contains the city of Newark, the Oranges, Montclair, and is the largest and wealthiest county in the State of New Jersey. The Veterans' Alliance is a sort of interparliamentary union of the various veterans' outfits from the Grand Army of the Republic down to the World War veterans' outfits, and I have been sent here to-day to show you gentlemen what the folks back home are thinking about veterans affairs. Now, if I should duplicate any of the arguments that have already been made by the various national organizations you will pardon me, I am sure, but if I bring you any new ideas whatsoever I will consider my time not wasted.

The issue of allowances to veterans is not an easy issue to solve. It is a moral issue. It involves moral problems, and no matter how easy it is to say that "This is right," and "Black is black," yet moral issues can not be solved so easily. Now, we believe that there is a duty on the part of the young man to serve in time of war, but we believe also that there is a corresponding duty on the part of the country for which that service is given to be grateful, to show gratitude to the veteran who has offered his life for his country. Now, we realize that the hysterical excitement of war, the passions that go with it, the great promises that are made can not be kept. The people who bring about war and who profit by it soon forget those promises. A new generation grows up that does not know the war. Only the veterans remember, and it is the duty and the chief purpose of veterans' organizations to keep alive that spirit of gratitude which the country should show to these veterans. Republics are notoriously ungrateful. "Put not your faith in princes; shun ambition," said Shakespeare.

Now, I shall pass over the bonus. That is not an issue before you people. It will be paid. The problem is primarily now an economic one. When should it be paid? I shall pass over hospitalization because my associate, Mr. Dunn, who follows me, will speak on that. I will pass over the emergency officers' retirement act, although I must say that we do not believe in that very strongly. I am a former permanent officer in the Marine Corps, but we do not believe in that as strongly as we do in some other veterans' laws because it creates a different degree of disability for the emergency officer and creates a different date for the application of the presumptive period.

I shall pass over the Spanish War Veterans, but I will say in passing that anybody who would propose taking those meager and inadequate allowances from those fine old men would almost steal candy from a baby. I shall devote myself to-day to a discussion of the disability allowance, and I want to tell you that the veterans throughout the country are for it strong, now that they understand it. We all recall the history of that allowance bill; that it was not a veterans' proposal; that it was passed almost immediately at the request of the President after the veto of the Rankin bill, but we maintain that there are a large number of arguments in favor of that disability allowance.

In the first place, the disability allowance covers many cases which should be covered by compensation. The veterans of the country believe that the peak of nervous diseases and mental cases arising

out of the war has not yet been reached but that the presumptive period ending in January, 1925, should have been extended by the enactment of that Rankin bill to January, 1930. I could, if I had the time, give you personal illustrations of men who broke down and who are neuropsychiatric cases long after the war, due to the flu, due to shell shock, due to many things. Perhaps one of the gentlemen who follow me will go into that. Then there are the cases where evidence can not be obtained, and we all know how a defendant likes to get an adjournment to put off the trial. Why? Because by the lapse of time memory fails, witnesses disappear, and the case becomes weaker and weaker. We will give you a number of instances of that if you so desire it. Then there are the borderline cases the cases which the Veterans' Administration has turned down and which are doubtful. If these men do not get the D. A.the disability allowance-they will get nothing.

Now, in the second place, we argue that a broad theory of social justice requires that the Government take care not only of the totally disabled veterans but that somebody take care of all totally disabled persons who are unable to support themselves. We are talking to-day of jobless insurance and the time is coming, I predict, when we will talk of insurance for totally disabled people. So, the veterans are not being selfish in this matter. They go further than their own needs.

And, in the third place, I say that $40 is not too much, as some of you gentlemen seem to think by your advocacy of cutting it down 10 per cent; but it is all too little for any man who is totally disabled, and most of these men are married and have families. Now, I hear a great deal about the man who is hit by an automobile. I believe our friends of the National Economy League talk about the man who is hit by the automobile and gets $40 a month. Well, where is he? I do not find him. I do not believe there are many of them in the files of the Veterans' Administration. In any event, the head of the Veterans' Administration has advocated help as a Government policy for the man, for the veteran, who gets disabled either due to infirmities or old age. Now, our friends of the National Economy League, who represent incidentally nothing but the big income-tax payers of this country, talk about the saving. Show it to me, please. Where is that saving? All it would mean would be the transfer of the taxes from the Federal Government to the State and county and city governments where it would be felt much, much, much more severely, and we know that the burden the small average American citizen feels is local taxation. Now, it is only fair that this policy of help for the disabled veteran be taken over by the Federal Government. We see subsidies to railroads, shipping lines, farmers, good roads, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and all that sort of thing. Why not for the veteran, who offered to give his life for the Union? He did not give it for the county or the city or the State, and the Federal Government is where the burden should be placed.

Now, also, I hear a great deal of talk about veterans who were in the trenches, veterans who were overseas, and veterans who were only in cantonments. That is all poppy-cock. It is very fine to

All

talk about being gassed or being thrust through by a bayonet, but the man who is kicked by a mule out there at Camp Meade or Quantico and gets paralyzed should be compensated just the same. veterans must be treated alike, and now I am coming to another point.

You gentlemen are lawyers. We are lawyers, and you know the maxim of equity is that "he who comes into equity must come with clean hands." Clean hands are important. Our opponents must come with clean hands, be consistent. I will take up a few of them, and I may repeat some things that you have already heard.

Commander Byrd-we all know that he is a great organizer of expeditions to far-off places and financed by the people for whom he is now lecturing throughout the country-but we all know the basic cause of his trouble is being hurt and breaking his leg in a game of football, as was testified by him before a congressional committee. I do not say he does not rate his retirement pay. He does, by long custom and the practice of the service, but it falls with little grace for him to attack the disability compensation for the veterans. Is he a great authority on ethics, philosophy, or jurisprudence that he should decide for this country what is selfish and what is not? As for me, having served in the Marine Corps as an officer on duty in the office of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for three years, I prefer to follow Admiral Coontz, a man who came through the Navy, the head of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and take his opinion as to what service men need.

Now, General Harbord-I was a marine, I have nothing but the greatest of respect for General Harbord's activities in the World War. When I think of Belleau Wood, my eyes almost fill with tears, but General Harbord was made by the Army. Did he stand by it after the World War? No, he got out and took a $100,000 a year job, and does he need that retirement pay? Why should he demand that veterans pauperize themselves?

Now, Captain Mills, who is going around the country lecturing, is nothing but a paid promotion expert, a publicity counsel of that type. Now, the American Veterans' Association I say, and I am not going further than I mean to go right now, they are the real ingrates and disloyalists to the cause of the veterans-these people in the American Veterans' Association and the so-called veterans' justice committee-the people who had so betrayed the veteran and the cause of the veteran in order to get a large or a great reduction in their income-tax returns, I charge, and I charged it before, and the contrary has never been proven, although the fact lies within their own knowledge, that the American Veterans' Association and the veterans' justice committee are subsidiaries of the National Economy League and the United States Chamber of Commerce.

Now, in conclusion, let me say that this attempt to put the veteran here, and the rest of the country there, to make us out a selfish class of people, must fail, for there can be no gulf between the veteran and the rest of the country-our interests are one. You owe us this duty of gratitude. You must be fair to us, and I believe you will.

As my last remark I am going to quote from Kipling's poem, Tommy" in Barrack Room Ballads:

I went into a public house to get a pint of beer.

The publican he ups and says, "We serve no redcoats here."

The girls behind the bar, they laughed and giggled fit to die,

I outs into the streets again and, to myself, says I:

"O it's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and Tommy, go away,"
But it's "Thank you, Mr. Atkins," when the bands begin to play.
The bands begin to play, my boys, the bands begin to play.

O it's first train for Trooper Atkins when the bands begin to play.

Now, gentlemen, I want you to remember that there once lived a great and good man, who said, "Even as you do it unto the least of these you do it unto Me."

