kironmemo.comkironmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/mororebellio… · translate this...

Moro Rebellion

June 11, 1913-October 22, 1913

Correlates of War

Coded: Authorized by Congress

Duration of Total War: June 11, 1913-October 22, 1913 (133 Days)

United States Casualties: 50

Description:

Prior to the war in 1913, the United States military battled many resistances from the Moro. The beginning of the war was marked by the military offensive of General Pershing on June 11, 1913, against the Bagsak and several other fortifications where the Moro refused to leave. The war ended on October 22, 1913, when the Moros surrendered and returned to their area.

Documents:

•“Philippine Uprisings and Campaigns After July 4, 1902, and Prior to January 1, 1914” (79 H.R. 128; 79 H.R. 3251), March 20, 22, 1945, Hearings Published, Available from: ProQuest® Congressional, accessed June 27, 2013, HTTP://congressional.proquest.com/congressional/docview/t29.d30.hrg-1945-iph-0001?accountid=9902.

PHILIPPINE UPRISINGS AND CAMPAIGNS AFTER

JULY 4, 1902, AND PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1914

HEARINGSBEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INVALID PENSIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESSEVENTY-NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H. R. 128 and H. R. 3251BILLS EXTENDING PENSION BENEFITS TO VETERANS

WHO SERVED AFTER JULY 4, 1902, AND PRIOR TO

JANUARY 1, 1914, IN THE ARMED FORCES EN-

GAGED IN ACTUAL HOSTILITIES IN CERTAIN

SPECIFIED AREAS IN THE PHILIPPINE

ISLANDS, AND TO THEIR DEPENDENTS

MARCH 20 AND 22, 1945

Printed for the use of the Committee on Invalid Pensions

UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT PRINTINf OFFICE

77077 WASHINGTON . 1945

COMMITTEE ON INVALID PENSIONS

JOHN LESINSKI, Michigan, Chairman

FRANK W. BOYKIN, Alabama J. HARRY McGREGOR, OhioHERBERT C. BONNER, North Carolina CHARLES M. LAFOLLETTE, IndianaAUGUSTINE B. KELLEY, Pennsylvania ROBERT HALE, MaineWILLIAM L. DAWSON, Illinois LEON H. GAVIN, PennsylvaniaJAMES H. MORRISON, Louisiana ROBERT J. CORBETT, PennsylvaniaCHARLES R. SAVAGE, Washington . T. MILLET HAND, New JerseyTHOMAS E. MORGAN, Pennsylvania EDWARD 3. ELSAESSER, New YorkADAM C. POWELL, JR., New YorkCLYDE DOYLE, CaliforniaE. H. HEDRICK, West Virginia

BrNGHAM W. MATHLS, CerkII

CONTENTS

Page

H. R. 128 ------------------------------------------------------ IH. R. 3251---------------------------------------------------- 69House Document No. 804, Seventy-eighth Congress (veto message) ------ 6House Report No. 613, Seventy-ninth Congress ----------------------- 69Pubic Law No. 359, Seventy-eighth Congress ------------------------- 16Letter from-

Kemp, Maj. Elmer, United States Army, retired ----------- 23, 26, 51, 53Shaw, Bij.. Gen. George C., United States Army, retired ----------- 66Stevens, Charles V., national adjutant, United Philippine War

Veterans ------------------------------------------------- 31Ulio, Maj. Gen. J. A., The Adjutant General, War Department-.- 67

Memorandum from Stevens, Charles V., national adjutant, United Philip-pine War Veterans ---------------------------------------------- 29

Speech of Lesinski, Hon. John, chairman, Committee on Invalid Pensions 72Statement of-

Chandler, Col. Robert E., Judge Advocate General's Department,Military Personnel Division, Army Service Forces ---------------- S

Floyd, William M., national commander, Regular Veterans' Associa-tion----------------------------------------------------- 17

Hagen, Hon. Harold C., a Representative in Congress from the Stateof Minnesota --------------------------------------------- 21

Supplemental statement ----------------------------------- 67Hines, Brig. Gen. Frank T., Administrator of Veterans' Affairs ---- 55Ketchum, Omar B., national legislative representative, Veterans of

Foreign Wars --------------------------------------------- 11Report of-

The Administrator of Veterans' Affairs ol H. R. 128 .- aThe Administrator of Veterans' Affairs on H. R. 4099, Seventy-eighth

Congress --------------------------------------------------Tl0e Cbmmittee on Invalid Pensions, to accompany H. R. 3251 ----- 69TI Secretary of War on H. R. 128 ------------------------------ 2

EM

PHILIPPINE UPRISINGS AND CAMPAIGNS AFTER JULY4, 1902, AND PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1914

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1945

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INVALID PENSIONS,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10:30 a. m., the Honorable Frank W. Boykinpresiding.

Mr. BOYKIN. We will come to order, gentlemen.The chairman could not be here. He asked me to pinch-hit for him.

He is ill and had to return home to Detroit. He has prepared a state-ment, as he always does. I will read it. It is his, and not mine, butI am for it:

The purpose of this meeting is to hold hearings on H. R. 128, a bill identical toH. R. 4099 pf the last Congress, which was vetoed by the President on December8, 1944. You have before you on the table a copy of the bill of this Congress, aswell as the reports of the Secretary of War and the Administrator of Veterans'Affairs, together with the veto message of the President and hearings on H. R. 4099of the last Congress.

We will not have General Hines with us this morning, but he will be with uswhen we resume hearings.

If the committee members have no objection I would like the testimony wereceive to come from only the officers of recognized veterans' organizations andI have previously asked them to present testimony in the form of rebuttals to theobjections raised by the President and General Hines to this legislation. Wehave been holding hearings on this subject matter for several Congresses lastpast, and it is my opinion that it is very worthy legislation. Frankly, I do notagree with the objections set forth in the veto message and the reports of theSecretary of War and the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.

This legislation covers service between 1902 and 1913 involving actual hostilitiesin certain Provinces and on certain islands, which service was in reality a con-tinuation of the Philippine Insurrection, for which the War Department issueda campaign medal, and as pointed out here on prior occasions, there was muchfighting in the areas mentioned during those years. General Shaw has describedin detail to this committee on several occasions the service of our troops out there.He served as a lieutenant under General Pershing, who was a captain at that time.

For the purpose of the record, I will insert herein a copy of the bill, as well asthe reports of the Secretary of War and the Administrator of Veterans' Affairsand the veto message of the President on H. R. 4099 of last Congress. We willhear as many of the witnesses as possible this morning.

(The documents referred to are as follows:)

[H. R. 128, 79th Cong., 1st sess.]

A. BILL To extend the period of the Philippine Insurrection so as to include active service with the UnitedStates military or naval forces engaged in hostilities in the Moro Province, including Mindanao, or in theislands of Samar and Leyte, between July 5, 1902, and December 31, 1913

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled, That for the purposes of Public Law Numbered 2,Seventy-third Congress, March 20, 1933, and Veterans Regulations, as amendedor laws reenacted by Public Law Numbered 269, Seventy-fourth Congress, Au-gust 13, 1935, as amended, the Philippine Insurrection shall be deemed to have

2 PHILIPPINE UPRISINGS AND CAMPAIGNS

ended July 4, 1902: Provided, That where there was active service with theUnited States military or naval forces engaged in the hostilities in the MoroProvince, including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte, the dateherein stated shall extend to December 31, 1913.

PENSIONS-PHILIPPINE UPRISINGS AND CAMPAIGNS FROM JULY 5, 1902, To

DECEMBER 31, 1913

WAR DEPARTMENT,Washington, March S, 1945.

ion. JOHN LEsiNsKI,Chairman, Cosgmittee on Invalid Pensions,

House of Representatives.

DEAR ]\R. LESINSKI: The War Department is opposed to the enactment ofH. R. 128, Seventy-ninth Congress, a bill to extend the period of the PhilippineInsurrection so as to include active service with the United States military ornaval forces engaged in hostilities in the Iv oro Province, including lM indanao, or

in the islands of Samar and Leyte, between July 5, 1902, and December 31, 1913.The purpose of the proposed legislation is to extend under certain circumstances

the period of the Philippine Insurrection to December 31, 1913, so as to conferbenefits based upon war service on persons who served in the United States mili-tary or naval forces engaged in hostilities in the lV oro Province, including I'in-danao and the islands of Samar and Leyte, between July 5, 1902, and December31, 1913. If the proposed legislation were enacted such persons and their de-pendents would become entitled to service pensions and other benefits on a paritywith persons who served in the Spanish-American War, Boxer Rebellion, or thePhilippine Insurrection prior to July 5, 1902.

By proclamation of the President dated July 4, 1902, the Philippine Insurrectionwas declared to be at an end except in territory occupied by the lY oro tribes.By Act No. 787 (June 1, 1903) the Philippine Commission provided for the estab-lishment of civil government in the l-oro Province, effective July 15, 1903.The Commission's designation of that date for the establishment of civil adminis-tration recognized and fixed July 15, 1903, as the formal ending date of the Philip-pine Insurrection in the iVoro Province. The War Department has consistentlyheld that military operations subsequent to July 15, 1903, were not in continuationof that insurrection in the lVoro Province.

Service pensions (service-connected disability not required) have been author-ized only for veterans and the dependents of veterans who have rendered activemilitary or naval service for a specified period in time of war. They have neverbeen authorized on the basis of peacetime service. The military operations inthe lVoro Province after July 15, 1903, are analogous to military activities in thesuppression of Indian uprisings in the past, during times of peace. It is theconsidered opinion of the War Department that the military operations subse-quent to that date were not conducted in time of war. Awards of the PhilippineCampaign IV edal for service between 1902 and 1913 do not establish any recog-nition of such service as wartime service. Wartime service is not a necessaryprerequisite for the award of campaign or service medals. Authorizations forsuch medals have sometimes been specifically predicated upon servicrother thanthat in time of war.

The proposed statutory extension of the Philippine Insurrection beyondJuly 15, 1903, would entail highly objectionable consequences in respect toveterans' benefits. It would materially deviate from the sound and long-established policy of abiding by an official determination as to the ending datesof wars. The door would be open to interminable extensions of wartime statusfor active service. Such legislation would depart from wartime service as thebasis for service pensions. This bill would afford special treatment for a particulargroup to the exclusion of other groups who may have served in military occu-pations, expeditions, or campaigns, during peacetime. Such other groups wouldhave a precedent upon which to base demands for similar treatment.

The War Department would have no responsibility in the administration ofH. R. 128, if enacted, and it is unable to furnish an estimate of the cost of theproposed legislation.

PHILIPPINE UPRISINGS AND CAMPAIGNS 3

For the foregoing reasons, the War Department recommends that H. R. 128be not favorably considered.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submissionof this report.

Sincerely yours,HENRY L. STIMSON, Secretary of War.

VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION,

Washington, D. C., January 18, 1945.Hon. JoHN LESINSKI,

Chairman, Committee on Invalid Pensions,House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

My D$AR Mn. LESINSKI: Futher reference is made to your letter datedJanuary 6, 1945, requesting a report on H. R. 128, Seventy-ninth Congress, a billto extend the period of the Philippine Insurrection so as to include active servicewith the United States military or naval forces engaged in hostilities in the MoroProvince, including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte, betweenJuly 5, 1902, and December 31, 1913.

This bill is identical with H. R. 4099, Seventy-eighth Congress, on which theVeterans' Administration submitted an adverse report to your committee underdate of March 8, 1944. This report was printed by your committee. H. R. 4099was passed by both Houses of Congress and was disapproved by the Presidenton December 8, 1944 (message from the President of the United States, H. Dc.No. 804).

There have been no changes in facts or circumstances which would warrantany material change in the report forwarded to your committee under date ofMarch 8, 1944, except that the bill was amended to conform with the amendmentproposed on page 2 of the printed report, and the rate of pension payable underpart III of Veterans Regulation No. 1 (a), as amended, as referred to on page 4 ofthe printed report, was increased to $50 per month, and $60 per month under,certain conditions, under the provisions of Public Law 313, Seventy-eighthCongress, approved May 27, 1944.

In view of the foregoing, the Veterans' Administration is unable to recommendfavorable consideration of the bill.

Advice has been received from the Bureau of the Budget that there would beno objection by that office to the submission of this report to your committee.

Very truly yours,FRANK T. HINES, Administrator.

The report 6f the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, dated March 8, 1944, inconnection with H. R. 4099, Seventy-eighth Congress, was as follows:


Hon. JoRN LESINSI, Washington, March 8, 1944.


My DEAR MR. LEsimsKI: Further reference is made to your letter dated Feb-ruary 1, 1944, requesting a report on H. R. 4099, Seventy-eighth Congress, a billto extend the period of the Philippine Insurrection so as to include active servicewith the United States military or naval forces engaged in hostilities in the MoroProvince, including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte, between July5, 1902, and December 31, 1913, which reads as follows:

"That for the purposes of Public Law Numbered 2, Seventy-third Congress,March 20, 1933, and Veterans Regulations, as amended, or laws reenacted byPublic Law Numbered 269, Seventy-fourth Congress, August 13, 1935, as amended,the Philippine Insurrection shall be deemed to have extended frcm August 13,1898, to July 4. 1902, both dates inclusive: Provided, That where there was activeservice with the United States military or naval forces engaged in the hostilities,in te Moro Province, including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte,the dates herein stated shall extend to December 31, 1913."-

J


The purpose of the bill is to accord recognition to certain military operations inthe Moro Province, including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leytebetween July 5, 1902, and December 31, 1913, as a continuation of the PhilippineInsurrection for the purposes of Public Law No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, March20, 1933, and the veterans' regulations, as amended, and laws reenacted by PublicLaw 269, Seventy-fourth Congress, August 13, 1935, as amended. The effect ofsuch proposal would be to confer a wartime status on persons who served with theUnited States military or naval forces engaged in hostilities with hostile tribes inthe Moro Province after the establishment of civil government therein and againstthe Pulajanes, a band of religious fanatics or outlaws in northern Mindanao orin the islands of Samar and Leyte, thereby extending to such persons the benefitsprovided by such laws on a parity with veterans of the Spanish-American War,Philippine Insurrection, or Boxer Rebellion.

The Philippine Insurrection was declared to be at an end and peace establishedin all parts of the Philippine Archipelago except in the territory occupied by theMoro tribes, by the President's proclamation dated July 4, 1902 (32 Stat. 2014).The War Department regards July 15, 1903, as the date of termination of the Phil-ippine Insurrection in the Moro Province which is the date on which Act No. 787of the Philippine Commission, approved June 1, 1903, took effect, and has heldthat such military operations as occurred subsequent to the establishment of civilgovernment in the Moro Province on July 15, 1903, should not be regarded as acontinuation of the insurrection.

For the purposes of laws reenacted by Public Law 269, Seventy-fourth Congress,the Philippine Insurrection is considered to have commended April 12, 1899, theday following exchange of ratifications of the treaty of peace between the UnitedStates and the Kingdom of Spain and proclamation thereof, under which thePhilippine Islands were ceded to the United States. For the purposes of PublicLaw No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, the War with Spain is deemed to have endedupon cessation of hostilities as evidenced by the protocol of agreement betweenthe United States and the Kingdom of Spain embodying the terms agreed uponas a basis for the establishment of peace between the two countries, signed August12, 1898, and the Philippine Insurrection is deemed to have commenced the dayfollowing, or August 13, 1898.

In view of the administrative complications which may arise under the lawsreenacted by Public Law 269, Seventy-fourth Congress, as amended, by the refer-ence in the proposed bill to the beginning date of the Philippine Insurrection andthe possibility that the rights of some whose eligibility has been established upderexisting laws may be adversely affected, and should favorable consideration begiven the bill notwithstanding this report, the suggestion is made that it beamended by striking the following language, lines 7 and 8, on page 1, and con-tinuing on page 2, line 1, "extended from August 13, 1898, to July 4, 1902, bothdates inclusive," and substituting therefor the following: "ended July 4, 1902".

Service with the United States military or naval forces engaged in hostilities inthe Moro Province to July 15, 1903, is recognized as service in the PhilippineInsurrection under laws administered by the Veterans' Administration and forthe purposes of Public Law No. 2, Seventv-third Congress, and the VeteransRegulations, as amended, veterans and the dependents of veterans who meet therequirements thereof are eligible for the benefits provided thereunder on a paritywith other war veterans.

Under the laws reenacted by Public Law 269, Seventy-fourth Congress, whileservice in the Moro Province to July 15, 1903, is also recognized, such service ispensionable service only in cases of veterans, as such laws granting pensionsto veterans did not specify the dates of the Spanish-American War, PhilippineInsurrection, or Boxer Rebellion, and the ending date of hostilities in the MoroProvince as administratively determined is for application. However, the serv-ice pension acts reenacted by Public Law 269, Seventy-fourth Congress, grantedpensions only to widows and children of veterans who served 90 days during theSpanish-American War, Philippine Insurrection, or Boxer Rebellion, betweenApril 21, 1898, and July 4, 1902, inclusive, and who were honorably dischargedtherefrom or regardless of length of service were discharged for or died in serviceof a disability incurred in the service in line of duty. Hence,,widows and childrenof veterans who served between July 5, 1902, and July 15, 1903, in the MoroProvince do not enjoy a pensionable status under the laws reenacted by PublicLaw 269, Seventy-fourth Congress. The proposed legislation would remove thisinequality and to that extent the Veterans' Administration is in accord with itsprovisions.

PHILIPPINE UPRISINGS AND CAMPAIGNS

The military operations in the Moro Province after the establishment of civilgovernment therein, in which United States military or naval forces participated,or in Mindanao or the islands of Samar and Leyte, between July 16, 1903, andDecember 31, 1913, inclusive, are no different from other campaigns or expedi-tions in which the military or naval forces of the United States have been engagedthroughout the course of the NatiCn's history, notably, encounters with hostilePuerto Ricans in the year 1905, the Cuban pacification from 1906 to 1909, theVera Cruz expedition and punitive expedition into Mexico from 1914 to 1917,the occupation of the Dominican Republic from 1916 to 1924, among others. Inaddition, there were disturbances and uprisings between 1925 and 1939 in whichthe Navy and Marine Corps participated. Enactment of the proposed legisla-tion would serve as a precedent for demands for similar legislation on behalf ofveterans of the Army, Navy, and V: arine Corps who served in such other cam-paigns or occupations, including those veterans of the Army, Navy, and YarineCorps who enlisidd after November 11, 1918, and rendered no service in WorldWar I prior to cessation of hostilities. Persons who served on or after April 6,1917, and before July 2, 1921, had a pensionable status under the World WarVeterans' Act, 1924, as amended, but for the purposes of Public Law No. 2,Seventy-third Congress, and the Veterans Regulations, as amended, only thoseveterans who served between April 6, 1917, and November 11, 1918, exceptwhere there was service in the military forces of the United States in Russia priorto April 2, 1920, are considered to have had wartime service. a[hose who servedafter November 11, 1918, and prior to July 2, 1921, except with the militaryforces in Russia, and who had no prior service between April 6, 1917, and Novem-ber 11, 1918, are deemed to have served during peacetime for the purposes ofsuch law and regulations. Such service could similarly be construed, as was doneunder the World War Veterans' Act, 1924, as amended, as service during a con-tinuation of World War I.

Under part II of Veterans Regulation No. 1 (a), as amended, the rates of pensionfor peacetime service are approximately 75 percent of those provided for wartimeservice. However, provision was made in paragraph I (c), part II of the regula-tion, for paymentof pension at wartime rates if the disability or death resultedfrom injury received in line of duty in actual combat in a military expedition ormilitaryoccupation. This provision was intended to place those veterans of theRegular Estabiishment who suffered disabiities in actual combat during militaryexpeditions or occupations necessitated to quell uprisings or disturbances duringtime of peace on a parity with war veterans. This paragraph % as further liberal-ized by Public Law 359, Seventy-seventh Congress, December 19, 1941, so as topermit payment of pension at wartime rates to veterans and the dependents ofveterans entitled to pension under part II of Veterans Regulation No. 1 (a), asamended, or the general pension law where the disability or death resulted frominjury or disease received in line of duty (1) as a direct result of armed conflict, or(2) while engaged in extrahazardous service, including such service under condi-tions simulating war, or (3) while the United States is engaged in w-ar. Hence,members of the Regular Establishment who served in military or naval campaignsor expeditions other than during a war period as now defined in part I of VeteransRegulation No. 1 (a), and who incurred disabilities under the conditions stated,are entitled to pension at wartime rates, including the dependents of those V hodied as the result of such disabilities.

The proposed legislation would provide no increase in monetary benefits underPublic Law No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, and the Veterans Regulations, asamended, upon those who served in the areas mentioned who are suffering fromdisabilities incurred in such service as the result of armed conflict, or under extra-hazardous conditions, or upon the dependents of those who died as the result ofdisabilities incurred under such conditions. It would, however, extend thegeneral pension law, as reenacted, so as to provide pensions for veterans whoincurred disability in active military or naval service engaged in hostilities inMindanao and in the islands of Samar and Leyte between July 16, 1903, and De-cember 31, 1913, and to the dependents of veterans who served in the McroProvince, including Mindanao or the islands of Samar and Leyte between July 5,1902, and December 31, 1913, and who died of service-connected disabilities, andby virtue of Public Law No. 359, Seventy-seventh Congress, supra, since suchservice would be considered wartime service, the wartime rates would be payableif higher.

Service pensions (service-connected disability not required) have never beenauthorized except for veterans and the widows and children of veterans whorendered active military or naval service for a specified period in time of war.

77077-45-2


They have never been authorized on the basis of peacetime service. By extend-ing the period of the Philippine Insurrection so as to cover military operationswhich. occurred after the insurrection was legally terminated and after peacewas established in the Moro Province, service pensions would be provided for alimited group of persons, their widows, and children on the basis of certain servicenow recognized as peacetime service which would be impressed wvith a wartimestatus by the terms of the bill. These include service pensions under the Spanish-American War service pension laws as reenacted by Public Law 269, Seventy-fourth Corgress, rargipg from $20 to $100 per month on the basis of 90 days'service or more with an honorable discharge, or less than 90 days' service if theveteran was discharged for disability incurred in service in line of duty, and atrates rargirg from $12 to $50 per month on the basis of 70 days or more butless than 90 days with an honorable discharge, but no discharge for line-of-dutydisability, as well as death pensions for widows and children of veterans whoserved 90- days or more, or who, regardless of length of service, were dischargedfor disability incurred in service in line of duty. The pensions provided in partIII, Veterans Regulation No. 1 (a), as amended, at the rate of $40 per monthfor permanent total disability not the result of the veterans' own misconduct,or at the rate of not less than $15 per month if the veteran is 50 percent disabled,and is otherwise eligible, would be payable on the basis of 90 days' service withan ho-orable discharge or less than 90 days if the veteran was discharged fordisability incurred in service in line of duty, and to the widows and children ofsuch veterans.

Medical treatment ard hospital or domiciliary care for service-connected andnor-service-corrected disabilities, including burial benefits, would be availableto veterans who rendered service as set forth in the proposed legislation on aparity with other war veterans, includirg veterans of World War I and of the warin which we are Pow engaged. At present medical treatment and hospital ordomiciliary care for service-corected disabilities and subject to certain limitatiorsfor ron-service-connected disabilities, ircludirg burial benefits, are provided forformer members of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard who were notwar veterans when they were discharged for disability incurred in service in lineof duty or are in receipt of pension for service-connected dlsaHilities.

It is felt that existing laws are sufficiently liberal and that enactment of theproposed legislation would establish a dangerous precedent not only with respectto demands for similar legislation for others who served in campaigns or expedi-tions in times of peace, but also for extension of other war dates established inconformity with recognized legal precedents.

There are no records in the Veterans' Administration on which to base an esti-mate of the cost of the proposed legislation.

For the foregoing reasons, the Veterans' Administration is unable to recommendfavorable consideration of H. R. 4099, either in its present form or if amended assuggested above by your committee.

Advice has been received from the Bureau of the Budget that there would be noobjection by that office to the submission of this report to your committee.

Very truly yours,FRANK T. HINES, Administrator.

[H. Doe. No. 804, 78th Cong., 2d wss.]

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES RETURNING WITHOUTHis APPROVAL THE BILL (H. R. 4099) To EXTEND THE PERIOD OF THE PHILIP-

PINE INSURRECTION SO AS TO INCLUDE ACTIVE SERVICE WITH THE UNITED

STATES MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES ENGAGED IN HOSTILITIES IN THE MORO

PROVINCE, INCLUDING MINDANAO, OR IN THE ISLANDS OF SAMAR AND LEYTE,

BETWEEN JULY 5, 1902, AND DECEMBER 31, 1913

To the House of Representatives:

I am returning herewith, without my approval, H. R. 4099, Seventy-eighthCongress, an act, to extend the period of the Philippine Insurrection so as to in-clude active service with the United States military or naval forces engaged inhostilities in the Moro Province, including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samarand Leyte, between July 5, 1902, and December 31, 1913.

The effect of the measure is to confer a wartime status on persons who servedin the United States military or naval forces engaged in hostilities in the MoroProvince, including Mindanao and the islands of Samar and Leyte between July 5,


1902, and December 31, 1913, and thus afford to such persons and their depend-ents monetary and other benefits on a parity with persons who served in theSpanish-American War, Boxer Rebellion, or the Philippine Insurrection prior toJuly 5, 1902.

The ending date of the Philippine Insurrection was established by proclamationof the President dated July 4, 1902, except in territory occupied by the Morotribes, and the War Department regards July 15, 1903, as the date of terminationof the Phillipine Insurrection in the Moro Province, which is the date on whichAct No. 787 If the Philippine Commission, approved June 1, 1903, took effect,and has held that such military operations as occurred subsequent to the estab-lishment of civil government in the Moro Province on July 15, 1903, should notbe regarded as a continuation of the insurrection.

Pensions at wartime rates are now provided for veterans and the dependents ofveterans who suffered disability or death as a direct result of armed conflict orunder extrahazardous conditions in the areas described in the bill during theperiod July 16, 1903, to December 31, 1913, and medical treatment and hospitalor domiciliary care is also provided for veterans who so served, discharged fordisability incurred in line of duty or who are in receipt of pension for service-connected disability. Service pensions would be the principal monetary benefitsafforded by the bill and such benefits, consistently, have been confined to warservice.

The bill would extend the Philippine Insurrection closing date about 1OJ2 years,from July 5, 1902, to December 31, 1913, thus according recognition to serviceperformed throughout this period as wartime service upon the basis of intermittentmilitary operations or campaigns in the Moro Province and other parts of thePhi lippine Archipelago against forces hostile to the organized government, whichengagements are comparable to other campaigns or expeditions in which themilitary or naval forces have participated in times of peace.

This measure would grant special benefits to a particular group and excludeother members of the Regular Military and Naval Establishments who similarlyhave been called upon, on numerous occasions, to engage in similar military opera-tions in times of peace. I believe that it is sound in principle to abide by theofficial beginning and ending dates of wars in providing benefits, heretofore de-scribed, and feel that extension of the period of the Philippine Insurrection,beyond that established in conformity with recognized legal precedents, wouldconstitute sufficient deviation from that principle to invite further exceptions foradditional groups with service in military occupations, expeditions, or campaignsother than during a period of war.

FRtANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT.

DECEMBER 8, 1944.

H. R. 4099.

SEVENTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; AT THE SECOND

SEssIoiN, BEGUN AND HELD AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON ON MONDAY, THE

TENTH DAY OF JANUARY, ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND FO-TY-FOUR

AN ACT To extend the period of the Philippine Insurrection so as to include active service with the UnitedStates military or naval forces engaged in hostilities in the Moro Province, including Mindanao, or in theislands of Samar and Leyte, between July 5, 1902, and December 31, 1913

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled, That for the purposes of Public Law Numbered 2,Seventy-third Congress, March 20, 1933, and Veterans Regulations, as amended,or laws reenacted by Public Law Numbered 269, Seventy-fourth Congress, August13, 1935, as amended, the Philippine Insurrection shall be deemed to have endedJuly 4, 1902: Provided, That where therewas active service with the UnitedStates military or naval forces engaged in the hostilities in the Moro Province,including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte, the date herein statedshall extend to December 31, 1913.

SAM RAYBURN,

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

H. A. WALLA E,Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.

[Endorsement on back of bill:]

I certify that this act originated in the House of Representatives.SOUTH TRIMFLE, CZerk.


The CLEK. Mr. Chairman, the representatives of the War Depart-ment, owing to prior engagements, have expressed a desire to be heardfirst.

Mr. BOYKIN. We- will be glad to hear them.

STATEMENT OF COL. ROBERT E. CHANDLER, JUDGE ADVOCATE

GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT, MILITARY PERSONNEL DIVISION,

ARMY SERVICE FORCES

Colonel CHANDLER. I am Col. Robert E. Chandler, Judge AdvocateGeneral's Department, assigned to Military Personnel Division, ArmyService Forces.

I am here this morning because the committee has asked us tocome up. We feel that so far as the War Department is concernedour views were contained in our written report which was filed withyour committee, but they have asked us to come up and presenttestimony.

As stated in the report from the Secretary of War to the chairmanof this committee, the War Department is opposed to the enactmentof H. R. 128.

By Act No. 787, which was approved June 1, 1903, and becameeffective July 15, 1903, the Philippine Commission provided for theestablishment of civil government in the Moro Province. The WarDepartment considers that the effective date of Act No. 78Z, July 15,1903, consitutes the formal ending date of the insurrection in theMoro Province.

While there was military activity in that Province after July 15,1903, it was in the nature of policing operations against relativelysmall bands of outlaws who were defying the civil government whichhad been set up.

By long-established policy, service pensions (as distinct frompensions for service-connected disability) have been limited toveterans and the dependents of veterans who rendered active servicein time of war. The War Department's objection to H. R. 128 restson the fact that its enactment would open the door to additionaldepartures from that policy and to interminable extensions of war-time status for active service actually performed in times of peace

Mr. BOYKIN. That is your statement?Colonel CHANDLER. Yes, sir.Mr. BOYKIN. Gentlemen, I have been talking to our clerk of this

committee, who has viven me some very wonderful information, andI agree with every bit of it, and I believe that we should let himmake a statement, because he has been here so long with our chair-man, knows it so well, and explained it to me so well. I had to goover to Alexandria, Va., this morning, early. I just came in here 5minutes ago and read this statement and talked to him a little bit,but he gave me so much information I could not digest it-evenpictures, and tll that sort of thing. He goes on to tell so manyinteresting things.

Mr. MCGREGOR. Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt, do you notbelieve it would be better for us to discuss this with the Colonel,asking some questions relative to his statement, before we hear fromthe clerk?

Mr. BOYKIN. Yes.


Mr. MCGREGOR. I would like to ask the Colonel a few questionsrelative to his statement.

Colonel, you made the statement, I believe, that it would be open-ing the doors, so to speak, for other similar bills. Just how wouldwe open the doors, and with reference to what groups?

Colonel CHANDLER. One group I have in mind would be personswho participated in the Mexican border difficulties in 1916, and per-haps the Vera Cruz Expedition in 1914. There certainly have beenother punitive expeditions, or other cases where military personnelwere called out and certainly, engaged in fighting.

Mr. McGREGOR. How about the Boxer Rebellion in China? Wasthat not a similar situation? We have recognized that.

Colonel CHANDLER. I have no information on that.Mr. McGREGOR. That was in so-called peacetime.I am wondering about this, Colonel: A man can be killed and be

dead just as long by being shot by a bullet from a little guerrilla ashe is from fighting- in the real first line of so-called legitimate war.Now, you are taking exception to that individual and saying thathe should not come under this type of legislation.

Mr. HALE. No; those get pensions anyway.Colonel CHANDLER. We take exception to the distinction between

service pensions and service-connected disability and death benefits.Mr. McGREGOR. You are taking the position that .this would not

be considered service-connected because there is no official declara-tion of war covering that period?

Colonel CHANDLER. It is my understanding that the persons whoparticipated in these campaigns are already entitled to service-connected pensions, but not to service pensions as such, merely be-cause they participated.

Mr. MCGREGOR. You do not think they are eligible for a servicepension?

Colonel CHANDLER. It is our feeling that the line should be drawnsome place, and if they were provided for this group then there arecertainly other groups who could logically come in and ask to havesimilar legislation enacted for them.

