A claimant who requests return traveling expenses to a point which is neither his bona fide nor temporary home, nor the transient place from which he was sent to hospital, but which point is within shorter travel of the hospital from which he is discharged than his bona fide or temporary home, or transient place from which hospitalized, may be furnished with transportation to such requested point of travel. tion to a point elected by the patient under these circumstances, a receipt will be secured from him in which it will be stipulated that such travel is In furnishing transportain lieu of return travel, to bona fide or temporary home, or transient point from which he was hospitalized, and no further traveling expenses will be authorized beyond this point of election. The question whether a claimant or beneficiary was authorized to proceed from a transient point or from a place of temporary home is one of the facts to be determined in the individual case. the claimant or beneficiary to change his home place upon completion of A mere desire or intention of hospitalization will not justify authorization of travel to such desired new home. There must be an actual or constructive change of home; some overt act which will have the effect of definitely establishing a new home. Hon. CARL HAYDEN, UNITED STATES VETERANS' BUREAU, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. HAYDEN: In further reference to your letter of January 23. 1926, with regard to Regulation No. 124, which was called to your attention by Mr. Charles L. Edgerton, contact officer, Cactus Chapter, No. 2, Disabled American Veterans of the World War, Tucson, Ariz., you are advised that careful consideration has been given to the provisions of Regulation No. 124 and Regulation No. 99, as well as Regulations 131 and 108 and the General Order No. 27 series. Under the provisions of Regulation No. 99, section 8005, there was an apparent abuse of the privilege of transportation to a bona fide home. In other words, a claimant living in Alabama, for example, might travel at his own expense to Tucson, Ariz., and from that point authorization would be given by the bureau for hospitalization and transportation granted from Tucson to the hospital. Under the aforementioned section authorization for travel would be later granted, upon a statement of the claimant that Alabama was his bona fide home, to Alabama. There are many other instances where the procedure under section 8005 involved an abuse of privilege. As a result, Regulation No. 124 was issued canceling section 8005 and substituting the provision that the claimant, if authorized to proceed from a place of temporary home, could be granted return travel to such temporary home or to the bona fide home, if such latter home was no farther distant than the temporary home. Regulation No. 124 does not work an injustice in those cases where the claimant secures proper authorization from the United States Veterans' Bureau in the first instance. It is the irregular case where the claimant has traveled without bureau authority and is hospitalized from a temporary domicile that the difficulty arises. The complaint of Mr. Edgerton is the first of such nature to be received, Regulation No. 124 having been promulgated November 5, 1925, and apparently working satisfactorily. It would appear that Mr. Edgerton's complaint is based upon specific claims, wherein the claimant had traveled without authority of the bureau and represents the particular type of claim wherein the excessive travel was being made before the regulation was passed. Regulation No. 124 has resulted in a restriction of the travel of claimants except under bureau authority, unless the claimant is willing to accept return travel to the point of temporary home. It does not appear that this provision should work an injustice, for if the claimant is desirous of traveling about the country he does so with the understanding that, should he be hospitalized from any point of temporary abode, upon discharge from the hospital he will be returned to that point and none other. the permanent abode to a hospital, the claimant will have no difficulty in securOf course, where the bureau authorizes travel from ing return travel to his permanent home. It is not believed that the provisions of Regulation No. 124 violate the provisions of section 5 of the World War Veterans' act as indicated in Mr. Edger ton's letter. It appears that full authority exists in the director to promulgate the regulation in question. The need of amendatory legislation is not indicated by the report of Mr. Edgerton and the specific claims wherein difficulty arises should be carefully considered, and if the provisions of Regulation No. 124 are carefully followed, it is believed no injustice should result. Very truly yours. FRANK T. HINES, Director. THE DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS OF THE WORLD WAR, Hon. CARL HAYDEN, DEAR COMRADE: I want to bring before your attention a very important matter that of the present bureau ruling of probationing the sick. I am earnestly requesting that you take this matter up with Chairman Royal C. Johnson and General Hines, and demonstrate to him the utter unfairness of this recent ruling which discriminates against a disabled veteran who leaves against advice a hospital in an unfavorable climate that he may enter Whipple Barracks or Pastime Park, in a climate where thousands of tubercular citizens have regained their health. For your information I wish to advise you that daily men from hospitals in the East request me to send telegrams to the regional office in Phoenix requesting an admittance card for admittance to this hospital. These men arrive in Tucson "broke," having spent their last cent in arriving in a climate where they hope to regain their health. They can not enter either Whipple or Hospital No. 51 till their records and folders have reached the regional office in Phoenix and they have proved that they did not leave some Veterans' Bureau hospital against advice. If