Milford chronicle., 1933-11-24
LAYTONDENIES
CHARGES; URGES
INVESTIGATION
[cOntinaed from Fbn fagel


against Sussex and Kent counties
could be maintained" He points
out that at the time the commission
was created it was not intended that
there should be any discrimination
between the counties in the distribu-
tion of the relief funds. He said the
law creating the commission pro-
vides that the commission should
consist of two members from Will
mington and two from each of the
three counties but, ito the astonish-
ment of many persons the Cover
nor saw fit in his appointments to
place on the commission four Re-
publicans entirely from New Castle
county and those interests centered
very largely in the City of Whining
ton. To add to this unbalanced SIT
uation of four Republicans and two
Democrats for New Castle county
there was the fact that six out of
eight members of the commission
were from New Castle Co., where al
most all of the money was spent,
and two-thirds of those members
were Republicans instead of an equal
division as had been contemplated
by the trainers of the bill and as had
been represented to the membership
of the General Assembly at the time
of the passage of the act"
Store Patronage
Relative to the criticism in the re-
port of his failure to patronize chain
stores Mr.. Layton quotes from the
of the commission in which
it is shown the commission voted
that it was the sense of the members
that purchases should not be made
from chain stores owned outside of
the State" until the Attorney General
could rule on the question of wheth-
er they could be patronized. He said
it was his intention to patronize
Delaware owned stores as far as pos
sible.
Criticism of his payment of men
on work relief in food orders instead
of cash is answered by the state
ment that this method was satisfac-
tory to those receiving these orders
and he again quotes the minutes of |
the commission to show that the
matter of such payments was left
in the hands of the county directors.
In answer to the charge that cash
were obtained from
property owners for 20 per cent of
.hOugh nothing in the relief act or
he rules of the commission sane
Toned local contributions to relief
work, Mr.. Layton, ito show that the
purpose of the report is to deceive
he people of the State of Delaware"
POINTS out that the relief act pro-
'ldes that contributions may be re-
,eived or obtained by the commission
# relief directors from any source
Denies Omitting Budgets
He denies the charge that he fail
ID to submit monthly budgets. Re
ributed seeds to farmers at an ex-
'ense of $4,000, he said these seeds
we're for potatoes, beans and other
ood stuffs, that 1927 persons re-
eived these seeds and that nothing
ould have been more beneficial to
he people of that agricultural dis
riet and that if they had not been
,iven out many people in Sussex
ounty would not have food to eat
his Winter. f
1T seems rather strange" says
fr. Layton, that the distribution of
eed was a matter for commentator
yhen they were distributed to city
DTS and other small pieces of land
a New Castle county, but is an i'm
roper use of funds when distributed
D agricultural section of Sussex
ounty."
Mr.. Layton denies that the relief
osts in Sussex county were excess
i've and that the statements in the
Ommissions report relative to this !
hase of the work seem to be large ,
: juggling of figures" He said he !
pposed the dole system, but was a {
opeless minority in the commission
/ his stand against such system
here as in New Castle county re- /
eff was distributed without requir- {
Ig work in return therefore which {
as contrary to a clause in the re- i
eff law. !
Denies Neglect t
He denies that any worthy cases '
his county were neglected or de- d
led relief, as the commission {
larged, and he also denies the over I
Fad was excessive considering the 4
erritory to be covered and the a
mount of work to be done. Relative a
the commissions charge that it v
lied to receive cooperation from
70 Sussex county director, Mr.. Lay
n says, ''if any lack of cooperation +
d in fact exist it was due to the +
ok of concern for the welfare of h
e people of Sussex county on the u
lrt of the other members of the I,
because those members n
ho reside outside of that county Il
ere not familiar with the needs of
e people of Sussex county.
Finally" concludes Mr.. Layton's e..
ply, believing that the people of II
e State of Delaware are entitled Il
know the whole truth concerning u
e administration of the relief fund a
the State and should a
We answered the serious charges D
mored against the relief commits q
IN. believed to be true by many r
liens of this State, the relief di- Il
ctor for Sussex county recon- tt
ends that a thorough investiga- ie
IN be conducted by competent and OF
partial investigators concerning u
e expenditures of the whole sum
for relief purposes and
to the conduct of the relief COM tu
ssion as whole" b'
---- re
HOME MISSIONARY CO
OF