Skip to main content

Full text of "Interstate migration. Hearings before the Select Committee to Investigate the Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizens, House of Representatives, Seventy-sixth Congress, third session, pursuant to H. Res. 63 and H. Res. 491, resolution to inquire into the interstate migration of destitute citizens, to study, survey and investigate the social and economic needs and the movement of indigent persons across state lines"

See other formats





, Ji5,_ - 

Given B> 

U. 5. SOFT, or PCK-y rvFW^ 

?ar\^ W- on''^^^^.nlA^L 









H. Res. 63, 491, and 629 







DECEMBER 5, 6, 9, and 10, 1940 

Priuted for the use of the Select Committee to Investigate the 
Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizens 









H. Res. 63, 491, and 629 







DECEMBER 5, 6, 9, and 10, 1940 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee to Investigate the 
Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizens 





^iiN 10 1341 


JOHN H. TOLAN, California, Chairman 


JOHN J. SPARKMAN, Alabama FRANK C. OSMERS, Jr., New Jersey 

Dr. ROBEKO? K. Lamb, Chief Investigator 
Virginia Elliott, Acting Secretary 

RICHARD S. Blaisdell, Editor 
Harold D. Cullen, Associate Editor 


Washington Hearings, December 5, 6, 9, and 10, 1940 


Alves, Henry S., of the Office of Education, Social Security Board. Ad- 
dress: Washington, D. C 3561, 3592, 3596 

Carpenter, Martin F., Chief of Employment Service Division, Bureau of 
Employment Security, Social Security Board. Address: Washington, 
D. C 3561, 3574 

Carruthers, Rev. John, representing National Presbyterian Church, Con- 
necticut Avenue and N Street, Washington, D. C. Address: 1015 
Prospect Boulevard, Pasadena, Calif 3623 

Clague, Ewan, Director, Bureau of Employment Security, Social Security 

Board. Address: Washington, D. C 3561, 3567, 3576 

Coffee, Dr. E. R., United States Public Health Service, Social Security 

Board. Address : Washington, D. C 3561, 3579 

Eliot, Charles William, Director, National Resources Planning Board. 

Address: Washington, D. C 3724, 3726 

Ferris, John P., Director, Commerce Department, Tennessee Valley Au- 
thority. Address : Knoxville, Tenn 3797, 3825 

French, William Howard, former farmer and coal miner in West Virginia, 
Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Address : 1524 Twenty-sixth Street 
NW., Washington, D. C 3556 

Gallagher, Hubert R., Assistant Director, Council of State Governments. 

Address: Chicago, 111 3480, 3483 

Goodrich, Dr. Carter, professor of economics, Columbia University. Ad- 
dress : New York, N. Y 3756, 3759 

Hoehler, Fred K., Director of American Public Welfare Association. Ad- ' 
dress: Chicago, 111 3465, 3469 

Hoey, Jane (Miss), Director, Bureau of Public Assistance, Social Security 

Board. Address: Washington, D. C 3504, 3520, 3529 

Jackson, Glenn E., director of public assistance. New York State Depart- 
ment of Social Welfare. Address: Albany, N. Y 3544 

Kahn, Dorothy C, assistant executive secretary, American Association of 
Social Workers. Address: 130 East Twenty-second Street, New York, 
N. Y _ 3643, 3649 

Lasser, David, president of American Security Union. Address : Washing- 

tou, D. C 3839, 3842 

Lubin, Dr. Isador, Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department 

of Labor. Address : Washington, D. C 3698 

McCrea, John, former hotel and restaurant worker from Lancaster, N. Y. 

Address: Care of Transient Bureau, Washington, D. C 3608 

Magnusson, Leifur, chairman of legislative commdttee, Monday Evening 

Club. Address: Washington, D. C 3S49, 3850 

Marsh, Benjamin C, executive secretary of the People's Lobby. Address: ' 
Washington, D. C 3651,3652,3661 

Ranch, Fred R., Acting Commissioner, Federal Works Agency, Work Proj- 
ects Administration. Address: Washington, D. C 3626,3628 

Roosevelt, Mrs. Franklin D. Address: Washington, D. C 3742 

Ryan, Rt. Rev. John A., D. D., representing the National Catholic Welfare 

Conference. Address: Washington, D. C 3490,3492 

Shackelton, Chester G., migrant from Kansas, now working in airplane 

plant at Baltimore. Address : 12 East Lafayette Street, Baltimore, Md_ 3665 

Shishkin, Boris, director of research, American Federation of Labor. Ad- 
dress: Washington, D. C 3673 

Smith, Dr. Carl T., lecturer in economics, Columbia Universitv, New York 
N. Y. Address : 1900 H Street, Washington, D. C _* 3767, 3783 




Sweareugin, Rolaud LeGrand, former plasterer, born in Virginia. Address: 

728 Fifth Street NW., Washington, D. C S549 

Tate, Jack B., general counsel, Department of Education, Federal Security 

Agency. Address: Washington, D. G 3504,3520,3529 

Thomas, Mrs. Albert A., mother of migrant family of five children and wife 
of electrician from St. Louis, Mo. Address : Alexandria Tourist Camp, 
Alexandria, Va 3733 

Williams, Roberta C, staff association, National Travelers' Aid Associa- 
tion. Address: New York, N. Y 3613,3618 

Windhorst, Le Roy P., former farmer from Kansas, now working at air- 
plane plant in Baltimore, Md. Address : Welles, Kans 3669 



Statement for the American Public Welfare 

Statement for the Council of State Govern- 

Statement for the National Catholic Welfare 

Present Situation with Regard to Migrants 
and Recommendations for their Care. 

Legal Requirements for Residence, General 

Trends in Residence Requirements for Public - 
Assistance Categories. 

Provisions for the Care of Transients by- 
General Relief Agencies. 

Settlement, Residence, and the Power of a 
State to Exclude or Remove Nonsettled 
Needy Persons. 

Letter from Anne E. Geddes 

The Program of the Bureau of Employment 
Security as it Relates to Migration. 

Health Needs of Interstate Migration of 
Destitute Citizens, by Dr. Thomas Parran, 
Surgeon General, United States Public 
Health Service. 

Summary and Conclusions, United States 
Public Health Service, by Dr. Parran. 

Problems of Education Caused by Migra- 
tions of Families with Children of School 
Age, by J. W. Studebaker, Commissioner 
of Education, United States Office of 

Problems in Connection with Defense Mi- 
gration as Seen by the National Travelers 
Aid Association. 

Summary of Replies Received to Question- 
naire on Defense Activities. 

Migration of Destitute Citizens to Defense 

Relationship of Work Projects Administra- 
tion to Migrant Families Seeking Work. 

Statement for the American Association of 
Social Workers. 

Statement of Executive Secretary, People's 

Proposal for Public Control and Ownership of 
Natural Resources. 

Excerpts from Prepared Statement 

Statement from the National Resources Plan- 
ning Board. 

Study of Population Redistribution 

Changes in American Agriculture and Some of 
the Results. 


Fred K. Hoehler 

Hubert R. Gallagher 

John A. Ryan 

Jane M. Hoey 

Jane M. Hoey 

Jane M. Hoey 

Jane M. Hoey 

Jack B. Tate 

Jane M. Hoey 

Ewan Clague 

E. R. Coffee 

Henry S. Alves 

Roberta C. Williams 

Roberta C. Williams 

Fred R. Ranch 

Fred R. Ranch 

Dorothy C. Kahn 

Benjamin C. Marsh- 
Benjamin C. Marsh- 
Boris Shishkin 

Charles W. Eliot 

Carter Goodrich 

CarlT. Schmidt 




















Relationship of the Tennessee Valley Author- 
ity Program to the Interstate Migration 

Effects of Regional Integration of Activities-. 

Employee Training in the Tennessee Valley 

Statement by President of the American Se- 
curity Union. 

Statement of Legislative Committee, Mon- 
day Evening Club. 

John P. Ferris 


John P. Ferris 


David Lasser . 


Leifer Magnusson 




House of Representatives, 
Select Committee to Investigate the 
Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizens, 

Washington, D. C. 
The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. John H. Tolan (chairman) 

Present: Representatives John H. Tolan (chairman), Claude V. 
Parsons, Carl T. Curtis, and Frank C. Osmers, Jr. 

Also present: Dr. Robert K. Lamb, chief investigator; Henry H. 
Collins, Jr., coordinator of hearings; Creekmore Path and John W. 
Abbott, field investigators; Ariel E. V. Dunn and Alice M. Tuohy, 
assistant field investigators ; Irene M. Hageman, hearings secretary ; 
Richard S. Blaisdell, editor; Harold D. Cullen, associate editor. 

The Chairman. The committee will please come to order, and I 
will ask Mr. Hoehler to take the stand. Mr. Hoehler, Congressman 
Curtis will have the honor of interrogating you, sir. 


Mr. Curtis. Mr. Hoehler, we are very glad you could get away 
from the convention, or meeting, of which you are in charge, and 
favor our committee with a statement. 

You have a prepared statement, which will be inserted in our 
record at this point and made a part of our hearings and carefully 
analyzed by a number of people connected with this committee. 

(The statement follows:) 


As one formerly engaged in the administration of a public welfare department 
and a department of public safety, I have for some years had an interest in the 
migrant problem. That interest came first because these migrants are people 
and, second, because public agencies had some responsibility toward helping these 
people meet their problems. 

The migrant population of this country like some of our minority groups has 
been subject to much abuse and misunderstanding. Migrants have been accused 
of aimless and wasteful wandering, which honestly and in the final analysis 
can only be boiled down to the problem of seeking a livelihood in the American 
way. Men and families who reside in communities where the opportunities for 
earning a livelihood have failed or disappeared, using their individual initiative, 
start out to travel in search of new opportunities. 





Migration is no new phenomenon. This Nation has subsidized it since the 
early 1800's when settlement in the western States meant the expansion of the 
American democracy and the development of our wealth and resources. The 
early migration to this country from Europe, which was encouraged by those who 
hoped to see the wealth and resources developed, the grants of land to home- 
steaders, and similar grants to railroads for the development of the West, were 
all early manifestations of the problem of migration. 

In later years, farmers and industrialists have encouraged migration, first, 
because labor was needed for new Industries and for harvesting crops, and 
second, because it was thought desirable to increase the size of the labor market 
when competitive bidding for man's labor came to be an important factor in 
industry and agriculture. 


For over 10 years, one of my responsibilities in a midwestern city was the 
operation of an agency for the care of so-called transients. In the 1920's, I saw 
a small group of men and women moving from the southern States into the 
northern industrial cities seeking employment. Some of these came as indi- 
viduals or with small families in twos and threes. Others moved into our city 
or through it in trains provided by commissary companiesi or employment agents 
for industrial firms. In those days, this seemed natural and necessary because 
industry was expanding and mechanical improvements in agriculture were 
beginning gradually to reduce the need for manpower on the farm. 

Later, in the early 1930's, this group increased, and still later, hordes of people 
of all races and creeds from nearly every city and State passed through that city 
of Cincinnati, Ohio. During that period I talked with thousands of men and 
women who were migrating from one place to another. Some of them were 
moving out in the search for jobs ; others were returning home discouraged and 

During the past 5 years I have had the opportunity to visit and talk with 
migrantsi in their camps in California and have talked with others along the now 
famous Highway 66, as well as on other roads of Texas and Arizona. In most 
of those interviews and in the great majority of people whom I saw face to face, 
I foiind a spirit of courage which we have always admired in America. Each 
had the determination to improve his condition even at great personal sacrifice. 
There also was the frequently expressed desire to be an integral part of the 
American economy, which was producing great machines and automobiles, 
building skyscrapers, and bringing labor-saving devices into the homes, the fields, 
and the shops. If there were any difference between this group and those of us 
who remained at home, it was merely that they had a greater spirit of adven- 
ture and perhaps more physical courage than the rest of us. 


Two factors played an important role in this migration. The first of these 
was the emphasis on legal settlement, and the second was its social and eco- 
nomic aspect. The administration of public relief to dependent people is 
restricted in most States by legislative provisions which base eligibility for 
assistance on the number of years the individual has spent in the community. 
These provisions, known as settlement laws, had their genesis in the English 
poor laws of the seventeenth century. These laws were directed at the control 
of that dependency, which resulted from the break-down of the feudal system 
and the subsequent growth of urban communities. 

In this country during the past 2 decades there has been added emphasis 
on settlement laws as a means of control of that type of dependency which 
has grown out of population mobility. 

In the United States legal settlement varies from the State laws which 
provide no statutory basis for settlement either within the State or its juris- 
dictions, to those States which provide as many as 5 years settlement within 
a State before assistance is allowed. In some cases residence of from 6 months 
to a year within a county of a particular State is required before that county 
will assume responsibility for care and assistance. 


It can be seen, therefore, that the problem of public aid to the interstate 
migrant is seriously aggravated by variation in the settlement laws of the 
several States. There are many instances where a person may lose settlement 
in one State before it is possible for him to gain settlement in another. This 
leaves him in the exact position of a man without a country should he or 
his family suddenly become ill or require some form of public aid. The un- 
fortunate part about this is that those who are involved are usually unaware 
of their change in status. When a man starts out in search of work, there is 
no barrier at the State lines, or no warning that he is in imminent danger of 
losing his settlement in one State when he passes into another. This aspect 
of the problem is legal and will require the enactment or repeal of legislation 
in a great many States before there can be uniformity in the treatment of 
people who move from one State to another. In this regard our States have 
become so "balkanized" that we are constantly at conflict in law as to who 
should provide for hungry people. 


The social and economic aspects of the problem are those which are pre- 
sented by the need for the mobility of labor throughout the entire Nation and 
the need' for special migrant groups in certain parts of our country. People 
move because they are encouraged to do so by advertisements from another 
State in which work is promised, or there are those who in sheer desperation 
move out to find a job. These may be the products of social maladjustment 
or economic developments which are too vast and complicated for the average 
individual to understand. It becomes an almost impossible task to explain 
to the migrant from Oklahoma, "Tou are not wanted in California this year," 
when only a few years ago his friends and relatives were encouraged to 
make the trek. In spite of warnings, he sets out to help meet a demand for 
labor which he is convinced exists. 

Another social phenomenon is the movement of people who are sick and in 
need of a different climate to relieve suffering. It is the most natural thing 
in the world for a person from the Ohio Valley to move into the Southwest 
to relieve a sinus condition which has made it impossible for him to work. 

There are some who claim that people move from one State where there 
are no relief grants, or where there are meager or starvation grants, to 
another State where the relief grants may be more generous. These, in my 
experience, I have found constitute an extremely small group. This group 
is small because most people who have had to exist on the ragged edge of 
poverty for years are well aware of the fact that there is absolutely no 
security in what we know as the public relief grant. A community which 
provides $20 or $30 per month this year for relief families always faces the 
uncertainty of legislative appropriations and the riddle of what will be the 
number of those who are asking relief during the next year, as well as the 
ever-present uncertainty of work programs provided by the Federal Govern- 
ment. These facts are all well known to people who have themselves been on 
relief, and it is too hazardous to leave a home and the place where they 
have friends to go to a strange community in the hope that they may get 
more adequate relief. 


One of the most significant migrations of recent months is the movement of 
thousands of individuals and families to the scores of new national-defense 
centers which are being established all over the United States. While this migra- 
tion has not yet reached alarming proportions a sufficient number have already 
moved, and there are enough indications of future population shifts to warrant 
considerable concern. 

Members of the field staff of the American Public Welfare Association, in 
their visits to a number of these newly created centers and to older centers 
where there is increased activity, report a growing transient population and 
adjustments in these communities affecting the welfare and security of the 
entire community. In almost every one of the defense centers, small towns and 
even larger cities are finding their vacant lots crowded with old and new 


trailers ; small jails and even fire houses are crowded with men seeking work at 
the new plants, and boarding houses and small hotels are filled to capacity. 

In one of the small middle western towns to which over 8,000 new workers 
commute every day, all local facilities established for a town of less than a 
thousand are crowded beyond capacity. This influx of men has created housing, 
health, and recreation problems in nearby larger urban centers. Local officials 
in cities surrounding the defense-center town report increased traffic and other 
police problems. When the construction projects at this new center are com- 
pleted about 2,500 men will be replaced by an equal number of women who will 
be employed at the plant, creating new and different welfare problems. 

These typical problems exist on a larger or a smaller scale in each of the 
defense centers where facilities do not exist, or are limited to take care of 
the transients seeking work, or those who fail to hold their jobs because of the 
very rigid physical examination. Complex problems will arise where they never 
before existed. The incomplete framework of general relief services, inadequately 
supported in many cases from local funds, makes it impossible to cope with the 
emergency relief needs which have already been manifest and which will probably 
multiply in the near future. 

Present national-defense plans indicate that the defense projects at the various 
centers will continue for a number of years. This development, like all others 
in the past where there have been appreciable shifts in the location of industry 
and economic activitly related to the concentration of large numbers of men, 
results in a temporary crisis in family life for large numbers and continuing 
problems for a somewhat smaller group. The problem of possible dependence is 
only one of the many welfare problems which attend large-scale migi-ations. 


A few elements in the present situation which must be considered in devolop- 
ing legislation or administrative processes for helping to prevent unnecessary 
migrancy are : 

1. The dispossessed people who are moved off land which is purchased for 
military or defense industry purposes. 

2. The possible loss of some foreign markets and shift of others which will 
mean a new dislocation of workers, both urban and rural. 

3. The possibility of evacuation of areas for the protection of families who may 
be subjected to the violence of attack from without or to the hazards of vul- 
nerable industries subject to attack from within. 

These elements produce situations of importance not only to the local com- 
munity and to the State government, but of vital concern to the Nation's wel- 
fare. No solution to the problem of migration can be found in the individual 
States alone, or even in a regional plan. Migration is interstate in character, 
and it is beyond the capacity of the States themselves to deal with it ade- 
quately. The problem, viewed in all of its asjiects, is national in nature, and any 
solution to it will require the leadership and participation of the Federal 

Such a program of Federal leader.ship with State cooperation would include: 

1. The abolition of State settlement laws, or at least the enactment of uniform 
settlement laws in all States. The abolition of settlement laws is based on the 
theory that for most States the relief burden would not be increased because 
the number of dependents coming into a State would offset those going out. 
It is obvious that the advantages of climate or living conditions in some States 
would attract more people than would be attracted to other States. This may, 
therefore, work a hardship upon a few areas unless it is accompanied by the 
next step. 

2. An adequate general relief program with Federal participation through 
grants-in-aid to the States and Federal supervision of standards and methods of 
administration. In any general relief program with Federal and State participa- 
tion, there should be present at least two factors favorable to a solution of the 
migrant problem. These are : 

(a) More adequate relief standards in each State which would enable 
people out of work to stay home and seek work in the community where they 
have residence. 


(&) Special provision for care of the nonsettled person or of the migrant 
group needed for seasonal work. This provision would come only through 
a larger Federal share in the cost of care for such unsettled people. 

3. A stronger and more effective employment service which would have the 
full confidence of the employer and employee group. Such a service could 
assist in the orderly flow of migrant labor and facilitate the placement of 
workers needed in interstate employment. This, of course, must be a service 
operated on a national basis, under Federal control. 

In the local communities with State and Federal cooperation, there must be 
more than mere lodging and subsistence for the transient group. Transient 
centers in cities and counties should be equipped to provide medical examina- 
tions and subsequent medical care for migrants who are found to be ill or 
suffering from serious physical disabilities. Such transient centers should be 
constantly in touch with employment agencies for the necessary clearance on 
placement of i^ersonnel. 

Finally there must be recognition of the need for united action among all 
three levels of government — Federal, State, and local — in the care of distressed 
people If our Nation is to defend its Institutions effectively against aggression. 


Mr. Curtis. There are a few things I want to inquire about. In 
the first place, I believe I will ask you to summarize, just briefly, the 
point or points that you make in your prepared statement. Just 
proceed in your own words. 

Mr. HoEHLER. Briefly, what I have done in my statement is to 
attempt to show that the migration problem is one which was not 
born of this depression, or the depression which began in 1929, but 
is a phenomenon which has been going on in this country for years, 
because of the necessity of moving people for our industrial develop- 
ment. And then its aggravation came in 1929, when great numbers 
of people had to be moved. 

I have also tried to make the point that at the present time, when 
people are moving from one community to another in the defense 
program, we find not only isolated instances but a number of occa- 
sions when the so-called migratory problems have been increased 
because people are flocking to defense areas. 


I have suggested, in the final analysis, this is a problem which 
cannot be handled hj local communities or by the States ; it must be 
by Federal leadership and Federal encouragement. And by "lead- 
ership" I mean the Federal Government must enact legislation, 
must set an example through that legislation for the kind of stan- 
dards to be set in maintaining people who are moving about the 
country as migi-ants. They must put funds into the care of people 
throughout the country. And 1 am speaking in this memoranda 
of a general relief problem, rather than a specific transient relief 
problem ; because, after all, migrants are people, too, and should not 
be too isolated or set aside from the population. 

I am suggesting that the settlement laws might be revised; that 
there might be some uniformity of settlement laws, and I have dis- 
cussed very briefly the matter of the abolition, of settlement laws. 


Mr. Curtis. At that point, do you recommend as the move to be 
made at this time something toward uniformity, or the abolition of 
settlement laws? 

Mr. HoEHLER. My personal recommendation would be toward uni- 
formity, to be brought about by some participation in the cost of 
maintaining people throughout the country by the Federal Govern- 
ment. Uniformity should be one of the bases, one of the qualifica- 
tions on which the Federal Government would provide that help. 


Then I have suggested that the employment service needs strength- 
ening. It needs to be more effective and efficient, and it can only 
be that, I intimate, without much of an argument, if it is a Federal 
employment system. There is too much lack of uniformity, too much 
indifference on the part of some employment officials — State employ- 
ment officials — to this problem which is national, because they have 
their own State problems. A good national employment service oper- 
ated from Washington in the States and localities could effectively 
control some of the flow of migrant labor. 

That, gentlemen, is a brief of the statement which I have presented. 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Hoehler, how long have you been engaged in 
work of this sort? 

Mr. HoEHLER. Well, I became the welfare director in the city of 
Cincinnati back in 1926, Shortly after that, I became safety director 
and also handled welfare problems. And in the welfare department, 
in the early 1920's, we found some movement of population. It in- 
creased through the late 1920's and 1930's. 


As safety director, I had the police problem of handling migrants 
who fell into the clutches of policemen, and tried to be just as humane 
as possible, and to treat them with a little social service in connection 
with our activities. And we also had a fire problem; because, inci- 
dentally, while we do not hear much about it, a community which 
grows up adjacent to large cities, either a trailer camp or small camp 
that is built by migrants who come in looking for jobs, becomes 
distinctly a fire problem, a fire hazard, to the community. And in 
that work, for over 12 years, in the city of Cincinnati, I became 
pretty well acquainted with some of the problems of the migrants 
flowing from the South through the city of Cincinnati, which hap- 
pened to be a bottleneck, to the industrial regions of the North. And, 
since that time I have been engaged as national director of the na- 
tional organization of welfare directors — the American Public Wel- 
fare Association. 

Mr. Curtis. And what is that association? 

Mr. HoEHLER. The American Public Welfare Association is an as- 
sociation of public officials engaged in welfare work. It was or- 
ganized in 1930, when public welfare work around the country began 
to increase its activities, and at that time the present commissioner 


of agencies and institutions in the State of New Jersey was president 
of the association. It has grown since then to rather a large organiza- 
tion which engages only in attempting to increase the efficiency of 
welfare directors, the administration of public welfare around the 
country, and has a membership of about four or five thousand. 

We have two organizations within the American Public Welfare 
Association — one, tiie Association of State Public Welfare Officials; 
and the other the Association of Local Public Welfare Officials. To- 
day, at this very hour, 44 different State public-welfare officials are 
meeting in a hotel in this city, and 200 local public-welfare officials, 
discussing problems relating to this one in which your committee is 
so vitally interested. 


Mr. Curtis. Now, you discuss in your paper and you have men- 
tioned here the problem of settlement laws and say that you personally 
favor a move toward uniformity. What do you have to suggest as 
a means of bringing about that uniformity ? 

Mr. HoEHLER. Well, as I travel around the country, and just to 
qualify myself — I have been in 32 States since the first of this year 
to spend 3 days or more at a time, and I would say that the thing most 
needed to establish uniform settlement laws is a general relief program 
in which the Federal Government and the States participate with 
local conununities to provide assistance to people who are unemployed 
and cannot find any assistance in the established categories under the 
Social Security Act. Tliere are many States where no provision is 
made for people who are hungry and homeless, except some surplus 
commodities provided by the Federal Government. And that sounds 
just like a couple of words when you talk about people being hungry and 
homeless, but if you get into some of our southern States, particularly, 
you will find, with a few exceptions — and the State of Alabama is a 
notable exception — there is no provision for people who are not pro- 
vided for either by the Work Projects Administration or under the 
so-called social-security categories. As a result, those people are 
hungry ; they are undernourished and are creating a definite national 


Now, if general relief could be provided with Federal participation. 
States like California, New York, and Illinois, where they have inad- 
equate, but at least some, relief for people who are living in those 
States, would not be so inclined to raise their residence laws to 3, 4, 
or 5 years, which is the situation now in their attempt to keep so-called 
migrants out of the State. 

Mr. Curtis. Is a Federal transient program feasible without some 
general program ? 

Mr. HoEHLER. I would say it is not. In the first place, a Federal 
transient program, operated as a Federal program in the local com- 
munities, sets these people wdio are transients apart from the rest of 
the population; when, as a matter of fact, the desirable thing is to 



integrate them into the population, to tie them to the soil, to give them 
an opportunity to live somewhere, instead of isolating and setting 
them aside as we would some particular category whom we fear in 
the community. And I would much prefer, and I think inost of the 
people who know this problem would, to have a general relief program 
in which the Federal Government, the States, and the local communi- 
ties all participate, operated either by the State or local community, 
in which provision is made for all people, regardless of whether they 
are residents or nonsettled people. And perhaps under that program 
the Federal Government could offer certain inducements to States to 
reduce the settlement laws, but at least to bring about uniformity of 
settlement laws by providing some additional share in the cost of 
maintaining nonsettled people. 

Mr. Curtis. We have heard many witnesses discuss this problem 
which you have discussed. What I am about to ask does not pertain 
to your paper that you have prepared and I may be wrong in my 
memory as to what the law is. In my own State of Nebraska, it is 
my recollection it is the law that if there is someone hungry, who 
needs either relief or medical care, or whatever the case may be, 
certain local officials are not only bound to take care of them, but 
they are guilty of a criminal act if they refuse to do so, regardless of 
settlement laws. And then the recovery from the place where that 
person belongs is followed up afterward, if it can be done; but the 
first duty is to take care of those people. Now, that is more or less 
a theoretical question in my State, because in my State the migration 
of people has been outward ; our people have moved out of the terri- 
tory and have become migrants elsewhere. But do you know whether 
a similar provision of law prevails in any other State? 


Mr. HoEHLER. Oh, yes ; there are a number of States in which they 
have a charge-back system. I operated under it. But it just does 
not work. You cannot drag a county into jail; you cannot drag a 
State into jail. You can bring them into court and get a judgment, 
but it is another thing to try to collect on that judgment. 

Mr. Curtis. I am not discussing so much the charge-back and the 
recovery under it, but I am wondering does the operation of a law 
that requires these officials to take care of those people, regardless of 
the settlement laws — does that part of it work, in your experience? 

Mr. HoEHLER. There are plenty of laws to that effect, but you 
cannot have jails enough in the country to take care of the people 
who violated that law. They violate it, just do not take care of them, 
because the public officials do not have the money. 

Mr. Curtis. They do not appropriate the money for that particular 
purpose ? 

Mr. HoEHLER. They do not appropriate the money for that particu- 
lar purpose and, in many cases, they are completely indifferent to 
whether people are suffering, or not. I say that not generally, but 
I would refer, in the matter of indifference, to about 25 or 30 percent 
of the local welfare officials around the country. There are a niim- 


ber of them elected; the township trustees are elected, and they are 
not interested particularly in doing anything more than getting a 
sufficient number of votes to put them into office at the next election. 
And the funds which they have to use are extremely meager. There 
is no record kept of any money which they use in my own State 
of Ohio where I, for years, worked in connection with township 
trustees. And, as a result, they are entirely careless about it and 
many of them are indifferent to suffering. So that those laws are 
not enforced. 

Where they have a well-organized State department operating a 
general relief program, as they have in New York State and one or 
two other places, tliey do a pretty good job of taking care of people; 
because they have State supervision of what the local authorities are 
doing. And I think they would do even a better job if they had 
Federal supervision of what the State authorities are doing. 


Mr. Curtis. Do you think there is anything to the statement that 
is sometimes made that a wide difference in the amount of relief pro- 
vided causes people to migrate? Do people leave one point and go 
to another because of the possibility of more attractive relief? 

Mr. HoEHLER. No; I do not believe there is anything in that. I 
have argued it up and down the country. People who are on relief 
recognize the complete insecurity of the relief gi-ant; they know that 
next year the appropriation of the city council or the county super- 
visors might not be made and they would be off of the relief rolls. 
And that is true in California and in New York, just as it is in 
Oklahoma or Arkansas. So ])eople are not induced to move to Cali- 
fornia because the relief gi'ants in California have reached $30 or 
$35 a month. 

I went up and down the transient camps in California and talked to 
people in the camps, and the outstanding characteristic of those 
people was the desire for land. I do not think I talked to half a 
dozen men, in the hundreds I saw-, who were not hungry for some 
land which they could work, hungry for an opportunity to earn their 
own living. They did not want relief ; they did not come to Califor- 
nia for relief. That is true of those on Highway 66 and is true of 
those I have seen in trucks leaving the Ozarks for the fields in Ohio 
and Michigan. They are out to get jobs and not to get the relief 
that Ohio and Michigan might give them. 


Mr. Curtis. Now, the migration to Alaska, say, in the last 10 years, 
and to California and the Pacific Northwest, has been largely of 
people forced off of the land, has it not? 

Mr. HoEHLER. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. They are people with that sort of a background? 

Mr. HoEHLER. That is right. 

Mr. Curtis. And that is what they want to adjust themselves to? 


Mr. HoEHLER. And a few small businessmen from the Dakotas 
moved into the Northwest, moved to Washington and Oregon and 
went out there to try their luck at raising crops on the land ; but, for 
the most part, they were people \n1io were forced off of the land and 
they were simply following the old trek that their neighbors followed 
years before. 

California has advertised pretty extensively for migrant workers 
in the last decade, that is, the decade before this one, and still ad- 
vertises. I have picked up advertisements from California and 
Arizona along the highways, and found them in railroad stations — 
those of farmers and farm organizations, advertising for men and 
women to come to California to work in the crops in the field. 

Mr. Parsons. You do not think any appreciable number went there 
because of the climate, do you ? 

Mr. HoEHLER. No; I say honestly they do not; because they go 
up to the Northwest, too, where the climate is not too encouraging, 
although it is better than it is in northern Michigan. 

Mr. Curtis. There is another thing I would like to ask you, because 
you are 

Mr. HoEHLER. Might I finish my answer to that question? 

Mr. Curtis Yes; pardon me. 

Mr. HoEHLER. I would say when that man gets to be 50 or 60, or 
a little over, he might seek a little better climate; but these fellows 
I have seen on the road and in transient camps were 30 and 40. They 
looked to be 50 and 60, but they were out to get jobs, not sunshine. 

Mr. Parsons. Do they have plenty of sunshine always in Cali- 
fornia ? 

Mr. HoEHLER. They say they do. 

Mr. Curtis. Do they withhold it from the unjust, or does it shine 
on the just and the unjust alike? 

Mr. Hoehler. Well, you would think so if you got into some of 
those dismal camps; there is hardly any sunshine in them that gets 
through these bleak buildings where they live. 


The Chairman. It is a peculiar thing, but a Congressman asked 
me one day, "Where do you get all those people in California — 
homeseekers and different people?" I said, "From every State in 
the Union, but the most of them from your State, Congressman." 

So in California there are people from every State in the Union. 

Mr. Hoehler. If we are not just making conversation, I would 
like to say it is true. I went out there with the idea they came from 
Oklahoma and Arkansas, but in one camp I found people from 23 
States, and more than a handful from the State in which I have 
worked in public administration for nearly 15 or 20 years. They 
would come, some of them, to seek jobs, some of them to start smad 
businesses, and some of them hoping, after they got out there, there 
would be another gold rush. 

Mr. Curtis. It has been my observation, Mr. Hoehler, that each 
one of the 48 States is thoroughly convinced that their financial 
condition is the worst of them all. Is the American Public Welfare 


Association in a position to furnish the committee with information 
as to the relative ability of the various States to deal with this 
problem of relief for their own citizens, as well as transients ? 

Mr. HoEHLER. I am afraid we cannot. I wish we could. We can 
give you the relative capacities, but I would not want to be put on 
the witness stand as an expert to testify that our information is cor- 
rect; because some tax expert, somebody who knew more about land 
valuations than I do, could put me in a pretty hot spot. It is, how- 
ever, Congressman, something that is needed in this country. If we 
are ever going to help people on a national basis, we have to have 
some knowledge of the capacity of the States to do that job them- 
selves, and I am one of those fellows who believes we have to do it 
on a variable grant basis. We cannot give the same amount of 
money, the same percentage, to the richer States as we give to the 
poorer States; because it means there will be a considerable amount 
of disproportionate relief services and relief grants in the States 
where they need it most. 


Mr. Curtis. Now, do you know of any group that is attacking that 
problem, trying to arrive at a formula or definite answer as to the 
relative ability of the States to match Federal funds or to provide 
funds of their own for the general problem of relief? 

Mr. HoEHLER. No; because it is a big job and a costly job. I 
would say that maybe the Council of State Governments, as a part 
of their program, might be dealing in accumulating such informa- 
tion, but it may change in a short time. For instance, a southern 
State which today is considered a rather poor rural State may all 
of a sudden become an industrial State, because industry moves. 
If our market shifts from Europe to South America, it is entirely 
possible industries from New York and New England will move into 
Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, so that there would be a shift 
in the set-up. 

Any attempt to evaluate the capacity of States to provide for 
their own needy people would have to be a continuous job; you 
would have to re-evaluate every 4 or 5, or maybe every 10 years, 
as they do for the census; but it is a job which will take a lot of 
money and a lot of research, and should be done by the United 
States Treasury Department in cooperation with each of the States. 

Mr. Curtis. And we might be greatly surprised when it was 
accurately determined ? 

Mr. HoEHLER. I think you would. I think we all would, and I 
think those who think they know something about it would be more 
surprised than those who think they know the answers. 

Mr. Parsons. Would you suggest the registration of all transients ? 

Mr. HoEHLER. No, I would not. 

Mr. Curtis. Now, has this defense program aggravated or lessened 
the problem of moving people in interstate migration ? 

Mr. HoEHLER. It has aggravated it. 

Mr. Curtis. Has your association had any experience in any par- 
ticular phase of this defense program? 

260370— 41— pt. 9 2 



Mr. HoEHLER. Yes. We saw this new defense program and the 
building of defense industries as a possible problem in the welfare 
field ; so we sent some of our staff to visit a few of these communities. 
One little community which has a population at the present time 
of less than 900, had an influx of 8,000 to 10,000. Those people 
were living on the roadsides, or in the fire stations or police stations, 
or lock-ups — they were not police stations; you could not dignify 
them by that term — sleeping in all sorts of places, many of them 
in automobiles along the roadside. They came there to get jobs, 
because a particular company had advertised they had positions, 
and they are waiting there hoping those positions will materialize. 
And that is true in every community where there has been a 
large defense development and where there has been an Army 

Mr. Curtis. Could you furnish this committee with a copy of 
that report? 

Mr. HoEHLER. We can give you several reports — our staff reports. 
They are field reports. 

Mr. Curtis. We would be glad to have as many as you can 

Mr. HoEHLER. We will see that you get copies of all that infor- 

effect of nauon-wide migrant program 

Mr. Curtis. Now, one more question: What would be the effect 
of a Nation-wide program for migrants? Would it tend to cause 
more migration, that is, would destitute persons tend to flock to 
States of their choice, or remain home; or would it be an induce- 
ment for them to return to their home? What is your opinion of 
that, generally ? 

Mr. Hoehler. If we had a Federal relief program, so that there 
would be some degree of uniformity in the relief given in every 
State and some provision to keep men from starving between jobs, 
I think it would tend to stabilize our population and give the em- 
ployment services an opportunity to locate people when a flow of 
industrial workers seems necessary. As I say in this paper, more 
adequate relief standards in each State would enable people out 
of work to stay at home, because there would be some provision 
for their care, and they could seek work in their home community, 
in the community where they know people and where they have a 
better opportunity to get a job, than in some conununity where 
they had no acquaintance at all. And in such a program there 
ought to be some provision for nonsettled people, so that the Federal 
Government would reimburse to a greater extent such provision 
for nonsettled people. 


Mr. Curtis. Now that portion of destitute people who have been 
anchored at some place and have been dislocated — maybe the land 

1 This material is lield in committee's files. 


resources have failed them; maybe a factory goes down, or sometliing 
of that kind — ahnost universally their supreme desire is to get back 
home, is it not ? 

Mr. HoEHLER. Always. 

Mr. Curtis. Where they have spent the most of their lives? 

Mr. HoEHLER. Unless they find some sunshine or beautiful climate, 
Avhere they would rather live. 

Mr. Curtis. I mean if they are still objects of relief. 

Mr. HoEHLER. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Curtis. They want to get back into their old homes ? 

Mr. HoEHLER. Let me give you some examples. We made a study, 
spent 6 wrecks with our staff in Grundy County, Tenn. Grundy 
County is a typical Appalachian county, a mining and lumbering 
community. The lumber has been cut off and the mines have been 
sealed. There are 11,000 people in that county, and 75 percent of 
them on relief. Most of them did not have enough money to buy an 
old automobile and get out and look for jobs, and those that did drift 
back as soon as the mines open up, as soon as there is an opportunity. 
Now the mines are opening up and they are working part time in one 
section of the county, and they have brought back some of the miners. 
They are anxious to come back to their home conununity, to the place 
where they have their roots and to the place where they own a little 
parcel of land, and they could operate that land if they had an oppor- 
tunity to supplement their farm earnings by a job. And the most of 
them need it, because most of the land is barren and almost useless, 
and they need some kind of cash income to keep them alive. 

Mr. Curtis. Well, there is a group, and I do not know how large, 
who prefer to wander around. In years of prosperity they found 
jobs, but they worked in one place for a while and then worked some 
place else, and so on. It may be that we need that group, but my 
question at this time is, what percent of the so-called transients really 
prefer to become located and work out their future in some place 
where they can do so? 

migration not prompted by wanderlust 

Mr. HoEHLER. That is a difficult question to answer unless I had 
our records before me. Take, for example, the trip I took over the 
famous Highway 66: Most of the people that I talked to were people 
who would have stayed where they were that night, and would have 
located if there were any jobs for them. 

As a matter of fact, the people in some of the roadside camps are 
out looking for jobs. They want work. They don't have the wander- 
lust. There is no encouragement to wander if you have to put all of 
your belongings on top of a Ford car, and camp at night along the 
road. They would rather stay at some place if they could get work. 
I do not know the percentage, but certainly, of those in the camps I 
saw in California, less than 25 percent were people of the regular 
migrant group needed in California. The rest of them were people 
who came in from the 23 States I saw represented in one camp. 
Wherever they could find some place in California where they could 


tie down to the land, the majority of them wanted to do that. Thej^ 
wanted to be on the land, with 2 acres or 10 acres, or enough to keep 
the family on, where they could make enouoh to live on. 

Mr. CuETis. From the experience you have had, and your vast 
knowledge of this situation, you have given this committee a valu- 
able statement which we appreciate, because we are interested in the 
relief of these people as well as in some suggestions looking to a 
long-time program covering these things that would stabilize the 

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 


The Chairman. I want to ask one question: Mr. Ryan, of the 
American Red Cross, made a very interesting statement to the com- 
mittee the other day. He suggested that there be an additional 
category in the Social Security Act to cover this migrant problem. 
In other words, millions of them now are going from State to 
State, and they have no status whatever. They are homeless and 
they are Stateless, and they are kicked around in a way which, of 
course, endangers the morale of our people. In view of that, what 
would you suggest? 

Mr. HoEHLER. I think I would go Mr. Ryan one better: I would 
say that there should be another category under the Social Security 
Board to provide for general relief for all people. In administering 
that category, the Federal Government might say to a State like 
California, or to any State that may have a large transient problem, 
"We will provide additional support for all nonsettled people"; or 
the Federal Government might provide 100 percent of the cost of 
the support of nonsettled people, with another percentage of the 
cost for the support of regular residents of the States. 

Mr. Sparkman. Your recommendations are for an adequate gen- 
eral relief program with Federal participation through grants-in-aid 
to the States and Federal supervision of standards and methods of 
administration. Then you say there should be present at least two 
factors favorable to a solution of the migrant problem; first, more 
adequate relief standards in each State which would enable people 
out of work to stay home and seek work in the community where 
they have residence, and, second, special provision for care of the 
nonsettled person or of the migrant group needed for seasonal work. 
You say this provision would come only through a larger share in 
the cost of care for such unsettled people. Now, this is what I want 
to ask you: How would you provide for grants-in-aid to the States? 
Would you have them made on the same basis as now, or under the 
same social security provisions now made for the making of grants- 
in-aid to the States? 

state aid on basis of need proposed 

Mr. Hoehler. I would make them on the basis of need, so that the 
States where the greater need is indicated would have the greater 


share of support from the Federal Government. If we did that, I 
think the Federal Government could then encourage some of the 
poorer States to raise their standards of relief. Some of the States 
that participate in Federal funds for the aged and for dependent 
children, and so forth, make pretty miserable grants. They make 
miserable grants to the people who are participants in that program. 
The reason for such low grants is because the States claim, and I 
think that is true in many cases, that they do not have sufficient re- 
sources to provide their share. If there was a law providing for 
larger grants to the more needy States, or a larger share borne by the 
Federal Government, they would be enabled to have higher standards 
of assistance. That would be helpful to the morale and would be 
a powerful influence in any program for the national defense. 

Mr. Sparkman. Of course, you know that the present Congress in- 
creased the amount of aid to $20 per month, but that was a futile 
gesture, because I think only one State was even allowing as much 
as $15, and that was the State of California. 

Mr. HoEHLEK. That is not the answer. The answer is for the 
Federal Government to raise its share. 

Mr. Curtis. Oftentimes local relief is classified or made up in 
several categories, and they would select the category which has the 
larger share of Federal money rather than one that is almost entirely 
made up from local funds. How would you prevent that sort of 

Mr. HoEHLER. I would prevent it by providing Federal assistance 
in all categories. In the long run, such a program would be less 
costly. The present difficulty is that the Federal Government takes 
care of the aged and takes care of children in homes where the mother 
has been widowed. One reason why people are unable to support 
themselves when they attain the age of 65 is that because for years they 
have been living in poverty. They have no encouragement socially, 
and the reason so many fathers die of tuberculosis is because of some- 
thing else that was brought about by undernourishment and poverty. 
In the long run, a program for taking care of everybody who needs 
assistance from the State on some basis would cost the Government 
less money. We are now taking care of certain privileged groups 
under Work Projects Administration, and we are leaving millions 
of people out of consideration. Then, as those millions of people 
accumulate, the cost to the Federal Government, the State govern- 
ment, and the local governments, will greatly increase in years to 

Mr. OsMERS. Has your association made any studies with refer- 
ence to a comparison of the benefits of work relief with those of 
direct relief ? 

Mr, HoEiiLER, We have, but I would not say that it is a profound 
one. It is the kind of study that we make when we go from place to 
place and get information from people. It is based upon information 
from people who have natural human prejudices about work relief 
and direct relief, but I think these studies compare favorably with 
other studies that have been made on the subject. 


Mi\ OsMERS. In your opinion, does it form a solution of the 
problem ? 

Mr. HoEHLER. I would rather give a man a job than relief, but you 
cannot give jobs to all men under Work Projects Administration. 
There are not enough projects to provide work for everybody. In 
the second place, many people who ask for relief are unemployable, 
and they are unfavorable because they have been living so long on 
the ragged edge of poverty that they have lost the normal or proper 
attitude toward work, and have lost the work capacity to stand up 
under any decent job. 


Mr. OsMERS. Have you made any comparison between the cost of 
work relief and the cost of direct relief ? 

Mr. HoEHLER. In dollars and cents, work relief is more costly, be- 
cause you have to provide a wage which is comparable: to the job 
done, and you have got to provide materials. However, in the final 
analysis, I think work relief is cheaper because you have some invest- 
ment from the work done, and you have more skill retained or work 
habits retained in the individuals who have done the job. 

Mr. OsMERS. One of the unfavorable conditions we have found 
within the borders of my own State has been the disparity between 
the amount of money received by a man for Work Projects Ad- 
ministration work, with 15 days' work per month, and the direct 
State and municipal relief which we pay, and which we make as 
large as we can, but that frequently runs down to the matter of 
groceries. The disparity has caused some difficulty, discontent, and 
dissatisfaction among the various groups. 

Mr. HoEHLER. Yes, sir; I know what that is. In 17 or 18 States, 
this disparity is from about $30 or $40 down to zero under the 
general relief program. 

Mr. OsMERS. The average in New Jersey, I think, is $25 that a 
family would receive for direct relief, and it would be about $55 for 
work relief. 

Mr. HoEHLER. You will find that differential among the States. 

The Chairman. If there is nothing further, we thank you very much 
for your statement. Your prepared statement will appear in the 


Mr. Parsons. Will you state your name, address, and the organiza- 
tion you represent, for the record? 

Mr. Gallagher. My name is Hubert K. Gallagher, assistant di- 
rector. Council of State Governments, 1313 Sixtieth Street, Chicago, 

Mr. Parsons. The statement you have submitted will be inserted 
in the record at this point. 



Uniform Settlement Laws 

This statement is directed especially to the experience which various States 
and their legislative commissions have had in handling the problem of tran- 
sients and in seeking to unify their settlement laws.^ Legislative commissions 
in cooperation with the Council of State Governments called a conference of 
some 21 States east of the Mississippi River which convened in Trenton, N. J., 
on March 6-7, 1936, for the purpose of considering problems having to do 
with transient relief and uniform settlement laws. 

The principal reason for calling the conference was to consider the plight 
of some 275,000 transients who, having been deprived of Federal relief since 
September 1935 had been denied State public assistance by reason of the "strict, 
arbitrary, and motley technicalities of legal settlement." The Federal Emer- 
gency Relief Administration up until September 1935 had been spending $4,000,- 
000 a month for their support, but since that time public indifference, 
intercommunity jealousies, and reprisals had left the transients to shift for 
themselves with resultant liardship and human suffering. The 1936 conference 
went on record, by unanimous adoption of resolutions, urging: First, that the 
Federal Government accept inunediate responsibility for the relief and employ- 
ment of transients, and that this relief and employment be made effective 
through permanent departments of State government and coordinate local units 
of administration with funds made available by the Federal Government on a 
grants-in-aid basis. 

Second, that the several States be urged to liberalize their laws so as to 
make possible their cooperation with the Federal Government in the financing 
and administration of relief to transients on the proposed grants-in-aid prin- 
ciple ; and 

Third, that all efforts be made to bring about uniformity of legal-settle- 
ment laws between the several States, and that legislation be encouraged 
which would provide for reciprocal agreements between groups of two or 
more States for the purpose of bringing about uniformity of practice by agree- 
ment as between the cooperating States. 


At the conclusion of the meeting a "Continuing Committee" of 15 was ap- 
pointed composed of representatives of a majority of the States at the con- 
ference. As a member, and later as secretary of this committee, I had an 
opportunity to become acquainted with the problem during the next 2 years. 
The committee participated in national conferences held by the American 
Public Welfare Association and the Council of State Governments in 
ington, and in the Midwest Transient Conference held in Minnesota. Thus 
considerable public attention was called to the problem, State legislatures me- 
morialized Congress, but when it came to lowering residence requirements 
the legislators sat on their hands. There was always some reason why the 
settlement laws shouldn't be uniform. In fact, by calling so much attention 
to the problem, members of the committee actually became fearful that State 
legislatures would look around and decide maybe if some States had 5-year 
settlement laws, why shouldn't they? Even New Jersey found some reason 
for retaining its 5-year period, and during this period Colorado, Delaware, 
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania tightened their 


In 1937 the committee continued its woi'k and was responsible for the 
adoption of an enabling act by some of the eastern legislatures (New York, 

1 Settlement laws have a twofold purpose : First, that of setting up qualifications or 
conditions of eligibility for public assistance; and second, the fixing of responsibility for 
such public assistance upon the locality wherein there has been a compliance with the 


Rhode Island, Vermont) which authorized "Reciprocal Agreements" providing 
for the acceptance, transfer, and support of persons receiving public aid in 
other States. 

During the same year the General Assembly of the Council of State Govern- 
ments at which 250 representatives from 46 States and the District of Colum- 
bia were in attendance unanimously urged : 

(1) That uniform settlement laws be enacted providing for: 

(a) A period of 1 year's residence as a requirement for gaining settlement. 

(b) A provision for the retaining of settlement in one State until a new 
one is acquired in another. 

(c) Relief and sei'vice to unsettled persons in accordance with the local 
standards of relief, wherever they may be found in need, and until such time 
as the necessary investigations regarding settlement are completed. 

id) Vesting in the State department of ijublic welfare the power to deter- 
mine the final decision as to the retention of an unsettled person in the State 
or the return of such person to his place of legal residence. 

(e) Authorization of State departments of public welfare or the corresponding 
agency to reimburse the local units for the costs of relief and service given to the 
person without legal settlement. 

if) Authorization of State departments of pviblic welfare or the corre- 
sponding agency to provide relief and service for transients — interstate and 
intrastate — as an integral part of the general relief and service department. 

(2) That the Third General Assembly recommend the adoption of the Uni- 
form Transfer of Dependents Act, and urge the application of the principle of 
reciprocal agreements between groups of two or more States having adequate 
laws to encourage uniformity of practice between the cooperating States. 

(3) Tliat the Third General Assembly urge the Congress of the United States 
to develop the necessary legislation and make appropriations to take care 
of the problems of the transient, the needy stranded migratory laborer, and 
other unsettled persons through grants-in-aid to the States on the basis of 
certain basic requirements. 

At the end of 1937, some 16 States required more than a year's residence 
for settlement. Some progress has been made since that time, but not much. 


It is true that several of the States have passed the Uniform Transfer of 
Dependents Act, providing for administrative agreements for the benefit of 
transients unable to i-eceive aid because of "nonsettlement," but due to the 
diversity of their settlement requirements, few States have carried out any 
reciprocal agreements under the authority of this type of enabling act. 

Such agreements depend, as has already been pointed out, on uniformity of 
State settlement laws. The States should look to the time when they would agree 
to act as agents for any other State in administering assistance where the two 
States concerned may agree that it is to the advantage of the person receiving public 
assistance to receive such assistance in a State other than the one providing the 
funds therefor. It has also been proposed that this problem might be resolved 
through the adoption by the States of a simple interstate compact which would 
provide that no person shall lose a settlement in the State of his origin until he has 
gained one somewhere else, and that no person shall gain a settlement in the State 
of his destination within a shorter period or under lesser circumstances than a 
resident from that State of destination would have required to gain a settlement in 
the State from which the first transient migrated. 


After careful consideration of the problem it is my conviction that the transient, 
the commuting worker, can best be handled through the cooperation of the Federal 
Government. With settlement laws in such a chaotic state, few States are 
equipped financially or administratively to aid with relief of transients ; as a 
result transients are shuttled back and forth from place to place. Localities 
are not willing to assume the burden, nor do the States have the financial resources 
to provide assistance. Transients thus have no legal settlement. Transfers from 
State to State are frequently impossible because the States have no authority to 
make the transfer and the locality will not assume the burden ; thus those who 
might work elsewhere are held back by fear of losing settlement. 


Reports of commissions affiliated with the Council of State Government have 
pointed out that a Federal grant-in-aid program would assist the States financially 
and bring about a measure of order out of this present diversity of settlement- 
law requirements. The administration and supervision of local programs of 
transient relief should be left to the States within a Federal framework. The 
States could be made to realize their responsibility for the transient and could 
be aided in carrying out this assistance on a more adequate and uniform basis. 
The conditions for grants-in-aid might include provisions for : A 1-year settle- 
ment law; a provision for the maintenance of settlement in the localities for 
material and service relief until legal settlement is acquired ; a provision that final 
questions of settlement should be decided by the State department of welfare; 
and provisions for the transfer and assistance of indigent persons, and for adequate 
standards of uniformity. The transient program, of course, will not succeed 
unless there is a larger general Federal program of relief with grants-in-aid to 
the States. 

With such a program, the States would be in a position to bring about adequate 
transient relief and greater uniformity of settlement laws more effectively and 
in less time than could the States acting individually and separately. 


Mr, Parsons. We thank you for your statement. I think it is a 
very interesting document. I want to ask you a few questions in con- 
nection with your statement. I have been somewhat familiar with 
the Council of State Governments for a good many years, and I think 
the council is doing an excellent piece of work. 


In connection with the recommendations that the assembly made 
in 1937, with reference to uniform settlement laws, what would you 
say has been the trend in the various States during the last few years 
in that direction? 

Mr, Gallagher. I would say that the trend, instead of being in the 
direction of uniformity, has been the other way. At the time of the 
general assembling in 1937, there were about 20 States that had l^year 
settlement laws, and since that time I think that the number of States, 
instead of coming down to 1-year settlement laws, has gone up. We 
have found that a number of States are raising their settlement laws 
from 1 year to 3 years and 5 years. At the general assemblage held 
at Trenton, N, J., delegations from 26 States were in attendance. 
This conference also recommended uniform settlement laws, and at 
the time a continuing committee was set up by the States confer- 
ence. I was a member of that committee and was made secretary 
of it. We did everything we could to work for the passage of uni- 
form settlement laws in the States. I thus had an opportunity to 
become acquainted with the problem during the next 2 years. The 
coirunittee participated in national conferences held by the American 
Public Welfare Association and the Council of State Governments 
in Washington and in the Midwest Transient Conference held in 
Minnesota. Considerable attention was called to the problem, and 
State legislatures memorialized Congress on the subject, but when it 
came to the lowering of residence requirements the legislators sat on 
their hands, and there was always some reason given why the settle- 


ment laws should not be uniform. In fact, by calling so much atten- 
tion to the i^roblem, the members of the committee became fearful that, 
instead of promoting uniformity, there would be greater variation in 
the laws on the subject of settlement. In other words, some State 
might decide to have a 5-year settlement law because some other State 
had it. 

Mr. Parsons. You are a resident of the State of Illinois? 

Mr. Gallagher. Yes, sir. 


Mr. Parsons. Illinois raised its settlement period from 3 to 5 years. 
Do you recall the reason given for the legislature taking such 
action ? 

Mr. Gallagher. No, sir ; I do not. I presume it might be due to 
the fact that other States had provided such a period of residence. 
At the same time Florida, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, and Penn- 
sylvania changed their periods from 1 to 3 or 5 years. 

Mr. Parsons. I questioned Mr. Neil R. Jacoby, chairman of the Illi- 
nois Emergency Relief Administration, with reference to that point at 
the time of our hearings in Illinois, and I found out that neither the 
commissioner, the Governor, nor the mayor of Chicago had made 
any such recommendation. 

But in some way the members of the State legislature got the idea 
that, because Illinois was paying quite a substantial amount for relief, 
many transients were coming into the State for the purpose of ob- 
taining relief. They had the idea that they were coming there from 
other States. Now, do you think that the legislatures of other States 
have raised their settlement law requirements for the reason that 
they believe they have been enticing these migrants to come into 
those States? 

Mr. Gallagher. I think that is probably true. I know that our 
conference brought out that fact as to some. That was the reason 
in the case of Pennsylvania, and I dare say it was the same in the 
case of Delaware. 

Mr. Parsons. We have had this question up at every place where 
we have conducted hearings. We have found one school of thought 
that favored the abolition of settlement laws, while another school 
of thought was in favor of uniform laws. Now, what would be your 
objection to the elimination of settlement laws entirely ? 

Mr. Gallagher. Personally, I would have no objection to that. 
I have not heard that suggestion made at the conferences that have 
been held, and we are still working for uniform laws. We have 
tried memorializing the legislatures, and the Conference has been in 
favor of a uniform 1-year settlement law, but it has met with no 
success in that. Then we tried proposing a uniform reciprocal agree- 
ment, trying to achieve some agreement among the States on that 
basis, but we did not get very far with that. In fact, only three 
States have passed enabling legislation for that^ — New York, Rhode 
Island, and, I think, Vermont, were the States. 



Then, we come to the recent conference proposal of a simple inter- 
state compact which w^onlcl provide that no person shall lose a settle- 
ment in the State of his origin until he has gained one somewhere 
else, and that no person shall gain a settlement in the State of his 
destination within a shorter period or under lesser circumstances 
than a resident from that State or destination would have required 
to gain a settlement in the State from which the transient first mi- 
grated. Of course, this interstate compact, even if it had the approval 
of State legislatures, would have to be drafted. It would have to 
go back to the legislatures of the several States to be ratified, and 
then you would have to get the consent of Congress. That process 
might take anywhere from 3 to 5 years. 

Mr. Parsons. What would be your recommendation as to the 
length of time required for settlement? 

Mr. Gallagher. I think it should be 1 year. 

Mr. Parsons. You state there in the resolution that you are read- 
ing from that a citizen would still be a citizen of the State of his 
origin until he had acquired citizenship in another State, or after 1 
year's residence or, at least, that he should retain his citizenship in 
his State of origin until he had lived a sufficient time to acquire settle- 
ment in the State of his destination ? 

ISIr. Gallagher. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Parsons. Do you think that the States will ever initiate this 
sort of program themselves? 

Mr. Gallagher. Well, it is a difficult problem, and we have been 
working at it for many years. 

Mr. Parsons. You have been working at it for how many years? 

Mr. Gallagher. I would say certainly for 5 years. We feel that 
we have achieved less success 'in this program than in any we have 

Mr. Parsons. Of course, Congress cannot fix the settlement laws 
of the various States unless we have a Federal-aid program. Then 
we might set up certain qualifications that the States must observe 
in order to obtain the grants-in-aid. We might do it in that way. 

Mr. Gallagher. I think that probably should be done. 


Mr. Parsons. In your statement you advocate that the administra- 
tion of the provision for transient relief should be left in the States. 
Do you think that a federally administered program would be 

Mr. Gallagher. On the basis of my attendance at the conferences, 
especially the relief conference held during this year, I would say 
that a federally administered program probably would not work, 
because you would have confusion and duplication of administration 
in the States. I think you would find that the States would fight 
such a program. I found that at almost all of the conferences the 
State authorities felt that they should have the administration and 


supervision of it. I think they agreed that probably Federal stand- 
ards were necessary, and I think that qualification should be made. 
Personally, I would recommend Federal standards of administration 
and supervision. 

Mr. Parsons. Leaving to the local authorities of the States the 
administration of it? 

Mr. Gallagher. Yes, sir. I think that they would be better 
qualified in the local organizations. I think that many of these 
people would go out and get jobs provided you had a proper transient 

Mr. Parsons. Are you familiar with our system in Illinois for the 
administration of direct relief? 

Mr. Gallagher. I am not qualified to speak on that subject, but 
I know generally how it has worked. 

Mr. Parsons. They have anywhere from 1,400 to 1,500 Govern- 
ment agencies administering direct relief within the State of Illinois. 
In the county there is only 1 unit head, but in a county in which you 
have county township organizations, and where there are perhaps 20 
townships in the county, you have 20 different agencies handling 
relief. That is a very costly process. Now, you make the statement 
here in your paper that you think it is necessary for the Federal 
Government to step into this picture of relief, and that a great deal 
of administrative cost could be eliminated if, with the present sys- 
tem of the various States of the Union, the Federal Government 
should set up certain standards. That is, it would not actually 
administer the relief itself, but would rather keep in touch with it, 
or have a veto power. It would have a veto over the action of others, 
rather than supervise the work itself. Upon what idea do you 
think that the Federal Government should participate in the direct 
relief system of the States? 

Mr. Gallagher. I think there should be a general Federal program 
of relief, and that it should be on the grants-in-aid basis. I think 
that you should have Federal standards of administration. I think 
that such a program would work well. Of course, the transient 
would be taken care of under a general Federal program. 

Mr. Parsons. Would you have the Federal Government grant 
additional aid because of transients within a State, basing it upon 
numbers or need ? 

Mr, Gallagher. I do not feel qualified to make a statement on 
that. I think the transient should be handled the same way as any 
other recipients of relief. Otherwise, I am afraid that you will 
have competition between the States, and you will get back to the 
situation that has caused the problem. 

Mr. Parsons. If we eliminated the settlement laws, with the Fed- 
eral Govermnent participating in the program, in all the States where 
transients might happen to be, do not you think that we might 
happen to have considerable numbers of people who would get ready 
to see America first in order to obtain relief as transients? 

Mr. Gali^gher. If you had a general program of relief, you would 
have uniform standards applying throughout the country, and I do 
not think that would be any incentive to travel around the country, 


or to see Americca first. If there were a reserve of funds to afford 
sufficient relief, or to give work that would help to take care of it, 
there would be no need for him to become a transient. He would 
have more opportunity to work or opportunity to obtain work in his 
own locality. I realize that there is seasonal work, and that they 
must keep moving around. That is where the worker is needed to 
work in harvesting fruits, vegetables, and so forth, and I think the 
worker should be permitted to travel in those areas. 

Mr. Parsons. What percentage of the cost of direct relief of tran- 
sients should be borne by the Federal Government if we should have 
a Federal program along that line? 

Mr. Gallagher. Of course that would be up to Congress. 

Mr. Parsons. What should that be, in your opinion ? 

]\Ir. Gallagher. I think 50-50 might work. 

]\Ir. Parsons. The same as is provided for in the present social- 
security law? 

Mr. GALLiVGHER. Ycs, I think that probably would work. You 
might try variable grants, although there you might get into a great 
deal of difficulty with com]:)etition between States. The larger States 
always object to the variable-grant program. 


I think the States themselves should share in this program, and I 
think some consideration should be given by the Congress to the 
returns from taxation within the States. 

For instance, during the past year State tax revenues have in- 
creased 7 percent over last year, and they have increased 9 percent 
over 1937. Congress might take that into consideration in w^orking 
out a grants-in-aid basis. If State taxes are bringing in considerable 
money States would be better able to pay for their share of relief. 

Mr. Parsons. You have given a great deal of thought to the study 
of governments. What agency of the Federal Government should 
this administrative work be lodged in, if we favored and provided 
for a Federal-aid program ? 

Mr. Gallagher. It was not the unanimous opinion of the confer- 
ences, but it was agreed to by a number of delegates that possibly 
another category should be added to the social-security program, 
that this general relief program might be number 4 in the social- 
security set-up. I think that would be satisfactory. 

Mr. Parsons. Do you think we will ever have all of our people 
back in private employment again, the old, the young, and the midclle 
aged ? 

Mr. Gallagher. I think we will get fairly close to it, but you will 
always have a certain number of unemployables whom you cannot 
find work for. 

But it is my personal opinion that if this defense program moves 
along there will be employment for almost every one. 


Mr. Parsons. Of course, this problem has become quite acute, first, 
because of the depression beginning in 1929, when agriculture had 



been depressed ever since 1920. But labor displacing machinery has 
also played a part in the unemployment problem, has it not? 

Mr. Gallagher. That is certainly true. 

Mr. Parsons. I saw an article not long ago, a study of unemploy- 
ment and machines, which stated that in the last 10 years, since the 
depression started, machinery had displaced, on an average, on the 
farms and in industry, 31.2 percent of the former employees. 

There is more production of any and every kind in America today 
than there ever has been at any time, except during the other World 
War days, and yet we have millions of people still unemployed. 
With the trend still in the direction of labor-displacing machinery, 
can we ever expect to put all of our people to work in private indus- 
try or private employment? 

Mr. Gallagher. Perhaps not, and certainly not during ordinary 
times. That would only be possible in the case of a tremendous 
defense program, and even then it may be doubted if that would put 
everyone to work, 

Mr. Parsons. You think then that this problem is at least, in part, 
a national problem? 

Mr. Gallagher. Yes, indeed ; I certainly do. 

Mr. Parsons. All of the destitute migrants did not have their 
origin in the Dust Bowl? 

Mr. Gallagher. No. 

Mr. Parsons. They have been found in every large town and 
community in the country ? 

Mr. Gallagher. Indeed they have. 


Mr. Parsons. Have you ever thought about how much money it 
might take for the Federal Government to participate in such a 
program ? 

Mr. Gallagher. I realize it would be considerable. I have heard 
the statement made that it might cost at least $500,000,000. I have no 
facts or figures to back that up, but I have heard that statement made. 

The Chairman. Concerning your reference to the 50-50 matching 
proposition in relation to the migration problem, this thought has 
occurred to me — and, of course, we are expressing no opinion one way 
or the other, until we file our final report, but we do have some ideas 
about this subject, — for instance, during the last 5 years, 895,000 
people have gone to California, my State, and 493,000 are destitute 
migrants. Suppose the 50-50 proposition were in effect. California 
is the only State in the Union which matched the old-age pension 
payment of $15, and the State is in debt. If the State had to also 
provide the money for matching the payments to transients or 
migrants, it probably would be unable to do it now. 

Take the State of "Mississippi, for instance. It seems that the pay- 
ment of $2.25 for old-age assistance grants is the best that State can 
do. I think you see what I am trying to get at. 

Mr. Gallagher. It would work a hardship on California, probably. 

The Chairman. Yes, but all the States are pressed now. As indie- 


ative of that fact, none of them, outside of California, can come up 
to the $15 mark. I wanted to get that in the record as a statement or 
fact, because it shows what the situation is. 

Mr. Parsons. I want to correct the record in reference to that matter, 
Mr. Chairman. Illinois has raised its pension amount to $40, but it 
is not paying a uniform rate to every recipient, and I doubt if 
California is. 


Mr. Curtis. Will the Chairman yield to me for a moment? 

The Chairman. Certainly. 

Mr. Curtis. I would like to ask the witness this question : Does it 
follow from the fact that Mississippi pays only $2.25 a month to an 
aged person and California pays $20 indicate a relative ability to raise 
the money? Do you think it does? 

Mr. Gallagher, Personally, I think Mississippi ought to pay more, 
but I think probably relative ability would be figured on the per 
capita income of the people of the State, and I would say probably 
on that basis California would be in a better position to pay it than 
Mississippi would, but whether it is on the basis of $15 to $1, 1 do not 
know, but I doubt if it is. I think that probably the Mississippi 
amount is way too low. 

Mr. Curtis. As I stated, in asking the previous witness a question, 
all of these States contend that, financially, each is worse off than any 
of the other 47. But my observation on this point has been that as 
to the States paying a small amount, it necessarily follows that that 
is the measure of their ability. 

Mr. Gallagher. I think that is correct. 

Mr. Curtis. I think probably the sentiment and the standards of 
the people have been the controlling factors in the States which pay a 
high amount, as well as in the States that pay a low amount. 

Mr. Gallagher. I think that is true. That is why you have this 
competition of people going on relief in States that pay more. 


The Chairman. In reference to a question asked here by Mr, Par- 
sons, as to whether you think the time will come when people will all 
be employed in private industry, of course I doubt, myself, that we 
will ever reach that point. 

I might call your attention, in that connection, to some figures re- 
leased by some insurance companies the other day. I do not recall 
which insurance companies they were, but they were very interesting 
to me. 

They made a survey — I forget how many insurance companies there 
were — but they found, taking policy holders at the age of 25 years — 
this is the general average — that when they reached the age of 64, out 
of 100 policyholders, 54 were dead, 36 were living on public or ])rivate 
charity, or with their relatives, and 5 were employed, 4 were well-to-do, 
and one was rich. In my opinion, those are very startling figures. 



I guess that probably when we understand those figures we can do 
bettei* with the migrant problem than we are doing now. 
We thank you very much for your statement. 

D. C. 

The Chairman. The next witness is Msgr. John A. Ryan. 

You are here, Monsignor, representing the National Catholic Wel- 
fare Conference? 

Monsignor Ryan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I want to say to yon, Monsignor, that this commit- 
tee, after the resolution passed the House of Representatives— and this 
will show you that we considered this was a national problem— started 
in New York, with our hearings, where Mayor LaGuardia was our 
first witness. He agreed, as I recall, that it is a national problem. 

Then we went to Montgomery, Ala. ; then to Chicago ; then to Lin- 
coln, Nebr.; Oklahoma City; and San Francisco and Los Angeles, 
Calif. . ^ . ^ ^ . 

We think we have aroused this Nation to the seriousness ot this 
problem. . -, -, , 

I want to say to you also, Monsignor, that this committee, although 
composed of Republicans and Democrats, has never considered this a 
political question. I am very proud of this committee and the al)ility 
the members have shown in the consideration of this subject. 

The committee has received your prepared statement and it will 
be placed in the record at this point. 

(The statement is as follows:) 


I am here at the request of and in place of the Right Reverend Monsignor 
Michael J. Ready, general secretary of National Catholic Welfare Conference, 
who was formally invited to testify hefore thiy committee. The members of 
Congress who are responsible for creating the committee and the members of 
the 'committee itself deserve the very highest praise for this initial endeavor 
to grapple with one of the most urgent and difficult social and economic prob- 
lems confronting the American people. 

Three preliminary propositions may be laid down with considerable confi- 
dence: First, migrancy cannot be abolished as an institution, for there will 
always be a large number of persons, mostly young and unmarried, desiring to 
leave home and seek other occupations and places of abode. 

Second, no attempt should be made by law directly and specifically to hinder 
the migration of anyone for any reason, so long as America remains America. 

Third, destitute migrants should obtain assistance in adequate measure, 
either in the form of direct relief or work relief. 


The foregoing provision should be made jointly by the Federal Goverument 
and the State in which the needy migrants are temporary sojourners, with the 
greater part coming from the Federal Government. In principle, this arrange- 
ment is relatively simple, even though the administrative difficulties may be 
complex. However, tliey are not insurmountable, for essentially the same situ- 
ation confronted the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the Resettlement 


Administration, and the Farm Security Administration. Whether the relief to 
migrants should be administered by the Work Projects Administration or by a 
new Federal agency set up for this specific purpose is a question which we do 
not need to consider here. 

The observations just made obviously deal only with a temporary situation. 
They suggest no permanent remedy, nor do they offer anything by way of abolition 
or prevention. Yet, abolition of the conditions which are responsible for destitute 
migrants and prevention of the recurrence of these conditions should be the 
main concern of this committee. On this point, I would make the following 

First a part of the problem will be solved through the gradual improvement 
in business conditions and employment which is now under way. Wherever 
this occurs the number of those likely to migrate into another State will 
be reduced. And this development will be helpful both to the heads of 
families and to single persons. As a matter of policy, therefore, consistent 
and continuous elforts should be directed toward the increase of employment 
in private industry. 


However, even this proposal falls under the head of temporary and partial 
remedies. Really permanent remedies refer particularly to the farm dwellers 
who have been displaced by Dust Bowl phenomena and other factors. Here, 
the requisite measures are threefold : Rehabilitation loans, loans for owner- 
ship, and measures which favor the operators of small farms. With I'egard 
to rehabilitation loans, we have already seen a good beginning. And the 
results are very encouraging. A recent survey of 360,000 active rehabilitation 
borrowers thus described their status in 1939 as compared with their condi- 
tion the year before they obtained their loans : 

"Whereas, the year before the loans were made the net income of the 
borrowing families was $375.42, their average net income in 1939, the year of 
the survey, was $538.40. That represents an increase of 43 percent. Again, 
whereas, their net worth or capital, over and above all debts, was $SS4.49 
per family before their loans were made, it stood at $1,114.91 the year of 
the survey. That is an increase of 26 percent and means that, taken together, 
these families added a total of $83,000,000 to the wealth of their communities." 
(The Rural South: Problem or Prospect, Rev. Edgar Schmiedeler, O. S. B., 
p. 21.) 

Obviously, this beneficent provision could and should be extended indefin- 
itely. Before he left the Farm Security Administration, Dr. Will Alexander 
declared that half a million applicants for rehabilitation loans had to be 
refused for want of funds, and that these, or a great proportion of them, 
had joined the grand army of migrants. 

Concerning provisions for enabling tenants to become owners, their inade- 
quacy is equally striking. Farm owners are becoming tenants at the rate of 
40,000 per year, while the $50,000,000 annual appropriation is insufficient to 
offset more than a fraction of this addition to the number of our tenant 
farmers. An appropriation of $1,000,000,000 a year for rehabilitation loans 
and ownership loans would not' be excessive if that amount could be efficiently 
dispensed by the Farm Security Administration. 


Finally, we come to the question of large versus small farms. This is the 
most difficult problem of all, inasmudi as its solution involves a drastic 
change in fundamental policies. This committee has heard a great deal of 
testimony concerning the displacement of small farmers through the mechaniza- 
tion of the farm industry. I cite only one witness, Gladys Talbott Edwards, 
education director of the Farmers Union : "In the mechanization of farms, 
more than a million and a half workers have been displaced who can never 
again find work on the land." How can this process be arrested? One 
method would be to withdraw Agricultural Adjustment Administration benefits 
from any farmer who cultivates or operates more than 500 acres of land. 
Second, and perhaps even more important would be a supertax on large land 

ro— 41— pt. 9- 


holdings, say those which exceed 1,000 acres. Compel landowners who are 
possessed of more than this amount to pay a progressive tax which will render 
larger holdings unprofitable. 

Twenty-five years ago, I recommended such a supertax in my book Distribu- 
tive Justice. At that time I was not thinking of the migrant problem, for 
it had not yet become formidable, nor of anything else except the general 
desirability of a better distribution of the resources of America. In the light 
of developments since 1915, I repeat that recommendation with greater em- 
phasis. As a student of economics for almost half a century, I have come 
to appreciate the meaning and value of "efficiency." As a general rule, I 
believe that we should not discard or refuse to adopt any invention, device, 
or method which increases production with a smaller amount of labor. Never- 
theless, the supreme end of all technical improvements should be the welfare 
of human beings. If the farm tractor and harvesting combine or any other 
technical improvement means less debilitating labor or a greater net amount 
of material benefits to human beings, it is desirable to that extent. On the 
other hand, if any such change merely reduces the cost of production while 
it increases the number of persons who are unable to live decently this so- 
called technical progress is not genuine progress. 

By way of summary, I desire to quote here, with complete approval, the 
chief recommendations made to your committee, as stated in Facts for 
Farmers, for December 1940: 

1. Limit Agricultural Adjustment Administration benefits to a family-sized 
economic unit. 

2. Enact a graduated land tax. 

3. Raise farm prices. 

4. Enlarge the program of the Farm Security Administration. 

5. Increase the tenant purchase program. 

6. Lengthen the term of tenant leases. 

7. Include migratory families in social legislation. 

8. Refinance and scale down the farm-mortgage debt. 

9. Establish a farm-placement service. 


The Chairman. Mr. Osmers will ask you some questions, and the 
other members of the committee will follow him, as they may desire. 

Mr. Osmers. Monsignor, I want to say that I received a copy of 
your prepared statement, and I wonder if you would, in your own 
words, give to the committee the important points contained in that 

Monsignor Ryan. Yes ; I shall try to do that, briefly. 

I observed, in the letter which was sent to Monsignor Ready, 
general secretary of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, in- 
viting him or someone he would designate, to take part in this hear- 
ing, a statement to the effect that the theme of the hearing today 
woidd be that of settlement. I have not dealt with it specifically in 
my prepared statement. 

Mr. OsMEKS. I would rather, with the concurrence of the chairman, 
that you not necessarily confine yourself to the subject of settlement. 


Monsignor Ryan. I would like, if you will permit me, to make two 
observations on settlement. 

The proposals I recommend have to do almost entirely with the 
farm migrants, and the proposal relative to rehabilitation loans, plus 
other facilities which enable tenants to become owners. These are 


long-distance settlement proposals, they will not go into effect next 
week or next year. But I think they are fundamental. 

There is one observation I would like to make regarding the 
important problem of settlement. The other day, at Trinity College, 
I mentioned to my class that I was coming here today, and I said 
it was a continuing problem, and I will not say anything that has not 
been said before. 

One of the students said, "What about camps for these migrants?" 
Maybe I was a bit hasty, but I thought of concentration camps im- 
mediately. I said, "No, we are not going to force anybody to go into 
a camp and stay there, except as a last resort ; but camps for those who 
are in particular need, where they can be induced to go in, where the 
conditions are good, and with no compulsion." 

That is all I would say about the important matter of settlement. 


The main points in my prepared statement are, first, that there 
should be a great extension and enlargement of rehabilitation loans 
to those persons who are tenants, or perhaps owners, but who need im- 
mediate assistance to enable them to operate their farms. 

In the second place, there should be a much greater appropriation 
in the interest of ownership, enabling tenants to become owners. 

The third point is the restriction of the triple A benefits to farm- 
ers whose farms are below a certain acreage. I have said it should 
be 500 acres, and that those who own more than 500 acres should not 
get the triple-A benefits. 

The fourth point, which is a very long-distance one, is that there 
should be a supertax on large lanclholdings. Apparently the large 
landholdings have come to be connected with the use of machinery, and 
the use of machinery has dislodged a great many farmers. That ought 
to be prevented somehow, notwithstanding our interest in efficiency. 

Many years ago I heard Justice Brandeis, long before he was on 
the bench, in a lecture in Minneapolis on monopoly, in which he 
said, "I hope we shall never become a Nation of hired men." That 
is what our farm population is becoming, to a great extent — a Nation 
of hired men — and that is bad business. 

I think that summarizes what I have to say. 

Mr. OsMERS. We have, of course, two aspects of this problem. One 
is that, as a Government, we have the immediate problem of re- 
lieving these people and providing them with food, clothing, and 
shelter. Then we have the long-term problem of endeavoring to 
find places for them in our economy where they would be able to 
earn their own way. 

I am happy to notice that your recommendations are directed 
principally toward a long-term solution of the problem. I think 
that, as a Government, that is where our greatest efforts should be 

We have, of course, a great many different relief set-ups that are 
cumbersome and do not, in all instances, work. 

I was very much interested in your remarks as to the restriction 
of these triple-A payments. The question came before us several 


days ao-0 when we had some of the men from the Department of 
A^riciiltnre here. They expressed their veiws on that subject, and 
I would like to have your opinion on it. 

They said that if payments were not available to the very large 
farms, the so-called industrialized, or corporate, farms, they would 
fail to observe the crop restrictions that go with the triple-A pro- 
oram, and thereby lower farm prices, to the detriment of everybody 
en.o-ao-ed in agriculture. Would you say that is a likely happening? 

Slonsignor Ryan. I do not know about that, but I do not see how, 
rio-ht now, that that would happen to any significant extent, cer- 
tatnly not to the extent that would wipe out the benfits. The benfits 
seein to be pretty obvious, from what has been said by a good many 
persons as to the relation between these payments to farm operators 
and the displacement of the small man. 

I do not pretend to understand how it works, but it seems that 
that is the fact. I do not believe the increase in production and the 
taking off of these restrictions on their acreage by the large farmers 
would completely offset the benefits of which I speak. 

But I am not an expert. 


Mr. OsMERS. I notice in your prepared statement you devote your- 
self rather exclusively to the question of rural migration. Do you 
regard the urban migration problem as a serious one, or do you feel 
that urban migration is not as great as the other? 

Monsignor Ryan. I think now the importance of the rural problem 
is much greater than the other. The other, like the poor, we always 
have with use. We always have the problem of those who leave the 
farms and go to the city,'and migrants from the city to the country, 
and that problem is not usually a great one. It was serious in the 
first years of the depression. No doubt a great number did go from 
the cities to the farms. But as soon as business picks up that trend 

If we are headed now for something like full employment withm a 
year, then I think the question of urban persons going to farms will 
not be of any great importance. 

Mr. OsMERS. Do you look for an increase or a decrease in migration? 

Monsignor Ryan. Well, it mainly depends upon the degree to 
which business will pick up, and something like full employment be 
secured. If that occurs, the problem of migrants, both rural and 
urban, will be considerably diminished, for various reasons. I do not 
think there is any question about that. 


Mr. OsMERS. If a program such as you have outlined in your 
prepared statement is put into effect, do you feel that there will 
be decreased migration from the cities to the land, particularly on 
the part of people who live a marginal existence in the cities today? 

Monseigneur Ryan. I do not think so. Wiat I am talking about 
is rehabilitation loans for those who are farmers, and ownership for 


those who are tenants. To whatever extent that is realized, it will 
not help the urban person who wants to o;o to the farm very much, 
except if there was general prosperity on the farms there would 
be more opportunity for workers there and employees on the farms. 
But directly, I do not think the proposal I make for rural migrants 
would affect the situation of those going to the cities. 

All of my life I have been acquainted with persons going from 
the farms to the cities. I recall, perhaps before some of you fjentle- 
men were born, that the parish priest — I grew up on a farm in Minne- 
sota — protested against the young people going to the city. That 
had just about started. We were only about 20 miles from St. Paul, 
and it was pretty easy to go to the city. They said then that if 
we wanted to go to the city we w^anted to see the electric lights. 
There have been a great many more attractive things provided now 
than electric lights. That sort of thing has been going on all the 
time, and I do not know any way to stop it. I do not know that 
there is any way to stop it, certainly not by legal compulsion. 

Mr. OsMERS. I think the only way to stop it would be to make the 
rural areas more attractive places in which to live. I think the Amer- 
ican rural youth is rather interested in taking a fling at the cities and 
always will be. 

In your statement you recommend that increased farm prices would 
tend to greatly improve the situation. I realize that that is a very 
large order. What machinery would you suggest to increase prices? 

Monsignor Kyax. I just included that proposal among the other pro- 
posals. I could not answer that question comprehensively. 

I think the Agricultural Adjustment Administration has been, to 
a limited extent, perhaps successful in the measures it has put into 
operation to raise farm prices. That farm prices should be raised, 
I think nobody doubts. As to the method of doing it, the Agricul- 
tural Adjustment Administration has done something about it. 

If we had general prosperity, I think the question of farm prices 
would be largely solved because people in the cities w^ould have more 
buying power. I tie a great deal of that up with the question of full 
employment and full production. 

Mr.'OsMERS. In regard to the question of full production, Monsignor, 
would you say that in our effort to raise prices we have been too re- 
strictive with respect to production? 

Monsignor Ryan. I do not think so. 

Mr. OsMERS. Would you say we have overproduced or undercon- 
sumed ? 

Monsignor Ryan. We have underconsumed. 


Mr. OsMERS. I have just two more points I w^ant to ask you about. 
I would like to go into the suggestion as to a supertax for a moment, 
that is a supertax on the large owners. 

Would you say that there was a little philosophy of the single tax 
in that ? 


Monsigiior Kyan. Well, a little ; yes. As a matter of fact, I put that 
in a textbook I referred to, in the chapter where I discussed the single 
tax. It was one remedy which I thought was better than the single 
tax, because I am not a single-taxer. 

I had read a part of Henry George's book when I was 14 years of 
age, and I have a lot of sympathy with it. They have some fairly good 
ideas, but as to the whole program — no. 

Mr. OsMERS. One more question : I would like to have your opinion 
on the effect of world peace on America's economy and, of course, its 
effect on the migrant problem. 

Monsignor Ryan. World peace would certainly be helpful, but how 
helpful no one can say now, because we do not know what kind of a 
peace is going to come. 

Certainly war has disturbed our economic relations with other coun- 
tries very considerably, and to a great extent harmfully, although our 
exports, because of war demands, are greater than a year ago. 

But any peace arrangement that is applicable would be helpful to 
every economic problem we have and would help solve every economic 
problem we have here, partly and gradually, at any rate. It certainly 
would be preferable to what we have now. 


Mr. OsMERS. Do you feel, Monsignor, that peace, or an end of our 
domestic defense program, would greatly upset our economy for a 
while and cause the greatest migration ever seen in this country ? 

We are now building defense plants, powder plants, and other plants 
far out in the hills and far removed from any other source of income, 
and, if peace should come, all those people would have to migrate, 
because in some of those locations there is no agriculture and no other 

Monsignor Ryan. No doubt such a change could have very evil ef- 
fects, first, if it came suddenly ; and secondly, if adequate preparations 
were not made by the Government to meet it. 

Mr. OsMERS. To absorb the shock ? 

Monsignor Ryan. Yes. The change from a munitions-producing 
economy to the ordinary economy need not be disastrous. Suppose, 
when peace came, we should have nearly full employment and were 
going to close a great many factories making war materials. It would 
be possible to shift those persons to regular production, provided that 
the distribution of production was such that those who wanted to buy 
had the money with which to buy. They are going to have that period 
toward which they will have to go, and at the end of that period it is 
going to be a big problem, and special steps will have to be taken. 

Mr. OsMERS. If it were continuous over a period of years, and if we 
go into the war, as long as we continue to consider human beings still 
worth considering, do not you think it is a strong threat to our basic 
form of government and that such a shock would bring about a great 
economic dislocation ? 

Monsignor Ryan. I do not know. 


Mr. OsMEES. Let me suppose a case : That tomorrow morning five 
or ten million men should be wholly or partially unemployed at one 
time, do you believe that a group of those men, or many of them, would 
sit down without doing something about it ? 

Monsignor Kyan. No; but suppose that should occur tomorrow 
morning, as you say. Congressman, there are certain provisions which 
have been adopted by the Federal Government which would aid that 


Mr. OsMERS. Do you feel that would lead to a period of greater 
regulation. Government regulation, and Government control of every- 
thing to keep things running? Is not that found in every instance, 
either in Europe or elsewhere, when to have complete war it has 
required Government planning, tearing down the last iota of personal 

Monsignor Ryan. I think that some general program would be 
necessary but it seems to me that, as far as necessary, it should 
be temporary. 

Now, you mentioned about planning, even planning for the people 
themselves, I was in favor of the bill that Congressman Jerry 
Voorhis and others introduced along the line of industrial expansion. 
Whether that would work or not I do not know, but I am for the plan- 
ning thing. The great question is how much compulsion you are 
going to put into the planning, direct compulsion, whether through 
inducements to the manufacturers who comply, through a 20-percent 
allotment, or 10 percent. I think that you are going to have a lot 
of that. 

The Chairman. Mr. Curtis. 

Mr. Curtis. Monsignor Ryan, I for one have great appreciation 
of your coming here and of the valuable and specific recommendations 
in reference to migration to areas of agriculture. I was intensely 
interested in that. 


What effect has there been noticed, because of migration in rural 
areas, upon churches and church life of America ? 

Monsignor Ryan. I am afraid I could not speak on that with any 
authority. I have not paid much attention to it. 

Mr. Curtis. Would you care to make any observation about it ? 

Monsignor Ryan. I doubt, that as far as the Catholic Church is 
concerned, its effect has been very great. Unfortunately the ma- 
jority — I say unfortunately from one standpoint — the majority of 
Catholics, about 80 percent of them, live in the cities of this country. 
As my pastor used to say, many of them went there perhaps to see 
the electric lights, so I doubt if there were very many Catholics in- 
volved in this migration from farms, particularly from the Dust 
Bowl area. But I have not paid much attention to it. 

Mr. Curtis. In addition to what is planned under what we may call 
an economically wise planned program that can be instituted for just 
relief, we still must encourage individual sacrifice. 



Monsignor Kyan. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Curtis. And urge thrift and economy. 

Monsignor Ryan. Yes. 


Mr. Curtis. Do you think that there should be an exploration into 
the question of security for individuals employed in industry that 
is concerned purely with national defense ? 

Monsignor Eyan. Purely what? 

Mr. Curtis. Purely national defense, with no peacetime function 
whatsoever, that a portion of their wages, in addition to what is al- 
ready taken for social security, should be retained to help these in- 
dividuals cushion themselves against that day when that industry 
may disappear entirely? 

Now, all of these contracts are under the direct jurisdiction of 
the Federal Government; the Federal Government makes the appro- 
priation, specifies what can be done in the contract, and largely 
what the wages shall be, so we have, perhaps, authority to do that. 

Now I am not asking you to agree or disagree with such a thing, 
but do you think that something of that kind should be explored ? 

Monsignor Ryan. It should be explored; yes; but I would not be 
in favor of arbitrary compulsion. I think perhaps there should be 
something in addition, but it should be brought about by moral 
suasion; that people engaged in that work should be encouraged to 
do it ; but to compel them to do it, I would question. 

Mr. Curtis. Perhaps I did not state my question in the form I 
should. The thought was not, under law, to compel men to take 
money that has reached their hands and invest their savings in a 
specific thing. I mean to make the wages payable so that a part of 
it would stay to help cushion themselves against the time when that 
entire industry disappears. 

Monsignor Ryan. Well, it seems to me that would be compulsory 
thrift and I do not like the element of compulsion. 

J. Maynard Keynes has suggested some kind of a program like 
that for Great Britain, not perhaps the same, but much of the same 
character ; first as to what would be expected of workers of that kind, 
with their savings, not now, but later on, when certain changes take 
place in the prosecution of the war in Great Britain. 

But I do not like the idea of compulsion; I think that it is neces- 
sary, and I think you should encourage thrift. 

But, there are ways, and the way has been shown in the National 
Mediation Act's relation with the railroads, and there has not been 
a major strike on the railroads for 15 years, I think, but there is no 
compulsion and I think that should be* sufficient to keep the defense 
industry running. 

I merely mention that as an illustration of how you can get the 
thing done by a kind of persuasion that is not legal compulsion. 

Mr. Curtis. You think it should be worked out ? 

Monsignor Ryan. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. AVhere employees agree to accept this assistance? 

Monsignor Ryan. Yes. 


Mv. Curtis. So they may have something to cushion themselves 
against the day when the industry disappears. 

The Chairman. Mr. Sparkman. 

Mr. Sparkman. Monsignor Ryan, I was very much interested in 
the remarks yon made with reference to farm conditions. 


Is it your opinion that there is a break-down of the family farm 

Monsignor Ryan. Well, all I know is what I have been reading 
of the testimony before this committee and from other sources as 
to the number, and that is not necessarily of sufficient long standing. 
I was on the President's i^dvisory Committee on Farm Security — 
the Farm Tenant Program I believe it was called — for 2 or 3 years, 
and it was said there were 40,000 owners becoming tenants every 
year, and I do not suppose that the proportion has gone down since 
1937 or 1938; perhaps it is bigger. 

Mr. Sparkman. That is a change from the relationship of home 
ownership to that of tenancy. 

Monsignor Ryan. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. But what I mean is this : Do you think the number 
of farm units is decreasing? 

Monsignor Ryan. I have not seen the figures on that. I suppose 
it is decreasing somewhat, but I think that if a million and a half 
persons have lost their farms or have moved from the farms in the 
last 2 or 3 years, as was testified here by somebody, that the number 
of units, farm units, throughout the country necessarily must have 


Mr. Sparkman. Now, you recommend that farm benefit payments 
be restricted to only the operator or at least to those who cultivate 
500 acres or less. You are familiar, I am sure, with the fact that the 
present farm act limits the amount that can be paid to any one farm 

Monsignor Ryan. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. I believe the limit is to $10,000, if I recall it cor- 
rectly. When the legislation was being debated a very serious effort 
was made to cut it to $5,000. But apparently it was the opinion that 
$10,000 should be the maximum. Then there is also a penalty for 
cutting down the number of farm units, that is, for pushing the tenants 
or sharecroppers on the farm operation off the large farms. 

The problem, as was explained to us by a representative of the 
Department of Agriculture, is in reaching a happy medium and main- 
taining the balance whereby cooperation or participation of these large 
operators will be obtained. 

Do you feel — I know Mr. Curtis asked you a question very similar 
to this, and I believe you said it would not make a great deal of differ- 
ence in the program, in your opinion. Now representatives from the 


Department of Agriculture told us that it would, as a matter of fact 
that it might, defeat the program of balanced production. 

Monsignor Ryan. Well I am not familiar with that situation at all. 
Certainly a statement by a representative of the Department of Agri- 
culture is much more effective than mine, and certainly has more facts 
to support it than any statement that I could make. I must say that 
I have not thought on that before. I do not know. 

Mr. Sparkman. I believe he told us also that the number of checks 
going out, which would indicate the number of farms actually in 
operation, have not shown an appreciable decrease. 

Monsignor Ryan. Well, there are new farmers, I suppose, coming 
on every year; there is an increase in the farm population as well as 
in the other population, so that statement would not refute anything, 
the mere fact that there has been no reduction in the number of checks, 
because if the farm population is increasing the number of checks to 
farms would likely show an increase. 

Mr. Sparkman. The point is that these checks go to the farm. 

Monsignor Ryan. Yes ; I appreciate that. 


Mr. Sparkman. I was very much impressed with some of the pre- 
liminary census figures — I do not know what the final figures will 
show — but as far as the preliminary figures show that in the last 10 
years there has possibly been a movement from the cities back to the 
farms ; it shows certainly that the rapid increase in population in the 
large cities had not kept pace with what it had been in the preceding 
10 years. 

Monsignor Ryan. I have not seen the census report on that and I 
am a bit surprised at the moderate language, because certainly we 
were told 6 or 7 or 8 years ago that there had been a great movement 
from the cities to the farms, largely by persons who had moved previ- 
ously to the city from the farms and who thought they could better 
themselves in their condition by securing employment in the cities, 
but who are now moving back to the farms. 

I think there is no doubt a considerable migration has taken place 
from the cities to the farms in the past, say, the first 5 years of this 
decade, I mean, from 1930 to 1935 or 1936. 

Mr. Sparkman. Now, your idea of a supertax on the land, of course, 
would be a Federal tax ? 

Monsignor Ryan. Yes; it would have to be. 

Mr. Sparkman. Is not that quite a severe departure from our 
past practice ? 

Monsignor Ryan. Yes ; I realize that. That is the one field of tax- 
ation that the Federal Government has at least overlooked up to 
this time, on real estate farm land, 

Mr. Sparkman. Do you not believe there ought to be a tendency 
for the Federal Government to leave some field alone ? 

Monsignor Ryan. Yes. 



Mr. Sparkman. You stated, I believe, that such a tax would have 
to be based on an acreage provision ? 

Monsignor Ryan. Yes ; of a thousand acres or more. 

Mr. Sparkman. The only thought I wish to point out in that con- 
nection is you might have a thousand acres in one locality that would 
be worth a thousand times what a thousand acres would be in another 

Monsignor Ryan. That is a local condition, but in general terms 
you could set a normal limitation of somewhere around 1,000 acres 
and that limitation, of course, would be varied under much the same 
principle as that now involved in the Fair Labor Standards Act. There 
is a minimum wage fixed by the Congress for the whole country. And, 
the variations in one part of the country as against another part of 
the country, so far as wages are concerned, are adjusted from that 
minimum. I think we have to reconcile ourselves to the general 
policy of setting a limitation beyond which the process cannot go, and 
as Mr. and Mrs. Webb said some time ago, we must have a national 
minimum ; naturally the minimum will not fit everybody, but it will 
fit the needs of the majority. That is all we can say. 

Mr. Sparkman. I was thinking that probably out in the cattle 
country a thousan,d acres might not be sufficient, whereas a thousand 
acres devoted to truck farming in an industrial section would repre- 
sent a huge industrial plant. 

Monsignor Ryan. Well, if the Federal Government, the Congress, 
ever got around to putting this into operation, it could make the classi- 
fication of land. And it is my understanding that the attitude of the 
Supreme Court is, in considering a problem of that kind, that any 
taxing unit can go far along that line, provided a proper classification is 
made within that unit. 

For instance, in my own State of Mimiesota the State has a tax on 
iron ore, which I believe, is different from the tax on the surface of 
the soil. That was taken to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court 
said that that was a proper classification as long as it was not an 
arbitrary one. 

Now, to increase by many thousands of acres the limitation for 
grazing land would not be an arbitrary classification, so I do not think 
there would be any great difficulty about that. 

Mr. Sparkman. I was asking the question for this reason : To see if 
you might not think that, instead of placing this arbitrary tax on 
land, you might have a levy on machines, whether you think that would 
be preferable. I understand that the displacement of labor by ma- 
chines is the real problem. 

Monsignor Ryan. Yes. Possibly that might be helpful, but I have 
not been able to see it. In the first place, where the proposition is 
defended, it increased the cost of production, no doubt ; the consumer 
pays it eventually. Well, you might say also the consumer pays even- 
tually for any decrease in this very efficient farm-machinery method, 
the price of agricultural products may be higher, but I do not think 
they would be vei-y much higher than that produced by machinery, 
and I think the explanation involves many things that I cannot think 


of, I am sure. And, certainly from those who have recommended it, I 
received many letters saying that this will be solved by a tax on 
machinery. But the defense of the proposal did not strike me as 
taking in all of the factors. 


Mr. Spakkman. Dr. Taylor, of the University of California, at 
Berkeley, made a suggestion based upon the premise that in order to 
employ labor on the farm, in order for it to be economically employed, 
that the farm must be of a certain type. In other words, just like 
capital laid out in business, it had to be large enough to justify the 
investment if you are going to make it profitable, and that it would 
not be practicable for the small individual farm owner, but that you 
could have three, four, or five groups together, form a cooperative and 
purchase the necessary machinery through a cooperative. What do 
you think of that ? 

