believe that former President Hoover was made acquainted with the provisions of the bill, and to the limited few to which it could possibly apply.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Does the gentleman from California feel that if this privilege is granted to those who served in the Spanish-American War that the same privilege should not be extended to those who served in the Quartermaster's Corps in the World War?

Mr. WELCH. I would rather cross that bridge when we come to it, Mr. Van Zandt. If the men who served in the Transport Service during the war and were discharged for disability incurred in Government service, I do not know of any reason why they should not be given at least hospitalization instead of becoming charity patients.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. The intent of your bill simply develops a new angle, you might say, of the question of hospitalization. If you open it up for one group, you have to open it up for the other.

Mr. WELCH. It would depend entirely on the circumstances. I will repeat, if the men who were engaged in the Transport Service during the World War received injuries while in the service and could prove them, they should be given at least hospitalization. Mr. VAN ZANDT. You do not know the exact number?

Mr. WELCH. No; I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. General Hines may know.

Mr. WELCH. As I stated before there can only be a small number of these old men.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. I have already spoken to the chairman about this. I have a letter from Blind Post, No. 5, Veterans' Administration Facility, at Dayton, Ohio, Central Branch. I would like to place that letter in the record and respectfully call the attention of the members of the committee to that particular letter. It is in support of sections 22 and 23 of H. R. 7925, a bill that has been introduced by the chairman, Mr. Rankin, and also two bills which I have introduced, H. R. 7946 and H. R. 7947. I would like to have the members read that letter from the Blind Post when it comes in the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Thank you.

May we present the following appeal to the members of the Committee on World War Veterans Legislation:

Present veterans' legislation is especially discriminating to the veterans of the World War, since at present they are the only veterans of any war penalized by a "misconduct clause in veterans' legislation.

Our Government, under existing laws even penalizes a World War veteran for being blind. He is placed in the same disability group with other permanently disabled veterans. For example, a sighted laborer is declared totally and permanently disabled, because he cannot do manual labor, and he is awarded a pension. Being ambitious, he starts training himself for some kind of light clerical work. He rehabilitates himself mentally, to the extent remuneration is obtained. Blind veterans do not have this opportunity because of their particular type of disability. After all, blindness came so late in life.

to most veterans that it is hard for them to learn any remunerative vocation. Practically all foreign countries and the various States of the United States that have laws beneficial to the blind recognize the fact that the blind ward is different from other Government or State wards. It is also a matter of record that the various States of the United States now paying pensions to the blind do not have "misconduct" clauses in their laws.

Many foreign countries and the various States of the United States are far ahead of our Federal Government in the rehabilitation of the blind. However, we do not wish to confuse rehabilitation with pensions-it is merely used here to point out the fact that our Government does not choose to separate blindness as a disability from other forms of total physical disabilities.

There are veterans in our organization whose blindness was not directly caused by misconduct disease. The medicine used in the Government prescribed treatment of a misconduct disease was wholly or partly the cause of one veteran's blindness. Needless to say, this particular medicine was discontinued. Another veteran who was in the medical department during the war was cut on the hand while assisting with an operation on a leuetic patient, obtaining a direct infection, yet he does not draw a pension. These cases are only used to show the unfairness which will be used by doctors and adjudicators as long as this misconduct clause is contained in our veterans' legislation.

War at best is a terrible nightmare. We left an environment in which we had lived for years, and were herded into training camps in the United States, or were sent to France and Russia. Unlike Europeans who are trained for war during peaceful years, and who were more or less accustomed to the experiences that followed the call to arms, we were practically hurled from our peace-loving, slow, and easy life of farm and shop, to the horrors of, or the anticipation of the horrors of war. It was only natural for us to try to overcome our loneliness and homesickness through social contacts, when we had a few hours' leave of absence. If we made mistakes, why should a good democratic form of government, based on justice and tolerance, want to doubly punish us? It seems that blindness itself should be punishment enough. Yet, our government, through existing veterans' legislation, takes away our right to draw a pensiona privilege that was suggested by the Father of our Country, General George Washington, when he promised pensions in the form of land grants to the faithful who would continue to fight for our then tottering cause during the Revolutionary War. Years later these men were pensioned. The Government didn't take away their rights because of the misconduct clause-nor the rights of veterans of all the wars that followed, except of course-World War veterans.

Institutions at best cannot be compared to home life. Pensions would permit us to live with our families, who would be glad to be our eyes, and help us lead a normal happy life. We have blind veterans here who have not visited their families for from 2 to 14 years, because they have no funds.

It is our experience in meeting people here from the outside world -the taxpaying public in general are very much surprised that all blind veterans do not receive pensions. Every major service organ

ization at their annual conventions during the past few years have passed resolutions requesting the elimination of the misconduct clause from existing veterans' legislation. The enormous combined membership of these service organizations surely reflect the wishes of the World War veterans. Compared to the expenditures for other forms of human relief in this country, the little expense added to the veterans would not hamper the facility at this time.

H. R. 7925, a bill now in your committee, awaiting consideration will eliminate this misconduct clause from veterans' laws. We respectfully request that you, as members of the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation, bring this bill out for vote, and urge you to use your personal influence to have it passed.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, gentlemen and members of the committee, this brings us to the Veterans' Administration. General Hines is here and we only have 15 minutes. I hoped that we would finish this hearing today but it seems impossible. I do not want to hold hearings on Saturday. I do not think we ought to and it is just virtually impossible for the members to attend the committee meeting on Monday. If there is no objection, I am going to have the committee adjourn when we do adjourn until Tuesday morning at 10:30. Is that satisfactory?

