date. That would mean that any man serving in hostilities over there would be in the insurrection service and wartime service.

Mr. McGREGOR. Hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that the title of a bill is not part of the law? I am not sure about that.

Mr. KETCHUM. I don't think the title determines. It is the text of the bill after the enacting clause that determines.

Mr. HALE. Let me ask you, General, this Public Law 359 provides that subparagraph so and so of the Veterans Regulations is amended to read as follows:

Any veteran otherwise entitled to a pension under the provisions of part II of this legislation, or the general pension law, shall be entitled to receive a rate of pension provided in part I of this regulation (1) if the disability resulted from injury or disease received in line of duty; (2) while engaged in extra hazardous service, including such service under conditions simulating war.

Now, it is agreed by everybody that the people who were actually in these campaigns fighting Moros were engaged in an extra hazardous business. It was not only simulated war, but it actually was war. Why do you need any legislation at all?

General HINES. Well, what they want is not only the pension for an injury received in line of duty as now provided, but they want a straight service pension. I would have no difficulty administratively if they had any service-connected injuries, if they had produced evidence of that, but what they want is a straight service pension.

Mr. HALE. But before we get to that point they are at the present time receiving the same rate of pension for disability or disease incurred in line of duty as men who were serving in time of actual war, are they not?

General HINES. No, not all of them. Those are, who have disabilities meeting the requirements of Public Law 359. They would receive that under the legislation covering the peacetime force if they were injured in line of duty under the conditions specified. Otherwise, peacetime service-connected disabilities are pensioned at peacetime rates, at approximately 75 percent of wartime rates. What they are contending for is straight service pension.

Mr. HALE. Before we get to that, it seems to me and I speak very modestly, because I don't know very much about pension legislationthat under this language you could step up the rate of pension to the men actually disabled or diseased in line of duty, without the passage of any new legislation.

General HINES. That is correct.

Mr. HALE. If you do that, you have gone quite a way. You have not gone as far as these gentlemen want you to go, but you have gone quite a little way.

General HINES. I can do it and it probably has been done in those cases, because they were service-connected cases in line of duty, but I understand the larger group here is contending for the straight service pension.

Mr. HALE. I must say that in the case of a Regular Army soldier who served through that campaign, disagreeable and dangerous as it undoubtedly was, if he actually did not get hurt in any way, I don't see why he is particularly the object of our compassion.

General HINES. But it is the contention that the other men, the Spanish-American War and Philippine Insurrection men, are now

entitled to an age pension, at 65 they are entitled to $75 whether they had any disabilities in service or not, and that is the pension that these men are contending for.

Mr. BOYKIN. These men here?

General HINES. Yes, covered by this bill.

Mr. BOYKIN. If they served like our boys are doing now, I think they deserve it. If they are that old, somebody has got to look out for them, any how.

Mr. BONNER. And they didn't have to leave the country?

Mr. BOYKIN. I am talking about if he was over there in that terrible country, had to leave his business and family and all that sort of thing.

General HINES. I think the clear-cut way of doing it would be to just indicate that the service pension paid to Spanish-American War veterans and Philippine Insurrection veterans or any man who can prove that he served in these campaigns, he would be entitled to the same pension.

Mr. BOYKIN. That sounds all right to me.

Mr. HALE. The further argument is that you would not run into any political difficulties or possible veto, because if we pass substantially this same bill over again it is going to be vetoed over again.

General HINES. I am sure we cannot make a different report on that, because that is the combined judgment of the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. HALE. Furthermore, it seems, as I have indicated, rather objectionable to me to pass special legislation applicable to special campaigns, if you can establish a principle.

General HINES. Well, I am willing to try it.

Mr. HEDRICK. I believe there were some men in the Philippines that were not engaged in actual service. Why should they come under that?

General HINES. They would not. The bill limits it to those having been in hostilities. The stand taken by the War Department is that unless they are designated as campaigns and within the limits of the war period, they are not entitled to anything except what other men serving in time of peace are entitled to.

Mr. BONNER. Wouldn't you have to go further, General, than insurrections and rebellions that our troops engaged in, and bring every man that was in that insurrection and rebellion in under the general law and grant him larger compensation?

