« PreviousContinue »
sus period. The original Thirteenth Census bill (H. R. 16954) passed the House December 9, 1908, and passed the Senate January 8, 1909. The conference report on that bill was agreed to in the Senate January 20, 1909, and in the House January 28, 1909, and the bill was vetoed by President Roosevelt February 5, 1909. The Thirteenth Census bill, which finally passed, was H. R. 1033. It was introduced March 16, 1909; passed the House March 18, 1909; passed the Senate April 10, 1909; and was approved by President Taft July 2, 1909, after the beginning of the decennial census period.
The importance of promptly enacting the law which is to provide for the Fourteenth Decennial Census can not be overemphasized. If further action upon it is deferred until the next session of Congress, which will be a short one, there is considerable probability that it will not be passed at all by the present Congress, in which event there would be grave danger that the Census Bureau would find itself at the beginning of the Fourteenth Census period—July 1, 1919—without the full and definite knowledge which it should have as to the legal authority and requirements under which it must perform the great task of inventorying the population and the industries of the United States. In certain respects the bureau can not plan efficiently and intelligently for the coming census until it knows exactly what these legal requirements are to be. That is my statement in connection with that particular subject.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it not a fact that considerable inconvenience and confusion resulted from the failure of the bill for the Thirteenth Census to pass earlier than it did?
Mr. Rogers. I do not think that I would be criticising my predecessor to say what I think he has said, and what employees connected with the census have said, that the failure to provide that legislation in time congested its work right at a time when it ought to have had a perfect organization. It involved an unnecessary expenditure of considerable money. I think the amount of money that should be charged to that lack of preparation would be a sum that you would perhaps think was very large,
Senator New. I do not know of any questions that I want to ask. Is there anyone here representing the National Civil-Service Reform League?
The CHAIRMAX. No. Mr. Rogers. When I appeared before the committee yesterday I filed a memorandum relative to the first proviso of section 3, beginning at line 23, page 2. The chairman asked me to submit a proposed amendment based upon my memorandum. I stated then that I believed the employees of this bureau should be considered on the same basis as the employees of other bureaus, Government departments, and establishments, but, if the proviso is to remain, I suggest that the words, “no man appointed or employed or who shall hereafter be,” in lines 23 and 24 be deleted and that the following words, “no additional employees," be added after the word “that” in line 23 and before the word “appointed” in line 24.
The proviso as amended will then read as follows: Provided, That no additional employees appointed or employed under this act shall on account of such employment be certified by any official or authority for deferred classification under act numbered twelve, Sixty-fifth Congress, entitled "An act to authorize the President to increase temporarily the Military
Establishment of the United States," approved May eighteenthi, nineteen luundred and seventeen, or under any act amendatory thereof that has been or shall hereafter be enacted.
I feel sure that the rules and laws governing deferred classifications should and would apply to all Government employees alike, without making the Census Bureau and all its employees subject to a special law.
Section 6 simply referred to a graduated salary scale. The bill introduced in the House of Representatives provided, under section 6, for clerks with salaries at the rates of $1,920, $1,800, $1,680, $1,560, $1,140, $1,380, $1,320, $1,260, $1,200 $1,110, $1,080, $1,020, $960, and $900. On the ficor of the House, however, this classification was changed and provision was made for the appointment of clerks of classes 4, 3, 2, and 1. In making this change the House did not make provision for clerks at $900 and $1.000 per annum, and struck out the provision for “one engineer at $1,200 and two photostat operators at $1,200 per annum."
If you will refer to page 8964 of the Congressional Record for June 25, 1918, I think you will agree with me that the House die not intend to eliminate the provision for these positions but inadvertently did so in changing the classification of the clerks. If provision were not made for clerks at $900 and $1,000 per annum the bureau's entrance salary during the decennial census period would be $1.200. The bureau does not desire this, and I am sure the liouse did not intend it.
As the bureau will undoubtedly be housed in one or more buildings outside the Commerce Building, where the permanent force of the bureau is now housed, during the decennial census period, it will be necessary to have an engineer to look after the heating, lighting, and other equipment of the bureau.
On account of the tremendous increase in the volume of work, the bureau will also require the services of two photostat operators. I might state that these operators will save their salaries over and over again in making photostat copies of tables, letters, etc., which would otherwise have to be typewritten or copied by hand.
It is therefore recommended that the following language be inserted in section 6 after the word “ one,” in line 20 — as many clerks with salaries at the rates of $900 and $1,000 per annum; one engineer, at $1,200, and two photostat operators, at $1,200 each.
I think that was clearly an oversight.
Now, in regard to section 7: Section 7 of the act making appropriations for the Thirteenth and subsequent decennial censuses, approved July 2, 1909, contained the following proviso:
Provided, That hereafter all examinations of applicants for positions in the Government service from any State or Territory shall be had in the State or Territory in which such applicant resides, and no person shall be eligible for such examination or appointment unless he or she shall have been actually domiciled in such State or Territory for at least one year previous to such examination.
In an opinion rendered under date of August 18, 1909, the Attorney General held that
Section 7 deals with the appointment of “the additional clerks and other employees provided for in section 6,” requiring them to be selected from a list of eligibles established after examination and also selected in conformity with
the law of apportionment. But the first proviso enacts that “hereafter all examinations of applicants for positions in the Government service from any State or Territory shall be had in the State or Territory in which such applicant resides," etc., and no person shall be eligible for "such examination or appointment " unless he shall have been actually domiciled in such State, etc., for at least one year previous.
This provision obviously applies to all appointments to “positions in the Government service" for which applicants are required by law or by order of the President made pursuant to law, to he examined before appointment. All of such positions are, as I understand it, in the departments or independent ollices at Washington. But, whether for the classified or unclassified service, “all examinations of applicants for positions in the Government service” must be had in conformity with the first proviso of section 7 of the census act.
l'rovisos have frequently been used in connection with appropriation acts by Congress to establish new rules of substantive law quite at variance with the ordinary office of a proviso.
That this proviso was intended to be general legislation is clear. The text of the section was specific as to the examinations for census employees. The proviso was enlarged to cover all examinations for positions in the Government service. It was undoubtedly amendatory of the civil service acts and regulations. It must be so regarded in construing the statutes.
It follows, therefore, that these restrictions are applicable to all persons authorized to be appointed in the Government service after examination.
In view of this fact, no change was made in this proviso in submitting to the Census Committee of the House of Representatives the proposed bill to provide for the Fourteenth and subsequent decennial censuses.
In the bill (H. R. 11981) passed by the House of Representatives on July 2, 1918, this proviso was changed to read as follows:
Provided further, That hereafter all examinations of applicants for positions in the Census Office, from any State or Territory, shall be hand in the State or Territory in which such applicant resides, and no person shall be eligible for such examination or appointment unless he or she shall have been actually domiciled in such State or Territory for at least one year previous to such examination : Prorided further, That the Civil Service Commission may hold examinations for positions in such service of applicants temporarily absent from the place of their legal residence or domicile in the District of Columbia and elsewhere in the United States where examinations are usually held, upon proof satisfactory to the commission that such applicant is a bona fide resident of the State or Territory in which such applicant claims to have a legal residence or domicile: Provided further, That nothing herein shall be so construed as to abridge the existing law or (of) ipportionment or change the requirements of existing law as to legal residence or domicile of such applicants.
It would seem from the foregoing language that Congress did not intend to repeal the provision of law which requires the examinations of applicants for position in the Government service to be held in the State or Territory in which such applicants reside, as the third proviso quoted above states " that nothing herein shall be so construed as to abridge the existing law or (of) apportionment or change the requirements of existing law as to legal residence or domicile of such applicants." What I believe Congress intended was to permit the Civil Service Commission to hold examinations, for the additional positions provided for by section 6 of the bill, of applicants temporarily absent from the place of their legal residence or domicile in the District of Columbia and elsewhere in the United States, upon proof satisfactory to the commission that such applicant is a bona fide resident of the State or Territory in which such applicant claims to have a legal residence or domicile.
If this is what Congress intended, I would respectfully suggest that the following language be substituted for that contained in the bill:
Provided further, That hereafter all examinations of applicants for positions in the Government service, from any State or Territory, shall be bad in the State or Territory in which such applicant resides, and no person shall be eligible for such examination or appointment unless he or she shall bave been actually domiciled in such State or Territory for at least one year previous to such examination: Prorided further. That the Civil Service Commission shall hold examinations, for the additional clerks and other employees provided for by section 6, of applicants temporarily absent from the place of their legal residence or clomicile in the District of Columbia and elsewhere in the Tuited States where eximinations are usually held, upon proof satisfactory to the commission that such applicant is a bona fide resident of the State or Territory in which such applicant claims to have a legal residence or domicile: Provided further, That nothing herein shall be so construed as to abridge the existing law of apportionment or change the requirements of existing law as to legal residence or domicile of such applicants.