they have left some veterans' hospital against advice, they must live from hand to mouth in either Tucson, Prescott, or Phoenix till their probationary period is ended (three to nine months). Then they may apply for hospitalization. In other words, a veteran is punished by the bureau because he leaves a cold, wintry climate and pays his own transportation here in order to get well. Of course, when you talk to the authorities in Washington they will glibly tell you that there is an emergency clause, but I am honestly telling you that a man is only admitted to a hospital when he has served a probationary term or is hovering between life and death. Emergency means that the man may die any moment. Inclosed please find editorial from the Whipple Echo, which fully explains the new ruling and how it cheats the disabled veteran of his rights, is contrary to Reed-Johnson bill, and is only an economy measure. Inclosed also please find original letter to me from Dr. Theodore E. Schwarz, regional medical officer, Phoenix, Ariz., which is an answer to a telegram to him requesting an admittance card for Matt I. Leikas, C-1162116, who is at present in Tucson nearly "broke" and awaiting the arrival of his folder from the Denver regional office, in order that the bureau may know whether or not he has had a disciplinary record (left hospital against advice), in order to come west to a reasonable climate. In other words, the bureau, Phoenix regional office, don't know a thing about his record, and according to ruling must know before they can hospitalize him. They can not, according to ruling, give him the benefit of the doubt and hospitalize him before they know his so-called disciplinary record. They don't even know if he has a disciplinary record. The joke of the whole unjust ruling is this: United States veterans' hospital at Whipple has never in history been over half full, and there are always a few beds for ambulant patients at this hospital. Why can't these men who pay their way to Arizona get the benefit of these empty beds, especially at Whipple, instead of being penalized for leaving the cold, dreary East? Hoping you will explain the faults of this ruling to General Hines and read to him the inclosed editorial, "Probationing the sick," and thanking you for your most wonderful cooperation with all our work, I am, Yours in comradeship, CHARLES L. EDGERTON, Contact Officer, Tucson, Ariz. Mr. CHARLES L. EDGERTON, UNITED STATES VETERANS' BUREAU, United States Veterans' Hospital No. 51, Tucson, Ariz. DEAR SIR: Receipt is acknowledged of your telegram relative to the abovecaptioned claimant. Please be informed that we have written for information relative to his status under General Order 27-D in order that we might have authority for his hospitalization. Letter to Doctor Norris, dated the 18th, explains this matter. Immediately upon receipt of our requested information we will take steps toward his hospitalization. Should he, however, in the meantime be considered an emergency he can be hospitalized without information as to his disciplinary status. By direction: THEODORE E. SCHWARZ, M. D., Regional Medical Officer, Phoenix, Ariz. Hon. CARL HAYDEN, UNITED STATES VETERANS' BUREAU, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. HAYDEN: Further reference is made to your letter of January 25, with which you inclosed a protest from Mr. Charles L. Edgerton, contact officer, Cactus Chapter, No. 2, Disabled American Veterans of the World War, Tucson, Ariz., with respect to the ruling of the bureau involving the refusal of treatment and hospitalization to disabled ex-service men until their probationary period had expired. In reply you are advised that the action so taken is based upon the disciplinary regulation of the bureau which has been effective for several years past. Experience has shown that in order to secure better cooperation in the matter of the care and treatment of beneficiaries by the hospitals it was necessary to adopt this disciplinary regulation, which provides that patients being discharged from the hospital as "Absent without leave," "Against medical advice," or disciplinary reasons, serve a certain probationary period before they can again be admitted to the hospital. Under these situations provision has been made whereby the men who have a disciplinary status and develop a medical emergency can be cared for without delay. As it is believed that no claimant whose condition requires emergency treatment has suffered because of his disciplinary status, it would not be good policy to set aside the disciplinary regulation and open hospitals having vacant beds to these claimants undergoing probationary requirements. Returned are the inclosures sent in your letter of January 25. Very truly yours, Hon. CARL HAYDEN, Washington, D. C. FRANK T. HINES, Director. UNITED STATES VETERANS' BUREAU, Whipple Barracks, Ariz., December 23, 1925. MY DEAR MR. HAYDEN: I am inclosing a copy of a letter to Senator Overman. The possible amendment to the statute outlined therein will be presented to the Veterans' Legislative Committee of the House during the January sessions by Mr. Watson B. Miller, chairman of the American Legion's rehabilitation committee. Mr. Miller is acting under instructions received from the national convention of the Legion. I will appreciate your special attention to this phase of the Legion's program, and I feel sure of your aid in securing the enactment into law of the complete program. Sincerely, LIONEL VAUGHN. Hon. LEE S. OVERMAN, WHIPPLE, ARIZ., August 17, 1925. MY DEAR SENATOR OVERMAN: Referring to previous correspondence, and especially to a letter (Frank T. Hines to Senator Overman,.August 8, 1925), your attention is respectfully called to the following quotation from same: "It is observed that you are under the impression that, in view of the fact that existing law authorizes in certain instances the granting of a double permanent total rating, Mr. Vaughn should be entitled to a total rating for his disability of tuberculosis, and in addition