At the time this controversy was raging between the Social Security Board and the then Governor of Ohio, I and practically every other citizen of the State were very much interested in the controversy. It was very evident that the matter could have been adjusted if a proper spirit of conciliation had been shown by those who were most actively engaged in the controversy. As is often the case, those who encouraged the battle did not suffer the penalties involved. The innocent frequently suffer for something over which they have absolutely no control. That was the unfortunate situation in the State of Ohio in connection with this matter. Old-age pensioners who had a right to expect their monthly payments and who had made arrangements accordingly were very much put out by reason of what appeared to be a useless controversy.

From my examination of the Social Security Act and from my somewhat extensive consideration of the Social Security Act amendments that were presented at this session of the Congress, I feel that there is no question but that the philosophy of the social security program is to carry to the intended beneficiary the stipend to which he is entitled and carry it to him as freely as possible from any governmental interference. It would seem to me that this matter before us for consideration was handled in just the opposite direction. Technicalities and personalities were, unfortunately, permitted to interfere in the free flow of these pensions, with the result that the recipients for whom they were intended did not receive them until long after the proper time; and during all the time the pensioners were in irritating suspense as to whether they were to receive their pensions; and if so, whether they would be reduced. We all know from experience that the finest thing about a pension is the certainty of the amount and the promptness and regularity of its payment.

I do hope, therefore, that your committee may see fit to pass this Jenkins bill and thereby make amends for this very grave injustice that has been directed toward the good State of Ohio. While Pennsylvania and New York and all other States were drawing the October grant, as was proper, the State of Ohio was deprived of its October grant. It must be remembered that although $1,330,000 may not be so much in national finance parlance, it is yet a considerable sum even to a great State like Ohio. The common people as well as the officials of the State of Ohio feel that there is no question about the justice of our cause, and for that reason we hope that the members of your committee may find it easy to give this bill favorable consideration and to press for its enactment by the Congress at this session.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLARENCE J. BROWN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. JENKINS. I ask that the committee hear Representative Brown of Ohio next.

Mr. CELLER. We shall be glad to hear the gentleman at this time. Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, I have been very much interested in the bill Mr. Jenkins has introduced and which is now before your honorable committee.

I have the honor to represent the largest district, territorially, in the State of Ohio. My district contains some large cities, but most of it is devoted to agriculture. Some of the finest agricul

tural lands in America, as well as many large and important industries, are located in my district.

I cite these facts that you may know that I speak for a truly representative district. We have many highly educated persons, and, of course, we have many very poor persons, and many who are dependent upon State and National Government assistance through pensions and compensation of various other kinds.

Because of the fact that for years I have been intimately connected with the State government of Ohio, many persons talk to me with reference to this controversy between the Social Security Board and the then Governor of my State concerning old-age pensions.

Ohio had an old-age pension system for several years before the Federal Government enacted the Social Security Act. The first State administrator of old-age pensions came from my district. That great organization known as the Fraternal Order of Eagles was largely responsible for the first old-age pension law in the State of Ohio. The home office of that organization in Ohio is located in my district.

The

On account of all these facts I have a special interest in this proposal now before members of the subcommittee. I sincerely hope that you may find it easy to recommend the passage of this bill, because there can be no question as to the merits of the case. State of Ohio is entitled to the amount of money set forth in the bill presented by Mr. Jenkins, and until the State of Ohio is paid this money there will always be an obligation of the Federal Government toward the State of Ohio.

I understand that we have no legal remedy through the courts; and, if this be true, it is only natural that we should come to the Congress, which is the branch of the Government nearest to the people, for relief.

The good people of the State of Ohio are entitled to this money, and as representatives of the people of Ohio in Congress, we would be derelict in our duty if we did not do our utmost to assist in the passage of this most worthy measure now before you.

While it is true that a conflict of personalities, mixed somewhat with political jealousies, was responsible for the break between the two administrations, without regard to who is right or who is wrong. I know that the great mass of the people of Ohio was not interested in that phase nearly so much as in the fact that our citizens were to be deprived of a grant that rightly belonged to them.

I know that the Representatives from Ohio are all very willing to do anything within their power to effect any reconciliation, if such is necessary. However, at the present time there is the finest cooperation between the State of Ohio and the Federal Government, through its agent the Social Security Board. All of us are glad of this fact. I think it will furnish a basis upon which this matter may be worked out most successfully and satisfactorily.

Therefore, in behalf of the people of my district, and more especially on behalf of all the people of the State of Ohio and honest and sincere justice, I appeal to you to give this matter your most careful and enlightened attention. Strip it, please, of all bickerings and jealousies and look at the real facts as they are; and there is no question but that you will be moved by a high sense of justice to

169331-39-ser. 9

favorably reporting this bill and pressing for its early enactment into law.

In conclusion, I thank you most cordially for this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to say a word in the interest of right and justice for the people of my good State.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. JONES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. JONES. This controversy between Governor Davey and the Social Security Board was the result of personal differences of opinion between Governor Davey, of Ohio, and the national democratic administration. The people of Ohio, and especially the old-age pensioners, have not been concerned with any of these differences and would certainly support and uphold any ruling of the National Social Security Board which would improve the administration of oldage assistance in Ohio. The people of Ohio, and especially the old people, have voiced their disapproval of politics in the administration of old-age assistance there, and on that score they are in accord with the criticism by the Social Security Board of the Davey administration of old-age assistance during the year 1938 and particularly the month of October of that year.

It is significant that only the allotment for one month, for October 1938, was withheld and subsequent allotments for November and December were given to the State of Ohio.

