« PreviousContinue »
that you would like to add along that line, or has anybody else anything along that line?
Mr. Rogers. I have no other suggestions to make. It may be that in connection with the discussion of the different sections of the bill further evidence along that line will be given.
Senator SUTHERLAND. It would seem to me that it would be particularly desirable to take the census at this time, so that future generations may have some knowledge of the effect the war has had on the various industries
The CHAIRMAN. I think so, too.
Mr. Rogers. Yes; and if you fail to take a census now, you will have no comparative decennial figures. You will not know what these conditions, I might say these abnormal conditions, are throughout the country. You will not know what the industrial conditions are, or the capacity of manufacturing establishments for doing business after the war. I think it is highly important that we should have an accurate picture of these conditions.
The CHAIRMAN. That is what I wanted to bring out. Now you may proceed with your discussion.
Mr. Rogers. I might say in that connection, if conditions grow worse, and Congress has any doubt of my ability to organize such a force as will be necessary to take a complete and thorough census, that it might be wise for you to amend the section prescribing the various inquiries, so that the director should have some discretion as to what extent he should get those statistics.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you prepare an amendment along that line?
Mr. Rogers. I will be glad to do that when the committee is not engaged, as I do not want to take your time for that now.
The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed then.
Mr. Rogers. If you care to have this considered section by section, I would be very glad to do it.
The CHAIRMAN. I think it is advisable.
Senator New. Yes; I do not know anything about this. It can be read rapidly.
The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.
Mr. Rogers. The first section provides " That a census of the population, agriculture, manufactures, and the mines and quarries of the United States shall be taken by the Director of the Census in the year 1920 and every 10 years thereafter. The census herein provided for shall include each State, the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii. and Porto Rico. A census of Guam and Samoa shall be taken in the same year by the Navy Department and a census of Panama Canal Zone by the War Department in accordance with plans prescribed or approved by the Director of the Census."
The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand that the census of the Virgin Islands has been recently taken?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir; it has been recently taken, and is ready for distribution.
The CHAIRMAN. It is ready for distribution?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir.
Mr. ROGERS. November 1, 1917. We finished it about Christmas. The volume of work in the Government Printing Office delayed the distribution of the results of the census.
The CHAIRMAN. A similar act was passed prior to the Thirteenth Census?
Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Which made provision for the thirteenth and subsequent decennial censuses?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Why is it necessary to have a new act at this time to provide for the Fourteenth and subsequent decennial censuses rather than to have an amendment to the bill now in operation ?
Mr. Rogers. Well, it is really an amendment to the Thirteenth Census bill, so as to fix the dates and to meet changed conditions. It is practically the same bill.
Senator SUTHERLAND. Is not that the usual wording of all the census acts?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir.
Senator SUTHERLAND. To provide for the present and subsequent censuses?
Mr. ROGERS. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And it is thought best to embody it in a new measure for practical reasons?
Mr. ROGERS. For practical reasons, yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Well, you would not be able to tell what the law was unless you took the Thirteenth Census act and then the amendments, which are quite numerous. It was believed a new act would be more practicable for the bureau and everyone concerned with the law.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you intend to indicate, Mr. Rogers, where this act differs from the act providing for the Thirteenth and subsequent decennial censuses?
Mr. Rogers. Yes; for instance, in the House Committee on the Census they inserted the words "to forestry and forest products" in the first paragraph of section 8, line 9, page 8. This amendment renders necessary, or at least desirable, the following further changes:
Insert "forestry and forest products,” preceded and followed by commas, in section 1 at the beginning of line 4, page 1.
Insert “to forestry and forest products,” preceded and followed by commas, in the first line of the third paragraph of section 8 following the word “manufactures” (line 8, page 9)..
Insert “of forestry and forest products,” preceded and followed by commas, in the first line of the fourth paragraph of section 8 after the word “manufactures” (line 20, page 9).
That is simply to make it conform to that amendment all the way through. I suppose you have observed the reason for that change.
Permit me to invite your attention to the first proviso of section 3, beginning at line 23, page 2, which reads as follows:
Provided, That no man appointed or employed or who shall hereafter be appointed or employed under this act shall, on account of such employment, be certified by any official or authority for deferred classification under act No. 12, Sixty-fifth Congress, entitled "An act to authorize the President to increase temporarily the Military Establishment of the United States," approved May 18, 1917, or under any act amendatory thereof that has been or shall hereafter be enacted.
It is not clear to me whether this proviso refers only to the additional employees who will be appointed during the decennial census period or whether it also includes the permanent force of the bureau. If it refers only to the additional employees I have nothing further to say regarding it, except that it would possibly be desirable to make the language of the proviso a little more specific in that respect. I do not think it should be made to cover the permanent force of the bureau, as it is possible that there may be an instance where it would be for the best interests of the service for me to ask for a deferred classification for some official or sonie employee of the bureau. For instance, it might be necessary to ask for a deferred classification for an expert employee in the bureau's mechanical laboratory in connection with the construction of the tabulating equipment for the next census. We have had vacancies in our mechanical laboratory for nearly a year which we have been unable to fill on account of the abnormal conditions in the industrial world and the great demand for skilled workmen.
