Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Mr. STEWART. With reference to the C. O. D. we have, but not the other matter.

Senator COPELAND. You do not have the power to prohibit the sending of unsolicited merchandise?

Mr. STEWART. No; that is our view. We exercise the other power under a provision which we think gives us that authority. The law which gives us that authority has been very thoroughly considered and discussed, not only by the department, but by the committee of the other House.

Now, Senator, they not only go that far but many of them have a very ugly follow-up system. I should be pleased to send you the hearings on that question, which will show you the general character of the matter. It is an unmitigated nuisance in the mails, and we take the position that a receiver of mail has the same right that the sender has, and that no one has any right to impose that inconvenience and burden on him without his solicitation.

I think there is a difference, Senator, between that kind of a case and the case of merely transmitting through the mails of an envelope with the word "Personal" marked on it. Of course, I realize there is the incenvenience that you speak of. A man opens that and thinks it is something personal.

Senator COPELAND. Well, is it personal? If you get advertising marked "Personal," that is advertising, and not a book, or article. of merchandise.

Mr. STEWART. I do not think it is; essentially it is not personal. The sender is attempting to reach you through a false representation. Senator COPELAND. Yes; he is scheming to get in your front door, and there is no question of that. He is lying in wait for you. I think it is indecent to send a letter in that way.

Mr. STEWART. Suppose, Senator, he should seal his envelope and not mark "Personal" on it at all. He would still be inflicting the same inconvenience on you.

Senator COPELAND. Not entirely the same. However, I recognize that the department is unsympathetic. I will endeavor to create some public sentiment in favor of the bill, and then the attitude of the department will change.

Mr. STEWART. I think you will allow me to say, Senator, that the department's attitude is not unsympathetic in any of these matters. We are very sympathetic in all these matters with the receivers as well as the senders of the mail.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further to be said on this measure? [After a pause.] If not, we will proceed with the next

measure.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Shipstead wishes to be heard on Docket No. 170.

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRIK SHIPSTEAD, A SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Senator SHIPSTEAD. I find that all of my files are in the hands of the committee, and evidently they have been sent to the department. The CHAIRMAN. You may state the case, Senator.

Senator SHIPSTEAD. Yes. This case has to do with an old man in St. Paul by the name of Hoffman. He served as a letter carrier for

37 years in St. Paul. He is not about 75 years old. He speaks with a very strong German brogue, and during the war somebody filed charges against him, charges of disloyalty. He was kicked out of the service, and then he asked for an examination and a hearing, and the inspectors who conducted that hearing absolutely absolved him of all the charges. But in the meantime he was too old to be reinstated. He had gone over the age limit and could not be reinstated, and so he does not get the benefit of the postal carriers' retirement fund. The old man has a wife who is dying of cancer. He had only one boy, and that boy was killed in the Spanish-American War; the only means of support he had, the only boy he had was sacrificed for the United States Government. They have no income now. They have a little house with two rooms.

I spoke to the Postmaster General about the case, and he said that under the law he could see no way of giving this man relief except by a special bill; that is, to pay him for the salary that he lost. I understand he can not come in under the retirement fund, but to pay him for the salary that he lost while he was under the false charges, charges that were not sustained and of which he was found absolutely guiltless after the investigation was made. From the time that he was discharged until the time he would naturally have had to retire under the law makes it amount to something like $5,300. There is a letter in the files, which evidently has gone to the department, from the postmaster at St. Paul upholding the claim of this old man. I spoke to the Postmaster General about the case, and he was very sympathetic, but said he did not know what he could do. But he wrote a letter afterwards, in which he stated that if the facts were as I stated he would be in favor of this bill.

I think we have a moral responsibility to this old man. He worked faithfully in the service for 37 years. The only boy he had he gave to Uncle Sam. His wife is dying of cancer, and they are in extreme want. I asked the postmaster at St. Paul to investigate as to his status and the condition of his wife, and all the facts have been verified, and that is why I appear before this committee in behalf of this old man, in the hope that they will report this bill out. I think a great injustice has been done which should be undone.

The chairman of the committee, I think, has the memorandum from the Postmaster General.

The CHAIRMAN. I have seen the memorandum.
Senator SHIPSTEAD. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further to be said on this number?

Mr. FLAHERTY. Mr. Chairman, not on this number, but did I understand you to say that all of the bills affecting the personnel were concluded on the calendar, or were intended to be concluded this morning?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. FLAHERTY. I have here a copy of S. 860, introduced by Senator McKellar. The calendar started with 861. It may be this was kept off through inadvertence. It pertains to giving credit to former military men who enter the postal service.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it a House or Senate bill?

Mr. FLAHERTY. No; it is a Senate bill introduced by Senator McKellar, S. 860, December 6, and referred to this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. By action of the committee on February 15, 1928, it was indefinitely postponed upon an unfavorable report rendered by the Postmaster General on January 3, 1928.

Mr. FLAHERTY. That is the disposition of the bill?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. FLAHERTY. I just wanted to be recorded in favor of its enactment, that was all.

The CHAIRMAN. No further appearances being asked for on these measures before the committee, the committee stands adjourned to meet on Monday, April 23, at 10 o'clock, to consider Docket No. 106, S. 3890, introduced by Senator Gillett, with reference to metered. postage.

(Whereupon, at 11.50 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned to meet on Monday, April 23, 1928, at 10 o'clock a. m.)

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICES AND POST ROADS UNITED STATES SENATE

SEVENTIETH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 659, S. 1286, S. 1718, S. 1804, S. 1900, S. 1925, S. 1945, S. 3081
S. 3184, S. 3559, and S. 3674

BILLS FOR FEDERAL AID IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF
PUBLIC ROADS

MARCH 30 AND 31, 1928

PART 1

Printed for the use of the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads

[blocks in formation]

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICES AND POST ROADS

GEORGE H. MOSES, New Hampshire, Chairman

LAWRENCE C. PHIPPS, Colorado.
TASKER L. ODDIE, Nevada.
PORTER H. DALE, Vermont.
COLEMAN DU PONT, Delaware.
THOMAS D. SCHALL, Minnesota.
W. H. MCMASTER, South Dakota.
LYNN J. FRAZIER, North Dakota.
ROBERT M. LA FOLLETTE, JR., Wisconsin.
SMITH W. BROOKHART, Iowa.

KENNETH MCKELLAR, Tennessee.
J. THOMAS HEFLIN, Alabama.
PARK TRAMMELL, Florida.
COLE L. BLEASE, South Carolina.
SAM G. BRATTON, New Mexico.
DANIEL F. STECK, Iowa.

JOSEPH T. ROBINSON, Arkansas.

MARTHA R. GOLD, Clerk

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »