Mr. LIND. Under the Federal act they have been authorized to give a man training who has not received compensation. The Federal act says so, and there were lectures given on it.

Mr. ROBSION. You tell the committee that you can not pursue or follow your usual work before you entered the service, because of this injury you received in the service. Is that true?

Mr. LIND. Yes; because my former employers refused to take me back.

Mr. ROBSION. Have you tried the experiment to close your right ear and see if you could hear anything at all?

Mr. LIND. I have tried it before the doctors and it does not work. I can not now, sir.

Mr. ROBSION. You can not hear anything with the left?

Mr. LIND. The doctors that examined me can vouch for it.

Mr. ROBSION. How is your health otherwise? You spoke about nervousness?

Mr. LIND. I am nervous.

Mr. ROBSION. It is due to your injury in the service?

Mr. LIND. It is not only due to the injury, but I had several operations while I was in the service.

Mr. ROBSION. Were they other than for the ear?

Mr. LIND. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBSION. What are the others.

Mr. LIND. Hemorrhoids, appendix, and tonsilitis, and other sickness while I was in the service.

Mr. ROBSION. Were you in several engagements?

Mr. LIND. I was in at least three or four or five.

Mr. ROBSION. You spoke about the shell which passed near your

head?

Mr. LIND. It did not burst very far away.

Mr. ROBSION. Did the doctor tell you that it caused this injury to your ear?

Mr. LIND. Their examination proved it did.

Mr. ROBSION. Were you rendered unconscious at the time or knocked down?

Mr. LIND. I was stunned; not rendered unconscious.

Mr. ROBSION. How long were you in the hospital?

Mr. LIND. I was in the hospital from September up to the time I was sent back until I landed back here.

Mr. ROBSION. You feel that the board should have advised you sooner that you could not get training under section 2?

Mr. LIND. I do not agree with you, sir.

Mr. REED. When you went into the office, the first man whom you met was the man with whom you registered?

Mr. LIND. Yes, sir.

Mr. REED. Was he kind and considerate and took an interest in you at all?

Mr. LIND. No, sir; that he did not.

Mr. REED. What did he do that way?

Mr. LIND. He told me to stand in line, take your time, get in line, and take your turn. I did not think that was courteous.

Mr. REED. That is what we are getting at. Who was the next person you saw?

Mr. LIND. I waited there until I saw the one ahead of me registered and then when I registered I asked him what I should do in regards to filing my claim for vocational training.

Mr. REED. Was he personally interested then or did he treat you the same way as the other fellows?

Mr. LIND. They did not treat me any too civil, sir.

Mr. REED. In what way?

Mr. LIND. About the same as I mentioned before. They said sit down; we will take care of you later.

Mr. REED. Were these men you interviewed officers, as far as you know?

Mr. LIND. I could not say whether they were officers or not, sir. Mr. REED. I understood you to say that you did not know that you had the right to appeal?

Mr. LIND. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. REED. Of course, this hearing is had upon specific charges that have been made that call for this hearing. Your charges are practically charges of inexcusable delay and a number of cases are cited and they cite your case here. Mr. Littledale presented these charges before the committee and makes this statement here: "Mr. Lind appealed from this ruling of the board and his appeal was not allowed." Did you tell Mr. Littledale that?

Mr. LIND. told him, a representative that came to me, Mr. Browning, and I saw Mr. Farwell; that is, if I should do anything in regard to making an appeal, and I was not given any advice about it. Mr. REED. You did appeal it?

Mr. LIND. I appealed it through my own efforts without their advice. Nobody told me about it.

Mr. REED. Where did you say that you learned you had the right to appeal?

Mr. LIND. I learned it from men that were disabled.

Mr. REED. You did not get the advice from the Federal board?
Mr. LIND. No, sir; I did not. No advice was given to me.

The CHAIRMAN. Before we excuse you, Mr. Lind, you stated that you were ordered to stand in line. Were there very many in the

room?

Mr. LIND. There were 15 or 20 ahead of me.

