The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-05-03
RELIEF AND THE STATES

TT vigorously prosecuted, the Senate inquiry
into relief methods Will reveal that: Many
state and local political machines are enjoy
ing a prosperity to which they are not &C
customed and not entitled;
Many state Legislatures and City Councils
have lacked the nerve TO force the economies
and levy the taxes needed to provided from
local sources fair share Of the funds re-
CURED to support their destitute citizens;
Wide disparities have existed in relief
Standards and racial discrimination has been
practced. especially in the Southern states
which have been greediest in their demands
on the Federal treasury and least willing to
tap local revenues;
Federal Relief Administrator Hopkins in
MS desperate effort to carry out President
Roosevelt's promise that no American shall
starve" has been forced to apply an elastic
yardstick which the chiselers have stretched
until it is no longer a useful gauge.
In 1888 relief costs in money and per-
centage of total were divided: States, S113,-
100000 DAB per cent?; localities, s1990oO,OOO
(251 per cent?; United States, s4SOOoOOOO
COG per cent?
In 1884 the division was: States, 100000
OPS per cent?; localities s224OOO,OOO d5.2 per
cent?; United States, $685. 100000 C2.3 per
cent?.
Thus we see that by incessant whip crack
ing. Mr. Hopkins compelled states and locali-
ties to increase their appropriations. Yet, pro-
portionally. their burden declined while the
Federal burden mounted as total costs scared.
Doubtless. one reason for the rising costs was
the failure to make local politicians raise
greater share of the money they expended.
During those two years. there we're nine
states which contributed from local revenues
less than per cent of their relief costs; Ala
bama. Arkansas Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi. New Mexico, South Carolina and
Tennessee. They are all states where the
Democratic party is in power. and where the
local Democratic machines continued to adj
minister the relief funds-eXcept in LouiSi-
ana and Georgia, where the Federal govern
ment stepped in and assumed control only
few days ago. 1t is also interesting to note
that Mississippi, which contributed only 10
per cent of its relief costs, currently boasts
100000 state surplus - about ID times the
amount which Mississippi state and local gov
ernments combined could find to spend for re-
lief in two years.
Meanwhile. six states contributed more
than SO per cent OF their relief costs. They
were: Connecticut Delaware. Maine, MaSsa-
chusetts. Rhode Island and Vermont.
OF course there are good reasons why some
of these six states can shoulder a greater bur-
den than states like the first nine named.
Being realist Mr.. Hopkins had to recognize
that some states are comparatively rich, and
others impoverished. But it is hard to excuse
a system under which one state pays 63.7 per
cent, while another pays only Is Per cent.
Regardless of the proportion OF the relief
burden in the various states, it is the plain re-
sponsibility Of Mr. Hopkins and Federal relief
officials TO supervise the spending OF Federal
tax money Federal officials should assume
active management of relief expenditures in
these states which shirk or are unable TO
meet their responsibilities Federal tax funds
should no longer be used to fuel and oil ire
sponsible political machines.