or she should have been actually domiciled in the State or Territory for at least one year previous to the examination, and in every case coming under the law a person, before his application is accepted for examination, is required to prove to the commission that he is a bona fide legal resident of the State claimed, and further that he has been actually domiciled within the State for the full 12 months next preceding the date of examination. Obviously, it is immaterial where the person happens to take the examination so long as the residence and domicile provisions of the act of July 2, 1909, are adhered to.

In section 34 of the bill it is provided that the act approved July 2, 1909, and acts amendatory thereof and all other laws and parts of laws inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed. When the bill was first introduced it contained in section 7 the same provision with reference to examination in the State of legal residence and as to proof of actual domicile as was contained in the act of July 2, 1909. This provision, however, was amended in the House of Representatives so as to apply only to examinations of applicants for positions in the Census Office. The effect of the enactment of the bill in its present form, therefore, will be to abolish the requirement in the act of July 2, 1909, of proof of legal residence in all examinations except those for the Census Office, and the only remaining provision on this subject will be that contained in the act of July 11, 1890 (26 Stat. L., 235). which declares that every application for examination for appointment in the departmental service at Washington shall be accompanied by a certificate of a county officer that the applicant is a bona fide resident of the county and has been such for a period of not less than six months next preceding.

In the hearings before the Senate committee (p. 63) the Director of the ..Census stated that he did not believe that it was intended by Congress to repeal the requirement of examination in the State or Territory of legal residence for all positions in the apportioned service, but that it was merely intended to allow applicants for positions in the Census Oflice who might be temporarily absent from their home States to be examined outside the State. He suggested an amendment of section 7 in accordance with that view. The commission, however, is unable to agree with the director. It is not believed that it was the intention of Congress to restore the requirement contained in the act of July 2, 1909, of examination within the State or Territory of legal residence, which was so recently waived by Congress because it was found to work badly during war time, as indicated in the foregoing. In fact, it seems to the commission that the House of Representatives in amending the bill so as to restrict it to examinations for the Census Oflice and in providing for examinations outside the State of an applicant temporarily absent therefrom was merely reaffirming the existing law as to examinations for the apportioned service and making it apply to examinations for the Census Office, the fact being overlooked that section 34 of the present bill repeals the act of July 2, 1909, and acts amendatory thereof. It is therefore believed that this proviso of section 7 should be amended to read:

“Provided further, 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: Provided further, That the Civil Service Commission shall hold examinations 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 of apportionment or change the requirements of existing law as to legal residence or domicile of such applicants."

The eighth proviso of section 7 provides that employees in other branches of the departmental classified service who have had previous experience in census work may be transferred without examination to the Census Office to serve during the whole or a part of the decennial census period, and at the end of such service employees so transferred shall be eligible for appointment to positions in any department held by them at the date of transfer to the Census Office without examination. It seems desirable in the interests of the service that there be authority for transfers of this kind. Under the existing law,

service for a term of three years is requisite for eligibility for transfer from one executive department or independent establishment at Washington to another such department or establishment. The proviso referred to will allow the transfer to the Census Office of persons having previous census experience and their return to their former positions without the requirement of three years' service.

The other provisos of section 7 appear to the commission to be unnecessary, as the civil service act and rules are sufliciently flexible to enable the President, under the authority conferred upon him by law and the Constitution, to make such regulations as the needs of the Census Oflice may require respecting appointments.

FAMILY RESTRICTION OBJECTIONABLE.

The sixth proviso of section 7 declares that in no instance shall more than one member be appointed from the same family. This works badly because of the urgent needs of the Government at this time. In addition, it adds to the housing problem in Washington.

APPOINTMENT SHOULD BE FROM THOSE STANDING HIGHEST.

Section 7 further provides that the additional clerks and other employees provided for shall be subject to such special test examination as the Director of the Census shall prescribe, and that certifications shall be made by the Civil Service Commission upon request of the director from the eligible registers so established in conformity with the law of apportionment, as now provided for the classified service and in the order of rating. There are two objections to this:

(1) The examination should not be prescribed solely by the director, but should be subject to approval by the commission.

(2) The director should be confined to the selection of eligibles standing highest.

The Director of the Census, however, stated in the Senate hearing, page 54, that he will be glad to have this section amended so as to read:

"Certifications shall be made by the Civil Service Commission upon request of the Director of the Census from the eligible registers so established, in conformity with the law of apportionment as now provided for the classified service, and selections shall be made by the Director of the Census in the order of rating."

