From the Detroit Public Library, which several years ago was faced with the possibility of being included under civil service, came this observation:

The record of accomplishment in civil-service libraries to date is nothing to point to with pride, except perhaps in California. It is generally acknowledged that that State's civil service set-up is far superior to any other in this country.

However, although the civil-service system in California is considered effective, Mr. Harold Hamill, librarian of the Los Angeles Public Library, observed:

Obviously civil service is an advantage over the old spoils system, but libraries which have been competently administered by library boards and qualified administrators have undoubtedly been able to carry out higher levels of service than those which have been forced to render their personnel procedure to a considerable extent to civil service control.

It would seem to me to be a definite mistake for the Public Library of Washington, which has had such a highly satisfactory administrative record, and which has always offered a very high level of service to the public which it serves, to be forced to surrender any part of its personnel procedure to a civil service commission, even though it may be under the Federal Civil Service Commission. I think it would very likely result in lowered standards of achievement.

A similar inquiry addressed to Dr. Carleton B. Joeckel, professor of librarianship at the University of California, formerly dean of the Graduate Library School, University of Chicago, and author of the previously quoted, Government of the American Public Library, elicited this response:

I have had occasion to check on the operation of civil service in a number of cases recently, and each time it seemed to me that an efficient, independent organization is preferable to a general civil-service system, however good that system may be.

The above quotations note general objections to civil service for public libraries. However, specific complaints are numerous. One typical objection is that although personality factors are very important to the success of public library operations, civil service examinations fail to test personality. In this connection Mr. Wharton Miller, dean of the Syracuse University Library School, made the following comment:

No test, oral or written, has yet been devised to measure such intangibles as enthusiasm, desire to serve, loyalty to the job, temper, temperament, especially desired qualities.

He feels that appointment of a librarian—

should be decided on the basis of fitness for the job, because misfits injure not only themselves (as a doctor or a lawyer would), but they injure the whole institution of which they are a part.

The concensus was that recommendations from library schools and employers, and personal interviews wherever possible, were much more valid selection devices than examinations.

Mr. Munn at Pittsburgh reiterates:

The examinations are unnecessary from a library's viewpoint, because dependable appraisals can always be secured from the library school and former employers.

Another criticism of civil-service examinations and their present form is their failure to make allowance for special requirements. Frequently, a library needs someone with special training in a certain field, such as science, cataloging, reference service, children's work,

and so forth. Yet an administrator under civil service is required to accept one of the persons at the top of the eligible list without regard to such special requirements, for which the examinations do not now test.

These criticisms of civil service, voiced by library administrators all over the country, have been confirmed by off-the-record comments of several departmental librarians in Washington who operate under civil service. They, too, complain that the examinations do not adequately test for the jobs prescribed; there is great delay in filling vacancies; examinations do not test for temperament. It has been reported that one agency for years has circumvented recruitment from registers by negotiating transfers from other departments; one officer, after a delay in procuring a replacement, went in person to the Commission and transported papers from one office to another in order to expedite the action. It is significant that not a single one of the agencies contacted recommended the civil-service system of appointment from an administrative point of view.

The scarcity of trained librarians makes recruitment under civil service procedures even more difficult and ineffectual than it would otherwise be. The American Library Association has estimated the need for 18,000 additional librarians in the 6 years following the war. Even before the war the percentage of placements from library schools was 100 percent; and library school enrollments mounted during the war years. The personnel situation is bad enough elsewhere, but it is aggravated locally by the large concentration of institutions competing for trained librarians. By way of illustration, the Library of Congress alone has approximately 500 authorized positions for professional librarians and over 300 for subprofessional. The Civil Service Commission lists and sets up examinations for about 600 additional positions for librarians and archivists; not to mention 200 positions for library and archives aides.

These figures offer some idea of what the District of Columbia Public Library would face if it were denied the opportunity for independent recruiting and were obliged to rely on civil service lists.

