Evening star., 1933-12-22
To the Editor of The Star:

To the Editor of The Star:
I have read, with a great deal of
interest, the article in The Star OF
Saturday signed by w. G. Thompson,
in which he takes issue with my views
on the law providing that where it is
necessary to reduce the personnel In
Government department. married
person shall be dropped, in the event
both husband and wife are employed
by the Government, before an employe
whose husband or wife is not employed
by the Government is separated from
the service.
Mr.. Thompson no doubt has been
affected by this act. He was probably
of the opinion that he was placing me
in an embarrassing position when he
cited that the wives Of the President,
Vice President, Speaker of the House
and Gen. johnson were all employed.
know nothing concerning the en-
ployment of the wife of the President.
Let me assure Mr.. Thompson that he
has not placed me on the spot" In
all my campaigns it has been my
policy to invite my constituents to ask
my views on any public question that
might confront me, and whenever I
received such request, either in a
public gathering or by letter, I never
hesitated to express myself clearly.
Further, adopted a policy of placing
in the Congressional Record at the
end of each Congress statement CIV
ing my constituents an accounting OF
my service, and in that statement they
were advised of my vote on all impor-
tant questions. I have required my
opponent to express himself on pending
issues.
In every speech I made in the last
campaign I referred to this law. I told
my audiences that l was the one who
placed it in the economy bill. I was
a member of the first Economy Com
mittee in the Seventy-second Congress.
The thought originated with me and
willingly accept the responsibility for the
enactment. In the last election in Mis-
souri, 1t was necessary for Congress-
men to run at large, the Governor fail
ing to sign the congressional redistrict-
the primarV D on the Democrafic tfcket
I finished second among the Sc. In the
election I received a majority Of 404 1000
over the nearest Republican and was
top man on the congressional ticket.
There is no evidence in this result that
indicates the people OF Missouri, to
whom I am responsible, resented my
activity along the line complained of
by Mr.. Thompson.
that some of the highest public off,
cials have placed their wives on the
pay roll. Whenever the opportunity
presents itself my vote will be cast for
legislation that will prevent it. I am
exceedingly sorry the law was not SO
worded as to prevent a public official
in control of patronage from placing
his wife on the pay roll. have no
objection to wife assisting her hus-
band with his work, but I do object
to the wife being paid a salary from
Government appropriation. My wife
has been a real aid to me in my work,
but she has never asked for nor has
she received a dollar for the generous
help she has given me.
x x 4 x
Mr.. Thompson in the fourth para
graph of his letter says in part:
"I could cite, in rebuttal Of any
statement that the Congressman could
make, thousands-I 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 to the Government; and sec
ond, where they are citizens, taxpayers
and a credit to the community In
which they reside. not only in Wash
ington, but in the field"
I will be most grateful to Mr..
Thompson If he will furnish me with
the names of the thousands he refers
to. He speaks of thousands of cases,
not hundreds. know the law has not
been enforced as 1t should be, and II
can secure this list 1t will enable me