30 UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES
As a result, the Department of Labor in April, 1919, called a conference at which
there were delegates representing the governors of various states and the Federal
smployment service. This conference urged the continuation of the United
States Employment Service as a permanent bureau in the Department of Labor
and made detailed recommendations for the establishment of such a bureau.
The Kenyon-Nolan bills, introduced in Congress in 1919, embodied these
recommendations. They were supported by a message to Congress by the Presi-
dent who urged the necessity of legislation to meet the unemployment problem by
developing and maintaining the Federal employment service. These bills were
indorsed by the American Federation of Labor and numerous social welfare and
eivie organizations throughout the country.
But Congress did not act. On the contrary, it cut the appropriations of the
employment service. Although the Nolan bill was favorably reported from
committee in the House, this country had to face the unemployment crisis of
1921 without an adequate Federal-State system of employment bureaus. The
emergency service set up during the war was reduced to skeleton proportions by
the refusal of Congress to give it the needed financial support, a condition which
has continued to the present moment. (The increased appropriation recom-
mended by President Hoover in December may mislead, in that $100,000 of the
$168,000 increase is exclusively for service to veterans, and $55,000 is for farmers.
This leaves a mere $13,000 increase for the nation-wide general cooperative work.)
Surely, after all these years of delay, a really adequate, permanent public
employment service should be established.
II. LONG-RANGE PLANNING OF PUBLIC WORKS
Public works projects were used to relieve unemployment in most of the large
cities of the United States during the 1914 depression. Although much good
was accomplished, it was then generally recognized by competent observers that
such a program had been seriously hampered by failure to act in advance of the
emergency.
In 1914, the California Commission of Immigration and Housing declared in
this connection: ‘In fact the general failure to plan ahead and the refusal to face
the problem until the need is pressing, is the most pertinent criticism. * * *
Instead of delaying until another crisis comes, immediate steps should be taken
to formulate a program for permanent State action. Suitable work should be
outlined, funds provided and definite plans formulated.”
This criticism for the National Government is just as valid in the present
crisis as it was (for California) in 1914. So far as the Federal Government is
concerned, the need of long-range planning still awaits recognition by Congress.
The States, on the other hand, have made a little progress.
The first State to make a gesture toward setting up a plan for a prosperity
reserve of public works was Pennsylvania. In 1917 that State created an
emergency public works commission to arrange the extension of public works
during periods of industrial depression and to receive tentative plans of projects
from the various departments of the State. It was provided with the nucleus of
a fund to be divided among the various departments having work available.
Unfortunately, this pioneer act was abolished soon after during a recodifieation.
The 1921 depression caused California to adopt similar legislation. In 1923
Wisconsin and in 1929 Utah also provided the beginning of long-range planning
of public works.
Meanwhile the Federal Government failed to adopt a permanent policy. In
December, 1917, President Wilson urged the use of public works on a national
scale to prevent widespread unemployment during demobilization. And although
Congress failed to provide a systematic plan for such a program, the War Depart-
ment utilized the possibilities of stimulated public work in finding employment
for its demobilized military forces. =
The crisis of 1921 again attracted attention to the need of a public-works
program. Cities and States adopted emergency measures, and similar action
was urged upon the Federal Government. It became evident that the leadership
of the National Government in setting up a permanent program would have g
most desirable effect upon the States and municipalities. As a result, the Ken yon
bill to prepare for future cyclical periods of depression and unemployment by
systems of public works was introduced in Congress. The President’s conference
on unemployment, moreover, strongly recommended this type of farsighted
preparation. But Congress refused #0 enact the Kenyon bill, although it was
‘avorably reported bv the Senate committee.
