Evening star., 1928-12-13

NtdHHS 4CAb ASuuLCus
The brief claims that the Controller
General by his circular of June 2, 1928,
ignored the specific text of the law and
the senatorial debate definitely Clarity
ing the law and substituted for the re-
tention of relative positions within
schedules prescribed by law, the dis
tribution of new positions where the
totally different basis Of the rela-
tivity of salary rates between schedules.
The brief now in Chairman Lehlbach's
hands shows that the decision of Mr..
McCarl on June 81, 1928. to Mr.. Steward
is unsound, according to the view OF
those who worked with members OF
Congress in the passage of the Welch
pay bill.
that the controller adopted a theory OF
relative position which is mathe-
matical impossibility and arbitrarily APP
piled to some schedules mathematical
formula which cannot be applied to
schedules with different number OF
salary rates"
The National Academy of Sciences
suggested the names of professors OF
mathematics in leading universities rec
ognized by that body as among the
foremost mathematical authorities in
the United States who co-operated In
mentS on the relative position clause
has been made available for members
of the civil service committee who are
now working upon this problem.
Mathematical Impossibility.
Summarized, the contention in the
brief is:
the plain intent of the laws text as
definitely clarified by senatorial debate,
and unnecessarily introduced a matn-
ematical method.
"That the mathematical method Is
based upon the theory of relative po-
sition which Is mathematical impos-
sibility.
geometric theory is erroneous because
of the failure to use "0'' to indicate base
rates.
"That by strictly following the text
of the law, giving proper weight 10
senatorial debate; q correct name
matical theory of relative position; a
correct application of the erroneous
geometric theory of relative poSitloni
or application of the common sense
fact that the exact center OF an OLD
schedule must find its same relative
| position in the exact center OF tne
new schedule-an employe IN tns
| fourth rate of an old seven-rate Scneo-
ule must be placed in the fourth rate
of new Six-rate schedule. BY no
correct method of reasoning nor maCne,
matics can he be placed in the thlrd
| rate of the new schedule, peIoW tile
middle of the schedule"
| Representative Lehlbach has no IN
| tention of surrendering to the appro-
priations committee the duty of putting
| through relief or corrective legislation
| to fix up the situation that has resulted
from the operation of the WEIGH salary
bill.
Sees Need of New Legislation.
Mr.. Lehlbach has been informed that
after the special hearing Of the Per-
sonnel Classification Board by the
| chairmen and ranking Democratic
members on each of the subcommittee
handling the big appropriation bills, the
| appropriationS committee decided that
what was needed to correct the situ-
alton is new legislation which should
properly come from the civil service
committee instead of being subject to a
point of order as legislative rider on
an appropriation bill.
| Mr.. Lehlbach' expressed confidence
that if the appropriations committee has
| any thought in mind Of permitting such
rider Oh the appropriation bill reduc-
ing the salaries of some who received
substantial increases under the Welch
act by reason of Controller General Nc
Carl's decision, that the appropriations
committee would consult with him be-
fore doing so, and no such consultation
has been had.
Mr.. Lehlbach is disinclined to believe
that those in important positions who
| have received a larger increase in sal
ary than it was generally expected they
would receive should be summarily re-
duced through such rider.
Threat to Morale Pointed.
Mr.. Lehlbach pointed out that {
rider of this sort would not correct the
| situation but would rather cause more
\ class distinction and break down th'
morale throughout the Federal service
The particular concern of Congress nov
is for low salaried employees who die