Please advise this office whether you have taken your entrance examinations for that institution or whether you prefer to go elsewhere. A prompt reply is requested. DEAR SIR: We wrote you several times asking you whether you were still interested in training in drafting and mathematics, concerning which our representative talked with you some time ago. We have written you a number of letters, but you have not responded. Please let us know if you are at present employed and are no longer inter ested in training of this kind. Trusting to hear from you by return mail, we are, Yours, very truly, I certify this to be a true copy. [SEAL.] My commission expires February 13, 1925. S. E. FARWELL, District Vocational Officer. MARYE E. LARKIN, Notary Public. FEDERAL BOARD FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING, MIDDLETOWN, N. Y., October 6, 1919. New York City. DEAR SIRS: Yours of the 4th received three minutes ago. When you last wrote to me you wished to know if I passed the entrance examination for Rutgers. Having received a booklet from them. I decided that it was not what I wanted. All I want is a course in some trade school, not a college. A course in drafting, if nothing else, and at a college, would take considerable time more than at some trade school. After my correspondence with said Rutgers, I thought my chances were entirely over, but from your last letter I have a chance which I hope will put me at school. Kindly excuse mistakes, but promptness is what you wanted. Yours, very respectfully, DEAR SIR: After carefully considering the facts as you gave them to one of our representatives in talking with him about vocational education, under the Government plan for men disabled in military service, the board is undecided, if the facts are as reported, as to whether you can be awarded the training which we understand you desired, under the terms of the vocational act. Whether or not the disability still exists it is not clear that it is likely to prove a permanent handicap in your former work. It may be that the facts we have do not fully reflect your condition at this time. If you have tried to work, the result of this work, its effect upon you, the pay you are able to earn as compared to other men, etc., may clear up the situation. On the back of this letter you can give us this definite information, including the name of your employer. Now, this is all important for you, and in order that full justice may be done you, you should carefully report to us just what has happened. If you have lately had to consult a doctor you should gve us a report from him. What we want to know, for your own sake, is what effect your disability has upon your chances in industry. You might say whether your employer has had to favor you in any way because of it. If, on the other hand, you have tried work of any kind, please tell us in just what way you are convinced that the injury will permanently handicap you for your work, and just as in the other case, if you have had to consult a doctor recently, send us a report from him. Even though you are not permanently handicapped you may have certain rights to training which are largely determined by compensation, so please advise us if you have been granted compensation. Assuring you of our utmost interest in your case in exact accordance with the terms of the vocational act, we are, DEAR SIR: On reviewing the papers connected with your application for Vocational education, we find that the medical information in our possession is insufficient to establish, as required by act of Congress, the extent of the vocational handicap resulting from your disability, Please present this letter to Dr. S. L. Truex, Middletown, N. Y., and request him to reexamine you and make a report on the inclosed blank. Very truly, yours, [First indorsement.] F. MCK. BELL, District Medical Officer. Respectfully forwarded. This examination will also be used by the Bureau of War Risk Insurance in awarding or continuing your compensation. The report in quadruplicate should be forwarded as usual to the district supervisor, Public Health Service, 280 Broadway, New York City. F. C. SMITH, Surgeon, United States Public Health Service, I certify this to be a true copy. [SEAL.] My commission expires February 13, 1925. MARYE E. LARKIN, Notary Public. Mr. TOWNER. What does the discharge show? Mr. TOWNER. The discharge shows 80 per cent? Mr. ROBSION. They say he was discharged with 5 per cent? Mr. LAMKIN. Director Jones says 5 per cent. Excuse me, I have a copy of the discharge from The Adjutant General's Office, that is in our files in the central office. Mr. ROBSION. He says he was discharged January 19, 1919, and Jones said he was discharged in June. Mr. LAMKIN. No; does it? I think it is discharged from the service January 13, 1919. He states June here; June 13. It should be January. It states he was discharged from the service in JanuIt states, discharged in January; and the award went back, ary. no doubt. The CHAIRMAN. There is a vote on the water-power bill, and we will adjourn until to-morrow at 10 o'clock. (Thereupon, at 4 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 o'clock a. m., Wednesday, May 5, 1920.) COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, Wednesday, May 5, 1920. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Simeon D. Fess (chairman) presiding. TESTIMONY OF MR. UEL W. LAMKIN, CHIEF, DIVISION OF REHABILITATION, FEDERAL BOARD FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION-Resumed. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lamkin, if you are ready, you may resume your testimony. Mr. LAMKIN. Yesterday afternoon, Mr. Chairman, I was discussing the testimony of the disabled men who were here. I will file for the record a copy of the naval discharge certificate which we got in the case of Gordon M. Campbell, a certified copy, which shows a 5 per cent disability, as it was reported to us. On the 8th of April we drew another discharge from the Navy, of which I wil! also file a certified copy. I think the 8th of April was the day the young man was here. This shows a disability not in line of duty of over 10 per cent, the medical history showing that his disability was existing prior to enlistment. For the information of the committee one of the representatives of our office was here, heard the testimony, took charge of the young man, had him examined, awarded training, and on the basis of that examination the Bureau of War Risk Insurance determined him to be 50 per cent disabled and sent him a check for something over $600, but the original certificate which we have from the Navy is that he had less than a 5 per cent disability. The CHAIRMAN. Is that the young man from Middletown? The CHAIRMAN. You had his case adjusted while he was here? Mr. LAMKIN. Yes, sir; and before he got out of town the Bureau of War Risk gave him a check for $600. I think he got it the next morning, but we approved him for training and arranged his training for him before he got out of town. The last one of these men who testified was Samuel M. Freedman. For some reason-I do not know what-we did not get in contact with him until the 15th of March. He was approved for training on the 5th of April. The first information which we have is the 15th of March. You had Congressman Rogers testifying before the committee, Mr. Chairman. He mentioned two men, and there was a third man whose name appeared in the hearings. I am not trying in any of this to criticize any other department or to give excuses for delays. The first man, however, that Congressman Rogers discussed was John R. Barry. The Army record shows a disability of 10 per cent. He was discharged on the 16th of January, 1919. In a request of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance for information on the 1st of May, 1919, and the 31st of May, 1919, we were notified by the bureau that no compensation had been awarded, pending a medical report. The Federal board had forwarded the papers to the bureau under date of February 20. We had written to the bureau on the 21st of May urging immediate action. The bureau on the 26th of August, 1919, awarded him compensation at the rate of 10 per cent. On the information we had he was entitled to section 3 training and not section 2. He appealed or submitted new evidence, on which he was awarded section 2 training, and he entered training on the 3d of February, 1920, under the auspices of the board, and the Bureau of War Risk Insurance did not determine him as 80 per cent disabled until four days later, or the 7th of February. So we really acted four days before the Bureau of War Risk Insurance in that case which Congressman Rogers brought to your attention to show how much faster the bureau was than the board. The CHAIRMAN. I recall distinctly that Congressman Rogers was very complimentary about the Bureau of War Risk. He thought it was functioning almost perfectly. Mr. LAMKIN. The next man whom he discussed was Romaine G. C. Nichols, who was discharged on May 10, 1919. His discharge papers show that he had a disability of 5 per cent. He applied for compensation on the 3d of June, 1919. The case was finally approved by our board, in spite of the fact he was discharged with a 5 per cent disability, and training was awarded on the 15th of November, and the bureau did not give him compensation until December 6, or nearly three weeks later. The CHAIRMAN. Who was that? Mr. LAMKIN. That was Romaine G. C. Nichols, to whom Congressman Rogers referred. Then, if you remember, in the afternoon Mr. Dallinger read a letter from a man named Lovett who was speaking about his boy, who had had some difficulty, he said, in getting vocational training, and for whom the bureau had never yet paid his hospital bill, incurred on account of an injury received in the service. The CHAIRMAN. That was some one in Georgia or Alabama? Mr. LAMKIN. Alabama, I think it was; Munroeville, Ala. The first information we have about Mr. Lovett reached our board on the 14th of July, 1919. He was surveyed in New Orleans on the 25th of July, 1919. It appears that the young man was in service approximately two months at a students' Army training corps when he was discharged. His discharge states that he had no wounds, and the soldier's statement was that he had no disability. After he got out of the service sarcoma developed and it resulted in the amputation of his leg. The physician at the New Orleans office. held that the disability was not a result of his military duty and |