exactly one year when taking the messenger examination in 1898 and, by direction of the Civil Service Commission, he was suspended without pay from August 16 to August 26, 1926. There is no question but that the Civil Service Commission was within its legal authority in directing this suspension. In the 28 years intervening between the commission of the offense and the suspension he had risen from the grade of messenger to that of supervising clerk in the disbursing office at the navy yard, New York. He had served in the World War as chief pay clerk in the United States Naval Reserve Force; his record of efficiency while employed at the navy yard has been high. Copies of sundry papers pertaining to the case are transmitted herewith. The cost of the proposed legislation will be $76. The bill H. R. 9972 was referred to the Bureau of the Budget with the above information as to cost and a statement that the Navy Department contemplated recommending against the enactment of the proposed legislation. Under date of March 3, 1928, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget advised the Navy Department that the proposed legislation is in conflict with the financial program of the President. In view of the foregoing, the Navy Department recommends against the enactment of the bill H. R. 9972. CURTIS D. WILBUR, STATEMENT OF HON. SOL BLOOM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. BURDICK. We will not hear Mr. Bloom. Mr. BLOOM. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, if it were not that I want to paint a little picture I would allow the matter to stay just where it is with the report read, because you can see what a meritorious case this is. We are not concerned about the amount of money involved, but here is a man that has given 30 years of his life to the Government service and he has done that without a blemish of any kind on his record. I would be very glad to allow the amount of money involved to be passed by. It is of no consequence. I don't care about it at all. However, if we should drop the whole thing there would still be a blemish in the form of this suspension and it would be the same as if we had done nothing. If the fine remains, or the withholding of pay for ten days, the other part of it is merely a sort of polishing it up and leaving the disease remain. Here is a case let me paint this picture to you, for it fits my own case. The Jewish people are operating and always have operated, or calculated according to the Jewish calendar and they figure the dates differently from what you do. They go by the lunar calendar and it is a rather difficult thing to keep this straight. It is difficult to have the Jewish mother of the olden days to remember exact dates-the day and date of birth of her children. They were not particular about that. I know I was born, according to my calculation in accordance with the Jewish calendar, on a certain date and when I wanted to find out the day I was born according to the Gregorian calendar I had to go back and figure to get the exact date, which is March 9. That is the case we have here to-day. This little boy, then supposed to be 18 years of age, asked his mother how old he was and the mother told him he was 18 years of age, and he naturally went and filed his application and said he was 18 years of age on the word of his mother. As soon as he found out he was not 18 years of age at that time he corrected this report himself. He corrected it in 1912. I believe it was 1912. I have the papers here to show that he corrected this report himself. All the records-if I may be permitted-I have only a few moments time if I may read a couple of paragraphs from certain letters. The first is from a letter from the disbursing officer of the navy yard, New York, under date of July 16, 1926. It states: The disbursing officer regrets that the department has found it necessary to punish and place against the clear record of Mr. Charles Silverman, supervising elerk, covering nearly 28 years of faithful service, a suspension of 10 days, especially in view of the doubt surrounding the situation, the length of time which has elapsed, and the fact of Mr. Silverman's youth at the time of the alleged act against the Civil Service Commission laws. That is signed by W. R. Bowne. I have another letter, from which I will read a paragraph or two. It is from the Secretary of the Navy and dated February 27, 1926. It says, in part: It appears that Silverman bears now and has always borne an excellent record at the New York Navy Yard, and there would seem to be no reason why his statement of February 6 should not be accepted in full. In this connection it appears that Silverman continued to give his date of birth as 1880 until May 2, 1910. The next entry in the records of the department is September 6, 1912, when he gave his year of birth as 1881. It was on September 6, 1912, that Silverman himself corrected the date of his birth. The only reason Silverman did not say anything about it at that time was because