Page images

room in the hospitals, to veterans who were suffering from nonserviceconnected disabilities, and we did it on the theory that the community was going to have to take care of those men anyway, and it might as well. be done in veterans' hospitals if there was room. This is the next step. Having given them that privilege, we are to pay for it by giving compensation, or a maintenance allowance to their relatives when they go in. Practically, you are giving compensation to those veterans for something that has no connection whatever with the war, are you not? And if you do that, why should you not do it to every civilian? There must be thousands of civilians in this country who need treatment and who are afraid to take it because they are afraid of losing their jobs, and afraid their people will be out of support while they are in the hospital. Why should we do it for one and not the other?

Mr. BETTELHEIM. I think your point is very well taken, Senator, if it were not for this fact, that if we could get these men into the hospital now and get them taken care of, it would save a great deal of expense later. If we could have gotten this particular man (Casey) I referred to into the hospital in the early days, we could have gotten him taken care of. It was just the other day that I went up on the appeal in his case, and it stands out in my mind. It was the case of an ulcer that went into a cancer, or the cancer was the sequelle. If we could have gotten that man taken care of, we could have gotten him back to a place where he would probably not have needed future hospitalization, and there would have been a saving to the Government, and we could have saved one man, one producer for this country. We would not have left on the hands of the community--the Federal Government, the State government, or the city government--a widow with three small children. We might have saved that man's life. If we could do that, then I would say, let us discount your suggestion. If we can not do that, your point is well taken. But I believe that that is the excuse and the reason that surmounts your point, which is otherwise well taken.

Senator ŘEED. You do not understand me. My belief is that there is nothing too generous that we can do for the men who suffer from war-time disabilities.

Mr. BETTELHEIM. I know that.

Senator REED. I have never objected to anything that has been proposed for their benefit, or for the benefit of their dependents, but I am blssed if I can see why any citizen of the United States who is suffering from a dsiability which has no connection with the war should be treated better than some other citizen of the United States in the same circumstances, just because he happens to have been a veteran.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Perhaps it is because of that very fact, Senator, that we should be a little more I will not say generous-but should do the thing suggested by the captain; because he was a faithful soldier.

The CHAIRMAN. That comes back to the same ultimate conclusion. There is only one thing to do, and that is to pay them off.

Mr. BETTELHEIM. If I could discount your thought with this thought, Senator Reed, we are working on the premise or the presumption, if you want to call it that, that the best part of these disabilities are due to the man's service. I am thoroughly convinced


that the vast amount of disallowed cases in the bureau are really cases that can be traced to the service. There may be here and thereand undoubtedly there are-men who have no real right to call upon the Government. They creep in anyway. We have men who come to us, who were discharged from the draft. A man who has served overseas does not look with great favor upon a man who was discharged from the draft because of a certain disability. That man may have been in the draft for probably a week or 10 days, and the man who served overseas, or the man who spent a long time in the service, may not feel kindly toward him. But still he gets in, under the present law.

I am trying to advance a plea for the vast majority of men who, we honestly and conscientiously feel, have a just claim. You gentlemen, when you appeal their cases, and go to the bureau for them, as you do, day after day, believe that they have some equity in their

If it were not for that, we would not come to you urging the compensation award or pension award, because we believe that their disability is due to service. We believe that the service in the trenches, and sleeping in barns where we had to remove the manure pile before the men could move in, and service in the holds of ships, and even service in camps in the United States, gave rise to many of these disabilities. My division, the Twenty-seventh Division, was in a tented camp from the time we were called by the President until we went overseas in June of 1918. We were in a tented camp, with snow piled up all around our camp. Of course, it made better men, and hardier men of some of us. With others it had just the opposite effect. It is the other poor son-of-a-gun that we are thinking of now.

I believe I have answered your question, Senator, to the best of my ability.

Senator REED. That answers it.

Mr. BETTELHEIM. A few years ago I came before the subcommittee over in the Capitol itself, suggesting a liberalization of the misconduct clause. Without going very much further into that, we still urge that you take into consideration the matter of liberalizing the misconduct clause. We do not want it to go too far, but we ask that it be liberalized in the manner which you deem best.

We also ask consideration of the amputation cases, the cases of those men who lost their limbs as the result of service.

