Admiral CAMPBELL. Yes, sir; the same pay as the men on the battleships receive, with the same rank.

Mr. UPDIKE. They all take the same risk?

Admiral CAMPBELL. And they have different responsibilities? Mr. UPDIKE. They get paid for their different responsibilities according to their rank?

Admiral CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

Commander COFFEY. This proviso does not increase the pay much, but it gives us an opportunity to pay a man on a better basis. The present basis is $1 per dive per day. I would like to read you three paragraphs from comments on this subject by the commander in chief of the battle fleet:

The payment of a bonus depending upon the number of dives made per month is considered faulty in principle for the following reasons: (a) Operating schedules, orders for gunnery exercises, rules for engineering performances and the initiative of responsible officers in administrative commands, automatically provide the number of dives which are desirable for a submarine. The initiative is largely taken out of the hands of the operating personnel. (b) The authorization for a "dollar dive" may develop a tendency to submerge in order to obtain the bonus when there is not any useful training to be accomplished, or even when some other operation is preferable. (c) The rules for engineering performances now specify a fixed minimum of submerged operation without which the boat is not given any standing in the annual competition for the engineering trophy. Mr. VINSON. You mean that if the officer in charge suggests diving, they have to dive? How many dives can they make a month? Commander COFFEY. The maximum number that they can be paid for in one month is 15. The men do not say when they dive; no, sir; but it is a natural thing for the commanding officer of his boat to want to give the men the benefit of this extra pay, if he can. Mr. VINSON. And if the officer thought that $15 would be too much

Commander COFFEY. No; I do not think so.

Mr. VINSON. It would be left up to the officer in charge, as to the number of times they could dive?

Commander COFFEY. One month it may be too much and another month it may not be enough.

Mr. VINSON. I suggest that The Judge Advocate General prepare an amendment providing that they will get $5 plus $1 every time they dive, and the maximum amount is $30. Then we will keep everybody just where they are to-day, and will not reduce anybody, but increase them to $30, and if more money is needed it will come from the Treasury to pay these men.

The CHAIRMAN. That would not take it away from any of them? Mr. VINSON. Not a bit.

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, if such a proviso as you have in mind is added to the bill before us, and will not reduce the pay of any of the men on the submarine, it will give you an opportunity to increase the pay of those who are, in your judgment, best qualified for the service and who will improve the fastest, as a reward to them for this haz ardous service. Am I not right on that?

Admiral CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. But it will cost the Government additional money, of course?

Admiral CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What are you going to do about this Budget proviso? Can you get along with that, with such an amendment as Mr. Vinson proposed?

Commander COFFEY. We are just where we were with the proviso,

then.

Mr. VINSON. You can not increase the pay.

The CHAIRMAN. They will require 10,000 men on their submarines, and no one will get less than he is receiving now, and some of them will get more. Consequently you will have to have larger appropriations. You will have to have $150,000 more next year to pay for this submarine service if this should become law. The Budget officer proposes that the amount now being paid should not be increased. We might as well let the proviso go and put in your amendment. I suggest that Mr. Britten, Mr. Updike, and Mr. Vinson prepare an amendment; they know what our views are; we have gone over it thoroughly; we do not want anybody reduced, and we want to pay to those who develop more rapidly.

(Thereupon the committee proceeded to the consideration of other business.)

[No. 124]

A HEARING ON THE BILL (H. R. 16577), PROVIDING FOR DATE OF
PRECEDENCE OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE STAFF CORPS OF
OF THE NAVY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,
Thursday, February 3, 1927.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Thomas S. Butler (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. We will hear Mr. Ayres in reference to H. R.

16577.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM A. AYRES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

Mr. AYRES. Mr. Chairman, this is a bill introduced by Mr. Britten, I think by my request and also by the request of the Navy Department. The bill provides:

That any officer of the line of the Navy who, since July 1, 1923, has been transferred to, and commissioned in, a staff corps of the Navy in the same rank as formerly held by him in the line, shall take precedence with, but next after that officer of the line immediately above him in the Navy at the time of such transfer, which officer shall be assigned as his running mate for promotion purposes: Provided, That no back pay or allowances shall accrue to any officer by reason of the passage of this act.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the only interest I have in this matter is that a young man by the name of Reed T. Roberts, who graduated in 1923 in the class with two or three other young men whom I had appointed, and who resides in the District of Columbia, would be affected by it.

