Mr. JARMAN. I was dumbfounded at the General's statement, which I understood him to say was, that he was responsible for the mistakes of that Board.

Mr. HOBART. I expect he is.

Mr. JARMAN. I again say I think that law ought to be repealed. What about the safeguards around that Board there?

General HINES. I am afraid you misinterpreted a little what I said. I said an administrative officer would sign a statement of fact, under the existing law, and if he had made an error, which the Comptroller may feel is a bad error, he could be held, not the disbursing officer. Now, if any case came to me and I made a finding of fact, under section 5, the Comptroller could not touch me. Congress could, but the Comptroller could not, because

Mr. JARMAN. Who then can be held?

General HINES. It is the adjudicator, who sees all of the facts. When a bad error is made and a loss to the Government occurs, that man can be held.

Mr. JARMAN. Suppose we take a case before your Board down there, today, and they render a decision that is not quite in keeping with the law, I judge from what you said a while ago you would be financially responsible for it?

General HINES. No; but any group of men who signed it could be held.

Mr. JARMAN. Sitting there in a judicial capacity?

General HINES. Say there was some close case came to me and I made a finding agreeing with that group, their finding would protect them. But they do not all come to me.

Mr. JARMAN. They are sitting there in a judicial capacity? Would you not agree to that?

General HINES. A semijudicial capacity, or a quasi-judicial capacity; yes.

Mr. JARMAN. Yet you tell me that the law is that they are responsible for any mistakes they make?

General HINES. Any administrative officer who makes a mistake which could be said be a careless mistake, or one that affects the group generally, can be held.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Let me call the gentleman's attention to something here. I am sure you recall that the Expenditures Committee last session reported out a bill involving several millions of dollars to clear a certain officer of the Government, under the P. W. A., which had more payments which they had made, according to the rules in existence than they thought were in existence at that time and in accordance with the rules of the Government, but which rules had been changed prior to receiving the notice of change, and they had made disbursements in the interim and were being held responsible. Mr. JARMAN. But they were not acting in a judicial or quasijudicial capacity.

Mr. GRISWOLD. They were in the same capacity as these gentlemen. General HINES. May I call the committee's attention to the very fact you have before you at this time; that is, that you have before you a law which, if passed, will clear these officers. In other words, it will give the head of the Department the right to review, and if

his finding is that they acted with proper judgment and within the law, they will be relieved. As it is now, many times there is a difference between the head of the Department and the Comptroller on those issues, and the head of the Department is not the deciding factor, except where I can make a finding in the case, and I think that is binding upon the Comptroller.

Mr. JARMAN. I think just like I said before, that that ought to be repealed. I think, that if we had a law that a judge-suppose we had a law that a member of the Supreme Court over here were financially responsible for any mistake in a judicial capacity—

General HINES. They have the authority, but administrative officers generally have not been given such authority as rests in the judiciary. So that this Board, if they were drawn a little closer to it, I think you will cure it, but you will cure it if you pass the law which I think your committee, or the Expenditures Committee, reported out, as I understand it, or it is in the committee somewhere up here now, I do not know.

Mr. GRISWOLD. We tried to pass a law like that. We reported it out from the Expenditures Committee, but the House turned it down. Mr. ATKINSON. Who would decide to hold such officer responsible in those cases?

Mr. GRISWOLD. The Comptroller General.

General HINES. The Comptroller General would be the one to hold them. Of course, now, many of them are eliminated by correspondence between my office and the Comptroller General, by a restatement of the facts; and I will say that the only cases we have on the docket that are undisposed of are those that would indicate some carelessness. In the allowance of pensions, it is quite a task at the time, and this has a bearing on the allowance of compensation and pensions and

Mr. JARMAN. That is just the point.

General HINES. All you gentleman have been talking about is the individual equation of the men sitting on the Board. Some men have more courage than others, and they allow them. Now, when these cases are allowed, very few of them are questioned. I do not know that it is ever questioned, when the group is in accord on it. Usually it is the individual adjudicator who has made the allowance that

Mr. JARMAN. Speaking of courage, General, it seems to me that it takes an awful lot of courage sometimes. For instance, there is a poor veteran down yonder who has not got anybody-he might have a Congressman who will write letters down there, but there is nobody checking up for him to know if they are making a mistake and

General HINES. We have not had a case where the Board of Appeals has been held by the Comptroller General.

Mr. JARMAN. I cannot conceive that you would have such a case, but, as I understand it, they could do it.

General HINES. They could do it, but we have not had it, and I feel that he is a reasonable man, and he probably would not question it.

Mr. JARMAN. I do not think that ought to be staring your Board in the face.

General HINES. Although under section 5, you have got many people that do not agree with the authority that is given to them. Mr. GRISWOLD. Gentlemen, it is time for the House to be in session. We have no authority to sit during sessions of the House.

Mr. Hobart informs me he cannot come back tomorrow. Therefore, if he has anything further that he desires to put in the record by way of a written statement, by consent of the committee he may do so.

Mr. HOBART. I thank you.

Mr. GRISWOLD. We will meet at 10:30 tomorrow morning, and we will hear Mr. Rice of the V. F. W. tomorrow morning.

(Thereupon, a recess was taken in the hearing until 10:30 a. m.. Tuesday, February 1, 1938.)

WORLD WAR VETERANS' LEGISLATION

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1938

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON WORLD WAR VETERANS' LEGISLATION,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10:30 o'clock a. m., pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Glenn Griswold (acting chairman) presiding.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Gentlemen, the committee will come to order. Mr. Millard Rice, of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, wishes to testify this morning.

STATEMENT OF MILLARD RICE, REPRESENTING VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS

Mr. RICE. Mr. Chairman, lady and gentlemen of the committee, we appreciate very much the opportunity of appearing before your committee relative to the legislation in which our organization is interested.

The chairman of this committee, Hon. John E. Rankin, introduced at our request a bill known as H. R. 8968, which embodies practically all of the principles pertaining to veterans and their dependents which the Veterans of Foreign Wars advocate.

I would like, at this time, to have H. R. 8968 placed in the record, if I may.

Mr. GRISWOLD. You mean in toto?

Mr. RICE. Yes, sir; if you please.

Mr. GRISWOLD. With the consent of the committee, that may be done.

(H. R. 8968 is as follows:)

[H. R. 8968, 75th Cong., 3d sess.]

A BILL To provide additional relief for veterans and their dependents, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person wounded, gassed, injured, or disabled by an instrumentality of war in a zone of hostilities in line of duty in the active service in the military or naval forces of the United States shall be paid $10 per month and in addition shall be paid any pension or compensation otherwise authorized: Provided, That the $10 per month herein authorized shall be in addition to any medal-of-honor pension otherwise authorized.

SEC. 2. On and after the enactment of this Act and notwithstanding any provision of law or veterans' regulation, in no event shall any person by reason of willful misconduct be denied any of the service-connected benefits under the laws providing relief for veterans of the World War and their dependents: Provided, That such misconduct did not interfere during service with the full