Mr. TAYLOR. The executive committee would not take any stand on any specific measure before the Congress.

Senator COUZENS. I understand that is what the resolution means, but when you passed the resolution did you mean that you favored paying the full value of the certificates as they exist to-day, or what did you mean?

Mr. TAYLOR. The executive committee feels that that is a question that is solely in the hands of Congress, and not in the hands of the executive committee of the American Legion.

Senator COUZENS. Then, this resolution does not mean anything, as applied to Congress, in connection with what the legionnaires want. Mr. TAYLOR. So far as any specific measure before Congress is concerned, no.

Senator COUZENS. I am not talking about any specific measure, because a number of specific measures call for the full payment. Others call for part payment, and others call for loans. I am not sure what the Legion meant by this resolution to the effect that they favor the payment of the certificates-whether they mean payment in full, payment on the face value, or with or without deductions. I would like to have that resolution interpreted, if you can do it.

Mr. TAYLOR. The only thing the Legion executive committee did was to indorse the principle of immediate cash retirement, on application, of the adjusted-service certificates.

Senator COUZENS. The present value, or the face value?

Mr. TAYLOR. The executive committee was not in a position, and refused to indorse any of the bills. The executive committee would not indorse any of the proposals before Congress.

Senator HARRISON. It is up to Congress to construe that proposition, as to whether they meant on the present value of the certificates or the full face value.

Mr. TAYLOR. It is up to Congress to construe what legislation they desire to pass on the subject.

Senator BARKLEY. Of course that is true about the whole situation. It is up to Congress to decide whether it wants to pass anything or not, but where there is a very sharp division as to whether there should be full payment of the face value, or simply a cash surrender value as of to-day, it would have been very helpful if the legion had expressed an opinion. It did not do so. I am wondering whether the executive committee had these different proposals before it and considered them at this meeting.

Mr. TAYLOR. I presented to the executive committee every bill that was pending before Congress.

Senator BARKLEY. Do you feel at liberty to give your own personal views about it?

Mr. TAYLOR. No, sir; I do not.

Senator COUZENS. Is there anybody who can speak for the Legion as to what it meant by this language:

That the national executive committee indorses the principle of immediate cash retirement, on application, of the adjusted service certificates.

Mr. TAYLOR. I can speak for the Legion on it.

Senator COUZENS. What does that mean, then?

Mr. TAYLOR. That means that the American Legion rests with Congress the method in which legislation of this character is to be written into the law.

Senator COUZENS. I am not speaking about the method. I am talking about what you mean by "immediate cash retirement." Does that mean the present-day value, or the value in 1945?

Mr. TAYLOR. That is the one point the executive committee would not take any stand upon.

Senator COUZENS. Nobody can speak for the Legion in that con

nection.

Senator WATSON. In other words, as I understand it, they simply say they want them paid, and paid now. The method of payment

rests with Congress.

Senator COUZENS. That is not true, Mr. Chairman.

Senator WATSON. That is what I understand.

Senator COUZENS. They say "immediate cash retirement."
Senator WATSON. Yes.

Senator COUZENS. But they do not say whether it is face value, or the value to-day.

Senator WATSON. No. They say they want immediate payment. Senator CoUZENS. Of what?

Senator WATSON. That is for us to determine, so they say.

Senator COUZENS. It seems to me the Legion ought to say whether they want the full payment, or whether they want the present-day value.

Senator WATSON. What was the last formal expression of the Legion on that question?

Mr. TAYLOR. That executive committee meeting.

Senator WATSON. Before that?

Mr. TAYLOR. The Boston convention.

Senator WATSON. What was their resolution at that time?

Mr. TAYLOR. A number of resolutions from various departments, through the proper channels, came to the Boston convention and were referred to the convention committee on legislation.

Senator WATSON. When was that?

Mr. TAYLOR. In October of last year. Those resolutions were carefully considered by the convention committee, and when the motion was made to favorably report a resolution calling for 80 per cent. cash payment, the vote was a tie, 12 to 12, so that the chairman of the convention legislative committee reported a number of resolutions which were carefully considered, and they rested there before the convention.

The national commander recognized the chairman of the subcommittee to read the resolution, which had come out of the convention committee. That resolution is as follows:

Be it resolved, That provision be made for the retirement and payment, to the extent of 80 per cent, of adjusted-compensation certificates issued to veterans of the World War, during the calendar year of 1931, with option to those who do not desire the cash, to retain the certificate.

That minority report was laid on the table by a vote of 967 to 244. Senator WATSON. Are there any other expressions?

Mr. TAYLOR. None whatever.

Senator WATSON. There were no other expressions of an affirmative character, but just that negative vote laying it on the table? Mr. TAYLOR. Yes.

Senator HARRISON. Was it laid on the table because they wanted the full 100 per cent proposition, or did they want less than 80 per cent?

Mr. TAYLOR. It was laid on the table to dispose of the question of paying the adjusted-compensation certificates.

Senator HARRISON. So, the question of whether the 80 per cent was adequate, or too much, or not enough, did not enter into the action of the convention?

Mr. TAYLOR. That did not enter into it.

