American History / Theater & Performance / African American Studies

Voices from the Federal Theatre
Bonnie Nelson Schwartz and the Educational Film Center
Foreword by Robert Brustein

H. J. Res. 79
FEBRUARY 7­11, 1938

mind if I ask them of Mrs. Flanagan—because it pertains to her department?

Mrs. WOODWARD. All right, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Flanagan, will you be kind enough to state your official position and then make your statement?


Mrs. FLANAGAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am National Director of the Federal Theater Project of the Works Progress Administration. Now, if I may, I will make my statement.

The CHAIRMAN. You may.

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Then have the questions afterward.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you desire to present your statement first and then you will be ready to be interrogated by members of the committee?


The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead.

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Government support of the theater brings the United States into the best historic theater tradition and into the best contemporary theater practice. Four centuries before Christ, Athens believed that plays were worth paying for out of public money; today France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Italy, and practically all other civilized countries appropriate money for the theater.

However, it was not because of historic theater tradition, nor because of contemporary theater practice that the Federal Theater came into being. It came into being because in the summer of 1935, the relief rolls of American cities showed that thousands of unemployed theater professionals, affected not only by the economic depression but by the rapid development of the cinema and the radio, were destitute. The Federal Theater came into being because Mr. Harry Hopkins, Administrator of the Works Progress Administration, believed not only that unemployed theatrical people could get just as hungry as unemployed accountants and engineers, but-and this was much more revolutionary—that their skills were as worthy of conservation. He believed that the talents of these professional theater workers, together with the skills of painters, musicians, and writers, made up a part of the national wealth which America could not afford to lose. Therefore, on August 29, 1935, the Federal Theater project was set up.

The primary jobs of those of us employed on the project was to audition the people sent to us from relief offices; to get them on our pay roll; to organize them into companies, having the proper proportion of actors, designers, technicians, and so forth. It was also necessary to solve many administrative problems, since the Government at that time could not charge admissions, could not pay royalties, could not lease theaters. So complicated were these problems that press and public alike were frankly skeptical as to whether a curtain would ever rise on so vast and uncharted an enterprise. However, by October 1935 projects were set in operation and curtains began to go up all over the United States.

At a time when theaters were dark across America, plays began to be given from the Atlantic to the Pacific, not only in city theaters, but in the parks and hospitals, in Catholic convents and Baptist churches, in public schools and public armories, in circus tents and universities, in prisons and reformatories, and in those distant and unfrequented camps where 350,000 of America's youth are learning all they know about life and art.

At its peak, the project employed 12,700 people.

The CHAIRMAN. How many, did you say?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. The project was employing 12,700 at its peak.

Through cuts in appropriation, through the return of workers to private industry, and through dismissal of workers who proved incompetent, Federal Theater now employs 8,739. More than 9 out of every 10 of these workers come from relief rolls and $9 out of every $10 of the appropriation must be spent on wages. About 50 percent of our workers are actors; the others are writers, designers, theater musicians, dancers, stage hands, box-office men, ushers, maintenance workers, and the accounting and secretarial forces necessary to carry out any enterprise operated under procedures required by the Government of the United States. These 8,739 workers are employed in theater companies operating in 40 cities in 22 States. The largest projects are New York with 4,011 workers, Los Angeles with 1,289, and Chicago with 768. Among other cities are Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Denver, San Diego, Detroit, Gary, Peoria, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Boston, Salem, Springfield, Manchester, Portland, Hartford, Newark, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Roslyn, Long Island, New Orleans, Miami, Tampa, Jacksonville, Atlanta, Raleigh, Oklahoma City, Chapel Hill, and Roanoke Island. It is impossible to operate companies in towns where only a few theater professionals are on relief rolls. However, since project funds are Federal funds, it is desirable to give service over a wide geographic area. Consequently, the project tours as much as possible into rural areas. We also have built up a National Service Bureau which gives script and technical service, and when possible the loan of equipment and personnel, to community and educational groups in every State in the Union.

The administrative plan of the Federal Theater is simple. The National Director is assisted by a Deputy National Director in charge of administration and procedures, and by an Associate Director in charge of all national services such as the handling of royalties, the loan of equipment and personnel, the reading and reporting on plays. These three people work through a regional staff consisting of seven people—the city directors of three major projects in New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago; and the regional directors of the West, the Midwest, the South, and the East. These 10 people make up the Federal Theater Policy Board. This Board meets every 4 months, deciding on policies and plays for the next 4 months. At this time the regional directors bring in reports from their State and local directors. Thus the Policy Board represents a pooling of local, State, and regional ideas. The decision as to the allocation of funds, opening and closing of projects, employment, and dismissal of personnel in key positions, is vested in the National Director and Deputy Director. Obviously, clearance of all policies, especially that of play choice, through such a board, is necessary if satisfactory negotiations are to be effected with the dramatists and with their official organization, the Dramatists' Guild, and if high standards are to be maintained.

The labor policy of the Federal Theater is definite. The Federal Theater cannot operate a closed shop and it is so stated in the Relief Appropriation Act. The project is operated without discrimination as to race, creed, color, religious, political, or organizational affiliations. However, since the theater is a highly unionized profession, the project was set up with the advice of the theater unions. The heads of the unions met in Washington for prolonged discussion of the machinery to be set up. At this time also, the National Director had several meetings, asking advice of the members of the League of the New York Theaters, among them the late Dr. Moskowitz, Mr. Shubert, Mr. Brady, Mr. Pemberton, Mr. Wiman, and others. The National Director has an advisory committee composed of the heads of every theatrical union. To indicate the closeness of the relationship existing at the present time between Federal Theater and Actors' Equity, it is only necessary to say that Burgess Meredith, present acting president of Actors' Equity, is also chairman of the National Advisory Board of the Federal Theater.

