Mr. JOHNSON. I do not understand that, because we thought that we were taking care of every man that was employed in the two bureaus.

Mr. BALDWIN. No, sir. We lost one employee at $2,500, one at $2,000, two at $1,600, one at $1,400, and one at $1,200, and a lumpsum appropriation of $4,000. The appropriation for internal commerce is partly included in these salaries. We had to discontinue the work on internal commerce. We had to get rid of these people by turning them out of the bureau or by reducing them in salary. We did both. We had to transfer some of these people out of the office altogether. We did that in the lowest grades where it would hurt the office least, and other losses were made up by reductions in salary. Mr. JOHNSON. These people who were dropped in this paragraphI mean this consolidated or merged paragraph-were transferred to other Government service, were they not?

Mr. BALDWIN. They were either transferred or kept in the service at reduced salaries.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, did the merger of these two bureaus result in preventing any duplication of work that had hitherto gone on?

Mr. BALDWIN. We are simply occupying the same fields as before. There was no duplication of work between the Bureau of Statistics and the Bureau of Manufactures. Of course, the overhead charges were somewhat affected. We reduced the salary of the former Chief of the Bureau of Statistics from $4,000 to $3,000. The work in the administrative branch of the service, the work of mailing, and the general work of correspondence and keeping up the files, records, requisitions, etc., for the two bureaus was thrown together, and we made some slight saving in the combination in that way. I doubt whether the question of the duplication of work between these bureaus was ever raised, except that both were promoting commerce in rather closely related fields. There was a question, of course, as to the duplication of work between the Bureau of Manufactures and the Bureau of Trade Relations in the State Department. That of course, was discussed.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, go ahead and state what you desire.

Mr. BALDWIN. I would like to say that these reductions of salary that we were forced to make were made at the expense of these minor clerks.

Mr. JOHNSON. You reduced them to lower salaries?

Mr. BALDWIN. Yes, sir. We had to omit or dismiss some people altogether or else reduce from the grades which were omitted. For example, two $1,600 clerks were omitted. The occupants had to be left out of the service altogether or taken care of in the lower grades, and rather than leave these people with no occupation we put them in at lower salaries and transferred the people of the $900 grade out of the bureau, where we could take care of them in other bureaus. It is hard to transfer high-salaried clerks into other departments or bureaus. They do not want them, because it interferes with their promotion scheme all along the line. So we did the best we could, and we are asking in these estimates for these places back again, so that we can restore these excellent clerks who lost $100 or $200 in salary through no fault of their own.

Mr. GILLETT. Is that exactly what it amounts to? Are all these recommendations that you have made simply to restore those clerks, except those you have absolutely dropped?

Mr. BALDWIN. It would take care of those and would add some. Mr. GILLETT. Then you distinguish between them?

Mr. BALDWIN. In the $1,800 grade we ask for nine instead of seven; in the $1,600 grade we ask for seven instead of five.

Mr. JOHNSON. And this takes care of the people who were reduced by reason of the consolidation?

Mr. BALDWIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GILLETT. To what salary were they reduced?

Mr. BALDWIN. One to $1,500 and 1 to $1,400. We ask for 15 instead of 11 of class 2, 16 instead of 14 of class 1, and for 14 instead of 11 at $900 each. They are to be new people. My people were transferred out of the bureau at that grade.

Mr. GILLETT. Why do you need these new men? Is it because of the combination or is it for the old Bureau of Manufactures?

Mr. BALDWIN. The work of the Bureau of Manufactures, or that branch of the new bureau, is of a character that either grows or falls back, and we are growing in our service very rapidly. The commercial public pays twice as much attention to our bureau than it did two years ago. It is shown in the growth of our correspondence: for instance, where we got 35,000 letters two years ago we get 75,000 letters now, and that increases the work all along the line. It increases the correspondence work, the work on the files, and the editorial work. We must work overtime there or fall behind.

Mr. GILLETT. Are all these increases for that branch of the work or are they partly for the Bureau of Statistics?

Mr. BALDWIN. All these increases are for the Bureau of Manufactures.

Mr. GILLETT. That is the part that grows.?

