HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION,
Thursday, May 6, 1920.

The committee this day met, Hon. Simeon D. Fess (chairman) presiding.

TESTIMONY OF MR. UEL W. LAMKIN, CHIEF DIVISION OF REHABILITATION, FEDERAL BOARD FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATIONResumed.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lamkin, will you please take the stand? Mr. BURROUGHS. Mr. Lamkin, your eligibility men at the different district offices pass, as I understand it, on the question of whether there is sufficient legal evidence in the man's folder to entitle him under the law to this training?

Mr. LAMKIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURROUGHS. Is that all they do pass on?

Mr. LAMKIN. That is all they are supposed to do. I have heard that at times they have overruled the doctor, but that is not their function at all. They have been "called" for it, as the slang phrase is. They They are put there to pass on the legal evidence, which includes a rating by a medical officer as to the man's handicap.

Mr. BURROUGHS. Is the committee to understand that the eligibility man has anything at all to do with the medical evidence? Mr. LAMKIN. Paragraph 4 of instruction 47 covers that, which states that the eligibility man is to accept the doctor's rating.

Mr. BURROUGHS. And, as far as you know, that is done?

Mr. LAMKIN. That is being followed. The only person who has authority to overrule a doctor's rating is the higher medical officer-the medical officer in the district.

Mr. BURROUGHS. This eligibility man sits with the case board? Mr. LAMKIN. No, sir.

Mr. BURROUGHS. He is separate?

Mr. LAMKIN. Yes, sir. The case board, Mr. Chairman, is more concerned with the kind of training and the value of the training for the man and the question of his employability after training. Mr. BURROUGHS. What is the agency in the district office that disapproves a man for training?

Mr. LAMKIN. There may be, in the first place, the vocational adviser, who may believe that the man in his judgment is not eligible under the law.

Mr. BURROUGHS. If the case is clear, he would pass him?

Mr. LAMKIN. If the case is clear he should do that. Very frequently the vocational advisers do not like to tell a man to his face, and so they "pass the buck" to the next fellow. The eligibility man is expected to pass on the legal evidence as to discharge, as to whether the evidence is in the file that the disability was incurred in the service, whether there is evidence in the file that the man has a handicap entitling him to training. The doctor frequently will say to the man, "Your disability is not sufficient to justify your training." When those men say "Yes," however, there is no power to revoke that authority.

Mr. BURROUGHS. Does this case board have the power to disapprove?

Mr. LAMKIN. No, sir. The case board, as I say, is a board which passes on the quality, as we might say, of the advisement and approves or disapproves the recommendation for a certain kind of training.

Mr. BURROUGHS. That is, if they disapproved the particular kind of training that had been advised, they would recommend something else?

Mr. LAMKIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURROUGHS. But would not have any authority to disapprove the man entirely for any kind of training?

Mr. LAMKIN. No, sir. In the St. Louis district we had a standing order that no man, for instance, should be approved for a course in telegraphy, unless he could show us definitely where he would be employed after trained, because of the fact that we were notified in that district that the railroads had, in the first place, installed telephones to take the place of telegraph instruments, and, in the second place, that they were using their own disabled men, and so we did not want to train men who would not be employable.

Mr. BURROUGHS. I understand that the eligibility man has nothing to do except to decide the pure question of law?

Mr. LAMKIN. That is the intention and, as far as I know, is what he does.

Mr. BURROUGHS. No man and no agency of the district office has the right to disapprove any man for training who does not actually see and talk with the man; is that right? The eligibility man does not see

Mr. LAMKIN (interposing). No; he does not see the applicant at all.

Mr. BURROUGHS. From what you tell me, he is not concerned with the personality of the applicant at all?

Mr. LAMKIN. Not at all.

Mr. BURROUGHS. That is a matter of law and nothing else?

Mr. LAMKIN. Yes, sir; as to whether or not he meets the conditions, the four conditions. The first condition is shown by his discharge papers.

Mr. BURROUGHS. Is there any agency in the district office that can disapprove of a man's training, can prevent him from having training without actually seeing and talking with the man himself-any such agency that disapproves of the training on a mere paper rec

ord?

