Work Relief Administration Press Conferences
Index  |  Publishing Information

Press Conference
Harry Hopkins
December 8, 1938
4:00 P.M.

Query:	What part will the WPA take in the national defense program?
Mr. Hopkins:	Whatever part Congress and the President what us to take.
Query:	You have no present plan?
Mr. Hopkins:	No.
Query:	What part will the National Youth Administration take in the defense program?
Mr. Hopkins:	I think the answer to that would be the same.
Query:	Has the President indicated what he does what?
Mr. Hopkins:	If you want to find out what the President wants, there is a press conference at the White House twice a week. I cannot answer that.
Query:	Can you tell us what you discussed with Mayor Tobin this morning?
Mr. Hopkins:	I wish I could. I cannot tell you one of the things. We just discussed the WPA, Boston and its relationship to the whole Boston relief situation.
Query:	Did he ever get the money for that City Hall up there?
Mr. Hopkins:	I cannot answer that.
Press:	Ickes said he couldn't have it so it came over here.
Mr. Hopkins:	We have a project but I don't know whether that is the one.
Query:	Did you see that speech of Jim Byrnes this morning?
Mr. Hopkins:	Yes, I read it.
Query:	Have you any comment on the general philosophy of it?
Mr. Hopkins:	No, I am going to see the Senator soon.
Query:	Have you found a job for J. Leo Wood?
Mr. Hopkins:	I am not looking for a job for him.
Query:	Is he looking for one from you?
Mr. Hopkins:	I cannot answer that.
Query:	What position are you going to take on the present controversy?
Mr. Hopkins:	I cannot answer that. Obviously, the executive side of the government is going to discuss with the legislative branch all of the questions involved in the relief program and I had rather not indicate now the details of those as they have gone through our office. These things are discussed around here all the time and will undoubtedly result in some legislative amendments to the present law. When it gets down to precisely what those will be and what are the things we are going to recommend to Congress, obviously on our side we should tell them first before we discuss it with anybody else.
Query:	Are you going to draw up some compromise that might avoid a fight on that particular issue?
Mr. Hopkins:	You mean on the issue of a formula or any one particular item, or the whole business?
Press:	Yes, I mean the whole business.
Mr. Hopkins:	Well, naturally, I would like to have the executive and legislative side on this program.
Query:	How about this talk of his, this geographical stuff?
Mr. Hopkins:	That now gets into the detail for instance, if the funds should be allocated originally by states, the question of whether it should be of a certain percentage of each project, or a percentage of projects for the whole states; those are all things we are going to be talking about and I had rather not indicate at this particular time my point of view about those things because I think it is a matter of coming to a good substantial meeting of minds, and I do not look for any difficulty.
Query:	What is the relief outlook this winter?
Mr. Hopkins:	I would think that the relief situation is improving as employment increases. We have reason to look forward to some relaxing in the demands for relief. Now, within the next few weeks, almost days, we have got to indicate our opinion and judgement about the extent of that decline and I had rather not indicate it now as a figure or an estimate either in numbers or dollars that relate to what I have just said.
Query:	How much money have you spent or how much will have gone through your hands during the last calendar year?
Mr. Hopkins:	I cannot answer that offhand. We had a billion and something from July first on. Those figures are available, exactly how much the WPA spent, in the Treasury statements.
Query:	Do you think you will need a deficiency appropriation?
Mr. Hopkins:	Yes.
Query:	Will you need more than that up to March first? Do you think it will run out before March first?
Mr. Hopkins:	I cannot indicate that date. We know we need a deficiency appropriation until July first. What that amount is going to be—the amount we think we will need—will be a matter of discussion between ourselves and the Appropriations Committee.
Query:	You do not mean you will need more money between now and March first?
Mr. Hopkins:	No, we might run out a little ahead of that, I don't know.
Query:	The Mayor said a billion dollar deficiency will be needed. Is that too high?
Mr. Hopkins:	I do not want to comment on that.
Query:	There have been persistent rumors that Dr. Watson of Ohio is on his way out. Is there any basis for those rumors?
Mr. Hopkins:	None whatever.
Query:	How about Ron Stephens of Oklahoma. Is he going to be canned?
Mr. Hopkins:	I don't know anything about that. There are always persistent rumors.
Press:	You can see the reason for it. Dr. Watson, after all, was Bulkley's man.
Mr. Hopkins:	No, he was my man, and a very good one.
Query:	Are you satisfied with Ron Stephens' operation in Oklahoma?
Mr. Hopkins:	Well, now, I have 33,000 administrative employees in the United States.
Press:	But you have only one boss in Oklahoma.
Query:	Speaking of WPA persistent rumors, do you intend relinquishing your WPA post any time soon?
Mr. Hopkins:	No, sir, I certainly do not.
Query:	I would like to bother you once more on Oklahoma. After all, you were pretty definite about this chap in Ohio.
Mr. Hopkins:	I realized after I was definite about the other question I would have to get definite about them all and then I would get about forty more, because I know that some of you fellows know more of my personnel around the country. About the persistent rumors—better let them ride. I have nothing to say about them.
