and the representatives of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on H. R. 5147, I would be disposed to recommend that this committee chuck both of those bills out of the window and tell the representatives of those organizations that until they can get together and present a compromised bill that the Committee on Civil Service will not pass legislation that does not have the wholehearted support of the two major veteran organizations.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lofgren.

The next witness will be Mary A. Williams, of the Regular Veterans Woman's Association.

STATEMENT OF MARY A. WILLIAMS, LEGISLATIVE OFFICER, REGULAR VETERANS WOMAN'S ASSOCIATION

Mrs. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am Mary A. Williams, legislative officer, Regular Veterans Woman's Association, companion group to Regular Veterans Association. Our national headquarters are located at 5182 Fulton Street NW., Washington, D. C.

One of the mandates of our 1937 national convention was protection of civil-service preference rights for veterans. No distinction was made in this mandate as we have always and shall continue to interpret the word "veteran" as one who has served his country unselfishly, wholeheartedly, and voluntarily in the armed forces giving his health, limbs, or even his life when the service demanded it.

Mr. Nieman, Regular Veterans Association, has ably presented the reactions of the R. V. A. to the bill now before this committee for consideration, and my organization composed of the wives, widows, mothers, and adult daughters and sisters of Regulars unreservedly endorses every word he has said.

The American principles of justice demand that there be no longer any discrimination between our war and Regular veterans, and certainly it cannot be within the wishes or aspiration of any American to really want such discrimination.

Gentlemen, R. V. W. A. adds their plea to the opposition to the bill under consideration. If the committee should report out a bill when our prayer is that there be no discrimination whatsoever practiced or sought against our Regulars and his dependents for the Regular has never, and will never, let us down.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mrs. Williams.
The next witness will be Mr. Crim.

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. CRIM, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, ARMY AND NAVY UNION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. CRIM. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John J. Crim and I am legislative chairman of the Army and Navy Union with offices at 1330 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington,

D. C.

Mr. Rice, the representative of Veterans of Foreign Wars, gave a complete detailed statement of the stand that our organization takes in regard to the two bills. If there is any preference between the two bills, we are solely behind H. R. 5147. It is a more comprehensive study of the problem facing veterans as a whole; far more than H. R.

5100. We would recommend, too, that provisions be taken from H. R. 5101 and provisions also be taken from H. R. 5047, if this committee see fit to draft new legislation or a new bill, that they can take good potent factors as outlined here this morning or the good features of these two bills and combine them in a bill reported out by this committee.

I want in conclusion to thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you and express our appreciation. I might add in conclusion that the Army and Navy Union comprises thousands of men who have served from the Civil War to the present date and you can appreciate that our stand naturally would be for H. R. 5147 as compared to H. R. 5001. Our organization now comprises 598,510 life members and paying members bring it up to over 600,000 members. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT BY THOMAS KIRBY, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS

Mr. Chairman, the position of the Disabled American Veterans on pending proposals on veterans' preferences may be briefly stated.

The legislative program adopted at our national convention last summer carries two civil-service items. One asks that through Executive orders or legislation the Disabled American Veterans urge stricter enforcement of the present preferences under the United States Civil Service Commission, while the second proposes that in all cases where a disabled veteran is to be skipped on the civilservice register and a nonveteran or a nondisabled veteran selected, the serviceconnected veteran shall be furnished with written reasons why he was not selected and be afforded an opportunity to rebut before final appointment is made.

We are thoroughly convinced that the Federal appointing officers are not now administering the preferences in the spirit in which the preferences were adopted. We realize, as has been brought out in the present and past hearings that annually there become of age about 2,000,000 boys and girls making an aggregate since the Armistice of about 40,000,000 and, some of these who were minors during the war are now approaching 40 years of age, are married, have dependents and are seeking employment. We further understand that over the years about 20 percent of all civil-service appointments have been to veterans and there is not the slightest doubt that many of these appointments have been traceable to conscientious application of the preferences.

