missal to the postmaster, stating that he should be dismissed for it, and I felt different. I was helping him on his defense.

Mr. SMITH. There were no charges against you for activity in politics?

Mr. MARCKS. None whatsoever.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. Who was president of this association at the time this young man did that?

Mr. MARCKS. A man of the name of E. W. Engel.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. What was his attitude in the matter?

Mr. MARCKS. This carrier did not go to Engel. He came to me.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. Did Engel take any part in the case at all?

Mr. MARCKS. Not in that particular case.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. The young man never went to Engel?

Mr. MARCKS. No.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. Under the rules of procedure of the organization, was he supposed to go to Engel?

Mr. MARCKS. No; they have no rules on that particular matter. If the carrier felt so disposed, he would not have to consult anybody. It is just simply a custom that if a man was charged with some dereliction of duty that he should call upon the president. I had just vacated the office of president, and I guess I was pretty successful in the cases.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. How long were you president?

Mr. MARCKS. I was president for two years. That is a little rule we have in St. Louis, that a man serves two years and gives somebody else a chance.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. Did this president take up this case at all?
Mr. MARCKS. He did not take up that case.
He had taken up a

case in which he was confronted with charges for dismissal from the service on that particular position; but I did not care to mention that case, as I do not feel like talking about that.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. He was confronted with dismissal?

Mr. MARCKS. Yes; President E. W. Engel.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. Confronted with dismissal for what?

Mr. MARCKS. He had received charges; for assisting another carrier on a little dereliction of duty; giving advice.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. Prior to that time?

Mr. MARCKS. Prior.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. And so he kept out of this?

Mr. MARCKS. He was not in connection with this Harry James case at all.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. You think that was the reason of it?

Mr. MARCKS. No. The reason of it was that Harry James did not go to him.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. So the fact that he had been disciplined for interference in other cases did not influence his action in this at all? Mr. MARCKS. No. He had no opportunity.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. I wanted to find out when this Sunday inspection was instituted.

Mr. MARCKS. In May, 1914.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. Up to that time it had never been held on Sunday?

Mr. MARCKS. Never had a Sunday inspection.

Mr. Rowe. How about other cities? Do they hold a Sunday inspection?

Mr. MARCKS. I could not say of all of them. I do not know of any other city in the United States that has inspection on Sunday. Mr. Rowe. How long does this inspection take? How much time does it consume?

Mr. MARCKS. From 10.30 o'clock to 2 and 3 o'clock.

Mr. Rowe. Practically a day.

Mr. MARCKS. I will say this much, that at the last inspection held in the post office proper he marched the men to the American Theater, which is a distance of 10 or 12 squares from the post office, and made an address there, and he was hissed by his own men.

Mr. Rowe. The postmaster was?

Mr. MARCKS. Yes. When Dr. Bowlver, who was connected with the Lord's Day Alliance, took up the matter he was advised of the Sunday inspections, and he took up the matter on religious groundsthat the men should be given their Sundays. So that was checkmated by the postmaster by having ministers of one denomination or another to deliver an invocation, and for ministers of another denomination to give a benediction, so that the Lord's Day Alliance could not say that they were not getting a proper day.

Mr. Rowe. Have any of the other presidents of your carriers' organization been dismissed from the service?

Mr. MARCKS. No; they have not been dismissed.

Mr. FLAHERTY. Could I at this point inform you that two officials of the clerks' organization have been dismissed?

Mr. Rowe. In St. Louis?

Mr. FLAHERTY. Yes. I have the facts here if the committee, when Mr. Marcks gets through, would like them; I will be glad to give them to the committee.

Mr. MARCKS. One president had a very close call, I believe, but managed to get by through the efforts of Mr. Igoe, of the 11th congressional district.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. What was the reason stated by the postmaster for having the inspection held on Sunday?

Mr. MARCKS. He did not give any reason for that.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. Was an objection made to him?