Query:	What do you regard as "soon?"
Mr. Hopkins:	As far as I am concerned, I did not know I used the word "soon."
Press:	It was in the question.
Mr. Hopkins:	Well, ask him. I know nothing about any plans to throw me out of here. I have seen some Republican political statements that they would like to see me thrown out.
Query:	You have also seen statements that the White House has been so well pleased with your work here that they would like to elevate you to a job of greater importance. That is what I write about all the time. It has even been suggested that you might be elevated to the White House.
Mr. Hopkins:	You hear anything you want to hear in this town.
Query:	Yes, sir, but are they true? Laughter.
Query:	Is it conceivable that you might have a post which would still keep you in the WPA?
Mr. Hopkins:	Sure, I am over the WPA.
Query:	I mean another post—a coordinator?
Mr. Hopkins:	No, I am not going to be a coordinator. I have plenty of work here.
Query:	Will there be any substantial cuts in the WPA between now and say, March first?
Mr. Hopkins:	You know, of course, that we are not replacing people, and that will lose about 150,000 a month, and only replacements now are people with temporary jobs that we have permitted to give jobs to when they come back. There will be somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 a month.
Query:	I am wondering if there will be any cuts in addition to those?
Mr. Hopkins:	No.
Query:	Is there a policy to transfer old people to Old Age Assistance?
Mr. Hopkins:	We think the Works Program should not be a program for people, for whom Congress has made other appropriations, and as a matter of policy, old people ought to be getting old age pensions. As a general proposition, widows with children ought to be getting pensions, and should not be part of the Works Program, and in some of the states where they have not made adequate provisions for that, they will try to continue to have us employ them. I do not think the Works Program is meant for these categories.
Query:	Don't you think these old people like to work?
Mr. Hopkins:	I am just generalizing. What old people need is an old age pension, a dignified, adequate amount.
Query:	How much? What would you regard as an adequate amount?
Mr. Hopkins:	I don't want to develop that any further.
Query:	You don't want to endorse Senator Lodge? Have you changed your view about returning the administration of relief back to the states?
Mr. Hopkins:	No.
Query:	There won't be any change in that certainly will there?
Mr. Hopkins:	I can tell you there won't be any change in my recommendation, having had very substantial experience with the county administration of relief. Of course, you all know there is no such thing as state relief. It is all county and township relief. I certainly would not recommend that federal funds be appropriated and given to be expended in that way.
Query:	Have you any estimate on how much money you will need between March first and July first?
Mr. Hopkins:	Yes.
Query:	May we have it? No.
Query:	Do you think the elections indicate any need for a change in the administration of relief?
Mr. Hopkins:	No. They have nothing to do with it. I think you discuss the question of how relief should be administered on the merits of the case. I expect to recommend some amendments myself of how it should be done.
Query:	Along what lines?
Mr. Hopkins:	I would rather not discuss that. Naturally, we send it to Congress. After all, those are the first people we should talk to about it.
Query:	About the reports of the Sheppard Committee. Do you think your inspection system is quite enough to prevent irregularities?
Mr. Hopkins:	I think we have a good inspection system.
Query:	Is it adequate?
Mr. Hopkins:	Yes. That has not been quite the question. I have not heard that discussed.
Query:	You have a very small force here—only four or five men in Washington.
Mr. Hopkins:	Oh, we have seventy or eighty—not in Washington, but the work is done in the field. The problem there is the question of politics in relief. That is one of the things implied in some of the stuff before the Sheppard Committee.
Query:	Some people reading your last speech in New York got the idea that need should not be a test for the Works Program.
Mr. Hopkins:	I said that ultimately I thought a works program would be conducted in America without the need test.
Query:	You think then that the November elections in no wise showed any dissatisfaction with the relief set-up?
Mr. Hopkins:	My answer would be no. After all, you are asking me a thing that is purely a matter of opinion. You might have an opinion about that and I might have one and neither of our pinions would make it a fact.
Query:	A week before election in Pennsylvania on a small road project on the highway there were seven men working. Four of them were holding flags.
Mr. Hopkins:	What do you want me to comment about that? Are you just making a little speech? Fine.
Query:	What do you think of it?
Mr. Hopkins:	I could say I doubt that it ever happened. There might have been a great many reasons why that was done. That kind of statement does not mean anything unless you have all the ramifications of what happened there. You might make an isolated case of eleven people out of three million people working. They might have been shooting off dynamite, and four people were holding flags. Perhaps eight should have been holding flags. It does not necessarily mean anything.
Query:	This is an old subject. Did you ever talk to the newspaper men around here about this remark attributed to you, outside of a formal statement?
Mr. Hopkins:	I don't know what you are talking about.
Press:	This remark you were supposed to have made at the race track—"Tax and tax and spend and spend."
Mr. Hopkins:	You mean Arthur Krock, the journalist. I am still waiting to hear from that anonymous gentleman who was supposed to have siad that and to see him appear in the light of day. He hasn't showed up yet and I presume he is going to remain anonymous.
