int 
* to 
On 
rly 
his 
hed 
ubt 
00, 
tha 
‘ho 
= 
You 
out 
ore. 
y to 
11] ~ 
{QV = 
de- 
ne 
this 
ess 
re- 
red 
ice, 
10W 
hen 
tate 
are 
at I 
the 
pon 
aal- 
UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 81 
administering the funds. But now I come to what really seems to 
me—— 
Mr. MoNTAGUE (interposing). What would you do with the con- 
verse statement? 
Mr. Doucras. Where a State is efficient? 
Mr. Montague. No. You say it is designed to prevent States 
from maladministration and corruption. 
Mr. Doucras. Yes. 
Mr. Montague. What are you going to do to prevent the United 
States bureau.from maladministration and corruption? 
Mr. Doveras. Well, you gentlemen are here to prevent that. 
Mr. MonTacue. No, you say if we put out this act it will prevent 
maladministration on the part of the State; now tell us what would 
prevent maladministration on the part of the United States? 
Mr. DovucrLas. In the first place I may point out that the National 
Government—— 
Mr. MonTAGUE (interposing). As a rule the state governments 
are more economically and more efficiently conducted than the 
United States Government. 
Mr. Doucras. I may point out that the States would be spending 
the money under this act; the Federal Government would be spend- 
ing very little money and that there would be this stimulus to 
efficiency, namely, for every dollar of Federal money which the 
States expended, they would have to match a dollar of their own, 
and therefore there would be a pressure upon them to expend their 
money efficiently, which is not present under the reverse statement. 
Mr. Summers. There is one objection which occurs, I think, to a 
good many members with reference to this character of legislation. 
In the first place, from reading the bill hurriedly, it appears that this 
Federal agency exercises a sort of general supervision over these 
state agencies, and they have to come more or less as petitioners to 
the Federal agency for permission to participate in the scheme, and if 
this Federal agency does not like the way they are doing things it 
may cancel them out; then they may have to come, a sovereign 
state, and appeal to the Federal officers. That is one thing that we 
do not so much like about it. 
Mr. Doucras. Now, may I ask, would you favor as an alternative 
an outright Federal grant without supervision, so that the States 
would spend their money any way they wished, without a Federal 
check-up? . 
Mr. Summers. Well, that would present a very difficult problem. 
Mr. Doucras. May I point out that we had this experience once 
in the United States when we distributed the surplus funds in the 
administration of President Andrew Jackson, and that the States 
immediately squandered their money; and may I point out also that 
in the case of the Morrill land grant law, where grants of land were 
made to the States to assist them in founding agricultural colleges, 
the land was sold for a song? . 
Mr. Montague. It would not bring more than a song when it was 
sold, would it? 
Mr. Doucras. But the question may very well come as to whether 
it would have been better to have held the land. 
Mr. Sumners. The Federal Government gave a great deal of land 
to the railroads, did it not?