but he persuaded the Department of the Interior to retire him at the expense of the taxpayers just as any other Federal employee is retired. I cannot see anything in such a case that is fair.

Mr. VIPOND. That type of case was referred to the Comptroller General and his decision was that retirement was based on service rendered and if a man entered the service as a result of a false statement, if the man performed the service required of him by law and was otherwise entitled to annuity, he was entitled to the annuity regardless of the fact that he had misstated his age at the time he was employed.

Mr. MOSER. But the Comptroller's ruling did not apply to a man who had been in the service 40 years, was eligible for retirement, got an extension and during the extension committed a depredation on the mails, for which he was arrested and tried; that man withholding his application for a return of the amount he had paid into the retirement fund and making application for retirement, which was granted.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not the policy of the Commission in dealing with the case of a man who has a criminal record, who has been arrested, tried, or convicted, to investigate the case and determine each case on its merits?

Mr. VIPOND. Yes, sir; that is the way it is handled.

The CHAIRMAN. It depends entirely upon the circumstances, the charge against the man and his subsequent behavior as to whether he can qualify?

Mr. VIPOND. Yes; that is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, we thank you very much for your statement, Mr. Vipond.

STATEMENT OF EDGAR B. YOUNG, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES EMPLOYMENT SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness to be heard this morning is Edgar B. Young, an assistant to the Director of the United States Employment Service, Department of Labor. Mr. Young, we shall be glad to hear from you at this time.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am happy to respond to the committee's invitation to come here. We would like to convey any information that would be helpful to the committee.

I have no general statement, unless you wish to have me start my testimony with a statement of the existing policy in the United States Employment Service, which may in many respects be regarded as parallel to the situation presented by the proposed bill. The CHAIRMAN. I do not think that the situation in the United States Employment Service could in any way affect our decision on the questions before us. There is no civil-service matter involved in the policy followed by the United States Employment Service, as I understand.

Mr. YOUNG. I had reference, Mr. Chairman, to the policy of the Employment Service in its dealing with the various State employment services and in the establishment of a merit system of employ

ment, which might be regarded as comparable to the civil service in those States having no established civil-service agency.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any views about this bill, especially with reference to whether we should bring the employees into the classified service by competitive or noncompetitive examination?

Mr. YOUNG. I should like to answer that by citing our existing practice. In those States which are at present 30 in number where the United States Employment Service does hold examination for selection of persons in the Employment Service, it is our established practice to hold those examinations on a qualifying basis for present incumbents who have held office for 6 months prior to the date of the examination.

The CHAIRMAN. What did you do with those who have not held their positions 6 months prior to the date of the examination?

Mr. YOUNG. Anybody who has not held his position 6 months prior to the date of the examination, must enter an examination on a straight competitive basis.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the United States Employment Service itself under civil service rules and regulations?

Mr. YOUNG. No, sir; it is not.

The CHAIRMAN. Who selects the employees of that service?

Mr. YOUNG. The employees in the headquarters office of the service are selected and appointed on the recommendation of the director by the Secretary of Labor. The director selects those who appear to be best qualified for the duties to be performed.

The CHAIRMAN. In the selection of your employees is any consideration given to the veterans' preference?

Mr. YOUNG. In one branch of the service the personnel is composed entirely of veterans, namely, the Veterans' Replacement Service. The CHAIRMAN. How about the other branches of your service? Mr. YOUNG. We do not observe the veterans' preference.

The CHAIRMAN. In the selection of your personnel has any consideration been given to the apportionment law? I refer to employment in the departmental service?

Mr. YOUNG. So far as I know, there has not been.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the policy of the United States Employment Service with reference to filling positions in offices in the various States; have those positions been filled by local people or you sent people into States from other States?

Mr. YOUNG. In answering that, may I make a brief statement about our organizations in the States?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. YOUNG. When States accept the terms of the Wagner-Connery Act and have State employment services, we match the States dollar for dollar and the administrative agency is considered a State activity subject to State laws.

The CHAIRMAN. That is in States that participate in the cost of the operation?

Mr. YOUNG. Yes; in other States where the temporary emergency setup is in operation and where there are Federal employees only, it is the customary practice to appoint residents of a State to work in their own States. In many localities it is customary to appoint to positions in local offices residents from the States served by a particular office.

Mr. MOSER. I want to ask you, as a representative of the United States Employment Service, why it is not possible for you to furnish a Member of Congress the names of the employees who are accredited to his District?

Mr. YOUNG. I am not sure that I follow you.

Mr. MOSER. You have testified that in 30 States you have organi

zations.

Mr. YOUNG. Yes.

Mr. MOSER. You have employed people in the United States Employment Service in the different States. When a Member of Congress asks how many people are accredited to his District, who claim residence within his District, why do you withhold that information? Mr. YOUNG. I was not aware of the fact that it had been withheld. Mr. MOSER. I have asked for it and have been refused. Is there any reason why I should not possess it?

Mr. YOUNG. I see no reason why you should not have it if it is available.

Mr. MOSER. I thought perhaps you as a representative of the United States Employment Service could tell me about that. People come to my office seeking employment and claiming that they have been employed, for instance, by your service. They furnish me their names and addresses, and the addresses show that they are legal residents of my district; but when I check on those names and addresses I find that nobody knows them at the addresses given. How can that be?

Mr. YOUNG. I thought you had reference to persons employed in our own service. You mean to ask whether the Employment Service can give you the residences of its applicants?

