Evening star., 1934-09-16
RELIEF OFFICIALS
WILL PROBE AUTO
OWNERS 0NL|STS
Survey to Determine if Car
Users Are Entitled
to Aid.
III MOTORS OPERATED
BY EMERGENCY CLIENTS
Surplus Commodity List Being
Checked-Street Plans Test
After Charges.

Relief officials this week will make
a check to determine if families on
the relief list who own automobiles
are entitled to receive Government
aid.
This action is being taken in lit
cases as a result of complaint made
by Rufus s. Lusk, secretary Of the
washington Taxpayers Protective As
sociation, that hundreds on relief
were possessors Of automobiles.
While readily admitting that there
probably are chiselers on the Dis
trict relief list, officials still are not
convinced the findings by Lusk rep
resent the correct general situation.
III Cars Of Clients.
Lusk submitted to Miss Alice Hill,
emergency relief director, the tag
numbers Of cars which were driven
to the District relief warehouse at
First and C streets, from which sur
plus commodities are distributed to
relief clients.
Miss Hill, in a reply to Lusk yes
terday, said there were 397 names
listed, but that check showed that
$50 of the car owners were not known
to the relief organization, that only
lit of the cars belonged to relief
clients.
I'VE are taking two steps to look
into this matter at once" she wrote.
First Of all, we are completely re-
vising our list of persons receiving sur
plus commodities, to be very sure that
no one who is not receiving relief Is on
the surplus commodity list. Secondly,
we are sending list of the lit auto
mobile owners to our division super
visors asking them to carefully check
as to whether the case worker had
knowledge that the client owned an
automobile and to determine whether
the facts of the case warrant the con-
that the client owned an automobile.
Investigation Planned.
'In case our staff did not have
knowledge that the client owned an
automobile, immediate investigation
into the circumstances will be made to
determine again whether they would
be eligible for relief under those cir
cumstances.
Elwood Street, director of public
welfare, said yesterday sample tests
would be made to see why the $50 cars,
other than the lit owned by relief
clients, called at the surplus commodi-
ties Office on the date cited by Lusk.
He said it might be that friends of
persons on relief had taken needy
families there to get their food allot-
ments. He said in some cases relief
clients might have given or sold their
commodity warrants to other persons
who drove cars to the place, but
doubted If this practice was wide
spread. Needy families, he said, are
getting only bare necessity allowances
and he doubted if many were dispos.
ing of their commodity warrants.
Miss Hill found an answer to a
question by Lusk as to relief client
who arrived at the office in a new
model car, whereas back in January
The old car, Miss Hill said. was
wrecked and the garage company res
ponsible for the car at the time had
collected a considerable amount of
insurance and that through this paw
ment to the owner he secured the
new car. The man, Miss Hill said
mas not been receiving relief from the
District for a year and drives his car
Tor the District on a contract basis.
Placing applicants for relief under
oath as to all of their statements
was recommended to Commissioner
George E. Allen yesterday by the
association as a means of reducing
relief expenses here.
Other suggestions offered in a let
ter from the association, signed by Mr.
Lusk, were that whenever suitable
employment Is offered to a person on
relief and it is refused, the recipient
should Immediately be cut from the
relief rolls; relief authorities should
pay rent direct to landlords in ex-
change for reductions in rent; Q
complete recheck should be made OF
each relief case; consideration OF
substituting relief in kind for cash
relief should be undertaken.
Lusk's letter was based on a state
ment of Allen that he would well
come suggestions from him as tc
how to handle the needy better than
the relief authorities are now doing
As to the requirement Of the oath
LuSk said: "The pllrpose of this
would be to deter the willful ano
deliberate chiselers, and make others
more careful of their statements. We
know of a specific case where the
client told his case worker his rent
for a three-room apartment in one
of the best residential sections was
$50, whereas it actually was and Il
$65. Under our suggestion this re.
lief chiseler-we use the word ad
visedly-could be indicted for per
jury"