In this connection permit me to invite attention to the fact that on March 27, 1918, Congress passed a joint resolution permitting the Civil Service Commission, during the period of the present war, to hold examinations of applicants for positions in the Government service in the District of Columbia and to permit applicants from the several States and Territories of the United States to take said examinations in said District of Columbia and elsewhere in the United States where examinations are usually held.
You will see the point in that when you have an opportunity to consider it.
The CHAIRMAX. Very well, we will be very glad to consider that.
Mr. ROGERS. When the bill was under consideration in the House the following amendment (lines 17-19, p. 7) was added to the proviso, which authorizes the transfer to the Bureau of the Census, during the decennial census period, of employees in other branches of the departmental classified service who have had previous experience: but no employee so travisferred shall within one year after such transfer receive higher salary than he is receiving at the time of the transfer.
If the language quoted above is allowed to remain in the bill, I believe it will nullify the benefit which is apparently intended to be conferred on the birreau by the proviso of which it has been made a part. It is not likely that employees occupying permanent positions in other branches of the departmental classified service, who have had previous experience in census work, will relinquish those po-itions to accept positions at the same salary in the Bureau of the Census, which positions can not continue any longer than three years. It is, therefore, suggested that the words “but no employee so transferred shall within one year after such transfer receive higher salary than he is receiving at the time of the transfer" be eliminated from the proviso. Even after the elimination of the words just quoted the proviso will impose no obligation on the heads of other branches of the departmental service to transfer employees to the Bureau of the (en-us during the decennial census period unless such action is agreeable to them, as the proviso is not mandatory. I might state that if the language referred to is eliminated the proviso will then be exactly the same as the similar one contained in the Thirteenth Census act.
Senator New. That was put in there in the House; that was an amendment that was put in in the House.
Mr. Rogers. It was; yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. An amendment of that kind, applying to all of the service of the Government, was put in one of the appropriation bills, and unless we specifically repeal that law as to these oflices, with the employees you have now in mind, they would still be subject to a law of this kind, it seems to me.
Mr. Rogers. Yes. The meaning of that provision is plain. There are many men who have gained splendid experience and good ability from other censuses, who would gladly be transferred to the Census Bureau for the census period to assist in the supervision of this work, either in a section or division or as a statistician or in any capacity that would make their services of more value to the public service than where they are, and if I have the privilege of giving them a proper increase in salary it will be for their good and for the good of the public service. If this provision remains, why, you see the handicap it imposes upon me. Now, then, if the provision is eliminated, I have no advantage over any bureau or department, because the regulation that requires the assent of his transfer from the department head would still be in force. There would be no advantage taken of them at all. It would be a mutual transfer.
Now in regard to section 8 of the bill, pages 8, 9, 10, and 11, I would like to have the following paragraph substituted in place of the last paragraph of section 8, page 10:
The number. form, and subdivision of inquiries provideri for in section 8 shall be determined by the Director of the Census.
This change is requested as a matter of precaution, if for any reason an exigency should arise which would make it necessary modify or restrict the number, form, and subdivisions of inquiries provided for in section 8, I may have the authority to make such changes for the sole purpose of collecting and tabulating the results within the period prescribed by law.
That is a safety valve to our work. That is all.
The following proviso, lines 17 to 25, page 17, was added to sertion 16 when the bill was under consideration in the House:
Provided, That within the limits of continental I'nited States each supervisor to be appointed or selected under this art shall be an actual resident of the district, and each enumerator to be appointer or selerted udler this act shall be an itctual resident of the subdivision within which his duties are to be performed: but an enumerator may be appointed if he be an actual resident of the city of which the subdivision in which his duties are to be performed is a part.
The language of the proviso in question with respect to the appointment of enumerators is not elastic enough to meet all the contingencies with which the bureau will be confronted. This proviso would, in all cases, prohibit the appointment of nonresident enumerators in rural districts. At times it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain competent enumerators in such districts. For instance, at the last decennial census there were cases where it was necessary for the supervisor to send an enumerator from one district to an