who, while in the naval service of the United States, since the 6th day of April 1917, has distinguished, or who shall hereafter distinguish, himself by extraordinary heroism or distinguished service in the line of his profession, such heroism or service not being sufficient to justify the award of a Medal of Honor or a Distinguished Service Medal.

"SEC. 5. That no more than one Medal of Honor or one Distinguished Service Medal or one Navy Cross shall be issued to any one person; but for each succeeding deed or service sufficient to justify the award of a Medal of Honor or a Distinguished Service Medal or Navy Cross, respectively, the President may award a suitable bar, or other suitable emblem or insignia, to be worn with the decoration and the corresponding rosette or other device."

The recipients of such medals are entitled to $2 a month additional active service pay in the same manner as recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor; but they are not eligible, after discharge from military or naval service and the attainment of age 65, to the special pension of $10 a month as are those recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor whose award is based upon extraordinary service rendered "in actual conflict with an enemy.'

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, let us proceed to hear the next witness.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HENRY HOEPPEL, EDITOR, NATIONAL DEFENSE, ARCADIA, CALIF.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us hear Mr. Hoeppel next.

Mr. HOEPPEL. I did not know the committee was having a hearing until I came here this morning.

I thank you gentlemen of the committee very much for the opportunity of appearing.

First, I am a retired enlisted man of the Army, having enlisted in 1898. I served 4 years in Congress, and I am editor of National Defense. This periodical has been published for almost 11 years, and it is devoted to the interests of the personnel of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard, but more especially to the interests of the retired personnel.

I may say, briefly, in reference to what I heard here this morning that prior to 1916 men who distinguished themselves in battle in the Army were granted an increase of $2 a month in pay, which money they received in active service and on the retired list.

The act of 1916, to which General Hines has referred, repealed the cash award given to the enlisted men. In fact payments were only made to enlisted men.

In those days no compensation was given to those holding Medals of Honor except after they reached the age of 65; but a man may have earned a certificate of merit at the age of 21 and thereafter received $2 a month for the remainder of his life. The law changed all that.

If the committee is considering any change at all, I would suggest the incorporation into law of a provision to pay those who have received the Medal of Honor while in the service-if awarded while they were in the service-the same compensation after they are discharged. That would take in the major number involved, because they are all war veterans.

The reason I mention that is this: The retired personnel of the Army has suffered every discrimination. We have, for instance, seven men who served as officers overseas and were given the Medal of Honor. These men under existing law will never receive the $10 monthly now paid to others. The Medal of Honor is given only to

those who distinguish themselves by bravery in time of war. The other medals may be given for peacetime service.

I feel that if any favor is extended to one, it should be extended to all others. Therefore retired officers and retired enlisted men who have served in time of war and earned this decoration should receive the same as men who served beside them, but who did not remain in the service to retire. Today there is discrimination.

Only last Sunday I had a meeting with Sgt. Samuel Woodfill, who is an outstanding hero of the World War. He has been decorated by several governments. Recently he has been out of employment and not been going along so well economically.

I am in favor of adequately considering and rewarding those who really distinguished themselves by extraordinary service, and especially if they need help.

As has been mentioned here, there is a Member of Congress who, under this bill, would receive $30 a month.

I am inclined to believe that, in the interest of economy and the further welfare of the veterans and their dependents who require help, the question of need should be basic.

Mr. SCHAFER. I had that matter in mind. Could we not cure it by inserting the word "dependent" ahead of these proposed beneficiaries? The way these bills are drawn, we have a man who might be drawing the pay of a major or a colonel, and we would give him an additional $40 a month. We should spread the money and take care of the dependents first.

Mr. HOEPPEL. I am not in favor of giving a man like General Butler or Colonel Rickenbacker, both of whom are well fixed, any compensation. Their patriotism would overcome that. Our first consideration should be for disabled veterans and their dependents in need. Mr. SCHAFER. Could we not preclude what we have in mind by including the word "dependents" ahead of the beneficiaries?

Mr. HOEPPEL. The criticism that arises among the Medal of Honor men is that often we find one suffering penury, and he is justified in making a complaint. Then the whole world takes up the complaint and says that the United States is not properly taking care of its veterans.

