MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS HOUSE OF RepresentaTIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE OF COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS, Saturday, February 27, 1926. The subcommittee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. B. Carroll Reece (chairman) presiding. Mr. REECE. The committee will be in order. We will now consider H. R. 6921, a bill introduced by Mr. Morehead. This is a bill to correct the military record of James Perry Whitlow: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in the administration of any laws conferring rights, privileges, and benefits upon honorably discharged soldiers, James Perry Whitlow, who enlisted in Company E, Second Regiment, Nebraska Volunteer Cavalry, on the 15th day of November, 1862, and who served under his father's name of Peter Whitlow, shall hereafter be held and considered to have been discharged honorably from the military service, as a member of said company and regiment, on the 11th day of December, 1863; Provided, That no bounty, pay, or allowance shall be held as accrued prior to the passage of this act. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. MOREHEAD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA Mr. MOREHEAD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen; in order to make my case as brief as I can, affidavits and statements accompany the bill, so that the facts are thoroughly established. In the Civil War the father of the man who wants his record cleared up enlisted. When he returned home, he realized that he had seven children and a wife. When they mustered him in, he sent the oldest son instead. The boy served under this father's name, was discharged under the father's name. The father drew the pension, the mother drew the pension. Both are now dead. I know how tedious it is to read the affidavits of different parties. I have attached with the papers, the affidavits of three sisters. I could get the affidavits of 100 men to the effect that the case as stated here represents the facts. Mr. VINSON. They are sisters of the real soldier? Mr. MOREHEAD. Yes. There are also some old soldiers who are still living-very few, however-who know this statement of facts to be the correct state of affairs in this case. I do not suppose, if he gets a pension, that he would be receiving it very long. Mr. VINSON. How old is he? Mr. MOREHEAD. 78 years old. Mr. VINSON. How much service did he have before he decided to stay with his family? Mr. MOREHEAD. I beg your pardon? Mr. VINSON. How much service had he seen before he decided to ay with his family? Mr. MOREHEAD. I do not understand. 1 Mr. VINSON. I mean, before he decided to stay at home. to Mr. MOREHEAD. Perhaps you did not understand the ca as I stated it. The father enlisted. The oldest son was mustere the service and, as I remember, served a year and about six months. I could not be sure unless I looked the records up just how long. He was discharged. That was all done under the father's name. The father drew the pension without any service, and at his death the mother drew the pension. Mr. VINSON. I thought you said something about his having seven children. Mr. MOREHEAD. The father had seven children and no property. So he sent the oldest son. The oldest son was mustered into the service in the name of the father. Then he was mustered out of the service in the name of the father. The father drew the pension and at his death the mother drew the pension. They are both dead. Mr. VINSON. Now what you want to do is to clarify the record of the son who served in the Army? Mr. MOREHEAD. Yes. I think that there is ample proof to substantiate what I have stated here, without the shadow of a doubt. Mr. REECE. The discharge was issued in the name of the father but because of the son's service? Mr. MOREHEAD. Because of the son's service. The father had no service. Mr. VINSON. It really is, in effect, the discharge of the son? Mr. MOREHEAD. That is absolutely the case. As I say, there are plenty of affidavits there to substantiate that. Mr. REECE. If you will permit me, I should like to read part of Mr. Morehead's letter, written to the chairman of the committee. (The letter referred to will be published hereafter.) Mr. VINSON. Was the son called upon to speak while the father was drawing this money? What did he do that was wrong in keeping silent? Mr. MOREHEAD. In other words, what did he do that you or I would not do? Would he complicate a father in such a situation? Mr. REECE. You can understand why the son might have kept silent, because of the fact that had he said anything while the father was living he would have involved his father." Mr. VINSON. Not only would his father lose the pension, but he would be involved in a criminal prosecution. Mr. REECE. It seems to me that the most important thing in this case is to establish beyond doubt that the son served during the war. Mr. VINSON. I think so, too. Mr. MOREHEAD. Don't you think that