"Whereas it is deemed to be wise and humane, in accordance with the beneficent purposes of the Government of the United States towards the Filipino people, and conducive to peace, order, and loyalty among them, that the doers of such acts who have not already suffered punishment shall not be held criminally responsible, but shall be relieved from punishment for participation in these insurrections and for unlawful acts committed during the course thereof by a general amnesty and pardon:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the power and authority vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby proclaim and declare, without reservation or condition except as hereinafter provided, a full and complete pardon and amnesty to all persons in the Philippine Archipelago who have participated in the insurrections aforesaid or who have given aid and comfort to persons participating in said insurrections, for the offenses of treason or sedition and for all offenses political in their character committed in the course of such insurrections pursuant to orders, issued by the civil or military insurrectionary authorities or which grew out of internal political feuds or dissensions between Filipinos and Spaniards or the Spanish authorities or which resulted from internal political feuds or dissensions among the Filipinos themselves during either of said insurrections.

"Provided, however, That the pardon and amnesty hereby granted shall not include such persons committing crimes since May 1, 1902, in any province of the archipelago in which at the time civil government was established, nor shall it include such persons as have been heretofore finally convicted of the crimes of murder, rape, arson, or robbery by any military or civil tribunal organized under the authority of Spain or of the United States of America, but special application may be made to the proper authority for pardon by any person belonging to the exempted classes, and such clemency as is consistent with humanity and justice will be liberally extended.

“And further provided, That this amnesty and pardon shall not affect the title or right of the Government of the United States or that of the Philippine Islands to any property or property rights heretofore used or appropriated by the military or civil authorities of the Government of the United States or that of the Philippine Islands organized under authority of the United States, by way of confiscation or otherwise.

"And provided further, That every person who shall seek to avail himself of this proclamation shall take and subscribe the following oath before any authority in the Philippine Archipelago authorized to administer oaths, namely: "I, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the United States of America in the Philippine Islands and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that I impose upon myself this obligation voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

"Given under my hand at the city of Washington this fourth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and two, and in the one hundred and twenty-seventh year of the independence of the United States. "THEODORE ROOSEVELT.

"By the President:

"ELIHU ROOT, Secretary of War."

Now, therefore, I, Luke E. Wright, Acting Civil Governor of the Philippine Islands, by direction of the President of the United States do hereby promulgate the foregoing proclamation.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands to be affixed.

Done at the city of Manila, this fourth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and two.

By the Acting Civil Governor :

A. W. FERGUSSON, Executive Secretary.

LUKE E. WRIGHT.

Mr. KYLE. I also would like to submit for the the record a certified copy of General Orders No. 67, to which I previously referred and an additional printed statement.

Mr. MACK. Without objection, permission is granted.

(The material referred to is as follows:)

GENERAL ORDERS,

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE,
Washington, July 4, 1902.

The following order from the War Department is published to the Army for the information and guidance of all concerned:

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, July 4, 1902. The insurrection against the sovereign authority of the United States in the Philippine Archipelago having ended, and provincial civil governments having been established throughout the entire territory of the archipelago not inhabited by Moro tribes, under the instruction of the President to the Philippine Commission, dated April 7, 1900, now ratified and confirmed by the act of Congress approved July 1, 1902, entitled "An act temporarily to provide for the administration of affairs of civil government in the Philippine Islands, and for other purposes," the general commanding the Division of the Philippines is hereby relieved from the further performance of the duties of military governor, and the office of military governor in said archipelago is terminated. The general commanding the Division of the Philippines and all military officers in authority therein will continue to observe the direction, contained in the aforesaid instructions of the President, that the military forces in the Division of the Philippines shall be at all times subject, under the orders of the military commander, to the call of the civil authorities for the maintenance of law and order and the enforcement of their authority.

By the President:

BY COMMAND OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL MILLS:

ELIHU ROOT,
Secretary of War.

H. C. CORBIN,
Adjutant General,
Major General, U. S. Army.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. JACK KYLE

Mr. Chairman, I would call the subcommittee's attention to the fact that Public Law 256, 66th Congress, does not fix official ending dates for the war with Spain, the Philippines Insurrection, or the China Relief Expedition. The legislative history of the act strongly indicates that it was the intention of Congress to pension all veterans of the Philippine disturbances without reference to dates of engagements. The War Department, and not Congress, fixed the ending dates by executive determination. That Department's decision stood until the enactment of Public Law 2, 73d Congress by which the executive department was empowered to fix ending dates for all wars; and pursuant to that act, the Veterans' Administration has held the hostilities in the Moro Province, etc., to have ended on July 15, 1903. The 82d Congress, however, wrote that ending date into law.

Since hostilities in the Moro Province were officially continued by the Presidential proclamation of July 4, 1902, it is significant that Congress took no direct action to fix a specific ending date until the year of 1951.