he did not want to put the blame and responsibility for this error on his mother. That is the record which I have here [indicating], if the chairman and gentlemen of the committee would like to see it. Continuing the same letter, it says: From the foregoing and all the papers in the case, there is no reason to believe that Silverman intended to deceive anyone in 1898 or at any time subsequently. It is therefore requested that the action of the Civil Service Commission be reconsidered in this case. Mr. VINSON. Who wrote that letter? Mr. BLOOM. The Secretary of the Navy. Mr. VINSON. Secretary Wilbur? Mr. BLOOM. It is SONYD-7-MEW. I am told the letter was signed by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Robinson. The next letter is signed by Rear Admiral C. P. Plunkett, com mandant of the navy yard, New York, under date of February 6, 1926. It says: The commandant well remembers a number of, former officers of the Navy having had the date of their birth changed many years after they had entered the service, due to the fact that they discovered they were much younger than they thought they were, these officers having been born before the record of births became a matter of record and which records they could rely on. The commandant fails to see anything bordering on a false statement by Mr. Silverman, and his whole record supports this opinion. I have promised the committee I would stop soon. However, I want to read from another letter. It is a letter from the disbursing officer of the navy yard, New York, to the commandant of the navy yard, New York, dated February 6, 1926. It says: 1. Returned with the advice that Mr. Charles Silverman has been employed in the disbursing office of this yard since February, 1899, and has a splendid record, having risen through various grades from messenger boy to supervising clerk. He is efficient, painstaking, honest, and his conduct and attitude are above reproach. He is also a veteran of the World War, having served as a chief pay clerk in the United States Naval Reserve Force, and his record as an officer of the United States naval service is excellent, as shown by the records on file in the Bureau of Navigation. His record as a civil service employee is unassailable, which can be verified by examination of the regular semiannual reports of efficiency on file in the Navy Department. 2. I have known Mr. Silverman for a long time, having been disbursing officer of the New York Navy Yard at various times, and I have absolute confidence in his integrity and honesty, and it is my firm belief that if any contradictory statement was made by him in regard to the date of his birth, it was not with any designable intent. 3. In the Digest of Decisions of the Comptroller of the Treasury (1894–1920), page 1497, the following appears: "1899, August 14. No fraudulent intent can be imputed to a surfman of the life-saving service who, relying upon information given him by his mother, stated in an examination for admission to the service that he was 44 years of age, even if his statement of his age was erroneous. 6:116." This case is in point with the one now before you. Continuing, the disbursing officer says, after quoting from the decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury: I believe that Silverman's case agrees with the above, for in the absence of a birth certificate he had to rely upon others for his information, and if they made a mistake it naturally follows that he also made a mistake. 4. In view of the above it is earnestly recommended that any incorrect statement made by Silverman be waived and that his case be disposed of without any disciplinary action being taken and that all records be changed to show date of birth as July 15, 1881, as shown in his affidavit. That letter is signed by William Jackson Littell, disbursing officer, navy yard, New York. Mr. VINSON. Have you a statement from Silverman about his case? Mr. BLOOM. Yes, I have. Mr. VINSON. Let us hear what he has to say about the matter. Mr. BLOOм. This is a personal letter to me. I could give you other letters from him. Mr. VINSON. Just read into the record what he says about the case. Mr. BLOOм. On February 6, 1926, Mr. Silverman submitted the following explanation to the disbursing officer of the navy yard, New York: As far as I can remember, when I took the examination for messenger in the year 1898, I must have given the date of my birth as July 15, 1880. This date was given to me by my mother, for in the absence of a birth certificate, I was guided entirely by her. When afterwards (I do not remember the period of time elapsing) I discovered the New York Board of Health certificate of employment, although issued prior to 1898 and mislaid, which showed the date of my birth as July 15, 1881, I asked my mother which was the correct date, and she told me July 15, 1881, and that the 1880 date given in the messenger examination was an error, and all papers bearing on my birth were thereafter filled out by me as July 15, 1881, and