became morose, silent, and disagreeable; would not take teasing or anything else. My theory is simply this, gentlemen, that the boy suffered from a mental depression which was a virtual insanity, and that he was not responsible for his acts at that time, from about the date of the injury until the present time. The record shows that he now has epilepsy of the grand mal type. Mr. VINSON. What type is that? Mr. BROWN. That is the worst type. That is where the seizures are frequent and serious and in their nature, followed by periods of depression and mental vagueness. I am speaking now as a layman, not as a physician. Mr. VINSON. When did those attacks begin? Mr. BROWN. Virtually from the time he left the Army last. That is within four months after the injury. Mr. VINSON. Was there any diagnosis made as to what caused it? Mr. BROWN. No, sir; not as to the cause. Mr. VINSON. Sometimes blows cause that. Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir; it is my theory that the blow was the actual cause of it. Mr. REECE. If that is all, Mr. Brown, thank you very much. We will now take up H. R. 2165 for the relief of John Magill, a bill introduced by Mr. Watres. Mr. Watres's secretary is here and wishes to make a statement. STATEMENT OF MRS. KATHERINE BORNESTEIN Mrs. BORNESTEIN. John Magill enlisted May 12, 1898, and served in Company D, Thirteenth Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. We have here the statements in support of the bill. Mr. REECE. Will you first tell us what his status is? Mrs. BORNESTEIN. He was enrolled on May 9, 1898. and mustered into service May 12, 1898. He was tried by general court-martial December 31, 1898, for violation of the thirty-eighth and fortieth articles of war and sent to be dishonorably discharged from the service on January 2, 1899. Mr. REECE. What was his offense? Mrs. BORNESTEIN. It was for intoxication. Mr. REECE. Probably for conduct disgraceful to the uniform. Mrs. BORNESTEIN. He served all during the period of the war honorably and then afterwards they were waiting for a discharge. Colonel Ridley testified that he was very young and got into bad company. He went astray, became intoxicated, and was discharged for intoxication. Colonel Ridley is with the Thirteenth Regiment. There is an affidavit here from him. Mr. REECE. You might read Colonel Ridley's statement. Mr. VINSON. This is the section that is pertinent, aside from showing his acquaintanceship and his being in command: That in his knowledge of the said John Magill he found him to be a man of patriotic impulses, one who earnestly and willingly performed the various tasks assigned him who but for the effect of some evil companions with whom he became acquainted would have had a clear military service which was above reproach. Then he goes on to say: That since his discharge Mr. Magill has lived a life that has been of credit to the community, absolutely reformed from the old habits and now living an exemplary life. Mrs. BORNESTEIN. There is also an affidavit from William W. McCullen, vice president of the Union National Bank. Mr. VINSON. That is substantially the same. I think it is a copy of the statement made by Mr. Ripley. Mr. GLYNN. As to his character and present standing in the community? Mrs. BORNESTEIN. Yes. Mr. VINSON. There is also a statement by Mr. Day, chief of the safety department, First National Bank, Scranton, Pa., showing that he has been living an exemplary life, a good man, good husband, good father, good citizen. The record is a little bit shy on just what he did when he was intoxicated or just how intoxicated he was. They state he was intoxicated while on guard duty and violated the military code. Mr. GLYNN. The war was over at that time, as I understand it. Mrs. BORNESTEIN. Yes. Thank you very much, gentlemen. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS, Wednesday, January 20, 1926. The subcommittee met at 9.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. B. Carroll Reece presiding. Mr. REECE. The subcommittee has under consideration this morning H. R. 7429, for the relief of Joseph L. Rahm, reading as follows: [H. R. 7429, Sixty-ninth Congress, first session] A BILL For the relief of Joseph L. Rahm Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to summon Joseph L. Rahm, formerly captain in the Dental Corps of the Army of the United States, before a retiring board, to inquire whether at the time of his honorable discharge, December 15, 1922, he was incapacitated for active service and whether such incapacity was the result of an incident of service and whether said discharge should have been made, and upon the result of such inquiry the President is authorized to nominate and appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, the said Joseph L. Rahm a captain in the Dental Corps and place him