Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-01-18
ATangeS With LehIbach to
Avoid Appearance Before
House Committee.
QUESTIONS PR0P0UNDED
TO HIM BY CHAIRMAN
Controller Quoted as Saying He
Had No Views Concerning
Welch Pay Act.

controller General McCarl. whose in
depreciation of the WEIGH pay increase
act stirred up considerable strife in the
Government service. escaned the or.
animation by the House civil service
committee today by Offering to answer
its questions in writing.
The stage had been set for a lively
session with Mr.. McCarl as the principal
witness when the committee resumed its
hearing on the various bills designed to
remove alleged inequalities in the adj
ministration of the Welch act, but the
controller failed to appear.
Chairman Lehlbach, one of McCarl's
severest critics, who yesterday charged
him with usurping the power and duties
of the Personnel Classification Board,
then revealed he had made an arrange
ment with the controller which would
not neceSsitate his appearance before
the committee at this time.
Questions Propounded.
McCarl declined the committees in
vitation, Mr.. Lehlbach explained, on the
ground that he had no pertinent views
to express on the WEIGH act or the pro-
posed modifying legislation the commit
tee has under consideration. The chair
man said he has accepted the con-
troller's excuse, and had propounded
two questions for McCarl to answer in
writing concerning Lehlbach's bill to
amend the WEIGH act
These questions are intended to show
what construction the controller would
place on provisions in the bill to give
Tho DorSovno1 classification pnord snJa
jurisdiction to make allocations. A
decision on this question now. it is
believed, would prevent repetition Of
| the controllers famous interpretative
/ opinion on the Welch act.
Says He Has No Views.
at was expected that Mr.. McCarl
would be present to give testimony, If
he so desired, concerning his views on
the Welch act and our ability to modify
] the present construction, . Chairman
hearing. ST saw him yesterday after
noon, and he said that he had no in
| terest in or views concerning the Welch
/ act. its construction or modification.
1T Is his belief that it is his duty to
construe the purpose of Congress after
| legislation has been enacted. However,
he offered to assist the commnittee, and
said he would be glad to answer any
questions that we may PROFOUND.
I'm view of the fact that he dis
claimed any knowledge of the merits of
the legislation under consideration and
did not care to discuss the policies
underlying existing legislation, there
was really nothing left for him to
testify to on the witness stand More
over, If he came before the committee
he said his opinions would be of the
curbStone variety"
Representative Bachmann of West
Virginia inquired If the acceptance of
McCarl's excuse precluded the COM
mittee from examining him later.
Chairman Lehlbach replied that 1t did
not.
Aside from the two questions Mr..
Lehlbach already has asked the Con-
troller General, he announced that he
intended to send him supplemental
list.
Lehlbach's Questions.
The two questions put up to McCarl
by Mr.. Lehlbach are these:
I.-Whether in view of the construc-
tion placed upon the WEIGH act by your
decision of June 2, 1920, the language
employed in section l of HR-l6029
(Lehlbach's bilD if enacted will en-
powor the Personnel Classification
Board to now consider. review and re-
wise the ALLEGATIONS made by the heads
of departments and establishments un-
der the authority of your said decision
in grades 4. 5. 6, and 8 of the pro-
fessional and scientific service, and
grades IL. II. l3, IA and Is of the
rical-administrative and fiscal serv-
ice?
In view of the language carried in
paragraph 8 of section /. could alloca-
tionS made by the Personnel Classifica-
ton Board pursuant to the authority
given in this paragraph be held inef-
fective because contrary to the provi-
sions of the Welch act or other existing
law?
If in your opinion the language con-
tanned in section l does not effectuate
the purposes above indicated, will you
kindly suggest such language as in your
judgment will do this
Instead of McCarl. the committee had
as its chief witnesses the three members
of the Personnel Classification Board
Carlos Van Leer, Victor G.. CroiSsant
and Guy Moffett. The last named took
the stand first and pointed out that the
board has no argument" with McCarl
over his Interpretation of the relative
position clause in the Welch act.
While the board has the right to de-
fine the basic qualifications of q grade.
he said. the Controller tried to do this
as well as determine relative positions.
Moffett said that because of the Con-
troller Generals ruling it was possible
for department heads to raise the sala-
ries of some employees as much as $4,000