Mr. MEYER. I have found it so at the New York office.

Mr. TOWNER. (ive us some instances.

Mr. MEYER. I took that up with Mr. Lamkin some time ago, what proof was necessary, what proof would be accepted as to the man's disability, and received a reply outlining this proposition that the best proof of the man's inability to carry on in his former vocation was a letter from the responsible employer to that effect and a statement from the doctor. We have numbers of cases where we so inform the applicant. That is the best proof, and the applicant in numbers of cases provides that proof, bringing a certificate from his own doctor, bringing a certificate from the responsible employer so far as the responsibility can be placed upon the employer, and also backing both of them by an affidavit. With that evidence before the board, which is considered and have been informed was the best evidence, the man is still refused section 2 training.

Mr. TOWNER. That, of course, would be a clear violation of the duty of the board. I can not imagine upon what justification that would rest. What justification was given for it?

Mr. MEYER. The failure to visualize, the lack of ability to really bring what the man's work consisted of: the failure of the man in handling their cases to have the industrial and mechanical experience to comprehend the man's former vocation.

Mr. REED. I just want to press this point a little bit. I do not know Mr. Clark at all to whom you refer, but wherein is Mr. Clark lacking? I am asking this question to try to get at the type of man that is there at the head of the organization there in New York in order to create the right morale and the right spirit. Wherein is he deficient?

Mr. MEYER. I might speak from the viewpoint of an employment manager on the work given authority to employ a man to fill that position. I would say first, mainly, he lacks executive ability or he lacks steadfastness, lacks definiteness.

Mr. REED. Are there any other points that you can mention?

Mr. MEYER. No. As I say, I am not in a position to criticize and would not make any hypercritical criticism of Mr. Clark. Personally, my connections with Mr. Clark have not been at all unfriendly. Mr. REED. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. REED. Has Mr. Clark been sympathetic as far as you observed in his treatment of the soldiers and their problems?

Mr. MEYER. Broadly, yes: definitely, no. Now, I might explain why I say that. We have the greatest problem. This board has the greatest problem of the Government before it and with the Bureau of War Risk Insurance and the Federal Board naturally the problem is mostly cases which develop and it has developed that thousands of men had been taken into the service who were morons, of the mental age of 12 and 13; thousands of men through their experience have their mental status unsettled. Those are very, very difficult cases to handle. Our system of the office was that our psychiatrist would examine a man and mark him, "training not feasible." The case then would, under the system in vogue, be marked "M-90 days." That was a mental case, put on the case book in the files for 90 days, and after 90 days they would take that case out again and see if the man was recovering sufficiently to take up training. In going over

the matter, I found that was a particular hardship and to my mind. in a way brutal because we were taking the man, turning him over from the position, possibly, he may have had only anywhere from 10 to 20 per cent of compensation from the Bureau of War Risk Insurance and were letting that man float around for 90 days and nothing was done with him. Having that in view, I took up with the central office at one of my visits here to Mr. Lamkin, and I believe I took it up with Mr. Holder, Mr. McDill, and Mr. Norris (?) for ways and means to cure that.

I suggested that we form a special board to consist of one or two medical men, a medical man from the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, a medical man from the United States Public Health Service, and a Vocational man, to handle these mental cases, make a particular study of the mental cases, and decide at one joint meeting having a case before them just exactly what was to be done with that case. If the case was not fitted for training for that position it was possible in that joint meeting to consider whether a mental case was suitable for training, because of his mental condition, and to determine if on that account he was totally disabled and definitely, and then in that case he became definitely a ward of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, and that at such a meeting they could then turn the man directly over to the Bureau of War Risk, saying, doubtless, "This man is not a Federal board case because training is not feasible; his mental condition is such that he is totally disabled. He is your case and we leave him with you." The Bureau of War Risk can have him taken care of there. Such a committee was formed and with the cases they handled it worked out very successfully. It was only formed recently. Now, due to the stress of work, I understand that the Bureau of War Risk Insurance is only able to hold those meetings once a week. Getting down to definite cases, I speak of a meeting that was held last Wednesday, and on Thursday afternoon I had two cases ready for that committee to act on. Both of these men stated to me that they did not have-as they expressed it, "We haven't got a nickel. We do not really know where to go or what to do." Mr. REED. You are referring to the soldiers?

Mr. MEYER. Yes, sir. They said, "We have not a nickel and don't know where to go." My thought was this: Those two men had the Federal board rating for a foundation, ready to be put into training, but they were not entitled to training. My thought was that they were entitled to a definite answer that afternoon from the Federal board as to what we were going to. do with them. If because of some lack of machinery which we could not control we could not give them that definite answer, it was up to the Federal board to support those men and take care of them until we could give them that definite answer, which would be the next Wednesday. With that thought in mind took the matter up with Mr. Clark, and said I thought that we should give these men board and lodging orders until at least the following Wednesday. The first day I took it up with Mr. Leahy, assistant D. V. O., and he referred me to Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark stated that he could not do it. He said, "I can not issue meal and lodging request tickets for several days." I thought then that was not a proper, or at least a definitely sympathetic, view of the situation.

Mr. REED. So far as you know, did he have power under the law to issue them?

Mr. MEYER. We had the power to issue meal requests. When we bring men out there from out of town and hold them over the noon hour, and when we bring men from out of town it is cheaper to hold them overnight than to give them their railroad fare back home and in the next day. We do issue them board and lodging requests.

Mr. REED. You spoke about the duplication of medical examinations and the elimination of that as desirable. Now, as a matter of fact, when the physicians examine at the war risk, they really make a finding of fact, do they not?

Mr. MEYER. They make a finding of fact; yes.

Mr. REED. Then these physicians at the organization in New York make another finding of fact?

Mr. MEYER. They make another finding of fact; yes.

Mr. REED. In other words, it is like trying a case with two juries to get a finding of fact?

Mr. MEYER. Exactly.

Mr. REED. Your idea is to eliminate one of these trials?

Mr. MEYER. Yes; eliminate one and save thereby, as I can see, spending the money and also saving the temper of the men and hastening a decision.

Mr. ROBSION. Were you examined by the civil service? Did you take the civil-service examination?

Mr. MEYER. Was I examined?

Mr. ROBSION. Yes.

Mr. MEYER. That was simply by mail. There was no personal examination.

Mr. ROBSION. What were your ratings; for what office or for what position?

Mr. MEYER. I do not remember. I had two or three ratings.

Mr. ROBSION. I happen to have a letter from the commission that you were rated as a placement officer and also as district vocational officer?

Mr. MEYER. Yes. As I say, I do not remember what they were. Mr. ROBSION. Now, has Mr. Clark, who has charge of the office up there in New York, a civil-service status?

Mr. MEYER. I am not prepared to say. I am not aware of that.
Mr. ROBSION. What is your information on the subject?
Mr. MEYER. My information is from hearsay, that he is not.
Mr. ROBSION. When did Mr. Clark take charge of the office?

Mr. MEYER. If my memory serves me right, in the early part of this year.

Mr. ROBSION. What training, if you know, did Mr. Clark have for a position of that sort?

Mr. MEYER. I understand that during the war he was in the Red Cross work in France, the Y. M. C. A. work, and previous to that he was in welfare work among young men. I gather that from conversations I have had with him.

Mr. ROBSION. Was he, so far as your information goes, or has he had any experience in vocational training or rehabilitation work? Mr. MEYER. No; not to my knowledge."

Mr. ROBSION. In your opinion was he a man qualified to take charge of the great New York office for that district without such experience?

Mr. MEYER. In vocational training?

Mr. ROBSION. Vocational training and rehabilitation work?

Mr. MEYER. Yes, sir; but for the reason that we have no men practically in the United States, previous to this Federal Board of Vocational Education, beginning a foundation, that really we had no experience in training of matured disabled men. It is a new problem. The Government took a new problem. There is one thing we must realize in this work and that is this: That there was, to my mind, an entirely new institution in the country that was fitted to take up the rehabilitation work of these disabled men where all of the technical schools, the trade schools, and other training institutions and facilities were organized to take in the trades, to take in the young men who had just left the school who had had a fair education but was seeking some theoretical and technical training at one of the trade schools, that to be followed by one or two years of practical experience in a shop or in an organization, in a definite branch, and then to become journeymen workers to take employment as skilled workers.

