Mr. RICE. This would seem to accord with the figures that have also been compiled by the War Department. Relative to the question of veterans' employment, the chairman has made a statement in reaction to the statement which I made. Therefore, I would like to have the opportunity of briefly stating our viewpoint concerning that question.

We believe there are primarily two justifications for asking for veteran employment and civil-service preference of veterans: One, that it would constitute a long-sighted, far-sighted patriotism to do so. By that I mean this: That if the veterans are permitted to be relegated into the economic scrap pile, to finally become forgotten heroes, as it were, derelicts of society, because of the lack of employment, then the growing youth of our Nation, seeing them in that plight, will be able to say to themselves, "What is the use of going to war, defending our country, if our Nation, a supposedly grateful Nation, forgets us that way?"

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you find the relief agencies are employing veterans?

Mr. RICE. I beg pardon?

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you find the relief agencies are employing the veterans, such as the W. P. A., and so forth?

Mr. RICE. Yes, they are employing veterans, but there are still a lot of them that are not employed.

Mrs. ROGERS. The civil service takes better care of the veterans?
Mr. BRADLEY. The W. P. A. does not give them much preference.
The CHAIRMAN. The civil service gives them preference.
Mrs. ROGERS. Yes, they do.

Mr. RICE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. This year, Mr. Chairman, I made a very determined effort to try to secure statistics from the Civil Service Commission, from the National Emergency Council, from the Central Statistical Board, from the Veterans' Administration, from the United States Employment Service, to see if there was not one of those agencies that could or would attempt to secure those statistics from all other Federal agencies to show the veterans employed under such agencies, both as to those having civil-service status, and otherwise. No one of those agencies would assume the responsibility of gathering up such statistics; first, on the ground that they did not have the authority, and then that they did not have the funds and the personnel with which to compile the statistics. Therefore, we do not know, my estimate is that there is not more than 5 percent of the employees under the so-called non-civil-service Federal agencies that are composed of veterans, and possibly only 2 or 3 percent in some such agencies; that there has been a definite preference to other groups, and, in fact, discrimination against the veterans.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any other witnesses, besides yourself?
Mr. RICE. Yes, I have, and I have some more testimony of my own.
The CHAIRMAN. You will not be able to finish in 10 minutes?
Mr. RICE. No, I will not.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose we stand adjourned until 10:30 Friday morning. If there is no objection, we will stand adjourned until 10:30 Friday morning, at which time you may resume your statement, Mr. Rice.

(Thereupon a recess was taken in the hearing until 10:30 a. m., Friday, Mar. 5, 1937.)

TO AMEND CERTAIN LAWS AND VETERANS' REGULA-
TIONS AFFECTING WORLD WAR VETERANS AND THEIR
DEPENDENTS

FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 1937
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON WORLD WAR VETERANS' LEGISLATION,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10:30 o'clock, Hon. John E. Rankin (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Day before yesterday, when we closed, Mr. Rice, the legislative representative of the Veterans of Foreign Wars was making his statement. If you will move off to this other table, Mr. Rice, you may continue with your statement.

Mr. RICE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, just as we recessed day before yesterday, I was making some remarks relative to the justification for the civil service and veterans' employment preferences. I realize that question has no proper place in this hearing, possibly, but I desire the privilege of making a statement concerning same, because of the statement which the chairman had made just prior thereto, if I may be permitted to continue.

The CHAIRMAN. What was my statement, Mr. Rice?

Mr. RICE. The chairman made a statement something to the effect that we need to be very careful about the matter of veterans' employment and civil-service preferences, because there were also a lot of other citizens who were just as much in need of employment as are the unemployed veterans. Of course, with which statement, I agree. But I nevertheless also insist that there should be veterans' employment and civil-service preference for veterans.

The CHAIRMAN. Do we not give civil-service preference?

Mr. RICE. You do, in part, yes; but those preferences are not as effective as they ought to be.

The CHAIRMAN. We give I mean they give 5 percent; is not that correct?

Mr. RICE. They add 5 points to the earned rating of every ex-service man, and 10 points to the earned rating of any service-connected disabled veteran, the widow of a veteran, the wife of a disabled veteran who, himself, cannot work, and to Spanish War veterans who have attained a certain age.

The CHAIRMAN. Also, especially is this true with reference to fourthclass postmasters, that they must be given preference in the appointment when they are listed on the eligible list, unless cause can be shown why they should not be appointed.

Mr. RICE. Yes; Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I know that none of those cases have come under my observation.

Mr. RICE. Theoretically, that is true, Mr. Chairman, that there is a preference provided for in the general language as to both classified and unclassified jobs. The Executive order provides that, in the event the name of a veteran is skipped over for a non-veteran, a reason must be submitted to the Civil Service Commission by the appointing officer. But there is nothing in the Executive order that gives to the Civil Service Commission any authority to pass upon the sufficiency of that reason, and it may be any reason that the appointing officer wishes to submit, for example, "for the good of the service," and it appears that nobody can question that.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the reason given by Congress?

