of the active duties of service and be permitted a living pay for, the remainder of their lives.

The statement has been made by proponents of this bill that its purpose is to give to the emergency officer the same rights and privileges as are had by the Regular officer. But this bill discriminates against the Regular officer and gives the emergency officer decided advantages not now had by the Regular officer in at least two material ways.

First. The Regular Army officer retired for disability during the World War was retired at the permanent lower rank and not at the higher emergency rank to which he had been temporarily promoted during the war. The emergency officer, on the other hand, having only an emergency rank, will be under this bill retired at his emergency rank, thus giving a decided advantage to the emergency officer over the Regular

officer.

Second. The retired Regular officer is still in the service; he is subject to military discipline and court-martial; he may be recalled to duty with his consent in time of peace, or at the discretion of the President in time of war. It is a wellknown fact that hundreds of retired officers were placed on active duty during the World War. The Regular officer who is retired is then subject to a very binding military obligation. The emergency officer, whom this bill benefits, is out of the service, and while receiving more benefits under this law than the Regular officer is not subject to any military obligations.

Under this bill emergency officers once placed on this list are there for life, receiving all the benefits and subject to none of the obligations of retirement. They may entirely recover and still continue to draw this pension.

And may I point out here that that in itself creates one of the rankest discriminations that this bill sets up. At the present time a soldier may have a rating in the Veterans' Bureau of permanent and total disability, but that rating may be changed and entirely taken away from him if the facts justify. But under this bill the officer who squeezes out a rating of 30 per cent permanent and gets on this list is there for life, without regard to what his health later on may be. He may entirely recover but his compensation will go on. On the last figures there were 10,269 disabled emergency officers; this bill benefits but 3,297 of them. It gives the right of retirement only to that emergency officer whose disability is 30 per cent or more permanent. The officer whose disability is but 29 per cent permanent receives no benefit. The emergency officer whose disability is 100 per cent temporary receives no benefit. So that the bill creates at once a discrimination between the emergency officers themselves. If this bill were to become a law, a brigadier general with a 30 per cent disability would receive $4,500 a year; a colonel, $3,000; lieutenant colonel, $2,625 a year; a major, $2,250 a year; captain, $1,800 a year; first lieutenant, $1,500 a year; second lieutenant, $1,125 a year; and the enlisted man from sergeant major to buck private would receive $360 a year. A study of these figures will indicate the very evident injustice of the bill. This bill benefits 3,297 emergency officers; it gives no benefits to 7,000 additional emergency officers, many of whom are disabled more than those benefited. This bill benefits 3,297 emergency officers; it gives no additional benefits to the 69,386 emergency enlisted men who are rated 30 per cent or more permanent-the same rating as had by the officers whom it seeks to benefit.

This bill holds out the possibility of additional benefits to 7,000 emergency officers, who, if given ratings of 30 per cent or more permanent, can come within its provisions. It holds out no hope of additional compensation to approximately 243,000 disabled emergency enlisted men.

To sum up, it brings immediate benefits to less than 3,300 disabled service men out of 254,000 now on the rolls.

One of the reasons advanced by some in favor of this legislation is that the officers were generally older, better educated, and accustomed to more of the material things of life, and therefore his pay from the Government should be greater. That, I submit, is a dangerous theory for this Nation to accept. The necessities of life cost just as much for the family of a disabled enlisted man as for those of an officer. The dollar compensation paid the officer and the enlisted man have the same purchasing power. But assuming their reasons to be correct, the educated emergency officer is far better able to overcome his disability than is the emergency soldier or officer who must supplement his compensation by physical labor. For example, the lawyer who has lost a leg can continue to practice law; the farmer who has lost a leg can follow a plow, but his handicap is far greater.

The statement is made in the report that the passage of this bill has been persistently urged by both the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans, but from that it does

not follow that the rank and file of the membership of those great veterans' organizations either know of its provisions or approve of its passage.