May I, at this point, include our resolution on that subject? The CHAIRMAN. It will be printed at this point in the record. (The resolution referred to is as follows:)

RESOLUTION No. 110—DOUBLE PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY Whereas many service men who during the World War lost one or more limbs or their sight or hearing still carry and always will carry with them the marks of battle fields as a constant reminder of their sacrifice, and such disabilities are visible and render them unemployable in the commercial world to earn a living for their dependents, and these veterans are compelled to undergo undue and unjust hardships: Therefore be it

Resolved by the Thirtieth National Encampment, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, That we do hereby petition the President and Congress of the United States of America to so amend the third proviso of section 202 of the World War veterans' act, 1924, to read as follows:

"If and while the disability is rated as total and permanent, the rate of compensation shall be $100 per month: Provided, however, That the permanent loss of one foot, or one hand, or the loss of hearing of both ears, or the organic loss of speech shall be deemed to be total and permanent disability: Provided, further, That the permanent loss of both feet, or both hands, or both eyes, or of one foot and one hand, or of one foot and one eye, or of one hand and one eye, or becoming permanently helpless, or permanently bedridden, shall be deemed to be double total and permanent disability, and the rate of compensation shall be $200 per month."

That this section shall be deemed to be in effect as of April 6, 1917, and shall be deemed to be effective for compensation purposes as well as for war-risk insurance: Further be it

Resolved by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to each and every one of the United States Cnogressmen who are members of the World War Veterans' Legislative Committee, and urge their support in order to secure the enactment of this much desired and equitable amendment to the law.

Mr. BETTELHEIM. Those are the major points, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. There is no need of my reiterating what the other representatives of the veterans' organizations have said. There is no need of my reiterating testimony given before the House committee. However, in conclusion I would urge that your committee give consideration to House Joint Resolution 222. It proposes the appointment of a board, consisting of a certain number of Senators and a certain number of Representatives for the purpose of surveying the situation in connection with all veteran legislation. We believe that it will probably help to solve this constant pulling from one side to the other, the Spanish-American War veteran wanting this, and the World War veteran wanting that. It will settle the matter of service connection and nonservice connection. After this committee has spent its time in surveying, I am sure that the burden of the veterans' organizations coming and pleading before you will be lightened, and probably your task will be lightened.

The commander in chief of our organization, Commander Duff, had been making talks before veterans' organizations, luncheon clubs, Kiwanis Clubs and Rotary Clubs throughout the United States on that very survey proposition, and in the House hearings there is a copy of his statement, together with clippings from various papers.

I thank you for the opportunity of expressing our views.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, before you adjourn I wish to state that I did not make myself clear that we are in favor of restoring that rebuttable clause. Also we are in favor of this increase for the amputation cases. I missed that in my statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other witnesses who want to be heard?

Senator REED. I think we ought to have a fuller attendance before General Hines sums up.

Senator GEORGE. Are there any other witnesses besides General Hines?

The CHAIRMAN. There was a woman here at the last hearing. I told her we would have a hearing at 2 o'clock to-day here. She wanted to be heard, but she has not been here to-day.

General Hines. Mr. Chairman, I shall be very glad to proceed now, or when you have a larger attendance.

(After informal discussion.)

The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn until 2 o'clock tomorrow afternoon, to meet in the Military Affairs Committee room, in the Capitol.

(Whereupon, at 3.20 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned to meet to-morrow, Tuesday, May 13, 1930, at 2 o'clock p. m.)


TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1930


Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 2 o'clock p. m., in the Military Affairs Committee room, Capitol Building, Hon. Reed Smoot presiding.

Present: Senators Smoot (chairman), Reed, Shortridge, Couzens, Greene, Deneen, La Follette, Thomas of Idaho, Simmons, George, Walsh of Massachusetts, Barkley, Thomas of Oklahoma, and Connally.

Present also: Hon. John E. Rankin, a Representative in Congress from the State of Mississippi.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. There is no one else, now, who desires to be heard, with the exception of General Hines, that I am aware of. Do you know of anyone else?

General HINES. No, sir.

Vr. RANKIN. Senator Hatfield, of West Virginia, said he was coming in later and wanted to make a short statement. I do not know what time he is likely to get here. The CHAIRMAN. General, you may proceed, now.

I will say to the Senators that the general has already testified before the committee, and his testimony is printed. I asked him to attend the meetings and rather give a summary of the testimony which was taken here, as he sees it. Any information you can give us along that line, general, we will appreciate.



you take

Senator GEORGE. General, before you begin, did


this bill, section by section, in your original testimony?

General Hines. Yes, sir.

Senator GEORGE. I will see it in the record. I was not here at the time.

General HiNEs. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the subcommittee was very patient with me and listened for three full sessions to my testimony. That has all been printed in this document, known as part 1 to H. R. 10381. At this time I would not feel it fair to burden the committee again with any repetition, except to summarize and discuss some of the points that have been made by other witnesses who have testified.

« PreviousContinue »