Слике страница



fi/£t-, fcecause \t comes after this committee has passed over the firtsf. section. I insist that it comes too late.

-_ ABERNETHY. I make the point of order against the

on the ground that it is not germane.

^ CHAIRMAN. The Chair overrules the point of order by the gentleman from Ohio and sustains that of the t^- man from North Carolina.

-_ JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I think the rj^mun from North Carolina is entirely correct, because this . -f M. lute would make this law apply to officers of the Civil War 2=3panish-AnieriL-.iu War. Does the gentleman insist on bis -t^. of order?

«r-_ ABERNETHY. I do. It is intended to kill the bill. ^r_ JOHNSON of South Dakota. If the gentleman insists * it, its only effect will be to eliminate; from this retirement se officers of the Civil War who are yet living and those of the Spanish-American War who would come under ~».ct, the same as veterans of the World War. If the genL » makes the point of order on that ground, that it is not tm.ue, the point of order is sound.

e CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio makes the point Of «z>-«~<Jer on section 1. The Chair calls the attention of the £^^k* *" I-*" man from South Dakota that section 1 and sections 10 . ;. i 1 i ~ are not germane.

A-f. »-_ JOHNSON of South Dakota. Section 10, Mr. Chairman, i. * -. _^. 1 . ^ possibly be subject to a point of order, for the reason that in H_i>S21 or 1922 special bills passed the House retiring a few officers and Marine Corps officers. It would make no difhoxvever, in the general character of the substitute, the elimination of section 12, to which the gentleman r^f ^^•r**, could make no difference except that it would permit ft»^-^»«5 officers on the retired list to wear the uniform of tlie r». »a Iri .at which they were retired. I will say to the gentleman f*~<-»xaca. ^North Carolina that section 12, if he will withdraw his

p*-*i.-x^* t of order

-JWai »-_ ABERNETHY. I will reserve it, but I will not withd^^» -v*.- It.

1.JT x-- JOHNSON of South Dakota. It provides that persons "V>!aej-^3-«J. on the emergency officers' retired list shall be entitled to iiea_Kr Abe uniform of the rank on which they were retired. They subject to assignment to active duty-in accordance with ovisions of sections 901 to 9»0, inclusive. Title X, of the ! States Code, and to the Rules and Articles of War, and by general court-martial for auy breach thereof, the any Regular Army officer. I do not care to argue the if order further.

CHAIRMAN. The Chair is ready to rule.
GARKETT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it

GARRETT of Texas. If the Chair should hold that this : ment is in order, and it would come to a vote, what are we

to do who have received information from the posts that lemies of this bill were going to offer such amendments, bat we should vote against all amendments?

CHAIRMAN. That is uot a parliamentary inquiry.

ABEUNETHY. Mr. Chairman, I insist oi> the point of

CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the gentleman South Dakota kindly furnished the Chair with a copy of •endment earlier In the afternoon, and therefore the Chnir up the precedents bearing on the case, and there is no -*- «dd as to its being subject to a point of order.

— JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I offer a ^^. *d amendment, with the elimination of sections 10 and 12 -^•">e first section.

— LEHLBACH. Mr. Chairman, I understand that sections *-*- *d 12 of this substitute are sections which are pertinent J^5r«neral way and are relevant to the subject of retirement ^S-^-'ers for physical disability.

"^"^, the gentleman's amendment is to strike out all after

-*~»acting clause and to substitute new mutter on the same

IT**1 subject as is described in the title, which is all that

"^~, If that is the case, the rule is that the subject matter

* "*-aght to be substituted does not have to be germane to

^^ xt of the bill to which it is offered as a substitute but

k'*1b' got to be germane generally to the subject matter of

^^gislation, and therefore I think sections 10 and 12 are

^*" CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the modified amend^ffered by the gentleman from South Dakota.

RAMSEYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand that is to *-^* ate sections 10 and 12.

_~ JOHNSON of South Dakota. And amend section 1. ^~_ RAMSEYER. Why not ask unanimous consent that the ^s- considered as read?

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that it is not germane. I am insisting on the point of order.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. I ask unanimous consent that this amendment, which is exactly the same as the previous one, except the first section and the elimination of sections 10 and 12, be considered as read.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Dakota?

There was no objection.

Following is tie amendment offered by the gentleman from South Dakota:

That any person who served as an officer of the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps of the United States during the World War other than as an officer of the Regular Army, Nuvy, or Marine Corps of the 1'nited Statf-s, who was separated from such service under honorable conditions, and who Incurred physical disability by reason of Injury received or disease contracted while In the line of duty in actual service, which at the time of application for retirement under this act incapacitates him for military service shall, upon application as hereinafter provided, be placed on a separate retired list, hereby created, to be known as the emergency officers' retired list, with the rank held by him at the time of separation from the active service, and continued thereon so long as snld disability exists.