Mr. MARCKS. I could not say of my own personal knowledge that anyone went up to him and told him they objected to it.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. Did the president of the organization ever present any protest or say anything to him that would indicate to him that the carriers preferred not to have it on Sunday?

Mr. MARCKS. No. I could not say that any direct protest was made to him. We felt, however, that he was well aware of the fact that the men did not approve of it.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. How was he to be aware of the fact unless somebody made suggestions to him?

Mr. FLAHERTY. I might state here that the national officers of the National Association of Letter Carriers have had this particular matter up with the department officials here frequently in the effort. to have these Sunday inspections in St. Louis discontinued. The men have protested through their organizations. If you were acquainted with the situation in St. Louis you would perhaps better

understand why an individual carrier would not walk up to the postmaster and protest.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. But that, I thought, was the purpose of the organization.

Mr. FLAHERTY. It is, but in St. Louis the organization is not recognized or permitted to function, and any officer who submits a proposition not entirely in accord with the views of Postmaster Selph is apt to be disciplined, but the men have protested through their national organization, which has presented the facts to the First Assistant Postmaster General and the Postmaster General.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. What reason do they give for having this on Sunday?

Mr. FLAHERTY. The postmaster's reason at St. Louis is that if it was held on week days it would take the men away from their work for a certain time; merely in line with the economy program.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. That it would cost less money to have the inspection Sundays than week days?

Mr. FLAHERTY. It would cost nothing to have it on Sunday, but it would cost something on week days. The Sunday compensatorytime law provides that employees working on Sundays must be given compensatory time off on one of the following six days or payment in lieu thereof if so elected. We contend that this inspection is work and that the employees are entitled to time off or pay. The department says otherwise, and we have never been able to get either time off or pay for this character of Sunday work.

Mr. HUMPHREYs. I was trying to get in my head what the department had in mind. It was, you think, a matter of economy. They did that to save money by it.

Mr. FLAHERTY. In this particular instance I would not blame the department, because the universal practice is to hold this inspection on week days. St. Louis is one of the conspicuous exceptions. It is a St. Louis idea.

Mr. GLYNN. Do you know, Mr. Flaherty, of any other office which has had Sunday inspections?

Mr. FLAHERTY. I know of no other large office. In Chicago they hold inspection once a year on week days, Mr. McGee tells me.

Mr. MARCKS. I can only say that previously the men were inspected at their particular stations where they were assigned. The superintendent of that station would say: "You fellows get your uniforms inspected outside at 12 o'clock." We would go there, and he would look them over, and if they did not look presentable enough he would say, "Now, listen, that don't look good," the superintendent of the station would say, "you want to get something new." It never took up any length of time, because he would only have about 40 men to review, and it would take only a few minutes, not over 10 or 15 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. In a big city like St. Louis these men would come from all parts of the city. and practically consume a whole day?

Mr. MARCKS. Yes. Under present conditions the inspection of uniforms only consumes half an hour or so. The men are checked off by their immediate supervisory officer and given their ratings. as to appearance on his statement. Then after they are all lined up the postmaster reviews them all, and some fellow, whose collar may

be a little high, he will tell him that is not right. It is very rigid, and then he goes on and makes a talk for about an hour.

Mr. SMITH. And the boys have to listen to it?

Mr. GLYNN. They have to listen to oratory from the postmaster. Mr. MARCKS. You might call it oratory; they don't call it oratory. Mr. HUMPHREYS. The postmaster makes the inspection himself? Mr. MARCKS. I am only going to make a statement that I can vouch for. I only attended these inspections from May, 1914, until October, 1915. At these he made personal inspections-two annual inspections-twice a year. I am in pretty close touch.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. How much time do these Sunday inspections consume?

Mr. MARCKS. All the way from 10.30 to 2 and 3 o'clock.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. Why does it take so much time longer on Sunday than it used to take? You say it used to take 15 minutes.

Mr. MARCKS. The inspection of the uniforms is only a secondary matter. The delivery of an address to the men follows.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. Would he talk from 10.30 to 12?