The Federal Theater recognizes the right of the worker to organize either along lines of present theatrical unions or along any other lines he chooses. The Federal Theater also believes that a project set up to improve the situation of unemployed workers should meet in a spirit of cooperation, with any duly appointed representatives of these workers. However, the use of project time, equipment, or money, for any organization purpose, is not allowed.
The artistic policy of the Federal Theater has always been based on three beliefs: First, that unemployed theater professionals want to work, and that, at the same time, millions of American citizens will enjoy the results of this work if productions are offered at a price they can afford to pay; second, that the people on our rolls should be regarded, not as relief cases but as professional theater workers competent to carry out an ambitious Nation-wide program; third, that any theater sponsored by the Government of the United States should do no plays of a cheap, trivial, outworn, or vulgar nature, but only such plays as the Government can stand proudly behind in a planned theatrical program, national in scope, regional in emphasis, and American in democratic attitude. Now, what are the plays of such a program? From the first we have attempted to supplement and to stimulate commercial theater enterprise. For this reason we are not so much concerned with finding individual hit shows as with the development of a comprehensive dramatic program which will educate theatergoers and thus prove beneficial to the theater industry. Our program is planned along eight distinct lines:

(1) Classical plays, in forms interesting to a modern audience: We have no interest in any classic done as a superstitious rite, but we have every interest in giving our public, particularly youth, the chance to see great plays of the past done with fire and imagination. The Negro Macbeth, Marlowe's Dr. Faustus, the current Coriolanus, and the coming production of Trojan Incident, a play based on Homer and Euripedes, are examples. The California International Cycle produces every month a play which has made dramatic history in some past period, and so far has included plays by Strindberg, Giacosa, Pirandello, Hauptmann, Capek, Ibsen, and Chekov. The Nation-wide cycle of George Bernard Shaw and the Nation-wide cycle of Eugene O'Neill are examples of modern plays which have attained in the lifetime of their authors a place in a classical repertory.
(2) The theater of entertainment: Our audiences want to laugh, and so do we. Circuses, musical comedies, light opera, marionettes—all of these have a large place in Federal Theater. We have, for example, a repertory of five Gilbert & Sullivan operas which recently celebrated their six-hundredth performance in Greater New York. The Chicago O, Say, Can You Sing; the Los Angeles Follow the Parade, Revue of Reviews, and Ready, Aim, Fire, are examples of our attempt to use the talents of the vaudevillians in satirical revues based on topical subjects.
(3) The theater of youth, which we are developing on every project in the country: Here we are working closely with psychologists and educators in planning plays for children of different age levels. The mayor of Cleveland and the public schools of that city, for example, are sponsors for our Ohio Theater of Youth. In California 70,000 children are members of our children's theater audience. Hansel and Gretel, Pinocchio, Treasure Island, and The Emperor's New Clothes are examples.
(4) The theater of the dance, especially as it relates to the themes of American life: The Los Angeles festival of the American dance, An American Exodus; the New York dance production of How Long, Brethren; and the Chicago Ballet Fedre are examples.
(5) The American plays: This is one of our most important lines of development, since it is based on belief that American life is full of exciting possibilities for drama. Some of these plays deal with legendary or historic figures of American life—John Bunyan, Davy Crockett, John Brown, Abraham Lincoln. Others deal with whole periods of America's development, such as the history of Arkansas, done in America Sings; the saga of the Dunkards in Pennsylvania, in Feet on the Ground; the peopling of the plains, in Chicago's new symphonic drama, Midwest; the story of The Lost Colony in Paul Green's drama, done last summer on Roanoke Island. Others attack problems of industrial and economic life as may be gained from such titles as Altars of Steel, in Atlanta; Big White Fog, in Chicago; Class of '29, in Boston; and Turpentine, in Harlem.

"The Living Newspaper," a terse, cinematic, hard-hitting, dramatic form evolved on the project, deals with contemporary factual material: Agriculture in "Triple A Ploughed Under"; labor in the courts in "Injunction Granted"; housing in "One-third of a Nation." Oregon has a living newspaper on flax, and New Orleans is preparing one on flood control.

Some of the plays in this Division are, of course, controversial. It was at first feared by many critics that no free expression of opinion would be allowed in any theater operated by Federal funds. However, due to Mr. Hopkins' wisdom in stating at the beginning that this was to be "a free adult theater," it has been in spite of certain local problems remarkably free from censorship. In stressing this material of the past and the present, we hope to help build a theater out of the fabric of American life.
(6) A Negro theater: Negroes play a part in many divisions of Federal Theater. However, it is also our aim, through units in Harlem, Hartford, Seattle, Chicago, and Los Angeles, and wherever a sufficient number of professionals are on relief, to develop a theater for and by this gifted race.
(7) Research and experimentation: We are experimenting with the theater as a force in education, therapeutics, child, hospital, and prison welfare. For example, our hand marionette companies work in hospitals with children with paralyzed hands. Our marionette companies in Buffalo and Miami, dramatizing Death Takes the Wheel, are used by the Police Department as a part of the campaign against reckless driving. The Federal Theater is also experimenting in a study of theater forms, in the simplification of scene and costume, in a study of light, line, choric speech, and dynamic movement. Some of these experiments are of such importance that great universities—Yale, the University of Washington, the University of North Carolina—are offering the hospitality of their plants and equipment to our workers. All of these experiments are, of course, for the benefit of the entire theatrical industry.
(8) Radio: The Federal Theater of the Air is a branch in which we are sincerely interested not only because it is a remarkable medium for returning our people to private industry but also because it is a new theater in the making of which we can have a part. The Federal Radio Theater, for example, was the first to do a complete cycle of Shakespeare, Ibsen, and Gilbert and Sullivan over the air. In addition, it is building up for its millions of listeners a strong educational program dealing with the lives of scientists, musicians, and artists. Of its current Epic of America, dramatized on our project from the book by James Trusloe Adams, the metropolitan press says:

This is history dramatized over a sweeping panorama of broad tendencies and large issues, in a manner for which radio is peculiarly fitted, and for which it is too rarely used. The job is beautifully and imaginatively done with the brave imagination that a theater of the air demands.

We feel that we are only in the beginning stage of our experience with radio, but we are glad that the ambitious nature of the plan led the New York Post to say:

The full burden of making an intelligent approach to the problem of radio drama seems to be falling on the Radio Division of the Federal Theater project.

The question is often asked, "Does the Federal Theater compete with commercial theatrical enterprises?" In the early days of the project many people held, often simultaneously, two somewhat contradictory views: (1) That Federal Theater productions would be terrible; and (2) that Federal Theater productions would be competing with private industry. As productions improved, both of these criticisms became less frequent. According to the present general consensus of opinion of dramatic critics, actors, managers, and trade journals, Federal Theater has, in the words of a recent report by the acting president of Actors' Equity to its members, "broadened the base of the theater throughout the country and greatly extended national interest in the theater."

