Milford chronicle., 1933-12-22
Charge Lam
Was Violated In
Relief Orders
Continued From Page onel

Mr.. Crane, chairman of the commits
sion, and Mayor Collins, anothe
member of the commission, relativ
to the report submitted by the com
mission to Governor Buck. He sal
he could do this from his own know
ledge and from circumstantial evi
dence that convinced him it was /;
fair report.
He said it did not take him Ions
to come to the conclusion that Mr.
Layton was one of the old schoO
businessmen, who liked to play ;
lone hand his own way. He told o
the difficulty to get Mr.. Layton t
go along with the methods and poli
cies adopted in the handling of the
commissions work.
Mr.. Layton, according to the wit
ness, said he was familiar with the
situation in Sussex county and knew
how to handle it. He said the mem
bers felt they would have to be
rather expedient with the old gen
tleman," since it was appreciated
that he could not work in a cooper
ative way. If they did not act in
such manner, they were fearful that
the work of the commission would
suffer, he testified. This, he said
was one explanation for the COM
missions attitude oil making appro-
priations for the overruns for Sus-
sex county.
Mr.. Ackart said it was felt that
Mr.. Layton's office was lax in ac-
counting, and it was frequently sug-
gested to him that someone be sent
down to Sussex county to assist
him. Mr.. Layton promised a new
bookkeeper would straighten out the
matter.
The relief commissioner explain
ed that a Statewide appropriation
of $4,000 was made for county inn
provements to be distributed on the
basis of the number of families on
relief in the three counties. AS re-
suit, $4,000 was appropriated to
Sussex county, with $4,000 for
Kent county and 100000 for New
Castle county and Wilmington.
1t was left to the local relief di-
rectors to distribute the money into
the various projects as they saw
they were necessary, the witness sex-
planned. He said specific instruc-
tions were given, following consid-
erable discussion, that the appropri-
ations were not to be exceeded.
After it had been in operation for
several weeks, Mr. Layton came to
the commission with the explana-
tion that his county had overrun its
appropriation $4,000, Mr.. Ackart
said. This, he recalled, led to a spir-
tied discussion. In order to continue
the work, it was decided, he stated,
to pay the amount.
The work was continued and the
final accounting of that particular
project showed about $4,000 spent
instead of the $4,000 appropriated
for Sussex county, he testified. This
together with the other overruns on
direct relief, led the commissioners
to doubt if Mr.. Layton had a proper
accounting and proper control, the
witness continued. He commented
that it also made some members
doubt whether he wanted to live
within the appropriations.
Were the members of the COM
mission unanimous in asking Mr..
Layton to resign?" Senator Griffen-
berg inquired. The witness replied
affirmatively.
Mr.. Ackart said he felt justified in
trying to get Mr.. Layton to cooper
ate with the members of the COM
mission in carrying on the job. He
pointed out that Mr.. Layton was the
man appointed by the Governor to
do the relief work for Sussex coun-
ty.
He said he was convinced Mr.. Lay
ton was not temperamentally or eth
ically qualified to administer relief
in Sussex county, as the Overruns
indicated he did not follow his work
in business-like way. In addition,
he testified, he assumed this attitude
because of the various rumors and
complaints, eliminating in the dis
closure concerning the unauthoriz-
ed seed expenditures. He took this
view in about June or July, he testi-
fled.
From that time, according to the
witness, the members of the COM
tried to think of way to
have Mr.. Layton resign. Mutual
friends, he said, talked to Mr.. Lay
ton about quitting the office, but
avail.
"The committee was unanimous
that he resign to the extent that the
seven of us agreed to set of reso-
lutions to present to him outlining
the situation, if he would not re-
sign," Mr.. Ackart testified. lie told
of one meeting, in particular, when
two or three members of the COM
spoke to Mr.. Layton in
room in an effort to con-
vince him of the advisability of re-
signing.
Mr.. Layton defended the payment
for work by food orders on the
ground that the temper of the peo-
pie of Sussex county rebelled
against the taking of a DOLE" Mr..
Ackart said.
The witness said that Mr.. Crane
and he strongly condemned the use
Of food orders for the payment of
work and they requested Mr.. Lay
ION to cease such action. Unwilling
y, he advised that he would, Mr..
Ackart testified. Replying to a query !