Mr. VESTAL. That is, the territory taken in by that district board? Mr. IVES. No; I would not say so.

Mr. VESTAL. You don't think it would be advisable to have smaller districts, where the soldier would come in contact with persons in the community that knew him before he went into the service?

Mr. IVES. Oh, you mean substations, as it were?

Mr. VESTAL. Yes, sir.

Mr. IVES. But all centralized in the New York office? We practically have those now.

Mr. VESTAL. How large a district does the New York office take in? Mr. IVES. It takes in Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey. Mr. VESTAL. You think that one office in New York, the central office, is able to take care of the people from that district?

Mr. IVES. Yes;. 75 per cent of that population is within 50 miles of the central office.

Mr. VESTAL. I would like to ask some more questions, but I will not?

Mr. ROBSION. Were you in the Spanish-American War?

Mr. IVES. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBSION. What rank did you hold there?

Mr. IVES. Sergeant of marines.

Mr. ROBSION. How long were you in the World War? Mr. Ives. From the 12th day of April, 1917. Mr. ROBSION. Were you injured in either war? Mr. Ives. No; not in either of those wars. I was injured in the Cavalry in 1883, Troop B of the Sixth Cavalry.

Mr. ROBSION. There is some evidence adduced here tending to show that the soldiers to some extent have been exploited in New York by turning them over to certain business concerns. Do you know anything about that?

Mr. IVES. Yes; I have a friend who got quite chummy with my family and used to come over there every Saturday and he told me I asked him, "John, what are you taking?" "Oh," he says, "I am taking tailoring. I put down for cutter and fitter, and I have been there for three months, and I have been there for three months and I haven't learned anything." I said, "Where are you?" He said, "I am such-and-such a place. There is no instructor down there." Well, I hunted that case up, I looked it up and I went to the man and I said, "How many Federal Board men are there down there?" He said, "I don't know. I will find out." He found out, and there were 35 Federal Board men there in placement training. We are paying the men $80 a month subsistence, allowed to learn the tailoring trade, and they are making contract Government overcoats, and the man has no pay roll. That is the situation. I took him out of there. I took him out of there two days after that.

Mr. ROBSION. What is the name of that concern?

Mr. IVES. Greenburg.

Mr. ROBSION. In what part of New York is it?

Mr. IVES. I could not give you the address.

Mr. ROBSION. Now, you say that this Greenburg's firm, tailoring concern, had 35 of the disabled soldiers, vocational board men, there? Mr. IVES. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBSION. And did the Government pay this fellow Greenburg anything for training the soldiers?

Mr. IVES. Not that I know of; no, sir.

Mr. ROBSION. You say that he did not have any pay roll. What do you mean by that?

Mr. IVES. I mean that he didn't have to pay anything for those 35 men. He got pretty cheap labor to work on contract overcoats without any instructor, and the men were learning nothing that they could not go out into the open market and get $20 a week to do.

Mr. ROBSION. Well, have the other men been taken out of there? Mr. IVES. I don't know how the situation stands at all now, but the fact that the man had no instructor was what rather put me to looking it up.

Mr. ROBSION. I understood that the Government was paying this man Greenburg $30 a month for instruction for each soldier there. Have you any information on that subject?

Mr. IVES. No; I have not. I did not know that.

Mr. ROBSION. Well, you are still with the board?
Mr. IVES. I am.

Mr. ROBSION. Now, did you give this information to the New York Evening Post?

Mr. IVES. I did not know Mr. Littledale nor any man on the Evening Post until long after the articles came out.

Mr. ROBSION. You are here at the request of this committee to give your testimony?

Mr. IVES. I had a note from Mr. Littledale about it, and I said to my wife "That must be that man-that Spanish War veteran, that wanted a committee meeting."

Mr. ROBSION. Well, you are here at the request of the committee, are you?

Mr. IVES. Yes, sir; only.

Mr. ROBSION. Have you any interest in this matter in any wayI mean for or against anybody.

