Chapter 11: Quartermaster Laundry and Dry Cleaning Operations
The Quartermaster Corps, by making provision for clean clothing through the operation of laundries and dry cleaning plants, performed a special service that contributed immeasurably to the health, comfort, and well-being of the soldier. This was a service of comparatively recent development in the Army, for until 1901 the enlisted man had been left to take care of his laundry needs as best he could.
At that time efforts were made at the post level to assist military personnel in obtaining prompt and regular laundry service at reasonable rates. Laundries, operated by civilian personnel, were organized at some of the larger Army posts by post exchange officers who utilized post exchange funds for the purpose inasmuch as the Army was not granted appropriations for laundries or authorized to operate them. Post exchange councils prescribed prices for laundry work and salaries for laundry personnel. In most instances, the facilities were commercial laundries operated as a post exchange feature under revokable licenses that were issued to firms to enable them to furnish laundry service to stations. In addition to administering the post exchange laundries, the councils also controlled relations with commercial laundries serving the various posts.1
In 1909 Congress gave the QMC authority to establish its own laundries with funds provided in the appropriations for “General Supplies,” and subsequent appropriation acts made provision for their maintenance.2 As a consequence, the Corps established fourteen small steam laundries in the years before World War I, but the operation of these post laundries was of a strictly limited nature, since they were constructed only in the absence of other facilities. They were not established at posts where post exchange laundries or commercial facilities were functioning satisfactorily. The operation of the Quartermaster post laundries was completely decentralized. They were administered by the post quartermasters, who rendered all returns and money accounts as prescribed by regulations. These laundries were intended to be self-sustaining, their expenses of operation and maintenance being met from the prices fixed for the work done. These prices varied widely, however, un-
der the prevailing system of decentralization. The lack of uniformity also applied to the quality of the work performed, since the OQMG set no standards for laundering and exercised no over-all supervision of operations.3
With the declaration of war in 1917 and the concentration of large numbers of men at cantonments, the laundry problem assumed serious proportions. Not only did laundry service have to be furnished for officers and men at camps and for Army hospitals, but facilities also had to be provided overseas because the Secretary of War delegated responsibility for organizing and operating laundry companies for overseas duty to The Quartermaster General under the National Defense Act of 1916.
Then, too, the fact that the money clothing allowance for enlisted men was abolished made all clothing issued government property and placed upon the government the responsibility for cleaning, repairing, and pressing it. The OQMG therefore took steps to construct government-owned laundries at the larger camps, and on 9 August 1918 the Secretary of War authorized the construction of nineteen cantonment laundries at a cost of $300,000 each.4
One of the most important aspects of laundry activities during World War I was the development of a mobile laundry unit for use overseas near the front. This unit grew out of the need to disinfect and clean clothing at the “wash-up” and “delousing stations.” The direct relationship between clean clothing and sanitary conditions in the Army brought the laundry function of the Corps into close association with the functions of bathing and disinfestation.5
Except for one cantonment laundry,6 all were abandoned at the close of the war, but the large quantity of laundry machinery purchased during the war enabled the OQMG to establish laundries on a larger scale in the postwar period than in the years preceding 1917.7 While some mobile laundries were set up at various stations along the Mexican border, they were gradually taken out of active circulation and their equipment was installed in available buildings to provide fixed-type laundries.
By the end of the 1920s the QMC had installed forty Quartermaster laundries as well as four dry cleaning plants at major installations in the United States and its possessions. Quartermaster operation of dry cleaning plants as adjuncts to laundries dated from World War I. The large quantities of woolen clothing and blankets that needed dry cleaning led to a plan for the construction and operation of government-owned dry cleaning plants, but this project was abandoned with the signing of the Armistice. Not until 1920 were such plants erected and operated as part of the laundry service.8
Further expansion or even adequate maintenance of these laundries and dry cleaning plants in the decades before World War II was handicapped by the meager funds granted by Congress for this purpose. The number of laundries tended
to decrease as stations were abandoned. By 1939 the QMC was operating thirty-four laundries, five of which included dry cleaning plants. Furthermore, during these years the laundry equipment of most installations became obsolete and needed to be replaced.9
Actually the continued existence of Quartermaster laundries during this period was threatened. Opposition to the laundry service provided for the Army by the Corps came from the organized lobby of laundry owners who complained of unfair and unnecessary competition. These charges became more persistent and pointed as the economic depression increased the importance to commercial laundries of each potential customer.10 As a consequence, QMC representatives had to appear regularly at Congressional hearings to defend the operation of Quartermaster laundries. In 1932, for example, the OQMG prepared a special report that was submitted to a Congressional committee investigating government competition with private enterprise. In transmitting the report to the committee’s chairman, the Secretary of War officially opposed the abolition of the Quartermaster laundries as “uneconomical and contrary to the public interest.”11 Congress renewed the necessary appropriation, but opposition to the operation of Quartermaster laundries continued.
While the OQMG struggled to maintain a laundry service for the Army in the years following World War I, it was at the same time developing standardized procedures and methods of operation for the laundries under its control. These developments were initiated by the publication of two Army Regulations that became the basic documents for guiding the procedure and operation of Quartermaster laundries.12 Issued in the summer of 1923, these regulations provided the means for standardizing laundry activities to a degree unknown in the years before World War I.