immediately thereafter upon the retired list of the Army, with the same privileges and retired pay as are now or may hereafter be provided by law or regulation for officers of the Regular Army: Provided, That the said Joseph L. Rahm shall not be entitled to any back pay or allowances. Captain Rahm, we will be glad to hear what you have to say in reference to this bill. STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH L. RAHM, FORMERLY CAPTAIN DENTAL CORPS, UNITED STATES ARMY Mr. REECE. Will you give your full name and your service record? Captain RAHM. My name is Joseph Leo Rahm, formerly captain, Dental Corps, United States Army; appointed first lieutenant on September 17, 1917, accepted the appointment on October 15, 1917; promoted to captain, Dental Corps, United States Army, October 4, 1918, accepted the appointment on May 5, 1919. Mr. REECE. Captain, I understand this is a bill authorizing and directing the President to have you called before a retiring board in order to determine whether or not you should be retired because of disabilities sustained before you were discharged? Captain RAHM. Yes, sir. Mr. REECE. I would suggest that you give us a statement of your service and the conditions upon which you base this claim. Captain RAHM. I served at Camp Taylor, Ky.; went overseas and landed in France on September 8, 1918. I volunteered for the North Russian expedition after the armistice and arrived in Russia about April 10, 1919. While on duty with this expedition I was in a railroad wreck, which I believe was the beginning of my disability, according to Exhibit No. 1 of the brief which I will submit, and which is a statement by Dr. C. W. Phillips, formerly major in the Medical Corps of the United States Army. Mr. REECE. At what time was the railroad wreck? Captain RAHM. 1919. Mr. REECE. What was the nature of the disability incurred in that wreck, and what were the manifestatons of it at the time? Captain RAHM. I was thrown on my back, against the corner of a suit case. The doctor first reported that I had a severe wrenched back, and he applied a tight abdominal bandage and gave me treatment and instructed me to keep off my feet as much as possible. But as I was the only dentist with this expedition of approximately 1,000 men, it was impossible for me to keep off my feet, because of the emergency, and also because there was no other dentist to take care of the men. Mr. REECE. Those conditions are set out by your commanding officer in a statement in your brief, which you are filing with the committee? Captain RAHM. Yes, sir. My commanding officer also makes the statement that he thought at the time I had sustained some permanent injury and intended to have an X-ray picture made upon my arrival in the United States. But I was detached from this organization and held in France and he was returned to the United States. So no record was ever made and the result was I continued with my disability. After returning from overseas, in California in 1922 Maj. Leonard Hughes, Medical Corps, United States Army, reported that I had chronic bronchitis. That was in the latter part of January, 1922. In May of that year I was given a leave of absence so as to rest up a while and gain strength. In July I was put under observation at Fort Rosecrans for tuberculosis, and my case was diagnosed as positive tuberculosis by Maj. E. J. Farrow, Medical Corps, United States Army, who reported that, in his opinion, I was unfit for active field duty, and I was notified that I would be discharged with one year's pay. Then subsequently I was sent to the Letterman General Hospital in San Francisco and was reported as having tuberculosis by three civilian doctors-Dr. P. M. Carrington, Dr. J. A. Parks, and Dr. William Williams. You will find statements of those doctors attached as exhibits to my brief. Maj. E. J. Farrow reported that, in his opinion, I was physically unfit for active field duty. I was sent to the Fitzsimmons General Hospital, at Denver, about the middle of August, 1922, and about the 1st of September of the same year I was notified that I would be discharged, under the act of June 30, 1922, with one year's pay. Mr. REECE. About how long had you been in the hospital when you were told that you would be discharged under the act of June 30, 1922? Captain RAHM. About two weeks, although I had been marked for quarters, and to be relieved from all duty for a month or so longer. Mr. REECE. At that time had they completed your examination and the observation of your case at the Fitzsimmons Hospital? Captain RAHм. No, sir; they had not completed my diagnosis at that time. The surgeon there reported that I had no tuberculosis, but had an abdominal condition which was undetermined. I was given a series of X-Ray treatments and was told I had many adhesions about the cecum and