It is an amazing fact that of the 25,000,000 people who have witnessed Federal Theater productions to date, 65 percent indicate on their questionnaires that they have never before seen a play with living actors, but that having started, they intend to continue to go to plays. Our concern is not to prevent our productions from competing with commercial shows, but, by building new audiences, by introducing new dramatic forms, such as the "living newspapers," and by stimulating new dramatics, to afford the commercial theater a form of competition which is the life and not the death of trade.

The caliber of dramatic talent on the project (as on Broadway) ranges from bad to excellent. We have many headliners and some brilliant youths. We have also certain actors trained in techniques no longer acceptable to audiences. We also have, understandably enough, some who are ill, worn out, discouraged. However, the increasing critical success of our plays indicates that our actors have an increasingly high degree of competence. They are for the most part eager, ambitious, and hard-working. Over 1,500 have returned to excellent jobs in private industry. Almost every cast on Broadway this season contains actors formerly with Federal Theater. Shadow and Substance, Mice and Men, draw on our rolls; five Federal Theater actors are in You Can't Take It With You, and three in I'd Rather Be Right. Outstanding successes of the New York theatrical season, the Mercury productions, Cradle Will Rock and Julius Caesar, drew producer, director, designer, and many leading actors from Federal Theater. It should be remembered that the opening of this new theater venture, the Mercury, and other similar ventures, increases general theatrical employment. Directors, playwrights, designers, and actors of brilliant promise have been given a chance and have made good. Several of our young designers and light experts are now much in demand on Broadway. Our new dramatists have seen their plays produced not only by Federal Theater, but by Broadway.

Federal Theater feels a definite obligation to retrain its workers. Last summer the Federal Theater in cooperation with Vassar College and the Rockefeller Foundation, conducted a 6 week's retraining session for directors, writers, designers, and actors. Every project in the country has courses for actors when off duty. The Provincetown Theater in New York is operated entirely as a retraining theater in all fields of theatrical activity.

Any brief explaining the aims and operations of the Federal Theater project must necessarily include the reaction of responsible theatrical critics, of civic, educational, and religious bodies, of children, and youth, in short of the American public. As this material is bulky, the committee is referred to a compilation of letters, press reviews, editorials, and so forth, about the project which has been prepared and which is available to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I would suggest right here that after the conclusion of our hearings, in order to supplement this interesting testimony you are giving, you turn that over to the clerk so we can have it as part of the record of the committee.

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Yes; Mr. Chairman.

Such critics as Brooks Atkinson, Burns Mantle, Robert Garland, Ashton Stevens, Lloyd Lewis, John Mason Brown, Richard Lockbridge, Stark Young, Heywood Broun, John Rosenfeld, W.{t}E. Oliver, Edgar Hay, Dudley Glass, Thomas Davney, and John Temple Graves, Willson Whitman, Elias Sugarman, and Gilbert Seldes, and such magazines as Stage, Magazine of Art, Theater Arts Monthly, Variety, Billboard, Fortune, Scribner's, The New Republic, The Nation, and Time, and an increasing phalanx of favorable editorial comment would seem to indicate that Burns Mantle was right when he called the Federal Theater the "American people's theater."

The money expended on Federal Theater productions comes from three sources: (1) Appropriated funds; (2) sponsors' contributions; and (3) admission funds. Expenditures of appropriated funds in the first 2 years of Federal Theater amounted to approximately $25,000,000, nine-tenths of which was spent on wages.

The CHAIRMAN. How much was spent on wages-nine-tenths?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Nine-tenths. That is, the entire program outlined above was operated on a Nation-wide scale for 2 years, keeping ten to thirteen thousand people usefully employed and bringing entertainment to over 25,000,000 people at approximately half the cost of one battleship.

Sixty-five percent of all Federal Theater productions are still presented free to underprivileged groups in schools, playgrounds, reformatories, homes for the aged, hospitals, and prisons. For the remaining 35 percent, a small admission charge from 5 cents to $1.10, depending on production and locality, may now be charged at the discretion of the local director.

Sponsors' gifts are extensive. For example, the great radio stations have given us $1,800,000 worth of free time. The Rockefeller Foundation gave us $7,500 for the purchase of multilith machines to aid in the dissemination of printed material regarding the activities of the Federal Theater, and $10,000 for retraining work. As an example of municipal sponsorship, the city of Hartford, Conn., recently gave the theater project, through its city council, $1,500 in rental, light, and heat, and $600 for incidentals. The New Orleans (La.) City Council has sponsored the project in the amount of $3,000.

The Research and Play Bureau has some 25 publications, either plays or play lists or material relevant to production, available in the form of mimeographed books. Such publications are sent free to Government agencies or tax-supported institutions. A small amount, 10 cents to $1, is charged to other individuals or groups. This revenue, small at present, is constantly building and should eventually afford a sizable income covering all costs of publications.

However, the chief sponsors' contribution for any theater will always come in the form of box-office collections. So far well over $1,000,000 has been taken in from this source of revenue, and it is now the aim of the Federal Theater to pay out of box office all other-than-labor costs.

In brief summary, where does the Federal Theater stand today after 2 years of operation? It has made a beginning. It has solved certain administrative problems, it has a line of procedure, it has a clear-cut organization. It has operating theater companies in 22 States. It has returned fifteen hundred people to private industry, and the 8,000 who remain are working with increasing competence. The Federal Theater has an audience of many millions, among them a great proportion of youth. It has an ambitious Nation-wide plan in which local and regional material is developed, a plan which includes classics, living newspapers, research, dance, children's theaters.

We realize more keenly than our severest critics the increasing strides in plan and execution we must make; for all Federal Theaters are theaters in the making, eager, ambitious, necessarily nervous, poised on the brink of uncertainty. We are like chemists in a laboratory. We poured into a test tube a certain unknown quantity-unemployed artists. Nobody knew whether they could create anything of value. We poured into the test tube a known quantity-money, the money of that much-quoted individual, the American taxpayer. Yes: it takes money to make people over, and that's what the money has been spent for.

What we all want to know now is to what extent the experiment has been successful. All of us working in this laboratory of American art often become profoundly discouraged because the mixture in the test tube does not become the clear and brilliant color we see in our mind's eye. But before we smash the test tube we must consider this experiment not only in relation to human values but in relation to the future of American art.

