Evening star., 1949-06-01

To the Editor OF The STAR
your service pay editorial Of May 70
entirely at variance with the facts ana
an injustice to Congressmen who had no
ontion N decent men but to recommit aiter
failure of their attempts TO improve tne
bill reported by the House Armed SERVICES
Committee. 49,.
You stated: 1.-THE bill rejected by the
House was not Matched up by the generals
and admirals at the Pentagon. ws
based on recommendations OF ne al
civilian Hook Commission
r,esnite the representations OF the Armed
s.ry;ces committeemen-echoed in tgnor.
ance by the daily papers-the bill was not
the Hook Commission bill but was oras-
ticaIIy changed, largely on the represen-
tations of the Navy.
To be sure, the rates were those recon-
mended by the Hook Commission. put tne
fo,,r civilians made 1t clear that IN recon-.
n,erdins those scales, their proposals nao
to be taken Is q whole. And those proposals
stressed q raising Of retirement ages.
Now the House Committee dropped III
the retirement proposals. arguing with some
uersuasiveness that the entire question OF
retirement had been gone into oy CongIes
in three separate laws within the past tnIee
wears. do not quarrel with that acuon:
WHGn
were dropped. then the rates themselves mao
no validity
II Is elemental that II x dollars Is deem
ed to be the appropriate pay for service
man from whom q certain number OF years
of service are to be obtained before ne ID
to receive q high percentage OF 4 Tor =
number of years In retired status. then
Is too high for the man from whom 10 years
lees service can be obtained and VINO must
be paid for 10 years longer in retired status
while his replacement also is PAID.
Il should be noted that before the House
vote. the Hook Commission urged the com
mittee to reduce the rates but got nowneIe.
Had the Case five-and- -three-per- r-cent-eu1
amendment been adopted dt lost % 70 los,'
II Ia my firm belief the House would nave
passed the bill.
Dropuing the retirement features without
changing the rates resulted In vastly more
expensive bin than the Hook Commission
proposed.
SO to call the bill the committee reported
the Hook bill was downright misrepresen-
tation-and you fell for 1t.
R,,t mt the excl members OF Congress-
They know pay laws rs your editors 90 not.
and they knew that the Armed Services
COMMITTEES consistently had distorted the
HOOK recommendations In favor Of the
.sbrass" at the expense OF enlisted personnel
HIGHER ranking oficers deserve pay IN
crease and. II the House Committee win now
return to Hook principles, they can set .
BIN ConRressmen can accept. The commit
Tee must I'd adopt the Carroll family allow
ance amendment preferably with provision
that nd man win ret an increase IN pay
while drawing allowances. CD return 70 the
carefully drawn Hook SIS oversee pay. and
co either adopt the Hook retirement plan
or cut the Hook rates By three TO five per
cent. TO the nearest even dollar.
JOHN SI4MKAAN.
70 the Edstor 81 Ths stss.
Your editorial comment On HR 1891 has
ben rather inadequate. and the news Items
about 1t have been . poor commentary on
the reporting ability of your usually we'll
informed stan.
Had your writer's reAd the rcport of The
Hoease Armed Services Committee they
vouId have zen that tle higher pay n
tnduefxy n1ready has begsD - tAke - tan