Secretary of War in accordance with law. In no instance have we seen a satisfactory reply. I might add that we have reviewed Departments of Defense and Army letters addressed to the late Senator Taft, to Senator Russell-to Representatives Carl Vinson, Richard Simpson, and others on this very subject. All of these indicate that the reason for denying pay was because the Philippine Scouts were not in a casualty status, such determination having been made under the Missing Persons Act of 1942, as amended.

As each new person contributed his part in the series of letters mentioned, there naturally were expanding reasons. Some were that if we were to pay the Philippine Scouts, we might be called upon to pay the Philippine Army; others that if we recognized the Philippine Scouts as soldiers during the period of parole, we might be liable for some of the procurement for which they had contracted. Something akin to guilt by association. In the meantime, some four to five thousand ex-Philippine Scouts are waiting for the justice they deserve and expect. These are largely former enlisted men, of course, whose rate of pay was on a reduced scale as compared to other United States regular troops and who have not had the financial ability or the prestige necessary to fight their claims on an individual basis, such as the officers referred to above.

The American Legion has a warmth of feeling toward the struggling Philippine Republic. It is the showcase of democracy in the southwest Pacific. We have supported Congress in its economic assistance programs to the Philippines, and will continue to do so. We want that Republic to succeed. In the instant case it seems to us that our example of the working of democracy has not been a good one, and that we are somewhat in reverse of the general American philosophy that "Right is the master of might," and that we are sadly deviating from the path of justice. We hope this committee, and the Congress of the United States will promptly act to demonstrate the fact that the American people will not refrain from practicing the justice that is a symbol of our heritage-even if it requires the expenditure of a couple of million dollars.

I would like to review the case of the Philippine Scouts as we see it. Early in this century the Congress authorized a military component of the United States Army to be made up of qualified Filipinos, which was to be known as Philippine Scouts. Keep in mind that this new organization became a part of the Regular Army of the United States.

Because of economic differences in the two countries, the initial pay rate for the Philippine Scout private soldier was at the rate of $9 or 18 pesoos per month. There were small increases for longevity. In the beginning and throughout its proud history, the personnel for the Philippine Scouts was virtually handpicked, thus representing the cream of Philippine citizenry. As a result, the prestige of the United States Philippine Scouts, as they were called at home, rose very high; it was a career unit of great distinction. Filipino sons followed fathers into this organization, created to serve the United States of America. The men of the Scouts were just as proud of their organization as any marine, soldier, or sailor of other United States Regular Forces.

Loyalty of the Scouts to the United States prompted many of them to obtain full-fledged citizenship, of which they were most proud. It is in behalf of this group of men-those still remaining alive-that we are here today. Naturally, the American Legion would not condone payment to those who committed acts of treason or who willfully collaborated with the enemy during the occupation of the Philippines by the latter. It is our understanding that such cases are already a matter of military record, and that such cases are few.

What kind of men were these Philippine Scouts? What type of soldiers were they? And how did they conduct themselves as a military force in the face of the Japanese onslaughts at Bataan, Corregidor, and elsewhere in the Philippine Archipelago? I am not going to attempt to answer those questions, for today I have with me a man who knows-a man who lived, suffered, and offered his life to the cause of freedom, along with his comrades, in the stubborn resistance against enemy invasion of the Philippines. I am sure he will leave no doubt in your minds as to the quality of patriotism, fighting spirit, and military effectiveness of the Philippine Scouts.

Upon the surrender of all USAFFE troops by General Wainwright and his subordinates throughout the islands, Americans and Filipinos were taken prisoners of war and diverted to prison camps. These camps were filled with living skeletons of emaciated, disease-ridden, and wounded men. There they died like flies. Even if the Japanese had desired to give conventional care to these prisoners of war, it is doubtful that their resources in the Philippines would have permitted it. One of their problems, therefore, was to relieve themselves, as

far as militarily practicable, of the care of these unfortunate prisoners of war and the added stigma of wholesale death through ill treatment. The Japanese, coincident with their "Greater Southeast Asia Coprosperity Sphere" propaganda campaign, felt that by releasing the Filipino prisoners of war they would gain support from the general population of the Philippines. A plan of parole was evolved and adopted.

Paroles were granted Filipinos, Philippine Scouts, and the Philippine Army alike. The fact that they were Filipinos was the initial qualification. If there was an alternative to parole, it could scarcely have been more than death through disease, of wounds, or plain starvation. I am sure there are none who would criticize acceptance of such parole.

Now, what about the terms and conditions of these paroles? They were very rigid. Furthermore, the governors of provinces (much like our States) were also held responsible for parolee compliance with the terms thereof. This gave the Japanese double-barreled control over the parolee. The governors were not going to be "caught short," if they could help it.