SPECIAL AGENTS.

The Attorney General, in an opinion of June 21, 1902 (24 Op. Atty. Gen., 78), held that special agents of the census may be appointed without regard to the civil-service rules. Ten years ago, at the request of the then Director of the Census, the commission held an examination for special agents, which he de-. clared was highly satisfactory. It would therefore seem desirable, in the interest of the service, that the bill be amended so as to leave it discretionary with the President to what extent, if any, tests of fitness shall be required for eligibility for appointment as special agent. The following extract from the report of the Director of the Census for the year ended June 30, 1909, shows the desirability of examinations for special agents:

"For the purpose of facilitating the selection of competent special agents, the Director of the Census prescribed an open competitive examination, which was held on November 3, 1909, throughout the country. Through the courtesy of the Civil Service.Commission, the various local examining boards of the commission presided at the holding of this examination, but the papers were graded in the Census Bureau. This examination was of a character designed to give a practical test of the fitness of the candidate for the actual work of collecting the required statistics. Each candidate was required to present an application stating in detail his education and previous experience, supported by proper evidence and nonpartisan recommendations. One-half of the rating of each candidate was based on education and experience as indicated by this application, The remainder of his rating was based on a test consisting of the filling out of a sample manufactures schedule from data regarding a hypothetical establishment. This test was of two grades corresponding to the two classes of special agents above mentioned. Persons who have had previous successful experience in collecting manufactures or mining statistics for the census, or who have

passed civil-service examinations for the position of special agent in the Bureau of Labor or the Bureau of Corporations, were made eligible without further examination.

"As the result of this examination, which was widely advertised and which was taken by over 2,500 people, the bureau has secured an eligible list of persons who are believed to be exceptionally well fitted for the work of collecting manufactures and mining statistics. In making selections from this eligible list it will be necessary to take the residence of the candidates into consideration as well as their relative ratings, since the interests of economy make it essential that, so far as possible, special agents should be assigned to work in the localities where they reside.”

EXCEPTIONS FROM EXAMINATION.

No good reason is apparent for the exception from examination of the chief statistician, the disbursing clerk, the appointment clerk, and the chiefs of divisions. Like positions in the departments are satisfactorily filled by appointment or transfer within the classified service.

1 SUPERVISORS.

Supervisors should be selected because of their qualifications, especially since they have the appointment of enumerators. The experience of the commission demonstrates that its machinery is adapted to appropriately test the requisite qualifications and that the best qualified persons will not hesitate to summit to tests consisting of evidence merely of education, training, and experience. If supervisors are selected with sole reference to their qualifications, the appointment of enumerators may more safely be left to their discretion.

Mr. Chairman, you will note there that with the exception of two clauses in section 7 that we recommend the entire section be stricken out. We feel that it is a mistake to have any variation in the method of selection and in the method of handling the clerks that are to be appointed.

It is an established practice of the commission, in holding an examination for a department or a bureau of a department, to consult freely with that department or with the department head or the bureau chief as to what kind of an examination the commission shall hold, and we never hold an examination if it is protested finally by the bureau chief or the responsible head of the department.

We consider that they must know what the requirements of their work are, and we inject ourselves into the situation because of the requirement of law and because of our wide and long experience in order that they may get the thing which they expect and need. We show them where their mistake is, if they have made any, and persuade them to come to a common-sense attitude as to what their needs are if it is necessary, because we know very well what too great a restriction will produce and what too lax a requirement will produce.

So it is not, in our judgment, necessary that this examination should be required by law to be established by Mr. Rogers, because we feel that the examination, if established under the ordinary procedure of the commission, will be such an examination as will meet fully the approval of Mr. Rogers.

The principal divergence of opinion between the commission and Mr. Rogers is on the question of the supervisors. Mr. Rogers feels very strongly that he can more safely and more properly select these persons himself than they can be selected through the machinery of the commission. We do not agree with him there. We recognize

$1357- 18.

the difficulties that will arise in their selection, but we think that those difficulties can be overcome if they are appointed as a matter of the ordinary business of the commission.

We are very practical men; and if we find that those difficulties are not going to be overcome under the authority that lies with us, why, we will not hesitate a moment, but we will go with Mr. Rogers to the President and ask him to except them from the requirements of this commission.

