TO AMEND SECTION 6 OF THE NAVAL APPROPRIATION ACT APPROVED MARCH 3, 1931, TO REGULATE THE DISTRIBUTION AND PROMOTION OF COMMISSIONED OFFICERS OF THE LINE OF THE NAVy, and for oTHER PURPOSES (H. R. 6647). MR. GOODWIN NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, January 24, 1936. The CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The bill (H. R. 6647) to amend section 5 of the Naval Appropriation Act approved March 3, 1931, to reguate the distribution and promotion of commissioned officers of the ne of the Navy, and for other purposes, was on March 13, 1935, referred to the Navy Department by your committee for comment and recommendation. The purpose of the bill is to amend section 6 of the act of March 3, 1931, so as to permit all officers of the Naval Academy classes of 1904 1916, inclusive, who were transferred to the retired list of the Navy prior to March 3, 1931, by reason of age or service ineligibility for promotion, to compute their retired pay in accordance with the provisions of that act. A thorough investigation has convinced the Navy Department Eat the enactment of this bill would constitute piecemeal legislation zadequate to remedy the existing situation; and that moreover, such Lactment will not accomplish what was intended, namely, to provide or equal treatment of all line officers retired by reason of age or service zeligibility for promotion. For these reasons the Navy Department ecommends against the enactment of the bill. The Director of the Bureau of the Budget has stated that for the same reasons, the enactment of the bill would not be in accord with se program of the President. It is suggested that the words "Naval Appropriation" appearing the title of the bill (H. R. 6647) be deleted, as the act referred to s not an appropriation act. Sincerely yours, 23697-36-No. 464 CLAUDE A. SWANSON. (1961) FOR THE RELIEF OF EDWARD R. DAUM (H. R. 10054). MR. MEAD NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, January 29, 1936. The CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The bill (H. R. 10054) for the relief of Edward R. Daum was referred to the Navy Department by your Committee with a request for report and recommendation. The purpose of this bill is to consider Edward R. Daum as having teen honorably discharged from the United States Marine Corps as a private on April 4, 1923. The records of the Navy Department show that Edward R. Daum as born on July 3, 1892, enlisted as a private in the Marine Corps for a term of 4 years on April 23, 1917, and was discharged as undesirable, with character "bad", on April 4, 1923. Private Daum served in France with the Fifth Regiment of Marines and was severely wounded in action June 12, 1918. He was awarded Le Croix de Guerre with palm, the citation reading: On June 11, 1918, at Belleau Wood he displayed fine qualities of bravery and oiness in silencing some nests of enemy machine guns, killing or capturing the ners and braving a deadly fire of machine guns and artillery. He was also 1 of 32 men named in Second Division citation, General Order No. 44, awarded July 12, 1918, as follows: The 32 men above-named, by their conduct showed the highest qualities of arage, agressiveness, and judgment under trying conditions, under machineand shell fire in the woods, much of the time in darkness. Due to their Fors in reorganizing and continuing the fight, the advance was carried on. The following offenses are of record during Daum's service: August 4, 1917: Absent without leave. Army summary court martial. September 18, 1917: Failing to report at fixed time and place of assembly. Army summary court martial. May 24, 1918: Absent without leave. Army summary court martial. December 2, 1918: Absent over leave 10 days, and absent without leave 3 days. eneral court martial. December 16, 1918: Absent without leave, and remained absent until February 5. 1919. April 5-6, 1919: Absent without leave. May 4, 1919: Deserted and remained absent until March 28, 1923, surrenderafter his enlistment had expired and after the statute of limitations had ecome effective in his case. He was not tried for desertion, but was discharged undesirable. This bill, if enacted into law, would result in no cost to the Navy; Lowever, it is probable that a charge under the Veterans' Administrazon would be involved now or in the future. The Navy Department recommends against the enactment of the ill H. R. 10054. Sincerely yours, CLAUDE A. SWANSON. 23697-36-No. 465 (1963) |