Mr. BOLLES. Does that include their widows?

Mr. UPDIKE. I think that includes the widows; that is here for $50. I think that is the provision of the bill.

Mr. SCHAFER. You do not intend to give widows of the Indian war veterans $50 when the marriage is subsequent to service, while the Civil War legislation requires that the widow shall have been married to the soldier during the period of his service in order to receive $50.

Mr. UPDIKE. I heard your statement a moment ago and I agree with you with reference to the widows.

Mr. SCHAFER. There are two questions I would like you to discuss. You realize, of course, that any business institution or any branch of the Government must run its business on a budget system, allocating so much of its income to meet the expenditures for specific purposes.

Mr. UPDIKE. Right.

Mr. SCHAFER. And the Federal Government in arranging its Budget expenditures sets aside a certain amount which can be expended for veterans' benefit.

Mr. UPDIKE. That is right.

Mr. SCHAFER. In case the committee desires to recommend a liberalization of the Indian war veterans' legislation, in view of the fact that the Indian war veterans themselves have the benefit of hospitalization and domiciliary care do you not believe that the committee should bend its first efforts in behalf of a liberalization of Indian war veterans widows' pensions?

Mr. UPDIKE. I think they should do that; yes; but I also think, in view of the fact that there are so few Indian war veterans left and such a small amount of money will be required to take care of these men in the last days of their life, that something should be done for them immediately.

Mr. SCHAFER. Yes; but is it not a fact that in order to receive Indian war pensions under the existing law the veteran must have served 30 days in an active Indian war campaign or in the zone of an Indian campaign?

Now, before we liberalize the existing law covering those who are on the rolls now who have served 30 days in an active campaign or the zone of a campaign, should we not consider granting some relief in cases where the veteran actually fought Indians for 15 days or 28 days or 29 days and has not been able to get a penny of pension? Mr. UPDIKE. That is just exactly what I am advocating now-that we should liberalize it to such an extent so that we would take in all those who served west of the Mississippi River in Indian campaigns. Mr. SCHAFER. If we do not go that far and include all of them at least we should include those who rendered any service in an active Indian campaign.

Mr. UPDIKE. Our organization wants you to go just as far as you can to help these Indian war veterans.

Mr. SCHAFER. But before you try to take in all of those who served west of the Mississippi River, certainly we ought to take in those who served less than 30 days, actually fighting Indians.

Mr. UPDIKE. If this committee cannot see their way clear to take in all those who served west of the Mississippi River I will agree with you; but I do not see any reason with a small expenditure of

money which this thing costs, why you could not include all those fellows who served west of the Mississippi River who are now at an average age of 79 years.

Mr. SCHAFER. Of course, if you take the case of a soldier who was located at Fort Snelling, he was not in any campaign but had his duty at the fort. And the same thing would be true with Fort Leavenworth. Men stationed at such forts saw no active service fighting Indians.

Mr. UPDIKE. No.

Mr. SCHAFER. They were just Regular soldiers.

Mr. UPDIKE. Yes; but we must not lose sight of the fact that those gentlemen are on an average of 79 years old and they need some relief for the few remaining years that they will be here.

Mr. SCHAFER. That is a question. You take the members of the Regular Establishment. They come under the General Pension Law. Mr. UPDIKE. They come under the general law now which pays them in the neighborhood of $30 a month, but a Regular service man, in the Regular service, who was injured, 100 percent disabled, will receive under the law that you passed last session of Congress, $75 a month.

Mr. SCHAFER. Yes; but I am talking about the soldier who went out there and performed guard duty at an Army post. He did not even ride out on patrol and never took an active part in an Indian fight or campaign. You know there was not anything after the Custer campaign in Oklahoma, Indian Territory, and there was not any activity at all in Oklahoma. The territory was entirely free from actual warfare and there were several posts scattered around in there where these men were simply members of the Regular Army. The Indian campaigns at that time, practically all of these Indian campaigns were confined to the Southwest to cleaning up the Apache Indians after they got control of the Comanches. They cleaned up the Comanches and then the Sioux and the next campaign was with Chief Joseph and in all those campaigns they were active; but most of them, very few of them, occupied 90 days.

