than they would get under the terms of this bill. The apportionment now does not apply to veterans.

Mr. KITCHEN. I know; that is what I am speaking about.
The CHAIRMAN. It never has.

Mr. KITCHEN. Well, the truth of the matter is that it has not been applied until the last year or two to any of them, but they have since the World War disregarded the Apportionment Act to a great extent. The CHAIRMAN. Well it has been out of balance ever since the World War due to the fact that the apportionment law does not apply to dismissals and to the further fact that in many instances in the lower-paid positions people will not come from a distance to Washington to accept those positions. I am just as strong for the apportionment as anybody can be. In fact, I go further than some of my friends. I do not think that we could sustain the civil-service system as applied to the system in Washington without the apportionment law. I think it should be enforced.

Mr. REES. Mr. Chairman, do you think that the apportionment law should be applied as it was originally intended?

The CHAIRMAN. I certainly do and I think it should be extended to cover every position in Washington except strictly what we might call "field" positions like, for instance, the Washington City Post Office. I would not apply the quota to those particularly, as they are local offices, but there are some positions, quite a lot of them in Washington, which are not covered by it.

Mr. REES. Why should it not apply to the veterans? I had the same complaint that Mr. Kitchen suggests in regard to his veterans out in our part of the country. They live miles away from the seat of Government, and they do not get a square deal. They say this apportionment law is ignored and on top of it they directly ignore the principle when it comes to the veterans.

The CHAIRMAN. I think there is a good argument for what you and Mr. Kitchen suggest. I do not think it should operate against the veterans as an entire group.

Mr. REES. Not the veterans; no.

The CHAIRMAN. It would give the veterans preference in the under-quota States.

Mr. STARNES. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. As against those in the over quota States, but the veterans' preference would still operate even though the apportionment would apply.

Are there any further questions? If not, we thank you Mr. Starnes. Who is the next witness?

Mr. STARNES. Col. John Thomas Taylor, director, national legislative committee of the American Legion.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear Colonel Taylor.

STATEMENT OF COL. JOHN THOMAS TAYLOR, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, THE AMERICAN LEGION

Colonel TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, on behalf of the American Legion, I want to express our appreciation for this opportunity to appear before you.

We were here in May 1937, that is 2 years ago, for the first hearings that were ever held on this important question to us of veterans' preference in civil service.

The situation during the past 2 years I should say had become even more acute than it was at that time. As a matter of fact, we were obliged to create a very extensive veterans' employment service.

I have with me here today, Paul Griffith, who is the director of that service, and who will be glad to give the committee the benefit of his experience during the past 2 years on this very important subject.

We have also with us Judge Frank A. Mathews, Jr., of New Jersey, who is the chairman of our veterans' preference committee, a committee composed of 30 men from all over the country who have given this matter intensive study, and, as a result of which this very comprehensive bill has been prepared.

We have with us also, Edward A. Linskey, adjutant of the great State of Pennsylvania, who has had some experience right in that State dealing with that subject, who also wishes to have a few words

to say.

I do not want to take any more time of the committee because I know we are pressed for time. I will, therefore, present Judge Mathews, the chairman of the veterans' preference committee, who prepared this bill, and who will be very glad to answer any questions in regard to apportionment.

STATEMENT OF FRANK A. MATHEWS, JR., ESQ., CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL PREFERENCE COMMITTEE, AMERICAN LEGION

Mr. MATHEWs. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to endorse Colonel Taylor's thanks to your committee for giving us the opportunity to be heard on this bill.

We did, as has been said, have extensive hearings about 2 or 3 years ago on similar bills introduced, and, as Congressman Starnes has said, H. R. 5101, which is the bill in which my organization is particularly interested, and which it endorses, is the result of what was learned in those hearings and in the experience during the past 2 or 3 years.