Let me, in conclusion, illustrate. When these projects were being set up, I saw in city after city long lines of applicants—men and women—broken, discouraged, rebellious, bitter. Recently, after 2 years, I revisited one of those cities. I found 1,200 people busily engaged in a tremendous and efficient theater. I saw an entirely self-contained theater plant; scenery, costumes, boots, shoes, jewelry, electrical equipment made on the projects; a plant which serves as the nerve center of all the regions west of the Mississippi, sending actors, directors, designers, and equipment out on loan to similar projects in Portland, Denver, Seattle. I saw 500 children turned away from the packed theater showing Hansel and Gretel. I saw our young actors in the theater of the Southwest working on their own play of the California gold rush. I heard the laughter of a crowded house in the seventh week of Ready, Aim, Fire, a musical comedy satirizing dictatorship, book and music composed on the project. I saw a strong and moving production of Hauptmann's The Weavers, one of the international cycle of distinguished plays. I saw a research department compiling hitherto unknown material on the theater of the Northwest and the Chinese theater in San Francisco. I saw an audience rise and shout "Bravo!" at the conclusion of the dance group's American Exodus. I saw how this Federal Theater is penetrating the community; the Second Shepherd's Play done in churches at Christmas time; a committee of teachers and parents conferring as to the classical cycle for the schools; groups of high-school students, a hundred a week, going through our historical model project making sketches of theater models done by our research workers.

I saw all these things and I believe that anyone comparing that scene with the early ones of despair and hopelessness will feel that in its future possibilities for American life and for American art the Federal Theater is no less potent, because it carries in the pit of its stomach the remembrance of hunger.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Flanagan, I want to take this opportunity of telling you how profoundly thrilled I have been in listening to this magnificent contribution of the splendid work that the Federal Theater has rendered to this country, working under your supervision, and aided by Mrs. Woodward, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Harry L. Hopkins. I think that if every American citizen had a chance to listen to this magnificent exposition all would rise to say a word in approbation of the work you have done.

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, may I propound a few questions to you?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. You may.

The CHAIRMAN. But, before I do so, I want to say these questions I am going to ask you have been sent to me by the newspapermen around the table.

Mrs. WOODWARD. Do you want to take up the questions now?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; following the statement of Mrs. Flanagan, and when that is concluded we will take the next witness.

Mrs. Flanagan, the questions sent up to me by the newspapermen are as follows: The first question is:
By whose order were the plays Stevedore and Judgment Day stopped?

Testimony was adduced before the committee here yesterday that some Army officer in the West, I think Colonel Connolly, had censored or stopped or prevented the presentation of those two plays.

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Mr. Chairman, that was our information, but we have checked on that information, and Mrs. Woodward has informed me that Colonel Connolly has not stopped the plays, but has requested that they be postponed, due to certain administrative tangles. He is just setting up a new organization and he felt that he wished those plays postponed.

The CHAIRMAN. The second question is: Are these plays, Stevedore and Judgment Day, to be produced later, and if so, when?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. I cannot give you the exact date, and I would like to make a distinction between the two plays. I tried to explain to you how the plays are chosen-that nobody imposes a certain play on a certain part of the country; that this national policy board has a representation which includes each one of the State directors and of the local directors under State directors. Now both of those plays are on the approved list and may be done, as far as the approval of this policy board goes.

For example, we have done Stevedore with great success in a number of places. However, that play had been considered in California, but the request for its production had not gone to the Central Policy Board in New York, so that play is out of the question. We are not discussing that now. I do not know whether we will do that or not.

Judgment Day, on the other hand, had not only been approved by the central board, but it was desired by the local State director, representing the Federal Theater, and that play will go on later in the spring. I cannot give you the date at the present time.

Mr. CONNERY. Has Judgment Day ever been produced by your organization?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. No, not by our organization; it has not; but it is now scheduled for two other productions.

Mr. CONNERY. When Stevedore was produced in those various localities, there was no objection in any way whatever to the play?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. There was not.

The CHAIRMAN. The next question the newspapermen wish me to ask is:
Why are Army officers administering theatrical projects of the W. P. A.?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Mr. Chairman, since the appointment of Colonel Connolly, or any State administrator, does not come within my jurisdiction, I should like to refer you to Mrs. Woodward to answer that.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to answer that, Mrs. Woodward?

Mrs. WOODWARD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Army officer referred to is Colonel Connolly, of Los Angeles. As you perhaps know, the State has been divided into northern and southern California, and Colonel Connolly is the administrator for southern California. He has carried on a very splendid program there. He is an able administrator, and Mr. Hopkins and the rest of us have every reason to believe that he will administer that project fairly and properly.

The CHAIRMAN. He receives no compensation from the W. P. A.?

Mrs. WOODWARD. That is correct. He receives no compensation from the W. P. A. This is true with reference to all of the Army officers who are serving with us. For instance, Colonel Harrington, who is Assistant Administrator in charge of the Division of Operations throughout the country-he and all of the others are on loan to W. P. A. from the Army at Mr. Hopkins' request.

The CHAIRMAN. They just do administrative work?

Mrs. WOODWARD. Colonel Connolly is administrator for southern California. You probably know that northern and southern California have separate administrators. He was asked to administer the arts projects in southern California, to service those projects for us in the same way that the State administrators in each of the 48 States service the arts projects. Economies are effected as you can readily see by using the same finance, employment, procurement, and certain other services that are used in the States for other types of projects. We felt that a State administrator who could successfully administer a program for 38,298 people could administer also a program for 3,030 persons who are employed on the arts projects in southern California. The matter of administration is one thing and the matter of technical direction or supervision is another thing entirely. Colonel Connolly has had administrative charge of the arts projects only since the 1st of January. I should like to state right here, too, that very shortly after he took charge of the administration of these projects he was sent on a mission for this administration to Honolulu. He has not returned to California as yet but will arrive in the very near future. I want to make it very plain, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that Colonel Connolly did not ask to administer these particular projects. At our request he assumed this additional responsibility. It was on the basis of his ability and previous successful experience that he was put in charge of the program in southern California, and Mr. Hopkins considers him one of his very able administrators.

Now are there any other questions with reference to Colonel Connolly?

Mr. STEFAN. Yes; I have a few questions to ask.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you permit me, Congressman Stefan, just to ask these questions for the newspapermen, and then you can ask anything you want?

