Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
16618881
label
Interior - Ickes, Harold L., 1933-1936
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
16618881
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Interior - Ickes, Harold L., 1933-1936
citationUrl
collections
President's Secretary's File (Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration)
Departmental Correspondence
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
16618881
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0981ff9f9bca1c0b
ocrText
DSF
Interior Dept: Harold L. I ckes
1933-36
Box 72
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT
HYDE PARK, DUTCHESS COUNTY
NEW YORK
you
H.L.I. -
Lactiawmena N.Y. Housing Project.
lmith musted untus
(a) Loun Dn han -divided compatition
(b) Frint for Refert labor smployed
Father Misynn
-
PSF:&kes
BYRNES BILL - P.W.A. - W.P.A. - ICKES - REORGANIZATION.
(1) This proposes an Executive Order on Monday morning transferring
to Ickes, as present Administrator of P.W.A., all functions which the
Byrnes Bill proposes transferring to a new administrator and assistant
administrators to be newly confirmed by the Senate.
(2) Such action will accomplish the following purposes:
(a) It will immediately take the steam out of the Byrnes
Bill; Byrnes himself, I understand, has stated that he
would welcome as a substitute for his bill an Executive
Order coalescing the spending agencies.
(b) It will leave the direction of the spending agencies, with
all their enormous political power in the hands of friends
of the President: it will avoid having to share that
power with the Congress by having to compromise on new
administrators to be appointed with the consent of the
Senate.
(c) It will satisfy the public as to a reorganization of W.P.A.
because Ickes outstanding administration of P.W.A. has
been approved by the public.
(d) It will settle the present Ickes-Wallace forestry situation.
No transfer of parts of forestry to Ickes will make
him happy.
Any transfer of P.W.A. away from him will make him
even unhappier than now.
In principle the other spending agencies must go
with P.W.A., so that either P.W.A. is taken away from
Ickes or the others are given to him.
-2-
Merriam has been talking to Ickes that being known
as the "great builder" is more important than being
known as the "great conservationist" and the spending-
building program has already shaped itself in Ickes
mind 88 an emotional substitute for conservation.
PSF Iches folder - 1933
HAROLD L.ICKES
1627 STATE BANK BUILDING
120 SOUTH LA SALLE STREET
LAWYER
TELEPHONE CENTRAL 1065
CHICAGO
February 27, 1933
Honorable Franklin D. Roosevelt,
Hyde Park,
New York, N.Y.
Dear Governor Roosevelt:-
I have just been advised that the
Associated Press has received & statement from
you in which you name me as your Secretary of
the Interior. I shall not try to express to you
the pleasure and pride that this announcement
stirs in my heart. I do want to say that I shall
give cheerfully everything that is in me to
justify your faith in me.
With abiding gratitude,
Very sincerely yours,
Harold C.Iches
A&/ITH
PSF Ichas
rile
OF
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
21
WASHINGTON
June 16, 1933.
My dear Mr. President:
I was in Illinois over the week end and had some op-
portunity to check anew on the Democratic situation there.
This situation is a bad one, and I suspect that recommenda-
tions for appointments will be made to you which, if made,
will be embarrassing to you and harmful to the State organ-
ization in the end. I have no candidacies to suggest to
you myself, but I have had & rather intimate knowledge of
Democratic politics in Illinois for many years. If you
think that I can check on any suggestions made to you for
appointments in Illinois, I will be only too happy to be of
service. I need not assure you how concerned I am that, for the
sake of your administration, no mistakes be made in this im-
portant State. I may add that while Illinois was an overwhelm-
ing Roosevelt State in November, it is by no means a Democratic
State. I do not want to see the pendulum swing back.
Sincerely yours,
Harold C. Febes L. Thes
The President,
The White House.
PSF Ickes
EEP,
November 14, 1933.
MEMORANDUM FROM
THE PRESIDENT
FOR
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
This list was handed to me in confidence
by a man who has pretty good knowledge and
common sense. The names are supposed to
form the inside ring of the construction
industry. You might glance it over and send
it back to me.
FDR-MD
30 Jan. 1934
PSF Ickes
OF THE AMERICA
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 1934
WASHINGTON
by dear du. President
This is a happy day for the country
as well as for you, exwas a fortunals
where you were. excures he a
thing for are of us the were still have
more fortunals thing if we can have
your strength and caurage and ba-
duship to defend on during the
years to come,
very sincerely yours,
Honold Z. Iches
The President,
The w lite House,
gaing. 30, 1934
/
PSF Interior
OF
STATE SINTE ERIOR
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
Paula file Debro
WASHINGTON
March 21, 1934.
My dear Mr. President:
The Skokie Valley is a marsh in Cook County north of Chicago and
west of Winnetka and other villages on the shore of Lake Michigan. It
belongs to the forest preserves of Cook County and is, therefore, a
county park. Last summer several CCC camps were established there to
drain and improve the park. This was done at the request of the Forest
Preserve Commissioners through the State authorities. As this was a
park, the CCC camps have been under the jurisdiction of the National Park
Service of the Interior Department.
On March 22, 1926, I bought 10 acres of unimproved land on the west
side of the Skokie and probably within a mile or a mile and a half of it.
This property cost $3,000 an acre and I have paid 80 far $20,800.
On August 17, 1926, I bought 21 acres a short distance from the
10-acre tract referred to and still farther away from Skokie. This
property cost $3,000 an acre and is paid for in full.
On May 26, 1928, I bought 20 acres about a half a mile farther away
from Skokie Marsh. This property cost $4,000 an acre and I have paid on
it $25,000.
On July 19, 1929, I bought another 20-acre tract adjoining the
first tract just referred to. This property cost $3,000 an acre and I
have paid on it $18.732.
1934 3 94HM BVM THE
HOUSE
All of this land I bought for investment. Then came the crash
and I wasn't able to carry all of it. Accordingly, I have deeded back
to the original owners the two 20-acre tracts (40 acres in all), taking
as my loss not only the money paid on account of principal but money paid
for interest and taxes. When I deeded this property back I reserved an
option to repurchase within a stated period. This option as to the first
20-acre tract has already expired, and as to the second 20-acre tract is
about to expire. I have no intention of exercising the option.
The 10-acre tract I tendered back to the original seller on the
same basis. That is, I offered to deed the property and stand the loss
of the amount paid, together with taxes and interest. This 10-acre
tract really consists of two parcels of 5 acres each. As to one of
these 5-acre parcels the seller refused to take the property back on
any terms. Accordingly, I am carrying this property and paying off the
balance due on it. As to the other 5-acre parcel of this 10-acre tract,
the seller has neither accepted nor rejected my offer to reconvey but I
am not paying either taxes or interest.
The 2)-acre tract having been paid for in full has been retained.
I should say that Mrs. Ickes holds legal title to both the 10-acre tract
and the 2)-acre tract.
I understand that Judge Malmin is making the charge that I have been
buying up land in the Skokie area and selling it to the city for CWA park
improvements. This, of course, is not true. In the foregoing I have set
2
down in exact detail all the interest any member of the Ickes family has
ever had in Skokie property. My excuse for burdening you with this un-
important detail is not only that Judge Malmin is making this unfounded
charge but that certain other persons are circulating in Chicago a report
that I had an interest in establishing the CCC camps in the Skokie Valley
because of the beneficial effect they would have upon the real estate hold-
ings of myself and my family.
Sincerely yours,
HaroldZ.Pches
Secretary of the Interior.
The President,
The White House.
3
OF
pie THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
"per
F STATE HOURS 1934
WASHINGTON
September 6, 1934.
centerior
PSF
clobes
My dear Mr. President:
I have Just had a letter from Victor Watson. Although
it is marked "Confidential", I am sending you a copy because
I think you ought to have the information for what it is worth.
Sincerely yours,
Harold & Iches
Secretary of the Interior.
The President,
The White House.
Enc.
copy
CHICAGO HERALD AND EXAMINER
September 4, 1934
Office of the Editor
Hon. Harold L. Ickes,
Secretary of the Interior,
Washington, D. C.
My dear Mr. Ickes:
I just had a very nice letter from the President. Since it is con-
fidential, I of course cannot discuss it.
With relation to Jim Farley, as I told you, our political man, Charlie
Wheeler, tells me that Jim is supposed to come up here and give Mayor
Kelly the "Washington blessing."
Of course when Jim has all the facts before him he is probably the smartest
politician in the country. However, even the smartest man can make a
mistake if he doesn't have before him or keep in mind all the facts.
I wonder if Jim has taken into account that if he passes the Presi-
dential blessing on to Mayor Kelly that one of the opposition newspapers
up here is very liable to ask Jim since he has become the apologist for
Kelly, if perhaps he might be willing to explain where Kelly got the
money from on which he failed to pay the government its just or unjust
income taxes.
Remember my newspaper was asking for days where and how and for what he
got this several hundred thousand dollars which he did not report to the
government. While that has been quiescent for some time of course the
Republicans will make big use of it in their campaign against Kelly.
Of course I never like to look so far ahead politically, but it is possible
this newspaper might be asking Kelly those same questions again if he at-
tempts to run for mayor. Regardless of who asks the question it is cer-
tain they will be asked. Everybody will of course probably say that Kelly
may be excused for trying to cheat the Federal government out of its in-
come taxes, but nevertheless they would still like to know how this poorly
paid official got 80 much money and what he got it out of. Perhaps Jim
has not taken this into account.
I find upon examining the advance copy of the Farley speech recently
delivered in Springfield, Illinois, that Jim had intended to refer to the
Kelly Horner fight and to speak of Kelly as Chicago's "great Mayor." At
the last minute he eliminated this from his speech. My information is
that Horner requested that reference to their disagrement be left out.
Very sincerely,
(signed) Victor Watson.
PSF Ickes
OF
presonse"
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
November 24, 1934.
My dear Mr. President:
Your suggested draft of a joint statement to be signed
by Mr. Moffett and myself was perfect. It came through at a
time when diplomatic Steve was having his hands full trying
to evolve something that would meet a difficult situation.
The pen that wrote that statement was wielded by the hand of
a master. It immediately dissolved all our difficulties and
cleared the situation so far as it was possible to clear it.
I want to say again how much I have personally regretted
this whole episode. You are already carrying enough burdens
and responsibilities without their being added to by members
of your own administration.
Sincerely yours,
Harsed Pehes
Secretary of the Interior.
The President,
Warm Springs, Ga.
july the one
Ps: F Iobas
OF THE
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
November 27, 1934.
My dear Mr. President:
I am sending you two envelopes bearing blocks of the
one-cent and three-cent Yosemite stamps, cut from the large
sheets. As you know, these were issued in small sheets of
six but these are cut from the sheets on which were printed
ten each of these blocks of six.
Sincerely yours,
Secretary of the Interior.
The President,
Warm Springs, Georgia.
26 Dec.
PSF Ickes
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 1934
they dear Mr. President:
Paw deligated with the
cuff hibs that you so
generously senture for
Christmas Pespecially of
freciat them because they
are something that q can
hand on to my sou as a
fresious mements of the
funilest his father had of
serving under a great President
with affectionate regards
and best wishes for the
New year,
Harold T.Pches
The President
The w lite House
Dec. 16,1934.
PSF chteriar
OF
THE INTERIOR SINTE IRIOR
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
December 27, 1934.
(1)
My dear Mr. President:
Having in mind the concern you have expressed about the under-
cover rumors that are current about persons connected with your ad-
ministration, I am calling your attention to the talk that persists
about the internal affairs of the Interior Department. I have come
to the conclusion that in justice to yourself and in fairness to me,
you ought to order an investigation by a friend of the Administration,
who could go into matters in a fair and impartial manner. I have in
mind some such person as Frank C. Walker, although, of course, I do
not presume to suggest to you whom you should choose.
There seem to be three general charges that are being bruited
about: first, that Burlew is really running the Department; second,
that Glavis is a law unto himself, and, third, that I am too busy
with PWA to know what is going on in the Department. A breakdown
of the charges against Burlew brings out: first, that he has built
up a personal machine; second, that he is not loyal to the Admin-
istration, and, third, that he has the personnel of the Department
terrorized.
I wish to join issue on all of these allegations. It is ad-
mitted that Burlew is both able and industrious. I am frank to say
that it would take at least two competent executives to do the work
that he now does, and even then they would lack his experience and
background.
As to his building up a personal machine, I have no evidence of
it and I have not only looked into the matter carefully myself, but I
have had trustworthy men in the Department consider it. Even if he
should desire to build up a personal machine, what good would it do
him? He would only be placing himself in jeopardy and he is too smart
a man to do that. In other words, he has no motive to do anything ex-
cept to perform here to the best of his ability since his tenure of
office is secure only 80 long as he gives faithful and satisfactory
service.
I am willing to vouch personally for his loyalty to the Admin-
istration. Burlew is not a demonstrative man, but if he has not
entered whole-heartedly into the spirit of the New Deal, then I am
no judge of men. He has never been a partisan in politics. He has
been in the Civil Service for over twenty years. He has served both
Republicans and Democrats, and, so far as I can ascertain, has served
both faithfully. I know that he holds you personally in the highest
possible regard. I know of my own knowledge that in personnel matters
he always sees with Administration eyes.
As to his terrorizing members of the staff, that is hardly con-
sistent with the charge that he is building up a personal machine.
The two ideas are mutually exclusive and yet both charges are made.
On the matter of terrorization, I need not say that a man who carries
out the orders of his superior officer in disciplinary matters is not
regarded generally as a jolly good fellow. If I order an employee
separated from the service, or suspended, or reprimanded, it is Mr.
2
Burlew who has to carry out my orders, and, doubtless, in many cases
he is held responsible for them. If applicants for positions or for
promotions do not have their desires satisfied because of adverse de-
cisions on my part, Burlew again, as personnel officer, is held re-
sponsible.
I have heard recently that no one can get in to see me except
through Burlew. Nothing could be further from the fact. Burlew's
office is some distance from mine and not connected with mine. No ap-
pointments are made through him. He does not know who comes to see me.
All appointments with me are made either through Mr. Slattery or Mr.
Marx, whose offices are directly connected with my own.
As to Mr. Glavis, I need make only a very general denial. You
know him too well and too favorably, I am sure, to consider seriously
vague charges against him. I do want to say, however, that without
the protection that he and his force of investigators have given me,
I doubt very much whether as Public Works Administrator I could have
carried on as I have so far done without even a single minor scandal.
He is after the crooks all the time and the crooks are afraid of him.
His very name is a protection. He reports directly to me and works
directly under my orders. Every week I have a detailed report from
him covering all the cases he has in hand.
My own view is that the attacks on Burlew and, to a lesser ex-
tent, those on Glavis are really indirect attacks aimed at me. I
have made enemies since I came to Washington -- powerful enemies.
Some of them I em proud of and some of them I regret, but I have not
been unconscious of the whispering campaign, that at times becomes a
3
mutter, that has been growing in intensity against me during the last
few months. I know some of the persons who are responsible for these
insinuations, but some I do not know. I only wish that they would be
manly enough to come into the open, face me with their charges, and
give me an opportunity to make direct answer.
Whether for good or for ill, I am myself running the Department
of the Interior, subject only to your orders. In spite of Public Works
and in spite of the Oil Administration, I am giving more time and
greater personal attention to the Department, according to old timers
here, than any of my predecessors. Every member of the staff knows
that he may have direct access to me if need be. Day in and day out
I see personally large numbers of my staff. They come to me direct
with their problems. It is reported that I am inaccessible to members
of my staff; that they are afraid of me. This seems strange since 80 many
members of my staff come to me on matters that they could take up with
someone else. While my bureaus are sub-divided under the two Assistant
Secretaries, contact does not have to be made with me through those As-
sistant Secretaries, but may be, and constantly is, being made direct.
The reason for the insimuation that I am not functioning as Secretary
of the Interior is easy to understand. Some people do not want to see
this Department assume the position in the general administration that
it ought to have and which it once had. There are those who would wish
to see the Public Works Administration, or the 011 Administration, or
both, taken away from me. I am no more unaware of some of the sources
of these innuendoes than I am of the varied motives for them.
This situation is not entirely personal to me. I am concerned
4
about the eventual effect on the Administration if some of us do not
take steps to combat the insinuations and innuendoes that are directed
against one member of your Administration after another. There is danger
in the tendency to personalize differences on administrative questions
rather than to discuss them in the open and abide by an authoritative de-
cision. Those responsible for this gossip within contribute to the
efforts of the enemies without the Administration. Latent animosities
should not be permitted to destroy what you have created and my own
feeling is that a decisive effort to fix responsibility for and to prove
or refute unfounded and biased allegations would tend to check the
treachery which, otherwise, I am afraid may have the effect of render-
ing nugatory the wisest administration policies.
I appreciate too keenly the opporunity you have given me as a member
of your Administration to want to hamper you or to detract in any degree
from the splendid job that you are doing. Since only an impartial in-
vestigation can discover the true facts, I respectfully suggest that you
order such an investigation.
Sincerely yours,
Secretary of the Interior.
The President,
The White House.
5
PSF Ickes
personal"
like
OF
STATE KINT ERIOR
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
Card
O
Jamuary 12, 1935.
(PERSONAL)
My dear Mr. President:
I am glad to avail myself of the opportunity given in your mem-
orandum of January 2, addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury and
to myself, to discuss the construction of public buildings. There
is a fundamental issue involved in the three cases under discussion
and I hope that you will bear with me if I go into the matter thoroughly
and frankly.
I am not appealing from your decision that Executive Order No.
6166 has the sweeping effect that you say it has. Even if it were
not understood by the Treasury Department or the Comptroller-General
to have that effect originally, it is obviously within your discretion
to enlarge the powers conferred upon the Division of Procurement by
amendment or by interpretation. I may say, however, in justification
of the interpretation that the PWA put upon the order, that it was
not until a very few weeks ago that even Procurement interpreted it
as it is now being interpreted. From June 16, 1933, the date of the
Executive Order, until very recently, ever department of the Govern-
ment had, in ordinary course, proceeded with the erection of certain of
its own buildings. This was true of War, Navy Agriculture and Interior.
I may cite two instances. This Department rebuilt the Executive
wing of the White House and it is now building an additional story to
the Interior Building. No question as to our authority to do this
was raised either by Procurement or the Comptroller-General. I could
cite other instances where no one thought of invoking the rule now
insisted upon by Procurement, that under this order there has been
transferred to it certain important functions that formerly were
exercised by other departments of the Government without question.
I may say further that if the use of the word "structures" in
Section 1 of this order is to be interpreted as giving Procurement
jurisdiction over the established building activities of the other
departments, it undoubtedly gives that division jurisdiction over
the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, the Forest
Service, the Bureau of Roads, and any and every other construction
activity of the Government. It would even seem to me to give Procure-
ment jurisdiction over Subsistence Homesteads, Slum Clearance, and a
considerable part of the C.C.C. work. To give the word "structures"
the interpretation claimed for it by Procurement, and this is the only
word in the entire order that even suggests its right to take over
all our building activities, can only mean that, without notice to
them, and even without their knowledge, many of the permanent and
temporary establishments of the Government were put under the juris-
diction of & division of one of those departments.
The Executive Order, by specific language, transferred to the
Procurement Division the Office of the Supervising Architect. If by
the use of the word "structures," as subsequently claimed by Procure-
ment, it was intended to give it jurisdiction over all building ac-
tivities of all departments, it would not have been necessary to
2
transfer the Office of the Supervising Architect by definite and
specific language. This particular transfer clearly negatives the
idea that it was intended generally to transfer all building activities
of all departments by the use of the vague and general term "structures."
To permit the Quartermaster's Corps of the Army to build certain build-
ings and deny to the Department of the Interior the right to build the
experimental station for the Bureau of Mines may be interpreted as an
indication that Procurement will permit the Army to continue to do
its building in the future as in the past while denying that right
to this Department.
I regard this attitude of Procurement as arbitrary and prejudicial
to Interior, and I am sure you will concede me the privilege of discussing
what I believe to be the reasons for it.
As you know, there was an active candidate in the Treasury Depart-
ment for the position of Agministrator of Public Works. Your selection
of myself was deeply resented and at the outset open efforts were made
to obstruct and hinder the PWA. Later fuel was added to the flame
when you instructed me to have someone look into the plans of and con-
tracts for post offices. You suggested a committee consisting of Mr.
Hoopingarner, Mr. Rabinowitz and & third man who could not accept. At
the suggestion of Mr. Hoopingarner, Mr. Dresser was later made the
third member of this committee. It was the duty of this committee to
make a thorough investigation of plans and procedure with respect to
post offices. The Office of the Supervising Architect not only gave
this committee no assistance, it obstructed it in every possible way.
You had to take a hand in the matter before they could get essential
3
information. As a result of this investigation a new policy with
respect to post offices was adopted that resulted in saving large
sums of money to the Government.
The Office of the Supervising Architect has never forgotten
this activity, under your orders, on the part of PWA. When Congress
at its last session made an additional appropriation for Public Works
it denied to PWA any duty or responsibility with respect to post
offices. It cannot be doubted that the Office of the Supervising
Architect had a deep finger, and perhaps more than one, in this par-
ticular pie.
