Arcice, Frank Sinclair, W. Junk, Frank Bell, Craig Lewis, Ed- COMMUNICATIONS OPPOSING ADJUSTED COMPENSATION OR CERTAIN FEATURES THEREOF. PROCEEDINGS OF THE RAINBOW DIVISION-RESOLUTION. WASHINGTON, D. C., March 18, 1920. At a meeting of the District of Columbia Chapter of the Rainbow Division Veterans held in the board room of the District Building on March 17, the following new officers were elected: President, Col. Chas. A. Dravo; vice president, Edward J. Mahan; secretary, M. Manning Marcus; treasurer, Walter D. Roney; press representative, Robert O. Litchfield; sergeant at arms, Thomas R. J. Cavanaugh; executive committee, Robert O. Litchfield, chairman, Samuel J. Cohen, James Curtin. The members voted against a cash bonus for ex-soldiers, being of the opinion that war time service is an obligation of citizenship and not a commodity. As each member of this chapter has been under fire in every A. E. F. engagement since October, 1917 (Champagne, Chateau-Thierry, St. Mihiel, Argonne, Sedan, Lorraine), and were members of the army of occupation, we feel in a position to express our opinion, at least. The following resolutions were adopted: That we indorse the action of the District of Columbia Suffrage League, and, as residents of this district who have served overseas in the defense of the American system of democracy, protest most strongly against the present state of suffrage here. In lieu of a bonus, we stand strongly for a liberal policy with the American wounded, and go on record as favoring the following: Increased compensation to wounded as disabled to the following scale: Total disability (loss of both arms, eyes, legs or one of each, i. e., one arm and one leg), $250 per month; partial disability (loss of one arm, leg or eye, hand or foot), $200; and when a man has been so disabled as to be uninsurable in a standard company, $200 monthly. Rehabilitation credits to ex-service men at low interest rates. Land grants free from any fee for any purpose whatever; a well grounded vocational educational system at universities and shops selected by the Government where tuition, commutation of rations, and books be provided by the Government, and a loan not to exceed $1000, to married men desiring vocational ducation and a strict application of military preference in civil service. WALTER REED HOSPITAL, Washington, D. C., March 29, 1920. In the past 60 days various organizations of ex-service men and women have caused their national legislative committees to appear before Congress and demand immediate action for bonus and other legislation of pecuniary nature. Be it resolved that the patients of Walter Reed General Hospital, United States Army, do go on record in the following statements: That these organizations above referred to have failed to fulfill their promises and resolutions to the disabled men and women of the World War; and Whereas this body, representing the patients of Walter Reed General Hospital, do not want a cash bonus, and do not approve of the methods of procedure that these organizations are using to secure benefit for those who are disabled; Be it Resolved, By the patients of this hospital that they desire an adjustment of their insurance policies, based upon their disability and while receiving treatment in the Army, Navy, Marine and Public Health Hospitals, to be granted insurance allowance on a total temporary basis. Also that the payments made beneficiaries under the war-risk term insurance, carried during peace times (subsequent to the armistice, Nov. 11, 1918), shall be made payable in a lump sum as is provided in the United States Government life insurance (converted policy) policies. This would entail no additional expenditure but would be on the same actuarial basis as the converted policies. Resolved further, That the patients of this hospital approve of the proposed legislation for 1 cent a mile furlough rate for disabled men and women who were injured in the service; the same to continue while receiving treatment in the Public Health hospitals, and who are functioning under the Federal Board for Vocational Training. It is the sense of this body of patients who represent this hospital to convey to the lawmakers that they are in favor of a farm loan or home builders' loan for all who want to avail themselves of the opportunity, believing that a person who desires a home makes a more responsible citizen. Resolved further, That if any cash bonuses are deemed advisable for the service men and women said bonus should be adjusted according to the amount of the allotment deducted from the soldier's pay for the support of his dependent relatives. Resolved further, That the disabled persons of this hospital do firmly believe that Congress will deal justly and generously with all those who suffered injuries in the World War, when the concrete facts are compiled and presented in the proper form, and they wish to express their appreciation to the great beneficial monument of the World War, the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, and