either money or labor, has made him perhaps innocently a profiteer and the small tax of 1 per cent on real estate sales might be justly claimed. As the Government guarantees the enjoyment and right to property, it surely, of right, can claim a fee for transferring and continuing the fight and privilege.

By exempting the small home from the tax removes the bill so far as any tax bill can be removed from objection. I am fully aware no tax bill can be devised that will make all the people happy, contented, and comfortable. But, it is a condition that confronts us. The Government needs the money. This tax does not interfere with any productive business which is now taxed to its interference. This tax is covered many, many times by a condition and not by effort. There is no expense for collecting this tax as no new offices or agency is necessary and the tax comes to the Government net. In view of all the facts and conditions confronting us, I ask your consideration of H. R. bills 12906 and H. R. 12976 as revenue raisers to be considered in the framing of any soldiers' additional compensation bill the committee, in its wisdom, may see fit and proper to bring out.

STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY J. GRIFFIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the bill H. R. 13333, which I have introduced, provides for the return to the members of the United States forces, of every arm, serving during the World War, of the premiums deducted from their pay for war-risk insurance and the refunding of all allotments deducted from the pay of the enlisted personnel for their dependents.

It is offered to your consideration as a compromise measure, as a way out of a most perplexing problem. It is founded upon the bedrock principles of justice. It does not pauperize or humiliate, but returns to those who served their country honorably that to which they are justly entitled and restores to them and their families what, in my opinion, was unjustly taken away from them.

I submit to your careful consideration the thought, that in insuring the soldiers and sailors the Government was insuring its own human assets. Of course, the men were of insurable value to their dependents; but they were of greater insurable value to their dependents; but they were of greater insurable value to the Government. Otherwise they would not have been taken from their families to fight the battles of the entire people. It was therefore the duty of the Government to assume the burden of carrying that insurance; as much so as it was its duty to bear the cost of insuring its ships. If the soldier was killed in action it is true his family would have lost a wage earner; but the Government would have lost an asset even more valuable. To require the soldiers and sailors and their families to bear the burden of the premiums was wholly unjust and inequitable. The men should have received their $30 a month without deduction or abatement. And the same is true of their allotments.

No allotments should have been charged against the pay of the men and the allowances based on the men's allotments should have

been the voluntary contribution of a grateful country for their sacrifices.

The attitude of the Government toward the enlisted personnel of our Army and Navy was picayune. It required the soldier to assume the risk of his calling-a risk which should have been assumed by the Government. It can not be corrected by making the men a present of a bonus. It can only be corrected by returning to them the money unjustly taken out of their meager salaries. If Congress will only take this stand it need not run the risk of humiliating them by the inevitable suggestion that they are the recipients of a bounty, a bonus, or gratuity-terms which are inherently offensive to all true Americans. Our maxim should be: "Be just before you are generous."

The war-risk insurance idea was not only founded upon an error in principle but all the complications, confusions, and red tape that followed were only the natural result of putting the soldier, serving his country for a mere pittance, in the same category as a well paid civil employee. To introduce a complicated system of bookkeeping requiring records to be made on company pay rolls of deductions for war-risk insurance, as well as allotments, invited confusion and necessitated accounting and clerical work that was almost impossible to perform while the regiments were in the field or in action. There is not a member of Congress whose time has not been taken up in adjusting and straightening out the innumerable errors which have inevitably crept into so awkward and impossible a system.

And the labor is not done when the pay rolls are made out. All of the work has to be reviewed and gone over again when a soldier dies. Photostat copies of all the pay rolls are made, if extant, and the name of the deceased soldier followed down from month to month and all payments verified. The War Risk Insurance Bureau, notwithstanding the large force at its disposal, has not force enough, and never could have force enough, to keep up-to-date records of every soldier, sailor, and marine, as it ought to have. It should be required to halt where it is-make complete records of the standing of each soldier, sailor, and marine, and the Government should return to the men and their families all of the premiums so exacted. The following policies or certificates of war-risk insurance are in force, March 29, 1920:

The average service was eight months and the average premium was about $5, or $40, for each beneficiary for the average service. The return of the premiums would, therefore, entail an expense of $177,225,200.

