The CHAIRMAN. From your personal information you can not say whether he could speak as to the effectiveness of the office?

Mr. CLARK. I can not conceive how he can speak fully in regard to the effectiveness of the office unless he has been in the office and all over the office, and understands things from every point of view by actually seeing these things or doing these things or talking with the men who do do these things.

The CHAIRMAN. Would a man have to be all through the office and watch every department of it in order to effectively criticize the work of the office?

Mr. CLARK. Absolutely so. It is perfectly preposterous to think otherwise. That is a complicated machine there which you can not maintain very much smaller than it is.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know Mr. McGovern ?

Mr. CLARK. I never heard of him until I happened to read some testimony in the office.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know Mr. Griffin?

Mr. CLARK. I met Mr. Griffin the day I came with Mr. Lamkin in the New York office, and saw him the next day for a moment or two, but never saw him since. I do not think Mr. Farwell met him except casually.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not know him?

Mr. CLARK. I do not know him.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know Mr. Meyer?

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Meyer is a member of the staff in New York, that is, at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. Does he know the office sufficiently to speak fully of its effectiveness?

Mr. CLARK. I would like to have you ask that question of every staff officer in the New York office, and I would be tremendously interested to get their reply.

be

The CHAIRMAN. I take it from that that your answer would not

Mr. CLARK. No; Mr. Meyer is very capable, very much interested in the disabled soldiers, and a man who has a good many admirable qualities, but I have asked for his transfer for reasons that are to my mind very good and sufficient.

The CHAIRMAN. He is one of the members you have in mind then? Mr. CLARK. He is absolutely one and that is a matter of record, and there are recommendations from every supervisor to that effect. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know Mr. Ives?

Mr. CLARK. I know Mr. Ives. He is on the same list.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know Mr. Noves?

Mr. CLARK. I know Mr. Noyes and respect him tremendously. He is an extremely fine man, and while I agree with Mr. Noyes in the office, and we in the office like Mr. Noyes, and he is devoted to his work, Mr. Noyes is a very fine man of a totally different type.

The CHAIRMAN. There has been a suggestion from various sources outside of those who have come directly in contact with the work of the board, both from the standpoint of the officer and from the standpoint of the disabled man, to the effect that it would be well to centralize the rehabilitation and the War Risk Insurance and the Public Health Service, and place it under one Cabinet officer. Have you anything to say about that?

Mr. CLARK. Naturally, that has been brought to my attention from time to time lately. I do not know whether I can stay with the board, even if the board wants me for very long. I believe I am an unprejudiced witness. I am tremendously interested in the work of the disabled soldier, and I say, for goodness' sake, don't swap horses crossing the stream, because the effective machinery for vocational education for the disabled soldier is set up, and you can carry the job to completion.

The CHAIRMAN. There is another matter I would like to have you give your opinion on. I think you stated that you need more men, and you indicated the growing limits or, rather, the extension in the proportions of your office. It has been suggested that the district is too large and ought to be divided up into subdistricts.

Mr. CLARK. Yes. That suggestion has been made to me, not from the outside, but has been made to me from the chief. I was asked to consider that when I was in Washington before I was acting D. V. O. Mr. Farwell has considered that. It is a problem that we have considered for some time, whether or not the branch offices-we have a number of branch offices, you understand-should be made placement centers where an adviser for training the men in the larger centers should also be in the office, so that you would have the overhead, and whether or not that will be the solution, that is being done right now. Whether that will be the solution and the best solution is a question. I am inclined to think that it will be.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand your opinion is that the work now is organized to be effective and that it should not be disturbed except to be extended. May I ask how long you think the work will be going?

Mr. CLARK. I think that within the next 90 days we can get practically all of the men into training.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you answered that before.

Mr. CLARK. Except the sporadic cases. It is simply a question of supervision. There will be and there must be cases of men stringing along that we have not gotten into contact with. These cases will be stringing along for some months to come and will not represent anything like the bulk of the cases that confront us now. Then it is a question of how many years these men should go, some being less trained than others.

The CHAIRMAN. In the opening of your statement, in reply to an interruption that I made, you intimated that all of the witnesses that had appeared in the statements that had been made had been more or less unfriendly or antagonistic. You understand that all the witnesses that have been examined or subpoenaed are those to be heard on the various charges that have been made, and as quickly as that side of the case is at an end, then others will be invited. It has been suggested by letter names of persons to be called here, but we are not calling anybody at this state until all who are asked to come have testified on these various complaints that have been made. I make that statement to explain that there is no prosecution.

Mr. CLARK. I quite understand that and quite fully believe it, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. But just to have all the facts.

Mr. CLARK. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will have a session to-morrow at 10 o'clock, and then the committee will adjourn its work until Friday a week in order to get all the hearings and have an opportunity to look over the testimony and give the board whatever chance that it will give them to get their matter in shape. We will take up the board's testimony immediately following the to-morrow's session.

Then, if after the board and the persons who are requested to appear have testified it may be well to take a short recess to call anyone else or to recall any if the committee wants anyone to come back. I make this statement for the record and for the newspaper people so that the public will understand what we are doing. The desire is to get all the facts and take the time to look into every angle of the work, make such recommendations if the committee finds the facts to warrant it, so that the investigation will be complete and thorough, altogether with one idea to make this service the best that is possible.