I know something of the American Legion and its membership. It has honored me highly in the past; it has been my great privilege to serve its membership both before I came to this body and since. I hope to continue to serve its membership. I respect the American Legion and its wishes. It is not easy to go against its declared policies. The American Legion Monthly is sent from national headquarters to every member. It carries Legion news, outlines Legion policies, and builds Legion sentiment. Yet never once during the years that this bill has been before Congress has the American Legion Monthly told the full truth about this bill. The views of those who honestly oppose this legislation have never been stated. The membership of the Legion has not been told that this bill discriminates against 70 per cent of the disabled emergency officers of the Army. They have not been told that it discriminates against the widow and orphans of the officer dead. They have not been told that it discriminates against all of the disabled emergency enlisted men.

The American Legion's representatives have made no effort to tell the service men all the facts about this bill. Their effort has been entirely to use the prestige and good name of that great organization in an attempt to force this legislation through this body without regard to its merits, its discriminations, or the policies that it overthrows.

Since I have been a Member of this body Congress has passed pension legislation for the men of the Civil War, the Indian wars, the Spanish-American War, and for their widows and orphans. Every one of those men and their organizations asked that Congress treat them all exactly alike without distinction as to rank, and Congress has so legislated.

Congress, since the World War, has passed considerable legislation for the benefit of the veterans of the World War. We have granted compensation to those men whose disabilities were traceable to their service. We have presumed service connection in cases of disease such as tuberculosis and many other cases and awarded compensation. Congress has granted increased compensation to the widow and the orphan of the service men who gave their lives to the Nation. The doors of the hospitals of the Veterans' Bureau have been opened to the service men, and treatment and care is provided at the expense of the Government. All of this freely and gratefully givenbut, mark you again, all of it has been without discrimination one from the other as to rank.

Four years ago Congress passed over the veto of the President the adjusted compensation bill. It was supported by public opinion, urged by veterans' organizations, and passed as an act of justice. But its benefits applied alike to enlisted men and commissioned officers up to and including the rank of captain. Beyond that no benefits were conferred. Why, then, should we change now the fixed policy of the Government that has been uniformly followed for these many years in the treatment of the citizen soldiers of the Civil, Spanish-American, and World Wars?

I am not going to take the time of the House to discuss a great number of cases. Some days ago I briefly discussed this bill and called the attention of the House to a list of beneficiaries inserted in the Senate debate by Senator BINGHAM, and since that time incorporated in the minority report on this bill, stating at the time I called attention to the list "in order that Members may study the list, as it shows the men in the States who are beneficiaries of " the bill and in order that they might "know definitely" what they were voting for.

The American Legion's representatives in Washington have sent out a bulletin in which they charge that what I did that day was "unjust and misleading." Is it "unjust and misleading" to call the attention of the House to the benefits they are asked to confer on individuals and to ask that they know what they are doing before they do it? A statement had been made in one of the House committees and reiterated by several Members that the "golf champion of South Dakota was a beneficiary of the bill. I determined the name of the man to whom they referred. He has a 35 per cent disability and would, if the bill becomes a law, draw $218.75 a month according to the Veterans' Bureau report. His name is William A. Hazle, of Aberdeen, S. Dak. I wired a friend in Omaha, Nebr., to get me Mr. Hazle's golf championship record. He wired Aberdeen and received a reply, which was sent to me, that Mr. Hazle "holds nearly all amateur championship titles north part of the State." That, of course, confirmed the statement that had previously been made here about him, and accordingly I made that statement in discussing this bill.

The following day I received a telegram from one E. B. Harkin of Aberdeen, S. Dak., stating in denial of the tele

gram that had been sent the previous day and upon which my statement was based that Mr. Hazle is not a golf champion and that "I am sorry that you were misled and that you in turn misled your auditors." Colonel Hazle has also denied that he is a golf champion. There is no denial that he plays golf. Neither is there any denial, and there is an admission, of the other facts as stated by me. Inquiry at the War Department discloses "that he was discharged June 16, 1919, at which time no physical defects were reported." He holds at this time a commission as a colonel in the Adjutant General's Department Reserve, and is presumed to be fit for duty. I am also advised that he is at the present time adjutant general of South Dakota, And yet by this bill it is proposed to increase his compensation from $35 a month to $218.75 a month.

Members can go through the list. There is a general now drawing $60 a month, who, if this bill becomes a law, will receive $375 a month for life.