Monsignor Ryan. I think it is a very fine idea ; yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. And that method might be financed by the Federal 
Government, I do not mean by a grant, but through loans. 

Monsignor Ryan. Yes ; I should think so ; I am for all the coopera- 
tion possible, and using the best machinery there is. Why not use it 'i 
But let the use of machinery be so arranged that the individuals would 
not be pushed off the farm, causing these farms to become large indus- 
trial operations with most of the persons concerned in it working for 

Mr. Sparkman. I think that is all. 

The Chairman. Monsignor Ryan, I have been very much interested 
in your remarks, and the question occurs to me all the time as we look 
into the picture of migration, that it is connected with every economy 
in our national life ; that you cannot consider migration in itself alone. 

Monsignor Ryan. Yes. 

The Chairman. It results from worn-out farms, mechanism, un- 
employment, and various things. And there is no single solution to it. 

Monsignor Ryan. No. 

migration a national problem 

The Chairman. This is the first investigation addressed solely to 
this proposition. We have spent millions of dollars during our history 
in studying and establishing regulations for interstate commerce, but 
never for the interstate movement of human beings. 

Now, one of the solutions which you outlined was rehabilitation 
loans, in other words, resettlement loans. In that regard the Farm 
Security is doing that very thing, Monsignor Ryan. They have loaned 
money to 500,000 farmers with whicli. to buy horses, cows, feed, and 
other things that are required to keep them oil the farm. 

But here is the point I want to make : In the Great Plains States 
they have lost a million people in the last 10 years; in the Great Plains 
States 5,000,000 acres of once productive soil has lost 25 percent of its 


Now, I am particularly interested, Monsignor, in those good Ameri- 
can citizens who have been forced to move because of circumstances 
over which they have no control. And they start out and what do they 
run into? Tliey come to a State border line, perhaps as a result of 
some private employment agency giving them some misinformation, 
telling them there are jobs, and they run up against barriers of from 6- 
month to 5-year settlement laws. In other words, there are barriers 
against the flow of humanity, but there are no barriers against inter- 
state commodity commerce. 

So, the thing that you mentioned is something that has been recom- 
mended, and is an idea that can be done, to keep them on the farms. 
And in our investigations throughout the United States, and we trav- 
eled 10,000 miles, I personally never have come across a single migrant 
in California or any other State who would not like to have an oppor- 
tunity to stay on the farm, who w^ould not be willing to live on the 
farm, and I think that you will agree with this committee that every- 
thing indicates it is a national problem. You feel that way, do you 

Monsignor Ryan. Oh, absolutely. Of course, it is a national prob- 

I heard the figures you gave a short time ago, Mr. Chairman, about 
the number of migrants to California, and no State should be re- 
quired to take care of them; no State should be required to bear up 
under that burden. Aside from the nice fresh air and sunshine — and 
certainly they require something more than that, as a brother of mine 
said when somebody wanted to go to San Diego — as a matter of fact, 
he has been there several years — "San Diego, yes ; but you cannot live 
on sunshine." 

Mr. Parsons. Well, it gave California three extra Members of Con- 
gress as a result of the migration. 

Monsignor Ryan. Yes; but the individual must have something 
more than a nice place to live. 


The Chairman. Monsignor, our records disclose there were about 
4,000,000 of these migrants last year and certainly we must do some- 
thing to better their situation, because if we do not I am satisfietl 
it wdll strike at the morale of the country, and anything that strikes 
at the morale of the country strikes at our national defense. 

As a matter of fact, do you not know^ that the Census returns have 
been held up because there are hundreds of thousands of American 
citizens who have not lived in one State long enough to be assigned 
to the State, and do you not think some provision must be made 
whereby they can be citizens of a State ? 

Monsignor Ryan. They certainly ought to be able to stay in one 
place long enough to be counted once in 10 years. Of course, it is a 
national problem. 

The Chairman. The committee feels very much honored to have 
had you come this morning, and we appreciate very much your valua- 
ble statement. 



Monsignor Ryan. It is a pleasure to have been here. 

The Chaerman. The committee will take a recess until 2 o'clock. 

(At 12 noon a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the same day.) 


The recess having expired, the chairman, Hon. John H. Tolan, 
called the committee to order at 2 p. m. 

The Chairman. Our next witnesses will be Miss Hoey and Mr. 


The Chairman. Miss Hoey, will you please give your full name and 
address, and your official position? 

Miss HoET. It is Jane M. Hoey, director of public assistance, of the 
Social Security Board. 

The Chairman. You reside in Washington ? 

Miss Hoey. In Washington ; yes. 

The Chairman. Mr. Tate, will you please give your name and offi- 
cial connection, for the record ? 

Mr. Tate. Jack B. Tate, general counsel of the Federal Security 
Agency. I reside in Washington. I would like to introduce Mr, 
Herbert Margolis, who is on my staff. 

The Chairman. I would like to say to you at the outset that Con- 
gressman Sparkman will interrogate Miss Hoey, but in answer to any 
of the questions, if there is anything additional you would like to 
incorporate, Mr. Tate, you will be permitted to do that; likewise, 
Miss Hoey, you will be allowed to interpolate in Mr. Tate's exam- 

Mr. Sparkman. Miss Hoey, I have read your statement and looked 
at the supplements to some extent. They will be put in the record at 
this point. 

statement of jane m. hoey, director, bureau of public 
assistance, social security board 

Present Situation \N;'ith Regard to Migrants and Recommendations FOfR 
Theik Care 

general situation 

1. There is legitimate migration which needs to be encouraged, especially from 
those areas where it is impossible at the present time to earn a living because of 
the economic situation. 

2. This migration as far as possible should be accomplished in an orderly 
fashion. Migration can be controlled to some extent if the larger industries, 
especially those with defense contracts, will utilize the public employment offices 
in recruiting workers. 

3. Studies of migrants indicate that in general they are a young age group and 
would be an asset in any community if given an opportunity to become self- 


4. The increase in private employment provided througli defense industries and 
in other ways has not, and in all probability will not, take care of all the able- 
bodied unemployed residents and migrants, since many of these are unskilled and 
the older ones have been unemployed for long periods. 

5. The migrant problem has been greatly magnified recently due to the creation 
and expansion of industries for defense and of cantonments and other establish- 
ments related to the armed forces of the United States. Since these are distributed 
throughout the United States almost every State is now faced with this problem 
of the care of migrants. Previously only a few States with an unusually large 
number of migrants were aware of the problem. 


1. The \\'ork Projects Administration, Public Works Administration, National 
Youth Administration, and Civilian Conservation Corps programs have never 
absorbed all able-bodied, unemployed persons in need of employment. 

2. Twelve States do not make available any State funds to assist their local 
political subdivisions in providing relief for needy persons for whom work is not 
suitable or available and who are not eligible for one of the three categories of 
public assistance. 

3. The local communities, except in a limited number of States, have not appro- 
priated funds in sufficient amount to provide even the minimum subsistence needs 
for persons without sufficient resources to maintain themselves. 

4. A tax on property, the chief basis for revenue raising in most communities, 
does not produce sufficient revenue to meet all local governmental expenses and 
finance an adequate relief program in addition in most communities in the United 

5. With a limited number of exceptions, in the last 5 years the States and 
localities pooling their resources and the Federal Government sharing 50 percent 
of the cost of public assistance for the three groups have provided only inadequate 
public assistance for many needy aged and blind persons and dependent children. 
In many States there are long waiting lists of eligible aged persons and dependent 
children for whom no provision is made, usually due to lack of resources. Even 
though under the public assistance titles of the Social Security Act, local residence 
as a basis of eligibility has been eliminated and only State residence required, 
in many States settlement and residence laws are so restrictive that even aged 
and blind persons, otherwise eligible, who have not lived 5 out of 9 years in the 
State, one of which must have been immediately preceding the application, are 
denied public assistance. Lack of citizenship in many States also excludes 
otherwise eligible aged and blind persons. 

6. "While the number of persons adversely affected because of restrictive resi- 
dence or settlement laws is not known for the country at large, a rough measure 
of their infiueuce is shown by the fact that in seven States, the District of 
Columbia, and Cook County (Chicago), 111., for which data are available during 
specified periods in 1937 and 1938, from 1.5 percent to 7.4 percent of the applicants 
for old-age assistance were rejected because the applicant was ineligible because 
of residence requirements." ^ 


1. The Council of National Defense and its Advisory Commission should be 
asked to request all firms receiving defense contracts to utilize to the fullest 
possible extent the free public employment service for recruitment of new 

2. The Federal work programs, including Public Works Administration, Work 
Projects Administration, National Youth Administration, and Civilian Conserva- 
tion Corps, should be extended to include all employable unemployed persons in 
need, residents and migrants. 

3. The vocational rehabilitation program is restricted to those who can be 
placed in competitive industry. This program should be broadened, or a new 

1 Data secured from the Division of Public Assistance Research, Bureau of Research and 
Statistics, Social Security Board, compiled January 4, 1939. 


program developed, to include all persons who could be trained for partial, if not 

**^?^ All Federal laws providing grants-in-aid to States should be conditioned, in 
addition to other requirements, upon the States agreement to extend services to 
all persons living in the State without regard to length of residence. This condi- 
tion should be applicable to such programs as vocational rehabilitation, health 
services child welfare, public assistance, farm security, and surplus commodities. 
5 The Social Security Act should be amended to provide Federal grants-in-aid 
to States for general relief for needy residents and migrants for whom Federal 
work programs are not suitable or available. Federal funds should be made 
available to match 50 percent of the cost of administration and assistance. The 
State should be required to submit a plan with provisions similar to those now 
included in the Social Security Act relating to public assistance. The responsi- 
bility for the supervision of this program should be in the same agency as the 
other assistance programs, that is, the Social Security Board. 


1. Federal grants-in-aid to States on a 100-percent basis for public assistance 

to migrants: ,,..... -^ ^ i, 

(a) If a lOO^percent grant for assistance and administration were provided by 
the Federal Government for migrants, this would relieve the localities and the 
States of a financial burden, but might result in an attempt on the part of the 
States and localities with inadequate resources to classify residents as migrants 
in order to secure Federal funds or encourage residents whose need is not being 
met to become migrants in order to secure necessary assistance not available to 
residents. Thus undesirable migration would be increased, not lessened. This 
would also entail a very large expenditure on the part of the Federal Government 
without effecting a desirable solution of this problem. 

(6) If public assistance were granted to migrants on the same level as assist- 
ance granted to residents, those States having a high level of assistance payments 
would undoubtedly have an influx of migrants. This would result in other welfare 
problems arising in these areas because of inadequate facilities for housing, medi- 
cal care, and education. Any attempt on the part of the Federal Government to 
provide public assistance on a flat grant basis for the relief of migrants would not 
meet individual needs and would result in a distinction between the care given 
to migrants and residents. 

2. Federal grants-in-aid to States on a 50-percent basis for public assistance to 
migrants alone without any Federal provision for needy residents : 

(a) A 50-percent Federal grant to States for public assistance to migrants 
would undoubtedly result in the very limited funds now available for general 
relief for residents being further depleted in order to provide matching funds for 
the care of migrants. This situation would merely increase the present, antagon- 
ism of residents toward nonresidents. 

(&) Since States could not be forced to pass appropriate legislation to take 
advantage of the Federal grant for migrants, they might refuse to submit a State 
plan for this purpose and prefer to utilize their available funds to meet the need 
of local residents. 


Legal Requirements for Residence, General Relief 

The principle of legal residence or settlement that underlay the old approach 
to general poor relief caused many difficulties during the depression period in 
relation to unemployment relief. Consequently there was a separate handling 
of the nonresident and transient group. At the present time, the realignment 
of assistance programs makes no special provision for these nonresident and 
transient individuals and families although the same problem still persists. 

The settlement laws of the United States lack uniformity and are much 
more complicated than those of England. These laws relate to the length of 


residence in States, counties, or towns to acquire settlement; tlie period of 
fibsence to lose legal residence; the removal of nonresidents, and regulations 
against bringing in nonsettled poor. In addition, there are provisions concerning 
the effect of marriage, divorce, and desertion that affect the settlement of 
w(»men, and other regulations concerning the settlement of children. Naturally 
disputes over eligibility for relief often occur and some groups are ineligibfe 
in any jurisdiction. 

These elaborate provisions regarding "settlement" or legal residence for pur- 
poses of public aid, followed the theory of local responsibility and were writ- 
ten into the earliest poor laws to protect the local taxpayers. Settlement 
controversies are closely related to the transportation agreement, court deci- 
sions, attorney general's opinions, and interstate agreements, but the only 
point to be made here is that because of this complicated system of local relief 
many people are ineligible for assistance. 

It is not only the transients who are involved in this loss of eligibility, but 
resident families who through a technicality such as going across a State line 
in search of elusive work opportunities lose their eligibility. Under restrictive 
phrases, such as "continuous period of 3 years," ^ when rigidly interpreted by 
the courts, families lose residence and thus lose their right to obtain assistance 
when in need. 

Because residence requirements for acquisition of settlement in the various 
States ranges from 6 months to 5 years, and because these requirements do 
not coincide with the statutory provisions for loss of settlement, it is easy to 
lose residence in one State without acquiring it elsewhere. In addition there 
are local requirements for settlement, so that within some States siiecial pro- 
vision is made for caring for State poor who are without local settlement but 
have State residence (New York and Massachusetts for example). In other 
States such people are ineligible for general assistance. 

In spite of the premise on which general relief programs are based there are 
two groups which States and/or localities sometimes declare by law to be 
ineligible for relief. 

1. Aliens. — Four States, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Delaware, South Carolina, 
have laws excluding nonresidents from relief. In Connecticut aliens may 
receive relief only by vote of selectmen, and justices of peace, and inhabitants,^ 
while two counties in Maryland refuse relief to noncitizens.^ 

2. Persons lacking legal settlement {iiiigrants, transients, and nonresidents) . 

Legal settlement is a technical term which means residence of a specified length 
and under circumstances which entitle a person to assistance from a political 

In nearly one-half of the States there are both State and local residence 
requirements. One-third of the State statutes specify periods of local residence 
only. In four States (Delaware, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, West Virginia), 
there are State residence requirements but no local residence requirements' 
No residence requirements are required by statute in five States (Arkansas' 
Florida. Kentucky, New Mexico, Texas). However, even in four States not 
Laving legal residence requirements it is customary to refuse relief to persons 
who have not been residents for a specified period.* 

1 Trosent Illinoi.s law. for example. 

2 Compilation of Settlement Laws, American Public Welfare A'jsoeiation. September lO.Sq 
In Appraisal of Trends in Research Legislation and Administrative Policy in the Public 
Social Services " compiled for 1940 Delegate Conference American Associat on of Social 
Workers it is stated "In Oklahoma citizenship has been dropped from the requirement for 
eligibility because so few residents are not citizens and the cost of proving tl e citizenship 
of applicants is very high," p. 7. 1 » ^ -^ v-xii^curMiip 

3 State Public Welfare Legislation, Division of Research, Works Progress Administration 
Research Monograph XX, January 1, 1939, p.^Sl, footnote 1.5 ^"sress Aaministiation, 

^Florida, Kentucky. New Mexico, Texas. Compilation of Settlement Laws Amerimn 
Public Welfare Association, Septemberl9.39, p. 6. ^ecoement i.a\^s, American 

260370— 41— pt. 9- 



Table I. — Residence requirements {with restrictions) for acquisition of 
settlement in the various States 




6 months 

assumed, or 


2 years 

3 years 

4 years 

5 years 





District of 













New Mex- 









New York, 


West Vir- 



New Jer- 

1 See Compilation of Settlement Laws of all States in the United States (revised as of September 1939) 
American Public Welfare Association, Chicago, October 1939. 

Note —In all States it is usually stipulated or assumed that the required residence period must be with 
out receipt of relief. Some States specify both public or private relief, others merely public assistance. 

Table II. — Loss of settlement 

Less than 1 year's 

1 year's absence 

5 years' ab- 
sence ' 

Intent « 

Not speci- 
fied 3 

of new set- 

3 years 

Mississippi (6 months). 
South Dakota (30 days), 












Utah (4 months). 






District of Co- 


West Vir- 













Rhode Is- 





New Mex- 

Kansas, < 














New Jersey, 

New York, 

North Dako- 






' In these States settlement is lost after an absence of 5 years unless a new one is gained elsewhere in the 

2 This usually indicated that the individual or family has left the State with the intention of taking up 
permanent residence elsewhere. , , ^ _, . .^ . ,. ,j .i. ^ ^., ^- , . 

3 In most States that have no specific provision for the loss of settlement it is held that settlement is lost 
by being removed from the State for 1 year. . , „ , . , , „ ,_ „„„, 

< See Compilation of Settlement Laws of All States in the United States (revised as of September 1939), 
American Public Welfare Association, Chicago, October 1939. 



Teends in Residence Requirements for Public Assistance Categories 

November 27, 1940. 

In 1936, 33 of the 42 old-age assistance plans required State residence of 5 out 
of 9 years immediately preceding application and 1 year immediately preceding 
application. Two more States did not specify that 1 year must immediately pre- 
cede application. Two States required 5 out of 10 years immediately preceding 
application and 1 year immediately preceding. Four more States had the same 
requirement except for the 1-year residence immediately preceding application. 
One State required residence of 2 of 9 years immediately preceding application and 
1 year immediately preceding application. Twelve of the 27 aid-to-the-blind plans 
required 5 of 9 years and 1 year immediately preceding, and 11 more had the same 
requirement, but added that persons may be eligible if sight was lost while a resi- 
dent of the State. Two States required 5 of 9 years immediately preceding appli- 
cation but did not specify that 1 year must immediately precede application and 
one of these granted assistance to those who had lost sight while residing in the 
State. Two States required only 1 year's residence. For aid to dependent children 
22 States required that the child must have resided in the State for 1 year preced- 
ing application or was born within 1 year in the State and the mother was a resi- 
dent of the State for 1 year immediately preceding birth. One State required that 
the clvild must have resided in the State for 1 year preceding application, or was 
born in the State within 1 year preceding application. One State required that 
child must have resided in the State for 1 year preceding application or was born 
in the State. In 2 States the mother or custodian must have been a resident for 1 
year prior to application. One State specified no residence requirement for aid to 
dependent children. 

In 1937, 38 old-age assistance plans required State residence 5 of 9 years imme- 
diately preceding application and 1 year immediately preceding application. Three 
States did not specify that 1 year must immediately precede application. One 
State required 5 of 10 years immediately preceding application and 1 year imme- 
diately preceding and 3 States required only 5 out of 10 years iimnediately preced- 
ing application. One State required residence of 2 out of 9 years immediately 
preceding application and 1 year must immediately precede application. Four 
States require only 1 year's residence. Thirty aid-to-the-blind plans i-equired 
residence of 5 out of 9 years, and 1 year must immediately precede application ; 
17 of these also made eligible those persons who lost sight while residents of the 
State. Two States required residence of 5 out of 9 years immediately preceding 
application and one of these made eligible persons who lost sight while residents 
of State. Six States required only 1 year's residence. For aid to dependent chil- 
dren, 34 plans required that the child must have resided in the State for 1 year 
preceding application or was born within 1 year in the State, and the mother was 
a resident of the State for 1 year immediately preceding birth. One State required 
that the child must have resided in the State for 1 year preceding application or 
was born within State. Two States required that the mother or custodian must 
have been a resident for 1 year prior to application. One State required that the 
child, parent, or guardian must have been a continuous resident for 1 year. 
Two States had no residence requirement for aid to dependent children. 

In 1938, 43 old-age assistance plans had a residence requirement of 5 out of 9 
years immediately preceding application and 40 of these specified that 1 year must 
be immediately preceding application. Four plans required 5 out of 10 years im- 
mediately preceding application, and 1 of these siiecified that 1 year must be imme- 
diately preceding application. One State required 2 out of 9 years and 1 year 
immediately preceding application, and three States required only 1 year's resi- 
dence. For aid to the blind, 31 plans required residence of 5 out of 9 years and 1 



year immediately preceding application, wUile 18 of these also made eligible those 
persons who lost sight while residents of the State. Three States required only 5 
out of 9 years residence and 1 made eligible those persons who lost sight while 
residing in State ; 1 State, 2 out of 9 and 1 year immediately preceding application. 
Six States required only 1 year's residence, and 1 had no residence requirement. 
For aid to deiiendont children, the 1938 distribution remained the same except that 
86 rather than 34, plans required residence of 1 year preceding application or was 
born within the State within 1 year and the mother was a resident 1 year immedi- 
ately preceding birth. 

In 1939, 41 States, in their plans for old-age assistance, required residence of 5 
out of 9 years immediately preceding application ; 38 of these specify that 1 year 
must immediately precede application. Four States required residence of 5 out of 
10 years immediately preceding application, and 2 of these specified that 1 year 
must immediately precede application. One State required 2 out of 9 years imme- 
diately preceding application, and 1 year must immediately precede application. 
Four States required only 1 year, and 1 only 6 months' residence. For aid to the 
blind, 33 plans required residence of 5 out of 9 years and 1 year immediately pre- 
ceding application, while 19 of these made eligible those persons who lost sight 
while residing in the State. Two States required 5 out of 9 years preceding appli- 
cation and 1 made eligilile those who lost sight while residing in the State ; 1 State, 
2 out of 9 and 1 yea r immediately preceding application. Five States required only 

1 year, 1 only 6 months, and 1 had no residence requirement. For aid to dependent 
children, 37 "plans required residence of 1 year preceding application or the child 
must have been born within the State within 1 year and the mother was a resident 
for 1 year immediately preceding birth. One State required only that the child 
must have resided in the State for 1 year preceding application or was born within 
the State. Two States specified that the child must have resided in the State for 1 
year or in the custody of a person who had lived in the State for 1 year next pre- 
ceding application. Two States had no residence requirement. 

In 1940, for old-age assistance 40 States required residence of 5 out of 9 years 
immediately preceding application, 38 of these specified that 1 year must immedi- 
ately precede application. Three States required 5 out of 10 years, and 1 of these 
specified that 1 year must immediately precede application. One State required 

2 out of 9 years immediately preceding application with 1 year immediately pre- 
ceding application : 6 required 1 year, and 1 required 6 months. For aid to the 
blind, 33 States required 5 out of 9 years immediately preceding application and 
1 year immediately preceding application and 19 of these also granted assistance 
to those who lost sight while they were residents of the State. Two States 
required 5 out of 9 years immediately preceding application and one of these gave 
assistance to those who lost sight while they were residents of the State. One 
jurisdiction required 5 out of 9 years immediately preceding applications. One 
plan required residence of 2 out of 9 years immediately preceding application, and 
1 year immediately preceding application. Six required 1 year, 1 required 6 
months, and 1 had no residence requirement. For aid to dependent children, 
there was no change from 1939. 


The Social Security Act includes no requirement with regard to residence and 
prohibits any requirement which excludes any resident of the State who has 
resided therein 5 years during the 9 years immediately preceding the application 
for old-age assistance or aid to the blind, and has resided therein continuously 
for 1 year preceding the application ; also any requirement which imposes as a 
condition of eligibility for aid to dependent children a residence requirement which 
denies aid with respect to any child residing in the State: (1) Who has resided 
in the State for 1 year immediately preceding application for such aid, or (2) 
who was born within the State within 1 year immediately preceding the applica- 
tion, if its mother has resided in the State for 1 year immediately preceding the 
birth. There were only about 11 changes in the residence provisions for old-age 
assistance from 1936 to 1940, of which about 6 liberalized the previous provision. 
The minimum provision for any State is 6 months, and that was changed from a 
provision of 5 out of 9 years preceding application and 1 year immediately pre- 
ceding. In 1936 only about 21 percent of the approved plans had residence pro- 
visions more liberal than the maximum permitted under the Social Security .A.ct, 
while in 1940 about 25 percent had provisions more liberal than the permitted 
maximum. For aid to the blind, there were about 13 changes, and about 9 of 
these made the previous provision less restrictive. Only 1 State had no residence 
provision for aid to the blind and 1 State reduced its provision to 6 months. In 


1936 about 55 percent of the approved aid to the blind plans had a residence 
provision more liberal than the maximum permitted under the Social Security Act, 
while in 1940 about 67 percent had a more liberal provision. For aid to dependent 
children, only about 3 changes occurred between 1936 and 1940, and 2 of these 
made the residence requirement more restrictive than the previous one. Only 
two plans had no residence provision. 


About 35 States, affecting about 34 old-age assistance plans, 21 aid to the blind 
plans, and about 20 aid to dependent children plans, permit payments to recipients 
who temporarily leave the State. The period allowed ranges from 1 month to 
1 year. About 7 States allow 1 month, 4 allow 1 year. The most frequent period 
is about 3 months. Several States do not state a specific period, and many States 
allow absence for longer periods, with special permission from the State agency. 


Provision for the Cake of Transients by State and Local General Re3.ip:f 


As a result of the reallocation of responsibilities for providing assistance or 
employment to those in need which occurred when the Federal works program 
and social-security program were inaugurated in 1935 and 1936, the States and 
their local subdivisions were left with the responsibility of providing relief 
to the groups not otherwise cared for. One of these is the transient group. 
From May 1933 through December 1935, special provision was made through 
the Federal Emergency Relief Administration for the care of transients. Be- 
ginning in 1930, however, the State and local governments fell heir not only 
to the burden of providing general relief but also to the problem of making 
some provision for the care of transients. 

The provision made by State and local governments, from general relief funds, 
for the care of transients is indicated in table 1, which shows the nmnber of 
States providing transient care in some form. It is possible that in some locali- 
ties, special public funds for the care of transients are available, but the amounts 
expended probably are not large ; the cost of such additional care as may be 
provided is usually met from private funds. The data in table 1 were obtained 
in a study of the organization for the administration of general relief in the 
States, conducted by the Division of Public Assistance of the Social 
Security Board. 

The fact that in 40 of the 48 States some provision is made for transient 
care would seem to indicate a fairly widespread acceptance of the responsibility 
for providing this type of care. When it is noted, however, that in more than 
half the States, not all local administrative agencies provide care, and that in 
more than one-fourth the States, only overnight care is provided, the possibility 
of ready access to this type of care becomes somewhat more remote. In addi- 
tion to these shortcomings, it should be pointed out that (1) in at least 3 
States, most of the overnight care is provided in jails, and (2) in 7 States, 
care is provided only in emergencies or pending determination of legal settle- 

In 8 States, transients receive the same type of care as residents. In 4 States, 
this policy is State-wide : in 4 it is not. It should not be inferred, however, that 
in these States, all transients are giverh resident care ; the classification simply 
means that those transients which receive any care at all, receive resident care. 

In addition to the provision of resident and overnight care, as indicated in 
table 1, 18 States provide some shelter care for transients and/or local home- 
less in about 85 shelters. In at least 2 other States, Salvation Army shelters 
are subsidize<l from public general relief funds and used for the care of 

Table 2 shows that in 37 States, some type of transportation is allowed 
from public general relief funds, but the extent of the practice varies within 
States. In only 22 of the 37 States do all local administrative agencies provide 
transportation. Thirty-two States provide transportation to the transient's 
legal residence, whereas in 5 States, the purpose of the allowance for trans- 
portation is merely to remove the transient from the area of jurisdiction of 
the administrative agency. 



Table 1. — Number of States providing care of transients from general relief 
funds iy type of care and extent of practice in January 19JfO 


Number of States 
in which specified 
type of transient 
care is provided 

All local 


Total - 









Table 2. — Number of States providing transportation for transients from general 
relief funds in January 1940 


Number of States 
in which trans- 
portation of tran- 
sients is provided 

All local 








J 13 

Beyond jurisdiction of local agency - - 


' In 1 State, only transportation to legal residence within the State is allowed. 



Settlement, Residence, and the Power of a State to Ex(7lude or Remove 


November 28, 1940. 

Settlement, a creature of statute, differs from residence chiefly in the additional 
condition that no public relief may be received during the period counted on. 
What constitutes relief is a matter of policy differing from State to State. A 
domiciliary of a State, if a citizen of the United States, would be a citizen of 
the State, whereas citizenship and residence are not convertible terms. A man 
may have several residences but only one domicile. Residence differs from 
domicile in that its requirement of intention to remain is less stringent. Under 
titles I, IV, and X of the Social Security Act, the Board has interpreted residence 
as meaning physical presence without any present intention of removing. It is 
held that short breaks in physical presence, so long as there is no intention 
of abandoning residence, will neither prevent satisfaction of the residence require- 
ment nor destroy a residence previously gained. In the interests of a Nation- 
wide standard definition and to effectuate the policy of the act, technical 
doctrines of settlement law, such as settlement by derivation, and conditions 
thereon, such as nonsupport by the public authorities, have been found inapplica- 
ble to residence under the Social Security Act titles, and are dealt with as 
proscribed conditions. 

The memorandum concludes with a brief discussion of the power of the States 
to remove or exclude nonsettled needy persons in the light of the due process 


and privileges and immunities clauses of the fourteenth amendment, the com- 
merce clause, and the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV. section 2. 
A balance must be struck between the national interest in freedom of locomotion 
and the traditional power of the States to regulate the admission of paupers 
when regulation is a matter of vital necessity. 

Unlike "residence" which has well-accepted connotations, "settlement" is 
a term which has been defined by statute. It is to the State laws that we must 
look for matters relating to settlement requirements, including the determina- 
tion of the periotls to be included and excluded in computing the residence neces- 
sary to establish settlement {City of Camhridge v. Town of West Springfield, 
20 N. E. (2d) 432 (Mass. 1939) ; Wrohlcski v. Toirn of Swan River, 204 Minn. 
264, 283 N. W. 399). "Today, a period of self-supporting residence, varying 
from 1 to 5 years, is required in nearly all States for the acquisition of 'settle- 
ment' — i. e., eligibility for relief" (Interstate Migration and Personal Liberty, 
40 Columbia Law Review, 1032, 1033). In the American Public Welfare Asso- 
ciation Compilation of the Settlement Laws of All States in the United States 
(1939) may be found the requirements, including such factors as the length of 
residence necessary to acquire settlement, period of absence to lose settlement, 
the enforcement of relief and removal of nonresidents, and regulations against 
the transportation of unsettled poor. The survey reveals that the 1939 legisla- 
tures of Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, and Minnesota, tightened State 
requirements for settlement. Instead of 1 year, Colorado, Illinois, and Indiana 
now make 3 years' residence necessary before relief will be given. Minnesota 
increased the time from 1 year to 2. Kansas raised the requirement from 1 to 5 

Nonsupport, of course, is an important element in most State laws. The books 
are replete with opinions devoted to the consideration of what types of assistance 
will bar the acquisition of a settlement. Thus, in Mihvaukee County v. Oconto 
County (294 N. W. 11 (Wis. 1940)) a distinction was taken between hospitaliza- 
tion to protect the public from the spread of virulent and contagious disease 
and ordinary medical care given poor persons. It is also intimated that once 
a pauper's status is fastened upon an individual, a continuance will be presumed 
when aid is received from private charities. 

Generally the pauper laws provide that a settlement may not be gained 
during the period that relief is extended to the person, his wife, or minor child. 
It has been held that relief is received when bills for services are paid, not when 
the services are rendered. (In re Youngquist, 203 Minn. 530, 282 N. W. 732). 
Much hinges on the language of the settlement law on whether a particular type 
of assistance will be held to be relief. In Pennsylvania, unemployment relief is 
not suflScient to prevent acquisition of a settlement (In re Commitment of 
Dennis, 135 Pa. Super. 237, 5 Atl. (2d) 406). It is likewise held that the receipt 
of mother's aid is no bar to gaining a settlement (In re Youngquist, 203 Minn. 
530, 282 N. W. 732 ; Town of St. Jolmsbury v. Toivn of Lyndon, 107 Vt. 404, 180 
Atl. 892 ; In re Skog, 186 Minn. 349, 243 N. W. 384 ; Milwaukee County v. Waukesha 
County, Dane County Circuit Court, April 23, 1940). In the Skog case the court 
held that it did not matter that the funds were obtained by taxes nominally levied 
for poor relief. However, the contrary has been held in In re Barnes (119 Pa. 
Super. 537, 180 Atl. 718). In Treasurer v. Toimi of Dedham (15 N. E. (2d) 
252 (Mass.) ) it was held that the father of a minor daughter could not acquire a 
new settlement during the period the daughter's board as an inmate of the Massa- 
chusetts Hospital School was paid by the town of former legal settlement, and 
so the daughter did not obtain a derivative settlement through the father. In 
Destitute Home v. Fayette County Almshouse (72 Pa. Super. 491 (1919)) the 
court held that one receiving aid as a pauper could not acquire a settlement in 
any other district so long as that relationship existed, although a new statute 
provided that a legal settlement could be acquired by coming bona fide to inhabit 
and continuing to reside there. One receiving assistance from another district 
could not be deemed a bona fido resident because by surreptitious assistance one 
poor district could fasten the burden on a neighboring district. The dissent 
argued that the statute did not say either in terms or in spirit that to change 
a settlement a man must give up his old one and abjure the necessities of exist- 
ence during the period before establishing the new settlement. 

If the statute refers only to relief from the State or its subdivisions. Work 
Projects Administration is not considered relief (Wroblcski v. Swan River. 204 
Minn. 264, 283 N. W. 399). When it specifies relief from the Federal Government, 
Work Projects Administration will preclude the gaining of a new settlement (In 
re Matruski, 169 Misc. 316, 8 N. Y. Supp. (2d) 471; In re Youngs, 172 155, 


14 N. Y. Supp. (2d) 800; City of Minneapolis v. County of Beltrami, 206 Minn. 
371 288 N. W. 706; 27 Wis. A. G. 177). See also Dibner v. Cousminer (157 Misc. 
229, 283 N. Y. Sup. 369; cf. Ward County v. Ankenhauer, 65 N. D. 220, 257 N. W. 
474). The attorney general of New York (December 12, 1935), the solicitor gen- 
eral of New York (September 21, 1936), and the attorneys general of Illimns 
(Opin. III. Atty. Gen. 19.37, p. 251) and Indiana (Indiana UnofC. Op. Atty. Gen. 
June 6, 1938) were of the opinion that Work Projects Administration is self-suffi- 
cient employment and not relief in the sense of their respective welfare laws. 

Under the statute in Connecticut it has been held that one may gain a settle- 
ment while being supported by the place of former settlement {Town of Plain- 
villc V. Town of Southington, 80 Conn. 659, 69 Atl. 1049). The court reserved 
the question of what would be done if assistance were provided by the first town 
for the purpose of unloading the needy person on another town. 

With respect to the policy of the settlement laws, Bentham said long ago 
(Truth against Ashurst, p. 234) : 

"There is no employment for me in my own Parish ; there is abundance in the 
next. Yet if I offer to go there, I am driven away. Why? Because I might 
become unable to work one of these days, and so I must not work while I am able. 
I am thrown upon one Parish now for fear I should fall upon another 40 or 50 
years hence. At this rate how is work ever to get done?" 

On a less dejected note is the comment of W. Wallace Weaver in his review of 
Webb and Brown, Migrant Families, appearing in the Annals, January 1940, 
p. 251 : 

"The transient bureaus have been objects of calumny because they have facili- 
tated the relocation of families rather than forcing them back onto the com- 
munities from which they had escaped. A hodge-podge of State and local 'settle- 
ment laws,' relics of medieval provincialism, penalize honest migrants and leave 
'parasites' substantially unhindered." 

An account of remedies proposed before the acuteness of the problem of 
migrants was intensified by mechanization, low cotton prices, depression, and 
drought is found in Donnell. Settlement Law and Interstate Relationships, 
4 Social Service Review 427, 450. 

Of the plight of nonsettled persons shunted back and forth between North 
Dakota and South Dakota, the North Dakota Supreme Court, in Adams County 
V. BiDleigh County (291 N. W. 281), observed : 

"It is difficult for the writer of this opinion to pass calmly and dispassionately 
upon the facts in this case and the law governing the same. One would fain 
suppress much of the evidence, but necessary facts must be set forth. To the 
credit of the Government of this country and the general attitude of our people 
toward the poor and unfortunate, it may well be said few records show any such 
callousness toward human beings as this controversy between South Dakota 
and North Dakota discloses. The case is an illustration of the extent to which 
'man's inhumanity to man' may be carried. Human beings are shifted around 
like so much cargo. Somewhere and somehow the wellsprings of humanity and 
brotherhood appear to be dried up." 

The jurisdictions can be arrayed in two camps, those which say that settlement 
is the same as residence and those which say that they differ. The Seidel case 
(204 Minn. 3.^)7. 283, N. W. 742) demonstrates that a court mny be liberal in its 
interpretation of the type of presence const^ituting a settlement and illiberal when 
it comes to deciding what constitutes a residence within the public assistance laws. 

Although the Supreme Court of Minnesota, in Toirn of Sniileii v. Village of St. 
Hilnire (183 Minn. 533, 237 N. W. 416), held that the pauper law would be morv^ 
workable if the word "reside" were construed to relate to a temporary living, 
where a man exists, not a technical legal residence, that court held in the Seidel 
case that "residence," as used in the old-age assistance law, meant physical 
presence coupled with an intention to make a home there. The court reasoned 
that the poor-relief law was nn empraency ni'^asuro pnd H\9 old-ase assistance law 
a reward for past service and good citizenship. In England residence in relation 
to the law of pauper settlement also requires that it be a fixed place of abode. A 
short absence does not operate as a break in the residence (Farnham Union v. 
Cambridge Union (1929), K. B. 307). (See also J. E. Graham, Can a Poor Law 
Settlement Change During Chargeability? 23 Jurid. Review 281.) in New Eng- 
land settlement is nracticalb- equivalent to residence (Tnhnhitnnts of Tovn of 
Goiildshoro v. Itilwhitants of Tonm of Sullivan (Maine), 170 Atl. 900; Inhahitants 


of Whatley v. Inhabitants of HatficU, 196 Mass. 393, 82 N. E. 48 ; Town of Madison 
V. Town of Guilford, 85 Conn. 55, 81 Atl. 1046) . Even for settlement, a short 
break does not destroy a settlement {Iiihdhitaiits of Moscow v. Solon, 136 Maine 
220, 7 Atl. (2d) 729). " In the Gouldshoro case the court said that for a settlement 
to exist there must be a combination of physical presence with the intention to 
remain. The intention must be, not to make the place a home temporarily, but to 
make it a real home. At the same time, it is not necessary to have a particular 
home to which one may return as a matter of right (InhaUtants of Warren v. 
Inhabitants of Thomaston. 43 Maine 406; Inhabitants of Madison v. Fairfidd, 
132 Maine 182, 168 Atl. 782). But the Maine court sometimes distinguishes be- 
tween residence and legal settlement. In Phillips v. Kingsfield (19 Maine 375), 
the court held that legal settlement, unlike residence, cannot be changed without 
acquiring a new one. In another Maine case, Inhabitants of Warren v. Inhabit- 
ants of Thomaston (43 Maine 406), the court said, at page 418: 

"In our pauper law the terms 'residence, dwellirg place, home' have a different 
meaning from the word 'settlement.' The place of one's settlement is a place 
where such a person has a legal right to support as a pauper. It may be in a 
place other than the one where such pauper has his dwelling place, home, or 
residence. Thus a person may have a settlement in a place where he has not had 
a residence, as by derivation. So, too, a person may have a residence or home 
different from their settlement." 

In Minnesota a settlement is not lost by removal therefrom. It is lost when 
a new one is acquired elsewhere or when there is absence from the State (In re 
Ventcichcr, 202 Minn. 331, 278 N. W. 581 ; Petersburg Township v. City of Jackson, 
186 Minn. 509, 243 N. W. 695). In Cittj of Detroit Lakes v. Village of Utchfiehl 
(200 Minn. 349, 274 N. W. 236), under a statute providing that every person who 
has resided 1 year continuously in any county should be deemed to have a settle- 
ment therein, the court held that the fact of remaining or living at a place, regard- 
less of intention to make it one's domicile, is what counts in determining a pauper 
settlement. Two periods of less than a year could not be tacked together to make 
up the year, but a man within the State more than a year was chargeable to the 
county where he spent the longest period next preceding his application for aid. 

In North Dakota a settlement within a county may be acquired by 1 year's 
residence therein. A man within the State for more than a year had a settlement 
in the county where his stay was longest. Once acquired, a settlement continued 
until a new one was acquired or until there was a voluntary absence for more 
than a year. A settlement acquired within a county by a year's presence, unlike 
a settlement otherwise obtained, might be lost by voluntary absence from the 
county for more than a year or by acquiring a new residence in another comity 
by residing there 1 year (City of Enderlm v. Pontiac Township, 62 N. D. 105, 
242 N. W. 117). Residence was said to differ from domicile in being actual, n;;! 

A requirement of nonsupport before residence within the meaning of the aged, 
blind, and children's titles could be gained would be violative of the basic purposes 
of the Social Seciirity Act and the variety of conditions attached to settlement 
would be incompatible with the requisite uniformity for a Nation-wide scheme. 
Particularly with respect to the children's program would be a carry-over of the 
doctrine of settlement by derivation from the father's last settlement have been 

The undesirability of construing residence and settlement as convertible terms 
is nowhere better illustrated than in Toivn of Bethlehem v. Toivn of Foxbury 
(20 Conn. 298). There it was held that an illegitimate born in New York in 1811 
of a woman having a settlement, who was brought into Connecticut in 1814, where 
his mother continued to live without ever having lost her settlement, although 
with occasional residences in New York and Massachusetts, had a settlement Ity 
birth in New York and did not take the settlement of his mother in Connecticut. 
In 1847 the question of the settlement of the illegitimate's legitimate children 
arose. The principles applied were (1) an illegitimate does not take the settle- 
ment of its mother, but is settled where born, by the laws of New York ; (2) hav- 
ing a settlement in New York, he could not at the same time have one in Connect- 
icut, although in Connecticut an illegitimate does not take a settlement by birth. 
If New York law had not given the child a settlement, he would have taken a set- 
tlement in Connecticut. "Had he lived with his mother in Connecticut, he would 
have taken a new settlement, had she acquired one. But she acquired none ; and 



no case can be found which has gone beyond the acquisition of a new settlement 
by the mother." So the grandchildren, 36 years later, take the settlement of their 
father acquired in 1811. The dissent thought that the law of New York gave 
the illegitimate the settlement of its mother ; that when the mother returned, the 
illegitimate's settlement should have followed hers.^ 

By reason of local peculiarities and differences which would militate against 
Nation-wide uniform definition of the term "residence" within the purview of 
the Social Security Act, it is apparent that acceptance of the vagaries of State 
nomenclature and of their understanding would have led to endless confusion 
and nullification of the residence requirements of the Federal act. Accordingly, 
it has been found necessary to provide a uniform Federal definition of residence 
in the Federal act not dependent on local variations. Cf. Lyeth v. Hoey (305 U. S. 
188), where the Supreme Court held that although in Massachusetts when a will 
is admitted to probate under a compromise agreement, the State succession tax 
is applied to the property that passes by the terms of the will as written, and 
not as changed by any agreement for compromise, Congress in exempting from 
the Federal income tax the value of property acquired by gift, bequest, devise, 
or inheritance intended to provide a uniform rule not dependent on divergent 
State views whether assets received by an heir from his ancestors' estate through 
compromise was to be regarded as having its origin in contract or as coming 
to the heir as such. 

We must therefore look to residence as it has been interpreted, noting wherein 
it differs from both settlement and domicile. "* * * a person may have two 
places of 'residence,' as in the city and country, but only one 'domicile' * * *. 
'Residence' simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, 
while 'domicile' requires bodily presence in that place, and also an intention to 
make it one's domicile" {Matter of Newcomh's Estate, 192 N. T. 238, 250; 84 N. E. 
950, 954). Residence is more than mere physical presence in a place. It de- 
pends on purpose and intention and upon what contingencies one expects to 
leave. In general, residence implies presence at some place of abode with no 
present intention of definite and early removal, and with a purpose to remain 
for an undetermined period, not infrequently but not necessarily combined with 
a design to stay permanently {City of Cambridge v. Town of West Springfield, 
20 N. E. (2d) 432, 434 (Mass. 1939)). Citizenship and residence are not the 
same thing, nor does one include the other {La Tourette v. McMaster, 248 U. S. 
465). Even with respect to domicile, an intention to abandon a former home may 
coexist with an indefinite or floating intention to return at some time to the 
abandoned domicile and again make a home there {Ooodloe v. Hawk, 113 F. (2d) 
753, 755 (C. A. D. C.) ; Beale, Conflict of Latvs, sec. 18.2 p. 145). But there must 
be a conjunction of physical presence and animus manendi in the new location 
to bring about a domiciliary change, and no length of residence without the 
intention of remaining will constitute a domicile {District of Columbia v. Siveeney, 
113 F. (2d) 25 (0. A. D. 0.), cert. den. 310 U. S. 631; Ex parte Bullen (Ala.), 
181 So. 498 ; Felker v. Henderson, 78 N. H. 509, 102 Atl. 623, 624 ; Story, Conflict of 
Laws (7th ed.), sec. 46). 

The residence requirements for old-age assistance are not uniform. 

Thirty-eight States provide for a residence requirement of 5 out of the 9 years 
preceding application, the last year of which must immediately precede appli- 
cation. These States are: 

Arizona Louisiana North Dakota 

California Maine Ohio 

Colorado Maryland • Oklahoma 

Connecticut Massachusetts Oregon 

Delaware Michigan Pennsylvania 

District of Columbia Minnesota South Carolina 

Florida Missouri Tennessee 

Idaho Montana Texas 

Illinois Nebraska Utah 

Indiana Nevada Virginia 

Iowa New Jersey Wisconsin 

Kansas New Mexico Wyoming 

Kentucky New York 

lOn the settlement of a child under 16, see 67 J. P. 493; 70 J. P. 387, 397; 71 
J. P. 314. 


Alaska and Hawaii provide for a residence requirement of 5 out of the 9 
years preceding application but do not specify that 1 year must immediately 
precede application. 

Washington provides for a residence requirement of 5 out of 10 years preced- 
ing application, 1 year of which must immediately precede application. Vermont 
requires 5 out of 10 years residence but does not specify that 1 year must imme- 
diately precede application. 

Six States — Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and West 
Virginia — have a residence requirement of 1 year. New Hampshire requires 
only 6 months' residence. 

North Carolina provides for a residence requirement of 2 out of 5 years and 1 
year immediately preceding application; however, since the question was raised 
by the Social Security Board as to whether this provision was in agreement with 
the provisions of the Social Security Act, the State Board of Charity and Public 
Welfare, with the approval of the State attorney general and the Governor, 
passed a resolution making applicants eligible for old-age assistance who had 
resided in the State for 5 out of the 9 years preceding application and 1 year 
immediately preceding application. 

South Dakota provides for a residence requirement of 2 out of the 9 years 
preceding application and 1 year immediately preceding application. 

Iowa has an alternative that an applicant may have a domicile in the State 
and has had such domicile continuously for at least 9 years immediately pre- 
ceding date of application, but such domicile shall not be considered continuous 
if interrupted by periods of absence totaling more than 4 years. 

In Minnesota, residents who have not resided in the State for 5 of the last 9 
years but who have been residents for 2 or more years immediately preceding 
application may take credit on a percentage basis for residence in the State prior 
to the 9-year period immediately preceding application. 

Nebraska considers an applicant eligible who has been at any time a resident for 
25 consecutive years and 1 year immediately preceding application. 

Two elements must concur in order to qualify an individual as a resident of a 
State for the purposes of establishing eligibility for aid under titles I, IV, and X, 
of the Social Security Act as amended. These elements are (1) physical habita- 
tion within the State and (2) intent to reside therein. Physical habitation as 
used in this connection does not require unbroken presence in the State, and is 
consistent with temporary absence. As long as it may be satisfactorily established 
that the absence from the State was a temporary one, and that the individual 
intended to return at a definite time or after the happening of a certain event, 
this absence will not interrupt his residence. It follows that the State cannot 
refuse to pay assistance except upon the condition of continued presence within 
the State ; moreover, this would constitute a restrictive condition upon the pay- 
ment. Under the act only unrestricted payments may be matched. The inten- 
tion need not be to remain in the State forever, it being sufficient to dwell within 
the State with no intention of presently removing therefrom. A person may 
acquire residence in a jurisdiction for public assistance even though during part 
of the time claimed as a residence he received public aid from the same or another 
jurisdiction. It is necessary, however, that a person seeking to establish a new 
residence be capable of forming the requisite intent. 

In interpreting residence in connection with eligibility for public assistance it is 
also recognized that married women living apart from their husbands may ac- 
quire a separate residence and that a child who has been physically present within 
the State and living in a place of residence maintained by one of the relatives 
enumerated in section 406 (a) has satisfied the residence requirement regardless 
of the fiction applied in other branches of the law that his residence follows that 
of his father. That fiction is not permitted to operate to the detriment of the 

No State may impose any county residence requirement which would dis- 
qualify an applicant meeting the maximum State residence requirements permitted 
under the Federal Act. The State may not restrict the freedom of applicants or 
recipients to move about the State by threatening a denial of assistance. County 
residence rules may be established only for the administrative purpose of deciding 
which county shall be charged for the assistance. 



Present-day population movements " have brought to the fore the power of the 
State of ultimate destination to control the movements of migrants and seasonal 
workers either by exclusion or by expulsion. With the labor market in most 
of the cities glutted, many migrants become at once objects of local or Federal 
relief. The New York State Department of Social Welfare estimates that it 
costs $3,000,000 a year to support nonresidents. Surprisingly, although there is a 
wealth of literature on the power to exclude and to expel (see, e. g., Interstate 
Migration and Personal Liberty, 40 Columbia L. Rev., 1032-1049 (June 1940)) ; 
Depression Migrants and the States, 53 Harv. L. Rev. 1031-1042 (April 1940), and 
F. L. Dunlap, Power of State to Prevent Entry of Paupers from other States, 
''6 Calif L Review 603), and although "New York State officials lemoved 4,079 
persons from the State in 1936-37 and 2,832 in 1&37-38 (40 Col. L. Rev. 1032, 1033) 
no appellate decisions passing on the question are available. It is explained that 
"only a very few of these removals required the compulsion of a court order, most 
being accomplished by means of persuasion, or mere threats of enforcing thie 
law." (Ibid.) 

In the one case which might have served to settle the question, In re ChirilJo 
(283 N. Y. 417, 28 N. E. (2d) 895) , the Court of Appeals found that the question on 
direct appeal from the county court was not properly before it since in addition to 
the issue of constitutionality there was also a construction question. The migrant 
had lived in Wooster, Ohio, until January 1939, when he moved to Mamaroneck. 
Home relief in Ohio averaged $15.99 ; in New York generally, $36.12, and in West- 
chester County where Mamaroneck is situated, $40.18. Judge Finch, in a dissent 
on the procedural point in which Judges Rippey and Lewis concurred, answered in 
the negative the question, "Is it a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United 
States to impose upon any State of his choice the burden of supporting himself 
and his family before he has satisfied reasonable settlement qualiiications, as in 
the case at bar, of 1 year?" He treated the issue in terms of the State's ability to 
defend itself against threats to its security and solvency. He emphasized that 
under the rules of the State Department of Welfare removal was considered only 
on a case-work basis having regard for the welfare of the individual and the* 
State, and on authorization from the locality of settlement. 

Judge Finch stated : 

"Section 71 does not interfere with the right of a citizen of one State to 
pass through or reside in any other State. Only if on coming from another 
State he applies for relief at public expense, to which he has no constitutional 
right, he is bound to accept the relief cum overe, or with the limitations of the 
reasonable provisions of the public- welfare law of New York State. If it be 
for his welfare and for the welfare of the State, he then sub.K>crs himself to the 
possibility of being compelled to return to the State wherein he has a legal 

Judge Finch repelled challenges on the score of the fourteenth amendment 
and the commerce and privileges and immunities clauses by pointing out the 
antecedents of section 71 of the welfare law went back to 1350; that the burden 
on commerce was slight and necessary to protect the people from the spread 
of crime and disease and dissipation of the financial resources and that classi- 
f;qation was reasonable. 

Chirillo has obtained an order from the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of New York directing the Governor and others to show 
cause on December 5 why they should not be restrained from deporting the 

The Columbia Law Review note concludes its analysis as follows : 

"Constitutional objections to State removal and extlusion laws may be found 
in the two privileges and immunities clauses ; the stronger grounds for attack, 
however, lie in the commerce and due process clauses. The commerce clause 
presents the large political question of the extent to which the States in 
relio^'ing themselves of the severe burdens resulting from Federal inaction may 
trespass on a national interest. The tendency of exclusion and expulsion laws 

= It has been estimated that 241,930 individuals entered California between July 1935, 
and March 1938. Taylor and Rowell, Refugee Labor Migration to California, Monthly 
Labor Review, August 1938, p. 240. 

^ In California, an order to return a family of S who arrived in Kings County from 
ISIissouri on October 19. 1939, was obtained on November 4, 1939, New York Times, 
November 5, 1939. The family admittedly came because of higher relief payments. 


to isolate States from tbe national economy and to raise an impassible (sic) 
network of barriers to the free movement of a considerable section of the 
population may well induce a finding of invalidity. The issue under the due 
process clause, involving a balancing of personal and State interests, will 
assume a different complexion depending on whether or not the court recog- 
nizes in freedom of movement a 'civil liberty' comparable to those usually 
associated with the phrase." 

Madden v. Kentucky (309 U. S. 83), the recent decision of the Supreme Court 
overruling Colgate v. Harvey (296 U. S. 404), apparently adopts the dissent 
of Mr. Justice Stone in Colgate v. Harvey, page 446, and indicates that the 
Hague case (307 U. S. 496) will be confined within a narrow compass. Hence 
the right of locomotion as a privilege of citizens of the United States secured 
against al)ridgement (cf. Williams v. Fears (179 U. S. 270)) may not )»e opera- 
tive to prevent exercise by the States of the power to refuse admittance to 
and deport "paupers" ^ however inconsistent with the national welfare is a 
policy compelling the retransference of population from the areas offering 
greater opportunities to the less habitable areas, particularly since in Supreme 
Court dicta the power to exclude in self -protection has been conceded. Hannibal 
& St. Joseph R. Co. v. Husen (95 U. S. 465, 472) ; Henderson v. Mayor (92 U. S. 
259, 275) ; Chy Lung v. Freeman (92 U. S. 275, 280). 

Either it has been taken for granted by many States that indigent persons 
may be excluded from the State by a border patrol or "bum blockade" or 
impoverished persons have not had the means to appeal to the courts. As to 
the class which might be covered, it seems clear that the distinguishing char- 
acteristic would have to be more than mere poverty, for the exclusion of 
people willing and able to work could hardly be justified as arising from 
vital necessity. In City of Bangor v. Sniifh (83 Maine 422, 22 Atl. 379), it was 
held that a railroad could not be held liable by a State if the people it trans- 
ported into the State subsequently became paupers. To impose such a lia- 
bility would be to burden interstate commerce. 

Apart from exclusion or expulsion there are other measures which States, 
which feel they are bearing an undue proportion of the expense of caring for 
the destitute of other regions, may adopt.- Poor people may be excluded from 
the State by means of exemplary prosecutions for vagrancy. This may be 
more effective than proceedings for removal since there are doubts as to 
whether the jurisdiction of the courts and administrative oflScials extends 
to removal outside the State. Donnell, Laws Regarding Settlement in Connec- 
tion with the Problem of Interstate Relationship Under a Federal System, 4 
Social Service Review 427, 444; Hilhorn v. Briggs (58 N. D. 612, 226 N W 737) • 
Custer County v. ReicheU (293 N. W. 862 (S. D. 1940)) ; Juniata Co. v. Dela- 
ware Toimship (107 Pa. St. 68) ; Limestone v. Chilllsqvaqne (87 Pa. St. 294) ; 
Georgia v. Orand Isle (1 Vt. 464) ; Informal Opinion (No. 973, Pa. Atty. Gen.', 
June 30, 1939). But compare: 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 412; 4 City Hall Record 
(N. Y.) 43; Bo^vUn v. Archer (157 Ky. 540, 163 S. W. 477). 

In mate v. Lange (148 Kans. 614, 83 P. (2d) 652), the court held that the 
social-welfare act containing provisions dealing with transient persons likely 
to become public charges and having no legal settlement within the county 
where they were found was intended to constitute an independent code, super- 
seding a prior statute authorizing removal, and held that the earlier statute 
was impliedly repealed. The court disapproved of the summary procedure 
and mentioned the constitutional problem of laws of jurisdiction as soon as 
the person deported was outside the State under the superseding section au- 
thorizing the State board to enter into reciprocal agreements with other States 
in regard to the manner of determining the State of settlement in disputed 

Perhaps the simplest device to discourage migration is the warning notice. 
Any stay in the community within 1 year after receipt of the notice does not 
count toward the acquisition of a settlement. Even in relation to the settlement 
law such notices were looked upon with disfavor, and there had to be an exact 

J- Used here as coverhig persons in immediate need of assistance, not as a term of 
obloquy. It is used instead of "indigent" because the sources of the States' supnosed 
powers are historically identified with the poor or pauper laws supijoseu 



conformity with the statutory provisions. (Emmet Co. v. Dally (216 Iowa 166, 
''48 N W. 366).) However, a warning to depart given to one likely to become a 
public charge means that such person cannot acquire a settlement within any 
county except by the completion of 1 year without further warning. {Cass Co. v 
Audnion Co. (221 Iowa, 1037, 266 N. W. 293).) These warning notices would be 
ineffective to prevent the gaining of a residence under public-assistance laws 
because they have no statutory basis and are repugnant to the Federal Social 
Security Act (See Heisterman. Removal of Nonresident State Poor by State 
and Local Authorities (8 Social Service Review, 289-301, June 1939).) 

Recommendations for ameliorating the distress of the migrants and for absorb- 
ing them into the life of the community are made in Migratory Labor : A Report 
to the President, by the Interdepartmental Committee to Coordinate Health and 
Welfare Activities, July 1940 ; Hazel Hendricks, Farmers Without Farms, Atlantic 
Monthly, October 1940; Buel W. Patch, Problem of the Migrant Unemployed, 
2 Editorial Research Reports, pages 26^26 ; Philip E. Ryan, Migration and Social 
Welfare • Philip E. Ryan, Relief for Transients, Survey Midmonthly, September 
1940, page 251 ; Congressional Record, March 30, 1989, page 5007 ; W. P. A. report. 


Mr. Sparkman. I wonder if at this time you might not discuss for 
the committee the more important points referred to in your prepared 

Miss HoEY. I will be very glad to do that. It seems to me that we 
must agree there is some legitimate migration ; that the United States 
was settled, after all, by migrants, including your family and mine, 
probably ; that we do not want to have that suppressed in any sense ; 
that where it is not possible for people to earn a living, they ought to 
have the right to move to another place where they can earn a living. 

So if it is possible to do that in an orderly way, through the use of 
employment exchanges, and notifying people ahead of time where 
there are opportunities for earning a living, it seems to me that that 
is the only way in which we can legitimately control this migration.^ 

I believe from my own long experience in the public- welfare field 
practically all of these people could be made an asset in any community 
if given the opportunity. 

There are different types of migrants, of course. There are some 
agricultural migrants, some industrial migrants, and other people who 
go because of ill health, such as those who go to Arizona and New 
Mexico; and many of those who have had an opportunity to recover 
became an asset to the coimnunity in which they resided. 

Likewise, it seems to me also that perhaps the problem has seemed 
only a problem and as a liability because there was so much migration 
to particular areas, like California, where you had very large num- 
bers of people with inadequate care of them. There were health and 
welfare problems that arose out of that migration. 

Today, with the defense industries, and with camps being set up in 
almost every State, every one of those States has a migrant problem. 

So that I believe that now there will be a recognition that some 
people who come in from the outside may be an asset and desirable, 
and may be necessary in order to have a proper labor supply in con- 
nection with the defense industries. 

It seems to me, as a matter of fact, a little more sympathetic attitude 
on the part of the States toward this problem is necessary because 
it now affects on so wide a scale all of the States. 



In the programs which had been developed, both, the Federally ad- 
ministered programs and the Federal grants-in-aid programs, I be- 
lieve we must recognize that all of those together have never met 
the total needs of the people in distress; that the Work Projects Ad- 
ministration appropriations have never been large enough to take 
care of even all of the able-bodied employable people who could not 
find jobs in private industry; that there was another group of people 
where there was no employable person in the family, or where through 
some handicap they could not qualify for these programs. There 
was a large group there of both employables and unemployables, and 
families with no working member who have not had anything except 
very inadequate provision made for them, or none at all. It was 
left entirely to the localities. 

There are some counties in the United States that have no public 
funds, except, perhaps, for hospital care or medical care for persons 
in emergency illness. 


We have found that in most States, in practically every community, 
the chief source of revenue both to support all the governmental 
functions and at the same time to support the public-assistance pro- 
grams and the general relief comes from a property tax, and that 
very often, in your rural area particularly, your Dust Bowl areas, 
and many other areas as well, that is not sufficient to support the 
relief program as well as to maintain necessary governmental 

There must be some assistance in financing these programs from 
State funds as well as local funds. I assume that that is what Con- 
gress had in mind in recognizing in our public-assistance programs 
that there must be State financial participation as well as local funds 
available where it was not a State-administered program. 

Therefore I believe that if we have found it necessary in relation 
to the aged, and blind, and children, it would be equally necessary, 
if you had a general relief program, that there be some State funds 
in it as well as local and Federal funds. 

However, 12 States have not assumed any responsibility in the gen- 
eral relief program in the way of financing, and it is left entirely to 
the communities, and that very inadequately, in most instances. 

Even in our programs where the Federal act does not require citizen- 
ship for persons to be eligible, and merely says that a citizen may not 
be excluded if otherwise eligible, aiid where it says that there cannot 
be in excess of 5 out of 9 years of residence required for the aged and 
blind, the States have not taken advantage of that but have copied 
this maximum in the Federal act, even though Federal funds werc- 
available, if they took care of the ones that came in under the 5 years. 

It seems to me that there must be some more pressure brought if 
those other people are to be taken care of, and there would have to 
be something written in terms of prohibition against excluding persons 


on the basis of residence if you are going to give adequate care to the 
residents and migrants as well in this general-relief category. 


The assumption has been in many places that the defense program 
would take up the labor supply, and that all employable people would 
be taken care of. I think that probably that is not accurate. At least 
it has not been the experience to date. Those have not been located 
broadly enough to take care of all the people, resident and nonresident 

The defense industries in many instances are requiring skilled 
workers, and we find in the general relief group that there are many 
people who are unskilled. The majority are unskilled or during the 
long period of unemployment have lost their skills. 

Therefore I think even in the employable group the defense in- 
dustry will not take care of all of that group. 

Then, as I mentioned before, there is a whole group where they have 
no employable member of the family, so that the defense industry 
would not affect that group at all. 

I mentioned in my memorandum the fact that the vocational-re- 
habilitation prograni^ might be extended so that more people might be 
trained ; if not to go back to private industry, there might be supple- 
mentary jobs which they could secure. The present vocational-re- 
habilitation program, as I understand it, is limited to persons who it 
is decided can go back to competitive industry. There is another group 
that, if they liave an opportunity to be trained carefully and placed 
on an individualized basis, they can be made at least partially self- 
supporting, if not fully self-supporting. For example, the blind 
group, where in one State they were trained as mattress makers and 
placed in State industries where previously when a mattress became 
soiled they had to throw it away. These people are employed to 
re-cover those at a saving to the State. There was a very careful 
training and placement of those in terms of their skills. 

There has been a good deal of discussion about whether, if you had 
a general relief program, it might be a federally administered pro- 
gram and perhaps tied up with a works program. I believe that 
would be more desirable, since you already have State administration 
and local administration of the three assistance programs, than to 
have some members of the family cared for through a federally admin- 
istered assistance program and the others through a locally admin- 
istered assistance program. I think that would not be desirable. It 
is not quite the same with having a works program which is adminis- 
tered federally, because the certification as to the need is made by the 
welfare departments to that works agency. 


Another suggestion which has been made is a 100-percent grant to 
the States to take care of the migrants. My objection to that is con- 
cerned with administration. Also objectionable is the precedent that 
is set by any assumption by the Federal Government of full financing 


of a program which is totally locally and State administered. If you 
did not have a program which covered the residents who are not now 
being cared for and who are now in need, you merely build up more 
antagonism toward the migrants, and therefore an attempt to classify 
people as migrants in order to get the 100-percent grant. So that I 
have some question as to the desirability of that administratively. 

Also, I believe if you have a program, part of which is — that is, 
there is some local financing and State financing in it, and another 
part which is 100-percent federally financed, you get a great many 
problems, so it would be desirable to have the same basis for the three 
categories that we now have, and have a fourth category of general 
relief on a 50-percent basis. 

Personally I feel also that the States and localities have a great 
deal more sense of responsibility as to who goes on the program, 
as to setting up restrictions and standards if they are partially 
financed in the States as well as getting a Federal grant. 

The question is, of course, that whatever you do, if you give even 
a 100 percent grant, there is a greater urge for States to pass appro- 
priate legislation to match the Federal act. But even with a 50- 
percent grant, in a 5-year period, the States have taken advantage of 
it ; all but 8 of them have taken advantage of our 3 programs. 

The old-age assistance is, of course, a more popular program. 
There are more people who are old and articulate about their needs, 
so we have had for nearly 3 years 51 units for the aged program and 
43 for the blind and the children. I think the States would un- 
doubtedly take advantage of a fourth category and pass appropriate 
legislation fairly quickly because of the great drain this is on their 

The only question is in those States where you have very limited 
funds and there seems little possibility of their being able to finance 
on a broader basis, even if there were 50 percent Federal funds 

Mr. Sparkman. Miss Hoey, I am particularly interested in that 
part of your statement having to do with the participation of the 
Federal Government. You would recommend a straight-out match- 
ing basis ? 

Miss Hoey. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. Just as you have in all of the other 3 categories 

Miss Hoey. Fifty percent on cost of administration and assistance 
up to a maximum. 

Mr. Sparkman. You have just made reference to the fact that 
the old-age assistance was your most popular one. Perhaps you can 
tell the committee much more accurately than I, but as I recall, in 
my own State, which is of course one of those that j^ou might call 
of low economic opportunity, the amount of participation in the old- 
ao-e assistance I believe is an average of a little less than $10 a 

Miss Hoey. In Alabama? 

Mr. Sparkman. Yes. 

Miss Hoey. Yes. 

260370— 41— pt. ' 


Mr. Sparkman. To those to whom anything is paid As a matter 
of fact, I believe that only about one-third of those that should be 
getting that old-age assistance are getting it at all. 

Miss HoEY. That is true. 

Mr. Sparkman. Do you believe that my State could participate on 
a 50-50 basis? 


Miss HoEY That is what I mentioned, that I think there must be 
additional Federal funds to the States where they have low economic 

resources. , ^ , ■ ^ i j.x. 4. • 

Mr. Sparkman. I did not quite understand you to include that m 
this discussion. I was anxious for you to include it. . , , ^ ^, 

Miss HoEY. I did not mention the variable grant. 1 said that they 
could not take advantage, you see, even though there was a Federal 
matching of 50 percent, because of low economic resources. My 
answer would be a variable grant, which I did not indicate before. 

Mr. Sparkman. I am sorry I missed that. I was very anxious tor 
that to be in the record. 

Miss HoEY. Yes. .1 . • .i 

Mr Sparkman. I believe, as a matter of fact, that is the recom- 
mendation of the Social Security Board as to the other three cate- 
gories, is it not? 

Miss HoEY. Yes. We have made that repeatedly. 

Mr. Sparkman. Twice, I know. 

Miss HoEY. Yes. .^^ ^ . , . ^ ,. ,, . 

Mr. Sparkman. And probably you will make it a third time this 


Miss HoEY. We will. 

Mr. Sparkman. I hope you keep it up. , n • 

Miss HoEY. You see, we see no other way of adequately hnancmg 
those programs. I think it is interesting, however, that out of the 
2 000,000 aged that are now receiving assistance, the average grant, the 
national average is $20 a month ; that 1,000,000 get $20 or over, and 
that one and a half million get $15 a month or over, which is fairly 

Mr. Sparkman. That includes both State, local, and Federal, that 
$15 or $20? 

Miss HoEY. Yes. It is 279,000, to be exact, who get $10 a month 
or less. So that I think that is fairly good as to distribution in terms 
of amount, nationally. That small group that gets less than $10 is in 
the southern States. 

Mr. Sparkman. Of course, that does not reflect the true condition, 
either, that I just mentioned, that probably more than half — in fact, a 
couple of years ago, when I was making a little study of that in my 
own district, I came to the conclusion that only about one-third of 
the eligibles were receiving anything at all. 

Miss HoEY. That is perfectly true in those States even where they 
have low grants; there are long waiting lists. In one State we have 
doubled the number on the waiting list of those that are actually get- 


ting assistance. There are about 200,000 aged people in the United 
States who are on the waiting list with about 2,000,000 getting help. 

Mr. Sparkman. Last year we passed an amendment to the Social 
Security Act raising the amount of the Federal participation to $20 
a month, rather a futile gesture for a great part of the country, do you 
not think so? 

Miss HoEY. Yes ; although I think it has made a noticeable differ- 
ence in some States where they have more adequate resources a^d can 
take advantage. But those are already the better-to-do States. 


Mr. Sparkman. You speak of the migration of individuals in con- 
nection with the national-defense program. Have you any informa- 
tion that might indicate whether this migi^ation is largely of employ- 
able persons or are there a great many persons who are going into those 
sections in the hope that they might find employment ? 

Miss HoEY. I think there are a great many who are going there 
just in the hope of getting employment. Some may be more competent 
to do the jobs than others; others are not competent, not only in terms 
of skills, but actually not able to do it; they are too old, or for some 
other reason are handicapped. We have no figures that would show 
that migi-ation, because it is a very rapid thing. 

In the Norfolk area, 2 months ago, they had 35,000 that had sud- 
denly come in. It is very hard to keep track of that. 

Our general impression is that, of those people who are going, quit© 
a great many are unskilled, and, therefore, if the defense industries call 
for skilled workers they will not get jobs, although they may get 
supplementary jobs in restaurants, rooming houses, or other places 
where these people have to live, but not actually in the defense industry 

Mr. Sparkman. Is it contemplated that most of these people are 
going to settle down in these areas, or do you think they are there just 
for a short time ? 

Miss HoEY. We have little way of knowing. If there is an oppor- 
tunity of earning a living, they are going to stay ; if there is not, they 
will go on somewhere else. 

Mr. Sparkman. If they do, when this boom era is over there is going 
to be quite a headache in those particular communities, is there not ? 

Miss HoEY. A very serious problem. 

Mr. Sparkman. You recommend that a great number of persons 
might be trained for partial work. 

Miss HoEY. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. You mentioned one occupation — mattress making. 

Miss HoEY. Oh, that was a mere incident illustrating the case of 
handicapped persons. 

Mr. Sparkman. I just wonder if you can give us an idea of some 
other occupations that they might be trained for? 

Miss HoEY. It is not a question, I think, of the type of job you can 
train a person for. I personally have had a good deal of experience 
in relation to prison industries, and we found that we could not pos- 



sibly compete in training people on a particular machine because we 
could not keep up with the modern machinery in industries. But 
what you can do is to train them. They are hand-minded and you can 
teach them to do something with their hands. Find out what their 
interests are, what their aptitudes are by certain group tests of those 
people, and then see what kind of things you can tram them for. It 
is not a specific job. . . . , , 

I think it is an expensive thing to do, but I thnik it is much less 
expensive than to support these people on relief for the rest of their 
lives, that you really do something in terms of considering them as a 
rehabilitation problem rather than simply as a problem of support. 


Mr. Sparkman. With reference to the fourth category that you 
recommend, as I understand, that would cover the whole field of 
general relief. 

Miss HoEY. Residents and nonresidents ? 

Mr. Sparkman. Yes. In other words, the migrant relief would be 
just one feature of that? 

Miss HoEY. Yes. . 

Mr. Sparkman. Do you think that such a program, put into effect, 
would cause the States to change their laws so as to fit in? I have in 
mind particularly the settlement laws that you mentioned. 

Miss HoEY. I think you would have to make the granting of Federal 
funds conditional upon the States either having no residence law at all 
or having a maximum of, say, a year or 6 months. 

Mr. Sparkman. I wonder which you would recommend. 

Miss HoEY. I would recommend, first, the elimination of any settle- 
ment law, if I had my choice. But I do not know whether that is pos- 
sible. But I would certainly; make it a maximum of 1 year for gaining 
residence and for losing residence ; that is, that the person would not 
lose his residence until he had been gone from the State a year. 

Mr. Sparkman. Miss Hoey, I was interested in one of the tables in 
one of your supplements having to do with the settlement laws. 

Miss HoEY. Yes. 

POOR states' residence requirements low 

Mr. Sparkman. I noticed that there were only two States that re- 
quired a 6 months' residence ; that is to say, not more than a 6 months' 
residence. Those States were Alabama and Mississippi. I noticed 
that a great many of the wealthier States had a stricter residence law. 
I just wonder what the explanation of that is, why those States which 
are best able to handle the problem require a long residence, whereas 
those States having the greatest struggle provide for a shorter resi- 
dence or settlement period ? 

Miss HoEY. I think those States have been fearful of the migrants 
who have been coming in. They came, as in California, because of 
the weather that we have heard about. 

Mr. Sparkman. Just heard about? 


Miss HoEY. Well, it has been broadcast, as it were. They come in 
for that reason and because they know that they would save money in 
the cost of living, perhaps, because they would not need fuel and all 
the other things. And those States, in defense, have put up their 
residence laws. 

Mr. Sparkman. In other words, they have put up the barrier in 

Miss HoEY. Yes. They have unfortunately, in some States, ap- 
pealed for workers to come in when they needed them for a short 
period; in the farming industries, particularly in the harvesting of 
the crops. Then at the end of the period they felt they had no obli- 
gation concerning the care of those people. 

Mr. Sparkman. You stated that in 40 States, I believe it was, of the 
48 States, provision is made for the care of transients on a relief set- 
up. I wonder to what extent that relief is given ? 

Miss HoEY. I think that was overemphasis, and I regret having 
made that statement, because it gives, perhaps, a false impression. 
When we say that 40 States paid some attention — that is really what 
I should have said — that meant that perhaps one area in a State did 
that. It does not mean that all parts of the State give any help. It 
means any assistance at all, even to providing gasoline to get to the 
next town. Those were included within the 40. 

Mr. Sparkman. In other words, what you really mean is that there 
are 8 States in which there is no attention given to that. 

Miss HoEY. There is not even the gesture, and in a lot of the other 
40 States it is just a gesture, in order to get rid of the people,^ by 
housing them in jails overnight,, or that kind of thing. But it is just 
any kind of care at all, and in most of them it is certainly very inade- 
quate care. 

Mr. Sparkman. I know that the State welfare directors in several 
different States have told us very frankly that, while they would like 
to give that kind of relief, they could not reasonably be expected to 
do so, when they could use that dollar on one of the other categories 
and have it go twice as far. 

Miss HoEY. That is true, or to take care of the residents for whom 
they have a greater responsibility, as they felt. There is no reluc- 
tance, I believe, on the part of such State administrators to give assist- 
ance to these people if they had the resources with which to do it. 
They would give adequate care and would be glad to give it, if they 
had the resources. 


Mr. Sparkman. Is it your belief, as the result of your own ex- 
perience, that it is impossible to carry out a State-assistance program 
for migrants without strengthening it from the general relief program ? 

Miss HoEY. I think it is impossible and undesirable to do so. 

Mr. Sparkman. In other words, it must go along as part of the 
general relief program ? 

Miss HoEY. That is my personal opinion. I think it would be un- 
fortunate to make a provision for residents as against nonresidents, 


because greater antagonism would come from the nonresidents, and it 
would create a greater cost. 4^ ^ .i 4^ ^ ^u f 

Mr Spaekman. I notice in your statement you reter to the tact that 
the W P A , P W. A.. N. Y. A., and C. C. C. programs have been 
unable to 'absorb all of the able-bodied unemployed persons in need of 
employment. As a matter of fact, they never will and cannot be 
expected to, can they ? 

Miss HoEY. I do not think so. Furthermore, for people, some of 
them, who are unemployed for short periods, the work program is 
unsuitable. You cannot develop good projects for people who are 
goino- to be on today and off tomorrow. You have to consider them aa 
being employed for a fairly long period, and, if you are going actually 
to attempt that, you cannot have, generally, a lot of changes. So I 
believe a general relief program for people unemployed for short 
periods is much more suitable than a work program. 

Mr. Sparkman. Has the Social Security Board made any estimates 
or studies as to what the cost of a general relief program would be, on 
such a basis as you recommend ? 

Miss HoEY. The Research Bureau has made some studies on that. 
It is not a very adequate basis, because we do not know how quickly 
the States would take advantage of any such Federal program. As 
you know, this year 44 legislatures are in session. If something went 
through the Congress before those went home, you might get some- 
thing enacted but, if not, as to those States that only have their legisla- 
tures meet every 2 years, there would be quite a long period before 
they would be able to enact legislation to take advantage of it. So 
that I think, based upon the need of all the States taking advantage 
at one time, our Research Bureau estimated something like $250,000,000 
the first year. I could supply you with some additional data from our 
Research Bureau in relation to that. 

Mr. Sparkman. I believe that would be very helpful, if we could 
have that. 

Miss HoEY. I will be glad to furnish it. 

(The following memorandum was received later from Miss Hoey 

and accepted for the record:) 

Decembek 13, 1940. 
Miss Jane Hobtt, 

Director, Bureau of PuUic Assistance. 
Anne E. Geddes, 

Chief, Division of PuUic Assistance Research, 

Bureau of Research and Statistics. 
Tolan committee's question on cost of extending general relief program 
This is in reply to your memorandum of December '7. 

We suggest that no change be made in the estimate of $250,000,000 which you 
gave in your testimony before the Tolan committee as the cost to the Federal 
Government of a general-relief program in the first year of operation, assuming 
50 percent matching and provision for both resident and nonresident cases. 

It is extremely difficult to estimate the cost of a general relief program in the 
absence of detailed specifications concerning conditions of eligibility and types 
and amounts of aid to be provided. For example, vpould medical care be pro- 
vided under the general-relief program as under the Federal Emergency Relief 
Administration program? Would hospitalization be provided? Payments for this 
type of aid were not matched by the Federal Government under the Federal 
Emergency Relief Administration. Would these services be available only to 


persons receiving subsistence care or would they be available also to the medi- 
cally needy? It is also diflBcult to make cost estimates without assumptions as 
to the probable size of the Work Projects Administration and surplus commodity 
and stamp plan programs and as to general economic conditions. Needs for 
general relief are greatly affected by the phase of the business cycle. If specili- 
cations were set up for a general relief title, estimates might vary substantially 
from the figure which you quoted, but until such specitications are set forth it 
does not seem feasible to make more precise estimates. 

In the 12-month period, November 1939 to October 1940, expenditures for gen- 
eral relief, exclusive of medical care and hospitalization and also of administra- 
tion, amounted to $400,000,000. At this level of expenditure the Federal share 
would be approximately $205,000,000. The availability of Federal funds for 
general relief would of course greatly stimulate growth in the volume of pay- 
ments, but there would be some lag between enactment of a general relief title 
and enactment of State legislation and the approval of State plans to permit 
States to take advantage of Federal funds. The extent of the lag would depend 
upon the specifications of the Federal act, particularly with respect to eligibility. 
If the provisions of the Federal title were broad, little amendment to State legis- 
lation would be required. The States would hasten to qualify because of the 
incentive to benefit from Federal funds. 

Annual expenditures for administration of general relief are now approxi- 
mately $60,0<JO,000. At this level of expenditure, the annual Federal cost for 
administration would be $30,000,000. With Federal participation in the general- 
relief program, there would be sharp increase in the volume of administrative 
expense ; but lag between enactment of Federal legislation and approval of State 
plans would to some extent retard the growth in such expenses in the first year 
of operation by agencies with approved plans. 

It is doubtful whether the $250,000,000 estimate is large enough if it is intended 
to cover medical care and hospitalization. In 1940 it is estimated that expendi- 
tures of general relief agencies for medical care and hospitalization, exclusive of 
amounts intended for these services and included in cash grants, will be roughly 
$30,000,000. If there were Federal participation in payments for medical care 
and hospitalization, expenditures for these services would rise enormously, even 
in the first year of operation. At present these services are provided in whole 
or in part in many States under programs other than the general-relief program. 
The availability of Federal funds for medical care and hospitalization would 
result in some shifting of these services to the general relief agency. 

We have no basis for estimating the cost of care for the migratory and non- 
resident groups. Again the estimates would depend upon the types of care to 
be given and particularly upon whether the general-relief program would embrace 
institutional and camp facilities for migrants. The costs would also depend upon 
whether the Work Projects Administration and Farm Security Administration 
were to discontinue care for these groups. 

Mr. Falk is now preparing a memorandum giving crude estimates of Federal 
matching of general relief which may supply you with the type of data in which 
you are interested. A copy of this memorandum will be sent to you as soon as 
it is completed. 

Anne E. Geddes. 


Mr. Sparkman. Let me ask you this : How many States have taken 
up the old-age assistance program? Any of them? 

Miss HoET. For the last 3 years, they have. That includes Hawaii, 
Alaska, and the District of Columbia. 

Mr. Sparkman. For what ? 

Miss HoEY. The last 3 years. Every one has been in the 51 units 
for the last 3 years. 

Mr. Sparkmaist. Fifty-one units; they include the Territories and 
District of Columbia? 


Miss HoET. The Territories and the District of Columbia ; yes. 

Mr Sparkman. What about State old age? 

Miss HoET. Only 43 States; some of those larger States, like Ilhnois, 
have never taken advantage of the Federal act. 

Mr. Sparkman. Forty -three? 

Miss HoEY. Forty-three of those jurisdictions. 

Mr. Sparkman. That is, there are 51 jurisdictions, and 43 of them 
have taken advantage? 

Miss HoEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sparkman. Is that the third category, or does that go into the 
same one as aid to dependent children ? 

Miss HoEY. No; there are three categories— blind, aged, and 
dependent children. 


Mr. Sparkman. You have not mentioned and I do not know 
whether I should ask you, or not, but in any kind of relief program 
such as you recommend would you recommend the extension or 
expansion of the farm security program, the surplus crop marketing 
program— I have reference particularly to the food stamp plan— 
and the rural rehabilitation program of the Farm Security 
Administration ? 

Miss HoEY. The food stamp, if I may take that first, has been 
very helpful, particularly in the States where the grants were low, 
in supplementing public-assistance grants as well as in supplying 
help. It has been used by the State agencies to supplement the low 
grants in many States, or to take care of the group on the waiting 
list as well as the general relief group. 

There needs to be, it seems to me, on the local level and on the 
State-Federal level, closer cooperation of the farm security and 
public-assistance programs, because they, in some instances, are giving 
relief to farm families, and that needs to be coordinated in the same 
county with the public welfare administration progi'ams. I think 
there is no conflict there. In other words, they are taking care of 
a gi^oup that the local relief administration did not have an oppor- 
tunity to take care of. The loan program is not equipped to do 
that and I think, in that instance, it has been very helpful, and some 
of the loans may become a dead letter and assistance should be 
granted. Therefore, that needs to be closely coordinated with 
Federal relief. 

Mr. Sparkman. In other words, you would recommend, as I 
understand, that the Farm Security "^Administration function in a 
supplemental capacity? 

Miss HoEY. I do not know who would supplement wliat. 

Mr. Sparkman. Each agency would be supplemental to the other? 

Miss HoEY. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. Because that family that is breaking up the farm 
and moving into town is going to become your client ? 

Miss HoEY. Yes. 


Mr. Sparkman. And if the Farm Administration cannot keep them 
out on the farm, making a living as an independent unit, it means 
they will move to town ? 


Miss HoEY. Yes. On the other hand, the Public Welfare Admin- 
istration is taking care of a great many farm families also, so that 
those two programs need to be very closely coordinated. That is on 
a line that has a different basis than assistance. But I believe the one 
agency ought to give assistance, and not two. 

Mr. Sparkman. I was just noticing an article in the paper last night 
to the effect that the food-stamp plan has spread to 203 communities, 
I believe it is. 

Miss HoEY. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. It would be your thought that, functioning as it 
does, certainly there would be a great many more communities through 
the years that could use it with profit ? 

Miss HoEY. Yes. My field staff happens to be in at the moment and 
we met yesterday with the field staff to create cooperation, because there 
is in some measure a conflict between our bodies. In the food-stamp 
plan, you are trying to get a consumption of surplus products ; in our 
program, we are trying to see that these people get money that they 
can use in any way they please. In other words, if they get a $12 food 
budget, if this week they want to spend $10 for food and $2 for shoes, 
we think they should be able to do that ; in other words, we ought to 
try to have families getting assistance living as normally as any other 
family in the community. Now, the food-stamp people are saying, 
"You must spend so much for food in order to get these stamps." We 
have said, "You must have no restrictive payments." Mr. Tate will 
speak on that, he being the general counsel and interpreting the Fed- 
eral law for us. The food-stamp people are saying "You must spend 
this amount for food, or you cannot get these blue stamps." So there 
seems to be a conflict there and we have discussed that to see if we 
cannot work out what is best for both, without having the one program 
contravene the other program. 

Mr. Sparkman. Of course the cotton stamp plan, which has been 
experimented with, would take care of some of them. 

Miss HoEY. Yes. This only takes care of the food-stamp plan and 
cash assistance which is in accordance with the Federal Act, and 
must be. 

Mr. Sparkman. Do you think it might be extended to cover neces- 
sary clothing? 

Miss HoEY. Yes. Although, again, the objective there is simply to 
get rid of surplus foods. My understanding is that is their objective, 
rather than to provide a balanced diet, or to provide adequate clothing 
for people. It should be always supplemental; there should be a 
planning for the family in terms of their needs. If you can utilize 
these other programs in doing that, so much the better; but do not 
try to change your program in order to meet the needs of that program. 


Mr. Sparkman. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask Mr. Tate one 
question ? 

The Chairman. Certainly. 

Mr. Sparkman. I just wondered, Mr. Tate — I am through ques- 
tioning Miss Hoey — if there is any point we have mentioned that 
you differ with, or have a little different interpretation to give ? 

Mr. Tate. Not substanially. I think what Miss Hoey says about a 
general category relief program that treats the migrant as part of 
the whole program is entirely right and proper. I think the migrant 
problem is an aspect of the relief problem and I think it is entirely 
proper there should be a fourth category in this general relief group 
and it becomes all the more necessary then to move your age and your 
residence requirements down from the present requirements of the 
Social Security Act, which permits an exclusion where there is a 
residence below any 5 years out of the past 9, to at least 1 year. 


I agree with MisS Hoey it is desirable to get away from that 
altogether and have the assistance payments made where the man is, 
in accordance with his need there. 

I do not entirely agree with Miss Hoey on the question of degree 
or the feasibility of the 100-percent Federal grant for the group under 
1 year. I think it would have to be very carefully safeguarded in 
order to prevent the enticement of people from places where assist- 
ance payments are low to places where they are high. Obviously it 
would create a greater problem than exists even now. I think you 
could do that by some method of safeguarding and, of course, you 
would always have the administrative problem of preventing the 
loading of the less-than-l-year-residence group, in order to get 100- 
percent Federal funds, instead of using 50 percent of State funds. 

Mr. Sparkman. Miss Hoey, do you want the last word on that ? 

Miss HoET. We often disagree, but it is a very friendly debate. 
You see, I have to administer; he only has to advise me on the law. 
So that while I think it might be done, I think Mr. Tate would agree 
a general relief program is more desirable which includes residents 
and nonresidents. 

Mr. Tate. Oh, yes. 

Miss Hoey. If we could not get that, what else could we get? 

The Chairman. Mr. Tate, I suppose you know that this is the 
concluding hearing of this committee. We have had seven field 
hearings in various States, and the purpose of these hearings here 
is to fill up any gaps that might appear in the record when we come 
to write our report. So that we have prepared some questions here 
that I desire to present to you for that very purpose — for the record 
purpose, don't you see? 

Mr. Tate. Yes. 


The Chairman. And I will read them to you now and then you 
will kindly give your answers. 


In our hearings over the country, the committee has become 
cognizant of some peculiar situations which have arisen as the result 
of legal interpretations of various constitutional and statutory doc- 
trines dealing with citizenship, domicile, residence, and settlement. 
Your statement, which will be inserted in the record in full, treats 
with all of these questions. I wish you would at this time discuss the 
legal difference between "domicile," "residence," and "settlement." 

Mr. Tate. Mr. Tolan, I think we ought to recognize right in the 
beginning that these terms — domicile, residence, settlement — are not 
absolute terms; they may have different meanings in different con- 
texts. You may have one residence for purposes of taxation; you 
may have a different residence for purposes of divorce, or a different 
residence for purposes of relief, say. Roughly, I think you can say 
this, that domicile is a place where you expect to stay permanently. 
Then, as to "settlement," I think it should be pointed out that it is 
entirely a creature of statute and it depends on the statute as to the 
meaning. Usually, it means approximately the same thing as 
"residence"; that is, the place where you are at present and have no 
intention of departing from, plus the condition that no public relief 
may be received during that period that is set forth in the settlement 

I think there has been a great deal of discussion in the committee, 
from what I have read in the papers, of the various settlement laws 
in the different States. If any such remedy of the problem as Miss 
Hoey and I have suggested were adopted, that problem of the various 
State settlement laws would become irrelevant. In other words, if 
you are making grants to States for general relief covering these 
groups, you undoubtedly would condition that grant on the abandon- 
ment of a great many of these restrictive provisions in the diversity 
of settlement laws. 

Mr. Parsons. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question on that? 

The Chairman. Certainly. 

Mr. Parsons. Do you advocate, as Miss Hoey does, the abolition of 
all settlement laws ? 

Mr. Tate. For the purpose of granting assistance, yes. 

Miss Hoey. We mean there restrictiveness only in relation to that. 
You may need them for other purposes, but I was speaking only in 
relation to grants of assistance. 

Mr. Parsons. But you both advocate the abolition of the settlement 
laws in the treatment of the relief probliem ? 

Mr. Tate. As a condition to receiving relief. 

Mr. Parsons. And why do you so advocate ? 

Mr. Tate. Of course the settlement laws go back a long way. Miss 
Hoey was asked a while ago why Certain States had very restrictive 
settlement provisions, and I think she pointed out quite properly that 
one of the reasons is that those States that have the more restrictive 
provisions are apt to be those States into which people migrate and in 
which the problem is more acute. It may also be pointed out that 
another reason is, in a great many States that have those restrictive 
provisions, it is very largely traditional; it is copied from the old 
English poor laws that go back several hundred years, and it is a case 
of one county creating a relief problem to another county. 



It seems to me this relief problem has more and more become less 
of a county problem, or even a State problem, and has become a na- 
tional problem and it seems to me, as a national problem, it requires 
to a large degree the abandonment of those restrictive provisions of 
settlement laws. n , , ^ 

Mr. Sparkman. As I understand the recommendation ot both ot 
you it is simply this, that the Federal Government's participation 
would not be based upon any settlement laws ? 

Miss HoEY. That is right. 

Mr. Sparkman. Of course, if a State wanted a settlement law for 
the administration of additional relief of its own, that would be all 
right; but you would set up a program providing that the Federal 
Government would not participate on any such basis? 

Miss HoEY. That is right 

The Chairman. And that answer is based, I take it, Mr. Tate, on the 
proposition that we are all citizens of the 48 States and, being an 
American citizen traveling between those States, if you are in one 
and need relief, there ought to be no State barriers? 

Mr. Tate. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is the reason back of it ? 

Mr. Tate. Yes. 

The Chairman. In your statement, you recite that five States in 
1939 tightened State requirements for settlement; that is, those States 
are really tightening up on their obligations. Have you noticed a 
trend to tighten up on residence requirements for, say, getting a di- 
vorce; or is the tendency in that instance to lighten the residence 
requirements to induce business into the State? Take Nevada, for 

Mr. Sparkman. Do you mean to include divorce and relief laws in 
the same category ? 

The Chairman. It is just the difference in causes. 

Mr. Tate. I suppose it is a very natural and human tendency, 
when you are getting something, to put less restrictions on it than 
when "you have to hand out something. Obviously, looking back 
over a period of years, the divorce laws have become much less re- 
strictive. Some States have, I believe, announced they get business 
through their divorce laws. 

The Chairman. That is activated by the dollar, is it not ? 

Mr. Tate. Certainly. 


Mr. OsMERS. Would you say along those lines, Mr. Tate, that the 
Florida situation is rather a good example of a State seeking desirable 
migrants and excluding undesirable migrants ? I refer to their policy 
of advertising with the taxpayers' money to encourage people to come 
to Florida, and stopping people at the border if they suspect they 
may become public charges. 

Mr. OsMERS. Yes. Obviously the State wants to receive the benefits 
from the more well-to-do migrants and, obviously, does not want to 


undertake the obligation of the less well-to-do migrants, where they 
would have to assist in their support. 

Mr. OsMERS. From a purely legal standpoint, what is your opinion 
of the Florida situation as respects the stopping of people at the 
border ? 

Mr. Tate. Mr. Congressman, that raises a very difficult question 
and that I do not know can be answered with any degree of authority 
at all. I depends on a balancing, as I read the cases, between two 
constructions of these constitutional privileges — the commerce clause 
privileges, the immunity bars, and so forth and so on — of giving them 
a wide interpretation, as against the traditional concept, that a State 
may prevent, any political unit may prevent, a drain on itself, in an 
emergent situation. And where that balancing takes place in a par- 
ticular case is very hard to say; it is particularly hard to say here, 
because the people we are talking about are not people, however 
litigious they may be (and nobody knows much about that), who can 
fight their way through the courts, and it is interesting to me that 
there is no appellate decision of recent years on this question. 

Mr. OsMERS. Would you refer to the decision, speaking, of course, 
as a layman, of the New York State Court of Appeals in the so-called 
Ohio Deportation case, as an appellate decision affecting that question ? 

Mr. Tate. Yes. 

Mr. OsMERS. That did not affect the constitutional side of the case, 
and that was the pith of it ? 

Mr. Tate. The constitutional side of the case may be presented, and 
as a matter of fact today I understand that that case is being pre- 
sented to the District Court in New York. That is the Chirillo case ? 

Mr. Osmers. That is the Chirillo case. Is that being presented on 
constitutional grounds ? 

Mr. Tate. On the constitutional grounds. 

Mr. Osmers. I am glad to know that, because a lot of us interested 
on the constitutional side of it were very much disappointed that the 
Court of Appeals made no decision. 

Mr. Tate. No. They went off on a construction of the statute. 


Mr. Parsons. Have you noticed, Mr. Tate, whether there is any 
rivalry or competition in the importation of desirable migrants 
between California and Florida? 

Mr. Tate. I think all the States like to get desirable migrants ; they 
like to increase the average income in the State. I think it is not a 
situation limited to Florida and California, although undoubtedly 
rivalry exists there and is more pointed there than in other States. 

Mr. Parsons. Well, California does do a great deal of advertising, 
does it not, for desirable migrants ? 

Mr. Tate. Certainly. 

Mr. Osmers. New Jersey is the only State in the Union that wel- 
comes both the well-to-do and the indigent. 

The Chairman. I want to say, Mr. Tate, being from California, 
I have got this all through the country. I was just thinking about 



these destitute migrants going into various States. My home Statb 
of California would not dare think of raising a barrier against the 
importation of oranges from Florida, would she, or vice versa, because 
they would retaliate, would they not ; but destitute citizens, of course, 
are a different i^roposition. Do you know, Mr. Tate — probably you 
do — that many of our States in the Union make it a misdemeanor 
to transport destitute citizens across State lines, and South Dakota 
makes it a felony, and a penitentiary offense ? 

Mr. Tate. Yes. I think I point out in my statement the South 
Dakota and North Dakota case in which the judge that rendered the 
opinion was very firm. 

Mr. Curtis. At that point, may I ask this question : Is it not true, 
though, if you inquire into the historical background of those 
statutes — and they are all old — that was for the protection of the 
destitute person? In other words, one State cannot dispose of the 
relief problem by trickery or the purchasing of railway tickets and 
bodily transporting people and loading them off onto another State. 
I do not think it is a barrier against the destitute person as much 
as it is for the protection of him, when those laws were enacted. 

Mr. Tate. That undoubtedly, Mr. Congressman, was one of the 
motives. However, I think it is also true that the State to which 
the person moved did not want to assume the obligation that it did 
not feel was its obligation. The second jurisdiction felt he was 
"not one of our people; why should we support him?" 

Mr. Curtis. I think that is true. 


Miss HoEY. For many years, Mr. Congressman, the social agencies 
have signed a transportation agreement, as we called it, that we would 
not transport one person to another place until that other community 
agreed to accept the person and provide for him when he got there. 
So that we have tried to stop just that kind of passing on an indi- 
vidual. Yet it is done, as you know; I mean a person being given 
just enough gasoline to get on to the next community, whether that 
was across State lines, or not. 

The Chairman. Another residence provision which has interested 
me is the one used by the various States when they levy inheritance 
taxes. I remember that last year we had three States (Texas, 
Florida, and Massachusetts) fighting in the Supreme Court of the 
United States over whether or not Colonel Green was a resident of 
their State because they wanted something out of Colonel Green's 
estate. Have you ever heard of three States claiming a migrant at 
the same time, for the purpose of paying him relief? It would 
almost make one think that there is one law for the rich and another 
law for the poor. 