Nevertheless, we feel that the Federal Government has an enduring obligation to the men—particularly the wartime disabled men-who served faithfully in the national emergency when the continuance of American institutions was imperiled. That we are not alone in this belief is shown by the actions of successiveCongresses and successive Presidents-regardless of party-in endeavoring to have the former service men in a preferred class so far as opportunities for employment by the Government they served in time of war are concerned.

Proceding from this premise, we fail to see that this problem is going to be solved merely by enacting provision after provision intended to be liberalizing when we know that the orders and laws now on the books are not being adhered to. Therefore, our interest at the moment is in legislation calculated to hold appointing officers to strict accountability for the employment of veterans in the spirit upon which the preferences are based.

Our experience has shown that on the matter of educational and experienced examinations the problem is relatively easy as compared to actually getting the men on the job when they have qualified through tests. To state this differently, most of the grief and disappointment and disgust in the present situation is in getting from the register to the position, rather than getting on the register.

The thought has been advanced in these hearings that if the 5- and 10-point preferences on examinations for veterans should be eliminated the existing preferences would be less vulnerable to attack for it would then be properly contended that the organized veterans were not asking for these jobs for anyone who has not passed the regular examination to prove fitness for appointment, without any concessions that do not go to the whole group of applicants.

Conceding the soundness of this contention, the Disabled American Veterans desires to record itself most emphatically against the loss of these extra points

unless and until the Congress grants at least the equal in the way of improving the chances of appointment of veterans who have passed the standard tests. Merely to explain, if the disabled veteran is to lose his present 10 points and advancement to the very top of the register regardless of his passing mark, we earnestly urge that there be modifications looking toward enhancing his chances of appointment. This might be done, if the same entrance requirements must be met by all, to add 30 or 40 points to the actual earned rating, in order that the veteran may be within reach for appointment.

For several years the Disabled American Veterans has been pounding against the utterly unfair and even un-American system now permitting the skipping of veterans with the appointing officers giving merely a highly confidential reason or excuse to which the veteran does not even have access. In other words, it would be comparable to arresting, indicting, trying, and sentencing a man without even permitting him to know the offense with which he was charged. We, therefore, again propose that when a disabled veteran is skipped, he shall be furnished with written reasons why he was not selected and be afforded an opportunity to rebut before final appointment is made. If the personnel chiefs are really in need of the employees asked, they are not likely to hold up the work of their office during the period required for rebuttal by the veteran merely through a desire to prevent the veteran getting the job. But, aside from that feature, it is believed that if these written reasons are revealed to the veteran and he has a chance to answer, the psychological effect upon the appointing officer is likely to go far toward improving the present highly unsatisfactory conditions.

To summarize, the Disabled American Veterans believes the immediate need is enforcement of the preferences through a spirit of administration to carry out their real intent. Therefore, it would seem this committee is at the fork of three roads. One would be to do nothing; the second to add further preferences to the statutes, and the third would be to provide for real enforcement of the present preferences.

It is conceded that the situation is unsatisfactory, so it is sincerely hoped this committee will act shortly to improve the conditions. Convinced that the preferences now existing are not being carried out, we fail utterly to see the logic in the expectation that there mere adding of other preferences would be enforced, so our plea is for enforcement legislation. This having been done and having had the advantage of experience in observance of the workings we may later return to propose other provisions. But, in the present crisis, our cry is for legislation guaranteeing administrative compliance with the obvious intent of the Congress.

NATIONAL LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS,

Washington, D. C., May 4, 1939. STATEMENT OF NATIONAL LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS IN OPPOSITION TO SPECIAL PREFERENCE FOR WAR VETERANS IN CIVIL SERVICE LEGISLATION

On the occasion of the consideration by your committee of bills relating to the appointment of veterans to positions in the civil service the National League of Women Voters would like to reiterate its position on veterans preference. We have been working over a long period of years in behalf of the establishment and effective operation of merit systems in the civil service. We have learned that no true merit system is possible when factors other than those relating to the ability of applicants are considered in connection with appointment to positions in the public service. Furthermore, only when appointments are made solely on the basis of merit and qualifications will it be possible to attract to Government employment the best qualified young people in the country, and upon the quality of the public service depends the effective functioning of democratic government. We recognize that the service of veterans during time of war entitles them to full consideration and assistance in readjusting to peace time conditions. In our opinion, however, indiscriminate preference in connection with appointments to Government positions is not the best means of meeting this problem. If the public service is to justify its name and give full return to the citizens of the country deviations from the merit principle on behalf of special groups cannot be accepted.

