Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-03-08
Age and Salaries.

the proposition Tor an age-Salary limit
In the government 3partments carried
by the legislative .ropriation bill. as
framed by the appropriations subcommittee.
while differing somewhat in detail from the
first understanding of Its terms is no less
Objectionable from the point of view of
equitable administration. Indeed, In some
respects. 1t is far more Objectionable. In
stead of horizontal reduction of the elder
clerks to $1,000 year, the paragraph calls
for a zlg-zag reduction, allowing salary
OF no more than 81 400 to a clerk over
sixty-five years of age, 81, 200 to one over
sixty-eght years. and $40 to one over
seventy years. This plan is open to the
same criticism as that leveled at the estab-
Iishment of a fiat rate of $1,000 for all
clerks over sixty-five. in that it takes no
account whatever of individual merit or
value. and ignores entirely the existing
salary of the clerk. which in any scheme
of age reduction should be made the basis
Of the lowering of pay.
An entirely new feature appears in the
provision that after 1913 no clerk over sew
enty years of age shall be employed by the
government. all of that age or over being
summarily dropped on the date named
Thus If the whole paragraph. as now
drawn. is enacted into law and remains
unrepcalcd in the meantime, after 1918 the
government will begin to reduce a clerk s
salary at sixty-fve lowering him another
notch at sixty-eight and dismissing him at
seventy. thus for five years before his sum-
mary separation for no other cause than
age lessening his chance of providing for
his future comfort. A more unjust and
cruel measure of administration could
scarcely be conceived
II this dead line is to be drawn on the
score of age, why should 1t apply only
to those government workers who are
enrolled in the classified service? Why
should it not apply to every laborer in the
field OF public service? What difference Is
there between clerk and a chief Of bureau
in respect TO efficiency as affected by his
years? What difference is there, indeed
between a clerk and a legislator? The ConSti-
tuition establishes minimum age limits with
regard to certain offices of the government
A representative in Congress must be at
least twenty-five years old. a senator must
be thirty years and President must be
thirly-ive years. There is no mention of
limitation at the other end. Thus it Is evil
dent that the trainers of the Constitution
recognized that while 1t is important to
prevent the entrance into these offices of
men who have not attained certain ripe
ness of years. 1t il also important that no
obstacle be placed in the way of their con-
tinuation in office or their election to office
In the years when experience and judgment
and capacity are normally at the highest
point.
The average age of the members of the
United States Senate today is a very small
fraction short of sixty years, or practically
within i've years Of the age at which, ac-
cording 10 this pending proposition. all
classified" departmental workers are to
he reduced preparatory to their dismissal
Twenty -eight of the members of the upper
house of Congress are slxty-1ve years, old
and above. These are the men of greatest
influence and power and, probably. value
to the country. TAey are the leaders, the
directors of action, the shapers of poll
CITES. They are the real legislative rulers,
as far that branch of the govern
ment is concerned. Why should they be
regarded worth the maximum cornpen-
sation and retention to the end OF their
days or as long as their states desire. while
the department clerks. performing presum-
ably less eNactiug and responsible duties.
are sweepingly denounced by law as inef-
ficient after sixty-fve and absolutely worth
less after seventy?
II the House consents to the adoption OF
this monstrously unjust paragraph. will
the Senate agree and thus advertise to the
world that 1t regards the age OF its own
OF the humber workers in the lower ranks
is paramount In determining fitness for
office?