arduous training of that comparatively small force, while in the field in 1916 and 1917 immediately preceding the declaration of war made it possible to throw into the field an adequate fighting force with a minimum of delay. The troops and organizations so trained formed a nucleus around which an admirable fighting force was formed and thrown into action early in 1918.

Statistics compiled by the War Department show that there were approximately 30 combat divisions in actual combat in France and that 12 of those divisions were National Guard divisions, built around the troops that served on the Mexican border. Statistics further show that the length of service of those divisions on the front was longer than the average service of all divisions on the front. Furthermore, it is shown that those divisions suffered 40 percent of the casualties and captured 36 percent of the enemy taken prisoner by the American forces.

Considering the small nucleus from which this gallant fighting force was developed, all must admit that a truly remarkable record was made. Today that record stands unrecognized by any law on the statute books of our Government.

More than a quarter of a century has passed since the valuable services were rendered. Many of the remaining veterans are disabled, and, in view of their fast approaching age, it seems only reasonable and logicel that they be entitled to the same benefits as are granted to the veterans of the Spanish-American War.

TYPES OF BENEFITS BEST ADAPTED TO THE RELIEF OF VETERANS OF THE MEXICAN BORDER SERVICE

There is no ideal solution possible. There must be some inequalities developed under any legislation. This largely results from the fact that there has been no unified legislation for the relief of veterans. Each special group of veterans has been the recipient of special legislation.

After a consideration of all the facts, and after resolving all of the factors, it was the conclusion of the national legislative committee of the Mexican Border Veterans' Association that the benefits now being granted to veterans of the Spanish-American War would best serve as a model for the relief of veterans of the Mexican border service.

SIMPLICITY OF ADMINISTRATION

1. The individual service records on file in the War Department clearly carry all the necessary data to show the service rights of the veteran to such benefits. Those records in all instances give the date of answering the call, with what organization, and if they enlisted after the call. These records show clearly with what organization and whether or not the organization was federalized organization in answer to the calls. The records show clearly the date of discharge or muster-out. Therefore, to determine what veterans would come under the provisions of the act would be simple.

2. The personnel of the Veterans' Administration who would be called upon to administer the act are familiar with the benefits now being granted to veterans of the Spanish-American War and are familiar with the procedure of administration of that act. Therefore, the proposed act would impose a minimum burden of administration.

OTHER ACTS WOULD PROVE IMPRACTICABLE

There was some thought of applying the acts granting benefits to World War I veterans. This was discarded at once. By reason of

the lapse of time, many of the benefits would be ineffective.

For instance, benefits under that act which would prove impracticable at this time may be generally listed as follows: (a) War-risk insurance; (b) bonus payments; (c) vocational training; (d) compensation for service-incurred disabilities as now applied to World War I veterans.

Other than for injuries, service connection in the case of World War I veterans is established in a large percentage of cases by way of presumption. Under the liberal policies and provisions of World War I legislation, a large percentage of disabilities held by the Army to have existed prior to service and not aggravated thereby are held by the Veterans' Administration to be due to service by presumption.

While there has been some application of that principle to peacetime soldiers, the practice has been with great rigidity and an attempt to "loosen up" at this late date would prove abortive.

Under World War I legislation another large group of disabilities known as constitutional diseases, such as heart disease, arthritis, and so forth, and shown to have arisen within 1 year after discharge, are considered by way of administrative presumption as due to the service and compensation paid, even though the veteran was in service but a few days or weeks and with no record of sickness or type of service to cause the same.

Now, since almost 30 years have elapsed since the Mexican border service, such liberal application of benefits would be wholly impracticable. Evidence would be impossible to procure.

It is proper to point out that the only benefits now granted to veterans of the Mexican border service are the same as granted the Regular Establishment in peacetime, and which consists only in compensation at a reduced rate for disabilities shown to have been directly incurred while in the military service and in line of duty.

In addition to the above-mentioned, veterans of the World War are paid non-service-connected pensions to veterans who are permanently and totally disabled provided they have 90 days' service. It is felt that in itself such a benefit standing alone would not suffice to compensate the Mexican border veterans for the many disabilities that are highly disabling, but not permanently and totally disabling, suffered subsequent to the service and which under World War I legislation might have been held due to service by way of presumption and compensation paid.

By way of summary, after a thorough study of all the factors to be considered, it was the unanimous conclusion of the Mexican Border Veterans Association that the benefits granted Spanish-American veterans offer the most equitable solution at this late date.

MISCELLANEOUS DATA

It is difficult to obtain actual figures and statistics applicable to the Mexican border service.

Approximately 150,000, according to the War Department, National Guard troops were accepted for service and on duty July 31, 1916,

thereby furnishing the nucleus for a strong force in 1917 for World war service.

It has been estimated that approximately 30 percent of these veterans did not serve during the World War for various reasons, consisting of discharge for disabilities, dependency, and so forth.

Many border veterans were also veterans of the Spanish-American War and entitled to benefits thereunder.

Many thousands have died.

Many who served in World War I are now drawing benefits as a result of that service in excess of what they might draw under this proposed act.

It is appropriate to point out that thousands of the competent officers during World War I were commissioned from among the enlisted men serving with the National Guard in 1916 and 1917 and rendered valuable service as such officers.

Many officers with initial service with the National Guard in 1916 continued as officers in the Regular Army subsequent to World War I. Many officers of present high rank and now in service were from among this number. Many of them are now generals. Among them are Major General Patrick, recently killed, from Company I, Second Indiana Infantry; Major General Kepner, Company E, Second Indiana Infantry; Major General Hershey, Company B, Third Indiana Infantry.

There are many individual instances wherein the passage of this bill would render profound justice.

For instance, S. K. answered the call of the President June 18, 1916, as a member of the medical detachment of the Second Indiana Infantry, and he served throughout the border service. When the regiment was called for World War service he was not accepted by reason of slight defective vision. He at once enlisted in the Canadian Army and served therein.

A few years ago he developed heart disease which required many months of hospitalization and rest at his own expense. He now is sick. He served eminently. Under present legislation he is not entitled to hospitalization or a pension. He has a son in the service at this time.

Another, E. P., answered the call of the President June 19, 1916, with Company D, Second Indiana Infantry. He served throughout the border service and when he answered the call of World War service he was not accepted on account of a minor disability. He now is sick and unable to get any relief whatever from the Government. He has sons in the present military service.

SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR BENEFITS

The following are some of the principal benefits allowed veterans of the Spanish-American War:

Hospitalization: Honorably discharged veterans of the SpanishAmerican War are entitled to necessary free hospitalization, regardless of length of service.

Burial Allowances: On the death of honorably discharged veterans of the Spanish-American War certain death and burial allowances are granted, not to exceed $100, regardless of length of service.

77484-45

Pensions: Service pensions are paid honorably discharged veterans of the Spanish-American war, based upon length of service and the degree of the disability. The rates follow:

Widows' pensions: Below are the rates payable to widows of SpanishAmerican War veterans. The veteran must have had not less than 90 days honorable service and marriage must have been performed prior to January 1, 1938.

Widow under 65 years

Widow 65 years or older___.

Widow who was the wife of the veteran during the war.

POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS

Month

$30

40

50

It might be claimed that veterans of the Mexican border service also serving in World War I and entitled to benefits accorded veterans of the World War should not be entitled to benefits under this act.

That is superficially plausible but is a fallacious argument.

1. Never in the history of veteran legislation have benefits under one law deprived the veteran of benefits under another law. For instance, Spanish-American War veterans who served also in World War I are not denied benefits under the Spanish-American War legislation by reason of their later service in World War I.

2. Those serving both in the Mexican border service and in World War I have earned and are entitled to whichever benefits he may choose to accept.

Reasons are as follows: Men who served on the Mexican border and later in World War I averaged much older men than those who served only in World War I and are generally in greater need of relief by reason of such age.

The service of Mexican border veterans was almost entirely all in the field with combat branches of the service, and by the very nature of their type of service and training, invariably found themselves in combat branches of the service in World War I.

By reason of their prior training and type of service and their early participation in World War I, not less than 75 percent of such veterans served in actual combat, whereas the over-all average of World War I veterans in actual combat was not over 25 percent.

The average veteran of the Mexican border service later serving in World War I probably served twice as long as the average World War I veteran.

Mexican border veterans later serving in World War I suffered the sacrifices incident to being called abruptly from their peacetime environment, not once but twice. The veterans of the Mexican border service, on being mustered out of the border service, painfully began the problem of adjusting themselves to peacetime pursuits, only to be again abruptly called to the colors.

Pay was much lower in 1916-$15 per month for privates. No extra allowances for dependents. Officers of the National Guard in 1916 received no commutation for heat, light, and quarters, such as was allowed later to World War I officers.

In a word, men who served both on the Mexican border and in World War I rendered, on an average, much longer and more arduous service, and experienced more general inconveniences and disruption of their private affairs than the average veteran of the World War.

To deny veterans of the Mexican border service, who later served during the World War, the benefits of this proposed legislation would be paradoxical. It would amount in some instances to giving more to veterans serving only in the border campaign than to some of the men serving in both campaigns.

PARTICIPATION OF VETERANS OF THE REGULAR ARMY IN THIS LEGISLATION

This was considered and disapproved by the committee.

1. This would add to the difficulty of administration. A great many did not serve on the Mexican border but served in ordinary peacetime under good circumstances in barracks and regular posts. This would involve some added difficulty in administration in ascertaining who of such veterans participated in the border service.

2. Soldiers and sailors of the Regular Army and Navy were professionals. Their regular pursuits and occupations were not interrupted. They served for definite periods of time with the privilege of reenlisting and serving until retirement at substantial pay, whereas soldiers of the National Guard serving on the Border were called into service suddenly and for an indefinite time and mustered out just as suddenly and unexpectedly.

THE EXCEPTIONS TAKEN BY THE NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL MEXICAN BORDER VETERANS ASSOCIATION ΤΟ THE ADVERSE REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS

H. R. 2073, in effect, proposes to grant certain veterans of the Mexican border service of 1916 and 1917 such benefits as are now granted to veterans of the Spanish-American War.

This committee is convinced-meaning our legislative committeeof the ultimate justice and practicality of its proposed act and feels it to be well entrenched by reason and practice and desires to make specific reply to the general's criticisms.

The specific points of criticism offered by the Administrator are as follows:

1. The enactment of the bill would grant to these veterans benefits in excess of those extended by existing law to veterans of World War I. 2. The law as proposed does not include veterans of the Regular Establishment who may have served in the same campaign.

3. That it has long been the policy to restrict service pensions to veterans of wars and contends that the Mexican border service of 1916 and 1917 was not during a war period.

4. The report suggests that the bill in its present form would not benefit the minor children of such veterans.