* *

"Provided further, That the number of and total sum paid for civilian employees in the Quartermaster's Department shall be limited to the actual requirements of the service, and that no employee paid therefrom shall receive a salary of more than one hundred and fifty dollars per month except upon the approval of the Secretary of War."

The Secretary of War (just as in the Navy Department) appoints all clerks and fixes their salary, so that the matter is, as with us, entirely in his hands, and it is discretionary with him to pay more than $150 a month if he wishes to, as is shown by the above statement concerning extra pay for Philippine service. No chief of bureau in either department makes any appointment of clerks. I think this substantiates the ground that I have taken, and the proposition of limiting the sum which can be paid for clerk hire throughout the navy is still more stringent than that the army has enjoyed for many years. Personally, I think it is most inadvisable for Congress to limit the Secretary of the Navy, who is an executive officer and head of a very great department, and he certainly is worthy of the trust of Congress, and the salaries that he fixes must be within the limits of the sums allowed in the lump appropriations. Besides that, there are a number of men above the grade of clerks, as draftsmen, inspectors, scientific experts, chemists, etc., whose services can not be secured for such a sum as is allowed the best-paid clerks. There is not the slightest disposition on the part of the Navy Department to overpay anyone, so far as my observation, covering many years, goes, and I would decidedly recommend that the matter be left in his hands.

The CHAIRMAN. We are trying to keep these two services just alike, or as near alike as possible.

Paymaster-General ROGERS. I believe, although I am not certain of it, that if you would give us as much as the army clerks are paid, you would give us a greater sum than we ask for.

Mr. ROBERTS. I notice in this list "Principal clerk to storekeeper, at $1,600"

Paymaster-General ROGERS. That is the chief clerk. I have not included the chief clerks. I am only speaking of the under clerks. Some few of the chief clerks and paymasters' clerks are paid $1,800 and $1,900. I have only included the clerical force working under annual appropriations.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other matters that you wish to speak to the committee about?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. I have recommended to the Secretary of the Navy that assistant paymasters be promoted, after three years' service, the same as officers in the line and Medical Corps are. I do not think the paymasters should be left out. I should ask that assistant paymasters be put upon the same level as the other seagoing officers. It is recommended in the Secretary's report and it is recommended in mine.

Mr. ROBERTS. What is their status now?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. They simply wait for a vacancy, because the grade above them is limited.

Mr. PADGETT. Is that the substance of the bill that we reported last year that is on the calendar now?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. I do not think you have had it before vou in previous years.

Mr. PADGETT. I thought it was before us last year, this matter of assistant paymasters.

Paymaster-General ROGERS. No; that was paymasters' clerks. House bill 16558 in the Fifty-ninth Congress was favorably reported by the Committee on Naval Affairs of the House. It was supported by the Secretary of the Navy at that time-Mr. Bonaparte-but nothing was ever done about it. I ask this as a matter of justice only.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Yes, sir; one thing more. I am very anxious to get rid of this matter in the Paymaster-General's Annual Report [exhibiting report]. I recommended that also in my own annual report, and the Secretary of the Navy has approved it. There is a document of 371 pages, and commencing at page 48 and running to page 371 it simply itemizes 40,000 bids made during the fiscal year to the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts, which cost several hundred dollars to prepare and cost $1,400 to print; and nobody ever looks at it except the Paymaster-General. I would like to see that law amended.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you have to have a change in the law to stop doing that?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you not publish that as a separate document? Paymaster-General ROGERS. Yes, I could; but the expense is there. The preparation is expensive and I must prepare it, and then it must be printed; so that publishing it as a separate document would not do me any good.

Mr. ROBERTS. It would not save the Government anything?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. No, sir; it would not save the Govern

ment a cent.

The CHAIRMAN. How is it with other departments? Are these things published in other departments?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Wherever there are any bids. I have only spoken of my own bureau, because it has the largest number of these bids. We do more work in that character than any other department.

The CHAIRMAN. Do the other paymasters publish their bids?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. The War Department, and the other bureaus of the Navy Department. in a few cases where they have proposals; and then there are bids for docks, buildings, and ships that do not come under the Paymaster-General. We buy only supplies. Mr. ROBERTS. Do they do the same in the War Department? That is what the chairman asked you.

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Yes. This statute dates back to March

3, 1843.

The CHAIRMAN. The others do the same as you do?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Yes; this is section 429 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. The business of the navy has so grown that at present the printing of these things in that form occupied last year 320 pages, enumerating 40,000 bids received by the bureau, at a very considerable cost for printing alone, not to mention the time lost in the preparation of the necessary data. That necessary cost of printing was $1,375. There is the report that shows it to you, and it is a pure waste of money. Under our modern system all

of those bids are indexed and put in file cases, and anybody can see them that wants them. They need not pay anything at all to see them. There is a man in the bureau to give them all the information necessary. In addition to that they are published every week by a private company here, entitled "The Government Advertiser," which has thousands of subscribers, and it prints these bids every Thursday. This advertisement is issued and goes to thousands of dealers all over the country, not only for the Navy Department, but for every other department of the Government opening bids; so that this is a pure waste of money. The law is sixty-five years old.

Mr. HOBSON. You do not need to get the law changed to stop that, do you?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. What is necessary is to simply abolish that portion of section 429 of the Revised Statutes and stipulate that the bids shall always be open to public inspection at the request of any bidder who chooses to go into the office and look at them. Mr. HOBSON. That applies to the whole Government? Paymaster-General ROGERS. To any office that opens bids. Mr. HOBSON. Ought this committee to undertake to do that? Paymaster-General ROGERS. That is a question.

Mr. HOBSON. Would it be referred to this committee if it was put in the bill?

