Mr. SWEENEY. I do not know, I never was in that. This was in the Navy of our country. Mr. BURDICK. What was the total number of the crew? Mr. SWEENEY. I could not say. Mr. GOULD. About 85. Mr. SWEENEY. When we arrived in Boston we were again lined up on deck and Lieutenant Quinan told us that at that time our service was over as we signed for the duration of the war, and I had been sick and I was the first one to receive a discharge. Then when he handed me this Revenue Cutter discharge I said, "What is this? I signed in the Navy and I have been in the Navy have I not? He said: "That is all I have aboard. You take that or nothing." So I took it under protest. We intended to go to Washington at the time, but they would only let one or two off the ship at a time as they filled our places. They wanted us, to enlist in the Revenue Cutter Service but I would not do it. Mr. GAMBRILL. We thank you very much, Mr. Sweeney. (Thereupon the motion having been duly seconded, it was unanimously adopted.) Thereupon the committee proceeded to the consideration of other business. [End of hearings of Tuesday, January 10, 1933.] Mr. COLE. I would like to suggest an amendment, in order to avoid ambiguity. Judge Matthias has indicated that it might reasonably be argued that these people are still in the naval service, therefore it might be argued that the period of enlistment for which this bill is designed to give some benefit would be a period running forty-odd years, and I don't think it is your intention to do that. Justice MATTHIAS. No, of course not. Mr. COLE. I wonder if we could accomplish what you have in mind by striking out in line 10 the expression "such enlistment" and have it read: "They shall be considered to have been in the naval service for the entire period of service aboard such vessels during the period of the war with Spain." Justice MATTHIAS. I think that would accomplish the purpose, and that is all they care for. The CHAIRMAN. That puts a limitation on their periods of enlistment. Without objection the amendment is agreed to, and without objection the committee acts favorably on the bill, and I will ask Mr. Cole to report the bill. Thank you very much. Mrs. BOLTON. May I ask one more question? Mr. Crosser, of the Cleveland district, anticipated being here this morning, but he is not well and is not able to come to the hearing. I wonder if the committee would permit him to make a statement, if he cares to do so, for the record? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we will advise him to file a statement. Justice MATTHIAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. (Whereupon, at 10:50 a. m., the committee went into executive session, at the conclusion of which the committee adjourned.) S. 2245 The CHAIRMAN. We will proceed. Senator MORSE. May I ask one question on one matter? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Senator MORSE. I do not know whether it is on the agenda today, but I am very much interested in what, if any, action has been taken by the committee in regard to the postgraduate school on the west coast. Has a subcommittee been appointed to inspect the situation during the summer months? The CHAIRMAN. No; we have not, Senator, appointed such a committee. We have not taken any action at all. This is the first meeting since then. Senator MORSE. I thought I missed one. The CHAIRMAN. You were at that meeting. Senator MORSE. I was at the meeting when the report was made, and Senator Magnuson and I made objections. The CHAIRMAN. For the benefit of the record, Senator Morse is referring to S. 2245, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Navy to construct a postgraduate school at Monterey, Calif. (S. 2245 is as follows:) [8. 2245, 79th Cong., 2d sess.] A BILL To authorize the Secretary of the Navy to construct a postgraduate school at Monterey, California Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Navy is authorized and directed to provide by contract or otherwise for the construction of a naval postgraduate school at Monterey, California, including the necessary school facilities, quarters, and collateral facilities and equipment, including the acquisition of the necessary nd, at a cost not to exceed $28,750,000: Provided, That contracts may be entered into without regard to the provisions of section 3709, Revised Statutes. SEC. 2. The provisions of section 4 of the Act approved April 25, 1939 (53 Stat. 591), as amended, shall be applicable to all public works and public utilities authorized by this Act: Provided, That the fixed fee to be paid the contractor as a result of any contract entered into under the authority contained herein shall not exceed 6 per centum of the estimated cost of the contract, exclusive of the fee, as determined by the Secretary of the Navy. SEC. 3. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to effectuate the purpose of this Act. Senator MORSE. I think it is very important, Mr. Chairman, that a subcommittee of this committee, bipartisan in nature, be appointed to review the possible sites during the summer months at the convenience of the members of the committee. I think we ought to start down in Los Angeles and move north. I think it should be done, so that we might know just what the availabilities are and what the arguments are for and against the various sites. May I say to the chairman that I see this matter not as a partisan in the sense of urging any community's interest. I do want the committee, however, to look at the various sites in Oregon. I want the committee to understand that I have not made up my mind or closed my mind definitely. If it can be demonstrated that a site in California or anywhere else is the best site, that is the site I shall vote for; but I do think, from what the record shows to date, that it is perfectly obvious that the inspections that were made were quick inspections, that the community leaders were not given an opportunity, in any of the areas considered, to be heard. It is my opinion that this committee owes it not only to the Navy but to the west coast that a careful study be made. I suggest a committee of three. The CHAIRMAN. A committee of three. What is the status of the House bill? Captain SAUNDERS. I do not think any hearings have been held by the Naval Affairs Committee of the House. Admiral JOHNSON. No hearings have been held before the House committee. Captain SAUNDERS. But a subcommittee did go out to investigate sites for a postgraduate school. Admiral JOHNSON. Yes; a subcommittee did go out to investigate. They have investigated. The CHAIRMAN. Have they reported yet? Admiral JOHNSON. We have not heard. The CHAIRMAN. I realize that you are anxious, Admiral, to have early action upon this matter. I do not see, however, how we can possibly have action early enough to open up that school by fall. Admiral JOHNSON. May I make a short statement on that, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Surely. STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. FELIX L. JOHNSON, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL (PLANS), NAVY DEPARTMENT Admiral JOHNSON. We are anxious to get action as soon as possible. That is based on two factors. The most compelling one, of course, is for us to be able to start a school as soon as possible. The other factor is the option that we hold on the Del Monte property. The CHAIRMAN. For how long is that option? Admiral JOHNSON. That option is until the 1st of January, or until we terminate our contracts with the Del Monte Corp. We are conducting there an electronic technician mates' school. The CHAIRMAN. Are you going to continue your schools at Annapolis and Newport? Admiral JOHNSON. Yes, sir. The one at Newport will start on the 1st. The CHAIRMAN. So the delay will not embarrass the operations of those schools? Admiral JOHNSON. No, sir; but the total we can take into those schools, in the line school, is 600. We will have to have capacity for 1,700 in the line schools to keep up with the transferred officers. The CHAIRMAN. What capacity do you have at Newport now? Admiral JOHNSON. Six hundred. The CHAIRMAN. That is all you can take there? Admiral JOHNSON. That is all we can take there; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. I will take care of that, Senator Morse. I will talk to you about it. Senator MORSE. All right. S. 2349 The CHAIRMAN. We will take up docket No. 220, S. 2349, a bill to permit the Secretary of the Navy to delegate the authority to compromise and settle claims for damages to property under the jurisdiction of the Navy Department. (S. 2349 is as follows:) [S. 2349, 79th Cong., 2d sess.] A BILL To permit the Secretary of the Navy to delegate the authority to compromise and settle claims for damages to property under the jurisdiction of the Navy Department, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Act of December 5, 1945 (Public Law 246, Seventy-ninth Congress), is hereby amended by adding another section thereto as follows: "SEC. 4. Where the net amount received in settlement does not exceed $1,000, the authority of the Secretary of the Navy as set forth in section 1 may be exercised by such person or persons as he may designate." The CHAIRMAN. The witness on this bill is Capt. Myron H. Avery. Will you come forward, Captain? STATEMENT OF CAPT. MYRON H. AVERY, USNR, CHIEF ADMIRALTY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, NAVY DEPARTMENT Captain AVERY. Mr. Chairman, I am from the Office of the Judge Advocate General; I am the Chief Admiralty Officer. I have a statement here on this bill, if you care to hear it. The CHAIRMAN. Surely. Captain AVERY. The identical principle involved in the bill here pending, Senate 2349, was approved by the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs on June 11 in connection with S. 2247. The bill under consideration, S. 2349, provides for a delegation, up to the amount of $1,000, of the authority of