I am a little bit disappointed at the Secretary's lack of knowledge of geography as expressed here, and if the Department's knowledge of facts in other cases is no better than their knowledge of geography in this case, it is not very reliable. Justice MATTHIAS. May I make this observation in reply to your question, that these vessels were taken into the Navy, as I recall it, in March. The first enlistments of these men were on June 22, so if they went into service on either of these vessels, it must have been naval service, because they were taken into the Navy before they enlisted.

Mr. HESS. When they enlisted, did they enlist at the naval recruiting station?
Justice MATTHIAS. Yes; there was no Revenue recruiting service there.
Mr. HESS. They took the naval oath at that time?

Justice MATTHIAS. Certainly. There was nothing but a naval recruiting station there.

Mrs. BOLTON. And they enlisted for the duration of the war.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us read the report of the committee on May 5, 1933, when we had the bill up:

That is the report of the committee, and the House passed the bill. Then it was vetoed by the President.

Mr. DE LACY. Let me ask under what circumstances the men were discharged? Had their term of enlistment expired, or how did they happen to be discharged at all?

Justice MATTHIAS. Well, the fighting was over.

Mr. DE LACY. The Revenue Service work was not over.

The Revenue Service work went right on. According to the statement here, the Revenue Service sought to recruit them in March.

Justice MATTHIAS. Certainly, but they were in the naval service and had no desire, either then or at any time, to go into the Revenue Service.

Mr. DE LACY. If they had been enlisted originally in the Revenue Service, would it have been necessary to discharge them?

Justice MATTHIAS. Certainly it would have been.

Mr. DE LACY. If they had enlisted in the Revenue Service, what would their term of enlistment have been?

Justice MATTHIAS. I cannot answer that question, but if they were in the one service, just as a matter of common sense-I am not speaking about the record, but as a matter of common sense, how could they go from one service into the other without having been discharged from the one and enlisted in the other?

Mr. DE LACY. I have not made myself plain. If they had been recruited originally, as the Navy records seem to indicate, in the Revenue Service, why would they have been up in November for discharge? Why in November would it be necessary for the Revenue Service, into which they had already been enlisted, according to the record-why would it be necessary to ask them to enlist again in the Revenue Service?

The CHAIRMAN. The war was over.

Justice MATTHIAS. I cannot answer that.

Mr. DE LACY. If they had enlisted in the Revenue Service, they would be in the Revenue Service, and they would not have to be recruited.

The CHAIRMAN. That is true.

Mr. DE LACY. So the burden of that to me seems to show that they really were in the naval service.

Mrs. BOLTON. Yes.

Justice MATTHIAS. That is our claim, that they never were in the Revenue Service, could not have been.

The CHAIRMAN. And evidence to strengthen that claim is the fact that the Navy Department asked them to enlist in the Revenue Service, which shows that the Navy Department did not consider that they were in the Revenue Service, otherwise they would not have asked them to enlist in the Revenue Service.

Justice MATTHIAS. I think there is no fact that more clearly shows that than this 2 months' extra pay from the Navy at the time of their discharge.

Mrs. BOLTON. Would the gentleman permit me to say something there on that particular point?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly, Mrs. Bolton.

Mrs. BOLTON. You asked why they were discharged, and I have here a copy of one of the discharges, Captain Gould's, which shows he was discharged from the Onondaga by reason of his own request, having enlisted for service during the

war.

Mr. HÉBERT. Signed by whom?

Mrs. BOLTON. This is signed by First Lt. and Executive Officer J. H. Fernandez.

Mr. HÉBERT. A naval discharge?

Mrs. BOLTON. A revenue cutter discharge, but it has Navy stamps on it.
Mr. HÉBERT. He was not discharged by the Navy, then?

Mrs. BOLTON. It says: "Offices of the Navy Department, May 20, 1899." Justice MATTHIAS. That is conceded, that they were still in the Navy, apparently.

Mr. HÉBERT. Mr. De Lacy makes the point in his statement there, but does not carry out his point to a final conclusion, to explain why they were in the Revenue Service-the work of the Revenue Service continued, and there was no reason for the Revenue Service to discharge them, which would indicate that they were in the naval service, but when you read that, it seems they were discharged at their own request; the Navy did not discharge them arbitrarily.

Mr. ANDERSON. As I understand it, the reason they were given this type of discharge was because when they received their discharges there were no naval discharge blanks aboard the ship, so they filled out these forms but, ostensibly, having been stamped by naval officers, it was an act terminating their naval service.

