"It is conceded that the Government Printing Office is neither one of the Execu tive Departments named in section 158 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, nor an office in one of those departments, but it does not follow, as the writer confidently argues, that therefore the office in question is neither within the letter or spirit of the civil-service law. On the contrary, it is contended that by applying the ordinary rules governing the interpretation and construction of statutes, it will be seen that the civil-service law was intended to and does in fact include within the sphere of its operation such an office as the Government Printing Office, as much so as it includes any one of the Executive Departments named in section 158 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, about which all are agreed.

"Before considering the language of the civil-service law to determine the intention of Congress in enacting it, a glance at the reasons that induced its passage will be of advantage.

"For more than half a century prior to 1883, it had been a political doctrine that the civil offices of the Government belonged to the political party that happened to be in the ascendency, to be used by it to maintain and extend its influence and control. By a judicious distribution of patronage, electors could be influenced to cast their ballots for this or that candidate for public office. Public employment became the object of barter and sale, and the administration of Government, of necessity, corrupt, inefficient, and unduly expensive. The departments, bureaus, and offices comprising the civil service were rife with scandal of all sorts, and the condition of affairs had nearly reached the proportions of a national disgrace, when an aroused and outraged public sentiment crystallized into the legislative enactment known as the civil-service law. Among the offices of the civil service that afforded texts to those citizens who were demanding the abolition of the spoils system not the least was the Government Printing Office. As early as 1860 we find the chairman of the House Printing Committee, Mr. Gurley, of Ohio, speaking of the office in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, declaring that 'the efforts of the spoilsmen of all parties have ever been to crush out the labors of those seeking a radical and genuine reform in that department,' and again 'as the printing spoils have been regarded as among the most valuable under the Government, mere politicians have always had a strong desire to retain them.' This speech was made while advocating a bill regarding the Printing Office which was intended to eradicate the spoils evil, that nearly forty years ago was embarrassing to the proper administration of this very office. Ten years later, Senator Anthony, of the Senate Committee on Printing, after an investigation of the office, in a report to the Senate, said, among other things:

"Inasmuch as the Government pays the highest price known to the craft, it seems but fair that it should have the best class of workmen. Much of the Government printing is of a kind that requires this class of workmen. Some of it is difficult, and much of it requires to be executed with great promptness. It often happens that the convenience of the two Houses of Congress requires reports and documents to be furnished in the earliest possible time, and so soon that only workmen of high skill and proficiency can accomplish it. This is the class of workmen to whose services the Government is entitled by the compensation which it pays, and in the opinion of the committee, the Congressional Printer would be guilty of as gross dereliction as any with which he is charged if he should prefer, in the patronage of his office, men whose claims are partisan rather than mechanical.

"The committee need not remind Senators how often applications for service in the Government Printing Office are made, not on the ground that the applicants are good printers, but on the ground that they are good Republicans. Among the grievances alleged by the complainants in the case before us is that having rendered good service to the Republican party they have been superseded by others of inferior political claims.

"However necessary it may be under our system of government to make political orthodoxy a test of office in the usual sense in which the word 'office' is employed, it

must be plain that the introduction of that system into the mechanical service of the Government is fatal to efficiency, subordination, and responsibility.

"While in every department of the Government service those who have served in the war for the preservation of the Union should have, other things being equal, a preference, the controlling condition of employment must be mechanical or professional ability; and if any other rule be adopted, the sooner the Government Printing Office is abolished and we return to the contract system the better it will be for the Government.'

"Still later, in 1876, after another investigation of this office by the House of Representatives, the Committee on Printing, in the course of its report, stated:

"The internal management of the office over which he (the Congressional Printer) presides is, if anything, still more deficient. Men have been employed on account of their influence alone, while the testimony shows their complete unfitness to earn the wages they receive.'

"Speeches and reports such as these were a part of the records of Congress when it began the consideration of the Pendleton bill.

"This brief review of the conditions prevailing in the civil service at the time of the passage of the law under consideration may be necessary to determine the mischief the law was intended to remedy.

* * #

"We come now to the act itself. It is entitled 'An act to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States.' Section 1 provides for the appointment and removal, salaries, and traveling expenses of the Civil Service Commissioners. "Section 2, among other things, provides: 'It shall be the duty of all officers of the United States in the departments and offices to which any such rules may relate to aid in all proper ways in carrying said rules and any modifications thereof into effect.'

"Again, in the second paragraph of section 2 the law provided, 'first, for open competitive examinations for testing the fitness of applicants for the public service now classified or to be classified hereunder.'

so.

*

*

“Paragraph 5 provides that no person in the public service is for that reason under any obligation to contribute to any political fund, or to render any political service, and that he will not be removed or otherwise prejudiced for refusing to do Sixth, that no person in said service has any right to use his official authority or influence to coerce the political action of any person or body.' "Paragraph 4 of section 2 provides that 'Said Commission may make investigations concerning the facts and may report upon all matters touching the enforcement and effects of said rules and regulations, and concerning the action of any examiner or board of examiners hereinafter provided for and its own subordinates, and those in the public service, in respect to the execution of this act.'