liver, and that I had a very bad conscription of the large intestine at the liver. So I was transferred to the surgical ward for an operation, to operate on those adhesions, which were supposed to be the result of an attack of typhoid fever prior to my entry into the service. A few hours before the operation was to be performed a conclusion was reached that no benefit would be derived from the operation, and I was sent back to my ward. In about 10 days I was given another series of X-ray pictures and was diagnosed as having a very movable cecum, with no adhesions, no conscription, and was reported to be physically fit for duty. Mr. REECE. That was after the order was issued for your discharge, in compliance with the act of June 30, 1922? Captain RAHM. Yes, sir. I was returned to San Diego, Calif., and granted leave of absence. Prior to my separation from the service I came to Washington to have a cystoscopic examination made, so I could have a definite diagnosis as to my kidney trouble. But I was refused a cystoscopic examination. Mr. REECE. By whom? Captain RAHM. By the attending surgeon here. I was given another series of X-ray pictures, and my trouble was diagnosed as being movable cecum. They said the hard mass I complained of in my side was gas in this movable cecum. That is what I was told. But feeling that gas would be a more or less soft and fluffy mass, I was not satisfied and I went to civilian doctors, who inserted a tube up to the kidney and took three X-ray pictures, all of them showing the kidneys in a different part of the abdominal cavity. I again applied for permisison to go before a retiring board. Mr. REECE. Who performed that examination; what physician? Captain RAHM. Yes, sir; he is. He is in the office of a man who is supposed to be the best diagnostician in the West; that is Doctor Howell. Doctor Lyons wrote to me: You have a very freely movable kidney that causes some obstruction in the ureter, and consequently gives you some hydronephrosis. There is no infection at this time, but if this condition keeps on you will sooner or later become infected and then your real troubles will begin. That is in Exhibit 2, attached to my brief. I was refused another examination and was reported as physically fit for duty, as you will find in the letter dated December 12, 1922, which is Exhibit No. 4, attached to my brief. Three days later, prior to my separation from the service, the contract surgeon, Doctor Reeder, reported: Upper one-half right lung shows a much thickened pleura; right kidney movable as far down as right iliac fossa. The wound, injury, or disease is likely to result in death or disability. In my opinion, the wound, injury, or disease did originate in the line of duty in the military service of the United States. In view of occupation, he is 40 per cent disabled. Mr. REECE. That examination and report was made three days before you were discharged? Captain RAHм. No, sir; that was made on the day I was discharged. Mr. REECE. By the Army surgeon? Captain RAHM. Yes, sir. I also want to call attention to the conflicting statements of the Secretary of War and the Surgeon General. Twice the Secretary of War has admitted that I was discharged with a floating kidney and was 40 per cent disabled. Then in Exhibit 10 attached to my brief you will see that the executive officer of the Surgeon General's office says that he had had the records in the case carefully gone over, and that I was discharged and that the records showed no disease or injury. Mr. REECE. They said the record shows no disease or injury? Captain RAHM. That is what the executive officer of the Surgeon General's office said in his letter dated January 5, 1925, which you will find as Exhibit No. 10 attached to my brief. But Exhibit No. 5 of my brief shows that I did have a disease and had 40 per cent disability, and it was admitted by the Secretary of War twice. I also wish to call attention to the fact that the Secretary of War says that my disability was not sufficient to render me incapable of performing duties in my branch of the service. I wish to call attention to the fact that my branch of the service was the same as my occupation in civilian life, namely, that of a dentist. I also want to lay particular stress on Exhibit No. 1 of my brief, because of the insinuation in a letter that my services were useless and of no relative value to the Government. Had I been accorded my just rights and given a cystoscopic examination upon my return from Russia, I believe my disability would have been found and I would have been retired long prior to the enactment of the act of June 30, 1922. As a final statement, and proof of my disability, I wish to call attention to the fact that the Veterans' Bureau, on August 18, 1925, reported that I had a very movable kidney, pulmonary tuberculosis, |