The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-12-28

NO11k1CcO CV4AVOAASo WAAA W
waged over the issue.
In the previous battles the chief
points of controversy were two:
IN the amount of relief to be ex-
tended: 81 the form it was TO
take.
OVER THE FIRST QUESTION
the opposing lines were clear-cut.
The liberals demanded large
grants; the conservatives, backed
by business interests, clamored
for minimum appropriations.
ON THE SECOND POINT the
lineup was less definite. Some Of
the liberals favored the work.
relief method, others the public
works plan, while still others
urged q combination Of both.
Among business men, some held
for q dole" others work-relief,
and q minority, chiefly in the
construction industry, advocated
public works.
The president, after several
years Of uncertainty and expert
ments with the dole and the CWA
finally settled on a combination
OF work-relief ana pubic works-
90 PER CENT OF THE FIRST,
10 PER CENT OF THE LATTER.
This Is the program now in
operation. It Is headed for q Sc
we're raking when the. president
sends to Capitol Hill his $780,
nm nnn def5eiancv an0r0Driati0n
TO carry the WPA through 70
June 80, 1887, the END OF the
current fiscal year.
Three. Sided Attack
-, - az.
ne ae:aCE WI pe ,, 'nIee-s.oeu.
UNE nAnnA01 WI co.ne ION
.ne coliseSva.ase ! huacss psSSi as
xagoI0uey III = apg nn.., U ~
EeneL e@pnlteS' LU..ne 70
noomlng maustrial actlv.Iy, tney
c1nteno INA. private u..si. ne -, -
apsVuts AaLse na " IL
eMpiCyeu' anu ns.s'S e.a. yne
peSlIen. naAe $500 i,S 20, p n...!;.se
70 Daiaiics 'l'e Duuses w '"''"s
Rel UA, CU x.S ,,rx,un u.x III,
. OM amE UIaEM MA ~ n ~
Isllt.y a,ayeu asai ,is .aess sis
,ha @,-o WI, " S,o s.e trn Uei a. sar
tnS u[Outl, IVY .ton WIG 1alA ~
Delt. plus ne y. .. conference ,,e. OF
mayors. LIE Eo"Sui S ,..on
VIZ VIZ az a' sr, I'LL s,,t,, opp Sa,,s.,n
5000 .s pS.' "A'A !" uouD'e
i e = !, " ~ = n ry,x,r Arr -
.,x Mv M 1., v 1917. WI &c
al .sno 40 XXX ~ ~ a;.,.a., CO.. rs,.t
ZIG yoov,cvv'ovv uSnc ucso n noa coo
It is the contention Of the coaii-
ton that If only q half-billion is
appropriated there will have to be
a one-third cut in relief rolls.
Against this they are grimly OPP
posed, both on social and eco
nomic grounds,
Industry, they concede, Is
1iourishing and has provided
million or more new Jobs. But
they cite irrefutable figures to
prove that only ? small portion
OF these iieE workers have come
from relief ranks, According TO
to their figures the great bulk
OF the idle are .still idle as far
40 private employment ID con- 4
cerned. Il
They argue that 70 throw q
large number. OF relief would
meat, forcing them back on to
the cities and states, which can
not carry this burden.
The coalitions second drive
grows out OF the argument on
which their first attack is based.
Permanent Relief Policy
T,,a,, ,ra,st q ,er,,, = a,st Sad.-o,
relief rro~rar
This Ss,s,ara O. rr.s;.e+.a
-, th.,r an..ta,,.;c,, 49, =.
Sm.t~v 4. rot shsorhin. w".k.r.
s.a,.: ~. ,sS,.c rcsIs' tn. s,.t.,,ssl
49, s ~ - 1870
..oI.s 49, ,',,,roa.. ~. TS.s
permanent, army Of dependents
Is being formed.
To hope that somehow and
sometime these economic casual
ties" win secure jobs, the coalition
declares, is futile and costly wish
full thinking. Instead they want
the administration and business
to recognize that the hundreds Of
thousands Of unfortupates are q
permanent problem and that, in
the interest Of both economy and
humanity, they must be dealt with