Mr. Tate. No; I have never heard of that. I think the States 
were very anxious to get the tax on the Hetty Green estate. 

The Chairman. But they do not feel that way about migrants, 

Mr. Tate. And they feel they have nothing to gain fi'om migrants. 

The Chairman. Now, the acquisition of settlement in most States 
is dependent on a period of self-supporting residence. In your state- 


ment, you mention the fact that W. P. A. may be considered relief 
and, as such, a bar to the acquisition, if a State statute so provides. 
Congress coukl provide that W. P. A. woukl only be made avaialable 
to States that considered W. P. A. self-sufficient employment for the 
purpose of acquiring settlement. Would you recommend that kind 
of a provision ? 

Mr. Tate. Yes; I would. I think Congress, of course, could put a 
condition on those grants, and would so recommend, and some of the 
States do recognize them as not creating a settlement difficulty; some 
do not. 


Mr. OsMERS. Mr. Tate, in my State of New Jersey, we have an ancient 
provision on the books which deprives paupers, in the old sense of 
the word, of a vote in any election. Do you happen to know how many 
States of the Union have a sunilar regulation ? 

Mr. Tate. No ; I do not. Of course a good many of the States have 
a poll-tax provision that may work the same result. 

Mr. OsMERS. Of course the poll-tax provision would make the pay- 
ment of a poll tax a requirement for voting, but that would not have 
anything to do with being a pauper, because someone could hand him 
the amount of the poll tax and he, in turn, would pay it. That would 
not change his situation in the community. 

Mr. Tate. It might or might not. I mean if he did not have it and 
no person handed him the money, obviously he could not vote. If he 
had the money, he could. 

Mr. Osmers. We have repealed in New Jersey our poll tax and left 
the other requirement. Of course, it is not enforced. The Tax Com- 
missioner has investigated the subject in New Jersey and recommended 
that it should be enforced, and it created a great storm, as you can 
imagine. But what would your feeling be toward that type of 
statutory limitation on voting. 

Mr. Tate. I would be unsympathetic with a provision that you 
could not vote if you were a pauper. 

Mr. OsMEus. You would be unsympathetic to such a provision ? 

Mr. Tate. Yes. 

Mr. Osjiers. That is my feeling, too. I think it should be taken 
off the books. 

The Chairman. These settlement laws have highlighted for us 
the attitude of the various States toward destitute citizens of sister 
States. I know that you are familiar with the provision in the Articles 
of Confederation of 1777, which stated : 

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among 
the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of 
these States — paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice — shall be entitled to 
all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States ; and the people 
of each State shall have free ingress and egress to and from any other State. 

That provision, fortunately, was rewritten before it was inserted 
into our present Constitution. But the States themselves have erected 
the wall barring interstate movement of destitute folks in many in- 
stances through the power of the States to exclude or expel. I wish 



you would discuss those powers of the States more fully and highlight 
the Constitutional aspect involved. , ■, ^ 

Mr. Tate. Well, I think it is interesting to refer to the legal con- 
federation. I believe that it was in the Wheeler case^ the case of 
United States v. Wheeler, that Chief Justice White by dictum indi- 
cated that article IV, section 2, the privileges and immunities clause, 
was pretty much a carry-over provision, and that you could look to 
that provision for the meaning of the privileges and immunities 
clause. However, I do not believe we should admit that as a flat 
decision. This section should be considered in connection with other 

decision on it, because there has been a paucity of decisions in this 
type of cases. Orders of expulsion, I think, have been sustained. 
The privileges and immunities clause, I think, has been somewhat 
broadened in recent years. The Hagu^ case indicated a broadening 
so far as privileges and immunities are concerned, followed by retrac- 
tions at the last term to some degree. I think you will find the 
decision in those cases in balance with this historical basis of settle- 
ment that went back to our Constitution, and also appearing in the 
laws of England, and is to be weighed against the emergency need 
under which the State is acting. 


The Chairman. Mr. Tate, with the settlement laws as they are, is 
it possible for a man to exist in legal limbo — that is, to lose his settle- 
ment in one State before he has acquired it in another. That makes 
his status as a citizen of a State meaningless, and he has to fall back 
on his dual citizenship as a citizen of the United States. Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Tate. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Many witnesses before this committee have reconi- 
mended that a new category be included under the Social Security 
Act to provide for some form of relief, either by grants-in-aid to the 
States or by a direct relief program, to take care not only of those 
people who have no State responsible for them, but for all relief 
cases. I believe you have covered that. 

Mr. Tate. Yes, sir ; I think that is highly desirable. 

The Chairman. Assuming that Congress decides to do something 
about it, what would you suggest as a workable solution of this 
problem ? 

Mr. Tate. As I indicated in my previous remarks, I think you 
should have a general relief category, and that you should have as 
a condition to the grants to States the abolition in large part of resi- 
dence restrictions. Then, as Congressman Sparkman indicated a 
while ago, in order to help States that are not in a financial condition 
to carry it out, there should be some variable grants. 

The Chairman. In other words, it does not help the morale of this 
country when you have old people in Alabama and Mississippi 


receiving $10 or $9 per month, while in another State they are 
receiving $30 per month. The old people in States where they are 
getting a lesser amount are just as precious as those living in States 
where they are getting a larger amount? 

Mr. Tate. Yes, sir ; that is true. 

The Chairman. And I understand you have been working toward 
that end. 

Mr. Tate. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curtis. Some States can afford a larger amount and some other 
States cannot. What is the basis? 


Mr. Tate. It is very interesting to me in comparing the figures to 
note the average per capita income of the State as compared with the 
average amount of the grants. You will find a close correlation there. 
In some States where they have old-age assistance, they will give what 
they can. For instance, you will find that States like New York, 
where they have a relatively high per capita income, the grants are 
high, while in States like Mississippi, with a relatively low per capita 
income, the grants are low. I think you would have to have some 
relation to the average per capita income in working out the variable 

Mr. Curtis. Is that true of all the States ? 

Mr. Tate, I do not say it is true of all the States, but I think it is 
generally true of the States. 

Miss HoET. The District of Columbia and the two Territories 
would be the es;ceptions. It would not be true of the District of 
Columbia, Hawaii, and Alaska. 

Mr. Curtis. I think one witness this morning disagreed very 
emphatically on that particular point. 

Miss HoEY. Did he recommend a substitute for it? 

Mr. Curtis. No ; he made no attempt to do that. 

Miss HoEY. I think this is what he referred to : If you compare the 
per capita income of the State to the Federal per capita income, we 
may have a basis for granting Government funds to the States, but 
there is nothing that has been worked out as a basis of distribution 
of funds from the State to the local communities in the States. You 
cannot apply the per capita income rule to a county or local sub- 
division. We have recommended that the need in the county deter- 
mine the distribution by the State level down to the county. 

Mr. Curtis. Do you believe it should be based on ability to pay? 
I have a map here — is that from you ? 

Mr. Tate. No, sir. 

Mr. Curtis. According to this map, the State of Florida grants in 
relief payments $6.83. (See p. 3540.) I do not know what that 
is. In South Dakota the payments are $13.81. Now, is Florida's 
ability to pay only half that of South Dakota ? 

Mr. Tate. I was not speaking of relief payments. I do not know 
what that is. I was speaking, by and large, of old-age assistance. 

Mr. Curtis. For old-age assistance, in this particular instance, the 
amount is $11.81 for Florida, and $17.28 for South Dakota. 

260370— 41— pt. 9 6 




Mr. Tate. I do not know, offhand, what the average per capita 
income of those States is. It may be that it deviates from that factor. 
There are a number of instances in which it does deviate. But gen- 
erally it follows pretty well down that line of correlation. 

Miss HoET. We are suggesting this simply as an approach to the 
best way to effect the distribution of Federal funds to the States. We 
are not recommending it as something absolute, but it is a method by 
which some other things are being done. There are many things to be 
considered as, for instance, the need of the State. 

Mr. Curtis. According to this map, it would indicate that California 
has two and a half times the ability to spend for relief that Texas 
has. I seriously doubt that, and I do not think the payments being 
made now indicate their relative ability to pay. 


Miss HoEY. If we are talking about the revenue-raising capacity of 
the State of Texas, of course, Texas has a great deal of natural wealth 
which is either not taxed or taxed in a very limited way. 

Mr. Curtis. Who determines whether it is to be taxed, or not? 

Miss HoEY. The legislature of the State. If you are comparing the 
wealth of those States, it may well be that the natural resources are 
being compared. In one instance you have a State taxing them very 
high, while another State is taxing them very low. That is another 
element you must take into consideration in determining whether they 
have the ability to pay. 

The Chairman. That depends on what the respective legislatures 
will appropriate for this purpose. 

Miss Hoey. Yes, sir. Texas is very liberal in its treatment of re- 
cipients of old-age assistance, but if you go to the other programs, 
you will find that they have no children's program or general relief 
program. However, they have appropriated at each session large 
amounts for the care of the aged. 

Mr. Parsons. The Legislature of the State of Illinois levies a sales 
tax of 3 percent. One percent goes directly to relief, with some addi- 
tional appropriations for that purpose. That goes to citizens of the 
State of Illinois. That 1 percent amounts to between $3,000,000 and 
$4,000,000 per month. Another cent goes to the old-age assistance 
contrilDution. The other goes into State funds, as general revenues. 
Then we have a gas tax for local purposes, which is subdivided back 
among the local units of government. We have taken off the State 
property tax, both real and personal. That tax has been taken off of 
both real and personal property, but we have revenue derived from 
the sales tax that amounts to three times, in the course of a year, 
the annual property tax. We are getting that from those who have 
money to spend. 

Miss HoEY. Illinois is a good illustration that it does not depend 
on the capacity of the State to finance its program. They have no 
children's program in any way as a part of the Federal program. The 
children's program there has been court-administered, and the State 
has brought that matter into court. 


Mr. Sparkman. As I see the program you suggest, these grants 
would not be based upon a single factor, such as the amount the State 
is now paying, or even upon the amount of taxes, or the method by 
which the taxes are levied, but there would have to be worked up some 
formula which would determine what a particular State would receive 
in coimection with any particular program. 

Miss HoEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tate. That is correct; but I do not want to leave the impression 
here that we have a definite formula. 

Mr. Sparkman. We recognize that. 

Lest there be some misunderstanding, if I understood it correctly 
a while ago, Mr. Curtis said some gentleman recoimnended that these 
grants be variable grants. I do not understand that statement was 
made by Mr. Hoehler. He recommended grants, but it was Mr. 
Gallagher who referred to variable grants. 


I would like to ask Mr. Tate one more question. _ He is a lawyer 
who has given a great deal of thought to this subject, and here is 
something that is running through my mind as a lawyer, and that 
is the legal right of any State under the Constitution to keep a person 
out of the State or, if the person is within the State, to put him out, 
simply because of the fact that he may happen to be destitute. 

Mr. Tate. I do not believe I can give a categorical answer to that 
question. I would hate to assume that a State has that authority, 
but, on the other hand, I would not feel at all sure that it does not 
have that authority. Clearly, the privilege of moving about is a 
privilege guaranteed by the Constitution, and any restriction of that 
has to be on a justifiable basis. 

Mr. Sparkman. Could it be justified by anything other than the 
police power of the State? 

Mr. Tate. No, sir; I think not. 

Mr. Sparkman. It would have to come under the police power of 
the State? 

Mr. Tate. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sparkman. Do you believe that a person's condition of poverty 
would come within the police power of the State ? 

Mr. Tate. Personally, I do not think so. I think it would have to 
be a case of vital necessity to justify such restrictive action by the 
State, and I do not believe that the mere fact of indigency presents 
a question that would justify such restrictive action on the part of 
the State. 

Mr. Sparkman. What do you think about it, Miss Hoey ? 

Miss HoEY. I feel very strongly on that. I have known of an 
instance where a person born in a State and who came back to the 
State where he was born, was prohibited from remaining in the State. 
It does not mean that the State might not refuse him relief in the 
State, but certainly it should not refuse domicile or residence to one 
born in the State. Of course, I am not a lawyer, but that is my view. 

Mr. Sparkman. The matter of giving relief and the matter of 
allowing residence or domicile are entirely distinct things. 



Miss HoEY. Yes, sir. I know that a person born in one of the 
States was sent back from the Philippines, and he was sent back by 
that State to the Philippines, although he was born within the State. 
May I clarify one thing : Mr. Tate and I were recommending a fourth 
category, but that was not in lieu of a work program. It would be 
supplementary to and not a substitute for the work progi-am. 

Mr. Curtis. I understood you to say that Texas paid relatively 
high old-age pensions. 

Miss HoEY. No, sir ; they have been liberal in the number of persons 
who would be eligible for old-age assistance. In other words, they 
have been pretty generous as compared with some other States as to 
the number who would be eligible for old-age assistance. I think 
it is true that 60 percent of the aged people in Texas would be 
eligible under their law. 

Mr. Curtis. Texas ranks first in mineral wealth, and first in agri- 
culture. A good percentage of the farm payments made by the 
United States Government goes to Texas. There are a number of 
military establishments down there, and they have a large seagoing 
commerce. Yet, their payments are only half the amount of pay- 
ments made by some other States. For instance, my own State of 
Nebraska has only one industry, that of agriculture. There are no 
minerals in the State, but, although without a good crop for 7 years, 
Nebraska pays much larger amounts per month for this sort of 
assistance than Texas does. 

Miss HoEY. It is not only ability but the willingness of the State 
to raise revenue that must be considered. It is not what they actually 

Mr. Curtis. Do you recommend a variable formula for grants of 
money to the States? 

Mis HoEY. If you take the economies of some of the States, Ne- 
braska, or some of the Southern States, your index would show that 
many of them are relatively poor States, or much poorer than certain 
other States. There is to be considered the question of the ability 
or willingness to levy taxes, and, in some of them, I think any reason- 
able person would agree that they could not raise enough revenue 
to finance the necessary Government expenditures in an adequate relief 

NO formula for variable grants 

Mr. Curtis. If you have a variable formula, I do not see how you 
will get away from this willingness to receive Federal money. 

Miss Hoey. That, I think, would be one condition you would have 
to put in the Federal law. We have no formula worked out, and 
it will have to be based on objective standards which will have to be 
developed. The basis for grants has been the per capita income of 
the State as compared with the per capita income of the country, 
or the Federal per capita income. That does not give the basis of 
distribution by the States to the counties and local subdivisions. 


Mr. Sparkman. The basis should be the willingness as well as the 
ability to pay. There should be the willingness to see that it is 

Miss HoET. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sparkman. There should be the exercise of willingness in line 
with ability. 

Miss HoEY. That is true. 

The Chairman. If there is nothing further, we thank you 
very much for your statements. You have made a very valuable 
contribution to our discussion. 


Mr. Parsons Please state your name, address, and the organization 
you represent. 

Mr. Jackson. My name is Glenn E. Jackson, and I am the director 
of public assistance of the New York State Department of Social 
Welfare. My address is Albany, N. Y. 

Mr. Parsons. You have been here during the hearings and heard 
the discussion this morning in reference to the settlement laws. We 
have had a number of witnesses from all over the country, especially 
at the various places where we have conducted hearings, discuss that 
question. I would like to have you take a few minutes to give us 
your idea of what you have found in connection with j^our work in 
the New York State Department of Social Welfare and from your 
study of the settlement laws. 

Mr. Jackson. I understood that the committee wished, perhaps, 
that I make a summary of today's evidence, so far as I would agree 
with it, and then point out the places that I might disagree with. 

Mr. Parsons. Yes. You may discuss the angles presented this 
morning and this afternoon, conimenting upon them and giving us 
the result of your own studies. 


Mr, Jackson. First, may I express the honest and sincere apprecia- 
tion by our State of the fact that this committee is doing this work, 
because it will make a gi'eat contribution to the study which we 
launched in our State late this summer. We were happy to learn of 
the hearings by this committee, because they will save us a great deal 
of original work, which could not have been accomplished nearly 
so well by us acting independently. I want to add to that our keen 
desire that somehow the work of this committee will be capitalized, 
and that it will not be permitted to pass even by so valuable a thing 
as a report. I think we would like to endorse the idea that there 
be established in the Federal Government a commission dealing 
with the problem that you are studying. We feel that there should 
be a central reservoir of information and counsel to which organiza- 
tions dealing with these problems may turn for advice and assistance, 

Mr. Parsons. Would you suggest that probably it should be under 
the Social Security program? 


Mr. Jackson. We do not suggest where it should be, but it should 
be available in some suitable place. It would naturally be under some 
department of the Government. 

The Chairman. We have been thinking about that. We thought 
that the recommendation of a department with radical power in this 
organization might cause us to run into some difficulty. However, 
if we should put it in the Department of Agriculture, the Department 
of Labor, or the Social Security Board, we should have a representa- 
tive from each of those departments to exchange information related 
to this subject. 

Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir. That is the reason I would not too quickly 
accept the suggestion as to the best place for it. It might be put in 
one of those departments, or it might be separate from each one. 
The administration of the program would fall naturally in one of the 
three departments you mention. 

Now, you have asked that I attempt a summary of today's evidence. 

summary of preceding testimony 

Any summary or review will appear to be unfair to much very 
valuable material that has been presented by the witnesses. More- 
over, the sunmiary generally reflects the bias of the reviewer. 
Granted these hazards, I shall attempt the summary you have 
requested me to make. 

The statements made today seem to sum up to three basic points. 
First, all of the statements agree that migration is a normal thing, 
and is connected with all phases of economic life. It is something 
that is engaged in generally by normal people. Further, this general 
condition of normal migration appears now to be further stimulated 
by the defense program. Therefore, this aggravated problem of 
normal, plus the stimulated migration, should be regarded as one 
requiring immediate and intelligent solution on a national plane. 

In the second place, while most of this migration results favorably, 
both to the migrant and to the economy of the community to which 
the migrant comes, some of it results in failure. Some failure is 
inevitable, even alongside a very large percentage of success. It is 
with the failure that I propose to deal here. I am reminded to say 
here that, of course, some of the bitter must go along with the better. 

We are very much interested in the attempt to find a practical 
solution of the problem. In New York State, we have one of those 
peculiar settlement laws, but we do have provision that unsettled 
people shall be charged to the State. Since 1937, under our relief 
act, any unsettled person has been a 100-percent charge against the 
State. Because of the working of our resettlement law, that has 
become an increasing expense to the State. We would join in general 
agreement with what seems to be the voice of these witnesses that 
the solution lies with the Federal Government. We thoroughly 
agree that no one State can cope with this problem. 



We would agree that the Social Security Act should be amended 
so as to provide grants-in-aid to States for general relief for needy 
residents and migrants, and that Federal funds for that purpose on 
a 50 percent matching basis should be made available. As the con- 
ditions under which these funds would be granted, the States should 
be required to submit a plan for projects, as in the case of the cate- 
gories now operative under the Social Security Act. The respon- 
sibility for the administration and supervision of the program should 
be in the same respective agencies as the other assistance programs. 
That is to say, all Federal grants-in-aid should be conditioned, in 
addition to other requirements, upon the States' agreement to extend 
services to all persons living in the State, without regard to length 
of residence. 

Mr. Parsons. Would you recommend the abolition of all settlement 
laws ? 

Mr. Jackson. In the form in which the question comes, it is some- 
what academic. It would be difficult to attempt to liquidate all the 
settlement laws. As a condition to the grant, I would provide that 
the State must set up a provision under which it would provide 
general relief for all persons, and that would of itself, in effect, 
liquidate those settlement laws. 

If they desired to be retained on the statute, it would have to be 
for other purposes. 


May I make one or two comments on points which seemed to be 
issues developed between the witnesses ? 

In respect to variable grants, our State would be inclined not to 
favor them. I am speaking probably out of our own experience in 
New York State. 

Before I came into my present position I was Assistant State 
Director of the Emergency Relief Administration, which had full 
power to make variable grants to counties and cities where we believed 
that they needed special consideration. 

Mr. Parsons. For transients? 

Mr. Jackson. No, for general relief. That was availed of in about 
six instances. 

I think it is fair to say that did not work out well. That is to 
say, we came to feel that there was no way to measure the locality's 
ability to finance relief. 

There is in the present State law a provision that the State depart- 
ment may make a variable grant if it finds a locality in special need. 
It has never availed itself of that provision, and I think I speak the 
opinion of the Department when I say it is very reluctant to avail 
itself of that provision. 

Furthermore, in respect to that, we have made some careful studies 
of the reasons for higher grants in one locality over another, and they 
came to feel that it is a combination of complicated factors in which 


it can be assumed that the dominant one is ability to pay. After 
all, we believe that there are other strong factors, such as the attitude 
toward relief, and the size of the case load, the vigorousness or lack 
of vigorousness of the W. P. A. program, and many other factors. 
We have considered about eight of them. 

The Chaikman. Ability to pay is a fluctuating proposition, is it not ? 

Mr. Jackson. Exactly so. 

While at one time we did join with those who thought they could 
apply that formula to a particular county, and asked the board to 
avail themselves of that rule, we have not found that formula. 

So we would feel that the present average grants referred to by the 
Congi-essman in respect to some States do not appear to us to reflect 
basic ability to pay, but do reflect some other important factors. 

We note, for instance, the comparison between the relatively high 
grants in some States for old-age assistance compared with general 
relief, and it must be assumed that the degree of reimbursement, the 
general appeal of the program, and so forth, are more effective than 
ability to support the total relief structure. 


One other comment with respect to what some of the witnesses this 
forenoon said as to whether, in our experience and opinion, the pros- 
perity of national defense will liquidate in large part our relief rolls, 
first of all, it seems rather obvious that it cannot liquidate all of the 
categories. In respect to general relief, which, in our State, is the 
largest complete program, we have just completed a census of our 
rolls and find that about 60 percent of our present rolls are unemploy- 
able and that that percentage is increasing. It is perfectly natural 
that that is so. 

Therefore, we would feel that it is highly important that there be 
a continued general relief program, that if we are to solve this question 
of migration it ought to be made a part of the general relief program, 
with the State and Federal agencies sharing the burden. 

That summarizes the notes I have made as to the points which are 
the issues before the committee. 

The Chairman. You have given us a very fine statement and we 
appreciate your coming here, and I know the statement you have 
given us will be valuable to us. 

I will say that we will have our record open until the 12th of Decem- 
ber, and if anything else occurs to you which you would like to have 
made a part of your statement, we will be glad to put it into the record, 
if you will send it to the committee. 

Mr. Parsons. If you have a paper you want to file we will be glad 
to have that. 

Mv. Sp \RKMAN. I listened with much interest to your discussion of 
the question of variable grants. 

I think that you will admit that probably there would be a difference 
as among the States from that prevailing as among the various units 
in the same State. 


In other words, where you might be able to determine the ability 
of some community within your State as compared to other com- 
munities in the same State, that problem might not be so complex 
when it comes to determining the ability of a State to pay. 

Mr. Jackson. I pose as no expert, but I do not happen to see the 
reason why it is easier to determine a State's ability to pay. 

I am one of those who has to appear before the State legislature 
when it comes time to provide funds for relief, and I know of no 
formula on which you could fall back to determine just how much a 
State could afford for the assistance of its citizens. Such a formula 
might be made available. 

Mr. Sparkman. You know there is the same question in connection 
with Federal legislation. In 1936, in connection with the 1936 
Hayden-Cartwright Act providing for Federal aid for road construc- 
tion, a formula was laid down, with a provision that after a State 
had done all that it could do and the Secretary of Agriculture had 
so determined, and a part of its funds had been unmatched, those 
funds could be allocated without matching. 

Mr. Jackson. If it was ever necessary to determine variable grants 
to certain States, if it is possible, it should be disconnected from the 
basic scheme relating to the Social Security Act and some other means 

This has been found to be possible on a State-wide basis, that is 
to say, where we have found a community where considered judg- 
ment showed they were practically bankrupt, there were other means 
of assisting needy people than that, but we have our reimbursement 
features. We have other programs, like farm security. We have 
a rural rehabilitation corporation within our State. We took steps 
in the State to see what could be done in terms of resettlement, and 
so forth, and those do become variable, without waiving the basic 

Mr. Sparkman. You are aware that the Social Security Board has, 
in several of its annual reports, recommended that the grants for 
the three categories already in existence be changed to a fixed basis? 

Mr. Jackson. That is right, but our State has never favored availing 
themselves of that rule. 

Mr. Sparkman. In our hearings it has been brought out that there 
are a number of States in the United States that have an excessive 
birth rate, running as high as 130 percent replacement, whereas a 
great many other States run as low as 80 percent. Naturally, there 
must be migration from the higher to the lower birth-rate areas. 

Mr. Jackson. That is right. 

Mr. Sparkman. I remember at our hearings in New York some 
gentleman, I believe the director of public assistance in one of the 
New England States, said : "If my State gets mules from your State 
we pay you for raising those mules, but if your children come to live 
in our State and are educated in your State, we pay you nothing 
for them." Do you not think that is an argument for variable grants 
to those areas that are serving, as one witness said to us, as the seed 
pods of the Nation ? 



Mr. Jackson. I think there are many arguments in favor of vari- 
able grants, and wlien they get through we would feel that just as 
the local people not on relief must live by the standards and under 
the general conditions of the community, so must other citizens who 
live there, and find the need for relief, and choose that as their 
residence, rely upon their State and the citizens of the State to 
supply that need as they can afford it, and it may be that we would 
get on a matching basis after that. But so far as a variable basis 
is concerned, any formula would be highly indirect, and is as yet 

Mr. Sparkman. If you follow your argument to its logical conclu- 
sion, i do not see any argument for the Federal Government to par- 
ticipate. You say it is impossible to determine that as between 
citizens in the same community. Then why should the Federal Govern- 
ment participate? 

Mr. Jackson. Because all levels of Government should participate 
to a degree. For instance, this participation in the migratory prob- 
lem is a national participation, since the localities could not supply 
all the funds. The reasons have been placed before you on many 
occasions in terms of taxing ability, but with the help of the States, 
and we think, in our opinion, except in cases of widespread disaster, 
that generally the matching basis, in the long run, works out better. 

The Chairman. We thank you very much for your statement, 
Mr. Jackson. 


The Chairman. The next witness is Mr. Swearengin, and Mr. 
Curtis will proceed with the questioning. 

Mr. Curtis. What is your name? 

Mr. Swearengin. Roland LeGrand Swearengin. 

Mr. Curtis. Where are you now living? 

Mr. Swearengin. At 728 Fifth Street NIV., Washington. 

Mr. Curtis. Where were you bom? 

Mr. Swearengin. In Bath County, Va., near Millboro. 

Mr. Curtis. Are you married? 

Mr. Swearengin. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curtis. Where was your wife born? 

Mr. Swearengin. In Bath County, Va. 

Mr. Curtis. Is this your first marriage? 

Mr. Swearengin. My second marriage. 

Mr. Curtis. Is your first wife living? 

Mr. Swearengin. No, sir ; she is dead. She died of pneumonia. 

Mr. Curtis. How many children have you? 

Mr, Swearengin. Two. 

Mr. Curtis. Both of them by your last marriage? 

Mr. Swearengin. No, one by the first marriage and one by the 



Mr. Curtis. What is their age ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. The boy by the first marriage is 7 years old past, 
and the girl by my second wife is 2 years old. 

Mr. Curtis. Have you and Mrs. Swearengin lived in Bath County 
most of your lives, in Millboro? 


Mr. Swearengin. I was born and raised about seven miles from 
Millboro and lived there until I was about 17, when I left that 
part of the country and went into Ohio and learned the plastering 
trade at Marion. Then I traveled about over the country until along 
in the latter part of 1929, when I came back to Bath County, where 
my folks were. 

Mr. Curtis. How much education have you had ? 

Mr. Swearengin. One year of high school. 

Mr. Curtis. How much education did your wife have? 

Mr. Swearengin. She finished the seventh grade. 

Mr. Curtis. You say you are a plasterer? 

Mr. Swearengin. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curtis. With how many years' experience? 

Mr. Swearengin. About 18 years. 

Mr. Curtis. Are you a member of a union in Washington? 

Mr. Swearengin. No, sir. 

Mr. Curtis. Can you get any work? 

Mr. Swearengin. Yes; I can get work; but now, at the present 
time, I am not able to work. 

Mr. Curtis. What is your disability? 

Mr. Swearengin. A strained wrist. 

Mr. Curtis. Wliat does that develop into? 

Mr. Swearengin. The doctors say that is developing into arthritis. 

Mr. Curtis. Where have you worked as a plasterer ? 

Mr. Swearengin. I have worked in 27 States, from the New Eng- 
land States to the southern States, and I have worked as far west as 

Mr. Curtis. In what year did you begin to work as a plasterer? 

Mr. Swearengin. In 1922. 

Mr. Curtis. During the years from 1922 to 1929, how long did you 
stay in a place, usually ? 

Mr. Swearengin. Well, I was in Marion, Ohio, I would say 
around — of course, I did not stay there continuously, but made that 
my headquarters until 1929. Of course, I was not there all the time. 
I was traveling on the road to get jobs, and when I finished a job 
I always went back to Marion, as I lived with an aunt there and made 
that my headquarters. 

Mr. Curtis. Did you work on dwelling construction, or larger 
construction ? 

Mr. Swearengin. I have worked on practically every type of build- 
ing, from a one-story dwelling house to a 50-story building. 

Mr. Curtis. Is plastering what you call seasonal work ? 

Mr. Swearengin. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. How limited is it ? 


Mr. SwEARENGiN. I sliould saj it is very limited. If a man gets 
as much as 8 months out of the year he has done exceedingly well. 
Most of them run from 4 to 5 or 6 months. 

Mr. Curtis. About what was your average ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. I would say from the time I started to serve my 
apprenticeship, or my apprentice course, until around 1930, I would 
say I got my 8 months per year, and from about 1930 until about 
1935, I imagine, averaging, taking one year with the other, I fell 
down to less than 3 months. 

Mr. Curtis. Would you say you would average as much as 6 months 
per year during that time ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. Ycs, I made out fairly good. 

Mr. Curtis. Wliat were your wages ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. I have gone as high as $16 a day, but as the 
wages run now they have run anywhere from $8 to $12. I have 
worked on jobs for as low as $5. 


Mr. Curtis. Do a great many plasterers find it necessary to travel 
around ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. Yes ; it is very customary for carpenters to be 
on the road. Of course, there are a few who are lucky enough to 
get into a job that is permanent and they do not have to stay on 
the road, but there are always plasterers on the road. 

You take one boss, and he does not have enough steady work to 
keep a full force going, and therefore he will take men in transit 
work until the busy season is over, and then they are laid off. 

Mr. Curtis. In some larger cities there might be enough to keep 
a few plasterers going all the time, without having to travel around ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. Yes. If you take some cities with a population 
of 100,000, you will find there are some men in those cities that have 
all-the-year-round jobs. 

Mr. Curtis. Your old home in Virginia is no such community as 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. No, sip. 

Mr. Curtis. How big a place is Millboro, approximately ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. It probably has a thousand inhabitants. 

Mr. Curtis. How about Marion, Ohio ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. I think Marion runs about 50,000 population. 

Mr. Curtis. Where is your residence now ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. Well, I do not guess I have any. I travel around 
over the country until I do not guess I have a permanent residence, 

Mr. Curtis. When did you leave Bath County, Va. ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. I left there the last time — t was there 2 years ago 
in August, a year this past August. I was back there 2 years before, 
a year this coming Christmas. 

Mr. Curtis. Do you still consider it your home ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. Well, no; I have not considered it my home, 
I would say, since I left there as a youngster. Of course, when I came 
back there in 1939 my father was living on a farm, but he died, and 


the farm was sold and my mother remarried. I have not quite con- 
sidered it my home since 1932. 

Mr. CuKTis. How many brothers and sister did you have? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. My father was married twice and in the 2 fam- 
ilies there are 20 of us living. 

Mr. Curtis. Is your mother living now ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. Yes. 

Mr. CuKTis. How old a lady is she? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. Mother is past 56. 

Mr. Curtis. Have you had any work as a plasterer in 1939 and 1940? 

Mr. Swearengin. Yes ; I have had more work in 1939 and 1940 than 
I have had from 1930 to 1939. 

Mr. Curtis. Where were you working ? 

Mr. Swearengin. In 1939 I worked at the Natural Bridge Station, 
in Mount Crawford, Va. ; in Staunton, Va. ; in Waynesboro, Va. ; in 
Richmond, and then in Washington. 

Mr. Curtis. When did you come to Washington ? 

Mr. Swearengin. I came here the first day of July. 

Mr. Curtis. What year? 

Mr. Swearengin. This year. 

Mr. Curtis. Why did you come to Washington ? 

Mr. Swearengin. I was working on a rooming house in Richmond, 
doing some repair work. I picked up a copy of the Richmond Times 
Dispatch and saw an advertisement for plasterers to report at Four- 
teenth and L Streets, with tools, for 6 months' work. 

Mr. Curtis. How did you come here? 

Mr. Swearengin. A friend of mine brought me in his car. 

Mr. Curtis. Did you bring your family? 

Mr. Swearengin. No ; I did not bring my family then. I worked 
here about 3 weeks. 

Mr. Curtis. You got work here, as advertised ? 

Mr. Swearengin. Yes; I got here in the evening on Monday, and 
went to work on Tuesday. 

Mr. Curtis. What did they pay you ? 

Mr. Swearengin. I got a dollar an hour. 

Mr. Curtis. You went to work about the second or third of July? 

Mr. Swearengin. I went to work on the second. 

Mr. Curtis. How long did you work at $8 a day ? 

Mr. Savearengin. I worked from July until the 19th of September, 
when I was laid off. 

Mr. Curtis. That particular job was concluded ? 

Mr. Swearengin. No, that was at Sixteenth and L, and I was trans- 
ferred to a job at Thirty-ninth and Davis Place, and from there to 
another job off of Tunlaw Road, and was transferred from that one 
to Hyattsville, Md., and from there back to Alexandria, Va. 

Mr. Curtis. All with the same contractor? 

Mr. Swearengin. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curtis. And the last job you say ended on September 19? 

Mr. Swearengin. Yes, sir ; I was laid off. 

Mr. Curtis. Did you have any unemployment compensation ? 


Mr. SwEARENGiN. Yes ; I guess I am entitled to unemployment 
compensation, but no\N' I am under a doctor's care and unable to 
draw it. 

Mr. Curtis. Why can you not draw it ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. You uiust be physically able to work and un- 
employed to draw unemployment compensation. You cannot draw 
it while under a doctor's care. 


Mr. Curtis. Have you any medical care from any Federal health 
institution ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN, Yes ; from George Washington Hospital. I was 
there for 3 weeks, and the Health Security backed me for my hospital 

Mr. Curtis. Has your wife had any help from the Public Health 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. Ycs ; she goes to the hospital now. 

Mr. Curtis. How did you manage to keep your household together 
without any work? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. The Travelers' Aid has been paying my rent and 
giving me a grocery order each week. 

Mr. Curtis. You say your wife is in the hospital now ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. No ; she attends the hospital. 

Mr. Curtis. She is being cared for by the hospital ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. Yes. 

Mr, Curtis. Is the hospital paying for that ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. No ; we have to go to the Health Security and 
get a pass through the Health Security for her attention at the 
hospital, and also for mine. 

Mr. Curtis. What do you mean by Health Security ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. That is located at 1823 L Street. 

Mr. Curtis. Your wife is an expectant mother? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. That is right. 

Mr. Curtis. She is receiving some medical aid that is furnished to 
nonresidents ? 

Mr, SwEARENGiN. Ycs ; it is more of a semimonthly check-up, than 
anything else. 

Mr. Curtis. You are considered a nonresident of the District of 
Columbia ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curtis. But you have no other place that you do consider as 
your residence? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN, I do uot gucss Iliave a legal residence, 

Mr, Curtis. Is this the first time you ever had to be concerned 
about a residence or settlement ? 

Mr, SwEARENGiN, Yes, sir, 

Mr, Curtis. Have you ever had any public assistance at any time 
before ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. Yes ; I worked with a relief job as a laborer for 
about 2 months. 



Mr. Curtis. Where was that ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. That was in Bath County, Va. That was about 
2 years ago. 

Mr. Curtis. When you went back there and visited them? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. That was between jobs. For a while I made that 
my headquarters and traveled back and forth. When I would get 
through with a job there might be a month, or sometimes 3 or 4 months, 
until I would land another job, and in the meantime I made my head- 
quarters in that part of the country, part of the time with some of my 
relatives, and part of the time with some of my wife's relatives. 

Mr. Curtis. Could you go back there at this time? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. As far as I know I could. 

Mr. Curtis, Would you be denied any assistance? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. I do uot kuow that I would. I suppose I could 
go back there and get on relief again as a laborer, but even so, at this 
particular time I would not be able to hold a job. 

Mr. Curtis. When you were there in 1938, on W. P. A., they did 
not raise any question about the fact that you had been gone for some 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. Ycs ; when I applied for the job I had to go down 
and spend 3 or 4 hours with the county supervisors before I got on 
the job. 

Mr. Curtis. Wliat did they ask you about, your residence ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. About some general questions, as to where I was 
raised, where I had spent my time, and so on. I do not suppose they 
went down deep enough to really find out whether I was a resident 
or a nonresident. I presume they took it for granted I was a resident. 

Mr. Curtis. You considered that your home? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. That is right. 

Mr. Curtis. You do not consider it your home now ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. If I was to consider any place other than where 
I am living now, I would have to consider that as my home. 

The Chairman. You thought your wrist was sprained originally ? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How did you find out it was arthritis? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. You see, I only sprained my wrist on the job. I 
reported to my foreman ; I told him I had sprained my wrist, and it 
seemed that was a very common thing ; and I worked, let us see, around 
7 days after I sprained it. I was laid off on Friday, and on Monday 
I went up to this clinic to have a doctor look at my arm. He looked it 
over, and after he examined my arm he said, "I believe you have some 
fever." So, he took my temperature and I did have some fever. He 
said, "I think you have arthritis. Go back home." 

So, he gave me a slip to go back home, and he said, "If your arm is 
no better by Wednesday go to the Health Security and get a pass 
and come back to the hospital." 

So, on Wednesday I did not go back ; I did go over on Thursday ; 
I went to the Health Security and got a pass and went down and 
entered the hospital. Ajid, they checked me over from every stand- 



Mr. Curtis. Were any pictures or X-rays taken? 

Mr. SwEAKENGiN. Yes ; they took two X-rays of my wrists, and both 
showed there was no fracture. And they also X-rayed my sinus; 
X-rayed my chest, and also my teeth. In fact, they took 13 X-rays 
and said I had a local infection somewhere that was causing the 
arthritis but were unable to find it. So, they took my tonsils out and 
made a serum, and that is why I am going down to the hospital every 
5 days ; I get a shot of that antitoxin. 

Yesterday I went to the hospital and consulted a specialist, and 
I do not believe that he is in favor of thinking that I have arthritis ; 
I do not believe he said so in so many words, but the others have 
all told me there was no reason for putting in for workman's com- 
pensation, that they did not think that I was due workman's com- 
pensation ; but, he told me yesterday to put in for my compensation, 
and to get the claim in and so I have taken steps to try to get my 

Mr. CtiRTis. By workman's compensation you mean unemployed 
compensation ? 


Mr. Curtis. Unemployment compensation? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. No ; I mean workman's compensation. 

Mr. Sparkman. For injury? 

Mr. Curtis. You previously testified that you could not get 
unemployment compensation. 

Mr. Sparkman. This is workman's compensation he is referring to. 
There is a difference. 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. You iCanuot get unemployment compensation 
while you are unable to work. 

Mr. Curtis. But one of them did advise you that you should put 
in for compensation? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. Yes. In order to get unemployment compensa- 
tion, you simply go down — you do not have to file for it — you simply 
go down for employment, if you are able to work, and if they find 
you a job and you go to work, and if they do not find a job you get your 
unemployment compensation. But if you are unable to work you 
cannot draw unemployment compensation. 

Mr. Curtis. The question of workman's compensation was whether 
or not this injury was caused or aggravated by your employment? 

Mr. SwExVRENGiN. That is right; if my wrist is the sole cause of 
my trouble then I can draw workman's compensation, but if it is not, 
if it is arthritis, due to a local infection, then I would not draw 
workman's compensation. 

Mr. Curtis. This last doctor thought perhaps you would be entitled 
to workman's compensation? 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. That is right. 

Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SwEARENGiN. Thank you. 

260370—41 — pt. 9- 



Mr. Spakkman. Will you give your full name and address to the 
reporter ? 

Mr. French. William Howard French. 

Mr. Sparkman. Where do you live? 

Mr. French. 1524 Twenty-sixth Street NW., Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Sparkman. Where were you born ? 

Mr. French. I was born near Wilmington, North Carolina. 

Mr. Sparkman. With whom did you live as a child? 

Mr. French. I lived with my family — ^by that I mean my foster 

Mr. Sparkman. How much schooling do you have ? 

Mr. French. But very little. 

Mr. Sparkman. Can you read ? 

Mr. French. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. How did you learn to read ? 

Mr. French. Learned myself. Some of it I learned in Sunday 
school when I was a child. 

Mr. Sparkman. What was your first employment? 

Mr. French. Farming. 

Mr. Sparkman. What work have you followed most of your life? 

Mr. French. Well, the most of my life I followed coal mining. 

Mr. Sparkman. Where? 

Mr. French. West Virginia, Kentucky, Pemisylvania, and Ohio, 

Mr. Sparkman. How much did you make on the job as a miner, on 
the average? 

Mr. French. Sometimes very little ; maybe $40 ; sometimes $30, some- 
times $20, and sometimes less than that. 

Mr. Sparkman. How long did you work in the coal mines? 

Mr. French. Nineteen years. 

Mr. Sparkman. Were you able to save any money? 

Mr, French. No. 

Mr. Sparkman. How were you paid for the coal mining work ? By 
the day, by the week, or how ? 

Mr. French. We were paid by the car until we had a union. 

Mr. Sparkman. Until you had what ? 

Mr. French. A union — miners' union — in 1931. 

Mr. Sparkman. Then how were you paid ? 

Mr. French. We were paid by the ton. 

Mr. Sp.arkman. By the ton? 

Mr. French. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. How much per ton ? 

COAL miners' wages INCREASED 

Mr. French. Well, it began at 22 cents a ton, after we left the car 
system. And, in 1933 we got a union and got 56 cents a ton ; and in 
1936 we got a raise, in the union, to 76 cents a ton for machine coal, 
and $1.01 for pick coal. 

Mr. Sparkman. It looks as though under that scale of Avages you 
would have been able to make more than you did. 


Mr. French. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Sparkman. Why were you not able to make any more than you 
did when you were getting paid that much ? 

Mr. French. The reason I did not make anymore was because the 
operators would not allow you to; the mine only worked part time. 

Mr. Sparkman. In other words, you did not have sufficient work to 
earn more ^ 

Mr. French. No. 

Mr. Sparkman. You were on part-time operation ? 

Mr. French. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. With whom did you live in West Virginia ? 

Mr. French. Well, when I was in West Virginia, a part of the time, 
until I left, with my foster parents. 

Mr. Sparkman. What were their names? 

Mr. French. Alsop. 

Mr. Sparkman. How old are you ? 

Mr. French. Fifty-one. 

Mr. Sparkman. Do you have a family of your own ? 

Mr. French. No. 

Mr. Sparkman. You are not married ? 

Mr. French. No. 

Mr. Sparkman. Are your foster parents still living ? 

Mr. French. My foster mother is; my foster father died Decem- 
ber 2, 1939. 

Mr. Sparkman. Where does you foster mother live? 

Mr. French. She lives at my address. 

Mr. Sparkman. Here in Washington ? 

Mr. French. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. You live here with her ? 

Mr. French. I live with her. 

Mr. Sparkman. What was your foster father's employment? 

Mr. French. He was a plasterer by trade. 

Mr. Sparkman. Have you ever worked with him ? 

Mr. French. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. Do you know the trade of plasterer? 

Mr. French. No, I do not; I did not learn it. 

Mr. Sparkman. What kind of work did you do with him? 

Mr. French. I made mortar and waited on him. I learned to put 
the day, by the week, or how ? 

Mr. Sparkman. Did you ever farm any ^ 

Mr. French. I 
17 years of age. 

Mr. Sparkman. Did you farm any later on ? 

Mr. French. No. 

Mr. Sparkman. You have not farmed any since that time? 

Mr. French. No. 

Mr. Sparkman. When did you come to Washington ? 

Mr. French. I came to Washington in November 1938. 

Mr. Sparkman. How did you happen to come here ? 

Mr. French. I came here with my foster parents. 

Mr. Sparkman. Have you done any work since you have been here ? 



Mr. French. Well, yes; some. 

Mr. Sparkman. What were some of the jobs? Let me put it this 
way : Have you been steadily employed ? 

Mr. French. No ; it has not been steady. 

Mr. Sparkman. It consisted of what jobs? 

Mr. French. Wliat kind of jobs? 

Mr. Sparkman. Yes; what were their nature? 

Mr. French. Well, waiting on my foster father as a plasterer, help- 
ing in carpenter work; and I also worked at the recreation center in 

Mr. Sparkman. That was the last job you had? 

Mr. French. That was the last job ; yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. Working at the recreation center ? 

Mr. French. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. What did you do there? 

Mr. French. Setting up pins in the bowling alley. 

Mr. Sparkman. Why did you quit that ? 

Mr. French. Got my foot broke. 

Mr. Sparkman. Wlien was that ? 

Mr. French. January 8, 1939— no, 1940. 

Mr. Sparkman. Did you go to the hospital ? 

Mr. French. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. Did you draw compensation? 

Mr. French. I did not go to the hospital for that. 

Mr. Sparkman. You did not ? 

Mr. French. No; but I did go to the hospital. 

Mr. Sparkman. And how long were you out of work with a broken 

Mr. French. I was out until April. 

Mr. Sparkman. Did you draw compensation ? 

Mr. French. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. For the injury? 

Mr. French. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. How long did you draw compensation ? 

Mr. French. I drew compensation from February until April. 

Mr. Sparkman. How much did you draw ? 

Mr. French. I think it averaged about $6.30 per week. 

Mr. Sparkman. Did you go back to the bowling alley ? 

Mr. French. No ; it was shut down ; it does not run in the summer. 

Mr. Sparkman. How about this fall, after it opened up ? 

Mr. French. Sir ? 

Mr. Sparkman. Did it open up this fall ? 

Mr. French. Yes ; it opened up in the fall. 

Mr. Sparkman. Have you tried to get employment there? 

Mr. French. I was not able. 

Mr. Sparkman. Why? 

Mr. French. I was not able when it opened up. 

Mr. Sparkman. Why were you not able? 

Mr. French. Because I had just been released from the hospital. 

Mr. Sparkman. What have you been in the hospital this time for? 

Mr. French. I was in the hospital from June 6 to August 15. 


Mr. Sparkman. What was the trouble? 
Mr. French. Throat ; I had a goiter removed. 
Mr. Sparkman. You had a goiter removed ? 
Mr. French. Yes. 


Mr. Sparkman. Have you ever received or asked for relief? 

Mr. French. Yes ; I asked for it. 

Mr. Sparkman. Were you able to get it ? 

Mr. French. No. 

Mr. Sparkman. Why? 

Mr. French. Because they said I could not prove that I had sup- 
ported myself for 1 year in the District of Columbia, and I was not 
a District resident. 

Mr. Sparkman. No. What State was your last residence before 
you came to the District of Columbia? 

Mr. French. It was Ohio. 

Mr. Sparkman. How long have you been gone from Ohio ? 

Mr. French. I left Ohio in May 1938. 

Mr. Sparkman. Have you ever checked to find out whether or not 
you were still a resident of Ohio ? 

Mr. French. Some lady did. 

Mr. Sparkman. Someone connected with the relief? 

Mr. French. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. And what did she find out ? 

Mr. French. She found out I had been away for 1 year. 

Mr. Sparkman. You were absent from Ohio for 1 year? 

Mr. French. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. Which kept you from being a resident of Ohio ? 

Mr. French. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. Although you have been in the District of Columbia 
over 2 years ? 

Mr. French. Have been in the District for the past 2 years. 

Mr. Sparkivian. Have you been here for 2 years and still you are 
not a resident in the District of Columbia ? 

Mr. French. No. 

Mr. Sparkman. Where are you a resident ? 

Mr. French. No place, I guess. 

Mr. Sparkman. That is all. 

Mr. Curtis. When did you first ask for relief here in the District 
of Columbia ? 

Mr. French. I first asked for relief when I was in the hospital. 

Mr. Curtis. This year ? 

Mr. French. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. You had then lived in the District of Columbia about 
18 months; is that correct? 

Mr. French. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. Who supported you during that year and a half ? 

Mr. French. Wlio supported me ? 


Mr. Curtis. Yes ; during the year and a half you have been living 

Mr. French. Well, my foster father and my foster mother— we put 
what we made together and lived together. ,..-,• ^. ^ 

Mr. Curtis. Did your foster parents draw any relief durnig that 
year and a half ? 

Mr. French. No. 

Mr. Curtis. It looks to me like he has been here a year. 

Mr. Sparkman. Why is it that you could not prove that you had been 
within the District of Columbia for 1 year ? 

Mr. French. I did not understand you. 

Mr Sparkman. Wliy is it you could not prove you had lived m the 
District of Columbia for at least a year and have been supporting your- 
self during that time? Otherwise you would be eligible for relief, 
would you not ? ^ ■, -, ,> 

Mr. French. Well, the lady at the relief office told me my foster 
mother had worked for a year for $5 a week and that she had supported 
the family. 

Mr. Sparkman. Instead of yourself ? 

Mr. Fpjench. Instead of me. 

Mr. Sparkman. Is your foster mother working now ? 

Mr. French. She works a day and a half a week. 

Mr. Sparkman. What does she get ? 

Mr. French. Two dollars a day, and carfare. 

Mr. Sparkman. That is $3 a week? 

Mr. French. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. She gets carfare, how about her meals? 

Mr. French. She gets her meals. 

Mr. Sparkman. Is that the only steady income? 

Mr. French. That is all. 

Mr. Sparkman. How do you live on that ; you cannot live on that. 

Mr. French. No. Well, occasionally I get an odd job myself. I get 
50 cents or maybe a quarter or 30 cents, something like that. Some- 
times it may be" more. Last week I made $5. 

Mr. Sparkman. $5 last week ? 

Mr. French. Yes. I washed dishes for a lady and did some house- 
work for her. 

Mr. Sparkman. That is all. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. French. 

The committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow 

(At 4: 15 p. m. an adjournment was taken- until 10 a. m. of the fol- 
lowing day, Friday, Dec. 6, 1940.) 



House of Representatives, 

Select Committee to iNvrcsTiGATE the 

Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizens, 

Washingto7i, D. C. 
The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon John J. Sparkman presiding. 
Present: Representatives John J. Sparkman, Claude V. Parsons, 
and Carl T. Curtis. 

(Chairman Tolan was absent because of illness; Mr. Osmers was 
out of the city on account of business.) 

Also present : Robert K. Lamb, chief investigator ; Henry H. Col- 
lins, Jr., coordinator of hearings; Creekmore Fath, and John W. 
Abbott, field investigators ; Ariel E. V. Dunn and Alice M. Tuohy, as- 
sistant field investigators; Irene M. Hageman, hearings secretary; 
Richard S. Blaisdell, editor; Harold C. Cullen, associate editor. 

Mr. Sparkman. The committee will be in order. The first wit- 
nesses this morning will be Mr. Clague, Dr. Coffee, and Mr. Alves. 


Mr. Sparkman. Will each of you gentlemen give the reporter your 
name, and state the official capacity in which you appear? 

Mr. Clague. My name is Ewan Clague, Director of the Bureau of 
Employment Security. 

Dr. Coffee. I am Dr. E. R. Coffee, of the Public Health Service. 

Mr. Alves. My name is Henry S. Alves, from the United States 
Office of Education. 

Mr. Sparkman. Gentlemen, we have the prepared statements that 
ou have submitted to us, and they will become a part of the record, 
"e would like for you gentlemen, to proceed in whatever way you 
see fit. It may be that each one of you will be glad to give the high 
points of your particular paper, and then have us ask some questions. 
Of course, while that is being done individually, we want each of 
you to feel free to interrupt at any time and make any comment 
or ask any question you wish. 

Mr. Clague, your statement will be entered in the record at this 
point, and then you may discuss the subject matter. 

(The statement is as follows :) 






The Program of the Bureau of Employment Security As It Relates to 


The labor available today for employment in any single manufacturing or 
agricultural area can be defined no longer by geographic boundaries. Cotton 
pickers arrive in the fields of Arizona from the adjoining State of California 
or from as far east as Mississippi and Tennessee. Beet workers move north 
through the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain States harvesting the suger-beet 
crop. Up and down the eastern and western seaboard agricultural workers 
follow the fruit and vegetable crops, many of them crossing State lines several 
times during a season. These agricultural areas constitute a labor market in 
which supply and demand factors operate without regard to civil or administra- 
tive boundaries. . ^^ , , ^ 

The mobility which characterizes the supply of seasonal agricultural labor is 
also common to other occupations and in other industries. For a long time 
students of labor mobility have realized that railroad, construction, and oil 
field workers follow the source of their employment and in many cases maintain 
only temporary residence in a community. Recently the increase in production 
of materials essential to national defense has drawn the skilled labor supply 
of our country into areas of industrial activity. All of these migrants— those 
who regularly follow some seasonal or shifting employment, those who move 
from depressed areas to areas of labor demand, and those unemployed who 
travel haphazardly from one place to another always in the hope of finding 
some permanent means of subsistence— present special problems which are the 
concern of Government agencies interested in the economic security of labor. 

stabilization of workers' income 

The Bureau of Employment Security attempts to stabilize the income of these 
workers in two ways: First, by providing a national system of employment 
exchanges organized to bring workers in contact with the jobs for which they 
qualify; and second, by providing compensation for temporary loss of income 
during periods of unemployment. Today the United States Employment Service 
offers a uniform procedure through which workers may receive information 
regarding job openings in every section of the country. It is no longer neces- 
sary to migrate from an isolated community to some large industrial center in 
the search for employment. Approximately 1,500 public employment offices In 
51 States and TeiTitories of the United States are operating to serve the needs of 
labor and employers. In addition over 3,000 locations in sparsely populated 
areas are visited periodically by itinerant interviewers. These offices make 
possible the widespread circulation of employer orders and the dissemination of 
information regarding job opportunities. A national system for the interstate 
control of employer orders and the referral of labor has recently been organized 
on a regional basis so that, when the supply of labor in a particular occupation 
is exhausted in one region, orders may be cleared systematically in other regions. 
This has greatly facilitated the referral of workers to defense industries in 
spite of certain stringencies in the labor market. 


Through the use of State employment services, and a national system for the 
distribution of reliable job information and the clearance of labor between 
States, much of the unnecessary migration of unemployed job seekers can be 
eliminated. As workers and employers learn to use the facilities of the United 
States Employment Service the number of persons who leave their home com- 
munities in search of employment only to become destitute migrants will 

Employment Service facilities can also be used effectively to direct the move- 
ment of workers who migrate in response to seasonal demands for labor. This 
is especially true in agriculture where the objective of the service is to meet the 
needs of both growers and workers and at the same time to avoid vmnecessary 
and fruitless migration. Functioning in the agricultural labor market, and in 


cooperation with ottier agencies, the Employment Service can be a means of 
stabilizing farm-labor resources, providing a more adequate income to a limited 
number of qualified workers, eliminating the irresponsible recruiting practices 
of labor contractors, and providing growers with workers who are experienced 
in a particular tyi)e of crop activity. 


The present unemployment compensation program offers a certain amount of 
economic security to migratory workers. State unemployment compensation 
systems provide that every unemployed worker who meets the qualifying I'e- 
quirements for benefits in the State in which he has been employed is entitled 
to receive those benefits even though he may have moved to another State. This 
system of interstate claims permits workers to return to their home communi- 
ties, or to move on to another State in search of work, during periods of unem- 
ployment without foregoing their benefit rights. Thus, through the receipt of 
unemployment compensation many covered workers who migrate across State 
lines, as well as those who remain in the community, obtain some protection 
against loss of income. 

A recent study has been made in Tennessee using data concerning interstate 
claims filed in that State against benefit rights earned in Michigan. An analysis 
of this material indicates that a pattern of migration exists between rural areas 
in Tennessee and industrial centers in Michigan. The Tennessee workers who 
migrate in response to seasonal demand in Michigan's industries, return to their 
homes during seasons of slack industrial employment. Many of these workers 
are prevented from becoming stranded in Michigan by their ability to qualify for 
unemployment compensation. 

However, present State unemployment-compensation programs do not meet the 
needs of all groups of migrants. Every State unemployment-compensation law 
with the exception of that for the District of Columbia specifically exempts agri- 
cultural labor. Other States, through their eligibility requirements and their 
limitations on benefits paid to seasonal workers, in effect exclude many seasonal 
migratory workers. Still a third group of migrants is excluded because they 
have not been employed long enough in any one State to qualify for benefits under 
any State unemployment-compensation law, although their total wage credits, if 
earned in a single State, would have been suflBcient to qualify for benefits. If the 
present increase in production of defense materials tends to stimulate labor 
mobility, this group of workers, who cannot qualify for benefits because they have 
moved to employment in another State, may increase significantly. 


There is a pressing need to provide a continuing income to migratory workers 
who by reason of short periods of employment coupled with low incomes are 
frequently without resources. The employment service may help to eliminate 
long periods of unemployment and to prevent the misdirected and uneconomical 
migration of workers. 

Effective coverage of migratory workers under unemployment compensation 
depends in large part on the extension of coverage to agricultural workers gen- 
erally, and on the liberalization of seasonal exclusions, since so many migrants are 
attached to agriculture or some other seasonal industry. These extensions involve 
problems of administration and cost. Whether the costs should be borne pri- 
marily by the seasonal industries (including agriculture), whose labor needs 
require a mobUe reserve of migratory workers, is a question in need of further 
serious study. Furthermore, the administration of a system of unemployment 
compensation for agricultural workei-s is itself complicated by the fact that so 
many agricultural workers are migrants. Since a worker would be required to 
register for work and claim benefits reasonably near his place of employment 
or his residence, a considerable extension of the services now available through 
the public employment offices would be necessary. 

The problem of obtaining benefits for workers who, although nominally cov- 
ered, have not remained in any one State long enough to qualify is directly 
related to the marked differences in State unemployment-compensation laws. The 
possibility of establishing standard eligibility requirements for every State is 


very small. Under the Tax Act no provision is made for a Federal fmid or the 
establishment of certain Federal eligibility requirements which vpould enable the 
Federal agency to administer a system of benefit payments to interstate migrants. 


Mr. Sparkman. Mr. Clague, you may proceed as you see fit. 

Mr. Clague. I think the relationship of our Bureau of Employment 
Security to this whole problem has two main aspects. In this Bureau 
we combine the work of the United States Employment Service 
and the work of the Federal and State systems of unemployment 

With respect to our Employment Service activities, we play a part 
in the migrant problem, particularly in two ways : one, in facilitating 
the movement of workers to places where they are needed for work, 
and the other is in restraining or in modifying useless or needless 
migration of workers where the workers, perhaps, should not be moved 
from one part of the country to another. In our unemployment com- 
pensation activities, we have a system of State unemployment-compen- 
sation benefits by means of which workers are paid unemployment 
compensation for a period of time following a period of work, and since 
much of this migration is fi^om one State to another, we have devised 
a system of interstate benefit payments by which a worker who is 
qualified in one State may receive his benefits while in another State 
looking for work. This system is now adliered to by all the States 
of the Union except the District of Coliunbia, which is prevented from 
doing it by its statutes. We have over the period of the last 2 years 
perfexjted, or at least developed, the system or the interstate arrange- 
ment by which workers are paid in one State who have come from 
another State. In that way we do insure to some extent that the 
worker who does move around looking for work is not deprived of 
unemployment compensation. 

On the other hand, I must point out that w^orkers who work in 
different States and are unable to earn enough wages in one State to 
qualify in any one State in consequence of their rapid movement, may 
be deprived of any benefits or rights whatsoever. Also, even where 
they do qualify, the amounts of their benefit rights are comparatively 
small. We have some studies which have a bearing on that and 
show something of the extent to which these interstate migrants do 
fall short of getting the unemployment compensation that they might 
be entitled to on the basis of their work if it were all concentrated in 
the same State. 


With respect to the employment service question, I might mention 
again that we have had in the past a very great problem, particularly 
with respect to the interstate migration of farm labor. At the present 
time, due to the tremendous expansion of the defense industries, we 
have an industrial flow of migration which in certain respects takes 
on some of the characteristics of the farm-labor migration, with this 
difference: that probably a larger percentage of the migrants are 
directed toward jobs which may likely materialize, whereas in the 


former case of farm-labor migration, the opportunity may not mate- 
rialize. However, in a great many of the States where they have new 
cantonments going up and new defense industries being established, 
they have started to get a more extensive uncontrolled migration 
than we had in the case of the agricultural migration. The Employ- 
ment Service is endeavoring to establish machinery by which to con- 
trol that migration, moving workers to places where they are needed, 
and keeping out the workers who are not needed, but who would 
simply cause a social, health, and welfare problem when they moved in. 


We have established an interstate Nation-wide clearance machinery. 
The machinery, it is true, already existed, but it has been gradually 
developed and extended, because so many workers are moving across 
State lines, and because so many jobs are being offered that we cannot 
fill locally. In this machinery, we have a series of clearance offices 
by which we clear people for jobs offered in an area where they 
cannot be filled locally. If we cannot fill them in that way, we pass 
them into the Nation-wide network. A great many jobs at the 
present time are filled without going through the clearance mecha- 
nism in order to be filled, particularly in the skilled occupations. 

Perhaps, I should say a word about the farm or agricultural 
labor. We have always been deeply conscious of this widespread 
agricultural migration, and have from time to time endeavored to 
wor"k out some satisfactory method of controlling the migration from 
the Employment Service point of view. I believe we now have a 
mechanism by which that can be done, and we are expecting to 
develop that during the next 6, 8, or 9 months, preparatory for the 
work next summer. 

I think that, perhaps, presents the subject from our point of view. 
I will be glad, of course, to answer any questions. 


Mr. Sparkman, You say you have machinery for handling the 
farm migrant situation now. Is that a Farm Placement Service ? 

Mr. Claghe. It is a modification of the Farm Placement Service 
we have had for some time. For some time we have discussed this 
along with certain problems in connection with the Farm Placement 
Service and which were not wholly solved. We have never been 
quite satisfied with the mechanism that we have, and we are now 
modifying that in certain respects, and greatly improving it, so that 
we hope we will have an efficient Farm Placement Service. 

Mr. Sparkman. Wliat is the relationship between the Farm Place- 
ment Service and the Veterans' Placement Service? 
^ Mr. Ci^'^GUE. Theoretically, there is not necessarily any connec- 
tion. We have in a few instances used the Veterans' Placement Service 
representative as a farm placement service representative. Perhaps I 
should explain that we have a Veterans' Placement Service, a Federal 
service attached to the Federal bureau, by which we have one person 
in the State with our Veterans' Placement Service in the State, or a 


representative of the Federal bureau, who looks after the interests of 
veterans in the placement service of the States. We have a much 
smaller number of farm placement representatives. They are hmited 
in number, and where the farm problem is less serious, particularly the 
interstate migratory farm-labor problem, on a few occasions we have 
in the past merged those two services with the Veterans' placement 
representative in the State also handling farm placement work m the 
State I should explain that we do not do any direct farm-place- 
ment work as such. This man who is in the State is simply there to 
help the State or aid it in operating its farm placement service. This 
arrangement or combination with the Veterans' Placement Service 
has not worked especially well, and it will be discontinued at any 
place where it is in effect. 

migrants' unemployment benefits meager 

Mr. Sparkman. You discussed a few minutes ago the failure of 
a great many migrants to get certain benefits, particularly unem- 
ployment compensation benefits that they might have gotten had they 
not been moving from State to State. I do not suppose you have the 
information with you, but I wonder if you have it in your office, 
showing to what extent that has been true. 

Mr. Clague. Yes, sir; I do happen to have a study here on that 
very point, from which I might cite something. I do not know 
whether this study has previously come to your attention, or not, 
in the course of your hearings. This study was made by Dr. Stanch- 
field, chief, research, statistics and planning section, Michigan Un- 
employment Commission. He made a survey of the situation in the 
State of Michigan respecting workers in that State who went back 
home and drew benefits from the State of Michigan, drawing them 
in the States where they were living. A companion study was made 
in the State of Tennessee. I might read you a few statistics from 
Mr. Stanchfield's report. He makes this statement : 

In 1939 about 20,000 indiyiduals filed interstate claims against Michigan, 
and more than 12,000 individuals actually received benefits based on such 
claims. Altogether, in the 2 years ending June 1940, at least 30,000 individuals 
probably have filed claims in other States against the Michigan Unemployment 
Compensation fund. 

Here is an interesting statement from Dr. Stanchfield's report : 

Less than 20 percent of the interstate claims come from States adjacent to 
Michigan, while 80 percent come from nonadjacent States. A relatively large 
part of the total comes from the Appalachian States (Kentucky, Tennessee, 
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia). Other important States to which migra- 
tion occurs are New York, California, and Missouri. 

In other words, these workers who come in to work in Detroit, 
moving from Indiana and Illinois, represents only 20 percent of the 
niunber, while 80 percent come from States farther away. He says a 
relatively large part of tlie total number comes from the Appalachian 
States of Virginia, Kentuclcy, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and West 

This report further states : 


A very large proportion of the interstate claimants have had insufficient em- 
ployment to qualify for any benefits. In 1939, 42 percent of the interstate claim- 
ants were found ineligible, vphile only 12.5 percent of all Michigan claims were 
disallowed. This indicates that many of the migrants have had relatively 
little work in Michigan, or that they have worked in employment which is not 
protected by unemployment insurance. 


In other words, out of the 20,000 workers who lived outside of the 
State and who got work in Michigan and then went back home, 8,000 
lost their benefit rights, or the benefit rights they might have had. 
That was due to the fact that they did not work long enough in Michi- 
gan to become qualified under the Michigan law. However, if they had 
been able to add to their earnings in Michigan earnings they received 
in Tennessee, Kentucky, or Ohio, they might have had enough in all 
the States combined to have received some rights. 

There is one other point of interest here in this report. There is 
no indication in this Michigan report that these workers were per- 
forming low-grade work. It appears from the report that average 
earnings were $13.46 as compared with $13.Y8 for the whole State. 
Therefore it would appear that these out-of-State workers were not 
engaged in an unskilled type of work, but that they were engaged in 
work performed by the ordinary normal laboring people in the State 
of Michigan. It would appear that they were of the average class 
employed in the industry in which they were engaged. 

Mr. Sparkman. Are these unemployment-compensation payments 
made out of State funds ? 

Mr. Clague. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sparkman. In which the Federal Government does not par- 
ticipate ? 

Mr. Clague. The Federal Government participates to the extent 
that the administrative expenses are partly paid by the Federal 

Mr. Sparkman. But not the benefit payments? 

Mr. Clague. No, sir; not the benefit payments. 

The State funds are deposited in the Treasury of the United States 
as State unemployment-compensation reserve funds, but they can be 
withdrawn by the State for the payment of benefits. They do not 
belong to the Federal Treasury. 

Mr. Sparkman. If these people who move from one State to another 
could add their various periods of service and have them credited, 
they would be entitled to benefits? 

Mr. Clague. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sparbjvian. Do you have afty plan by which that might be 
worked out? 

Mr. Clague. We have been working on that in our bureau for some 
time. We always did recognize that that provision should be in any 
State plan. The diflSculty is that it must be split up among the States. 
The first step we took, which we thought was important, was to make 
some arrangement by which the States would honor each other's bene- 
fit rights. All the States were willing to accept that except one, and 


all the States in the Union, except one, are now in that program. On 
the other hand, there was the question of difference in those rights, 
and there is the question of adding up the rights in the States. Where 
the workers moved from one State to another, while the amounts might 
be rather small, when added together they would make enough to qual- 
ify the worker to receive benefits. That makes a pretty difficult ques- 
tion for the States. There would be the problem in each State as tti 
the qualification or eligibility regulations, and so forth, which each one 
would be allowed to establish. The States differ in certain respects, 
and sometimes it is more difficult to qualify in one State than in 
another. We are continually working on that problem. 


Mr. Sparkman. What is the relationship between the Farm Place- 
ment Service and the State employment service ? 

Mr. Clague. The Farm Placement Service, or the United States 
Employment Service, under the Employment Security Bureau, is 
really a type of assistance service that we supply to the States. There 
are officials on our pay roll who are sent as representatives into the 
States, and who reside in the States, working with the State head- 
quarters. They are in the State employment service, and are there to 
help the States handle the problem of farm placement, and, particu- 
larly, to help the States to handle the placements across State lines. 
Our people can move freely across State lines. There are also persons 
who attempt to aid just in one State in the problem of farm placement. 
Therefore, they direct their attention toward facilitating the move- 
ment of workers or, possibly, limiting the movement of workers across 
State lines where agricultural labor may or may not be placed. They 
do not do any placement at all. Our Farm Placement Service is just 
a facilitating service. It has no direct employment-service function. 
It does not in any way directly modify the State employment service 
practice, but serves in every way possible to assist the States in 
handling the problems. 

Mr. Sparkman. The States have set up State employment services ? 

Mr. Clague. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sparkman. What part of that service is financed by the Federal 
Government ? 

Mr. Clague. A very large proportion of it. Through our Social 
Security Board we make grants to the States for unemployment com- 
pensation and for the employment services. They are 100-percent 
grants — entirely Federal — for paying the salaries of State officials 
engaged in that work. 

states match federal funds 

Mr. Sparkman. Is that true of both the unemployment compensation 
and the State employment services ? 

Mr. Clague. With this modification, that there still remains the 
Wagner-Peyser fund, which is $3,000,000 a year of Federal money 
available for matching by State funds on the 50-50 basis. One of the 
Social Security Board's requirements is that any State which gets a 


100-percent grant must first pay a proportionate amount to tliat $3,- 
000,000 ; so tliat what finally liappens is tliat the State puts up its frac- 
tion of the $3,000,000. They match that with the $3,000,000 of Wag- 
ner-Peyser money. That goes into the fund, and whether it is for the 
Employment Service or for unemployment compensation, it is paid out 
of that Federal fund. To that extent, there is a small State fund 
represented in the total amount. It runs at the present time to about 
5 percent of the total administrative cost of the entire system. 

Mr. Sparkman. That is for administrative cost? 

Mr. Clague. Yes, sir. Prior to the Reorganization Act of July 1939 
the Service was separated. The United States Employment Service 
was in the Department of Labor, and the unemployment compensation 
work was centered in tlie Social Security Board. I should explain, 
however, that prior to that time the States and both Federal agencies, 
the Social Security Board and the Department of Labor, agreed that 
they should achieve an integration of the service in the different States. 
The Social Security Board for its part carried out the clause of the 
Social Security Act very strictly with respect to the payment of bene- 
fits. I cannot quote the clause exactly, but in substance it says that 
the Social Security Board shall administer the payment of the benefit 
payments through the Employment Service or such other agency as 
the Board may select. 

In every single State the Board has selected employment offices, so, 
in reference to our unemployment-insurance program, the idea was to 
set up in every 1 of the 51 jurisdictions an employment service. I 
think there were some two dozen States that had a State service before 
our system was set up. 

The rest of the program was that of the National Reemployment 
Service, a Federal program. 

With the Board's regulations and cooperation of the Department of 
Labor, the effect was to set up in every State an employment service, 
largely financed with social-security funds, so as to have the. two 
closely tied together. They are either in a State department of labor 
or associated with the State unemployment association or commission. 
There are very few States in which they are not definitely tied together 
in a single agency. 


At the Federal level the United States Employment Service was 
moved to the Social Security Board, and our Boarcl felt very strongly 
the desirability of bringing these two organizations closely together, 
so they put them in the same bureau, the Bureau of Employment 
Security. So, in every respect, they are a single integrated organiza- 

Mr. Sparkman. Who is responsible for determining whether the 
workers in one State may be referred to employers or an employment 
agency in another State ? 

Mr. Clague. If we can control it, it comes through our clearance 
mechanism. What ordinarily happens is this, and it is happening 
every day: An order comes in from an employer in a certain com- 


munity, perhaps in one of the new Army camps, or a defense industry. 
This order is given to our local employment office in that community. 
That office tried to fill the order from local men. Our first preference 
is to fill such an order locally. If that cannot be done, then we start 
out in widening circles. In the course of that clearance that office 
contacts a nearby office to endeavor to have that order filled. If they 
cannot do that, then they pass it on to the State headquarters. They 
try the State-wide clearance to find whether there are any offices in 
the State who can fill that order. If not, it then moves to our Federal 
regional clearance machinery, and there it is in the Nation-wide 
system. We might place the order a thousand miles away ; wherever 
we know we would have such men available we would send the requisi- 
tions to those offices and get them to find out what they have available, 
and those men would move to such localities. 

Mr. Sparkman. You said that preference is given to workers in a 
local community first? 

Mr. Clague. That is right. 

Mr. Spakkman. Or in that particular State. 

migratory workers needed in defense 

Mr. Clague. As I said, we work out in ever-widening circles. We 
think the least migration is most desirable, and we carry out that 
policy to the maximum extent. We try to prevent excess migration, 
but, of course, sometimes we do not find the men in a particular locality 
or State. 

Take the recent expansion in the shipbuilding industry, for instance. 
That involved, for the most part, work on the east coast, and it is 
obvious that as soon as we exhausted the supply on the Atlantic sea- 
board we had to go inland in order to secure the required number of 
men. It was evident that there were some people with shipbuilding 
experience which they had acquired years ago who might be in some 
of the inland or middle-western communities. So, under our clearance 
system, we were able to bring them to the coast. We always get them, 
as far as we can, from the nearest available center. 

Mr. Sparkman. Has this policy been put into effect or operated in 
Colorado with reference to the sugar-beet workers? I ask that ques- 
tion because at the hearing we held in Lincoln, Nebr., there was some 
testimony with reference to the operation of the employment service 
in connection with the sugar-beet workers. 

Mr. Clague. I think I would like to answer that question definitely 
enough to show where we come in and how this sugar-beet problem 
affects us. 

In the first place, the migration may be carried on without our con- 
trol or without the use of our machinery. Many employers do not 
recruit through our service. They may have a recruiting system of 
their own. They may have labor scouts or agents who pick up labor, 
or they may advertise in newspapers far afield. 

Mr.' Parsons. In many instances that is done, more in Michigan 
than in Colorado. 

Mr. Clague. That is right. They probably do recruit from far 
afield. Frequently they want to bring m migratory labor which will 


migrate out when the season is over. Under those circumstances the 
Employment Service can do very little about it. We do not attempt 
to, nor can we delimit that migration. If it does come through our 
office, if the employers have selected our service to work for them, we 
do try to regulate this internal migration. But it is true that many 
established lines of migration are already in operation. I mean, for 
instance, that there is a flow of workers from Mexico into New Mexico, 
and then on to California, and then from New Mexico to Colorado, 
and then further north. 


Our ideal system is that we would have such a system for the indus- 
trial areas. We would have the theory of the ever-widening circle, 
and, as far as possible, have home labor, and it would be recruited in 
advance. We would have it all spotted in advance, and when we knew 
how many workers were needed in the Colorado beet fields, we would 
have all lined up in our offices people who would be available in that 
particular area, and then when the demand ran beyond the supply we 
would bring in what was needed. Then we would have no labor surplus 
in that community, provided we controlled any migration that might 

At present we are in the intermediate stage of working out an ideal 
system of supplying the demand from local labor as far as possible 
and limiting the migration to the workers needed to supply the demand 
at a particular place. 

Mr. Parsons. In that connection, at some of the other hearings, we 
developed the fact that in many instances the employers preferred 
out-of-State labor to their own local labcxr. 

For instance, in New Jersey we found that several yearg ago the 
local labor did the potato picking, but now the youth in many instances 
will not do the picking, so they have to import out-of-State labor to do 
the work. We found them taking labor from Pennsylvania. 

We found the same thing at our hearing in Chicago, in connection 
with the Michigan sugar-beet fields. To what extent have the employ- 
ment offices sought to eliminate that out-of-State migration? 

Mr. Clague. To a certain extent we have tried to eliminate that 
migration and tried to build up good will and encourage employment 
of local labor, and if we are in the picture, if the employer has used 
us, we constantly go to the employer to get his business. 

On the other hand, if he does not want to use us, there is nothing we 
can do about it. We keep going to him to get him to let us handle the 
job, because we think we can arrange a more orderly system than he 

If he works with us, we use our regular machinery and our method 
in trying to have him use local labor. 

Generally speaking, you will find, in the cases you cite, that it may 
be a wage and labor standards question. He may have the feeling 
that the outside labor he can bring in will work for lower wages and 
longer hours, or under less favorable conditions. Under those circum- 
stances, we have no control over it. We do not set wage rates and do 

260370 — 41 — pt. 9- 


not want to. We would usually use persuasion, and would use a 
maximum amount of persuasion, but still he might insist on bringing 
it in from the outside. 

We would then exercise our judgment as to whether we would bring 
it in or tell him to bring it in himself, and if we received another order 
we would probably refuse that order, and he would probably undertake 
to bring them in himself. 


Mr. Parsons. We found in Chicago, or we were told, that the em- 
ployers in Michigan who desired workers in their beet fields preferred 
the Texas workers to any other class of people. 

Mr. Clague. That is right. 

Mr. Parsons. That their local health authorities were cooperating 
with their local private employment agency in going to Texas and 
making physical examinations before they brought field workers from 
Texas to Michigan. 

We also found at Oklahoma City that the Texas State employment 
offices were rendering very great service in that respect. I believe that 
during the last 3 or 4 years they claimed .they had filled over half a 
million jobs. Of course, those were part-time or seasonal jobs, in most 

Mr. Clagtje. The Texas service is perhaps one of the best and most 
effective placement services in existence. 

Mr. Parsons. It so impressed me. 

Mr. Clague. They have very good control in Texas of the fann- 
labor migration, and they do make hundreds of thousands of place- 
ments every year. 

Mr. Sparkman. You made some reference to your work with the 
National Defense Commission. Are you functioning directly in help- 
ing the various defense projects to obtain a proper labor supply ? 

JOB placements in defense industries 

Mr. Clague. Yes; we are in the closest and most direct relationship 
to the National Defense Commission, particularly with Mr. Hillman's 
office. The members of our staff sit with his staff three or four times a 
week. We have directed our operations to provide placements in de- 
fense industries, because the load and volume of reemployment in the 
country is higher than it has been in years, if not for all time ; I mean, 
the monthly rate at which employment is stepping up. So we are now 
approaching the situation where a tight labor market is in prospect, 
and therefore with a greater need for the careful handling of that 

Mr. Sparkman. Do you make any effort to hold down the flow of 
your labor? Two or three times in our hearings reference has been 
made to the conditions in Camp Blanding, Fla., and my impression is 
that entirely too many people had flowed in there. Do you make any 
effort to hold that down ? 

Mr. Clague. Yes; we exercise every influence we can to hold that 
down. As soon as a new project opens up we go to the employers and 


endeavor to get them to give us the job of handling their labor supply 
for them. If they will do that, we then start our machinery of local 
placement and emigration, in the proportion, and at the time, and 
in the way needed by them. 

There are two things that handicap us in that respect. An employer 
can deal with us directly, or he may also deal on his own. He may 
put an advertisement in a paper for workers. That happened the other 
day with respect to a camp in Teimessee. An advertisement appeared 
in an Atlanta paper. Obviously, we cannot regulate the flow of per- 
sons who respond to such an advertisement. They will go to the 
camps, looking for work, and they are dealing with him, in addition 
to dealing with us. He puts them on as he needs them, and in that 
respect he can control it. 

Mr. Sparkman. Suppose you know there is an oversupply, for in- 
stance, at Camp Blanding, or any other camp ; is there anything which 
would prevent your service from inserting ads in papers advising 
people that there is no need of going to such a place for work ? 

Mr. Clague. I had not thought of that particular matter. We try 
to get those people who have come in and registered at the oflSces we 
have set up in those places. We have 1,500 full-time offices and 3,000 
part-time offices throughout the country. 

If we do not have a full-time office we put a man there to try to 
help people to register in their particular areas, and through our 
Nation-wide clearance we would pool those people. 

Mr. Sparkman. A great deal of the trouble has been due to the fact 
that they moved from their homes out there. 

Mr. Clague. That is right. 

Mr. Sparkman. I was impressed by this condition in California, 
In one of the migrant camps in southern California a number of peo- 
ple had heard that there was work on the Oregon border, and they 
had driven up there in great numbers to find work, which lasted only 
a few days, and then they had to come back. Naturally, there was 
a great expenditure out of their funds in making that trip. 

All around over the country at the hearings we have held we have 
heard considerable criticism of the Employment Service — I probably 
should not say criticism, but deploring the fact that the Employment 
Service was not functioning in the way that most people seemed to 
think it might function in gathering information and making it avail- 
able to all these people looking for work. It seems to me some plan 
could be worked out whereby the Employment Service could make 
that information available before a worker goes to a place and finds 
that he is a surplus worker. 


Mr. Clague. That is right, and if we handle the job we ought to 
know the circumstances imder which he is being sent. 

We are perfecting such a system. We have a reporting system from 
every one of the 1,500 offices. 

We have a visiting program in connection with employers in that 
■\dcinity by which our regular workers, in the course of their normal 


contacts, find out what labor an employer will need in the next 60 
days, for instance. ., ,, » 

All of that material is sent to Washington and made available for 
ourselves and for the Defense Commission. 

We have a picture every month of the situation throughout the 
country as to the labor supply and labor shortages, the number of 
jobs that are available for transients, and so forth. 

Now, we would not send this kind of a person from lower Cali- 
fornia to Oregon on a chance, or on the basis of hearsay knowledge 
of that job. I 1 1 1 

If that sort of a job was handled by us it would have come through 
our clearance system, through the local office in Oregon, and that local 
office would know what kind of a job was open, and they would be 
able to tell a man about that job. The whole thing would thus be 
handled in an orderly fashion. 

I would not say that what I am describing is our ideal system. I 
would not say we would not slip here and there, but there would be an 
employment-office manager there who would give careful considera- 
tion to those details. 

Mr. Sparkman. Of course, I realize, with reference to the person 
handled through your office— I am speaking of it from the standpoint 
of the information you could give persons who may come to you ; if 
you find out that the work is of a limited character, why could you 
not post a notice making the information available so that a person 
who may just casually come in contact with your office may know that 
it would not be desirable to look for that particular work. What I 
am thinking of is getting information to as many people as possible 
ahead of time. . t, rr. t i 

Mr. Clague. What you describe is done in a State like Texas. I do 
not know that they use posters, but they do use itinerant agents who 
are moving around wherever migration is occurring. 

The Service does put out men who are available at street corners 
and at little places along the road, and they furnish information. In 
all States we are not as well developed as we should be. 

Mr. Parsons. Do you ever use newspaper articles, in the form of 
news items, for which the newspapers give you free space? 

Mr. Clague. I do not recall that, but Mr. Carpenter can tell you 
about that. 


Mr. Carpenter. In connection with the use of newspapers, we have 
had some items inserted. 

In one State, the State of Indiana, with which I am particularly 
familiar, in 1 month we had over 340 articles which told of the supply 
of the labor market in Indiana and surrounding States, particularly 
giving information as to the automobile industry. 

During the season of the canning industry we did have a release, 
particularly to the southern Indiana papers, which was also carried 


in the Kentucky papers, and we dealt with the Kentucky service in 
them, and they got information concerning the situation in the central 
parts of Indiana. 

Mr. Parsons. Did the newspapers use your articles ? 

Mr. Carpenter. Very definitely so. We had 345 articles in that one 
State alone in 1 month. 

Mr. Parsons. I think the newspapers, if the matter were explained 
to them, can always use such items as items of news. It helps fill their 
columns and renders a service to the public, and that is what a news- 
paper, in part, is for. 

Mr. Carpenter. Especially if it is well developed by putting it into 
such form that they can easily pick it up. That is why I think we 
should put greater stress on our national service. 

Mr. Parsons. The thought has occurred to me in connection with 
all these hearings that if the Employment Service would utilize the 
newspapers, especially the local papers, you could get this information 
to the general public in very good shape, and in addition to that, of 
course, you could probably post bulletins on bulletin boards on all 
public places, such as post offices and courthouses. 

Mr. Carpenter. There is one precaution that we have to be careful 
about in that connection, and that is that the situation changes from 
week to week. In other words, the condition in some places in the 
canning industry changes almost overnight, dependent on various 

JOB NEWS broadcast BY RADIO 

Mr, Parsons. It only lasts a few days in certain areas, in connection 
with certain products. 

Mr. Carpenter. I should also mention the fact that we also use the 
radio extensively. We had in Indiana 14 different radio stations 
giving us the time we needed for our spot announcements. 

Mr. Parsons. Many times, however, the radio information conveys 
a lot of misinformation. I do not say that in any criticism of the 
broadcasting stations. 

For instance, I have been receiving mail, and I assume a number of 
my colleagues have, stating that people have heard over the radio that 
such and such a type of men are needed for national defense, for 
instance, in connection with clothing in the Quartermaster Corps of 
the Army, or in connection with food, also in the Quartermaster Corps. 
When an investigation is made it is found that the gate is closed down 
here to those men, so that that information is quickly developed into 

I mention that incidentally because it has come up in i-egard to some 
notices in the last few weeks. 

Mr. Carpenter. That is why we are very careful about radio anr 
nouncements, unless we can be there ourselves and be responsible. We 
rather avoid using the radio, except for standard spot announcements 
that universally hold true in standard practice. 

Mr. Sparkman. In connectioni with the use of newspapers, most of 
the news items I have read, coming from the Employment Service, 
have had to do with the number of placements they have made. 


I realize that makes nice reading, but it seems to me, for the good 
actually done — perhaps we might brag a little that we have kept these 
people from spending money and going to a place looking for a job 
that was not there. It seems to me they might use some of the pub- 
licity along that line. 


Mr. Carpenter. I think the newspapers are getting so much infor- 
mation that it is difficult for them to use it efficiently. In the Employ- 
ment Service, in our promotional work, we have more justification for 
telling what we have done and what we would like to have done than 
perhaps other agencies have. 

Mr. Curtis. I would like to ask both of you gentlemen a question. 
Would you recommend that hereafter, in connection with any appro- 
priations for national-defense contracts. Congress should specify that 
the United States Employment Service shall take charge of employ- 
ment ? 

Of course, the very nature of the defense contracts involves great 
public interest. 

It is apparent that there is a tremendous transient problem which 
is created under the present system. 

Wliy not turn that employment over to you, other than that for those 
who live within a certain specified radius of the actual work ? 


Mr. Clague. There has been a good deal of discussion in our service 
in connection with the National Defense Commission on that question, 
as to how far we should go in setting up some control on employers in 
the recruitment of labor. 

We have not thought of going so far as you indicate in gi\^ng us a 
complete monopoly of the control of the labor market. 

We have seriously discussed going part way. 

For example, one formula that has recently received a good deal of 
attention in our staff was in connection with allowing an employer to 
recruit locally, as he sees fit. He has many of the processes that he has 
used in the past and can use again. Many of the local people formerly 
worked for him, and he writes to them directly. We would not attempt 
to have those pass through our office, but perhaps make the requirement 
that before he recruits outside of this locality he would have to come to 
us and give us that job, and if we could fill the jobs he has we would do ; 
or if we could not do that we would give him a release and let him try to 
get them in any way he could. 

Sometimes an employer wants men who are very definitely skilled. 
We have none. 

Some of the radio announcements are for occupations for which 
there are not in any files the names of unemployed men in the United 
States. Therefore, we cannot help that employer. In that case an 
employer's advertisement in the newspapers is reasonable, because it 
brings in employed persons and puts their names in our files, who now 


leave their present work and go to this employer. Perhaps it is due to 
higher wages, or perhaps it is work which they prefer. So under those 
controlled circumstances, this advertisement will not do any harm, be- 
cause it will not stimulate a large number of persons to move. 


I think if we have an employer required to clear with us before 
he tries outside, that is about as far as we might go. I think that 
that might give us enough authority to enable us to handle it. 
Whether we need legislation for that purpose, or can do that through 
the wording of contracts, I would not presume to say. 

Mr. Curtis. As to your reference to that particular angle of the 
problem that this committee is studying, the important point, so 
far as action is concerned, would be that the person would have to 
clear through the local employment agency, where he was, before 
he would be recognized at a distant point in comiection with a job. 
We would not have to pass any law prohibiting him from traveling, 
or doing anything within his rights as a free American citizen, but 
he would understand that he would have no chance for a defense job 
unless he was cleared through an employment agency where he now is. 

Mr. Clague. Yes. That is the other side of the picture, and I would 
like to make an explanation of what we think of that point, as we 
do not want to have a requirement which would mean that we controlled 
the movement of every worker, but in the normal operation of our 
service to have a pretty effective control from that point of view if the 
employer is dealing with us. 

May I make that clear? The employer is really putting his busi- 
ness in our hands; for example, let us say one of these camps will 
put up a sign, an ordinary sigTi, stating that all of his employees 
are recruited directly through the employment office, that all people 
who come to a plant to get in or to get employment are interviewed 
and secured through the employment office. 

Now if that is the situation, then what can we say to anybody 
who may never have heard of the employment service, but who goes 
to the employer's j^lant seeking a job? If he sees a sign or is told 
to go back to the local office in this new plant and when the need 
arises they will employ him, naturally, he is going to go back to 
that plant continually to seek employment. But, if he comes to us, 
we can tell him whether there is any immediate need for his service, 
and if not, he can go back to his home town and that we will give 
him notice, that we have his name on the list and will notify him 
when he is needed. In that way he will not need to wait around the 
place where he is seeking employment. 

But if the employer, whether he deals with us or not, hires those 
who just wait, naturally these people seeking employment will not 
feel at liberty to go home because they will have the feeling that the 
man who is at the gate in the morning or next week will be the man 
who will be taken on, and so our attempt to meet this difficulty is 
perfectly useless. But if we can somehow have an arrangement with 
the employers that when employment opportunities become available 



we can follow this method of putting the men on, who have been on 
the list, it will enable us to convince these men that it will not be 
necessary for them to stay around in order to seek work and receive 

Mr. Curtis. Permit me to state for the record that this suggestion, 
while it was rather crudely thought out or made, and was not from 
the standpoint of regimenting the people in their movement, but 
it would merely move the place of application from the scene of the 
job to the home. 

Mr. Clague. That is right. 

Mr. Curtis. As a service to the applicant. 

Mr. Clague. That is right. 

Mr. Curtis. And if he understands that after a few days, or a 
few weeks, he could come back and get a job at the place he put 
the application in for, it would represent a great service to him. 

Mr. Clague. That is, right, if it be remembered always that they 
can rely on the employer using this service. Otherwise, if he is going 
to take the people who are at the gate it would mean we would 
simply be misleading those who had relied on this service. 

Mr." Curtis. But, since Congi-ess makes provision for the money, 
and provides public money, it is an activity in which the public is 
interested for that reason. 

Mr. Clague. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. And it seems to me perfectly proper for the Federal 
Government to include a stipulation providing that the applicant 
for work should put in his application at the point closest to him. 


Mr. Clague. There is no question about the desirability of some 
regulation or modified control, but just what that should be would 
have to be thought out very carefully, and we ourselves do not feel 
like taking any greater control than is absolutely necessary in order 
to meet the demand. 

Mr. Sparkman. Mr. Clague, we could continue all day in this field, 
which is certainly a very interesting subject, and you have gone 
down to the veiy roots of this problem, but we are going to have 
to hear some other witnesses. 

There ai^ one or two questions I wanted to ask you for the record 
and will ask you to be just as brief as possible in your answers. 

Wlien this defense program is over, when these various defense 
projects are finished, I suppose it is only reasonable to expect that 
we are going to have considerable labor thrown out of employment, 
and would you care to explain what plans have been made if any 
to meet that situation ? 

Mr. Clague. Yes. We expect that, as in the past, when the emer- 
gency is over there will be a downward movement just as there_ is an 
upward movement now, and for that reason the unemployment insur- 
ance system is one of the cushions that we expect at this time will 
at least afford a measure of relief that we did not have in 1929, 
1930, and 1931 ; that that will be not only a facility that will enable 
them to place themselves in employinent, but also perhaps have some 
effect on business conditions and in maintaining the purchasing 


power and perhaps preventing, to a degree, a repetition of our 
former difficulty. I would say we are quite conscious of the fact 
and the matter is being given considerable thought. 


Mr. Sparkman. Will you be in position to take care of the se- 
lectees returning from service at the end of the year ? 

Mr. Clague. Yes; we have already been in touch with the selective 
service organization, and Mr. Dykstra's office and I think we are 
jointly working out a system which will help them in endeavoring to 
place every one of these men who do not go back to their former jobs. 

Mr. Sparkman, The task of meeting the employment problem, 
connected with the migi-atory problem, is not one that calls for 
additional legislation, is it? It is a matter of employees, and pro- 
viding you with sufficient funds and setting up your own policy 
and rules and regulations. 

Mr. Clague. I believe we have enough legislation to do everything 
that is needed with the possible exception of the last few questions 
that were raised here on that matter. We estimate that in the neigh- 
borhood of $3,000,000 additional administrative funds are needed 
to render a really adequate and effective Farm Placement Service. 
Such a service requires strengthening our local offices in many places, 
the establishment of temporary offices and expansion of personnel 
during periods of peak labor demands occasioned by seasonal agri- 
cultural activities, and increased supervision and control of move- 
ments of migratory workers by the Federal Farm Placement Service. 

Mr. Sparkman. Thank you very much, Mr. Clague. 

Mr.* Clague. Thank you. 


Mr. Curtis. Dr. Coffee, we have received your statement and it 
will be introduced into the record at this point, after which we shall 
want to ask you some questions. 

(The statement is as follows:) 


Health Needs of Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizeins 

Destitute citizens who migrate from State to State have a greater degree of 
ill health and, with the exception of beneficiaries of the Federal Government, 
receive less medical care than that experienced by other needy citizens. This 
statement is based upon the findings of A Study of Medical Problems Associated 
With Transients issued by the Public Health Service in Public Health Bulletin 
No. 258. 

There are several factors leading to this very high rate of disabling illness. 
Transients are more likely than residents to sufCer accidents while traveling from 
place to place ; they are exposed to the risk of communicable diseases to a much 
greater extent than are residents, who do not live under the insanitary conditions 
often found in camps, shelters, and other forms of temporary habitation ; and they 
are deprived, because of their lack of economic resources, of adequate shelter and 
clothes, and proper food. 

Transients receive less medical care than do other needy citizens in the main 
because of their inability to satisfy existing settlement laws. However, the lack 


of adequate funds available to the States and to local communities for medical 
care services has a considerable influence in determining the amount of services 
rendered. The limitations on medical care serve in turn to increase the incidence 
and duration of their illnesses. 

This high degree of ill health in transients, particularly m cases of typhoid 
fever, tuberculosis, syphilis, gonorrhea, malaria, and the other acute communicable 
diseases creates an outstanding health hazard to the citizens of the communities 
through which the transients pass and in which they temporarily stop. 

In addition to direct measures for the rehabilitation and an order program for 
employment and relief of transients, the present cooperative program between the 
Federal Government and the State and local health authorities should be 
augmented so as to make readily available to all needy individuals, including 
transients, adequate public-health facilities, including medical care and 

The financial participation by the Federal Government in this joint program 
should be made through funds made available under title VI of the Federal Social 
Security Act. This title of the act provides for grants in aid to States for the 
puiTpose of assisting States, counties, health districts, and other political sub- 
divisions of the States in establishing and maintaining adequate public-health 
services. The presence of a considerable number of interstate transients in any 
State should be recognized as a special health problem in the allotment of these 
funds to the States. 

Additional Federal funds would be necessary to accomplish this purpose. 


Mr. Curtis. Dr. Coffee, I have read your statement, and note the 
reference to Public Health Bulletin No. 258. Is that a rather lengthy 
bulletin ? 

Dr. Coffee. Yes, it is. I have it here before me. It has some 
130 pages. 

Mr. Curtis. What is the date of the publication? 

Dr. Coffee. It has just been issued. We received it from the 
Printing Office about a week ago. It is the 1940 issue. 

Mr. Curtis. In that event it v^ould probably be a waste to incor- 
porate that in the hearings, but is there any further identification 
which needs to be made at this point so those following the hearings 
can thave access to it? 

Dr. Coffee. Nothing further. The title is "A Study of Medical 
Problems Associated With Transients." It is Public Health Bulletin 
No. 258. 

Mr. Curtis. It is available in sufficient quantities? 

Dr. Coffee, Yes. 

MUCH illness among TRANSIENTS 

Mr. Curtis. Doctor, I have read your statement and I might say 
that the facts are quite well known to this committee in our field 
hearings. I believe it is quite well recognized that there is more 
illness among transients, poor people, out on the road, in many 
cases who have no home, and who do not have sufficient food, and 
because they are poor and unsettled they do not get the free medical 
attention which they should have. At this time we are going to 
take that situation for granted, and I am going to ask you to 
take a few minutes to discuss the remedy for the situation — for 
better medical care for transients, homeless people, and unsettled 
people; if you will just direct your discussion to title VI of the 
Social Security Act. 


