March 28, 1917. This, briefly, is the statement he gave me: He was in Company C, Twenty-sixth Infantry, First Division. He left the United States for France on June 14, 1917. He was a volunteer, and he was wounded and gassed. The War Department has this to say about his service. I asked them for a statement about the battles in which he was engaged, and this is what they say:

The records of this office show that Beryl M. McHam, Army Serial No. 53118, corporal, Company C, Eighth Infantry, left the United States for foreign service June 14, 1917; served in the Sommerviller sector from October 21 to November 20, 1917; in the Ansauville sector from January 15 to April 3, 1918; in the Cantigny sector from April 25 to June 8, 1918, and from June 14 to July 7, 1918; in the Saizerais sector from August 14 to 24, 1918; and participated in the Montdidier-Noyon defensive from June 9 to 13, 1918; in the AisneMarne offensive from July 18 to 21, 1918; in the St. Mihiel offensive from September 12 to 13, 1918; and in the Meuse-Argonne offensive from October 1 to 12, 1918. He was gassed in action July 21, 1918.

After the armistice was signed, he was in the Army of Occupation and went over to Germany. Being from a prohibition State, he got over where they could find a little liquor occasionally, and, from his statement to me, he got on a little "spree" one night and some noncommissioned officers came over to arrest him and this boy had a fist fight with one of them.

He is a good boy, and I have known him for a long time. His brother-in-law is chief of police where I live. He is a working boy and never had any trouble that I ever heard of. He had volunteered, and did all of this fighting over there.

They court-martialed him, he said, and tried him for assault to do bodily harm and for disrespect to a noncommissioned officer. He was brought back and taken to Fort Leavenworth and given five years. This was reduced afterwards to one year and three months.

The CHAIRMAN. That, by the way, was under the clemency commission which General Ansell and I did so much to bring about after the war.

Mr. SWANK. He was released from parole November 6, 1920, and given a dishonorable discharge.

I have a bill designed to correct that, H. R. 1512, but I think that if we had a board along the lines I mentioned it would be easier to get action in a case like this.

The Adjutant General said that he was sentenced to be confined one year and three months, and to be dishonorably discharged from the service. Well, it is a pretty good sign that he is a good fellow and has a lot of good traits to anyone that does not know him personally, because of the effect on his mind of this dishonorable discharge, and for an offense that probably in private life would have resulted in his being given a fine of something like $10. He is not kicking about the severity of the sentence and he would have been glad to have served the rest of it if he could have received an honorable discharge.

Now, I want to thank the committee for having given Members of Congress an opportunity to come here and give their views affecting the welfare of the veterans of the World War.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I am very glad you presented that last case. There are many of those cases where the military records ought to be straightened out.

We have also with us Representative Henry W. Watson, of Pennsylvania, who has been of some assistance in this legislation and who desires to take up some phases of it with the committee this morning.

I am very glad to have you with us this morning, Representative Watson, and shall be happy to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY W. WATSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. WATSON. Section 303 of the act of June 7, 1924, was amended, of course, with the idea that it would be of advantage to the heirs. of the original beneficiary, but a case came to my notice which I understand is like a great many similar ones which have been unfair to the heirs of the original beneficiaries.

While the original section 303 took care of them, the amendment does not; and this is the case:

The beneficiary dies, and there are three brothers, A, B, and C, inheriting the undivided insurance; but another brother, D, is not of age; and, to save the expense of having a guardian appointed, he said, "I will just wait one year and a month and then have that amount distributed," which would have been altogether proper under the old act, but under the new one, because of the following words, he is supposed to forfeit his share of it:

Provided, That all awards of yearly renewable term insurance which are in course of payment on the date of the approval of this act shall continue until the death of the person receiving such payments or until he forfeits same under the provisions of this act. When any person to whom such insurance is now awarded dies or forfeits his rights to such insurance then there shall be paid to the estate of the insured the present value of the remaining unpaid monthly installments of the insurance so awarded to such person

Because he did not have a guardian appointed, he has forfeited his share and therefore his share goes to the executor or administrator of the original beneficiary and is distributed under the laws of the State.

I understand that the department has prepared an amendment to take care of such cases and that that amendment probably will be offered within a day or so. So I have not had an amendment prepared, as the Veterans' Bureau favors this amendment; I wanted to present my case.