Not only has there been a feeling of resentment engendered in
the Office of the Supervising Architect against Interior by reason of
the activities that you directed Public Works to carry on with respect
to public buildings and other matters, but a new factor has entered
into the situation in the person of Max Dunning, who is now on the
staff of Procurement. Mr. Dunning was formerly Associate Director
of the Housing Division of PWA. He was dismissed under charges of
gross inefficiency and of using his position with the Government to
try to get contracts and favors from the Office of the Supervising
Architect through personal connections there for his Chicago firm
and friends of his in Chicago. After dismissing him I withdrew the
order and permitted him to resign. Later he showed up as a trusted
and prominent employee of Procurement. In hiring him Procurement
disregarded your order that before employing a man who had formerly
been in the public service an inquiry should be made of the department
to which he had been attached to ascertain the reasons for his resig-
4
nation or separation. To my utter astonishment when I went to the
office of the Secretary of the Treasury recently to attend a confer-
ence I found there Admiral Peoples closely attended, in apparently
a confidential capacity, by a man whose gross inefficiency I was in
a position to prove and whose ideals of public service left much to
be desired.
Although Order 6166 has been in effect since June 16, 1933,
it was not discovered by the Treasury Department that it gave juris-
diction over all Federal buildings until PWA made an allocation for
the new Interior Building. This building was handled exactly as every
other building theretofore allotted for by PWA had been handled. The
allocation was passed by the Board and approved by you. Mr. Delano
suggested an architect whom you knew favorably and whose selection you
approved. I entered into a written contract with that architect under
authority from you. I proceeded to acquire the site under the author-
ity that had been granted me and actually had acquired several parcels.
This Department started to demolish some of the old buildings on the
site. Everything was proceeding smoothly and expeditiously when Pro-
curement suddenly demanded the right to put up the building, which
right was finally reluctantly conceded by me. The record will show
that a representative of Procurement was present at the meeting of
the Public Works Board which voted to the Interior Department the sum
of $10,000,000 for the erection of the new Interior Building. This
meeting was held approximately one full year after the promulgation
of the Executive Order in question. In other words, Procurement
5
approved in this instance also a building to be erected by Interior
and later repudiated its own act.
Even the architect for the new Interior Building, who has done
a fine job in reliance upon a written contract which, in my judgment,
is valid in law, has been made to feel the resentment of Procurement.
You instructed Admiral Peoples to deal generously with Mr. Waddy Wood.
He has in effect told Wood to take what was offered or to take noth-
ing. Admiral Peoples told Mr. Wood, according to the latter, that
you had expressed the opinion that his contract was not a valid one.
Meanwhile time flies. At the present rate of progress the new Interior
Building will not be ready for occupancy short of three years although
we cannot find adequate space in Washington to house decently and
properly the functions of Government.
I do not so much criticize Admiral Peoples as I do his organ-
ization. I think it is fair to say that the Office of the Supervis-
ing Architect is just what it was before this Administration came into
power. It is in no sense a part of the New Deal Administration. Re-
form has not touched it nor has any new 1dea penetrated it for "Lo,
these many years." The efficiency and celerity with which it moves
are evidenced by the new buildings that were well under way on March
4, 1933. Some of these buildings are now finished and some are still
under course of construction. Judging by these building operations,
my prophecy that the new Interior Building will be completed in three
years is indeed optimistic.
The Department of the Treasury is one of the most important and
largest departments of the Government. I do not believe it will be
6
has
gainsaid that if at this time the Government were, for the first time,
setting up a building organization it would not attach it to the
Treasury Department. Logically it does not belong there, as this
particular activity is far outside the range of the other activities
of the Treasury Department. To enlarge these functions, to add to
these responsibilities, is merely to add to the anomaly.
The Interior Department is as well equipped to build as is the
Procurement Division. For many years there have been several complete
and active construction units within the Department. We have no
favored contractors and no particular material finds special favor
in our sight. To curtail our natural functions will not make for
efficiency or economy. Our building forces will be twiddling their
thumbs while Procurement is slowly and laboriously adding to its own
duties. We are so organized that we can do a good deal of structural
work by force account, at a distinct saving to the Government. My
understanding is that the Division of Procurement is not equipped to
do anything by force account and does not regard that method of build-
ing with favor. I have heard no intimation that the building done
by this Department has not been well done, expeditiously done, and
done without any suggestion of graft or of favoritism to any particular
contractor or material man.
Through the technical staffs of the PWA the Special Board of
Public Works studies the recommendations that come in from the various
departments. If it approves a project it is then submitted to you. For
Procurement to insist that subsequently it must make an independent study
and recommendation does not seem to me to be tenable. Admiral Peoples
7
is a member, by your order, of the Public Works Board. He or his
representative has voted for every allocation presented to you, in-
cluding definite allocations to this Department which he now seeks
to repudiate. The Board would willingly withhold final decision on
any project in order to give Admiral Peoples an opportunity, if he
80 desired, to have his technical men make a detailed study. He has
never made such a request. The effect of the present arrangement
is to give Admiral Peoples a right to pass on these projects as a
member of the Board and also a subsequent veto power. Also under the
proposed system, instead of passing once on a building project you
are required to pass on it twice. There is no efficiency or saving
of your time in this procedure, even if it were the fact that Procure-
ment has superior facilities and superior judgment to that of Public
Works in passing on these matters. The Public Works Board has on
its membership the Attorney General, the Secretary of War, the Secretary
of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Labor.
Yet Admiral Peoples, in addition to having a vote equal to that of any
other member of the Board, in effect, will now have a veto power over certain
actions of the Board.
This Executive Order, if it is given the interpretation insisted
upon by Procurement, does three things: (1) It deprives a number of
departments that are equipped and qualified to do their own building
of important existing administrative functions; (2) it breaks down
essential divisions of existing departments; (3) with respect to essential
and important matters it places these departments under the jurisdiction
of a division chief of one of the departments.
8
As the result of carrying out your instructions to the best of
my ability a situation has been created which precludes the possibility
of the Interior Department receiving fair and impartial treatment at
the hands of Procurement. I think I have already amply demonstrated
the partial and discriminatory attitude of Procurement toward this
Department. It is significant that Procurement readily agrees that
the War Department should contimue to put up its own buildings, and,
so far as I know, it has not interfered with any building by any de-
par tment equipped to do building except only the Interior Department.
This may be a mere coincidence but the internal evidence is that it
is something more than that.
If I seem to you to be unduly concerned about this threatened
curtailment of the powers and responsibilities of this Department,
may I recall to you that the Department of the Interior under former
administrations has on more than one occasion suffered serious dis-
memberment. Other departments have not hesitated to aggrandize them-
selves at the expense of this Department until it was reaching the
point where it was in danger of becoming merely a bureau attached to
some other department. Treasury is not the only department that is
casting covetous eyes upon various activities of Interior. It has
been my hope to make this Department something other than the poor
relation of larger and more powerful departments. Interior ought to
be something more than a departmental attic for the storage of dis-
carded furniture that no one else seems to want. I am too conscious
of the honor you did me in naming me the head of this Department not
to protest against any new attempted rape.
9
This Department, I respectfully submit, not only ought to be per-
mitted to function on a parity with War, Navy and Agriculture, it ought
to be built up and restored to its former prestige because in many re-
spects it is closer to the people than any other department.
Sincerely yours,
Secretary of the Interior.
The President,
The White House.
10
PSF
pii
DEPARTMENT 6 OF THE DIRECTOR
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
(5)
WASHINGTON
February 20, 1935.
My dear Mr. President:
For your information, I attach a copy of a letter
I have just written to Henry Morgenthau.
Sincerely yours,
Honold Pelis
Secretary of the Interior.
The President,
The White House.
Enc.
PSF Ickes
COPY
PER THE SINT RIOR
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
February 20, 1935.
My dear Henry:
John T. Lambert's article in the Washington Herald of today
distrubed me very much. I at once called in Mr. Glavis to tell him
frankly it looked as if someone had been talking out of turn. He
investigated carefully any possible source of the story from this
department and found nothing. Then he volunteered to talk with Mr.
Lambert himself, which he did.
Mr. Glavis reported to me that while Lambert refused to tell
him the source of the story, he did say that it had not come from this
department either directly or indirectly. Lambert indicated that the
story was more or legs common talk. Frankly, no head of a department
in the government can guarantee against a news leak in his department.
All I can say is that I am confident that no one here gave this story
to Lambert. So far as I know, Lambert never comes to this department.
I think he has been in my office only once during the time I have been
here. After all, Lambert did not have to tell Glavis that he didn't
get the information here, either directly or indirectly; all that it
was needful for him to do was simply to decline to say anything about
the source of his information.
I am sorry that this statement appeared in the Herald, but we
must remember that it could have emanated from any one of three of
the departments.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Harold L. Ickes,
Secretary of the Interior.
Hon. Henry Morgenthau, Jr.,
Secretary of the Treasury.
PSF Ickes
of STATE CINTERIOR
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
May 31, 1935.
THE WHITE STATE
I 1935
RECEIVED
2 for 2
in 2
My dear Mr. President:
I know that you will be very much interested in the enclosed.
Sincerely yours,
Harold Zieles
Secretary of the Interior.
The President,
The White House.
Enc.
PsF Icbes
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
PHILADELPHIA
INTERIOR DEP:
RECEIVED
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE
BROAD STREET AT ONTARIO
MAY 211935
OFFICE OF
JOHN A. KOLMER, M. D.
THE SECRETARY.
May 20, 1935.
Hon. Harold C. Ickes
Secretary of the Interior
Washington
D. C.
My dear Secretary:
It was very kind of Dr. Arthur R. Elliott of Chicago
to recently inform you of my work on vaccination against infantile paralysis
and I appreciate your interest and his almost beyond adequate expression.
Dr. Elliott kindly sent me your letter to him of May 9th,
in which you state that you spoke to President Roosevelt of the matter and
desired more information to place before him.
Under separate cover I am forwarding to you reprints of
three of our publications describing the vaccine and the results obtained.
Also 6 manuscript descussing the fundamental principles involved which
I am to read next month before the American Medical Association.
It is not to be expected that either you or the President
will have sufficient time to examine these in detail, but I am happy to be
able to write that my vaccine has now been given to almost 500 children
with absolutely no ill effects and with a very encouraging degree of
immunization which leads me to now believe that the method is absolutely
safe and apparently highly effective.
I have prepared a motion picture film showing the technic
of preparing and administering the vaccine and would be very glad to send
it to you on or about June 2nd for showing to Mr. Roosevelt and yourself
at the White House. It would be necessary, however, for me to have the
film back again by June 6th as I am scheduled to show it to the American
Society of Clinical Pathologists on June 7th, and during the following
week to the American Medical Association. I would also appreciate having
Dr. McCoy, Director of the National Institute of Health and the Surgeon-
Generals of the United States Public Health service, Army and Navy, invited
to the White House to are it when run off for you and Mr. Roosevelt.
Indeed I would be happy and proud to be present personally to answer any
questions that may arise although the film has sufficient legends to make
it largely self-explanatory.
In all frankness I must admit that I am now badly in
need of additional financial assistance and have been hoping to hear from
the National Committee of the President Roosevelt Birthday Fund. It was
my hope that this Committee would communicate with me to learn of the
additional work I wished to do and grant me sufficient money to pay the
expenses incident to the purchase of monkeys. The Philadelphia Committee
granted me $250.00 through Temple University which I have used for the
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
PHILADELPHIA
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE
BROAD STREET AT ONTARIO
JOHN A. KOLMER, M. D.
-2-
Hon. Harold C. Ickes
May 20, 1935.
preparation of vaccine given free of charge in the vaccination of the
children at the clinic established for this purpose on January 26st and the
first clinic of its kind in the history of the world.
It is almost a year since the first children were vaccinated
and the time has now arrived when I should again test the blood of each
child for antibody or immunity to see if they are still immune. For this
purpose I would need about 100 monkeys which cost between $10.00 and $12.00
apiece. I am also hoping to secure sufficient financial assistance to try
the vaccine in the treatment of the disease and I would also like to prepare
and try new chemical agents for its treatment since at the present time we
do not have a single drug possessing the slightest value in the treatment of
its victims. All of this work is outlined to the last detail ready for
starting as soon as it is financially possible to do so. is previously
stated, I have been hoping to hear from the National Committee which must
have thousands of dollars available for research from the President's Birth-
day Fund, but so far have received no communication.
Needless to state if the Warm Springs Foundation can give me
this assistance through the interest of the President, I will be eternally
grateful and not without hope of materially contributing new information on
the prevention and treatment of infantile paralysis.
Awaiting your further advices in the matter, I am
Very sincerely yours,
John a. Kolmey
John A. Kolmer
JAK/EL
Reprinted from The Journal of the American Medical Association
February 9, 1935, Vol. 104, PP. 456-460
A SUCCESSFUL METHOD FOR VACCI-
NATION AGAINST ACUTE ANTERIOR
POLIOMYELITIS
FURTHER REPORT
JOHN A. KOLMER, M.D., LL.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Medicine, Temple University School of Medicine, and
Director of the Research Institute of Cutaneous Medicine
WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF
GEORGE F. KLUGH JR., M.D.
Resident in Medicine, Temple University Hospital
AND
MISS ANNA M. RULE
PHILADELPHIA
As recently stated by Kolmer and Rule,¹ it is pos-
sible to vaccinate Macacus rhesus monkeys safely and
successfully against acute anterior poliomyelitis with
subcutaneous and intracutaneous injections of vaccines
of living but attenuated virus composed of 4 per cent
suspensions of poliomyelitic monkey spinal cord in
sterile 1 per cent solutions of sodium ricinoleate. All
of a series of eighteen monkeys were immunized
sufficiently without the slightest evidences of ill effects
to protect them completely against infection following
the intracerebral injection of about eighteen minimal
infective doses of virus given under ether anesthesia
about one month after the last dose of vaccine, the
disease developing in unvaccinated controls in from
five to nine days after inoculation.
Following these observations, two of us received
subcutaneous injections of 0.5, 1.5 and 2 cc. of the
vaccine at intervals of five days without any ill effects
whatever except local reactions at the sites of injection,
and two weeks later our serums were found to contain
large amounts of antibody in neutralization tests.
From Temple University School of Medicine and the Research Insti-
tute of Cutaneous Medicine of Philadelphia.
Aided by grants from the Daniel J. McCarthy Fund for Research in
Neurology of Temple University and two anonymous donations,
1. Kolmer, J. A., and Rule, Anna M.: Am, J. M. Sc. 188: 510
(Oct.) 1934.
2
During the previous year, Kolmer and Rule suc-
ceeded in vaccinating one monkey partially and two
additional animals completely, out of a series of six,
with subcutaneous and intracutaneous injections of a
vaccine of 2 per cent poliomyelitic spinal cord in 10
per cent sodium ricinoleate, so that the latter or
stronger vaccine yielded much more satisfactory results
with milder local reactions at the sites of injection,
owing to the lower concentration of sodium ricinoleate.
Owing to the fact that it appears that living vaccines
of attenuated viruses are more vaccinogenic than heat or
chemically killed viruses, we employed sodium ricin-
oleate (William Merrell Company 28) as the attenuating
agent not only because it is known to be detoxifying,ᵃ
but likewise because McKinley and Larson 4 had suc-
cessfully immunized three monkeys completely and one
partially with intraperitoneal injections of sodium
ricinoleate treated emulsions of monkey spinal cord
virus. At least it would appear that vaccines of attenu-
ated viruses produce immunity in much smaller amounts
than "dead" viruses, with the added advantage that
the viruses after injection are probably able to multiply
many fold with continued antigenic stimulation as well
as requiring the injection of smaller amounts of spinal
cord protein and thereby resulting in less strain on the
antibody producing tissues and less likelihood of pro-
ducing allergic sensitization.
Furthermore, marked success in the case of polio-
myelitis has followed vaccination of monkeys with
subcutaneous and intracutaneous injections of living
virus or mixtures of virus and immune serum; 5 but
these have been considered too dangerous for the
vaccination of human beings.
Susceptibility, attack rate, mortality and incidence
of residual paralysis and other factors in acute polio-
2. Kolmer, J. A., and Rule, Anna M.: J. Immunology 26:505
(June) 1934.
2a. We are indebted to the William Merrell Company for a generous
supply of this substance (patent 1621118).
3. Larson, W. P., and others: Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. & Med. 21:
278, 1924; 22, 194, 1924. Larson, W. P., ibid. 23:497 (March) 1926.
Kolmer, J. A.; Rule, Anna M., and Madden, Bernard: J. Lab. & Clin.
Med. 19:972 (June) 1934.
4. McKinley, J. C., and Larson, W. P.: Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol.
& Med. 24:297 (Jan.) 1927.
5. Flexner, Simon, and Lewis, P. A.: Experimental Poliomyelitis in
Monkeys, J. A. M. A. 54: 1780 (May 28) 1910. Aycock, W. L., and
Kagan, J. R.: J. Immunology 14:85 (Aug.) 1927, Stewart, F. W.,
and Rhoads, C. P.: J. Exper. Med. 48:959 (June) 1929. Rhoads,
C. P., ibid. 51:1 (Jan.) 1930; 53:115 (Jan.) 1931.
3
myelitis in relation to vaccination of human beings
have been discussed elsewhere,⁶ it being pointed out
that susceptibility is so high in children and especially
among those under 10 years of age that a safe and
effective method of vaccination is highly desirable and
especially in epidemics, although the majority of adults
appear to possess adequate resistance. Even among the
latter, however, vaccination is worthy of serious con-
sideration during epidemics at least, since serum neu-
tralization tests by different investigators with a group
of 128 varying in age from 15 years and upward has
shown about 24.7 per cent without demonstrable
amounts of neutralizing antibody in the blood.
METHOD OF STUDY
During the last four months we have administered
the vaccine to a selected group of twenty-five children
varying in age from 8 months to 15 years, as sum-
marized in the table, with completely negative histories
of clinical attacks of poliomyelitis. All were immunized
at the request or with the written consent of the
parents, nineteen being in Temple University Hospital
in the pediatric service of Dr. Ralph M. Tyson, to
whom we are indebted for this cooperation. While all
these children were in fairly good health, the majority
were convalescing from various medical and surgical
ailments.
Fifteen of these children were selected on the basis
of showing no antibody in the blood by serum neu-
tralization tests and ten with antibody in order to
include both types in the study. These tests were
conducted by mixing 0.5 cc. of serum with 0.5 cc. of
a 10 per cent suspension of virus followed by intra-
cerebral injection of 0.5 cc. of each mixture into
monkeys under ether anesthesia after being allowed to
stand about two hours in a water bath at 37 C. Control
monkeys injected with 0.5 cc. of a mixture of 0.5 cc.
of sterile saline solution and 0.5 cc. of virus after
standing under identical conditions developed paralysis
in from five to nine days.
Temperature observations and blood examinations
were made in twenty-two of the children before and
after each dose of vaccine.
6. Kolmer, J. A.: Susceptibility and Immunity in Relation to Vac-
cination in Acute Anterior Poliomyelitis, Am. J. M. Sc., to be published.
4
From one to three injections were given subcu-
taneously at weekly intervals, the amounts of each being
shown in the table.
RESULTS OF VACCINATION
There were no ill effects in any of the children, and
not the slightest evidences of infection. Local reactions
of varying degree occurred at the sites of infection.
Results of Administering Vaccine to Twenty-Five Children
with Negative Histories
Preliminary
Dosage of
Final
Serum
Vaccine
Serum
Tests for
Once a Week,
Tests for
No.
Age
Name
Antibody
Ce.
Antibody
1
8 mos.
Raymond B.
of
0.25, 0.5, 0.5
0
2
9 mos.
Nickolas V.
0
0.5
+
3
10 mos.
Phillip B.
0
0.25, 0.5
+
4
12 mos.
Joseph W.
0
0.25,0.5,0.5
0
5
19 mos.
Howard N.
o
0,5
+
6
22 mos.
Francis B.
0
0.25,0.5,0.5
+
7
4 yrs.
Carolyn D.
0
0.5,0.5,1.0
+
8
4½ yrs.
Margaret Y.
+
0.5,1.0,1.0
++
9
5 yrs.
Philip D.
+
0.5,0,5,1.0
++
10
5 yrs.
Elizabeth M.
0
0.5,0.5,1.0
0
11
5 yrs.
Harry W.
o
0.5,0,5,1.0
0
12
6 yrs.
Gloria A.
+
0.5,1.0,1.0
++
12
6 yrs.
Joseph R.
+
0.5,0.5,1.0
++
14
7 yrs.
Charles D.
+
0.5,1,0,1.0
++
15
7 yrs.
Mildred G.
0
0.5,1.0,1.0
+
16
7 yrs.
Peter L.
0
0.5,0.5,0.5
+
17
7 yrs.
Elva W.
0
0.5,0.5,1.0
++
18
8 yrs.
Robert K.
+
0.5,0.5,1.0
++
19
8 yrs.
Clinton B.
0
0.5,1.0,1.0
+
20
10 yrs.
