* 2 #2 o? 7 3
r ; * t – ` * t f - • * /, * - -º-º-º: !---
22 & 2 *. 3, Cºtº -8 L. . . . . / . (, , ,----,
ax-k-º'- * A -: , A
C 733 -
#ARTMENT OF HEIT WHERE
JOINT HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEES ON EDUCATION
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
- SExTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 1607 and H. R. 5837
BILLS TO ESTABLISH A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE,
- AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
MAY 11, 12, 13, 18, AND 20, 1921
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
\g
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
.49824 \ - 1921
6 / 4., d ?. 23
LA 58
C 2.3Tz/
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR.
UNITED STATES SENATE.
WILLIAM S. KENYON, Iowa, Chairman.
WILLIAM E. BORAH, Idaho. ANDRIEUS A. JONES, New Mexico.
THOMAS STERLING, South Dakota. KENNETH McKELLAR, Tennessee.
LAWRENCE C. PHIPPS, Colorado. JOSIAH O. WOLCOTT, Delaware.
FRANCIS E. WARREN, Wyoming. DAVID I. WALSH, Massachusetts.
FRANK B. KELLOGG, Minnesota.
SAMUEL M. SHORTRIDGE, California.
ROY H. RANKIN, Clerk.
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SIMEON D. FEss, Ohio, Chairman.
HORACE M. TOWNER, Iowa. WILLIAM B. BANKHEAD, Alabama.
FREDERICK W. DALLINGER, Massachusetts. CHARLES H. BRAND, Georgia.
ALBERT EI. WESTAL, Indiana. SAMUEL M. BRINSON, North Carolina.
EDWARD J. KING, Illinois. BILL G. LOWREY, Mississippi.
DANIEL A. REED, New York. TILMAN B. PARKS, Arkansas.
JOHN M. ROBSION, Kentucky.
ADOLPHUS P. NELSON, Wisconsin.
CLARENCE. D. COUGHLIN, Pennsylvania.
SAMUEL A. SHELTON, Missouri.
E. B. BOSBURGH, Olerk.
2
2 /3
*g tº
Aeº 27, , 7
zº
*;
*
* /
*
s
R\\
~ *
, ;" | 27, , , t ,
'w
a 1-2 tº
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 1921.
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR OF THE
|UNITED STATEs SENATE, AND COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION, House of REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C.
The Joint Committee on Education and Labor of the United
States Senate and the Committee on Education of the House of
Representatives met, pursuant to the call of the chairman of the
Committee on Education and Labor of the United States Senate, at
10.30 a. m., at the committee room of the Committee on Education
and Labor, Capitol Building, Senator William S. Kenyon presiding.
Present: Senators Kenyon (chairman), Warren, Sterling, Phipps,
Walsh (Mass.), and Nº.
Congressmen Fess, Bankhead, Coughlin, Vestal, Dallinger,
Towner, Parks, Robsion, Lowry, and Reed.
Also present: Brig. Gen. Charles E. Sawyer; Herbert D. Brown,
of the United States Bureau of Efficiency; J. H. Adriaans, Wash-
ington, D. C.; Dr. L. A. Forster, physician, chiropractor; L. W.
Wallace, representing the Federated American Engineering So-
cieties. -
The Joint Committee then proceeded to the consideration of the
two bills (S. 1607; H. R. 5837) to establish a department of public
welfare, and for other purposes.
STATEMENT OF MR. HERBERT D. BROWN, CHIEF OF THE UNITED
STATES BUREAU OF EFFICIENCY.
The CHAIRMAN. State to the reporter your name and your position
with the Government.
Mr. BRow N. I am Chief of the United States Bureau of Efficiency.
The CHAIRMAN. You have been asked to prepare such statistics
as to the changes in the various departments made by this bill, and
also in regard to economies that might be brought about under this
bill, have you not?
Mr. BRow N. Yes, sir.
º 2 CHAIRMAN. Are you prepared to present those statistics
to-day
jº BRow N. We are not. The work involved is so great that we
have not been able to finish the figures as yet, but we will have them
finished in the course of two or three days.
The CHAIRMAN. Then you desire two or three days, do you?
Mr. BRow N. Yes, sir.
4 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
STATEMENT OF BRIG, GEN. CHARLES E, SAWYER.
The CHAIRMAN. I will state to the members of the House com-
mittee that Gen. Sawyer spoke to the Senate on this subject before
we arranged for a joint meeeting.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Before Mr. Brown goes, let me ask are you making
this same tabulation for the joint congressional committee that has
been authorized to investigate this question of the overlapping of
departments and the cutting out of duplication, and so on?
Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir.
Gen. Sawyer. Mr. Chairman, I hardly know to what extent I
should go into a discussion of this subject, sir. I certainly would not
like to impose upon your time. I would like, however, if I may, in a
short time give a sort of explanation to these gentlemen of the com-
mittee who come from the House side of something of what we con-
template in this measure. Would that be proper, sir?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Gen. SAwyER. That the evidence we have to offer in the matter of
the creation of the department of public welfare may be as brief as
possible and also be subject to ready reference by you, I have pleasure,
sirs, in submitting the following facts, information, and illustra-
tions:
The idea of a separate department of public welfare in the Federal
Government is the outcome of numerous requests of many men and
women throughout the country, who realize that the Nation has great
need at the present time for the development of the highest type of
American citizenship which the United States can provide. It is the
contention of a well-thinking people that this desideratum is only to
be fully realized through a special welfare department in the Federal
Government.
The President, appreciating the importance of this matter, com-
mitted himself during the campaign, in his inaugural address, and in
his first message to the Sixty-seventh Congress, to provide a special
department of the Government to consider and collect into one de-
partment all correlated subjects having to do with the making of the
most competent physical and mental American citizen, and at the
same time bring into cooperation all matters pertaining to public
welfare.
The necessity for such consideration is borne out by the following
facts from the records of the World War:
In providing an army of 4,000,000 of men wherein were considered
only the flower of our manhood, we discovered that the United States
was only able to deliver a little over two-thirds of her men for war
Se]”VICe.
After the most careful system which could be adopted in the matter
of selecteing men as the defenders of our country in the great crisis
and after the best methods of preparation had been diligently pursued,
we still had left in the United States of America, at the time of the
signing of the armistice, 200,000 men detained in the various depot
brigades of the several cantonments of the United States who had
proven themselves mentally or physically incapable of being a part
of our great American Army.
DEPARTMENT OF PTUBLIC WELFARE. 5
On the other side, even under still more thorough and practical
lºng, were other thousands of men who were quite as incompe-
€Illſ.
. This incompetency was measured first by a lack of physical capac-
ity; Second, by mental inability.
Statistics show that of this vast army of the flower of our country
300,000 were unable to read and write.
From the physical incompetency and mental inability expressed
to such a degree as these statistics illustrate, it must be very appar-
ent that it is quite important that some definite course should be pur-
sued whereby such discrepancies can be overcome.
We are hoping that there may never be need for call to war again.
But we do realize that the call and the needs of service of American
citizens in the great producing army of the Nation demand the same
fulfillment, the same capacity for execution, the same energy, and the
same physical strength as does engagement in war. Therefore, the
necessity of special attention by the Government to the overcoming of
such national discrepancy, i.e., as the war records show.
It is with the thought in mind that this administration can at
least lay the foundation in America for the bringing about ultimately
of this objective, viz: the biggest, best, and strongest citizen, that to
be whether measured physically or mentally.
If we are to provide such individual American citizens, it is very
necessary that we lay a deep, broad, governmental foundation. In
studying this subject in its broadest sense we have realized that any
department created for such purpose, to prove most effective, must
incorporate in its plans certain fundamental principles, certain ex-
isting agencies, which are so intimately related that the subject can
not proceed without their being coordinated, cooperated, and united.
With this understanding of the subject and its importance, we
have sought to consider the creation of the public-welfare depart-
ment as related to education, public health, social service, and veteran
service administration. Each of these, sirs, are so intimately asso-
ciated that one can not proceed to a successful issue without the
others, for it is only in the unicn of the four that the ideal is accom-
lished.
p Each of these subjects as now connected with the Government are
attempting to work out their own salvation through several commis-
sions, Public Health Service, War Risk Insurance, Children's Bu-
reau, soldiers’ homes, Employees’ Commission, Pension Bureau, Fed-
eral Board, Bureau of Education, special hospitals, etc. To bring
them all into one united family is the object of the department of
public welfare.
This desired accomplishment involves the consideration of the
subject from two angles: First, as a matter of economy; second, and
no less important, that of efficiency.
In order that we may know something of the magnitude of these
four divisions it may interest you to know, sirs, that the expense
in money connected with these affairs in the year just closing in-
volved an expenditure of $701,596.230. Since we have gotten so
much in the habit of spending dollars by the billion and since We
have lost sight of what this amount of money even means approxi-
mately, I would ask your indulgence while I make this comparison.
6 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
If 701,596,230 silver dollars were shipped at one time in freight
cars of the capacity of 40 tons each, it would take 628 cars or 16
train loads of 40 cars each, making a continuous train over 6 miles
long, and 701,596,230 silver dollars placed edge to edge as closely
together as they could be placed would extend 16,609 miles, or two-
thirds around the globe.
With this understanding of what $701,596,230 means, we can
appreciate something of what the proper handling of education, pub-
lic health, social Service, and veterans' war administration means.
We can all well understand how necessary is competency and co-
operation in their administration.
The attached schematic plan, sirs, illustrates how these matters
may be accumulated and put into coordination and cooperation.
As at present operated, these vastly important and extremely ex-
pensive institutions have no single attachment. It is not possible
to bring them into united effort; they are duplicating much of the
forces in their present form of operation; they are overlapping and
overstepping each other in many of the administrations of their
various activities; and because of this they are not only expensively
conducted but are also very inefficiently operated.
Discussing the various divisions and sections of the schematic plan
herewith presented, we will first consider educational matters. Edu-
cation and its affairs to-day are speaking in very modest tones, and,
I dare say, without any reflection upon those engaged in its affairs,
without much influence or effect as related to progressive, ever-
widening, and developing educational ideas. We are spending in
this connection $3,136,960 at the present time, with only limited
results. It is the determination of the Government under the plan
here submitted to arrange that educational affairs shall be directed
by the most competent, the best suited, and the most progressive edu-
cator to be found in the country. We feel sure, sirs, that this plan
of operation under a department of public welfare will give to edu-
cation everything the most sanguine of its supporters desire. In this
chart we have subdivided the section of education into vocational,
physical, and general. Each of these must certainly express to you
the idea we have in mind—a bigger, broader, and more potential
educational system, directed systematically, coherently, and con-
sistently.
Considering the division of vocational training, we have in mind
under this section everything that has to do with the fitting of our
children for some real vocation in life, or at least to make them the
most practical and resourceful within the possibility of a generous
educational system.
When we come to consider the physical part of education and what
its development means, we are led to recognize at once the fact that
it was Germany’s physical development of her men to that high
degree of excellence which made it possible for Germany to resist the
combined efforts of the world in bringing her to armistice signature.
If we wish as Americans to put ourselves upon a broad physically
developed basis, then it is very necessary that we should adopt a
central governmental relation in all physical educational subjects
whereby we can carry on a vast and well-organized educational sys-
tem in the United States of America; one, too, that will reach the
DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE. 7
home of every family in the United States, whereby the physical
welfare of every child will have the advantage of special physical
development along lines of Federal governmental suggestion.
Considering the third section of education as indicated in the
chart, that of general training, we have in mind the development,
first, of a corps of instructors capable, well compensated, to carry out
the ideas of modern education. We contemplate here also the im-
provement of public-school operation, the development of higher
education, the teaching of Americanization, and a general combat
against illiteracy throughout the land. All of these subjects and
divisions can be best handled through a Federal department of
public welfare with a free rein to do its best along lines such as have
been indicated. Certainly education will be in a position to deliver
to our Nation such services as we hope to have represent us in the
generations that are to follow.
Finally, in this connection I would offer the assurance that this
plan of operation will not only serve as one of great economy, but
also will provide and deliver to those who are interested in educa-
tion the greatest and best opportunity that education and educators
have ever had or could possibly hope to have under even a special
educational department. -
We are particularly interested, sirs, that American educators and
those allied with this important subject have the assurance that it is
the intention of this public welfare department to establish them so
as to give them every opportunity to progress to the limit of the most
Sanguine expectations.
In bringing into this picture the matter of public health we have in
mind, sirs, that no matter how well we may be educated, how thor-
ough our preliminary preparation, we still have need for a strong
Public Health Service in the United States. Its importance as com-
pared with education and the other divisions of this department are
about on a par with them, for out of public health must come every-
thing which protects and guards us against disease, those which are
at present known and others which may develop. It means that
great and important subjects of research, by which we become pre-
pared to prevent the inroads of disease and overcome the disastrous
things which are now destroying us. It means that our medical
teachers are progressive scientists and all our experiences of the
past are to come into correlated and cooperative service, and it means
also to bring into the service all that science can possible provide
and scientific minds can divulge or create. In the matter of sanita-
tion and quarantine, both here and in foreign relations, we have
great and important interests. Out of our foreign relations as
public health servants must come our protection against invasion of
serious and dangerous disease, complications which may develop in
and come to us from other countries.
It means that if we are to progress commercially and industrially
as we should in our relations with the Western Hemisphere, we
should possess ourselves concurrently and coherently of all things
that have already made us great as a nation in subjects of sanita-
tion. All such matters are provided for in a division of public
health. Finally, it needs to provide for us, when illness overcomes
us, such hospitalization and such nurse care as only a well and thor-
8 DEPARTMENT OF POBLIC WELFARE.
oughly organized public health service can provide, furnished with
the best of equipment and manned with specially trained doctors,
nurses, and assistants. Therefore, in considering the subject of
public-health service under the heads of research, laboratories, sani-
tation, and quarantine, insular and foreign, hospitalization, local
and general, we have a subject which is certainly of great importance
and must appeal to you, as it does to me, as being one great and strong
link in the chain of public welfare.
At present we have a wonderful Public Health Service, but its
forces are so distributed throughout the various departments of the
Government—something like 18 bureaus, departments, commissions,
etc.—that it is utterly impossible to develop a system of operation
whereby all departments can be best served and where the best re-
Sults can be produced. And if there were no other excuse for a
special department of Government than that of public health, it
could be well found in dealing with public-health matters.
Public health last year in its expenditure meant something like
$46,000,000; it means also the protection, the guidance, the control,
and the defense of the public health, welfare, and service of the
entire Nation. It is admitted by all those who are associated with
the Public Health Service of the United States of America at pres-
ent that it is rendered more or less impotent and incompetent because
of this distributed relation; and, since it is so important to the
welfare of the Nation, it seems only proper and fitting that it should
be brought under the control of the department of public welfare.
After accomplishing all that education and public-health protec-
tion can provide for our American people, we still find certain socio-
logical questions, certain uplift necessities, certain directing in-
fluences, certain respective and defined agencies as helpful in our
ublic welfare. And as we contemplate and consider this subject
om the sociological standpoint, we believe, sirs, that in the depart-
ment of public welfare should also be instituted a division of social
service, the meaning of which is that such agencies as vocational acci-
dents, as children’s well-being, as humanizing agencies should be
placed under a special secretary, who would devote attention to these
affairs in such a way as to bring together many of the now existing
more or less limited but well-adapted agencies to a harmonious con- ,
sideration of the welfare of all sociological aspects of our Nation as a
progressive, well-being, well-doing, well-thinking, well-acting nation.
We might well consider at this particular moment that thing which
is nearest our hearts, and that is the service that is being rendered
the World War veteran. To-day there is urgent need for better
treatment and care of our World War veterans. Hospitalization has
become a very trying and important consideration for these veterans.
It is said of our Government that we are not giving proper care and
attention to our defenders, a matter which would, sirs, if allowed to
continue, end in national disgrace. We know that we have at our
command at the present time many wonderful resources that we are
not exercising in behalf of these men; and it is in their behalf, sirs,
that I am making a special appeal for your early consideration of
this subject of public welfare, wherein and only wherein can they be
united so closely, so intimately, so coordinately, as in this division of
public welfare and through this directly to the President and thereby
bringing all subjects affecting the soldiers’ welfare to definite at-
DEPARTMENT OF PIJELIC WELFARE. 9
tention and prompt action. This can certainly be brought about in
no better way than by the adoption of Senate bill 1607 now pending
which creates the department of public welfare and attaches the
veterans’ service administration so intimately and closely to it. In
itself, the veterans’ service administration represents the need of con-
tinuous, determined, persistent, and exhaustive effort in behalf of our
World War veterans and their dependents. And this department
provides both the methods and the means.
This subject as now under consideration involves not only present
needs but also future and ever-increasing necessities. In order that
abuses do not creep in, that advantage is not taken either of the
server or those to be served, it is very important that at once, now,
this very particular Congress should establish policies and principles
which will establish for time to come a strong foundation upon
which to safely administer these important and ever-growing needs
of the veterans’ service administration. In our study of this sub-
ject we have considered it carefully and thoroughly from every angle,
and we are sure that it not only fits into the plan of public welfare
but that the soldier interests will be best cared for in this arrange-
ment. We propose to bring into this department not only the affairs
of war risk and vocational training, hospitalization, medical and
nurse service, but also the Federal soldiers’ homes, and all matters
which can in any way or do in any way affect the welfare of the
World War veteran. In considering the subject of hospitalization,
our first and crying need is to care for these men promptly and
quickly, and to do this it is necessary that some one department to
which this subject is naturally related should speak for these affairs
and be able to connect and bring to service every needful and useful
thing pertaining to the necessary attention of those who had the great
misfortune to become afflicted by service or who may become de-
pendents in any way by the exigencies of circumstances which may
arise to develop disorders caused by exposures of war service. If we
do this understandingly, competently, and well, we must prepare im-
mediately for the accumulation of all the forces at the command of
the Government to take care of these emergencies and then to lay
deeply considered, well thought-out plans for permanent and future
treatment, care and domiciling of these who surely, as shown by the
experience of the Civil War, will require increasing attention as time
goes on. If we had no other objective than this in the development
of this department we feel, sirs, that it would be quite sufficient and
would certainly appeal to this Congress in such a way as to im-
mediately bring this welfare department about. &
In considering the matter of taking over the national soldiers'
homes, it is with the understanding that the needs of the World War
veterans are going to be similar to those of the Civil War veteran;
and in order to present facts bearing upon this subject, I am ‘ī;
from a recent letter from H. M. Evans, senior surgeon (R), Unite
States Public Health Service, which affords, in my opinion, pertinent
facts which should help to direct us in the course of pursuance re:
garding the matter of the service we are finally to render the World
War veteran. Surg. Evans says:
The national soldiers' homes, 10 in number, have afforded as good facilities
for hospitalization as any other institutions, and in View of the fact that this
effort is one to accommodate ex-service men, it would be rational to make the
10 DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE.
major effort along the line of developing soldiers' homes. May I call your atten-
tion to Some statistics that will enable you to more perfectly comprehend the
load that Will have to be borne by these institutions? Statistics show that
507,347 men were discharged with some disability; of this number, 62,438 were
of Some form of mental disorder and 77,000 tuberculous.
When you take the statistics which show that out of a group of 100 normal
men at the age of 25, you may follow them for 40 years, the following results
are obtained: One will be rich, 4 will be wealthy, 5 will be self-supporting, 36
will have died, 54 will be dependent upon assistance from friends or public
charity.
Is it fair to assume that of the 500,000 men discharged with disability that
they may be SO rehabilitated that they will function better than normal indi-
viduals? If they do not, more than 50 per cent of that number or more than
250,000 will have to be cared for in the next 40 years. The experience follow-
ing the Civil War was that the hospital population of service men increased
for 13 years after the close of the war and the soldiers’ homes increased in popu-
lation until 43 years after the War. The agencies that are at work now to-
gether with the better facilities for disseminating information and collecting
trainers would warrant us in assuming that these peaks would be reached in a
very much shorter time than they were after the Civil War.
Assume that half the time will have elapsed, our peak for hospital Work
will be reached six years after the armistice, and our peak for the soldiers’
homes 213 years after the armistice. I have not seen any program discussed in
the press or do not know of any program that is being prepared to be pre-
sented to Congress that is contemplating Our full Obligation even for the first
period of 10 years. It would seem to be a part of wisdom and good business
to map out a program and have every effort that is made adjusted to meet
the complete care Of these men. The Soldiers’ homes as they are now are
located on vast estates in fact, and are capable of further development to
accommodate several thousand men. It must be borne in mind, howevel',
that the friends of the ex-service man prefer to have him as near his home as
is practicable, therefore, unusually large units should not be established, but
only sufficiently large to be operated at a reasonable expense per Capita. It
would seem that a feasible thing to consider would be some arrangement With
the State soldiers’ homes and the Governinent whereby the large number Of
well located and well equipped State soldiers’ homes might be further developed
to care for the men of that particular section. This would seem to be prac-
tical economy, and I think it would be appreciated by the ex-service men.
I make this quotation in such detail because it seems to speak very
understandingly of what we should have in mind in considering the
war veterans’ liabilities and the Government's responsibilities in his
behalf. And since we own these wonderful properties, with their
population decreasing very rapidly, and no other apparent use for
them, and since the American Government has no welfare object
requiring more thorough or complete attention it seems pertinent
indeed that the soldiers’ homes should be taken into consideration
and become a part of this welfare department. This has more things
to commend it than simply the matter of economy. If the World
War veteran can only be impressed with the influence and joy and
satisfaction he can bring to the Civil War veteran and will, by asso-
ciation with him, take the lessons which will be imparted by such
contact, I am sure that it will redound to the good of both, and
therefore, sirs, I would suggest that the soldiers’ homes be taken
under the welfare department and that every encouragement be
given the American people that the hospitalization of these homes
will render the best service that can possibly be given.
With these various agencies and what they represent linked to-
gether in one chain, hitched to one specific and special department
of the Government of the United States, we feel sure, sirs, that the
present Congress could render no greater service to its people, and
no more efficient or effective and economical arrangement could be
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 11
made than by placing under a Cabinet in a deparement of public
Welfare these affairs to be conducted in accordance with the tentative
plan here submitted.
We know how pressing are the present demands upon Congress for
economical administration; and we are taking the time and trouble
to bring to your consideration definite, actual, positive understanding
and conclusion in this regard, so far as present expense and saving is
concerned, and within a day or two we will be able to show to you,
through the Bureau of Efficiency, carefully compiled financial state-
ments which will demonstrate beyond question that from the stand-
point of economy this arrangement will save hundreds of thousands
of dollars. Should you desire or require further evidence in detail
regarding any particular division now under consideration in this
bill, I would be pleased, sirs, to provide the same, and we submit
this statement with the assurance that the careful, thorough study of
the whole subject, in which have been consulted many of the leading
people connected therewith throughout the country, will show that
the carrying out of this plan would be most pleasing to your con-
stituents who are so interested in the welfare of the American people.
In closing I would like to argue that each of these divisions feel
that they are entitled to a separate department, and that it is their
intention, unless some accumulated course is adopted, that each one
will make an effort to get for itself a special department for the
consideration of their individual subjects. You can readily see, sirs,
what this would mean. I feel sure that after this plan has been put
in operation that all opposition will be satisfied that it is all they
need and that instead of having four separate cabinet officers and
particular departments, each of these divisions, education, public
health, social service, and veteran service administration, will find
every attention that their different divisions require in the promot-
ing of their every interest and in the completest progressive move-
ment of the causes in which they are enlisted.
During the last year there have been many importunities made
by many people throughout the United States for a particular de-
partment in the United States Government relative to the subject of
public welfare. The welfare we have in mind, sir, in the considera-
tion of this subject pertains particularly to the human element of
the American citizenship; in other words, it has to do with the things
that will make the biggest and strongest and best American citizens.
This has become a question so generally interested in that the Presi-
dent has had many applications for some special consideration to be
given to this subject, and he delegated to me, sir, the work of study-
ing its subject in its widest possible range, and in doing that we
became convinced that it was quite necessary to take into considera-
tion various fundamental principles, among them being education,
public-health service, social service, and the veteran administration
Se]"VICé.
We therefore in planning for this department of welfare naturally
contemplated it from two angles; one, the matter relating to its
economy of administration, what it would do in the way of saving
money for the taxpayers of the United States of America, and,
second, we had in mind how we could make these various divisions
and sections of the Government as they exist now more efficient.
12 DEPARTMENT OF PTJBLIC WELFARE.
The subject of economy I am going to leave, sir, for demonstration
to you by the Chief of the Bureau of Efficiency. I must say to you,
however, that in the consideration of this matter we have fully
realized that it expresses a great deal in money.
Last year it expressed in cash paid out by this Government, these
four links of this chain that we seek to combine under one single
department, $701,756.230. I will leave to you, therefore, that it has
not become quite an economical question, and should not be considered
very largely as to how we can help to save or create any differences
in that particular regard.
With that one broad statement I am going to leave the subject of
cost, and will show to you positively and without question that under
the present administration these things can be very much more
economically administered, and therefore save a large amount of
money. In order that we may create a welfare department to serve
this particular purpose, this one purpose of making this sort of an
American citizen that we have in mind, we sought to consider it
first under the head of “Education.”
Now, I would like to say a few words on the subject of education.
The education division that we have in mind in this welfare depart-
ment contemplates the development of the best and greatest educa-
tional system in the United States of America that it is possible to
develop under the engineering and direction, through the assistance
and cooperation of everything that has to do with education. There-
fore, in trying to bring about a sort of systematic plan we have de-
veloped the service of education into physical, vocational, and into
the consideration of general educational subjects. We only have in
mind, as you no doubt well understand, not the direction; we do not
expect that the Federal Government will develop systems other than
systems that we know will fit into this public-welfare policy. It has
no thought to take from any State its rights; it has no thought to
take from any individual his incentive; it is not the thought of this
department to do other than to add and do everything that is possibly
constructive, so far as the general administration can effect it.
There is one important thing we have in mind, and that is under
this department the subject of the creation of the best possible Ameri-
can citizens, and therefore the subject of Americanization, must be
given a leading part in all the educational policies that may be
adopted under this. If we can carry out that plan we have in mind
here, with one of the leading educators in charge of this department,
there is no limitation to what can be accomplished in that regard.
Mr. FEss. Gen. Sawyer, may I interrupt you?
Gen. SAwyER. Certainly.
Mr. FEss. There has been some complaint made that you could not
get the leading educators at the head of this division at a salary of
$5,000 a year. What have you to say about that?
Gen. SAwyER. My dear sir, it is not fair for me now to present the
names of men who have volunteered to take this position, but I am
here, sir, to guarantee to you that you can get the very best men in
the United States, representing the highest ideals in education, if
there were no salary whatever attached to this.
Mr. FEss. But you will agree with me that volunteers are not very
valuable when it comes to that.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 13
Gen. SAwYER. But you can go out and select them. You can leave
it to your own selection, and get really what you desire to have. I
understand, however, and I would like to say, that the new budget
system contemplates that these men shall be paid $7,500 a year—that
is, the Assistant Secretaries in every department—and I think it is
only fair, of course, in considering the question of salary here that
we should consider that they would be treated as they are in any
other department, but no better, and I am confident that we can se-
cure them for a reasonable compensation, can secure such men as you
may need.
The CHAIRMAN. And there is some honor involved, of course, in a
position of that kind, and a citizen would likely take into considera-
tion that honor outside of the salary.
Mr. FEss. One of the objections was that a Cabinet officer would be
receiving a large salary, and an Assistant Secretary would be dropped
;" as low as $5,000, and a $5,000 salary does not quite rank so
I
#. SAwYER. But I would be perfectly agreeable to the proposi-
tion that they should receive $7,500, and I will say that when they do
So we will still be able to show that we can save enough money to com-
pensate for the difference.
Mr. FEss. I only wanted to get your views as to the limitations of
the salaries, as set forth in the bill.
Gen. SAwYER. I would have them conform to the new budget sys-
tem, or whatever your general policy is, and, as I understand it, un-
#. the new budget system they would receive a compensation of
,500. -
Mr. LowRY. Mr. Fess, do you know how much is paid to the presi-
dent of Yale, and of Columbia, and of Chicago University, and the
Michigan University, and so on ?
Mr. FEss. At Columbia University the president receives three
salaries, and the president of the Chicago University also receives
three salaries, making all together about $16,000. The president of
the Michigan University gets $18,000
Mr. LowRY. That is what I wanted to find out. They run from
$15,000 to $20,000, as I understand it.
Mr. FEss. And $5,000 as head of the department of education is
not acceptable to the educators.
Gen. SAwYER. I am very agreeable to raising that limit, as I feel
that the teachers and educators have been the most poorly paid of
any of the professions in the United States, and they occupy the most
important position of any of our citizenship, and I want to be re-
garded as believing in better compensation for them.
Now, next, as to the matter of public health.
Senator STERLING. Does your division of education contemplate,
or do you contemplate under the division of education, that there
shall be any cooperation between the Federal Government and the
States in the matter of education?
Gen. SAwYER. Oh, yes. I want such cooperation as can be brought
about to the advancement of education throughout the country.
Senator STERLING. And would there be any objection in a bill of
this kind to provide by law for that cooperation? What would be
the objections to provisions in the bill sufficient to provide for that
cooperation in this bill in which you create the department?
14 DEPARTMENT OF PTUBLIC WELFARE.
Gen. SAwYER. I have only seen the necessity in this bill for the
creation of this department, but it seems to me, of course, that there
is going to be great necessity for other legislation in order that this
department and the divisions of this department may carry out their
ambitions or their necessities. Personally, I am quite opposed—re-
member, I am speaking personally now, and not for the President,
and whatever I may say I wish you gentlemen to understand that I
am talking for Dr. Sawyer. This plan, however, I want that under-
stood, has the indorsement of the President of the United States.
I am not a believer in subsidies of States. I believe, myself, that any
State can be encouraged to carry out the ideas and ideals of their
Central Government if that question is put up to them.
Senator STERLING. And would you call it a subsidy to the State, in
the matter of cooperation, in the matter of farm demonstration, home-
economic work, such as provided for by law?
Gen. SAwYER. No, sir; I am heartily in accord with that. What
I mean to say is this, that I am opposed to giving large sums of money
in a pork-barrel way for the conduct of affairs as relates between the
Central Government and the States. I believe in encouraging every
State to do everything that it possibly can that pertains to education,
to do its best, and to do the most that can be done.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Have you had occasion, General, to examine the
provisions of the so-called Smith-Towner bill, which was favorably
reported out by the House Committee on Education?
Gen. SAwYER. Let me have that question again, please.
Mr. BANKHEAD. I am asking you, Gen. Sawyer, if you have had
tºion to examine the provisions of the so-called Smith-Towner
ill
Gen. SAwYER. Yes; I have had occasion to take up with Mr. Towner
the substance of this bill, and have discussed with him quite in detail
the subjects that it emphasizes.
Mr. BANKHEAD. I want to get your personal position clear in my
mind. I understood you to say that you are opposed to the principle
of appropriation of any substantial sums to be given to the States—
that is, Federal appropriations—for State aid for the pay of teachers
and things of that sort?
Gen. Sawyer. Well, I will say that I am in favor of giving State
aid to anything that has a defined purpose and a fixed objective. I
am opposed to leaving to the States—giving out of the Public Treas-
ury of the United States—money to let them do what they please
with. Now, sir, if we can adopt a system of physical education and
vocational education, a system whereby we can bring the teachers of
our public schools up to the highest standard of instructors, any
money spent for that purpose anywhere is money well spent; and I
would say, sir, that I am opposed to any policy of saying to the State
of Ohio, for instance, that we would give them a million dollars or
two millions of dollars to develop for themselves a policy of Ameri-
canization or of providing some method to combat the present state
of American illiteracy
Senator STERLING. Suppose that the plan requires that the State
of Ohio would put up an equal amount?
Gen. SAwYER. I would oppose anything excepting that the central
administration should say what course they could pursue in the in-
struction that they are going to give: yes, sir.
DEPARTMENT OF PIJ BLIC WELFARE. 15
Mr. FESS. You do not mean to say that you would interfere with
the obligation of the existing laws?
Gen. SAwYER. No, sir; not at all; not in any way. And I will say
that if this plan can not help the things now in operation it never
Ought to be put into execution.
Mr. FEss. Senator Sterling had in mind the operation of those
laws that we now have. This bill does not interfere with the opera-
tion of the laws that we now have, does it?
Gen. SAwyER. No, sir.
Mr. FEss. And this bill does not seek to establish any principle of
State appropriations
en. SAwYER. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And that is a matter for future and different
legislation?
Gen. SAwYER. Yes, sir. I was led into a byway here by the inter-
rogation, and I am sorry that I even attempted to answer this ques-
tion, because it will take too much time to argue on it; but let me
get before you the purpose of this bill, which is to develop the high-
est standards of education, as they are now existing, as they can in
any way relate to the building of the best American citizenship.
Mr. Town ER. Doctor, will you please outline in what way you think
this bill would assist the cause of education?
Gen. SAwyER. In what way?
Mr. Town ER. Yes.
Gen. SAwYER. Yes, sir; I will be glad to do that. The education,
as it at present exists, is attached to the Department of the Interior.
That is my understanding of it, and wherever I am in error I will
ask you to please correct me, and it is attached there and is only con-
sidered there. I think I am fair in that statement. It is only as a
bureau of that department. I take it that the thoughts of the De-
partment of the Interior are engaged in entirely different things, in
mechanical things and other things that have to do with the conserva-
tion of the natural resources. Necessarily, the whole trend of the
Department of the Interior is along other lines than that of education.
Br. Town ER. And you seem to place it exclusively, as I understand
it, upon the grounds that this department will be a more sympathetic
and a proper department for education?
Gen. SAwYER. I do; for this reason, sir, that in the other things
that we are hoping to accumulate under this department there is
such an intimate relation, and they are, in the present arrangement, so
separated that it is impossible for them to cooperate and to be coordi-
nated to bring about the best service. If you will stop to think for a
moment of what relation education bears to public health and what
public health means to social service and what that means in what
we are doing in the rehabilitation of soldiers, and so on, you will see
an important thread running through each, and while the pattern is
so distinct it requires that each shall play its part in the plan of
organization.
r. Town ER. This would be still as subordinated in the department
of public welfare as it is now in the Department of the Interior,
would it not ?
Gen. SAwyER. No, sir; it would not; for the reason that instead of
having a man who is now a commissioner with defined duties to per-
16 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFA.R.E.
form it would give an assistant secretary the power to direct affairs
themselves in such a way as to elaborate all of the policies of educa-
tion. Furthermore, this bill does not contemplate other than putting
any man or any woman who is competent and capable at the head of
this department, so that he or she may be as much of a factor as he
or she may be in any other division
Mr. Town ER. I presume the matter of pay would somewhat deter-
mine it. This question of changing the name, that would not affect
all this? You make a subordinate place in the department of public
welfare for education, but you say that an assistant secretary shall
be at the head of it. Now, we have a burden in the Department of the
Interior with a Commissioner of Education at the head of it. You
give the assistant secretary $5,000 a year. Now, the Commissioner
of Education is receiving $5,000 a year. Is there any material
difference except the change in the name of it?
Gen. SAwYER. Yes, sir; I think there is a very material difference.
Mr. Town ER. I want to call your attention to another thing con-
nected with this. Of course, you may say that there will be more
harmonious arrangement in the department of public welfare than
there is existing in the Department of the Interior.
Gen. SAWYER. As relates to the general subject, understand.
Mr. Town ER. As relates to the general subject. Very well. Now,
we have a department which, of course, must in its executive func-
tions ask for appropriation. You realize, of course, that this sec-
retary for the soldiers' relief will have charge of the pensions, and
the rehabilitation work, and everything of that kind, which will
annually call for appropriations of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Gen. SAwYER. Yes.
Mr. Town ER. And that will be rather an important factor in de-
termining the policy of the department, will it not?
Gen. SAwYER. I should think that a United States Senator could
answer that question better than I, because I wonder whether or not
in the judgment of this United States Congress they would not con-
sider honestly and sincerely the matter of the importance of each
department without regard
Mr. Town ER. Yes; and at the very start, at the very commence-
ment of this proposition consideration must be given as to who is to
be placed at the head of this department.
en. SAwYER. Yes, sir.
Mr. Town ER. Now, here are hundreds of millions of dollars af-
fected; here are the boys all over the United States, more than
4,000,000 of them, who will ask for recognition and will ask the
President of the United States to appoint an ex-Service man at the
head of this department. Do you think that would be an extravagant
demand for them to make of the President of the United States if
they should make it? &
Gen. SAwYER. Please do not ask me to answer that question unless
it is absolutely necessary to bring out what you have in your mind.
I will say, however, that I think anything that you can give the
American soldier is not too much for this Government to give to
him.
Mr. Town ER. Yes; that is so; but if that demand were made on the
President you think and I think that he would immediately grant it.
Gen. SAwYER. Yes, sir.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 17
Mr. Town ER. We are also to consider the question, the proposition
involved here, of public health. You know the public health ques-
tion of the United States much better than the rest of us, General.
Now, what do you think they would demand?
Gen. SAwYER. I would like to go back to this question just a mo-
ment more. I do not know—I have very limited experience and
observation from the Middle West—and I may not be able to quite
understand the full requirements of education, and I may not have
learned to appreciate the value of a million dollars, but I might say
that if education could not take $3,000,000—of course, I am speaking
in round numbers, you understand—but if they could not take
$3,000,000 and render a great deal better service under this sort of
an administration then I will admit that I have no business sense.
Mr. Town ER. Granting that, and I think you are justified in
that
Gen. SAwyER. I am thinking that if we do not increase our appro-
priations at all, and if we grant to these soldiers this extra balance
that they may require and still relieve our taxpayers, we have the
plan and can adopt policies attached to a welfare department that
will be a saving to us and will safeguard us in the matter of further
expenditures.
Mr. Town ER. Let me make myself plain to you. The public-
health men will demand and will be entitled to secure at least as
great an appropriation and as much executive power as they now
have, will they not?
Gen. SAwyER. Yes, sir.
Mr. Town ER. And there will be nothing to increase the department
of education º
Gen. SAwyER. I would like to withdraw my answer of “Yes, sir”
to that.
Mr. Town ER. Yes; you may do so. You may make any explana-
tion you wish.
Gen. SAwYER. I am satisfied, Senator
Mr. Town ER. No; I am not a Senator. I am just a plain creature
of the House.
Gen. SAwYER. Oh, pardon me; I have been singing in the wrong
key. I am sorry. Now, let us get back to this public health. When
we come back to the subject of public health, public health is to-day
spending something like $46,000,000. Now I am quite satisfied
M; Town ER. About four times as much as the Bureau of Educa-
tion?
Gen. SAwYER. Yes; but let us be fair, and let us see what they are
spending it for. We are spending this money and have been for the
last year, but I will say that I think the expenditure of the Public
Health Service is at its minimum. I do not see how we are going to
do other than save a lot of money in getting these things more defi-
nitely coordinated and cooperated. For instance, in the matter of
hospitalization and things of that sort, for the soldiers
Mr. Town ER. I think that you are doing a great work, and I wish
to say that I approve of it entirely. And I wish to say further that
I do not want one single health activity of the Government dimin-
ished, but I am trying to show what I believe to be the facts, that in
49824—21—2
18 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
this department, the soldiers’ relief division and the health division
will not make any concessions, and will not be subordinated, but they
will be dominant in that department. Now, in this bill you do not
contemplate one single additional dollar for education in the United
States; you do not contemplate one additional single activity to what
is already in existence in the Bureau of Education. In fact, the de-
mand is made that this shall be a proposition for economy and not
for increased expenditures. Now, I am trying to show what I be-
lieve sincerely to be true, that it will not help education in this
country, but on the contrary will submerge education in a depart-
ment of public welfare, just as it is now submerged in the Depart-
ment of the Interior. I think that the people who support the edu-
cational bill now will ask that the bureau or the part of this bill
which refers to education shall be taken out of this bill. We do not
object to the department of welfare, but we will ask that education
be taken out from it, because we do not believe it will help one single
particle the conditions which now exist, and which now demand ad-
ditional legislation and additional recognition by the Government of
education. That is my position, and I wish you to understand that I
am not opposing the department of public welfare, but I do not
think that the education feature should remain in the bill
Gen. SAwYER. It interests me greatly, personally, to know what
you have in mind for education.
Mr. Town ER. What we have in mind for education is contained
in the educational bill, which was introduced in the House and
Senate.
Gen. SAwyER. Let me say to those present that I think I could
excite here in just a few moments just as strong argument in favor
of the various departments of public health. I mean to say that peo-
ple are coming to me from Boston and Chicago and New York and
throughout the country, and they would make the same plea for
social service, and I know that the veteran service administration
are asking that they may be given a department for themselves,
and when we contemplate what the Cabinet would finally be, if
Cabinet officers were allowed to each one who is asking for it, it
sº result in a very unwieldy body as a Cabinet of the United
States.
Mr. Town ER. That is true. The claims for departments must stand
on their various merits, and if a department of education, for the
subject of education, is not of sufficient importance to warrant the
creation of a department of education with a place in the President’s
Cabinet as the head of that department, then, of course, our cause
must fall, but I believe, if you will just allow me, General, because
I will not be able to be here tomorrow and the next day, we believe
that, judged on its merits, the subject of education and the interest
in education in the United States is supreme and paramount; that
it should receive primary recognition, and we believe that the people
of the United States think that is so; we believe that the support
of this bill will be so strong as to convince Congress and the Presi-
dent that that is true. We are willing to take our chances with
the others and go before the country on the question of whether
or not education is of sufficient importance to warrant the creation
of a Cabinet officer, but we do not want to be transferred from one
department to another, from one subordinate place to another, so
DEPARTMENT OF PTUBLIC WELFARE. 19
that the question will be in a measure camouflaged, so that the people
of the United States will not have an opportunity to determine it.
Gen. SAwYER. I am sorry, sir, that I can not say to you as frankly
as I would like to my own feelings about this matter, but I can not
do so this morning. I would say, however, that if this were my ques-
tion personally, if the educators do not care to take a part of the
public welfare of the United States of America, that for myself, I
should be willing, of course, that they should continue along in
their own way, but it does seem to me that if I have reason at all
for appealing to the educated sense of the United States of America,
that I have it now, in consideration of this particular subject, and I
must say frankly that if the educators of the United States are not
interested in a public welfare department such as this contemplates,
and such as this administration is trying to give them, we feel that
they do not quite understand our motives and our intent, and I
trust that somehow and in some way you may ultimately reconcile
your differences of opinion in this regard and say that you are will-
ing to join in this general plan of public welfare, having in its
broadest sense the welfare of the American people.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that question will have to thrashed out
by the Congress.
Gen. SAwYER. Yes; that is true. I am only making that as a
broad statement. Now, we come to the consideration of the subject
of public health, and we have arranged the subject of public health
in such a way as to make it quite as efficient as anyone would desire
it to be. I am sure that under this arrangement, sir, that it will be
very Satisfactory to the American people, and, so far as I know, there
is no serious objection on the part of the public-health people except-
ing in the phraseology of the bill, and likewise in the compensation,
and I have already given you my position on that; so I say here
we have two very important links in this chain, and you can See
how they are interwoven and overlapped and how education may
be doing things that public health should be doing, and how public
health may be doing things that education should be doing, and I
will show you, when you come to contemplate this subject from the
standpoint of economy, that there is much overlapping and there
is great and definite reason for the carrying out of this plan.
The next thing is the matter of social service.
Mr. BANKHEAD. The division relates to public health. This bill
as it is framed says that this division which, under the general super-
vision of the Secretary, shall have charge of the health functions
and activities of the department and shall, by investigation, publica-
tion, and such other methods as may be authorized by Congress,
protect and promote the public health.
Gen. SAwyBR. “As may be * or “has been "%
Mr. BANKHEAD. “As may be.”
Gen. SAwyER. I must say to you frankly that I understand nothing.
whatever of the formation of bills. I have had to leave that entirely
to those I called in conference—Senator Kenyon, Congressman Fess,
the Chief of the Bureau of Efficiency, Prof. Parkinson, of New
York—and it was through those conferences that this bill was
worked out. I want to get along; it gets from
Mr. BANKHEAD. There has been some legislation that has already
been introduced in Congress along the lines of physical examina-
20 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
tions, with reference to the school children, and this bill created a
good deal of interest in the country and considerable opposition on
the part of certain factions in the country. Do I understand that,
with reference to the general activities of that sort, that this depart-
ment would await future legislation by Congress?
The CHAIRMAN. Let me give my understanding of that. Mr.
Bankhead should get in mind that this does not prove for anything
of that character the statement of Public Health Service as put
through in this department. If anything is done in the future by law
concerning public health, it is put through this department.
Mr. BANKHEAD. It creates the machinery for the execution of such
laws as may be put in——
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. This whole bill is for the public health,
and better service—I am trying to answer your question.
Mr. FEss. While there has been opposition on the part of Judge
Towner and others to this bill, because it does not carry the feature
of the Smith-Towner bill, this does not prevent the provisions of
the
Gen. SAwYER. It incorporates the things that we have in mind
to do. -
The CHAIRMAN. The point to keep in mind is that this is noth-
ing but machinery.
Gen. SAwYER. I wish to have that emphasized here, sir. The ma-
chinery we have in mind is to cooperate and coordinate and bring
together in the greatest and highest degree of efficiency the operation
of the machine.
The CHAIRMAN. And these things, gentlemen, that you have been
asking about that may be accomplished, it is your idea of what may
º worked out in this department. The bill does not do these
things
Gen. Sawyer. You must understand that the details of the work.
ing out of this must be built up, as the machine is put in motion. It
is only to create a machine, a machine that will have under its ob-
servation and direction these various things that represent So much
in health, and mean so much in the efficiency of the American people.
Senator STERLING. Gen. Sawyer, if there is public sentiment in
favor of it and in favor of hearing something more than providing
the mere machinery for any of these several divisions, I say might
we not do it in this law, in which we create the machinery, elaborate
the law, and provide what may be done by the division of education?
Now, say the cooperation in education between the Federal Govern-
ment and the different States, elaborate the provisions in regard to
public health and social service, if there is a sentiment behind it, a
demand for it. Why could not it be done in this one law, to create
the machinery and then provide for the activities?
Gen. SAwyBR. I would like to have Senator Kenyon's answer on
that question. e
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, it could be. The intention of the bill
is not along that line, but merely to create the machinery for a new
department. te
r. FEss. Senator Sterling speaks in relation to such a bill as
adult illiteracy, which is a special bill, and carries with it $11,500,000.
Now, that is a temporary matter. The adult illiteracy is a temporary
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 21
matter, and we would not want to write that into the law in the
department of education, because we will remove adult illiteracy after
a while, and we do not want a permanent law and an annual appro-
priation.
...Senator STERLING. Can not we get an appropriation for adult
illiteracy? Why not have this bill provide for a scheme for co-
operation between the States and the Federal Government, as pro-
vided for in the Smith-Towner law, if there is a general demand
among the educators for that?
Mr. FESS. I have never known an appropriation to be cut off.
Senator STERLING. When the necessity for it no longer exists.
Mr. Town ER. Let me suggest that there is no appropriation pro-
vided for in the bill; it is only an authorization, and whenever the
necessity for the appropriation ceases, of course Congress will not
appropriate. Under the law Congress must appropriate each year,
and only such an amount as may be necessary for that year under
each of the authorizations. It is not an appropriation and never has
been. It could not be an appropriation, because we do not know
what States would authorize or would qualify under the law. We
do not know how much may be in it each year.
Mr. FEss. You recall that under the Smith-Towner bill it has an
appropriation—under the Smith-Hughes bill. Mr. Good has been
reporting every year that we ought to change that, that so many
million dollars are being appropriated every year
Senator STERLING. This in terms is an authorization.
Mr. Town ER. It is not an appropriation and could not be.
The CHAIRMAN. I suppose we will have to go ahead and get all
of these different bills. Have you any further suggestions, General?
Gen. SAwYER. I think I have nothing further. Perhaps I might pro-
ceed with just a word or two more in regard to the matter of Social
Service. This chart [referring to a chart] explains what we have in
contemplation here, and this shows the various vocational and occu-
pational activities. We started out thinking perhaps that labor
would oppose it. Labor has shown a generous disposition for the
carrying out of our ideas. I am not here to speak for labor, but I
would like to say a word about what I believe to be an important
part of this department, and that is that which relates to the veterans
service administration. Upon arriving in Washington, the Presi-
dent soon discovered that it was very necessary that immediate
attention be given to the disabled soldiers, and so he called a com-
mittee, as you remember here, of very important and very capable
men and women throughout the country, and they found in their
affairs, just as we find in this whole department, that all of the
things that related to the veteran are so without direction that it
was absolutely necessary to give relief to these men, to do some.
thing specific in the way of an organization; so then this body, which
was known as the Dawes investigating committee, developed a plan
known as the veterans service administration, which takes up the
war risk, the vocational training, as relating to the soldier, the hos-
pitalization, and such other public-health service as may be neces-
sary to take care of these soldiers.
That body is well organized and well on the way and are demon-
strating this day, sir, in thousands of dollars of saving, the impor-
22 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
tance and the advisability and the actual necessity for real public
economy, how these affairs can be carried on. The veterans' service
administration to-day is delivering things that it was thought some
time ago it was impossible for them to deliver, and I would like to
give expression to this thing just at this particular time, that if
the American people now will only get behind their Government
agencies and give such assistance as they can give by their moral
influence and that they can give this encouragement to these sol-
diers that they are going to be taken care of in the best way possible,
they can help in developing an entirely different feeling toward the
American Government than has been existing under the past rela-
tion of things. I can say this, without finding any fault with what
has been, that if you will but give these men and women this en-
couragement, and believe that we will do what we say, things that
are worth while, and we are not speaking of them as Republicans,
but as American citizens, and in contemplating this whole arrange-
ment we contemplated in that broadest sense of American citizens,
I say we find the necessity of having some place to which to hang
this broad and important department, and with all the consideration
we have given it—and it has been careful and thorough—we have
decided that if we can hitch it into this chain we will have there a
range and a service that will be the best that can possibly be given.
I do not know whether they are going to make any objections to
this plan or not. I take it, however, since I have had some very
favorable correspondence with Gen. Dawes, who has had a great deal
to say of what should become of these things, and he gives us the
assurance that they are ready and agreeable to go into this general
welfare department and do the things that they can do through
that department, and that they could not do by themselves.
Mr. RoPSION. Does your plan contemplate diminishing the number
of officeholders or increasing it?
Gen. SAwyER. Absolutely diminishing wherever possible.
Mr. Robsſon. Do you think it is possible in a good many cases?
Gen. SAwYER. Absolutely diminishing, wherever possible.
Mr. ROBSION. Yes.
Gen. SAwYER. I do.
Senator WALSH. Of course it could not be possible to establish a
national welfare plan without increasing the number of employees.
Mr. BANKHEAD. I do not see how they are going to decrease the
number of employees.
Gen. SAwyBR. Well, we will be able to show you.
Senator WALSH. I can not understand how you can increase the
public service—
Gen. SAwyFR. We will be glad, I think, to show you how we can
decrease the personnel.
Mr. RoPSION. Can you just give us the approximate figures of
what you contemplate it will save to the Government annually? I
notice you stress on the proposition that you are going to save
money to the Government.
Gen. SAwYER. The figures are being collated. Now, that will ex-
press to you in just dollars, and that is not what we think, but what
we know. sº
Mr. Robsſon. You have stressed on the fact that you are going
to save considerable money. Haven’t you the amount in mind?
DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE. 23
Gen. SAwYER. No, sir; I have not the amount in mind.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brown said that he would supply it. He will
work it out.
Gen. SAwYER. I can only add, sir, that from my general observa-
tion of these things, the duplication of service that has been rendered,
and the expense that has been incurred, that many of them will be
Cut Out.
Mr. Robsſon. You think that the World War veterans, do you
#y whether or not they will indorse the principles involved in this
Ill
Gen. SAwYER. Just as I expressed it to you, sir. I could submit to
you some correspondence only from Gen. Dawes. I have not taken
it up with Col. Galbraith personally. I do not know what the Legion
feel about it, outside of what their leaders have expressed.
Mr. FEss. Section 5 of the bill shows an outline of all the different
bureaus, the heads, that the law would require
Gen. SAwYER. Oh, we are going to show that.
Mr. RoBSION. And if you create a department and a secretary-
ship, does not that add several hundred people?
Gen. SAwYER. Oh, no, sir.
Mr. Robsſon. That has been the history of the operation of the
Government, as Mr. Fess has said, I never heard of an appropriation
discontinued.
Senator WALSH. I never even heard of an improvement of the serv-
ice without extra money.
Senator McKELLAR. We abolished the Council of National Defense.
Gen. SAwYER. I want to say furthermore that at any time I am
subject to your call. I want you to understand that this is not my
bill. Furthermore, I want you to understand that I have no aspira-
tions in directing the Public Health Service of the United States.
I just want to serve, and if I can get my educational friends to help
me in my efforts, and to help me in the principles that I believe in,
I know that I will have served well. I thank you.
STATEMENT OF DIR. A. L. FORSTER.
