Mr. THURSTON. It is to be distinctly understood that the references to compensation or other allowances made to veterans of World Wars I and II and the Korean conflict in no way criticizes or complains about the legislation enacted in behalf of those veterans. In fact, our organization believes that the veterans who served in the last 3 wars, with a long list of splendid victories to their credit, were and are entitled to the benefits granted by the Congress.

There is no doubt that the Congress intended to deal fairly and equitably with all veterans' groups, but as economic and financial changes occur it follows that enacted legislation primarily concerned a specific group, so that the benefits available to veterans from time to time have been uneven or unequal because the conditions, facts, or evidence submitted varied during the different periods of time. Therefore, having in mind the purpose of Congress to treat all veterans' groups as fairly and equitably as possible, we might briefly review the legislation enacted from time to time on this subject.

The Spanish-Philippine veterans have been accorded the same recognition by the Government as the termination of hostilities with Spain was almost coincident with the commencement of the Philippine Insurrection, both of these groups having volunteered for military service, 61 percent having oversea duty.

Pensions for Spanish War veterans were first made available in 1920 at the rate of $12 per month, service connected. Pensions for their widows was enacted in 1918, commencing at $12 per month.

Hospitalization was first provided in a limited way for this group in 1922, and in 1928 real hospitalization was made available to the Spanish-American War group.

The foregoing discloses that hospitalization and benefits to these veterans was available 20 to 30 years after their separation from the service.

While in the service no allowance was available to a wife or dependent. These veterans were mainly housed in tents, or "under canvas" which included their hospitals and mess units. They traveled in day coaches, and were provided with a travel allowance which amounted to about 50 cents per day. Their pay for foreign service was $15.60 per month; hardtack and canned beef was issued to the traveling serviceman, "on orders."

In those days there were no $10,000 insurance policies or $5,000 to the veteran's estate if death occurred while in the service, or 6 months' pay if death ensued while serving. There were no preference laws in behalf of the veterans in the Federal service or in the laws of the respective States. The Spanish-Philippine veterans never heard of the word bonus, or home, business, or farm loans or college courses, separation pay, or the presumption that any disability arising within a year after his separation of service would be presumed of service origin.

I should digress just to say that there were 3 or 4 States that provided some slight bonus to Spanish War veterans. I do not have the names of the States or the amount paid available.

Then, of course, the servicemen in the more recent wars had indemnity insurance of $10,000, mustering-out pay of $200 to $300, unemployment benefits provided for 6 months, and social-security benefits, which, of course, will ultimately enhance their estate and their social

security status. And, of course, the disability and helplessness provi-sions were not made available to this group.

This is an illustration that, I think, might be made that is ratherunusual, but I think it is pertinent. Veterans serving in the Korean war had allotments to their wives matched by the Government for $50 per month or $600 a year. After his discharge he could have a college education costing maybe five or six thousand dollars, and if he had insurance and subsequently died his estate would receive $10,000. So his widow or his estate could have $15,000 or $16,000 if he had service connection and died after having these benefits. Then immediately his wife would draw a pension of $87 per month.

The Spanish War widow did not receive an allowance until 16 years after the Spanish War. So a widow of a veteran who served in theKorean war would have 16 years' pay plus these other benefits which would equal about thirty-thousand-and-some dollars which she might have 16 years after the date of death of her husband.

The CHAIRMAN. That is provided that he has a service-connected injury, or died with a service-connected injury.

Mr. THURSTON. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. With non-service-connected disabilities they are entitled to no pension.

Mr. THURSTON. That is right.

Mr. BOYKIN. But they did have some benefits some 16 years after.. Mr. THURSTON. That is right.

Mr. BOYKIN. There weren't many of them who collected that, I guess. Sixteen years is a long time to live after there is something wrong.

Mr. THURSTON. I meant to say that the Spanish War widows started in 16 years after the Spanish War.

Mr. BOYKIN. I see.

Mr. THURSTON. In the Korean war they started in immediately. Mr. BOYKIN. Yes. Sixteen years' difference is a long time.

Mr. THURSTON. In other words, it has taken the Spanish War wid-ows 50 years to graduate from $12 up to $54 at present.