LOUISE G. BALDWIN,

Mrs. HARRIS T. BALDWIN,

First Vice President, National League of Women Voters.

Hon. ROBERT RAMSPECK,

THE AMERICAN LEGION, Indianapolis, Ind., May 8, 1939.

Chairman, House Committee on the Civil Service, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. RAMSPECK: Reference is made to letter of April 13, 1939, addressed to you by Harry B. Mitchell, president of the Civil Service Commission, commenting upon H. R. 5101, our bill on the subject of veterans' preference.

It is noted that the letter approves the general purpose of the bill but suggests several changes which it is claimed will improve its operation and clarify its provisions. Some of these suggestions seem to have that effect, and, as Chairman of the National Veterans' Preference Committee of the American Legion, I would not wish to oppose. Some others I can do nothing but oppose.

There

is little logic in amending a bill designed for the very purpose of giving veterans reasonable preference in such manner as to destroy that purpose. For the sake of convenience I will answer the matters raised in the letter in the order in which they are raised, as far as possible.

The suggestion is made that the word "present" be inserted before the word "existence" in line 4 of section 2 (b), defining a disabled veteran. The insertion of this word will, instead of clarifying the meaning, actually obscure it. The rules of the Civil Service Commission have this word in them. In such rules it can probably clarify the meaning. But the use of the word in a statute would immediately call upon the court, or at least raise a very great question, to construe it to mean that the word "present" must refer to the date of the passage of the act, and therefore a disabled veteran would have to have the service connected disability actually existing at the time of the passage of the act, whereas both myself and, I believe, the Commission desire to make it necessary for the disability to exist at the time the veteran makes application for the position. In drafting the bill the word "present" was purposely left out for this reason and I cannot consent to its insertion because, under ordinary rules of statutory construction, it, in my opinion, would likely defeat the very meaning which both the Commission and myself have in mind.

In the question raised as to the definition of "preference wife," here, again, the writer is obviously unfamiliar with statutory construction. Section 2 (d) is part of the paragraph of definitions which states at the beginning that, "Wherever used in this act" certain words mean certain things. Section 2 (b) has already defined "disabled veteran" to mean a veteran who establishes, by official records, the existence of a service-connected disability, or a veteran over 55 years of age, etc. Therefore the word "disabled veteran" as used in section 2 (d) means a disabled veteran as defined in 2 (b). If the objection of the Commission is that a preference wife should not mean the wife of a disabled veteran of the alternative class (over 55 years, etc.), then I cannot accept the amendment, for I see no reason to narrow the class, since any such disabled veteran must be himself not qualified for employment in the service of the Federal Government. Since he himself would get the preference as a disabled veteran, there is no good reason why his wife should not get it if he is not qualified, etc.

The objections to section 3 are mostly well taken. It is not the purpose of the bill to place all the services referred to under civil service. It is believed that such an attempt would not only be abortive but would defeat the bill. On the other hand it is intended to provide for veterans' preference in the unclassified service and all other agencies of the Government as far as it is feasible to do so. A redraft of section 3 has therefore been made, together with redrafts of several other sections in this connection, such redrafts being attached hereto. I presume, if satisfactory to you, they can be made as committee amendments to the bill.

The objection to the word "reinstatement" contained in section 3 also seems to be well taken. As I can think of no way of covering this particular situation, the word "reinstatement" has been omitted from the redraft of that section, as you will note.