to the director of that greatest of institutions, for his patriotic zeal and conscientious efforts in behalf of those that are disabled. Hon. WILLIAM B. OLIVER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MOBILE, ALA., March 16, 1920. DEAR MR. OLIVER: I am writing you this letter to ask that you vote against the soldiers' bonus bill. Of course, it would be a very pleasant thing to have a bonus voted us by an appreciative country, but there are so many obvious objections to such a project that I feel it is my duty as a returned soldier to ask you not to aid in the passing of this bill. I realize that great pressure will be brought to bear on Congressmen and Senators to pass this bill. The American Legion, although it professes to take no part in the political life of the country, is a great political force. If this bill is passed it will add from two to four billions to our national debt. This is fearful to contemplate, but even worse than this will be the precedent which will be set for future generations of soldiers to make raids on the Treasury of the United States. The plan, as I see it, is one of the most bolshevistic that has been suggested in this country. I sincerely believe that instead of making men better contented, and more willing to carry on, it will tend to increase the feeling of unrest which is now so widespread among soldiers. What we need are wiser provisions for the rehabilitation of the injured and opportunities to acquire lands more easily, whether in the city or country. If aid is given us in the acquisition of homes, it should be regarded as a debt which every soldier must eventually repay. Men who have homes are always willing to fight for them. With the kindest personal regards, I am, Sincerely. MAX ROGERS. STATE OF ARKANSAS, Hon. H. M. JACOWAY, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I am inclosing you a clipping from one of our county papers, which if made a law would be very unpopular among the masses of people in this country. I feel that the ex-service men should be well taken care of, but they have done no more than men of past generations-only performed a patriotic duty which every American citizen owes to his country. They received more pay than any other army that has ever been called out by this Government. The old folks at home should receive some consideration, as they observed the meatless and wheatless days and sugarless weeks, and numbers of them borrowed money to purchase Liberty bonds, and doubled their efforts for greater production of everything for the soldiers. Another bond issue or credit would depreciate the value of the bonds already sold. I feel that every loyal American should long to see this great war debt reduced as rapidly as possible. This great burden would virtually fall upon the old folks at home, as the ex-service men have refused to return to the farm. I know of very few in my county who have returned to the farm. I am a farmer, and I know that we can't employ labor enough to till the land in this country. It seems that our ex-service men as a rule do not work at anything as long as they have any funds. If we can't secure more help, I fear a great shortoge in foodstuffs. I was a volunteer soldier in the Spanish-American War in company with the Dardanelle boys. We served for half the amount that our late soldiers received and returned home feeling that we had only performed our duty, and asked for nothing but a fair chance to make our way in the world. I write this only to give you an idea of how the folks at home are thinking Thanking you for past favors, I remain, Yours, very truly, R. S. WILLIAMS. WASHINGTON, D. C., March 12, 1920. Hon. Jos. W. FORDNEY, Chairman of House Committee on Ways and Means. DEAR SIR: I have listened with interest to the hearings before your committee on the various bills for additional compensation for ex-service men. I trust you will not consider it presumptuous for me to offer these suggestions. It is needless to urge the necessity and justice of providing for the dependents of those who died or for those who were disabled. Every American concedes that to be a just and rightous duty. It is those ex-soldiers who have returned uninjured from the war, the young men in the strength and glory of their manhood that seem to be unmindful of the obligations, blessing, and proud privilege of living urder a flag that flies over the greatest and most progressive Government on earth and has never yielded to a foreign foe-that flag that has carried the message of freedom and democracy to the uttermost parts of the earth. It is to be regretted that men should seek to commercialize their pariotism by an attempt to force additional compensation at this time of general world unrest when it would be dangerous and unwise to further weaken our ability to develop and protect the country we love. No one krows better than your committee the sacrifices our people and Government would have to make if we should be required to finance a national defense under present