respects, he has not changed his ruling concerning officers of the Army who served only as provisional officers.

It has been impracticable to furnish a satisfactory estimate of the potential number of provisional officers who might be eligible to benefits if this proposed measure should be enacted into law, but it can be stated that a check with the War Department of the disallowed claims of emergency officers indicates that 42 provisional officers have been denied retirement pay under the Emergency Officers' Retirement Act. The War Department has informally advised the Veterans' Administration that 2,468 provisional officers were honorably discharged from service prior to 1922.

As you know, the provisions of Regulation No. 5, promulgated pursuant to the act of March 20, 1933, Public, No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, place certain restrictions upon entitlement to emergency officers' retirement pay, so that many persons heretofore entitled will not receive benefits under present limitations. Considering this fact, it is conservatively estimated that this bill would cost approximately $10,000 the first year over and above the compensation now being paid and would affect 10 provisional officers. Since it appears from a reading of the bill that it does not contemplate payment of benefits prior to date of application, it would seem that no retroactive payments would be made, so the estimate of cost is presented on that basis.

The bringing of other persons within the provisions of the Emergency Officers' Retirement Act of May 24, 1928, upon the basis of applications filed at a time different from that required in that law will, no doubt, tend to encourage a demand for the enactment of legislation extending the time limit within which claims under the Emergency Officers' Retirement Act may be filed, and will encourage other classes of persons to seek legislation to bring them within the terms of the act. For example, all officers who could not prove a disability of a 30-percent degree within the time limit fixed by the Emergency Officers' Retirement Act would probably seek to have the time limit extended for proving this degree of disability so that they would have the same period of time contemplated by this proposed measure.

While these provisional officers were not entitled to retirement as members of the Regular Establishment after separation from service nor were they entitled to retirement under the Emergency Officers' Retirement Act, they were members of the Regular Establishment under the National Defense Act and were privileged to apply for retirement for disability under the law cited above. They are now entitled to benefits of compensation or pension upon compliance with existing laws and regulations.

It is noted that this bill is similar to S. 1595, Seventy-third Congress, on which a report was made to your Committee on June 12, 1933, and which was favorably reported by your committee by Senate Report No. 593, Seventy-third Congress, on March 28 (calendar day, April 4), 1934.

While the Veterans' Administration does not favor its approval, it is suggested that if further consideration should be given to this proposed measure, it would seem expedient to include therein a specific statement as to whether or not benefits may be paid prior to date of enactment, and whether or not applications filed with the Veterans' Administration before enactment of the proposed legislation would be considered valid.

Furthermore, in view of the fact that the Emergency Officers' Retirement Act of May 24, 1928, was repealed by section 17 of the act of March 20, 1933 (Public, No. 2, 73d Cong.), the bill seems to require revision on this point. In the interest of equitable dispensation of benefits, it is also suggested that the bill should specifically provide that, except for the date of filing application, entitlement to benefits as provided in the bill would be subject to the limitations of Public, No. 2, and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto which relate to emergency officers' retirement pay.

The Veterans' Administration does not recommend this proposed measure to your favorable consideration.

Very truly yours,

FRANK T. HINES, Administrator. Senate Report No. 593 (73d Cong., 2d sess.), to accompany S. 1595, follows:

The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1595) extending the benefits of the Emergency Officers' Retirement Act of May 24, 1928, to provisional officers of the Regular Establishment who served during the World

War, having considered the same, recommend that it do pass amended as follows: Page 2, line 11, after the word "Act", add the following:

"Provided, That no back pay, compensation, benefit, or allowance conferred by this Act shall be held to have accrued prior to the passage of this Act."

The committee strongly feels that this bill S. 1595 should be enacted. The World War officers who would be affected are those who because of being neither Regular nor emergency officers, have been unable to secure the benefits of either service through the Veterans' Administration. This situation is due to the fact that a number of officers were appointed provisional officers in 1917. They continued to serve during the World War under such commissions but rendering exactly the same service as any other commissioned officer.

The issue involved is merely one of justice and to correct what was evidently an oversight in writing the act of May 24, 1928. That act as written and administered has left these fully deserving ex-World War officers literally as men without a status.

Following is report from the Veterans' Administration on S. 1595:

Hon. MORRIS SHEPPARD,

Chairman Committee on Military Affairs,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

JUNE 12, 1933.