The committee is adjourned.

(Thereupon, at 5.30 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned at the call of the chair and was called to meet again at 10 o'clock a. m., Thursday, April 15, 1920.)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Thursday, April 15, 1920.

The committee this day met, Hon. Simeon D. Fess (chairman) presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN JACOB ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

(The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.)

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rogers, you may give your name and your present address.

Mr. ROGERS. John Jacob Rogers, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rogers, it has been suggested that you have some information that would be of value to the committee, and if it is your wish, we will allow you to make such statement as you desire to make.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am very glad to have an opportunity of coming before the committee this morning because I have during the last eight or nine months given a great deal of attention to the Federal Board for Vocational Education and have, to my mind, established conclusively that the board has not been functioning up to the standard that we, and the country, have the right to expect.

The chairman of the committee is also a member of the Committee on Rules and will recall that just about six months ago, on October 9, I appeared before the Committee on Rules in support of a resolution which I had introduced asking for the appointment of a select committee for the investigation of this Federal board. It was not, apparently deemed wise, for some reason, at that time, to have the investigation, and I am very glad, indeed, that this committee has decided to take a step which I believe to be of paramount importance to the discharged soldiers.

I feel some embarrassment in coming before the committee at this stage of the hearings because I am well aware that the gentlemen on the committee have been hearing for a good many weeks f.om unimpeachable sources the story of the Federal board. I suspect, therefore, that the knowledge of the members of the committee far outruns my own knowledge.

There are a few circumstances and facts which I should like to bring to the attention of the committee in a very general way, and I want to do that, if you please, by pinning the facts and the conclusions.

to one particular case which came to me quite recently. I assume that we have all had a great many cases upon which we could not get action, but this case has struck me as.one of the most inexplicable which has come to my notice. It is written by a mother in the city of Methuen, Mass., Mrs. Daniel F. Barry. Mrs. Barry says she is no scholar, and perhaps, she is in part correct, but she makes a very clear statement of what I feel to be an extraordinary case. This is dated January 16, 1920.

DEAR SIR: I have a wounded soldier here who was promised vocational training just one year ago to-day. He has been to Boston 11 different times for examinations, and it seems he is as far from training now as he was when he was in the hospital in France.

I may say parenthetically that Methuen is about 30 miles from Boston, and probably the time in transit would be something like an hour each way each time.

He has not worked one day since September 26th, after a hemorrhage from the lung disorders. He takes these hemorrhages at times. Dr. Ricardo Nestre, of 51 Cornhill St., Boston, Mass., U. S. P. H. Service, told him he must keep quiet and not exert himself, etc., last Nov. 13. Well, my son was in the U. S. Army for 24 years and was wounded by a piece of shrapnel going down through his shoulder and into his lung, and it is still there. But he (God bless him) can't make these people believe he is wounded or there is anything the matter with him. Dr. Burgess, of Methuen or Lawrence, took an X ray of it. He took it to Boston with him. We all saw the X ray. Dr. Burgess still has the X ray. The piece of metal could plainly be seen, but it don't seem to impress these Boston people that he has anything at all the matter with him. He was in Boston yesterday again, but as far away as ever from vocational training. Of course, you can see I am no scholar, but I am keeping my son when I do think they might give him a chance. My son gets $3 a month compensation from the State. Yes; $3 big dollars. Well, I am imploring of you to do something for him. The Red Cross here in Methuen is doing all she can, but it seems just the same old stall all the time. In Boston they told my son they would start him to school January 1st sure. But instead they send for him to Boston again for examination. My son, John Richard Barry, was wounded in France at Chateau-Thierry. Why they don't want to help him is a mystery to me. I am almost sick over this, but I thought I would ask your help in the matter. Every time he goes to Boston we think it is a final for him to start to school. Well, I don't know what to say. I am the one who is the sufferer as well as him. Now, why they don't help him I don't know. I expect they will want to operate on him so they won't give him vocational training. Well, the fine doctors in France would not take a chance, if there was any chance. They are the ones who would take it. But these Boston people will not do anything for him.

Now, the $3 ain't much, but he has not got December yet-just imagine. Well, I feel terrible over this, and that is putting it pretty mild. I gave my sons (two) with all my heart. I little thought he would be used like they are using him. He is 22 and an old man; can't play ball or do anything of the games he used to do.

Well, now I ask your help in this matter. Please, please do something. You can, I am sure. Well, God bless you and help him. I feel you will. The soldier's name is 1/c Private John Richard Barry, Company L, 103d Reg. Inf., 26th Div. mother.

Respectfully, yours,

I am his

Mrs. BARRY,

7 Craven St., Methuen, Mass.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask, Mr. Rogers, what success you have had with that case?

Mr. ROGERS. That is exactly what I desired to call attention to. This letter is dated January 16, 1920, and I will remind the committee that it states that vocational education had been applied for exactly one year before, namely, January 16, 1919. The boy had been wounded at Chateau-Thierry in the summer of 1918. We received that letter two days after its date, on January 18, 1920.