Lieutenant Colonel MCLAUGHLIN. I can speak only from experience. I have voted by State absentee ballot, and the State ballot comes out with the names of the individuals. That is voted, of course, by the serviceman in secrecy. He seals that in the inner envelope. The oath is taken; he furnishes information as to his name and so forth, his precinct, and then it is sealed in another envelope that has two large red stripes down the front. That is so that all concerned in the postal service will give that the most expeditious handing possible. Mr. BRICKFIELD. If a soldier receives this war ballot, that means that the State has made an individual examination of this soldier and has determined that he was individually qualified to vote according to the laws of that State.

Lieutenant Colonel MCLAUGHLIN. That is correct, sir.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. After he votes, are the ballots collected and forwarded to the State?

Lieutenant Colonel MCLAUGHLIN. The collecting is done by the postal service. The man votes his ballot. When it goes in the outer envelope, it is put in the out-going mail.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. In other words, he mails it directly to the secretary of state.

Lieutenant Colonel MCLAUGHLIN. Directly to the secretary of state. Mr. BRICKFIELD. It does not go to any particular county?

Lieutenant Colonel MCLAUGHLIN. In the State of Florida, sir, it does go to the county. But when this form is furnished the envelopes are always addressed.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Colonel, Ohio has a separation of ballots in the general election. We have one for the Federal officials and a separate one for the State officials. Which ballot would a man from Ohio that is in the service overseas, receive? One or both?

sir.

Lieutenant Colonel MCLAUGHLIN. I did not get your question there,

Mr. FEIGHAN. Do these overseas men that are absentee voters vote a complete ballot of State officials as well as Federal officials?

Lieutenant Colonel MCLAUGHLIN. I could not comment on that, sir. The ballot is furnished by the State. The contents of the ballot I could not say. I know from the State of Florida, the one I received, it contained all officials, State and Federal. I do not have personal knowledge of the absentee ballots from the other States.

Mr. FORRESTER. That is true in my State.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you very much, Colonel. Mr. Burrus, we would like to recall Mr. Silver.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF FRANCIS A. SILVER

Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Silver, the witness Mr. J. F. Perrin made comment in his statement drawing a distinction between the import of the language in section 1 (a) (26) and that of 1 (a) (28) of our bill on which you testified. One of those distinctions was to the effect that the language in section 1 (a) (28) gave you the power to exercise only upon rail carriers; whereas that in 1 (a) (26) granted the power to exercise on both the rail, the air, and the water carriers.

Is that a correct statement of the effect of the provisions?
Mr. SILVER. Yes.

Mr. PICKETT. In view of the desirability as you have testified to of continuing the power in regard to the exercise of rights of transportation in section 1 (a) (28) regarding rail carriers, would it not be desirable to have that same power in regard to the air and water carriers? Mr. SILVER. I am not of course in position to speak about air. I do not have anything to do with it; that is under a different jurisdiction. It will be recalled that in 1920, when this section 1 (15) was passed and this particular statement put in there, the only carriers that were under regulation by the Federal Government at that time were the railroads, express companies, sleeping-car companies, and pipeline companies.

So they did not have before them at that time the motor carriers and water carriers who were not under regulation. Of course air trans

portation at that time did not amount to anything.

But it may be recalled that in World War II, in title 2 of the Second War Powers Act of 1942, the Congress did authorize these provisions of 1 (15) to apply to motor carriers that were subject to the ICC jurisdiction. That title expired after the end of World War II and has never been renewed, but at one time they did recognize the importance of making it applicable. It has never applied to water carriers, but it does apply to the freight forwarders.

Mr. PICKETT. It has never applied to air carriers either, has it? Mr. SILVER. This particular section has not. Whether there is a similar provision in the Civil Aeronatics Act, I am not prepared to state. I do not know.

Mr. PICKETT. Do you not think, Mr. Silver, that matters of that nature ought to be the subject of consideration by the proper legislative committee in amending the basic law?

Mr. SILVER. It would seem that if it is proper for the rails, and if these other segments of transportation are important, then it would be proper to have it apply to the other forms.

Mr. PICKETT. Thank you.

Mr. FORRESTER. And that occasion could arise?

