Mr. FOULKE. I believe that you are wrong, but I will look it up in my records and find out what I can in regard to it and let you know. Senator SUTHERLAND. I was in the census as chief of the population division, and I know of the facts of which I speak. The enumeration was made as of the 1st of June, and it was taken within two weeks in the cities and within a month in the rural districts. This letter was written with reference to the election day in the following fall. Then this man was out of the Government employ, so that the letter does not seem to me to indicate anything at all as to the political activity of anyone in the Government employ.

Mr. FOULKE. Well, it would indicate that he was relying upon them for political work.

Senator SUTHERLAND. But they were not Government employees at that time, and neither was he, except to finish up the work.

Mr. FOULKE. Well, there was an incident in Indianapolis where the enumerators were requested to bring in the list of the voters of the district for the purpose of preparing for the Republican campaign.

Senator KING. Would not the incident to which Mr. Foulke is calling attention now-that is, of Mr. Douglas's writing to the enumerators to do what they could to elect this Representative or Congressman-indicate that they were of his political faith, or had been selected because they were amenable to his wishes and would be influenced by him, and he felt at perfect liberty several months after their employment had ceased to notify them to do political work?

Senator SUTHERLAND. I am not denying at all that these men were probably, or most of them, appointed as Republicans, but they were not doing this work as Government employees at this time.

Mr. FOULKE. They were used to get the poll for the Republican Party. It is by no means certain that this letter could not have been written to them in June, because the campaign had then begun. I will look over the records and find out what I can about that and let you know.

Senator SUTHERLAND. You have no knowledge that this letter was used while a Gevernment employee

Mr. FOULKE. I have none. Now, there is a letter from Congressman Raines to one of the enumerators in his district, which I will read. I remember an interview that was given by Congressman Raines, and this letter was sent to one of the enumerators, and it is as follows:

MY DEAR SIR: As it is likely that you will in a few days be appointed enumerator for your district, I write you this in the strictest confidence. I would like very much that you should take the trouble, before you make your report to the supervisor of the census and after you have taken all the names in your district, to copy in a small book the name and post-office address of every voter on the list. After you have done so, I wish you would send the book to me at Canandaigua. I ask you to do this as a personal favor and to make no mention of the matter to anyone. What I want is a full list of all the voters in your enumeration district. Will you please treat this matter as strictly confidential?

And yet section 8 of that act required that each enumerator should subscribe an oath that he would not disclose any information contained in the schedule, lists, or statements to any person except his superior officer; yet the enumerators in Monroe County, Ind., who

were selected upon the recommendation of the Republican county committee, were engaged in making poll lists for the Republican Partv. This also occurred in other counties and States.

Senator SUTHERLAND. Well, you could hardly pass a law to prevent these men from preparing lists of the voters.

Mr. FOULKE. Well, that is the purpose of the law, and when Senator Raines's attention was called to it, which I did in the office which I was then conducting, he said that he had sent this letter in ignorance of the law which required enumerators to keep secret the results of the enumeration.

Senator ASHURST. I have no doubt that a vast deal of water has been running under the bridge since this letter was written.

Mr. FOULKE. It was written in 1890.

Senator ASHURST. And there were doubtless many Democratic Representatives who had written such letters; I say that in order to show that there is no partisan bias.

Mr. FOULKE. Yes, sir.

Senator ASHURST. At the present time there is not a single man in either branch of Congress who has any trouble at all in getting a list of the voters. In my own State I have a list of the voters, and you can get every voter's name by paying a small sum for it. Their names are in the office of the secretary of state, and they have companies there that will furnish them for a charge, and do furnish them by the thousands. Do you not think that all of this so-called abuse-and doubtless there was abuse in the matter of the publication of names-but do you not think it has changed and has been removed by the 30 years that have elapsed?

Mr. FOULKE. But I simply cite this to show that the moment you appoint the enumerators for political reasons that they will use their offices for political purposes.

Senator ASHURST. But it does not have any significance as to the merits or demerits of the present bill.

Mr. FOULKE. Now, the enumerators in Monroe County, Ind., were selected upon the recommendation of the Republican county committee, were engaged in making poll lists for the Republican Party. Senator NEW. I am surprised at that out in Indiana.