the affidavits of the sisters, and this old man, Burris, a very prominent man, should have great weight? I think there are three living sisters who make affidavits to the fact that he was in the service. If necessary, I could get possibly 50 more. For instance, Herb Howe makes a statement. He is the son of a very prominent man out there. He served in the foreign service and is an old soldier. There is not any question in the world, gentlemen, if my word is worth anything, as to the facts in this case. Mr. REECE. You have studied the case thoroughly and you are familiar with it. In your judgment, there is no question but what he rendered this service? Mr. MOREHEAD. Not a doubt in the world. Gentlemen, I would not appear here unless I knew the facts. This is the first committee before which I have appeared since I have been in Congress. I know that the statements made here are facts. I shall appreciate it, gentlemen, if you will see that it appears on the Consent Calendar. Mr. VINSON. So far as I am concerned, I am willing to consider it in executive session, Mr. Chairman. Mr. REECE. Very well. We will consider now H. R. 6017, a bill for the relief of Fred R. Nugent. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in the administration of any laws conferring rights, privileges, and benefits upon honorably discharged soldiers, Fred R. Nugent, who was a private in the Hospital Corps, United States Army, shall hereafter be held and considered to have been discharged honorably from the military service of the United States as a member of that organization on the 7th day of April, 1899. STATEMENT OF HON. W. P. JARRETT, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII Mr. JARRETT. The bill on which I am appearing before the committee is H. R. 6017, for the relief of Fred R. Nugent. You have the report of the Secretary of War. Mr. REECE. This is a bill, in effect, to set aside the court-martial of a soldier. Mr. JARRETT. It is to recognize his service, practically. Mr. REECE. Will you, Mr. Jarrett, give the committee the gist of the case? Mr. JARRETT. I will give you just what Mr. Nugent himself has sent to me. Offense charged was that in October, 1898, while on duty at First Reserve Hospital, Manila, I was called upon to assist a police nurse in giving a typhoid patient a cold tub bath. It was at night, no physician present at the time ordered for the patient to be given the bath. The patient was in a collapsed condition and I protested against carrying out the order. The police nurse in charge of the case said, "It was the doctor's orders," and as there was no medical officer present to refer the case to the order for the cold tub bath was carried out with the result that the patient died in the tub. I was ward master and not a trained nurse. At the court-martial no medical or hospital witnesses were available in my behalf or medical officers on the court, and I was sentenced by the court without consideration as above recorded. FRED R. NUGENT. Mr. VINSON. Is that his own written statement or is that a copy of it? Mr. JARRETT. He has signed it. That is his signature. Mr. JARRETT. It is not sworn to. Mr. VINSON. What punishment was inflicted on the soldier? Mr. VINSON. How much did he serve? Mr. JARRETT. About six months of it. Mr. REECE. I have here the statement of The Adjutant General, which is rather lengthy. It comprises three pages. Mr. VINSON. I looked over that, but I did not notice anything in there as to what happened to the patient. The question is my mind is as to what happened to the patient. Mr. REECE. Except that it makes reference to the fact that he was left unattended for 15 minutes. Mr. VINSON. The statement says that the order was to take him out of the bathtub. The statement here is that he was directed to give him a cold bath. I can understand, back in 1898, when the treatment of a cold bath for typhoid fever had not become generally understood to be a good thing, how this might have occurred; a boy or a young fellow might refuse to help do that. But the war record says that he was directed to take him out of the bathtub, as I read it. Mr. GLYNN. His statement is that he only put him into the bathtub under orders and after he protested against it. His specification was that he refused to take the patient out of the bathtub, engaged in an altercation with the police nurse, and allowed this patient to remain there for 15 minutes, as a result of which the patient died. Mr. JARRETT. His statement to me personally agrees with the one that he has signed, that they had some trouble; he did not think that the patient was strong enough to be put in the bathtub, that that is how the trouble came about; they did put him in the bathtub and he never came to. I have a copy of a letter here from Gen. John J. Pershing. This case has been before Congress and was first brought in before my time. My predecessor had a bill introduced, I think, two or three times with reference to this. I have here a copy of a letter that is supposed to have been signed by General Pershing and sent to Mr. J. Walker Jones, collector of internal revenue, Honolulu, Hawaii. MY DEAR MR. JONES: With reference to your letter of August 21, requesting that I assist the passage of a bill for the relief of Fred R. Nugent, introduced in the Sixty-sixth Congress, first_session, which you state will be again introduced upon reconvening of Congress, I have been pleased to have the matter looked into and find that in response to call from Chairman Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, for a report on the proposed bill, the Secretary of War, on March 24, 1922, stated as follows: "The title of the bill indicates that its purpose is 'To correct the military title of Fred R. Nugent.' So far as any information is in the possession of the War Department the military title of Fred R. Nugent is now correct, and no change or alteration could be made in it that would not make it incorrect, and if the bill is enacted into law would involve a falsification of historical records which should be kept inviolate. It is, therefore, recommended that the legislation proposed in the accompanying bill be not favorably considered. "It is suggested, however, that if it is decided that he is entitled to beneficial legislation, such legislation be limited to the restoration to him of any rights of which he is now or may be at any time in the future deprived by reason of his dishonorable discharge from the service. This could be accomplished by substituting for the pending bill one of the following nature: "A BILL For the relief of Fred R. Nugent. "That in the administration of any laws conferring rights, privileges, and benefits upon honorably discharged soldiers, Fred R. Nugent, who was a private in the Hospital Corps, United States Army, shall hereafter be held and considered to have been discharged honorably from the military service of the United States as a member of that organization on the 7th day of April, 1899.' "With very best wishes, believe me, "Yours sincerely, "JOHN J. PERSHING." The present bill is worded according to that suggestion of General Pershing. Mr. GLYNN. They do speak of some extenuating circumstances. I see that this police nurse was also convicted. Mr. JARRETT. I also have a copy of a letter here from the chief of police, Mr. Vollmer. I think he was at Los Angeles at the time. It is dated January 24, 1924, and is written to Mr. Julius Kahn, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. KAHN: I am particularly interested in the case of one Fred R. Nugent, who served with me in the Philippine Islands during the SpanishAmerican War. Nugent was dishonorably discharged from the service, and I am convinced from all facts that it was one of those cases where the board did what they believed to be the right thing, but made a mistake. Nugent comes from an old line of American soldiers. For several generations his people have been Army people, and his father, Colonel Nugent, was well noted for his service to the country. An appeal has been made for the relief of Nugent, and Mr. Jarrett has introduced a bill for the relief of my friend, known as H. R. 5453. (That was during the last Congress.) Anything that you may do that will assist in contributing to the passage of this bill will be greatly appreciated by me. Cordially yours, AUGUST VOLLMER, Mr. GLYNN. Do you know this man, Nugent? Mr. JARRETT. Yes. Mr. GLYNN. He is a pretty decent kind of chap? Chief of Police. Mr. VINSON. Because of the service that Mr. Jarrett shows here, I move, Mr. Chairman that we consider this matter in executive session. Mr. REECE. Have you read the statement of the Judge Advocate General of the Army when he was recommended for pardon? Mr. VINSON. Yes. Mr. REECE. That shows some mitigating circumstances. The committee will take up H. R. 5275, a bill introduced by Mr. Faust, for the relief of Theodore W. Goldin: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in the administration of the pension laws Theodore W. Goldin shall hereafter be held and considered to have been honorably discharged from Troop G, Seventh Regiment United States Cavalry, November 13, 1877: Provided, however, That no pension shall accrue prior to the passage of this act. STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES L. FAUST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI Mr. FAUST. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, this bill covers the service of Theodore W. Goldin, who was an Indian war veteran. He enlisted April, 1876, and served until August, 1877. He gave his age, when he enlisted, as 21. In reality, he was 16. He was assigned to the Seventh Cavalry and served during the Indian campaigns under General Custer. His parents learned where he was and took advantage of what they called at that time "the baby act," requiring his discharge when minority was shown. Under that legislation, they took him out of the Army. During that period he won the congressional medal |