The American who wishes to keep his health in the Philippines will protect his head from the midday sun by a helmet, or an umbrella, or both; will insist on having his drinking water boiled at all times; will avoid all unripe or overripe fruit; will see that vegetables uncooked are thoroughly washed in boiled water; and will be very cautious about eating raw shell fish and cold meats which have been standing in exposed places. A temperate diet of freshly cooked food with comparatively little meat is the one most conducive to health in a tropical climate of which these regulars had a very hard time for the cooks were always busy watching out for the insurrectos. In general, persons with organic weaknesses could not go to the Philippines, for the climatic conditions will soon develop their weak spots.

Of course, the President did proclaim July 4, 1902, as the peace date on which the Philippine insurrection was supposed to have been over, however, neither the soldiers operating far back in the jungles against insurrectos, the insurrectos themselves, nor the Moros knew anything about the synthetic peace or, in fact, noted any marked change in conditions at 12 noon on July 4, 1902. This being the case, why not place the peace date, if we just must have one, where it honestly belongs, December 31, 1913, insofar as Samar, Leyte, and Mindanao, including the entire Moro Province are concerned.

March 6, 1906: Battle of Bud Dajo. Assault units composed of 272 Regulars of the Sixth United States Infantry, 211 Regulars of the Fourth United States Cavalry, 110 Regulars of the Nineteenth United States Infantry, 68 Regulars of the Twenty-eighth Battery of Artillery, 6 sailors from United States Gunboat Pampango, and 57 constabulary.

Total, 790 members of the armed forces were in this engagement. Our casualties were 23 killed and 73 wounded, a total of 96 volunteers, including Vocar's trail. Therefore, gentlemen, this proves to you that the Moros did not have such a thing as a peace treaty, even on Vocar's trail. General Bliss and his staff were attacked and two Regulars seriously wounded with bolos.

I refer to the facts that according to the records of civil government, an epidemic of bubonic plague in 1903, alone caused the death of 147. In the year of 1905 there wes en epidemic which lasted until February 1906. Out of 283 cases there were 243 deaths. This was in the region of Manila. You can see that these Regulars did not have the proper hospital care or medicines.

The expedition in April 1903 on the north shore of Lake Lanas, Lt. George C. Shaw, now a retired general living in Washington, D. C., led his company in this attack and captured two forts in a 3-day fight; had some wounded and was in the hospital at Camp Vicars. This company had nine Regulars with arms off, chopped off by the Moros. Although, these forgotten men did receive a peacetime pension and a medal, this was not declared war service.

On July 10, 1904, they attacked a village called Tavin in north Samar. Over 30 people were killed and over 100 homes burned. The next day, July 11, 1904, they attacked a northern village called Cantaguie in the river valley north of central Samar. These Moros killed a lieutenant of police and captured Mayor Teniente, who was the appointee of the United States Government. The Moros later killled him and poured oil over him and set fire to his body.

We lost 21 Regulars killed in action at the Battle of Bud Dajo, Jolo, March 1906 (whereas only 15 soldiers were killed in the storming and capture of Manila from Spain on August 13, 1898). There has never been any question raised against the fact that we were engaged in a war when the 15 members of the armed forces were killed at the Battle of Manila, however, technically, the Spanish-American War was over before the capture of Manila took place, gentlemen. Some might say this will place these battles (which was not ended until 1913) in the same class with other peacetime expeditions, landings, and operations. The covering preliminary peace terms between the United States and Spain, were signed at 4 o'clock on Friday afternoon, August 12, 1898. On Saturday, August 13, 1898, the Navy and Army made a combined attack upon the city of Manila and captured it. News of the preliminary peace treaty did not reach Admiral Dewey and General Merritt until around noon on Monday, August 15, 1898. Certainly it would be ridiculous to state that the veterans who took part in the Battle of Manila, are not Spanish-American War veterans and entitled to a wartime service pension incident to such service, but likewise are the veterans who fought the Filipinos and Moros after July 4, 1902, entitled to a wartime service pension for both incidents, even if taking place after the peace date, cover actual war service.

REPORT OF THE PHILIPPINE COMMISSION ON NUMBER OF AMERICANS KILLED IN ACTION

(However, this report is not complete-no casualties or sick from diseases contracted while serving their country in the Philippine insurrection.)

Month of August 1898, War with Spain__

1899 to 1902.

July 5, 1902, to Dec. 31, 1906..

Killed

27

732

239

I might say here that the entire story of this intrepid little army will never be fully told, and we think it very unfair that a member of the armed forces who served in those islands for 2 years, and in some instances longer, cannot receive a thin dime in pension (but he has received the same medal), while a member of the armed forces who went to one of the several camps in the United States for a few weeks can draw a pension from our Government of $60 a month. I might also call your attention to the fact that the Philippine Insurrection was the only profitable war ever indulged in by our Nation.

It must be borne in mind that many veterans today receive Spanish War pensions even though they did not see actual war service, but we feel they deserve it, and at the same time there are hundreds of men who served in the zones of uprising against the established constituted authority of the United States in the Philippine Archipelago. who were wounded or killed and yet they, or their dependents, have not been properly recognized.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, veterans of the Regular Establishment voluntarily chose the military life as their profession the same as you gentlemen who voluntarily quit your profession to be a slave for your Government, and the Regular enlisted men are the only ones in the United States who receive no provision for social

security. If they do not have the 30 years in service to retire on, they are out of luck. These men train our vast army in time of war, and in time of peace they are always trying out new mechanism of war to be prepared. The existing laws are not sufficient for your defenders in time of peace. This is the only country in the history of this great Republic that does not take care of the volunteer enlisted members of the armed forces.

I would like to call your attention to the members of the Armed Forces who were on the islands from 1903 to 1907. There was an average of 76,544. This is around the number of police you have in New York. If any of these policemen become disabled they would receive benefits, wouldn't they? From 1908 to 1913, you had 61,420 members of the Regular Establishment still over-what for?

As late as February 28, 1913, now General, John J. Pershing advised the Governor General the Moros would not yield to disarmament without a fight. Then, later the Moro Province was dissolved by act and Frank W. Carpenter relieved General Pershing December 16, 1913.

You can see by this act that the war lasted through all these years 1902 to include 1913, history proves this, also, your casualty list.

Mr. Chairman, I want the committee to know that the Regular Veterans Association deeply appreciates your good judgment in this bill, H. R. 128, and asks you to speed this up before all of these worthy members of the Armed Forces pass on. I might also add here, that I was in six engagements in World War I-and I believe that these members of the Philippine Insurrection had more hardships than I did.

I thank you.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the next witness is Congressman Hagen of the Ninth Congressional District of Minnesota.

Mr. BOYKIN. We are very glad to have you with us this morning, Congressman, and shall be pleased to receive your statement at this time.

STATEMENT TO INVALID PENSIONS COMMITTEE RELATIVE TO H. R. 128 BY HON. HAROLD C. HAGEN, UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS, NINTH DISTRICT, MINNESOTA Mr. HAGEN. Gentlemen, during the last session of Congress many of us worked hard in an effort to secure the passage of H. R. 4099. This bill was passed by Congress and sent to the President for his signature. On December 8, 1944, President Roosevelt returned the bill to Congress without his approval. There are many of us who feel that the President was not fully informed as to the merits of this legislation and for that reason the chairman of your committee, Congressman John Lesinski, of Michigan, reintroduced the legislation under the title of H. R. 128.

I have received a great deal of information from veterans who fought through the insurrection in the Philippines. A large part of this information is being incorporated in this statement to the committee.

77077-45

Mr. Howard G. Austin, of the United States Soldiers' Home, Washington 13, D. C., has taken the President's message paragraph by paragraph and has set forth his refutations.

The President stated:

Pensions at wartime rates are now provided for veterans and the dependents of veterans who suffered disability or death as a direct result of armed conflict or under extrahazardous conditions in the areas described in the bill during the period July 16, 1903, to December 31, 1913, and medical treatment and hospital or domiciliary care is also provided for veterans who so served, discharged for disability incurred in line of duty, or who are in receipt of pension for serviceconnected disability.

Mr. Austin contends that this statement is a manifest admission that there was a war going on in certain parts of the Philippines up to and including December 31, 1913.

The President further stated:

Service pensions would be the principal monetary benefits afforded by the bill and such benefits, consistently, have been confined to war service.

Civilian workers are granted service pensions for noncombat peacetime labor between 1904 and 1914 on the Panama Canal, Mr. Austin points out.

In concluding his statement the President says:

The bill would extend the Philippine Insurrection closing date about 101⁄2 years, from July 5, 1902, to December 31, 1913, thus according recognition to service performed throughout this period as wartime service upon the basis of intermittent military operations or campaigns in the Moro Province and other parts of the Philippine Archipelago against forces hostile to the organized government, which engagements are comparable to other campaigns or expeditions in which the military or naval forces have participated in times of peace.

This measure would grant special benefits to a particular group and exclude other members of the Regular Military and Naval Establishments who similarly have been called upon, on numerous occasions, to engage in similar military operations in times of peace. I believe that it is sound in principle to abide by the official beginning and ending dates of wars in providing benefits, heretofore described, and feel that extension of the period of the Philippine Insurrection, beyond that established in conformity with recognized legal precedents, would constitute sufficient deviation from that principle to invite further exceptions for additional groups with service in military occupations, expeditions, or campaigns other than during a period of war.