Then there had been little need for close supervision of laundries. They had purchased such supplies as they needed and had usually operated according to the commercial experience of the installation superintendent. Supplies accounted for approximately 15 percent of annual expenditures, and, inasmuch as the Laundry Branch, OQMG, after the war operated within budgetary limitations, it was warranted in controlling the quantities of laundry supplies consumed. On the basis of lists of requirements which were revised in the light of experience, the branch eventually developed a table of laundry allowances that was first issued to the field in 1930.13
By 1930, too, the branch offered a detailed statement of recommendations relating to laundry operations that was incorporated in the Handbook for
Quartermasters. It explained the use and proper method of handling various items of laundry equipment, described and analyzed the use of various kinds of laundry supplies, and recommended washing formulas for processing different items of clothing and equipage. This statement marked the beginning of standardized laundering methods. Standardization was further promoted by the specifications developed by the Laundry Branch for laundering done under commercial contract. First developed as a service for the Civilian Conservation Corps, these specifications were also applicable to contracts executed in behalf of the Regular Army. They not only established standards that private firms were to achieve in executing contract laundry work, but they helped as well to define those of Quartermaster laundries.
Administrative Organization
Developments Within the OQMG
By 1939 the varied and comprehensive experiences of the OQMG in maintaining and operating a laundry service for the Army during the previous twenty years had provided an adequate basis for meeting the laundry requirements of World War II. These were formidable only because they were so huge. To handle the task it was necessary for the OQMG to expand the administrative organization responsible for laundry operations.
In the years following World War I, this responsibility had been vested in the Supply Service, or Supply Division as it was later renamed, and administered in the decade of the twenties by the Laundry Branch. The close association of salvage, reclamation, and laundry operations initiated during World War I was continued in the postwar reorganization of the OQMG by placement of the Laundry Branch in the Salvage Division of the Supply Service.14 By 1930 the dwindling importance of salvage activities had resulted in the elimination of the Salvage Division, and responsibility for laundry operations was transferred to the Clothing and Equipage Branch of the Supply Division. By the end of the thirties OQMG administrators had once more returned to the idea of associating laundry, surplus property, and eventually salvage operations in a single branch within the Supply Division.15
On the eve of World War II, laundry activities were being administered by a section in the Laundry and Surplus Property Branch of the Supply Division. It prepared the regulations affecting Quartermaster laundries and dry cleaning plants, exercised over-all supervision of them, gave technical advice on specifications for supplies, machinery, and equipment, and approved their purchase. It prepared the budget estimates for these facilities and collaborated with the Construction Division in preparing floor plans for buildings and the arrangement of laundry machinery.
These activities were being handled by four persons in 1940, a situation that was soon changed by the impact of the rapid growth of the Army and the accompanying expansion of laundry facilities of newly established installations. Increased activities resulted in the redesignation of the Laundry Section as a branch in June
1941—a status it held for the duration of the war, although the functional reorganization of the OQMG in March of the following year caused the Laundry Branch to be shifted to the Service Installations Division with the breakup of the Supply Division. By that time its personnel had increased to fifteen civilians and six officers.16
Responsibilities of the Laundry Branch were somewhat modified by the functional reorganization of the OQMG. Thus the branch’s Fiscal Section and its personnel were transferred to the Fiscal Division in an effort to centralize all fiscal matters in one division and speed up the supply program by providing necessary funds promptly. Similarly, most of the procurement functions of the OQMG, including those of the Laundry Branch, were centralized in one Procurement Division.17 In lieu of making contracts with manufacturers, issuing procurement authorizations, and making payments as required, the Laundry Branch thereafter acted as a liaison in procurement and purchase matters. In practice, however, its procurement responsibilities were not appreciably lessened since it continued to prepare all necessary data for use by the Procurement Division.
Both equipment and machinery for installation in Quartermaster laundries and dry cleaning plants and supplies for their operation had to be procured. Supplies included expendable items—soaps, detergents, and special materials, such as ink, paint, and rust removers—for which Tables of Allowances had been set up as early as 1930 and later revised by the Laundry Branch on the basis of new information obtained from reports submitted from the field. Supplies also included housekeeping items such as brushes and mops, ironing and finishing supplies, and various machine accessories—sponge cotton cloth, needles, sewing machine oil, and pins. The maintenance of laundry service for the Army required the use of a wide variety of buttons, thread, and shears, while paper and twine had to be supplied for the wrapping and checking department of the laundries.
Under the functional organization of the OQMG, these supplies, which had formerly been procured by the Laundry Branch, became the responsibility of the General Supplies Branch of the Procurement Division. Actual procurement was accomplished by various depots, but as the supply of certain essential commodities dwindled, centralized procurement and distribution by special supply depots of the more important laundry supplies was increasingly emphasized. The Jersey City Quartermaster Depot, for example, became the central procuring agency for soaps and detergents after 1 July 1943 and for all authorized alkalis in January 1944.18 In this development as in all others, procurement and distribution of laundry supplies conformed to the general supply procedures of the OQMG.19
Purchase of equipment and machinery by the Laundry Branch during the first year and a half of the war was limited to the acquisition of machinery for
replacement purposes and for use in buildings already in existence. Responsibility for setting up laundry facilities and for procuring laundry machinery for initial installations and for use in new buildings was vested in the Corps of Engineers, to whom these functions had been transferred from the Construction Division, OQMG, late in 1941 along with all other construction activities of the QMC. Responsibility for initial procurement was separated from construction operations and returned to the OQMG in June 1943.20 Actually, the Corps of Engineers had never purchased items of laundry equipment even before this transfer; they had been procured by the Washington Quartermaster Depot upon direction of the Office of the Chief of Engineers. With the centralization of procurement in the OQMG, an efficient purchasing organization was established at the Jeffersonville Quartermaster Depot.21 The Chief of Engineers retained responsibility for the determination of requirements and the authorization of funds for laundry equipment used in new facilities, either constructed or acquired.