His position was called to my attention by some friends of mine, and some graduates of the Naval Academy in the same class with him, who were appointees of mine. I am not as familiar with this case as I should be, and therefore I am going to read to you the letter of the Secretary of the Navy, dated January 19, 1927, and addressed to the Speaker, as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Washington, January 19, 1927. Washington, D. C.

The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I have the honor to transmit herewith a proposed draft of a bill, "To provide for date of precedence of certain officers of the staff corps of the Navy."

This proposed legislation, if enacted into law, will apply to two officers only, namely, Lieut. (Junior Grade) Joseph C. Molder, Supply Corps, United States Navy, and Ensign Reed T. Roberts, Supply Corps, United States Navy.

The above-named officers were graduated from the Naval Academy on June 7, 1923, and appointed ensigns in the line of the Navy on June 8, 1923. Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Molder, Supply Corps, upon his own request, was appointed an assistant paymaster with the rank of ensign on March 6, 1924, to rank from January 30, 1924, but has since been advanced, with his running mate in the line, to his present rank of lieutenant (junior grade). Ensign Roberts; Supply Corps, upon his own request, was appointed an assistant paymaster with the rank of ensign on May 23, 1925, to rank from May 1, 1925.*

That was because on account of his health he could not go ahead at that time. He has since regained his health and wants to go ahead, but he can not do it on account of the present law. This communication from the Secretary of the Navy further states:

In accordance with the provision contained in the act of Congress approved March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 892), which requires that officers of the line and staff corps shall take precedence with each other in accordance with the date of commission in rank, Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Molder, Supply Corps, upon appointment in the Supply Corps, was assigned precedence next after the junior officer of the Naval Academy class of 1923, and Ensign Roberts, Supply Corps, upon appointment in the Supply Corps, was assigned precedence just ahead of the senior officer of the Naval Academy class of 1925. The legislation proposed in the attached draft of bill would assign these officers precedence with that officer of the line next after whom they took precedence upon the date of their commission in the line, and would place them in the same position for pay purposes based on promotion as the other members of their class of the Naval Academy. This proposed legislation is in conformity with the provision contained in section 7 of the act approved June 10, 1926 (44 Stat. 720) which reads as follows:

"That a line officer hereafter transferred to a staff corps shall retain the rank and date of commission in such rank held by him at the time of such transfer and shall have assigned as his running mate that line officer immediately above him in the Navy at the time of such transfer."

This proposed legislation will result in no additional cost to the Navy so far as concerns the case of Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Molder, Supply Corps. In the case of Ensign Roberts, Supply Corps, if this legislation be enacted, he will be immediately eligible for advancement to the rank of lieutenant (junior grade); otherwise, he will not become eligible for such advancement in rank until February 25, 1928. However, due to the earlier date of his advancement in rank, as contemplated by the attached bill, he would be entitled to increased compensation at the rate of $50 per month from the date of enactment of this proposed legislation to February 25, 1928.

This proposed legislation was referred to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget with the above information as to the cost and a request that the Navy Department be informed as to whether its enactment would come within the financial program of the President. Under date of January 4, 1927, the Navy Department was advised by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget that this proposed legislation "is not in conflict with the financial program of the President." In view of the foregoing, the Navy Department recommends enactment into law of the attached draft of bill.'

1

Sincerely yours,

CURTIS D. WILBUR

The CHAIRMAN. That provision which you read is a provision of the equalization law?

Mr. AYRES. Yes, sir. On account of some act these two men were unable to take the rank to which they should be entitled. Probably some of the officers here can explain that better than I. The CHAIRMAN. What is the status of these men?

Admiral CAMPBELL. These officers were graduates of the Naval Academy and started out as ensigns. They were transferred to the Supply Corps as ensigns, upon their own request, and under the law at that time they were given as their running mates the bottom men of the class in which they graduated, or the one with latest date of commission in the line.

The CHAIRMAN. Why did it not reach them?

Admiral CAMPBELL. They were at the bottom of the class. The equalization law passed last year provided that line officers transferred to a staff corps shall take precedence with the officers directly above them at the time of the transfer. This bill would apply that law to these two officers.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not understand why the equalization law did not reach these men at the bottom of the list.