provided for additional facilities, has been indorsed by the Goethals Engineering Co. and other prominent experts in the United States, it would be unwise to pass the bill, when we have authorized the Secretary of the Navy to obtain this information to see if we can add to these battleships, bombing planes.

In view of that fact, to me it seems unwise to take any action on this bill until this information can be obtained and acted upon. The CHAIRMAN. Will you incorporate that?

Mr. McCLINTIc. Yes, sir; and I will give the names of those newspapers, those 400 newspapers of which I spoke, which are all published in the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. We do not care for the list of newspapers.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. All right. Whenever the Navy can modernize a battleship to take care of its bombing planes, which will enable those airplanes to go out to distances of 200 miles to strike where they wish, then I will withdraw my opposition to the present bill.

Subject: Modernization of battleships.

With reference to the testimony I gave on this subject. will say that a Mr. Willis J. Perkins claims that he can provide the necessary addition to a battleship to enable the same to carry, launch, and land bombing planes on battleships. His theory is based upon trapeze wires stretched so as to provide running gears for planes and being of sufficient width to allow the same to land after they have performed their function. According to his statements, such attachment can be placed on the side of a battleship running lengthwise a sufficient distance to enable the plane to take off and return without the use of catapults. In addition, after it has performed its service the same can be folded up, thereby preventing it from interfering with any of the other equipment on board.

The following have either indorsed his invention or approved of its principles:

Col. Paul Henderson, former Assistant Postmaster General in charge of aviation for the Post Office Department and now vice president and general manager of the N. A. T.; Robert E. Graham, of the Goethals Engineering Co., New York; W. Scott Proskey, of Flint & Co., New York, London, and Paris; Adrian Van Muffling and Harry J. Marks; Colonel Reese, an English aviator; and a number of officers in the Army and Navy.

In view of this fact, the Naval Affairs Committee unanimously adopted the following motion, and it was sent to the Secretary of the Navy under date of January 30:

"That the chairman be instructed to communicate to the Navy Department the information that this committee feels that this device is worthy of the most careful consideration and thorough testing with a view to its adoption by the Navy for use on the battleships to be modernized and those now building and to be built.

As I view it, it would not be wise to authorize the modernization of battleships until this inventor has had time to demonstrate his claim, having in mind that if such invention is practical and can be adopted on battleships without violating the terms of the London treaty, it will enable each battleship to be its own airplane carrier, thereby making it an efficient weapon worth retaining in the Navy. It will be further understood that no battleship to-day can carry bombing planes. In fact, the only two ships we have that are capable of doing this work are the Lexington and the Saratoga.

Mr. MCCLINTIC (continuing). Now, a word about the other bill: The bill might be termed an "equalization bill." I have been a member of this committee more than 10 years. We have never passed an equalization bill that any member of our committee knew anything about.

Why? Because next season a new class will come and say, "We have been treated unfairly by this bill which you have just passed,” and they will ask for something else.

Now, we have appointed a committee for promotion and equalization.

Mr. VINSON. No! No! It was just for promotion.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. The system followed in the Navy with respect to promotion is rather superannuated. I was hoping that this committee or commission would go into the question of promotion and pay, studying those two items in a joint manner.

I have opposed this bill because every time I have any recollection of when we pass such a bill we have a class of officers coming back and saying, "You have dealt unfairly with us." So I have concluded none of us can have a proper conception of this plan.

It is contended this plan will take care of the Naval Academy graduates. I have always been of the opinion that they should be commissioned. There is no reason why we should have more Naval Academy students than we have at West Point. I feel prompted at this time to bring to the attention of this committee the situation at Annapolis, so that if there is a bad system it should be presented to the public and methods begun for its cure.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that relate to this bill?

Mr. MCCLINTIC. Yes, sir. At Annapolis each member is allowed to appoint four. Two certainly is sufficient. According to the information I have here a certain condition exists as to the crowded condition of the academy, the management or to the officers in charge, with respect to the treatment accorded to midshipmen. I will read to you a short letter which I have.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that on the matter which is before the committee at this time, Mr. McClintic?

Mr. MCCLINTIC. This letter should go into your record. I will read it.

