Page images

Mr. DONOVAN. Then let us hear him.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a little out of order. not on some of the charges here.

Mr. BRAND. How long will it take him?
The CHAIRMAN. I think not very long.


The CHAIRMAN. Give your full name to the stenographer.
Mr. WINSLOW. Charles H. Winslow.

The CHAIRMAN. You were once connected with the work of the
Federal board, were you not?
Mr. Winslow. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. When did you first become identified with the work of the board ?

Mr. WINSLOW. On August 11, 1917.

The CHAIRMAN. What had been your experience in vocational training before, just briefly? ' Mr. WINSLOW. I have been interested in vocational training for many, many years, 20 years, probably, as a member of the Commission on Industrial Education of the State of Massachusetts, 1906, 1907, and 1908. I was a member of the Federal Commission for Federal Aid for Vocational Education, of which the chairman is a member, in 1914. During the intervals I have made many studies of industries for the purposes of vocational education in the schools, and studying schemes of training under the Massachusetts commission, in England, Ireland, France, Belgium, and Holland.

The CHAIRMAN. When did you discontinue your relationship with the board ? Mr. Winslow. September 30, 1919. The CHAIRMAN. What was your particular work at that time? Mr. WINSLOW. Chief of the division of research. The CHAIRMAN. You discontinued by submitting your resignation ? Mr. Winslow. Yes, sir; simply submitting resignation to take effect on September 30.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you care to state why you discontinued your work?

Mr. Winslow. I will, but I would like to say prior to that that the record seems to give the impression that I had written a letter of resignation which is in part in here or in whole, I think. That is an error in the record. This material here is the result of an interview by the correspondent of the Boston Transcript and is not my resignation.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you refer to the page of the record ?
Mr. WINSLOW. Page 22.
The CHAIRMAN. Page 22 of the hearings of March 13?
Mr. Winslow. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. This was given in connection with Mr. Littledale's testimony.

Mr. Winslow. So it seems.
Mr. King. What hearings were these?

The CHAIRMAN. Hearings before this committee. Would you state again, Mr. Winslow, what this letter printed here was?

Mr. Winslow. This is the result of an interview by the correspondent of the Boston Transcript.

The CHAIRMAN. You did not give this letter then to Mr. Littledale?

Mr. Winslow. No, sir; do not know Mr. Littledale, never saw him.
Mr. BRAND. You know him now, do you not?
Mr. WINSLOW. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you proceed to state now why you disconnected yourself from the board ?

Mr. Winslow. Early in the life of the board, and it must be understood that personally all of my dealings were with the director. The director submitted to me a very rough outline of the relation between administration and research.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that Dr. Prosser ?

Mr. Winslow. Yes, sir. I made a copy of his rough draft which looks something like this sindicating). Beginning with a small group of men, it increased to 1926, with a large number of men and women. My understanding from that was that I was to go forward with the selection from the civil-service channels, of course, of a staff to carry on the work of research for the board. I think I said to Mr. Prosser the day that he left that we have gone far afield from the original scheme as submitted by him. His answer to that was we have not changed. I said we have if you have not, because we understood, at least, that the research was to be done in the research division, but we have had research work being done outside of the research division. We have had documents prepared of which the research division knew nothing. The policy was so everchanging, so impossible to keep up with, that I determined it was better for me to get out.

The CHAIRMAN. There was some research' work that was not falling under your direction?

Mr. WINSLOW. Yes. ! The CHAIRMAN. Did that mean that there was duplication ?

Mr. Winslow. I would not say that there was duplication of material, but I should say that it was carrying research work into another field.

The CHAIRMAN. How broad was your research work? What did it include?

Mr. WINSLOW. Well, sir, we started out to make studies for the purposes of the States giving information concerning buildings and equipment and the policies of the board with reference to agriculture and home economics and evening schools and that sort of thing.

The CHAIRMAN. Your research work in that case was in reference to vocational educational work rather than rehabilitation, was it?