Mr. IVES. Absolutely no personal element enters into it at all. All I desire to see is that the boys get what Congress intended that they should get.

Mr. ROBSION. And you have no prejudice for or against anyone connected with the work?

Mr. IVES. None. All I want to see is that the boys get what is coming to them.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ives, before you are excused, did you know a man by the name of Whitney, one of the advisers?

Mr. IVES. I remember the name, but I would not know him if I saw him.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you know a man by the name of Ward?
Mr. IVES. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you know a man by the name of Wertz? Mr. IVES. No. I was aw y frm the New York office so many mo ths that there was quite a change in the personnel.

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM NOYES, LEONIA, N. J.

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.)

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Noyes, give your full name and present address to the stenographer.

Mr. NOYES. William Noves, Leonia, N. J.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Towner will examine you in chief, Mr. Noves.

Mr. TOWNER. What is your present occupation, Mr. Noyes? Mr. NOYES. I am connected with the Federal Board, Division of Rehabilitation, New York office.

Mr. TOWNER. How long have you been connected with the work of the board?

Mr. NOYES. I was one of the first to be employed in August, 1918. Mr. TOWNER. What is your present work?

Mr. NOYES. In the Federal board office I am in the training department.

Mr. TOWNER. Have you been in the training department ever since you have been with the board?

Mr. NOYES. For the first six weeks that I was with the board I was in the Washington office, the local Washington office before it was moved to Baltimore. Then my work was primarily that of advisor.

Mr. TOWNER. What was your occupation before you took service with the board?

Mr. NOYES. I was director of industrial education in the city of Duluth two years; previous to that I was assistant professor at the Teachers' College, Columbia University.

Mr. TOWNER. During your service with the board you have served with all of the men who have been superintendent of that office, have you?

Mr. NOYES. The New York office; yes, sir.

Mr. TOWNER. Who was the first superintendent with whom you served?

Mr. NOYES. Mr. Griffin.

Mr. TOWNER. And who was the one that succeeded him?

Mr. NOYES. There was a little period of two weeks when Mr. Lamkin was there, and then Mr. Farwell, and then Mr. Clark.

Mr. TOWNER. From your service under these superintendents what can you say as to the efficiency, the effectiveness, of their work as superintendents?

Mr. NOYES. The New York office, it seems to me, has been peculiarly unfortunate in not having men of executive type at the head of the office.

Mr. TOWNER. Your observation is that all of these superintendents have been lacking in executive ability?

Mr. NOYES. Some in one way; some in another.

Mr. TOWNER. Well, what about their executive ability?

Mr. NOYES. Well, making a sweeping statement, as I look at it, the position might be comparable to that of a college president. Here are 4,500 men at present in training in the New York office, men getting every type of training and education almost that it is within the resources of those three States to provide. That means not only for successful management a very wide amount of information about technical matters, educational matters, but also of fine administrative ability. From the very start it seems to me that the New York office has been lacking in that administrative ability.

Mr. TOWNER. What can you say as to the attitude of these superintendents toward the soldiers themselves? Has it been sympathetic, apathetic, or antagonistic?

Mr. NOYES. It has been sympathetic so far as concerned individuals. That is to say, when any particular individual case came to the eye and ear of the district vocational officer, the machinery of the whole office was bent to carry through that particular case. But what was lacking was such association and definition of function on the part of the officers and the functions of the board, that the whole movement could go on smoothly.

Mr. TOWNER. It has been lacking, then, in unity of purpose?
Mr. NOYES. Decidedly so.

Mr. TOWNER. Your judgment is that that defect is attributable to lack of vision or of administrative ability on the part of the superintendent?

Mr. NOYES. Partly.

Mr. TowNER. During the period of your service, what has been your personal relations with the heads of these departments?

Mr. NOYES. Entirely cordial.

Mr. TOWNER. Have you any feeling of antagonism against any of them at this time?

Mr. NOYES. Not the slightest.

