The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-09-16

HuUHSy, WOTBCllthtuu AbSASVCus "I want to have something to say about spending it."
 He threw his weight with the President. Thus the job of re- viving CWA, cloaked under the high-sounding title of Works Relief, began.
 Hard On Harry
 All this was not definitely de- cided until the time lCongress appropriated the money. Crit icism for" this delay was heaped undeservedly on Hopkins head, and he, smarting under the shower of vitriol. leaped at the job.
 Harry made his plans through the simple process of long divi- sion. He had 3,50O,O0O unem- ployed to put to work, and he had $4,0O0, 100000 to spend. So he divided the first into the sec ond and got $1140, which he fig ured was the approximate amount of money he could pay each man per year.
 But when the President clipped of large chunk of money for Rex Tugwell's Rur- al Resettlcment. and another chunk for Rural Elcctrifica- ton, which Brought Hopkins annual man-Wagc down to about $500.
 Later $50, 900 more came off for the Youth Administra- tion, by which time poor Har- ry was wondering how he was going to get his 3,500,000, men back to work at all.
 Too Hot
 This was where the row with Ickes really began to get hot.
 Originally Ickes was supposed to have a certain amount of the four billions--in fact he was to spend all amounts above $25,- 900. Imagine his delight, there fore, when he found friend Hop- kins resorting to the cute trick of dividing the cost of his pro- jects into multinles of $25,000. For instance, so many miles of road would be built in Colorado at $25,0OO a mile, the total rum ming into several hundred thou- sand.
 Also, Roosevelt gave Hop kins the right to veto Ickes's projects. This he justified with the argument that Ickcs's projects used more materials than men, and Hopkins was responsible for getting the men to work.
 No consideration was given to the fact that the manufacture of materials also put men to work though under private industry. This type of employment did not make imposing publicity figures for the Administration.
 So Hopkins began vetoing Ickes projects right and left. He turned down a PWA school house for Palermo, ". D., while neighboring areas were given Q bird sanctuary and 8 golf links under his own WPA.
 In Arkansas, Hopkins vetoed Jckes' PWA projects for sewage and waterworks for Hughes, Mt. View, Hartford, Bearden, Lux ora and Dierks, instead gave them sewage systems under his own WPA. Thus the towns will have the pipes but no water to flush them. '.
 All this was justified csa the basis of using more men and less materials.
 Frenzied Activity
 But now Hopkins went in for activity just for activity's sake. His men began combing each state looking for projects, bid- ding against Ickes's PWA. To do this he amassed a staff of 25,000, the most elephantine and top- heavy in the government.
 And finally he began going fin even for heavy projects, definitely. of the PWA type, where material is more expcn. sivc than labor. Latest incur. sions in this field have been i'm Atlanta, Ga, and Washington, D. O.. both fin connection with sewer systems.
 Atlanta has an enviable fiscal record, being third soundest in the United States. Washington, whose expenses are met in part by the Federal government, also is in sound fiscal shape.
 Ickes offered these two cities sewage systems under tho usual PWA terms by which the city pays 65 per cent. Then Hop kins stepped in and offered Att lanta a $1S,000,0eO sewage sys- tenn with only 21 per cent to be paid back to the government. To the District of Columbia he wat willing to give ss1s.00O abso' lute- gratis.
 Naturally both cities were pleased. But thousands of oth-