Evening star., 1934-10-30

Reports and promises dealing with
unemployment bring to public atten-
ton the prospects of relief on q large
scale during the coming Winter. Presi-
dent Roosevelt's statement that there
is mo place for a permanent army Of
the unemployed in the United States"
is widely quoted.
THE plans indicated" according to
the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin.
mean the immediate vitalization Of
P. w. A., the revival of c. w. A.. in one
form or another, indicated by the
President last Spring as possible
necessity in the Fall: it means the ex-
pansion Of the program for subsistence
homesteads, apparently including the
setting up and operation of govern
mental industrial enterprises for the
cooperative purpose; 1t probably
means an expansion Of the conserva-
ton camp program. According to the
announcement, every available means
of employment will be utilized by the
Federal Government. And the cost
there Is now talk Of q call on Congress
for an appropriation Of from five to ten
billion dollars-will be charged to the
necessity of national recovery"
mo one questions the ability Of the
Federal Government to stand one more
Winter of relief disbursements" says
the Lowell Courier Citizen. and the
Louisville Herald-Post declares, There
must be q broad attack on several
fronts" Emphasizing the point that
dependence Is the alternative to local
effort" the Los Angeles Times de-
clares: "Voluntary philanthropy is con-
structiye. Government centralized re-
lief control is demoralizing. Between
decentralization and starvation people
will choose decentralization. The only
existing remedy is the maintenance of
interest of local welfare leaders and
their participation in the administra-
ton Of relief"
THE central problem" as estimated
by the Grand Rapids Press. sis that
Of caring for 1900, 900 people or 90
900 900, which are estimated by Mr..
Donald Richberg as eventually relying
upon the Government for aid before
the Winter is over. The percentage
of last years relief burden is broken
down as follows:
Federal, 60.6 per cent; State, 14.2
per cent; local, 25.2 per cent. 1t re-
mains to be seen whether solution
lies in a mere change In this shar-
ing of the relief burden, as Is now
being suggested. Regardless Of how
the percentages are shifted around
with more of the load falling upon
local units, as in the present proposal
the total is still q sobering, chal-
lenging 100 per cent Of over $780,
5000 q month"
The Chicago Daily News suggests
that first Of all there should be
q general classification Of the relief
lists. It makes this recommendation:
ITO say that there are between 49,
0OO, 900 and 20,000 900 on relief is not
enough. How many are children; how
many are old people? How many are
physically incapacitated? How many
are potential wage earners, ready to
20 to work II they get chance? How
many, on the other hand, are chronic
yagrants or social misfits who never
have been self-supporting and prob
ably never will be? How many are
men; how many women? How many
married, how many single? Only
when we have a report which at least
attempts to answer such questions as
these shall we really know where We
stand"
almost two-thirds Of the cost Of
public relief" states the New York
Times, "is now being carried by the
Federal Government. Admitting all
the difficulties with which States and
municipalities are confronted, 1t Is
basically an unsound situation when
Washington. which collects only about
one-fourth Of the total amount raised
by taxes, bears so large q share of the
burden of relief"
The States, In their eagerness to get
Federal hand-outs," declares the Sac
ramento Bee, have done more to limit