The CHAIRMAN. What is the length of time a person should be apprenticed at carpentry before he can turn out as a carpenter? Mr. HOLDER. They ordinarily ask for two years' apprenticeship. A man who is a fine joiner would require a longer period to perfect himself in that. The CHAIRMAN. I am speaking of the ordinary carpenter. Mr. HOLDER. The apprenticeship in that is two years. The CHAIRMAN. But you do not propose to keep any of these men in training for over a year to make carpenters of them? Mr. HOLDER. No. A man would naturally have some previous experience at that trade before he would be recommended. And on page 56 of the same document Mr. Holder says: There is one feature I should call to your attention. First, the fact that this is a hurry-up job. We do not want it to linger. We believe we are trying to follow out your desires by trying to hasten it. In this matter of training I should like to mention that there is a man with 100 per cent heart trouble who is the wireless operator on a ship at sea. He is the only operator on that ship. The lives of all are in his hands. And he has 100 per cent heart trouble. We charge that 10 per cent of the men who begin training discontinue training. For proof we point to the printed hearing on the second deficiency appropriation bill, held January 17, 1920. The testimony there is: The CHAIRMAN. Do many of them discontinue their trairing before the prescribed courses are finished? Mr. LAMKIN. Approximately 10 per cent of them. The actual figures are: Entered upon training.. In training Jan. 17, 1920. . Discontinued training.. 26, 967 24, 563 2, 404 Those figures are supplied by the board and will not be disputed. We charge that 30 per cent of the men approved for training throw up their chances of training. For proof we offer the statement of Uel W. Lamkin made on January 17, and to be found on page 964 in the printed hearings on the second deficiency bill, 1920. There he says: Our figures show that about 30 per cent of the men have not yet accepted after they have been notified. We charge that more than 13,000 disabled soldiers approved for training were not in training on January 17 last. For proof we offer these figures supplied by the board and undisputed: Total approved for training. Men in training..... Approved but not in training. 37,575 24,563 13.012 We charge that in district No. 2, the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut district, for every man in training there is another approved but not in training. For proof we offer these figures supplied by the board and undisputed: Approved but not in training.... 3,041 3, 199 In that district out of a total registration of 31,000 only 3,100 were in training on January 17 and only 43 had been trained and placed. We charge the eligibility squad with throwing out cases wholesale. The squad began work in December. At that time the board was snowed under with pending cases. The figures supplied by the board and undisputed are: Total registration.. Reduced by eligibility squad to. 209,000 129, 912 That squad was composed of laymen. It had no medical member. It did not work in the presence of a medical man, but it ignored medical testimony. It changed medical classifications. It overruled medical decisions. The purpose of that squad was to "reduce the load," and it reduced the load. The total of 209,000 was reduced to 129,912. It came down, among other reasons, because where the medical classification was a major case entitled to training with pay the eligibility squad changed the classification to "negligible handicap" and refused the men training with pay. For proof we cite the following cases to be found in the files of the New York office: The Case 670. The man has fallen arches. The medical decision is that the disability was aggravated in the service. Three doctors classify him as a major case. eligibility squad overrules that classification. The squad gives him a negligible handicap and refuses him training with pay. Case 31192. The man's occupation is a clerk. He was wounded and is suffering from epilepsy. Medical opinion classifies him as a major case. The eligibility squad overrules that. The squad calls him a minor case and refuses him training with pay. Case 27675. The man is suffering from dementia precox. Medical opinion classifies him as a major case. The eligibility squad overrules that, calls him a minor case, and refuses him training with pay. We charge that the eligibility squad marked all mental cases as insane. All mental cases were labeled "Pickle 90 days." That meant nothing was to be done for three months. But often the men had incipient tuberculosis as well. Lack of immediate attention aggravated the disease. For proof we offer from the files of the New York office: Case 15020. In the folder the man is put down "mental." But that man has tuberculosis. The eligibility squad classified him as mental. It marked his case "Pickle 90 days," which means do nothing for three months. Case 3047. The man's discharge paper says he is suffering from epilepsy. That no doubt is true. The eligibility squad marks him "Mental: pickle 90 days." That man was wounded and gassed. He has bronchitis. He needs treatment, but the eligibility squad has hidden his case away in the office files for three months. The eligibility squad did not see these men. That squad sat down