Mr. RICE. No; that is the reason given by the appointing officer in the particular Federal agency that makes the appointment.

The CHAIRMAN. I know, in the employment of fourth-class postmasters, it has come to my attention that three persons may be on the list, and one of them is a veteran, or the widow of a disabled veteranI believe the wife of a disabled veteran is also included?

Mr. RICE. Yes; she is.

The CHAIRMAN. The member from that district who has the privilege of recommending these appointments, must either recommend this veteran, or this veteran's wife or widow who falls within the requirement of the regulations, or he must show cause why that should not be done, or state that they are unsatisfactory to him.

Now, in the Senate, when they get above the fourth-class postmasters second-, third-, or first-class postmasters-a Senator can stop it without giving any reason, whether a veteran or not.

Mr. RICE. Yes; but it amounts to about the same thing, because the reason is not made available to the veteran, it is not made available to his representative; it merely must be the reason submitted to the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission has no authority to question whether or not that reason is a good reason or a bad reason.

The CHAIRMAN. I know Congressmen do not submit this to the Civil Service Commission, it is the Post Office Department.

Mr. RICE. Well, that is true as to that, but that means that the Post Office Department, in turn, follows it to the Civil Service Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. No; it does not. It means after the eligible list is published it is sent down to the Post Office Department, and the Civil Service Commission is through with it then. The Post Office Department sends that list to the Congressman, that is, the Democratic Congressman from that district, and I presume sends it to the Democratic committee in the other districts. It says, "Here is the man that I prefer. This man must be appointed, unless you object to him." Of course, 9 Congressmen out of 10 are not going to object to a veteran, unless he has committed some terrible impropriety. Mr. RICE. I wish that were true.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is the policy they usually pursue.

Mr. RICE. That proceedure may be true as to fourth-class postmasters. I was speaking about the general matter of appointments of veterans from the civil-service register, and the reason that must be given by the appointing officer for skipping over the name of a veteran. I meant to emphasize the fact that, as to that proceedure, it is not effective, because uo one on behalf of the veteran, or the veteran,

himself, can question the sufficiency of that reason, and there may be no substantial reason, at all—as I say, just for the good of the serviceor it might be because they do not like his political faith.

There ought to be in the law a provision which would state that such reason must be substantial and sufficient, and that that reason should be made available to the veteran, or to his representative; that there ought also to be the right of an appeal relative to the sufficiency of that reason, and that, until such time as it has been determined that such reason is sufficient, no appointment shall be made, nor any certificate be given by the Civil Service Commission to the appointing officer as to any other name on the register of eligibles. The CHAIRMAN. That legislation, of course, would not come through this committee.

Mr. RICE. That is true, I understand that; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And probably that is the reason that we have not a more definite program to take care of veterans in the civil-service appointments.

Mr. RICE. I did not intend to go into all of the details, Mr. Chairman. I merely wanted to have the privilege of stating the justifications for having the veterans' employment and civil-service preferences as to Federal positions, and as to State and county positions.

I left off day before yesterday

Mrs. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, might I interrupt?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you find that the Social Security is appointing veterans?

Mr. RICE. There are some veterans being appointed; yes.
Mrs. ROGERS. Do you feel that the amount is fair?

Mr. RICE. I am not in position to judge that. As I stated day before yesterday, I have made efforts to convince the Civil Service Commission, the National Emergency Council, the Central Statistical Board, the United States Employment Service, or the Veterans' Administration, to assume the responsibility and work of finding out the number of ex-service men in each Federal agency, classified as to those who have civil-service status, and those who do not, and none of those agencies will assume that responsibility, because they say they do not have the authority to do so, and because they do not have the necessary personnel and funds with which to do so. Therefore, I am not in position to judge accurately what agency has practiced more discrimination than has another. This I do know: The Veterans' Administration certainly stands at the top, because something like 73 percent of their total male employees consist of ex-service men. The CHAIRMAN. That is the Veterans' Administration? Mr. RICE. Yes; which is a very commendable record. Mrs. ROGERS. They ought to employ them.

Mr. RICE. Yes; they certainly ought to, and that percentage ought to get increasingly higher. As to the civil-service employment, last year, about 21 percent consisted of ex-service men. As to the appointments beyond civil service, we do not know, but it is estimated that not more than 5 percent consist of ex-service men, despite the fact that about one-half of the male population of the country between 40 and 50 years of age consists of ex-service men.

The CHAIRMAN. The only appointments I know anything about is in the Postal Service, and in my section those figures would not apply.