"Section 5 provides a penalty for any person in the public service who shall willfully and corruptly defeat, deceive, or obstruct any person in respect of his or her right of examination,' etc.

"Paragraph 3 of section 6 has already been sufficiently quoted.

"Section 7 provides that after the expiration of six months from the passage of this act, no officer or clerk shall be appointed, and no person shall be employed to enter or be promoted in either of the said classes now existing or that may be arranged hereunder pursuant to said rules until he has passed an examination, or is shown to be especially exempted from such examination in conformity herewith. But nothing herein contained shall be construed to take from those honorably discharged from the military or naval service any preference conferred by the seventeen hundred and fifty-fourth section of the Revised Statutes, nor to take from the President any authority not inconsistent with this act conferred by the seventeen hundred and fifty-third section of said statutes; nor shall any officer not in the executive branch of the Government, or any person merely employed as a laborer or workman, be required to be classified hereunder; nor, unless by direction of the Senate, shall any person who has been nominated for confirmation by the Senate be required to be classified or to pass an examination.'

"Section 11 of the act prohibits any assessments from any officer, clerk, or employee of the United States or any department, branch or bureau thereof, or from any person receiving any salary or compensation for moneys derived from the Treasury of the United States,' for any political purpose, and prohibits any employee from receiving any assessments, subscriptions, or contributions for political purposes. "Section 14 provides as follows:

“That no officer, clerk, or other person in the service of the United States, shall, directly or indirectly, give or hand over to any other officer, clerk, or person in the service of the United States, or to any Senator or Member of the House of Representatives, or Territorial Delegate, any money or other valuable thing on account of or to be applied to the promotion of any political object whatever.'

"In each of the foregoing extracts of the statute is to be found evidences of the legislative intent as to the sphere or scope of the enactment, and surely it is plain that it is the entire civil or public service of the executive branch of the Government that is covered by the provisions of the law, and not merely the Executive Departments named in section 158 of the Revised Statutes. The legal adviser of the Public Printer, by a convenient twist of the language of the third paragraph of the civil-service law, quoted above, makes that portion of it appear much narrower in effect than the plain reading of the statute justifies. Says he, 'If, therefore, the Government Printing Office is not one of those departments, or an office in one of them,' etc. Now, the language of the third paragraph of section 6 of the statute is, as we have seen, 'that from time to time each of the heads of the departments mentioned in the one hundred and fifty-eighth section of the Revised Statutes, and each head of an office shall respectively revise,' etc. Not each head of the various offices in the different Executive Departments, as the gentleman insists. Such a construction would make the section almost absurd, in its operation, for it would then require the head of a department, at the direction of the President, to revise any existing classification in his department, and the heads of the offices in the same department to do the same thing.

"Is an Executive Department a thing apart from the bureaus, divisions, and offices that comprise it? Can there be a classification of employees in an Executive Department that is not a classification of the employees of the offices or a portion of them that goes to make up the Department? Clearly not; and if the duty of classification is imposed upon the head of the Department-and the statute could not be clearer in this regard-then it can not be reasonable to suppose that Congress intended that heads of offices in the Departments should be called upon to make or revise classifications also. It should be noted, too, that the language of the statute is in the conjunctive-heads of Departments and heads of offices-and the remaining language of the paragraph indicates that the legislature had in mind offices outside of the Executive Departments, as well as the Departments themselves.

"Apply another test. Let us assume for the moment that the contention of the letter writer is sound, and the President directs the Secretary of the Treasury to revise the existing classification in his Department, and he also directs the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and the heads of one or two other offices in the Treasury Department to revise the existing classification in their respective offices. In obedience to the directions the Secretary makes one kind of a revision for the Department, and the head of each office named makes a different revision for his particular office. What would be the result? Hopeless conflict of authority and confusion subversive of all order and discipline in the service so affected. In all matters concerning the status of employees in the various Executive Departments, the tendency has been, at least in recent years, to concentrate them in the hands of the responsible head of the Department, and this is what the civil-service law intended in respect to the revision of classifications. "Again, in the construction or interpretation of statutes, courts give considerable weight to the construction and interpretation that the statutes may have received by the administrative authority charged with their execution. And what has been H. Doc. 314-27

the construction of the civil-service law by the various Presidents in this particular? They have uniformly directe l heads of Departments to make revisions of classifications affecting employees in any bureau, office, or division of their Departments, and they have not called upon heads of those bureaus, offices, etc., either individually or jointly with the head of the Department, to make such revisions. Furthermore, several of the Presidents have construed the law as applying to such independent offices of the civil or public service as the Fish Commission, Interstate Commerce Commission, Department of Labor, and the Government Printing Office, and have directed classifications in such offices and extended the provisions of the civil-service law to them by Executive orders.

