Page images
PDF
EPUB

nothing to gain and will lose the suit, but one of the horrible features is that these lawyers are able to convince these helpless men, and even their widows. I have a letter from a mother recently who have $78 I think, to a lawyer, and he had asked her for $20 more, and she said she did not have $20, and wanted me to advise whether she should forfeit the money, and that she would forfeit it unless she got $20 more, and that she did not have it.

I am in agreement with General Hines that the point will soon be reached where it will be a national scandal. We went through the matter of guardianship a few years ago, but the question of insurance has gotten beyond all reason.

I would suggest that the committee, regardless of what it does on this insurance situation, indicate in the report to Congress what would constitute instructions to the director that in case of any unethical conduct or impeachable conduct on the part of the lawyer, that a part of the duty of the bureau should be to call that to the attention of the Attorney General, the American Bar Association, and the Bar Association in the State in which the man is functioning.

I believe that proper pressure will not only break this thing up, but will send some of them to jail.

Senator BINGHAM. What is your objection to putting something in the law which will be a fair warning to any attorneys engaged in the kind of practice which you have just mentioned, that is, getting a few dollars more out of a widow that had nothing more to give? I do not see the objection to putting something in the law which would tend to discourage that.

Mr. KIRBY. I would not go so far as to discourage it, Senator, but I would go so far as to punish it, if possible.

Senator BINGHAM. You can not punish them, unless it is put in the law, can you?

Mr. KIRBY. I agree with you. You ask if it can not be discouraged. I would discourage it through punishment. It so happens that next Monday; that is, Monday the 19th, the legal council of the Veterans' Bureau, composed of the outstanding lawyers of the whole country, acting as a legal committee, in some capacity as the medical council in medical matters, meets in Washington, and I think if that council had indications that Congress would uphold them in some sort of action on this thing, we can break it up. But when you are going to leave that in the law, then a lawyer can go so far in expenses and so far in the matter of lawsuits, I do not know. It is my understanding that when a lawyer on the man's say-so proposes to institute a suit, the proposed law prohibits the lawyer in that regard. Under the law the American Red Cross, the American Legion, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and so forth, are prohibited from going into this. Anything otherwise would affect the liaison service from doing such good work. If the man writes and gives the facts, and the lawyer institutes suit on his statement, it may be when the matter is brought into court the picture from the Government's side is entirely different from what the man told his lawyer, but, in the meantime, the veteran is suffering through the expenses charged to him. Furthermore you are congesting the court calendars to the point where we can not get results. There are 150 suits entered in a relatively small city by one man, if my figures are correct. That will give you an idea of that lawyer's business. The director said that there was one lawyer

waiting for the starting of this thing-for it to be opened up-and that he has got 900 suits. I think that will give you some idea as to how they are going after it.

Senator BINGHAM. You have given the matter so much study that I would like to have you suggest a clause that might be inserted whereby we could not only do justice to the men, who through the present limitations are unable to bring suit, but also prevent them from being gouged by ambulance-chasing lawyers.

Mr. KIRBY. Nothing I have said, Senator, is to be construed as an attitude on our part to prevent these men from suing when suit is justified. Our office consistently functions when we have exhausted every other means in the bureau. We have been remarkably successful in our record in advising the men to sue, as to the results achieved by the suit. That does not mean that the man should slap a suit against the Government because he has something against the Govern

ment.

Senator BINGHAM. Would it be possible to put in a provision that a suit should only be brought through a reputable service organization?

Mr. KIRBY. I do not think that is practicable. One of the dominant reasons would be the man desires the suit brought in his own home town, his own home district, and it would require the service organizations to set up an enormous legal machinery, which I do not think would be practicable. There are great groups of these men. The files of the Veterans' Bureau are absolutely replete with this stuff. It was only 48 hours ago that the Bar Association disbarred a man in Washington who was extremely prominent in getting men. released from St. Elizabeths.

I think the bureau would support the statement that for every 50 that get out, 49 go back.

General HINES. He initiated the action.

Mr. KIRBY. That is purely in connection with the matter of getting men out of St. Elizabeths, and the Veterans' Bureau had adopted the attitude in sending these men to hospitals, without putting the permanent stamp of insanity on them. They have convinced the men that they should stay there. The lawyer finds out they are not permanently and totally disabled, and they get what they can out of the case, and then the man is picked up again.