Even so, the paroled Philippine Scouts continued to be prisoners-of-war, not only in principle of law, but also in reality. They were under such constant surveillance, and were required to report to the Japanese authorities so often that they were virtually "in the hands of the enemy," as those words are used in the Missing Persons Act. The official United States History of World War II, in the volume entitled "The Fall of the Philippines," at page 587 states in effect that parolees were just as effectively prisoners-of-war as if they had been confined to prison camps. Parolees were required to report in detail to Japanese military police headquarters under penalty of being considered malicious, on all occasions, to wit:

(1) When you have obtained a job, or when you are jobless;
(2) When you have changed your occupation;

(3) The change of residence;

(4) When you are going to join any political thought, party or any other party;

(5) When you are leaving the Philippines;

(6) When you are dead;

(7) When you have got married.

There is no question but that violation of parole brought sharp retribution from the Japanese officials. For violations, or suspected violations, men were hauled back to prison camps for long periods of unreasonable questioning or brutal beatings, and some were executed. When parole violators could not be found, the Japs inflicted cruel penalties on their families, or upon entire communities.

There are perhaps many other cogent reasons why Philippine Scouts could not, or did not, join guerrilla units. Philippine Scouts, like our own Regular troops, were stationed at central points, and their families were naturally located in these general areas, with the largest concentration in and around Manila. Under the close surveillance of the Japanese, such guerrilla units as were organized were naturally not operating in the outskirts of any of these cities; most such organizations did not come into being until much later. Too, the Philippines are made up of thousands of islands, and there was no convenient transportation service for parolees to use in going to distant points to join guerrilla forces. Neither can we overlook consideration of the physical aspects of these men who had suffered the privations of prison camps, preceded by the most difficult conditions at Bataan and Corregidor. It is doubtful that many of them would have passed the draft board requirements here at home.

We are getting down to the nubbin of the nut. When the Americans returned to the Philippines and the day of accounting came, it was held that the Philippine Scouts would not be paid for the time they were on parole. Thus, the United States Army, by arbitrary decision based on the Missing Persons Act, which was intended to help servicemen and their dependents, and not deprive them, took from the Philippine Scout his vested right to the pay of a soldier. Prior to this time he had been assured on several occasions that the surrender and ultimate parole would in no way affect his status as a soldier of the United States Army, so far as pay and allowances were concerned.

Now, let's take a look at what others have had to say about the status of a soldier on parole:

“A prisoner of war is one who has been captured while fighting under the banner of some state. He is prisoner of war even though never confined in prison" (Bouvier's Law Dictionary Rawlee's Division).

“A paroled prisoner of war is simply a soldier who has been placed under a disability to engage in active operations against the enemy. He remains a part of the Army and as much subject to military control as he was before his capture. If he absents himself from a post or station to which as a paroled prisoner of war he has been assigned by the military authorities, he is absent without leave or in desertion according to the intent with which he absented himself" (Digest of Opinions of the Judge Advocate General of the United States Army, 1912, p. 1076). “*** But military persons, released on parole, cannot be held to have lost their military status. And even though they had been given parole, it does not necessarily follow that they would observe it" (cited in Digest of International Law, Hackworth, vol. VI, p. 173).

EXTRACT FROM WINTHROP'S MILITARY LAW, SECOND EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES WAR DEPARTMENT (DOC. 10011, P. 795)

"*** It is laid down by Leiber that 'a breach of parole is punished' (meaning doubtless punishable) with death when the person breaking the parole is captured again. Later codes express the law in a milder form. They prescribe that prisoners liberated on parole and afterward retaken bearing arms in the same war against the paroling belligerent 'may be deprived of the rights of prisoners of war unless'-it is added, they have been included among prisoners exchanged unconditionally under a cartel of exchange negotiated subsequently to their liberation.'

"Paroles: A parole is a promise, either verbal or written, made by an individual of the enemy, by which, in consideration of certain privileges or advantages, he pledges his honor to pursue, or refrain from pursuing a particular course of conduct.

“A breach of parole is an offense against the laws of war. Its enormity consists in the breach of good faith that is involved in the commission of the offense. The punishment inflicted is in proportion to the importance of the parole given. The extreme penalty is death, which may be inflicted upon a paroled prisoner who is captured in arms before he has been regularly exchanged" (Elements of International Law by Jorge B. Davis, pp. 317-318).

We have not seen any statement from the Army in contradiction of the fact that the Philippine Scouts were considered a part of the Regular Army. General MacArthur's statement of December 8, 1944, subject: Status of members of the Philippine Army addressed to: Chief of Staff of the Philippine Army, did not mention Philippine Scouts. The natural omission was because of the fact that the latter were members of the United States Army and not of the Philippine Army. Perhaps one of the fairest statements coming to our attention concerning the status of Philippine Scouts is in a letter from Rear Adm. M. L. Royar, USN, Chief of the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts, to the Honorable Carl Vinson, under date of April 11, 1952. It is quoted in part:

"The Insular Force of the Navy was established by Executive order of April 5, 1901, which authorized the Secretary of the Navy to enlist therein not to exceed a specified number of Filipinos. The Philippine Scouts organization was established by the act of February 2, 1901, as amended, and it appears from the context of the law that the enlisted men and officers were enlisted or appointed in that organization for service in the Army.