Skc. 2. While on the emergency officers' retired list such person shall be entitled to the same privileges us arc now or may hereafter be provided by law or regulations for officers of the Regular Army, Navy, or Marine Corps of the United States who have been retired for physical disability Incurred in line of duty: Provided, however, That the pay of such person shall be 50 per cent of the pay of the grade In which he was serving at time of separation from the active service, computed on the basis of the pay provided by sections 1 to 31, Inclusive, title 31 of the United States Code, hut In no event shall such person receive more than 50 per cent of the pay of a lieutenant colonel, except that where such person has suffered the loss of any member or part of the body, or of the use thereof, as the result of a wound received In battle, or has reached the age of 70 years or more, shall be entitled to 75 per cent of the pay of the grade in which he was serving at time of separation from the active service, computed on the basis of the pay provided by sections 1 to 31, inclusive, title 37 of the United States Code, but in no event shall such person receive more than 75 per cent of the pay of a lieutenant colonel.

Sic. 3. No person shall be entitled to the benefits of this act unless an application therefor be received In the United States Veterans' Bureau within 12 months after the passage of this act. The Director of the United States Veterans' Bureau shall establish a register, and applications made hereunder shall be entered thereon as of the actual date of receipt In the United States Veterans' Bureau, and in the order thereof, and such register shall be conclusive as to date of receipt of any application filed under this act.

Sec. 4. The Director of the United States Veterans' Bureau is hereby authorized to create necessary boards to determine whether an applicant under this act Incurred physical disability by reason of Injury received or disease contracted while in the line of duty in actual service and the extent that such disability incapacitates such person at the time of application. The decisions of such boards shall be flnul when approved by the director.

Sec. 5. Payments under this act shall be made In accordance with an award by the Director of the United States Veterans' Bureau, and such awards shall be effective as of the date of application.

Sic. 6. The director shall cause persons on the emergency officers' retired list to he examined at such Intervals as, in his discretion, may be deemed advisable, and those persons who shall be found to have recovered from their disabilities shall, from the date of recovery, as determined by the director, he removed from such list and their right to receive retired pay under the provisions of this act shall cense.

Sbc. 7. All pay to which such persons may be entitled under the provisions of this act shall be paid out of the appropriation for military and naval compensation of the United States Veterans' Bureau. While receiving such pny and allowances such persons shall not be paid compensation under title 38 of the United States Code, as amended.

Sic. 8. Persons on the emergency officers' retired list shall be entitled to the benefits of hospitali/.ntlon under the provisions of section 484, title :i8, of the United States Code, as amended.

Sic. 8. Where any person entitled to the benefits of this act is incompetent or for any other reason is unable to apply, an application may be made by his duly authorized legal representative: Provided, however, That where any person otherwise entitled to be placed on the emergency officers' retired list, having neither wife, child, nor dependent parent, shall have been maintained by the Government of the United States for a period or periods amounting to six months in an institution or institutions and shall be deemed by the director to be Insane, such pernon shall not be entitled to the benefits of this act.


Sic. 11. There is hereby established in the United States Veterans' Bureau under the direction of the director a separate service to be known aa the retirement service. For the purpose of administration the Director of the United States Veterans' Bureau Is authorized and directed to perform or cause to be performed any or all acts, and to make such rules and regulations, as may be necessary and proper for the purpose of carrying this net into effect. All officers and employees of the bureau shall perform such duties under this act as may be assigned them by the director. All official acts performed by Hurh officers or employees especially designated therefor by the director shall have the same force and effect as though performed by the director In person. The appropriation for the administrative expenses of tho United States Veterans' Bureau shall he available for this purpose.

Mr. ABERNETIIY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that it is uot germane.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from North Carolina desire to argue the point of order? The Chair is ready to rule.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I will not argue it, hut will let the Chair rule.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I had Intended to offer much of the matter continued in the substitute in the form of amendments, but it would have necessitated the offering of eight or ten different amendments and I thought it would be much clearer to the membership of the committee if I offered all of the changes as a substitute.

I have a very limited time and I can therefore discuss it to « very limited extent.

This substitute would affect only those members of the different forces in the World War, the emergency officers, who are disabled to the extent of 50 per cent and in no event would they receive more than 50 per cent of the pay of a lieutenant colonel. This plan is based on all the legislative precedents of the United States Government since the time of the Revolutionary War. I do not intend to go into them at this time, because there would not be time, but I stated the facts with reference to those precedents in the remarks I made this afternoon in general debate.

