Mr. TOWNER. A short time ago you were in the midst of a statement, I think, which you had prepared.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOWNER. What was that statement?

Mr. GRIFFIN. It was in regard to the board in the days of the Smith-Sears Act and amendments to it.

Mr. TOWNER. You may finish that statement if you will
Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes.

The act covered a far lower percentage of disability than any other country. I think in that last statement the effective features of rehabilitation in this country were made stronger for that reason. No one is inclined to mourn the loss of liberal appropriations so much as squandering the futures of thousands of splendid young men, and instead of elevating 250,000 of the country's most potent material to a higher plane of citizenship we realize that by this failure there has been converted at least 175,000 men to emotions varying from disgust to bolshevism. The original act seemed broad enough, and in spite of the alleged difficulties of the board with the Bureau of War Risk Insurance it was broad enough to mete every situation save that of determining action in cases of negligible handicaps.

In support of that statement I referred to the addition to the code issued December 12, 1918, wherein we were authorized to place men in training before receiving central office approval and before the compensation of the men was determined by the Bureau of War Risk Insurance.

That has frequently been brought out as a factor that has withheld the board from meeting the situation promptly as regards the disabled men, putting them into training promptly.

Mr. TOWNER. Then, in your view that charge was largely unfounded in so far as the endeavor of the board was concerned. Mr. GRIFFIN. I do not quite get that.

Mr. TOWNER. What I meant was this: Even without the expressed authority of the law, the board was endeavoring to put these men into training as soon as possible, were they?

Mr. GRIFFIN. They did for a time. It was changed later on.

Mr. TOWNER. Would that be a subject of just criticism for doing that?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I do not know as to the criticism whether they acted promptly in those cases. There was a situation there that demanded prompt action.

Mr. TOWNER. Yes. And the board was trying to meet that situation by taking prompt action, were they not?

Mr. GRIFFIN. They did for a time.

Mr. TOWNER. What was the reason of their stopping it?

Mr. GRIFFIN. The only information I had on the subject was that their appropriation was not sufficient to carry them through the fiscal year and they withdrew that order.

Mr. TOWNER. You may go on with your statement.

Mr. GRIFFIN. The act of July 11 passed to remove this alleged handicap had, in effect, the most depressing influence upon the program of the board. The salaries of employees affected by the bill while bearing an important restrictive influence to the general success of the work, was, after all, quite subordinate to the more in

comprehensible attitude of the administrators of the act who immediately set up a program which dammed up 90 per cent of the casesonly a small percentage, the major disabilities and the so-called Congressional cases, going over the spillway.

If my opinion may be expressed I would state that the Federal board realized about this time that it had a man-sized job, that it had made a serious mistake in the preparation of the budget, and it came to the common understanding, if not unanimous agreement, to make an appropriation of $14,000,000 do the work of $50,000,000 that should have been asked for by them.

Certain phases of this attitude were discussed within my hearing and I think this reaction is correct. Director C. A. Prosser resigned at this time. A policy of narrowing the opportunities for training-of demanding of the district office that minor handicaps be put in class III training; that temporary total disabilities be delayed for the obvious purpose of overcoming the disability without incurring expenditure of the board's slender resources.

This was the beginning of the hard-boiled era. I know this, because it was at this time that I was transferred from New York to Washington, and the Chief of Rehabilitation told me that the reason attributed for this transfer was that one less sympathetic toward the disabled men was demanded at that point; that I was entirely too sympathetic toward the disabled men.

I mention this personal matter as of no othr importance than to establish the fact that there was a distinct change in the policy at that time in regard to the disabled men.

From the latter part of July until October 1, 1919, I was on leave of absence. When I returned to Washington to take up my duties with the case board these policies were in full swing. I resigned on October 10, 1919, and have no first-hand knowledge of anything connected with the activities or policies of the board since that date. I want to make clear to the committee that, so far as the law is concerned, I think it had everything in it that could be desired, and that the fault lay in the administration of the law entirely.