Mr. WINSLOW. Yes, sir; we went forward with that work.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you to do anything in research touching on rehabilitation ?

Mr. WINSLOW. Yes, sir; in July the director asked me to submit to him an outline of the policy to be pursued in research with reference to vocational reeducation, which I did. That is included in this chart (indicating).

The CHAIRMAN. What year was that? Mr. Winslow. 1918. That is shown in this chart here. I was authorized to go forward and organize a research division to include research work with reference to vocational reeducation. We have done some of that prior to that. We had issued some two or three documents prior to that with reference to vocational reeducation.

The CHAIRMAN! Was there any lack of funds for the use of the Vocational Board to carry on the particular work you were doing?

Mr. WINSLOW. I do not know, sir.



The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Prosser did not offer that?
Mr. Winslow. As an excuse, you mean?

Mr. Winslow. No; I do not think he ever offered that as excuse,

sir. The CHAIRMAN. The dissatisfaction that led you to withdraw from the work of the board was that there was a lack of cooperation between your work and the work of the director ?

Mr. Winslow. I think that there was a deviation from the original policy. For example, in April, 1918, we projected 24 bulletins on safety and hygiene. Probably you remember that?


Mr. Winslow. It was stated we were going to prepare some 24 bulletins on safety and hygiene for the use of schools in vocational education. I think we had prepared when I left the board two or three and others were in process. The determination of the board to reduce research work, of course, meant that the men who were engaged in that work immediately went out to find positions eleswhere. I think about December, 1918, I was informed that Dr. Snedden was undertaking the preparation of a group of monograms with a committee from New York City. My first intimation was, the first intimation I had of it was through the chief of Division of Rehabilitation of Vocational Education. Then Dr. Chandler-then that work was carried on in New York City and they became joint monographs pared over in New York City and published by the board. As chief of the Division of Research I had nothing to do with them except prepare them for the printer.

The CHAIRMAN. As the chief of the Division of Research you felt that you ought to have had at least the direction of that sort of work if it is going on outside of the capital here.

Mr. Winslow. I naturally understood, sir, that all of the research work would come through me. I expected it.

The CHAIRMAN. Reverting to this published statement in the hearing, you have read that?

Mr. Winslow. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Is it acourate as it was given by you in that interview ?

Mr. Winslow. Well, I would not pretend to say that it was accurate. It was so long since I was interviewed, and I never saw the copy until this morning of the interview.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any information that we were going to have an investigation here until you received my telegram?

Mr. WINSLOW. Why, I think along about October 6 or 8 I received a letter from Representative Rogers saying that he had introduced the inclosed bill and wanted to know if I was interested in it. I did not answer that letter. I was not interested in it.

The CHAIRMAN. Why didn't you?

Mr. Winslow. That was my first intimation that the investigation was contemplated. The next information came by telegram, well, it seems to me it must have been two weeks ago, saying, “your presence needed before the Committee on Education now investigating the Federal Board for Vocational Education. Signed by Mr. Littledale."

I did not know who Mr. Littledate was, because I had not been reading the New York papers except the New York Times two or three days a week perhaps, and I immediately answered the trólegram asking what purpose I could serve and who would bear expenses. I did not know whether it came from the committee or whether it came from the board or where it came from.

Mr. TOWNER. Your reasons for leaving the board, as I understand it, are principally, in the first place, that you feel that there had been an abandonment of the policy of the board as it had been outlined to you by Dr. Prosser?

Mr. WINSLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOWNER. And second because of the fact that while you were given the position of chief of one of the divisions you were not allowed to control the activities of that division but it was given, or at least used, by others?

Mr. WINSLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOWNER. Both of these matters developed before the rehabilitation act went into effect, did they not?

Mr. WINSLOW. No, sir.
Mr. TOWNER. They did not?
Mr. WINSLOW. No, sir.