There is one exception to the 50 per cent that would be received by these officers, however, and that is in cases known as battle casualties and men who have arrived at the age of 72 years. In the case of battle casualties, men who were maimed in actual warfare, and those who arrive at the age of 72, they will receive 75 per cent of their base pay, exactly as is provided In the present bill now before the House.

Mr. NEWTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Yes.

Mr. NEWTON. Is the gentleman's substitute based on the rating of disability at the time made or is the rating based on the disability as it progresses later on in life?

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. As it shall be found by the board created in the Veterans' Bureau within the next year.

Mr. NEWTON. The condition within the next year?

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Yes. But there is this exception. I provide in this substitute the same as is provided for the Regular Army officer, that these officers will be called before this board to be examined at such times as the Government shall direct; in other words, a man might be very ill to-day and might recover entirely within the next two years. In that event, under section 12, I provided that he be called back to active duty, but that section was stricken out on a point of order, and it is now provided that a man shall be called before this board whenever that may be desired.

Mr. KETCHAM. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Yes.

Mr. KETCHAM. Do I understand that the basic principle of your bill is the idea of disability rather than rank?

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. It is based on both. It is based on the policy that was initiated .after the Revolutionary War, after the Mexican War, and was in force and effect in this country after the Civil War until the time when pensions save a soldier more money than he would have received by the securing of his pension based on rank.

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. I will ask the gentleman to repeat his reference to battle casualties.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. That is the man who received his injury in battle; he would receive 75 per cent of his base pay, exactly as it is to-day with regard to Kegular Army officers under the general retirement statutes.

Mr. WAINWR1GIIT. Is there any difference as to the degree of disability?

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. There is this difference: An emergency officer must be 50 per cent disabled. Another requisite it provides that this bill S. 777 does not provide is that an officer must have been honorably discliarged from the service. I am. uot entirely certain, but 1 do not think the bill

before the committee provides that an officer must be honorably discharged, and I do not agree with the idea that a man should be compensated if he has been court-martialed and dishonorably discharged from the Army.

In the present bill before us no provision is made for an insane officer to make a claim for retirement, because there is no provision in tho bill providing that his guardian can ask for retirement. I have provided in this substitute that in the case of officers who are insane the guardians may file the request.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Dakota has expired.

Mr. NEWTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from South Dakota may proceed for five additional minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota asks unanimous consent that the gentleman from South Dakota may proceed for five additional minutes. Is there objection?

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I want the gentleman from South Dakota in these five minutes, which I do not intend to object to, to explain how we are to explain our vote in favor of any amendment that is offered to this bill after the wires we have received from all of our posts. I want him to explain that, and I am not joking about it.

If the gentleman has come in here with a half-baked proposition that nobody knows anything about and is expecting us to vote for it. I would like to know it.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Nkwton]?

There was no objection.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. I want to answer the gentleman. I may say to the gentleman from Texas that I am very pleased to answer his question. In the first place, this is not any half-baked proposition. Many Members of Congress and some of the best lawyers in the departments have put in a great deal of time trying to work out a fair and equitable law that will give these emergency officers justice and also not violate the precedents of the United States.

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. But the Legion thinks you are doing that in this-bill. They do not know about this substitute.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. That may be. The gentleman also talks about Members of Congress explaining their votes. I came to the point about 10 or 12 years ago, just like the gentleman did, where I do not waste time explaining my votes, and whenever any Member of Congress from Texas, and particularly this gentleman, commences to explain his vote, I will think the world is coming to an end.

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. I thank the gentleman for the compliment.

Mr. NEWTON. Will the gentleman now yield to me?

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Yes.

Mr. NEWTON. The gentleman in his substitute starts in with a 50 per cent permanent disability as the basis of rernting.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. That is correct.

Mr. NEWTON. If after the reexaminatlon there should develop a disability less than 50 per cent, then he goes off the list; is that correct?

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. That is correct. He would go off the list.

Mr. NEWTON. But as long as it remained a 50 per cent or more disability he remains on the list and receives this disability compensation under the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. They receive 50 per rent of it based on the Army pay, but not to exceed 50 per cent of the pay of a lieutenant colonel as provided in the legislation immediately after (he Revolutionary War.

Mr. BURT.NESS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Yes.

Mr. BURTNESS. Does the amendment contain the same option carried in the pending bill? In other words, if the amount would be less, they can continue to receive compensation from flip Veterans' Bureau.

Mr. JOHNSON of Smith Dakota. Oh, certainly; they do not need to come in under the law unless they desire it.

Mr. BURTNESS. If they should have a disability of 50 per cent or more at one time and then later be reduced below 5O per cent, but afterwards their condition should become aggravated, they would bo entitled to go back on the roll?

