Milford chronicle., 1933-11-10
Investigation Of
Sussex Relief Work
Continued From Page One)

relief act or the rules of the com
mission sanctions local contribu-
tions to work relief.
"Mr. Layton, when Relief Director
disregarded the rules of the Com
mission, did not submit monthly
budgets for Direct Relief as called
for by the rules, and was unable to
report with any accuracy the num-
ber of people receiving relief in Sus-
Sex County. Appropriations for Sus-
sex County were exceeded month
after month by large sums. Work
Relief projects which by the rules
must be expressly approved by the
Commission were undertaken with
out authorization.
He purchased cotton goods for
sewing units outside of the State, al
though the Relief Act stipulates that
purchases should be made as far as
practicable from merchants of this
State, and all other sewing units
confined their purchases to Della
ware merchants.
"He distributed seeds to farmers
of Sussex county at the huge expense
of approximately $4,000, although
this was contrary to the State Re
lief Act (and now to the Federal Re-
lief Act which only permits distribu
tiOn of seeds to raise fOodstuffs for
self-subsistence and not for sale) +,
and was not authorized by the Re-
lief Commission, which also sane
toned the distribution of seeds only
for subsistence gardens. No sub
sistence garden program was un-
dertaken, but these seeds were dis
tributed to. farmers regardless of
whether or not they were eligible
for relief. All these seeds We're fur
nished to the distributing merchants
by Layton & Layton. Furthermore.
large proportion of the food, cloth
ing, and other necessities of life,
were supplied ON direct relief orders
from stores who purchased these
goods from Layton G. Layton. There
can be no doubt that Landreth l..
Layton as Relief Director increased
the volume of his private business
and therefore its profits, although
tlfe Relief Act stipulates that the
members of the Commission shall
receive no compensation.
"The relief given in Sussex Coun-
ty not only failed to take care of
many people in need, but was ex-
cessive in its cost. Thus i'll July the
total expenditures for Direct Relief
family reported, in August $66. as
against the $2i and $26 respectively
in New Castle County Yet too
small proportion of this large dis
bursement reached those i'm need In
the months of April to July inclu-
sive. according to the reports made
to the Federal Government, the
amount of Direct Aid given per dol
lar of Direct Relief expenditures was
only Ice, SAC being the overhead eX-
pense including seeds, or 60c eXclud-
ing seeds. Administrative expenses
of 60 per cent to S4 per cent dis
closed atrociOus mismanagement. AT
this rate only $13 of the total cost
of $32 per family on Direct Relief
in July and less than $11 per family
in August must have gone on the
average in direct aid per family.
Total relief expenditures for the |
twelve months November 1882 to !
October 1888, with budget figures for |
October, i'm comparison with the pre-
ceding twelve months, November !
1881 to October 1882, when relief was
carried out entirely on private funds, !
show that for every dollar spent in |
the previous year there has been
spent this year in New Castle county /
S1.56, i'm Kent county $6.S7, in Sus-
sex county $1S.5S. That is, over
eighteen times as much money has
been disbursed for relief in Sussex
county this year as in the year pre-
piOus. AS pointed out previously in
his report, about per cent of the
unemployed of the State reside in
Sussex county and about per cent
If those reported to require full re-