30 
PROTECTION OF MATERNITY. 
Gov. Everett J. Lake, of Connecticut, under date of March 29, 
1921, said: 
I have your letter of March 25 relating to two classes of bills pending before Con 
gress as follows: 
1. Bills providing Federal aid to the States for medical care on condition that the 
States appropriate an equal amount. 
2. Bills tending to Federalize public health work. 
In matters pending before Congress, I feel inclined to take the position that our 
Senators and Representatives who are on the ground can act with more accurate infor 
mation on this and similar questions than one removed as I am. especially when I 
can not have all of the facts on all sides of the question. I am disposed, therefore, 
to let the position of the State of Connecticut be determined by our Senators and Rep 
resentatives. 
As a general proposition, however, and speaking personally, I may add that I 
have sympathy with the sentiment of the resolution approved by Gov. Bowden as 
printed on a bulletin, entitled “Bulletin No. 36,” inclosed with your letter. The 
tendencies referred to in the resolution and the accompanying letter of Gov. Bowden 
are apparent to everyone and I do not feel that they should be further encouraged. 
The Chairman. Are you endeavoring to show that Gov. Lowden 
is opposed to this legislation? 
Mr. Anderson. Well, it would indicate that Governor—well, that 
Gov. Lowden recognizes the tendency toward centralization in 
medical affairs and is opposed to that tendency. 
The Chairman. Do you not know that he has indorsed this legisla 
tion, that Gov. Lowden has indorsed it ? 
Mr. Anderson. Well, if you take these various letters on this 
subject and analyze them, it is a question whether he indorses it or 
not. 
The Chairman. But suppose that he refers to a particular bill and 
says that he is for it; you would believe that he was for it, wouldn’t 
you, if he refers to this particular bill in his letter ? 
Mr. Anderson. If he says that he is in favor of an exact hill, then 
I believe that he is for it, in case that he says that he is in favor of 
the hill, which conflicts with other statements where he indorsed a 
resolution passed by the Illinois Medical Association. 
The Chairman. Is that it, or does it conflict with your interpreta 
tion of it ? 
Mr. Anderson. Well, this is the passage that I had reference to 
by Gov. Lowden, and which seems to substantiate my position. At 
the hearing before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce, December 20 to 29, 1920, bill 171, Mrs. George M. Kenyon 
quoted a communication by former Gov. Frank O. Lowden, of Illinois, 
in which he stated that “if the present tendencies toward centraliza 
tion in Washington go on, all vitality will go from the several com 
munities and States of the country in the management of their own 
affairs,” and he also commended a resolution passed by the Illinois 
Medical Association, which condemns the principle of Federal State 
aid and calls attention to the growing tendency in our National 
Congress to invade the authority of the States by the introduction 
of bills authorizing various department of the Federal Government 
to exercise public health functions and duties properly belonging to 
the States. 
The bill now under consideration is one of those bills on the Federal- 
State plan.