Will it disturb you if I add just one or two more observations of a general nature? It was asked this morning-it was suggested that we make this retroactive. I confess I purposely avoided putting in the retrocative clause for one very definite reason. In my judgment, the most patriotic service that this Congress can render to the country is to pass some measure, whether it be this measure or another measure, but some measure at once. The boys are going out on the 4th of September. We are now getting these exemption claims. We are now having these appeals started. The country doesn't know what Congress is going to do about this thing. There is great doubt and uncertainty. You can't do anything that will hearten the country as much as by letting them know definitely. You don't have to depend on the gratuity of future Congresses. It is settled in advance. We are telling you about it. We are going to be just. This is what we are going to do for you. If you are going to put in a retroactive clause, I want the Congress to do it at once. Mr. SIMS. You want it to be unnecessary for us to have it done? Mr. MACK. Yes, sir. These were the other considerations. Take the family-allowance consideration. Until you do something these people are not going to starve. They are going to get along. The Red Cross suggested to me, "Here, we have got to take care of these people in the meantime" The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any reason why the committee, when it comes to drafting this bill, can't fix that? Mr. MACK. No; I know they don't need to. The Red Cross wanted this provision put in there: "We will take care of these soldiers, and you put in there a provision that Congress will reimburse the Red Cross." I said, "I am not going to do that, and Congress would not do it." You have got a compensation law. If anybody is injured in this war, till the law is passed the pension law is going to take care of them. On the insurance feature we have provided expressly that during this 120 days in which a man has got to make up his mind after the law is passed and we promulgate the terms, if anybody has died between the 6th of April, when the war was declare, and the end of that 120 days, we consider he has applied for insurance in a sum total of what would be a $5,000 policy, $25 a month, or payable 20 years after his death. But we have made it payable only to these certain particular individuals, his brothers, sisters, parents, and children. If they all die, the payments shall cease. So we have taken care of the retroactive features, so far as insurance is concerned. The pension takes care of it, so far as the others are concerned. And as to the maintenance, if you think it is wise to put in a retroactive provision that the family shall get a back month's pay, that is all right. Mr. SIMS. Why not put it in from September 4, the time these men go into camp? Mr. MACK. I am perfectly willing. Mr. PARKER of New Jersey. By these acts of marriage, one of our acts in 1890 limited the marriage to 25 years after the war. many of them thought that was all right. A good Mr. MACK. I think that some such provision as that might be wise. I tell you frankly, I am 51 years of age and I think it might be wise to say a fellow has got to marry before he is 60, but I did not know how some of our aged and revered Senators would take the suggestion that if a fellow does not marry before 60 Mr. PARKER Of New Jersey. That is not a very important question. The greatest abuse, if I remember right, of pensioners with reference to disability, which led in the end to the old-age declaration—they were disabled anyway at 70, and the greatest trouble in the world was in discovering disability after the war, many years. Mr. MACK. That is provided for in this way: Within a year after the discharge from the service a man must get a certificate from the Government's medical officers specifying what injury or disease he has incurred in the service which is likely to cause a subsequent disability or death, and that year may be extended to two years under regulations. If, then, he dies subsequently or becomes disabled, and he claims it is due to war service, he must show it is due to something in that certificate or he does not get it. If he gets it in the year or two after that it is clear enough. This same workmen's compensation law says you must die in six years, or you must become disabled. That is not right. There may be a bullet in him, and it may show up at the end of 20 years. Mr. PARKER of New Jersey. Ought not there to be some provision by saying that if he should not get the certificate the bill bars him? Mr. MACK. The regulations require that; yes. Mr. PARKER of New Jersey. Taking the case where 75 out of 1,000 die and others are wounded, is there any method at all by which we can guess at what the total compensation bill to the Government would be analogous to our pension bill as now and in former years? Mr. MACK. All I can say is that these actuaries have figured out, and we have a report they figured out that this article 3, the compensation there provided for for death and disability would cost the first year $12,150,000. I forgot what they figured the second year; about double; something of that kind. That is based on these five most eminent actuaries and is based on having a million men in service in September, 1917. Mr. PARKER of New Jersey. And if 5,000,000 in the field we are going to go up? Mr. MACK. Oh, yes. Mr. PARKER of New Jersey. But it gives a basis for an estimate? Mr. MACK. Yes. We may be particularly fortunate in our casualties; but on that feature we must remember we have got the present pension. Mr. PARKER of New Jersey. Yes; and besides that we have got these awful injuries that come from gas. I believe that is what I wanted to ask especially about, that matter of the ascertainment of disability, so that it would not be postponed for 40 years, and while there were likely many just cases there were a great many wrong. Mr. MACK. Yes, sir. (At 4.45 p. m. the committee adjourned until Friday, August 24, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.) |