There is the New York judge now on a salary of $12,000 a year who is to be "retired for disability" if this becomes a law, but will continue as judge.

There is an employee of the Veterans' Bureau drawing a salary of $3,000 a year with a 31 per cent disability who will receive $3,000 a year additional by way of compensation. The list of beneficiaries has been furnished you. Take it for your State. Compare the officer, partially disabled, who receives these great benefits with the enlisted man, totally disabled, who receives $100 a month-or the man with his eyes gone who gets $150 per month. Compare these men in that great list of beneficiaries with those men sick in body and soul for whom you have tried to get compensation these years and failed. Study the list of beneficiaries, with all of its glaring injustices and discriminations, and decide if you want with your vote to approve what it does.

Again, the same American Legion Bulletin, still referring to me, says:

A true friend of the officers who fought the World War could cite the instance of hundreds of them still on their backs as a result of their war service, and whose children have been brought up in comparative poverty because of the sacrifices made by their father.

I am trying to be a true friend" not only of the officers, but also of the enlisted men who fought in the World War. I can cite the "instance of hundreds of them still on their backs as a result of their war service." To be exact, on September 30, 1927, there were 573 emergency officers with a rating of temporary total disability, emergency officers for whom this bill does absolutely nothing, to whom it gives no increase of compensation, outcasts in the opinion of the backers of this bill, and yet "they also served."

I remember visiting with some of them at Oteen Hospital three years ago. Bedfast for four years, but with a temporary rating, and therefore not among the elect that this bill benefits. I can "cite the instance" not of "hundreds," but of over 7,000 emergency officers now drawing compensation from the Veterans' Bureau whom this bill does not aid because they have temporary or less than 30 per cent permanent ratings.

And yet those of us who oppose this bill and ask for equal treatment to all of America's men who became disabled during the emergency are charged with not being "true friends" of those who served.

And again, these men who assume to speak for the American Legion and its membership refer to those officers "whose children have been brought up in comparative poverty because of the sacrifices made by their father."

66

Is the pinch of poverty more severe on the child of an officer than on the child of an enlisted man?

Is the pinch of "poverty " more severe on the child of an officer who is living than it is on the child of an officer who is dead?

Is the obligation of the Government to the one greater than to the other?

Have those who thus assume to speak for America's service men so soon forgotten the appeal they made for $5,000,000 to endow a fund to aid the orphan of their buddy who has "gone west"? Obviously so, for the child of the officer and enlisted man dead, for whom they then appealed, is entirely overlooked by this bill.

They have forgotten that enlisted men have children, that temporarily disabled officers have children, and they have forgotten the children of the officer dead, for whom there should be the greatest solicitude.

Will the American Legion approve this discrimination, this forgetting-I take it not.

In an American Legion bulletin of April 21, 1928, the statement is made that those of us who are opposed to this bill have

neglected to state that 3 of these badly crippled officers wear the congressional medal of honor, while 82 were awarded the distinguishedservice cross for gallantry in action beyond the call of duty.

All honor and credit to those officers. There is not a person on this floor who would detract one iota from the glory that is theirs. But here, again, the question comes of a discrimination between two groups within one class.

There are 90 medal of honor men in the United States, identified survivors of the World War. Are the 3 who were emergency officers entitled to greater consideration than the 87 remaining who likewise hold the coveted medal of honor?

There were 6,042 distinguished-service cross awards made for World War gallantry beyond the call of duty. And in addition 115 oak leaf clusters were awarded to those already holding the distinguished-service cross, or a total of 6,157 awards. Again, may I ask are the 82 disabled emergency officers whose great service has been recognized by that award entitled to more consideration than the 6,075 who rendered the same distinguished service and received the same award?

Is the Congress going to pick out of that small group of honored men a still smaller group to whom increased compensation shall be given?

