CONGRESS BRID E ACROSS THE DELAWARE RIVER NEAR TRENTON, N. J. FEBRUARY 3 (calendar day, FEBRUARY 11), 1922.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. CALDER, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 9931.] The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 9931) to extend the time for completing the construction of a bridge across the Delaware River, having considered the same, report favorably thereon, and recommend that the bill do pass without amendment. The bill has the approval of the War Department, as will appear by the annexed communication. WAR DEPARTMENT, January 10, 1922. Respectfully returned to the chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. So far as the interests committed to this department are concerned, I do not know of any objection to the favorable consideration by Congress of the accompanying bill, H. R. 9751, present session, to extend the time for completing the construction of a bridge across the Delaware River near Trenton, N. J., if the bill be amended as indicated in red thereon. JOHN W. WEEKS, Secretary of War. MEMORANDA CONCERNING TRENTON BRIDGE BILL. Upon the bridge $500,000 in round figures has been expended for the construction of the piers and clearing the channel of obstructions caused by the work, as required by the War Department, in order that navigation would not be interfered with. The Pennsylvania Railroad also maintains lights on the piers. A large portion of the right of way for the railroad has been obtained at a cost of about $1,750,000, and there has been an expenditure of approximately $2,250,000 for the bridge and railroad. A further indebtedness for construction and right of way have been incurred of about $561,042.42. The line, if constructed under normal conditions, would cost in the neighborhood of $17,000,000, of which $2,000,000 would be on account of the bridge in question. At the extraordinary high prices for labor and materials that prevailed since the extension of time was granted in 1919, the cost to complete the line would have been approximately $30,000,000, and for the bridge $3,500,000, an average increase of about 75 per cent above the normal cost. Mr. CAMERON, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. J. Res. 156.] The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 156) authorizing the Secretary of War to grant a permit to erect and maintain a hotel upon the Fort Monroe Military Reservation in Virginia, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the joint resolution do pass without amendment. This measure has the approval of the Secretary of War, who has made the following recommendation in the matter: The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS, WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 9, 1922. United States Senate. SIR: Referring to S. J. Res. 156, which was referred to me by your committee on January 31, 1922, with request for an expression of the views of the War Department relative to this measure, you are informed that the erection and maintenance of a suitable hotel on the Fort Monroe Military Reservation is considered highly desirable by the War Department. It is considered that S. J. Res. 156, if enacted into law, would give the Secretary of War ample authority not only to insure that a hotel erected and operated in accordance therewith would be suitable for the purpose, but also to provide for the full protection of the interests of the United States in connection therewith. Respectfully, JOHN W. WEeks, It is understood that at present there is no hotel in the neighborhood of Fort Monroe and that it is necessary for visitors or anyone who has no quarters at the post to cross the bay in order to secure sleeping quarters and other accommodations. Mr. CAMERON, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 8924.] The Committee on Military Affairs, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 8924) to amend the act entitled "An act making appropriations for the support of the Military Academy for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1921, and for other purposes," approved March 30, 1920, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass without amendment. The report made to the House of Representatives (Rept. No. 630) explains the situation in detail. This report is appended hereto and made a part of the Senate report, as follows: During the World War classes at the United States Military Academy at West Point were not held to the customary four-year course. After the war Executive action fixed the course at three years, and subsequently the law prescribed a four-year course. The proposed legislation is designed to give cadets in classes still scheduled for the short course an opportunity to remain in the academy after the graduation of their class and receive the benefit of an additional year of instruction. The bill has the indorsement of the Secretary of War. The details of the whole matter are set forth in the following letters from The Adjutant General of the Army and the Secretary of War: Hon. FRANK L. GREENE, House of Representatives. WAR DEPARTMENT, THE ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, DEAR SIR: In compliance with your telephonic request of January 24 for certain information for your use in reporting H. R. 8924, Sixty-seventh Congress, first session, a bill to amend the act entitled "An act making appropriations for the support of the Military Academy for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1921, and for other purposes,' approved March 30, 1920, I have the honor to furnish you with the following data: Prior to March 30, 1920, there was no law prescribing the length of the course at the Military Academy. The course had, however, been established at four years by Executive action since May, 1861. On account of the emergency existing in 1917 and 1918, certain classes were graduated early, as follows: S R-67-2-vol 1-21 Class of 1917 (admitted in June, 1913) graduated in April, 1917. Classes of 1920 and 1921 (admitted in 1916 and 1917, respectively) graduated in November, 1918. The class of 1921 was sent back on December, 1 1918, as commissioned officers, for post-graduate work, and remained until June 11, 1919. In June, 1918, a class was admitted as usual, but the problem of supplying trained officers for the greatly increased military program was a very serious one, and in October, 1918, the Secretary of War directed that two of the three classes then at the academy should be graduated on November 1, 1918. Those were the classes of 1920 and 1921 in the above enumeration. It was