Mr. BUTLER. Do I understand that to be the market value?
Paymaster-General ROGERS. The value in the storehouses.
Mr. BUTLER. Is that what they cost the Government?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Yes, sir; at the average cost, of course. If we pay 8 cents for one lot and 10 cents for another lot, the average price is 9 cents.

Mr. BUTLER. The purchase price?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. The average issuing price. We average the issues together, so as not to carry too many accounts. Copper will run from 13 cents to 21 cents. We have some that cost 13 cents and some that cost 21 cents. You will remember that the price was 21 cents for a few months. It is now bought at 13 cents. We would not issue it at cost, but at the average of the lot. So the price at which the copper is carried is strictly at the rate of what it cost the United States.

Mr. THOMAS. What is the value of the old stock?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. We have gotten rid of almost all of

that.

Mr. BUTLER. Since you became Paymaster-General?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. I will not say that; partly since I became Paymaster-General.

Mr. BUTLER. How much of this accumulation is obsolete or worn out?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. There is very little of it worn out or obsolete now.

Mr. PADGETT. What has become of the reserve ammunition that was on hand?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Nothing, so far as I know.
Mr. PADGETT. It is still on hand?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Yes, sir, I believe so.

Mr. BUTLER. Could you give me the value of the things which have been accumulating?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Thirty-two million dollars of ammunition and ordnance stores (including guns) alone, more than half; $4,615,000 of metals.

Mr. BUTLER. Which can be used, of course?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Yes, sir; $1,500,000 in timber, $1,190,000 in anchor-gear chains, etc.

Mr. BUTLER. All useful for naval purposes?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Almost every one of them. I do not think there is much useless stock left in the navy-yards. There is still some, but it is a very difficult matter to persuade the people of the navy-yards to so regard it.

The CHAIRMAN. What are some of the other general items?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. One million dollars of boats. Altogether the articles that are specific for navy use amount to $44,000,000, which leaves only $18,000,000 of general stores, commercial stores. I admit that this is a very unsatisfactory report. You must remember that you asked me this question in the spring and it took quite a long time to work out the scheme. We could not put this into operation at the beginning of the fiscal year, July 1, but we will put it into operation the first of next month.

Mr. BUTLER. How many obsolete stores have you disposed of in the last year?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. I can not tell you immediately; but when the losses on the obsolete stores were written off, the difference between what they brought and what they were worth was about $658,000. That was written off.

Mr. PADGETT. What became of them?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. They were all sold.

Mr. THOMAS. You have not the amounts in dollars and cents of each one of those items?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. No, sir. I certainly will be able to report them at the next Congress, as the new plan goes into operation January 1. The order and this classification has been sent to all the navy-yards and on the 1st of January they will open 65 accounts, enumerated as you see them there. We will get, quarterly, from every navy-yard in the country a balance sheet showing the valuation of each one of the classes, so that if we find that New York has $2,000,000 of any one of those classes and Norfolk has only $100,000– one is overstocked and the other understocked-we have the knowledge to enable us to move the overstock from New York to supply the deficiency in Norfolk, which we have never had before.

Mr. BUTLER. That is in the right direction.

Mr. ROBERTS. You spoke about $1,000,000 of boats. Those are boats under construction or reserve boats?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Reserve boats.

Mr. ROBERTS. As I read the language of this provision on page 13, it provides that the number may be increased or decreased at the Secretary's option and that they shall be distributed at the various navyyards and naval stations by the Secretary of the Navy to meet the needs of the naval service, and then it goes on and says that they shall have thirty days' leave. What is the purpose of that language?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. If a yard has more clerks than it needs, if its activities are so reduced that it does not need certain clerks, the Secretary of the Navy can abolish certain clerkships at Norfolk, we will say, and increase them at the naval training station on the Great Lakes, which does need clerks.

Mr. ROBERTS. At the bottom of the page there is a proviso that the total amount expended annually for clerical, drafting, and messenger force shall not exceed the amounts specifically allowed by Congress under the several lump appropriations?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Yes, sir; each one of the lump appropriations contains a specific sum beyond which the Secretary can not go. You will find that in all of them.

Mr. ROBERTS. That is not a lump appropriation for the yards, but for the department?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Not for the department itself. For "Construction and repair," "Steam machinery," "Ordnance," etc.the bureau appropriations which pay clerks outside of the depart

ment.

Mr. ROBERTS Under that wording, if it were found that there were too many clerks in construction, we will say, and not enough in steam engineering, the Secretary could take enough out of construction and discharge them or abolish them and put them into steam engineering, provided the total of steam engineering did not exceed the amount appropriated under that department?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. No, sir; I can see no way that the Secretary of the Navy can possibly exceed the amount specifically stated under steam engineering, or under any other bureau.

Mr. ROBERTS. Then, that proviso is a hamper to him that he can not exceed?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. No, sir. That is what he himself

recommends.

Mr. ROBERTS. It is a check?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBERTS. For the benefit of the service, would it not be better in every way to have just one lump appropriation for salaries? Paymaster-General ROGERS. Unquestionably.

Mr. ROBERTS. Instead of having a lump appropriation for each department out of which he can pay a certain amount for salaries, would it not be better to figure up how much he wants for salaries for all the departments and make a lump appropriation?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Yes, sir; unquestionably.

Mr. ROBERTS. Then, if it was found necessary to largely increase the number of clerks under Steam Engineering, for example, and to decrease the number under some other department, he could do it without being limited?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Undoubtedly that would be very much

better.

Mr. ROBERTS. In other words, it seems to me that the move is in the right direction, only you have not gone quite far enough to accomplish all that is desired.

Paymaster-General ROGERS. You must remember that we have Congress and its opinions to consider. We have only proposed to Congress what we thought it would accept. I never dreamed that Congress would go as far as you suggest. And I think it better now to approve the plan suggested and try it.

Mr. PADGETT. Under the proposition that you have submitted there is remaining in Congress some apportionment of this fund to the different departments instead of, as suggested by Mr. Roberts, just a general appropriation for the whole Navy Department.

Paymaster-General ROGERS. This provision is identical in all of the lump appropriations out of which the clerks are now paid, only it now goes a step further; it limits the expenditures for clerical hire.

Mr. PADGETT. Instead of one general appropriation for all clerical hire, this reserves to Congress an apportionment to the different bureaus?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Yes, sir. I wish to say that "Increase of the navy" is not considered in this; that stands by itself. This is only the working annual appropriations of the Navy Department. Mr. ROBERTS. If this is adopted, there will be no salaries paid out of "Increase of the navy?"

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Yes, sir; some of them will continue. Mr. ROBERTS. Why not take that out?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. That sum will die with "Increase of the navy."

Mr. ROBERTS. But that is not going to die.

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Congress has already limited it so far as the bureaus are concerned. There is no reason why they should

do it again. Congress has said what total sum can be expended for clerks and draftsmen under "Increase of the navy" appropriations for bureaus. It is already in the statute.

Mr. PADGETT. With reference to leave of absence under the act of thirty days or fifteen days, with reference to per diem employees, has the department any fixed regulation or policy for the allowing of leave of absence to per diem men? For instance, to illustrate what I mean, suppose a per diem man comes to work; when is he entitled to leave?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. After the end of one year's service. Mr. PADGETT. A per diem man does not get leave of absence until he has been in the service twelve months?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. No, sir. He gets at the rate of one and one-fourth days a month, which equals fifteen days a year.

If there is any further question about this clerk matter, I would like very much that it be asked, if it is not clear, as I am very much interested in the question.

The CHAIRMAN. How many grades have you of clerical services at the present time, and at what rate of pay do you start the clerks in the navy?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. The rates vary now. The highest per diem pay that is paid anyone in the general storekeeper's department is $4.48 per diem, and there are but three in the entire service that are paid that amount.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the lowest rate?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Messenger, at $1.52 per diem.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there not any grades of clerks?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Only by per diem pay-$1.52, $1.76, $2, $2.24, $2.48, $2.76; $3.04, $3.28, $3.52, $3.60, $4, and $4.48, up to $5.04 in a very few cases. In the civil establishment the highest salary is $1,400, and that is a single man at New York NavyYard. With that exception, the highest pay is from $1,200 to $1,300 a year, and not many at the latter rate.

