during the year 1932 there will be an average of 86,200 pensioners in these States and that the total amount of pensions paid, excluding any portion of pensions exceeding the Federal limit of $30 per month, will be $24,200,000. The cost to the Federal Government on the basis of House bill No. 8765 would be one-third of this amount, or approximately $8,100,000. It is safe to assume that for two or three years longer the share of the Federal Government toward old-age security will not exceed $10,000,000 per year.

The aim of this bill is to provide a modern and humane method of care for the indigent aged throughout the United States. It is an attempt to provide home relief instead of institutional maintenance. All studies of the subject by official State commissions, as well as actual experience in the States which have adopted these laws, indicate that from two to three persons can be supported on an old-age pension for the cost of maintaining one inmate in a degrading county almshouse. Most of the aged poor to-day are self-respecting and honorable men and women. Most of them have spent their lives in building and extending this Nation, and the overwhelming majority of them do not need institutional care. They can be better provided for by some method of self-respecting security in their own homes.

Two years' experience with a pension law in California, where over 10,000 people are receiving pensions, shows that the average pension during that period amounted to $22.93 per month. The average annual cost to the taxpayers during the first two years amounted to 25.8 cents per capita. It cost every California taxpayer only 17.1 cents per year for each $1,000 of assessed taxable wealth.

The average cost of an almshouse inmate in California amounts to $44.74 per month in comparison with a pension cost in February, 1932, of $23.08. In other words, by placing an aged person on a pension instead of sending him to a poorhouse, California is saving $21.66 per month, or $259.92 per year.

The California law has already caused 500 old men and women to leave the county almshouses in the State and has prevented over 4,000 aged persons from entering the poorhouses in the last two years of depression. The California experience shows conclusively that if only half the present pensioners were cared for in almshouses the cost would be as great as the amount spent to-day to support twice that number through a system of self-respecting pensions.

Practically all county boards in California administering the old age pension law are enthusiastic in the praises of its workings. The following are a few typical comments:

The welfare agent of the Colusa Board of Supervisors is authorized to say:

We can not find any fault with the law. Since getting old-age security many of these people are happier than for many years. Their health has improved greatly, as they are now getting enough to eat. It is much cheaper for the county to allow this "security. It costs at least $1 a day to keep these people in the county institution. Most of the men living alone are given $20 per month.

The Board of Supervisors of Alameda County, which comprises the cities of Oakland and Berkeley, says:

From the standpoint of the aged it (the act) has been a great success. Many have needed full aid, and in a great many cases a little help has made old people welcome in the homes of their worried relatives. It has given comfort and peace of mind. As one old women said, "It has taken a terrible fear out of my life.'

From the standpoint of the county, it has added cost, as many persons have proved real need and are receiving aid, who would not have applied for indigent aid. It has relieved stress in homes of relatives where children were being neglected because of the care of the aged. Many others have been taken out of squalor and misery. Shall we not say that this means success for the county? The Welfare Department of Santa Barbara County writes:

We feel that the law has been a decided success for it has been the means of not only providing shelter and food but has made it possible for the aged to maintain their self-respect and independence, which means so much to them. We have found that it has prevented several of the needy aged from going to the county almshouse. It is evident that the thought of entering an institution causes them much unnappiness. They face old age with a happier outlook when they are assured of security with independence, rather than becoming institutionalized.

Similar experience is reported from New York which has already pensioned over 50,000 persons since the law went into effect in January, 1931. The benefits of the New York law as enumerated by the New York State Board of Social Welfare are as follows:

The improvement of standards of the recipients of relief, and removal of the worry and mental anguish suffered by these aged persons, who are otherwise without means of support.

A beneficial influence on other relief given by public welfare officials, due to the establishment of higher standards and to the setting up of adequate systems of records and supervision in this special field.

An indirect improvement in the living conditions of other members of the families of recipients, where such relatives, by sacrifice of their own comfort and health, have endeavored to provide for the needs of the aged person, thus lessening their own capacity for self-support.

Commissioner Richard W. Wallace, in charge of the administration of the New York State law, whose connection with the New York Department of Social Welfare dates back a quarter of a century, characterized the New York statute as "a workable law that is proving a great blessing to those for whose benefit it was enacted. Of the beneficent purpose of this law there can be little ground for argument.' "The old age security law is working out better than any law heretofore tried for the purpose of rendering money assistance to old persons from public funds," stated Charles W. Walker, Niagara County (N. Y.) Commissioner of Public Welfare.

The same beneficial results are reported from all States which have operated under an old age pension law either on a state-wide basis or in only certain counties. The pension experience of Montana with an optional law dating back to 1923 shows that 43 of the 56 counties, embracing four-fifths of the total State's population, have adopted the pension system. The average pension amounts to $15.55 per month as against a monthly cost of almshouse maintenance of $55.19, or three and half times the average pension cost.

The experience in the eight counties in Wisconsin, including the county of Milwaukee, which have been operating under the Wisconsin old-age pension act shows an average monthly pension cost of $19.65, or approximately half of the average poorhouse maintenance cost of $35.66. All of the eight county boards in that State which are working under this system are unanimous in their praise of the law. The State's experience with old-age pensions has been so satisfactory that at the last legislature a state-wide law was adopted under which pensions will be paid in all counties commencing July 1, 1933.

The economy of pensions as against the older method of caring for aged poor is shown in every State which has had experience with such a law. The benefits are expecially evident in rural States. This is best shown by the experience of the counties in Wyoming which have paid pensions since 1930. The 12 counties paying pensions in 1931 gave an average grant of $13.88 per month. As against this small sum the average monthly maintenance cost in a Wyoming almshouse amounted to $78.74 per inmate, or more than five times the cost of old-age pensions.