without medical help, in front of a pile of folders. In district No. 1, at Boston, they reduced the total from 10,568 to 7,255; in district No. 2, at New York, they reduced it from 31,191 to 16,041; in district No. 3, at Philadelphia, they reduced it from 15,573 to 9,871; in district No. 4, at Baltimore, they reduced it from 18,356 to 16,384; in district No. 5, at Atlanta, they reduced it from 24,497 to 12,136; in district No. 6, at New Orleans, they reduced it from 10,104 to 5,806; in district No. 7, at Cincinnati, they reduced it fom 21,506 to 13,690; in district No. 8, at Chicago, they reduced it from 30,400 to 20,348; in district No. 9, at St. Louis, they reduced it from 19,375 to 11,654; in district No. 10, at Minneapolis, they reduced it from 12,328 to 7,951; in district No. 11, at Denver, unavailable; in district No. 12, at San Francisco, they reduced it from 9,207 to 5,590; in district No. 13, at Seattle, they reduced it from 5,955 to 4,388; in district No. 14, at Dallas, unavailable. The total of 209,000 for the whole country was reduced to 129,912. These figures are supplied by the board and are undisputed. We charge that after 19 months nearly 80,000 disabled men (75) per cent of the total eligible for training) were waiting for the board to act. For proof we offer the figures of the board and an official letter from the Chief of Rehabilitation. The total that fell from the sieve of the eligibility squad was 129,912. There are now in the hospitals another 20,000 disabled men. That is Mr. Munroe's own statement to be found on page 966 of the printed hearing on the second deficiency appropriation bill under date of January 17, 1920. So the total comes to 149,912. If the disabled men are given the benefit of the doubt, certainly 110,000 will be eligible for training. On January 17 only 24,000 were in training. Thus, 78,000 men were waiting for training. The letter of Mr. Lamkin is dated February 10, 1920. It is marked "Instructions No. 90." It is addressed to all district vocational offices. Paragraph 2 reads: 2. The re ults of the eligibility audit show that the pending cases in the district offices are numerous. The final figures show that etween 40 and 50 per cent of the active cases in the district offices are still unsettled. The disabled men are entitled to know whether or not they are eligible for section 11 training, and central office must know the training load in order that the necessary preparations may be made and the necessary start provided. That was written 20 months after the organization of the division, 15 months after the armistice. It shows that the division was still organizing. It shows that from 40 to 50 per cent of the cases in the district offices were unsettled. It shows that the board does not know how many men it will have to train. It shows that the board has not the staff necessary to train men. We charge that there is no follow-up. The fact that to follow up a man taking a commercial course, in Buffalo, for instance, an employee would have to be sent to Buffalo from the office in New York. As the district comprises three large States follow-up is impracticable when that sort of thing has to be done. But if money is not to be wasted and training is to be made real, follow-up is necessary. Some of these courses cost $50 a month. If the man does not attend his classes that money is lost. In factories follow-up work alone can prevent the exploitation of these men. In the city of Washington a married man is drawing $115 a month from the Government. That same man is supposed to be attending a commercial school which is getting $30 a month from the Government. The school is reporting "Attendance poor; progress slow. Actually the man goes there twice a month to get his check. He is working daily in his father's shop. He is depriving some deserving man of training. The board's indifference to follow-up is to blame. We charge that these disabled ailing men are begrudged sick leave. For proof we point to paragraph 4 of a letter dated January 23, 1920, written by Uel W. Lamkin, Chief of Rehabilitation, to all District vocational officers. That paragraph reads: 4. So many extensions of sick leave beyond the 30-day period are being made by the district offices and so many requests for extensions are coming forward to central office, that it will be necessary to rescind the authority granted under the provisions of Misc. 150 rev., unless the district offices greatly reduce the number of extensions recommended and granted. We charge that the board has failed to see the human problem involved in this work. The men have been approached with mimeograph letters having rubber-stamp signatures, whereas personal contact is necessary. We have several of these form letters and against them we ask you to call J. W. Lyons and other members of the Elks' war committee who will tell you how in some cases they have made as many as 19 personal visits to win over men to rehabilitation. For further proof we point to the letter of Uel W. Lamkin, dated February 10, 1920, marked "Instructions No. 90" and addressed to all district vocational officers. Paragraph 7 concludes: Central office case board representatives are directed, however, not to interview disabled men. They are to pass on the actual evidence, which is in the man's folder. This system of paper work is