The A. J. Headley were directed to prevent any such parade or demonstration. parade started despite a warning by the inspector, and a riot ensued in which 38 of the marchers were arrested by the police and minor casualties were suffered by both police and marchers. MAY DAY DEMONSTRATION On May 1, 1933, in compliance with orders from Communist leaders, a small group, mostly colored, assembled at the same lodge hall mentioned above and were granted a permit to march to the Municipal Building under police escort. There was no disorder, and after a short meeting outside the Municipal Building the group dispersed. SECOND SCOTTSBORO DEMONSTRATION On May 8, 1933, a group of approximately 3,000 of both sexes, mostly colored, under Communist leadership, arrived in this city. They were granted a permit to parade and a small delegation was allowed to visit the Capitol to present a petition in behalf of the so-called "Scottsboro boys". There was no outbreak, nor disorder. The group left the city. SECOND BONUS INVASION Early in May 1933 small groups of former service men, some of whom were members of the first bonus army, began to filter into Washington for a second bonus siege of the National Capital. A camp was provided for these men at Fort Hunt. The group split up, however, into two factions. For a time the friction between the two factions threatened trouble, but the resignation of certain alleged radical leaders to whom one faction had raised objection averted any outbreak and a 3-day convention was held in the Washington Auditorium, May 16 to 18, inclusive, in which both groups took part. From the foregoing brief résumé it will be seen that in no similar period of its history has the Metropolitan Police Department been confronted with so many and such unusual police problems as during the past fiscal year. Indeed it is doubtful it any other police organization in the world has ever had the same number of difficult and delicate problems to contend with in the same brief space of time. Too high tribute cannot be paid to the loyal members of the force for their unswerving devotion to duty and their tactful handling of these many and difficult problems. On duty, as they were without exception, for many hours of overtime, confronted with the gravest risks of death or personal injury, nothing less than the coolness and good judgment which they displayed to the last man could have averted a calamity of the gravest proportions at any time. And in the face of all this there was no complaining or grumbling, and there was always evident a willingness and a readiness to do not only that which was required of them but to do a little more and to do all a little better. It is to this fine spirit on the part of officers and men alike that the degree of success which attending the handling of these many and delicate situations may be attributed. CLASS OF PAY OF PRIVATES IN THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT (COVERING PEROID FROM JUNE 30, 1932. TO JUNE 30, 1934) Petition by the legislative committee of the Police Association of the District of Columbia in behalf of the members of the Metropolitan Police. This petition being addressed to the honorable Members of the United States Senate Appropriations Committee. The following number of men as classified per schedule, i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, are those privates of the Metropolitan Police Department performing the same class of duty as their fellow-officers but whose salary has not been advanced accordingly. The following table sets forth their present class (which has not been changed due to the Economy Act) and their proper class were the Economy Act not in effect. 1 Appointed Apr. 25, 1931; missed first promotion because of inefficiency. There is a total of 1,201 privates in the Metropolitan Police Department. As you will please note, the total of 659 privates who are made to suffer (due to Economy Act) is in excess of the balance of 542 privates who are receiving full pay by virtue of having reached class 6 prior to the enactment of the Economy Act, thus giving them a salary of $2,400 per year, less 15 percent economy cut. FURTHER INEQUITIES AS PERTAINING TO LEAVE Federal and District employees with exception of the police and fire departments receive holidays as follows: Days 26 7 33 Number of officers in police court for the week beginning Jan. 8, 1934; the tour of duty they were working; the number on days off; the number on annual leave and the number of hours in court. This does not include the men working 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., or those in criminal court Hon. CARTER GLASS, Chairman Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, DEAR SIR: I am appearing before this committee as a bona fide citizen of Washington, which permits me this privilege. It is my desire to present a few facts that I believe the committee is not acquainted with, relative to the fire and police departments' pay status. There are men in these departments that have served 10 years, but do not receive a private's full pay. This is hard to believe, but nevertheless it is true. The privates in the fire and police departments all do the same kind of work, are subject to the same calls and are governed by the same rules and regulations respectively. A new man enters the fire or police departments at $500 a year less than a regular fireman or policeman, he has done so with the understanding that he will receive a private's full pay at the end of 5 years. He is to receive an increase of $100 each year until he has served 5 years. This is not in any manner a promotion as it is to be construed that promotion means more difficult duties or raise in rank. Any dictionary will define promotion to mean raised to higher authority. In fact, from the entry of a new man in the department, he is performing the same work, he is required to retain the same knowledge of his work that any older employee does. It is therefor readily apparent that his duties and requirements being equal to the other privates of these departments, his pay should be relatively equal. Instead of this about one half of the privates in the fire and police departments do not receive a private's full pay. Is it reasonable that