Milford chronicle., 1933-12-22

dDOul tMO ulOHluS dllST du OplHiOh
had been given by the attorney gen.
eral concerning the forbidding OF
the filling of relief food orders by
chain stores.
Asked by Senator Griffenberg if
the federal authorities were aware
of what was going ON in Sussex
county, Mr.. Ackart replied in the
affirmative, stating there were in
vestigatOrs in the State.
Mr.. Ackart was asked if he knew
of Mr.. Layton putting persons on
work relief, who were ineligible for
relief. mot of my own knowledge" "
he answered. He said, however, he
heard rumors of this, but not from
sources conclusive enough to base
such a charge.
The witness said there were one
or two small jobs started in Sussex
county without authorization of the
commission.
He testified there never was any
n f e + e n that work relief
should be done, except on a strictly
100 per cent pay basis by the State.
Replying to further queries from
Mr.. Green, Mr.. Ackart was specific
that the payment of food orders for
work relief was distinctly in viola
tion of the spirit and letter of the
law.
He told of having seen six or
eight complaints relative to the fail
ure of receiving relief. He referred
a letter from a Washington source
concerning certain people in Seaford
who were in dire circumstances.
They applied for food orders, but got
no relief, it was stated. The letter
was referred to Mr.. Layton and was
discussed with him. The witness
claimed the matter was not attended
to promptly.
Have there been any complaints
of that type in New Castle county?"
Senator Latchum asked.
II have seen none in writing" Mr..
Ackart replied.
mo doubt there have been," CHI
med in Senator Griffenberg. 1--WE
heard of some"
Mr.. Ackart said he was able to
agree with Mr.. Cranes testimony,
relative to the distribution of seed
in Sussex county.
Difficulty in obtaining written fig
ures from Mr.. Layton in the prepa-
ration of appropriations was de-
scribed. Mr.. Ackart said that the
former Sussex county relief director
would state that he forgot his brief
case and then would figure out his
needs on the back of an envelope.
Referring to a claim that Mr.. Lay
ton had submitted budgets each
Representative Abrahams
"He must have constru-
ed the back of the envelope as
budget"
'He must have" returned the wit
ness.
Replying to further questioning,
Mr.. Ackart stated he understood the
federal investigators conducted
probe into the three counties.
Senator Simonton asked how Of
ten Mr.. Layton attended the meet
ings. The witness said he attended
at least 80 per cent of the meetings.
Senator Griffenberg asked Mr..
Ackart if he still subscribes to the
report the commission submitted to
Governor Buck. "Yes sir" he replied.
Senator Latchum asked if food Or
1ers were given for work relief in
New Castle and Kent counties. Mr..
Ackart replied there were instances
m the various counties where men
we're on relief for a period of time
and had received from 500 to $50.
They donated two days work to cut
wood for needy families. This was
notable particularly in the single
mems unit in Wilmington where
hey had food and lodging given
hem.
Mr.. Ackart continued that the idea |
'ame to him, from a New Jersey Wis
t. He said their practice was to ask |
| man to contribute work. after he |
lad received $50 worth of direct re-
ief. Ninety-fve per cent were will
ng to DO 1t, he pointed out.
He showed Senator Latcbum that |
his reverses the situation, as in I
sussex county it was contenied |
hat the men worked first and then
eceived the food orders, which, the |
pointed out, was contrary to |
he law. In other words, the New |
Jersey practice, which was employ |
ID at times in this State, provided |
or the giving of food orders first.
4ater the recipients could do nate
york.
Mr.. Ackart reiterated he knew of |
u case in New Castle or Kent coun-
les where food orders were used to |
ay for work.
Mr.. Green asked how the expenses
If the commission members were
aiken care of. The witness replied |
hey were part of the administra-
ion expenses, requiring the, approv-
! of the commission.
Then no director had a right TO
ay himself without the bill being |
pproved?" asked Mr.. Green. Mr..
lckart agreed.
Mrs. Hughes said she wished to
orroborate the testimony which had
cen offered by Mr.. Crane, Mr.. Ack-
rt and Walter Dent Smith, another {
lember of the commission.
She said she knew, from seeing a
stter, that a man who said he paid
lis 20 per cent of the cost of ditch
rainage, or $40, wrote that he re-
eived only $40 worth of work. The