Mr. STEFAN. Yes; except it was along this line in connection with the Army officers.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, this is about the Army officers, too.

Mrs. Flanagan, has not the local W. P. A. administrator of the theater the authority to censor Federal Theater plays?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. I think, Mr. Chairman, that I have just explained that. You are making this as a general point?


Mrs. FLANAGAN. No; he has not. The line on the artistic policies goes directly, in the case of every one of the four arts, to the national director through her various appointees. It is quite possible that a State director, Mr. Chairman, might take exception to a general ruling of the policy board, I might say, because of local reasons, and he would prefer not to do that play. That would be quite within the range of any policy board to take care of.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you try to satisfy the local administrator insofar as you are able?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. We do.

The CHAIRMAN. Now go ahead, Congressman Stefan.

Mr. STEFAN. Mr. Chairman, I have one or two questions to ask this lady, but I think they have already replied to the questions I asked yesterday in connection with the employment of this Army officer.

You say, Mrs. Flanagan, there is no truth in this report given to the committee yesterday that certain Army officers censored W. P. A. plays in California?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. That was my own understanding yesterday; it is not my understanding now, because I was informed by Mrs. Woodward that this play was not abandoned by Colonel Connolly but was postponed.

Mr. STEFAN. Then this report that those Army officers had suppressed or censored any play was not true?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. I beg pardon?

Mr. STEFAN. Then the report given to us in the statement made yesterday to this committee, that certain Army officers had censored certain W. P. A. plays in California, is erroneous?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. I think that has been answered satisfactorily by the fact Major Dillon said he was misquoted in the press, and Colonel Connolly said it was not an abandoning, but a postponement.

Mr. STEFAN. I wonder if you can give for the record the names of the central policy board which is located in New York?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Yes; I will write that out and give it to the chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Just give it to the reporter.


Hallie Flanagan, director; J. Howard Miller, deputy national director; John McGee, associate director; George Kondolf, director for New York City; Harry Minturn, acting assistant director for Illinois; Josef Lentz, assistant director for the South; Herbert Ashton, Jr., assistant director for the Mid West; George Gerwing, director of federal theater projects for Southern California; Ole M. Ness, acting assistant director for the West; Director for the East, appointment pending.

The CHAIRMAN. Now let me ask you some further questions that the newspapermen have sent up to me:

Was there an attempt made at one time to censor "Lysistrata" on the coast?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Yes. The State administrator in the State of Washington did not approve of the production of "Lysistrata."


Mrs. FLANAGAN. I do not know that he gave his reasons, but he simply felt that it should not go on.

The CHAIRMAN. I saw the performance of "Lysistrata" in New York, by the W. P. A. theater project, and it was one of the finest productions of the great Greek play that I have ever seen.

Mrs. FLANAGAN. At that time, the national office was entirely upheld by Mr. Hopkins, who ruled that if we wished the play to go on, it would go on. So we sent some person not connected with the administrative end, but with the artistic end in Seattle, to look over the production, and he felt that the production was extremely bad-having nothing to do with the idea of censorship, he felt it was extremely bad and should not be done.

The CHAIRMAN. But there was really no censorship against the production of the play itself?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. We did not close it on that account.

Mr. STEFAN. One more question on that point: Who makes the final decision on some of these plays that I, as a layman, am told are alleged to be communistic? Who makes the final decision, the central policy board in New York?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Yes; the central policy board in New York, although it is not the policy of that board ever to impose on a local person a definite play if that local person feels it should not go on. Those things are very carefully discussed.

You see, plays come about in two ways. At the meeting of the policy board, the Florida State director may say, for instance, "We have two or three new groups, and we think a classical play, a revival in the South, would be successful, and some play should come in." People from all over the country go to that locality. At the same time, it might be true we would say, as a policy board, "We have secured the rights to one of the plays of Sinclair Lewis, if we can guarantee him so many weeks." We have to do that. So that sometimes we do say we must meet a certain schedule, must give a certain author 52 weeks, in order to get, for the small royalty we pay, a sufficient number of weeks for him. So plays are sent out in that way. We sometimes take the suggestion from the State directors and sometimes take their tip; but we always pool that information and try to get a Nation-wide program which has some relationship.

Mr. STEFAN. But the central policy board has the final decision to make on whether or not it is a factual play, or a so-called communistic play?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Yes; they do.

Mr. STEFAN. There is a lot of consideration given to that particular item in putting before the general public so-called communistic plays; is that correct?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Yes; I am glad you say "so-called."

Mr. STEFAN. I am talking about factual plays and others.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mrs. Flanagan, the other questions sent up to me by the newspaper men are as follows:

Has the administration any set policy regarding censorship?


The CHAIRMAN. What is that policy?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Mr. Hopkins, in setting up this whole project, has set it up, as I said in my statement, so that it was set up as a free adult theater. We do not pretend for one moment that we can always do any play in any city of the United States. That would be attempting to do something that Mr. Shubert has never been able to accomplish. For example, we did at one time want to do one play in Chicago, which the mayor did not particularly approve of, and we had a difference of opinion at that time, on which I have letters. So that I do not think we should pretend to sit here and say we have been able to do in every city of the United States everything we wanted to do. But I say it is the policy of the Administration and I believe Mrs. Woodward and Mr. Morris and everyone representing all of the different branches here with me, would say it is our policy to keep this theater as free as we possibly can and keep up the tradition of a free, inquiring, critical spirit which is the essence of American life.

The CHAIRMAN. The next question is:

Why are the arts projects placed under the control of local administrators?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. I think that question should be referred to my superior officer, Mrs. Woodward.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Woodward, would you be kind enough to answer these newspaper men?
Why are the arts projects placed under the control of local administrators?

Mrs. WOODWARD. The local administrators, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, are asked to service those projects. In other words, to assist them on the administrative side. As I explained a few minutes ago, we have a limited amount of money to spend. We want the major portion of the money to go into wages for the needy unemployed artists; therefore, we treat this project and every other project, insofar as servicing is concerned, the same wherever it is possible. State administrators, for instance, have their own departments of employment, finance, and so forth. It would be very foolish for us to duplicate that and to set up an entirely new outfit, unless there were special reasons for it. We have not found that it has worked against the arts program to any great extent and, since we are spending Federal funds, we want the State administrators to assist us in keeping down the expense. This has added a lot of work for them, but they have done it in the interest of economy and to be helpful to us in the administration of the projects.