General HINES. Yes, sir; that is, you have the question of other groups possibly proving as good a case.

Mr. BONNER. Not only this, but in other engagements?

General HINES. That is right. Most of the campaigns are pretty well covered, though.

Mr. BONNER. They are not covered generally. They are only covered respecting combat injury.

General HINES. That is right.

Mr. BONNER. This would bring them in generally under the entire Spanish-American Act, disregarding service-connected disability? General HINES. Yes, sir; for the particular service covered by the bill.

Mr. BONNER. As the law stands today, providing increased compensation for men that engaged in insurrection or rebellion, it is only for those who have a service-connected disability, not for general

groups. So if you did do this, you are going to have to go to every other engagement we ever had, and bring them all in under some general law.

Mr. McGREGOR. Only where they have been in actual hostilities? General HINES. Yes; but in order to be uniform you would have to do that for groups who may establish similar service.

Mr. BONNER. How about the World War veterans, the man that went to the front and didn't have any service-connected disability at all? When he becomes permanently and totally disabled he is entitled to $50 a month. He does not draw the benefits that the Spanish-American War veteran draws just because he was in service. Now, you know and I know, and anyone else who has ever looked into it knows, that there are men in the Spanish-American War drawing these benefits that never got out of Charleston, S. C. I want to be fair and frank about it, but if you are going to do this you are going to have to take in everybody.

General HINES. There is no question about requests for other groups. It is only a matter of time.

Mr. BONNER. I want to be as charitable as anybody in the world, but there is no use to pick out one class and say, "We will give you this," and not take in everybody else. I know some fellows who were in the World War and who have never been able to prove serviceconnected disability, but they have got a disability. Some think it was incurred during the World War but they can't prove it.

General HINES. In due time, of course, you will probably have a general service pension bill for World War I veterans and then followed by World War II. The dependents, as a matter of fact, of World War I are already pensioned.

Mr. KETCHUM. I am reluctant to intercede here, but I do believe, Mr. Bonner, there is an answer to your observation; that is, if we do this for these men it will open up the field to service pensions for World War I and other wars and expeditions where there is no service connection. I think perhaps the answer to that is that one of the basic disputes in this matter involves the arbitrary date which was established for the close of the Philippine Insurrection. That is the point, in my opinion, around which much of this discussion hinges. I think it is generally agreed that the date which was arbitrarily established as the close of the Philippine Insurrection was not necessarily the end of the insurrection. It was done because of the desire of the authorities to try and get some sort of civil government established; yet the war, the insurrection, actually continued on in some spots, and these men that we are now discussing were just as much in the Philippine Insurrection as were those who came under the arbitrary date which was established. I think that is the basis of the whole contention here, that although an arbitrary date was established, the insurrection actually continued on in certain parts of the provinces. As one of the witnesses previously said here before the committee, unfortunately the Moros could not understand English, and they did not recognize this arbitrary date of the termination of the insurrection, and they continued to fight.

I agree with you, however, that if there is any justification for paying a service pension to Spanish-American War veterans, certainly there is justification for paying a service pension to World War I veterans. So far as our organization is concerned, we are on record for that. We think it has merit and justice.

Now, I agree with the general that if this can be done by bringing this group under the provisions of Public, 359, certainly there would be no objection to it, but I do want to warn the committee on one point. I want to use a good example. In the Seventy-seventh Congress there was enacted a law identified as Public 361, and it was very close to the hearts of all the veteran organizations. It was an effort on the part of the veteran organizations to do something definitely for the World War I veteran who served in zones of combat and who later came up with a disability which he was unable to prove as service-connected, because of the absence of medical records. Now, what we were trying to do in Public Law 361 was to place the burden of proof on the Government, rather than to force the veteran after 20 years to come up with evidence which was no in existence in the medical records. Yet after Public 361 was on the statute books and we believed that the full intention of the World War Veterans' Committee and of Congress was that it should work that way, it did not work that way and it did not result in any great advantage to said veterans. I don't want that to happen in this case.

General HINES. Many cases went on the roll, however.

