investigating him. I know the Department of Justice are investigating him for something he did up in New England. They were up at my headquarters to find out what kind of fellows they were. Mr. KITCHIN. Were you the general superintendent when he was running this paper? Were you commander?

Mr. SPERRY. Of that paper?

Mr. KITCHIN. Yes.

Mr. SPERRY. No, sir.

Mr. KITCHIN. I mean were you commander of your organization? Mr. SPERRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. KITCHIN. Did you confer very often with the editor of the paper?

Mr. SPERRY. No, sir; he did not come up to my office very often. Mr. KITCHIN. But this is supposed to be the organ of your organization?

Mr. SPERRY. No, sir; it has no connection with us whatever. He published it. It was run by a private concern.

Mr. KITCHIN. Go ahead.

Mr. SPERRY. SO Mr. Green and Mr. Halper and Mr. Knight proceeded in every way they possibly could in an underhanded manner to try to disrupt the Private Soldiers and Sailors' Legion, but they have not made a success of it any place.

I am sorry this matter came up before the committee, because I do not want to take the committee's time.

Mr. KITCHIN. Mr. Sperry, what connection has Mr. Martin with your organization?

Mr. SPERRY. Mr. Martin has no connection with the organization at all.

Mr. KITCHIN. He is a friendly adviser?

Mr. SPERRY. He is a friend that I have known for 25 years, ever since he was secretary of the American Antitrust League, and Mr. Martin has drawn up some of the bills and given me advice on some of our legislation. Otherwise, Mr. Martin has nothing to do with the organization. We have an executive board.

Mr. KITCHIN. Did you pay him for his advice?

Mr. SPERRY. No; it was just tendered gratis. None of the national officers of the Private Soldiers and Sailors' Legion receives any salary. Mr. BACHARACH. How many members have you?

Mr. SPERRY. I think we run over 300,000; that is, all over the country-not all paid-up members. We have got a small percentage that is paid up.

Mr. BACHARACH. You mean you take them without their paying their dues?

Mr. SPERRY. We take them in as long as they subscribe to the constitution and declaration of principles; yes, sir.

Mr. BACHARACH. How do they get information about your organization?

Mr. SPERRY. We correspond with them all the time; that is, our local representatives.

Mr. BACHARACH. You get lists of the soldiers and sailors and send out notices and ask them to join?

Mr. SPERRY. We have organizers in every State of the Union at the present time.

Mr. BACHARACH. Do they send the receipts to this organization?

Mr. SPERRY. We are giving the State organizer for his expense the dollar that he receives; 25 cents dues, 15 cents goes to the local representative and 10 cents comes to the national representative.

Mr. BACHARACH. Then out of every member that joins your office gets 10 cents?

Mr. SPERRY. Ten cents; yes, sir.

Mr. BACHARACH. How large an office have you? You spoke of the headquarters here.

Mr. SPERRY. I have four stenographers at the present time. We have seven members on the executive board.

Mr. BACHARACH. Is this 10 cents supporting your office?

Mr. SPERRY. No, sir; it has not been up to the present time.
Mr. BACHARACH. Do you spend your own money?

Mr. SPERRY. Yes, sir. I happened to own a half interest in a mine, and I sold that, and consequently have been able to keep the expenses up. You know, the private soldier when he got out of the Army did not have very much money, only $60, and I have been giving my time to the organization gratis. In fact, I formed the organization when we were out here at Walter Reed Hospital last winter. We had a bill or two before the last Congress, an employment bill which was introduced by Mr. Claypool, of Ohio.

Mr. GREEN. I would like to know what that decoration is that you wear?

Mr. SPERRY. This here [indicating]?

Mr. GREEN. Yes.

Mr. SPERRY. That was presented to me by the citizens of St. Louis. We recruited there in May, 1917, and went from there to France. The CHAIRMAN. Were you overseas, Mr. Sperry?