Justice MATTHIAS. They had their own form of discharge.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the committee is thoroughly justified in adhering to the position it took in 1933, when we had a full hearing and reported the bill out and the House passed it.

Now, let me ask this, Judge: What will be the benefits to these men if Congress considers that they were in the naval service instead of the Revenue Service? Justice MATTHIAS. They will receive the same benefits as other men who served during that period in the Navy.

The CHAIRMAN. As Spanish-American War naval personnel.

In the previous hearing Congressman Bolton introduced the bill, Mr. Gould and Mr. Moore appeared here and testified, and the committee unanimously recommended the bill. Mr. Gambrill, Mr. Coyle, and Mr. Drane at that time conducted the hearings, and the committee ratified what the subcommittee did. Without objection we will at this point have printed in the record the 1933 hearing on this bill.

(The 1933 hearing referred to is as follows:)

HEARING ON H. R. 9357 FOR THE RELIEF OF CERTAIN FORMER MEMBERS OF THE "ALGONQUIN" AND "ONONDAGA"

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,
Tuesday, January 10, 1933.

The subcommittee on private bills this day met, at 10 a. m., Hon. Stephen W. Gambrill presiding.

Mr. GAMBRILL. We will next take up for consideration H. R. 9357, a bill introduced by Mr. Bolton of Ohio, for the relief of certain former members of the cutters · Algonquin and Onondaga.

The clerk will read the bill and the report from the Navy Department.

(The clerk read the bill and the report from the Navy Department, which are as follows:)

"A BILL For the relief of certain former members of the crews of the revenue cutters Algonquin and Onondaga

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in the administration of any laws conferring rights, privileges, or benefits upon persons who served in the naval service of the United States during the war with Spain and were honorably discharged therefrom, each member of the crew of the revenue cutter Algonquin or Onondaga who enlisted in 1898 for the duration of the war shall be held and considered to have been in the naval service for the entire period of such enlistment and to have received an honorable discharge from the naval service as of the date of the discharge received by him from the Revenue Cutter Service in November 1898."

FOR THE RELIEF OF CERTAIN FORMER MEMBERS OF THE CREWS OF THE REVENUE

CUTTERS "ALGONQUIN" AND "ONONDAGA" (H. R. 9357). MR. BOLTON

The CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

WASHINGTON, July 26, 1932.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to the Navy Department's letter of May 10, 1932, recommending against the enactment of the bill (H. R. 9357) for the relief of certain former members of the crews of the revenue cutters Algonquin and Onondaga.

In order that the Committee on Naval Affairs may be more fully informed as to the status of the crews of these vessels, the Navy Department desires to withdraw the above-mentioned letter and to substitute this letter in its place. At the outbreak of the Spanish-American War the revenue cutters Algonquin and Onondaga were in process of construction at Cleveland, Ohio. On March 24, 1898, the President issued an Executive order directing that these vessels be temporarily transferred to the Navy as soon as the work thereon should be sufficiently advanced to warrant such transfer.

Pursuant to this order the Algonquin left Cleveland on June 22, 1898, was cut in two, pontooned through the Welland Canal, put together again at Montreal, Canada, and bought from there to the Atlantic coast for fitting out. Before the vessel could be fitted out and commissioned, she was returned to the Treasury Department by an Executive order dated August 17, 1898, active hostilities having ceased on August 10.

The Onondaga left Cleveland, Ohio, on August 10, 1898, and was at Ogdensburg, N. Y., being cut in two preparatory to being pontooned through the Welland Canal when the President's order of August 17, 1898, was issued returning her to the Treasury Department.

The Navy Department in an opinion dated May 29, 1931, after considering all the pertinent facts, held that service on board the Algonquin was naval service from June 1 to August 17, 1898, and on the Onondaga from August 1 to August 17, 1898. A copy of this opinion, which gives all the information relative to the naval service of these vessels on file in the Navy Department, is enclosed herewith. As the crews of these vessels enlisted in the Revenue Cutter Service, and on the expiration of their enlistments were discharged from that Service, the Navy Department does not believe that they are entitled to receive honorable discharges from the Navy.

The Navy Department is of the opinion that, as the members of the crew of the Algonquin were in the naval service 78 days, they are now entitled to draw pensions as provided in section 3 of the act of June 2, 1930 (46 Stat. 492), for naval service of 70 days or more during the war with Spain. As the Onondaga was in the naval service only 17 days, it is not believed that members of its crew are entitled to this pension.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHESTER C. BOLTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. BOLTON. First, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and members of the committee for letting us appear on this bill. It is a matter in which I have been much interested for some time, and a matter which I have discussed with the Department for some time, and finally with the result we have obtained a second report on the bill. May I say in reference to the first report-which says the members of this crew were not subjected to the hazards of war-with the permission of your chairman, I have discussed this with the Secretary of the Navy and the report has been withdrawn.

You will notice the next to the last paragraph of the report, No. 769, states, "As the crews of these vessels enlisted in the Revenue Cutter Service, and on the expiration of their enlistments were discharged from that Service, the Navy Department does not believe that they are entitled to receive honorable discharges from the Navy." It is that point I want to discuss with the committee and I have two or three witnesses here who were members of the crews of these two ships and they will give you their understanding of it.

In the first place, these two ships, the Algonquin and the Onondaga, were being built for the Revenue Cutter Service and were taken over by the Navy Department under Executive order of March 24, 1898, at which time they were still in course of construction at Cleveland, Ohio.

Newspaper clippings and statements of men indicate clearly that the crew was being enlisted for naval service during the war, and the men enlisted "for the duration of the war.' Most of the men on the Algonquin enlisted at the ship, for the purpose of taking the ship to the Atlantic to join the Navy fleet and follow Navy orders, on or about June 20, 1898; those on the Onondaga enlisted under similar circumstances on or about August 1, 1898.

Both of these ships went through the Welland Canal and were on their way to Boston when the Executive order of August 17, 1898, was issued, turning them back to the Revenue Service. However, the boats continued to fly the Navy pennant and, so far as the crew was aware, to continue under naval orders until reaching Boston and being discharged in November 1898. The Algonquin seems to have reached Boston on October 7, 1898, and proceeded to Philadelphia. The Onondaga arrived in Boston about November 2, 1898.

The men were paid by the same officers during the entire time and were under the impression they were serving in the Navy. They knew nothing of the Executive order of August 17, 1898.

The Department had no official record of these men. As a matter of fact the Secretary claims that the Navy had no contract of enlistment with these men, which is undoubtedly correct.

Mr. BURDICK. Then, so far as the Algonquin is concerned, that crew had 70 days' service or more?

Mr. BOLTON. Seventy-three days; yes, sir. Those men who enlisted on June 1, 1898, or about that time. The Onondaga did not sail until later. The real purpose of this bill is to have the naval service of these men corrected so as to show that they were honorably discharged from the Navy instead of the Revenue Cutter Service.

Mr. GAMBRILL. You want to extend that service until November 7, 1898? Mr. BOLTON. Yes, sir. Of course, the matter of pensions will come up, but, among other things, these men have been refused hospitalization because of nonNavy records.

Mr. GAMBRILL. The report shows that these boats were returned to the Revenue Cutter Service some time before November the 7th, 1898.

My

Mr. BOLTON. Yes, sir. They were returned on the 17th of August 1898. contention is that the men were not notified. In the first place, these men were enlisted by officers of the ship. The Revenue Cutter Service had no recruiting office in Cleveland. Those on the Onondaga enlisted on or about August 1, 1898, by officers serving under the Navy, on the ship, enlisting for the duration of the war, which is contrary to any Revenue Cutter Service enlistment.

Mr. COYLE. Can the enlistment papers be found?

Mr. BOLTON. We have searched for over a year and they have not been found. The Navy Department has no record.

Mr. COYLE. Did these men think they were serving in the Navy?

Mr. BOLTON. They did, as the witnesses will tell you. The men served and later received the pay in accordance with the terms of the act of March 3, 1899. The act of March 3, 1899, reads:

"The officers and enlisted men comprising the temporary force of the Navy during the war with Spain, who served creditably beyond the limits of the United States, and who have been or may hereafter be discharged, shall be paid two months' extra pay; and all such officers and enlisted men of the Navy who have so served within the limits of the United States, and who have been or may hereafter be discharged, shall be paid one month's extra pay."

The ships were taken from the Great Lakes through the Welland Canal and the St. Lawrence and touched at Montreal. The ships had to be cut in two, and pontooned through the rivers and they were rebuilt at Montreal in the drydocks there. Those ships did not arrive at Montreal until October.

By the payment of the 2 months' extra pay, in my opinion, it is indicated that the Government, the Treasury Department, and the Navy Department considered that these men were in the Navy until October, so they should be credited with honorable discharge from the Navy instead of from the Revenue Cutter Service. As I say, the matter is very complicated. I have had a lot of work with the Navy Department and they have spent a lot of time in collecting facts in the matter. Unquestionably, the enlistment papers cannot be found. The men, however, were enlisted on board ship for the Navy, under naval officers.

Mr. DRANE. Was this extra pay after the war given to men in the Revenue Cutter Service?

Mr. BOLTON. No, sir. The law says "forces of the Navy."
Mr. DRANE. But it was given to men serving in the Navy?

Mr. BOLTON. Yes, sir. According to this law.

Mr. GAMBRILL. When the control of these cutters was returned to the Treasury Department, under the Revenue Cutter Service, did the men serving from August 1 receive pay from the Revenue Cutter Service?

Mr. BOLTON. I understand the men were paid by the Revenue Cutter Service, but the Treasury Department was reimbursed by the Navy Department for the payments to the men up to August 17. There is no question about the ships being returned. The ships proceeded to destination and the men were not notified until they arrived.

Mr. DRANE. These men did not know about the bookkeeping business?
Mr. BOLTON. No, sir.

Mr. GAMBRILL. What is the status of the men who served 70 days or more on the Algonquin? Have they been recognized for having a pension status?

Mr. BOLTON. I imagine they have, but I do not know. I have no information about the men who served prior to June 1. The question I raise is that the record should show that they were honorably discharged from the Navy instead of the Coast Guard Service.

Mr. GAMBRILL. Let me understand your reasons for asking that they be considered as having served in the Navy until November, 1898.

Mr. BOLTON. In the first place, these men desire to be credited with the naval service, and honorably discharged from the naval service instead of the revenue service. You may be aware that the Revenue Cutter Service today is known as the Coast Guard and those men desire to be credited with naval service rather than Coast Guard Service. In the second place, those men have been denied Government hospitalization because they have no honorable discharge from the Navy.

Mr. GAMBRILL. They did not get any civil service credit either?

Mr. BOLTON. No, sir; and I might say, frankly, the question of pension will come up.

Mr. GAMBRILL. I cannot get your reasons for wanting the records to show that they were in the naval service until November 8, 1898.

Mr. BOLTON. That is when they were discharged. As a matter of fact they were discharged when they reached Boston, their destination. They were offered at that time enlistments in the Revenue Cutter Service. The crews, were discharged after they touched port and they were offered discharges on the revenue cutter's blanks, which they refused.

Mr. GAMBRILL. Was this in August?

Mr. BOLTON. No, sir. They sailed from Cleveland in August. The Algonquin reached its destination at Philadelphia, touching several places on the coast. The Onondaga reached Boston, I think, on or about the 2d of November, and the men were offered enlistments in the Revenue Cutter Service. As I say, these men having enlisted for the duration of hostilities and having raised their hands and taken the oath that they would serve under the Navy, supposed they were enlisted in the Navy during the entire voyage. There is no way of knowing whether those naval officers told those men they were not in the Navy.

Mr. BURDICK. Were the officers in the Revenue Cutter Service?

Mr. BOLTON. They were under the Navy. I have a list of the officers here, but it does not say whether United States Navy or not.

Mr. COYLE. You say the Navy Department has no record of the names and the number of the men that are involved in this bill?

Mr. BOLTON. They have it today, sir, because, as result of the investigation of the Navy for several months, the Judge Advocate General rendered a decision last May, the final paragraph of which is as follows:

"In view of the foregoing, it is the conclusion of the Judge Advocate General that service on the revenue cutters Algonquin and Onondaga during the SpanishAmerican War was "naval service" and that upon the facts now at hand service so rendered should be credited in the naval records to the officers and men of the Revenue Cutter Service attached to such ships between the following dates: Service on the Algonquin from June 1 to August 17, 1898, both inclusive; service on the Onondaga from August 1 to August 17, 1898, both inclusive."

The point I desire to stress is that these men were not notified and had no way of knowing they were not in the same service in which they enlisted. They assumed they were in the United States Navy.

Mr. DRANE. They thought they were going to fight in the United States Navy, did they?

Mr. BOLTON. Yes, sir. And I think that their contention is borne out by the fact that 2 years later they received 2 months' extra pay under this act of Congress for temporary men of the Navy.