Work Relief Administration Press Conferences
Index  |  Publishing Information

Press Conference
Harry Hopkins
February 18, 1937
4:00 P.M.

Query:	How much extra do you think the flood will cost you in relief funds?
Mr. Hopkins:	I do not know that the WPA will cost yet because we can't tell what the increased item for materials is going to be. We will have a very large increase in our money; we will have to spend for material and equipment all up and down that area—thousands of trucks and materials for school buildings, public buildings and public roads; nor do we know how many extra people we will have to hire in smaller towns particularly in the next six months or a year. Some of these people will have to be given jobs in the WPA for a long time because the means by which they earned a living are gone. On the other hand, I would not anticipate that thing happening in the big cities. I would not think we would have to jump our WPA rolls in the big cities much at any rate during the coming months. We have had to temporarily but not permanently, but I think in some of those little towns the problem of need will be greatly accentuated by the flood, so I will not know for some time yet what this is going to cost the WPA. The Resettlement people are going to be loaning money to farmers. We will know pretty soon what their bills are going to be. The Army and the CCC and other Federal agencies will be pretty much out of the picture now. The total will be a substantial sum. Beyond that I do not know.
Query:	What about the census of unemployment?
Mr. Hopkins:	I cannot answer that. You will have to ask Mr. Roper.
Query:	Did you give them money?
Mr. Hopkins:	No, we have not given any money for that,
Query:	Have you seen this survey from the American Association of Social Workers which said that national relief was a crazy quilt and conditions were haphazard?
Mr. Hopkins:	No, I have not seen that.
Query:	You would not care to comment on such thugs?
Mr. Hopkins:	I have sometimes commented on such things. I have been known to; it depends on what kind of a mood I am in.
Query:	What kind of a mood are you in today?
Mr. Hopkins:	I think we better let it ride. I may do it up right after I read it.
Query:	Do you know the agency?
Mr. Hopkins:	Sure, I know the agency.
Query:	What kind of an agency is it?
Mr. Hopkins:	I used to belong to it.
Query:	Were you a charter member?
Mr. Hopkins:	Sure, I was once President of the damn thing.
Query:	Is it an association of social workers?
Mr. Hopkins:	Well, they have always been in favor of giving direct relief to people and I am very much opposed to that and this report no doubt is an expose of the last campaign. I have no doubt of this because their stuff was used by the Republicans at great length during the campaign and I think that is a rehash of that stuff.
Query:	As a former member can you say that that agency represents a majority of feeling among social workers?
Mr. Hopkins:	It represents 1500 people who draw their salaries from people that are opposed to this sort of business.
Query:	What type of social workers are they?
Mr. Hopkins:	There are lots of nice people among them; most of them are close friends of mine.
Query:	Are they attached to private agencies?
Mr. Hopkins:	Yes; Community Chest and so on.
Query:	They made certain recommendations, among them that the Federal government should make grants to states for direct relief and at the name time to carry on the work relief program and expand and continue the work relief program.
Mr. Hopkins:	How do they propose to do that—by grants to states?
Press:	Yes.
Mr. Hopkins:	Well, of course, I think this going back to that old system of just keeping going forever in America is the most vicious form of outdoor relief that I know anything about; —that means keeping the pantry snickers on forever in the homes of these people. I do not like it and I don't think the American people like it. These social workers may like the idea of that sort of relief to the unemployed, but I do not and the fact is, when you get to the bottom of all these schemes the proposals made by this crowd I have no doubt are similar in this extent; they would like to see the whole work program wiped out.
Query:	You have made reference to the "pantry snickers". The social worker is the person most desirous of keeping on with this system in order to keep their jobs.
Mr. Hopkins:	I do not think so. That would not be what would motivate this crowd, I am sure of that.
Query:	To go back to this census of unemployment; lacking the census of unemployment, on what do you base your estimates of need for relief?
Mr. Hopkins:	You do not need a census of the unemployed to determine how many are in need of relief in the United States. The one thing we do know is, how many people are in need; where they are; their names, addressed, age, sex, how many children, and their previous occupations. The census of unemployed would not help at all in determining need for relief. The argument for the census of unemployment is not on that front. It is to determine what you are going to do about the whole problem of unemployment relief. The affirmative of what might be done about unemployment is the question of shortening hours, the question of raising the leaving-age of school, the question of shoving old age pensions down to let us say 60. Those are the things involved in the question of an unemployment census. We know these people are in need all over the country. I cannot see that an unemployment census gets you forward at all in terms of what the relief problem is.