Mr. MOSER. I am talking about getting the names and addresses of people you employ, so as to know the congressional district from which those people come.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you seeking information about employees of the United States Employment Service or employees in other agencies of the Government?

Mr. MOSER. In both. One agency gave me the names of those employed from my district; another agency told me there was nobody in its employ accredited to my district, while everybody else refused to give me the information.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the only agency that could give that information concerning all Government agencies is the National Emergency Council. The United States Employment Service, as I understand, has nothing to do with employment in Government agencies.

Mr. YOUNG. That is right. We can give the information in connection with our own personnel, but we could not do it for any other agency of Government.

Mr. MOSER. You have such an agency in the State of Pennsylvania?

Mr. YOUNG. Yes.

Mr. MOSER. All right; I will send you a letter tomorrow asking the names of my constituents, if any, in your service there. It is funny that these people come to me telling me they belong in my district, but when I write back to the addresses they have given, they are not known.

Mr. YOUNG. We can give you from our records the addresses of all our present personnel as of the time they were taken into the service and insofar as the information has been kept up to date.

Mr. BIGELOW. Is it the policy of your service to secure its employees for a given locality from that locality? For instance, you have a service in Cincinnati. Did you secure the personnel for that service in Cincinnati?

Mr. YOUNG. That is the general policy of the service.

Mr. BIGELOw. But that has not been observed in Cincinnati. (There was discussion off the record.)

Mr. BIGELOW. We have a situation in Cincinnati where a private fund is supplying some of the money, which is, as I understand, supplying the superintendent, who controls the conduct of the office, although part of the operating funds are derived from taxation. It seems to me that a situation such as that is contrary to any conception of sound public policy.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree. I do not think any employee paid from Federal funds should be sent into a city, a State, or an area served by an office of which city, State, or area he is not a resident.

Mr. MOSER. I think you are quite right, Mr. Bigelow.

Mr. CURLEY. Probably you recall the situation in New York in connection with emergency relief work. Mr. Lloyd Striker got a contribution of funds from a foundation, and when those funds became depleted the employees paid from those funds were transferred to jobs financed by taxation, and in that way the relief work in New York City was and is packed with such employees alien to the State. None of the employees live in New York City. They even brought one man from England.

Mr. MOSER. If I understand correctly, you mentioned a foundation fund.

Mr. YOUNG. Yes.

Mr. MOSER. What is a foundation fund?

Mr. YOUNG. It is a fund contributed by a private individual who

is a philanthropist.

Mr. MOSER. It comes from outside the Government.

Mr. YOUNG. Yes.

Mr. MOSER. But it is not adverse to obtaining public funds?

Mr. YOUNG. That is true.

Mr. MOSER. And the public funds supplement the work that they direct.

Mr. YOUNG. I think it would be more exact to reverse that and say that by State legislation the State service is authorized to accept that money.

Mr. MOSER. The foundation funds really supplement the public funds, do they not?

Mr. YOUNG. That is correct.

Mr. MOSER. The public fund is the greater amount and the foundation fund is the less amount; is not that a fact? And is it not a fact that the personnel is acquired and maintained at the direct expense of public funds?

Mr. YOUNG. I would not be able to say which is the greater portion of the fund.

Mr. CURLEY. We had men engaged in private welfare work for many years in New York, especially in connection with the Sage

Foundation. The director of that foundation was transferred to the administration of relief under the E. R. B. of New York through the F. E. R. A. at a salary of $11,500 a year, and that salary was transferred to the relief rolls instead of being paid by the Sage Foundation. That big salary was transferred to the burdens of the taxpayers of New York, as if they did not have enough to bear. The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, we thank you very much for your statement, Mr. Young.

STATEMENT OF JOHN THOMAS TAYLOR, LEGISLATIVE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AMERICAN LEGION

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness to be heard this morning is John Thomas Taylor, legislative representative of the American Legion.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, since 1919 there have been certain laws enacted and Executive orders issued by the President granting certain preferences to veterans in Government service; but it has not worked out entirely to the satisfaction of the veterans for number of reasons, I think most of them personal, within the departments themselves.

Rule 12 of the civil service provides that where there are reductions in forces in the Federal service and there is a veteran in the department, when the veteran's standing is as good as anybody else's, the veteran shall be retained, that he shall not be reduced in rank, grade, or salary. Recently under the set-up that you gentlemen are considering, the so-called new agencies not being under civil service, the President sent to the Civil Service Commission a memorandum to the effect that rule 12 should be applied in the reductions of forces, but it has not been applied. That memorandum was sent to the department heads also. Veterans have been dismissed wholesale in those agencies.

You gentlemen are considering governmental reorganization, and we are vitally interested in the preservation and protection of the civilservice preference for veterans. I notice that one of the members of the Civil Service Commission appeared before your committee and stated that if the new agencies are taken into the classified service as a result of noncompetitive examinations, it will result in no such thing as veterans' preference. Therefore I come to urge upon you that the examinations for these positions be conducted on a competitive basis and that the veterans' preference which has existed over many years be given full play and the interests of the veterans be properly and adequately protected.

The veterans are for an average between 43 and 44 years of age and 71 percent of them are married. They have on an average of 2.5 children to a family.

Industry has turned down a man who has attained the age of 40; now we do not want the Government to turn down a man 40 years old. He is in pretty bad plight now on account of the age factor and his family.

I do not know how many hundred thousand veterans are out of work, unable to secure employment for just those reasons, and we, of course, must appear before your committee and plead with you to accord all protection you can to that group of men who served their