I do not believe that those men-honored as they have been and now are for their exceptional service-would ask that they be treated differently than the greater group of those who hold similar awards, the large majority of whom were enlisted men. What argument is there left for the bill? Just one-several of the great veteran organizations have indorsed it. But they have not known the facts; the committee handling this bill this Congress refused to hold hearings on it, refused to allow op ponents and inquiring Members to investigate it-and now it is before you by a committee vote of 8 to 7-without a word of testimony for you to consider, no hearings, nothing on which to act. And yet you have received letters, telegrams, telephone calls, and personal calls from your constituents demanding that you pass this bill without amendment, "without the dotting of an i or the crossing of a t," demands that the membership of this body ignore their duty to consider legislation, that they surrender their rights as Members of this body, and blindly obey orders of whom? You are receiving these communications from your home people, but they do not originate there. They originate here in Washington.

I have here some of the bulletins on this matter sent out by the national legislation committee of the American Legion. I shall read quotations from some of them. Members may examine the bulletins. I now quote:

You ought to see to it that these Congressmen are pledged

to support this legislation, because once they are elected then comes the "lame-duck session of Congress and they can break their promises. assuring

I have received a lot of letters from different men me our "Senators and Congressmen are with you." That does not mean a thing. What we have got to have is the individual Congressman by name and the individual Senator by name that is for our particular legislation, and then we can put them down in the "yes" column.

When we send out the word to send telegrams to Congressmen and Senators, come down just as fast and hard as you can make them come down.

I have said before, and it is just as true as can be, these fellows listen to the voice of the folks back home.

*

*

I am going to ask you, as you get our bulletins which we send out each week lay out definite plans so that you can put pressure on the different Senators and Congressmen. From time to time it is the intention of the legislative committee to call upon the various departments and members of the Legion for assistance in developing public sentiment. There are two principal methods by which this support can be evidenced in such a way as to have a compelling influence upon Members of Congress : First, mass meetings in the district of those members who are in opposition to our program. The second method is by way of letters to the various Members of Congress.

*

Form letters to Members of Congress are not to be encouraged. The members of the post, when requested to write letters should develop their own letter. It is far better to have a hundred letters, expressing an interest in certain legislation and a desire for its enactment, than to have a thousand form letters received which are usually discounted as having all come from the same interested source.

Here is the weekly bulletin for January 12, 1928, of the national legislative committee of the American Legion. I quote from it:

The enactment of legislation is accomplished more by constructive education * This is especially true during a "presidential session" when legislators are more keenly alert concerning their constituents' wishes than at other times.

Education now is, therefore, more productive of results than normally. Legion officials should therefore keep in mind this imperative matter of education.

bill:

Legionnaires must keep in mind, that although the opponents of this measure are few in number they have unusual ability Legion officials should watch the progress of this legislation closely and keep in constant communication with their Senators and Congressmen so that your legislators may not be allowed to forget the intense interest which the World War veterans have in this legislation.

66

On March 22, 1928, a special retirement bulletin" was issued, stating:

The friends of the bill in the committee considerably outnumber its opponents.

The report states the committee vote was 8 to 7.

The bill must be reported favorably on Monday-and without amendment.

Mr. CROWTHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMMONS. I regret I can not yield.

Mr. CROWTHER. I would like to know who signs those.
Mr. SIMMONS. John Thomas Taylor.

Mr. CROWTHER. You say John Thomas Taylor?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. That was on the 22d of March.
They were after the World War Veterans' Committee in this
bulletin.

The members of the committee are overwhelmingly loyal to the cause of the disabled; but some of them are misled by the whisperings of opponents. Let them know that you are not misled and want them to push on straight ahead to victory.

Then follows a list of the committee by name and State, with instructions to "write and wire the ones from your State." March 24, 1928, two days later, another bulletin went out, stating:

Committee members are already hearing from legion officials The showdown will come Monday morning, March 26, at 10 o'clock, when the committee votes whether or not the Tyson bill shall be immediately reported without amendment.

I am not prepared to say how much the committee was influenced by these bulletins, but on March 26 the committee refused to hold hearings on the bill, and by a vote of 8 to 7 ordered the bill reported without amendment.

Mr. RANKIN. The committee was called together to give hearings on the bill, but for some unknown reason they came to the conclusion to report the bill out.

