The CHAIRMAN. They eventually were sent back to where they were sent from, and they want their pay besides.

Mr. STRONG. They want what was promised.

The CHAIRMAN. Is not that what was promised them?

Mr. STRONG. No; they were promised both their travel pay and their return home.

The CHAIRMAN. They were returned home. What they want is to be paid for coming back home besides?

Mr. STRONG. They want to be paid the travel pay they were promised if they would reenlist. Here is the promise;

Mr. FORT. What they claim is that the Government fixed a bonus; that the Government said, we will give you as a bonus the amount of your travel pay, in addition to taking you home.

Mr. STRONG. Here is the contract.

ADJUTANT GENERAL,

Washington:

MANILA, March 16, 1899.

Believed after inquiry majority volunteer organizations willing to reenlist for six months from ratification of treaty, provided that upon original discharge are paid traveling allowances to places of muster in and that after expiration of second enlistment they are transported to those places by United States. OTIS.

STATEMENT OF HON. MELVIN J. MAAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA·

Mr. MAAS. At Mr. Guyer's request I would like to make a very brief statement.

I want to point out to the committee that this is not an unusual procedure at all, that even to-day under existing law if an enlisted man reenlists, he is paid his travel pay in cash every time he reenlists. He does not have to go out home and come back into the Army.

If he has originally enlisted in Maine and he is out in California when he reenlists, he is paid in cash the amount of travel pay; that is, the amount it would take to send him back to Maine.

Mr. MICHENER. That is on his second enlistment; where does he get his travel pay to?

Mr. MAAS. To the same place.

Mr. MICHENER. Here is the point.

Mr. MAAS. He may be in San Francisco or he may be in New York. He is never in the same place four years at a time. He gets his travel pay to the place where he is mustered in.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Strong has laid a good deal of stress on the cablegram from The Adjutant General. He refers to the law which he says controls. The law says that the man shall receive his travel pay from the place of enlistment to his home.

Mr. MAAS. That is right.

Mr. MICHENER. If the officers had made no other promise at that time but had simply read to the men the cablegram from General Corbin down here in Washington, it would have meant this, "That when you men reenlist we will pay you your travel pay according to your present contract, but if you reenlist you reenlist in the Philippines, and therefore you will receive your pay under this law, not to your home, but to the place of enlistment." What happened there

was

Mr. MAAS (interposing). I get your point.

Mr. MICHENER. Let me say, to help your case, what happened there was this.

These men were not reenlisted. Had they been reenlisted over there, had they gone through the formality of reenlisting there would have been no bill here, because they would not have been entitled, under the law, to any extra travel pay. But instead of reenlisting they called them out and asked them if they would reenlist and stay. They said they would. In fact, they proceeded to fight without the formality of a reenlistment. In other words, they served beyond their enlistment, just as an officer does, after his term expires until his successor is appointed, and then they quit.

Mr. MAAS. You are correct. Had the law been simply applied, and if nothing had been said to them, at the expiration of their second enlistment they would have been in the Philippines, and they would not have been entitled to anything except to be taken back home. But the facts are that they were told by their officers that the law in that respect would not be followed, and that it would be a bonus to them and they would be paid transportation, and in addition to that would actually be taken home by the Government.

I have been both an enlisted man and an officer, and I know, Mr. Michener, that to an enlisted man an officer's word is law, and if he can not trust an officer and trust everything he says he loses that confidence that is so absolutely necessary when he goes into battle. If the idea gets out that officers do not know what they are talking about it will destroy the confidence of the enlisted men in their officers. at a most vital time.

These men kept their word; they relied on what their officers told them.

I do not think that the thing that made them stay was the money were going to get at all.

These men were drawing $15 or $20 a month. If they had not enlisted, and gone back home, all of them would have been making a good deal more than that much per month. I do not think it made any difference to them.

Mr. BANKHEAD. Why has not this been submitted before, for 30 years?

Mr. MAAS. Congress did not act.

Mr. BANKHEAD. Has any effort been made to get this up before? Mr. MAAS. Many times.

Mr. O'CONNOR. I understand there are about 15,000 men involved in this. If a man had reenlisted in the Philippines and had been discharged, would he have gotten the 20 cents per mile to the place where he first enlisted?

Mr. MICHENER. If the Government kept the man in the Philippines up to the date of the expiration of his term and he had then been discharged, he would have been entitled under the law to travel pay from that point to his home.

However, the Government never did that and does not do it to-day. They arranged to bring the men to the Presidio in Government transports, for the purpose of cutting out the expense involved in traveling that distance. The Government furnishes it in kind.

Instead of discharging the men in the Philippines they discharge them in San Francisco and they pay the mileage to their homes.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Do they pay them at the rate of 20 cents a mile?

Mr. FORT. They give a man one day's pay for every 20 miles.
Mr. O'CONNOR. That is 50 cents for every 20 miles.

Mr. MICHENER. My opinion is that these men ought to be taken care of, and these men ought to be taken care of according to the law. I think if The Adjutant General of the Army wired as he did, he did not commit himself. He said, if these men want to reenlist over there, well and good.

That would mean the men would be turned loose over there and they would be paid travel pay back home.

Now, suppose they had come to this country and had been discharged later; they would be entitled to travel pay under the law back to the place where they were mustered in.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM R. EATON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. EATON of Colorado. It seems to me you are placing the_emphasis in the wrong place. The fact is that the promise of the Government was kept. The promise of the Government was to pay this second transportation charge. The contract of the Government was to the effect that all men who were in the Philippines, and discharged there, would get this money for travel pay. That is what the enlistment contract was. If a man reenlisted in the Philippines he would get his travel-pay money; but that contract has not been fulfilled to this day.