the only thing that I may be charged with is not informing the United States Civil Service Commission of this change; but I felt that, being a minor, the blame would fall on my mother for misinforming me, and I wanted to protect her, so I remained silent and assumed my correct age (July 15, 1881) without the formality of advising the United States Civil Service Commission of this change, hence that is the reason the dates July 15, 1880, and July 15, 1881, appear in the records. Mr. BLOOM. Mr. Silverman wrote me under date of December 3, 1928, as follows: DEAR CONGRESSMAN: May I again ask you to take up the cudgels for me in being the sponsor of legislation looking to the correction of my record. The last bill you introduced in my behalf evidently did not come out of the committee. Next February I will have completed 30 years in the Government service, and outside of the 10-day suspension inflicted upon me by the Navy Depart ment, at the direction of the Civil Service Commission, my record is spotless, and I can not rest until I am absolved of the error made by me in good faith in my entrance examination, and this suspension expunged from the official records by legislative action and relief. You are familiar with all the phases of my case, so it is not necessary, on my part, to go into details. The old bill has reimbursement to me of $76, but you may leave the recovery of this money out of the new bill, if it will enhance the passage of same. So please rewrite this new bill, if you think necessary, to meet the new conditions, thereby not being in conflict with the President's financial program. Mr. BURDICK. Do you know Silverman personally? Mr. BLOOM. Yes. You can see what has been said about him by his superiors. As he says, it is not a question of money. He is willing to waive the grant of any money, but if this suspension is not erased completely there will still remain the doubt. If the record can be cleared, why not clear it completely and have nothing in it that might indicate that he did something wrong. Mr. BURDICK. The only suspicious thing about the case is the fact that if he had given his correct age at the time of the examination he could not have competed, but by giving his age at 18 years at that time he could and did compete and was appointed. Mr. BLOOM. Yes. Mr. VINSON. And this correction might place Silverman upon a pension list after he has been there so many years. File with the reporter all the papers you have read, so that they may be embodied in the record of proceedings of the committee. Mr. BURDICK. Has the Navy Department representative here anything to add to this discussion? STATEMENT OF LIEUT. COMMANDER STEPHEN B. ROBINSON, UNITED STATES NAVY, OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY Lieutenant Commander ROBINSON. The views of the Navy Department on this case are set forth in the letter of the Secretary, which has been read. The opposition of the department to this proposed legislation is based more upon a matter of policy in such cases. I might tell the committee how this case came up. It came up in 1924 and 1925, after the civil service retirement act was passed and the departments commenced to check over the records of civil employees. In doing so, the Navy Department found discrepancies in the records of the ages of a number of civilian employees. In such cases the Civil Service Commission requested the Navy Department to suspend the persons who had benefited by a misstatement of their ages. In this particular case the Civil Service Commission requested the Navy Department to suspend Mr. Silverman for 30 days. However, the Navy Department requested a reconsideration of the request of the Civil Service Commission and the Civil Service Commission then cut the suspension to 10 days. Mr. VINSON. Is Mr. Silverman still employed by the Navy De partment? Lieutenant Commander ROBINSON. He is still in the Government service. He is employed in the disbursing office of the navy yard at Brooklyn, N. Y. Mr. VINSON. What effect, if any, would this proposed act have on his retirement? Lieutenant Commander ROBINSON. None whatever. Mr. BURDICK. Silverman himself called this error to the attention of the department, did he not, in September, 1912? Lieutenant Commander ROBINSON. He changed the date of his birth later, some of the records show. Mr. WILLIAMS. Are any other employees of the Navy Department in the same position as Mr. Silverman? Lieutenant Commander ROBINSON. I do not know the exact number of people who misstated their ages. I have been informed, however, that there were quite a few and that the department was requested to suspend, say, 5 or 10 days in each case on account of the misstatement of age. Mr. WILLIAMS. Has anybody else, if you know, been restored in accordance with the provisions of a bill such as we have before us now? Lieutenant Commander ROBINSON. No, sir. Not to my knowl edge. Mr. VINSON. I move that the bill be reported favorably to the full committee. Mr. DRANE. I second the motion. |