Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

[No. 92]

FOR THE RELIEF OF WILLIAM J. PLATKA (H. R. 13200)

MM-Platka, Wm. J/A18-1(261206).

L.

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, January 24, 1927.

The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR Mr. CHAIRMAN: Replying further to the committee's letter of December 6, 1926, transmitting the bill (H. R. 13200) for the relief of William J. Platka, and requesting the views and recommendations of the Navy Department thereon, I have the honor to advise you as follows:

The purpose of this proposed legislation is to provide that, for pension purposes, William J. Platka, late apprentice in the United States Navy, shall be considered to have been honorably discharged from the naval forces of the United States on February 1, 1899.

The records of the Navy Department show that William Summer Platka enlisted in the Navy as an apprentice, third class, aboard the U.S. S. Wabash on May 12, 1897, and served until February 1, 1899, when he was declared a deserter from the U. S. S. Vermont, while holding the rating of apprentice, second class.

It is to be noted that the bill H. R. 13200 is for the relief of "William J. Platka," whereas the records of the Navy Department do not show that a William J. Platka ever served in the United States Navy. They do, however, reveal the above information in regard to William Summer Platka, and as these details correspond with those stated in the bill H. R. 13200, it is presumed that this bill is intended for the relief of William Summer Platka.

The enactment of the legislation proposed in the bill H. R. 13200 will result in no additional cost to the Navy. However, in view of a possible pension charge being involved against the Government, this bill was referred to the Commissioner of Pensions for information in regard thereto, and there is inclosed herewith a copy of the reply received from the Assistant Secretary of the Department of the Interior, dated January 17, 1927, to the effect that the enactment of this bill would involve no additional pension charge against the Government.

In view of Platka's record, as set forth above, and the fact that this proposed legislation is not for the general good of the naval service, and further that its enactment would encourage others to seek similar legislation, the Navy Department does not recommend the enactment of the bill H. R. 13200.

Sincerely yours,

CURTIS D. WILBUR,
Secretary of the Navy.

[blocks in formation]

DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR,
Washington, January 17, 1927.

The SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I am in receipt of your letter of December 30, 1926 (MM-Platka, Wm. J/A18-1(261206) L), inclosing a copy of a bill (H. R. 13200) for the relief of William J. Platka, concerning which you ask the cost as to pensions should the bill be enacted into law.

The beneficiary appears to have served on the Wabash from May 12, 1897, until February 1, 1899, when he was declared a deserter from the U. S. S. Vermont, under the name of William S. Platka, and the bill has for its purpose the granting of an honorable discharge from the naval forces of the United States on February 1, 1899.

It appears that one William J. Platka has filed applications for pension during the pendency of which it developed that in addition to his service in the Navy he served as a private in Company M, Nineteenth United States Infantry from January 1, 1900, to December 28, 1901, under the name of John W. Burke. He was honorably discharged from this service.

If it be a fact that William J. Platka, the applicant for pension, is identical with the beneficiary named in the bill and with the John W. Burke who served in the Nineteenth United States Infantry and received an honorable discharge therefrom, the passage of the bill would not increase in any way the pension liability because the desertion from the Navy took place during the period of the war with Spain while the enlistment in the Army was during the Philippine insurrection; and under the act of May 1, 1926, an honorable service of 90 days or more in either the war with Spain or the Philippine insurrection would be sufficient to give pensionable status. That being the case, the passage of the bill would not in any way enlarge the claimant's rights to pension.

Very truly yours,

JOHN H. EDWARDS, Assistant Secretary.

A BILL For the relief of William J. Platka

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in the administration of the pension laws, William J. Platka, late apprentice in the United States Navy, shall be held and considered to have been honorably discharged from the naval forces of the United States on February 1, 1899, but the said William J. Platka shall not, by reason of the enactment of this act, be entitled to a pension for any period prior to its enactment.

O

[No. 93]

STATEMENT SHOWING SAVING THAT WOULD RESULT IN CASE SIX LIGHT CRUISERS SHOULD BE ORDERED THIS YEAR

CL/A9-10(270121).

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, January 21, 1927.

MY DEAR MR. BUTLER: I have given careful consideration to your request to be furnished, for the information of the House Committee on Naval Affairs, with an estimate of the saving that would result in case six light cruisers should be ordered this year instead of three this year and three at a later date. While I am of the opinion that the ordering of the six cruisers at one time would materially assist in the advantageous placing of the contracts and result in a substantial saving, a definite estimate of the amount would require too many assumptions to permit much weight being given to the estimate. I am, however, forwarding comment relative to the different factors. involved.

With a plant of sufficient size two cruisers can be built at considerably less than twice the cost of one, provided the time interval between the two vessels is not so great as to prevent handling the work on the two as one job. The plan work, the laying down in the mold loft, the preparation of patterns, and certain other items would cost practically the same for two vessels as for one; many operations could be carried out in duplicate with some saving in cost; articles purchased, particularly those of special design, would cost less if double the number were ordered; and the overhead costs would not increase in direct proportion to the additional work handled. A further considerable saving would result from the fact that the special difficulties which always arise in connection with an engineering job of the extent of the building of one of these light cruisers would be ironed out on the first vessel and would be avoided on the second.