conditions. Why maintain an Army and Navy if we can not sustain them in active service? I can not believe that this hullabaloo about additional compensation comes from our representative young men of American birth and training. From my observations I am satisfied that it has not come from the ex-soldiers who are working, but from those who are working the soldiers. Often the clamor is made by persons holding positions with various organizations of ex-service men, and it is more of an object to them than to the other members of the orders. Since the war I have traveled from coast to coast and am sure this electiontime effort to get at the public funds is not general or serious. There is no distress among the people of our country. Wages were never better, and prospects for employment are good. The railroads have been returned to their owners with great shortage of rolling stock and the tracks in bad order. To prepare the lines for competition will require men for the steel mills, factories, and track work. If this and other enterprises do not furnish employment for all, then the Government should start constructive projects that will keep everyone employed who is seeking work. From my experience during the war, when I aided the Government in investigating fraudulent exemptions and other charges of disloyalty, I was astonished at the extent that I. W. W. and Bolsheviki theories had spread throughout our land. Some of the advo cates of these dangerous doctrines were forced into the service. Our mutual friend, ex-Gov. Spry, of Utah, while chief executive of that State refused to pardon an I. W. W. convicted of double murder. Before the day of execution he received upward of 27,000 letters threatening his life if the pardon was not granted. These death messages came from all over the world, but largely from this country. The essence of the treasonous propaganda of these organizations is that "those who have accumulated property should be compelled to divide." "That one class has the right to take the property of another." If the income tax is not sufficient, it should be increased for the benefit of the country and not for a certain class. A law of this kind would be a step toward the danger line. I know your committee, composed as it is of some of the most experienced and conservative Members of Congress, will not encourage any movement no matter how well it is camouflaged with patriotism and indorsed by our most deserving citizens who may not realize its most dangerous features. I trust that no such scheme will rise its slimy head in your committee or strike its forked tongue of sedition into the very laws of our land. One result of giving $500 to some of the most radical proponents of the bill is that they would be apt to consider at this time that bonus time and election time are about the same time. I am not offering any criticism of those soldiers who are loyal to our system of government, and they include almost all the ex-service men. Our boy, though not yet reached his majority, left our hearthstone on the 6th of April, 1917, the morning war was declared, and enlisted in the Navy as a coal passer. He went to his station in the bunkers of the ship with as much pride and determination as the officer who walked the bridge. When the war was over he was discharged as a machinist, first class, and came home to us a man among men, perfect of form, sound of limb, and clean of mind. His ambition as an armed defender of the greatest country on earth was satisfied. His mother's prayers were answered and my cup of joy was as full as the day God sent him to gladden the hearts of his mother and me. He joined the American Legion, but did not become a chronic beseecher. As dearly as I love him, I would rather see him hobbling on crutches than to know he was putting in his time haunting the corridors and committee rooms of Congress begging for a hand-out. The Hessians fought for money and they were the most despised creatures among men. Our boy, Bill, has no mark of a Hessian on him. Our boy's safe return, his worn uniform, his honorable discharge, and a flag that is still the flag of the free is not only glory enough for us but for millions of other families scattered all over this land of ours. With my best wishes for the honorable and manly solution of the important problem, I am, Cordially, JAMES H. LEVERING, 867 Carillo Street, Los Angeles, Calif. MARCH 11, 1920. Hon. J. W. FORDNEY, Chairman Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. FORDNEY: I am inclosing herewith copy of resolutions adopted by the Colorado Springs post of the American Legion relative to the proposed agitation for the bonus for ex-service men. I have noted from recent reports that your committee is having these matters under consideration, particularly the plan for a $50 bond for each month of service and the so-called Morgan bill; am therefore sending these resolutions to you at this time. I would also call attention to the resolutions which were presented in the Senate yesterday expressing