Dr. ForsTER. My interest in the bill under consideration before
OUI
y The CHAIRMAN. State who you are and whom you represent.
Dr. ForsTER. I am Dr. A. L. Forster, I am a physician, represent-
ing myself in chiropractic profession.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you live in Washington?
Dr. ForsTER. No; in Chicago. My interest in the bill under con-
sideration, Senators, is in the article in Section 2, which reads as
follows:
A division of public health, which, under the general SuperVision of the
secretary, shall have charge of the health functions and activities of the de-
partment and shall by jnvestigation, publication, and such other methods as
may be authorized by Congress, protect and promote the public health.
In reading over this article of section 2, I find myself obliged to
take exception to the word “protect,” which appears in the Seven-
teenth line, and assuming that——
The CHAIRMAN. What page is that, please?
24 DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE.
Dr. ForSTER. Two. In line 19, I should say. Assuming that the
head of this division of public health will be a regular physician, it
does not require a great stretch of the imagination to see that his
interpretation of his duties will be something like this, that only
such things as emanate from or have the approval of the regular
medical profession shall be considered as affording protection to the
public health. We all realize that the medical profession, which I
am proud to be a member of, has been a great blessing and benefit
to mankind, and I believe you will also agree with me that the profes-
sion is inclined to take in a little too much territory. When the
medical profession assumes to take full charge of the protection of
the public, I believe it is assuming something for which it is not
entirely qualified.
Senator McKELLAR. Did you state the protection of the public? It
is the protection of the public health this bill says.
Dr. ForsTER. Protect the public health.
Senator McKELLAR. Yes.
Dr. ForSTER. There have been in the past many discoveries de-
signed to protect public health which have not come from the ranks
of the medical profession. Many of the remedial agencies which
have been wonderful things for public health have not come from
within the ranks of the medical profession. Pasteur, who originated
antiseptics, was not a physician; Madame Curie, the discoverer of
radium, in junction with her husband, was not a physician. Chiro-
practic, which has undeniably been a blessing to mankind, was not
originated by a physician. Consequently, to assign to one body of
men, to one division of the healing art, a power as broad as provided
for in this bill is bringing down the asbestos curtain of progress on
everything relating to the healing art. It is giving the medical
profession a subsidy on right and the welfare of the American people,
and if you will study that carefully you will find that it is true.
The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, now these methods that you speak of as
protecting the public health are only such as may be authorized
by Congress, so this bill does not accomplish anything other than
what you desire. There must be action of Congress—— .
Senator McKELLAR. Lines 18 and 19 state:
By investigation, publication, and such other methods as may be authorized
by Congress.
It does not mean that it is confined to any particular School of
medicine. I merely call your attention to that.
Dr. ForsTER. Well, it is my opinion that Congress will authorize
the carrying out of suggestion which the chief of the division of
public health will make and
Mr. BANKHEAD. Do I understand you to oppose the principle of
any interference or consideration on the part of the Federal Govern-
ment of the health activities of the country?
Dr. ForsTER. Not at all, provided that discrimination, against
other schools of healing will be done away with, by inserting into
this bill a clause which will provide for that. º
Mr. BANKHEAD. If you had the assurance that the department, if
created, would recognize the chiropractic school on the same equality
as the other schools of medicine, would you have any objection to it?
DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE. 25
Dr. FoRSTER. No, sir. We have every reason to believe, from our
past experience in the different States, that if it is possible for the
medical profession to obtain any power in any way that will assist
it in throttling the progress of other schools of healing, it is pre-
pared to do so.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Is not that a matter of State regulation?
Dr. FoRSTER. Yes; and judging from that standpoint we believe
that this word “protect” in this particular article of section 2 is
aimed to do that thing.
Senator McKELLAR. Would you be satisfied with it without the
word “protect’ in it?
Dr. ForSTER. Yes, sir.
Senator McKELLAR. And that is the only amendment you suggest?
Dr. FoRSTER. That is the only amendment I suggest.
Senator McKELLAR. Your idea is, in the interest of other schools
of medicine, the committee ought to strike out the word “protect?”
Dr. ForSTER. Yes, sir. It is logical to assume that a medical man
being essentially opposed, as he is, to anything outside of his own
School of practice, will take it upon himself to consider that anything
else that is done in the treatment of disease is harmful to the public,
as they have repeatedly stated, and consequently he will be very apt
to recommend to Congress that in the interest of the protection of
public health the members of other schools should be prevented from
practicing
Mr. RobSION. In using the word “protect,” in case of contagious
and infectious diseases, no other word would be so suited as the
word “protect.”
Dr. FoRSTER. I think the word “safeguard ”—
Mr. Robsion. What is there in that section which provides for
any physician to do anything unless the Congress later on
hº FEss. He suggests “safeguard.” There is nobody opposed to
that.
Senator McKELLAR. It is quite as strong as “protect.”
Dr. ForSTER. Practically as strong.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Does your State put any limitations upon the
practice of your particular school of medicine?
Dr. ForsTER. No, sir; there is not a single State that has a law
prohibiting it. e
Mr. BANKHEAD. Why are you so apprehensive about the provisions
of this bill, in view of the fact that no State has put any restriction
upon the practice of chiropractry?
Dr. ForsTER. Because the chief of the division of public health
might recommend to the Congress that in the interest of the protec-
tion of public health chiropractors be prohibited from any longer
practicing.
The CHAIRMAN. How could Congress do that?
Dr. ForSTER. We entertain that fear.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that Congress could prohibit you
from practicing in a particular State? What would be the constitu-
tional authority for that? Is not that up to that State?
Dr. ForsTER. I understand that the division of public health, the
division of education, and the other divisions provided for in this bill
26 DEPARTMENT OF PTUBLIC WELFARE.
will operate through the country and in coordination with the differ-
ent States.
Mr. ROBSION. There is nothing in this bill that provides for any-
thing like that.
Senator McKELLAR. If it should do so, it would certainly be uncon-
stitutional. It could not be done. States have control over the prac-
º in the various States, and we have no authority to interfere
with it.
The CHAIRMAN. I think the committee has your point pretty clear
and will take it into consideration.
Dr. ForsTER. We will be glad to have the word “protect’ stricken
Out.
Senator McKELLAR. And in its place you would put the word
“safeguard” .
Dr. ForsTER. No ; I would make it this way: We would make a
plea that the word “protect’ be stricken from this article.
The CHAIRMAN. We will consider that, of course. We are very
much obliged to you.
Dr. ForsTER. I thank you.
STATEMENT OF MR. L. W. WALLACE, REPRESENTING THE FED-
ERATED AMERICAN ENGINEERING SOCIETIES,
The CHAIRMAN. Give the reporter your name and also whom you
represent.
Mr. WALLACE. L. W. Wallace and I represent the Federated Ameri-
can Engineering Societies, and the National Department of Public
Works Association.
The CHAIRMAN. What is your residence?
Mr. WALLACE. Washington. I am the executive secretary of the
Federated American Engineering Society, the membership of which
is composed of 25 prominent and well-known national, State, and
regional engineering and technical Societies.
I also speak in behalf of that large group of engineers, architects,
technologists, and scientists formerly represented by the National
Public Works Department Association, the functions of which or-
ganization have been absorbed by the Federated American Engineer-
ing Societies. This group represents over 150,000 engineers, tech-
nologists, architects, and contractors.
We are not appearing for the purpose of directly approving or of
disapproving of the bill to establish a department of public welfare.
However, the consideration of this bill does effect a matter in which
we are vitally concerned and about which we feel that we can speak
with authority.
We notice that the bill, which proposes to establish a department
of public welfare, suggests the removal from the Department of
Interior certain bureaus and functions, as the office of the Commis-
sioner of Education, Bureau of Education, the Bureau of Pensions,
the Columbia Institution for the Deaf, the Howard University, and
St. Elizabeths Hospital. These removals or transfers would leave
the Department of the Interior somewhat depleted. This brings
about a condition whereby the department of the Interior could take
over many of the bureaus and functions proposed for the depart-
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 27
ment of public works as contained in the Jones bill (S. 2232) intro-
duced in the first session of the Sixty-sixth Congress and by the
Senate bill (S. 4542), introduced by Senator McCormick at the third
session of the Sixty-sixth Congress. The purpose of the two bills
referred to was to bring about a more effective coordination of the
executive departments, to create the department of public works, and
in the McCormick bill also a department of public welfare.
The provisions of chapter 1, sections 8 and 9 (a) that we approve
are as follows:
SEC. 8. That the department of public works shall be vested with jurisdiction
and Control over the bureaus, offices, and branches of the public service herein-
after Specified.
SEC. 9 (a). That the following-named bureaus, offices, and bran ines of the
public Service now and heretofore under the jurisdiction of the Department of
the Interior, and all that pertains to the same, known as the General Land
Office, the Geological Survey, the Bureau of Mines, the Reclamation Service,
the National Park Service, the Division of Capitol Buildings and Grounds, and
the Alaskan Engineering Commission, and all officers and employees of the
Interior Department shall hereafter be and remain under the jurisdiction and
Supervision of the department of public works, except as otherwise provided
in this act.
The constituents of the Federated American Engineering Societies,
being engineers and industrial executives, have with some concern
considered the very illogical and ineffective form of organization that
the Federal Government has grown into. Being students of organi-
Zation methods and procedure, as well as experienced practitioners in
the same, they have advocated the establishment of a department of
public works to supersede the Department of the Interior, and in
which department of public works there would be centered all the
major engineering, construction, and research work of the Federal
Government. In order that this might be done easily, it would be
necessary to place those bureaus that are not of an engineering, con-
struction, or research character that are now in the Department of
the Interior in other departments of the Government.
The provisions of the bill for the department of public welfare
which is under consideration at this hearing provides for a number
of such bureaus and activities. The purpose of our appearance is to
point out this condition and to urge that the bill be so modified as to
properly assign those bureaus that would not be included in the pro-
posed department of welfare.
By So doing a material advance would have been made toward a
redistribution of governmental bureaus and functions, which is so
essentially necessary for the accomplishment of greater economy and
dispatch in the transaction of governmental business.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Just what are those bureaus that you have in mind
that you are seeking to have transferred to the department of public
welfare? Just what are the functions of those bureaus that are to be
transferred to the department of public welfare?
Mr. WALLACE. Understand me, that we are not objecting, but we
are offering the suggestion—we are not offering any objections to the
transfer, but we are calling attention to the fact that the removal of
those functions from the Department of the Interior and
Mr. BANKHEAD. What ones do you mean?
Mr. WALLACE. The bill suggests the removal from the Department
of the Interior such functions and bureaus as the office of the Commis-
28 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
sioner of Education and the Bureau of Education, the Bureau of Pen-
sions, the Columbia Institution for the Deaf, the Howard University,
and the St. Elizabeths Hospital.
Senator McKELLAR. And do you not want them referred to new
department?
Mr. WALLACE. No; that is not my purpose. We call attention to
the withdrawal of these bureaus and functions, which would leave
the Department of the Interior somewhat depleted. Then the De-
partment of the Interior could take over many of the bureaus and
functions proposed for the department of public works, as contained
in the bill introduced by Senator McCormick, S. 4542.
Senator WALSH. Existing already in the bureaus
Mr. WALLACE. They exist now, sir.
Senator WALSH. What are they now?
Mr. WALLACE. I can not give them all the way through. I can
give you the names of them
Senator WALSH. Do they exist?
Mr. WALLACE. They are not new bureaus, and they do exist.
Senator WALSH. As I recall, you propose to take up the public
works activities wherever they may be found in the various depart-
ments and put them into one department called the public works
department?
Mr. WALLACE. Yes, sir.
Mr. PARKs. And then those other departments that were in the
Interior Department would not go to the public works, but would go
to some other department and do away with the Department of the
Interior 2
Mr. WALLACE. That is right. It is a redistribution of the bureaus.
Mr. FESs. And you are also calling attention that this bill has al-
ready taken some of the divisions from this Department of the
Interior?
Mr. WALLACE. That is right, and therefore making an opportunity
for the Department of the Interior to take over the public works,
some of the bureaus that we think should go in there.
Mr. FEss. I have been familiar with your interest.
Mr. WALLACE. We are calling attention to the fact that there is an
opportunity to do that very thing. That is carrying out the same
thought; that is, to put into a given department all those functions
of a closely allied character.
Mr. FEss. And in your investigation you say that 29 duplica-
tions have been found on one particular subject—
Mr. WALLACE. Yes, sir; 29 of them.
Mr. BANKHEAD. May we now have the names of those bureaus
which you think should be transferred to the Department of Interior?
I would like to know what you propose.
Mr. WALLACE. We would like to have those departments included
in section 9 (a) of the McCormick bill in those bureaus, which are as
follows: The General Land Office, the Geological Survey, the Bureau
of Mines, the Reclamation Service, the National Park Service, the
Division of Capitol Buildings and Grounds, and the Alaskan Engi-
neering Commission. That is in the McCormick bill, and all those
other major bureaus or functions of the Government wherein they
have major activities in engineering and research or construction.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 29
Mr. BANKHEAD. Have you a list of those, or can you furnish it to
the record?
Mr. WALLACE. I shall be very glad to do so.
Senator McKELLAR. If you have them you might give them now.
Mr. WALLACE. Under the Department of State would be the Inter-
national Boundary Commission, United States and Mexico; the In-
ternational (Canadian) Boundary Commission; the International
Joint Commission United States and Great Britain. In the De-
partment of the Treasury, the Supervising Architect, for buildings,
construction, repairs, and equipment; the Coast Guard, for the con-
struction of Coast Guard stations, houses of refuge, communication
lines, ship repairs, etc. The Department of War, the Corps of En-
gineers, rivers and harbors, the operating and care of river and
harbors, improvement and maintenance of rivers and harbors, cer-
tain public buildings and grounds in the District of Columbia, the
Washington aqueduct and filtration plant, IKey Bridge, bridges over
navigable streams, the Great Lakes Survey, survey of northern and
northwestern boundary lakes, the Mississippi River Commission, in
charge of improvements of the lower Mississippi River, the Board of
Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, a permanent board of review on
all recommendations, reports, and projects for river and harbor im-
provement, the California Débris Commission, and the Construc-
tion Division of the Army. In the Department of Justice, the super-
intendent of prisons, construction and maintenance of prisons under
the Department of Justice. The Post Office Department, the general
reconnaissance and the compilation and printing of postal-route
maps, and construction of mail tunnels and delivery devices. In the
Department of the Interior, the General Land Office, the Geological
Survey, the Bureau of Mines, the Reclamation Service, the National
Park Service, the Division of Capitol Buildings and Grounds, and
the Alaskan Engineering Commission. In the Tjepartment of Agri-
culture, the Forestry Service, the Bureau of Public Roads, and the
construction of roads. In the Department of Commerce, the Bureau
of Standards, the Bureau of Fisheries, the building and construction
of buildings and equipment necessary to build lighthouses, and the
Construction and maintenance of lighthouses and lightships inci-
dent thereto, and Coast and Geodetic Survey.
The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, sir.
Mr. WALLACE. I thank you.
(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the hearing was adjourned until
the following morning, May 12, 1921, at 10 o’clock.)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
THURSDAY, MAY 12, 1921.
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR OF THE
|UNITED STATEs SENATE, AND COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C.
The Joint Committees on Education and Labor of the United
States Senate and the Committee on Education of the House of
Representatives met, pursuant to call, at 10 o’clock a. m., at the
committee room of the Committee on Education and Labor, Capitol
Building, Representative Fess presiding.
Present: Representative Fess (chairman), Senators Kenyon,
Phipps, Sterling, and McKellar.
Representatives Bankhead, Parks, Shelton, Dallinger, Lowrey, and
Robsion.
Also present: Representative Harry E. Hull, Member of Congress;
Dr. Percifal Hall, representing the Columbian Institution for the
Deaf and Dumb; Mr. C. R. Mann, chairman of the Advisory Board
of the War Plans Division, General Staff, War Department; Mr.
Hugh S. McGill, representing the National Education Association;
Mr. Edgar Wallace, representing the American Federation of Labor;
Mr. Frank W. Elliott, representing the Chiropractors’ Association;
Mr. H. B. Bradford, representing the American Medical Liberty
League of Chicago and the Citizens’ Protective Association of the
District of Columbia.
The committee then proceeded to a further hearing of the two
bills (S. 1607 and H. R. 5837) to establish a department of public
welfare, and for other purposes.
Senator KENYon. Congressman Fess, I would be pleased if you
would act as chairman to-day. *
The CHAIRMAN. We will now proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY E. HULL, MEMBER OF CONGRESS.
The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Congressman Hull.
Mr. HULL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I ap-
pear before you this morning simply to call your attention and to
ask, if possible, that you put something in the bill to provide for a
department that will look after the welfare of the deaf and dumb
of the country. , My attention was called to the need of this during
the war and before the war in connection with the arsenal at Rock
Island, and I found that there was a disposition among the Army to
31
32 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
discriminate, as I looked at it—perhaps it is hardly fair to say that—
but it was hard for the deaf and dumb to receive the same considera-
tion that others received from the commandant or the arsenal people.
There is a great deal of work in the arsenals and in the navy yards
that can be done by people who are deaf and dumb–in fact, in many
ways they are superior workmen—and it seems to me that in a bill
of this kind, where you are trying to take care of the welfare of all
the people, that there should be a department that will look out for
people who are afflicted as the deaf and dumb are. I do not know
as there is anything more that I care to say. That is, briefly, all that
I have to say.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you examined the bill to the extent that you
can determine, under the provisions of the bill, that it can not be
done as it is?
Mr. HULL. I have examined it only so far that I see nothing in the
bill that is specific—that gives specific directions that it shall be done.
It seems to me that it would not be out of the way for the committee
to put into the bill a provision that will direct those in charge of this
department to see that it is done. I am a great believer in the right
of Congress to direct that things should be done, and I think that
a great deal of our legislation would be better if such directions are
given. It is not necessary to make it in any offensive way at all, but
simply to direct that it shall be done; and that is all that the deaf
and dumb people are asking for.
The CHAIRMAN. I was going to say, in explanation of the bill, that
the theory of the bill is to establish certain machinery and to give
such machinery such legislation as we can here that are to the vari-
ous interests that come up in the form of legislation. It has omit-
ted the detail of many things which the various divisions or inter-
ests want, particularly those interested in education. They would
like to have certain things written into the bill that can be taken
care of by future legislation and placed under the administration of
this department, but it was not thought wise to put into the bill
which looked toward the creation of a public-welfare department
the kind of questions now, such as to see to it that the interests of the
deaf and dumb are being cared for, without putting it specifically
in the bill creating the department.
Mr. HULL. Well, I am perfectly willing, and I think the people I
represent are willing, to leave that to the judgment of the committee;
but at the same time we think that it would be wise to call attention
to that in these hearings on these bills. However, we will leave that
to the judgment of the committee.
Senator KENYon. Are there any governmental agencies which are
now dealing with the deaf and dumbº
Mr. HULL. I think not; not as I understand it.
Mr. BANKHEAD. At the last session of the House an appropriation
was made for the benefit of the deaf and blind school at St. Louis.
Senator KENYon. That is a specific thing, but have we any instru-
mentalities dealing with them as a body?
Mr. BANKHEAD. No, sir; I think not. e
The CHAIRMAN. There is some governmental supervision over this
school out here.
Mr. HULL. Yes; this school out here, and that is just the reason
The CHAIRMAN. You want it throughout the country.
DEPARTMIENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 33
Mr. HULL. As a whole, and among the Government employees or
Service there should be some one to look out for that.
Senator KENYos. But how would you do it? What would be your
idea as to how we could reach out and help the deaf and dumb in the
department of public welfare?
Mr. HULL. Simply, as I understand it, put something in the bill
directing that those in charge shall look out for it; that is all.
The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Congressman.
Mr. HULL. I thank you.
STATEMENT OF DR. PERCIFAL HALL, OF THE COLUMBIA IN-
STITUTION FOR THE DEAF.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you give the reporter your name and whom
you represent?
Dr. HALL. My name is Dr. Percifal Hall, and I represent the Co-
lumbia Institution for the Deaf.
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have here a very
short statement from Mr. Arthur L. Roberts, secretary of the Na-
tional Association of the Deaf, and who also represents the Fraternal
Society of the Deaf, and I would like to have that go into the record
as his statement, if it is agreeable to the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. It may go in as his statement.
STATEMENT OF ARTHUR I. IROHERTS, SEC RETARY IN ATION AL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF.
The National Association of the Deaf, with about 3,000 members, and the
National Fraternal Society of the Deaf, with about 5,000 members, both in-
dorse the bill providing for a bureau for the (leaf, and hope that such a bureau
may he established in Sonne (lepartment Of the GOvernment.
The deaf people of the country feel that the bureau would be able to improve
their condition, especially in the industries.
It would be able to acquaint employers with the capabilities of the deaf. It
would lessen discrimination against the deaf now prevalent in some quarters.
Employers’ liability and compensation acts in SOme Of the States work against
the deaf, for no valid reason. The bureau would be able to convince prospec-
tive employers that the deaf are no more liable to injury than other people.
The cooperation of the bureau with school heads would tend to improve indus-
trial teaching in schools for the deaf.
As a class, the deaf are able to and have taken their place in the world as
citizens in every sense of the word. They are property Owners and taxpayers.
In some instances they have held public office. But to a large part of the gen-
eral public the capabilities of the deaf are not known. This is one reason why
deafness is such a great handicap. Industrial Conditions are changing and this
reacts against the deaf. Employers who know nothing about them are not
inclined to give them employment, although they are just as able to give efficient
service as other people.
The deaf feel that as an agency of the Federal Government, the proposed
bureau would have great influence in bringing the capabilities of the deaf to
the attention of employers; that it would be able to open up new avenues of
employment and industrial teaching.
The deaf people of the country respectfully urge the establishment of the
bureau.
Dr. HALL. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that the deaf people
are interested in establishing such a bureau, and if the new depart-
ment contemplated in the present bill that is before you is created,
they would be very glad to have a bureau in that department instead
of in the Department of Labor.
49824–21—3
34 DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE.
I also have a brief statement of Mr. Souder, who is a Government
employee, and who is very, much interested in this matter, and I
would like to have that published as his statement.
The CHAIRMAN. It may go into the record.
STATEMENT OF WILBTUR P. SOUDER.
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee, as a representative of the
National Association of the Deaf, I requested permission to be present at this
hearing to urge the advisability of including a bureau or a division for the deaf
in the public welfare bill, and, in behalf of the association I wish to thank you
for granting this request.
That the deaf have been greatly discriminated against in obtaining employ-
ment in the country at large can not be gainsaid. I regret to say that the Fed-
eral Government also to a certain extent has joined in this discrimination.
There are several gentlemen here to-day whose testimony I would like to
have you hear. First, I would like to have Hon. John E. Raker tell you about
the bill he has introduced in the House of Representatives “to create a bureau
for the deaf in the Department of Labor.”
Dr. HALL. Mr. Raker is to be here, I believe, this morning, and he
will speak about the bill that I have mentioned, the bill introduced
by him in the House of Representatives, No. 4108, a bill to provide a
bureau for the deaf and dumb in the Department of Labor.
As I have said, however, we would be very glad to have such a
bureau in the contemplated department of welfare instead of in
the Department of Labor. e
The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you.
STATEMENT OF MR. C. R. MANN, CHAIRMAN OF THE ADVISORY
BOARD OF THE WAR PLANS DIVISION, GENERAL STAFF, WAR
IXEPARTMENT.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you please tell the reporter who you are and
what you represent?
Mr. MANN. My name is C. R. Mann.
The CHAIRMAN. That does not mean that the rest of us do not
know who you are.
Mr. MANN. I am chairman of the Advisory Board of the War
Plans Division, General Staff, War Department. I want to disclaim
representing any association or any organization in appearing at
this hearing on this bill. I am a member of educational organiza-
tions, but I am not authorized to appear here as their representative.
I am employed at the War Department in helping devise this sys-
tem of education, of vocational training in the Army, but I am not
representing the War Department in this matter. I appear, then, as
a student of education, interested in a department of education for
this country, and what I say is my own personal view as to the best
-procedure to achieve the result we all have in mind.
I have two distinct amendments or changes to suggest in the bill,
but before making them I would like to state what seems to be the
general situation in regard to education in the country at the present
time. It is quite evident that the great thing the country needs in
education is a proper type of educational leadership. e have in
this country a great many men who are qual.fied to give you that
educational leadership, but the conditions are such in the organiza-
tion of education that they do not have the free opportunity to ex-
DEPARTMENT OF PIJ BLIC WELFARE. 35
press or bring into effect that leadership. What is needed is some
organization which will make that leadership effective. I believe that
the educators of this country of all kinds are unanimous in the desire
to obtain in the Federal Government an organization which will
make possible the utilization of the leadership the country possesses.
I believe that the educators are practically unanimous in believing
that a separate and distinct department of education is the best
method of realizing their power of leadership and making it effective
in the country.
There are objections among the school men as to the features of
the various bills proposed for this purpose; in particular, the educa-
tors are divided on the subject of the Federal subsidies, or, as you
call it, the cooperation with the States. The majority of the educa-
tors, perhaps the larger portion, and certainly the more noisy crowd,
are eager for the Federal subsidies. But there is a respectable
minority who believe that subsidies are a mistake. But this is not a
question which comes up under this bill.
Educators are interested in any project that will move in the direc-
tion of increasing the dignity of education, and of making more
effective educational leadership. Whether this bill does or not is a
Question or how the machinery is put into operation.
First, it seems to me that the fundamental assumption of the bill
before us is that the time has come to put into the hands of the
President, or into those of a new secretary of public welfare, author-
ity for building up a department which includes education by ex-
periment. The bill gives the President and the secretary of public
welfare practically unlimited powers in regard to shifting depart-
ments, bureaus, offices, and so on, that deal with welfare, and in
regard to offices, bureaus, and agencies that may be related to wel-
fare. It may be that that is the effective way to get the result all
desire, but if so, I would like to see, in conformity with that policy,
the hands of the President entirely released in the matter.
The bill under discussion does that excepting in the statement of
the functions of the division of education. The first amendment
which I suggest is a change in the wording of section 2, paragraph 1,
which defines the functions of the division of education in the new
bill. If you will turn to the bill you will see that it states that there
shall be a division of education, which, under the general supervision
of the secretary, shall have charge of the educational functions and
activities of the department, and shall, by investigation, publication,
and such other methods as may be authorized by Congress, promote.
the development of schools and other educational and recreational
facilities for the instruction of children and illiterate adults, the
training of teachers, and the Americanization of those persons in the
United States who lack knowledge of our language or institutions.
It seems to me that that is not a broad enough and wide enough
purpose for this department. I do not quite understand why it says
that he shall have charge of the educational functions and activities
of the department. I do not quite understand why he should promote
the development of schools and other educational and recreational
facilities for the instruction of children and illiterate adults, and
so on. I would like to suggest a broader statement of that paragraph,
and one which in my opinion would give the Chief Executive a wider
36 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
scope, if Congress is determined to give the President this authority.
I would suggest:
A division of education which, under the general SuperVision Of the Secretary,
shall have charge of such educational functions of the Federal Government as
are assigned to it by executive order of the President of the United States
and by act of Congress, and which shall, by investigation, publication, and such
other methods as may be authorized by Congress, promote education and other
activities for the instruction and development of children, illiterates, and
adults, for the training of teachers, for physical training, and for the Americani-
zation of those persons in the United States who lack knowledge of Our lan-
guage or our institutions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mann, the objection was made to this clause,
or to this section, recently by a gentlemtn, who said that you could
not under this authority here train teachers or could not give physical
education. Is that your opinion?
Mr. MANN. That you could not do that?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Is that your opinion? º
Mr. MANN. No. On what ground does he raise that objection ?
The CHAIRMAN. He says that it is not broad enough to give the
authority for training children or for physical education. Is that
your idea?
Mr. MANN. No. I have, in fact, included in my statement or Sug-
gestions the same wording, believing that it does give the power.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, at any rate, I think your amendments—
speaking for myself—I think that your amendment is broader and
better than the original section, and covers the thing that was ob-
jected to recently while in conversation with a man interested in the
bill.
Senator KENYon. How many copies have you of that amendment?
Mr. MANN. I have only three.
The CHAIRMAN. We are very glad to get it.
Mr. MANN. I would like to make clear why I make that suggestion.
The CHAIRMAN. We would be very glad to have you do so.
Mr. MANN. I do not want it to be inferred that by offering this
amendment I am in favor of including education in this welfare
department. If you are going to include welfare in this organiza-
tion, or if you are going to follow the policy of giving the Chief
Executive carte blanche to reorganize this section of the Federal
administration, I would like to see him given as broad an authoriza-
tion in advancing the objective as possible.
The CHAIRMAN. Don't you think that the authority that you have
there, by Executive order, is too broad 2
Mr. MANN. Well, that is not a question for me to pass upon. That
is a question for you gentlemen. I, personally—if you want my
personal opinion—question very much the wisdom of turning over
a large area of the problem that is given to the Smoot-Reavis Com-
mission at this time. That is not my question
Mr. DALLINGER. You have “by authority of Congress” in there, too.
Mr. MANN. Yes.
Mr. DALLINGER. And your idea is that whatever power the bill does
give the President—
Mr. MANN. I say by Executive authority—my first suggestion is
that instead of “shall have charge of the educational functions and
activities of the department * it read “have charge of the educa-
tional functions of the Federal Government.”
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 37
The CHAIRMAN. I think that that is better.
Mr. MANN. If this change is made, then when you come to apply
the bill it will be necessary to define what are the functions of the
Federal Government in regard to education. A clear definition of the
Federal functions with regard to education would be one of the most
helpful things in realizing the educational leadership desired.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Does not that involve a definite position on
whether or not we should adopt the policy of Federal help to the
States?
Mr. MANN. No.
Mr. BANKHEAD. And what do you think should be the Federal
function, or what Federal function is necessary in regard to edu-
cation ?
Mr. MANN. Personally, I believe it should be one of leadership,
investigation, and report. There are many cases of this type of
Federal leadership, which are working admirably. I personally be-
lieve it is the most effective function for the Federal Government in
regard to education, just as it is with respect to agriculture. The
Department of Agriculture is a very useful precedent for the de-
partment of education. Their greatest work has been that of show-
ing the people how to do things better than they have been doing
them, and when people have a living example how to do things better
they go ahead arid do them better.
Mr. BANKHEAD. And don’t you think that in obtaining the relief
you have in mind that you have to extend it out into the country
itself and not keep it here in Washington?
Mr. MANN. Yes.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Even to the teachers of the public Schools, the
public-school system, and the rural communities of the country
Mr. MANN. Yes.
Mr. BANKHEAD. And do you think it is possible to do that under
the strict limitation of these functions that you put in this section?
Mr. MANN. Yes; I think it is, because it says there that the head
of the division of education shall have charge of the educational
functions of the Federal Government, and we define those educa-
tional functions to be the furnishing of educational leadership to
the country at large. w e
The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps I do not understand the wording of that
Executive order clause. If that applies to something that is already
existing, that might be in another department, and be transferred
over to this department, I do not see the objection to that. The
Overman Act does that. But this does not mean the creation by
the President of some department or division that has not yet been
created?
Mr. MANN. No. It is worded that he shall have charge of such ed-
ucational functions of the Federal Government as are assigned tº
him by Executive order of the President of the United States and
by act of Congress. º e
The CHAIRMAN. That is right. It is “assigned to it.” º
Mr. MANN. Yes; and that gives the President practically unlim-
ited power over anything that exists g º
Señator KENyon. That section is practically the same as in the
Overman Act?
38 DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE.
Mr. MANN. Yes.
Senator KENYon. And that is a subject which has aroused some
discussion?
Mr. MANN. Yes. Again, if that is the policy that you gentlemen
decide on, if you believe that you will get results more quickly by
this method, I am suggesting that this is a better way to do that.
Senator KENYon. Under your amendment it is stated that the
division of education shall have charge of such educational functions
of the Federal Government as are assigned to it by Executive order
of the President of the United States and by act of Congress. The
President could not do anything, however, without an act of Con-
gress. Is that what you understand it?
Mr. MANN. No.
Senator KENYON. You use the word “and.”
Mr. MANN. It ought to be “or.”
Mr. BANKHEAD. That puts a different phase on it altogether.
Senator KENYon. Then you have it the same as section 9. That is,
the President could take any department or part of a department
and transfer it?
Mr. MANN. Yes, sir.
Senator KENYoM. And your idea is to let the Executive do it or
Congress?
Mr. MANN. The Executive do it, within the authority of this act,
“ or ’’ Congress. I will make that change. . It ought to be “ or ’’ by
act of Congress. It ought to be “by Executive order of the President
of the United States or by act of Congress.”
Senator KENYON. And, of course, you raise the same questions
there that came up under the Overman Act?
Mr. MANN. Yes.
Senator KENYon. And they were provocative of some discussion?
Mr. MANN. Yes. My personal opinion in regard to the matter of
education is that expressed by Congressman Towner yesterday. I
believe that in this new plan the activities of the veteran welfare and
the activities of public health are so overwhelming in the new de-
partment that education would be lost sight of. I can not see from a
careful study of this bill, and an analysis of the things as I know them
in Washington, that education would be any better off under this
arrangement than under the present arrangement with the com-
missioner of education in the Department of the Interior.
Senator KENYon. Let us clear that up, if you will. You believe
that the cause of education would be better taken care of if it is left
out of the bill entirely?
Mr. MANN. Yes. Education ought to be in a department—an inde-
pendent organization.
Senator KENYON. And don’t you think that the cause of education
would be just as well taken care of, or better, under this bill, where it
has some sort of dignity and importance, being under an assistant
secretary of the department of welfare, than it is under the commis-
sioner of education in the Department of the Interior?
Mr. MANN. That has to do with my next amendment.
Mr. LowREY. Before you pass to the next amendment, Doctor, I
find that there is one fear expressed in regard to a department of edu-
cation, or in regard to the governmental direction of education, I find
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 39
the fear is that it will centralize everything in the National Govern-
ment, which will assume the functions belonging to the States, and
will result in the idea that the Government must do everything for
everybody. That is not my opinion. But there is that fear existing
to-day, and I will say that I have been an educator all my life
Mr. MANN. I recognize really the fundamental question. It rests in
the definition of what way the Federal functions in regard to educa-
tion are carried on. I am very much opposed to this centralization
of educational power or anything that leads to centralization, for the
reason that we can not build up a self-governing, self-respecting
people, unless they do it themselves in detail all over the country and
in each locality. [Applause.] Therefore, I feel that anything that
tends to centralize things in the Federal Government is a tremendous
mistake.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Let me ask you one question. Section 13 of the
Towner bill provides that all the educational facilities encouraged by
the provisions of that act and accepted by a State shall be organized,
supervised, and administered exclusively by the legally constituted
State and local educational authorities, and the secretary of educa-
tion shall exercise no authority in relation thereto. Don’t you think
that that is a very sufficient safeguard against the exercise of cen-
tralized power?
Mr. MANN. No; because I believe that you can not protect it by
statutory provisions as long as there are funds to be distributed by
the Federal Government for paying the expenses of the schools by the
State. I am not opposed to the kind of cooperation attained by the
Department of Agriculture through its field agents, by sending men
out to show the people how to start to get on their own feet, but I am
opposed to holding out large sums of money to give to the States for
the purpose of helping pay the expenses. That, I think, is a dan-
gerous thing, and tends to centralization. Of course, that is my per-
sonal opinion in the matter. That is the bone of contention between
the two factions of educators at the present time. We all agree that
we want a department, and we want the dignity of a department, and
we want an opportunity to liberate educational leadership.
Senator STERLING. And you are opposed to the principle of the
Smith-Hughes Act for vocational education—a vocational education
act, and you are opposed to the principle
Mr. MANN. Yes; I am opposed to the principle of the Smith-
Hughes Act.
Senator STERLING. And do you think that it has worked out badly
in practice?
Mr. MANN. In the main, yes. Greater results can be secured by the
expenditure of less money on a different principle.
Senator STERLING. Now, you take it in farm administration, and
home economics work in the agriculture extension bill, do you think
that is worked out badly at present?
Mr. MANN. That has worked out much better than the Smith-
Hughes Act, in my judgment, and as long as they use that method of
cooperation in the way of instruction and investigation, and news
service to the people, I am in favor of the Federal Government doing
it. But when they use Federal money for paying the expenses of
the school systems of the State, I think it is a mistake.
40 DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE.
The CHAIRMAN. The matter was all gone over very, very carefully
in the Smith-Hughes bill, and we thought we had finally fixed it to
this extent, that the appropriation by the Federal Government does
extend its own authority, although we would allow the people them-
selves to state what would be taught—the course is to be made out by
the State and is to be approved by the State.
Mr. MANN. In the actual administration of the Smith-Hughes Act,
as you know, everything is subject to revision in Washington. It is
that sort of thing that will gradually grow up, I fear, and tends to
centralize authority, if there are large funds to be distributed.
Senator STERLING. Compare that with the provisions of the Smith-
Hughes Act, or with the provisions of the Smith-Towner bill, and the
restrictions there with regard to the interference on the part of the
Federal Government. Do you think that the Smith-Towner bill is
safe and will prevent encroachment by the Federal Government upon
State initiative?
Mr. MANN. It may not prevent encroachment, but the thing that I
am interested in is inciting the State to self-initiative by dynamic
ideas rather than by money. I believe there is great danger when
you come to the State with $300,000 or $500,000 and say, “We will
give you this if you do so and so.” I fear that they will do it for the
sake of getting the money.
The CHAIRMAN. But you realize that the States have to meet that
amount by a like appropriation for themselves?
Mr. MANN. Yes; but I think that will not meet the situation, be-
cause they already subscribe for education—most of them—more
than you are offering them.
Mr. Robsſon. You oppose the policy of Congress to give Federal
aid for roads, do you?
Mr. MANN. I am not sure, because roads is a Federal function by
Constitution—post roads. Also road construction deals mainly with
materials; education deals with spirit and the liberation of the ener-
gies of man.
Mr. RobsION. But it is not limited to that.
Mr. BANKHEAD. You realize also that this is called a welfare bu-
reau. Is not there a provision in the Constitution providing for
welfare?
Mr. MANN. Oh, yes. The fundamental question on which we
differ, and on which I differ with the Sterling-Towner bill, is the
question of what is the most effective method of inciting the Ameri-
can people to be independent, self-reliant, and to develop real citi-
zenship. I believe that every example we have indicates that the
way to do it is to give them a dynamic idea rather than money, and
then to let them go forward for themselves.
Senator STERLING. And have you thought of this from the stand-
point of the adult citizen, of every citizen, from the standpoint of
citizenship in relation to the Federal Government and citizenship in
relation to the State government?
Mr. MANN. Yes.
Senator STERLING. And that the Federal Government is as inter-
ested as the State in making good citizenship?
Mr. MANN. Yes.
Senator STERLING. And as interested as the States in getting good
educators?
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 41
Mr. MANN. Yes.
Senator STERLING. Then why should there be any objection to co-
operation between the Federal Government and the State govern-
ments in matters of education?
Mr. MANN. Because I would rather see all citizens feel toward
the Government all the time as they felt toward the Government
during the war. I would like to have them come to Washington, as
they did during the war, to find out what they can do to help the
Government. I would rather not see them coming to Washington
to find out what they can get from the Government. In my opinion
we are encouraging the attitude of seeking what they can get out
of the Government and weakening the attitude of seeking what they
can do for the Government, by subsidy. [Applause.]
The CHAIRMAN. May I make the observation at this point that
this is not a debating society. The committee is trying to gather
data in order to draft a bill, and I hope that such demonstrations as
have been given will not again occur.
Senator STERLING. Does it not occur to you, regarding these va-
rious bills, that they give some initiative to the State when they
require the State to pay dollar for dollar?
Mr. MANN. It is safeguarding it as far as a statute can safeguard
it, but the subtle effect of having large sums of money to spend by
the Government, I think, throws the emphasis the wrong way.
That is my personal opinion, of course.
The CHAIRMAN. May I ask you one further question on this par-
ticular proposition? They fear—I understand that you are in favor
of a department of education?
Mr. MANN. Yes. º
The CHAIRMAN. And the only question is what are going to be its
functions?
Mr. MANN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, you expressed a fear that under the present
plan the assistant secretary, who is coordinated with the assistant
secretary of public health and the veterans’ service, and so on, would
be really swallowed up because of the superior interests in the other
two departments. Is it not conceivable that an assistant secretary
of the public welfare would be sufficiently strong to take care of that
department, equal to his coordinated assistant secretaries?
Mr. MANN. That all depends upon who the assistant secretary is.
That touches my next amendment. My next amendment is in regard
to the last paragraph of section 2.
The CHAIRMAN. I think that C. R. Mann might be man enough to
take care of it.
Mr. MANN. I am not so sure about that, under the conditions, be-
cause one of the curious things which, in my judgment, offers a very
serious handicap is the mixture of the administrative functions with
what I might call the investigating and inspirational functions.
Veteran service and public health are largely administrative types,
and when you combine those functions with investigation and publi-
cation, the administrative work always absorbs so much time that
the executive finds it difficult to pay much attention to the other.
During the war we had a very large organization in the General
Staff, which is supposed to do the kind of work that I like to see the
42 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
Department of Agriculture and of education do, but we also had to
assume large administrative functions. We soon found ourselves
doing nothing but administrative and executive work and little
studying and looking ahead to see where we were going. That is
another reason why I hate to see the department of education tied
up with such large executive responsibility as in involved in the
veteran service and the Public Health Service.
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have your opinion on this. The
present Bureau of Education is with the Interior Department, is it
not ?
Mr. MANN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The Interior Department's interests are almost
entirely along the line of irrigation, reclamation, public lands, natu-
ral resources, etc.
Mr. MANN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And it has been felt that the Secretary of the
Interior could not very well have the sort of interest in education
that we would expect him to have.
Mr. MANN. That is exactly it; and the appropriation for the Bu-
reau of Education this year is $166,000. You have tied the hands
of the commissioner so that he can not do the work that he ought to
do, and the reason is that the Secretary of the Interior is so absorbed
in these large administrative responsibilities that he does not get
down to the needs of the Bureau of Education and help to make
proper provision for it.
The 8. Now, if we are unable to have a department of
education, which I have been anxious to see this Government have,
do you not think that this would be a decided improvement on the
present situation?
Mr. MANN. It all depends again on how it is done, and I am very
skeptical as to whether you will get very far by submerging educa-
tion in these large executive and administrative activities.
Now as to the question of the dignity of the office. The last para-
graph in section 2 reads:
Each division of the department shall be in charge of an assistant Secretary
of public welfare, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate. Each assistant secretary shall perform such
duties as may be prescribed by the Secretary or required by law and shall re-
ceive an annual salary of $5,000.
This provision makes the head of the education division an assist-
ant secretary of welfare, thereby classifying education as a branch of
welfare. I believe the converse is true; I think that in most welfare
work the most valuable element is education. In Public Health, for
example, one of the most important necessities for Public Health is
the proper education of the people. There are also administrative
and executive functions, but the important thing in public health is
education. I feel the same way in regard to social work. The best
type of social work is done by educating people to take care of them-
selves, and not by subsidies. Therefore I object to classifying educa-
tion under welfare, but prefer to classify welfare under education.
I also object to calling the head of the division of education an
assistant secretary of welfare. Personally, we have established,
through years of experience, a dignified office, as dignified as the
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 43
funds and facilities will permit, and the head of it is called the
Commissioner of Education. He is known all over the country as the
Commissioner of Education, and I do not see any reason why we
could not call the head of this new division the Commissioner of Edu-
cation. I would hate to see the head of the Public Health Service
called an assistant secretary of welfare. I think that his present title
of Surgeon General is much more dignified and more convincing to
the people. I prefer not to change these titles, so my second sugges-
tion is that the last paragraph of section 2 be changed to read:
Each division of the department shall be in charge of a commissioner, who
Shall be appointed by the Plesident, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate. Each commissioner shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by
the Secretary or required by law, and shall receive an annual Salary of $10,000.
You may remember that yesterday it was stated that one of the ob-
jections to the bill was that you could not get an able man for $5,000
a year. The reply was that there were any number of men of great
ability lying around who would be glad to give their services either
for nothing or $5,000 a year. This sounds well, but it will not work
in the long run. It will not tend to build a strong department if
you accept voluntary service. Men are not in this work for money,
understand, but under the present conditions no man in this impor-
tant post can support his family in Washington for $5,000 a year.
Senator KENYON. Can he support .# on $7,500 a year?
Mr. MANN. Well, $7,500 would be the lower limit. I will point out
that in the Army reorganization bill you recognize that fact and
create an Assistant Secretary of War at this figure.
Senator KENYON. The Secretary of the Navy was the only asssist-
ant at $10,000, and it has now been cut to $5,000—
Mr. MANN. I thought it was the Secretary of War?
Senator KENYON. No ; the reorganization plan made it that, but we
are not paying any assistant Secretaries more than $5,000 a year.
Mr. MANN. They all ought to be raised, and particularly the one
who has charge of education, because the people interested in educa-
tion are interested in securing a dignified status for education so
that its dignity will be recognized all over the country. When you
remember that the colleges are paying all the way from $6,000 for
the smaller colleges up to $20,000 and $22,000 for their presidents,
you must realize that you can not command the continued service of
the best type of educational leadership for $5,000 a year.
Senator KENYON. And you realize that the Government can not
pay them what they are worth?
Mr. MANN. Yes; it can.
Senator KENYon. Take the Shipping Board, for instance, and here
is a man under consideration, so the papers say to-day, for chairman
of the Shipping Board, who is a $100,000-a-year man.
Mr. MANN. Yes.
Senator KENYon. But I think that there is some patriotism that
ought to be involved in these positions.
Mr. MANN. Undoubtedly; but the patriotism for this class of serv-
ice will come into play after you have given a man a living wage.
The difference between $100,000 and $10,000, of course, is great, but
$10,000 is a living wage for any man. I think that $5,000 is not a
living wage for a man who has the responsibility and dignified posi-
tion that these men should have.
44 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
Senator KENYon. There is no doubt about that; but if you raise
One assistant Secretary you will have to raise them all.
Mr. MANN. Yes; I realize that, too. Yet I notice in the reclassifi-
cation bill, which has been discussed, that they had scheduled the
Commissioner of Education to receive $9,000 a year. I do not know
whether that is still in the bill or not. But if you are going to
dignify and give real leadership, you will have to pay at least a liv-
inº
he CHAIRMAN. I want to ask you about this vocational training.
You say that you had charge of it in the Army?
Mr. MANN. I am assisting the Army
The CHAIRMAN. And is that carried on separate and distinct from
the activities of the Federal Vocational Board 2
Mr. MANN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And it has nothing to do with it at all?
Mr. MANN. Nothing.
Senator KENYon. Is there any reason why it should not be carried
on with the Federal Vocational Board 2
Mr. MANN. In my judgment it would be an advantage if certain
phases of the Army work were consolidated in a department of
education. It is perfectly obvious that in the camps the administra-
tion of Army schools must be by the Army; but the group of civilians
that I have charge of is developing the methods of educational
training, the courses of study, and the methods of testing—that is,
we are doing the expert educational work. It would be a benefit to
the Federal board and to us and to the Bureau of Education if that
development work, which is the investigation and publication work
for the Government, could all be consolidated.
Senator KENyon. Would not that be a saving of expense also :
Mr. MANN. I do not know as it would be a saving of expense, but
it might be. I have on my desk, for illustration, at the present
time the Federal board's publication of an outline or analysis of the
elements of instructions in the machinist's trades. I also have a
book called the Machinist's Manual, which the Army has just pub-
lished, and also a third pamphlet which describes the machinists’
course in the Navy. They are all as different as they can be, yet
there is no reason and no sense in not having the best elements in all
three consolidated in one, which would be better than any one of the
three. That kind of work ought to be in the department of education.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee is surprised to have an expression
like that from you. We always heard very differently in regard to
that
Mr. MANN. The distinction that I made is that you can not trans-
fer the administration of it, because the Army must control the in-
struction at the Army camps
The CHAIRMAN. That has been discussed. The Army is under
military control
Mr. MANN. During the war, as you remember, a bill was intro-
duced in regard to the rehabilitation, in which the Federal board was
to be given authority to go into the hospitals and decide when a
man should be discharged from the hospital
The CHAIRMAN. But only upon the approval of the hospital au-
thorities.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 45
Mr. MANN. Do not understand me to say that any civilian organiza-
tion or department of education could administer the Army Schools;
but the investigative work, which is the creative work, which the Fed-
eral Board is doing for the industries, and which the Army is doing
for the Army, and which the Navy is doing for the Navy, could be
consolidated.
Senator KENYon. So that just one board could do what the three
are doing?
Mr. MANN. Yes. You could to advantage consolidate the activi-
ties of those three and other similar activities in one department of
education, and this bill would allow it to be done.
The CHAIRMAN. That objection has been made to the efforts to get
a department of education to unify all of the educational activities
under one head that you could not do that with the Army or with
the Navy and with the land-grant college work which is under the
** Department. That objection is not really tenable
r. MANN. Please make the distinction between administration
and the investigation. The creative part of the Government work in
education could be consolidated.
The CHAIRMAN. And that is practicable?
Mr. MANN. Yes; because the work the Army is doing in construc-
tive educational work, in devising courses, could be done in a depart-
. of education better than it can be done in the War Department
8,10H162.
Senator PHIPPs. Do we understand that at the present time these
investigative features are being carried along by three separate or-
ganizations, involving the duplication of work to a certain extent?
Mr. MANN. I do not say that it involves the duplication of work.
Senator PHIPPs. But treating on the same subject.
Mr. MANN. Treating the same subject, but the Federal Board is
working with reference to industry in the machinist trade and the
War Department is working to prepare soldiers for the technical
requirements of the military service and the Agriculture Department
is developing courses for the use of farmers. It would be an advan-
tage to the Årmy if we were all working in the same offices with the
men in the Federal Board who are doing that for industry, so that
the courses for training soldiers would tie up better with the courses
for training men who are to be used in industry. A department of
education organized to do this development work that is to carry on
investigation and a news service could easily be made to function
with the Departments of Agriculture, War, Navy, and with the Fed-
eral Board in their respective fields.
The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Doctor.
Senator STERLING. I want to ask one more question if I may.
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.
Senator STERLING. It is this: Do you think that the interests of
education will be better served through a division of education in
the department of public welfare than they are now served through
the Bureau of Education in the Department of Interior?
Mr. MANN. No. It all depends on how it is done, and I see no
assurance in this bill that education, under this bill, will be any
better off than at the present time. I am for a department of edu-
cation. I object to classifying education under welfare.
46 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
Senator PHIPPs. In either case it depends somewhat upon what
Congress would do in extending and enlarging the functions of the
bureau, or the division of education, and the appropriation made
for that work.
Mr. MANN. Certainly. But this bill merely transfers the appro-
priations as they are. Each bureau would be able to carry on the
work that it is now doing. The bill provides for no extension of
activities, especially in the creative work required to release edu-
cational leadership.
Senator PHIPPs. In your statement I think you made it plain that
you are opposed to the Federal Government granting the State aid.
Mr. MANN. Yes; for the purpose of paying current expenses.
Senator PHIPPs. I would like to ask if, in your judgment, where
the State board is formulating the plans under which it expects to
get Federal aid, and that plan or program has to receive the ap-
proval of the Federal authorities before the State aid is granted,
would your thought be that, it will be unduly influenced or domi-
nated by the Federal authorities, in order to secure Federal aid?
Mr. MANN. Yes; that is my thought.
Senator PHIPPs. That the Federal authority will predominate.
to an undue extent?
Mr. MANN. Yes.
Senator PHIPPs. And that the State authorities will concede or
defer to the judgment of the Federal authority unduly in order to:
secure Federal assistance; is that your idea?
Mr. MANN. Yes. When a State superintendent, for example,
goes to work to make up his educational program, his attention, in-
stead of being focused on what is the next step to advance our-
local community and what is the best thing that we can do to make-
our people stronger and more productive and better physically,
will be confused all the time by the query: “Will this get by in:
Washington?”
The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, we have had specific bills in the last.
session which failed in the House and passed in the Senate on the
Americanization plan, and then another bill for specific legislation,
and another one for the matter of the adult illiteracy, and several
bills
Mr. MANN. I am familiar with them.
The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand that you are afraid of the tend-
ency of that legislation?
Mr. MANN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. They could go on with this and would go on with:
this without Federal cooperation.
Mr. MANN. Yes; provided it is done in such a way as not to take.
from the States the initiative. Let me tell you a story, if I may,
for illustration, of what I am trying to explain to you. Mississippi.
has been held up as a sample of a State that has so small an amount
of taxable wealth that the Federal Government must cooperate-
with it by transferring Federal funds to the State in order that there
may be an equal per capita expenditure for education in Missis-
sippi. I was interested in that and I looked up conditions in Mis--
sissippi recently. I discovered that in 1910 Mr. Wallace Buttrick,
of the general educational board in New York, who went down there.
