Evening star., 1926-05-18
RETIREMENT BILL
PASSED BY HOUSE
Democrats Protest "Parsi-
mony," But LehIbach Says
ut Is This or Nothing"

Under suspension Of the rules.
which requires a two-thirds vote. the
House passed the Lehlbach civil serv'
ice retirement bill. embodying the
Budget Bureau economy provisions.
with practically unanimous accord
last night just before adjournment.
There was only 40 minutes debate,
which was interrupted with frequent
bursts of applause and almost con-
stant demand for a vote. Democratic
members attacked the parsimony OF
the bill and the scant justice done to
veteran employees by administration
leaders. Chairman Lehlbach of the
civil service committee, in final ap-
peal to his colleagues, gave them his
word that frankly. it Is this or
nothing"
There had been doubt all day as
to whether the bill would be allowed
to come up at all, the Republican
leaders being fearful that if this legls.
lation got loose in the House 1t would
be liberalized far beyond the strict
limits set by the administration.
Senate Allows More Time.
SeDaIe ledu6TS dkIScu tOudN W lct
civil service legislation 60 over until
tomorrow to allow time for the print
ing of the measure as it passed the
House.
There still appears to be some doubt
TODAY whether the Senate would pass
the House. bill, which is the admins
tration measure, or the more liberal
Stanfield bill.
Senator Stanfield is considering
asking the civil service committee of
the Senate to meet tomorrow morning
to decide whether 1t wants to stand
by the more liberal $1,000 bill which
il reported favorably, or whether 1t Is
willing to accept the $1,000 annuity
plan approved by the House. Regard
less of which bill the Senate passes, 1t
is generally considered that the bill as
passed by the House is the only one
at this session.
In explaining to the House the
amendments to existing law made by
this bill, Mr.. Lehlbach said:
1T increases the maximum an
nuities payable to retired employees
coming within the provisions of the
act from $720 to $1,000. 1t changes
the method of computing the an
nuities so that increase in proportion
to the increase of the maximum OBJ
tains with respect to the annuit1es
less than the maximum.
1T somewhat regroups the en-
ployes in different age retirement
groups, including service postmasters
that is, postmasters who have been
promoted from the civil service ranks
and who have spent their time in the
civil service in the postal service. 1t
increa ses the deductions from salary
which employees contribute toward the
annuities which they enjoy from 21a
to 31h per cent of the salary. The
increase in annuities amounts to
something little less than $500, 900.
"In other words, the increased an
nuities will not cost the Treasury
over and above the existing system a
cent, but, as a matter of fact, the
Increased contributions by the EN-
ployes will exceed the increased
benefits of the act by $29,332.'
Allows Increase, But Not Retroactive
In reply to a question from Repre-
sentative Hudspeth, Republican, OF
Texas, as to whether this bill extends
the larger annuity to those who re-
tired previously and whether 1t Is
retroactive. Mr.. Lehlbach said:
"It allows their annuities to be
computed in the same manner as the
annuities of those who will retire In
the future are computed, but 1t is
not retroactive in the sense that 1t
makes up any difference for annuities
paid in the past. AS / was saying,
the contribution by the employees will
be q little I'm excess of the increased
benefits under the bill"
Representative Celler, Democrat, OF
New York made the first speech fol
the Democratic side, bitterly attack
ink the meagerness of the measure
Representative Johnson, Democrat, OF
Texas continued this censure OF the
majority and the administration fol
such parsimonious provisions.
Representative Hudson, Republican
of Michigan, member of the civil
service committee, emphasized that
this measure does not solve the prob
lem of superannuated retirement. lie
advised that g. commission should be
set up to study the questions OF the
Governments liability and that the
Government should meet it's just share
in the interests of efficiency.
Mr. Hudson said, in part:
while this bill Is a great improve
ment over the present retirement Law
CONTINUED on Page 4. Column S.