The Washington times., 1920-08-22
DENIES WAGES.
CAUSE H. c. |.
Steward Insists Proposed Cut
of 100000 Employees Would
Save Money.

Taking issue with the proposal OF
the secretary Of the Republican ma
tionaI committee. former Congress
man Clarence b. Miller OF Minnesota,
who. In a speech in Washington a day
or two ago. advocated the dismissal
OF 800. 900 Government employees as a
means OF reducing the cost OF living.
the National Federation OF Federal
Employees, through it's president.
Luther c. Steward, has addressed a
letter to the Republican headquarters
pointing out that practical application
of DR.. Mlller's plan would reduce the
Government personnel for the entire
country, exclusive OF the postal service,
to 10000. and produce a saving then
OF only SO per cent Of the total Gov
ernment expenditures OF 1920.
In other words, President Steward
states that the cost OF the Federal
Government in 1920 was about $3.50
per head, Of which sum S3.7l was paid
In wages to Government workers. The
letter to Mr.. Miller says:
"In other words, II you are quoted
correctly. you seem to have fallen in
with the fallacy so diligently ex-
plotted by private employing interests
that seek to keep the workers on low
wages; namely, the false contention
that labor. costs are the chief factor In
the cost OF living. Fortunately. the
public is at last beginning to under
stand that an increase OF dollar per
ton for coal, for example. does not
mean that the miper gets anything
like that proportion. And we have
learned that when we pay $3.50 for a
pair OF IS shoes, the workers share
OF the increase in price was only Is
per cent.
LEAVE 10000 WORKERS.
"The dismissal OF 1000 Govern
men employees would leave about
$4,000 civilian employees in the en-
tire Government service. or these,
100000 are in the postal service. which
is 70 notoriously undermanned that
we asume you would not attempt re-
duction there. II, then, the 300. 900
dismissals would be from the remain
ing departmental services, you would
leave 10000 men and women to oper-
ate. not only all the executive offices
in Washington (where before the war
the personnel was 81, 7,00O), but all the
customs. immig grafton and revenue Of
fees. courts, Government hospitals.
public health stations, penitentiaries,
Indian schools, agricultural, forestry,
fisheries, stations, reclamation prof.
ects, arsenals, navy yards and sta
tions, lighthouses, coast guard, steam
boat inspection. and numerous other
field services OF the Government all
over the United States.
You seem not TO realize. further
more, that such bureaus as War Risk
Insurance. Internal Revenue. the Pub
! lie Hnalth "a nd Voc innal Edncatinn
Board, created or expanded in the last
four years, require permanent per-
sonnel in Washington far greater
than the prewar basis, while the
civilian personnel of the War and
Navy Departments bear a proper
tional increase to the increased size
of our military forces.
SAVING ONLY SLIGHT.
Assuming, however, that 10000
men and women could do all this
work where 100000 are now en-
ployed to do it, how much would be
saved to the taxpayer by depriving
him of the services OF this so per
cent of the people who now perform
these public duties?
1T would amount to about 1927
per year per head. Not a very signif-
cant preparation OF the total cost of
lNlnE per lnulNluual.
THE average salary of the Gov
ernment employees is now about 81 200
year The total expenditures Of
the Government in 1920. with a Repub-
lican Congress making the appropria-
tions, was $5,6S6.O0 900 in round
numbers. To cut off 100000 of the
employees of the Government, or so
rsr cent of the civilian force outside
the postal service would affect a
saving of 6.3 per cent of the total ex-
penditures. In other words. the tax
payer who last year spent $51.60 for
the maintenance of the Federal Gov
ernment paid only s3.71 to the people
who operate the vast machinery
through which the Government serves
the public 1t is out of the wages
of the Government workers, apparent
ly. that you would attempt to re-
duce the cost of living. We sug-