his human sympathies may be, he is powerless to prevent these great injustices because of this department-made regulation.

I am told that this Griffin bill, which you are now considering, will only cost the Government about $360,000 a year, according to the careful estimates of a competent actuary. This cost represents a very minute percentage of the total salaries paid to the employees specified in the terms of the bill. Personally, I am convinced that the Government will save many, many times over this amount in the increased efficiency that will come to the Postal Service because of the new blood that will come into the service to take the place of the old. Personally, I am convinced that the greatest incentive to efficiency on the part of employees in any walk of life is to give them decent and considerate treatment, and to give them the assurance that after they have given their whole life in an endeavor to build up an efficient service, that they will be free from the soul-destroying fear of poverty in their old years.

Mr. Chairman, my investigation of the conditions surrounding postal employees and other public servants, if you please, convinces me that on the average their compensation is entirely inadequate to enable them to lay aside a sufficient sum out of their small earnings to enable them to provide for their old age.

From the reports of Postmasters General and their assistants, I learned that the department has repeatedly urged Congress to enact legislation for the retirement of the superannuates of the Postal Service, in the interest of maintaining the highest degree of efficient public service.

The bill before you presents a clear-cut issue. The Griffin bill strikes at the very root of the evil of superannuation in the Postal Service. It is not confounded or confused with any extraneous issues that has to do with either increases in compensation or with provisions for disability resulting from accidents and injuries which may well be left to subsequent legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the fact that this bill is so reasonable in its terms, involving as it does such a very small burden upon the Public Treasury, we owe to ourselves as representatives of the people in Congress to speedily enact it into law to the end that efficiency in the public service will be preserved, and to the further end that these faithful old employees may be permitted to retire from the service with this small competence of $50 per month, which will at least insure them and those dependent upon them against actual want.

In conclusion let me express the earnest hope that this subcommittee will favorably report this bill to the full committee and that the full committee will, without unnecessary delay, report the same to the House, so that we Members of Congress may have an opportunity to vote upon it. I am confident that if the House is given the opportunity to vote upon the Griffin bill that it will pass.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID A. HOLLINGSWORTH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO.

Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I simply desire to take a moment of your time this morning to give my most cordial indorsement to the bill which is before your committee, H. R. 6915, “Granting indefinite leave of absence to superannuated employees of the Postal Service."

STATEMENT OF HON. SEWARD H. WILLIAMS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I am glad of the opportunity at this time to be recorded in favor of the measure which is before you. I feel if this bill is passed it will carry into effect the principles which inspired the enactment of the civil-service law.

I would like to ask the permission of the committee to submit a memorandum on this subject for the record.

Mr. BEAKES. Without objection, that permission is granted.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRED A. BRITTEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Mr. BRITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to appear in your hearings as being in favor of this very meritorious bill from a purely economic standpoint.

We often hear of great manufacturing concerns declaring a profitsharing rule in their companies. We hear that they are pensioning their employees after a number of years of honest service. That has not been, Mr. Chairman, because of a high moral attitude or a desire from a humanitarian standpoint to benefit those employees. It is done because it is profitable to the manufacturers. My idea is that the proposition contained in this bill will pay Uncle Sam manyfold. For a long time, to go back into a little history of the Committee on Naval Affairs for the past 15 years, we have had in the United States Navy a plucking board. That board would retire from service very efficient officers of the Navy-captains, commanders, lieutenant commanders because the members of the plucking board said these officers had unhappy ships, on the theory that an unhappy ship could not be an efficient ship, that it could not deliver 100 per cent of efficiency because the men were not satisfied with the conditions under which they were working.

The result was they did not do anything, with the men; they did not place any rule or restriction over the men, but they plucked from the naval service the commander of that ship.

That plucking bill was very carefully considered before it was enacted by Congress in 1898 or 1899 in the interests of the service. That being true, I am sure the conditions under which men labor to-day that are not satisfactory to the men does not give the proper efficiency to the Postal Service or to the people of the United States. Therefore, I feel sure that a bill of this character will alleviate the situation.

This bill does not provide that a man shall be retired at a certain age. We have officers in the Army and the Navy who are retired at 62 years and 64 years of age, when they are capable of delivering to the United States Government as good service as they have ever rendered in earlier years, and many of them are in good physical condition. This bill obviates that condition because it leaves entirely to a board appointed by the Postmaster General the question as to whether or not a man is not capable of delivering at least some reasonable service to the Government.

This bill will also avoid all party lines. It makes little difference whether a man be a Republican or a Democrat.

It

There is nothing objectionable in this bill, so far as I can see. is in the interest of the service of the United States, and I think from the standpoint purely of economy it will return many times more than the annuity which will go to the post-office employees who have retired.

I sincerely hope that this subcommittee will recommend the bill favorably to the full committee, and that the full committee will ultimately recommend to Congress the passage of the bill.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. CHARLES LINTHICUM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND.

Mr. LINTHICUM. Mr. Chairman, I do not care to take up the time of the committee in making any extended statement in regard to this bill. I merely want to say that I am in favor of H. R. 6915, introduced by Mr. Griffin, of New York.