"But aside from the foregoing considerations, we may look at the whole act in order to determine the meaning of a particular section, clause, or paragraph, if it be obscure or doubtful, and, bearing in mind that this is a remedial statute, give it a liberal construction. Quotations from the act have already been made, and these quotations almost irresistibly compel us to conclude that the law covers the entire executive branch of the public or civil service. It is, as its title declares, 'An act to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States.' Attention has already been called to the evils in the civil service-the 'mischief' that this law was intended to eradicate; and it has been shown that these evils existed in the Government Printing Office as much as in any other Department or office of the Government. And it only remains now to satisfy the candid mind that the Printing Office is a part of the United States civil service, 'to regulate and improve' which this law was enacted, and that since the enactment of the civil-service law no repeal of that law, so far as this office is concerned, has taken place. Originating in a movement to get rid of the contract system of doing Congressional printing, the office has developed into an establishment for performing all the printing and binding of the United States Government. Not only is the Congressional Record and Congressional speeches and reports printed there, but the host of departmental and governmental reports and publications and the various blanks and forms in daily use by the clerical and copying forces of every branch of the Government, also receive their typographical dress in this office or bureau. And this was the case when the act under consideration became a law.

"The Public Printer is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. His accounts are audited by the Treasury Department. Under certain circumstances the Secretary of the Interior exercises some control over the affairs of the office. A joint committee, composed of a certain number of members of the Senate and House of Representatives, control in the matter of the purchases of paper and other material necessary in the performance of the work of this office. It is neither a legislative, judicial, military, or naval office or bureau, but naturally takes its place in the great executive branch of the United States Government, executing for that Government its printing and binding. Certainly in the fairest sense it is a part of the 'civil service of the United States.'

"But the gentleman whose letter we have been considering insists that the Government Printing Office is within the exceptions of the law as found in section 7 of the act which, inter alia, provides or declares nor shall any officer not in the executive branch of the Government, or any person merely employed as a laborer or workman, be required to be classified herein,' for the reasons, first, that a large portion of the force of the office, to-wit, the compositors and printers, may be employed by the 'em,' and when so employed they are not employees of the Government, but contractors. (See Allison r. United States, 10 C. Cls. R., 449, and Bell v. United States, 20 Wall., 179.)

"A sufficient answer to this contention is that printers and compositors are no longer paid by the 'em,' but by the hour or day. Second. That although the Supreme Court decided in the 20 per cent cases that persons employed in the Executive Departments and paid by the day were within the civil service of the United States, still as that decision was rendered several years before the passage of the civil-service

law and upon the 'construction of a special remedial statute,' it can not be invoked to aid in interpreting the law under consideration. This is a method of brushing aside precedents somewhat unusual. Without argument, it is submitted that, the Supreme Court having decided that persons employed by the Government and paid by the day are employed in the civil service of the United States, we are bound by the decision. It goes without saying that in principle there is no difference between being paid by the day and being paid by the hour, so far as the status or relation of employees to the Government is concerned, and hence all persons employed in the Government Printing Office and paid by the hour or the day are within the civil service of the United States and within the operation of the civil-service law.

"Furthermore, it is insisted that the law in excluding any person merely employed as a laborer or workman' did not intend to exclude that large class of Government employees consisting of skilled mechanics and artisans following different trades, whose degree of efficiency and technical knowledge it is of the highest importance to the Government to know previous to employment. Plainly, the section refers to the unskilled laborers and workmen whose work is entirely manual, requiring no particular training or knowledge.

"Finally, the contention is made by the letter writer, that under the authority conferred upon the Public Printer in the matter of employing persons in his office, by the act of Congress approved January 12, 1895, and especially by section 45 of that act, his power is complete and exclusive in this connection. Section 45 provides 'that it shall be the duty of the Public Printer to employ workmen who are thoroughly skilled in their respective branches of industry, as shown by trial of their skill under his direction.'

"There is nothing in this section inconsistent with either the letter or spirit of the civil-service law. On the contrary, it is in entire harmony with that law. The civil-service law and the rules made and promulgated by virtue of its provisions require, in substance, that persons desiring to enter the civil service of the United States must subject themselves to certain competitive tests of their ability to do the work required of them, and the most that can be said of section 45 is that in addition to those competitive tests the Public Printer may require the applicants to give exhibitions of their skill under his direction. This right or duty of his is fully recognized in the civil-service rules governing the Printing Office, which provide, inter alia, in section 3 of rule 4, as follows:

"When a person designated for appointment shall have reported in person to the Public Printer, he shall be appointed for a probational period of six months, at the end of which period he shall receive absolute appointment; but if his conduct and capacity be not satisfactory, he shall be notified that he will not receive absolute appointment, and this notification shall discharge him from the service. The Public Printer shall require the officer under whom the probationer may be serving to carefully observe and report in writing upon the services rendered by, and the character and qualifications of, such probationer as to punctuality, industry, habits, ability, and adaptability.'

"Certainly this rule meets the requirements of section 45 quoted above in the amplest way, and should dispose of the suggestion that there is anything conflicting in the civil-service law and the act of Congress approved January 12, 1895.

The foregoing considerations lead me to confidently claim that the classification of employees of the Government Printing Office and the extension to it of the wholesome provisions of the civil-service law were an exercise of Executive power fully authorized by the terms of that statute.

"Respectfully submitted.

"MAY 9, 1898."