In this group of 2,500 or 3,000 men who would be eligible, probably two-thirds of them are in a financial status that would not warrant your taking them into consideration. A decoration by the Government would be compensation enough for them. Repeating, I am in favor of increased compensation for those who need help.

Mr. SCHAFER. Would that condition apply to this bill? Do you believe we should amend all existing pension and compensation law so as to require a showing of dependency; and would you repeal the Emergency Officers' Retirement Act?

(The witness made a statement off the record.)

Mr. HOEPPEL. We have a district attorney in Los Angeles who receives a salary of $12,000 a year plus other emoluments. Moreover, he receives $125 a month on the emergency officers' retired list.

As I have indicated, I believe in compensating a man to the utmost if he really needs it; but to dig down into the Treasury of the Government at this time, when it is in such an unfavorable condition, and there are so many demands upon the Government, and give two or

three salaries to one man and an insufficient amount to others who are seriously disabled, does not appeal to me as the right thing to do. Mr. SCHAFER. I knew a man who is head of a large hospital and also draws three-fourths of a colonel's pay under the Emergency Officers Retirement Act. Cases such as this is what gets legislation to take care of disabled veterans and their dependents in disrepute in the eye of the general public. The public picks up those particular cases and publicizes them and cites them when opposing veterans' legislation.

Mr. HOEPPEL. That is right. Take the case of a deserving Medal of Honor man and, if he complains, the newspapers play it up to the sky and the Government is criticized for not taking care of such a man. The newspapers never point to the man who does not need help but who is receiving it.

I do not think pensions were intended except to supplement a man's earning power.

Mr. MOSER. We have the case of the captain of the Capitol Police force. Some of the boys on the police force say that he is a veteran of the Spanish-American War and draws a pension on that account; that he is retired from the Chicago police force and he gets a pension from that source. He has a wife on the Federal pay roll here, and at the same time he is drawing the pay of a captain of the police force here. Moreover, the Member of Congress who brought him here has passed away.

Mr. SCHAFER. And when he retires from the Capitol police force he will, no doubt, be eligible to another pension from the Federal employees' retirement fund.

Mr. MOSER. And when an application for another pension on his account comes here, somebody will ask that it be allowed.

Mr. HOEPPEL. We had an interesting case here at the Soldiers' Home. Major West, retired, drew the pay of a retired major, civil-service pay, and after he was retired from civil service he drew civil-service-retirement pay, and then was reemployed. In other words, he was at one time on three different Government pay rolls. Moreover, and this is interesting, he was employed by the same institution that takes from a retired enlisted man drawing $35.44 a month the cost of his maintenance in the institution.

Mr. SCHAFER. I believe your position with reference to dependents is upon sound ground.

The CHAIRMAN. That reminds me of the bills we just tabled. Mr. HOEPPEL. Whatever you do, if you consider this bill favorably, I appeal to you to give the same rights to retired enlisted officers and men as you give to others.

Mr. SCHAFER. If we should insert the word "dependents" before the individuals who would receive the benefits wherever it appears in the bill, are you in position to say how the Veterans' Administration would interpret the word "dependents"?

General HINES. We already have defined that term. There are two considerations. One is where the Congress has fixed an income limitation similar to that involved in income-tax returns, and there is a rule as to other cases that dependency exists when the income of one person is less than $50 a month. I will ask Mr. Bailey to state

our rule.

Mr. BAILEY. The rule is, generally, that there is a presumption of nondependency if one parent has an income in excess of $50 a

month, or in case there are two parents, if the income is in excess of $90 a month.

Referring to the widows and children entitled to benefits under Public, 484, in those cases where the veteran has a service-connected disability, but dies of a non-service-connected disability, as where, for example, he is killed by a streetcar, the income test is whether the widow alone has an income in excess of $1,000, and if in excess of $1,000 a year she is not entitled to the grant. If she has a child, the income limitation is $2,500 a year.

General HINES. The income-provision feature is fixed by law. The $50 or $90 a month is adopted by regulation of the Veterans' Administration.

Mr. MOSER. A widow, without a child, receives $1,000 a year, but if she has a child she receives $2,500 a year. That would make the child worth $1,500 as contrasted with the widow's $1,000, as eligibility. Mr. BAILEY. Yes; that is the law.