Mr. SIMMONS. On March 31, another bulletin was issued. I quote:

Write your Senators and Congressmen immediately. Explain the Legion's program in detail. Show them the justice of our measures. April 14, another bulletin about this bill stated:

"No amendments from the floor" must be the Legion's watchword on this measure. See to it that your Congressman understands this thoroughly.

Insist that your Congressman resist all amendments proposed from the floor so that after its passage by the House it will go straight to the President for approval.

Again in the bulletin on April 21, 1928, this appears:

The friends of the bill will resist every amendment proposed from the floor. Let your Congressman know this.

Victory will come through pressing on toward our objective with an unamended bill. So insist that your Congressman vote against all amendments offered from the floor.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska has expired.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman 10 minutes more.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 10 minutes more.

Mr. SIMMONS. After all this carefully planned propaganda on the part of the national legislative committee of the American Legion, after all these instructions have gone out to American Legion officials "to see to it that Congressmen are pledged ";

ganda for this bill; after all of that there is issued this bulletin of April 28, 1928, sent out over the signature of the vice chairman of that committee, stating

evidences of organized propaganda against the disabled officers' measure heretofore carried on under cover are coming more and more to lightThat

inspired letters are being received from other sources, showing that our opponents are working at top speed.

These men who have fostered and organized and conducted for years a propaganda for this bill now set up a straw man and then condemn the very practice that they themselves have developed and followed.

Then they charge that we who oppose this bill are "striving to defeat the American Legion and to weaken its influence at the Nation's Capital" and that we are fighting the "disabled officers and the Legion." Those statements are not true. This fight is not a fight against the disabled officers. It is a fight for equal justice to all disabled men of the World War-officer and enlisted. It is not a fight against the American Legion. This bill is not the American Legion, neither is the American Legion this bill, and the fight is against this bill. Neither is the person who issues these bulletins the American Legion. The American Legion is bigger and finer, cleaner and stronger than any man or set of men. [Applause.]

No one opposed to this bill wants to weaken the "influence" of the American Legion in "the National Capital." For six years I have fought here for the American Legion, its ideals, and the bills carrying out its declared principles. I am fighting this bill because it is entirely out of harmony with every ideal of the American Legion. If there is anything that will weaken the influence of that great organization in Congress it will be not only the support of bills of this character but, more than that, the methods that have been used by those who temporarily serve the American Legion here in the support of this bill.

But why this sudden shift? Heretofore the proponents of this measure have allowed the bill to stand on its own meritsbut now the proponents of the bill attempt to push the bill to one side and put the American Legion in its stead. The bill has failed to withstand attack. Now they attempt to change the issue from one against the bill to one against the Legion. The only purpose of the charge that we are fighting the American Legion is to try and bring about a situation where the issue when we vote on this bill will not be "Shall the bill pass?" but will be "Are you for the American Legion?" That move also will fail, the fight will continue to be against the bill; it will not be, is not, and never has been against the American Legion, and every Member of this House knows it. The bulletin further states:

The Legion should meet the propagandists and whisperers with a clean, vigorous, honorable fight

The propa

I agree that the Legion should, but will it? gandists and whisperers are those who claim to speak here in Washington for the American Legion. The House has been deluged with the result of their efforts. Those of us who have opposed this bill have done so in the open, speaking against it on the floor of the House, in the committees, in committee reports. Personally, I have spoken against this in American Legion conventions. Why then charge us with being "whisperers and progagandists"? The Legion should, and in my judgment would, if it knew the facts, meet "propagandists and whisperers with a clean, vigorous, honorable fight." When it does there will be a change in personnel in the national legislative committee, and a change of procedure of the American Legion's representatives in Washington. When that is done there will be no more misrepresentation of the American Legion in the Nation's Capital, and the prestige and influence of that great organization will be strengthened thereby.

The man who issued these bulletins sits in the gallery smiling, watching. The letters that he asked for have been written. He watches to find out whether or not the membership of this House will obey his instructions to pass this bill without amendment. We shall see as the bill progresses to what extent

Members have surrendered their right to consider, to weigh, and pass on legislation to the dominance of these few men who claim to speak for America's veterans.