Mr. TOWNER. I understood you to say, for instance, that it had been suggested as part of the policy of the board that you should outline and publish a list of about 20 monographs and that only 2 of those had been issued? Those did not have anything to do with the rehabilitation of the soldiers.

Mr. WINSLOW. No, sir.

Mr. TOWNER. So that there was a departure from the policy of the board before the rehabilitation act went into effect, was there not?

Mr. WINSLOW. Yes, sir; that is true. Mr. TOWNER. And of that you complained, did you not? Mr. Winslow. Truly; yes, sir. Mr. Towner. I think the committee would like to know, Mr. Winslow, what you can tell them regarding the policy and activities of the board, particularly with regard to the rehabilitation of the soldiers.

Mr. Winslow. Well, sir, I do not think that I am sufficiently familiar with the activities of the board in so far as rehabilitation is concerned to discuss it, except in so far as the preparation of the monographs for the disabled soldiers is concerned. We projected in September something like 100 monographs to go forward immediately with all of the buck-up later that we could prepare and suddenly discovered that they were not so inclined to carry on that work although my information was to the effect that they were doing splendid service.

Mr. WINSLOW. Yes, the monographs I speak of were known as joint monographs prepared by a committee of which Dr. Snedden was chairman, and something like 50 of them were for disabled soldiers and sailors in the hospitals. They were supposed to be prevocational literature.

Mr. TOWNER. You did not leave the board simply because they did not publish these particular monographs ? Mr. WINSLOW. No.

Mr. TOWNER. You would not say that the omission to publish these monographs was a serious criticism of the activities of the board with regard to the rehabilitation of the soldiers ?

Mr. Winslow. I would not pretend to say.

Mr. TOWNER. The fact is, Mr. Winslow, that your leaving the board has very little to do with the soldier proposition or the rehabilitation act?

Mr. Winslow. I was never lost a moment after I left.

Mr. TOWNER. I did not mean that your services were of no value, but I meant that your reason for leaving was not occasioned by the way, particularly, in which the board treated the soldiers ? Is that true?

Mr. WINSLOW. No, sir.

Mr. BURROUGHS. I understood you to say that this statement, which is found on page 22 of the hearings, No. 2, Saturday, March 13, 1920, as a part of Mr. Littledale's charges was, in fact, an interview given by you to a Boston newspaper; is that right?

Mr. WINSLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURROUGHS. And was not in fact at all a part of your letter of resignation ?

Mr. Winslow. It was not, sir.
Mr. BURROUGHS. I think that is all.

Mr. Robsion. You state in substance that you severed your connection with the vocational work because of the change in policy on the part of the board. Is that true?

Mr. WINSLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. Robsion. Would you say that the change of policy was beneficial or detrimental to the cause of the soldier?

Mr. WINSLOW. I would not pretend to say.

Mr. RobSION. You can not tell the committee what effect that change had, could you?

Mr. WINSLOW. No, sir.

Mr. Robsion. So far as benefiting the soldiers in this vocational training?

Mr. WINSLOW. No, sir.

Mr. Robsion. And so far as you can see, the change of policy may have been beneficial ?

Mr. Winslow. It may possibly have been, and probably it was.

Mr. Robsion. You make no charges against the Vocational Board in its administration of the rehabilitation law since it went into effect, do you?

Mr. WINSLOW. I make no charges.
Mr. Rossion. Could you make any ?
Mr. WINSLOW. I have no charges to make.

Mr. Robsion. Do you know of any criticism, adverse criticism, that could fairly be made of the administration of this law by the Vocational Board ?

Mr. WINSLOW. I have not been in touch with the board and its works since the last of September.

Mr. TOWNER. I would like to state that so far as my individual impression of the work of Mr. Winslow is concerned, I deeply regret the fact that he has not stayed on the board.

The CHAIRMAN. That is true of a lot of them.
Gentlemen, we will meet to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Thereupon, at 5.10 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned to meet again at 10 o'clock a. m., Tuesday, March 30, 1920.)

« PreviousContinue »