Mr. GARNER. If I recall, and I think the stenographer's notes will bear me out, he was specific in saying that they must apply for this relief.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. D'Olier says that people who do not take it

Mr. GARNER (interposing). He said "the ex-service person to be given his option of any one and only one of the above four features, and only upon his application." Now, I heard him say that, and Í have his official statement before me now.

Mr. LONGWORTH. That is the reason why I asked the specific question in this way. Suppose no soldier applies for either of the first three, then there would remain the so-called bonus proposition. Your idea, then, would be that before that could be payable to him under any circumstances, he must make formal application?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TILSON. You speak of it as adjusted compensation, and as ground for it you state the fact, which probably existed in most cases, that the men were receiving a larger sum before they went into the war than they did during the war. Now, supposing it should appear in many cases that as a matter of fact they were receiving more while in the Army than they had beforehand, would you go so far as to try to adjust that compensation or fail to give those men something because they had received less before the war than as soldiers during the war?

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Tilson, you have served in the Army and you know that the great bulk of the men in the forces are men who were worse off financially by going into the Army than otherwise; but if this proviso will help the bill become a law, why, yes; put it in.

Mr. TILSON. I was trying to get your idea. You spoke of it as adjusted compensation. I know that some men go in at a sacrifice and others at no sacrifice.

Mr. MILLER. But the number that went in, Mr. Tilson, and made more money is infinitesimal as compared with the whole number.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller, if you will permit me, I believe that if a bonus bill was passed and these men, or boys-they are most of them boys were given a bonus and such a provision were placed in the law, that a man must make application in order to get it, men who were rich and rendered as valuable service as the men who were poor might be embarrassed. Some men, because of their financial condition, although they rendered just as valuable service to the Government as any other men, might feel embarrassed to make application to get that money. I believe it would be a bad thing to put in the law. We ought to treat them all alike.

Mr. MILLER. The question is rightfully brought up, Mr. Chairman, because of the language which Mr. Garner quoted. The governing power in the American Legion, which gave the national commander his authority, is our convention at Minneapolis, and if the verbiage used by the national commander causes any difference of opinion just go back over what we have said in the last few minutes. As one of their agents I would prefer to see nothing in the law that would make it necessary for a man to apply. If it is going to aid to get the bill through, then put it in.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not believe it would aid. I do not believe it would be wise.

Mr. FREAR. Do you know of any law, compensation or otherwise, where an allotment was made to a man where he got it without asking for it?

Mr. MILLER. No. They have always had to ask for a pension, in the Spanish War and in the Civil War. The adjusted compensation is not asked for on the same grounds as pension.

Mr. GARNER. Mr. Miller, there is where I differentiate between you and the commander. The spirit of his remarks, as I gather from glancing over them, was not that we owed them something as a whole, but that we had taken care of the sick and wounded, etc., by legislation, and while he drew a small indictment against Congress for their delay in doing this, nevertheless it has been done. Now, he wanted to give something to the ex-service man who lost financially by virtue of his service in the war; he wanted to restore that man financially to the condition that existed before his service in the war; he wanted to restore that man what he lost by virtue of his service in the war, and he said then that he must apply for it, and if he had not lost anything financially the inference that I got was that we did not owe him anything. Now, your contention is that we owe them something as a whole, and that therefore the law should automatically take effect as soon as it is passed. I want to see whether there is any difference between your viewpoint and his viewpoint.

Mr. MILLER. I have outlined the idea broadly, Mr. Garner, citing a supposed case of a man, just to show you how the average American who went into this war felt in his own mind when he came back, and what the controlling influence was. Now, as to the concrete form in which this legislation goes through, as to whether you have a proviso in there as to whether they shall apply for it

Mr. GARNER (interposing). What I want to get is your viewpoint. Do you believe that we owe them something as a whole, the 5,000,000 men? Is that your viewpoint?

Mr. MILLER. You owe the men that need something as a whole. Mr. GARNER. Now, I just want to get at the difference. Do we owe them something as a whole?

Mr. MILLER. The men that need it, Mr. Garner; we do.