DEPARTMENT OF PIUBLIC WELFARE. 47
to study conditions and that he decided that consolidated Schools
and boys and girls clubs for raising corn and canning fruits would
yield productive results. He employed a man by the name of W. H.
Smith to go to Mississippi and develop that idea amongst the people.
The result has been most remarkable. The corn and canning ac-
tivities have increased the products of Mississippi enormously, so
much so that the legislature passed in 1912 an act establishing con-
solidated schools, and there are now 470 of them. These schools have
not only trained the children to productive work, but they have
shown the older people that it is possible for them to raise other
crops than cotton only. The communities are coming up—becom-
ing more prosperous and increasing their taxable wealth—on their
own steam, because of the power of this dynamic idea. The Smith-
Hughes Act came along in 1917, when the movement was well de-
veloped, and out of the 470 consolidated Schools in Mississippi, 30
are now receiving subsidies under the Smith-Hughes Act. In my
opinion, Mississippi is a better and a stronger State to-day and has
a better citizenship to-day because they created and financed this
work themselves, than if they had done it under the stimulus of a
Federal act which offered to pay them money to induce them to do it
and more money to pay expenses of carrying it on.
Senator STERLING. I would like to call attention to some provi-
sions in the Smith-Towner bill. Now, their first authorization for
an appropriation provides that all funds apportioned to a State for
the removal of illiteracy shall be distributed and administered in ac-
cordance with the laws of the State in like manner as the funds pro-
vided by State and local authorities for the same purpose, and the
State and local educational authorities of said State shall determine
the courses of study, plans, and methods for carrying out the pur-
poses of the section within said State in accordance with the laws
thereof.
Now, they have an exactly similar provision following for ever
specific authorization for an appropriation, and that is the way §
lowed out by these further provisions. It provides that all of the
educational facilities encouraged by the provisions of that act and
accepted by the State—
Shall be organized, supervised, and administered exclusively by the legally
COnstituted State and local educational authorities of Said State, and the Secre-
tary of education shall exercise no authority in relation thereto; and this act
Shall not be construed to imply Federal control of education within the States,
nor to impair the freedom Of the States in the COnduct and management Of
their respective School systems.
Now, Doctor, don’t you think that these are pretty good safeguards
against any undue encroachment?
Mr. MANN. I wish that you would read paragraph 13, which re-
duces the secretary of education to a rubber stamp.
Senator STERLING. Paragraph 13?
Mr. MANN. Yes; the one that defines the way the accounts are
handled.
Senator STERLING. I will:
That when a State shall have accepted the provisions of this act and Shall
have provided for the distribution and administration of such fund as Shall be
apportioned to such State, and when State's chief educational authority desig-
nated to represent such State shall so report in writing to the Secretary of
48 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WEIFARE.
education, and said report shall be approved by the governor of Said State,
showing that said State has complied with the provisions of this act with
respect to any One or more of the apportionments authorized in section 7, 8, 9,
10, and 11 of this act, and when annually thereafter a like report shall be filed
with the secretary of education, approved by the governor of said State, the
secretary of education shall apportion to said State for the ensuing fiscal year
Such funds as Said State may be entitled to receive under the provisions of this
act, and shall certify such apportionment or apportionments to the Secretary
of the Treasury.
That simply carries out the idea of noninterference on the part of
the Federal Government. It does not interfere with plans, methods,
courses of study, or anything of that kind.
Mr. MANN. I do not want to take up this question of responsi-
bility for the expenditure of those funds, because I think that you
have in this paragraph placed the Secretary in a very awkward posi-
tion. To return to your first point, that of illiteracy, according to
the bill, this money for illiteracy shall be expended under the laws
of each State. Now, the States have various laws in regard to illit-
eracy and had them before the war. Before the war every State
but two had a truant and illiteracy law. But when the Nation
drafted its young men for the Army we discovered what the States
were doing with the laws. I maintain that by giving money to a
State for the cure of illiteracy, to be administered by the State under
State laws as they now exist, you will not cure illiteracy. I further
maintain, on the other hand, that if you get up a competition from
Washington, as you did in the case of the draft, in which the ideal
or objective is to get rid of illiteracy, and if there is published every
year a very careful statement of what the condition of the various
contestants is in regard to illiteracy, and if you in addition furnish
the States with information as to the best methods of getting rid of
illiteracy, then you will not need to give the States any money, and
you will cure illiteracy in less time than you will if you attempt to
do it in this way.
Senator STERLING. It seems to have been the idea by making this
appropriation that you will encourage States to maké like appropria-
tion, and therefore between the two there will be ample appropria-
tion of funds for illiteracy.
Mr. MANN. I would like to make a rather bold statement. I do
uot believe that you will cure illiteracy with any amount of appro-
priation applied according to the principles of this bill. You must
first inspire in the States a determination to get rid of it, and I think
that you will not inspire that determination efficiently by any appro-
priation. Last year this country spent about $1,000,000,000 on
education. It spent $10,000,000,000 on cosmetics, perfumes, to-
bacco, joy rides, chewing gum, soft drinks, and other luxuries and
frivolities. Evidently the people want all those frivolities ten times
as badly as they want the kind of schooling that is now offered them
in the open market. The people of Mississippi support their con-
solidated schools because these institutions deliver goods the people
want. Federal subsidies to pay current expenses tend strongly to
increase the operating cost of an educational plant that is not deliver-
ing a product the people want enough to pay for it. , What is needed
is production engineers who will reorganize the production processes
to yield a product the people will buy because it is worth the price.
In my judgment Federal subsidies tend to hinder this progress and
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 49
to suppress rather than to release the educational leadership which
Ilust be liberated if education is to serve effectively in building the
Nation’s strength.
Mr. Robsſon. And do Ş. think that you can thrust education
upon a boy or a girl? You have got to instill in them the right
spirit, have you not?
Mr. MANN. You have got to liberate the right spirit, and I be-
lieve that you do not liberate the right spirit by offering money as
the prime inducement.
STATEMENT OF MR. HUGH S. MAGILL, REPRESENTING THE NA-
TIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you give the reporter your name and whom
you represent?
Mr. MAGILL. I represent the National Education Association. I
do not intend to enter into any discussion at this time of this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. You pº realize, Mr. Magill, that this is
not Mr. Towner's bill. Let us have your statement in regard to it.
Mr. MAGILL. I would like to ask that the educators have an op-
portunity to be heard next week, if that can be arranged by the com-
mittee, and I would suggest that they be heard Tuesday. The point
is this, the question was raised yesterday in the discussion of this
bill as to whether or not the division of education therein provided
for would be satisfactory to the educators of the country and to the
friends of public education.
Judge Towner made the statement that it would not be; that the
friends of education would feel that the division of education as
here constructed would not benefit education. He asked that it be
removed, and that it be eliminated entirely from this bill. That
was Judge Towner's request, or his statement, and I want to say
that as secretary of the National Education Association, which as-
sociation I am speaking for, that I am thoroughly convinced that
the statement of Judge Towner on yesterday was exactly right, that
the educators of this country almost unanimously would not be satis-
fied with a division of education in the department of public wel-
fare, as they would feel that it would be no advance for education
whatsoever. I feel that the friends of education throughout the
country feel the same way, and I would like to get the time from you
to bring in the evidence, and I would like to have a day next week
when we might be heard.
The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, we can set it for Tuesday
at 10 o’clock.
Senator KENyon. Tuesday of next week?
The CHAIRMAN. And we will devote the time to that.
Mr. MAGILL. I do not want to delay the hearing at all. The point
is this, that the question of really getting in the evidence in the mat-
ter is very important——
The CHAIRMAN. We are all agreed that we shall give you a day,
but what day?
Mr. MAGILL. Any day that the committee might agree upon.
Mr. LowREY. Have you any idea how many hours it will take you
to discuss it?
49824—21—4
50 DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE.
b Mr. MAGILL. I think, Congressman, that it could be made rathel
TIGI.
Mr. LowREY. Could it be done in a fraction of a day ?
Mr. MAGILL. I think so.
The CHAIRMAN. Could it be made from 10 to 12? If so, we will
give you two hours, and we will hold you responsible for sugges-
tions that you want to be heard, without duplication, and we will
leave it to you to arrange it.
Senator STERLING. I can not be here next Tuesday.
Senator KENYon. Do you want to start the discussion now %
Mr. MAGILL. I do not want to discuss it, but I want to make a
statement somewhat as a lawyer would in opening a case, and I
will say that we heartily agree with what Dr. Mann has expressed
so forcibly, and what we want is educational leadership, not educa-
tional control. We do not want that kind of educational leadership'
as shown there, which would submerge it in a division. The Com-
missioner of Education in the Department of the Interior has a di-
vision which is charged with the education for the Government
to-day just as much as an assistant secretary of public welfare
would be. I know that on this committee are gentlemen who are
very much in favor of a department of education, and they have so
expressed themselves, and I know that the Commissioner of Educa-
tion has given magnificent help to the subject of education.
I believe that a very happy compromise may be brought about by
leaving out the subject of education from this bill altogether, and
allow us to go ahead and attempt to get a department, and leave
the subject of education in the department by creating a department
by Congress which will be ultimately created, and doubtless the
reorganization committee of the Senate and the House will put it
somewhere. That will be far better to leave it in that way, because
this will create friction among the friends of public education in the
United States. In view of the fact that the friends of public educa-
tion in the United States are not satisfied with this division as pro-
vided for in this bill, while the enemies of public education are
satisfied with it and have so expressed themselves, I think it makes
the issue pretty clearly drawn.
Senator PHIPPs. What is that last about the enemies of education?
Who do you refer to as enemies of education?
Mr. MAGILL. Do you understand me as saying that everybody who
opposes any bill is an enemy of public education. I do not mean
that at all, but there have been some who have at least fought very
strenuously the question of the establishment of a department of
education with a seat in the President's Cabinet, who have expressed
their satisfaction in the matter of putting education under the
public welfare. The people of this country feel favorably, of course,
to the public welfare, but they think that education should not be
subordinated to public welfare, but that public welfare should be
subordinated to education.
The CHAIRMAN. The educators of the country are not altogether
united. Dr. Mann has not given his full accord to the bill in which
you and I have been so deeply interested.
Mr. MAGILL. The public school people of the United States and
the State superintendents of the 48 States, with possibly one or two
DEPARTMENT OF PIUBLIC WELFARE. 51
exceptions, and those one or two exceptions are not openly opposed
to it, have indorsed it, and the teachers, the county superintendents
of the United States, and the city superintendents of the United
States have three times in convention assembled indorsed the at-
tempt which we have made to secure in the President's Cabinet the
head of a department of education, and it has been indorsed clear on
down to the public schools. In Atlantic City here just recently by
an overwhelming vote in the convention they indorsed the depart-
ment of education idea, with a secretary sitting in the President’s
Cabinet. There have been some colleges, privately-endowed colleges,
that have questioned the Towner-Sterling bill, and very sincerely,
too, but the American Council on Education at its meeting last week
did not hesitate to indorse the department of education. They are
for the department of education, with a member of the President’s
Cabinet.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will defer that until Wednesday. How
will Wednesday of next week do?
Mr. MAGILL. It will do very well for us. So the only division be-
tween us is that all agree on a department of education, with a secre-
tary in the President's Cabinet, while a few do not desire the Federal
Support.
º CHAIRMAN. We will hear from you next Wednesday at 10
o'clock.
STATEMENT OF MR. EDGAR WALLACE, REPRESENTING THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR.
Mr. WALLACE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I wish to call atten-
tion and to protest against certain sections of this bill which, in the
opinion of the American Federation of Labor, takes from the De-
partment of Labor certain functions that are interrelated with other
functions of that department and places in another department their
* which, in our opinion, should go to the Department of
abor.
Now, the question of the Children’s Bureau is in this bill—
The CHAIRMAN. Give us the section, if you please.
Mr. WALLACE. Section 5 and section 6. It mentions it in section 5,
where it says that the officers of the chief, assistant chief, and private
secretary to the Chief of the Children’s Bureau in the Department
of Labor.
In section 6 it mentions the Children’s Bureau in the Department
of Labor, along with Several others.
Senator KENYon. That is the only thing in the Department of
Labor that is transferred?
Mr. WALLACE. And there are others that I wish to talk about that,
in my opinion, should be in the Department of Labor, and in the
opinion of those I represent. The Children’s Bureau considers the
children in industry as well as the other welfare
Senator KENYon. And does it not consider the children on the
farms and in the towns and everywhere else?
Mr. WALLACE. Yes, sir; and it also considers the children in in-
dustry, and, in my opinion, the children in the town that it considers
are generally the children of the working people, and it has been
52 HDEPARTIMIENT OF PIJ BLIC WELFARE.
shown that the economic condition of breadwinners of the family
has much to do with the needs of those children; that their conditions
vary almost with those of the breadwinner; and inasmuch as it takes
in the children in industry, we consider that children are competitors
in industry, for they are the very last resort of those who desire
cheap labor, and the taking of that out of the Department of Labor
in our opinion would be a mistake.
The CHAIRMAN. Our chief concern is to get them out of industry.
Mr. WALLACE. Yes, sir; and I am in favor of that, but I think that
the Department of Labor would know more about that, for the reason
that the placing of children in industry is generally a matter that is
not so well understood.
Senator KENYon. We had originally in this bill the Woman’s
Bureau, and we struck that out.
Mr. WALLACE. Yes, sir.
Senator KENYon. Because it seemed reasonable that the matter of
women in industry should come under the Woman’s Bureau. But
can you conceive of any department of public welfare that does not
have as one of its functions the looking after the children of the
Peºple in the country?
r. WALLACE. I can of a department of welfare closely allied to
labor. After all, it is the children of the working people whom this
department of welfare would be intended to serve.
The CHAIRMAN. What other parts of the bill are you against, Mr.
Wallace?
Mr. WALLACE. The vocational education.
Senator KENYON. The children on the farms are just as important
as the children in industry.
Mr. WALLACE. I think they are every bit as important, but I have
not seen the suffering or the need for supervision of the children on
the farm that I have in children in industry, and the children in indus-
try and the vocational education, in my opinion, should also go to the
Department of Labor. While it is not now in the Department of
Labor, yet the Secretary of Labor, I believe, is one of the officials who
has charge of that.
The CHAIRMAN. One of the ex officio officials?
Mr. WALLACE. One of the ex officio officials. Now, in the matter of
vocational education, I was interested in what Dr. Mann said in de-
scribing how the different treatises came to him on how to become a
machinist. That would be the idea of possibly the department of
welfare or any department that has not a distinct knowledge of the
needs of labor. The Labor Department would not only consider how
to turn out a machinists, but how many men of every industry could be
absorbed. We think that the Department of Labor would know, by
its close connection with the labor question, all of those matters, and
I think that in the matter of the rehabilitation of the ex-Army men
and those injured in industry ©
Mr. Robsion. What do you mean by how many machinists might be
absorbed ? º
Mr. WALLACE. How many machinists might be needed in the in-
dustry.
sº Robsſon. And you would only train enough to meet that de-
mand?
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 53.
Mr. WALLACE. Only train enough to meet that demand, limited to
take Care of the trades in the different industries, and the rehabilita-
* matter with those disabled men whether in war or injured in in-
ustry
Mr. Roºsion. What would be your purpose in limiting the young
men and the persons who might take up this training
Mr. WALLACE. My purpose would be so that the different trades
Would—so that there would be enough for the different trades and not
too many in the various industries. There would be enough men for
the different trades to fill the positions and there would be enough po-
sitions for the men who are in that trade.
. Mr. Robsſon. Now, assuming that there are 5,000 men employed
in taking a training, 5,000 men who are capable of taking it and who
desire to take it. Do you think that it ought to be so that only 3,000
would be permitted to take it?
Mr. WALLACE. I believe someone ought to advise against the over-
crowding of some particular industry and advise the young men as to
other lines and someone ought to have that who would have knowl-
edge of the matter and have information on the matter. There are
people who want to work, and we are interested in them, and we want
to develop the best that there is in them, and we think it would be a
mistake if too many of any one trade should be developed and natur-
ally not enough of another trade should be developed. I think the
Department of Labor would know how many would be needed in any
given trade.
Mr. ROBSION. And that is the training of adults, isn’t it?
Mr. WALLACE. Adults.
Mr. ROBSION. You would not desire that an adult would be the
controlling factor e
Mr. WALLACE. My idea of that is that they would be fully advised
as to which trade was being overcrowded and would be advised.
as to another trade where there would be better opportunities, and
that advice, in my opinion, the Department of Labor would be
especially able to give. Now, on the compensation—there is some
section here on compensation for Government employees injured in
industry. I believe that compensation is closely allied to rehabilita-
tion of cripples in industry, and that also, I should think, should
be a part of the Department of Labor.
Senator KENYon. It is not in the Department of Labor now.
Mr. WALLACE. No ; it is not in the Department of Labor; no, sir;
but, as I explained at first, I was going to call attention to Some
things that in my opinion could be handled better by the Department,
of Labor.
The CHAIRMAN. What other points have you?
Mr. WALLACE. I believe those are the three points—that is, the
matter of compensation, the vocational education, and the Chil–
dren’s Bureau, in our opinion, are part of the functions and co-
related to the functions of the Department of labor.
The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you.
Senator KENYON. But the Federation of Labor is not opposed
to the general welfare bill, is it?
Mr. WALLACE. No, sir.
54 DEPARTMENT OF PIUBLIC WELFARE.
STATEMENT OF MR. FRANK W. ELLIOTT, REPRESENTING THE
CHIROPRACTORS’ ASSOCIATION,
The CHAIRMAN. Give your name to the reporter, please.
Mr. ELLIOTT. Frank W. Elliott.
The CHAIRMAN. And we would like to know who you are.
Mr. ELLIOTT. Frank W. Elliott.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you a doctor?
Mr. ELLIOTT. I am a chiropractor, and I represent the Universal
Chiropractors’ Association of the United States and Canada. I
have the pleasure of being connected with the largest chiropractic
School in the world, where we are teaching some 2,500 students—
Senator KENYON. Where is that school?
Mr. ELLIOTT. In Davenport.
Senator PHIPPs. And what is the length of the course?
Mr. ELLIOTT. There are three terms of six months each. I have
the honor of being a member of the Legislature of the State of Iowa
during the past session, and our State recognizes chiropractry, as
practically half the States in the United States do now. We are
coming here and are opposed to this bill as it is actually drawn. We
come here in the interest of education, in a general way, and we
approve education, and we are not opposed to the public-health
feature of this bill, but may we ask that in drawing up this bill that
consideration be given to the nonmedical branches of the healing
work, including the various members of them, and I think that the
matter of taking care of that, I believe that the committee is
familiar enough to know what we want and to safeguard it.
Senator KENYON. What is there in this bill that you think might
injure the chiropractor? .
Mr. ELLIOTT. Dr. Forster spoke of it yesterday, in the section in
division 2, I believe that the word “protect’ could be fixed a little
bit, and in drawing up the provisions for the appropriations of the
department, I believe that the provision could be placed in that
section, so that it would take care of it for the future similarly in
the way that it has been done in the bill providing for physical educa-
tion. That would be acceptable to us. Now, I am not going to take
up your time, but if there are any questions that you would like to
ask, I shall be very glad to answer them.
The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF MR. H. B. BRADFORD, REPRESENTING THE
AMERICAN MEDICAL LIBERTY LEAGUE OF CHICAGO.
The CIIAIRMAN. Give your name to the reporter, and also whom
you represent.
Mr. BRADFORD. H. B. Bradford, and I represent the American
Medical Liberty League of Chicago and the Citizens’ Protective
Association of the District of Columbia. Mr. Chairman and gen-
tlemen of the committee, I desire to place before you the views of
the two organizations that I represent.
We believe in the public welfare, always, but to what School of
medicine is this developing of these physically perfect citizens to be
delegated? Would this physical welfare education, which is to pro-
DEPARTMENT OF PIJ BLIC WELFARE. 55
ect and promote the health of our people, be of the persuasive or
ompulsive kind? The care of the person is a purely private matter,
and does not come, or should not come, within the purview of the
public health.
Many who have never investigated the various systems of healing,
and have contented themselves with the one they were brought up
in—kill or cure—do not always realize how precious medical free-
dom is to others of a different belief. I think that I can speak very
well on this feature of freedom of medicine, because of the fact that
my people came over in the Mayflower, and they came from a country
which they left because they believed in religious freedom, and re-
ligious freedom and medical freedom are
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bradford, are you giving the same thing that
you gave before, at the time of your testimony before?
º: BRADFORD. No; but I am very anxious to bring out the different
subjects.
From the successive failures of regular medicine and the arbi-
trary actions of various health authorities in this country, there has
grown up an enormous opposition to all allopathic medicine. Many
think that it is not consistent with their pursuit of happiness to be
compelled to have their blood infected with disease in the hope of
warding off some other disease. The homeopath could hardly believe
that if like cures like that sowing disease will produce health.
If this great undertaking of protecting and promoting the health
of all our citizens is to be entrusted with the regular school of medi-
cine, that allowed over 370,000 of their patients to die of the flu, then
we should say that they have not proved themselves able for the task.
The plan suggested would, we fear, resolve itself into a species of
class legislation, favoring but one school of political doctors, who
have already made themselves so obnoxious to the people, at times
walking roughshod right over their victim’s constitutional rights to
carry out their various medical fads.
e think the treatment accorded our soldiers is a very fair sample
of what we all might expect should the same brand of doctors be
given governmental authority to “protect’ and “promote ’’ our
health by their physical examination, vaccine and serum inocula-
tions, operations, and follow-up treatments.
Give the people a good educational foundation and leave them the
privilege of selecting their own medical or health advice. The treat-
ment forced on our soldiers did not appeal very strongly to numbers
of intelligent people. The doctors took their own selection of healthy
men, then infected them with disease, and made many of them in-
valids to resist disease. Such treatments are detested by thousands
of our citizens, but our soldiers were forced to submit to them.
Now, why this mountain of disease—insanity, tuberculosis, and can-
cer in our ex-soldiers. What thinking person can doubt where it all
comes from ? Why did our Army men die by the thousands of such
childrens’ diseases as measles when a whole community at home can
have it without a single death? Dr. Flexner's saving serum for men-
ingitis was evidently not at hand in the Army where over 1,700
deaths occurred from this malady.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, we want information upon the question of
whether this bill is acceptable or not. I do not think that the com-
56 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
mittee desire this room to be used for any particular school of
propaganda
Mr. BRADFORD. I am not a propagandist of any school of medicine,
and what I would like to say would be this
The CHAIRMAN. But no school of medicine is on trial. Are you
aware that the man who drafted this bill is the leading homeopathic
Pºiº of Ohio?
r. BRADFORD. Well, at any rate, the other evening this homeo-
pathic physician Said that he was called homeopathic, but that he
was coming around to the theory of Koch and Pasteur, and he did
not believe in the inoculating treatment
The CHAIRMAN. He certainly would not write anything in the bill
that would be an injury to his own particular school.
Mr. BRADFORD. And he should remember that the homeopathic
physicians were prevented from practicing medicine for many
€8,I'S
y The CHAIRMAN. We are not concerned about that. What is it
that you want done?
Mr. BANKHEAD. What particular school of medicine do you appear
for 2
Mr. BRADFORD. I have studied all of the different schools, and—
Mr. BANKHEAD. But in connection with your criticism of the allo-
pathic profession, what particular school do you believe in 7
Mr. BRADFORD. I am personally—I believe in what they call hydro-
pathic, or the cure of disease by nature. I have studied the human
body long enough to know what I am talking about, and I know
that the human body will cure itself if it is given a chance to do so.
Mr. Robsion. And do you appear for the Christian Scientists?
Mr. BRADFORD. I am not here for the Christian Scientists, but I
am speaking for the American League for Medical Liberty.
Mr. BANKIIEAD. But I would like to know what school you are
allied with ?
Mr. BRADFORD. I have studied various medicines
Mr. BANKHEAD. And don’t you believe in some particular one of
them ż
Mr. BRADFORD. Yes, sir; I do.
Mr. BANKHEAD. And what is it that you believe in? Designate it
in some Way.
Mr. BRADFORD. Yes, sir; I believe in what we call the naturepath.
I was seriously sick years ago, and I tried allopathy for 15 or 20
years, and I will say that I was cured without medicine, and I have
not touched medicine for 20 years.
The CHAIRMAN. We are not going to compel you to take it if you
do not want it.
Mr. BRADFORD. In this bill
The CHAIRMAN. But I shall insist that this room can not be used
and that this committee can not be used in order for you to propagate
any particular position you may stand for, or any particular school
of medicine. I am not a physician, although they call me doctor
Mr. BRADFORD. Yes; and they have called me doctor.
The CHAIRMAN. What I want to know is, we want information
upon which we can draft the bill. If you have any objection to the
bill, point it out.
DEPARTMENT OF PIJ BLIC WELFARE. 57
Mr. BRADFORD. Now, as to Gen. Sawyer, the other day he said that
they wanted to develop in this country—I do not know whether he is
going to do it with the card-index system, as they did it in Germnay,
of which we have been teaching our children to despise—but I would
like to know what this bill calls for
The CHAIRMAN. We want you to say what you object to.
Mr. BRADFORD. I am objecting to the provision in the section of
this bill, the division of public health, which provides for the treat-
ment of public health. Now, if they go ahead with the treatment
of public health the way the health officers in the States are doing
it—
The CHAIRMAN. What has that to do with it?
Senator KENYon. Would it be acceptable to you if it should pro-
vide that no doctor should be connected with it?
Mr. BRADFORD. I would want it so that all systems of schools of
medicine will have equal footing in regard to their practice of medi-
cine, provided they wanted a doctor of a certain school, and that
every American citizen will be allowed to select his own personal
medical treatment of whatever kind he desires. *
The CHAIRMAN. Submit your amendment and we will consider it.
Mr. BRADFORD. This is objectionable. I would have to write it out,
that no American citizen had—not in the method that they protect
the public health now—what these measures are for the protection
of public health, the way it was done in the Army—and the way that
they vaccinated in the Army.
Senator PHIPPs. You are aware of the fact that there are diseases,
such as smallpox, diphtheria, and other contagious diseases. You
recognize that fact, don’t you?
Mr. BRADFORD. I do.
Senator PHIPPs. And do you think that it is proper to safeguard a
house where diseases of that nature are—
Mr. BRADFORD. Yes, sir; but that is different from putting poison
into a person's body.
Senator PHIPPs. And you believe that there are cases where quar-
antine would be perfectly proper to be resorted to?
Mr. BRADFORD. I never heard of people being killed by quarantine.
Senator PHIPPs. And is it not a fact that there have been communi-
ties where diseases have been so general that the local authorities
were justified in quarantining those places—
Mr. BRADFORD. And they always have done it without proper ex-
CUISé.
Senator PHIPPs. I want to call your attention to one or two ques-
tions where protection may be necessary.
Mr. BRADFORD. Could you cite those?
Senator PHIPPs. Those are cases where it is necessary to protect
the public health by preventing contagion or even infection, by keep-
ing those that are afflicted away from those who are healthy, and
you do not think that the word “protect’ was put in here because it
relates to vaccination or anything of that kind?
Mr. BRADFORD. Well, what has it done in the Army? You have
had many cases of smallpox, and I want to give you a point, that from
1889 to 1908, 20 years, Japan had been the most thoroughly vac-
cinated of any nation in the world, and in that time 171,500 cases
58 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
of smallpox broke out, with 48,000 deaths; and they were all vacci-
nated. But that is nothing but a supersitition
Senator PHIPPs. You are against vaccination, are you?
Mr. BRADFORD, Yes, sir; and there are medicine fakes, one fake
after another—blood letting, that has been carried on
The CHAIRMAN. Will you please submit in the form of a memo-
randum later on just what you would like to have go into this bill?
Mr. BRADFORD. Yes, sir.
(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, an adjournment was taken until
10.30 o'clock a.m. the following day, May 13, 1921.)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
FRIDAY, MAY 13, 1921.
CoMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE, AND CoMMITTEE ox
EDUCATION, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVEs,
Washington, D. C.
The Joint Committees on Education and Labor of the United
States Senate and the Committee on Education of the House of Rep-
resentatives met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10.30 o'clock a. m., at
the committee room of the Committee on Education and Labor,
Capitol Building, Senator Kenyon presiding.
Present: Senators Kenyon (chairman), Phipps, and Sterling.
Congressmen Bankhead, Reed, Parks, Robsion, and Dallinger.
Also present: Miss Kate P. Johnson, representing the Citizens’
Protective Association; Mrs. William L. Putnam; Samuel Saloman,
representing the Citizens’ Protective Association; Mrs. Jessie C.
Jenkins; Arthur McDonald; and Charles H. Verrill, representing
the United States Employees’ Compensation Commission.
Whereupon the committee proceded to a further consideration of
the bills § 1607 and H. R. 5837) to establish a department of pub-
lic welfare, and for other purposes.
STATEMENT OF MISS KATE P. JOHNSON, REPRESENTING THE
CITIZENS’ PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, here is a telegram from Mr. Gompers
that I think can well be put into the record. Do you gentlemen want
to read it?
Mr. BANKHEAD. I think that that should be included in the record.
(The telegram is here printed in the record in full, as follows:)
Hon. W. S. KENYON,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.:
The executive council of the American Federation of Labor is meeting in
regular session in this city. There is published in this morning's newspapers
a statement that a hearing has been had by the Senate committee on the bill
introduced by you in the Senate, the purpose of which is the creation of a new
governmental welfare department. Without considering other provisions of the
bill, the executive council of the American Federation of Labor enters its most
solemn protest against the enactment of any measure that would weaken Or
take from the Department of Labor any functions given that department by the
act under which it was created or weakening the power of the department in
any way. We respectfully ask that an opportunity may be afforded at an early
date to representatives of the American Federation of Labor to be heard upon
the provisions of the bill referred to herein. &
SAMUEL GOMPERS, President.
By order of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor.
59
6{} DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
The CHAIRMAN. Miss Johnson, do you want to speak on this bill
or do you wish some one else to speak on it?
Miss JoHNSON. I would like to speak on this bill very briefly. I
have a few remarks that I would like to make.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you please tell us who you are?
Miss JoHNSON. My name is Kate P. Johnson, and I represent the
Citizens’ Protective Association. I am residing in Washington.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the Citizens’ Protective Association?
Miss JoHNSON. The Citizens’ Protective Association is an or-
ganization very recently incorporated—I do not know that it has
been incorporated, but articles of incorporation are being prepared
and it was done for the reason that they feel—certain citizens feel—
that they are seeing too large an interference in the home by the
Public Health authorities, and the character of the interference is
shown by reports that the children are called upon to make.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, how large an association is this Citizens’
Protective Association?
Miss JoHNSON. It has about 100 members now.
The CHAIRMAN. And it is made up of men and women?
Miss JoHNSON. It is made up of men and women; yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And does the Citizens’ Protective Association
have offices anywhere?
Miss JoHNSON. No, sir; we have only been incorporated this week,
you know, and it was incorporated for that purpose.
Now, the bill provides that Federal Government may investigate—
may by investigation, publication, and such other methods as may
ºrized by Congress, further enter into the homes through the
SCIAOOlS.
The CHAIRMAN. Where does it do that? And why do you say that
it does that?
Miss JOHNSON. Well, here is a list of the health rules. There is
nothing on here showing that it comes from them, but it has been
distributed by the Association for the Prevention of Tuberculosis.
Now, you do understand that this was distributed through the schools
and it was distributed to the homes.
The CHAIRMAN. Who was it distributed by ?
Miss JoHNSON. By this Association for the Prevention of Tuber-
culosis.
The CHAIRMAN. Has that anything to do with the official Health
Service?
Miss JoHNSON. We do not know.
The CHAIRMAN: What has that got to do with this bill, unless you
connect it up with the Public Health Service?
Miss JoHNSON. Well, the Public Health Service must permit it, or
the District of Columbia must permit it.
The CHAIRMAN. And you object to those health rules being dis-
tributed in the homes?
Miss JoHNSON. Yes; yes.
Mr. BANKHEAD. May I look at those rules, please, madam?
Miss JoHNSON. We object to it on the ground that it is the parents’
prerogative to instruct the children along those lines.
Mr. RoBSION. Assuming that it is good or the children would you
still object to it?
DEPARTMIENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE. 61
Miss JoHNSON. Yes: for we still feel that it is the privilege of the
parents. Now, here are the health charts for modern health crusaders
published by the National Tuberculosis Association at 381 Fourth
Avenue, New York City. Now, these are distributed through the
Schools. The scholars take these home and the parents are requested
to have the children make out this daily report. Mind you, it is a
daily report that the children must make out:
I took a full bath on each of the days of the week checked with X.
I washed my face, ears, and neck.
I cleaned my fingernails to-day.
I kept fingers, pencils, and everything likely to be unclean or injurious out
Of my mouth.
I brushed my teeth thoroughly after breakfast and after the evening meal.
There are 11 of those. Do you want me to read them all?
Mr. BANKHEAD. And do you mean to say that you object to that
character of preventive measures for the children to take?
Miss JoHNSON. The parents who are in this association object to
having their children supervised in that way. They feel that that is
their privilege.
Mr. BANKHEAD. I just wanted to get your point of view.
Miss JoHNSON. Yes; yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And do the members of your association want
their children to go to school with dirty hands and unclean teeth and
unwashed faces? &
Miº JoHNSON. No; but they want to direct the children them-
SelVeS.
The CHAIRMAN. Then you think that that is a question for the
parent to decide and not for anybody else?
Miss JoHNSON. Yes, sir; I think that the parents feel that way.
Mr. Renº. And does your organization feel that way, as an organi-
zation? 9
Miss JoHNSON. Yes; the members of the association feel that way.
In other words, they do not want this suggestion of uncleanliness
put before the children all the time and they feel that they are cap-
able of managing their own children. They feel that it is their
privilege.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Miss Johnson, whatever merit there may be
in that, you realize that this bill does not affect that in any way?
Miss JoHNSON. No.
The CHAIRMAN. And it is the activities of the Public Health Serv-
ice that you are objecting to now. This bill merely provides that
they shall be taken over into another department.
Miss JoHNson. Now, our association fears that the Public Health
Service will extend this, wherever it originates. I do know that
during the time of the flu-I do not know much about it now—but
during the time of the flu I knew considerable about it and the ex-
tending of the work of the Public Health Service.
The CHAIRMAN. And you feel that if they can extend it if they are
in another department, they can extend it as they now are?
Miss JoHNSON. But we want to prevent that and we want to object
to that, and I would like to object to it and make a slight comment on
it. We feel that the Federal Government may penetrate the remain:
ing activities of life by its authority under the sweeping term “social
service.” We object to that section 2 which relates to the Division
62 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
of Public Health, which, under the general supervision of the secre-
tary, shall have charge of the health functions and activities of the
department and shall by investigation, publication, and such other
methods as may be authorized by Congress protect and promote the
public health. Now, there was a meeting some time ago—I did not
attend the meeting which was held several months ago, but I am told
that at that time there was a meeting one evening in the Capital, and
the doctors attending it stated that they proposed to have this effi-
ciency report in detail come from the parents. They would be called
upon for such a report at any time. Now, they feel that Congress
has no—they want to prevent an entering wedge of that kind—and
they feel that Congress has no more authority to do that than Con-
gress would have authority to say what principles of religious faith
we should follow.
Mr. RoBSION. But yeu understand that the provisions of this bill
do not permit or prevent it.
Miss JoHNSON. It does not prevent it.
Mr. RoPSION. But does it aid it in any way?
Miss JoHNSON. We feel that it could come under this general
authorization of investigation. The bill provides for investigation,
and it could come under that.
Mr. REED. But do you realize that that would have to be authorized
by Congress following the adoption of this bill which provides for
the machinery?
Miss JoHNSON. But they want to put this on record, and it is just
as well for Congress to have that in mind as it is to pass it now and
try to have it repealed afterwards, which is not a very easy thing to
do. We want it distinctly understood that this association favors
proper quarantine regulations and sanitation. It is feared, however,
that this bill makes paramount the public health activities to be in-
cluded in it; that the predominating influence in the department will
undoubtedly be medical, and furthermore that the personnel will
probably be composed of physicians, thereby affording opportunity
for compelling children, from families opposed to the use of medi-
cine, to accept teaching about medicine and disease, and this associa-
tion does not regard the teaching to children the germ theory or the
existence of so-called disease any more legitimate instruction than
would be the teaching of the principles of a religious faith.
Although a homeopath was associated in the formation of this bill
indications point to the fact that the same personnel and influence
may control the public health activities as control present Public
Health Service. In the report of the meeting of the American Col-
lege of Surgeons last Tuesday night Gen. Sawyer said that “The
creation of the greatest public health agency that graces the face of
the earth is contemplated as part of the proposed department of
public welfare.” At this meeting Dr. Franklin Martin, secretary
general of the American College of Surgeons, said in urging surgery
that “Each person should have himself physically examined on each
birthday.” The president of the Catholic Hospital Association said
the hospital should assume a new function, that of becoming a center
of medical knowledge and instruction to all the people of the com-
munity. He also declared that there are fewer people consulting
trained men of science when ill than confer with quacks. Would
DEPARTMENT OF PIUBLIC WELFARE. 63
the people turn to other methods of healing if the trained men of
science were healing them?
Then they go further and have another division of social service
which, under the general supervision of the secretary, shall have
charge of the social welfare functions and activities of the depart-
ment. We feel that there is no other branch of the service that you
could not cover under that. You cover your education and you can
make any kind of an investigation under education, and you can make
any kind of an investigation under this and any kind of an investi-
gation under public health. Now, this is the amendment that we
want to offer.
The CHAIRMAN. Let us hear your amendment.
Miss JoHNSON. The amendment is as follows:
That nothing in this act shall be construed to interfere with or abridge
the right of any citizen to select his own system of healing for himself and his
dependents, or to require him to submit to medical supervision through the
Schools or through any other source.
The CHAIRMAN. We would be very glad to have your amendment,
and we will be very glad to give it consideration when we come to
consider this bill.
Miss JoHNSON. I thank you.
STATEMENT OF MIR.S. WILLIAM L. PUTNAM.
The CHAIRMAN. We shall be very glad to hear from you. What is
your name?
Mrs. PUTNAM. Mrs. William L. Putnam, and I am one who is
interested in public health. I am here because I am interested in
public health, because of my great interest in public health, and
particularly am I interested in reference to the care of maternity and
childbirth.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that the Sheppard-Towner bill is a
;" of this? We have had our hearings on the Sheppard-Towner
lil.
Mrs. PUTNAM. I know that, and my only reason for speaking of
that is that it seems to me that the Sheppard-Towner bill hinges on
this bill. The care of maternity and of childbirth puts the children's
bureau under the public welfare department, and if the children's
bureau is put by this bill under the public welfare department then
I have no objection, but if the children’s bureau is put under the Social
service then there should not be included with it the Sheppard-
Towner bill because that is a medical bill.
The CHAIRMAN. You think that the children’s bureau should be
under the public welfare service?
Mrs. PUTNAM. I should think that it could be put under the Public
Health Service—the Sheppard-Towner bill—for the reason that is
considered to be the medical branch of the Government. At present,
as I understand it, the Public Health Service is divided among 34
committees in five different departments. Now, one of the prime
motives of this bill, as I understand it, is to unify that Health Serv-
ice under one competent head in order to stop the duplication and
the wasting of funds as it exists at present and for which this admin-
istration stands for so very strongly. I am speaking as I do being a
very staunch Republican. I presided over the Massachusetts elec-
64 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
toral college, and I feel very strongly in sympathy with the methods
of economy of this administration, and so I desire to speak from an
economical point of view as well as from a Public Health Service
point of view.
There has been an effort to keep the Children's Bureau as a social-
service department, and there has been an effort to operate the func-
tions of the Health Service under that bureau. Now, the two of
them can not be done. It is either a social-service department or a
health bureau. The health bureau can not be under the social-service
department any more than can the social-service department be sub-
servient to the Public Health Service, and it would be as reasonable
to put the medical staff of the hospitals under the social-service de-
partment as to put the Public Health and Social Service together;
and, of course, if the Children's Bureau indicates by its desires that it
wishes to be placed under the social-service department in this bill,
it should not assume any functions over the Sheppard-Towner bill.
The CHAIRMAN. I think it ought to be said in fairness to the Chil-
dren’s Bureau that it has not made any request one way or the other.
I do not know what their desires may be, whether they may want to
be put in the bill or not. Those who drafted the bill thought we
could not have the Public Health Service under the children’s wel-
fare; that there were objections to this on the part of the Department
of Labor and also to the removal of the Children’s Bureau.
Mrs. PUTNAM. Well, if you are willing to enact the maternity bill
and carry it out and place it under the Public Health Service
The CHAIRMAN. You are not opposing the department of public
welfare or the maternity bill, except that you want the maternity bill
put under the Public Health Service?
Mrs. PUTNAM. That is all. That should be done by the Public
Health Service.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, let me ask you, are you connected in any
way with the Public Health Service?
Mrs. PUTNAM. No, indeed.
The CHAIRMAN. But you have done a good deal of work along that
line in the way of lecturing
Mrs. PUTNAM. Only in a private way. I made an initial experi-
ment in prenatal care from 1905 to 1914, and I have here a pamphlet
by Dr. Richard Williams in which he gives me credit for doing
something along that line, and it has gone all over the civilized
world, so I do know what the medical needs of maternal care are.
I have worked at it ever since. I gave up that experiment and I am
now carrying on another line of work. It is a medical proposition,
and never have I allowed anyone working in my department with
me to work except under medical supervision.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions? We thank you very
much. Now, there are some other witnesses to be heard this
morning.
STATEMENT OF MR. SAMUEL SALOMAN, REPRESENTING THE
CITIZENS PROTECTIVE ASSOCTATION.
Mr. SALOMAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I
have given my name to the secretary. My name is Samuel Saloman
and I represent the Citizens’ Protective Association, the same as
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 65
Miss Johnson, and I may say that I have telegrams from other
organizations from New York and Chicago, organizations that I am
authorized to represent, but I hardly think that it is necessary to
mention them.
The CHAIRMAN. Are they against this department of public
welfare?
Mr. SALOMAN. They are against certain sections of this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, let us get down to this bill now.
Mr. SALOMAN. I will lead up to that, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. No; get down to the bill itself. This leading up
takes a long time. Let us get down to the bill itself.
Mr. SALOMAN. I will not take long, Mr. Chairman. It will be
Section 2—
The CHAIRMAN. Well, let us get down to section 2, then.
Mr. SALOMAN. I want to say in prefacing my remarks, Mr. Chair-
man and gentlemen, that I heard your admonition to one or to
Several of the speakers yesterday to refrain from propaganda work.
I recognize the fact that I am speaking to one of the best joint com-
mittees of Congress
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, we admit that. Let us get along and get
down to the point.
Mr. SALOMAN. I know that you do not want to listen to propa-
ganda
Th; CHAIRMAN. No; we don’t. Won’t you get down to the bill
itself?
Mr. SALOMAN. I will get down to the bill itself. The chairman
of the committee, Senator Kenyon, I believe, referred on Monday,
or mentioned to one of the witnesses the other day that the Presi-
dent is favorably disposed to this bill and is back of this bill, and
that. Gen. Sawyer, his medical representative, who is also back
of this bill, is disposed to be very fair to all systems of healing; and
I am willing to admit that fact, but—and I want to stress this point,
because I think it is extremely important—that the present admin-
istration will live for eight years. I believe that
The CHAIRMAN. You will hurt the feelings of the Democrats if
you say that. ſe
Mr. BANKHEAD. I would rather you would refrain from prophecies.
The CHAIRMAN. And do not hand out bouquets.
Mr. SALOMAN. I am not handing any bouquets, but I want to men-
tion this, that in legislating along these lines we are not legislating
for the present administration; but if this department and this bill
goes into effect, it will affect at least this and many succeeding
administrations.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, we know that. Let us get down to the bill.
That is what we want to hear. And we are not legislating for the
President or for Gen. Sawyer or anyone else. Now, what objections
have you to this bill? -
Mr. SALOMAN. I have objection, and I think that there are many
very favorable features of the bill for which I and those I represent
have full sympathy, but at the same time there are parts in the bill,
as I shall indicate as briefly as I can, without using too much lan-
guage, that are decidedly objectionable to us, and which seem to have
an extremely dangerous tendency on the part of the Government.
49824—21—5
66 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, what are they? Let us have them.
Mr. SALOMAN. I shall mention the section referred to by various
speakers, subsection 2 of section 2, and I want to call attention to this
particular fact in connection with that. The bill in other parts seems
to have the general tendency to rearrange the Government service
and to take various branches that are supposed to be related and put
them under one head and under one department and to avoid this
duplication and this overlapping of service, which is a fair proposi-
tion and a splendid proposition, with which we are in full accord,
but this section seems to indicate that any additions to the service
that are at present with the Public Health Service and the other
services dealing with public health that there is certain additional
legislation to be had, and, in fact, invited. It mentions in the very
last part, in lines 18, 19, and 20 that—
investigation, publication, and Such other methods as may be authorized by Con-
gress to protect and promote the public health.
This, mind you, is not in the present system or the present powers
of existing departments, and it seems to us to be a bid for additional
legislation to protect and promote, or supposedly protect and pro-
mote, the public health.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Do you take the position that under the present
activities the Public Health Service does nothing and has nothing to
do with the promotion and protection of public health?
Mr. SALOMAN. From the viewpoint of development of public health
or from the viewpoint of protecting it it has not the tendency, and
we object as strongly as we may possibly object to some of the ten-
dencies, not only of the National Public Health Service, but to related
public health services in the Government and as to State and munic-
ipal regulations and activities.
Mr. BANKHEAD. What is it there that you are objecting to? What
are they doing that you object to?
Mr. SALOMAN. These three things covered by the bill—that is, in-
vestigation, publication, and this other dangerous proposition of
“such other methods.” In other words, they seem to feel, and not
only feel but act upon their feelings, that they can put in any amend-
ment to protect the public health that they may formulate.
Mr. BANKHEAD. What excessive limit is it that you object to? Let
us get down to the facts.
Mr. SALOMAN. I object to some of the quarantine measures of the
Public Health Service. I can show, if I mº, that this operates
against the very best interests of the people. object to the propa-
ganda that is issued by the Public Health Service—
Mr. BANKHEAD. What sort of propaganda is it that you object to?
Mr. SALOMAN. I will mention just one thing to show in quite a few
instances that the publications of some of these departments are for
Pººl, purposes.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Propaganda for what?
Mr. SALOMAN. Propaganda for regular medicine, what is referred
to as regular medicine, or allopathic medicine. They prefer to be
referred to and known as followers of regular medicine, but we refer
to them as regular medicine, for the term “allopathic" is offensive
to them.
Mr. Robsion. Are you a physician or a healer of any kind?
DEPARTMENT OF PTUBLIC WELFARE. 67
Mr. SALOMAN. I am not a physician or a healer, but I have for 12
or 15 years written extensively for the nonmedical health publica-
tions. I have gone into the highways and byways and in the big
cities and have delivered my message—
Mr. BANKHEAD, What is your method of curing disease?
Mr. SALOMAN. I am what you might call eclectic, and I believe in
taking the very best methods and systems of the old systems of heal-
ing, taking all of their very best methods; I believe that there is good
in every system of medicine, even regular medicine, and I have no
particular objection to regular medicine, although I am favorable and
partial to a lot of these so-called irregular systems, although I will
say that in the 12 years that I have been married we have called upon
a physician only twice, and one was at the time of childbirth and the
other time was when my little girl had a mild case of measles. I
figured, although I felt that I was fully competent to protect the
child, but I figured in deference to the wishes of the mother and pos-
sibly to protect the child against her parents that it was necessary
to call a physician, and I called in a regular physician, and I stand
ready to call in a regular physician again, and this particular man,
this doctor—I do not think it is necessary to mention his name—re-
spects my wishes
The CHAIRMAN. What has that to do with this bill?
Mr. SALOMAN. I was referring to the publication
The CHAIRMAN. But get down to the objections that you are
making. You object to the whole medical part of the bill?
Mr. SALOMAN. Yes; I will say that I object to the medical part
of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. And are there any other objections to the bill?
Mr. SALOMAN. I have various objections, but I believe they car,
be more fully covered by other people who are more competent.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, that is your objection. Let us take up the
other people.
Mr. SALOMAN. That is one objection. But if I can I will refer
to certain matters that are connected with it. I was going to say
that we judge—these terms that I have referred to briefly, that is
this investigation, publication, and such other methods, although
they seem to be innocuous and harmless, those of us who have had
long experience with general terms think that they are dangerous—
extremely dangerous. We judge the future by the past, and that
is the only thing that we can judge it by as philisophers, as students,
and we know how these terms and the activities under these terms
have been employed in the past, and therefore we object to having
these terms employed in any measure and thus give the secretary
or other official an opportunity to proceed under these bills ad
infinitum.
Now, take the term “publication ” or, the term “investigation.”
It has been proceeded under both in national matters and in State
and in municipal matters along laboratory methods. There are sev-
eral organizations that are strongly protesting these activities com-
ing under the head “investigation,” and we believe from these labora-
tory methods have come some of the most pernicious evils that are
afflicting society at the present time.
Now, this matter of “publication”; there are reports and pam-
phlets and other literature issued from some of the departments
68 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
that are purely propaganda in their nature, and we protest as
º as We may against this propaganda foisted on the part of
the Government. If propaganda is to be put out in favor of any
particular school of medicine, it should be put out by that particular
School under their name and at their own expense, and we feel that
We have an up-hill fight when we are compelled to go into our
pockets and to pay our part of the public funds and have that part
of the public funds employed against us, and we strongly protest
against it.
I might mention just one or two things to emphasize my point.
There was a publication issued, known as Vitality, issued a few
years ago under the name of Prof. Irving Fisher. There is a sub-
title to it. In that publication there was this propaganda in favor
of a certain school of medicine and certain members of that school.
This had the sanction of the Government of the United States back
of it, and to that extent it operated against all other schools. I
Wrote and had a lengthy correspondence with Prof. Fisher in regard
to it, and I pointed out to him the errors, the glaring errors con-
tained in his publication, but up to date he has refused, or the
Government back of him, has refused to make amends in any shape
or form. In fact, when any of us have protested against informa-
tion of this sort in the publications of the Government, it is my
impression that they are thrown in the wastebaskets of the officials
I The CHAIRMAN. You are making your statement altogether too
Ong. *
Mr. SALOMAN. No; we do not make the statements too long. I
have been writing for the public press, and I believe the Senator has
done some writing during his time, and he knows very well that you
have got to be brief and to the point, otherwise it goes in the waste-
basket and no attention is paid to it.
Now, this other matter—and it is a very indefinite and a very dan-
gerous term, “and other methods.” It seems to us that it opens wide
the vista of possible pernicious activities on the part of the medical
branch of the Government; and I might say that, despite what has
been said—and it is well to mention this at this time—that when we
say that the health activities of the Government, we know and every-
one who has investigated the subject knows that it takes a certain
and particular bias; and when we say and refer to medicine as part
of the Government, we mean and we are referring to the regular or
allopathic medicine. In the Public Health Service I believe every
official of the public health is an advocate and a practitioner under
that particular School of medicine. A few years ago, I believe—
before Gen. Cummings was appointed to the head of the Public
Health Service—that it had at its head Surg. Gen. Blue, who was at
that time or preceding that time the president of the American Medi-
cal Association, an organization that has been fighting the so-called
irregulars for years, and is still fighting them.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Now, I would like to ask one other question: Do
you believe in the eclectic method of healing?
Mr. SALOMAN. I believe in the eclectic method in taking
Mr. BANKHEAD. You can answer that question. Do you believe in
the eclectic method of healing?
Mr. SAIoMAN. Yes, sir: I do.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 69
Mr. BANKHEAD. And you believe in it because from your investi-
gation §. regard it as the Soundest method; is that true?
Mr. SALOMAN. Please—possibly you misunderstand me in this
Mr. BANKHEAD. I do not think I do.
Mr. SALOMAN. There is a distinct school of medicine known as the
eclectic school
Mr. BANKHEAD. Well, do you believe in that?
Mr. SALOMAN. I do not.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Well, do you believe in the modified eclectic
method?
Mr. SALOMAN. I believe in it in this way: The eclectic school be-
lieves in taking the best methods of the old school, and I believe—
or, rather, they believe—in mineral drugs and the vegetable drugs. I
believe that some of the vegetable drugs are dangerous
Mr. BANKHEAD. Then you have no very concrete method, as I
understand, that you do believe in in healing?
Mr. SALOMAN. No, sir; I have not. I believe in taking the best
methods of all schools.
Mr. BANKHEAD. And who is going to determine the best method?
Mr. SALOMAN. I believe it is up to the citizen himself. He has
got to pay for it.
Mr. BANKHEAD. And you would not have any investigation by the
health bureau under any methods at all?
Mr. SALOMAN. Yes; I would. -
Mr. BANKHEAD. And suppose that they would determine that the
modified eclectic method would be the best, would you like to have
propaganda for that?
Mr. SALOMAN. No ; I would not like to have propaganda in favor
of any school, because I should think that in issuing propaganda in
favor of one school it operates against all others.
