35. Efficiency of the Revenue-Cutter Service. Report from Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to accompany S. 3044. 59th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 4902. Wash., 1906. 36. Enlistments and punishments in Revenue-Cutter Service. Report from Committee on Commerce to accompany S. 4129. 59th Cong., 1st sess., S. Rept. 956; 59th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 2749. Wash., 1906.

37. Life-Saving Service, authority for detailing officers of RevenueCutter Service to, for duty in office of. Letter from Secretary of Treasury transmitting a copy of a communication from General Superintendent of Life-Saving Service. 59th Cong., 1st sess., S. Doc. 304. Wash., 1906. 38. Navy, transfer of certain officers to the.

Letter from Secretary of Navy to accompany S. bill 2444. 59th Cong., 1st sess., S. Doc. 117. Wash., 1906.

To relieve Navy Department from the necessity of withdrawing men from the academy to send them to sea in the middle of the fourth year, the Secretary suggests that power be given the President to appoint officers of the Revenue-Cutter Service and the Naval Militia, by and with senatorial consent, to grade of lieutenant or ensign after an examination to be prescribed by Secretary of Navy.

39. Report from the Committee on Commerce on S. 7663 to increase the efficiency of the Revenue-Cutter Service. 59th Cong., 2d sess., S. Rept. 7322.

Contains statement of Capt. Worth G. Ross, Chief of the Division of the Revenue-Cutter Service regarding the service. 40. Efficiency of personnel of Revenue-Cutter Service. Report from Committee on Commerce. 60th Cong., 1st sess., S. Rept. 58. Wash., 1908.

A discussion of rank, promotions, pay, etc., of personnel, together with provisions of new bill. There is added an estimate of the increased annual expense under the provisions of the bill.

41. Report from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on S. 24, to increase the efficiency of the personnel of the Revenue-Cutter Service. 60th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 1057. 42. Use of Revenue-Cutter Service in locating yacht of Mr. John J. Astor, a reply to the inquiry of the House as to. 61st Cong., 2d sess., H. Doc. 549.

Involved with the answer to the particular inquiry is a description of the work and number of vessels used therefor in finding vessels overdue.

43. Manuscript report on the Life-Saving Service; Treasury Department Committee. G. P. O. Wash., 1911.

1. Report of committee, January 16, 1911.

2. Comments on the report of a committee appointed to investigate the conduct of business in the Life-Saving Service, March 25, 1911.

3. Memorandum of committee in reply thereto, April 1, 1911. 4. Supplementary letter of General Superintendent of the LifeSaving Service, April 14, 1911.

5. Reply of general superintendent to memorandum of committee, April 21, 1911.

This report, though relating primarily to the Life-Saving Service, contains valuable information bearing upon the relations between that service and the Revenue-Cutter Service. 44. Hamilton's Works. 7 vols. Vol. IV. N. Y. C., 1850.

Contains, on page 46, a report on Hamilton's inquiry into size, cost, and estimate of immediate need of vessels. Report is in form of a letter to President, dated September 10, 1790. Revenue-Cutter Service, report on the. Gallatin, A. 4 pp. 10th Cong., 2d sess., Ex. Docs. (Dec. 2). Wash., 1808. 46. Our Coast Guard. Ross, W. C. Harper's New Monthly. Nov.,

45.

1886.

Gives history of origin and growth of service, its aims and duties.

47. United States Revenue-Cutter Service in the War with Spain. 49 pp. G. P. O. Wash., 1899.

48. School of Instruction of the United States Revenue-Cutter Service. 12 pp. G. P. O. Wash., 1905.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,

Washington, January 10, 1912.

SIR: I have the honor to return herewith the report of the Committee on Economy and Efficiency relating to the Revenue-Cutter Service of the Treasury Department, transmitted with your letter of the 27th ultimo.

The Department of Commerce and Labor, for the enforcement of various laws, needs vessels outside of its own fleet (46 seagoing lighthouse tenders, 64 light vessels, 18 seagoing Coast and Geodetic Survey vessels, and 5 seagoing Fisheries vessels), and it has been customary to use some of the 45 vessels of the Revenue-Cutter Service. The navigation laws (including steamboat-inspection laws, anchorages, St. Marys River, motor-boat law, rules to prevent collisions, regatta regulations, etc.) are, with rare exceptions, enforced on the waters within territorial limits and on relatively smooth water. Armed seagoing revenue cutters are not particularly adapted to these purposes, and as a rule better results may be secured by the use of smaller and less expensive vessels. The department's six months' experience with an appropriation of $15,000 has confirmed this opinion.

Seagoing vessels of the Revenue-Cutter types are, however, needed to enforce the laws for the protection of the seal fisheries and similar duties in Bering Sea. It is, of course, of no consequence to this department whether these vessels so employed are attached to the Treasury Department or to the Navy Department. In fact, there would be some plain advantages in having vessels for these purposes attached directly to the Department of Commerce and Labor and administered together with the larger fleet already under its control. Patrol of coast waters to aid vessels in distress is closely allied to the purposes for which the Life-Saving and Lighthouse Services are established. In fact, the regular work of lighthouse tenders requires them to move constantly along the coasts. In so far as the Revenue

Cutter Service engages in this work a better result would probably be secured if the three services were under one general administrative direction. CHARLES NAGEL,

Respectfully,

The PRESIDENT,

Secretary.

The White House.

55270-N]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
Washington, January 10, 1912.

ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY REPORT ABOLITION OF REVENUE-CUTTER

SERVICE.

The Department of Commerce and Labor needs vessels to enforce various laws, and outside of its own fleet (46 seagoing lighthouse tenders, 64 light vessels, 18 seagoing Coast and Geodetic Survey vessels, and 5 seagoing Fisheries vessels) it uses for convenience some of the 45 vessels of the Revenue-Cutter Service.

1. The navigation laws (including steamboat-inspection laws, anchorages, St. Marys River, motor-boat law, rules to prevent collisions, regatta regulations, etc.), are enforced on the water with rare exceptions within territorial limits and on relatively smooth water. Armed seagoing revenue cutters are not adapted to these purposes, and better results may be secured much more generally by the use of smaller and much less expensive vessels. The department's six months' experience with an appropriation of $15,000 has demonstrated these facts.

2. Seagoing vessels of revenue-cutter types are needed to enforce laws for the protection of the seal fisheries and similar duties in Bering Sea. It matters little to this department whether the vessels thus employed are attached nominally to the Treasury or Navy Departments. There are some plain advantages in having vessels for these purposes attached directly to the Department of Commerce and Labor, and administered together with the larger fleet already under its control.

3. Patrol of coast waters to aid vessels in distress is allied to the purposes for which the Life-Saving and Lighthouse Services are established-in fact the regular work of lighthouse tenders requires them constantly to move along the coasts. In so far as the RevenueCutter Service engages in this work, its energies probably would be more effective if the three services were under one general administrative direction.

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:

FEBRUARY 8, 1912.

I have your letter of January 22 with a redraft of the general report on the Revenue-Cutter Service. In the main I shall be compelled to restate the conclusions which are contained in my earlier letter of January 10, but perhaps I may be permitted to express my views upon the general recommendation of the commission more fully.

With the conclusions reached by the commission I agree. It is apparent that the conditions which gave rise to the organization of the Revenue-Cutter Service have practically ceased to exist. It is equally clear that the duties which have since then been added to this service are such that they can be more advantageously distributed among the several departments which are peculiarly charged with them.

Assuming, therefore, that at the present time there is no sufficient reason for the continuance of the Revenue-Cutter Service as a separate organization, the immediate question is, How shall the distribution be had? To my mind the argument of the commission for the transfer of the cruising cutters to the Navy is conclusive. Such a change would make for economy and, as I see it, for efficiency. I do not believe that the proposed transfer would in any measure embarrass other departments that have enjoyed the assistance of the Revenue-Cutter Service. In so far as such assistance continues to be necessary, it can be rendered by assignment from the Navy just as promptly and satisfactorily as is true now.

The Department of Commerce and Labor, as was stated in my earlier letter, has had comparatively little use for seagoing vessels. Such use has been limited substantially to Bering Sea, and even in those waters to the protection of the seal herds. It appears to me that such protection can be given by the revenue cutters if they are under the control of the Navy just as satisfactorily as has so far been done.

As was stated in my earlier letter, the navigation laws, including steamboat-inspection laws, anchorages, St. Mary's River, motorboat laws, rules to prevent collisions, regatta regulations, etc., are, with rare exceptions, in force on the waters within territorial limits, and on relatively smooth water. As a general rule, this service can be more satisfactorily intrusted to the smaller and less expensive vessels, and the Department would really have very little, if any, use for revenue cutters in this service provided the smaller craft is supplied.

The patrol of coast waters to aid vessels in distress, to my mind, presents the most difficult question. It is my impression that some revenue cutters should be reserved for this service, and it does not appear to me that such revenue cutters should be under the control of the Navy. On the contrary, I am of the opinion that such service is closely allied with the Lighthouse and Life-Saving Services, and should be consolidated with them. I can see no sufficient reason why the Lighthouse Service and the Life-Saving Service should not be combined. In my judgment, such a consolidation would make for economy and efficiency, and if it is had, I think a number of revenue cutters should be connected with that service. It is true that our lighthouse tenders constantly move along the coast and may be trusted to do a considerable part of this work, but it is also true that these tenders are required to make their trips at stated times, to reach certain points at given dates, and that this regular service may not hold them sufficiently free to meet conditions resulting from the dangers of the sea. In my judgment, it would be advisable, therefore, to retain a few revenue cutters so that they may be free to patrol the coast waters and to render such service in connection with navigation, steamboat inspection, etc., as may be called for. In

other words, I would be in favor of making experiments under the revised plan in order that the details of the system may be worked out in the light of actual experience.

Very sincerely, yours,

The PRESIDENT,

The White House.

CHARLES NAGEL,

Secretary.

FEBRUARY 7, 1912.

SIR: In reply to your letter of January 22, regarding the RevenueCutter Service, I have the honor to inclose a memorandum which gives the department's views on this subject.

Respectfully,

The PRESIDENT,

G. v. L. MEYER.

The White House.

FEBRUARY 7, 1912.

[Memorandum: Subject: Report of Cleveland Economy Board upon the Abolishment of the Revenue

Cutter Service.]

The functions of the two services are not similar (see p. 10); the chief function of the Navy is the preparation and maintenance of the personnel and matériel in readiness for war; a further function is the protection of American citizens and property in foreign countries.

The chief functions of the Revenue-Cutter Service on the high seas are

(1) The assistance of vessels in distress.

(2) The protection of seal fisheries and sea-otter hunting grounds.

(3) The destruction of derelicts at sea.

It is not believed that the personnel of the Revenue-Cutter Service can aid in the maintenance of the fleet in its readiness for war and it is doubtful if the Navy Department would wish to intrust it with the handling of delicate diplomatic questions constantly arising in Central America, the West Indies, and elsewhere.

It is true that the chief functions of the Revenue-Cutter Service can be performed by the Navy, but this can not be done as stated in the Cleveland report (p. 13) in the regular performance of their military duties. All duties which interfere with the training of the personnel for war are irregular and in a degree detrimental to the efficiency of the fleet.

We agree with the report of the board that it would be economy to abolish the Revenue-Cutter Service as a separate branch of the Government. It is believed that certain duties now performed by that service of a maritime nature could be provided for by the Navy. It is not believed to be to the best interests of the Navy or of the Government to transfer the personnel of the Revenue Marine to the Navy.

The naval service has had its efficiency affected in the past by the conflicting interests of the various corps upon the subject of rights, pay, precedence, division of duties, privileges, etc. It has made great progress recently in overcoming these adverse conditions and in establishing a harmonious personnel, realizing a harmonious personnel is just as important as a homogeneous fleet.

There are in the Revenue-Cutter Service 390 officers and cadets and it is believed that the difficulties of transferring them to the personnel of the naval service would accentuate the conditions referred to above to an unfortunate degree. Such a transfer would be of no possible advantage to the Navy, but a serious menace to the harmony of the personnel.

If, however, it should be decided that the Revenue-Cutter Service is to be abolished and the Navy required to take up a portion of its work, it would seem imperative that the vessels of the Revenue Marine be transferred to the Navy, which is already suffering from an insufficient number of small vessels. The enlisted personnel could readily be absorbed in the Navy, the total enlisted strength of the latter being permanently increased by the number so absorbed. The question of the amalgamation of the commissioned and warrant personnel present greater difficulties and is one which can best be solved by a joint board of officers of the two services. In this connection it is proper to note the ratio existing in the Revenue-Cutter Service between the numbers of officers and of men. There are 360 commissioned and warrant officers and 1,390 in the enlisted force, a ratio of 1 to 4; in the Navy the ratio is 1 officer to about 16 men.