ary, 1919. Previous to that time, for a matter of two months and a half, we had been given certain liberties under what were known as sections 301 and 302. I will have to refresh my memory on that. It is section 320 of the Revised Code which was issued on December 12, when we had been given the privilege, and it was a privilege, of putting men into training under certain conditions before submitting the case to the central office. If you desire, I will read that section.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we would like to know first whether there was delay.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Tremendous delay.

The CHAIRMAN. We understand there was.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Consequently, whether it was necessary, whether it was inevitable, or whether it was unnecessary, if you have any statement to make pertaining to the law we will be glad to have it.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Very good. I have. I have read concerning the rehabilitation legislation that has been taken up with various countries at great length, and I have come to the conclusion that the Smith-Sears bill was the most altruistic and most beneficent act of legislation that has been passed by any of the countries engaged in the war.

The CHAIRMAN. In what way do you mean most altruistic?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Altruistic in the benefits that are conferred upon the large percentage of the men that were disabled. That is, it was broader than the laws of Canada, for instance, in that it took in men with disability of 10 per cent. In Canada they were very much more drastic. They took a higher percentage.

The CHAIRMAN. In the first place, the breadth of our law would touch anyone who had been so disabled as not to be able to return to their former work, even if they wanted to take up some new work that they had not taken up before, and the law was not broad enough to do that and, consequently, the degree of disability was not so drastic in our measure as in the other.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That was the general opinion.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes. I have written some few notes on that subject here.

Its provisions were broad as applied to benefits accessible to exservice men who were disabled and gave to the administration of the act more freedom in carrying out a liberal policy than is customarily considered wise by Congress.

I think that is true. I think the liberality of the law in the administration of the law was very unusual.

More money per capita disabled has been appropriated for this work than in any other country in the world.

The CHAIRMAN. That is more important, if I have a correct view of it, more important in this way, that in Canada and other places much of the money had to go to the building of special institutions, while in our country we had many institutions that were utilized immediately, so that if you took all the money that would be represented by the soldiers' homes it would be very much greater, as I understand it, in other countries,

Mr. GRIFFIN. Very much greater; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Right there, Mr. Griffin, there has been a charge that has created a great deal of interest in the committee, and I would like to know all the facts about it-the undue proportion of money utilized for administration, the overhead work, rather than for the actual training?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That has been brought out and is before the committee. We would like to have your view on that. If you are not ready for that it will come up later.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I can give you that, I think, sir. I made some figures as related to the September expenses of the board, and I can bring it out at this time as well as later.

At that time the relation of the overhead administration expenses to the total expense was 40 per cent. I thought I had a paper on that. I do not appear to have it.

Mr. ToWNER (presiding). Proceed.

Mr. GRIFFIN. In answer to the question of Dr. Fess, the question in regard to the administration expenses as related to the entire expenditure of funds under this act from the September pay rolls and the general expenses for September of the board, it appears that their expense for administration was 40 per cent of the whole. I thought I had the figures here, but I apparently have mislaid them. I got that from the central office. In Mr. Munroe's last request for appropriation. I notice that the appropriation for administration was about at that same ratio, 40 per cent. I think it exceeded that slightly.

Mr. ToWNER, Just what is included in administration? include all field men?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOWNER. And the medical officers?

Does it

Mr. GRIFFIN. Medical officers, I understand, at the present time are paid by the Bureau of War Risk Insurance. That is just an impression, but it includes traveling expenses, office expenses, and salaries of all of the employees of the board.

Mr. TOWNER. I think probably the record should show, Mr. Griffin,. your connection with the board. In what way and at what time did you first become connected with the board?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I attended the classes that were in session here the latter part of October or the 1st of September; my recollection is not clear of the date, but it was around the 1st of September. Mr. TOWNER. Nineteen hundred and eighteen?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Nineteen hundred and eighteen; yes, sir. I was appointed as a special agent for the board on September 12 or 13 and assigned to New York. I went to New York on the 27th of September. I was appointed district vocational officer for that district, and I remained there until the 27th of July of the following year, 1919, when I was transferred to Washington.

Mr. TOWNER. How long did you remain with the board here in Washington?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I took my leave of absence in the latter part of July, 1919, and did not return to Washington until October 1 and resigned on October 10.

Mr. TOWNER. A short time ago you were in the midst of a statement, I think, which you had prepared.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOWNER. What was that statement?

Mr. GRIFFIN. It was in regard to the board in the days of the Smith-Sears Act and amendments to it.

Mr. TOWNER. You may finish that statement if you will
Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes.

The act covered a far lower percentage of disability than any other country. I think in that last statement the effective features of rehabilitation in this country were made stronger for that reason. No one is inclined to mourn the loss of liberal appropriations so much as squandering the futures of thousands of splendid young men, and instead of elevating 250,000 of the country's most potent material to a higher plane of citizenship we realize that by this failure there has been converted at least 175,000 men to emotions varying from disgust to bolshevism. The original act seemed broad enough, and in spite of the alleged difficulties of the board with the Bureau of War Risk Insurance it was broad enough to mete every situation save that of determining action in cases of negligible handicaps.

In support of that statement I referred to the addition to the code issued December 12, 1918, wherein we were authorized to place men in training before receiving central office approval and before the compensation of the men was determined by the Bureau of War Risk Insurance.

That has frequently been brought out as a factor that has withheld the board from meeting the situation promptly as regards the disabled men, putting them into training promptly.

Mr. TOWNER. Then, in your view that charge was largely unfounded in so far as the endeavor of the board was concerned. Mr. GRIFFIN. I do not quite get that.

. Mr. TOWNER. What I meant was this: Even without the expressed authority of the law, the board was endeavoring to put these men into training as soon as possible, were they?

