volved in this statute. I know what we need in the United States to-day-I think I do. We need a committee of this House that would be composed of members of the Military Committee, the Naval Committee, the Civil Service Retirement Committee, the Veterans' Committee, and some other committees that would do what we did with the pay act of 1920-go over the whole question of compensation, pensions, and retirement, and draw a complete comprehensive statute. out amending it to cure the objections to which I have referred. [Applause.] Now, some one else may have amendments that are better phrased than mine. If so I am perfectly willing that they should offer their amendments. If they do not do so, believing it to be my duty, I shall offer the amendments, and I hope they will be adopted, on the theory that we can pass a bill that will take care of the real battle casualties and secure legislation that we can justify in our own minds. We have some very peculiar situations. To-day, if an en- Mr. SPEAKS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. SPEAKS. In all honor and in all fairness to everybodyto the American Legion and the membership of this House-does not the gentleman believe that up to the beginning of debate upon this bill fully 90 per cent of the Legion and of the membership of the House were almost wholly uninformed as to what I now want to discuss some of the concrete cases under this law. It is very easy to talk about a law from an academic viewpoint, and theories sometimes are helpful. Concrete illustrations are the most instructive. There happen to be five men in the second congressional district of South Dakota, and every one of them is my close, personal, intimate friend, who served in the Army with me, and with many of them I served in the National Guard from the time I was 18 years old. They are all affected by this act. Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. I will say that 90 per cent of the House do know what is in the bill and I think the great personnel of the Legion know something concerning it, but how much I do not know. I do know that eventually all will know what is in it, and eventually will secure the sort of legislation that we ought to secure along this line. [Applause.] I shall now give a short synopsis of previous retirement and pension legislation, together with a discussion of the differences between S. 777, under discussion, and my proposed substitute. The substitute will be offered after the reading of the bill. RETIREMENT The statutes provide that where any regular officer has become incapable of performing the duties of his office he shall be either retired from active service or wholly retired from the service by the President. In defining the phrase "incapable of performing the duties of his office" the Attorney General (27 Op. Atty. Gen. 14) said: On page 4780 of the RECORD, and I presume this is in the minority report also, you will find a list of these men. One is Col. William Adam Hazle, who lives in my own city, whose office is right across the street from mine. I served under him and with him, and, if war were to start somewhere to-morrow I would want to see him a colonel. If my own two sons were in the service I would like to have them serve with him, because not only does he know military tactics, not only is he a great soldier in that respect, but he would see that the boys military duties impossible for him, notwithstanding an honest desire had shoes on their feet and food in their stomachs if it was possible to do it, and that they would get an even break in the military game of life. He was a lieutenant colonel. He is the present adjutant general of the State of South Dakota, and I am frank to say I helped him to secure that position because I thought, and I still think, he was the best qualified man in the State for the position. He is a colonel in the National Guard, and he does his work remarkably well, and all of us who know him respect his service. He would get $218.75 a month for life under this bill regardless of his future disability status. Right across the street from him is Alfred D. Haugen. I have known him for years. He was a great county attorney. He has a total permanent disability. I can refer to his disability without injury to him. He is frozen into a certain position by arthritis deformans. He can not take a step. He can not get out of bed unless some one lifts him out. He sleeps in a sitting position. He was a great lawyer, he went to Texas, was getting a fine salary, and would have been getting much more if he had retained his health. If he came under the provisions of this bill-which he will not do because he is too smart-it would reduce him from $150 a month to $125 a month in compensation. I know these cases are not equitable. In the same city lives Lester Kirkpatrick. That man was shot up and lay on the field for two or three days before they could get him from the battle field. He is 40 per cent disabled. It will increase his pension from $40 to $125. He has a real disability. Another gentleman on this list was presumpted into a serviceconnected disability under one of the laws that I sponsored, and I do not think any medical testimony in the world would say that this gentleman did necessarily receive his injuries in the service, and yet this law would materially increase his pension. I favor a law based on the Revolutionary War pension statute. The spread is too great in the proposed law between officers and men. In all the previous wars the rule has been no one should receive more than 50 per cent of his base pay up to the grade of lieutenant colonel. If you do not hold to that rule you are going to make a spread between officers and men that will continually bring the question before the Congress and before the people, and while it may hurry things that ought to be done in the way of general revision of all the retirement statutes, at the same time it will cause class friction in the United States. I do not believe we could justify the law with An officer of the Army found by a retiring board duly organized