The Corps of Engineers remained responsible for constructing new laundry facilities. The Laundry Branch, OQMG, maintained a close relationship with that Corps, continuing to authorize the construction of laundries as it had in the past, determining whether existing commercial facilities could take care of local needs or whether another Quartermaster laundry, not unreasonably far from the site in question, could handle a camp’s requirements.
At the same time that procurement responsibility was returned to the OQMG, responsibility for the specifications and design of laundry equipment and for the control and administration of the stockpile of laundry and dry cleaning equipment for new facilities both in the zone of interior and in the theaters was transferred from the Corps of Engineers to the QMC. This transfer was vigorously defended by The Quartermaster General when the Corps of Engineers later sought a modification of the directive.22
Within the OQMG these responsibilities were distributed among the divisions according to the functional organization of the office. Thus the preparation of specifications for laundry equipment was assigned to the Military Planning Division, purchase and inspection to the Procurement Division, storage and issue to the Storage and Distribution Division, and the administration of the stockpile of equipment to the Laundry Branch of the Service Installations Division.23
The changes made in procurement responsibility modified relationships between the QMC and the Medical Department. Hospital laundries were built only when other facilities for handling hospital bulk work, in particular Quartermaster laundries which processed the work free, were not available. Such laundries operated under rules and regulations promulgated by the Medical Department and were not under the jurisdiction of The Quartermaster General. Their construction, however, did fall within the province of the
Construction Division, OQMG, during the emergency period and later passed to the Corps of Engineers. The constructing agency provided the funds for initial procurement of equipment. All additional equipment was procured through the Laundry Branch, funds being provided by The Surgeon General’s Office. This was in accordance with regulations that made the QMC responsible for the procurement of supplies used by two or more branches of the Army. After the transfer of procurement responsibility for laundry and dry cleaning equipment in the summer of 1943, the Laundry Branch initiated all procurement for hospital laundries as well as for Quartermaster laundries. Subsequently, the Medical Department was directed to transfer to the QMC all funds held for the purchase of laundry and dry cleaning equipment and supplies. Thereafter such supplies and equipment were furnished to laundries operated in conjunction with hospitals without reimbursem*nt.24
The operation of laundries, too, posed problems of mutual interest and required the cooperation of the OQMG and The Surgeon General’s Office. The latter controlled all matters relating to the protection of health while the Laundry Branch, OQMG, offered technical advice in its field. Until the summer of 1944, hospital laundries and Quartermaster laundries were under the staff supervision of The Surgeon General’s Office and the OQMG, respectively. At that time, in view of the “critical labor situation all over the country and the dwindling availability of commercial laundry service,” Headquarters, ASF, became greatly interested in insuring maximum utilization and efficiency of operation of Army-owned laundry and dry cleaning facilities. As a result, staff responsibility for all laundries, including those at general hospitals, was vested in The Quartermaster General.25 He was expected, however, to adhere to the detailed standards for all hospital laundry service furnished by The Surgeon General, and to maintain close liaison with him in reference to such activities.
As the war in Europe drew to a close, the changes in assignment of functions made in 1943 were defined with greater precision. At that time, The Quartermaster General was assigned responsibility for the specifications for, and the purchase, inspection, storage, and issue of, all fixed and mobile laundry and dry cleaning equipment operated by the Army. He was also responsible for determining requirements and providing funds for mobile laundry and dry cleaning equipment and for all replacements. On the other hand, the Chief of Engineers administered these last two functions as they applied to equipment for newly acquired or newly constructed fixed facilities. Similarly, the Commanding General, AAF, the Chief of Ordnance, and the Chief of the Chemical Warfare Service were responsible for determining requirements and providing funds for the fixed equipment used in plants performing specialized operations for these branches. In determining requirements for equipment at new facilities and additional equipment at existing facilities, the Chief of Engineers and The Quartermaster General consulted with the Commanding General, AAF, with regard to those facilities at installations under his command and with The Surgeon General
in reference to those operated in conjunction with hospitals.26
Relations With the Field
Quartermaster laundries and dry cleaning plants were established at posts or camps in the zone of interior, and responsibility for their proper operation was vested in the commanding general of the corps area within whose jurisdiction they were located. Technical supervision of these facilities was a function of The Quartermaster General. He prescribed the methods, standards, regulations, and allowances for the operation of the installations, determined production standards, suggested methods for improvement of operations, and made technical inspections.
The rapid expansion of Quartermaster laundries beginning with the emergency period and the increasing need for closer supervision of them raised problems in relationships between the field and the OQMG. For example, commanding officers of the corps areas had early been advised to station experienced laundry officers at each Quartermaster installation. Inspection, however, revealed that posts were operating either with officers untrained in Quartermaster methods and procedures or with trained officers who were assigned additional duties that interfered with those relating to laundry operations.27 Such inspection as was possible with the limited number of personnel in the OQMG restricted advisory work to one visit to each camp annually. Under the circ*mstances, the inadequacies of laundry operations suggested the need for more frequent inspections. In September 1942, therefore, five inspection areas were established, each under a laundry inspector. He was expected to visit the QMC laundries in his area every six months and make such additional special inspections as might be directed by the Laundry Branch. He worked in close cooperation with the service command, sending word of an impending inspection well in advance of his visit; in no case was he to interfere with the normal operations of a service command but he was to function as a technical adviser to help the commanding officer achieve maximum results.28
The technical inspector also conducted investigations to determine the necessity for constructing new laundries or for acquiring commercial facilities for operation by the QMC, and he made arrangements for commercial service under contract. The importance of these investigations was pointed out by the chief of the Laundry Branch:
From past experience it has been found that with practically no exceptions, Service Commands will concur with recommendations from posts, camps and stations for the construction of new laundries or acquisition of commercial facilities. Usually such concurrence is made with little or no effort made to determine the necessity for such construction or acquisition, or the availability of service from commercial plants or nearby Quartermaster Corps installations. Such experience has indicated that recommendations by the Service Commands were not based upon facts and that independent investigation by qualified O.Q.M.G. Technical Laundry
Inspectors were usually required to prevent unnecessary duplication or acquisition of laundry and dry cleaning facilities.29
Such facts caused the OQMG in the summer of 1943 to oppose a proposal by Headquarters, ASF, to decentralize continuing inspections to the field.30 On the other hand, the rapid growth of the Army and the increase of administrative problems had necessitated a greater delegation of responsibility to the field. Thus to expedite laundry operations all matters pertaining to the hiring of laundry employees, including the determination of wage rates, had been decentralized to the service commands in the fall of 1942.
It was not to be expected that the exercise of staff supervision and actual operation of the laundries could be accomplished without some disagreement over authority. The Laundry Branch had established a system of inspection, on the basis of which it prepared and sent recommendations to the service commands, suggesting, for example, that unsatisfactory laundry officers be replaced, incompetent workers be removed, machinery be repaired, and supply policies be brought into accord with regulations. However, it was not always easy to get action on these suggestions, and inspectors upon returning later to an installation too often found nothing had been done.31
In a number of instances in 1944 inspectors found that laundry officers were being assigned additional duties unrelated to laundry operations, though this had been prohibited by instructions to the field as early as 1941. As a consequence, the OQMG called attention anew to this directive and re-emphasized the importance from an operating standpoint of having an experienced, well-trained officer in charge of a laundry. The Commanding General, Seventh Service Command, took exception to what he considered an infringement of his authority—”a typical illustration of the growing tendency on the part of Staff Divisions and Technical Services, ASF for a centralized control of service command post activities as well as those at service command headquarters.” Hampered by drastic reductions in overhead personnel and yet responsible for operations, he felt that commanders ought to have full latitude to assign personnel to obtain their maximum effective use. Although the Deputy Chief of Staff for Service Commands, ASF, was in sympathy, The Quartermaster General was quick to point out that Quartermaster laundry operations were a $24,000,000 a year business which could not be entrusted to inexperienced, untrained personnel. Where trained laundry technicians were not employed, plants operated unsatisfactorily and losses were incurred. The Chief of Staff himself had stressed the necessity for improving laundry service, and in the interest of clarifying responsibilities The Quartermaster General suggested the promulgation of a new directive that he had already submitted to Headquarters, ASF.32
The need for this directive was heightened by the changed situation in the zone of interior, where by the summer of 1944 the QMC “was over the hump” in providing laundry service. Instead of an expansion program, post quartermasters were soon to be confronted with the necessity of placing their laundries on a stand-by basis, and of disposing of those becoming surplus to War Department needs as stations were inactivated throughout the country. At the same time, there had to be a maximum use of existing laundries and increased efficiency of operation in order to provide the largest number of stations with the maximum service possible—by multiple-shift operations, if necessary. The accelerated movement of troops overseas had eased considerably the task of providing laundry service for the posts and camps, but, as the pressure upon the laundries decreased, officers and men tended to become more critical of the service given. The Laundry Branch, sensitive to these developments, placed an increasing emphasis on the quality of the work performed rather than on production goals as in the past, and in the interest of effecting an improved laundry service drafted a new directive.33
This directive was published in August 1944. It was aimed at the promotion of “prompt service, elimination and prevention of backlogs, adherence to established standards of quality in performance of work, and maximum utilization of facilities to provide adequate service.”34 The directive reiterated that The Quartermaster General would continue to function as the staff agency of the Commanding General, ASF, and to have technical control of the operations of all laundries, including for the first time those operating at general hospitals. This technical control, it was pointed out, included “formulation of policies, and the authority to issue instructions covering the utilization of equipment, plant methods, plant lay-outs, supply allowances, and procedures, and detailed directives to insure uniformity of quality of work performed.”
Operating control, on the other hand, continued to be vested in the commanding generals of the service commands, except for disinfestation plants at embarkation ports for which the Chief of Transportation was responsible, and AAF rag laundries, a responsibility of the Commanding General, AAF. The Quartermaster General was to assist the service commands by periodic inspections and to direct corrective action where necessary. In the following month operating control of laundries at Air Forces stations was transferred from the service commands to the Commanding General, AAF. Insofar as the QMC was concerned, this transfer had no effect upon its responsibility for technical supervision but simply meant that henceforth the OQMG would deal directly with the AAF instead of the service command on all matters pertaining to laundries at Air Forces stations.35
In the light of difficulties that had been encountered, the August directive again stated that The Quartermaster General
would determine the need for the establishment or expansion of Army-operated facilities as well as the need for discontinuance of any of them. Moreover, he would decide on changes in their operating capacities, such as increasing the number of shifts in order to meet demands or eliminate backlogs, and rule on all matters relating to commercial service, though the service commands would still negotiate and award contracts in accordance with regulations. Finally, his responsibilities in personnel matters were clarified through the authorization granted him to direct the transfer and assignment of laundry superintendents to all installations, and of laundry officers at all except AAF stations when this would improve operations. He could recommend transfer and reassignment of laundry officers at AAF installations, but action was dependent upon the decision taken by the Commanding General, AAF.
To carry out the objectives of the program of improved laundry service, the commanding general of each service command was directed to establish at his headquarters a director of laundry service. The Quartermaster General assisted the service command in selecting a qualified and competent officer for this position. The directors, under the supervision of the service command quartermasters, were empowered to carry out the provisions of the August directive for the commanding generals of the service commands and The Quartermaster General.36
Late in October the aims of this program were furthered by a conference of laundry technical advisers held at the OQMG. The problems facing the Laundry Branch and its personnel in the field were explored and the scope and significance of the new directive thoroughly analyzed.
Expansion of Fixed Laundries
Construction
In 1940 there were only thirty-three Quartermaster fixed laundries, twenty-nine of which were in the United States and four in its overseas possessions. Five of those within the country included dry cleaning plants. When the Army first began to expand in the emergency period, The Quartermaster General adopted a policy of constructing Quartermaster laundries at most of the large camps, but the availability of commercial service for smaller camps was to be investigated. At that time laundry machinery could be readily obtained, and the construction policy proved a sound one in view of later developments, such as loss of skilled labor, low priorities, and the tremendous increase in the volume of civilian laundry work in defense plant areas which hampered commercial laundries in providing service for the Army.37
Opposing government competition and protesting that they could handle all laundering for camps in their vicinities, commercial laundries in some instances were successful in curtailing the construction program. On the other hand, the expense involved and the large amounts of critical materials used in building Quartermaster laundries made it impossible for the QMC to provide sufficient facilities for the Army. It therefore became the rule to build Army laundries only when service could not otherwise be obtained. The OQMG encouraged cooperation between military installations and commercial laundries to
secure adequate service. The need for construction was further modified by the use of commercial laundry pools and by Army lease or purchase of commercial facilities. By mid-1943 it was established policy to obtain commercial service wherever it was possible to do so and to construct laundries and dry cleaning plants only where service was unavailable. Civilian plants were taken over only when they were suitable and commercial service could not be obtained.38
Use of Laundry Pools
Early in the emergency, commercial plants had affirmed their willingness and capacity to handle Army laundry work, but by mid-1941 they had become “largely reconciled” to letting the Army do its own washing and were “quite willing to let it build as many laundries as it wants.”39 Barring certain exceptional civilian laundry setups, the industry was being forced by circ*mstances beyond its control to admit that it could not meet Army demands and that the QMC was doing a better job in its own interest. “An ever-expanding demand upon civilian laundries, growing out of rapidly swelling war industries, aggravated by lack of labor and supplies, has brought about this condition and not any lack of willingness on the laundryman’s part.”40 While the volume of civilian work was proving more attractive in some instances than assuming responsibility for Army requirements, most thoughtful representatives of the industry realized that they could not decry government “competition” and then abandon Army work without suffering the consequences. The troops had to be provided with laundry service, and if private firms did not furnish it the government would, either by commandeering laundries or building its own.41
The QMC was more than willing to give laundrymen ample opportunity to prove their ability to satisfy Army requirements and to come to terms with individual commercial laundries or combinations of them. There was no one best plan for handling Army laundry work, and various methods were evolved for pooling commercial facilities, not all of which, however, proved satisfactory. Combinations were created in the Boston area, Miami, Topeka, Memphis, Nashville, Youngstown, Des Moines, St. Paul, and elsewhere during 1941–42.
One of the largest of such pools was organized in the Boston area to provide service for the 50,000 trainees stationed at Fort Devens and Camp Edwards. The OQMG originally had planned to build a laundry at Fort Devens in the first cantonment building program in 1940, but commercial laundries, fearful of losing their skilled workers to the Quartermaster facility, agreed to provide the necessary service, and the OQMG canceled its construction plans. Laundrymen in the area organized the Defense Laundries and Dry Cleaners, Inc., to furnish five-day service, but the arrangement never proved satisfactory though it operated for two years. By January 1943 the OQMG had to acquire and operate two commercial laundries as Quartermaster facilities in order to supplement the work of the trade association.
Six months later it was necessary to acquire another commercial laundry since Defense Laundries and Dry Cleaners, Inc., informed officials at Fort Devens that it would discontinue service on 24 July.42
A more successful agreement was negotiated between the AAF Technical Training Command at Miami Beach, Fla., and the local laundrymen. So effective was the “Miami Plan” that it served as a model for similar arrangements elsewhere. Confronted with the usual variation in prices, irregular service, and similar difficulties, the commanding officer called the laundrymen together and made it clear that Army needs would have to be met. For their part Army officials took steps to standardize procedure on pickups and deliveries, for which Army trucks were used. Deductions were permitted from payrolls to satisfy indebtedness to the commercial pool. On the other hand, the pool clearing house, called Service Laundries, Inc., organized the production of its members, adopted a piece rate with graduated charges for enlisted men and officers, and collected the money due the laundries, deducting 5 percent to pay its operating expenses and to provide both a reserve fund for retiring its organization and a sinking fund against deferred payments by the Army.43 So well managed was this pool and so promptly were accounts adjusted that losses to Miami laundries by defaulting soldiers were negligible.
The difficulty experienced by laundrymen in collecting laundry charges from individual soldiers posed one of the major problems for the Army in obtaining commercial service. Bulk work—that is, the laundering or cleaning of such government-owned items as mattress covers, sheets, and pillow cases—offered no difficulties in effecting satisfactory arrangements inasmuch as prewar developments had long before clarified procedures. On the other hand, until early in 1943 the Army was not permitted to draw up a government contract providing for the processing of the personal clothes of the soldier.
Peacetime arrangements had permitted “companies and similar units including hospitals” at posts, camps, or stations to contract with private firms for the laundry work of enlisted men, the company commanders usually collecting the charges each month. In the case of nonpayment by enlisted men for their laundry work, the pay of the defaulters could be stopped to satisfy their indebtedness.44 Such arrangements did not have the status of government contracts, but the obligations incurred could be met easily since the number of men at any given post was small. They proved highly unsatisfactory, however, when the Army increased in size and the constant movement of troops impeded the collection of payments due private firms. The problem assumed serious proportions, particularly when in the fall of 1942 as a result of a War Department directive, credit privileges were curtailed and all services obtained through post exchanges, including laundry work and dry cleaning by private firms, were put on a cash basis.45
The effect was to place upon commercial laundries the burden of making their own collection of charges due them, there-
by increasing the amount of paper work and the personnel needed to operate collection and delivery stations and resulting in the end in higher prices for the soldier. The director of the Service Installations Division, OQMG, argued that many firms would lose interest in Army business because of the added accounting burden. He felt that a contract would be legally feasible under the authority that the Army had to deduct charges from the payroll, and he urged its use. This would mean that the government would assume financial responsibility for bills unpaid because of death, desertion, or for other reasons. The proposed change would also simplify and promote more satisfactory relations between the Army and the commercial laundries.46 Furthermore, he pointed out that inasmuch as credit was allowed soldiers patronizing Quartermaster laundries, the War Department directive discriminated against private firms.
Early in 1943, therefore, the War Department permitted post quartermasters or supply officers to execute government contracts for commercial laundry and dry cleaning services for enlisted men, the charges for which were to be paid from funds authorized to regional Quartermaster depots for the purpose. The government was to be reimbursed by deductions from the monthly payrolls. Within a month this directive was modified to permit the use of any rate or combination of rates, whether monthly or weekly, and by the pound or piece, thereby permitting a greater latitude in the kind of arrangements that could be made by the posts.47
In addition to instituting the contract system, the Laundry Branch was instrumental in obtaining a regulation that permitted reimbursem*nt to commercial laundries for unclaimed Army clothing. There was no way in which the laundryman could recover his losses unless he disposed of such clothing to the public. This procedure was undesirable, and instructions were therefore issued to the field making appropriations available for the recovery of such clothing. Proprietors of laundries and dry cleaning establishments were to be paid a reasonable service charge for the laundering or dry cleaning of all unclaimed government clothing that they returned. This clothing was thereupon restored to stock for Army use.48
Purchase and Lease of Laundries
While it made use of available commercial laundry and dry cleaning service, the OQMG also found it necessary in the fiscal year 1943 to inaugurate a policy of purchasing or leasing commercial laundries and operating them as Army facilities.49 This policy was based primarily on the need to conserve critical materials, but the OQMG was also motivated in some instances by its inability to obtain satisfactory service from the laundry owners. Whether or not to acquire a plant in a given area was determined by a Laundry Branch representative who surveyed the facilities and ascertained whether the owner was willing to negotiate a lease,
Pressing clothing in a Quartermaster laundry, Assam, India.
though consent of the owner was not requisite. The Corps of Engineers then sent appraisers and technicians who arranged for purchase or lease of the property, depending upon the situation encountered. If so much new machinery had to be installed or other improvements made that a lease ultimately would be more expensive than outright purchase, the plant was purchased. New machinery installed in a leased plant remained government property, but the Army agreed to make it available to the owner at “reasonable prices” if he so desired.
The appraisers discussed the terms of lease or purchase, which were based upon an annual percentage of the Army’s appraisal of real estate and equipment. No compensation was given the owner for good will or rolling stock, which he was free to dispose of as best he could. If qualified, the laundry owner or his managers were commissioned as captains or first lieutenants and placed in charge of the plant. Most of the laundry employees were retained as civil service personnel at the same wage rates they had previously received.50
The number of commercial laundries leased or purchased began to rise steadily after June 1942. By March of the following year there were ten, and by June the number had increased to fifteen.51 The Army
Table 19: QMC Fixed Laundry and Dry Cleaning Plant Activities: Fiscal Years 1940–1945
| Fiscal Year | Number of Fixed Laundries | Number of Dry Cleaning Plants | Thousands of Units | ||||||
| Total | ZI | Overseas | Total | ZI | Overseas | Pieces of Laundry | Bundles of Laundry | Pieces of Dry Cleaning | |
| 1940 | 33 | 29 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 103,838 | 2,975 | 413 |
| 1941 | 71 | 65 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 195,416 | 6,312 | 571 |
| 1942 | 92 | 79 | 13 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 720,688 | 25,223 | 829 |
| 1943 | 167 | 136 | 31 | 27 | 14 | 13 | 1,496,594 | 57,293 | 3,145 |
| 1944 | 234 | 156 | 78 | 61 | 26 | 35 | 2,146,153 | 78,357 | 10,444 |
| 1945 | 287 | 193 | 94 | 77 | 27 | 50 | 1,976,108 | 60,497 | 18,041 |
Source: 1949 Statistical Yearbook of the Quartermaster Corps, p. 102.