They said, "If you reenlist, we will do this for you, we will pay you this money in cash." They said, "We will do this for you, we will pay you travel pay from the Philippines clear back to your homes, and when this is over we will send you from the Philippines clear back to your homes."

That new promise was complied with; the Government did bring them from the Philippines to the Presidio and send them home; but the Government did not give them their travel pay on the first enlistThat part of the first contract of enlistment was never com

ment.

plied with.

The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of fact, they did not reenlist. Mr. EATON of Colorado. That was a matter of detail. That was a matter of a first sergeant or a company clerk writing out some papers. They did the thing that was tantamount to reenlistment: They served the United States without writing their names upon a piece of paper. STATEMENT OF HON. LLOYD THURSTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

Mr. THURSTON. Mr. Chairman, it is with some reluctance that I make any statement about this matter, because I would be a beneficiary. I do not expect to vote upon the matter in the committee or upon the floor of the House.

I think a few words will help to clear up some things. We will take a comparable case.

The Government sent troops over there composed mainly of State volunteers. Pennsylvania was the only State in the East that furnnished a unit. Commencing with Iowa and Minnesota in the Central West, thence westward to the Pacific coast, I think every State furnished a volunteer organization for service in the Philippine Islands.

At the conclusion of the war with Spain the insurrection broke out. The commanding officers of the various State volunteer regiments did ask men to volunteer and stay. I can not speak for all of the organizations, but as I recall, all of my outfit the Fifty-first Iowa, remained for service.

Here is the point which I think should appeal to all of us.

If a regular regiment was over there and an enlisted man's time. expired, if he would reenlist and still remain in the regular service, he would be entitled to travel pay from Manila to the place of his enlistment in the United States, whether it be in the State of California or Pennsylvania, or any other State, if he was in the regular organization.

Now, then, the commanding officers told these State troops if they would remain there they would be allowed travel pay. In other words, if you take a regiment as a unit, if the individual members had been discharged they would have received their travel pay, just as a member of the regular organization whose period of enlistment. expired would have received his travel pay.

I can not say to you what situation arose that prevented the actual mustering out and mustering in of these State volunteers. But the effect would be the same.

The question has been asked whether they would not have ultimately been transported home. Certainly they would have been, because the regular who was discharged over there and reenlisted was brought back home. He would not be just discharged in Manila; whenever the regular organization which he served was moved back to the United States, whether to New Orleans or New York, or anywhere else, and his enlistment would have expired, they would then pay him his travel pay from such point to his home station, and not back to Manila, because it was not contemplated that that was his place of residence.

So the only reason this matter is here is just because they did not formally muster those men out and then again muster them in. Had they gone through that formality this matter never would have reached this committee, because the men would have received their travel pay over there.

The fact that they subsequently returned the men home did not. have any bearing on it because they would return home a regular who reenlisted in the islands.

As you know, the Government was sorely pressed at that time. These men mostly were National Guardsmen who had had the training over there, and as shortly as they could thereafter the Government created what was known as United States Volunteers, not State volunteers or regulars.

Those organizations were perfected and sent over there to relieve these organizations.

I quite well remember the day when our regiment was called out and asked if they would remain in the service. I think they remained because they wanted to stay, irrespective of any promises that might have been made.

The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand from you that they would give them their travel pay and then bring them back and give them their travel pay over again?

Mr. THURSTON. Certainly, because they did that with the men in the Regular Army?

The CHAIRMAN. That is the practice, is it?

Mr. THURSTON. That is the law.

Mr. FORT. The law says they shall be returned, on reenlistment, to the place of the original muster in.

Mr. THURSTON. When the term of enlistment of a man in the regular service expired he was paid his travel pay and reenlisted, and when the unit was returned to the United States he was brought back by the Government.

The CHAIRMAN. If his second enlistment expired over there, what would happen?

Mr. MAAS. They never let it expire over there. They figure it out about six months before it is time for it to expire, and then they will transport him back to the United States, if the expiration would occur in the Philippines.

Mr. MICHENER. The point I was getting at a while ago was this. These men were there, and they stayed there. If they kept them there until their time was up, then I think they were entitled, under, the law, to travel pay from there to their homes. But if they called them out before the time of expiration, so the Government might have brought them back, according to the regulations, to San Francisco, and mustered them out, then I do not think the Government owes that extra obligation from San Francisco to the Philippines, if the Government in fact did return them to San Francisco.

Mr. THURSTON. May I suggest this, that the regular who was a good business man would have received his travel pay upon reenlistment and placed it on interest, to be compounded annually, and he now would have two or three times as much as a State volunteer will get if he just receives the principal amount.

STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT LEAVITT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Mr. LEAVITT. Mr. Chairman, may I volunteer a word on this matter?

Mr. MICHENER. Were you over there, too?

Mr. LEAVITT. No; I was in Cuba. My service was in Cuba. But I have been department commander of the Spanish War Veterans in Montana.

Most of the Montana men went to the Philippine Islands, so I have heard them talk about this matter for a good many years.

The thing that has impressed me about it is that these men did not make this proposition to the Government.

The Government, in asking these men to stay on in the Philippines, put that as the condition upon which they should stay. But in presenting the matter to the men, as Mr. Thurston will remember, the Government, through its officers, made them this proposition. There was not any law to carry it out.

It was made by Army officers in good faith, but required an act of Congress to put it into effect and actually pay the money.

The question has been asked here this morning why this has not been taken up before. It has been up before for many years. It has been before Congress in one form or another for a long time.