The CHAIRMAN. Apropos of that, the other question of the newspapermen was-
Why are Army officers chosen for the several positions then?

Mrs. WOODWARD. For the several positions?


Mrs. WOODWARD. I cannot answer for Mr. Hopkins, but I am sure he has found among the Army officers experienced men who are very able and efficient. You know that the major portion of our program is construction work and since the Corps of Engineers has had long experience in this field, Mr. Hopkins requested the services of a number of the Army engineers in carrying out the W. P. A. program. I do not know when they will be called back to the Army, but I know Colonel Connolly, for instance, was called back and Mr. Hopkins requested that the Army permit him to continue his W. P. A. work.

The CHAIRMAN. The next question is: Does that keep away from the W. P. A. several men of executive and administrative ability who are today unemployed and who, because of the Army officers, are unable to find employment?

Mrs. WOODWARD. The selection of administrative employees is based on ability rather than need. In some instances Army engineers can render especially valuable service because of their training and experience. Their services, as far as I know, have not only been an asset to the program but have resulted in economies, too, if you wish to look at it that way.

The CHAIRMAN. The next question is: How do you replace these Army officers when, as, and if they leave? With civil employees?

Mrs. WOODWARD. That is what we do.

The CHAIRMAN. The last question they have sent up to the desk is: Have any plays other than Lysistrata been censored?

Mrs. WOODWARD. I will ask Mrs. Flanagan to answer that.

Mrs. FLANAGAN. I wish I were wise enough to answer that question with all its full implications for all of us.

The CHAIRMAN. I want you to know that these are questions that have been sent up to me by newspapermen and in order to show that the hearing is fair and square to every side, we are asking them of you.

Mrs. FLANAGAN. I have stated the policy of the Administration, I believe, with complete honesty. I think if Mr. Hopkins were here he would state exactly the same thing. I have also told you that we do have difficult situations in localities at times, and sometimes we have lost and sometimes we have won, and the problem with all of us is, can we increasingly win a battle to keep this project free, or can we not? We think we can; we think we are doing it. We believe that, in spite of some of the local problems. And we think, as to the matter of censorship, that this Federal theater has probably been one of the freest theaters ever subsidized by Government funds in the history of the world. I think that could be borne out by a study of subsidized theaters anywhere.

The CHAIRMAN. Now Congressman Connery, who is the brother of one of our former colleagues who had played in the drama together with George M. Cohan, wants to ask you several questions.

Mr. CONNERY. Mrs. Flanagan, I wonder if you would give us some information along this line. We have read and heard an awful lot about those living newspaper shows. I saw just last night, in one of the Washington papers, where certain members of the Senate complained of the fact, I believe it was in the show "One Third of a Nation," that there was a take-off on them, and a characterization of them personally. Are you familiar enough with that particular show to tell us if there was any take-off of those men?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Yes; I am familiar with it. There was no intent or no desire to cartoon anyone, and no person was so cartooned.

Mr. CONNERY. And no name was mentioned?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Oh, yes. The living newspaper is based entirely on facts, and each subject that we take up explores that one subject, giving the names, facts, and dates. It is exactly what it says it is-a living newspaper. These Senators were quoted from their own speeches, and from their speeches which are in the public domain by virtue of having been printed in the newspaper, and in the Congressional Record.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any member in the House or Senate who rose to excoriate or denounce Sam Harris or George M. Cohan for pillorying the President of the United States in the play "I Would Rather Be Right"?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. That is freedom of expression, is it not?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. It is. And I feel quite sure if the Senators will come as our guests to the theater, they will not feel they have been lampooned.

Mr. SOUTH. Without attempting to express any opinion as to whether this particular instance is fair or not, do you not think that extreme care should be exercised in matters of that kind, because they are susceptible of various interpretations?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Yes, I agree with you very strongly, and the greatest care is exercised in the compilation of any living newspaper, on which a great many people work. They compile the research, and the research goes over a period of months, and it is chosen very carefully and reviewed by the authorities in the field. This particular script was read by not less than five authorities in the field of housing. All of the material is factual, and all of the evidence is on file at our office, so that if any person wishes to come up to our office in New York and look at it, why he can see exactly the "word and case."

Mr. SACKS. Getting back to the purport of the bill, we had a lot of testimony yesterday concerning the broad principles of this bill and certain phases thereof. I would like to get your reaction to it.
For example, what would you consider had been accomplished through the W. P. A. in the theater; what did they do toward helping people get back jobs in the legitimate theater in private enterprise?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. The fact that I said we have placed 1,500, have returned that many to jobs in private industry, I think, in itself, is an answer to that question to some extent. Perhaps I should be more explicit about some of those jobs. Many of them have been in the radio, cinema, and some in the theater. We also feel that it is not only the individual actor who goes back, but the very fact that 25,000,000 people are now coming to our productions, renewing their interest in the theater, means they will view other theater programs; that is, the whole structure of the theatrical enterprise will be strengthened.

Mr. SACKS. What makes you think the Government, or anyone else, can revive the living theater of America, with so many people feeling it is gone forever?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. I do not believe you can ever revive anything in the life of art. I mean we never went in for resuscitation. I do not think our problem is to revive the theater, but to rebuild the theater, with all of the social, economic, and other implications. That is why I say we are studying the theater as a tool in preparedness, and on the present reform, social and economic problems, and everything else.

Mr. SACKS. Why do you think this project should be run from a central headquarters and under national direction and not locally?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. I think the reason that actuated Mr. Hopkins there was that the other way had already been tried during the days of the C. W. A., E. R. A., and so forth, and there had been very many laudable attempts to run programs in the arts, particularly dramatic programs. I think they served a humanitarian purpose, but I believe Mr. Hopkins felt, in setting up a program operated with Federal funds, there should be more central planning by a group which saw the country as a whole, which knew the talents to be stressed in different parts of the country and then tried to work out a comprehensive program for the whole United States.

Mr. SACKS. My last question is, What is the National Service Bureau?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. The National Service Bureau is located in New York, where we have access to all of the outstanding unions and particularly to the Dramatists' Guild. We operate there through agents and there is a quick clearance of plays to the field, and we try to give not only service to plays, but to loan personnel and equipment to our smaller units. It is an attempt to see that these Federal theater funds, which the United States or the theater is spending, are used in places where there is an opportunity for giving a larger employment, and also that they go, as much as we can see to it, to every State in the Union.