Let me say to the gentleman from New York that I do not object to taking his constituent's name out of the record.

Mr. HALL. I was not speaking of that. I think you took the wrong attitude to it. I think you suspected that I was critical in my statement.

The CHAIRMAN. I said that, referring to that you had not heard from Wall Street, I said you did not know whether you had or not, from any indication, but the propaganda could come from that source. That is what I was referring to.

Mr. HALL. That is perfectly fine.

(Whereupon the committee adjourned until Tuesday, February 13, 1940, at 10:30 a. m.)

PENSIONS FOR WORLD WAR VETERANS' WIDOWS

AND ORPHANS

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1940

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON WORLD WAR VETERANS' LEGISLATION,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10:30 a. m., Hon. John E. Rankin (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

General Hines, I believe you are the next witness.

General HINES. You so advised me, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to be here before you.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to hear you, General.

General HINES. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, during the special session and this session, 49 different bills have been introduced and are under consideration by the committee. Those are bills upon which reports have been called for from the Veterans' Administration.

Manifestly, we have not been able to clear all of them through the Budget and obtain an indication as to whether they did or did not meet with the approval of the administration and are in accordance with the President's financial program.

The CHAIRMAN. General, you mean that 49 reports have been made by the Veterans' Administration, 49 of these bills, at the request of the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation?

General HINES. No; we have not made a report on all of them but you have called for reports on 49 bills.

The CHAIRMAN. In that connection, General, we will not attempt to burden the Veterans' Administration, but when members of Congress introduce bills we understand they are seriously taken by themselves and we follow the usual custom of sending them down to the Veterans' Administration and getting a report on them.

General HINES. We, of course, are glad to give you reports on all of them and I think it advisable to do that. But I want to advise the committee at the outset that all of them have been called for. Therefore, I will not be able to give the committee, probably, the advice of the Budget or the President on some of this legislation. But I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, if it meets with the approval of the committee, that rather than analyze all of these bills that have been introduced section by section that I be permitted to put into the record our reports at the proper place and to cover generally the entire situation. I have no doubt that when the committee is ready to give consideration to the legislation you desire to

bring out that you will go into executive session and decide on what particular things you desire to legislate on. At that time, you will desire probably that I appear or that somebody appear to go into great detail of the effect of whatever legislation you are considering, that is, in respect to what the legislation will do. So, with your permission, I would like to speak generally to these bills this morning rather than to take up each bill separately.

The CHAIRMAN. General Hines, that will be entirely satisfactory. Representative Welch, of California, is present and he has a bill that has been passed by the Congress twice, I think, and vetoed twice by a former President. I wonder if you would mind discussing that bill first?

General HINES. I will be glad to.

The CHAIRMAN. And then you can take up the rest of the bills. The reason I say that, General, it is entirely aside from the class of legislation which we have before us.

General HINES. Mr. Chairman, we rendered a report on the bill on June 6, 1939, which I suggest be introduced into the record at this point.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.

(The report referred to is as follows:)

Hon. JOHN E. RANKIN,

Chairman, Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

JUNE 6, 1939.

MY DEAR MR. RANKIN: This is with further reference to your letter of March 25, 1939, requesting a report on H. R. 1008, a bill to confer to certain persons who served in the Quartermaster Corps or under the jurisdiction of the Quartermaster General during the War with Spain, the Philippine Insurrection, or the China Relief Expedition the benefits of hospitalization and the privileges of the soldiers' homes, which provides as follows:

"That all persons who served in the Quartermaster Corps or under the jurisdiction of the Quartermaster General during the War with Spain, the Philippine Insurrection, or the China Relief Expedition on vessels owned by the United States and engaged in the transportation of troops, supplies, ammunition, or materials of war, and who were discharged for disability incurred in such governmental service in line of duty, shall

"(1) Be entitled to the benefits provided for by paragraph 10 of section 202 of the World War Veterans' Act, 1924, as amended; and

"(2) For the purpose of receiving the benefits of the Soldiers' Home, the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, and the Naval Home, be held to have been honorably discharged from the military or naval forces of the United States."

The bill is apparently similar in purpose to H. R. 6997, Seventy-first Congress, which passed both Houses of Congress and was vetoed by the President February 23, 1931, House Document No. 778, and is also similar to H. R. 4724, Seventy-second Congress, which passed both Houses of Congress and was vetoed by the President May 9, 1932, House Document No. 315.

H. R. 1008, Seventy-sixth Congress, is identical with the provisions of H. R. 2528, Seventy-fifth Congress, on which a report was furnished the chairman, Committee on Pensions, House of Representatives, under date of April 23, 1938, substantially as follows:

The legislative history of the bills above referred to shows they were intended to grant hospital treatment and domiciliary care to those only who served in a civilian capacity under the jurisdiction of the Quartermaster General during the War with Spain, the Philippine Insurrection, or the China Relief Expedition on vessels owned by the United States and engaged in the transportation of troops, supplies, ammunition, or materials of war, and who were discharged for disability incurred in such governmental service. H. R. 1008, however, is susceptible of being construed as including all who served in the Quartermaster Corps either as enlisted personnel or in a civilian capacity, whether