Mr. McGREGOR. I would suggest that we accept the offer of the general and allow him to submit to us his idea of what his administration or his department would O. K. on this policy.. Mr. BOYKIN. Yes. General, I understand we are going to recess about the 28th of March and get back here about the 16th of April, and by that time you might have those records. General HINES. I will be glad to work it out promptly for you end let you have it before you take the recess. I think it would be helpful if I can have a little more time to talk with the War Department about it. Mr. BOYKIN. I have a letter here I want to put into the record, a letter from General Shaw. (The letter referred to follows:) Hon. JOHN LESINSKI, WALTER REED HOSPITAL (WARD 25), Chairman, Committee on Invalid Pensions, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. LESINSKI: Letters just received from Capt. J. S. Wood tell me of hearings on H. R. 128 covering extension of the Phillippine Insurrection to December 31, 1913. I am very sorry to inform you that I am sick in the hospital and at present cannot tell when I will get out. I would suggest that my statement made last year on H. R. 4099 be considered by the committee. a few things I would like to add to my last year's statement. There are From May 1902 to June 15, 1903, Captain (later General) Pershing cleaned up the entire Lake Lanao country in Mindanao. Many Dattos and Sullans became friendly after long and patient conferences with Captain Pershing at his headquarters at Camp Vicars, and also at cottas (fort) of many of the Moros. Some Moros remained hostile and had to be wiped out and their forts, particularly Fort Bacolod and Calauhi in April 1903, and the forts of the Sullans of Taraca and Pitzcus on the Taraca River at the east end of Lake Lanao, P. I. So at the end of May 1903 the Moros of Lanao were friendly from choice or because they were scared of Pershing. They respected the strength of arms. So the Governor General (Taft) issued a proclamation declaring the insurrection at an end in the Moro country as of July 15, 1903. It might have worked out all right if Pershing, Bullard, General Sumner, and others had not been relieved from duty in the Moro country in June-July 1903 and commanding officers sent in who had never served in the Moro country. Those of us who had served there for a year passed on all information we had about the Moros and how we had handled the situation. But the new officials -informed us that the knew how to handle the Moros and didn't even thank us for information. In a short time outposts at Camp Vicars and at Marahui across the Agus River (outlet of Lake Lanao) were chopped to pieces by Moros who caught them in tents. Sergeant Keithley, superintendent, was killed with his entire outpost at Marahui. We built a post there afterward and named it Camp Keithley. Within a year, about 1904, we had another big fight at Taraca, in 1905 on the Rio Grande near Cottabato, in 1906 at Bud Dajo and Jolo, and every year up to 1913. There was always trouble when we changed commanding officers and the old Moros who fought us from 1902 to 1913 will tell us that today. I recently hads long talk with Mr. Kuder, a superintendent of schools among the Moros of Sulu and Lanao for many vears and who recently wrote five articles in the Saturday Evening Post entitled: "The Philippines Never Surrendered." He says that all the older Moros told him that if men like Pershing had remained in command that there would have been very little trouble. But constant changes confused the Moros. That has always been my opinion and I consider that the insurrection didn't end in Mindanao just because the Governor General of the Philippines issued a proclamation to that effect. The statement of General Hines that the fighting in the Philippines from 1902 to 1913 was like the service in Cuba in 1906-9 is funny. I was in Cuba. We went there to stop a c'vil war between Cubans. Not a shot was fired. I hope you can use this. I don't write very well in bed. Very truly, GEORGE C. SHAW, Brigadier General, United States Army, Retired. The CLERK. I have also a supplemental statement from Congressman Hagen, who has appeared on this matter. Mr. BOYKIN. Without objection, that will go into the record. (The statement from Congressman Hagen follows:) SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT BY HAROLD C. HAGEN, UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS TO THE INVALID PENSIONS COMMITTEE RELATIVE TO H. R. 128 The attached letter from the Adjutant General's Office relative to the date of the termination of the Philippine Insurrection will be of interest to the committee. It needs no further explanation: Hon. HAROLD C. HAGEN, House of Representatives. WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington 25, D. C., March 19, 1945. DEAR MR. HAGEN: This is in further reference to your letter of February 28, 1945, in which you inquire if the date of termination of the Philippine Insurrection in the Moro Province July 15, 1903, was by decision of the War Department or was ratified by the President and two-thirds of the Senate or ratified