it is the purpose of the country to assist them in purchasing a home, they wish to reserve the privilege of selecting its locality and character.

Our friends, the American Legion, have advocated a selective program. The Veterans of Foreign Wars emphatically dissent from this proposition-primarily because of its inequality, and secondly because it does not voice the wishes of the large majority of exservice people interested in so-called soldier legislation. If this committee will address itself partlcularly to the question of additional compensation for ex-service men and women and favorably report a bill granting $30 per month, for every month or fractional part of a month's service to all ex-service men and women who were a part of the military or naval establishment between the dates of April 6, 1917, and December 11, 1918, counting such service from the date of enlistment, appointment, or commission between the dates mentioned, and continuing to the date of honorable discharge but not extending beyond the date that peace is declared to have been legally consummated between Germany and her allies, and an additional $100 to those who actually served across the seas, the pressing needs of those entitled to consideration will be met.

And if this committee sees its way clear to recommend some plan of home purchasing in harmony with the ideas of the Morgan bill it will administer a potent remedy for the unrest that is apparent and not to be ignored among ex-service men.

In recommending to Congress any legislation in the interest of ex-service men and women, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States commend to the members of this committee the memory of our departed comrades and ask that any benefit created by legislation shall apply to the dependent wife, children, mother, or father in the order named.

It is the belief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that this committee. recognize the fairness and merit of our appeal, inasmuch as Congress quickly recognized the rights of its own Members to additional compensation when they laid aside their military regalia and resumed their seats in the House of Representatives--witness the provisions of H. Res. 624, dated March 3, 1919.

Mr. KITCHIN. When did you enter the last war?

Mr. HALE. In May, 1917.

Mr. KITCHIN. You volunteered?

Mr. HALE. I was a married man; 41 years of age.

Mr. KITCHIN. What were you doing before you entered the war? Mr. HALE. I was an accountant.

Mr. KITCHIN. In Washington?

Mr. HALE. Yes; but for awhile before that, previous to that, I was in the West.

Mr. KITCHIN. What were you receiving as an accountant?

Mr. HALE. It depended entirely; sometimes I would earn $3,000 a year and sometimes I would earn $5,000.

Mr. KITCHIN. When did you go overseas?

Mr. HALE. On the 18th of June.

Mr. KITCHIN. What was your rank?

Mr. HALE. I went in as an Army field clerk.

Mr. KITCHIN. Did you remain as an Army field clerk?
Mr. HALE. Yes, sir.

Mr. KITCHIN. You never were in any of the battles?

Mr. HALE. I wear a wound button.

Mr. KITCHIN. But as a field clerk you never fought in the line?

Mr. HALE. No, sir; I was at the headquarters of the Seventy-eighth Division, carrying dispatches, and I was blown up by a shell in the Argonne Forest. I was in the hospital from the 20th of October until the 10th of April.

Mr. KITCHIN. You have a wound; are you disabled at all?

Mr. HALE. I have never resumed by occupation since I came back. Mr. KITCHIN. Because of your disability?

Mr. HALE. Because of my nervous condition. I can not concentrate my mind on figures or put up with such a sedentary life as would be necessary if I resumed employment in my profession.

Mr. KITCHIN. Are you seeking any compensation?

Mr. HALE. I have not applied for any; I am receiving no benefits at all from the Government.

Mr. KITCHIN. If you are disabled in whole or in part and can not by reason of that follow your regular calling or do other work as fully as you could before, you would be entitled to compensation under the Bureau of Risk Insurance act amendments, and ought to have such compensation.

Mr. HALE. I would be entitled to $30 a month up to the time of the passage of the Sweet bill and after that $80 a month for permanent disability, but I would probably have been given compensation of 15 or 20 per cent, which would have brought me from $4.50 to $12 a month.

Mr. KITCHIN. Do you think the surgeons would have found you practically not disabled?

Mr. HALE. No; I would not want to say that, because I never subjected myself to an axamination.

Mr. KITCHIN. I thought you said you would have gotten $4.50 a month. Of course, if you are disabled at all you would get more than

that.

Mr. HALE. I said probably.

Mr. KITCHIN. Have you seen any able-bodied men, strong, vigorous, healthy men, since the armistice who went overseas who could not get a job?

Mr. HALE. Yes, sir; and I employed two not later than the 5th of last month. And you would have seen them yourself if you had gone down Pennsylvania Avenue; you would have seen many of them at the employment agency.

Mr. KITCHIN. Of course, I do not know

Mr. HALE (interposing). I employed two at $2 a day; that was all I could afford to give them.

Mr. KITCHIN. From the reports I have received and from the press it looked like every man who wanted a job could get it.

Mr. HALE. That seems to be the current impression.

Mr. KITCHIN. I may be mistaken about it.

Mr. HALE. You are mistaken.

Mr. KITCHIN. Have you tried to get employment since you have been back from overseas; have you tried to get employment? Mr. HALE. Am I on trial?

Mr. KITCHIN. No; but I am asking you questions. Have you tried to get employment from anybody as an accountant or otherwise since you have been back from overseas?

Mr. HALE. Not since last November because I have been in the employ of the Veterans of Foreign Wars since that time.

Mr. KITCHIN. What is your salary as an employee of that organization?

Mr. HALE. I do not get any salary. They make an appropriation for the legislative committee, and we make that go as far as we can. Mr. KITCHIN. How much have you gotten for the last year as an officer or employee of your organization?

Mr. HALE. I have not been in that position a year. They have appropriated $1,000 for the expenses of the legislative committee, beginning last August.

Mr. KITCHIN. Is that all that was appropriated?

Mr. HALE. Yes, sir; that is all the appropriation the legislative committee got.

Mr. KITCHIN. How much did you get?

Mr. HALE. Very little of it for myself; that is for expenses.

Mr. KITCHIN. You must have then other regular income?

Mr. HALE. I reserve I prefer not to answer that question. I think it looks as if I were the one on trial here.

Mr. KITCHIN. No: you are not on trial. But I think the committee should be informed as to the facts about the ex-service men being able or not being able to get satisfactory employment or one equally as good as they had before they entered the war. We want to get at the facts.

Mr. HALE. I am not an illustrative case.

Mr. KITCHIN. You are not in the employ of anybody except your organization, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States? Mr. HALE. No, sir; absolutely not.

Mr. KITCHIN. You say you have seen able-bodied men, men who have been in the Army, looking for jobs who could not get any jobs? Mr. HALE. Yes, sir.

Mr. KITCHIN. But you have not looked for one and you have not been refused? How old are you?

Mr. HALE. I am 43 years old, or I will be 43 years old this December.

Mr. KITCHIN. As I understand it you want the Johnson bill, the bonus or gratuity, whichever you may call it, and you also want the Dick Morgan bill for the soldiers?

Mr. HALE. Yes, sir; and precedence given at the present time to the Johnson bill.

Mr. KITCHIN. That is for pocket change. That gives you and others about $30 a month for the time you served. After they spend that the soldiers have that then you want the Morgan bill. Do you know how much the Johnson bill will cost?

Mr. HALE. I should say there are probably, we will say, 3,500,000 men, and the large majority of them would not draw over a year's pay, which would be $360.

Mr. KITCHIN. I think as to the Johnson bill, there would be about 4,800,000 men who would get the benefit of it. Have you calculated the cost of that? I think it will be something like $2,000,000,000; in fact, Mr. Johnson provides for that amount in his bill.

Mr. HALE. He provides for that, and I predicated my statement on that.

Mr. KITCHIN. So far as the Morgan bill is concerned, I understand you favor that with some modifications, and one of the modifications would be that a man would be able to get a loan to buy a home?

Mr. HALE. The character of the home would depend on his station in life. So far as the amount of $4,000 is concerned, it would be impracticable to buy a home for $4,000 at the present time. Mr. KITCHIN. The Government would give $4,000?

Mr. HALE. Not give, but loan $4,000.

Mr. KITCHIN. Is not the Government going to give something for that home?

Mr. HALE. No, sir; we are not asking for that. We are leaving it entirely to Congress to decide as to the method.

Mr. KITCHIN. And the Government, under the Morgan bill, would take a first or second mortgage?

Mr. HALE. The Government would take a first mortgage and the original owner of the property would take a second mortage.

Mr. KITCHIN. Have you ever calculated what that bill would cost, if they all accepted that proposition, or how much it would cost if half of them accepted? It would cost something like $8,000,000,000, would it not?

Mr. HALE. Did Congress find out how much the farm loan act would cost?

Mr. KITCHIN. Yes; experts estimated the probable amount of loans. They know now. Do you not think nine-tenths of the men would take advantage of the provisions of that bill?

Mr. HALE. I should hope that 100 per cent of them would take advantage of it.

Mr. KITCHIN. I agree with you. All should take advantage of it, if possible. If 50 per cent of them took advantage of it it would cost over $8,000,000,000, wouldn't it? That is if we provide that every man who served should be entitled to a loan. Mr. HALE. It would not cost the Government anything. Mr. GARNER. You have got to raise that much money. Mr. HALE. The Government would loan them that.

Mr. KITCHIN. But the Government would have to get the money from somewhere. We have had a lot of trouble raising money to support the soldiers during the war and to support the Government even during the war when its life was at stake.. We had to levy taxes out of all proportion to what any man ever dreamed they would be, and to-day they are excessively high. Our public indebtedness is in round numbers $26,000,000,000, more than 10 times what it ever was before in the history of the Government. I would like to have you show us some way, on top of all this indebtedness and this excessive taxation to get this money from further taxation or to sell the proposed bonds. Our bonds are now down to 90 or 92, and if you put the $2,000,000,000 more bonds on the market and then put many billions more provided for in the Morgan and other land scheme bills, it looks like the bonds of the Government would go down to 50 cents on the dollar and prices of everything would be greatly inflated or increased.

Mr. HALE. To which bill are you addressing your remarks, to the bonus bill or to the land bill?

Mr. KITCHIN. I was trying to picture the present financial condition of the Government and the condition if we added to it these

bills. Take the bonus bill which you favor first. The bonus provided for amounts of $2,000,000,000.

Mr. HALE. I have tried to point out and I have given you my ideas on the bonus proposition.

Mr. KITCHIN. You would have to issue $2,000,000,000 of bonds. Mr. HALE. It should come from the additional income tax on incom's above $50,000. Any man who has an income of $50,000 who is not willing to pay 2 per cent to help these men

Mr. KITCHIN (interposing). That fellow with an income of $50,000 and up now pays from 22 per cent up to 75 per cent.

Mr. HALE. Yes; let him pay 2 per cent more; it would not hurt him.

Mr. KITCHIN. I am with you on this: I think we ought to provide in any bill we report for a bonus for the taxes with which to pay the bonus and I think they ought to come out of the profits and the

income

Mr. HALE (interposing). I tried to make that clear in my remarks. Mr. KITCHIN. You put it at 2 per cent

Mr. HALE (interposing). Up to 7 per cent on incomes in excess of a million dollars, and that would bring in, according to the figures for 1917, which were the latest figures available at the Internal Revenue Bureau, an income of about $200,000,000 a year. I am basing my statement on the figures of the Internal Revenue Bureau.

Mr. KITCHIN. If we have the two bills, then it would takeMr. HALE (interposing). We do not want the two bills right off. You can issue the bonds and then create a sinking fund.

Mr. KITCHIN. What good would it do a man unless he could get the money on the bonds? The Government credit would still be

out.

Mr. HALE. The same argument would apply to the Liberty bonds. Mr. KITCHIN. We were then trying to save the life of the Government. We have now $26,000,000,000 of public indebtedness, and the only question is how we are going to get that amount now when the Government is in such financial distress, with a public indebtedness more than ten times more than it has ever been before in the history of the country.

Then, there is another thing. We need a great deal of money, more than we have appropriated for the boys who came back with their eyes out, their faces torn to pieces, their legs off, their arms off, or who contracted disease while they were in the service; men like these boys out at the Walter Reed Hospital.

Mr. HALE. Yes, sir; I have been out there.

Mr. KITCHIN. Do you think it is right, considering the financial distress of the Government-I am asking you for your opinion-for the able-bodied, healthy, strong fellows who came back from the war or who never went to the war, these fellows who went to the camps and those who came back uninjured, strong and vigorous fellowsdo you think it is right to ask the Government to pay them something when it has not yet been able to give the wounded and disabled men and the men who contracted disease in the service a comfortable living? Should we not take care of those men first? Should we not do more for them first, and then take up the question of the uninjured ex-service man?