Evening star., 1939-08-25
Takes Issue With
NOlda Letter.

To the Editor of The Star:
I have no desire to unnecessarily pro-
long discussion in your columns as to
who is primarily to blame for the failure
of the Seventy y-sixth Congress to pass
bill liberalizing retirement features, but
I do seek this second opportunity to
correct statements in the Nolda letter.
Mr.. Nolda assumes" that it might
be taken for granted that Mr.. Steward,
having gone on record as favoring 5
per cent contribution from Federal
workers, would favor the Az per cent
contribution compromise arrived at by
the Senate and House conferees. The
statements made in my article were
not based on assumption, but on facts.
quoted from the Congressional Record,
wherein Mr.. Ramspeck stated that in
all fairness it should be stated that
Mr.. Frank Bennett, president of Railway
Mail Association; Mr.. William Horner,
legislative representative of the National
Federation of Post Office Clerks, and
Mr.. Charles I. Stengle, president of the
American Federation of Government
Employees, personally assured him of
their willingness to compromise the
percentage of deduction from employees
salaries at Az per cent in order that
reduction in optional ages of retire
ment might be secured.
Mr.. Steward gave neither Mr.. Rams
peck nor any other of the conferees such
an assurance, for he was not even pres
uybo "a lof odUipo
from the representatives of employe Or
ganizations awaiting outside of the con-
ference room. Nor was there present any
one to represent or speak for the U. F.
A. w. group of which Mr.. Baker is
president. Had either of these groups
been represented and had they been
willing to accept the AZ per cent agreed
upon in conference, as did Mr.. Stengle
for the A. F. G. E. group, we might
have had q satisfactory retirement
law today.
There was no more chance of the
Ramspeck bill carrying 5 per cent
reduction passing than there was of the
Nicely bill passing which carried the
per cent reduction. A compromise
between the two bills had to be secured.
That compromise was AZ per cent and
our group had a spokesman there IN
Col. Stengle to accept that compromise.
Therefore, We did all possible to CO.
operate-others failed to by being absent.
AS for Mr.. Ramspeck's repeated pub
lie statements that he would favor no
bill that did not embody a substantial
increase in employe contributions, I
think the less said about that the better,
in view of Mr.. Ramspeck's inclusion in
his bill Of a provision to retire Con-
gressmen at As years Of age, with five
years service to their credit. At the
same time he loudly protests against the
cost of retiring Federal employees at
the age Of go, who have served 80 years.
The increase from the 31a per cent
contribution we now make to the AZ
per cent which our group concurred in,
would have covered the additional cost
quite adequately, many believe, since
the actuaries based their figures on the
impossible assumption that every one
would hasten to retire at the optional
age. The majority could not afford to
do this and past experience proves that
only small per cent have ever availed
themselves Of the early retirement age.
However. 68 is entirely too high for an
optional retirement age which is now
in force for the average clerk and it is
to be hoped that the next session Of
Congress reduces this materially.
August "a, INEZ JUSTUS.