Mr. LAMKIN. The eligibility man will disapprove of a man's training.

Mr. BURROUGHS. Of course, that is the question of law?

Mr. LAMKIN. It is a question of law. It is a question of the report which the doctor makes on the man, the medical officer who passes on the physical report. The doctor who examines the man may state in this diagnosis which you have made there is nothing to indicate that the man has a disability and he may say no, but in the last analysis it is largely a question of the doctor's opinion.

Mr. BURROUGHS. What occurred to me was this: Here it appears from the figures which you have given that of the total number of men surveyed as of April 15, I think it was, practically one-third have been disapproved. Am I right about that? That is, out of a total of 145,000, 51,000 have been disapproved?

Mr. LAMKIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURROUGHS. Which seemed on its face to be rather a large number, that is, to me at least?

Mr. LAMKIN. From the experience of other countries that is a very small percentage, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURROUGHS. Is that so?

Mr. LAMKIN. Yes, sir. The Canadian authorities who were here stated that probably not over 10 per cent of the men who were discharged with a disability would be eligible for training at all. That is my understanding of it, and on the original figures you would not have to exceed 15,000 to 20,000 men eligible for training, based on the experience of other countries. That 51,000 may include a good many reasons. There are seven reasons, I think, named in the regulations for closing of cases, the man has died, he does not answer any communication at all, he has reenlisted, he was discharged without a disability, that the disability did not occur in the service, that in the opinion of the doctor it was not a vocational handicap. Those 51,000 cases can be reopened at any time either on the motion of the man or of his friends or of the district officer.

Mr. BURROUGHS. That is not a bar forever against him?

Mr. LAMKIN. Not at all. The case is closed in order that we may relieve our tickle system in our files from bringing that up again. Mr. ROBSION. Mr. Lamkin, when did Mr. Clark take charge of the New York office?

Mr. LAMKIN. I think it was about the first-my recollection is about the middle of January, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Farwell was called to Washington to a conference of the district officers in the eastern districts on the 1st day of January and wired me that day that he was resigning. It was shortly after that that Mr. Clark took charge of the office.

Mr. ROBSION. When did Mr. Meyer enter the New York office? Mr. LAMKIN. I do not know. He was there last August, to my knowledge.

Mr. ROBSION. When did Mr. Ives and Mr. Noyes enter the New York office?

Mr. LAMKIN. I do not remember seeing Mr. Ives, I do not think I remember seeing him until he was here at the investigation. I have seen his name. My recollection is that he was an adviser in one of the hospitals, last summer. He has been with the board some time. Just when he was transferred into the New York office, I do not know.

That was a matter under the local administration at New

York. Mr. Noyes has been with the board some time. He was in the New York office at least last summer. I think he has been with the board more than a year.

Mr. ROBSION. How many men in the New York office have similar positions to those occupied by Mr. Meyer, Mr. Ives, and Mr. Noyes? Mr. LAMKIN. Mr. Ives is a vocational adviser. I think he tester the other day that there were five located in the New York office. As to the exact number, I assume that is correct. Mr. Noyes is a follow-up man. He was formerly, as I understand, acting supervisor of training for a time. I can not answer definitely how many men there are in the office doing that work. Mr. Meyer stated that he had a roving commission, which he took on himself. That is the statement made in the record. I think probably he is the only man who is doing just that work, but I think both Mr. Noyes and Mr. Ives are nominally at least connected with the training department, and I would say that there were 25 men assigned to the training section. I am not sure about that.

Mr. ROBSION. From what you know of those three men, would you say that they are competent to do the work they have been doing in New York?

Mr. LAMKIN. I think the best reply I can make is that when the transfer was recommended they were neither transferred nor dismissed from the service. Personally, I think both Mr. Ives and Mr. Meyer can be handled-understand by the word "handled " I do not mean any roughhouse tactics--but by sitting down across the table with them that some valuable service can be gotten from both of the

men.

Mr. ROBSION. They will cooperate?