Dr. Coffee. We feel that the real problem of transients is not 
unlike that of poor residents of a community. Their situation, how- 
ever, is aggravated by the nature of the conditions under which they 
live, the fact that they have to travel from place to place, making 
them more susceptible to accident, to poor housing conditions, and 
of course making them susceptible to the ordinary communicable 
diseases and the filth-borne diseases. The lack of economic resources 
renders them susceptible to a condition which is brought about from 
lack of nutrition. 

Their big problem of course, so far as their inability to secure 
such medical care as they need is not altogether because of the 
settlement laws. Their problem, of course, is exaggerated as com- 
pared with people with a more settled economic status which of 
course throws a great medical burden on the local agencies which 
accept the responsibility. 

It is our feeling that you cannot separate the medical care of 
transients from the medical care of the residents of a commimity, 
and we believe that any program set up should be based upon 
utilizing local health facilities in the community and accepting the 
responsibility and having the local community accept the responsibility 
for the medical care of the transients. 


I think it is, of course, recognized, from studies that have been 
made heretofore, that the indigent residents are receiving medical 
care in their communities. To be sure, some communities are lacking 
in resources; many do not have sufficient facilities to meet their own 

We have had the feeling that we can develop throughout the Na- 
tion additional full-time local health service, and when I say full- 
time local health service I mean health service that puts its mem- 
bers on a full-time basis in order to furnish qualified people, that 
they in turn will be able to eliminate many of the unnecessary dis- 
eases and illnesses, and within their resources can be enabled to meet 
the need. 

Mr. Parsons. We learned of one case in Florida of a town with a 
population of 5,000 normally, that for half the year its population 
was increased to 10,000 and that for 3 months in the year that is 
increased to 15,000, so naturally that would present a great health 
problem, quite a medical problem for that community. 

Dr. Coffee. It would. Our study has shown, as indicated in 
Bulletin 258, where it is pointed out that the big problem in medical 
care is in intrastate transients; iii other words, transients who stay 
within the State. 


It seems possible that a program set up on a State level, providing 
perhaps mobile medical service for local hospital facilities, to follow 
the migration of these individuals, could help supplement existing 



local facilities that under ordinary times meets the problems of the 
local individual communities. It is recognized, of course, that it 
would not be possible to set up permanent hospital facilities and 
permanent clinical facilities to take on the road to care for 15 or 20 
thousand people for 6 weeks to 3 months use. However, there would 
seem to be a need in every community of permanent facilities to 
meet its local requirements, to be supplemented to meet the addi- 
tional influx as individual needs are shown. 

That would require organization within the States, without ques- 
tion, and, to meet the interstate problem, cooperation between the 
States and the Federal Government. 

Mr. Curtis. In reference to the lack of medical care for unsettled 
people, I assume that that is in the category of less chronic situa- 
tions such as now exist and is not spread over long periods of time. 
But are there any States or communities that refuse to give emer- 
gency treatment to unsettled people? 

Dr. Coffee. The greatest service, medical service, rendered to 
transients by the community has been to the emergency cases. In 
other words, to accident, obstetric, and acute illnesses. 

We found in our studies, and I think it is an interesting fact, that 
there was a lower or somewhat decreased number of these so-called 
degenerative diseases among transients than among the ordinary 
population of comparable economic status. 

The biggest percentage of cases treated were the acute emergency 
cases, perhaps because of the settlement laws and due to the lack 
of sufficient funds. In other words, practically all communities 
would accept these emergency cases and give them treatment where 
it has been absolutely essential. 

Mr. Curtis. Do you feel the emergency cases are lacking in medi- 
cal attention because of the settlement law requirements? 

Dr. Coffee. Our studies — we found on an average about 5 agencies 
in the ordinary city that were rendering medical care, and very 
little attention was paid to settlement laws in rendering service to 
the so-called emergency cases. 

Now, of course, the cases that were in the emergency class were 
taken care of regardless of settlement laws, purely because of the 
human instinct of kindness to take care of those who were in an 
emergency situation. 

Mr. Curtis. Do you know what percentage of the young men regis- 
tered for selective service have been rejected because of medical 
reasons ? 

Dr. Coffee. No ; I do not. Those figures have not been made avail- 
able as yet. Of course, they are being compiled and we hope to 
liave them, but they have not been made available so far as I know. 
The Surgeon General of the Army may be able to provide them. 

I might say further, from the standpoint of title VI of the Social 
Security Act, funds made available by the Public Health Service to 
the States have been used in the main, since the advent of the Social 
Security Act and the first appropriation in the spring of 1936, by the 
States to build up their medical service in the rural areas because 
the rural areas have been neglected to a greater extent than the large 


urban centers. This was not done because of the fact there were 
greater health needs perhaps in the rural areas, but only because of 
the fact that in setting up their organization they had not been able 
to provide themselves with the health facilities in many of the rural 
areas that had already been provided in urban centers. And the 
States are developing a State- wide program, utilizing a large per- 
centage of the money in organizing the health service at the present 
time, in something over 1,500 counties in the United States, of the 
three-thousand-odd counties, which have no full-time health service, 
and to have full-time health service now such as a public-health 
nurse, a sanitary inspector, public clinical service. 


Mr. Curtis. Now, what you propose is that a Federal grant to the 
State be made, conditioned on the extension of medical service to the 
unsettled, the same as is now given to the destitute residents. 

Dr. Coffee. That is right. In other words, if it could be possible 
that, as an additional allotment, the stipulation should be made that 
the fund was made available to provide for rendering medical public- 
health service and medical treatment to transients in the community. 

Mr. Curtis. Are you recommending any other legislation to supple- 
ment or to provide the aid needed in dealing with the general subject 
of health treatment? 

Dr. Coffee. No ; we have the feeling that the whole problem is due 
to the lack of necessary funds, on the local basis, to meet the situation, 
and that, of course, somewhat aggravates the local situation because 
in the spending of tax money there is a feeling that they should care 
for their own, who are residents of the community. 

We feel that if there is a cooperative program set up whereby the 
same type of service can be rendered to the resident as to the non- 
resident that a very satisfactory solution might be had of the prob- 
lem, at least a start would be made to the solution of the problem. 

Mr. Curtis. Is the quest for health a contributing factor in the 
cause of migration? 

Dr. Coffee. It is a factor but not a large factor. A relatively small 
percentage of the people traveling interstate are in search of a more 
salubrious climate or healthful location. 

Mr. Curtis. Not among destitute people. 

Dr. Coffee. The biggest transiency of those seeking health are 
intrastate, of those going from rural areas to cities where organi- 
zation and medical assistance and hospital facilities are available. 

tubercular migrants seek health on road 

Tuberculosis, of course, is the exception. The greatest percentage 
of interstate transiency in quest of health is on account of tuber- 
culosis, and the fact that is true has been brought about by some 
mismformation and a belief that they can find a cure in high, dry 
climates. That, however, has been shown to be a fallacy, that just 
as adequate a treatment for tuberculosis can be given in one climate 


as another, so I think we are fast doing away with the misbelief, 
and we feel there has been a definite decrease in migration because 

of health. .„ , , , » 

Mr. Curtis. Dr. Coffee, your statement will be made a part ot 
the hearings. Is there anything further you would like to stress 
in reference to it? „ , . ^j. . 

Dr CoFiEE. I do not think of anything. Of course, we must 
recognize that the bulletin that has been mentioned, the bulletin on 
the studies, contains some very pertinent information with refer- 
ence to the medical problems involved in transients, and I think 
this bulletin should be used in the study. 

Mr. Parsons. How much space would it require to take that pub- 
lication, to boil down the recommendations, to bring it within the 
purview of this investigation? How much space would be required 
to take excerpts and insert them in the hearings? 

Dr. Coffee. Well, I would say that as the bulletin is printed there 
is a summary of conclusions with recommendations, and it would 
seem to me, perhaps, the summary is very helpful from the stand- 
point of giving data that is necessary, and from the standpoint of 
statistics, and perhaps we could insert the summary and the recom- 
mendations from the bulletin. 

Mr. Parsons. How many pages are used in the summary and 
recommendations ? 

Dr. Coffee. About 14 single pages ; 14 or 15. 

Mr. Parsons. I think that is a very important thing to put into 
these hearings, and, without objection from the committee, we will 
be glad to have a summary of the recommendations taken from 
the publication. There should perhaps be a little summary show- 
ing how the study was made, the reasons for it, and that ought 
to be inserted in the record at this point. 

Mr. Curtis. I am not objecting, Mr, Parsons, but do you not think 
Dr. Coffee should have a free hand to delete anything that he feels 
has already been covered in his statement, or, that in looking over, 
he may find is not essential. 

Mr. Parsons. Would it be too much trouble, Doctor, for you to 
prepare a summary of the recommendations, along with the sum- 
mary, and submit that to be inserted in the record? 

Dr. Coffee. I will be glad to do that. 

Mr. Parsons. We will be pleased to have that for the record. 

(The statement referred to follows:) 

A Sttjdy of Medical Problems Associated With Transients 

There is in the United States a large but fluctuating number of needy indi- 
viduals, variously estimated at 200,000 to 1,000,000, who are discriminated against 
in programs of material aid and public medical care by the application of resi- 
dence and technically related requirements. Such persons are called transients 
in this study. 

The study is limited to the continental United States and is concerned with 
the health of transients as it is affected by their mode of life and social oppor- 
tunities. It attempts to determine: (1) The origin of transiency from migration 
and the importance of lack of health as a cause; (2) the statutory limitations 
on public assistance to transients; (3) the administrative practices of agencies 
giving assistance to transients; (4) the medical needs of transients; (5) the 


influence of transients on community health ; and (6) the most equitable and 
practical solution of the medical problems of transients and transiency. 

Original and documentary data related to this subject are presented. Sources 
of published material used are given in the references. Original data collected 
and used include: (a) About 11,000 schedules recorded by trained workers in 20 
cities of 15 States, containing the migration history, personal characteristics, and 
disabling illness and medical care history during a 3-month survey period of some 
16,000 transients who were applying for public assistance; (ft) 432 schedules on 
the admission policies of public assistance agencies in the same cities ; (c) records 
of application of 1,488 transients for in-patient care at a large charity hospital ; 
{d) serological reactions of 1,170 inmates of a large municipal shelter for home- 
less men; (e) results of chest X-ray examinations of transients in 19 cotton 
camps in a southwestern State; and (f) replies from 42 local governmental and 
nonprofit association general hospitals in California to a questionnaire concerning 
the number of transients hospitalized during 1938. 


Migration has been an outstanding characteristic of the people of the United 
States. Students of migration in this country are convinced that, since the 
forces causing it are still operative, it will continue and may increase in the 
future. It produces not only demographic effects, in that the age, sex, and 
race compositions of populations are materially influenced, but also a number 
of effects on social organization in general and community, family, and individual 
adjustment in particular. It is in the failure of individuals to orient themselves 
properly to new environments, especially in their failure to maintain or secure 
economic self-sufficiency, that transiency arises. 

It seems indisputable that, if migration is to continue, and some proportion of 
the migrants may be expected to fail in their attempts at rehabilitation, social 
planning should be directed toward guiding the streams of migration and relieving 
the destitution of the unsuccessful. These functions can be carried out success- 
fully only by cooperative Federal and State action. 

Interstate migxatiou is motivated largely by economic need, and only a small 
part of the whole is caused by ill health. Practically all the pathological condi- 
tions for which transients moA-e across State lines are pulmonary, usually tubercu- 
losis, and most migration of this type is directed toward the Southwest. It is 
estimated that there are now in the southwestern States at least 10,000 tubercu- 
lous transients who are unalile to pay for needed sanatorium care. The highest 
proportion of individuals who became migrants because of health was found 
among transients interviewed in Hot Springs, Ark., followed in order of im- 
portance by Tucson, Ariz. ; El Paso and San Antonio, Tex. ; Denver, Colo. ; and 
Los Angeles, Calif. By place of origin the highest proportion of health migrants 
was found among transients from the eastern States. One part of migration, 
usually not recognized, is that which was started because of economic conditions 
but turned toward the Southwest because of ill health. 

Another large part of the transient problem that has been ignored in most 
studies and writings is intrastate migration. It is principally rural-urban and 
a considerable proportion of the individuals move in search of medical care— a 
factor found to be almost negligible in interstate migration. 

No exact census of transients in the United States has ever been possible 
because of the very nature of migration and transiencv. An estimate, based 
on data collected during the first quarter of 1938, indicates that some 400 000 
transients applied for public assistance in 1 year throughout the country 

Data on transient cases in 1934 and 1938 indicate that families make up 
about one-flfth of the total cases, although the percentage probably is much 
higher in some cities. The transient family seems definitely to he "increasing 
in size, particularly among transients from the States furnishing the greatest 
part of the transient population. Tliere is also some evidence that the largest 
families are the least mobile. 

In general, transients are younger than residents on the relief rolls. As 
between interstate and intrastate transient family heads, the interstate group 
contains the smaller proportion of persons 55 years of age and over and of 
youths under 25 years of age, while among the unattached the interstate group 
shows the smaller proportion of aged but a greater proportion of youths. 


If classified according to the last State in which they had lived for as long 
as 1 year, practically half of the family transients interviewed came from 4 
States— Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas — and half the unattached 
interstate transients came from 11 States. 

About 70 percent of the families and 77 percent of the unattached had been 
migrants for less than 1 year, while among those who had been migrants 
for as long as 2 years practically all of the family cases and more than nine- 
tenths of the unattached had lived in the State of interview 1 year or more. 

These data indicate that the transient population is not, as is often stated, 
made up largely of a group of individuals who have chosen a life of migration. 
While some few do follow a pattern of seasonal movement or just wander 
from place to place as opportunity for economic improvement presents itself, 
it is believed that approximately three-fourths of the interstate transient group 
is made up of families and individuals who are in the process of relocation. 


The majority of States have among their statutes so-called "poor laws," 
"pauper laws," "public assistance laws," or "public welfare laws." In these 
laws the State imposes upon itself or its political subdivisions the obligation 
to relieve the destitute. Provision for public medical care usually is embodied 
in these laws — hence relief for the sick-poor is set within the framework for 
relieving destitution. 

In 39 States the "poor laws" include other sections called "settlement laws" 
in which, with few exceptions, it is provided that the benefits of relief to the 
destitute are to apply only to persons defined by law as residents of the State 
or certain of its political subdivisions or both. There may or may not be 
further provision for the medical relief of nonresidents. 

The history of settlement law may be traced to the feudal era in England. 
The English influence in this country is partly due to the legal concepts in- 
herited and brought from England by the first colonists who, if not always 
racially identical, were culturally similar to the English. Settlement laws of 
the original colonies have served as models for subsequent State settlement 
laws. Another reason for the adoption in the United States of settlement laws 
closely resembling those of England during the seventeenth century is found in 
the similarity of social and economic conditions existing in the original colonies 
and England at that time. In both countries the chief occupations were agri- 
cultural and, with a relatively limited labor supply, the laboring classes were 
surrounded by a series of restrictions designed to attach them, as far as 
possible, to the locale where they happened to be settled. However, the most 
important reason for the existence of settlement laws, and the most important 
consideration in discrimination against the transient today, is the attempt of 
the individual communities to protect themselves from persons likely to become 

"Commorancy" or residence, as such, in a given locality and over a stipulated 
period of time is a common prerequisite to settlement in the laws of all 
States, and the list of conditions under which residence must be accomplished 
in the various States is a long one. On the subject of where a person must 
have lived to acquire residence, the 39 States having settlement laws have 
13 different provisions. This confusion alone has contributed a great deal to 
the difficulties involved in dealing with transients. 

Provisions in regard to the length of residence required for settlement are 
more complex. Time x-equired varies not only between States, from 6 months 
to 5 years, but often between political subdivisions within States, according 
to the person's financial status, his property ownership, or his state of health 
or that of members of his family. 

Analysis of the provisions of the settlement laws over a period of 25 years 
shows that during that time one-third of the States have increased the period 
of residence required for settlement. Settlement laws in all but seven of the 
States having such laws make restrictive provisions that bear on either the 
continuity of residence or its chronological precedence to application for public 
assistance. Sixteen States void the entire period of residence if it is inter- 
rupted by a period during which the person is not self-supporting and, in others 
provisions change the period required if the individual receives specific kinds 
of support. 


Citizenship is a prerequisite to settlement in one State and in one county 
of another State. In three States persons may be prevented from acquiring 
settlement in a town or county by a formal warning from the authorities to 
depart. Several States provide that employees and patients of State insti- 
tutions either may not gain settlement or may do so only after a relatively 
prolonged period. 

Statutory enactments on loss of settlement may be as effective in barring 
transients from public assistance as those relating to acquiring settlement. 
The situation regarding loss of settlement is less complex only because fewer 
States have statutes on the subject. Three States provide for loss of settle- 
ment solely on acquisition of any new settlement, six on acquisition of a 
new settlement in another State, and nine on acquisition of a new settlement 
within the same State. Eighteen States provide for loss of settlement by 
absence for a specitied period which varies from 1 month to 5 years. In six 
States, the stipulated period for loss of settlement is less than is that for 
acquisition, and one State voids settlement after assistance as a pauper for 
5 years. 

Thirty-nine States make provision in their poor laws for the relief of 
nonresidents. In 32 States it is mandatory, in 2 it is mandatory for certain 
cases only, and in the other 5 the statutes are only permissive. In 24 States 
responsibility for the relief rests on local political units, in 3 States the State 
alone is responsible, while in 10 States there is joint responsibility. 

Relief to nonresidents in some States is available only to those who are 
sick ; in other States it depends on funds being available. Several States limit 
such relief to those "who have been committed to jail," "have been injured on the 
State highways," or "who are indigent by reason of physical or mental infirm- 
ity." Others specify "State paupers" (undefined) or "those who are not 
residents of any individual township." Probably the most important restric- 
tion on assistance to nonresidents is the stipulation, made by 19 States, that 
such aid be temporary or emergency only. 

The settlement laws are the embodiment of a discrimination which most 
States and communities exercise against persons who have become or who 
are likely to become dependent on the community for assistance. Formulated 
originally both to protect the poor funds of the community and to I'estrict the 
movement of needed workers, they have been handed down to a society in 
which the free movement of labor is essential and economic distress in local 
governments is almost universal. The result of such a combination is easily 

Many migrants have lost all rights to assistance in any State. Others are 
entitled to receive only "emergency" assistance, and the majority have no 
governmental organization to which they can turn for aid. It should be em- 
phasized, however, that the settlement law per se is not the cause but only 
the statutory method through which transients are made the object of dis- 
crimination. Discrimination is equally definite where no such statute exists. 


Three-fourths of the 482 agencies that assist transients in the 20 study cities 
are social, 1. e., their primary function is to dispense general relief; and 
one-fourth are primarily medical. Medical agencies, however, handle only 13.1 
percent of all applications from transient families and 7 percent of those 
from unattached transients. A count of transient applications in 1938 indi- 
cated that, in addition to the applications for aid at medical agencies, 2.7 
percent of those at social agencies were also for medical care. In the 20 
cities there are the same number of hospitals that give assistance to transients 
as there are clinics (or out-patient departments). General hospitals repre- 
sent almost 63 percent of such hospitals, and maternity hospitals about 20 

Of the 324 social agencies, 57 percent are mass-care agencies and they 
handle two-thirds of all applicants to social agencies. The remaining 43 
percent are case-work agencies and handle one-third of the cases. 

Thirty-two percent of agencies providing medical care to transients are 
under governmental control, while among those not giving medical attention 

260370 — Jl— pt. 9 9 



to transients the percentage is only 13.3. However, the governmental-agency 
applications included three-fourths of all persons who applied to medical 
agencies and one-third of all who applied to social agencies. Of all agencies 
giving medical care to transients, more than one-third restricted the care to 
emergency service only; another third gave ordinary care to selected cases 
only and less than a third had no restrictions upon the type of medical 
attention furnished. Of the 146 general hospitals in the 20 cities, only 30 
gave any medical care to transients and only 7 gave it without restrictions. 

Data on residence requirements of out-patient departments in general hos- 
pitals of the United States were available in studies from the National 
Health Inventory. These show that while only slightly more than half of all 
out-patient departments, both free and other, malte residence requirements for 
eligibility for care, 91 percent of local governmental and 73 percent of State 
out-patient departments do so. 

Regardless of location with reference to settlement law and of the organization 
in control, discrimination against the transient in public assistance agencies is 
the rule, and public assistance agencies that treat transients on the same basis as 
residents are the exception. 

The findings (1) that governmental agencies handle the greater part of applica- 
tions to medical agencies, (2) that a higher proportion of governmental than of 
nongovernmental general hospitals give free care to transients, and (3) that a 
greater proportion of them adhere to the settlement restrictions were to be 
expected. That almost half of all governmental as well as nongovernmental 
agencies in States with settlement laws have stricter settlement requirements 
than the law provides is not so well known. This seems to indicate that it is not 
entirelv the settlement law that deprives the transient of relief. 

The analysis of agencies in the 20 cities by restrictions upon type of care given 
is probably a representative picture of the provision of medical care to transients. 
When it is seen that almost two-thirds of the agencies giving medical care to 
transients restrict the care to either emergency or selected cases, the difficulties 
facing the transient who requires medical care are at once apparent. 


It was found that 13.6 percent of the 9,040 unattached transients who were 
interviewed and 21.7 percent of the 7,105 transients in interviewed family cases 
had had disabling illness during the 3-month survey period. Interstate family 
transients had a 74 percent higher disabling illness rate than did residents, and 
the rate for interstate unattached transients was 45 percent higher than that for 
residents of comparable age and sex. Transients not only had a higher disabling 
illness rate than all residents considered in the Health and Depression Study, but 
higher even than the "poor" residents. 

On the basis of mobility, transients who have been migrants less than 2 years 
have less disabling illness than those who have been migrants a longer period 
of time, and, as the period of stay in the State of interview increases, the disabling 
illness rate becomes higher. In any comparison of disabling illness rates between 
interstate and intrastate transients, if only the individual making the application 
for public assistance is considered, the intrastate group exhibits a higher rate of 
disabling illness, and makes a considerably higher proportion of applications for 
assistance to medical agencies. 

Analysis of disabling illness by diagnosis groups shows that interstate tran- 
sients have, like residents, the highest disabling illness rate from the respiratory 
diseases. In the unattached, this diagnosis group is followed, in order of im- 
portance as a cause of disability, by accidents, pueiiieral conditions, communicable 
diseases, and digestive diseases. Degenerative and nervous conditions and rheu- 
matism fall at the end of the six most important groups. Among family inter- 
state transients, communicable diseases, puerperal conditions, digestive diseases, 
degenerative diseases, and accidents follow respiratory conditions in order of 

The disabling illness rates of all interstate transients exceed those of residents 
for all conditions except degenerative, nervous, and rheumatic diseases. The 
greatest excess of disabling illness among interstate transients, as compared with 
residents, appears in the unattached who seem to have more than seven times 


as much disability from communicable diseases and almost five times as much 
from accidents, as do residents of comparable age. 

From these data it is seen that transients, either interstate or intrastate, have 
considerably more disabling illness than persons who have resided in communities 
long enough and under such conditions as to have the status of residents. 

Intrastate transients have even higher disabling illness rates than do the 
interstate. It is believed that this difference is due to the greater proportionate 
migration of intrastate transients to cities in search of public medical care which 
they do not believe is available to them at home in smaller communities. That a 
larger proportion of intrastate than of interstate transients' applications were to 
medical agencies is a corollary of their search for medical care. 

Data on disabling illness rates by degrees of mobility definitely suggest a health 
selection in migration. The pattern appears to be as follows : Among all inter- 
state transients the most recent migrants have the least number of disabling 
illnesses, and as migration continues the incidence of disabling illness increases. 
However, as illness strikes more frequently, the result seems to be that migration 
is delayed and often the migrant settles down in some community and eventually 
becomes a resident. This tendency may be responsible for the high rate of 
illness and disease found in cities among the local homeless, many of whom may 
well be former interstate transients disabled for migration by chronic or recurring 

There are several reasons why transients exhibit a very high rate of disabling 
illness. First, they are more likely than residents to suffer accidents while travel- 
ing from place to place. They are exposed to the risk of communicable disease 
to a much greater extent than are residents, who do not often live in the insani- 
tary conditions found in camps, shelters, and other forms of temporary habitation. 
A second and more important reason for a high disabling illness rate among 
transients is that they are "marginal" individuals. A majority of them start 
migration because they are unable to support themselves at home, and it has been 
shown repeatedly that the poorest fraction of the population has the highest 
illness rates. Third, some of those found as transients have migrated because 
they are ill, and finally the very fact that they receive less medical care than 
needy resident groups may well tend to increase their illness rates. One-ninth 
of all disabling illness experienced by members of transient families (but exclud- 
ing families headed by persons eligible for Federal hospitalization) was hospital- 
ized, less than a third received only the attention of a physician, and almost 
three-fifths did not come to medical attention. For similar illnesses residents 
received 3.2 percent more hospitalization, 21.4 percent more attention by physi- 
cians, and some type of care in 24.5 percent more of the illnesses reported. 

A considerable proportion of the unattached interstate transients interviewed 
are eligible for Federal hospitalization. One-ninth of all unattached transients 
were beneficiaries of this service as United States veterans, and 3.4 percent were 
eligible for medical care as merchant seamen. These two groups received some 
kind of medical attention for 83 percent and 96.4 percent of their disabilities, 
respectively, while only 66.2 percent of those experienced by other unattached 
transients were given medical attention. Veterans were hospitalized for 50.2 
percent of their reported disabilities, seamen for 40.3 percent, and other unat- 
tached transients for only 28.3 percent. 

Data on 1,444 nonresident applications for in-patient care at Louisville City 
Hospital show that those by Kentuckians constitute more than half of the total. 
About three-fourths were made by white persons and slightly more than half 
by females, the excess of females over males occurring principally in the age group 
15-24. The greatest number of intrastate applicants (Kentuckians) in relation 
to the population of the place of residence came from counties touching Jeffer- 
son, the county in which Louisville lies. 

Disposition of the transient applicants at this hospital was as follows: (a) 
43.7 percent were admitted; (b) 11.6 percent were referred to other hospitals; 
(c) 3.6 percent were referred to practicing physicians; and (d) for 41.1 percent 
no provision for medical care was made. The proportion by place of residence 
of applicants accepted for bed care at Louisville City Hospital was between 40 
and 50 percent for all nonresidents except those from Jefferson County, only 
8.6 percent of whom were admitted. 

Discrimination against transients was discussed from the viewpoints of cause, 
history, trends, and modus operandi. Data on medical care received by transients 


show the results of this discrimination. No class or type of transient, except 
special beneficiaries of the Federal health services, receives as much medical 
care as even the poor in resident groups. Although most students of the subject 
agree that care received by many residents is not adequate for the maintenance 
of health, transients receive even less care than do residents. 


Transients may be found living under all kinds of sanitary conditions. While 
some transients resemble, in their hygienic surroundings, residents of the same 
economic status, a greater proportion are forced to exist under almost every 
imaginable variety of insanitary condition. Wretched housing among tran- 
sients is found in every State, but more frequently in the Southwest since tran- 
sients are found there in the greatest numbers. The majority of transients 
live in temporary shelters that range downward in degrees of sanitation from 
the Farm Security Administration camps and the better grower camps, through 
the worst of grower camps and the poorer tourist camps to the most insanitary 
of all, the squatter camps or jungles. In the latter are often found all conceiv- 
able violations of hygienic standards in excreta disposal. The water supply even 
for drinking purposes is often the nearest stream, pool, or irrigation ditch. 
Serious overcrowding in the shelters is almost universal even in the grower 

As a result of these conditions a high incidence of typhoid fever and, par- 
ticularly, of dysentery, occurs among transients, especially among the migratory 
agricultural workers. On the basis of disabling illnesses reported by transients 
in interviewed cases, the incidence of typhoid fever was approximately 34 times 
as high as among all residents of the United States in 1938. 

Various organizations have been vitally concerned with this aspect of tran- 
sient life, and there is some evidence that housing conditions in general are 
improving. Both the Farm Security Administration camps and those grower 
camps built and maintained under the jurisdiction of competent health authori- 
ties have done a great deal to improve the living conditions of transients. It 
remains to be seen whether good camps can be provided in sufficient number to 
raise the standard of sanitation for any significant number of transients. 

No thorough studies of the diets of transients have been made, but a partial 
one showed that on the basis of milk consumption the diets of transient chil- 
dren are very inadequate. Since the majority of migratory agricultural tran- 
sients in the Southwest come from the West South Central States, their diet is 
very likely to be that of the poorer residents of those States, made even more 
inadequate by the financial distress into which the transients have fallen. It is 
believed by all competent observers that their diets fall far short of minimum 
requirements in total calories, vitamin and mineral content, and digestibility. 

As evidence of the results of inadequate diets among these transients it was 
found in one study of the children of migratory agricultural workers that 27.9 
percent of them had nutritional and dietary defects, not including dental caries 
and decalcification. During the transient-case study 6 transients were inter- 
viewed who had been disabled by pellagra, a deficiency disease, during the 
3-month survey period. The cumulative effect on future health in the western 
States of allowing children to subsist on very inadequate diets is one that should 
be given serious consideration by health authorities. 

The incidence of active pulmonary tuberculosis among all transients who apply 
for public assistance is probably around 2 i>ercent for the country as a whole 
and somewhat higher in the Southwest. In some cities to which there is con- 
siderable migration because of pulmonary conditions and in which migratory 
labor is not in very great demand, the incidence of active pulmonary tuberculosis 
among transients may be as high as 9 percent. 

Almost without exception the nonresident or transient tuberculosis person iy 
excluded from the sanatorium or must spend a long time in residence before 
hospitalization. This can mean only that he is forced to continue spreading the 
infection to nontuberculousi individuals. 

According to a survey of unattached homeless men in one city, the incidence 
of serologically detectable syphilis appears to be about 8 percent for white 
interstate unattached transients and about 29 percent for colored. This is ap- 
proximately 2 percent less than the rate&t determined for the corresponding local 


homeless groups in the same city. As in tuberculosis, the transient with syphilis 
is usually "ineligible" for public treatment, despite the fact that one of the most 
important public-health considerations in the treatment of syphilis is the protec- 
tion of the rest of the population by making each case noninfectious. 

Smallpox is not only occurring at a high rate among transients but is being 
spread by them from one community to another and from State to State; 
meningococcus meningitis epidemics also seem to be encouraged by the housing 
of transients in congregate shelters. 

A very great danger to the health of communities exists in the possibility of 
the introduction by transients of relatively unknown diseases. For example, all 
the known requirements for the introduction of malaria into a number of States 
exist in the transient situation today. This disease and trachoma are probably 
now being carried to California and other parts of the West by transients from 
the South Central States. 

A very important effect of interstate transients on communities is the cost of 
public medical care given to them. For hospitalization alone it has been esti- 
mated that transients cost Los Angeles County (Calif.) $170,000 annually. 
From the records of admissions of interstate transients to 16 county hospitals 
in California, an annual cost per county of $26,000 was estimated. The Louis- 
ville (Ky.) City Hospital Department of Admissions estimates that the hos- 
pitalization of nonresidents in this institution cost Louisville taxpayers about 
$14,000 in 1937 and around $9,000 in 1938. It isi of interest to note that more 
than half the applicants and transients admitted to this institution were intra- 
state transients. 

The effect of transients on community health is to increase the hazard of ill 
health to residents and to raise the incidence of most of the communicable 
diseases. The incidence of tuberculosis, syphilis, gonorrhea, and malaria almost 
certainly is increased in a community by adding transients to the resident popu- 
lation. Thisi is partly due to the higher rate of these conditions among tran- 
sients; but it results chiefly from the fact that transients are not given equal 
consideration in community programs of sanitation, preventive medicine, and 
isolation of infectious cases of communicable disease. 

The discrimination noted against diseased transients in hospitals, sanatoria, 
and clinics undoubtedly has an economic basis. The cost of hospitalization for 
the average long period of institutionalization in pulmonary tuberculosis is so 
high that no community feels willing to provide facilities or pay for hospitaliz- 
ing nonresidents! with this condition. Hence there result the settlement laws 
with their special restrictions against persons with pulmonary tuberculosis. 
The States have felt that if nonresidents were admitted to State tuberculosis 
sanatoria it would serve only to attract more indigent tuberculous persons from 
areas where free hospitalization for this disease is not available to all persons 
suffering from it. 

The data presented on the cost of public hospitalization now being supplied 
to transients! in general hospitals seem to show that an enormous load from 
this cause is being carried by some communities, in spite of the fact that tran- 
sients generally receive considerably less medical care and hospitalization than 
do residents. 


The conclu&!ions expressed in this report have resulted from the analysis of 
original data collected during the course of the study, from the various studies, 
books, and articles published on transiency and related subjects, and from the 
advice and counsel of various authorities. 

Specific recommendations as to the most equitable and practical solution of the 
medical problems associated with transients are: (1) In any plans formulated, 
the basic consideration that migration and transiency are permanent character- 
istics of American society and economy must be given a prominent place. (2) 
There should be a national policy on migration, and an organization to direct and 
influence migration should be created on the Federal level. (3) There should be 
instituted a program of hospital and sanatorium construction and maintenance 
and of public medical care for the medically needy, through the combined efforts 
of the Federal Government and the States, that would make available in every 
State adequate medical care and a public-institution bed for each needy individual 


who required it. These services should be similarly available to all needy persons 
regardless of residence status. In the case of transients vpith pulmonary tubercu- 
losis and other chronic debilitating conditions, provision should be made for 
returning these cases to the last State in which they had legal settlement if it is 
certain that proper medical care, including hospitalization, is immediately avail- 
able there and if it is not more important socially that they be hospitalized as 
transients. (4) The presence of a considerable number of interstate transients 
in any State should be recognized as a special health problem in the allotment of 
Federal funds to States for the maintenance and improvement of local public- 
health facilities. (5) The Federal Government should neither formulate nor con- 
tribute funds to a health program organized exclusively for transients. Determina- 
tion of the transient's settlement status, the investigation of his financial need, 
and his certification for any needed medical care should be handled by such public 
social organizations and personnel in each community as carry out similar func- 
tions for residents. Determination of medical need and administration of all public 
medical care given to the transient should be allocated to that public medical 
agency in each community charged with similar responsibilities for needy residents. 


Mr. Parsons. Mr. Alves, will you state your full name, and the De- 
partment you represent ? 

Mr. Alves. H. S. Alves, United States Office of Education. 

Mr. Parsons. Mr. Alves, the statement by Mr. J. W. Studebaker, 
Commissioner of Education, which you have presented to us, will be 
entered in the record at this point. 

(The statement is as follows:) 


Problems of Education Caused By Migrations of Families With Children 
OF School Age 

Migratory life in general has many undesirable effects on the education of 
children. If their parents are on the move rather constantly, as many of them 
are, the effect is deplorable, for their unfortunate children eithQr attend school 
for abbreviated periods only or not at all. When the parents, whether wealthy 
or of moderate means, have permanent places of abode during a part of the 
time the schools are in session, but travel about or remove to a temporary 
lesidence during the remaining time, the education of their children is neces- 
sarily disturbed to some extent at least. 

This presentation, however, is limited chiefly to the movements or migrations 
of those persons and families that travel from place to place in search of em- 
ployment or, as some do, for no particular purpose except to gratify their roving 
dispositions. Such a limitation excludes the movements of those who travel 
regularly or occasionally to places for the primary purpose of seeking desirable 
climates or other pleasures. While children of the latter group do create 
problems in school administration, the financial phase of such problems can 
generally be solved by means of nonresident tuition charges. 

migrations which create difficult problems in educational administration 
and finance 

In its study, migration of workers, the United States Department of Labor 
divides interstate migrants into two major classifications, "constant" and "re- 
moval." These are defined as follows :^ 

D. S. Department of Labor, Migration of Workers, p. 2. 


"Seasonal and casual workers who move continually from job to job will be 
referred to as constant migrants. Migration is sometimes mistalienly discussed 
as though this were the only group of migrants. Even more fundamental and 
presenting at times extremely serious problems is the group of removal mi- 
grants, who move in response to a fairly permanent relocation of their work. 
Such migration may be internal or across international boundaries. The west- 
ward movement of population in the United States is an important example of 
internal removal, while the arrival of foreign immigrants to this country is a 
movement of the same type except that it takes place across national lines. 

"Frequently the removal migrants merge into the class of constant migrants. 
Thus the drought refugees, who are clearly removal migrants in origin, have 
often become seasonal workers, moving from job to job, when they have been 
unable to reestablish themselves permanently in any one community. Much 
migration during the recent depression also belongs to an intermediate class. 
Numerous depression migrants took to the road because of lack of work or 
relief at home and not usually with the intention of moving constantly. Some 
have returned to their former homes, so that their migration was special and 
temporary. Some have resettled, and thus become removal migrants. Others 
have continued to search for work on the road and so become constant migrants 
recruited from the relocating forces of the depression." 

Neither of the two groups of migrants described in the foregoing quotation 
need to be limited with respect to problems of education to interstate migra- 
tion. However, the education problems involved have different aspects when 
the movements are intrastate as compared to those which are interstate. 

Of the migrations of families with children, those designated "constant," 
of course, present problems in relation to school administration year after year. 
As indicated in the report those designated "removal" are likely to be more 
extreme and significant in a quantitative way when they do occur. Both have 
implications on school situations. 


It is Obvious that the school work of children of families constantly on the 
move cannot be satisfactory in many respects. Children of families working 
in the vegetable and fruit harvests of south Texas, then in the cotton fields of 
central and north Texas and Oklahoma, and finally in the beet fields of Colorado, 
are out of school during a part or all of the school term. Those who are 
fortunate enough to attend at all usually are obliged to adjust themselves to 
three or four school situations. 

While the effects on the schooling of children of migrant parents have not 
been thoroughly investigated, some studies have been made. One of these 
reports as follows : ^ 

"The records for 656 children were furnished by the Philadelphia school au- 
thorities. This number included some children outside the compulsory at- 
tendance age which in Pennsylvania in 1938, extended from 8 to 16 years, in- 
clusive. The law exempts from school attendance (1) children who have 
completed high school, (2) children 16 years of age who hold employment 
certificates, (3) children 16 years of age who are mentally unable to profit from 
further schooling, and (4) children of 15 and 16 years who have completed the 
sixth grade and are employed at farm or domestic work because of parental 

"Children coming into Pennsylvania from other States for migratory work 
are covered by the Pennsylvania school law and receive the same educational 
advantages as resident children. In New Jersey, however, there is no law 
requiring nonresident children to attend school, and no provision is made for 
their education. 

"Philadelphia schools in 1938 closed on June 26 and reopened on September 
g * * * 

"By the end of April 20.7 percent of the families had gone to the country, 
45.0 percent went in May, and 29.9 percent in June. Eleven families went out 
after July 1, most of them for fall harvesting. 

* National Child Labor Committee, A Summer in tlie Country. New Yorlc, N. Y., 
p. 23-25. 



Percent of rural 
g(-g^-g . children retarded 

Colorado 24.2 

California 18.9 

Wisconsin 11.3 

Iowa 8.9 

Kentucky 44.2 

"By the end of August 42.8 percent had returned, 21.9 percent returned in 
September, and 33.9 percent in October. Only two families who remained 
out until after November 1 were visited in Philadelphia * * * but several 
calls were made at homes to which families had not returned by this time. 

"Of the 656 children there were 588, or 89.6 percent, who missed time from 
school in the spring or fall or both. The time lost averaged 39 days of school — 
just 1 day less than 2 school months. The New Jersey Commission to Inves- 
tigate the Employment of Migratory Children in New Jersey found that for 
the year 1930 the average time lost from school by the children of migrants 
was exactly the same, 39 days." 

Another study is reported by Luella M. King :^ 

Comparison of retardation of migratory and nonmigratory rural children in 
representative parts of the United States 

Percent of migratory 
gtate : children retarded 

Colorado 42.1 

Oregon 31.6 

Washington 60-25.5 

Michigan 44.3 

New Jersey 79.7 

Maryland 69.7 

Removal migration. — There are many migrations which may be classified 
as "removal" according to the definition of this term in the study made by 
the Department of Labor and quoted above. Probably the best known of these 
is the movement of families which took place during the previous decade from 
drought-stricken regions of the central part of the country. Less generally 
discussed are such migrations as those of the families of workers from the 
locations of industrial and other projects which have been completed or have 
reached the stage where the services of fewer workers are needed to the sites 
of other projects where there are, or seem to be, better opportunities of 
securing employment. Depending upon the inducements offered, the latter 
migrations in addition usually include families of workers from various kinds 
of previous employment and from various sections of the country. These 
migrations are toward such projects as newly discovered and developing oil 
fields and mining districts and reclamation, defense, and other projects of 
the United States Government. 

While most of the population movements under this second classification have 
implications upon school problems, probably none have exceeded the serious pro- 
portions of those of the present time resulting from the migrations of workers to 
the locations of national-defense projects. Recent reports from many schools in 
the vicinities of these projects indicate that large numbers of the children of 
these workers have no school to attend. 


Population movements from one area to another within States emphasize the 
importance of adequate support or guaranty by each State government for a 
foundation education program for all communities of the State. Similarly migra- 
tions across State lines, particularly in extraordinary cases, in all likelihood 
result in situations with respect to education which call for some kind of financial 
assistance by the Federal Government. While it may be possible for most States 
themselves to effect educational adjustments made necessary by migrations within 
their respective borders, great movements of people across State lines are almost 
certain to magnify the problem to such an extent as to make its immediate 
solution practically impossible without assistance from the Federal Government, 

There are many complicating factors in the problem of providing school facili- 
ties for children of migratory workers. School budgets are invariably prepared 
early in the school year, and taxes are levied shortly thereafter. If a fairly 

* King, Luella M., Troblems of Education Relating to Seasonal and Migrator.v Labor, 
Washington, D. C, 1931. Bulletin of the Department of Rural Education of the National 
Education Association, p. 31. 


constant number of children of seasonal workers come into a school district at a 
definite time each year, that fact can be considered at the time of preparing the 
budget. On the other hand, if the number is not constant, or a very large number 
comes unexpectedly, the difficulty is obvious. 

Seasonal workers employed in the raising and harvesting of crops move not only 
within States but frequently from State to State. A sound program of school 
finance can under ordinary conditions guarantee salaries of teachers and other 
costs of current expense. But the problem of providing suitable building facilities 
in a district which has an influx of 200 migratory children for only 2 months each 
year is a special problem. Many States have such problems and many ways of 
solving them have been tried. One State in particular has definitely taken steps 
to provide schools for the children of migratory workers. 

The laws of the State of California provide that State funds not to exceed $75 
per teacher and an equal amount of county funds may be used for salaries of 
teachers of migratory children whenever in the judgment of the county superin- 
tendent and county board of education such teacher or teachers are necessary. 
The funds provided for this purpose, however, are hardly suflBcient for such 
extraordinary demands as required for the establishment and maintenance of 
schools for children of workers on the Mount Shasta Dam and for those of laborers 
on national-defense projects in the school district of Vallejo at the present time. 
No other State has a provision of law similar to this. 

In his report for 1939, the commissioner of education of the State of New 
Jersey writes: * 

"This is a serious problem, but I am of the opinion that it cannot be solved by 
special schooling until the legislature passes acts which are constitutionally sound 
and which prohibit the employment on school days of nonresident children who 
happen to be in New Jersey and who are under 16 years of age. It will be 
necessary for the legislature to define a migrant child, to determine how long he 
may remain in the State without coming under the Compulsory School Attend- 
ance Act, and to state definitely whether or not such temporary resident if placed 
in a foster home by an approved public or private social agency may be regarded 
as one entitled to attend school in that district. There should be included defini- 
tions which enable us to determine whether or not an apportionment of $4.j per 
child should be made to the local school district. It will be necessary to know 
whether children who come from other States and who live here the major portion 
of the school year while their parents live in another State are entitled to free 

"In my judgment, this is a problem concerning which we must have a definite 
State policy. Certainly these children should receive a free public-school educa- 
tion either in their own communities or in New Jersey. Some of them remain 
here as long as 100 days each year, but the great majority are here only from 10 to 
40 days. Very definite provision should be made for them. It is not a very 
large problem, however, as most recent data indicate that there were last year only 
some 656 children in the State who may be classified as 'migrants.' " 


1. A definite State policy which includes : 

(a) Residence of pupils. Provision for the schooling of children irrespective of 
the time they have lived in the State. 

(6) Compulsory attendance. Provision for the compulsory attendance of all 
children of migratory workers, as of nonmigratory children. 

(c) Financial program. Provision for State funds for the support of all State- 
approved schools for migratory children. 

2. Definite Federal Government policy which includes : 

(a) Authorization for continuing appropriation sufficient to pay all salaries of 
the teachers necessary for children who have migrated into the resi)ective States 
during the current school year. 

(&) Special provision for the use of Federal Government funds for school 
building purposes in emergency situations, such as the school building crisis now 
present in many communities as a result of the national-defense activities. 

* Elliott, Charles H., Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education for the School 
Year Ending June 30, 1939, pp. 16-17. 



Mr. Parsons. Your statement contains a great deal of data with 
reference to the education of migrant children, and you quote from 
studies of Luella M. King, which compares the retarding of mi- 
grants with nonmigrant rural children in the various States. 

Do you have any information as to the proportion of migrants 
of nonagricultural children and their retardation in schools? 

Mr. Alves. We have very little information; in fact, it is too 
limited on the whole proposition, so far as the children themselves 
are concerned. The information we have in the main is limited. 

Mr. Parsons. This is mainly a new problem that has arisen prin- 
cipally in the last decade, has it not? 

Mr. Alves. I do not think it is necessarily a new problem, but 
we have not paid enough attention to it perhaps. 

Mr. Parsons. It has become more acute, we will say, in the last 
decade than formerly. 

Mr. Alves. That is right. 

Mr. Parsons. Your statement suggests as a part of a possible solu- 
tion that provision be made from the Federal Treasury of appro- 
priation for the payment of teachers' salaries where teachers are 
necessary for migrants. 

Will you comment on that to the committee, please ? 


Mr. Alves. Yes. Basically any time children are moved into tem- 
porary residence, that automatically creates a school difficulty; and 
also basically any time any large number of such children get into 
a local area it upsets automatically the normal planning for provid- 
ing educational facilities in that locality. 

The statement shows that two types of migration involve two 
problems, as defined by Miss King. 

The complicating factor in the problem of providing schools for 
migrant workers results because many school budgets, in fact, those 
of all the States, are prepared on the basis of a tax levy which 
remains for that year. 

Should it happen that in a given locality you have a fairly con- 
stant number of children of these workers in the district, and in 
your local schools at this time each year, that fact could be con- 
sidered in the preparation of the budget within the limited financial 
ability of the locality. 

On the other hand, if the number is not constant, as is particu- 
larly the case right now in the country, if a very large number 
come in and are not registered you have a very serious difficulty, 
which is quite obvious. 

Even if it were possible for a given locality to take care of the 
normal procedure, when you have an influx of children into a 
locality it may even prevent the local authorities from securing from 
regular channels sufficient funds to provide funds for current ex- 
penses; that is, for teachers' salaries particularly. It is actually 


doing that in a number of definite localities. Over and above that, 
the locality would have difficulty in providing capital outlay funds, 
that is, for buildings and equipment, because it is the general prac- 
tice in States to have a limitation insofar as localities are concerned, 
with reference to bonded indebtedness. 

Where these groups, the migratory children particularly, come 
from States to the community and may be there for a limited time, 
naturally it presents a temporary problem because even in this 
way it is an addition to the requirements which the localities are 
faced with in their regular program. It is not only difficult for 
the locality, but the States have difficulty in making provisions on a 
temporary basis. 


Mr. Parsons. What are the basic reasons for the inequalities in 
the standards of education in the various States? 

Mr. Alves. What are the basic reasons? 

Mr. Parsons. Yes; for these inequalities. Is it a matter of taxa- 

Mr. Alves. Financing, of course, is back of it all. But, so far as 
this particular problem goes, if you have an influx of a thousand 
children in a community that normally has only 1,200, you can see 
the type of problems that come up. 

Capital outlay is usually — in fact in all the States — is the respon- 
sibility of the locality. States as yet have not gone into the program 
of providing funds from State sources for buildings, with a few 

Mr. Parsons. That is right. And many States have not gone into 
a program of State-wide distribution of funds for the benefit of poor 

Mr. Alves. Even in the case of those States that do have State- 
wide distribution, you have got varying bases or methods of dis- 
tributing those funds. 

Wliere these gi-oups of children of migratory workers come into 
localities of one State from another State, for just temporary resi- 
dence, it does not seem logical to expect the local community to 
vote bonds to put up buildings that will house these folks 6 months 
in the year or may house them for 2 years, and never house them 

Mr. Curtis. At that point I think it is weU to call to your atten- 
tion the testimony of an expert witness who appeared before us 
in our San Francisco hearing and whose name I shall ask a mem- 
ber of the staff to supply. 

He had gone into this problem and made intensive studies of the 
situation in California where they had been on the receiving end 
of so many thousands of families. He came before us with a num- 
ber of charts. 

It was his opinion that, contrary to the views of many local people, 
chambers of commerce and otherwise, that California was not 
making any additional capital outlay for buildings and school plants 


because of the migrant problem; that they were an ambitious, for- 
ward-looking people and were building for the future, and that 
by and large California school building costs were not going up 
because of these migrants. Well, one reason was that they claimed 
to be able to assimilate these people. There was a popular erroneous 
notion prevalent that it was adequate, of course, but he presented 
a very fine paper to the committee indicating that it was not. 

Mr, Alves. Of course, it is perfectly possible that a certain num- 
ber of pupils in any school system can be absorbed to the extent 
that the present plant facilities are not utilized. In other words, you 
do have one other possible factor that enters into it, and that is the 
utilization of facilities. It is conceivable that if you have a school 
plant that now houses 2,000 children, if you put on two shifts, y^u 
can house 4,000. That is something that has not been done. We 
do not start a shift at 8 in the morning and another one at 4 m the 
afternoon, except for defense training; I mean, for elementary 
pupils. . , ..^^ . 

Mr. Curtis. But the schoolhouse that is constructed m 1940 is 
ordinarily planned for a possible school population of 15 or 20 years 
later, is it not? 


Mr. Alves. Well, that effort is there, all right; that is, the inten- 
tion is there, but quite often we miss it by a great deal. It is pretty 
hard to tell. It depends on the local community. It depends on 
the type of community that it is. 

I have seen locations where a building was put up with the idea 
that it would be fully occupied in 5 years and they never did use 
more than 3 rooms out of a 10-room building. 

I do not think we can take that type of situation as a general 

Mr. Curtis. We will always have to contend with the situation 
of the sudden collapse of some new industry or of a sudden boom 
being created. 

Mr. Parsons. Mr. Alves, for 8 years I was connected with the 
educational system of the State of Illinois and had a great deal 
to do with a great many buildings. It is my belief that the situa- 
tion there is not unlike that of other States, and it was my observa- 
tion and experience that they waited until they were already over- 
crowded before they built. They usually built to take care of just 
about what the load was at the time, or perhaps looked forward a 
few years into the future. 

Mr. Alves. I think that is an observation that would apply gen- 
erally, for this reason : because of the fact that your capital outlay 
the country over is a responsibility that has been placed on the 
locality. Everybody thinks that is where the capital outlay funds 
ought to come from. With the exception of your highly concen- 
trated centers of population, it is very difficult, in the average local 
school unit, to vote more than just what they absolutely have to 
have, because you have other purposes, other types of governmental 
service, which require capital outlay. 


Of course, there are many ramifications and many factors that 
I do not think j^ou want to go into here. But I think that your 
observation is quite generally accurate. 

Mr. Parsons. In the case of the problem that we are now studying, 
of course, you are vitally interested in the Office of Education, is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Alves. Yes. 

Mr. Parsons. And in looking after the education of the children 
of the migrant workers in the defense program. But those children 
are not working as are the children of the migrant agricultural 
worker who really bring in more income to the family, perhaps, 
than the adults; for instance, the fruit-picking, the potato-picking, 
perhaps even in the case of the cotton-picking and the sugar-beet 

Now, in that particular case, the children never have an oppor- 
tunity, at the time of the year when there is school, of going to 

What studies have been made and what observations would you 
have to offer as to that problem? To me, throughout all of these 
hearings, that has been the worst feature of the migrant's problem, 
the future of these citizens when they become adults. 

Mr. Al\tes. Your question is not with particular reference to the 
defense program? 

Mr. Parsons. Not this particular one; no. 


Mr. Alves. Unfortunately, if there are any studies, of any extent, 
I am not familiar with them. I can respond from personal experience 
which covers about 30 years. I happen to be from a State that got 
quite a bit of lauding this morning, the grand State of Texas. I have 
seen the same roving worker in the Laredo area, in December-January, 
where, if he was not forced to go out into the onion fields, he had a 
chance to go to school for 6 weeks. I have seen him some 60 days 
later in what is called the winter-garden section, where the parents 
went to work in the spinach fields, the asparagus fields, or picked 
peaches. I have seen him in May and June, around the San Antonio 
area, in the cotton fields and in the fall, in October, I found him around 
Lubbock, where his parents and perhaps he also were picking cotton. 
And I understand that just a little bit later you may find him in 
Colorado, with a move that brings him back to the Rio Grande Valley 
in December or January. Specifically, the problems that you get into 
are merely these. There are two types of effects. One is on the child 
and the other one is on the local school system where he happens to be, 
provided he is given a chance to go to school. 

The effect on the child is quite obvious. He is out of school a great 
portion of the time, especially if he is a member of a low-income family, 
as most of those seasonal workers are. By the time he is 8 years old 
he is going to pick cotton or he is going to get out into the onion fields 
unless something stops him from going there. Theoretically that is the 
compulsory-education law. 


Mr. Parsons. But he is on the move so much that the compulsory- 
education law seldom catches up with him. 

Mr. Alves. That is true, or perhaps let us get him in a situation 
where the compulsory-education law is conscientiously enforced. Here 
is this local school system of 8 rooms that are already just about full, 
finding 200 of these children to take care of within a 2-mile radius, 
living here, there, and yonder. The local school authorities are not 
going to be putting forth too much effort to pick up another 200 to put 
in rooms already crowded. 

Mr. Parsons. We found this during our first hearings in New York. 
About fifty to sixty thousand agricultural workers, including the chil- 
dren, starting from Florida, say, in December, or not later than Janu- 
ary, working in the small fruits and vegetables, coming farther north 
as the season opens, into the Carolinas; up the coast, winding up in 
New Jersey in July and August; then starting back down, probably 
picking cotton on the way back, harvesting tobacco later on in the fall. 
So that that family, with its children, is on the road at least 10 months 
of the year, without any opportunity for those children, especially from 
10 to 14 years of age, to look inside of a schoolroom. And they bring 
more income into the family, because of the nature of the work, than 
the adults do. 

That has only been an acute problem in the last 10 years because 
formerly, if the adult went north and made somewhat of the same trip, 
the family was left domiciled at a particular spot. But now these chil- 
dren have been on the road for 10 years. They are growing. They 
will soon have families of their own, and yet have not had any oppor- 
tunity to go to school more than a year or two out of their entire life. 
What are we going to do with that kind of a problem ? That is the 
problem that worries me more than anything else about this entire 
migrant picture. 


]\Ir. Al%'es. Here is the type of problem a State faces — and this is 
referred to on page 5 of the material that we submitted, and is taken 
from the report in 1939 of the Commissioner of Education of the 
State of New Jersey. (See p. 3595, this volume.) He says: 

This is a serious problem, but I am of the opinion that it cannot be solved 
by special schooling until the legislature passes acts which are constitutionally 
sound and which prohibit the employment on schools days of nonresident 
children — 

Nonresident children; in other words, your child-labor laws are 
operative within the States and not across the State boundaries, 
who happen to be in New Jersey and who are under 16 years of age. 

The same statement can be made relative to the compulsory-educa- 
tion law. 

It will be necessary for the legislature to define a migrant child, to determine 
how long he may remain in the State without coming under the Compulsory 
School-Attendance Act * * *. 

It is also necessary to define the migrant child so that States in 
their respective programs of financing may know when to spend State 


money on that child, because those laws within a State are all written 
for children who are residents of the localities in the State. 

Mr. Parsoxs. And whose parents are generally taxpayers, if they 
possess any property. 

Mr. Al%t:s. The average State le^lation reads about like this: 
That a child from such an age to such an age is entitled t^o attend 
the public free schools in the locality, the school district, or the town, 
or the city where his parents resicle. The question is. first of all, 
where do these folks reside ? You are going to find, of course, as you 
know, a lot of them will not say that any State is their residence. 
So you hare that type of problem. 

Xow, over and above what the .States could do in their own legis- 
lation to clarify the problems, as suggested in this Xew Jersey report, 
you do have that field in which the State will not have jurisdiction 
because these migrants go from State to State. It seems that the only 
agency that can come in and help on that is the Federal Government. 

I do not see, in other words, how legislation coidd be passed in 
Florida that would compel New Jersej' to take care of the children 
that come from Florida and stay in Xew Jersey for 6 weeks. 

Mr. Parsons. That is very true. 

iMr. Al\-es. Of course, you may say, "Well, it is a matter of re- 
ciprocal action."' Yes, but it is just himian nature : when we get far 
from home, we are not noticed as much. 

Mr. Parsons. I think it is a very good idea for children to want 
to work with their hands. 

^Ir. Alves. Yes, agreed. 

3rrsT have feze education 

;Mr. Parsons. That is what made America great. I am not averse 
to that in the summer season. But we do realize in this country a 
responsibihty, and it was one of the thoughts of the founders of the 
country, the authors of the Constitution, that in a democracy we must 
have free public education. And while these children are getting a 
better experience in some respects than the average child gets, so far 
as learning to do things and learning to live with himself and with 
others, yet at the same time we recognize that he must have some 
opportunity to acquire knowledge from the printed page and from 
school institutions. 

The big problem to me is how we are going to educate these chil- 
dren who are constantly on the move, whose services are needed 
in order to make the family budget sufficient to take care of them- 

We must attack it from two angles, I think. One is. we must stop 
them from working during the school period. 

Mr. Al^xs. That is correct. 

^Ir. Parsons. Some means must be found to do that. And then, sec- 
ondly, we must have the institutions which they may attend at the 
points where they find themselves in the school period. Do you agree 
with that ? 

^b-. Alves. That is right. Xow. the States have done both of those 
things for citizens within the boimdaries. Legislatively, in the main, 



they have. But when Johnnie Jones gets out of his State for 6 weeks 
nobody claims him, nobody can touch him because he is not a resident ; 
you have got your residence laws. So it takes cooperative effort over 
and beyond what a State may do within its own boundaries. 

Mr. Parsons. Very well ; enough on that. Now, the committee would 
like to hear from you with reference to the contemplated program in 
national defense for the education of tliese migrant people. 

Mr. Alves. Are you referring to the study called for in connection 
with the defense housing program projects? 

Mr. Parson. That is right. You were touching on that when I broke 
in with this other subject. 

Mr. Alves. Yes. 

Mr. Parsons. You were about to say, I think, that in the case of 
overcrowded conditions they put on a double shift. 

Mr. Alves. The reason I was hesitating a little was the use of your 
word migratory there. They are not all migratory children that go 
into these localities. 

Mr. Parsons. Not at all. You might term that the surplus, the 
extra ones, that come in ; the extra migrants that come in, which makes 
it a problem of surplus. 

Mr. Alves. The question then comes down to this : How will school 
facilities be provided for the influx of children of persomiel connected 
with activities of the defense program in concentrated areas ? Is that 
right ? That is the question, is it not ? 

Mr. Parsons. That is the question. 


Mr. Alves. Our office, in response to the requests of the Secretary of 
War and the Secretary of the Navy, is making the study called for 
under Senate Kesolution 324, which, as you know, is the resolution 
requiring the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy to make 
a full and complete study of school facilities at or near navy yards, 
Army or military reservations. Army or Navy bases, at which defense- 
housing programs are being carried on or are contemplated, to deter- 
mine first whether defense-housing programs require additional school 
facilities; second, whether localities where such influx of population 
takes place are in a position to provide those facilities; and third, 
whether the Federal Government should provide such school facilities 
irrespective of the financial ability of the locality. Now, that study 
is in progress and our office is working through the offices of Stat© 
superintendents and commissioners of education in the respective 

We are hoping and planning on the basis of the information that is 
now available, relative to these local areas, to have estimates of needed 
school facilities submitted by the respective chief State school officers 
of those areas, in the States that are involved. We hope to have that 
information within the next 10 days. Much of it will be tentative, 
because we have not at tliis time a definite base for each locality to work 
on. Specifically, if the munitions-plant project at Wilmington, just 
south of Joliet, 111., has not reached a state of development where the 


housing authorities may definitely plan and thus recommend definite 
allocations, any estimates that are now prepared for that area would 
just have to be tentative. They are purely estimates. 

I have not answered any question yet that you have raised and 
cannot answer it except in one way, and I am afraid I am getting 
outside of the territory of this discussion. 


The act known as the Lanham bill, Public, 849, which is the De- 
fense Housing Act, makes provision out of that appropriation for 
community facilities, which is defined to include schools, but it 
limits it to 3 percent of the total appropriation, the amount of money 
that may be spent out of that appropriation for community facilities. 
In other words, 3 percent of $150,000,000 is $4,500,000 for community 
facilities, including health, sanitation, schools, police, and fire pro- 
tection, if necessary, and so on. 

The provision in section 9 of that act is that the administrator of 
the act may make payments of annual sums in lieu of taxes. 

I cite those two provisions as the most definite answer to the 
question, How will these be provided? Those are the only two pro- 
visions that definitely, so far as the Federal Government is concerned, 
make provision for school facilities in those local areas affected by 
the activities of the defense program. 

Mr. Parsons. It is the only source of any material aid. 

Mr. Alves. To date. 

Mr. Parsons. Yes. 

Mr. Alves. I do not now whether that is the type of answer you 
wanted here. Outside of that, I know of no special definite provisions 
for that except that, again, the locality and the State will have to 
do the best they can. 

Mr. Curtis. At that point, these defense industries are a very 
coveted thing, are they not? 

Mr. Parsons. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. Each community is clamoring for defense industries. 
Now, in order for a community to secure some of these, they state 
that they have sufficient transportation facilities and they have other 
tilings that they will be glad to furnish the Government and the 
industry that is going to locate there. Why should not we explore 
the possibilities of placing definite requirements upon the locality 
before they secure a defense industry with regard to the education 
of tlie children of the people that the industry is going to iDring in ? 

Mr. Alves. I presume that was already being done. Of course, 
that is not in our jurisdiction in the office of education. But I 
presume that was done. However, even though you explore those 
conditions, you have not anywhere covered the total realm of the 

Mr. Curtis. That is very true. 

Mr. Parsons. How many youths — if you can give any estimate 

may receive training in this program that is under study at the 
present time? 

Mr. Alves. How many youths ? 

260370— 41— pt. 9 10 



Mr. Parsons. Could you give an estimate on the studies that have 
been made, or that are under way at the present time, as to how 
many youths may be given training ? 

Mr. Alves. I think my own answer to that would be an indication of 
the procedure followed to try to get that estimate. We are not far 
enough along for me to be safe in saying 50,000 or 100,000. In those 
local areas where there have been definite allocations for housing units 
we have a distinct, tangible guide that can be used. For example, if 
in a local area there are 1,000 housing units authorized, and each of 
those units will accommodate on an average a family of four or five 
members— two adults and two or three children — on the basis of that 
information we can apply the ratio of children of school age to the 
total population and get an estimate of the number of children 

Now, if I may project that— and this is purely an estimate ; please 
understand I am not quoting anything definite and do not have it- 
let us assume that there are a hundred thousand housing units needed 
in the local areas because of the influx of personnel connected directly 
with some project of the defense program, whether it is an army camp, 
or a navy yard, a munitions plant, a steel works, an aviation plant, or 
what not. One hundred thousand housing units of this type automati- 
cally means families, or there would not be any housing units. If the 
100,000 averages 4 members to the family, that makes 400,000 people. 
Even if we accept the general ratio on a Nation-wide basis, we know 
that one-fifth to one-fourth of that population of 400,000 will be chil- 
dren of school age. 

If it is 100,000 individuals, we have something tangible to start 
working on. As soon as we have definite information from the schools 
in each of the local areas as to how many additional children they can 
absorb into their existing school plant facilities to fill them up com- 
pletely, all we need to do is to subtract that figure from 100,000 and we 
have a figure that would, roughly, represent the number of children 
for whom no school facilities are available. 

Just for argument's sake, I am going to guess you cannot absorb 
more than one-third of these. I think my guess is high, but I am 
still guessing it. So I will say immediately we will have around 60,000 
to 65,000 children who are dislocated, so far as schools go. They have 
been taken away from some place where they have been going to school ; 
they have been placed in a position where there are no school facilities. 

Now, again, if we go on the basis of a general average, say, of 30 
pupils to a teacher, there immediately arises a need for 2,000 teaching 
rooms, classroom units, to accommodate 60,000 pupils. Now, if I have 
guessed anywhere near correctly, 100,000 units would permit us to go 
either under or over and above, as we get the exact figures. I do not 
know whether 100,000 units is right. I said 100,000 because I think I 
am away low. A recent figure I saw officially I think indicates there 
are around 60,000 or better. 

Mr. Parsons. Do you think you will have this information withm 
the next 10 days? 


Mr. Alves. We hope to get from the States, by about December 
16, an estimate of the needs in those local areas for which they could 
secure, from such sources as the employment service and the houf^- 
ing authorities, information of a sufficient nature, sufficiently reli- 
able nature, that would permit them to make an estimate. We hope 
to have that by December 16 and then, under that resolution, we have 
to prepare the reports to the War and Navy Departments ; but I pre- 
sume we will be called on by other interested Federal agencies in this 
whole field, such as the housing agencies and certain sections of the 
Advisory Commission of the Defense Council, too. 

Mr. Parsons. Now, the committee will not close its hearings until 
about the 12th, and the printing of the record will not be closed, 
upon suspension of the hearings, until probably a few days after 
that and, if you have those figures by the 16th or I7th, we could use 
them here at this point in the record. I think the committee would 
like to have them and, if you have permission to do that, we would 
be glad to have you send them down as soon as you get them. The 
chances are these hearings will not go to press until around the 20th 
of December, or maybe the first of the year, and we would like to 
have the benefit of those figures in the record at this point. 

Mr. Alves. I will certainly be glad to carry that message and 
request back to the Commission. 

^Ir. Parsons. And if you can get it, you can send it directly to the 
committee here at the Old House Office Building. 

Mr. Alves. Yes. 

Mr. Parsons. Do you have any figures or estimates on how many 
youth are being trained in private vocational schools at the present 
time ? 

Mr. Alves. In private vocational schools — I do not know, but I 
am sure the vocational division would have. 

Mr. Parsons. Of course, the N. Y. A. is planning quite a defense 
program in the way of training both boys and girls in certain voca- 
tions that might be of aid and assistance in the national defense pro- 
gram, if the worst came to the worst. 

Are there any questions? 

Mr. Sparkman. I would like to ask just one. Mr, Alves, under 
5'our possible solutions, I notice it is recommended that the Federal 
Government's policy include authorization for continuing appropria- 
tions sufficient to pay all salaries of the teachers necessary for chil- 
dren who have migrated into the respective States during the cur- 
rent school year. The only thought I have in mind is this: If you 
are going to give that help to those States that are on the receiving 
end of these migrants, a great many of whom are going to be ab- 
sorbed as a part of the permanent population of that State, then 
in fairness and justice should not you give it to these States that 
have educated them up to that point. States which are losing them 
as a part of their permanent population ? 

Mr. Alves. Of course, if I understand your question correctly, I 
think you are going into a much broader problem than this is. 

Mr. Sparkman. I realize I am, but it does tie in with this. 



Mr. Alves. Yes, that is true. Now, one idea in connection with 
the suggestion for an authorization would be this; If you had a 
group 01 100 families that start from Florida and wind up 8 months 
later in New Jersey in the cranberry bottoms, and in that group of 
100 families you have 100 children, say, of elementary school age, 
those children would receive much greater benefits by having 2 or 3 
teachers who would just go right along with them. That is so because 
the effect on the child of attending 3 or 4 different schools in a year, 
even if he does not go to work, is quite degrading to the child itself. 
And our point here is that that, of course, would have to be done in 
accordance with good financial procedure, with the funds paid if, as, 
and when, on the basis of definite plans, the State showed a need for it. 

The whole purpose of that statement is to recognize the fact that 
the child may be in three, or four, or five States during the school 
year, and a given State may take care of that child — may follow 
him up, may see that he goes to school, may make provision for 
him within its boundaries, but the minute he goes out of that 
boundary he is gone. Now, to guarantee that the very thing does 
not happen that was mentioned a while ago, namely, that the child is 
not penalized, it occurs the only way out is to have a continuous 
check, and perhaps that will call for this type of financial assistance.. 

Mr. Sparkman. I can easily see it from the explanation you give 
there, but I did not see that included in this statement of yours. I 
could not interpret it from the recommendation in the printed 

Mr. Alves. I think probably we might have been a little over- 
cautious not to get into the broader problem here. 

Mr. Parsons. So your answer to my question of 30 minutes ago, 
on the problem of the working migrant cliild, is to send the teacher 
with him ? 

Mr. Alves. I think that is the better way, in my own estimation. 

Mr. Parsons. And you would have the Federal Government coop- 
erate with the States in giving Federal aid for that purpose ? 

Mr. Alves. If that is needed; if there is need established. 

Mr. Curtis. Where is that teacher going to hold school? 

Mr. Alves. In the school facilities in the localities. These mi- 
grant workers do not just jump 5 miles, they will jump 500 miles; 
and in May of each year they will be in about the same area, in the 
same locality, within a 10- or 15-mile radius. They will come an- 
nually to that same area again. 

Mr. Parsons. Are they going to be segregated from the other 

staggered classes, portable schools 

Mr. Alves. Not necessarily. But there is a 10-teacher school at 
location X; it can absorb 30 pupils, but 200 come in regularly, for 2 
months, at a given time of the school year. Now, you cannot absorb 
the other 170 in that building unless you stagger the classes, stagger 
your program. Suppose the occasion arises where you need to put in 


4 rooms; it is very questionable whether you would want to build a 
brick addition of 4 rooms, because in 3 years' time you might find that 
those 4 rooms would serve a much better purpose 20 miles away. Now, 
it is not impossible to conceive of this thing of having portable school 
buildings, such as we use in the mushroom towns, in connection with 
the oil fields, that pop up overnight; then, 5 years later, they are 
moved to the next oil field. You might have portable buildings that 
go along and, if you need to move them in 3 years, why, you can 
pick them up and move them. But the minute you get that type of 
provision, you cannot expect the given locality to bond itself this year 
when that locality may know that 3 years from that time it will not 
need that. So it becomes a responsibility that is beyond any one small 
locality. That is the first point to recognize, I think. 

Mr. Parsons. Of course, an itinerant teacher with those children 
would be better than none at all. 

Mr. Alves. Well, I think it would be better than having five teachers 
in the same year. Of course, that is something you can argue both 

Mr. Parsons. I am inclined to agree with you that it would be better 
than having five teachers in the same year, because they could conduct 
night classes ; but you would have to segregate them largely from the 
regularly established educational institutions in the community. 

Mr. Alves. Maybe this does not belong in the record, but I would 
certainly prefer to have my own youngster, 9 years of age, be with 
one teacher from September to June than to have him with five 
different teachers because I move into five different localities. 

Mr. Parsons. There is certainly a very decided advantage there, as 
meager as it is, whatever it might be, in travel. 

Mr. Alves. Your portable facilities do not necessarily have to be 
meager. I have seen portable buildings numbering 20 or 30 in a 
school system that had as many portable rooms as permanent rooms, 
and 5 years later you find only 4 of those portable buildings and the 
other 15 or 16 have been moved 20 miles. It is possible. 

Mr. Parsons. Wherever they have established camps and suitable 
housing facilities, like the Farm Security Administration has done 
in a few instances, a barracks or room, or more than one room if 
necessary, could be set aside for educational purposes ? 

Mr. Alves. Yes. 

Mr. Parsons. And night schools could be conducted along with that 
to suit the hours and the needs of the children, and they could come 
in for a session in the morning for certain training, and then use 
that during the day, so that a large number of children would obtain 
at least some training with just one or two or three teachers for a 
couple hundred children. I concede that that plan would be better 
than no education at all — decidedly so. 

Mr. Alves. Yes; and the mere fact these camps you refer to have 
been established is, of course, a recognition that you have a periodic 
influx with considerable regularity, is it not ; otherwise you would not 
build those camps ? 

Now, the minute you have anything as definite as that, if your local 
schools cannot absorb the influx of children, you can certainly make 


provision much more readily through that type of procedure, that is, 
portable buildings, than you could if you are going to put up a brick 
building which might not be used there 5 years lat«r. 

Mr. Parsons. That is the first recommendation of this kind that we 
have had in our rounding out these hearings, and I am very glad to 
have you put that view forward in the record. 

If there are no further questions, we thank you very much, Mr. Alves. 

Mr. Alves. Thank you. 

Mr. Parsons. Your statement has been very fine and very illuminat- 
ing. I am sorry the other two members of the committee have not been 
here to hear this discussion this morning. Thank you very kindly. 

Mr. Alves. I assure you, if our office can be of any assistance in any 
way, we will be delighted to do our part. 

(The committee thereupon took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.) 


The committee reconvened pursuant to the taking of recess, Hon. 
John H. Tolan (chairman) presiding. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order, please, and I will 
call first Mr. McCrea. 


The Chairman. Your name is John McCrea ? 

Mr. McCrea. Yes, sir; John McCrea. 

The Chairman. Where do you live ? 

Mr. McCrea. My home is in Lancaster, N. Y., just out of Buffalo. 

The Chairman. How old are you ? 

Mr. McCrea. Thirty-four. 

The Chairman. Are you married ? 

Mr. McCrea. No, sir ; I am not. 

The Chairman, Are you a resident of Washington ? 

Mr. McCrea. No, sir ; I am not. 

The Chairman. You call that your home down there, do you? 

Mr. McCrea. Why, I left home about 11 years ago, 1929 ; so I don't 
really have a residence any more. 

The Chairman. How do you happen to be in Washington ? 

Mr. McCrea. Why, I came down here to try to find employment, you 
know, like restaurant work, hotel work. I find it is very hard to obtain, 
because they employ colored help, you know. 

The Chairman. Is there anything in particular that attracted you to 
Washington ? 

Mr. McCrea. No, sir ; not particularly. 

The Chairman. Did you come alone? 

Mr. McCrea. Yes, sir ; I did. 

The Chairman. Have you any money? 

Mr. McCrea. Well, not very much ; a little. 

The Chairman. How long have you been here in Washington ? 

Mr. McCrea. Wliy, just about 2 weeks, now. 


The Chairman. Have you been able to get anything to do ? 

Mr. JMcCrea. Why, just odd jobs and things like that, since I have 
been in Washington. 

The Chairman. What kind of jobs do you do? 

Mr. McCrea. Why, I really don't have any trade at all. I have just 
been picking up hotel work, restaurant work, wherever I could find 
a job. 

The Chairman. How much education have you had ? 

Mr. McCrea. Just through high school. 

The Chairman. Are your parents living ? 

Mr. McCrea. My mother is living, and I have a stepfather at home. 

The Chairman. He is not working at the present time ? 

Mr. McCrea. He is not working at the present time. 

The Chairman. How old is your mother ? 

Mr, McCrea. My mother is just about 65 years old now. 

The Chairman. Why did you leave home — looking for a job? 

Mv. McCrea. At that time I was employed at the New York Central 
Railroad, just out of Buffalo, and I was laid off because the plant was 
closing down, and I could not find employment at that time, and 
having trouble with my stepfather, who is very hard to get along with, 
I was just compelled to leave home. 

The Chaiiuvian. Now, is this the first place you have visited, Wash- 
ington, looking for work? 

visited 4 3 STATES 

Mr. McCrea. No, sir; I have been all over the country. After I 
first left home, for about the first 4 or 5 years I just more or less had 
the urge to travel, and was picking up odd jobs and just going around 
the country. Then I finally tried to settle down, you know, and pick 
up steadier work. 

The Chairman. How many States did you visit ? 

Mr. McCrea. Why, 43 in all. 

The Chairman. Forty-three? 

Mr. McCrea. Forty-three; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And how did you travel ? 

Mr. McCrea. I hitch-hiked most of the time. The first couple of 
years, of course, I had my own automobile and traveled in that. 

The Chairman. Well, were you able to secure any employment in 
those 43 States? 

Mr. McCrea. Yes, sir. I have worked in hotels and a couple of 
different hospitals, restaurant work, and have done construction work- 
all different kinds of odd jobs. 

The Chairman. Did you ever live in what is called a migrant 
camp, any place ? 

Mr. McCrea. Well, I lived in three different transient camps, when 
the Transient Bureau was operating. 

The Chairman. Where were they? 

Mr. McCrea. The first on© I went into was at Springfield, 111. ; the 
second one was at Kansas City ; the third one was at Springfield, Mo. 

The Chairman. How were those camps — livable ? 


Mr. MoCrea. They were very good; yes, sir. They kept you as 
long as you wished to stay, and as long as you were willing to work 
a few hours a day, and the maintenance is very good, and they 
supplied you with clothing. 

The Chairman. Were they Federal Government camps? 

Mr. McCrea. Why, yes, sir ; they were. 

The Chairman. What did it cost you there? 

Mr. McCrea. What did it cost me ? 

The Chairman, Yes. 

Mr. McCrea. Wliy, it didn't cost me anything. You see, they 
took migrants off of the road, you know, that were willing to stay 
and were trying to find employment for themselves, and they could 
stay in those camps as long as they desired and as long as they were 
willing to work a few hours a day. Of course, they had the rest of 
the day to themselves and they could go out and try to find employ- 
ment some place. 

The Chairman. Did you do your own cooking ? 

Mr. McCrea. Why, I was second cook at a summer camp, the last 
two summers in the JBerkshire Hills up in Massachusetts. 

The Chairman. Since you left home, Mr. McCrea, what was the 
next time you actually had a job for any period of time? 

Mr. McCrea. The next job I had was in Youngstown, Ohio, with 
a construction company that was putting a new boiler house in 
the Carnegie steel plant, and that lasted pretty near a year. 

The Chairman. Have you ever applied for relief? 

Mr. McCrea. No, sir ; t never have. 

handicapped worker 

The Chairman. Do you think you would have been able to secure 
employment if you had some trade, or were a skilled laborer? 

Mr. McCrea. Yes, sir; I believe I would; but it is very hard for 
me to get a job in a factory, because I am handicapped through the 
examination. I have very poor eyesight and, of course, am unable 
to pass the examination on account of that. So I usually have to 
take just restaurant work, hotel work, and like that. 

The Chairman. Have you ever had an opportunity to learn a 

Mr. McCrea. Well, I did when I worked with the New York Cen- 
tral. I worked with the New York Central for 4 years, but I went 
to the stores department instead of the mechanical, and worked in 
the stockroom. But I could have gone ahead and learned the ma- 
chinist trade, if I had desired, which I probably should have done. 

The Chairman. Where do you call your home? 

Mr. McCrea. Why, Lancaster, N. Y., where my mother is living 

The Chairman. Have you been voting there? 

Mr. McCrea.. Why, no ; I have not been home. You see, I am 
really not a resident any more, since I have left home, and, of course, 
the only time I have been at home was just for short visits, and then 
I would leave again. 


The Chairman. Yon feel you have lost your residence at Lancas- 
ter, N. Y.? 

Mr. McCrea. Oh, yes; because, you see, it has been quite a long 
time since I left. I have not been home now in over 2 years. 

The Chairman. The last two summers you have worked in sunmier 
resort hotels in Massachusetts, have you ? 

Mr. McCrea. Yes, sir; I have; up in the Berkshire Hills, in Mas- 

The Chairman. What kind of work did you do ? 

Mr, MoCrea. Why, I worked as second cook at the children's camp 
up in the Berkshire Hills. The job only lasted about 2 months and 
2 weeks. 

The Chairman. How much wages did you receive ? 

Mr. MoCrea. Why, I was receiving $45 a month and my main- 

The Chairman. And what would you do in the wintertime? 

Mr. McCbea. Why, in the wintertime I usually work in restau- 
rants, when I could get a job like that, but the last couple of win- 
ters I really have not been doing much of anything except just pick- 
ing up odd work. 

The Chairman. The last large city you visited was Baltimore, was 
it not? 

Mr. McCrea. Yes, sir; it was — Baltimore. 

The Chairman. Did you try to get work there ? 


Mr. McCrea. Yes ; I did, but I did not have any success for the 
simple reason I did not have any place to stay in Baltimore and was 
compelled to leave. 

The Chairman. How many places did you visit in search of work ? 
^ Mr. McCrea. Wliy, I visited quite a number of restaurants in Bal- 
timore, and a couple of different hotels, that is all. 

The Chairman. Did you ever register with any State employment 

Mr. McCrea. Yes, sir ; the New York State Employment Office. 

The Chairman. With what result? 

Mr. McCrea. None whatsoever. That was 2 years ago. 

The Chairman. In your travels throughout the 43 States, did you 
meet many people like yourself? 

Mr. McCrea. Yes, sir; I met thousands of them and they are really 
just about the same way as I am ; they are willing to work, and there 
are a lot of them that can secure work, but they are not able to 
finance themselves until they get it. 

The Chairman. You found people, I suppose, who had been dried 
out on the farms and were going to other States looking for work ? 

Mr. McCrea. Yes, sir; lots of them. 

The Chairman. Lots of them? 

Mr. McCrea. Quite a few of them. 

The Chairman. And who traveled over the highways? 

Mr. McCrea. Yes. 


The Chairman. Where did those people stop — in these camps? 

Mr. McCrea, Why, they usually stopped at the camps. You 
mean the transient camps, when they were operating? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. McCrjea. Why, yes; they did. They came in family groups 
and, of course, the transient camps put them in apartments, furnished 
them with their own apartment and, of course, with good food and 
clothing, and the wife was required to work a few hours each day. 

The Chairman. Did you meet up with any people like yourself, 
who were hitch-hiking? 

Mr. McCrea. Yes, sir; I did — quite a few, all over the country. 

The Chairman. Did you have any difficulty in securing rides? 

Mr. McCrea. Why, not so much. That is, if a person keeps cleaned 
up and halfway decent in appearance, they don't have much trouble. 
Otherwise, if you are not dressed up, it is pretty hard, that is if you 
look shabby. 

The Chairman. Where did you learn to be a cook? 

Mr. McCrea, Why, up in this summer camp, the first summer. 

The Chairman. Are you a pretty good cook? 

Mr. McCrea. Why, just as a second cook, just an assistant to the 
chef. Then I have done short-order work. 

The Chairman. Have you any brothers and sisters ? 

Mr. McCrea. I have one brother, who is married. I have one 
sister, who is married. My brother lives up at Batavia, N. Y., and 
my sister lives over in England. 

The Chairman. What do you intend to do — remain here in Wash- 
ington ? 


Mr. McCrea. Why, I would like to stay here; if I figured I could 
find a job that would give me a substantial salary to live on, I 
would be willing to settle down and stay; otherwise I will just have 
to keep going until I do find something where I can settle down. 

The Chairman. In other words, there comes a time with you, like 
with other American citizens, where you cannot get employment at 
home, why, you move ; you ^et out ? _ 

Mr. McCrea. Wliy, yes, sir. Of course, in my case, it was a little 
bit different. I was really compelled to move, on account of my 
stepfather, who was very hard to get along with and we were quar- 
reling all of the time, so I just left. 

The Chairman. Have you lived long enough, Mr. McCrea, in any 
one State to be eligible for relief ? 

Mr. McCrea. Why, just Ohio, when I was in Youngstown, Ohio. 

The Chairman. Did you apply for relief there? 

Mr. McCrea. No sir; I did not. 

The Chairman. If there are no further questions, thank you very 
much, Mr. McCrea. 



Mr. Curtis. Mrs. Williams, if you will, please give your full name 
to the reporter. 

Mrs. Williams. Roberta C. Williams. 

Mr. Curtis. And what is your position ? 

Mrs. Williams. I am staif associate of the National Travelers' 
Aid Association. 

Mr. Curtis. Where are you located ? 

Mrs. Williams. New York City is our headquarters; our office 
is there. 

Mr. Curtis. Mrs. Williams, we have just received your state- 
ment. I have not had an opportunity to read it. It will be intro- 
duced into the record at this point. 

(The statement and a supplement are as follows :) 


I uuderstaud from previous hearings and your interest that you appreciate 
the problems of migratory workers and I do not need to recall to the com- 
mittee the problems that confront a great army of individuals, uprooted from 
their homes for reasons beyond their control. Someone has recently said 
that we cannot argue vs^ith droughts, floods, hurricanes, and tanks. Perhaps 
not, but we have been greatly concerned in the last few months about problems 
arising from the movement of people on defense jobs. It is my particular duty, 
in connection with my work, to visit the following States : Virginia, North Caro- 
lina, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mis- 
sissippi. Naturally I have seen first-hand problems in which I believe your com- 
mittee will be interested. 


I hope you will pardon this first-hand information, somewhat personalized, 
telling what I saw near Camp Blanding. On November 16 we received an emer- 
gency telephone call from the Travelers' Aid Society in Jacksonville, Fla., ask- 
ing for help, and on Monday, November 18, we arrivied on the scene. We found 
located in the wooded area across from Camp Blanding and the construc- 
tion company's offices a migrant group estimated to be 3,000 in number. Men, 
youthful boys, and entire families, inspired with the hope of work and big 
money, had traveled to this defense activity and for the lack of any possible 
living facilities had taken up temporary abode in the wooded area. With only 
trees for protection, some slept in ramshackled cars, others in shacks of pine 
bows and still a greater number in the open with only a blanket to protect 
them from the 22° weather. With no sanitation facilities they moved from 
one section to the other as conditions became unbearable. Water was carried 
from a lake one-half mile distant. Smoldering fires, a dreaded hazard, served 
for out-of-door cooking pui'poses for those fortunate enough to have food to 


These migratory workers were headlined in the newspapers "migrants go where- 
ever jobs are, and suffer everywhere." One man from Georgia, with a thick, hoarse 
voice who hitchhiked his way from the camp to Jacksonville, asked travelers' 
aid to advance meals and lodging for a week and transportation to and from the 
camp 47 miles away. He had left his elderly mother and father in Georgia in dire 
circumstances. They were counting upon him to work and bring home money. 
Their only income for months had been from his scant W. P. A. earnings, and he 


had been cut off from this by routine months ago and had nothing more. Ill and 
discouraged, he wondered how he could hold out and work 10 days before he would 
receive his pay. Many of these migratory workers had been employed by the con- 
struction company but could not receive pay for 10 days. In urgent need of funds 
for food, they worked 3 days, gave up their job, and received their pay, then stood 
in line again to be rehired. One of the men remarked, "If one believes these people 
do not want work, they should see the lines out from the construction company's 
employment oflSce." Our Georgia man was an excellent example, for he had stood 
in a line of 800 white and colored men for 3 days before he reached the employ- 
ment window; had slept out 4 nights, and was now almost too hungry and ex- 
hausted to continue unless someone came to his aid. The situation surrounding 
Camp Blanding was more acute than that in some other communities. I have 
seen the situation in Fayetteville, N. C, and Norfolk, Va. Another of our staff 
associates has witnessed the problems in Charleston, S. C, and we have some first- 
hand information on conditions in Charlestown, Ind. 


The workers on the march who need to be considered fall into two main groups, 
civilian employees and military and naval personnel. The civilian employees com- 
prise two groups which need to be separately considered and planned for. 

First, those permanently employed in defense industries and navy yards. This 
group may be expected to continue in employment for the "duration," and the 
community problem is that of bringing them in touch with adequate community 
facilities similar to those used and required by residents, such as adequate hous- 
ing, employment, educational, recreational, and health resources. 

Second, is the group employed in emergency construction of defense plants or 
army camps. This group stays in a community a relatively short period of time. 
They come in, complete the construction, usually on a rush program, and then are 

The needs of these people while they are in the community are similar to those 
of the other group, but the problem faced by the community in providing tem- 
porary housing and related facilities for large numbers is one that requires par- 
ticular thought. Likewise, the responsibility for planning for the demobilization 
of those needing to leave a community after a short period of residence and, when 
a defense job is completed, their subsequent employment and their transportation 
to the next place of employment should be anticipated immediately and appro- 
priate machinery devised to meet this need. For example, what will become of the 
16,000 workers who are employed in constructing a smokeless-powder plant in 
Charlestown, Ind., when the construction job is finished on December 15? Inci- 
dentally, when the plant is completed, from 9,000 to 14,000 workers suitable to 
meet the plant's requirements will be coming in to constitute the operating force. 
This means that there will be 16,000 who must be moved to another new com- 
munity and who will be rapidly replaced at the rate of 14,000 to be permanently 
located and employed. 

We recognize the Tolan committee's primary interest in the movement of mi- 
gratory workers, but closely related is the movement of all kinds of people in this 
defense. When demobilization comes, we will have nonresidency greater than 
ever before. I would like to call the committee's attention to the additional group 
of those people now moving to get jobs in defense industries and navy yards. 

It is recognized that there is an immediate demand for skilled and unskilled 
workers, without necessai-y time for preparation for proper planning. Real and 
perplexing problems are bound to emerge and others continue on. People hear of 
jobs, but there is no available information regarding the number of workers 
needed and the particular skills required. Therefore, many go spurred by the 
hope of employment and encouraged by newspai)er accounts and radio appeals for 
labor. Many of tliem travel in old wornout cars, others hitchhike and become 
stranded en route. Still others are faced with problems when there is a delay in 
making application for employment. 



Then there is a group of those applying who are necessarily rejected. For 
example, the commandant in charge of civilian employment at the Charleston 
Navy Yard estimated that each day five or six out-of-town persons are rejected 
at the employment office. Even if eligible for employment, there is a consid- 
erable group that fail to pass the rigid physical examination. If these people 
are from another city a problem is created for them and for the community 
particularly because many of these communities are small and aside from the 
defense activities they offer no other opportunity for exployment. 

With regard to persons employed in emergency construction jobs, the experi- 
ence is likely to be repeated as soon as the rush job is ended. So far we 
have observed no planned program for demobilization and transferring con- 
struction groups from one project which is ended in a locality to a new project 
in another section of the country. 

In many cases the communities in which these defense activities are being 
set up are small and not equipped, and are unorganized from the standpoint 
of social services; they have not been able to anticipate and plan for the 
problems which automatically arise in a community with this influx and 
development. Moreover, in many of these communities there are no financial 
resources available locally for meeting problems which would be equal in 
extent to those of a much larger city. 


Those grouped under military personnel may not be so directly of interest 
to this committee but in considering the impact of moving people related to 
the defense program they are a part of the picture. Tliey are a problem in 
these ways: 

Young boys coming in to enlist are often not eligible and have to wait for 
examinations and arrangements. For instance, a young lad from a nearby 
State, turned down for enlistment because of dental condition, came to Atlanta 
to have this condition corrected. This was done but he was finally rejected 
because of poor eyesight. 

A report that colored enlistments would be centralized in Chicago brought 
to the Travelers Aid Society a large number of colored boys rejected for 
enlistment because of physical disability or for the reason that they were 
under age. 

Six cases of Army recruits in need of meals and lodging, who had become 
stranded because of wrong schedules, were reported in one day by one of our 

Then there is a real civilian problem related to military personnel. Families, 
relatives, and friends of the men at camps are moving into communities con- 
tiguous to camps. They need direction, information, and general assistance 
when unanticipated problems arise. 

For example, one Sunday in November when there were only 20,000 men at 
Camp Dix, visitors arrived there in 35,000 automobiles and this was, of course, 
before the induction of the selective service group. 

This brings out again the necessity of adequate housing, health, educational 
and recreational facilities, and also emphasizes a need for some central clear- 
ing place where information and general assistance can be given when un- 
foreseen problems arise so that a chronic condition does not continue in a 

During the last war the problems of civilians coming in to be near their 
men at camps constituted a major problem which required planning. The 
increase in transportation facilities during the past 23 years, plus the greater 
willingness of people to travel and the increased mobility of our population, 
indicate that this problem will assume much greater proportions now. 


Insofar as it is possible to anticipate problems and to know from experience 
what may be expected to occur it is important for appropriate plans to be made 



in advance to meet such emergencies. Some of the acutely distressing situa- 
tions that we have observed in recent weeks might easily have been anticipated 
and in this manner would have reduced suffering to the people, the cost in 
clearing up the situation and health menace to the community. The responsi- 
bility for so planning would seem to rest upon all of us, both public officials 
and public agencies, private social agencies, and citizens themselves. 

The defense program is for the Nation as a whole, and, therefore, it em- 
braces all people everywhere within the Nation ; all individuals, all institutions, 
and all communities. ^ A small community that just happens by chance to bear 
the brunt of expansion in the locality should be helped by the Nation as a 
whole in meeting the needs that arise because of a defense program for the 
Nation as a whole. 

I am sure that I do not need to emphasize to your committee the acute- 
ness of problems arising because of a shifting population. If we could accept 
responsibility for not being taken by surprise, for facing the inevitable nature 
of certain problems and profit by past experiences, and use the many avail- 
able resources, it would indeed be splendid. To this end, may I offer these 
recommendations: ^, . ^. . 

(1) That the Employment Service, Federal, and State, so gear their activi- 
ties that there will be a routing of employees to places where needed and a 
reduction of aimless job seeking, including plans for demobilization and trans- 
ferral of workers from one job to another. 

(2) That the United States Public Health Service with the State and local 
public health services concern itself with the protection of community sani- 
tation and health and make provision for health services to ill persons regard- 
less of settlement. 

(3) That since the national aspects of these problems require that new 
communities should have assistance from national agencies, both public and 
private, including the Federal Government, a community program of social 
service be set up to meet the specific problems and needs arising. Older com- 
munities in which expansion becomes necessary will need similar help. 

(4) That since present restrictions and inconsistencies of settlement laws 
will work untold hardships upon these workers when the defense program is 
ended, attention be drawn to the matter of settlement laws possibly waiving 
all settlement requirements throughout the country. 


Summary of Replies Received to Questionnaire on Defense Activities 

As reported by Travelers Aid Societies in 70 communities in response to a ques- 
tionnaire from the National Travelers Aid Association in October 1940 

We have already received replies from 70 Travelers' Aid Societies to the ques- 
tionnaire on defense activities which went to societies in October. According 
to the information contained in these answers, societies in the following cities 
will be concerned with four phases of defense — Army, Navy, air, and indus- 
trial activities : Atlanta, Boston, Bridgeport, Chicago, Hartford, Miami, Oakland, 
Philadelphia, Roanoke, Seattle, Tacoma, Toledo, and Washington, D. C. 

The following cities report large Army, air, and industrial, but no Navy 
activities: Chattanooga, Cincinnati, Columbus, Houston, Kansas City, Omaha, 
Schenectady, and Springfield, Mass. 

The following cities, in addition, report large industrial development: Balti- 
more, Dallas, Indianapolis, Long Beach, Memphis, Nashville, New Orleans, 
Pittsburgh, and Wilmington, Del. 

There will be large Army centers at Fort Dix, N. J., Fort Bragg, N. C, Camp 
Blanding, Fla., and Fort Ord, Calif. In none of these places is there an 
organized travelers' aid society. 

To date, Travelers' Aid has been called in for advice at Fort Dix and Camp 
Blanding and a field visit has been made to Fort Bragg. 

From the 70 returned questionnaires the enclosed list of problems emerges. 


Examples of Special Problems Abising in Communities as a Result of 
Population Movt:ment Related to Defense Activities 

1. Inadequacy of housing facilities : 
(a) For civilian workers. 

(6) For single men and women who desire rooms. 

(c) For single men and young married couples who desire light-housekeeping 
apartments. ^ ^ 

(d) Especially for colored. 

(e) For young girls. "The Young Women's Christian Association is filled 
and the transient committee is being revived to consider the problem " 

(/) For officers' families. "Rents too high for allowance of Army personnel " 
(g) For Army and Navy families in lower-income groups (in Seattle) who 
are not permitted to accompany men to Alaska. 

2. Need for— 

(a) "One night's lodging before going out to enroll in aviation school" 

(6) More information regarding finding rooms, etc., because of limited hous- 
ing facilities. 

(c) Workers' finding quarters in nearby communities because of housing 

id) Officers' finding housing in cities 75 and 90 miles distant from fort, driv- 
ing round-trip daily. 

"Government housing units being built to accommodate additional workers 
but do not keep abreast of the demands." * 

"Curtiss-Wright project is developing its own housing plans." 

"The real-estate board is making a housing survey." 

" bas vacancies of about 4 percent, and workers finding quarters in 

nearby communities. City is on the alert to detect unfair rentals." 