It is approximated that 4,200,000 of the enlisted personnel made allotments. Figuring the average allotment at $15, and the average service as 8 months the amount due each beneficiary of this act will be $120. The total amount of allotments to be returned will, therefore, be $480,000,000.

Summarizing, the cost of returning insurance premiums will be $177, 225, 200 The cost of returning allotments_-_

480, 000, 000

Total cost entailed by this act.

657, 225, 200.

The bill provides that the money requisite to carry out the act may be paid out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated and by the issuance of certificates of indebtedness bearing interest at 4 per cent per annum, which can be met by small appropriations running over a term of years. The obstacle thrown in the way of those suggesting this relief is thereby removed and your committee is relieved of the unwelcome burden of providing for bond issues with their inevitable increase of taxation.

If Congress sees fit in the future to provide land or homes or borrowing facilities for soldiers, it is thus relieved of the task of deducting from the grant or gratuity or loan the amounts which the payment of a bonus would necessarily entail. For it would obviously be unjust to grant a bonus to all and land grants and gratuities to others without deducting the amount of the bonus received. The great bulk of the soldiers will prefer money in hand to land in the West; but all equally should have the right to avail themselves of land opportunities without deductions or, on the other hand, without gaining a greater advantage than their brothers who elect only to receive cash. This bill puts them all on the same basis.

In returning the war-risk insurance premiums and allotments you are rewarding the thoughtful considerate soldier who was solicitous for the welfare of his family. The selfish, indifferent soldier who took no thought of his dependents, but spent all his pay for his own gratification would not be helped by this bill, and it is not the intention that he should be. He has reveled in frivolity while his comrades made personal sacrifices. He has had his cake and has eaten it.

TELEGRAM FROM HON. SCOTT FERRIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE *STATE OF OKLAHOMA.

Hon. JOSEPH W. FORDNEY,

OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA., March 15, 1920.

Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C.:

The soldiers with whom I have talked, and I have consulted a great many of them, feel keenly that Congress should enact a law which would authorize the ex-service men the opportunity to have a Government loan of long tenure, and at a low rate of interest, for use in purchasing a suitable home. Their desire is to have the right not to be huddled together under some reclamation or drainage scheme, but to have the right to select a home in the community of their choice in the town or country and in the State of their choice. They do not desire the Government to give them anything. They are perfectly willing to submit to most rigid rules and regulations providing for repayment and safeguarding the Government funds, but they do feel very earnestly that this much recognition should be afforded them. The armistice was signed almost a year and a half ago and Congress has not been able to work out any suitable plan of this sort or agree to anything feasible for them. They are beginning to feel apprehensive that Congress is not going to agree to any substantial thing that will be of value to them. With this in mind and in the event Congress can not agree on some such suitable land policy, and it now seems apparent that they are not going to agree to such a plan, I very earnestly hope that your committee may work out and that Congress may finally pass a bill providing for a suitable compensation adjustment covering the period of time in which each and every honorably discharged ex-service man was engaged in the service, I hope this Congress may do that thing and not delay it until another Congress.

Such a delay would bring disappointment, unrest, and dissatisfaction with their Government which we can not afford to allow to prevail. I join with your committee fully in the thought that the burden of taxes is great and that the sources to raise money are difficult, but I am sure you will agree that even greater than this is the very grave necessity of maintaining the continued love and respect of the Nation's defenders' act. Readjustments of compensation allowed should not be considered as a gift or bonus, but simply a just adjudication of lost opportunities and financial sacrifices actually made in years gone by at the close of former wars. Land bounties and land script have been afforded the Nation's defenders, but the major portion of the public lands now are valueless, and this course can not be pursued. This readjustment of compensation may well be considered in lieu of land bounties or land script and would, it seems to me, be only meting out justice to the men who served in this war as it was in meting out justice to those who served in past wars. It is still fresh in the minds of the ex-service men as well as in the mind of the public that Congress found it necessary to appropriate a billion and a quarter dollars to the stockholders of railroads to guarantee their profits and make up deficits during Government control. They have likewise afforded additional guaranties for the railroads even after their return to private ownership. I hope the committee may not feel it necessary to deny to our soldiers this relief either in one or the other form, for it seems to me but justice and right from a generous Government to the 4,800,000 soldiers, sailors, and marines who have so recently served us. May I earnestly ask to be advised when the committee reports the bill and when it may be considered by Congress, as I desire to return and help with it in every conceivable way I can. They expect it; they need it; they are entitled to it. It is only what other countries are doing for their defenders. May I express the keenest hope that it will not fail. SCOTT FERRIS.

