Evening star., 1933-12-16
To the Editor Of The Star:

TO the Editor OF Inc star:
In a recent issue of The Star, note
an article headed: President Favors
Giving 5 Per Cent of Pay Cut Back. "
In that article note where Congress-
man Cochran. chairman Of the House
Committee on Expenditures, which
passes on Government employees, Is
quoted as explaining his position in
regard to the dropping Of married per-
sons from the Government pay roll,
when both husband and wife have been
employed by the Government. He de-
clared, emphatically, that he is still in
favor of that law and will do nothing
to upset it. THAT law is going to be
retained" he said, emphatically, land,
If there Is danger that it would be upset
by any amendment, ! would fight the
amendment"
I wonder If Congressman Cochran
would answer through the press whether
his stand would take into consideration
the fact that President Roosevelt and
his wife are both employed-ViceP Presi-
dent Garner and his wife are both
employed-Speaker of the House Rainey
and his wife are both employed
Frances Perkins, Secretary o. Labor,
and her husband are both employed
Secretary Ickes and his wife are both
employed-and Gen. Hugh johnson, his
wife and son are all employed at the
N. r. A. These are just few Of the
prominent people Who could be men,
toned as coming under the heading of
both husband ard wife being employed.
If the Congressman is sincere and
is going to take a stand and act "em-
phatically," as he states, and clean out
all cases-starting at the top. not at the
bottom-he certainly will receive untold
support from not only the taxpayers at
large but the Government employees as
well. However. If he is to be consistent.
he will not start at the bottom and
work up. because the top will never be
reached
1 could cite, in rebuttal of any state
merit that the Congressman could
make, thousands don't mean hun
dreds, mean thousands-of cases Of
husband and wife being employed in
the Government service, where they are,
first: Rendering loyal, patriotic service
they are citizens, taxpayers and credit
to the community in which they reside.
not only in Washington but in the field.
and narrowing 1t down TO selfish-I
presume that would be the phrase to
use-point of view, II the Congressman
wished to do so, he could find many
disabled eX-Service men who gave up
good jobs to enter the United States
Army, the Navy and Marine service and
who went into the three services physi-
cally fit, financially fairly well off, and
enjoying a pleasant social status at the
time of their entry into military
service-but what change when they
came out of the service-physically
crippled, handicapped in ways too
numerous to mention, but SO handi-
capped physically that they were ex-
tremely handicapped from a vocational
socially, all contacts lost; many of these
cases spent years in Government and
private hospitals, trying to overcome
their physical disabilities which were
such great vocational handicap, and,
by their persistent efforts. they refused
to die and were eventually returned to
the commercial world and they finally
secured a small Government position
Gin many cases civil service appointeesl,
but. as the financial loss since the war
had been so great, the small salary that
the husband received was not SUFFICIENT
to more than barely maintain the huS-
band, wife and family, so many wives
who were competent and had ability
also secured some small Government
position-posSibly as clerk or Ste
nographer, or some other minor po-
sition-and by the husband and wife
both working diligently they thought
they could see their way clear to pay
up the back doctor bills, hospital bills,
and possibly accumulate q little sur
plus with which to buy home for
their old age.
II \ 4 X