"Rents are high and land has been bought up by speculators at such a high 
price that the Government cannot make any headway with Government 


3. Inadequacy of health facilities. 

2. No health facilities for nonresidents except for emergency cases. 

3. No provision made for nonresidents unable to pay for medical care. 


1. Inadequacy of school facilities. 

2. Requests received from Army officers' wives regarding schools and cul- 
tural opportunities. 

3. "We have had several boys who have expended from $300 to $500 to come 

to and enroll in a 'phony' school to prepare for work in the defense 

industries. Apparently a whole series of rackets involving schools, used auto- 
mobiles, and hotels is developing, with outposts in the eastern and middle western 


1. Skilled workers hitchhiking in because of reported available jobs. For 
example, a man who had passed his civil-service examination and had been 
ordered to report to a certain navy yard immediately was unable to raise 
transportation money. He started hitchhiking but found he could not reach 
his destination in time. Travelers' Aid Society assisted him in raising the money 
from his own resources. 

2. Transportation home for those unable to find employment or who fail the 
physical examination for employment. For example, a boy from a nearby State 
turned down for enlistment because of a dental condition came to Atlanta to 
have this condition corrected. This was done but he was finally rejected 
because of poor eyesight. 


3. Requests for help in transferring Army and Navy families en route through 

4. Cooperation with the Civil Aeronautics Authority in arranging trans- 
portation of Army and Navy families to Alaska (Seattle Travelers' Aid Society). 

5. Boys coming to enlist often are not eligible or have to wait for examina- 
tion and arrangements. One travelers' aid society has assumed care of boys 
under 21 while local recruiting officer sends papers to parents for signature. 

A report that colored enlistments would be centralized in Chicago brought to 
the travelers aid society a number of colored boys, rejected for enlistment 
because of physical disability or age. 

6. Four men referred to travelers aid society by the Navy recruiting office 
had either spent the money allotted to them for transportation and food while 
on leave, or had lost their tickets or money, or had had their possessions 

Temporary jobs for persons awaiting jobs in defense industries. 

"Tiding over" until the first pay check. 

Eleven families in 1 day who had come from the flooded areas of Virginia to 
seek work in the powder plant near Roanoke were without work and were 
stranded in Roanoke. 

7. Six cases of Army recruits in need of meals and lodging who had become 
stranded either because of wrong schedules (which were not their fault) or 
their money or tickets were lost or stolen. 

(The naval office has not funds or facilities to help men even when the cir- 
cumstances are beyond the men's control. The Army has certain facilities 
which can be used in cases like these. ) 

8. Young soldiers from the air base stranded on Saturday nights. 


1. A young woman coming to visit her sweetheart at the fort. Service 
included verifying fact that he was there, obtaining information as to where 
and when they could meet, and securing bus schedule to fort. 

2. The wife of a private, stranded en route to her husband (against Army 
regulations) at the nearby fort. 

3. Within 1 week three women asked for help, admitting that they had 
followed the troops into town. 

4. Mr. D., an experienced machinist, 38, and his wife, 29, with five children 
(1 to 7 years) immigrated to Hartford due to Mr. D.'s suspension of 30 days 
from work (defense work in another State) because he had stayed home from 
work 1 week to care for his sick wife. They arrived with two flat tires and a 
few cents and were directed to a tourist camp on the outskirts of town. They 
were helped with food by friendly neighbors. The wife's health became worse. 
Mr. D. went to town and was referred to the travelers' aid society by a local 
church. The case was referred to a social worker in the community where they 
were domiciled, with the request for immediate medical care. The man was 
given the necessary information about employment, localities, etc., and he left 
travelers' aid with a sense of relief and courage. The wife was sent to a 
hospital. Two weeks later Mr. D. telephoned and said he had a good job, his 
wife had returned from the hospital, and his wife's mother had come to stay 
until the wife was well enough to care for the family. "Everything is going 
well and I sure do thank travelers' aid," was the happy conclusion. 

5. Increase in requests for information, direction, and referral services. 
Information for soldiers on furlough. 

Information in regard to restaurants. 
Information regarding cashing checks. 


Mr. Curtis. The committee would be pleased if you would just 
proceed in your own way to discuss the matter. 

Mrs. Williams, for the record, I want to ask a few questions con- 
cerning Camp Blanding. Just where is it located ? 


Mrs. Williams. It is located southwest of Jacksonville, Fla., 47 
miles distant. It is near two towns, Stark and Palatka. 

Mr. CuKTis. How large are those towns? 

Mrs. Williams. Stark is a town of 1,50;) population, and the 
population of Palatka is estimated at 2,500. 

Mr. Curtis. How many jobs were available at Camp Blanding? 

Mrs. AViLLiAMS. There were 19,400 employed, and they still needed 
more workers. 

Mr. Curtis. Approximately, how many people could be employed 
at Camp Blanding? 

Mrs. Williams. I do not have that number. 

Mr. Curtis. How many people arrived there seeking jobs? 

CAMP builders live IN WOODS 

Mrs. Williams. There were 3,000 estimated to be living there 
in the woods. 

Mr. Curtis. They would not all get jobs, would they? 

Mrs. Williams. 'Most of them were employed. I would say that 
three-fourths of them had received employment. 

Mr. Curtis. Are they confronted with the problem of having 
more people there than can be taken care of ? 

Mrs. WiLLix\MS. Yes. sir. Every week new people are coming in 
taking the place of others who failed during the time they were 
there to get jobs; so there was a certain change in the population 
of migrants living there in the woods during the time they were 
waiting for work. 

Mr. Curtis. This suggestion has been made in regard to the de- 
fense construction program, that the employment of persons ex- 
cept, perhaps, those who reside within a reasonable distance of the 
construction work, be placed in the hands of the United States Em- 
ployment Service, and that it be so handled that the worker w^ould 
make application for work at his home, or where he lives, and then 
seek clearance through the Employment Service. He would then 
proceed to the point where he could be put to work. It would not be 
a question of prohibiting people from traveling while seeking work, 
but it would merely change the place where they applied for jobs 
from the point of construction to the place where they lived. The 
information as to the work available would be spread tliroughout the 
length and breadth of _ the country, and if they wanted employment 
in the defense industries, they would be advised that their applica- 
tions must be put in where they reside, and not where the job is 
located. Now, from your experience with the Travelers' Aid Society, 
would you approve such a general id^ea as that ? 

Mrs. Williams. I think that it would work. If some mechanical 
means could be devised by which that information could be quickly 
routed to the employment services, with the people directed to apply 
in their own localities, and if they would give the employment 
agencies information as to the number of persons available, and the 
particular skills available, these agencies would know where to 
direct them to go, and I think that would help a great deal. 

260370 — 41 — pt. 0- 


Mr. Curtis. Were there any obvious errors of management on 
the part of the contractor or of the Government itself in the Camp 
Blanding situation? 


Mrs. Williams. The construction company had 19,400 persons em- 
ployed, and they had barracks at the camp site for only 2,000. Many 
of them were going back and forth to Jacksonville, or any place where 
they could get housing, but certainly the housing facilities did not 
exist on the site of Camp Blanding for more than 2,000 employees. 
They needed more than 19,000. One day they stated that they had 
almost the peak of employment, because they were so concerned about 
this problem that they temporarily closed the employment office. 
However, I understand that it was reopened. 

Mr. Curtis. Wliere did the contractor expect these people to live? 

Mrs. Williams. I am sure I cannot answer that. There were a few 
housekeeping rooms available in Jacksonville, but that was 47 miles 
away, and the matter of transportation was involved. They did not 
seem to have had any plan when they started, and there was a traffic 
hazard in going to and from the camp. 

Mr. Curtis. This is in a more or less remote area ? 

Mrs. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curtis. Is there a highway leading to it? 

Mrs. Williams. Yes, sir ; there is a paved highway, but there is only 
one lane coming and one going. 

Mr. Curtis. Wliat kind of camp is this? 

Mrs. Williams. It is a camp that they are constructing for the train- 
ing of soldiers. Those people are coming in. One unit is the Forty- 
third Division, and I think the other is the Twenty-first Division. 

would abolish settle]mext laws 

Mr. Curtis. I am interested in the recommendations that you have- 
made. We have had two schools of thought represented in the sugges- 
tions that have been made to this committee on the subject of settlement 
laws. One group believes in uniform State settlement laws, while- 
the other would abolish settlement laws altogether. Do you favor the- 
abolition of settlement laws? 

Mrs. Williams. Yes. sir; I think they should be abolished for the- 
purposes of relief, because I think that if a person who arrives in a 
community is in need, something should be done about it. Wlien you 
have to gear yourself up through two or three States, where you may 
have resources or residence, the situation is made difficult. In the 
long run, except in one or two outstanding States, where they have a 
terrific increase in the number of transients, there would be no dif- 
ference, because most of them have people going out as well as people- 
coming in. 

Mr. Curtis. You think that a migrant coming into the State of Cali- 
fornia should not be denied relief in California because he has not- 
established residence there? 


Mrs. Williams. Generally speaking, I think so, but I do not know 
what California would think about it, because I understand they have 
a greater number of migrants than any other State. 

Mr. Curtis. You feel, however, that it would make the handling 
of relief easier? 

Mrs. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curtis. What do you think about the long-time effect of that ? 
Do you think it would increase the wanderings of destitute people, 
or not ? 

Mrs. Williams. No, sir ; I do not see why it would. 

Mr. Curtis. You do not adhere to the theory that someone who 
is faced with misfortune or has lost his job or home would find it 
better to stay where he is or where he is known and has been for 
a long time proving his worthiness ? 

Mrs. Williams. I think that depends entirely on how the person 
himself feels. Each individual can better tell how he feels about 
those circumstances than someone else. 

Mr. Curtis. If all settlement laws were abolished, do you think 
that some States would have a tremendous influx of people that could 
never be assimilated because of climatic conditions or the like? 
^ Mrs. Williams. I do not think so, except, perhaps, in the cases of 
California and Florida. They might have a larger number than they 
would know what to do with. However, they have them anyway. 

Mr. Curtis. Let us consider that for a moment : Let us take the case 
of an individual who is not quite destitute but who has been working 
around and is just about getting along. Now, such a person knows 
that under the present system if he ventures away from home and 
meets with misfortune, he is homeless and may not secure aid ; and he 
may hang on to what he has, even though it is not very good or very 
profitable. That is because he would have a fear that he would be 
in difficulty thousands of miles from home. He will bear in mind that 
he will be destitute and not eligible for aid. Now, if you were to re- 
move that situation or that danger many people might go to some 
place in the South, where they have warm weather and sunshine, 
where they might be able to dig up a few days or a few weeks work 
during cold weather in the North. They would have no fear that 
they would be unable to qualify for aid the same as any individual who 
has lived there for 20 years. It seems to me that would encourage 
them to start out. 

Mrs. Williams. I do not believe it would cause more to do that 
than are doing it at the present time. They see the hardships, dan- 
gers, and insecurity, and they would not go if they had no reason 
to believe that their prospects would be better at the end of the journey. 
Wlien they arrive in a community they might be helped with what 
resources "they have themselves. They go with the hope of getting 
work, and they may get temporary work, and with the resources they 
have on hand, some plan might be worked out whereby they may do 


Mr. Curtis. I am not inclined to think harshly of these people, but 
I want to go into this matter thoroughly. I share the view that the 


chairman has so frequently expressed, that people move on because 
they have to move, or because necessity forces them. That is true, but 
I do not think we should lose sight of the fact tliat many of these 
people, when they move on, meet with more hunger and more abuse 
and more ill health than if they had remained where they were. 
Once they become migrants, they suffer more than they would if they 
were back home where they have friends, neighbors, church connec- 
tions, and other things that hold people together in a community. 
I do not think it would be a wise thing to encourage people to break 
away from those home conditions. 

Mrs. Williams. Where they would be going into a State or com- 
munity, they would not necessarily be going to secure some kind of 
help that they could get in their own community. They might be 
going in the hope of securing employment, or improved employment, 
or some other related resource that would help them. I do not think 
they would go because they would be eligible in other States for 

The Chairman. Mrs. Williams, your statement has been made a 
part of the record. Do you want to offer that map ? 

Mrs. Williams. This map shows the Army, Navy, air, and indus- 
trial locations, or the major ones. This information has come 
through the visits of our society and 70 other travel-aid societies 
located in these defense areas. 

The Chairman. It may be marked as an exhibit and filed with the 

(The map referred to was duly marked and filed with the com- 

The Chairman. Mrs. Williams, I think your recommendations are 
very interesting, and I want to say to you that you have submitted 
a very fine statement. Now, it makes very little difference what pre- 
conceived notions we have about migration in the United States; it 
has always been and always will be present. 

Mrs. Williams, Absolutely ; yes, sir. 


The Chairinian. What I am concerned with are the good Amer- 
ican citizens who have to leave their farms and their home status on 
account of circumstances over which they have no control. I know 
it is nice to have church connections and friends, but there comes a 
time in their lives when the law of self-preservation must prevail 
and they must leave. For instance, the reduction of the W. P. A. 
appropriation at the last session caused 800,000 people to be laid off. 
Now, take a man like that. Of course, he would like to stay at home ; 
he would like to remain in his home city, but he has no job, and 
cannot get relief. "Wliat else can he do but leave? I do not know 
what recommendation the committee will make, but we certainly 
could improve the condition now existing. It could not be worse. 

Mrs. Williams. That is true. 


The Chaieman. There are millions of homeless people who are 
citizens of the United States under the Constitution. They run up 
against a lot of barriers whenever they attempt to cross State lines. 
There should be at the border or at some place in the States a point 
at which these migrating American citizens can get some real in- 
formation. They are not getting it now. Down South there are 
private employment agencies that promise them jobs in the State. 
In some States, as in Arizona and California, they have elaborate 
offices, with fine officers in charge, for the inspection of fruit pests 
that are not permitted to cross the State lines. I think we should 
address ourselves to that problem of providing reliable information 
to these people. 

Mr. Curtis. At what points would you give the information. 

Mrs. Williams. I think when people move around looking for jobs, 
and so forth, this information should be given through the employ- 
ment services in the communities, through publicity, and advising 
people where to go if they are out of work. It should be done at the 
beginning, before they leave their communities. 

Mr. Curtis. If it is at the border of the State, and is discouraging 
information, it would mean that some other State would get the 

Mrs. Williams. They should be given the information at the 
beginning of the journey. 

Mr. Sparkman. In connection with this chart you have there, does 
it show the location of Army posts ? 

Mrs. Williams. The location of the Army posts is shown in red; 
the location of the Navy posts is shown in blue; the green indicates 
the location of the air bases, and the orange indicates the location of 
industrial plants, like smokeless powder plants, and so forth.^ 

The Chairman. If there is nothing further, we thank you very 
much for your statement. 


The Chairman. Dr. Carruthers, I understand you desire to make 
a brief statement to the committee, and we will be only too glad to 
hear you at this time. 

Will you state your full name and address ? 

Dr. Carruthers. My name is Kev. John Carruthers; my address 
is 1015 Prospect Boulevard, Pasadena, Calif. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Dr. Carruthers. Mr. Chairman, I am here in connection with the 
national-service problems of the National Presbyterian Church, 
which is the Covenant-First Presbyterian Church, at Connecticut 
Avenue and N Street. 

That church has been designated by the General Assembly of the 
Presbyterian Church in the United States to be a so-called cathedral 
church, representing about 2,000,000 people. This is the third time 
I have been associated with this church in 25 years. 

Filed with the committee and not printed. 


The interests of the Presbyterians in the national emergency of 
total spiritual defense includes the question before this committee, 
and I have volunteered to ask to be heard here, largely because of 
the stimulation that Mr. Collins and some of the other members of 
the survey have provided. Also, I have been asked to give a series 
of lectures in the country on this particular question, and I have been 
given some of the literature. 

At first, let me state that I believe the United States owes this 
committee a great debt for the sincere way in which they have at- 
tempted to present and deal with a problem very few people know 
much about, and, unfortunately, that very few church people care 
much about. 

At the same time that I am speaking in terms of commendation 
let me also speak in terms of mild condemnation of the fact that the 
church has been blind on this question, and that goes also for the 
Catholic church and the Jewish church and churches of all denomi- 

It is distinctly the spiritual problem of the church, this great ques- 
tion of the stranger within our midst. 

I feel that I might make one or two constructive suggestions, and 
I only want to volunteer these suggestions because I want you to be 

You have no idea how ready the churches are to take this ball if 
you will only throw it over to them in some kind of a way. But 
there is a great deal of education that will have to be done to get 
tliem to get into the team play and run with the ball. 

I make the suggestion, first, that if it is possible, we hold a con- 
vocation in Washington under the auspices of all churches in the 
United States, under all of the official members of all denominations, 
to lay upon them the spiritual obligation to dedicate their facilities, 
their institutions, their men, and their social-science and home-service 
organizations to this problem. 


Second, I would like to urge the continuation of this committee 
in some form. You have just scratched the surface on this question. 

Third, I would like to make the more practical and immediate 
suggestion, that those ministers in Washington, D. C, who are listed 
and appointed by their denominations to be ministers of national 
churches such as the Baptist, the Methodist, the Catholic, and the 
Presbyterian, be formed into a very small committee of about a dozen 
to take under advisement the policy and procedure that would seem 
to me most practical in connection with this problem, so that this 
hearing will not blow up with just a lot of data printed in the old 
Congressional Record, good as it is, and put the inspiration of your 
help into it. 

I would like to see your congressional committee and associates 
move into the churches"^ of Washington and open the eyes that are 
blind on this subject. 


The Chairman. Doctor, the committee seems to be unanimous in the 
expression of the thought that yours is the first suggestion of the 
spiritual connection of this whole migrant movement, in reference 
to the stranger within our gates. 

Dr. Carruthers. This is our problem. 

The Chairman. In other words, there were 4 million migrants 
last year going from State to State, Stateless and homeless. 

Dr. Carruthers. And churchless. 

The Chairman. And under the Constitution they are citizens of 
the 48 States, and not just of their own States. 

Dr. Carruthers. That is right. 

The Chairman. But barriers have been raised against them, just 
as if the 48 States were 48 nations. 

Dr. Carruthers. It is criminal. 

The Chairman. Certainly, you cannot stop their moving about; 
this is their country. 

Dr. Carruthers. Certainly. 

The Chairman. We cannot keep on kicking them around without 
having that action strike at the morale of our country. 

Dr. Carruthers. Let me say that this extremely persuasive report 
of the lady who just preceded me as a witness before you had good 
warmth in it, but after that, where are you going? There are some 
things I know, and there ought to be some place in which every com- 
munity in every State which has this problem could maintain a kind 
of settlement house or cooperative spiritual service center supported 
by church and private money so that these people could be taken into 
a kind of clinic where they could be given constructive service, and 
not throw them out, for instance, into the city of Los Angeles, where 
I live, and simply have them thrown to the wolves, but let them go 
where they might have some spiritual attention. It might take 
months before they could be located. 

The Chairman. I think you have hit the nail on the head, because 
the heart of the American people is absolutely sound. 

Dr. Carruthers. That is right. 

The Chairman. But it takes a campaign of education to get over a 
movement of this kind. 

Dr. Carruthers. Yes ; and we are ready to help you. 

The Chairman. In New York and other places where we have been 
throughout the country they have this problem. When we were trying 
to get this resolution passed in Congress, they said it is a California 
problem and not a problem involvintr the whole country. 

Dr. Carruthers. It is not at all simply a California problem. 

The Chairman. We thank you for your statement and your sug- 
gestions, and I think we will take advantage of them. 

Dr. Carruthers. I thank you. 

Mr. Curtis. I was very much interested in your statement. You said 
you might have other suggestions to offer, and I think our record 
should ibe open to you so that you may insert those suggestions in your 
statement. I am sure the committee will be highly pleased to have you 
develop the subject further and give us such other suggestions as you 
may have to make within the next 10 days. 


Dr. Carruthers. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that these re- 
marks are entirely spontaneous, and I would like to have a chance to 
make some reservations in what I have said, because I would like to 
implement my suggestions.^ 

The Chairman. You will be given that permission. 

Dr. Carruthers. I thank you, gentlemen. 

The Chairman. The next witness is Mr. Ranch, Acting Commis- 
sioner of the Federal AVorks Agency, Work Projects Administration. 


Mr. Sparkman. Mr. Ranch, will you give the reporter your full name, 
your address, and your official capacity. 

Mr. Rauch. My name is Fred R. Ranch ; I am Acting Commissioner 
of the Work Projects Administration. 

Mr. Sparkman. You are Acting Commissioner of the Federal Works 
Agency ? 

Mr. Rauch. Of the Work Projects Administration. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee [reading] : 

Migration of Destitute Citizens to Defense Centers 

Migration of workers to centers of new industrial activity is changing the 
character of the migration problem considerably. During the next few months, 
a great deal less will be heard of farm migrations and a great deal more of 
the large group of persons moving into centers of greatly increased industrial 
activity resulting directly and indirectly from the defense armament program. 
Generally speaking, the unskilled worker who is migrating is not finding a 
ready market for his labor. 

The most striking evidences of migrations appear in connection with defense 
operations either in industrial centers or at Army cantonments. The migra- 
tions into States create more problems than migrations out of States. Serious 
situations have not yet been created where labor leaves an area. However, 
the W. P. A. in watching economic trends, has observed substantial migrations 
of labor from the States of Alabama, Arkansas, the Dakotas, Georgia, Kansas, 
Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Vermont, and Washington 
into other States. Obviously the list is incomplete. 

This is brought out clearly in examining reports from many States which 
report an influx of labor : 

Arizona reports its usual type of influx of cotton pickers but it has shown no 
appreciable influx as a result of the defense program. 

The same situation is reported for Arkansas. 

In Florida there is at least the usual seasonal migration of workers who 
seek to obtain winter employment in milder climates. The citrus belt also 
offers employment opportunities. A very important concentration exists at 
Camp Blanding (60 miles southwest of Jacksonville). Approximately 19,000 
workers were concentrated in this area according to recent reports received. 

There is undoubtedly some inter-State migration into Illinois, although this 
has not been described as a serious influx. 

Indiana has received workers from Arkansas and Missouri. 

In Louisiana a large concenraation of out-of-State workers exists at Camp 
Beauregard in the Alexandria area. It has been estimated that a third of 
the 16,000 workers have come from adjoining States. 

No additional material was received by the committee. 


Maryland has received workers from adjoining States, a large part of them 
being drawn to the Fort Meade area. 

Mississippi shipyards have attracted skilled workers from the northern 

New Hampshire rejwrts some movement into the State of workers who liave 
come after making specific arrangements for jobs. 

Workers are coming into North Carolina from Georgia and South Carolina. 
A concentration point is Fort Bragg. 

Similarly, in Ohio, workers are coming in from West Virginia and Pennsyl- 
vania to seek employment. 

The principal concentration points for out-of-State labor in South Carolina 
are Fort Jackson near Columbia, and Charleston. At Fort Jackson, approxi- 
mately 10,000 persons have been employed, of which over a third have come from 
outside the State, principally North Carolina and Georgia. Workers at the 
Charleston Navy Yard likewise have come, in some cases, from outside the State. 
The turn-over of employment at Fort Jackson is great because of the Inadequate 
training and experience of persons who have obtained employment. 

In Vermont the Burlington and Fort Ethan Allen areas are attracting out-of- 
State labor. The Eastern Shore of Virginia has had a substantial boom in em- 
ployment because of defense activities. It has not been possible to estimate how 
much of the employment is from out-of-State sources, yet it is believed that a 
substantial amount must be of that type. 

There are, of course, many shifts in employment within States. In examining 
economic trends. Work Projects Administration State organizations advise that 
such movements are occurring in connection with defense acivities in California, 
Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New 
Jersey Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Washington. 

New York City reports a shift in the source of out-of-State families coming 
into that metropolis. There has formerly been a strong concentration from the 
South, but there is a shift to families coming from the Middle and Western 
States. This undoubtedly can be explained in part by the increased employment 
opportunities in the South. 

One of the conditions which is commonly noted is that some of the migrating 
families which are seeking work are not destitute. They are frequently poor, and 
if they do not find employment quickly, serious need problems will result. How- 
ever, the type of migrating family which is appearing in many defense areas is that 
which has means of making its migration from the home area to the defense 
area. There should be considerable concern as to the dislocation and responsi- 
bility for caring for needy families when such booms in employment are over. 


The current migration to Army cantonment construction areas and centers of 
defense industry has affected the housing problem of local residents and the new 
influx of labor to varying degrees. 

Generally speaking, the most thickly populated States, where defense industries 
have drawn labor to large industrial centers, report little or no housing difficulties. 
The smaller centers of employment are less adequately prepared to meet the 
problem, and therefore the burden of housing increases in proportion. In places 
where rents have advanced, the burden of higher prices, crowded living condi- 
tions, and scarcity of houses, has been felt not so much by the imported labor 
group as by the local low-income group. Some of the northeastern States and the 
Middle Atlantic Seaboard States feel this most acutely. In many places, steps 
have been taken, either through local groups of the Federal Housing Authority, to 
remedy this situation. 

The mushroom growths in the neighborhood of Army cantonments are a 
result of sudden influxes of labor. These influxes have reached startling 
proportions, and are in the places where the most serious housing, health, and 
sanitation problems are found. Army cantonments are frequently located 
near small communities, which are totally unprepared to meet the needs of 
the new residents. Housing and restaurant facilities are lacking, unreason- 
able prices for poor shelter and food prevail, and workers live in automobiles, 
shacks, or other improvised quarters. The sanitation problem is a great 
danger to public health. 



Outstanding examples are the housing conditions at the Army post under 
construction at Tullahoma, Tenn. Approximately one-half of the 8,000 workers 
live within a radius of 30 miles and provide their own transportation. The 
i-emainder, who have migrated from other points of the State or other States, 
are attempting to live near Tullahoma in tents, automobiles, and barns. Every 
hotel rooming house, and private home is filled to capacity. The largest hotel 
in the vicinity has established a rate of $90 a month for a single room without 
bath and board. The State department of health advises that the sanitary 
conditions in the vicinity of the cantonment site and of the town of Tulla- 
homa, are very bad. The Work Projects Administration sanitary project has 
been enlarged in an attempt to alleviate the condition but because of the 
extent of the condition, the situation remains sei-ious. 

In Columbia, S. C, there is a great need for additional housing facilities. 
However, even though these are provided, the migrants seeking work in Fort 
Jackson would probably not benefit from them since new living quarters, with 
the exception of low-cost housing under the United States Housing Authority, 
are outside the range of the migrants' income. Most of them live in board- 
ing houses, tourist and trailer camps, or in automobiles. 

Several cities in Texas, among tliem Dallas, Corpus Christi, Galveston, and 
Houston report inadequate living conditions. Rents have generally increased. 
Many migrants are sleeping in automobiles and trucks, or fenced inclosures 
with no roof. Cooking is done along the roadside. Sanitation facilities are 

Situations similar to those cited above are duplicated in many States. In- 
creased efforts are being made by local authorities and contractors to bring 
about some improvement. The situation continues to be very serious. 


It is my recommendation that the committee should not overlook the maxi- 
mum application of the services of existing Federal agencies in alleviating 
the migration problem. An adequate housing program and greater use of 
the State employment service as clearing houses for information as to available 
jobs are much to be desired. 

My recommendations, however, are directed primarily to the Federal services 
which have prevented and can do much more to prevent unnecessary migration. 
The stamp plan which is often the only assistance given to needy families in rural 
areas should be extended. The work program operated by the Work Projects 
Administration should continue to provide assistance to needy unemployed work- 
ers where they live. The farm-security program should extend, if possible, the 
rehabilitation services. Perhaps a combined program of rehabilitation on the 
farm with a limited amount of Work Projects Administration work for cash 
income could, in a limited period of time, permanently rehabilitate many families. 
Such a program would be of relatively low cost compared to the cost which is 
going to fall sooner or later upon either the Federal or local governments, or both, 
for maintaining needy migrating families which have lost completely their eco- 
nomic roots. 


Mr. Sparkman, I have read your statement, Mr. Eauch, which has 
been made a part of the record. I would like to ask you a few questions 
and have you give us some of the high points of your statement, if you 
care to do so. 

Were you here when Mrs. Williams was giving her statement ? 

Mr. Rauch. No, sir ; I am sorry I missed it. 

Mr. Sparkman. In the course of her statement she told us in rather 
graphic language of the conditions existing at Camp Blanding, Fla. 
I believe you mentioned that in your statement, and you also mentioned 
the situation at Camp Tullahoma, in Tennessee. It seems they are com- 


I would like to have you describe those situations, according to the 
information you have, and just what work has been done to alleviate 
the conditions. 


Mr. Rauch. At Camp Blanding, Camp Tullahoma, as well as other 
places of similar character, there has been a great deal of migration 
of skilled and semiskilled construction workers for the purpose of ob- 
taining work in the construction of the cantonments. The same thing 
is true, I am sure, at Fort Bragg, N. C, and at Camp Beauregard, in 

The chief difficulty seems to be that word goes out that a great many 
skilled mechanics are needed and that high wages are being paid for 
construction work around the camps. A great many people flock 
there. These camps are usually situated close to small towns. It 
would be unusual for them to be situated near a large center of popu- 

Housing facilities are limited, and sanitary facilities are limited. 
The employment facilities are very limited in comparison with the 
great number of people who go to seek work, and it causes a very 
distressing condition. 

The fact that people go there in large numbers increases the cost of 
food, increases the cost of housing facilities that are available, and 
causes extremely dangerous sanitary conditions. It seems to me it is 
something that should be seriously considered by the committee, in 
order, if possible, to do something about it as rapidly as possible. 

Mr. Sparkman. Are those conditions for only a short duration of 
time, or do you contemplate they will continue for the entire construc- 
tion period? 

Mr. Rauch. For the most part, as we see it now, the construction 
work will be completed early in 1941. Of course, I assume there will 
be work continuously going on at those places, and there will be a 
continuous stream of people seeking work. 

Of course, it is necessary to have persons going to those places to 
seek work so they may have the labor necessary to construct the work 
that needs to be done. My opinion is that the conditions will get 
better the longer the problem is with us. 

Mr. Sparkman. Most of these people who become problem people, 
I might say — are they skilled or unskilled workmen ? 


Mr. Rauch. They are all skilled and semiskilled people. We find 
very little, however, in connection with the national-defense program 
of unskilled people leaving their homes to seek work. For the most 
part it is the skilled and semiskilled people who feel they can obtain 
work in the construction of the camps. 

I have one example I can cite, if you please, at Fort Bragg, in North 

There are a considerable number of contractors engaged in the con- 
struction of facilities at that camp. 


There is an employment office down there. The Employment Serv- 
ice has been sending requisitions up until recently — I am not sure 
whether they have or have not discontinued the practice — they have 
been sending requisitions for 2,500 carpenters, and when the carpenters 
come down there — people hear of this information through the trade 
journals and by word of mouth and in newspaper stories — when these 
men go down there, men who profess to be carpenters, they are put out 
in what is more or less of a bull pen and told to wait. A contractor's 
superintendent may need 15 carpenters, and 1 carpenter superintendent 
would go out to this camp and say they need 15 carpenters, and they 
will have them come in. 

Maybe in another section of the work a contractor would be laying 
off 15 carpenters, and they would go back into the waiting line, with 
this large group of people waiting for jobs. 

We have had several actual experiences where men have come from 
70 to 80 miles, men who worked on W. P. A. and who worked out 

The policy of W. P. A. is that if there is a job with any decent 
circumstances surrounding it, if the pay is about right and the hours 
about right and job conditions anywhere near fair, we require workers 
to leave W. P. A. to take private work. We have cut people off of 
W. P. A. and sent them up there, and we have done this in other like 
situations. If they do get the job, then after they work all day they 
have found that there is no place within 50 or 60 miles for them to stay. 

Mr. Sparkman. W. P. A. has never been able to give employment 
to all those who have been certified, has it ? 

Mr. Rauch. No, sir. 

Mr. Sparkman. About what percentage have they been able to 
give employment to, would you say? 

Mr. Rauoh. About 65 percent of those who are certified. 

Mr. Sparkman. Is that about the average throughout the country ? 

Mr. Rauch. That is about the average throughout the country; 
3'es, sir. 

Mr. Sparkman. I heard the State manager of projects in my State 
of Alabama make the statement that 50 percent was the highest for 
our particular State. 

Mr. Rauoh. Yes, sir; that is in Alabama. Your agricultural con- 
ditions there have not been as favorable as they might have been 
to the intake situation. In other words, they have certified people 
down there pretty freely. 

Mr. Sparkman. But they have certified them less, proportionately, 
than in other areas? 

Mr. Rauoh. That is right. 

gravity of post-emergency period 

Mr. Sparkman. A good many witnesses who have appeared before 
our committee have warned us "of the gravity of the situation which 
will exist after the period of emergency defense activity is ended, 
and have said that we might expect another big migration at that 
time. I wonder what your thoughts are along that line. 


Mr. Eatjch. It certainly will present a very serious problem to this 
Nation during the post-war time. 

I, of course, believe sincerely in a work program, but I believe 
the best defense in preparation for that time is the maintenance of 
an adequate work program for needy people. 

Mr. Sparkman. Certainly we should be contemplating such an 
emergency and planning for it. 

Mr. Rauch. Yes, sir. 

Mr. 8PARKMAN. What has been the general policy of W. P. A. 
regarding the shutting down or adjusting of projects to meet the 
seasonal demands for farm labor? 

Mr. Rauch. It is the fixed policy of W. P. A. to close down any 
project, no matter how important the project might be, in order 
to permit workers to take jobs in private industry. 

Whether it has been just a 1-day job, or a 2-day job, a 1-month 
job, or a permanent job, it has been the policy of W. P. A. to require 
the workers to go to private jobs when they can get them, and we 
will go to any extreme, as far as the closing down of projects is 
concerned, to get them to do that. 

Mr. Sparkman. In other words, it is the policy of W. P. A. to 
regard that activity not as a career industry, but simply as an organi- 
zation to furnish work to take care of an emergency ? 

Mr. Rauch. That is correct. 

Mr. Sparkman. Sometimes we hear complaints of people in rural 
areas to the effect that they cannot get help in connection with their 
crops, particularly during harvesting time, or, down in my section 
of the country in the spring when hoeing time comes, because people 
will not leave W. P. A. to take that employment. 

Formerly there was some difficulty, was there not, for employees 
to get back to work on W. P. A. ? 

Mr. Rauch. Yes; at one time there was more difficulty than in the 
last 2 or 3 years. 

Mr. Sparkman. That has been adjusted over the last couple of 
years ? 

Mr. Rauch. As a matter of fact, the law provides that workers 
who leave W. P. A. to take jobs in private industry and lose their 
jobs through no fault of their own, must be restored to their previous 
employment status without delay. 


Mr. Sparkman. Have you had any shut-downs in projects because 
of a lack of skilled labor? 

Mr. Rauch. We have had to close down projects in certain areas 
because of lack of all types of labor. We have restricted our opera- 
tions in certain sections, on the Eastern Shore of Virginia; at Hamp- 
ton Roads and Norfolk, the program there has been restricted. 

Then at San Diego, Calif., our program has been restricted. 

Not far from here, during the apple season, at Winchester, Va., 
we closed down a project in that county so that there would be a 
sufficient amount of labor to pick the apple crop. 


It may be interesting- in this connection for you to know that 
W. P. A. investigates thoroughly every complaint we get, even if 
it involves only one worker, and the complaint says that this man 
refused to leave W. P. A., or the man making the complaint might 
say, "I am a farmer, but I have been unable to get help during the 
harvest season or the planting season." I want to make it clear 
there is not one complaint that is not investigated. But in the past 
we have found only one small fraction of 1 percent of the com- 
plaints had any validity. The investigations are not in the nature 
of a whitewash, but are made in order to obtain the facts. We 
do that because we want to be sure that workers on W. P. A. do 
not regard W. P. A. as a permanent job. 

Mr. Sparkman. Can you give us any idea as to the number of 
unskilled workers taken from the W. P. A. by the defense program ? 

Mr. Rauch. No, sir. We lose on the average 100,000 persons a 
month, who leave W. P. A. voluntarily to go into private industry. 

Mr. Sparkman. Over how long a time have you been losing that 
number ? 

Mr. Rauch. That percentage has been pretty constant over 5 

Mr. Sparkman. Has there been any quickening of that since the 
defense program started? 

Mr. Rauch. No. I think probably there have been more skilled 
workers who have left W. P. A. But I am not at all sure that there 
has been any greater percentage of unskilled workers that have 
left W. P. A. 


Mr. Sparkman. Can you give us any idea to what extent W. P. A. 
workers have received refresher courses in vocational training con- 
nected with the defense program? 

Mr. Rauch. We have at the present time about 29,000 people on 
W. P. A. in vocational schools receiving refresher courses. Those 
courses last from 4 to 9 or 10 weeks at the outside. 

1 have not the current reports, but the number of people who 
gain jobs after they have those refresher courses is increasing to 
quit« an extent. 

Mr. Sparkman. Wliat are the ages of the employees who take 
those courses? 

Mr. Rauch. We have no age limit. The age of the trainee de- 
pends on the requirements of private industry. If we can get a 
man on W. P. A. who has been a skilled workman in the past, even 
though he is 55 or 60 years old, we try to see that he gets back 
into private industry, and we provide for that as quickly as if he 
were only 18 or 20 years old. As a matter of fact, we work with 
employers right along to obtain that result. 

Mr. Parsons. Mr. Rauch, you made reference in your testimony to 
shutting down projects in order to take care of seasonal employment 
in certain areas, such as areas where there is fruit picking or harvesting. 

Wliat procedure, if any, has been undertaken by the local agencies 
of W. P. A. in looking after this seasonal employment, in whatever 


line it may be, and to have those people reinstated, so far as the local 
district or county officers are concerned ? 

Mr. Rauch. Of course, as you know, W. P. A. is decentralized and 
operates in more than 3,000 counties in the United States, and our 
administrative employees, those people who operate the program and 
are responsible for the operation of the program are usually local 
people, and they know the employment conditions, and they know 
the industrial and agricultural conditions in the county. It is our 
policy that they shall keep in touch with those conditions, and if it is 
necessary to close a project down, that they shall do it. It is only 
necessary for an employer to show that he needs labor in order to have 
them close a project. 

Mr. Parsons. There has been some complaint in my territory that 
I had taken little pains in the last 3 or 4 years to even slightly investi- 
gate those conditions, at least. 

We have in one county of my district a great deal of fruit. The 
orchardmen have complained to me that they could not get W. P. A. 
labor to harvest the fruit. The individuals who used to be employed 
by them are now working on W. P. A. Wlien I have referred the 
matter to W. P. A. officials the statement has been made to me on more 
than one occasion that they do not propose to pay W. P. A. wages for 
the harvesting of crops or fruit. 

IVhat is your requirement and procedure in the local offices with 
reference to wages paid and the conditions under which W. P. A. 
workers must be furloughed to aid and assist the landlords? 

Mr. Rauch. The only requirement W. P. A. has is that the wages 
paid are the going wages in that community. 


We have had complaints from industrial areas and fruit growers that 
they could not get W. P. A. workers to harvest their crop, paying a 
dollar a day for an 8- or 12-hour day, which is perhaps 50 cents under 
the going rate. That is the only situation in which we feel that the con- 
tinued operation on a project is justified. 

If the wages are the going rate in the community for that particular 
type of work we do not feel that we are authorized to make them raise 
the wages. If they are the going wages in the community for that 
particular type of work, then it may be necessary to close down those 

Mr. Parsons. Ordinarily, in this apple and peach country they pay 
the workers on a piece basis. Sometimes, if a worker is the "right kind 
of a worker they pay him at a daily, weekly, or hourly rate, which 
runs, on the average, at least $2 a day. Of course, that requires that 
they work longer than on W. P. A., maybe as long as 10 hours. 

Naturally, the operators are critical, in many instances, of W. P. A. 
for that reason. 

The same thing is true in harvest time, in connection with wheat, 
oats, and grass fields. They complain because they cannot get W. P. A. 



From my observation, and I think they have done as good a job in 
southern Illinois as anywhere else— my observation is that not 
enough attention is. paid to those things by the local W. P. A. That 
may have been changed in the last 10 days or 2 or 3 weeks. 

A fellow working', on W. P. AJ feels, if he leaves to accept' a job in 
private employment, when he comes back he will not be able^ to 
get his job back on W. P. A. no matter what the wages have been. 

Mr. Kauch. I am sorry I do not have with me a copy' of the 
instructions, or a bulletin sent out to the States within the last day 
or two, to which was attached a statement to the W. P. A. workers 

Mr. Parsons. Was that the statement which appeared in the press 
yesterday, under Mr. Hunter's authorization? 

Mr. Rauch. Yes, sir. I would be pleased to send you a copy of 
that statement, with those instructions to the States. 

I will also be pleased if you would call to the attention of the State 
Administrator or the Washington office, or to my attention, any time 
you find there is any apparent reluctance to see that workers go to 
private jobs, and I will guarantee it will be investigated promptly, 
and appropriate action will be taken. 

Mr. Parsons. What is your thought or estimate, if you care to give 
it at this time, of your anticipations of the roll for the next fiscal 
year with the defense program speeded up as it is? 

Mr. Rauch. I am not prepared to make public at this time our 
estimates because that would depend upon— for the next fiscal year, 
as I understood you to say ? 

Mr. Parsons. Well, let me ask you this question first: Will the 
appropriation which the Congress has made for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1941, be sufficient to last until June 30? 

work projects administration needs more money 

Mr. Rauch. The appropriation, as you will recall, was made with 
the provision that it could be expended in 8 months. It will not 
have been fully expended in 8 months but it will be necessary to 
request a supplemental appropriation in the early session of Congress. 

Mr. Parsons. It will depend, of course, upon facts that develop 
between now and June 30 as to the contemplated appropriation of 
the amount that will take for the next fiscal year. 

Mr. Raush. Yes. 

Mr. Parsons. Has the W. P. A. taken into recognition the migra- 
tion problem ; the amount of unemployed workers in certifying those 
who w^ere eligible ? 

Mr. Rauch. Yes; we have taken it into consideration, and the 
W. P. A. is very conscious of the migrant problem, because as you 
wiil recall in 1934 and 1935 when the Federal Emergency Relief 
Administration, which was the predecessor of the W. P. A., was in 
operation, we had a special program for transients and migrants. 

While we have no special program for any group at this time, 
consideration is given to requests from State administrators for 
increases in quota in adjusting the unemployment authorizations, 
where the migrants are certified by the local certifying agencies or 


the State relief agency on the projects on which they employ them, 
but outside of that there has been no special provision made for 

Mr. Parsoxs. You are finding, however, that in certain areas 
sponsors are unable to furnish further contribution. 

Mr. Rauch. That is correct. 

Mr. Parsons. In many instances for certain types of projects. 

Mr. Rauch. That is correct. 

Mr. Parsons. And these people, if you are unable to find work for 
them, will have to go back on direct relief in those States? 

Mr. Rauch. Yes. 


Mr. Parsons. Do you think that there will ever be a time when 
we will be able to get entirely away from a works program for 
unemployed ? 

Mr. Rauch. No. 

Mr. Parsons. There will either have to be some type of work of 
that character or else they will have to be thrown back on direct 
relief rolls in the various States. 

Mr. Rauch. That is right. 

Mr. Parsons. What do you think are the reasons for the great 
unemployment and of its continuing in spite of the fact production 
in almost every activity is almost at as high a peak as it has ever 
been in peacetime of this country? 

Mr. Rauch. As a matter of fact, the factory index and business 
index is the highest it has ever been in the history of the United 
States, and still there are great masses of unemployed. One of the 
very important reasons for the continued mass unemployment is 
the increase in the labor groups, the increase in the last 10 years 
of the number of persons within age limits that are considered 
working groups. 

Mr. Parsons. Many of them have come from the soil, have they 
not, and are not able to rehabilitate themselves? 

Mr. Rauch. Many of them have come from the farms. There is 
a net increase in the labor supply of about 600,000 people a year; 
that is a net increase, of young people coming into the labor market; 
a net increase over those who die or leave the labor market because 
of old age and incapacity. 

Mr. Parsons. And the mass consumption of that increase does not 
keep pace with the labor-displacing machinery which makes for mass 
production, does it? 

Mr. Rauch. That is right ; technological improvements and general 
increase in the efficiency and increased mechanism of more work 
requires fewer workers than have been required in the past. There 
is a combination of circumstances that causes the labor supply to 
be much larger now than it has ever been and much larger than is 
necessary to produce the normal requirements of the population. 

ISIr. Parsons. Do you agree with me in this statement which I have 
made many times, that there has never been any discovery that is as 

JO — il_pt. ! 


good for the liiiman body in building character as good okl-fashioned 

Mr. Rauch. I certainly agree with you to the fullest extent. 

Mr. Parsons. Is that not the thing that has made America great ? 

Mr. Rauch. If it is not the sole thing, it certainly has been a very 
important factor. 

Mr. Parsons. Now, perhaps you will not agree with me on the next 
premise, but if we had spent as much time trying to get ourselves 
straight about labor-saving machinery as we should we would have 
put a lot of these people back to work. 

Mr. Rauch. I am not sure that I could agree with you if I under- 
stand the question properly. As I understand your question is that 
if we would avoid technological improvements then we could have 
provided work for a great many more people who are unemployed^ 

Mr. Parsons. Yes. 

Mr. Rauch, No ; I think it would have been a measure to retard, 
in a way, the development of employment. 


Mr. Parsons. At the present time I understand there are a lot of 
new inventions already patented, that will further and greatly dis- 
place labor, that are 'being held in abeyance, however, because of 
present miemployment conditions, and because those operations are 
not needed in our national-defense program at this moment. 

There are many inventions ready for use now that, if we should 
ever become engaged in war, we might use to further displace labor 
and increase very greatly our mass production. And eventually, if 
we continue at the rate we have been traveling since the beginning 
of the World War in 1914 to displace labor, will not the day come 
when machines become the masters of men rather than men being the 
masters of machines? 

Mr. Rauch. No ; I think history has proven otherwise. I am not 
an economist but we only have to go back as far as the cotton gin. 
When the cotton gin was invented, which was quite a bit before my 
time and your time, I understand there was a great hue and cry 
that it would be the ruination of this country. To the contrary it 
was a boon to those employed in the cotton industry. I think that 
as far as the United States 

Mr. Parsons (interposing). But if they were still picking cotton 
bv hand in the South, there would not be the lack of employment of 
those who were picking cotton in the South. 

Mr. Rauch. If we did not have competition from other lands and 
other places that would be possible, but competition in business and 
in our foreign trade, I think, will require that we make the best use 
of any facilities that we might be able to develop in spite of the 


I think we have two problems. I think we have one problem in 
studying the advancement in our production methods. I think we 


have another problem of unemployment. I am not at all sure that 
we will cure the first one by arriving at an improper solution of the 
second, or vice versa. 

Mr. Parsons, I know we cannot stop progress. Ever since the 
dawn of history we have been improving conditions with new dis- 
coveries, with new inventions that the genius of man's mind has 
created, and we cannot any more stop that than we can stop progress 
in other directions, but some way and some means must be devised 
to take care of human individuals. 

Mr. Rauch. I agree with you. 

Mr. Parsons. Those who are displaced. 

Mr. Rauch. I agree with you heartily. 

Mr. Parsons. And we cannot continue to keep the Government, 
billions of dollars in debt, on and on, continuously, because there must 
be a stop to that some time. 

Mr. Rauch. I think we are in agreement on that. 

Mr. Parsons. Or else we must go on in some endless economy under 
which we may never expect to pay the bill. 

Do you have any comment with reference to the future of our 
indebtedness ? 

Mr. Rauch. No; that is a little bit outside of my province. 

Mr. Parsons. Have you any questions? 

]Mr. Curtis. Did I understand you to say that you thought we 
would always have to have a work program i 

Mr. Rauch. I would not want to be on record as having said we 
will always have a work program. I say that for some time to come 
it will be necessary to have some type of relief program, and I 
heartily believe a work program is the finest type of progi-am that 
we can get to meet that situation. 

Mr. Curtis. How long do you mean by "some time to come" I 

Mr. Rauch. Well, that depends. We have not ceased to need it at 
this time, according to the best estimates of unemployment; and in 
the predictions that are made for the next 2 years I fail to see that 
we will not need a work program. And as I said before, if world 
conditions change so that we have people thrown out of emplovment, 
and unless there is a gi-eater demand and greater need than our 
normal requirements, unless conditions change radically, we will need 
a work program more than ever before. 

Mr. Curtis. Well, do you think that America is through as a people 
who are self-supporting? 

growing pains and new jobs 

Mr. Rauch. Absolutely not. I, think that America is certainly 
not any more than at the beginning of its existence ; but I think tha^t 
is one of the things that we find in growth ; that is one of the prob- 
lems that we have to contend with. 

Mr. Curtis. Growing pains. 

Mr. Rauch. Growing pains; yes. 

Mr. Curtis. Well now, how many people have become unemployed 
because of the advance of machinery, in the last 20 years? 


Mr. Kauch. I am not prepared to testify to that right offhand. 
There has been a considerable number, 

Mr. Curtis. If we stop to consider the number of people employed, 
who have found new employment in the last 20 years, for instance 
in the radio industry, including its manufacture and wholesale and 
retail, servicing, shipment, and so forth ; the broadcasting, with all 
its ramifications; with television; and tlien go on into the gasoline 
business with all the ramifications as is indicated for the radio; air 
conditioning; the refrigerator, to say nothing at all about the auto- 
mobile industry; the manufacture, repair, and servicing, the whole- 
saling and retailing; storage, transportation and insurance, 
adjusting claims on the insurance; financing, and so on, together with 
a like development of aviation all during these years. 

During all these hearings I have been looking for someone or 
some committee or some foundation which has arrived at an answer 
as to what the machines have done to employment; in other words, 
if you would put down on one side of the book every job taken 
away by machines and on the other side of the ledger what jobs 
have been supplied by machines, and find out the answer. 

Now they may be right that machines are displacing labor. No 
doubt they may have here and there, but so far I cannot find any- 
thing but guesses and prejudice. 

Mr. Rauch. Do not overlook the fact that individual produc- 
tivity has perceptibly increased, unquestionably increased in the last 
10 years. 

Mr. Curtis. Has not consumption ? 

Mr. Rauch. I am not so familiar with consumption figures. 

Mr. CuETis. But do you not believe that every individual buys 
and uses a lot more than his grandparents? 

Mr. Rauch. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Curtis. Many times more. 

Mr. Rauch. Yes,^sir; in that long a period of time, yes; but one 
important factor which must not be overlooked is the increased 
labor supply each year. 

Mr. Curtis. And that is due to boys leaving the farm. 

Mr. Rauch. Not necessarily, but there are fewer— let us put it 
this way — there are fewer infants relatively to the total population 
today than there were 10 years ago, and a greater number of people 
within the age group who are young than there were 10 years ago 
in relation to the total population. That has resulted in the last 10 
years in increasing the labor supply; the net increase in labor sup- 
ply is in excess of 5,000,000 persons. There have been various esti- 
mates, and the smallest estimate I have seen is 5,000,000 people. 

Mr. Parsons. But we have had a comparative increase all down 
through the years, especially in towns and cities, 

Mr. Rauch. No. 

Mr. Parsons. In proportion to the jobs available at that tune. 

Mr. Rauch, No; I think not. 

IVIr. Curtis. Through immigration did we not have ? 

^Ir. Rauch. Through immigration 


Mr. Parsons. We also had the old frontiers which we do not 
have now. 

Mr. Rauch. The old frontiers? 

Mr. Parsons. Yes; where people could go. 


Mr. Rauch. The old frontier was a very important factor in our 
American way of life, and we have no frontiers, as we were accus- 
tomed to thinking of frontiers. We still have frontiers, frontiers 
aplenty, but we cannot move out and get a section of land, anywhere 
from a section to several sections of land, for settling on it now. 

Mr. Parsons. Our new frontiers are in new industry, new" auto- 
mobiles, and things of that sort. 

Mr. Rauch. Yes. 

Mr. Parsons. But they do not afford the kind of opportunity 
upon which to establish a home and rear a family and make a living 
though family-unit production as we did have in the century before. 

Mr. Rauch. That is right. 

Mr. Parsons. AVhen we had frontiers to move into. 

Mr. Rauch. Yes. 

Mr. Parsons. Is not that pretty much the answer to a large part 
of the problem now? 

Mr. Rauch. That is the answer, pretty much. And that provides 
thought also for our national resources. As long as we had wide 
open frontiers, where people who felt they wanted to make a better 
living than they were then making for themselves and their family, 
they could settle on the frontiers and use a part of the great natural 
resources at that time. 

Mr. Parsons. I am very sorry about one thing, that in every one 
of these hearings I go off at a tangent, and I find I get farther afield, 
so I am not going to ask you any more questions with reference to 
that, although I enjoy having the matter discussed and getting new 
ideas on it; but it takes too much time to develop it. 
' Any further questions? 

Mr. Curtis. In reference to W. P. A. projects: Would the W. P. A. 
welcome it if in the report of this committee we could suggest 
certain projects with a long range of time involving the stabilization 
of the population? 

Mr. Rauch. Well that is a pretty big proposal, but I will assure 
you that we will be only too happy to consider any project that 
will be of public usefulness, that will be of use in solving this 


Mr. Sparkman. Do I correctly understand that the purpose of 
work projects is to give to the needy employables, work on useful 

Mr. Rauch. Useful public projects. 

Mr. Sparkman. Useful public projects. 

Mr. Rauch. Yes. 



Mr. Spakkman. Yes, that is the purpose rather than to get a 
dollar of mvestment for every dollar expended on the project. 

Mr. Rauch. That is the primary object. The secondary is almost 
as important, and of course it is secondary, but it is important to 
get as much as we can for every dollar expended under the primary 

Mr. Sparkman. A couple of weeks ago I was down in my district 
and I attended a joint meeting of the county board, a representative 
of the city board, the area manager, or director of the W. P. A., 
with the engineer of the State, project director, or whatever his 
title was, and they were discussing the W. P. A. program in that 
area. I was very much surprised to hear the State man say that 
it was their purpose to get a dollar's worth of investment out of 
every dollar spent, and that on the current projects that meant that 
if they could get more by the use of machinery than by the use of 
men, that machinery had to be used. 

Now somehow, that seemed to me, was defeating the primary 
pui-pose of the W. P. A. 

Mr. Rauch. The primary objective of the W. P. A., as you stated, 
and I will state again, is to provide useful employment for persons 
who are unemployed, and who are destitute because they are un- 
employed — who are employable— on useful public projects. Now 
that is the primary objective. 

We are faced, where it is necessary, however, with prosecuting the 
work with the people whom we employ, in as efficient a manner as 
we can consistent with the primary objective of the program. Do 
I make myself clear? In other words, in achieving the primai-y 
objective we want to operate the project as efficiently as we can. 
To put it this way, instead of having a thousand men use a few 
picks and shovels that would result in moving earth at 4 or 5 
dollars a yard, if we can use some trucks and maybe a gasoline 
shovel and move it for a dollar a yard and still provide work on 
other projects for the number of workei^ who require work, I think 
that it is encumbent on the W. P. A. to pursue the second method 
of operation. 


Mr. Sparkman. But if the use of that machinery throws men 
out of work it seems to me to be defeating the purpose of the 
W. P. A. 

Mr. Rauch. Yes, if it is throwing men out of work. 

Mr. Sparkman. In other words, it seems to me that the efficiency 
motive can very easily be overdone. 

Mr. Rauch. That is true. If we go into a job of building highways 
and we do it by the use of the maximum of machinery and we are not 
able because of that to employ the number of needy people whom 
Ave are expected to employ, I will agree with you. But we must do 
the job with as much efficiency as we can consistent with the primary 
objective ; and I think it is necessary for us to do it that way. 

Mr. Sparkman. That is all. 


Mr. Parsons. Mr. Ranch, the suggestion has been made by one of 
those who testified here that a fourth category might be set up in 
the Social Security Board for Federal grants-in-aid to States to assist 
the relief program outside the W. P. A. Do you have any comment 
to make about that suggestion or recommendation ? 

Mr. Rauch. In certain categories of personal employment, I think 
it is all right ; but I would like to be on record as being opposed to any 
direct relief for employables, no matter if it is W. P. A. or Social 

I am in accord with direct relief or assistance to the States, if that is 
the policy of the Federal Government for unemployable people in 
certain categories, but for employable people I think the answer is a 
works program. 

Mr. Parsons. Thank you very much. Your testimony has been very 
interesting, indeed, and we thank you for coming here. 

Mr. Rauch. Thank you. With your permission, I will submit the 
following additional statement for the record, which I had intended 
to read. 

(The statement follows:) 

The Relationship of the Work Projects Administration to Migrant Families 
Seeking Work 

The Work Projects Administration is very conscious of the migrant problem. 
Our experience goes back to 1934 and 1935 when the Federal Emergency Relief 
Administration, predecessor to the Work Projects Administration, had a special 
assistance program for migrating families. Two things we learned out of that 
experience : First, if you want to help the family which has lost its economic 
moorings, do not encourage it to go on the road until it has something definitely 
better to which it may turn in the way of employment; and, second, generally 
if need of workers and their families is to be taken care of, the best place to 
care for such need is in the home area and not on the road. 

It is beyond the province of the Work Projects Administration to organize the 
labor market so that workers may know of bona fide job opportunities. The 
State employment services are making progress in that direction. However, 
the Work Projects Administration is undoubtedly the largest single force in 
prevention of a more serious migration problem in this country by providing work 
for the needy unemployed in their own home communities. 


The value of this treatment is obvious. Unemployed workers who go on a 
will-o'-the-wisp search for work frequently find none. They become poverty 
stricken, in need of food, shelter, and clothing. They have lost the ordinary 
social ties in the community, such as the church, friends, clubs, private- and pub- 
lic-welfare agencies, through which they may receive aid and assistance. Worst 
of all, they cannot be employed on the works program, thereby maintaining their 
skills and work habits because they cannot be certified to the program under 
the rigid statutory residence requirements in many States. Local welfare 
authorities will, by and large, not refer needy residents to the Work Projects Ad- 
ministration for certification as eligible for Work Projects Administration em- 
ployment. The migratory worker is thus left in a no man's land. 

It should not be necessary for me to mention more tlian briefly the pro- 
visions of the law under which the Work Projects Administration is able to 
give work to needy unemployed i)ersons. The Emergency Relief Appropria- 
tion Act, fiscal year 1941, requires that a determination as to the need of 
I)ersons seeking work be made by local public welfare agencies. Thus, before 
the Work Projects Administration could employ, under ordinary circumstances, 
needy migrants, it would be necessary for local welfare authorities to determine 



their need and advise the Work Projects Administration accordingly. Work 
Projects Administration regulations require that persons otherwise eligible 
shall not be refused certification for employment because legal settlement 
or residence has not been established within the State or a political subdivision 
thereof. , . , 

However, many welfare authorities cannot, under their laws, make a deter- 
mination that migrants are in need because of stringent residence requirements. 
In other instances, only temporary aid can be given, pending the return of the 
families to their State of residence. Even if the Work Projects Adminis- 
tration should make a determination as to need in lieu of that made by local 
welfare authorities, it is very doubtful that communities where these migrants 
congregate are prepared to sponsor projects for such persons. Under tlie Relief 
Act sponsors are required to contribute 25 percent of the cost of projects and 
many communities are unable and, in some cases, unwilling to take on such 
a financial burden. 

The Work Projects Administration has felt the impact in recent years of 
three different groups of migrating workers and their families In search of 
work. The first of these is the group which is always on the move. It is 
literally a floating labor supply and has its roots nowhere. The second of 
these consists of farm families who have left the farm because it could not 
provide them with a minimum livelihood. The third group has become a 
problem only within the last few months. It is the group which is migrating 
for defense jobs. 


A group which needs the consideration of this committee are the migrants 
who have always been on the move. They are persons who move with the 
seasons or where there is opportunity for temporary employment — a floating 
population, many of them work only long enough to gain passage to the next 
town or to the next seasonal job. In predepression years there was a need 
for these workers in all seasonal employment fields. Now they have been 
replaced in large numbers by the newer migratory group described below and 
present a serious problem. While the Work Projects Administration program 
has had a stabilizing influence, local opposition from sponsors of work projects 
and from residents who seek work but cannot find it make it impossible for 
the work program to extend any widespread assistance in helping this group 
to settle down and become self-supporting. 


A significant migration has been the shifting of a rural population whose 
income was normally derived from the farm or from farm employment. This 
includes the seasonal migrants following the harvests, the farmer driven from 
his farm by drought to seek a living elsewhere, the farm hand displaced by 
machinery, and the tenant farmers and sharecroppers who for various reasons 
were forced off the land or were unable to eke out an existence on their 
meager acreages. Here, again, the Work Projects Administration has been a 
stabilizing force in providing project employment for thousands upon thou- 
sands of families who otherwise would be forced to follow those other thou- 
sands for whom there has as yet been found no solution — either of home or 


The entire migration problem has been recently complicated by a new force 
which makes for the shifting of large numbers of persons in search of work. 
To date increased employment due to the defense program or normal industrial 
employment has not caused unskilled labor to migrate to any serious extent. 
Yet there are many of these who, unemployed, hope to find jobs and so are 
on the move. This number is increasing. However, the stabilizing effect of 
the Work Projects Administration program tends to keep them employed at 
home and available for private or other public employment. 

Skilled and semiskilled labor, on the other hand, has in most instances 
found a ready market and, without exception, the State Work Projects Admin- 


istratious report both influx and outflo%v of skilled workers. These generally 
find work and obtain good wages and therefore present no problem of destitu- 
tion. However, in many instances, acute housing shortages are reported with 
rents skyrocketing beyond reason. This in turn is creating a hardship on 
impoverished families who cannot afford increased rents and are forced to 

This skilled and semiskilled labor is attracted to sites where Army canton^ 
ments are under construction and to centers of armament defense industries. 
It is generally believed that work now under way in the Army cantonments 
will be of limited duration only. In addition to the skilled and semiskilled 
workers, it is these projects that have attracted unskilled labor also. When 
the cantonments are completed, the skilled workers will have earned sufficient 
to return home or seek work elsewhere. The demand for skilled labor may be 
expected from other defense activities. 

Of the semiskilled and unskilled, both those who found work and earned 
small wages and those who remained only hoping to find work, many will 
remain stranded, a problem for local authorities to cope with. Families and 
single persons have flocked there by the thousands — on foot, in cars of all 
kinds and descriptions, or by bus and train, with or without cash reserve. 
Many of these camp projects are located near small centers of population so 
that proper housing, health, and sanitation measures are lacking. Increasingly 
stringent residence laws complicate the problem of assistance, as well as 
opposition from local project sponsors to contribute toward the support of a 
population which may remain stranded at this point. 

It is my belief that the Federal agencies should begin to plan and to operate 
now for the groups of i)eople who are migrating and who, unless preventive 
measures are taken, will migrate and accentuate the problem which is already 
serious enough. It is further my belief that when bona fide employment 
opportunities can be found for members of these groups, they should be aided 
and assisted to obtain such employment. That alone is a big enough problem 
for governmental agencies to undertake. At the same time everything pos- 
sible should be done to prevent the swelling of the number of migrating 
workers. This can best be done by extending the programs of Federal agencies 
which provide assistance or public work of useful character for needy families 
in or near the vicinity of their homes. 


Mr. Curtis. Miss Kahn, will you give the reporter your full name, 
address, and the capacity in which you appear? 

Miss Kahn. Dorothy C. Kahn. I am assistant executive secretary 
of the American Association of Social Workers, 130 East Twenty- 
second Street, New York. 

Mr, Curtis. Will you state briefly what the American Association 
of Social Workers is, and something about the scope of its activities? 

Miss Kahn. The association is a professional organization of social 
workers similar to that of a medical association for physicians, or 
the bar association in the field of law. 

We represent about 12,000 social workers throughout the United 
States, who meet the specific qualifications of the profession, edu- 
cationally and otherwise, in the field. 

It is a membership organization and has 85 local chapters in 
various large urban communities ; some State-wide chapters in which 
our work of organization is carried on. We are concerned primarily 
with the promotion of obtaining standards of performance of social 
work activities throughout the country, the development of better 
resources, and the preparation of personnel and its use of the train- 
ing acquired on the daily jobs of the members; of promoting more 



satisfactory social programs to meet the needs of the people whom 
our members serve in their daily task. 

That is a very brief statement of our function. 

Mr. CuKTis. It is a voluntary membership? 

Miss Kahn. It is a voluntary membership organization to which 
persons who meet our membership requirements are eligible. 

The organization is about 20 years old. We have been continu- 
ously active in the promotion of social legislation. We have testified 
frequently before congressional committees, particularly in relation 
to relief -work programs, and social security. 

Mr. Curtis. Does your membership extend into all the States? 

Miss Kahn. Yes; and Territories. 

Mr. Curtis. If you will please direct whatever remarks you care 
to make to the committee, together with any recommendations that 
you may have, we shall be glad to hear you. As you know, the par- 
ticular task we are assigned to is the problem relating to the inter- 
state migration of destitute persons. Please proceed in your own 

Miss Kahn. I hope you will permit me to be very informal, be- 
cause our notification of this hearing came only this morning. We 
happened to be in Washington. So, if you will permit us to do so, 
we will file a more formal statement later on. 

(The statement referred to follows:) 

American Association of Social Workers, 

New York, N. Y., December 13, 1940. 
Mr. RoBiaiT Lamb, 

Chief Investigator, Committee to Investigate Interstate 
Migration of Destitute Citizens, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Lamb: Attached is a statement for the record which was promised 
at the time of my impromptu testimony before the committee on December 6. 
Sincerely yours, 

Dorothy C. Kahn, 
Assistant Executive Secretanj. 

Statement for the Record of the CoMMiTTia: on Interstate Migration of 
Destitute Citizens 

The American Association is organized to promote and develop standards of 
competent practice of social work. It is concerned not only with the training 
and establishment of standards of competent performance but more widely 
with the interpretation of the facts of social work to the public to the end that 
the direct experience of social work may be brought to bear on social problems 
and be of aid to the administrative agencies organized to deal with these 

The association includes 11,300 members organized into 85 local and State 
chapters. Each chapter has responsibility for study and obtaining of data on 
subjects such as the material with which this testimony is concerned. 

The American Association of Social Workers believes in and supports the 
progressive development of public social services. Since the founding of this 
democracy, such services have been recognized as a proper function of govern- 
ment. They now constitute one of the most important aspects of the relation 
of government to its citizens in the life of our time. 

These services will not have reached a desirable level of operation until 
practical measures have been adopted which assure the economic, social, and 
physical well-being of every person in the American Commonwealth. The ob- 
jective requires the leadership and resources of the Federal Government. It 
is tlie responsibility of the Federal Government either to provide or to see to it 
that the services needed are provided. 


There are four major concerns in the development of public social services: 
(1) Coverage and tlie degree to which the needs of the people are met; (2) 
program, or devices and methods utilized to meet these needs; (3) administra- 
tion, to carry out the responsibility accepted; and (4) personnel, the final in- 
strument through which the purposes and designs of the services are carried 

Throughout the last decade the association has been continuously active in 
expressing its concern with the problems resulting from widespread unemploy- 
ment and resultant dependency. In December 1931 the American Association 
of Social Workers set up a commission on unemployment to study the extent 
of the problem in local and State areas. In May 1932 and again in December of 
that year, members of the American Association of Social Workers appeared as 
witnesses before the Congressional Subcommittee on Manufactures concerned 
with the problem of unemployment relief. Throughout the following years, 
with the development of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, 
the Civil Works Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Work 
Projects Administration, and National Youth Administration, each step in the 
development of a public-assistance program was carefully studied and, when- 
ever possible, information derived from direct experience of its members has 
been offered for the use of Federal and State authorities. In 1935 the Ameri- 
can Association of Social Workers played a part in the committee work and 
in the hearings which preceded the passage of the Social Security Act. At 
each point in the development of the public program the specialized experi- 
ence of the individual social workers and the association as a whole has been 
made available to congressional committees. 

The National Committee on Transients and Homeless which included repre- 
sentatives from sucli national agencies as American Red Cross, National Associa- 
tion of Travelers Aid Societies, Family Welfare Association of America, etc., 
presented material at a congressional hearing on relief in 1933. The conten- 
tion of witnesses in 1933 was that the special problem of the transient and un- 
settled State resident was a Federal responsibility and the needs could not be 
met without the financial assistance of the Federal Government. Largely as a 
result of this the Relief Act of 1933, section 4C, provided for the possibility of 
granting aid to persons who had no legal settlement in any one State or com- 
munity. Again when that program was discontinued in September 1935, the 
committee expressed in various ways the concern which was felt for the result- 
ing problem of provision of care for those persons in need who were not gen- 
erally accepted as a charge on local or State funds. 

When the association was informed of the field hearings of the Tolan Com- 
mittee on Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizens, local chapter chainnen 
were requested to testify to their knowledge of the migrant problem in their 
areas. In most of the regions tlie American Association of Social Workers' 
chapters did not act per se but rather were represented by members acting in 
their official capacities or representing their agencies. Such additional infor- 
mation as the local chapter could provide was made available to them. For 
instance in New York the welfare council report and in Los Angeles the Council 
of Social Agencies studies given as testimony covered the field of information 
which is represented by the interests of the American Association of Social 

The American Association of Social Workers considers the migration of both 
industrial and agricultural workers from one area to another in search of 
work as a natural part of our national economy. This movement in search of 
work has been part of our tradition since earliest times. It seems particularly 
important at this time when workers arg needed for national defense work that 
they be helped rather than penalized in their efforts to obtain work. There is 
need therefore of strengthening the use of the public employment service and 
increasing the availability of general assistance to those workers whose search 
for work has not met with immediate success in the new locality. 


A Study made by chapters of the American Association of Social Workers on 
the changes in the public social services in their areas indicate an increasing 
problem in the insufficient provisions made for relief for that individual who 



has left his original place of residence and can no longer maintain himself 
independently. Part of the problem is closely tied with the inadequacy of 
general relief. This inadequacy of general relief is heightened for the non- 
resident by the fact that the major responsibility of general relief is a matter 
of local financing. 

Too often with this as a basis, the feeling of the local group is similar to that 
reported of Indiana: "Transients and nonresidents aided 'under protest.' The 
community attitude is against aiding these because of the 'dire need' of the 
other persons resident of the community." 

While this responsibility for general relief is being one primarily of the local 
or county group is not new, there seems a growing tendency to shift responsi- 
bility increasingly in that direction. This may take the form of curtailment of 
State funds in States which supply all or part of the funds for general relief, 
of levying sales taxes for relief purposes, or of making stricter prohibitions 
on the use of State funds for nonresidents, aliens, and transients. Penn.syl- 
vania, for example, has denied relief by State legislation to any but citizens 
and to aliens who declared their intention of becoming citizens prior to Janu- 
uary 1, 1940. Colorado, Ohio, California, Kansas, Illinois, and Indiana are 
among the States which have made more stringent residence requirements. 

North Carolina, for instance, reports there is no provision at all for care 
of nonresidents except through the private agencies. Rockford, 111., says the 
policy there is that "persons lacking legal residence are not chargeable to any 
public agency. Transients are offered a night's shelter in jail and a gallon 
of gas to get out of town. There is no organized service for them." From 
Ohio comes the report, "Transients are given 'a meal, a bed, and the order to 
get moving.' " Iowa indicates that "transients and nonresidents are given 
emergency care." 

Limited by State action and by lack of taxable resources, communities gen- 
erally seem to be reducing the amount of aid given to employable persons and 
to nonresidents, transients, and aliens. Often underlying the attitude toward 
able-bodied persons seeking work is an assumption that they are the responsi- 
bility of the Federal Government. The facts, however, are that only a portion 
of this group are given Work Projects Administration employment in any 
community. This varies from as low as 20 percent to as high as 90 percent. 

Denial of aid to aliens, nonresidents, and transients is often a matter of 
official policy or legal requirement. On the other hand, pronounced limitation 
or denial of aid to persons able to work is more often a matter of practice. 
For instance in Missouri, able-bodied persons receive relief only in emergencies 
and funds for this purpose are almost negligible. In Columbus able-bodied 
persons were cut off relief May 1. 

It is not infrequent practice to make smaller allowances for the able-bodied 
and other groups under disfavor or to eliminate all but major items from 
their allowances. However, this seems less significant than the increasing 
tendency to cut the general level of allowances. In the majority of com- 
munities reporting, only a proportion of a minimum family budget is covered in 
the allowance. 

In California the standard budget is reported to be 44 percent under the 
minimum subsistence level for a family of five. Drastic appropriation cuts 
by the legislature in recent months made it necessary to reduce even this low 
budget 30 to 50 percent. In South Carolina the allowance was limited for a 
period by an order to the State Department to two-thirds. Douglas County, 
Nebr., reported an allowance of 22 cents per day per family in December 1939 
for all needs. 

The reports warrant the following conclusions: In the majority of communi- 
ties funds for general relief are inadequate to meet needs; certain groups, 
particularly nonresidents, aliens, and transients, as well as the so-called 
employables, are consistently neglected or discriminated against; relief allow- 
ances in all but a few States are far below a minimum subsistence level ; 
in many communities there is acute suffering on the part of a large proportion 
of the needy unemployed and dependent. These reports, coming from more 
than half of the States, give convincing evidence that administration of relief 
by States and localities without Federal assistance leads each to evade re- 
sponsibilities which belong to all three. 



The problem of the nonresident out of work applying for relief has increased 
with the development of industries or cantonments in localities which do not 
have within local range the number of men needed for the work. Sometimes 
immigration of men into new territories for work has been controlled through 
exclusive use of the United States Employment Service. However, even the 
most guarded announcements of jobs do not prevent the rumors of jobs spread- 
ing, so that more persons come to apply for work than there are jobs available. 
If the employer issues a general request for workers the number applying may 
be 10 or 15 times the number of jobs. Many of these rejected applicants have 
no way of returning to their place of original residence and the men and their 
families are stranded. Local facilities for relief are not adequate to carry this 
tremendously increased burden even if the local commissioners were willing to 
feel this responsibility as a logical charge on them. 

Added to this problem of those who are in need because of failure to get 
employment are those workers stranded by a lay-oft after a brief period of 
employment. Many of the men thus laid off will not have worked a sufficient 
period of time to be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. They, too, 
may be stranded and may have lost residence in their own State through restric- 
tions which involve loss of settlement after a limited period of absence from the 
State. Thus they cannot receive general relief even if they could return to 
their original State of settlement and will, as indicated from evidence above, 
be unable to receive help in the community in which they have just had 

Other problems for the workers seeking or obtaining employment in these new 
industries are those of housing and health. Frequently the number of em- 
ployees has risen far more rapidly than the housing accommodations available, 
or with the greater pressure of need for housing rent costs become excessive. 
Sanitation facilities are often on a very inadequate level and all the problems 
of the migrant camps gi'Own familiar in the farming areas are repeated. 
Hospital facilities too are often not developed at a rate to meet the increased 
pressure for care. Educational facilities organized to meet the normal require- 
ment of the community are not always flexible enough to meet the greatly 
increased load. 


Attached is the platform of the American Association of Social Workers on 
the public social services stating principles which if enacted into law would 
make provision for needy migrants. 

Amekioan Association of Social Workees' Position on Public Social Se3ivices — 
Resolution Passed at Delegate Conferen*ce, Grand Rapids, May 24, 1940 

[Reprinted from the Compass, June-July 1940] 

platfobm on public social services 

The American Association of Social Workers believes in and supports the 
progressive development of public social services. Since the founding of this 
democracy, such services have been recognized as a proper function of govern- 
ment. They now constitute one of the most important aspects of the relation 
of government to its citizens in the life of our time. 

These services will not have reached a desirable level of operation until 
practical measures have been adopted which assure the economic, social, and 
physical well-being of every person in the American commonwealth. This 
objective requires the leadership and resources of the Federal Government. It 
is the responsibility of the Federal Government either to provide or to see to 
it that the services needed are provided. 

There are four major concerns in the development of public social services — 
(1) coverage and the degree to which the needs of the people are met: (2) 
program — or devices and methods utilized to meet these needs; (3) administra- 
tion — to carry out the responsibility accepted, and (4) personnel — the final 
instrument through which the purposes and designs of the services are carried 
out. On each of these concerns social work experience leads the association 
to support the propositions there outlined. 



I. Coverage. — All persons whose resources fall below a level sufficient to 
maintain them and their families in health, decency, and socially acceptable 
activity are a proper charge upon public resources. 

The ultimate social cost of poverty, ill health, and idleness are bound to be 
greater than the immediate cost of prevention and care. 

II. Program. — ^Work: Work under wholesome conditions and at wages suffi- 
cient to assure maintenance for the worker and his normal dependents should be 
available to all who are not disabled. 

To the degree that private industry cannot provide such opportunities, gov- 
ernment should provide them. 

Work under public auspices should be provided to employ as many persons 
as can be absorbed in socially useful projects, which utilize the skills and 
abilities of unemployed persons. Such employment should be available to an 
unemployed person for such periods of time as appropriate work in private 
enterprise is unavailable to him. Wholesome conditions and protections should 
be assured for workers on public projects. Payment for work done on public 
projects should be the union scale of wages, where such scales have been devel- 
oped, and should not fall below the minimum standards set by law for the 
protection of private employment. 

Tests of individual needs other than evidence of lack of other employment 
opportunity are inconsistent with the concept of work outlined above. 

A work program is not in itself a training program and should be distin- 
guished from necessary efforts in this direction. Therefore, public projects 
for young persons and those occupationally displaced should be primarily 
directed to promote training or retraining in suitable occupations. 

Social insurance: Provisions for insurance against loss of income because 
of unemployment, old age, injury at work, and loss of breadwinner have already 
been found to be feasible. Such provision should be extended to cover disability 
and illness. 

The insurance system should provide benefits of such an amount and for 
such a period as to provide reasonable security for the insured, and progres- 
sively to reduce the need for other measures. 

Coverage in existing systems should be extended to the entire working 

Assistance: Public assistance should be available to meet the needs of all 
those unable in other ways to maintain for themselves and their dependents 
an adequate standard of living. Assistance measures should be: 

1. Broad enough in scope to provide for all types of needy persons regardless 
of the cause of their need, and regardless of race, creed, political affiliation, 
citizenship, or length and place of residence, or any other arbitrary restriction 
on eligibility. Compulsive features of laws and rulings regarding family re- 
sponsibility should be abolished.^ 

2. Adequate to enable needy persons and their dependents to maintain accept- 
able standards of living and to prevent physical and social deterioration and 
break-down of morale. 

3. Granted under such conditions of eligibility and calculated in such a way 
as can be readily imderstood by persons in need. It is also essential that these 
conditions should be of such a nature as to appeal to a sense of fairness on 
the part of applicants for assistance, and thus engage them in responsible 
participation in the process of determining eligibility. 

4. Designed to conserve the personal integrity and dignity of the persons in 
need and to assist them to return to self-maintenance wherever possible. 
Assistance rendered in form other than the normal medium of exchange violates 
this principle. 

Employment service: Employment service under public auspices is essential 
for the guidance and distribution of the labor supply in relation to the require- 
ments of the labor market. Such service, available on a Nation-wide basis, 
is necessary to aid in providing data on the extent of available work at any 
given time. It is a vital link not only between employment opportunities and 
the need for work, but also between this and the various other programs of 
government. Unless the availability of employment openings nnd the capaci- 


ties of persons seeking work are continuously and competently related to one 
another, work will be denied to persons who could be effectively employed, 
and assistance or insurance granted unnecessarily. 

Development of adequate employment data and current inventories of occu- 
pational shortage is necessary for the promotion of effective employment service 
and also for the guidance of persons who have been occupationally displaced 
and young persons seeking a vocation. 

Health service:^ Government should provide or guarantee that adequate 
medical care and public-health services should not be denied to any person 
because of inability to pay. 

Housing : Government should be responsible for providing or guaranteeing an 
adequate supply of safe, decent, low-rental housing for all groups who cannot 
otherwise be provided with adequate shelter. 

III. Administration and organization. — In order to carry out the foregoing 
program a coordinated administrative structure is essential in Federal, State, 
and local units of government. Also essential is effective cooperation between 
these units, and between Federal, State, and local governments. It is impos- 
sible to meet the needs of people in a nation where these needs vary from 
place to place, often in inverse ratio to local resources, without the leadership 
of the Federal Government. 

Federal resources, administrative and financial, must be utilized in appro- 
priate measure to supplement those of State and local governments. Effective 
administration therefore involves: 

(a) Federal aid to equalize the resources of State and local governments. 

(6) The establishment by the Federal Government, in cooperation with State 
and local governments, of minimum standards of operation and service. 

(c) A program so organized that at all times the various parts of the pro- 
gram should so fit together that lack of coverage by one program at any given 
time should be fully compensated for by others, recognizing that extension of 
employment opportunity is the first charge of our social organization, and that 
other programs require progressive development in this order— insurance, public 
work, and last assistance, and other measures of relief. 

id) Continuous research by appropriate government agencies as essential 
to sound planning. 

(e) The recognition that financing necessary social services is costly, but 
that the absence of such services is more costly, not only in terms of money, 
but in human resources on which the money economy rests. Financing should 
be such as to improve the total economic situation. ' Methods should be based 
on the same principles as the program itself, so that costs will rest where they 
can best be borne. 

IV. Personnel.— ThQ public interest demands that competent service be assured 
in the public social services in order that public funds shall be administered 
humanely, economically, and effectively. Such service can be assured only 
through the recruitment, selection, and tenure of the best-equipped personnel 
in relation to the specific nature of each type of position. Professional func- 
tions should be performed by professionally qualified persons. A well-adminis- 
tered merit system offers the only assurance of such personnel in the public 


Miss Kahn. Your committee has already received some recom- 
mendations from lis, I believe, in the local' hearings that you held 
in the various communities throughout the country. Some of our 
local chapter representatives have already testified and filed some 
data with you. 

We sent you last July some abstracts from a rather impressionistic 
report that we had made on relief conditions throughout the United 
States. I think the thing we would probably like to stress with this 
committee is not any further accumulation of factual data, because 
I am sure you already have more than we could possibly give you 
in any brief space of testimony. 


Our point of view about this problem is that it has been unfortu- 
nate that migrancy has been considered as if it were an evil in the 
United States, whereas the fact of the matter is, I think we are 
accumulating continuous evidence to this effect, that one of the essen- 
tial characteristics of American life, industry, and agriculture is that 
people must be free to move about in relation to the need for their 
productive activity. If we cannot move the jobs to the people, we 
have to move the people to the jobs, and there are certainly many 
parts of this country where moving the jobs to the people would be 
quite impossible. 


Our agricultural problems in the West and Southwest and perhaps 
even in some other parts of the country I think indicate that we 
could not possibly pick our crops without the movement of people 
for brief periods of time into the areas where the crops are growing 
and where picking is needed. 

As we are now managing our industrial location of projects, par- 
ticularly defense projects, it would be manifestly impossible to man 
these projects with what is called local labor. 

We have, therefore, evidence of rapidly growing communities in 
and around not only industrial centers, but cantonments, serving 
the needs of people in their daily activities and in normal occupa- 

If that is true, then it seems to us that instead of placing increas- 
ing restrictions on the number of people, instead of making this 
normal movement of people a hazard, because individuals who hap- 
pen to move and happen not to get jobs when they do move to a given 
place are then found to be without resources, that there is some- 
thing essentially illogical in our failure to provide for people for the 
mere reason that they happen not to be residents of a particular 
locality, in spite of the fact that they are residents of the United 
States and are seeking not just irresponsible travel, but a livelihood. 

AVe could give, of cour.^e, any number of illustrations of this point. 
Our staff members travel from time to time to our various chapters, 
and I have just returned from a trip to the west coast where I heard 
story after story of men who are seeking em])loyment in our devel- 
oping aircraft industries in and around San Diego, where groups of 
people are concentrating, sometimes brought in responsibly by the 
employing companies, and sometimes coming on their own initiative 
because they see an opportunity for work. And, if perchance an 
individual fails to get a job or if he does get a job and it is found 
he cannot meet some of the technical requirements such as the physi- 
cal examination or the rate of speed required in some of these highly 
productive enterprises, the individual is laid off and he finds him- 
self, through no real fault of his own. in a position where he has, 
perhaps, divested himself of his last bit of worldly goods in order 
to seek a job in a new community; and the community says to him, 
"We cannot do anything for you. We cannot even send you back 
to the place you came from, and, of course, we cannot give you relief 
because you are a nonresident." 


The pictures on the followmg pages offer graphic presentation of 
the lack of housing facihties avaihable at widely scattered defense 
construction projects. More than 700,000 men are engaged in the 
construction of ships, shipyards, Army cantonments, and on other 
national defense projects. Their presence in small communities has 
overcrowded the housing facilities in almost every case. Reference 
is made to the testimony of Chester C. Davis, Philip Ryan, Jane 
Hoey, Ewan Clague, Dr.E. R. Coffee, Boris Shishkin, J. W. Stude- 
baker, and Isador Lubin in this connection. 

These photographs were furnished by the Farm Security Adminis- 
tration from its files and were accepted for the record. 

Migrant construction worker's family from Texas sleeping in car. They cook and eat in a lean-to. Near 
Camp Claiborne, Alexandria, La. December 1940. 

[■'%iU j'^l 

Texas initirant from Quemado Valley lives in Mexican house near Cornus Christi, Tex. Trailer in back 
yard belongs to another construction worker. 


^hack occupied by construction w ( 

Corpus Christi, Tex. 


Ten cousti-uction workers occupied this liu sliacli at Camp Livingston, near Alexandria, La. December 


Construction workers at Camp Livingston, La., who sleep in their car and "camp out." Botli had worked 
on other projects before going to Camp Livingston. 

Men eating meal supplied by the Salvation Army at Corpus Christi, Tex. At the time this picture was 
taken, December 1940, there was a surplus of unskilled labor at Corpus Christi and many were stranded. 

vjr-**- m 

School under construction at North Beach section of Corpus Christi, Tex. The surrounding area was 
formerly a tourist camp, but now is occupied by defense workers and their families. 

Dollar-a-day "apartments" 3 miles from new Navy air base at Corpus Christi, Tex. 

^^ SEETHE ^ 

De lux£ 


hh, WATER St. 


Sign advertising t!ie "De Lu\e" apartments ^above") torrent to construction workers near Corpus Ciiristi, 



I 1 li I IhiiM li ii I I Mill Mm 1 mil \ iirkers and Army families alike at Fort Ben- 
-NU'tal ^lieltLi; leiu f"i >iii a uiuuih, trailer space eosts $2 a week. 


"^^ ^^ewton D. Baker Villaoe 

Defense housing project of the Housing Authorit.\ ct <'iihiiiil 



i ■ 


iSimi ■ ' 

New h(jusinu under eonslnietion for workmen or Anny men neiir t'amp Livinustou, Alexandria, La. 

Itinerant preacher from South Carolina migrates to Camp LivingEton, near Alexandria, La. 

Camp nf iriiik 

ilicir families at Corpus Christi, Te.\. I 
air base now under construct mu. 



Wr' ^^ #. 


^^HMjjjk ' 1 



Trailu .nuit huu m:; workmen and families at Corpus Christi. Tex. 
ing a naval air base. 

CurpL'iiicrs ami cuiist 

fkers wailiji.k'outsiHc Slale Kiiiiaoynic 
Starke, Fla., to apply for jobs. 


- £*r / / / // n 




Job applicants at Corpus Christi office of the Texas State Employment Service. At tliis project there was 
a surplus of unskilled labor and a shortage of skilled workmen in December 1940. 

Concrete worker resting while wife searches through want ads for an apartment. Pacific Beach, Calif., 
December 1940. Man and wife live in a tent because of high apartment rentals. 

Migrant workman and family in makeshift living quarters at Corpus Christi, Tex. December 1940. 


Flophouse of some 37 beds, occupied by workers in relays at 50 cents each. Some of the men were suffering 
with influenza when the picture was taken. December 1940. 

Even though it is winter in this northeastern State, this couple lives in a shack in the woods near a con- 
struction project because of a housing shortage in the nearest city. 

Construction workers drying out bedding and mattresses from their trailer after a week of heavy rains and 
winds. Near Camp Livingston, La., in December 1940. 



Lot- . 1\, HI c 1 Inl .dv 

liMlll, \U ^ ,,1 111 I 1 I 

: ki Is lostaiiiant and 


■aiier (.■amp <i( ( upicil l.% , ,,nsti u, iK.ii u oikers aii.l soMiers' lam 

Family and lioine of a Louisiana farmer who gave up farming to earn more money at construction work in a 
new Army camp. Much of the man's added income is lost because of higher food and milk prices. 


W Iff Ufa euliciclu uuikur oii a <lc.leii.^e (UdjL'i'l .li>iii. ,.u; l.laiik, I. uia.i.- >i . , 1.^ iaiii lli.- j.n-re.liiii; iiii;lil 
Pacific Beach, Calif. Decemhei H»4U. 

This family followed construction work in Texas. Louisiana, Illinois, and Arizona. The husband and 
father, a carpenter, said, "I know this work spree isn't going to last and I'm not going to give all I make 
to the landlords." They are now living in their own tent. December 1940. 

This construction worker's son is talcing ginger cookies out of a stove that cost his father $135. They live 
in a shack because of inability to find better housing available at Corpus Christi, Tex. 


Mr. Parsons. What recommendations does your association have to 
make for that individual, for the Federal Government and the States 
to aid that individual you have just described? That is the big prob- 
lem before this committee. 

Miss Kahn. Our association has developed from year to year a plat- 
form, so to speak, of principles that we would like to see incorporated 
into developing legislation not only for this individual but for other 
groups in need. 


One of the important principles that we are advocting is that assist- 
ance should be provided by the Federal Government in cooperation 
with the States and the localities to meet the needs of people irre- 
spective of such questions as race, creed, color, citizenship, or residence, 
with the States and the localities to meet the needs of people irre- 
spective of their technical, legal residence in a given community. 

I do not know whether that particularly answers your question, 

Mr. Parsons. That is pretty much along the general lines we have 
had from a number of witnesses who have appeared at different places 
and especially here. We are a little short of time this afternoon. You 
said something about desiring the opportunity of filing a paper. 

Miss Kahn. We shall be glad to do so. 

Mr. Persons. We shall be very glad to have you do so if it is in by 
the 12th of December. That will be next week. I would like, if you 
will, to incorporate all of your recommendations in that paper, and 
the committee will be veiy glad to have them before us and as part 
of the record. 

Miss Kahn. Thank you. 

Mr. Parsons. If there are no further questions, thank you very 
much. Miss Kahn. 

The next witness is Benjamin C. Marsli, executive secretary of the 
People's Lobby. 


^Ir. Parsons. State your name and address and whom you repre- 

Mr. Marsh. Benjamin C. Marsh, the People's Lobby. I am the exec- 
ntive secretary. 

Mr. Parsons. Do you have a prepared statement? 

Mr. Marsh. I want to read a brief statement and cite some figures 
and make some further comments, if I may. 

(The statement is as follows:) ^ 

There are certainly half a million farm families, and probably three-quarters 
of a milliou, who cannot have a decent existence in competitive commercial agri- 
culture, who should be in Government or cooperative farms under careful and 
tactful supervision. 

260;{T0 — 41-— pt. !V 


Early this year Dr. W. W. Alexander, Farm Security Administrator, said : "If 
we were to attempt to do a complete job, the Farm Security Administration 
should extend its rehabilitation program to virtually all of the 1,700,000 farm 
families which have an average annual income of less than $500 a year, including 
all I lie produce they grow^ for themselves." 

He added: "America cannot affoi'd to plan only partial solutions, or to be con- 
tent with palliative measures." ^ , ^ 

The increase in employment for armaments will not largely afCect farm surplus 
labor, while the need for defiMise practically closes the export market for farm 
products, and does not assure snllicient increase in domestic demand to offset this 
loss, as probably less than half of the unemployed will find work m defense 
industries before 1942. . , , • ^ . 

Government and cooperative farming to be successtul requires reasonable prices 
for suitable land, fair prices for material and equipment, careful and tactful 
supervision, and a cooperative spirit among the families. 

In 1938 the value of farm lands held by the 26 largest insurance companies 
was $529,000,000, andf from 1982^S8 they foreclosed $670,000,000 of farm 

The Federal Government owns over 260,000,000 acres of land in the Forest 
Service and Grazing Division, and many States own much farm land acquired 
through tax sales, and some of all these lands are suitable for such cooperative 
farming. ^.^. , . 

Naturally farmers in commercial agriculture, fear competition under present 
conditions, and most of cooperative farms should be self-sustaining, or exchange 
products. . , ^. 

Families in such farms would not be compelled to remain, and the young 
folks would be free to take employment which offers a better financial status if 
they can get it, or to try farming on their own. 

Obviously, such a farm program will not solve our economic chaos, it will 
mitigate some of its worse impacts. 

Uncontrolled finance capitalism has run its course, and the private monopoly 
dictatorship which we have, though getting a new lease of life through the 
war, will yield to an intelligent system of production and distribution in the 
next few years. 


Mr. :Marsh. I am executive secretnry of the Peoples' Lobby with 
headquarters here in Washiiioton. I have been here nearly 23 years 
now, and observed the operations of Conoress with interest, and I 
was going to say, enthusiasm — I will say enlightenment. 

Mr. Parsons. How large an organization is yours? 

INIr. Marsh. It is a very small one, about 2,000 members, and live 
or six hundred subscribers to our monthly bulletin. 

Mr. Parsons. Do they contribute dues for the maintenance of your 
bureau here ^ 

Mr. Marsh. Yes; we have varying memberships, and they are 
scattered over about 32 or 33 States. It is not a large organization, 
but we go on the tlieory — I think you will accept it — that Congress- 
men are anxious to consider the merits of any measure as well as 
liow many people say they are for it. It is time we did that, anyhow . 

Understand, this is not a partisan statement, be<>ause we are in a 

Mr. Parsons. That is the weakness of democracies. The people 
themselves, constitutionally, at least in theory are the Government, 
and tliey speak through constituted re]n'esentatives. The public doe.< 
not always Imow exactly what is best for them and neither does their 
representative always know. 

interstatp: .migration 3653 

Mr. Marsh. Do not take this personally, but I sometimes wonder 
whether I sympathize more with the people or with their representa- 
tives. I think yon will hardly blame me. 

Mr. Parsoxs. Thank yon for your consideration. You may pro- 
ceed with yoMj- statement. 


Ml-. Marsh. Tlieiv are cei-tainly half a million fann families, and 
probably thi-ee-qiiarters of a million, who cannot have a decent ex- 
istence in competitive commercial af^riculture, who should be in Gov- 
ernment or cooperative farms, under careful and tactful supervision, 

Mr. CuETis. What do you mean by Government farms? 

Mr. Marsh. I mean that the Government in substance extend the 
work that it is doing under the Farm Security Administration in 
these resettlement projects. And if I may illustrate — and I am so 
glad to emi:)ha.size this — about 4 or 5 years ago, I had the opportunity 
of visiting some of them, including the one near Scottsboro, Ala., up 
in the mountains there: Crossville. Tenn. : and Diaz Colony, in 
Arkansas; and several others, and I was impressed with what they 
were achieving. It happened that people near Scottsboro — the Cum- 
berland Plateau, I think they call it 

Mr. Sparkmax. Skyline Farms now. 

Mr. Marsh. They Avere the best illustration, because they had 
come from the poorest relief families. They got the land very 
cheaply through a dummy. They had a genius for a superintend- 
ent, and a personnel man, and I was delighted witli the difference 
in the people from what they must have been when they came off 
the relief rolls, and with their coopei-ative spiiit which they were 

So it may be necessary — and I am going to submit with your 
permission a bill which we had drafted making possible the acquisi- 
tion under certain conditions of farm land by tlie Government, either 
operated directly, as is practically done in the resettlement projects, 
or through coopertaive farming; oi- it may be more practical — they 
thought so when we suggested this bill '1 years ago or a little over — 
to have the Congress make larger ap]n'opriations for the Resettle- 
ment Administration, the Farm Security Administration. 

But I want to quote several Government officials on this, includ- 
ing the Vice President-Elect, a statement that he made as Secretary 
of Agriculture. 

However, early this year. Dr. W. \\ . Alexander, the Farm Secu- 
rity Administrator, said : 

If we were to attempt to do a complete job, rhe Farm Secvuiry Admiiii.strati'Mi 
should extend it.s rehabilitation i>rogi'ani to virtually all of the 1,700,000 farm 
families which have an average annual income of less than ?.tOO a year, includ- 
ing all the produce they grow for themselves. 

He added : 

America cannot afford to plan only partial .'solutions, or to be content with 
Ijalliative measures. 

The increase in employment for armaments will not largely atfect 
farm surplus labor while the need for defense practically closes the 


export market for farm products and does not assure sufficient in- 
crease in domestic demand to oifset this loss, as probably less than 
half of the unemployed will find work in defense industries before 

May I say, after writing this, I got the release this afternoon of a 
speech which Dr. Louis H. Bean, counselor of the Bureau of Agri- 
cultural Economics, is making at the American Society of Agronomy 
in Cliicago today, in which he says : 


Instead of rising agricultural exports of tbe World War period, we now 
face sharply restricted agricultural exports as the present war spreads. Not 
more than 3 percent of farm income will be derived this season from exports 
as compared with 16 percent in the 1920's. Thus, the problem of surplus 
manpower on farms looms larger than ever in areas normally producing for 
export, particularly in the South and Middle West. 