Mr. MARCKS. He would talk an awful long time-fully an hour. Mr. HUMPHREYS. That would be half past 11, and the inspection would probably run, maybe, until 12. What does he do until 2 or 3 o'clock?

Mr. MARCKS. He would instruct the band there to give several selections and probably have a few patriotic songs. I am not stating that in any way of criticism, because I believe in officials of the Government being as patriotic as anybody. Then he would have inspection; walk around and inspect them, and deliver his address, and frequently he would have somebody else to deliver a little talk, especially, for instance, during the strenuous times that we went through, there might be somebody talking on the Liberty Loan, or something like that. But even before this country was at war and we were in that situation he would talk for an hour and a half.

The CHAIRMAN. What would he talk on; postal matters purely? Mr. MARCKS. He would tell them what he expected them to do, and would ridicule all the men.

The CHAIRMAN. Ridicule what?

Mr. MARCKS. I hate to make a statement, because I did not hear it myself. It is hearsay and I will not say it. But at this last inspection that I referred to he was hissed, I was told.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. The inspections you attended were all before we went into the war. There were no Liberty Bond speeches then? Mr. MARCKS. No.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. When you were there, did he speak for two or three hours at the times you were present?

Mr. MARCKS. I will not say. He spoke more than an hour. I know I would get to this inspection at 10.30 in the morning and I would not get home to Sunday meal with my family until 2 or 3 o'clock, and I only lived 20 minutes ride.

Mr. SMITH. The length of the inspection on Sunday destroyed the whole day?

Mr. MARCKS. Yes.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. There was no reason for it to take longer on Sunday than it had taken before on week days?

Mr. MARCKS. No. The present system, they were all congregated at the main post office. They had to go to certain places and the inspection probably was made by the supervisory officer or foreman and he noted every employee and made his rating and then presented that to the postmaster. He, of course, afterwards would go around and review them in a kind of casual, general way.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, we have about 20 minutes left, and I suggest that we hear from Mr. Flaherty in reference to the clerks who were dismissed from that office.

STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS F. FLAHERTY, SECRETARY-TREASURER NATIONAL FEDERATION POST OFFICE CLERKS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. FLAHERTY. If I might for a moment pursue the thought that Brother Marcks was talking about when he ceased testifying, the postmaster at St. Louis, I believe, is very fond of military pomp and display. I think this practice of his in calling all the carriers from all over the city down to the main office and lining them in solid ranks is really to satisfy his vanity for a display of that kind. I am led to that belief from this fact: that he attempted to place uniforms upon the post-office clerks in the St. Louis office. Perhaps the gentlemen of the committee are not aware, but the clerks, unlike the carriers, do not wear uniforms. There has been decided opposition to any attempt to uniform them, but Mr. Selph a little over a year ago, issued an order that the clerks should wear chambray shirts and khaki pants, other designated articles of wearing apparel, and all dress alike. We protested vigorously to the War Department, claiming it was in violation of the clothing conservation program then in effect and we were able to have this particular order rescinded. It was objectionable, too, in this way, that a certain firm, Martin & Martin, by name, as I recall it, was specified as the sole source of supply from which these uniforms should be bought.

The CHAIRMAN. Specified by the postmaster?

Mr. FLAHERTY. By the postmaster in the order. But, as I say, we were able, through the agency of the War Department, to have that particular attempt on the part of the St. Louis postmaster to uniform his clerks set aside.

Mr. GLYNN. Was he a former military man?

Mr. FLAHERTY. So far as I know, he is not. I believe he was a lawyer.

Mr. MARCKS. Practicing law. He is addressed as colonel, but I do not know where he ever got the title.

Mr. FLAHERTY. I want the gentlemen of the committee to understand that the facts recited by Mr. Marcks are in no way isolated or personal to him. There have been other cases of a similar nature. In January, 1915, there was introduced into the St. Louis Central Trades and Labor Union a resolution protesting against the impaired postal facilities of St. Louis. I will just read the resolve of this resolution.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. This association of carriers is not affiliated with the labor unions, is it?