It is my judgment that it is a question of legal ethics; that is, I mean as to the attitude the man in the profession would take.

Senator BINGHAM. Would it not be possible to put in a clause stating that the matter could only be done on the recommendation of your organization, or some similar organization? That would mean it would be done well, and if you thought there was justification for it, you could then recommend that the lawyer be permitted to try the case?

Mr. KIRBY. It would reach this issue, Senator, I think: It would be a question of convincing the individual veteran of the intent and sincerity and honesty and ability of the liaison service organization, as opposed to a fast-talking lawyer-and these men talk fast. I have in my office a specific case, Senator, which is almost unbelieveable, which was brought to the attention of the Attorney General, where one firm of lawyers had forged the name of the national president of the Woman's Auxiliary to these letters, which were sent out broadcast all over the country.

Senator BINGHAM. Do you think that kind of a lawyer is going to be checked or kept down by the ethics of his profession?

Mr. KIRBY. I certainly do, Senator, because as soon as you plaster on him a disbarment he is out.

Senator BINGHAM. That is a little more than an ethical proposition. Mr. KIRBY. I concede that. We have got to get action. That is a matter in the records of the Veterans' Bureau.

The second subject, Senators, is with regard to a clause in this law to allow men who lost their hands and feet, the amputation cases, battle casualties, limited to the period of hostilities, $25 a month payment plus the usual compensation. In looking back through these laws, back to the armistice, you will find that class after class has gone forward, the tuberculous, "N. P.," and encephalitis and the various disabilities, and all are receiving that compensation. Take the tuberculous cases, and a man gets $50 a month for that class alone. Here is a man who has been hurt. The disabled man is the man who was hit on the line. We have these amputation cases. They drop down to remarkably low ratings, so far as monthly payments are concerned. They have never been rceognized as a class. This section of the law is so stringently written that it would limit the time between the beginning of the war and the end of hostilities. In other words, they would be distinctly battle casualties, and who, as a class, have never received the consideration we feel they should receive. That means they get out with a leg off, or an arm off, and would get $25 in addition to the usual compensation rating.

On the debatable question which has been up here almost since the time the committee started hearings-that is, on the matter of the presumptive clause-section 200: The position of our organization is that a great deal of the trouble to-day in the whole problem of the disabled veteran is the uncompensated man, the man who receives nothing in the way of compensation. They are keeping him out of the hospital. The highest class man refuses to go to the hospital and leave his family alone, and stays until he is beyond recall physically, and all because he can get no financial relief. We are not pretending that we can establish scientifically, medically, that the diseases which are now developing can be traced directly and historically to the war service, but we are contending that something should be done for these men, who are suffering from chronic disabilities, in order to meet this problem. This has been described as pension legislation. It is our honest conviction that there is nothing which will go so far as to delay pension legislation, which we feel, based upon history, is inevitable, as the liberalization of the World War veterans' act, even beyond the limit of scientific support. We feel that the presumptive clause which has been described here of presuming disabilities to 1925 is worthy, but we do not think it goes far enough. I would say to this committee that the largest groups of disabled men to-day are the tuberculous men and the N. P., the mentally and nervously disordered men. This clause will have no bearing on any of these cases, and not one will be affected in any way. It is to take care of these other diseases, but leaves out N. P. and T. B., who to-day constitute twothirds of those in the hospitals. There are 30,000 men to-day in the hospitals, and of those 30,000, 21,000 are N. P. and T. B. So this proposed presumptive clause which will extend the number of diseases up to 1925 will have no bearing on a single one of these men.

One

way to help those men is to extend your presumptive clause from 1925 to 1930. So, while there is a great deal of worth in the proposal to extend the presumptive clause to cover more diseases, it will not reach the man with whom we are having the greatest trouble.

Our proposal is that the bill introduced by Senator Walsh and Congressman Rankin to include the chronic diseases up to 1930 be passed. When we do that, we get rid of the matter discussed awhile ago; that is, dependency matters. If these 20,000 out of 30,000 are covered, the cost of that matter will automatically take care of the dependency matters which were discussed as another part of this bill. In other words, if you presume these men to be included under their service connection, they are also presumed to be entitled to their dependency allowances. My information is that this bill will cost about $30,000,000, added to the cost of the presumptive clause, as it extends up to 1925.

General HINES. $31,000,000.