MY DEAR SENATOR SHEPPARD: This is in reply to your communication of May 9, 1933, with which you forwarded for report a copy of S. 1595, Seventy-third Congress, "A bill extending the benefits of the Emergency Officers' Retirement Act of May 24, 1928, to provisional officers of the Regular Establishment who served during the World War."

Under date of February 28, 1929, the Comptroller General of the United States held that provisional officers of the Army were not entitled to retirement under the provisions of the Disabled Emergency Officers' Retirement Act, giving as his reason the fact that these men had not served as emergency officers during the World War. While the Comptroller General later modified this decision in certain respects, he has not changed his ruling concerning officers of the Army who served only as provisional officers. There have been introduced in previous sessions of the Congress several bills that had for their purpose the extension of retirement benefits to this group of men who could not be retired as emergency officers nor were they entitled to be retired under the laws relating to retirement in the Regular Establishment.

It has been impracticable to furnish a satisfactory estimate of the potential number of provisional officers who might be eligible to benefits if any of these proposed measures should have been or should be in the future enacted into law, but it can be stated that a check with the War Department of the disallowed claims of emergency officers indicates that 42 provisional officers have been denied retirement pay under the Emergency Officers' Retirement Act. The War Department has informally advised the Veterans' Administration that 2,468 provisional officers were honorably discharged from service prior to 1922.

As you know, the provisions of regulation no. 5, promulgated pursuant to Public, No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, place certain restrictions upon entitlement to emergency officers' retired pay, so that many persons heretofore entitled will not receive benefits under present limitations. Considering this fact, it is conservatively estimated that this bill would cost approximately $10,000 the first year over and above the compensation now being paid and would affect 10 provisional officers. This estimate is based entirely upon the claims on file and does not take into consideration new claims which might be filed by provisional officers. Since it appears from a reading of the bill that it does not contemplate payment of benefits prior to date of application, it would seem that no retroactive payments would be made, so the estimate of cost is presented on that basis.

As you know, Public, No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, "An act to maintain the credit of the United States Government" and the Veterans' Regulations promulgated by the President pursuant thereto, inaugurates a new policy in veterans' relief and indicates the extent to which the Federal Government should be obligated in the care, treatment, and granting of benefits to veterans. As to the particular group referred to above, no entitlement existed under the Emergency Officers' Retirement Act of May 24, 1928, and section 10 of Public, No. 2, did not extend benefits to them. The question as to relief in those particular cases where the national policy does not permit the granting of benefits is of great importance in view of the fact that the national policy recently inaugurated effects, to a great extent, a more restricted definition of Federal obligation. Should the Congress see fit to give favorable consideration to individual cases where relief is not

authorized or where beneficiaries wish their allowance increased, there may arise serious complications in the establishment, with any degree of permanency, of a national policy with reference to veterans' relief.

While the Veterans' Administration does not favor its approval, it is suggested that if further consideration should be given to this proposed measure, it would seem expedient to include therein a specific statement as to whether or not benefits may be paid prior to date of enactment, and whether or not applications filed with the Veterans' Administration before enactment of the proposed legislation would be considered valid.

In the interest of equitable dispensation of benefits, it is also suggested that the bill should specifically provide that applications thereunder would be subject to the limitations of Public, No. 2, and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.

The Veterans' Administration does not recommend this proposed measure to your favorable consideration.

A copy of this letter is enclosed for your use.

Very truly yours,

74TH CONGRESS 1st Session

}

SENATE

{

REPORT No. 480

AUTHORIZING THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TO ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES A CERTAIN STRIP OF LAND FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

APRIL 11 (calendar day, APRIL 12), 1935.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. TRAMMELL, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1610]

The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1610) authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to accept on behalf of the United States a certain strip of land from the State of South Carolina, having considered the same, report it to the Senate with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

The purpose of the bill is to authorize the Secretary of the Navy to accept on behalf of the United States a certain strip of land at Parris Island, S. C., to be used subject to the conditions and limitations that when it is no longer required for military purposes it will revert to the State of South Carolina.

Due to the reverter clause contained in the statute of the State of South Carolina which granted this strip of land to the Government for national-defense purposes, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that such land cannot be accepted by the Secretary of the Navy without explicit authority from Congress. So feeling that this land is useful to the Navy Department and in view of the opinion of the Attorney General that an act of Congress is necessary to permit the Secretary of the Navy to accept this land on behalf of the United States, it is recommended that this bill do pass.

This legislation will involve no additional cost to the Government and is recommended by the Department as indicated by the letter. from the Secretary of the Navy addressed to the chairman of the committee which is hereby made a part of this report.