Mr. BOYKIN. I think if they deserve it they should come in.Mr, McGREGOR. Going- back to the chairman's statement, be

state, it is a continuation of the Philippine Insurreeihn, for whichthe War Delartment issued a campaign medal. Does that notj atleast by inference, indicate by the WX ar Department that it was adefinite campaign?

Colonel CHANDLER. Not at all, sir.Mr. MCGREGOR. You do not feel it was a war?Colonel CHANDLER. *War service as such is not a requisite to the

issuance of a service or campaign medal. We have examples of thatin the Mexican service medal for service between 1911 and 1917; theMexican Border medal, and this one I have here, the American defensemedal. The sole requirement for that is a year's continuous servicewith the proviso that some service must have been performed betweenSeptember 1939, and December 7, 1941. So the mere issuance of acampaign medal, or the decision that these persons are eligible to weara Phlippine medal, would not mean that it was considered war service.


Mr. MCGREGOR. When the War Department presented this par-ticular medal the wording "Philippine War" was included in the pres-entation. Would that not at least by inference say to you, Colonel,that the War Department recognized that there was a war at thatparticular time?

Colonel CHANDLER. I donot know about that, sir. I do not knowthe conditions under which the medal was awarded.

I have a list of the service in the Moro Province after July 15, 1903,which entitles one to the Philippine campaign medal, but I could notsay how the War Department considered it.

Mr. MCGREGOR. I notice you use the tein "Philippine campaign,"and the War Department, in connection with the medal, says "Philip-pine War." That, to me, is the dividing line between your opinionand that of the War Department. They call it the Philippine war andyou call it the Philippine campaign.

Colonel CHANDLER. The information which I have, and I believeit is the official name of the medal, says "The Philippine CampaignMedal."

Mr. McGREGOR. It has just been called to my attention that onthe outside of the box sent out in 1909 they called it the PhilippineWar Medal. I cannot definitely determine the dividing point betweena Philippine insurrection and a Philippine war.

Colonel CHANDLER. I cannot either.Mr. McGREGOR. That is all, Mr. Chairman.Mr. SAVAGE. What is the difference between a service pension and a

service-connected pension?Colonel CHANDLER. I am not an expert on that, sir, but it is my

distinct understanding that a service pension is one which is givensimply for participation in military and naval service between certaindates, without regard to any disability or anything of that nature,whereas a service-connected pension is predicated upon some dis-ability which has connection with the service.

Mr. HALE. Colonel, do you know about these various expeditions,like that of the Marines in Haiti, nad I guess they went down toNicaraugua at one time?

Colonel CHANDLER. Yes, sir. They went in the early thirties, asI recall. I have no information on that, sir. I would imagine thatthey would certainly be eligible for the pensions which are providedat peacetime rates for persons who incur disability in the service.

Mr. HALE. Yes; who incurred disability, but I mean pensions justfor having served.

Colonel CHANDLER. I have no information in that connection.Mr. HALE. There is all the difference in the world between compen-

sating a man for injury or wounds incurred in the period of serviceand giving him a pension just for the service.

Colonel CHANDLER. Yes, sir; there is.Mr. HALE. These people who served in this Philippine Insurrection

get a service-connected pension anyway; just like the Regular Armyin time of peace. They get a service-connected pension, do they not?

Colonel CHANDLER. Yes, sir. That rate is 75 percent of thoseprovided for war service, and then there are certain conditions underwhich at the present titne, or hereafter, they could get wartime ratesunder certain conditions of service.


Mr. HALE. So that the only question is whether we shall treatthis Philippine Insurrection as being in all respects the equivalent ofa war for a period of something like 10 years, is it not?

Colonel CHANDLER. Yes, sir; a little more than 10 years.Mr. HALE. Ten and a half years.Mr. SAVAGE. Colonel, is it your opinion that this legislation affects

anyone that is not in uniform? Does it apply strictly to people thatare in military service, in uniform?

Colonel CHANDLER. I am not sure that I understand your question.Mr. SAVAGE. From one of your remarks I took it that you were

under the impression that it went too far, that it even reached peoplethat were not actually men connected with the service in uniform.

Colonel CHANDLER. You mean during the period in question?Mr. SAVAGE. Yes.Colonel CHANDLER. No, sir. If I gave that impression, it was not

so intended, because I know that it applies only to people who servedin the military and naval forces during this period, and not to others.

Mr. DOYLE. You state it is necessary to have a line fixed some place.Colonel CHANDLER. That is our opinion.Mr. DOYLE. It would not interfere with the efficiency of the War

Department in any way to include these men we have in mind?Colonel CHANDLER. Not at all.Mr. DOYLE. It would not bring about any complications that

would impair the efficiency of the War Department?Colonel CHANDLER. We would not be affected from an adminis-

trative point of view.Mr. McGREGOR. I would just like to ask one question. Colonel,

you consider the Boxer and Indian campaigns as campaigns of warservice, do you not?

Colonel CHANDLER. Some of the Indian campaigns were consideredas war service, and some were not.

Mr. MCGREGOR. How about the Boxer Rebellion?Colonel CHANDLER. I believe that so far as the law is concerned

they have considered the Boxer campaign as being involved in war.Mr. BOYK1N. I believe we should hear from our clerk just a brief

statement, .because it helped me and I think it might help us all.What do you thing about that, gentlemen? Do you think that is agood idea? These clerks -know more than the chairman, as a rule.

(The clerk spoke extemporaneously and outlined briefly the legis-lative history and purposes of the legislation before the committee.)

T he CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the next witness is Mr. Omar Ketchum,national legislative representative of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

STATEMENT OF OMAR B; KETCHUM, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE

REPRESENTATIVE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS

Mr. KETCHUM. My name is Omar B. Ketchum. I am the nationallegislative representative for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of theUnited States. Most of you know the background of the Veterans of

")Foreign Wars, 'but I will repeat it again for the record.-- It is an organization that is composed exclusively of men who have

seen service on foreign soil or in hostile waters during some war,campaign, or expedition in which this country has engaged, and forwhich, - campaign medal has been authorized by the Government.


The Veterans of Foreign Wars are interested in this bill, H. R. 128,which is before this committee, because it involved campaign orexpeditionary service.

For your further information, the Veterans of Foreign Wars todayrepresent approximately 800,000 men who have served in past warsor who are serving in this present war. Approximately 425,000 ofthem are overseas at this time on the many battle fronts of the world.

I have appeared before this committee on other occasiohs in behalfof this legislation. We recall this committee reported a similar billout last year, or rather in the Seventy-eighth Congress. It wasapproved by the Congress and later went to the President, where itreceived a veto. I have read with a great deal of interest the state-ments of the President in his veto message. I have read the objec-tions to the bill from the War Department; I have read the report fromthe Veterans' Administration, when they filed an adverse reportagainst this legislation.

As I view the objections to the legislation, they are based pri-marily, as Colonel Chandler pointed out to you a few moments ago, onpayment of service pensions for service rendered outside an absolutewar period. I was prepared to bring up many of the points whichhave been expressed by the clerk of the committee a few momentsago in the statement he made. Frankly, we do not believe that ob-jecting to the payment.of a service pension just because there was noofficial war declared is a very sound argument against the paymentof a service pension, and as Mr. Mathias has so well pointed out,certainly there are precedents for the payment of service pensionsfor service other than in actual war. We did not declare war againstChina in the Boxer Rebellion, yet service pensions have been paidfor that service.

He also pointed out that after Lee had surrendered to Grant,there were Civil War hostilities going on down in Texas. Certainlythe Civil War had officially ended, but they paid service pensions forservice in Texas following the surrender of Lee to Grant. Is thatwartime service? Have we not paid pensions on. that?

So we just cannot admit the argument. This objection has beenadvanced again and again, that because these men were in a periodof service which occurred after an arbitrary war-eitding date hadbeen set, therefore they should not be eligible to a service pension.

It has also been well pointed out before this committee that themen who were serving in the islands during those periods from 1902to 1913 certainly were the original jungle fighters of the United Statesarmed forces.

I happened to bring a little information along with reference tothe payment of pensions to civilians who worked on the PanamaCanal. Public Law 319 of the Seventy-eighth Congress providedfor the recognition of services of civilian officials and employees,citizens of the United States, engaged in and about the constructionof the Panama Canal.

Now, why were pensions granted to those civilian employees?Because of the adverse circumstances under which they worked,because of the fever, the tropical conditions, and the physical det~e-rioration which such service exacted.

Remember, they paid these pensions primarily because of tropicalconditions-primarily because of adverse working conditions and


climate-not because they were confronted with hostile forces. Theyworked down there, not with the threat of sudden death from aMoro knife or from a Moro trap, but worked as any other civilianwould on a construction project.

Mr.. MCGREGOR. I wonder, Mr. Ketchum, if you would state justin a general way what the President's argument was when he vetoedthis bill. He recognized the bad working conditions when he signedthe bill granting pensions to the group at the Canal, but he did notrecognize the fighting conditions of the soldiers down in the PhilippineWar.

Mr. KETCHUM. Mr. McGregor, the principal objections in the vetomessage of the President were that this was paying a service pensionfor peacetime service, and that it was establishing a precedent, and ifthis demand was granted there would be other demands undoubtedlycoming before the Congress to pay a service pension for other periodsof peacetime service.

Mr. MCGREGOR. But he did sign a bill for service pensions forcivilian workers?

Mr. KETCHUM. That is right.Now, I want to give ou more information on that. I want to call

to your attention that these persons who were pensioned as a result oftheir civilian service on the Panama Canal certainly received a lotmore compensation for their services down there, in addition tobonuses, than did the jungle fighters who fought in certain provincesduring this extended Philippine Insurrection.

Using some of the figures which have been developed, the CivilService Commission, in its statement contained in the report on S. 683,which was the pension bill for Canal workers, and which becamePublic Law 319, Seventy-eighth Congress, estimated the averagemonthly pension under this bill to be $62.50.

Under section 2 of Public Law 319, Seventy-eighth Congress, eachcivilian official and each civilian employee entitled to receive an an-nuity under the provisions of the act shall be paid such annuity basedon the salary paid or compensation received by and paid to him forhis aforesaid service on a scale of 40, 50, and 60 percent of his averageannual basic salary, pay, or compensation according to the number ofyears of service.

Now, you see, they were going to pay according to the number ofyears of service, based on their annual pay down in the Canal Zone,either 40 or 50 or 60 percent.

The Civil Service Commission estimates that the average paymentis going to be $62.50. We can assume, under the 40-, 50-, and 60-percent scale, that the average would be around 50 percent, conse-quently the average pay for these men down there, based on this esti-mate of the Civil Service Commission, would be a salary of $125 amonth. That was the average salary paid. Remember, that doesnot include any bonuses that they received in addition to their salary.This annuity is based actually on their pay, not on any bonuses. Sohere is a group of men who worked on a construction project in the.Canal Zone and who were given a service pension because of thehazardous conditions under which they worked, and their averageearnings, according to the best estimates that could be providedwithin the reports, were approximately $125 a month.

77077-45-8


Compare that with the $12 or $13 a month that other men werereceiving as members of the armed forces, fighting under conditionsworse than in the Panama Canal Zone-not only worse climatic con-ditions, but they were confronted with hostile forces and facingsudden death night and day.

We are not objecting to the payment of these pensions to the menwho worked on the Panama Canal. We are not objecting to thepayment of pensions in the Boxer Rebellion. We are not objectingto the payment of service pensions to those men that were engaged inhostilities after the Civil War came to an official close. But we dobelieve the same consideration should be given men covered underH. R. 128, and I would like to see this committee again report this billout and put it through the House and send it over to the Senate. Ibelieve it is a long overdue obligation that should be paid. •

Mr. Chairman, I think I have covered the field as far as I should go.Much of this informatino has been before the committee on manyother occasions. If there are any questions, I will be glad to try toanswer them.

Mr. CORBETT. The War Department has brought up the argumentthat if this bill is passed it opens the gate to other bills for other ser-vices. Can you think of any other group that might conceivably,because of the passage of this bill, come in and ask for a similar pen-sion bill?

Mr. KETCHUM. Well, I cannot, offhand, but my answer to that, Mr.Congressman, would be this: What difference does it make? If thereis another group that is deserving, who have had service similar tothis, why should not the Congress welcome them to come in?

Mr. CORBETT. The point of my question is this: If we have anargument that this bill sets a precedent for other groups and thereare no other groups, what difference does it make if there is a prece-dent?

Mr. KETCHUM. I cannot say whether there are other groups. Itis just one of those imponderables. Colonel Chandler pointed outthat it is possible that men who participated in the Mexican bordercampaign might come in and ask for a service pension. He men-tioned those who were in the occupation of Vera Cruz, and maybethose in the Niciraguan campaign. I do not know; I cannot sayfor certain that there never will be any other groups. Certainlythere were few that had service along the particular lines of thisgroup that we are talking about today.

But again, my answer is, What do we mean by precedent? Whenthey say it will open the doors for somebody else to come in, is notthe Congress dealing with those problems every day, not only onveterans' legislation but on all types of legislation?

Mr. CORBETT. I was getting around to the same point, that youare not going to give wartime pensions during peacetime. War ispretty much the same thing whether it is declared or not.

Mr. KETCHUM. I think most of us realize we were practically en-gaged in a war long before this present war was declared. I recallsinkings of some of our destroyers, the Reuben James, for example, andanother vessel. I remember our Navy was actually engaged inhostilities with enemy forces prior to the official declaration of war.That was taken care of. This very committee came out with a billwhich later became Public Law 359, just to take care of those cases.


Now, precedent. I do not know what is mean by precedent any-how. There is nothing new upder the sun.

Mr. MCGREGOR. If we are talking about precedent, we certainlyopened a greater gate and a wider area when we passed the PanamaCanal bill than we have in this one, and I am favoring that and not,objecting to it. I want to concur in your statement that I do notbelieve in precedent. I think this, that each one of these bills that issubmitted to us either passes or falls on its own merits.

Mr. KETCHUM. That is right; it stands on its own legs., Either it isservice worthy of a service pension or it is not.

Mr. DOYLE. Because I am new and not familiar with the back-ground, in speaking of precedent it seems to me that the War Depart-ment and the President take issue on previously enacted legislation ofthis sort, on the grounds of precedent and opening up the door. As Iunderstand it, we have two precedents already. One was the BoxerRebellion, in which there was no declaration of war, and one was thepayment of this sort of a pension after the cessation of official hostilitiesin connection with the Civil War. Therefore, we have that precedent,and the Indian War.' We have three precedents, so we are not estab-lishing a precedent if this legislation passes.

Mr. KETCHUM. I cannot see that we are.Mr. DOYLE. It has already been established. That is what our

Government thrives on, after all-precedent. That is what legal deci-sions are, precedent. Now we have precedents for the payment of thisvery sort of thing, and it does not seem to me that the payment of thesefunds to the Panama civilian employees is comparable to payment ofsuch funds to men who were actually under fire, whether war is declaredor not. Am I wrong in that?

Mr. KETCHUM. I think you are correct. I do not know what argu-ment the War Department or the Veterans' Administration wouldsubmit in justifying the pensions payable for the Boxer Rebellion orthe Indian wars or periods of service after the official close of the

-Civil War and not these. I do not know how they would explainthat.. Probably they might have some explanation that would satisfythemselves. I do not see how it would satisfy me, because it is a serv-ice pension.

Mr. DOYLE. Why, then, could we not get their explanation fortheir answer to those three precedents, and. then let us find out how tomeet them? Let us see if they have a valid explanation which wouldovercome our doing the same thing now in this case that was done inthree other cases.

Mr. MCGREGOR. I think possibly, Mr. Chairman, we could makethat inquiry when General Hines comes before our committee.

Mr. KETCHUM. Speaking of precedent, I should like to call yourattention again to Public Law 359, which came out of this committeeearly in the Seventy-eighth Congress. Public, 359, does definitely paywartime rates for peacetime disabilities. There is no question aboutthat. Now, on what grounds did they pay them? It says "underconditions closely approximating or simulating war." There is i.precedent for you. Public, 359, pays wartime rates of pensions forpeacetime service, because that peacetime service was rendered underconditions closely approximating or simulating war.

en who *ere in maneuvers down in Louisiana before we were en-gaged in this war, and who became disabled as a result of those


maneuvers, were given wartime disability compensation because itclosely approximated or simulated wartime conditions.

Mr. MCGREGOR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the permissionof the committee to incorporate the words of Public Law 359 at thispoint in the record.

Mr. BOYKIN. Without objection, it is so ordered.(The matter referred to is as follows:)

[PUBLIC LAW 359--77TH CONGRESS]

[CHAPTER 598-IST SESSION]

[H. R. 6009]

,AN ACT To provide pensions at wartime rates for officers and enlisted men of the Army, Navy, MarineCorps, and Coast Guard disabled in line of duty as a direct result of armed conflet, while engaged in extrahazardous service or while the United States is engaged in war, and for the dependents of those who diefrom such cause, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled, That subparagraph (c), paragraph I, of part II,Veterans Regulation Nimbered 1 (a), as amended, is hereby amended to read asfollows:

"(c) Any veteran otherwise entitled to pension under the provisions of partII of this regulation or the general pension law shall be entitled to receive therate of pension provided in part I of this regulation, if the disability resulted froman injury or disease received in line of duty (1) as a direct result of armed conflict,or (2) while engaged in extra hazardous service, including such service underconditions simulating war, or (3) while the United States is engaged in war.

"The dependents of any deceased veteran,.whose death resulted from an injuryor disease received in line of duty as described in this subparagraph, otherwiseentitled to pension under the provisions of part II of this regulation or the generalpension law, shall be entitled to pension at the rates provided for service-connecteddeath compensation benefits for dependents of World War veterans by section 5of Public Law Numbered 198, Seventy-sixth Congress, as amended (U. S. C.,title 38, sec. 472b), or if barred by the insurance limitations thereof, the ratesprovided by paragraph IV of part I, Veterans Regulation Numbered 1 (a), asamended."

SEc. 2. The Administrator of Veterans' Affairs is hereby authorized to makerules and regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, which arenecessary to carry out its purposes.

SEC. 3. The provisions of this Act shall also apply to disability or death occur-ring prior to the effective date of this Act, but payments authorized by this Act-shall not be made for any period prior to the date of enactment, or the date ofreceipt in the Veterans' Administration of application for the benefits thereof,whichever is the later date.

This Act shall not be so construed as to reduce any pension under any Act,public or private.

Approved, December 19, 1941.

Mr. McGREGOR. I think it carries out your point. Public Law359 of the Seventy-eighth Congress provides full war-time rates fordisabilities incurred in service in line of duty under three conditions:

(1) As a direct result of armed conflict; or (2) while engaged in extrahazardousservice, including such service under conditions simulating war; or (3) while theUnited States is engaged in war.

Mr. BOYKIN. Gentlemen, there is your precedent.Mr. HALE. Mr. Ketchum, do the men in the service prior to

December 7, 1941, get service pensions?Mr. KETCHUM. Certain of them do. It depends on what group.

The Spanish-American War pension is a service pension.Mr. HALE. You do not understand me. I mean people in the

,service in the period, let us say, from June 1940 to December 1941.Do they get service pensions?


Mr. KETCHUM. They do not get service pensions, but if they incura service-connected disability

Mr. HALE. Of course there is no question about that.Mr. KETCHUM. If they incurred a service-connected disability, they

receive wartime rates.Mr. HALE. There is no question about the service-connected disa-

bility. The only row there has ever been has been about the service

pension of a man who was not disabled and was not diseased and wasnot in anyway damaged.

Mr. KETCHUM. I think we have to make a distinction there. Thereis a difference between strictly peacetime service rendered, of course,in camps and barracks in this country and in foreign bases when therewas no enemy opposition whatever. We are talking about a servicepension which is payable for a period of service rendered during whichour troops were involved in enemy action.

Mr. HALE. What you are really talking about, philosophically, is,What constitutes a war?

Mr. KETCHUM. That is right.Mr. BOYKIN. Any further questions? (None.)The next witness is Commander William Floyd, of the Regular

Veterans Association.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. FLOYD, NATIONAL COMMANDER,

REGULAR VETERANS ASSOCIATION

Mr. FLOYD. My name is William M. Floyd, national commanderof the Regular Veterans Association. Our organization consists of allmembers of the armed forces who have served honorably, whether intime of peace or in time of war. We feel that we have the only dis-tinction among organizations which classifies all members equally.We are interested in your son and my son the day that he leaves theinduction board or that he enlists in the service.

This is my third time appearing here before this committee on thislegislation, and I am sure that the veto message from the Presidenthas nothing to do with this committee, because I do not believe itwill change your minds.-There were several points here in the veto message that our Presi-

dent sent on this H. R. 4099 which has been brought out clearly toyou, and to the point.

In the Boxer Rebellion there was no war declared, but those menreceived service-connected pensions. The ending date of the Philip-pine War the President set as July 4, 1902. Gentlemen, we lostmany and many a peacetime serviceman who volunteered his servicein the Philippine Islands, for the Moros could not speak English,They could not understand why we declared peace and they did notunderstand English, and there was many a man who had his armscut off with a bolo.

Of course you gentlemen have had this brought up, you oldermembers of this committee, for the past 3 years, and I do not thinkit is necessary for me to take up your time unless some of the newmembers of the committee would like to have this brought out.

Service pensions should be the principal monetary benefits ac-corded by the bill, and such benefits in existing law shall consist of


ivar service. Gentlemen, if this was not war service, what was it?

These boys were dodging bolos and machine-gun bullets and any

other provisions of ammunition that these Moros and Philippineinsurrectionists could get hold of.

At that time we had no hospital records. A member of this expedi-

tionary force, if they want to call it that, cannot have his disability

declared a service disability because there were no reports, and these

men cannot establish that record. The campaign medal which you

have here is the same campaign medal as it was for the Spanish-

American War. They received the medal, those boys did, from 1902

to 1913, and received double time, but no double-time pay. They

received 20 percent foreign service pay. Their pay was $12 one month

and $13 the next month. Compare that with the pay today. I

served in six engagements in the last World War, and I am sure these

men in the Philippine Insurrection had more hazardous service then

any of us men had in World War I at any time. I can say that and

be truthful. I am sure that these boys have had no hospital or clinic

records and have had no hospital facilities. We had weather condi-

tions, naturally.In the Panama Canal Zone, as we just got through explaining here,

those members were civilians. We have nothing to do with seeingthat they do not get something from the Government if they are en-titled to it. But our members of the armed forces who fought in thePhilippines received nothing at all, we might say, except this campaignmedal.

We have no objection to any war service or any peacetime servicepension being paid to any member of the armed forces, but we dobelieve that these men should be on a higher standard than thePanama Canal employees, because they were civilians. They weremustered for this service because they had a bigger job.

There are lines drawn where these men on the Panama Canal neversmelled gunpowder. The same thing in some of the war hazardconditions that our Government is now paying. Members of thearmed forces are being paid now a service-connected disability be-cause they never have seen or heard gunfire in all their days.

Our President, by his veto of H. R. 4099, showed he had beenmisinformed and was not familiar with the service rendered by thosemembers of the armed forces who went through hell on Leyte, Samar,and Mindanao, including the Moro Province, between July 4, 1902,and December 31, 1913. Those veterans are the "daddies of alljungle fighters today."

The declaration of peace by no means ended the active service ofour armed forces in the islands. American forces during the yearsfollowing the beginning of the organized government, and until 1913,were engaged in field operations of a dangerous and exhausting char-acter against guerrilla bands and against the pulajanes-their rationswere poor and so scarce at times that they had to live as best theycould off the country which these regulars were not accustomed to.Drinking water was always foul and taken from mudholes coveredwith slime in which water buffaloes bathed, their only covering at nightwas their rubber poncho, while mosquitoes, fleas, ants as large asbutterflies, and leeches tormented them day and night. The onlysoldiers allowed in camp hospitals were those severely wounded or tooill from tropical diseases to perform field duty, and very little quinineor other medicines were obtainable.


The American who wishes to keep his health in the Philippines willprotect his head from the midday sun by a helmet, or an umbrella, orboth; will insist on having his drinking water boiled at all times; willavoid all unripe or overripe fruit; will see that vegetables uncookedare thoroughly washed in boiled water; and will be very cautiousabout eating raw shell fish and cold meats which have been standingin exposed places. A temperate diet of freshly cooked food withcomparatively little meat is the one most conducive to health in atropical climate of which these regulars had a very hard time for thecooks were always busy watching out for the insurrectos. In general,persons with organic weaknesses could not go to the Philippines, forthe climatic conditions will soon develop their weak spots.

Of course, the President- did proclaim July 4, 1902, as the peacedate on which the Philippine insurrection was supposed to have beenover, however, neither the soldiers operating far back in the junglesagainst insurrectos, the insurrectos themselves, nor the Moros knewanything about the synthetic peace or, in fact, noted any markedchange in conditions at 12 noon on July 4, 1902. This being the case,why not place the peace date, if we just must have one, where it honestlybelongs, December 31, 1913, insofar as Samar, Leyte, and Mindanao,including the entire Moro Province are concerned.

March 6, 1906: Battle of Bud Dajo. Assault units composed of272 Regulars of the Sixth United States Infantry, 211 Regulars of theFourth United States Cavalry, 110 Regulars of the Nineteenth UnitedStates Infantry, 68 Regulars of the Twenty-eighth Battery of Artil-lery, 6 sailors from United States Gunboat Pampango, and 57 con-stabulary.

Total, 790 members of the armed forces were in this engagement.Our casualties were 23 killed and 73 wounded, a total of 96 volunteers,including Vocar's trail. Therefore, gentlemen, this proves to youthat the Moros did not have such a thing as a peace treaty, even onVocar's trail. General Bliss and his staff were attacked and twoRegulars seriously wounded with bolos.

I refer to the facts that according to the records of civil government,an epidemic of bubonic plague in 1903, alone caused the death of 147.

In the year of 1905 there was an epidemic which lasted untilFebruary 1906. Out of 283 cases there were 243 deaths. This wasin the region of Manila. You can see that these Regulirs did nothave the proper hospital care or medicines.

The expedition in April 1903 on the north shore of Lake Lanas,Lt. George C. Shaw, now a retired general living in Washington, D. C.,led his company in this attack and captured two forts in a 3-dayfight; had some wounded and was in the hospital at Camp Vicars.This company had nine Regulars with arms off, chopped off by theMoros. Although, these forgotten men did receive a peacetimepension and a medal, this was not declared war service.

On July 10, 1904, they attacked a village called Tavin in northSamar. Over 30 people were killed and over 100 homes burned.The next day, July 11, 1904, they attacked a northern village calledCantaguie in the river valley north of central Samar. These Moroskilled a lieutenant of police and captured Mayor Teniente, who wasthe appointee of the United States Government. The Moros laterkillled him and poured oil over him and set fire to his body.


We lost 21 Regulars killed in action at the Battle of Bud Dajo,Jolo, March 1906 (whereas only 15 soldiers were killed in the stormingand capture of Manila from Spain on August 13, 1898). There hasnever been any question raised against the fact that we were engagedin a war when the 15 members of the armed forces were killed at theBattle of Manila, however, technically, the Spanish-American Warwas over before the capture of Manila took place, gentlemen. Somemight say this will place these battles (which was not ended until1913) in the same class with other peacetime expeditions, landings,an.d operations. The covering preliminary peace terms between theUnited States and Spain, were signed at 4 o'clock on Fridayafternoon., August 12., 1898. On Saturday, August 13, 1898, theNavy and Army made a combined attack upon the city of Manilaand captured it. News of the preliminary peace treaty did notreach Admiral Dewey and General Merritt until around noon onMonday, August 15, 1898. Certainly it would be ridiculous tostate that the veterans Who took part in the Battle of Manila, arenot Spanish-American War veterans and entitled to a wartime servicepension incident to such service, but likewise are the veterans whofought the Filipinos and Moros after July 4, 1902, entitled to a war-time service pension for both incidents, even if taking place afterthe peace date, cover actual war service.

REPORT OF THE PHILIPPINE COMMISSION ON NUMBER OF AMERICANS

KILLED IN ACTION

(However, this report is not complete-no casualties or sick fromdiseases contracted while serving their country in the Philippineinsurrection.)

KilledMonth of August 1898, War with Spain ------------------------------ 271899 to 1902 --------------------------------------------------- 732July 5, 1902, to Dec. 31, 1906 --------------------------------------- 239

I might say here that the entire story of this intrepid little armywill never be fully told, and we think it very unfair that a member ofthe armed forces who served in those islands for 2 years, and in someinstances longer, cannot receive a thin dime in pension (but he hasreceived the same medal), while a member of the armed forces whowent to one of the several camps in the United States for a few weekscan draw a pension from our Government of $60 a month. I mightalso call your attention to the fact that the Philippine Insurrectionwas the only profitable war ever indulged in by our Nation.

It must be borne in mind that many veterans today receive SpanishWar pensions even though they did not see actual war service, butwe feel they deserve it, and at the same time there are hundreds ofmen who served in the zones of uprising against the established con-stituted authority of the United States in the Philippine Archipelagowho were wounded or killed and yet they, or their dependents, havenot been properly recognized.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, veterans of the Reg-ular Establishment voluntarily chose the military life as their profes-sion the same as you gentlemen who voluntarily quit your professionto be a slave for your Government, and the Regular enlisted men arethe only ones in the United States who receive no provision for social


security. If they do not have the 30 years in service to retire on,they are out of luck. These men train our vast army in time of war,and in time of peace they are always trying out new mechanism ofwar to be prepared. The existing laws are not sufficient for your de-fenders in time of peace. This is the only country in the history ofthis great Republic that does not take care of the volunteer enlistedmembers of the armed forces. .0

I would like to call your attention to the members of the ArmedForces who were on the islands from 1903 to 1907. There was anaverage of 76,544. This is around the number of police you have inNew York. If any of these policemen become disabled they wouldreceive benefits, wouldn't they? From 1908 to 1913, you had 61,420members of the Regular Establishment still over-what for?

As late as February 28, 1913, now General, John J. Pershing advisedthe Governor General the Moros would not yield to disarmamentwithout a fight. Then, later the Moro Province was dissolved byact and Frank W. Carpenter relieved General Pershing December16, 1913.

You can see by this act that the war lasted through all these years1902 to include 1913, history proves this, also, your casualty list.

Mr. Chairman, I want the committee to know that the RegularVeterans Association deeply appreciates your good judgment in thisbill, H. R. 128, and asks you to speed this up before all of these worthymembers of the Armed Forces pass on. I might also add here, thatI was in six engagements in World War I-and I believe that thesemembers of the Philippine Insurrection had more hardships thanI did.

I thank you.The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the next witness is Congressman

Hagen of the Ninth Congressional District of Minnesota.

Mr. BOYKIN. We are very glad to have you with us this morning,Congressman, and shall be pleased to receive your statement at thistime.

STATEMENT TO INVALID PENSIONS COMMITTEE RELATIVE TOH. R. 128 BY HON. HAROLD C. HAGEN, UNITED STATES REPRE-

SENTATIVE IN CONGRESS, NINTH DISTRICT, MINNESOTA

Mr. HAGEN. Gentlemen, during the last session of Congress manyof us worked hard in an effort to secure the passage of H. R. 4099.This bill was passed by Congress and sent to the President for hissignature. On December 8, 1944, President Roosevelt returned thebill to Congress without his approval. There are many of us who feelthat the President was not fully informed as to the merits of thislegislation and for that reason the chairman of your committee,Congressman John Lesinski, of Michigan, reintroduced the legisla-tion under the title of H. R. 128.

I have received a great deal of information from veterans whofought through the insurrection in the Philippines. A large part ofthis information is being incorporated in this statement to the com-mittee.

77077-45-4


Mr. Howard G. Austin, of the United States Soldiers' Home,Washington 13, D. C., has taken the President's message paragraphby paragraph and has set forth his refutations.

The President stated:

Pensions at wartime rates are now provided for veterans and the dependents ofveterans who suffered disability or death as a direct result of armed conflict orunder extrahazardous conditions in the areas described in the bill during theperiod July 16, 1903, to December 31, 1913, and medical treatment and hospitalor domiciliary care is also provided for veterans who so served, discharged fordisability incurred in line of duty, or who are in receipt of pension for service-connected disability.