The CHAIRMAN. That proposition is not before the committee at this time, is it?

Mr. MCCLINTIC. This bill refers to the method or number of graduates at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think that is a matter of personal interest to this committee. It is a letter which a boy has written to his family. This boy should resign if he is not satisfied.

Mr. VINSON. Then, let him resign.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. I understand he has since resigned.

Mr. SPROUL. I have a number of boys who have gone through the Naval Academy and everyone of them tells me he was treated in the finest manner it was possible to treat them.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. I will say in conclusion: If you are going to modernize battleships, let us modernize them to take care of the facilities I have referred to. I hope when we get to the equalization of commissions we will have an opportunity to say something

more.

Mr. VINSON. One of the things the modernization bill will deal with is the question the gentleman has been discussing, namely, airplane and landing facilities in connection with these battleships which are to be modernized under this bill. It is estimated that we will spend $70,000 on each one of the ships for those particular purposes.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that concludes the hearing on the naval affairs bills.

MODERNIZATION AND LINE PROMOTION BILLS

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1931

COMMITTEE ON RULES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The committee this day met. Hon. Bertrand H. Snell (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. (The bills under consideration are as follows:

[H. Res. 349, Seventy-first Congress, third session]

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of S. 4750, a bill to authorize alterations and repairs to certain naval vessels. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by those favoring and opposing the bill, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and the amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

[S. 4750, Seventy-first Congress, third session]

AN ACI To authorize alterations and repairs to certain naval vessels

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That for the purpose of modernizing the United States ships New Mexico, Mississippi, and Idaho alterations and repairs to such vessels are hereby authorized at a total cost not to exceed the sum of $30,000,000, in all. The alterations to the capital ships herein authorized shall be subject to the limitations prescribed in the treaty limiting naval armaments, ratified August 17, 1923.

[House Report No. 2362, Seventy-first Congress, third session]

The Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4750) to authorize alterations and repairs to certain naval vessels, having had the same under consideration, report favorably thereon without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill do pass. The purpose of the bill is to authorize major alterations and repairs to the battleships New Mexico, Mississippi, and Idaho, at the total cost not to exceed $30,000,000 in all; said alterations to be subject to the limitations prescribed by the Washington treaty for the limitation of naval armament.

Major alterations to the Florida, Utah, Arkansas, Wyoming, New York, and Texas were authorized by the act approved December 18, 1924, and some additional work was authorized by the act approved May 27, 1926. The first appropriation for work on these vessels was included in the deficiency appropriation act approved March 4, 1925. The balance of funds made available for work on these vessels was included in the appropriation acts approved May 21, 1926, and March 2, 1927. The Florida, Arkansas, and Texas were sent to the Boston, Philadelphia, and Norfolk Navy Yards, respectively, in the fall of 1925

for the accomplishment of the work authorized. These three vessels were returned to active service after completion of their overhauls in November, 1926. The Utah, Wyoming, and New York were sent to the Boston, Philadelphia, and Norfolk Navy Yards, respectively, and placed in reduced commission preliminary to undertaking the modernization work in September, 1926. They were returned to active service after completion of this work in November, 1927.

ALTERATIONS AND REPAIRS TO CERTAIN NAVAL VESSELS

The act approved March 2, 1927, supplemented by the act approved January 19, 1929, authorized the modernization of the Oklahoma and Nevada. Funds were appropriated for starting work on these vessels in the deficiency appropriation act approved December 22, 1927. The Oklahoma and Nevada were sent to the Philadelphia and Norfolk Navy Yards, respectively, and placed in reduced commission in September, 1927, but work was not actively undertaken on them until the latter part of December, after the appropriation of the necessary funds. The balance of the funds appropriated for work on these two vessels was included in the appropriation acts approved May 21, 1928, and March 2, 1929. The Oklahoma and Nevada were returned to active service after completion of their modernization overhauls in August, 1929.

