. So that so far as you were concerned, everybody from the Secretary of Agriculture down understood the situation?

Mr. OLMSTED. And the officials of the War Department, too, and the officials of the Philippine government. They all understood it, and the disbursing officer understood it. Everybody understood it.

The CHAIRMAN. And they all knew that you were receiving two salaries?

Mr. OLMSTED. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. They held that it was not within the inhibition of the law ?

Mr. OLMSTED. They did.

The CHAIRMAN. Whether or not it was within the spirit of it of course would be another thing. Now, here is a regulation that the Secretary of Agriculture seems to have adopted in a letter issued June 1, 1901, which provides in part 2:

Persons holding appointments to positions in other departments, or officially connected with any other branch of the Government service, will not be employed in any capacity, even temporarily, in the Department of Agriculture.

I suppose they must have held that the work that you were doing under the direction of the Insular Bureau was not done under “any other branch of the Government?

Mr. OLMSTED. That was exactly what was held.
The CHAIRMAN. That was precisely what was held ?
Mr. OLMSTED. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That the peculiar governmental situation in connection with the Bureau of Insular Affairs was such as eliminated that from the category of " any other branch of the Government ?"

Mr. Olmsted. Yes; that matter was gone into quite thoroughly by the disbursing official of the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Evans.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is that?
Mr. OlMSTED. Mr. Evans, Mr. Zappone's predecessor.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether the attention of the auditor was ever called to the situation?

Mr. OLMSTED. I do not know; I do not think it was. Certainly, unless some one especially called it to his attention, it would not be, because the auditor of our Department does not audit the affairs of the Philippine Government.

The CHAIRMAN. He audits the affairs of the Department of Agriculture?

Mr. OLMSTED. Yes; but not of the Philippine Government. He has nothing to do with their expenditures.

Mr. ZAPPONE. Mr. Chairman, I have been told that that matter was informally discussed with the Comptroller, and he held, just as he has done in the case of the State Agricultural Experiment Stations, that as the money was not appropriated by the United States Government it was not a violation of the law in regard to double compensation, which is quoted in our record, but which I would like to read to you again.

(Witness: Zappone.)

The CHAIRMAN. What is this?

Mr. ZAPPONE. This is a law that pertains exclusively to the Department of Agriculture prohibiting double compensation. It does not pertain to other Departments at all. It pertains exclusively to our Department.

The CHAIRMAN. You can read that into the record right here. Mr ZAPPONE (Reading): That no part of the money herein or hereafter appropriated for the Department of Agriculture shall be paid to any person, as additional salary or compensation, receiving at the same time other compensation as an officer or employee of the Government; * * * (ict of Mar. 1885 23 Stat. L., 356.)

The CHAIRMAN. That is substantially this regulation?

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes; that regulation was based on this law. That is why I bring this up.

The CHAIRMAN. I will read another thing right here, so that it will go right in here, Mr. Olmsted, and then you can follow right along with your suggestion, so that anybody who wants to look this record over will get all the law that has been called to our attention. In addition to this regulation of the Department, I find in this publication the following quotation from the statute, and the construction that has been made of it by the Comptroller. The statute is as follows:

That no part of the money herein or hereafter appropriated for the Department of Agriculture shall be paid to any person as additional salary or compensation, receiving at the same time other compensation as an officer or employee of the Government (23 Stat. L., 356.)

The decision is: The provision in the act of March 3. 1885, “ that no part of the money herein or hereafter appropriated for the Department of Agriculture shall be paid to any person as additional salary or compensation, receiving at the same time other compensation as an officer or employee of the Government,” does not apply to a person holding two separate, distinct and compatible employments in that Department.

That is from the Comptroller's Decisions (6 Pub., p. 284), and I suppose ought to go in here, of course.

Mr. ZAPPONE. Mr. Chairman, may I make a remark in that connection? I made reference to a decision of the Comptroller in which he held that a person receiving compensation from one of the State agricultural experiment stations could also very properly, under this law which I have just read to you, receive compensation from the Department of Agriculture, as it was not money appropriated by Congress, but money appropriated by a purely State institution. Now the case that you are discussing with the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics is, I think, entirely analagous. The moneys are not appropriated by the United States. It is not a Government institution in any way. The law that we are discussing here has been a very hard law for the Department of Agriculture to live up to. It pertains exclusively to our Department, and we are all the time watching the accounts to see that its provisions are lived up to. About a year ago I had a case of one of our men in the field who disburses money; he employed a man connected with the Geological Survey to make a map of a certain isolated district, as he was the only man available, the only man that knew the geography and contour of that section of the country. He employed him in good faith

(Witnesses: Olmsted, Zappone.)

and paid him $20 to prepare the map. Now, that does not look like salary at all, but it is, under a literal construction of the law, as it was for services rendered.