The CHAIRMAN. We have got to get through with this
Mr. Robsſon. May I ask a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. Robsſon. You are opposed to any legislation along this line?
Mr. SALOMAN. I am opposed to any legislation that will operate
or interfere with what we term medical liberty—that is, the oppor-
tunity for each and every person to select his own physician.
Mr. Robsſon. Then you could not write this medical section in any
way to suit you? In other words, if it satisfied you, it would be
nugatory?
Mr. SALOMAN. It would not amount to anything.
The CHAIRMAN. We think that we have got your viewpoint.
Mr. SALOMAN. I can put this in a concrete proposition, that as far
as medical legislation and health legislation go that the very best
interests of the country would be served by having the health legis-
lation take the form of real sanitation. We believe, and strongly
believe—and there is no matter of dispute between the various
schools—we believe in cleanliness of all kinds.
Mr. RoBSION. Well, would you favor this matter that the lady
spoke of a while ago, which has for its object the washing of the
hands of the children
Mr. SALOMAN. I believe that we ought to have the children wash
their hands and brush their teeth. I see to it that my child washes
70 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC welfaRE.
her hands and cleans her teeth, and I believe that if a child appears
in school in a filthy state that she should be promptly sent home, and
if the parents of the child do not attend to that particular matter it
is up to the teacher or the principal of the school, but we object to
having certain pernicious methods foisted upon us and upon our
children. We object to a school-teacher of a particular school stat-
ing to a parent that a child must have its tonsils removed or its
adenoids taken out. I have any amount of literature that I could
produce on that. -
The CHAIRMAN. You do not seem to realize that these gentleme
are all busy men and that you have presented your case and your
objections, and it seems to me that ought to be enough.
Mr. SALOMAN. You have asked the questions
The CHAIRMAN. So far as I am concerned you have covered every-
thing. I do not want to be arbitrary about it.
Mr. SALOMAN. Well, will you permit me to answer the question
you asked one of the witnesses the other day, or, rather, the state-
ment you made to the effect that the department of health or the
health officials are supreme within their respective limits?
The CHAIRMAN. I did not say that. I did not make any such
statement.
Mr. SALOMAN. I want to say, if I may, very briefly
The CHAIRMAN. I do not know how the rest of the committee feels
about it, but I feel that you have had every opportunity to present
your views. You ought to learn to be briefer.
Mr. SALOMAN. Well, if I have covered the case according to the
committee I shall cease and give others an opportunity.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee is very busy, and you really do not
seem to have any very good place to stop
Mr. SALOMAN. I will leave the matter then there.
Mr. BANKHEAD. We understand your attitude.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we understand your attitude thoroughly.
Mr. SALOMAN. I will cease and give others who are more qualified
to speak an opportunity. I just wanted to mention one thing and
say that the Federal Government was interfering with State activi-
ties. I thank you.
STATEMENT OF MIRS, JESSIE C. J.ENKINS,
Mrs. JENKINs. I wish to speak as a citizen. -
The CHAIRMAN. What feature of this bill do you desire to speak of ?
Mrs. JENKINs. I desire to voice an objection to the section 2–under
section 2–the one that has been spoken of by the speakers this morn-
ing. I do not wish to go into detail, because that has been done
thoroughly. I only wish to emphasize one point in regard to this
in the same manner that the speaker, Mr. Mann, used against the
education section yesterday, and that is that, I believe that along
the lines of any school of medicine along the lines of any education,
any activities, any publications, or investigations—anything along
those lines that will be for the protection and good of our people
can be carried on by the people themselves. I feel that if the people
are to develop and progress and to be what Gen. Sawyer and the
President want our citizens to be—the very best mentally and physi-
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELEARE. 71
cally—I feel that the people are capable of choosing for themselves
along such lines and along what lines those improvements should be
made. And I wish just in a few words
Mºosos. What do you mean by people choosing for them-
Se] VeS :
Mrs. JENKINs. I mean just exactly what has been said by the
others who have appeared against this bill, and if I desire when I
am sick to have an osteopath or a chiropractor of a Christian Scien-
tist or a medical doctor, whether he is an eclectic or homeopath or an
allopath, if I desire to have him take care of me when I am sick, I
object to the Government or the State or any health department Say-
ing to me that I can not have him, in saying it directly to me or by
using Federal authority or any other authority to legislate that class
of practitioners out of existence, so that I may
Mr. Robsion. Your statement is to let the people decide it. And
would not that mean that there would be no system of education?
Mrs. JENKINs. No, sir.
Mr. RobSION. Or system of health protection?
Mrs. JENKINs. No, sir.
Mr. RobSION. If it were left to each individual person?
Mrs. JENKINs. No, sir; I do not think that, and I do not mean to
give that impression. I have no quarrel with anybody; I have no
quarrel with the allopaths, I have no quarrel with the eclectics, and
I have no quarrel with Gen. Sawyer or with the President of the
|United States or with the gentlemen who have drawn up this bill
or with the committee. I do not wish to antagonize anyone, but I
am simply pleading for the hundreds and thousands of people who
feel that it is their right to have anyone whom they please.
Mr. Robsſon. And you couple up the cause of education in your
answer with the health and medical——
Mrs. JENKINs. I wish to make my objections along the same lines
that the gentleman made who spoke for the health section.
The CHAIRMAN. What is there in this bill that tends to prevent
you from having whomsoever you wish?
Mrs. JENKINs. There is this in this bill, that it leaves it open to
Congress to vote into the hands of the boards of health, which under
this bill will be the division of public health, and as I understand
from what has been said at the hearing that all of the divisions of
the public health will be absorbed—this welfare will absorb the divi-
sions of public health—that they will come under this department
still carrying the powers they now have, and in addition they will
be allowed to use such other methods as may be authorized by Con-
gress.
The CHAIRMAN. But that would have to be passed by Congress.
Mrs. JENKINs. I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but this bill
leaves that open by delegating them in—bringing them in—with the
authority they now have, which authority, exercising it as they do
through the State legislatures and backed by the Government—
Mr. Robsſon. But would not Congress have that power if this bill
did not say a word about it?
Mrs. JENKINs. Congress would have that power, yes; and I am
objecting to this section on that very ground, that Congress—when
this bill is passed which brings the health department under this
72 DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE.
bill with the same authority it has and with the promise that they
can use Congress to give them more power, and it is that power that
our people are objecting to, which is the power that the division of
public health is now using all over the country. That is the method
that they are using in order to carry out these things.
The CHAIRMAN. You think that is a sort of an invitation to Con-
gress to enact further legislation?
Mrs. JENKINs. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, we can not prevent Congress doing it if it
Wants to.
Mrs. JENKINs. Absolutely, we can not prevent Congress from doing
that, but we know that pressure will be brought to bear to persuade
Congress, to induce Congress to give them more power than they now
have, and we only have our ability to judge that and to make that
assertion by methods that have been used in the past.
Mr. BANKHEAD. May I ask you one question?
Mrs. JENKINs. Yes; you may ask it. I do not know whether I can
answer it or not. I will try to.
Mr. BANKHEAD. I guess you can. Do you believe that there should
be any Federal public health service at all?
Mrs. JENKINs. I do not believe I do. I am not sure about that, and
I do not believe that any Government—
Mr. BANKHEAD. Are you aware of the fact—I assume that you
are—that the United States Public Health Service is directly re-
sponsible for the rehabilitation of the health of every soldier and
sailor who took part in the late war?
Mrs. JENKINs. Yes; and I realize that it is the duty of the Govern-
ment to look after them.
Mr. BANKHEAD. And don’t you think that it is necessary to have
some organization to do that?
Mrs. JENKINs. Absolutely. But I am speaking not directly in re-
lation or in regard to the soldiers and sailors, because they are pri-
marily wards of the Government, but I am speaking of the indi-
vidual citizens, and even the soldiers and sailors in their rehabilita-
tion, while there should be some method of taking care of them, I do
not believe they ought to be compelled to be subjected to any one
particular method. I think they ought to be free to choose whoever
they wish to help them in their rehabilitation.
Mr. DALLINGER. May I ask, who do you represent? What par-
ticular system of healing do you represent?
Mrs. JENKINs. I do not represent any particular system of healing.
I believe in every school of healing that helps to make a man or a
woman or a child a better man or a woman or a child mentally and
physically.
Mr. DALLINGER. Well, what— tº a tº
Mrs. JENKINs. If you want to know what kind of practitioner I
am or what kind I call I will say that I call in a chiropractor, but
I am not here to speak for chiropractry or any school of medicine.
I am simply asking the privilege of speaking for the rights of the
individual citizen, and I claim that the wording of this bill, taking
in the health departments, judging from the methols they have use
in the past in trying to legislate all other healers out of practice,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 73
that they are taking away the citizens’ right in doing that, because
if they want to have an osteopath or a chiropractor
Mr. DALLINGER. Do you speak for yourself?
Mrs. JENKINs. Do I speak for myself?
Mr. DALLINGER. Do you represent anybody?
Mrs. JENKINs. I feel that I represent a great many, but I am not
delegated especially to represent anybody.
Mr. DALLINGER. You do not speak for any organization?
Mrs. JENKINs. I do not speak for any organization.
Mr. DALLINGER. Do you live in the District of Columbia?
Mrs. JENKINs. I live in the District of Columbia.
Mr. DALLINGER. And do you practice, yourself?
. Mrs. JENKINs. Yes, sir; but I am not speaking because I believe
in chiropractry, but I believe in all methods that will help people
to get well. I have no quarrel with the medical people or with
people who want medicine, but I think that every kind of school
of practice should have the same right and should be protected by the
Government and by the people. The people pay the taxes. The Gov-
ernment is dependent upon the money of the citizens and the money
of the taxpayers, and I feel that every taxpayer has an equal right to
call in whom he pleases in case of sickness, and this particular legis-
lation is designed to legislate them out of business.
The CHAIRMAN. It does not do any of those things.
Mrs. JENKINs. Well, maybe it does not do any of these things,
but it points out the way that it may be done, because it brings into
the Government service the health department, and it is an opening
wedge to give them a perfect right to ask for more authority, aside
from the authority they already have, and to that end I would like to
offer this amendment to this bill:
Nothing in this act shall be construed to mean that power shall be delegated
to the division of public health to use Federal authority to discriminate against
any School or System Of healing.
The CHAIRMAN. We will take it under consideration. Are there
any others here now who desire to be heard on the bill?
STATEMENT OF MR. ARTHUR MacDONALD, WASHINGTON, D. C.
Mr. MACDONALD. On page 2 of the bill, at the end of line 23, strike
out the period and make a comma and add these words:
Including the scientific study of the causes of those evils from which it is
designed to protect Society.
The idea is, under this social service there are two methods,
sociologic and scientific, and one is as necessary as the other. The
sociologic studies the individual as a whole, in relation to his group—
that is, morally; the scientific studies the individual himself—that is,
physically and mentally. I want to simply emphasize the fact that
it is generally agreed in the science anthropology that these evils
that we are trying to lessen for the protection of the people are in-
creasing. The history of all these reform measures will show that
as a rule the number of people who need this help is increasing, and
they are not studied scientifically or in any way
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any branch of the department that makes
these studies?
'74 DEPARTMENT OF PIUBLIC WELFARE.
Mr. MACDONALD. The soldiers have been studied mentally and
physically, but the idea is that these people will not be benefited
unless the people are studied, of course, in a proper way. There is
nothing personal in scientific study. It is absolutely impersonal,
and the idea is to get into the bill an amendment that will allow or
authorize Scientific study when it is thought proper. That is the
idea of the amendment, and I wanted to get some sort of amendment
in of that sort so as to authorize it in the future.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Do you think that the words “social welfare * are
too restrictive?
Mr. MACDONALD. Well, social means moral mostly in scientific
study. Both are important, one as important as the other, and if we
find a man out of order and try to help him and do not know the
cause and do not know what makes him out of order
Mr. BANKHEAD. You go further and you study the effects of
heredity and environment and all those subjects?
Mr. MACDONALD. Yes; heredity and environment and all those
subjects which would authorize the study.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that done in any other country? -
Mr. MACDONALD. Yes; it is done in most of the countries, and it
is done properly. The trouble is that the wrong people do these
things and it makes it objectionable immediately, but the physical
examination—there is no objection to that.
The CHAIRMAN. You do not mean to go around and take people
from their homes in order to make these examinations?
Mr. MACDONALD. No; that may come in a thousand years, but I
am not thinking of that.
Mr. RoBSION. How are you going to study them, and under what
circumstances?
Mr. MACDONALD. I would say the children in reformatories
The CHAIRMAN. Would you begin with Congress?
Mr. REED. You might start with the Senate, but I object to it in
the House.
Mr. MACDONALD. Study them in our institutions; why these peo-
ple have arrived there. We don’t know. We are studying them in
the service, and we find them out sociologically.
Mr. RobSION. But what groups of persons, and when and where
are you going to study them?
Mr. MACDONALD. Well, we would begin in the reformatories with
the persons who are there, the persons who eat the same food at Gov-
ernment expense, and study those individuals personally, their
heredity and condition and diseases, and all that sort of thing.
hº ROBSION. They are doing that now in the reformatories, aren’t
the V .
M. MACDONALD. They are doing it in the reformatories now to a
little extent.
Mr. BANKHEAD. And your basic idea is that to remove the cause of
weakness and of people who are addicted to crime, and who have
physical decadence and things of that sort, that you have got to have
scientific knowledge of the cause of those things?
Mr. MACDONALD. Yes; but we could not remove it, but we can
lessen it, and we are increasing the number. England has found
that they are increasing the number of dependents that need welfare
while we are increasing instead of decreasing.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 75
Mr. Robsſon. Do you say that they are increasing in spite of the
efforts being made?
Mr. MACDoNALD. England has found that when she provides for
paupers there are more paupers, that they appear for the means pro-
vided for them. The object of this amendment is to get something in
there that will eventually try to lessen the number, by the Scientific
study of the causes and to find out what is the matter with them. It
is the province of the doctor of medicine to study his patient. He
does not study the books but he studies the patient, and if these peo-
ple are studied medically, physically, and morally, you can Separate
them. The sociological takes in the moral end of it, and this amend-
ment is simply to authorize the study when it is thought proper and
not to generalize it too much, and to encourage that kind of study
with a view to lessening the number of the dependents, for which the
welfare bureau is intended.
The CHAIRMAN. We are very glad I am sure to consider that point.
STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES H. VERRILL, UNITED STATES EM-
PLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION.
Mr. VERRILL. I want to say a few words
The CHAIRMAN. Will you please state to us your position?
Mr. VERRILL. On the subject of the inclusion of the administration
of the employees compensation commission
The CHAIRMAN. You are a member of that commission?
Mr. VERRILL. Yes—in this new department. It is not my purpose
to present anything in opposition to the policy or the plan of the bill
in a general way but merely to call attention to the kind of adminis-
tration this is, and certain reasons which would suggest perhaps why
it should remain in the commission
Mr. BANKHEAD. What commission is that?
Mr. VERRILL. The United States Employees Compensation Com-
mission. I realize fully in submitting from the point of view of the
experience of the commission that it is a somewhat limited point of
view, and that the committee must consider the policies and plans
which they may have in view in organizing a new department and
reorganizing and adjusting the agencies, that their view is far be-
yond the horizon of the experience of small commissions.
I may call your attention to the fact that the first compensation
law that the dº. had was administered in one of the depart-
ments—that was the law of May 30, 1908—and that law until the
enactment of the present law, September 7, 1916, was administered
in the Department of Labor. The Bureau of Labor Statistics ad-
ministered the law in detail with the references of cases on appeal
and cases at law to the office of the Solicitor of the Department of
Labor. The procedure was such that most of the cases went to an
assistant solicitor.
Now, that continued, as I say, from 1908 to 1916, and that cov-
ered only a part of the Government employees, namely, the artisans
and the laborers. The passage of this present law was the result of
rather extensive hearings by the Committee on the Judiciary in the
House, and the law was framed upon the basis of the experiences in
the States, many of which at that time had laws similar to this; at
76 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
the present time, although this legislation had its origin in the
States in 1911, all but five of the States have laws of this kind.
Now, the tendencies in the new laws in the States and in the amend-
ments to all of the laws has been steadily toward the commission
form of administration, so that now there are some 30 of the 48 States
that have that form of administration in preference to any other,
and of the Canadian Provinces there are six that have that form of
administration. It is significant also that no State having chosen
º: commission form of administration has ever changed it to any
Other.
Now, I will not take the committee's time to go into this matter
in great detail, because I can submit a statement which will cover the
points more thoroughly, and which I think will be adequate. There
are several of the more significant points, however, to which I wish
to call attention.
Before workmen's compensation legislation was enacted an em-
ployee of a private employer could secure compensation or damages
in case of injury in his employment only through voluntary settle-
ment or through long delayed and costly court procedure. The em-
ployee's settlement or recovery was usually subject to a deduction of
25 to 50 per cent for attorneys’ fees. Too often the injured employee
was too poor, too ignorant, or too inexperienced to press a claim
either either by demand or suit for damages. The question and in-
terests to be dealt with were considered so difficult and important
that the machinery of the courts was regarded as the only practi-
cable means to secure impartial justice to the parties. Workmen’s
compensation laws have been enacted to take the place of this cum-
berSome and costly procedure, the matter being greatly simplified
by the elimination of the old method of technical legal procedure and
of questions of negligence, fellow service, and assumption of risks.
Most States have adopted a commission or board form of adminis-
tration as the one best designed to deal with the complicated ques-
tions arising and to Secure impartial justice to the conflicting inter-
ests. A few States have tried administration by the court procedure,
which has usually been found too dilatory and too passive in its atti-
tude to the interest of the employees, permitting many cases to go en-
tirely without compensation or with compensation payments greatly
below the requirements of the law.
The questions arising for the decision of the administrative au-
thority under the Federal act are similar to those arising under
State workmen’s compensation laws, or in a suit for damages in
personal-injury suits. The work of the commission is largely quasi-
judicial in character. It is intended, of course, that the commis-
sion shall preserve an impartial attitude, the attitude of a judge,
but the commission’s position is peculiar, inasmuch as it must rep-
resent both the interests of the injured employee as well as the
employer, the Federal Government. So it is under a special obli-
gation to be fair. The employees’ official superior in a considerable
number of cases, not as one might think at first, shows a tendency to
adopt precisely the attitude of the private employer, attempting
to defeat claims according to his own idea of negligence or fault
and as to whether an employee's disability is due to the injury or
whether the employee is able to get back to work. A disinterested
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 77
agency is necessary to protect the Government employee just as in
the case of employees of private employers. Its function of pro-
tecting the Government against false or exaggerated claims is
equally as important. So that the importance of a commission is
in the administrative authority under the State act and is very
broad. It takes the place, as you will see, of the courts. The ad-
ministrative authority has the largest discretion. The Federal act
provides, of course, for the fullest medical examination, a referee
medical examination when it is requested, and of review when nec-
essary, and from the decision of the commission there is no appeal.
Now, this is dissimilar from the State acts in one way, for under the
State acts as a rule there is an appeal on points of law but no ap-
peal on matters of fact.
The advantage, it seems to me, of an independent agency is to
avoid the red tape and the delay of formal approval of a subordi-
nate’s action by a department officer. If the act of the commission
were subject to appeal or approval by a department officer, delay
would necessarily follow, which would tend to defeat, in a measure,
the important purposes of the compensation law, that prompt medi-
cal and money relief must be given when an employee is disabled
and his wages are cut off because of an injury. Approval by a
department officer would mean approval by an assistant solicitor
and by an officer of Cabinet rank. Such an officer could not possibly
be as familiar with the precedents and the essential details as the
members of a commission giving their attention exclusively to com-
pensation matters. Such familiarity is necessary to an administra-
tion of the law—fair both to the claimant and to the Government.
The questions which arise in connection with compensation admin-
istration are technical and difficult and familiarity with precedents
and the practice under the many similar State laws is highly im-
portant.
It may be worth while to refer briefly to some of the functions
which a commission such as this has. It must organize and carry
on the administration of the act, providing compensation, including
medical, surgical, and hospital services and supplies for civil em-
ployees of the United States Government when injured while in the
§. of duty, requiring first a central administration, in
ashington, with the necessary machinery for the proper handling
of reports and claims, the furnishing of medical and hospital treat-
ment, and the payment of the various kinds of compensation.
Mr. DALLINGER. Now, right there, may I ask would not that be one
reason for putting the commission under the Welfare Department
with the other public health matters, and thus save double overhead?
Mr. VERRILL. No; I do not think it would save any double over-
head.
Mr. DALLINGER. I understand you to say that you would have to
have an efficient organization
Mr. VERRILL. But we used the Government facilities as is required
|by law wherever practicable. . We only provide for new facilities
where Government doctors and hospitals are not available.
Mr. DALLINGER. And are many of them treated at the Public Serv-
ice hospitals? * = e
Mr. VERRILL. A good many of them, and it is done wherever that
is practicable. I mean by that that it is done wherever those doctors
78 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
and hospitals are accessible and wherever they have the kind of doc-
tors necessary in these different cases. Sometimes they have not the
specialists that have the expert knowledge needed in these cases.
These are nearly all surgical cases, and oftentimes the case needs a
specialist, the very best, because under this compensation act we must
pay compensation as long as the disability for work continues with-
out limit, and so it is a matter of dollars and cents to provide the
best, and terminate that difficulty as soon as we can. That is one of
the reasons why the attention must not only be immediate but must
be continuous. -
The commission must see that the other departments and establish-
ments of the Government are informed and educated as to the bene-
fits of the act, and duties of officials to cooperate in the administra-
tion of the act, and see to it that they are well understood. This is
important in connection with this question of terminating the dis-
ability and getting the man back to work. It is also important in con-
nection with providing of medical treatment at all stages of the case.
The commission must see to it that the employees also are informed
and educated as to their rights under the act and the steps neces-
sary to be taken to secure such benefits when injured.
The commission must secure the cooperation of Government medi-
cal officers and hospitals in furnishing service in accordance with the
act, and arranging for medical and hospital services when Govern-
ment facilities are not available. This securing of the cooperation of
Government medical officers I may say includes not only the Public
Health Service, but the naval surgeons and hospitals and the Army
surgeons and hospitals, because they are under the act expected so
far as possible to furnish service.
The commission must also supply to Government establishments
forms and instructions for the submission of reports of injuries and
claims for compensation. It must draft regulations governing official
superiors, employees, and the medical service in order to carry out the
provisions of the act. It must furnish and supervise medical and hos-
pital treatment. It must direct or make inquiries and investigations
and hold hearing whenever and wherever necessary to secure from
officials, employees, physicians, hospitals, or others the information to
determine properly the merits of claims for compensation. It must
adjudicate claims upon evidence submitted and information secured
by the commission or its representatives.
The CHAIRMAN. Can you give us any idea of how many of those
claims you have per month?
The number of original claims coming in per month is something
like 800, of which about 30 are death claims. You realize, however,
that that does not measure the work of the commission, for the reason
that when the death award is made, compensation continues payable
to a widow, for example, until she marries or dies, to a child until it
reaches the age of 18, to a parent, if dependent, for a period of 8
years, to brothers and sisters and grandparents and grandchildren
also for a period of 8 years unless terminated earlier by death.
So you will see in case of death it is necessary to follow these cases
and see that payment does not continue after death. In case of death
we must make inquiries and investigation as to widow and children
entitled to compensation, and dependency of parents, brothers, sisters,
DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE. '79
and grandchildren. The responsibility of the commission in these
cases requires investigation prior to the original award and from time
to time, inasmuch, as I have stated, the awards to the widow terminate
upon remarriage or death, to children upon reaching the age of 18
or upon marriage or at death, and in the case of the other dependents,
upon death, termination of dependency, marriage, or at the expira-
tion of 8 years.
Mr. ROBSION. How many claims have you on the roll?
Mr. VERRILL. I was coming to that point. The number of death
claims on which award has been made and which payments are con-
tinuing now is about 1,300. In addition to that these permanent disa-
bilities, including not only the total disability but partial disability,
the compensation continues so long as the disability continues.
Mr. BANKHEAD. When did the present act go into effect?
Mr. VERRILL. It went into effect on September 7, 1916.
In addition to that the commission must approve the payment of
awards or claims for compensation and payments of bills for medical,
surgical, and hospital services and supplies.
It must also compile statistical information as to causes of in-
juries, nature and extent of disability, compensation, and medical and
hospital cost, etc., for the guidance of the commission in accident
prevention, in the selection and improvement of medical and hos-
pital service, and for the information of Congress and the public.
I should have said that on these deaths and permanent disabilities
the number that we deal with are cumulative and will continue slowly
and gradually to increase for a period of years. Now on these per-
manent disabilities especially investigations are necessary from time
to time, and the closest following is necessary in order not to con-
tinue payments after they are no longer properly payable, and, on
the other hand, in order not to cut them off where it looks on the sur-
face that they should be cut off but investigation shows that they
should not be cut off. The total permanent disabilities, of which
there are a few and which consists of total blindness, loss of both
legs, or permanent paralysis, are easy for us to handle when the medi-
cal evidence is that they are permanent total, but the permanent par-
tials, which include the loss of an arm or the loss of a leg or the loss
of the functions of an arm or a leg, so that constant watchfulness is
necessary in order not to do an injustice to the Government or not
to do an injustice to the employee.
The CHAIRMAN. How many members of the commission are there?
Mr. VERRILL. It is a commission of three, but there is now one
V8, Ca.11CV.
Mr. Robsion. The three get the same as is provided for one in this
bill?
Mr. VERRILL. Yes, sir.
Mr. RoBSION. Each member gets $4,000.
Mr. VERRILL. Now, if I may continue in reference to the functions
of the commission. As I stated, it must approve the payments of
claims or awards, for compensation and payments of bills for medi-
cal, surgical, and hospital services and supplies. I ought to say there,
having in mind the question of the use of Government physicians,
that where it is not practicable for us to use Government physicians
in hospitals we have to make arrangements with capable surgeons
80 DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE.
and secure hospitals for the care of these patients, and we have to
Supervise and look after the payment of all the bills and the trans-
portation and Secure these services, and to supervise the payments of
the bills for this service.
The CHAIRMAN. How many employees have you?
Mr. VERRILL. About 75. º
Mr. BANKHEAD. Do you know what the total expenditure of the
Compensation Bureau was for the last fiscal year?
Mr. VERRILL. The expenditures for salaries—I am not—
Mr. BANKHEAD. I mean the gross appropriation.
Mr. VERRILL. It was about $140,000, as I recall it. The expendi-
tures for compensation, including medical and hospital expenses
chargeable to the fund, and including transportation, burial, and
all those things, was about $2,000,000. I think it is running now
about $200,000 a month. As I say, the tendency to increase is some-
thing that is perfectly natural under one of these acts, on account
of it is accumulative—because of the accumulative effect of death
awards and permanent disability awards.
Now the adjudication of claims requires especially, in case of tem-
porary disability of any considerable duration, the ordering of
special medical examinations, and of operative treatment, for which
in many cases the services of medical specialists must be furnished.
In case of long continued and partial disabilities, the ordering of
special medical examination or operative treatment, the furnishing
of authorization of the services of medical specialists, particularly
in cases of permanent partial disability and the determination of
the degree of permanent disability for work, for the purpose of
computing a proper lump-sum settlement if in the opinion of the
commission after investigation such a settlement is in the interest
of the injured employee, or in case that it seems to be to the best
interest of all that a lump-sum payment shall be made. In other
words, the investigations are highly important, because in many
cases the cause of death is a matter of doubt.
Also the commission, in cases where some person other than the
United States is liable to damages on account of injury to a Govern-
ment employee, has an important duty to perform, as the injured
employee must be informed of his rights and there must be an assign-
ment to the commission of the employee's right of action secured,
or if required by the commission the employee must prosecute the
action in his own name. If an assignment to the commission is
secured a settlement by compromise may be secured by the com-
mission or suit may be brought to recover damages. In such cases
as those it is the duty of the commission to see that the injured
employee makes a claim or brings the suit in order to recover
damages from this third person, because anything that may be
recovered means that the Government will be reimbursed.
Mr. Robsſon. Let me ask you if many of those cases have been
successful?
Mr. VERRILL. Yes, sir; a great many of them.
Mr. Robsion. Have you any idea of the approximate amount of
money that has been recovered in that way?
Mr. VERRILL. It has been running something like $150,000 a year,
I think. From whatever is recovered the Government must be reim-
bursed for whatever it has advanced for benefits or medical expenses.
DEPARTMENT OF PLJBLIC WELFARE. 81
If anything is recovered in excess of this amount the employee re-
tains it. If the Government should have any future liability on
account of disability, in such a case this amount which the employee
has already received is an off-set, so that the Government has a most
important interest in these third party settlements. As I say, a great
many of them have been settled—are being settled all the time.
Aside from this, the commission must write decisions, setting forth
the reasons upon which awards or disallowances of claims have been
made in important cases involving any new question of policy or of
interpretation. The decisions in the second and third annual reports
will show some of the questions which frequently come up for de-
cision. It must also make to Congress at the beginning of each
regular session a report of the work of the commission for the pre-
ceding year, with recommendations.
Section 32 of the compensation act authorizes the commission to
make necessary rules and regulations for the enforcement of the act,
and provides that the commission shall decide all questions arising
under the act. The law does not provide for any appeal from the
decisions of the commission. However, reexaminations and rehear-
ings on the disallowance of any claim are freely granted in order
that every opportunity may be given a claimant to present what he
may believe to be the reasons why he is entitled to compensation.
The commission is responsible for the disbursement of the regular
appropriations for administrative expenses, and for the special com-
pensation fund, the latter a continuing appropriation from which
all payments of compensation and of medical, surgical, and hospital
Services and supplies are made.
Now, there is one point I wish particularly to make with reference
to the administration by the commission instead of by a single head.
It seems to me the situation here is somewhat as it is with the Civil
Service Commission; the very important rights of all the civil em-
ployees of the Government are at issue in these cases. It is impor-
tant not only that the employees shall get a square deal, but as you
gentlemen have seen in your dealings with the Civil Service, it is
especially important that the employee should feel that the ma-
chinery is created so that he can get a square deal. The employee is
much more likely to be satisfied if the decision is by a commission
representng several points of view, rather than by a º person.
If the decision is by a single individual, there is danger that the ad-
ministrative authority may become satisfied with his own opinions
and adopt an arbitrary policy. Government employees have often
in the past complained some times with reason of arbitrary action
of officials and inability to get due consideration.
Mr. Robsſon. I would like some information right there. You say
that you have three members on the commission, but there are but
two at the present time. Are you able to get along as well—
Mr. VERRILL. Of course, in this, as in most other matters of busi-
ness, a large part of it is merely routine. Take the ordinary accident.
Where it is a true accident and consequences immediately follow, the
questions for decision are simple and they follow innumerable
precedents, but there are a pretty large number of cases—and that
would include a large proportion of the permanent disabilities—
where there are questions of doubt, and in all such cases it is the
49824–21—6
82 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFA.R.E.
policy to have all of the commissioners review the case and have all
of the commissioners express an opinion, and that I believe is par-
ticularly important where such questions are at issue.
Mr. ROBSION. But that is not my question. My question is ordi-
narily you have three men; how are you getting along with two men?
Mr. VERRILL. Well, of course, it is obvious that when you have only
two that if the two agree, the thing is settled.
Mr. Robsſon. But how does it work?, What is your progress with
# ºn How are you getting along? Are you getting along all
right?
r. VERRILL. Well, when we have only two, if the two disagree
the case can not be allowed.
Mr. RoBSION. But I mean taking your work as a whole? Do your
two men get along with it all right?
Mr. VERRILL. Oh, yes; of course. In the great majority of the
cases there would be an agreement.
Mr. BANKHEAD. But are there any cases that are being actually
held up because of disagreement between the two commissioners?
Mr. VERRILL. When there is a disagreement between the two com-
missioners, the case is disallowed.
Mr. BANKHEAD. But are there any such cases? That is what we
are trying to get at?
Mr. VERRILL. Oh, yes; it would be inevitable that there would be
such cases.
Mr. ROBSION. But are you keeping up with the work with the two
men as well as you were with the three men?
Mr. VERRILL. No; not as effectively.
Mr. RoBSION. And has it been neglected because you did not have
the third member of the commission?
Mr. VERRILL. No; not exactly neglected, but naturally things can
not move quite as fast.
Mr. Robsſon. Well, then, that would be neglected, wouldn’t it?
Mr. VERRILL. No ; I would not say neglected, because it is not the
fault of any of the commissioners.
Mr. RoBSION. Well, let us say delayed, then.
Mr. VERRILL. Well, delayed
Mr. RoBSION. If a case is brought before the commission by ar,
employee—
Mr. VERRILL. Why, he is entitled to a decision, and at times he
does not get it because there are only two commissioners and they
may not agree.
The CHAIRMAN. But don’t you think that it would be better to
have but one man so that he will agree with himself? Don’t you
think that that would result in more effective action?
Mr. VERRILL. Well, that is a question. Then comes the question of
satisfaction. How about the question of satisfaction? The quantity
of work in a general way depends on the force rather than the indi-
vidual commissioners. It is only the doubtful cases that would come
to the individual commissioners for consideration.
Mr. RoBSION. Don’t you have this rule whereby you assign cases to
each commissioner, just like in the high court, and let each man con-
sider the cases assigned to him?
Mr. VERRILL. The doubtful cases are supposed to be seen by all of
the commissioners. That has been the policy from the beginning.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 83
Mr. RobSION. Under your practice does some man take a case and
review it and think over it and then bring it before the commission
for discussion and there discuss it?
Mr. VERRILL. Oh, yes; those cases all go through hands of the
claim examiner and he refers them to the commission in all doubtful
CàSeS.
Mr. RoBSION. Then in many cases you do not see them at all, ex-
cept in an informal way; is that so?
r. VERRILL. Oh, yes.
Mr. DALLINGER. 5. real objection to this bill is because this is a
matter of judicial nature?
Mr. VERRILL. Yes, sir. I think, answering the chairman's question,
I think that with a single individual there is danger that the adminis-
trative authority becomes, we will say, well satisfied with its own
point of view and perhaps adopts an arbitrary policy. Certainly
that would be the feeling of employees whose claims were disallowed
from time to time. Another aspect of it would be the responsibility
for deciding such cases is rather too much for one person to have.
He might reach a ready decision, but I think that it is too much
responsibility for one person to have.
Now, with reference to one other point that the chairman men-
tioned and which occurs to me that I did not fully cover: I suggest
that there were something like 1,300 death claims on which pay-
ments are continuing to be made, and the addition which we would
make to that list would be, roughly speaking, something like 30 a
month. The permanent personal disabilities of long-continuing time
amount to something like 200, as I recall it now. Those are cases
that are, as we look at them, likely to continue for a long time. A
considerable number of them continue until the claimant dies. Of
course, the larger number of cases are those cases that are built up
by those incoming claims of 800 a month now, so that in a recent
month—I think it was March—the number of checks issued was 5,800,
or something like that.
Mr. DALLINGER. Let me ask you: The number of cases that you
have before your commission, does not compare, does it, with the
number of cases that are now before the Bureau of War Risk In-
surance?
Mr. VERRILL. No; but the question that the Bureau of War Risk
Insurance has to deal with is different.
Mr. DALLINGER. But the questions that the Bureau of War Risk
Insurance have to deal with are questions of compensation for in-
juries, aren’t they?
Mr. VERRILL. Yes; but the question of disability due to the service
does not arise, because they have certain rules which are in the law
that makes a case allowed as a matter of course, if it is a disability
arising within a certain period of the service, and that is a question
which always arises, whether such disability is due to an injury
received while in the performance of duty. Now you have that
question coming before you in these jº disability cases,
coming up from time to time, and medical examination has to be
had in order to determine that, and an investigation has to be
...” ascertain whether or not the employee is able to go back
to work.
84 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
Mr. DALLINGER. But they have the same problems there.
Mr. BANKHEAD. What would be your objection to this bill if the
commission of three were retained and were allowed to be transferred
to the Public Welfare Service?
Mr. VERRILL. In my opinion that would be a better method of de-
cision. Now, gentlemen, I do not wish to appear to be opposed to
the bill in a general way. I am merely presenting this for the
committee's decision, because I think that they ought to have these
things before them. I think that the weight of opinion in the
States—and there are now 43 having workmen’s compensation acts—
is against placing the administration of such acts in the courts or in
the control of lawyers. The principal object in mind in the enact-
ment of compensation laws was to free the adjudication of indus-
trial accident claims from the narrow, technical, legal limitations
which tended to defeat justice instead of promoting it. The laws
which have been enacted and the procedure which has been estab-
lished for their administration contemplate control by commissions
or boards acting promptly and with the minimum of legal technical
rules, with the purpose always in mind of securing a common sense
administration of justice, on the basis of all of the facts, whether
presented by a claimant or ascertained on the commission’s own
initiative.
The administration of a workmen’s compensation law should not
be placed in the hands of an administrative agency whose chief duty
is to administer a pension law for military pensioners. Such pension
laws apply to service pensions or to disability pensions given without
regard to any actual casual relationship between disability and serv-
ice. Workmen's compensation awards are limited solely to disabil-
ities having a definite casual relation to the employment. The com-
pensation payments continue only during the period of disability
due to the injury in the employment. The compensation commission
has a duty to exercise supervision over beneficiaries and to furnish
proper medical and hospital treatment and to assist upon returning
to work as soon as possible, or to terminate compensation payments.
It would be most extravagant and harmful to employees if this duty
were neglected. If workmen’s compensation claims were passed upon
as are those of military pensioners, the cost of compensation would
be greatly and unwarrantedly increased. A single award in a seri-
ous permanent disability or death might easily exceed in cost the
yearly salaries of a commission.
Administration by a single head instead of by a commission or
board would not greatly reduce overhead costs. With such an ad-
ministration were also placed in a department so that decisions re-
quired the approval of the head of the department, the usual course
would be for some one in the secretary’s office to be assigned to handle
all cases referred by the bureau to the department. This would re-
quire the entire time of a man of good capacity with a fair salary,
and also the assistance of stenographers and clerks. The administra-
tion under such conditions would not be so likely to be free from
personal or political influence as with administration by a board of
commission.
The CHAIRMAN. How long have you had two commissioners instead

of three?
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 85
Mr. VERRILL. Since the 15th of March.
Mr. DALLINGER. I wish that you would make it clear why this is
any more of a judicial question to ascertain whether an injury to a
Soldier grew out of his service or whether an injury to a civilian oc-
curred during the course of his employment. Why aren’t they both
judicial questions?
Mr. VERRILL. There may be certain of them that are, but my under-
standing is in the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, if a man has
tuberculosis within 12 months after his discharge from the service,
that when that fact is established, the award is made.
Mr. DALLINGER. But that is simply an arbitrary rule on their part.
Mr. VERRILL. No; it is in the law.
Mr. DALLINGER. But they make rules and regulations, do they not?
Mr. VERRILL. To be sure.
Mr. DALLINGER. And I suppose that you also make rules and regu-
lations?
Mr. VERRILL. We do not make rules and regulations of that charac-
ter.
Mr. DALLINGER. I must admit that I fail to see any great distinc-
tion between the work of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance and the
work that comes before your commission, and I think that if it can
be done in the Bureau of War Risk Insurance by a single man, I do
not see why the same thing can not be done into civilian matters.
Mr. VERRILL. I think that you will find the point of view of the
War Risk Bureau, that the claim is entirely different from that of
any civilian workmen’s compensation commission anywhere.
#. CHAIRMAN. Won’t you file with the committee a statement of
your employees and their work?
(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, an adjournment was taken until
Wednesday, May 18, 1921, at 10 o'clock a. m.)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1921.
CoMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE, AND CoMMITTEE on
EDUCATION, House of REPRESENTATIVEs,
Washington, D. C.
The Joint Committees on Education and Labor of the United
States Senate and the Committee on Education of the House of
Representatives met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o’clock a. m.,
at the committee room of the Committee on Education and Labor,
Capitol Building, Senator Kenyon presiding.
$. Senators Kenyon (chairman), Phipps, Walsh of Massa-
chusetts, Warren, and Shortridge; Congressmen Fess, Towner, Dal-
linger, Reed, Robsion, Nelson of Wisconsin, Shelton, Bankhead,
Lowrey, and Parks.
Whereupon the committee proceeded to a further consideration
of the bills (S. 1607 and H. R. 5837) to establish a deparment of
public welfare, and for other purposes.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Magill, will you call your witnesses that you
desire to introduce before the committee this morning?
STATEMENT OF MIR. HUGH S. MAGILL, FIELD SECRETARY NA-
TIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION.
Mr. MAGILL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, there
are a good many witnesses to appear before your committee to-day,
and each one will necessarily have to be given some time, and we have
a great number of telegrams that we would like to enter into the
record from those who could not be present at this hearing this morn-
ing. I would like to make a brief statement and then we will proceed
with the other witnesses.
First of all we wish to express our appreciation to the chairman
and members of the Committees on Education of the Senate and
House for granting this special hearing to the friends of education.
By those who appear in person at this hearing and by the many tele-
grams and letters which we shall read and ask to have entered in the
record we hope to show beyond doubt that not only the educators of
the country but also the friends of education everywhere are strongly
in favor of a separate department of education with a secretary in
the President's Cabinet, and that they are very much opposed to the
inclusion of education in a subordinate division of the proposed de-
partment of public welfare, as provided in the bill under considera-
tion.
87
88 DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE.
We are not opposing a department of public welfare if Congress
thinks the creation of such a department is necessary, but we wish to
emphasize particularly the fact that education is of the highest im-
portance to the welfare and prosperity of our country, and that it
§. be accorded the highest recognition in the councils of our
ation.
It can not be questioned that the development of the highest pos-
sible type of citizenship is a matter of Supreme importance, and this
purpose must necessarily be accomplished very largely through our
free public-school systems. Education can not be considered of
secondary importance. It shoud not be subordinated to any other
interest. It is largely through education that public welfare is at-
tained. Nothing can be more important in America than the de-
velopment through education of a citizenship physically, mentally,
and morally sound, imbued with the spirit of Å. ideals. In
no other way can our treasured American institutions be preserved.
We would call attention to the fact that every one of the 48 States
has an independent department of education. The history of gov-
ernment proves conclusively that public education should not be sub-
ordinated to nor directly associated with other general interests.
Why should our Government make education a subordinate division
of a department of public welfare when such an arrangement is not
found in any other free government nor in any of the Common-
wealths of our American Union? Certainly experience should count
for more than mere theory in a matter of such vital importance.
While departments of education were created years ago in the older
States and were established at the organization of the newer States,
we find that departments of public welfare have been created in only
a few of the States, and that in very recent years. In those States
where such departments have been established they have in no in-
stance included education. The functions of a department of public
welfare have been considered separate and distinct from the func-
tions of a department of education.
It happened that I was a member of the Illinois Senate when the
reorganization of the executive departments of the Illinois State gov-
ernment was first under consideration. As you know, this reorgani-
zation was accomplished during the administration of Gov. Lowden.
Nine separate departments were created, one of them a department
of public welfare, but this department of public welfare has nothing
whatever to do with education. An independent department of edu-
cation was created by the State constitution, and the department of
public welfare is considered subordinate in importance since it was
created merely by statute. The Public Welfare Department of
Illinois deals with three classes of citizens—(a) the delinquent, (b)
the deficient, (c) the dependent.
I think that the committee should give much consideration to this
particular phase of the question, and you will find that in every
instance where the welfare of education has been properly considered
it has been put in a department by itself, and it has never been sub-
ordinated to any other department, and the subject of education is
much more fortunate when it is not associated with any other National
or State or city interests. For the above reasons, the members of our
association and the friends of education feel that if the highest wel-

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 89
fare of our country is to be subserved education should be repre-
sented in an independent department, with a member of the Presi-
dent's Cabinet at its head; and holding, as we do, this conviction, we
are very much opposed to the submerging of the great subject of
education in this proposed department of public welfare.
Mr. FESS. Mr. Magill, assuming that a separate department of edu-
cation is not possible, would you prefer, speaking for the educators,
to leave education where it is at the present time rather than to place
it in a new department, as this bill proposes?
Mr. MAGILL. I am not willing, Mr. Fess, to assume that, because I
am convinced that a department of education is certain to come. and I
am also convinced that it will come within a very short time; but if
I should assume that, I believe that education will be no better off,
and, in fact, it is my own contention that the cause of education—
and it is the contention of those whose telegrams I shall place before
you—will be worse off in the department of public welfare than it is
to-day in the Department of the Interior.
Mr. FEss. That is the practical question. What I want to know is
whether the educators prefer to leave the Department of Education
as it is, in the Department of the Interior, than to have it placed, as
proposed by this bill, in the department of public welfare?
Mr. MAGILL. That is my opinion, Mr. Fess—that it would be no
better off if it were in the department of public welfare, and, in fact,
not so well off as it is now in the Department of the Interior, and the
telegrams that I have here indicate that the friends of education
would prefer to leave it where it is rather than include it in the
department of public welfare.
The CHAIRMAN. And let me ask you, Mr. Magill, why it is that you
think that it would be worse off in a new department than it is at the
present time in the Department of the Interior? In other words,
how can it be any worse off than it is now? I am very curious to
know that.
Mr. MAGILL. I know you are Senator Kenyon, and I know further,
Senator, that you are one of the best friends we have of an independ-
ent department of education. I have made my statement for two
reasons, and the first one is that in its present condition it is under
a United States Commissioner of Education, and wherever his word
is spoken he at least speaks as the United States Commissioner of
Education. In the proposed department it would be under an assist-
ant secretary of the department of public welfare, and I do not believe
that if an assistant secretary of the department of public welfare
went out in the country to speak as an assistant secretary of that
department that the people in any city in which he spoke would know
whom it was that he was speaking for.
The CHAIRMAN. But suppose his name was changed from the assist-
ant secretary of the department of public welfare to some other name.
Do wou think that it is all in the name?
r. MAGILL. No; I do not think so.
The CHAIRMAN. And suppose that you would put in this bill that
he should be called the commissioner of education?
Mr. MAGILL. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will answer it in this manner,
that for 50 years the friends of education have been trying to get
education out of a submerged bureau in the Department of the In-
90 DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE.
terior. Now, if it were taken out of the submerged bureau in the
Department of the Interior and put into the department of public
welfare and were there in a submerged bureau it would be the con-
firmation by the present Congress of an intolerable condition that
has been existing for 50 years, and I think our second state would
be worse than our first.
Senator PHIPPs. And let me ask you there, Mr. Magill, why is it
an intolerable condition? I would like to know that; why is it an
intolerable condition?
Mr. MAGILL. The intolerable condition is that what education
wants and requires in America is leadership to make investigations
along the lines of educational research that will reveal to the country
what might be done in America in the matter of a great program of
education. That can never be done under the present conditions and
it never could be done under the proposed conditions. The depart-
ment can not have at present—and it could not have under the pro-
posed bill—the necessary leadership. The great educational leaders
of the country to-day would not consider it as of such importance as
to be worthy of the necessary recognition
Senator PHIPPs. And do you think that that is entirely due to the
fact that it is not dignified enough, because it has not a member of
the President’s Cabinet at its head?
Mr. MAGILL. Partly due to that; yes, sir; and that comes from the
lack of recognition of education and partly, too, from the salaries
that are paid, and the whole thing is subordinated and looked upon
to-day as a subordinated thing, and I think what we need in
America to-day above everything is that education should be exalted,
and that the thing that we speak of as the palladium of all our liber-
ties should have just recognition in the Government itself.
Senator PHIPPS. And what is the inclination on the part of the
State organizations to accept Federal dictation?
Mr. Mºomi, fio not think that there is any question but what the
States would respect the influence of the Federal Government, but
they do not want Federal dictation, and nobody wants Federal
dictation or Federal control of education; but they do want Federal
stimulus and leadership, and that they do not have and that they can
not get under the present arrangement or the proposed arrangement,
and therefore I think conditions are intolerable. I think that the
biggest job in America is the making of good American citizens, and
the biggest job is in looking after the schools, for the schools of
America have got to make the good American citizens. I feel that
under this bill education is going to be held back, and in holding
of education back the people of the United States will suffer in their
citizenship. As long as the Government regards education as less of
importance than agriculture or commerce or labor, and all those
things, education is going to be held back, and in holding back educa-
tion America will suffer in its citizenship.
Mr. BANKHEAD. I would like to know how much money was spent
in the last year by the Federal Government—in the last fiscal year—
for all of the educational purposes?
Mr. MAGILL. The Bureau of Education got something like $200,000,
and the Bureau of Efficiency estimates $65,000,000 were spent which
could be credited directly to education. If you take the rehabilita-
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 91
tion work, it will go beyond that, and I was not including the reha-
bilitation work, but the Bureau of Efficiency gave those figures—
$65,000,000.
Senator PHIPPs. The amount spent solely for the Federal activities
and cooperation in the Bureau of Education was $200,000; how much,
in your judgment, would be required to properly continue the work
under a separate department of education, with a Cabinet officer at its
head?
Mr. MAGILL. I do not know as I can answer that, but the bill pro-
viding for a separate department carried an appropriation of a half
million dollars. Now, I want to read the names of the national
organizations, or some of them, that have interested themselves in an
independent department of education, if I may now.
The CHAIRMAN. And do any of them condemn this bill?
Mr. MAGILL. They have not condemned this bill, but they have
indorsed the independent department for education.
The CHAIRMAN. In the past?
Mr. MAGILL. Yes, sir. The following is a partial list of the na-
tional organizations that have gone on record as favoring a depart-
ment of education with a secretary of education in the President's
Cabinet: The National Education Association, the department of
Superintendence, and many other departments of the association,
national committee for a department of education, American Council
on Education, the American Federation of Labor, the American
Federation of Teachers, the General Federation of Women's Clubs,
the National Congress of Mothers and Parent-Teacher Associations,
the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution, the
National League of Women Voters, the National Council of Jewish
Women, the Association of Collegiate Alumnae, the American Library
Association, the National League of Masonic Clubs, the Supreme
Council Scottish Rite Masonry, and many other patriotic organiza-
tions. In addition to these national organizations hundreds of State
and local organizations have passed resolutions favoring an inde-
pendent department of education.
Mr. Town ER. Regarding the financial aspects of the case, Mr.
Chairman, in Dr. Sawyer's statement, which I assume was given to
the various members of the committee, he states that the total amount
of expenditures that would be covered by the public welfare bill in
appropriations already, as I suppose it is, made for the various de-
partments that are covered by the bill, amount to $701,596.230. Then
he states that education has received but a small amount of that sum,
and he states that we are spending in this connection $3,136,930 at
the present time with only limited results. I suppose that that, of
course, is rather a limited view of what constitutes the educational
activities of the Government.
Mr. BANKHEAD. I imagine that the $3,000,000 includes the annual
appropriation for the administration of the
Mr. Town ER. It includes the amount appropriated for the present
Bureau of Education, and whatever items constitute it: but the
$3,000,000 out of $701,000,000 covered by the present public welfare
bill is for education, according to Dr. Sawyer.
Mr. Magni. And it seems fair to presume that at least 95 per cent
of the money expended for public welfare would be for veteran relief.
92 DEPARTMENT OF PTUBLIC WELFARE.
Mr. Town ER. Excuse me, but you must remember that the Public
º Service is also covered, so that it would not be all for veteran
I'ê116I.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how many employees the Depart-
ment of Health has at the present time?
Mr. MAGILL. No; I do not, Mr. Chairman.
Now, I would like to submit some telegrams bearing on this ques-
tion, and I would like to have them go in as statements from these
various parties rather than printed as telegrams.
Mr. Town ER. I am afraid that the time of the committee would be
taken up by the reading of those. Let me ask the chairman, would
it be proper to allow Mr. Magill to put them in and have them treated
as the individual statements of the persons?
The CHAIRMAN. Why could not they be filed with the com-
mittee——
Mr. BANKHEAD. I would like to have them printed in the record.
. CHAIRMAN. All right, if you wish them to go into the
TeCOI’
Mr. Town ER. And I would like to have them go in as the state-
ments of these parties who sent them.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, they may go in in that manner.
(The matter referred to is as follows:)
STATEMENT OF THOMAS E. FINEGAN, STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUC-
TION, HARRISBURG, PA.
The establishment of a department of education with a Secretary of Cabinet
rank would bring to public education such support and prestige as the educa-
tional interests of the country demand. Action by Congress at this time which
would give education a subordinate place in another department would dis-
credit the country and render incalculable harm to the interests of American
education. The educational workers of the Nation have Confidently looked to
this Congress for that recognition of public education which its importance to
the social and economic interests of the country demands. In my judgment
a strong appeal should be made for the establishment of an education depart-
ment. If this action can not be obtained, we should stand for a department
of education and Welfare. The essential provisions of the Smith-Towner bill
should be included in this measure. If either of these results are not obtain-
able, we would uncompromisingly oppose the inclusion of the educational in-
terests as a subordinate consideration in another department. It will be Wiser
to permit the educational interests to remain in their present status. Action
On these lines would receive almost unanimous approval by the educational
leaders and administrators Of the COuntry.
STATEMENT OF C. N. KENDALL, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, TRENTON, N. J.