The suggested proviso addition to section 4 is wholly meaningless to me and I certainly cannot consent to it. The bill already provides that the 5 and 10 points shall only be added if a passing grade shall have been made. The effect of the additional language “and that they shall be physically able to perform the duties of the position for which the application is made" is that the 5 and 10 points be added only if this physical ability exists. In the first place an examination of the entire bill will show no intention whatever to enforce the appointment of a veteran actually physically unable to perform the job. Those sections which are designed to prevent his exclusion from consideration because of a disability which does not

physically incapacitate him from performing the duties of the particular position for which he is an applicant clearly and obviously recognize the fact that any disability which will do so is sufficient to bar the veteran, just as it is understood it would bar a nonveteran. The design of these latter sections is to prevent the rejection of the veteran under some arbitrary list of physical requirements which may not be of actual practical necessity in the performance of the duties for a particular position. Every part of the bill recognizes the necessity of rejection if the disability is of such a character as to prevent that practical performance. But, in the second place, it is impossible for me to see any sense in a proviso which says that he shall have the 5 and 10 points added on in case he is physically able to do the work, because if that is the case he is out of the running anyhow and what difference does it make whether you give him the 5 and 10 points or not, or whether you give him no points or 100 points? Whatever may be the idea behind the suggested wording, it is certainly out of place where it has been put, and makes absolutely no sense.

As to the suggestion that the word "resumed" end section 5, this served to call my attention to the fact that probably the section should end after the word "service" before the word "but." It seems only reasonable that the veteran should have the benefit of the experience gained before the war in a particular kind of employment whether he resumes it or not after the war. In the first place, while the experience may have been some time ago, it is still experience and valuable. Human beings do not forget everything they ever learned before just because a war comes along. And it was the war and the service that interrupted the employment. It is a known fact that after the war thousands and thousands of men could not resume the type of employment they had before the war, not because they did not wish to do so, but because somebody who wasn't in the service had their old jobs and they could not find similar ones. Therefore I have made a redraft of this section, which I would ask to be substituted for the original. The veteran should not be deprived of the benefit of this experience just because he couldn't find similar work after the war.

I cannot agree that the suggested change in section 6 is at all beneficial to either the veteran or the service. It should and must be clearly understood that great reliance and confidence in the fairness and integrity of the Civil Service Commission is placed by the provisions of the bill. If this were not so the bill would certainly be of an entirely different character. This is clearly demonstrated by the wording of section 6. The requirement for the waiver of all the conditions set forth is based upon the conclusion that they "are not essential to the performance of the duties of the position for which the examination is given," and furthermore it is provided that the veteran's qualifications shall be judged "upon the basis of his actual knowledge and ability to perform the duties of the said position." Who determines whether any particular requirement is essential to the performance of the duties of a particular position? The Civil Service Commission, of course. Such fact is no more than a conclusion, in any event, to be determined by sound discretion, and that discretion is placed in the Civil Service Commission. The same thing is true as to the determination of the sufficiency of actual knowledge and ability. It seems clear to me that the Commission has under the present wording of the bill just as much control over the situation as it would have under the wording suggested. Under these circumstances the use of the word "shall" in the act instead of "may" in the letter, means simply that it must apply to all cases in which the conditions referred to exist and not merely to one individual and not to another, thus preventing the inference of discrimination by allowing the door to be open to such discrimination by use of the word "may." It in no way interferes with the sound discretion of the Commission to determine whether or not a physical disability makes impossible the performance of the duties of any particular position, which, of course, is the vitally important point. As to the change suggested with regard to the medical officers, it is agreeable to me that after the word "Administration," there be added "or, in the event that such recommendation cannot be procured without undue inconvenience and expense to the preference eligible, then of any accredited physician in the service of the United States." This, I think, should meet the Commission's suggestion on that point, because, it will be noted, all that is required is that the Commission shall give due consideration to such recommendation, and it is also believed that the Commission will fairly and honestly do so. I believe that the construction in the Commission's letter to be given to section 12 is the correct one, so there is nothing further to be said on that score: i. e., as to the question of sex, etc.

I do not find any reference to "reinstatement" in section 12. As to the suggestion that reemployment be confined to those veterans whose efficiency rating has