Dr. Bean is a very careful economist, and doubtless has made a 
l)retty careful estimate of what the exports will amount to. 

As I say, the increase in employment for armaments will not 
largely affect farm surplus labor wliile the need for defense prac- 
tically closes the export market for farm jn'oducts, and does not 
assure sufficient increase in domestic demand to offset this loss, as 
probably less than half of the unemployed will find work in defense 
industries, before 1942, when we will probably hit the peak and 
have maybe five or six million more employed. That is going to 
leave us — well, I notice that the American Federation of Labor says 
that the present unemployed figures are 8,130,000. That was in this 
morning's papers. 

Government and cooperative farming to be successful requires 
reasonable piices for suitable land, fair prices for material and 
equipment, careful and tactful supervision, and a cooperative spirit 
among the families. 

Just as an illustration. Secretary Wallace stated in an address in 
December : 

With full use of mechanical power we can produce our present supplies of farm 
products with 5,000,000 fewer people living on the land. 

I do not need to go into any detail as to what that signifies in the 
way of the displacement of present farmers. 

He further said in his report : 

Illustrative of the human problem involved, it may be said that without letting 
the production fall below the demand, wheat and cotton combined could get along 
with 1,500,000 fewer working persons. Present prospects for domestic and for- 
eign takings, with allowance for the possible effects of the war, will not solve it. 

That problem still remains. Where are you going to get the land? 
I admit you are facing a practical problem, and the stress is going to be 
upon measures which rate as paramount in defense of the country, and 
pretty large appropriations up to date have been made. I think we 
are more threatened with bottlenecks in the tool industry and the steel 
industry than with appropriations. .Congress has done its part. 



Now, I want to make some suggestions as to Iioav to get the land. 

In 1938 the vakie of farm lands held by the 26 largest insurance 
companies was $529,000,000, and from 1932 to 1938 tliey foreclosed 
$670,000,000 of farm mortgages. 

The Federal Government owns o^er 260,000,000 acres of land in the 
Forest Service and Grazing Division, and many States own much farm 
land acquired through tax sales, and some of all these lands are suitable 
for such cooperative farming. 

I have discussed this question over the country. Nearly every year 
I go from here to the coast. I was out this summer and discussed it 
with farmers in different sections of the country, the farmers who are 
in commercial production, and they are very much worried over this, 
and I can understand it. 

Suppose these farmers who are now on relief go into ]n'oducing 
cotton and wheat and milk and livestock and what not. We cannot 
sell what we are producing today, and we are responsible for the 
maintenance of our farms, which, as you know, means taxes and mort- 
gage interest and supplies and what not. Therefore, I make this 
suggestion. Naturally, farmers in commercial agriculture fear com- 
petition under present conditions, and most cooperative farms should 
be self-sustaining, or they could exchange produce, and so forth. 

Families in such farms would not be compelled to remain, and the 
young folks would be free to take employment which offers a better 
financial status if they can get it, or try farming on their own. 

I am not suggesting that you say to people who are unemployed on 
the farm, "You cannot leave it." That would be strictly un-American. 
They should not be compelled to remain. I notice tiiat Mr. Rauch 
pointed out that they let them take employment wherever they can get 
it, even if they are on relief — that is, employment in private industry. 

Obviously, such a farm program will not solve our economic chaos, 
but it will mitigate some of its worst impacts. 

Now, I am unable to tell this committee — I have not noticed whether 
it has been brought out before you in your hearings up to date or on 
your investigations over the countrj' — I do not know what proportion, 
for instance, of the migratory farmers called Okies who went to Cali- 
fornia, or the farmers who are drifting back and forth, have lost their 

Mr. Parsons. We have the record of that; around 60,000 farm units. 

Mr. Marsh. The foreclosing of mortgages was not the only cause 
of the migratory workers, if only 60,000 out of the hundreds of thou- 
sands who are going without a home are represented by that group. 

private monopoly dictatorship 

Uncontrolled finance capitalism has run its course, and the private 
monopoly dictatorship which we have, though getting a new lease 
of life through the war, will yield to an intelligent system of produc- 
tion and distribution in the next few years. 


It seems to me we are in a very serious impasse. If there should be 
some sudden assured permanent peace tomorrow, the economic system 
of every major country would collapse. It is all geared to a huge 
armament program. If we go on for 2 or 3 years more of preparedness 
without having something very carefully worked out to replace this 
preparedness program, the collapse will be much worse. 

I want to read one more statement from Dr. Bean, to whom I re- 
ferred and identified earlier. He says : 

If national income reaches $90,000,000,000 in 1942 as compared witli 75 billions 
in 1940, roughly 3 billions more may be spent by consumers for foods, of which 
farmers may receive about one and a lialf billion. This moderate gain would yield 
agriculture as a whole no improvement iu its share of the national income and 
still leave farm income about $2,000,000,000 short of the parity income standard. 

Also, he says : 

Any increase in farm income will cliiefly benefit the upper 50 penent of the farms 
which receive 85 percent of the total income, and the lowest third may receive a 
still smaller share since many of them have been producing for export. 

Now, I have several statements here w^hich I would be glad to read 
to you from testimony of Secretary Wallace and others before commit- 
tees. But there is one that I want to confine myself to. 

Mr. Parsons. We have had several witnesses from the Department 
of Agriculture and its various divisions at our other hearings, and 
jn-obably a great deal of that territory has been covered. 

people's lobby oefeks bill 

Mr. Marsh. I do not want to repeat it. I do not know whether these 
two or three short statements have been presented to you or not. I 
think you will be interested in the reaction wdiich we got to this sug- 
gestion for a Government marketing corporation which is incorporated 
in the bill which I w ould like to have made a part of the record, as a 
suggestion. It is a proposed bill. It has not been introduced. This 
analysis of the bill and a brief for it was read into the Congressional 
Record on May 4, 1939, by Mr. Knutson, of Minnesota. But he frankly 
said that he did so by request and not with any thought that he was in 
accord on the proposal. I did not w^ant to commit him on that at that 
early stage. 

Mr. Parsons. Without objection, that may be incorporated in the 
record here. 

(The matter referred to is as follows:) 

PUBUC Control and Ownership of Natural Resources — Extension of Re- 
marks OF Hon. Harold Knutson. of Minnesota, in the House of Repre- 
sentatives. Thursday, May 4, 1939 — Analysis and Brief by the People's 
Lobby, Inc. 

Mr. Knutson. ilr. Spealier, under leave to extend my remarlvs in tlie 
Record, I insert a statement of a proposed plan for public control and owner- 
ship of natural resources. I am doing so by request, and not with any thought 
that I am iu accord with the proposal. 


The policy of Congress is declared to be "to encourage and promote the 
public control and ownership of agricultural land and resources in order to 


preveiit absentee private ownership of land, speculation in farm lauds, exploita- 
tion of farmers, and the subjection to debt burdens of land operated by owners." 

The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to acquire any real property 
within the United States and its Territories, for the purposes of the act, "by 
purchase, exercise of the power of eminent domain, or gift." 

Tlio total appropriation for the purpose is $250,000,000. 

The Secretary is authorized to lease farm lands acquired to bona fide 
farmers' or other cooperatives on conditions he prescribes and also to operate 
such fantns. 

It is stipulated that in acquiring farm lands consideration shall be given 
to what the average net return of the lands has been during the preceding 
10 years, adn what it probably would be should the land remain in private 
ownership, and that the price paid "shall be, as nearly as possible, what the 
land would bring in the open market without any Government subsidy on 
crops, direct or indirect." 


1. All good farm land has passed into private ownership. — All good farm land 
has passed into private ownership and is held for speculative selling prices 
or profits. 

The Department of Agriculture reports that about 100,000,000 acres of land 
should be withdrawn from cultivation. 

In a pamphlet. Saving the Soil, it states : 

"Of the 1,907,000,000 acres representing the total area of the country, ex- 
clusive of city and water territory, nearly two-thirds is in some degree affected 
by erosion. * * * 

"In terms of money, the direct toll of erosion is estimated at $400,000,000 

In 1929 only about 8,000 farms were classified as large-scale farms — or one 
one-hundredth percent of all farms — but they paid 11 percent — about one- 
ninth — of the total farm wage bill. 

In 1935 there were 88,662 farms of over 1,000 acres out of 6,812,350 farms. 

In 1935, 3,899,091 farms were operated by owners, of which only 3,210,224, 
less than half of the total, were operatefl by full-time owners, and 48,104 were 
operated by managers. 

Tenant farmers operated 2,865,155, or 42.1 percent of all farms, and there 
were 336,S02,0(J0 acres in tenant-operated farms, or 54 percent — considerably 
over half — of all land in farms. 

By 1937, Secretary of Agriculture Wallace rei3orts, the number of farm 
tenants was about 2,565,000, and he commented : 

"Not all farm tenants need to be converted into owners in order to give 
them the necessary security. Cheap land in itself may not be the answer. 
This country had plenty in the past and gave it away freely under the home- 
stead laws ; yet throughout large areas today there are more tenants than 
owners, and the tenants are very insecure. It is well to aid tenants in becom- 
ing owners as funds and opportunities permit, but the problem of giving more 
security to the remaining tenants must be dealt with in other ways. Land 
buying, indeed, sometimes causes speculation, excess of debt, and foreclosure, the 
end result of which is more tenancy. We need a better farm-tenant system and 
better methods of land loaning." 

2. Government policies are increasing selling prices of farms and rentals, and 
reducing demands for farm products. — The Secretary of Agriculture in his 
annual report for 1938 states that in 1938 the index of the value of farm land 
per acre for the entire country was 85, compared with 73 in 1933, with the 
years 1912-14 equaling 100, and makes two comments : 

(a) "Important among the current factors in the situation are the present 
ample supply of credit for land transfers, the prevailing low level of interest 
rates, and the sharp decline that has taken place in the last decade in the 
total agricultural indebtedness." 


(b) "Many farms still carry indebtedness tbat is excessive in relation to 
their earning power. 

"Moreover, farm earning power tends frequently to be overestimated, par- 
ticularly when land values are rising. It makes no difference whether the 
advance results from an actual increase in current farm earnings, or from a 
gain in the net income to the farmer as a result of low interest rates. What- 
ever the cause, farmers tend to capitalize the favorable prospects exces.sively 
and to make them the base for an unwieldy superstructure of debt." 

He also states: "Rent paid by farmers in the United States to nonfarmers 
in 1935 is estimated at $699,000,000, in 1936 at $743,000,000, and in 1937 at 

This excludes rentals paid to relatives and to other farmers, and since 
buildings on rented farms are notoriously poor, it is chiefly rent for farm lands. 

In 1929 such rentals were $1,110,000,000. 

Higher prices for farm products due to higher costs of production and dis- 
tribution have curtailed domestic consumption, which the administration seeks 
to increase by special arrangements for those on relief, and has alo reduced 
demand abroad. 

We exported only about as much wheat in 1938 as in many years before 
1932, and about half as much cotton. 

The plan for export bounties on farm products won't meet the situation. 

3. Farm program does not raise standards of landless farmers. — For the 
current fiscal year. Federal expenditures for agriculture, exclusive of appro- 
priations for the Department of Agriculture, are estimated at $1,092,973,500, 
of which "aid for tenant farmers" is only $26,800,000, or about 2V2 percent. 

A small part of the Farm Security Administration and Rural Electrification 
Administration outlays also seeps through to tenant farmers and sharecroppers. 
• »***♦« 

4. Mechanization on farms militates ayainst tenant farmers. — Dr. C. Horace 
Hamilton, in a study "The Social Effects of Recent Trends in Mechanization of 
Agriculture" by the Texas College of Agriculture and the Mechanical Arts, 

"It has been estimated that, in 1830, 288 hours of man-labor were required 
to produce a hundred bushels of wheat on 5 acres of land. By 1930 only 49 
man-hours were needed to produce 100 bushels of wheat on 5 acres. 

"In the production of corn, the number of man-hours needed to produce 
100 bushels dropped from about 180 in 1880 to 104 in 1930. 

"In 1930 only 235 man-hours were required to produce a bale of cotton as 
compared to 285 in 1900, and 304 in 1880. 

"The surplus of farm tenants available in Texas has created considerable 
competition among tenants for places to rent ; and, as a result, rental rates 
are rising. In areas that once followed the straight third-and-fourth share rent 
systems, cash rents and privilege rents of various types are being u.sed. Pas- 
ture land, which tenants formerly received free of rent, now rents frequently 
for $1 ijer acre. 

"In some areas tenants are being charged cash rent for their dwellings. In 
many areas from three to six dollars per acre is being charged for land planted 
in fee crops. On many of these farms the cash rent on the feed lands amounts 
to more than the income from cotton." 

Dr. Hamilton estimates there are betvs^een 200,000 and 300,000 cotton pickers. 

Mechanization is partly responsible for the fact that about one-seventh of tho 
farms of America produce about one-half of all farm production. 

This leaves one-half of farm production for six-sevenths of the farms. 

Dr. Paul S. Taylor, in an article in the United States Department of Labor 
Monthly Review for April 1938, states : 

"Between 1930 and 1937, according to the best data available, the mimber of 
tractors (on southern farms) increased from 12.2 percent to 18.5 percent of the 
national total. While tractors increased 23.7 percent in the United States, they 
increased 87.9 percent in the 10 southern Cotton States." 

5. Present status of farm tenants and farm labor. — Mr. J. R. Butler, president, 
Southern Tenant Farmers' Union, describes the status of "more than 10,000,OCK> 
human beings" as "enslaved in chains by 'King Cotton,' absolute monarch of 
America's Southland." 


He states : 

"Diiriug the past 5 years, more than 500,000 sharecropper families — white and 
colored — have heen displaced from their homes, forced into the cities, there to 
begin futile competition with America's 10,000,000 unemployed, or have accepted 
the horrible alternative of becoming farm laborers, paid by the day, for working 
from sunup to dark, at a wage between 50 cents and $1.50." 


In 1935 the then Resettlement Administration estimated that 630,682 farms, 
Avith 91,246,000 acres, presented use problems which "appear to warrant encour- 
agement of a change from crop farming to stock ranching, or to forestry or other 
oonservational use." 

Fourteen Southern States had 451,767, or over two-thirds of these farms, with 
44,012,000 acres, or nearly half of the acreage. 

These States did not include the Dust Bowl nor the big grazing States. . 

Sharecroppers, tenant farmers, and farm labor are being made the victims 
of this "economic planning" for the benefit of southern plantation monopolists 
and their northern avaricious credit lirokers. 

6. Present status of Ooveniiiiciif ic-^cttleiiicnt projects. — The Assistant to 
The Secretary of Agriculture stated Jaiuiary 6, 1939: 

"(1) The Farm Security Administration has virtually completed 149 projects 
which were initiated by the Resettlement Administration or other preceding 
agencies. This total includes five migi-atory labor camps and three suburban 
housing projects known as Greenbelt towns. The remaining projects vary 
greatly in type. Although no two are quite alike, they all fall within these 
general classifications: 

"(o) Full-time farming projects. 

"(b) Subsistence homestead projects, in which the residents produce most 
of their food supplies in their own gardens, and earn their principal cash 
income by working in established industries in nearby cities. 

"(c) Part-time farming projects, in which the residents earn part of their 
income by working in industries which have been established at the project 

"(2) Expenditures on all projects up to November 30, 1938, totaled approxi- 
mately $102,678,753. The total expenditures for all projects except the sub- 
urban communities and the migratory labor camps was $64,461,122. 

"(3) Although some of the projects are not yet fully occupied, 49,781 persons, 
•or approximately 10,000 families, were in residence as of December 1, 1938. 
We regi'et that we do not have a break-down showing the number of adults 
and the number of minors resident in our projects. In general, however, the 
typical families selected for residence included two adults and between two and 
three children. 

"(4) Industrial enterprises have been established, or are being planned for 
nine of the projects." 

* * * ■•:: * * * 

This is a good beginning, but meets the needs of only about 1 i)ercent of 
those equally needing a chance. 

7. Reasons for provisions as to payment. — The admission by the Secretary of 
Agriculture that Federal payments to landowners for soil conservation, crop 
benefits, etc. — really a subsidy — has increased the selling price of farm lands 
shows the necessity for ending the policy of scarcity subsidy, which inures 
chiefly to the benefit of farm-land owners, as there has been a marked reduction 
of farm-mortgage debt, as well as interest rates. 

Government, representing all the people, cannot maintain class privileges. 

Its largesse to farm-land owners was designed to save their productive plant, 
but does not establish a precedent. 

The fact Government has given such salvaging subsidy gives it a prior 
ethical claim to acquire farm lands for the use of the most helpless of the 
farm population — on the basis of the selling price of farms without a Govern- 
ment subsidy. 

In the early thirties few farms showed a net return. 

No net return means no commercial selling price. 

Government must not, in fairness to all, buy back what it has created. 



Legally title to all land is inalienably vested in the Government — State or 

Refusal to provide Federal subsidies to farmers would insure acquiescence in 
a rational program of land taxation, and acquisition for the public welfare, at a 
price not bloated by Treasury grants ; that is, by taxes on consumers. 

Only Federal subsidies prevents the debacle of agriculture today. 

8. Chief alleged ohjectiom and answers. — First. Taxing all ground rent into 
State and local treasuries in place of taxes on consumption would make land 
available for a song and remove the need for such a measure. 

This should be done, but would not be enough, because farming can no longer 
be conducted as an individualistic competitive enterprise, as the growth of 
farmers' selling and buying cooperatives attests. 

Second. The plan would lead to an orgy of speculation in farm lands and the 
(government would be struck heavily. 

The Government will be much more careful about paying high prices for laud, 
when it is to retain title, instead of unloading it on sharecroppers, tenant farm- 
ers, and agricultural workers, and making them hold the sack. The Government 
can refuse to buy high-priced land, and through its grants from the Treasury 
compel State and local governments to adopt tax systems which will reduce the 
selling price of good farm lands. 

Third. It will ruin farmers' independence. 

That has already been done; and the wealthiest farmers, with the highest- 
priced land, are most dependent upon the Government and getting the biggest cut 
out of the Treasury, and ultimately the people, by bonuses, soil-conservation pay- 
ments, taritfs, and county agents' services. 

* * * * * * * 

9. Agricultural experts favor general plan of Government and cooperative farm- 
ing. — Dr. H. C. Nixon, Birmingham, Ala., executive secretary, Southern Conference 
for Human Welfare : 

"I am in hearty sympathy with the idea of setting up Government farming cor- 
porations, with power to operate farms directly or through cooperative societies : 
in other words, with the idea of providing facilities by which more people can 
help themselves as producers and consumers on the countryside. 

"This is particularly important in the South, where so many people are backed 
up on the land but where human and physical resources are not adequately har- 
nessed for producing a living or for living. 

"The Farm Security Administration program is good as far as It goes, but it 
does not go far enough." 

Dr. J. D. Black, department of economics. Harvard University : 

"So far as the proposal relative to farming operations is concerned, I think 
it would be better to work this out of the F. S. A. by the procedure of amend- 
ing the act to permit the Government to acquire land and sell it under flexible 
long-time contracts, preceded by short-term lease periods, as was recommended 
in the original report on farm tenancy. 

"My principal objection to that proposal was that I would make the period 
during which the contract can be paid completely elastic up to 40 years. 

"I would also amend the act to permit experimenting with cooperative 
farming ventures. I think we must feel our way along with respect to under- 
takings of this sort. In general, I would expect an arrangement under which 
each man operating his own farm by large-scale machinery that was owned by a 
group of farmers cooperating for that purpose would prove more satisfactory. 

"I should also like to see the rehabilitation program of the F. S. A. pushed 
as rapidly as is warranted by the success which it achieves in any given area." 

Barry Bingham, president and publisher, and Mark F. Ethridge, vice presi- 
dent and general manager, the Courier-Journal and the Louisville Times, join 
in the statement ; 

"You ask our opinion on the value of an expansion of the resettlement 
program of the Farm Security Administration. It was the sentiment of the 
Atlanta meeting (of 29 representative southern leaders), as stated in their 
declaration, to urge the continuation and expansion of this program. 

■'We personally feel that it is one of the outstanding constructive efforts to 
which we should devote ourselves in order to obtain any measure of security 
in the farming regions of our Nation. 


"The limited program which has been in operation, as you suggest, barely 
touches the problem. It has been suiiieient to prove, however, the soundness 
of such a plan, and the overwhelming need for a reconstruction of our 
American farm life along these lines." 

Dr. T. Lynn Smith, director, experimental stations, Louisiana Agricultural 
and Mechanical College: 

"I favor a limited amount of governmental experimentation with large-scale 
cooperative agricultural ventures. I am particularly concerned, however, that 
such undertakings be designed in a manner that allocates responsibilities for 
decisions and failures to the various members of the society. In other words. 
if all of the thinking is reserved for a few managers of the project, in my 
estimation the thing has failed before it has started. 

"There are problems of land tenure in the South which are very real, but 
these are similar to tenure problems in other parts of the country. In addition 
to these the South has the acute problems which arise out of the plantation 
system due to the fact that the great mass of the agriculturists have no tenure 
rights, and a few people shoulder all the responsibilities. At the present time 
the so-called tenancy of the South is blamed for the one-crop system ineffi- 
cient labor, low returns to the laborers, soil erosion, soil exhaustion, etc. It is 
intei'esting to note that prior to the Civil War the institution of slavery received 
the blame for these. 

"Why not saddle the responsibility onto the plantation system where it prop- 
erly belongs? Perhaps in the future a system of cooperation will be evolved 
which will overcome the social disadvantages of large-scale agriculture. But 
so far in the liistory of the world large-scale agriculture has always resulted 
in the development of a small selected group of the elite, while the great 
mass of the population has remained in ignorance and poverty." 

Dean Thomas S. Staples, Hendrix College, Conway, Ark. : 

"We need to subsidize or finance the marginal and submarginal farmer. It 
is unwise, to my notion, for us to colonize people from the lowlands, the high- 
lanas, and the alleys together in colonies situated in social and geographical 
areas to which they are not accustomed. To be specific, it is my opinion that 
it is miwise to bring people from the hills and from the bottoms where they 
have lived in houses situated far apart and locate them in such projects as the 
Dyess colony. It is unfair as well as unwise to set up Government farming 
corporations for a few of the people and subsidize the projects at the expense of 
other people. I approve in principle agricultural cooperative societies. How- 
ever, I do not believe in the Government subsidizing them." 

Dr. Charles S. Johnson, director, department of social science, Fisk Univer- 

"I believe that in the present situation of the great mass of tenants, in 
the South notably, the major needs are (a) for secvu-ity above the rather ques- 
tionable unique advantage of ownership in fee simple, and (b) for intelligent 
and dependable guidance in the form of Government services, in the interest 
of the producers themselve>«. 

"No other arrangement that I can think of can serve both the long-exploited 
producer at the bottom and at the same time contribute intelligently to the 
preservation of the soul of the South." 

William Mitch, president, district 20. United Mine Workers of America, 
Birmingham, Ala. : 

"It seems to me that it would be well for the Government to give a trial to 
this experimental proposition of cooperative farming when full facts have been 
developed in the matter." 

The proposal is not to "socialize" or "collectivize"' agriculture, but to extend 
rapidly pi-actical Government ownership of farms, and provision of Govern- 
ment direction and guidance for hundreds of thousands of untrained and im- 
poverished farm families by methods which have already proven their worth. 


Mr. Marsh. You see, I do not agree Avitli the witness early this after- 
noon, if I understood him correctly, who said. "I hope yon jnst con- 
tinue your investigation." 

I know you have something more practical in mind than just con- 
tinuing this investigation. You want to make constructive recom- 
mendations to the Cong-ress. 


We sent a draft of tliis bill outlining its principles, that were ap- 
proved by such men as Dr. H. C. Nixon, of Birmingham, Ala,, execu- 
tive secretary of the Southern Conference for Human Welfare; we 
sent the bill to them and they approved the principles of the bill— Dr. 
J. D. Black, of the department of economics, Harvard University; 
Dr. T. Lynn Smith, director, experimental stations, Louisiana Agi-i- 
cultural and Mechanical College; Dean Staples, Hendrix College, 
Conway, Ark.; and Dr. Charles S. Johnson, director, department so- 
cial science, Fisk University; and William Mitch, president. District 
20, United Mine Workers of America. Bii-mingham. Ala. 

They did not approve the details of the bill. Naturally, I did not 
ask them to do that, but the principles. 

We are going to have some migratory farm labor and other labor 
almost ine-^atably. But what we have not faced up with, it seems to 
me, and what your committee is bound to face up with, is the fact that 
we have — I have heard Government officials say it privately — at least 
1,000,000 if not 1,500,000 surplus farm families under the present 
economic set-up. 

Of course, they are going somewhere else, looking for a job, even if 
they have not a chance in the world, if they can get the money to do it. 


We therefore suggest that either you make a large ax^propriation — 
tentatively we suggested quarter of a billion dollars for this — I will 
not say experiment — for continuing the successful experiment in Gov- 
ernment-organized and Government-operated farms, or for cooperative 
farms, or else make an additional appropriation to the Farm Secu- 
rity Administration of whatever amount you can raise above the pres- 
ent appropriation, so that they can get a large proportion of it ; for, as 
Dr. Alexander or one of his associates stated in a recent hearing, they 
are just scratching the surface. 

Mr. Parsons. Of course, it would take a tremendous amount of 
money to complete a program such as you liave outlined. The Farm 
Security Administration has helped approximately half a million farm 
families and is continuing to help them, and will continue to do so in the 
future, and probably add additional ones to their loan rolls. But it 
would take a tremendous amount of money to put over such a pro- 
gram. It is possible that upon the cooperative people taking it out of 
the power of the Government and putting it on the basis of at least 
semiprivate operation, it might work out. 

Mr. Marsh. We have not found any other answer. 

Mr. Parsons. With the aid of the Government, perhaps. AVe are 
very glad to have your suggestion in that connection, and no doubt 
you will be able to fuid someone who will introduce your bill in the 
next Congress. Of course, if it is, it will be referred to the Agi'icul- 
tural Committee, and you will have an opportunity to exi)lain the 
details before that committee. 

Mr. Marsh. May I make one suggestion? I have been unable to 
find out how mucli good farm land is owned by private banks. We 
liave the records on the insurance companies, but I Avonder if your 


committee could ascertain how much farm land the banks and mort- 
gage companies now own through foreclosure, or what the amount of 
land is that could be taken in. it seems to us at a fairly low price, be- 
cause there is not going to be the boom in farm lands this time that 
there was in the last war ; because, instead of there being an increase 
in exports, as I pointed out to you, there is going to be a terrific 

If your committee could do that, it would l)e \ery hel})fu!. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. Parsons. Thank you. 

The committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock on Monday. 

(Wliereupon the committee adjourned, to meet on Monday, De- 
cember 9, 1940, at 10 a. m.). 



House of Representatives, 
Select Committee to Investigate the 
Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizens, 

W ashing ton^ D. G. 
The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. John H. Tolan (chairman) 

Present: Representatives John H. Tolan, chairman; Claude V, 
Parsons; John J. Sparkman; Carl T. Curtis; Frank C. Osmers, Jr. 
Also present: Dr. Robert K. Lamb, chief investigator; Henry H, 
Collins. Jr., coordinator of field hearings; Creekmore Fath and John 
W. Abbott, field investigators ; Ariel E. V. Dunn and Alice M. Tuohy, 
assistant field investigators; Irene M. Hageman, hearing secretary; 
Richard S. Blaisdell, editor; Harold D. Cullen, associate editor. 
The Chairman. The committee will be in order, please. 
The first witness is Mr. Chester G. Shackelton. 


Mr. Sparkman. Mr. Shackelton, will yon give your name and ad- 
dress to the reporter? 

Mr. Shackelton. Chester Shackelton, 12 East Lafayette Street, 
Baltimore, Md. 

Mr. Sparkman. Mr. Shackelton, how old are you ? 

Mr. Shackelton. I am 22, 

Mr. Sparkman. Where were you born ? 

Mr. Shackelton. I was born in Esbon, Kans. 

Mr. Sparkman. Are j^ou married? 

Mr. Shackelton, No. 

Mr. Sparkman. How much schooling did you have? 

Mr. Shackelton. I went through the gi-ade school and 2 years of 
high school. 

Mr-. Sparkman. Two years of hi^h school? 

Mr. Shackelton. Yes. 

Ml-. Sparkman. Why did you stop your high-school work? 

Mr. Shackelton. I just wanted to work, I guess. 

Mr. Sparkman. Did you go to work; did you get a job? 

Mr. Shackelton. Yes; working in an elevator in Esbon, Kans. 

Mr. SpARKiMAN. Are jTm working now? 

INIr. Shackelton. Yes. 



Mr. Spakkman. Wliat are you doing? 
Mr. Shackelton. Working on airplanes. 
Mr. Sparkman. Where? 

Mr. Shackelton. At the Glenn L. Martin plant in Baltimore. 
Mr. Sparkman. How long have you had that job? 
Mr. Shackelton. Two weeks. 

Mr. Sparkman. Is it a temporary job; you are not just employed 
on a temporary basis now ? 
Mr. Shackelton. No. 

Mr. Sparkman. What is the nature of your work ? 
Mr. Shackelton. I am working on construction of wings. 
Mr. Sparkman. Are you a skilled worker? 
Mr. Shackelton. No; just went through school. 
Mr. Sparkman. What school did you go through ? 
Mr. Shackelton. The Aeronautical Institute in Kansas City. 

ten weeks in aeronautics school 

Mr. Sparkman. How long did you go there? 

Mr. Shackelton. Ten weeks. 

Mr. Sparkman. What did it cost you to go there ? 

Mr. Shackelton. $166 ; that was the tuition. 

Mr. Sparkman. $166 was the tuition ? 

Mr. Shackelton. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. How did you happen to learn of that school ? 

Mr. Shackelton. Well, I had been thinking about going to some 
school, some place, and my aunt wanted me to go there. 

Mr. Sparkman. What is your training ; what are you classified as ? 

Mr. Shackelton. Well, I do not know ; just do everything that I can. 

Mr. Sparkman. Are you a mechanic? 

Mr. Shackelton. Yes; I have worked at it. 

Mr. Sparkman. Or a helper? 

Mr. Shackelton. I have worked as a mechanic. 

Mr. Sparkman. Well, on your present job, what is your classifi- 
cation ? 

Mr. Shackelton. I am classified as a spliner. 

Mr. Sparkman. What is a spliner ? 

Mr. Shackelton. It is splining up wings, getting them even. 

Mr. Sparkman. It is a regular job in aeronautical work? 

Mr. Shackelton. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. You stayed about 6 weeks in the school, did you? 

Mr. Shackelton. Ten weeks in Kansas City. 

Mr. Sparkman. Did you pay the wliole amount of your tuition 
yourself ? 

Mr. Shackelton. No. 

Mr. Sparkman. How was it paid? 

Mr. Shackelton. My aunt loaned me the money to begin with. 

Mr. Sparkman. In other words, one of your family paid it? 

Mr. Shackelton. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. You were not schooled by the Glenn L. Martin con- 


Mr. Shackelton. No. 


Mr. Sparkman. Did you get a job immediately upon finishing your 
school work? 

Mr. Shackelton. I would have if T had filled out the application 
blank right. 

Mr. Sparkman. In other words, you got it as quick as you applied 
for it? 

Mr. Shackelton. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. Did the school ivc^uire fidl ])aynient of tlie tui- 
tion before you started training^ 

Mr. Shackelton. No. 

Mr. Sparkman. How did you pay it ? 

Mr. Shackelton. Paid $50 d<nvn and the rest on the instaUment 

Mr. Sparkman. Have you finished paying for it all ( 

Mr. Shackelton. No ; I am still paying on it. 

school promised employment 

Mr. Sparkman. Did the school ))r()mise to get employment for 
you ? 

Mr. Shackelton. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. And were they instrumental in getting it? 

Mr. Shackelton. Yes, 

Mr. Sparkman. In other words, they did put you in touch with 
the Glenn L. Martin concern? 

Mr. Shackelton. Well, they told us to write to the factory and 
get an application blank, and they helped to get the job. 

Mr. Sparkman, Is the school pretty well filled ? 

Mr. Shackelton. It was when I was there, 

Mr. Sparkman, That is what I mean; and did you observe that 
there were a great many young men going to these schools? 

Mr, Shackelton. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. Do you feel that your work in the school was of 
special benefit to you ? 

Mr. Shackelton. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman, You intend U) follow the aviation industry^ 

Mr. Shackelton. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. Did most of tlu^se who were in school along at 
the same time with you get employment Avith some company? 

Mr. Shackelton. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. It is your opinion that the attendance at this 
particular school did give you value for the money that you spent? 

Mr. Shackelton. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. I believe that is ^all I wanted to ask. 

The Chairman. Mr. Curtis. 

Mr. Curtis. AVhere is Esbon, Kans. ? 

Mr. Shackelton. Esbon, Kans., in the north central part of the 

Mr. Curtis, What county? 

Mr, Shackelton. Jewell. 

Mr. Curtis. Jewell County? 

Mr. Shackelton. Yes. 

ifiOMTO— 41— pt. 9 14 



Mr. Sparkman. How far is tliat from Superior, Nel)r. ; not very 
far? " 

Mr. Shackelton. No. 

Mr. Sparkman. You say you are 22 years old? 

Mr, Shackelton. Yes. . . 

Mr. Curtis. Was there any opportunity to secure aviation work 
in Kansas? 

Mr. Shackelton. No; not where we were; the only place was at 

Mr. Curtls. They were not employing anyone there ? 

Mr. Shackelton. No ; not right then. 

Mr. Curtis. Were there many boys from the Great Plains Statea, 
such as you were, in Kansas, who were in training in the line you 
were in? 

Mr, Shackelton. Yes ; I believe there were. 

Mr, Curtis. You say you were in training in Lincoln ? 

Mr. Shackelton. No; Kansas City, 

Mr. Curtis. About how many were enrolled; was it a large en- 

Mr. Shackelton. I believe there were about 100. 

Mr, Curtis. About 100 enrolled? 

Mr. Shackelton. Yes. 


Mr. Curtis. Did most of the boys make application to go east or 
Avest, or did they try near their home first ? 

Mr. Shackelton.' Well, a lot of them tried at Wichita; they just 
sent applications to all factories. 

Mr. Curtis. Do you know of any other airplane factories in that 
group of States, besides Wichita? 

Mr. Shackelton. No. 

Mr. Curtis. There are not many large ones around there ? 

Mr. Shackelton. No. 

Mr. Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Sparkman. Were you reared on the farm ? 

Mr. Shackelton. I have lived on the farm, until 7. 

Mr. Sparkman. Until 7 ? 

Mr. Shackelton. Yes. 

Mr. Spariohan. You mean until you were 7 years of age? 

Mr. Shackelton. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. Have you worked on the farm since ? 

Mr. Shackelton. Just a little. 

Mr. Sparkman. What doing? 

Mr. Shackelton. Oh, shocking wheat, shucking corn. 

Mr. Sparkman. You had a natural desire for mechanical work ? 

Mr. Shackelton. Yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. I think that is all. Thank you. 



Mr. Curtis. Will you state your name, please. 

Mr. WiNDHOKST.- Leroy P. Windhorst. 

Mr. Curtis. Hoav old are you ? 

Mr. Windhorst. Twenty. 

Mr. Curtis. Are 3^ou married ^ 

Mr. Windhorst. No. 

Mr. Curtis. What is your address ? 

Mr. Windhorst. Wells, Kans. 

Mr. Curtis. What part of Kansas is it in ? 

Mr. Windhorst. It is really in the central part. We are just 30 
miles from the geographical center of the United States. 

Mr. Curtis. What is the largest town you are located near? 

Mr. Windhorst. Well, we are 90 miles from Wichita; 90 miles 

Mr. Curtis. How far are you from Salina ? 

Mr. Windhorst. Twenty-five miles. 

Mr. Curtis. You are north of Salina? 

Mr. Windhorst. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. What school did you attend 'i 

Mr. Windhorst. Kansas Wesleyan University. 

Mr. Curtis. How long were you at Kansas Wesleyan ? 

Mr. Windhorst. I was there about 4 months. 

Mr. Curtis. When did you graduate from high school? 

Mr. Windhorst. In May of 1938. 

Mr. Curtis. And when did you enroll in Kansas Wesleyan? 

Mr. Windhorst. In September. 

Mr. Curtis. Of 1938? 

Mr. Windhorst. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. How large a town is Wells ? 

Mr. Windhorst. The population is 100. 

Mr. Curtis. One hundred ? 

Mr. Windhorst. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. What is the county seat of that county ? 

Mr. Windhorst. Minneapolis. 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Windhorst, what does your father do? 

Mr. Windhorst. Well, he farms some. He did run a grocery store 
in that town, but sold out just recently. 

Mr. Curtis. Business is not so good in a town of 100 ? 

Mr. Windhorst. No ; there is too much competition. 

Mr. Curtis. Is vour father able to make a living running the 

FAR:NrEn limited to raising M'HEAT 

Mr. Windhorst. Yes; he is doing right well, except he is limitxjd 
more or less to raising wheat; cannot raise corn. 

Mr. Curtis. How many acres does your father farm, usually? 

Mr. Windhorst. It varies between' 300 and 400 acres, depending 
upon the year. 

Mr. Curtis. Does he own the land ? 

Mr. Windhorst. He owns it. 


Mr. CuKTis. How much help did he require in running a farm of 
400 acres? 

Mr. WiNDHOKST. Well, in seasons when I was home lie and I did 
it ; we had a tractor and a combine ? 

Mr. Curtis. You did tractor farming? 

Mr. Windhorst. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. And when your father was engaged in tractor farm- 
ing did you live out on the farm or live in toAvn ? 

Mr. Windhorst. We lived in the little town of Wells. 

Mr. Curtis. How far out of town was it to the farm ? 

Mr. Windhorst. Well, it ran from 6 to 15 miles. 

Mr. Curtis. It was not just one piece of land ? 

Mr. Windhorst. No. 

Mr. Curtis. How many brothers and sisters do you have? 

Mr. Windhorst. I have two sisters. 

Mr. Curtis. Are they older than you ? 

Mr. Windhorst. One is older and one younger. 

Mr. Curtis. Your father still owns the land? 

Mr. Windhorst. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. Do you like farming or would yoii rather get into 
aviation ? 

Mr. Windhorst. I do not loiow ; I have been in aviation only very 
little. I do like farming, but they both have their drawbacks ; farm- 
ing has its drawback and also aviation. I thought I would like to 
try aviation and if I did not like it I would go back. 

Mr. Curtis. Where did you say you Avei'e located now ? 

Mr. Windhorst. Gleim L. Martin Co. in Baltimore. 


Mr. Curtis. Du you like to live in Maryland l>etter than you do 
in Kansas ? 

Mr. Windhorst. No ; I cannot say I do. 

Mr. Curtis. You had rather be back in Kansas ? 

Mr. Windhorst. I would rather be back there. 

Mr. Curtis. After you left Wesleyan, where did you go? 

Mr. Windhorst. I went back to Wells and worked with my father 
in the grocery store and helped him on the farm. 

Mr. Curtis. Where did you get your aviation training? 

Mr. Windhorst. At Lincoln, Nebr. 

Mr. Curtis. When did you go to Lincoln ? 

Mr. Windhorst. In February, this year. 

Mr. Curtis. How did you happen to decide to go to Lincoln ? 

Mr. Windhorst. I just happened to go up there with a friend of 
mine, and he was going to see about the school, and while we were there 
I got interested and so I stayed, too. 

Mr. Curtis. What is the name of that school ? 

Mr. Windhorst. It is the Lincoln Aeronautical — it goes by two 
names — the Lincoln Flying School, and tlie Lincoln Aeronautical 

Mr. Curtis. What courses do they offer; just flying? Or do they 
offer other aviation trainins? 



Mr. Windhorst. There is a great deal of training on the ground and 
aviation mechanics. There is a 3-month course, and also an 8-week 
€ourse in sheet metal, and also a 3-month course in sheet metal ; and you 
«an also take drafting and engineering. 

Mr. Curtis. How long has that school been organized ; do you know ? 

Mr. Windhorst. I do not know how long it has been organized for 
a flying school. Before it was a flying school it used to be a tractor 

Mr. Curtis. What course did you take ? 

Mr. Windhorst. I took a sheet-metal course, the 8- weeks' sheet-metal 

Mr. Curtis. You did not take a flying course ? 

Mr. Windhorst. No. 

Mr. Curtis. That happened to be the town where Charles Lindbergh 
took his training, did it not'^ I guess they told you that. 

Mr. Windhorst. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. How many weeks did you sav you studied sheet-metal 

Mr. Windhorst. Eight weeks. 

Mr. Curtis. Now, what did they assign you to when you first went 
to work ; or to school ; Avhat did they teach you ? 

Mr. Windhorst. Well, the first week they just put us to cutting out 
different patterns and different kinds of metal gadgets and for the 
different things you have to have on planes. 

Mr. Curtis. How many would there be in a class that yt)ii were 
instructed in when you were cutting out various patterns ? 

Mr. Windhorst. In that sheet-metal class I really do not know. 

Mr. Curtis. How many in the room at the time the instructor was 
there ; do you recall ? 

Mr. Windhorst. There would be about 100, but with several in- 

Mr. Curtis. Several instructors? 

Mr. Windhorst. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. About how many for that group of boys ? 

Mr. Windhorst. I think there were about 10. 

Mr. Curtis. About 10 instructors? 

Mr. Windhorst. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. What were you able to do with sheet metal by the time 
you finished the 8-week course? 

Mr. Windhorst. Well, we learned to know about how much you 
could bend the metal; if it is thin, it could be bent into certain shapes, 
without breaking, and if it is thick, it could not be bent as much. If 
it is thin and malleable, it would take quite a radius. 

Mr. Curtis. When you had finished your training, you could do 
riveting and solder work? 

Mr. Windhorst. Yes; we could do riveting and soldering. 

Mr. Curtis. Now, what kind of work do you do at the Martin Co. ? 

Mr. Windhorst. I have been on the final "assembly. We have to do 
some riveting; not so much; it is mostly on the fitting of various parts 
on the planes, fitting them together. 


Mr, Curtis. Do you woik under someone else ? 

Mr. Windhorst. Yes. 

Mr. CuETis. Tliere are instructors along- with you. seeing how you do 
the work ? 

Mr. Windhorst. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. Do you get along all right '^ 

Mr. Windhorst. Get along fairly well. 

Mr. Curtis. Do you feel you are mechanically inclined ? 

Mr. Windhorst. Yes; I do. I have })een around thi-eshers, tractors. 
and things of that kind all my life. 

Mi-. Curtis. Where did you say you went to high school ? 

Mr. Windhorst. In Minneapolis, Kans. 

Mr. Curtis. Did you take any kind of shop or any metal work? 

Mr. Windhorst. I spent my freshman year, the first year I spent 
at that kind of study, and I had some woodworking training, but, of 
course, the work was not very extensive; it was just a small town. 

Mr. Curtis. How did you happen to come east to get work after you 
had completed your training? 


Mr. Windhorst. Well, the West seemed to have been pretty well 
filled at that time, because there were so many people who went out 
there because of lack of work. 

Mr. Curtis. In speaking of the West, you mean the west coast i 

Mr. Windhorst. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. How did it happen you did not stay where you were^ 

]Mr. Windhorst. Well, the only place offering work in aviation was 
at Wichita and they did not have a demand for men right at that 

Mr. Curtis. You say you graduated from high school in 1938? 

Mr. Windhorst. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. Were most of the boys that you were acquainted with 
111 high school employed; have they found work around in their local- 
ity where you went to high school ? 

Mr. WiNDPioRST. Well, a part of them are still theie, and a part of 
them got some work in that locality; some of them are in the Navy: 
some are in the Army : they are just scattered around. 

Mr. Curtis. Do they all have jobs? 

Mr. Windhorst. Well, practically all of them, the biggest portion. 

Mr. Curtis. What sort of jobs do they have? 

Mr. Windhorst. Well, some of them have work on the farm with 
their fathers, or maj'be they have gotten mari-ied and have moved on 
to a place themselves. 

Mr. Curtis. Those that were interested in mechanical lines : Have 
they been able to stay around there? 

Mr. Windhorst. No; I do not think so many of them have been 
able to get anything in that line, notliiug in aviation work at alU 
there are only just two or three of us that I know of that are in that. 

Mr. Curtis. Most of the boys were able to get work who attended 
this Lincoln school, were they? 


Mr. Windhorst. Yes; I do not know of anyone wlio lias not <»-otte.ii 
work after going there. 

Mr. Curtis. There seemed to be an opportunity for the boys who 
took training in mechanics? 

Mr. Windhorst. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. But there are no opportunities in Kansas and Ne- 
braska or the (jreat Plains States along those lines? 

Mr. Windhorst. No; thei-e is not right now. There will l)e aft«r 
the^' get through building, and they are doing some building there 
now. There are one or two plants in Wichita, Kans., and there is a 
plant being moved from Columbus, Ohio, down there. There is also 
one in Dallas, Tex., where they are building a big plant. That will 
l)e finished, I imagine, in about 6 months, and there will be wf)rk. 

JNIr. Curtis. Have you done any flying yourself ? 

Mr. Windhorst. No. 

Mr. Curtis. Where would you rather live, Maryland or back out 
in Kansas? 

Mr. Windhorst. I would rather live there. 

Mr. Curtis. Rather get back to Kansas ? 

Mr. Windhorst. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. You are in favor then of further development of the 
aviation industry and other such industries in that area ? 

Mr. AViNDHORST. Yes ; I think there is an opportunity for it there. 

Mr. Curtis. I have no further questions. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Windhorst. Thank you. 


The Chairman. Please state your full name and the capacity in 
which you appear, Mr. Shishkin. 

Mr. Shishkin. Boris Shishkin, economist, American Federation of 
Labor, Washington, D. C. 

The Chairiman. I understand that it was the desire of President 
Green to appear before this committee in person but that he was 
called out of the city. 

Mr. Shishkin. That is right, sir. I want to call attention at the 
outset to the fact that President Green personally has requested the 
American Federation of Labor to devote a great "deal of attention to 
this subject, and President Green himself has done a great deal to 
initiate the study of it and to secure reports from affiliated organi- 
zations, as the interest was indicated by a great deal of discussion that 
took place at the last convention of the federation. But, unfortun- 
ately, just having returned from the convention and because of the 
demands of other organizations, it was absolutely impossible for 
President Green to be here today and he requested me to convey to 
you his very sincere regret that he was not able to appear. 

The Chairman. Mr, Shishkin, I have read your statement and I 
think you have a very valuable contribution for the records of this 
committee. Now, possibly you do not want to read the entire state- 


nient which you have submitted to us, and I suggest that you bring 
out the points that you desire and the committee will ask you some 
questions at the conclusion. You can just proceed in your own way 

at this time. n i-i i 

Mr. Shishkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to read 
some parts of the statement and expand on several points touched 
upon, particularly those contained in the recommendations. [Read- 


MigiHtorv workers and their families are refugees from iusecurity. They 
must be given priority of consideration in the planning of national defense and 
in making provision for readjustment at the end of the emergency. 

Defense in terms of military strength is paramount. But what will it profit 
the American people to throw an impregnable defense around their borders and 
at the same time face defeat in the internal fight against unemployment, priva- 
tion, and insecurity? An essential part of our defense problem, therefore, is to 
plan and build in such a way that the sources of employment could never run 
dry as they have done in the past, that a constant supply of productive activity 
is made available to each area and community, thus making possible deep- 
rooted, stable growth of a strong and healthy Nation. 

In approaching the problem of migratory labor, and our interest, 
the interest of organized labor, is equally divided between the prob- 
lems faced by the agricultural workers, those engaged in processing, 
industrial processing of agricultural products, which is a very sea- 
sonal industry and one which gives rise to a great deal of migratory 
labor, and that of industry in general, and particularly the migra- 
tory problem which has been brought about by the current develop- 
ment in connection with national defense. 

It may be pointed out, and I think several witnesses have made 
and emphasized the point that migratory labor as such is necessary 
in our present set-up in our economic organization today; that is, 
has been the normal thing and has been the best thing for American 
life from the beginning, but it should also be pointed out that the 
migratory labor that we know today is primarily the product of 
economic pressure, it is a product of the destitution which affects the 
lower-income groups that are brought down to a low margin under 
our system. 

There have been a number of basic developments that have taken 
place in this country coincident with the development of our immi- 
gration and growth. That is evidenced by the fact that in the past 
the family system of production existed throughout the country in 
going into frontier fields. Families now have gotten much smaller, 
there is not the same economic unit to be found at this time, and as 
has been pointed out, that has taken place within the past 25 years. 
Because of the development in this direction, it is easier now for 
men and women to take up their household effects and move on. 
That is due i)artly because we have better methods to get around. 
Where it used to take 10 days to travel in order to get some place, 
across the wide expanse, it now only takes 1 day. 

But we do have the problem that in its entirety according to some 
reports — and it is almost impossible to estimate the figures, and per- 
haps the social -security figures furni,sh the soundest basis — that &x)me 


4,000,000 persons are now annually migrating;, and that does not take 
into account the commuters across State lines. 

There is a tremendous part of our population that is shifting and 
which should have an ojjportunity to become rooted in the regular 
framework of community life. And in that connection I also want 
to say that tho,se who are on the move under those pressures are not 
imlike those who were under the pressure in the frontier days, which 
has characterized American life, and we do not have the frontiers 
that existed in our early days. But we do have frontiers : We have 
frontiers that are just as significant, economic frontiers, which are to 
be found within our own borders and which enables us to supply the 
source of employment in economic fields, and increase the purchasing- 
power, and in our own groups of workers, in these economic areas,, 
are the frontiers in which we have the greatest room for expansion. 
And, I believe in the solution of the problem we still have a great 
way to go yet. [Reading :] 

Men, women, and children forced to take to the road ui tlieir search for jobs 
and homes and in their struggle to survive, represent an enormous waste of our 
human resources and a drain upon the health and vitality of the Nation. In 
the past few years we have done much in the field of soil and forest conserva- 
tion, but we have not done enough to assure conservation of human lives from 
the blight of unemployment, of economic shifts and instability. 

These millions of people, forced to search for new homes and new jobs, are 
so near the ragged edge — with total annual earnings ranging between around 
$300 and $700 per family — that the slightest set-back or misfortune is certain 
to push them into utter destitution. 

And, some of the reports show an income of as low as $100. But 
on these reports — and I must say that the Tolan committee has 
brought together and amassed an amount of valuable information on 
this most difficult subject, with which to make the study that we now 
have before us, so we have a pretty well rounded out idea of what is 
an essentially human problem of the family in thig economic period,, 
that has to be shouldered by thousands of families. [Reading :] 


To the plain public duty of remedying these conditions and of removing their 
causes is now added another imperative and pressing requirement. Defense 
organization and defense production will strain to the limit the resources of 
the American people. The defense needs place upon our Congress and our Gov- 
ernment an exacting duty to make, in a democratic way, an urgent and ade- 
quate provision of remedies and facilities to end the idle ebb and flow of unem- 
ployed job seekers and to direct it into channels of normal productive activity. 

And, I believe that the organization of facts concerning employ- 
ment, to provide information telling people where to go, a provision 
for making explicit the information-secured from employers as to the 
possible opportunities that ma}^ be offered may assist a great deal in 
the solution of the immediate task, that is the practical problem con- 
fronting us today, and the possibility of a workable solution in the 
near future. [Reading:] 

A further problem, one which in time will prove to be the most imix»rtant 
of all, is also extremely vital in connection with migratory labor and defense. 
The American Federation of Labor calls upon Congress to focus its attention 



npou this problem now. It is the problem of the aftermath, with which we will 
be faced following the defense activities. 

How soon we will see it end it is difficult to foretell, but it may end 
very soon, it may happen over a period of 2 years, 3 years, or 5 years, 
but when the day comes it will come so suddenly that American in- 
dustry and labor will not know what hit it. And to sit by and make 
n>o provision for it now will mean it will be most too late then. We 
have got to begin now to plan and provide for the greatest crisis 
which, I believe, America faces, and that crisis is the aftermath, fol- 
lowing the emergency, one of readjustment. [Reading:] 

While much migration of industrial labor is now taking place due to expan- 
sion, redistribution, and reallocation of defense production, the time is not so 
far removed when defense activity will be discontinued. At that time labor 
foresees a crucial test of our ability as a democratic people to assure unbroken 
continuity in oui- ways and methods of production and of our standards of woi'k 
and living. 

When the time comes new currents of labor migration are bound to be set off. 
There will be return flows of migration, new stranded groups of workers, new 
ghost towns, new distressed areas — unless immediate provision against these 
things in every phase of the defense program is made. No matter how urgent 
the problem, whether it is one of defense housing or defense production capa- 
city, the action needed is never too urgent to prevent its being tested in terms 
of our post-emergency requirements. 

I believe that the Defense Commission and several Government 
agencies have taken specific action concerning this problem, against 
the day of what will happen following the emergency, when the date 
arrives, whe?i we will have to go back to normalcy'. [Reading:] 


lint, in addition, study and planning must be begun now of the needs and 
conditions of th*; days we are approaching with deadly certainty. To what 
productive peat-etime use can be put the costly equipment and machinery now 
being installed to make warcraft, shells, tanks, and guns? To what peacetime 
use can be put the skills of thousands of workers who are now being trained 
for defense production? Are the billions now being spent for defense produc- 
tion to be used for factories and equipment which can be given full utilization 
in normal peacetime production, or is this vast new productive establishment 
condemned to become an abandoned skeleton and a silent monument to our 
intense but improvident effort? Are the men aiul women workers now being 
given intensive training and now being urged to achieve the utmost in their 
technical ability to be given an opportunity to make a full contribution to the 
peacetime production of the Nation, or are they to be thrown back upon the 
scrap heap of unemployed for whom private industry has no further use? 

From the standj)oint of ordinary living, this problem of bringing 
into industry large reserAes of workers who had training before, 
wlio have had to learn some different kind of training, but who have 
now been retrained, and who have to be trained in some skilled work 
for some particular job, is, of course, a most serious one. The rate 
of accession, as reflected in the unemployment figures, is about 500,000 
woikers a month. A half million workers are being brought iiit-o 
industry. Just what the future trend of that rate might be is diffi- 
cult to foresee, but probably it will remain approximately the same; 
unemployment will be reduced at about that rate. The question is: 
Are they being trained for specific productive industry? Will they 


fit in, and to what extent will they fit in peacetime production — if 
they are beino- trained for work that is still temporary, if their em- 
ployment is, you mio-ht say, like that on cantonments which may be 
used temporarily^ for housing the Army and then be i)ut into disuse or 
reduced to dilapidated structures? [Reading:] 

As a people we can give coustructive and positive answers to these ques- 
tions only if, without a moment's delay, wc go to work on the complex problems 
underlying them. Only when we are fully equipped with facts and understand- 
ing of every implication of the problems shall we be able to forestall a post- 
emergency crisis through equitable and democratic met hods without having 
to resort to compulsion and regimentation. 

I want to say, as we face a problem which I believe is an ex- 
tremely important one, that much of the interstate labor migration 
today may be termed blind migration. Workers and their families 
travel hundreds and thousands of miles, placing their faith of finding 
i'mployment on a vague rumor or deliberately false report greatly ex- 
aggerating the employment needs which often do not exist at all. 
It is of primary hnportance, therefore, to assure visibility of em- 
ployment opportunities. 

I think that one way to approach the problem — there is one solu- 
tion that is a practical one — should be to attempt to provide advance 
job inventories. We have a number of employment agencies ; we can 
call on the local employment service, the State local employment 
service, and the Fedei-al Emplojnnent Service and coordinate the 
efforts of these organizations. But one of the most important things 
is to- |jrovide advance job inventories, and to provide advance in- 
formation on the prospective employment oi)i:)ortunities, and in- 
dustry cooperating with these organizations will be able to arrive 
at a sound and effective basis for the placement of workers on jobs. 


We have had the maximum movement of industrial workers as 
well as agricultural workers, based on the recommendation or re- 
ports of a few workers needed, that have traveled a long distance 
from tlie point of origin, assuming an increased economic problem. 
We have seen that happen repeatedly, time and time again. It hap- 
pened in Detroit in 1933 and 1934^ where thousands, hundreds of 
thousands, of workers moved into Detroit when one of the factories 
was opening, increasing a difficult problem which the comnmnity 
already Avas confronted with. Sometimes this has been the result 
of employers taking advantage of the number of people unemployed 
throughout the country ; and at other times the residt of employment 
agencies. And in fairness I must say also sometimes it has been 
done by some of the agencies of the Federal Government charged 
with the responsibility of defense. One of the instances of extreme 
importance is illustrated in the Frankfort Arsenal, near Phila- 
delphia, where there was an opportunity for 200 skilled workers, and 
the reports were made, statements were made officially that there 
were 2,000 workers needed. They came from surrounding States 
and onlv 1 out of 20 workers were hired. 



Tliat was a tremendous waste of time and expense for people who 
are employed, who secure temporary jobs, and who come back dis- 

Then there is the practice of bidding for a particular type of 
skilled worlvman. In some of the navy yards the practice has 
occurred of callintr for first-class mechanics when the job that is 
actually being done represents a third-class mechanics pay. The 
reason 'is that a lower skill is being offered than the first-class me- 
chanic commands, and when the first-class mechanic ascertains the 
rate that is to be paid he finds he is no better off, or perhaps worse 
otf than he was in the community from which he comes. 

Now statements have been made to the eifect there is a labor shortage 
of skilled laborers. There is not a labor shortage, but if in the defense 
program such practice is followed and first-class skilled mechanics are 
taken, of com-se, that reduces the nmnber available. And this program 
should be undertaken as promptly as possible in cooperation with 
organized labor and the industries. 

The American Federation of Labor is ready to oifer any facility not 
only of the national organization but also of the State federations of 
labor, the Central Labor Union, in securing men who have been trained 
over long periods of years, in working out this problem. I feel sure 
that they all realize the long-range problem and am also sure they 
will cooperate to the fullest extent in reducing labor migration. 

Another remedy which I believe is imperative is one to which I have 
given a great deal of thought as a member of the Department of Labor 
Conunittee on Private Emph)yment Agencies, which has studied the 
problem over a period of months during this year, and has reached 
some conclusion and has some recommendations to make, to submit 
to the Congress. I do not want to go into details of the specific recom- 
mendations that will be made by the Division of Labor concerning the 
legislation, but I do want to develop the thought which I think can 
be of use to this committee in its recommendations. 


One of the recommendations is to provi,de for [reading] : 

Federal liceusiug of all private employment agencies and agencies operating 
across the State lines, for the purpose of preventing fraudulent misrepresentation 
of job opportunities, usurious fees, and all other illicit and speculative traffic iu 
human labor, as well as regulation of interstate job advertising, vphich would 
put an end to many vicious practices by labor cojitractors, employment agents, 
and unscrupulous employers, practices which perpetuate migration and suffering 
of the unemployed workers. 

As an illustration, a few days ago there was an advertisement run by 
an employer in Tennessee. The advertisement appeared in Baltimore, 
Washington, and Atlanta, and other States in the South and Middle 
West. The advertisement Avas for a number of plumbers. Of course, 
the reaction on the part of the people in each community will be to 
travel a great distance to seek some sort of a job. 

Now, that illustrates the type of abuse in interstate commerce wliich 
the Congress has the power to stop and it should be stopped. Private 


employment agencies have been fleecing not only the poor niigTant 
workers, but also fleecing employers, in demanding exorbitant fees. 
I believe a regulation of this sort, a regulation that need not be 
detailed a great deal. Avill be sufficient to accomplish a great deal and 
stop the unnecessary flow of labor migration. [Reading :] 

No preventive i-emedies cau be effective unless tlie economic pressure forcing 
migration is removed. Reducing inequities in income by increasing tlie purchas- 
ing power of low-income workers is fundamental if the goal is to be achieved. 
Extension of coverage of the minimum-wage and maximum-hour standards of the 
wage-and-hour law and extension of safeguards of collective bargaining rights 
to workers now excluded from protection against substandard labor conditions 
and unfair labor practices are strongly urged by labor as bringing into operation 
long-range stabilizing forces. 

There is another phase of the problem I want to touch upon which 
I believe is important in this connection. There has been a tendency 
during the past 2 years, a tremendous effort, for exemption from 
coverage over the labor legislation of workers engaged in industrial 
production, in processing of the products that have to do with 
agricultural commodities. 

In dealing with this problem, those who have actually studied it, 
and looked at the facts and looked at the source of pressure for the 
exemptions, discovered that the public impression was made wide- 
spread that this had to do with agricultural work and that their 
employees in packing houses and canneries and in all of 
processing of agriculttual products are engaged in industrial oper- 
ations; they are not in agricultural work, and the exemption is not 
justified; the exemption is not one which comes within the intent 
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the investigation 
.showed there was no evidence to bear out the contention; and there 
was no justification for the exemption. 


In the act there are two sets of exemptions, one for seasonal opera- 
tions and one for perishable products. They are all for 14 weeks. 
In the ruling of the Wage and Hour Division that has granted an 
exemption possible to apply consecutive!)^. If you have one 14 
weeks" exemption in one section and another 14 weeks' exemption 
in another section, and if you apply that to different projects in the 
same plants, the workers may have no maximum hours. If there is 
a week seasonal element and all the work is put into one short space 
of time that means one worker is employed long hours, up to TO, 
and in some instances 78 or 80 hours, and unemployed the rest of 
the time, and he is given an opportunity to find another job, but 
Tie deprives another worker of the opportunity of employment there. 

It is very important to provide basic standards and to have the 
minimum wage and maximum hours provision of the act extended 
to all these classes of workers. Extension of workmen's compensa- 
tion coverage to temporary and casual workers, and to employments 
now excluded, is very necessary. [Reading:] 

Undoubtedly, the most outstanding means of stabilizing residence in a com- 
munity for low-income workers and in reducing pressure to migrate is the 


provision of housing, rural as well as urban, under the programs of the 
United States Housing Authority and Farm Security Administration. 

(Continuation and expansion of the program of the local housing authorities 
organized in some 500 connnunities under the United States Housing Act can 
do more than any single undertaking in providing good homes and making 
possil)le normal family life to millions of workers' families. 

With the aid and guidance of the Depai-tment of Agriculture, the rural 
housing programs of the United States Housing Act provides good hous- 
ing at minimum rents on the farms, making eventual home ownership possible. 
This program has been enthusiastically received by farm owners and tenant 
farmers alike in such States as Georgia and South Carolina, where it has 
already been inaugurated. This practical program reaching and giving as- 
sistance to our lowest income farmers and providing for decent but simple 
housing lor their families must be assured continuation through The authori- 
zation of additional funds under the United States Housing Act. 


To meet the most immediate needs of workers who have already become 
migrants, the American F(>d(Mation of Labor has successfully urged adequate 
appropriations of the continual ion of the migratory labor camps program 
of the Farm Security Administratiim. This program which is so necessary to 
meet the requirements of migrant workers and which has done so much to 
alleviate the suffering of migratory farm families should be further expanded. 

In addition, the American Federation of Labor has also offered 
strong opposition to the proposed curtaihnent of the farm tenant 
purchase program. This program, autliorized by the Bankhead- 
Jones Act, during the first 2 years of its operation made available 
$35,000,000 for tenant purchase of farm land, including $6,500,000 
spent for construction of rural housing under the plan. It is very 
simple construction. 

Many thousands of fai'uiers, sharecroppers and their families, 
w^ho have been forced oil' the land during the past decade, turned into 
migrants, drifting from one part of the country into another and 
fi'om city to city in search of jobs and in hope of economic security. 

The Bankhead-Jones program, by making available loans for farm 
purchase of tenants, has proved most effective in checking this trend, 
by anchoring farm families on the land it becomes possible for them 
to own and cultivate, and by nuiking provision for the construction 
of simple but adequate homes in good repair. 

There are several other phases I should like to cover, many of 
^^hicll have been covei'ed in detail already. 

In addition to housing, ]n-ovision should be made for health and 
medical care of the families of migratory workers. There are many 
})]iases of public assistance which if extended and properly and 
uniformly administered Avould provide not only relief to migratory 
labor but also remedy of the conditions which perpetuate it. Such 
a program should be provided as a matter of relief also to the extent 
to which the migratoiy labor problem, represents continuance of the 
difficulty. Provision particularly to take care of the children of 
migratory workers and to make sure that those children will have 
proper medical care are particularly important in the matter of 
health because those who may be infected with disease may not be 
able to secure a remedy to cure that disease because they are migrants 
and because they have no means of getting direct health protection 


when they are roaming around the country and are liable to spread 
disease in a community. 


The American Federation of Labor suggests that to this end your 
committee recommend to Congress a Federal program of grants-in- 
aid to States and of uniform State standards of assistance which 
would niake it possible to deal with the pi'oblem nationally. Most 
communities left to cope with the problem single-handed and relying 
upon their resources alone can find no real solution. 

As the result a wall of resistance laws is being erected in the 
cities, counties, and States to ward off the indigent migrants, to 
conserve expenditures, and to fence off the established residences 
of the connnunity by thick barbed wire of resident requirements and 
other protective measures. An individual community or State, deal- 
ing with the problem unaided and realizing its inability to find even 
a partial remedy tends to take defensive rather than remedial mea- 
sures and to ward off rather than to aid. 

It may be that one State will w^ork out a possible pi-ogram under 
present conditions that will not solve the problem. 

Mr. Parsons. You would not recommend the abolition of settle- 
ment laws? 

Mr. Shishilin. I believe a recommendation to provide for dealing 
with settlement laws and to bring all States to the same basis would 
be a very urgent measure to take care of that. 

Mr, Parsons. You would not reconnnend a complete abolition of 
settlement laws ? 

Mr. SmsHitiN. Of course, settlement laws differ from State to 
State. There are some provisions in some States which are part 
of the settlement laws which would be done away with if the set- 
tlement law as such were completely abolished. 

Settlement laws are the result of an era long gone. The basic 
restrictions of those laws now have to be eliminated and replaced 
with provisions that realistically take care of the problem of labor 

There are souie laws that overlap between the restrictions on the 
income of workers as between one State and another State. Those 
things have to be solved. 


Mr, Parsons. Of course. Congress has no power to limit the restric- 
tions of the States as to settlement laws, but if we have a program 
of grants-in-aid to States, Congress could set up as a qualification 
certahi types of settlement law, and we might gain uniformly in that 

Mr. SiiisiiKiN. That is correct. 

Mr. Parsons. Your recommendation is for a Federal program of 
aid to the States? 

Mr. Shishkin. That is riirht. 


Mr. Parsons. Woiikl you include local relief agencies, or would 
that be for the care of migrants not ordinarily residents of the 

Mr. Shishkin. It seems to me such a program has to go down to 
the local communities to be effective. I think with the cooperation 
of the States a program can be worked out, and I think such a 
program can be worked out to bring relief to the local community, 
because one community might be overburdened with one problem 
with which they have to deal, and must rely upon machinery which 
represents the support of the entire Nation. It has to fit in with 
the program of the entire Nation. 

Mr. Parsons. If Congress should create such an organization, what 
department of the Government should it be placed under ? 

Mr. Shishkin. I believe that to the extent that this is a funda- 
mental problem affecting workers, and affecting the employment 
situation, which is a problem that the Division of Labor Standards 
has given a great deal of study to — I believe that the administration 
could be most effective if placed in the Department of Labor. I 
think that that agency, charged with those duties, would be the 
agency in which that activity should be placed. 

Mr. Parsons. We have had various recommendations. Some recom- 
mend that a new category be set up in the Social Security Board, 
where grants-in-aid to the States could be handled as are grants-in- 
aid for old-age assistance. 

The suggestion was made the other day that the administration 
of it might be placed there, with a joint board made up of repre- 
sentatives of the Social Security Board, of the Children's Bureau, 
of the Department of Education and the Department of Labor, 
and that they might be united in one coordinated groujx with repre- 
sentatives from tlie Agricultural Doi)artment looking after farm 
security, so that the entire program would be coordinated and each 
department of Government having a present function, more or le.'^s, 
in such a program, could operate in a coordinated fashion. 

Mr. SmsHiaN. I think that suggestion has some merit in this 
respect, that that would place the operation of the program in rela- 
tionship with the Employment Service, v,hich is in the Federal 
Security Agency at the present time. 

But I think some of the other phases of the program also re<-oni- 
mend its being placed in the Department of Labor. But that is an 
administrative problem, as to which I believe your committee, hav- 
ing heard so many points of view and so much excellent evidence 
as to the actual administrative operation of the suV)ject, must supply 
the final answer. 


Mr. Parsons. This has impressed me, that a coordinated board, 
representative of the various bureaus and departments interested in 
this problem, might be the best answer, with the administrative head 
probably under Social Security. 

Mr. Shishkin. I think that would be a very good solution, but 
T might add that in providing such a solution for tliis ty]:>e of proli- 


lem it would be extremely important to be assured also that there 
would be an advisory and consultative representative on such an 
agency for labor, because labor meets this problem at first hand 
and is most directly affected by it. 

I think with such representation a great deal can be accomplished 
for the improvement of administration, and also for the protection 
of the labor interests and labor standards. 

Mr. Parsons. There is no question but what a representative of 
labor should be on such a coordinated board. 

The Chairman. We have the Interstate Commerce Commission to 
regulate and protect the free flow of commodities between the States. 

Mr. Shishkin. That is right. 

The Chairman. And as we know, that is a powerful organization. 
Do you not think it is about time we had something to protect human 
interests ? 

Mr. Shishkin. Very much so. Congressman. And I think that 
is a problem that can be tackled at the present time and something 
on which work can be started. 

As far as a study of the problem is concerned, there is room for a 
continuing committee in the executive branch of the Government. 

So far as technical experts are concerned, we have a number of 
competent men, some of whom have appeared before your com- 
mittee, men who have gone into the question in great detail and 
who have presented excellent evidence, and they are competent to 
present the social and economic phases of it. 

I think the subject has come to a point now where further study 
is necessary, and action is even more necessary, and that is why I 
hope this committee will have some very definite recommendations 
to make in the near future so that at the next session of Congress 
there will be a program which will have the full support of the 
American Federation of Labor. 


I have a couple of more points in that connection. One of the things 
I wanted to mention in this connection, for the consideration of the 
committee, is a project concerning a problem that is broader than the 
migratory-worker problem itself. That is the problem of unemploy- 
ment. The migratory worker is a product of lack of purchasing power, 
which is fundamentally unemployment, to a large extent. 

Mr. Parsons. But there are two classes of those workers. We have 
found that there is quite a large group of migrant agricultural workers 
that are really bringing more revenue into the family than the average 
agricultural worker. 

Then we have the other group that is constantly on the move, seek- 
ing employment, and which often becomes entirely destitute. Migra- 
tion is quite desirable and is absolutely necessary under the present 
system of agricultural production, especially in connection with vege- 
tables, fruits, and things of that kind. But the thing that we are pri- 
marily concerned with is the large group of destitute people going from 
State to State. 

260370— 41— pt. 


Mr. Shishkin. That is correct. Earlier in my statement I said that 
labor migration, as such, under the present system and organization is 
normal, and with the developments in industry such as have taken 
place, some substantial measure of migratory labor will continue, and 
it is clearly a thing to be expected, as such. 

Mr. Parsons. Not only in agriculture, but in industry, also? 

Mr. Shishkin. Yes. 

Mr. Parsons. We are being faced with that right now. 

In the national-defense program, in finding the necessary type of 
skilled workers to go into high-speed production immediately, that will 
naturally dislocate a large number of families in the United States. 
Then, if that should be suddenly stopped, there will be a further dis- 
location, and they must redistribute themselves, or migrate to their 
original homes, or somewhere else. So. we are having and will continue 
to have a thorough test of that, to meet the needs of an industrial 

Mr. Shishkin. This will probably extend further than that, because 
at the end of defense production there will be a return flow, which will 
provide a further dislocation and will have a tremendous effect on 
workers and on the communities. That is one of the most vital things 
to give attention to at this particular time. 

Referring to the basic causes of unemployment and to the enormous 
flow of migratory labor, having millions of workers on the road, I 
think we all agree that unemployment, to the extent that it does seem 
to be a danger, whenever we go back to the normal extent of unem- 
ployment within the framework of our activity now, will be as large or 
larger than when we started defense production. 

Our unemployment in recent months was around 8,000,000 workers, 
and we have probably employed anothei- million since then. 

Mr. Parsons. Of what ages are these people? 

Mr. Shishkin. These are of the employable age. They do not in- 
clude children under 16. > 

One of the proposals in connection with the financing of the defense 
production has in it attempts to deal with the unemployment problem, 
and in connection with v at w^e have to offer as one of the major 
measures the direct loan system from Federal funds to make this 
possible. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation has operated on 
that basis over a period of years. AYe are now hnancing industries, 
especially the expansion of defense industries, through direct loans 
of Federal money to industry, and I think what we propose could 
be done by the utilization directly of the funds from the accumulation 
of savings in the banks, through local institutions, which are not 
loaning private funds, which really are the crux of the unemployment 
problem. The lack of investment loans last year was admittecl to be 
a large source of trouble that prevented expansion. Of course, such a 
loan for industrial expansion is necessary as an innnediate method, 
but it will come back to us in the form of taxes and economic burdens 
later on. 

utilize private investment 

And the suggestion is a simple one. Y^hy not, instead of making 
use of this great accumulation of funds, private investment funds 

intp:kstatk migkation 3685 

that are there, but as to which investors are not willing to assume the 
risk of the uncertainty of the situation, give that stimulus and make 
possible the utilization of that money under a plan, under the Recon- 
struction P'inance Corporation, based on the simple principle of the 
Federal Housing Administration of insurance, to a certain extent, 
depending on the amount of the risk and the assurance of the produc- 
tive possibilities over a period of time as a result of these loans, made 
by a Federal agency, and have that administered by the Reconstruction 
Finance Corporation, which has a large staff of investigators, and 
have the Federal Government see to it that each extension is given 
the assurance of the Federal Government being satisfied that this 
can be sustained on an operating basis. 

That will make possible the expansion of industry on a sound 
basis. The Federal Government, in return, will have the assurance 
of continued operation, in the first place, and, second, that the ex- 
pansion is not of the type of the runaway shop, and will maintain 
basic minimum standaixls of competition and minimum labor stand- 
ards in the industry, so it will be a part of the industry. It will not 
be a destructive expansion ; it will be an expansion that will be a help, 
and it will assure a stable growth of employment opportunities. 

Mr. Parsons. Then that would be rather setting up a reserve for 
the future, would it not? The savings are a reserve" for the indi- 
vidual for the future. You spoke of savings. It amounts to savings 
in hours being guaranteed by the Government on the same basis? 

Mr. Shisiikin. That is right. 

]SIr. Parsons. The suggestion has been made to me, coming from 
Illinois, that we ought to have in that State a tax on oil, or on the 
oil industry, that it has taken our natural resources away, and that 
when the pools are eventually exhausted, and that great wealth has 
gone, we should have a reserve fund set up now by taxing the pro- 
duction of that basic mineral, just as some of the western States, 
after the large production had gone did set up such a reserve going to 
the State, for the State to use as a reserve for future needs of the 
State, after the industry had gone, ' 

The reconnnendation you are making ■ somewhat in line with 
that principle, not only setting up a reserAe for present operations, 
but for the future. 

Mr. Shishkin. It is basically that, although, of course, as in con- 
nection with the Federal Housing Administration there is no actual 
reserve set up as such. It is simply an authorization to them for 
protection, for the assumption of that large risk, 

Mr. Parsons. But it also can be used as a revolving fund to help 

Mr. Shishkin. That is right. 

Mr. Parsons, And you would suggest that in comiection with mak- 
ing such private loans directly to the individual workers? 

Mr. Shishkin. That is right. One of the great problems is thsit 
there is a great accumulation of investors' funds, and the investor is 
unwilling to invest without the assurance that the operation will be 
continuous, and if he has such an assurance by the Federal Govern- 
ment he will be willing to take the risk, and the industry will be able to 


go out, as needed, into self-sustaining work, which can be developed, 
and by the development of a system of that kind we can do away with 
the great burden of debt and taxation imposed by the necessary 
financing of the defense program. 


In conclusion, I want to point out that the sixtieth annual conven- 
tion of the American Federation of Labor, held at NeAv Orleans last 
month, has given extended consideration to the problem of migratory 
labor and has authorized the executive council of the American Fed- 
eration of Labor to make a thorough study "of the problem presented 
by the migratory and transient workers." 

When there is any further information which results from that and 
which is brought forth from our affiliated unions, we will be glad to 
-place that at the disposal of the committee at any time. 

The convention also voted unanimously that such measures be pre- 
pared as will safeguard and protect the social and civic rights and 
welfare of the migratory workers with the view that a permanent and 
workable solution to this broad problem, reestablishing tlie migratory 
workers in an economically sound community life, be found. 

The problem of the migratory worker has become a challenge to the 
entire community and is of vital concern to organized labor. The 
American Federation of Labor actively supported the authorization 
by Congress of House Resolution No. 63, which made the work of the 
Tolan committee possible. Your committee has already established a 
notable record. Labor is confident that a constructive program will 
result when its work is concluded. 

Mr. Parsons. How do you arrive at your fig-ures on unemployment? 
We have had submitted various statistics that vary from one to six 
or seven million. I should like to know how you arrive at your esti- 
mate of the present number of unemployed. 


Mr. Shishkin. We have published a description of our method, 
which I will be glad to submit for the record. 

I might say there are perhaps four basic estimates that are con- 
sidered as sound, of which ours holds the middle ground. The Alex- 
ander Hamilton Institute, of New York, has carried an estimate for 
a long period of time which gives a higher figure than ours, and the 
figure of the National Industrial Conference Board is lower than ours. 

Some difference is due to the definition of the term "unemployed." 
If you count the Work Projects Administration worker as employed, 
he is employed in Government work, but for our purposes we are 
counting those employeees normally in private industry. 

Mr. Parsons. That is from age i6 ? 

Mr. Shishkin. That is right. 

Mr. Parsons. To age 65? 

Mr. Shishkin. No; all of those in the labor market seeking em- 
ployment opportunities. 


For our purpose it is necessary to find out how many of those have 
gone to private employment, and that is why we define our unemploy- 
ment, so as to include those working- on Work Projects Administration 
projects and other public projects of that kind. 

Mr. Parsons. Would you say, as of October 1, that number was 

Mr. Shishkin. Our approximate estimate for October 1 is about 
8,100,000, and with a rate of reemployment of about 500,000, the figure 
for that month was a little over 7,000,000, on the basis of our estimate. 
At the rate it is going now, by December 1941 we will have only one 
and one-half million, on the basis of the present estimate. 

That does not mean that there is all there will be, because the defense 
industry only draws in one particular kind of worker. 

Mr. Parsons. But their employment is at least for part time, whereas 
other workers are employed for full time ? 

Mr. Shishkin. That is right. 

Mr. Parsons. About how many are there of unemployables who are 

Mr. Shishkin. Of course, the term "unemployable" is a very difficult 
one to pin down. I have been told that Chinese representatives in 
this country have said that there could not be any such thing, because 
deaf, dumb, and blind men in China, employed in the Chinese baths, 
who can only do such a thing as scratch the backs of customers, are 
considered employed workers. The housewife is considered employed 
by them. 

Also, there is a great deal of difference in the approach. If you 
define it on the census basis of those unemployed and unable to work 
because they are handicapped, I think the figure would be quite small. 

In 1929, when, in some respects, we had persons unemployed who 
accepted financial benefit, there were about a million and a half un- 
employed. But of those there were a number of bona fide unem- 
ployed. Some might be unemployables. As President Green has 
frequently said, to determine the extent of that would be a very 
valuable thing. 

Mr. Parsons. If we were to prescribe the same regulations for the 
public at large as during the 1920's, if you had used the same descrip- 
tion of people as to employment, we would probably have had four or 
five million unemployed during the 1920's, on the same basis? 

Mr. Shishkin. No; I think that is a high figure; I do not believe 
we would have had that many, on the basis of our estimate. 


Mr. Parsons. But production is at the highest peak. Someone made 
the statement before the committee the other day that in private in- 
dustry production is at the highest peak in the history of the country. 

Mr. Shishkin. Yes, that is correct; but I think this is one of the 
very significant facts in connection with that that should be on the 
lecord of this committee, and that is that production does not utilize 
a full number of workers. 

Mr. Parsons. Why not? 



Mr. Shishkin. Because technological changes cause changes in the 
method of production, because industry is now more efficient than it 
has been. Take the 1919 factory production as 100 productivity, and 
you will find that in 1939 that figure rose to 228, or an increase of 128 
percent. That is a tremendous increase, and it gives a clue to the 
comparative situation today. 

Mr. Parsons. In other words, one person was putting out 128 per- 
cent more in productivity than the same man was doing in 1919 ? 

Mr. Shishkin. That is right. 

Mr. Parsons. Would you say that that is where a large portion of 
tlie unemployment comes from ? 

Mr. Shishkin. A great deal of the unemployment is technological 
unemployment. Of course, appraising that is difficult, because it 
does make possible industrial expansion, irrespective of some of the 
people who have been thrown out. Some of those changes eliminate 
skills, so that those Avorkers in technological unemployment have no 
further place in the business. 

Mr. Parsons. A significant statement was made before the com- 
mittee the other day to the effect that although the steel output was 
so much higher than at another given time that there were still 
38,000 steel workers still unemployed because of technological 

Mr. Shishkin. Those are very important in the type of some steel 
production in which large crews of workers that have been employed 
are now almost completely eliminated. 

Mr. Parsons. Has the American Federation of Labor ever recom- 
mended a tax on machinery ? 

Mr. Shishkin. No ; it has not. It has opposed a tax on machinery. 
We do not conceive that that will be the solution. We are a nation 
surrounded by nations which also have technological improvements. 
If we slow down our own pace we would only handicap:) ourselves, 
and that would not be a farsighted thing to do. 

Mr. Parsons. If we were at peace and all nations were on a pro- 
ductive basis, with free interchange of goods of every kind,, with 
the low labor standards in other countries, could America still com- 
pete in the importation of agricultural and industrial goods? 

Mr. Shishkin. It depends on what nations are involved. Soine 
nations will not have any agricultural goods, and competition with 
other markets would present special problems there. 

In view of the present situation, as far as agricultural goods and 
industrial plant products are concerned, I think in a very short time 
America will be able to supply the world with agricultural and 
industrial goods and will be the source of the supply of agricultural 
and industrial commodities of the world, regardless of prices, because 
it will take years to bring back the productive economy of Europe. 
Mr. Parsons. And provide enough money for rehabilitation? 


Mr. Shishkin. As far as the market is concerned, I think that is 
true, and, of course, I think it will have the burden of supplying 


some of it without any such loans, and I think if any such supplies 
are sent abroad, whether on an economic basis of purchase or not, to 
relieve the population of Europe, I think every article and every 
pound of food sent there should be stamped on the face of it 
''Made in the United States of America, a product of democracy," 
and if the people of Elurope find those things comino- to them from 
a democracy, that will be a tremendous antidote to the tons of propa- 
t^anda from a dictatorshij). 

The Chairman. Mr. Shishkin, you have made a statement which 
I consider a very valuable contribution to the committee in its con- 
sideration of this subject. 

Your position is that we cannot stop this mioration between States, 
and you do not want to stop it, but you think it should be carefully 
considered, and if possible reasonably controlled migration. 

Mr, Shishkin. That is right. 

The Chairman. You appear today representing the American 
Federation of Labor in the consideration of this great national prob- 
lem. Does it not appear strange to you that for over a century and 
a half of the existence of this problem practically nothing has been 
done about it except what some of the States have done; that the 
P'ederal Government has done practically nothing about the prob- 
lem ? 

Mr. Shishkin. It is an amazing thing. Of course, w^e have been 
a nation on the move, and have been caught in the sweep of our 
own growth. 

The Chairman. I think if we can give the people authentic in- 
formation from the Federal Government as to the extent of the jobs 
and an inventory of the jobs, we have made a pretty good start. 

^^ery briefly, I want to ask you this question : In what way do 
you, representing the American Federation of Labor, get informa- 
tion as to migration? 

Mr. Shishkin. We have, of course, a network of some 800 central 
labor unions, which report on the situations in local communities, 
and periodically we send questionnaires in reference to various urgent 
problems, that are framed on the basis of reports which come in. 

The Chairman. Are those reports limited to union members ? 

Mr. Shishkin. No; because in this particular problem you can 
very easily see that the problem of the migration of workers, w-hether 
union or nonunion, hits practically every labor market in a given 
community, so the reports come covering all phases of the problem. 

Also, we have a substantial organization of workers in Florida and 
California who are engaged in processes in which there is highly 
seasonal production, and in which there is a great deal of migration 
among the workers themselves. 

Mr. Sparkman. I gather from your statement that you do not con- 
sider that there is a shortage of skilled labor at the present time. 

Mr. Shishkin. There is a shortage in some few cases. In some 
plants where there is a large number of employees there may be a 
shortage of some skilled labor. But in the basic operations there 
is no sTiortage at the present time. 


Mr. Sparkman. I note your statement relating^ to the control of 
labor agents or private employment agencies. You said they were 
making more or less of a racket out of it, taking money from the 
employee and also from the employer. 

I know nothing about this except what I have been getting in 
letters, but there has been a great deal of complaining about the labor 
situation among all of these defense developments, where laborers 
have gone to get employment but have been informed that they 
have to be a member of a'labor union. When they applied for mem- 
bership, ordinarily, to come in, they would have to pay $40, $50, or 
$60, as an initiation fee, or pay a great part of it, and in many 
instances it has been charged that the amount of the initiation fee 
had been sharply advanced since these projects have been started. 

I loiow nothing about it except from letters. If that is true, 
would you not think that that is an imposition upon the laborers, 
the same as a private employment agency which should be curbed? 


Mr. Shishkin. I am glad you asked me that question, because that 
was one of the questions considered at our convention, and one that is 
difficult to answer under normal circumstances, because the answer is 
largely supplied by the headlines, and the headlines are usually far 
away from the facts. 

In the first place, the high initial fees are a result of this situation. 
National unions, in some instances, set the initiation fees nationally. 
In the majority of unions the locals are placed on a more or less 
autonomous basis so far as the setting of fees is concerned. 

But the problem has developed in several isolated, few instances 
which have been given a lot of publicity. To prevent it the unions 
have immediately taken steps to correct that particular situation. As 
to the $40, $50, and $80 fees, I think that reflects one instance where a 
company's local charged $80. The fees do not run that high in the 
building trades. There are unions that charge a $25 fee to mechanics 
whose weekly wage runs more than $25 a week. If his work is con- 
tinuous and he goes somewhere else, he is given a transfer card and he 
gets the benefit of that. I think that $25 fee is reasonable, but I think 
those higher fees are unreasonable and unfair. 

Let me give you one example. The president of the Hod Carriers' 
Union has reported to the convention that he has set up a committee 
that is under the international, which assumed full control, although 
previously the local unions have had authority to set up their own 
initiation fees, and from now on they have given the right to the 
international to set those fees. In that union you may be sure there 
will be no exorbitant initiation fees on defense projects. Action of 
similar kind has been taken by other unions. 

Mr. Sparkman. I think in some instances where people have gone to 
Fort McClellan to do work on that project, in the course of construc- 
tion there ; they were required to pay $40. At the same time they could 
have joined a local union at home Jfor $20. I have heard of cases 
where they have put it as high as $80. 


It seems to me that in a great many instances that has worked a 
hardship on some of tliose workers. I think there is some deferment 
of about half of the amount, but they have had to pay one-half down. 
You can see how that works a great hardship on a great many of those 
workers who were unemployed. 

The thought has occurred to me that some of these people who are 
being brought in to get employment probably would never become 
good union members, because probably after the emergency they will 
drop out of the union and go back to work on the farm or into the 
country and work in the same jobs they were in before, and probably 
would never become what you might call good, stable union members 
and bear the earmarks of a price paid for the privilege of working on 
these defense projects. 

I am glad to hear you say that your convention did give considerable 
thought to that, because it might easily get out of control. 

Mr. Shishkin. I want to impress upon you the fact that where there 
are those few corners to be cleaned out, labor is cleaning them out, and 
I think its ability to clean its own house is sufficient, and that there is 
no need of any intervention, as the development of the facts will prove. 

As for the employment agency, whose sole source 

Mr. Sparkman. I have no sympathy with them. 

Mr. Shishkin. I appreciate that fully. I do think there is no way 
of cleaning up that situation, but I think there is very pressing need 
for action. 

Mr. Sparkman. You spoke of the construction work near Memphis 
in which the contractor advertised for labor. 

Mr. Shishkin. For a plumber. 

Mr. Sparkman. How would you get around that ? If he needs the 
labor, how would you get around that ? 

Mr. Shishkin. We have established a working relationship with the 
United States Employment Service. 

Mr. Sparkman. The Employment Service has in numerous instances 
admitted that in only a few isolated places was it really doing a com- 
plete job. 

Mr. Shishkin. That is correct. 

Mr. Sparkman. I think they have not so far coped with the situation. 
I realize that what you say is desirable. 

Mr. Shishkin. I want to point out that those 20 plumbers, or a large 
number of them, are still unemployed. It could have made those avail- 
able very easily. 

Mr. Sparkman. The advertisement was by the contractor. 

Mr. Shishkin. Yes; of course. But they could have made those 
available at the requisition of the United States Employment Service 
and even furnished transportation, if plumbers were not available. 

Mr. Sparkman. Is it not true that on most of the defense projects 
they are working in rather close harmony with the unions ? 

Mr. Shishkin. I must say that the record today covering a large 
volume of work has been truly notable in that respect. 



Mr. Curtis. Were yon present at our hearing this morning when the 
young man from the Glenn Martin Co. testified '? 

Mr. Shishkin. No ; I was not. 

Mr. Curtis. We have a situation in many parts o± the country, par- 
ticularly in the Great Plains States and agricultural areas, where there 
is a decided lack of industrial operations and an oversupply of avadable 
labor, with a great need for supplemental income m those areas, and 
they are very much interested in securing national-defense industries 


I find, in the quest after such industries, there is another school of 
thought that feels that these new plants should go to coast towns in the 
industrial East, rather than reach out into the agricultural States. 

I am referring to the Great Plains States— Kansas, the Dakotas, and 
Nebraska— which have lost such large numbers of people. What do 
you think about that controversy, as to wdiere those plants should go? 

Mr. Shishkin. I should like to say this. Congressman, that there are 
two phases of defense production that should be distinguished, one the 
production of such essential and urgent and important things as air- 
craft, in which the major requirement for equipment to develop new 
plant capacity is in the machine-shop production of parts necessary 
for the construction of planes, and in the machine-shop industry there 
is a definite seasonality. There are many shops now, which are avail- 
able, and in which there is slight modification of equipment needed to 
enable them to produce airplanes. I think in that type of establish- 
ment it would be a simple matter to go to the coast towns and use the 
power facilities and utilities available there. 

There is another type of defense production which is also essential 
and necessary, and that is the program of developing equipment,, 
clothing, and barracks for the Army training program. We have a 
long-range plan of production that is a part of the defense program. 
That is an equipment problem rather than a money problem. 

I think there is a type of production which can be planned and 
developed in such a way because it is known what the requirements 
will be in 1942 at that particular point. 

We cannot go into an agricultural area and do it in a week or two; 
it takes time. 

In those places where we can take time to plan, particularly about 
post-emergencv problems, I think it will be a very vital and valuable 
thing to have planning which would lead up to that. It is particularly 
important to have that type of defense production there because that is 
a type which has to do\vith industrial production directly, that can 
be utilized after the emergency is over and become the nucleus of a 
groAving industrial unit, after' the actual defense production is over 


Mr. Shishkin. Do you mean decentralization ? 
Mr. Curtis. Yes. 


Mr. SiiisHKiN. Well, I think decentralization, of course, has shown 
a marked tendency in the industry in the past few years, and, I think, 
as a matter of defense planning-, I think the location of plants in 
dilferent areas is desirable, and, I think, from a technological stand- 
point, we have found in rubber, automobiles, and other instances that 
smaller plants are productively more efficient. And there is also the 
question of transportation. 

I think decentralization, as a mere fetish or as a means of affecting 
established standards of industry, might be an evil in a lot of situa- 
tions, but I think within the framework of the present defense pro- 
duction those things can be taken care of. 

I think it would be a good thing to have the production of goods 
and services where they can be placed to the best advantage. 

Mr. CuRTTS. Does the organization you represent and speak for this 
morning oppose defense industries in agricultural areas and favor 
them in industrial areas because you may have a market in industrial 
areas that is anxious to secure labor? 

Mr. SiiisTiKiN. As far as the availability of labor and housing in 
the defense industries is concerned, and the availability of workers, 
in giving employment to our membership, of course, our organization 
has an interest in locating industries in those places. On the question 
as such, I do not believe that the American Federation of Labor has 
taken any action on that, and I am unable to answer it directly. 

I can say this: That if there is any need for the location of any 
industry that is dictated by the elements of national defense and 
sound planning, as a help to industrial growth, the American Federa- 
tion of Labor will support that. But I think it is difficult to answer 
that in a general way without giving it further and full consideration. 

Mr. Curtis. Do you know whether labor's representative on the 
Defense Commission adheres to such a policy? 

Mr. Shishkin. You mean Mr. Hillman? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes. 

Mr, SiiTSTiKiN. No ; I do not know what his views are on that. 

Mr, OsMERS. I would like to go back a bit to what I consider to be 
the most novel of the propositions you have made, namely, concern- 
ing the reemplo^nnent finance program. I can see a great deal of 
difficulty in putting such a program into operation because of the 
difference between industrial investment, as you have referred to it, 
and investment such as is represented by the Federal Housing 

Do you believe the Federal Government w^ould be wise to institute 
a policy of encouraging industry in a general w-ay rather than to 
guarantee industrial investments? 


Mr. Shishkin. I do not propose the guaranty of the entire invest- 
ment, but only a partial guaranty. 

Mr. OsMERS. Only a portion of it? 

Mr. Shishkin. Yes. I wish to point out that the Reconstruction 
Finance Corporation, in several periods, has maintained an extensive 


program of direct financing of industrial enterprises. We have had 
an instance of a large portion of the textile industry being backed 
by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in its entire financial 
structure, and it has worked. If that is so, and it has been tested, 
I do not see why, in many specific situations where there is a Federal 
activity involved, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation cannot 
insure the loan. 

Mr. OsMERS. Of course, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation 
has acted as a banker, although performing no function of a private 
banking institution, except that they have used Government money 
to do it, 

Mr. Shishkin. That is correct. 

Mr. OsMERS. I can see some disadvantage in such a proposal, 
unless they have worked it out very carefully; I think you might 
find a further elimination of private banking from the American 
business scene. Private banking today is at its lowest ebb in the 
history of the country, and the rate of return on bank deposits is 
the best evidence of that. The reason is the banks' original function 
of acting as a bank has been somewhat thwarted, and it has been 
used as a collecting agency to reinvest its deposits in Government 

But, changing the subject for a moment to discuss the effect of 
world peace on the interstate migration of destitute citizens of the 
United States, what is your opinion on that? 

Mr. Shishkin. As I pointed out earlier in my statement, I think 
that is the most critical period we are facing. We will have an era 
of readjustment or relocation of industry, and the expansion of 
industry will be such that there will be a, flow of labor into new 
ghost towns. 

I think, in connection with every study of defense production, 
consideration should be given as to what is going to happen to a 
project, what is going to happen to the elements of production and 
the equipment, and the workers trained to do that work, when it is 

Mr. OsMERS. Do you feel that the great difficulties that will arrive 
with peace, the economic difficulties, will have to be settled by a change 
in our basic form of government, even if it were temporary, where we 
would have at least an economic dictatorship ? 

Mr. Shishkin. I think. Congressman, I pointed that out in my 
statement, that if we now start going to work on preventive measures, 
and go at the thing in a democratic way, without compulsion, and 
mobilize the democratic method to provide safeguards, I think we 
will be able to face that situation without havmg to resort to an eco- 
nomic dictatorship. But I think if we should wait and drift and 
muddle through defense production, the crisis will be such that we may 
not be able to cope with it through the normal channels, so I urge 
the taking of preventive measures. 


Mr, OsMERS. Let us pressuppose that we do everything that you feel 
ought to be done, that we plan carefully for the location of each in- 


dustry; have you taken into consideration the fact that with the 
arrival of peace there will be approximately 25,000,000 workers 
throughout the world outside of the United States who will also lose 
their jobs as the result of peace, and that these workers, who will do 
everything they can to get into the American market and attempt to 
do business, will also be competing with us ? Do you feel that that 
will have an unfavorable effect ? 

Mr. Shishkin. I think on that particular phase of the situation 
that is rather a pessimistic view. I think that the destruction of plant 
property and life in Europe has been so enormous that the job of re- 
building and reconstruction of what has been destroyed will be so great 
a majority of the 25,000,000 workers will be put to work in getting 
additional production. 

Mr. OsMERs. I cannot agree with you, because I think, taking your 
statement that a tremendous amount of plant property has been de- 
stroyed, the destruction of life has not been as great as in the previous 
war; but even taking the amount of plant destruction so far, you 
would still not have destroyed more of the plant than that being occu- 
pied by war activities. In other words, plants such as that will not 
be used after the war. It may be, in Germany, with half of its 
industrial plant being used for war production, that the other half 
of the plant is not likely to be destroyed. But I doubt that. 