in any other way. The President, by proclamation dated April 7, 1900, appointed the Philippine Commission and instructed the Commission to undertake the establishment of civil government in the Philippine Islands. By the first section of the act of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat. 691), the Congress approved, ratified, and confirmed the mentioned action of the President and further provided that, until otherwise provided by law, the Philippine Islands should continue to be governed in accordance with the terms of the proclamation and the act of July 1, 1902. By Act No. 787 dated June 1, 1903, the Philippine Commission established, and created a civil government for, the Moro Province. Act No. 787, by its terms, became effective July 15, 1903, on which date the military government of the Moro Province was terminated. When Act No. 787 was, in accordance with section 86 of the act of July, 1, 1902, reported to the Congress (vol. 8, Annual Reports of the War Department for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1903, Acts of the Philippine Commission, p. 543), no action was taken by the Congress for the purpose of annulling Act No. 787. Although there does not appear to have been any formal declaration by the President or the Congress that the Moro insurrection terminated on July 15, 1903, the War Department, in view of the action taken by the Philippine Commission, has regarded the Moro insurrection as having terminated on the mentioned date. Sincerely yours, J. A. ULIO, Major General, The Adjutant General. Mr. BOYKIN. Gentlemen, are there any further questions of General Hines now? Mr. HEDRICK. I believe the general suggested that we wait until after the recess, so he can take it up with the War Department and get it all in shape. General HINES. I would rather have it that way. Mr. HEDRICK. There is one point I would like to ask a question about. I understood that one great objection to this bill is that it would cause handicaps and affect the records throughout the country by changing the date of July 4, 1902, which has been set as the time of the end of hostilities in the Philippines. General HINES. Yes; and July 15, 1903, in the Moro Province. The President of the United States issued a proclamation on the former date, and the civil government of the Moro Province took over, and all of the legal transactions since those dates have undoubtedly referred to this as the actual clcsing date of the war. The main objection of the War Department and the Government generally would be, after having once fixed the closing date of the war, to change it again. So in the draft that I propose there will be no change in the Philippine Insurrection date. Mr. HEDRICK. I imagine even the history books and everything else would be affected by changing the date when the war actually ended. General HINES. I don't know whether the War Department has testified here or not, but I think that quite probably, and properly, it would call the committee's attention to the fact that if Congress changed the date, the closing date of one war, it could go on changing others, and we would never know when we were at peace. Mr. BOYKIN. Well, the thing we want to do is to get some help for these poor devils who went over there and served in that war. Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, what is the prerogative of the committee members in getting access to the stenographic notes when they are transcribed? The CLERK. I will be glad to cooperate with you. The fact of the matter is, I send them around to the members to try to get them to correct them, and I sometimes have a hard time getting them back. Mr. DOYLE. I mean do we have them in our files? The CLERK. These stenographic notes will be edited by the mem bers of the committee, and then they will be printed, just like the previous hearings you have in front of you. Mr. BOYKIN. Now, gentlemen, are there any other suggestions by the committee? I am very glad that we have had this good attendance this morning, and I think we have made some progress. I think we have gotten just what we want. Thank you very much, General. The committee will now stand adjourned. (Whereupon, at 11:15 a. m., the committee adjourned without date.) PHILIPPINE UPRISINGS AND CAMPAIGNS AFTER JULY 4, 1902, AND PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1914 THURSDAY, MAY 17, 1945 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INVALID PENSIONS, Washington, D. C. EXECUTIVE SESSION The committee met in executive session at 10:30 a. m., the chairman, John Lesinski, presiding. The purpose of the executive session was to consider a draft of a bill submitted by the Veterans' Administration which removed the objections made to H. R. 4099 of the Seventy-eighth Congress and H. R. 128 which was under consideration by the committee on March 20, and 22, 1945. The committee had made a careful study of all of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearings on March 20 and 22, and after due deliberation the chairman was instructed to introduce the new bill presented by General Hines as a committee measure