The modernization of the Pennsylvania and Arizona was authorized by the act approved February 5, 1929. Funds were appropriated for starting work on these vessels in the appropriation act of March 2, 1929. The Pennsylvania and Arizona were sent to the Philadelphia and Norfolk Navy Yards, respectively, and placed in reduced commission in May, 1929. Work on the vessels started in July, 1929. The balance of funds appropriated for work on these two vessels was included in the appropriation act approved June 11, 1930. It is estimated that the modernization of these vessels will be completed March 1, 1931.

The Navy Department is now asking for authority for the modernization of the New Mexico, Mississippi, and Idaho, with a view to taking up the work on two of these vessels, Mississippi and Idaho, shortly before the completion of the Pennsylvania and Arizona.

The major alterations to the Florida, Utah, Arkansas, Wyoming, Texas, and New York included the installation of additional protection against submarine attack, the installation of air attack deck protection, the conversion of the vessels to oil burning, and the installation of improved airplane handling appliances. In addition, the installation of new fire-control systems was undertaken on the Teras and New York. At the time the vessels were laid up for the major alterations, miscellaneous repairs and minor alterations were undertaken, chargeable to the current appropriations for such work, amounting to approximately $300,000 for each vessel, the statutory limit for vessels of this class. The work authorized on the Oklahoma, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Arizona includes the installation of additional protection against submarine attack; the installation of air attack deck protection; the reboilering of the vessels. but not conversion from coal to oil burning, as these vessels are already oil burning: the installation of new fire-control systems, of improved airplane handling arrangements, and of a 5-inch antiaircraft battery; the raising of certain secondary battery guns from the second to the main deck; and an increase in the elevation of the turret guns. The authorization also includes an allowance for miscellaneous repairs and minor alterations, as experience with the preceding vessels had shown that all miscellaneous repairs and minor alterations that should be accomplished at the time the vessels are laid up for the major alterations could not be provided for under the statutory limit. addition, there is being installed on the Pennsylvania a protected flag battle station similar to the one installed on the California.

In

The work proposed by the Navy Department on the New Mexico, Mississippi, and Idaho is substantially the same as the work undertaken on the Oklahoma and Nevada and the work being undertaken on the Pennsylvania and Arizona, subject to such variations as are necessitated by the differences in design of the several vessels. The estimates for the several items of work proposed on the New Mexico, Mississippi, and Idaho are as follows:

Summary of revised estimates for modernization, New Mexico, Mississippi, and Idaho

The total authorization for major alterations on the Florida, Utah, Wyoming, Arkansas, New York, and Teras was $19,710,000, to which should be added approximately $300,000 per vessel for work accomplished from the current appropriations during the period of the major overhaul. The authorization for modernization of the Oklahoma and Nevada was $13,600,000, total for both vessels. The authorization for work on the Pennsylvania and Arizona is $14,800,000, total for both vessels.

The following initiatory letter from the Secretary of the Navy and one containing the recommendation of the Bureau of the Budget, addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives, on House bills identical to S. 4750 are hereby made a part of this report.

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, June 17, 1930.

The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying further to the committee's letter of June 16, 1930, transmitting the bills (H. R. 12964 and H. R. 12965) to authorize alterations and repairs to certain naval vessels, and requesting the views and recommendations of the Navy Department thereon, I have the honor to inform the committee as follows:

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to modernize the U. S. S. New Mexico, U. S. S. Mississippi, U. S. S. Idaho, at a total cost not to exceed $30,000,000 such modernization consisting of repairs and alterations to be subject to the limitations prescribed in the treaty limiting naval armaments ratified August 17, 1923.

The Navy Department desires to perform the following alterations and repairs to the above capital ships, the cost of which would exceed the statutory limit of repairs to naval vessels ($300,000) (39 Stat. 605, U. S. C., title 5, sec. 648):

(a) Provide additional defense against submarines and air attack. This will include the installation of blisters and incidentals thereto, the removal of underwater torpedo tubes, and the installation of above-water tubes.

(b) Reboiler, install new turbines, improve oil-burning equipment and main propulsive machinery.

(c) Increase elevation of turret guns.

(d) Install new tripod fire-control mast.

(e) Modernize fire-control systems.

(f) Provide new airplane launching and handling facilities.

(g) Install 5-inch antiaircraft battery.

(h) Other miscellaneous alterations and repairs.