had met its requirements by the summer of 1943, and The Quartermaster General advised laundrymen operating within a fifty-mile to sixty-mile radius of camps that they might refuse to do laundry work for the Army without fear of facing acquisition proceedings if the Quartermaster laundry was not operating at full capacity. He announced in the fall of the year that further acquisition or building of Quartermaster laundries was unlikely.52
Through construction, lease, and purchase, Quartermaster fixed laundries and dry cleaning plants expanded enormously in number during the emergency and the war years. The number of laundries in the zone of interior and overseas had almost tripled by 30 June 1942, and when the war ended in Europe they totaled 287, of which 193 were in the United States. Before the war there had been only half a dozen fixed facilities overseas in American possessions. The war brought a rapid multiplication of them from thirteen in 1942 to ninety-four at the end of the war. At the peak of their operations in 1944, the fixed laundries in the zone of interior and overseas handled some 2,150,000,000 pieces of laundry, or more than 78,000,000 bundles.53
Before June 1943 the Laundry Branch did not build or acquire dry cleaning plants because there was much less need for them than for laundries. Certain items—woolen shirts and blankets, for ex-ample—could be laundered under controlled conditions instead of dry cleaned. By putting on extra shifts the professional cleaners had been able to handle larger amounts of work, but it was recognized that dry cleaning service was not adequate. Army needs became more imperative as dwindling supplies and labor and the drafting of owners increased the mortality rate of dry cleaning plants. At the same time the increased quantities of salvage from overseas necessitated uninterrupted service to return used clothing and equipage to stock. Hence the Laundry Branch expanded its facilities by acquisition and construction with the result that it more than doubled their number by 30 June 1943. At the end of the war there were
Mobile Semitrailer Laundry Units at Camp Adair, Ore.
seventy-seven dry cleaning plants, of which twenty-seven were in the zone of interior and fifty were overseas. They handled approximately 18,000,000 pieces of dry cleaning in the fiscal year 1945.54
Use of Mobile Laundries
The service provided overseas by fixed laundries was supplemented by that furnished by mobile laundries operated by Quartermaster laundry units, which followed the troops into the theaters of operations. The use of mobile laundry equipment dated from World War I, but little effort had been expended to bring it up-to-date before World War II. Handicapped by a lack of funds, the OQMG had been unable to make much progress with experimental units until 1940. By the following year, mobile laundry equipment, utilizing a van-type trailer drawn by a tractor, had been developed and standardized through the cooperative efforts of the Laundry Branch and the Motor Transport Division, OQMG. Although this equipment was a great improvement over that used in 1918, its deficiencies were promptly revealed in its operation in North Africa. Subsequently, under the guidance of the Research and Development Branch, a more satisfactory design was developed.55
Unfortunately, development and procurement came too late and none of this
Mobile semitrailer laundry units on Guadalcanal, September 1944.
newly designed and improved mobile equipment was put into operation during the war. Although approximately 2,000 of the old van-type semimobile laundries were procured and most of them operated overseas,56 there never was a sufficient number to take care of all laundry needs in the theaters. Moreover, their limited mobility confined their use largely to rear areas. As a result, the American soldier in many instances applied his ingenuity to the problem of maintaining cleanliness and developed and operated makeshift laundries that supplemented the efforts of the mobile units in all theaters.57
Operation of Quartermaster Laundries
Quartermaster fixed laundries in the zone of interior were established primarily to provide service for enlisted ,men, but they also handled the work of other groups and organizations. If the capacity of a facility became overtaxed for any reason—for example, because of scarcity of labor—priorities for service were established. Enlisted men’s clothing had top priority, followed by the laundering of government-owned property such as that used in
Makeshift washing machine built from a steel drum and a motorcycle, Port Moresby, New Guinea.
hospitals and in the Army Transport Service and accumulated at repair shops in the course of reclamation operations. The laundry of officers and other authorized patrons, such as civilian employees, had the lowest priority. At hospital laundries, which eventually came under the control of The Quartermaster General, hospital work and the laundering of government-owned property had top priority. Next in order they handled the clothing of enlisted personnel, senior cadet nurses, authorized civilian attendants and employees, and officers.58
Laundry service to enlisted personnel was offered at a flat monthly rate. In 1941 an effort was made to enact legislation that would allow free laundry service to enlisted men, but the proposed act was deemed undesirable by the OQMG inasmuch as it would have discriminated against soldiers who did not happen to be stationed at camps possessing Quartermaster laundries.59 Various alternative suggestions proved unacceptable and for the duration of the war a flat rate of $1.50 a
month was set by The Quartermaster General. The single bundle rate was fifty cents.60 On the other hand, organizational work, such as the white clothing of cooks and bakers, and sheets, pillowcases, blankets, and other bedding, was laundered or dry cleaned free of charge. While laundry and dry cleaning services were provided without reimbursem*nt to any arm or service of the Army, other departments of the federal government were required to pay for them.