Mr. GARNER. Not all these 5,000,000 men; only the men who need it. Is that the point?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. GARNER. I am very glad to hear you say that. That differentiates very materially. That presumes that you must make investigation in each case to ascertain whether the men need it. Now, there is a keen difference of opinion, if I understand it. I get some resolutions and have heard of some suggestion that we owe these men something as a whole for the services they rendered. Now, your position is that we only owe those who need it?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. FREAR. You do not intend to say in response to that question that you expect an investigation will be required in every case? Mr. MILLER. No, sir.

Mr. FREAR. It is not done in pension cases to-day?

Mr. MILLER. I presume it will be administered along the same line as pension affairs.

Mr. CAREW. Do you not think that we might owe it to them even if they do not need it now? Suppose they do not need it now.

That

does not wipe out the loss they sustained during the time they were away?

Mr. MILLER. No; it does not wipe out the loss.

Mr. CAREW. We can very well owe it to them, even if they do not need it to-day?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. CAREW. Is that the idea?

Mr. MILLER. But, Mr. Carew, if in considering this matter you had to consider the financial end of it, as you no doubt will have to, that might make some difference in the ultimate passage of the bill through Congress. I am simply speaking practically now in dollars and cents, because I know what you have got ahead of you to put this matter through.

Mr. CAREW. If the war had kept up for another year, we would have had to do it.

Mr. MILLER. Yes; if it had kept up three months.

Mr. LONGWORTH. That is the reason we want to know just what you want, what you are asking for, so that we can see how far we

can go.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, before you answer that, Mr. Miller, let me say, if the gentlemen will permit me, that if a bill of this kind is passed giving a bonus or whatever it may be termed, to the soldier, and only such men could get it as were financially in need of it, then there must be an investigation by the Government or some authority to find out whether an applicant was in need or whether he was applying for it and did not need it, whether his financial circumstances were such that his family did not suffer and that he did not suffer financial loss because of his service, and yet he went in the service and was shot all to pieces and suffered everything the same as another man alongside of him who was not as well off financially. Must we make a distinction between those two men?

Mr. MILLER. Why do you not handle it the way you did this $60 bonus in the last Congress? The men came up for their final pay, and if the man was an officer it was put on his pay voucher, and if he was an enlisted man it was put down by his company commander in making up the pay roll. Now, a great number of people did not ask for it. It came along automatically to the enlisted men. As far as the officers went, it only went to officers who put it down on their pay vouchers.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller, if a law of that kind is passed, then it makes the matter discretionary with the man making the investigation of the financial condition of the soldier, and as an illustration let me say this, to show you what injustice might be done. Only yesterday a soldier boy came into my office. He is now being discharged from Walter Reed Hospital out here. He has been 17 months in the hospital. Both of his legs were broken by a shell. In one leg a piece of bone had to be taken out and the leg shortened by 23 inches. The man in the Bureau of War Risk that made the physical examination of this young man said to him, "What was your occupation before you enlisted?" He said, "I was an attorney and practiced for four years." He was asked, "What occupation do you propose to follow now?" He said, "I propose to follow the practice of law." man told him, "You are not entitled to anything. You can get up before a jury and make it known to that jury that you have lost that

The

leg because you have been in the Army, that is an asset to you. That will create sympathy." Such a fellow as that ought to be--I do not know what to do with him. I would send him where Emma Goldman

is.

Mr. KITCHIN. Did any man in the employ of the Government ever actually tell that to a one-legged boy?

The CHAIRMAN. Two fellows came in and told me that that was gospel truth. I asked this boy to give me that fellow's name, and if he is not ousted it will not be because of a lack of my honest effort to bounce that man.

Mr. KITCHIN. He told you who it was?

The CHAIRMAN. He told me he would give me the name of the man. I asked the soldier boy to give me that man's name, which he has promised to do. He does not remember the man's name, but he said he would find out his name and give it to me. That was only yesterday. Now, the war-risk act leaves the discretion with some fellow in the Bureau of War Risk Insurance office to fix the rating upon a soldier who comes before him for the amount of compensation that he is to receive. It is absolutely discretionary with the man who makes the examination whether he is just and equitable, fair and honest, sane or insane. The law makes no provision; it leaves it with that man in his discretion. This man said to me yesterday that this inspector said, "Why, you have lost nothing. That is an asset when you get before a jury to make an argument, to create sympathy for you. Now, if there are such men on earth, then no law should leave it discretionary with men who deal with those fellows to decide those questions.