Mr. Shishkin. I do not know how much has been left for the future, 
especially some of the larger plants. Some of those now producing 
shells, T. N. T., and so forth, will have to be changed back to normal 
peacetime production. Industrial production has been geared up to 
tlie production of war materials over a period of years, and that plant 
will have to be rebuilt for peacetime purposes. I am somewhat adher- 
ing to the optimistic viewpoint. 

Mr. OsMERS. Do you feel that the United States Employment Serv- 
ice is, in general, doing a good job? 

Mr. Shishkin. I think it is doing an excellent job, and whatever 
the shortcomings are, they are the shortcomings of a lack of sufficient 
personnel and equipment. And when I say equipment I mean in a 
general way, without casting any reflections on the present staff. 

I do think they could probably do a better job if they relied more 
on people with a background of actual work in the labor field. I 
think we have a lot of people who have been working at their trade 
in particular occupations, and who know them, practically, from 
experience over a period of years. I think those who have repre- 
sented labor on these problems are better equipped, in many in- 
stances, to really do a thorough job of placement, bringing the job 
to the worker and the worker to the job, than a person who has had 
purely an academic training. 


There is room for both, but I think they should rely more on the 
practical people to enable them to work out a faster, better, and 
smoother program of placement. 

Mr. OsMERs. I Avant to agree with that statement. It has been 
my opinion that not only representatives of labor but also repre- 


sentatives of employers should be in closer harmony with the em- 
ployment service, or the employment service in closer harmony with 

You do feel, however, that the United States Employment Service 
is the organization that should, in a sense, direct this migration as 
much as possible, not to be compulsory in any sense, and if there 
are jobs, they should be the ones to send people to these places. 

Mr. Shishkin. Without question they are the ones to do that. 

Mr. OsMERS. Do you favor a Nation-wide congress or conference 
on the question of unemployment? The representative of the C. I. O. 
said their organization was favorable to such a conference. 

Mr. Shishkin. We have urged a conference on unemployment over 
a period of time. President Green has made a report on that. 

The unemployment problem now is changing so rapidly that I 
think that the unemployment conference method at this time is very 
unwieldly and very slow. We tried that in 1930, 1931, and 1932, 
and that perhaps is the best method of dealing with the problem at 
the moment. I think there should be a meeting of minds on the 
part of labor and the Government, and I think it should be done 
quickly, in view of the urgency of the situation. 


Mr. OsMERS. What is your attitude on the application of the wage- 
and-hour law to agricultural workers; by that I mean those engaged 
in industrial or corporate farming^ 

Mr. Shishkin. I should like to have the act extended to cover 

Mr. OsMERS. With possibly some alteration in wages and hours to 
cover agricultural occupations? 

Mr. Shishkin. Without subscribing to Colonel Fleming's recom- 
mendations, I should think that labor standards should be considered 

Mr. OsMERS. You feel that it should be handled as a separate 
entity, so far as the agricultural worker is concerned, because of 
the seasonal character of his work? 

Mr. Shishkin. I think the Wage and Hour Division should un- 
dertake a study of that subject and be called upon for specific recom- 
mendations to Congress as to the nature of the problem, so proper 
recommendations could be framed. 

Mr. OsMEKS. The Secretary of Labor has suggested to the com- 
mittee that the Federal Government establish a board, bureau, or 
commission of a permanent nature to plot the course of migration, 
and to suggest to Congress from time to time certain legislation that 
might be helpful ; in other w' ords, to provide for a body such as this 
committee on a permanent basis. 

Mr. Shishkin. I subscribe to the suggestion by Congressman 
Tolan that that is the proper way to do it, and I think that such 
a body would have the approval of organized labor. 

The Chairman. We thank you very much for your statement, Mr. 
Shishkin. I want to say that your statement and your answers to 


questions were fair and clear, and you have made a very valuable 
contribution to the work of this committee. 

Mr. Shishkin. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

(The following are excerpts from a prepared statement submitted 
by Mr. Shishkin, which were not read with his testimony:) 

* * * Today hmidreds of thousands of our families wander like tumble- 
weeds across the expanse of our country, families who can and should be given 
the opportunity to grow roots in communities which they could call their own, 
to establish homes, and thus to be assured healthy and normal growth as 
human beings, as families, as citizens, and as productive workers * * *. 

To the plain public duty of remedying these conditions and of removiiig their 
causes is now added another imperative and pressing requirement. Defense 
organization and defense production will strain to the limit the resources of 
the American people. The defense needs place upon our Congress and our 
Oovernmeut an exacting duty to make, in a democratic way, an urgent and 
adequte provision of remedies and facilities to end the idle ebb and flow of 
unemployed job seekers, and to direct it into channels of normal productive 
activity. * * * 

Much of the interstate labor migration today may be termed "blind migra- 
tion." Workers and their families travel hundreds and thousands of miles, 
placing their faith of finding employment on vague rumors or deliberately 
false reports greatly exaggerating the employment needs which often do not 
exist at all. It is of primary importance, therefore, to assure visibility of 
employment opportunities. In industry, trade, and agriculture advance-job 
inventories should be made to provide advance information on prospective 
employment opportunities. Such a service developed nationally by public- 
employment offices in defense industries and in all seasonal and fluctuating 
employments would greatly reduce the flow of "blind migration" which is the 
most costly and wasteful to our community and to our economy. This program 
should be undertaken as promptly as possible, and with full working coopera- 
tion and consultation of organized labor and of industry. * * * 

Most migrants are in flight from economic insecurity. Extension of coverage 
of the social-security legislation to wage earners now excluded has been urged 
upon Congress by the American Federation of Labor as a method of bringing 
an important measure of economic stability and security from unemployment. 
This should be done under the plan eniliodied in the Wagner-McCormack 
amendments supported by the American Federation of Labor. Extension of 
workmen's compensation coverage to temporary and casual workers and to 
employments now excluded is also very necessary. * * * 

Measures such as these and modification of existing settlement laws would 
give us a framework for dealing with the problem in a planned, orderly, and 
-effective fashion. We shall still have left before us, however, the broader 
problem of long-term unemployment, the prf»blem which is temporarily miti- 
gated by defense activity, but which will undoubtedly assume critical propor- 
tions when the national emergency is over. As an approach to the i>ermanent 
solution of unemployment and in addition to the basic remedies such as the 
shortening of the hours of work and strengthening of the purchasing power 
through increased wages, the American Federation of Labor offers another 
proposal which is designed to stabilize the flow of productive investment. 

To achieve this we recommend the adoption of a simple plan which may be 
termed a ''reemployment finance program." We are now financing industrial 
expansion and especially the expansion of defense industries through direct 
loans of Federal money to industry. This lending program, although it may 
he directly financed by borrowing, will ultimately place a great burden of taxa- 
tion upon the wealth of our Nation. Government lending provides substitute 
channels for the flow of investment funds which are not forthcoming through 
the normal channels of private investment. In view of the large accumulation 
of private investment funds and the availability of an enormous reserve of 
accumulated savings of individuals and of industry, we propose a plan to make 
possible direct investment of private funds into expansion of sound productive 

By the simple method of Federal insurance of loans made by private banks 
and other lending institutions under the method used by the Federal Housing 



Administration, private investors can be induced to assume long-term risks 
which they are now reluctant to underwrite. Partial insurance of these private 
loans could be administered by the Reemployment Finance Corporation estab- 
lished within the existing framework of the Reconstruction Finance Corpora- 
tion and utilizing the available staft of the Federal Loan Agency. 

The only condition of Federal insurance on industrial loans of this kind would 
be the enforcement of minimum standards of fair competition and of such min- 
imum labor standards as have already been established in the industry in 
question. It is our belief that such a program which calls for no expenditure 
of public funds and for a simple legislative authorization could do much toward 
relieving the distressed areas in our economy by bringing new industry to 
communities which need it and at the same time prevent unbalanced growth 
brought on by unfair competition. , ^^ . 

The sixtieth annual convention of the American Federation of Labor held ui 
New Orleans last month has given extended consideration to the problem of 
migratory labor and has authorized the executive council of the American 
Federation of Labor to make a thorough study of the problems presented 
by the migratory and transient workers. The convention also voted unan- 
imously that such measures be prepared as will safeguard and protect the 
social and civic rights and welfare of the migratory workers with the view that 
a permanent and workable solution to this broad problem, reestablishing the 
migratory workers in an economically sound community life, be found. 

The problem of the migratory worker has become a challenge to the entire 
community and is of vital concern to organized labor. The American Federa- 
tion of Labor actively supported the authorization by Congress of House Reso- 
lution No. 63 which made the work of the Tolan Committee possible. Your 
committee has already established a notable record. Labor is confident that 
a constructive program will result when it.s work is concluded. 
(Thereupon, tlie committee took a recess until 2 p. m.) 


The Chairman. The committee will please come to order. The first 
witness will be Dr. Lubin. 

Congressman Osmers, of New Jersey, will niterrogate you, Dr. 

D. C. 

Mr, Osmers. Dr. Lubin, I believe you are prepared to make a state- 
ment to the committee upon which we may predicate our questions; 
is that correct? 

Mr. Lubin. I have no particular statement to make, Mr. Osmers. 
When a representative of the committee conferred with me he asked 
me to come and say Avhat I could about the effect of the defense pro- 
gram upon employment. I have brought together various materials 
which might throw light upon what may happen to employment as 
the result of the defense program. 

Mr. Osmers. I will say this, Dr. Lubin, that in our Washington 
hearings, when we started off, it was pretty much an agricidtural 
problem, but as the defense program has matured and as the work 
of the committee has matured, we find that more and more emphasis 
in our discussions is being placed upon the future migration that will 
come as a result of peace. 

If you could give us some testimony along those lines I am sure it 
would be helpful to the committee, but don't feel we are narrowing 



you to that subject. Anything at all that you may have to say on 
the subject of the international migration of destitnte citizens is of 
interest to the committee. 

Mr. LuBiN. I have nothing on the interstate migration of our citi- 
zens. I understood I was to talk on the etl'ect of the defense program 
upon employment and how far we could count on the defense program 
in absorbing the unemployed. 


Mr. OsMEBS. Will you speak on that subject? 

Mr. LuBiN. Yes. During the month of October, the last month for 
which official statistics are available, it is estimated that approximately 
37,000,000 people were employed in the United States. 

The last time that employment levels approached that figure was 
in the fall of 1937, when about thirty-six and three-quarter million 
people were employed. 

Today we are about 800,000 below the peak level of employment in 
the fall of 1929. In other words, despite the fact that the defense 
program has been under way since May— it started, of course, from a 
relatively low level, and despite the fact that since the beginning of 
this year something approximating two and three-quarter million 
people have found jobs, we are still at a point where about three- 
quarters of a million fewer people are being employed, outside of 
agricultural activities, than in the peak month of 1929. That was 
September 1929, when the figure was, as I say, approximately thirty- 
seven and three-quarter millions. 

In the manufacturing industries we are still below^ the level of the 
peak months of 1929, and w^e are even below the level of September 

I brought with me a chart which gives a picture of the employ- 
ment situation in the manufacturing industry. 

The Chairman. The reporter will mark the chart as an exhibit 
to Dr. Lubin's testimony. 

(The chart referred to was marked "Lubin Exhibit B-1," and ap- 
pears below.) 





i 1 

1 1 














' ^ 











l\ / 




1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 

260370— 41— pt. 


Mr. LuBiN. You will note from this chart (Manufacturing Em- 
ployment) that the index of employment at the present time in 
the durable-goods industries — which are the industries that are most 
directly affected by the defense program — is approximately 110, as 
compared with the base years 1923, 1924, and 1925. 

You will note that this line is just about back to where it was 3 
years ago, in 1937, when we reached the peak level since 1929. 

You will note also that it is just about on a par with the peak 
period of 1929. This black line on top, which is the nondurable- 
goods industries, which are the industries that make the things we 
consume each day — food, clothing, and the nondurable goods of vari- 
ous types — is still several points below where it was 3 years ago and 
slightly below where it was in 1929, 

In other words, the real gains in employment in the last several 
years have been in the durable-goods industries, and the real gains 
that have occurred in the past 7 months have been in those same 
durable-goods industries, as one would expect, due to the fact that 
the Army and Navy are spending most of their money on heavy 
goods — ships, airplanes, ordnance — of one sort or another. 

These figures on employment do not tell the entire story, how- 
ever, because all they depict is what is happening to the number of 
people who are on pay rolls. 

During the last 6 or 7 years a lot of people were employed but 
had relatively little work. In other w^ords, they were on a pay roll 
but they had employment for only 2, 3, or 4 days per week. 


The defense program has not only brought about an increase in 
the number of people employed but has brought about a very marked 
effect upon the pay rolls of industry. In other words, not only have 
new people been taken on but the people who had been on previous 
to the program have been securing more steady work and much over- 
time work. The result of that situation is shown on this factory 
pay-roll chart. 

The Chairman. Will you mark that, Mr. Reporter? 

(The chart referred to was marked "Lubin Exhibit B-2", and ap- 
pears as chart 2.) 

Mr. Lubin. You will notice that pay rolls in the durable-goods 
industries now stand at 121.7, or approximately 122, the highest level 
on record. 

Mr. Parsons. Higher than during the World War? 

Mr. Lubin. No; I am sorry. I should have said "since the early 
1920\s." The actual pay-roll figures for the World War period were 
not very much in excess of this point. 

Mr. Parsons. But those were not normal times, of course. 

Mr. Lubin. Well, of course, some people will question whether the 
present times are normal. The fact remains that there Avas a great 
increase, and you will notice in this chart that pay-roll figures jump 
from 97 in May to almost 122 in October, an increase of over 25 
percent in that short period of time. 

You will notice on the other hand that in the non-durable-goods 
industries the pay-roll figure is just about where it was a year ago 
















r 1 





























1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 

and below where it wus in 1937. and considerably below where it 
was in 1929. 

Mr. OsMERS. Dr. Lnbin, is tliat chart based on dollars of pay rolls? 

Mr. LuBiN. Dollars paid out per week. 

Mr. OsMERS. Dollars paid out per week by manufacturers? 

Mr. LuBiN. Yes. 

Mr. OsMEES, I didn't know whether it was hours of labor, or wages 
per hour, or what the unit was. 

Mr. LuBiN. The total dollars paid out in pay rolls. 

Mr. Parsons. That is your index when figuring buying power? 

Mr. LuBiN. Yes ; it is the buying power of the laboring population 
■of the country. 

May we have the next chart marked ? 

The Chairman. The reporter will please mark it. 

(The chart referred to was marked "Lubin Exhibit C," and appears 
as chart 3.) 





! 80 

80 \ 
















































1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 



Mr. LuBiN. If you take all of the manufacturing industries com- 
bined, namely, durable and nondurable, which this chart shows^ 
being a combination of the two preceding charts, you will find that 
employment as a whole in the manufacturing industries is just about 
back where it was 3 years ago. It is slightly below where it was 
in 1929. ■ 

Here is the figure, Mr. Parsons, for the war period. There is your 
1910 figure. It was 1141/2 as compared to 110 now. 

Mr. Parsons. Well, we had all the people pretty well employed 
in those days 

Mr. LuBiN. Yes. But, of course, in the past 20 years you have 
increased the number of people in your population who are of work- 
ing age by something like 10,000,000. 

The Chairman. That is the point. 

Mr. Parsons. But haven't we had a comparable and proportionate 
increase in the 20 years before that, whereas the population in the 
last decade has not increased anything like the same rate or rapidity 
that it did in the years previous ? 

Mr. LuBiN. The significant fact is that during the so-called period 
of prosperity in the late 1920's, your employment and pay-roll levels 
dichi't rise very much. There were temporary ups and downs but 
the figures stuck pretty closely to that line, which represents 1923, 
1924, and 1925, and even in 1929 you did not get back to the levels 
of 1919 either in employment or in pay rolls. 

Mr. Parsons. But you had steady employment in both the durable 
and nondurable goods. They went fairly well along together? 

employment problem built up 

Mr. LuBiN. Yes ; of course. But the significant thing is that dur- 
ing that period you were gradually building up an army of unem- 
ployed. I should not use the word "army." It is the wrong word. 
You were gradually building up an employment problem that we 
were not conscious of at the time. 

Mr. Parsons. That is just what I want you to comment on. A 
great many of those people were coming from the rural areas and 
the farms because farming was less and less profitable. 

Mr. LuBiN. Exactly so. 

Mr. Parsons. Throughout the decade of the 1920's and in com- 
parison with the comparative buying power of industry. 

Mr. LuBiN. In other words, you were increasing the working popu- 
lation something in excess of 500,000 a year and yet between 1920 and 
1929 the actual increase in the number of people employed was less 
than 15 percent. In other words, each year you were adding to your 
laboring population but you were not absorbing them as fast as you 
were adding to your labor supply. 

Mr. Parsons. Has labor-displacing machinery, inventions, and 
technological machines aided and assisted in this employment? 

Mr. LuBiN. There is no doubt it has aided and assisted very 


Mr. Parsons. And the new frontiers of manufacturing of new ma- 
terials, like automobiles and like the airplane industry and so on, have 
not absorbed the labor that inventions and technological trends have 

Mr. LuBiN. That is true. Of course, on the other hand, there is 
this other thing that should be borne in mind, that during this period 
the habits of the country have changed. In other words, you made it 
more difficult, and in fact you are prohibiting the employment of 
l^eople below 16 years of age. Formerly, many worked below the 
age of 14. Through our social-security laws we have made it possible 
for people who otherwise would have had to work to retire at the 
age of 65. Our whole attitude toward various groups of our popula- 
tion has changed. 

Mr. Parsons. Yet with all that change we still have a very large 
number of unemployed. 

Mr. LuBiN. Very definitely. 

Mr. Parsons. Do you think we will ever reach the point where we 
■can employ all the employables in private industry ? 

Mr. LuBiN. If I didn't I would give up right now. I think that 
we can. I don't know how we are going to do it, but I would say that 
to admit that we cannot is admitting bankruptcy for our system. 

Mr. Parsons. You are quite an optimist and I am very glad to have 
Sit least one individual that believes it can be done. 

Mr. LuBiN. Well, I am convinced it can be done. 

Mr. Parsons. The principal point right now is to find the means 
tind the methods with which to do it. 

Mr. LuBiN. Exactly. 

Mr. Parsons. That isn't the problem of this committee, however. 
It is only incidental ; but we are vitally interested in the problem. 


Mr. LuBiN. Back 12 years ago, in 1928, the Senate passed a resolu- 
tion ordering an investigation of the problem of unemployment. The 
job was turned over to the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, 
and I was appointed economic counsel to that committee. 

The report submitted by that committee pointed to the very same 
problem that we are discussing today, namely, how to absorb the people 
who were then unemployed but whom most of us did not consider to 
be a problem. We were not conscious of the fact in that so-called 
heyday of prosperity that people were unemployed and that the number 
of unemployed was increasing. 

Today the problem is still with iis. It is still with us but in a much 
more acute form, first, because of the fact that we had the period from 
1929 to 1933 when we had a progressive decline in employment. Since 
1933 we have twice gotten back to the point from which we started 
in the 1920's. 

Mr. Parsons. You mean so far as pay rolls are concerned ? 

Mr. LuBiN. Pretty close. The problem from now on is not to main- 
tain that level but to go beyond it to new levels, and having gone 
beyond it to maintain it. The solution, as I said before, I do not know, 


but I think there is a whole series of factors involved. I think the- 
problem of price structure is a very significant factor in it. 

Mr. Parsons. Will you comment upon the price structure with 
reference to your idea relating to this problem? 

Mr. LuBiN. Take the case of technological displacement. A new 
macliine comes in. We just take it for granted if the machine can do' 
the work of former workers that those workers can be dismissed 

Well, now, if the savings that came in production costs as a result of 
putting in a new macliine were distributed more equitably, I don't 
believe we would have the severe problem that we have been having. 
In other words, if the savings were given to us automatically in lower 
prices so you and I would have to pay less for those goods, we would 
have more money to spend for other goods. If that were the situation, 
your total problem of unemployment would be a great deal less serious 
than it is at the present time. On the other hand, if part of the 
savings were given to the displaced worker, he at least would be much 
better off. 

Mr. Parsons. As a direct gift? 

Mr. LuBiN. Through some form of insurance. Now, let us have a 
concrete illustration. Here is a man working in a factory in the 
State of New York. He has a certain skill. He loses three fingers 
as a result of an accident. In losing those three fingers he no longer 
is able to do his old job. 

In New York State that man can get two-thirds of his salary, under 
the workmen's compensation law of that State, for a long period of 
time. I think it is 6 years. He has lost his skill as a result of an 

Now, somebody puts in a machine and does the same thing. It 
doesn't take his fingers away from him but it takes his skill away 
from him. He is no longer necessary to his industry. We forget him. 
He is thrown into the ash can and he has to find his own way around. 

Mr. Parsons. Probably would start on the road as one of our 

Mr. LuBiN. That is one of the possibilities. In other words, we 
haven't kept our books straight. That job of his from which he is 
displaced creates a social liability. Somebody is going to have to take 
care of that dispossessed person some way or another. You and I 
don't pay for it directly. The employer doesn't pay for it. Eventu- 
ally, however, you and I may pay for it through our payment of taxes.. 
But if the worker is going to lose his job so that you and I can get 
things cheaper, I think it is unfair that he bear the burden all himself. 

Mr. OsMERS. Don't you think. Dr. Lubin, that as a general rule the 
benefits of labor-saving machinery have been passed along to the 
consumer ? 

Mr. Lubin. I would say that if it is it takes so long that the problem 
of technological displacement becomes very much more serious than it 
need be. 

Mr. OsMERS. I will admit, of course, that the manufacturer that 
goes to great expense to install labor-saving machinery cannot innne- 
diately reduce prices to what they will be when that machinery has 


been amortized. I appreciate that, but won't competition force the 
saving to be passed on to the consnmer? 

Mr. LuBiN. I would not say generally, but I will say that com- 
petition sometimes does that but nowhere as frequently- or as regularly 
as we would like to think it does. 


Mr. Curtis. May I ask a question '^ 

The Chairman. Certainly. 

Mr. LuBiN. That is a personal opinion, of course. 

Mr. Curtis. As I understood you to say, we have approxnnately 
the same number of employed people now as we had in 1929. 

Mr. LuBiN. Actually employed ; yes. 

Mr. Curtis. But it' is not the same relative number as compared 
to the population in 1929? 

Mr. LuBiN. That is right. 

Mr. Curtis. Our population has increased considerably, has it not? 

Mr. LuBix. The population of working age has increased approxi- 
mately 5,000,000. 

Mr.' Curtis. And how about the total population of the country ? 

Mr. LuBiN. It has increased 9,000,000, approximately, I think. 

Mr. Curtis. Now, do you know of anyone that has tried to find 
the mathematical answer to the question of how many jobs have 
been displaced by the coming of machines in the last 20 years, the 
development of machines and so forth, as compared with the new 
jobs that machines have developed? 

Mr. LuBiN. No; there is no mathematical answer. The reason 
is that it is next to impossible to determine whether the machine 
or some other factor has displaced a particular person. For exam- 
ple, here you have a factory where because of the installation of one 
machine which may save a lot of labor on the part of the people 
who were doing a j^articular job — at the same time you may have 
a reorganization of the plant in terms of feeding materials to the 
machine, so that you eliminate a lot of unnecessary waste motion — 
as a result of that machine being there, more people have been displaced 
than appears on the surface. 

Mr. Curtis. But you take the development of radio with its manu- 
facture, its wholesale and retailing and broadcasting business; the 
licensing and servicing and the talent — the materials that go into 
radio and all its ramifications that you can imagine, and added to 
that air-conditioning and refrigeration and aviation and countless 
other things. I am not saying tluit machines have not done away 
with jobs but I do think we are just sticking our heads in the sand 
in trying to solve our problem by saying that machinery is responsible 
for unemployment when no one knows. 

machines displace avorkers 

Mr. LuBiN. I think you can get evidence of the displacement of 
jobs by machines. 


Mr. Curtis. But can you get the new ^obs created, and balance 
them up and see what the answer is? 

Mr. LuBiN. Well, assuming that we could, the tact still remains 
that 13111 Jones, who used to work in a plant that made pianos, who 
lost his job because people don't want as many pianos today because 
they can have radios and victrolas, is out of work— he has been dis- 
placed. He is a problem. Granted that as a result of the develop- 
ment of radio Bill Smith got a job which he otherwise would not 
have had. That does not overlook the fact that we have a human 
casualty; that there are people out of work today because of the 
iact that the machine has taken their job. 

Now, in terms of the total number of people who are attected by 
machine displacement nobody knows the answer. There is no way 
of telling. . J. -1 1 

Mr. Curtis. But the goods consumed by an American family has 
greatly increased because they can buy the products of the machine, 
isn't that true ? 

Mr. LuBiN. Very definitely. 

Mr. Curtis. If we turned the clock back enough years so that 
.everything was made by hand we wouldn't be having countless things 
in our homes and elsewhere that folks are buying today, would 

Mr. LuBiN. Well, I would say that it would be much cheaper and 
better for society to let the machines go on at the rate they have been 
going and provide for the people who are displaced in some other 
way than it would be to stop the advance of the machine. One 
reason why we have such a high standard of living in this country 
for those who are employed is the machine. But I don't feel that 
you and I as consumers, who get the advantages of these machines, 
should be excused from bearing our share of the burden of taking 
•care of the people who have been displaced. 

In figuring the cost of production you have got not only taxes 
and insurance and wages and profits and interest, but there is that 
other factor — the displaced worker. I think he should be considered 
part of our cost of production as well as anything else. 

We made a start in that direction under the Unemployment Com- 
pensation Act. One of the costs of maintaining a factory is the 
■cost of taking care of your men when you shut your factory down. 
That is added to the cost of production and you and I rightfully 
should pay it. 


If the women of this country want to buy their bonnets 3 weeks 
iDefore Easter they should contribute toward the maintenance of the 
workers who make those bonnets and need employment the year 
around. They should help to take care of those people so when 
they Avant bonnets again next fall those people will be available. 
:Somebody should bear that cost and I think the consumer should 
pay it. 

Mr. OsMERS. I would like to ask you a question about the charts 
Tthat you have showed us, which all show an increase in employment 


and pay rolls in the very recent past and apparently a continuing 
upward curve. Is there any way of telling the committee how much 
of that up-swing is due to defense industries ? 

Mr. LuBiN. \es, sir; I have the picture of what has happened 
here. This is the explosives industry. You will note that the black 
line, which is employment, is now 39 percent above where it was 
a year ago. Pay rolls are almost 44 percent above where they were 
a year ago. 

The Chairman. Will you mark that, Mr. Reporter ? 

(The chart referred to was marked "Lubin Exhibit D," and ap- 
pears below. ) 


1923-25 = 100 















j i 





ftY F 





1923 1924 1925 r926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 f935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 

Mr. Lubin. The chart for the chemical industry 

The Chairman. Will you mark that, Mr. Reporter ? 
(The chart referred to was marked "Lubin Exhibit E," and ap- 
pears below. ) 




1923-25 = 100 




















--PAY F 



1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 



Mr. LuBiN. Ill the chemical industry the increase has not been 
quite as great but you can see the trend. There was a rather sharp 
rise at the end of 1939 and the index is still going up. Employment 
today is about 9 percent above where it was a year ago and pay rolls 
are 12 percent higher. 

The aircraft industry 

The Chairman. Will you mark that, Mr. Eei)orter? 

(The chart referred to was marked "Lubin Exhibit F," and appears 




1923-25 = 100 













^aJJ"^^^^ ^PAY ROLLS 

1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 


Mr. Lubin. Let us go back to January 1939. The index was 900. 
At the present time it is 4,200. In other words, employment in indus- 
try has increased about five times and pay rolls approximately by the 
same amount. 

The Chairman. Will you mark that. Mr. Reporter? 

(The chart referred to was marked "Lubin Exhibit G," and appears 



1923-25 = 100 

1 , j 


^ A. i^' '"" n^vA 

'^'V/*'^^ ^WjT ni EMPLOYMENT-^yd' ^j 

1 1 . L__c 

1924 1925 1926 1927 1929 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 



Mr. LuBiN. In the sliipbiiildiiio- industry you have a simihir picture. 
Early in 1939 the index was 100. 'The index today is 195. The pay-roll 
index was 100, and the pay-roll index today is 241. You have doubled 
the pay roll two and a half times. 

In the machine-tool industry yon have a similar picture. We 
are far above anything we ever had. Pay rolls today are three and 
a half times what they were in the middle of 1938. Employment is 
twice what it was 2 years ago. 

Those are the outstanding industries that have been affected by 
defense orders. 

(The chart referred to was marked "Lubin Exhibit H," and appears 




1923-25 = 100 









i 1 1 1 









\ J 

' /=^^S3^ I^; employmenV ' ^ 

A Y" 

^'V_i LlJ'K ^ 

\ ' ^^^ 1 


1926 1927 1928 1929 

1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 

1940 1941 1942 

Mr. OsMERS. That isn't quite what I had in mind, Doctor, but I am 
glad you gave us those figures because they are very essential. But I 
would like to know what projiortion of these general increases is 
accounted for by the vei-y industries that yon have separately given us 

Mr. Lubin. I think I have the actual figures with me. 


Mr. OsMERS. In other words what I am trying to determine is 
Avhether normal industries are getting any better or whether we are 
just adding to certain defense categories. 

Mr. Lubin. Oh, they are all getting better. 

Mr. OsMERS. Aside from those purely associated with defense? 

Mr. Lubin. Yes, sir; of course, they will follow as money goes out 
in pay rolls ; even in nondurable goods we will see a sharp increase in 
buying. May I give you a few examples of what the increases were? 

Mr. OsMERS. I wish you would. 

Mr. Lubin. Let us take today over a year ago. Blast furnace and 
steel mills. The index has increased from 100 to 125. 


I will just take some outstanding cases. Structural and ornamental; 
metal work which was in the doldrums and has been for 10 years^ 
jumped from 76 to 85. Wire-work employment increased from 165 to 
187. Agricultural-implements employment, from 117 to 134. Elec- 
trical machinery, from 97 to 115. Foundry and machine shops, 91 to 
106. I have given you machine tools. Typewriters from 124 to 127. 
That is not as great but it is still an increase. Automobiles, from 107 
to 123. Locomotives, from 25 to 39. That still has a tremendous dis- 
tance to go to get back where it was 11 years ago but it has made a big 
rise. Aluminum employment, from 168 to 295. Furniture, from 94 ta 
97. Lumber and millwork, from 63 to 69. Cotton goods relatively 
little — just about where it was a year ago. Boots and shoes are down 
slightly, despite Army orders. 

Mr. OsMERS. Do you anticipate, Dr. Lubin, that employment in 
the consumer goods industry will also increase as a result of this? 

Mr. Lubin. Our estimates are to the effect that by Christmas of 
next year the defense program will have created about 4,000,000 
jobs. In other words there will be 4,000,00 people working on de- 
fense orders a year from now more than at the beginning of the 
defense program. 

Last summer we estimated that as a result of that there will be 
an increase of 2,000,000 in employment in those activities which 
make the things that these defense workers will require. 

Mr. OsMERS. Will consume as individuals? You do not mean as 
factory workers? 

Mr. Lubin. As individuals. In other words we estimate about 
4,000,000 direct defense and 2,000,000 indirect, which gives a total 
of 6,000,000 more people than were employed at the beginning of 
the summer. 

Mr. OsMERS. With such an increase in prospect is it not likely 
there will be an increase of migration from rural areas to urban 


Mr. Lubin. Of course that has already started. 

The Army and Navy have made provision for putting up new 
plants and in many instances those plants have been located in 
rural areas. In one case that I have in mind, people by the hun- 
dreds and thousands came into a rural area that had absolutely 
no facilities for taking care of them. 

People were sleeping in tents and on the bare ground without 
cover over them and with little sanitary arrangement. They came 
not only from the immediate rural areas but many from the larger 
cities. Incidentally, I feel that some definite action should be taken 
to prevent contractors who' get contracts for new plants for the 
Army and Navy from advertising for help. I think they should 
be permitted to bring with them the skeleton crews that they need, 
people who know their way of doing business, but in terms of rank- 
and-file workers this idea of advertising in the newspapers that they 
want people, and then have them flock into an area which creates 
artificial migration, that is a thing that should be stopped; and I 


ihink one way of stopping it is to see to it that the contractors as 
part of their contract with the Government undertake to use the 
employment service to the largest and greatest extent wherever 

Mr. OsMERS. Now, has your department compiled any figures as 
to the amount of new capital investment that will be made under 
the defense program ? 

Mr. LuBiN. Well, our figures don't deal with private capital in- 
vested. They only deal with the actual expenditures to be made by 
the Government itself. 

Mr. OsMERS. They do not deal with the private investment market 
at all ? ' 

Mr. LuBiN. No. 

Mr. OsMERS. Now, when this is all over and when I say this, 
Doctor, I mean when peace comes again to the world, what will 
happen to these national defense workers? I am thinking now par- 
ticularly of those that you just referred to that are migrating from 
rural areas for the sole purpose of working in a defense plant. 

Mr. LuBiN. Well, it depends — I think that is a pretty large bill 
jou have given me, sir. I think it will depend first on the type of 
peace we have and how it comes about. 

I happen to be one of those who are pessimistic enough to believe 
that this defense program is a long-time program. I don't see the 
end of it in a year or 2 years, although with the exception of certain 
battleships most of the contracts call for completion within the next 
2 years. 

I think the program is going to go beyond that. I think there will 
be new appropriations and that the program will go further into the 
iuture than we anticipate. 


Mr. OsMERS. I am tempted to agree with you, Doctor, but I think 
JOU will agree with me that some day it must end. 

Mr. LuBiN. Yes ; I think that various things may happen. I think 
that in many instances many of the plants that are being erected 
will — I don't want to use the word "abandon" — but many of them 
will be kept as stand-by plants. In other words they will* no longer 
he useful except for a future emergency. 

At the end of the last war we dismantled a lot of plants, and we 
have to rebuild them now. It may have been the cheapest way to 
do it. I don't know. 

On the other hand there will be other plants that can be made 
available for other types of activity. The extent to which the need 
•or the capacity of these plants as well as other plants in the country 
will be required, I think will depend entirely on what happens in the 
next year or 2 in terms of the supply of goods that are required for 
•civilian needs. 

To be concrete there is a group in this country that feel that by 
next year there will be a shortage of steel. In other words there will 
not be enough steel available to meet the needs of the defense indus- 
tries and the civilian demands as well. 



Mr. OsMERS. To ttike a concrete example you would suggest auto- 
moblies versus tanks ? 

Mr. LuBiN. Exactly. 

Mr. OsMERS. Or refrigerators? 

Mr. LuBiN. Exactly. 

Mr. OsMERS. There will not be enough tanks for the Government 
and at the same time enough automobiles for the people? 

Mr. LuBiN. Yes. Now, I am of the firm conviction that as far as 
the post-defense period is concerned if we make provisions for that 
steel now so that we can maintain employment in the automobile 
industry and refrigerator industry and all the steel-consuming in- 
dustries, as well as in the defense 'industries, our capacity to employ 
workers will be greater than if we throw out of employment people 
now engaged in meeting civilian needs. 

Mr. OsMERS. In other words, you would say if it were possible to 
keep as many of the automobile workers that are now engaged in 
making automobiles still in the automobile industry, the better off 
we will be and the less dislocation we will have at the end of this 
emergency period. 

Mr. LuBiN. Exactly that. I might put it the other way. They 
need not be the same people if we need them in making defense 
things, but others who replace them. 

Mr. OsMERS. Try to keep the same number of individuals involved 
making automobiles ? 

Mr. LuBiN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OsMERS. In other words, to try to get away from the cannon 
versus butter theory that we have seen in operation elsewhere. 


Mr. LuBiN. Exactly that. Now, frankly, our ability to make pro- 
vision for the people now in defense industries, assuming that we got 
a sudden dropping-off employment in defense industries, depends 
upon what sort of provision we make now for the future. For exam- 
]j]e, anybody who has a defense order or who wants to expand his 
])lant can go to Uncle Sam, and Uncle Sam will give him certain priv- 
ileges as far as depreciati'm is concerned — permit him to write his 
plant off in 5 years. But \.ve have done nothing about the deprecia- 
tion of the man who leaves his job today to go into defense industry. 
People are leaving their jobs for defense industries. Not only that, 
but in some instances Uncle Sam is putting up the money to build these 
plants or in other instances where private capital builds them. Uncle 
Sam is arranging to pay for them over a period of time. But we have 
done nothing about the worker who is going into the defense industries 
and giving up other types of work. 

Mr. OsMERS. What would you say should be done ? 

Mr. LuBiN. I think that we should have an amortization plan for 
labor. In other words, there should be, let us say, some addition to 
the present unemployment compensation scheme in the form of dis- 
missal wage. I think Government contracts should provide that any 
new workers taken on for defense work should have set aside, in a si>e- 


cial account for those workers, a dismissal wage which will be avail- 
able to them when their services are no longer needed for defense. 

Now, if that were on a joint basis, let us say 5 percent put up by the 
woi'ker and 5 percent by the employer, and a man had a job, say foi' 2 
years — that is 100 weeks. A man earning $20 a week would have accu- 
mulated over $200, or 10 weeks' pay, which would be available to him 
when he is no longer needed by the defense industries. 

I think that purchasing power available to him at that time would 
liave a tremendous eti'ect upon cushioning the etl'ect of the let-down 
in employment. 

Mr. OsMERS. Has John Maynard Keynes suggested such a thing? 

Mr. LuBiN. Keynes has gone further than that. He has gone in 
for compulsory savings of all kinds. In other words, he feels that we 
ought to cut down every type of consumption we can so that there 
will be a pent-up demand available. In other words, forced savings. 

Mr. OsMERS. You have to save it until you can buy something with 
it ^ He also would like to see some sort of defense-insurance proposi- 
tion adopted such as you have suggested^ 

Mr. LuBiN. Yes. 

Mr. OsMERS. AVe had a witness in here the other day, Msgr. John A. 
liyan, who thought there was merit in the plan but it should not be 

Mr. LuBiN. Of course, my feeling is that there is no merit in the 
jjlan until we have absorbed the unemployed who are available for 
Avork. I mean, as long as you have a large number of people unem- 
ployed who have not been absorbed yet, why do anytliing to interfer<^ 
with their being absorbed. I think our job is to get as many people 
at work as we possibly can and only after we have no unemployed to 
care for or no problem of unemployment of any large size is the time 
to start curtailing consumj)tion. 

Mr. OsMERS. Germany, before the war, and England, since the war, 
liave taken full power over their labor supply. In the event of full 
employment in the United States, do you feel that the United States 
Government should also institute a system tf^ priorities over the labor 
supply of the United States? 

Mr. LuBix. Not until we have cut down tW number of unemployed. 

Mr. OsMERS. No; in the event of full em] loyment. 

Mr. LuBix. Well, of course, I don't like to see the Government 
imposing priorities until it is absolutely essential to the welfare of 
the Nation, and I think rather than impose priorities I would say 
it should be the function of the Government, in cooperation with the 
trade unions of the country and employers of the country, to work 
out a voluntary scheme wdiereby people could be moved from one 
type of employment to another. 

Mr. OsMERS. Well, in the event of full employment I can see a 
situation whereby the word "established" would hardly be the w^ord 
to use. There would l)e hot and bitter competition for labor among 
various industries and it might take rather a strong hand to control 
such a situation. 

Mr. LuBiN. What I would do then would be to use a system of 
taxation rather than enforced priorities; or the Keynes scheme 


whereby through popular pressure people put more of their money 
into savings which could not be used every time we wanted to buy 
ourselves a new automobile. 

We tried that during the last war and we just missed by one step. 
The idea was that everybody should buy bonds, Liberty Bonds and 
other types of bonds, and if I had an extra $100 and bought a bond, 
Uncle Sam would have the $100 to spend and I wouldn't, and there- 
fore I would be out of competition with Uncle Sam in employing 
-$100 worth of labor. 

But what happened was that I bought the bond and then went 
to the bank and borrowed $100 on it and Uncle Sam had $100, and 
I had a Imndred. 

I think Ave should have bonds that could not be discounted during 
the period of emergency. 


Mr. OsMERS. Is there a shortage of skilled labor in the United 
States at the present time? 

Mr. LuBiN. Of certain types and in certain areas; yes. 

Mr. OsMERS. Is it serious or is it large or is it important? 

Mr. LuBiN. No; it is localized. In other words there are certain 
areas where you cannot get the type of labor you want when you want 
it. Now, I would like tol point this fact out, however, that in some 
instances where there have been shortages those shortages have auto- 
matically corrected themselves by the employer making it known that 
he has changed his age standards. 

I know of one plant, for example, that was short of skilled workers. 
They had an age limit of 40. They increased that to 55 and the 

Mr. OsMERs. That would, of course, be an artificial labor shortage. 

Mr. LuBiN. And I think a large number of these artificial labor 
shortages in too many instances is due to the fact that industry 
is still thinking in the terms of 1933 to 1939. In other words, in 
those days the employment manager could go to the window and 
whistle, and an unlimited supply of skilled labor would show up. 
During that period they could make their standards more rigid. 
They could pick more carefully. There were age limits and a lot 
of other limiting factors— color, race, all of which in times like these 
limit the supply of labor available. 

I feel that some of the shortages that we hear about today can be 
eliminated. They are artificial and are created in some measure by 
artificial restrictions. 

In some industries of course that is not so. There are particular 
crafts such as lens grinders. We just don't have anywhere near 
enough of them. The reason is we have never needed very many 
lens grinders. Then all of a sudden we develop an industry where 
lens grinders are needed. 

Mr. OsMERS. In the event that we should have full employment, 
and in the event that we should have competitive bidding for labor, 
would you say that the Federal Government should exercise control 


over the labor situation, possibly by setting standard wages and 
hours in certain essential defense industries? 

Mr. LuBiN. I don't think the Government should do that. I 
think industry and organized workers should agree among them- 
selves what the standards should be. 

Mr. OsMERS. And in the event they did not what would you sug- 
gest? You are an optimist ^yith respect to some of those things. I 
am thinking now of the strikes that have occurred in defense in- 
dustries at a time when there is every incentive for not having a 


Mr. LuBiN. If I might make a statement on that particular 

Mr. OsMERS. Go right ahead, Doctor. 

Mr. LuBiN. There have been fewer strikes and there have been 
fewer days lost due to strikes during the 5 months from May to 
October during which the defense program was under way, than 
there were for the same 5 months in 1916 when we were geared 
for armament production for the Allies, and during the same 5 
months of 1917 when we were in the war. There has been no 
important strike in any defense industry in the United States of 
any significance with the exception of two which occurred within 
the last 3 weeks, one in a relatively small airplane factory in Cali- 
fornia and one in the aluminum industry. In one case there was 
a 4-day strike and in the other case a 7-day strike. As far as the 
strike record of the country is concerned, I think both employers 
and laborers are to be congratulated. I think they have done a 
remarkable job and if it were not for that particular strike in an 
airplane factory I doubt whether we would have heardfa- thing 
about labor difficulties. 

Mr. OsMERs. I do not personally believe that labor should be 
deprived of its right to strike. I believe that every safeguard 
against a strike should be placed, however, in a contract that is 
humanly possible to put in — every opportunity for mediation and 
every provision for it, but do you agree that their basic right to 
strike should be preserved? 

Mr. LuBiN. Absolutely, After all. in many instances that is the 
only protection that labor has. 

Mr. OsMERS. You do feel though that in our defense contracts 
we should make every possible provision to avoid a strike? 

Mr. LuBiN. Yes; I think so. I think that the employers and 
workers in their joint agreements should make provision for volun- 
tary arbitration of any question that arises during the life of 
the contract. That is standard practice in every good trade-union 
contract. It is as true of the A. F. of L. as of the C. I. O. 
All modern, good labor contracts make provision for arbitrating 
any dispute that arises out of the interpretation of the contract 
during its life. 

260370— 41— pt. 



Mr. OsMERS. When business conditions pick up and employinent 
opportunities increase is it not true that labor turn-over and migra- 
tion from one place to another increases? 

Mr. LuBiN. Yes. I have some interesting figures that I brought 
with me which might give you some idea as to what has happened 
right here in the District of Columbia. 

We have in Washington, as you know, a navy yard. We have been 
trying to find out where the new employees in that navy yard have 
been coming from. We took only skilled workers, namely, ma- 
chinists, tool makers, and instrument makers, for the period of 3 
months, June, July, and August, and here is the story : 

Of the 95 skilled workers who were hired, taken at random, 1 came 
from Alabama, 1 from California, 1 from Connecticut, 1 from 
Florida, 3 from Illinois, 1 from Indiana, 1 from Iowa, 18 from 
Maryland, and 1 each from Michigan, Minnesota, and Missouri. 
Eight came from New York and 5 from North Carolina. Four from 
Ohio, 15 from Pennsylvania, and 1 each from Rhode Island, Ten- 
nessee, and Texas, and 2 from Virginia. There were 4 from West 
Virginia, from Wisconsin 4, from the District of Columbia 4, and 
16 unspecified. 

Mr. OsMERS. How many States are represented there. Doctor? 

Mr. LuBiN. Twenty-three States which cover 76 people and the 
balance unspecified. 

Mr. OsMERS. In other words about three from a State? 

Mr. LuBiN. Yes. 

Mr. OsMERS. I would like to make the observation that employment 
seems to cause as much migration as unemployment, 


Mr. LuBiN. I have the same data for 170 skilled workers at the 
Watertown Arsenal in Massachusetts, outside of Boston. 

Mr. OsMERS. How many workers involved? 

Mr. LuBiN. One hundred and seventy. One from California, 10 
from Connecticut, 1 from Maine, 2 from Michigan, 1 from Minnesota, 
3 from New Hampshire, 2 from New York, 3 from Pennsylvania, 

3 from Rhode Island, 3 from Vermont, and 141 from Massachusetts. 
Mr. OsMERs. The gentleman from Nebraska and I, from New 

Jersey, are waiting for our States to be mentioned. 

Mr. LuBiN. They are going into your States. 

Mr. OsMERS. Could you give us the ratio of the number of men 
employed in durable- and non-durable-goods industries? 

Mr. LuBiN. I think I can. It will run about 8 for the durable to 

4 for the nondurable. 

Mr. OsMERS. In the general relationship 8 to 4. 

Mr. LuBiN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OsMERS. About one to one ? 

Mr. LuBiN. Yes, sir. 



Mr. OsMERS. I wonder if you would care to give your views Dr. 
Lubin, on vocational training. The committee has in nearly all its 
hearings been confronted with the lack of vocational training in- 
formation for American youth. I wonder if you have any views on 
the subject. 

Mr. Lubin. Of course, the problem of vocational training is very 
nuich like the problem of apprenticeship training. AVhen there are 
no jobs for people it is hard to get people to take an apprenticeship 
course. It is hard to train apprentices when you don't have any jour- 
neymen working who can train them. And, of course, during the past 
10 years neither industry has wanted to go to the expense of training 
apprentices nor has labor seen any necessity for permitting new ap- 
prentices to be tniined when labor itself had difficulty in finding jobs 
for its already skilled workers. 

Such vocational guidance as we had, had grown up along given 
lines ; and the type of vocational guidance that was available was de- 
termined by the type of equipment available, for the most part was 
woodworking equipment, printing equipment, and things of that sort. 

The number of vocational schools in America, which at the begin- 
ning of the defense program Avere equipped to give good training in 
metal work, was very, very small. 

During the defense program an attempt has been made to increase 
the facilities of these schools so that training can be given for indus- 
tries where these workers will be required, 

Mr. Parsons. Just in that connection, Dr. Lubin, we are training 
a great many youth now through the N. Y. A. and private schools, 
and so on, for one or two simple operations in certain lines — certain 
occupations. Aren't we creating a new problem for us whenever this 
defense program is over with when they have been taught only one 
or two operations? They will not be efficient, skilled workers. 

Mr. Lubin. Well, of course, your problem of training an efficient, 
skilled worker through the apprenticeship route is a slow, long-time 
program. In some instances it takes 2 or 3 years to make a full-fledged 

Mr. Parsons. And we have neglected that kind of training. 

Mr. Lubin. Very definitely, 'for 10 years. The Department of 
Labor has done the best it could to expand apprenticeship work. It 
has done a very good job. 

Mr. Parson. The European nations have been far ahead of us be- 
cause of more than a century of training skilled workers. 

Mr. Lubin. Yes; and we have been particularly laggard in the last 
10 years. In fact prior to the establishment of the apprenticeship 
division in the Department of Labor there was no organized way of 
even stimulating the apprenticeship training of the country. 

Now, we are faced with this situation : If we are going to have to 
add 6.000,000 people to the industries of this country to take care of 
our needs for the next year, we cannot wait long enough to train all 
the skilled people required. It does not mean, however, that hand in 
hand Avith a vocational guidance system you should not push the ap- 


prentice system so that 2 years hence we may have a sufficient supply 
of highly skilled people to carry on. 

Mr. Parsons. Right in that connection, what is the difference be- 
tween the new method of handling skilled labor by what you might 
call the upgrading of labor and the old method ? 

Mr. LuBiN. Well, one grows out of the other, in a sense. The 
present method of upgrading starts out with an assumption that 
you have an order to fill. That order requires you to have a certain 
number of milling-machine operators, let us say, or automatic screw 
machine operators. Now, in the past when you needed automatic- 
machine operators you went to the employment service or adver- 
tised in the papers or told somebody in the plant you had a job open 
and he brought somebody in. In other words you brought in new 
people. Now, you cannot do that any longer. The men that are 
needed are not available in many areas. The idea of upgrading is 
to have the employer pick somebody who is doing a job which isn't 
highly skilled. The worker selected may be operating an ordinary 
lathe, or he may be a riveter. But he is a person who has ability, 
who seems to have mechanical sense. The idea is to give him addi- 
tional training so that he can be moved from the semiskilled job to 
the more skilled job. 

It may not be a highly skilled job, but the idea is to move people 
up and to save time, and then bring in new people at the bottom 
rather than bring people in from the outside to fill the top jobs. 

Mr. OsMERs. It is based upon promotion of their present em- 
ployees ? 

Mr. LuBiN. Entirely that. 

Mr. OsMERS. That is all. 

The Chairman. Dr. Lubin, do you think the principle of the ladies' 
bonnets mentioned by you applies equally well to agriculture? 

agriculture exempt from migrant care 

Mr. Lubin. Exactly. I think one of our difficulties has been that 
we have — I would not say one of our difficulties, but one of our 
problems that has arisen from the fact that we have exempted agri- 
culture from the responsibility of taking care of those people whom 
they need only for certain months in the year and whom they expect 
to have back again year after year. 

Somebody has had to provide for those people during the time 
they are not wanted. We haven't organized our industries so we 
can dovetail their activities so that when they leave agriculture they 
can go into something else. The result is that these agricultural 
workers become a burden upon he community where they happen 
to be at the moment. I feel that at least large-scale agriculture 
should be subject to unemployment compensation and the Wage and 
Hour Act and I would even go so far as to say they should be subject to 
the Wagner Act. 

The Chairman. I was very much interested, Doctor, in your 
thought regarding displaced workers on account of mechanization. 
In other words, in this country we have taken care of the creatures 
of man like iron and coal and steel passing through the States and 


between the States. We liave given them a status. We have given 
them technical regulation through interstate commerce, but we 
haven't done so very much for the interstate commerce of human 

Mr. LuBiN, Nothing at all. 

The Chairman. Have you any idea why that is always the last 
to be considered? 

Mr. LuBiN. I suppose that is one of the — I don't know just how 
to describe it — it is a commentary on our civilization. 

The Chairman. There is no business firm of any account at all 
that does not charge off depreciation for their buildings and for 
their machinery. 

Mr. LuBiN. They would go bankrupt if they didn't. 

The Chairman. But you have never heard of any of them charg- 
ing off for human depreciation ? 

Mr. LuBiN. Maybe that is the answer. If they didn't charge off 
their buildings they would go bankrupt and lose their property. 
They have never been made to charge off labor, so nobody has done 
anything about it. In other words if they knew they would go 
into bankruptcy if they failed to make provision for their human 
resources they might be more interested in doing something about it. 

Mr. Curtis. Do you care to comment on whether or not there 
is going to be a tendency for decentralization of industry due to 
the national-defense program, especially in those phases that are 
apt to become permanent? 

Mr. LuBiN. There is a move on foot now to decentralize the de- 
fense industries wherever possible. For example, when the Army 
or Navy wants to erect a new plant, whether they are going to do 
it through contract or do it directly themselves, for the making of 
powder, or the loading of munitions, or things of that sort, the site 
is submitted to the Defense Commission for its approval. 

The Defense Commission has, through its various members, checked 
on these sites in terms of labor supply that is available, and the 
Commissioner in charge of agriculture and the Commissioner in 
charge of labor have been very, very careful to see to it that wherever 
possible these plants be put in the areas where there is already a 
surplus of labor so that these new plants will not be put up in areas 
^\•here you would have to bring in large numbers of new people, 
and after you got them there build homes for them, when there are 
other places where the same technical resources are available, namely, 
water power, transportation, as well as labor and housing. As a 
matter of fact both the Conunissioner in charge of agriculture and 
the Commissioner in charge of labor have not only been very anxious 
to see to it that plants go to such places, but they have been seeking 
places out where such plants could go in the event that the Army 
comes to them for ideas for the erection of new plants. 

"ghost towns" for defense industries 

Mr. Curtis. Now, assuming that all of the factors of transporta- 
tion, power, and water, and so on are available, do you favor the 


placing of defense industries in the industrial areas, or in what 
might be termed "ghost towns," or do yon think they should be moved 
or placed in those areas where there is a supply of labor due to 
displacement, and where there is a very definite need for supple- 
mental income? 

Mr. LuBiN. In terms of defense, as such, the first advantage of the 
"ghost town" is that the plant is there. You save time. Secondly, 
the supply of skilled labor in many instances is there — you don't 
have to train anybody, you don't have to bring anybody in. The 
housing is also there, and if you are thinking in terms of getting 
defense products made as fast as you possibly can get them, I would 
say yes. 

Mr. CuKTis. Isn't it true that most of the defense housing projects 
have been necessary in those areas which ordinarily are considered in 
the industrial area. 

Mr. LuBiN. But not in ghost towns. Most of your housing proj- 
ects have been in areas like shipyard areas where you had a sudden 
increase in employment. In those places you had to increase your 
labor supply very markedly and most of the housing activities are 
in those areas. 

We haven't availed ourselves of any ghost towns yet. If we have 
an alternative between a ghost town with a skilled labor supply and 
available factory equipment I would give preference to the ghost 

On the other hand, if the problem is one which requires building 
a new plant anyway and does not require a very specialized type of 
high skill — in other words, a type of skill that can be developed rather 
quickly in the agricultural areas, then I would say that the agricul- 
tural areas should be selected every time. 

Mr. Curtis. Do you have any figures to show that the agricultural 
areas do not have any skilled labor available among the people who 
have gone some place to live when they lost their jobs at home? 

Mr. LuBiN. No; I don't think there is a single agricultural area 
in the country where there is no skilled labor. But when you have to 
get 1,000 skilled people from a relatively small radius then your 
problem might become an acute one. 

Mr. Curtis. But there is a definite saving in building and land 
and housing cost in the rural areas, is there not ? 

Mr. LuBiN. Insofar as the rural area is within a reasonable com- 
muting distance and can furnish the labor that you need. 

I ran across a case the other day. One of my men reported to me 
that he had been up North visiting a shipyard and they said they had 
no problem securing labor. They said their people like to drive back 
and forth to work. They have some peo]:)le driving as many as 35 
and 40 miles a day each way. Well, I am not so sure that they are 
going to like to drive over snow and ice 40 miles each way ancl add 
anywhere from 1 to 3 hours to their working day, going to and from 
their job. There is a limit to the commuting area. Insofar as 
skilled labor is available in a given commuting area, if the type of 
work to be done is of such a nature that you can meet your labor 
needs from the existing population, and if the type of plant required 


is of such a nature that you would have to build it anyway, no 
matter where, then I should say we should give the rural areas first 
choice. And, in fact, I would select rural areas every time. 

Mr. Curtis. There are many rural areas where there is an ample 
supply of labor as well as a great need for supplemental income clue 
to periodical drought and other such conditions. Would you favor 
locating defense program plants in such areas provided there was an 
ample supply of labor as well as a great need for supplemental 
income in that territory ? 

Mr. LuBiN. I would say that in terms of so-called semiskilled labor, 
namely, the machine operator, your potential labor supply in the 
rural areas is as great as you will ever need. 

I was impressed when I saw the so-called migratory workers in 
California and Arizona last spring. The fact is that these boys had 
come with their families from Nebraska, Iowa, Arkansas, Alabama, 
and Oklahoma in a 1923, 1924, or 1925 model car. When I was 
talking to some of the airplane people in Los Angeles, I said : 

Why don't you give these boys jobs? You need labor. 

There was a hesitancy. They said they were not good mechanics. 

My contention is that any man who can go from Nebraska to Los 
Angeles in a 1925 Ford without any money in his pocket must be a 
very good meclianic. 

Mr. Curtis. This morning we had before us two Kansas boys, one 20 
and one 22. They were mechanics working in Baltimore and both 
moved half way across the continent because there were no such oppor- 
tunities anywhere near where they lived. Both preferred to be back 
in the Great Plains where they might be of some assistance to their 
parents and where they preferred to live. 

Mr. LuBiN. That is one of the things we are doing in the Labor 
Division of the Defense Commission, namely, to find ways of mobiliz- 
ing the resources of rural areas. 

Let me give you a concrete illustration. I shall not name the city 
but there is a city in the Middle West which is not an industrial center 
in the sense that it has any large industries. I think it has one plant 
that employs as many as a thousand people, but within a radius of 60 
miles of that community are all sorts of little machine shops. 

One of the people from that city has made a survey of the facilities 
of some 71 plants, large and small, within a radius of some 50 miles. 
He knows what machinery is there. He knows what they have made 
in the past. 


Now, one of the things that our Division is trying to do in the 
Defense Commission is to see whether we can coordinate these small 
plants. In other words, can we, among those 71 plants, find one prod- 
uct which could be so subdivided that each of them could have a little 
work to do and feed it into a central point where it could be assembled. 

That is quite different from the so-called subcontracting system 
where you give one large contract to a contractor and he goes around 
looking for subcontractors. 


Our idea is to get the subcontractors, figure out what they can feed 
into the central plant, and then determine the product and see if we 
cannot get an order on that basis. 

The city I mentioned is in the heart of a rural area. We are trying 
to do the "same thing in some of the northwestern areas. The equip- 
ment is there, the population is there, the housing is there, the inhabi- 
tants of the immediate community need supplemental income. 

Now, how can we harness all of these things, particularly when we 
need their services ? 


Mr. OsMEES. Dr. Lubin, during the World War approximately 
500,000 Negroes came from the South to the North to seek employment 
in war industries. 

Charges are being made today that Negroes are being discriminated 
against in defense industries. Are those charges true ? 

Mr. Lubin. I cannot answer that question. Certain complaints hare 
been brought to our office in the Defense Commission. In one instance 
it was said the charges were not true, but the situation was cleared up. 
In other words, what happened was that the employer concerned said 
the charge was not true and the next day proceeded to hire some 

Mr. OsMERS. I know in my congressional work I have had several 
instances of discrimination brought to my attention, and while we 
are on the subject of discrimination against labor in defense indus- 
tries, there have been instances that have come to my knowledge where 
workers of certain nationalities and extractions have been discrim- 
inated against. 

I think they were cured by somewhat the same method that you 
have mentioned. I know I have called it to the attention of the man- 
agement and they went into very long denials but started to employ 
some of these people very shortly thereafter. 

Now, another situation that has arisen, and I am sure you must be 
very conscious of it, a great many industries in the United States 
will not employ single men between the ages of 21 and 35 if they 
believe they may be drafted. 

Now, is there some solution for that situation or are these young 
men to be told that they should be among the unemployed until they 
are called for the draft ? 

Mr. Lubin. I have had that same charge made to me about some 
Government offices. I have no evidence as to the validity of the 
charge. I even have had people say to me that they understand that 
some offices are not taking anybody who might be drafted. 

Mr. OsMERS. I have not heard that charge in connection with any 
Government office. 

Mr. Lubin. It came to me through an individual, and as I say, 
I haven't investigated it. I don't know whether it is true or not. It 
may be that this person was just dissatisfied because he could not get 
a job. But I have heard the charge made. We have not received 
such charges at the Defense Commission. 


Mr. OsMERS. You have not ? 

Mr. LuBiN. We have not. The first time I heard of it, as I say, was 
concerning the Government itself. 

My practice at the Bureau of Labor Statistics is to give preference 
to such a person if for no other reason than that he deserves employ- 
ment more than somebody else because of the sacrifices that he is going 
to have to make by serving in the Army. 

If you are going to refuse to give a job to a person because he is of 
draft age and leave him unemployed and leave him dissatisfied, what 
kind of a draftee is he going to be once he is in the Army ? 

Mr. OsMERS. I can cite you, Dr. Lubin, and I know the files in my 
office would carry a dozen instances of actual cases, places, names, 
dates, and plants and, of course, I can see the employer's side of it, 
too. If a man is to be drafted in 6 months or a year, it is understood 
that probably the first 6 months of his employment the employee 
would not be of great commercial value to his employer and just at 
the time when he might become of some value to him he would leave 
for a year. 

Mr. Lubin. Of course I cannot see that. I am an employer of 300 
people and of course it is not my money that I am spending. The 
fact is that when a good man comes in today and learns the routine 
of my Bureau and is taken away 6 months or a year hence, I am put 
in an embarrassing position because I must replace him and train 
a new person. But if I am unwilling to help maintain the morale 
of the fellow who is going to be drafted, then I am not fit to be an 

Mr. OsMERS. I think you will find there are many many instances 
of that. 

Now, have you found draft boards generally are taking exceptions 
of young men who are employed in the essential war industries? 

Mr. Lubin. Very few cases have been brought to our attention by 
employers where men were not being exempted who were deemed 

Mr. OsMERS. I liave had no definite case brought to my attention; 
I was just asking the general question. Do you expect there will 
be a great many employment opportunities for women in industry 
as a result of the defense program? 

]Mr. Lubin. Yes; I think that the actual employment of women 
will increase. For instance you take the airplane industry. There 
are virtually no women employed in the airplane industry and yet 
there are a lot of processes in the industry that women could do 
equally well. Once you get to the point where the unemployed semi- 
skilled workers are absorbed in increasing numbers and it become dif- 
ficult to meet labor requirements, I think that the number of women 
employed will increase very markedly. 

Mr. OsMERS. Would you care to make any guess into the future, 
Dr. Lubin, as to the probable amount of money that the Federal 
Government will have to spend annually to maintain full employ- 

Mr. Lubin. I don't know that. 



Mr. OsMERS. Do you feel that there ^Yill always be the necessity 
for the Federal Government to include large sums in its budget for 
the purpose of employing idle Americans ? 

Mr. LuBiN. No; but that depends somewhat on what you mean 
by large sums. 

Mr. OsMERs. I mean in the billions. 

Mr. LuBiN. I don't think it need to run into billions. Each time 
the head of a family gets a job the necessity of his wife seeking a 
job or his daughter or his soon seeking a job decreases. 

The records will show what effect employment has on unemploy- 
ment. In other words every time you add a person to the pay roll 
you subtract more than one person from the unemployed. I say 
more than one person from the unemployed, because when a father 
is unemployed he may have three children seeking employment. 
Wlien he finds a job two of them may go back to high school. 

Mr. OsMERS. Thereby with one job you have taken three people 
from the unemployed rolls. 

Mr. LuBiN. Yes. 

Mr. OsMERS. That is all I have. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Lubin. Your contri- 
bution has been very valuable and we thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Mr. Eliot. 

Mr. Eliot, will you please give your full name and in what capac- 
ity you appear here? 

Mr. Eliot, Charles William Eliot, Director of the National Ee- 
sources Planning Board. 


The Chairman. We are very pleased to have you appear before 
this committee, and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
Parsons, will interrogate you. 

Mr. Parsons. Mr. Eliot, you have a statement which has just been 
presented to us. Do you desire to read the statement and then an- 
swer any questions that may come to us ? 

Mr. Eliot (reading) : 

The National Resources Planning Board, which I serve, has followed with 
great interest the study of migration which your committee has been making 
and is glad to have been of some assistance in providing materials and in- 
formation through its past reports and the testimony of the members of its 
staff. As you are, of course, aware, the Board is required by law to be in- 
formed of "the trends of business and employment in the United States or any 
substantial part thereof" and to make recommendation to the President as to 
the need for Government action. 

We have noted that your committee has found that the study of migration 
inevitably involves the forces which produce migration — for example, you have 
heard about the changes in agricultural practices and industrial practices which 
have resulted in the displacement of workers. These people have been joining 
the ranks of those who move from one place to another in order to find an 
opportunity for earning a living. 


Two aspects of this problem have previously been reported upon by the Board 
and its predecessors, and I understand that the resulting reports on problems 


of a changing population in 1938 and on technological trends in 1937 have been 
of some use to your investigators and their research staff. I have copies of 
those reports here today, and, of course, would be delighted to make them 
available to the members of your committee. 

The Board has also been glad to have their current materials made available 
to you in testimony which your committee heard on the west coast when em- 
ployees of the Board testified from their own experience. As part of your 
records, you have a statement from the Pacific Northwest Regional Planning 
Commission and the individual testimony of some of our staff in that office and 
in our California office. That testimony indicates the way in which industrial 
and agricultural changes are directly related to the specific problems of the 
Great Plains, the Pacific Northwest, and the California area. 

The Board has been concerned with the problems of "removal" migrants from 
the point of view of the places from which they leave as well as of the places 
to which they go. Through our field offices and special regional committees we 
have made a series of planning studies — in the northern Great Plains, the 
valley of the Red River of the North, and the northern Lakes States cut- 
over area. These planning investigations are intended to develop the possible 
lines of action for Federal, State, and local governments to stabilize the economy 
in those areas and to provide economic opportunities that go with at least a 
minimum standard of living. 


As you may know, the Board now has under way a further major study 
requested by the President which deals with another of the principal problems 
now before you. I refer to the unsettled migrants who need public aid or relief 
but who have no settled residence. I regret very much that I am unable to give 
you this afternoon the results of the findings of our advisory committee on 
long-range work and relief policies. Their study is not yet complete, and a 
statement of findings at this time, therefore, would be premature. The technical 
committee in charge of this study is composed of William Haber, chairman, 
executive director of the National Refuges Services, New York City; Fred K. 
Hoehler, director of the American Public Welfare Association, Chicago; C. M. 
Bookman, of the Cincinnati Community Chest ; Dr. Will W. Alexander, Farm 
Security Administrator ; Corrington Gill, Work Projects Administration ; Miss 
Mary E. Switzer, assistant to the Federal Security Administrator ; and Dr. 
Katharine F. Lenroot, Chief of the Children's Bureau, Department of Labor. 

You will note that this committee, like all our technical advisory groups, is 
composed of specialists from both inside and outside the Government. It acts 
as a clearing house of facts and opinion. A large part of the work of the 
committee is being done in the Federal agencies concerned, through coopera- 
tive agreements and understandings. The Board relies heavily, in all its 
work, on this kind of cooperative assistance. 

This relief committee, as we call it, has mapped out a study with major head- 
ings as follows: 

Chapter I. Why a Relief Study? 

Chapter II. The Problem We Faced, 1930-40. 

Chapter III. The Evolution of Policy and Programs, 1930-40. 

Chapter ITI-A. The Programs Operating in 1940. 

Chapter IV. The Relief Population. 

Chapter V. The Operation of Contemporary Programs from the Point of View 
of the Economically Insecure Population (it is now contemplated that Chapter 
V will have to be presented as two chapters). 

Chapter VI. The Administration of Contemporary Programs. 

Chapter VII. The Financing of Relief. 

Chapter VIII. The Economic Repercussions of Contemporary Relief Policies. 

Chapter IX. Accomplishments and Shortcomings of Contemporary Programs. 

Chapter X. Summary of Findings and Recommendations. 

It is hoped that the report on this study may be available for the President 
early in the new year. 

You may be interested to know how these planning studies are set up. You 
are doubtless aware that the National Resources Planning Board is a part 
of the Executive Office of the President and that it consists of three members 



named by the President. Its regular continuing activities are prescribed by 
the Employment Stabilization Act of 1931 and its duties are set forth m an 
Executive Order along with those of the other administrative arms of the 
President's office— the Bureau of the Budget, the White House staff, the Office 
of Government Reports, etc. . . ..^ . ., 

The Board is the successor of a series of organizations with similar nanaes 
and of the employment stabilization office which was set up In 1931. Its prin- 
cipal duties are to make studies or plans for various problems referred to it 
by the President, prepare the Federal 6-year program of public works, and to 
cooperate with planning agencies and Federal bureaus and departments, re- 
gional planning bodies, and State planning boards. The Board and its prede- 
cessors have operated during the last several years with a very small nucleus 
staff under a director and three assistant directors, through ten field offices, 
and a series of special technical committees. It tries to bring together groups 
of technicians and specialists from both inside and outside the Government to 
prepare carefully documented reports on major issues confronting the Nation. 
It has relied heavily on part-time consultants, and from the beginning has 
avoided the organization of any large continuing staff in Washington. 

Since the Board has a continuing responsibility in the field which your 
committee has been exploring, we will continue to follow your activities and 
findings with the greatest interest. 


Mr. Parsons. Will you explain to us what your duties as director 
of the Board and something of its personnel and what studies you 
have made or are attempting to make with reference to the migrant 
problem ? , 

Mr. EuoT. Mr. Parsons, our Board is part of the Executive Office 
of the President. It consists of three members appointed by the 
President and confirmed by the Senate. 

They have a staff with a director and three assistant directors and 
a small nucleus organization here in Washington and in 10 offices scat- 
tered over the country. 

It has been the policy of the Board to rely upon technical com- 
mittees with representatives of the different Federal agencies con- 
cerned in any particular project and specialists from private life 
who are called in on a consulting or part-time basis to advise in 
the preparation of reports. 

The work of the Board is outlined in two basic documents, the 
Stabilization Act of 1931 and an Executive order of the President 
in which he sets up the duties of his Executive Office. 

Under those two orders or statements of purpose the Board con- 
ducts special studies and investigations of problems from time to 
time as they are referred to the Board by the President. 

These studies are all related to the resources of the Nation in 
terms of both national resources and human resources. 

We have noted in the work of your committee that you have gone 
beyond the obvious phases of migrants to the causes of migration. 
Our Board is similarly concerned with the causes and the backlog 
or the background that has brought about this phenomenon of a 
large migrant population. 

Mr. Parsons. Your Board has also been interested in a long- 
range planning program for the conservation of our national re- 
sources and for an orderly development of our latent powers such 
as water and natural underground resources, and in the long-range 
planning, of course, you have come across this very serious migrant 


Now, the committee knows something of your work and the work 
of this Board and your duties and the work you have done. It is 
very interesting and I wish we had time to have a discussion upon 
that in detail, but since this committee is only investigating the 
migrant problem I would like to have you present to the committee 
your observations and the observations of the Board with reference 
to the migrant problem, together with any recommendations that you 
care to make, or if any further study is being made about when 
we might expect that to be completed and what recommendations 
might be included. 

Mr. Eliot. The past actions of the Board I can release to you, but 
not their current recommendations, since they are a part-time agency 
and they are not here in town and I haven't been able to consult 
them since I was asked to come up here. 

In the past the Board has made two or more special investigations 
which are direct in line with the work of this committee, who are 
perhaps familiar with the report on technological trends or the rise 
and types of various employment, due to technological progi-ess. 

I have here a copy of the report which I would be delighted to 
give to the committee and also a digest which puts it down in more 
understandable and briefer fonn; another large report which we 
got out 2 years ago deals with problems of changing population and 
has a number of sections in it on economic opportunities in relation 
to population problems, and that deals particularly with the large 
migration out of rural areas, particularly the south Appalachian 
highlands to the industrial center areas. It has been going on and 
is likely to increase in the years to come. 


A third report in which you may be interested deals with the 
future of the northern Great Plains. We were concerned as to what 
caused these migrants to move out of the Great Plains and what 
possibilities there might be of establishing a more stable economy 
in the area to make it unnecessary for some of the people to move, 
or to give those that remained a more permanent and satisfactory 
mode of life. 

Through a special allotment of Public Works funds we have been 
making a special study of what happened to the migrant when he 
got into the Pacific Northwest and what opportunities there might 
be for him in the way of permanent settlement and permanent 

That kind of work has also been carried on in the northei'n Lake 
States area, in. the cut-over region, as it is called, where there is a 
serious problem of insufficient resources and hence migration has 
come up, which is the coming and going type of migration rather 
than an all-out migration such as characterized parts of the Gi'eat 

Those reports indicate the type of work which we have been doing 
there. We are now engaged on a large-scale study requested by the 
President on long-range work and relief policies. I have here the 


chapter headings for that study. I am sorry I could not bring you 
the study. It is still in preparation, and it would be premature to 
hand it over to the committee at this time. 

Mr. Parsons. Will that be ready around the first of the year or will 
it be sometime in 1941 before it is published ? 

Mr. Eliot. We are trying to get it to the President in the next cal- 
endar year — early in 1941 — with the hope it may be useful to Congress 
during the coming session. 

Mr. Parsons. That would be soon enough for this committee and 
for the Congress to consider whatever recommendations you have in 
this study, and to guide the Congress in any legislation that it may 
see fit to pass. 

Mr. Eliot. We hope it will help. 

Mr. Parsons. Now, what did you find to be the causes of these three 
great areas — the migration in them that you have just described? 

Mr. Eliot. Well, these reports that I have referred to on the Great 
Plains and the northern Lake States and in the Pacific Northwest deal 
with different aspects of the situation for those particular areas. 

would stabilize plains economy 

In the northwest plains I don't need to tell the Congressman from 
Nebraska what the problem is. You have been out there yourself. 
We were trying to suggest some way of stabilizing the economy 
through the provision of water and the encouraging of a cattle economy 
as contrasted to exclusive reliance upon wheat or any other single crop. 
The report suggests a number of specific projects under the Water 
Facilities Act and the Wheeler-Case Act w^hich might be undertaken 
to improve the balance in the economy and to provide a more stable 
living for those who remain. 

In the case of the northern Lake States cut-over area, quite a dif- 
ferent policy was suggested under the development of recreational 
facilities and of the restoration of the forest cover and of larger hold- 
ings of farm property so as to make it possible for a farm family to 
get a better living off of a single farm than is now possible in the very 
small areas which most of them own. The approach there must be a 
different approach. It requires a different kind of solution for that 

Mr. Parsons. In your studies, including all of the States of the 
Union, have you found any large area of agricultural lands that could 
be made productive for the resettlement for any large number of these 
j)eople who are used to the soil and would prefer to live on the soil and 
cultivate it, where we might resettle a large number of them? 

Mr. Eliot. In the investigation which the predecessor Board made 
in 1934, a number of areas were indicated as being possible for future 
agricultural development. But since 1934 tlie nature of the agricul- 
tural activities and the technological developments I suspect would 
have invalidated many of those suggestions. I would hesitate to 
make any categorical answer to that question, not having had any 
more recent material to work from than 1934. 

Mr. Parsons. We have had some witnesses from Wisconsin and 
Michigan, and one in particular, that purported to know of two or 


three counties in those States of cut-over lands that would be suitable 
tor agricultural purposes. This one witness started off by saying 
that they were advertising and inviting people to come there. They 
claimed the character of the soil was sufficient for a long-range pro- 
ductivity, and that was one of their answers to the problem--they could 
take care of several thousands of these migrant families in that area. 
That is what prompted my question to you whether this Board had 
liad an opportunity to study the more or less uninhabited areas with a 
view of the resettlement of a large number of these people. 

Mr. Eliot. We relied in all of our studies on the work of the various 
Federal agencies directly concerned with the problem. The Board 
doesn't do any original research for itself except in a very limited 
I xtent. It relies upon the Department of Agriculture or the Depart- 
ment of Interior, or whatever the appropriate agency is, and brings 
together the opinions and the possibilities from those sources. 

Our job is a correlating activity — a clearing-house activity rather 
than an original research activity. 

Mr. Parsons. But you do agree that this migrant problem is a 
national problem? 


Mr. Eliot. It certainly is, and one in which the Board is very keenly 
interested and anxious to help your committee on. 

Mr. Parsons. Will you agree that the Federal Government should 
give grants and aid to the States in assisting in not only the destitute 
migrants but in a general program of relief ? 

Mr. Eliot. I am not qualified to give an answer to that. The study 
is in process at the moment, and I certainly am not in a position to 
anticipate the findings of the committee. 

Mr. Parsons. Well, I think the committee will be vitally interested 
in the study that is being made now and being compiled, and I hoi)e 
that the Board will make available to the members of the conmiittee 
that report when it is published so that the committee may have the 
benefit of it. 

I think that is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Eliot, in going about the country I have traveled 
over 10,000 miles a year, and I have followed this problem but, when 
the newspaper boys interview us, about the second question will be, 
'•What is the solution?" 

When the stoiy unfolds itself to me this migration of destitute 
citizens between States brings me to the conclusion that the causes 
are coimected with every economic dislocation in this country. There 
are many reasons for it — worn-out soil and mechanization, unemploy- 
ment, and various other causes. So there cannot be any single solution, 
but certainly we can do a little better than we are doing today when 
we consider'4,000,000 people last year Avere going from State to State 
in their search for employment. We can do better than that. Probably 


the first attack should be on these private employment agencies who 
take the last dollar of these migrants and shoot them across State Imes 
with misinformation as to employment. 

We can do something about that. These millions of people who are 
mio-rating about the country are 90 percent American citizens, and to 
keep kicking them from State to State strikes at the morale of this 
country. But what I am trying to get at is this : In doing it there 
must be two approaches and you must agree with me on that. There 
will be the short-term approach. That is what we are going to do 
immediately for them. 

For instance, the 900,000 w^ho were let out of W. P. A. There also 
will come a time when the farm is worn out and where the cows go and 
the chickens will go and they will not starve standing still, so they 

Now% it does seem to me that the Federal Government can do better 
than we are doing. We at least can give them authentic information 
of inventories where there are jobs and where they can locate thern- 
selves. We certainly can approach those two things almost unani- 
mously, can't w^e ? 

Mr. Eliot. I should hope so. 

Tlie Chairman. Now, then, your long-term, of course, will be what 
we can do to keep them home. The Farm Credit Administration is 
tackling that now. They are taking care of 500,000 by making loans 
to them, but there is still a million more waiting. You have your 
resettlement and as you mentioned irrigation and things of that kind, 
but from all the testimony we have heard nearly every witness agreed 
to the proposition that this problem of migration between States is 
going to grow and not decrease. 

Just think of a million people from the Great Plains States, who 
have left their homes in the last 10 years. They have left what was 
once productive soil and fine farms. On 5,000,000 acres, 25 percent of 
the top soil is gone. 

So, I am very glad that you said that you considered it a national 
problem and that no State alone can handle the situation. That is 
positive, isn't it? 

Mr. Eliot. Absolutely, sir. It is a national problem of major im- 
portance in the wise use of our human resources. If we don't take care 
of that, what is it all for anyway ? 

The Chairman. We have neglected this problem to such an extent 
that the various States are erecting barriers in self-defense against this 
migration. The witness who just preceded you named 23 States where 
these men left to come to the District of Columbia to work in the 
navy yard. We must give attention to this problem because these men 
are good American citizens — 90 percent of them — and it seems to me 
that we can do much better than we are doing. 

For 150 years the Interstate Commerce Commission has taken care 
of commodities passing between the States but nothing has been done 
for the human being in interstate commerce. 



We started our hearings in New York to get away from the idea that 
it was solely a California problem alone. That is all we heard when we 
tried to get this through Congress. We were told it was a California 
problem. Mayor LaGuardia testified that New York had deported 
5,000 out of the State last year and spent $3,000,000 in taking care of 
them. We are hopeful of devising some legislation that will clarify 
the situation and give our American citizens passing from one State 
to another a little different status than they have now. 

If we can do that I think we have accomplished somethins:, don't vou, 
Mr. Eliot? 

Mr. Eliot. We have a very interesting problem as to where these 
men belong and are they citizens of any State or of the United States. 

The Chairman. Your census reports were held up for weeks on that 
account. There were hundreds of American citizens who lost their 
residence in one State and did not gain it in another and they don't 
know where to locate them ; and under conscription they didn't know 
what State they were from. 

Mr. Eliot. I want to assure you, sir; the Board is very keenly inter- 
ested in what your committee has been doing and is very anxious to 
help you. I am here only to express that good will and desire to help. 

The Chairman. And we certainly appreciate your being here. 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Eliot, for the purpose of the record, what States 
do you include in the term "northern Great Plains" ? 

Mr. Eliot. The committee was composed of people from the two 
Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, and Nebraska. That was the northern 
Great Plains area. 

Mr. Curtis. I think the Kesources Planning Board is making a 
very distinct contribution to this problem. I was pleased at the 
two points you mentioned with reference to the northern Great 
Plains with reference to the general type of agriculture and more 
attention upon livestock, and the other one the conservation of our 
soil and water resources. In some of my counties in this northern 
Great Plains area, this drought area, one family out of four have 
moved away since 1930. If this committee brings in a recommenda- 
tion that pertains to the relief — only the fair and just and appro- 
priate relief for these migrants who are elsewhere in the world, they 
haven't affected the three families who stayed at home, have they, 
and when one of those three families finally have to give up and join 
that army of moving people our problem is doubled and still no 
permanent solution. Therefore I feel that the work that your Plan- 
ning Board is doing is making a most distinct contribution to this 
because it makes a permanent solution of the problem at the point 
of its origin, 

Mr. Eliot. You want to attack it at both ends, Mr. Curtis. 

Mr. Curtis. Certainly. 

Mr. Eliot. Both as to the stable way of life where they now are 
and also to take care of them when they do move, if they have to. 

Mr. Curtis. Yes. 

260370— 41— pt. 



The Chairman. Mr. Eliot, migration made this country originally 
but, of course, we haven't any more frontiers and we haven't as 
many jobs. We are up against a different proposition. But you 
feel that after the studies you have made of this problem, that it is 
bound to exist in this country as long as we exist as a Nation, do 
you not ? 

Mr. Eliot. Do you mean migration? 

The Chairman. Yes; from State to State. 

Mr. Eliot. I think that is one of the aspects of the genius of the 
American people, that they regard the whole Nation as home— not 
any particular one part of it. 

The Chairman. And the Constitution says so; you are not only 
a resident of the State of New York— I mean a citizen, but you are 
a citizen of the other 48 States under the Constitution. But it does 
not work out very practically on account of the barriers raised by 
some of the States. 

We thank you very much for your valuable contribution. 

The committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow 

(Whereupon at 4 p. m., the hearing was adjourned until 10 a m.. 
Tuesday, December 10, 1940.) 



House of Kepresentatives. 
Select Committee to Investigate the 
Interstate ^Migration of Destitute Citizens, 

Washington^ D. C. 
The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. John H. Tohm (chairman) 

Present: Representatives John H. Tohm, chairman; Claude V. 
Parsons; John J. Sparkman; Carl T. Curtis; and Frank C. Osmers, 

Also present : Dr. Robert K. Lamb, chief investigator ; Henry H. 
Collins, Jr., coordinator of field hearings; Creekmore Fath and John 
W. Abbott, field investigators; Ariel E. V. Dunn and Alice M. Tuoliy, 
assistant field investigators; Irene M. Hageman, hearings secretary; 
Richard S. Blaisdell, editor ; Harold D. Cullen, associate editor. 

The Chairman. The committee will please come to order. This 
is a continuation of the congressional hearings investigating the 
migration of destitute citizens between States. 

Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt, will be a witness this morning. Mrs, 
Alberta Thomas will be the first witness. 


The Chairman. This is a little strange surrounding for you this 
morning, but you have traveled all over the country and you should 
be able to get along with us, so you feel right at home. 

Your full name is what ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Alberta Thomas. 

The Chairman. And is your family with you 'I 

Mrs. Thomas. Five children are with me. 

The Chairman. How many children have you ? 

Mrs. Thomas. I have six. 

The Chairman. Are the six hereiiow or just five ? 

Mrs. Thomas. No; just five. 

The Chairman. How old are they? 

Mrs. Thomas. 20, 18, 12, 10, and 3'. 

The Chairman. And how old is the youngest ? 

ISIrs. Thomas. Three years old. 

The Chairman. Is your husband here today ? 

Mrs. Thomas. No. 



The Chairman. Where is he? 

Mrs. Thomas. He is working. 

The Chairman. What is he doing? 

Mrs. Thomas. Electrician's work. 

The Chairman. How long has he had that job ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Since last Monday. 

The Chairman. What is his job? 

Mrs. Thomas. Installing oil burners for a coal company. 

The Chairman. Where do you live now ? 

Mrs. Thomas. At Alexandria Tourist Camp. 

The Chairman. Are you living in a house ? 

Mrs. Thomas. No ; in a trailer. 

The Chairman. The eight of you are living in a trailer ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What part of the country do you call your home ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Originally St. Louis, Mo. 

The Chairman. Did you live there until 1934 ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. When did you leave Missouri ? 

Mrs. Thomas. In October 1934. 

The Chairman. Were you and your family ever on relief in St. 
Louis ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. For how long ? 

Mrs. Thomas. The best I can remember it was 7 months. 

The Chairman. How much did you get a month ? 

Mrs. Thomas. It was $11 a week for groceries. 

The Chairman. Did you get along on that amount of money all 
right ? 

Mrs. Thomas. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, why did you leave St. Louis, Mo.? 

Mrs. Thomas. Because my family all were under doctor's care — 
all sick. 

family leaves MISSOURI IN $ 2 5 CAR 

The Chairman. And how did you leave Missouri ? 
Mrs. Thomas. Sold my furniture and bought a car. 
The Chairman. What did you get for the furniture ? 
Mrs. Thomas. Got $30 for the furniture. 

The Chairman. How much cash did you have when the family 

Mrs. Thomas. I think I had 65 cents. 

The Chairman. You had 65 cents when you started on the road? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir; after we bought 5 gallons of gasoline. 

The Chairman. How much did the car cost? 

Mrs. Thomas. $25. 

The Chairman. And where did you go from St. Louis in 1934? 

Mrs. Thomas. We went as far as Phoenix, Ariz. 

The Chairman. And where did you sleep at night, Mrs. Thomas? 


Mrs. Thomas. We slept in cabins when we could afford them and 
when w^e couldn't get a cabin we slept on army cots with a tarpaulin 
for a cover and the children slept in the car. 

The Chairman. You and your husband slept on the army cots and 
the children slept in the car? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That 65 cents did not last very long, did it ? 

Mrs. Thomas. No, sir. 


The Chairman. Before you left Missouri did you discover some- 
thing about your two boys being able to earn a little money playing 
musical instruments? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir ; and when we got in Del Kio, Tex. 

The Chairman. Tell us about that, Mrs. Thomas. 

Mrs. Thomas. My husband earned our way until we got to Del 
Rio by selling corn medicine and after we arrived at Del Rio we 
parked on a street in front of a church and I had the children 
practicing their music as usual, which they did every day. They 
were playing church pieces, sacred pieces, and the lady in a shoeshop 
came out and invited them in her shop to play for her husband. 
When her husband heard them she asked me if I would let them go 
to a friend of hers that owned a cafe. I told her if she would wait 
until my husband came back to the car I would ask him, which she 
did. She met me about the same time my husband did and asked 
him for permission for the children to go and he finally decided they 
should go up and play. 

She said if they didn't pick up any money she would pay them 
for the trouble of going up there. 

When they went to this cafe they collected 90 cents. That en- 
couraged the children and the lady persuaded us to let them go around 
and see if they couldn't pick up some more money. They collected 
around $6 that night, enough to carry us across the desert and 
mountains, and we went on to Bisbee, Ariz. 

The Chairman. Now, in your travels how many States did you 
go into ? 

Mrs. Thomas. I have been in 42. 

The Chairman. And you subsequently acquired a trailer, didn't 
you ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes; my husband built a trailer after we was on 
the road. 

The Chairman. Well, during all the time of your traveling for a 
period of about 6 years through the 48 States, what did you live on ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Lived on the income of what my two sons made. 

The Chairman. Wliat musical instruments do they play? 

Mrs. Thomas. Violin and guitar. 

The Chairman. How old are the two boys ? 

Mrs. Thomas. 18 and 20. 

The Chairman. Well, where would they play to earn this money ? 

Mrs. Thomas. They would go into cafes at first when they were 
smaller, and barber shops and garages or any place where they would 


think anybody would be interested in music, and ask them for per- 
mission to play. When they got permission to play they played. 

The Chairman. For practically 6 years your family of eight lived 
on the earnings of your two boys playing the violin and the guitar? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did your husband look for work? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And he was unable to obtain any work? 

iNIrs. Thomas. Yes. sir. 

The Chairman. And what work does he do ? 

Mrs. Thomas. He is an electrician — can do most anything. 

attempt TO FARM FAILS 

The Chairman. And during your travels, Mrs. Thomas, did you 
ever attempt to settle down on a farm or something of that kind ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Where was that ? 

Mrs. Thomas. In Higdon, Mo. We bought a tract of land— 40 
acres— and we built a cabin on it and made a cistern, but we just 
couldn't make a go of it. 

The Chairman. How much did you pay for the land? 

Mrs. Thomas. It was $200. 

The Chairman. How much did you pay down ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Paid $15 down. 

The Chairman. What kind of land was it? 

Mrs. Thomas. Rolling land. 

The Chairman. Did it have cut-over timber on it? Did you have 
to clear it ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes. 

The Chairman. But you could not make a go of it and so you 
left, is that right? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes ; we had to get up and leave. 

The Chairman. Well, I wish you would tell the committee, Mrs. 
Thomas, where you went after leaving Arizona. You first went from 
Missouri to Arizona? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And then where did you go? 

Mrs. Thomas. We came back from Arizona through Missouri again 
and up to Pennsylvania. Then from Pennsylvania back to St. Louis. 
Then out west toward Cheyenne, Wyo. And then we went right down 
the west coast to Arizona again and then we came back from Arizona 
back to Missouri. Then we went back south to Texas again and over 
into Florida. 

The Chairman. Did you meet many people on the road like your- 
selves^ — traveling to look for work? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes ; quite a few. 

The Chair:man. And how were they traveling — in automobiles? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did you become acquainted with them? 

Mrs. Thomas. We didn't have very much time to associate with 
many people. We were going too fast ourselves. 


The Chairman. Have you a car now? 
Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 
The Chairman. What kmd of a car is it? 
Mrs. Thomas. Ford V-8. 
The Chairman. What model? 
Mrs. Thomas. 1938. 

The Chairman. And what was the model of the first car that you 
started out with? 
Mrs. Thomas. It was a 1927 Buick. 

children educated by mother at home 

The Chairman. About what schooling have your children had? 

Mrs. Thomas. I taught them as long as they were unable to go to 
school. They were too delicate to go to school in St. Louis. They 
asked me to take Selby and Johnnie out of school on account of sick- 
ness. I had to board them out in the country and I didn't have the 
money to send them to the country. 

The Chairman. And are they going to school now? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, you were the teacher for them, were 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And how^ much education did you have? 

Mrs. Thomas. Seventh grade. 

The Chairman. Are the children all healthy now? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chair^^ian. What was the matter with them at the time you 
left Missouri ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Selby had sinus trouble and a mastoid operation. 
Janet had heart trouble. 

The Chairman. And that has cleared up now, has it ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, they are at the present time in 
good health? 

Mrs. Thomas. In perfect health now. 

The Chairman. How long have you been in Washington, Mrs. 

Mrs. Thomas. Since June 2. 

The Chairman. And your husband obtained work here in Wash- 
ington last Monday ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir ; with a coal company. 

The Chairman. But he is an electrician ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. But you left St. Louis, Mo., in 1934 and you 
traveled for a period of 6 years through 42 States ? 

ISIrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And your husband was unable to obtain em- 
ployment ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And the family of eight lived on what your two 
boys earned playing the violin and the guitar? 


Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, did you ever ask for relief, Mrs. Thomas, in 
any of these States? 
Mrs. Thomas. No, sir. 

The Chaieman. How many months were you on relief in Missouri ? 
Mrs. Thomas. I believe it was about 7 months. 

family sleeps in trailer 

The Chairman. Now, during the 6-year period that you were 
traveling through 42 States, where would the family sleep at night? 

Mrs. Thomas. Well, they slept in the trailer or car or whatever we 
had, or in a tent. We had a tent for a little while. 

The Chairman. And they are now sleeping at nights in the trailer 
in Alexandria, Va. ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir ; and in the car. 

The Chairman. What is that ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Trailer and car. 

The Chairman. How much money is your husband earning? 

Mrs. Thomas. $30 a week. 

The Chairman. Do you think you will be able to get along all 
right on that? 

Mrs. Thomas. Well, with the boys' help I will. 

The Chairman. Are you sending the children to school ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How many of them ? 

Mrs. Thomas. There are two going to school now. 

The Chairman. You only went to the seventh grade in school. Do 
you think that your children, with what you taught them at home, 
are on an average with other children of their age ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Well, I could not say that, no, because I did not 
have that good of an education myself. But I taught them to the 
best of my ability what I knew. 

Tlie Chairman. When you bought the land in Missouri, did you 
live in a house there ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Lived in a trailer and following that in a log cabin. 
It was a one-room log cabin. Then we built an additional room to 
it out of some lumber. 

The Chairman. How do you like Washington? 

Mrs. Thomas. Fine. 

The Chairman. I take it, Mrs. Thomas, that had you been able to 
make a go of it in Missouri on a farm, you would have been glad to 
stay at home, wouldn't you ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes ; I would. 

The Chairman. Do you think you will make Alexandria, Va., 
your home now ? 

Mrs. Thomas. I would like to make Washington my home. 

The Chairman. Have you any relatives any place? 

Mrs. Thomas. Oh, yes ; in Missouri. 

The Chairman. Were they ever able to help you? 

Mrs. Thomas. No ; they wasn't able. 


The Chairman. But for the 6 years after 1934 your husband was 
not able to get any position and contribute to the support of the 
family, is that true? 

Mrs. Thomas. That is true. 

The Chairman. The two boys playing the guitar and violin were 
able to earn enough money to -support the entire family? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Congressman Parsons. 

Mr. Parsons. Mrs. Thomas, how long have the children been in 
school since you have been in Alexandria ? 

Mrs. Thomas. They started when school started in Alexandria. 

Mr. Parsons. In September? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Parsons. Have they had any tests at school so as to compare 
their ability with other children of the same age in their school? 

Mrs. Thomas. They have their report cards. 

Mr. Parsons. Are they about in the same grade as children of 
their age who are in the same school ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Well, I believe a child at 12 years old, the teacher 
explained, was supposed to be in the sixth grade, and Janet is in 
the fifth. 

Mr. Parsons. So they probably are retarded from one to two 
grades because of your migrations into various parts of the country ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Parsons. Are the boys still keeping up their musical training? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Parsons. Do they make any funds for the family now? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Parsons. Where do they work ? 

Mrs. Thomas. They entertain in night clubs. 

Mr. Parsons. Here in Washington or in Virginia? 

Mrs. Thomas. In Washington and in Maryland. 

Mr. Parsons. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Sparkman. 

Mr. Sparkman. Mrs. Thomas, you say your husband is an elec- 
trician ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sparkman. How old is he? 

Mrs. Thomas. Thirty-seven. 

Mr. Sparkman. I wonder if he has tried to get work with any of 
the navy yards or in any of the defense projects? 

Mrs. Thomas. Well, I believe he did at Fort Meade. 

Mr. Sparkman. Wliy was he not successful ? 

Mrs. Thomas. He was offered a job as an electrician for $1.65 an 
hour, but he had to join the union. He went to see about the union 
and they wanted $300 to join the union. We didn't have the cash 

Mr. Sparkman. What union was it that wanted $300 from him to 
join it? 

Mrs. Thomas. Electricians' union, that is all I know about it 

Mr. Sparkman. Was it here in Washington 2 



Mrs. Thomas. I believe it was ; yes. 

Mr. Sparkman. You don't know the number of the local ? 

Mrs. Thomas. No; I don't. 

Mr. Sparkman. Did they want all of that in cash or some on terms ? 

Mrs. Thomas. They wanted it in cash. He told them he would pay 
them so much a week if he could get the job, and they didn't want it 
that way. 

Mr. Sparkman. How much did he offer to pay them a week? 

Mrs. Thomas. I think it was $5 a week. He offered to pay whatever 
he could pay — just any way to get the job. 

Mr. Sparkman. Now, he was offered a job at $1.65 an hour provided 
he was a member of the union ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sparkman. But the local wanted $300 for membership ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Cash; yes, sir. 

Mr. Sparkman. They would not take it on terms ? 

Mrs. Thomas. No, sir ; they would not give him a permit. 

Mr. Sparkman. And he was not able to pay that ? 

Mrs. Thomas. No, sir. 

Mr. Sparkman. How much cash did he have available? 

