« 이전계속 »
extraordinary responsibilities, when we take into consideration the amount of money they are being paid. Every one of these district secretaries has come into the commission as a minor clerk and has developed up through the different stages of the commission's work to the point where he has evinced sufficient ability to warrant the commission in placing him in charge of a great district. Now, he has a position to uphold. He meets these different appointive officers, all of whom are getting better salaries than he receives, yet he is required to meet them on a footing of equality. He is called upon to travel a great deal throughout his district and meet all these appointive officers, and if he is shown the slightest courtesy by these gentlemen he is at a loss to know how to return it, because of his poverty and the small amount of his salary. He is at a point where he does not know how to properly uphold his position and live, and we feel very earnestly that to appoint a man as district secretary at $1,600 or $1,800 a year, with the duties that are imposed upon him, and taking into consideration the requirements of his position, is too great a hardship for the commission to shoulder. I hope very strongly that you will consider the matter of raising their salaries to $2,000.
Mr. JOHNSON. How many are there?
Mr. McILHENNY. There are 12, and we are asking that 5 of them be increased from the salaries as they stand to-day to $2.000.
SYSTEM OF EFFICIENCY RECORDS.
[See also p. 22.]
Mr. WASHBURN. If you will permit me, I would like to say one word relative to the provision of law providing for the efficiency system. As we understand this law, it makes the commission responsible for an effective efficiency system. Now, we expect to have a representative of the commission on this efficiency work in all the departments, in order that we may have coordination of effort and a standardization of the rating of efficiency, and make the system a good one, an effective one, and a uniform one for all the clerks in all the departments.
Mr. GILLETT. Do you mean to have an employee in all the departments?
Mr. WASHBURN. Yes, sir; a representative in all departments.
Mr. JOHNSON. Let me ask you one question right there: Now, you propose to send a representative of the Civil Service Commission to the Treasury Department, one to the State Department, and so on. How do you know that these men you propose to send are going to carry the same system of efficiency into the several departments? Why not send the same man to all of them?
Mr. WASHBURN. We will probably have two or three that we can use. It will probably take that many. If it took two or three highgrade men we would get the right results.
Mr. Johnson. It occurs to me that the same man to cooperate with the people in the Treasury Department in regard to their efficiency system would be a very good man to send over to the Post Office Department also, because he would carry with him the same ideas of efficiency.
Mr. WASHBURN. That is right; you have it exactly.
Mr. Johnson. But if you had more than one man, they might carry different ideas of efficiency into the different departments. What you want is the standardization of efficiency. What is a good thing in one department must be a good thing in another departinent.
Mr. WASHBURN. Of course, that is the controlling principle.
Mr. Johnson. I think it important that the system should be uniform in all the departments. What is called efficiency in one department should be efficiency in the others.
Mr. McILHENNY. Certainly; and that is the reason we are going slowly in this matter.
WEDNESDAY, November 20, 1912.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM MCNEIR, CHIEF CLERK, STATE
DUTIES OF CHIEF CLERK,
Mr. McNeir. The first change is on page 61, after the words “ chief clerk, $3,000,” where the words have been inserted, “ who shall sign such official papers and documents as the Secretary of State may direct.” That is purely an administrative change and gives the chief clerk authority to sign certain orders and vouchers that are now passed on to the Assistant Secretaries to sign. According to the ruling of the Treasury Department, the chief clerk of the department is not authorized to sign these papers. This is customary in the other departments, and language like that has been inserted in the case of the chief clerks in some or nearly all of the other departinents. It is intended to relieve the Assistant Secretaries of the burden of signing their names.
Mr. JOHNSON. That is a mere matter of convenience.
Mr. McNEIR. Yes, sir; merely a matter of convenience of administration.
LAW CLERK AND EDITOR.
The second change is on the same page and changes the words “law clerk” to “editor.” This is simply a change in description without any increase in pay or any other change. This law clerk edits the laws of Congress, and the title of law clerk is a little confusing. In fact, in several cases it has been taken to apply to the other law clerks of the department who do other law work. This man, Mr. Bryan, edits the Statutes at Large and the Revised Statutes. It is merely a change in title and makes it a little less confusing
ASSISTANT MESSENGERS. On that same page we have asked for an increase of two assistant messengers, at $720, giving us 27 assistant messengers instead of 25. That is necessitated by the natural growth of business and also
because we now have four outlying bureaus, two in the Union Trust Building, at Fifteenth and H Streets, and two or three, including the translator, at 1653 Pennsylvania Avenue, and the constant running back and forth with papers has made it necessary for us to have some additional force there. Along that same line, these messengers have to act not only as messengers, but as laborers, doing the cleaning of the building, etc. It takes up considerable of their time in that way, and this increase is absolutely necessary, we think.
On page 63 we have asked for a few changes in the phraseology of the item for miscellaneous expenses. After the words "purchase, care,” we have added the word “exchange," and after the words “and subsistence of horses” we have added the words “and maintenance of automobile mail wagons." You see the word “maintenance inserted there. That is by error, and we wrote to the committee yesterday that we would like to have this word "maintenance" stricken out, because that is covered by the preceding words, “subsistence of horses and automobiles."
Mr. JOHNSON. In other words, we authorized you last year to buy an automobile mail wagon and it is now necessary to maintain it?
Mr. McNEIR. Yes, sir; and we are also asking here for the privilege, which we have in the case of typewriters, of exchanging wornout automobiles. This authority probably will not be necessary next year, but we would like to have the word “exchange" put in and the word “ maintenance” taken out.