Mr. MILLER. Right there, Mr. Fordney, we certainly do not want the administration of this law to be conducted as was the administration of your war-risk insurance or Federal Board for Vocational Education acts.

The CHAIRMAN. I hope not.

Mr. MILLER. You mentioned two men at Walter Reed Hospital. There are 1,800 of them down there, and they are wounded in body and spirit. Around Christmas time we had 40 of them in here to meet the Representatives of the House and Senate that had to do with the war risk matters, and the national commander told you what happened. It went through toot Sweet.

Mr. KITCHIN. As I understand the law, and I must say that my understanding is different from the chairman's understanding, no man in the department has any discretion as to the compensation. The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no, brother; they have absolute discretion. Mr. KITCHIN. I understand the law says they shall receive so much compensation and they fix the amount of disability, whether it is total disability or whether it is partial, 25, 30, 35, 40, or 50 per cent, and that depends upon the medical men. Then the man has a right to be reexamined. He can be reexamined. These two gentlemen who went into Mr. Fordney's office can have a rehearing, of course, and if they are sustained in what they say, of course they are going to get their disability compensation. Now, you were at the Minneapolis convention in November. Had not Congress passed the specific thing which you recommended for these disabled soldiers, for these men who are wounded or the men who are disabled? Now, if you will read your resolution you will find that Congress has passed

practically the main thing that you asked for, and that is the passage of the Sweet bill.

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; and we are asking now

Mr. KITCHIN (interposing). I believe that we ought to not only take care of the men who are disabled or wounded but we ought to make life comfortable, if not more than that, we ought to make life a cheerful thing, even luxuriously cheerful to those men, and I believe the Government will do it.

Now, let me ask you another thing. You were at the Minneapolis convention. Is it not a fact that the convention really overwhelmingly was against any kind of bonus, and were there not between 25 and 30 bonus bills in Congress then of which the convention knew, and did it not flatly sit down on all of them and demand other relief than a bonus, but you said if Congress was going to give a bonus that they ought to do so-and-so. Did your convention ever at any time pass any resolution or adopt any report recommending a bonus for the man who is whole and healthy, untouched and uninjured? I have read all your resolutions very carefully here and I fail to find anything anywhere in which the convention even intimated that they were in favor of a bonus or gifts or extra pay for these services.

Mr. MILLER. I do not want to take too much time to answer your question, but I will say this. The committee on beneficial legislation not only had before it the question of the bonus and land and home aid and these matters we have brought up here to-day, but a great number of other subjects. On that committee was a representative from every State of the Union, and Luke Lea of Tennessee was the chairman of it. There is a divided opinion in the Legion on all these matters and the question of universal training, the same as there is a divided opinion in every other constituency throughout the country. That report on beneficial legislation which you have before you was brought in, and a Member of your own Congress, Royal C. Johnson, of South Dakota, a delegate from his State and a member of the committee on beneficial legislation, a man who had introduced one of the first so-called bonus bills, a man who is recognized over the country by the ex-service men as a friend of the bonus or adjusted compensation, he himself got up and moved the adoption of this report that you see before you. Some people wanted to put the dollar mark in the resolution covering the bonus or adjusted compensation. They had good reasons perhaps, but after thrashing the matter out for two and a half days in the committee and then on the floor, the convention decided to pass on the bonus the resolution I have read.

Mr. KITCHIN. Let us get it so that we may understand it. This committee on resolutions had before it the reclamation proposition for soldiers, the loaning of funds to buy farms for soldiers, and the loaning of funds to buy homes in the cities or in the country, and also the bonus proposition. They recommended the home loaning and reclamation act, etc., but they refused absolutely to recommend a bonus, and your resolution on page 4 of the Congressional Record shows that. Is that true?

Mr. MILLER. We say that we leave with confidence to Congress the discharge of that obligation.

Mr. KITCHIN. Your committee took no decided action, but left it to Congress, and Congress may do what it pleases. It may give more or it may give less in a bonus, or it may give none, but whatever