The proposal to merge the department of education with the department of
general welfare is a monumental mistake so far as the interests of education
are concerned. It will never work satisfactorily for the benefit of public educa-
tion. School men of New Jersey are opposed to it. This country can afford to
put public schools on a satisfactory basis. We better not have this SOrt of
legislation if the real purpose is to improve the status of education in this
Country.
STATEMENT OF J. H. BEVERIDGE, SUPERINTENDENT OF CITY SCHOOLS, OMAHA, NEBR.
The educational forces of Nebraska are asking for a department of education
with the secretary a member of the President's Cabinet. Public education has
directly in charge one-fifth of the population of the United States and is a most
important function of American Government. We urge upon Congress a proper
recognition of public education, because it is just.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 93
STATEMENT OF T. E. JoBNSON, STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
LANSING, MICH.
I feel as do the educators of Michigan with whom I have talked that it
would be very unfortunate to lose education in a Department of Public Wel-
fare. The education of its future citizens is the most important function of a
democracy. For that reason it would seem that to place education in an in-
ferior position is to admit that we do not properly understand and appreciate
its function. The educators of Michigan are practically a unit in this viewpoint.
STATEMENT OF JOHN HERBERT PHILLIPs, SUPERINTENDENT OF CITY SCHOOLs,
BIRMINGHAM, ALA.
On behalf of the educational interests of Alabama and the Nation, I pray
Congress will enact the Towner bill. Education in the greatest Nation on earth
deserves to be an independent department, with health and public Welfare as
divisions, if you will. The crowning glory of the Republic should not be buried
in a corner even less conspicuous than at present. In the name of consistent
Americanism we demand this.
STATEMENT OF D. B. WALDO, PRESIDENT STATE NORMAL SCHOOL, KALAMAZOO, MICH.
The friends of public-school education in Michigan strongly urge an inde-
pendent department of education. Our disappointment Will be keen if educa-
tion is submerged in a department of public welfare. We want an independent
departmet with a secretary of education in the Cabinet.
STATEMENT OF MAY TRUMPER, STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
HELENA, MONT.
Believe education entitled to highest recognition possbile. This it could not
receive as part of the department of public welfare. I sincerely trust that
efforts for department of education will not be abandoned. Such a step for-
ward seems to me imperative if we as a Nation hope to keep pace with Our
competitors.
STATEMENT OF J. M. GWINN, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, NEW ORLEANS, LA.
The right kind and amount of education is the way to welfare, an effect of
which education is the cause. Modern Scientific methods would attack the
cause rather than the effect. Education should not be subordinated to welfare.
Create a department of education first With Welfare in it. If this is not feasible,
make an independent department of education.
STATEMENT OF JESSE H. NEWLON, SUPERINTENDENT OF CITY SCHOOLS, DENVER, COLO.
I strongly protest against movement to place the interests of education in a
department of public welfare. The welfare of the Nation will be largely deter-
mined by the quality of its public schools in the next 50 years. It is absurd to
make public education secondary to any other consideration. Education is more
important even than agriculture, commerce, and labor. Public-school teachers
and leaders of public education expect Congress to create a department of edu-
cation with a Secretary in the President's Cabinet. A department of welfare
with education Secondary is no better than the present arrangement. Such a
plan minimizes education, and such a department could not command expert
educational leadership.
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. KIRK, PRESIDENT STATE TEACHERS’ COLLEGE AND FORMER
STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, RIRKSVILLE. M.O.
The bill for a department of public welfare in its present form would bring
humiliation to every self-respecting man and woman in the teaching profession.
It would subordinate education to layman control and political domination. It
would discourage and depress all sincere and studious educational idealists.
The present term, Commissioner of Education, at least carries definite meaning
and commands respect, but the term assistant Secretary of public Welfare is
vague and meaningless. Its apparent purpose is to produce confusion of ideals
94 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELEARE.
and belittle the efforts of American teachers. Education in our country needs.
freedom and professional initiative. It can never function effectively and with
dignity until it is placed on a par with agriculture, commerce, and labor in a
Separate department.
STATEMENT OF J. R. PERKINS, PRESIDENT STATE Normſ AL school, DANBURY, CONN.
We Stand strongly for a department of education as against submerging it in
a department of public welfare. The issue is recognition of the importance of
education in Our national life. It is time that our great Nation gave this aid
to education, which is so essential to its progress.
STATEMENT OF C. G. PEARSE, PRESIDENT STATE Normſ AL SCHOOL, MILWAUKEE, WIs.
I stand firm for the Towner-Sterling bill. I believe a vast majority of the
School people of the country will be satisfied with nothing else. In my judg-
ment it Would be much to be preferred that education be left entirely out of
the proposed welfare bill, which is said to be favored by the administration.
This Will leave those of us who believe public education of paramount national
importance free to stand behind the Towner-Sterling bill until we have a
department of education with a secretary Sitting at the President’s council table
and the Cooperation of the Federal Government with the States in the financial
Support Of the Schools.
STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE D. STRAYER, OF TEACHERs' COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY,
CHAIRMAN OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSO-
CIATION.
I have read carefully the Kenyon-Fess bill providing for the establishment
of a department of public welfare. I note that in this department a division
of education is established under the direction of an assistant secretary. I
have a strong conviction that such an arrangement will not be conducive to
the highest welfare of education. I believe that education should be given the
highest recognition in our National Government, and that especially in the
removal of illiteracy, the Americanization of the foreign-born, the training of
teachers, the development of a program of physical education and health serv-
ice, and the equalization of educational opportunities.
AS Chairman of the Legislative Commission of the National Educational
ASSOciation I have been in conference with many State and city superintend-
ents and With representatives of lay organizations. All of these persons for
themselves, and in so far as they are able, as representatives of their respec-
five groups and Organizations, have declared that the responsibility of the
Nation in the field of education can not be best served by providing for a
division of education in the proposed department of public welfare. It is my
firm COnviction, and it is theirs, that in the department of public welfare, as
it is proposed, a very large part of the money to be expended and the time and
energy Of the Secretary will, of necessity, be given to the problems of the
Veteran relief Service. Under these circumstances we feel that education is
as well represented at the present time as a bureau in the Department of the
Interior as it would be by being placed in a division of the department of public
welfare. I sincerely hope that if the Committee on Education of the Senate
and House report favorably the bill creating a department of public welfare,
that they will Omit the division of education from the bill, and that recognition
of the importance of education to the Nation may result in the creation of a
department of education with a secretary in the President’s Cabinet.
STATEMENT OF PAYSON SMITH, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION OF MASSACHUSETTS,
BOSTON, MASS.
I beg to submit a statement with reference to my position in the matter of
including the work of a department of education in the same department With
a number Of Other activities.
It appears to me that public education in this country is an enterprise of SO
general and outstanding importance and so clearly defined in its purposes that
it is entitled to full and independent recognition. Thousands of teachers and
administrators in the field of public education have for many years been advo-
cating the establishment of a cabinet department to represent public education.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 95.
Besides these who are directly interested in the administration and teaching
Of the schools, very large numbers of people have given long and earnest con-
Sideration Of this matter and have given their approval to the establishment
Of a department of education.
Personally, there seem to me to be serious objections to the inclusion of the
Clearly defined educational activities of the Nation with the somewhat vaguely
Outlined activities of a philanthropic nature. I sincerely hope that the con-
gressional Committee on Education will not report in favor of an inclusion of
education in a general department of public welfare, at least until there shall
have been adequate opportunity for a full study of the proposal on the part of
those Who are vitally interested in the development of public education.
STATEMENT OF F. E. SPAULDING, DEAN OF EDUCATION, YALE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE
SCHOOL, NEW HAVEN, CONN.
Judge Towner's position opposing the submerging of education in the pro-
posed department of welfare is absolutely sound. It would be far better for
the interests of public education to let education remain as a bureau in the
Department of the Interior than to transfer it to this new welfare department.
The Only practical improvement on the present situation is to create an inde-
dependent department of education, as provided by Judge Towner's bill.
STATEMENT OF J. E. SweARINGEN, STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, COLUMBIA, S. C.
The cause of education will suffer if the schools are submerged in a welfare
Organization. The present plan giving the Commissioner of Education a bureau
in the Department of the Interior is preferable to the suggestion coming from
the welfare advocates. The Towner-Sterling bill should be amended in a few
minor particulars in order to be made altogether satisfactory. In its revised
º however, this measure is much more acceptable than the Kenyon-FeSS
ill.
Public opinion makes the real Government of the United States. The Schools
and colleges are supposed to train the intelligence underlying and directing
this public opinion. National standards of education are eminently desirable.
A national program of education must precede anything like a Nation-Wide
equality of educational opportunity. Centralization is not necessary to intro-
duce such a program or to secure adequate returns. The schools and the School
people of South Carolina do not wish a place in a department of public welfare,
but are anxious to get a department Of education.
STATEMENT OF JOHN A. H. KEITH, PRINCIPAL STATE NORMAL SCHOOL, INDIANA, PA.
It happens that I have been close to the presidents of State normal Schools
since the Smith-Towner bill was first introduced in Congress. As president Of
the National Council of State Normal School Presidents and Principals the
past year, I have come to know their views intimately, and am One of their
delegates to the American Council of Education.
The State normal school executives of the United States are for a depart-
ment of education and in favor of Federal grants in aid of education. These
two principles are held by them to be valid and in line with historic precedent.
Their enactment into law is desired in order to give to public education the
sanction which its importance merits and the stimulation to improvement
which is so greatly needed. A well-prepared teacher in every public-School
position in the United States is the aim which State normal School executives
hold as desirable and possible—and this aim should receive the indorsement and
support of Congress, for Congress has a duty in this matter as Well as in
encouraging vocational education.
The present welfare bill, which you are considering, does not meet the wishes
of the normal school executives of this country. To put education as a division
of a new department will not be even a step toward the realization of Our aim.
A mere transfer does not dignify education. Nor does it stimulate the States
to increased educational activity. Education would have Small consideration
in the new department. It would, to be sure, be charged with the administra-
tion of the Smith-Hughes law, but this is the one Federal educational act
above all others that causes friction in the States by virtue of its infringement
upon the rights of the States to organize, supervise, and administer education
96 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
Within their borders. Until this act is changed, its administration is a liability
rather than an asset to any division, bureau, or department.
The normal School executives are not opposed to a department of welfare
if education is left out. The matter then becomes one regarding which, as a
group, they have no particular interest. With education as a division of the
new department it is felt that only a show of doing something for education
is involved, and the State normal school executives of the country can not
be said to have any enthusiasm for the welfare bill. In fact, I am certain they
Would almost unanimously favor leaving education where it is and as it is
to the proposed change of the bill now before you.
STATEMENT OF M. L. BRITTAIN, STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF GEORGIA,
ATLANTA, GA.
I earnestly hope that Congress will make an independent department of
education rather than give us a subdivision in the proposed department of
public welfare.
STATEMENT OF A. R. SPAID, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION FOR DELAWARE, DovKR, DEL.
School people of Delaware from the first have unanimously backed the Towner-
Sterling bill. We strongly object to submerging education in the proposed
department of public welfare. To do so is to disappoint 650,000 public-school
teachers who so courageously backed every Government project during the
World War. The public-school system of the United States is America’s boast,
the bulwark and foundation Of Our democracy. This must be exalted and not
hidden in a corner of a Government bureau.
STATEMENT OF AGNES S. WINN, MEMBER NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, LEGIS-
LATIVE COMMISSION, AND RESIDENT SEATTLE GRADE TEACHERS’ CLUB, SEATTLE,
WASIEI.
I am glad friends of education are standing for a separate department of
education as provided in TOWner education bill. I wish to add the indorsement
of thousands of people in this great Northwest, who believe only by recognizing
it in this way can future of education in the United States be assured.
STATEMENT OF JOHN W. ABERCROMBIE, STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,
MONTGOMERY, ALA.
The educational forces of Alabama Oppose Solidly the submerging of educa-
tion in the proposed department of public welfare and favor unanimously
the establishment of an independent department of education, with a secretary
in the President's Cabinet. We earnestly urge the immediate passage of the
pending Towner-Sterling bill.
STATEMENT OF W. F. BOND, STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, JACKSON, MISS.
The One big business of this Nation is the proper education and training Of
boys and girls, and I can not understand why Congress should persist in
discounting this important work by giving it a SubOrdinate position in some
other department. Through the centuries it has been, war, law, politics, court-
houses, jails, etc., that have held sway. I wonder if the time will ever come
When the child Will COme into its own and have a Chance to be educated in
such a way that war will be made impossible and be looked upon as a pastime
of heathens and not of civilized people; that the schoolhouse and not the court-
house and jails will be our best hope for law-abiding citizenship. On behalf
of the children of Mississippi I want to urge that Congress put the department
of education on an equality with the other departments of Government, for I
feel that to do otherwise will discount this Our greatest stronghold to Conquer
bolshevism and all other isms that are now trying to creep in and wreck Our
civilization.
STATEMENT OF FRANK B. TROTTER, PRESIDENT OF WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY,
MORGANTOWN, W. V.A.
I wish to present the following resolution to the Senate and House Education
Committees. At a general meeting of the faculty of the West Virginia Uni-
versity May 17 the following resolution was adopted: “In the interest of educa-
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 97
tion advancement the faculty of the West Virginia University wishes to enter
its protest against the present bill, which proposes to include the department
of education under the department of public Welfare.”
The business of education has grown to such magnitude and is Of Such a
specialized character that we believe its best interest can be served only by
expert leadership and that this leadership is entitled to a separate and distinct
place in the Cabinet. We therefore respectfully urge that the Senate and
House committeds give earnest consideration to the creation of an independent
department of education and that its head be designated as Secretary Of
education.
STATEMENT OF AUGUSTUS O. THOMAS, STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION, AUGUSTA, ME.
The people of the United States more than ever realize that the fullest exten-
sion of education to all the children, and of the most effective sort, is the Only
way whereby our democracy can be strengthened. The hope of our Nation is
in its children and their education for ultimate citizenship. Business condi-
tions and the industrial life of the Nation pale into insignificance beside the
paramount issue of universal education. No matter what phase of public wel-
fare is undertaken, education is the first step and the basic process. Securing
physical fitness, a high degree of intelligence, the relief of indigency, all may
be furthered through education. It Seems necessary, therefore, that we have a
department of our Government whose Chief function shall be the .promotion of
education.
STATEMENT OF OLIVE M. JONES, PRESIDENT NEW YORK PRINCIPALS' ASSOCIATION,
AND AMBROSE CORT, CHAIRMAN PUBLICITY COMMITTEE.
The New York Principals' Association, representing 500 public-school princi-
pals, having charge of nearly 800,000 children, strongly urge the passage by
the present Congress of the Towner-Sterling bill and the establishment of a
Federal department of education with a secretary in the President's Cabinet.
We regard the provision for Federal aid to education in that measure as an
indispensable means toward removing the illiteracy and physical degeneracy
revealed in the draft.
The department of public Welfare bill would relegate education to a less im-
portant place than it now has at Washington. The business of training Ameri-
can citizens Ought to have first place in public honor and in public expenditure.
The Nation as a Whole should help to equalize educational opportunity. We
have had enough Commissions and bureaus for investigation. Let us now See
the big, practical thing done. New York speaks for the children in the poorer
States Which Can not meet the problem unaided.
We shall appreciate your best efforts to urge the passage of the Towner-
Sterling bill and to take education Out Of the public welfare bill.
Mr. MAGILL. Now, I would like to ask Mr. J. W. Crabtree, repre-
senting the National Education Association, to make a brief state-
ment.
STATEMENT OF MR. J. W. CRABTREE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION.
Mr. CRACTR.I.. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent the Na-
tional Education Association, and am Secretary of that association.
This association is composed of an active membership
Mr. Robsiox. Where do you live, Mr. Crabtree?
Mr. CRABTREE, I live in Washington. Our headquarters are at 1201
Sixteenth Street.
The membership of this association is of two kinds, namely, indi-
vidual membership and affiliatted membership—that is, members of
our affiliated State and local associations. There are more than
70,000 active paid members. There is a membership of our States,
40CŞ4—21 7
98 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
affiliated associations, of 510,000 members; so that we may say that we
have an active and affiliated membership of about 510,000 members.
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, our association has
indorsed many, many times and reindorsed the plan of a department
of education with a secretary in the President's Cabinet. This par-
ticular question that is up at the present time is new. We have not had
a meeting of the association since this question has arisen, but I have
taken the matter up with the members of the executive committee
of the association and the members of the board of trustees of the
association and the State directors and other officers and have had re-
plies from every member of the executive committee, from every
member of the board of trustees, and from almost every member of the
State directors of the association, and I have had also replies from
nearly all of the affiliated associations, all objecting to having educa-
tion included in the department of public welfare.
I will say in this connection that the question has not been taken up
with them at all, as to whether we should have a department of public
welfare, but only the question as to whether we should stand for edu-
cation in a department of public welfare, and so far as the views of
our officers are concerned, they are unanimously against having educa-
tion included in the department of public welfare. I will say that 44
out of the 48 States have already affiliated with the National Educa-
tion Association and we have something over a thousand local associa-
tions.
Mr. FESs. As far as you can speak for the association—we realize
that we have had hearings on the separate department of education,
and know where the association stands—but the practical problem
now is, so far as you can speak for the association, what would your
people prefer; that is, to leave education where it is now, in the De-
partment of the Interior, or place it in a department of public wel-
fare, under the proposed bill?
Mr. CRABTREE. Yes, sir; that is the point that I have taken up with
the officers of the association, and they, of course, do think that we
should have a separate department
Mr. FEss. That is the practical question before the committee to-
day.
Mr. CRABTREE. Yes, sir.
Mr. RobSION. You stated that your association is opposed to it. I
wish you would, in a few words, tell us why they are opposed to it
and give us the reasons.
Mr. CRABTREE. I think that Mr. Magill has expressed the reasons
most generally expressed.
Mr. RoBSION. And you adopt his reasons, do you?
Mr. CRABTREE. Yes, sir; I adopt the reasons already given by Mr.
Magill. The same reasons are given, as you notice, over and over
again in these statements that he has received and which are going
in the record. I have received some from officers
Senator SHORTRIDGE. I listened to the reading of those statements
contained in the telegrams and the letters. They are very much alike
in verbiage, and it struck me that they were mere expressions of
opinion rather than the statement of any substantial reasons to
support the opinions given. I would like to know why, if you can
state, what is the reason that you object to transferring the depart-
ment of education from where it now is over into a new depart-
PEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 99
ment known as, or to be known as, the department of public welfare,
if the same kind of work should go on under the same competent
leaders?
Mr. CRABTREE. Well, Senator, I would not consider that a change
that would be desirable unless one could see that there could be
some advantage in making the change. I can say that I see certain
disadvantages. For instance, here is one that I will give, in addi-
tion to the points mentioned by Mr. Magill, and that is if our asso-
ciation should acquiesce in this idea of having education put over
in a new department it would mean that they were giving up the
idea of having a separate department of eduation with a member in
the President's Cabinet, and it would carry that implication, and I
think that we would not be in a good position to stand for it. That
is the standpoint of our association.
Senator WARREN. These statements of the various people which
we have allowed to go into the record look very much to me as
though they were of a character where statements were prepared and
sent out to them
Mr. MAGILL. That positively is not true, Senator, for the reason
that nobody would insult an educator by doing that, for they fully
understand what is being done. We did send a communication to
these people and asked them for their position on the subject, and
their statements are entirely their own individual statements.
Senator WARREN. Of course, we know as members of committees
that that is frequently done, and that most of the stuff that comes
before the various committees on occasions look to the committees
as though it were prepared in this way.
Mr. MAGILL. That may be true; but it is not true in this case.
These are statements of these educators throughout the United
States, and they are individual, independent statements.
The CHAIRMAN. Can not we print some of them, and say that the
other statements are similar
Mr. MAGILL. Mr. Chairman, they are statements from the educa-
tional leaders in the various States, and they represent the States,
and the State is a pretty big unit in the United States, and they
speak in different language. They do not represent at all what
Senator Warren stated
Mr. Robsion. Do they express the same reasons for or against
the bill?
Mr. MAGILI. No. But they are uncompromisingly for an in-
dependent department of education. {-
Mr. Ropsion. Do they give the same reasons for that independent
department of education?
|Mr. MAGILL. No: they contain different reasons.
Senator SHORTRIDGE. What struck me was the use of the word
“submerge,” which appears to run all the way through those state-
ments. Possibly it was a mere coincidence. e
Senator PHIpps. It seems to me that the committee can only
accept these letters in any event as individual expressions of those
people. They can not assume to represent the entire State of New
York, for instance, or the people of a community who pay special
regard to educational matters. For instance, personally I do not
agree with what is contained in the telegram from the gentleman
100 Tº PARTIVIENT OF PUBLIC" WELFARE''.
from my State. So I can not conceive that it expresses the opinion
of the leading persons in educational matters in that community.
Mr. Town ER. I regret that I was not here at the time when this
committee adjourned, but when this committee did adjourn the state-
ment was made to me that the chairman of the committee said that
this day would be given to the educators in order that they could
make their showing as regards the opposition of education in
this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. We all agreed to that.
Mr. Town ER. You all agreed to that. Now, Mr. Magill tells me,
and the other leading educators that he has told you about, asking
and he also tells you, that he has sent to the State superintendents
them what their attitude was in regard to including education in this
proposed public welfare bill. Now, it certainly seems to me that it
is fair, and only fair, that these brief statements should be placed
in the record, and if any Senators would not be influenced by the
sentiment of the educators toward this bill, why, all right; but I
am inclined to think that they, perhaps, express more clearly the
views of the attitude of the educators than we could obtain in any
other way. These members of the committee of the Senate and
the House may read this testimony, and will know the attitude of the
educators, and it seems to me that we have a perfect right to know
what is the opinion of the educators regarding this proposition to
transfer eduaction from the Department of the Interior to the de-
partment of public welfare. I should think that it is no more than
a perfectly legitimate request to make.
The CHAIRMAN. Unless there is some objection to them, we will let
them go in. Of course, it is a question of expense. I expect that I
have had 400 telegrams about this maternity bill, and instead of
printing them in the record, we have just arranged them in a list and
stated what people were in opposition to the bill and what were for it.
for it.
Mr. MAGILL. When we were talking about this hearing to-day, it
was requested that we should not get too many, and I have limited
the number.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, put them in.
Mr. MAGILL. Dr. Chandler, president of William and Mary. He
was to speak here this morning. I think he was called back to Vir-
Sºl Illa.
Mr. Fess. Oh, yes; Dr. Chandler has written a statement and will
probably want that put in the record.
Mr. MAGILL. I am glad that you spoke of that; he told me that he
might be called back to Virginia. He was here last night. He asked
me if I would not be sure to see Dr. Fess and ask him for his state-
ment and let it be put in the record.
STATEMI:Nº OF OR. J. A. C. CHANDLER, PRESIDENT COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY,
WILLIAMSBURG, WA.
I understand that thore will be a hearing on Wednesday, May 18, at 10 o'clock
on the Towner-Sterling bill. I regret that I can not be present at the hearing.
The Townor-Sterling bill, as I view it, is the only bill before Congress that
meets the wishes of a vast majority of persons in the United States interested
in public education. There are two points of view in America relating to public
education. One aºint of view is that the public schools should be so Well devel-
oped that in .# the children of the American people will be Well trained as
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 101
American citizens in the broadest sense. The other point of view is that public
education is a necessary evil, and that nothing should be done in public schools
that it is possible for private schools to do. This second point of view of public
education is held by a minority, but at the same time this minority has made its
Voice heard so as to prevent in many cases progressive legislat, on, which will
lmake it possible for the American States to promote through the public schools
the types of education SO greatly to be desired.
I am deeply interested in seeing the Federal Government establish a depart-
ment of education to encourage education in the States. I believe that the
SubOrdination of educational matters under a ſlepartment of welfare will not
1) lee & the Conditions. In fact, I believe that with an assistallt Secretary pre-
Siding over a division not organized along the lines outlined in the Towner-
Sterling bill education from the standpoint of the Federal Government will
be 1m0re subordinate than at present. I much prefer, therefore, a commissioner-
ship of education and the Federal Board for Vocational Education as at
present constituted than their abolition assigning this important Work to an
assistant secretary in a department of public welfare. I hope, therefore,
that all reference to the Federal Board for Vocational Education and Com-
missioner of Education will be eliminated from the public-Welfare bill, thus
not transferring to the proposed department the educational activities Of the
Federal Government.
May I presume to make a suggestion—that you consider seriously the
establishment of two departments, one a department of education and the
other a department of public Welfare? If this is impracticable, may I make
a further suggestion—that in view of the fact that your present plans propose
to a limited extent to dismantle the Department Of the Interior you consider
chang ng the Department of the Interior into a departin:ent of , education,
transferring all pensions and kindred matters to a department of public welfare
and all land questions and kindred matters to the Department of Agriculture.
I know there are other bureaus also in the Department of the Interior, but
between agriculture and the department of public welfare I believe that they
could very readily be adjusted, thus making possible that the Interior Depart-
ment shall become the department Of education. I make this Suggestion Only
becauſe I know there is more or less objection to having too many departments.
However, my personal opinion as a citizen is that it would be more advisable
to have a Department of the Interior, a department of public welfare, and
a department of education ; in other words, to create two new departments.
In the meantime, however, as One deeply interested in education, I plea (; ... ith
you not to subordinate education. Give us a department of education if
possible, but if not do not abolish the Commissionership of Education and the
Federal Board for Vocational Education. I know that I Speak the Sentiments
of a great majority of those engaged in educational work, and I urge that
you will report favorably the Towner-Sterling bill.
Mr. MAGILL. I wish now to present Dr. W. C. Bagley.
STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM C. BAGLEY, TEACHERS’ COLLEGE,
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.
Mr. BAGLEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
come before the committee partly as the representative of the Na-
tional Education Association and as the editor of the Journal of the
National Education Association, but primarily as a student of the
educational problems, and particularly of the problem of preparing
and supplying teachers for our public schools. That is my duty—to
train teachers in the Teachers’ College of Columbia University.
Now, I object to this bill, and my objection to this bill, in addition
to those that have already been given, is that it will be interpreted by
he public-school people and by the teachers, and the administrators
of the public schools as really a defeat of their wishes and their pur-
pose, which they have frequently expressed, for a department of
education with a seat in the President's Cabinet. If this were a bill
102 DEPARTMENT OF PTUBLIC W ELFARE.
for a department of education and public welfare, I do not think
there would be much objection to it from the public-school people,
but I am convinced that there is a very decided objection to what
has been referred to as a submerging of education. I speak pri-
marily from the standpoint of a student of the problem of prepar-
ing and supplying teachers for the public-school service, and I would
like to refer very briefly to the difficulties that are being encountered
now in getting recruits for the public-school service.
As you probably know, the attendance of our normal schools have
fallen off very greatly during the past five years, due in part to the
war, due in part to the general tendency of the times. Education
has become less and less attractive for at least a decade as a profes-
sional calling. One of the reasons for this, and I think I speak ad-
visedly on this matter, because I have been engaged in studying the
problem in connection with investigations that have been made in
several of the States and of the cities. One of the reasons is the un-
productiveness of the profession, and One of the reasons is the lack
of recognition that it receives, and the lack of stimulation that it
gets.
I do not think that the public schools are selfish in their requests
for adequate recognition from the United States Government, and
they realize that the welfare of their cause depends upon this recog-
nition. It is not a recognition of them particularly, but it is a
recognition of the cause for which they are working, and every blow
at the profession of teaching is a blow at the cause, and every blow
at the cause is a blow at the children of the Nation.
I am quite sure that the transfer of the Bureau of Education in
the Department of the Interior, to another department, where it will
have no better status, will be looked upon as a blow at the profes-
sional wishes. I have been studying this problem, as I have said,
rather intimately during the past year, and I have just gone over
the returns of 2,000 teachers in a typical city system, and they almost
invariably state that they are strongly of the opinion that it is the
lack of recognition of the profession of teaching that is the great
obstacle.
The CHAIRMAN. It is the lack of salary, is it not?
Mr. BAGLEY. Lack of salary is a part of it, yes; Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. And is not that about all of it?
Mr. BAGLEY. Not all of it.
The CHAIRMAN. If they had more salary, they would get the recog-
nition, would they not? *-
Mr. BAGLEY. If they had recognition they would get more salary.
Senator WARREN. From what I see, and what I understand, of
course, it is the ambition of the educational people to have a depart-
ment of education alone. Now, is it the feeling of the educators that
the placing of the educational matters in the department of public
welfare instead of the Department of the Interior, is going to make
them better or worse, or, will it leave them the same. I understand
that their ambition is to have a separate department.
Mr. BAGLEY. Well, my point is that the transfer of the Bureau of
Education from the Department of the Interior to the department
of public welfare would not make matters any better, and it would
be interpreted by the public-school people as really a defeat of their
wishes.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 103
Senator WARREN. I think I may say that I understand the feeling
of Congress, and it is not to make more departments, because they
have a joint committee already appointed to lessen them, if they
can do so, and it is the idea of Congress to better the condition of
education if any movement is made to place it in a new department,
and I wanted to get a comparison as to the two alternatives, if there
are two alternatives, whether they should stay as they are, in the
Department of the Interior, or whether they should be placed in a
new department.
Mr. BAGLEY. I believe, myself, and those people with whom I
have talked have expressed the same belief, that it would be better
for education to remain in the Department of the Interior.
The CHAIRMAN. And what do you expect to do with it there?
Mr. BAGLEY. We are not going to stop working in the matter of
getting the public interested in a department of education.
Senator WARREN. I want to follow that up by saying that move-
ments are on foot now and studies are being made and interest is
growing rapidly to dissect the Department of the Interior and make
it up of these other departments, and that is a matter that I wish
you would consider along with that.
Mr. BAGLEY. I did not know with regard to that.
Senator WARREN. You must have seen something with regard to
to the department of public works, and that takes a portion of that,
and with regard to the reducing of the number, instead of going
above the present number of Cabinet officers, the reducing of the
number. I do not know as it will take place, but that seems to be
in the minds of some of the people. *=-
Mr. DALLINGER. Now, assuming that the Department of the In-
terior is abolished, would this be best to go into the department of
education or into the department of public welfare?
Mr. BAGLEY. I think that it would not make much difference
where it went if the Department of the Interior were abolished and
all of the divisions were distributed. That would be another matter.
But to take it up now, in the light of the work that has been done,
I am sure, if it were taken and put into the proposed department of
public welfare that it would be interpreted as a defeat of the wishes
of the educators.
Mr. FESs. Mr. Bagley, we have a great many commissioners, or in-
dependent commissions, responsible to one, and there is a move-
ment on foot to put them all under some one who will be near to the
President. That would indicate that the Bureau of Education, to-
gether with many others, are going somewhere in some department
other than the Interior Department, and what I wanted especially to
have you tell is what Senator Warren brought out, whether you think
that the bureau as it now is, a mere matter of statistics, and the head
of it must come to Congress and beg for pitable appropriations, and
it is always denied the appropriations, and some one on the floor of
the House says, “I hope to God that we can abolish the whole thing.”
Only last year the chairman of one of the prominent committees an-
swered in that way in answer to my question, “Are you willing to
abolish the Department of Education?” He answered, “I would to
God we could.” I am distressed if this is not a step in advance. If
this is not an improvement, I am ready to throw up my hands.
104 DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE.
Mr. BAGLEY. I am thinking, Congressman Fess, of the reaction
upon our profession, which is in a very critical condition.
Mr. FEss. I realize that.
Mr. BAGLEY. Our recruits are fewer and fewer and of the lowest
standard, and anything that we could do to stimulate public recog-
nition of the profession tends to the welfare of the Nation.
Mr. FESS. As you know, I am very sympathetic.
Mr. BAGLEY. i. that you are.
The CHAIRMAN. And it has been getting in that condition in the
Department of the Interior?
Mr. BAGLEY. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And it would be difficult to make it any worse
Mr. BAGLEY. My feeling is that it will be worse with the inter-
pretation which will go out that this is a defeat.
The CHAIRMAN. Defeat of what?
Mr. BAGLEY. A defeat of the wishes of the profession.
Senator WARREN. And it will go out that way if the leaders put
it out in that way, if the leaders of education put it out in that
way, but if they put it out in an entirely different way, I do not
know why the country should think that, and I wish to say that
I have not committed myself or my own mind either for or against
this proposition, but I do think, in justice to education and
to the educators, that they should consider the present situation
and the present prospects, in view of all of the changes that are
likely to be made, so as to get the best judgment on that. But as
I was saying to Mr. Fess, it is the most discouraging thing for one
who is on the Committee on Appropriations to obtain anywhere near
the appropriations through the consent of the members that are
asked for from year to year by the department of education, or
the Bureau of Education, and if there could be some stimulus or
more confidence somewhere, we might, through that means treat the
department a good deal better.
Mr. RoPSION. Is not the chief sentiment and effort of the educa-
tional interests of the Nation centered around this department of
education? That is their greatest objective, and they feel that if
they can not get substantial recognition in that way, that they will
have no recognition at all.
Mr. BAGLEY. I think you have expressed the feeling very accu-
ratelv.
Mr. Robston. I mean, beginning with the county organizations that
have acted upon it, and going to the State organizations and the
National organizations that have centered around this great thought,
a department of education.
Mr. BAGLEY. Yes, sir; and that is why I maintain that anything
less than that at the present time will be interpreted as a blow—
Mr. PARKs. The doctor continues to say that it will be interpreted
as a blow or as a defeat. As a matter of fact, will it not be a defeat
for education, and will it not be interpreted as a defeat?
Mr. BAGLEY. My own feeling is that it will be.
Mr. PARKs. That is what I mean. *
Senator WARREN. And you propose to educate the people up to
that idea, which would, of course, hardly benefit the educational
people unless you should at once succeed in obtaining recognition,
DEPARTMENT OF PuF3LIC WELFARE. 105
which is more than problematical. I am saying this in perfect
frankness, and I would like to have you people disabuse yourselves
of this idea, that this is a blow to education, or a blow like that,
and I would like to find out about it. It seems to me that——
Mr. Town ER. Will Dr. Bagley permit me to make a little state-
Iſlent.
Mr. BAGLEY. I would be very glad to have you, Judge Towner.
Mr. Town ER. I do not think that there is any purpose on the part
of the educators to try to defeat this bill, whatever they may think
about it. They are simply asking that the educational section of the
bill shall be withdrawn from consideration.
Now, let me say right here, and I am very glad of the opportunity
for saying it when the general is present, and I am very glad, indeed,
that he comes to us, and I do not see how any man could have a
higher purpose or work more disinterestedly or more assiduously for
the securement of what he supposes to be the very best, and I would
not for anything try to discourage this work, but he and the mem-
bers of the committee must, I think, appreciate the situation. Here
are the educators of the country, who have been at work for a number
of years to establish an independent department of the Government.
They say here that every other nation of the world has given primary
recognition to education, but the United States, as a Government,
has never given any. Senator Warren has well expressed the atti-
tude of both the Senate and the House with regard to education.
Now, the educational people say that they would make an offer to
remedy that condition and they have done it by introducing for con-
sideration a bill to create a separate department of education. That
bill has been before Congress for two or three years, and has been
receiving very remarkable recognition and consideration. It is not
only an educational proposition now. It is receiving consideration,
as shown to you by the statements made to you by millions and
millions of the people of the United States through organizations
and otherwise, and they are asking—and their accumulated strength
is wonderful—that you give to the educational interest of the country
primary recognition, more than has ever been done before.
Now, while this legislation is pending and while this work is going
on, along comes this proposition here to establish a department of
public welfare to include education, but it keeps it in the same sub-
ordinate position that it is now in in the Interior Department; it
may be that it will be slightly better or it may be that it will be
slightly worse if it goes into the department of welfare than it is
now in the Department of the Interior. I don’t know. But at any
rate it is not what the educators desire and it is not what the people
of the country who have supported this proposition desire, and there-
fore they just simply say, “Take it out from the public welfare bill.”
We do not want to be placed in the attitude of objecting to the welfare
bill, but take it out and let the educators and the people of the coun-
try who believe in primary recognition—let them present their claims
and let them be adjudicated and passed on with a fair hearing but not
taken out in this almost imperative way from consideration.
Now, let me say this to the gentlemen of the committee: We passed
at the last session of Congress an act or a joint resolution of the
House and the Senate for the purpose of reorganizing all of the
executive departments of the Government, and that committee is at
106 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
work now. It has hired experts, and the representatives are at work
on this proposition and are now giving consideration to the proposi-
tion. This bill, of course, anticipates their action. It reorganizes
two or three of the departments almost completely.
Now, if this welfare bill should become a law, I suppose that the
committee on reorganization, too, will have to consider the whole
proposition, because it needs to be considered. Now, we have taken
this position in regard to that—just as soon as we appreciated the
fact that this reorganization committee was at work, we proposed not
to make any transfers ourselves from the various departments, but we
left that to the bill to be determined primarily by this reorganization
committee and then by Congress, so that they might act as they see fit.
There is no question, that whoever acts in regard to this matter will
bring together the various educational activities of the Government.
That will be done and should be done.
Now, as to whether or not the head of that department should be
a mere bureau chief or a secretary, that we are perfectly willing to
allow to be done by the committee and by Congress, and we expect to
show—the friends of our proposition who are working on behalf of
education—that it is of such primary importance that it deserves pri-
mary recognition. Now, that is the position we are in. We are com-
pelled either to abandon the effort for an independent department of
Government, that has been made and for which so much work was
done and so much interest is already involved, or we are compelled
to ask that education, shall be withdrawn from this welfare bill.
That is the position of the educators.
Mr. MAGILL. I want to introduce some evidence from the friends
of education who are not educators but who are friends of the bill
for a department of education. These persons are from all parts of
the United States, where they have carried forward this movement.
It is not necessary for us to say anything in order to stir them up
to action. They have reached their convictions
Mr. LowREY. May I ask a question right here?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. LowREY. It was remarked a moment ago, by a gentleman, that
he could take or consider the opinions of the city superintendents as
expressing the will of the people. Is it not true that the educators,
speaking through their county conventions, their State conventions,
and their various organizations of every kind, down to the public
school teachers of the country, have pretty well expressed themselves
on this, and that we have gotten the unanimous consideration from
the educators?
Mr. MAGILL. I think that is true. Here is a telegram from Mrs.
Thomas G. Winter
The CHAIRMAN. Have you a large number of witnesses here?
Mr. MAGILL. No ; only a few witnesses. I wish these telegrams
could go in as statements. There is one from Mrs. Thomas G. Win-
ter, president of the General Federation of Women's Clubs.
STATEMENT OF MRS. THOMAS G. WINTER, PRESIDENT GENERAL FEDERATION OF
WOMEN'S CLUBS, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.
The general federation is heartily in accord with your policy. Please use
our name and influence to urge the removal of education from the public
welfare department and our demand that educational interests shall not be
submerged by any other phase of Work.
IDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 107
STATEMENT OF MRS. EDWARD FRANKLIN WEIITE, CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF LEGIS-
LATION, GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS.
The General Federation of Women’s Clubs strongly favors a separate de-
partment Of educat. On in the Cabinet, as provided in the Towner education
bill. We urge that education be withdrawn from the proposed public welfare
bill, that its economic and educational advantages may be fully developed.
STATEMENT OF MINNIE J. NIELSON, CHAIRMAN DIVISION OF EDUCATION, GENERAL
FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, AND STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC IN-
STRUCTION OF NORTH DAKOTA, DRAKE, N. DAIX.
I am unalterably opposed to submerging education in a subordinate division
Of a department of public Welfare. The business of educating the future Citi-
Zens Of this Republic is the biggest business before this Nation. NO democracy
is safe unless the masses of the people are educated. Therefore, the public
Schools must not be given second place to anything. We are solidly back Of
the Towner-Sterling bill and Will never give up until it passes.
STATEMENT OF MRS. GEORGE P. HOMNES, DISTRICT PRESIDENT THIRD DISTRICT FED-
ERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS OF NORTH DAKOTA, DRAKE, N. DAIK.
The Third District Federation of Women’s Clubs of North Dakota, in Con-
vention assembled at Drake, N. Dak., urge the passage of the Towner-Ster-
ling bill. We Oppose the relegating of education to an inferior position as a
subdivision in the department of public welfare, and we urge an independent
department of education with a Secretary in the President's Cabinet.
STATEMENT OF DAVID G. DOWNEY, BOOK EDITOR, METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH,
150 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK CITY.
I am taking the liberty of addressing you with respect to the proposed new
bills on education and public welfare.
It seems to me that it would be exceedingly unfortunate to include SO im-
portant a matter as education under the proposed department of public Wel-
fare. I am strongly of the belief that a subject of such vital import to the
Nation deserves an independent department of the Government With a re-
sponsible Cabinet Officer, as provided in the Towner-Sterling bill.
STATEMENT OF SAMUEL GOMPERS, PRESIDENT AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR.
In 1918 the American Federation of Labor advanced the principles Set
forth in the Towner-Sterling educational bill for the formation of a depart-
ment of education. A bill was then presented in CongreSS the same year at
the request of the American Federation of Labor and the American Federa-
tion of Teachers known as the Towner educational bill, H. R. 15400.
The American Federation of Labor will therefore support the Towner-
Sterling educational bill in accordance with the action of the convention Of
1918, 1919, and 1920.
STATEMENT OF MRS. GEORGE MAYNARD MINOR, PRESIDENT-GENERAL NATIONAL SO-
CIETY, DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
The National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, have earnestly
indorsed and are standing back of the Smith-Tower education bill (now
Towner-Sterling bill) for creating a department of education.
I believe the best interest of the country would be served by a Separate
department of education, and would therefore urge that education be elimi-
nated from the public-welfare department bill. I hope that this may be a C-
Complished.
Mr. MAGILL. I would like to present a resolution adopted by the
National League of Masonic Clubs in convention assembled at
Washington, D. C., May 10, 1921.
108 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
(The resolution above referred to is here printed in the record in
full, as follows:) e
Whereas the foundation of civilization is education, and the late war demon-
Strated that this country has all too many illiterate men of our own race ; and
Whereas the steadily flowing tide of immigration has greatly increased the
number Of foreign-born illiterates in Our great cities who are compelled to
rely on foreign-language newspapers for their information in regard to
Our American institutions and ideals; and
Whereas the bill now before both Houses Of Congress known as the Towner-
Sterling bill aims to remedy these evils: Therefore, be it
ReSolved, That the National League of Masonic Clubs, in convention assem-
bled, heartily indorses this bill and urges On both Houses of Congress its
early passage, and that the Secretary forward Congressman Towner the
names and addresses of the secretaries of the respective clubs affiliatel with
the National League of Masonic Clubs, together with the total membership of
Such clubs, and that Congressman Towner be requested to mail as many copies
of the Towner-Sterling bill to the secretary of each club as will be necessary
to Supply each member a copy of said bill.
Mr. MAGILL. I would also like to offer a communication from the
Supreme Council of Sovereign Grand Inspectors-General, thirty-
third and last degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of
Freemasonry, for the United States of America, their Territories
and dependencies, Grand Orient, New York City.
(The communication referred to is here printed in the record in
full, as follows:)
BEVERLY, MAss., October 27, 1920.
Mr. H. M. Town ER, M. C.,
Washington, D. C.
HONORABLE AND DEAR SIR : At the one hundred and thirteenth annual SeS-
Sion of the above-named supreme Council held in Boston, Mass., October 26,
1920, Our SOvereign grand commander, in his allocution, recommended that
the Council indorse and advocate the Smith-TOwner educational bill now pend-
ing in the Congress of the United States, which recommendation was unani-
mously adopted as the only American educational measure worthy of the
name. As grand secretary general, I was unanimously instructed to forward
Copies to the honorable gentlemen whose names honor this bill.
Given at Beverly, Mass., this 27th day of October, 1920, and of our rite the
One hundred and thirteenth.
HERMAN P. BRETT,
Grand Secretary General.
The CHAIRMAN. They do not oppose the public welfare bill?
Mr. MAGILL. No ; they merely state that they are unequivocally
for an independent department of education, with a member of the
President’s Cabinet at its head.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the whole question, isn’t it, that while
you are not opposed to this, you fear that this bill will make it more
difficult for you to secure a Cabinet position?
Mr. MAGILL. Well, that is not the whole of our objection, but it is
a part of it. The people of the country have lined up for a depart-
ment of education.
Senator WALSH. Isn’t it really a question that you have not
enough money? If you could get money enough, you could obtain
the recognition
Mr. MAGILL. No; I think that it is a question of leadership and in-
fluence. I would like to ask that Mr. A. Lincoln Filene, of Boston,
chairman of the national committee for a department of education,
make a statement at this time. His work is known throughout the
country.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC welfaRE. L09
STATEMENT OF MR. A. LINCOLN FILENE, CHAIRMAN OF THE NA-
- TIONAL COMMITTEE FOR A DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
Mr. FILENE. I think it is perfectly clear that a very large number
of associations and individuals are interested in this bill. I would
like to emphasize what I think all the other speakers tried to em-
phasize, namely, that this hearing is not to be considered as being
opposed to a public welfare department. It is to bring before your
committee, the need, in the minds of these people and associations,
of separating education, and asking that it be withdrawn from this
bill, in order that the bill that we are interested in and have been
interested in from a time 50 years ago, when we first started to get
a separate department of education, shall have a chance to be really
heard, this bill which has for its object a separate department of
education under a Cabinet officer.
My interest personally in this matter started some 10 or 12 years
ago when we started our first movement, when Mr. Fisher was in
the Cabinet, to try to impress upon the administration at that time
that the educators, business men, economists, and social workers in
the country individually believed that education would not come into
its right place until it was brought up with a Cabinet heading, and
I think it is fair to say that had we been able at that time to con-
vince the powers that were that that should have been done, that we
would now be in a somewhat different position in this country. Such
things as illiteracy, as an illustration, I think we would not have had
the problem of 25 per cent of the enlisted men being illiterate, and
numerous other problems which confront us now in education. I
think that our electorate would have been a great deal more intelli-
gent if we could have taken care of our remote spots in education, as
well as in our larger cities and towns. . In other words, I think that
the effort made some years ago to get this department brought up to
where it ought to be, to a place, as far as I am informed, every en-
lightened country in the world has brought it, a separate department
with a Cabinet officer sitting in the Cabinet, whose whole functioning
is education, and who would be able to present to his fellow members
of that body the needs of the country as represented through an indi-
vidual whose whole time was given to nothing but studying the needs
of education of the country as a whole, that in the appropriations
and budgets, which we are now getting in the United States Govern-
ment, the fact that we had a Cabinet officer in that particular posi-
tion who could present his independent reasons why money should be
expended for the purpose in education, would make all the difference
in the world as to our educational progress in the future.
I have listened with a great deal of interest—irst, let me say that
I do not set myself up as an educational expert, so that if allestion:
are put to me about education from an expert standpoint I will prob-
ably fail utterly.
Senator WALSH. You are a member of the Massachusetts State
Board of Education, are you not?
Mr. FILENE. Yes, sir. º º
The CHAIRMAN. And can you answer the Fdison questions?
Mr. FILENE. I am very sure that I could not.
The CHAIRMAN. That will not disqualify you here.
110 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
Mr. FILENE. Some of these questions that have been put to the
others, it seems to me, from the members around this board, indicate
a kind of an approach to this problem that a group of business men
would have, the mental reaction of the statements that you have been
hearing, but there are one or two of them that I would like to say a
word about.
I do not think that you gentlemen, looking at the people who are
coming before you this morning, think that really we are so guileless
that we do not know when a Senator or Congressman is flooded with
a pile that high of telegrams that somebody inspires, that they are
destined for the waste-paper basket, and therefore we have taken
particular pains not to put in anybody’s mouth the statements that
they are making before your committee. The fact that word “sub-
merged '' is used could be accounted for, I suppose, because it is
rather indicative of what is in the minds of the people who make
these statements, and certainly because it is a word of common use.
The word “normalcy.” is a word that is generally used throughout
this country at the present time, pretty generally used, and there has
never been any doubt—
Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes; with about 7,000,000 majority.
Mr. FILENE. Yes, sir. -
Mr. BANKHEAD. And somebody got “submerged.”
Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes; somebody did.
Mr. FILENE. I want to make a quotation a little later, realizing
that perhaps a gentleman prominent in the other party, the Demo-
cratic Party, might not be particularly popular at this moment, but
Secretary Lane made a statement a short time ago, when he was
retiring from his office, and it seems to me that we could accept it on
the basis that this is a big problem, too big a problem to play politics
with. That it is a problem that interests all of the country, and my
answer to some of the questions, namely, a question as to whether I
would like to see this left where it is rather than to have it go where
it more or less seems to be headed, I answer that question in this
way, that there is involved in the question the status of the present
commissioner. There is no proof that if we leave education where
it is just for the present and ask to have it taken out of this bill that
there are more departments going to be recommended to this Govern-
ment by this reorganization commission. We might have five depart-
ments—I do not know; we may have six, one after the other. I
know that I went to Senator Smoot personally, and I asked him
whether there was any objection on the part of his Reorganization
Committee to our pushing for the Towner-Sterling bill, and he ex-
pressed his personal opinion about the bill, and when I asked him
that question very distinctly, he said he did not see how his com-
mittee could make any objection to us going ahead.
The CHAIRMAN. What committee was he talking about?
Mr. FILENE. The Committee on Reorganization. Now, I do not
think that we can sit here and decide as to whether if education is
left where it is, and we get a separate department of education, that
we are necessarily going to have more departments and more organi-
zations in the country. All I ask for my group—and it is a step
forward for our interests of 10 or 12 years ago before this Smith-
Towner bill was introduced—all I ask is this, that you recognize
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 111
that there is evidence enough from the matters put before you here,
of individuals and of associations, running up into the millions and
millions of people in this country, that the conviction of years still
stand, that they want a separate department of education. All we
are asking for is that that particular question shall be handled on
its merits and not submerged while we are handling it into another
great problem, such as this problem of the public-welfare depart-
ment will be. Education must not be submerged—and submerged is
not a big enough word—but the job put into this welfare department
as it is outlined, as far as I can read what it means, is so much that
an assistant or a commissioner of education would not be heard from
very often. Now, what we ask is that the country get the chance to
present to your committee what it wants. My faith in democracy
is large enough so I believe when we can express to you through all
of these associations, to which we can add individuals, to which, I
am very sure, after we have the time to organize we can add the busi-
ness men of the country in a very large measure, we will get what
the people want. When the Smith-Hughes bill went over it went
over because we did exactly the same thing that we are endeavoring
to do now through this organization, to get the real voice of the
people before you gentlemen here on the hill. That is all we ask.
Mr. FEss. You are the only witness up to date that is not directly
connected in some way with the profession of teaching, and those
who have preceded you would speak more or less from a professional
or a selfish standpoint. Now, I want to put a question to you, and it
is, assuming that we can not have a department of education separate
and apart, with its head in the Cabinet, would it be better, from
your standpoint, to leave this where it is rather than to place it in
the proposed bill?
Mr. FILENE. I thought that I had answered that question, but I
will try to make myself clear. In the first place, with the persons
behind this movement for a separate department, I do not think
that we have any right to make that assumption. I think that when
the forces behind this bill make their wishes clear to you gentlemen
and to your colleagues in both Houses they will get what they want.
An assumption of that kind in the development of this discussion—
that we can not have a separate department of education—is not
justifiable. But I will answer the question personally as near as I
can. If you make another step and take education from where it is,
naturally the psychological reaction of this country is going to be
that, since Congress won’t change it this year, it doesn’t know what
it wants, and there is no chance for education at all under those cir-
cumstances. You take an executive in the State or country and get a
$500 increase for him this year, and then bring it to your Ways and
Means Committee next year, and he will be turned down because it
will mean another raise of his wages. Education is too big a thing
to be the battledore and shuttlecock in that way. I know that you are
in sympathy with our work. Of course, this is a question of a sep-
arate department of education.
Mr. FEss. My sympathy is all right, but my enthusiasm is con-
siderably diminished.
Mr. FILENE. My enthusiasm is getting stronger and stronger for
this bill every day, and I believe it is going through, because the
country is going to demand it.
112 DEPARTMENT OF PUBI,IC WELFARE.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Calling attention to the fact that both the Senate
and the House committees at the last session favorably reported it, I
rather share the opinion expressed by the witness, and I do not see
why it should be assumed that we can not put it over yet.
Mr. FILENE. I am as reasonably sure as I can be, when the great
majority of the people in the United States take the pains to make
this clear as to what they want, that their representatives on the hill
will be only too glad to give them what they want. Congress will
get from their constituents a really clear conception of what their
wishes are, and they will put it over.
The ºnammas. You are not opposed to the public welfare bill,
8,I'ê VOUl
M. FILENE. I am not, but I could say something about welfare.
The CHAIRMAN. Your deeds in that regard have spoken louder
than anything that you could say. But what you want is to have edu-
cation represented in an educational department—a separate depart-
ment?
Mr. FILENE. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And that is all.