At the outset may I say, just like Congressman Starnes, that it does contain everything that we would like to have. I do not believe any bill which we could present containing everything which we would like to have would ever have a chance of passing. We are interested very vitally in the things, those reasonable things which we think are a benefit to the veterans, and which are of such a character as to be fair to everyone concerned, considering at the same time that the position of a veteran is a little different from that of any other applicant under the Civil Service; and when I say "veteran" of course I mean the war veteran, the man who served his country during a war, not particularly because he wanted to be in the service but because either voluntarily or involuntarily, it was necessary for him to go for the protection of his country.

The CHAIRMAN. Right on that point, the bill, of course, in defining "veteran" limits it to a person who has served in any branch of the Army or Navy forces of the United States during any war, campaign, or expedition.

Mr. MATHEWS. Yes, sir.

149713-39-2

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to say anything about that particular feature? I think it might be well to elaborate as to why it is limited to that specific class.

Mr. MATHEWS. The statement I made is just on that point and I think that particular point is the main reason for confining it to war veterans. There is in addition the fact that the man who is a peacetime veteran enters the service on his own volition. He enters at any age, at which the Army Regulations say he can enter it and he comes out at any time after any enlistment which may expire. Not only that, but I understand in peacetimes a man may buy his way out of the service at any particular time, or may be discharged under conditions if such conditions exist before the term of his enlistment expires, thus putting him in the position of being 1, 2, or 3 years in the service in peacetimes at his own desire, and by his own voluntary action and it is a little difficult to say why he should be given the preference which should be given a war veteran who went in in time of very great danger and was liable to be sent anywhere and at the same time, even if he entered voluntarily, did not do so because he wanted to, but simply because his country needed him, or he felt his country needed him. Those are the main reasons for confining the preference to war veterans.

Now the policy in regard to veterans' preference is nothing new. It has existed year after year and one of the purposes of H. R. 5101 is to put into effect by legislation many things which now are in effect by rules of the Civil Service Commission and by Executive order.

Of course there will always be needed rules of the Civil Service Commission and Executive orders of the President to carry into effect the provisions of the legislation, but it has seemed to us, as I think it will seem to every person who studies the situation, that the main principle of veterans' preference should be enacted into legislation so that it can be on a more or less permanent character and could not be changed from day to day by civil-service rules or Executive orders, but should be changed by the body by appropriate order according to the provisions set up by the Congress of the United States. We have felt for some time in the American Legion that that was of vital importance that these items be embodied in legislation. Now in a number of instances in H. R. 5101, there is nothing done but to write into prospective legislation certain rules of the Civil Service Commission which have existed for a long period of time.

In regard to the language in section 9, on page 5, on line 14, it provides that:

The nominating or appointing officer shall make selection for the first vacancy of not more than the highest three names certified unless objection shall be made and sustained by the Commission to one or more of the persons certified for any proper reason as may be prescribed by the rules promulgated by said Commission. That was a phraseology used more or less for years and for that reason it was put in here.

Offhand, I can think of no particular objection to the amendment suggested by the chairman, but would not like to commit myself without further study.

Of course a change there would require a change down in line 20 and likewise in some of the other words in the bill, but I would not like to commit myself one way or the other at the present time, except that I believe that it will be necessary, will it, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. No; not at all.

Mr. MATHEWS. I would like to give it a little study. Now, perhaps the most outstanding change which is made by this bill in existing civil-service rules and regulations, what might be said to be to the detriment of the veterans officially, is the provision of section 4 which is to the effect that the veteran shall have his 5 points and the other preference eligibility, and 10 points added only after they obtained a passing grade.

The original bill in which the Legion was interested 3 years ago did not have that provision. At the time of the hearings, and since the hearings, I have made what study I could and have talked to men who had some knowledge of the civil-service conditions far more than I, whose names I could not give you because I know they would not want to be quoted, but I have come to the conclusion as a result of what took place at the hearings and my talks with several of these men, that the fact that the veteran receives 5 points or 10 points before he passes the examination has actually been a detriment to the enforcement of veterans' preference_rather than a benefit to the veteran. It has been to some extent, I am afraid, a bit of a detriment to certain veterans who have qualified by passing the examination before they had the points added.

Mr. MILLS. Will the gentlemen yield?