Mrs. Thomas. Well, we didn't have any cash right then. We had 
just had a wreck with our car and a payment was due on the car. 

Mr. Sparkman. Is that the car you paid $25 for? 

Mrs. Thomas. That is the car we have now. We have had it only 
about 2 months. 

Mr. Sparkman. That is the only thing you had which you might 
raise cash on? 

Mrs. Thomas. We don't even have the car paid for yet. 

Mr. Sparkman. And instead of getting the job of $1.65 an hour he 
is earning $30 a week? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sparkman. I believe that is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Congressman Osmers. 

Mr. Osmers. Mrs. Thomas, is it your preference to live the life you 
are now leading or would you prefer to live at home and live a normal 
life with your family? 

Mrs. Thomas. Well, I would rather live a normal life with my 

Mr. Osmers. Do you feel that if your husband could get one of 
these national-defense jobs you would secure a home and live that 
kind of a life? 

Mrs. Thomas. Well, I would try my best to. 

Mr. Osmers. That is all I have. 

The Chairman. Congressman Curtis. 

Mr. Curtis. Just one thing, Mrs. Thomas. Have your children 
even been denied admission to a school when you would go into a 
community just for a short time? 

Mrs. Thomas. Well, we had to pay pretty dear to p-pt them in 

Mr. Curtis. Had to pay rather high? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 


Mr. Curtis. Where was that? 

Mrs. Thomas. In Florida. 

Mr. Curtis. What did they charge you? 

Mrs. Thomas. I don't remember. 

Mr. Curtis. Do you recall? 

Mrs. Thomas. I think it was $3 for each child, and then we had 
to buy the books. It cost us $9.70 to start the three girls in school. 

Mr. Curtis. For how long did that pay their tuition? 

Mrs. Thomas. Well, it was supposed to pay for the term, I believe. 

Mr. Curtis. David was 14 years old when you started in 1934, 
was he not ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

jNlr. Curtis. Has he been in school any since then ? 

Mrs. Thomas. No, sir. 

Mr. Curtis. And Selby was about 12? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. Did he go to school after you were on the road? 

Mrs. Thomas. No; we taught him and David, too. They had their 
lessons just the same. 

Mr. Curtis. Then only three of them attended any public school? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes. 

Mr. Curtis. Wliat time of the year did you move into this Florida 
community ? 

Mrs. Thomas. About the first of the year. 

Mr. Curtis. And because of that tuition situation you did not 
send the children? 

Mrs, Thomas. Yes, sir ; I sent the children. 

Mr. Curtis. But at no point did they deny admission to schools? 

Mrs. Thomas. No; they let them go to school if they had the 
money. They asked us to get a Florida license on our car, which we 

Mr. Curtis. That was one of the requirements when you asked 
for the children to go to school ? 

Mrs. Thomas. Wlien we took the children to Pipers School, they 
asked us if we had a Florida tag on our car and, of course, we had 
bought a tag there the year before. We told them we had an old tag, 
but we intended to get a Florida tag. They said, "All right, it won't 
cost you as much." But we had to put out the $9.70 for books just 
the same and the $3 for tuition. 

Mr. Curtis. Do you know Avhether that was the regular charge or 
was that a special charge because you were not a resident ? 

Mrs. Thomas. I don't know that. 

Mr. Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Sparkman. One more question. Mrs. Thomas, has your hus- 
band ever filed an application with the Civil Service Commission for 
a job in any of these defense projects? 

Mrs. Thomas. No, sir. 

Mr. Sparkman. I notice they are asking for skilled workers con- 
tinuously. I might suggest that he look into the possibility of filing 
an application with the Civil Service Commission. 

That is all, Mr. Chairman. 


The Chairman. Mrs. Thomas, the two sons that you refer to in 
your testimony are on the front seat here in the hearing room? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And what is the name of the little girl? 

Mrs. Thomas. The baby? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mrs. Thomas. Sonja. 

The Chairman. And there are six altogether? 

Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mrs. Thomas. 

Mrs. Thomas. You are entirely welcome. 

The Chairman. For giving us your testimony. We appreciate 
it very much. 

Mrs. Thomas. Thank you. 

The Chairiman. Mrs. Roosevelt is the next witness. 




The Chairman. Mrs. Roosevelt, the committee is very grateful to 
ou for appearing here this morning. We appreciate it very much. 

e have held hearings in New York, Alabama, Illinois, Nebraska, 
Oklahoma, and California, to show the Nation it was not just a one- 
State problem. 

We started off in New York with Mayor LaGuardia. He called 
our attention to the fact that last year in New York they had sent 
back to their home States 5,000 people at an expense of $3,000,000. 

Through the United States we found the press and the public and 
the people very courteous to us. You know how the heart of the 
American people can be touched. 

We will start off by introducing the members of the committee. 
The Congressman on my extreme right is Congressman Sparkman, 
of Alabama. Next to him is Congressman Parsons, of Illinois. On 
my left is Congressman Osmers, of New Jersey, and on my extreme 
left is Mr. Curtis, of Nebraska. 

The resolution creating this committee passed Congress in April 
and we started out with our first hearing in New York with Mayor 
LaGuardia our first witness. He designated this problem as a na- 
tional problem and said the condition was very bad in New York. 
As I said, they sent 5,000 people home in 1 year and spent $3,000,000 
in doing it. 

We found the same situation in Alabama, Illinois, Nebraska, 
Oklahoma, and California. I want to tell you what we did. We 
had witnesses not onlj^ from New York, but from adjoining States. 
Then we communicated with every Governor and every mayor in the 
United States to get a pen picture of the facts in their own individual 
States. When we file our report, I think we will have a factual 

I also want to say to you that this is a unique congressional com- 
mittee. We have never issued a subpena; we have never attempted 
to cross-examine any witnesses. We simply want to get the facts. 
And so, Mrs. Roosevelt, if you will make any statement which you 
care to in your own way we will appreciate it. 


Mrs. Roosevelt. Well, I don't feel, of course, that I have any infor- 
mation which you haven't already acquired, and probably with a 
great deal more authentication than I have. 

All I can do is to tell you what I have seen and the impressions 
that I have gathered from talking to people in different parts of 
the country. You have had a much better opportunity than I have. 
You know more about it than I do and you have probably looked 
up statistics which I haven't had an opportunity to do. 

The Chairman. We found, Mrs. Roosevelt, in New York that you 
were ahead of us. 

Mrs. Roosevelt. Well, I can only tell you what I happened to see. 
That I will be more than glad to do. 


Now, in California I tried in a very brief time to see all the dif- 
ferent types of camps because I had noticed that outside almost 
every village or town of any size you could see on the outskirts a 
settlement which was growing up of cars with shacks or tents or 
trailers or almost anything, sometimes without any pattern at all, 
and other times on land which some foresighted person had purchased 
and was renting. And in certain places there would be electric 
lights. That would add to the rent because it would mean that in 
the tent there would be an electric bulb let in through the top. But 
sometimes it was just a plain squatter camp growing up. 

And I went to one which I suppose would be called a jungle type 
of thing where they paid no rent, down by a river, which was pretty 
bad — no sanitation, no effort toward taking care of sanitation in 
any way. 

Then I went to a county camp where the county was providing 
certain safeguards. That was pretty bad, too, but they did make an 
effort in the way of providing certain safeguards. It happened it 
had rained the day before I was there and a number of tents had 
been flooded and they were having to move out because no precau- 
tions had been taken as to how their tent should be placed or where 
it was put. 

There was an effort at the community building to help these people 
to a certain extent. An effort was made to provide a washing 
machine and a place to wash clothes and there was an attempt at 
having some kind of shower arrangement. If I remember correctly, 
there were two showers and two toilets in that camp. 

Then I went to a strange place that I suppose might be called a 
private enterprise. It was land rented out with fences around small 
plots on which people were allowed to build their own houses. Wlien 
they left, they could sell what they left there. I saw a man and his 
wife and children living on a plot of ground, which they were clean- 
ing up. He had bought the house, which was largely built out of 
scraps of corrugated iron and heavy paper of different kinds. And 
a very interesting thing, because it seemed to me it showed an entire 
lack of supervision of sanitation, was the fact that the pipe for the 
water was immediately next to the toilet. Apparently that didn't 



bother anybody. But I am sure they must have epidemics at differ- 
ent periods of the year in those camps. I don't know whether you 
found that in your investigations, but it seemed to me it was 

One thing that interested me was the story of a young man who 
came from Oklahoma originally. He trekked all the way out to 
California and then he heard there was some work in the oil fields 
of Oklahoma and he trekked all the way back and looked for some 
work and got a little work for a short time. Then he lost his job 
again, so he was back in California to start out again. 

And finally, after looking at every type of camp that I could find, I 
went to the Government Farm Security camps — the different ones 
that they have out there. I think they have done a good thing in 
making a model. It isn't enough, but it is a good thing if other 
people would follow the pattern. 

Outside of those camps, which are really for people who are going- 
to move on, they have accommodations for people who really get a 
job which will last a little while. These are little, tiny bits of land 
with little houses on them. These are particularly valuable from the 
point of view that a great many of these people have not been 
farmers. We think of them all as being from the Dust Bowl or 
some place like that, but many of them have not been farmers, and 
many of them have. But even those who have been very frequently 
failed because they have no modern direction in farming. They 
have done what their grandfathers did before them. I have an idea 
that what they get under expert supervision in cultivating small acre- 
ages like that will be very useful if they ever again do acquire land 
of their own. They will have learned some fundamental things that 
even if they have been farmers they haven't had an opportunity to 
learn before. 

Now, I noticed this year in Texas, just lately, that that same type 
of jungle growth outside of small places is occurring. There are a 
few Farm Security camps that have just been established, but I 
noticed the jungle developments from the train window. They are 
sufficiently evident to see in that way. 

It is, of course, easy to understand. Texas is a very big Stat€. 
People think of it as a land of opportunity. They will go back from 
the cities to farms and farm families where the land for generations 
has been so badly farmed that it cannot support the people left on 
it, much less those who return from the cities. 

That means a lowering of the standard of living for the entire 
group. You find them going back to the Kentucky mountains where^ 
Heaven knows, the farm never was able to support them, and the 
entire standard for the whole group goes down. 


NoAV, this situation has implications for the future which I think 
are very serious. It has health implications to begin with. The 
people, "all of them, young and old, are deteriorating in health. No- 
body gets proper care for the eyes or the teeth or malnutrition — bad 


nutrition— lack of change of diet. That sort of thing has a perma- 
nent effect on all the people and particularly on the children. 

Now, that is a purely physical thing. From the point of view of 
education I think this migration is done largely by the finer people, 
the people that still have adventure in their souls. That is not 
universally so, but it is frequently so. You find they are of very 
good stock. You will be struck by the beauty of some of the chil- 
dren, real fineness of features. And they have bright minds. But 
they are not getting the continuity of education which any child 
gets who stays in one place and has a home. 

The bad feeding and the bad environment and the bad conditions 
are factors. These people put forth a terrific effort to make their 
living conditions as decent as possible, but they can't be good con- 
ditions. I think we are gomg to see the results reflected in the 
ability of those young people to make a living, to stick to a standard, 
that is, a decent, American standard. You cannot use your brain 
as well if you are physically run down. 

I think that condition is very serious to us for the future, because 
these are big families. They are really the families that are fur- 
nishing the increase in our j^opulation. When they go back to the 
Mountain States and back into the South that is where the increase 
in population is coming in the future. 

The lowering of standards of living is a very serious thing, I be- 
lieve. You haven't been in Florida, but there is some migratory 
labor there, too, and a good deal in the Everglades. Last year I 
went in to see what the Government camps were doing and I was 
struck by one very curious thing. I have always thought that a 
very good example would stimulate the neighborhood to live up to 
it. They have one sugar plantation there, where the manager is a 
Quaker, that is most beautifully run. He, being a practical Quaker, 
told me that he did it that way because it paid him. But he got 
the same migratory labor coming in every year from Georgia and 
South Carolina and Alabama and they came year after year because 
they knew their conditions would be decent. 

I have forgotten now the exact amount but he told me how much 
money they sent back into those States. It was really a very big 
sum of money, because it is a big plantation. But right next to 
that plantation was a jungle under the worst conditions I have ever 

They had started to burn it down and I hope by now it is com- 
pletely burned down, because it was a firetrap. If a fire had started 
there in the nighttime the people on the second floor — there were 
two stories — would have burned to xleath without any question. It 
was like a rabbit warren — they were that close together. There 
was only one hydrant for water. Everybody got their water from 
that one hydrant. There was only one toilet to accommodate a teem- 
ing population. 

Now, in the Everglades, of course, there are both white and colored. 
The colored work at certain things in the fields, while the white peo- 
ple work in the canning industry. The conditions of both are equally 


The problem is one of absentee ownership, too, because people will 
come down and they will go in with someone who lives in Palm 
Beach or anywhere around to rent some of this land. Then they 
turn it over to a manager. They use contract labor, you see. The 
trucks drive in in the morning and everybody climbs aboard. When 
they have got the number they can take, they drive away. If a man 
is late and cannot climb aboard the truck fast enough, he doesn't get 
a job. If he is early he does get one. 


Well, the situation is unhealthy all the way through. It is bad for 
our future. Somehow in talking to those people you get a feeling that 
they haven't the remotest idea of what it means to be a citizen in a 
democracy. That, I think, is something we should be thinking about 
today because it is very important that everybody should know what 
he wants to defend and why. , , 

I have been really quite distressed as I saw what these conditions 
might mean. The "people who live in those conditions there move 
north with the chance of getting work. You see them everywhere. 
You can meet them in New York State. I have seen them there. 
And it isn't the mere fact that they are migratory. Wliat they be- 
come toudies community after community throughout the country. I 
think in the future the young people are going to present a heavy 
burden as cases in tuberculosis hospitals and prisons unless we devise 
some means of seeing that education moves with them and that they 
have sufficient chance to work for a living wage. 

We have to have certain migration. There is no doubt about that. 
But it has got to be made so that people can live with some decency. 
Otherwise I think we an in for a very difficult and rather dangerous 
situation for us all. 


The Chairman. Now, Mrs. Koosevelt, our investigation discloses 
that there are about 000,000 people migrating between States. 
That is the figure for last year. The record also discloses that when 
they go to private employment agencies they are given wrong infor- 
mation merely for the purpose of getting their money. They are 
promised jobs which are not there. 

Of course, this committee will have some jurisdiction and some 
regulation regarding that because that is interstate commerce. 

Mrs. Roosevelt. Well, over and over again people I have talked to 
have shown me those little flyers given out which they had picked up 
somewhere and they had made the move to another place. Now, I 
don't Imow- who furnishes those flyers or who distributes them but I 
have seen them in their possession — a number of different flyers say- 
ing: "Here work is available." 

The Chairman. You see not only that but when those good people 
describe to you how they started out from home on account of certain 
circumstances over which they had no control, it becomes a matter of 
considerable concern to all of us. 


They are good American citizens and the question is how are we 
going "to treat them. At least we will have to give them reliable 

The Federal Government should be able to give them correct in- 
formation as to where there are jobs and where there are no jobs. 
They should have that before they leave home and while on the 
way. Instead of being kicked around as they are now, they shoiild 
be given a helping hand. 

You see, Mrs. Roosevelt, what we have done in this country in 
150 years is to protect and regulate religiously iron and coal and 
steel" passing through the States. We have the Interstate Commerce 
Commission to take care of that. But we haven't done very much 
for human interstate commerce so far as the record goes. In self- 
defense the States now have raised barriers from 6 months up to 5 

Well, what are we going to do? You are a citizen of the State 
of New York and under the Constitution you are a citizen of the 
other 47 States, but when you start out to move it doesn't work out 
verv practically. 

So this committee, with the assistance of your testimony and 
that of others, hope that first we will be able to give the people who 
have to move and do move reliable information and protect them 
in every way we possibly can. 


Mrs. Roosevelt. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? Have you 
found that tlie differing rules on relief have made a great deal^ of 
difference? For instance, one of the things that troubles me is that 
rules have been made to keep people out an--^yet people go and then 
you find such really terrible situations. 

People are being sent back where nobod feels any sense of re- 
sponsibility for them and they are really gdi- 'g. back very often with 
no future 'anywhere, no hope. Is there ai. thing you have found 
that would change that condition? 

The Chairinian. Well, I am speaking for'Miyself personally, Mrs. 
Roosevelt. I talked to these people throughout the country, par- 
ticularly those who came from the farms, and I have not found one 
who would not have liked to have stayed home if he could. They 
had various reasons for moving — like this migrant family here — 
and that is tlie trouble with this problem. It is really directly or 
indirectly connected with every economic dislocation we have. Do 
you have anything to say, Ccmgressmnn Parsons? 

Mr. PaeS!NS. Mrs. Roosevelt, it is quite coincidental. Starting 
in New York with the hearing we had Mayor LaGuardia, as Mr. 
Tolan told you. Well, he is a' very much traveled migrant himself 
and so is tlie chairman of our committee — from Minnesota to Mon- 
tana, and Mcmtana to California, and California to Congress, and 
you are very much of a traveling migrant as well as the rest of us. 
I believe yoii are styled No. 1 migrant. 

260370— 41— pt. ! 


I know that you have seen a great deal of these conditions. We are 
very happy to have you with us. We have had several recommenda- 
tions made about giving gi-ants-in-aid to the States for the purpose 
of aiding those States in taking care of destitute migrants. 



Do you think this is a national problem and that the Federal 
Government should give grants-in-aid to these States ? 

Mrs. Roosevelt. I think it is a national problem, but I do not 
feel that I am sufficiently informed about it to make any recom- 
mendations as to how it should be handled. 

I think there is no question that it is a national problem but I 
feel that I am not fitted to make any recommendations. 

Mr. Parsons. Well, you have been quite a leader in the public-wel- 
fare field. If the Congress should decide to give grants in aid to the 
States, where do you thing the administrative agency should be set 
up— in social security, labor, farm security, or where? 

Mrs. Roosevelt. Well, that would depend on many things. There 
are so many factors involved that I would want to think that over very 
carefully. I think that for certain people in certain places the Farm 
Security Administration has done the outstanding job. On the other 
hand, you might find that in other places you would have to have a 
combination of responsibility, that it couldn't all be taken by one 

For that reason I think that you would have to have all those agen- 
cies in and find out what they had been doing, what had fallen to their 
lot, whether they wanted it or not. In that way you could make a 
decision as to how to handle it in the most helpful way. 

Of course, all these things depend largely on the choice of personnel 
for their success. The pattern which works beautifully in one place 
because you happen to have a human being who understands the prob- 
lem might be a total failure in another place. You have always got 
to bear that in mind. I think you should do whatever you do with as 
much flexibility as possible, this is a changing problem. You are 
always going to find different situations that have to be met. 

The medical side of this problem is a tremendous problem. There 
is a great need for some kind of medical service for groups of people 
of this kind. 

Mr. Parsons. Well, we also had a suggestion made to the committee 
that a coordinated board might be made up, composed of one from 
agriculture, one from Public Health Service, one from labor, one from 
the social security, and probably from the Employment Service, to 
constitute a coordinated board and probably lodge the administrative 
work under the Social Security Board. The idea is, however, to have 
the one board doing that work — a coordinated board of representatives 
of the several departments. 



Mrs. KoosEVELT. I should think it would be desirable to use any 
agency in any place where the necessity may arise. But I think you 
should add some representative from education if possible. 

Mr. Parsons. That has been mentioned. 

I was very much impressed with what you said concerning the lack 
of educational opportunities and facilities of these migrant people. 

We have found that there were some fifty or sixty thousand on the 
road from Florida, beginning about now, coming up the Atlantic coast, 
and winding up in the State of New Jersey, where they dig potatoes 
along in August, and then back to the southern States, where they will 
gather tobacco and pick cotton. 

That has been increasing for the last 10 or 1.5 years. In another 
decade we are going to have these same migrant children with their 
families making the same rounds more or less, none of them ever hav- 
ing seen the inside of a schoolroom for probably more than a year. 

Mrs. KoosEVELT. I wonder if a thing I got from a young Harvard 
student would interest you. He went with the C. C. C. camp as 
an educational ad^nser. He was just out of Harvard. One of the 
boys asked for a recommendation when he was leaving. The young 
Harvard boy would not give it to him. So the boy came in and 
said: "Wliy won't you give me a recommendation?" 

The other boy said : "Because you did not take advantage in 
your off time of any of the educational opportunities offered to you 

The boy looked at him, and he said: "How could I? I never had 
any education. My father never earned enough money to give us 
kids more than potatoes to eat. If I go home I will get that kind 
of a job because I am not fitted for any other, and my kids will 
eat potatoes," and the rest of the circle as it goes around. 

Now you see even if they go to school for a short time they drop 
out again and they are back always at the place they started. They 
never really get anywhere in their education. 

Mr. Parsons. The suggestion was made by a representative of the 
Department of Education, who appeared before the committee the 
other day, that we might place on the road itinerant teachers to 
conduct schools right along in the camps wherever these migrants 
move — have certain hours of the day or night for school work. 

Mrs. RoosEX'ELT. You will have to do something about child labor. 

Mr. Parsons. W^ll, after all, we have found that the children of 
the inigrant families are the ones who can make more money for the 
family than the heads of the family. 

Mrs. Roosevelt. Exactly. 

Mr. Parsons. Because they are young. 

Mrs. Roose\t:lt. But they don't make it because they get good 
wages; they make it only because there are a lot of them. 

Mr. Parsons. That is true. 

Mrs. Roosevelt. And because they work long hours. 

Mr. Parsons. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 


Mr. Sparkman. Mrs. Koosevelt, as you know, there are now ia 
social security three different categories, one for aid to the aged, 
one for aid to the blind, and one for aid to dependent children. 

One suggestion that has been made to us many different times is 
that a fourth category should be added to the Social Security Board 
to provide for direct relief or general relief and that one phase of 
that would take care of the migrant problem. 

I wonder what your thoughts are in that connection. 

Mrs. Koosevelt. That again is something I am not prepared to 
make any recommendations on. 

I feel that I would really have to study that problem a great deal 
more and know much more of the things that you know before I 
could make any recommendation. 

Mr. Sparkman. I wondered what your reaction to that might be. 
You mentioned something about the hea^'y birth rate in the south- 
ern States. As a matter of fact, in one of our hearings the South- 
•east was aptly referred to as the "seed bed of the Nation." It was 
shown that the rate of reproduction there was approximately 130 
percent, whereas in some of the northern areas it was only 80 

And I believe accompanying that was the statement that that is 
the region, or one of the regions, of low economic opportunity. Yet 
in every one of these aid })rograms it is required that the State 
match the Federal money dollar for dollar. 

The result is that those places needing the help most get the least, 

I wonder what your thoughts are with reference to changing that 
method of extending aid and putting it on the basis of need rather 
than on a basis of ability to match. 


Mrs. Roosevelt. Well, we think too often in terms of sections. It 
w^as all very weW to think in terms of sections of the country and 
States in our early days, but today we really have to think of ourselves 
as a Nation. 

This is a problem that affects the Nation. Many of our problems 
that may occur in this section of the country or in another section of 
the country have become national problems. But eventually it will 
affect the entire country, because these people don't remain in South 
'Carolina or Georgia or the State of Washington or wherever it may be. 

I mean, they move. I do think we are .going to have to begin to 
dface the fact that we are a Nation and that the problems are the prob- 
lems of the Nation and cannot be handled as problems of the various 

Now, how you shall do that or what you shall do I do not consider 
I am capable of advising you. 

Mr. Sparkman. I believe you agree that a part of the migrant 
problem might be handled by taking such steps as we may to stop 
needless migration. I am sure you agree with me that a great deal 
(of the migration is necessary and desirable. 


Mrs. Roosevelt. Some of it is necessary and desirable and some of it 
is the result of wastefulness on our part, which was natural in a 
pioneering nation but which Ave must learn how to stop for the future 
safety of oar country. 

I think much of our land has been temporarily destroyed because we 
didn't have knowledge enough not to destroy it. It Avill take us time 
to get it back again. 

But I think wherever it is possible we should do away with unneces- 
sary migration, because this Nation was built as a Nation of homes, of 
permanent homes, and I think that still remains the objective of most 
of our people, and our safeguard. 


Mr. Sparkman. When they are once on the road, though, it becomes 
our duty to reach out the helping hand, Mrs. Roosevelt. Shortly after 
you came in, Mrs. Thomas was testifying about the effort of her 
husband to obtain work. 

She testified that he was an experienced and qualified electrician. 
Upon application at Fort Meade he was offered a job which would have 
paid him $1.65 an hour as an electrician. But in order to hold down 
that job it was necessary for him to belong to the electricians' union. 
Applying to the local here in Washington he found that he Avould be 
required to pay $300 initiation fee, all in cash. 

Mrs. Roosevelt. Was that the American Federation of Labor or 
C. I. O. organization? 

Mr. Sparkman. I don't know. She simply said — and, in fact, I have 
nothing to verify the statement. She was quoting her husband. Mr. 
Shishkin, of the American Federation of Labor, testified yesterday and 
touched on that. He said that in their convention in New Orleans the 
A. F. of L. discussed that rather at length, and that they had taken 
steps to place some restrictions on their locals where these exorbitant 
fees were being charged. 

If that is true, I just wonder what is your thought about such a fee 
as that being charged this migrant electrician who, of course, had 
nothing Avith which to pay it? 

Mrs. Roosevelt, Well, of course, you have to go back a little bit 
further. I think you have to realize that probably the beginning 
of that came when there were too many workmen to get work. I 
suppose there are, in certain groups, rackets. And I suppose, per- 
haps, that may be one of them. I don't know. I am not fully 
conversant with just Avhat all these ramifications are. 

But I do know that where there is^work and if it is not controlled, 
by a racket, there are possibilities of adjustment. I don't believe, 
unless it is in a locality where there is a racket going on, that where 
there is work a man would be kept out for his initiation fee. I think 
some adjustment would be made. 

But, as I say, I don't knoAV this immediate situation and I don't 
know the Avhole picture well enough to pass judgment. 

Mr. Sparkman. Well, certainly, every encouragement should be 
given these people to get jobs. 

Mrs. Roosevelt. Of course. 


Mr. Spakkman. Kather than obstacles being thrown in their way. 

Mrs. Roosevelt. And I think a good union would do it and would 
make the adjustment. And I think you will find that in a great 
many unions they do business just exactly that way. What this 
particular situation is, I don't know. 

I think you should get the local union head up here and ask him 
about that and have the man here and have it out. I think it would 
be very interesting. 

Mr. Spakkman. Thank you very much, Mrs. Roosevelt. That is 
all, Mr. Chairman. 


Mr. OsMERS. Mrs. Roosevelt, we have discussed a great deal the 
effect of migration. I wonder if you would care to give the com- 
mittee your views on the major causes of migration ? 

Mrs. Roosevelt. Well, they vary greatly. I mean, we have some 
people whose land is gone. They have owned land always and are 
people who want to own land again. Theirs is the land that was in 
the Dust Bowl area or other stricken sections of the country and for 
various reasons it was impossible for them to make a living. 

Then we have, because of the depression, a great many people 
in the cities who have not been able to get jobs, who are either looking 
for jobs in other cities and industrial centers or who are going back 
to their own farm area where, at least, they have friends and where 
they know they can have something to eat and some shelter. 

There are, of course, people whose jobs have always been migratory 
and who are needed to do that work. Therefore, while it is badly 
organized and while it has a great many draw-backs, migratory work 
is a legitimate thing. To handle it requires only an understanding 
of the problem and a real determination to solve it. But it will 
have to be handled. 

The other people who are migrating are part of the whole eco- 
nomic picture of what has happened to us in this country. We do 
not have to think of them as permanent, but we do hg,ve to think 
of the way in which we- can remove the causes which made them 
become migrants, 


Mr. OsMERS. As I recall your testimony on your travels in Cali- 
fornia, I don't recall your mentioning any of the grower camps in 
California. Did you visit any of them while you were there? 

Mrs. Roosevelt. No; I did not visit any grower camp. I mean, 
any camp where they were actually housing people who were work- 
ing at the time. 

I saw one camp in passing where the conditions didn't look very 
good so far as one could see just passing by. I went, of course, 
jDrimarily to see the camps where the people who didn't have work 
went every day. 

Mr. OsMERS. They would commute back and forth to their jobs ? 

Mrs. Roosevelt. Yes ; commute back and forth. 


Mr. OsMERS. We, of course, noticed a great difference in conditions 
in the same type of camps. A county camp would not be the equal 
of a Federal camp and one private enterprise would not compare 
favorably with another. 

Mrs. Roosevelt. That is right. 

Mr. OsMERS. The sugar plantation in Palm Beach County, Fla., 
to" which you referred, is probably an outstanding example of grower 
housing for migratory labor ? 

Mrs. Roosevelt. That is a wonderful plant there. 

Mr. OsMERS. We had their owners and managers before the com- 
mittee when we were in Alabama and they do have a very fine opera- 
tion there. 

Would it be your opinion that the grower camp would answer the 
migrant-labor problem as a long-time solution, under rigid super- 

Mrs. RoosE^^ELT. Yes; where it is necessary to have that type of 

You remember there they have certain people they keep all the 
year around who have houses of their own. Then they have migrant 
labor that they require at certain periods, primarily men. They 
don't have families come down there particularly. They just have 
the men come for short periods of time. 

I think that is probably a very excellent solution. But, of course, 
you have got to go a little deeper into it. Even if we got good hous- 
ing and good camps for them if with it didn't go decent wages and 
proper treatment you might find yourself faced with very bad con- 
ditions just the same, in spite of the fact that the camp that was 
provided was a healthier place to live in. 

For instance, if they were forced to buy at a company store and 
the company prices were very very high, they might go out of there 
with no money at all. 

Mr. OsMERS. The committee's experience has been, speaking at 
least as one member of the committee, that where there was a social 
consciousness on the part of the owner, all conditions went ahead 
hand in hand, wages and hours, housing, education, and health. 

I know that in New Jersey, where we have a very serious problem, 
we have accomplished a great deal through the proper exercise of the 
police power embodied in the State department of health. 


The defense program is now becoming a great cause of migration 
in the United States and people are^ shifting all over the country in 
search of jobs, defense-program jobs. 

Of course, in most instances they are getting jobs in the defense 

Mrs. Roosevelt. Yes ; but you are faced in many places with terri- 
ble housing shortages because they are shifting. 

Mr. OsMERS. In some places 'housing is nonexistent^ because the 
workers, in their eagerness, arrive sometimes 6 months in advance of 
the completion of a plant. 



Would you care to express an opinion upon the effect that peace will 
have upon the migration of citizens in the United States? 

Mrs. Roosevelt. Well, I think it depends entirely on how we organ- 
ize ourselves to meet the future. If we have in mind what we are going 
to do with those defense plants and how we are going to use those peo- 
ple who are then working there, we won't face the same things that 
we faced before. 

If we are not going to that ; if the owners of these plants and the 
Government itself is not thinking now of what is going to happen 
when peace comes, then we are going to have mass migration again. 
We are going to be faced with just what we were faced with before — 
the plants will close and people will have no w^ork, and they can't stay 
where they have no work. 

Mr. OsMERS. Of course, we must keep in mind always that the 
branches of the Government concerned with the industrial part of the 
defense program are working under terrific pressure and they are try- 
ing to make a production schedule rather than to plan for the future. 
But I was thinking of, let us say, a powder plant, built of necessity 
back in the hills, that might employ 5,000 people. When peace comes — 
and we know it is coming — and the world quiets down again, that 
plant will close. 

Mrs. RoosE\^LT. Well, I am not an economist. I don't know what 
should be done. But I think that while we are, of course, interested 
primarily in production, there must be people in this country who 
should now be thinking of what we are going to use that powder plant 
for. If we know that powder plant is going to be closed down, we 
should be thinking of where we are going to put those people and what 
w^e are going to do with them when peace does come. We have been all 
through that once, and we should be thinking of it now wdien we are 
not at war. 

Some of our people can be doing that thinking. It would be differ- 
ent and we would be excused if we were actually at war, because, once 
you are at war, there is nothing to do but fight the war, and you for- 
get what is going to happen when peace comes. You just long for the 
day when peace does come. 

iBut we are not at war. We have still got plenty of people in this 
country who have brains and inventive ability and can look into the 
future. And I think it is criminal if we are not using those people 
today — telling them "this is your problem for the future ; we are not 
going to be where we were in 1920; we are not going to have that thing 
happen again to the people of our country." 

I don't know what it will bring us. I don't know what it will mean 
in facing new situations or in accustoming our peojjle to a realization 
that we are having to face a different kind of world. But if we have 
got to do it, we might much better know about it now and get ready 
for it. 

I think it is a question of getting all the people together. After all, 
all the industries have peoj^le that they pay, and pay high, to plan for 
the future, and they are probably still' doing it. Well, they might just 
as well be planning for the things that we are really going to meet in 
the future. 


Mr, OsMERS. And we certainly know we are going to have to 
face that problem ? 

Mrs. EoosEVELT. We certainly know we are going to meet it and 
we had better do so this time with the idea of what is going to 
happen to the people becanse that is the thing that is really going 
to matter — what is going to happen to the people as a whole. 

Mr. OsMERS. I know we can tear the plants down and destroy 
the housing, but what are we going to do with the people? 

Mrs. Roosevelt. Yes; you can tear the plants down but what is 
going to happen to the people who are working in those plants? 
Now^, we had better be thinking about that and planning for it. 

Mr. OsMERS. It is my opinion — I don't know whether you share 
it — that if we do not plan adequately at this time for the return of 
peace, we may have a change in our basic form of government be- 
cause of this tremendous number of people who will be thrown out 
of employment and thrown into economic insecurity. We must keep 
in mind that not only Americans will be in that condition, but ap- 
proximately 25,000,000 other adults and workers throughout the 
world will be in exactly the same position. 

Mrs. Roosevelt. Well, I don't think my opinion on that would be 
Avorthwhile because 1 don't know as much as you do. But I think 
it is something we should be thinking about. 

Mr. OsMERS. I would like to ask another question on the defense 
program. I am just making a guess, Mrs. Roosevelt. 

Don't you feel that we should make some economic provision in 
connection with the pay roll of these defense workers now, so that 
when their jobs do disappear they will not be immediately without 
resources of any kind at all other than a modest amount of unem- 
ployment compensation? I mean something more than the average 
amount of unemployment compensation. 

Mrs. Roosevelt. Now, again, I am talking without really having 
any knowledge, so don't take me too seriously if it is all nonsense. 
Aren't you taking it for granted in that case that all of them are 
employed in places where we cannot find employment for them in 
the future? Now, in that case you are putting them into what 
might be called or classed as hazardous industries. 

Mr. Osmers. If I may interrupt you, I was just thinking of those 
workers that were engaged in manufacturing munitions of war, 
primarily of a military nature. 

Mrs. Roosevelt. Well, you might make some special provision for 
a longer period of unemployment insurance or take a slightly greater 
amount out of their wages than you are, or something of that sort. 
But I should think that rather than give them a different status as 
workers, which is hard to do because you have got to make careful 
studies to give them a different status as workers, if you should differ- 
entiate for their unemployment insurance. 

I should think it would be better to put your research people to 
work on what the future is going to hold for these people, do you see ? 
I would put the money and the thought in planning for the future 
and try and keep everybody in the country on the same basis as 
workers, because I think the minute you begin to differentiate on how 


much and how lon^ the unemployment insurance shall be paid, it is 
going to be a difficult thing to' do and a difficult thing to make 
people feel that it is fair and that it is right. 

I think I would put everything we have into trying to look as 
far as we can into the future. 

Mr. OsMERS. That is all. 

The Chairman. Mr. Curtis. 


Mr. Curtis. Mrs. Eoosevelt, you have been very kind to appear here 
today and I shall not detain you very long. 1 do have this question 
in mind : Do you feel that in the report and recommendations of this 
committee attention should be given to those long-range activities 
that tend to stabilize populations, such as sound water conservation 
projects in drought areas, and activities of that kind? 

Mrs. Roosevelt. Very decidedly, because who is going to think 
about the long-range problems unless you do ? I think that it is very 
important that you take the long-range point of view and that you 
think about the whole as far into the future as possible. 

Mr. Curtis. In other words our task is not to arrive in some man- 
ner merely at the administering of relief for those people who are 
victims of circumstances at this time. 

Mrs. Roosevelt. No; you have got to do fundamental thinking. 

Mr. Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. Mrs. Roosevelt, just a question or two. In re- 
sponse to a question asked you by Congressman Sparkman about the 
$300 fee to join the union before they can get a position, we had Mr. 
Shishkin, of the American Federation of Labor, testify here the 
other day and he went into that in some detail. He said in some 
isolated instances there were abuses of that kind, but the federation 
at New Orleans at their national convention condemned that. As 
far as they know it is not going on now. I state that just for the 
purpose of the record. 

And I also want to say to you, Mrs. Roosevelt, that we are ex- 
tremely grateful to you for coming. I want to say also, as chairman 
of this committee, that as this problem unfolds, it becomes as many- 
sided as the causes of migrations, and therefore there is no single 
solution to it. But we do hope with the assistance of witnesses like 
yourself to better the condition that exists at the present time. 

We thank you very much for your appearance here today. 

Mrs. Roosevelt. And thank you. 

The Chairman. The next witness is Mr. Goodrich. 


The Chairman. Mr. Goodrich, will you please give your name and 
address for the record, and the capacity in which you are appearing 
before the committee today ? 

Mr. Goodrich. Mr. Chairman, my name is Carter Goodrich. I am 
professor of economics at Columbia University. 


For the last 4 years I have represented the United States Govern- 
ment in its relation with the International Labor Office, first at Geneva 
and now at Montreal. And last year I was elected chairman of the 
governing body of the International Labor Office. 

My connection with migration problems was between 1934 and 1936 
when I acted as the director of the study of population redistribution 
carried on under the auspices of the Wharton School of Finance and 
Commerce of the University of Pennsylvania. 

The results of that study' were published in a book entitled "Migra- 
tion and Economic Opportunities." 

The Chairman. Dr. Goodrich, you have presented the committee 
with a written statement for the record. The reporter at this point 
will incorporate that statement in the record, following which Mr. 
Osmers will interrogate you. 

(The statement referred to is as follows :) 


Study of Population Redistribution 

need of migration 

Migration should be thought of as a useful, and indeed indispensable, method 
of adaptation to changing conditions. Certainly it has served this purpose in the 
American past. No one is likely to doubt that the United States is on the whole 
richer and stronger because of the great westward movement that filled our 
frontier and because of the great rural-urban migration that built our cities. We 
may expect similar need for movements of people in the future. The locations of 
economic opportunity are not likely to remain always in the same place. Even 
if they were, there would be need of migration to correct present sectional in- 
equalities and to maintain a running adjustment between regions of high and 
low birth rates. This is particularly true because of the very striking degree — 
brought out by Dr. Frank Lorimer in one of your early hearings — to which the 
areas in which per capita resources are the most meager are the very ones in 
which the population is growing most rapidly as the result of natural increase. 

It is true that migration is a process which involves high human costs, which 
should wherever possible be minimized. Sometimes migration is tragically mis- 
directed — as in the ill-fated settlement of the Dust Bowl. Sometimes it seems 
merely aimless and hopeless — as in certain cases to which your committee has had 
to give attention. Yet after considering similar instances of misguided population 
movement, the members of the Study of Population Redistribution came to the 
considered conclusion that an even more serious failure of migration, over a long 
period, had been its failure to take place on a sufficiently large scale "to give 
adequate relief to the population pressure of our less favored areas." Without 
very considerable migratory movements we cannot hope to redress existing regional 
inequalities or use our human and material resources to the best advantage. The 
mobility of the American people has been an economic asset. In a progressive 
country, it cannot be taken as the aim of'soeial policy to make sure that every 
man may live his whole life in the place in which he was born. 

Our study did not attempt to indicate how many migrants could be absorbed 
in a given year, or to say exactly where particular groups of migrants could 
be absorbed. I am sure that the research carried on under your direction will 
have pushed further on these points. But we did attempt to indicate the 
general directions which migration would have to follow if it was to result iu 
a better relationship between population and resources. 


The first point is regional. It seemed to us essential that there should con- 
tinue to be a large movement of population from the Southeast. Every com- 
parison of planes of living shows how meagerly the inhabitants of the southern 


Appalachians and of the entire rural Southeast have shared in the economic 
opportunities and advantages of the Nation's life. One basic reason for this 
is the denseness of an agricultural population tilling insufficient and deteriorat- 
ing land in the face of declining markets. I am sure that progress can be 
made in improving the organization of rural life in the area, and that such 
progress is being made under the T. V. A. and elsevphere. It seems probable, 
also, that a continued increase of manufacturing in the region will supply 
a certain amount of alternative employment. But the present population 
pressure is so great, and the present rate of natural increase so rapid, that 
the region appears doomed to still deeper poverty unless it can find substantial 
relief by migration. The population increases in the southeastern States 
recorded by the 1940 census indicate that an already alarming problem has 
become even more serious. 


The second point is occupational. In a progressive economy, however else 
the problem of the migrants may be solved, it will not be solved by a net 
migration into agriculture. Ever since modern industrialism began, the pro- 
portion of the total manpower devoted to agriculture has steadily diminished, 
for one basic reason that will not lose its force unless or until the productive 
■efficiency of our economic system as a whole begins to decline. As the total 
national output increases, less and less of the national effort, and less and 
less of the consumer's dollar, need to go into the raising of food, and more and 
jnore can be devoted to other goods and services. The present farm popula- 
lation of the United States— much of it already underemployed— stands ready 
to produce far more food and fiber than is now demanded and would be quite 
adequate, if agricultural technique continues to improve, to meet any increases 
in demand that can easily be imagined. 

The traditional movement of manpower has been from agriculture to manu- 
facture. In recent years, however, certain branches of manufacturing have 
themselves come into the same position as agriculture, with an inelastic demand 
for their products and with extraordinary increases in output per worker. 
But employment has continued to increase in the range of occupations devoted 
to providing the great variety of services demanded by a civilization of 
growing complexity. The limits of possible demand for certain manufactured 
goods and for the nonmaterial services are far more flexible than the demand 
for the products of the soil. It is in these fields that consumers will spend 
the greater part of any income increases which they may receive. It is in 
these fields that employment will grow, or, if necessary, must be made to 
grow. A net increase of farm population must mean either the further lowering 
of cash incomes already far too low, or else the condemnation of large groups 
of people to the so-called "subsistence economy" without the means of pur- 
chasing the amenities of an advanced civilization. 


The third point relates to the type of communities. We considered it 
necessary to sound a note of caution against the belief that industrial employ- 
ment could easily be scattered throughout the rural areas of the country. 
Analysis of the locations of manufacturing employment over the past 30 or 40 
years indicates that there has been no net tendency in this direction. A certain 
200 counties- — those which the 1029 Census of Manufactures listed as of greatest 
industrial importance — contained nearly three-fourths of all wage jobs in 
manufacturing in 1899 and contain nearly three-fourths of all the wage jobs 
today. The share of the rest of the three-thousand-odd counties has not in- 
creased. But meanwhile, within the industrially important areas, there has 
been a marked and highly significant shift of factory location from the great 
cities to their suburbs and to other areas of moderate industrial concentration. 
Our analysis led us to the belief that these tendencies were likely to continue, 
that there would probably be further diffusion and suburbanization of industry 
in existing industrial regions, together with the rise of a limited number of 
new industrial centers, but not a diffusion or scattering of industries over the 
countryside. It seemed to us, moreover, that this process of suburbanization 


would achieve most of the legitimate advantages claimed for decentralization 
without incurring its most serious social and economic costs. "We argued^ 
therefore, that the chances of employment were likely to be better in a rela- 
tively small number of urban and industrial districts — and particularly in their 
expanding peripheries — than in remote towns or in rural areas. 

This analysis was made before attention was seriously focused on the relation 
between industrial location and vulnerability to military attack. What modifica- 
tions this may require in the pattern of location I do not know; on this point, 
I understand you have taken expert testimony. But only the most compelling 
reasons could," in my judgment, justify the scattering of industrial plants one 
by one in remote villages. To such a policy there are three cogent objections. 
First, few plants in the past have managed to survive in such locations. Second, 
if such a plant fails, its workers are left in a worse position than those in a 
developed industrial area with other employment opportunities. Third, even if 
such a plant succeeds, there is the danger of an unhealthy dependence of work- 
erg — economic, social, and political— on a single employer. It should not be a 
function of the United States Government to encourage the building of mere 
"company towns." 


If this general viewpoint is accepted. Government policy toward migration 
should be guided by the determination to preserve and encourage mobility but 
to give it surer purpose and direction than in the past. At certain points Gov- 
ernment action — by such devices as land zoning and governmental land pur- 
chases — may serve to prevent the recurrence of mistaken types of settlement. 
The United States Employment Service and its affiliated State services must 
assume increasing responsibilities for facilitating useful shifts of population. 
Improvements in education and technical training are needed to increase the 
ability of prospective migrants to adapt themselves to new opportunities, and 
there is a strong case for Federal aid to education in the regions of meager income 
and high birth rate. Subsidies designed to keep people in areas which cannot 
decently support them run counter to sound migration policy ; but subsidies de- 
signed to fit the young people of such areas for more useful service elsewhere 
would. I believe, be a well-placed national investment. In these and perhaps 
other ways. Government action can facilitate an orderly mobility, but it must 
be clear that migration policy alone cannot guarantee full employment nor the 
indispensable increase in nonagricultural employment. 


In the face of stubborn, long-continued, large-scale industrial unemployment, 
there has been a temptation to accept the return to a subsistence agriculture 
as the only outlet for what api)eared to be large volumes of unwanted manpower. 
A mean living on poor land is better than no job at all if these are the only 
choices. But except as a purely temporary expedient, this could be justified only 
on the defeatist assumption that we are incapable of organizing our economic 
life to provide expanding opportunity. At the moment, with employment rising 
and due to rise with the developing defense program, no one is likely to urge 
the condemning of more of our fellow citizens to the subsistence alternative. 
Indeed, if the demands on us grow as they well may, we should not dare to 
do without their contribution to the national effort. At the end of the emergency, 
however, the issue will arise again. It is none too early to begin planning for 
the reemployment of those who will no longer be needed in the work of national 
defense. To accept the doctrine that our full manpower cannot then be used 
in the tasks of peace, in the raising of the American standard of living, would 
be a confession of national defeat. 


Mr. OsMERS. Professor Goodrich, I notice from your statement 
that you deal primarily with population problems. I notice, too, 


that contrary to many of the witnesses we have had, you do not 
regard migration as such a bad thing for tlie country. 


Mr. Goodrich. That is so, Mr. Congressman. I think that migra- 
tion must be thought of as a useful method of adjusting population 
to resources. 

I am speaking there not of seasonal migration, but I speak of 
migration primarily, migration with the view to more pernianent 
settlement. It seems to me that has been a most useful thing in the 
American past. It settled our frontiers. It built our cities, and I 
believe that it is essential to think of migration, in spite of its many 
costs, as a useful method of social adjustment. 

There is no reason to believe that economic opportunities will 
remain in precisely the same places in the future as they have in 
the past. 

Moreover, even if they did so remain, the population movem.ent 
would be needed to correct the shocking inequalities between one 
region and another where migration would be needed to make up 
for the differences in the birth rate between one section and another. 

And that argument I think is particularly strong for the reasons 
that Congressman Sparkman brought out a short time ago, that the 
very regions where the population pressure is the greatest and where 
people are having the hardest time under the most meager resources, 
are the very regions in which the population is growing most rapidly 
hj natural increase. 

Mr. OsMERS. Would you care to give the committee some estimate 
of the number of people that should come out of the southeastern 
States in order to make that area a little bit more self-supporting 
than it is or a little better off economically ? 

Mr. Goodrich. Well, the maximum figures to bring it toward a 
state of equality, approaching equality with the standards of living 
in the other parts of the country, would be so big I hardly dare give 
them, but certainly it should run into several hundred thousands from 
the southern Appalachian region and the figure would run into mil- 
lions for the eastern part of the Cotton Belt. 

Mr. OsMERs. Would you say. Professor, that the need for migra- 
tion from that area would continue because of the excessive birth 
rate as compared to the rest of the United States ? 

Mr. Goodrich. Yes. 


Mr. OsMERS. Now, it is also your opinion that because of the con- 
•dition in agriculture there should be a continuance of the farm to 
•city migration? 

Mr. Goodrich. I think that will have to be so as a long-run trend. 
'Otherwise I think it means that the agricultural populations will be 
pi-essed still further below the industrial population. Many of our 
iellow citizens will be condemned to live on the very meager level 


of subsistence agriculture — what one of your earlier witnesses called 
"the people barely living on half rations extracted from a small 
parcel of poor land." 

I think that is the danger. 

Mr. OsMERS. I don't recall the exact wording of the statement, but 
when I read it this morning you said something in there to the eifect 
that a man would be better off unemployed in a city than he would 
be on a subsistence farm. Is that what you said? 

Mr. Goodrich. No. If those are the alternatives — if those are the 
only alternatives — then the meager living on poor land is better than 
that. But I don't think we have to take that as the national standard. 

Mr. OsMERS. I hope not. What is your opinion of industrial 
decentralization ? 


Mr. Goodrich. I feel that there must be a great deal of caution used 
regarding any attempts to scatter industry widely into the remote 
rural regions. 

I believe that a considerable degree of decentralization toward 
suburban areas, a good deal of movement of industry from the very 
large cities to areas of somewhat moderate industrial concentration, 
is likely to continue as it has been, and likely to be, on the whole, 
desirable and healthy. 

I doubt if the scattering of industry widely over the countryside is 
possible and I doubt if it is desirable if it could be done. My reason 
for doubting the possibilities is the experience and the analysis of 
the figures of the last 40 years or so. They show that within that 
time a certain 200 counties, which are those which the Census of 
Manufactures in 1929 counted as the important industrial areas and 
important industrial counties, had almost three-quarters of all the 
wage jobs in manufacturing in the country in 1899, and they have 
almost precisely the same percentage of wage jobs in the United States 
at this time. 

There has been a significant movement within that from the cities 
to the suburbs and I think that movement may well continue. 

I think that some new industrial centers may well arise as some new 
centers have arisen over the last 30 or 40 years, but I doubt if it is 
practical to scatter industry bit by bit all up and down the length and 
breadth of the other 3,000 counties. 

Mr. OsMERS. I want to come back to that in a minute or two. But 
do you expect that we will have full employment if the defense pro- 
gram continues for another year and a half or 2 years ? 

Mr. Goodrich. I think we shall come much closer to full employ- 
ment than we have been for a long time. That is one reason Avhy I 
think it is easier to be more emphatic in arguing that migration is 
a useful process now than it was 4 years ago, before this arose. 

I think that 4 years ago there was much more -temptation to say 
we can't make use of the people and you had better go back even to 
poor land, if that is the only alternative, and get along somehow. 

Now, I think, we don't have to say that to people and I don't think 
we dare say it in view of the national need that will come. 



Mr. OsMERS. Now, after this defense program, do you anticipate 
a great immediate increase in migration and unemployment? 

Mr. Goodrich. I anticipate very great danger for just the reasons 
you suggest, unless very careful planning is done about it, 

Mr. OsMERS. Now, I want to go back to what we were talking about 
before — the decentralization of plants. 

Don't you feel that if we have these plants spread all over the 
country and the entire economy of certain areas based upon defense 
plants, we are likely to have a more serious dislocation than if these 
plants are operating in normal industrial areas that also have peace- 
time industries there? 

Mr. Goodrich. I think there is a great danger if the defense plants 
are not put, as far as practicable, in regions for which there is hope 
of continuance in peacetime. 

Now, there may be needs for changes for tactical reasons about 
which I know nothing, but 1 think there is great danger if the de- 
fense plants are not put in regions that look like regions of normal 
peacetime growth. 

Mr. OsMERS. You recommend that we should now plan for the 
arrival of the dove of peace. I wonder what plans you have in 
mind that could be made. 

Mr. Goodrich. Well, there are two things. First, I agree with 
what I understand to have been the recommendation of Dr. Lubin 
yesterday, that a dismissal wage, a kind of amortization for the 
workers in specifically defense industries, would be a useful thing. 

I agree with Mrs. Roosevelt that that is the smaller part of the 
program. I think it is extremely important that 

Mr. OsMERS. That, after all, would be only a temporary ameliora- 
tion of the situation ? 

Mr. Goodrich. Exactly. It might be useful, but it is only a matter 
of tiding the people over. 

Mr. OsMERs. Six months instead of two months? 

Mr. Goodrich. Yes; but it doesn't solve the question of where 
they are to go afterwards. I am sure the solution is not one of 
sending them back to starve on the bad lands. So I is ex- 
tremely important that there should be planning under way regard- 
ing the reemployment possibilities of those people at that time. 

Mr. OsMERS. As I remember Mr. Lubin's testimony yesterday, he 
also said tliat Ave should not abandon all of our peacetime industries 
in the great rush to get aboard the defense band wagon, so that 
we would have at least a skeleton of ]:)eacetime industry when the 
defense program is over. Do you share that view? 

Mr. Goodrich. Yes; I think that is true and I think we also need 
to have plans possibly in the housing field and in other public-works 
fields to be ready for that time. 

I think that is the long planning job. I quite agree that people 
should get at it soon. 

Mr. OsMERS. What sort of a body would you recommend or what 
present existing agency would you recommend to assume the re- 
sponsibilities of that planning job? 


Mr. Goodrich. Well, that is an administrative question which I 
don't feel particularly competent to answer. 

Certainly the Department of Labor should be in it. Certainly the 
Defense Commission should be in it. 1 don't know about this, but 
I feel they should, and I feel the Social Security Administration 
should be in it. I don't know that I am of any particular use 
in suggesting the form that such a body might take. 

Mr. OsMEiJS. Well, would you say that we could use a body such 
as the National Resources Planning Board? 

Mr. Goodrich. Very admirably, I should think. I have one other 
suggestion to add there, that on certain of the international aspects 
of the problem you would do well to call on the International Labor 
Office for a study of the problem as it is hitting other countries. 

That we should have a right to do as members. 

Mr. OsMERS. I have tried from various witnesses, without a great 
deal of success, to get their opinions on tlie effect of world-wide un- 
employment upon our own economy when peace comes. 

Now, I am presuming that our economy will not be as badly dis- 
jointed as others throughout the world, but I can see our foreign 
markets slipping away from us when these millions put down their 
arms and cease working in arms plants and start producing peacetime 

Let us take the Latin-American market, for instance, which we 
speak of a great deal today. I think the European nations, both the 
victor and the vanquished, will lower their standards of living in order 
to get those markets and the materials they can get in exchange for 
their goods. 

Mr. Goodrich. I think that is a very serious danger and I think it 
indicates we shall need to take some part in the economic reconstruc- 
tion of the world, partly to prevent just that extreme lowering of 
standards with its consequences. 

Mr. OsMEKS. I am not as much impressed as many seem to be with 
the present trade we are doing with Latin America because about 
three-quarters of the civilized world, aside from ourselves, is engaged 
in war. But I would like to know where that Latin-American trade 
is going to go after the war is over. Is it your opinion that our posi- 
tion there will be seriously endangered in an economic way regardless 
of the outcome of the war? 

Mr. Goodrich. I think there is danger there; but I am in no sense 
an expert on South American relations. 

Mr. OsMERS. I can visualize that situation. In fact we saw it when 
some of these foreign nations were pre])aring for war. We had dem- 
onstrations of the barter system and other means that they used to get 

That is all. 

The Chairman. Mr. Parsons. 


Mr. Parsons. Mr. Chairman and Professor Goodrich, our hindsiglit. 
of course, is always much better than our foresight. However, have 

260370— 41— pt. 9- 



you thought of what might have been the difference in onr economy if, 
"diirino; the World War, or during the prosperous days of the twenties 
when we had a fairly even keel of employment and production, we had 
had social security and many of the things we have acquired in the last 
5 or 6 years. If they had been in effect during the other war or during 
the prosperous days of the tw^enties, what would have been the differ- 
ence in the condition of the country during the years of depression ? 

Wliat would have been the difference in the relief and economic 
problem if we had had such measures as we have adopted in the last 
5 years ? 

Mr. Goodrich. Well, even on hindsight I should not think I could 
answer that completely, but I think the situation would have been 
easier in very important respects. The relief needs would not have 
come so suddenly if there had been unemployment insurance to cushion 
it ; not so many people would have had to go to the areas which per- 
haps were their only possible hide-outs during the depression. 

So whether the more even flow of income resulting from unemplov- 
ment-insurance payments would have cushioned the shock of the de- 
pression or lessened the shock of the depression very materially, I am 
not so sure. 

It certainly would have helped somewhat, and would have made 
it possible to come to the relief program in a more orderly way 
and with much less human suffering. 

Mr. OsMERS. I want to make another predication. We are plan- 
ning on this defense program and we are hoping that we will never 
be involved in this w^ar, and I cannot see any reason right now whv 
we should be. But, if we should become involved, I think with 
our experience in the other war and in the last 10 years, that Gov- 
ernment will never permit the sk^^rocketing of prices and greatly 
inflated values that was permitted in the other war. 

Now, if that had been prohibited before perhaps we never would 
have had the plains plowed up in the Dust Bowl for the production 
of wheat. We would have saved the soil that has blown away in 
the past several years. We would also have saved the great in- 
vestment sky-rocketing that finally culminated in our downfall. And 
that is what we are planning to do. That is the reason we are 
holding these prices down now. 

If it were not for the proper regulations that we have, prices 
would probably be twice as high as they are at the present time. 

Do you think that is a good economic thing to do — to limit or 
regulate our economy in inflated times like, this so that there will 
not be such a repercussion after that ? 

Mr. Goodrich. Yes, sir; very decidedly. And I think it is true 
that measures of that sort in the other war might have prevented 
much of the mishandling of an area like the Great Plains. 

I think also the Government is doing some things directly which 
are useful in preventing a misguided settlement such as the settle- 
ment of the Dust Bowl by the Government repurchase of lands 
which are unfit for agriculture, and by measures such as the county 
zoning that started in Wisconsin and spread elsewhere. I think there 
are some useful things that the Government can do directly to stop 


unfortunate migration and misguided migration like that in the 
Dust Bowl. But I quite agree it is important, and highly important, 
to prevent the runaway prices which had the consequences that you 
have just brought out. 

Mr. Parsons. The question has arisen many times before this 
committee and with committee members of a long-range planning 
program. We have been attacking that problem for several years 
now. If we had the foresight 20 or 25 years ago, or even 15 years ago, 
to have started a long-range planning program, we could have cush- 
ioned the depression. Perhaps it never would have come, because 
when we started the reduction in Federal taxes, making it retro- 
active year after year during the twenties, that money came back 
to the large bondholders who used it principally for the stock- 
market manipulation which greatly inflated those values, sometimes 
400 and 500 percent, and on an average of over 200 percent, when 
the real values were not there. Those inflated values fell and cul- 
minated in a great crash which wiped everybody's savings out. 

Now, we want to prevent that in the future, and we think we are 
on the right track with a long-range planning program. But many 
of those who are critical of what we are doing now are those who 
had the responsibility of Government planning then and failed to 
fict, isn't that right? 

Mr. Go >DRicH. That is right. 

Mr. Parsons. That is all, Mr. Cliairman. 


Mr. Sparkman. Dr. Goodrich, I have read your statement with 
much interest. There is one thing that naturally caught my eye. 
If I may, I will read the portion that I refer to : 

Improvements in education and technical training are needed to increase 
the ability of prospective migrants to adapt themselves to new opportunities, 
and there is a strong case fcr Federal aid to education in the regions of 
meager income and high birth rate. Subsidies designed to keep people in 
areas which cannot decently support them run counter to sound migration 
policy ; but subsidies designed to fit the young people of such areas for more 
useful service elsewhere would, I believe, be a well-placed national investment. 

Now, as a matter of fact, in the areas of high birth rate, there 
is a surplus of population that must keep moving out. Therefore 
the burden is placed upon those particular States and regions to edu- 
€ate those people to fit them for the economic place they might find 
in another region. If those States are so heavily burdened to edu- 
cate those children that are going to become producers for other 
areas, do you think it is reasonable to require those same areas to 
match dollar for dollar Federal funds that are given for various 
subsidies such as you mentioned? 

Mr. Goodrich. Well, I think that the Federal Government should 
take responsibility for its part of the cost of education in these 
areas. I am not so sure about other subsidies because I am doubt- 
ful about subsidies which, as I said there, are designed to hold people 
in an area. But I am very strongly in favor of subsidies in the field 
of education. I think that it is right that the Nation as a whole 


should bear the cost or part of the cost of the education of these 
people, many of whom are certainly not going to live in the very 
heavily burdened States which are bringing them up and trying 
their best to educate them. 

I think there again, from the point of view of the State to which 
they are going to go, it is a disadvantage to the States which receive 
these people to receive ill-trained people. So I think there is a 
case even aside from our national feeling in the matter — I think 
there is a strong case from the practical point of view in the States 
that are likely to receive migrants in having prospective migrants 
better trained. 

I feel very strongly that that is a field in which Federal assistance 
to the areas you speak of is entirely justified. 

Mr. Sparkman. As someone suggested in the hearing in New York, 
if he bought mules from one of our States, he paid the owner of those 
mules for bringing them up, but when our boys and girls came up 
there he paid nothing for the education of those boys and girls. 

Mr. Goodrich. That puts the point better than I did, but it is 
my point. 

Mr. Sparkman. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Doctor, I understand you want to get away at 
12 : 20 and I will keep faith with you. But I want to say to you 
that while traveling around the country and in conference with 
newspaper representatives, about the first question they ask is: 
"Well, Congressman, what is the solution for all this anyway?" 

The point I want to bring out, and I think you will agree with 
me, is that this migration of destitute citizens from one State to 
another involves, and probably includes, every economic dislocation 
we have in the country, isn't that so ? 

Mr. Goodrich. Absolutely. 

The Chairman. Now, the causes of migration are worn-out soil, 
mechanization, unemployment. There is no single solution for any 
of those things. But what I would like to bring out is that we 
seemingly or surely could do better than we are doing now or have 
done in the past, don't you think? 

increase facilities for dissemination or information 

Mr. Goodrich. I think we can do much better. One simple thing 
we can do, which I think was brought out in the remarks this morn- 
ing, is to increase the amount of information which is put at the 
disposal of possible migrants. 

I think that calls for a much greater responsibility being placed 
upon the United States Employment Service and its State affiliations 
than has heretofore been the case. 

It should be made possible for those agencies to do very much more 
than they have been able to do in the past. They have done as well 
as they can. But if it could be arranged for it to do more in the 
future by spreading correct information about opportunities for mi- 
grants that might serve to cut off misguided, merely aimless migra- 
tion. It would also serve to direct migration to the places where the 
migrants are likely to be needed. 


The Charman. In other words, we should be able to obtam a better 
informed and more reasonably controlled migration than we have 

Mr. GooDKiCH. I agree completely. 

The Chairman. We will have your prepared statement inserted 
in full in the record. Mr. Reporter, you will insert Dr. Goodrich's 
statement at this point in the record. 

We just want to thank you. Dr. Goodrich, very sincerely for ap- 
pearing here today. Your statement is a very valuable contribution 
to us. 

Mr. Goodrich. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. It has been a great 
privilege to appear before the committee. 

The Chairman. The hearing will rtcess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12 :15 p. m. the hearing recessed until 2 p. m. of 
the same day.) 

after recess 

The Chairman. The committee will please come to order. 
Dr. Schmidt will be the first witness. 


The Chairman. Dr. Schmidt, will you give your full name and 
address to the reporter ? 

Mr. Schmidt. Carl T. Schmidt, 1900 H Street, Washington, D. C. 

The Chairman. And in what capacity do you appear here, Doctor — 
that is, you are a professor of economics, are you not ? 

Mr. Schmidt. Yes, sir; I am lecturing in economics at Columbia 
University, but at the present time am on leave. 

The Chairman. You have filed a written statement, and that, will 
appear in the record at this point. 

(The written statement is as follows :) 


Changes in American Agkicultuke and Some of the Results 

For 50 years American agricultiu'e has been drifting away from tlie ideal of the 
family farm. In broad perspective, we can see that our farmers have been drawn 
into the vortex of industrialism. They too share the insecurities brought to our 
society by the machine. 

It was the cotton, the wheat, and the corn, produced at low cost on the virtually 
free and highly fertile lands of America that in the nineteenth century provided 
the people of western Europe with cheap food and clothing and helped them to 
turn from farming to manufacturing. Moreover, our agricultural exports enabled 
us to import much of the capital on which our own urban industrialism was built. 
And when this job was done, American farmers were left stranded in an uncertain 
world. Their preeminence in foreign markets has vanished, and the application 
of machines to agriculture has made needless the work of many farmers in supply- 
ing our own requirements. At the same time, industrialism has been unable to use 
all its own great capacities. This has meant urban poverty and unemployment 
which in turn have brought poverty and disguised iinemployment to the farms. 
As we near the middle of the twentieth century, we find that millions of farm 
workers have no more material security than the poorest of city people. Our farm 
problems are basically the problems of an industrial society that has not yet 
learned to use its resources wisely and humanely. 



Why have so many of our farm people been sinking into an economic and social 
morass? Why has agriculture, as a way of life and as a business, been less and 
less inviting during the last 20 years? Why, despite all the costly farm-relief 
efforts, does the long-run prospect for great numbers of our staple-crop farmers 
still seem so unpromising? No complete answer can be given in brief compass, 
but it is possible to point to a number of basic forces that have been making for a 
decline of American agriculture. The great depression after 1929 certainly does 
not offer us the examination — it merely increased the pressure of forces already at 
work long before 1929. Indeed, they continue to underlie the course of agricul- 
ture even now, after a decade of far-flung efforts by our Federal Government to 
solve the farmer's problems. 


Put most simply, American staple agriculture has been declining because our 
farm plant was built up to supply not only our domestic needs but also great 
foreign markets. The foreign demand has shrunk seriously since the World War, 
and domestic markets have stagnated. Hence lower prices for the goods that our 
farmers have gone on offering in such abundance. And these prices have not 
given farmers enough income to meet production costs and to buy the thinks they 
need and want. (Possibly if they were ready to let their living standards sink we 
would hear less about agricultural depression.) Well, couldn't they produce less? 
Perhaps, but that would leave many farmers unemployed or dependent on public 
aid. And the more some farmers adjust themselves to the changed situation — 
reducing costs by means of business methods and machine production, and also 
just by pulling in their belts, the harder is the going for other farmers. Left to 
themselves, the natural forces would gradually squeeze labor and land out of 
agricultural enterprise. Perhaps this would not be too bad if men could be used 
at good wages in urban industry. But there they would also be unemployed today. 
Hence the dilemma is idtiniatcly one of our whole economy, not merely of agri- 
culture. We might just as well let the natural forces of floods drown the unlucky 
people who happen to be in the way of the waters as to let the natural forces of 
economics drive our rural people into po^'erty and hopelessness. 

More specifically, we may summarize the difficulties of our commercial, staple- 
crop agriculture as follows : 


For one thing, most farm enterprise is a small-scale, highly competitive pursuit. 
But it is caught in a web of big business. Our billion acres of agricultural 
land are split up among nearly 7,000,000 separate farms. And most of these farms 
are relatively small, single-family holdings. Even the great cotton plantation or 
wheat ranch is not big by comparison with the typical steel mill or automobile 
factory. Except in a few areas, genuinely large-scale and corporate farming 
in the United States is still unimportant. Nor has it yet proved itself decisively 
more efficient than small-scale farming. The point is that because of the fiercely 
competitive nature of his own business, the ordinary farmer has no control over 
the prices of his commodities. He produces as much as he can, and sells for what- 
ever he gets. 

The situation is very different for most of those who buy from or sell to the 
farmer. In their case, efficiency demands large-scale operation, and this in turn 
means fewer firms in each market and therefore increased managerial control over 
prices. Thus when the farmer sells his wheat, or tobacco, or milk, or when he 
ships his goods by rail, he is confronted by big business. Again, he runs into big 
business when he buys fertilizer, or a tractor, or a refrigerator, or when he bor- 
rows money. In 1934, for example, 3 big tobacco manufacturers bought 46 percent 
of the total tobacco crop in this country, 13 flour millers purchased 65 percent of 
tlie commercial wheat crop, 3 meat packers bought 41 percent of the marketed 
cattle and 25 percent of the hogs, 2 milk distributors bought 13 iiercent of the 
commercial milk. Thus, quite apart from the possibility of deliberate monopo- 
listic price rigging by business, the farmer is likely to be in a weak bargaining 
position both as seller and buyer. Here is one reason why th'^e prices he re- 


ceives are so much less certain than the prices he pays. It helps to explain the 
low purchasing power of the farmer. And it is also a reason why, when his 
prices slip downward, the individual farmer finds that he must go right on pro- 
ducing as much as ever, perhaps even more. Without machinery to eliminate cut- 
throat competition and to adjust producticm to changing market conditions, the 
American farmer is penalized by being an old-style oiierator in a streamlined 
world of big busines.s. 


Secondly, since the end of the World War the farmer has seen his foreign 
market ebb away. Following the repeal of the English corn laws in 1846 and 
the advent of cheap transportation, exports of agricultural products from the 
United States rose steadily. The rapid growth of industrial population abroad 
greatly enlarged the market for low-priced American foodstuli"s and cotton. For 
half a century these increased European requirements were largely supplied by 
the expanding tillage of the vast Mississippi Basin. But with the disappearance 
of cheap fertile lands in the United States, the American farmer began to lose his 
superiority in the world market. Wheat and livestock producers in other areas 
with great reserves of fertile land — such as Canada, Argentina, Australia — were 
able, because of lower costs, to undersell the American products. Even cotton, 
long a virtual American monopoly and our most important agricultural export, 
has not escaped the competition of other lands. Our tobacco, fruits, and other 
farm commodities are being squeezed out of world markets by the stiff competition 
of products that have the advantage of lower production costs or preferential 
treatment by various governments. In broad persijective, this tendency is to be 
seen as a concomitant of America's industrialization, its decreased dependence 
on foreign capital and manufactured goods, its growing ability to export industrial 


Thirdly, changes in domestic demand — gradual, but nevertheless potent — have 
tended to constrict profitable markets for many farmers. In former times they 
could look to our rapidly growing population to take their surpluses. Now the 
persistent decline in the rate of population growth eliminates one important 
buttress of our agriculture. Indeed, if, as appears likely, the birth rate continues 
to fall and immigration remains small, the population will cease growing before 
many years. Eventually there may even be fewer mouths to feed and backs to 
clothe. Dietary changes, too — especially shifts from beef and cereals to milk, 
sugar, fruits, and vegetables — have already impaired the markets for commodities 
important to great numbers of farmers. Moreover, producers of hay and grain 
have been hard hit during the last quarter of a century by the widespread substi- 
tution of tractors and automobiles for horses and mules. 


Fourthly, the increasing mechanization of agriculture has intensified the 
problems of farm operators and their hired workers. During the course of the 
past hundred years, millions of new farms — supported by the liberal land, immi- 
gration, and transportation policies of a solicitious Government — came into exist- 
ence. But this development was more than an increase in the number of farmers 
and of acres cultivated. For it was accompanied, and indeed to a large degree 
made possible, by a remarkable rise in th^ efficiency of agricultural enterprise — 
resulting from the application of science to the arts of the husbandman. Here, 
again, the Government has been a prime agent, for it constantly increased the 
scope of its agricultural research and its efforts to provide farmers with up-to-the- 
minute information. The work of the Federal Government has been supple- 
mented by the State departments of agriculture and farm societies and journals. 
Always in the foreground has been the idea of "bigger and better" farm produc- 
tion. Urged on by these agencies and by the growing cost of farm labor, the desire 
to lessen the burden of hard work, the hope of profit, the American farmer has 
turned increasingly to mechanization, to scientific breeding and feeding, to more 
business-like methods of management. By 1929 the average farmer and farm 
laborer produced 150 percent more than he did in 1870, and 37 percent more than 



in 191)9. The agricultural output in 1929 was 27 percent bigger than in 1909, yet 
it was produced by 7.5 percent fewer persons. Far fewer hired laborers are now 
needed in the western wheat regions than 20 or 30 years ago, and the corn 
harvester lias x-educed the number required in the Corn Belt. Plowing, planting, 
fertilizing, cultivating — all are being mechanized. And the all-purpose tractor is 
eliminating countless back-breaking chores. In the jiast, labor released from agri- 
culture by the machine could find employment in urban industry. Today that 
outlet is closed, and who knows when it will again be open The tractor and other 
machines will one day greatly curtail the need for workers in the cotton fields. 
What then will become of thousands on thousands of southern farm folk? 

From the standpoint of potential farm production, the results of these devel- 
opments are even more remarkable. In 1929, half our farmers produced 89 per- 
cent of the total commercial output of American agriculture. No doubt these 
farmers could easily produce the remaining 11 percent if prices offered them 
only a little encouragement. That is, the less productive half of our farmers 
are not needed to feed and clothe the nonfarm people — at least, on present 
levels of consumption. Instead of population pressing on the means of sub- 
sistence, as Thomas Malthus prophesied, agriculture is now pressing on popula- 
tion. Mechanization has changed the whole technical basis of farming, making 
millions of small farms obsolete and incapable of competing on any "reasonable" 
basis with more efficient farms. Yet so long as the less productive farmer's 
cash income barely covers his out-of-pocket expenses, he finds it better to go 
on producing than to stop altogether. By pulling in his belt, lowering the living 
standards of his family, and neglecting the long-run needs of his farm he can 
continue to compete — on a cutthroat basis — with technically superior farms. 

In terms of human needs, however, it is not at all evident that our agricul- 
tural productive plant is excessive. For demand has been seriously restricted 
by the low purchasing power of much of our population. In 19;)5, some 12 000 roo 
families — 42 percent of all families in the country — received less than $1,000 
income. Tet they bought only 26 percent of all the food sold in that year. 
Four million of these low-income families spent only about a dollar a week per 
person for food, or about 5 cents for each meal. Certainly, increasing tliese 
people's incomes would do much to ease the farmer's troubles. According to 
Milo Perkins, "If all families getting less than $100 per month had been able 
overnight to increase their incomes to that level * * * this would have 
meant an increase in expenditures for food of approximately 1.9 billion dol- 
lars. The expenditures of these people would have been increased by 51 per- 
cent. The national food bill, not counting purchases by single individuals, 
would have been increased 14 percent, and the health of the low-income people 
would have been very much improved. Farmers would have received nearly 
$1,000,000,000 more in income. The extra demand certainly would have im- 
proved farm prices and farm income by a large additional amount." ^ How to 
raise our national income and to distribute more of it to our less fortunate 
people — this is the great internal economic problem of our times. The advance 
of agricultural technology would be much more rapid if urban employment and 
purchasing power were increased. For then many people now on farms would 
move to towns and cities, and commercial outlets for agricultural products 
would expand. On the other hand, if employment opportunities in industry 
remain meager, the abundance and low costs of farm labor are likely to retard 
the mechanization of agriculture. Continued long enough, such a situation 
would make for more self-sufficient farming. We must note, too, that the dif- 
ficulty of most farmers in acquiring more land, the absence of alternative in- 
come opportunities for those farm owners who find the going hard and who 
wish to sell, the uncertain prospects for new capital in many agricultural 
fields, are forces that hold back what might otherwise be a very rapid drift 
to new forms of agriculture. 


It is probable, however, that efficient farms, whether operated by individual 
families or by hired managers and workers, must become bigger than they 
Iiave been in the past — bigger in acreage and numbers of livestock, or in yield 

' Speech at Des Moines, February 24, 1940. 


per acre and per mau, or both. The new techuology seems to make this inevi- 
table. Very large-scale methods and huge areas under single management may 
become essential for extensive crop production, especially vphen much of the 
work can be reduced to a routine, whereas family -operated farms of relatively 
small acreage may be most effective for intensive, less standardized agriculture. 
In either case, however, the amount of capital needed per worker must be 
greater than formerly. 

The constant pressure of agricultural supplies on demand Is, then, a further 
basic reason for the economic weakness of our farmers. Technological achieve- 
ments have made available a potential source of additional quantities of agri- 
cultural products that, in the absence of control, must flood the markets when- 
ever prices remain for any length of time on even a modestly attractive level. 

Yet, in the opinion of many authorities, farm mechanization is as yet only 
in its infancy. Unless tremendous outlets for farm commodities can be discov- 
ered, then millions of our farmers must leave the land or be subsidized by the 
Government or be doomed to chronic poverty. Even those who believe that 
we have far too many farmers must hesitate to advocate a wholesale shift of 
rural people to towns and cities, for that would merely result in still more 
outright unemployment. Perhaps the possibilities of cityward migi-ation will 
improve, but how soon and how rapidly no one knows. 


Finally, it is obvious that the extremes of rural distress are not to be ex- 
plained solely by market conditions, by the movement of farm prices and costs. 
After all, many of the poorest farm people produce very little for market. Behind 
their troubles lie broader social and physical factors. Almost a million farm 
families live on farms that are so small, or on lands so poor, that they cannot 
make a satisfactory living. In the Cotton Belt poverty is bred by the tenant 
and cropper systems, high birth rates, class cleavages, and racial prejudices. In. 
the Appalachian area, about 40 percent of the farms are less than 50 acres in 
size, and cultivation is generally restricted by the rough and sterile land. Here,, 
also, illiteracy and high birth rates make for poor living. But such impoverished 
fai-mers are by no means contined to the deep South and the southern highlands. 
There are also wretchedly poor farm people in the fertile Midwest, the dry wheat 
regions, the Southwest, the Lake States, Florida, and the Pacific Northwest. And 
some of the most abject people in the world live in the shadows of California's 
magnificent mountains and forests. 

Clearly, rural poverty is a danger not only to farm people but also to everyone 
in the Nation. We can appreciate what is at stake when we recall that the 
birth rate is highest in the very areas where rural living conditions are worst. 
According to O. E. Baker, 1,000 farm people will have 3 to 7 times as many- 
descendants a century hence as 1,000 people living in our large cities. Most 
Americans a hundi'ed years from now will be the offspring of the rural people 
of today. Here, surely, is the highest justification for a national policy designed 
to wipe out rural slums and raise the living levels of our farm families. Unles& 
the conditions that produce rural insecurity are attacked and overcome, not 
only will much of our present generation be condemned to lives of destitution; 
but also a large proportion of the Americans of the future will be reared against 
a background of material and spiritual poverty. The farm must be not only a 
place where cotton and wheat and corn are grown. It must also he a producer of 
men, of good citizens. 

It is the fashion nowadays to talk about menaces to democracy. Yet it is no 
idle rhetoric to say that the problems of farmers are of vital importance in the 
building of our citizenship and of our democratic institutions. For democracy 
means more than political formulas. It can live only if it is brought down to the 
earth of common men, giving them security and a vital part in the affairs of 
political and industrial government. The men with little or no hope of jobs 
in our cities, and the depressed and virtually unemployed men of our country- 
side — all are a menace to democracy. Our people — and we are speaking now of 
those who have caught some glimpses of the American dream, not merely of those 
who have been congenitally impoverished— will not always submit to the condi- 
tions from which they have been suffering. If they come to realize that the 


dream of a democracy which promises security and good living is but an idle 
phantasy, then they may well turn to other gospels — gospels that will destroy 
democratic ways of life even though they may not bring well-being. 


When Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Wallace entered office in 1933, American agricul- 
ture was prostrate. The first Agricultural Adjustment Adniinistration program 
was intended to inject new life into it. The Agricultural Adjustment Admin- 
istration thesis was that farm prices and incomes could be pushed up only if 
supplies were curtailed so as to meet a greatly reduced demand at home and 
abroad. Cotton, wheat, corn-hogs, and tobacco received most of the administra- 
tion's attention. Coercive penalty taxes forced the cotton and tobacco producers 
to comply with programs for the curtailment of production. Drought made 
such steps unnecessary for wheat and corn. Cooperating farmers were rewarded 
with benefit payments. These were financed out of processing taxes, the burden 
of which was mainly borne by consumers. Such measures, together with a 
severe drought, which drastically cut wheat and corn production in 1934, and 
industrial recovery pushed farmers' prices and incomes upward. 

Early in 1936 the Supreme Court outlawed the Agricultural Adjustment Admin- 
istration crop-reduction program. Congress adopted a soil-conservation act, which 
aimed at I'educing commercial crop acreage in a roundabout way. That is, farm- 
ers were paid to fight erosion by shifting land from the staple crops to soil- 
building crops, and also by adopting other conservation practices. Incidentally, 
the soil-conservation efl:orts of the New Deal have done much to save our land 
from further damage. Another drought in 1936 and continued industrial revival 
kept prices and many farm incomes relatively high. But in 1937 unusually good 
weather and more efficient farm techniques resulted in bumper crops. The 
cotton harvest of 19,000,000 bales was a record breaker. This and a recession 
in industry sent prices tumbling. Farmers demanded new help from the Gov- 


The result was that Congress passed the second adjustment act. This set up 
Mr. Wallace's ever-normal granary, which gives farmers loans and stores their 
surpluses in bumper-crop years. The intention is to release the stored crops in 
short years. Thus it is hoped to prevent disastrous price declines in times of 
high yield and consumer-gouging prices in seasons of crop failure. Soil-conserva- 
tion payments continue to be made to farmers who restrict production to specified 
acreages. When the surplus of a given crop threatens to become too large, 
farmers vote on compulsory marketing quotas. If their vote is favorable, the 
sales of all growers are limited. These quotas have been applied to cotton and 
tobacco in the past 3 years. Also the Government has made extensive loans to 
cotton, corn, and wheat farmers. As a result, it now holds more than 10,000,000 
bales of cotton and 456,000,000 bushels of corn. 

These Agricultural Adustment Administration programs have been aimed pri- 
marily at the commercial farmers — those whose fortunes depend upon price rela- 
tionships in the markets. Much less publicity has been given the Government's 
efforts in other but no less important fields. 


For one thing, the Farm Credit Administration provides farmers with both 
long-term and short-term credit at low interest rates. Hundreds of thousands of 
farm mortgages have been refinanced and so made more bearable for the debtors. 
Today the Farm Credit Administration holds 40 percent of the total mortgage 
debt, and private lenders feel that Government competition is driving them from 
the field. But to millions of farm ijeople whose homes were saved this has been 
the most important New Deal measure. 

Throughout our history, as Mr. Wallace has remarked, the Federal Government 
has been mainly concerned with the top third of our farmers. It is to the ever- 
lasting credit of the Roosevelt administration that it has turned the attention of 


Government at last to the widespread poverty of our less fortunate farmers and 
that it has taken steps to help them. During the depression 2,000,000 farm 
families received some form of relief. This brought home to economists, sociolo- 
gists, and public officials the extent and nature of rural poverty. They began to 
see that millions of farmers are little affected by the ups and downs of the great 
commercial markets. Their troubles are poor land, bad tenancy conditions, 
dwarf holdings, a vicious credit system, ignorance, and malnutrition. 


The Government has gradually built up an extensive, though still far from 
adequate program for aiding the low-income farmers. Through the Farm Secur- 
ity Administration more than 1,000,000 farm families have received small loans 
and grants that enable them to buy needed equipment— seed, fertilizer, clothing, 
and food— and so put them on their feet again. Along with the loans goes expert 
advice on farm management. The great majority of those aided have greatly 
improved their conditions. . . , ,.~, 

The Farm Security Administration is also experimenting with different types 
of farm organization, including complete agricultural cooperatives that break 
sharply with the traditional American concept of the independent family farm. 
Some help is being given to migrants by providing them witli camps. A tenant- 
purchase program is now enabling some 13,000 tenants and laborers to buy their 
own farms with the aid of long-time Government loans, and 9,000 more will be 
helped in the same way next year. , • -f ^fP^^f 

The Farm Security Administration has done much good work in its ettort 
to aid low-income farmers and tenants. The emphasis has been on subsistence 
farming in order to minimize the possibility that the rehabilitated farmers 
will add to the already excessive agricultural supplies. Nevertheless, the need 
for at least some cash obliges them to produce for the market to some extent. 
There is a danger that people on such subsistence farms will become part-time 
industrial workers in factories that have fled to small towns and are looking 
for docile, low-priced labor. In any case, subsistence farming tends toward 
a living standard that is rather low at best. 

Perhaps this cannot be helped so long as many more people are engaged 
in agriculture than are needed for commercial production at present levels 
of demand. And the excess farm population cannot now be used at good 
wages in industry, though an armaments boom can provide a partial remedy 
for a time. The long-run solution, as Mr. Wallace has suggested, may be to 
raise consumption of farm products by increasing the national income. Obvi- 
ously, the dilemma is one of our whole economy, not merely of agriculture. 


Urban relief is joined to farm relief by the Federal Surplus Commodities 
Corporation, which has bought billions of ix)unds of excess agricultural com- 
modities for distribution to millions of unemployed people in the towns and 
cities. The food-stamp plan is the latest and most popular phase of this pro- 
gram. Tlius, a start has been made to bridge the gap between farm surpluses 
and human wants. 

The expenditures for agricultural adjustment, conservation, and farm relief 
from 1932 to the end of the present fiscal year will reach a total of $7,000,000,000. 
(This includes loans by the Farm Security Administration, some of which will 
eventually be recovered.) And the outlays have tended to rise year by year. 


What of the results? Gross farm income almost doubled between 1932 and 
1937, going from $5,500,000,000 to $10,600,000,000. During the last 2 years it 
has hovered about the $10,000,000,000 mark. When allowance is made for 
changes in the prices of goods bought by farmers, we find that agricultural 
real income has risen throughout the Roosevelt administration. In the past 
3 years it has about equalled the levels of the late 1920's. Of course, the 
farm population is bigger than it was 10 years ago, which means that the real 



income per capita is somewliat smaller. Government payments to farmers 
have played an increasingly important role in tbis rise. But the net effect 
is the same — improvement in farm conditions. 

Various types of farmers and different agricultural regions did not share 
equally in these gains. The incomes of farmers who entered the Agricultural 
Adjustment Administration programs increased more than did the returns 
of those who stayed outside and took their chances on benefiting merely from 
increased prices. Highly organized fruit and truck fanners on the Pacific 
coast and elsewhere gained considerably from marketing agreements, as did 
dairymen in important urban milksheds. Other fruit, vegetable, and dairy 
farrners have had smaller benefits. 

In a broad sense, the whole agricultural policy of the New Deal appears 
to have been aimed at suspending the operation of natural forces on American 
agriculture. These forces, in general, have been tending to push people out 
of agriculture. It might well appear that the farmers who would go first 
are those who have failed in the competitive struggle, and that those remain- 
ing in agriculture are the more eflicient farmers. If this were true, then 
the New Deal's policy — by counteracting such a tendency — has retarded the 
rise of agricultural eflSciency. However, so long as nonfarming opportunities 
for rural people are meager, this would at least be a choice of the lesser of 
two evils. 

Moreover, the meaning of efficiency in agriculture — as in other fields — is by 
no means definite. Pecuniary criteria no doubt would demand the weeding-out 
of many family farmers. But, as we have observed in an earlier chapter, 
pecuniary efficiency is not necessarily consonant with the greatest social well- 
being. Many family farms may not produce goods so cheaply, on a doUars- 
and-cents basis, as do other types of farm enterprise. Yet they may be vastly 
more important to preserve if they can produce good citizens. The relationship 
between agi"icultural policy and the general welfare deserves more attention 
than has been given it. 


Inasmuch as the adjustment programs have dealt mainly with problems of 
commercial agriculture, their income contributions flowed primarily to the 
upper half of our farmers^ — that is, to the farmers who produce the great bulk 
of all agricultural products sent to market. Their situation has been greatly 
improved since 1932. Even in the period of general recession during 1937-38, 
governmental action tended to protect these farmers. And certain commercial 
producers, notably sugar growers, have been supported despite their relatively 
high production costs. They have been able to expand output at a time wiien 
other farmers have had to curtail acreage and production. 

Very large benefits, too, were paid to corporations interested in farming. 
Payments of $10,000 or more were made under 348 contracts in 1933, and 
564 in 1934. Some 94 producers in 1937, and 113 in 1938, each received over 
$10,000 as soil-consei-vatlon benefits. Most of these payments went to life 
insurance companies and banks that had become large owners of farms through 
mortgage foreclosures. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. alone was paid 
$257,095 for complying with the 1937 program. It may be that these large 
operators were not particularly in need of farm relief, yet their participation 
was necessary if the programs were to be made effective. Here again, com- 
plaint can be aimed less properly at the Agricultural Adjustment Administra- 
tion than at our economic organization. 

It is hardly surprising that such handouts to corporate farmers were sharply 
criticized, despite the fact that the great bulk of the Agricultural Adjustment 
Administration benefits went to family-operated farms. Congress responded 
in 1938 by prohibiting the payment of more than $10,000 to any one person or 
corporation. It is reported that few corporations have ceased to participate in 
the farm program because of this restriction. In some cases, however, it 
seems to place inequitable burdens on large agricultural enterprises. 

As a result of coercive Agricultural Adjustment Administration programs, 
some large, low-cost commercial farmers perhaps have been hampered in ex- 


panding. Many farmers, indeed, have found themselves coerced by economic 
weapons into modifying tlieir management so as to fit into a larger scheme. 
This may have been a severe loss to those who value their liberty as "free and 
independent" producers. But the cash compensations seem to have made most 
farmers willing to forego this liberty, or so the large majorities favoring the 
program under most Agricultural Adjustment Administration referenda would 
suggest. For cotton farmers, the impact of the Agricultural Adjustment Ad- 
ministration on their exports may yet prove to be decisive in their economic 
decline. But again, from the short-run point of view, these ixtteutial losses 
were offset by immediate gains. 



Many share-tenants, croppers, and farm laborers have benefited little from 
the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. Indeed, many have lost employ- 
ment and incomes as a direct result of crop curtailment. 

Reduction of crops under the adjustment programs meant that fewer man- 
hours were needed in their production. On an owner-operated farm, the 
general result was that the farmer and his family had more time available 
for other purposes without having their income reduced. But on tenant farms 
and on farms with hired workers, inequities in sharing the reductions in 
labor time and the benefit payments could easily arise. This was especially 
probable in the South, because of its sharp social cleavages and the complexi- 
ties of its landlord-tenant relationships. 

The need for labor on cotton farms and plantations has decreased in recent 
years, and this has popularly been attributed to the Agricultural Adjustment 
Administration. Studies sponsored by the Administration report that the early 
cotton programs had little responsibility for the disiilacement of tenants and 
sharecropix-rs, at least. On other hand, the Southern Tenant Farmers' Union 
asserts that the adjustment programs have been the primary influence in the 
removal of at least 500,000 tenant families from the hmd during the past decade. 
This estimate is perhaps exaggerated, but there is no denying the displacement 
of large numbers of farm tenants and laborers. And there is no doubt that many 
have been penalized by the adjustment schemes. Paul S. Taylor, an authority 
on migratory agricultural labor, reports that in 1934-35 the number of tractors in 
some of the'most productive parts of the Cotton Belt doubled, and that this was 
made possible in large measure by the paid to landlords by the Government. 
He points out : 

"The old system based on tenant and cropi^er families on small, family-sized 
farms is in process of profound transformation. In its place is appearing an 
industrialized form of agriculture employing wage laborers. * * * On the 
]and!-:cape are the marks of farms growing bigger and fewer, abandoned houses 
and rural depopulation, tenant farmers reduced to the status of wage labcn-ers 
thrown on relief and scattered to other districts. Landlords clash with their 
tenants over the crop-adjustment checks, though not openly or in organized 
fashion. The landlords force tenants off the place, then use the increased cash 
income resulting from the agricultural-adjustment programs * * * as pay- 
ments on tractor.^. * * *" 

Professor Taylor's study deals with the western Cotton Belt, which is likely 
to produce an increasing proportion of our total cotton output in the future. In 
the Old South it is probable that the displacement of tenants has been much less 

In justice to the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, we should note that 
it has long been common practice among landlords to shift their workers frcmi 
cropper to wage-labor status and back again, as the cotton production cost and 
price outlook have fluctuated. In general, and at given wage rates, a landlord 
finds it increasingly worthwhile to use wage-labor as the price of cotton rises. 
Agricultural Adjustment Administration acreage control, loans, and benefit pay- 
ments have tended to advance the price, and so have contributed to the shift from 
sharecroppers to wage-workers. Furthermore, many rural workers probably 
have preferred Work Projects Administration relief to laboring in the fields at 
Jow wages. 



A ereat deal of the displacement of tenants, croppers, and laborers has resulted 
not directly from Agricultural Adjustment Administration acreage curtailment 
but from mechanization. To be sure, technological changes in cotton cultivation 
have been accelerated by the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, not only 
to the extent that it has given cotton planters cash with which to buy machinery, 
but also because the substitution of machines for tenants and croppers enables 
the landlords to double their share of the Government subsidy. Thus a farm- 
machineiT dealer in the South can well say that the Agr cultural Adjustment 
Administration has been "God's gift to the tractor people." But it is probable 
that this would have taken place even if the adjustment programs had not 


The Adjustment Administration has also been criticized sharply for alleged 
unfairness in the distribution of benefit payments among landlords and tenants 
of the South Elsewhere in the country both landlord and tenant signed each con- 
tract and apparently there was little conflict over the division of benefits. 
Under the cotton plow-up in 1933, the Administration intended that its payments 
should be shared in accordance with the interests that landlord and tenant had 
in the crop. But in 1934-35 the payments were considered to be largely rent for 
land taken out of cultivation, and croppers and noumanaging share tenants were 
entitled to relatively little. Many landlords deducted old debts owed them by 
tenants from the tenants' share in the benefits. There is evidence, too, that 
unscrupulous landlords retained money that should have gone to their tenants 
On the other hand, many owners with cash- or share-tenants were dissatisfied 
with their part in the payments, and some refused to sign contracts for that 
reason The Agricultural Adjustment Administration was placed in a dilemma 
by these conflicts. But it felt obliged to secure maximum participation in the 
programs, and it is therefore not surprising that it made concessions to operating 
farm owners. 


True, the Administration has attempted to minimize such inequities by seek- 
ing to divide the reduction in acreage proportionately among landlords and 
tenants. Under the present program, soil-conservation and parity payments 
are distributed in the same proportion as crops are shared under the terms 
of the landlord-tenant agreements, except that payments for soil-building prac- 
tices are divided in accordance with the contribution of each party. Checks 
are made out separately to landlords, tenants, and sharecroppers. The act 
specifies that extra payments are to be made to persons who would otherwise 
receive only small amounts. And it obligates landlords not to reduce the 
number of their tenants below the average number on their farms during 
the three preceding years. The loop-hole is that the limitation applies "only 
if the county committee finds that the change or reduction is not justified 
and disapproves such change or reduction." 

According to a Missouri planter who has been seeking fairer treatment of 
croppers, this provision has lead to : 

"* * * a situation which exposes committeemen to constant and unceas- 
ing pressure and which inevitably leads to contradictory and confusing deci- 
sions. * * * It is not overstating the case very much to say that we have 
almost as many different tenancy or worker policies in cotton control as 
there are counties and county committees. * * * What liappens after a 
landlord decides upon a change? He goes to the committee and thereupon 
the three harrassed men who are trying to run a complicated cotton program 
find themselves in an impossible position. They know very well that since 
1933, other owners have shifted to (l:iy labor and are getting all the payments. 
Why, therefore, should they discriminate against this late-comer? * * * 
They get very little credit if tliey stand firm and try to run a good program. 
On the other hand, determined and oftentimes greedy men give them hell 
if they disapprove the change. With this situation, the result can be foreseen. 


More ami more shifts occur. More and more sharecroppers become a part 
of the floating and dispossessed army tliat is a constantly growing threat to 
the stability of the South. * * * But the planters who do not choose to 
go to the day-labor route may still be unwilling to be outsmarted by those 
who do. So they may elect other effective means to divert the cropper's 
payments into their own pockets, among which are what sometimes are called 
bonus rents, privilege rents, and side assignment arrangements. Whatever 
these arrangements are called, they constitute a means of taking the payments 
that Congress intended to go to the tenant and sharecropper." 

As indicated above, the present adjustment laws are not so lacking in 
safeguards for tenants as was the original act. Yet, they are still plentifully 
supplied with loop-holes by which the landowner may, if he wishes, profit at 
the tenant's expense. According to a newspaperman, Charles Edmundson — 

"Among some high officials of the Department of Agriculture itself, there 
is indignation that no greater protection has been offered to tenants and share- 
croppers * * * Agricultural Adjustment Administration officials tend to 
blame Congress for the faults of the law. Congressmen say, with dubious 
authority, that the provisions are working satisfactory in communities where 
the tenants and sharecroppers have a political voice. But representatives of 
the sharecroppers reply that the administration is to blame for not having 
brought pressure on Congress to write a law that would protect the share- 

Relatively larger gains to the landlord group have apparently not been 
peculiar to the South. A study of the distribution of the Agricultural Adjust- 
ment Administration benefits in the Corn Belt led Walter W. Wilcox to the 
following conclusion : 

'It may safely be concluded that landlords as a group have benefited more 
from the Agricultural Adjustment Administration * * * than have ten- 
ants. The same conclusion might also be applied to large farmers as com- 
pared with small farmers. * * * Nevertheless, in spite of unequal 
benefits * * * almost all Iowa farmers find it profitable to be in the Agricid- 
tural Adjustment Administration program this year, as in 1939."