Mr. SAMUEL. Do you mean he paid him, or promised to pay him?

Mr. ZAPPONE. He paid him, and it had to be considered as "services” by the Division of Accounts, when it passed on this official's accounts in an administrative way. The accounts were sent to the Treasury, with the recommendation that the item be suspended or disallowed, inviting attention to this particular law. The Auditor took it up with the Comptroller, feeling that the man had not violated the law, as it was not a salary but more in the nature of compensation for services for performing a job-contract work, in other words. He referred it to the Comptroller, and the Comptroller sustained previous decisions to the effect that the man could not be paid under that law for the particular work, as it was for services performed and therefore double compensation. In that case the disallowance made the temporary disbursing agent suffer a personal loss of the amount.

The CHAIRMAN. It was very clearly compensation.

Mr. ZAPPONE. I merely give that as an illustration to show how very hard that law is on the Department. We have endeavored once or twice to have it repealed, but have not been successful.

Mr. OLMSTED. But, Mr. Chairman, in my case there was not even an apparent violation of the law, inasmuch as I did not hold two positions under the United States Government, did not render double service to the United States Government, and did not draw two salaries from the United States Government. The situation was fully discussed and understood before I accepted the position, which was only at the earnest solicitation of the officials of the Agricultural Department. I had no thought of going back to the Agricultural Department until I should have fully completed the work for the Philippine census bureau. But it seems that my services were very much desired over there, and when my work for the Philippine census got to such a point that I could carry it on without interfering with the work required of me by the Department of Agriculture, after a full understanding and discussion of the situation by all parties concerned--the officials of the War Department, the director of the Philippine census, and the officials of the Agricultural DepartmentI finaily went over there and took charge of that work, carrying on my work for the Philippine census bureau at night and on Sundays and whenever a boliday came in, using all my spare time and nearly killing myself incidentally, and doing my work for the Agricultural Department during the regular office hours of the day. And one work that I carried on in no way interfered with or infringed on the other work, because I kept them entirely separate and did them separately.

The CHAIRMAN. How long did the $1,800 man who was doing the work that you went over there to do continue in the statistical branch of the bureau after you went there?

Mr. OLMSTED. A very short time, sir. He became sick. He was sick when I went there and he got worse, and he was a very short time afterwards placed on furlough, I think it was, or put on leave without pay and never was put back.

(Witness, Olmsted.)

The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by “a short time?” Do you mean within a day or two or within a month or two, or what?

Mr. OLMSTED. Well, within a month or so. I do not remember exactly. That was a matter I had nothing to do with, because that was a matter for the Chief of the Bureau, and I was not Chief of the Bureau at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that you had no control over him? Mr. OLMSTED. None whatever. In a short time he was put on leave without pay, or furlough, or whatever it is called, and never went back to work again, and finally died.

The CHAIRMAN. When he was put on furlough without pay was any other man put in his place?

Mr. OlMSTED. Yes; his position was filled in some way or other, or the money we used to pay him was paid to somebody else.

The CHAIRMAN. Was it a statutory salary?
Mr. OLMSTED. A statutory salary; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. So that somebody was paid to draw that salary and do the work that he had been doing?

Mr. OLMSTED. No; not to do the work he had been doing, because I was doing the work he had been doing and a good deal more; but to do certain work in that office.

The CHAIRMAN. Why did it become necessary to continue that employee at $1,800 if you were there doing that work?

Mr. OLMSTED. Because he was not continued at that work and no one else was. I did that work and a great deal more besides. I reorganized the whole work and put it on a different basis.

The CHAIRMAN. What did this man who took the place of this $1,800 man go there to do?

Mr. OLMSTED. I do not remember who was promoted. I do not remember who Mr. Hyde promoted to his place, but he was given some work to do in the office that was required to be done-not the work that this other man had been doing, but he was given some work. They were all kept busy there all the time in some way or other. I do not remember now who was specifically promoted to fill the place.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not remember what he did do?

Mr. OLMSTED. No; because, as I say, I do not remember the individual who was promoted to fill that place.

The CHAIRMAN. Then up to the time you were appointed and went there, and not only did the work that Mr. Harrison had been doing, but a great deal more, there must have been a large accumulation of work that was not being done at all?

Mr. OLMSTED. There was. Things were in a chaotic condition; everything was behind and in a tangled mass which had to be straightened out. I had to reorganize the whole work.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the matter with Mr. Hyde, who was at the head of the Bureau? Was it not his business to have that tangle straightened out?

Mr OLMSTED. Yes, sir; it was.
The CHAIRMAN. What was he doing?

Mr. OLMSTED. But he had not succeeded in doing it, for some reason.

The CHAIRMAN. How long had he been at that?

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »