technically federalized, and this man feels, and I think rightly so, that he should receive the same benefits that he would have received but for the lack of this technical procedure to which I have referred. Gentlemen, I am very much obliged to you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Newton, we are very glad to have had you with us. You have always taken such an active part, both in the drafting of this legislation and on the floor, and I hope you will continue to do so and keep in touch with the committee.

Mr. NEWTON. Thank you. I am sure that everything will be done that the committee can do; I know you have a most difficult problem. The CHAIRMAN. Members of the committee, we have with us this morning Representative Millard E. Tydings, of Maryland, formerly with the Twenty-ninth Division and formerly a member of this

committee.

We are very glad to have you with us this morning, Mr. Tydings, and I hope you will proceed to enlighten us further concerning this statute. We will be happy to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF HON. MILLARD E. TYDINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. TYDINGS. There is one provision of the law that I want to call your attention to, and which I think is still effective, namely, that where a man has some disability which was aggravated in service it shall be considered as having been incurred in the service, and I want to cite a couple of cases along that line that I know of.

I know of a particular man who, upon his discharge, was examined by three medical officers. In completing their examination, they sent him to three more medical officers, and after that he was sent to another board of three more medical officers, and he was advised to go to a hospital; but, feeling perfectly well and not having any trouble at all he, after some talk with these medical officers, told them that he would rather take his discharge and, in fact, release the Government from all liability.

They explained to him that they could not do that, but that possibly, if he would go to a physician when he got home, they would let him go, and thereupon he was discharged with a 10 per cent disability written on his discharge.

Now, after the Veterans' Bureau was set up and created, with its benefits to the men who had contracted disease in the service, this particular man did not see fit to apply for the benefit, and, of course, under the five-year provision, had that remained in the law, he would have been barred from obtaining compensation for an injury which he had contracted in the service, simply because he did not feel that it was of sufficient extent to warrant it.

Now, the present law, as I understand it, eliminates that provision, if it can be shown that the injury was contracted in the service, notwithstanding that the 5-year period has gone by. Is that cor

rect?

The CHAIRMAN. I think it is, if the disability was incurred in the

service.

Mr. TYDINGS. Section 201 of the present law states that no compensation shall be payable

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). We are considering that extension of time in this bill at the present time.

Mr. TYDINGS. Section 200 states that "When an ex-service man is shown to be suffering with a chronic disease which good medical judgment indicates was incurred or aggravated in the service, such chronic disease shall be held to be of service origin or aggravation notwithstanding the lack of historical affirmative evidence."

The CHAIRMAN. That is the provision of the proposed law that you are reading, is it not?

Mr. TYDINGS. Yes. Does that only apply to the 5-year period and the 2-year extension?

Mr. BROWNING. It would, unless those periods are changed in this law. You see, that is an amendment suggested in this bill. It would only apply to the 5-year period and the 2-year extension unless that feature is changed in this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. And we are considering another provision of the proposed law which would extend the time or wipe out the limitation altogether.

Mr. TYDINGS. Well, the point I was making is that I believe there are plenty of men-in fact. I have talked with some-upon whom fortune smiles fairly favorably, and they have not applied for the compensation that they could get. However, where it is definitely established at the time the soldier severs his connection with the Army that he then and there had a disability, chronic in nature, which was contracted in the service, and that man fails to make his application, and in the future, after the time limit, something serious happens to that man, should he be barred from getting what he might have had?

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you are in favor of this extension?

Mr. TYDINGS. Yes; and I want to go a step further than that. If he is discharged and it was not shown that he had any chronic trouble at all contracted in the service, that would be one thing; but where it is shown on his discharge that he had it and he has never applied, even though the seven years have gone by and the Government records show he could have gotten it, he should not be barred.

Now, the case I have in mind, I dislike to say, is my own case. When I was discharged at Camp Dix I went before three medical officers, who sent me to a board of three more in fact, I saw nine doctors in all on three different boards, and they wanted me to go to some hospital. I had some throat trouble. I had gotten gassed a little on the other side and was in the hospital for three weeks after the war was over.

I told them that I did not want to go to a hospital, that I wanted. to go home, and that I would waive all liability of the Government if they would give me my discharge. Of course, they said that they could not do that; but I put up a right good argument to them, and they finally decided they would let me go, and they marked on my discharge "10 per cent disability."

Now, I have had trouble with my throat ever since the war was over, and sometimes it gets very much aggravated.

Now, if after 7, 8, or 10 years I should develop tuberculosis as a result of that and get into a condition where I probably could not do anything, I would then be penalized because I thought I would never need the Government's aid.

There are other men in the same condition.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you are absolutely right. Personally, I favor the extension, and I think the committee does.

Mr. TYDINGS. Would the extension apply to a case like that? The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely; if these two provisions are adopted. Mr. TYDINGS. If the discharge had not stated the disability that would be one thing, but when the discharge states the disability so that you do not have to prove it was incurred in the service, that is another matter.

The CHAIRMAN. I am very glad you brought up that point, Mr. Tydings. Is there anything else in the law that you care to discuss? Mr. TYDINGS. Nothing further than this: You also have the question before you of compensation paid out under the bonus, have

you not?

The CHAIRMAN. No; that is before the Ways and Means Committee, and they are having hearings now.

Mr. TYDINGS. There are one or two other things I had in mind, but I do not think I will mention them this morning.

I would like to add that I take no particular pride in naming my own case, but I only did it because I, of course, know the facts in that case and believe it is illustrative of many others in which the situation is the same. I am not a wealthy man, and should I contract some disease that I thought was due to that I might be out of luck.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tydings, the committee appreciates very much your coming before us, and I am glad you brought up your individual case. That is the only way the committee can find out about classes of cases-by discussing the individual case.