LETTER FROM HON. FRANK W. MONDELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING.

Hon. JOSEPH W. FORDNEY,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

OFFICE OF FLOOR LEADER, Washington, D. C., March 13, 1920.

Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. FORDNEY: Mr. McRae, of the legislative committee of the American Legion, informs me that they desire to have a further hearing before your committee after a meeting of the executive committee of the legion which has been called for March 22. He has requested me to ask that they be given a hearing soon after that date.

Col. E. Lester Jones informs me of the calling of the meeting of the executive committee of the legion for March 22 and of the desire to have a hearing before your committee after that meeting.

I take it for granted that in view of these requests your committee will arrange for these hearings before taking any action.

Very truly, yours,

F. W. MONDELL.

LETTERS, TELEGRAMS, PETITIONS, ETC.

WASHINGTON, March 29, 1920.

REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE,

Hon. JOSEPH W. FORDNEY, M. C.,

Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, Capitol.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: We, the members of the subcommittee appointed by you to abstract and prepare for publication in the hearings of the committee, the telegrams, letters, and other matter offered to the committee in respect to soldiers' benefit legislation, beg leave to report that in the opinion of the subcommittee the attached record

reflects fairly the opinion of those who filed petitions or who have written or wired to Congressmen.

GEORGE M. YOUNG, Chairman,
JOHN Q. TILSON,

JOHN N. GARNER.

ABSTRACT OF MATTER RECEIVED PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF REGULAR HEARINGS.

Approximately 8,500 individuals and organizations communicated with the Ways and Means Committee on the subject of soldiers' adjusted compensation prior to March 2, 1920, when the hearings were reopened. These letters came from 36 States of the Union, the District of Columbia, and one letter from Canada. During this time but six communications were received against such legislation. The great bulk of the petitions and form letters, the records show, were inspired by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, an organization composed entirely of men who saw foreign service with the armed forces of the United States in this last and prior wars. All of them urged, requested, or demanded the passage of H. R. 7923, introduced by Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, which bill provides for $1 per day for each day of service with an additional $100 to each man who saw foreign service.

By form and individual letters and by petition 7,113 persons placed themselves on record as favoring this measure, as did 14 posts of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, 2 posts of the American Legion, 2 local soldiers' organizations, and a New York labor union.

The "$50-bond-per-month" idea originating early this year was indorsed, according to the records in the committee, by 1,276 individuals and organizations, the latter including five posts of the American Legion and a Grand Army of the Republic post.

The Sherwood bill (H. R. 10373), which proposes a $560 bonus in lieu of the $60 paid by the revenue act of 1918, received 11 indorsements from individuals, and 2 from organizations, a post of the Private Soldiers' and Sailors' Legion of Washington, and a Michigan labor union.

Two communications were received on each of the following bills: H. R. 5545, H. R. 9093, and H. R. 12126. Four persons favored home, farm or reclaimed land loans, and two asked for an optional bonus or loan plan.

The tenor of the letters aboved referred to, their source (particularly those indorsing H. R. 7923) may be deduced from the following material received prior to March 2:

THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE,

House of Congress, Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: You have before you for consideration, the Hon. Royal C. Johnson bill, which provides for the payment of back pay to the men who served our Government during the emergency, plus $100 in the case of a man actually under fire.

We. the undersigned, appeal to your sense of justice and fair play. The bill, as it originally reads, must be accomplished. The world knows what these lads sacrificed. You now have the opportunity to prove your loyalty to this country, to prove that what you proclaimed concerning "backing up the boys" is not wind. Don't let the spirit of patriotism dwindle down to a mere spark through your lack of enthusiasm in behalf of those who bore the dint of the war business.