sold in small quantities, as they are usually bought by the average family. The items in the budget were first determined in 1914, after consulting with different families, investigating the average monthly accounts of numerous families, and averaging the variations in the quantities until the sum total of the food solids agreed with that usually consumed, and this identical budget was followed in compiling the figures for 1915 and 1916, so that the comparison of increase is a true one.

Many interesting variations in the prices of the different commodities, as shown in the accompanying table, might be pointed out and various conjectures based thereon, if the student cared to do so. The budget is given here in complete detail, so that persons who desire may indulge in some comparisons, while the bureau so shows the method by which it obtained the grand totals:

Table showing the annual cost of foodstuffs and fuel for a family of five.

[Survey made in month of April of each year indicated.]

160 pounds sugar, granulated cane.

14 sacks flour, fancy patent,
49 pounds..

2 sacks corn meal, per 10pound sack.

75 pounds rolled oats, bulk.

8 hundred pounds potatoes, white.

25 pounds beans, navy.

26 pounds onions, dry.

10 pounds split peas.

22 pounds rice, Japan.

80 pounds butter, creamery.

25 pounds butter, ranch.

30 pounds soda crackers.

74 pounds lard..

4 pounds macaroni.

9 cans canned beans, No. 2.

1.17

STATEMENT OF MR. J. W. SULLIVAN.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am the assistant to Samuel Gompers, as a member of the advisory commission, Council of National Defense. I was one of the two labor members of the committee which drafted the bill. I have been for nearly 35 years a member of the International Typographical Union, which insures more than 60,000 members. I was not put on as an insurance expert, but my thought from the beginning was how I could assist in giving heart to our soldiers. Having in mind the history of our pensions in America, could we do something better, more systematic, and more satisfactory to the rank and file? Throughout the sessions I observed the proceedings to be governed by those ideas and sentiments. At points I was not wholly satisfied, but as a whole I was well satisfied with the insurance feature. Looking back on what we do provide, I think that on the whole we have submitted to this committee and to Congress something worthy of the judgment and, to a great extent, of the approval, and amendment of men contributing a larger sum of wisdom than we ourselves. That summarizes my position. In some respects the compensation might be higher; on the other hand, the opportunity, as Miss Lathrop so well expressed, for the men to do something for themselves was there, and they are enabled by their pay to do that something.

To gain the approval of men in various walks of life this bill was read, after its preparation, before the executive committee of the committee on labor of the advisory commission. I will call to your attention the fact that there were present the following ladies and gentlemen:

A. Parker Nevin, general counsel of the National Association of Manufacturers, New York; Dr. Frederick L. Hoffman, statistician of the Prudential Life Insurance Co., Newark, N. J.; Julian W. Mack, judge, United States circuit court of appeals, and chairman section on compensation for enlisted men and their dependents of the committee on labor, Chicago, Ill.; P. Tecumseh Sherman, attorney and social insurance expert and chairman advisory drafting committee of the committee on labor, New York; V. Everit Macy, president the National Civic Federation, New York; James Lord, president mining department, American Federation of Labor, Washington; Daniel Willard, chairman advisory commission, Council of National Defense, Washington; August Belmont, banker, and chairman workmen's compensation department, National Civic Federation, New York; J. W. Sullivan, member Typographical Union and assistant to Samuel Gompers as member advisory commission; John Golden, international president United Textile Workers of America, New York; Louis B. Schram, chairman labor committee, United States Brewers' Association, Brooklyn, N. Y.; Frank Morrison, secretary American Federation of Labor, Washington; Mrs. Borden Harriman, chairman committee on women in industry of the committee on labor, Washington; Miss Florence C. Thorne, assistant editor American Federationist, Washington; Capt. S. Herbert Wolfe, consulting actuary, Washington; Prof. J. W. Jenks, Aircraft Production Board, Washington; Miss Julia Lathrop, Children's Bureau, Department of Labor, Washington; Ralph M. Easley, chairman executive council, the National Civic Federation, New York; Prof. F. Spencer Baldwin, of the Massachusetts Commission on Pensions and Insurance, at present manager New York State Fund Workmen's Compensation Board, New York; Miss Hilda Mulhauser, Department of Labor, Washington; Miss Gertrude Beeks, director welfare department, the National Civic Federation, New York; I. Ernest Larkin, of the committee on wages and hours of the committee on labor, Washington.

Inasmuch as there was no serious objection from anyone, but on the contrary general approval, we believed that our mission on the whole was sufficiently well performed to present the bill for your consideration.

Mr. PARKER of New Jersey. You have not stated the matters with which you differed?

Mr. SULLIVAN. I did not carry out the difference to the end, sir. The difference was really a query: Is this enough?

Mr. PARKER of New Jersey. Was that the only point of difference?
Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes; that was the only point of difference.
Judge MACK. There was no difference as to the insurance?

Mr. SULLIVAN. None. From time to time we consulted with one another, and the committee deferred to me as one knowing the position of labor in general.

STATEMENT OF MR. HERMAN L. EKERN.

Mr. EKERN. I want to say, for the information of Mr. Parker, of New Jersey, that the figures for the Mutual Benefit are 51 per cent. I just happen to have them here. My home is in Madison, Wis. I have been commissioner of insurance and a member of the Wisconsin Insurance Department for a number of years. I am now out of the department. Prior to that I participated in the investigation of the life insurance business made by a Wisconsin legislative committee at the same time it was made by the Armstrong committee in New York, and I took part in the subsequent legislation as a result of the recommendations of that committee. I have, since my work in the insurance department, been engaged in advising on insurance matters as a lawyer.

I want to say at the outset, so that the committee may not be under any misapprehension, that I am not afraid to have the Government do for its people anything that they can not get done elsewhere, and we have worked that out in Wisconsin, and that is the attitude I think we all ought to take, especially with regard to dealing with the men whom we send to perform a very hazardous employment. I am for this bill as it stands; I am for it if it can be amended, as I believe it might be, but in any event I believe legislation of this kind is absolutely necessary.

I might say further, in explanation of my interest in this matter, that I have had several conferences with Assistant Secretary Sweet, who appeared before you. I believe I drew the first bill which was presented to Mr. Sweet-used as a basis for the present legislationwith a statement of the reasons for its adoption. I was very much pleased to hear what Miss Lathrop said this morning in regard to the extreme importance of the life insurance features in article 4 of this bill, and I want to call your attention to the specific items which, to my mind, make them so very important from a practical standpoint. Analyzed from an insurance point of view, you make your separation and family allowance cover the cases of families of the men during the service; you make your compensation insurance cover the compensation of the injured and the compensation in case of death to those who are immediate dependents at the time of death, to the wife and to the child without regard to dependency, as I understand it, and then to the dependent widowed mother, and your compensation stops there. The compensation must be claimed within one year or, at the most, within two years; it may be extended one year under the bill. Now, in the present Army, I mean this conscripted citizen army, it has been attempted to avoid, as far as possi