functioning and that he would like an opportunity to see what could be done. Upon that statement the Rules Committee could not do anything less than to say "Go on and we will give you a chance." An investigation now would do inore harm than good. So that was dropped so far as the Rules Committee was concerned.

Mr. ROGERS. That was in the prior Congress I think, Mr. Chairman. That was during the Sixty-fifth Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. While that is true, the minority members of the Rules Committee joined with the majority and said "We won't ask for the investigation until Col. Lindsley has had a chance to show what he can do."

Do you know of any investigation of the War Risk Insurance Bureau that is on now?

Mr. ROGERS. I am not aware of any, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The Expenditures Committee in the Treasury Department has been conducting it for some weeks.

Mr. ROGERS. That I did not know.

The CHAIRMAN. A member of that committee who happens to be the chairman is a member of the Rules Committee and has reported to us that good results are coming from the investigation.

Do you know whether the War Risk Insurance Bureau follows the plan of having preferred cases and has someone in the bureau to look after the preferred cases that are inquired after by Congressmen?

Mr. ROGERS. I think there has been established what is known as a special service section in the War Risk Bureau, which is primarily intended for Senators and Congressmen.

The CHAIRMAN. The result of that is expeditious finding of the case? Mr. ROGERS. It seems to be the result in my experience.

The CHAIRMAN. I think my office has had the same experience that yours has in the recent months-probably I had better say weeks. We have had very quick results and very little to complain of after we presented the case to the bureau. Is that subject to criticism?

Mr. ROGERS. I think that opens quite an interesting line of inquiry, Mr. Chairman. I personally have a good deal of sympathy with the idea that the humblest citizen writing any branch of the Government ought to get preferred attention, and yet the policy in the departments of trying to help out Me nbers of Congress more promptly seems to be pretty well established. We are all familiar, ever since we came here probably, with the "pink slip" of the Bureau of Pensions, which means a congressional inquiry of some kind and is intended to mean, whether it always works out in that way or not, especially expeditious service. Whether it is right or wrong, it seems to be fairly well established as a part of the Government agencies.

The CHAIRMAN. I share with your view that if it is possible there ought not to be any preference given that would lead to the criticism that it takes a pull in order to get action. I think that is unfortunate; yet I can not bring myself to the place where I would ask that that be discontinued. I hardly think I would.

Mr. ROGERS. Of course, it is very easy to put ourselves in the position of the gentlemen in the departments, who know that if they do not attend to Members of Congress with extreme promptness there is likely to be a frightful to-do down here and very likely on the floor of the House. Of course, no department officer, no responsible officer, likes to find himself attacked in the press or on the floor

of Congress or in committee because a Member of Congress is complaining that he can not get prompt action. So from the point of view of the administrative officer confess that can see pretty good reasons why he has taken the steps that he often has taken.

Mr. ROBSION. Mr. Chairman, will you permit me to interrupt right there?

The CHAIRMAN. Ï yield.

Mr. ROBSION. I want to put it, Mr. Rogers, perhaps on a little higher ground. A request coming from a Member of Congress, who should be one of the important officers of the Government, should that not be given consideration and urgent consideration?

Mr. ROGERS. Of course, it should.

Mr. ROBSION. Always assuming that the Member of Congress would not ask a foolish thing to be done by one of the great departments here.

Mr. ROGERS. Perhaps that is true, and yet the mind recurs back to the inquiry, why the individual correspondent is not precisely as much in need of attention as the man who happens to be informed that he will do better to communicate through his Congressman?

The CHAIRMAN. I think, Mr. Rogers, that the delay is sufficiently repeated in your experience that your objection, while it could not be general, because there would be a great many cases that would be expeditiously adjusted; yet your objection would go to the lack of any reason for this 11 months' continuous delay in one single case, that if there is a single case of that sort, though other cases were cared for expeditiously, there is something wrong in the officer that permits that delay.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, I think you have stated it as it lies in my mind. At the same time I want to repeat that I brought here only one specific case to-day, only with the view of sparing the committee the repetition of individual instances with which I know they have been very freely furnished during these last weeks.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I meant to put it in that way, that there are a sufficient number of those cases that you would be justified in the charge that there is an unnecessary delay.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, and the conviction was forced upon me, not because I had any grudge or any grievance, but simply from the fact that in the late spring or early summer of last year found was not able to get the kind of service for the sorely afflicted that I thought they were entitled to receive. And so, as i say, without any animus whatever, as I watched it more and more, i became convinced that something was wrong, either in the system or in the administration of the system in the Federal Board for Vocational Education.

The CHAIRMAN. Now can you put your finger upon the cause? it the system or is it the administration of it?

Mr. ROGERS. I think it is both. I think that if the proposal that I make of enlarging section 2 and excluding section 3 training were adopted, it would almost automatically remove many of the difficulties of administration.

As nearly as I can learn, a great part of the delay has arisen from the fact that the Federal board and its officers have had great difficulty in determining whether a given case was a section 2 case or a section 3 case; whether there was a vocational handicap, in other words, or not. That is a question of fact as to which perfectly con

scientious and equally well-informed men might differ. Now if the only thing that you had to do, the only thing you had to establish, was that there was in fact a 10 per cent degree of disability, your problem would very largely disappear, because you would have to ascertain that one fact as the sole preliminary to proceeding to put the man in training, if he wanted it.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the committee is quite a unit on the source of complaint along the lines you have suggested. It has come from many angles, various persons appearing and testifying here.