Kathryn D.
+
0.5,1.0,2.0
++
21
10 yrs.
Harold L.
+
0.5,0,5,1.0
++
22
11 yrs.
Sidney G.
+
0.5,1.0,1.0
++
23
11 yrs.
Daniel K.
0
0.5,1.0,1.0
+
24
11 yrs.
George W.
0
0.5,1.0,2.0
+
25
15 yrs.
John K.
+
0.5,1.0,2.0
++
. 0 indicates no antibody: +. antibody present: ++, antibody
increased.
In one of the older children the first dose produced a
moderately severe reaction of swelling and erythema
corresponding to that sometimes seen following injec-
tions of diphtheria toxoid, but in the remainder the
local reactions were of mild degree.
During the first twenty-four hours after injection
and especially after the first, the temperature of some
of the children was elevated to a fraction of a degree
but only occasionally going as high as 100.2 F. and
falling to the preinjection levels in about forty-eight
hours.
5
The total leukocytes were increased from 500 to
1,200 per cubic millimeter of blood in some of the
children during twenty-four hours following injections
and especially after the first, as the result of a slight
absolute increase of the polymorphonuclear neutro-
phils. These and the slight temperature changes were
ascribed to the effects of the local reactions, as they
appeared to vary with the degree of the latter.
Serum neutralization tests for antibody were con-
ducted one week after the last dose of vaccine by
mixing 0.5 cc. of serum with 0.5 cc. of a 10 per cent
suspension of virus, allowing it to stand at 37 C. for
but one to two hours, and injecting 0.5 cc. of each
mixture intracerebrally into monkeys under ether
anesthesia.
In the fifteen children without antibody before
immunization, eleven, or 75 per cent, showed sufficient
amounts of antibody to neutralize the virus after
immunization, the monkeys showing absolutely no
evidences of infection over three to four weeks fol-
lowing intracerebral inoculation of the serum-virus
mixtures, while the controls inoculated with but 0.1 cc.
of virus alone became paralyzed in from six to nine
days and succumbed.
Since Brodie has recently shown that the maximum
immunity from two intracutaneous doses of polio-
myelitis virus in monkeys is obtained by giving the
second while the first is giving its effects, in other
words, at intervals of from ten to fourteen days apart,
it is quite likely that our injections at weekly intervals
were too closely spaced and that even better results
might have been produced by giving the injections at
longer intervals. Furthermore, while antibody produc-
tion in some of the children appeared to be quite
prompt after injections of the vaccine, as will be dis-
cussed shortly in more detail, it is likely that serum
neutralization tests for antibody should be delayed for
at least two weeks after the last dose instead of but
one week as conducted by us.
In addition it should be stated as previously men-
tioned that the majority of children included in this
group were convalescing in the hospital from various
medical and surgical conditions with the possibility that
7. Brodie, Maurice: J. Immunology 27:395 (Oct.) 1934.
6
antibody response may not be as good under the cir-
cumstances as occurs in children in excellent general
health.
Despite these conditions, however, the production of
large amounts of antibody in eleven out of fifteen, or
75 per cent, of susceptible antibody-free children by
from one to three doses of vaccine, with absolutely no
ill effects other than the slight local reactions at the
sites of subcutaneous injection, indicates a satisfactory
and successful degree of immunization.
Furthermore, the serums of the ten children contain-
ing antiviral antibody in the blood before vaccination
showed a sharp increase of antibody after immuniza-
tion, since 0.5 cc. of serum mixed with as much as
0.5 cc. of 50 per cent suspension of virus followed by
the intracerebral injection into monkeys under ether
anesthesia of 0.5 cc. of the mixtures, after standing
but one to two hours at 37 C., showed complete neu-
tralization. Indeed, it would appear from additional
quantitative tests that the vaccine probably produces
more antibody in those children carrying natural anti-
body in the blood than it does in those who do not,
suggesting that the body cells in the former are probably
sensitized or "tuned up" by previous unrecognized
infection with virus, with the result that they produce
large additional amounts of antibody on additional
stimulation by vaccine. At least twenty-one, or 84 per
cent of the group of twenty-five children, showed good
antibody response to the vaccine.
DOSAGE OF VACCINE
The matter of dosage is of course one of considerable
importance. Monkeys receiving a total of 0.5 cc. per
kilogram in divided doses by subcutaneous injection
have been successfully vaccinated; 1 but, if it is true
that human beings acquire immunity to poliomyelitis
by clinically unrecognized infection with virus, it would
appear that less vaccine may be required per body
weight for effective immunization than in the case of
monkeys.
With this possibility in mind and as an additional
factor of safety, we have made the first dose 0.25 cc.
for children under 3 years of age and 0.5 cc. for older
children and adults. Second doses have varied from
7
0.5 to 1 cc. and third doses 1 or 2 cc., as shown in
the table.
From the results observed up to the present time, it
would appear that three doses are sufficient in the fol-
lowing amounts:
From 1 to 3 years: first, 0.25 cc.; second, 0.5 cc.; third, 0.5 cc.
From 4 to 10 years: first, 0.5 cc.; second, 0.5 cc.; third, 1 cc.
From 11 to 15 years: first, 0.5 cc.; second, 1 cc.; third, 1 or
2 cc.
Adults: first, 0.5 cc.; second, 1 cc.; third, 2 CC.
For children of standard weight the totals of these
amounts of vaccine varied from about 0.06 to 0.1 cc.
per kilogram, which were therefore approximately five
to ten times less per body weight than given to
monkeys. But we have assumed, as stated before, that
human beings may require less than monkeys per
kilogram of weight, and the results summarized in the
table appear to substantiate this assumption. A possible
exception was in the case of the two children (1 and 4)
of 8 and 12 months respectively, who probably should
have received 1 cc. for the third dose instead of
0.5 cc.; but otherwise we believe that the foregoing
scale is about right in view of our present information
on this subject.
However, it would appear that but one or two doses
of vaccine have produced considerable antibody in at
least some of the children.
For example, the serums of Nickolas V. (patient 2),
aged 9 months, and Howard N. (patient 5), aged 19
months, gave good neutralization tests four days after
one dose of 0.5 cc. Joseph W. (patient 4), aged 12
months, gave a good neutralization test one week after
the second dose, although this result was not known
when the third dose was given, and Clinton B.
(patient 19), aged 8 years, also gave a good neutraliza-
tion test four days after the first dose of 0.5 cc.,
although the second and third doses were also given
before this result was known. These results indicate
that with some children at least one or two doses may
suffice; but since Raymond B. (patient 1), Phillip B.
(patient 3) and Francis B. (patient 6) did not show
antibody in the serums one week after the first dose,
we believe it is advisable to give two and preferably
three doses of the vaccine.
8
RAPIDITY OF ANTIBODY PRODUCTION AND SPACING
OF INJECTIONS
In view, however, of Dr. Brodie's observations
previously referred to on the rate of production of
antibody in monkeys given subinfective doses of living
virus intracutaneously, it would appear advisable to
give the injections every ten days instead of every seven
days as we gave them.
On the other hand, we have observed rather rapid
antibody production in the cases just referred to,
namely, Nickolas V. (patient 2), Howard N. (patient 5)
and Clinton B. (patient 19), since their serums taken
ninety-six hours after the first dose of vaccine gave
good neutralization tests. Indeed, in the case of
Nikolas V., serum taken forty-eight hours after the
first dose of vaccine appeared to contain already a very
slight amount of antibody, as this monkey did not
develop paralysis until eighteen days after intracerebral
inoculation, whereas the control monkey and that tested
with serum before vaccine was given developed severe
paralysis thirteen or fourteen days after inoculation.
Further evidence of rather rapid antibody production
was indicated by the fact that a monkey weighing
4 Kg. injected intracerebrally under ether anesthesia
with 0.5 cc. of 5 per cent virus seventy-two hours
after a subcutaneous injection of 0.5 cc. of vaccine
remained perfectly well and entirely free of infection,
whereas a control developed paralysis eight days after
inoculation with but 0.1 cc. of the same virus given at
the same time. In the case of a second monkey, how-
ever, receiving the same dose of vaccine, the antibody
response, while present, was not quite as good, as this
animal developed paralysis about nineteen days after
the intracerebral injection under ether anesthesia of
0.5 cc. of the 5 per cent virus.
In this connection, observations on the rapidity of
antibody production with the serums of individuals and
monkeys with poliomyelitis are not without interest and
some bearing on this question. Flexner and Amoss,
for example, have found antibody in the serum as
early as the sixth day of the disease; Amoss has found
it in monkeys as early as three and one-half days after
the onset of paralysis and in human beings as early
8. Flexner, Simon, and Amoss, H. L.: J. Exper. Med. 25:499
(April) 1917.
9. Amoss, H. L: South. M. J. 23:18 (Jan.) 1930,
9
as the fifth day; Leiner and von Wiesner 10 found it
after seven, and in one case two days after the develop-
ment of active disease in monkeys. Brodie' also found
antibody in the blood of monkeys on the second day
after the height of paralysis, while Howitt 11 failed to
find it earlier than fifteen days after the onset of the
disease in monkeys.
On the whole, therefore, it would appear that anti-
body may be produced rather rapidly in poliomyelitis
and after subcutaneous injections of the vaccine, and
for this reason we believe that vaccination may prove
particularly helpful in the immunization of individuals
during epidemics. Furthermore, as has been discussed
elsewhere,⁶ it does not appear that the vaccine pro-
duces a detectable "negative phase" or period of
increased susceptibility in monkeys, at least, which also
appears to justify its use in combating epidemics of
poliomyelitis.
THE VACCINE
The method of preparing the vaccine has already
been described 1. and need not be here given. Suffice it
to emphasize that it is prepared of a remote monkey
passage strain of the virus with the possibility of
having lost at least some of its infectivity for human
beings. That the antibody it produces is capable of
neutralizing human virus ⁶ is indicated by the fact that
the antibody in the serums of several of the vaccinated
children was found to neutralize completely human
virus from the 1934 epidemic in California sent us
by Dr. Jessel of Los Angeles and a second virus in the
third monkey transfer sent by Miss Howitt of San
Francisco.
The vaccine, however, cannot be prepared of brain
tissue because it contains insufficient virus. The intra-
cerebral inoculation of monkeys with as much as 1 cc.
of a 50 per cent suspension of fresh brain has failed
to infect because virus was absent or present in
insufficient amounts. But the spinal cord of one monkey
will furnish about 150 cc. of vaccine, which is sufficient
for the immunization of from forty to seventy-five chil-
dren, depending on age and dosage.
We believe that the virus in the vaccine is attenuated
to some extent by the amounts of sodium ricinoleate
employed. While the intracerebral injection into mon-
keys under ether anesthesia of 0.1 cc. of 5 per cent
10. Leiner, C., and von Wiesner, R.: Wien. klin. Wehnschr. 28:323,
1910.
11. Howitt, Beatrice F.: J. Infect. Dis. 51: 565 (Nov.-Dec.) 1932.
10
fresh virus produced poliomyelitis in about eight days,
the intracerebral injection of 0.2 cc. of a vaccine 3
weeks old and carrying 4 per cent of virus produced
poliomyelitis in eleven days, while a second vaccine 2
months old produced paralysis in nine days and a third
about 5 months old in about twelve days, all being
injected in doses of 0.2 cc. under ether anesthesia.
The vaccine is allowed to stand at least two weeks
before use and we now believe that a month may be
better. After this time attentuation of the vaccine
appears to stop when kept in the refrigerator at about
10 C., since vaccine prepared a year ago still possesses
about the same infectivity for the monkey and the same
vaccinogenic activity. In order to render different vac-
cines comparable in attenuated virus and immunizing
activity, they are now prepared of mixtures of from
ten to twenty cords taken only from monkeys that have
been severely paralyzed.
In the preparation of the vaccine, due care must be
exercised against contamination of the cords in removal
and the preparation of finely divided suspensions. But
it is our custom to place the cords in 50 per cent chemi-
cally pure glycerol in sterile saline solution for at least
a month before use and under the circumstances the
great majority of vaccines are found to be sterile on
careful bacteriologic examination by culture.
The 1 per cent sodium ricinoleate possesses some bac-
teriostatic activity, but due care must be exercised
against contamination of the vaccine when administered.
Since we have never seen the slightest ill effects,
aside from mild local reactions at the sites of injection
in monkeys or the twenty-seven human beings including
two of us (J. A. K. and A. M. R.) who have taken it,
we lost all fear of infection from its administration
and are sure that it is perfectly safe. Unfortunately
the monkey serum neutralization test is the only one
available at present for the detection of susceptibility,12
since skin tests,¹ᵃ colloidal gold, complement fixation
and precipitation tests 14 have proved inadequate; but
the majority of children under 10 years of age are
devoid of antiviral antibody and probably susceptible,
and since Aycock has shown that there is an important
hereditary factor in susceptibility it would appear par-
12. Kolmer, J. A., and Rule, Anna M.: J. Immunology, to be
published.
13. Kolmer, J. A.; Klugh, George, Jr., and Rule, Anna M.: J.
Immunology, to be published.
14. Kolmer, J. A., and Rule, Anna M.: J. Immunology, to be
published.
11
ticularly important to vaccinate all children in those
families in which the disease has appeared.
Not only is it quite likely that the remote passage
virus employed has lost some if not all infectivity for
human beings, but it is certainly attenuated to some
extent by the sodium ricinoleate employed. Further-
more, subcutaneous injections appear to add another
very important factor of added safety, as it represents
a portal of entry in which virulent virus itself has a
very low rate of infectivity for monkeys. In addition
the injection of such a small first dose as from 0.25 to
0.5 cc. to children and adults and waiting at least a
week before the second dose is given adds another
important factor of safety, since it appears that anti-
body response is quite prompt. For these reasons we
do not hesitate recommending the vaccine, especially
during epidemics, and among the first children to
receive it were the two sons of the senior author, the
younger of whom was without any antibody at all in
his serum before the first dose of 0.5 cc. was given.
SUMMARY
1. Twenty-five children varying in age from 8
months to 15 years have been given from one to three
injections of poliomyelitis vaccine at the request or
with the consent of parents.
2. Fifteen of these children were without antibody
in serum neutralization tests before immunization and
eleven, or 75 per cent, showed large amounts of anti-
body in the blood one week after the last dose of
vaccine.
3. Ten of the children showed the presence of anti-
viral antibody in the blood before immunization, but
all have shown a considerable increase of this antibody
after vaccination, so that antibody production occurred
in twenty-one, or 84 per cent, of the group of twenty-
five children.
4. None of the twenty-five children have shown the
slightest ill effects from the vaccine.
5. Mild local reactions were produced at the sites
of subcutaneous injection, with occasional slight eleva-
tion of temperature and slight leukocytosis subsiding
within forty-eight hours.
6. The dosage for children from 1 to 3 years of age
has been 0.25, 0.5 and 0.5 cc. at weekly intervals; for
children from 4 to 10 years, 0.5, 0.5 and 1 cc.; for chil-
12
dren from 11 to 15 years, 0.5, 1 and 1 or 2 cc. For
adults the dosage recommended is 0.5, 1 and 2 cc.
7. The vaccine is prepared of spinal cord only, as
brain contains too small amounts of virus. But the
spinal cord of a single monkey will furnish about
150 cc. of vaccine, which is sufficient for the immuniza-
tion of from forty to seventy-five children, depending
on age and dosage.
8. It is likely that the maximum antibody response
may be obtained by giving the injection every ten days
instead of weekly.
9. Antibody production, however, appears to be
fairly rapid, as three susceptible children developed
antibody in the blood within four days after the first
injection of vaccine and one monkey was found com-
pletely and a second partially immune seventy-two
hours after the subcutaneous injection of 0.5 cc. of
vaccine per animal on intracerebral inoculations of
large amounts of virus.
10. The vaccine does not appear to produce a
demonstrable "negative phase" of increased suscepti-
bility after injection.
11. The vaccine is a 4 per cent suspension of spinal
cords of monkeys developing poliomyelitis after intra-
cerebral inoculation with a remote passage strain of
virus, in a 1 per cent sterile solution of sodium
ricinoleate prepared as previously described. The virus
is attenuated and the vaccine regarded as entirely safe
for the immunization of human beings not only because
prepared of remote passage virus which probably has
lost in infectivity for human beings but likewise because
of attenuation by sodium ricinoleate, the route of
administration and the injection of a small first dose.
12. The amount of antibody produced by immuniza-
tions is comparable to that found in the blood in
natural immunity and is believed to be sufficient for
affording protection against acute anterior poliomyelitis.
13. The antibody present in the serums of vaccinated
children has successfully neutralized human virus from
the 1934 California epidemic.
14. The duration of the immunity following vaccina-
tion is unknown but has lasted for more than two years
in vaccinated monkeys.
15. It is believed that the vaccine is now ready for
vaccination of human beings and especially children
against poliomyelitis and particularly during epidemics.
Reprinted from THE JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
Vol. 26, No. 6, June, 1934
CONCERNING VACCINATION OF MONKEYS AGAINST
ACUTE ANTERIOR POLIOMYELITIS
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ORAL IMMUNIZATION
JOHN A. KOLMER AND ANNA M. RULE
From the Research Institute of Culaneous Medicine of Philadelphia
Received for publication, September 20, 1933
Undoubtedly human beings and monkeys acquire immunity to
poliomyelitis by an attack of the disease. This is shown by the
antiviral properties of the serum in both and by the intracerebral
inoculation test with virulent virus in the latter.
It is likely that a large percentage of adult human beings have
acquired immunity to the disease without clinical manifestations
but by a way and means as yet unknown. The presence of this
immunity is indicated by the lower percentage of poliomyelitis
occurring among adults during epidemics and more especially by
the fact that the sera of a large percentage have been found to
possess antiviral properties.
Since it is commonly believed, as originally expressed by Flex-
ner, that the virus of poliomyelitis enters and infects human be-
ings through the upper respiratory tract, it is natural to suppose
that if immunity is acquired without an actual clinical attack of
the disease it is because sub-infective amounts of virus are ab-
sorbed through these parts sufficient for gradually engendering
an immunity to the virus which, however, may not be "solid"
but capable of being broken down by infection with an unusually
virulent virus of epidemic distribution or possibly by another
strain.
However experiments recently reported by Flexner (1) do not
lend support to this theory of natural immunization in so far at
least as monkeys are concerned since several animals subjected to
: Aided by a grant from the Dr. Daniel J. McCarthy Fund for Research in
Neurology of Temple University.
505
506
JOHN A. KOLMER AND ANNA M. RULE
repeated nasal installations of virus with intervals of one or more
weeks between the courses gave no indications of acquired im-
munity by serum neutralization or intracerebral inoculation tests.
As stated by Flexner however, "these experiments should be
carried further and on a larger scale in order to determine whether
the monkey, naturally not affected by epidemic poliomyelitis
but experimentally susceptible, is capable of being immunized, as
man is supposed to be, by way of the mucous membranes of the
upper respiratory tract."
It may be that the natural immunity of human adults is not
acquired by subelinical infection with the virus at all but that it is
due to some obscure reduction in susceptibility of the tissues
resulting from age and commonly designated as "maturation
immunity."
But the fact that recovery from a clinical attack of poliomye-
litis in both man and monkey is accompanied by an undoubted
immunity and that monkeys can be vaccinated by subcutaneous
(2) and intracutaneous (3) injections of virus leaves one with the
conviction that the immunity of human beings is acquired by
immunization with the virus. In this connection it is interesting
to note that Flexner (1) has observed that monkeys inoculated
with sub-infective doses of virus made intracerebrally or intra-
cisternally leave the animals essentially unchanged 80 far as
response to more potent or larger doses of virus is concerned.
This suggests that the skin may be capable of engendering a
higher immunity response than the organs of the central nervous
system.
The problem is to determine the route of immunization and
whether or not it is possible to duplicate this natural immuniza-
tion in man by vaccination with virus prepared and administered
in such way as to be perfectly safe and free of the danger of
producing the disease.
In this connection it may be stated that subcutaneous and
intracutaneous injections of virus could not be used because
monkeys immunized by these methods have occasionally de-
veloped the disease. The strain of virus employed and dosage
are important variable factors. The same is probably true
VACCINATION OF MONKEYS AGAINST POLIOMYELITIS 507
of injections of under-neutralized mixtures of virus and antiviral
serum injected together and of simultaneous injections of virus
and serum separately (4). Vaccination against diphtheria with
toxin-antitoxin mixtures is not analogous because the toxin only
is used and this is without danger of producing disease or injury
providing the mixtures are properly neutralized.
The sum total of attempts to vaccinate monkeys with chem-
ically and heat-killed virus indicates that effective immunity has
not been produced. It would appear that only the living virus
is capable of engendering immunity.