If the Spanish-Philippine veteran could have had prompt or early hospitalization his earning capacity would have been increased. If he had been offered the opportunity to take a college course, many would have entered the professional or a higher strata of employment; so his increased earning would have enured to the benefit of his surviving widow.

As to sick or disabled benefits, these figures should prove of interest.. The Veterans' Administration reports 7710 of World War I veterans have been accorded service connection; 10610 of World War II veterans have service-connected cases, and 310 of Korean veterans have this connection, whereas, of the 440,000 Spanish-Phillipine veterans only 1,500 were accorded service connection, or less than one-half percent, or one-twentieth of the average of the other groups. Of course, no one would contend that there was such a disparity between the physical conditions of these groups when separated from the service. The Government simply did not keep many records in the 1898-1902 period.

There are also some interesting sidelights which have a bearing on this subject. The American Red Cross reports that it spent $273 mil

lion during World War I, $480 million in World War II, $104 million in the Korean war, making a total of $857 million.

The YMCA expended in World War I $152 million; World War II, $48 million; Korean war, $5 million. Or a total of $205 million. The Salvation Army, the Catholic and the Jewish organizations spent large sums in the more recent wars.

While the total of the foregoing cannot be accurately computed, it discloses that the veteran in the last 3 wars had the advantages of the funds mentioned, probably $2 billion.

This committee is not primarily concerned in outside benefits; however, it is pertinent to call their attention to State bonuses which have been paid or voted to date in the amount of $5 billion to $6 billion, which sums were paid to these veterans who served in the last 3 wars. Altogether, the later veterans did receive several billion dollars, services or bonuses.

It might be asked why these figures are presented in support of a proposed increase of pensions for Spanish War widows. The answer is that if the Spanish-Philippine veteran had the advantages of these tremendous funds made available by his fellow citizens, the assets of his estate would have been enhanced by the substantial sums allotted to him.

Then the widows of the veterans of the last three wars have earning capacity in varying degrees, and under more recently enacted law, many will qualify for social-security benefits, which will supplement their income or their resources. These laws were passed after the Spanish-Philippine widow could avail herself of this added means of income.

As some of the younger Members of the Congress might not have had the foregoing information, it was thought that the presentation of this brief picture of Federal legislation and other benefits in behalf of veterans would prove both interesting and instructive.

Again, it is emphasized that the foregoing is not a critical exposition of benefits made available to later veterans.

Gentlemen of the committee, it would be comparable to the old saying "hauling coal to Newcastle" if I were to go into details concerning the high or increased cost of living, as this subject has been presented to you from almost every angle in the past few years, and then your own recent application of the subject to your own employment tells you how difficult it will be for an aged person to exist, not live, on the sum suggested.

Periodically economy for the veteran becomes current, and every loyal citizen agrees that all branches of our Government are subject to scrutiny, so one may surmise that the present cry against the veteran might be rather shrewd smokescreen for some of the groups.

If a panorama picture of the numberless buildings we have erected or purchased abroad to be used to give away further billions of our money could be made available to Mr. Citizen, he doubtless would be interested in an investigation not only of the funds wasted but an inquiry as to the longevity of these public leeches. But even in our country it would be lese majesty to disturb some of these sacred

COWS.

Every citizen in our land has not only the privilege but the duty to point out inequalities in our public life. We firmly believe that

the individual Members of the Congress not only welcome to have such facts placed before them but will endeavor to equalize any major differences between or among the veteran groups.

Our veterans in the last 4 wars, whose services brought brilliant victories to our arms, should always be considered on a basis equal to that accorded any other group in our Government. It should never be said that the civilian employee is to have priority over the veteran. We submit it is a perplexing problem which the Congress faces in this respect, but the courage and fairness of its Members will adjust and erase those inequalities.

The increases in salary of Federal officials including the civil-service personnel was doubtless, I believe, wholly based upon the sole premise of the high or increased cost of living. Few will question the desirability of making the increases mentioned.