The other suggestion that you make goes to the administration as well as to the system, which I am very much concerned about getting to the bottom of, to know whether that would be a wise thing to do. I have personally some fear in that the rehabilitation work must be cooperative in a large sense. We must use State institutions, unless we enter upon the plan of building Federal institutions for this work, which I think never would do. Being a vocational matter, having the necessity of large judgment in matters in which there must be some discretion, it is much more than mechanical: consequently I have some fear about the War Risk Insurance organization taking care of it.

Mr. ROGERS. I can see the force of that suggestion. I am frank to say, Mr. Chairman, to my mind it is overbalanced by the good which I believe would result in other directions.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Rogers. Mr. ROGERS. I very much appreciate this patient and abundant hearing which I have been afforded.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me say to the press that I have a wire that a member from the Philadelphia district wants to appear, and we are going to have a meeting to-morrow. I had intended to adjourn the meeting to-day until a week from to-morrow, but the committee will meet again at 10 o'clock to-morrow to hear this representative from Philadelphia.

Mr. LAMKIN. Who is it that is coming?

The CHAIRMAN. It is some disabled man. It is not a member of the office.

Mr. DALLINGER. Yes; it is. It is William Reid, of the Philadelphia office. They asked to have him come.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the person who is to appear is not a member of the office.

Mr. DALLINGER. I thought he was. Perhaps I misread the tele

gram.

(Whereupon, at 3.35 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned to meet at 10 o'clock a. m., Friday, April 16, 1920.)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Friday, April 16, 1920. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Simeon D. Fess (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Just before we closed the hearings yesterday a wire was handed to me stating that a Mr. Reid, of Philadelphia, would be a material witness for the committee on the matter we had before the committee. Mr. Reid was asked to come here and.is

present. Will you take the.witness stand, Mr. Reid?

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM REID, FEDERAL BOARD FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

(The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.)

The CHAIRMAN. Give the stenographer your full name and present address.

Mr. REID. William Reid, 1919 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pa.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Reid, what is your present occupation?

Mr. REID. I am vocational adviser, district No. 3.

The CHAIRMAN. Attached to what office?

Mr. REID. The district 3 office, at Philadelphia.

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you been there?

Mr. REID. I have been at the Philadelphia office since April 15, 1919. Previously I was attached to the district 4 office.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a year ago yesterday?

Mr. REID. A year ago yesterday.

The CHAIRMAN. What was your work before you went to that office? Mr. REID. Before I went with the Federal Board?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. REID. Prior to that I was in the service in the Army. In the Army I was doing personnel work, particularly trade test work. The CHAIRMAN. Were you overseas?

Mr. REID. No; I was not overseas.

The CHAIRMAN. How long had you been in the service?

Mr. REID. I had been in the service something over a year.

The CHAIRMAN. What had been your work before you went into the service?

Mr. REID. Just prior to going into the service I was employment manager in Chicago.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you say employment manager?

Mr. REID. Employment manager; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What would that involve?

Mr. REID. In my case it involved hiring employees and supervision after they were employed. I went into that organization to organize an employment department, and on account of leaving that service we had not yet organized a complete department. It was in process of organization at the time I left.

The CHAIRMAN. Where were you educated?

Mr. REID. University of Chicago; I had my collegiate work there. I was also educated in the Philadelphia public schools.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a degree from the University of Chicago?

Mr. REID. I have.

The CHAIRMAN. What degree?

Mr. REID. Ph. B., bachelor of philosophy.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your conception of the importance of an adviser in the vocational rehabilitation work?

Mr. REID. I believe if we could say that any one man was the most important man in the organization it would be the adviser.

The CHAIRMAN. You have been in that work for a year. That is, did you come to that position when you first came to the board? Mr. REID. Yes; I took the examination for adviser, went in as an adviser, worked as an adviser from January, when I first went with the district 4 office, until I was transferred to the district 3 office, where I was supposed to go in the training section, but I continued in advising work up there for some months before I went to the training section.

The CHAIRMAN. In the Philadelphia office are your quarters sufficient in capacity to take care of the force?

Mr. REID. Yes; amply sufficient. We have unusually good quarters at present. We have not had in the past.

The CHAIRMAN. What has been the general attitude of the office toward the disabled man?

Mr. REID. Do you mean the attitude of the office or do you want to get the attitude of the individuals who represent the office and who make the contact with the man?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think

Mr. REID (interposing.) I do not want to quibble, but I do want to know just exactly what you mean.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I really want both. What I am trying to get at is whether the attitude of the office toward the disabled man is that of charity rather than a recognition of the right on the part of the man.

Mr. REID. That depends entirely upon the individuals. Some individuals recognize it as a right, others consider it a charity.

The CHAIRMAN. What I had in mind, Mr. Reid, was that if individuals would show a particular attitude, it would largely be reflected in what the office permitted, and if there is the proper attitude that would be the attitude of the office. If there was not, it would be the fault of the office, and even if there was one individual in the office that did not show the proper attitude, the office would really be responsible for it. That is what I am trying to get at.

Mr. REID. I think your assumption is probably correct, that each individual should reflect the attitude of the office, but I think, because of the many changes, the frequent changes, occurring from time to time, and the fact we are recruiting our men from all sources, we do not have time to assimilate our men and train them in order to get an office attitude. It is largely individual work.

The CHAIRMAN. Then may I ask this question: I understand you are not refusing in any way to answer the questions

Mr. REID. No; I do not mean to refuse to answer the questions at all. I want to give the idea, however, that we are not a group. We are not acting as one. We are not reflecting a policy; we are working as individuals, largely.