In this connection it may be interesting to note that the Public Library personnel officer is frequently called to suggest candidates for temporary appointments in libraries under the United States civil service because of the failure of the register to provide eligibles. A recent request came from the National Security Resources Board; Fort Belvoir also asked for the names of candidates. When a similar inquiry came from the Navy Department a few months ago, the comment was made that "the Commission has nobody."

Doubtless there are a number of factors that account for the apparent indifference of qualified applicants for civil service positions, but probably not the least significant is the general unpopularity of examinations which, coupled with delays in holding and posting them, often drive the best candidates away. For the administrator this means long periods in which positions remain vacant or getting along with temporary appointees of less satisfactory caliber. Mr. Munn of Pittsburgh sums it up:

The supply of trained librarians is usually below demand, and the more promising librarians can choose from among several openings. They will not bother with qualifying examinations when so many other openings are available to them.

95148-49- -20

But if it is hard to obtain good people under civil service, it is also difficult to eliminate inefficient personnel. Mr. Hamill, the librarian at the Los Angeles Public Library which is under civil service, points out:

The administration is often put on the defensive in making discharges after completion of the 6 months probation period. Some employees are bound to take advantage of the security offered by civil service and of the administrative difficulties involved in the dismissal process.

In collecting evidence on which to base its own stand regarding civil service, Detroit discovered that:

Dismissal of unsatisfactory employees under civil service is frequently a difficult problem. Tenure provisions often guarantee security for those whose work is not up to the proper standard of efficiency, since rather than have publicity of a dismissal case brought to court, the librarian is likely to retain the employee, with resultant reduction in efficiency.

Now I have a conclusion: For the reasons noted, I respectfully urge that the provisions of S. 1927 (H. R. 4981) affecting the Public Library of the District of Columbia, be modified so that the present independent Board of Library Trustees and the present independent merit system for Public Library personnel will be retained. Mr. HARRIS. Does that complete your statement? Mr. PETERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. HARRIS. Thank you.

It is a very interesting presentation. In the consideration of these matters, when you come down to the application it brings out some surprising things. Yesterday we found out that some surprising results would affect the District schools, and there were also matters in regard to the Recreation Board which were likewise brought to our attention, and we are very much interested in it. In other words, there are a great many things that have been brought to the attention of the committee which I think prove the necessity of having these hearings which we are having this morning, which bring these matters to the attention of everyone concerned. We appreciate having your statement.

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you.

Mr. HARRIS. I would like to call on my colleague from Arkansas, Mr. Hays, who may have a very few minutes to present his views and offer suggestions regarding the proposals under consideration before the committee. We are very glad to have you present and express your feeling and sentiments regarding this matter, together with any suggestions you may have. You may start by telling a story if you like Mr. Hays.

STATEMENT OF HON. BROOKS HAYS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Mr. HAYS. The nearest I will come to telling a story is relating an incident that happened when my father took the census as a young enumerator in 1900. He went to one house to get census data and said to the man who came to the door "What is your full name?" and he said, "Randall J. Hearn." My father asked, "How do you spell it?" And the old man said "Spell it yourself stranger I'm a nonscholar." [Laughter.]

I think all of us have a deep interest in government and would enjoy being experts in this field. We would devote more time to

specialization except for the multitude of things with which we must deal. On most subjects we are "nonscholars.

I wish to apologize to the committee for not submitting a formal statement, and yet I think it is a service to you; because if I did undertake to dictate my statement, it would stretch out into a long document and I do not want to encumber the record.

I think, Mr. Chairman, the time has come for us to answer one fundamental question, and that is, Are the people of the District entitled to a voice in their local affairs? And unless we decide that affirmatively and are willing to take on the tough job of working out the mechanics upon which that principle will be applied, we will continue to be plagued eternally by this issue:

When President Truman submitted his civil rights statement in February of 1948, I was among the first to speak rather vehemently in opposition to it, because I did feel strongly regarding the fallacy of some of his proposals, but I feel some compulsions of conscience to be sure that in opposing some of his plan I do not indict those measure which have merit; and in that document I find one proposal, while of a secondary character, that has merit, namely the proposal to give to the District a voice in their local affairs.

