nalism by this Government. I think you have a telegram from our president, Mrs. B. L. Robertson, but here is a copy of it. I am also president of the Riverside Neighborhood House Association, but we are somewhat short of funds, so that the officers have gone into the work themselves. I work myself among the mothers and the children, and I am one of the officers, and I may say that we feel that this bill is a menace because of its vagueness and its futility. As a Senator remarked, the text of the bill has got to be cleared up. We can not send an interpreter along with it, and I will say that such a thing is warranted because it has been stated here that this applies to household economics, and such a subject as that has never entered my head-that the related subjects could apply to household economics. Furthermore, it is said here that in the Children's Bureau they expressly forbid the interference with the family. This bill does not expressly do so.

The CHAIRMAN. And if we put a provision of that kind in the bill, would you think that it makes it a better bill?

Mrs. SANBURN. Yes; it would make it a better bill, because we consider it socialistic as it is now. From the point of view of the president of the Settlement House, it seems to me an extremely cumbersome and expensive piece of machinery.

Now, there is one other little point. In Cambridge we have municipal nurses who will do prenatal work, and they do splendid work among the mothers and the children. They do not attend the confinement, but I will say now that all our housework in Cambridge begins with private control, but when it has proved itself of value in a great many cases it has been taken over by the city, and in no case has the city forced its work upon the people. Now, in the same city there is a large industrial insurance company which for a small sum will send out nurses to do prenatal work, attend to women at confinement, and for a certain number of days after, for an hour or so each day, putting the house in good order for the day, and taking care of the baby and feeding it, and so on. They will also give advice at any time, and it is extremely interesting to me to see the different attitudes of the mothers toward these nurses to whom they pay a small sum. You understand that they pay those nurses, but the municipal nurses they do not pay, and if any questions should come up, and if there should be any disagreement between the two nurses, there would not be an instant's hesitation as to which the mothers will side with. One is a city nurse and the other they feel is their nurse, and so that nurse which they pay is looked upon with infinitely more respect than is the city nurse. My point is this: It goes to the attitude of family life, and it is the proper attitude of the mother, and it seems a pity to have any Federal bill such as this tend to break down that attitude of the mother. The mother says, "I will provide for myself, as far as I am able." That is the proper attitude.

One more thing, I am a taxpayer in my own right. I own property and I pay taxes, and unless I misunderstand it, in section 2 the provision occurs of a free gift of $10,000 to each State. I can not see that the State is obliged to do anything but receive this $10,000 and pay for publications and for the circulation of publications. I may be stupid; but I have read it a great many times, but I can not see any meaning to that, and as a taxpayer I protest against an

appropriation of $480,000 a year being handed over to States, whether they wish it or do not, and without any provision as to how it should be used, except for printing and publication.

Senator MCKELLAR. Would you protest against the giving of money for the babies in Europe, for instance, without their request? We have given them more than we have given our own children. Mrs. SANBURN. Do our own children need it? We give it to them indiscriminately

Senator MCKELLAR (interposing). We gave over a hundred millions to those people.

Mrs. SANBURN. But are we going to do it every year?

Senator MCKELLAR. No; I think not.

Mrs. SANBURN. But we are going to do this every year, and we have not any proof that they are suffering.

Senator MCKELLAR. You say that you live in Cambridge?

Mrs. SANBURN. Yes, sir.

Senator MCKELLAR. And is the city of Cambridge providing municipal nurses?

Mrs. SANBURN. Yes, sir.

Senator MCKELLAR. And is the city of Cambridge a socialistic city?

Mrs. SANBURN. No; socialistic?

Senator MCKELLAR. You say that this bill is of a socialistic nature. You also state that nurses in Cambridge are provided for by the municipal government, and would that make it a socialistic city?

Mrs. SANBURN. I think perhaps that you did not understand me. I said that these nurses-the municipal government employed these nurses after it had found that the residents of Cambridge wanted such a thing. There is a direct response to the wishes of the people. The CHAIRMAN. And that would be socialism just the same, wouldn't it?

Mrs. SANBURN. They do not take care of the people. They are simply advisers. They have not the power to go into the houses whether they want them or not.

The CHAIRMAN. And they have not that power here.