Senator New. It seems to me that according to this wording there is no question but that it applies to those already in the service.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I would like to go a little further, if you please. I assure you that I will be one of the last men to ask for exemption from military service of anyone whose services are not practically indispensable to the bureau. Secretary Redfield has made it plain to us all, and I fully concur in his views, that the question of inconvenience with respect to the loss of employees going into the military or naval service is no ground whatever for asking for exemptions, and that the question of indispensability is the only ground upon which requests for exemption should be based. I think my attitude in this matter can be best judged from the fact that up to this time 57 employees of the bureau have been called into the military or the naval service since the outbreak of the war, and in no case have I requested the exemption or the deferred classification of any employee. In view of this fact I can not see the necessity of having a special provision of law which refers to the employees of this bureau, as I should prefer to have our employees considered on the same basis with the employees of other bureaus, executive departments, and independent establishments of the Government. In other words, the same law that governs us ought to govern everybody else, or everybody else's law ought to be applied to us.
The CHAIRMAN. Would you suggest, to make it plain, that this proviso should not apply to the permanent employees of the bureau ?
Mr. Rogers. I do not see any use of that proviso in the bill at all.
Senator New. As it stands here, I think there can be no possible question but it does apply. It reads, “That no man appointed or employed or who shall hereafter be appointed or employed under this act shall on account of such employment be certified," etc.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will consider that proposition.
Mr. Rogers. That proviso could be stricken out. I can suggest an amendment if you desire me to do so.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you submit an amendment that will make it plain that it applies only to the temporary employees.
Mr. Rogers. I was under the impression that there was a general Jaw that controlled all of the governmental employees, or there would be rules emanating from the Provost Marshal General's office that would carry that.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will consider that. Proceed with our analysis of the bill. Have you finished section 1 now?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. In regard to section two, there are no changes in that. It is all right.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the same as the existing law?
Now, section 3 is just as it was in the House bill, and I do not care for any change there. Now, section 4
The Chairman. I mentioned in my question a while ago, Mr. Rogers, if it is your intention to compare this with the law that was passed 10 years ago?
Mr. Rogers. Well, there is no change in the law that was passed 10 years ago and the law that passed the House recently, except in the sections I am now indicating.
Senator SUTHERLAND. Section three of this bill is about the same as the law of 10 years ago.
The CHAIRMAN. It is the same.
Senator New. Substantially the same, he says; what are the changes ?
Mr. Rogers. Well, in section 3 of the law of 1910, were the words “after June 30, 1909;” that is stricken out. Of course that does not apply. Then it is the same "during the decennial census period, and no longer.” That of course simply changes the language, to limit the term of office.
“There may be employed in the census office, in addition to the force provided for by the," and then comes “ act of March 6, 1902, entitled 'An act to provide for a permanent Census Office," and that is stricken out, and in lieu thereof there is “ legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation act for the fiscal year immediately preceding the decennial census period.” That is to preserve the force that is now organized in the census. The law reads, “ an Assistant Director, who shall be an experienced practical statistician.” The words“ a geographer” are stricken out, because we have a geographer now, but we did not have one then.
The law reads:
A chief statistician, who shall be a person of known and tried experience in statistical work.
Then a " disbursing clerk” is added because at the end of the other period the disbursing clerk was dropped.
Senator SUTHERLAND. Would not that old law providing for a geographer hold when you are passing a general act providing for the whole force? In other words, would not the old law still remain in force providing for the geographer?
Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir.
Senator SUTHERLAND. Then, as this is in lieu of section 3 of the old bill, this would supersede that, and would only include such officers and officials as are specifically mentioned?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir.
Senator SUTHERLAND. And would it not be necessary to include those officers provided for in the last census if you want to maintain them?
Mr. Rogers. This provides for that,
In addition to the force provided for by the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation act for the fiscal year immediately preceding the decennial census period.
Senator SUTHERLAND. That is in the regular appropriation act? Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And the last decennial census bill specifically repeals the former law.
Senator SUTHERLAND. Yes; but this is in addition to census officers regularly provided for in the regular appropriation bill.
Mr. Rogers. There is no change in section 3 that I desire, except the ones that I have mentioned.
Now, as to section 4, there is no change; it is substantially the same.
The CHAIRMAN. Will it be necessary for you to explain the significance of these sections as you go along?
Mr. Rogers. They are in the hearing and are substantially as they passed the House, and I see no reason for it unless the committee wants to make some point about this section. There are no changes suggested in section 4.
In section 5 there is a change. That change affects the organization very much in respect to salary.
Senator New. We have raised the salaries all along the line. Mr. Rogers. Well, in some cases we have and in some we have not. If there is any doubt in the minds of the committee as to the justness of the proposed bill in that respect
The Chairman. Suppose you give us an explanation now.
Senator King. I am opposed to increasing any salaries of any officials if we can possibly avoid it. I think from the psychological standpoint that the effect would be very bad at this time.
Senator SUTHERLAND. But everybody else seems to be getting a raise.
The CHAIRMAN. This is only a change for the decennial census period of three years.
Mr. Rogers. I am sure that it is our intention to do simple justice to anyone whose salary is too small. My object is to secure adequate compensation for those people who would be willing to do this work. I will make my statement first, if you have no objections, and then I will be glad to answer any questions.
The CHAIRMAN. You may make your statement first, if you will.
Mr. Rogers. In certain cases the salaries recommended for the officials set forth in section 5 were reduced in the bill as passed by the House of Representatives, as compared with the salaries recommended by the department. The following table shows the salaries of such officials during the Twelfth and Thirteenth Censuses, the salaries recommended by the department, and the salaries contained in the bill: