Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-07-09
The Presidents Approval
Of the BrOOkhart Bill

To the Editor Of The Star:
Now that the President has signed
the pay increase act" the Brookhart
bill. S. is, emasculated by Congressman
Lehlback of its retroactive feature of
two "steps-up'' pay, as of July /, 1928,
I submit that, had the President vetoed
the amended Brookhart bill he would
have deprived the already wronged, low
paid employees of the second Step-up
that Congress intended they should
have received July l, 1928, to wit: Two
StepS-up, not one.
Permit me to direct attention to the
fact that those Federal employees who
received but one step-up July l, 1928,
have lost the pay or wage of one Step-up
for two years, July /, 1880, while other
higher-paid Federal employees have been
paid their annual increases since July
/, 1928. Congress did not intend to
make flesh of one class of employees and
fish of another, especially not fish of
the poorly, low-paid Federal employees
the act had primarily in its intent. So
the one-steppers-up, up to July /, 1880.
! since July l, 1928, have lost their wage
or salary for two years.
The sole object of the Brookhart bill,
s. 10, was to right wrong, to carry out
the intent of the Congress, to give the
one-stepper two StepS-up and pay for
two Steps-up they have been deprived
OF since July /, 1928. How can Con-
gresham Lehlbach justify his nom
retroactive amendment Of the Brook
hart bill, S. Is?
From January 6, 1880, to June rs,
1880, Congressman Lehlbach had full
knowledge of the Brookhart bill, S. is.
Between these dates whispering prop
| uganda was more or less eXtant that:
PRESIDENT Hoover would not sign the
Brookhart bill, S. Is. with the retroac-
| tive feature in it. Did this word come
from the White House direct? Did the
| Washington newspapers print such an
item OF news? No. In both cases no.
do not believe President Hoover ever
Informed or even intimated to Congress-
man Lehlbach that he was not in favor
OF the retroactive feature of the Brook
| hart bill, S. Is, or that he would veto
the bill If the retroactive feature of 1t
was not amended. I personally believe
| President Hoover to be too honorable,
| too just, too humane, too knowing of the
| faithful service of SO per cent of the
faithful, loyal, poorly-paid Federal en-
ploye TO deprive them of the two years
pittance of wage that the Congress in
tended that they should have as we'll as
those who received $1,000. $500, 5000,
$500, etc., increase since July l, 1928.
The one-StepperS needed that two years
I
especially hundreds of women employees
with others depending upon their wages.
! They needed the last two years wage.
| They live from hand to mouth day after
day, month after month, year in and
year out. Cost of living is just about
what it has been for past four or five
years. Though wheat Is SO cents a
buShel in Chicago, bread in Washing
ton, d. c.. is at the same war price
Several millions of Americans are I'M
employed This has not lowered the
cost of living, though there Is under
of employment right here in the Capt.
bach, to deprive the one-steppers Of
two years wage. There are hundreds
of one-steppers, especially women with
dependents upon them, who have lost
more in wages in the last two years
than the increase in their one step
up since July /, 1928, owing to
furloughs Of two days without pay
each month. The two years back
pay would just about put them on an
equal heretofore usual yearly wage.
Again this loss OF two days pay each
month, of course, lessons their annual
wage and the lessened annual wage will
lessen their annual retirement annuity
May not the Lehlbach non-retroactive
amendment to the Brookhart bill, S. Is,
be the killing of two birds with one
amendment, to wit: Loss of two years
| pay and loss in retirement annuity?
am sure President Hoover would not
approve of this two-edge sword-thrust
for the one-steppeB. w. E. RYAN.