familiar with the wants of the postal employees, ought to take the first step toward the enactment of legislation of this kind.

It is not exactly what they want but it will suffice until the Congress of the United States does provide a proper retirement system. Reference has been made to the fact that great industrial corporations, great railroad corporations, in the last decade have taken steps to give compensation to their superannuated employees, or, in other words, retirement for faithful service. I do not think the Government of the United States ought to have been lagging. I think the United States Government should have led in this matter instead of straggling behind.

I trust that the Post Office Committee at this time will take the first step which, in a few years' time, will lead to giving the civilservice employees of this country that to which they are justly entitled that is, retirement for superannuated employees after a great length of service, where it is shown that they are fitted for retirement, that they have broken down their health in the Government service.

It happens that I represent in part the city and county of San Francisco. There is an old postal employee there who has served in the Post Office Department over 50 years, a man by the name of Perry. Not long ago he took leave for 150 days, and when that expired the officials of the Post Office Department simply canceled his standing in the service. He was not able to go back, or to get into service again after that period, after he had left it. He was virtually dismissed from the service without any consideration on the part of the Federal Government for his long and faithful services.

I understand that such action on the part of the Government is not unusual. I understand there are a number of instances that can be cited.

I hope this committee will give this bill the consideration to which it is entitled and report it favorably, so that the House may have an opportunity to vote upon it and thus give the postal employees of this country who have served the Government so long and so faithfully this relief to which they are entitled, and by installing this system get the most efficient kind of service. Let me call your attention to one other thing. If you will look at the picture on the wall over there you will see an illustration of the Postal Service as it was 100 years ago, when the mail carrier went around with his horse. Then, you will see how the mail is carried to-day, on the iron and steel horse and in every possible way the Postal Service of this country has been advanced in efficiency in the interests of the people. The people are given a fast railway service, and the employees are doing their utmost to give the public of this country proper service; quick service. Every method which would promote that advance has been accomplished, but no method has been adopted to give the employees what they are justly entitled to, after long years of faithful service, as in the case of this man Perry to whom I have referred. Unless his people take care of him he will become a charge upon society.

It is not right, and it is not the proper way to do it. It is not the way to treat a man who performs long and faithful service for the Government of the United States.

As you have done in the matter of compensation I trust you will also do in the matter of retirement, by making a favorable report on the Griffin bill.

STATEMENT OF HON. E. W. ROBERTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to appear this morning and be recorded as in favor of the bill, and to make one suggestion only. Possibly what I have in mind is sufficiently covered by the bill, and that is that they should receive proper safeguard against the railroading out of the service of old employees who are still capable of performing good service, railroading them out of office on the plea of superannuation. I have not read the bill carefully enough to be sure whether or not that is already covered by the language of the bill. I simply wanted to suggest that the committee consider that matter very carefully and see that no bill goes through that will allow the postmasters or the Postmaster General, under the plea of superannuation to separate men of that kind from the service.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDGAR R. KIESS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Mr. KIESS. Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to take the time of this committee to discuss the merits of this particular bill. I am willing to trust the committee to report a bill which will cover this proposition, if they so decide.

I merely want to say that I am heartily in favor of the principle contained in the bill, and I indorse particularly the remarks of Mr. Magee and Mr. Nolan. From personal knowledge, I know of some circumstances in cases similar to that cited by Mr. Nolan. I know of similar cases to that in Pennsylvania.

As I said before, I am in hearty sympathy with the principle of the bill. I am not familiar with the exact provisions of it, but I am satisfied to trust the committee to place the proper safeguards in the bill, and make it as it should be.

STATEMENT OF HON. B. H. SNELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to appear before the committee this morning as being in favor of the bill which is now before you-H. R. 6915. I am in hearty sympathy with the general principles of the bill. I am not familiar with all the details of the bill.

I have received a great many communications from my district, and every man who has written to me or communicated with me has been in favor of the bill. These communications have come not only from the postal employees, but from many of the representative business men in my district.

Personally, I think it is purely a business proposition. If the biggest and best manufacturing and business corporations in this country take care of their employees and provide for their old age, I

believe they do it because they think that by doing that they will get more efficient service from their employees.

So far as the general principles are concerned, I am in favor of running the Federal departments more as a business proposition, and I think this bill is a step toward that. Therefore I am in favor of it.

STATEMENT OF HON. A. J. BARCHFELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Mr. BARCHFELD. Mr. Chairman, it is needless to say that nearly every man in the House of Representatives is in favor of this bill. It is not the fact that we are in favor of the bill, it is the fact that we want the bill reported, which is the more important matter to be considered. We hope that the subcommittee in charge will have the courage to recommend to the general committee that the bill be favorably reported, and that the whole committee, with its 21 members, will report the bill and bring the bill to the floor of the House, and there will be no trouble about its passage.

Right here in passing, I want to say I never looked upon this proposition as a matter of charity, but it is a matter of right and justice. I do not believe the Postal Service of the United States, or the employees in the Post Office Department as a whole, have ever received that degree of remuneration to which they were properly entitled.

As one Member of the American Congress, I had the courage to vote for an increase of my own salary, and at the next election I appealed before the people of my district upon that issue, that I had had the actual courage to raise my own salary. I never voted to decrease any man's salary. On the contrary, if I could not vote to increase his salary, I did not vote to decrease it.

The Post Office Department is a great branch of the Federal service. Other nations, older nations, are trying to do the right and proper thing by all their constituencies and all their subjects and all their people in the declining years of their activity, and I believe our Government, the richest Government on earth, with all the powers of the world to-day engaged in war, and practically broke, as a result of this unholy war-I believe our great, rich, and powerful Government should do at least this much for their old employees. It is not a matter of charity on the part of our Government to vote such appropriations as will take care of its worthy, deserving, superannuated employees. It comes to them as a matter of justice and equity, and I only hope, Mr. Griffin, that you will be able to bring out this bill from the committee and put it on the calendar of the House so that we will have a chance to vote for it.

STATEMENT OF HON. L. H. HADLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.

Mr. HADLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have had a number of communications at different periods of time in regard to this bill. I have received a number of communications from my district and from other points of the State touching this general subject, and some of the communications I have received are in reference to this particular bill, H. R. 6915.

Some of my communicants are urging a favorable report of this bill on the part of the committee, and I desire to bring to the attention of the committee that interest on the part of my constituents.

In this connection let me say that Representative Humphrey, of Seattle, who is unable to be present on account of other work, asked me to say he has had similar communications asking the committee to give favorable consideration to this bill. I can not make any representations to the committee as to Mr. Humphrey's views in regard to the bill, because I have not had an opportunity to talk with him in reference to it.

Speaking personally, I am in favor of the general principle of a retirement fund on the part of the Government, to be equitably applied, having regard to the compensation and service of the employees in the Postal Service, and to the efficiency of the service on the part of the Government and the public.

I understand without having given this bill thorough consideration that that is the underlying principle of the bill, and so I say, with that understanding, I favor the principle of the bill.

Of course, as other gentlemen have suggested, it may be that upon a specific consideration of its provisions it may be found that it may require some amendment. That rests with the committee having the bill under consideration at the present time, but as to the general principle of the bill I feel in regard to the matter as I have stated. STATEMENT OF HON. HORACE M. TOWNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA.

Mr. TOWNER. Mr. Chairman, I desire to commend the committee in the consideration of this bill. I certainly believe it is time for the United States to do at least as well by its employees as the great corporations of the country are doing by theirs.

Not only are we paying less for the best class of our labor than are the great corporations of the country, but we are treating the employees with less consideration than is given to the employees of these corporations. We compel them to work under circumstances that would raise a storm of protest if any corporation of the country should compel its employees to work under a like condition.

We are compelling them to submit, in some instances, to conditions that, if the corporations of the country should impose upon their employees like conditions, it would bring upon them the contempt and ridicule of the press and the people.

I think that the Government of the United States ought to treat the men who work for it at least with as much consideration as do the private employers of this country. I think the Government of the United States will be working toward economy when it treats its employees with the very highest degree of consideration and respect and also has consideration for the circumstances under which they work and the circumstances under which they live.

I suggest for the consideration of the committee whether or notand I would like to direct the attention of the subcommittee especially to this suggestion-I submit for your consideration this suggestion, whether or not instead of limiting it to superannuation you ought not to include also in its terms those who by accident or misfortune incurred in the service have become permanently disabled.

I have in mind two instances that came under my own observation. One was a rural carrier who, in the performance of his duty, was caught in a severe snowstorm in the northwestern part of the State of Iowa and was almost absolutely unconscious when he was found, with both of his arms frozen off. He is permanently disabled. He has nothing but the stumps of his two arms left.

The Government does not look after him at all. It seems to me it should appeal to the dictates of humanity in every representative breast as an utterly unconscionable thing that we allow that man now practically to be compelled to subsist on the charity of the community in which he lives rather than take care of him.

Therefore I submit that, in my judgment, this bill should include not only those who are superannuated, but also those who are permanently disabled while in the line of their duty.

I have not given this bill the consideration that you gentlemen have. I only want to say I believe it is in the line of fair treatment for the employees of the United States Government.

I want to see this Government do for its workers, for the men who are trying to build up here a governmental service that should be an honor to the country both in efficiency and in every other regard; I want to see them do for their employees everything that present standards of humanity, that regard for human right, regard for the perpetuity of our Government, which must depend on building up a citizenship mainly composed of the workers of the world; I vant to see this Government do at least as well by its employees as the selfish, grasping corporations do by theirs.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWIN D. RICKETTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO.

Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE: I have come before you at the solicitation and earnest request of a large number of postal employees of my congressional district who are deeply interested in having this bill favorably reported. I obtained a copy of the bill this morning and have carefully read it, and I am heartily in favor of the principle involved in this bill and shall be delighted to support it if you will recommend it to the House for passage.

No class of individuals or employees in the United States under employment by the Government have rendered more faithful or more efficient service than those engaged in the Postal Service. They are filling responsible positions, and their work requires faithful and close attention. For years this class of individuals have been rendering most splendid service, and the people of the entire Nation have been greatly benefited by this service. Many employees give the greater part, and, in fact, the very best part of their lives to this service. Why not protect them? Many of them finally lose out in the service and are cast aside or out upon the cold world without money and without means with which to support themselves, and this Government coldly and cruelly pays no attention to them. In my judgment, this is wrong. The Government should take care of its employees in this particular line of work. This work is strenuous and nerve racking, and those engaged therein should be protected.

It seems to me that this bill might be amended so as to provide for the support and maintenance of any employee who might become