So far no method has been discovered for modifying the
infectivity of living virus to render it entirely safe for the vacci-
nation of human beings analogous to vaccination against small-
pox with the living virus of cowpox. Whether or not the virus
of repeated monkey passage is infective for human beings has
not been determined but the possibility of permanent loss of
infectivity of the virus for man as a result of passage through a
lower animal analogous to the change of smallpox virus by passage
through calves (cowpox virus) remains the most hopeful possi-
bility in active immunization against poliomyelitis. So far no
cases of accidental poliomyelitis in human beings from laboratory
infection with monkey passage virus have been reported. But
the possibility of successful modification of virulence by animal
passage is suggested by the observation of Flexner (1) that a
female chimpanzee, more nearly related biologically to man, has
resisted not only an intracerebral inoculation of a potent Berke-
feld filtrate of monkey passage virus (Rockefeller Institute) but
likewise a second inoculation with a larger or accelerating dose
ten days later.
The infectivity of the virus of poliomyelitis may be altered by
heat and chemical agents and effectively used for the vaccination
of monkeys but as stated by Flexner (1) the changes are quanti-
tative and not qualitative and the administration of such vaccines
are not without the danger of producing the disease by revival of
the infectivity of the virus. However this is not entirely a closed
chapter in vaccination against poliomyelitis and part of our
investigation herein summarized has been the use of vaccines of
508
JOHN A. KOLMER AND ANNA M. RULE
poliomyelitic monkey brain treated with heat, chloroform and
sodium ricinoleate. In this connection the more recent observa-
tions of Rhoads (5) are of great interest since it would appear that
the adsorption of the virus by aluminum hydroxide renders it
ineffective when injected intracerebrally although still alive and
several experiments carried out by Schultz (6) tend to support
this claim.
But one of the special purposes of our study was to determine
the possibility of vaccinating monkeys by feeding the virus or
rather by administering it with a stomach tube in order to be
absolutely sure of dosage. Next to the mucous membranes of
the upper respiratory tract as a portal of entry of sub-infective
amounts of virus responsible for the acquisition of natural
immunity of human beings would appear to be the gastrointesti-
nal tract as a result of swallowing the virus as a possible route of
immunization. Apparently the Macacus rhesus monkey can not
be infected by this route although according to Levaditi and his
colleagues (7), the Macacus cynomolgus has been successfully
infected through the digestive tract. Whether or not human
beings have been infected by the swallowing of virus in mucus
from the upper respiratory tract or in foods and water can not be
stated; some investigators (8) believe this is possible largely on
the basis of the involvement of the mesenteric and other lympha-
tic glands in this disease but these changes may be observed in
monkeys after intracerebral inoculation with virus and may be
indirect and secondary manifestations of the infection in both
man and monkey rather than a direct effect of the virus on the
glands.
EXPERIMENTAL
The virus employed was kindly furnished by the Rockefeller
Institute and was of such virulence that the intracerebral inocu-
lation of 0.2 cc. of a 5 per cent emulsion of cord regularly pro-
duced poliomyelitis in our Macacus rhesus monkeys in from seven
to eleven days.
A chloroform-treated vaccine was prepared after the Kelser
method of preparing antirabies vaccine by treating a 2 per cent
VACCINATION OF MONKEYS AGAINST POLIOMYELITIS 509
very finely divitled and sieve-passed emulsion of monkey polio-
myelitic spinal cord in sterile saline solution with 1 per cent C.P.
chloroform. The emulsion was kept in a refrigerator at about
4° to 6°C. for two weeks and shaken three times a day for five
minutes. This vaccine was chosen because chloroform does not
appear to have been employed by previous investigators.
A sodium ricinoleated vaccine was prepared by treating a 2 per
cent finely divided emulsion of cord in sterile water with sufficient
sodium ricinoleate (Wm. Merrell Company) to give a 10 per cent
concentration. This mixture was likewise kept in a refrigerator
at 4° to 6°C. for two weeks, being shaken for five minutes three
times a day. This vaccine was selected because McKinley and
Larsen (9) have reported that of 4 monkeys receiving 4 cc. of the
virus-soap mixture intraperitoneally, 3 remained well when later
inoculated intracerebrally with virus.
A heated and tricresolized vaccine was prepared by heating a 2
per cent finely divided emulsion of cord in a water bath at 55°C.
for thirty minutes. Tricresol was then added to 0.5 per cent
concentration and the emulsion kept at 4° to 6°C. This vaccine
was chosen because Abramson and Gerber (10) had reported
some encouraging results with heat inactivated virus vaccine
although exposure to 55°C. did not prove as effective as vaccines
heated at 50°C.
Finally an untreated vaccine was prepared by emulsifying 2
grams of spinal cord in 100 cc. of sterile saline and keeping in a
refrigerator at 4° to 6°C.
With one exception all vaccines were administered daily for
10 doses to Macacus rhesus monkeys, the doses per kilogram of
weight and routes of administration being shown in table 1.
As compared with the amounts of various vaccines employed
by other investigators, the doses employed by us were much
smaller as we purposely wished to ascertain the immunizing capa-
city of the vaccines in amounts comparable to the usual doses
per body weight of various vaccines employed in the vaccination
of human beings against rabies and other diseases.
Two to four weeks after the last dose of vaccine the monkeys,
along with 2 normal controls, were inoculated intracerebrally
510
TABLE 1
Immunization and results of intracerebral inoculation
TOTAL
INTRACEREBRAL TEST
VIRUS IN-
ROUTE OF
DOSE PER
NUMBER
OCULATED
MONKEY
VACCINE
ADMINISTRATION
KILOGRAM
OF DOSES
(2 PER CENT
Amount
SUSPEN-
(5 per cent
Result
SEON)
suspension)
oc.
ce.
cc.
1
Chloroform
Subcutaneous
0.1
10
1
0.2
Typical poliomyelitis; 9 days
2
Chloroform
Intracutaneous
0.1
10
1
0.2
Typical poliomyelitis; 7 days
3
Sodium ricinoleate
Subcutaneous
0.02
10
0.2
0.2
Typical poliomyelitis; 11 days
4
Sodium ricinoleate
Subcutaneous
0.1
5
0.5
0.2
Slight symptoms 17 days; re-
covered
5
Sodium ricinoleate
Intracutaneous
0.1
10
1
0.2
No symptoms
6
Sodium ricinoleate
Intracutaneous
0.1
10
1
0.2
Slight symptoms
7
Sodium ricinoleate
Intracutaneous
0.01
10
0.1
0.2
Typical poliomyelitis; 10 days
8
Sodium ricinoleate
By stomach tube
2
10
20
0.2
Died of tuberculosis*
9
Untreated
Intracutaneous
0.1
10
1
0.2
No symptoms
10
Untreated
By stomach tube
2
10
20
0.2
Typical poliomyelitis; 8 days
11
Untreated
By stomach tube
2
10
20
0.2
Typical poliomyelitis; 11 days
JOHN A. KOLMER AND ANNA M. RULE
12
Heated
Subcutaneous
1
10
20
0.2
Died of tuberculosis*
13
Heated
Subcutaneous
1
10
20
0.2
Typical poliomyelitis; 8 days
14
Heated
Intracutaneous
0.1
10
1
0.2
Typical poliomyelitis; 7 days
15
Heated
Intracutaneous
0.1
10
1
0.2
Typical poliomyelitis; 8 days
16
Heated
By stomach tube
2
10
20
0.2
Typical poliomyelitis; 9 days
17
Control
0.2
Typical poliomyelitis; 6 days
18
Control
0.2
Typical poliomyelitis; 7 days
. During immunization.
VACCINATION OF MONKEYS AGAINST POLIOMYELITIS 511
with 0.2 cc. of a 5 per cent suspension of spinal cord. This
amount was sufficient to produce typical poliomyelitis in from
six to seven days in the controls and constituted a rather severe
test for acquired immunity among the immunized animals. Se-
rum neutralization tests were not conducted.
None of the animals developed any clinical signs or symptoms
of poliomyelitis during the period of immunization of the interval
of two to four weeks elapsing after the last dose before the test
intracerebral inoculations with virus were made.
RESULTS
1. The chloroform vaccine failed to immunize 2 monkeys (Nos.
1 and 2) injected subcutaneously and intracutaneously with 10
daily doses of 0.1 cc. each totalling 1 cc. of a 2 per cent suspension
of cord per kilogram of weight. Both animals developed typical
poliomyelitis in seven to nine days when inoculated intracere-
brally four weeks after the last injection.
2. Six monkeys were given the sodium ricinoleate vaccine.
One (No. 3) received 0.02 cc. subcutaneously daily for 10 doses
totalling 0.2 cc. per kilogram and developed typical poliomyelitis
in eleven days when inoculated intracerebrally four weeks after
the last injection.
A second monkey (No. 4) given 5 daily doses of 0.1 cc. each
per kilogram by subcutaneous injection appeared to have ac-
quired a slight degree of resistance as it did not develop poliomye-
litis until seventeen days after intracerebral inoculation given one
month after the last dose.
Two monkeys given 10 daily doses of 0.1 cc. each per kilogram
by intracutaneous injection presented definite evidences of ac-
quired immunity. One of these (No. 5) inoculated intracere-
brally four weeks after the last dose remained perfectly well and
free of all signs and symptoms of poliomyelitis over a period of
six months following intracerebral inoculation with virus. The
second (No. 6) was inoculated intracerebrally two weeks after
the last injection of vaccine and developed some tremor and
ataxia of the right leg but survived.
Number 7 was given 10 daily doses of 0.01 cc. each per kilo-
512
JOHN A. KOLMER AND ANNA M. RULE
gram by intracutaneous injection but developed typical polio-
myelitis in ten days when inoculated intracerebrally with virus
about four weeks after the last dose.
Number 8 was given 10 daily doses of 2 cc. each per kilogram by
stomach tube but unfortunately died of tuberculosis about two
weeks after the last injection and before the intracerebral test
inoculation with virus.
3. The untreated vaccine was given monkey No. 9 in dose of
0.1 cc. per kilogram by intracutaneous injection daily for ten
injections. When inoculated intracerebrally four weeks later
this animal survived and showed no clinical evidences of polio-
myelitis even though the total amount of vaccine administered
was only 1 cc. and thereby much smaller than used by other
investigators.
Two additional animals (Nos. 10 and 11) were given 2 cc. daily
per kilogram by stomach tube for 10 doses or 20 cc. per kilogram
for each animal. Both remained perfectly well during this
period as likewise during the four weeks following the last dose
when both were inoculated intracerebrally with virus. One
developed typical poliomyelitis eight days and the other eleven
days later.
4. The heated vaccine was given to 2 animals (Nos. 12 and 13)
in dose of 1 cc. per kilogram by subcutaneous injection daily for
10 doses, totalling 20 cc. per kilogram for each animal. One
(No. 12) died of tuberculosis about a week after the last dose but
the remaining animal (No. 13) developed typical poliomyelitis in
eight days after the test intracerebral inoculation of virus given
four weeks after the last dose of vaccine.
Two animals (Nos. 14 and 15) were given 10 daily intracuta-
neous injections of this vaccine in dose of 0.1 cc. totalling 1 cc.
per kilogram for each animal. When inoculated intracerebrally
four weeks after the last dose both animals developed typical
poliomyelitis in seven to eight days.
One animal (No. 16) was given 2 cc. of this vaccine per kilogram
daily by stomach tube for ten days in succession totalling 20 cc.
per kilogram of weight. When inoculated intracerebrally one
month later it developed typical poliomyelitis in nine days.
VACCINATION OF MONKEYS AGAINST POLIOMYELITIS 513
DISCUSSION
The failure of a chloroform-treated vaccine of monkey polio-
myelitic cord to produce any evidences of immunization adds
one more chemically treated vaccine to the list known to fail in
the vaccination of monkeys against poliomyelitis although it is
true that the dosage was small and the test for acquired immunity
very severe.
However the results observed with the sodium ricinoleated
vaccine have been encouraging and have given some confirma-
tion to the results observed by McKinley and Larson. Whether
or not this soap actually killed the virus cannot be stated and
especially since its bactericidal activity in vitro is very low (11).
When we inoculated 1 cc. of the vaccine intracerebrally into a
monkey as a test for surviving virus it died within twenty-four
hours evidently as a result of the sodium ricinoleate since the
amount injected carried approximately 0.01 gram of this sub-
stance. Subsequent experiments with rabbits have shown that
the maximum tolerated dose by direct intracerebral inoculation
is from 0.001 to 0.002 gram per animal while 0.003 gram killed
in twenty-four hours and 0.005 gram almost immediately.
Certainly it would appear that sodium ricinoleate vaccine is
worthy of further study and especially if shown that it is capable
of definitely destroying or inactivating the virus.
Our heated vaccine failed to engender demonstrable evidences
of immunization in so far as test intracerebral inoculation with
virus was concerned. Possibly the temperature employed was
too high since Levaditi and Landsteiner (12) and Abramson and
Gerber (10) have found vaccines heated at 50°C. with longer
exposures more effective.
In confirmation of the observations of Flexner and Lewis,
Aycock and Kagan, Stewart and Rhoads and Rhoads, previously
referred to, multiple intracutaneous injections of untreated virus
developed an effective immunity but of course this method is
not adapted for the vaccination of human beings on account of the
danger involved in producing the disease.
Unfortunately and greatly to our disappointment, the adminis-
514
JOHN A. KOLMER AND ANNA M. RULE
tration of a living or untreated 2 per cent suspension of the virus
of poliomyelitic cord by stomach tube in amount of 2 cc. for 10
daily consecutive doses, failed to engender any demonstrable
evidences of immunity and similar results were observed with
the heated vaccine administered in the same manner.
It is possible that some evidences of immunization were masked
by the severe test intracerebral inoculation with virus employed
and that serum neutralization tests might have shown the pro-
duction of antibody in at least some of the animals but we pre-
ferred the former in order to leave no doubt about the results.
SUMMARY
1. A chloroform-treated vaccine of monkey poliomyelitic
spinal cord in a total dosage of 1 cc. by subcutaneous and intra-
cutaneous injection failed to immunize 2 monkeys against intra-
cerebral inoculations of virus.
2. A sodium ricinoleated vaccine appeared to produce slight
immunity in 1 monkey by subcutaneous injection while intracu-
taneous injections immunized 2 additional animals in a more con-
vincing manner.
3. An untreated vaccine by intracutaneous injection success-
fully immunized 1 animal but failed to protect 2 animals when
administered by stomach tube.
4. A heated vaccine failed to immunize 5 monkeys when ad-
ministered subcutaneously, intracutaneously and by stomach
tube.
REFERENCES
(1) FLEXNER, 8.: Jour. Amer. Med. Assoc., 1932, 99, 1244.
(2) FLEXNER, S., AND LEWIS, P. A.: Jour. Amer. Med. Assoc., 1910, 54, 1780.
(3) Arcock, W. L., AND KAGAN, J. R.: Jour. Immunol., 1927, 14, 85.
STEWART, F. W., AND RHOADS, C. P.: Jour. Exper. Med., 1929, 49, 959.
(4) RHOADS, C. P.: Jour. Exper. Med., 1930, 51, 1; 1931, 53, 115.
(5) RHOADS, C. P.: Jour. Exper. Med., 1931, 63, 399.
(6) SCHULTZ, E. W.: Jour. Pediatrics, 1932, 1, 358.
(7) LEVADITI, C., KLING, C., AND HORMER, G.: Compt. rend. d. 1. Soe. d. Biol.,
1933, 112, 43.
(8) KLING, C.: Bull de l'office internat. d'hyg. pub., 1928, 20, 1779.
BURROWS, M. T.: Arch. Int. Med., 1931, 48, 32.
VACCINATION OF MONKEYS AGAINST POLIOMYELITIS 515
(9) McKiNLEY, J. C., AND LARSON, W. P.: Proe. Soc. Exper. Biol. and Med.,
1927, 24, 297.
(10) ABRAMSON, H. L., AND GERBER, H.: Jour. Immunol., 1918, 3, 435.
(11) KOLMER, J. A., RULE, A. M., AND MADDEN, B.: The chemotherapy of sodium
ricinoleate. Jour. Lab. and Clin. Med. (in press).
(12) LEVADITI, C., AND LANDSTEINER, K.: An., Inst. Pasteur, 1911, 25, 827.
PSF Ickes
TSTXETOR DEPT.
RECEIVED
MAY 211935
OFFICE OF
018 SECRETARY.
SUSCEPTIBILITY AND IMMUNITY IN RELATION TO
VACCINATION IN ACUTE ANTERIOR
POLIOMYKLITIS*
BY
JOHN A. KOLMER, M. D., LL. D., SC. D.
PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY AND
DIRECTOR OF THE RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF CUTANEOUS MEDICINE
PHILADELPHIA
*From the Research Institute of Outeneous Medicine and the
Department of Medicine of Temple University.
Is it worth while to attempt vaccination against acute anterior
poliomyelitis in view of the low attack rate of the disease? If 80 what
are the prospects of success attending such efforts since the disease is
evidently a virus infection? Is it likely that antibody produced in
human beings by vaccine of spinal cords of monkeys infected with passage
virus will protect against the disease? If this appears possible and
probable how should the vaccine be prepared? And if it is found possible
to safely and effectively vaccinate human beings against poliomyelitis
with such vaccine how should the method be applied as a practical
procedure? These and additional problems of related interest are briefly
discussed herewith as the basis of my efforts to evolve a safe and
effective method of active immunization against the disease.
IMMUNITY IN VIRUS DISEASES IN RELATION TO VACCINATION AGAINST
POLIOMYELITIS:- In the first place the fact that an attack of acute
anterior poliomyelitis almost invariably results in 8. lasting immunity
against the disease constitutes the main reason for believing and hoping
that it may be possible to safely and effectively vaccinate against it.
Quigley (1) has recently collected but 14 cases of second attacks from
the literature of which he believes 11 appear reasonably definite and
added one case of his own. This indicates that the virus is capable of
engendering an active and lasting immunity in human beings which has
been substantiated by the finding of specific antiviral antibody in the
blood of the majority of recovered individuals as well as by the
demonstration of acquired immunity in monkeys recovering from the disease
produced by intranasal or intracerebral inoculations of virus.
Indeed it would appear that the majority of diseases caused by
viruses are followed by lasting immunity as, for example, in small-pox,
chicken-pox, rabies, measles, mumps and yellow fever among human beings,
(2)
and cattle plague, swine fever and dog distemper among the lower animals.
Furthermore it would appear that the majority of viruses are peculiarly
capable immunizing agents not only during an attack of disease but like-
wise when administered as vaccines as indicated by the success attending
vaccination against small-pox and rabies as well as against dog distemper,
cattle plague, African horse sickness, fowl-pox, yellow fever and psitta-
cosis. Since acute anterior poliomyelitis is regarded as a virus disease
all of this lends great encouragement to efforts for evolving a safe and
efficient method for vaccination against it.
INCIDENCE AND SUSCEPTIBILITY IN RELATION TO VACCINATION AGAINST
POLIOMYELITIS:- And further impetus to such efforts is given not only
because the disease is known to be world wide in distribution but likewise
because the mortality has varied from 7.3 to as much as 43% in different
epidemics with as high as 25 to 45% of residual of permanent paralysis
among those fortunate enough to survive. Indeed there are but few diseases
capable of creating as much fear among physicians and laity alike as an
epidemic of acute anterior policmyelitis not only because of the death
rate but likewise because of the terrible crippling that may follow an
attack of the disease.
Fortunately, however, the attack rate of poliomyelitis is:low.
From 1911 to 1924 it varied from 1.8 (rural) to 2.1 (urban) per 100,000
estimated population in the registration area of the United States with
about 8 for measles and 10 for whooping cough but it would appear that
the disease is of increasing frequency both as isolated cases and in
epidemics. For example, in the 1916 epidemic in New York City, 9,005 cases
were reported with an attack rate of 18 per 1000 under 10 years of age and
0.23 among those over 10 or about 1.59 per 1000 of the total population
(Amoss). Indeed, because of diagnostic difficulties the true incidence of
(3)
poliomyelitis cannot be expressed if abortive cases and those with temporary
paresis are included but it 1s certain that the great majority occur in
children before natural immunity has been acquired as over 90% of reported
cases have occurred in children under 16 years of age.
Unfortunately our information on how the virus is spread and
epidemics produced is still inadequate but it would appear that it is
largely distributed by carriers and that the portal of entry is the upper
respiratory tract. Toomey (2) has recently renewed interest in the
possibility of the gastrointestinal tract being a portal of entry and in
Sicard's thought that the virus may be absorbed by the gray fibers of the
intestine and conducted by way of the sympathetic nerves to the spinal cord.
For my own part, however, I have not yet succeeded in producing the disease
in Macacus rhesus monkeys by feeding the virus nor have Miss Rule and I been
able to vaccinate monkeys by this route of administration (3).
The majority of newborn infants appear to possess a natural and
temporary immunity to the virus, as indicated not only by the low attack rate
in infants under 1 year of age (3.5% in the 1916 New York City epidemic) but
likewise because Aycock and Kramer (4) found that the sera of 83% of umbilical
cord specimens of blood contained neutralizing antibody for the virus pre-
sumably passively transferred from the mothers. However, as shown in table 1,
this passive immunity appears to be of short duration as the results of
neutralization tests with the sera of 29 children under 4 years of age have
shown that from 58.3 to 100% with an average of 79.2% did not contain
appreciable amounts of antibody in the blood and on the basis of these serum-
neutralization tests were to be regarded as susceptible to infection. In our
own tests with the sera of 9 children under 4 years 077.74 failed to
neutralize passage virus and thereby proved susceptible.