Mr. Austin contends that this statement is a manifest admissionthat there was a war going on in certain parts of the Philippines upto and including December 31, 1913.

The President further stated:Service pensions would be the principal monetary benefits afforded by the

bill and such benefits, consistently, have been confined to war service.

Civilian workers are granted service pensions for noncombat peace-time labor between 1904 and 1914 on the Panama Canal, Mr. Austinpoints out.

In concluding his statement the President says:The bill would extend the Philippine Insurrection closing date about 10

years, from July 5, 1902, to December 31, 1913, thus according recognition toservice performed throughout this period as wartime service upon the basis ofintermittent military operations or campaigns in the Moro Province and otherparts of the Philippine Archipelago against forces hostile to the organized gov-ernment, which engagements are comparable to other campaigns or expeditionsin which the military or naval forces have participated in times of peace.

This measure would grant special benefits to a particular group and excludeother members of the Regular Military and Naval Establishments who similarlyhave been called upon, on numerous occasions, to engage in similar militaryoperations in times of peace. I believe that it is'sound in principle to abide bythe official beginning and ending dates of wars in providing benefits, heretoforedescribed, and feel that extension of the period of the Philippine Insurrection,beyond that established in conformity with recognized legal precedents, wouldconstitute sufficient deviation from that principle to invite further exceptions foradditional groups with service in military occupations, expeditions, or campaignsother than during a period of war.

Mr. Austin's rebuttal follows:History accurately records the fact that the "Battle of New Orleans" January 8,

1815, was fought after the United States and England had signed a regular peacetreaty at Ghent. This battle cost the lives of but eight Americans and a fewhundred British soldiers, and even though the official peace date preceded thebattle, that did not bar the veterans who fought in this battle from obtainingthe same pension and bounty allowances as other veterans of the War of- 1812,who served previous to the official peace treaty date. Why should not thosemen who fought in the "Battle of Bud Dajo Jolo," Philippines, March 5, 6, and 7,1906, in which 21 Americans and over 600 Moros were killed and numerousengagements, in which the American forces suffered casualties, between 1902 and1913, be entitled to classification as veterans of the Philippine Insurrection andeligible for the same pension benefits as those veterans who served previous to1902, when no peace papers, of any nature, were signed by either party?

I personally approve of all the benefits that have been paid tosoldiers who have seen service whether in peacetime or in time of war.My chief objection to the veto of H. R. 4099 was that to me it was avery apparent discrimination against men who saw service in thePhilippines Which was beyond that ordinarily experienced by membersof the Regular Army during peacetime.


Following is a brief description of some of the service seen by thosegallant men who served in the United States Army in 1905 under thecommand of Gen. Leonard B. Wood and Gen. Hugh L. Scott, asrelated by Mr. Austin.

In one of the Daunerous operations, in order to reach the objective, we had toplod through a dense jungle, at night, by way of a trail so narrow that it wasnecessary to go single file, hand in hand. Only our guide knew the way. TheDext day we were shy of water. Our guide was ordered to lead us to water andto do so pronto. Then the assault on Peiuke Utrig's Cotta (miniature fort)hidden in the dense jungle. As the Artillery and Cavalry units had to circle thejungle we waited for contact before operations. ' After the storming of the cottafive of my buddies were casualties, one killed and four wounded in action.Sergeant Bryan of my detachment (Infantry) saved Lieutenant Harris frominjury in action, and later, was awarded a certificate of merit and LieutenantMcKinley of the Cavalry was commended for extraordinary service in action.Lieutenant McKinley was Acting Adjutant Geneial about 1935 and surely hecould attest that actual combat in which 300 or more hostile Moros were killedand the American forces participating therein, suffered numerous casualties, isfar from the so-called peacetime service and, in the sense of justice, above-citedservice warrants recognition on parity with ser ice performed by civilian workerson the Panama Canal (between 1904 and 1914) peacetime and no combat service,whatever, but they are granted service pensions, also their widows are eligiblefor benefits.

In a letter addressed to me dated December 11, 1944, Mr. Austinsays as follows:

As our President has stated that he did not believe in discrimination and theVeterans' Administration stressed the fact at hearings on H. R. 4099, that thepolicy of the Administration is to correct inequalities. * * * The statementwas made that "service pensions have, consistently been confined to warservice"-Spanish-Amcrican War veterans are eligible to service pensions eventhough such veterans never left the safe and secure shores of the United Statesof America. Indian war veterans are eligible to service pensions for service inany active Indian, hostilities, or in the zone of any active Indian hostilities, andcivilian workers on the Panama Canal between 1904 and 1914 are.eligible to servicepensions. To be eligible for service pensions under provisions of H. R. 4099, aveteran must have been in actual combat. H. R. 4099 had little or no oppositionin the House or Senate.

In a letter printed in the National Tribune January 4, 1945, Maj.Elmer Kemp, United States Army, retired, had the following to sayabout H. R. 4099.

[From the National Tribune, January 4, 1945]

VETO OF H. R. 4099 DEBATED BY RETIRED OFFICER OF ARMY

EDITOR, NATIONAL TRIBUNE:

It appears we have advanced a long way toward the rear in our treatment ofminority groups of combat veterans since the days when our Government fol-lowed the teachings of Honest Abe in its "Care for him who -has borne thebattle and for his widow and orphans."

The veto of H. R. 4099 is a demonstration of this present about-face attitude,for to deny a few crumbs of justice to a small number of old and infirm combatveterans and their widows, and thereby condemn them to a continuing state ofwant and poverty, is certainly contrary to our old and well-established treatmentof former veterans of any war.

The bill in question, H. R. 4099, vetoed by the President on December 8, 1944,after having passed both House and Senate without one dissenting vote, reads asfollows:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled, That for the purpose of Public Law Numbered 2,Seventy-third Congress, March 20, 1933, and Veterans Regulations, as amended,or laws reenacted by Public Law Numbered 269, Seventy-fourth Congress, Au-gust 13, 1935, as amended, the Philippine Insurrection shall be deemed to have


ended July 4, 1902: Provided, That where theie was active service with the UnitedStates military or naval forces engaged in the hostilities in the Moro Provinceincluding Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte, the date herein statedshall extend to December 31, 1913."

STUDIED FOR YEARS

Congressman Lesinski's House Invalid Pensions Committee made an exhaustivestudy for some years past of the merits of the claims put forth by the few surviving-veterans of the July 5, 1902, to December 31, 1913, Pulajane and Moro campaigns.As a result, they found that service in these campaigns was not peacetime butactual war service, and that thp so-called Pulajane and Moro campaigns werenone other than the long-drawn-out closing chapters of the original PhilippineInsurrection. Further, they determined through living witnesses such as re-tired general officers, colonels, and other veterans who had taken part in thesecampaigns, and from combat photographs, records, reports, and newspapers ofthat time and day, that the insurrection was not actually over on July 4, 1902,except for the purpose of a cut-off date on paper.

GIVEN MEDAL ONLY

Also, they examined the Philippine Campaign medal awarded these veterans bythe War Department, covering their 1902-13 combat service and found itto be identical with those medals issued veterans who served in the insurrectionprior to July 4, 1902. Therefore, the committee was thoroughly convinced thatthe claim of these veterans was just and that they should be entitled to the sameservice-pension consideration for their war service as those veterans who served inthe early days of the insurrection. Consequently, H. R. 4099, as worded andprepared by the legal department of the Veterans' Administration, was approved,and shortly thereafter, March 27, 1944, passed by the House. The bill was thenforwarded to Senator Tunnell's Senate Pensions Committee where the findings ofCongressman Lesinski's committee were sustained. In addition, the Senatecommittee held a hearing on the bill which brought out more evidence in itssupport. After this hearing it was approved and recommended to the Senate forpassage, which took place November 27, 1944.

FEAR OF "PRECEDENT"

In the President's veto message he states that the act would grant "speciabenefits to a particular group." Further, the message indicates a fear of estab-lishing a precedent. Well, as far as "special benefits to a particular group" areconcerned, it appears to me that this proposed act would have eliminated just thatexisting condition today; that is, it would grant the same service pension considera-tion to the veterans who completed the putting down of the insurrection as hasalready been granted to the veterans who participated in the early days of theinsurrection. In other words, we already have a "special-benefit group," viz,those who served prior to July 4, 1902. H. R. 4099 would have corrected thiscondition through including all veterans who participated in the putting down ofthe entire insurrection. In way of illustration, are not the 'firemen who arrivelate at the fire and take over and complete the extinguishing of same entitled toequal credit with those who took part in the early period?

In reference to a precedent being established had H. R. 4099 been approved,history accurately records the fact that the Battle of New Orleans, January 8,1815, was fought after the United States and England had signed a regular peacetreaty at Ghent. This battle cost the lives of but eight American and a fewhundred British soldiers; however, even though the official pace date precededthe battle, the date was never considered sacred enough to bar the veterans whofought in this so-termed "peacetime battle" from obtaining the same pension andbounty allowances as those other veterans of the War of 1812 who served previousto the peace-treaty date.

Using the same horse-sense measure of justice, or call it precedent if you wish,why should not the men who fought at the Battle of Bud Dajo, Jolo, Philippines,March 5, 6, and 7, 1906, which resulted in the death on the battlefield of 21Americans and over 600 Moros, and scores of other engagements between 1902and 1913, be entitled to classification as veterans of the Philippine Insurrectionand eligible for the same service pemion benefits as those who fought in manylesser engagements in the same insurrection previous to July 4, 1902?


Can it be possible that the official closing date of the war of 1812, when peacepapers were actually signed by representatives of the United States and England,could have been considered less sacred by our Government at that early date thanthe arbitrary proclaimed closing date of the Philippine Insurrection, when no peacepapers of any nature were signed by either party? The present-day attitude ofthe Veterans' Administration in defending and making sacred this arbitrary date,when it is well known that the fighting was not over on that date, simply makesfish of one veteran and fowl of another. This attitude, however, is not taken bythe Congress.

NO PARALLEL CASES

In neither of the two incidents mentioned can there be found parallel or similarcases coming under the head of peacetime military or naval operations. Of course,it's all very true, we have had many landings, expeditions, and occupations duringpeacetime, but absolutely none comparable with the peacetime Battle of New Or-leans or the peacetime closing battles and engagements of the Philippine Insurrec-tion. This is due to the fact that the New Orleans incident was actually a part.of and associated with the War of 1812, and not in any manner a separate activity,while the 1902 to 1913 Philippine campaigns, call them what you will, were actuallya part of and tied in with the Philippine Insurrection. Certainly it would be rid icu-lous to compare the 1906 occupation of Cuba, where not one single shot was everfired, with either the final chapter of the War of 1812 or the closing chapters of thePhilippine Insurrection.

The true closing date of any war or campaign does not always coincide withthe official or arbitrary closing date set by a President or the Congress. Rather,the true or accurate closing date, as concerns those doing the fighting and laterperhaps eligible for service pension benefits, should be that date when hostilitiesbetween opposing forces cease physically. Hence, insofar as H. R. 4099 wasconcerned, it would have established the date of December 31, 1913, as both theaccurate and official closing date of the insurrection on the islands of Samar,Leyte, the Moro Province, and Mindanao.

WARTIME RATES

Regarding another point raised in the veto message, viz: "Pensions at wartimerates are now provided for veterans and the dependents of veterans who suffereddisability or death as a direct result of armed conflict or under extra hazardousconditions in the areas described in the bill during the period July 16, 1903, to.December 31, 1913, and medical treatment and hospital or domiciliary care isalso provided for veterans who so served, discharged for disability incurred inline of duty, or who are in receipt of pensions for service-connected disability.'"Well, this statement certainly proves that there must have been a war going on incertain parts of the Philippines up to and including December 31, 1913. How-ever, why confine pension rights to only the few who were fortunate enough to.have a good hospital record and one that will be acceptable to the present Veterans'Administration?

What about those veterans who were injured or lost their health incident tocampaign hardships, tropical diseases, poor and inadequate food, etc., but who,happened to have little if any hospital record, for at times such records simplywere not and could not be kept out there in the steaming and rain-soaked jungles?After 35 or 40 years just attempt to obtain affidavits and other evidence estab-lishing a service-connected disability contracted in line of duty while serving ineither the Pulajane or Moro campaigns, evidence that the Veterans' Administra-tion will even consider, and, brother veteran, if successful, and you later receivethe said wartime rates they talk about, you have accomplished something thatno other veteran of my broad acquaintance has done.

HOPES ARE DASHED

Going back to the humane or pathetic side of this matter, we find the fewveterans who would have benefited through approval of H. R. 4099 now in thedeclining years of their time, watching life's shadows lengthen day by dayFor years they have hoped for, prayed for, and asked for justice from the Govern-ment whose call they answered and which they so willingly served in the yester-years of their life. They have seen new liberal pension laws enacted in favor ofhundreds of thousands of veterans who never even saw or heard a hostile shotfired, pensions increased, service pensions granted the former well-paid civilian


workers on the Panama Canal and their widows, etc., etc. Now, at this late date,when their hopes were raised to a new all-time high, and it appeared almost certainthat they might yet enjoy a few years of "the more abundant life," and the stigmaof being the "forgotten" combat veterans removed, and their faltering faithrestored in the real meaning of "the American way of life," they, and their widows,are handed a crushing blow through the veto of their hopes. While the veto wassigned by our President, I firmly believe that the very Bureau which should havehelped and aided these unfortunate veterans and their widows actually wrote themessage. They asked for bread and were handed a stone.

While H. R. 4099 is now dead as far as the Seventy-eighth Congress is con-cerned, yet the justifiable cause it covers will live on, for it now has more sup-porters in and out of Congress than ever before. A new bill will be introduced inthe next Congress and should pass without opposition, for neither the Senate northe House requires further proof that actual war continued on certain islands in thePhilippines long after the arbitrary closing date of July 4, 1902, had been set.Further, it is my belief that the President will sign the next bill after he has beenmore correctly informed, and after the smoke screen initiated by the Veterans'Administration clears away. In the meantime, veterans and widows concernedshould remain in touch with their Congressmen and two Senators so as to keepthe issue alive in the new Congress until justice has prevailed.-Elmer Kemp,major, United States Army, retired, 2813 Helen Street, Augusta, Ga.

On February 13, 1945, Major Kemp addressed another letter tothe editor of the National Tribune which follows:

EDITOR, NATIONAL TRIBUNE: It is my understanding that Congressman JohnLesinski, chairman, Invalid Pensions Committee, House of Representatives, hason hand more than sufficient personal appeals from veterans and widows con-cerned in H. R. 128 so as to warrant my recommending at this time that no moreletters be directed to his office. In my opinion, from now on it will be to theadvantage of all to direct their appeals to all Senators and Representatives fromtheir own State. By this I mean, write each of your Representatives, whetheryour State has 1 or 15, and both of your United States Senators, the reason beingthat in some congressional districts there are no veterans coming under H. R.128, consequently the Representatives from such districts will not be familiarwith this bill when same comes before the House.

It is not Congressman Lesinski who requires convincing of the validity of theclaims put forth by the veterans who completed the putting down of the PhilippineInsurrection during the turbulent years between July 4, 1902, and December31, 1913, but, rather, those Senators and Representatives who are not familiarwith the subject. Incidentally, lest we forget, Congressman Lesinski was theauthor of our ill-fated H. R. 4099 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, and is also theauthor of our present H. R. 128 of the Seventy-ninth Congress. He appreciatesthe claims of those veterans who saw combat service in the Pulaiane and Morocampaigns, and is doing everything humanly possible to help them obtain theSpanish War pension to which they are entitled. His contention that all veteransof the Philippine Insurrection should be treated equally under the law is mostcommendable.

Due to the fact that so few of our present day Senators and Representativesare familiar with the wartime services rendered by those Regular Army volunteerveterans who went through the bell on Samar, Leyte, and Mindanao, including theM oro Province, between July 4, 1902, and December 31, 1913, I consider it rele-vant to the issue to advise all veterans, in making their appeals for a few belatedcrumbs of justice, to confine their letters to facts and not burden our Senators orRepresentatives with ill-placed comment on, or criticism of, individual officials ordepartments of our Federal Government. As a partial guide, I believe thefollowing letter received from a veteran of the Moro campaigns is a fairly goodform, that is, the part pertaining to his service:

"DEAR MAJOR KEMP: I wish to thank you for your untiring efforts in behalf ofthe veterans referred to in H. R. 128.

"I served with the Infantry on the islands of Jolo and-Mindanao from April1905 to May 1907. My discharge certificate reads: 1 battle, 6 engagements, and9 expeditions against hostile 1M oros. I was slightly wounded at the Battle ofBud Dajo on March 7, 1906. This wound is of record but has never been dis-abling; however, I find there are no hospital records to sustain my claim that Icontracted malaria and ameba dysentery and that I was intermittently treated forthese diseases by different hospital corpsmen and, occasionally, by a contractsurgeon on duty with our command at various times while we were on expeditions


through the jungles and mountains in pursuit of hostile Moros. I am quite surethe Government is right regarding the lack of records, for few were or could bekept by the medical personnel on duty with such expeditions.

"I have never regained my former good health since returning from the Philip-pines in 1907, and have spent nearly all I have ever made since that time formedical attention. I am denied any kind of a pension for the disabilities con-tracted in line of duty while performing combat service for our Government, butam glad I volunteered at the call of the War Department for men to enlist foractive service in the Philippines back in 1904. I am now 63 years of age and un-able to perform any type of manual labor.

"As you know, Major, for you were there, our rations were poor and so scarceat times that we had to live as best we could off the country. Our drinking waterwas often foul and taken from mudholes covered with slime. Our only coveringat night was our rubber poncho, while mosquitoes, fleas, ants as large as honey-bees, and leeches tormented us day and night. The only soldiers allowed in camphospitals were those severely wounded or too ill from tropical diseases to performfield duty.

"My oldest brother served 6 months in the Army in 1898, all of which was in atraining camp here in our home State. He is 67 and receives a Spanish Warservice pension of $75 per month. My youngest brother served in the UnitedStates for a time during World War I, and receives a non-service-connected pen-sion of $50 per month as result of an automobile accident 4 years ago.

"I have my Philippine Wr.r Medal and Purple Heart issued by the War Depart-ment, but can neither eat them nor trade them in at the butcher shop for a fewscraps of beef.

"Respectfully yours."With further reference to H. R. 128, which bill would, for pension purposes

only, extend the closing date of the Philippine Insurrection to December 31, 1913,in the case of those veterans who served on the islands of Samar, Leyte, andMindanao, including all of the Moro Province, during the closing chapters of theinsurrection, it would not in any manner detract from the splendid service rend-ered by both Volunteer and Regular veterans previous to July 4, 1902. As amatter of fact, it would add to rather than detract from such services. Forexample, we lost 21 soldiers killed in action at the Battle of Bud Dajo, Jolo,March 1906, whereas only 15 soldiers were killed in the storming and capture ofManila from Spain on August 13, 1898. There has never been any question raisedagainst the fact that we were engaged in a war when the 15 were killed at theBattle of Manila; however, technically, the Spanish-American War was overbefore the caputre of Manila took place. This fact, some warped techniciansmight say, places the battle in the same class with other peacetime expeditions,landings, and operations. The protocol, covering preliminary peace terms be-tween the United States and Spain, was signed at 4 o'clock on Friday afternoon,August 12, 1898. On Saturday, August 13, 1898, the Navy and Army made acombined attack upon the city of Manila and captured it. News of the prelim-inary peace treaty did not reach Admiral Dewey and General Merritt untilaround noon on Monday, August 15, 1898. Certainly it would be ridiculous tostate that the veterans who took part in the Battle of Manila are not Spanish-American War veterans and entitled to a wartime service pension incident tosuch service, but likewise are the veterans who fought the Filipinos and Morosafter July 4, 1902, entitled to a wartime service pension, for both incidents, evenif taking place after the peace date, cover actual war service. But what aboutconditions which brought on the Battle of Bud Dajo where the loss was 21? Cansuch a battle be justly classed as peacetime parade-ground activities? Further,referring to the Pulajane campaigns on Samar and Leyte, when Lieutenant James.his Army surgeon, a Federal revenue collector, and four soldiers were killed ina battle near Julita, Leyte, on August 9, 1906, with many other soldiers wounded;were we operating in the field under war conditions simply for peacetime practice?No, these two engagements used as an illustration, and hundreds of others toonumerous to mention here, were not peacetime activities carried out in order toaccustom our soldiers to the feeling one experiences while under fire or whileengaged in mortal combat, hand to hand, against fanatic Pulajanes or Moroswhere, if my memory serves me correctly, it was bolo or kris against Krag.

Objections to attaching the tail of the dog to the dog, or, rather, attaching thelong tail end of the Philippine Insurrection to the original insurrection where itactually belongs, are not well founded nor founded on facts of sufficient importanceto warrant raising a bar against this proposed legislative move of Congressman


Lesinski. Because, in the first place, we neither declared war against the Fili-pinos nor against the Moros, hence, later, there was no actual peace treaty oragreement between the parties concerned in the conflicts. Of course, the Presi-dent did proclaim July 4, 1902, as the peace date on which the insurrection Wassupposed to have been over; however, neither the soldiers operating far back inthe jungles against insurrectos, the insurrectos themselves, nor the Morosknew anything about this synthetic peace or, in fact, noted any marked changein conditions at 12 noon on July 4, 1902. This being the case, why not place thepeace date, if we just must have one, where it honestly belongs insofar as Samar,Leyte, and Mindanao, including the entire Moro Province, are concerned?

Reference wartime pensions for peacetime service, why do we include the BoxerRebellion with our Spanish-American War and Philippine Insurrection servicewhen, as a matter of fact, it was absolutely foreign to either? We did not declarewar against China or the Boxers at the time; therefore no regular peace treaty wasnecessary when the fracas was over. As a matter of fact, the troops taking partin the Boxer Rebellion did so during a peacetime period, yet now receive a wartimeservice pension for such service. War-of course the Boxer Rebellion was a war,and the Volunteer Regulars who went through it are justly entitled to a servicepension-but by the same measure of justice so are the veterans of the Pulajaneand Moro campaigns entitled to a service pension for their war service

While we did not declare war against the various Indian tribes in the Westduring the period from about 1860 to 1891, yet, veterans who took part in sup-pressing the intermittent uprisings, or were in the vicinity thereof, are all classedas Indian war veterans and entitled to a service pension. If there was no recog-nized state of a continual war against the Indians between 1860 and 1891, thenthe period must have been a so-called peace period. On the other hand, for pen-sion purposes, we seem to class this particular period as one of war. Again Isay, what about the veterans coming under H. R. 128, are they fish or fowl?

And how about the wartime pension rates for veterans who were involved in thegunboat Panay incident in connection with the naval patrol forces in Chinawhen we were at peace with both China and Japan? No time was lost in passinglegislation to take care of- these veterans, and justly so, but, again, why have wedelayed so long the matter of taking care of the veterans of the Pulajane and Morocampaigns?

There are cases where the inequalities of our pension system might be con-sidered amusing were it not for the injustice involved. For instance, a volunteersoldier of the old Regular Army, while serving in the Pulajane campaign.on theisland of Leyte in late May 1907 and while with his command in pursuit of, andabout three jumps behind, Gen. Faustino Ablin and his band of hostile Pulajanes,slips on a wet banana leaf on the rain-soaked trail and, falling, dislocates his rightshoulder. With no doctor on band and hospital corpsmen not experienced inreducing dislocations, the lieutenant in command and his first sergeant did the job.Years after, this veteran, who had been handicapped since the accident due torepeated dislocation of this same shoulder, applies for a pension. Of course therewere no hospital records to sustain his claim but, fortunately, he locates threeformer comrades who well remember the incident. Finally, be receives a fewdollars per month peacetime pension. Later, when the much talked about PublicLaw 359 went into effect, which is the act granting pensions at wartime rates toveterans who suffer disabilities as result of armed conflict or under extra hazardousconditions during peacetimes, he finds that the service he was performing at thetime be contracted his service-connected disability could not be considered extrahazardous. No, of course not, for chasing insurrectos in the Philippines andengaging them in battle and hand to band fights nearly 40 years ago cannot beconsidered war service or extra hazardous service at this late date. But, listen,while on the subject of accidents brought about through bananas, Inductee HaroldBrown was on a furlough visiting his home town (this is in 1944) and while escort-ing his lady fair to the local USO dance hall one evening, he steps on a freshbanana peeling and in falling lands under the wheels of a passing automobile.He's rushed to an Army hospital in a commandeered ambulance and there giventhe finest medical attention that Uncle Sam can provide, but in order to shortenan otherwise long story, let me say, he was finally given a medical discharge andwill receive around $90 per month pension for the remainder of his life, to saynothing of the benefits due him under the GI bill of rights. Now, understand,I'm not saying this boy shouldn't receive the $90 per month, and I'll be charitableenough to agree with the Congress who wrote our recent pension laws that theservice he was performing at the time he contracted his disability in line of dutymay have been extra hazardous, that is if the lady friend happened to be some


,other man's wife, but I must still maintain that the services rendered by theveterans covered by H. R. 128, while of a different nature, was also extra hazardor sand should come under wartime service.

AUGUSTA; GA., February 13, 1945.

Also attached to this statement is a brochure of photographs andnewspaper clippings pertaining to the Pulajane and Moro campaignswhich took place in the Philippines between July 4, 1902, and De-cember 31, 1913.

(Folder A was exhibited to the committee.)Mr. HAGEN. It is obvious that the Philippine Insurrection was not

actually over on July 4, 1902, except as a cut-off date on paper forpolitical and military reasons. Fighting continued on thre islands ofSamar, Leyte, Jolo, and Mindanao just as it had before the so-calleddeclaration of peace, and continued until December 31, 1913. Infact some of the largest battles were fought in the Philippines afterthe date of peace was established.

I do not feel that the enactment into law of H. R. 128 will set aprecedent which cannot readily be justified. The simple truth isthat peace should not have been declared officially until such timeas the actual fighting on these islands had ceased.

For that reason I feel that the War Department and Veterans'Administration report as well as the veto message are unfair to thoseveterans who carried our banner through the balance of the cam-paign in the Philippines after the official date for peace had been set.

I recommend to the committee that H. R. 128 be reported outfavorably with a strong recommendation that it be passed at theearliest possible date.

Mr. BOYKIN. We appreciate very much your very fine statement'here this morning, Congressman Hagen. Are there any questionsthat the members of the committee would like to ask our colleague?[Pause.] There are none. Many thanks, Mr. Hagen.

Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I am in receipt of a memorandum fromMr. Charles V. Stevens, national adjutant of the United PhilippineWar Veterans, 4715 Washburn Avenue South, Minneapolis 10, Minn.,to which he attached a statement which he asked me to have insertedin the hearings.

Mr. BOYKTN. The letter and statement will be inserted.(The matter referred to is as follows:)

l\I1NNEAPOL1S 10, MINN., larch 15, 1945.

MEMORANDUM FOR HON. HAROLD C. HAGEN, M. C., WASHINGTON, D. C.

1. Awarding of medals.-First of all I would like to point out to the gentlemenof the committee the fact that veterans who saw service in the Philippines between1902 and 1913 received the very identical medal as did other veterans of thePhilippine Insurrection, I don't think even General Hines can dispute that fact,so I will not dwell on that point further.

2. Peacetime service.-Going back to the period of our Indian uprisings. Isit not a fact that a great many of the soldiers of the Regular Establishment neversaw any active service, or even saw a hostile Indian? Further, were they notwhat the Veterans' Bureau terms career or professional soldiers? I think theywere, and yet this class of veterans has received pensions for many long years.Why should they be placed in a different category than those Regulars whoserved in the Moro and Pulajane campaigns in the Philippine Islands?

3. Next, let us take a look at the Boxer Rebellion. The veterans who servedin this campaign were also Regulars, and if my memory serves me right theUnited States did not make any official declaration of war on China, yet these.

77077-4-5


veterans are eligible for a pension. I would like to have General Hines explain,that away.

4. Ending date of the insurrection.-I would like to inquire how it came theVeterans' Bureau in about 1935 saw fit to extend the date from July 4, 1902, toJuly 15, 1903? This act affected only a few veterans (which was all right as faras it went) but if they could make that extension, why not extend it from July15, 1903, to December 31, 1913, and thereby grant these worthy veterans theirrights? If it w/as all right in 1935, it ought to be in 1945. Quoting from theofficial report rendered by General Hines dated March 8, 1944. page 4: "Exceptwhere there was service in the military forces of the United States in Russia,prior to April 2, 1920, are considered to have wartime service." Is there anydifference between the southern islands of the Philippines and Russia? If thereis it must be in temperature only.

5. Regular or professional soldiers.-How about the commissiofied officers?Are they not also peacetime veterans? By the same token as they class- theenlisted men? After drawing a good salary all their lives as officers they retireon a very liberal retirement pay. It makes no difference whether they eversaw any active service or not. I wonder if the gentlemen of the Congress evertook this point into consideration. I believe when General Hines himself retires,if he ever does, he will stand to receive around $450 a month and possibly more.

6. I would like to say that most of those veterans who would be covered byH. R. 128 were not professional soldiers any more than those who volunteered inthe State Volunteers and United States Volunteers, they enlisted with the samepatriotic motives as other Volunteers, most of them were first-enlistment men,who volunteered for Philippine service in response to War Department appealsfor enlistments for such service. Is it not a fact General Wood; in about themiddle of 1906, called for more men for field service in the islands?

7. Other expeditions.-Referring to the expeditions mentioned in the Veterans'Bureau report, namely, Puerto Rico; Cuban pacification; Vera Cruz expeditionto Mexico; and Dominican Republic, etc., my opinion is there is absolutely nocomparison whatever; the above expeditions (so-called) were merely summerjaunts with pay. While the Pulajane and Moro campaigns were marked by acontinuous bloody trail. There were exploits performed by our soldiers of those

,.campaigns that will never be known, some meeting sudden and terrible deathby the kris and spear.

8. Pay and climatic condiions.-Theit pay vas the magnificent sum of $15.60per month, a few dollars more for a corporal and sergeant. I think about $18and $21.50, respectively. They were subject to most every tropical disease onthe calendar; some of them never saw a well day since their discharge.

9. Eligibility under H. R. 128.-It is my understanding that the act of June 2,1930, does not designate that a Spanish War veteran, a Philippine Insurrection,or Boxer Rebellion veteran, must have had combat service to be eligible for apension. However, H. R. 128, does require such combat service; in other words,he must have been there and must possess the Philippine Campaign Medalbefore being eligible to a pension under H. R. 128.

10. Period .of the insurrection.-While the Philippine Insurrection was pre-sumed, note the word "presumed," to have ended July 4, 1902 (on paper only),it did not terminate on that date as is generally supposed; quite the contrary;it actually spread to the southern islands and became more bloody with eachpassing month. If I can read history straight there never was a time betweenthose dates 1902-13, that the civil government (so-called) would have surviveda week, unless backed up by a strong military force. My opinion is that a civilgovernment thus sustained, is not very stable. They always had to have themilitary at their heels. If I remember right General Otis once admitted asmuch; perhaps General Shaw cab verify this if he is present.

11. Shabby treatment of this class of veterans.-Here in Minneapolis last Decem-ber 19, we buried a comrade who died in a charity hospital; his wife, not beingwise to the ramifications of the Veterans' Bureau, had called them up and wastold to bring him out there; she did, and they threw him out the next day; oneupstart doctor asked him what the hell he was doing there, that he was no veteran.Well, the poor woman had to hire an ambulance and have him brought home, andfrom there to the said charity hospital, where he died a few days later.

12. And gentlemen of the committee the Veterans' Bureau had the audacityto send them a bill for his one night's stay in the Veterans' Bureau hospital. Infact two letters and bill ccmbincd; I am going to furnish ' r. Lesinski with a sworncopy of each. This comrade who was a past commander in the UPWV died-with a broken heart, the way he w-as talked to and insulted by some of those(so-called) doctors. He had a long service record in the southern islands with


the Fourteenth United States Cavalry. I was told he was not even entitled toa burial flag. But they did allow his burial in the national cemetery at FortSelling. I can't understand how they came to be so generous? This comradehad lost a nice home through mortgage to pay doctor bills, and indebted also. Iwould like to ask the gentlemen of the committee just what they think of thiskind of treatment of these veterans who have gone forth for their country 10,000miles from their homes, to fight in those steaming hot jungles, tropical diseases,kris, and spear?