I thank you, and if I have any time left, and if the Jewish War Veterans will assign their time to us, as I believe they will, I would like to introduce to the committee Mr. Roy F. Dunn, of the Newark, N. J., bar a very well-known member thereof, and counsel to the Veterans' Alliance of Essex County, who will speak briefly on hospitalization.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very glad to have heard your excellent presentation of your views. You have eight minutes left-nine minutes left. We were interested, of course, to hear from you on the question of the possibility of effecting economies. I take it you have no suggestions to make along that line, or your organization has no suggestion. And while we have heard views quite similar to those you have expressed, and expressed so wonderfully well, it has really been a sort of duplication. We think we understand and appreciate your viewpoint. What the committee is interested in, and you well know, is the question of whether there are possible economies to be effected. It is not a question of denying the veteran his right to such benefits as a gracious Government can bestow. It is a matter of whether the Government can continue to pay these benefits. No one wants to do an injustice. We are very glad to have heard you.

Mr. POLLITT. May I say a word on economy? We do have a program of economy, if economy is to be called for. We suggest, first, the abolition of the emergency officers' retirement act; secondly, we suggest that there be a uniform cut all along the line so that everybody will be impartially affected. And, in the third place, we suggest that if the disability allowance be cut down then all of those totally and permanently disabled men be fully protected. Our fight is for them primarily.

The CHAIRMAN. We understand. I do not think the committee has any desire to injure the permanently and totally disabled exservice men.

Mr. POLLITT. Thank you, sir.

Senator BROOKHART. The Senate committee has cut it 10 per cent in the appropriation bill. They have cut nobody else. That is pending to-day.

The CHAIRMAN. They have proposed to cut only the totally disabled men?

Senator BROOKHART. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. And nobody else?

Senator BROOKHART. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am very much surprised at that. I hope the Senator is mistaken about that. I thought there was a proposal to cut all over $1,000 10 per cent on every man. Will you proceed, Mr. Dunn?

Senator BROOKHART. Only the totally disabled get over $1,000, as I understand it.

STATEMENT OF ROY F. DUNN, COUNSEL FOR THE VETERANS' ALLIANCE OF ESSEX COUNTY, N. J.

Mr. DUNN. I suppose I will be allowed a little extra time?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, indeed.

Mr. DUNN. Gentlemen and chairman of the joint congressional committee, we are interested in the situation as regards hospitalization. Now, up in the section where I come from, Essex Countyof course, it is only a small part of the country but very well known as the birthplace of Grover Cleveland and also in the near vicinity of the many activities of Woodrow Wilson.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. You would hardly cite Grover Cleveland as an authority on pensions, would you?

Mr. DUNN. No; not very well. So, it is a very well-known section of the country. Now, up in Essex County, in New Jersey, the situation has improved considerably in the last year in connection with hospitalization. We had a waiting list up there of around 300. To-day we have a waiting list of about 150, and none of those cases we would call extreme emergency cases. That is due to the fact that they have allowed us some beds in Hospital 81 in the Bronx, and some cases are sent to the Brooklyn Naval Hospital. We want to keep that situation that way. It has improved so considerably that we are very much pleased with it, and, of course, any action that is taken that will curtail any of these facilities for disabled veterans will, of course, change that situation there. We are very much opposed to the writing in in the laws of any pauper clause. Now, General Hines may say that he is not in favor of writing in a pauper clause in the laws, but, of course, if you restrict hospitalization to only those men who are able to pay, the effect is practically writing in a pauper clause.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Dunn, will you give us the benefit of your views on this phase of it before you conclude in your own way and in your own time? What do you say about the man who is amply able to provide himself with every hospital facility, obtaining this service at Government expense-when you reach it. Go on.

Mr. DUNN. Now, in our opinion, it is the obligation of the Government, particularly since June, 1924, when Congress extended the facilities of the Government hospitals to men with nonservice-connected disabilities, not to change that policy; that established a precedent and also a practice that should never be changed. We consider it the duty of the Government to take care of all disabled men regardless of service connection, and including those with nonservice-connected disabilities, provided the Government has the facilities and the empty beds. We have in mind that in 1924 there were around 9,000 empty beds, and on the recommendation of Presi