Table 1 here.
(4)
Among 159 children from 5 to 14 years the percentage of sera
failing to neutralize virus has varied according to different investigators
from 17% to 100% (average 45.5%). As Aycook and Kramer have shown the
percentage is always higher among children reared in urban than in rural
districts. In our own series of 20 children included in this age group,
all being reared in Philadelphia, the sera of 40% gave negative monkey
neutrelization tests and were presumably susceptible.
Among 128 individuals over 15 years of age the percentage of
sera failing to neutralize virus and thereby presumably indioating suscep-
tibility has varied from 11.1% to 60% according to different investigators
with a general average of 24.7% As in the case of children Ayoock and
Kramer have found the highest percentage of susceptibles in the rural
districts but in general terms it would appear that from 60% to 70% of
adults have antiviral antibody in the blood presumably sufficient for
conferring resistance to infection.
Under the circumstances it must be admitted that excluding newborn
infants a large percentage of children are susceptible to poliomyelitis,
especially those under 10 years of age, and that the low attack rate among
them under "normal" conditions is not due as much to the presence of immunity
as to factors influencing the virulence and dissemination of the virus over
which we have at present little control and concerning which our information
is even less satisfactory. Certainly no community, in the United States at
least, can feel a sense of security against the disease and since the por-
centage of susceptible children is always high the attack rate, mortality
and army of cripples can always be expected to sharply increase in the
presence of factors increasing the virulence of virus or whatever it is that
produces epidemics of the disease. Under these circumstances and because
our information on the epidemiology of the disease is still incomplete,
coupled with the knowledge that it is known to strikethe lowly and well-to-do
(5)
alike under most unusual conditions despite even rigid precautions against
infection, I believe that there is a place of real value for the vaccina-
tion of children if a safe and practical method is available for producing
sufficient immunity to tide them over to maturity even though WO omit
adults on the basis that 60 to 70% may have lived long enough to acquire
resistance to the disease. Incidentally it is to be noted that since 12%
to 60% of adults do not have appreciable amounts of antiviral antibody in
the blood, it is evidently a mistake as emphasized by several investigators
to use the blood or serum of normal adults for passive immunization of
children against the disease during epidemics unless each individual donor
is first tested by the monkey neutralization test and known to contain
antibody; otherwise pooled sera should be used as such are likely to contain
antibody.
And such is especially desirable for combatting epidemics if the
vaccine is capable of producing protective amounts of antibody in a matter
of a week or two because it is impossible at present to provide sufficient
amounts of immune serum for the passive immunization of large numbers of
persons. Indeed the immunity conferred by a single large dose of conval-
escent serum like 20 0.0. for a child of 10 years does not appear to last
more than a few weeks so that in the presence of an epidemic of one to two
months or longer at least two injections of serum should be given.
Furthermore the desirability for vaccination against the disease
is greatly increased by the belief that once the virus has become intra-
cellular, as is always likely in virus infections, it is beyond neutraliza-
tion by immune serum. For this reason serum has been found to possess but
doubtful value when paresis and especially paralysis have developed. I
have long thought that available amounts of convalescent immune serum were
better used for prophylaxis than for treatment unless it is possible to
administer it very early in the disease. Unfortunately also, this is the
(6)
the very period of greatest diagnostic difficulty. Certainly there is as
yet no known chemical agent or drug of proven or even hopeful curative
activity and in a situation of this kind, where treatment and cure in the
sense of destruction of the virus is as yet impossible, the matter of
prevention by vaccination becomes increasingly important.
THE NATURE OF IMMUNITY IN POLIOMYELITIS IN RELATION TO VACCINA-
TION:- As first shown by Netter and Levaditi (14) in 1910, the sera of
individuals recovering from poliomyelitis contain the antibody capable of
neutralizing in vitro monkey passage virus and since that time has become
the best known antibody identified with the disease.
But it is a mistake to assume that this humoral antiviral anti-
body occurs in all recovered persons insofar at least as the neutralization
of monkey passage virus is concerned. I have summarized the results
reported by various investigators in Table 2, in which it will be noted
that from 12.1 to as high as 63.6% (average 34.9%) of the sera of 126
individuals recovering from poliomyelitis failed to neutralize the virus
in vitro, presumably because the antibody was absent or present in
insufficient amounts. It is for this reason that several investigators
have cautioned against the assumption that the sera of all convalescents
and recovered cases are fit for the serum prophylaxis or treatment of the
disease.
Table 2 here
And yet, as previously stated, the immunity following an attack
is quite solid since second attacks are 80 rare. Under the circumstances
it is reasonable to assume that there is probably an important cellular or
tissue immunity in many recovered cases which do not show demonstrable
amounts of antibody in their sera.
Therefore, since it is possible for the sera of recovered cases
(7)
to give negative monkey neutralization tests, despite the evidence for
the existence of immunity, I was well prepared to observe that the sera
of some children vaccinated by my mothod failed to develop this type of
s
20,
antibody and indoed this happened in four children (19). On the other
hand the presence of the antibody is widely accepted as indicative of
immunity and I do not know of any individual carrying antibody in the
may
De
blood who has contracted poliomyelitis. However this tissue immunity is
so low even though such a large percentage of the sera of children are
without antiviral antibody. Its nature is unknown but it has occurred to
me that the body cells may be "tuned up" for the rapid production of anti-
body when virus gains access to them and that in this manner they may
escape infection. But since the attack rate is 80 sharply increased
during epidemics presumably because of greatly enhanced virulence of the
virus it seems to me highly desirable to vaccinate children under 12 years
of age.
AB further evidence of this tissue immunity I may state that
during the past year Miss Rule and I have found that the sera of normal
guinea pigs and rebbits do not contain antiviral antibody for our monkey
passage virus and yet it is well known that these animals possess an
absolute immunity to the virus. At least no have never been able to infect
these animale by intracerebral inoculation (20) and Harmon, Shaughnessy
and Gordon (21) have had a similar experience with them as well as with
young dogs, onts, mice, young hogs, lambs and calves. In this connection
mention may be also made that in certain other virus diseases (dog distemper,
fowl plague, fowl-pox, African horse. sickness, foot and mouth disease and
horse encephalitis) various investigators have found antiviral antibodies
either absent or but irregularly present in the blood of recovered natural
hosts, even though these infections generally engender a high state of
immunity.
(8)
Since, however, it appears certain that the presence of large
amounts of antiviral antibody in the blood is indicative of immunity even
though its absence is not inconsistent with this state one can only guess
at its origin. Aycock and Kramer have long maintained that it develops
because of a widespread distribution of the virus with a process of natural
immunization as the result of single or repeated subclinical or unrecognized
attacks. This has always impressed no as a very reasonable assumption and
likewise gave encouragement to my effort to evolve a safe and efficient
method for veccinating human beings against the disease, because if it is
possible for immunity to be engendered by so light an infection it ought to
be possible to duplicate the results by vaccination.
Since tissue immunity apparently exerts an important role in
resistance to and recovery from poliomyelitis, it is to be expected that
various other theories of immunity to this disease would be entertained.
In this connection Draper (22) has thought that a certain constitutional
make up of young children characterized by the broad brow and round face
with wide space between the eyes, plumpness, separation of central inoisor
teeth with difficult dentition, etc., indicated unusual susceptibility.
Ayoock also has observed that unusually well developed children, who are
however of a more delicate make up physically and temperamentally than
normal children may be more susceptible than usual. Indeed Aycock (23)
believes that some variation in the physiological activity of the body may
produce an increased resistance to poliomyelitis without outside assistance
by way of unrecognized infection with virus for which he has proposed the
name "antarcesis"; Jungeblut and Engle (24) offer the suggestion that the
mass protection enjoyed by the adult human population may rest primarily
on the normal functions of the endoorine balance characteristic of mature
age.
It is stated that old monkeys carefully guarded against chance
(9)
exposure to the virus are more resistant then young animals and it would
appear that there is much that we do not understand about this subject so
commonly discussed as "maturation immunity", but the fact remains that large
numbers of young children and adults as well contract poliomyelitis every
year and either die of the disease or recover with varying degrees of perma-
nent crippling which impresses me with the desirebility of evolving a safe
and efficient method for vaccinating them against the disease and particularly
over the period of childhood until the natural agencies of resistance, what-
ever they may be, have been developed.
Certainly I cannot agree with those who believe that we can depend
upon the processes of natural immunization or maturation alone in view of the
low attack rate of acute poliomyelitis, because I believe it is possible
safely and efficiently to protect children by vaccination over the period of
their greatest susceptibility.
THE ANTIBODY FOR MONKEY PASSAGE VIRUS IN RELATION TO VACCINATION:-
But since the only practical source of vaccine for immunization against polio-
myelitis is the spinal cords of monkeys infected with passage virus, there is
at once the important question whether or not the antibody produced by such
virus will protect human beings against the disease. In other words does the
species of animal furnishing the vaccine alter it in such a way that the anti-
body produced may fail to protect human beings against poliomyelitis?
of course it is irrefutably established that vaccine of the cow-pox
virus, which is the small-pox virus passed through the skin of calves, will
protect human beings against small-pox. Furthermore it is definitely estab-
lished that vaccines of rabies virus passed through the spinal cords of rabbits
will imminize both human beings and dogs. It also appears that vaccines pre-
pared of the brains of mice infected with the yellow fever virus immunize
human beings against that disease as shown by Hindle (25) and others. In
(10)
addition the successful vaccination of human beings by Rivers and Schwentker
(27) with vaccines of the living virus of psittacosis or parrot discase
prepared of the livers and spleens of infected mice, indicate that the
passage of viruses through lower animals leave their vaccines capable of
engendering immunity in human beings. From these one may infer that
vaccines of monkey passage poliomyelitis virus will immunize not only
monkeys but human beings as well.
However as shown by Paul and Trask (28) the experimental disease
produced in monkeys by two human strains of virus did not leave these
animals upon recovery immune to passage virus and in a fow instances
recovery from infection with passage virus left the animals susceptible to
human virus. Furthermore the antibody in some human convalescent sera for
human virus appeared to differ qualitatively for passage virus. Weyer (29)
has also found that the sera of horses immunized with monkey passage virus
was highly neutralizing for passage virus (1:500) but much less 80 for
human virus (1:20). However Howitt (30) and others have found that sera
from horses, goats and sheep immunized over a long period of time with
monkey passage virus have given some evidence of therapeutic value in a
small group of human cases in the preparalytic stage of poliomyelitis
indicating that the antibody produced by passage virus is capable of
neutralizing human virus. Furthermore, as shown by Flexner (31), human con-
valescent serum not only neutralizes recent but also remote passage virus,
thereby indicating that frequent passage of the virus through monkeys does
not produce material alteration but also that monkeys vaccinated by remote
passage virus develop immunity in part at least to recent human virus.
It would appear, therefore, that the weight of evidence available
at present indicates that the antibody produced in human beings by a vaccine
of spinal cord of monkey passage virus will protect against the human disease,
as they undoubtedly protect monkeys themselves; but the final answer to this
(11)
question of fundamental importance must await the results of vaccination of
human beings and especially those exposed to epidemies of the disease. The
vaccine should be highly successful 08 Miss Rule and I have found that the
sera of children immunized in Philadelphia by my attenuated vaccine of monkey
passage virus (Rockefeller strain) have completely neutralized human spinal
cord virus (Cuneo) sent ne by Dr. J. F. Kessel from the 1934 epidemic in
southern California as well an the virus in the third monkey passage from
another fatal human case in the same epidemic kindly furnished by
Miss Beatrice Howitt of San Francisco. No one knows at present whether or not
immunologically specific strains of poliomyclitis virus exist. If they did the
problem of vaccination would be greatly complicated in proportion to the mimber
of strains, just as vaccination against the pneumococcus has been complicated
by the known existance of so many different types, but the above mentioned
observations indicate that antibody produced by vaccine of remote monkey passage
virus may neutralize the virus from different parts of the country.
THE MSTHOD OF PREPARATION OF VACCINE IN RELATION TO IMMUNIZATION:- If,
therefore, we have ample encouragement for the successful immunization of human
beings against poliomyelitis with vaccine of monkey passage virus, the question
arises as to the best menner for preparing it of monkey spinal cord for the safe
and effective vaccination of human beings.
As stated by Andrews (32) it would appear definitely established that
vaccines of dead viruses are enormously weaker than living and attenuated viruses
because the former contain but small amounts of antigenic virus protein while
the virus in the letter after injection can multiply perhaps a million fold in
the body and therebe by have a far better chance of producing resistance.
While veccines of various viruses apparently inactivated or killed by
formalin, phenol, chloroform, ether, heat and other agents have been used with
some success in vaccination against rabies, distemper, cattle plague and fowl-
pox, yet, as stated by Andrewes, it is still an open question with at least
(12)
some of these vaccines whether or not the viruses are really killed or only
attenuated. In poliomyelitis of monkeys, at least, best results have been
obtained with subcutaneous or intracuteneous injections of the living virus
by Flexner and Lewis (33), Ayeock and Kagan (34), Stewart and Rhoads (35),
Rhoads (36) and others or by mixtures of virus and immune serum given
together or separately. Miss Rule and I were unable successfully to vacci-
nate monkeys with chloroform treated and heated dead vaccines (37) and for
these reasons I have thought that best results in the immunization of human
beings could probably be obtained, as they have in monkeys, with vaccines of
living virus, providing a way were found for attenuating the virus in the
interests of safety.
of the several agents employed for the killing of virus in the
preparation of poliomyelitis vaccine it would appear that formalin is of
most interest since it has been used with so much success in the preparation
of diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and other vaccines but as with toxin it
would appear that one has to work within a fairly narrow range of formalin
concentration as too much appears to destroy all antigenic power and too
little will not completely inactivate. As stated by Andrewes this is one of
the facts which leads some to suspect that en effective vaccine may be not
entirely "dead". However, it may be the case that 8 large dose of dead virus
will immunize as effectively as a small dose of living but attenuated virus.
The problem would be to work out a method of concentration in order to reduce
the amount of monkey spinal cord tissue injected with each dose, not only to
reduce the degree of local irritation following injection but also to lessen
the burden on the antibody producing tissues since the body must protect it-
self against the monkey tissue protein as well as the virus. In this conneo-
tion I may state that filtrates of my vaccine are antigenic but I have pre-
ferred to use suspensions of cord tissue in order to be sure to obtain the
full immunizing value of intracellular virus and because the amount of tissue
(13)
is small and without producing severe local reactions. Furthermore it does
not appear that three doses of vaccine produce sensitization to monkey pro-
tein 88 we have determined by ekin tests.
In the course of some chemotherapeutic investigations (38) with
sodium ricinoleate, which possesses some detoxifying activity, I became
interested in the possibility of this agent so attenuating poliomyelitis
virus as to make it safe for subcutaneous injection without completely
killing the virus and especially since McKinley and Larson (39) had already
found that monkeys could be sometimes immunized by intraperitoneal injec-
tions of this type of vaccine.
Miss Rule and I (40) propared e vaccine of a 1% emulsion of monkey
spinal cord in storile water with sufficient sodium ricinoleate (William
Merrell Co.) to give a 10% concentration and in a series of 6 monkeys suc-
ceeded in vaccinating 2 end 1 partially. Believing that better results
could be obtained with vaccines cerrying more tissue-virus and less sodium
ricinoleate we then prepared vaccines carrying 4% of virus with 1% sodium
ricinoleate and successfully vaccinated 18 monkeys with subcuteneous and
intracutaneous injections (41), since all animale incoulated intracerebrally
about one month later with 0.2 00. of 5% suspension of fresh virus (about
18 minimal infective doses) remained perfectly well whereas the controls
developed poliomyelitis in from 5 to 9 days.
The virus in the vaccines however, was not killed since the
injection of 0.3 cc. amounts into the brains of monkeya always produced mild
and
paralysis, but after a longer incubation period indicating that the sodium
ricinoleste had produced some attenuation.
However and very importuntly the subcutancous injection into
monkeys of 10 doses of 0.05 to 1 00. per kg. and amounting to a total of 0.5
to 10 00. for a child of about 25 pounds in weight (approximately 10 kgs.)
were without any ill effects whatsoever aside from local irritation at the
(14)
sites of injection as likewise after the intracutaneous injection of five
doses of 0.1 00. each per kg.
Under these circumstances Miss Rule and I felt justified and safe
in taking the vaccine ourselves even though we were without antiviral anti-
body in the blood. We both took 0.5, 1.5 and 2 00. at 5 day intervals with
no ill effects aside from local irritation at the sites of injection in the
arms. Two weeks efter the third dose we found our blood containing antibody
as determined by the serum neutralization tests with monkeys in which 0.2 CO.
of serum mixed with 0.2 00. of 5% virus were injected intracerebrelly after
standing 2 hours.
To the beat of my knowledge we were the first to submit to subcu-
tansous injections of living but attenuated poliomyelitis virus (August, 1934)
and the first week no felt somewhat apprehensive in spite of the monkeys
having withstood so much larger doses per body weight without ill effects.
Furthermore I was impressed with three additional possible factors of safety:
namely, that remote passage virus such as we were using may have lost greatly
in infectivity for human beings; secondly, that subcutaneous injections of
virus were comparatively safe since the usual portal of entry in human beings
was the upper respiratory tract and thirdly, that by starting with a small
dose and waiting at least a week to ten days before the second was given
there would then be sufficient antibody production for protection. And indeed
NO have observed in some highly susceptible children that demonstrable amounts
of antibody have been produced as early as 96 hours after the first dose.
However, we were mindful of the fact that in the 0880 of monkeys
several investigators have found that subcutaneous and intracutaneous injec-
tions of virus have produced poliomyelitis, although during the previous year
we observed that 10 daily intracutaneous injections of 0.1 CO. each of our
unchanged virus failed to infect a monkey.
Under the circumstances I considered the vaccine so safe that I
(15)
administered it to my two sons, aged 11 end 15 years respectively, the former
being without antiviral entibody in his blood. Since then Dr. Klugh, Miss Rule
and I have given one to three doses of the vaccine et weekly intervals by sub-
outaneous injection to 8. group of 23 additional children varying in age from
8 months to 11 years at the request or with the consent of their parents, with
absolutely no ill effects aside from local reactions at the sites of injection
corresponding to those produced by diphtheria toxoid. All children were
selected on the basis of preliminary monkey serus neutralization tests and the
results, which are given elsewhere (19), have shown antibody production in 85%.
I believe, therefore, that vaccines carrying 4% of spinal cord
tissue from monkeys infected by remote passage virus such as we used in 10%
solution of chemically pure sodium ricinoleate are perfectly safe for the
vaccination of human beings, including children under 4 yours of age where sus-
ceptibility 10 greatest. It 1a likely that weak concentrations of formalin,
phonol and other chemical disinfectants may attenuate the virus just as
effectively as endium ricinoleate. The letter happens to be the only one with
which we have worked up to the present time, but I on now reasonably sure that
it attenuates the virus sufficiently to make subsutaneous injections of small
doses entirely safe with the production of sufficient antibody to indicate
effective immunization. Just how long the immunity lasts is impossible to
state at present, although monkeys vaccinated about 3 years ago are still
immino; since even a mild attack of the disease appears to confer a leating
immunity, it is reasonable to expect that the immunity produced by the vaccine
will likewise prove durable.
THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF VACCINATION AGAINST POLIOMYELITIS:- But
it may be argued that vaccination of young children may deprive them of the
opportunity of natural immunization through acquiring subolinical or abortive
attacks of the disease which Aycock and others believe are largely responsible
(16)
for the immunity that is apparent in a large percentage of adults. This
is probably based upon the assumption that antibody produced by vaccine
will prevent infection with virus and thereby prevent the latter from
producing immunity. This may be true but I personally do not care how
children and adults as well acquire immunity as long as they safely do 80
in sufficient degree to protect them against the disease. Rather I have in
mind those who die of the disease each year or recover badly crippled before
natural immunization oan occur and especially in times of epidemics.
As previously stated, antibody production appears to be suffici-
ently prompt even after the first dose of vaccine to indicate that it can
be safely used in epidemics. The first dose is so small that it should not
temporarily reduce resistance by the so-called "negative phase" and thereby
increase the chances of infection. Certainly we have not seen any evidence
of this in monkeys receiving at least ten times larger doses per kilogram
of weight by subcutaneous injection followed by intracerebrel inoculation
with virus 4 to 7 days later. They have always required much larger doses
of virus to produce infection than required in controls and none have shown
increased susceptibility to smaller doses of virus.
I believe therefore that the vaccine is indicated for vaccination
during epidemics and especially in the case of children, since it is likely
that immunity develops in some at least as promptly as immunity to small-pox
after oow-pox vaccination and probably much faster than immunity to diphtheria
following injections of toxoid.