thereto a 63 per cent rating due to the loss of his leg. It is true that Mr. Vaughn's disability of pulmonary tuberculosis standing alone is considered to be permanent and total, and his disability, amputation of left thigh, standing alone is determined to be permanent partial 63 per cent. The law provides for permanent total disabilities and for double permanent total disaibilities, but does not make any provision for disabilities between permanent and total and double permanent and total; that is, a disability in excess of 100 per cent and less than double permanent total. Double permanent and total ratings are granted for a combination of two or more statutory permanent total disabilities, and for a combination of one statutory permanent total disability and one or more disabilities also determined to be in themselves permanent and total. Mr. Vaughn's disabilities. however, do not fall within any of these provisions, and, for that reason, it is not possible to rate his disability more than permanent and total." Now, since the law makes no provision for disabilities in excess of 100 per cent and less than double permanent and total, and since such claims are obviously as just and legitimate as those which combined are considered double permanent and total, is not an amendment to the law justified? May I request that you make such suggestion to the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation? Such an amendment would benefit many cases similar to my own. Thanking you for your previous attention to my case, I remain, Very truly yours, LIONEL O. VAUGHN. Mr. HAYDEN. Hon. Harry B. Hawes, of Missouri, has suggested that section 201 of the World War veterans' act, 1924, be amended by adding the following proviso at the end of paragraph 1: And provided further, That a certification from the Commissioner of Pensions showing the name or names to whom an accrued pension has been made payable to reimburse the person or persons who bore the expenses of decedent's last sickness and burial has been made payable shall be deemed sufficient and conclusive as to whom the amount herein specified for burial and funeral expenses shall be paid. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. (Whereupon, at 11.25 o'clock a. m., an adjournment was taken until Thursday morning, January 28, 1926, at 10 o'clock a. m.) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WORLD WAR VETERANS' LEGISLATION, Thursday, January 28, 1926. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Royal C. Johnson (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Members of the committee, we have with us this morning Representative Walter H. Newton, of Minnesota. The members of the committee will recall that Mr. Newton is a member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, which handled all of the legislation now under consideration by this committee prior to the forma tion of this committee. Mr. Newton also served on the subcommittee which was in actual charge of the drafting of the legislation, and perhaps is as familiar with the history of this problem and what has been done as any Member of Congress. He has taken a very active part, both on the floor and in the committee, on these matters, and we are very glad to have him with us this morning, and will be very glad to get his viewpoint on any part of this legislation. STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER H. NEWTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Mr. NEWTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate what the chairman has had to say, although there have been so many amendments to the various provisions of the law pertaining to the disabled men since the bill left the jurisdiction of our committee that I find it very difficult to keep up in my knowledge of the legislation. There are several little matters that I desire to bring to the attention of the committee, and one is in reference to this question of vocational training. It has probably been brought to your attention before, there are quite a number of men-I do not know how many, but quite a number-who, due to physical disability, continued disability, have been declared nonfeasible for training, and the result is that they have never been able to receive the benefits of the rehabilitation act. It does seem to me that some provision should be made in order to afford vocational training to the men who applied but who, through no fault of their own, were declared nonfeasible because of their physical condition. I think I made some suggestion of a similar tenor to this committee a year or two ago, but during the late days of the session it could not be worked out; but it seems to me that that, in justice, should be done. Now, I want to say here that I appreciate that you can not as a committee, and Congress can not as a body, legislate along general principles to meet certain isolated cases. That is a very difficult proposition to do, and in many instances it would be unwise, but I have found this tendency on the part of the Veterans' Bureau in reference to this question of reinstatement of insurance. Here is a man who is totally disabled, but with a temporary total rating. He runs along for a long time and he figures that he is not getting any better, and so he makes an application to reinstate his insurance. He gets his money together and pays up the back premiums and sends his money in. Then, after a lapse of several weeks, he is notified that he is permanently totally disabled. Nobody has taken any interest in having him rated permanently and totally disabled up until the time that he sees fit to reinstate his insurance, and then somebody gets awfully busy in the insurance section of the Veterans' Bureau. I have been down there on at least 12 or 15 cases and have gone over the files, and they always have some very plausible excuse as to why this was not discovered before, and the files and the records go on to show how it was that this man was, in fact, totally and permanently disabled; but the fact |