The resulting work load offered no special problems for the QMC beyond the familiar difficulties of establishing adequate facilities despite low priorities and shortages, of increasing operating efficiency through improved techniques and institution of multiple-shift operations, and of overcoming labor scarcities. While the burden of laundering and dry cleaning for enlisted men decreased as troops moved overseas, the renovating of used clothing and equipage turned in by troops upon their departure overseas as well as that shipped back from the theaters steadily increased in amount and importance. Such clothing and equipage had to be renovated rapidly not only to speed its return to stock and subsequent reissue but also to prevent undue deterioration, which resulted when these items remained soiled for prolonged periods of time. The main problem was to synchronize laundry and reclamation operations. The economical use of laundry facilities for this purpose could be accomplished easily when the responsibility for both laundry and reclamation operations was vested in the same officer. By 1944 relations between repair shops and laundries and dry cleaning plants had been adjusted and integrated to permit ready processing of the steady stream of clothing and equipage.
Shortage of labor was a major difficulty that the QMC shared with many industries whose low wage level resulted in a loss of workers to better-paying war industries. However, civilians employed in Quartermaster fixed laundries had the advantage of working under civil service regulations, which granted sick leave and other benefits that generally were superior to those provided by commercial laundries. While the QMC attempted to keep wage rates at the same level as those prevailing in nearby commercial facilities, overtime gave the worker an opportunity to augment his income.
As a consequence, laundry owners lost many of their skilled operators to Army installations, much to their vexation. In their efforts to find workers for laundries, post quartermasters frequently had to be cautioned about the repercussions that might result from the practice of indiscriminately attracting experienced employees from commercial firms. Laundry owners were further irritated because Quartermaster laundries did not share the task of training new workers in the face of the growing labor scarcity. To remedy this situation, the Laundry Branch worked out arrangements with the Civil Service Commission whereby an examination for “Laundry Trainee” was announced. This permitted Quartermaster laundries to hire personnel and train them on the job, paying them 20 percent less than regular employees during the training period. After that they could be recommended for promotion.61
This action eased somewhat the pressure upon commercial firms but did not
Prisoners of war at work, Fort Dix Quartermaster Post Laundry, August 1944.
settle the problem of labor shortage. To meet its needs, the OQMG sought, without success, adoption of a policy permitting the use of personnel in the Women’s Army Corps. It also urged the use of enlisted men in laundries located in areas of particularly acute labor scarcity, but early in the war there was little authority for permitting such use of enlisted men. Furthermore, higher authority did not favor the practice even when enlisted men were classified for limited service. Not until early in 1943 was a directive issued specifically permitting the employment of enlisted men in laundries.62
Prisoners of war offered a far more productive source of manpower. The Office of the Provost Marshal General broached the subject of using such labor to The Quartermaster General as early as the fall of 1942, but little immediate action followed although some internment camps were constructed at posts possessing Quartermaster laundries.63 While the OQMG was eager to use the labor of prisoners of war to relieve a situation in post laundries that was becoming progressively more acute, the Eastern and Western Defense
Commands rejected the idea.64 When The Adjutant General informed the service commands in the summer of 1943 that German prisoners of war might be used in post laundries where an adequate labor supply was not available, the Laundry Branch took steps to offer technical advice on, and urged the desirability of, using such labor. In time a body of experience in the employment of prisoners of war at laundries became available. Although an excellent work record was established at a number of camps, as a rule production by prisoners of war was not comparable to that of civilians. A survey of August 1944 indicated that their average efficiency was only 50 percent that of civilian personnel.65
In their operation of Quartermaster laundries, supervisors and laundry officers were guided by the technical information furnished by the Laundry Branch. Early in the war the bulk of this information was found in a number of pamphlets, manuals, circulars, and regulations. By the end of 1944 much of the data had been brought together in two publications—a manual and a bulletin—that established standard operating procedures.66 These publications took cognizance of changed conditions that required modifications of laundry practices as a result, for example, of the variations in the types and textures of the clothing processed. They also offered detailed information to laundry supervisors who had the task of training new employees and of superintending the growth of their laundries in accordance with standard laundry procedures.
Although during a greater part of the emergency and the war years quality work was of less importance than the quantity of essential production accomplished, the Laundry Branch nevertheless issued special instructions to ensure the proper washing and finishing of garments as well as the proper use of equipment and supplies. Washing formulas had been developed many years before the war, but they were revised in 1941 and again in 1943 to permit “a good quality of washing with a maximum safety factor in order that they might be used by inexperienced personnel.67 It is true that quality production in all aspects of laundering could not be emphasized before the fall of 1944 when most of the troops had been transported overseas and the pressure for production was eased. Until that time the efforts of the Laundry Branch were devoted to the elimination of unwarranted delays in laundry service resulting from excessively heavy work schedules, inadequate planning, or insufficient personnel.
In addition to scrutinizing every phase of the laundry process to expedite the service offered, the Laundry Branch also made use of tests to arrive at more suitable formulas or methods of operation. Laundering tests were conducted under controlled conditions by the Quartermaster Board at Camp Lee to determine, for example, the causes for the felting of woolen socks and their excessive shrinkage in washing. The laundering process itself was investigated
to determine at which stage the greatest shrinkage was produced. Other tests were concerned with the effect of laundering upon color and redyeing of clothing and equipage.68
Private industry, particularly the American Institute of Laundering, also conducted tests for the QMC. A number of commercial firms cooperated in testing formulas designed to conserve chlorine and hypochlorites, which were important in the bleaching process. On the basis of data thus accumulated the OQMG formulated its recommendations. Tests conducted by both commercial and military agencies provided the Laundry Branch with a vast amount of data that enabled it to meet specific situations for which it might otherwise have been unprepared.