I believe this bill is not only in the interests of economy in the Government service, but I have always felt that when a man works for the United States Government until he becomes old or is by sickness or in some other way disabled he should not be thrown out. Private corporations do not do that, and the United States Government certainly should not do it.

I would like to file a further statement of my views in connection with this matter, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BEAKES. Without objection, that permission will be granted. STATEMENT OF HON. CLYDE H. TAVENNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, previous to my election to Congress I was a newspaper correspondent in Washington for six years. During that time I attended a great many meetings of committees and subcommittees, but never in all that experience did I witness a scene such as has taken place here this morning.

I doubt whether any bill which has ever been before Congress has brought so many individual Members of Congress to a committee room to ask for a favorable report on the bill. I do not believe a scene like this has ever occurred in the Capitol heretofore.

I am in favor of this bill for pensioning civil-service employees of the Post Office Department, and if it is reported to the floor of the House I will do everything I can to assist in its passage.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES F. CURRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

Mr. CURRY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am in favor of this bill (H. R. 6915) as a matter of equity and justice and right, and putting into operation, so far as the Post Office Department is concerned, this principle in relation to civil-service employees.

I am sorry the bill does not apply to all employees of the Govern

ment.

I could mention 40 or 50 cases which have come under my personal observation of old men who have been worn out in the service of the Government and who have lost their positions and been thrown on the cold charity of the world.

Private corporations do not do that any more, and the United States Government ought not to do it.

The

I am also in favor of the bill from a business standpoint. I believe the United States Government could put this bill into operation without costing the Government very much, if any, money. old men who would be retired by the operation of this bill are drawing the maximum salaries. Their places would be filled by young and active men at the minimum salary, and two of the younger men could do the work which three of the older men are doing at the present time.

I hope the committee will report the bill favorably, and I would like to have an opportunity to vote for it on the floor of the House. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM S. GREENE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Mr. GREENE. Mr. Chairman, I have had considerable experience as a postmaster in Massachusetts. Thirty-six years ago I was first appointed as postmaster, and then I was appointed again just before I came to Congress.

I have always been very intimately related with all the postal employees, and I know something of their successes and something of their troubles.

I have examined this bill introduced by Representative Griffin, and it seems to me it is drawn in such a manner that it can be easily carried out without becoming a burden on the Government of the United States, and would be of great advantage in the future, because it would provide for some of the men who have been in the service for a long time. I know some of the men who have been in the Postal Service for more than 40 years who are still carrying on their work which they are called on to do.

I hope this bill will be reported, and I believe there is almost a unanimous sentiment in the House of Representatives in favor of the bill. I do not know of any reason why it should not be favorably acted upon.

It seems to me it is a very well-drawn bill. I am not much of a believer in drawing bills and then putting the discretion with the Postmaster General. The exercise of discretion by the Postmaster General has not been very encouraging to postmasters or post-office officials or post-office employees, so far as my experience goes,

I believe there is wisdom enough in Congress to present a bill that will be effective. I am afraid the Postmaster General, if this matter were left in his discretion, would neutralize the good effect of the bill. It has been possible in past history to do that, and that much of this bill which leaves the discretion with the Postmaster General does not meet with favor by me.

I would rather have the bill more positive in its terms in that regard.

I can not see why, if Congress decides on the provisions of a bill, that the discretion in carrying out those provisions should be left with

the Postmaster General, who might come in and neutralize all the good effects of the law which has been passed.

I hope the bill will be reported by the committee, and that if reported it will be passed by the House of Representatives.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. EAGAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

Mr. EAGAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am very glad to appear here this morning and record myself as in favor of H. R. 6915, introduced by Mr. Griffin, of New York, and to say that I shall be very glad to give the bill such support as I possibly can in the House.

The sentiment in my part of the country is very strong for some degree of protection to the old and superannuated employees in the Government service, and particularly so, I think, in reference to the men who are covered by the provisions of this measure.

Many instances have come under my notice which have emphasized to my mind the importance of having some means of protecting men in the service of the Government as they grow old in that service.

The letter carrier who has delivered my mail for seven years has been in the service of the United States Government for 26 years, and he was recently stricken with tuberculosis. I believe he contracted the disease as a result of his service in behalf of the Government, and I should like, Mr. Chairman, in securing permission to file a statement in support of the bill, to elaborate in reference to the case of my own carrier.

I shall do everything I can in support of this bill and to assist in its passage.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES B. TIMBERLAKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO.

Mr. TIMBERLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I desire to appear before your committee this morning as favoring the passage of this bill.

I believe it is but simple justice to this class of Government employees who have not been properly taken care of.

I wish the bill might be larger in its scope and affect more of the employees of the classified service. I hope this committee, from the numbers of the membership of the House who have appeared before you this morning, will be convinced that you should make a favorable report on this bill, and that the full committee will report the bill favorably to the House, and I believe the House is in a mood to take favorable action on the bill.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOUETT SHOUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS.

Mr. SHOUSE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I merely want to join the large number of other Members of the House who have appeared on behalf of this bill this morning.

It seems to me that the prospect which the Government offers to the civil-service employees is not very alluring, as a rule; not so alluring that it will attract the best class of the young men of the country. The salaries are not large; they scarcely give more than a

41532-16-3