It is not our purpose to be an unnecessary handicap or hindrance to the work of the Census Bureau, but our attitude is that through long experience and the machinery we have in operation we will be of very material assistance in establishing a highly qualified corps of servants for the Census Bureau.

Then, too, we feel in the matter of the enumerators themselves, if the supervisors are selected with great care, with a view solely to their qualifications to do this work, we feel that we may very safely leave it entirely to the supervisors to select this great mass of 85,000 enumerators. The enumerators form the bottom rung of your ladder, but it is very necessary that they shall be of such intelligence and of such character as to do competently and honestly that thing for which the census is established.

I do not think of anything further, Mr. Chairman, that I could add to my previous statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McIlhenny, the committee very much appreciates your kindness, and also the kindness of the other members of the commssion in coming before us, and we will give very careful consideration to what you have said.

Is there any other member of the commission who has anything to offer at this time?

Mr. GALLOWAY. I think not, Mr. Chairman. I think that the memorandum covers the situation very fully.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rogers, would you like to ask any questions of Mr. McIlhenny, or make any statement at this time, or would you prefer to make any further statement later on?

Mr. ROGERS. I have not carefully read the memorandum filed by the Civil Service Commission. So far as I can see very little difference exists in the commission's view of the bill under consideration and our view of it.

The CHAIRMAN. You understand that the commission appears at the request of this committee, do you, Mr. Rogers?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir.

Now, section 7, if it is allowed to stand in toto it seems to me to meet the Civil Service Commission's idea of appointment and certification of all the clerks referred to in the bill as "other clerks and additional employees."

Now, if that is true, the clerks and employees are under the civilservice law and subject to the civil-service rules and regulations.

The first proviso that is proposed to be stricken out is the one referring to messenger boys, unskilled laborers, and charwomen.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understood Mr. McIlhenny, he said that he believed section 7 should be left out entirely, with the exception of the second and eighth provisos. You are referring to the first one of those provisos?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir; I am referring to the first of those provisos, which simply relates to the appointment of messenger boys, unskilled laborers, and charwomen.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if this proviso is stricken out, the selection of those employees would then have to be made from the certified eligible register of the commission for the apportioned service, which would make it, at the time the census is taken, very difficult, as we proposed to have three or four buildings under our administration, and it would be a difficult and impractical procedure to obtain that temporary unskilled labor in such a manner. By doing that, you are adding to the restrictions and handicaps of the commission in the time of rush work.

These appointments are purely local appointments and are for menial labor.

Mr. McILHENNY. But the apportionment does not apply to the positions of messenger boys and charwomen and such as you speak of there, Mr. Rogers. Those appointments are made from the registers of the commission, and the work is to be done here in the District of Columbia, and there is no reason why they should not be arrived at from the registers of the commission. It is an obvious fact that at this time there are no messenger boys to be had, but by the time you get to the building up of your force we think that there should be some to be had, and I should think that in the employment of messenger boys and messenger girls we are as well qualified to obtain them as anybody.

Mr. ROGERS. As to your comment on that section, you say:

In normal times, when the supply of applicants was largely in excess of the demand, the operation of this statute presented no serious difficulties so far as the recruiting of the service was concerned, although causing some inconvenience to applicants who might be temporarily absent from their homes.

Now, here is the point. You say:

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 canvas to secure employees for the Government because of the enormous increase in the number of appointments made necessary, and it was found that this provision actually hampered the Government in obtaining qualified employees. Many persons 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 home. Under the provisions quoted above these persons could only become eligible for the apportionment service at Washington by returning to their home States for examination. Frequently an applicant would be away 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 bona fide residence during the 12 months preceding examination. The commission, therefore, recommended to Congress that this provision be waived, and on March 27, 1918, a joint resolution was approved which declared that the act of July 2, 1909, was amended so as to permit the commission during the period of the present war to allow applicants from the several States and Territories to take examinations in the District of Columbia and elsewhere in the United States where examinations are usually held, provided that nothing in the resolution should be so construed as to abridge the existing law of apportionment or change the requirements of the existing law of legal residence and domicile of such applicant.

I read that paragraph to show that in these abnormal times every restriction which handicaps the rush work and the accomplishment of the selection of employees that are needed should be removed, and