Mr. ROBERTS. In your department?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Yes, sir. I am speaking only of the Supplies and Accounts department, in which we have but one clerk at the yards in the United States paid $1,400. So far as I know, no other bureau has any clerks at a higher rate than $1,400 a year, though they have more at that rate than the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts. In this, of course, I am not including chief clerks in any case; some of these are paid more, and the chemists and laboratorians, draftsmen, and scientific experts.

The CHAIRMAN. What will be the highest salary under this ar'rangement?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. There is no limit fixed, except for the

chemists.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you tell us what the department's view is? Paymaster-General ROGERS. Of course I do not know the Secretary's views, and he doubtless will be able to give them to you when he appears before you, but, in view of my experience with him and with the Navy Department in this matter, I have no hesitation in expressing a very confident opinion that Congress can safely trust the moderation of the Secretary in the matter of fixing salaries, for the tendency has been for many years not to increase them until

the present condition has been brought about, when some increase is imperative. It is proposed to increase the salary of the chemist at New York from $2,500 to $2,750, which is the most important laboratory we have; the chemist at Mare Island from $2,000 to $2,200, and so on. The chemists will then be paid $2,750, $2,200, and two at $2,100.

The CHAIRMAN. The other day I saw in the paper a statement of a number of increases made by the Secretary in clerk hire and one thing and another in connection with the navy.

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Yes, sir. I have already stated that the Secretary has increased the pay of all the clerks at the navyyards 10 per cent, with a provision that no compensation shall be increased over $200. The estimates submitted by me to-day are following on that line, and I wish to emphasize again that many of these increases are already made and the estimates submitted are to continue them, not to make further general increases.

The CHAIRMAN. If you have the figures of the army on this same character of service, I would like to have you put them in the record. Paymaster-General ROGERS. The salaries of army clerks in the departments corresponding to those of the navy are paid from $840 to $1,800 per annum in the United States, with a temporary increase of about $200 or less when any of them are transferred for a three years' tour in the Philippines. Something less than 20 per cent of their clerks are paid from $1,500 to $1,800, about 12 per cent $1,400, and the balance from $1,200 down, about 30 per cent of them being at $1,200 and $1,400. These figures, of course, are approximate, but they give an idea of their status. The army estimates annually contain the provision for the money that is to be spent for clerks, but there is, so far as I am informed, no specific limitations of that, as is now proposed for the navy. A casual examination of the act of March 2, 1907, the army appropriation bill, shows that as a general rule the clerks for War Department bureaus similar to those of the Navy Department are provided for, without limiting the number of clerks, though the estimate of the expenditures is, as stated above, contained in the annual estimates. For instance, Subsistence Department states as follows: "For compensation of civilians employed in the Subsistence Department." The Quartermaster's Department provides for " clerks for post quartermasters at military posts;" and, again, for "compensation of clerks and other employees of the Quartermaster's Department, and clerks, foremen, watchmen, and organist for the United States military prison." In the Ordnance Department the appropriation "Ordnance service" calls for "current expenses of the Ordnance Department ** * prison police and office duties.". The Engineer Department appropriation, " Engineer depots," provides for "civilian clerks, mechanics, and laborers," and so on through the several bureaus. However, in the office of the Chief of Staff there is a civil establishment specifically providing for clerks, as, for instance, " 6 clerks, at $1,800 per annum; 15 clerks, at $1.600 per annum, etc." Regarding Mr. Padgett's question as to whether it would be advisable to limit the salaries to be fixed by the Secretary of the Navy under lump appropriations, I know of no provision of statute law making such a limit, but the following paragraph has been included year after year in the army appropriation bill under the Quartermaster's Department:

66