opposition to the proposed bonus plan. Meridian Life Building, Indianapolis, Ind. DEAR SIR: This post of the American Legion has received a copy of your special bulletin No. 13 on the matter of extra pay for service men. We have also read the newspaper reports of the action being taken by the national executive committee and the Legion's legislative committee, in an effort to force an adjusted compensation or bonus bill through Congress. On September 12, 1919, our post in regular meeting assembled, passed a resolution indorsing the Dick T. Morgan bill and opposing anything in the way of bonus legislation for ex-service men and women. The national headquarters of the American Legion and our Senators and Congressmen were advised of this action at that time, and because the sentiment of the post was and is so strong against bonus legislation, the executive committee feels it is its duty again to let you know the sentiment of the post. No one recognizes better than we the debt owed to ex-service men and women by the Government. We feel that no matter how large a bonus was presented to the ex-soldier, sailor, and marine, it would reduce by very little the debt of the Nation to those men and women who served in the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps. Furthermore, there is something unsavory about any demand for cash or bonds, if the idea is one of compensation for services. The services rendered by the military forces during the war were rendered not for the financial benefit that might be derived by the members thereof, but because of a patriotic appreciation of duty to our country. We object to any endeavor to place a money value on our patriotism. We were glad to have the privilege of rendering what service we were able to give and we do not approve of the spirit which induces our organization to go to Congress and endeavor to force from the Government a gift of $1,900,000,000, or whatever the cost of your proposed bonus bill will amount to. Everyone agrees that the Nation can not afford any such extravagant undertaking as this $50 per month-of-service bill would amount to. It is agreed that we can not have industrial peace in this country so long as the tremendous war expenditures of the Government continue, and for an organization, which is organized "to inculcate a sense of individual obligation to the community, State, and Nation; to promote peace and good will on earth" (to mention only two of the avowed purposes of the American Legion), to add an additional burden of a billion or two billions of dollars, seems to us to be inexcusable. But aside from the prohibitive expense of such legislation, this post objects on the ground of the principle, as stated above, that patriotism can not be purchased. However, because we believe that the Nation is obligated to assist its exservice men and women in every reasonable manner, we believe that the Dick T. Morgan bill, or a bill providing for Government loans for the purchase of homes in cities or the purchase of farms, whichever the individual preferred, should be enacted. Our information is that such a law could be administered with an initial expenditure of $100,000,000 and that thereafter the administration of the law would be comparatively inexpensive, and the original loan of $100,000,000 would eventually. be returned with interest. Another factor in favor of such legislation is that it would make homeowners of the ex-service men and women, and would to that extent tend to stabilize industrial unrest. It would be of infinitely more value to the individuals concerned because, instead of making a present of a few hundred dollars which would soon be dissipated, it would give the opportunity of acquiring property that would have a permanent value. We realize that a great many ex-service men desire bonus legislation, but we feel that this is largely due to the fact that it is natural for a man who has not considered the matter very deeply to think that he had better take a few hundred dollars now, while the taking is good. At any rate, Colorado Springs Post No. 5, after careful investigation of various bills presented in Congress for the benefit of ex-soldiers, was and is of the opinion that the Morgan bill would be of greater benefit to the individual and to the Nation at large than any posible type of adjusted compensation or bonus legislation. Therefore, because we object to having a price placed upon our patriotism, because we object to saddling another enormous debt upon the Nation, and because we believe that the ex-service man himself would be very much more benefited by legislation of the character of the Morgan bill than by the suggested adjusted compensation legislation, we desire to express our disapproval of the action of the national executive committee of the American Legion in adopting its resolution of February 10, 1920, and in endeavoring to obtain from Congress any adjusted compensation or bonus legislation. Yours, very sincerely, EARL E. EWING, STEPHEN R. CURTIS, Executive Committee. |