Evening star., 1947-07-08
Cashins Terminal Leave Bonds
To the Editor of The Star:

To the Editor of The Star:
For many years an avid reader Of The Stars
objective and thought-provoking editorial
columns, I was, indeed, disappointed to find
in your recent editorial, "On the Veterans
Bandwagon," most misleading commentary
on the pending proposal to cash the terminal
leave bonds now in the hands Of millions Of
veterans and servicemen.
First, The Star errs in characterizing the
proposal to cash the bonds as "out Of harmony"
with the Republican economy drive. The two
billion dollars involved is already part Of the
public debt the money having been appropri-
ated during the Seventy ninth Congress. Actu-
ally then the cashing of the bonds represents a
retiring of the public debt to the extent Of two
billion dollars.
Second, The Star Is guilty of an unhappy
play on words in referring to the proposal to
cash the bonds (and incidentally save the
United States $6O000,O0O year in interest)
as cash handout to veterans" When the
undersigned was separated from the Marine
Corps he continued to draw pay and allow
ances for over two months while seeking q
niche in civilian society In SO doing, he was
utilizing leave-earned but not taken during
his active service. Surely, The Star on proper
reflection would not accuse the former enlisted
man, seeking the same treatment, of asking
for "handout" from his Government. Does
The Star deny the existence of such an injus-
tice or inequality? If SO, then it Is guilty Of
the lack of courage that it unjustly attributes
to the Congress. The editorial writer can be
forgiven his faulty reasoning, but the apparent
bad faith displayed by his crude innuendo Is
objectionable and surely not worthy OF The
Star.
Third, The Star knowingly--seeking its point
nursery-overestimate the influence Of veter-
ans organizations when it infers that the
terminal leave proposal is being bludgeoned
through the Congress because "the wishes OF
the veterans groups are not to be lightly dis
regarded" With all due respect to the Veter-
ans of Foreign Wars which pioneered the orig
inal terminal leave bill and later sponsored
HR q Eightieth Congress, for the cashing OF
the bonds, the injustice sought to be corrected
was so manifest that any fair-mnded group
would have brought about the same end.
AS to the wishes of veterans groups
not lightly dsregarded" The Star has
but to peruse the VFW-sponsored bills pigeon
holed by the House leadership to fnd instead
OF their wishes not being lightly disregarded
an almost reckless disregard of those wishes
Has The Star heard of the scuttling OF the
Veterans Emergency Housing Program, the
wrecking Of the on-the-job training program
the weakening of the loan provisions OF the
CT Bill of Rights through curtalllng RFC Sec
ondary mortgage authority and numerous
other mandates of this and otner veterans
groups? The Veterans of Foreign Wars, am
sure appreciates the compliment, but The Star
in drawing its editorial conclusions is bound to
a more Jealous regard for the soundness OF Its
nrenoises JOHN c. WILLIAMSON,
..-4..,+ s;ro,tor Uateraps of Foreign Wars,
To the Editor of The Star:
Your editorial on cashing of enlisted mems
terminal leave bonds contained an erroneous
implication which assume was unintentional.
At least must give your editorial writer the
benefit of the doubt in assuming that he dld not
know the facts when he implied that terminal
leave pay should correctly be called oonus.
For his benefit, and for others VINO may oe
suffering under similar delusion, let me polnt
out that terminal leave pay, far from being
bonus, Is hard-earned money.
In the armed services, as in any Government
service, each person is entitled to mon1ns
annual leave During the war, and especially
overseas, it was impossible to obtain all tnls
leave, and certainly nobody expected It,
The injustice of the situation came about this
way, Under the regulations, an of1lcer was
allowed to accumulate this unused leave year
after year. and like all Government employees,
was paid in cash for this time when ne lett
the service.
The enlisted man. on the other hand, was not
allowed to accumulate this time Whatever
leave time he was unable to get in one year was
forfeited. and he started all over again the
next year.
The natural resentment against this state OF
affairs eliminated last year in congressional
action to rectify it, resulting in the Armed
Forces Leave Act Of 1916, which arranged 10
nav former enlisted men, in fve-year bonds,
for the leave time to which they were entitled
but never received.
Does this add up to you as something that
could be called-or even limited at being
bonus?
AS to your reason for contending editoriauy
that the bonds should not be made cashable
at the present time, will say that these are
at least honest arguments even though I thor
oughly disagree with them.
In the interests of brevity, will make only
one point in this connection:
AS a former enlisted man had no chance
to build UP any cash reserve during the war.
If my wife takes sick this year will the hospital
accept, in lieu Of payment the knowledge that
I hold q 1925, non-negotiable, non-transferrable
terminal leave bond, which will mature IN
August 1850? RALPH L. BOYCE.
To the Editor Of The Star:
Permit me to register q protest to your edi-