STATEMENT OF MRS. HENRY W. KEYES.

Mrs. KEYES. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I had my opportunity to make a speech last Monday, and I fully realize that, and I am thankful to the courtesy of the opposition in simply giving me a chance to answer one or two questions that have been brought up this morning by women who, I would say, have interests seemingly opposite to mine, and to which I would like an opportunity to reply.

For instance, twice the question of the indorsement of the Daughters of the American Revolution has been brought up this morning by a lady from Baltimore and this afternoon by a lady from Virginia. I would very much like to answer those questions. The lady this morning said that she understood that the Daughters of the American Revolution indorse such a measure, but that she had never heard of any such indorsement. I would like to just show what took place. Mrs. WYSE. I said in Maryland.

47819-21-6

Mrs. KEYES. The Daughters of the American Revolution is an organization which has branches in every State in the United States. Any small unit may send a delegation here to Washington to the continental congress, who is supposed to represent the local chapter, just as the Representatives here in our Congress are supposed to represent and express the opinions and wishes of the people at home. Now, last year before the Congress began, I went to the then president general, and I asked her if she approved of this bill. She said that she had not read it. I gave her a copy of it and she read it and she wrote to me saying that she approved of it, and that so far as she was concerned it might come up in the Congress. She asked me to write a resolution stating the purpose of the bill, and to submit it to Senator Sheppard to see if it was correct. This I did. He said that it was entirely correct. I did not present it myself, but it was presented by the State regent of New Hampshire, and a large number of copies of the bill were circulated throughout the congress, so that every woman there might read it, and it was seconded by the State regent of Massachusetts, and it was also to go the entire week so that everyone could investigate, and then it was unanimously indorsed.

Now, if there was a chapter in Maryland, as there are, of course, chapters all over the country, and all can not send delegates, of course, but still the Congress has to speak to the best of its ability through the delegates that did come. This year the question of the indorsement of the bill again came up, and it was again indorsed, and it was allowed to wait the entire week so that everyone could acquaint herself with it, and it was finally passed at this time with three dissenting votes, and those all came from Christian Scientists. So, I say, I am very glad to have an opportunity to answer that question.

The other question that has been brought up was brought up by the lady who is a doctor's wife in a rural district, and I will say that I was very much interested in her remarks, because I have lived in a rural district and I am acquainted with the telephone, and I am acquainted with the life of a country doctor, and I would like to tell you just one of many things that happened, not where we had any idea of intruding into the home, but where I, who pretend to have no medical skill or knowledge, have been sent for. I lived in New Hampshire, in the Connecticut Valley, and where they are not rich villagers, still they are not poor, and we have in ordinary times enough doctors, but in this instance I was sent for to go to a woman who had a baby, because apparently there was no one else to go, and there was no doctor. There were four little children in the family, all down with German measles, and the mother had also German measles, and there was not a particle of food in the house. There was not a towel or a sheet or a pillow case, and there was not a rag as big as a piece of paper, with which we could wash the baby's eyes, and when it was over, which we managed as best we could, the mother was taken to a hospital 30 miles away for a serious surgical operation which would not have been necessary if she could have had a real nurse, and we immediately went to work to get a district nurse and we got one there, but that aid was just a drop in the bucket. There were there little groups of women and they are through the various organizations and the D. A. R. trying to chip in and support a district nurse.

Then the third thing that I wish to speak about was the remark made this morning about the ownership of Good Housekeeping. It was

said that it was owned by William Randolph Hearst. That is entirely true. He owns a large number of magazines, each one of which has a separate editor, which editor determines the policy of the magazine, and the magazine Good Housekeeping I have known for a good number of years, and I know that it is not subject to the same influences that the other Hearst magazines have stood for. But Mr. Hearst does not own the Pictorial Review, and he does not own McClure's, and he does not own the Literary Digest, and he does not own a number of other papers which have come out for this measure, and he certainly does not own the Marion Star, and in speaking of the newspaper men who are supporting this measure, let us say that instead of it being no good because Mr. Hearst is supporting it, that it is good because Mr. Harding, the President of the United States, is supporting it.

Mrs. WYSE. I am speaking of the poor people in our county, but we have had our district nurses for a good many years, and while our county is poor, you may search around our neighborhood and you will not find such a family as you have told about.