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Yes; they would be entitled to go back on the roll.

Mr. O'CONNOR of Louisiana. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. O'CONNOR of Louisiana. In view of the importance of the substitute measure, why did not the gentleman publish it

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

a day or two ago In the Record so we would have information

respect Jx»« it?

if,, j *JHNSON of South Dakota. I will say to the gentle'"••iii 'i!i-«- * ' have explained the amendment and it has been rea,j jj«-:_r-e this afternoon. I have voted on more important ^* thnn this without any such publication.

<^SWAIN. Will the gentleman yield? j«^>HNSON of South Dukota. I yield to the gentleman.

_V*T«HWAIN. I would like to ask the gentleman how l*«?^ committee of which the gentleman is chairman has consideration the matter contemplated by the bill «r-d by the gentleman from Ohio I Mr. Fitzgerald]. OHNSON of South Dakota. About as long as the Mi tit a. ry Affairs Committee has had under consideration the bill to cronscript capital and labor — about six years.

Mr. IWiMI <:SWAIN. Yes; about six years. When did it occur to tlit^ j^^^xitleman thnt the provisions contemplated in his present anier,tlia»«^-nt were just and right? When did that occur to the cent leunsa. »?

Mr- J <^> HNSON of South Dakota. That occurred after I read the Son««. <;e bill, and after I sat down night lifter night and day after <3t».y with Members of Congress and various men in the departm^^-uts and tried to work out a fair and Just bill and one that tlie President would sign, and I could conscientiously vote for.

Mr. 3kJC <^SWAIN. Does the gentleman expect gentlemen who can not "ft:* ear the proposed amendment read, and can not understnntl it s* provisions in this short time, to vote for such a substitute f «»r a bill that the committee of which the gentleman is chnirmn. «r» has deliberately brought in here after six years of consiilei- ia. tion?

Mr. J«Z»HNSON of South Dakota. I would say that is entirely w i thin the gentleman's own mind and heart. If he can not und^ m-stand it this afternoon, I am not to blame for that.

Mr. :&•«: «^SWAIN. I can not hear it. I could understand it if I eo til «i ever hear it

Mr. -J<Z>HNSON of South Dakota. I ask unanimous consent that t , - substitute may again be read so that the gentleman iron. S3o-«j_Lth Carolina can hear and understand it. Ttie C5HAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Dakota asks consent that the amendment may again be reported. objection?

^j. Members. I object.

ItCDY G. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen «?«^iumittee, there is no disposition on the part of the ja. _c_i Legion or myself or anyone in charge of this bill to Member of this House to vote for anything that his

does not al'Prove

xar»atter has been before Congress for seven years, and x» articular bill has not been reported from the Senate iast two months to attract the attention of my good South Dakota, other bills almost exactly similar before us which should have incited him to give the study.

if we do not pass the bill which the Senate has passed and sent to the House, after all our efforts Bearing in the House, we can not pass the bill at all. plead with the members of the committee to be a ent with the American Legion that has given so much to tnis matter in order to do something for these wien.

only raises the average compensation to $132 a
I hope you will resist the fascinating attempt to
measure at the last minute. I do not say but what
miSnt be a sood substitute, but it is practically
to atteiuPt to do this now- We have no statements

or any complete study of it.
- INCHELOE. Will the gentleman yield?


oo 1NCHELOE. la it the intention of the chairman of

,. ^?**aittee to complete the consideration of the bill to-night? *^>Y G. FITZGERALD. I hope so and I would like to. * NCHELOE. Does the chairman intend to?

FITZGERALD. I certainly do not want to anybody or obstruct any effort anybody may make to .r .i8 own opinion.

the i^lt.*^lNCHELOE. I am not talking about that, but is it i &*»tion to try to keep a quorum in the Committee of the -»?;**itil we get through?

G- FITZGERALD. Oh, I would like to do that but going to be ugly about It.

s *IFFIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last

* ,\xw>t>- J am £'ad nt lastnave nn opportunity to yield to the * m of my friends ln tlle American Legion — for they

TM y friends — tliey ought to be my friends, because I have


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


helped them consistently through the whole course of my service in this House.

I am glad to yield to this extent, that I will vote against this amendment of my good friend from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson]. I do so with all due deference to him, and only because I think he falls into the same error of judgment as those who prepared this bill. They have tried to do something that is logically inconsistent and impossible, and he' in trying to avoid their pitfall trips lightly into a similar mistake.

In other words, this bill aims to retire men who are not in the service. How can that be done? These emergency officers have been out of the service for years, and yet this bill and the Johnson amendment propose to put them on the retired list.

What does "retired" mean? Look in the dictionary. Retirement means withdrawal from the service. How can you retire men who are not in the service?