The CHAIRMAN. He could have obviated this by having had the guardian appointed?

Mr. WATSON. Yes; but he did not have a guardian appointed. Under the old act, the section 303, he could have received his share without having a guardian appointed, but in the meantime this act was amended and it had the result of cutting him out of his share, and I understand there are many cases of similar nature in the files of the Veterans' Bureau.

The CHAIRMAN. While we are waiting for some other witnesses, would you discuss that case for a moment, Captain Miller? Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; I would be glad to.

The amendment of March 4, 1925, or section 303 of the World War veterans' act, affects in the manner the gentleman has just stated. three major classes of people. It affects those whose share of the

insurance has been withheld pending locating them; it also affects the minors who have elected to leave their share in charge of the Veterans' Bureau until they become of age and could handle their funds themselves, and also incompetents those who have no guardians.

I have no way of knowing how many ceses there are, but certainly fifty or sixty have come to us already.

The proposition in brief is that until the passage of this amendment the money reserved in those two classes of cases, the minors and those whose whereabouts are unknown, was their property, but on the passage of this amendment the money becomes the property of the estate.

Mr. BROWNING. What is the construction of the law which causes it to be forfeited?

Mr. MILLER. It is by construction, Mr. Browning.

Mr. BROWNING. Do you not think it is a strained construction?
Mr. MILLER. They made an effort in the Veterans' Bureau to

say

Mr. RANKIN (interposing). It seems to me that they strained a point here when they construed this legislation to be against the insured, which construction, in my opinion, was contrary to all the rules of legal construction.

Mr. MILLER. The provision is:

That all awards of yearly renewable term insurance which are in course of payment on the date of the approval of this act shall continue until the death of the person receiving such payments, or until he forfeits same under the provisions of this act.

Mr. RANKIN. There is not a court of conscience in America that will say that a minor, because he does not make a claim of property forfeits it. Minors are not presumed to be capable of making claims until they are 21 years of age.

That is an outrageous decision, in my opinion, that deprives a minor, who is not qualified in his own right and in his own name to apply for anything, of his rights merely because he did not apply during the years of his minority. There is not a court of equity in the United States that I know anything about that would make such a decision as that.

Mr. MILLER. This provision that all awards made out of funds reserved in the interest of those who are unable to be located, or minors, shall be regarded as awards in the course of payment, was the stumbling block in the legal division of the Veterans' Bureau.

Mr. RANKIN. I will tell you what I think is the stumbling block. You need some lawyers down there to construe this law. Any lawyer in the Veterans' Bureau that will hand down a ruling depriving a minor of his part of the insurance for not applying at a time when he was incompetent and incapable of applying because of his infancy-I do not care who he is ought to be removed from the legal department of that bureau. He is incompetent; he is incapable; and his decisions will not stand up in the court of conscience or public opinion.

Mr. WATSON. May I state that the boy should have received a little over $800, but his attorney, living in Philadelphia, wrote me a

long letter stating that at the suggestion of one of the officials of the Veterans' Bureau he could go before the probate court and, at the mercy of the court, the boy would probably receive the $800; but the attorney writes me that would be impossible, because under the law of Pennsylvania he would not receive it and the judge would not be acting in accordance with the statute; and therefore it is left entirely to the decision of the bureau.

Here is a letter from Mr. Mulhearn, who goes into it in detail. Mr. BROWNING. I would like to have a copy of that ruling in the record.

Mr. WATSON. Shall I introduce this letter?

Mr. RANKIN. I would like to have the whole record of that case go into this record.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I think it is the general policy in our State to prescribe an additional time for a man to render any claim in general matters after he becomes of age, which in some cases is two years after he has reached 21.

Mr. WATSON. May I read four lines?

[Reading:]

In this connection it will be appreciated of course that the bureau on the date that this arrangement was conceived. did not foresee the passage of amendatory legislation which would, in effect, preclude an award to Charles Knobloch as contemplated.

Mr. RANKIN. The bureau is trying to unload this situation on the committee that passed this law, and I do not understand that this law precluded that award except by the construction placed on it by the Veterans' Bureau.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I do not think that the Veterans' Bureau always is to blame, because it seems that the Comptroller of the Treasury interposes and has caused considerable embarrassment by preventing the allowance of certain claims which the bureau was disposed to allow.