Wherever tried, old-age security is proving both beneficial to the aged and economical to the counties and States. Because of the stigma attached to poorhouses and outdoor relief, hundreds of thousands of old men and women who are literally starving and have no support refuse to apply for this relief. These aged who are entitled to the succor of the State are simply neglected under present conditions. They apply for help as soon as a self-respecting system of old-age security is inaugurated. Because the number of persons applying under old-age security acts is larger than those who are applying for poor relief maintenance, many States are reluctant to inaugurate old-age security systems because of the additional cost involved temporarily. They also feel unable to meet the financial obligations involved and under their present system of taxation many of them can not raise the necessary funds.

It is for these reasons that H. Ř. 8765 is commended so that by a system of Federal aid, the poorer States will be encouraged to adopt this humane law and, at the same time, provide adequate and economical care for those who are in the greatest need of such relief and who should have been provided for long ago.

O

PUNISH FALSE SWEARING BEFORE TRIAL BOARDS OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FEBRUARY 8, 1932.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. PALMISANO, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 5321]

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 5321) to amend an act approved February 20, 1896, entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to punish false swearing before trial boards of the Metropolitan police force and fire department of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes,' approved May 11, 1892," having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

The purpose of this bill and the necessity for the legislation proposed to be enacted is fully set forth in a letter from the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, copy of which is hereto appended and made a part of this report.

COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Washington, December 9, 1931.

Hon. MARY T. NORTON,

Chairman Committee on the District of Columbia,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MADAM: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have the honor to transmit herewith draft of a bill entitled "A bill to amend an act approved February 20, 1896, entitled 'An act to amend an act entitled "An act to punish false swearing before trial boards of the Metropolitan police force and fire department of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes", approved May 11, 1892." and to request its introduction and enactment.

Under the present law, in the event a witness refuses to appear after having been first served with summons, it becomes necessary for the major and superintendent of police or the chief of the fire department, as the case may be, to report the matter to one of the judges of the police court, which court is given authority to compel the attendance of the witnesses, but nowhere in the act is the court given the express authority to compel such witness to testify or produce books, papers, and documents that may be material to the matter before the trial board.

There seems to be no reason why the major and superintendent of police, or the chief of the fire department, should have imposed upon them the duty of reporting to the court the refusal of a witness to testify. In the proposed bill it is provided that such report shall be made by the chairman of the trial board.

The proposed bill also provides that the trial board shall have power to issue subpoenas to compel witnesses to appear and testify and/or to produce all books, papers, records, or documents, which subpoenas shall be issued in the name of the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. The commissioners believe that subpoenas so issued will be less likely to be disobeyed than subpoenas issued in the name of the Commissioners of the District as at present. It is also provided in the proposed bill that the Supreme Court of the District shall have power to compel witnesses to obey such subpoenas.

Very truly yours,

L. H. REICHElderfer,

President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia: In compliance with paragraph 2a of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be repealed is inclosed in black brackets; proposed new law is printed in italics.

The act approved February 20, 1896, entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to punish false swearing before trial boards of the Metropolitan police force and fire department of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes,' approved May 11, 1892," is as follows:

[Any trial board of the Metropolitan police force and of the fire department of the District of Columbia shall have power to issue subpoenas, attested in the name of the president of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, to compel before it the attendance of witnesses upon any trial or proceedings authorized by the rules and regulations of the police force or of the fire department].

[Any willful and corrupt false swearing on the part of any witness or person giving evidence before any trial board mentioned in the preceding section as to any material fact in any proceedings under the rules and regulations governing said police force and fire department shall be deemed perjury, and shall be punished in the manner prescribed by law for such offense].

[If any witness, having been first personally summoned, shall neglect or refuse to appear before any trial board mentioned in section 601 of this title, then, on the fact being reported by the major and superintendent of police, or chief of the fire department, to one of the justices of the police court, it shall be the duty of that court to compel the attendance of such witness before such trial board in the same manner as witnesses are compellable to appear before said court: Provided, That witnesses summoned to appear before said trial boards, other than those employed by the District of Columbia, shall be entitled to the same fees as are paid witnesses for attendance before the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.]

SECTION 1. That hereafter any trial board of the Metropolitan police force or the fire department of the District of Columbia shall have the power to issue subpœnas in the name of the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to compel witnesses to appear and testify and/or to produce all books, records, papers, or documents before said trial board: Provided, That witnesses other than those employed by the District of Columbia subpoenaed to appear before said trial board shall be entitled to the same fees as are paid witnesses for attendance before the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, but said fees need not be tendered said witnesses in advance of their appearing and testifying and/or producing books, records, papers, or documents before said trial board.

SEC. 2. That if any witness having been personally summoned shall neglect or refuse to obey the subpæna issued as herein provided, then and in that event the chairman of the trial board may report that fact to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia or one of the justices thereof and said court, or any justice thereof, hereby is empowered to compel obedience to said subpæna to the same extent as witnesses may be compelled to obey the subpoenas of that court.

SEC. 3. That any willful false swearing on the part of any witness before any trial board mentioned in the preceding sections as to any material fact shall be deemed perjury and shall be punished in the manner prescribed by law for such offense.

SEC. 4. On and after the passage of this act each member of existing trial boards, and members hereafter appointed shall take an oath to be administered by the chief clerk of the police department for the faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the office.