13. Breaking precedents.-The report of the Veterans' Bureau brings up thequestion of breaking precedents. May I say to the gentlemen of the committeethat, in my opinion, this is the biggest joker in the pack. It is my belief that inthe past 15 years nearly every precedent- and tradition this Nation has everknown has been broken with impunity. I would respectfully ask the committeeto disregard that statement in its entirety as being too silly to recognize. Iregard the War Department report in the same light. It seems to me that it israther picayune on the part of our War Department to use its influence to preventan old veteran from obtaining his just rights which he earned nearly 40 years ago,after begging 'those boys to enlist and getting them into the mess they did.

14. My opinion is that considering the reason for terminating the insurrection(on paper) as of July 4, 1902, which was nothing but a political farce comedyenacted to quiet the clamor of the folks back home in the States, there was lotsof bitter criticism about the insurrection lasting so long. I remember it verywell, as that was after I was mustered out and returned home. It was made apolitical bone of contention in many localities. That date, July 4, 1902, shouldbe wiped off the record by an act of the Congress, and moved up to where itbelongs, namely, December 31, 1913.

15. I have a letter on file received from a comrade in which he states a friendof his or comrade admitted to him that he was getting $75 per month, and henever pulled a trigger on a gun of any kind; and a veteran who fought a dangerouswar 8,000 miles from his homeland, in steaming hot jungles, leaving a trail ofblood in their wake, and diseases of various descriptions, and cannot get a dimein pension. If this isn't an asinine, as well as an unfair line of reasoning, then Ican't read the dictionary right. I could write many more pages in support ofthis legislation, but I think the committee has plenty of material at hand.

16. It has been claimed by the Veterans' Bureau that Public Law 359, Seventy-seventh Congress, is ample to provide for most of these veterans. I don't thinkthey have any intention whatever of recognizing claims of these veterans underPublic Law 359. I am providing the Honorable Harold C. Hagen, Member ofCongress from Minnesota, a more detailed account of those campgaigs; he willbe glad to read it, or portions of it, if the committee so wills.

17. In conclusion I want to state further I think the whole set-up is wrong; aveteran should be compensated for the combat service he rendered the Nation,no matter wheie or when, and not debarred by geographical areas or era of time.

18. The foregoing, gentlemen of the committee, is my honest and sincere viewin regard to these old and forgotten veterans of the Pulajane and Moro cam-paigns, and it has in my opinion reached the proportions of a national disgrace.

19. I respectfully ask you to report favorably on H. R. 128. Thereby rightinga wrong that has existed over a long term of years. I thank you.

Very respectfully submitted.CHARLES V. STEVENS,

Member of the National Legislative Committee,United Philippine War Veterans.

UNITED PHILIPPINE WAR VETERANS,

Minneapolis 10, Minn., March 6, 1945.Hon. HAROLD C. HAGEN, M. C.,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

My DEAR MR. HAGEN: As a member of the national legislative committee ofthe United Philippine War Veterans, and as an absentee witness, may I respect-fully inject some potent facts and nmterial in support of bill H. R. 128? This issubmitted for your use at .the proposed hearing on this bill, and for the informationof the chairman and other members of the Invalid Pensions Committee of theHouse.

After July 5, 1902, soldiers had hundreds of fights and 26 major uprisings ofsufficient seriousness to be listed as "campaigns," by our War Department, all


in the Philippines. The latter part of 1902 activities continued. In 1903, therepassed a year of incessant fighting. Over 3,019 firearms were gathered that would

menace peace no more; 8,087 expeditions were conducted against the enemy,totaling 332,923 miles.

There were 1,859 disturbers of the peace killed, 5,539 outlaws were captured,and, as had been the custom, our troops were always outnumbered; never out-

fought. This fighting is not all these soldiers have to think about. (a) The

weary days and nights on tropical trails, marsh, and jungle in search of the enemy;

(b) the weakness and pain of dysentery; (c) the freezing and burning of perniciousmalaria; (d) the heavy weight of responsibility when must act, in matters of life

and death, with no superior to consult; and if a private, $15.60 a month; a corporal,$18; a sergeant, $21.60; and a lieutenant, $118 per month to $137.50; (e) risk of

disappointment, disapproval, or disaster when plans go wrong; (f) discourage-

ments by sickness or indifference of any of his small force: (g) danger of infection

by loathsome diseases; (h) constant deadly peril that miy be lurking near; (i)

aching wounds and transporting any wounded you might have; (j) sudden death,and, worse yet, death after long-drawn-out suffering, when one meets his end,knowing it is coming, and his dependents may be left without means or resources.

Guerrilla warfare of 1899 to December 31, 1913, carried all of these; and, amid

the hurrahs and flag waving when we left and peace jubilees when we got home,no one ever surmised that at the age of three score and ten average these veterans

of 1945 would have a bill passed and then vetoed, with a message, we surmise was

written by a first sergeant who had served (well) 450 days of the early part of

organized warfare.I have crossed Luzon Island from west to east, scouting a telephone line, and

knowing when we found the cut we would be watched, probably attacked, and a

force of 3 men. A man killed in that type of war is just as dead as if killed at

Gettysburg, and stays dead just as long is if he had been killed in any one of the

first 2,811 fights, where 5 to 55,000 were engaged.

KiIS AGAINST KRAG

July 1, 1902, Congress provided for a census after "general and complete peace,"that, result to be published and the result of the census and notice of completepeace to be certified to the President of the United States. and after 2 years of

continued full and lasting peace a general election would be held for 60 percentof the Philippine area only. May 23, 1899, all Spanish forces had been massedin the fortress at Zamboanga; American troops took over that city November16, 1899, where "kris against Toledo blade" had prevailed for 377 years andwhere the Spanish conquistadors met their masters.

American troops found Mindanao and Sulu in a terrible state of anarchy andbanditry. We were paying salaries to the Sultan and his aids till we could do bet-ter; but that only applied to the Moros of Sulu. The Lanao Moros of Mindanaorallied their forces for a new conflict. In these early conflicts the Americans

learned what Spain had been fighting against for over three centuries. -

Asleep in their jungle camp at night, the American's first warning would be thedeath gurgle of an expiring sentry and the cat-footed Moros would be upon them

with flashing kris. After all peaceful overtures had failed, 1,200 American soldiersentered the Lake Lanao country. The first engagement of magnitude was aterrific battle of Bayaug, which found the Twenty-seventh United States Infantryand Twenty-fifth Mountain Battery engaged agaifist the Moros in a strugglewhich cost the lives of many, Americans.

The American victory, if it was one, was only partial, and a fresh expeditionbecame necessary in 1903. American soldiers must obey orders; Mcros were notafraid to die.

The Moros of this region had constructed lakeside cottas of great strength in

the vicinity of Bacolod and Calahui. These forts were adequately defended withbrass lantakas and hundreds of fierce krismen. The reduction of these forts were

no easy task, and the fighting was conducted in malarial swamps and darkenedmurky jungles, under conditions that made the white man's burden a heavy one.

Baldwin led the American forces into a country the like of which was foreign

to the former experiences of any United Sttes field officers. The fighting wasmostly hand-to-hand work, of a guerrilla nature. Often the foe was unseen untilit was too late.

Sometimes the oversilent jungle awoke suddenly and the troops found them-selves hemmed in by a rush of frantic krismcn. Americans learned in thiscampaign of the horrors of a juramentado Moro. Secure in their swamps and


forests Moros were as treacherous, ferocious, and dangerous as a leopard. Ameri-cans shot repeatedly at men who refused to fall. Troops walked jungle trails intoMoro ambushes where the first terrible and late warning was the gasp of a soldierskewered on a spear thrown from the bush.

The force was constantly under attack from hostile Moros and the countryreeked with malaria, but the Americans came through and culminated in thedestruction of the cotta of the Sultan of Buhayen and the establishment ofCamp Vicars in the Moro country.

These campaigns of this period established the military reputation of one ofAmerica's greatest soldiers. Capt. John J. Pershing led a force of United Statestroops through the center of the Lanao country into a district that had beenbarely penetrated by Spain. Waging a determined warfare far into the interiorswamps of Mindanao, his small force required numerous reinforcements. As aresult, detachments from the commands of officers senior to Captain Pershingwere sent to increase his small detail.

The campaign progressed so well under Captain Pershing that higher militaryauthorities were unwilling to see him superseded in command. Captain Pershingsoon found himself in central Mindanao at the head of an army. Upon recom-mendation of all general officers in the Philippine Department, Captain-Pershingwas, raised from his rank to that of a brigadier general, by order of PresidentTheodore Roosevelt.

The soldiers of Pershing's promotion period and service trudged on at $15.60for privates; $18 for corporals; and $21.60 for sergeants, for foreign service, and$13, $15, and $18, respective when in the United States, and are the veteransof 1945 who ask passage of H. R. 128.

Gen. Henry J. Allen, commanding the Philippine Constabulary, in his reportfor 1903 (Repqrt of Philippine Commission, 1903, pt. 3, p. 49) says: "For sometime to come the number of (American) troops to be kept here should be a directfunction of the number of guns put into the hands of natives." He adds: "Itis unwise to ignore the great moral effect of a strong armed force above suspicion."

So United States soldiers not only had to patrol and suppress lawlessness, butact as a bulwark over the native forces when enlisted. The Americans soonfound out that the military occupation of Mindanao and Sulu was not a matterto be taken lightly. On April 5, 1903, an American force consisting of troopsA, G, and L, Fifteenth United States Cavalry; Companies 6, F, G, and M of theTwenty-seventh Infantry, two Vickers-Maxim gun sections of the Twenty-fifthField Artillery, set out at dawn from Camp Vicars to carry the war into theMoro territory. The column was under almost continual attack from theMoros.

In camp the first night on the trail one Moro crept within 6 feet of the sentrypost and seriously wounded 2 soldiers. The advance was conducted under con-stant fire from Moro snipers and was accompanied by sudden rushes on the partof krismen. After terrific shelling from the mountain guns, the infantry advancedon the Cotta of Bacalad, which fell after 3 days of siege and continued shelling.Nine Moro datus were killed and the Moro total loss was 69. American casultieswere 15 killed and wounded.

The troops then moved on to the remaifiing Cotta of Calahui. This fort wasbombarded for 20 hours, supported by Maxim 'fire into the portholes, every halfhour. The Moros evacuated. The fort was blown up. Additional reinforce-ments of American troops gradually spread over the islands, and Army postsgrew up in Mindanao and Sulu to establish a thin layer of law and order over theArchipelago.

The first 3 years were almost barren of results. The whole Moro country wasin arms against the new owners of the Philippines, and much of the militarystrength was expended against the Filipino insurrections in the north, to preparefor "general and lasting peace?" Congress had legislated for July 1, 1902, andmaintained that synthetic peace that had been announced as effective at noonJuly 4, 1902. The Moros took advantage of this lull to enter into open rebellionagainst America and, after 4 years of military government, it became apparent thatthe problem of the Moro was different from that existing among the Filipinotribes of the north.

The formation of the Moro Province brought forward a second great Americansoldier to assume the government of the Moro territory. Gen. Leonard Wood,who had served so successfully as military Governor of Cuba, now took charge inMindanao and Sulu as first civil Governor of the Moro Province. The geographi-cal limits effected all of the territory of the Philippines lying south of the eighth


parallel of latitude excepting the island of Palawan and the eastern portion of the

northwest peninsula of Mindanao.The province was to be governed by a legislative council, composed of the

Governor, the secretary, the treasurer, and the attorney of the Province. Laws

were to conform as nearly as possible to the lawful customs of such tribes and

vesting in their tribal rulers as nearly as practicable the same authority over their

people as had hitherto obtained.To enact laws for the abolition of slavery and slave trading and hunting, the

Province was divided into five territorial districts. The district authorities were

empowered to regulate the use of firearms, ammunition, and edged weapons and

various other purely legislative powers relating to preservation of order. General

Wood soon found hiimself facing an intolerable situation: Bates treaty terms were

repeatedly violated by the Moros and slave trading was openly carried on in

defiance of the law.General Wood found, before 1903 ended, the Bates treaty had been violated

in all of its terms and he recommended abrogation of the treaty. Armed resis-

tance to the United States was breaking out on all sides. The passage of the

Cedula Act in 1903 providing for the purchase of an annual registration card, or

cedula, by all inhabitants, was a source of bitter resentment to the Moros.

Cotta warfare flamed in Sulu where 10,000 Moro warriors prepared to resist

to the death. Juramentado Mores again ran the streets of Jolo and the old reign

of terror descended upon Sulu. Soldiers appeared on the scene.

In November 1903 an American survey party penetrated into the interior of

Jolo; they were past due to return. Data Hassan was called before the Governor

to account for the party. Hassan appeared before the town -with 4,000 well-

armed krismen. It was apparent that open rebellion was forming and-treachery

was intended. After considerable parley outside the city gates, Hassan was

admitted with 40 guardsmen. The American forces in Jolo were not sufficient

to engage the Moros and Governor Scott dispatched a hasty message to General

Wood, who was engaged with the Moros in the Cotobato Valley.

Upon receiving Scott's request for more troops for the defense of Jolo, Wood

abandoned his Mindanao campaign and hastened in person to Jolo. With the

arrival of troops under Wood, a demand was sent to Hassan to surrender. Has-

san, camped outside the walls, sent a reply that he had no intention of submitting

to American rule, and "That if the Americans wanted him, they could come and

get him." With that message, he withdrew his troops into the jungle, and the

fight was on.General Wood then led his troops down to Lake Seit, where Hassan had retired,

and a battle was fought which resulted in the death of 60 Moros. Hassan re-

treated, fighting a rear-guard action, which developed into a campaign covering

more than 50 miles. The American troops assaulted cotta after cotta, and the

engagement came to an end eventually with the killing of more than 500 of the

Moros and the capture of Hassan on November 14, 1903. With Hassan under

close guard of American infantrymen, the troops took up the march back to theSulu capital.

As the city gates were swinging open to receive the returning Americans, a

detachment of krismen burst from the concealment of a nipa'house and in a

moment they were upon the force bearing Hassan a captive. With earshattering

yells, the wedge of krismen drove through the American column to their captured

leader. Screams and shots mingled with the thud of the kris in this hand-to-

hand combat, and in a moment Hassan was free and vanished into the jungle.

Major Scott, who commanded the American forces, was so badly cut in the hand

that it was necessary to amputate several of his fingers.This was the spirit of 1903 winning the peace in Moroland. Hassan was such

a menace to the peace that troops, under Major Scott, again took the field in

March 1904 to run the outlaw to earth. Scott led the troops in spite of tho

wounds, which made it impossible for him to hold a weapon. The Moros assumed

the offensive and sent charge after charge against the American troops, during a

pursuit which lasted for several weeks. As a result of losses sustained in these

attacks, Hassan's forces decreased in number and he sought refuge in a strong

cotta; in the Moro fortress of Pang Pang he came to bay with 80 men.

Breaches were made in the cotta walls by artillery fire and most of the Moro

garrison was killed. Hassan with only two followers escaped to the crater of an

extinct volcano, where he made a last brave stand. His two men were soon picked

off by riflemen, and Hassan, badly wounded, at last pitched down the slope. He

was riddled with bullets during a vain attempt to get into hand-to-hand fighting

with the American troops. This was the spirit of 1904. There never was a Morowho was afraid to die.


Coincident with these campaigns against Hassan, the Twenty-eighth UnitedStates Infantry commenced operations in the vicinity of Taraca, in Mindanao.Guerrilla conditions prevailed. The troops established a fortified camp close tothe disturbance area and put out an outpost composed of Sergeant Stevens andPrivates Bowser, Burke, and Kiethly. The men of the outpost cleared a smallarea in the undergrowth and settled down to that enervating and terrible sentryduty. In the early morning hours the rush came, 20 krismen leaped from thejungle. In the first savage attack all of the men except Private Keithley werebutchered by the kris. Keithley was badly wounded, but performed an almostimpossible feat of valor. Gathering the rifles of his dead mates, he fell back,slowly, pouring a steady and accurate fire, to keep the Moros at bay. For three-fourths of a mile he fought off the rushes of the krismen, reached the post with thefour rifles, to fall at last before those awful final slashes of the kris. Hundredsof American soldiers had similar experiences throughout the 7,083 islands thatstretch from north to south, a thousand lazy, rain-drenched, and sun-scorchedmiles, and it is said only 1,473 had then been awarded the dignity of names.-

The Taraca campaigns required close, hair-trigger attention and desperate workagainst a jungle that was alive and slew suddenly without warning. The destruc-tion of one band accomplished little, for another usually sprang up across themountain range. The fighting was deadly, veiled by a screen of almost impene-trable jungle. The silence of night was disturbed by the scream of the juramen-tado and the cutting of tent ropes; and the dawn showed a camp of fallen tentswith the canvas stained red by the slash marks of the bloody kris.

It was not until 8 years after the death of Keithley that the Sixth United StatesInfantry penetrated that jungle to capture the Sultan Cauayan, and others of hisband who had taken part in the attack on the outpost at Taraca. The winningof Moroland marked an epoch of terror and blood. With the coming of openwarfare the Bates treaty was abrogated during early 1904 and payments to theSultan discontinued. America had picked up where Spain left off in earnest, andtroops poured into Mindanao. General Wood wrote of this period:

"The fact was generally recognized that the Sultan of Sulu had, before the yearwas up, broken all treaties in a dozen different ways. He and other Datus hadsigned to keep order, yet the Sulus when I arrived were in a decidedly outlawstate. Murders and raids were of frequent occurrence and terrible conditions ingeneral prevailed.

"There was no law and order."Cotta warfare of increasing intensity developed, and November 12, 1904, the

Philippine Commission restored the Sultan's payments. America was discoveringthat the Moros would have to be deduced with hand-to-hand fighting in eachbarrio. Shortly after the American occupation of Jolo, it was decided to occupyBongao and Siasi in order to discourage piracy, which showed every evidence offbreaking out anew. The old Spanish stations were occupied by one infantrycompany. Bongao was on the island of Tawitawi, in a dense fever-ridden junglecountry, avoided by all except Moro pirates. The Spaniards had maintainedtwo posts on Tawitawi, one at Iataan and the other at Bongao, but United Statescontented itself with only the small post of Bongao.

The small concrete blockhouse of the Spaniards was located on a rocky peninsulaextending into the sea. Here the Spaniards had lived, confined in the walls ofthe fort. The American forces under Capt. S. A. Colman converted the concreteblockhouse into a storeroom and soon convinced the Moros they had no intentionof being so confined. Expeditions were conducted to the neighboring islands andAmerican law made itself felt in districts Spain never penetrated. Moro childrenwere found who had never before seen a white man.

One of the first duties was to round up a notorious pirate named Selungun,who was operating on Simunul Island in cooperation with Maharajah Tawassil.The capture of Selungun was accomplished and he was turned over to the Sultan'sguardsmen, to be sent to Maybuu to answer charges of murder. Tawassil diedin prison awaiting trial for piracy and opium smuggling. En route to MaybuuSelungun escaped to Celebes. English and Ajnericans had expeditions chasinghim; one American party of several hundred soldiers pursued him for weeks onthe coast of Mindanao, but he escaped to pass unpunished into a pirate's grave.

Colman's party had many combats with the Moros, including one terribleambush of the Americans which cost several lives. A detachment of soldiers wassent to Tawitawi on a wild boar hunt, to replenish the food supply. The partywas composed of Sergeant DeWolf and Privates Maygatt, 'Greathouse, Gibbons,and Carter, encamped on a hilltop in interior of Tawitawi. A small crowd ofnatives accompanied them and a tent was pitched as a permanent hunting camp.


When darkness fell the soldiers settled to camp routine, four of the party sittingat the camp fire, while Maygatt strolled to the beach to take a bath. A momentlater there were screams from the camp, and Maygatt diving into the water heardthe natives running on the beach in their search for him. After a long night ofterror, alone on the beach, the soldier returned to camp early in the morning.He found DeWolf sprawled across the ashes of the campfire, dead from a kriswound in the neck. Gibbons had a severed left hand and was critically woundedby a gash in the head, in addition to 44 other wounds; Carter and Greathousewere lying in a pool of blood, alive but terribly slashed with kris wounds. Maygattsailed the boat back to the post at Bongao, arriving in a state of collapse, withtwo dead men and two seriously wounded, who eventually succumbed. A partyof 45 took up pursuit of the murderers, and they were eventually apprehendedat Bilimbing.

There is no recorded expense of a trial, that I have.heard of. The 10 murdererswere tied to stakes when the troops camped. The next morning when thejourney to Bongao began, there occurred a desperate break for liberty, but the10 Moros failed to run the gantlet of fire to the jungle edge.

TROUBLE QUIETED IN TAWITAWI

The preliminary hikes, ambushes, etc., are about the same, andl to 15 menusually killed and wounded, but disease ravages those who escape the-bullet orthe kils. Captain McCoy conducted an expedition against Datu Ali, the will-o-the-wisp of Cotobato, and All and several hundred of his men were killed in oneof the bloodiest battles of this early occupation. Captain White's former expe-dition had failed to get Ali. Governor Scott took the field against Datu Usap, anddestroyed Cotta Laksamana. Lieutenant Jewell died here; but Usap and 100Moros were left dead when the troops passed on, and the Moro seemed alwaysready to die if he could take an American or two to paradise along with him.

By the middle of 1905, just when that "general and lasting peace" was due, thatCongress had legislated for July 1, 1902, conditions in Sulu had reached such astate that ambushes and skirmishes no longer "saved face" for the Americansand warfare in force became necessary. Moros fortified Mounts Talipao andBud Dajo, where assaults of magnitude occurred, several hundred Moroswerekilled and severe casualties were inflicted on the American troops, of which westill had, June 30, 1905, 13,000, with 6,852 constabulary and 5,147 scouts helping.But the soldiers were gradually gaining the respect of the Moros. We still refusedto be confined to stone walls as the Spaniards had been, and they krissed; wekragged; and American prestige klucked.

The Twenty-third United States Infantry went to Jolo; they took the Catholiccathedral as barracks, under the strain of military necessity, and this was adiscouraging blow to Iuramentados.

The Americans slept with their boots on; marched with guns to a house that hadbeen sacred to the Spaniards. Could they be Christians? On the first day of theweek, when the Spaniards marched to the holy place, these Americans marched outinto the meadow; threw a ball at each other; hit it with a big stick' knocked it agreat distance and then shouted so loud the echo could be heard halfway toMaybuu. What could it profit a holy man if he shaved his head and his eyebrowsand slew these people? The Americans had scored another victory.

During Wood's governorship, United States sovereignty was extended intoisolated districts of Mindanao anjl Sulu that had never before felt the rule of thewhite man. Moro tribal rights never before invaded, in the past centuries, wereinfringed on and they were a proud fierce people. The institutions of piracy andslave trading were an ingrained part of Moro character-a logical and reasonablepart of their society to them, and the red flash of the kris had settled all arguments.

In the latter part of 1905, Pala, a Moro malcontent, decreed a holy war againstthe authority of America. Pala called upon the Sulu Moros to aid him in rebel-lion; two of Pala's aides, Sariol and Abdulla, conceived a plot to murder thecommanding officer at Siasi and seize the arms for Pala. They drew lots for thehonor of who would commit the murder and the privilege fell to Sariol.

Snriol prepared, noiselessly slipped to the mosquito-netted cot; one bloody flickof the kris and another American officer had died carrying out orders in the con-quest of Sulu. The plot to sieze the rifles went astray; Sariol was hanged at Siasiat dawn on November 20, 1905, and Abdulla died in prison while waiting execu-tion. Early in 1906 Moros fortified hilltop strongholds in the Butig Mountainsunder the leadership of Sultan Mamantun of Maciu.


A great force of outlaws became established at rancherias and were responsiblefor terrible depredations throughout the district. Government launches at themouth of the Malaig River were fired on; a camp of the Fifteenth United StatesInfantry was established at the river; the Moros were invited in for parleys; manycame; some abandoned the outlaw's life and returned peacefully to their homes;many continued in the lawlessness and soon a party commanded by LieutenantFurlong was fired on; an American offensive was begun. Sultan Mamantun x askilled and his men turned to Uti, a fanatical Mohammedan priest, for guidance.Uti was mighty with the pen; he challenged early and often; when attacked hetook to the hills.

Lieutenant Furlong led many attacks on cottas in the district, killing Morosand losing some Americans in the process. Col. J. F. Houston took the field atthe head of three columns in Butig Mountains. After eight serious engagementsall of the outlaws in the district were annihilated. This was jungle warfare in1906. Peace reigned for a time in Mindanao to be disturbed by rumblings in Jolo.A large band of Moros had fortified Bud Dajo and defied the authorities to subjectthem to any law. The Jolo garrison was reinforced by two battalions of infantry;another fight was imminent.

At Zamboanga it was realized Bud Dajo would entail serious fighting- but thesoldiers must do or die, and not ask why. So at 7 p. m. March 2, 1906, Col. J. W.Duncan received a note from General Wood:

"Dear Colonel: I wish you would get two of your companies together and go toJolo at once. Nothing but blanket rolls, field mess outfit, 200 rounds per man,several days' field rations, in-baste. Regular orders will reach you later.

"Yours truly,"LEONARD WOOD."

The next morning Companies K and M of the Sixth United States Infantrydeparted for Jolo on transport Wright. The causes of the battle of Bud Dajowere curtailing of slave-trading, cattle-raiding, and women-stealing privileges ofthe Moro Sulus. Bud Dajo, fortified, was a strong position, a lava cone of anextinct volcano, 2,100 feet altitude, the crater 1,800 yards in circumference, andflanked by rocky promontories making its approach by troops difficult; 1,000Moros took their stand on the top of this mountain, 6 miles from Jolo.

Before preparations for the actual battle began Governor Scott called PanglimaBandahala and Datus Kalbi and Jolkinan and asked them to ascend and inducethe Moros to disband and turn in their weapons. The three loyal Moros undertookthe mission and spent 2 days orating to their countrymen. On the third daythey reported to Scott:

"They say they will never submit to America. They say that they will fightuntil they can no longer raise aloft the kris."

Peace overtures having failed, Governor Scott ordered the mountain to betaken by assault. Assault preparations were made very complete. ColonelDuncan commanded the attack, supported by Majors Bunday, Wilcox, -andEwing. Detachments were commanded by Captains Atkinson, Rivers, Koehler,Chitty, Farmer, Bolles, and Ryther. Thirty-one under officers from all branchesof the service led the enlisted men. The troops at Bud Dajo were composed of272 men of the Sixth United States Infantry, 211 men of Fourth United StatesCavalry, 68 men of the Twenty-eighth Artillery Battery, 51 Sulu constabulary,110 men of the Nineteenth United States Infantry, 6 sailors from gunboat Pam-panga-a total of 790 officers and men were engaged.

The battle began March 5, 1906. Mountain guns were hauled into positionand 40 rounds of shrapnel were fired into the crater to warn the Moros to removetheir women and children. At daylight, March 6, the Americans formed in threecolumns and began the march up the mountain. The crest was approachableby three narrow trails and the advance began from three sides with detachmentsunder command of Major Bunday, Captain Rivers, and Captain Lawton.

Movement was slow; at 7 o'clock Major Bunday encountered the first Morobarricade; the trail was blocked at a point 500 feet below the summit by a strongbamboo wall supported by belatics. These "peacetime" sharpshooters took posi-tions behind rocks and picked off the Moros showing their heads above the barri-cade. The position was shelled thoroughly with rifle grenades and then taken byassault with bayonets. The Moros staged a terrific resistance; finding themselvesin danger of capture, they rushed the Americans in the open with kris and spear.The fighting did not cease until the last Moro fell.

This is "peacetime" soldiers war, and 200 Mohammedans died there. TheSixth Infantry suffered heavily, and casualties were worst in this last terrible

77077-45-----6


charge of the krismen. Captain White was severely wounded in the knee andright shoulder while leading the charge that cleared the walls of the last of theMoros. On the other side of the mountain Captain Rivers found a similar ob-struction, and after several hours of hard fighting he crumbled the walls by storm.

Rivers was also wounded by a last rush of a desperate amok Moro.The third column, under Captain Lawton, advanced along a bad trail, contin-

ually harassed by the Moros up a hill so steep the attackers had to crawl on theirhands and knees and at intervals rushed by krismen; but they eventually reachedthe summit, where they took the trenches at the edge of the crater by assault.The Mdros retreated into the crater and continued the resistance until nightbrought the fighting to a close. During the night the artillery was shifted and afew hours before dawn the weary "peacetime" soldiers dropped into their blanketsunder a triple guard and went to sleep to the accompaniment of the shouts of themaddened Moros in the crater.

At daylight the assault was resumed, the Americans pouring a barrage into thecrater and the Moros holding their position stubbornly and refusing to surrender.A few scrambled over the crater's edge, kris in hand, to charge the Americantrenches; they fell riddled with bullets before they covered half of the distance.After the "softening-up" bombardment had answered its purpose, the Americantroops charged the crater with fixed bayonets; the Moros left fought desperatelyto stem the charge; few Survived the last bloody assault. Of 1,000 Moros whoopened the battle, 6 escaped the carnage. The American loss, 21 killed, 73wounded.

Peacetime war is hell, too.Following the battle of Bud Dajo, a change of government came to Sulu with

the relief of General Wood by Gen. T. H. Bliss on April 16, 1906. This "peaceera" of General Bliss extended up to November 28, 1909. This signifies nobattles of magnitude and only the ambushes, hikes, and trouble with pirates andbandits and slave traders, etc., until General Pershing returned. As quietsettled on Jolo and the Americans turned their attention to Mindanao, unrestprevailed in southern Cotobato Province. A Moro priest named Simbanon wasstirring up revolt against the United States. Governor Bolton and an Americanplanter named Christian tried to effect Simbanon's capture. Bolton andChristian were killed in a ruse by one Mangayalan.

Mangayalan was killed by Sergeant Casey, and his two associates were liqui-dated by constabulary patrol. Extermination of scattered bans of outlawsprogressed under difficulties, as all of Mindanao and Sulu became infested withbandit gangs who struck and vanished into the jungle.

United States Army files are filled with instances of individual attacks ofMoros on American soldiers during this "peace era." The Moros operated indetachments of 2 to 20 men, and guerrilla warfare of the worst order swept theislands.

This was in the Moro country and should not cloud the activities of Samar,Leyte, South Luzon, and the Hemp Peninsula. They are another story. 'TwoMoros killed Sgt. William Nehrer, as he hiked the Malabang-Camp Vicaisroad. Privates George Cott and Floyd Borst were attacked on the same roadlater. General Bliss and staff were fired on. John Burns, a packer, was mur-dered by Datu-Sampurna. Private Balame, acting deputy governor of Tucieran,was seriously wounded by a krisman. The post at Parang awoke one morningto find the guard tent in shambles, following a raid by the Sultan of Djimbarraand two companions.

This sultan was a Moro named Mataung. After a search of over a yearMataung was captured by a detail commanded by Capt. A. B. Foster. Fosterhad a detail of the Nineteenth Infantry in the Bulding Mountains and heard ofhim and got him. Mataung was condemned to death on May 24, 1907. Amonth later American forces captured the Moro Lauang, who confessed to theassault on Cott and Borst on the Malabang road; he died in prison awaitingtrial. Moros cannot stand confinement, and a few months in prison is equivalentto a death sentence.

December 14, 1906, when Sentry McLaughlin took his post at the outer guardgate at Jolo, a crazed juramentado nearly cut his arm off; McLaughlin leaped ona mule and started for the main guardhouse, holding his dangling arm with theMoro in pursuit. As they neared the main guard post, five shots were pouredinto the Moro, a sixth shot broke his kris blade at the hilt, but the crazed jura-mentado, weaponless, closed in with bare hands; at 5 feet a well-directed shot froma .45-caliber pistol burst his heart and he dropped in his tracks to spray the guardpost with a froth of blood.


Examination disclosed every bullet had found its mark and there were sevenbullet holes in the dead Moro's chest. (The Army changed to the .45.) Piratesof Pilas Island resumed activity. These Samals, slightly scratched by theUnited States forces the year before, laid siege to the sea lanes of Sulu. Pearl-shell trading was getting profitable between Zamboanga and Jolo.