The CHAIRMAN. Anyone without legs or arms?
Mr. LIND. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Or anyone that you could see was seriously physically disabled that would have to take a good deal of time? Mr. LIND. Probably there were some. I went up to the desk and was told to go back there and get in line with the rest of them. Probably there were men ahead of me.

The CHAIRMAN. If there were 15 or 20 to be examined ahead of you, that would necessitate a considerable time, would it not? That might account for the four or five hours you had to wait in the office. That would be reasonable, would it not?

Mr. LIND. The way I look at it, these men had been there before and came in to find out about their training. Others probably came in the same as I did the first time.

The CHAIRMAN. We realize here in Washington that if we go to see somebody we have to stand in line and wait our turn. It is a source of a lot of fretfulness, but we have to stand it.

We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Lind. f you will report to the clerk, he will see that you have your transportation expenses. Let me say to the committee that we have one witness here who left a very ill wife and wants to return and I think the committee ought to hear him.

Mr. DONOVAN. Then let us hear him.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a little out of order. It is not on some of the charges here.

Mr. BRAND. How long will it take him?

The CHAIRMAN. I think not very long.

STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES H. WINSLOW.

The CHAIRMAN. Give your full name to the stenographer.

Mr. WINSLOW. Charles H. Winslow.

The CHAIRMAN. You were once connected with the work of the Federal board, were you not?

Mr. WINSLOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. When did you first become identified with the work of the board ?

Mr. WINSLOw. On August 11, 1917.

The CHAIRMAN. What had been your experience in vocational training before, just briefly !

Mr. WINSLOW. I have been interested in vocational training for many, many years, 20 years, probably, as a member of the Commission on Industrial Education of the State of Massachusetts, 1906, 1907, and 1908. I was a member of the Federal Commission for Federal Aid for Vocational Education, of which the chairman is a member, in 1914. During the intervals I have made many studies of industries for the purposes of vocational education in the schools, and studying schemes of training under the Massachusetts commission, in England, Ireland, France, Belgium, and Holland.

The CHAIRMAN. When did you discontinue your relationship with

the board ?

Mr. WINSLOW. September 30, 1919.

The CHAIRMAN. What was your particular work at that time?
Mr. WINSLOW. Chief of the division of research.

The CHAIRMAN. You discontinued by submitting your resignation? Mr. WINSLOW. Yes, sir; simply submitting resignation to take effect on September 30.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you care to state why you discontinued your work?

Mr. WINSLOW. I will, but I would like to say prior to that that the record seems to give the impression that I had written a letter of resignation which is in part in here or in whole, I think. That is an error in the record. This material here is the result of an interview by the correspondent of the Boston Transcript and is not my resignation.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you refer to the page of the record?

Mr. WINSLOW. Page 22.

The CHAIRMAN. Page 22 of the hearings of March 13?

Mr. WINSLOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. This was given in connection with Mr. Littledale's testimony.

Mr. WINSLOW. So it seems.

Mr. KING. What hearings were these?

Would you

The CHAIRMAN. Hearings before this committee. Would

state again, Mr. Winslow, what this letter printed here was?

Mr. WINSLOW. This is the result of an interview by the correspondent of the Boston Transcript.

The CHAIRMAN. You did not give this letter then to Mr. Littledale?

Mr. WINSLOW. No, sir; do not know Mr. Littledale, never saw him. Mr. BRAND. You know him now, do you not?

Mr. WINSLOW. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you proceed to state now why you disconnected yourself from the board?

Mr. WINSLOW. Early in the life of the board, and it must be understood that personally all of my dealings were with the director. The director submitted to me a very rough outline of the relation between administration and research.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that Dr. Prosser?

Mr. WINSLOW. Yes, sir. I made a copy of his rough draft which looks something like this [indicating]. Beginning with a small group of men, it increased to 1926, with a large number of men and women. My understanding from that was that I was to go forward with the selection from the civil-service channels, of course, of a staff to carry on the work of research for the board. I think I said to Mr. Prosser the day that he left that we have gone far afield from the original scheme as submitted by him. His answer to that was we have not changed. I said we have if you have not, because we understood, at least, that the research was to be done in the research division, but we have had research work being done outside of the research division. We have had documents prepared of which the research division knew nothing. The policy was so everchanging, so impossible to keep up with, that I determined it was better for me to get out.