I realize that there are Members of the House who have pledged to vote for disabled emergency officers' legislation. But surely no Member has pledged to vote for any bill that may be offered, surely no Member is pledged to vote for this particular legislation "without amendment," and surely no Member has pledged to surrender entirely his duty to consider, weigh, and act on amendments to this bill with the same full consideration that is accorded all legislation in this House. Personally I do not believe that the membership of this House will refuse to consider amendments to this bill.

President Lincoln closed his second inaugural with these words, which are particularly applicable here:

Let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the Nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.

Lincoln's policy of one for all, all for one, with no distinction as to rank, has been the American policy from that day to this— this Congress should not depart from it. [Continued applause.]

Mr. ROY G. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON]. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it has rarely happened in my brief service in Congress that I have found myself in disagreement with my colleague from Tennessee, a man for whom I have not only a great respect, but an unbounded admiration; but in this case, much as I regret it, I can not agree with the distinguished gentleman. So much opposition seems to have recently developed regarding this bill that I am forced to believe the reason must be that it does not carry a sufficient amount of money. I believe if it carried many hundreds of millions of dollars instead of less than $3,000,000, and had a rich lobby supporting it, it would be passed without a record vote, and yet no legislation before this Congress is more important than this bill providing for the relief of disabled emergency officers of the World War.

I feel quite sure that it never has been the intention of Congress, or the American people, to discriminate against any officer who suffered for his country in that world conflict. We know most of these men gave up responsible positions at great personal sacrifice to answer the call and fight for the safety of America.

This measure is important, not only to the men directly interested in it, but to the country as a whole; for the Nation owes a debt of honor to these men, a debt which Congress so far has neglected to recognize.

This bill would allow the disabled emergency Army officers, who served in the United States Army during the World War, the same rate of retirement for their wounds that has been allowed the other eight classes of American officers who fought in the war.

I refer to the regular, provisional, and emergency Navy officers, the regular, provisional, and emergency Marine officers, and Regular and provisional Army officers-all who have retirement-but please note that the emergency Army officers are omitted from this list. Why discriminate against these brave men?

The selective service act of May, 1917, put all officers and men not of the Regular Army on the same footing as regards pay, allowances, and pensions with officers and men of the Regular Army. Yet for almost eight years there has been a discrimination against the emergency officers.

I am speaking on the moral side of this question, leaving the financial end of it to Mr. FITZGERALD, who has fully explained it to the satisfaction of all-but the obstructionists. It is time for them to step aside.

This story has been told many times before in the last few years, but it will bear repeating; in fact, it must be kept in the public mind until the present unjust discrimination against the disabled emergency officers has come to an end.

I am informed that efforts have been made in every session of Congress since 1920 to right this wrong. Twice bills have passed the Senate by large majorities, only to be sidetracked in the House, without even permitting it to come to a vote.

As a member of the Veterans' Committee, I have voted to report this bill out in the Sixty-ninth Congress and again in the present Congress. It seems unthinkable that Congress will fail again in so plain a duty.

It is not true, as asserted by the obstructionists, that the enlisted men are opposed to this bill. Ninety per cent of the American Legion served in the ranks, and ten times the Legion has approved the principle of the proposed legislation.

Seven times the Disabled American Veterans have recorded their commendation. Personally, I have had representatives

from several other organizations call upon me, urging me to use my influence (little as it may be) to bring this measure to a vote in the House. I am glad the bill has finally arrived here after being caged in the Rules Committee for so long. Organizations, such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the United States Blind Veterans' Association, the Military Order of the World War, the National Guard Association, the Women's Patriotic Conference on National Defense, composed of 33 national patriotic women's organizations, indorsed it at their conference last year; which conference I had the honor to address. The General Federation of Women's Clubs, speaking for 7,000,000 women, indorsed it at their national convention. These are only a few of the splendid organizations which have voiced their approval of this worthy bill.

Who are the opponents of this bill? Who is leading the opposition to this bill and prevented it from coming to the floor of the House for so long a time? Why does not the opposition show itself?

Some of the feeble opponents of this bill-for they seem afraid to voice their opposition or be recorded against it— whisper that it is "class legislation." If this is class legislation, so are the eight other grade of officers already cared for, class legislation. Why discriminate against the last class, the volunteers?