and as a substitute for H. R. 128. The bill was introduced and numbered H. R. 3251. It reads as follows: [H. R. 3251, 79th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To extend pension benefits under the laws reenacted by Public Law 269, Seventy-fourth Congress, August 13, 1935, as now or hereafter amended to certain persons who served with the United States mili tary or naval forces engaged in hostilities in the Moro Province, including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte, after July 4, 1902, and prior to January 1, 1914, and to their unremarried widows, child, or children Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person who served in any unit of the United States military or naval forces while such unit was engaged in hostilities in the Moro Province, including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte, after July 4, 1902, and prior to January 1, 1914, who was honorably discharged from the enlistment in which such service occurred, and the surviving unremarried widow, child, or children of such person shall be entitled to pension under the conditions, and at the rates prescribed by the laws reenacted by Public Law 269, Seventy-fourth Congress, August 13, 1935, as now or hereafter amended. SEC. 2. This Act shall be effective from date it is approved. The report of the committee to accompany H. R. 3251 is as follows: [H. Rept. No. 613, 79th Cong., 1st sess.] The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R 3251) to extend pension benefits under the laws reenacted by Public Law 269, Seventy-fourth Congress, August 13, 1935, as now or hereafter amended, to certain persons who served with the United States military or naval forces engaged in hostilities in the Moro Province, including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte, after July 4, 1902, and prior to January 1, 1914, and to their unremarried widows, child, or children, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass. PURPOSE OF THE BILL The bill pertains to persons who served in hostilities in the Moro Province, including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte, after July 4, 1902, and prior to January 1, 1914. It will provide pensions for such persons and their unremarried widows, child or children, under the conditions and at the rates prescribed by the laws reenacted by Public Law 269, Seventy-fourth Congress, August 13, 1935, as now or hereafter amended. Such laws are those granting pensions to veterans of the Spanish-American War, including the Boxer Rebellion and the Philippine Insurrection, their widows and dependents, and include the Spanish-American War service pension laws providing pensions on the basis of disability, age, or death (service connection not required) and the general pension laws providing pensions for service-connected disability or death. Service pension for disability or age will be payable at the following rates: Service 90 days or more or discharged (service-connected disability) NOTE. The $75 rate at age 65 years and the $100 rate for regular aid and attendance are now payable under existing law only to persons who served between Apr. 21, 1898, and July 4, 1902. In addition to other persons covered by the hill, those now on the rolls, at lower rates, whose only service was between July 5, 1902, and July 15, 1903, will be eligible for these rates if they meet the service requirements of the bill. Service 70 days or more but less than 90 days Per month June 2, 1930. Age 75. Pension for service-connected disability under the general pension law as reenacted by Public Law 269, Seventy-fourth Congress, August 13, 1935, at rates ranging from $6.90 to $129.50 per month would be payable to any person who served as described in the bill irrespective of length of service. By virtue of Public Law 359, Seventy-seventh Congress, December 19, 1941, any veteran otherwise entitled to pension under the general pension law would be eligible for pension at the rates provided in part I, Veterans Regulation No. 1 (a), as amended, ranging from $11.50 to $265 per month if the conditions of Public Law 359, Seventy-seventh Congress, December 19, 1941; are met. Under the Spanish-American War service-pension laws as reenacted, pension is payable to the widow, child, or children of a veteran of the Spanish-American War, including the Boxer Rebellion and Philippine Insurrection, who served between April 21, 1898, and July 4, 1902, inclusive, and to the former widow whose subsequent or successive marriage or marriages has or have been dissolved either by the death of the husband or husbands or by divorce on any ground except adultery on the part of the wife. Although service of veterans who served in the Moro Province between July 5, 1902, and July 15, 1903, is pensionable service under such laws, such service is not pensionable service as to their widows, former widows, child, or children under existing law. Under the bill, the unremarried widow of a veteran who rendered service as described in the bill would be entitled to service pension at the monthly rate of $30, increased to $40 at age 65, and at the |