Mrs. KEYES. You are very fortunate, indeed.

STATEMENT OF MRS. MAUD WOOD PARK, REPRESENTING NATIONAL LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS.

Mrs. PARK. The National League of Women Voters was said by the gentleman who represents the antisuffrage periodicals never to have voted on anything, if I remember his words correctly. Now, the method by which the National League of Women Voters indorses any measure that they do indorse consists of a period of preparation before the annual convention, when all measures are sent out to all the State branches of the league with a request that they shall be discussed, so that the State representatives may come to the national convention prepared to vote upon those measures. Then when the national convention comes and reports are brought in with recommendation for legislative indorsement by the committee to which the particular questions have been submitted, no measure may be voted upon on the same day on which it is brought forward, but there is all the discussion that the floor desires upon any of these measures. The bill here was indorsed in the manner that I have indicated.

In regard to another statement here, which was as completely based on misinformation as that with regard to the method by which the bill was indorsed, the statement that the bill was not properly indorsed in Minnesota: I consulted our local people in regard to the matter, and they told me that the statement was absolutely without foundation.

This kind of attack looks to me like a practice which is sometimes followed in the trial of a lawsuit. That is, when you have a case of your own that has no merit the politic thing for you to do is to attack the plaintiff's attorney.

The CHAIRMAN. We have had so many hearings by the House committee and by the Senate committee, and while no one wants to stop any hearings at all, it does seem to me that the bill is pretty well thrashed out. How many more hearings do you want hereafter, and how soon do you want to have them?

Mrs. KILBRETH. I wanted to have physicians come, and if we could do so, I would like to have them come next Thursday.

STATEMENT OF NELLIE C. WILLIAMS, NEW YORK CITY.

Miss WILLIAMS. I wish to say that I am representing six different organizations, and I will give you their names in succession. The first one that I will mention is the American Medical Liberty League, of Chicago, Ill., and I understand the secretary of that league, Mr. Chairman, has sent you a telegram in regard to that. Do you want. me to show you the telegram?

The CHAIRMAN. What is that league?

Miss WILLIAMS. The American Medical Liberty League.

The CHAIRMAN. And what is that?

Miss WILLIAMS. It is a regularly organized organization the object of which is to protect the medical rights of the citizens of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is the president of it?

Miss WILLIAMS. The president of it is Frank E. Blue, who is living at St. Louis, Mo.

Senator MCKELLAR. The object is, you say, to protect the medical rights

Miss WILLIAMS. Yes; to protect the medical rights.

Senator MCKELLAR. In what way?

Miss WILLIAMS. It is to prevent compulsory treatment of all kinds, compulsory treatment.

The CHAIRMAN. And is that a very extensive organization?
Miss WILLIAMS. It spreads all over the entire United States. It

has members in 42 States.

The CHAIRMAN. How many members, do you know?

Miss WILLIAMS. I will have to give you that in round numbersthree or four thousand, and perhaps even more than that.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the second one that you represent?

Miss WILLIAMS. The second one that I represent is the Medical Liberty League (Inc.), of Boston, Mass. I should like to read you their telegram:

Please represent our league of upward of 2,000 members at Washington in opposition to Sheppard-Towner bill. We have a large number of doctors on our executive and honorary vice-presidents list.

This is the Medical Liberty League (Inc.) of Boston, Mass., and I think that while it has a few doctors outside of Massachusetts, yet it is more of a local or State society.

The CHAIRMAN. And there are some doctors in that society? Miss WILLIAMS. There are quite a great number of doctors in it. Of course, there are more druggists, and in the Chicago leagueThe CHAIRMAN. This is not related to the Chicago league? Miss WILLIAMS. No; this is not related to the Chicago league, but is an entirely separate league.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chicago league is to protect you from doctors, and this has doctors in it?

Miss WILLIAMS. I represent them in this way, and represent them by very hurried notice, and while they have considered the SheppardTowner bill in their meetings, they were not able to send representatives to Washington. It is a long distance, and it is expensive, and because of the shortness of time-they had no notice, many of them until Tuesday evening-they telegraphed me asking me to present their protest against this bill.