Intertribal social affairs brought confusion. The ruler of Pilas Island, Maha-rajah Turabin, cast covetous eyes at the wife of one pirate named Jimauang.Jimauang was liquidated. The disconsolate widow was invited to accept thehospitality of the ruler's harem. The lady decamped and sought aid of Americanauthorities. The maharajah found solitude in an American jail; Ejan, who hadwidowed the lonely lady, escaped, but his head 'carefully wrapped in a gunnysack found its way to the office of Governor Findley.

Cotta warfare raged through 1906 and 1907. Capt. William Green stormedthe Cotta of Apunagous and Mural Hakim, capturing seven rifles, killing 19Moros. Lieutenant Fost, in Davao country, ran Bududao to earth and killed18 outlaws. Lt. J. L. Wood, in Lanao country, had an engagement near Baca-lad; 13 Moros and 3 Americans died. Lt. J. M. Merrill led 40 soldiers againstCotta Sultan Ulama. The Moros had 100 men. After several hours fighting,the Americans charged the cotta, killing 50 Moros. These Moros were foundarmed with Krags and Mausers. The Moros opened up from behind walls andbushes and climaxed when the double Cotta of Magning was stormed with theAmerican leader engaging in hand-to-hand battle with the Moro sultan on thecotta walls. The Sultan was killed. Lieutenant Merrill was badly wounded.These were a few cotta fights. i

There were hundreds of these bush and jungle engagements going on duringthe years of 1906 and 1907, and with serious loss to the Americans. LieutenantJe6vell, Fourth Cavalry, was killed in an assault on Cotta Usap. LieutenantsHall and Woodruff died in the fight against Data Ali at Duluan. Every isolatedcotta was razed only after a loss of several American lives.

Juramentados still terrorized Army posts and eternal vigilance and quick,straight shooting is the only chance against them. "There is no defense againstj uramentados."

April 6, 1907, one of these ran the streets of Jolo and dropped three soldiers ofthe Fourth Cavalry before guards' bullets sent him to Paradise. Basilan Islandbecame the scene of severe fighting. In September 1907 Basilan outlaws, underthe leadership of Datu Tahil, instituted a reign of terror within 20 miles of thetown of Zamboanga. Tahil frequented the islands of Basilan and Tapiantana.Lieutenant Furlong was sent to Basilan to "mop up." Tahil came to bay atMangal, on the southeast corner of the island, where Furlong landed at 3 a. m.September 26, 1907.

A terrible fight in the forest resulted in the death of 11 outlaws. Tahil escapedto cause more trouble and eventually serve a long prison term. LieutenantFurlong also rounded up 18 Moros who were carrying on a slave-trading depot.Fmlong was a noted (peacetime) fighter.

Many have claimed white men could not live in the Tropics on account of theheat. It was hot on Luzon and hotter in Moroland; but just to illustrate thedegree of heat, will relate a current story.

A Filipino student had gone to Europe to complete his education. He died,they thought, and they prepared to cremate his body to send the ashes home forburial; the body was prepared and placed in the furnace. After the usuallyallotted time the attendant opened the furnace door to see if cremation was com-plete, when the Filipino raised up and yelled at him to shut that door and keepthat cold draft off of him.

It is hot in the Philippines and very hot down on Mindanao and Sulu. Aboutmid-1907, the most famous of all Sulu bandits entered the picture. Jikiri, asmall pirate, began operations. Robberies, raids, and over 40 murders werecredited to his activities. Captain Newbold, with 200 men, was on the huntfor him. He came to grips with the Sixth United States Cavalry, and murdereda school teacher. His force grew till at last the United States Governmentoffered rewards of 4,000 pesos for his capture, dead or alive. Captain Dewittwas assigned to the permanent detail of running down the outlaw force. Jikirihad pearling luggers so demoralized they remained in port; Dewitt located a partof them near Parang in Jolo, attacked, a fight ensued, and four pirates werekilled, but Jikiri fled to Borneo. A field force of British constabulary in Borneocaptured three of his bandits; the prisoners had to be killed en route after a ter-rible fight with British guards.


January 1909 Jikira began his last year of life by attacking a pearling lugger.Captain Dewitt and Lieutenant Byram were soon on the scene in the launchAtlanta. They burned Jikiri's boat and he soon launched another attack onwhite men. At 3 a. in., January 12, he attacked the constabulary barracks atSiasi in an attempt to secure ammunition. Twenty-two soldiers on duty stoodhim off with more than 600 shots fired into the fort before the pirates gave upthe attempt and withdrew. An American planter, M. H. Holmes, was founddead with six bullet wounds. The pirates left four dead on the beach to testifyto accuracy of soldiers' fire.

Jikiri sailed 85 miles down the beach and 3 days later attacked Tubig-Indanganon Simunul Islard; the next day Lieutenant Hasemeyer arrived there and foundbodies of two white traders. Cornell was in his bed, and an Englishman, Wolf,was found cut in 32 pieces. Jikiri had established a notorious reputation and washunted by Moros and Americans, as he had violated all tenets of the Mohammedanfighting code. Shortly afterward Lieutenant Peake had a spirited encounterwith the pirate forces.

With Hadji Usman, Peake's command encountered a strange "sapit" whichwas boarded for investigation. Believeing the crew to'be of Jikiri's band, Peakestarted to take them to Bongao for identification. The nine suspects made noresistance till the boat hit the shallow water near Bongao, then with a terriblecry they made a break for liberty; the boat overturned and one of the piratesseizing a pistol shot Peake in the leg. Floundering in the shallow water withthe pirates swarming over them, Hadji Usman and Lieutenant Peake gave thosefreebooters a lesson in pistol practice. Usman killed two of the pirates andLieutenant Peake coolly dropped the remaining seven.

Jikiri's losses were becoming serious. More than 30 of his men had been killedin a few weeks, and he was being trailed through the jungle, picking off a manhere and there from the screen of thick bush. Jikiri continued to bear a charmedlife. April 1909 the British Government in Borneo, weary of the pirate activi-ties, sent a large band of Borneo Moros after Jikiri. They entered Americanterritory on the island of Jolo and met a group of men whom they stopped todemandif they had any news of Jikiri.

Their leader conversed politely stating he. had not seen Jikiri. Suddenly heraised his hand; the Borneo Moros were fallen upon and overwhelmed; Jikiri, forit was he, then ordered the Borneo Moros to be bound securely. They werelined up and Jikiri addressed them: "Borneo brethren, you see before you hewhom you would secure for the reward the Americans have offered; you shall bereturned to the British who sent you as a warning that Jikiri is not to be taken."

The pirates then drew knives and severed the ears and fingers of the unfortunateBorneo Moros who were then given liberty and ordered to proceed to their homes.

Jikiri next threatened Asturias barracks at Jolo, then he bobbed up at LakeLeit, where he fought a battle, and very bitter, with' forces under CaptainRhoades. Two outlaws were killed. Jikiri again escaped to reappear on PataIsland against Captain Byram. Captain Signor and his gunboats collaboratedwith Byram in this fight with the result five more outlaws were eliminated.

June 30, 1909, he was discovered to be at Maybun and thither hastened Cap-tain Byram with a force of two troops of United States Cavalry. Jikiri learnedof the approach of the squadron and retired to Patian Island, 10 miles from Jolo.With his force he took a stand in a large cave in a volcanic crater. To reach thecave it was necessary to climb the mountain, hike along its rim to its highestpoint and then down a steep slope. United States troops had finally been called,consisting of cavalry, infantry, mountain guns, and quick fires, and they closedin for the kill.

In the cave with Jikiri were several women and to them the United Statesforces gave the opportunity to leave; all but two took advantage of the offer.For 2 days and nights the fighting proceeded. The morning of July 4, UnitedStates troops moved in for the finish and began the advance on the mouth of thecave. Mountain guns held their fire to support the bayonets; closer and closerthey advanced, when within 50 yards of the entrance, there was a horrible yelland out from the smoke came the Moros, Jikiri leading.

In a moment the pirates were upon the soldiers cutting a crimson trail with theirterrible krises. Jikiri caught Lieutenant Wilson, of the Sixth Cavalry, by thehair and was in the preparatory act of decapitating him when Lieutenant Bearrushed in and blew off the top of the outlaw's head with a charge of buckshot.The kris blow was deflected and Wilson's head was saved, but he received a terriblewound.


Eyes were gouged out; men were severed in twain; and heads rolled in the rock,crevices in the terrible moment before the pirates were annihilated. Bear killedfour Moros with his sawed-off shotgun.

Jikiri was dead, but at what a price. This is civil government, supplementedby the military in 1909.

PEACETIME SOLDIERING

Coincident with the campaigns against Jikiri, United States forces were also,operating against the Moros of Lanao. Ampaunagous, a Lanao Moro, had longevaded the law and was terrorizing the country with a force of well-armed fol-lowers. A cholera epidemic occurred and Ampaunagous played on the supersti-tious natures of the people. Under his leadership the Moros attacked a UnitedStates military wagon train on the Camp Keithley Road, after which a forceunder Lieutenant Wood took the field against him. A fight occurred ard 11Moros died on the shores of Lake Lanao.

In retaliation, Moros attacked the barracks at Dansalan but were beaten offafter wounding four soldiers. A few days later Moros attacked the house ofRoadmaster Smith on the Malabang Road, murdering him and looting the house.Ampaunagous then fortified himself in a strong position on the lake, where heremained, a serious bar to peace in that region for several years. In March 1908Gov. Allen Gard, of Lanao, received information that the murderers of Smithwere in hiding near Camp Vicars.

With a mounted detachment of the Sixth United States Cavalry Governor'Gard proceeded to the hide-out, which was held by Marmur, a lieutenant ofAmpaunagous. A parley began and Marmur slipped from the house to a cane-field from the protection of which he opened fire on the Governor. The Governorwas wounded, breaking his right arm and left leg and severely lacerating his rightleg. A fight ensued; Marmur escaped. A week later a force surprised Marmurand killed him in an assault on his cotta led by Lieutenant Tarbell.

Lieutenant Wood found Ampaunagous on Remian -River and in a strong,cotta; an effort was made to surround the place, but the outlaws escaped aftera running fight resulting in the death of five outlaws and two constabularyAmpaunagous remained at liberty till 1914, when Capt. Allen S. Fletcher per-suaded him to come in and accept amnesty. In July 1908, Lieutenant Burr leda detachment through the Agus River country of Mindanao. Near Nyaan theparty came upon a cotta, well fortified'and surrounded with a moat filled withbrush.

Resistance was encountered; the soldiers cut through the brush and assaultedthe fort. The first soldier to reach the cotta walls was attacked from the rearby a Moro with a kris. Hearing the cry of the soldier, Lieutenant Burr hurriedto his assistance, killing the Mlcro. Another Moro sprang from. the bush andstruck Burr before he could turn and defend himself, dealing the American officera terrible blow on the head with a campilan. Burr died a few days later at CampKeithley. During 1908 and 1969, and for a number of years after, the ButigMountain Range and the lake Larao and Buldung sections of Mindanao wereinfested with outlaw bands, ranging in size from a few men to several hundred.

To combat them it was decided to organize a Moro company, officered byAmericans. Authority for the company was received from Washington Decem-ber 30, 1908. Officers assigned were Capt. Edward Dvorak, 1st Lt. Allen S.Fletcher, and 2d Lt. A. J. Conroy. Difficulties were presented; a service rifleand belt would sell for 1,000 pesos in interior Mindanao. Moros pay a heavydowry when they marry and this might cause enlistments with a possibility ofdeserting with a rifle to be sold to secure funds for marrying the chosen bride.In spite of these considerations 20 recruits were sworn in February 24, 1909.In addition to the regular oath, the men were sworn on the Koran by a MoroPaudita. By the end of October 1909, the organization of the company wascomplete. Lieutenant Fletcher tried to get a few recruits from the Buldungcountry but failed. On arriving at Buldung the entire country was found upin arms. On May 7, 1909, while the small force was eating their noon meal,13 juramentados rushed the detail with krises, campilans, spears, and daggersand in the melee that followed the juramentados were exterminated and ontsoldier was killed and six wounded.

Then- and there the idea of getting recruits from Buldung was abandoned. Whenthe Moro company was finally organized and took the field, it lost 18 men, 13rifles, and 1,050 cartridges, through desertion. All of the rifles were recovered; alldeserters apprehended or killed; the heads of two deserters, Uru and Runaub, werebrought in a sack to United States headquarters.


PEACE SOLDIERING IN MOROLAND TO 1909

Up to 1909 there was a stretch of country about 2,000 miles square, in theregion of Lake Lanao and Lake Nunungan which was unexplored and which wasinhabited by some of the fiercest tribes of the Moro Province. It was a regionof high mountain ranges and dense jungles, and there were few trails to permitthe passage of troops.

Early in 1904 Lieutenant Howland, of the Twenty-third United States Infantry,had attempted to penetrate this district with a force of picked men and he wasrepeatedly attacked by Moros on trails and in camp, and he remained at LakeNunungan for 1 night, after which he retired to Malabang. An officer of theTwenty-fifth United States Infantry, also attempted to reach the Lake Nunungancountry, but had gone too far to the west, and became lost in the region of PauguileBay. For several days the troops subsisted on what could be found in the jungle;many of the soldiers died, and the remainder finally struggled through the forestto come out at Misamis. These two attempts were the total of United Statesactivity in this region, and it was desired to explore and pacify it as soon aspossible.

Therefore, on April 20, 1909, 60 men, under Lt. Allen S. Fletcher, departedfrom Malabang on a visit of exploration. One thousand five hundred pounds ofextra rations were carried by the party, each man carrying in addition to his pack,extra ammunition and rifle, a sack containing 20 pounds of food. The troopspassed over a mbuntain range 4,000 feet high, and worked their way into a densejungle swarming with hostile Moros. With this small force it was not practicalto put out advance or rear guard, and it was impossible to use flanking patrolsas the jungle was so dense nothing could be seen 40 feet from the trail.

The column marched in single file, well closed up, under th3 following marchingorders: "No one to leave the column while it was in motion or at halt, withoutpermission of an officer." Any man -while relieving himself to put his ammunitionbelt over his shoulder, as a bandoleer is carried, his rifle in his hands and anothersoldier on guard behind him. No man to separate himself from his rifle for asingle moment, night or day. If working, making camp, cutting trail, cooking,or other camp work, he must sling his rifle or carry it in one hand, in camp whenlying down, the men to fasten their rifle to them by the sling and sleep with itunder one leg.

This has been classified as peacetime soldiering in 1909, in the Moro jungles.Men there as csewhere were instructed against rape or attempted rape, under

penalty of death. Nothing belonging to a friendly Moro must be touched, foodwas to be ppid for, and no looting. Rectangular camps were made nightly andabout 20 by 40 yards cleared of everything except large trees, using the brush foran obstacle to prevent Moros from crawling into camp. This was piled up onall sides, but -not high enough to prevent the troops from firing over it or thesentries from seeing over it. An entrance was left in the center of each shortside and the underbrush cleared away 50 yards from the camp.

On April 22 the troops had crossed the divide and came in sight of the Morosettlement of Catabuan. A halt was made and several friendly datus were sentahead to inform the inhabitants that th9 United States forces were on a friendlyscouting and mapping expedition and desired peace.

The datus returned and informed Fletcher that the whole country was underarms and intended to prevent the troops from passing through their country.Fletcher took to the jungle and reentered the Moro clearing at a point where theMores least expected the troops. Halfway across the cleaning they were firedon from front and left at a range of 500 yards. The soldiers took to the cover ofrocks and with volleys of well-directed fire emptied the cotta. The Morosretreated leaving their dead and-wounded on the field, and the United Statesforces moved into the cotta.

When the noon meal was over, preparations for (peacetime) reconnoiteringand mapping began, but before they could evacuate the Moro fort the war criesof a large band of Moros were heard northwest of camp. Moros could be seenstanding on a knoll 1,000 yards away, waiving krises, spears, and bright-coloredflags. The combat report continues: "Upon investigating with field glasses, astrong cotta was seen to their left and about 300 yards farther away. It wasexpected when the Americans advanced the Moros would retire to the fort.Thirty men were left in plain sight and others with both officers, crawled throughthe grass and got into the woods without being observed."

By detouring 2,000 yards they were'able to get nearly between the Moros andtheir cotta from which point we opened fire from the left flank at -close range.Owing to the roughness of the ground, covered with stumps, logs, and boulders,


the Moros were able to partly change their front and face the troops. Theywould probably have put up a stiff fight but for the loss of their leader. This bigpowerful leader rushed toward the troops and Lieutenant Fletcher shot him inthe left temple, the bullet coming out on the right side of his head, messing up theparietal bone. This deflected him and he ran like a deer to the right flank rear.He had gone about 100 yards when Lieutenant Maylan, who was to the left ofthe line, shot him with a dum-dum Irag bullet through the left shoulder, thebullet coming out between the shoulder blades.

This shot knocked the Moro down, but when the troops passed by 2 hours lateron the way to camp (after finishing the day's work) he was still alive. With theirleader down the Moros scattered, leaving their dead and wounded, although oneMoro was shot while trying to drag his wounded leader into the bush. Thetroops marched on in the general direction of Lake Nunungan.

MAPPING THE COUNTRY EN ROUTE (PEACETIME MAPPING?)

On the slopes of the Kukuk Mountains the fires of the Moros were seen in theircamp at Masibay. To get to the camp at Masibay the troops crawled a zigzagcourse acros the valley, hidden by the tall grass. At the edge of the valley thetrail leading up to the Moro camp was blocked with fallen trees and entanglementsof pointed stakes. As no noise was permitted, they could not cut a trail and wereforced to crawl 500 yards through a thicket of thorn bushes. They came outwithin 50 yarns of the Moro sentinel, who stood on a low platform at the edge ofthe camp. When the men had rested a moment, the whistle was blown and thetroops dropped into the cotta, completely surprising the Moros.

A short battle cleared the cotta, as the Moros were completely disorganizedMamantung, the Moro leader, was wounded by Fletcher as he escaped into thebrush. One Moro, leaping on a rock to hurl a last defiance at the Americans,was dropped in his tracks by rifle fire. "Surveying progressed." Proceeding oninto the interior the troops encountered forces of Datu Ami Makasimpan, who,was thoroughly hostile to the Americans.

Messengers to this datu returned with the word that not only would there be noparley but that unless the Americans left the country their heads would be cut offand thrown into Lake Dapulak. "Surveys must go on." So, regardless of thisthreat, the Ameriian forces moved against the cotta and destroyed it, putting thesurviving Moros to flight in the jungth. The scouts reached Lake Nunungan onApril 25, after several more brushes with the Moros.

Here the troops went into camp, and were disturbed a great deal at night by theMoros firing into the barricade. Night patrols were located on the camp'sedges, and after a few successful ambushes of the nocturnal marksmen the annoy-ance ceased. They found one bunbh of friendly Moros on the eastern shore ofLake Nunungan, May 2, Datu Demaampao came and asked for a conference.Lieutenant Fletcher with an interpreter accompanied the datu across the lakewhere the Moros were assembled. There were 40 well-armed men and 50 womenand children. As the lieutenant stepped ashore, the women screamed andcovered their heads. They had never before seen a white man.

THIS WAS IN APRIL 1909

They regained their composure after some small presents were distributed,such as small mirrors, needles, thread, talcum powder, red wax for the lips, andcigarettes. Friendly relations were established and next day the troops moved ondeeper into Moroland. One of the main objectives of this American expeditionbesides surveying, was the capture of a notorious outlaw named Caraboa, who haddeserted from the constabulary, carrying with him a Springfield rifle. The dayfollowing departure from Lake Nunungan, the troops came definitely into theterritory of Caraboa. At 8 a. m., as they crossed a field, they were fired on fromthe jungle 200 yards away. The report of a Springfield was plainly heard andwith the first shot one member of the American force fell, shot through the heart.

The patrol deployed and advanced, to find the Moros had retreated along awell-used trail. They moved carefully down this trail, which was very steep,dropping, at an angle of 450_ About 2,000 feet down the trail, Lieutenant Fletcherleading, they stepped into a cleared area. A rifle blazed, almost in their faces,the bullet carrying away part of Lieutenant Fletchei's mustache and burninghislips. Caraboa, who had fired the shot, was protected by the large trees from thefiring that followed. When the soldiers returned to their starting position,Moros had been there during their pursuit of Caraboa.


The soldier who had been killed as the action commenced was found cut intofour pieces. He was lying on his back and a Moro had struck him two blowswith a campilan. The first blow had severed the body at the fourth rib, and thesecond had completely severed both thighs from the crotch. The body wasfurther mutilated by spear wounds in either eye. The Americans closed thiscampaign after several weeks of surveying, exploration, and guerrilla warfare inthe heart of the lake region. Lieutenant Fletcher brought those remaining of histired men back to Malabang.

The maps made guided future parties. The outlaw Caraboa escaped theAmerican troops, and it' was not until 1914 that he brought in his rifle and sur-rendered. Lieutenant Fletcher, who opened up this Larao country, was a junglecampaigner of the first order and one of the ablest field officers in the AmericanArmy. He was without fear. The Moros respected him. His men had stayingqualities, too, for peacetime soldiers. Fletcher died December 16, 1929. He isburied in Arlington. Some of his men are asking for justice under H. R. 128.

Juramentados and piracy continued in Moreland. The Moros, while sullenand unfriendly, were not always hostile and no doubt frequently acted as guidesto be rid of us. The soldiers were lean and tough from hard effort and scantrations, but cussed cheerfully and grumbled continually or at least enough to benormal. Lanao Lake lies about 2,500 feet above the sea level. A column ap-proached its shores studded with villages. Officers of high rank and minor oneswere with the column. Soon a wild-eyed, shrieking Moro cut down an Americansoldier with his campilan. The soldier was badly messed up and not nice to lookat after the Moro got through.

Protest was made and the datus could do nothing because the killer was "jura-mentado"; it was a religious Moro custom. "Nothing could be done about it."This was a new doctrine to a late-arriving detail and their lieutenant. Thesoldiers growled a bit, swore a lot, and talked of it being a peculiar way to gesto heaven, when "nothing can be done about it." A few days later another watcut down; a third, and later a fourth one. Datus quit waiting for protests butcame to explain.

Soldiers slashed and sliced like raw beef called for solemn thinking when nolaw existing could act. "Tuba" or "beno" was found somewhere and the soldierscould drink a little of it to liven up life some, and confer with their lieutenant; butno one ever made a report of what was discussed. A wedding party came alongand the soldiers got religious, sprinkled the wedding party with a spray of bullets,remarkably accurate for men who were apparently quite drunk, and screamedand shouted ribald epithets at the fleeing scurrying Moros. The spray seemedto hit men only. Quickly a company of doughboys came and placed the squadunder arrest. An indignant colonel, with murder in his heart and blasphemyon his lips, called the lieutenant whose men h.d done "this terrible thing."

The lieutenant, tight-lipped and serious, appeared at a headquarters, wherewere gathered datus, imans, and other Moros,-all loudly protesting this murderousact. The colonel violently inquired why this was allowed; The lieutenant replied,"I asked my men why they did this and they said they had gone 'juramentado';and, 'It was an old American custom of their own peculiar religion that whenone of their men is killed they must demand seven lives of the tribe that killedhim, in payment,' otherwise they cannot go to heaven, and nothing can be doneabout it."

"The colonel ordered that this be interpreted to the datus." The colonel wason a peace mission: "We have to do something." The datu quickly decided"something could be done" about juramentados after all, and he would seewhat he could do. He saw right down those gun barrels, when he learned Imamawere higher priced, and datus at a premium. Investigation followed, of course,and it was "another encounter between Moros and our troops" on the records.There were no more "juramentados" nor "amoks" there.

Lanao 2oios, always out for a row, later attacked United States troops, butthe juramentado business went out of style there. Seven for one was too expen-sive. A particularly revolting act of juramentado occurred April 16, 1911. Lieu-tenant Rodney of the Second United States Cavalry was killed, and with deadlyregularity juramentados swept the str, -ts of Jolo. April 19, Sgt. James Ferguson,was attacked and killed, Lineman Wallace, of the Signal Corps, was killed atMalabang. These deaths caused General Pershing to issue orders about all-officers and soldiers going armed at all times, and providing soldiers travel con-stantly in groups of three or more. During 1911 great numbers of juramentadosappeared in all the southern islands. Americans were face to face with the samesituation that had faced the Spaniards, in the Sulu capital. Sergeant Michaels, of


the Twenty-first Infantry, went down before the kris of a maddened Moro atialibang.

At Iligan John W. Oyler and Bernard Vexbose, planters near Camp Overton,were killed. In September, onBasilan Island, Ensign C. E. Hovey, of the gunboatPampangas, was killed during a fight that cost the lives of five Americans. EnsignHovey was carried to Zamboanga, dead from 19 severe kris wounds. October 17,19 11, a Moro armed vith a barong and a spear succeeded in passing the EecondUnited States Cavalry sentries at Lake Seit, Jolo. r1he camp became a scene ofwild confusion, as the Moros hurtled through the streets slashing and stabbingtroops.

Sgt. Oswald Homilins received a spear wound through the chest and died in 15minutes and 4 soldiers wore severely wounded before the crazed Mcro was shotdown by Lieutenant Coppock. TIe havoc wrought by juramentados becamesuch that it was decided to disarm the iMoros. On September 8, 1911, expeditionorder No. 24 became effective. It provided for complete disarmament, excepttools used exclusively for working purposes and having a blade less than 15 inchesin length. Attempted enforcemtn of this !aw brought a resumiption of coltawarfare. In December 1911 some 1,500 Moros assembled again at Bud Dajoand fortified the mountaintop.

General Pershing induced many of the Moros to return to their homes, theiemaindsr, led by a chief called Jailani, were killed or captured in the seccndbattle of Bud Dajo, wtich lasted 5 days. Shortly matter this battle, another seriouscotta fight took place at TaGlibi, where Captain McNally lost his life and Lieu-tenants Whiting and Cochran were seriously wounded. Near Lake Selt, Jolo, arenegade Moro entered the camp of Capt. John Watson on December 21.Sentinels werr posted, but no wire protected the camp. At 10:30 the More creptin, killing Captain Watson and wounding Lieutenant Edmonds before he wasshot by a soldier.

During this terrible period of recurring juramentado attacks, from, 1909 to 1913,the troops operated in small detachments in the interior of all of the southeurislands. Lieutenants Tiffany and Tarbell and Preuss led troops into Mindanao,in the region of Cotobato and the worst of the outlaws were rounded up in a seriesof bitter cotta fights against entrenched Moros. Lieutenants Gunn and Gilioreventured into the Sarangani region against the Manobos.

Lieutenant Youngblood carried the fight against the Moros near Lake Buluan-Allen S. Fletcher, now a captain, fought the outlaw band headed by Alamadas-Lieutenant Root was seriously wounded and Captain Fletcher received a gunshotwound in the arm. Captain Fort dropped the outlaw Kapal from the walls of acotta on Lake Lanao. All of the American fighting was in the open. Smallparties penetrated into the very heart of the Moro country, carrying the war tothe outlaws.

Not the least discouraging of all efforts against juramentados was carried on byCol. Alexander Rodgers, governor of Jolo. Juramentados were killed and laidout in the market place with slaughtered pigs placed above them. The Moham-medan abhors pork and contact of juramentados and pig neutralized the beneficialeffects of the rite. Colonel Rodgers became know to the Moros as the Pig andjuramentados left for other districts. Juramentados on land were aided bypirates, who again took to the sea. By 1908 piracy had assumed formidableproportions in Sulu.

Americans had assumed piracy to be'a thing of the past and withdrawn thegunboat patrols. The Samals took advantage and revived lawlessness in thesea lanes of Jolo. The Joloans Moros were pirates and warriors by profession.The Moro did not regard piracy as resistance to the government but a legitimatesource of income. General Bliss felt piracy could be stopped by return of thegunboats and in February 1909 the vessels Arrayat and Paraguay were returnedto Sulu; Fatrols and troops were relieved to continue the land campaigns. By

-1913 the Moro dissatisfaction had grown to such an extent that it became evident

a major battle was soon to be fought to establish American authority over Sulu.General Pershing had succeeded General Bliss as governor of the Moro Province

on November 28, 1909. and affairs rapidly came to a head in Jolo. February 28,1913, General Pershing wrote the Governor General, fully outlining characteris-

tics of Mores, habits, and so forth; tried every method of conciliation, and soforth, but to no avail; and prepared to disarm the Moros and found it necessaryto storm Bud Bagsak.

The storming and battle of Bud Bagsak, like all similar actions had its beginning

several months before the assault of the crater. This mountain peak had been forsome time the rendezvous of the outlaw element of all the southern islands and


the big problem the Americans faced was that of getting the women and childrenoff the hill before the final clean-up was made. Pershing had called in all scoutingparties and so long as the Moros saw that the American troops were inactive andin garrisons most of the women and children would be sent down to work in thefields; but at the first.indication of an American expedition all the noncombatantswould be recalled to the mountain.

When the Moro makes his last stand, he wishes his women and children withhim. The Moros kept a very close check on General Pershing, and every visit-of the general to Jolo was the signal for a stampede to Bagsak, so Pershing plannedhis movements with great secrecy; he did not even confide in his closest officers, itis said. June 5 he sent a telegram to Jolo calling off all field operations andordering the troops into garrisons. Four days later he publicly announced that hewould visit his family at Camp Keithly in Mindanao and with that apparent planin mind he sailed for Zamboanga on the evening of June 9. When the transportWright was well out of sight of Zamboanga the course was changed and the shippicked up the Fifty-first Company of Scouts at Basilan, and proceeding on toSiasi to load the Fiftv-second Scout Company. With lights out and the smoke-stacks muffled, the Wright crept into Jolo harbor late the night of June 10.

It was not expected and many of the troops were at a moving-picture show.The call to arms was sounded and in an incredibly short time the troops wereenroute to Bagsak. All forces were concentrated at Bun Bun on the beach andby 5 o'clock in the morning the advance on Bagsak had began. The mountaincrest was defended by formidable cottas crowned by the stone fortress of Bagsak,at the summit. Supporting the main cotta-were five subsidiary forts well located fordefensive purposes. * These five cottas, namely, Pugacaboa, Bunga, Matunkup,Languisan, and Pujagan, were grouped about the huge stone fort of Bagsak, insuch a manner that a simultaneous assault of all the cottas was necessary in orderto prevent a great loss of life on the part of the attackers.

The American force was divided into two wings, with explicit directions, theright wing, consisting of the Eighth United States Infantry and Fortieth Companyof mountain guns, was under command of Major Shaw and its objective was thecottas of Languasan and Matunkup. The left wind composed of the Fifty-firstand Fifty-second Companies of Scouts and a mountain gun detachment wasunder command of Van Natta, and were to attack the cotta of Pujacaboa andPuuga. Pujagan and Bagsak were to be taken after these assaults had beensuccessfully executed. After heavy preliminary shelling, the columns moved tothe attack. While the attack was in progress Captain Moylan Was sent with theTwenty-fourth and Thirty-first Companies of Scouts to occupy the south slope,of Bagsak, and cut off retreat.

Captain Nicholls led his company against Matunkup, the attacking force wascompelled to climb a sheer cliff 100 feet high, pulling themselves up the precipiceby clinbing to vines, while in the face of a heavy fire. There were eight casualtiesin the United States force before the summit was finally gained. Captain Nichollsthen led his company on to the cotta of Pujacaboa, the men opening up on theMoros at close range and then dropping into the cotta walls to battle hand-to-hand.

Such was peacetime soldiering in 1913. The terrific shelling Pujacaboa hadreceived had eliminated many Moro defenders. Amil, the Moro leader, wasseverely wounded by a shell fragment, and he retired to Pujagan, where he waskilled the next day. The cotta Languasan was captured without difficulty witha loss of one man, but with eight casualties during Moro counterattacks made inan effort Io recover the fortress.