But since the attack rate is 80 low in the absence of epidemics
should all children be vaccinated? Unfortunately NO do not have at present
a cheap and quick method for picking out susceptibles, the monkey serum
neutralization test for antibody being the only one available, The colloidal
gold test of Eberson as well as complement fixation, precipitin and skin tests
(17)
min
conducted by Dr. Klugh, Will Rule and myself have proven disappointing as
elsewhere reported (13). It would appear that the monkey is the only animal
known at present to be susceptible for antibody tests and it is too expensive
for use on a large scale. Furthermore the tests require from 2 to 3 weeks
but it ought to be possible to conduct them for an expenditure of about
$25.00 as the spinal cords of those developing poliomyelitis could be used in
the preparation of vaccine.
Physicians and parents must decide for themselves about using the
monkey test. Certainly such tests are not required in the case of children
4 years or younger as enough have been done to show that about 80 per cent are
susceptible and even more in the rural districts. And since Aycock has shown
that there is probably an important hereditary factor in susceptibility to
poliomyelitis it would appear particularly advisable to immunize all children
in families where the disease has occurred.
SUMMARY:- 1. Since acute anterior poliomyelitis is regarded as a virus disease
and results in lasting immunity, second attacks being very rare, and since
the majority of the viruses appear to be highly capable immunizing agents,
great encouragement is given to efforts for producing a safe and effective
method for the vaccination of human beings against the disease.
2. Further impetus to such efforts is given by reason of the fact that the
mortality has varied from 7.3% to as much as 43% in different epidemics,
with as high as 25% to 45% residual paralysis.
3. While the attack rate is low, except in epidemics, yet it would appear that
the disease is of increasing frequency both as isolated cases and in epidemics.
4. While about 83% of newborn infants have antibody in the blood temporarily,
serum neutrelization tests with the sera of 29 children under 4 years of age
including 9 of our own series failed to neutralize the virus in about 79.2%
(18)
and were apparently susceptible.
5. Among 159 children from 5 to 14 years of age, including 20 of our own
series, an average of about 45.5% were without antiviral antibody.
6. of 128 individuals over 15 years of age and largely composed of adults,
the sera of about 24.7% failed to neutralize the virus.
7. Under these conditions it would appear highly probable that a large
percentage of susceptibles are present in all communities and partiou-
larly in the case of children under 10 years of age, thus rendering a
safe and effective method of vaccination highly desirable and especially
in the presence of epidemics.
8. This need is also emphasized by reason of the fact that the passive
immunity conferred by the injection of normal or convalescent serum is
of very short duration.
34.9
9. From 12.1 to as high as 63.6% (average 80%) of the sera of 126 individuals
recovering from poliomyelitis have failed to neutralize passage virus,
presumably because antiviral antibody was absent or present in insuffici-
ent amounts. Therefore not all convalescent sera are fit for prophylactic
or therapeutic immunization.
10. While humoral and tissue immunity may be due to unrecognized and sub-
clinical attacks of poliomyelitis, it has also been suggested that there
may be a type of "maturation immunity", due to constitutional make up
or undetermined physiological factors.
11. Even if the antiviral antibody is due to subclinical or unrecognized
attacks of the disease, the case with which it is apparently produced
suggests that vaccine may likewise produce it readily and in a large
percentage of susceptible individuals.
12. Certainly I cannot agree with those who believe that the processes of
natural immunization, whatever they may be, are sufficient since BO
many and especially children contract the disease before such can
(19)
12.
develop and either succumb or recover badly crippled and handicapped
for the balance of life.
13. Since vaccines of other viruses prepared from the tissues of lower
animals successfully immunize human beings, and since horses,
musle THE I will and
and sheep immunized over long periods of time with monkey passage
capita
virus, it would appear probable that vaccines of monkey passage polio-
myelitis spinal cord would successfully vaccinate human beings.
14. The sera of children immunized in Philadelphia with my vaccine of
monkey passage virus have neutralized human spinal cord virus from
the 1934 epidemic in California, indicating that antibody produced
by vaccine of passage virus is capable of neutralizing human virus.
15. It appears definitely established that vaccines of viruses killed by
heat or disinfectants are generally much weaker immunizing agents
than living or attenuated viruses.
16. It is possible however that large doses of "dead" virus may be vaccino-
genic providing a method is found for concentrating the virus in order
to reduce reactions from injections of spinal cord tissue and diminish
the added burden placed on the antibody producing tissues for protecting
themselves against the tissue proteins.
17. Filtrates of my vaccine of living but attenuated virus are antigenic
but I prefer finely divided suspensions of cord tissue in order to
secure the maximum of intracellular virus for immunization. The local
reactions are slight and skin tests have shown that human beings have
not acquired allergic snesitization to the small amounts of spinal cord
protein contained in three doses.
18. Monkeys have been successfully vaccinated by subcutaneous and intra-
outaneous injections of virus or by mixtures of virus and immune serum
but these methods are considered too dangerous for the immunization of
human beings.
(20)
19. We have succeeded in immunizing all of 18 monkeys with a living but
attenuated vaccine carrying 4% emulsions of spinal cord in 10% solu-
tions of sodium ricinoleate with no evidences of 111 effects aside
from local reactions at the sites of injection. Three doses of the
vaccine were then taken by Miss Rule and myself without ill effects
and with good antibody response.
20. Since then three doses of the vaccine at weekly intervals have been
given with the consent of parents, to 25 children varying in age
from 8 months to 11 years (the majority of whom gave preliminary
negative serum neutralization tests for antibody) with absolutely no
ill effects and with good antibody response in the majority.
21. It would appear that attenuation of the virus in the vaccine along
with the fact that the first dose is quite small per body weight with
an interval of at least a week for antibody production before the
second and third doses are given are important factors in safety.
22. Furthermore it may be that passage virus is of greatly reduced infec-
tivity for human beings and that subcutaneous injections represent a
portal of entry unsuited to infection since so much more is required
by this route for the infection of monkeys.
23. In some instances antibody sufficient for the neutralization of virus
has been found in the blood of susceptible children as early as 96
hours after the first dose, 60 that it would appear that the vaccine
may produce antibody early enough to render it of value in combatting
epidemics. We have found in monkeys that even large doses per body
weight do not temporarily lower resistance by the production of a
negative phase.
24. It is not yet possible to state the duration of immunity following
vaccination, although monkeys vaccinated about 3 years ago are still
immine to intracerebral injections of virus.
(21)
25. However if the immunity lasts only a sufficient number of years to
protect children past their age of greatest susceptibility until
maturation immunity has developed, it would appear very much worth
while.
26. No one with sufficient antiviral antibody in the blood has, as far
as I know, contracted poliomyelitis. At the present time the monkey
serum neutralization test is the only reliable one for the detection
of this humoral immunity. While it is too expensive for routine use
on a large scale, it is available for those who can afford it and
appears to be sufficiently reliable as a test for immunity 8.8 only
susceptible individuals require vaccination.
27. The test is hardly necessary, however, in the case of children under
4 years of age as about 80% are susceptible. Without the test in
older children and adults physicians and parents must decide arbi-
trarily about vaccination, but I believe that a vaccine is now
available for safe and effective immunization and especially for use
in epidemics. Since there appears to be an important hereditary
fector in susceptibility to poliomyelitis it would also appear highly
advisable to immunize all children in families where the disease has
occurred.
(22)
1. Quigley, T.. B.: Jour. Amer. Med. ASSOC., 102, 752, 1934.
2. Toomey, J. A.: Am. J. Dis. Child.: 45, 1211, 1933, 1b1d., 48, 30, 1934.
3. Kolmer, J. A., and Rule, A. M.: Jour. Immunology, 26, 505, 1934.
4. Aycock, W. L., and Kramer, 8. D.: J. Exper. Med., 52, 457, 1930.
5. Aycock, N. L., and Kramer, S. D.: J. Prev. Med., 4. 189, 1930.
6. Aycock, N. L., and Kramer, S. D.:J. Prev. Med., 4, 201, 1930.
7. Kramer, S. D., and Aycock, W. L.: Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. and Med.,
29, 98, 1931.
8. Fairbrother, 8. W., and Brown, G. G. S.: Lancet, 2, 1895, 1930.
9. Faber, H. X.: Jour. Am. Med. Assoc., 96, 935, 1931.
10. Schultz, 3. We and Gebhart, L. P.: Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. and Med.
28, 409, 1931.
11. Shaughnessy, H., Harmon, P. H., and Gordon, F. B.: Proc. Soc. Exper.
Biol. and Med., 27, 742, 1930; Jour. Prev. Med., 4, 463, 1930.
12. Soule, M. H., and McKinley, E. B.: Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. and Med.,
29, 168, 1931.
13. Kolmer, J. A., Klugh, G., and Rule, A. M.: Jour. Immunology (in press).
14. Howitt, B.: Personal Communication.
15. Netter, As, and Levaditi, C.: Compt. rend. Soc. biol., 58, 617, and 855,
1910; Die ekidemische Kinderlahmung, Julius Springer, Berlin, 1911.
16. Anderson, J. F., and Frost, W. H.: Jour. Amer. Med. ABSOC., 46, 663, 1911.
17. Romer, Die epidemische Kinderlahmung, Julius Springer, Berlin, 1911.
18. Howitt, B. F.: Jour. Infect. Dis., 51, 565, 1932.
19. Kolmer, J. As, Klugh, G., and Rule, A. M.: Jour. Amer. Med. Assoc. (in press).
20. Kolmer, J. A., and Rule, A. M.: Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. and Med.,
31, 48, 1934.
21. Harmon, P. H., Shaughnessy, H. J., and Gordon, F. B.: Jour. Prev. Med.,
4, 59, and 89, 1930.
(23)
22. Draper, G.: A,. Jour. Med. Soi., 184, 111, 1932.
23. Aycock, W. L.: J. Prev. Med., 3, 245, 1929.
24. Jungeblut, C. W., and Engle, B. T.: Jour. Amer. Med. ABSOC., 99, 2091, 1932.
25. Hindle, E.: Brit. Med. Jour., 1, 976, 1928.
26. Sawyer, W. A., Kitchen, S. F., and Lloyd, W.: Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. and
Med., 29, 62, 1931.
27. Rivers, T. M., and Schwentker, F. F.: Jour. Exper. Med., 60, 211, 1934.
28. Paul, J. R., and Trask, J. D.: Jour. Exper. Med., 58, 513, 1933.
29. Weyer, B. R.: Proc. Soe. Exper. Biol. and Med., 29, 289, 1931.
30. Howitt, B.: Jour. Infect. Dis., 50, 26, 1932; Southwestern Med., Aug., 1932.
31. Flexner, S.: Jour. Amer. Med. ABBOC., 99, 1244, 1932.
32. Andrewes, c. H.: Lancet, 1, 989 and 1046, 1931.
33. Flexner, S., and Lewis, P. As: Jour. Amer. Med. ABSOC., 54, 1780, 1910.
34. Aycock, W. L., and Magan, J. R.: Jour. Immunology, 14, 85, 1927.
35. Stewart, F. W., and Rhoads, C. P.: Jour. Exper. Med., 48, 959, 1929.
36. Rhoads, C. P.: Jour. Exper. Med., 51, 1, 1930; ibid., 53, 115, 1931.
37. Kolmer, J. A., and Rule, A. M.: Jour. Inmunology, 26, 505, 1934.
38. Kolmer, J. A., Rule, As M., and Madden, B.: Jour. Lab. and Clin. Med.,
19, 972, 1934.
39. McKinley, J. C., and Larson, W. P.: Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. and Med.,
24, 297, 1927.
40. Kolmer, J. A., and Rule, A. M.: Jour. Immunology, 26, 505, 1934.
41. Kolmer, J. A., and Rule, A. M.: Am. Jour. Med. Soi., 188, 510, 1934.
PSF
Interior
THE OF LINTE RIOR
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
clabus
WASHINGTON
June 18, 1935.
My dear Mr. President:
I have your comment on Mr. Glavis' memorandum with reference
to certain alleged irregularities in the construction of the San
Jose, California, Post Office.
Mr. Glavis did not make an investigation of this Post Office,
nor did any member of his staff. The information contained in the
memorandum was given to him voluntarily, but in confidence. Since
he told me that it was in confidence, I have not pressed him for the
name of his informant.
I suspect that there would be few instances where we would be
advised of such violations as this if the informant's name were made
known and it has always seemed to me in the interest of the govern-
ment to respect anonymity in such cases. Usually allegations of
violations are verifiable and if they can be verified, the facts
speak for themselves, and, as it seems to me, justify following up
information from whatever source it may come.
There is another consideration that appeals to me strongly and
that is that it is much better for the Government. to discover and
take appropriate action in cases of violations, than to have their
discovery come from the outside or even from some political enemy.
For this reason, I am persuaded that information from any source
should be welcomed. There is no harm done if an attempted verifica-
tion discloses the fact that there has been no violation, but much good
can result if investigation does result in verification. The reason I
did not ask Mr. Glavis to give me the name of his informant was be-
cause I realized that to do so would be to close that possible source
of valuable information.
Mr. Glavis passes such information as this on to me alone and I
pass it on to you alone. I have no jurisdiction and cannot properly
do anything about it, except to pass it on to you.
Sincerely yours,
Secretary of the Interior.
The President,
The White House.
2
PSF Ickso
THE
OF THE THE
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
STATE 10L HOUSE 12 SECRITED 1935
WASHINGTON
July 12, 1935.
My dear Mr. President:
The enclosed is interesting in connection with the in-
sistence of Senator Tydings that it is contrary to precedent
for a Senate investigating committee to permit cross-examina-
tion. Other cases in point could be cited, notably the
Ballinger investigation in which Mr. Justice Brandeis by
his clever and persistent cross-examination broke through
the defense of Ballinger and President Taft.
Sincerely yours,
Secretary of the Interior.
The President,
The White House.
Enc.
PsF Ickes
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, D. C.
Commr J C
July 11, 1935
MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARY ICKES
With respect to the practice of Senate investigating committees and
in the matter of permitting cross-examination or questioning/ interjected
testimony by the head of a department, or his representative, at hearings
where the work of the department was being criticised:
The Senate investigating body which has continued its work over the
longest period of time is the investigating committee created yhder
S. Res. 79, 70th Congress, to investigate the conduct of Indian Affairs.
That committee has operated since February 23, 1927. Its printed testimony
consists of parts, totaling 17,422 pages. The committee still goes
forward.
The committee has had a Republican chairman, succeeded by two
Democratic chairmen.
The printed testimony shows that from the first day, down to the
present (across eight years), this investigating committee has invited
the Secretary of the Interior, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, or
their representatives, and has permitted and welcomed questioning by
them of witnesses; In addition, it has permitted interruption of witnesses
through explanatory or contradictory remarks by the department's repre-
sentatives. Likewise, the committee has allowed unofficial witnesses to
question the departmental representatives or witnesses and to interrupt
the departmental testimony with explanation or contradiction.
The above practice has been followed not only where conditions in
general were being examined into, but has been followed where charges
have been brought against the official conduct of representatives of the
department. As an instance,/the hearings in January and February, 1931,
which led to a report by the Senate committee recommending the removal of
H. J. Hagerman from the position of Commissioner to negotiate with the
Indians, it happened that I was the chief prosecuting witness against
Mr. Hagerman. See page 4692, Part 11, and forward, of the printed hearings:
"John Collier, having been previously sworn, testified further
as follows:"
Thenceforward, through 28 pages, there proceeds cross-questioning,
contradiction and explanation by Commissioner Hagerman and Commissioner
of Indian Affairs Charles J. Rhoads and the Chairman of the Pueblo Lands
Board Jennings. At last the witness states: "I am testifying, and the
group sitting down there are consuming all of my time."
-2-
The above example relates to phase of the committee's work
wherein the committee was definitely hostile toward the individual
whose record was under examination; none the less, the fullest right
to question and to contradict was unfailingly extended to the accused
official (Mr. Hagerman) and to the sundry departmental representatives
who were assisting him.
Merely to support the statement that the above case was repre-
sentative, I refer to the printed hearings of the above mentioned
committee, Part 3, page 1389 and forward. In these hearings, Louis
Marshall, representing the Pueblo Indian tribes, was attacking a certain
contract and certain departmental actions under the contract, affecting
these tribes. He was examined and contradicted by the Assistant Com-
missioner of Indian Affairs, Mr. Meritt, and the Assistant Secretary of
the Interior, Mr. Edwards. Reciprocally, he was allowed to question
and to contradict them.
Identical procedures can be found through the hundreds of
hearings of this committee. The question of the right to cross-
question and to contradict was never passed upon/ the committee because
the question was never raised. The committee was seeking facts and was
endeavoring to reach sound conclusions and as a matter of course it per-
mitted such questioning and contradiction.
The work of this particular Senate committee has been revolution-
ary in its results; the record which it has compiled is the authoritative
record on Indian Affairs; the committee's recommendations in all cases,
without exception, have been adopted by the Senate, in so far as they
came within the Senate's scope of action. Such has been the result
because the committee was unfailingly judicial in its procedures.
John
Collies
Commissioner
PSF Ickes
Rn
OF
THE AND STATE IRIOR
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
July 12, 1935.
for fele personal
My dear Mr. President:
At a recent interview I remarked that some Executive Orders
in which I was interested on account of their relationship to my
Department had been drafted without their being referred to me.
You asked me to give you an instance.
Your order of June 26, establishing the National Youth Admin-
istration, I did not know about until I read it in the newspapers.
I had attended a conference at which this program was discussed and
a committee appointed with Commissioner of Education Studebaker as
Chairman. But the order itself I had no opportunity to comment
upon before it was issued nor had I any idea that Miss Roche was
to be appointed Chairman of the Executive Committee until I saw
that fact published.
The order of May 28, establishing the Puerto Rico Reconstruc-
tion Administration and appointing Dr. Gruening as Administrator, I
have never seen.
Although an Executive Order was not involved, as I told you
yesterday, a bill has passed Congress and apparently has been
signed by you appropriating $6,000,000 out of our PWA funds for
the purchase of wild life sanctuaries.
I also find that no one in PWA, nor I myself, was consulted in
connection with Regulation No. 2, which prescribes rules and regula-
tions relating to procedure for employment. None of us knew of the
contents of this order until it was published.
Sincerely yours,
Harold Z.Iches Horold
Secretary of the Interior.
The President,
The White House.
2
PSF
Icles
(5)ci)
OF
THE STATE ARIOR
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
August 29, 1935
2/m
My dear Mr. President:
May I explain in a few words the occasion of my calling this
morning with the group representing various housing agencies.
This meeting was not suggested by me nor did I take any in-
itiative in the matter except to make the appointment. Considerable
pressure has been brought on me for the last two or three weeks by
certain other housing agencies to join with a group to discuss the
matter of coordination with you. I was asked if I would make an ap-
pointment for the group that called on you this morning. I have not
personally attended any of the meetings that have been working on co-
ordination and I imagine the only reason I was asked to make the ap-
pointment was because I was the only member of the Cabinet directly
interested. I did agree to make the appointment and I did present to
you as a basis for discussion the considered opinion of the members of
the group.
As a matter of fact, I haven't any particular personal interest
in this matter, as I have always regarded slum clearance as a problem
in itself and more or less unrelated to other Federal agencies having
to do with housing in its fiscal phase. I did not this morning relish
the position that I seemed to be placed in by reason of my seniority.
You spoke this morning of an adjourned meeting to be held at
4:30 this afternoon. To come at that time would interfere seriously
with previously made appointments, although, of course, I stand ready
at all times to postpone anything else when you have need of me. Since
I have arranged for the meeting, and since the issue is now before you,
I really see no occasion for my attending this further meeting unless
you particularly wish it.
Sincerely yours,
Secretary of the Interior.
The President,
The White House.
PSF
clckes
75ept. 1935
My dear
THE SECRETARY Mr. President: OF THE INTERIOR
Now that & am hack
atuy desk & wont to
thank you from my heart
for your covsider ather and
kindness during the hard
time through which Thank
just fossed. It was heact
eving To hear your friendly
voice our the telephone
last Vatursday right and
to recius the understanding
note that came shortly
after E. specially do Q
thank you an l Mrs. Roose
nelt for myself and
family for the very hear
tiful wreath that you
sent to the funeral
shope you are having
the out that you so hadly
need but the newsp opens
indicate that you are not
himing in a total intellectual
vocuum,
gratefully and with
deep requireds,
Howld Tickes
Sept 7,1935
girl
PSF
Icbes
OF
STATE LINTE RIOR
iL
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
September 7, 1935.
My dear Mr. President:
SEP RECEIVED THE 8. WHITE HOUSE
1935
To my way of thinking the most important problem confronting
the country today is that of your reelection next year. There is
no other man in the United States who can hope to win who has the
combination that you possess of qualities of leadership and sympathy
with, and understanding of, the legitimate social aspirations of the
people. You will either succeed yourself as President of the United
States or you will be followed by a man in sympathy with and responsive
to the reactionary forces of the country because he will have been
elected by those forces.