These men were not professional soldiers. They had not been singled out, educated, and provided with economic security for life by the Nation. They went in from patriotic motives and for the war period, and they suffered disability in proportion to their number.

It is said that 93 per cent of the Army officers killed in action were emergency officers. It is further stated that the Government is now paying out in annual compensation to these disabled officers the sum of $2,841,960 through the Veterans' Bureau. Deducting that amount from the actual estimated expense to the Government of this bill, if enacted into law, which would be $4,985,100 annually, would leave the sum of $2,143,100 annual increased cost of retirement. This covers all officers found to be 30 per cent permanently disabled, including the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. I believe 3,251 officers in all.

These men are asking you for simple justice. They were volunteers in the great service and as important a part of the Army of the World War as were the regular officers. Our work will not be complete until these noble volunteers are recognized and receive the same benefits as the other officers. I recall that the Secretary of War, Mr. Davis, gave his sanction to the bill in a letter to the chairman of the Senate Military Affairs Committee. Mr. Davis, however, wrote that the Director of the Budget had advised him that the proposed legislation" was in conflict with the financial program of the President."

66

Surely, arguments of economy do not hold in this instance, for there are only a small number of men involved, and a correspondingly small amount of money.

Other bills, involving hundreds of millions, have been passed by this Congress, some without even taking time for a record vote; but they were sponsored by big business and sustained by powerful lobbies, representing the great financial interests of the country, while the emergency officers of the Great War, who brought a new freedom and prosperity to America, control only a lobby of grateful men and women who remember their sacrifices, their sufferings, and their renunciation of everything that life held dear and sacred.

I am sure; gentlemen-appreciating that I do not need to appeal to the gentlewomen-that you will heed the concento-day voted to send these men to war. trated voice of this human lobby, for many of you sitting here It was a solemn moment, but not more solemn than the moment to-day—when, by your vote, on this bill, you shall or shall not justify that other vote.

I can not believe that President Coolidge would veto this bill, if it finally passes the House, in spite of the obstructionists. The country does not want money saved at the expense of those noble men of the World War.

Let us pass this bill as our small tribute to their great courage and loyalty to America and to the flag that has never known defeat. [Applause.]

Mr. ROY G. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CoмBS].

Mr. COMBS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have listened with very deep interest to the closely reasoned arguments of both the gentlemen from Tennessee [Mr. GARRETT] and the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. SIMMONS], but I can not resist the belief that both of them have missed the genuine issue involved in this controversy.

At the time the United States entered the World War the selective service act was adopted by the Congress of the United States and the bill which is before us to-day is nothing more than the redemption of a valid and binding pledge made by the Congress of the United States at that time. If you will permit me to read the wording of section 10 of the selective service act of May, 1917, you, perhaps, can follow more closely the argument I should like briefly to make upon it:

SEC. 10. That all officers and enlisted men of the forces herein provided for other than the Regular Army shall be in all respects on the same footing as to pay, allowances, and pensions as officers and enlisted men of corresponding grades and length of service in the Regular Army.

Whatever distinction there may have been between the officers of the Regular Army and those who were designated as emergency officers was abolished by the express phraseology of the selective service act of 1917.

The gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON] told you a moment ago that there were three classes of officers affected. Briefly, the disposition that has been made of the retirement problems of these classes is as follows:

The provisional officers of the Army were given absolute equality with, and the same retirement privileges enjoyed by, the Regular Army officer, by the act passed in the summer of 1918. The second class composed of the officers, provisional, regular, and emergency, of the Navy were expressly cared for by the act of 1920. In this connection I would call your attention to the fact that this bill was sponsored by the Navy Department and was championed throughout its legislative course by the Secretary of the Navy in the year 1920, showing that there was a clear understanding on the part of the Navy that all of its officers should be recognized as on a complete parity and equality with those who were of its regular officer personnel. Now, the last class comes before you asking recognition. If we are to discharge the obligation expressly assumed by this Nation in the terms of the act of 1917, there is no other course we can pursue but to grant this relief.

