The Third Veto

The President wrote his third veto. His first--of the Bursum Pension Bill --has been sustained by the Senate. His second--of the Bonus Bill--was overridden by Congress. His third--of the Postal Salary Increase Bill--was made so late that the Senate did not have time to consider it and the House did not receive it at all. His third veto, like his first two, was an "economy veto," for the purpose of keeping down Government expenditures. Besides providing increases in postal salaries, the Bill (TIME, June 9) carried a rider for publicity of campaign contributions and expenses. The veto message: "This bill adds approximately $68,000,000 to the annual expenditures of the Government. It makes no provision for raising this amount as postal revenue. The money must come from the pockets of the taxpayers. . .

"The needs of the public, the ability of the people to pay, must have some consideration. These salaries have been adjusted three times since 1918, the last time in 1920. Since then the cost of living has decreased, rather than increased. . . .

''The effect of these increases in salary grades over those for the fiscal year 1918 was an increase of $600 to clerks and carriers in Post Offices, $500 to railway postal clerks and $600 to rural carriers.

"By reason of these increases the Government has paid out during the fiscal years from 1919 to 1923 an additional aggregate of $450,000,000 in salaries to postal employes above what would have been paid under the scale in effect before the changes as follows:

"During fiscal year 1919, $33,202,600.

During fiscal year 1920, 68,901,000.

During fiscal year 1921, 110,756,000.

During fiscal year 1922, 114,256,000.

During fiscal year 1923, 123,256,000.

"It is apparent that the Government has dealt generously with this service. . . .

"At the request of the committee which considered this legislation the Post Office Department made a special investigation of the range of salaries paid to persons employed in business institutions throughout the country and reported the results. These investigations covered representative cities ranging in population from 2,000 to over 5,000,000. It was found that in all cases of employes of similar character the average salaries paid were much lower than those paid in the postal service. . . . There is a wide difference in the cost of living in the larger cities and industrial centres as compared with the smaller cities and towns.

"If there is real need for revision of salaries in the postal service it is to provide a wage differential for those employes serving in post offices located in the large cities and industrial centres. There is no justification for increasing salaries to apply to all offices when the need for such increases does not apply to a large number of the offices. . . .

"For the fiscal year 1923, the postal revenues were $32,000,000 less than the costs of the service for that year. This deficit had to be met from the moneys paid by the taxpayers.

"We should not add to the amount of the postal deficit as is proposed by this bill, but should attempt as a sound business principle to have the users of the mails approximately pay the cost of the mails. . . .

"If that provision stood alone, I should approve that part of the bill relating to campaign funds."