Page images

Mr. ROGERS. Yes; but we have given latitude

Dr. Hill. There is authority for an extension in special cases, so that you can extend the time beyond the month.

Senator SUTHERLAND. Would not those conditions have to be so general in the entire country north of the Ohio River, say, and out in the Rocky Mountain district, that the exceptions might be the rule, if we should encounter the usual weather conditions prevailing during January and February?

Mr. ROGERS. Well, it was the conclusion of those in conference that if we had a latitude of a month or of six weeks or of even two months, that any enumerator who is appointed for just one unit or for an organization of a township or ward would have an opportunity to enumerate the people within his division.

The CILAIRMAN. Have vou anything else, Mr. Rogers? · Mr. Rogers. In the draft of the bill as reported to the House the proviso to section 20, line 13, specified 2,500 inhabitants, “ under the preceding census," as the minimum size limit for cities in which the enumeration was to be completed within two weeks from the commencement thereof. In the course of the debate in the blouse, however, this limit was changed to 5,000, the same as the corresponding limit in the Thirteenth Census act.

It is likely that in making this change the House did not thoroughly appreciate the fact that the proposed 2.500 limit represented the number of inhabitants as ascertained at the census of 1910, and that practically every city to which the limit will apply will be considerably larger in 1920. The minimum size limit for places in which the enumeration wąs to be completed within two weeks was Jowered from 10,000 in 1890 to 8,000 in 1900 and to 5,000 in 1910 (the limit in each case referring to the population as ascertained at the last preceding census). Of the 1,041 places having from 2,500 to 5,000 inhabitants in 1910, 276 had 4,000 to 5,000, Ho had 3,000 to 4,000, and 325 had 2.500 to 3,000. Practically all the 276 places having +,000 to 5,000 inhabitants in 1910, together with a large proportion of the 756 having 2.500 to 4,000, will have more than 5,000 in 1920. The limit of 2.500 " under the preceding census" originally included in the bill was not, therefore, so low as might appear upon first consideration.

Since the body of the section specifies that the enumeration shall be completed within 30 days from its commencement (lines 20 and 21, p. 20), it will be natural for the supervisors and enumerators to insist on having the enumeration districts in all places below the minimum size specified in the proviso made large enough so as to provide approximately 30 days' employment for the enumerators, whose compensation will depend upon the number of names returned by them, or upon the number of days' employment, or both; and if an attempt should be made to speed up the work in places smaller than the minimum specified, it would naturally meet with much opposition.

In order that the census statistics may be compiled and published at the earliest possible date it is necessary that the enumeration be completed and the returns forwarded to the Census Bureau with no unnecessary delay; and if the minimum size limit for places in which the enumeration is required to be completed in two weeks is lowered,

[ocr errors]

as proposed in the original draft of the bill, it will aid appreciably in achieving the desired promptness of compilation and publication; and, furthermore, in the interest of a full and accurate enumeration it is desirable to have the enumeration of all areas of fairly compact population completed in the shortest possible time.

The comma following the word “boarding,” in line 8, page 24, obviously was inserted through error, and should be deleted.

Section 27 provides for an allowance in lieu of subsistence of $4 per day. When the bill was being considered by the Census Committee of the House I recommended that this allowance be increased to $5 per day, and the bill introduced in the House provided for that amount. However, the amount of the allowance was reduced to $4 on the floor of the House.

Section 27 of the Thirteenth Census act provides for an allowance in lieu of subsistence not to exceed $4, or, instead of such an allowance, actual subsistence expenses not exceeding $5 per day.

In view of the stand that was taken by the House in changing the allowance from $5 to $4, I am not going to renew my recommendation for the allowance of $5, but I shall appreciate it if the committee will add the following amendment after the words “ Census Office," line 9, page 26,“ or, instead of such an allowance, their actual subsistence expenses, not exceeding $5 per day.” This will make the section conform to section 27 of the Thirteenth Census act.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything else, Mr. Rogers?

Mr. Rogers. I believe that completes the presentation which I desire to make.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone from your bureau who desires to say anything? [After a pause.) If not, the committee will stand adjourned subject to the call of the chairman. I wish to say, Mr. Rogers, that we are very glad to have had you and your associates with us.

Mr. Rogers. We are very glad to have been with you and thank you for the courtesies that you have extended to us.

The CHAIRMAN. And I wish further to say that we have been very much aided by your being here.

(Thereupon, at 12.10 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned, subject to the call of the chairman.)





Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to the call of the chairman, at 10.30 o'clock a. m., in the committee room, Capitol, Senator Morris Sheppard presiding.

Present: Senators Sheppard (chairman) and New.

Also present: Hon. John A. McIlhenny, president of the Civil Service Commission ; Charles M. Galloway and Hermon W. Craven, members of the Civil Service Commission; John T. Doyle, secretary of the Civil Service Commission; Hon. Sam. L. Rogers, Director of the Census Bureau; T. J. Fitzgerald, chief clerk of the Census Bureau.

The committee thereupon resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 11984) to provide for the fourteenth and subsequent decennial censuses.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Gentlemen, the committee is very much honored to have before it to-day the members of the Civil Service Commission. The commission was requested by me, as chairman of this committee, to appear before us and to give the views of the commission as to what relation the civilservice rules and regulations should have to the forthcoming census. There are present of the commission Hon. John A. McIlhenny, president of the commission; Hon. Charles M. Galloway and Hon. Hermon W. Craven, members of the commission; and Hon. John T. Doyle, secretary.

Nr. Mellhenny has prepared a statement which expresses the views of the commission, so I am informed, and he will now deliver it.



Mr. MCILIENNY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read this statement to the committee as expressing the views of the commission.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. McIlhenny, as you proceed with the reading of that statement, if you or any of the other members of the commission would care to inject any particular thing in explanation thereof or in addition thereto, the committee would be glad to have you do so. You may inject anything which you think will make the statement clear or of more benefit to the committee.


Mr. McIlhenny. I will say first, Mr. Chairman, upon being notified by you that you would like to have the commission appear before the committee, and upon receiving from you a copy of the bill, the commission met and discussed the bill very carefully. We went over its various features, and we had before us the statement made to the committee by Mr. Rogers, and this memorandum which I shall noir read is based upon a very thorough consideration of all the features and after having considered very carefully the statement made by Mr. Rogers relative to his attitude toward the present provisions of the bill.

Later on we asked Mr. Rogers to sit with the commission and discuss with the commission the provisions of the bill, hoping that we miglit come to a common mind as to what was wise in the premises.

We were unable to agree entirely with Mr. Rogers, and this memorandum was prepared to express to you the final jugment of the commission in regard to the present bill.

I will now read this to you and it will concisely lay before you our opinion, and I will say that any questions you would like to ask us, we, of course, will be only too pleased to answer. [Reading:

It is believed that section 7 should be left out entirely with the exception of the second and eighth provises. The second proviso relates to the resiilenee and domicile of applicants Thie ilot of July 2. 1909, contained the fo:lowing provision :

“Hereafter all examinations of applicants for positions in the Government service, from any State or Territory, shall be hard in the State or Territory in which such applicant resides, anei 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."

Under this provision, if a person happened to be absent from his place of residence and domicile about the time of the examination, it was necessary that he return to the State of his residence, notwithstanding the fart that he might be at a place where the examination was scheduled to be hell, thus causing a loss of time and incurring an expense which might have been invojled. In normal times, when the supply of applicants Wils largely in excess of the demand, the operation of this statute presented no serious dilliculty, so far as the recruiting of the service was concerned, although (using some inconvenience to applicants who might be temporarily absent from their homes. But after the beginning of the war conditions were reversed. It was no longer possible to obtain sufficient applicants by merely announcing an examination. and it became necessary to make an active canvass to Spare employees for the Goveriment because of the com101!4 ilielesa in ille midler of pointments made necessary, and it was found that this provision actually hampereil the Government in obtaining qualified employees. Many persous left their homes to enter the Government service without having first qualified in an appropriate examination, as, of course, they should have done before leaving their homes. Under the provision quoted above these persons could only be come eligible for the apportioned service at Washington by returning to their home States for examination. Frequently illl applicant wowed he way from his home State at the time of examination, and he would be prevented from taking the examination, notwithstanding there was no question as to his bon: fide residence during the 12 months preceding examination. The commission, therefore, recommended to Congress that this provision be waivel, and on March 27, 1918, a joint resolution was iipproved which declared that the act of July 2. 1909, was amended so as to permit the commission during the perior of the present war to allow applicants from the several States and Territories to take examinations in the District of Columbia ind elsewhere in the United States where examinations are usually held, provider that nothing in the resolution should be so construed as to abridge the existing law of :upportionment or change the requirements of the existing law of legal residence and domicile of such applicants.

The resolution of March 27, 1918, did not in any way affect the provision that no person should be eligible for examination or appointment unless he

« PreviousContinue »