Слике страница
PDF
ePub

indeologies contrary to the interests of the United States; or drew cartoons depicting the United States as the aggressor and the North Koreans and Chinese as the liberators of the world.

Other things taken into consideration in making a recommendation to the Commission were the recommendations of Army boards which are administrative factfinding tribunals; the sworn admissions of subjects; additional information acquired through the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Veterans' Administration, and other Government agencies. All this is presented to the Commission and is considered together in making a recommendation.

Board actions are factfinding: At the conclusion of board hearing, the board makes recommendation to the Department of the Army.

Board recommendations differ in that a board may recommend

(a) General discharge under honorable conditions; i. e., where the charges are not proven but the individual in question had a moral obligation to do or not to do something; i. e., a man sitting on a fence overlooking a railroad was morally obligated to flag a passenger train when he saw someone turn the switch, or; another example is, an individual who lies at a board hearing.

(b) General discharge with conditions not stated; i. e., where they wish to get subject out of the service but can't make up their minds as to whether to give him a general discharge under honorable or general discharge under other than honorable conditions.

(c) General discharge under conditions other than honorable; i. e., where the word "honorable" is not included in service papers. Subject's service not honorable or dishonorable, i. e., subject with homosexual tendencies, determined by medical examination and/or admissions of the subject.

(d) Undesirable discharge; i. e., where the individual is undesirable as a soldier, undesirable as a human; has an undesirable characteristic; i. e., homosexual caught in the act.

(e) Dishonorable discharge is acquired by general court-martial conviction. Exception: Secretary of the Army has the prerogative to issue dishonorable discharge; e. g., issued to those 12 or so who did not return and chose to stay behind.

Remarks: Of those former POW's that returned, there are those that were discharged before their files could be reviewed for possible violations. They received honorable discharges and the Army lost jurisdiction to try them under the decision in Toth v. United States. These cases were flagged by the Army to prevent reenlistment. If they returned to service they were given a board action and, if the evidence adjudged sufficient, were the recipients of a general or undesirable discharge. Others who remained in the service were given board actions where the information was not sufficient to court-martial subject.

Where board action contemplated the subject receives letter of allegation. He must then elect in writing one of the following choices:

(1) Rebut in writing in 15 days.

(2) Within 5 days request retirement if eligible.

(3) Within 5 days request hearing before a field board.

(4) If he refuses to elect, he will be advised that his case will be processed and adjudicated by Department of Army without further referral to him. He will be advised that such adjudication may result in undesirable, general, other than honorable discharge.

Transcript and results of Army board hearings are contained in subject's Army 201 file or personnel file.

Mr. KLEIN. We will excuse you, Mr. Chairman.

I see a statement from J. Robert Conroy, assistant legislative officer of the VFW.

Mr. Conroy, do you wish to put this into the record or do you wish to testify?

Mr. CONROY. Whatever pleases the committee.

Mr. KLEIN. Do you oppose this legislation or are you in favor of it, your organization?

Mr. CONROY. We have some objections with reference to procedures, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF J. ROBERT CONROY, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE OFFICER, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, this opportunity to testify on H. R. 9584 and H. R. 9749 is very much appreciated.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, a service organization for veterans chartered by Congress, has over a period of years rendered gratuitous services, especially in the field of claims, to the veterans and/or his dependents. Inclusive of this service have been many appearances on behalf of claimants before the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, originally known as the War Claims Com

mission.

This perhaps would be an opportune time to comment favorably on what we consider a most satisfactory and proficient handling of prisoner-of-war claims by the Commission. It has always been a pleasure to appear as counsel in these cases, having the knowledge that the conduct and determination of the Commission will be most courteous and preeminently fair. However, the Veterans of Foreign Wars feels that at the present time there is a need for clarification as to the scope and limits of purview by the Commission when certain factors may be present in a given claim. We refer specifically to those cases wherein either through a previously submitted statement by a witness or the transpiring of events during a period of captivity of the prisoner of war, some color of collaboration with the enemy has been injected.

It is the contention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that the field in which the Commission must operate has been very clearly and definitely set forth in Public Law 896, 80th Congress, Public Law 303, 82d Congress, and Public Law 615, 83d Congress, wherein it is stated that there shall be $1 per day allowance for each day the enemy failed to provide the quantity and quality of food as directed by the Geneva Convention of 1929, pertaining to prisoners of war, and an allowance of $1.50 for each day the prisoner of war was treated inhumanely or forced to labor without just compensation.

