Hon. LEE S. OVERMAN,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

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.)

COMMITTEE ON WORLD WAR VETERANS' LEGISLATION,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

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

I appreciate what the

Mr. NEWTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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

remains that nobody interested himself in a rating of that kind until it came to the question of reinstatement of insurance.

It seems to me that something of this kind, to avoid that, ought to be worked out with the Veterans' Bureau. I have had it up with the director, but for some reason or other, as an administrative proposition, at the present time they do not seem to be able to do anything about it.

The CHAIRMAN. A slight amendment to be made in the law that any person temporarily and totally disabled may reinstate their insurance would cover that would it not?

Mr. NEWTON. While they are so rated?
The CHAIRMAN. While they are so rated.
Mr. NEWTON. I think that would do it.

Mr. BROWNING. I thought they could do that now, unless they made the permanent total rating retroactive.

Mr. MILLER. They can not reinstate any insurance now unless the insurance shall not have lapsed more than two years.

Mr. KIRBY. But the practice was to have a man apply who had had a temporary total disability for a long time and then date that change of rating a few days or a couple of weeks ahead as permanent and total, so that that man is not eligible for reinstatement of his insurance.

You spoke of isolated cases. We have had broad experience. I mean by that that there is a substantial number of them.

Mr. NEWTON. I know I have had probably 12 or 15 that I can recall. I do not know the names of all of them, but there have been that many instances that I have had up, and it seems to me that something ought to be done about it.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller, are you making notes for Mr. Roberts to-day?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; I am trying to pinch-hit for him again. Mr. KIRBY. I think the chairman's suggestion would cover that. The CHAIRMAN. Would you be good enough to ask Mr. Roberts to have prepared by the bureau for the subcommittee such an amend-' ment, so it may be considered?

Mrs. NORTON. I have had two such cases, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. NEWTON. A bad feature is that everybody who is familiar with the facts pertaining to a particular case feels that a downright injustice has been done, and you can not blame them for feeling that way.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Newton has stated it very clearly. We have had a great number of cases where men have been carried along on a rating of temporary total or less than temporary total for a long, long time. They attempt to reinstate their insurance and produce the back premiums, and on further examination, through urinalysis or blood tests, the men are found to have become permanently and totally disabled.

It is particularly distressing because the figures show-and this is rather from the standpoint of the administration of the bureauthat during the first year of the operation of this section that permitted men who were disabled to reinstate provided that they were not totally and permanently disabled at the time, only about 10 per cent were turned down on the proposition that they had since been

permanently and totally disabled. The succeeding year it ran up to 25 per cent and the third ear 40 per cent, which in general indicates that these boys are waiting longer and longer before attempting to reinstate. Now, then, you clearly said in the law that if a man was as a matter of fact permanently and totally disabled, he could not then reinstate. The error lay in the proposition that many of the cases were not properly rated when these men were carried as less than permanent and total.

Mr. BROWNING. But the bureau would be bound by their rating? Mr. MILLER. You have given the bureau the right of its own motion at any time to review and to increase or decrease ratings or, if compensation has been denied, to grant compensation, and, of course, it has been very hard to keep current track in every case of the man's physical condition.

What seems the worst thing for these fellows when they make this effort to reinstate is that the bureau's procedure, both mechanical in the office and in the matter of getting these men freshly reexamined, takes so long many times and the tendered premiums are held up and it is not for months after they made their application that they finally receive the declination only to find that they have a permanent and total rating which, it sometimes seems, with ingenuity has been placed a few days prior to the time when they made their application for reinstatement.

Mr. NEWTON. I know that is the way it seemed to me, and nobody has ever been able to convince me down there that that is not so. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, Mr. Newton, you do not think this has been entirely accidental?

Mr. NEWTON. No. Accidents happen now and then, but not regularly.

Mr. KIRBY. Do you not think that the law could be written so that when a man applies for reinstatement his eligibility, so far as physical qualification is concerned, shall be considered as of the day, according to the bureau ratings, that he applied?

Mr. NEWTON. That was my understanding of the suggestion of the chairman.

Mr. MILLER. There has been injustice done to these men, and I am not prepared to say it is accidental or otherwise, but it happens with great regularity.

The CHAIRMAN. Whatever might be the cause, I think that might remedy it.

Mr. MILLER. The trouble is that the law says that the applicant shall submit proof satisfactory to the director showing that he is not permanently disabled. The present law puts the burden on the applicant and not on the director.

Mr. NEWTON. I have had some little argument from time to time with the Comptroller General in reference to this question of a conclusive presumption of soundness. As the chairman knows, I have never been one of those sympathetic to the proposition of these misconduct cases, but I do think that when Congress has written into the law certain provisions it is the business of the administrative officers and the business of the Comptroller General to carry out the wishes of Congress.

Now, I submitted a brief to the Comptroller General some time last spring in reference to a particular case in Minneapolis wherein he was just as wrong on a point of law as anybody could be, but without effect. In brief, this is what he does:

He takes this conclusive presumption of soundness and holds that that is conclusive when it benefits the Government, but if it does not benefit the Government to presume that a man is conclusively sound, why, then, he holds the other way on it. This is just as inconsistent as it can be, and it seems to me that that provision was put in there not for the benefit of the Government but it was put in there to preclude the Government, when a man put in a claim, from showing that his condition prior to his entry into the service was such that he had this trouble prior to his entry into the service. The Government examined the man and, therefore, if they accepted him he was conclusively presumed to be sound. That is what the law says. Now they come along and say that some fellow, for several years before he entered the service, had a misconduct disease. The Government takes him; they know nothing about it, and he goes into the service and serves overseas, and he comes back and he has a disability. It is an aggravation of the preexisting condition.

Now, I always thought that if Congress meant anything they meant that that man should be cared for; but according to the ruling of the Comptroller General that is not so. This man is conclusively presumed to be sound. The evidences of his misconduct must have occurred while he was in the service. It could not be otherwise, because of the presumption of soundness.

Mr. MILLER. May I discuss that? You yourself were a member of that committee when the word "conclusively" was written before the word "presumed." What did that mean? That meant that Congress intended that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the man was to be accepted as being sound.

Now, as a matter of fact, in that opinion of September 29, 1923, did not the Comptroller General say that the presumption of soundness was equally binding upon the man and upon the Government? I think that his decisions are sometimes very grotesque, but this is a tough problem.

But don't think that he has leaned in the direction of the Government any more than in the direction of the men, since he has particularly told us that wherever there was a noted disability we could pay for the aggravation, which, of course, is a medical question.

I am not trying to antagonize you, sir, but I thought I would like to bring out what you gentlemen had in mind when you wrote this language.

Mr. NEWTON. I am sorry I have been so busy that I have not had a chance to look over the brief I prepared for the comptroller, but my idea was, after I read his decisions over, that he was simply arguing around in a circle. This is not an uncommon thing for that office to do, according to my experience.

I would be glad to file that brief.

Now, I must hurry.

Mr. BROWNING. Would you permit a question there?
Mr. NEWTON. Yes.