Page images
PDF
EPUB

erans Regulation No. 10, as amended, to change the definition of misconduct to read as follows:

A disability, injury, or disease will be held to have resulted from misconduct where it is due to felonious misconduct.

Apparently it is the purpose of the bill to modify the misconduct bar so that it shall only include disabilities resulting from the veteran's own felonious misconduct. The term "felony" is defined in the United States Code, title 18, section 541, as follows:

All offenses which may be punished by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year shall be deemed felonies. All other offenses shall be deemed misdemeanors: Provided, That all offenses the penalty for which does not exceed confinement in a common jail, without hard labor for a period of six months, or a fine of not more than $500 or both, shall be deemed to be petty offenses; and all such petty offenses may be prosecuted upon information or complaint.

The term "felonious" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Second Edition, as being "Malignant; malicious; done with intent to commit a crime; having the grade or quality of a felony." The term "felony" in American State Law "has no very definite or precise meaning, except in some cases where it is defined by statute. For the most part, the State laws, in describing any particular offense, declare whether or not it shall be considered a felony. Apart from this, the word seems merely to imply a crime of a graver or more atrocious nature than those designated as 'misdemeanors.' The statutes or codes of several of the States define felony as any public offense on conviction of which the offender is liable to be sentenced to death or to imprisonment in a penitentiary or State prison." An offense regarded as a felony in one State might not be so considered under the laws of another State. In the majority of cases, the misconduct which resulted in disability would involve a breach of State rather than Federal law, and it is not clear whether it is desired to bar benefits in both types of cases. In the light of the foregoing, it would appear necessary in the interests of uniformity that the term "felonious misconduct" be defined in the bill for application to the proposed amendment to part III, paragraph 1 (a) of Veterans Regulation No. 1 (a), as amended.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think a very good definition would be: "An offense for which he would be dishonorably discharged from the Army"?

Mr. BROWN. Well, generally speaking, Mr. Chairman, I believe that men who are dishonorably discharged are barred under all our laws today.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. That is the only kind of case that I would except from this provision. I mean to take care of those men that have been penalized because of their alleged misconduct. If they were good enough to go ahead and fight through the war to the end of the war when these acts were known and no attempt was made to dishonorably discharge them, in fact they committed no offense for which they could be dishonorably discharged, and then to come up after the war is over and attribute all their disabilities to that misconduct and deprive them of their compensation and brand them with disgrace and visit it upon their children seems to me to be just unconscionable. So far as I am individually concerned, I would like it made specific that if he was honorably

discharged, that this man's misconduct should not be brought against him and he should not be deprived of his compensation.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Do you want to leave it up to the military authority to determine it?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. If he has committed a crime and gone out and given secret information to the enemy and has proved disloyal or if he had deserted, why, the military should control and give him a dishonorable discharge and so we would not be bothered with him. But if they went ahead and accepted his services, and he discharged the duties of a soldier, it is pretty late to come up 20 or 30 years after the war and deny him his compensation and, as I said, penalize him and brand him and visit it upon his children. That is what I have been trying to get around ever since I have been chairman of this committee.

General HINES. Mr. Chairman, I feel that by definition the Veterans' Administration has gone as far as it is possible to go. Personally, if the Congress does not feel that the present definition which is "willful misconduct" or "misconduct" answers the problem, you will probably desire to take the same course that has been taken in previous years dealing with other service-pension legislation. The CHAIRMAN. General Hines, what is that course?

General HINES. Well, it has been in and it has been taken out of the law entirely.

The CHAIRMAN. Then let us take it out.

General HINES. In other words, you cannot, in my judgment, write a definition that will be clear cut enough but what it will bar some cases and some member of Congress will feel that some case is meritorious. It seems to me we have reached the point where we must either decide whether we want it or to take it out entirely. The CHAIRMAN. My attitude is this, it should be eliminated entirely.

General HINES. Well, then we are faced with the problem we have always been faced with. You recall how many times we have discussed that very subject before this committee. That is, during the war the War Department issued definite instructions relative to what should be done to avoid disability due to misconduct. To pass legislation now, to reward those men now with a pension or compensation, we have always felt that flies in the face of those instructions. Then, too, we have been somewhat influenced by public opinion as to that sort of thing.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the War Department had its responsibilities during the war. We have ours during times of peace. They were issuing orders and we are passing legislation. I do not think we would be doing any injustice at all to wipe that provision out of the law. Then if a man was dishonorably discharged or committed an offense for which he might be dishonorably discharged, he would not come under the law anyway.

General HINES. If you considered it, it would be my earnest recommendation to you that you put it in a separate bill so that it will not jeopardize whatever discussion takes place on other meritorious legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, General. The committee will adjourn until Tuesday, 10:30 a. m.

(Whereupon the committee adjourned to Tuesday, February 20, 1940, at 10:30 a. m.)

PENSION FOR WORLD WAR VETERANS' WIDOWS

AND ORPHANS

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 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. The House meets at 11 o'clock this morning and we have one of the most important bills of the session before the House and the members want to be there so we are going to have to adjourn, that is, in a half an hour.

Mrs. ROGERS. You are going to adjourn in half an hour?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, because I think I am one of the first speakers this morning, and besides the other members will want to be there. General Hines, you will proceed with your statement.

General HINES. Members of the committee, at the outset I indicated we would put in the record the report of these various bills as they were cleared through the budget. You granted that permission and that will, of course, complete the record. It will be my purpose if it is agreeable to the committee to try to close the hearing so far as giving statements to the committee this morning and then be available to the committee when you go into executive session to take up such parts of the various bills as you feel you wish detailed information on.