one private should perform the same duties and be subject to the same rules and regulations as other privates yet be discriminated against in the manner of his pay? It has been assumed by the originators of the present salary-increase plan that each year's experience for the first 5 years shall entitle a new member to an increase of $100 a year in pay, this increase originally being intended as compensation for a year's experience and not as a promotion. It is therefore apparent that a man's experience gained during a period of time was the yardstick used in granting these increases and not promotion. The man serves his year, received the experience that entitles him to the increase, yet such increases have not been granted because this experience has been ruled promotion. There has been no promotion; the man is still a private, has performed the same duties as other privates, and been subjected to the same requirements. The duties being equal, the requirements being equal, why then should the pay not be equal to the extent of the experience gained as originally intended? There are privates in the fire and police departments that have served 10 years, yet do not receive a private's full pay. In some instances the loss of these increases with the added pay cut amounts to 25 percent; with the 31⁄2 percent deducted for retirements, is equal to almost one third of the original base pay. In conclusion I wish to add that firemen here in the District work 72 hours a week; are subject to call at all times without extra pay. They also have served as auxiliary police during the hunger-marchers' stay in the Capital. They are not included in the holidays granted other Government employees. I thank you. CHARLES E. FRENCH. The following are examples of discriminations in the pay of privates in the fire and police departments: Pay cut 15 percent Private with over 10 years' service has a loss of $360- $360 345 300 Private with 2 years' service has a loss of $485. 285 Private with 1 year's service has a loss of $385. 285 Private with 4 years' service has a loss of $515. 315 Private with 5 years' service has a loss of $530. 330 As is readily seen the privates with the least pay are subjected to the greatest losses. BRIEF FILED BY MR. CHARLES E. GIBSON, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POST OFFICE AND RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE LABORERS SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIRS: Speaking for the laborers in the Post Office and Railway Mail Service on the proposed pay cut for the fiscal year 1934-35; I wish to say that the basic pay for laborers is $1,500 and $1,600 per year, which is hardly enough to buy the necessities of life, and with the present pay cut it makes it all the harder to balance the budget; and I want to say that it has been impossible for any of us laborers during the last 2 years to save anything for any emergency, that may arise. The Reclassification Act of February 1925 gave an increase of $300 to all postal employees except the laborer in the Postal Service, and I believe that it is an injustice to the laborer to continue the pay cut for another year, whereas, the administration is asking outside business to increase the pay of their employees, and at the same placing the Federal employee on a reduced pay. I beleive that you will see the justice of our plea and that you will not want to force the Government worker to merely exist and that you will restore the basic pay of the laborer to the $1,500 and $1,600 level so that we can at least save a little for an emergency. According to American standards of living, this is most reasonable request and I hope that it meets with your approval. Respectfully yours, CHAS. E. GIBSON, President National Association of Post Senator BYRNES. If there is nothing further, the committee will stand adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned until Monday, Jan. 29, 1934, at 10 a.m.) INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION BILL, 1935 MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 1934 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a.m. in the committee room, Capitol, Hon. Richard B. Russell, Jr., presiding. Present: Senators Russell (acting chairman), Coolidge, Adams, McCarran, Hale, and Steiwer, of the subcommittee; also, Senators Reed. Dill, and Dieterich. Senator Russell (presiding). General Hines, Senator Byrnes has sent word to me that he is unavoidably detained, and asked me to proceed with the hearing. STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. FRANK T. HINES, ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS; SAMUEL M. MOORE, JR., BUDGET OFFICER AND CHIEF OF STATISTICS, VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION; AND J. O'CONNOR ROBERTS, SOLICITOR General HINES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appreciate the courtesy of being invited here today; and through the courtesy of the committee I have had an opportunity of having representatives sit in at the various hearings during last week, so I am familiar with most of the main points that have been called to the attention of the committee. I also know the recommendations that have been made to the committee by the several service organizations. It is my purpose in appearing, of course, to give the committee definite information with relation to these recommendations, and to assist them in any way I can in reaching a determination as to their action in regard to them. The American Legion has advocated what is known as a four-point program. The important point is the point that has to do with the restoration of those men who were on the rolls on March 20, 1933, when the Economy Act was passed, and a change in the rate not only for those men but also for those that are taken off and restored. In most of the discussions, as far as I know, no one has advocated a change in the principles upon which the new law and regulations are based. I take it that the service organizations feel that the underlying principles of the new regulations are sound, and that we are all proceeding with the thought of establishing a compensation or pension roll-no matter what we may call it-upon a sound basis, and that that roll should be an honor roll. |