These men unquestionably performed a real service to the Nation. The task allotted them was not only an arduous task but it presented its own peculiar difficulties and the men who served, I think no one will deny, did their work exceptionally well.

It may be that there is a real ground for the refusal to nominate these men as a part of the armed forces of the Nation, but it has occurred to me that they might be given some status, that they might be recognized in some capacity, so that they could not say, as they may now say, that no recognition whatever has ever been extended to them. They have not even been thanked by resolution of the Congress.

The gentleman who writes me is Mr. Linwood F. Crockett, clerk of the supreme judicial and superior courts in the State of Maine, a very active worker during the war and a man who has kept in touch with the selective branch of the service since the war, also a man very much interested in Legion work.

He does not suggest to me in his letter anything definite, except that he intimates that perhaps the least Congress might do is to pass some resolution of thanks. I am writing him asking him to give me more definite ideas, if he has them, and if I get them I shall be glad to present them to the committee at a later date.

In the meantime, I should like to have the committee consider whether there is not some status in which this selective branch of the service might be placed and thus recognition given these men for the service they rendered.

Mr. RANKIN. What class of men do you refer to?

Mr. BEEDY. The men who have worked as the selective service branch of the War Department.

Mr. RANKIN. Draft boards?

Mr. BEEDY. The men who served on the draft boards.

Mr. BROWNING. Would not that be a matter for the Military Affairs Committee?

Mr. BEEDY. No, sir; I took it up with the chairman here and confessed my ignorance as to whether it should be brought here or before the Military Affairs Committee, and he thought I might properly appear here and call your attention to this communication, which is similar to others I have received, and simply refer it to you for your consideration.

It seems to me that this committee might take some action.

Mr. BROWNING. It is my understanding that the military status of any parties is passed on by the Committee on Military Affairs, but I may be wrong.

Mr. BEEDY. May I, Mr. Chairman, leave with you this letter from Mr. Crockett and my reply to it?

The CHAIRMAN. They may be inserted in the record.

(The letters in question are as follows:)

LINWOOD S., CROCKETT, Esq.,

County Courthouse, Portland, Me.

JANUARY 23, 1926.

DEAR LIN: Since receiving your letter of January 7 I have gone into the question which you raise. I can understand just how you feel concerning those men who served in the selective service branch of the War Department during the World War. It seems to me some recognition ought to he eivan

them.

I find that the girls who served as telephone operators in France during the war are in the same position as men like yourself. They are demanding some kind of recognition and are soon to appear before the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation. The chairman has assured me that at the same time the committee will hear me in behalf of men in the selective service branch.

Upon receipt of this letter I would appreciate it if you would give me a more definite idea of just what you think I ought to ask the committee to do. As I understand it, the Congress can do nothing in the way of passing laws which would make men like yourself eligible to the American Legion. I suppose only the legion itself can take such a course of action.

Awaiting your advices and assuring you of my desire to at least make an effort in behalf of the selective service men, I am Sincerely yours,

CARROLL L. BEEDY.

CLERK'S OFFICE,

Hon. CARROLL L. BEEDY,

SUPREME, JUDICIAL, AND SUPERIOR COURTS,
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND,
Portland, Me., January 7, 1926.

Washington, D. C.

66

DEAR CARROLL: No doubt this will strike you as 'tilting at windmills," but it does seem that something should be done by Congress to at least acknowledge the service of thousands of men who served in the selective-service branch of the War Department during the World War.

I do not speak of this because I happened to be in that branch, but because of the fact that many of these men did as much, if not more, than those who were taken up by us and kicked into a uniform. The Legion has locked the doors against us on the grounds that we were not members of the armed force of this Nation. The work required long hours, hard work, and cussed and discussed on every hand.

One or two half-hearted moves have been made to cure the oversight, but to date nothing has been done. If I remember right, there are something like six or seven thousand men who served in this branch, and we received no pay but did our bit without thought of pay or thanks. We can see no reason why the Legion should come in for all the thanks when many of them did nothing until our branch yanked them into the ranks.

As above stated, this matter is of small account, but it does seem that Congress might at least thank these men for what they did and give them a chance to join the Legion by stating in a proper bill that they were a part of the armed force of this Nation. However, I do not expect you to neglect more important matters for this.

With kindest regards to yourself and Mrs. Beedy, I remain,

Yours truly,

LINWOOD F. CROCKETT.

Mr. BEEDY. And in the future, if I get anything more definite, I will also ask that it be inserted in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very glad to have had you with us this morning, Mr. Beedy. It is another illustration, as I said in referring to Representative Garrett of Tennessee, of the interest taken by individual Members of Congress in the whole problem affecting ex-service men.

Mr. BEEDY. I am very glad to have had the opportunity to come here in their behalf.

The CHAIRMAN. Members of the committee, we have with us this morning Representative William A. Ayres, of Kansas.

Representative Ayres, we are very glad to have you with us and will listen with interest to anything you have to say.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM A. AYRES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

Mr. AYRES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the proposition that I was going to submit to the committee I understand is being met by a provision that will be inserted in the bill which is being prepared at this time by Mr. Browning. I had a case before the Veterans' Bureau which I thought was covered in the present law. The clerk of your committee here thought that it was so covered-at least, some one connected with the committee— but I suppose that is the Browning amendment or provision.

This particular case I have in mind is where a party lost a leg while in the service. Afterwards he was engaged in business-of course, long since the losing of this leg-and he was unfortunate in having a fire which destroyed his business, and by reason of his crippled condition he was unable to escape and was killed, burned so that he died from the effects of it. For that matter, his four children were burned, but the wife escaped.

I could very easily show by her testimony that if he had not been in this crippled condition he could have gotten out and in all probability saved his children, but because of this condition he was unable to escape or to render any assistance to the family.

Now, his wife is destitute, and I feel that by reason of this condition and because of that service there ought to be a provision whereby, if that can be done, she could receive compensation. My understanding now is that there is no provision of that kind in the law, but, as I have already said, my understanding is also that a provision is being prepared by Mr. Browning, and also in this bill, which will cover this situation.

If I am wrong in my understanding I would like to argue it out with the committee the necessity of such a provision.

Mr. BROWNING. Mr. Ayres, that question has been discused here in the committee, and the amendment has already been prepared covering it, and my idea is the same as yours, though I know that the bureau has gone as far as it can in construing the present law. There are many cases such as yours which appeal to me as being a condition under which the Government has taken advantage of the man because there was no possible chance for him ever to improve his condition, of ever having his leg again, and had he not died from some other cause his family would have been clearly entitled to compensation as long as they lived.

Mr. AYRES. Of course, I appreciate the fact that it is a question of fact, and that there ought to be some provision enacted whereby, if necessary, a committee or the present bureau be empowered to pass upon the facts as set forth. As I understand the law as at present enacted, the bureau can not do that.

Here is the closing paragraph of the letter that I received from Director Hines on that particular case. This is the reasoning that is given for the rejection. [Reading:]

It is accordingly held that in this case, while the ex-service man's loss of one leg may have in some degree been responsible for his death, nevertheless it is clear that his death did not result from the loss of his leg but from the explosion of the kerosene can and the consequent fire, and therefore his

death can not be attributed to any service-connected disease or injury and the claim for compensation must be denied.

These conclusions have received the director's approval, and the disallowance of Mr. Gillette's claim is accordingly affirmed.

They say that while his death was not directly connected with the service, it was indirectly caused by that condition.

I appreciate the fact that it would be pretty hard to cover all of these cases and that if the general law provided or attempted to provide for all those cases there would be a good deal of imposition on the Government, but there ought to be a provision enacted so that these facts could be placed before the bureau or the committee. In that way the Government is protected, because if the facts can be presented to a committee the committee sees whether or not the facts tend to justify the claim and it can wherever such facts do not justify such action reject the claim.

The CHAIRMAN. May I suggest that Mr. Watson B. Miller, the representative of the American Legion, had a case practically in line with yours, of an epileptic who committed suicide, as I recall it.

Mr. MILLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that, under the facts stated by Mr. Ayres, which are so clearly developed, it can not be held under the present law that his amputation was responsible for his death as in the case I cited yesterday, where we agreed the name would not be inserted.

This man had a psychosis. He informed his wife that he was going to commit suicide. He walked down to Lake Michigan and put himself in the water of Lake Michigan and was drowned.

Here, again, his death was not actually attributable to this psychosis, but, like the explosion, was due to the fact that a man can drown in the waters of Lake Michigan. I should say that that case might be handled under existing law but the directorMr. AYRES (interposing). He says it can not.

If the facts were such that this man were in an insane condition, or by reason of his own acts he was burned, even though in that crippled condition, it might be a different proposition; but where it can be shown that nothing of that kind occurred, that the man did his very best to get out of the building after the explosion, and that his wife, who was in a condition where she could scarcely make an escape, got out all right and he was in far better position, according to her own testimony, to escape had he not been in this physical condition, than she, but he just could not make it, it looks to me like there ought to be a provision where at least that could be handled by a department or by a special committee somewhat like our pension committees.

The CHAIRMAN. Could you consult with Mr. Miller and Mr. Bettelheim, representing these organizations, and see if it can be represented?

Mr. MILLER. The amendment which Mr. Roberts is to prepare, following instructions by this committee, would not cover this kind of a case. My idea is that we were told to prepare an amendment that would provide for compensation for those who survived men who died of some disability other than that which had been connected with the service, but who in the meantime had become totally disabled. This man was not totally disabled under the statute, but was partially disabled only, and if it is the desire of this committee to

extend that suggested amendment for consideration, we will have to rewrite it.

Mr. AYRES. Here is a very meritorious case. It is no job being put up on the Government. Here is the wife to-day in a very desperate condition, absolutely penniless, from her own testimony and from other testimony I could produce. This man in all probability could have made his escape if it had not been for his crippled condition, because she did escape and she was not as favorably situated as he

was.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ayres, I am very glad to have had you present this case to the committee, and I think the discussion of it will be of benefit to all of us.

We have with us, members of the committee, Representative Walter F. Lineberger, of California, who saw a great deal of service in the First and Thirty-second Divisions in the late war, finally winding up as major of Engineers.

He has for this service received the distinguished-service cross and other decorations, and we are always glad to have him come before this committee, because his practical experience has been such as to make it possible for him thoroughly to diagnose the sort of legislation that this committee considers.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER F. LINEBERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. LINEBERGER. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Rogers, and gentlemen of the committee, I have no particular amendment to which I desire to direct the attention of the committee. In going through the bill I notice that many of the defects of the present laws have been corrected.

I simply want to appear here for the purpose, and I assure you that I shall try to speak quite briefly, of congratulating this committee and the country upon the constructive manner in which you have approached and attacked the problem of legislation affecting the veterans of the World War and the Veterans' Bureau.

Perhaps few of the citizens of this country realize that the Veterans' Bureau handles more money than the combined departments of War and Navy, and probably one or two others. I have not the exact figures.

The importance of this committee and the wisdom of its creation have certainly been demonstrated manyfold by the constructive achievements of the committee since it was authorized by the House of Representatives.

I know that gradually the committee is recognizing the principle of equality in the treatment of veterans of all wars. On page 26 of your bill I see that hospital facilities under the control and jurisdiction of the bureau have been made available to veterans of other wars.

For the information of the committee, if such information be needed-collectively, perhaps, you do not know it, while individually you may-for the first time in the history of the American Legion it went on record at its last national convention indorsing the principle of equal consideration for all veterans. Of course, that is a broad subject, and I am not going to inject it into the hearings on the pending bill. However, I have introduced a measure, H. R. 8124, upon