Mr. BALDWIN. That branch has the elements of more rapid growth in it than has the Bureau of Statistics.

Mr. GILLETT. Could you indicate about what proportion of your force is at work on statistics and what proportion on manufactures? Mr. BALDWIN. Yes, sir. When the combination took place the Bureau of Statistics had 57 employees and we had 35.

Mr. GILLETT. They had more than you?

Mr. BALDWIN. Yes, sir. Their work was of a character that required a great many people.

Mr. GILLETT. How many are there now?

Mr. BALDWIN. Well, we have merged the two together, so that I can not tell offhand. I should say there are 49 or 50. The Division of Statistics now makes use of approximately 50 of the employees, and the others, who are subclerical or minor employees or minor clerks, are interwoven in the two, so that you can not distinguish them. The former chief clerk of the Bureau of Statistics is now the chief clerk of the whole office.

Mr. GILLETT. How many do you have in the Division of Manufactures? How many do you have in all?

Mr. BALDWIN. In the office in Washington there were 35; that would give us about 40 or 42. You understand that much of our work is out in the field.

CONSULAR REPORTS.

Mr. JOHNSON. To what extent is this merged bureau of yours doing work that the Bureau of Trade Relations in the State Department does or to what extent is that bureau doing your work?

Mr. BALDWIN. I can only answer that by saying that I do not do any of their work.

Mr. JOHNSON. To what extent are the two bureaus doing the same work or practically the same work?

Mr. BALDWIN. I doubt whether we have ever duplicated each other's work very much. There is a tendency, perhaps, toward duplication, but I think we are both trying to avoid it. I know that we are very careful not to take up any work in the field of foreign relations. Of course they have the Consular Service, which is used to promote commerce abroad. Now, that is a function of the Department of Commerce and Labor also, and they are colaborers with us in that field to that extent, but it is not a duplication of work. They are simply allies of the Department of Commerce and Labor in the field of promoting commerce.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you ask for certain information, and you ask it through the State Department. You ask for information through the Consular Service; the Consular Service replies, and the State Department takes the replies and send you such information as they think you ought to have. They send you such as they think you ought to see, and keep such as they think your unholy hands ought

not to touch.

Mr. BALDWIN. That is it, stated very briefly.

Mr. GILLETT. I do not think that is a fair statement of it

Mr. JOHNSON (interposing). I thought my friend would object to that.

Mr. GILLETT. I certainly will object to that statement. You would not have the replies of the Consular Service published over the country regardless of whether they were injurious to our interests

or not.

Mr. JOHNSON. I take it that these people down here would have as good judgment and as good discretion as to what it would be wise to publish as the people up there?

Mr. GILLETT. But you will be taking away from the State Department their province of having charge of foreign relations.

Mr. JOHNSON. They have charge of foreign relations at the diplomatic end, but when it comes to a matter of trade which is within the scope of this bureau's activities

Mr. GILLETT (interposing). Yes; but the consular reports combine the two. They combine diplomatic and consular questions. You could not separate them unless you are going to make them separate functions, and let the Department of Commerce and Labor have some agents to devote themselves exclusively to consular matters.

Mr. JOHNSON. I think the consular agents ought to be under the Department of Commerce and Labor.

Mr. GILLETT. Do you want to make that change?

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not think they have a thing to do with the diplomatic part of the business.

Mr. BALDWIN. I think, perhaps, there is a tendency to exaggerate the attention that the State Department gives to these commercial reports. They are extremely prompt in transmitting them to us. Generally they give them to us as soon as they come to the State Department, so that we can publish them promptly.

Mr. JOHNSON. After taking out of the report matter that they think ought not to be published?

Mr. BALDWIN. That does not happen often. It is very rarely the case that a commercial report contains any dangerous diplomatic statements. The Consular Service has so many duties that do not concern our department that there is that side of it also to be considered.

COST OF LIVING.

Mr. JOHNSON. Why do you want to repeal that provision about finding out the cost of living at home and abroad?

Mr. BALDWIN. Simply because it seems to belong more to the spirit of the work of the Bureau of Labor than to our own.