Mr. ÚPDIKE. That is right.

Mr. SCHAFER. They would go out from the post and round up a bunch of Indians and it was all over.

Mr. UPDIKE. I would say in answer to that, Mr. Congressman, that only about 10 percent of them would have 90 days active service. Mr. SCHAFER. Yes; but I do not know what active service you refer to. If you are guarding a section against an Indian raid which is thought to be possible I believe that is active service.

Mr. UPDIKE. That is what I would think. These gentlemen are getting up in years and the amount to be paid out to them is very small and even if authorized by this committee the number will greatly decrease year by year. It decreased more than 10 percent last year and as Congressman Bolles suggested, it will probably decrease by 20 percent the coming year.

Mr. SCHAFER. But here is a matter which we must consider. If we include as Indian war veterans all of these fellows who were stationed at these posts where there was no Indian campaign within 150 or 200 miles simply because they were west of the Mississippi what about those east of the Mississippi who had some active Indian war service?

Mr. UPDIKE. That is true. I think there is some merit in that. I do say, however, since it is such a small amount of money involved, that something should be done for them at once. The average age of the group is 79 years and I think the Government could well afford to take care of them in their last years.

Mr. SCHAFER. If you are going to give a nonservice disability pension to those who had not been in an Indian capaign or the zone of a capaign west of the Mississippi, is it proper to exclude all of those who served east of the Mississippi? They are just as old and they need the money just as badly.

Mr. BOLLES. This list of 2,400 that you have, does that include all west of the Mississippi?

Mr. UPDIKE. That includes all men who are actually now on the pension rolls.

Mr. BOLLES. That does not cover all of them?

Mr. UPDIKE. No.

Mr. BOLLES. How many would that be?

Mr. UPDIKE. This amount includes all who are now on pension roll.

Mr. BOLLES. Have you any idea how many served west of the Mis-
sissippi, including soldiers at the forts and all that?
Mr. UPDIKE. Would you know, Major Clark?
Major CLARK. It is a problematical thing.

Mr. UPDIKE. I should say it would be very small.
The CHAIRMAN. It is a hard question to answer.

We had cam

paigns east of the Mississippi, in Florida, et cetera, and we have forgotten all of those things. We want to do service to the veterans who actually saw service.

We will discuss this at length in executive session.

We will now hear from Mr. Chittenden, national educational director of the Regular Veterans' Association.

Mr. HARTMAN. Of course, Mr. Chairman, no Indian war veteran can get a pension until he is 68 years of age, and if he only starts when he is 68 years of age, how long will he have to get a pension and how long will he have the pension? Then there is this question of what you will do with those people who worked in the commissary and quartermaster department that never get out in these Indian areas where there is fighting. Do you think they are entitled to pension? I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear Mr. Chittenden.

STATEMENT OF LEROY P. CHITTENDEN, NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE REGULAR VETERANS' ASSOCIATION

Mr. CHITTENDEN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Leroy P. Chittenden, national educational director of the Regular Veterans' Association, with offices at 1115 Fifteenth Street NW., Washington, D. C. It is composed entirely of men who have served at least 1 year honorably in any of the Regular Establishments; that is, the Regular Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard. I appear here today in behalf of the provisions of H. R. 3996. While not a great many of our members would be affected by this bill, yet the Regular Veterans' Association feels that the few surviving

224501-406

Indian war veterans should be accorded much more generous treatment by our Government. At the present time the vast majority of these old veterans are more than 77 years of age. It is estimated that not more than some 1,500 or 1,800 will be affected by this legislation. Their span of life is almost ended, and the provisions of the bill under discussion can occasion no great expense to the Federal Government. It seems to members of this association that the principle of providing pensions for non-service-connected disabilities to veterans of our wars is particularly applicable in the case of Indian war veterans. Certainly if this principle is adopted in the case of Spanish-American War veterans, it can most certainly be extended to Indian war veterans. Undoubtedly, the fact that the majority of these men were men already in Regular service is the one primary reason why they have not been placed upon the same basis as Spanish-American War

veterans.

