Library Collections: Document: Full Text

From the viewpoint of principle, it may be concluded that the returned soldier should not be dependent for one of his most vital necessities on the dole of private charity, for which is expected a grateful appreciation. Were the work's auspices of such character it would materially prejudice the attitude of the men. The soldiers might very logically object to passing around the hat in order to provide for them facilities, the need of which is not open to argument. There should be not the least hint of patronage or pauperization in this partial restitution made by the state to those who have been disabled in its service.

Empirically, the indications for public assumption of responsibility are all positive. The most obvious point lies in the uncertainty that the facilities privately provided shall be commensurate with the demands. In the wealthy urban centers schools for re-education would be numerous and well-equipped; in the rural sections and in the smaller cities there might be almost no provision at all. It would be intolerable did a crippled soldier from Arizona have any less chance for future success than his fellow veteran from Boston or New York.

Again, the extent and thoroughness of the work would be subject to fluctuation, varying with the results obtained in solicitation of funds. The income would likewise adversely be affected by a competing financial campaign another issue of Liberty Bonds, a second Red Cross week, might mean dropping a useful subject, shortening a course, refusing admission to some eligible applicants.

Under private control, furthermore, the standard of work would vary greatly. The schools would not have the advantage of central direction by expert and capable executives. There is also no riper field for the expression of mawkish sentimentality than in caring for the crippled or blind, and the injured soldier must be protected from becoming its victim. With schools operated under local auspices there would be a few good ones, and many of the indifferent variety. And there is no problem more delicate than that of coping with ill-directed and silly charitable enterprises. One can picture the invective of local newspapers if the military authorities refused to assign soldiers to a certain institution because its standards of administration and instruction were considered below par. The time to avert such predicaments is prior to their rise.

Let us consider, on the other hand, the advantages accruing from centralized public control. The factor of most moment is the character the work then assumes in its relation to the individual war cripple. It becomes regarded much as is the public school system; the soldier is thus entitled to training by virtue of his rights as a citizen and an honorable public servant. There is of charity no taint whatever.

With an acknowledged national responsibility, the facilities provided can keep pace with or, indeed, ahead of the requirements. The work can be carried out on a plan fixed in advance, and its standards be consistent country-wide.

Another advantage of federal control lies in the simplicity of integration between the medical and educational interests. The former is under military and, therefore, national authority, and simplification of procedure cannot but result from having the latter of like scope. The training classes must in many instances be carried on in medical institutions, as there is a considerable period of convalescence in which the men should be under re-education. Again, one of the principal method of restoring disabled soldiers to health is the prescription of specified exercise, and it has been found that this is best gained in workshops rather than with mechanotherapeutic apparatus. Finding that they can do some practical thing, however simple, is immensely encouraging to men who may have lost all hope of future usefulness. Occupational therapy plays now one of the leading roles in the convalescent treatment of the wounded, and this makes all the more desirable a close relation between the two branches of the work.

A central and national direction of the work for war cripples does not in the least preclude the utilisation of volunteer effort and facilities. In fact, voluntary contribution of time and money is highly desirable, particularly in committing more people to a first-hand interest in the enterprise, and in giving the schools root in their local communities. Buildings can be loaned, trade school classrooms and equipment made available, machinery and apparatus for instruction donated, funds contributed, and personal service volunteered. Existing organizations can offer to provide the necessary social service work in the homes of the men; local employment agencies can be of help by acting links in the national chain.

Such private assistance will be more than desirable; it will be essential. Because provision for war cripples is a temporary problem, and it would not be wise to erect new buildings, equip expensive machine shops, and build up a complete and self-sufficient organization for a few years' work. For trade classes it will be better to obtain the use for part time of shops in existing schools institutions which will be in position to afford such facilities on account of the number of their regular students who will have been called to arms. In England, the technical institutes are being widely used; in France, many war cripples are being instructed in the regular schools of agriculture.