useless. These men are something more than cases in a folder. We submit the following form letter sent to a man seven months after he had applied for training. It shows how little the case has progressed after all that time. It shows to what extent the burden of proof is thrown upon the men: Mr. JOSEPH FURPHY, FEDERAL BOARD FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, East Newark, N. J. DIVISION OF REHABILITATION, DISTRICT VOCATIONAL Office, DEAR SIR: After carefully considering the facts as you gave them to one of our representatives in talking with him about vocational education, under the Government plan for men disabled in military service, the board is undecided if the facts are as reported, as to whether you can be awarded the training which we understand you desire under the terms of the vocational act. Whether or not the disability still exists, it is not clear that it is likely to prove a permanent handicap in your former work. It may be that the facts we have do not fully reflect your condition at this time. If you have tried to work, the result of this work, its effect upon you, the pay you are able to earn as compared to other men, etc., may clear up the situation. On the back of this letter you can give us this definite information, including the name of your employer. Now, this is all important for you, and in order that full justice may be done you, you should fully report to us just what has happened. If you have lately had to consult a doctor, you should give us a report from him. What we want to know, for your own sake, is what effect your disability has upon your chances in industry. You might say whether your employer has had to favor you in any way because of it. If, on the other hand, you have tried work of any kind, please tell us in just what way you are convinced that the injury will permanently handicap you for your work, and just as in the other case, if you have had to consult the doctor recently, send us a report from him. Even though you are not permanently handicapped, you may have certain rights to training which are largely determined by compensation, so please advise us if you have been granted compensation. Assuring you of our utmost interest in your case in exact accordance with the terms of the vocational act, we are, Very truly, yours, S. E. BARWELL, District Vocational Officer. P. S.-If compensation has been granted you, please forward original copy from War Risk Insurance, so that we may make two certified copies and return the original immediately to you. We charge that these men have been reduced to penury because of the board's delays. For proof we point to the Elks' fund. Although there were only 24,000 men in training on January 17, the Elks' fund had been called upon in 20,000 separate instances. In this connection we quote from a letter written on February 2, 1920, by Uel W. Lamkin and addressed to all district vocational officers: The Elks' fund, as you have been advised heretofore, is to be used in making loans in the nature of advancements to cover the monthly allowances due to the men in training, but not received. On account of the great demand on this fund, it was deemed advisable to supplement it, and this is accomplished by Red Cross fund W-Z-36. The Red Cross, the Knights of Columbus, and the charity organizations if called upon can give further proof on this charge. We charge that the board has adopted an attitude of hostility toward the disabled soldier. An adviser in the New York office was asked: But don't you understand the psychology of the soldier? He replied: No, thank God, and I hope that we never shall. That same man said: It is the crime of the century the way some men try to get an education out of the Government. Sometimes a man who has only lost a thumb or a couple of fingers will try to get the Government to educate him through the board. We have the man's name. Our witness is Mrs. Janet L. Jacobs. Mr. BLANTON. Right there, can you give us his name? That is what we want to know. Mr. LITTLEDALE. The witness will give them. Mr. SEARS. We want the facts from you. Mr. LITTLEDALE. She has got the name, sir. I would prefer that you get it from her. Mr. BLANTON. Is she here? Mr. LITTLEDALE. No, sir. Mr. SEARS. Do you know his name? Mr. BLANTON. I ask that you give his name. Mr. SEARS. Mr. Chairman, that was published in the newspaper, and I think we have a right to ask him to give the name. Mr. Littledale published that under his signature. Mr. DONOVAN. Mr. Chairman, the thought that occurred to me was whether we had the right to subpoena witnesses here, and if we have not-and not having the right to date-if Mr. Littledale has that information I think it might be well for him to give it if he wants to, and if not, see that later he supplies the witness. Mr. SEARS. Do you think it is fair to make a charge without giving the name, if you have the name? Mr. DONOVAN. No: I think under the circumstances that is a point I am making: I think he in justice to the board should do that. Mr. SEARS. And in justice to us and to himself. The CHAIRMAN. Without instructions from Congress this committee could not subpoena any one; the people who are here are here voluntarily. If it be necessary we will seek the authority to subpoena witnesses, and if the witness declines to give the name, I would not feel like pressing it. |