Mr. FOULKE. Well, I come from the State of Indiana, and in Indiana until that time politics were better represented to the square inch than in any other place.

Senator SUTHERLAND. They used the blocks-of-five system.

Mr. FOULKE. They used the blocks-of-five system; yes. The worst defects of the patronage system of census appointments were apparent in the city of New York, where C. H. Murray, a Republican politician, was made supervisor. The following circular letter from him showed the manner in which the enumerators were selected:

DEAR SIR: You will please forward to this office a list of the applicants that the Republican organization of your district desires to have named as census enumerators. This list must be sent here on or before April 1.

Among the men thus appointed Police Inspector Byrnes recognized well-known criminals. He said:

I know that some of the enumerators in this city were thieves. This very morning one of these enumerators came here to call upon me. He had been three times an inmate of the State prison. He was appointed upon the recom mendation of a Republican judge. This thief's name is known to all the city

detectives, and his picture occupies a prominent place in the rogues' gallery. He did not take the oath in his own name, and his dealings with the Census Bureau were under an alias.

Yet private houses were opened to such men, with the understanding that the Government was satisfied with their trustworthiness. Men who are appointed for political reasons are liable to do just that thing.

Now, in the first place, in the census of vital statistics, it says that although there were greatly improved methods in preventing the spread of contagious diseases, yet the contagious diseases had been spread just as much as before, and they gave as a reason for that that the enumeration was incorrect, and they took another census, and they found the population nearly 200,000 more than that given by the Federal authorities.

Many facts indicated that the New York census was inaccurate and incomplete, and the police authorities, by order of the mayor, had a recount made which showed a population nearly 200,000 more than that given by the Federal authorities. The New York authorities then secured a copy of the Federal list for the second ward, the smallest in the city. It contained 826 names, while the police enumeration showed 1,340 names, or 41 per cent more.

Senator SUTHERLAND. Did you ever see a local census that did not exceed the Federal census anywhere?

Mr. FOULKE. They very often do; yes, sir.

Senator SUTHERLAND. But the Federal census is likely to be more

accurate.

Mr. FOULKE. Well, in this particular case it was not. I investigated that myself.

The New York authorities now procured from the persons omitted in the Federal enumeration affidavits showing their residence in that ward. Three hundred and twenty-eight such affidavits were furnished. I myself personally inspected the lists in the police and Federal enumerations respectively and ascertained by visiting the ward that a large number of residents therein were omitted in the Federal census. I found that in two squares alone 12 houses, in which 30 persons resided, had been wholly omitted.

Senator SUTHERLAND. Do you know what time that local census was taken?

Mr. FOULKE. I think it was taken in the fall. Senator.

Senator SUTHERLAND. And was that taken in the same year, or was it taken in a later year?

Mr. FOULKE. It was taken in the same year.

Senator SUTHERLAND. And would not there be a variance in the population taken on the 1st of June and in the fall?

Mr. FOULKE. But the men were there when the census was taken; that is, the Federal census. John Kiernan, an enumerator who secured his appointment through the "regular channel" as an enrolled Republican of the third assembly district, told me that certain schedules had been "lying somewhere around the house," but could not be found.

As the enumerators in New York were Republicans and as the city had a large Democratic majority, it was naturally inferred that the underenumeration was intentional and made for the purpose of reducing the representation of New York City in Congress.

The appointment of clerks in the Census Bureau was also made upon the recommendation of Congressmen, and after the director, Mr. Robert B. Porter, had retired from office it was found that he kept regular books of account with Congressmen, informing each how many positions were at his disposal. One of these books was a ledger of over 400 pages. At the head of each page appeared the name of the Congressman charged with the respective appointments. Then followed the names of the appointees and the grades and salaries, and it could be seen at a glance whether any particular Member had overdrawn his account. A peculiar feature of this book was that after a Congressman retired the clerks appointed by him were transferred to another account where the appointees of ex-Congressmen were all thrown together, perhaps as the subjects of early decapitation. Of course, I do not know as to that.

Many of the appointees under this system were unfit and indeed. worthless, but removal from the bureau, even for just cause, became difficult. Persons dismissed for misconduct were actually reinstated, even against the will of their superiors, at the demand of some political friend too powerful to be offended.

