Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. Snyder, you spoke of opposition to this plan by certain agencies which would lose their independent position under the President as a result of this plan. Did you have any particular agencies in mind? Secretary SNYDER. That was just a general statement.

Mr. SOURWINE. Did you have any in mind such as the Employees? Compensation Board and perhaps one or two others?

Mr. SNYDER. That is right. It was no reflection on any particular board, it is perfectly natural for that to happen, and you like to retain your independence.

Mr. SOURWINE. I just wondered if you had for instance, heard of any opposition from the Commission Board, members of it. They have not appeared before the committee.

Secretary SNYDER. In the House, there were several that appeared. Mr. SOURWINE. The Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion is itself a temporary agency, is that not correct?

Secretary SNYDER. That is correct, June 30, 1947.

Mr. SOURWINE. The President here a short while ago thought he was just going to let that die?

Secretary SNYDER. His idea was to fold it into other agencies, perhaps, but when he checked and found it was a good focal point for agency discussions right now, he decided to continue it on.

Mr. SOURWINE. I assume by the fact that contract terminations are being transferred to the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion, and that it indicates that contract terminations themselves will be terminated before the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion is terminated.

Secretary SNYDER. It will be much before that. This would be no continuing influence on the Office of War Mobilization and Reconvérsion.

Mr. SOURWINE. When you spoke of this transfer as a perfect example of a transfer from war to peace, there was no indication that you expected the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion to be a permanent peacetime agency?

Secretary SNYDER. There was none whatsoever. By transition, I mean, transferring them as you go along and gradually eliminating them.

Mr. SOURWINE. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HUFFMAN. That is all. We thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

The next witness will be Rear Adm. R. O. Glover.

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. R. O. GLOVER, UNITED STATES NAVY HYDROGRAPHER

Senator HUFFMAN. You may state your name for the record. Admiral GLOVER. My name is Rear Adm. Robert O. Glover, United States Navy, hydrographer of the Navy.

Senator HUFFMAN. You may proceed.

Admiral GLOVER. The Hydrographic Office was established by law in 1866 and attached to the Bureau of Navigation, then assigned to a different bureau. The basic law of 1866 establishing the Office stated:

There shall be a hydrographic office attached to the Bureau of Navigation in the Navy Department for the improvement of the means for navigating safely the vessels of the Navy and of the merchant marine, by providing under the

1

authority of the Secretary of the Navy, accurate and cheap nautical charts, sailing directions, navigators manuals of instruction for the use of all vessels of the United States, and for the benefit and use of navigators generally.

From this basic law, the Navy Department has assigned the following mission to the Hydrographic Office, to collect, digest, and issue accurate and timely information calculated to afford the maximum possible safety to ships on the sea, and aircraft operating over the sea

routes.

By Executive Order 9126 issued pursuant to the First War Powers Act on April 8, 1942, the Hydrographic Office was transferred to the Office of Chief of Naval Operations. On January 29, 1946, the Secretary of the Navy recommended to the Bureau of the Budget that in accordance with the Reorganization Act of 1945 the Hydrographic Office be permanently transferred to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.

His recommendation stated:

The logic of this transfer is readily apparent when it is considered that the missions of this agency are directly related to the operations of the fleet for which the Chief of Naval Operations is responsible, and bears no relationship to the administration of naval personnel for which the Bureau of Personnel is responsible.

Thus, if allowed to revert to its former status, this agency would be placed under a bureau with little direct interest in or a particular knowledge of its functions. Therefore, in the interest of assuring proper supervision and direction of its functions, it is recognized and agreed throughout the Navy Department that the transfer effectuated by the Executive Order 9126 should be made permanent.

On May 16, 1946, the President transmitted to the Congress Reorganization Plan No. 3 which states, in part, as follows:

This plan transfers the Hydrographic Office from the Bureau of Naval Personnel to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.

The plan would confirm and make permanent the action taken in the year 1942 by Executive Order 9126, under the First War Powers Act. The functions performed by the Hydrographic Office relate primarily to the operational matters and thus are more appropriately placed in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations than in the Bureau of Naval Personnel. This fact was recognized in the realinement of naval functions at the outbreak of war. The plan merely confirms an organizational relationship which has existed successfully through the past 4 years.

If the Reorganization Act is not approved, the Hydrographic Office will revert to the Bureau of Naval Personnel 6 months after termination of the war, or upon termination of the First War Powers Act. In view of its proper position in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, the plan should be confirmed.

Senator HUFFMAN. You feel that the transfer from the Bureau of Naval Personnel of the Department of the Navy to the Chief of Naval Operations is a logical step and that it should remain?

Admiral GLOVER. It was a logical step, and it should remain there;

yes, sir.

Senator HUFFMAN. Have you any questions, Mr. Sourwine?
Mr. SOURWINE. Yes, sir, if you please.

This is purely an intra-agency matter, is it not, Admiral? It is within the Navy Department, entirely?

Admiral GLOVER. That is correct.

Mr. SOURWINE. There is no opposition to it from within the Navy Department?

Admiral GLOVER. No, sir, on the contrary, as my statement said, the views of the Navy Department universally support the office being in the Chief of Naval Operations.

Mr. SOURWINE. Therefore, certainly the Navy Department being entirely in favor of it and the President desiring it, and nobody objecting to it, it is not a matter concerning which anyone should raise any objections at all?

Admiral GLOVER. That is true, sir, as far as I know, no one has raised any objections.

Mr. SOURWINE. Your point in coming here to testify is simply that this change is so important to you that the plan should be approved because this change is in it?

Admiral GLOVER. That is correct, sir. I was directed by the Chief of Naval Operations to appear here in its behalf.

Senator HUFFMAN. I have not quite understood whether or not as a part of the Bureau of Naval Personnel the Hydrographic Office was under the Chief of Naval Operations at that time.

Admiral GLOVER. No, sir; the Hydrographic Office was first established under the Chief of Navigation. The Chief of Navigation became the Chief of Personnel. The Hydrographic Office was an office under, first, the Chief of Navigation, second, under the Chief of Personnel, then by Executive order transferred to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.

Mr. SOURWINE. In connection with the original establishment of that Office under Navigation, its operational functions were recognized?

Admiral GLOVER. That is correct, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. It was sort of shunted into Personnel and has now been brought back into the operational agency?

Admiral GLOVER. When first placed there, Navigation was the strongest bureau of the Navy Department. In addition to handling naval personnel, it was a scientific bureau. Later, its functions dealt purely with personnel. It was recognized that navigation was not a proper name and its name was changed to Personnel.

Mr. SOURWINE. Could this change be made by the Secretary of the Navy administratively?

Admiral GLOVER. No, sir.

Senator HUFFMAN. It would have to go through legislative action? Admiral GLOVER. I believe so, on account of the fact that the Office was established by a statute of Congress.

Mr. SOURWINE. If this plan would not become effective, would you consider it difficult to secure legislation to do that?

Admiral GLOVER. No, sir; I believe it could be introduced as a special matter and handled that way.

Senator HUFFMAN Certainly it would be without opposition from the Secretary of the Navy.

Admiral GLOVER. That is right.

Senator HUFFMAN. If there is nothing further, we thank you for making your presentation.

Admiral GLOVER. Thank you, sir.

Senator HUFFMAN. The next witness is Capt. R. S. Wentworth.

STATEMENT OF CAPT. R. S. WENTWORTH, UNITED STATES NAVY, SUPERINTENDENT OF UNITED STATES NAVAL OBSERVATORY

Senator HUFFMAN. You may state your name and proceed. Captain WENTWORTH. I am Capt. R. S. Wentworth, Superintendent of the United States Naval Observatory.

The Naval Observatory is charged with the observation of heavenly bodies, and from these observations we prepare yearly, and issue to navigators on the sea and in the air, astronomers and scientists, our American Ephemeris, the Nautical Almanac and the Air Almanac. Without these three publications, ships could not move nor airplanes sail long distances over the ocean.

For a good many years, prior to the last World War, the Naval Observatory was a part of the Bureau of Navigation. That seemed logical at the time and indeed it was, because the Bureau not only handled material matters, but personnel matters, as well.

At the beginning of the war when the name of the Bureau was changed from the Bureau of Navigation to the Bureau of Naval Personnel, and also when a reorganization of the Chief of Naval Operations took place, the Naval Observatory was changed to Naval Operations. I believe that was a reasonable thing to do at the time, and still is, because in order to operate our ships, we require not only the means to navigate them, but the means to communicate as well and without the two handmaidens of operation, our ships cannot operate. Therefore, the Naval Observatory which provides the means to navigate should be a servant of the Chief of Naval Operations, and that is where we are now.

The original change from the Bureau of Navigation to Naval Operations was made by Executive Order 9126 which was issued on April 8, 1942. We have continued in that position since that time and we wish to continue as a part of the Chief of Naval Operations' office.

Since

One of the interesting parts of the Naval Observatory is that our publications which I have mentioned, the Ephemeris and the two almanacs, before the war were done by cooperation with other countries. For instance, in the Nautical Almanac and the Ephemeris, we used to do about 25 percent of the work. The British did about 25 percent, the Germans about 25 percent and the other 25 percent of the work was done by the French, Spanish, Italians, and so on. the war we have done 75 percent of the work and the British have done 25 percent of the work. Nevertheless, the advancement of astronomy which is one of our interests as well as these publications, and the publications that I have mentioned require cooperation, and frequent contacts with the astronomers of other nations. We believe that policy in regard to those contacts, and policy in regard to various. astronomical projects which are being undertaken by astronomers everywhere should directly be under the control of the Chief of Naval Operations. So, then, for these two reasons, and really for this fundamental reason of policy, we should be directly under the Chief of Naval Operations.

Senator HUFFMAN. I have no questions, you have convinced me. Captain WENTWORTH. Thank you very much, sir.

Senator HUFFMAN. The next witness will be Col. J. W. Knighton, Supply Department, United States Marine Corps.

STATEMENT OF COL. J. W. KNIGHTON, SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

Senator HUFFMAN. Will you give your full name for the record, please.

Colonel KNIGHTON. My name is Col. J. W. Knighton, legal aid to the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Senate Concurrent Resolution 66, submitted by Senator McCarran, proposes that it be resolved by the Senate-the House of Representatives concurring— that the Congress does not favor the Reorganization Plan No. 3 transmitted by the President on May 16, 1946. Section 302 of part III of that plan would consolidate the Paymaster's and Quartermaster's Departments of the Marine Corps, and their functions, to form a single new agency, to be known as the Supply Department of the United States Marine Corps.

The Commandant has believed for a number of years that a consolidation into one department of the present Paymaster's and Quartermaster's Departments of the Marine Corps would be a logical and highly desirable step in the direction of both efficiency and economy. Such a proposal has been the subject of study on several occasions previously, and the General Board of the Navy as far back as 1932 considered the combination a desirable move. It was again taken up in 1941, and would probably have been recommended to the President for submission to the Congress then but for the fact that the expansion incident to preparation for war made the time inappropriate for such a change.

General Vandegrift is strongly of the opinion that the logical organization of the Marine Corps would call for one department to handle all matters concerning supply and disbursement. Such a system has worked excellently well in the Navy, both in peace and war, over a period of a great many years. Furthermore, the proposed consolidation is directly in line with the expressed desires of the Congress as set forth in section 2 of the Reorganization Act of 1945, in that (a) it will reduce expenditures and promote economy, particularly in field activities where a consolidation of the disbursing functions now performed by each staff department will permit of reductions in personnel; (b) it will increase the efficiency of the administration of the functions of those departments; (c) it will consolidate two agencies having similar functions under a single head; and (d) it will eliminate some duplication of effort which has hitherto been inevitable with two separate staff departments handling related items.

In view of the fact that the requirements of the corps for staff department personnel in the postwar organization are as yet only plans which have not met the test of experience, it is not practicable to furnish at this time even a reasonably reliable estimate of the savings in personnel and funds which are expected to result from the proposed consolidation. However, the Commandant feels it is obvious that a definite saving will result, and hopes it will prove to be sufficient to meet the expressed expectation of the Congress, that is, an over-all saving of not less than 25 percent in the administrative costs of the two activities.

« PreviousContinue »