Mr. SPERRY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. How long were you over there?

Mr. SPERRY. We landed in England and marched in London on the 17th of August. We went over in July, and we went in the line of Byng's third army on the 19th of August.

Mr. GARNER. Of what year?

Mr. SPERRY. 1917.

The CHAIRMAN. And you remained there until the armistice? Mr. SPERRY. No, sir; I was in the hospital at the time the armistice was signed.

The CHAIRMAN. You were wounded?

Mr. SPERRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. GREEN. You went through all the battles?

Mr. SPERRY. Yes; we were the first ones in battle. We were in the battle of Cambrai in November, 1917.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you wounded very badly?

Mr. SPERRY. I got gassed a couple of times. I am in pretty fair shape. I have an inch and a half shortage in one foot, but I have that blocked up somewhat.

Mr. KITCHIN. You receive no pay?

Mr. SPERRY. I was mustered out on March 1.

Mr. KITCHIN. I mean to say that you received no pay as an officer of the Private Soldiers and Sailors Legion?

Mr. SPERRY. No; I did not receive any pay while I was in the Army. Mr. KITCHEN. You did not?

Mr. SPERRY. No; I got court-martialed four times and it took all my pay.

Mr. KITCHIN. What did you get court-martialed for?

Mr. SPERRY. I did not ask one of those second lieutenants where I could go in the battle line on the 20th of November, and because I did not ask him they court-martialed me for not doing it. That was one court-martial.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you the fellow who asked for a furlough and said to the captain that his wife wanted him to come home; that she was sick and needed provisions in the house, and a whole lot of things, giving many reasons why he should go home, and the captain said, Pat, I have just received a letter from your wife this morning, and she says she does not want you to come home; that you get drunk and beat up your children and your wife, and she wants me to keep you in the Army, and you can't go," and Pat turned away, and when he got to the store he turned around and said, "Captain, will you let me make a little remark without court-martialing me?" And the captain said yes, and Pat said, "You and I are two of the damnedest liars in the battalion. I have not got any wife at all"? [Laughter.] Mr. KITCHIN. So you were court-martialed because you objected to asking any of these officers where to let you go?

Mr. SPERRY. Yes. I was court-martialed at Walter Reed Hospital also. I received word that my mother was sick with influenza. My home is in Ohio, and I went up to the colonel and asked for a pass, and he says, "It will take you six days to get a pass." I says, "It will not take me six days. I am not holding any battle line." And I went home anyhow, and they fined me $50. So when I got mustered out I was in debt to the Government $3. [Laughter.]

[Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. That $3 was the difference between a first-class private and a second-class private? Mr. SPERRY. The gentleman answered with regard to that $3 difference.

Mr. KITCHIN. The gentleman has two court-martials to his credit

now.

Mr. OLDFIELD. You were honorably discharged, were you not? Mr. SPERRY. Yes, sir. There were not any court-martials that I really considered I deserved, or anything that I would not do over again. I worked 257 nights up in the line. We were operating the light railways for Byng's third army.

Mr. GARNER. You spent how many nights?

Mr. SPERRY. 257.

Mr. GARNER. On the front?

Mr. SPERRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. OLDFIELD. You do not mean to say that you went all through the war without drawing any pay?

Mr. SPERRY. I only drew one month's pay while I was in the Army. I am a locomotive engineer in civil life.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sperry, you have stated that Mr. Halper was a Communist and Socialist?

Mr. SPERRY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you be kind enough to give some additional evidence to that effect before you conclude your remarks to-morrow, or whenever you get ready?

Mr. SPERRY. Yes, sir.

(Whereupon the committee adjourned to meet to-morrow, Thursday, March 4, 1920, at 10 o'clock a. m.)

PART 3.

SOLDIERS' ADJUSTED COMPENSATION.

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Thursday, March 4, 1920.

The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Joseph W. Fordney

(chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. We will hear Mr.
witness this morning.

