The CHAIRMAN. Now, wait a minute, you are not going any further with that statement. We will excuse you at this point.

Mr. BULL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We will excuse you at this point. You not only cannot offend the members of this committee but you cannot insult the members of the audience. There are veterans of the World War on this committee, as well as in the audience; there are disabled veterans and Gold Star Mothers present, supporting this legislation, and I do not propose to have a witness abuse his privilege here and gratuitously insult them in any such manner.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. WELCH, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA

The CHAIRMAN. Now we will hear from the gentleman from California, Congressman Welch. He wanted to be heard. Mr. Welch, I am sorry we had to wait so long.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am here in behalf of H. R. 1008, to confer on certain persons who served in the Quartermaster Corps 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.

May I call your attention at this time to the limited number of men who served and who would come under the provisions of this bill. That is, men who served in the Quartermaster Corps under the jurisdiction of the Quartermaster General during the War with Spain, the Philippine Insurrection, and the China Relief Expedition.

Section 1, page 1, line 8, reads as follows:

May I respectfully request that the committee follow this language?

and who were discharged for disability incurred in such governmental service in line of duty.

There is no question but what this language was overlooked or disregarded entirely by a former President who vetoed the humanitarian bill.

Mr. Chairman, it is safe to say the average age of the men who served in the transport service during the Spanish-American War is well over 65, which is the average age of the Spanish War veteran.

Shortly after Admiral Dewey destroyed the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay, he weighed anchor and left, but before leaving he supplied the native Filipinos with guns and ammunition to protect themselves against the Spanish troops then on the islands. As you know, shortly thereafter the Philippine Insurrection occurred which was followed by the transportation of volunteer troops from this country to the Philippine Islands. Upon the arrival of the transports at Manila which, at that time, had no wharves or docks, it was necessary to land the soldiers in small boats manned by transport workers. They were fired upon as they approached the shore and, as the records will show, a number of transport workers lost their lives; others were wounded. It is also a well-known fact transport workers manned the guns on the transports.

Although not regularly enlisted in the Army, these men bared their breasts and for all purposes were a part of the Army.

Now, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, what are they asking for in this bill? Just a place where a limited few, who can prove service disability, be given an opportunity to go into one of the many hospitals maintained by the Government for such purposes. They are not asking for a pension.

In the Marine Hospital in San Francisco, a splendid modern building, United States deputy marshals and men in other branches of the civilian service with fairly good salaries are admitted for hospitalization. Why deny this privilege to a few old men who faithfully served their country?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Welch, how many did you say there were? I had to leave the room while you were testifying.

Mr. WELCH. It is very hard to say, by reason of the limitations provided for in the bill "and who were discharged for disability incurred in such Government service in line of duty, shall."

Now, as I said, the average age of these old men may be nearer 70 than 65, which is the average age of the Spanish-American War veteran. So the expense would not be very much. There is only a limited few. The hospitals are there. No special provision would have to be made.

The CHAIRMAN. The bill has already passed the Senate?

Mr. WELCK. No; the bill passed the Senate and the House and was vetoed twice by a former President.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, it is a House bill?

Mr. WELCH. It is.

And I might state to the gentlemen of the committee that to my personal knowledge some of the men in the Transport Service during the period referred to and since the depression have been forced to accept hospitalization or whatever comfort possible in charitable institutions in certain sections of this country-in city hospitals and in public homes for the indigent poor.

Mr. OLIVER. Do I understand from Mr. Welch, that all this bill really calls for is the hospitalization and domiciliary care for those individuals in just this particular part of the service?

Mr. WELCH. That is all, Mr. Oliver, and limited as I suggested, to the provisions of the act which I repeat, were discharged for disability incurred in Government service in line of duty.

Mr. OLIVER. I think the record should show, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from California has been very consistent and insistent, to me at least, and I think the chairman as well, and that this bill should be given consideration and favorable attention.

The CHAIRMAN. I will say to the gentleman from Maine that the gentleman from California has been pushing this matter consistently for many years. I believe that has passed in a former administration and was vetoed; is that not correct?

Mr. WELCH. It was passed twice and vetoed twice, under a wrong impression, I am sure.

The CHAIRMAN. Who vetoed it?

Mr. WELCH. Former President Hoover.

The CHAIRMAN. Each time?

Mr. WELCH. Both times. I feel that it was not called to his attention that the bill applied to only service-connected cases. I could not

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.)