Mr. RANKIN. I dare say that you will not see a decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury in all the history of this country that precludes a minor from receiving property or any other benefits merely because he did not apply for them at a time when, under the law, he was incompetent to apply.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I do not mean to oppose on this particular matter nor claim that this is the ruling of the Comptroller of the Treasury, but I know that in many other instances the ruling of the comptroller is the cause and that it might be the cause in this instance.

Mr. RANKIN. This is a decision coming from some lawyer in the Veterans' Bureau or some supposed lawyer, and my honest opinion. is that any man who handed down that decision has never studied equity, and if we have that type of lawyers in the legal department of the Veterans' Bureau I am in favor of getting rid of them.

The CHAIRMAN. In order to make up the record, will you, Mr. Miller, please insert at this place a copy of the opinion of the bureau. Mr. MILLER. Do you wish me to present those later?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I would like to have the complete file in the record.

UNITED STATES VETERANS' BUREAU,
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
March 27, 1925.

From: The general counsel,

To: Assistant director, claims and insurance service.
Subject: Kreston, Andrew; C-87,214.

Receipt is acknowledged of your submission of March 29, 1925, in which you request an opinion as to the effect of Section 303 of the World War veterans' act as amended by the act of March 4, 1925, when applied to the facts stated in your submission.

It appears from your submission that the father of the above-named deceased soldier was designated as the beneficiary of his insurance; that the designated beneficiary survived the insured and has since died without receiving any payments on account of the insurance and that at the present date no payment to his estate has been effected. You do not state whether this insurance is renewable-term insurance or converted insurance, nor whether an award has been made to the estate of the father. For the purpose of this opinion, it is assumed that the insurance referred to was renewable-term insurance and that no award has been made to the estate of the father.

It further appears from your submission that the persons within the permitted class who were entitled to take and who survived the father, are one sister and two brothers; that one-third of the insurance has been awarded to the sister, one-third to one of the brothers who died subsequent to making the award, and that no award has been made to the other brother. It appears inferentially from your submission that the awards to the sister and to the deceased brother were approved and in course of payment prior to March 4, 1925, and this opinion is based also upon these assumptions.

The pertinent part of section 303 of the World War veterans' act as amended by the act of March 4, 1925, reads:

66

** *

if the designated beneficiary

*

survives the insured and dies prior to receiving all of the two hundred and forty installments or all such as are payable and applicable, there shall be paid to the estate of the insured the present value of the monthly installments thereafter payable, said value to be computed as of date of last payment made under any existing award: Provided, That all awards of yearly renewable term insurance which are in course of payment on the date of the approval of this act shall continue until the death of the person receiving such payments, or until he forfeits same under the provisions of this act. Then any person to whom such insurance is now awarded dies or forfeits his rights to such insurance then there shall be paid to the estate of the insured the present value of the remaining unpaid monthly installments of the insurance so awarded to such per

Since the father was the designated beneficiary, and since the provisions of section 303, as amended, do not become applicable to this case until the death of the designated beneficiary, and since this section, as amended, must be construed in connection with section 26 of the World War veterans' act, you are advised that, irrespective of whether an award has been made to the father's estate or not, all installments of insurance accruing prior to the date of his death should be awarded to his estate.

Since the award to the sister was made and in course of payment prior to March 4, 1925, this award is exempted from the provision as awarded by the proviso, and therefore payments should continue under the award to the sister until her death.

Since the award of the deceased brother was made and was in course of payment prior to March 4, 1925, and since section 26 must be construed in connection with section 303 as amended, you are advised that any installments of insurance which accrued prior to the death of the deceased brother should be awarded to his estate, and that the present value of the installments thereafter payable, computed as of the last payment made to the estate of the deceased brother, should be awarded to the estate of the insured.

Since no award was made to one of the brothers, there is no award in course of payment which can be protected by the proviso referred to, and therefore the present value of this one-third of the insurance is payable to the estate of the insured, and the present value should be computed as of the date of the last payment to the estate of the father, the designated beneficiary. WILLIAM WOLFF SMITH.