and convened to be incapable of performing the duties of his office may be and ought to be retired, without regard to the causes which may have led to such incapacity on his part, but to be incapable the officer must be either no longer responsible for his own actions or subject to infirmities or disabilities which make the reasonable fulfillment of his and firm purpose on his part to fully discharge them. Even though such officer display impatience or irritability, imperfect control of his temper, intolerance, indecision, and want of alertness in the performance of his duties to such an extent as to destroy or greatly impair his usefulness as an officer, he does not thereby necessarily become incapable of discharging his duties in such sense as to justify his retirement. Section 1254 of the Revised Statutes-the act of June 10, 1872, chapter 419-provides that officers hereafter retired from active service shall be retired from the actual rank held by them at the date of retirement. However, the act of March 3, 1875, chapter 178, further provides that all officers of the Army who have been theretofore retired by reason of disability arising from wounds received in action should be considered as retired upon the actual rank held by them whether in the regular or volunteer service at the time when such wound was received, and that they should be borne on the retired list and receive pay after the passage of that act accordingly. The act of April 23, 1904, chapter 1485, provided that any officer of the Army below the grade of brigadier general who served with credit as an officer or as an enlisted man in the regular or volunteer forces during the Civil War prior to April 9, 1865, otherwise then as a cadet, and whose name is borne on the Official Register of the Army, and who has heretofore been or hereafter may be retired on account of wounds or disability incident to service may, in the discretion of the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, be placed on the retired list of the Army with the rank and retired pay of one grade above that actually held by him at the time of retirement. By the act of March 4, 1915, chapter 143, paragraph 1, it was provided that any brigadier general on the retired list who had held the rank and command of major general of volunteers, and who served with credit in the regular or volunteer forces during the Civil War prior to April 9, 1865, could be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to the grade of major general, placed on the retired list with the pay of brigadier general. This same act further provides that any officer then on the retired list of the Army who served with credit for more than two years as a commissioned officer of volunteers during the Civil War prior to April 9, 1865, and who subsequently served with credit for more than 40 years as a commissioned officer of the Regular Army, including service in command of troops in five Indian campaigns, the war with Spain, and the Philippine insurrection, and to whom the congressional medal of honor for most distinguished conduct in action has been twice awarded, and who was also brevetted for conspicuous gallantry in action may be placed on the retired list of the Army with the rank and retired pay one grade above that actually held by him at the time of his retirement from active service in the Regular Army. Various other acts have been passed providing for retirement in one grade higher than that held by the officer at the time of retirement, including brigadier generals and colonels, for meritorious service, particularly service during the wars in which the United States has been engaged. Section 1275 of the Revised Statutes provides that officers retired from active service shall receive 75 per cent of the pay of the rank upon which they are retired. This same act also provides that officers wholly retired from the service shall be entitled to receive, upon their retirement, one year's pay and allowance of the highest rank held by them whether by staff or regimental commission at the time of their retirement. The law also provides that, except in cases of officers retired on account of wounds received in battle, no officer on the retired list shall be allowed or paid any increase of longevity pay beyond that which had accrued upon the date of their retirement. This act, which was passed March 2, 1903, provides as to officers already retired on and after the date of its passage, no further increase of longevity pay would be allowed. Regular Army officers are retired by an Army retiring board consisting of not more than nine nor less than five officers, twofifths of whom are to be selected from the Medical Corps. These boards, as far as possible, are composed of men senior in rank to the officer whose disability is inquired of. The Secretary of War, under the direction of the President, assembles such boards from time to time, the members of the board are sworn in each case to discharge their duties honestly and impartially. The duties of a retirement board are to inquire into and to determine the facts touching the nature and occasion of the disability of any officer who appears to be incapable of performing the duties of his office. Such boards have powers of courts-martial and of courts of inquiry. Section 1249 of the Revised Statutes provides that when the board finds an officer incapacitated for active service it shall also find and report the cause which, in its judgment, has produced his incapacity, and whether such cause is an incident of service. The proceedings and decisions of the board are transmitted to the Secretary of War and then laid before the President for his approval or disapproval and orders in the case. Where the President approves the findings of a board that an officer is incapacitated for active service and that his incapacity is the result of an incident of service, the officer is retired from active service and placed on the list of retired officers. However, where the President approves the findings of a board to the effect that the officer is incapacitated