The sponsors of this legislation were informed that it would be more logical if the hearing should be deferred until the budget made a report on this bill. Of course, that has not been made available to those interested in this subject matter until just this instant. We have not had the opportunity to analyze the reasons for, I assume, the objection or unfavorable report on the bill. And then, of course, we enter the field relating to the budget. Well, I don't suppose anyone has ever made a survey on this subject, but doubtless the great majority of proposals made in the Congress in relation to the veterans have always had the opposition of the budget.

We know that human relationships enter frequently into considerations made by the budget, and there is public expression being sent throughout the press which would lead one to indicate that the reason that the budget is not balanced is because of the payments made to the veterans.

But some recent disclosures made by a committee created by this Congress, I think, clearly sets forth and explains a great amount of extravagance which has prevailed throughout many of the executive branches of the Government all through the years, which must have been brought to the attention of the budget. I do not know that they have ever made any objection in that respect. But we mostly find that they are in opposition to proposals made on behalf of the

veterans.

I cannot think that the reasons they give can be persuasive upon the legislative branch of the Government because many of its Members have served here from 3 to 5 and up to 20 and 30 years, who surely are much better informed as to the fiscal and economic conditions of the country because of their long service as contrasted with the brief or rather limited service of some of those who make up the budget. In passing it might be said that the legislative, judicial, and defense branches acted with expedition when having their increases enacted before a jam of later legislation might intervene, and as war scares are intermittently coming in waves, we feel that prompt and favorable action should be had on this bill before some dilatory pleas may be made.

This is a rather homely picture that I now present, but it seems to me it is one that should be appealing at least. The increase proposed here is to increase the Spanish War widow from $54 to $75 per month, or about $20 or $21 per month.

As the increase proposed would amount to about $20 per month, or about 66 cents a day, it would mean the equivalent of 1 pound of butter or 1 dozen of eggs per day to the widow, whereas the increase of $10,000 per year to a judge already earning $15,000 translated into butter or eggs, would total about 40 pounds of butter or 40 dozen of eggs per day. The increase in one instance would be material, while in the other no change in food habits would be made. The disparity between the 1 and the 40 is quite obvious.

Likewise, our widows, whose ages average in the middle seventies, with only a few years of life expectancy, are vitally affected by the same commodity indexes, hence we feel that we are on sound ground when we present the application for an increase of their monthly allowance from $54.18 to $75 per month to partially cover the cost of food, clothing, lodging, medicine, hospitalization, almost daily requirements of this aged group. Based upon a comparison of the factors hereinbefore set out, the Spanish-Philippine widow is entitled to the modest increase mentioned.

In closing, gentlemen, I am reminded of the remarks made by Daniel Webster appearing as counsel for his alma mater in the Dartmouth College case, with which the gentlemen are familiar, and he said, "Dartmouth is a small college, but I love her."

May I paraphase and say: "The Spanish War veterans are few in number, but I love them."

I thank you.

Mr. BOYKIN. Commander, that was a wonderful statement and we have enjoyed it and we appreciate it and I know it is going to be a lot of help to us when we start to work on this bill.

I would like to ask you or someone of this group that is going to testify some questions that have been suggested that I ask, and if you cannot answer them maybe we have somebody here who can.

We are glad to see you back in the Capital of the United States. It is a real pleasure.

Mr. THURSTON. Thank you.

Mr. BOYKIN. This is question No. 1 here: Are there any income limitations applicable to Spanish War pensions such as apply to World War I and World War II and Korea?

Mr. THURSTON. No, sir; not so far as I am informed.

Mr. BOYKIN. Is there any provision for a higher pension for the widow who is a wife of a veteran doing service applicable to World War I or World War II?

Mr. THURSTON. Of course, sir, I am not qualified to answer that. I am not familiar with it.

Mr. BOYKIN. I will ask some of the other witnesses.

The rate of the pension for a Spanish War widow is $54.18 or $67.73. What is the comparable rate of World War I, World War II, and Korea? I think you have covered that in your statement already. Mr. THURSTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOYKIN. Is a pension paid to the Spanish War veterans for less than 90 days' service, and, if so, what is the rate?

Mr. THURSTON. One having served between 70 and 90 days receives a lesser sum, probably, I would say, about a fifth or about 20 percent less, I expect; approximately that.