But important as it is for the Nation that you be reelected,
you will not misunderstand me if I say that there is a still greater
issue confronting us, although that issue is not distinct and separate
from the personality of the next President of the United States. The
immediate future of the Progressive movement is at stake. If you
should fail of reelection, the Progressive movement as we have under-
stood it, the aim of which has been to bring about a reasonable economic
and social reconstruction of the country in the interest of the average
man without a violent swing to the left, will, in my judgment, have
gone down into a tragic grave. Following you and your liberal ad-
ministration there will be a return of rugged individualism having
free play for its ruthless qualities under an administration whose
concern will be the material prosperity of a small and selfish cláss.
There will be no place in that setup for reasonable Progressivism;
only extreme radicalism will be able to grow in that un-American soil.
My object in writing you this letter is to tell you of my deep
anxiety lest present Administration policies, if carried out along
indicated lines, may result in political repercussions of a serious,
if not a disastrous, nature. I refer, of course, to the Works-Relief
program which I have discussed with you on several occasions recently.
So concerned am I about it that I am running the risk of being mis-
understood by you in indicating again that, in my opinion, we are
sailing in dangerous waters.
We encouraged municipalities, counties and States to file appli-
cations for worth-while public works. In the late Fall of 1934 there
went out over your signature to the Governor of every State a letter
offering help in the drafting of legislation to smooth the ways for
a future public works program. States have passed many of these laws.
Municipal ordinances have been amended, referenda have been held, bond
issues have been voted and applications have been filed. Communities
are begging for an opportunity to build public works on a loan and
grant basis and their applications are being turned down by a group
of employees whose qualifications to pass upon these applications,
in many instances, I seriously doubt. There are dissatisfaction and
discontent in all parts of the country -- dissatisfaction and dis-
content that will have the power to express itself politically and
will know how to express itself.
2
On the other hand, communities that are refused an opportunity
to participate on a substantial financial basis in the public works
that they desire are having Federal money expended on work of a more
transitory and less desirable sort, toward which the community makes
little or no contribution. Nor is the doing of this work supervised
or the expenditure of this money safeguarded with that care that has
been one of the outstanding characteristics of PWA.
It has been urged in support of the policy of turning down PWA
projects that PWA is too slow. Of course we are slow when we can't
get our projects passed upon or if, when passed upon favorably, they
are not cleared with reasonable speed. Waiving the question whether
PWA was unjustifiably slow in carrying out its original program, we
have had no opportunity to demonstrate our ability to speed up our
program under our now decentralized administration because we have
been given little to work with. The organization that would do away
with PWA altogether has assumed a veto power over it, which, in my
judgment, is not even fairly used. On the other hand, WPA, the organ-
ization that claimed ability to have three and a half million men at
work by July 1, last, which is voted great sums of money on request on
blanket allocations, and over which even the Advisory Committee on
Allotments has no actual jurisdiction or control, is admittedly way
behind in its schedule.
In discussing the Atlanta sewage case with you I said that I
did not see how anyone could go onto & political platform in Chicago
3
next year and explain to the citizens of that city why they had to
pay seventy cents on the dollar on their sewage project, while Atlanta,
under the WPA proposal, was asked to expend only twenty-one and a frac-
tion cents, although Chicago was in desperate financial straits while
Atlanta had ample credit. And what would be true in Chicago would be
true equally in New York and Buffalo and other communities of the
United States.
Neither do I see how Democratic speakers next year can defend
the wholesale turning down of worth while and desirable public works
projects proposed on a loan and grant basis while insisting on spending
Federal money for less worth while works toward the building of which
practically no local contribution has been made. The difficulty in
persuading the American voters, who, after all, are frugal when it
comes to the expenditure of public funds, of the validity of such a
program will be great even if there is no suspicion of graft or waste
or inefficiency in carrying out the WPA program. But, based upon my
own experience in municipal and public affairs I have reason to doubt
whether this program, if conducted along present lines, can be carried
on in freedom from graft and corruption and inefficiency. I say this
without even intimating that those who are chiefly responsible for the
program are otherwise than sincere, upright and patriotic public of-
ficials.
There is still another consideration that ought to be taken
into account. Assuming that we can win the next election, what of
the program for your next four years? In the best of circumstances
4
it seems to me that perhaps the principal issue in the Fall of 1936
will be the justification of the Works-Relief program and the manner
in which it was carried out. Even if we win on that issue, Works-Relief
and the manner and form in which it was undertaken and administered
will be a battered political simulacrum by election day. I gravely
doubt whether the country will be in any mood to go forward with a
continuation of such a program. And the theory of substantial and
worth while public works will be more or less discredited because it
was part and parcel of the Works-Relief program.
This would be & great pity. It is my opinion that even if we
are on the verge of a substantial economic recovery that will not mean
a recovery in employment. There will be more technological unemploy-
ment in the United States during the next so-called prosperous era
than there was prior to the crash of 1929. As I see it, the only
way in which to take care of this technological unemployment is by
means of a carefully planned program of desirable public works in all
parts of the country. But if the state of mind of the country is such,
as the result of the present Works-Relief program, that Congress will
not dare to vote substantial sume for such a program of public works,
then once again will we find ourselves in a social and economic stalemate,
with millions of men and women anxious and willing to work but finding
no work to which they can put their hands.
And the real tragedy of it will be that it will be impossible to
give effect to the wonderful and statesman-like dream that you alone,
of all the Presidents of the United States, have dreamed. The brilliant
5
findings of your National Resources Committee will gather dust in the
Archives Building, while we plod along in the same old way with periods
of prosperity followed by periods of depression; with new machinery
continuing to take away from eager hands the opportunity to work; with
great riches accumulated by a small group of persons, while the bread
lines grow ever longer and longer. All this, of course, until Com-
munism in some form rears its ugly head to challenge an America that
will not have elected to save its cherished civilization by a reason-
able adaptation of its institutions to meet changing conditions.
You, my dear Mr. President, are the only man who can prevent
such a tragic end to our great American venture. And you can do this
only by being reelected under conditions that will permit you to con-
tinue the great social program on which you have already made such a
wonderful start.
Sincerely yours,
Harold 7.Iches
Secretary of the Interior.
The President,
The White House.
6
9/9
Memo. for Mr. Foster:
Here is a copy of the letter that
I talked to you about over the telephone.
Will you please see that the date on the
original is changed to read September 7
instead of August 7. Please-reture:
T. Mack, Room 6135,
Interior Department.
702
2135
PSF:Ickes
e
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
September?, 1935.
My dear Mr. President:
To my way of thinking the most important problem confronting
the country today is that of your reelection next year. There is
no other man in the United States who can hope to win who has the
combination that you possess of qualities of leadership and sympathy
with, and understanding of, the legitimate social aspirations of the
people. You will either succeed yourself as President of the United
States or you will be followed by a man in sympathy with and responsive
to the reactionary forces of the country because he will have been
elected by those forces.
But important as it is for the Nation that you be reelected,
you will not misunderstand me if I say that there is a still greater
issue confronting us, although that issue is not distinct and separate
from the personality of the next President of the United States. The
immediate future of the Progressive movement is at stake. If you
should fail of reelection, the Progressive movement as we have under-
stood it, the aim of which has been to bring about a reasonable economic
and social reconstruction of the country in the interest of the average
man without a violent swing to the left, will, in my judgment, have
gone down into a tragic grave. Following you and your liberal ad-
ministration there will be a return of rugged individualism having
free play for its ruthless qualities under an administration whose
concern will be the material prosperity of a small and selfish class.
There will be no place in that setup for reasonable Progressiviem;
only extreme radicalism will be able to grow in that un-American soil.
My object in writing you this letter is to tell you of my deep
anxiety lest present Administration policies, if carried out along
indicated lines, may result in political repercussions of a serious,
if not a disastrous, nature. I refer. of course, to the Works-Relief
program which I have discussed with you on several occasions recently.
So concerned an I about it that I an running the risk of being mis-
understood by you in indicating again that, in my opinion, we are
sailing in dangerous waters.
We encouraged municipalities, counties and States to file appli-
cations for worth-while public works. In the late Fall of 1934 there
went out over your signature to the Governor of every State a letter
offering help in the drafting of legislation to smooth the ways for
a future public works program. States have passed many of these laws.
Municipal ordinances have been amended, referenda have been held, bond
issues have been voted and applications have been filed. Communities
are begging for an opportunity to build public works on a loan and
grant basis and their applications are being turned down by a group
of employees whose qualifications to pass upon these applications,
in many instances, I seriously doubt. There are dissatisfaction and
discontent in all parts of the country - dissatisfaction and dis-
content that will have the power to express itself politically and
will know how to express itself.
2
On the other hand, communities that are refused an opportunity
to participate on a substantial financial basis in the public works
that they desire are having Federal money expended on work of a more
transitory and less desirable sort, toward which the community makes
little or no contribution. Hor is the doing of this work supervised
or the expenditure of this money safeguarded with that care that has
been one of the outstanding characteristics of PWA.
It has been urged in support of the policy of turning down PWA
projects that PWA is too slow. Of course we are slow when we can't
get our projects passed upon or if, when passed upon favorably, they
are not cleared with reasonable speed. Vaiving the question whether
PWA WAS unjustifiably slow in carrying out its original program, we
have had no opportunity to demonstrate our ability to speed up our
program under our now decentralized administration because we have
been given little to work with, The organization that would do away
with PUA altogether has assumed a veto power over it, which, in my
judgment, is not even fairly used. On the other hand, UPA, the organ-
ination that claimed ability to have three and a half million men at
work by July 1, last, which is voted great sums of money on request on
blanket allocations, and over which even the Advisory Committee on
Allotments has no actual jurisdiction or control, is admittedly way
behind in its schedule.
In discussing the Atlanta sewage case with you I said that I
did not see how anyone could go onto a political platform in Chicago
3
next year and explain to the citizens of that city why they had to
pay seventy cents on the dollar on their sevage project, while Atlanta,
under the TFA proposal, was asked to expend only twenty-one and & frac-
tion cente, although Chicago was in desperate financial straits while
Atlanta had ample credit. And what would be true in Chicago would be
true equally in New York and Buffalo and other communities of the
United States.
Neither do I see how Democratic speakers next year can defend
the wholesale turning down of worth while and desirable public works
projects proposed on & loan and grant basis while insisting on spending
Federal money for less worth while works toward the building of which
practically no local contribution has been made. The difficulty in
persunding the American voters, who, after all, are frugal when it
comos to the expenditure of public funds, of the validity of such a
program will be great even If there is no suspicion of graft or vaste
or inefficiency in carrying out the WPA program. But, based upon my
own experience in municipal and public affairs I have reason to doubt
whether this program, if conducted along present lines, can be carried
on in freedom from graft and corruption and inefficiency. I say this
without even intimating that those who are chiefly responsible for the
program are otherwise than sincere, upright and patriotic public of-
ficials.
There is still another consideration that ought to be taken
into account. Assuming that we can win the next election, what of
the program for your next four years? In the best of circumstances
4
it seems to me that perhaps the principal issue in the Fall of 1936
will be the justification of the Works-Relief program and the manner
in which it was carried out. Even if we win on that issue, Works-Relief
and the manner and form in which it was undertaken and administered
will be a battered political simulacrum by election day. I gravely
doubt whether the country will be in any mood to go forward with a
continuation of such a program. And the theory of substantial and
worth while public works will be more or less discredited because it
was part and parcel of the Works-Relief program.
This would be & great pity. It is my opinion that even if we
are on the verge of a substantial economic recovery that will not mean
a recovery in employment. There will be more technological unemploy-
ment in the United States during the next so-called prosperous era
than there was prior to the crash of 1929. As I see it, the only
way in which to take care of this technological unemployment is by
means of a carefully planned program of desirable public works in all
parts of the country. But if the state of mind of the country is such,
as the result of the present Works-Relief program, that Congress will
not dare to vote substantial sume for such & program of public works,
then once again will we find ourselves in a social and economic stalemate,
with millions of men and women anxious and willing to work but finding
no work to which they can put their hands.
And the real tragedy of it will be that it will be impossible to
give effect to the wonderful and statesman-like dream that you alone,
of all the Presidents of the United States, have dreamed. The brilliant
findings of your National Resources Committee will gather dust in the
Archives Building, while we plod along in the same old way with periods
of prosperity followed by periods of depression: with new machinery
continuing to take away from eager hands the opportunity to work; with
great riches accumulated by a small group of persons, while the bread
lines grow ever longer and longer. All this, of course, until Com-
munism in some form rears its ugly head to challenge an America that
will not have elected to save its cherished civilization by a reason-
able adaptation of its institutions to meet changing conditions.
You, my dear Mr. President, are the only man who can prevent
such a tragic end to our great American venture. And you can do this
only by being reelected under conditions that will permit you to con-
tinue the great social program on which you have already made such a
wonderful start.
Sincerely yours,
(Sgd.) Harold L. Ickes
Secretary of the Interior.
The President,
The White House.
6
payme
PSF Iskes
THE
OF THE
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
OCT. ACCEIVED '25. WHITE 1935 PROVIDE
October 24, 1935.
My dear Mr. President:
I can't begin to thank you for taking me on that
HOUSTON trip with you. It not only did me a world of
good physically but the very friendly associations that I
had did me a lot of spiritual good. It was the happiest
occasion that I have had for many, many years and I shall
not soon forget your great kindness and consideration in
giving me the opportunity to share it with you and with as
fine and congenial a group of men as I have ever met.
With renewed thanks and appreciation,
Sincerely yours,
Secretary of the Interior.
The President,
The White House.
PSF Ickes
FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATOR
OF PUBLIC WORKS
WASHINGTON
FEB 19 1936
Memorandum for Miss G. G. Tully, Assistant to Miss LeHand:
Re: Statement concerning PWA allotments for
educational institutions.
Reference is made to your memorandum of February 18
containing the following statements:
"The Government, through the Public Works
Administration, is helping educational institutions
to add new buildings costing more than $300,000,000
to their present equipment. Since 1933 the Govern-
ment has made, through the Public Works Administra-
tion, allotments to local communities for school,
college and library buildings, amounting to almost
$500,000,000."
Upon checking these figures, I find that they have be-
come transposed, the first figure referring to the cost of
the new buildings being nearly $500,000,000 and the PWA
allotments for these buildings being not quite $300,000,000.
The exact amounts are as follows: The cost of new buildings
is $466,258,000 and the total amount of allotments is
$296,434,000 covering 3094 separate projects under both the
NIRA and the ERA programs.
Sincerely yours,
Harold Z.Pches T.Pches
Administrator.
PSF I cles
WHAT P.W.A. HAS DONE
To April 1, 1936
NIRA AND ERA '35 PROGRAMS
4-1-36
P.W.A. HAS ALLOTTED FUNDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS IN 3,067 OF THE NATION'S
3,073 COUNTIES FOR:
15,573
Federal Projects costing
$ 1,567,036,751
3,946 Non-Federal Projects under NIRA costing
1,346,465,261
4,064 Non-Federal Projects under ERA costing
773,094,192
50
Federal Low-Cost Housing Projects
129,725,100
23,633
Projects Costing
$ 3,816,321,304
STATUS OF THESE PROJECTS:
16,818 Projects completed costing
$ 1,157,956,411
4,915 Projects under construction costing
2,254,366,603
EMPLOYMENT PROVIDED BY EXPENDITURES:
Avg. No.
Total
Men Employed
Man-Months
1934
1935
USED TO DATE
At Site of Construction
496,483
284,297
10,927,947
Production of Raw Materials,
Transportation and Final Fabri-
1,489,449
852,891
32,783,841
cation
Supplying Demands for Consumers'
Goods and Services
992,966
568,594
21,855,894
TOTAL
2,978,898
1,705,782
65,567,682
PSF: tckes
frie
Takes
LUIS MUNOZ-MARIN
SENATOR AT LARGE
PUERTO RICO
February 24,1936.
THE DUPONT CIRCLE
WASHINGTON. D.C.
MEMORANDUM for Secretary Ickes:
It becomes increasingly more evident that the people of Puerto Rico are entitled to
a change in the Governorship. The New Deal will not be complete, nor will it appear to
many Puerto Ricans to be sincere, while a man remains at the head of the executive who is
completely out of sympathy with the policies of your Department and the Federal Govern-
ment in Puerto Rico.
Besides all the evidence already presented, the attitude shown in Governor Winship's
recent Message to the Legislature would appear to be sufficient motivation for a rapid
change.
It is well known to what great extent the Legislature can hinder reconstruction.It
is quite obvious that only a clear and adroit appeal to Puerto Rican public opinion over
the heads of the Legislature can accomplish any results in obtaining adequate legislation,
particularly in relation to the 500-acre policy which you have clearly and repeatedly
urged. Winship's message has approximately 10,000 words dealing with various minor prob-
lems of administration. In the whole message, only the following 22 words can be con-
strued as applying to the 500-aere policy:
"I wish to call attention to the recommendations of my last year's mes-
sage concerning present conditions of land tenure in Puerto Rico."
Scanning the equally lengthy message of last year to which he refers, these are the
only words found which in any way relate to the subject:
"Our most fertile lands are held in too few hands and a redistribution
should be effected."
So that this year's vague reference points to an equally vague reference last year
which, as 8. matter of record, is known to have been totally ineffective. It seems to me
that this expresses very palpably an attitude which must be as unpalatable to the Admin-
istration as it is to the general public in Puerto Rico.
If this were not enough, however, the last paragraph of this year's message, far
from appealing to Island public opinion in an effort to obtain action, actually encour-
ages the Legislative majority to dieregard public opinion and, pointedly, to disregard
your own straightforward statements. The last paragraph says:
"Let public welfare be the only consideration in the discussion of the
proposed measures; and having this in mind do not fear criticism coming
either FROM THE ISLAND or FROM OUTSIDE THE ISLAND."
It is also pertinent to remember that during last year's session of the Legislature,
the President himself sent a cable to Governor Winship relative to the 500-acre policy
saying (if my memory is correct) that "only the exercise of the greatest intelligence and
determination on the part of the Governor can solve this very difficult situation." I
happen to know of this cable because the President was kind enough to submit it to my
consideration through you and Dr. Gruening.
I quote this cable not only to point out at what great variance the Governor is with
you, with the President, and with public opinion on the Island, but also because it seems
to demonstrate that mere orders, advice, counsel, strictures are unavailing with Governor
Winship.
The solution of this situation involves two steps: removal of the Governor: appoint-
ment of a substitute. As to the first, though the situation is such as to justify any
honorable device, it is suggested that the Governor may be called to stand by in Washing-
ton after resigning, with a view to serving in the work that no doubt is being carried
on now in preparation for the forthcoming inter-American conference. (He is a lawyer and
has had experience in Cuba and Mexico, and I believe is well liped by Mr.Sumner Welles,
who will no doubt have much to do with the conference.)
As to the substitute, I suggest that the Commissioner of Education, Dr. Jose Padin,
who has many times been acting Governor and who is a very fine man belonging to no pol-
itical party in Puerto Rico, be left as Acting Governor, advising him that he can proceed
on his own initiative. After Congress and the Puerto Rican Legislature close, or after
the elections in November, the Administration may decide on a definite appointment. This
definite appointment might very well be extended to Dr. Padin himself if his conduct of
the office in the meantime should be deemed to warrant it.
LUIS MUNGZ MARIN
/
Ickno
Mullen Puns The Tri- humter
Inits are ortthed that work r
went juring shind
Do milling to arbmit for
1/2 award.
?
FOR
PSF Iokes
FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATOR
OF PUBLIC WORKS
WASHINGTON
freesmal +
February 27, 1936.
3
3
MEMORANDUM for Administrator Ickes:
I saw Senator Norris as you requested me to do regard-
ing the Nebraska matter. He does not wish to have anything
to do with that decision because he states that he thinks
it is a matter which must be decided in the PWA and they
should not be influenced by any views that he has. He states
firmly that he can make no recommendation because he has not
all the facts before him and should not in any event make any
statement or recommendation because it might tie his hands
upon later action in the Senate if he thought that was nec-
essary.
Harxy Dear STATTERY.
TSF Ickes
OF
pyt.
STATE LINE IRIOR
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
May 21, 1936.
My dear Mr. President:
If I may, I would like to set down the situation with respect to
the bill to change the name of this Department to that of Department
of Conservation, as I see it.
Over a year ago, with your knowledge and consent, a bill was intro-
duced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate changing the
name of the Department to that of Department of Conservation and Public
Works. The bill also gave you the power, subject to subsequent dis-
affirmance by Congress, to shift bureaus and agencies either into or
out of the new Department.
On two or three different occasions you told Secretary Wallace not
to oppose this bill, notwithstanding which not only he but other members
of his Department appeared at hearings before both the House and the
Senate Committee actively opposing it. In addition, they undertook to
stir up sentiment among various farm organizations and other bodies
throughout the country.
The bill, as drawn, would have passed the last session if it had
not been for this active opposition, which continued despite your
orders that it cease.
At a Cabinet meeting about the time this session of Congress con-
vened you instructed all members of the Cabinet not to oppose legislation
in which another Department was interested.
At the beginning of this session I again asked you whether I
might continue my efforts to have this bill passed and you gave your
consent. I also asked you whether you would call off the Department of
Agriculture as to its lobbying against the bill and you said you would.