Smith, of Idaho, as the first

STATEMENT OF HON. ADDISON T. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, it is assumed that any legislation that may be agreed to by the committee for the relief of soldiers will contain a provision for land settlements for the service men who desire such opportunity. I understand that the American Legion and the other organizations that have been before the committee have suggested that land settlements be one of the features of this legislation.

The only bill that has been given serious consideration by any committee of Congress during this Congress is the Mondell bill, which was exclusively a land settlement proposition. That bill was before the Committee on Public Lands for probably two months; extensive hearings were granted, and the bill was reported to the House. Mr. YOUNG. Did you support that bill?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; I did. On account of objections that have been urged against the bill, largely because of the great burden on the Government, no action has been taken, and from present indications probably none will be taken, although some features of that measure will probably be incorporated, as I understand it, in the legislation this committee may recommend.

Mr. HAWLEY. Is Mr. Mondell still in favor of that legislation?

Mr. SMITH. I would prefer to have you ask him about it. I have introduced a bill which is intended, in a way, to take the place of the legislation proposed in the Mondell bill, in regard to land settlement. If land settlement is a feature of the legislation to be enacted it will be necessary to make the land available at actual cost, otherwise the soldiers will not be very much benefited by being burdened with farms unpaid for. Unless they have some chance of making some money out of the farms by securing the land at cost it would not be wise to place them on land.

The bill which I have introduced, H. R. 12649, gives preference rights of employment and of entry or sale to the ex-service men. I do not intend this morning to enter into a discussion of the bill, but there are men here who have given this proposed legislation a great deal of study and who are well informed with regard to the provisions of the bill.

The first speaker I desire to present to the committee is Mr. D. W. Ross, who is an irrigation and civil engineer of 25 years' experience. He was at one time employed by the United States Reclamation Service and later practiced his profession in San Francisco and New Orleans.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Is your bill based on the theory of reclaiming waste and arid land?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; but my bill does not enter into detail in reagrd to the loaning of money to the soldiers, but gives them preference in employment and entry or sale. The matter of the loaning of money for farm development can well be deferred until the land is actually available, and that will probably be two or three years. It will be that long before we need to consider the question of loaning money to the individual soldiers for the purpose of improving the land.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Do you think your bill would answer all the purposes for which legislation is necessary for the ex-service men?

Mr. SMITH. Only for those service men who desire to engage in agricultural pursuits.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Would you give those who did not desire to engage in agricultural pursuits some other benefits?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; I think they should have the option of taking a bonus or gratuity, or additional compensation as it is more properly called, or probably vocational training. But this bill of mine does not contemplate anything of that kind. It deals exclusively with the land-settlement idea and the manner of financing these projects. Under this plan there will not be nearly the burden on the Govern ment that is suggested by the Mondell bill.

STATEMENT OF MR. D. W. ROSS, OF BERKELEY, CALIF.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ross, will you give your name, your residence, and the interests you represent?

Mr. Ross. My name is D. W. Ross. My home is in Berkeley, Calif. For 20 years I was a citizen of Idaho and actively engaged in land reclamation by irrigation. For four years I was State engineer and for six years following I was supervising engineer of the Reclamation Service in charge of the Government irrigation works that have been completed recently in Idaho. I have been a resident of California for the past 10 years, and for the past 4 years I have been a member of the State irrigation board. I resigned from that board a few days ago.

While in California I have been interested in large irrigation projects, so I have been actively connected with land reclamation and settlement in all its phases for the past 30 years in the West.

During the past 10 years I have had occasion to make a study of land-reclamation problems in the South, chiefly in the Gulf States, both from the financial, engineering, and settlement standpoint. During the past year I have been working in cooperation with the Association of Commerce in New Orleans in connection with these matters, and for the past two or three months in close cooperation with the Southern Commercial Congress.

Mr. TREADWAY. Aside from your general interest in the subject, have you been employed directly by these organizations?