The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-05-20
ADJUSTED COMPENSATION WINS

presidents veto of the bonus measure may easily be interpreted as just rebuke for the presidents implied assumption of superior intelligence and patriotism on this subject. The prompt and decisive manner in which congress proceeded to this decision is em- phatic assertion of the coordinate authority of the legislative. The president went too far in his denunciation of the attitude of those who believe that the ex-service men are entitled to adjusted compensation and should have it without quibble or delay. The soldier is not the only one of whom a patriotic atti- tude is properly expected, nor is he the one who profits from hostilities.
 Indeed, in war it looks as if everybody gets bonus but the soldier. Those who stay at home find their personal fortunes much enhanced by the waging of a success ful war. But the ex-soldier, who returned after a season in which his only net emolu- ment was his board and keep and perhaps enough cash to outfit himself with civilian attire was not even sure of a civilian job. That fact is too tragically true to need ex- tended argument. In the United States, the bonus for the great majority of the non- combatant populace still exists in the way of higher incomes and higher returns from all forms of investment than were operative before the war But for the soldier to share in that bonus and that prosperity which were the direct result of the war would be for him to barter his patriotism Those who stayed at home and profited out of the war may take those profits without shame, but they mustn't even think of allowing the ex- service man to enjoy any of that war in- crement, because all he did was to go to the front. He didn't stay home and watch the business, so Why should be expect any of it's profits?
 On what theory is it argued that only the soldier should periodically deny himself ma. terial benefits, while hundreds of thousands of other men enjoyed prosperity beyond any previous experience? Is it not sufficient exhibition of patriotism to go to war in de- fense of ones country, without any thought at the time of any other consideration ex- cept the nations defense? The man in the service demonstrated his patriotism at a time when patriotism meant something Now that he has returned, is it not time for those who profited out of the war, and are still profiting as a result of war, to evinee a measure of patriotic appreciation in a ma terial way? This is no pauper nation, of which one may truly hold that the recogni- tion of an obligation would mean bank ruptcy. Indeed, it is quite likely that the extravagances of this government that result in no public benefit amount annually to far more than a bonus.
 The president said: "We owe no bonus to able-bodied veterans of the World War | We owe a bonus to able-bodied big business in the way of a tariff, amounting to billions. And we pay it. We owe a bonus to able bodied railroads and other utilities, guaran- teeing them net annual earning And we pay it. We owe a bonus to the able bodied dealers in essential commodities, represent ing enormous profits on their operations. And we pay it. We owe a bonus to the able-bodied British in the way of reduced in- terest. And we pay it. But to the soldiers who, for the country's sake, sacrificed their opportunities to stay at home and profiteer, do we owe no bonus? The war brought to this nation the balance of world trade and the bulk of the worlds gold reserve. The war gave it an opportunity to become the wealth. jest and most prosperous nation, an oppor- tunity that is still being minted into enor- nous fortunes But the soldier is not to share it. It is unpatriotic for an ex-service man to accept a bonus But it is not uA- patriotic for those who made fortunes, while the soldiers fought, to hug those fortunes to their bosoms and call the ex-service men avaricious.
 The president said that the majority of the ex-service men do not went the bonus. How does the president know? Has he ever put 1t to the test? Are not all those who represent the genuine ex.service groupings outspoken in declaring for the bonus in bG- half of those for whom they officially speak Has there been any protest from the rank and file of ex-service men against the bonus ? But even if the soldiers did express no wish for the bonus, does that relieve the nation of it's obligation? The question is not whether the soldier demands a bonus, but whether he is due bonus He should never be placed in a position where the condition on which he would receive a bonus would be that he evince a desire for it. The shoe is altogether on the other foot.
 The congress of the United States is more clearly informed than the president as to the attitude of the American people on this sub ject. It is also more correctly informed as to the attitude of the ex-service man. Con gress' interpretation of our patriotic duty is more in harmony with our traditions We are not paying the soldiers for their sacrifice, but we are expressing our appreciation in substantial way. Why should the president condemn such policy? He has no corner on a correct understanding of what patriotism