Mr. SCHAFER. If we had a Medal of Honor man still in the regular service, drawing $21 a month, and the other emoluments, we would not class him as a "dependent," because we would have to consider as his income his board and lodging, and so forth. He would be making more than $50 a month. There are, however, the cases where the number of dependents involved would make even that amount inadequate.

General HINES. The question of need generally depends upon the station in life of an individual. We have a questionnaire that must be executed by each applicant, and on the basis of the answers given we determine dependency.

No matter what rule one may set up, there still is required exercise of judgment by somebody, and it would require uniformity in the exercise of that judgment to be fair to all concerned.

Mr. MOSER. By the standard you have set, $50 and $90 a month, do you think there is a safe standard to anticipate any relevancy of any benefits inuring from a bill such as this passing to a dependent? Would that rule apply?

General HINES. Yes. Generally speaking, in the groups of beneficiaries we have, the rule seems to be very effective. We do occasionally have exceptions. You are probably familiar with the requirements in connection with hospitalization. Those who are hospitalized are required to state that they are unable to pay for hospitalization. We have had applications for that service signed by many with sizable incomes, but an analysis showed that even with such incomes, in view of the kind and extent of hospitalization required, the incomes were not adequate, also having in mind the taking care of dependents.

Under that law we have only one discretion and that is to invoke the penalty clause of the law in the event one has signed a false affidavit.

Mr. SCHAFER. Only this morning I had a conversation with a veteran who stated that he would have to take a pauper's oath in order to be admitted at Mount Alto. I asked him to send me a copy of that pauper's oath. I do not believe that a man with a salary of, say, $3,000 or $4,000 a year or more should preempt a bed in a Government hospital in my district while a man with very little or no income, who needs hospitalization, should be denied it because no beds are available.

Under the formula stated by Mr. Bailey, I believe we are going to have an injustice worked upon some groups. Can we not adopt a more equitable formula? Let us say there are two men, one making $40 a month and the other making $50 a month. The one making $50 a month would not get the $40 monthly benefits provided in the pending bill.

General HINES. We were dealing with dependents and

Mr. SCHAFER. Let us take the case of a widow of a Medal of Honor man with two children and another widow with two children. The one widow and children have over the amount you have set to determine dependency, and you will not therefore pay her $40. The one has almost the amount of income you have fixed, or, say, $10 below the maximum allowance; and she will receive the $40 additional monthly payments. Therefore the two widows will

Mr. BAILEY. You are referring to a private?

Mr. SCHAFER. Yes. I am trying to arrive at a basis for dependency, so that we can work out some kind of workable formula.

Mr. BAILEY. That man would be self-supporting by reason of other emoluments.

Mr. SCHAFER. Then why not put in the bill the word "self-supporting," so as to bar those who are self-supporting from the additional benefits?

Mr. BOLLES. I should like to ask Mr. Bailey how he accounts for a man with a salary of $12,000 a year getting $125 pension.

General HINES. There is no limitation as to that.

Mr. MOSER. I feel that Mr. Bailey has not drawn the line of distinction or demarcation between dependency and need. I should like to have that cleared up at this particular time, please.

General HINES. It is very difficult to clear up because of this proposition: What may be need for one person is not the same for another person; but we have endeavored, and I think it works out very well, by the rule given, providing $1,000 for a childless widow and $2,500 for a widow with a child, to handle this matter properly. The amounts of $1,000 and $2,500 are income limitations prescribed by law for widows and children of World War veterans who had a service-connected disability at time of death, independent of any factual consideration of dependency. Our administrative rule of $50 individual income and $90 in the case of two parents covers only cases of dependent parents of veterans who die of service-connected disabilities and who are not entitled to compensation unless actually dependent.

The widow with the two children would jump into the group for which Congress has provided $2,500. Under Mr. Bailey's rule she might go to the $90 a month, because there is more than one individual.

Mr. SCHAFER. We should have a correct formula for the determination of benefits for dependents. Let us say we have a widow and two children here and a widow and two children there. Number one widow and the children have an income of

Mr. BAILEY. The Congress has been more liberal with widows than it has been with parents. The widow without children could receive $1,000 a year, and if she had a child she could receive $2,500 a year, as I have said, and still be eligible for Public 484 benefits.

Mr. SCHAFER. Let us take two widows without dependent children. One has an income, let us say, of $1,005 a year, therefore you are