Mr. GILLETT. It ought to be “ subsistence”?
Mr. McNEIR. Yes, sir; it means the same thing. If you leave those words in there, I am afraid the Treasury will take us up on it. I am afraid the Treasury will take us up on that word “exchange. They draw the line very closely.
Further down, in that same paragraph, you will find the words repair of vehicles and automobile mail wagon, harness, and equipment of drivers.” The words “and equipment of drivers" are new words inserted; and then we want to strike out the words “ telegraph and electrical apparatus and repairs to the same." That we have recommended for the reason that we have none of that work to do now. Any electrical apparatus requiring repairs is repaired by the superintendent of the building out of an appropriation under his control, and any telegraphic repairs are made by the companies.
Mr. GILLETT. What do you mean by “ equipment of drivers”? Mr. McNEIR. That means rubber boots, gloves, and storm boots. Mr. GILLETT. How have they been provided heretofore?
Mr. McNEIR. In previous years they have been paid for and charged for out of other appropriations.
Mr. GILLETT. Why can not that be done now?
Mr. McNeir. Under a recent ruling of the Secretary those things can not be purchased except as they are appropriated for.
STATEMENTS OF MR. ROBERT 0. BAILEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, AND MR. GEORGE FORT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT TREASURER.
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT TREASURER AT BALTIMORE.
Mr. JoHNSON. There is a change on page 116 in the salary of the paying teller in the office of the assistant treasurer at Baltimore, the proposed increase being from $2,000 to $2,250. Prior to this year he was a clerk of class 4, and we advanced him in the legislative bill from a clerk of class 4 to paying teller at $2,000. Mr. ForT. I do not remember about that. Mr. JoHNSON. That is the fact. Mr. ForT. I do not think that any paying teller in any of the Subtreasuries should receive less than $2,250. Mr. JoHNSON. The increase is based upon the effort of the Treasury Department to equalize and standardize this work, then, rather than upon any particular knowledge you may have of this particular man? Mr. ForT. I do not know who is the paying teller there, even. I know he has the reputation of being a good man, but what his name is or how old he is, or anything else, I do not know. It is the effort of the Treasury Department, as you state, to equalize the work and standardize these positions. Mr. JoHNSON. The bookkeeper and assorting teller are already in the service at the same salary, but you change their designation? Mr. ForT. Yes, sir.
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT TREASURER AT CHICAGO.
Mr. JoHNSON. The next item is the office of assistant treasurer at Chicago. Mr. ForT. You gave them the increase last year that was asked, except as to the receiving teller. The receiving teller now receives $2,000, and we ask for $2,250. The Chicago office is quite a large office, and the work is growing very rapidly, and it seemed to the committee last year when these estimates were made up that $2,250 was a very reasonable compensation for that man. Mr. JoHNSON. A number of people are asked for to operate the laundry machines. Has the work done at this office been carefully estimated for ? Mr. ForT. I assume so. I have not had anything to do with that part of it, but I assume that it has been. Mr. BAILEY. It is new work and has been estimated for in detail. Four persons are required to operate each machine. Mr. GILLETT. Are the machines set up in the building? Mr. BAILEY. Yes, sir. Mr. JoHNSON. Does the money look like new money?
Mr. BAILEY. Yes, sir. You can hardly tell the difference.
Mr. GILLETT. How is it done? Are soap and water used ?
Mr. BAILEY. The machine is about 14 feet long and 3 wide. The notes are carried between endless canvas strips through soapsuds and "rinsing water and then over a heated revolving drum, which dries and irons them. ~
Mr. GILLETT. When will you have the small-sized notes?
Mr. BAILEY. Work on the designs is under way, and it is probable that the designs will be ready for the engraver by February.
M; GILLETT. So you expect to have some out during this fiscal year :
Mr. BAILEY. The engraving process is quite a slow one; while we are pushing the work as much as possible it is difficult to make a prediction.
Mr. JoHNSON. There is nothing in regard to these subtreasuries except your previous recommendations and the laundry machines?
Mr. ForT. That is all I know of. I would like, however, to impress upon the committee the importance of carrying out these recommendations in these cases where we have asked for increases.
PAPER FOR INTEREST, ETC., CHECKS AND DRAFTS.
Mr. JoHNSON. The next item is: “For paper for interest, transfer, redemption, pension, and other checks and drafts for the use of the Treasurer of the United States, assistant treasurers, pension agents, disbursing officers, and others.” The appropriations for 1913 were $9,000, and the estimates for 1914 are $10,000.
Mr. BAILEY. Our appropriations were formerly $14,000 a year, but in 1912 the amount was reduced to $10,000. Our estimates for 1913 were for $10,000, but only $9,000 was appropriated.
Mr. JoHNSON. What did you spend in 1912 under that appropriation?
. Mr. BAILEY. In 1912 we spent about $7,000, but we were exceed
ingly fortunate in securing a very low bid for this paper.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
Mr. BAILEY. In the item on page 64 of the bill we have submitted, as we did last year, increases of $200 each for the pay of the private secretaries to the Assistant Secretaries. The increase was not granted last year, but the matter is so meritorious that we thought it our duty to bring it to your attention again. Mr. Johnson. Are these men in the classified service? Mr. BAILEY. No, sir; these are excepted positions. They require men of a great deal of executive ability, and the men who fill them become very valuable to the service. Mr. GILLETT. Are the private secretaries changed as the Assistant Secretaries change? Mr. BAILEY. Not generally. As a matter of fact, they can not well be changed, because of the value of their experience.