Mr. Porter was succeeded as superintendent by Carroll D. Wright, who spoke strongly of the inefficiency and extravagances which the patronage system entailed. He estimated (see letter to Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge, Cong. Rec., Dec. 16, 1897, p. 174) that $2,000,000 and more than a year's time would have been saved if the Census Bureau had been placed under the civil-service law.

Now, there is the testimony of the man who is at the head of the office.

Mr. Porter himself became a convert to the necessity of placing the Census Bureau in the classified service. He told the chairman of this committee that if he had it to do again he would select his clerks by civil-service examinations. In an article in the North American Review in December, 1898, he enumerated among the faults of the existing system the following:

Placing upon the shoulders of the superintendent, whose mind should be fully occupied with his experts in planning the work, the responsibility of an office force of several thousand clerks.

And he asked:

Why transform the office at its busiest season into an examination department for clerks? It is simply unjust to such an office. Having passed through the ordeal once, I am satisfied that the other way is more practical, and in the end it would be better for all concerned.

Senator ASHURST. Well, I will say that I can not speak for anyone except myself, but I think that you can take the Senators, and if you will go down in their hearts and minds you will find that there is not a single Senator who would not wish a law be passed that would make it a felony for him to recommend anyone. It is a situation. that makes our lives a nightmare.

Senator SUTHERLAND. And it is likely to defeat you for renomination.

Senator ASHURST. Now, since we have entered into that, why not go into it more fully? I am in no sense an enemy of the civil service, but I have been disposed to vote for it or for anything that will relieve me of the burden of combing these things out. But there is

one thing that I would like to know, and that is, how are going to answer the great number of questions; suppose that you build up a great crowd of people who are holding the various offices, and they get in those offices, and they are there for a number of years, and you can not get new blood in, and unless you can get new blood in, you will never rise above a certain level—

Mr. FOULKE. Why, that deals with the question of superannuation

Senator ASHURST. No; I do not refer to the superannuation at all. Suppose a Senator should be elected for life? Many of these people are in there for the course of their lives. Suppose that a Senator should be elected for life. Then he would say, "What is the use of working?" What are you going to do in a case of that kind?

Mr. FOULKE. Why, there is a perfect remedy for that. In the first place, there is a remedy for that under the present law, because any man who is holding a position under the competitive civilservice law can be dismissed at any time arbitrarily by the chief of his bureau. There is a remedy for that.

Senator ASHURST. I would be very pleased to have you give it

to me.

Mr. FOULKE. As I say, under the present law any man who is holding a position under the competitive civil service can be dismissed at any time and arbitrarily by the chief of his bureau or by the head of his department, upon making a statement of the reasons for which he is dismissed, and giving him an opportunity to answer those reasons, in 5 or 10 days, and then there is no trial, no examination of witnesses, or anything of that kind, but he, the head of the department, has the absolute, final, and arbitrary power to dismiss him, and that is in the hands of the head of the department. So if barnacles are kept in the service, it is the fault of the heads of the different departments and nobody else.

But there is another and a simple way, and I hope to see it incorporated into the civil-service law, and that is to provide relief; that is, where any complaint is made against any employee under the civil service, that the complaint shall be heard before the Civil Service Commission, and that the member against whom the complaint is made, whatever it may be, if he fails in the performance of his work, as shown by the monthly records of efficiency, if he fails to come up to a certain minimum, that he be, by virtue of that fact, dropped from the service.

Now, that is not intended to supersede the power of the superior officer to demote him, but it ought to provide an additional means by which it is made certain that that power will be exercised whenever a man falls below a certain degree of efficiency, and I think that that would give an adequate remedy. As a point of fact, that is not in the civil service, but it is simply an idea. I am in favor of providing adequate means by which inefficient men can be dismissed.

Senator KING. You would be doing a very great service if you would insist and see to it that the department chiefs would exercise that power, because it is notorious that there are many employees in the Government service to-day who are failing to do an honest day's work for the wage that they are receiving.

Mr. FOULKE. That is true, I have no doubt. Unfortunately the influence of Congress has been the other way. I remember that the