when we returned and were mustered out in November and the World War began in April the next year, immediately these two Connecticut regiments that had gone to the Mexican border were called into the service as one regiment. It took them both to make a regiment. Many had been disabled by service on the border. Some of the men were too old and some had dependents. These two Connecticut regiments made the One Hundred and Second Regiment that went overseas to form part of the Yankee Division. Incidentally it gave a fine account of itself and no doubt largely due to the strenuous border service.

I say that, so far as service rendered is concerned, having gone through both the Spanish-American War and this Mexican border operation, I would take the Spanish-American War service every time rather than endure what my outfit experienced on the border.

As has been indicated by a preceding witness, that was a preparation for World War I and it was certainly a hardening of those men who were there and otherwise qualified to go into World War I. The organizations that served on the border were really the nucleus of the World War I National Guard organizations.

Gentlemen of the committee, I will not take more of your very limited time, but I thought this brief account of actual experience from one who was there, went through it all, and who has since followed and lived with those men from that day to this, and who has observed the financial and physical effects of that service, might be interesting and helpful. Having in mind the adverse departmental report, which, it seems to me, does not meet the real issue at all, I see no good reason why this patent discrimination should be allowed to persist.

Not many men are involved. Only 150,000 National Guard men were called into service at that time. A number of those were SpanishAmerican War veterans, who therefore, are not affected by this proposal. A great many of those men, especially the younger ones, went into World War I, and therefore they are not affected by this proposal. But the men most affected by this proposal, the older men with disabilities and who, largely by reason of their border service or their age, could not go into World War I, have been denied any help. It is a discrimination that should not be permitted to continue. Their number is relatively small but their cause is just.

There are not many of these men, but justice demands that they be treated like others who, from the early days of our Government, after being called suddenly into wars in which our country has engaged, have been recognized for their sacrifice.

In closing I would call your attention to the official report of the Secretary of War, the Acting Secretary of the Navy, and General Hines, at page 7, where you will note that the official record gives the wars engaged in by the United States since 1897. They are the Spanish-American War, the Philippine Insurrection, the Boxer Rebellion, the Cuban pacification, the Vera Cruz expedition, the punitive expedition into Mexico, and World War I. World War II should be added, of course.

I see no good reason why Mr. Ludlow's bill should not be enacted as it is. The only difference between it and the Hendricks bill is in regard to the Regular Army. As I see it, and I think you will agree with me, the members of the Regular Army are in an entirely different category from the National Guard men.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much for your statement, Colonel Tilson.

STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN H. KEITER, COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL MEXICAN BORDER VETERANS' ASSOCIATION

Mr. LUDLOW. Gentlemen of the committee, I want to introduce a gentleman who is commander in chief of and revered by all members of the National Mexican Border Veterans' Association, Mr. Benjamin H. Keiter.

The CHAIRMAN. We shall be glad to hear the gentleman.

Mr. KEITER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to present for your careful consideration some pertinent facts regarding the Mexican border service of 1916 and 1917.

It would have been possible to fill this room with witnesses to testify in favor of H. R. 2073, but I believe it better to have only a few witnesses and thereby not take too much of your valuable time. We have prepared certain statements of fact which we will present as briefly as possible and at the same time try to place before you really essential information. A great deal of time would be required in research by the individual committeeman to acquire the facts we present in these brief discussions which we shall present.

Convinced that a manifest injustice has resulted to veterans who servied on the Mexican border, a movement has been inaugurated to correct this discrimination.

On June 19, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson called into Federal service a majority of the National Guard. You may remember the immediate mobilization, the sending of troops to the border, and the long months of training that followed.

There were no barracks, troops were poorly uniformed, camp sites inadequately drained, tentage was old, many troops slept without cots and in shelter tents. There were no kitchen facilities. Daily temperatures for a long time went above 100°. There were no facilities for recreation. Drinking water was taken from irrigation canals and carried through pipes laid on the ground surface. It is believed that few campaigns have ever been conducted under conditions that so challenged the spirits, courage, and patriotism of citizen soldiers. We are all proud of the results attained. Difficulties were surmounted by the understanding leadership and fellowship of the men who had volunteered for emergency service.

A very large percent of these men were later in service in World War I. Many of them suffered physical impairment and were unfitted for continued service. Others with family responsibilities. were not taken. No major effort has been made to secure for these men the protection, privileges, or benefits which have been provided in every other instance of Federal military service. The proposed legislation seeks to correct this neglect. Border veterans have been for years denied hospitalization, burial rights, or any other form of compensation. All these benefits are now being asked and your interests are so important that you are urged to give this movement your earnest support.

I should like to make part of the record resolutions adopted by our organization in a convention held at Hartford, Conn., June 3, 1945.

The CHAIRMAN. We shall be glad to have them.

Mr. KEITER. They read:

RESOLUTIONS OF NATIONAL MEXICAN BORDER VETERANS CONVENTION,
ASSEMBLED, HARTFORD, CONN., JUNE 3, 1945

Whereas 29 years have passed since the call of the President of the United States for troops to serve on the Mexican border in 1916, and that service has never been recognized by the United States Government by any compensating legislation; and

Whereas the service rendered by the federalized National Guard troops was entirely in the field with no prepared camps or cantonments, and the service required was most grueling and arduous; and

Whereas the troops so called and trained formed the nucleus around which an admirable fighting force was prepared for early action in World War I, but many of the Mexican border veterans were unfitted for World War I service because of physical disabilities incurred in Mexican border service; and

Whereas no provision was ever made for the Mexican border veteran in (1) war risk insurance; (2) bonus payments; (3) vocational training; (4) compensation for disabilities incurred, or for minor children or widows: Therefore be it

Resolved by the National Convention of Mexican Border Veterans, assembled in Hartford, Conn., June 3, 1945, that H. R. 2073, granting to Mexican border veterans benefits long delayed, shall now be enacted into law by the Congress of the United States. This just leiglsation is requested by the unanimous vote of the delegates assembled. Also, that a copy of these resolutions be mailed to Congressmen and to all members of the committee having H. R. 2073 under consideration.

Resolutions committee:

CHARLES F. BEURER, Chairman.

I have just received this interesting letter:

Sgt. BENJAMIN H. KEITER,

Indianapolis 3, Ind.

HAVANA, N. DAK., August 30, 1945.

DEAR SIR: As a veteran of Mexican border difficulties, I write to state my experience with the Government in the matter of appreciation of endeavors for the Government and its results.

I personally journeyed to Bismarck, N. Dak., and Fort Lincoln, N. Dak., where I enlisted and was assigned to headquarters company, First North Dakota Infantry, and served until we were transferred to Fort Snelling, Minn., for discharge. I hold an honorable discharge without hospital attention; however, I received some medical attention.

I received injuries to eye and ear and was treated on field by head of hospital corps. I refused to go to hospital and let the matter ride. Some 6 years after this I had an eye examination by the Government and was informed it was nothing more than eyeglasses could correct. A few months after this I applied to a veterans' hospital for examination and in time received the "joyful" news that the Mexican border veterans were not entitled to any consideration or favors from the United States Government.

When I returned home after the Mexican trouble I found my business (undertaking and embalming) shot, and a year after this I had to fold up due to eye and ear trouble. I found I was somewhat handicapped by physical condition and applied for assistance and received the usual notification that it was not available, and it was suggested that I apply to the State soldiers' home, which I did, and it had room for me and my wife; however, I refused to go, and for the past 10 years I have lived on charity. I am at present in my seventy-fourth year and find I cannot perform manual labor.

I have two children in service, Capt. Aletha L. Winn, for the last 2 years located in England, and Sgt. C. L. Winn, Jr., a victim of shrapnel and for the last 9 months hospitalized in various parts of Europe and the United States and at present in O'Reilly General Hospital, Springfield, Mo.

I feel I have done my duty as a citizen of the United States and am proud of it, and have oftentimes wondered if the Government appreciated these endeavors, however, its visible appreciation seems to be decidedly lacking.

Any benefits, to which I believe many of these veterans are entitled, if made known to the veteran interested, would be appreciated.

Respectfully,

C. L. WINN.

We think that, perhaps, there may be some amendments of H. R. 2037 offered, therefore we want to submit the following for your earnest consideration:

PROBABLE OBJECTIONS ON SUBSTITUTIONS ANSWERED

We believe that the principal objections to our bill or proposed substitution thereto will center around the following:

1. An effort to grant only the benefits that have previously been granted to veterans of World War I.

2. To pass a measure granting benefits similar to those granted to veterans of the Spanish-American War, but with a provision barring from participation those with other income of a certain amount.