Also, Mr. Chairman, it is important to note, I think, that in enacting Public Law 256, Congress undertook to enact all-inclusive service pension legislation. All veterans of the China Relief Expedition, or Boxer Rebellion, were included in that act; yet, we note, this expedition had no relation whatever to the war with Spain or the Philippine Insurrection, and, further, that it was an undeclared and unofficial war. While the specific question was never raised in committee or on the floor during debate, it is reasonable, I think, that Congress would not have intentionally barred the veterans of the Moro hostilities—who actually fought a continuation of the Philippine Insurrection-while admitting veterans of an unrelated and unofficial action. It is indeed unfortunate that Congres didn't fix specific dates but I am satisfied that it was the intent of every legislator that all veterans of these hostilities should be covered. Certainly, there is no evidence to the contrary.

Mr. MACK. We thank you very much, Mr. Kyle, for coming before the committee and presenting this intelligent and informative discussion.

Mr. KYLE. Mr. Chairman, I believe I gave you a letter yesterday from Mr. Stevens for incorporation. He asked to have it placed in the record.

Mr. BOYKIN. Do you want it in the record?

Mr. KYLE. Yes, sir, if agreeable to the Chair, so it may be inserted at this point.

Mr. BOYKIN. I was going to do that.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYLE. I thank the Chair.

(The letter referred to follows:)

Hon. FRANK W. BOYKIN,

PACIFIC WAR VETERANS OF AMERICA,
Minneapolis, Minn., April 17, 1955.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Spanish War,
House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. BOYKIN: Due to the fact I am still very much interested in legislation for relief of veterans of the Moro and Pulajane campaigns, I am taking the liberty to write you with reference to House Joint Resolution 94. You will no doubt remember my efforts in the past to get this legislation enacted into law. It is a well-known fact, this legislation is 40 years overdue. As you well know there has been a great hue and cry about precedent. But let's look at the record, as Governor Smith used to say. First we will cite the pensions given to the workers on the Panama Canal, who received, according to reports, $62.50 per month by reason of having to work under hazardous conditions. But they presume that fighting the Moros in the steaming hot jungles of Mindanao and Jolo was not hazardous, dodging kris and spear.

Next I will refer to the Boxer Rebellion. There was no war declared against China by the United States Government, and yet veterans of that campaign receive a pension. The Reuben James incident is another, where our Navy was engaged in hostilities with the enemy forces before actual war was declared. These were taken care of.

Next was the battle of New Orleans, January 8, 1815. This battle was fought after the United States and England signed the regular peace treaty at Ghent. It cost the lives of 8 American soldiers and over 100 British soldiers. This, of course, was a part of the War of 1812. Then we will consider the status of the Indian war veterans. It is safe to say that perhaps 65 percent of them never saw a hostile Indian, and furthermore, the United States Government never made an official declaration of war against any Indian tribe.

We can even go back to the ending of the Civil War. There were quite a few hostilities after the surrender of General Lee to General Grant, especially in Texas, but the United States Government paid pensions for war service to those veterans.

Last, but not least, it must be remembered that the United States Government never declared war against the Philippine insurrectos. This fact seems rather queer in the face of the insistence that war should have been declared against the Moros and Pulajanes. Why should not those men who fought in the battle of Bud Dajo in Jolo, March 5, 6, and 7, 1906, in which 21 Americans and over 600 Moros were killed, be eligible for the same benefits as those who served previous to 1902, when no papers of any nature were signed by either party?

Another point I might bring up and that is, I quote from a report by General Hines: "In 1935 the Veterans' Bureau saw fit to extend the ending of the insurrection from July 4, 1902, to July 15, 1903." If they could make that extension to 1903, why couldn't they make it December 31, 1913? In another report, I think this was by General Hines, March 8, 1944, page 4: "Except where there was service in the military forces of the United States in Russia (Siberia) prior to April 2, 1920, is considered to have been wartime service. Is there any difference between the southern Philippines and Russia? If there is, it must be in temperature only.

These old veterans had little or no medical service, drinking water was always foul and taken from mudholes covered with slime in which water buffalo had wallowed; their only covering at night was their rubber poncho, while mosquitoes, fleas, ants as large as butterflies, and leeches tormented them day and night. Very little quinine was available, or other medicines.

I pray

I could write 100 pages on those campaigns, but this should suffice. that House Joint Resolution 94 will be passed despite that sacred (fake) ending date, July 4, 1902. I remain,

Yours very respectfully,

CHARLES V. STEVENS,

Past National Adjutant, P. W. V. of A.

Mr. KYLE. I want to say that Mr. Charles V. Stevens, past national adjutant of the Pacific War Veterans of American, drafted the first bill ever introduced on this subject some 15 years ago.