Mr. TOWNER. There was one fault, if I understand your statement, that probably was a fault in the law, and that was there was not enough money to meet the situation. That was a fault in the law, was it not, Mr. Griffin?

Mr. GRIFFIN. The original appropriation was $2,000,000, I believe. Mr. TOWNER. Yes; and even the $14,000,000 that was finally appropriated. Of course you understand, Mr. Griffin, that we would have given more if we had been asked for it?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Exactly.

Mr. TOWNER. And finally we made an appropriation of $14,000,000, and we gave $6,000,000 more than was asked for.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOWNER. It had been the purpose of Congress, no matter what the cost of this work should be, to give whatever amount was necessary to not only carry it on but to carry it on with justice and liberality.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I have always thought that to be the case.

Mr. TOWNER. It was only because of the fact that we had to act upon the statements or judgments of others that if there was in

sufficient funds it was because we did not know that they were insufficient. I notice that you said that instead of having $14,000,000 that we ought to have had $50,000,000. Is that still your judgment about the matter?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I think so; yes, sir, it is my judgment.

Mr. TOWNER. Would you say that it would require the appropriation of $50,000,000 each year?

Mr. GRIFFIN. In my judgment it would require something in that neighborhood for a period of perhaps three years.

Mr. TOWNER. In order to clear up the work, so that then there would be perhaps nothing left except the compensation and possibly some still who would be under training?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes; I think that probably the training will continue for a good many years. There will be recurring return disabilities of men who will break down and find they are not able to carry on and who will apply from time to time for the benefits to which they are entitled under the act.

Mr. TOWNER. Will you go on with your statement, Mr. Griffin? Mr. GRIFFIN. There is a letter addressed to the New York Evening Post by Mr. Munroe, of the Federal board, which states that the failure of the board's work was due to several different causes; first. that no American precedents in rehabilitation work existed prior to the Federal board's experiment; second, that Congress

Mr. TOWNER (interposing). Will you care to comment on this as you go along?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I will take them up afterwards.

Mr. TOWNER. Very well.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Second, that Congress failed to pass the enabling act until we had been at war for 14 months; third, that admission to the hospitals was denied the board for 6 months after the passage of the act; fourth, that dual administration in the work by the Bureau of War Risk Insurance and the Federal Board for Vocational Education, imposed by Congress, operated adversely; fifth, that the Congress again failed because it did not appreciate the extent and essential needs of rehabilitation and failed to make adequate appropriations"; sixth, that Congress further hampered the work by refusing appropriations for adequate quarters; seventh, that most of the schools and colleges in which training for the disabled men is so largely carried on did not reopen until late September or early October."

Mr. TOWNER. Is that the seventh?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOWNER. Will you please to refer to the number in the statement as you go along, so that we may more intelligibly follow your comments?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes.

First, that no American precedents in rehabilitation work existed prior to the Federal board's experiment. A very comprehensive rehabilitation work was begun in New York on September 1, 1917, by the American Red Cross Institute for Crippled and Disabled Men, led by a group of public-spirited, philanthropic men who had for many years given much of their time and resources to the reeducation of the disabled and crippled. Before the passage of the rehabili

tation act in June, 1919, the Red Cross institute, through its benefactor. Mr. Jeremiah Milbank, and its director, Mr. Douglas C. McMurtrie, placed all of its facilities at the disposal of the Federal Board for Vocational Education. These included résumé and statistics collected by experts from every country in the world that had undertaken rehabilitation work and embraced a most complete rehabilitation program. Before the actual passage of the act the Red Cross institute had taken, at the expense of Mr. Milbank, a large party of men, designated by the Federal board as its prospective offcers, on a trip through Canada to rehabilitation centers, where, under the guidance of Canadian experts, they had the opportunity of studying and analyzing reeducation of the disabled under the best organized system in existence.

Second, that Congress failed to pass an enabling act until we had been at war for 14 months.