With three of the cottas in American hands, the surviving Moros retreated toIBahsak, Pujagan, and Buuga, and the first day's operations came to an end.June 12 American forces poured a continuous fire from rifle and mountain artilleryupon the cottas of Buuga and Pugajan, and there was considerable skirmishing.The Moros began a series of rushes on the American troops holding Languasan.They would rush out in groups of 10 to 20, charging madly across 300 yards ofopen country in an effort to come hand-to-hand with the Americans. Amilhis son, and the Datu Jami led 3 of the attacks; in each instance the chargingMoros were "charged-off" before they reached the American trenches.

It was during one of these charges that Captain Nicholls was killed by a bulletthrough the heart. The Americans holding Lauguasan were subjected all dayto a merciless fire from cotta Buuga. Notwithstanding the aid of the artillery,the American forces were unable to capture any of the Moro positions during thesecond day's fighting. On the morning of the third day Captain Moylan wasordered to take the cotta of Buuga. The capture of this fort being necessary to


secure a position from which cotta Bagsak could be shelled. Captain Moylantook Buuga after a 5-hour attack, which was supported by sharpshooters andartillery. Among his casualties was one man who was cut in two by a barong.

The balance of the third day was devoted to hauling the heavy guns up thesteep slope of Buuga. On the fourth day of the battle, Captain Charleton andLieutenant Collins were sent with the Fifty-first and Fifty-second Companies anda detachment of Cavalry to reconnoiter the rim of the crater and find a positionfrom which the Infantry could launch a final assault on Bagsak cotta. The restof the day was devoted to _"digging-in," in a position about 600 yars from theMoto fort, while the mountain guns fired constantly into the cotta.

This was Saturday-"peacetime jungle war"-and Sunday morning broughtpreparations for the final assault. The mountain guns opened up for a 2-hourbarrage into the fort, and at 9 o'clock a. m. the troops moved up the iidge forthe attack. The artillery shelled the Moros out of the outer trenches supportingthe cotta of Bagsak, and the sharpshooters picked them off as they retreated tothe fortress. After an hour's hard fighting the advance reached the top of thehill protected by the fire of the mountain artillery, to a point within 75 yards ofthe cotta. To cover that last 75 yards required 7 hours of terrific fighting. TheMores assaulted the American trenches time after time only to be mowed downby the entrenched United States forces.

General Pershing came to the firing line in person early in the attack and wasexposed to the full fire of the cotta. At 4:45 p. m. the American forces werewithin 25 feet of the cotta. The Mores realized their time on earth was short;they stood upright on the walls and hurled barongs and krises at the troops be-neath them, wounding 4 of the attackers. At 5 p. m. General Pershing gave theoider for the final assault, and standing within 25 feet of the walls he watchedCaptain Charleton take his men over the walls and the battle of Bud Bagsak waswon. Thirteen men were lost in the final assault. About 500 Moros are said tohave occupied the cottas at the beginning of the Battle of Bud Bagsak. Andwith few exceptions they fought to the death. With this battle the episode ofkris versus Krag came virtually to an end.

To General Pershing must go the credit for disarming the Moros. He col-lected about 7,000 firearms from outlaw elements. But though massed resistancewas broken June 16, 1913, there still remained considerable policing to be accom-plished in Mindanao and Sulu. A Moro outlaw named Japal occupied briefly thecenter of the stage. Captain Apperman led an American force against him.Apperman found Japal at bay in a strong cotta protected by immense boulders.The Mores fought like fiends, rushing from the shelter of the cotta walls to assaultthe soldiers with bared kris. Twenty-five Mores were killed in this action andthe cotta was leveled to the ground.* The troops then passed on to attack the joint cottas of Jahanal and Tahil,located in a ravine, 100 yards apart .and less than 5 miles from the city of Jolo.Captain King took the Sixteenth and Twenty-fourth Companies of scouts againstthe cottas at daylight July 5, 1913. Supporting the scouts was a mountain gundetachment under Lieutenant Dillman. The American troops found the cottasstrongly built of bamboo and barricades of earth. The barricades were piercedwith bamboo tubes through which the Mores directed their fire. The inner wallsof the fort had covered trenches and subterranean rooms. The troops advancedupon the cottas in the gray dawn and were promptly fired on by Mores in cottaJahanal.

The mountain guns were set up and a steady fire poured into that fortresswhile infantry under Lieutenant Conroy engaged the smaller cotta of Tahil.Demolition squads under Lieutenant Walker supported the advance of Conroy,doing excellent work with rifle grenades which were dropped within the walls.When Conroy's men were almost to the walls, the demolition squad hurled dyna-mite bombs into the fort which was then taken with a hand-to-hand rush. Tahilescaped to surrender a few days later. All of his men died in the last assault onthe cotta.

Meanwhile, the artillery fire was having no effect upon the strong cotta ofHahanal. Sharpshooters picked off Moros showing their heads; a breach wasmade with axes and the troops rushed the fort. The Mores retired to. the innerwalls and picked off our men by firing through the bamboo tubes. LieutenantWalker then brought up the mountain gun and fired point blank at a range of20 feet, directly into the inner rooms of the fort. The terrific explosion of theshrapnel in the closed room packed with Moros wiped out the Mohammedans andthe fort was soon silent. Fifty Mores were killed in this action. The Americanslost 18 casualties. In August 1913 the Mores in the vicinity of Mount Talipaorefused to pay the road taxes and fortified themselves on the mountain peak,


Major Shaw routed them, killing over 100 Mores. But they returned again inOctober to refortifv and there occurred the last battle of the Moro wars. CaptainMeElderly was killed in the storming of cottd Talipao. Jurameutados and iso-lated cases of murder still persisted, but the resistance of organized bands hadcome to an end. Two months later Lt. Ernest Johnson took a squad to BasilanIsland to investigate Moro disturbances. The party moved along a narrow jungletrail, with Lieutenant Johnson leading. They walked squarely into an ambushlaid down by the Moro leader Atal. The first warning of danger was the hiss of aspear thrown from the bush, and Johnson went down, pinned through the shoulderwith both lungs punctured. The soldiers fought their way out, killing Atal;Lieutenant Johnson -was carried to Zamboanga, where he succumbed to the wound4 months after admission to the hospital.

By act of July 24, 1913, the old Moro Province had been dissolved and the.Mohammedans came under the newly created Department of Mindanao and Sulu.Frank W. Carpenter relieved General Pershing on December 16, 1913to become thefirst civil governor of the new department. If the Morms' 14 years of armed re-sistance of America failed in battle, their religion and customs remain intact.With the birth of confidence and tolerance the epoch of

KRIS VERSUS KRAG

came to an end in Moroland; but the following had been chiefs of the constabulary.Brig. Gen. Henry T. Allen, Brig. Gen. Harry H. Bandholtz, -Col. James G. Har-bord, (acting) and soldiers had to rescue the constabulary when occasion required,and 1908 was the first year Army or scouts had not been called to their aid. Hereare some statements bearing on soldiers duties when there were still 27,188 soldiers.in the Philippines, June 30, 1902.

From time to time as the number of stations occupied by American troops wasreduced, Filipino agitators tried to incite their people to oppose the UnitedStates by telling them that the troops had been wholly withdrawn. More thanonce to counteract these false impressions, commanding generals ordered practicemarches (such as we had in Cuba while we were paying them $75 each to deposittheir guns in United States custody) of impressive forces of American Infantry,Cavalry, and Artillery through regions where such rumors had been current.

The journal of the Secretary of Commerce and police on April 29, 1906, reads:"Arranged with General Wood to send great columns of troops to scour the wholecountry, on practice marches, such as Army regulations demand" (journal 11-3).And later July 20, 1906. Wood, who has plenty of troops in the neighborhood,is sending them in to restore confidence and try to hunt down offenders. Band-holtz has just succeeded in making quite a haul" (journal 11-53).

Maj. Gen. William P. Duvall, then commanding the military division of thePhilippines, went so far as to assemble a large part of his command in Manilaat the time of the carnival in 1911, when the representative people from all overthe archipelago came for the annual carnival and exposition. The troops, over8,000 in number, were paraded and the Filipinos visiting the carnival were ablefrom personal observation to carry to the farthest confines of the archipelagoword that American troops were still present in force.

Until the year of 1906 (report says of the Philippine commission, 1907, pt. 2,p. 267) the assistance of the Army was necessary in Luzon and the Visayas inthe suppression of outlawry and the destruction of armed bands, most of whichhad existed in the mountains and swamps and jungles as far back as the Spanishregime. In the Moro country the Army was more or less actively engaged untillate in 1913 in overcoming armed resistance to the United States Government."The sacrifice in lives and health of American Army officers and troops cannotbe stated in exact terms."

"The total of ascertained would be impressive." When the Boxer war brokeout in China in 1900, the first American troops to reach the scene came fromManila, and it is not too much to say that America's part in the Boxer war waslargely borne by American veteran troops and immediately available suppliesdrawn from the Philippine Islands.

"It is impossible to assess and hard to overestimate the stabilizing influenceof that thoroughly competent, trained body of Army officers and men in khaki"(p. 192 and 193, xol. 1, The Philippine Islands by Gov. William Cameron Forbes).

We have listed the officers of the Army leading the constabulary. This forcewas busy in 1905, as shown by the following results, 4 years up to June 30, 1905.Ladrones and Insurrectos captured by them, 9,155. Ladrones and Tusurrectoskilled, 2,504. Arms secured by them, 4,288. Stolen animals recovered 5,805.These constabulary soldiers' leaders were policemen of the jungle. They were


bush-trained men with a facility for surviving ambush and death traps of the-jungle. Many of them were carry-overs from the Indian wars in the UnitedStates that opened the last American frontier.

They understood the ways of wild and uncivilized people. They knew how tofight and they relished odds. They led the constabulary. The constabularywas a military necessity July 5, 1902, to December 31, 1913. The Pulajanes ofsouth Luzon, Leyte, and Samar cannot be compared with our road agents ofthe west or Mexican cattle thieves. They wore red shirts with white crosses,and they were religious maniacs with the ferocity of a panther and the cruelcunning of a wild boar.

The trails to their citadels were trapped with poisoned spears, poised for releaseat the jungle edge. Every innocent vine across the path might be a trigger ofdeath. Every refinement of ferocity was embodied in the tactics of the Pulajanes.With reams of paper devoted to the activities of the French Foreign Legion, theTexas Rangers, the International Column of Spain, and the Northwest MountedPolice it is amazing that this Philippine jungle purge has missed the attention ofthe writers of battle memoirs of our Nation.

It was the Foreign Legion of America, officered by Americans, Englishmen,Germans, Spaniards, and a few Filipinos. The constabulary soldier carried hishome on his back. The scene of his warfare was a dripping bush, a jungle thatfed him, starved him, concealed him, ambushed him, and quite often buried him.Their story is an almost unbelievable one of fortitude in the face of danger andwarfare against terrific odds. Their battles were fought with every physicaland topographical advantage favoring the enemy. In garrisons they were underconstant attack.

The deaths of many gallant young Americans in the Philippine jungle is anindictment of the laxity and inefficiency of an inexperienced colonial governmentand political antagonisms and encouragements. The first shot always went tothe adversary, and the records of all these activities are buried in the archivesat our National Capital which legislators can see and which are unavailable toveterans who seek justice under H. R. 128.

The reading of these campaigns of these fearless leaders is unclean septicwarfare, with no quarter; of men sent to the jungle to kill or be killed. Warin the rice paddies, war without a front, where the men who shot quickly andtruly lived. The soldier whose aim faltered went down dead or wounded on theblade of a bolo. During the fiscal year of July 1, 1902, to June 30, 1903, theconstabulary conducted 2,376 operations and when the going got too tough, theRegulars were called in. In the Province of Albay in early !903, they began tohunt the forces of Ola, Sarria, and Toledo.

February,28, 1903, 150 bandits under Magno Revel, a lieutenant of Toledofell upon the constabulary barracks at Oas; the attack resulted in the desertionof 20 constabulary privates, the killing of those who resisted and the capture of48 rifles. Patrols went in pursuit. In March 1903, 21 detachments underCaptain Linsforth, supported by Lieutenants Fawcett and Grossman, met theband of Toledo. Grossman was in the advance, Grossman went down shotthrough the hips the first volley. His men fought through and carried him fromthe field and he was completely paralyzed and died in the hospital at Sarsogon,May 12, 1903.

Sarsogen is on southern Luzon, Inspector Swann came to grips there with thefanatical society of Autuig Anturg, headed by the deadly Colache and a longcampaign continues there. January 15, 1903, the insurgent Gen. Luciano SanMiguel was elected supreme commander of existing forces. In Balucan heattacked Captain Warren's command, in February the company of LieutenantTwilley, and on both occasions the American forces were soundly whipped. Longcampaigns followed to control that field and soldiers and constabulary wererequired to win.

Then came the "Popes". The Filipinos had a flair for secrecy, and manyquasi-religious sects terrorized Samar, Leyte, and Luzon. Simple hillmen awoketo find themselves generals of ragged, shouting armies of fanatical bandits. InLeyte it was "Papa" Fanstino Ablena, who signed himself Senor Jesus y Maria.On Negros "Papa" Isio inflamed the population to keep the soldiers busy. OnSamar, "Pope" Pablo consolidated the factions of Dios Dios, and Pedro da laCruz rose to become Jefe Superior de Operacions; Isadro Pompac, better knownas Otoy, became Segundo Jefe de Operacions.

During the period of "Papal" resistance "Messiahs" were eliminated, "Papa"Feunadez, in Laguna; King Apo in Pampanga, and many lesser saints came underthe glare of publicity or were liquidated. This period produced three "JesusChrists" and one "God Almighty" all of which required the soldiers' efforts to let


them ponder in the jails. Pope "Rios," of Tayabas, became famous as a combi-nation of philosopher bandit, and psychologist, and established a "New Jerus-alem" on Mount San dristobal, near the dividing line of the Provinces of BatangasTayabas, and Laguna. The Babaylon of Negros, the Colorum of Batangas andTayabas, the Santa Iglesia of Nueva Ecija, and Bulacan and the Guardia deHonor of Pangasinan and the Ilocas all required active military support of thecivil government, and in Luzon where Congress had on July 1, 1902, enacted alaw for a census-2 years' probation and a general election to follow general andcomplete peace in 60 percent of the archipelago.

We could fill another 100 pages with these fights outside of Moroland afterthat synthetic, so-called peace of July 4, 1902, at exactly high noon. No fieldof operations excels "Bloody Samar," that place of great snakes and malaria,mosquitos, and sludgy oozing swamps on the fringes of forested mountains, andin 1904, 1905, and 1906 there were several thousand armed Pulajanes there readyto fight. Between July 1904 and September 1905, 50,000 persons had been lefthomeless in the Gandara Valley of Samar. Dramatic, indeed, exhausting thelast human thrill, are the many stories of small detachments of soldiers who car-ried the white man's burden on Samar Island.

In December 1904 there were 1,800 native soldiers and 4,000 United StatesInfantry occupying the coast towns. Eleven officers and 197 enlisted men hadbeen killed in action; 48 officers and 991 enlisted men had died of disease; 46officers had been wounded in action; 768 men had been discharged for disability;7,424 firearms and 45,018 shells had been captured or surrendered, 4,862 outlawshad been killed and 11,997 prisoners taken. Then "hell roaring" Jake Smithand the Regular Army had to finish the job, and civil government supplementedby the military moved on.

By the law of the bolo these magnificent youngsters lived and died in whatsome call peacetime warfare today. Oscar Preuss, the eminent Moro killer, livedseveral lifetimes in the span of his short, hard, battle-scarred life. As a fighter hewas a cold-blooded genius; as a drinker he was supercolossal; at 4:30 p. m. hebegan on a quart of Gordon's gin, at midnight it was finished, and Preuss wasdeadly sober.

He was a great soldier and almost too tough for Mindanao. A sergeant in theGerman lancers during the Boxer Rebellion; then to east Africa as a lieutenantof infantry. Various South and Central American revolutions saw him in actionand he had ridden in Uncle Sam's Cavalry. A colonel of a board of inquiry said"Captain, it is said you have personally killed 250 Moros; what is your statementto that report?" "The report is in error, sir; my count is 265." At 33 he had ourMedal of Valor and had served his sixth or seventh war.

Leonard Furlong, was another that piled endless years into his short span oflife. He wore the Medal of Valor at 30. At 15 he was a naval cadet. At 21fighting Indians in Minnesota; at 22 with the first American expedition to Min-danao, in the Philippines. At 34 dead by his own hand. Vernon L. Whitney,shoe size 14, a splendid rifle and pistol shot, good at borrowing money, spendingit and forgetting it, but a terror to the Moros; got wounded and selected by GeneralPershing as a fitting governor of Sulu. His Medal of Valor was earned at 26; heretired at 31 with 11 years of battle behind him.

James L. Cochrun, "Gentleman Jim," at 21 crossed the Pacific, at 28 he waswinning a Medal of Valor in Jolo. With 7 years of jungle warfare behind him,drilled by bullets, he retired in 1914, on two-thirds disability. A veteran at 29,Samuel T. Polk, of fiery temper, was a lank Mississippian who would fight any-thing anytime. Medal of Valor at 25; retired at 30. Donald Root, the youngestof all to get a Medal of Valor; at 21 heading a patrol at Mamaya Peak, Lanao;wounded, fought out, and accomplished his mission; resigned at 26 to wanderaway to the war in France.

John R. White, Greek Foreign Legion at 18; in United States Infantry at 20;in the Constabulary at 22; fought Moros 14 years, won the medal of valor atBud Dajo at 35 retired as a colonel. Cary Crockett, at Bulano, in Samar wonmedal of honor at 26. Fort, a regular Daniel Boone, who spoke every dialect ofMindanao. "Old Susan" his Winchester was notched with a record of its victims.John Fawcett, secretive, cool, efficient and loyal, a fine officer. Ernest Johnson;died on a spear, at 20. J. C. Tiffany, Oregonian, one of the best fighting men inthe Philippines, 8 years of combat and retired to get in a greater war in France.

James L. Wood, "Red Lieutenant" mechanically inclined; loaded several hun-dred cartridges with dynainite and conveniently dropped them to be found bythe enemy; causing many enemy rifles to be "turned in" in bad shape. These


and other men of equal staying qualities patrolled 230,000 miles of jungle trailsin 1908 and some of them are asking justice under H. R. 128.

The above is evidence of America's first "jungle warfare".It was the soldiers carrying out orders of Congress, the Commander in Chief

and his superiors. All in line of duties assigned.Earning what H. R. 128 asks for.Very respectfully submitted.

CHARLES V. STEVENS.

Mr. BOYKIN. I have before me a letter and statement prepared byMajor Kemp of 2813 Helen Street, Augusta, Ga., which is addressedto the chairman of the committee. Without objection, I would liketo insert Major Kemp's statement in the record at this point. [Pause.]Hearing none, it is so ordered.

AUGUSTA, GA., March 12, 1945.Hon. JOHN LESINSKI,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

My DEAR CONGRESSMAN LESINSKI: I gather from the letter received yesterdayfrom your office; that is, the copy of one you wrote Comrade Stevens on the 9thinstant, that you desire a rebuttal to the objections raised in the report of theVeterans' Administration and the Secretary of War. This being my understand-ing, I am enclosing herewith a rebuttal to any and all objections manufacturedduring the past few years with the idea of giving your committee just a plainhorse sense analysis of the issue.

To start with, both the Veterans' Administration and the War Department,being close kin, never have had and probably never will have any sympathy orconsideration for minority groups of veterans. Being aware of this fact, theonly hope -the veterans who went through the hell on Samar, Leyte, and the Morocountry, have, is through the kindness of our Congress.

Faithfully yours,E. KEMP,

Major, United States Army, retired.

AUGUSTA, GA., March 12, 1945.Hon. JOHN LEsINsKT,


DEAR CONGRESSMAN LESINSKI: I wish to present the following statements forthe consideration by your committee when hearings are held on your H. R. 128.My views, as will be noted, do not in any manner reflect the attitude of thepresent-day War Department or those of the Veterans' Administration, both ofWhich oppose the granting of justice to a few hundred former combat veterans,but are made with the intent of helping those forgotten veterans. While I am aveteran of the campaigns covered by H. R. 128, yet neither myself nor any knownkin of mine would profit through its passage, therefore my motives actuated througha desire to help these unfortunate veterans.

Referring to the adverse report of the Secretary of War under date of March3, 1945, I wish to say:

1. (a) Veterans and their dependents coming under H. R. 128 should beentitled to service pensions and other benefits on a parity with those who servedin the Spanish-American War, Boxer Rebellion, or the Philippine Insurrection

ior to July 4, 1902, due to the fact that wartime campaign activities in thehilippines after July 4, 1902, were but a natural and to-be-expected result of an

ill-timed peace date. In fact, such campaigns represented the closing chaptersof the original Philippine Insurrection, and they cannot be divorced from suchinsurrection, for had there been no Philippine Insurrection there would have beenno so-called Pulajane or Moro campaigns.

(b) As for the Boxer Rebellion, we know that it took place during peacetimeand was in no manner tied in with either the Spanish-American War or the'Philippine Insurrection. As a matter of fact, we were at peace with China during'the entire 1900-1901 Boxer Rebellion, hence there was no recognized war period;however, those who took part in this affair are now entitled to service pensions.


2. The Philippine Insurrection was not actually over on July 4, 1902, butaccording to the records, continued on Samar and Leyte Islands until June 1907,and in the Moro Province, including Mindanao, until the fall of 1913. In myopinion, then, we might as well be equitable about the matter, and agree thatthe arbitrary peace date of July 4, 1902, was more in the nature of a cut-offdate than a true or military peace date, and was brought about at that timedue to the public clamor for the ceasing of a war period which had already con-tinued for over 4 years. Taking into consideration these facts, combat serviceon the specified islands now in question was actual war and not peacetime serviceAs proof, had peace actually prevailed on and after July 4, 1902, there wouldhave been no Battle of Bud Dajo, island of Jolo, on March 5, 6, and 7, 1906,where over 600 American soldiers and hostile Moros were killed outright andscores wounded. This was but one of hundreds pf lesser engagements takingplace between July 4, 1902, and December 31, 1913. Incidentally, the recordsshow that the said Battle of Bud Dajo was the major battle fought by Americantroops in the Philippines between 1898 and 1913, and, note this fact ,it took placenearly 4 years after the so-called sacred peace date of July 4, 1902.

3. (a) Service pensions have been authorized for veterans and their dependentswho have rendered wartime service during so-called peacetime. I again referto the Boxer Rebellion as one incident, and the intermittent Indian campaignsas another. Will not go to the trouble of including the well-paid civilian workerson the Panama Canal between 1904 and 1914. We did not declare war againstChina in 1900 nor did we declare war against the Indians between 1860 and 1891,however, the veterans of both the Boxer Rebellion and the war between inter-mittent Indian campaigns have been favored with service pensions. Surelythe Philippine campaigns, following the cut-off or false peace date of July 4,1902, being a part of and incident to the original Philippine Insurrection, -shouldbe given some consideration as long as we have already classed the Boxer andIndian campaigns as war service. Again, I will leave out the Panama Canalveterans who never even wore a uniform, but who enjoy a service pension.

(b) Referring to the about-face attitude of the present-day War Department onthe question of whether or not the Philippine Campaign Medal represents andcovers the full war period or just a part of it, I recall that over 30 years ago a thenvery conservative War Department recognized the campaigns on Samar, Leyte,and the Moro Province, including Mindanao, as wartime service when it issued thesame identical war medal to the veterans who had served in combat on theseislands after July 4, 1902, as had been issued those who had served prior to thatdate. However, the change in opinion by the present War Department does notin fact actually change previous intentions or the records of its predecessors. Forevidence as to the intention of the War Department in 1909, please be referred tothe wording on the cover taken from a cardboard box containing the PhilippineCampaign Medal issued a veteran in 1909 for services he had rendered in thesecampaigns during the years of 1906 and 1907. The wording, "PHILIPPINEWAR," cannot possibly mean that the medal covers peacetime service. No; itmeans just what it indicates, for it would not have been issued by the War Depart-ment at that time had it not stood for war and not peacetime service. Incident-ally, I am just too old to believe that the War Department back in 1909 wouldhave intentionally issued a medal that meant nothing, neither do I believe atthat time they would have had any part in any kind of a deal that would makefish of one veteran and fowl of another where the war service of such veteranswas identical and each possessed the same type of war medal.

4. (a) In view of the fact that the Philippine Insurrection was declared to haveterminated on July 4, 1902, why extend such date to July 15, 1903, in the MoroProvince, and cut it off at that point before the real fighting had commenced?Certainly, no such battle as the Battle of Bud Dajo, March 1906, took placeprevious to either July 4, 1902, or July 15, 1903, nor were there any engag mentsbefore these dates to compare with the Battle of Bud Bagsak which took place aslate as June 16, 1913.

(b) I can see no objectionable consequences in respect to veterans' benefitswhere changes are made with the intent of correcting an acknowledged and ob-vious wrong, especially in such a case as this where it is the desire to render justiceto a few hundred aged and unfortunate victims of split-hair regulations. Theproposed legislation would not in any manner depart from the theory that war-time service was the established basis for service pensions, for the records show

I On file with the committee.


that these veterans did have wartime service. It would, however, correct a situa-tion where 99 percent of the veterans of a certain war receive service pensionswhile 1 percent is left out due to no good reason.

(c) As for other military occupations, expeditions, or campaigns, during peace-time, there have never been any such in the history of our country that canhonestly be classed as similar to, or parallel with, the closing chapters of the Philip-pine Insurrection, for the simple reason that the men serving in hostile territoryin the Philippines between 1902 and 1913 were merely helping to complete theobligations we assumed when we took over the islands from Spain in 1898. Thelocation was the same, and it was the same insurrection, with the same conditions,and, strange as it may appear, I noted that the men killed in action or dying fromwounds or as result of tropical diseases after July 4, 1902, were just as dead asany of those who met the same fate previous to that date.

(d) In conclusion, let me say, it has always been my honest opinion that thetail belonged to the hide, that is, in this case, the 1902 to 1913 Philippine cam-paigns honestly belong to the original Philippine Insurrection.

Respectfully submitted.ELMER KEMP,

Major, United States Army, Retired.

If the proposed legislation were enacted such persons and their dependentswould become entitled to service pensions and other benefits on a parity withpersons who served in the Spanish-American War, Boxer Rebellion, or the Philip-pine Insurrection prior to July 5, 1902.

By proclamation of the President dated July 4, 1902, the Philippine Insurrec-tion was declared to be at an end except in territory occupied by the Moro tribes.By Act No. 787 (June 1, 1903) the Philippine Commission provided for the estab-lishment of civil government in the Moro Province, effective July 15, 1903. TheCommission's designation of that date for the establishment of civil administra-tion recognized and fixed July 15, 1903, as the formal ending date of the PhilippineInsurrection in the Moro Province. The War Department has consistently heldthat military operations subsequent to July 15, 1903, were not in continuation ofthat insurrection in the MI, oro Province.

Service pensions (service-connected disability not required) have been author-ized only for veterans and the dependents of veterans who have rendered activemilitary or naval service for a specified period in time of war. They have neverbeen authorized on the basis of peacetime service. The military operations in theMoro Province after July 15, 1903, are analogous to military activities in the sup-pression of Indian uprisings in the past, during times of peace. It is the consid-ered opinion of the War Department that the military operations subsequent tothat date were not conducted in time of war. Awards of the Philippine CampaignMedal for service between 1902 and 1913 do not establish any recognition of suchservice as wartime service. Wartime service is not a necessary prerequisite forthe award of campaign or service medals. Authorizations for such medals havesometimes been specifically predicated upon service other than that in time of war.

The proposed statutory extension of the Philippine Insurrection beyond July15, 1903, would entail highly objectionable consequences in respect to veterans'benefits. It would materially deviate from the sound and long-established policyof abiding by an official determination as to the ending dates of wars. The doorwould be open to interminable extensions of wartime status for active service.Such'legislation would depart from wartime service as the basis for service pen-sions. This bill would afford special treatment for a particular group to the ex-clusion of other groups who may have served in military occupations, -expeditions,or campaigns during peacetime. Such other groups would have a precedent uponwhich to base demands for similar treatment.

Mr. BOYKIN. I wish also to place in the record a letter addressedto the chairman from Major Kemp, dated February 28, 1945.

AUGUSTA, GA., February 28, 1945.Hon. JOHN LESINSKI,

Chairman, Invalid Pension Committee,House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN LESINsKi: According to a recent report from the WarDepartment, around 135,000 veterans of the present war have been dischargedfor neurosis. No doubt all such cases were considered service-connected and theveterans now entitled to free hospital attention and liberal pensions.


The office of the Surgeon General is now taking serious cognizance of the mentaland physical break-down of veterans because of foreign service, especially thoseserving in the South Pacific and Philippines, and Colonel Menninger, Chief of theNeuropsychiatry Division, Office of the Surgeon General of the Army, statesthat: "After 2 years in. combat campaigns, soldiers age 10 years."

I agree with Colonel Menninger, as I saw and knew of scores of cases of nervousbreak-down and physical impairment among returning volunteer soldiers whohad served at least 2 years in combat campaigns on Samar, Leyte, or Mindanaoduring the years between July 4, 1902, and December 31, 1913. Few, if any,such cases were considered service-connected-in fact, were not taken seriouslyby the Army Medical Department at that time. Consequently, the veteran wasdischarged and compelled to shift for himself as best he could, a victim of a peace.time classification for wartime service, with neither hospital attention nor pensionrights allowed. Times have changed (for the better) and today similar cases areclassed as service-connected and rate free hospital attention and pensions atwartime rates.

Commissioned officers in any manner disabled incident to their service in thePulajane and Moro campaigns, either physically or mentally, were retired onthree-fourths pay, their cases being always considered as service-connected.Not so the enlisted man, for he has already waited from 31 to 42 years for a fewcrumbs of justice, his only and no doubt final hope being your H. R. 128.

It seems to me that Colonel Menninger's statement that "after 2 yearsin com-bat campaigns, soldiers age 10 years," which statement you can easily verify,would furnish some very convincing evidence in support of your H. R. 128.

Always faithfully yours,E. KEMP,

Major, United States Army, Retired.

(Whereupon, at 11:30 a. m., the committee went into executivesession. It was decided during the executive session that the nextpublic hearing would be held Thursday, March 22, 1945, at 10:30 a. In.)


THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 1945



Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10:30 a. m., Hon. Frank W. Boykin, presid-ing.

Mr. BOYKIN. Gentlemen, we will come to order. As you know, wehave General Hines with us this morning, which certainly is a pleasure.We always enjoy seeing him, either at his office or anywhere, becausehe always knows his lesson so well that he teaches us something.

Now we have heard the other side, General, and I see from readingthe material before me that you have testified on this before.

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. FRANK T. HINES, ADMINISTRATOR

OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS

General HINES. I have, Mr. Chairman.Mr. BOYKIN. Our regular chairman is unable to be here this morn-

ing, and I am just pinch-hitting for him. Mr. McGregor here ratherran the meeting the last time, and he did a pretty good job of it. Idon't like to admit that about these Republicans, but some of themare pretty good, General-when they vote with us. [Laughter.]

General HINES. There is, of course, already in the record our reportori the bill. I wish that we could work up some kind of legislationthat would accomplish what this committee tried to accomplish inpassing the bill, without changing the date of the war, because thatcarries many legal objections. In other words, if we start chang-ing the date of the termination of the war, particularly dealingwith countries like the Philippines, we bump into the proclamationsthat have been issued, and all other legal actions taken which havebeen based upon the termination date of the war. I had hoped thatmost of these cases would come under the bill you have passed out ofthis committee covering campaigns or actions in campaigns simulatingwar. You will recall we had three types of training that simulatedwar conditions, extrahazardous duty, and even training in maneuvers,and then the third was final, actual action. ao that when we got intothis war, automatically the men that were called into service and tookpart in it were given wartime ratings.

The clerk of the committee tells me he sent some cases down, butwe have not been able to write them in, but if the committee feels thatyou desire to bring out further legislation, I suggest that we try tofind a way to not change the date of the war. The War Departmentwould undoubtedly have to object to it, and I think probably the

55


Attorney General's office, and I am afraid we would, in view of themessage which the President sent on the bill. But I would like tofind a way to cover those men that actually had service.

Mr. BOYKIN. Yes; there are just a few of them.General HINES. Because I realize that their service was just as

hazardous as that of many of the men who served in the Spanish-American War. I served out there myself as a young man.

