Evening star., 1926-04-11

CONTINUED from First Pageo
the Veterans Bureau. organized in
MAY. 1925. under David G.. Arnold,
has functioned, but that ii needs
greater power. Although Mr., john
son is far from believing In central
lied control, he does believe strongly
that the Government owes 1t to the
former service men TO handle their
estates for them, so that they will not
be dlssipated tor mullcted
Urged Safer Policy.
ON February IS. 1924, when the
Veterans Bureau bill was being
drafted. Chairman Johnson ana Di-
rector Hines foresaw the possibility
fur abuses of the guardianship policy,
and tried to get provision in the law
which would have safeguarded the IN
tercstS of the veterans. as follows:
To authorize the administration oil
compensation payments u mehtdllE
incompetent benetiCiaries and those
under other legal disabilities without
the interpoSitiOn of guardians IN a
manner similar TO that now PROVIDED
for institutional cases; and to author
iZe the director to require reports
from guardians as to the disposition ol
funds paid 10 them by the bureau
for their wards, and to withhold such
payments in his discretion, Tor fallure
to make such reports and III cases ol
improper disposition of sucn funds Dy
the guardians.
In discussing that propoSal at the
hearings Director Hines said:
Il feel that the bureau in the past
has been rather negligent in not FOL
lowing up the funds of incompetent
beneficiaries, and this is designed tC
establish system in such a way as
to be workable with the State author
tiles, and still accomplish the ann de
sired, and that is to know that the
funds allotted to these men are prop
erly administered and for their bene
tit.
"The matter of protecting benefici'
aries of the bureau against improper
use of compensation and insurance
payments to guardians has been found
a very difficult one. / think the GOV
ernment owes that duty to its wards
as far as it can legally go. The present
law requires payments to be made to
guardians wherever guardians are ap-
pointed and the appointment OF guard
ians is a matter exclusively of State
Jurisdiction and control. The present
law does, however, provide (section 23)
that where the beneficiary is an in
mate of an asylum or hospital for the
insane and no guardian has been ap
pointed, the director may order all
moneys payable to such inmate to be
held in the Treasury and disburseo
through the chief officer of the insti
tuition according to the best interest
of the beneficiary as the director in
his discretion may determine. So far
as it goes this has been found work
able and highly beneficial to the bene-
ficiarieS.
The provision, however, applies
only to insane inmates of institutions
and only where no guardian has been
appointed. Solely in the interests of
the beneficiarles it is now sought to
extend this discretionary power OF
the director to all cases of mental in
competency and other legal disability,
whether inmates of institutions or not,
and whether guardians have been ap-
pointed or not. 1t is likely that, except
in institutional cases where the per-
son of the beneficiary is under the i'm
mediate control of the bureau, it may
be often impracticable to use this
method: it is Therefore proposed that
the existing authority to pay guar
dams be continued, but that the alter
native be left to the directors d1Scre-
ton. Where payments are made TO
guardians. it is proposed to authorize
the director by regulation to require
stated reports of their acts and doings
with respect to the Government funds
received by them and. in default
thereof or in cases of misconduct by
the guardian. to authorize withhold
ing all payments until reports are
made or the misconduct corrected or
a new guardian appointed, as the
case may be. This latter has long
been the rule and practice of the Pen
sion Bureau, whose laws permit it. y
Fight Led by Rankin.
The fight against the proposal at
that time was led by Representative
Rankin, Democrat, of Mississippi
Chairman Johnson emphasized that
1T is the duty of the Government tC
throw these safeguards around the
funds of each man in every State
But Mr.. Rankin argued that it was
"a dangerous invasion Of the courts
of the States" He commented that
with the very small remuneration
that a guardian receives for his work
he ought not to be hampered by the
state court and in no way by the Fed
eral Government"
Gen. Hines and Chairman johnson
contended that they were seeking Il
safeguard Government money pait
by the Government to the soldie
beneficiaries and that 1t was thei
duty to protect these and the servic,
men.
II will be remembered that thi
Veterans Bureau bill in 1924 just go'
through by the skin Of its teetl
what were left of them), with onl,
three minutes to spare, and to get i
through, all of these controversial
provisions had to be eliminated.