The CHAIRMAN. There was some research work that was not falling under your direction?

Mr. WINSLOW. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Did that mean that there was duplication? Mr. WINSLOW. I would not say that there was duplication of material, but I should say that it was carrying research work into another field.

The CHAIRMAN. How broad was your research work? What did it include?

Mr. WINSLOW. Well, sir, we started out to make studies for the purposes of the States giving information concerning buildings and equipment and the policies of the board with reference to agriculture and home economics and evening schools and that sort of thing.

The CHAIRMAN. Your research work in that case was in reference to vocational educational work rather than rehabilitation, was it? Mr. WINSLOw. Yes, sir; we went forward with that work.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you to do anything in research touching on rehabilitation?

Mr. WINSLOW. Yes, sir; in July the director asked me to submit to him an outline of the policy to be pursued in research with reference to vocational reeducation, which I did. That is included in this chart [indicating].

The CHAIRMAN. What year was that?

Mr. WINSLOW. 1918. That is shown in this chart here. I was authorized to go forward and organize a research division to include research work with reference to vocational reeducation. We have done some of that prior to that. We had issued some two or three documents prior to that with reference to vocational reeducation. The CHAIRMAN. Was there any lack of funds for the use of the Vocational Board to carry on the particular work you were doing? Mr. WINSLOW. I do not know, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Prosser did not offer that?

Mr. WINSLOW. As an excuse, you mean?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. WINSLOW. No; I do not think he ever offered that as an excuse, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The dissatisfaction that led you to withdraw from the work of the board was that there was a lack of cooperation between your work and the work of the director?

Mr. WINSLOW. I think that there was a deviation from the original policy. For example, in April, 1918, we projected 24 bulletins on safety and hygiene. Probably you remember that?

The CHAIRMAN. I do.

Mr. WINSLOW. It was stated we were going to prepare some 24 bulletins on safety and hygiene for the use of schools in vocational education. I think we had prepared when I left the board two or three and others were in process. The determination of the board to reduce research work, of course, meant that the men who were engaged in that work immediately went out to find positions eleswhere. I think about December, 1918, I was informed that Dr. Snedden was undertaking the preparation of a group of monograms with a committee from New York City. My first intimation was, the first intimation I had of it was through the chief of Division of Rehabilitation of Vocational Education. Then Dr. Chandler then that work was carried on in New York City and they became joint monographs prepared over in New York City and published by the board. As chief of the Division of Research I had nothing to do with them except prepare them for the printer.

The CHAIRMAN. As the chief of the Division of Research you felt that you ought to have had at least the direction of that sort of work if it is going on outside of the capital here.

Mr. WINSLOW. I naturally understood, sir, that all of the research work would come through me. I expected it.

The CHAIRMAN. Reverting to this published statement in the hearing, you have read that?

Mr. WINSLOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it accurate as it was given by you in that interview?

Mr. WINSLOW. Well, I would not pretend to say that it was accurate. It was so long since I was interviewed, and I never saw the copy until this morning of the interview.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any information that we were going to have an investigation here until you received my telegram?

Mr. WINSLOW. Why, I think along about October 6 or 8 I received a letter from Representative Rogers saying that he had introduced the inclosed bill and wanted to know if I was interested in it. I did not answer that letter. I was not interested in it.

The CHAIRMAN. Why didn't you?

Mr. WINSLOW. That was my first intimation that the investigation was contemplated. The next information came by telegram, well, it seems to me it must have been two weeks ago, saying, "your presence needed before the Committee on Education now investigating the Federal Board for Vocational Education. Signed by Mr. Littledale." I did not know who Mr. Littledate was, because I had not been reading the New York papers except the New York Times two or three days a week perhaps, and I immediately answered the telegram