Mr. FILENE. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And you want to leave it out from this bill, from
the public welfare bill, because you feel that it might delay you in
getting education in a separate department by itself.
Mr. FILENE. I do, sir; I am willing to take my chances, and I
think that I can put six millions of people behind it.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, don’t you think that this would be a step in
advance, putting it in this bill, that it might help you to get a sepa-
rate department?
Mr. FILENE. I do not believe that it would be a step. I think
that it would be a step back. It would be just like in my business
taking a division from where it is and putting it into another de-
partment where it would be submerged and forgotten about. It
might be a good thing to argue about, but it would not work that
Wà V.
ºie CHAIRMAN. Of course, it all depends on the enthusiasm that
is put behind it.
Mr. FILENE. We have had the enthusiasm for the last 12 years.
We have been working on it for 12 years.
The CHAIRMAN. You Say that you have been working on it for the
last 50 years.
Mr. FILENE. No; not myself; I have not been working at it for
50 years, but the National Educational Association indorsed this
separate department idea in 1866. They call it by courtesy now, I
understand, a bureau, and at that time they made it the office of
education. I simply referred to that movement.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, suppose you can not get it. I am just as
much for it as you are.
Mr. FILENE. I know that.
The CHAIRMAN. And suppose you can not get it, do you think
it would be better to develop it along the lines proposed here than to
leave it where it is now? - *
Mr. FILENE. I do not think so. I want to take my chances with
the reorganization committee. -
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 113
Senator WALSH. Why, then, have you not gotten it before? Is
it not for the simple reason that the money has not been given to the
Bureau of Education?
Mr. FILENE. I do not think so.
Senator WALSH. Then you think that leadership is more impor-
tant than money?
Mr. FILENE. Yes; give me the strength of leadership and I will
get the money for anything worth while.
Mr. REED. Are you familiar with the opposition to the Smith-
Towner bill; do you know where it is coming from ?
Mr. FILENE. I know some of the opposition; yes, sir.
Mr. REED. And do you know where that opposition is now, since
the proposition has been made to put this into a welfare bureau?
Mr. FILENE. I do not know what particular opposition you have
reference to. I know that certain of the college presidents of the
country, whose educational faculties differ with them entirely, have
made the statement that they are not in favor of this. And every
college president, I desire to say, is honest in his conviction, as I am
honest in my conviction, but the records show that they have been
very conservative. You take the Harvard University. President
Lowell is opposed to a separate department, while members of his
faculty are for it. Take Nicholas Murray Butler
Mr. FEss. That expresses the situation in Congress. Those sym-
pathetic for education are for it—
Mr. FILENE. That is simply because the thing has not been put
before them by their constituency, directly put before them, and when
they hear from their constituency they will be for it the same as you
are and Senator Kenyon.
Mr. ROBSION. They will hear from home?
Mr. FILENE. Yes, sir; they will hear from home.
Mr. FESS. The departments of education in all of the universities
are for a separate department, while the university at large is not.
Mr. FILENE. The gentlemen at the head in some cases are against it.
It is just like a good many other things. It is what we are suffering
from in all social and economic life. Their organization has grown
So big that the fellow at the head loses touch with those below, and
his opinion is not the opinion to be taken in these matters.
I want to see everyone of these telegrams printed, so you gentle-
men can know that the people whom you represent stand for these
things. I have not any doubt whatever that down under the ranks—
in the first place, I think probably in nine-tenths of the colleges of
this country, the presidents are for this bill, for a separate depart-
ment of education.
Mr. DALLINGER. Now, let me ask you are you in favor of abolish-
ing the educational board and putting all of that work under the
department of education?
Mr. FILENE. I think that after we have once established a cabinet
officer in a separate department of education, that we can depend
upon him, with the present tendency for us to do our Government
business in a business-like manner. We won’t have the matters per-
taining to education scattered all over the departments at Washing-
ton.
49824–21—S
114 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
Mr. DALLINGER. How about the vocational education and rehabili-
tation work for the soldiers? Do you think that that should be under
the department of education? -
Mr. FILENE. The educational portion of it, I suppose, should be.
Mr. DALLINGER. But that is but temporary education?
Mr. FILENE. Yes, sir.
Mr. DALLINGER. But let us take the rehabilitation of persons in-
jured in industries.
Mr. FILENE. I think that there are men in the War Department
who could carry on the functions of education, and yet have a cabi-
net officer of education, who would have to do with the subject. The
administrative work should be in the War Department itself, its
direction and inception and expansion and organization and stand-
ardization or anything of that kind. It would be possible for the
War Department through its own organization to carry it through.
Mr. FESS. Let me ask you what is the attitude of the agricultural
interests in all of the State universities toward our bill? Should
education of the agricultural type be transferred to the department
of education?
k Mr. FILENE. I have not gone into that, Mr. Fess, and I do not
In OW.
Mr. FESS. There is opposition to that.
Mr. FILENE. You see, in some of the State colleges we have all the
different lines of education coming together in a centralized college,
and that is so large a question that I do not consider myself compe-
tent to answer it.
Mr. FEss. There were three lines of education that it has been said
could not be put into the department of education—one, vocational
training in the Army, and another, vocational training in the Navy,
and the third is the matter of the educational work now under the
Pºnent of Agriculture where the land-grant colleges are admin-
istere
Mr. FILENE. My answer would be this, that if we once created a
department of education and made it as important as finance and
distribution and production and tariff and all of the rest, so that it
gets into the people's minds as important as that; that everyone of
those questions will be answered by experience. It will take some
little time for us to decide whether everything pertaining to educa-
tion should go into that department. My idea is to have organiza-
tion, and that has always been my idea, and I have frequently found
it necessary to leave out of organization some separate department,
some natural thing that would go up through the line, because there
is an experimental stage. But whether that would be so in the first
year of the department of education I do not know.
Mr. DALLINGER. Mr. Filene, supposing there was an opposition to
the creation of a new department of any kind. What would you say
in regard to the question of changing the name of the Department of
Labor to the department of education and labor?
Mr. FILENE. I do not want to be led into controversies on questions
of that sort. I have the same objection to answering that, because it
would be a superficial answer, as I would as to whether or not the
public welfare department is right at this time. It would take me
six months or a year to make up my mind as to whether this proposi-
tion is essentially right. So I do not think that I ought to make any
DEPARTMENT of PUByro weLFARE. 115
Statement, or could make any statement, that would be worth any-
thing, as to whether you can take the department of education and
the Department of Labor and throw them together, and I think any
statement that I would make would be useless to you. I am for this
group, who have stood for years and years, that the way to make this
educational feature is to have a separate department with a Cabinet
officer having full charge of the cause of education. I do not believe
in merging with anything, and I do not think that the millions of
people who are asking us to represent them here want it merged with
anything, and they would not approve of its being merged with any-
thing, and I think we have made it plain to you gentlemen that this
country does not want it merged with anything.
Senator SHORTRIDGE. May I ask you this question, and I wish you
to understand that by putting this question to you it is not to be
inferred that I entertain a view one way or the other, but I want to
develop some reasons. There was a witness, or a gentleman who
appeared before us here, as I understood him, who said that he would
not object to this bill or this department if it was to be known as the
department of education and public welfare. Now, is it or is it not
a mere matter of words, namely, whether it be a department of public
welfare, which would seem to include educational matters, or a de-
partment of education, or a department of education and public
welfare? Do you attach any importance to the words?
Mr. FILENE. I do not attach so much importance to the words as
I do to acts. If you should make it a department of public welfare
or a department of education or a department of labor and attach
to it work which would submerge the interests of education, then I
should object to it. All we want is a chance to show whether or not
this country, whether your constituents want a department of educa-
tion with a Cabinet officer at its head whose time is given entirely
to education. I think we can stand on that and stand on the merits
of our contention. If we are wrong, then we will go into the fight
for the other thing just as strongly as we are fighting for a separate
department, but I do not think that we are wrong.
Senator WALSH. In the reorganization of these departments in the
State of Massachusetts, where was the board of education placed?
Mr. FILENE. Just where it has always been, Senator, only they
ºght into it a lot of other things, some of which they should not
3, Vé.
Senator WALSH. And is the Board of Education of Massachusetts
an unpaid board?
Mr. FILENE. Yes, sir; and it has no power, Governor, since your
dav.
Senator WALSH. The commissioners of education?
Mr. FILENE. Yes, sir; and it has no power since your day.
Senator WALSH. And they choose the commissioner of education?
Mr. FILENE. But we are only an advisory board, with no power
at all. We are not as wise as when you were there, Senator.
b Senator WALSH. You are an unpaid board, which was appointed
Iſle
'Nº. FILENE. Yes, sir.
Senator WALSH. And the board of education in 1914 or 1915
Selected a commission of education as an unpaid board of nine mem-
116 DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE.
bers. At the present time you have a commissioner of education
named by the governor with an unpaid advisory board?
Mr. FILENE. Yes, sir.
Senator WALSH. And which system is the better? x
Mr. FILENE. Having put myself behind the present board, I can
not very well argue against it. It is too new. While we have the
present incumbent there is no question, it would not make any
difference either way. But if we can have it long enough, so that
the influence is strong enough, I do not think it will eventually
make any difference in Massachusetts, because I do not think any
governor will fool with politics in the matter of the commissioner
of education.
Senator WALSH. I still say that it depends on the personnel and
the head of the bureau or department, rather than the department
in making the department efficient—
Mr. FILENE. Do not let me take a moment more of your time, if
we have convinced you that this should be a separate department
of education. I think that the same interests have convinced this
country that this separate department ought to be established; I
think that those interests will help to convince the powers that be of
the justice of this. We could put up a half dozen men, from which
the President can intelligently choose, and in this way we can main-
tain the best standards in the country.
The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Filene.
How many more have you, Mr. Magill?
Mr. MAGILL. There are quite a few more to be heard, and the time
is getting short.
The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead as fast as you can.
Mr. MAGILL. I wish to ask Mrs. Bagley, who was a member of the
platform committee of the Republican national convention, and also
a member of the campaign committee, to make a statement. -
STATEMENT OF MES, FREDERICK. P. BAGLEY.
Mrs. BAGLEY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I
am here representing the Republican women of Massachusetts. I
am not representing all of them at the present time, but perhaps if
you gentlemen will give us a little time we will show you that I am
representing a very large number of them. But I have here the
credentials of the executive board of the Republican State committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you speaking for the Republican State com-
mittee ?
Mrs. BAGLEY. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. The Republican State committee has authorized
you to appear here and speak for them?
Mrs. BAGLEY. The woman's division of the Republican State com-
mittee.
The CHAIRMAN. The woman's division of the Republican State
committee? - {º
Mrs. BAGLEY. Yes, sir; the woman's division of the Republican
State committee.
The CHAIRMAN. And are you a member of that body? . © a tº -
Mrs. BAGLEY. I have been the chairman of the American citizen-
ship committee of the State committee.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC welfaRE. 117
The CHAIRMAN. And has the committee had any meeting on this?
Mrs. BAGLEY. Yes; they have had. About three weeks ago, I
would like to explain, the rumor then was that there was to be a
public-welfare department, and with that in view the members of
the executive committee and those who led in the last Republican
campaign were called together, and without any preparation what-
ever the proposition endangering, we felt, the cause of education by
submerging it under a department of public welfare, was presented,
and without any hesitation whatever the response was unanimous,
and they asked me at that time to come to Washington, and sent
with me another member of the State committee, and we to ask the
men of Massachusetts, the Republican men, to allow us to express
their opinion. They did not want the department of education
under the department of public welfare, and I am again here as their
representative, and we earnestly and very respectfully ask that edu-
cation be withdrawn from the department of public welfare.
The CHAIRMAN. You are not opposing the department of public
welfare bill?
Mrs. BAGLEY. Not at all; far from it; and we urge, we would like
to See—because of the great interest involved we should like to see it,
but we do not want education under it. &
Mr. ROBSION. Now, if this bill can not pass without putting edu-
cation in it, if the friends of public welfare understood it in that
manner, what would be your suggestion as to whether the friends of
education would be for or against the bill?
Mrs. BAGLEY. I have not gotten that far. I want now simply to
put ourseives on record that we hope that this department of edu-
cation will not be put under the department of public welfare.
Mr. ROBSION. And if it carries education with it you have a dif-
ferent view in regard to your support of the department of public
welfare?
Mrs. BAGLEY, I have not. I feel that perhaps a few of you busy
people realize that a pretty strong campaign has been carried on for
the past three years for a separate department of education with a
minister at the head.
Mr. ROBSION. I suppose that you do not understand me. If this
bill carried with it the department of education, and had to carry
that with it, you would have a different view in regard to this bill?
Mrs. BAGLEY. I have not studied it enough from that standpoint to
reply to your question. My feeling is now that you should withdraw
the department of education from the department of public welfare,
and then give us a chance to see whether or not we can not win the
country to such an extent that when we ask for a separate depart-
ment of education that we will get it. I do not think that the average
person realizes
Mr. DALLINGER. What do you mean by the “average ’’ person?
Mrs. BAGLEY. As I Say, we want a chance to see whether or not we
can not win the country, so that we can get a separate department of
education. Now, I will answer your question about the average
people. I do feel that the women of American have specially fo-
cused on this particular question of education. It always has been
a woman's particular interest, and the proof is in the great indorse-
ment that we have from practically all of the great organizations
of women in the country, and we have at every national convention
118 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
indorsed this bill. I would like to say, too, that it is not in the
nature of simply following a leadership, but this subject of educa-
tion has been a matter of prolonged and earnest study in their city
classes, and it run along from year to year and always with increased
enthusiasm, so now it is not too much to say that this enthusiasm is
at high tide and represents the organized woman vote of this country.
Senator WARREN. May I ask you there, It is your belief, is it not,
and your ambition, too, that you should have at the head of that
department a woman?
rs. BAGLEY. Not at all. I do not stand on sex in the matter of
the person who shall be placed at the head of a department, but I do
stand on efficiency. If there should be a woman who stood out be-
yond all others as a proper head, then I should say she might be put
there, but I do not thing—nor do I think that the łºś. WOIOleIn
of Massachusetts think that way—that that is a mater hat should
enter into this question at all.
Senator WARREN. I asked you that more in line with what you have
stated, to the effect that the women are more directly interested in
this matter.
The CHAIRMAN. You do thing that a woman would be as well
tualified to head the department as a man would be?
Mrs. BAGLEY. I am not so very sure of that personally. I think
that that is really a question of securing the proper person, regardless
of whether it is a man or a woman. I think that we hardly realize
that we are behind all the other countries—England, France, Italy,
Norway, Sweden, all of the countries which rank with us in civiliza-
tion. All have a department of education with a cabinet minister,
and we do believe that more than any other country our country needs
such a department, for the reason that we have such a very vast area
of square miles, and we have such a very diverse population, and also
we have a very great variation of wealth in the different States.
These are the reasons why we stand for a separate department of
education and for its withdrawal from the department of public
welfare, and I would like to read just one telegram, just to show
that it is not one of the rubber-stamp kind, and also because it so
well expresses my own view on this subject. This is from the New
York League of Women Voters, the executive board of the New
York State League of Women Voters. It reads:
Executive board of the New York State League of Women Voters has for-
merly recommended to its Constituency throughout the State indorsement of a
department of education with a Secretary of education in the Cabinet as pro-
vided in the Towner-Sterling bill. The executive board has further gone on
record as thoroughly opposed to the proposed Federal Department of Public
Welfare. The undersigned hope and urge that efforts be unremitting for the
bill providing for a Federal department of education. We believe that if edu-
cational opportunities are thus standardized in all sections of the country as
provided in Towner bill the real cause of many of our present social problems
will have been removed. The United States should swiftly join the other
great nations of the earth in assuming national responsibility for standard of
ºilblic school education. Signed Mrs. Frank A. Vanderlip, president New York
state League Women Voters; Mrs. Gordon Norrie, vice president; Esther
*verett Lape, chairman, committee of American Citizenship, New York State
League of Women Voters.
The CHAIRMAN. We are very glad to have heard from you, madam.
Mr. MAGILL. There are quite a number here who could make their
statements, but of course we do not want to trespass upon the time
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 119
of the committee, and it might be that a discussion of the statements
would take us over the hour allotted us. . .
The CHAIRMAN. How many members of the House can remain a
few minutes. We might run until half-past 12. You may pro-
ceed, Mr. Magill.
Mr. MAGILL. We would like to have Mrs. William Tilton, repre-
Senting the National Congress of Mothers and Parent-Teacher Asso-
ciation, make a statement before the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to hear from Mrs. Tilton.
STATEMENT OF MRS, WILLIAM TILTON, REPRESENTING THE
CONGRESS OF MOTHERS AND PARENT-TEACHER ASSOCIATION.
Mrs. TILTON. The Congress of Mothers and Parent-Teacher As-
Sociation specializes, of course, in education. Thus it has long come
to recognize that education has never been accorded its rightful place
in the affairs of the Nation. It therefore believes that the move-
ment now rising over the country to lift education out of the valley
on to the heights is enormously valuable. No legislative measure so
comprehensive, so fitted to place education where it belongs, has
appeared, commensurate, with the Towner-Sterling bill. It is like a
great tidal-wave, carrying every phase of education upward and on-
ward, therefore the &º of Mothers is on record for the prin-
ciples embodied in this bill. It is consequently on record for a de-
partment of education, believing that nothing else can give educa-
tion its proper standing. It also believes in the principle of Federal
aid for our various educational needs, and while it recognizes that
overcentralization brings weakness, it does not see in the Towner-
Sterling bill overcentralization, but rather equalization of oppor-
tunity.
The Congress of Mothers is also strong for physical education,
because it carries in its heart the vision of a Nation, giving every
child a chance at health and the fullest development of the spirit
that is in him, but if this vision is to be realized there must be Fed:
eral aid for physical education; that is, the money needed to build
up a better crop of human beings must come partly from the Federal
pocketbook and partly from the home pocketbook. In no other way
shall we come to have equal opportunity for help the country through.
Now, the public-welfare department does not carry the principles
enumerated above. It does not call for a special department of
education. It simply would take the Bureau of Education from its
corner in the Department of the Interior and put it in a corner of
the department of public welfare. This is not commensurate with
the principle of a special department of education. Again, the pub
lic-welfare department does not offer a well-rounded physical edu-
cation program, nor does it offer Federal aid for this program,
Therefore, the Congress of Mothers, while it does not oppose the
public-welfare department, asks that the division of education be
removed from that department and E.g. to go on working for
the principles embodied in the Towner-Sterling Bill. In short, we
believe that it is our business to lift education out of the hole where
it has too long suffered eclipse on to the hilltop, with a cabinet
officer seated on that hilltop giving Federal aid to States that have
already passed proper educational laws. e ->
Mr. MAGILL, i would like to present Mr. Lewis A. Wilson.
120. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
STATEMENT OF MR. LEWIS A. WILSON, PRESIDENT OF THE NA-
TIONAL ASS00IATION FOR WOCATIONAL EDUCATION.
. Mr. WILSON. As president of the National Association for Voca-
tional Education, I wish to object to the transfer of the Vocational
Board to the Bureau of Education in the proposed department.
The CHAIRMAN. What society do you represent?
Mr. WILSON. I represent the National Association for Vocational
Education.
The CHAIRMAN. What is that society?
Mr. WILSON. The membership of this society is made up of man-
ufacturers and men interested in business, who have been interested
for a great many years in a program for vocational education, and
I think it is safe to assume that during the past 12 or 15 years that
it has spent at least $250,000 for research work in promoting voca-
tional education. I would like to make this statement in regard
to the Federal Vocational Education Board, that it is the only
agency connected with the Government that is responsible for the
administration in the public school of
The CHAIRMAN. Are you connected with the Government Board
of Vocational Education?
Mr. WILSON. I am not.
The CHAIRMAN. As I understand you, is your society connected
with the Government in any way?
Mr. WILSON. No. It is a national organization.
The CHAIRMAN. To promote vocational training?
Mr. WILSON. Vocational education; yes.
The CHAIRMAN. It is a voluntary organization?
Mr. WILSON. Yes.
Mr. FEss. And you object to the transfer to the board
Mr. WILSON. For this reason
Mr. FESs. The board is being abolished—
Mr. WILSON. I am objecting to that part in this bill for the simple
reason that we feel that the Federal Board represents a principle that
was put in the Smith-Hughes law, and that principle includes a rep-
resentation upon the board of industry, commerce, and labor.
Mr. FEss. And you are opposed to transferring from the board the
work of vocational education to this public welfare?
Mr. WILSON. To this public-welfare department. I wish to make
the statement also that the Federal Board during the past four years
has done more to influence education in the public schools in this coun-
try than any board that ever existed in Washington. They have had
money that has enabled them to participate in the organization of a
program, a public organization
Senator WALSH. And what is the amount of the annual appropria-
tion?
Mr. WILSON. It is two or three million dollars a year, I imagine.
Mr. FEss. For the study, it is $200,000, and for application of the
schools it will be seven millions, I think, in 1926.
Mr. WILSON. This $7,000,000 represents a very small per cent of the
money spent for vocational education. It simply gives them an op-
DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE. 121
portunity to participate in arousing the State legislatures to recognize
the vocational education. *
We also object to the transfer on the ground of the salaries pro-
vided for in this act.
Senator WARREN. Has this witness given his connection with the
board, with the vocational department?
Mr. WILSON. You mean this society?
Senator WARREN. Yes, sir.
Mr. WILSON. It is a society made up of people in the United States
who are interested in vocational education.
Senator WARREN. How is it connected with the department of edu-
cation in your mind?
Mr. WILSON. If you create a department of education, I see no ob-
jection whatever to making a vocational division in the department of
education.
Senator WARREN. As a matter of fact, however, it is now an inde-
pendent part?
Mr. WILSON. It is now an independent part.
Senator WARREN. And if these appropriations were made, it would
give them one or two million dollars and they would be spending
about $5,000,000
Mr. WILSON. I think so.
Senator WARREN. And the maximum is $7,000,000?
Mr. WILSON. I think so; yes, sir.
Senator WARREN. Who constitutes that board now Ż
Mr. WILSON. The Federal Board for Vocational Education is made
up of three lay members, and also made up of the Secretary of Com-
merce, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Agriculture, and
the Commissioner of Education. I believe there are seven members
on that board.
Senator WALSH. And has the work been done satisfactorily?
Mr. WILSON. The work has been done extremely satisfactorily.
Senator WARREN. But they have not asked for a Cabinet officer,
have they?
Mr. WILSON. No, sir. But we are getting something that is just
as essential; that is, the right kind of assistance from the Federal
Government, and we are opposed to this because of the salary limi-
tations provided for in the bill. It would be impossible——
Senator WARREN. As being too small?
Mr. WILSON. Absolutely. The salaries paid superintendents in the
small towns of ten or fifteen thousand are higher than the Salaries
that are provided for in this measure, and the principals of the high
schools in the large towns are two or three thousand dollars a year
higher than what are provided for in this bill, and it is absolutely
impossible to provide for the right kind of leadership unless you
pay for it.
Mr. MAGILL. We have with us and present to-day two gentlemen
representing the American Council on Education, which is largely
an organization composed of college presidents and college men of
the country. I will ask Dr. S. P. Capen, the director of the American
Council on Education, to make a statement.
122 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
STATEMENT OF DR. SAMUEL P. CAPEN, DIRECTOR OF THE AMERI-
CAN COUNCIL 0N EDUCATION.
Dr. CAPEN. My name is Samuel P. Capen, and I am the director
of the American Council on Education.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the American Council on Education?
Dr. CAPEN. The American Council on Education is an organization
of 13 national associations dealing with higher education, and if
the committee cares for it, I shall be very glad to give the names of
the constituent members. -
The CHAIRMAN. Do they have a legislative bureau here in the city
of Washington?
Dr. CAPEN. We have no legislative bureau here in Washington,
but our headquarters are in Washington, at 818 Connecticut Avenue.
The council is made up of associations such as the associations of
State universities, the associations of land-grant colleges, and the
associations of American universities, engineering Schools, the Cath-
olic Educational Association, the Council of Church Colleges, etc.—
13 of them all together.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear from you, sir.
Mr. CAPEN. The council has had before it at various times the
proposition for the creation of a separate department of education,
and has submitted the proposition to its constituent members through
a referendum, and the reports of the referendum have just been codi-
fied, and they indicate that about seven-ninths of the membership of
the organization—and it is very comprehensively representative of
the higher education of the country—are in favor of the creation of a
separate department of education.
There is some division of opinion about certain minor details.
Reference has been made once or twice to the fact that higher educa-
tional interests have opposed, or at any rate presented a lukewarm
front, to the movement which has been described to you by the other
witnesses this morning. I think that the result of the referendum
indicates that that is not wholly true. The faculties including the
presidents of most of the leading universities have voted on these
questions, but on the single major question as to the approval of the
creation of a department of education there has been an overwhelm-
ing majority in favor of such a department.
Now, the council at its annual meeting held on May 6 and 7 in
Washington, had before it at that time this bill which was then just
introduced, which is before the committee this morning. It was dis-
cussed more or less at two Sessions of the council, and there was no in-
tention on the part of anybody to oppose the creation of a department
of public welfare. That is a question which the council had no time
to consider, and they do not wish to be regarded with respect to it,
but they did pass a resolution, however, which I can read to you
verbatim, which expresses the council’s views on this particular
matter.
(The resolution above referred to is here printed in the record in
full, as follows:) -
The American Council on Education has declared itself by referendum in
favor of the Creation of a department of education. It has not indorsed
officially any measure now before Congress.
DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE. 123
Mr. CAPEN. Now, the executive committee of the committee on
Federal legislation of this organization has instructed me to support
the position of these witnesses many of whom have been heard
this morning, and to request that in the creation of this new depart-
ment of public welfare, the educational officers and functions which
it is suggested be transferred to it, be left out.
Senator WARREN. I would like to ask you this question, and you
need not answer it unless you desire to, but as a matter of policy of
your association, what do they believe is the most valuable thing just
now, and which should be given preference, the matter of higher
education or the matter of vocational training to teach the ordinary
citizen of the country to better his condition, and to receive a greater
reward from his labor, and so on. Of course the Government is
supporting some of them to some extent, and I would like to ask you
which you think the Government should regard as of the greatest im-
portance?
Dr. CAPEN. Unquestionably, and I answer for myself and not for
the organization, education on its more elementary level, including
the vocational education.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further?
Mr. MAGILL. We would like to have the committee hear from John
H. McCracken, chairman of the legislative committee of the Ameri-
can Council on Education.
STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN HENRY McCRACKEN, CHAIRMAN OF
THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDU-
CATION.
Mr. McCRACKEN. The American Council on Education, which is
an organization of national educational Organizations, correspond-
ing to the National Chamber of Commerce in the business world,
has from the beginning definitely favored the creation of a depart-
ment of education. In February, 1917, we urged upon the chairman
of the Senate Committee on Education either a favorable report on
Senator Owen’s bill, then pending, or the introduction of a new and
more comprehensive bill creating a department. I submit here with
for the record a copy of the printed memorial presented to the chair-
man of the Senate committee at that time. After four years of discus-
sion of the question from every angle, after submission of the question
by written referendum with the arguments for and against, set out
in order, the council again on May 6, placed itself definitely on record
as favoring the creation of a department of education. We do not
oppose the creation of a department of public welfare. It lies out-
side our province as an organization to express any opinion on the
administration and promotion of public health, social Service, and
veteran relief. o
We ask, however, that education be not included in the depart-
ment and that Congress be left free to vote on the question of a
department of education on its merits. This is not a new question.
It has been under consideration of Congress for 5 years, one might
almost say for 55 years. At the close of the Civil War James A.
Garfield secured the creation of a department, but before it was
hardly organized the infant department was degraded to the posi-
124 DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE.
tion of a bureau because of political exigencies which arose in con-
nection with some question of caring for colored wards of the Gov-
ernment. We hope history will not repeat itself. A question is
never settled until it is settled right.
The arguments against the inclusion of education in the depart-
ment of public welfare are: It violates the fundamental principle of
governmental organization laid down by Mr. Hoover in a recent
speech and indorsed by all experts in administration, “administra-
tion units of government must be so grouped as to give each of the
great departments as nearly as possible a single purpose.” Education
has a perfectly definite, well defined task. It is a task performed
by a distinct profession. While it contributes to and makes possible
public health, social service, and veteran relief, it is entirely inde-
pendent of and has no organic connection with them.
An examination of the budget of the proposed department shows
that of the total funds to be handled by the department, the allot-
ment to education would be one-half of 1 per cent. One-half of 1
per cent is prohibition, not promotion. It would be a policy of “Sup-
i Mºnk ” to swamp education in the “billion ocean of veteran
I'êII61.
Education is a primary interest of the American people. Unlike
the tariff it is not a local question. California and Iowa, Texas, and
Oklahoma are if anything more enthusiastic for education than
Massachusetts or Ohio. We Americans are free to make our Govern-
ment in our own image and for our own needs. A national govern-
ment which does not give education a place in the councils of the
nation on equal footing with commerce, labor, and agriculture does
not accurately reflect the interests and ideals of the American people.
The World War convinced the Nation that while the States might
each care for the education of their own people, this system left the
TJnited States as a Nation without a proper representative or spokes-
man for American education in international relations. We are not
convinced that the office and title of assistant secretary of public wel-
fare, however patriotic and competent the volunteer might be whom
Gen. Sawyer would secure, would carry sufficient dignity and weight
to adequately represent American education in communication with
the French minister of public instruction and the fine arts, with
Lord Fisher in London, the minister of public education in Tokyo,
or even the cultus minister of vanquished Prussia.
The office of secretary of education must above all else give us
leadership in the world of ideas; unless the world of education finds
there such leadership, the office will fail of its purpose. The depart-
ment of education must be in a peculiar sense, consequently, as was
said of the University of Virginia “the lengthened shadow of one
man,” and that one man who, like the great Democrat, Thomas Jeffer-
son, would place on his tombstone ºlºng with the authorship of the
Declaration of Independence and of a Virginia statute for religious
freedom his service to education.
Public welfare we all want to promote. In Pennsylvania we have
just organized a State department of public welfare. The care of
dependents, delinquents, deficients, of all socially handicapped, is
necessary and a high duty. But the future of the Nation does not lie
there.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 12.5
Two thousand years ago an attempt was made to divert proper
honor and recognition from the Great Teacher by dragging across the
trail the needs of the socially handicapped. As regards public wel-
fare we teachers answer now as He answered then, to test the sincerity
of the movement, “the poor ye have with ye always, and when ye will
you may do them good.”
Mr. MAGILL. I would like to introduce Dr. Walter S. Athearn,
chairman of the committee on education of the Sunday School Coun-
cil of Evangelical Denominations.
STATEMENT OF DR. W. S. ATHEARN, CHAIRMAN OF THE SUNDAY
SCHOOL COUNCIL OF EVANGELICAL IDENOMINATIONS AND THE
INTERNATIONAL SUNDAY SCHOOL ASSOCIATION.
Dr. ATHEARN. My name is W. S. Athearn. I would like to explain
my title. The Sunday School Council of Evangelical Denominations
is the organized Protestant Christian Sunday School world, and
there are 33 Protestant religious denominations, 33 of these parties
who do their work under an organization known as the Sunday
School Council of Evangelical Denominations, and the interdenomi-
national work of the Protestant people is carried on in the Interna-
tional Sunday School Association, of which there are 37 State and
provincial organizations. The committee that I represent is the
educational committee that formulates the educational programs
and policies and affairs for these 100 organizations, the 33 denomi-
national organizations and the 67 State and provincial organiza-
tions, in order that there might be a definite program for education.
So I am speaking for these 100 organizations or associations of the
Protestant Christian religion.
For a number of years the International Sunday School A socia-
tion through its more than 12,000 meeting in convention annually,
and the denominational organizations, have been very much im-
pressed with the idea of an independent department of education.
The various conventions, especially the international conventions
have placed themselves on record as favoring this independent de-
partment. When the Associated Press announced that it had been
proposed to include in the department of education, or the present
Bureau of Education, in this proposed department of welfare, our
committee of sixty happened to be in session. We satisfied ourselves
from the outline, as given in the Associated Press dispatches, that
it was just merely a transferring of the Bureau of Education, which
has not been satisfactory to us, over to a new department where it
would be equally unsatisfactory to the ideals for which we have been
contending. Our committee therefore passed the following resolu-
tions, and I was authorized to present those resolutions to this com-
mittee. [Reading:
Be it resolved, That this committee hereby expresses its approval of the
Towner-Sterling educational bill and of the stronger organization and support
which it assures to the public School system, and expresses its strong opposition
to the substitution of a welfare department or any other department for the
proposed department of education.
Following the enactment of that resolution, and in order that we
might be very sure that we were expressing the position of our con-
stituents or bodies, we asked these constituent bodies to indicate to us
126 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
what their present position was upon the subject, indicating to them
the tenor of the resolution, and I have telegrams from practically all
of the denominational members, and practically all of these State
school associations, representing a constituency of over 20,000,000
people, with a large membership of 23,000,000 people
The CHAIRMAN. Can you put one of those telegrams in, Doctor?
Senator WARREN. I understand that the proposition was put before
them as you had it in the main body of the resolution, that you adopted
the resolution, and they approved of it.
Dr. ATHEARN. And we asked them to give their present opinions on
the subject.
The CHAIRMAN. Can you not read one of those telegrams? Aren’t
they all substantially the same?
Dr. ATHEARN. They all mean substantially the same, but they have
different arguments and reasons for their position. Here is one from
Dr. Henry H. Meyer, the editor of the Sunday school publications,
Methodists Episcopal Church, which says [reading] :
Representing a reading constituency of 5,000,000 members and friends of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, I greatly Oppose the proposal now before Congress
to subordinate the National Bureau of Education with.n the department of public
Welfare. Our religious and educational COnstituency unanimously and em-
phatically favors separate department of education to strengthen the American
public-school System.
I have one here from William S. Bovard, the general secretary of
the Board of Sunday Schools of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
which reads:
Representing more than 4,000,000 Sunday-school people, I strongly indorse the
Towner bill. Give education a place of primacy. Write it large. Transmit
money into manhood.
One from Dr. William E. Gardner, secretary of the department of
religious education, Protestant Episcopal Church, in which he says
[reading] :
We indorse the Towner-Sterling bill and Oppose education being submerged in
proposed department of public welfare. Our numerical constituency is 1,000,000.
Then there is one from William E. Chalmers, the educational secre-
tary of the Northern Baptist Convention, which reads [reading] :
On behalf of 1,000,000 Baptist Sunday-school members, I urge upon Congress
the favorable consideration of the Towner-Sterling ball. A Separate department
of education and appropriating to the several States funds to remove illiteracy.
We believe that the bill safeguards religious liberty. We protest against the Sub-
mergence of education in the Welfare department.
Then there is one from H. M. Robinson, the educational Secretary of
the Presbyterian Church, in which which he says [reading] :
I indorse the Towner educational bill on behalf of 1,500,000 Presbyterians in
the United States. I am much opposed to submerging education in the depart-
ment of public welfare.
Senator WARREN. I beg your pardon for interrupting you, but do
you understand from that telegram and telegrams of that kind that
1,500,000 people have been consulted, and that it is their opinion,
or that it is the judgment of the man connected with the organiza-
tion?
Dr. ATHEARN. This is the judgment of the head of that body, of
COULI'Se.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 127
Senator WARREN. There is a similarity of expression there.
Judge Town ER. Let me ask you, is it not true that these constit-
uencies, in their representative bodies, have passed resolutions to the
same effect, in which they went on record to the same effect, and what
has been asked of these people who are the leaders is whether there
has been a change in sentiment?
Dr. ATHEARN. Well, these telegrams do not indicate.
The CHAIRMAN. All of your organizations are for the Sterling-
Towner bill?
Dr. ATHEARN. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And they are afraid now that this bill may work
detriment to that bill; is that your idea?
Dr. ATHEARN. Yes, sir; they are not opposed to the welfare bill.
The CHAIRMAN. They are not opposed to the welfare bill?
Dr. ATHEARN. No, sir; they are not opposed to the welfare bill.
Now, if I may
Senator WARREN. I have no doubt but what you are correct, but
the lack of unanimity which we encounter sometimes in Congress re-
minds me that it is rather remarkable that there should be 1,000,000
people all of one mind and nobody to the contrary.
S The CHAIRMAN. But these are Christian organizations, you know,
enator.
Dr. ATHEARN. May I answer your question by saying that the very
life of the Protestant Christian churches is involved here. There is
but one feeling, and that is the position of the separation of the
church from the State. They build their own program in it, and it
is for the benefit of the education of their own people in their own
Schools, for the extension of the public-school system for the educa-
tion of their own children, and for the extension of education, and
whatever touches the public schools touches the very heart of the
Protestant church, and the extension of illiteracy is a handicap to
their program.
Senator WARREN. And it is important alike to both the church
and the school?
Dr. ATHEARN. Yes, sir; and the churches which I represent feel
that they do not have any agency or other means whereby they can
get the attention due their people. They must stand for the pro-
motion of the public school. They believe that the education of this
country can not be satisfactorily developed if it is made a subsidiary
agency in another department of the Government. Therefore I have
submitted our resolution.
also wish to include the telegrams coming from the Sunday
schools
The CHAIRMAN. We will take them and file them.
Mr. Town ER. I think that they should appear in the record as
statements from these people.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, those that have been read would be in
anyway, and they may go in in that way.
STATEMENT OF MIR. FRANK M. SHELDON, GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE CONGREGATIONAL
- EDUCATION AT, SOCIETY.
The Congregational Educaſional Society, representing a constituency of more
than 800,000 Congregational Church members, emphatically and unqualifiedly
indorses an independent department of education as provided in the Towner-
128 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
Sterling educational bill. Education is One Of the Supreme concerns of the
Government and should not under any consideration be submerged in a de-
partment of public welfare. -
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM I. LAWRENCE, SECRETARY OF THE AMERICAN UNITARIAN
ASSOCIATION.
As head of the department of religious education, American Unitarian Asso-
Ciation, I strongly urge the passage of the Towner educational bill, and Dr.
Florence Buck Concurs,
STATEMENT OF E. B. CHAPPEL AND JOHN W. SHACKFORD, N.A3InVILLE, TENN.
We urge original provisions of Smith-Towner bill and we are against sub-
Ordination of education to any other department.
STATEMENT OF R. E. MAGILL, GENERAL SECRETARY, SOUTHERN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH,
RICHMOND, VA.
I strongly favor present provisions of the Towner bill. Merging educational
department with another department would be fatal to highest interests of
the millions Of children who must have better Opportunities if our country is
to advance. Our church, of 375,000, in the Southern States is vitally interested
in a plan that promises to reduce illiteracy in the Nation.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES DARSIE, EDUCATIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE DISCIPLES’ CHURCH,
ST. LOUIS, MO.
In behalf of more than 1,000,000 scholars in 8,000 Sunday Schools I ask for
department of education with direct representation in President's Cabinet.
Public education should occupy no Subordinate position in America.
STATEMENT OF THEODORE MAYER, EDUCATIONAL SECRETARY, EVANGELICAL CHURCH,
ST. LOUIS, MO.
The National Sunday School Board, Evangelical Synod, representing
340,000 communicants, fervently indorses Towner educational bill, and is
absolutely opposed to submerging education in proposed public-welfare depart-
ment. Our public schools are formative center of American civilization.
Strictly educational department imperative for developement highest type of
Americanism. This is the foundation to all progreSS.
STATEMENT OF G. E. RAITT, SECRETARY UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH,
PITTSBURGH, PA.
The department of religious education of the United Presbyterian Church,
1epresenting 160,000 members, unqualifiedly indorse Towner bill and urge its
passage. We are strongly in favor of separate department of education and
opposed to submerging enducation in proposed department of public welfare.
STATEMENT OF J. F. BURNETT, GENERAL SECRETARY CHRISTIAN CHURCH, DAYTON,
OHIO.
One hundred thousand menbers of the Christian Church unanimously indorse
Towner bill. Vigorously protest against submerging of education in proposed
department of public welfare.
STATEMENT OF LESTER F. REYNOLDS, GENERAL DIRECTOR OF THE ADVENT CHRISTIAN
DENOMINATION, ROXBURY, MASS.
As general director of the Advent Christian Denomination, representing 28,000
communicants in the United States, I favor and urge the passing of the bill to
create a department of education, number H. R. 7, introduced in the National
House of Representatives by Mr. Towner.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 129
STATEMENT OF H. E. THOMPSON, REPRESENTING SUNDAY SCHOOLS OF ADVENT
DENOMINATION, BOSTON, MASS.
Representing 15,000 members of the Sunday Schools of the Advent Christian
Denomination, permit me to give you my unqualified indorsement of the
Towner-Sterling educational bill to establish an independent department of
educaton. Also my opinion that the submerging of the interests of education
in proposed department of public Welfare would sacrifice the interest of educa-
tion of our American youth.
STATEMENT OF R. H. BOYD, GENERAL SECRETARY COLORED BAPTIST CHURCH, NASH-
VILLE, TENN.
We want to register our unqualified indorsement of independent department
of education as provided in Towner educational bill. Three million five-
hundred thousand Baptists of America desire this bill passed. We are opposed
to submerging of education in proposed department of public welfare.
STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID Down EY, Book EDITOR, METHODIST EPIscoPAL CHURCH,
NEW YORK CITY.
It seems to me that it would be exceedingly unfortunate to include so impor-
tant a matter as education under the proposed department of public Welfare.
I am strongly of the belief that a subject of such vital import to the Nation
deserves an independent department of the Government with a responsible
Cabinet officer, as provided in the Towner-Sterling bill.
STATEMENT OF RUFUs W. MILLER, SECRETARY OF THE PUBLICATION AND SUNDAY
SCHOOL BOARD OF THE REFORMED CHURCH, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
In behalf of the 1,700 Sunday Schools of the Reformed Church in the
TJnited States, representing 30,000 officers and teachers and more than 300,000
pupils, I desire to record my unqualified approval of the plan for an independent
department of education, as provided in the Towner educational bill.
I recognize the value of the proposed department of public welfare, but to put
education under that general head is to slight and belittle the all-important
work of training the children and youth of the land for upright and patriotic
Citizens.
The future of America depends upon the carefully enlarged System of
national education, and the inspiration and wise Standardization of Such na-
tional education must come from the Federal Government.
The Publication and Sunday School Board of the Reformed Church, whose
members are clergymen, public-school teachers, doctors, and business men,
earnestly request a favorable consideration of the Towner educational bill and
the definite establishment of a department of public education in the Federal
Government.
STATEMENT OF JOHN H. RACE, METHODIST BOOK CONCERN, NEW YORK CITY.
Anyone who is at all conversant with the problem that the forces of education
meet in this Nation to-day can not but be deeply interested in the Towner-
Sterling bill now pending in Congress. Illiteracy must be banished from Qur
borders. We have not as an American people taken seriously enough this im-
portant subject of public education. It would seem thoroughly unfortunate if
the great subject of education could not be considered as Worthy of such legisla-
tion as is provided for by this Towner-Sterling bill rather than Submerged as a
bureau within the proposed new department of public Welfare.
I earnestly urge that education be eliminated from the proposed new depart-
ment and treated separately on its merits. Both personally and officially I am
tremendously interested in this Subject.
Mr. MAGILL, I would now introduce Dr. H. D. Grose.
49824—21—9
130 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
STATEMENT OF MR. H. D. GROSE, SECRETARY OF THE EDITORIAL
COUNCIL OF THE RELIGIOUS PRESS.
Mr. GROSE. I see that the chairman recognizes the fact that “brev-
ity is the Soul of wit,” and I wish to prove to the members of the com-
mittee that there is at least one editor who is possessed of some wit.
No editor would dare for a moment to speak the opinion of any other
editor. I speak for the religious press, which has three and a half
million readers, and I am sure that I represent the editors thus far,
in asking the committee to give us time to carefully consider a matter
of this vital importance and to consult our constituency, and the mem-
bers of our
The CHAIRMAN. But you have no objection to the public welfare
bill itself, have you?
Mr. GROSE. I favor it heartily, but, of course, personally I do not
favor the inclusion of the subject of education under that department.
That is all. I am not expressing anything for the editors, but am only
expressing my own personal opinion, and I would ask you to let us
have time to discuss it.
The CHAIRMAN. You can have time to do that after the matter is on
the floor for discussion.
Mr. MAGILL. Next I present Dr. Robert L. Kelly.
STATEMENT OF DR, ROBERT L, KELLY, SECRETARY OF THE
COUNCIL OF CHURCH BOARDS OF EDUCATION.
Dr. KELLY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, it was
my privilege to appear before the Senate committee some years ago
when the Smith-Towner bill was before you, and I am authorized now
to speak on behalf of the board of education of the various Protestant
denominations. I am executive secretary of the council of church
boards of education. We represent one-half of the colleges and the
universities of the United States, and there are on our list some 325
to 340 educational institutions of higher learning. The denomina-
tions which are represented on our board are the With it Episcopal
Church North and South, the Presbyterian Church North and South,
the Episcopal Church, Congregational Church, Baptist Church
North, and other great religious denominations which have a follow-
ing in the Protestant persuasion. The chairman of our council is
Mr. Paul Brukow, of the Episcopal Church, who is here to-day. The
council through its board of education represents half of the educa-
tional interests in the United States, so far as investments are con-
cerned and so far as the total number of students enrolled is con-
cerned.
I also represent and am the executive secretary of the Association
of American Colleges, which brings together the largest group of
colleges brought together by any organization in this country. Both
these organizations which I represent are members of the American
Council on Education, concerning which Dr. Capen has spoken, and
therefore I do not need to add anything along that line, except to say
that we line up with what Dr. Capen has said upon this subject. The
one new point I have to bring out is this, that we do not come here rep-
resenting our own selfish interests. We do not come here and ask for
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 131
the promotion of our institutions. We expect to promote our own
institutions by ourselves. Our boards are now in the midst of a
campaign totaling $300,000,000 in support of our institutions. We
are not asking for any officers of the National Government so far as
our institutions are concerned, because the agencies which I represent
are the institutions of higher learning. But I wish to make this addi-
tional point: We take the position which has been expressed by
everyone who has spoken here this morning, of not opposing the bill
under consideration now, the public welfare bill. We have not had
an opportunity to find out what our people think about it and we are
not offering any opposition. We are asking that education be not
transferred to this new department, and our reasons are very much
along the lines already indicated, but there is this new point that I
have to make : We have no system of parochial schools. We depend
upon the American public school system for the education of our
boys and girls.
We believe in the American public school system. We believe that
the most distinctive thing that has been done in this Western Hemi-
sphere since the organization of this Government is the setting up of
a free public school system, from the kindergartens to the graduate
Schools and colleges, and the work that we are doing ourselves is just
supplementary to that work. We believe that it is to the advantage
of a great State university in a given State to have some denomina-
tional colleges alongside of those, to stimulate their work, to give
them certain religious and moral ideas, and the great State university
presidents agree with us on this principle, and we do not wish to see
a fiat taken by the Congress of the United States indicating that the
Congress of the United States is satisfied essentially with the condi-
tions and the place that education has had during these years. We
see no advantage in the transferring to the department of public wel-
fare and we are here to make exceptions to the transferring of it, and
representing this 3,000,000 protestants I speak here in behalf of the
American public school system. We wish to give it greater dignity
than it has ever had before, and we wish to divert until some future
time the question as to whether or not we can get a department of
education which will give it that dignity. So far as the immediate
issue is concerned we have no objection to the bill under considera-
tion, but we do object to the inclusion of education as a part of that
department.
Mr. MAGILL. We have present to-day Dr. William F. Willoughby,
of the National Institute for Government Research. He is an expert
on Government reorganization, and, I think, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee, you will be glad to hear from him at this
time.
STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM F. WILLOUGHBY, OF THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR GOVERNMENT RESEARCH.
Dr. WILLOUGHBY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee,
I am director of the Institute for Government Research, and I may
say that that is an organization which was created a few years ago,
or a number of years ago, by a number of men like Mr. Robert
Brookings, who was on the War Industry Board, and President Taft,
132 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
and Lowell and Hadley, of Harvard, and others of Yale and Johns
Hopkins, who believed that it was desirable to have an institute at
Washington that would have to do with the solution of problems of
government and Scientific research from the same point of view as
applied to Science generally. We have been working since 1916 with
a staff of from 20 to 25 men on the big problems of their government.
I mean this, by way of explanation, that we took up the big ques-
tions first of a proper financial system, and we reached the con-
clusion that that had to be secured through the adoption of a budget
system and the question of an efficient orginization, and we have
studied this matter of the problem of securing a better organization
for a number of years. What I shall say will be very brief, and it
is merely to the point, that the result of our studies has been wholly
contrary to the desirability of the passage of this bill. Our analyses
which, I say, have been based on studies running over several years,
has been that the reform imperatively needed is an educational de-
partment, a department which shall have a primary function and
which will engage in that and will engage in nothing but that. The
great objection to our present system is that we are functioning an
educational department within the Department of the Interior, and
the creation of a department of public welfare, with powers no
broader than that of the Department of the Interior, brings into
existence another group of unlike, dissimilar, discordant services,
and will produce no increase in the efficiency and the economy with
which the Government is now being administered.
The question of the grouping of the service, Mr. Chairman, ought
to be answered only after a very careful study has been made of all
the services, that is, of the hundred odd services, and it can not be
done by this method. The Members of Congress all know that many
arguments can be brought forward for the location of a particular
bureau in one department or another, but the only method to bring
out an efficient organization of an administrative branch is to put it
on the operating table at one time. Now, we have just had created
the joint committee on reorganization with that particular function,
and it seems to me that it would be very unwise to attempt, as a
method of procedure, to attempt, either through this measure or any
other measure to handle this in piecemeal. My opposition, therefore,
to the measure, is one of method. Then, in regard to the merits. It
is possible to set up all administrative subjects in not to exceed 11 or
12 departments, all of which would be unifunctional, and one of those
to concern itself with matters of education exclusively and another
one to concern itself exclusively with matters of public health. Those
are two great big public interests of this country, and should be rep-
resented in separate departments.
From an administrative standpoint, it is desirable that the head of
any department shall concern himself with one set of problems, and
those problems should be handled with one class of personnel, as far
as possible, and that personnel should deal with one character of
plans and with one character of equipment, and they should handle
as nearly as possible the same class of supplies to meet those prob-
lems. If you have a unifunctional department of that kind, you
have the very best for efficiency. But the grouping together of dis-
similar services would destroy any possibility of working out the
problem of an effective administration from a proper standpoint.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 133
In regard to the broad topic, that of education, personally, I am
very strongly in favor of a department of education that would be
education in a little broader sense than that spoken about at this
time. My proposition would be for a department of education and
Science, or a shorter title might be a department of research. If we
study the services that we have at the present time we will find that
the Government is maintaining a large number of services which do
not have the function of administering anybody the substantive law.
Their sole purpose is the acquisition and the assimilation of knowl-
edge. We have other services, such as the Federal Board for Voca-
titonal Education, the Library of Congress, the Bureau of Standards,
the United States Naval Observatory, and in the Smithsonian In-
stitution, the Bureau of American Ethnology, and so on. If these,
with a number of others, were brought together into a department
of education and science, we would get a unifunctional depart-
ment that would bring those things together that are scattered
among the many departments and would make for a larger service
and would lay the basis for a real department of education.
Mr. Town ER. What would be the effect of such a unifunctional re-
organization, so far as economy of administration is concerned?
Dr. WILLOUGHBY. That is the problem, but I fear a discussion of
it would take too much time. Personally, as I consider it, in the
first place you have a secretary at the head of it who is concerned
simply with that one subject, and he would be selected with especial
reference to it, and his attention would never be diverted to any col-
lateral matter. He would be the man to whom the President would
look for the formulation of that department, and would have under
that department everything that would have to do with the educa-
tion of the country.
In the second place, in the organization of this service, like the
appointment division and the accounting officers and the purchasing
of the supplies, all this technique would deal with the same matters,
for the same class, and the same system of accounts would apply, and
the same purchasing agent would have to do with the purchasing
of the same class of commodities, and it would be possible to Secure
a standardization and a uniformity that can not be obtained in a
department where the department has to concern itself with outside
matters, such as the running of a hospital and making research into
purely educational matters. I think that the business world would be
unanimous on that proposition of the desirability of that type of
organization.
Senator WARREN. And do you mean to assemble all lines of re-
search with education in one— &
Mr. WILLOUGHBY. Yes; the educational functions that the National
Government has now is research. It does not administer a system of
schools or anything like that. My proposition would be to bring to-
gether those scattered services whose function is not to administer
any body of substantive law, but simply a matter of research, and to
bring together all that the department would be concerned with, all
of the equipment, like the laboratories and libraries, the blue-print
room, and everything having to do with research. A joint use could
be made of those facilities, and it would enable all those scattered
research agencies to be brought together and to be in touch with each
134 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
other, and it would lay the basis for the elimination of a great deal
of this overlapping of work, where we have two different services
Senator WARREN. I will say that you interest me, but it is a question
where you will begin and stop with that research. The Department
of Agriculture has
Mr. WILLough BY. The Department of Agriculture would be a de-
partment of research, but on account of the size and magnitude of
that department you might depart from the logic to that extent of
leaving the Indian Department
Senator WARREN. But the Bureau of Mines also, they have research
work there.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY. There is a very grave question in regard to the
research work of the Bureau of Mines and others.
Senator WARREN. We have a very large field force going about the
country, and it would be very dissimilar to a department of education.
I do not want to argue it out—
Mr. WILLOUGHBY. That would come from my knowledge—I know
that the committee has not time for me to go into that broad subject,
and I merely raise it largely by way of illustration, that there is an
alternative method of procedure, and that the only way to reach a
satisfactory solution is to have some one committee consider the entire
thing and reach a decision, and I feel that any attempt to reach in
and chop into this line of 100 or more services and pick them out and
re-form them by one special measure, which has been pursued in the
past, I think it is impossible. Take the matter of public health. Very
few realize the scope of the activities of the Government in regard to
public health. Now, there is over in the Agricultural Department the
Meat Inspection Service at the present time
Senator WARREN. It now absorbs the whole Government.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY. As I say, there is over in the Agricultural De-
partment the Meat Inspection Service
The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that the taxpayers of the country
realize how many employees they have? As I understand it, there are
now 19,000 of them.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY. I know; it is a hugh service now.
The CHAIRMAN. I know it, too. There are over 19,000.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY. Yes; it is a huge service now. Then they have
the Pure Food Administration System, the Bureau of Chemistry
Over in the Agricultural Department, and there is the collection of
vital statistics, one of the most important aids in the administration
of a proper public-health system over in the Department of the
Interior, and it is in the field of both education and public health,
and there is at the present time enough Services, without any exten-
sion of those services and individual activity, to warrant their re-
moval into an independent department and the putting in of two—
The CHAIRMAN. And if they all keep on growing as the Public
Health Service has grown do you think they ought to have a sepa-
rate department, too?
Mr. WILLOUGHBY. I think there ought to be a public-health depart-
ment independently. As a say, that would take over the Meat Inspec-
tion and the Pure Food from the Agricultural Department and the
vital statistics from the Census Bureau.
The CHAIRMAN. How many more witnesses have you, Mr. Magill?
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 13J
Mr. MAGILL. We are willing to rest the case now.
The CHAIRMAN. You are willing to rest your case now?
Mr. MAGILL. Yes, we are willing to rest our case now; but I want to
say this as a closing thought, that we disclaim any ability on our part
to bring together from all over the United States, as appeared before
this committee to-day, this great nation-wide expression of indorse-
ment of an independent department of education and opposition to
putting education in this department of public welfare. It is a stu-
pendous expression that comes from all over the country, and I be-
lieve with Judge Towner if this matter is left to the committee first
and then to the Congress, that Congress will hear, the Members will
hear personally, what the real sentiment of the country is on the im-
portance of education, and that the country will never stand to have
education subordinated or submerged. I do not believe that Congress
knows what a wave is going over this country at the present time.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you through now?
Mr. MAGILL. Yes, we are through. I wish to thank the joint com-
mittee for the consideration shown us. -
(Thereupon, at 12.45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned until Friday,
May 20, 1921, at 10 o'clock a. m.)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
FRIDAY, MAY 20, 1921.
CoMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR OF THE
UNITED STATEs SENATE, AND CoMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION, House of REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C.
The Committee on Education and Labor of the United States
Senate and the Committee on Education of the House of Represen-
tatives met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o’clock a. m., at the com-
mittee room of the Committee on Education and Labor, Capitol
Building, Congressman Fess presiding.
Present: Congressman Fess (chairman), Senator Kenyon, Senator
Phipps, and Senator Shortridge.
Congressmen Towner, Reed, Robsion, Nelson of Wisconsin, Cough-
lin, Bankhead, Shelton, Lowrey, and Parks.
Whereupon the committee proceeded to a further consideration of
the bills (S. 1607 and H. R. 5837) to establish a department of pub-
lic welfare, and for other purposes.
The CHAIRMAN. We will first hear from Surg. Gen. H. S. Cum-
ming, of the United States Public Health Service.
STATEMENT OF SURG. GEN. HUGH S. CUMMING, OF THE PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICE.
Gen. CUMMING. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you for the op-
portunity of appearing before you on this bill. I have the honor to
represent, for the time being, the largest bureau and the oldest one
which will be affected by this bill, and what f have to say here has
the approval of the Secretary in charge of the service.
Senator KENYon. Who do you mean by the Secretary.
Gen. CUMMING. The Secretary of the Treasury for the time being.
|Unfortunately the Assistant Secretary in charge was away so I had
no opportunity to confer with him.
One of the most important objects of the bill now under considera-
tion is the rearrangement of Federal agencies created for the conserva-
tion of life and health. By far the largest Federal agency having to
do with the public-health activities is the United States Public Health
Service, which has been developed in the Treasury Department by
process of evolution. I will give an outline of its growth and activities.
The history of the Public Health Service dates back more than a
century. It had its origin in the old Marine Hospital Service, which
was first authorized by Congress by the act approved July 16, 1798.
Under this act the President was authorized to nominate and appoint
137
138 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
medical officers at such places in the United States as might be re-
quired to furnish medical care to sick and disabled seamen of the
American merchant marine, either, in hospitals maintained by the
United States or by contract with civilian institutions. The marine-
hospital fund was obtained by imposing a tax of 20 cents per month
on seamen employed on American vessels engaged in the foreign and
coasting trade.
The first marine hospital built under the act of 1798 was located
at Norfolk, Va., in 1800. In 1802 a marine hospital was built for the
port of Boston. Marine hospitals were built from time to time at
important seaports. In order to provide for the relieſ of seamen
on the lakes and rivers Congress passed an act approved March 3,
1837, authorizing the appointment of a board of medical officers of
the Army to select sites for marine hospitals on the Mississippi and
Ohio Rivers and Lake Erie. Under authority of this act a number
of hospitals were established.
The evolution of health functions from such a service was along
natural lines. The medical officers in providing care for the Ameri-
can merchant marine were often the first physicians to diagnose such
diseases as cholera, yellow fever, smallpox, and the like, which were
being imported into the United States. This was especially the
case in the southern ports as regards yellow fever, and during epi-
demics when called upon by State and local health authorities, the
President authorized the Marine Hospital Service to aid the health
authorities in the relief and control of these diseases.
In the epidemics of cholera, which at times occurred in certain
ports of the United States, the marine hospitals and the medical offi-
cers were utilized wherever practicable for the relief of those suffer-
ing from the disease.
uring the Civil War the marine hospitals, together with the
medical officers, were used by the military authorities both North and
South, for the care of the military forces.
It was not until 1878 that Congress authorized the use of the Ma-
rine Hospital Service in an extensive way as the Federal Health
Service. The act approved April 29, 1878, gave very broad powers
to the Marine Hospital Service to cooperate with State and local
health authorities in the control of disease, especially yellow fever.
This act was for the most part a quarantine act to prevent the intro-
duction of contagious and infectious diseases into the United States.
It was not until the act of March 27, 1890, that Congress utilized
the Marine Hospital Service as the Federal health agency for the
prevention of interstate spread of disease. This act authorized the
use of the service for the prevention of only four diseases: Cholera,
yellow fever, smallpox, and plague. By the act of February 15,
1893, the Marine Hospital Service's powers in this regard were
extended to cover all infectious and contagious diseases, in coopera-
tion with State and local health agencies.
Recognizing the efficiency of military discipline of the Marine
Hospital Corps in the control of epidemic diseases, Congress passed
the act approved January 4, 1889, which authorized by law the or-
ganization of the Marine Hospital Corps and provided that the
officers be commissioned in grades similar to the medical department
of the United States Army.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 139
After the act of 1893, which organized the Marine Hospital Serv-
ice into the Federal Health Service, Congress continued to impose
additional health functions upon the service, and on July 1, 1902,
Kº the act which changed its name to the Public Health and
Tarine Hospital Service, and made it a health service in name as
well as function. The larger part of the health functions up to
this time had been in combating epidemics, especially of yellow
fever, which from time to time swept over the country. When
bubonic plague threatened the country in 1900 through the port of
San Francisco, the Marine Hospital Service was placed in charge
of control methods, and after an extensive campaign succeeded in
reventing any extensive spread of that disease through the United
tates.
While the public health functions of the service had their incep-
tion in the prevention of the introduction and spread of quarantin-
able diseases, their development in logical sequence was brought
about by growing public opinion. In addition to its quarantine
functions and hospital functions the activities of the service include
research and educational work.
The investigative functions of the Public Health Service began
with the investigation of such diseases as yellow fever and cholera,
in the early part of the service's existence, but it was not until July
1, 1902, that Congress authorized the establishment of the hygienic
laboratory for this purpose. Since this legal authorization the hy-
gienic laboratory has grown very rapidly, until now it stands out as
one of the foremost research institutions in the world.
From the control of epidemics the Public Health and Marine Hos-
pital Service began to develop control measures for the more common
contagious and infectious diseases, such as typhoid fever, diphtheria
scarlet fever, and the like. The history of the wonderful control of
typhoid fever which has taken place in the United States within the
past 15 years is a part of the history of the Public Health Service in
cooperation with State and local health agencies, and now typhoid
fever, which formerly took a toll of more than 50,000 lives annually of
the population of the United States, is responsible for the death of
something less than 10,000.
The development of health functions of the Public Health and
Marine Hospital Service continued until finally Congress by act ap-
roved August 14, 1912, changed the name again, and now it is
É. Health Service. The same act gave it very broad powers to in-
vestigate the diseases of man and the pollution of navigable streams
and lakes of the United States.
Under existing authority of law, in addition to its hospital func-
tions, the functions of the Public Health Service may be described
under the following heads:
Protection of the United States from the introduction of disease
from without.
Prevention of the interstate spread of disease, and suppression of
epidemics.
Cooperation with State and local boards of health in health mat-
ters.
Investigation of diseases of man.
Supervision and control of biological products.
140 DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE.
Public health education and dissemination of health information.
To protect the United States from the introduction of disease from
without the Public Health Service now operates all of the maritime
quarantine stations of the United States and its insular possessions.
The object of the quarantine service is to protect the United States
from diseases like smallpox, typhus fever, leprosy, yellow fever,
cholera, and bubonic plague. }. further prevent the introduction
of diseased persons into the United States, the Public Health Service
is charged by law with the medical examination of immigrants.
During the past fiscal year 762,127 immigrants were examined by
officers of the Public Health Service.
To prevent the interstate spread of disease and suppress epidemics
the Public Health Service is authorized by law to cooperate with
State and local health authorities. At the present time this work
includes suppression of epidemics, such as measures preventing the
spread of bubonic plague on the Southern and western coasts; Sanita-
tion of interstate common carriers, including examination of drink-
ing water used on trains and vessels, and control of travel of diseased
persons; cooperation with State departments of health in making
effective State and Federal control over the spread of communicable
diseases; and cooperation with the national park service in Sanita-
tion of national parks to prevent the spread of disease through the
use of these parks by the traveling public.
At the request of State and local health authorities, the cooperative
activities . the Public Health Service takes numerous form—for
instance, studies of public health administration and organization;
sanitary Surveys of counties, municipalities and towns; investigating
outbreaks of communicable diseases; and aiding States in the in-
vestigation of disease-producing conditions. Very special types of
cooperation are: Venereal-disease work of the Public Health Serv-
ice, work in rural sanitation, and work in the prevention and control
of malaria.
Under the act approved August 14, 1912, the Public Health Service
is authorized to study and investigate the diseases of man and pollu-
tion of streams. Under authority of this act the service is now carry-
ing on investigations in tuberculosis, influenza, pneumonia, anthrax,
amoebiasis, botulinus poisoning, hookworm, leprosy, malaria, menin-
gitis, pellagra, plague, trachoma, typhoid fever, child hygiene, indus-
trial hygiene, excreta disposal, and stream pollution. The investi-
gative work of the Public Health Service is done at various stations
in the field and also at the Hygienic Laboratory in Washington.
This institution contains approximately 50,000 square feet of space,
has a personnel of 119, and is most excellently equipped for carrying
On pathological, zoological, pharmacological, bacteriological, chemi-
cal, and physiological work.
Under the act of July 1, 1902, the Public Health Service supervises
and controls the manufacture of biologic products such as viruses,
vaccines, therapeutic serums, toxins, antitoxins, or analogous products
applicable to the prevention and cure of diseases of man. Some 96
products are supervised. The manufacture of these products is under
license according to regulations, and they are kept under careful
supervision by inspection made by officers of the Public Health Serv-
ice, the products being constantly tested for purity and potency.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 141
The value of the products supervised by the Public Health Service
in the past fiscal year is approximately $10,000,000, and as new ad-
Vances in preventive medicine are made the number of these products
is continually increasing.
One of the important functions of the Public Health Service is the
dissemination of public health information for the use of the public.
The scientific public is informed by bulletins prepared by the Hy-
gienic Laboratory and the Division of Scientific Research. State
and local health authorities, quarantine officers, and other persons
interested in public health matters are kept advised as to the preva-
lence of diseases by the weekly publication of the Public #iº,
Reports. In addition to this there is published in the Public Health
Reports matters of general interest to sanitarians on the progress
of disease prevention. During the fiscal year 1920 the total number
of pamphlets and bulletins issued by the Public Health Service,
exclusive of those relating to venereal disease, was 5,806,220.
Some achievements of the Public Health Service may be enumer-
ated as follows:
Smallpox eradicated in the Philippines, supervising and control
of cholera in the Philippines, bubonic plague controlled on the Pacific
coast by the destruction of rats and ground squirrels, bubonic plague
controlled in New Orleans and Porto Rico by the eradication of rats,
cholera successfully prevented from reaching the United States with-
out interruption to commerce in the great European epidemic of 1910
through new quarantine procedure developed by the service. Dur-
ing the World War the Public Health Service successfully protected
the health of the military forces of the United States in the areas
contiguous to the camps. Without such control the camps would
have been menaced to an unprecedented extent by such diseases as
malaria, typhoid fever, cerebrospinal meningitis, venereal diseases,
etc.
The success of the service in the control of yellow fever has already
been mentioned.
The part played by the Public Health Service in the reduction of
the death rate from typhoid fever in the United States has already
been mentioned.
In its investigation of diseases the Public Health Service has made
important contributions to the prevention and control of diseases,
among which may be mentioned the following:
In the matter of yellow fever, the observation made as to the
incubation periods of yellow fever, which made possible later the
discovery by Reed and Carroll, of the United States Army, of the
method of transmission of yellow fever by the mosquito.
As to cholera, the service demonstrated the rôle played by cholera
carriers in the spread of cholera in the Philippine Islands.
As for pellagra, the service has shown that pellagra is a disease
caused by improper diet and that the prevention and cure of the
disease lies in the eating of a well-balanced diet.
In the matter of beriberi, the first practical demonstration that
beriberi was caused by the use of polished rice was made by the
Public Health Service; beriberi was eliminated from the Govern-
ment institutions in the Philippine Islands by dietary measures. The
Public Health Service also demonstrated that infantile beriberi was
the cause of excessive infant mortality in the Philippines.
142 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
By its investigation of leprosy the Public Health Service has de-
veloped a method of treatment which promises a cure.
With regard to malaria, the extracantonment work of the service
has given a tremendous impetus to the elimination of malaria from
the United States. In one demonstration the service reduced the
loss from $11.50 per acre in the year 1918 to $1.50 per acre in 1919.
As to syphilis, the investigations of the service on the causes of
death and sudden death in the use of drugs for the cure of syphilis
have demonstrated how the five or six million doses of arsphenamine
annually administered may be given safely.
In the matter of diphtheria, when the Public Health Service was
charged by law with the supervision of biologics, the service carried
on the extremely difficult task of preparing and preserving a stand-
ard diphtheria antitoxin unit which had never been done before, and
by some was deemed to be impracticable.
Now, as to trachoma, the service has developed most effective
methods for the cure of trachoma, a chronic disease of the eyes which
has blinded many thousands, and has been regarded by some as in-
curable.
Take the question of immunity from disease, the Public Health
Service first studied the phenomenon known to scientists as “anaphyl-
axis.” or “hypersensitiveness,” which has been found to play a most
ºnt part in the question of susceptibility and immunity to
ISéâSé.
The Public Health Service played an important part in the demon-
stration of the transmission of typhus fever by lice, and demon-
strated the identity of typhus fever with the so-called “ Brill’s ”
disease endemic in §. York City.
Deerfly fever, is a new disease endemic in Utah, the cause of which
was discovered by the Public Health Service during the past fiscal
698, L'.
Take the question of ground squirrels and plague, that the Cali-
fornia ground squirrel could act as a natural host of plague was
discovered by the Public Health Service. Had it not been for this
discovery it would have been impossible to control plague on the
Pacific coast.
Then, there is the question of the purification of polluted oysters.
A method of treating oysters from polluted oyster beds. So as to
make them safe for market use was discovered by the Public Health
Service. This process has been extensively adopted in England, and
will be doubtless widely used in the United States. ſº
In the matter of disinfection the Public Health Service developed
the new, widely used “Hygienic Laboratory methods of determining
the phenol coefficient of disinfectants.” It also developed the cyanide
method of disinfection by which vessels and buildings can be rapidly
and effectively rid of rats and vermin. . te ſº
As to measles, the Public Health Service made the important, dis-
covery that measles is contagious only during the first few days,
and placed health officers in the possession of knowledge to handle
measles cases intelligently.
Then there is Rocky Mountain spotted fever. The method of
controlling this disease by sheep grazing was described and developed
by the Public Health Service.
DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE. 143
As for stream pollution, the Public Health Service first studied
and pointed out the important sources of pollution of the waters of
the Great Lakes and the Missouri River, and made recommendations
that are being rapidly adopted for the control of such pollution.
Then, as to venereal diseases, the Public Health Service has given
great impetus to measure for controlling venereal diseases. Under
its leadership 47 States have organized special divisions in their
State health departments for the control of these diseases; 427 clinics
operated under general control of the Public Health Service and the
State boards of health gave 1,576,542 treatments during the past
fiscal year. Pamphlets on the subject of venereal diseases were dis-
tributed by the service and by the State boards of health to the
number of 8,082,792.
The identification of the American species of hookworm as a cause
of widespread anemia was first accomplished by an officer of the
service, and has resulted in a notable diminution in the prevalence
of this disease.
The studies made by the service of the relation of milk to public
health have resulted in widespread measures for the improvement
of milk supplies with corresponding reduction of diseases caused by
polluted milk. The milk bulletin issued by the Public Health Serv-
ice has been adopted as a textbook in universities throughout the
United States.
As to the matter of typhoid fever, the intensive studies of the
origin and prevalence of typhoid fever published by the service have
played an important part in the general reduction in the typhoid
fever death rate throughout the country.
As to organization of State health departments, the Public Health
Service has steadily fostered and aided the organization of State
health departments. Through the work of the Public Health Service
and through the detail of officers it has contributed directly to the
organization and development of State health departments in at
least 10 States, and has given aid and assistance to developing divi-
sions of health departments in other States.
Then there is hospital service. On March 3, 1919, the Public
Health Service was authorized to furnish additional hospital facili-
ties to patients of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance. At that time
the Public Health Service operated hospitals with a capacity of
approximately 1,500 beds. At the present time the service has in
operation hospitals with a bed capacity of approximately 18,000 beds
and will, in the near future, open hospitals with a capacity of
approximately 3,000 beds. In these hospitals the service is now car-
ing for approximately 16,000 patients. In all, the Public Health
Service has up to date cared for in hospitals approximately 200,000
patients of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance in addition to its
other beneficiaries. It has examined 1,070,000 applicants for com-
pensation under the war-risk insurance act, and treated in its dis-
pensaries 1,360,000 patients annually. ©
In the prosecution of this work the Public Health Service has
organized several special services. For example, it has organized a
dental service and has rendered dental care and treatment to 50,000
patients; 40,000 treatments have been authorized but not completed.
It has organized a service for rendering occupational and physio-
144 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
therapy treatments. It has created a corps of dietitians for the
purpose of supplying not only a balanced ration properly prepared
and served but also for supplying a special diet in the treatment of
diseases. It has organized in all its hospitals laboratories for both
X-ray work and for pathology, bacteriology, and biochemistry. It
has in a similar way begun Orthopedic services with shops for mak-
ing supplies, braces, and other orthopedic apparatus.
The Public Health Service is a bureau in the Treasury Department
and is in direct charge of the Surgeon General, whose direction is
subject to general supervision and approval by the Secretary and
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. The Surgeon General adminis-
ters the affairs of the bureau with the aid of an executive officer
through seven administrative divisions established by law, namely,
the division of marine hospitals and relief; division of domestic
quarantine; division of foreign and insular quarantine; division of
personnel and accounts; division of sanitary reports and statistics;
division of scientific research, and the division of venereal diseases,
and a general inspection service, a purveying Service, a section on
health education, and the office of the chief clerk.
The organization of the personnel in the field consists of:
Regular Commissioned officers 199
Reserve commissioned officers (active) 884
Reserve commissioned officers (inactive) ----------------------------- 391
Scientific personnel - 297
Attending Specialists 190
Acting assistant Surgeons -- - ** 590
Administrative assistants - - - - 172
InterneS - - 34
Nurses-------------------------------------------------------------- 1, 418
Dietitians - - - - - - - - - - -ºs - - - - - - - - 126
Reconstruction aids 460
Clerks - - - - 1,611
Other employees 9, 114
Total - ** 15, 486
In view of the substantial progress made in the Treasury Depart-
ment in the past and the manifest advantages of this existing
relationship, a feeling of hesitancy naturally arises as to its interrup-
tion. It is logical, however, from the standpoint of homogeneity
and efficiency to assemble in one department activities having to do
with public health. This is the principal object of the bill as it re-
lated to Federal health activities.
In the development of our Government and the creation of new
bureaus and divisions, authority has been granted here and there to
engage in public-health work. Development under these authorities
may have resulted in Some instances in duplication. On the other
hand, there are gaps in the public-health field which have not been
adequately covered by any agency.
In reassembling all agencies devoted to public health conservation
should accordingly take into account their proper relationship within
the new department. The bill as drafted provides for four assistant
Secretaries to have jurisdiction, respectively, over (1) education,
(2) public health, (3) special service, and (4) veteran service. Full
recognition by the new department of the importance of conserva-
tion of the public health should enable it to provide for future ade-
DEPARTMENT OF PIJBLIC WELFARE. 145
quate development. In this development the Public Health Service
should be a valuable agency and should be capable of extension to
meet all of the medical and sanitary needs. By proper coordination
with other Federal health agencies its facilities and personnel would
be available for the performance of these specific duties with which
the new department will be charged.
It is the desire of the Public Health Service to contribute in the
fullest measure possible to the protection of the public health. It is
believed that the principles of reorganization of the Federal health
activities, as outlined in this bill, would contribute to the accom-
plishment of this purpose.
There are, however, one or two provisions in the bill which should
be pointed out on account of what is believed will be harmful influ-
ences upon present and future developments of Federal health ac-
tivities.
Section 5 of the bill provides for the abolishment of the office of
the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service in the Treasury
Department. It is believed that there is no necessity for abolishing
this office and provision should be made in section 6 for its transfer
to the new department of public welfare. The Public Health Serv-
ice has grave apprehension as to the effect the abolishment of the
office of the Surgeon General would have upon the continued favor-
able evolution of Federal health activities through such an injury to
the Public Health Service. In order to point out the reason for this
apprehension on the part of the Public Health Service, it is perti-
nent here to make a short statement as to the development of the
office of the Surgeon General and its important relation to Federal
public health activities.
The Public Health Service was created by the act of Congress ap-
proved July 16, 1798. At that time it was known as the Marine
Hospital Service. By an act approved July 1, 1902, the name
Marine Hospital Service was changed to Public Health and Marine
Hospital Service. By an act approved August 14, 1912, the name was
again changed to its present name of the United States Public
Health Service.
As originally organized, the service was composed of medical offi-
cers under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. These
medical officers were known as surgeons in the Marine Hospital Serv-
ice. During the Civil War the marine hospitals were taken over as
military hospitals. After the Civil War, in the reorganization of the
Marine Hospital Service, the Secretary of the Treasury soon found
that he needed the assistance of a medical officer in the department
at Washington to assist him in the reorganization and direction of
the service.
In accordance with suggestions of the Treasury Department, a bill
to reorganize the hospital service was enacted into law June 29, 1870.
This bill among other things authorized the Secretary of the Treas-
ury to appoint a surgeon to act as supervising Surgeon of the Ma-
rine Hospital Service. Fifty years ago, in April, 1871, the first
Surgeon General (supervising surgeon) was appointed from among
the corps of surgeons of the Marine Hospital Service as the head of
the Marine Hospital Service.
49824–21—10
146 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
The duties and responsibilities of the supervising surgeon rapidly
increased so that by an act approved March 3, 1875, the Congress
provided that the Supervising surgeon should be known as the Super-
vising Surgeon General and be appointed by the President, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate. In the act approved
April 29, 1878, the title Supervising Surgeon General and Surgeon
General are used interchangeably. The titles continue to be used in-
terchangeably in the laws until July 1, 1902, when the title Surgeon
General was definitely designated by law.
From the history of the office of the Surgeon General and the acts
uoted above, it will be seen that the existing office of the Surgeon
eneral was evolved from that of the supervising surgeon which
was definitely established by Congress with the provision that the
gº be filled by appointment from surgeons in the Marine Hospital
€I*VICé.
The vicissitudes of the Marine Hospital Service prior to the ap-
pointment of a technical directing head at Washington showed the
necessity for such a head. Since the appointment of the first Sur-
geon General 50 years ago, April, 1871, there has been built up
around this office a corps of over 1,000 commissioned medical officers
who, because of the numerous emergencies they have met and the
situations they have faced, have developed a corps spirit which is
second to none in the Federal service. Whether it were yellow fever
in the South, plague on the Pacific coast, cholera in the Philippines,
or the pandemic of influenza, this corps of medical officers has never
faltered in the discharge of its duties.
The ability of the corps to meet emergencies in the face of epi-
demics, the cheerful undertaking of every task assigned, and its
resourcefulness in the presence of difficult situations may be in large
part attributed to the office of the Surgeon General. In all of its
stages of evolution, the Surgeon General has been the coordinating
and directing head through whom the efforts of the service have been
wisely directed and effective teamwork secured. The provision of
law by which the Surgeon General is selected from the members of
the corps has contributed largely to his success as the directing head
by insuring broad public health training, experience, and familiarity
with Federal administration. To abolish this office and to depend
upon placing a sanitary corps in the field without the Surgeon Gen-
eral would be equivalent to placing an army in the field without a
general and with only division commanders.
Since the very essence of public health work is homogeneity and
teamwork of those engaged therein, the effects of abolishing the office
of the Surgeon General should be obvious.
As stated before, the commissioned corps of the Public Health
Service now numbers over 1,000 officers in the several grades, as
follows: 1 Surgeon General, 12 Assistant Surgeons General, 26 Senior
surgeons, 362 surgeons, 486 passed assistant surgeons, and 183 assist-
ant surgeons, or a total of 1,070. g
A very large percentage of these officers have had wide experience
in medical and sanitary matters in the Army, Navy, or Public Health
Service and an especially valuable experience in meeting the medical
and sanitary emergencies during the World War. With such, a
corps already assembled and performing valuable services for the
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 147
Government, every care should be taken to avoid any legislation
which might affect deleteriously its present status. From the bel
ginning, the organization of the corps of medical officers has been
along the lines of the Medical Corps of the Army and Navy, the
essential features of which may be enumerated as follows:
No officer is selected until after careful physical, academic, and
ºional examination by a board of not less than three médical
OHICeI’S.
The officers are commissioned by the President and their tenure
of office is subject to efficiency and good moral conduct without
reference to political affiliations.
The officers are not appointed for duty in any one locality but
are at all times subject to detail to duty in any part of the world.
At their stations they are subject to call to duty at any hour, either
day or night. Mobility enables the service to fit the man to the
job by changes of station.
The discipline as regards obedience to orders of official superiors
is without question of the highest type. It is only by such discipline
that epidemic emergencies can be successfully met.
There has been built up along these lines a corps spirit in which
the Public Health Service takes an especial pride. It is this spirit
which inspires every officer to do his utmost on any duty to which he
is assigned. This is the spirit which has wrought the achievements
of which the Public Health Service is justly proud. In order to
preserve this corps spirit, I feel impelled to suggest an amendment
to section 12 which will provide that in arranging and rearranging
the commissioned personnel transferred to the department of public
welfare the rank, pay, and allowances of the officers shall not, by
reason of anything in the act contained, be diminished.
The CHAIRMAN. Would an interruption at this point for the pur-
pose of asking a question embarrass you in any way?
Gen. CUMMING. Not at all.
The CHAIRMAN. Reverting to the policy of the office of the Sur-
geon General, is it the name that you would like to preserve rather
than the functions of the office? In other words, if the Assistant
Secretary has charge of the work that the Surgeon General had
charge of, would you feel that you would be losing anything by the
abolition of the term “Surgeon General ”?
Gen. CUMMING. Well, the name is rather a historical one, and
there is a good deal of sentimental worth connected with it, and
there is such a thing as worth in Sentiment. e
The CHAIRMAN. I though perhaps by listening to you reading the
history and the term “Surgeon General” appearing in it there, that
it might be merely sentiment. º
Gen. CUMMING. Not altogether. I attempted to point out that
the selection of a technical head from amongst the corps who had
been trained in the various offices of the work was more important,
rather than the name. tº tº
The CHAIRMAN. And would you have any fear if the Assistant
Secretary, who would have charge of the public health—would you
fear that he would not be chosen from the technical corps?
Gen. CUMMING. Well, is it not provided for in the law?
The CHAIRMAN. No; it is not provided by law.
148 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
Gen. CUMMING. I have no fear of the present administration, but
We are rather looking toward the future.
The CHAIRMAN. May I ask at this time, what is the salary of the
Surgeon General?
Gen. CUMMING. $6,000.
The CHAIRMAN. So that the Assistant Secretary would get a salary
which is less than the salary of the Surgeon General at the present
time !
Gen. CUMMING. I do not think that that enters into the case at all,
because my understanding is that the new budget arrangement is
that all of the Assistant Secretaries are to receive a salary of $7,500.
I may state, too, Mr. Chairman, that the Surgeon General receives
more than $6,000 a year, because he gets commutation, etc.
The CHAIRMAN. My question was inspired from the belief that
the salary arranged for the Assistant Secretary under this bill is
too low.
Gen. CUMMING. I think it is, Mr. Chairman; but my understand-
ing is that all of the Assistant Secretaries, under the reorganization
of the Government, will get $7,500.
Mr. BANKHEAD. In that connection, General, under the present
arrangement, as I understand it, the Surgeon General's activities are
directed by the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, are they not?
en. CUMMING. In a general way, with one or two exceptions in
the 27 years that I have been in the service, it has been very general,
with respect chiefly to the business side and the administration end.
The technical and the scientific end has been left to the Surgeon
General.
Mr. BANKHEAD. But in the organization of the present system he
is directly under the Secretary of the Treasury?
Gen. CUMMING. He is directly under an Assistant Secretary of
the Treasury.
Mr. BANKHEAD. But in substance, so far as the skeleton of the
organization is concerned, there would be no substantial change?
Gen. CUMMING. Provided that the Assistant Secretary in charge
of it is a technical man.
Now, I have an amendment which I would like to have inserted, as
indicated by my suggestion
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Have you the bill, and have you the
amendment that you want to make?
Gen. CUMMING. Yes, sir; I have it here.
The CHAIRMAN. Where is that, General?
Gen. CUMMING. May I look it up?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, or you may go on and we will identify it later
on in the hearing if you wish.
Gen. CUMMING. I have it here. On page 9, Section 12, line 9, insert
after the word “Provided,” the following:
That in arranging and rearranging the personnel transferred to the depart-
ment of public welfare the rank, pay, and allowances of the offices commissioned
at the time of the transfer to said department shall not, by reason of anything
in this act contained, be diminished : Provided, further.
We feel that is particularly important, Mr. Chairman, because we
have had the greatest difficulty in securing personnel for the duties
and the important duties conferred upon it, particularly with ref-
erence to the ex-service man, and the men are up in the air, so to
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 149
speak, and they are uncertain as to their futures, and there are a good
many resignations pending that have already been made, and we feel
that something should be done to quiet the fears of the doctors as to
their futures, as much as can be done, consistent with your wishes.
We have had a great number of resignations in the last 12 or 15
months, and we have some 30 officers, I think, less now than we had
two years ago.
In the course of the hearings the question of coordination and ex-
pansion of the Federal health activities to be included in the proposed
new department of public welfare has been raised. A review of the
laws relating to Federal health activities will show that the Public
Health Service has been vested with all of the authority to investigate
the diseases of man and to control infectious and contagious diseases,
which under the Constitution can be conferred by Congress upon any
Federal agency whatsoever. The only limitations are constitutional,
and those set by the appropriations and the available supply of men
and women trained in preventive medicine.
Congress appropriated to the Public Health Service for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1920, $24,965,657.14, of which about $2,523,000
was for public-health work. I make that statement because there
have been statements made without sufficient study as to the amount
of money that we have had to spend.
The CHAIRMAN. Before you go along with that line, I would like
to suggest that we are very anxious in this rearrangement to show
that we can practice economy without harmfulness to the service, and
that proviso that you are proposing leads me to think that there has
not been any effort to prevent any decrease in the personnel.
Gen. CUMMING. In the personnel?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Gen. CUMMING. I do not think that you anticipate the dropping of
any of the medical officers, do you?
The CHAIRMAN. Not unless it is necessary, or unless we can do the
work without them.
Gen. CUMMING. They are already trying to stay under the law,
and the number is much less than the law appropriates for, and we
are trying to get more all the time.
The CHAIRMAN. There is no duplication here, is there, so that we
might omit some people under the reorganization, is there?
Gen. CUMMING. I know of no duplication, Mr. Chairman. There
may be individual cases that I do not know of. I will take up a little
bit later our cooperation.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not mean, General, that I think there is, but
you would be in a position to give us the information. It is for that
reason that I have asked the question.
Gen. CUMMING. I think that the main trouble is the gap between
the various activities rather than duplication at present.
Senator KENyon. How many employees are there, General?
Gen. CUMMING. I have a list of them here. There are at present
a total number of employees, that is to say officers, nurses, everybody
employed in the hospitals, officers, attendants, which includes the
treatment of the ex-service men, the district officers who take care of
them, all of the activities of the service, there are about 15,486. I
may say that under an arrangement with the Bureau of War Risk
150 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
Insurance for taking care of our district offices there will be a dimi-
nution of about 2,000, which we will probably get rid of about the
last of June. Now, of this number, however, engaged in the particu-
lar phase of work, that is, Public Health Service work, Mr. Chairman,
of these 15,000 men there are only 1,614 employees engaged in public
health work, by which I mean quarantine and immigration, at the
city wharves, the prevention of epidemics in cooperation with the
States, and Scientific research; in other words, practically about one-
tenth of the corps.
Senator KENYON. And what are the rest engaged in }
Gen. CUMMING. They are engaged in activities in relation to taking
care of the ex-service men.
Senator KENYON. All of them, all of the rest of them?
Gen. CUMMING. I think about all.
Mr. BANKHEAD. How many men have you engaged in the rural
sanitation, General?
Gen. CUMMING. I will have to ask, if I may, in order to get it
exactly. It is about 40,000 men.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask right here if these plans out at Perry-
ville are placed under the Public Health Service?
Gen. CUMMING. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. What are they doing out there?
Gen. CUMMING. At Perryville! We have quite a large hospital,
Mr. Chairman, there, for the taking care not of the insane but what
is commonly known as the shell-shock cases, of about 300 patients,
and in addition to that it is used as a depot of supplies. You know
that the Army signed over to us a lot of discarded supplies, and we
are utilizing these old buildings as a place of salvage, or as a depot
from which we can distribute the beds and the hospital medical Sup-
plies throughout the country.
The CHAIRMAN. And has that added greatly to the number of the
personnel?
Gen. CUMMING. Do you mean at Perryville?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Gen. CUMMING. No, sir; just enough men to take care of or to
physically handle the stuff and get it together, and I think that we
have 20 or 30 clerks, as far as I can remember.
The CHAIRMAN. I was under the impression that we had those
buildings and had nothing to do with them, and therefore we turned
them over to the Public Health Service whether they really needed
them or not, because we had not any way to dispose of them.
Gen. CUMMING. I confess, Mr. Chairman, when I first came here
about a year ago and found out about Perryville, I was a little
afraid of it, because it looked like a white elephant.
The CHAIRMAN. That was what I was afraid of. That was what
I had in mind. ©
Gen. CUMMING. And at that time a great many of those build-
ings—there had been a rather complicated arrangement, as Yºu
know, by which the buildings were leased to a corporation which
subsequently failed. Gen. Sawyer and I went to see it, and I look
upon it as an excellent nucleus for a hospital, and there are 20 Or 25
buildings there which are now used for housing the nurses and the
doctors and the people attached to the Service. There are 164 em-
ployees over there, answering the previous question. That includes
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 151
laborers who are handling the supplies. It is intended, at least I
have recommended to the Secretary of the Treasury, that the hospital
be largely increased, because we have there a power plant, a sewer-
age system and water, supply, and the Government owns the land,
and all We have to do is to build additional wards for taking care of
that class of patients.
The CHAIRMAN. And it would be an inducement for a further out-
lay, and I was just wondering whether we were in danger of being
asked for more than what we have already done. Of course we have
got the property there, and we might want to utilize it, but it would
be necessary to spend additional funds—
Gen. CUMMING. The only thing to spend money further on now is
the building of wards for taking care of the patients. You have the
buildings already up there for the nurses and for the doctors and for
the personnel, the medical personnel, and all of those persons; but I
will confess, if you had asked me that a year ago, I would have said
that I believed it was a white elephant on our hands; but we can now
See the use of it.
The CHAIRMAN. I am very glad to hear that, because many thought
that it might entail the expenditure of an immense amount of money.
Gen. CUMMING. As I Say, at that time and for a good many months
afterwards I was so apprehensive of it that I used to send an in-
spector over there about twice a month to see if everything was going
on all right.
The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.
Gen. CUMMING. As I have stated, there is an existing law under
which the Federal Government will take over everything that had
to do in the way of medicine. Now with regard to the appropria-
tion, I think that there has been a considerable misunderstanding.
Congress appropriated to the Public Health Service for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1920, not a hundred million dollars, or hundreds
of millions of dollars, but $23,660,657.14, and that included the care
of the ex-service men. Of that amount only $2,340,000 was for pub-
lic health work, about one-tenth. Now this year, of course, has not
yet been finished, and the appropriation for the public health work
this year was approximately the same, with the exception of about
$300, which we have had to ask for on account of an epidemic of
lague in the South—not an epidemic, but the presence of the plague
in three States—and we have taken over the New York quarantine;
we took that over on the 1st of March, which involved a considerable
expenditure.
The CHAIRMAN. Our total expenditure for the year for the Public
Health Service will be about how much 3
Gen. CUMMING. For the fiscal year 1920?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Gen. CUMMING. About $2,340,000.
The CHAIRMAN. And have you the figures for 1914 and 1915?
Gen. CUMMING. I could insert them here, but I have not got them
right here now. But I might say that for public-health work it was
very nearly the same; there is not much difference. Of course the
large increase is in consequence of the ex-service men's work. ..
Mr. Town ER. In case you took over some of the Army buildings,
either hospitals or those buildings that are not now used for hospitals
152 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
and which you want to hospitalize, would that expense be included in
your estimates or included in your expenditure, or would that go into
the Army appropriation?
Gen. CUMMING. No, sir; we have never gotten anything out of the
Army appropriation bill for anything. They would come out of our
own expense account.
Mr. Town ER. And that would be naturally an expense that ought
to be charged up to the Army; that is, the hospitalizing or the addi-
tional hospitalizing of the Army posts, the Army hospitals.
Gen. CUMMING. We rather feel that we should not be compelled
to pay for it, and that it should be turned back, although, of course,
it is Federal funds after all. I might state that in the changing and
taking over of these old establishments and trying to arrange them
for hospitals—these old cantonments—has cost us an enormous
amount of money, and it has led to charges of extravagance against
the service which I think a number of Congressmen who are more
familiar with it do not feel is justified.
Mr. TownER. Before we pass that up, it would be small as com-
pared with the building of new hospitals, would it not?
Gen. CUMMING. The total expense, I doubt, Mr. Towner. For
instance, in the Fox Hall Hospital, taken over October 15—of course
this winter was very, very mild, but the previous winter the Army
spent $120,000 to heat the place. There are 3 miles of corridors in
many of these places which we have to heat at an enormous expense.
Senator KEN YON. Have you the charge in your department of the
hospital work for all of the ex-service men?
Gen. CUMMING. We had until recently. We have turned over the
so-called contract hospitals, which we have tried to get rid of for so
long, to the Bureau of War Risk Insurance.
ś: KENYON. But outside of that have you charge of it?
Gen. CUMMING. Well, there are still others—there are three sol-
diers’ homes being operated.
Senator KENYON. But you have charge of the greater part of it,
have you not? -
Gen. CUMMING. Yes, sir.
A: Baskarao. You mean by that those discharged from the
TIOV º
ë. CUMMING, Yes; the ex-service men.
Senator KENYON. We have had so many charges on the floor,
doubtless you rather suspicion Senator Walsh, of Massachusetts,
made in that regard—
Gen. CUMMING. Yes, sir.
Senator KENYON. And nearly every night an editorial appears in
one of the papers claiming that Congress is not taking proper care of
the ex-service men with reference to hospitalization. Have you in-
vestigated the charges made by Senator Walsh'
Gen. CUMMING. Well, Senator Walsh and I have had some cor-
respondence. I will say that an investigation is being made up there,
and that has been going on for some time, by a representative of
the Bureau of War Risk Insurance and our people.
Senator KENYON. And what more can Congress do to take care of
the ex-service men in the way of hospitalization?
Gen. CUMMING. Well, you have voted the money, and the main
thing is to build
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 153
Senator RENYON. But what I want to get at is, has Congress done
everything that it could do?
Gen. CUMMING. I think that there will be some more money needed.
º Senator KENYON. Is there anything further needed from Congress
in your judgment?
Gen. CUMMING. There is nothing further needed from Congress
except I think that there will be eventually needed about $12,000,000
more for hospitals.
Senator KENYON. Who is building those hospitals now?
Gen. CUMMING. The Secretary of the Treasury appointed a board
of consultants to advise him with reference to where hospitals should
be located, and it is entirely now up to the board.
Senator KENYON. And is that work going ahead?
Gen. CUMMING. I presume so, Senator.
Senator KENYON. What I want to know is whether the criticisms
of Congress and the other departments are justified? Is Congress
taking care of these men or not?
Gen. CUMMING. They are taking care of them the best they pos-
sibly can. We have only used the contract hospitals where there
were none other. A man applies for hospitalization in his locality,
Senator, and he has to be hospitalized somewhere, and the man is
put in the very best hospital in his locality, and frequently the hos-
pital is not what it should be, and the man does not want to go to a
hospital which is in another area. Very frequently a man desires
to stay in his own locality, quite naturally, to stay in a hospital in
his own town, rather than go to a distant point where there is a
better hospital. You can understand that that would be the case
quite naturally.
Senator ICENYON. Of course, it is very easy to criticize, but we all
know that Congress and everybody else wants to do everything they
can for these boys.
Gen. CUMMING. I appreciate that.
Senator KENYon. I would like to know if there is anything more
that we can do than we have already done. If there is anything
more, I would like to know what it is.
Gen. CUMMING. I believe that there is too much unjust criticism
in all governments. It is pandemic not only in this country but in
other countries, and in looking back I think that there should have
been some provisions made, and that we should have realized during
the war that there were going to be sick men after the war, and that
there was going to be need of hospitalization, and looking back at
it now, I can see that it probably was a mistake to build temporary
hospitals that are soon going to fall to pieces. Also I think it would
have been wiser for Congress to have appropriated money at an
earlier date, but it is very easy to look back and criticize after the
thing is over.
Senator KENYon. What is the stage of the Speedway Hospital?
Gen. CUMMING. The Speedway?
Senator KENYon. Yes.
Gen. CUMMING. We have nothing to do with it until the Super-
vising Architect turns it over to us.
Senator KENYon. Then it is not under you; under the Treasury
Department?
154 DEPARTMENT OF PTUBLIC WELFARE.
Gen. CUMIMING, Yes, sir; the Supervising Architect of the Treas-
ury Department has it under his jurisdiction, and all of the build-
ings are under his jurisdiction until they are completed and turned
over to us. They have assured us—that is, Mr. Glover, the Assist-
ant Secretary, who is now in Chicago, has assured us—that they will
turn it over to us on July 15.
The CHAIRMAN. And how many beds will we get there?
Gen. CUMMING. Approximately a thousand, because Congress did
not provide for the personnel, so the personnel has to be taken care
of in the hospital.
Senator PHIPPs. But what is the present situation? Is there any
great number of men awaiting hospital treatment who are unable to
get it by reason of lack of facilities?
Gen. CUMMING. I heard the Director of the War Risk Insurance
Bureau say recently that he had seen so many of these accusations
before he came that he had the matter looked up, and that he had
not found any one who had applied for hospitalization that had not
been furnished with hospitalization.
Senator KENYON. As a matter of fact, the department is caring
for the soldiers who require treatment in the hospitals?
Gen. CUMMING. Yes, sir; in some way. Senator Walsh attacked
the hospital system. He knows that we have to have the hospitals,
and the men in some instances are taken care of in Some hospitals
that are not at all satisfactory, and there are cases where men come
to the district supervisor's office, and they are offered hospitalization
away from the locality in which they reside, and they are not willing
to go to those places. I do not mean to Say that there are not some
hundreds of people around the country who want to be hospitalized
that are not hospitalized. It would be foolish to say that. But when
they apply to the office they are hospitalized.
Mr. BANKHEAD. When do you think that you will be able to reach
the peak of the hospitalization necessities?
Gen. CUMMING. I think it will be about 1926 or 1927 for the
general cases, and probably a couple of years later for the mental
and tubercular cases, but you will realize that it is difficult to make
a positive statement because there are two things that affect it. One
I think is the economical and industrial conditions of the country,
for the reason that the man will not go to the hospital who has a
slight ailment if he is making big wages, and he will not desire to
lose the time from his work. On the other hand, if there is no work,
it will tend to increase the number. Certainly, I think that a very
prompt payment of compensation by decentralizing the Bureau of
War Risk Insurance would tend to empty the hospitals more or less.
I state that because you are aware of the fact that there are a certain
number of men—nobody knows the exact number—but there is a
certain number of men who are kept in the hospitals awaiting the
settlement of their compensation.
Senator KENYON. And how could that be speeded up?
Gen. CUMMING. By decentralizing the payments of the Bureau of
War Risk Insurance.
Mr. BANKHEAD. In that connection let me ask you, were you before
the subcommittee of the House committee—in regard to the Sweet
bill?
Gen. CUMMING. Yes, sir.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 155
Mr. BANKHEAD. And were you familiar with the provisions of the
so-called Sweet bill for the centralization of the activities——
Gen. CUMMING. Yes, sir; both the No. 3 bill and the second bill.
* BANKHEAD. I mean the one that it is expected to be reported
Glü 9
Gen. CUMMING. Yes, sir; the second bill, and I think that it is a
very excellent bill.
d Mr. Paskhead. And you favor that bill for emergency purposes,
O WOUI &
en. CUMMING. Yes, sir; I think that it is an excellent bill, and I
think that nobody knows more about it than Mr. Sweet.
Mr. BANKHEAD. And you approve of the provisions of the bill as
it is now agreed upon?
Gen. CUMMING. Yes, sir; I do. I had a conference with Col.
Cholmoley-Jones, the former director, and Mr. Lambkin, between
ourselves, and they made practically the same suggestion to me.
Mr. BANKHEAD. And that provides that all of these centralized
activities shall be under the control of an Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury.
Gen. CUMMING. An Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; yes, sir.
As to what department it shall be in, of course, I have nothing to do.
I think that the bill will accomplish a great deal of good.
The CHAIRMAN. Right in connection with the tremendous criticism
against the Federal Board in this rehabilitation work, it was from
the same source, that it was not decentralized, and after that was
done I think the most of the criticism has been allayed.
Gen. CUMMING. I really think—I know that I am looking at it
from a prejudiced standpoint, being responsible for the public-
service work, but talking to the Red Cross workers in the hospitals,
the people who go down and talk to the men, they say that 95 per
cent of the criticism against the hospitals is due to the waiting, day
after day, to see whether the men are going to get their compensation
or not. The practical effect is very bad. I think that if a man could
get $10 instantly and immediately that he would be better off than
if he were to get $80 a year from now.
Mr. REED. Let me say that I had a case the other day where a boy
came down from Perryville, and he had been short of money, because
of the fact that he was too proud to ask for money, but he made
some efforts and he got his fare down here, and he went down to the
department and found that it was a question of proof. He had been
sending in affidavits, and those affidavits would come in to the Bureau
of War Risk Insurance, and the Bureau of War Risk Insurance
would simply send back a form letter stating that there was “insuffi-
cient evidence.” He would then send in again another series of affi-
davits, but he was unable to connect up his ailment with the service,
so they said. He came down here and he was simply trying to get
what was coming to him, and we found that the war records were
wrong; that they had him in the wrong division. They claim that
he had had influenza, and he had never had influenza in his life, and
the only thing that saved that boy was a letter written from a Red
Cross girl worker in England saying that he had shell shock. Now,
what is the remedy to stop all of this criticism? Of course the Red
Cross workers are trying to help these boys, for they get them in
these hospitals, but certainly, these boys ought to have their anxiety
156 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
lessened, and have an opportunity to get well, and I think that there
ought to be trained men in the hospitals to prepare their cases and see
that the people back home know how to make out the affidavits.
They simply make it out on information and belief, and it is due to
the service so that they can get down to the specific facts, and I think
that if Congress will spend the money to put trained men in there
to handle those cases that it will help a great deal.
Gen. CUMMING. I will state that arrangement has been made to
have a representative of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance in our
hospitals in addition to the Red Cross work. I think they have them
i. most of the hospitals, and I know that in many of them they
a,Ve.
Mr. BANKHEAD. But the Congressman's suggestion was not that
they should have a representative of the Bureau of War Risk Insur-
ance, but they should have someone to represent the interests of the
men themselves.
Mr. REED. That is just exactly the point. The boys won’t talk to
the representatives of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, and they
think that they ought to have somebody looking after their interests,
because a fight of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance is made in be-
half of the Government all the time, and I have taken men in there
and they have approached the boy as though he were a liar from the
beginning, and you will find mistakes all of the time in the various
war records. If we could get some good ex-service man, who has a
sympathy with the boys, who would be sympathetic, and who has
some knowledge of law, and get him into the hospital to prepare the
cases for the boys, and if necessary come down here with the boy, I
think that it would be a very great help.
Gen. CUMMING. I think that is a very important matter and is
one that should be taken into consideration by the Loyal Legion:
We have always worked with the representatives of the Loyal
Legion, and I think it is one of the most important things that they
can do, to go around in the various hospitals and look after the boys
in that way.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything further, General?
Gen. CUMMING. I have stated that Congress appropriated to the
Public Health Service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1929,
$23,660,657.14, of which about $2,340,000 was for public health work.
in addition it imposed upon the Public Health Service, the, duty of
providing medical care for the discharged soldiers, and sailors and
authorized the acquisition of a number of additional hospitals. This
will furnish wonderful opportunities for developing better methods
of treatment and prevention of disease, especially tuberculosis and
neuro-psychiatric diseases. e tº s º *
The ‘review of the laws relating to Federal health activities will
further show, as stated above, that several bureaus and divisions in
several executive departments have been authorized by, Songſess to
perform limited health functions in certain specific fields. For ex-
ample, the Bureau of Chemistry, in so far as the pure food and drugs
act relates to public health; the Children's Bureau, in 59 far as child
welfare relates to health; the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in certº
health functions in the matter of industrial diseases; the Bureau of
Mines, in matters of health hazards in the mining industry; the
jon of vital Statistics, Bureau of the Census, in the matters
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 157
relating to vital statistics; the Bureau of Entomology, in relation
to the insect transmission of disease; the Bureau of Education, in
the matter of school hygiene; and the Interdepartmental Social
Hygiene. Board in matters relating to the control of venereal dis.
eases. Since all of these functions are also authorized for the Public
Health Service there is an overlapping in the functions of those
bureaus and divisions and the Public Health Service. There is also
overlapping in the special fields of other bureaus.
The confusion of effort and the duplication of work are not
serious, for the bureaus are limited in their functions by their ap-
propriations So that as yet they seldom cover the same field. Fur-
thermore, they often cooperate with each other by agreement or
detail of officers from one bureau to another. As an illustration, the
Public Health Service has detailed officers to cooperate with the
Bureau of Chemistry, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Children's Bu-
reau, Working Conditions Service, War Risk Insurance Bureau,
Employees’ Compensation Commission, Commission on Industrial
Relations, Federal Board for Vocational Education, and others.
It can readily be seen that if the bureaus were provided with
adequate appropriations their expansion would result in competition,
jealousies, and duplication of work, with probable waste of Gov-
ernment funds. The defect at present is not so much overlapping
but gaps in the field which are not covered by any Federal agency.
The logical conclusion reached when one studies this question is
to bring these several bureaus together and coordinate them under
one administrative head. Obviously the several branches of public
health work are so intimately related that the bureaus can not work
to the best advantage in different departments. Infant hygiene
fades imperceptibly into school hygiene, and school hygiene into
hygiene of the child in industry. Public health is not a problem
of separate age groups, racial groups, or occupational groups.
Without question one administrative head should have super-
vision over all of the civil and Federal health activities. The neces-
sity for this was realized during the war, and an Executive order
was issued July 1, 1918, placing civil health activities, except those
exercised by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, under the supervision
and control of the Secretary of the Treasury, through the Public
Health Service.
In regard to the action of Federal aid to State and local health
agencies, it may be pointed out that Federal, State, and local health
agencies each have certain definite responsibilities. The Federal
Government is responsible for the national control of diseases and
interstate control; the State government is responsible for State
control and intrastate control of diseases; the local government is
responsible for municipal or county control of diseases.
The field of prevention of disease, however, is peculiar in that
disease germs do not regard political boundaries, and one State or
community with high standards of public health administration
can not successfully protect itself against another_State or com-
munity with a substandard health administration. In order, there-
fore, to bring about an economical and efficient administration for
the prevention of diseases, it is believed that, a “unified health
service” should be established with a partnership arrangement be-
tween Federal, State, and local Government health agencies, in which
158 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
each partner should provide its just proportion of the expense of
such administration. With such a partnership in operation through-
out the United States, the Government would lend itself to the estab-
lishment of uniform standards and stimulate those States and com-
munities with substandard health administrations to bring them
up to the standard and afford adequate protection to the States with
high standards against the invasion of diseases from the substand-
ard States or communities.
The Public Health Service therefore advocates the extension of
Federal aid to State and local health agencies to a limited extent, as
is justly indicated by the Federal responsibilities in the prevention
of national and interstate spread of diseases.
Mr. Chairman, I would like very much to add to the hearings this
itemized statement of the appropriations to the United States Public
Health Service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1920, and what
those appropriations are used for. I think that there have been
some very wild statements made in regard to that.
The CHAIRMAN. You may add that if you so desire.
Appropriations for United States Public Health Service, fiscal year ending June
30, 1920.
Prevention of epidemics $500,000. 00
Quarantine Service 200, 000.00
Field investigation of public health———— 300, 000.00
Interstate quarantine 25, 000. 00
Rural Sanitation 50, 000. 00
Pellagra investigation---------------------------------------- 30, 000. 00
Biologic products 50, 000.00
Remains Of Officers 5, 000.00
War Risk hospitals and beneficiaries 19, 166, 187.14
Venereal diseases 200,000. 00
Pay Of commissioned officers 850, 000. 00
Pay Of acting assistant surgeons 300,000.00
Pay Of Other employees 744, 000. 00
Freight, travel, and transportation 48,000. 00
Fuel, light, and water - 125,000.00
Furniture and repairs 8, 000.00
Purveying service 85,000. 00
Hygienic laboratory 36,000, 00
Maintenance of marine hospitals 625,000.00
Care of Seamen 220, 000. 00
Books and journals 500. 00
Clerical help (legislative act) 92, 970. 00
TOtal 23, 660, 657. 14
Special objects, public health :
Prevention of epidemics 500,000. O0
Quarantine Service 200, 000, 00
Field investigation 300,000. 00
Interstate quarantine 25, 000.00
Rural Sanitation 50, 000.00
Pellagra investigation 30, 000. 00
Biologic products 50, 000.00
Venereal diseases 200, 000.00
Commissioned officers (40 per cent) 320,000.00
Pay of acting aSSistant Surgeons (40 per cent) ---___________ 120,000.00
Pay of other employees (approximately) 400,000.00
Freight, travel, and transportation (50 per cent) ----------- 24, 000.00
Hygienic laboratory 36,000.00
Clerical help t 85,000.00
Total 2, 340, 000.00
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 159
Mr. REED. I would like to ask the general one question, if I may.
The CHAIRMAN. All right.
Mr. REED. Is there any office in Washington where we can find out
absolutely just how many hospitals there are taking care of the sol-
diers, and where they are located?
Gen. CUMMING. I think that you could find that out in our office.
Mr. REED. I have written in to the Assistant Secretary of the Treas-
ury for such a report.
Gen. CUMMING. How long ago?
Mr. REED. Well, a little over a week ago now. I am very anxious
to get that report.
en. CUMMING. That is something that we have frequently worked
up, and I think that it could be readily secured for you.
The CHAIRMAN. Then, as I understand it, with that exception, with
the change in that section of the bill relating to certain
Gen. Cumming (interposing). I think very strongly, Mr. Chair-
man, for the time being, without Saying anything about their duties,
it would be better, and I think the gentlemen who favor your bill
think that it would be better to move the whole service, as well as
other bureaus, en bloc, over there.
The CHAIRMAN. And your other suggestion is an additional proviso
in section 12?
Gen. CUMMING. Yes, sir; that has always been carried in similar
bills, and I think it would help us in keeping the corps intact and
would improve the spirit of the men, and they have been attacked
so much that it is difficult for the men to work now, and I am afraid
that there would be disintegration of the corps. The salaries are
small, so much so that there are very few of the men who could not
get larger salaries, and they only stay there because of their interest
in the work, and we have got a high type of scientific men there,
mostly because of the fact that they do not care much about the
salary so long as they are insured for the rest of their lives, and
they have devoted themselves to this scientific work.
The CHAIRMAN. Do we understand that this method of selecting
this personnel is satisfactory to you?
Gen. CUMMING. By these provisions they are just the same rigid
requirements as the Army or Navy; it is not civil service, because
the civil-service board is not competent to pass upon them. It is a
board of officers, three men before whom they come, and are ex-
amined for their morals, their education, and professional qualifica-
tions, and I do not think, in all the long line of the history of the
service, that we have been accused of being influenced by political
considerations in the selection of the men for the service.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Is it your judgment that the removal of this
Public Health Service from the Treasury Department into the de-
partment of public welfare would result in any economies in the
administration of the service?
Gen. CUMMING. I can not see any reason to think that.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Do you think that it would probably result in im-
proving and benefiting the service if it were taken over by the de-
partment of public welfare? -
Gen. CUMMING. I think that the improvement to be obtained by
any such creation of a new bureau is in the unification of the health
160 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
agencies, so far as our Service is concerned. As I say, they could be
operated under one department as well as another, and it is the
merging of our service with other service that you have in other
departments
Mr. BANKHEAD (interposing). You suggest that there are still
Some gaps that ought to be covered. I did not go into that, but in
your judgment there are some hiati left that ought to be bridged?
Gen. CUMMING. Yes, sir.
Mr. BANKHEAD. In order to make this thing entirely coherent?
Gen. CUMMING. I think so. I may say that the service is already
under voluntary arrangements cooperating with almost all of the
other departments. For instance, we furnish medical officers to other
departments.
Mr. BANKHEAD. That would cover a large field of investigation
for the joint congressional committee to go into.
Gen. CUMMING. I think that the joint congressional committee can
do a great deal of good in increasing the efficiency of the Government
by going thoroughly into what we are doing now, in coordinating
voluntarily in what is now in the public health organization.
The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you.
STATEMENT OF MR HERBERT D. BROWN, CHIEF OF THE BUREAU
OF EFFICIENCY,
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brown, the other day when you appeared
before the committee we requested that you give us some detailed
information as to the possible saving by this plan of readjustment.
Have you got that?
Mr. BROwn. I have, Mr. Chairman. We have been asked to sub-
mit a statement concerning the savings which might reasonably be
expected to result from the establishment of the department of public
welfare. For the last few days a considerable portion of the staff
of the bureau of efficiency has accordingly been engaged in collecting
current data with respect to the organization of the various bureaus,
offices, and institutions, which it is proposed to transfer to the new
department, more particularly with respect to the distribution of
their personnel. I should like to call attention to the following table,
which shows the number of persons employed in these establishments,
and their distribution as between the departmental and field services.
The estimated annual expenditures made by these establishments for
personal services are also shown in this table. -
(The table above referred to is here printed in the record in full,
as follows:)
DEPARTMENT OF PIJ BLIC WELFARE.
161
Statement showing the personnel of the bureaus and offices proposed to be
transferred to the Department of Public Welfare, and estimated annual pay-
roll charges.

T)epartmental Service. Field Service. Total.
Name of establishment.
Number of Annual Number of Annual Number of Annual
employees. pay roll. employees. pay roll. employees. pay Toll.
Bureau of War Risk Insurance- 5,768 $8,106,198 180 $315,650 5,948 $8,421,848
Public Health Service. . . . . . . . . 778 1,122,835 18,407 18,913,981 19,185 20,036,816
Federal Board for Vocational
education.------------------- 851 1,364,962 4,363 7,373,707 5,214 8,738,669
National Home for Disabled
Volunteer Soldiers. . . . . . . . . .l........ ----|-----------. 4,454 1,314,616 4,454 1,314,616
Bureau of Pensions----. . . . . . . . 810 1,155,940 42 57,600 852 1,213,540
United States Employees’
Compensation Commission.. 83 126,960 ||------------|------------ 83 126,960
St. Elizabeths Hospital....... 1,149 779,866 ------------|------------ 1, 149 779,866
Freedmen’s Hospital. . . . . . . . . . 112 47,160 |------------|------------ 112 47,160
Bureau of Education.... . . . . . . 86 151,210 170 210,070 256 361,280
Columbia Institution for the
eaf------------------------ 70 70,785 ------------|------------ 70 70,785
Howard University...... . . . . . 88 106,356 |------------|------------ 88 106,356
Children’s Bureau....... "- - - - - - 108 170,280 ------------|------------ 108 y
Total.------------------- 9,903 || 13,202,552 27,616 28, 185,624 37,519 || 41,388,176
NOTES.
Estimates for different establishments are as of various dates between Jan. 1, 1921, and Apr. 1, 1921.
i. estimates do not include bonus or longevity and other allowances, or the cost of quarters and
SlloSiSLen Ce.
Personnel figures for the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers include part-time employees.
The figures for this establishment were taken from the Book of Estimates for 1922.
All employees at nominal salaries have been excluded in making the tabulations.
Mr. BROWN. It will be noted from this statement that the number
of persons now working in the 12 agencies which it is proposed to
transfer to the department of public welfare aggregate 37,519.
Senator KENYon. How many are there in the department of edu-
cation; does that show there?
Mr. BROWN. Yes. The Bureau of Education has 86 people in the
departmental service and 170 in the field, or a total of 256. Their
total pay roll is $361,280.
As I stated, the number of persons now working in the 12 agencies
which it is proposed to transfer to the department of public welfare
aggregate 37,519, of which 9,903 are in the departmental service and
27,616 are distributed throughout the field. It will be noted, further-
more, that the estimated annual expenditure for the salaries and
wages of these employees is $41,388,176. , Quite obviously it would
be impossible, in view of the great extent of the services involved, and
in view also of the diversity of their detailed operations, to make any
accurate forecast in terms of dollars and cents, concerning the money
saving which would result from the concentration of these establish-
ments in a single department. I am forced, in view of the very
limited time which has been available, to restrict my remarks to a
general statement concerning the possibilities for improvements in
administration, and for economy, which would result from the adop-
tion of the proposed plan for a department of public welfare.
At the outset I want to say emphatically that I am an advocate of
this proposed department. It is my judgment, reached after as care-
49824—21—11
162 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
ful a survey of the situation as it has been possible to make, that
such a department can be established without increasing the expendi-
tures of the Federal Government by a single dollar. More than that
it is my judgment that the concentration in a single department of
all veteran relief agencies, and the agencies which deal with educa-
tional problems, health problems, and other problems of social wel-
fare, will make possible material improvements in administration.
In fact, it can reasonably be assumed, not only that substantial im-
provement in the character of the service rendered will grow out of
the establishment of the new department, but that a substantial reduc-
tion can gradually be brought about in the cost of that service.
The agencies which are to be confided to the proposed department
of public welfare fall, upon an analysis of their duties, into four
groups: First, the soldiers’ relief group, consisting of the Bureau of
War Risk Insurance and the hospitalization division of the Public
Health Service, now located in the Treasury Department, the Na-
tional Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, an independent estab-
lishment, the Bureau of Pensions of the Department of the Interior,
and the Vocational Rehabilitation Division of the Federal Board for
Vocational Education, also an independent establishment; second,
the public-health group, consisting of the research and quarantine
divisions of the Public Health ervice, St. Elizabeths Hospital,
Freedmen’s Hospital, and certain divisions of the Children’s Bureau;
third, the educational group, consisting of the Bureau of Education
of the Department of the Interior, the Vocational Education Division
of the Federal Board for Vocational Education, Howard University,
and the Columbia. Institution for the Deaf; and, fourth, the social
service group, which, for the moment, consists only of a part of the
Children’s Bureau. In addition to these four groups of agencies,
it is proposed also to transfer to the new department, with some
change of form, the Federal Employees’ Compensation Commission,
which is a service agency designed to adjudicate claims for compensa-
tion for injuries received by civilian employees of the Government
while in the performance of their duties.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that an independent commission?
Mr. BRow N. That is an independent establishment; yes, sir. In-
cidentally, I am of the opinion that it would be wise to consider also
the propriety of including the Indian Service in the proposed de-
partment.
The question which I have been asked to discuss is: Can these 12
establishments, now carrying on their work with a greater or less
degree of independence, in some cases associated with departments
to which they have no natural relation—can these 12 agencies, if
brought together in a single departmental jurisdiction, perform their
statutory functions more economically than under the existing ar-
rangement? The answer is emphatically “Yes.”
Taking into account the character of work done and the number
of persons employed, by far the most important of the 12 agencies
which it is proposed to include in the department of public welfare
are the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, the Public Health Service,
and the Federal Board for Vocational Education. Of the total num-
ber of 37,519 persons employed by the 12 agencies, more than 30,000
are on the pay rolls of these three services. It is worth while to
IXEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, 163
consider the character of the supervision now exercised over the
work of these establishments. The Bureau of War Risk Insurance
and the Public Health Service are now situated in the Treasury De-
partment, under the control and direction of the Secretary of the
Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury is an officer invariably
Selected for his high position by reason of his training and ex-
perience in the field of finance.
It is no reflection upon Mr. Mellon, nor upon his able predecessors
to say that the head of the Treasury Department has no qualifica-
tions which justify his being given administrative direction of the
Public Health Service and the Bureau of War Risk Insurance. His
concern, is the fiscal business of the country. He has to handle the
staggering problems of collecting the public revenues and liquidating
the public obligations. He is constantly confronted with the problem
of balancing the Government’s budget; he supervises the issue and
circulation of the currency and the coining of money; he has direc-
tion of the audit and settlement of the accounts of thousands of
disbursing and collecting officers attached to all branches of the
public service. These duties he must necessarily regard as his prime
duties. To these duties he must devote his direct and personal at-
tention. Certainly no one can gainsay that these duties are suf-
ficiently important and exacting to make it impossible for him to ex-
ercise more than a nominal Supervision over those establishments in
his department which have no connection with fiscal business. Under
such circumstances, it is not surprising that the Bureau of War Risk
Insurance and the Public Health Service have always been, to all
intents and purposes, independent establishments, lacking that sup-
ervision and control which is essential to economical and effective
administration. These establishments should be removed from the
Treasury Department. If they are placed in a department devoted
exclusively to the administration of the Government's work in the
field of health, education, and the care and relief of disabled veterans
and their dependents—a department directed and controlled by
officers selected entirely out of consideration for their fitness as ad-
ministrators in this comparatively restricted field—it can not be
doubted that they will have more careful and expert supervision,
and that they can ultimately be administered at a reduced cost to
the Government and with a material improvement in the service
rendered.
The work of the Federal Board for Vocational Education should,
of course, be closely correlated with the work of the Public Health
Service and the Bureau of War Risk Insurance. But the Federal
board is an independent establishment, with not administrative rela-
tionship whatsoever to the Treasury Department, in which the other
two agencies are situated. The Federal board is composed of seven
members—the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Labor, the
Secretary of Commerce, and the Commissioner of Education, all of
whom serve ex officio, and three additional members appointed by
the President. The work of the board is under the active supervision
of an officer known as the director. He is assisted in the performance
of his duties by three assistant directors, one for vocational rehabili-
tation, one for vocational education, and the third for industrial
rehabilitation. These three assistant directors report to the director,
164 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
who, in turn, is responsible to the board. Incidentally, it should be
remarked that the work of the Vocational Rehabilitation Division
completely overshadows the work of the other two divisions in extent
and importance.
. This establishment, being completely independent of any execu-
tive department, is not subject, either directly or indirectly, to any
common control with the #. of War Risk Insurance and the
Public Health Service. The board has adopted its own policies and
pursued its own program. I do not mean to indicate that that pro-
gram has necessarily been out of consonance with the program
adopted by the Treasury Department, but such uniformity and har-
mony as characterizes the common program of the three establish-
ments has been reached, not by the decision of a single competent
authority, but through diplomatic negotiations, each agency con-
cerned being always careful to avoid encroaching upon the authority
of the others. That this arrangement has resulted in unsatisfactory
service no one can doubt. I am confident that it has also resulted
in a needless expenditure of public funds.
Everyone is agreed that these three establishments should be
brought under the same executive direction and control; not only
that they should be placed in the same department but that they
should be located in a department whose principal purpose would be
the administration of soldiers’ relief agencies and similar establish-
ments. This would not only be in the interest of more expeditious
service. Placing these establishments under the supervision of a sin-
gle competent executive, with authority to abolish here and to con-
solidate there, would beyond question be followed by a material re-
duction in administrative costs.
In considering those establishments which are charged with the
administration of various phases of the Government’s work in con-
nection with the relief of war veterans, I should mention also the
National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, the Bureau of Pen-
sions, and St. Elizabeths Hospital. Members of the committee are,
of course, familiar with the organization and work of these establish-
ments. The National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers is under
the control of a board of managers, which has no responsibility to
the head of any executive department. The 10 homes are utilized to
the greatest extent possible for the care of the veterans. But here
again the working arrangements between the Board of Managers of
the National Home on the one hand and the Public Health Service,
for example, on the other, must depend wholly upon diplomatic ne-
gotiations—they can not be determined by a single competent au-
thority. +
St. Elizabeth Hospital and the Bureau of Pensions are under the
direction of the Secretary of the Interior. You know, of course, the
connection of these establishments with the work of ministering to
the needs of ex-soldiers and sailors and their dependents. Veterans
with certain classes of ailments are placed in St. Elizabeths Hospital
for care and treatment just as veterans with other classes of ail-
ments are placed in Public Health Service hospitals. The Bureau
of Pensions bears practically the same relation to veterans serving
in the Army and Navy prior to the war with German that the com-
pensation division of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance bears to
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 165
veterans serving during that war. These establishments are under
the Supervision of a department which is charged primarily with
the conservation of our national resources, the administration of the
public domain, and with similar matters. Just as the Secretary of
the Treasury is physically unable to look after the business of the
Public Health Service and the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, so is
it impossible for any Secretary of the Interior, however competent
and versatile, to give to these agencies the attention which they
should have.
All of these establishments—the Bureau of War Risk Insurance,
the Public Health Service, the Federal Board for Vocational Educa-
tion, the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, the Bu-
reau of Pensions, and St. Elizabeths Hospital—perform work in
one way or another in connection with the general problem of afford-
ing relief to disabled or superannuated war veterans and their de-
pendents. Their activities are all interrelated. They should be con-
centrated in a single department. They should be placed under the
control of a single executive, and that executive clothed with au-
thority to combine field offices, to consolidate inspectional services, to
create common supply and personnel offices—in a word, to weld all
agencies dealing with this general problem into a single homogeneous
establishment.
The remarks which I have made with reference to the benefits to
derive from the concentration of those agencies which deal with
problems of veteran relief apply, although of course with somewhat
less force, to the other establishments which it is proposed to include
in the Department of Public Welfare. The Employees’ Compensa-
tion Commission performs work which in many ways is analogous
to the work of the Bureau of Pensions and the Compensation Di-
vision of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance. Its combination with
the Bureau of Pensions has been repeatedly suggested as a measure
of economy. The Bureau of Education of the Department of the
Interior, Howard University, and the Columbia Institution for
the Deaf form a group of establishments which has perhaps no inti-
mate relationship with the other agencies to be included in the pro-
posed department, although there is no question but that the educa-
tional work of the Government would have a more sympathetic
administration in the Department of Public Welfare than in any
existing department of the Government.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Why do you draw that conclusion?
Mr. BRow N. I draw that conclusion because it seems to me that
all of the other agencies of the Government are doing work which
is less directly interested in public welfare than in the immediate
interest of the individual departments. The Treasury Department,
as I stated here, is interested primarily in financial matters, and the
Department of Commerce is more interested in trade, and so on;
and it seems to me that this department is primarily interested in
the welfare of the people, and part of the welfare of the people is
looking after their education. "Of course, I am not discussing, if
you please, sir, the question of the propriety of the department of
education, but I say if this department is to be created and no de-
partment of education is to be created it would seem proper to trans-
fer it to that department.
166 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE,
Mr. BANKHEAD. You think for the reason stated that it would
receive more sympathetic attention than it is now receiving as a
Bureau of the Department of the Interior ?
Mr. BROWN. Because of the fact—and I say this as in case of other
departments, Mr. Chairman—that the Department of the Interior's
chief function is that of looking after the public domain and
problems of that sort.
Moreover, it should not be overlooked that the work of the Voca-
tional Education Division of the Federal Board for Vocational
Education could, under the proposed arrangement, be assumed and
capably administered by the Bureau of Education, with some saving
in administrative costs. Quite evidently the Freedmen's Hospital
should be placed under the same general direction as the other health
activities in which the Federal Government is engaged.
Section 9 of the bill to establish the department of public welfare
clothes the Secretary of the proposed department with the author-
ity—subject to the approval of the President—to reorganize, con-
solidate, or abolish any office, bureau, or other agency transferred
to the department under the terms of the bill. It is under the pro-
visions of this Section that the savings to which I have referred would
be accomplished. It is under the authority conveyed in this section
that the head of the new department would act—not immediately
and finally upon the establishment of the department, but from time
to time as he gained an intimate working knowledge of the methods
and procedures followed by the organization units under his direc-
tion—it is under this authority that the Secretary would act to elimi-
nate duplications of personnel, equipment, plant, and work, to con-
solidate branches performing similar duties, to eliminate unnecessary
services, and to bring about a logical and orderly assignment of
duties among the working units of his department.
Before concluding I wish to state very briefly certain facts with
respect to some of the agencies to be included in the proposed depart-
ment, which will perhaps serve to support my general statement to
the effect that the creation of the department of public welfare will
result rather in a reduction than in an increase in the cost of ad-
ministering the work of the Federal establishment as a whole.
Considering only the larger bureaus and offices to be included in
the new department, a total of 230 employees are engaged in the
maintenance of personnel records and upon general problems of
ersonnel administration. Their annual Salaries aggregate $316,500.
inety-eight people are engaged in this work in the Bureau of War
Bisk Insurance, 95 in the Public Health Service, and 37 in the
Federal Board for Vocational Education. The same plan for per-
sonnel administration would doubtless be pursued in the new depart-
ment that is followed by all other homogeneous departments of the
Government, that is to say, a central personnel unit would be estab-
lished. This would make possible a substantial reduction in the total
force employed. Again, 220 employees in the various establishments
to be included in the new department are engaged in statistical work,
at an annual salary expenditure of $304,118; 129 in the Bureau of
War Risk Insurance, 70 in the Public Health Service, 13 in the
Federal Board for Vocational Education, and 8 in the 'Empioyees
Compensation Commission. The legal divisions of the several estab-
lishments include a total personnel of 141 with salaries aggregating
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 167
$257,840. Four hundred and eighty-six employees are occupied in
administrative accounting work, at, salaries totaling $700,290 per
annum; 175 in the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, 109 in the Public
Health Service, 139 in the Federal Board, and 63 in the Bureau of
Pensions. The printing and supply sections in these establishments
employ 160 people, at a payroll cost of $204,950; 55 in the Bureau of
War Risk Insurance, 31 in the Public Health Service, 70 in the
Federal Board, and 4 in the Bureau of Pensions. Five hundred and
sixty-eight employees are engaged in the receipt and payment of
money; 369 in the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, 99 in the Federal
Board, 93 in the Bureau of Pensions and 7 in the Employees’ Com-
pensation Commission. Their salaries amount to $764,260 per year.
The consideration and adjudication of claims for compensation or
pensions occupies 935 persons in the Bureau of War Risk Insurance,
445 in the Bureau of Pensions, and 39 in the Employees’ Compensa-
tion Commission, a total of 1,419 employees, with salaries aggre-
gating $2,059,570.
Without a most careful and painstaking analysis of the work of
all these administrative sections, it would be impossible to make a
reasonable estimate of the actual reduction in the number of em-
ployees which could be accomplished as a result of the establishment
of general administrative services to supersede the services that are
now distributed among the various bureaus and offices. It is not
always possible to eliminate the various accounting, personnel, sta-
tistical, and other administrative sections from the several bureau
organizations and to concentrate them in the departmental organi-
zation. It is certain, however, that much could be done in this di-
rection. &
These suggestions, of course, take no account of any possible con-
solidation of technical services. They take no account of possible
consolidations of field services. In this connection I wish to call
attention to the fact that the Public Health Service and the Federal
Board for Vocational Education maintain district establishments
in the interests of beneficiaries of the Bureau of War Risk Insur-
ance. These districts, I am informed, precisely correspond in geo-
graphical area. At the present time they are independently adminis-
tered. It would probably be impossible at any time by a consolida-
tion of these field establishments to reduce materially the technical
personnel employed. This is for the reason that the technical em-
ployees of the Federal Board are educational specialists, while the
field staff of the Public Health Service consists chiefly of physicians
and surgeons. It would, however, be possible to make a substantial
reduction in the clerical forces required to assist the technical per-
sonnel in the performance of their duties, and a reduction in general
overhead expenses.
This is by no means an exhaustive list of the possible savings
which would result from the establishment of the proposed depart-
ment. No formula can be laid down at this time to serve as a guide
for the action of the officer who would be placed in administrative
charge of this department. His actions will be guided by his own
experience and the advice of his executive assistants. My purpose
is only to point out the probable course of the action which he would
take and to broadly outline the results which could reasonably be
expected to follow.
168 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
1 have brought with me, for the use of the committee, a detailed
statement of the personnel of each of the agencies which the Kenyon
bill proposes to transfer to the new department. In some instances
these statements are as of January 1, 1921. Certain of the lists,
however, are more recent. In any event they show substantially
the present situation with regard to the distribution of personnel
among the agencies involved in the proposed plan. For the larger
establishments I have brought also charts which show the principal
features of their internal organization. This material contains much
information, which I think the committee should have in consider-
ing the prospects for bringing the welfare agencies of the Govern-
ment into a closer working relationship. It is my judgment that if a
competent executive were appointed to head the proposed depart-
ment, and clothed with authority such as is contained in section 9 of
the bill now before the committee—authority to reorganize and con-
solidate the several establishments placed in the new department
and, if necessary, to abolish overlapping agencies and to eliminate
unnecessary personnel, considerable reduction could be made in the
number of persons required to carry on the work of these establish-
ments. Savings could also be made in the various items of contin-
gent expenses, such as rentals, travel, and printing, stationery, and
other overhead items. In the last analysis the chief advantage which
will be derived from the creation of the department of public wel-
fare will be the improvement in administration which will unques-
tionably follow the molding of a homogeneous establishment out of
agencies which now carry on their work independently, although in
related fields of action; and improved administration is invariably
reflected in a reduction of the cost of the work done.
The CHAIRMAN. Under section 9 do you see any objection at all
to the Government giving the President this authority?
Mr. BROwn. I do not; no, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. There was some suggestion that it would be
similar to the Overman Act, which was a war measure, and the
question arose whether it would be justified when there is not an
emergency.
Mr. BRow N. I should think it would be very necessary, Mr. Chair-
man, because the difficulty that frequently is experienced in getting
legislation promptly, and since this whole organization is designed
to aid the disabled soldiers, the President should be given authority
to act immediately upon finding need for that action.
Senator KENYon. I would like to ask you this question: Do you
think it would be a conservative estimate to say that $3,000,000 a
year could be saved by the correlation or coordination of these differ-
ent departments, in getting rid of duplication by this new depart-
ment? I am trying to get some figure.
Mr. BRow N. Well, the total pay roll, Senator, for the agencies
that are to be correlated amounts to $41,388,176. Therefore
$3,000,000 would be something over, or nearly, 7 per cent, and that
is a very substantial amount; but it seems to me it might be accom-
plished. That would be my guess.
Senator KENYon. Would it lessen the efficiency?
Mr. BRow N. I should not contemplate that the new Secretary
would consider doing anything which might in any way impair
the quality of the work done.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 169
Senator KENYON. I was trying to get some estimate on that, but
we know, of course, it is more or less a guess. Do you think that is
a fair estimate?
Mr. BROWN. That is a guess, Senator, of course; but I think that
would be a reasonable guess.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. Brown, are you acquainted with the pro-
visions of the so-called McCormick bill, or public works bill? Have
you had occasion to investigate its provisions?
Mr. BROWN. That provision was partly drafted in our office at
Senator McCormick’s request, but without having the provisions be-
fore me I do not know that I can recall them distinctly.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Do you know whether there is any conflict be-
tween the provisions of this proposed bill and the provisions of the
McCormick bill?
Mr. BROWN. I am quite sure there is not, for this reason, that the
McCormick bill, so far as it relates to matters of public welfare,
was made in conformity with this program. And when that bill
was all worked out in connection with the McCormick bill, I would
Say with definiteness there was no conflict at that time, and so there
would be none now.
The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking of public works?
Mr. BROWN. I am speaking now of public works. I will say, the
McCormick bill covered the whole service, and the bill was carefully
studied at the time that it was being prepared.
The CHAIRMAN. The plan there would be to supersede the De-
partment of the Interior with regard to public works?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Assuming that we should pass both the McCor-
mick and the Kenyon bill, there would not be very much left for
this joint congressional committee to do, would there?
Mr. BRow N. That would reduce their labors quite materially so
far as the original distribution of agencies is concerned.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Would it not practically solve the whole problem
that they are expected to investigate?
Mr. BROwn. Well, it would if their work is to be confined merely
to deciding where the various units of the service are to be placed.
If their program is to go into the internal organization, of course
their work would have just begun.
Mr. Robsſon. One other question: Do you think the educational
interests of the country could or would be as well served under this
department as they would under a separate department?
W. BROwn. I really have no information upon which to make
an authoritative answer, but in that connection I might say that
personally I should like to see this program carried out, and if the
people of the country feel afterwards that it is not satisfactory,
and the educational work is not properly developed, there would
be time then to consider a department of education.
Mr. Robsſon. You do not care to express an opinion as to each,
and the sort of interests they have?
Mr. BROwn. I would not; since I have not studied the problems
with sufficient care to give an opinion based on actual information,
I prefer not to.
r. Robsſon. Your statement is that you feel that it would be
better in a department of public welfare than it is at present?
170 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
Mr. BROwn. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you please state for the committee how long
you have been the head of the Efficiency Bureau?
Mr. BROWN. Since it was organized, in the spring of 1913.
The CHAIRMAN. And will you state the purposes of that bureau?
. Mr. BROWN. The purpose of that bureau is to aid the departments
in finding better ways to do their work; that is, ways which will
either save money or get better results or both.
The CHAIRMAN. You have submitted the material that you referred
to, which you did not read, have you?
Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir; I have the material right here, which I
will leave for you.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. We are very much obliged to you.
Is Dr. McCoy present?
STATEMENT OF DR, ROBERT M. McCOY,
The CHAIRMAN. Please state who you represent? -
Mr. McCoy. I am from Princeton University. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to make a brief statement by way of explanation. I
telegraphed Dr. Sawyer last night that the material relating to the
bill, and the bill itself, did not reach me as promised; so I would
prefer not to be examined at this time. I hope he has gotten my
message. I came down in order to appear, but I really do not think
that I can be of any service under existing conditions. Anything I
would say would be more a general than a specific statement, so if
I could be allowed a little time in order to study the matter, it would
really be an advantage.
Gen. SAwYER. It was mailed Sunday.
Dr. McCoy. It did not reach me before I left. The mails are
very uncertain. That telegram did not reach me for 36 hours after
it was sent, or otherwise I would have been prepared.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, Doctor, we will excuse you.
Dr. McCoy. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Is Dr. W. H. Wells here?
STATEMENT OF DIR. W. H. WELLS.
The CHAIRMAN. We have three or four people who want to be
heard, Doctor, and we will have to ask you to be brief.
Dr. WELLs. I will be brief, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Please tell the reporter who you represent.
Dr. WELLs. I am director of the School of Hygiene and Public
Health of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. My remarks,
Mr. Chairman, will also be of a rather general character. I would
like to just comment upon the fact, if you will permit me, that this
is only one of a great many times that I have appeared before com-
mittees of Congress with reference to a department of health. The
creation of a department of health has been a matter which has in-
terested the medical profession and the enlightened public for many
years, at least 30 or 40 years; and there have been, as you know,
various proposals. e
I judge from the remarks already made, and from questions that
were asked, that you require no persuasion as to the importance of
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 17]
the subject of the protection of the national health; that you realize
that that is now a matter of great concern and a very appropriate
function of Government. Of course, it is a familiar maxim that the
health of the people is the supreme law. It goes back to the Twelve
Tables of the Roman law; but the actual application of that and the
clear and effective recognition of that as a proper governmental
function is very modern; it does not go back in its beginning in its
governmental activities more than perhaps 70 years or so. It has
grown since then, and the results, of course, have amply justified
the confidence of those who have advocated these governmental activi-
ties, and these results are very largely due to the fact that we possess
to-day knowledge which, when applied, can greatly control the
amount of disease and the spread of disease. The results are such
that he who runs, I think, can read.
There has usually been some question as to what extent this was
a Federal function. As Gen. Cumming has stated, it is Federal, it
is State, it is municipal, it is county, it is local; but the proper activi-
ties within our constitution and form of Government of the national
health organization are already demonstrated to be such as to be of
the greatest possible service to the country. Of course, the keeping
out of disease through quarantine and through some control over
interstate commerce is recognized as absolutely essential. I need
only call attention to the way in which cholera has been kept out,
and yellow fever, and now typhus is knocking at our doors, but I
am not apprehensive that it will not be kept within restraint.
That has been a very important activity of our Public Health Serv-
ice. It has also been of the greatest possible service in raising the
standards of public health organization and administration through
the country, and in various ways which perhaps I need not enter
into. It can make a demonstration with very little expense, as was
done recently in some of our Southern States as to the possibility of
controlling malaria. That is the great public-health problem of
Some parts of our country in the South, at least on the economic side,
and you will be interested to know some time in looking into that,
how, with a relatively small amount of money, they have done that,
by going down to Mississippi and other places, how it is possible to
greatly reduce the amount of malaria, so that you can go now to a
State like Mississippi which is looked upon as not possessed of the
largest financial resources, and without any difficulty you can get a
community to employ a health officer and be able to do a lot with
$10,000 dollars and get a splendid return.
#he CHAIRMAN. As to that we all agree. Now, what about this
bill . tº
Dr. WELLs. Perhaps I had better not follow that question any
further. Now, as to this bill. We agree that it is desirable that
there should be something better. We would like to say this, that
we are interested in a public health department, in independent de-
partment of public health. The educational people would like to
have an independent department of education. Those are the two
great interests of our people which are not at present, we consider,
adequately represented in the Government. . Now, I judge that is
not worth arguing, hardly, the creation at the present time of two
º and independent departments, one of education and one of
ealth.
172 DEPARTMENT OF PTJBLIC WELFARE.
Now, I would not be willing to concede that health is any less
fundamental in importance to the interests of the country than educa-
tion. I would concede everything that those primarily interested in
education argue for, but I would not be willing to concede that it is
more important. If we can not have but one department, why not
have what is provided for; I think, essentially, a department of
education and health with some kindred and proper activities added
on? It is perhaps true that neither care to be wedded, but it is not
such an ill-assorted union. A great many of the activities of health
are of an educational nature. There is a large part of education
which has to do entirely with what is called school hygiene. There
is a National Society of School Hygiene, mostly, I think, furthered
by those interested in education. In a word, there are so man
kindred interests and activities between education and health that if
we are to have but one department, and if you have been impressed
by the argument that that should be a department of education, I
would urge that you consider that in the making of a department of
health, the department of education, while perhaps not greatly de-
sired by the forces interested in either field, is, nevertheless, not a
bad arrangement.
The CHAIRMAN. If you had a department of education and health,
what about the social welfare.
Dr. WELLs. I think this bill, as I have looked it over, with these
four divisions of education, health, social welfare, and soldiers’ re-
lief or veteran service, is quite well considered. Social welfare is
probably a caption for a department which might stir a little an-
togonism on the part of Some on account of a certain vagueness and
indefiniteness for certain directions of activity in that field, but we
can assume, can we not, that in the Government that will be suffi-
ciently safeguarded when you consider the contacts of health in such
matters as housing, working, and living conditions and other activi-
ties which we speak of generally under the name of social welfare,
which would be provided for in this way.
I think it is probably desirable to have that heading, in the case
of soldiers’ relief, which is a matter of the most immediate, acute
and urgent importance for the country, and you must necessarily
concentrate your attention on that; but I should hope you will not
allow yourselves to be diverted from the broader long vision that
these great interests of education and health should not suffer on
account of the immediate urgency of the problems of soldier relief.
Now, when it comes to the fixing, the actual bringing together of
these bureaus which have been just growing up in the Government,
you encounter obvious difficulties, and I would like to urge that
those are not going to diminish. Everybody will agree with the
general principal upon which this bill is based, and when you come
to undertake the solution of it you will encounter difficulties, and
they will be greater and greater as time goes On.
The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Doctor.
Senator KENyon. Here are the papers that Mr. Brown left.
There are probably 1,500 pages of them. I would suggest that we
had better keep them for ready reference by the committee and not
have them printed in the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection that will be done.
Is Dr. Martin here?
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 173
STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD MARTIN, COMMISSIONER OF
HEALTH, STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Dr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, it is a waste of time to bring argu-
ments before men, who have responsibility by men who have not,
and before you who are working for a hundred million it has all
been gone over; but I can tell you I am here as the representative
of the Health Department of Pennsylvania, to tell you what the
people want. I represent the plain people, of whom God made so
many. They want a department of health in which all health in-
terests are concentrated; they want a department of education and
welfare. There is scarcely one phase of welfare that does not de-
º º health, health as much as education. I am through. [Ap-
all Se.
p The CHAIRMAN. That is a good speech.
STATEMENT OF MR. EDWARD F. McGRADY, OF THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR.
Mr. McGRADY. The American Federation of Labor presented its
views the other day.
Senator KENYON. You represent them?
Mr. McGRADY. Yes, to make a further contention. They said at
that time that they were not opposed to a welfare department pro-
viding it does not take away any of the present functions of the
Department of Labor, but we have become very much alarmed over
section 10 which reads:
That the President is authorized to transfer to the department of public
welfare in addition to the functions, powers, and duties transferred to the
department by this act, any educational, health, or social welfare service or
activity, performed or conducted by any other office, bureau, board, com-
mission or agency of the Federal Government, which the President shall find
and by proclamation declare are related to Or Connected with the functions,
powers, and duties which by this act are transferred to and vested in the de-
partment Or Secretary of public welfare and would in his judgment be more
efficiently and economically administered if vested in, imposed upon, and co-
ordinated with the department of public welfare. The President’s order di-
recting such transfer shall designate the records, equipment, property, per-
SOnnel, and available balances of appropriations of the Office Or agency there-
tofore exercising Or performing the powers or duties affected by the Order,
which shall also be transferred to the department. All powers and duties
whether of a supervisory, appellate, or other character, Conferred Or imposed
by law or lawful Executive order upon the head of an executive department
in relation to the administration of the functions, powers, Or duties SO trans-
ferred, shall be vested in and shall be thereafter exercised and performed by
the secretary of public welfare. The Secretary may assign the functions,
powers, and duties so transferred by the President to Such division Or divisions
of the department of public welfare as he may deem advisable.
That gives the President sweeping powers. We have put up a
contest to hold the Women’s Bureau in the Department of Labor, and
yet we are afraid that if this is passed with section 10, it will not
revent the President at any time from transferring the Women’s
É. into the welfare department. That is all, Mr. Chairman,
but we are very much alarmed by this. We believe those powers
are too broad.
Senator KENYon. It is a very broad section; there is no doubt
about that.
174 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
Mr. McGRADY. We are very much alarmed, because it gives the
President authority to take any section or any bureau of any depart-
ment and place it in this new department.
Senator KENYON. That had contemplated in the bill placing the
Women's Bureau in this welfare department. We decided not to do
that, and not to attempt to do that, because that particularly belongs
to the Department of Labor.
Mr. McGRADY. Yes, Senator; but what prevents the President from
making that change if he desires?
Senator KENYon. In section 10, that is true. -
b Mr. McGRADY. And not only with that bureau, but with any other
l]I'ê8, UI. -
The CHAIRMAN. The committee has had that in mind. It is one
Of º subjects over which the committee has a great deal of concern
itself. - - *
Mr. McGRADY. Incidentally, I would like to further add that the
American Federation of Labor still stands by its previous attitude
in favor of a separate bureau of eudcation, a separate department.
The CHAIRMAN. How many present in the room desire to be heard
on this bill specifically?
STATEMENT OF MRS, MAUD WOOD PARK, PRESIDENT OF THE
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF WOMEN WOTERS.
Mrs. PARK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I
realize that the time is short, and therefore I ask only opportunity to
make a brief statement of the indorsement of the National League
of Women Voters for a department of public welfare.
At its convention in Cleveland April 11 to 16, 1921, the National
League of Women Voters adopted a resolution thanking the President
for his reaffirmation in his message of his desire for greater efficiency
in the social service work of the Government by the creation of a
department of public welfare.
STATEMENT OF MRS. MARY G. KILBRETH, REPRESENTING THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
Mrs. KILBRETH. I wish to make a brief statement in behalf of the
National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage. I will be very
brief.
The CHAIRMAN. You can have three minutes.
Mrs. KILBRETH. Nearly everything I wanted to say has already
been covered. I want to speak simply on the bill, not on any special
provision, but simply on the coordination of departments. I am not
representing my organization, the National Association Opposed to
Woman Suffrage, in this, because we have not acted on this, but a
standard objection enters into it. We object, as we consider it a
gateway bill, and we object to the vagueness of the title “To establish
a department of public welfare, and for other purposes.” You remem-
ber the difficulty that came in on related subjects in the debate on
the maternity bill, and this “other purposes” is very vague. Now,
we consider that in connection with public welfare, especially, an
absolutely vague dragnet term. Now, binding these specific bureaus
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 1 75
together is not a reclassification; we consider it simply an arbitrary
forcing together of widely diversified work, not only in so far as the
Government work is not related, but we think it is more or less the
putting together of a team of wild horses, and we think it would be a
gigantic task for anyone to attempt to administer this bureau.
[Laughter.]
Now he would have to be a Napoleon, and there are very few Na
poleons. All these great activities of the Government such as health
and education would be under the supervision, a very diversified
supervision, of one chief. We object to unlimited power, the unlim-
ited power of expansion granted in this bill. There is no limit to
the scope of this bill, especially in sections 9 and 10, and the President
is the sole referee in all disputes about the taking over of these de-
partments. Now there has been talk, the Surgeon General spoke of
his being confident that there was no intention of robbing the health
department, and others have spoken of having confidence that these
things would be put in perhaps in their entirety. No legislation is
a matter of confidence; it is a question of power. As long as the
power rests in a bureau to do a certain thing it does not matter, your
confidence is perfectly useless. It depends absolutely on the terms
of the bill. Not only do we not know what the future executives are
going to do, because we do not know whether the department of edu-
cation is to be increased as provided in the bill, nor whether the
Children’s Bureau is to be increased as planned by the maternity
bill, and consequently we do not know how much its present provi-
sions include. As to future Congresses, we know nothing about what
they will do; and, as the gentleman who represented labor said, it
does not matter how you at present interpret the maternity bill or
this bill or anything else, there is a blanket provision giving arbi-
trary power to the Chief Executive that allows him by proclamation,
without any reference to Congress or any other authority, to incor-
porate anything in this bill that he wishes, according to Section 10.
The CHAIRMAN. But, Mrs. ISilbreth, that is only what has already
been Said.
Mrs. KILBRETH. I know that has already been stated, but I wish
to make clear my objection. Now, I want to say that the term “wel-
fare * has not only blanket conditions but much greater conditions.
I am from the State of New York. We have had a terrific struggle
in our legislature over the subject of a welfare bill. All the commu-
nities in New York are almost entirely composed of industrial people.
The debate was so radical—I was at the debate; I went up there, and
they opposed that bill; and the result of one provision of the bill
was that when it went through, as it was in the hands of what you
might call the left wing of industrial women, not at all the general
women. A few days after this bill passed so many women were
thrown out of employment in Brooklyn that there was a mass meet-
ing in Brooklyn, at which all the women who had favored the wel-
fare bill in New York were hissed from the platform.
The CHAIRMAN. I am sure that the committee will be glad to print
what you have to say that you have not had time to present here, if
it refers strictly to the bill. *
Mrs. KILBRETH. I would like to incorporate this out of the laws of
the Russian Soviet. I just want to bring out one point. I think this
176 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
is a dangerous system of propaganda. I would like to insert just
One provision.
The CHAIRMAN. That memorandum on the bolshevist or communist
party in Russia has already been printed, and the committee would
not care to have that printed in the record here.
Mrs. KILBRETH. It is just one thing, which is extremely important,
which I just wanted to have inserted.
The CHAIRMAN. You can hand it to the stenographer to be inserted.
Mr. Robsſon. It does not indicate what it is.
Mrs. KILBRETH. It shows their propaganda system through the
department of education.
The CHAIRMAN. All right; it can be inserted.
Mrs. KILBRETH. You see, these things are not printed in the record,
and it is an essential part of what I want to say. I want to say
further in regard to section 10, that the power conferred upon the
President really and absolutely invalidates the work of the reclassi-
fication committee. The quotation I wish to insert is as follows:
[Resolution of eighth congress of Rusſiºn ºurist Party, March, 1919. Pamphlet.
XtraCts.
In the plan of educational work in the Village must enter in deep harmony
with one another (1) Communist propaganda, (2) general education, (3) agri-
Cultural education.
1. Political propaganda in the Village must be Carried on for both literate and
illiterate. For literates first of all is the distribution of general political and
Special peasant popular literature and newspaper's in a definite communistic
Sprit.
Teachers must look upon themselves as agents not Only Of general but also
of Communist education. In this respect they must be Subjected not only to
the control of their immediate Centers, but also Of 10Cal party Organizations.
The moving picture, the theater, concerts, exhibitions, etc., in so far as they
penetrate to the village (and every effort must be made to this end), must be
used for communist propaganda, both directly. that is, through their content,
and also by coordinating them with lectures and meetings.
Departments of the public education, in provinces and districts, with the
assistance and under the control of local party Organizations, Organize Colleges
of propaganda, composed in part of residents and in part of travelers who cover
a more or less extensive district. * * * General education should aim not
only at spreading the light of various Sciences to the dark village, but mainly at
assisting the developing of self-consciousness and a clear philosophy of life and
must be closely connected with communist propaganda. There are no forms of
Science or art which have not been associated With the great ideas of com-
munism, or with the various activities toward Creating Communist economic
enterprises. * * *
Agricultural education must be conducted in such a way that its facts are
connected up with communist conclusions, thus serving as a support to the
general aim of the party to change private individual peasant economy into
an organized socialistic.
STATEMENT OF MR. H. B. ANDERSON, OF THE CITIZENS’ MEDICAL
REFERENCE BUREAU.
Mr. ANDERSON. I represent the Citizen’s Medical Reference Bureau
in opposition to compulsory medicine, 145 West Forty-fifth Street,
New York City. We take the position that we would not oppose the
passage of the bill in its present form provided that the following
amendments were made: First, that sections 9 and 10 be stricken out,
and another section shall be transferred and included; second, that
the bureau now known as the United States Public Health Service,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. 177
without any additions being made, be transferred and made a bureau
under the division of public health; and, third, that the secretary of
the division of public health be a layman.
Our object in asking that these amendments be made is not to cur-
tail in any manner the work that the United States Public Health
Service is doing. I do not wish to present my views on the amend-
ments as to the Public Health Service at this time. Our object is
simply to guard against a greater expansion of that service along
medical lines instead of along sanitary lines.
The CIIAIRMAN. With those amendments—we know how you feel
about that—and if you get those amendments your society will not
oppose this bill.
Mr. ANDERSON. I want to say that we would be perfectly satisfied
if they want to take the responsibility for taking the soldiers from
the division of public health and transfer it.
The CHAIRMAN. And if we adopt those amendments you pledge us
that your society will not oppose this bill?
Mr. ANDERSON. That would be my position.
Senator KENYON. And you speak for your society?
Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir.
STATEMENT OF IMF, B, JOHNSON, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN
HYGIENE ASSOCIATION.
Mr. JoHNSON. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, I am authorized to
represent our association in the indorsement of this bill, for the
reasons that have already been stated by Dr. Wells and others.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone else?
Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask what is the pur-
pose of the respective chairmen with reference to further hearings?
The CHAIRMAN. We want to close this hearing and take that matter
up at the conclusion of the hearing? If there is no objection that
will be done.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Do you expect to have anybody representing the
ex-service men?
Senator KENYon. We have heard no objection from them at all.
Mr. Rossos. Has this been brought to the attention of Col. Gal-
braith?
D Senator KENYON. It has been brought to the attention of Gen.
8, Wes.
The CHAIRMAN. Then the hearings will be closed, and the com-
mittee will adjourn sine die.
(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock m., the committee adjourned sine die.)
49824–21—12
Page
Abercrombie, John W. . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Anderson, H. B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I76
Athearn, Dr. W. S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Bagley, Mrs. Frederick P. . . . . . . . . 116
Bagley, Dr. William C. . . . . . . . . . . 101
Beveridge, J. H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Bond, W. F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Boyd, R. H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Bradford, H. B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Brittain, M. L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Brown, Herbert D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3–160
Burnett, J. F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Capen, Dr. Samuel P. . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Chandler, J. A. C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Chappel, B. B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Crabtree, J. W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Cumming, Surg. Gen. H. S. . . . . . . . 137
Dorsie, Charles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Downey, David G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I0–129
Elliott, Frank W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Filine, A. Lincoln. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Finegan, Thomas E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Forster, Dr. A. L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Gompers, Samuel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Groat, H. D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 30
Gwinn, J. M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Hall, Dr. Percifal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Homnes, Mrs. George P. . . . . . . . . . . . 107
FIull, Hon. Harry E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Jenkins, Mrs. Jessie C. . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Johnson, B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Johnson, Miss Kate P. . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Johnson, T. E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Jones, Olive M. . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - 97
Keith, John A. H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Kelly, Dr. Robt. L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Kendall, C. N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Kilbreth, Mary G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Rirk, John R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Lawrence, William I. . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
MacDonald, Arthur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Magill, Hugh S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49–87
Magill, R. E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . '- - - - - - - 128
.Mann, C. R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Page.
Martin, Dr. Edward. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Mayer, Theodore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
McCoy, Dr. Robert M. . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
McCracken, John Henry. . . . . . . . . . . 123
McGrady, Edward P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Miller, Rufus W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Minor, Mrs. George Maynard. . . . . . 107
Newlon, Jesse M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Nielson, Minnie J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Park, Mrs. Maud Wood. . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Pearse, C. G---------. . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Perkins, J. R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e 94
Phillips, John Herbert. . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Putnam, Mrs. William L. . . . . . . . . 63
Race, John H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Raitt, G. E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Reynolds, Lester F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Roberts, Arthur L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Saloman, Samuel... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Sawyer, Brig. Gen. Charles E..... & 4
Shackford, John W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Sheldon, Frank M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Smith, Payson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Souder, Wilbur P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Spaid, A. R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Spaulding, F. E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Swearington, J. E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Strayer, Dr. George D. . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Thomas, Augustus O.... . . . . . . . . . . 97
Thompson, H. E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Tilton, Mrs. William . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Trotter, Frank B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Trumper, May..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Verrill, Charles H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Waldo, D. J3...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Wallace, Edgar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Wallace, L. W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
White, Mrs. Edward Franklin. . . . . 107
Willoughby, Dr. William F..... . . . . 131
Wilson, Lewis A. . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * * * 120
Winn, Agnes S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Winter, Mrs. Thomas G. . . . . . . . . . . 106
Wells, Dr. W. H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170