The reduction in construction costs that would result from the above causes would be dependent in considerable measure on the character of the shipbuilding plant and on the methods of production in use, but it is considered that a reasonable estimate would be in the neighborhood of $350,000 to $400,000 per vessel; that is, the second vessel, if built as one of a pair, would cost between $700,000 and $800,000 less than if built independently. If a third cruiser were added to the group, there would be a further saving in construction costs as compared with the second, but of much smaller amount.

It does not appear, however, that any satisfactory estimate can be made of the reduction in construction costs that would result from building three additional cruisers as part of a group of six, instead of as an independent group of three. The difference in cost would depend to a great extent on the distribution of the contracts for the six cruisers and for the three cruisers. The distribution in one case would not be known until the bids had been received and 20038-27-No. 93 (451)

action taken thereon, and the effect of this distribution on construction costs would have to be compared with a hypothetical distribution which might or might not represent what would have occurred in the other case.

A further element of uncertainty is introduced when an attempt is made to determine how the difference in cost of construction would be reflected in the bids submitted. The price bid by a shipbuilder is governed not only by the estimated cost of construction, but also by the urgency of his need for additional work and by his estimate. of the general situation in the industry as affecting other shipbuilders and their willingness to sacrifice profit and possibly overhead costs for the purpose of obtaining additional work. When, as at present, the amount of new construction offering is small, the cutting of prices to obtain work is likely to have an important effect on the bids.

The above comments apply whether the amount appropriated for the second group of three cruisers be $150,000 per vessel, as proposed in the amendment to the naval bill introduced in the House, or $400,000 per vessel, as provided in the bill as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. The appropriation of the smaller amount would give such advantage as might arise from placing the contracts for the six vessels as one group. The appropriation of a larger amount up to about $500,000 per vessel would facilitate the handling of two vessels, one for earlier and the other for later delivery, as one job, with a probable favorable effect on the bids received. The appropriation of an amount in excess of $500,000 per vessel would result in a further reduction in the time required for delivery, but it is not believed that there would be any further marked increase in economy of construction. Furthermore, if an appropriation in excess of $500,000 per vessel were made, an initial appropriation for the guns and mounts to be installed on the vessel would be required, as it would in this case be necessary to start work on these articles in the fiscal year 1928, in order that they might be completed by the time the vessel was ready to receive them.

Sincerely yours,

Hon. THOMAS S. BUTLER,

CURTIS D. WILBUR,'
Secretary of the Navy.

Chairman Committee on Naval Affairs,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

о

[No. 94]

TO AMEND THE NAVAL RECORD OF FRANK H. WILSON, ALIAS HENRY WENCEL (H. R. 16192)

MM-Wilson, Frank H/P19-1(270112) L.

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, January 27, 1927.

The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying further to the committee's letter of January 12, 1927, transmitting the bill (H. R. 16192) to amend the naval record of Frank H. Wilson, alias Henry Wencel, and requesting the views and recommendations of the Navy Department thereon, I have the honor to advise you as follows:

The purpose of this proposed legislation is to provide that, for pension purposes, Frank H. Wilson, alias Henry Wencel, shall be considered to have been honorably discharged from the United States Navy on August 14, 1885.

The records of the Navy Department show that Henry Wencel enlisted in the Navy on December 1, 1873, at New Orleans, La., for three years as seaman, and served on the Vermont, Ohio, and Brooklyn until July 21, 1876, when discharged. His name also appears on the records as Wensel. He reenlisted on July 31, 1877, at Washington, D. C., for three years as ordinary seaman, engineer's force; served on the Wyoming and Franklin to February 9, 1878, when discharged at his own request. On March 5, 1879, he reenlisted at Norfolk, Va., for three years as seaman; served on the Franklin, Lehigh, Franklin, Wyoming, and Franklin to March 4, 1882, when discharged. On March 6, 1882, he reenlisted at Norfolk, Va., for three years as seaman, engineer's force; served on the Franklin, Standish, Santee, Franklin, and Tennessee to March 5, 1885, when discharged. On March 6, 1885, he reenlisted as Henry Wencel at New Orleans, La., for three years as first-class fireman, and served on the Tennessee to August 14, 1885, when he deserted.

The enactment of the bill H. R. 16192 would result in no increased charge against naval appropriations. However, it has been ascertained that its enactment would result in the payment to this man of a pension at the rate of $8 per month under the provisions of section 4695, United States Revised Statutes.

A bill (S. 2700, 69th Cong., 1st sess.) which is for the same purpose and identical in wording as the bill H. R. 16192 was referred to the Bureau of the Budget with the above information as to cost and a statement that the Navy Department contemplated making an unfavorable recommendation on the bill, and under date of February 27, 1926, the Navy Department was informed that this report was not in conflict with the financial program of the President.

In view of the foregoing and the fact that this proposed legislation is not for the general good of the naval service, and further that its (453)

20038-27-No. 94

« AnkstesnisTęsti »