A comparatively recent trend of operation by the Commission, as observed by our representatives, has led us to believe that the Commission in the type of cases mentioned above has attempted to reach what it evidently considers a compromise or equitable decree amounting to a reduced award presumably on the basis of punitive measures caused by the possibility of collaboration. We have been unable in our survey to find anywhere in the law governing the administration of these claims an instance wherein the Commission is given any discretionary authority in determining the amount of the award or to use any other measure than that provided by the laws governing this benefit. It is our contention that it is not the burden or duty of the Commission to make any determination except those dealing with the status of the claimant as a prisoner of war and whether he would fall within the provisions of law as to substandard food, inhumane treatment, and/or forced labor without just compensation.

The matter of collaboration with the enemy should be determined by those who have by law been given the obligation of doing so. If a case reached the Commission with an official determination of collaboration, the course of the Commission is clear. If no such determination is present, then the presumption of noncollaboration must prevail. Any other action on behalf of the Commission is arbitrary and

without authority. Due to the above factors and because we believe there is a need for clarification which will relieve the Commission of unduly assuming unnecessary obligation and burden, we wholeheartedly support H. R. 9584 and H. R. 9749 in principle, as most beneficial and necessary in interpreting present law and regulation in accordance with congressional intent.

Mr. KLEIN. Are there any questions?

Mr. FRIEDEL. No.

Mr. KLEIN. Your organization represents veterans in all branches of the service; is that so?

Mr. CONROY. Yes, sir.

Mr. KLEIN. The Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and so forth? Mr. CONROY. Yes.

Mr. KLEIN. Do you know of any cases where members of the armed services other than the Army were refused any payments of claims? Mr. CONROY. No, Mr. Chairman; we have not had contact with any such case.

Mr. KLEIN. You would not know that?

Mr. CONROY. We would if they came to us.

Mr. KLEIN. None have come to you?

Mr. CONROY. No, sir.

Mr. KLEIN. It is only the Army that has been submitting these reports to the Commission?

Mr. CONROY. I believe that is true. I do not think any of the other services have. Well, of course, there could be Marines.

Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Ashley, do you wish to ask the witness some questions?

Mr. ASHLEY. You spoke of partial award cases in here with which you disagreed with the Commission on. Has it been your experience that these partial award cases were given on the basis of collaboration or on the basis of the failure of the claimant to establish that he in fact received bad food and inhumane treatment during the entire period of imprisonment?

Mr. CONROY. Congressman, it was our impression that it was a punitive measure.

Mr. ASHLEY. Going to the issue of collaboration?

Mr. CONROY. Yes.

But, as you heard the chairman state this morning, that has all been changed, that they are making no partial awards now.

Mr. ASHLEY. I am interested in this because I am wondering if the Commission in fact was not violating the law it was set up to carry

out.

Mr. CONROY. That was our impression.

Mr. ASHLEY. That it was violating the law?
Mr. CONROY. That was our impression.

Mr. ASHLEY. In that it was giving the partial award and that the partial award was given because there was evidence of partial collaboration?

Mr. CONROY. That is right, Congressman, because if the Commission had found, as a fact, that the prisoner of war had, on some days, received standard food and was not inhumanely treated, then, of course, if they could prove that, or if they had substantial evidence to that effect, then they should not pay him on that day.

Mr. ASHLEY. The law specifically states that no compensation shall be given any prisoner of war who collaborated, aided, or gave assistance to the enemy; is that correct?

Mr. CONROY. That is correct.

That is Public Law 615, and I think it was the purpose of it, and it is clear to us, that the Congress intended to bar those that defected and who remained over there. That was the intent of Congress.

Mr. ASHLEY. One final question: In your experience in these hearings conducted by the Commission, and I use the word loosely

Mr. KLEIN. Do you mean the Commission or the hearings?

Mr. ASHLEY. Both-do you know of a single instance in which the claimant who later received a partial award proved to the Commission that on certain days he received bad food and inhumane treatment?

Mr. CONROY. No, Mr. Congressman. I think it would be just as impossible for a prisoner to prove or disprove that as it would be for the Commission. In 896 and 303, the War Claims Commission at that time realized the impossibility of doing that, so they determined that certain camps would be considered substandard, and that anyone who was a prisoner in one of those camps would be entitled to the award.

Mr. ASHLEY. Next is a question of opinion: Do you have any notion as to why the Commission suddenly and very quietly paid up the partial award cases in the last month or 6 weeks?