Briefly this bill provides that men who served in the World War and who happened to be lucky enough to secure commissions as emergency officers shall retroactively be put in the same position as Regular Army officers and be entitled to retirement at three-fourths pay — precisely to the same extent as though they had continued in the service and had not taken their discharges at the close of the World War. The only limitation or requirement being that they shall have suffered a 30 per cent disability. The financial significance of this is shown in the following figures. If this bill becomes a law, emergency officers with disability to the extent of only 30 per cent will receive the following retirement pay or compensation for the rest of their lives:

r general ----------------------------------------- $37.r>. 00

Colonel ------------------------------------------------ 250. 00

Lieutenant colonel --- _ __ _ ----------- ______ ____ _ ________ _ __ _18. 75

Miijor ------------------------------------------------ 1ST. 50

Captain ------------------------------------------------- ir.O. 00

First lieutenant -------- _ _______________________________ 125. 00

Second lieutenant ______________________________________ 93. 76

Now, what does the ordinary enlisted man receive under our com pensa tion laws? He receives $1 for each per cent of disability, so that an ex-service man with 30 per cent disability can receive only $30 per month. Our World War compensation law is considerably different from the old pension laws applicable to Civil War and Spanish War veterans. It is decidedly more liberal in the amount allowed and in the methods of administration, but it is essentially a pension law, and the fundamental characteristic of a pension law or compensation law is that relief is afforded on the basis of abstract manhood and not on the basis of rank.

After the close of the Civil War an attempt was made to pass a pension law based on rank, but it was ignominiously beaten. Again during the framing of the World War compensation act a provision was at first included providing for allowances based on a percentage of the soldiers' pay; In other words, a pension or compensation based on rank. The proposal raised a storm of objections and was stricken from the bill on the floor of the House. The American Congress was not then ripe to admit the principle that pensions should be granted upon the basis of fortuitous rank, or that the wife and children of an officer were entitled to greater consideration than the wife and children of an enlisted man. In other words. Congress then stood upon the principle; and I hope it will still adhere to it that in this democracy of ours there should be no discrimination in our pension laws between officers and men.

But the argument is made in behalf of this bill that it is a retirement act and not a pension measure. The gentlemen who make that contention are indulging in a little self-deception to ease their consciences. This is not a retirement bill. The emergency officers whom it affects have been out of the service for nine years. They were in civil life before the emergency of the war induced them to take upon themselves the duties of soldiers and they have by this time, after the lapse of nine years, returned to their original vocations.

This is simply a bill to raise the compensation of a few emergency officers. If you want to raise their compensation, introduce a bill that will frankly confront the question and raise the compensation of all alike whether officers or enlisted men. [Applause.] That is the solution of the difficulty.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from South Dakota.

The question was taken, and the amendment was rejected.

Mr. LUCE. Mr. Chairman, 1 move to strike out the last word. It is not my purpose to debate the merits of this bill. If the opportunity presents itsolf I intend to move to recommit the bill for the following reasons:

I have been a member of the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation since its creation four years and more ago. No matter that has come to it has so much perplexed me as this particular proposal. On the whole I have thought that the arguments in favor of the proposal outweighed those against it, and I have voted in past years to report this proposal favorably.

This year an opportunity to hear all the arguments was refused to the minority of the committee. Those who believe that so important and far reaching a change in the policy of the United States ought to have let in upon it the light of argument, were refused hearings, refused an opportunity to listen to the facts in the case, and this bill was rejwrted to the House without one minute of argument on its merits.

If ever a debate illuminated a subject in this body it has been the debate of the last two days. Member after Member has told me that if he had known beforehand of the facts that have been presented in this debate he would never have committed himself to the support of this measure in its present form. Had I known all these facts I never would have committed myself without further study. You may see then that here is an occasion, if there ever was one, that demands the proper functioning of the machinery of the House, set up to meet just such a contingency. The House has a right through its committees, its eyes, its ears, to have a study of the question, and a study of the question has never been given by the full committee on World War Veterans' legislation. Therefore, not in opposition to the proposal, not in support even of the amendment which has just been presented to you. because I have not read it, and have not been informed about it, and know nothing about its details save what I have just heard—not in support of any position in this matter, but as a plea for the ordinary method of considering important proposals, and in behalf of the machinery set up by the House for its information, I trust this committee when it is resolved into the House will conclude that the wise course is to recommit the bill for further consideration. [Applause. 1

Mr. SCHAFER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment. I hope the motion to recommit which the gentleman is going to offer will be defeated by an overwhelming vote. I remember a few weeks ago on the floor of this House, when a committee of which the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Luce] is a member, reported a bill to retire presidents of the Federal reserve banks, who have been receiving from $20,000 to $50,000 a year salary in their present occupation, and give them retirement pay of $8,000 or $9,000 a year, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Luce] made an impassioned speech in behalf of the legislation.