The American Legion, my colleagues, I believe, needs no apologist. It is thoroughly representative of the service men throughout this country. Its representatives have fully as much right to petition this Congress as have the representatives of any industrial or business group. [Applause.] They have come here asking the membership of the House to fulfill a definite obligation which this Government owes to a single class of officers for which provision has not yet been made. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri has expired.

Mr. ROY G. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman one additional minute.

Mr. COMBS. In conclusion, let me say that the bill has been here in various forms for six or seven years. If there is any discrimination in it, it at least has never aroused the animosity of the rank and file of the service men of this country. I was an enlisted man myself. I held no commission during the war, and I think I can speak without partiality or prejudice. The enlisted men, represented by the American Legion, have heartily indorsed this bill because they believe it to be equitable and fair in its provisions. [Applause.] If there had been any discrimination in the bill which these men believed reflected unfairly upon them and their services to their country it would certainly have come to a head within the seven years' time that this bill has been pending here. The fact that it has not is eloquent proof that the rank and file of the Legion and of the ex-service men of this country are solidly behind this measure. [Applause.]

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. JAMES].

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. COMBS] quoted part of section 9 of the selective draft law of 1917 and then stated that on account of this language these men should be pensioned.

This is practically the same language we had in 1812 and is the same language practically that we had for the Mexican War, the Civil War, and the war of 1898. word for word, and nobody will contend that the volunteer officers in the War of 1812 were entitled to pensions or increased compensation above the enlisted men.

Mr. ROY G. FITZGERALD. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JAMES. Yes.

Mr. JAMES. Let me first read the language with respect to 1812:

And be it further enacted, That the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to form the corps of Volunteers into battalions, squadrons, brigades, and divisions, and to appoint thereto, by and with the consent of the Senate, general, field, and staff officers, conformably with the Military Establishments of the United States, and who shall be entitled to the pay and emoluments of a similar grade in the Army of the United States.

For the Mexican War there was the following provision:

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That whenever the Militia or Volunteers are called and received into the service of the United States under the provisions of this act, they shall have the same organizations of the Army of the United States, and shall have the same pay and allowances.

Now, what happened in 1898 when the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HUDDLESTON] and others enlisted? What did that law provide? It was as follows:

SEC. 12. That all officers and enlisted men of the Volunteer Army, and of the militia of the States when in the service of the United States, shall be in all respects on the same footing as to pay, allowances, and pensions as that of officers and enlisted men of corresponding grades in the Regular Army.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Will the gentleman yield ?
Mr. JAMES. I yield.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. And no officer of the Spanish War has ever even asked for this, not to speak of claiming it as a matter of right.

Mr. JAMES. That is quite true.
Mr. BLACK of Texas.
Mr. JAMES. Yes.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLACK of Texas. Let us put the emphasis upon what is the fact, that the very language that has been quoted to sustain this argument, negatives it. If it was intended that these emergency officers should be admitted to retirement privileges, why, of course, the act would have said so because we had a retirement act as to Regular Army officers, and there is nothing at all said in the language quoted as to retirement. It is perfectly true that the pay and allowances of emergency officers was to be exactly the same as the pay and allowance of officers of the Regular Army, but I have seen nothing in the law providing for the retirement of emergency officers, especially for a disability no greater than 30 per cent. I have always supported equality of compensation between officers and enlisted men. is a Democratic principle.

lt

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, that the officers, noncommissioned officers, and privates, organized as above set forth, shall in all respects be placed on the footing, as to pay and allowances, of similar corps of the Regular Army.

Do these provisions mean that in 1898 when men were enlisted as privates and others enlisted at the same time as officers, that when they came out of the service and went back into civil life, as we all did, that the officers were to go on the pension list under a different grade from those of us who went in from civil life as enlisted men, leaving good positions? Why,

not at all.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman please read what the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CoMBs] just read? Mr. JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. The law under which these officers enlisted.

Mr. JAMES. It is section 9 of the selective service law and is as follows:

SEC. 9. That all officers and enlisted men of the forces herein provided for, other than the Regular Army, shall be in all respects on the same footing as to pay, allowances, and pensions as officers and enlisted men of corresponding grades and length of service in the Regular Army.

In other words, in 1812, 1846, 1861, 1898, and during the language has been practically the same, word for word. There