Mr. MCGREGOR. General, couldn't we, take in the actual hostilitiesin those islands, without determining any dates?

General HINES. I think if we could find a way, and I think weshould attempt to assist the committee in drafting a bill that wouldcover the situation.

Mr. BOYKIN. We would be very glad to have that, I am sure.General HINES. Before we pass it-before you even pass it out of

the committee-I would like to find a way to do it. Those menprobably rendered service just as comparable with that of manymen now on the pension roll, and it creates an inequality, and ifanyone has battled to eliminate inequalities, I have in the variouslaws enacted. But I do see a very strong argument, and I am surethe War Department will take the same stand, that if we attemptto change dates after we have finally issued proclamations on aperiod of war, we are going to run into difficulties.

Mr. BOYKIN. Well, I don't think anybody wants to do anything'except just get some results for these men. It is like the PanamaCanal case. I think Mr. Bonner worked on that for 2 years, but theywere nearly all dead before we got them a nickel or two. They wereall over -65 and most of them were over 70. They were not evenfighting in a war. They were fighting malaria and mosquitos andthat sort of thing, and if we can do that-I don't know whether wecan, because I don't know as much about this as I should, but if wecan do what you say and get results I want to do it. What we wantto do is t6 get these boys a little money, something to live on whilethey are old. There are not very many of them left now. Nobodyknows just how many, but I believe there are less than 2,000.

General HINES. Mr. Chairman, we are unable to estimate tenumber.

Mr. BOYKIN. Nobody knows but the old gentleman who testified,and he didn't know, but that was his guess. I would like to ask thecommittee how they feel about this. If we could get that, that iswhat we want.

General HINES. I think it is possible to frame legislation to do it,and I would like to take it up with the War Department and see justhow we can identify it without changing the dates.

Mr. MCGREGOR. General, if I recall your testimony before thiscommittee some time ago, when I was a member, you gave us exactlythe same argument. You were opposed to that particular bill andsuggested that you wo~d go ahead and frame a bill. Then this billwas introduced, and we thought it covered the objections that youhad to the previous bill, after we heard nothing from you. We don'twant to continue this policy of just simply delaying one bill and wait-ing on your department to give us something else.

General HINES. Congressman, my report indicated that we couldnot support the bill in its present form. We did assist the committeein drafting it, but not along the lines that I am now suggesting.


Mr. BOYKIN. No; that is a new thought, as I take it.General HINES. Well, it is a new thought I believe, from what evi-

dence has been presented here-for instance you have got some pictureshere-that by determining the actual campaign dates, we might beable to limit the thing without changing the fixed date of the war.

Mr. BOYKIN. General, if you could do that, we could kind of hurryit along. That is another thing. These men are getting so old, youknow.

General HINES. They average over 70, I think.Mr. BOYKIN. They can get, it but just a little while, anyway.Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Chairman, you inqured about the number of

men. In our hearings on H. R. 7693 in July 1940, General Shawstated the entire force numbered about 2,000 men.

Mr. BOYKIN. How long ago was that?Mr. McGREGOR. Back in 1940. That was the'entire force.General HINES. You can get a good idea, I think, from that. But

take the total number of men that served in the Spanish-AmericanWar, about 200,000. We now have on the rolls about 137,000. 1think that pretty well covers it. And they are dying at about therate of 6,000 a year.

Mr. BOYKIN. Well, they will all be dead pretty soon, and when doyou think we could get something for them, General?

General HINES. I will take it up as soon as I get back and seewhat we can do.

Mr. BOYKIN. Isn't that what we should do, get something for thesemen now, if we can?

Mr. MCGREGOR. Let me call to the General's attention-I know heis busy and probably had forgotten it, but I have before me here thehearings on this bill. On July 25, 1940, Mr. Schafer, who was then amember of the committee stated, and I read from the committeehearing, page 33:

Mr. SCHAFER. I move that General Hines be requested to furnish the com-mittee a draft of a bill extending the existing Spanish- American and PhilippineInsurrection pension legislation to campaigns subsequent to July 15, 1903.

general HINEs. Limiting it to expeditions or campaigns in which there wassomething more than ordinary service.

Mr. SCHAFER. Yes; make it on all fours with the Moro campaign of 1903.Also include the dependents of these Philippine Insurrection veterans.

Now, you have never done that, have you, General?General HINES. No; the draft that was finally prepared for the

committee and acted on was not of that form, unfortunately.Mr. McGREGOR. Now you say here again today that you feel that

some legislation should be drafted, and you had the opportunityway back on that particular date, and you have never given it to us.We don't like the delay.

General HINES. You were in favor of extending the date of theSpanish-American War and the Philippine Insurrection, and the billwas so drafted. The thought I have now is to cover the actualcampaigns, if it is possible to do so.

Mr. MCGREGOR. Why couldn't we just leave the dates out, General,in this bill? What difference would it make?

General HINES. Would you name the campaigns?Mr. MCGREGOR. Yes. It is in this bill. I call attention to your

letter of March 16, 1944, page 31 of the hearings before this com-mittee in March of last year.


General HINES. I am not sure that striking out just this language,without putting some more in which will designate the particular

campaigns, will cover it. But that would be the first step, to. take

the dates out.Mr. BOYKIN. Couldn't we amend it?General HINES. I think it can be amended.Mr. McGREGOR. Now, General, you say it can be amended. Do

you think we can amend that and arrive at what I think this com-mittee wants to do, and then receive the support of your organization,as well as that of the War Department?

General HINES. I am not sure about the War Department. I speakfor the Veterans' Administration. If we can amend this to limit it toactual hostilities, to cover those men that had real fighting, withsome limitation as to the dates of those campaigns, so we won't haveit wide open, I will support it.

Mr. BOYKIN. General, would you like to have a copy of what wehad on the Panama Canal?

General HINES. I think we probably have that. I would like tofind a way to cover the men who actually did take part in the cam-paigns. I feel that there is some merit in that.

Mr. BONNER. But as this bill is written it will include everybodythat was in the service up to 1913. They will come in under the bene-fits of this act, whether they were there or not.

General HINES. Yes; it is too broad.Mr. BONNER. That might well be your opposition to this.General HINES. I promised to draft a bill for the committee, but

it was our understanding that you wanted to extend the wholecampaign.

Mr. BONNER. That is what this does.Mr. HALE. May I ask the general some questions?General, we have made a sharp distinction uniformly in all our

pension legislation between service in time of war and service in timeof peace. Of course, that is a perfectly logical and reasonable andproper distinction. I don't see how you could possibly avoid it. AlsoI think there is a great distinction between a drafted army, whichcannot be deemed to have voluntarily assumed any risk, and theRegular Army in time of peace.

General HINES. Which is a vocation.Mr. HALE. Which is a vocation. What is in my mind now may be

a foolish idea, but is there any way of legislating for an intermediatestate which is neither quite peace nor quite war, and have generalizedlegislation so you don't have to pass this bill for one little campaignand that bill for another little campaign?

General HINES. You have that now.Mr. BONNER. Covering the expeditionary force.Mr. MCGREGOR. That is Public Law 359, isn't it, General?General HINES. Yes. It came out of this committee.Mr. BONNER. They come under that?General HINES. I thought they did, but you say you sent some

down to us?The CLERK. I sent some cases down, General, that I thought ought

to come under that law.Mr. MCGREGOR. Didn't Public Law 359 cover cases simulating war?


General HINES. Yes. Expeditions are already covered in otherlegislation, simulating war, even in campaigns such as we had. Meninjured in the training period are covered by that legislation. Andthen finally, as I indicated when I started, it took in active service,so that when we got into this war we didn't have to pass any furtherlegislation to give them wartime ratings. Now, I think the difficultywith these men is that what they are claiming, of course, is a servicepension where they do not have to show any service-connected dis-ability, but just service for a certain length of time. That is onething we must take into account, and the reason I say striking thosewords out would not do it exactly is that Spanish-American War menwould have to serve 90 days or more. They have a lower pensionfor 70 days. Now, the committee undoubtedly would not want tohave a bill without any limitation as to length of service. It shouldrequire service in hostilities in a particular campaign in the MoroProvince up to 1913. Hostilities were going on for a number of yearsfollowing the presently recognized close of the Moro campaign, July15, 1903, the evidence in your records showing December 1913 to bea fair closing date.

I will make a try at it. I am wholly in sympathy with trying tocare for these men if there is any way to do it.

Mr. MCGREGOR. General, I realize you are busy, but how long doyou think it would be before you are able to analyze this situationand submit your recommendations to the committee?

General HINES. I can do it in the next 48 hours.Mr. BOYKIN. What do you think of Mr. Hale's suggestion there?General HINES. I think we ought to try to do that. That would

probably take a little more study.Mr. BOYKIN. That is a good thought.General HINES. Whatever you do, you don't want to create an

inequality.Mr. BOYKIN. No; we do not.Mr. MCGREGOR. Would you recommend, there, that this bill cover

the dates of the Philippine Insurrection? If you don't, it would bediscriminatory, wouldn't it?

General HINES. I would not recommend that the bill change thedate of the declaration of peace over there.

Public Law 359, Seventy-seventh Congress, provides in part asfollows:

Any veteran otherwise entitled to pension under the provisions of part II ofthis regulation is entitled to receive the rate of pension provided in part I of thisregulation, if the disability resulted from injury or disease received in line of duty(1) as a direct result of armed conflict, or (2) while engaged in extra hazardousservice, including such service under conditions simulating war, or (3) while theUnited States is engaged in war.

It has been running through my mind, the thought that we mightdeclare these campaigns as extra hazardous service under the secondpart of this general legislation.

Mr. HALE. Right now it seems to me we are getting somewhere.That thought is better than passing a bill applicable to this little cam-paign-when I say "little campaign," I mean little in terms of numberof people involved.

General HINES. There is no question that it was hazardous service.Some of them were killed and some of them were wounded.


Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Ketchum, how would you feel relative to the,suggestion of General Hines on that?

Mr. KETCHUM, On the new bill?Mr. McGREGOR. On the suggestion he just made.Mr. KETCHUM. I am sorry, but I didn't catch it. I have been

going over in my mind the proposal for drafting a new bill, and Iwant to say something to the committee about that if I have anopportunity. I did not catch what the general said.

General HINES. I was reading here from 359. You remember thebill where we increased-that is, paid wartime rates to those whowere engaged. Here I said: "Why wouldn't it be simpler to declarethe men that took part in these campaigns, who fall in No. 2 of thisgeneral legislation while engaged in extra hazardous service"?

Mr. KETCHUM. If you could tie it down so that all of the men whoparticipated in those campaigns would be definitely in that categorywithout the necessity of showing any service connection or disability.

General HINES. It would not be service-connected, because theycould not show.

Mr. KETCHUM. Just offhand I can see no objection to that, if youcan tie that group definitely in under the proposal. That is, all thosewho served during that period of time where there were actual hos-tilities.

General HINES. You see, by extending the Philippine Insurrection,as in the original bill, you are going to cover all of the peacetime Arnfyin the Philippines during that whole period up to 1913.

Mr. KETCHUM. I am sorry, but I do not agree with you. If youwill read H. R. 128 carefully-and my understanding is that the billwas drafted by the Veterans' Administration -after they had originallyobjected to the previous legislation which was being considered, andH. R. 128 was drafted to conform to their ideas on this legislation-if you will read the bill carefully you will see it actually does not inall cases extend the date of the Philippine Insurrection beyond July4, 1902. It specifically maintains that date, but goes on with aproviso that where there was actual service with the United Statesmilitary or naval forces engaged in hostilities in the Moro Province,including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte, the dateherein stated shall extend to December 31, 1913.

General HINES. But the title of the bill is "To extend the periodof the Philippine Insurrection," and the proviso in the bill extendsthe closing date.

Mr. KETCHUM. I agree with you the title of the bill starts out thatway, General, but it definitely says July 4, 1902, in all cases, except incertain provinces where they were actually engaged in hostilities. Iwas under the impression that this bill, H. R. 128, was in accordancewith-I don't mean that they were for it, but was in accordance withthe views of the Veterans' Administration, if Congress was going toenact legislation of this character.

General HINES. 'We reported on the bill in the form it was. Wedid not recommend it.

Mr. KETCHUM. I know you did not approve it.General HINES. We objected to it, too, as I recall the report. But

the title of the bill is, of course, descriptive of the bill, and I thinkyou would have to change that-"To extend the period of the Philip-pine Insurrection." The proviso is part of the bill and extends the


date. That would mean that any man serving in hostilities overthere would be in the insurrection service and wartime service.

Mr. MCGREGOR. Hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that the title ofa bill is not part of the law? I am not sure about that.

Mr. KETCHUM. I don't'think the title determInes. It is the text ofthe bill after the enacting clause that determines.

Mr. HALE. Let me ask you, General, this Public Law 359 providesthat subparagraph so and so of the Veterans Regulations is amendedto read as follows:I Any veteran otherwise entitled to a pension under the provisions of part IIof this legislation, or the general pension law, shall be entitled to receive a rateof pension provided in part I of this regulation (1) if the disability resulted frominjury or disease received in line of duty; (2) while engaged in extra hazardousservice, including such service under conditions simulating war.

Now, it is agreed by everybody that the people who were actuallyin these campaigns fighting Moros were engaged in an extra hazard-ous business. It was not only simulated war, but it actually was war.Why do you need any legislation at all?

General HINES. Well, what they want is not only the pension foran injury received in line of duty as now provided, but they want astraight service pension. I would have no difficulty administrativelyif they had any service-connected injuries, if they had produced evi-dence of that, but what they want is a straight service pension.

- Mr. HALE. But before we get to that point they are at the presenttime receiving the same rate of pension for disability or diseaseincurred in line of duty as men who were serving in time of actualwar, are they not?

General HINES. *No, not all of them. Those are, who have dis-abilities meeting the requirements of Public Law 359. They wouldreceive that under the legislation covering the' peacetime force if theywere injured in line of duty under the conditions specified. Otherwise,peacetime service-connected disabilities are pensioned at peacetimerates, at approximately 75 percent of wartime rates. What they arecontending for is straight service pension.

Mr. HALE. Before we get to that, it seems to me-and I speak verymodestly, because I don't know very much about pension legislation-that under this language you could step up the rate of pension to themen actually disabled or diseased in line of duty, without the passage6f any new legislation.

General HINES. That is correct.Mr. HALE. If you do that, you have gone quite a way. You have

not gone as far as these gentlemen want you to go, but you have gone'quite a little way.

General HINES. I can do it and it probably has been done in thosecases, because they were service-connected cases in line of duty, butI understand the larger group here is contending for the straightservice pension.

Mr. HALE. I'must say that in the case of a Regular Army soldierwho served through that campaign, disagreeable and'dangerous as itundoubtedly was, if he actually did not get hurt in any way, I don'tsee why he is particularly the object of our compassion.' General HINES. But it is the contention that the other men, the

Spanish-Xmerican War and Philippine Insurrection men, are now


entitled to an age pension, at 65 they are entitled to $75 whether theyhad any disabilities in service or not, and that is the pension thatthese men are contending for.

Mr. BoYKIN. These men here?General HINES. Yes, covered by this bill.Mr. BOYKIN. If they served like our boys are doing now, I think

they deserve it. If they are that old, somebody has got to look out forthem, any bow.

Mr. BONNER. And they didn't have to leave the country?Mr. BOYKIN. I am talking about if he was over there in that terrible

country, had to leave his business and family and all that sort ofthing.

General HINES. I think the clear-cut way of doing it would be to justindicate that the service pension paid to Spanish-American Warveterans and Philippine Insurrection veterans or any man who canprove that he served in these campaigns, he would be entitled to thesame pension.

Mr. BOYKIN. That sounds all right to me.Mr. HALE. The further argument is that you would not run into

any political difficulties or possible veto, because if we pass substan-tially this same bill over again it is going to be vetoed over again.

General HINES. I am sure we cannot make a different report on that,because that is the combined judgment of the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. HALE. Furthermore, it seems, as I have indicated, ratherobjectionable to me to pass special legislation applicable to specialcampaigns, if you can establish a principle.

General HINES. Well, I am willing to try it.Mr. HEDRICK. I believe there were some men in the Philippines

that were not engaged in actual service. Why should they comeunder that?

General HINES. They would not. The bill limits it to those havingbeen in hostilities. The stand taken by the War Department is thatunless they are designated as campaigns and within the limits of thewar period, they are not entitled to anything except what other menserving in time of peace are entitled to.

Mr. BONNER. Wouldn't you have to go further, General, thaninsurrections and rebellions that our troops engaged in, and bringevery man that was in that insurrection and rebellion in under thegeneral law and grant him larger compensation?

General HINES. Yes, sir; that is, you have the question of othergroups possibly proving as good a case.

Mr. BONNER. Not only this, but in other engagements?General HINES. That is right. Most of the campaigns are pretty

well covered, though.Mr. BONNER. They are not covered generally. They are only

covered respecting combat injury.General HINES. That is right.Mr. BONNER. This would bring them in generally under the entire

Spanish-American Act, disregarding service-connected disability?General HINES. Yes, sir; for the particular service covered by

the bill.Mr. BONNER. As the law stands today, providing increased com-

pensation for men that engaged in insurrection or rebellion, it isonly for those who have a service-connected disability, not for general


groups. So if you did do this, you are going to have to go to everyother engagement we ever had, and bring them all in under somegeneral law.

Mr. MCGREGOR. Only where they have been in actual hostilities?General HINES. Yes; but in order to be uniform you would have

to do that for groups who may establish similar service.Mr. BONNER. How about the World War veterans, the man that

went to the front and didn't have any service-connected disability atall? When -he becomes permanently and totally disabled he isentitled to $50 a month. He does not draw the benefits that theSpanish-American Wat veteran draws just because he was in service.Now, you know and I know, and anyone else who has ever looked intoit knows, that there are men in the Spanish-American War drawingthese benefits that never got out of Charleston, S. C. I want to befair and frank about it, but if you are going to do this you are goingto have to take in everybody.

General HINES. There is no question about requests for othergroups. It is only a matter of time.

Mr. BONNER. I want to be as charitable as anybody in the world,but there is no use to pick out one class and say, "We will give youthis," and not take in everybody else. I know some fellows who werein the World War and who have never been able to prove service-connected disability, but they have got a disability. Some think itwas incurred during the World War but they can't prove it.

General HINES. In due time, of course, you will probably have ageneral service pension bill for World War I veterans and then followedby World War II. The dependents, as a matter of fact, of WorldWar I are already pensioned.

Mr. KETCHUM. I am reluctant to intercede here, but I do believe,Mr. Bonner, there is an answer to your observation; that is, if we dothis for these men it will open up the field to service pensions forWorld War I and other wars and expeditions where there is no serviceconnection. I think perhaps the answer to that is that one of the basicdisputes in this matter involves the arbitrary date which was estab-lished for the close of the Philippine Insurrection. That is the point,in my opinion, around which much of this discussion hinges. I thinkit is generally agreed that the date which was arbitrarily established asthe close of the Philippine Insurrection was not necessarily the endof the insurrection. It was done because of the desire of the author-ities to try and get some sort of civil government established; yetthe war, the insurrection, actually continued on in. some spots, andthese men that we are now discussing were just as much in the Philip-pine Insurrection as were those who came under the arbitrary datewhich was established. I think that is the basis of the whole conten-tion here, that although an arbitrary date was established, the insur-rection actually continued on in certain parts of the provinces. As oneof the witnesses previously said here before the committee, unfortlin-ately the Moros could not understand English, and they did notrecognize this arbitrary date of the termination of the insurrection,and they continued to fight.

I agree with you, however, that if there is any justification for pay-ing a service pension to Spanish-American War veterans, certainlythere is justification for paying a service pension to World War Iveterans. So far as our organization is concerned, we are on recordfor that. We think it has merit and justice.


Now, I agree with the general that if this can be done by bringingthis group under the provisions of Public, 359, certainly there wouldbe no objection to it, but I do want to warn the committee on onepoint. I want to use a good example. In the Seventy-seventhCongress there was enacted a law identified as Public 361, and it wasvery close to the hearts of all the veteran organizations. It was aneffort on the part of the veteran organizations to do somethingdefinitely for the World War I veteran who served in zones of combatand who later came up with a disability which he was unable to proveas service-connected, because of the absence of medical records.Now, what we were trying to do in Public Law 361 was to place thbburden of proof on the Government, rather than to force the veteranafter 20 years to come up with evidence which was no in existence inthe medical records. Yet after Public 361 was on the statute booksand we believed that the full intention of the World War Veterans'Committee and of Congress was that it should work that way, it didnot work that way and it did not result in any great advantage to saidveterans. I don't want that to happen in this case.

General HINES. Many cases went on the roll, however.Mr. McGREGOR. But I find many cases in my file where we are

putting the burden of proof on the veteran himself, whereas, in myopinion, it should go to the Veterans' Administration to prove thathis disability was not service-connected.

Mr. KETCHUM. That was the intent of Public, 361, but in actualapplication and practice that is not the way it is administered. I saythis without intending criticism of the Veterans' Administration. Ithink it is difficult, on account of the ambiguous language in the law,to administer it. I do want you to be careful, if you agree to com-promise, and put these men under Public, 359, that your intention isnot worded in such a way that they will not receive the benefit.

Mr. McGREGOR. Might I say that I have in my office now a draftwhich I intend, but have not submitted, to the general yet, furtherclarifying our intent that the burden of proof is to fall upon the Vet-erans' Administration instead of on the soldier. That is drafted, andI have a copy of it which I will submit to the general this week.

General HINES. I am perfectly willing to have the bill written thatway. As a matter of fact, gentlemen, I would like to see the casethat has been on my desk where we have put the burden on theveteran since Public Law 361 was passed. Where you have manyindividuals involved you have differences of opinion relative to facts.You cannot correct that. That is just the human attitude that is inanybody that handles the claim. One man will look at it one wayand another man another way. I have given the benefit of thedoubt in I don't know how many cases, but a large number of them,when they have reached my desk. They cannot all reach there unlessthp veteran appeals them and bring them there. It has been sug-gested to me that I should never consider an individual case., Ithink that would be unsafe, for the Administrator would be so faraway from what was going on that he would not know what wasgoing on. All I want is to know what the committee would like todo. If they want these men taken care of, I will draft legislationthat will do it, and when I do that, so far as I am concerned, I amwilling to say that those men, if we can bring them in withoutchanging what is established legal policy, not changing the dates of


the war after we have fixed them, because many things hinge onthat. I want to try to carry out the intent of Congress.

Mr. BONNER. What is the status of these men now?Mr. BOYKIN. They don't have any.General HINES. Some of them may have something. Some of them

may have been wounded. I don't know abdut that.Mr. BONNER. Suppose we had some legislation that would set out

these engagements and provide that men who participated in themwould receive, if they are totally disabled, the same permanent totaldisability compensation as men now receive under the World War IAct? That would be a step in the right direction.

Mr. KETCHUM. That is right.Mr. BONNER. I just don't believe that the Spanish-American War

should be opened up on the chance of taking in a whole new group,but these men are entitled to something, having participated in these,engagements. We could draw an act, and I think the House wouldpass it, to give them the same benefits under permanent and total dis--ability as we have in World War I.

Mr. MCGREGOR. Incorporate the Philippine Insurrection?Mr. BONNER. No; leave it out. Just cite these engagements, that,

these men who participated in these engagements, whatever they are.General HINES. They are cited here, "the hostilities in the Moro

Province, including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte."Mr. BONNEII. They are entitled to pension for service-connected

disability, according to the rates, permanent disability.General HINES. Theywould ie entitled to the monthly rate of $50, as

* covered by the legislation, or $60 under certain conditions.Mr. BONNER. We don't want to forget the dependents. How

about the dependents in World War I? I just don't like to passclass legislation. I want to take everybody in if I am going to doanything. I want to get everybody under the tent.

Mr. MCGREGOR. That is the reason we are submitting this legis-lation. This group can't come in under that.

Mr. BONNER. They have been neglected, and I want to get them in..Mr. KETCHUM. Under the non-service-connected total disability

payments to World War I veterans, it is $50, except where a veteranhas been on the rolls for 10 consecutive years or re 'ches the age of 65,at which time it automatically increases to $60. I want to get that,point across to the general.

Mr. BONNER. They should all be given the same benefits.Mr. KETCHUM. All of these men are over 65, so certainly they

should get the maximum.

Mr. BONNER. Yes; whatever it is.Mr. DOYLE. Didn't our e-vidonce yesterday show that some of this

fighting by our boys was done after December 31, 1913? Isn't that,true?

General HINES, They are not subdued now.Mr. DOYLE. Then our intent is to limit the protection of these boys

only up to December 31, 1913? Is that correct?Mr. BONNER. How many other classifications do we have of expe-

ditionary forces?General HINES..We have quite a number. They are covered on

service-connected disability, and they get wartime rates under theconditions I stated.

'66 PHILIPPINE UPRISINGS AND CAMPAIGNS

Mr. MCGREGOR. I would suggest that we accept the offer of thegeneral and allow him to submit to us his idea of what his adminis-tration or his department would 0. K. on this policy.

Mr. BOYKJN. Yes. General, I understand we are going to recessabout the 28th of March and get back here about the 16th of April,and by that time you mirht have those records.

General HINES. I will be glad to work it out promptly for you andlet you have it bolore you take the recess. I think it would be help-ful if I can have a little more time to talk with the War Departmentabout it.

Mr. BOYKIN. I have a letter here I want to put into the record, aletter from General Shaw.

(The letter referred to follows:)

WALTER REED HOSPITAL (WARD 25),Washington, D. C.

Hon. JOHN LESINSKI,

Chairman, Committee on Invalid Pension-,House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. LESINSKI: Letters just received from Capt. J..S. Wood tell me ofhearings on H. R. 128 covering extension of the Phillippine Insurrection toDecember 31, 1913. 1 am very sorry to inform you that I am sick in the hospitaland at present cannot tell when I will get out. I would suggest that my state-ment made last year on H. R. 4099 be considered by the committee. There are-a few things I would like to add to my last year's statement.

From May 1902 to June 15, 1903, Captain (later General) Pershing cleanedup the entire Lake Lanao country in Mindanao. Many Dattos and Sullansbecame friendly after long and patient conferences with Captain Pershing at hisheadquarters at Camp Vicars, and also atocottas (fort) of many of the Moros.Some Moros remained hostile and had to be wiped out and their forts, partlcularly Fort Bacolod and Calauhi in April 1903, and the forts of the Sullans ofTaraca and Pitzeus on the Taraca River at the east end of Lake Lanao, P. I.So at the end of May 1903 the Moros of Lanao were friendly from choice orbecause they were scared bf Pershing. They respected the strength of arms.

So the Governor General (Taft) issued a proclamation declaring the insurrec-tion at an end in the More country as of Julv 15, 1903.

It miaht have worked out all right if Pershin,, Bullard, General Sumner, andothers had not been relieved from duty in the Moro country in June -July 1903and commanding officers sent in who had never served in the Moro country.Those of us who bal served there for a year passed on all information we hadabout the Moros ani how we had handled the situation. But the new officialsinformed us that the -knew how to handle the Moros and didn't even thank usfor information. In a short time outposts at Camp Vicars and at Marahuiacross the Agus Five- (outlet of Lake Lanao) were chopped to pieces by Moroswho caught them in tents. Sergeant Keithlev, superintendent, was killed withhis entire outpost at Marahui. We built a post there afterward and named itCamp Keithley. Within a year, about 1904, we had another big fight at Taraca,in 1905 on the Rio G -ande near Cottabato, in 1906 at Bud Dajo and Jolo, andevery year up to 1913.

There was alwa-s trouble when we changed commanding officers and the oldMoros who fought us from 1902 to t913 will tell us that today'. I recently had along talk with Mr. Kuder, a superintendent of schools among the Mores of Suluand Lanao for many rears and who recently wrote five articles in the SaturdayEvening Post entitled: "The Philippines Never Surrendered." He says that allthe older Moros told him that if men like Pershing had remained in commandthat there would have been very little trouble. But constant changes confusedthe Moros. That has always been my opinion and I consider that the insurrectiondidn't end in Mindanao just because the Governor General of -the Philippinesissued a proclamation to that effect.

The statement of G 'neral Hines that the fighting in the Philippines from 1902to 1913 was like the service in Cuba in 1906-9 is funny. I was in Cuba. Wewent there to stop a cvil war between Cubans. Not a shot was fired. I hopeyou can use this. I don't write -very well in bed.

Very truly, .GEORGE C. SHAW,

Brigadier General, United States Army, Retired.


The CLERK. I have also a supplemental statement from Congress-man Hagen, who has appeared on this matter.

Mr. BOYKIN. Without objection, that will go into the record.(The statement from Congressman Hagen follows:)

,SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT BY HAROLD C. HAGEN, UNITED STATES REPRESEN-TATIVE IN CONGRESS TO THE INVALID PENSIONS COMMITTEE RELATIVE TOH. R. 128

The attached letter from the Adjutant General's Office relative to the date ofthe termination of the Philippine Insurrection will be of interest to the com-mittee. It needs no further explanation:

WAR DEPARTMENT,Washington 25, D. C., March 19, 191t5.

EV-on. HAROLD C. HAGEN,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. HAGEN: This is in further reference to" your letter of February 28,1945, in which you inquire if the date of termination of the Philippine Insurrectioninthe Moro Province July 15, 1903, was by decision of the War Department or was-ratified by the President and two-thirds of the Senate or ratified in any other way.

The President, by proclamation dated April 7, 1900, appointed the Philippine'Commission and instructed the Commission to undertake the establishment ofcivil government in the Philippine Islands. By the first section of the act ofJuly 1, 1902 (32 Stat. 691), the Congress approved, ratified, and confirmed thementioned action of the. President and further provided that, until otherwiseprovided by law, the Philippine Islands should continue to be governed in ac--cordance with the terms of the proclamation and the act of July 1, 1902. By ActNo. 787 dated June 1, 1903, the Philippine Commission established, and createda civil government for, the Moro Province. Act No. 787, by its terms, became-effective July 15, 1903, on which date the military government of the MoroProvince was terminated. When Act No. 787 was, in accordance with section 86of the act of July 1, 1902, reported to the Congress (vol. 8, Annual Reports of theWar Department for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1903, Acts of the Philippine-Commission, p. 543), no action was taken by the Congress for the purpose ofannulling Act No. 787. Although there does not appear to have been any formal-declaration bv the President or the Congress that the Moro insurrection terminatedon July 15, 1903, the War Department, in view of the action taken by the Philip-pine Commission, has regarded the Moro insurrection as having terminated onthe mentioned date.

Sincerely yours, " J. A. UJLtO,

Major General, The Adjutant General.

Mr. BOYKIN. Gentlemen, are there any further questions of Gen-eral Hines now?

Mr. HEDRICK. I believe the general suggested that we wait untilafter the recess, so he can take it up with the War Department andget it all in shape.

General HINES. I would rather have it that way.Mr. HEDRICK. There is one point I would like to ask a question

about. I understood that one great objection to this bill is that itwould cause handicaps and affect the records throughout the countryby changing the date of July 4, 1902, which has been set as the timeof the end of hostilities in the Philippines.

General HINES. Yes; and July 15, 1903, in the Moro Province.The President of the United States issued a proclamation on the formerdate, and the civil government of the Moro Province took over, andall of the legal transactions since those dates have undoubtedlyreferred to this as the actual clCsing date of the war. The mainobjection of the War Departmenft and the Government generallywould be, after having once fixed the closing date of th6 war, to

PHILIPPINE 'UPRISINGS AND CAMPAIGNS

change it again. So in the draft that I propose there will be no changein the Philippine Insurrection date.

Mr. HEDRICK. I imagine even the history books and everythingelse would be affected by changing the date when the war actuallyended.

General HINES. I don't know whether the War Department hastestified here or not, but I think that quite probably, and properly,it would call the committee's attention to the fact that if Congresschanged the date, the closing date of one war, it could go on changingothers, and we would never know when we were at peace.

Mr. BOYKIN. Well, the thing we want to do is to get some help forthese poor devils who went over there and served in that war.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, what is the prerogative of the com-mittee members in getting access to the stenographic notes when theyare transcribed?

The CLERK. I will be glad to cooperate with you. The fact of thematter is, I send them around to the members to try to get them tocorrect them, and I sometimes have a hard time getting them back.