The old people of the State of Ohio and the citizenry of Ohio certainly welcomed at the time any improvements that were encouraged and brought about by the Social Security Board in the State administration. Now, we must assume there was an improvement for the reason that subsequent allotments were not withheld in 1938 and are not being withheld at this time; and, had the people the power to take a vote during October 1938, they would have overwhelmingly asked Governor Davey to take the desired steps to prohibit this situation from occurring.

The people of Ohio, through their Congressmen and through the memorial of their State legislature given early in the year 1939, give the same sentiment they would have given in October of 1938.

I therefore urge that this committee make it possible to give to the old people of Ohio the October allotment of the Federal Government by reporting out this bill favorably.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHESTER C. BOLTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, you have already listened to full explanation of the details surrounding the refusal of the Social Security Board in October of last year to certify for payment to the State of Ohio the sum of $1,338,160.92. This amount represents the Federal Government's share of old-age payments in Ohio for the month of October 1938.

The refusal of the Social Security Board was based entirely upon differences between the then Governor of Ohio and officials of the Board regarding administration of the old-age pension funds. The persons most concerned, who had to do without a portion of their payments for the month in question, are the old-age pensioners in

Ohio. They are in need, and it seems to me that they should not be penalized because of a controversy with which they had nothing to do. H. R. 5118, introduced by my good friend and colleague Mr. Jenkins, will correct the situation and give to our old-age pensioners that which is due them. I hope your committee will act promptly and favorably upon the bill so that this injustice may be corrected without further delay.

STATEMENT OF HON. VIC DONAHEY, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. Chairman and members of the Judiciary Committee, I am interested in H. R. 5118 and am glad to appear before you in the interest of this measure in an effort to secure for Ohio the funds withheld from our division of aid for the aged. I sincerely hope this measure may pass.

VIC DONAHEY. STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL J. KIRWAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. KIRWAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to join most heartily in my endorsement of H. R. 5118. This bill should be passed. There is no question but that the equities in this case are entirely with the State of Ohio. While other States were getting their October installment in 1938 from the Government for its share of the old-age pensions, Ohio was omitted. Regardless of what the controversy might have been that situation has now been removed and there is absolutely no reason why the money should not be paid. I think I reflect the sentiments among all classes of people in the State of Ohio. The Federal social-security law was not intended to be administered in any narrow and small way. It is a broad, comprehensive piece of legislation and should be administered accordingly. Petty differences should not be permitted to change the course of the enforcement of this important piece of legislation.

I am glad to add my endorsement to this bill and to encourage this committee in the most emphatic way possible to proceed immediately to report this bill out so that we might have it passed by the House in this session of Congress. It is important to the State, and it is important to the Government to do justice.

STATEMENT OF HON. L. L. MARSHALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, the funds for old-age pensions in Ohio, as in other States, are provided by equal contributions from the treasury of the State of Ohio and the United States Treasury. In the final analysis, however, the funds which accrue in the Treasury of the United States are put there by the taxpayer of the individual States so that all the money available, including both that which is taken directly from the treasury of the State of Ohio and that which is reassigned to the State from the Federal Treasury, are contributed

by the taxpayer of the State. It seems to me that any Board assuming to have the power of withholding from the taxpayers of Ohio funds which in reality belong to them, should exercise such power with the utmost of discretion and only in the gravest of emergencies.

If the amount withheld by the Board, as the Federal "contribution," is not made available to the State, the practical result will be that the taxpayers of Ohio have paid this amount twice because this deficiency was made up by a charge on the general fund of the State.

This bill is even more justified by the fact that the State of Ohio is one of those States which contribute far more to the Federal Treasury, per capita, than most of the States of the Union.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT A. TAFT, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. TAFT. Mr. Chairman and members of the Judiciary Committee, I am glad to have this opportunity to make a brief statement to your committee with reference to H. R. 5118, which is a bill introduced by Representative Jenkins of Ohio asking for relief to the State of Ohio by reason of the failure of the Social Security Board to pay to the State of Ohio the installment due in October 1938 for the benefit of the old-age pensioners in the State of Ohio.

Your committee has already heard and is no doubt thoroughly familiar with the agitation that was carried on in Ohio during the summer and fall of 1938 with reference to the failure of the Social Security Board and the State administration to cooperate amicably with reference to matters in which both were necessarily interested. It is not necessary for me to comment upon this. I feel sure that any differences that might have arisen between these two authorities could easily have been composed if personalities could have been submerged for the benefit of equity and justice.

There is no question but that the equities are overwhelmingly with the people of Ohio, who will be the beneficiaries of this law if enacted. I am glad this bill goes directly to the only point now in controversy, to wit, the payment of the money. This bill does not encourage or provoke any discussion as to the rights and responsibilities of the Board. Neither does it criticize the Board for its action nor the State authorities in any way. All these matters are, in effect, water over the dam, and the only issue now is how best to do justice and equity. This money was paid to old-age pensioners in Ohio by the State. If the State of Ohio had complied immediately with the Board's orders, the money would have been paid to it. Its failure to comply may have been contrary to the law, but there is no evidence that this failure resulted in one dollar of pension money being paid out improperly; no evidence that 1 cent more was paid than would have been paid if the Board's orders had been carried out at once. I hope your honorable committee will recommend this bill, as a measure of justice to the voters and taxpayers of a sovereign State.

STATEMENT OF EVAN CHASE, FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. JENKINS. I should like to introduce Mr. Evan M. Chase, first assistant attorney general of the State of Ohio. The attorney general is unavoidably absent, being at this time in the State of California; and Mr. Chase will speak for him concerning this matter.