Query:	There has been a lot of stoppage of WPA projects in Ohio, due to a dispute on the present method of awarding trucking contracts.
Mr. Hopkins:	As far as I know, it is cleared up no.
Press:	It is getting worse and worse.
Mr. Hopkins:	That is not my understanding.
Query:	I have taken it from the paper reports that there are about fifty projects in Ohio being held up from Cincinnati to Cleveland.
Mr. Hopkins:	That is not my understanding. You may know more about it than I do, but I don't think you do.
Query:	What did you do about clearing it up?
Mr. Hopkins:	We are getting a complete agreement about how that is to be handled.
Query:	Will it be announced there or here?
Mr. Hopkins:	I don't know.
Query:	Can you cast light as to whether there will be any original changes in your amendments?
Mr. Hopkins:	I would not want to indicate that. I would really rather not discuss that. You can see why.
Query:	May I ask this question. In your conversations with the recognized leaders of Congress, before your program is submitted and in submitting your program, do you intend to confer with those who you have understood or will understand to be opposed to the manner in which relief has been administered? In other words, are you going to sit around the table with some of the folks?
Mr. Hopkins:	We would naturally discuss this with some of the people on the Hill that would handle this legislation.
Query:	It boils down to this then. You want some changes made in the way relief is handled?
Mr. Hopkins:	I think there are going to be some amendments to the law, sure, if that is what you mean.
Query:	Can you tell us what you consider these necessary amendments—major or minor?
Mr. Hopkins:	No, I would not want to say. That is a matter of opinion. Some people might consider it a major amendment.
Query:	Are you in favor of the Hatch amendment of last year?
Mr. Hopkins:	The stronger the better. As a matter of fact, I am in favor of it, although people said I succeeded in killing it. I did not know I was ever opposed to the Hatch amendment.
Press:	Mr. Tydings did a sort of flip-flop on that.
Query:	Is there any significance to the fact that the peak of relief was reached in election week?
Mr. Hopkins:	If anybody would tell me why we would decrease WPA in Michigan immediately prior to election and increase it in Alabama for political purposes is beyond me. I know we are charged with it and assume they will go right on, but certainly if we wanted to play politics, we would have increased the WPA in Michigan and not decreased it. We would have increased it in Cleveland, not decreased it, and certainly would have had no occasion to increase it in all the southern states where no Republican is ever elected to office and where the highest increases in the WPA took place.
Query:	Do you think Senator Byrnes has a justified kick?
Mr. Hopkins:	Obviously that is one of the things that will be discussed. I would rather not comment on the Senator's speech.
Query:	Bringing up the question on a population basis instead of need...
Mr. Hopkins:	That is right and gets it on the basis, irrespective of the cost or standard of living.
Query:	I have been wondering about the disparity of the percentage of contributions by the states. For example, Pennsylvania five or six percent, New York five or six percent.
Mr. Hopkins:	The average is twenty-five percent now for the whole country.
Query:	On what basis do you work that out, is it arbitrary?
Mr. Hopkins:	Well, the law governs it. If the wage scale is different in one part of the country that changes the percentage but the law governs our amounts now.
Query:	As of this year?
Mr. Hopkins:	The last appropriation provided specifically for it. The question is whether that formula is better than some other and a great many formulas that have been discussed and should be discussed.
Query:	That amendment was one put in by Byrnes, wasn't it?
Mr. Hopkins:	That is right.
Query:	On the question of relief prospects, is there any way you can figure what proportion of people now on WPA will be absorbed in the armament program, or will you simply wait and see?
Mr. Hopkins:	Well, our problem is not the proportion that will be absorbed in an armament program, but the number that will be adsorbed in a rising industry production, that is all. The armament program is only a part of it. It is far more important what happens in steel, automobiles, and those things, and that is the kind of estimates that have to be made, and in fact, estimate an opinion of what the industrial production will be for a period of months.
Query:	Will you prefer your present position to a job in the Cabinet?
Mr. Hopkins:	Gosh, I could ask you another one that would be even better than that.
Press:	That is no answer though. What is this better question?
Mr. Hopkins:	You know, I have been around this town a long time. Five years ago the answer would have been right on the table. Now at the end of five years I am like you fellows; I don't do these things. Do you want my job?
Press:	I would not have it.
Mr. Hopkins:	I don't know anybody that wants it. That is one job around the Government that nobody has applied for.
Query:	May I imply from that that you would rather be in the Cabinet?
Mr. Hopkins:	No. I am having a very interesting time. An awful lot of people know how to run my job better than I do because I have heard them say so, I know that. That is all right too.
Query:	Would you pretend it is five years ago and let me ask you about Ron Stephens?
Mr. Hopkins:	Let Ron ride. After all, you asked me that three times now.
Press:	I haven't got an answer yet. Laughter. At this point the conference adjourned. Reported by: Mrs. Luxford Mrs. Bonaventura