A motion to recommit without instructions is a motion to defeat, and his last-minute attempt to defeat the emergency officers' retirement legislation does not harmonize with his position on legislation to retire bank presidents.

The CHAIRMAN. The pro forma amendment is withdrawn. Under ilie rule the committee will rise.

Mr. ROY G. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

The CHAIRMAN. It Is not necessary under the rule.

Accordingly the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. Laguabdia, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that committee had had under consideration the bill 8. 777, the emergency officers' retirement bill, and had directed him to report the same back to the House without amendment, with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

The SPEAKER. Under the rule the previous question is ordered. The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.

The bill was ordered to a third reading, and was read the third time.

Mr. LUCE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be recommitted to the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation.

Mr. ROY G. FITZGKUALI). Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the previous question.

Mr. KEAKNS. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. In the Committee of the Whole this bill was never voted on. Is it not necessary to vote on the bill in committee.

The SPEAKER. The committee recommends the passage of the bill. It does not pass the bill.

Mr. KEARNS. But is not it necessary for the committee to vote on the bill as to whether that committee shall recommend it for passage?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts moves to recommit the bill, upon which motion the gentleman from Ohio demands the previous question.

The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts to recommit the bill.

The question wa.s taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Luce) there were—ayes 81, noes 145.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the ye-as and nays.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Mississippi demands the yeas and nays. Those who favor taking the vote by the yeas and nays will rise and stand until counted. [After counting.] Thirty-seven Members have risen, not a sufficient number, and tho yeas and nays are refused.

So the motion to recommit the bill was rejected.

The SPEAKER. The question now is on the passage of the bill.

Mr. ROY G. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio demands the yeas and nays. Those in favor of taking the vote by the yeas and nays will rise and stand until counted. [After counting.] Forty-five Members have risen, not a sufficient number. The question is, Shall the bill pass?

The question was taken, and the bill was passed.

On motion of Mr. Roy G. Fitzgerald, a motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed was laid on the table.


Mr. BURTNESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Record by inserting therein a statement which I made before the House Committee on Immigration on the so-called Box immigration bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. BURTNESS. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent granted me I desire to call the attention of the Members to a statement which I made recently before the Immigration Committee of the House upon the so-called Box immigration bill. This bill, if enacted, would place not only Mexico, but also the Dominion of Canada within the quota provisions of the immigration act. The statement to which I refer, including the questions asked by various members of the committee, is as follows:

Mr. BtntTNESs. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appeared before this conmiiltee on a similar measure two years ago. so some of you older members of the committee already know my views with referenee to it, perhaps; yet the matter Is of such importance to the people of our territory that I felt Justified In asking for time to appear again. I have been busy In my own committee, so I do not know the nature of the presentation that has been made up to this point.

I am Interested in this bill and in its effect from two viewpoints, primarily—-or at least, as to its effect in two different respects.

First, in its effect upon immigration that has been coming to the T'nited States, and which some of us expect and hope will continue to come to us, from the Dominion of Canada; and, secondly, with respect to the immigration that cornea into this country from M'exico.

Most of you know that I live up close to the Canadian border. The district which I hnve the honor to represent extends directly to the border. My home town Is within 00 miles thereof. The people in our State, the people in Minnesota, the people generally in all of the border States travel back and forth Into Canada. Each summer we see over at the Minnesota lakes, for instance—which, by the way, is the finest summer playground in tbe country anywhere, and we hope many of you people can come there to spend your summer vacation

Mr. MAcGiiEGOB (Interposing). I move that the gentleman be given leave to print. [Laughter.]

Mr. Buhtness. Seriously, we find literally hundreds upon hundreds of Canadian citizens spending their vacation there, n great many people. for instance, from the city of Winnipeg and from others of the larger towns. This emphasizes the cordial relations now existing between Americans and Canadians.

I was interested in ascertaining the kind of immigration and the quantity of immigration that comes from Canada. I know from personal knowledge, of course, that the farmers that we have living in North Dakota who liO and 30 and 40 years ago emigrated into the United States from Canada aro among the thriftiest, the ablest, the most capable farmers that we can find anywhere in that country. The same is true of the business men. So t was interested, as I sny. In determining something about the type of Immigration that we are Kottlng now and the quantity of It. and I took those questions up with Mr. Hull, Commissioner General of Immigration, and he sent me an Interesting table which gives detailed information, and at an appropriate place I would like to have It Inserted in the record.

I find from this table that in the fiscal year ended July 1, 1925. there were admitted into the United States 100.890 immigrant)) whose permanent residence was in Canada. In 1020 the number was 91,019, ;»,<! in the fiscal year 1027 the number was 81,506.

[ocr errors]

I tiaf~& «tated that these were Immigrants whose permanent residence a f n «• .-i !•.'•!. You will note the fact that that does not mean that I f ttjt>DJ came In outside of the quota, because some of these, though rrnwa*"*'* residents of Canada, were born In other countries. Such u Id *>«• charged under present laws to the quota of the country of I t>Ii—i:fc. So I asked for Information over the telephone as to how many of "these that are listed In the table furnished are also Canadian born ;. ii • I the reply came back a little later that about 83 per cent of tli orr» *» re Canadian born. So there should be a reduction of IT per cent If 3r~«u want to ascertain the exact number that are Canadian born nn<3 would then be chargeable to the Canadian quota if a quota were' «.-«*.».lallshed with reference to Canada similar to the quotas established '*v * *" *" reference to European countries.

jfr_ jj«z»3«. That Is because the quota restrictions now apply to those oznlng throngh Canada who were born In European countries. t-myftTXiSS. Exactly. So the situation at any rate Is that If yon B I bill we wonld be deprived—whether for good or for 111 of . . . , j ' • the question for determination—we would be deprived if soro«?*:*•» Ing like 75,000 Canadian-horn Immigrants each year. There Is no sot»<i reason to suppose that that Immigration Is likely to decrease In tl*<? ffx.t:im without legislation.

Mr- £?<r*nxEiDER. Do many of those folks come to yonr State and to joor clis=t: rict for farm purposes?

Mr. Ht^TtTXESS. Some of them do. Of course, It Is difficult to tell Just now many come to my State or come to some other State. I have not exact in-ToTmatlon on that question.

Mr. Sc-mneider. Just what kind of work do they do? >tr_ Bt^ktxess. I was going to come to that feature In my statement Tory shoi-tly, as to the occupations of people that come In, because I tore that Information here; It Is given In the table that I have asked Jesre to Insert. But before I go to that, let me suggest this general o&servatlcm. Some of these people that will be shut out have had contacts heretofore with the United States within the last 20 or 25 years— yes; ni-., -within the last 10 or 15 years—the Canadian Northwest has l»et-r» Kreotly developed. Many encouragements were given to settlers by tho rullroads, by the immigration department of Canada, and the like. With -what result? We saw leaving our States, leaving all of our North-western States, many of our young men and young women, going up into the Canadian Northwest, American-born citizens of the United States. They went up there, whether they were right or wrong, upon the theory that Canada offered wonderful opportunities to them. A Pp*?rxt rrMiny of them went as brides and grooms. The young man had *rone up an(i fligj on jami an(j came back and got married and they movo-cl up there. They have raised their families In Canada. Some of them lutve come back. Quite a number of them have come bark. From '""hat I am able to learn I find that there ore a lot of them still up *"^*"e. American born, who hope sooner or later to sell out In Canada <"ome b;ick to the United States. In the meantime they have raised Jt~<?"- The children are Canadian born. Thc passage of the Box bill "oulcl, or course, prevent these Canadian-born children, but whose I»rr-Qt:s xvere American born, from coming into the United States, except "suol» nxunbers as could come In within the quota that would be per"ittecl by thc bin.

0 *^w .airman. Let us go a step further. The parents, if they took "*«*»«S in Canada, took out Canadian citizenship, did they not?

• I* Justness. They have become Canadian citizens, and I was *° ask your committee the question as to whether they could If they had become Canadian citizens, If they could come all under this bill. I do not know. I am not familiar ^•ith the technicalities of the Immigration laws and of this aow how tho bill would apply to a person who Is American \rho has gone to Canada and become a Canadian citizen and '. **""^*i desires to come back to the United States. Could he come In -^_ C ? °tT the quota or not?

coupe ^*cJx. The place of birth, I think, now generally controls. Of witi, Ti **8 to wnnt Jts terms would be after the committee got through JHr **•* to special cases like yours would be a question. •j-.^" ^sa.cgrkoor. They could not come In at all. Oan^ f Baibman. Canadians returning, American born, naturalized

j^j aQs, returning now have to pay a head tax and visa fees. «io jj" fifRTNESS. They would have to come in as immigrants, but I Hot. s know how this bill would be applied as to quota. I could th^^ ?^ anything In It or In the general act, from the examination to „„_,, v«s able to give it, to determine that question, and I decided you what the conclusion would be. At any rate, It is a mutter '*g your careful consideration if you determine to report a bill '8 out the general purposes of this one. I am one of those, M1, who would Insist most strenuously that if any person born United States and who had become a citizen elsewhere, as for _^ !e In Canada, and that person who has gone to Canada and

to ^_^t» citizenship in that way gets to the point where he desires back to thc country of bis birth, ho ought not to be barred of any arbitrary quota provision. If he Is otherwise proper edmltted; that is. If he passes the various tests that our general Oration laws provide. If he entertains no notions of government > wrong. In so far aa oui policy in the United States is concerned,

[ocr errors]

or anything of that sort, and Is generally qualified, I feel that he ought to be admitted.

The Chairman. Do you carry that out to the people who have gone to Russia .'iid Greece and Italy and other parts of the world?

Mr. Buhtnkss. That Is not the question before the committee now, because we have onr quota provisions with reference to them.

The Chairman. You made quite a big statement there, that you wanted people born In the United States to have the right to return, and undertook to make It apply Just to contiguous territory.

Mr. I'.' ;••' i -x. If you want my view with reference to It, I will frankly say that If a person born In the United States has gone elsewhere, and If be desires to come back, and If he Is a proper person under the general qualification provisions of our Immigration act, outside of the quota provisions, I think that he ought to be permitted to come buck.

The Chairman. You would have htm throw citizenship off and on, Just like taking off a shoe?

Mr. Burtness. No; I would not have them do that. I think the very fact that he desires to come back, after trying something else, would Indicate that he thinks more of his American citizenship than he does of the citizenship that be has acquired In the meantime. I think the very fact that he Is anxious to come back, after trying something else, would probably make him a better American citizen than some one perhaps who had not gone through the experience of trying to live under another flag. I think he would appreciate this country Just that much more after he got back here. Of course, if It came down to the question of Indeterminately running back and forth, that is another situation, and something so remote that It Is not likely to occur.

Mr. Macgregor. How about Emma Goldman 1

Mr. Bubtness. Well, that question is very easily answered. I stated my conditions with reference to admission, namely, that the provisions of our general immigration act should be complied with In such cases. As every member of this committee knows, those provisions would bar Emma Goldman from coming back. Furthermore I do not know that Emma Goldman Wu.b American born. My Impression Is she was not.

Mr. Macgrbqor. She repented, though.

Mr. Burtness. She repented, but she has probably repented only with reference to where she desires or prefers to live. Now, If she has repented to the extent that she does not longer entertain any views antagonistic to our American principles, then you would have another proposition. Do not get thc idea that I urged anything more than what I suggested. My statement was with reference to persons American born and who entertain American views, who desire to come back and who could otherwise qualify under the general provisions of our Immigration act.

Coming back to what Is especially before the committee now, I believe that Canadians, people born and reared under the laws of Canada, under the ideals of English-speaking people, under the Ideals of representative government very similar to our own—I think any of them who want to come here and desire to live In the United States would be a distinct asset to the country, and Instead of putting up thc bars against them we ought to be willing to welcome them Into this country. I think they occupy a considerably different position from anybody else, and that Is especially true when we realize that they are living right alongside of us, only an imaginary line separating us, where Intercourse between these countries Is free and easy, where there are literally tens of thousands of Canadians coming Into this country every year for tourist purposes and for business purposes, and In the same way even a larger number of Americans going Into Canada for similar purposes. I repeat that they would be distinct assets to our own country. Every Canadian that we hove ever gotten here, practically without exception, In the past has been an asset to our country, and anyone we are likely to get In the future Is likely to be such.

Mr. Schneider. Do a larger percentage of them become American citizens than the Norwegians and Swedes?

Mr. Bcrtness. I am not In a position to say with reference to that.

Mr. Schneideb. Do you think they are a greater asset as citizens than Norwegians and Swedes?

Mr. Bc-rtness. I am not going to be put Into the position before the committee of making a comparison between Canadian-born people and any other specific nationality, and surely not with the people from which I happen to come myself. Referring generally, however, to the northern countries of Europe, I believe that the Immigrants that we have received from such countries have been very satisfactory people and have played their part in developing the United States, and I am not here to say that those of us of Norwegian origin are a bit better than those of German origin or Swedish or Irish or Scotch origin, or Canadian origin or anyone else. Nor, from pride of ancestry, do I care to admit that the Canadians are any better than those of us who happen to have Norwegian blood In our veins.

Mr. Macghegor. May I ask what you think about the natlonalorlKins clause that reduces thc number from Scandinavian countries?

Mr. Burtness. Believing lu a policy of restricted immigration, my opinion has been that the best law that has been reported In recent years, or at any time, from this committee Is the bill that was reported by this committee and passed by Congress In 1024, and which is now the law. I think that on the whole the people that have come In under that law are probably as good—the great general average thereof—as

« ПретходнаНастави »