for active service, but that his incapacity is not the result of any incident of service, the officer is retired from active service or wholly retired from the service in the discretion of the President. The names of officers wholly retired from the service are omitted from the Army Register. The statutes provide that no officer shall be retired from active service nor wholly retired from the service without a full and fair hearing before an Army retiring board, if upon due summons he demands it. In the case of Miller v. United States (19 C. Cls. 338) it was held that when the President approves and acts upon the findings of the retiring board he thereby determines that the officer has had a full and fair hearing. With reference to the finality of the President's decision where he has approved the findings of the board of officers, attention is invited to the case of McBlair v. United States (19 C. Cls. 528) wherein it was held that the President has the power, upon the report of the retiring board, to retain the officer in active service, retire him from active service, or wholly retire him. It was also held in the same case, however, that such power was not a continuing one and was performed to the extent of its existence by the one act of the President and, having once determined, he can not review his decision nor correct an error of judgment therein. Officers on the retired list are entitled to wear the uniform of the rank on which they may be retired. The law also provides that they shall be continued to be borne on the Army Register and shall be subject to the rules and Articles of War and to be tried by court-martial for any breach thereof. These men may be called to active service or for any other duty that may be specified by the Secretary of War, and while called to such duty they are entitled to receive rank, pay, and allowances of the grade on the active list not above that of major which they would have obtained in the due course of promotion had they remained on the active list. The Secretary of War is required by law to make a list of all officers of the Army who have been placed on the retired list for disabilities and to call such officers to be examined at intervals, and such officers if found to have recovered from such disabilities are assigned to such duty as the Secretary of War may approve. PENSIONS The first Federal law relating to pensions was enacted September 29, 1789, and provided in substance that the military pensions which had been granted and paid by the States, respectively, in pursuance of the acts of the United States in Congress assembled to the invalids who were wounded and disabled during the Revolutionary War should be continued and paid by the United States from the 4th day of March, 1789, and to continue for the space of one year under such regulations as the President might direct. This provision was continued in force from time to time by subsequent statutes. On March 16, 1802, Congress enacted an act providing that if any officer, noncommissioned officer, musician, or private in the corps composing the peace establishment shall be disabled by wounds or otherwise while in the line of his duty in public service he shall be placed on the list of invalids of the United States at such rate of pay and under such regulations as the President might direct. A proviso was added that the compensation to be allowed for such wounds or disabilities to a commissioned officer should not exceed for the highest rate of disability one-half the monthly pay of such officer at the time of his being disabled or wounded, and that no officer should receive more than the half pay of a lieutenant colonel. This act further provided that the rate of compensation to noncommissioned officers, musicians, and privates should not exceed $5 per month. Inferior disabilities entitled the person so disabled to receive an allowance proportionate to the highest disability. On April 10, 1806, an act was passed providing that any commissioned officer or noncommissioned officer, musician, soldier, marine, or seaman disabled in the actual service of the United States while in the line of his duty by known wounds received during the Revolutionary War had at any period since then become and continued disabled in such manner as to render him unable to procure a subsistence by manual labor should, upon substantiating his claim, be placed on the pension list of the United States during life or during the continuance of such disability. The rate of pension allowed by this act to a commissioned officer was one-half of the monthly pay legally allowed at the time of incurring his disability. A full pension to a noncommissioned officer, musician, soldier, marine, or seaman was $5 a month. It was further provided that for less than total disability a proportionate amount would be allowed to the extent of the disability, and further, that no pension of a commissioned officer should be calculated at a higher rate than the half pay of a lieutenant colonel. On April 10, 1812, certain additional persons were included as eligible to pensions under similar provisions to those heretofore mentioned. On April 24, 1816, an amendment was enacted to the pension statutes to the effect that all persons of the rank specified who had been on the military pension rolls of the United States on the 24th day of April, 1816, should from that date be entitled to and receive for disabilities of the highest degree the following sums in lieu of those to which they were then entitled, to wit: Subsequent to this time and from time to time certain additional classes, such as persons who served in the Black Hawk War, the Creek War, and the Indian depredations in Florida, and so forth, were included as eligible for pensions. Subsequent to the Mexican War section 4730 of the Revised Statutes was enacted, which provided invalid pensions for war with Mexico. Under this act officers, noncommissioned officers, and privates, and so forth, whether of the Regular Army or volunteers, disabled by reason of injury received or disease contracted while