Mr. SACKS. Of course, that brings me to the main problem, and that is competition. What would you say the establishment of a Government-subsidized theater would do for the people as a whole in relation to the governmental life of our Nation?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. You mean under some other plan than this?

Mr. SACKS. Well. I mean under any plan. I refer to the broad principle. After all, when we set up any agency in the Government, it must be for the benefit of the people of the United States generally. Now; what would you say, in your opinion, would be the benefit derived from a Bureau of Fine Arts?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Well, my whole statement has been to attempt to state that case. To sum up, perhaps I should say I feel we could bring about a situation whereby, when you go into the theater which says "Federal theater," you can fairly expect the same excellence that you would expect from anything stamped with the Government Bureau of Standards.
Mr. STEFAN. Mrs. Flanagan, after all, the great objective of the W. P. A., of Harry Hopkins and Mrs. Woodward, is relief for those who are unemployed. You do not lose sight of that in this great work you are doing?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. No. We not only do not lose sight of it, but it seems to me it has given tremendous vitality to the thing we are doing. Let me tell an episode that bears that out. After a concert by a Federal music company in Florida, one of the musicians came up to me and said, "I hope you won't judge what we can do a year from now by the way we played tonight, because our hands are still too calloused to hold the bow." He went on to say that everyone in the company, when they had been lucky enough to get work at all that past year, had been working on the roads. He said, "We made very bad roads, but now that the Government is sponsoring our activity, we are going to play as we never played before."

I think all of our American artists, composers, and musicians are performing as they never performed before.

Mr. STEFAN. And you think your theater has contributed materially toward the objective Mrs. Woodward and Mr. Hopkins are seeking?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Over 9 out of 10 of our people come from those relief rolls.

Mr. STEFAN. Now, Mr. Chairman, can I ask Mrs. Woodward one more question?


Mr. STEFAN. How many Army officers are employed in the W. P. A., just as a rough guess? Is there a great percentage of them?


Mr. STEFAN. It is very small?

Mrs. WOODWARD. Yes; I would say it is a very small percentage.

Mr. STEFAN. Are there 25, 50, or 100 officers detached from the Army service and in the W. P. A.; are there that many?

Mrs. WOODWARD. Well, I am sorry I cannot give you that figure.

Mr. STEFAN. Would you say there are over 50?

Mrs. WOODWARD. Well, I would not think so. I know we have very few as State administrators.

Mr. STEFAN. In reality, those people are experienced in the lines for which they are selected?


Mr. STEFAN. They are equipped to carry out this W. P. A. work efficiently and economically. In reality, they do not replace men in civil life who have to look for a job, when we hear we have 10 million or 12 million or more unemployed people?

Mrs. WOODWARD. No; they do not.

Mr. STEFAN. Now, these officers are selected-

Mrs. WOODWARD. Because of their ability.

Mr. STEFAN. But, in reality, they do not replace men in civil life who have to look for jobs and who are hungry?

Mrs. WOODWARD. No; and as they go out, as they go back into their Regular Army jobs, they will be replaced by civilians.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Woodward, in view of the fine showing your organization has made under your supervision, I want to say I think it is the finest testimony I have listened to in the 14 years I have been in the House, and I want to compliment you for your splendid work. Will you furnish later, at your convenience, a record of the number of Army men serving in various branches of the W. P. A. throughout the country so that we can have the exact figures?

Mrs. WOODWARD. I will be very glad to have Mr. Hopkins' office give you that figure and send it to you. There are at the present time 15 Army officers on duty with the W. P. A.

Mr. SACKS. Is it not true that some local authorities ask for Army officers to be put in charge of the program?

Mrs. WOODWARD. Mr. Congressman, I could not answer that question, because I do not know.

Mr. SACKS. I mean, did not Mayor LaGuardia, of New York City, ask that an Army officer be placed in charge of the Works Progress program?

The CHAIRMAN. What makes you think Mayor LaGuardia asked for an Army man?

Mr. SACKS. Because the newspapers carried it.

Mrs. WOODWARD. I am sorry I cannot give you the facts regarding any request of his. I do know that he and Colonel Somervell seem to work in great harmony. That is all I know about it.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Dunn, do you wish to interrogate Mrs. Woodward or Mrs. Flanagan?

Mr. DUNN. Both. Mrs. Woodward. I want to say that I do know Mr. Hopkins and you and Mrs. Flanagan and her assistants have done a great deal of humanitarian work, but the question I want to ask now is this: How are you going to carry on that work you have done in the past if we Congressmen do not appropriate sufficient funds to carry on the work?

Mrs. WOODWARD. Of course, we could not.

Mr. DUNN. Is it not a fact, Mrs. Woodward, that you are now really in need of relief money to help many, many artists who have within the last 3 or 4 months lost their positions? Is not that a fact?

Mrs. WOODWARD. We are limited by the appropriations, Mr. Congressman, as to what we can do. Of course, the jobs that we give necessarily are limited by the funds available.

Mr. DUNN. In other words, Mrs. Woodward and Mrs. Flanagan, the people who are really in need today, of course, are the artists, musicians, writers, and others, and we Members of Congress are responsible for it. In other words, the appropriation bill comes and whereupon it is cut in half or in pieces; and it is our fault if people are on relief and not the fault of the departments. Millions of people are in need. Now, what are we going to do? We can blame your department and Mr. Hopkins gets a lot of condemnation that he does not deserve. We should be the ones to be condemned and not the department if we do not appropriate the money to carry out this humanitarian work that you people have been doing.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, if I may voice your sentiments, let me say that my good colleague, Congressman Dunn, is one of the finest workers we have in the House for the underprivileged. It is his contention and my contention that the Government of the United States never ought to take men or women from relief until private industry has been able to absorb them. The tragedy of economic insecurity is to have millions of men and women who are willing to work at anything, but cannot find work. I think Mr. Harry Hopkins and the whole W. P. A. organization, although a few mistakes have been made, deserve the greatest respect of Congress, of the Senate, and of the Nation, for the fine work they have done.

Mr. SOUTH. Mrs. Woodward, I think it has been pretty well covered, but I am wondering if the Army officers were not selected because of their training and ability along administrative lines?