the Secretary of the Navy to settle claims asserted by the Navy Department of an admiralty nature or claims for damage caused to United States naval vessels. With respect to the settlement of claims for damage caused by and to United States naval vessels, the Navy Department has two separate statutes authorizing settlement. One covers claims against the United States; the other covers claims in favor of the United States. Public Law 417-passed July 3, 1944-provides for settlement of claims occasioned by naval vessels. The counterpart of that legislation—that is, claims in favor of the Navy Department-is the act of December 5, 1945. Identical bills were prepared in the Navy Department to provide for delegation up to an amount not to exceed $1,000. Since the principle involved was the same, it was expected that the hearings on both bills would be held at the same time. However, due to action in the Bureau of the Budget, the bill providing for the delegation of authority in matters of claims against the Navy Department was introduced at an earlier date than the pending bill. The hearing on that bill, as I have said, was held on June 11, and the Committee on Naval Affairs reported favorably the bill which would authorize the delegation of the Secretary of the Navy's authority to settle claims up to the amount of $1,000. As was pointed out in connection with the hearing held on June 11, the pending settlement authorization requires the Secretary of the Navy, on claims for damage caused by naval vessels, to personally consider each settlement. In the administration of the acts it had become apparent that there are many cases where the matters are minor and that the situation warrants freeing the Secretary of the Navy from the necessity of attention to such minor matters and justifies the determination and settlement of these minor claims by "designees" of the Secretary of the Navy. As was also pointed out, this delegation of authroity already exists in connection with another act, the General Tort Claims Act, under which the Secretary of the Navy settles claims other than of an admiralty nature. Further, the War Department settlement authorization has the same principle of delegation of authority. The CHAIRMAN. That was the one we passed? Captain AVERY: You passed that one 2 weeks ago, the measure opposite to the one here involved. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, that was in regard to claims against the Government? Captain AVERY. Yes; against the Government. The CHAIRMAN. And now you want a bill with respect to claims that the Navy Department has against civilians? Captain AVERY. Yes, sir; where the Navy Department is on the collecting end. Now, in the reporting of the bill by the Bureau of the Budget, the two bills should have been here at the same time. The CHAIRMAN. That is, the Bureau of the Budget sent forward one bill and held up the other? Captain AVERY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And they have agreed to the other bill? Captain AVERY. Yes, sir; the other bill has been approved by the Bureau of the Budget. To make the two Navy admiralty settlement statutes harmonious, it is proposed to add an additional section to the act of December 5, 1945, which would read as follows: SEC. 4. Where the net amount received in settlement does not exceed $1,000, the authority of the Secretary of the Navy as set forth in section 1 may be exercised by such person or persons as he may designate. The proposed legislation has been approved by the Bureau of the Budget. The request for this legislation was transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives by the Secretary of the Navy by letter dated June 14, 1946. The CHAIRMAN. The Army has had that authority? Captain AVERY. Yes, sir; the Army has had and the Navy has it with respect to claims other than of an admiralty nature. The CHAIRMAN. I don't believe there is any objection to this. S. 2304 The CHAIRMAN. We have Admiral Johnson here with reference to S. 2304, which we have considered before. That is the bill to provide for the training of officers for the naval service. Admiral Johnson, will you come forward, please? STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. FELIX L. JOHNSON, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL (PLANS), NAVY DEPARTMENT The CHAIRMAN. Admiral Johnson, have you seen the changes or amendments? Admiral JOHNSON. Yes, sir; I have. The CHAIRMAN. I mean those that we have put into this bill. The CHAIRMAN. Are they satisfactory to you? Admiral JOHNSON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any comments? Admiral JOHNSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, we should have preferred, if I may say so, that the probationary time be 6 years rather than 7 years. In a 6-year period they are to be promoted to lieutenant. At that time there is considerable attrition. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I can see the advantage of that. |