Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-03-07
Horizontal Reduction.

For some time there has been much dis
cuss!on in Congress derogatory to the
elder clerks of the government departments.
Economists have discovered that there are
several hundred men In the public work
over seventy years of age. They nave flg-
ured out the total cost of their services to
the government in large, round figures.
They have asserted that these men cannot
possibly earn this amount. Some have adj
yocated establishing an age limit Others
have given heed to this and that plan for
the retirement of the elder men. No one
has frankly come forward with the propo-
sition that the government, after having
enjoyed the faithful service of these vet
Grams for many years, should now bear the
expense of their honorable and comfortable
rest from the trying tasks which they
have so capably borne.
The latest proposition comes with the
force of authority from the House commit
tee on appropriations and will probably be
presented to the House itself with the leg
islative bill this week. 1t is in the form OF
a positive limit of $1,000 a year salary for
all men over sixty-five years of age. what
ever they may now be drawing, whatever
services they may be rendering. however
capable they may be at this time. the
knife of reduction is to be swung horizon
tally, regardless of circumstances. This Is
the governments offer of a comprise be-
tween retaining the capable men of ad-
Vanced years and dropping them altogether.
AS it stands this proposition is decidedly
unjust TO the veteran clerks. In the first
place II allows no margin for differences OF
capability. There are many scores of men
I'm the departments above the age of sixty
five, and even seventy, who are worth the
maximum salary now paid to any clerical
worker. Some there are whose services are
of incalculable value because of their length
OF service and rpeness of experience.
Again. II is granted. there are men above
the age limit proposed by the House COM
mittee who have grown old mentally as well
as physically and who have deteriorated
in point of usefulness. If this amendment
is adopted all will be reduced alike. the
useful with the comparatively useless, the
experts and the drudges-
Such law would be unfair to the govern
ment service as well as to the elder clerks
as a class 1t would necessarily deprive the
department chiefs of the valuable services
of many men now barely paid sufficiently
for degree of clerical ability which would
be shamefully underpaid at $1,000. No just
main In charge of responsible details for
which he had been receiving. say, 1880 a
year after reduction to 81 900. The govern
ment cannot enjoy, In fairness, both the
economy of horizontal reduction and the
valuable Iabors of the experienced, capable
man above siXty-five years.
II this IS intended an Offering In lieu
of a retirement provision, why should it not
be frankly, fairly framed? Why should it
not be made flexible? Why should the
judgment of heads of departments and OF
bureaus and of divisions as to the relative
worth of subordinates be entirely set aside
by a peremptory requirement to reduce at
once every man because of the circum-
stance OF years regardless OF the worth
OF individuals? 1t is possible to devise
reduction provision according to scale. 1t
may be assumed that the elder clerks, along
with the junior clerks, are today receiving
salaries commensurate with their services.
Why not contrive sliding scale of reduc-
lions. taking present conditions as the
basis? It may be fairly assumed that even
lose some of their activity each year. They
might possibly be confronted with a pros
pect of a certain percentage OF reduction
after a certain age. based, however. upon
their existing rate of pay. That would at
least possess the virtue of proportion,
whereas the project of horizontal reduction
Is totally without merit.~