Mr. DOYLE. I mean do e have them in our files?The CLERK. These steiographic notes will be edited by the mem-

bers of the committee, and then they will be printed, just like theprevious hearings you have in front of you.

Mr. BOYKIN. Now, gentlemen, are there any other suggestions bythe committee? I am very glad that we have had this good attend-ance this morning, and I think we have made some progress. I thinkwe have gotten just what we want. Thank you very much, General.The committee will now stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:15 a. in., the committee adjourned withoutdate.)


THURSDAY, MAY 17, 1945



Washington, D. C.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

The committee met in executive session at 10:30 a. m., the chair-man, John Lesinski, presiding.

The purpose of the executive session was to consider a draft of a billsubmitted by the Veterans' Administration which removed theobjections made to H. R. 4099 of the Seventy-eighth Congress andH. R. 128 which was under consideration by the committee on March20, and 22, 1945. The committee had made a careful study of all ofthe evidence and testimony presented at the hearings on March 20and 22, and after due deliberation the chairman was instructed tointroduce the new bill presented by General Hines as a committeemeasure and as a substitute for H. R. 128. The bill was introducedand numbered H. R. 3251. It reads as follows:

[H. R. 3251, 79th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To extend pension benefits under the laws reenacted by Public Law 269, Seventy-feurth Congress,August 13, 1935, as now or bereaftei amended to certain persons who served with the United States mill.tary ornaval forces engaged in hostilities in the Moro Province, including Mindanao, or in the islands ofSamar and Leyte, after July 4,1902, and prior to January 1, 1914, and to their unremarried widows, child,or children

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled, That any person who served in any unit of theUnited States military or naval forces while such unit was engaged in hostilitiesin the Moro Province, including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte,after July 4, 1902, and prior to January 1, 1914, who was honorably dischargedfrom the enlistment in which such service ocqurredrand the surviving unremarriedwidow, child, or children of such person shall be entitled to pension under theconditions, and at the rates prescribed by the laws reenacted by Public Law 269,Seventy-fourth Congress, August 13, 1935, as now or hereafter amended.

SEC. 2. This Act shall be effective from date it is approved.

The report of the.committee to accompany H. R. 3251 is as follows:

[H. Rept. No. 613, 79th Cong., Lat sess.]

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R.3251) to extendpension benefits under the laws reenacted by Public Law 269,Seventy-fourth Congress, August 13, 1935, as now or hereafter amended, tocertain persons who served with the United States military or naval forces engagedin hostilities in the Moro Province, including Mindanao, or in the islands ofSamar and Leyte, after July 4, 19C2, and prior to January 1, 1914, and to theirunremarried widows, child, or children, having considered the same, reportfavorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass.


PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The bill pertains to persons who served in hostilities in the Moro Province,including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte, after July 4, 1902,and prior to January 1, 1914. It will provide pensions for such persons and their-unremarried widows, child or children, under theconditions and at the ratesprescribed by the laws reenacted by Public Law 269, Seventy-fourth Congress,August 13, 1935, as now or hereafter amended. Such laws are those granting-pensions to veterans of the Spanish-American War, including the Boxer Rebellionand the Philippine Insurrection, their widows and dependents, and include theSpanish-American War service pension laws providing pensions on the basis of'disability, age, or death (service connection not required) and the general pension:laws providing pensions for service-connected disability or death.

Service pension for disability or age will be payable at the following rates:0

Service 90 days or more or discharged (service-connected disability)

Per month.

June 2, 1930. o disability .----------------------------------------- $20June 2, 1930. Y disability ------------------------------------------- 25June 2, 1930. % disability ------------------------------------------- 35.June 2, 1930. 4 disability - --------------------------------------- 50Mar. 1, 1944. Total disability ----------------------------------------- 75May 24, 1938. Regular aid and attendance --------------------------- 100June 2, 1930. Age 62 ------------------------------------------------ 30Mar. 1, 1944. Age 65 ----------------------------------------------- 75

NoT.-The $75 rate at age 65 years and the $100 rate for regular aid andattendance are now payable under existing law only to persons who served betm eenApr. 21, 1898, and July 4, 1902. In addition to other persons covered by the 1ill,those now on the rolls, at-lower rates, whose only service was between July 5,1902,and July 15, 1903, will be eligible for these rates if they meet the service require-ments of the bill.

Service 70 days or more but less than 90 daysPer month

June 2, 1930. Y0 disability ---------------- $12June 2, 1930. Y disability ---------------------------------------- 15.June 2, 1930. disability -------------------------------------------- 18.June 2, 1930. 4 disability ------------------------------------------- 24June 2, 1930. Total disability -- . .------------------------------------ - 30June 2, 1930. Regular aid and attendance --------------------------- 50June 2, 1930. Age 62 ------------------------------------------------ 12June 2, 1930. Age 68 ------------------------------------------------ 18June 2, 1930. Age 72 ------------------------------------------------ 24June 2, 1930. Age 75 ------------------------------------------------ 30'

Pension for service-connected disability under the general pension law asreenacted by Public Law 269, Seventy-fourth Congress, August 13, 1935, at ratesranging from $6.90 to $129.50 per month would be payable to any person whoserved as described in the bill irrespective of length of service. By virtue of'Public Law 359, S~vent-y-seventh Congress, December 19, 1941, any veteran other-wise entitled to pension under the general pension law would be eligible for pen-sion at the rates provided in part I, Veterans Regulation No. 1 (a), as amended,.ranging from $11.50 to $265 per month if the conditions of Public Law 359,.Seventy-seventh Congress, December 19, 1941, are met.

Under the Spanish-American War service-pension laws as reenacted, pension,is payable to the widow, child, or children of a veteran of the Spanish-AmericanWar, including the Boxer Rebellion and Philippine Insurrection, who served'between April 21, 1898, and July 4, 1902, inclusive, and to the former widowwhose subsequent or successive marriage or marriages has or have been dissolvedeither by the death of the husband or husbands or by divorce on any ground exceptadultery on the part of the wife. Although service of veterans who served in theMoro Province between July 5, 1902, and July 15, 1903, is pensionable serviceunder such laws, such service is not pensionable service as to their widows, formerwidows, child, or children under existing law. Under the bill, the unremarriedwidow of a veteran who rendered service as described in the bill would be entitledto service pension at the monthly rate of $30, increased to $40 at age 65, and at the


monthly rate of $50 if she was the wife of the veteran during the period of hisLservice; and the unremarried widow, with a child or children, would receive inaddition to the foregoing rates $6 per month for each child (acts of' May 1, 1926,and March 1,, 1944). The delimiting marriage date, January 1, 1938, would befor application, also the requirement of continuous cohabitation from 'date ofmarriage to date of death except where there was a separation which was due to,the misconduct of or procured by the person who served without the fault of thewidow. The monthly rate for a child, where there is no widow, woulld be $36,per month to age 16 years, with $6 per month for each additional child, and therate from age 16 years to 18 years or to age 21 years, if attending school, wouldbe $18 per month for 1 child, $27 per month for 2 children, $36 per month for 3children, with $4 per month for each additional child, subject to a $74 monthlylimitation on the total amount payable secss. 1, 7, Public Law 144, 78th Cong.,July 13, 1943; Public Law 483, 78th Cong., December 14, 1944).

Under the general pension law as reenacted, pension is payable for service--connected death to the widow, child or children, dependent mother or dependent.father of a veteran of the Spanish-American War, including the Boxer Rebellionand Philippine Insurrection, who served between April 21, 1898, and July 4, 1902,inclusive, and to the former widow whose subsequent or successive marriage or-marriages has or have been dissolved either by the death of the husband orhusbands or by divorce on any ground except adultery on the part of the wife.As in the case of service pensions, while the service of veterans who served inthe Moro Province between July 5, 1902, and July 15, 1903, is pensionable serviceunder the reenacted general pension laws as to such veterans, it is not pensionableservice under such laws as to their widows, former widows, child or children, ordependent parent. Under the bill the unremarried widow, child or children of aveteran who rendered service as described in the bill would be eligible for pensionfor service-connected death under the general pension law, as reenacted, at rates,ranging from $25 to $30 per month for the widow, with $2 per month additionalfor each child. Where there is no widow, the widow's rate, $25 to $30 per month,plus $2 per month additional would be payable for one child, with $2 re- monthfor each additional child, the total being equally divided among the children. Ifthe conditions under Public Law 359, Seventy-eighth Congress, December 19,1944, are met, the wartime service-connected death rates would be payable as-provided in section 14 (a), Public Law 144, Seventy-eighth Congress, July 13,1943, which are as follows:

Per monthWidow, no ch-ld ----------------------------------------------- $50-Widow, 1 child ------------------------------------------------- 65Each additional child -------------------------------------------- 13.No widow, 1 child ----------------------------------------------- 25-No widow, 2 children -------------------------------------------- 38Each additional child -------------------------------------- 10Total amount payable ------------------------------------------- 100'

Dependent parents are not covered by the bill, as they will continue to receivethe more liberal rates provided under part ii of Veterans Regulation No. 1 (a),as amended, and where death resulted from combat or extrahazardous service, thewartime rates provided in such cases.

There is no delimiting marriage date applicable to pensions for service-connected'death under the general pension law as reenacted. However, the requirement ofcontinuous cohabitation from date of marriage to date of death, except wherethere was a separation due to the misconduct of or procured by the person whoserved without the fault of the widow, would be for application.

HISTORY OF LEGISLATION

Following extensive public hearings and executive sessions, your committee-reported favorably H. R. 4099, Seventy-eighth Congress, a bill to extend the,

eriod of the Philippine Insurrection so as to include active service with the Unitedtates military or naval forces engaged in hostilities in the Moro Province, includ-

ing Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte, between July 5, 1902, andDecember 31, 1913 (H. Rept. No. 1256, 78th Cong., March 14, 1944). The billpassed the House of Representatives and the Senate, and was disapproved bythe President (H. Doc. 804, 78th Cong., December 8, 1944).

This bill, H. R. 3251, is not subject to the objections which were made-toH. R. 4099. H. R. 3251 does not extend the official ending date of the PhilippineInsurrection, and the facts of record support the granting of the afore-mentioned


pension benefits because service in hostilities against the Moros and other hostiletribes during the period covered by the bill was contiguous to and under the same-extrahazardous and trying conditions as during the period now recognizedofficially as the period of the Philippine Insurrection. Such service was attendantwith unusual danger and tropical diseases incident to jungle warfare, with handi-caps related to equipment, food, medical care, and maintenance of adequarerecords of disabilities. It is the opinion of the committee that recognition ofthis particular service, based upon the extensive testimony of those who served,including those who were responsible for troops during such service, should not be-considered as a precedent for groups performing other types of service in the armedforces. It will be noted that the bill recognizes service in hostilities, and thegranting of a reasonable pension to this limited group, under the limitationscontained in the bill, is considered to be justified on the basis of outstanding merit.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

H. R. 3251, as a substitute for H. R. 128, Seventy-ninth Congress, the latterbeing identical with H. R. 4099, Seventy-eighth Congress, was adopted after-careful con ideration by your committee following hearings on H. R. 128, attended:by representatives of service organizations, the War Department, and the Vet-erans' Administration. Careful study was given by your committee of variousproposals, including suggestions and recommendations of the Administrator ofVeterans' Affairs. In view of the fact that the bill meets the objections whichwere raised in connection with the previous bill, H. R. 4099, Seventy-eighth'Congress, and because of the facts heroin outlined which justify the type of reliefto be extended, your committee strongly urges prompt enactment of this proposedlegislation.

ESTIMATE OF COST

There are no records in the Veterans' Administration on which to base an.estimate of the cost of the proposed legislation, but it is apparent that the- costwill be small as the legislation pertains to a very limited group because of therestrictions, limitations, and the lapse of time since the termination of the period,of service involved.

RAMSEYER RULE

Because the bill would not specifically amend any existing law, compliance withparagraph 2a of rule XIII of the House of Representatives is not required. How-ever, the effects of the bill are given in. detailed form in this report under theheading "Purpose of the bill."

The bill H. R. 3251 was passed by the House on Wednesday, June13, 1945, and the speech delivered by the chairman, Hon. JohnLesinskd, relative to H. R. 3251 follows:

PHILIPPINE UPRISINGS AND CAMPAIGNS AFTER JULY 4, 1902,

AND PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1914

,SPEECH OF HON. JOHN LEsINSKI OF MICHIGAN, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA-TIVES, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 1945

Mr. LESINSIcI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speak-er's table the bill (H. R. 3251) to extend pension benefits under the laws reenactedby Public Law 269, Seventy-fourth Congress, August 13, 1935,-as now or here-after amended to certain persons who served with the United States military,or naval forces engaged in hostilities in the Moro Province, including Mindanao,or in the islands of Samar and Leyte, after July 4, 1902, and prior to January 1,1914, and to their unremarried widows, child, or children, for immediate con-

:sideration.The Clerk read the title of the bill.The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mich-

igan?Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object,

will the gentleman please explain this legislation?Mr. LESINSKI. This bill covers certain veterans who were engaged in the

hostilities in the Moro Province in the Philippine Insurrection after 1902 and upto December 31, 1913. They were not included in the Spanish veterans' pension


bill, and all we are doing is bringing them up to that point, giving them the samepension that the Spanish War veterans are getting.

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. There are about 300 of them?Mr. LESINSKI. Yes.Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. And while thus engaged, were really part of

the Philippine Insurrection.Mr. LEsINsKI. Yes. They are the ones who really did all of the jungle fighting.Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of

objection.The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mich-

gan?Mr. RANKIN. Will the gentleman yield me 5 minutes?The SPEAKER. Consent has not yet been granted for consideration of the bill.Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.Mr. RANKIN. I understood that this was one of the privileged committees that

do not have to have unanimous consent to bring legislation to the floor of theHouse. Am I correct in that?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman asked for unanimous consent in order to savetime, and that is the reason the Chair recognized him.

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?There was no objection.The Clerk read the bill, as follows:"Be it enacted, etc., That any person who served in any unit of the United States

military or naval forces while such unit was engaged in hostilities in the MoroProvince, including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte, after July 4,1902, and prior to January 1, 1914, who was honorably discharged from theenlistment in which such service occurred, and the surviving unremarried widow,child, or children of such person shall be entitled to pension under the conditions,and at the rates prescribed by the laws reenacted by Public Law 269, Seventy-fourth Congress, August 13, 1935, as now or hereafter amended.

"SEc. 2. This act shall be effective from date it is approved."The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third

time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Speaker, this bill, H. R. 3251, is similar to bills that havebeen before the committee for several Congresses last past. After extensivepublic hearings and executive sessions during the Seventy-eithth Congress, yourcommittee favorably reported H. R. 4099, a bill to extend the period of thePhilippine Insurrection so as to include active service with the United Statesmilitary or naval forces engaged in hostilities in the Moro Province, includingMindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte, between July 5, 1902, andDecember 31, 1913. The bill passed the House and Senate and was disapprovedby the President on December 8, 1944. The President's objections to the bill arefully set forth in his veto message, which is House Document No. 804, Seventy-eighth Congress. On the opening day of this Congress I reintroduced a billwhich was identical in form with H. R. 4099 of the Seventy-eighth Congress.It was numbered H. R. 128 of this Congress. Your committee held publichearings on H. R. 128 on March 20 and 22. An executive session was held onMay 17, at which time a new bill was approved by the committee and orderedreported to the House, which bill is not subject to the objections which were madeto H. R. 4099 of last Congress. That new committee bill is H. R. 3251, whichwas just passed by the House.

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

This bill has for its purpose the granting of service pensions to a restrictedgroup of veterans and their unremarried widows, child, or children based uponservice during hostilities in the Moro Province, including Mindanao, or in theislands of Samar and Leyte, after July 4, 1902, and prior to January 1, 1914. Itwill provide pensions for those eligible under the conditions and at the ratesprescribed by Public Law No. 269 of the Seventy-fourth Congress, approvedAugust 13, 1935, as now or hereafter amended. Such laws pertain to the grant-ing of pensions to veterans of the Spanish-American War, including the BoxerRebellion and the Philippine Insurrection, their widows and dependents, and


include Spanish-American War service pension laws providing pensions on thebasis of disability, age, or death-service connection not required-and thegeneral pension laws providing pensions for service-connected disability or death.

The service pension for disability or age will be payable at the following rates:

Service 90 days or more or discharged (service-connected disability)

Per monthJune 2, 1930, Y o disability ----------------------------------------- $20June 2, 1930, 4 disability ------------------------------------------ 25June 2, 19?0, % disability ----------------------------------------- 35June 2, 1930, 4 disability ----------------------------------------- 50March 1, 1944, total disability ------------------------------------- 75May 24, 1938, regular aid and attendance ----------------------------. 100-June 2, 1930, age 62 ---------------------------------------------- 30March 1, 1944, age 65------------------------------------------- 75

NoTE.-The $75 rate at age 65 years and the $100 rate for regular aid andattendance are now payable under existing law only to persons who served betweenApril 21, 1898, and July 4, 1902. In addition to other persons covered by thebill, those now on the rolls, at lower rates, whose only service was between July5, 1902, and July 15, 1903, will be eligible for these rates if they meet the service'requirements of the bill.

Service 70 days or more but less than 90 daysPer month

June 2, 1930. Y o disability ---------------------------------------- $12June 2, 1930. 4 disability ---------------------------------------- 15June 2, 1930. Y2 disability ------------------------------------------ 18June 2, 1930. 4 disability ------------------------------------------ 24June 2, 1930. Total disability -------------------------------------- 30June 2, 1930. Regular aid and attendance ---------------------------- 50June 2, 1930. Age 62 --------------------------------------------- 12June 2, 1930. Age 68 ---------------... 18June 2, 1930. Age 72 -------------------------------------------- 24June 2, 1930. Age 75 ---------------------------------------------- 30

Pension for service-connected disability under the general pension law as-reenacted by Public Law No. 269, Seventy-fourth Congress, approved August 13,1935, at rates ranging from $6.90 to $129.50 per month would be payable to-any person who served as described in the bill, irrespective of length of service.By virtue of Public Law No. 359, Seventy-seventh Congress, approved December19, 1941, any veteran otherwise entitled to pension under the general pension lawwould be eligible for pension at the rates provided in part I, Veterans RegulationNo. 1 (a), as amended, ranging from $11.50 to $265 per month if the conditionsof Public Law No. 359, Seventy-seventh Congress, approved December 19, 1941,are met.

Under the Spanish-American War service pension laws as reenacted, pensionis-payable to the widow, child, or children of a veteran of the Spanish-AmericanWar, including the Boxer Rebellion and Philippine Insurrection, who servedbetween April 21, 1898, and July 4, 1902, inclusive, and 'to the former widowwhose subsequent or successive marriage or marriages has or have been dissolved-either by the death of the husband or husbands or by divorce on any groundexcept adultery on the part of the wife.

Although service of veterans who served in the Moro Province between July5, 1902, and July 15, 1903, is pensionable service under such laws, such service isnot pensionable service as to their widows, former widows, child, or childrenunder existing law.

Under the bill, the unremarried widow of a veteran who rendered service as'described in the bill would be entitled to service pension at the monthly rate of:$30, increased to $40 at age 65, and at the monthly rate of $50 if she was the wife,of the veteran during the period of his service; and the unremarried widow, witha child or children, would receive in addition to the foregoing rates $6 per monthfor each child-acts of May 1, 1926, and March 1, 1944. The delimiting marriagedate, January 1, 1938, would be for application, also the requirement of continu-ous cohabitation from date of marriage to date of death except where there wasa separation which was due to the misconduct of or procured by the person whoserved without the fault of the widow.


The monthly rate for a child, where there is no widow, would be $36 per month-to age 16 years, with $6 per month for each additional child, and the rate from:age 16 years to 18 years or to age 21 years, if attending school, would be $18 permonth for 1 child, $27 per month for 2 children, $36 per month for 3 children,with $4 per month for each additional child, subject to a $74 monthly limitationon the total amount payable-sections 1, 7, Public Law No. 144, Seventy-eighthCongress, approved July 13, 1943; Public Law No. 483, Seventy-eighth Congress,

.approved December 14, 1944.Under the general pension law as reenacted, pension is payable for service-

connected death to the widow, child or children, dependent mother or dependentfather of a veteran of the Spanish-American War, including the Boxer Rebellionand Philippine Insurrection, who served between April 21, 1898, and July 4,1902, inclusive, and to the former widow whose subsequent or successive marriageor marriages hs. or have been dissolved either by the death of the husband orhusbands or by divorce on any ground except adultery on the part of the wife.As in the case of service pensions, while the service of veterans who served in theMoro Province between July 5, 1902, and July 15, 1903, is pensionable serviceunder the reenacted general pension laws as to such veterans, it is not pensionableservice under such laws as to their widows, former widows, child or children, or

-dependent parent.Under the bill the unremarried widow, child, or children of a veteran who

rendered service as described in the bill would be eligible for pension for service--connected death under the general pension law, as reenacted, at rates rangingfrom $25 to $30 per month for the widow, with $2 per month additional for each,child. Where there is no widow, the widow's rate, $25 to $30 per month, plus $2per month additional would be payable for one child, with $2 per month for eachadditional child, the total being equally divided among the children. If theconditions under Public Law No. 359, Seventy-eighth Congress, approved Decem-ber 19, 1944, are met, the wartime service-connected death rates would be payableas provided in section 14 (a), Public Law No. 144, Seventy-eighth Congress,

.approved July 13, 1943, which are as follows:Per month

Widow, no child ----------------------------------------------- $50Widow, 1 child ------------------------------------------------- 65-Each additional child-------------------------------------------- 13No widow, 1 child ----------------------------------------------- 25No widow, 2 children --------------------------------------- 38Each additional child ------------------------------------------------ 10

'Total amount payable ------------------------------------------- 100

Dependent parents are not covered by the bill, as they will continue to receivethe more liberal rates provided under part II of Veterans Regulation No. 1 (a),as amended, and where death resulted from combat or extra-hazardous service,the wartime rates-provided in such cases.

There is no delimiting marriage date applicable to pensions for service-connecteddeath under the general pension law as reenacted. However, the requirement of,continuous cohabitation from date of marriage to date of death, except wherethere was a separation due to the misconduct of or procured by the person who

:served without the fault of the widow, would be for application.

THE PHILIPPINE- ARCHIPELAGO

Mr. Speaker, for the several Congresses last past your committee has had under,consideration legislation which had for its purpose the granting of pensions tothose who served during hostilities in pertain areas of the Philippine Islands;between 1902 and 1913. The committee has received many letters of inquiry asto the boundaries of the areas affected by the proposed legislation, but in whichhostilities occurred which were covered by the bills. A great number of theseletters were received after H. R. 4099 was introduced last Congress. It wasthought by some veterans that because certain islands were not specifically;named perhaps they would not benefit under the provisions of the bill. Duringthe hearings .on H. R. 4099 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, I received a letterfrom our colleague the gentleman from Minnesota, Representative Harold C.Hagen, in which it was suggested that perhaps the Pulajane campaigns had beeneliminated. I transmitted the letter to General Hines, who rendered a verycomprehensive report. I am of the opinion that both the letter from Representa-tive Hagen and the reply from General Hines, which goes into detail in regard to


the Philippine Archipelago and defines the outlying boundaries of the area inquestion, will be of interest to the Members of the House. It will be noted fromGeneral Hines' reply that it would be unnecessary and certainly inadvisable toattempt to specify each island or local area within such outlying boundaries be-cause there would be danger of excluding islands or local areas within the outlyingboundaries referred to. The bill, H. R. 3251, of this Congress covers the identicalareas as those covered by H. R. 4099 of last Congress.

The letter from Representative Hagen and the report of General Hines are as.follows:

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,


Washington, D. C., March 8, 1944.Hon. JOHN LEsINSKI,


DEAR COLLEAGUE: The following is a suggestion which I have received from aSpanish War veteran, relative to your bill, H. R. 4099:

"It should state provinces, not province. There are several provinces in thoseislands named in the bill. Also include both the Moro and Pulajane campaigns-

"I should include all the Philippine Islands, and not restrict this service to anydesignated territory, as there was lots of fighting, or some at least in most allislands. They seem to be determined to leave out the Pulajane campaigns,for some reason unknown to me."

Any consideration given this suggestion and amendment, if desirable and needed,will be appreciated.

Kindest regards.Very cordially yours,

HAROLD C. HAGEN,Member of Congress.


Hon. JOHN LESINSn, Washington, March 16, 1944.


My DEAR MR. LESINSKI: Reference is made to your letter dated March 11,1944, transmitting a letter dated March 8, 1944, received from CongressmanHarold C. Hagen, recommending certain proposed changes in H. H. 4099, Seventy-eighth Congress, "A bill to extend the period of the Philippine Insurrection so asto include active service with the United States military or naval forces engagedin hostilities in the Moro Province, including Mindanao, or in the islands ofSamar and Leyte, between July 5, 1902, and December 31, 1913," concerningwhich you desire the views of the Veterans' Administration.

Congressman Hagen suggests that the word "provinces" be used in the bill inlieu of the word "province" as there are several provinces in the islands namedin the bill and that the Moro and Pulajane campaigns should be included. Hefurther suggests that all the Philippine islands should be included in the bill, asthere was some fighting in most all of the islands. It appears to be his under-standing that the Pulajane campaigns are excluded from the provisions of thebill.

The Philippine Archipelago, which was acquired by the United States under thetreaty with the Kingdom of Spain concluded April 11, 1899, comprises numerousprovinces lying within the following line:

"A line running from west to east along or near the twentieth parallel of northlatitude, and through the middle of the navigable channel of Bachi, from the onehundred and eighteenth to the one hundred and twenty-seventh degree meridianof longitude east of Greenwich, thence along the one hundred and twenty-seventhdegree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the parallel of latitude 4045

' N.,

thence along the parallel of latitude 4045' N. to its intersection with the meridianof longitude 119035

' east of Greenwich, thence along the meridian of longitude

119035'

east of Greenwich to the parallel of latitude 7045'

N., thence along theparallel of latitude 7045

' N. to its intersection with the one hundred and sixteenth

degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence by a direct line to theintersection of the tenth degree parallel of north latitude with the one hundred andeighteenth degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, and thence along the


one hundred and eighteenth degree meridiara of longitude east of Greenwich to the.point of beginning.".

As previ6usly pointed out in the'report on H, R. 4099, dated March 8, 1944, thePhilippine Insurrection was declared to be at an end and peace to have beenestablished in all parts of the Philippine Archipelago except -in the territory oc-cupied by the Moro Tribes, by the President's pioclarnation dated July 4, 1902(32 Stat. 2014). The territory occupied by the Moro Tribes included a number ofsouthern islands in the Philippine Archipelago and is specifically defined by metesand bounds in section 1 of Act No. 787 of the Philippine Commission, "An actproviding for the organization and government of the Moro Province," approvedJune 1, 1903, which reads as follows:

"SEcTIoN 1. All that part of the island of Mindanao and its adjacent islandslying west or south of a boundary line beginning at a point on the north coast ofMindanao at Point Balato, 1 mile west of the western boundary of the barrio ofNaburos, thence running due south to the middle of the channel of the MipangiRiver, thence along said river to its mouth in Panquil Bay, thence along the southshore of Panquil Bay in an easterly and northeasterly direction to the south shoreof Iligan Bay, thence along the southern and southeastern shore of Iligan Bay inan easterly and northeasterly direction to Salinbal Point about 7 miles north ofthe stone pier in Iligan, and thence from Salinbal Point due east to the crest of thewatershed dividing the waters which flow into Iligan Bay from those flbwing intoMacajalar Bay, thence in a southerly direction along the crest-of said watershed tothe eighth parallel of north latitude, thence east along the eighth parallel of northlatitude to the eastern shore of Mindanao, together with the Sulu Archipelago,including'the islands known as the Jolo group, the Tawi Tawi group, and all otherislands pertaining to the Philippine Archipelago under the sovereignty of theUnited States of America south of the eighth parallel of north latitude, exceptingtherefrom the islands of Paragua and of Balabac, and the immediately adjacentislands, but including the island of Cagayan Sulu, shall constitute the MoioProvince, and shall be governed as hereinafter provided."

In referring to the Moro Province, comprising the areas above defined, it wouldseem inaccurate to use the word "provinces," although several provinces of thePhilippine Islands may be included within the Moro Province, such as Jolo,part of Mindafiao, Sulu, etc.

The purpose of H. R. 1358 and H. R. 1512, and of similar bills introduced in theSeventy-sixth and Seventy-seventh Congresses, was to grant service pension andthe same privileges of hospitalization and medical treatment accorded to honorablydischarged veterans of the Spanish-American War, Philippine Insurrection, BoxerRebellion, and World War No. 1 to persons and the dependents of persons whoserved a required number of days in any military or naval establishment of theUnited States and who were honorably discharged therefrom when such service orany part thereof was rendered in certain southern islands of the Philippines, viz:Samar, Leyte, Jolo, or Mindanao in those campaigns against the Pulajane or Moronatives or their allied tribesmen between July 16, 1903, and December 31, 1913,recognized by the War Department in the issue of the Philippine Campaign Medal.

In the report to the committee dated July 8, 1943, on H. R. 1358, Seventy-eighth Congress, the service recognized in the issue of the Philippine CampaignMedal is set forth at length. All such service is covered by existing law orH. R. 4099, except that designated in Army Regulations No. 600-65, section I,paragraph 6g (5): "In the field against an enemy in any action in which there werekilled or wounded on the side of the United States troops participating." Thisgeneral provision has no relation to any particular time or particular campaignor expedition in which troops of the United States may have been engaged inhostilities in the Philippine Islands.

Operations between July 5, 1902, and December 31, 1913, against hostileMoros, or their allied tribesmen in the Moro Province, or in that part of Mindanaonot included in the Moro Province, and against the Pulajanes in the islands ofSamar and Leyte, or against any hostile tribesmen in any of the areas mentionedare covered by H. R. 4099.

As the bill covers all of the area in the Philippine Archipelago in which militaryor naval forces of the United States are known to have been engaged in hostilitiesduring the period July 5, 1902, to December 31, 1913, and includes both the Moroand Pulajane campaigns, no further modification of the bill in its present form isindicated.

The original letter of Congressman Hagen is returned.Very truly yours,

FRANK T. HINES, Administrator.


ESTIMATE OF COST

There are no records in the Veterans' Administration on which to base an esti-mate of the cost of the proposed legislation, but it is apparent that the cost willbe small as the legislation pertains to a verylimited grouo because of the restric-tions, limitations, anf-the lapse of Aime since the termittif6n of the period ofservice involved.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Inasmuch as H. R. 3251 has eliminated the objections made to H. R. 4099,of theSeventy-eighth Congress, your committee strongly urges the prompt enactmentof this legislation. The bill H. R. 3251, as a substitute for H. R. 128, Seventy-ninth Congress, the latter being identical with H. R. 4099, Seventy-eighth Con-gress, was adopted after careful consideration by your committee followinghearings on H. R. 128, attended by representatives of the various service or-ganizations, the War Department, and the Veterans' Administration. Carefulstudy was given by your committee to the various proposals, including sugges-tions and recommendations of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs. In viewof the fact that the bill eliminates the objections that were raised in connectionwith the previous bill, H. R. 4099, Seventy-eighth Congress, and because of thefacts outlined, this type of relief is justified.

The bill H. R. 3251 does not extend the official ending date of the PhilippineInsurrection, and the facts of record support the granting of the afore-mentionedpension benefits because iiervice'1h hostilities against the Moros and other hostiletribes during the period covered by the bill was contigtlous to and under the sameextra-hazardous and trying conditions as during the period now recognizedofficially as the period of the Philippine Insurrection. Such service was attendantwith unusual danger and tropical diseases incident to jungle warfare, with handi-caps related to equipment, food, medical care, and maintenance of adequate

.records of disabilities. It is the opinion of the committee that recognition of thisarticular service, based upon the extensive testimony of those who served,

including those who were responsible for troops during such service, should not beconsidered as a precedent for groups performing other types of service in the armedforces. It will be noted that the bill recognizes service in hostilities, and thegranting of a reasonable pension to this limited group, under the limitationscontained in the bill, is considered to be justified on the basis of outstanding merit.