I would like to present to the committee this morning on the remaining sections Mr. Bailey, director of the dependents claim service, who will cover those sections dealing with dependents.

The legislation contemplated here had for its purpose generally I believe dealing more with the World War group than with any other part of the proposed legislation. I feel there is a chance, even in the half hour, of presenting to you sufficient facts probably to justify closing the hearing, unless the members of the committee desire to take up some particular question.

STATEMENT OF ELDON L. BAILEY, DIRECTOR OF THE DEPENDENTS CLAIMS SERVICE, VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the first bill dealing with dependents of deceased World War veterans is H. R. 7593, which is similar in purpose to H. R. 7656. This bill would provide compensation for widows and children of veterans who died of non-service-connected disability provided they had 90 days' service and an honorable discharge. Under existing law, as you know, benefits are not payable to widows, parents, and children unless

214844-4018

the veteran died from a service-connected disability; or as to widows and children unless the veteran at the time of his death had a disability which was due to service. This bill would also change the existing marriage delimiting date which is at present May 13, 1938, to the date of enactment of the proposed act.

The next bill dealing with dependents is H. R. 7925, section 7 of which will provide an increase of death compensation in service-connected death cases by granting to widows a flat rate of $50 a month. That rate would be in lieu of rates provided for by existing law, which are $38 for the widow prior to attaining the age of 50, and $45 per month after she attains the age of 50. This represents an increase over the rates which were just recently increased by the act of July 19, 1939.

The next section of that bill dealing with dependents is section 8 which would provide service-connected death-compensation rates for the widows, children, and dependent parents of the veteran permanently and totally disabled in combat in line of duty in the active service in any war, campaign, or expedition regardless of the cause of death. Under existing law, as I said a moment ago, benefits at wartime rates would not be payable in such cases unless the death was due to service-connected disability, or if not payable as a serviceconnected death, benefits would be payable by reason of the fact that at the time of the man's death he had a World War service-connected disability. In other words, it would be a Public, No. 484, case.

Section 10 of that bill would provide the rates of death compensation presently payable under Public, No. 484, as amended, to the widows and children of Regular Establishment veterans, that is, veterans of the peace-time service who were entitled to pension or who were receiving a pension under part 2 of Veterans Regulation No. 1 (a), in those instances where the veteran's death is not shown to have been due to service. The purpose of the bill apparently is to apply the Public, No. 484, principles to Regular Establishment or peace-time cases. Incidentally I understand that the Invalid Pensions Committee has a bill of similar import before it for consideration.

General HINES. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that your committee probably would feel that jurisdiction dealing with the Regular Establishment belongs over in that committee, the Invalid Pensions Committee, and on which we have had hearings.

The CHAIRMAN. They would have jurisdiction of that, but not of the hospitalization part of it.

General HINES. No; just the pension feature of it.

The CHAIRMAN. We are not having any pension for peace-time veterans through this committee because we do not have any jurisdiction.

Mr. BAILEY. Section 11 of this bill would provide that notwithstanding the existing marriage delimiting date for widows' pension or compensation under the laws administered by the Veterans' Administration, any widow otherwise entitled would be granted benefits provided she was married to and living with the veteran for a period of two years prior to his death, or if she gave birth to a child by the veteran. Under existing laws it is required that the widows of World War veterans be married before May 13, 1938, to vest entitlement in them.

The next section dealing with dependents is section 12 which would remove from Public No. 198 the present restriction barring increase of compensation in service-connected death cases where the widow or parent is receiving monthly installments of insurance which together with other current payments would aggregate or exceed the total amount payable under Public No. 198. Under existing law such an increase may not be made unless it is shown that the combined payments would not aggregate or exceed the new rates.

Section 13 of the bill would provide a definition for a child of a veteran of the Spanish American War and the Boxer Rebellion, which would be the equivalent of the definition which has been adopted in World War cases. Again this is one of those matters which the committee might feel would properly lie within the jurisdiction of the Pensions Committee rather than with this committee, because it deals with Spanish American War cases entirely and pension matters.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me say that I introduced practically all of these bills by request. A great many of them contained provisions that are entirely without the jurisdiction of this committee.

General HINES. That is quite correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. And it is not the intention of the chairman, and I am sure it is not the intention of other members of the committee to try to reach out and extend our jurisdiction to those things which are clearly within the jurisdiction of other committees and clearly without our jurisdiction and it is not necessary to take up time on such matters.

General HINES. In our reports we are indicating those matters which are pending before other committees.

The CHAIRMAN. Whether they are pending there or not, if they are entirely without the jurisdiction of this committee, I do not think it is necessary to take up time on them.

Mrs. ROGERS. Are these bills called before other committees ?
The CHAIRMAN. They already are before other committees.
Mrs. ROGERS. They are before the pension committee?

The CHAIRMAN. These are provisions, Mrs. Rogers, in those bills.
Mrs. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. BAILEY. The remaining provisions of the bills insofar as widows and dependents are concerned all deal with veterans of other wars, or of the peacetime establishment.

General HINES. Now, Mr. Chairman, at your last meeting I offered a suggestion to the committee that in dealing with dependents a precedent had been established in dealing with the widow who was the wife of the veteran when he served in the Civil War. Under our laws a higher rate has been granted than to others who married the veteran several years after the war. The committee requested that I give them an estimate on the number that would be involved if we considered first taking into account the widow who was the wife of the veteran of the World War while he served. I have that estimate before me and I request permission to put it into the record. But I might state it to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be inserted and your comment will follow, General.

General HINES. To include the widows who were married to veterans up to November 11, 1918, which was the ending date of the

« PreviousContinue »