"Men enlisted in the Insular Force of the Navy have always been considered as enlisted men in the Regular Navy and consequently have been accorded the benefits provided by laws applicable generally to enlisted men of the Regular Navy unless excluded therefrom by a specific provision of law. For instance, by section 3 of the act of June 25, 1918 (40 Stat. 610) members of the Insular Force and the Philippine Scouts were excluded from the provisions covering allotments and family allowance in the War Risk Insurance Act of October 6, 1917, and by section 202 of the act of May 19, 1924 (43 Stat. 122), they were specifically excluded from the benefits accorded enlisted men of the Armed Forces by the Adjusted Compensation Act. Further, a special rate of pay has always been provided by law or regulation for members of the Insular Forces and the Philippine Scouts, and members of both organizations were excluded from the family allowance provisions of the Servicemen's Dependents Allowance Act of 1942, as amended by the act of October 26, 1943. For assimilation purposes, the Comptroller General has recognized the Insular Force as the Navy counterpart of the Philippine Scouts of the Army.

"Enlisted men of the Insular Force of the Navy were not excluded by general or specific language from benefits of the Missing Persons Act. Consequently,

those members in active service who were officially determined to be lawfullyabsent in a status of missing, missing in action, interned in a neutral country, captured by an enemy, beleagured or besieged, were for the period officially determined to be in such status paid the pay and allowances to which otherwise entitled from date of commencement of absence until date of return to the controllable jurisdiction of the Navy Department. The mere fact that upon repatriation it was ascertained that a member of the Insular Force had been paroled, but was unable to return to naval jurisdiction or communicate that fact to the authorities would not be considered a basis for denying such member the active-duty pay and allowances to which otherwise entitled under the Missing Persons Act while so absent. A mobile unit was dispatched to the various islands in the Pacific in April 1945 to repatriate and settle claims under the Missing Persons Act of members of the Insular Force and the Samoan Native Guard and Band. An official determination was made by a duly designated representative of the Secretary of the Navy as to whether while absent from naval jurisdiction the member of the Insular Force was in a status which entitled him to the benefits of the Missing Persons Act. It is understandable that since the Japanese were in full control of the Philippine Islands, that a paroled member of the Insular Force, through circumstances beyond his control, may have of necessity accepted civil employment in some capacity in order to survive. In the absence of evidence of probative value that such member voluntarily served in a military capacity or collaborated with the Japanese, was guilty of disloyalty, or committed overt acts against being in a missing status from date on which it was officially determined such status commenced until return to Naval jurisdiction."

The facts and conclusions stated in Admiral Royar's letter undeniably place the Insular Force (Navy) and the Philippine Scouts in the same military status for pay purposes. We take no exception to the Navy's finding in favor of its Insular Force and civilian employees; in fact we applaud its sense of justice, but wasn't it a peculiar quirk of circumstances that led to the paying of civilian employees while another branch of our service denied pay to Philippine Scouts whose contractual relationship with our Government was equally, if not more, binding than in the case of civilians?

Congress has enacted laws authorizing payment to civilians, religious and welfare groups, who were caught behind the Japanese curtain as the Philippines fell. How can we, in good conscience, turn our backs on those who had to be in the area of fighting, surrender, and oppression, because they were soldiers of Uncle Sam?

We do not believe there is anything in the Missing Persons Act which granted the Army the authority to take away the vested right of a soldier in the United States Army to his pay and allowances, unless his acts were contrary to the Articles of War. The Philippine Scout did not become a civilian and his term of enlistment did not expire. He was a soldier of the United States Army all of the time while on parole, regardless of duties performed or other actions unless they were contrary to the interest of the United States.

A soldier's pay is not a gratuity; it is payment in terms of contractual relationship. If we are right in our contention that the Army erred in its actions, the United States Government should not consider the dollars and cents involved in correcting this grievous wrong.

Our appearance before you today is the only way in which the small voice of a few thousand people, most of whom are nearly halfway around the world, can be heard in Congress.

This has been a long statement but much more could be said in behalf of the Philippine Scouts. We make the point that the Army had no right under any law of this country to refuse to pay its soldiers while on parole from Japanese prisoner-of-war camps to the still larger prisoner-of-war camp, the entire Philippine Archipelago. The Missing Persons Act was never intended to apply to the Filipino situation which developed in the Philippines; it brought no aid to the Filippinos there during the period of the Japanese occupation and certainly we can never accept the conclusion that the Congress intended it to work as it was interpreted by the Army after the war was over.

In conclusion I sincerely recommend that H. R. 9500 be amended with the language of H. R. 11787 which proposes that Philippine Scouts will not be denied military pay under the Missing Persons Act solely on the ground that such member was paroled and permitted to return to his home and engage in civilian pursuits prior to the termination of the Japanese occupation of the Philippine Islands.

Mr. KENNEDY. And I also join with Congressman Dilweg in asking, when you hold hearings on H. R. 11787, that we be notified.

Chairman RUSSELL. If the bill passes the House, we will undertake to hold thorough hearings, and you gentlemen will be notified of the time to appear.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you very kindly, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Very well.

The committee will now go into executive session.

(Subsequently, in executive session, the committee unanimously voted to report the bill favorably, without amendment, as covered by S. Rept. 2552.)

(Whereupon, at 11:35 a. m., the committee proceeded in executive session.)