Evening star., 1950-03-13
Letters to The Star
A pseudonyna is permissible only
10hen letter carries correct name
and address of Writer. Please be briet.

concentrations mean for the executive
branch of the Government is exactly
what the Legislative Reorganization Act
OF 1946 means for our legislative branch.
May I refer you to your own editorial
in your issue of June 13, 1916, entitled
"A Progressive Senate?
It is in that spirit, therefore, that
oppose the existence of the Byrd Com
mittee as violation of the intent of
the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1916 and as a brazen example of the
duplicating functions in government.
The Byrd Committee duplicates the work
OF the Standing Senate Committee and
the Standing House Committee on Ex-
penditures in the Executive Departments.
I submitted proof of this statement and
quoted portions of the legislative author
izations for both committees on the floor
OF the Senate. Furthermore, Senator
Byrd himself admitted that his commit
tee had not met in two years. In spite
of this fact, the Congress has been ap-
propriating funds to sustain it's life.
I do not expect The Star to adopt
an editorial position in favor of legis-
lation I introduce unless 1t sincerely
believes in it. do expect a responsible
newspaper. however, to carry a fair
presentation of my position. I, there
fore, respectfully request that you print
this letter in your columns.
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY.
E Pluribus Unum
All hail Frank j. Luch's statesmanlike
challenge for one, overall annual well
fare fund campaign in this National
Capital Area. It's long overdue.
Twenty years ago, establishment of
the Community Chest went long way
to this end. Let's bring the Chest con-
cept up to date.
One drive, once year, with no worthy
agency kept out nor permitted to stay
out! That goes for Red Cross, too.
Now is the time. It's chaos or cure.
and it's later than we think.
JOSEPH D. KAUFMAN.
X
Support for Hungry" Who Griped
About the Food Served at Pentagon
say amen" to Hungry's opinion Of
the Pentagon cafeterias, as expressed
recently in letter to The Star. Having
eaten with considerable regularity in res
taurants. both inside and outside the
country for the past ten years, have
an ample basis upon which to compare
the Pentagon food with its competitive
counterpart. can truthfully say that it
is the least value for the price that
\ have ever encountered.
The odor which stingS your noStrils as
you step into these cafeterias is enough
to destroy Immediately all appetite for
food. 1t is not the smell of good food
q pleasant adjunct to eating-but rather
a sour, stale odor the likes Of which
have never noticed in even the sloppiest
roadside beanery. You have to smell it
to believe it,
Hungry's idea of making the cafeterias
competitive by dividing them between
two concessionaires may be the solution.
II there is one central authority over
these restaurants, he must be little
short on taste buds to allow such meals
to be served. The patrons have keener
sensibilities it seems, to judge from the
number of little paper bags one sees
carried into the building every morning.
or the amount of disguised comment
one hears in the waiting line at meal
times.
After months OF putting up with the
situation, have reached solution for
myself. I bring my own lunch.
FANdISHED.
Hungry was really getting down to
brass tacks when he or she pointed out
the need for better eating facilities for
all workers at all times.
I suggest petition of ali personnel,