Mr. McGREGOR. But I find many cases in my file where we are putting the burden of proof on the veteran himself, whereas, in my opinion, it should go to the Veterans' Administration to prove that his disability was not service-connected.

Mr. KETCHUM. That was the intent of Public, 361, but in actual application and practice that is not the way it is administered. I say this without intending criticism of the Veterans' Administration. I think it is difficult, on account of the ambiguous language in the law, to administer it. I do want you to be careful, if you agree to compromise, and put these men under Public, 359, that your intention is not worded in such a way that they will not receive the benefit.

Mr. McGREGOR. Might I say that I have in my office now a draft which I intend, but have not submitted, to the general yet, further clarifying our intent that the burden of proof is to fall upon the Veterans' Administration instead of on the soldier. That is drafted, and I have a copy of it which I will submit to the general this week.

General HINES. I am perfectly willing to have the bill written that way. As a matter of fact, gentlemen, I would like to see the case that has been on my desk where we have put the burden on the veteran since Public Law 361 was passed. Where you have many individuals involved you have differences of opinion relative to facts. You cannot correct that. That is just the human attitude that is in anybody that handles the claim. One man will look at it one way and another man another way. I have given the benefit of the doubt in I don't know how many cases, but a large number of them, when they have reached my desk. They cannot all reach there unless the veteran appeals them and bring them there. It has been suggested to me that I should never consider an individual case. think that would be unsafe, for the Administrator would be so far away from what was going on that he would not know what was going on. All I want is to know what the committee would like to do. If they want these men taken care of, I will draft legislation that will do it, and when I do that, so far as I am concerned, I am willing to say that those men, if we can bring them in without changing what is established legal policy, not changing the dates of

I

the war after we have fixed them, because many things hinge on. that. I want to try to carry out the intent of Congress.

Mr. BONNER. What is the status of these men now?
Mr. BOYKIN. They don't have any.

General HINES. Some of them may have something. Some of them may have been wounded. I don't know about that.

Mr. BONNER. Suppose we had some legislation that would set out these engagements and provide that men who participated in them would receive, if they are totally disabled, the same permanent total disability compensation as men now receive under the World War I Act? That would be a step in the right direction.

Mr. KETCHUM. That is right.

Mr. BONNER. I just don't believe that the Spanish-American War should be opened up on the chance of taking in a whole new group,. but these men are entitled to something, having participated in these: engagements. We could draw an act, and I think the House would pass it, to give them the same benefits under permanent and total disability as we have in World War I.

Mr. MCGREGOR. Incorporate the Philippine Insurrection?

Mr. BONNER. No; leave it out. Just cite these engagements, that. these men who participated in these engagements, whatever they are. General HINES. They are cited here, "the hostilities in the Moro Province, including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte. Mr. BONNER. They are entitled to pension for service-connected disability, according to the rates, permanent disability.

General HINES. They would be entitled to the monthly rate of $50, as. covered by the legislation, or $60 under certain conditions.

Mr. BONNER. We don't want to forget the dependents. How about the dependents in World War I? I just don't like to pass. class legislation. I want to take everybody in if I am going to do anything. I want to get everybody under the tent.

Mr. McGREGOR. That is the reason we are submitting this legis-. lation. This group can't come in under that.

Mr. BONNER. They have been neglected, and I want to get them in. Mr. KETCHUM. Under the non-service-connected total disability payments to World War I veterans, it is $50, except where a veteran. has been on the rolls for 10 consecutive years or reaches the age of 65, at which time it automatically increases to $60. I want to get that. point across to the general.

Mr. BONNER. They should all be given the same benefits.

Mr. KETCHUM. All of these men are over 65, so certainly they should get the maximum.

Mr. BONNER. Yes; whatever it is.

Mr. DOYLE. Didn't our evidence yesterday show that some of this. fighting by our boys was done after December 31, 1913? Isn't that true?

General HINES. They are not subdued now.

Mr. DOYLE. Then our intent is to limit the protection of these boys. only up to December 31, 1913? Is that correct?

Mr. BONNER. How many other classifications do we have of expe-ditionary forces?

General HINES. We have quite a number. They are covered on. service-connected disability, and they get wartime rates under the conditions I stated.