Mr. Austin's rebuttal follows:

History accurately records the fact that the "Battle of New Orleans" January 8, 1815, was fought after the United States and England had signed a regular peace treaty at Ghent. This battle cost the lives of but eight Americans and a few hundred British soldiers, and even though the official peace date preceded the battle, that did not bar the veterans who fought in this battle from obtaining the same pension and bounty allowances as other veterans of the War of 1812, who served previous to the official peace treaty date. Why should not those men who fought in the "Battle of Bud Dajo Jolo," Philippines, March 5, 6, and 7, 1906, in which 21 Americans and over 600 Moros were killed and numerous engagements, in which the American forces suffered casualties, between 1902 and 1913, be entitled to classification as veterans of the Philippine Insurrection and eligible for the same pension benefits as those veterans who served previous to 1902, when no peace papers, of any nature, were signed by either party?

I personally approve of all the benefits that have been paid to soldiers who have seen service whether in peacetime or in time of war. My chief objection to the veto of H. R. 4099 was that to me it was a very apparent discrimination against men who saw service in the Philippines which was beyond that ordinarily experienced by members of the Regular Army during peacetime.

Following is a brief description of some of the service seen by those gallant men who served in the United States Army in 1905 under the command of Gen. Leonard B. Wood and Gen. Hugh L. Scott, as related by Mr. Austin.

In one of the numerous operations, in order to reach the objective, we had to plod through a dense jungle, at night, by way of a trail so narrow that it was necessary to go single file, hand in hand. Only our guide knew the way. next day we were shy of water. to do so pronto. Then the assault on Peruke Utrig's Cotta (miniature fort) Our guide was ordered to lead us to water and The hidden in the dense jungle. jungle we waited for contact before operations. After the storming of the cotta As the Artillery and Cavalry units had to circle the five of my buddies were casualties, one killed and four wounded in action. Sergeant Bryan of my detachment (Infantry) saved Lieutenant Harris from injury in action, and later, was awarded a certificate of merit and Lieutenant McKinley of the Cavalry was commended for extraordinary service in action. Lieutenant McKinley was Acting Adjutant General about 1935 and surely he could attest that actual combat in which 300 or more hostile Moros were killed and the American forces participating therein, suffered numerous casualties, is far from the so-called peacetime service and, in the sense of justice, above-cited service warrants recognition on parity with service performed by civilian workers on the Panama Canal (between 1904 and 1914) peacetime and no combat service, whatever, but they are granted service pensions, also their widows are eligible for benefits.

In a letter addressed to me dated December 11, 1944, Mr. Austin says as follows:

As our President has stated that he did not believe in discrimination and the Veterans' Administration stressed the fact at hearings on H. R. 4099, that the policy of the Administration is to correct inequalities. was made that "service pensions have, consistently been confined to war * * * The statement service"-Spanish-American War veterans are eligible to service pensions even though such veterans never left the safe and secure shores of the United States of America. Indian war veterans are eligible to service pensions for service in any active Indian hostilities, or in the zone of any active Indian hostilities, and civilian workers on the Panama Canal between 1904 and 1914 are eligible to service pensions. To be eligible for service pensions under provisions of H. R. 4099, a veteran must have been in actual combat. H. R. 4099 had little or no opposition in the House or Senate.

In a letter printed in the National Tribune January 4, 1945, Maj. Elmer Kemp, United States Army, retired, had the following to say about H. R. 4099.

[From the National Tribune, January 4, 1945]

VETO OF H. R. 4099 DEBATED BY RETIRED OFFICER OF ARMY

EDITOR, NATIONAL TRIBUNE:

It appears we have advanced a long way toward the rear in our treatment of minority groups of combat veterans since the days when our Government followed the teachings of Honest Abe in its "Care for him who has borne the battle and for his widow and orphans."

The veto of H. R. 4099 is a demonstration of this present about-face attitude, for to deny a few crumbs of justice to a small number of old and infirm combat veterans and their widows, and thereby condemn them to a continuing state of want and poverty, is certainly contrary to our old and well-established treatment of former veterans of any war.

The bill in question, H. R. 4099, vetoed by the President on December 8, 1944, after having passed both House and Senate without one dissenting vote, reads as follows:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That for the purpose of Public Law Numbered 2, Seventy-third Congress, March 20, 1933, and Veterans Regulations, as amended, or laws reenacted by Public Law Numbered 269, Seventy-fourth Congress, August 13, 1935, as amended, the Philippine Insurrection shall be deemed to have