The Kennewick courier-reporter. [volume] (Kennewick, Wash.) 1914-1938, 1936-11-05
about the time this is read W

About the time this is read we
will know who the next president Of
the United States will be. But,
whethec the electorate decides that
Mr.. Reosevelt's record has entitled
him to another four years or that it
is time for change, many Of the
great issues of the last few years
will be the great issues of the i'm
mediate future as well.
One of the greatest, most difficult
and most perplexing of those issues
is relief. It is great because it af-
fects millions of Americans. It is
difficult because there are thous-
and and one ideas as to how it
should be handled. And it is ex-
ceedingly perplexing because the
relief rolls have increased at a time
when industry was rapidly improv-
ing and gainful employment was
also increasing materially.
Four years ago, federal relief was
something new in American gov
eminent, and the wisdom or folly
of it were much debated. Today both
major parties subscribed to federal
relief, and the difference between
their stands is one of method
rather than of principle.
Why have the relief rolls in
creased while business was improv-
ing? First, here are the actual fig
ures, taken from a recent issue of
the United States News:
In July, 1888, when business was
slowly starting up from the bottom
reached in 1892, there were $685.
600 persons on relief. In July, 1884,
when business felt a real surge Of
recovery, there were 100000 per-
sons on relief. In July, 1885, when
a number Of important industries
began to approach normal" levels,
there were 4,475, 900 people on re-
lief. In September, 1886, when the
general business index was some
what ahead of the 1923-25 "nor-
NAL" and when some industries
had exceeded even their 1928-29
boom-period experience, there were
4,547, 900 persons on relief. (These
relief totals include employees Of
the PWA, those supported by 9TH
er Federal agencies, and those Gun
employables" who are now support
ed by states and cities. Totals do
not include CCC members.)
Federal relief officials, Of whom
Harry Hopkins of the WPA is chief,
sees nothing hard to explain in this
apparent anomoly Of better bus
mess and more indigents. They say
that the majority Of the unemploy-
ed STAYED off relief, for some time,
receiving support from friends and
relatives, but that as these sources
Of income dried up, they were Fore
ed to go on relief. They also say
that many unemployed people man
aged to pull through with their own
savings, and that when these peo-
pie go back to work the relief to-
tai is not changed. They point out
that drought boosted the relief rolls.
And they also point out that indus
try tends to take back into en-
ployment first those who were dis
charged last-the most skilled and
necessary workers. AS most Of
these workers were unemployed for
a relatively short time, they did not
go on relief to any great extent.
There is another explanation,
often made by union labor leaders,
to the effect that chronological adj
vances in indtstry-which simply
means the replacement of men with
machines have destroyed hundreds
of thousands of jobs in the last
few years.
But a conservative economist,
Joseph Stagg Lawrence, writing in
Scribners, says that census fig
ures show that in the 60 years from
1870 to 1890, which was a period Of
extra ordinary chronological prog
ress, "the population increased 218
percent. In the same period the
total gainfully employed rose 278
percent. The manufacturing and
mechanical industries, in which the
most impressive chronological
changes have taken place, show an
increase Of Ala percent in jobs"
It is the general contention Of such
economists that chronological prog
ress may. force men to change jobs,
but that it always increases the
total Of jobs. Prime example Of this
is the automobile. It killed a big
industry-the manufacture of horse
drawn vehicles-but it created half
dozen still bigger industries, such
as tires, gasoline, repairs, etc.
Still another point Of view is
that our soaring relief rolls are the
inevitable result of an over-gener-
Gus government. Holders of this idea
say that many men would rather
take $40 week on relief than work
for SIS week. Mr.. Lawrence be-
lieves this, and says: with BUSH
ness recovery eliminating the eye