When I say "secondary character" I mean, Mr. Chairman, that from the standpoint of national affairs it is not of primary interest, but for the people who live here it is certainly a consequential and important principle, not a matter of secondary interest.

Now I can appreciate the difficulties confronting this committee. When Mr. Auchincloss' subcommittee began to wrestle with the problem, I made some cursory studies of it and I was convinced that it presented many difficulties from the standpoint of legislative craftsmanship. Consequently I am entirely sympathetic when the committee points out those difficulties that are inherent in this situation; but if I might revert to the thing I said at the beginning, until we decide this basic and fundamental proposition of a voice in government by the District, we cannot as Members of Congress afford to present the difficulties and the conflicts as a defense. have got to face it frankly and decide whether or not we should give them a vote.

We

My interest in the problem arises partly from the fact that when I came here as an employee of the Treasury Department in 1919, I worked for the munificent stipend of $100 a month, and I was probably overpaid, Mr. Chairman; I lived for 3 years with these people and I went to law school at night. I learned from conversations, from listening to their grievances, and moving in their society that they felt very strongly about the denial of the fundamental rights of every American.

James Madison at no time thought that in the exercise of control over the District which was reserved to the Congress, we would use the provision as a denial of that right. It is evident in his simple statement that "of course they will have a municipal legislature" by which the determination of their purely local affairs might be recorded.

Now these are times in which it is wholesome for the people to reexplore those basic things on which our way of life depends. There is a new power challenging our concept of government and it has never been challenged so forcibly as at this hour. There is symbolic

value in our declaring that we believe so strongly in government by consent of the governed that we are inconveniencing ourselves to bestow it here.

I am not going to say, Mr. Chairman, that it would get better government than you have. I am saying there is a value in our form of government that cannot be measured in terms of efficiency and that is the element of participation. That is a spiritual quality and unless we believe it, many of our acts in the Congress will be negative and denial of the things we avow to the Communist world.

Now I know it is very easy to assume a pious role. I am on your side of the table now, Mr. Chairman, in what I am about to say. Mr. HARRIS. What do you mean by that?

Mr. HAYS. I mean, sir, I know the toughness of this problem and I am about to get on your side of the table and say it is very easy for a Member of Congress not a member of this committee to take a lofty position and say, "This problem has got to be solved on a categorical basis." I hope I will not be guilty of that.

Mr. HARRIS. The only reason I questioned your statement was, I do not want you to indicate to the newspapers and the record as well the public what my position might be on this matter, on the specific proposals before us.

Mr. HAYS. No; I certainly do not attribute any views to the chairI am speaking of the committee. I am on your side of the table in saying that more than generalizations are needed.

man.

Mr. HARRIS. I do want the record straight. There are six newspaper men right back of you.

Mr. HAYS. I am sorry about that.

Mr. HARRIS. And also a lady.

Mr. HAYS. Somebody said my speeches were poor, but they were never as poor as the newspapers make them.

Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to say is this, and I come back to the original proposition I made, that the first question we must decide is whether or not we believe that the District should govern its local affairs.

Now I personally have some pretty strong ideas about the reservation of congressional power to correct any serious mistake the public. might make, so that the Congress might work in an atmosphere of complete freedom from pressure. Now we sometimes think it was the experience of the Old World, the pressure of mass uprisings, that created such fear on the part of the founders that they would be subject to pressure that they made it possible to disfranchise residents of the District. The analogy is not good.

Mr. TEAGUE. Would you be in favor of ceding this area to Maryland?

Mr. HAYS. If this committee believed that would be the way to apply the principle for which I am pleading, I would be happy to support it, at least certain parts of the District. Any mechanical arrangement that this committee feels will implement the idea will have wide support in the Congress.

Mr. TEAGUE. The question has been asked me time and time again: "Do you think we can give the city home rule without changing the Constitution?"