For tactical reasons, we changed the bill at this session so that
it provided merely for the change of the name of the Department without
giving the President power to realign bureaus and agencies.
In this form the bill was reported with a favorable vote by the
Committee on Public Lands of the House, and week before last it passed
the Senate.
After the bill had passed the Senate, Mr. Kneipp and other members
of the Department of Agriculture made every effort to have the bill re-
considered, but without success. This was an open violation of the in-
structions you had issued that one Department was not to oppose a bill
of another Department. I may say, parenthetically, that this order had
previously been violated when the Forest Service lobbied actively against
the bill to establish Mt. Olympus National Park, as well as against our
bill to make & survey of park and recreational areas.
Failing to bring about a reconsideration in the Senate, the lobby
moved over to the House of Representatives, and in moving over they
carried with them their allies, the Grange and the Farm Bureau. They
have been making every effort to prevent the passage of this bill in
the House.
2
I advised you several days ago that this bill would pass easily
if we could have a rule and I asked you also if you would send word
to the House leaders to bring in a rule. To this you kindly assented
and I understand that word to that effect went to Speaker Byrnes, al-
though I also understand that Congressman O'Connor has never received
any direct communication on the subject.
Now it appears that leaders of the House are reluctant to bring
in a rule because of their belief that the White House does not favor
the passage of this bill.
Accordingly, we find ourselves in this situation: Here is a bill
which I never would have introduced except with your consent. In
flagrant violation of your orders, the Department of Agriculture has
opposed it by hook and by crook from the beginning. The Forest Service
particularly stirs up opposition and then Henry Wallace tells you that
there exists the opposition which he and his assistants have stirred
up. It is represented that a great political issue has been raised.
I do not know whether I know any more politics than my colleague
in the Cabinet, but I take issue with that statement. I do not believe
that the farmers of the country care one tinker's dam whether this De-
partment is called the Department of the Interior or the Department of
Conservation. The newspapers of the country do not indicate that the
prairies are on fire about it. Even if the farmers have a mild interest
in the matter, that interest would not carry beyond the accomplishment
of the act. What they want from the Administration is benefits for
agriculture and those benefits they are receiving in generous measure.
However, professional Agricultural lobbyists who are at the beck and
3
call of the Department of Agriculture have whatever interest that
department wants them to have. They are megaphones availed of by
the Department. Parenthetically, I may say to you, although I am
not giving you any news, that the lobby of the Department of Agri-
culture is the best organized and the most vocal of any lobby inter-
ested in Federal legislation.
I feel this whole matter very keenly. I am willing to take my
licking in a fair fight, but this has not been a fair fight. Is the
Department of Agriculture to have its way in all matters? Isn't it
time that we really did something real about conservation, the subject
that we have been talking about for a couple of generations? It seems
to me that the politics of the situation is in favor of creating a
Department of Conservation. Here would be something concrete; some-
thing to which this Administration would have a right to point with
justifiable pride. It is bound to come sooner or later and I can think
of no more appropriate time. But while it is bound to come sooner or
later, it is my judgment that unless this bill goes through now it will
not go through the next session of Congress; probably it will not come
to pass for years to come.
I have had the situation in the House carefully canvassed. Chair-
man O'Connor is perfectly willing to support a rule, just as he is will-
ing to support this bill. The Speaker will follow what he believes to
be your wishes. If it were possible to get the bill up and pass it by
a majority vote I would not ask for a rule, because I believe that we
could muster a majority vote. Of course, as always, the opponents are
the most vociferous. They talk about a bitter fight on the floor of
4
the House, but what is there to fight about when merely a change of
name of a Department is involved? And who would fight? My people
who are in intimate touch with the situation tell me that the oppo-
sition would amount to very little and that there would be no hard
feelings after the bill was passed.
It is my honest opinion that the passage of this bill at this
session would not lose the Democratic ticket a single farmer vote
next November. On the other hand, I can see the possibility of its
attracting to the support of the Administration many votes from sincere
conservationists. I need not tell you that the active sentiment for
conservation is not among the farmers, whose lobbyists, without even
consulting them, presume to speak their minds. Conservationists are
people in the east and in the crowded areas who know what exploitation
of natural resources mean; they are the sportsmen and lovers of the
outdoors. Here is a great mass of unorganized, inarticulate citizens
of the United States who maintain no lobby in Washington and who have
no personal ax to grind. These are the people for whom something
should be done and for whom very little has so far been done.
I cannot deny that this matter is of intense personal interest to
me. As I have told you on more than one occasion, I would rather head
& Department of Conservation than anything else I can think of. The
thing is within our grasp and the Department of Agriculture is trying
to make useless the hard, careful work that we have done by thrusting
before our faces a bogey man of its own imagination. Are disobedience
of orders and unfair tactics again to be rewarded and this Department
5
denied the right to choose a name that properly describes its
activities?
Sincerely yours,
Horold Harold ? Pelis Pelies
Secretary of the Interior.
The President,
The White House.
6
PSF Iches
DEPARTMENT OF THE ADMINIONAL
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
file
WASHINGTON
May 22, 1936.
Private
My dear Mr. President:
Congressman Dempsey, of New Mexico, has been in to
see me. He tells me that he has just talked to Chairman
O'Connor of the Rules Committee, who told him that he had
not heard from you with reference to a rule on the bill
providing for change of name of this Department. He told
Dempsey that on word from you personally, such a rule as
Dempsey wanted would be reported in promptly.
Congressman Dempsey corroborates what others have
told me, namely, that if we get a rule there will be no
difficulty about passing the legislation. He also thinks
that the opposition is wholly the result of the activities
of the Department of Agriculture and that it is localized
right here in Washington. He doesn't believe that the
farmers of the country are interested one way or the other
in the name of this Department.
Sincerely yours,
Secretary of the Interior.
The President,
The White House.
PSF Ickes
OF THE
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
May 24, 1936
My dear Mr. President:
I have brought myself up to date on the editorial clip-
pings which I get from all parts of the country. Most of the
newspapers have paid little attention to the proposal to change
the name of the Department of the Interior to that of Depart-
ment of Conservation. Of those that have made comments the
majority are neutral. In this connection, I have particularly
in mind one chain editorial that appeared in a number of small
papers in various parts of the country. Other and more indi-
vidual editorials have been favorable to the idea, and I have
not yet seen a single adverse one.
Sincerely yours,
Harold
Secretary of the Interior.
The President,
The White House.
THE COMPANY WILL APPRECIATE SUGGESTIONS FROM ITS PATRONS CONCERNING ITS SERVICE
PSF
Iches
1220-8
CLASS OF SERVICE
WESTERN
SIGNS
This is a full-rate
DL- Day Letter
Telegram or Cable-
NM- Night Massage
gram unless its de-
(20).
NL Night Letter
ferred character is In-
dicated by a suitable
UNION
LC= Deferred Cable
sign above or preced-
NLT- Cable Night Letter
Ing the address.
R. a. WHITE
NEWCOMB CARLTON
J. c. WILLEVER
Ship Radiogram
PRESIDENT
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
FIRST VICE-PREMIDENT
Received at
The filing time M shown 204 the data mam line or OL, full-mate ougnkeepsie, telegrame and day letters, and the time of receipt at destination as shown on all messages, la STANDARD TIME.
1936 MAY 25 PM I 28
RXNS120 159 GOVT=F WASHINGTON DC 25 1254P
MINUTES IN TRANSIT
HYDEPARK NY=1
file hassel
FULL-RATE
DAY LETTER
THE PRESIDENT=
REVISIONOF COMMITTEE PRINT DATED MAY EIGHTEEN
OF AMENDMENT INTENDED TO BE PROPOSED BY SENATOR HAYDEN TO
FIRST DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION BILL FISCAL YEAR NINETEEN
HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX HR ONE TWO SIX TWO FOUR NOW BEFORE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS SUGGESTED BY JESSE JONES
TO COLONEL HACKETT AND SENATOR HAYDEN YESTERDAY JUST READ
TO ME THIS REVISION IS WHOLLY UNSATISFACTORY AND IN MY
OPINION ILL ADVISED FROM POINT OF VIEW OF ADMINISTRATION IN
EFFECT IT CURTAILS DRASTICALLY EXISTING POWERS OF PWA DOES
NOT GIVE PWA ADDITIONAL FUNDS AND VESTS NEW POWERS IN RFC
TO MAKE LOANS DIRECTLY TO MUNICIPALITIES WITHOUT
LIMITATIONS UNDERSTAND JONES STATED TO HAYDEN REVISION
HAD YOUR APPROVAL IN VIEW OF OUR CONVERSATIONS THIS
SEEMS INCONCE IVABLE UNLESS YOU HAVE BEEN INCORRECTLY
INFORMED AS TO EFFECT AND PURPOSE OF JONES REVISION
UNLESS HAYDEN COMMITTEE PRINT OF MAY EIGHTEEN CAN BE
ENACTED SUBSTANTIALLY IN PRESENT FORM ANY THOUGHT OF USING
REVOLVING FUND FOR FURTHER PWA PROGRAM SHOULD BE ABANDONED=
HAROLD L ICKES ADMINISTRATOR OF PUBLIC WORKS.
THE QUICKEST, SUREST AND SAFEST WAY TO SEND MONEY IS BY TELEGRAPH OR CABLE
PSF Ickes
FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATOR
OF PUBLIC WORKS
WASHINGTON
P.F.
July 24, 1936.
My dear Mr. President:
I am truly disturbed about the situation with respect to the
new Public Works program. You have required that we get figures from
the Works Progress Administration with reference to the situation as
to men on relief in any community before we approve an application for
a Public Works project. We have been conscientiously trying to do
this but have run into a mumber of apparently insurmountable diffi-
culties.
The first figures given to us by WPA were as of January 15,
last. Obviously these were of no possible use. When we asked for
later figures based upon a recheck we found some delay. Apparently
there were no such figures in the Washington office. Some of the
figures furnished by WPA as rechecked through the State PWA Director
have disclosed discrepancies. For instance, WPA has reported as to
various communities a lack of labor on relief rolls, whereas figures
from other sources have been at variance with WPA reports. I annex
hereto one or two examples for your information.
Autumn will soon be here. Unless we can go forward at once with
our projects, particularly in the northern States, winter will again
intervene, as it did last year, when we went through the same experience
of being retarded in our program through no fault of our own. Then,
if history repeats itself, PWA will be charged with having failed be-
cause it is too slow. In the meantime, we are being hard beset by
Congressmen and Senators and interested communities to go forward with
our program.
Even if we cannot take 100% of the workers on PWA projects from
relief rolls, it can hardly be doubted that the starting of these
projects promptly and the building of them during the autumn and
winter months would have a tonic effect on the unemployment situa-
tion. It would mean men at work. The money available for PWA proj-
ects cannot be used for direct relief or for WPA in any event. If we
don't use it, it won't be used at all. Our program would mean employ-
ment to thousands of men and it would mean that a great deal of addi-
tional money would be made available for construction purposes. I
refer, of course, to the 55% that the municipality would have to invest
in order to get a grant of 45%.
We have tried faithfully to carry out your instructions. The
delays have not been due to any act of commission or omission on our
part. I respectfully suggest that it would be better to give up the
whole program than to continue to stimulate hopes that projects will
be approved when apparently there is little prospect of that result.
Sincerely yours,
Harold ? Pebes
Administrator.
The President,
The White House.
Enc.
- 2 -
INTERIOR DEPT
RECEIVED
FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION
JUL 24 1936
OF PUBLIC WORKS
OFFICE OF
THE SECRETARY
July 24, 1936
WASHINGTON, D. C.
* JUL 24 1936 #
OFFICE OF THE THE SECRETAREPLY
ADM. PLEASE REFER TO
ASST.ADM. HBH:1m
MEMORANDUM for the Administrator:
I am forwarding for your information a few examples
of discrepancies in the information received from the Works
Progress Administration on the availability of labor on re-
lief rolls for PWA projects, which affected the list sent
to the President on July 21, 1936.
It appears that the central office of the Works Progress
Administration had some difficulty in obtaining the necessary
data from WPA's various state offices. Apparently accurate
records were not available in these offices for a prompt re-
port.
In cases where the WPA has reported no labor available,
or labor available only in part, I am having & check made by
our State Directors to verify or correct such report.
OREGON:
The WPA reported that no labor was available for the
following 8 PWA projects:
Docket No. 1008
1113
1064
1152
1104
1153
1107
1157
Because of this report these projects were not included in
the list sent to the President, although & check made by
State Director Hockley indicates that labor was available
on WPA rolls as of July 15 as follows:
Docket No. 1008
100% available
1064
If
1113
If
1153
If
1157
"
-2-
OREGON (cont'd)
Docket No. 1104
90% available
1152
25%
"
1107
18%
11
CALIFORNIA:
The WPA reported that no labor was available on projects
Docket No. 1194 and 1442
In response to a request by State Director Wilder it was shown
that this was in error and that all unskilled labor, 90% inter-
mediate, and over 80% skilled labor was available. These proj-
ects were omitted from the list sent to the President but should
have been included.
ARIZONA:
The WPA reported that no labor was available for project
Docket No. 1033
A report made by Acting State Director Reed indicates that the
Arizona WPA office was unable to furnish accurate data on labor
available; that 220 WPA workers had been laid off last Thursday
and were available for this project.
A telegram from Mayor Wheelock of Safford, Arizona, states that
an average of 250 men is necessary to construct this project
and that there is available on WPA rolls in the district ap-
proximately 1500.
This project was included in the list sent to the President.
TEXAS:
The WPA reported that no skilled, unskilled or inter-
mediate labor was available on project
Docket No. 1555
A telegram from State Director Montgomery reports that the
National Reemployment Service in San Patricio County advises
that 105 men are now working on WPA projects and that 86 are
awaiting an assignment, making a total of 191 eligible workers.
This project was omitted from the list forwarded to the President.
-3-
VIRGINIA:
The WPA reported that no labor was available on project
Docket Nos. 1066 and 1067
Upon request of State Director Anderson a check was made on
this information and it was determined that 90% of the labor
for both projects was available.
These two projects were omitted from the list sent to the
President.
This list covers projects selected at random from reports
received from all of the states. Apparently the records of the
Works Progress Administration on the amount of relief labor
available is not as complete and accurate as WPA's monthly re-
ports indicate.
Horatoo BHackett
HORATIO B. HACKETT
Assistant Administrator
THE
OF THE THE
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
SEP. RECEIVED WHIT 1936 HOUSE
Tile Personal
September 4, 1936.
My dear Mr. President:
I appreciate your telegraphing me as you did under
date of August 31 from Sidney, Nebraska. Wilmarth's death
was a terrible blow to Betty and his children. I don't
know anyone who had a lovelier family than he and it is
incomprehensible to me that he should have done what he
did.
I have followed your trip with keen interest through
the newspapers and I hope that everything has worked out
to your satisfaction.
Thanking you again, and with personal regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Tches
The President,
The White House.
1936
PSF P.Y Ickes
Hace Rays not to send this geba
hat to give FOR mich whoms he
has talked Here made 2
lug gestern to toop which would heep
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 15, 1936
PSF
clobes
My dear Mr. Secretary:
Thank you very much for your
letter on the slum clearance program
in Detroit. Does not it seem to you,
however, that it has taken a long time
to find this out? Could not some other
way to lower costs be devised?
Very sincerely yours,
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Hon- Harold L. Ickes
Public Works Administrator
Washington
D.C.
December 15, 19.
My dear Mr. Secretary:
Thank you very much for your
letter on the slum clearance program
1n Detroit. Does not it sees to you,
however, that Lt has taken 9 long time
to find this out? Could not some other
way to lover costs be devised?
Very sincerely yours,
o
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE TO AVOID
FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATOR
PAYMENT OF POSTAGE $300
OF PUBLIC WORKS
DELIVER AT ONCE
BY
WASHINGTON
PECIAL MESSENGER
Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt,
The White House,
Washington, D. C.
DECTISE
at
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
OF PUBLIC WORKS
WASHINGTON
December
Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt,
The White House,
ADMINISTRATOR have DEC 9, who 1936. Fyrn 70 when that info english and rat" thing fould
Washington, D. C.
My dear Mrs. Roosevelt:
Your letter of December 1 has been received, I have secured
a report on the delay in going ahead with the slum clearance pro-
form she down we
(Tan in Detroit.
The difficulty is in connection with the bids received for
the construction of the projects. Just in advance of the time
for receipt of bids on construction projects, the Housing Division
prepares an estimate of the cost of the work. This estimate is
based on the latest available material quotations and full union
rates or the prevailing wage scale in the locality, depending upon
which is applicable. The estimate includes, in addition to labor
and materials, adequate provisions for overhead and profit. The
correctness of such an estimate is indicated by the fact that
awards are not recomended unless the figures received are in line
with it. On this basis awards have been recommended on approxi-
mately $100,000,000 worth of work to date.
The following tabulation gives a comparison on the two Detroit
projects:
Browster
Parkside
Item
H-1201
E-1205
Date of Bide
Sept. 23, 1936
Oct, 20. 1936
Low Bid
$3,774,900
$4,013,000
Housing Division Estimate
2,907,000
3,425,000
Excess of Estimate
867,900
588,000
The excess represents, in rent, 98 cents per room per month on
Browster and 52 cents per room per month on Parkside or a total of
$2,725,000 over the 60-year amortization period. The high figures
received and the increase in rent as a result of the high figures are
such that the Director of Housing recommended rejection of all bids.
/
to
- 2 -
At the present time, the Housing Division is redesigning both
projects with a view to decreasing capital cost materially and, as
a result, lowering the rents. It is expected that preliminary plans
covering this redesign will be completed in from 30 to 45 days. On
the completion of working drawings, the Director of Housing proposes
to advertise again, but if bids received at that time are not in
line with Housing Division estimates, he again would recommend their
rejection.
Sincerely yours,
Harold ? Iches
Administrator.
December 1, 1936
7.0
My dear Mr. Secretary:
I wonder if you would give - some
information about the Slum Clearance program
in Detroit. The matter was presented to no
when 1 was in that city about ten days ago
and I should like to know why the program is
not noving more rapidly. The story 1s that
cost of labor end materials is higher but
people in Detroit feel that is not the real
reason.
Very sincerely yours,
Honorable Harold L. Ickes
The Secretary of the Interior
DD
PSF Iikes
OF
DEPARTMENT OREGON
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
December 28, 1936.
My dear Mr. President:
I am especially happy to have the bound copy of your
Chautauqua address that you sent me as a Christmas gift.
I think this address is one of the most important ones that
you have ever made, and its importance is likely to increase
in the future, especially if present war-like trends in Europe
develop to their indicated fruition. Your inscription makes
this book all the more valued.
If you will let me have back the album of Park stamps
that I sent you, I will have added blocks of the large un-
gummed issue of imperforates. It needs these stamps in
order to be complete, and I did not have the time to put
these in before Christmas.
Thanking you again for all you have done for me and for
your great consideration of me, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Honold Z.rhes
The President,
The White House.
TULLY. 14
PSF Ickas
December 28, 1936.
Dear Harold:-
I an delighted to have the beautifully
made up Album and the Park series stamps and they
go in the glass bookcase where I keep my treasures.
Ever 60 many thanks.
Also those two Maitis fill a very
definite blank in the Haiti book and they are, as
a matter of fact, much scarcer than their catalogue
value indicates. In buying several small collections
of Haitis I have never found one.
while I am on the subject of stamps,
I wish you would give consideration to improving
our stamps, especially the memorials. We try to
put too many things on them, and, frankly, I do
not think they compare favorably with many similar
stamps issued by other nations. I do not know
whether we should go to the lithographic process
or not. Perhaps you would run over your collection
and give me an idea of what types you think we
could consider. This is something I want to take
up with the Post Office Department and the Bureau
of Engraving and Printing as soon as possible.
As over yours,
The Honorable
The Secretary of the Interior,
Department of the Interior,
Washington, D. c.
you Iches
PSF Ickes
PERSONAL &
December 28, 1936.
MEMORANDUM FOR
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
I have spoken with one or two people of good
judgment in regard to the idea of calling the Virgin
Islands Company Rum "Government Rum." The reaction is
one hundred per cent against it. All of these people
are greatly disturbed at the thought because they feel
there would be criticism in every part of the country
if any liquor were put out as Government Rum. The fact
1s, of course, that while the Government put up the
necessary loan to get the company started, it 1s a
corporation.
I have continued to ask for suggestions and
here are two:
1. Call the Rum "St. Croix Rum" as I have
always wanted from the beginning. I realize that this
cannot be trade-marked as an exclusive name, but the
illustration on the label can be trade-marked and in
the advertising, etc., the words "Look for the Trade-
Mark" can be emphasized. I am told that a small amount
of rum is now being sold as St. Croix Rum but that if
we put out our supply with the trade-mark illustration
on the label the problem would be solved.
2. The other suggestion 18 to oall it
"Governor's Rum" with the picture of a mythological
uniformed Governor of the Seventeenth Century era.
Let me know what you think.
F. D. R.