I would like to call the attention of the committee to the fact that this morning we have with us Representative Clay Stone Briggs, who appeared before the committee in 1925, as I recall it, and presented some matters.

We are very glad to have you with us again to discuss such matters in the law that you care to take up.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLAY STONE BRIGGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. BRIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I notice that the bill that I introduced at this session, H. R. 30, is incorporated in the measure introduced by you and designated as H. R. 4474, appearing as section 17, on page 40, of your bill.

The provision is one which was brought before this committee in the last Congress and was favorably acted upon by this committee, which reported it in its bill to the House, and the bill was passed by the House of Representatives in the last Congress.

It relates to the application of the $60 bonus to the maintenance of the insurance and preventing the lapse of that insurance as long as the $60 bonus was equal to meeting the insurance premiums due.

As I call to the attention of this committee at the hearing on the bill at the last Congress, there are probably 65, not to exceed 70, cases to be more accurate, probably 68 cases of this kind where, shortly after the $60 bonus was payable, the men entitled to it died. Two cases came under my observation-the cases of Louis K. Blair and of Christopher Harding, both deceased-both instances where the ex-service men died within two months after they were entitled to this bonus, and in one case the check was sent down but did not reach the ex-service man in time to be of any value to him because he was dead, and the parents had to return the check.

You gentlemen are thoroughly familiar, of course, with the provision to which I called attention relating to the application of any compensation which might be due to the ex-service man in meeting insurance payments to prevent the lapse of his insurance. That is section 105 of the existing law.

This fact was developed in the Blair case-in the statement with reference to that case which was given to me, this expression is given:

The situation in reference to this claim is rather peculiar in that the deceased soldier was firmly and honestly under the impression that his insurance was fully protected by the amount of money which the Government owed him, in the form of his bonus of $60, which he had never drawn and which was due him at the time of his death. The father of the deceased soldier, a splendid gentleman and as honest as he could be, assured me that at the time the soldier had returned he, the soldier, advised his parent that his insurance was in existence and that he had been advised by some of his superior officers that the insurance was actually protected, and he did not make the monthly payment for that reason. He had the firm conviction that his insurance was protected.

Now, the Veterans' Bureau, as I previously pointed out, construed the existing law as being sufficient authority for them to apply these $60 bonus payments to lapsed insurance, and in one case they paid over, I think, $1,100 upon a policy of insurance, and when the matter came before the Comptroller General he ruled that the law was not sufficient to meet that situation. He overruled the Veterans' Bureau in their construction and stopped any further application of those payments.

Both of these cases within my observation here and that came through my hands were cases where the parents were in a great state of dependency and greatly in need of that assistance, and one of them was definitely under the impression that the application of this bonus money would be made to meet the insurance payments due, and I do not assume that the committee has any different intention or conclusion from what was reached in the last Congress; that is, of giving a favorable report such as was given in the Congress and adopted by the House of Representatives.

The CHAIRMAN. I would say, Mr. Briggs, that because of your presentation of this case to the committee last year it was included in the bill and passed the House. That was indicative of the desire of the committee, and in the bill that I introduced and which is now before us, H. R. 4474, your exact provision is contained, and I have every reason to believe it will again pass the committee and the House.

Mr. BRIGGS. I am very glad to hear that, indeed.

Now, there is one other matter that I would like to mention, and that is that I am thoroughly in sympathy with this provision contained in the bill introduced by the chairman of this committee with reference to the extension of the period for vocational training. I hope it is sufficient to take care of many instances that are constantly coming under my observation whereby men have been granted vocational training by the Veterans' Bureau, but the men did not actually receive the training by reason of the fact that they said their condition was such that training was not feasible.

Mr. BULWINKLE. What was the disability that most of these men that came under your observation were subject to?

Mr. BRIGGS. I do not recall the various disabilties, Mr. Bulwinkle.

Mr. BULWINKLE. What is the preponderance of them-tuberculosis or neuropsychiatry?

Mr. BRIGGS. Probably mostly neuropsychiatric or tubercular cases. Mr. BULWINKLE. After a man's case has been adjudged an arrested case of tuberculosis and he is allowed $50 a month, do you think vocational training should be extended to him, too?

Mr. BRIGGS. My understanding is that, ordinarily, when they are drawing training pay they do not draw compensation.

Mr. BULWINKLE. That is true.

Mr. BRIGGS. That is my impression, that when they are actually engaged in vocational training they do not draw compensation; and with respect to many of these cases that have come under my observation, I do not know whether they were rated as neuropsychiatric or tubercular cases, but I do know that time and again the ex-service man has been rated as being entitled to vocational training, but the statement is made that "training at this time is not feasible on account of the condition of the man."

When he has got to the point where training has become feasible for him, then he gets the next answer, "You can not get training now because you have gotten so much better that we think you are going to get well, and if you get well you do not have any vocational handicap."

That has been a matter that has been impossible for me to explain to the veterans who have written me about it from time to time, and now, of course we are confronted with a situation where, after the 1st of July, I think, 1926, they can not receive any vocational training because the law itself places that date as the final limit. In fact, in some cases where the men have been admitted to training, there is a provision under the existing law whereby they will not train a man; or, to illustrate it better, a year ago they would not give the man training unless it could be shown to the bureau that within the year he could be so trained that that training would be sufficient to give him the status of employability. I think that is the language of the statute on that subject, and they said that inasmuch as the 1st of July, 1926, had been fixed as the limit for training by Congress they would not attempt to start him on a three-year course.

For example, one man in my State wanted to take up the agricultural course in one of our normal schools, and they said: "We can not grant him a course in that matter because of the time limit. If