Mrs. WOODWARD. That is true.
Mr. SOUTH. And that is really the whole answer?

Mrs. WOODWARD. That is the answer to it. It was very difficult to find people who had had administrative and engineering experience sufficient to operate a large works program efficiently.

Mr. SOUTH. Therefore it was largely a matter of economy so as to make more money available for people in direct need of relief? That is entirely possible?

Mrs. WOODWARD. I think that is very true. In any event, they have carried on their work most efficiently.

Mr. SOUTH. I was interested in Mrs. Flanagan's statement that the fear that the theater, as constituted, was in competition with private industry of various kinds was somewhat on the decline. Is it not your opinion that that evil is somewhat subsiding?

Mrs. WOODWARD. That it is not in competition?

Mr. SOUTH. You feel that it is not competitive?

Mrs. WOODWARD. Yes; I think that is true. We are creating new audiences for the theater.

Mr. SOUTH. Let me ask you this: What are the qualifications or requirements for a person who is an applicant for a position with the theater?

Mrs. WOODWARD. Well, I would like Mrs. Flanagan to answer that, because she is the national director.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Flanagan, would you please be kind enough to take the witness stand again? And let me thank you again, Mrs. Woodward, for the splendid cooperation you are giving this committee to ascertain the facts.

Now, Mr. Reporter, will you read the question that Congressman South asked of Mrs. Woodward?
(The question was read, as follows:)
What are the qualifications or requirements for a person who is an applicant for a position with the theater?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. The first qualification is that he be on the relief rolls. I am speaking now of the 9 out of 10. The first qualification is that he be on the relief rolls; then that he be a professional theater person-that is, that he has, by virtue of his training and the major aptitude of his life in a certain field, justified his position in that field; that he has accomplished a certain amount, either by talent or by years of experience, in his chosen field.

Of course, one great problem that comes up immediately is that in the living theater we must have a certain proportion of youth, and we have, understandably enough, chiefly people of middle age. Very early in our project we discussed this with the theater unions, and they recognized that fact we must have a certain proportion of youth. We have used our 10-percent "spots" in that way, and we have sometimes taken on people who would not be professionals if you restricted the definition only to people who had performed on the commercial stage.

Mr. SOUTH. Thank you. That covers it so far as what I had in mind. Let me ask you this additional question: You have indicated that admission fees amounted to about a million dollars, and the Rockefeller Institute and the radio had contributed rather liberally. Now, then, could you estimate the approximate percent of the total funds used that have been furnished by such contributions-that is, money coming from other than Government appropriations would constitute about what percent of the total?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. I think that is a very important question and I should prefer to work on those figures and give them to you later if I may have that permission. Our finance procedure has required the reporting of admission receipts only. These have amounted to approximately $1,100,000 up to December 31, 1937. This is roughly equivalent to 4 percent of the cost of project operation.

Since the Federal theater project is a federally sponsored project there has been no strict reporting of contributions from cooperating sponsors, who are not the same as official sponsors on local projects. Information regarding assistance from cooperating sponsors would only be in the nature of an estimate. We are endeavoring to gather such information at the present time.

Mr. SOUTH. Yes. One further question along that line. I am sure from what you have already stated that you think that the time is not ripe now for private contributions to such a program on a big scale. Do you think we might hope at some future time for such private contributions?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. We see indications all over the country of a growth of interest on the part of citizens, but the time is not ripe to feel they will assume the full burden.

Mr. CONNERY. A few moments ago you mentioned the Federal theater of the air and, incidentally, I am personally very appreciative of the fine work that has been done by the Federal theater. I have had a good opportunity to watch the work in Massachusetts, where John B. Mack is doing a fine job.

Mrs. FLANAGAN. I am glad to hear that.

Mr. CONNERY. And do you get complete cooperation from the radio-broadcasting stations, or the networks?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Yes; we have had very remarkable cooperation.

Mr. CONNERY. Do you pay for any time at all?


Mr. CONNERY. Do you have any difficulty in getting time?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. No; we have had no difficulty.

Mr. CONNERY. None at all?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. The chief problem has been that they wanted to know what our program would be, and they have been intensely interested in such things as epochal events and, as I indicated, they have followed the lead of the Federal theater of the air along many of the major lines now being followed by the big radio stations. In fact, they are asking us to confer with them on a number of their new major programs.

Mr. CONNERY. But you pay for no time?

Mrs. FLANAGAN. No; we pay for no time.

Mr. STEFAN. I do not think I have any more questions, except I would like to tell you I am more and more becoming a great respecter of women in certain executive positions, and more especially so today when we have had such wonderful women before us as Mrs. Woodward and Mrs. Flanagan. It is illuminating to me.

The CHAIRMAN. I am very thankful to my distinguished friend from Nebraska (Mr. Stefan) when he pays his tribute to these women and for the fine work they are doing. I discovered that some 30 years ago, when I voted to put women on a parity with men and to give them the right to vote. I think when women are given a chance to participate in all aspects of our life, we will get a greater abundance of life. This testimony, to me, is the finest testimony I have heard given before this committee since I have been a member of it.

I want to thank you for your splendid contribution, Mrs. Woodward, and to you, Mrs. Flanagan, and all of your assistants throughout the Nation.

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Thank you.

Mr. SACKS. May I say now I have had considerable contact with Dean Baker, in Pennsylvania, through my connections with the W. P. A., and I want to say you have a fine set-up in Pennsylvania.

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. SACKS. Because what the chairman says leaves a lot of us on this side out here on the limb, I want to say that I discovered years ago the value of the female of the species both in governmental work and private work, and I accepted one of them a number of years ago myself.

Mrs. FLANAGAN. Thank you very much.

More information about the book Voices from the Federal Theatre is available at


Media & bookseller inquiries regarding review copies, events, and interviews can be directed to the publicity department at or (608) 263-0734. (If you want to examine a book for possible course use, please see our Course Books page. If you want to examine a book for possible rights licensing, please see Rights & Permissions.)

A presskit is available for Voices from the Federal Theatre

Table of Contents | Reviews | Author's photo | Author's bio | Cover image | Images from the book

Home | Books | Journals | Events | Textbooks | Authors | Related | Search | Contact | Order

If you have trouble accessing any page in this web site, contact the web manager.

© 2004, The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System