It was particularly pleasing for me to hear the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs testify at yesterday's hearing that if the matter of pension to Regulars was to be inaugurated anew, that undoubtedly more liberal provisions would have been made. One of the primary reasons for the existence of the Regular Veterans' Association is to combat and, if possible, eradicate the discriminations now in existence against Regulars. It is particularly pleasing to us to know that the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs is sympathetic to our aims in this connection.

The existing law which grants pension only to those who actually served in battle against hostile Indians is extremely discriminatory in character. A troop of soldiers might be dispatched from one of the Government forts or reservations to quell some Indian uprising. It frequently happened that some of the men in these detachments were obliged to travel perhaps a few miles farther than their comrades. As a result, because of the zones which have been adopted, a portion of these men are entitled to greatly increased pensions, while perhaps those men who encountered the same dangers and hardships are entitled to considerably less benefits or none at all. The Regular Veterans Association feels that these men should all be placed upon the same basis insofar as pension is concerned. There can be, and there is no justification for the present discriminatory rates in pension being paid to veterans of this period who saw almost identically the same type of service.

We favor passage of this legislation and respectfully request the favorable consideration of the provisions of this bill by members of this committee.

I might state in this connection it is not the intention of the Regular Veterans' Association to detract in any way from the pensions now being paid to the Spanish War veterans. We feel they are entitled to them, but we do feel that the plan of pension for non-service-connected service disability should be accorded these men who are 75 to 80 years old, and as I made the point in my statement these men had not been in Regular service. If they had not enlisted in the Regular service, undoubtedly they would have been provided for many years ago. I think if these zones can be eliminated or enlarged so as to take in the contingents or detachments who were in the field service and who saw hostile service, that it would eradicate a lot of injustice that has taken place.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. BOLLES. Which bill do you favor?

Mr. CHITTENDEN. We have been asked to appear in behalf of H. R. 3996. However, I do not want the committee to get the idea that we are committed to that bill alone. I believe the committee is sympathetic to the needs of these fellows and will do the very best to bring forth a bill that will be as practicable as possible for all parties concerned. We realize that is a tough assignment, but we think the committee is prepared to give very serious consideration to it.

Mr. SCHAFER. If the committee in its wisdom decides that we should adopt a policy of paying a high non-service disability pension for service in the Regular Establishment, is there any justification why that pension should be limited to service west of the Mississippi? Mr. CHITTENDEN. No; I agree with you; I think that is true. Mr. SCHAFER. And you take the position, then, that the Federal Government should adopt a policy of paying as high as $55 or $75 a month pension based on 90-day service in the Regular Establishment? Mr. CHITTENDEN. I feel, in view of the meager pay of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, that some adequate provision should be made for their retirement. You will understand that today the Indian war veterans are getting the pension of the Regular service, but they are getting pensions on account only of service-incurred disability.

Mr. SCHAFER. But the Regular Establishment does have a somewhat liberal pension system. I have a relative who retired, and he receives a retirement check of $100 each month. I have a good friend 2 years older than I am who retired and is drawing $100 a month retirement pay.

Mr. CHITTENDEN. He had to spend 30 years of the most productive years of his life at a very small rate of pay, didn't he?

Mr. SCHAFER. Well, I do not know. A man that gets a pay check, plus his board, clothing, tobacco, and medical attention, etc., is not so bad off when we think of more than 10,000,000 people now who have not been able to get a job with a $1 pay check during the past several

years.

Mr. CHITTENDEN. It would not appear that such a career has a great appeal. The Army is experiencing difficulty in recruiting up to the announced strength that they want.

Mr. SCHAFER. The major reason is not the pay. The major reason is that the American people are peace-minded, and the rank and file of the people include sons of 5,000,000 World War veterans. They hesitate about enlisting in the Army and Navy when they see what is transpiring.

Mr. CHITTENDEN. I do not believe that I can agree with you there. I think that the pay and the conditions of lack of promotion or opportunity for promotion, etc., are mainly responsible for the lack of the young men of our country seeking an Army career today.

Mr. SCHAFER. There is just one more question I want to ask you. You understand that the Government, like any business, has to budget its income and expenditures?

Mr. CHITTENDEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCHAFER. And in the budgeting of the Federal Government there will be a certain sum set aside for veterans. Should this com