The CHAIRMAN. It would probably be referred to the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. PADGETT. You do not mean, literally, if this section was repealed that you would keep a man there as a clerk with nothing else to do but to wait on people coming in?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. Oh, no.

Mr. PADGETT. That would be only a part of his duties?
Paymaster-General ROGERS. Yes, sir. It is so now.

The CHAIRMAN. What amount of purchases were made in open market during last year, do you know?

Paymaster-General ROGERS. No; I can not tell you now, but I have got a report this year that is going to give you all possible information. It has been so voluminous that I have not yet been able to get it done; but I hope, in fact I am sure, it will be out this week, and if any one of the committee has time or takes interest enough to study the thing and see how different it is from all that has preceded it, I will be very glad to come before the committee again at any time you want me to, and go over it. It gives the committee what it has never had before, every item of appropriation under the Navy Department, without exception, and gives you all the information that you have asked for.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you put any of this matter you have here, any of those tables that you desire, into the record? Paymaster-General ROGERS. Yes, sir.

At 4.10 o'clock p. m. the committee adjourned until to-morrow. Tuesday, December 8, 1908, at o'clock a. m.

[No. 3.]

THE COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

Tuesday, December 8, 1908.

The committee this day met, Hon. George E. Foss in the chair.

STATEMENT OF REAR-ADMIRAL WILLIAM S. COWLES, CHIEF, BUREAU OF EQUIPMENT.

The CHAIRMAN. The first item is on page 40 of the bill, "Equip ment of vessels:" For hemp, wire, iron, and other materials for the manufacture of cordage, anchors, cables, galleys, and chains, etc. The language is the same, and the appropriation asked for is $3,936,500, an increase of $186,500. Will you kindly explain the necessity for that increase?

Admiral CowLES. The estimate originally submitted under this title for the fiscal year 1909 and approved by the department was $4,250,000, an increase of $1,000,000 over the appropriation for the previous fiscal year 1908. Congress, however, appropriated but $3,750,000, an increase of but $500,000. This increase will of necessity be made to suffice for the current fiscal year, but this can only be accomplished by the exercise of the most rigid economy and at the cost of much efficiency.

The estimate for the fiscal year 1910 as originally submitted was for $3,750,000, the same amount that was appropriated for the current fiscal year. Later, however, the estimates were returned to the bureau for modification as to the text, so as to provide for the payment from this appropriation for the services of clerks, draftsmen, inspectors, messengers, etc., at the various navy-yards and naval stations to an amount not to exceed $186,500.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the increase of $186,500 over last year what was allowed out of this appropriation for those services last year? Admiral CowLES. No. This amount provides for the payment of all civil employees under the Bureau of Equipment at the various navy-yards and stations. Some are now paid from this appropriation, some from "Coal and transportation," and some from other appropriations, including "Civil establishment," for which $38,028 has heretofore been appropriated, but which is now dropped from this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Heretofore out of what appropriation have you paid these men?

Admiral COWLES. Almost every appropriation under the Bureau of Equipment.

The CHAIRMAN. How many are there in the drafting, inspection, and messenger service in your bureau?

Admiral CoWLES. None of the employees in the bureau are included in this amount. They are all regularly appropriated for in the legislative bill or are paid from an allotment made by Congress from the appropriation "Increase of the navy, equipment."

The CHAIRMAN. I mean at the several navy-yards.
Admiral CowLES. One hundred and fifty-seven.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean in the "Civil establishment?"

Admiral CowLES. There are 30 that have regularly been appropriated for in the "Civil establishment." The others are paid from the several lump-sum appropriations under the Bureau of Equipment.

Mr. PADGETT. Is this $186,500 increase apparently simply a transfer of that amount from the "Civil establishment" to the lump sum? Admiral CowLES. It is a transfer of $38,028.

Mr. PADGETT. In the last bill the total of "Civil establishment, Bureau of Equipment" was $38,028, and this increase is $186,500. Can you tell us, Admiral, of the difference between the two?

Admiral COWLES. The difference is in the payment of these civil classified employees of the bureau at the various navy-yards and stations who are not specifically appropriated for in "Civil establishment," but are paid per diem salaries from lump-sum appropriation. Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. Under what head have they been appropriated before?

Admiral COWLES. As stated above, they have never been appropriated for.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand there are really two classes of individuals, so to speak, the regular "Civil establishment" on the annual roll, and then the per diem employees who did not appear in our bill heretofore.

Mr. PADGETT. Were not the per diem men included before in the general appropriation of $3,750,000?

The CHAIRMAN. I think they were, probably, were they not.

Admiral CowLES. Only in part. Some are now paid from other appropriations as well as the one under consideration.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. Have you a copy of the order which shows just what was ordered to be done?

Admiral CowLES. Yes, sir.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. Can we not have a copy of that order?
Admiral CowLES. Yes, sir; I quote it:

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, October 23, 1908.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE BUREAU OF EQUIPMENT.

In connection with estimates for the naval service for the fiscal year 1910 the Secretary desires the following changes made:

Strike out item under "Civil establishment" and include under "Equipment of vessels" an amount sufficient to cover present classified employees now paid from civil establishment, as well as those paid from lump appropriation, plus 10 per cent. Insert following wording under "Equipment of vessels:" Provided, That the sum to be paid out of this appropriation under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy for clerical, drafting, inspection, and messenger service at the several navy-yards, naval stations, and coaling stations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1910, shall not exceed $

Mr. PADGETT. Under this provision for the increase and transfer of the "Civil establishment" to the lump-sum appropriation is it contemplated to increase the number of clerks and also the pay of the clerks?

Admiral COWLES. To increase the pay, but not the number.
Mr. PADGETT. There is no increase in the number?

Admiral CowLES. No, sir.