Mr. Chairman, we support the resolutions, but not the H. R.'s. There is a vast difference in the bills. While the preamble of the resolutions may differ in some cases, the resolve is the same in all. The reason we do not support the H. R.'s is because they are full of loopholes.

For instance, two of them limit the bill to those who can actually prove that they were engaged in combat. Yet the bills seek to extend the Spanish-American War Service Pension Act to these veterans. The Spanish-American War Veteran Act itself does not require such service. Ninety days' service makes all the Spanish-American War veterans and the veterans of the Philippine Insurrection eligible.

I am glad the committee counsel is present. If the committee reports a bill, which I sincerely hope it will, I trust that consideration will be given to that fact.

The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Siler, addressed himself to House Joint Resolution 281, which he introduced. However, prior to that he had erroneously introduced this old bill. He has now abandoned it. Another H. R. was introduced by another Member inadvertently. We sent up a draft of this resolution, but the defective H. R. was introduced. There is still another H. R. that takes in everybody that served anywhere in the Philippines at any time from 1902 to 1914, whether they were in the combat areas or not. Congress has never seriously considered similar bills.

I would next like to address myself to a report from the executive department. They send the same report up here each Congress, but for the life of me, I cannot understand why they undertake to maintain an untenable proposition.

The facts are that this Congress has always provided for the veterans of wars whether there was a formal declaration of war or not. In 1927 you enacted the Indian War Service Pension Act, taking in every mother's son who served between 1817 through 1898. That law is still in effect. There are about 300 of them still drawing those pensions. That act did not specify that there had to be a formal declaration of war. It covers all Indian hostilities. The veterans were out there on the frontier defending American soil. There was no difference in the Philippines.

In 1920 when the Spanish War Service Pension Act was enacted, the Philippine Insurrection in that act was included. There is no beginning or ending date in the law. It left them open to executive determination. There was never any question raised about when the Philippine Insurrection ended in the Moro Province until the Spanish-American Service Pension Act was enacted. Then down in the old Pension Bureau some bureaucrat ruled that it ended on July 15, 1903.

Well, they could not produce an Executive order or Presidential proclamation. They could not produce an act of Congress. What did they do? They came up with an act of the Philippine Commission that does not have the words "Philippine Insurrection" in it. That act merely set up civil government in the Moro Province. Section 20 of the Act 787, of the Philippine Commission specifically states that the United States Armed Forces will be available to the Governor of the Moro Province and to the district governors at all times.

One other thing. They come up and say, "Well, you would have to open the gates to other campaigns," similar or related campaigns, and they insert a 40-page list of campaigns, etc. I do not know whether they go in for volume or quality, but in the 40 pages they list the Civil War, the Spanish American War, the Philippine Insurrection, and the Boxer Rebellion, people who have already been pensioned. And then it is filled with landing parties, naval landing parties, where parties of marines and sailors went ashore 2 or 3 days on a sightseeing expedition with not a shot being fired. They are put down as comparable campaigns to these 12 years of bitter, savage warfare.

The only campaigns of any length were the punitive expedition into Mexico and I may say, Mr. Chairman, that of all these things they bring in here and cite, none of the survivors have ever come in here and asked for anything. They probably have never considered that they were due anything.

We have the "related hostilities." I have here a letter from the Archivist of the United States. He gives the number of people that participated in the most important and longest of these so-called comparable campaigns and expeditions and the number that were killed in them. I will just read them: The Vera Cruz Expedition, which lasted from April 22, 1914, to November 23, 1914, Army, none; Navy, 17 killed, 57 wounded; Marines, 5 killed and 13 wounded.

Now we come to the Mexican border campaign. In 1916, you know, the President called out several National Guard regiments and stationed them down on the Mexican border. This was called the Mexican border campaign. But 12,000 Army troops were sent into Mexico on a punitive expedition. They were down there from March 15, 1916, to February 5, 1917, during which time 15 men were killed and 2 died of wounds. There were no other casualties.

Puerto Rican hostilities. They were supposed to have lasted from July 25, 1898, to August 13, 1898. There were 3 killed and 40 wounded. They bring up the Cuban occupation. On September 29, 1906, we sent Marines and Army troops to occupy Cuba. They were down there from September 29, 1906, to April 1, 1909. There were 9,237 Army men and 2,892 Marines. Killed and wounded: Army, none; Marines, none. Not a shot was fired. The veterans and the former servicemen of the Cuban pacification have never come in here to this committee and claimed that they had war service or that they were entitled to pensions.

Then the report states that the adoption of this resolution might set a precedent for the occupations after World Wars I and II. Here it is some 30 years after World War I and none of the occupation forces have ever come in here and asked for pensions. They