Mr. KIRBY. $31,000,000. There is nobody who could even presume to speak for the ex-service men for the future. It would be absurd for me, or anyone else, to attempt to speak for all this group of veterans, as to what they will do. But I do think if this presumptive clause is extended to 1930, it will go further toward temporarily quieting the agitation for a bonus than anything you could possibly write into this law.

We have to-day approximately one-half of the men in the hospitals receiving no relief whatever, so far as their family is concerned.

Senator BINGHAM. Is not that because 46 per cent of them are nonservice diseases?

Mr. KIRBY. Exactly, and the purpose of this presumption is to take in all these men, and it will not be done by an extension to 1925. The tuberculous man and the N. P. man will not be affected in the slightest degree by presuming this up to 1925, because they are presumed there now. As the law now stands, the T. B. and N. P. man is so presumed. The purpose of the 1925 presumption, as outlined here, is to take in other diseases on a parity. But by stopping there you will not reach the T. B. or N. P. man, and they represent two out of three cases in the hospitals. While it will do good in cases, it is far from what we desire.

That, in principle, is an answer to the Senator from Connecticut and the Congressman from Mississippi.

Senator BINGHAM. Is it not thoroughly liberal to say that any disease which a man has within five years and nearly two months from the time of the armistice, or not quite five years from the actual termination of the war, that he be given five years' leeway, and say that any illness which he acquired up to five years after the war is virtually presumed to be in a service connection?

Mr. KIRBY. Senator, you have gone a little further, because I think the average discharge was February, 1919, and you have brought it up to the 1st of January, 1925. That is approximately

the time.

Senator BINGHAM. It is over five years. The point I am making is this: Have we not been really generous in giving a 5-year margin, and it is not really going beyond what can reasonably be stated, to presume that anything that a man acquires 10 years after the war is in a service connection?

As you know, I am a veteran, and I have the very kindest feeling toward the disabled veterans, and I want to see all veterans get justice. I do not want to see any law passed which will give the possibility of the finger of scorn to be pointed at us by the present or future generations. We have on our books to-day a number of laws which I need not mention, of a controversial character, where there is something in the law which appeals to persons as being unfair, having been put in for some ulterior motive. To be specific, take the one-half of 1 per cent alcoholic provision. Everybody knows 1 per cent alcohol is not intoxicating, but the Congress made it one-half of 1 per cent for certain reasons, and that has done a great deal, in my opinion, to lessen respect for the law.

If it is necessary to take care of the unfortunate, the indigent, and the needy veteran, I believe it should be done. But to say that any disease that a man got up to 10 years after his discharge is due to service connection, it seems to me, is going against the real interest of the veteran in the long run.

Mr. KIRBY. Senator, in a great many cases I absolutely agree with you. I want to put it before you in this connection. If you will presume up to 1925, as you propose in this and as you have in certain of the cases, that certain disabilities arising before 1925 are presumed to be of war origin, is it not true that you have got to presume, to be logical, that if there had been no war there would not have have been these diseases? That strengthens your argument, if we will assume anybody who went into the service got tuberculosis between the date of the war and 1925, and that his disease was of war origin, must we not assume that if there was no war, there would not have been these diseases?

Senator BINGHAM. As I say, we have been very generous, and we have given them the benefit of the doubt. If we give them the benefit of the doubt as to five years, must we do it for 10 years or more?

Mr. KIRBY. I think that is true, and you are going to have to give them a pension eventually.

I agree absolutely, Senator, that the Government has been generous. A lot of cases come to us which are horrible, the so-called border-line cases, which are illegal, and, as we know, and as you know from handling claims made upon the State. But the position that Congress is in to-day-and when I say "Congress" I mean the service organizations also, because we are at the crossroads; we are at the crossroads where you have got to turn to the right and extend this presumptive clause, even though it is not scientifically sound, that is, it can not be backed up medically, that is, medically sound; or we must jump into a pension. I mean that the storms and waves of agitation of all organizations with which I am familiar have reached the crest. Frankly, in our organization, we have had a terrible time. I mean, Senator, when you get to the matter of a pension, you are going to presume other disabilities, because you will have a broad disability pension plan, where the men will come in, literally hundreds of thousands of them, where there is no rebuttable clause in it.

One of the weaknesses here in this act is that we have removed the rebuttable clause. We did not want that. We do not sttempt to defend a case like this: Where a man is struck by an automobile

« PreviousContinue »