Mr. SILVER. Yes, sir; it could arise. I will give you an instance. Since the Defense Production Act was passed, the Defense Transportation Administration was formed, and the first order put out by DTA related to the motor carriers. It could not have been controlled by the President under this, but we put out a priority order in favor of the Army and Navy and the Atomic Energy Commission during a work stoppage on the railroads in February of 1951.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you, Mr. Silver. Mr. Burrus, do you have another witness?

Mr. BURRUS. We have an item that Major Fisher would like to testify on. It relates to service flags and lapel buttons. It is item 2 (b) (3) on page 29. It provides that the Secretary of War may approve service flags and lapel buttons to be displayed or worn by the family of persons serving in the Armed Forces during the current It also provides for license for their manufacture and for penalties to be imposed for unauthorized manufacture or display. That is on page 29 at the top of the page.

war.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. HOLLIS A. FISHER, MORALE AND WELFARE BRANCH OF THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF, G-1, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Item 2 (b) (3), title 36

Section 179. Design for service flag; persons entitled to display flag.

The Secretary of War is authorized and directed to approve a design for a service flag, which flag may be displayed in a window of the place of residence of persons who are members of the immediate family of a person serving in the Armed Forces of the United States during the current war. (Oct. 17, 1942, ch. 615, sec. 1, 56 Stat. 796.)

Section 180. Design for service lapel button; persons entitled to wear button.

The Secretary of War is also authorized and directed to approve a design for a service lapel button, which button may be worn by members of the immediate family of a person serving in the Armed Forces of the United States during the current war. (Oct. 17, 1942, ch. 635, sec. 2, 56 Stat. 796.)

Section 181. Approval of designs by Secretary of War; license to manufacture and sell; penalties.

Upon the approval by the Secretary of War of the design for such service flag and service lapel button, he shall cause notice thereof, together with a description of the approved flag and button, to be published in the Federal Register. Thereafter any person may apply to the Secretary of War for a license to manufacture and sell the approved service flag, or the approved service lapel button, or both. Any person, firm, or corporation who manufactures any such service flag or service lapel button without having first obtained such a license, or otherwise violates sections 179-182 of this title shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $1,000. (Oct. 17, 1942, ch. 615, sec. 3, 56 Stat. 796.)

Section 182. Rules and regulations.

The Secretary of War is authorized to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of sections 179-182 of this title. (Oct. 17, 1942, ch. 615, sec. 4, 56 Stat. 796.)

Major FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I am Maj. Hollis A. Fisher from the Morale and Welfare Branch of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-1, Department of the Army. With your permission, sir, I have a brief statement I would like to make in support of this legislation.

Public Law 750, Seventy-seventh Congress, which was approved October 17, 1942, provides the Secretary of War with authority and directs him to approve a standard design for service flags to be displayed in the window of the place of residence of persons who are members of the immediate family of a person serving in the Armed Forces of the United States during the current war.

This law also authorizes and directs the Secretary to approve a standard design for a service lapel button which might be worn by members of the immediate family of a person serving in the United States forces during the current war.

The law further provides that upon approval of the standard design for the service flag and service lapel button, the Secretary will cause notice of the approval, along with a description of the approved flag and lapel button, to be published in the Federal Register.

The law also provides that thereafter any person may apply to the Secretary of War for a license to manufacture and sell the approved service flag or service lapel button.

The penalty of $1,000 is provided for persons, firms, or corporations convicted of violating the act. Legislative history of this act indicate

it was introduced as Senate bill 2442 in the Seventy-seventh Congress by Mr. Clark of Missouri, at the request of the American Legion. The feeling at that time was that a service flag was greatly desired by the people generally, and that such a flag should be made official in order that its full implication might be known and realized by all people qualified to display it.

The legislative background of this law also indicates that the War Department felt that the purpose of a service flag or service emblem pertained to national morale and therefore was a function of the Office of Civil Defense. It was felt that it was not within the province of the War Department to state what should be worn or displayed by civilians.

However, Public Law 750, Seventy-seventh Congress, made this a responsibility of the Secretary of War; and he has approved the design and issued certificates to certain firms authorizing them to manufacture and sell such devices.

I would like to emphasize the fact that the manufacture and sale of these emblems is a civilian commercial enterprise. There is therefore no expense to the Government involved in the legislation. An amendment to Public Law 750 of the Seventy-seventh Congress has been prepared by the Chief of Information, Department of the Army, and is in process of being coordinated among the services, which will make this authority permanent law. The Department of the Army feels that the authority to display these devices to indicate that the family is represented in the Armed Forces of the United States has a definite morale value to such families and should be continued.

We earnestly recommend the extension of this authority until permanent legislation on this subject may be enacted.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Major, is this particular statute being utilized at the present time? Are certain insignias being made and displayed in homes?

Major FISHER. I do not know to what extent, sir. The authority exists and we feel it does have definite morale value and should be continued. As the chairman knows, what we are dealing with here is the white rectangular device with the blue star or stars in the center with the red border.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Since the cessation of actual hostilities in 1945, are they still being used?

Major FISHER. There were two firms certified to manufacture and sell these devices in December of 1950, sir. Those are the most recent certifications.

Mr. PICKETT. There is not anything necessary about it. It is just one of those things that is desirable. Is that correct?

Major FISHER. Right, sir. It is something that is authorized by the Government, recognized as an official emblem, and we feel it does have morale value for the families having representation in the services.

Mr. PICKETT. I may be jumping the gun on this question, but section 2 (b) (4) of the bill, I understand, is not to be urged. Is that correct?

Mr. BURRUS. Has that not already been enacted?

Major FISHER. Right, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. It is my information that Public Law 121 of the Eighty-second Congress, first session, took care of that.

98207-52-27

Mr. BURRUS. That is correct, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. So we will not have that under consideration here. Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you, Major Fisher. Mr. Burrus, your next item.

Mr. BURRUS. The next item is at the bottom of page 16. It is item 1 (a) (14) involving the certification of pay and allowance accounts. This provision provides that during wartime, officers' certificates may be accepted as supporting vouchers for pay and allowance accounts without further supporting evidence.

The basic reasons for asking for this law to be continued are, first, that it is felt that it would greatly reduce administrative paper work: and second, the destruction of records due to enemy action would prevent commanding officers from certifying to pay and allowances due military personnel; and thirdly, to require commanding officers to assume the additional administrative burden of certifying pay and allowance accounts would hamper them in performing their primary duty.

Colonel Lunceford is prepared to testify on this item.

STATEMENT OF LT. COL. SIGMON A. LUNCEFORD, OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

Item 1 (a) (14) title 50, appendix

Section 836. Certificates in connection with pay and allowance accounts of civilian and military personnel of Departments of Army and Navy. During the existence of the present war in which the United States is engaged, and during the 6 months immediately following the termination of such war, certificates of officers of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard of the United States, executed on and after December 8, 1941, attesting to the existence of the stated facts, and which are filed with and relate to vouchers and papers involving pay and allowances of civilian and military personnel under the jurisdiction of the Departments of the Army or the Navy, shall be accepted as supporting such payments so far as said facts are concerned without the necessity of any other supporting evidence or certificates: Provided, That the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Navy may prescribe the places where and the classes of pay and allowance accounts to which the above authority of law may be made applicable. (Oct. 26, 1942, ch. 624, 56 Stat. 987; July 26,

1947, ch. 343, title II, sec. 205 (a), 61 Stat. 501.)

Lieutenant Colonel LUNCEFORD. I am Lt. Col. Sigmon A. Lunceford from the Office of the Judge Advocate General, United States Air Force. It is a matter of general knowledge that in the Armed Forces we are in a time which requires terrific effort on our part, and which, insofar as the commanding officers are concerned, puts additional burdens of housing, feeding, clothing his troops, supplying them, and in other ways taking care of his primary military duties.

This act of October 26, 1942, authorizes the acceptance of the certification of any officer with respect to matters which involve the pay and allowances of military and civilian personnel. It does not do away with any requirement for certification whatsoever. It merely changes the incidence of the certification.

It has been used, for example, to require the officer who has the primary control and jurisdiction over the particular records involved to make that certification, rather than requiring the one man, the commanding officer, to look into and determine facts which were not within his personal knowledge in order to make his certification.