further directed that all vacancies, including those existing and those caused by the graduation of the two classes on November 1, should be filled by that date, and that the course should be reduced to one year during the remainder of the war. The class remaining on November 1, which had been admitted in June, 1918, and the class admitted on that date were, therefore, placed on that basis. The war ended on November 11, however, and, after long consideration, the course was on May 12, 1919, established by Executive action at three years. By the same action it was directed that the class that was admitted in June, 1918, should be graduated in June, 1920, and that the one admitted on November 1, 1918, should be graduated in June, 1921. In June, 1919, a new class was admitted as usual, and, the course having been established at three years, that class was placed on that basis. The act of March 30, 1920, established the course at four years and provided that any cadet at the academy on that date could remain an additional year if he would make his decision by June 11, 1920. That provision affected the classes that were admitted in June, 1918, November, 1918, and June, 1919, which were then scheduled for graduation in 1920, 1921, and 1922, respectively. The act further directed that any cadet who did not take advantage of the additional year should be graduated as scheduled prior to the passage of the act. All members of the class that were admitted in June, 1918, elected not to take the additional year and were therefore graduated in 1920. The vast majority of those admitted in November, 1918, took advantage of the additional year and are to be graduated in June, 1922. Seventeen, however, elected not to stay and were graduated in June, 1920, in accordance with the previous schedule. Likewise, the majority of the class admitted in June, 1919, decided to stay and are to be graduated in June, 1923; but some 22 of that class decided not to stay and are therefore scheduled to be graduated next June. Some, or practically all, it is believed, of these 22 have changed their minds and now want the extra year, but the provisions of the act of March 30, referred to, are mandatory and the War Department has not the authority to give it to them. There are also two who were admitted in November, 1918, and who have been turned back on account of sickness and are now scheduled to be graduated in 1922, and who would be affected by this bill; likewise, two admitted in June, 1919, and who are now scheduled to be graduated in 1923. The purpose of the bill is simply to allow these 26 the privilege of reexercising the option, granted in the act of March 30, 1920, of remaining an additional year. Those cadets who were graduated in April and August, 1917, and June, 1918, are captains. All who have been subsequently graduated are first lieutenants. The pay and commutation of cadets since July 1, 1916, has been as follows: It is deemed proper to add that existing law allows a maximum of two cadets to be at the Military Academy from each congressional district at all times. The law also allows a maximum of four cadets from each State at large, which are divided equally between the two seats in the Senate. Those cadets from the States and congressional districts are, of course, in addition to those from the United States at large, the Army, and the National Guard, etc. The total authorization, including the Filipino cadets, Porto Ricans, and all other sources, is 1,338. Very respectfully, The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS, P. C. HARRIS, WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, December 20, 1921. House of Representatives. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a copy of H. R. 8924, forwarded to me by your letter of December 2, 1921. There are 26 cadets at the Military Academy who would come within the provisions of this bill and who might exercise the option therein provided for. Twenty-four of these cadets are members of that class which had been assigned to graduate in the year 1922 before the passage of the act of March 30, 1920 (41 Stat. L., 548); the majority of this class will graduate in 1923, due to their having exercised the option provided for in the act of March 30, 1920; but these 24, not having exercised the option in question, will graduate as originally assigned in 1922, and thereby lose the additional, or fourth year, of instruction chosen by the majority. Similarly, there are two cadets of the class originally assigned to graduate in 1923 who did not elect to prolong their course for a year, and who for this reason are to graduate in 1923, one year ahead of the majority of this class, who elected to finish out the four-year course. This act would impose no obligation on any cadet in question, but would simply extend a privilege to such cadet, of which he might take advantage. In the case of the 24 cadets of the original class of 1922, no interference will occur with the admission of their successors in 1922, provided such successors be named, as this case would be covered by Revised Statutes 1318, as amended by act of March 30, 1920 (41 Stat., 548), which states in part: "Provided, That whenever any member of the graduating class shall fail to complete the course with his class by reason of sickness, or deficiency in his studies, or other cause, such failure shall not operate to delay the admission of his successor.' In the case of the two cadets of the original class of 1923, the admission of their successors would be delayed until their actual graduation in 1924, if these two cadets should avail themselves of the option provided for in the bill now under consideration (H. R. 8924) prior to their becoming members of the "graduating class"; or, in other words, if they exercised this option before graduation exercises in 1922. These two cadets are Edward John Hirz, twentieth Ohio district, and William James Brumer, tenth Texas district. Extending this opportunity (H. R. 8924) may result in an additional expense to the United States, as several of the cadets in question have expressed a desire to finish their four years at the academy, but this added expense would be small as compared with the benefits of having in such graduates a more finished and efficient product. These cadets would be availing themselves of the same opportunity offered formerly by Congress, which they ill-advisedly, in my opinion, allowed to pass by. I believe the proposed act to be for the best interest of the United States, and recommend its enactment into law. Sincerely, yours, O JOHN W. WEEKS, Secretary of War. |