1. Tentative break-down of the lump-sum estimate-Continued

185,000

Garage...

(c) Purchase and preparation of land:

(The expenditure of this item will probably not be
necessary)..

1, 000, 000

The cost of the Embassy in Tokyo, Japan, has been utilized as a basis for the foregoing figures, it being considered that the costs in that locality are more nearly approximate to those in the Philippine Islands than in any other place. The cost of this Embassy, a single establishment in Tokyo, was a little over $1,000,000. It will be noted that the contemplated construction costs in the Philippines for two establishments will be about $750,000. Although it probably will not be necessary to utilize the funds included for the purpose of acquisition of land, it is felt that the amount stated in the bill represents about the minimum that should be made available.

O

AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE NAVY AND MARINE CORPS TO ADMINISTER OATHS

APRIL 19, 1935.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. SUTPHIN, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 93]

The Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives, to whom was referred the bill (S. 93), to authorize certain officers of the Navy and Marine Corps to administer oaths, having considered the same, report it to the House with the recommendation that it do pass.

The purpose of the bill is to authorize certain officers of the Navy and Marine Corps to administer oaths outside the continental limits of the United States, for the purpose of naval administration and naval justice.

The following letter from the Secretary of the Navy addressed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives sets forth the views and recommendations of the Department thereon, and is hereby made a part of this report:

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, October 30, 1934. Washington, D. C.

The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: There is transmitted herewith a draft of a proposed bill "To authorize certain officers of the Navy and Marine Corps to administer oaths."

The proposed legislation will meet the demand for general notarial services beyond the continental limits of the United States where the Navy or Marine Corps may be serving by conferring upon such officers as are authorized to administer oaths for the purposes of administration of naval justice and for other purposes of naval administration the general powers of a notary public or of a consul of the United States in the administration of oaths, the execution and acknowledgement of legal instruments, the attestation of documents, and of other forms of instruments to be executed by persons in the service of the Government in accordance with the laws of the United States or of any State of the United States requiring notarial services.

The authority granted in the enclosed bill will confer an authority upon officers of the Navy and Marine Corps similar to that granted to Army officers by the act of June 4, 1920 (41 Stat. 810; U. S. C., title 10, sec. 1586), which provides:

"Any judge advocate or acting judge advocate, the president of a general or special court martial, any summary court martial, the trial judge advocate or any assistant trial judge advocate of a general or special court martial, the president or the recorder of a court of inquiry, or of a military board, any officer designated to take a deposition, any officer detailed to conduct an investigation, and the adjutant of any command shall have power to administer oaths for the purpose of the administration of military justice and for other purposes of military administration; and in foreign places where the Army may be serving shall have the general powers of a notary public or of a consul of the United States in the administration of oaths, the execution and acknowledgment of legal instruments, the attestation of documents, and all other forms of notarial acts to be executed by persons subject to military law."

The existing law governing the administration of oaths by Naval or Marine Corps officers is as follows:

"Judges advocate of naval general courts martial and courts of inquiry, and all commanders in chief of naval squadrons, commandants of navy yards and stations, officers commanding vessels of the Navy, and recruiting officers of the Navy, and the adjutant and inspector, assistants adjutant and inspector, commanding officers, recruiting officers of the Marine Corps, and such other officers of the Regular Navy and Marine Corps, of the Naval Reserve, and of the Marine Corps Reserve, as may be hereafter designated by the Secretary of the Navy, are authorized to administer oaths for the purposes of the administration of naval justice and for other purposes of naval administration. (Jan. 25, 1895, ch. 45, 28 Stat. 639; Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 834, 31 Stat. 1086; Mar. 4, 1917, ch. 180, 39 Stat. 1171; July 1, 1918, ch. 114, 40 Stat. 708; Feb. 28, 1925, ch. 374, sec. 1, 43 Stat. 1080.)" (U. S. C., title 34, sec. 1200, art. 69.)

The services of a notary public were recently desired in connection with the execution of certain papers relating to the retirement of a civil-service employee for total disability at Guantanamo, Cuba. There was no United States consul available nearer than Santiago, Cuba, and the nearest notary public of the local government was many miles away, necessitating the expense of traveling to and from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the loss of time, in the event the services of either were procured.

The authority granted in the proposed legislation will remedy a situation similar to that presented in the foregoing case, and will make immediately available notarial services when required by the personnel of the Navy or Marine Corps in connection with the execution of papers relating to matters other than naval discipline and naval administration. The enactment of the proposed legislation will effect a saving of time and expense in the interests of the naval service, as well as of the individual, and will involve no additional expense to the Government.

The Navy Department recommends that the proposed legislation be enacted.

Sincerely yours,

CLAUDE A. SWANSON.

O

AUTHORIZING PERSONNEL OF THE NAVAL SERVICE TO WHOM A COMMEMORATIVE OR SPECIAL MEDAL HAS BEEN AWARDED TO WEAR IN LIEU THEREOF A MINIATURE FACSIMILE OF SUCH MEDAL AND A RIBBON SYMBOLIC OF THE AWARD

APRIL 19, 1935.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. YOUNG, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1208]

The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1208) authorizing personnel of the naval service to whom a commemorative or special medal has been awarded to wear in lieu thereof a miniature facsimile of such medal and a ribbon symbolic of the award, having considered the same, report it to the House with the recommendation that it do pass.

The purpose of the bill is to authorize the personnel of the naval service to wear miniature facsimiles of medals and special awards that have been duly received.

It appears that the standard size of such congressional medals is about 21⁄2 inches in diameter and are unsuitable to wear by the personnel to whom they have been awarded, in most cases, due to the large size of the medal. In the case of standard personal medals such as the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Navy Cross, and the Distinguished Service Medal, this difficulty has been obviated by the legislation governing the award of such medals, wherein specific authority is granted for the wearing of rosettes, ribbons, or other devices in lieu of the medals themselves. However, this is not true in the case of commemorative or special medals, such as the commemorative medal given for the first transAtlantic flight. It is believed that the recipient of such an award should be allowed to wear some smaller symbol of this award upon certain occasions, but this legislation will have to be enacted before the Navy can grant the authority for the wearing of these miniature facsimiles.

This legislation will result in no additional cost to the Navy and is recommended by the Department as indicated in the letter from the Secretary of the Navy to the Speaker of the House of Representatives which is hereby made a part of this report.