We took and gave to those schools matured men, the majority of them lacking in this educational basis and lacking in higher training not because they did not have it originally, but because they had been away from it anywhere from 5 to 10 years, and we said, here, take these men for 1 or 2 years or 3 years, or in from 5 to 10 years, and in time make them skilled mechanics. Now, we did that without having and giving proper cooperation and having the force to give the proper cooperation to see that that was done and to guide them in their work. It was a hard job to find men who were capable of doing that.

Mr. ROBSION. In view of the fact that a very great majority of the men were over school age when they entered the service, you felt that this was not a school problem?

Mr. MEYER. It was not a school problem.

Mr. ROBSION. And for the other reason that the very great majority of the men could only fit into industrial plants and industrial life and not into a mere school for education.

Mr. MEYER. I wish, personally, all the men were fitted into the industrial life, but they are still running in that ratio.

Mr. ROBSION. What do you know about the "hard-boiled" order that was spoken of previously, personally?

Mr. MEYER. Personally?

Mr. ROBSION. Or by information or what you heard people say of it in the New York office, the person in charge?

Mr. MEYER. There was a general discussion of the order throughout the office, I will say, after the information became public through the Evening Post article; the order reached the personnel of the office generally.

Mr. ROBSION. Did you hear anyone say that he had written that order?

Mr. MEYER. No; I had not heard. I heard the order discussed by all the men that were in the office, from the central office men. Mr. ROBSION. Who were they?

Mr. MEYER. Mr. Collier and Mr. Brigham.

Mr. ROBSION. They were paid from the central office here in Washington?

Mr. MEYER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBSION. Did you hear them discuss that in the New York office?

Mr. MEYER. Yes.

Mr. ROBSION. What did they say about it? Which one of them wrote it?

Mr. MEYER. From what I grasped of the conversation, Mr. Brigham was responsible for that order issuing.

Mr. ROBSION. Where is Mr. Brigham now?

Mr. MEYER. I do not know. I understand he is still in the Washington office.

Mr. ROBSION. You understand he is still in the Washington office! Mr. MEYER. Yes; as far as my knowledge goes. I am not familiar with the personnel of the Washington office.

Mr. ROBSION. Will you tell the committee what Mr. Brigham or Mr. Collier said about the "hard-boiled" order in their discussion, so far as you can now remember? Of course, you can not remember each word.

Mr. MEYER. I got very little of the direct conversation except the statement of Mr. Brigham that some one said the issuance of the order was chargeable to him.

Mr. ROBSION. Did he explain or did you gather from the conversation there why he had issued the "hard-boiled" order?

Mr. MEYER. No: I did not.

Mr. ROBSION. What is your opinion on that sort of an order? Mr. MEYER. My opinion is that it was uncalled for and unwise proposition and unjustified and that the proceeding was hard-boiled enough without a special order.

Mr. ROBSION. Do you say that the procedure in the board was hard enough without this especial hard-boiled order?

Mr. MEYER. Yes. I do not think that that hard-boiled order, the so-called hard-boiled order, had any particular effect on the central office representatives to whom I understand it was addressed. Figuring, as I say, I did not find any particular change in going over it. I found cases which had been handled previous to their receiving the order, if the date of receiving the order was such the public was informed it was and their action after receiving the order.

Mr. ROBSION. Would you mind telling the committee that from your examination of the cases passed upon by the Washington office that the idea expressed in this subsequent hard-boiled order had been followed?

Mr. MEYER. When you speak of the Washington office I am not in a position to state, speaking now of the central office representatives, representatives sent to the New York office, representing the Washington office, that part of the Washington personnel.

Mr. ROBSION. In other words, the hard-boiled order merely crystallized the procedure that had been employed by the representatives of the Washington office that had been sent to the New York office in dealing with the cases of the men?

Mr. MEYER. To my mind; yes.