Query:	How do you feel about this proposal for enlarging the Supreme Court?
Mr. Hopkins:	I am all for it.
Query:	Do you think it has any particular interest to your people on relief?
Mr. Hopkins:	I think it has a great deal of interest to poor people all over this country, and I think it is of vital importance to them.
Query:	Broadly speaking, or specifically?
Mr. Hopkins:	It has had a lot to do specifically. For instance, the matter of wages is of very great importance to millions of poor people and the exercise of that general welfare group is of vital importance to the great masses of underprivileged people.
Query:	In the early part of December you said that the WPA curtailment program would not be carried on to any extent but would add to the burden of the states. Last Monday the Director of Relief in Pennsylvania reported that for the 10th successive week they have had an increase in relief rolls and they attributed the increase in nine of the ten weeks to the curtailment of WPA.
Mr. Hopkins:	You cannot make out a case that relief has increased throughout the country. I know there are many Pennsylvania cities in which relief has declined in the last ten weeks. I cannot give you the figure, but I think they are wrong that it has gone up in the last ten weeks.
Query:	That is in the report of 24,000 cases representing about 80,000 people,
Mr. Hopkins:	The whole story of relief in this country is that while I think there is going to be an increase in February, the relief curve has not gone up as it has in other years. Take a look at the relief curve for any other year. It shows a sharp upswing. These are going up but nothing like it usually does. Some cities are different from others, but that is the general statement all over the country.
Query:	Will your quotas to the states take that into consideration?
Mr. Hopkins:	We have always taken that into consideration.
Query:	How much of an increase in February?
Mr. Hopkins:	On WPA?
Press:	Yes.
Mr. Hopkins:	I cannot tell you; part of that will be dependent on the flood and part on how soon we move into some work program in the drought area. I would look for an increase every week in the WPA, from February 1st up until the 10th of March. How much that will be I cannot tell you.
Query:	Prior to your Chicago visit you said that you believed that 30,000 administrative employees was the lowest force that you could use.
Mr. Hopkins:	30,533
Query:	Has your Chicago visit led you to revise that estimate at all?
Mr. Hopkins:	We had 36,570 in August and it has dropped every month. 30,533 in January and I assume it will go down somewhat below that. How much I cannot tell you.
Query:	Secretary Wallace suggested yesterday that he thought there was even some uncertainty as to whether or not relief was unconstitutional. Do you share that thought?
Mr. Hopkins:	Well, frankly, I have not worried about that much in the past three or four years.
Query:	You have never had such an occasion to worry?
Mr. Hopkins:	No, they raised the question of constitutionality once or twice, but that does not get very far. If you would ask me a theoretical question I would say yes. If you would ask me a practical question, I would say no.
Query:	Is it theoretically carried to its logical extreme?
Mr. Hopkins:	If you theoretically carried some of those decisions to their logical conclusions, relief would go in the ash cans along with everything else but practically, I have never been worried about it.
Query:	Pursuing the theoretical clause further, what do you think an effective change in the Supreme Court would be?
Mr. Hopkins:	I think it would be favorable.
Query:	Why?
Mr. Hopkins:	Well, you don't want me to get into a debate on this point. Homer Cummings is the expert on that.
Query:	When you said you were all for it, I take it you mean the President's proposal?
Mr. Hopkins:	Yes.
Query:	How do you feel about the question of constitutional amendments to take care of things like the general welfare clause?
Mr. Hopkins:	I think that has some possibilities too, but I don't want to be old and gray before some of these things are done.
Query:	To get back to this increase; will that be over last month or the same period last year?
Mr. Hopkins:	Over last month. We are eight or nine hundred thousand over the same period last year.
Query:	Did you say both relief needs as well as WPA needs had gone down in January?
Mr. Hopkins:	That I said was that relief has not increased in this country during the month of January.
Query:	I thought it was a rather normal increase of relief because January has always increased.
Mr. Hopkins:	I thick it you look into these Pennsylvania figures you will find the increase is much less in Pennsylvania the last ten weeks.
Query:	Hasn't there been a cutting down of WPA employment during the last month?
Mr. Hopkins:	No, not during that particular period. Of course, going back ten weeks goes back to December. I suppose there has been some, but not much. I would think that would have little effect on it. The real effect is the seasonal increase in relief.