The number of men entitled to the benefits of the act at the time. of its passage was negligible.

Army and naval hospitals were filled with mental or physical defectives as a result of rapid mobilization and not of service-men who were not eligible for training under the board were in at least 95 per cent of the cases discharged at the time of the passage of the

act.

Admission to the hospitals was denied the board until six months after the passage of the act. That would be up to January, 1919, or approximately that date; January 27, I think, would be six months after the passage of the act.

When I went to New York in September, 1918, we were admitted to all of the hospitals, Army and Navy hospitals, without any serious trouble by applying to the commandant. It was not until considerably after that period that we ran into any trouble in gaining admission to the hospitals. At Plattsburg, where they had mental defectives, they denied our agent admission, but we had no serious trouble from being denied admission to hospitals at any time. The Navy issued a general order admitting our agents to hospitals on September 25, 1918.

That dual administration of the work by the Bureau of War Risk Insurance and the Federal Board for Vocational Education imposed by Congress operated adversely to the interests of the board. I have touched on that before and have shown that under section 321 of the revised code issued December 12 that that handicap was overcome for a period.

Mr. DALLINGER. There was a period when that was true, when that handicap existed.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I think that could be attributed to the action of the board rather than to a defect in the law; that Congress failed because it did not appreciate the extent and especially the needs of the rehabilitation and failed to make adequate appropriations.

The board in January, 1919, submitted to Congress an estimate of its budget for the fiscal year amounting to $4,000,000.

In June it submitted an amended "guess," as Mr. Munroe put it, of $6,000,000. Later, discovering that it was still short of what was required, if my recollection serves me correctly, they attempted through this committee to get an appropriation through by way

of the Committee on Education of the House for an additional $6,000,000. Those in touch with the rehabilitation program knew that it would require at least $50,000,000 to carry out the provisions of the act in 1919. As early as December, 1918, this was given in the form of a carefully prepared and thoroughly justified statement to the director of the board. There existed at that time no mystery in the minds of those interested in the work as to the size or costs of the undertaking. Sufficient data was available to determine every factor involved in the program. It was reported that Chairman Good of the House Committee on Appropriations and other members have repeatedly expressed their willingness to recommend an appropriation of $100,000,000 providing a clear statement of the requirements was shown and they were satisfied that the money would be judiciously expended. It seems to me that the board has utterly failed in making known to Congress what its needs might be.

Mr. ROBSION. You say a statement submitted to the director showing that the amount of money necessary would be $50.000.000. You say the director? Who?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Director Prosser.

Mr. ROBSION. What was the date of the submission of that report? Mr. GRIFFIN. It was during the month of December. I do not know that I could fix the exact date.

Mr. ROBSION. By whom was it prepared?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Dr. Butler and myself.

Mr. ROBSION. December, 1918?

Mr. GRIFFIN. We prepared it. It applies to the New York district and it also applies to the whole problem.

Mr. DALLINGER. So it was a statement prepared by an employee of the board?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Director Prosser, yes.

Congress hampered the work by refusing appropriations for rented

quarters.

It appears on looking to that particular complaint of Mr. Munroe's that the quarters, that this complaint did not apply to the rented quarters other than those in Washington, and they required large quarters here and did not have any appropriations to cover that.

No. 7. As most of the schools and colleges in which training for the disabled men is so largely carried on, did not reopen until late September or early October.

This was the fall of 1919 that he refers to.

He fails to mention that there were public-spirited people who guaranteed sufficient school accommodations in the State of New York alone to take care of every disabled man in the country and in whatever line of erudition they might seek through the summer months of 1919.

There are some 200 regularly conducted summer schools in institutions of higher learning in all parts of the country; that placement training for these men in the industries of the country was as readily available in the summer as at any season.

It had been just five weeks prior to this letter of Mr. Munroe to the Evening Post, where he made his statement to the Boston Transcript, and the date of that statement is October 13, 1919. At that time, Mr. Munroe stated, and I quote now: