clear to this committee. I do not believe that the Mondell bill is feasible, and I do not believe that the good business judgment of this committee, or of the House of Representatives, would justify the proposition.

Mr. KITCHIN. Mr. White, if it would not interrupt you, I should like to ask this question: What is your suggestion as to the wisdom of passing a bonus bill for the payment of money in cash to the World War soldiers?

Mr. WHITE. Well, Mr. Kitchin, that question presents itself, possibly, in a more serious aspect to this committee and to the Congress; and it is a subject in which every Member of Congress and every taxpayer of the United States is interested.

I want to say this to the gentleman from North Carolina upon that proposition: I think I remember hearing a very distinguished Member of Congress, speaking upon the cost of the war, in the closing days of the last Congress, last March, when I came down here for the first time as a real Congressman on a kind of excursion of investigation and exploration, that it would have cost $20,000,000,000 to conduct the war for another 12 months. I think that is an approximate estimate, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. I think it has been frequently stated that it would have cost $20,000,000,000.

Now, the boys won the war a year before it was generally expected that it could be won. The correspondents for the Associated Press and for the great metropolitan dailies, wiring and writing from Europe in the winter of 1917-18, were always unanimous in the opinion that it would require until the fall of 1919 to win the war. So that if we pay the boys $1,000,000,000, by hook or by crookand I think they are entitled to it and ought to have it-we are about $19,000,000,000 ahead.

Mr. KITCHIN. That reminds me of the illustration of the fellow in Texas who had planted 1,000 acres of cotton, and the boll weevil came along and destroyed about 500 acres of it and he lost about $25,000. And his tenants and labor came to him the end of the year and said, "Now, if the boll weevil had gone over all of your land and eaten up the other 500 acres, you would have lost $25,000 more; so we want you to pay us double what you paid us last year as adjusted back compensation."

Mr. WHITE. Well, that may be a felicitous comparison

Mr. KITCHIN (interposing). No; but we spent a whole lot of money in order to win the war as quickly as possible; and the argument is that if the war had lasted one year longer it would have cost us $20,000,000,000 more, and, therefore, we are more able thereby to pay a bonus or extra compensation of $2,000,000,000.

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. KITCHIN. And if it had lasted two years longer it would have cost us $40,000,000,000 more; and, therefore, we ought to be able to afford to pay the soldiers $4,000,000,000 more instead of $2,000,000,000. This announces a new principle in Government finance, the more the Government owes, the more it is able to owe.

Mr. WHITE. Well, the gentleman from North Carolina knows that if it had lasted one year more we would have paid the expense. Mr. KITCHIN. That is no reason why we should give more thanMr. WHITE (interposing). We could afford to give.

Mr. KITCHIN (continuing). We could afford to give-but the more we owe for the war-the larger our bonded indebtedness is the less we are able to give, in my opinion.

Mr. WHITE. Well, I will say one thing, and then I will be through: I recognize the necessity for economy. This economic talk that I have listened to has made a deep impression on my mind; and in my thoughts from visions of the night, in deep sleep, I have dreamed of economy, since I have heard so much talk about economy. I have heard Mr. Mondell's speeches, and I have heard Mr. Kitchin, the gentleman from North Carolina, talk about economy. I waked up the other morning. I had dreamed that a man came into my room and walked up to my window, a kind of grim spectre there before my eyes; he walked up to the window and wrote upon it. And such a strong impression made upon me by my dream that in the morning I was foolish enough to go up to the window and see if I could see the words there written; and I saw it-not exactly as I recite it, but something like this was what I got out of it.

Mondell always speaks for economy,
From Genesis through Deuteronomy;
While Kitchin and Mann always favor the plan
'Til I see all the stars in astronomy.

[Laughter.]

Mr. TREADWAY. Carrying out the analogy, but with a different form of illustration from that offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, let me suggest that if a building was burning that was valued at $2,000 and some men came along and put out the fire while the loss was comparatively small, you would feel that those men were entitled to a compensation of $200, which would be 10 per cent of the value of the property that was saved? That is the illustration that you would make, as I understand it.

Mr. WHITE. Well, that is, indeed, a good illustration. And they did the job and did it well, and we can well afford to pay them $1,000,000,000; we can afford to pay them $2,000,000,000, and the country is able to pay it and should pay it.

Mr. KITCHIN. Of course, Mr. White, I do not want to be responsible for taking your time by asking you another question.

Mr. WHITE. Ask me all the questions you want to.

Mr. KITCHIN. But in view of the beautiful poem you recited a while ago

Mr. WHITE (interposing). Well, the inspiration for it, you understand, was great. [Laughter.]

Mr. KITCHIN. Well, as I understand you, you are for the Morgan bill and for the bonus bill?

Mr. WHITE. I did not say so.

Mr. KITCHIN. Then, I must have misunderstood you.

Mr. WHITE. Well, I was discussing the subject before you came in, Mr. Kitchin. I believe the Morgan bill is the most feasible, beneficent proposition that has been submitted.

Now, if you will pardon me for another minute, I have used all the time I asked for and I do not want to ask for more; you have been very polite, gentlemen, and I am delighted with your courtesy in hearing me.

The distribution, or the subdivision, of the lands in France and in England and Ireland was made and is being made as a social proposition. The province of government, as lawyers would tell you better than I can, is to establish justice; that is the province of this Government-justice and conserving the public good, to use my own language.

I say to the gentleman from North Carolina that, if it is feasible, if it could be known that a majority of the soldiers, or practically all of them who are not receiving compensation could avail themselves of the provisions of the Morgan bill, and if the plan is sound financially, and I believe it is, in 25 or 30 years from now it would be one thousand times better for the soldier than any bonus bill. Mr. GARNER. That is correct.

Mr. WHITE. Now, I am frank. I believe that firmly. As I look backward over history, and forward, if I may, noting every change that has come or may come in the growth and development of our country and our institutions, it seems to me that these great fundamental social problems are as inexorable and as inevitable in their solution as the rules of life and death. We can not circumvent them. Fortunate will be the American people if we are wise enough to understand, in a degree, at least, so that, to some extent, we may direct those great movements safely.

Now, gentlemen, you have been very fine with me, and I could say many other things, and I thank you. I am very much gratified at the manner in which you have treated me in my appearance here; and I ask that you will pardon the desultory manner in which I have presented my remarks. I hope you will find the correct solution of this great problem.

Mr. CRISP. Mr. Chairman, may I read a telegram in this connection?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. CRISP. The telegram reads:

To grant ex-service men a bonus in money would not provide any real good, but to provide them with land would benefit not only the men but the entire country. Hope you can support and pass Mondell bill.

That is from Jacksonville, Fla.

WALTER S. COLVEY, Ex-soldier.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN S. BENHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA.

Mr. BENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I desire to say just a word in regard to the bill introduced by myself, one of the first, I think for the purpose of having a substitute to offer at a certain stage for the Mondell bill. It was the oft-repeated statement of the author of that bill, asking for an appropriation of $500,000, that it would probably not take care of to exceed 2 per cent of the soldiers who were inducted into the service.

And the criticism was frequently made by those members who were fighting the bill, that the people favoring it were not so much interested in the soldier boys as they were in the fact that the West is in need of the funds for reclamation purposes.

I was not and am not against reclamation; but the thing that did not make a favorable impression upon my mind was the fact that

we are using, or taking advantage of, a general demand for some legislation favorable to soldiers to get money for the reclamation fund. That seemed to be the feature that some of the members of the committee were most seriously impressed by.

The feature of the bill that I had introduced at that time-and it is very brief-was that it provided for a bonus of $20 per month for soldiers, sailors, nurses, etc., who had served in the great war, minus any bonus already received.

Now, I want to make just two points: The idea was that the $20a-month bonus could be, in my opinion, justified on the basis that it treated the boys who left their business and risked their lives in the war alike; it put them all on exactly the same basis, just as it did the typewriter girls who came here to Washington, or any other place, to work for the Government, and would pay them all according to the length of time they served.

On the other hand, the Mondell bill proposes to appropriate $500,000 to benefit not to exceed 1 or 2 per cent of the soldiers, according to the author of the bill.

My thought was that if 100 per cent of the boys can be benefited at an expense not greater than $800,000,000, it would be very well. Now, I do not care to speak further on that subject. At present, if I were writing a bill, it is a question whether I would be modest enough to ask for a $20 bonus.

But I wanted to speak for a very few minutes on this particular feature of the bill. I do not feel that the man or the boy who served for a week or a month must be put on the same basis as the one who served for two years. I think they should be remunerated in proportion to the time and sacrifice, minus the bonus already received.

There was a class that, in my judgment, were in no sense damaged by their service. I have come in contact with a long list of boys who were inducted into the service and served their time in medical colleges, dental colleges, and colleges of general education. Their expenses were paid; they were furnished with clothing; they were given a bonus of $60 and their uniform on retiring. In many cases they went not to prepare primarily for serving the United States as soldiers, but with the hope of having, possibly, a four-year college course at the expense of the Government, and in some cases, as I said awhile ago, went to college at Government expense to keep out of the service.

On the basis of the bill that I introduced, these boys would not get any additional bonus; that is, on the basis of $20 a month. Having served three months, the $60 bonus already received would be all that they would be entitled to.

That is the feature, and the only feature at the present time, that I care to call to the attention of the committee. The fact that my proposition and, of course, I do not assume that it is mine alone would eliminate a class that are, in my judgment, debtors to the Government instead of the Government owing them something. They have received, at an expense of some hundreds of dollars to the Government, a term of three months in college, which many of them never would have had if they had not been given that opportunity at the expense of the Government.

That is all I have to say. I thank you gentlemen for hearing me.

STATEMENT OF MR. FRANK B. KEECH, OF NEW YORK CITY.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you tell the committee whom you represent, what organization, if any, and whether or not you were in the service of the Government during the war, Col. Keech?

Mr. KEECH. I was in the service of the Government during the, war, in the Army, as lieutenant colonel in the Inspector General's Department, at Newport News, Va.; and we shipped about one-fifth of the outfit. I am a member of the American Legion, and am very much interested in their affairs, and anything that pertains to them.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; you may proceed. Would you like to make your statement without interruption?

Mr. KEECH. Yes; if you please.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; you may do so.

Mr. KEECH. I am a member of the American Legion, as I have said. I am interested in its affairs; and anything that pertains to the interest of those men naturally interests me.

This is all true, in spite of the fact that I am wholly against this proposed bonus system.

I want to convince you gentlemen that I am interested in the soldier and sailor. When this war started, every facility was given. to the clerical forces of my firm to enlist in the Army and Navy. Our partners met and agreed that their places would be reserved for them when they got back, without reduced pay. And in addition to that, we also agreed that every single one of them would receive the difference between the salary which he received in the service of the Government and the salary which he received in my firm. This was carried through to the end, and one-third of the whole force went into the service of the Government.

I cite this, not in praise of my firm at all, but I think it is typical of the spirit which pervaded the financial and industrial community at that time.

I want to read, if I may, two conversations which I had with two different people; I want to read it because I want it to be stated accurately.

One of these men was a colonel of one of the Infantry regiments. of the Seventy-seventh Division, which had such a splendid record on the other side in fighting; and the other was just an ex-service man who did his duty, and as a matter of fact, he was employed in our office.

I said to this colonel:

How long were you with this regiment?

He answered:

I organized the regiment, trained it, took it overseas, commanded these men during the entire time overseas, brought them back, and was present when they were mustered out of the service.

Question. You were familiar, then, with the condition of these men mentally and physically when they came into the service and when they were discharged?

Answer. Yes.

Question. How did their physical and mental condition when they were discharged compare wth that upon entering the service? Was this condition improved or otherwise, and if so, to what extent?