Mr. LAMKIN. My associations with Mr. Meyer have always been reasonably satisfactory; what little dealings I have had with Mr. Ives have seemed so. I think no one questions Mr. Noyes's desire or ability to cooperate to the limit.

Mr. ROBSION. All of those three men in their evidence here impressed me that they were deeply interested in this work. Did they so impress you?

Mr. LAMKIN. As far as interest in the disabled man is concerned, I think all three are interested in the disabled man.

Mr. ROBSION. I think you stated that Mr. Clark had taken sick leave?

Mr. LAMKIN. Yes, sir; Mr. Clark, I understand, goes on sick leave. to-day.

Mr. ROBSION. Mr. Clark had demanded the removal or the transfer of Messrs. Meyer, Ives, and Noyes, had he not?

Mr. LAMKIN. Yes; no, not Mr. Noyes. Let me tell you about Mr. Clark's sick leave. He has filed a definite written statement from his physician to the effect that his condition absolutely required him, for a short time at least, to take sick leave. Mr. R. T. Fisher, formerly vocational officer at San Francisco, is at the New York office. Mr. ROBSION. I understand that the San Francisco man is a splendid official and has made a great record in San Francisco?

Mr. LAMKIN. That is the reason we called him to the central office at just the time I came here.

Mr. ROBSION. I wish to say that I hope for a speedy recovery of Mr. Clark, but, for the good of the service it is my personal opinion

that he ought never to go back into the New York office. I guess you are not called upon to speak on that point.

Mr. Clark had actually made the orders transferring Mr. Meyer and Mr. Ives, had he not?

Mr. LAMKIN. I understand that he had issued the order transferring Mr. Meyer and Mr. Ives. You understand the difference between a transfer and what you might call an assignment. There was a telegram in from the Red Cross at Cape May, asking that an adviser be sent to the hospital for a few days. My understanding is that Mr. Ives is to be sent out from his official station, not changed from New York, and when he completes the advisement of a few men he will be returned to the New York office. That is the procedure in the hospitals where there is not a very large number of men and where we do not have an adviser all the time. The actual order had been issued for Mr. Meyer to go to northern New York with his official station changed, and when I heard that I sent a telegram stating that it must not be done.

Mr. ROBSION. Mr. Meyer had taken the new station before you got in touch with Mr. Clark?

Mr. LAMKIN. No, sir. As I recollect, it was Saturday. Mr. Meyer was to go on Monday. I wired Saturday afternoon. I think Mr. Meyer never got that word, but I am confident that he stayed in New York. Mr. Smiley, the supervisor of training, came down here on Sunday and I told Mr. Smiley when he went back to see that the order was rescinded on Monday morning, because Mr. Clark was to be in Buffalo on that day, and that I should like to talk with Mr. Meyer, to have him come down here. Monday morning I wired the New York office instructing them to have Mr. Meyer come to Washington. I had what I considered a satisfactory conference with him as all my conferences with Mr. Meyer have been.

Mr. ROBSION. But you did learn that Mr. Clark had given the order and had sent instructions to a certain school to which Mr. Meyer was assigned, that he would be transferred to that place?

Mr. LAMKIN. No, sir; I did not know that Mr. Clark had sent instructions to the school. The only information which I had was that he had given instructions to Mr. Meyer to go; as to the correspondence with the school, I do not know anything about that. Mr. ROBSION. How many telegrams or telephone messages did you have to send before you got any response from Mr. Clark? Mr. LAMKIN. I wired him Saturday afternoon. I think I wired him again and telephoned once; possibly I wired twice and telephoned him. My telephone message was to the effect that I expected a wire so that I could have a written statement from him to the effect that Mr. Meyer and Mr. Ives had not been transferred out of New York.

Mr. ROBSION. How many days was that before you got the telegram from Mr. Clark?

Mr. LAMKIN. I think that was the 24th of April, if I remember. I think Mr. Littledale made the statement on the stand on the 23d. It was in response to that statement that I wired Mr. Clark, and not hearing from him the following morning, I telephoned. I am not sure about the second wire.

Mr. ROBSION. How many days?

Mr. LAMKIN. One week.