Mr. CONROY. No, Mr. Congressman, I do not know about that.
Mr. ASHLEY. That is all. Thank you.

Mr. KLEIN. Do you have any questions, Mr. Friedel?

Mr. FRIEDEL. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KLEIN. Thank you very much.

The American Legion has sent me a letter with the request that it be put into the record. Without objection I will do so.

I wanted to read one paragraph, however, from the letter, which states as follows:

The American Legion supports the principles embodied in the measures and wants to record the organization's desire that legislation be enacted which will give each claimant full opportunity to have an equitable decision rendered in his case. We have confidence that the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce will determine what measure will best accomplish this result. (Letter referred to follows:)

Hon. ARTHUR G. KLEIN,

Subcommittee on Commerce and Finance,

THE AMERICAN LEGION, Washington, D. C., June 7, 1956.

House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN KLEIN: Referring to hearings scheduled to be held by the Subcommittee on Commerce and Finance under date of June 13, 1956, on the bills H. R. 9584 and H. R. 9749, to amend the War Claims Act to provide for certain hearings before the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, etc., I would like to submit the following on behalf of the national organization of the American Legion.

H. R. 9584, 84th Congress, introduced by Congressman Ashley, of Ohio, on February 28, 1956, and an identical bill, H. R. 9749, introduced by Congressman Quigley, of Pennsylvania, on March 5, 1956, would amend the War Claims Act of 1948 (Public Law 896, 80th Cong., approved July 3, 1948) to provide for hearings before the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission at locations convenient

to claimants; to provide that claimants shall be afforded the right to examine evidence in the possession of the Commission, and to examine and cross-examine witnesses; and, to provide judicial review of certain actions of the Commission. Based on instructions of its 1953 national convention, the American Legion supported enactment of legislation to provide compensation payments to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who were captured and held as prisoners of war by enemy forces during the hostilities in Korea. Public Law 615, 83d Congress, approved August 21, 1954, amended the War Claims Act of 1948 to allow compensation of $1 for each day in which the hostile force failed to furnish the quantity and quality of food prescribed for prisoners of war under the terms of the Geneva Convention of July 27, 1929, and $1.50 for each day in which convention terms were violated relating to their treatment and labor while held by the hostile force. Excluded from payment were persons who at any time voluntarily, knowingly, and without duress, gave aid to or collaborated with or in any manner served the hostile force.

In testifying in support of enactment before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in 1954, the American Legion witness agreed that no compensation payment should be made to persons who voluntarily and without duress collaborated with the enemy. However, it was not then believed that there would be a denial, as has been the case, in many cases where former K-POW's were honorably discharged following their repatriation. The American Legion has furnished counsel for several veterans in hearings before the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission on their appeals from decisions that they were not entitled to compensation because of collaboration. In this way, we have learned of the difficultiess confronting the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission in adjudicating the claims equitably in this type of case.

The Commission was furnished information by the Department of the Army upon which it must rely; it has no facilities for inquiring particularly into the merits of the allegations made. Without the ability to investigate each case itself, the Commission must naturally rely upon the information supplied. The Commission was obliged under the law to make its decision within 1 year from the date of receipt of the compensation claim. It was but a matter of weeks before this deadline in many cases that the Army informed the Commission of its charges.

The honorably discharged veterans were themselves greatly handicapped in answering the charges. They had insufficient time in which to develop evidence to prove their innocence and were ignorant of the basis for the charges made. Each one with whom we have had contact has categorically and emphatically denied any voluntary aid or comfort rendered the hostile force, although some admitted pretense of cooperation under intolerable duress.

The above-mentioned bills seek to provide a means of assuring each claimant an opportunity to have that consideration afforded his case which will result in an equitable decision. Where a claim has been previously denied, a further opportunity to submit evidence and testify to the validity of the claim will be afforded.

The American Legion supports the principles embodied in the measures and wants to record the organization's desire that legislation be enacted which will give each claimant full opportunity to have an equitable decision rendered in his case. We have confidence that the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce will determine what measure will best accomplish this result. While we are not asking for the privilege of a personal appearance we would thank you to have the above considered by your subcommittee during your deliberations and also incorporated in the record of the hearings.

Thanking you for your cooperation, I am,

Sincerely yours,

MILES D. KENNEDY, Director.

Mr. KLEIN. The committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 12:09 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Thursday, June 14, 1956.)

« ПретходнаНастави »