in the line of duty in actual service in the war with Mexico or in going to or returning from the same, who received an honorable discharge, were entitled to a pension proportionate to his rank and disability not exceeding for total disability one-half the pay of a lieutenant colonel. On July 14, 1862, an act was passed (sec. 4692, Rev. Stat.) making eligible for pensions certain classes of persons disabled in consequence of wounds or injury theretofore or thereafter received in line of duty at certain specified rates. The persons specified in these classes were officers of the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps, including regulars, volunteers, and militia, as well as certain other persons enumerated. Section 4695 of the Revised Statutes, which specifies pensions for total disability, provides that— For lieutenant colonel and all officers of higher rank in the military service and in the Marine Corps and for captain and all officers of higher rank in the Navy, $30 per month. For major in the military service and in the Marine Corps and lieutenant in the naval service, $25 per month. For captain in the military service and in the Marine Corps and master in the naval service, $20 per month. For first lieutenant in the military service and in the Marine Corps, $17 per month; For second lieutenant in the military service and in the Marine Corps and ensign in the naval service, $15 per month. For midshipmen and noncommissioned officers of the Navy, including warrant officers, $10 per month. For all other persons not mentioned, $8 per month. (A master in the naval service then would now be lieutenant, junior grade.) On March 2, 1895, a minimum pension law was passed providing in effect that no pension should be less than $6 a month. On April 24, 1906, an amendment was enacted to the pension laws providing that the age of 62 years and over should be considered a permanent and specific disability within the meaning of the pension laws. On March 4, 1907, this definition of permanent and specific disability was extended to cover various acts granting pensions to persons who served in the Civil War and war with Mexico. On May 11, 1912, an act was passed providing for a service pension of $30 per month. A proviso to this act entitled all persons who served in the military or naval forces of the United States during the Civil War and received an honorable discharge, and who were wounded in battle or in line of duty and were unfit for manual labor by reason thereof or who, from disease or other causes incurred in line of duty resulting in disabilities which made them unable to perform manual labor, $30 per month. By the act of May 1, 1920, pensions for Civil War, war with Mexico, and the War of 1812, were increased to $50 per month and for certain serious cases, such as persons helpless or blind, $72 per month. This act also provided for maimed soldiers of the Civil War who received disability while in the service of the United States in the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps in the line of duty. The rates were as follows: Loss of one hand or one foot, or being totally disabled in the same, $60 per month. Loss of arm at or above elbow, or a leg at or above the knee, or being totally disabled in the same, $65 per month. Loss of arm at the shoulder joint or leg at the hip joint or so near shoulder or hip joint, or where the same is in such condition as to prevent the use of an artificial limb, $72 per month. legisla It must be remembered in connection with pension tion that general pension laws have recently been enacted granting pensions at higher rates than the pay of officers during previous wars; at least those preceding the Spanish-American War. To all intents and purposes, because of these general laws, the distinctions in ranks which have theretofore existed in the pension laws have been practically eliminated. The preceding is not intended as a complete history of the pension laws of the United States, but is merely a brief sketch of the same for the purpose of showing the distinction which has been recognized between battle-incurred disabilities, severe disabilities, and others, and the recognition of difference in rank. COMPARISON OF proposed DRAFT WITH S. 777 AND THE LAWS RELATING TO PENSIONS AND RETIREMENT Section 1 of the proposed substitute draft is essentially the same as lines 1 to 12 ending with the word "service" of section 1 of S. 777, except that the restriction to officers who served during the World War and who were disabled in such war has been removed and the act made applicable to officers of any war, and there have been substituted for the words "and who have," on line 7, page 1, down to the words "war service" on line 4, page 2, the words "which at the time of application for retirement under this act incapacitates him for military service." This change was made in order to place the disabled emergency officers as nearly on a parity with the retired officers of the Regular Army as is possible. Section 2 of the proposed substitute draft is in lieu of page 2, commencing with the word “and,” in line 12, and ending with the date "1920," on line 23 of the same page of S. 777. The provisions of the two bills with reference to privileges for emergency officers are the same as the privileges given to Regular officers on the retired list. However, the pay and allowances are changed from 75 per cent of the pay of the officer at the time of his discharge from the commissioned service, except pay under the act of May 18, 1920, as is provided in S. 777, to 50 per cent of the pay of the grade of the officer at time of separation from the active service, computed on the basis of the pay allowed by the act of June 10, 1922, entitled "The pay readjustment act," but in no event more than 50 per cent of the pay of a lieutenant colonel. The new draft also provides that where any person who would be entitled to the 50 per cent provision has suffered the loss of any member or part of the body or the use thereof, as the result of a wound received in battle, or has reached the age of 70 or more, shall be entitled in lieu of the 50 per cent to 75 per cent of the pay of his grade at time of separation from the active service, computed on the basis of the same pay act and in no event to be more than 75 per cent of the pay of a lieutenant colonel. Section 3 of the proposed substitute draft is essentially the same as section 2, on page 4 of S. 777, with the exception that the definition of the term "World War" has been eliminated. In Loss of one hand and one foot, or being totally disabled in the view of the fact that the proposed draft is to cover officers who same, $90 per month. Loss of sight of both eyes, $100 per month. Subsequently, on May 5, 1926, an act was passed increasing the amounts for the disabilities specified in the preceding paragraph to $65, $75, $85, $100, and $125, respectively. On October 6, 1917, an amendment was enacted to the war risk insurance act providing for compensation for men disabled during the World War at the rate of $30 per month for total disability incurred in line of duty, irrespective of rank, and proportionately less amounts for inferior disability. On December 24, 1919, an act was passed increasing this amount to $80 per month for temporary total disability and $100 per month for permanent total disability. In connection with the temporary disabilities, certain additional allowances were provided for dependents. This act also provided that if the disabled person was so helpless as to be in constant need of a nurse or attendant, an additional sum not to exceed $20 a month would be payable. These rates of compensation still remain in the law, with the exception that for men incompetent who have been maintained by the Government for a period of six months, and who have no dependents, the rate of compensation has been reduced to $20 per month during the period they are under governmental care, and the rate for an attendant has been increased to not to exceed $50 per month. On June 7, 1924, the World War veterans' act was passed, which took the place of the war risk insurance act, as amended. This act provided no increase in amount of compensation payable for a disability, but removed the necessity for such disability being incurred in line of duty, the new requirement being that the disability be incurred in the service or aggravated by service and such incurrence or aggravation not be the result of willful misconduct. served in any war, and the periods of those wars are well known, it was not felt necessary to define any one war unless the period ordinarily accepted as the period of any war was to be changed for the purposes of this act. Section 4 of the proposed substitute draft is a new section for the purpose of carrying into effect the change in section 1 of S. 777, which has previously been described. Section 5 is a new provision inserted for administrative reasons and merely specifies that payments under this act shall be made in accordance with awards by the director and determines that such awards are to be effective from the date of application. This provision does not change the method of payment as was contemplated by S. 777, on page 2, lines 19 and 20. Section 6 is a new provision to the effect that the director shall cause officers on the emergency officers' retired list to be examined from time to time and that when they shall have been found to have recovered from their disability by the director their name shall be removed from such list and their retirement pay discontinued. S. 777 made no provision for the removal of these officers from the retired list or the discontinuance of their retired pay, notwithstanding that they might recover from their disabilities. It was believed that such a provision should be incorporated in the bill. This added section also brings the disabled emergency officers more nearly on a parity with the Regular officers of the Army on the retired list, as it is provided for them that they shall be examined from time to time, and when they recover they are ordered to active duty by the Secretary of War. Section 7 of the proposed substitute draft is essentially the same as the provisions of S. 777, commencing on line 24, page 2, down to line 7, page 3. It merely provides that payments under this act shall be made out of the appropriation for military and naval compensation, and that during receipt of such pay and allowances the disabled emergency officer shall not be paid compensation. Attention is invited to the change of language with reference to the bar against payment of compensation, S. 777 would bar the officer entirely from receipt of compensation, whereas section 7 of the proposed substitute draft would merely deny him compensation while in receipt of retired pay. Section 8 of the proposed substitute draft is a substitute for lines 17 to 19, ending with the word “ Bureau," on page 2 of S. 777. Under the provisions of the proposed substitute draft the emergency officer is given the right to hospitalization under section 202, paragraph 10, of the World War veterans' act, which merely entitles him to hospitalization in a Government hospital under certain conditions, whereas the provisions of S. 777 would have entitled the disabled emergency officer to hospitalization at the expense of the Government, either in Government hospitals or, if none such were available, in private hospitals. In view of the fact that Regular officers of the Army who are retired are not entitled to any hospitalization at the present time under the World War veterans' act, and the only suggested amendment to that law has been to grant them hospitalization under section 202, paragraph 10, of the act, it was thought more equitable to endeavor to place these officers on a parity. Section 9 is a new provision to the effect that where any person entitled under the act is incompetent or for any other reason unable to apply, an application may be made by his duly authorized legal representative. It further provides that where an emergency officer is insane and has been maintained by the Government in an institution for a period of six months and he has neither wife, child, nor dependent father or mother, he shall be entitled to the benefits of this act. It is believed that the first part of the new section is absolutely essential in order that those persons who may be eligible under this act, but who are incompetent, may receive its benefits. Further, it was thought that in view of the fact that Congress has recently reduced the compensation of all men who are insane and who have been maintained by the Government in an institution for six months to $20 per month, it would be inconsistent to provide an additional amount for such men as happen to be disabled emergency officers. Section 10 of the proposed substitute draft is a new section added for the purpose of placing all disabled emergency officers on the same plane. It merely provides that those men who have been heretofore retired must apply under the new act and shall only be entitled to the new rate of retirement pay. Section 11 is a new section added merely for the purpose of administration. This section was added in view of the experience of the bureau in connection with the World War adjusted compensation act where no appropriation for the administrative expense of administrating that act was made and it was necessary to resort to various means in order to set up the machinery to carry the act into effect. There is one additional outstanding change which has not heretofore been mentioned, and that is the requirement under the proposed substitute draft that the applicant, in order to be entitled, shall not have been dishonorably discharged or dismissed from the service. S. 777 is silent with reference to this matter, and it was felt that it was not the intention of the framers of the bill that a man who was dishonorably discharged from the service or separated from the service other than under honorable conditions should be entitled to its benefits. It will be noted that the pay readjustment act of June 10, 1922, has been used as a basis for computing the pay of retired officers under this act. In view of the fact that the emergency officers of all wars are to be included it was thought that this pay act could be equitably used for all officers. Of course, the committee can very easily change it to any other pay act which it sees fit to use. The last section of the proposed substitute draft provides for assignment to duty of disabled emergency officers by the Secretary of War. This section is added in order to place the disabled emergency officer in the same status as the Regular retired officer. It may be, however, in view of the lesser pay which the emergency officer will draw, that such a section is not desirable. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HUDDLESTON]. Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. Chairman, I can not answer the question just asked by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SPEAKS] but I am prepared to say that fully 90 per cent of the Members of the House who have promised to vote for this bill did not know at the time that they gave the promise just what was involved in it. [Applause.] Although I am not a Member of the American Legion I can say this, that 90 per cent of those I have talked with who belong to the Legion did not know what was in the bill or what its significance is. I can go further and say that 90 per cent of the enlisted veterans who have mentioned the bill to me have been against it. Mr. CONNERY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUDDLESTON. Excuse me, I have not the time. I commend the frankness of those of the advocates of this bill who have admitted that it is a pension measure. It is a pension measure. It is wholly obvious that it is a pension measure. Any attempt upon the part of anyone to represent it to be anything else must result in failure. The issue which we have to decide is whether as a pension measure we can defend it. I ask each of the Members of the House, can you defend as a pension measure, a piece of legislation which gives a brigadier general $375 a month with a 30 per cent disability, when you give to an enlisted man only $30 a month for the same disability? I am not one of them but there are those who believe that there should be some difference in behalf of the officers. They feel that the magic wand of military authority having touched the shoulders of a commissioned man, he at once becomes a knight, and is entitled to be held of superior strain during his service in the Army as well as thereafter as long as he may live. I ask you whether there shall exist between those who have been so knighted and the man who stood in the ranks, who did the sweating and the digging, and who had no opportunity for distinction and none to make him famous, whose only chance was to serve his country and to die in that service-I ask you, can you justify such a difference as that? [Applause.] There is gross discrimination in this bill, discrimination which can not be justified. There is discrimination not merely between the commissioned officer and the enlisted man, but among the commissioned officers themselves, in their various ranks. I do not know of anything which illustrates the injustice done better than to look over the list of the beneficiaries of this bill. Naturally, I turn to my own State, and I find an instance which shocks me beyond measure. I find here on page 7 of the list of beneficiaries attached to the minority report the name Frank Murray Dixon, of my home city. He is a fine young man who went into the service and lost his leg and has other disabilities, under all of which he is now rated 100 per cent permanently disabled. He was recently department commander of the Legion for the State of Alabama, and notwithstanding his physical handicaps is now trying to practice law. He is trying to carry on. You meet him on the streets of my city, and a fine look of courage is in his face. He served as a second lieutenant, and under the law as it now stands he receives $100 a month for total and permanent disability. According to the figures made by the minority of the committee, if this bill should pass he would receive $93.75 per month. If he elects to avail himself of the provisions of this bill, Frank M. Dixon will be cut from $100 a month to $93 a month. Some one has said that the amount would be $106. It does not make much difference as far as my point is concerned which figures are correct. I turn over to the next page of the report and I find the name of my friend and colleague, Congressman LAMAR JEFFERS, a fine soldier, an excellent gentleman. I am delighted that he was disabled no worse than he is. He has a rating of 30 per cent permanent disability. He is now receiving $30 a month, but because he happened to be a major while in the service, if this should become a law, he will receive $187.50 a month. I ask you gentlemen in all fairness and justice, can you go home to your constituents and say that you voted to give a totally disabled boy $93.75 a month, when he was already getting $100 a month, and voted at the same time to give a Member of Congress, who is drawing a salary of $10.000 a year, and who has only 30 per cent disability, $187.50 a month for as long as he may live? Mr. CONNERY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUDDLESTON. The gentleman will excuse me. That is an instance that comes home to us all. This list is full of such glaring inconsistencies. It is full of instances in which men with large disability receive less than those with small disability. It is a pension system which you are passing, and how can you defend yourselves for not basing the amount of pension upon the extent of disability? Is it sensible, is it honest, is it good public policy to give a man who is totally disabled the same as you would give him if he was only 30 per cent disabled? That is what this bill does. As a pension measure it is illogical, and I say to you that it is indefensible. It can not be too often pointed out nor overemphasized that Congress has already passed upon the issues involved in this bill and fixed upon a definite policy, and that what is sought now is a complete subversion of the congressional policy, which we previously adopted. Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUDDLESTON. The gentleman will please excuse me. In 1917, when the war was yet young, Congress dealt with this subject and decided upon the principles which should govern in benefits for disabled soldiers. We created the War Risk Bureau and provided for soldiers' allotments to their dependents and for insurance for those who might lose their lives and for pay to the disabled. The committee then brought before the House a bill which based its benefits to the disabled upon percentages of the pay which the soldiers were receiving. It provided that an officer if disabled should receive a certain percentage of his pay and that an enlisted man should receive the same percentage of his pay. That bill was framed upon a purely compensatory basis, such as the States have in force applicable to men at work at a sawmill or a coal mine. In that form the measure was brought before the House. After full debate, in which I had the honor to participate, that discriminatory principle in the bill was put under foot and the principle of absolute democracy and equality among its beneficiaries was adopted. All were put on an equality and each man, whether high or low in rank, was to receive the same amount for the same disability. A part of what I said in the debate on that bill, as is printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of September 11, 1917, beginning on page 12731, is: In this bill we have a different principle recognized. Men who are injured are compensated according to the pay which at the time of the injury they are drawing from the Government as soldiers. Some of them get several hundred dollars per month; others get only a trifling sum. It has remained for the authors of this bill to present the principle to the American Congress that an American soldier serving his the Army has a relation to their social position and earning capacity. But it is all wrong when it is applied to the great citizen army, a great army composed of men who are equal, a great army that is taken by force or by volunteering from all the people. There should be no discrimination among these men. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have been a soldier and I know what it is. I know the difference between being an officer and an enlisted man. I know the difference between carrying a sword and carrying a gun. The difference is as great as between the owner of the factory and the humble laborer in it. The difference is just as wide as that between the owner of the sawmill and the man who totes off the slabs. It is just as substantial and means as much. A lot of people who have had no experience as soldiers think that being a soldier is fighting and running the risk of death. That is the smallest part of being a soldier. Being a soldier is being a drudge, a laborer; it is digging and sweating; it is standing guard. It means being cold when you would like to be warm; it means being wet when you would like to be dry; and it means being hungry when you would like to be fed. And I want to tell you that all these things bear heaviest on the enlisted man. They do not bear much on the officer. Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, we have taken thousands of young men of college education and good social position into the training camps. They were subject to conscription like the common man's son. They did not want to be private soldiers. I do not blame them. If I were one of them, I would try to be an officer because I should not want to do the sweating and the digging. But many of their brothers or other men just as good as they are have got to go and fight in the ranks, many of them have got to go as private soldiers, and the only pay they get is $30 a month. Many of the young men who went through the training camps had no great earning country in an emergency such as now exists should be compensated capacity, but now they are drawing $180, $250, $300 a month, exactly upon the same plane as a workman; that he should be paid for his injuries just exactly as he would be if he were a laborer in a sawmill or a brakeman on a railroad. He is paid in proportion to what he is drawing down in pay when he is injured. It has remained for this measure to put the honorable service of soldiers in defense of our flag upon the mean and sordid basis of commercial gain and the earning capacity of men in civil life. The reputed authors of this bill are sociologists. They are accustomed to drawing workmen's compensation laws for injuries received in civilian pursuits. They have not comprehended for a moment the light that lies in the path of the man who fights for his country. They have not realized for a moment that every American soldier now in the ranks, with the exception of a few professionals who were in the service before this war came on, is a citizen soldier; that it is an army of men who are equals. Oh, I have heard a lot of talk recently about democracy. I would like to see our Army made safe for democracy. How can you say that you have a democratic Army; how can you say that conscription is democratic, that it is just, when you force some men into the ranks at the low pay of $30 a month when others have rushed off to training camps, having had college educations and social positions good enough to stand the tests, and now are to be further favored as proposed by this bill? How can you afford to discriminate between these equally deserving men, whether officers or men, when they are soldiers in the field; to discriminate between their families at home; to discriminate between them when they come home maimed and bleeding from service in their country's cause; and when they fall upon the battle field to discriminate between their widows and orphans? I refer now particularly to the discrimination in the compensation for injury. What is the foundation for such discrimination? Those men were equal at home. Many of the officers of the National Guard were just common fellows, of the sort that Regular Army officers sort of look over their left shoulders at. Some of them have even been workingmen. Think of that! [Laughter.] They have worked their way up in the National Guard and perhaps have no large earning capacity. There are plenty of officers in the National Guard and plenty of them in the National Army-officers who were college boys, put into the Army through training camps-plenty of them who are making more money to-day in the Army than they ever made before in their lives. On the other hand, there are thousands of splendid men who have volunteered, and thousands of others just as splendid who have been conscripted, who have left good jobs, where some of them were earning as much money as some of the officers now get, and who are peers to any man who carries a sword at his side. It is a rank discrimination. We are not dealing with professional soldiers. Your bill is all right if it was designed only for a professional army-the Regular Army, with its professional privates and its professional officers. It is all right for them, because their rank in or whatever they get. But we are not content merely to give the officer the best of it in regard to pay. When he is in the field we let him carry a sword, and that is his only weight, while the poor private has to carry a gun and other baggage weighing 30 or 40 pounds. We are not satisfied to let the officer stay in the tent in the shade, while the humble enlisted man digs in the ditches, stands guard, and does other hateful tasks-oh, I had rather fight a thousand battles than do this monotonous drudgery of camp life-we are not content to give the officer the best of it all along the line, we are not content to give him a chance to make something out of himself, to have his name mentioned in the dispatches, and come home as a hero, while the man that is doing the fighting in the trenches is not mentioned at all. Nothing is thought of the humble private; there is no chance of promotion, no distinction nor honorable mention for him. All this is inevitable in military life. Yet we propose to further discriminate between the enlisted man and the officer, to discriminate between them when they come home with equally honorable scars, between their mothers, the mothers who gave birth to them, who nourished them, between their widows and orphans, when officer and man, heroes alike, lie dead upon the battle field. [Applause.] I had my speech printed in pamphlet and sent a copy to every voter in my district. Many things that I have done and said have been criticized, but for the sentiments expressed in that debate no word of criticism from a constituent has ever come to my ears. Mr. CONNERY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUDDLESTON. The gentleman will excuse me; I can not yield. It was in September, 1917, that action was taken. Under that law millions of young Americans went into the service. Under that action the officers performed their duties. Every man in the whole Army knew that this principle of democracy had been adopted, and necessarily he relied upon it. Every officer who served knew that he would be entitled only to the same compensation that the commonest private in his command would receive, in the event he became disabled. If there was a trade at all, that was the trade. Talk of promises is ridiculous. There were no promises. There was a definitely established policy of law, and upon that policy so adopted officers and men enlisted and went out to fight for their country. No man, not even including my friend from Massachusetts [Mr. CONNERY], ever rejected a commission because the compensation was not on the basis he desired. I never heard, before my friend spoke yesterday, of any man rejecting a commission and preferring to fight in the ranks. I have myself been a private soldier, and I know what devolves upon a private soldier in war, and if I did not have great faith in my friend from Massachusetts I should suspect his veracity when he assures me that he declined a commission. |