Mr. GRIFFIN. They did for a time. It was changed later on.

Mr. TOWNER. Would that be a subject of just criticism for doing that?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I do not know as to the criticism whether they acted promptly in those cases. There was a situation there that demanded prompt action.

Mr. ToWNER. Yes. And the board was trying to meet that situation by taking prompt action, were they not?

Mr. GRIFFIN. They did for a time.

Mr. TOWNER. What was the reason of their stopping it?

Mr. GRIFFIN. The only information I had on the subject was that their appropriation was not sufficient to carry them through the fiscal year and they withdrew that order.

Mr. TOWNER. You may go on with your statement.

Mr. GRIFFIN. The act of July 11 passed to remove this alleged handicap had, in effect, the most depressing influence upon the program of the board. The salaries of employees affected by the bill while bearing an important restrictive influence to the general success of the work, was, after all, quite subordinate to the more in

comprehensible attitude of the administrators of the act who immediately set up a program which dammed up 90 per cent of the casesonly a small percentage, the major disabilities and the so-called Congressional cases, going over the spillway.

If my opinion may be expressed I would state that the Federal board realized about this time that it had a man-sized job, that it had made a serious mistake in the preparation of the budget, and it came to the common understanding, if not unanimous agreement, to make an appropriation of $14,000,000 do the work of $50,000,000 that should have been asked for by them.

Certain phases of this attitude were discussed within my hearing and I think this reaction is correct. Director C. A. Prosser resigned at this time. A policy of narrowing the opportunities for training-of demanding of the district office that minor handicaps be put in class III training; that temporary total disabilities be delayed for the obvious purpose of overcoming the disability without incurring expenditure of the board's slender resources.

This was the beginning of the hard-boiled era. I know this, because it was at this time that I was transferred from New York to Washington, and the Chief of Rehabilitation told me that the reason attributed for this transfer was that one less sympathetic toward the disabled men was demanded at that point; that I was entirely too sympathetic toward the disabled men.

I mention this personal matter as of no othr importance than to establish the fact that there was a distinct change in the policy at that time in regard to the disabled men.

From the latter part of July until October 1, 1919, I was on leave of absence. When I returned to Washington to take up my duties with the case board these policies were in full swing. I resigned on October 10, 1919, and have no first-hand knowledge of anything connected with the activities or policies of the board since that date. I want to make clear to the committee that, so far as the law is concerned, I think it had everything in it that could be desired, and that the fault lay in the administration of the law entirely.

Mr. TOWNER. There was one fault, if I understand your statement, that probably was a fault in the law, and that was there was not enough money to meet the situation. That was a fault in the law, was it not, Mr. Griffin?

Mr. GRIFFIN. The original appropriation was $2,000,000, I believe. Mr. TOWNER. Yes; and even the $14,000,000 that was finally appropriated. Of course you understand, Mr. Griffin, that we would have given more if we had been asked for it?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Exactly.

Mr. TOWNER. And finally we made an appropriation of $14,000,000, and we gave $6,000,000 more than was asked for.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOWNER. It had been the purpose of Congress, no matter what the cost of this work should be, to give whatever amount was necessary to not only carry it on but to carry it on with justice and liberality.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I have always thought that to be the case.

Mr. TOWNER. It was only because of the fact that we had to act upon the statements or judgments of others that if there was in

sufficient funds it was because we did not know that they were insufficient. I notice that you said that instead of having $14,000,000 that we ought to have had $50,000,000. Is that still your judgment

about the matter?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I think so; yes, sir, it is my judgment.

Mr. TOWNER. Would you say that it would require the appropriation of $50,000,000 each year?

Mr. GRIFFIN. In my judgment it would require something in that neighborhood for a period of perhaps three years.

Mr. TOWNER. In order to clear up the work, so that then there would be perhaps nothing left except the compensation and possibly some still who would be under training?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes; I think that probably the training will continue for a good many years. There will be recurring return disabilities of men who will break down and find they are not able to carry on and who will apply from time to time for the benefits to which they are entitled under the act.

Mr. TOWNER. Will you go on with your statement, Mr. Griffin? Mr. GRIFFIN. There is a letter addressed to the New York Evening Post by Mr. Munroe, of the Federal board, which states that the failure of the board's work was due to several different causes; first, that no American precedents in rehabilitation work existed prior to the Federal board's experiment: second, that Congress

Mr. ToWNER (interposing). Will you care to comment on this as you go along?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I will take them up afterwards.

Mr. TOWNER. Very well.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Second, that Congress failed to pass the enabling act until we had been at war for 14 months; third, that admission to the hospitals was denied the board for 6 months after the passage of the act; fourth, that dual administration in the work by the Bureau of War Risk Insurance and the Federal Board for Vocational Education, imposed by Congress, operated adversely; fifth, that the Congress again failed because it did not appreciate the extent and essential needs of rehabilitation and failed to make adequate appropriations"; sixth, that Congress further hampered the work by refusing appropriations for adequate quarters; seventh, that "most of the schools and colleges in which training for the disabled men is so largely carried on did not reopen until late September or early October."

Mr. ToWNER. Is that the seventh?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. ToWNER. Will you please to refer to the number in the statement as you go along, so that we may more intelligibly follow your comments?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes.

First, that no American precedents in rehabilitation work existed prior to the Federal board's experiment. A very comprehensive rehabilitation work was begun in New York on September 1, 1917, by the American Red Cross Institute for Crippled and Disabled Men, led by a group of public-spirited, philanthropic men who had for many years given much of their time and resources to the reeducation of the disabled and crippled. Before the passage of the rehabili