3. To pass a measure granting hospitalization and other benefits granted to Spanish-American War veterans, except to limit pensions only to those who are permanently and totally disabled or who have reached a certain old age limit.

We wish to submit the following comments on the suggested changes: 1. While certain benefits such as war risk insurance, bonus payments, and vocational training are entirely out of reason of the 30 years' passage of time, we think the passage of time can also be considered as an effective bar to any attempt to liberalize along World War I lines, the laws granting service-connected compensation to Mexican border veterans. Many of the disabilities now being suffered by Mexican border veterans could have been service-connected at the time of inception, had World War I requirements been in effect. Now, of course, that would be too late and the benefits we now seek would correct that injustice and grant benefits at this late date, therefore at a reduced rate.

2. World War I laws pay benefits for service-connected disabilities without respect to the veteran's other income. However, World War I law does prohibit the payment of a non-service-connected pension for those totally disabled if the veteran's income is $1,000 or more per year, if single, and $2,500 if married. Payments to SpanishAmerican War veterans are not so barred.

3. We believe it would be unjust to place such a bar in the case of Mexican border veterans. In the first place, many of their disabilities would have been service-connected under World War I laws and not barred by any income. In the second place, Mexican border veterans have been without any legislation for 30 years. A pauper clause would increase the complexity of administration. A pauper clause is distasteful in the matter of service benefits. The veterans of the Mexican border service are getting old and the percentage of those with substantial income is dwindling rapidly, especially among those who are disabled. If not disabled, they are not entitled to pension, except in the matter of age.

4. The passage of any act to limit pensions to those only who are totally disabled or are in old age would in no way offer Mexican border vaterans legislation comparable with other veteran groups. It would not compensate those who may be partially disabled and who, had there been a liberal compensation act immediately after the service was rendered, would now be drawing compensation for such disabilities.

I have no desire to take any more of your time. Colonel Moudy, who will follow me, has many detailed statistics which he will offer.

As commander in chief of the National Mexican Border Veterans Association, I hope you will see fit to give this proposal favorable consideration after 30 years of neglecting this group of veterans.

We have a membership of about 5,000 throughout the country. There are members in 47 States and the District of Columbia. Nevada did not have any National Guard troops in the Mexican border campaign.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your statement, Mr. Keiter.

STATEMENT OF COL. ALFRED L. MOUDY, QUARTERMASTER GENERAL AND LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL MEXICAN BORDER VETERANS ASSOCIATION

Mr. LUDLOW. I should like to introduce Col. Alfred L. Moudy, quartermaster general and legislative representative, National Mexican Border Veterans Association, 703 Nelson Street, Indianapolis 8, Ind.

The CHAIRMAN. We shall be glad to hear the gentleman.

Colonel MOUDY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am glad to be here to present some of the facts as we have gleaned them from authentic records.

I would be pleased to go into details of the hardship we endured on the Mexican border service. We certainly had plenty of it, as Colonel Tilson has told you. We left the Mexican border in late December with the thermometer registered 100° and came to Fort Benjamin Harrison to find 10 inches of snow and no fire in the barracks. Anyway, I shall not repeat a recital of those hardships.

BASIC REASONS FOR SUCH LEGISLATION

This proposed legislation proposes to relieve those veterans who answered the calls of the President on May 9 and June 18, 1916, and those who enlisted in the organizations called, and who actively served 90 days or more between May 9, 1916, and April 6, 1917.

Veterans of the Mexican border service comprise the only group of citizen soldiers in this country not receiving special benefits commensurate with their services. This proposed bill seeks to correct the injustice of omitting the veterans of the Mexican border service. from beneficial legislation.

Troops of the National Guard called in 1916 were civilian troops with established occupations. Many were married or in school. They were called without warning for an indefinite period of time, without any exemption whatever for dependents, business, or other reasons. This sudden call for Federal service meant disruption and confusion in their individual spheres and required sacrifices seldom demanded of civilian soldiers.

That service was entirely in the field. No prepared camps or cantonments awaited these soldiers. Those who served during this service and later in World War I can testify that it was a more grueling task than that performed by the average soldier during World War I, bearing in mind that less than one-fourth of the soldiers serving in World War I reached the combat areas.

It is appropriate to point out that the value of that service was tremendous in furthering the prosecution of the World War. The