Senator BARKLEY. What was that, 80 per cent of the face value? Mr. TAYLOR. Retirement and payment to the extent of 80 per cent of adjusted-compensation certificates. It did not say face value, or commuted value, or anything else.

Senator BARKLEY. Of course, that was an arbitrary percentage. Senator COUZENS. That looks like legislative jockeying.

Senator BARKLEY. I suppose it would be natural to conclude that they meant 80 per cent of the face value.

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes.

Senator BARKLEY. The meaning of this whole transaction was that the Legion did not feel it advisable to take the initiative in any regard with reference to this legislation.

Mr. TAYLOR. That is correct.

Senator BARKLEY. It was not interpreted as an expression of opposition to the payment of these certificates, as I understand it?

Mr. TAYLOR. That is exactly what the executive committee said in Indianapolis last Sunday.

Senator HARRISON. Is it your opinion that it would have been so difficult to pass the proposed legislation here that a good many may have thought it inopportune at that time, due to the probable opposition of the administration to the passage of such legislation?

Mr. TAYLOR. The Legion's primary interest, of course, is in legislation for the disabled men, and we are very much disturbed about the present situation of the disabled men's legislation. We have said that, and we repeat it. We believe that the disabled men's legislation should receive consideration at the present time. Outside of the hearing over on the House side on our hospital bills, there has not been a single solitary thing done on our disabled men's legislation in this Congress.

Senator WATSON. You did not want that mixed up with this question?

Mr. TAYLOR. We want our disabled men's legislation considered. That is all I have to say unless there are some questions.

Senator WATSON. Are there any questions?

Senator BARKLEY. There are a good many questions I would like to ask.

Mr. TAYLOR. Go ahead.

Senator BARKLEY. But, in view of the fact that you are more or less embarrassed about giving you own personal views, outside of what this resolution says, I will not ask anything further.

Mr. TAYLOR. I can not give any personal views.

Senator BARKLEY. I have great respect for your personal views, and would like to have them, but I do not want to put you in an attitude where you can not give them.

Senator HARRISON. It may be that some gentleman, who was present at this Boston convention, might want to ask him some questions, if that procedure is proper.

Senator WATSON. It would be entirely proper.

Mr. RANKIN. I was present, and I shall discuss that when my time comes. I know as much about it as he does.

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes; the Congressman was present.
Senator COUZENS. Who is the next witness?

Senator WATSON. Mr. Kirby.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS KIRBY, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS

Mr. KIRBY. Mr. Chairman, in their rather exhaustive statements covering nearly three days, the Administrator of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of the Treasury have so fully covered the general subject of adjusted compensation that it is my purpose to be as brief pose as possible in outlining the views of the D. A. V.

During the last week of last June, the tenth national convention of the D. A. V., after mature committee deliberation, voted in favor of an immediate redemption of the adjusted-service certificates.

In the early days of the agitation for an adjustment of the pay of World War soldiers, sailors, and marines, the D. A. V. campaigned for payments in cash, and later on, as compromise followed compromise, and the cash feature was virtually forgotten, the organized disabled withdrew from the fight.

By the time of the meeting last summer, the rising tide of distress among veterans, as among citizens generally, had reached the stage where the D. A. V. felt it was again justified in pleading with Congress that cash be granted. Since then, the only other two recognized veterans' groups have reached the same conclusion and to-day we find all the organized former service men of the World War joined in the one position.

It is our contention that the benefits of the cashing of these certificates at this time would not be limited to the veterans themselves, but would be an extremely valuable method of meeting the national depression, so I desire to place in the record at this time a tabulation of the amount of money that would be paid to residents of the several States, Territories, and insular possessions, from Oceania, with its 5 World War veterans and less than $5,000, to New York with more than 350,000 veterans who would receive approximately $375,000,000. (The statement referred to is as follows:)

Mr. KIRBY. These are official figures based upon the Patman bill, which is about the most liberal that has been given consideration and calls for cash to nearly three and a half million men at a cost of approximately $3,500,000,000.

Of course, should this plan be adopted, the direct effect would be to the relief of the veterans who avail themselves of the proposition, but, also, it would mean a decided impetus to the economic recovery through these millions of dollars that would be immediately placed in circulation. In no way could this be rated as a gift, as are most of the plans that have been considered to relieve want at this time, but rather payment of the debt at a time when there is a greater need than will probably be the need about 15 years hence.

While General Hines stated that only about 1 or 2 per cent of the tens of thousands of men who have already borrowed on their certificates have repaid the loans, it is our opinion that even a lower percentage of the disabled have been able to reimburse the Government. It is, therefore, easy to understand why the only organization of any war's disabled ever recognized in all history by Federal enactment, should have a particular interest in this legislation.

Assuming that this Congress will provide for some plan for immediate retirement of these policies, our organization is particularly interested in two phases what will unquestionably be injected into the discussion.

The first of these is the matter of an option. We feel that instead of adopting some proposal that would compel a World War man to decide at once to accept any offer, there should be discretion allowed between cashing the certificates this year and allowing them to continue to 1945.

The second is on the matter of need. From time to time there have been suggestions that it might be possible to work out some solution so that this cash would be available only for those in dis

tress.

On the surface this might appear as an equitable proposition