Query:	Hasn't the WPA employment gone up or down during January?
Mr. Hopkins:	I would say it stayed even in January.
Query:	But in February you think both relief and employment will go up?
Mr. Hopkins:	I would not be surprised. I cannot speak for relief. Part of it will be due to the flood.
Query:	You are figuring on outside things—the normal things like the seasonal increase?
Mr. Hopkins:	I think we will have to adjust our work this winter to some seasonal increase.
Query:	The usual winter increase has not been as much this year as it usually is?
Mr. Hopkins:	That is right, and it is substantially under on any front you want to put it.
Query:	Do you than the enlargement of the Supreme Court might pave the way to a more positive treatment of the broader employment problem?
Mr. Hopkins:	I would hope so.
Query:	Do you have anything in mind that might be possible?
Mr. Hopkins:	I do not want to go into detail now.
Query:	Do you think Mr. Cummings brought up the idea?
Mr. Hopkins:	No, I am just telling you what I think.
Query:	What is your administrative policy on sit-down strikes by relief clients?
Mr. Hopkins:	I do not think we have any policy about it.
Query:	Do you have any sit-down strikes?
Mr. Hopkins:	We have some people who go and sit down in our offices and do not want to leave, but no one ever employed by the WPA.
Query:	What do you do about it?
Mr. Hopkins:	Oh, we try to get them to move out.
Query:	You had some here and you fed them.
Mr. Hopkins:	It depends on the mood we are in.
Query:	Are you going to keep old people who are subject to old age pensions on the rolls until states can pass social security legislation?
Mr. Hopkins:	Well, you cannot answer that question offhand yes or no. We have got some states in this country that refuse to take an application for an old person even though they have money to give old age pensions. I do not think we should continue those people indefinitely merely because the state does not make it easy for them to get a pension. I think a work program of the government is made for employable people who can work. I would say that Congress has provided a law and a device for caring for old people and that law should not be circumvented by using this other devise of the Federal government to supply employment. We haven't issued any rulings on that of a general nature.
Query:	Would you be likely to fill in from what they would get under their old age pension law with a time clause?
Mr. Hopkins:	No, I do not think much of that. I do not think much of the WPA working these old people at all. I do not think they fit into our work program. I do not mean to indicate that old age pensions in a lot of states are adequate. I know that they are inadequate. We have not made a general rule about this. We are adopting a realistic policy about it everywhere. We have 260,000 over 65.
Query:	Bouncing back to this American Association of Social Workers; they call this a relief from the states to communities in the Federal relief. Does the WPA take into consideration the inadequacy of some states' direct relief enforcing their work program job?
Mr. Hopkins:	Well, the question of whether the state which is able to give direct relief fails to do it, whether we should increase our relief quota, is a nice question, and I do not think we should favor them as against the state that really steps on it and does its job. You cannot cover the whole security program by a work program. My own feeling is that all these people that get benefits other than work should get them through the Social Security Board by setting up dignified procedures by which these people really get social security pensions, I think it can be done. All these people qualify one way or another under this law or could be made to qualify.
Query:	Quality under what law?
Mr. Hopkins:	The Social Security law.
Query:	Just to keep this straight, you prefer to say you are satisfied that the curtailment of WPA has drawn a heavy increase on the states' burden
Mr. Hopkins:	I know we have not thrown employable people in need of relief off our program. We may have thrown old people off, but we have not thrown employable people off.
Query:	Well, in this Pennsylvania report there are a substantial number of people who applied for relief again after losing their WPA jobs.
Mr. Hopkins:	All right, but they may have been old people; they may have been widows entitled to aid for dependent children; they may have been people incompetent to work, or they may have been drunk. We have not dropped anyone because of need and we do not intend to.
Query:	Is Pennsylvania one of the states where they are holding out on the social security program?
Mr. Hopkins:	No, I would not say so. Quite the contrary.
Query:	You are not dropping off anybody in need, regardless of age?
Mr. Hopkins:	We will drop them off where they can get old age pensions and cannot do a day's work on our program.
Query:	In other words, if they can't do the job you classify them as unemployable?
Mr. Hopkins:	Sure.
Query:	What can you say about the conference with those Kentucky people?
Mr. Hopkins:	We discussed the whole problem of flood relief up and down the river in Kentucky from every conceivable point of view. At this point the conference adjourned. Reported by: Mrs. Luxford Mrs. Asay