Mr. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. MILLS. Have you taken into consideration the psychological method of testing used today where if a veteran makes a 69 and a nonveteran makes 71, that the veteran should be discredited to that extent, and be forced to make a passing grade before we can give him this additional allowance of 5 or 10 points?

Mr. MATHEWs. Yes; I have taken that into consideration. even on that point you must make some arbitrary decision.

But

Mr. MILLS. Do I understand you to say that if the veteran makes

69 and a nonveteran makes 71, that job ought to go to the nonveteran? Mr. MATHEWS. Under the provisions of this bill?

Mr. MILLS. That is what I have been talking about.

Mr. MATHEWS. Yes; that would be true, but under the provisions that exist, if the veteran makes 49 he would be in the same situation. Mr. MILLS. Should not this bill contain language involving the psychological method of testing to a certain extent, which is a little indefinite. Should we not set up an average grade somewhere along the line and not show discrimination?

Mr. MATHEWS. If you can set up a scientific rule of that character, we would not have to change it, and not only that, but let me say this, that I would like to see it remain as it was before from certain standpoints.

Mr. MILLS. It seems to me that we are doing a rather grave injustice to a veteran who makes 61, which is not passing, and thereby he does not get the additional 10 points.

Mr. MATHEWS. Of course, Mr. Congressman, that is a matter of opinion, but may I say this: What graver injustice are we doing to him than now exists? One may be getting 59 and the other 60. One may be a disabled veteran and the one who gets 57 is not considered at all. I do not know where you would draw the line. It is purely a question of where the line should be drawn. A practical situation, as I have found it, and I think I will be substantiated in

this, is that the very existence of that ruling has made it difficult to get appointing officers to appoint veterans. Particularly when those veterans have not made a passing grade in the examination and it has, in general, resulted in a detriment to veterans' preference.

The CHAIRMAN. To be perfectly frank, Mr. Mathews, haven't you found that the fact that a veteran could not get on an eligible list without the points being given to him, has built up a prejudice against him, that is against appointing veterans throughout the Federal service? And therefore it has worked to the detriment of the veteran rather than in his interest.

Mr. MATHEWs. That is the exact point. In the first place, by leaving it in we are helping the veteran who cannot make a passing grade in the examination, but at the same time we are injuring the cause of all veterans, many of whom can make a high grade upon the examination. Now that is based upon information that I have obtained both from the hearings on the last bill and since; by talking with men who I think know what they are talking about with reference to veterans' preference and the purpose of doing it. While my judgment may be wrong, it is that in the long run it will help the deserving veteran far more than it will do good in helping individual veterans who have failed to make a passing grade on the examination, irrespective of the faults of the psychological situation to which the gentlemen has referred.

The CHAIRMAN. If I correctly interpret your statement, you have come to the conclusion that the elimination of the probability of a veteran being put on the eligible list without making a passing grade by his own ability and qualifications, will in the final analysis result in more veterans getting appointments.

Mr. MATHEWS. I think so, because I am convinced that in the past it has worked as a detriment because there is in my opinion what you would call sales resistance on the part of the appointing authorities to appoint a veteran on the list because he knows and from inquiries to the Civil Service Commission that he has found that the veteran has not passed the examination. It seems there is a distinction between the veterans. The law provides that where the veteran could not qualify he was given additional points as a result of which he was able to pass the examination.

Now, I want it distinctly understood, however, that I have come to this conclusion only after a long period of time and rather reluctantly because not only do I not wish to deprive any veteran of anything he may have done individually, but it may be conceded a bad policy to admit that anything you have should be given up, but I cannot in honesty cling to a proposition to which I have been convinced is in the long run a detriment to veterans' preference generally, solely because it happens to exist at the present time.

Mr. MOSER. A man might have passed the examination with an average of 95 and then he goes to 100 on the list. Another man passes at 60 and gets 10 points and also goes to the top of the list. Mr. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. MOSER. Who would you appoint?

Mr. MATHEWs. That is a question too general to answer. I suppose that I would do the same thing that any other appointing officer does.