The Washington times., 1906-03-20
TUESDAY, MARCH 20. 1906.
sympathy" and Good Politics,

y
the debate in the House, sitting as a
Committee OF the Whole, on the legis-
lative bill and the project to estab-
lish a departmental deadline. His
speech is not included in today's
Congressional Record. From the out
lines published in the morning
papers, however, it is evident that
in discussing the proposed action as
TO aged clerks he followed mainly the
lines laid down the first day of the
discussion by Representative Lit
tauer, of Mr.. Tawney's committee.
The speech-rememberin always
that the only knowledge of It which
the community has this morning is
that obtained from the morning
papers-is open to question on many
grounds.
Thus. Mr.. Tawney says the House
is compelled TO deal with averages,
meaning that az the average clerk
over seventy years is, in his judg-
ment, not so capable as the average
clerk under seventy years, the House
must legislate all the older men out
of Office. But he does not explain
why the measure is taken as to the
average of age and not as TO the aver
age of ability.
Again, he arraigns the heads of de-
partments for not removing incom-
Detents and urges, instead of action
directed at those officials who have
offended. action directed at the body
of clerks who are the sufferers
through the inaction of their su-
periors
Again, there were. In his judgment,
but two propositions involved-one
was the retirement of Government
clerks on a pension; the other was
a tenure of Office act. Apparently he
did not think even worth considering
the simple, business-like proposition
10 keep the good clerks whatever
their age and dismiss the poor clerks
whatever their age
So much was already familiar
through Mr. Littauer's statement to
the committee in presenting the bill.
One of the other notable points had
similarly been suggested by Mr..
Livingston in the first days debate.
IL was that there was no parallel
worthy of notice between the reten-
Nf ole IN, %ha
and the retention OF aged legislators
in Congress. The members. Mr.
Tanwey is made TO say as Mr.. Liv-
ingston surely did say, must go be-
fore their constituents every two
years or every six years, as the case
may be, and stand the test OF an
examination that was far more severe
than any to which Government en-
ploye was subjected"-the quotation
IS from the account in the morning
papers. The members tenure of
Office depended upon the ability with
(which he performed his duties; the
clerks position was one of life
tenure"
What If all this is true? What has
that to do with a proposition to re-
ject good clerks and retain poor ones?
All that the clerks ask, all that any
one asks in their behalf If he has any
sense. is that, their tenure Shall cor
respond exactly to that which Mr.
Tawney ascribes TO membership in
Congress-that it shall depend on the
ability with which the work is per-
formed. If a test every two years,
or every six years, safeguards the
country in Congress why should It
not safeguard It equally in the de-
partments? IL ability, and not age,
Is satisfactory criterion IN the legis-
lative branch Of the Government why
should It not serve in the bureaus
of the executive branch?
Mr. Tawney has no sufficient an
swer to these questions. Neither has
anyone else. But the real answer,
the answer which has to be made in
the light of the facts, is that ability
is not now the general test Of service
in the departments because the very
members who are planning to hide
behind deadline are unwilling that
merit shall be the test for their con-
stituents. 1t is easy enough to blame
the heads of the departments as over
sympathetic. They have erred. no
doubt. in not acting in many. many
cases. But the chief difficulty is not
their sympathy for their clerks, but
the members sympathy for his place
men