Mr. CABLE. We have started work on that in the Bureau of Labor. Mr. JOHNSON. They were engaged in work along that same line, were they not?

Mr. CABLE. Yes, sir; and that is a class of work they want to take up again.

Mr. BALDWIN. If it is left with us, we will simply cooperate with the Bureau of Labor in that work.

Mr. GILLETT. You did not have it before last year, did you?
Mr. BALDWIN. That was introduced in August.

STEAMBOAT-INSPECTION SERVICE.

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE UHLER, SUPERVISING INSPECTOR GENERAL.

SALARY OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.

Mr. JOHNSON. The first item is with reference to an increase in the salary of the Supervising Inspector General. I presume you do not care to submit any argument on that request, inasmuch as the Assistant Secretary has argued the matter much more earnestly than you would think proper. The next item is an increase in salary from $2,000 to $2,400. I presume that refers to the chief clerk.

Mr. UHLER. Yes, sir; that refers to the chief clerk, who acts as Supervising Inspector General in my absence. I do not know that I can say a great deal about that, Mr. Chairman, except that it is an increase recommended absolutely based upon merit and the fitness of the man, and is a deserved promotion. He has been in the service a good many years.

Mr. JOHNSON. In your absence he is the acting head of that bureau? Mr. UHLER. That is right, sir; the acting head of that bureau under statutory appointment.

Mr. JOHNSON. How many people in the bureau?

Mr. UHLER. There are 261 in the field and in the bureau. You see, our service extends from Duluth to Galveston, Mr. Chairman, and from Bangor to St. Michael, in Alaska, with offices in Honolulu and offices in Porto Rico and San Juan.

STEAMBOAT INSPECTORS.

Mr. JOHNSON. I notice, on page 283, you are asking for an increase of about $15,000. You have had for several years $347,000 for salaries of steamboat inspectors, and this year you are asking $362,700.

Mr. UHLER. That is accounted for by reason of the suggested increase in the number of inspectors and assistant inspectors. We ask for 33 assistant inspectors instead of 27, a difference of 6, at $2,000, which would amount to an increase of $12,000.

Mr. JOHNSON. Explain to us why you need 6 additional assistant inspectors. What is the character of their work, and why can not the number you now have perform that work?

Mr. UHLER. For some time, Mr. Chairman, and particularly in New York, we have been given about all the work we could well take care of. We have been able to handle it by working sometimes overtime and at nights, and the inspectors continuing their inspections many times at unseasonable and unreasonable hours. We are having to make additional detailed inspections. We are going to have a great deal of inspection of lifeboats and of life rafts and of lifesaving equipment. We are going to have an immense amount of that for the next three years. An assistant inspector, under the statute, Mr. Chairman, has to be a man of certain attainments and certain requirements. He must be a seaman; he must have served a certain number of years at sea; so that we can not appoint a man to take up any part of this duty unless he is qualified to act thoroughly and fully as an assistant inspector. They have to pass a civil service examination, and they are appointed from civil service lists. We can not pick up a man to serve for four to five months as an inspector of lifeboats or of life preservers, or as an inspector of steamboats, but we have got to have regularly qualified men.

Mr. GILLETT. Why is there going to be an increase in the work in the next two or three years?

Mr. UHLER. You can understand what a situation the Titanic disaster has brought about. It has almost doubled the demand for lifeboats and such equipment, and the concerns manufacturing that equipment are being overwhelmed with orders. I had a complaint the other day from a lifeboat building company, complaining because they could not get inspectors to pass their boats, because inspectors were engaged upon something else. We told them, "We will give you inspectors when we can get them, and not until then." Mr. JOHNSON. You have asked for an increase in the force at two ports only, New York and Boston. You think the force you have at the other ports is sufficient?

Mr. UHLER. Yes, sir; I think we can get along at the other ports. Mr. JOHNSON. But you believe the six additional inspectors asked for at New York and the two additional inspectors at Boston are needed?

Mr. UHLER. Yes, sir; absolutely, and I think we ought to have them, because there is going to be a larger demand for a more detailed inspection of foreign steamships than ever was made before, and we must have more inspectors for that work.