Mr. TOWNER. Have you had any cause to have that sort of feeling? Mr. NOYES. Well, I went to New York with Mr. Griffin and two others to open that office. I had then the position of supervisor of advisement and training. Through some reason which I never understood, someone else was put into my place and I was made subordinate. That man is no longer in the New York office. His administration was so unsatisfactory that he had to be removed. Naturally, I had a little feeling that that was not a wise step on the part of the office, displacing me.

Mr. TOWNER. Have you, yourself, ever made any suggestions as to the improvement of the work in the New York office to the superintendent?

Mr. NOYES. I have with me three or four letters that I wrote to an officer of the central office with regard to it.

Mr. TOWNER. I asked you first as to whether or not you had taken the matter up with the superintendents themselves. I was coming after that to the question of the board.

Mr. NOYES. So far as it was possible. Mr. Griffin was a very unapproachable man from the point of view of suggestions or criticisms. He never consulted with anyone in the office; he never had conferences, never took the advice, or correction, or ideas of anyone in the office; consequently it was a very difficult matter to approach him with any suggestions as to the administration of the office. Mr. TOWNER. Did you ever make any effort to do so?

Mr. NOYES. Indeed, I did.

Mr. TOWNER. Did you make an effort to approach any of the other superintendents with whom you served?

Mr. NOYES. Mr. Farwell-during Mr. Farwell's régime, my functions were very largely in the field in follow-up work throughout the states of Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey, and i had very little to call me into direct relation to Mr. Farwell. Through the two months or so that Mr. Clark has been in the office, I have several

times made suggestions to him, which have been received in a very cordial and pleasant way.

Mr. TOWNER. Has any action been taken on your suggestions? Mr. NOYES. So far as I could see, my suggestions-you mean with Mr. Clark?

Mr. TOWNER. Yes.

Mr. NOYES. In several cases, yes. He has asked me to write memorandums to him about questions of internal administration. Mr. TOWNER. Well, still I don't think you have answered whether or not they have acted upon your suggestions.

Mr. NOYES. Well, as remember it, the questions were matters largely of formal relationship, and they, as it were, came into the pot. We have been going through a very complex and confused period of late, many aspects of which-many portions of which-Mr. Clark himself was not at all responsible for, and naturally I had my dealings with my immediate superior, the supervisor of training. He and I are in constant conference about these matters, so that the things that I have had to suggest have been largely through my immediate superiors.

Mr. TOWNER. What I had in mind more particularly, Mr. Noyes, was as to the policy of the office in a general way.

Mr. NOYES. I think I can answer that best by recurring to the situation as it was in its earlier days there. The great difficulty was that there was no policy; there was no plan; everything was discordant and it was the most difficult thing to get any sort of common agreement as to procedure. Again and again the individuals in the office, the other officers and myself would have conferences by ourselves and say, "How can we get this through and how can we get that through?" We were unable to get it through because we never could get a conference with the head of the office. We even resorted to all sorts of subterfuge by inviting the head of the office to dinner, to see if we could not get things discussed there, but when dinner came he never proposed any changes or raised these questions. We had to force them.

Mr. KING. Was that Mr. Griffin?

Mr. NOYES. That is Mr. Griffin, yes. Consequently my efforts along that line proved rather futile, to try to get procedure settled. Mr. TOWNER. What efforts, if any, did you make with the central office here in Washington with regard to change of policy?

Mr. NOYES. I wrote four or five letters, personal letters to an officer in this board, stating what thought were the chief difficulties in the New York office; what the causes of our failures were-failures that were entirely apparent to every one in the office; we were not doing our work, functioning as we should have functioned, and these letters I have copies of them here

Mr. TOWNER (interposing). What was the result of your appeal to the Central Board?

Mr. NOYES. Nothing.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no objections, we would like to have those letters, both to the board in New York there and here submitted for the record.

Mr. TOWNER. You may hand those letters that you referred to as having sent to the board here in Washington to the reporter to be made a part of your testimony.

4661-20-vOL 1-46