Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

[No. 128]

GRANTING SIX MONTHS' PAY TO FRANK A. GRAB, FATHER OF ALFRED NEWTON GRAB, DECEASED SEAMAN, UNITED STATES NAVY, IN ACTIVE SERVICE (H. R. 15182)

MM-Grab, Alfred N/L13-2(9) (261215)L.

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 7, 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 15, 1926, transmitting the bill H. R. 15182, granting six months' pay to Frank A. Grab, father of Alfred Newton Grab, deceased seaman, United States Navy, in active service, 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 bill is to authorize to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sum as may be necessary to pay Frank A. Grab, the father of Alfred Newton Grab, deceased seaman, United States Navy, who was killed in line of duty on February 7, 1922, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, an amount equal to six months' pay, at the rate said Alfred Newton Grab was receiving at the date of his death.

The records of the Navy Department show that Alfred Newton Grab enlisted in the Navy on August 22, 1919, to serve for a period of two years, and was honorably discharged from the naval service on June 9, 1921. During his term of enlistment he maintained a clear record. On August 9, 1921, Grab reenlisted in the Navy to serve for a period of two years and served until February 7, 1922, when he died as a result of fracture of the skull due to a fall from the boat deck to a coal lighter alongside the U. S. S. Savannah.

At the time of Grab's reenlistment he named his father, Frank A. Grab, of Boston, Mass., as his next of kin, but the beneficiary slip executed at the time stated that he was not married and had no dependent relatives.

Bill H. R. 15182 will, if enacted into law, result in an additional cost to the Government of $324.

The bill H. R. 15182 was referred to the Bureau of the Budget with the above information as to cost and a statement that the Navy Department contemplated making a favorable recommendation thereon. Under date of February 2, 1927, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget advised the Navy Department that this report would not be in conflict with the financial program of the President.

In view of the foregoing, the Navy Department recommends that this bill be enacted.

Sincerely yours,

CURTIS D. WILBUR,

Secretary of the Navy.

20038-27-No. 128

(719)

A BILL Granting six months' pay to Frank A. Grab, father of Alfred Newton Grab, deceased seaman United States Navy, in active service

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sum as may be necessary to pay to Frank A. Grab, father of Alfred Newton Grab, deceased seaman, United States Navy, who was killed in line of duty on February 7, 1922, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, an amount equal to six months' pay, at the rate said Alfred Newton Grab was receiving at the date of his death.

[No. 129]

HEARING ON THE BILL (H. R. 15212) TO AMEND SECTION 24 OF THE ACT APPROVED FEBRUARY 28, 1925, ENTITLED "AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION, ORGANIZATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF A NAVAL RESERVE AND A MARINE CORPS RESERVE"

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,
Wednesday, February 2, 1927.

The committee this day met, Hon. Thomas S. Butler (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The next bill is H. R. 15212, relating to the Fleet Naval Reserve, and we will hear Lieutenant-Commander Frost, representing the Bureau of Navigation.

(The bill under consideration is as follows:)

[H. R. 15212, Sixty-ninth Congress, second session]

A BILL To amend section 24 of the act approved February 28, 1925, entitled "An act to provide for the creation, organization, administration, and maintenance of a Naval Reserve and a Marine Corps Re

[merged small][ocr errors]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 24 of the act approved February 28, 1925 (Forty-third Statutes at Large, page 1087), entitled "An act to provide for the creation, organization, administration, and maintenance of a Naval Reserve and a Marine Corps Reserve," be, and the same is hereby, amended by changing the period at the end of said section to a colon and by adding thereto the following proviso: “Provided further, That any pay which may be due any member of the Fleet Naval Reserve, transferred thereto prior to July 1, 1925, shall be forfeited when so ordered by the Secretary of the Navy upon the failure, under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy, of such member to report for inspection."

STATEMENT OF LIEUT. COMMANDER H. H. FROST, BUREAU OF NAVIGATION

Lieutenant Commander FROST. This bill amends the act of February 28, 1925, section 24, by adding to that section the following additional proviso:

Provided further, That any pay which may be due any member of the Fleet Naval Reserve, transferred thereto prior to July 1, 1925, shall be forfeited when so ordered by the Secretary of the Navy upon the failure, under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy, of such member to report for inspection.

We have made a very careful study of utilizing the 16 and 20 year ex-Navy men who have been transferred to the Fleet Reserve, and in order to work them into the mobilization plans it is necessary to know their physical condition. In the old law of August 29, 1916, this clause, exactly as stated in the bill under consideration, was included, but in the new Naval Reserve law which went into effect on July 1, 1925, it was left out. At present in this class of the reserve (721)

20038-27-No. 129

there are two categories of men: Those who were transferred to the reserve before July 1, 1925, and those transferred afterwards. Those transferred afterwards are required by the law, if the department so desires, to serve two months on active duty every four years, and also to pass a physical examination every four years. Those who joined the reserve before that date are not required to do anything, and we have no control over them whatever. The purpose is to reiterate the old provision of the 1916 Iaw so that they could be compelled, once in about four years, to report for physical examination. We have already held such examinations once, about two years ago; we called in all these men just a month or so before the new law went into effect, because then the old provision by which their pay would be cancelled could be used against them; in about another two years we will desire to have all these men given another physical examination, and they can say that they do not desire to report, if they so wish.

Mr. BRITTEN. They do not have to report now?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. No, sir.

Mr. VINSON. Under the existing law they do not have to report for examination?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. No, sir.

Mr. VINSON. Under which law would they have to report?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. Under he 1925 law they do not have to.

Mr. VINSON. Under the law of 1925 a boy who has served his 16 or 20 years and goes into the Fleet Naval Reserve does not have to report for physical examination?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. If he joined it before July 1, 1925, he does not have to report at all, but if he joined afterwards he has to serve two months active duty every four years and also pass a physical examination.

Mr. VINSON. If he goes into the Fleet Naval Reserve after 1925 he must report?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. Yes, sir.

Mr. VINSON. And this bill is to make them all report?
Lieutenant Commander FROST. Yes, sir.

Mr. VINSON. Now, are you not violating your contract with those who went in prior to July 1, 1925, for the reason that when one of those men enlisted in the Navy he enlisted with the idea that after serving 16 or 20 years he would go into the Fleet Naval Reserve and draw a certain gratuity the balance of the days of his life? That was probably one of the inducements held out to him to enlist in the Navy prior to 1925; but of course, if he enlisted after 1925 he knows that when he has served 16 or 20 years he goes to the Fleet Naval Reserve and he must stand an examination.

Lieutenant Commander FROST. This very provision was in the law of August 29, 1916, and was in the law until July 1, 1925; so that we are only putting back the provision that was left out through

some error.

Mr. COYLE. It was a part of the contract at the time.

Mr. VINSON. The act of 1916 required him to be examined, and this proposed amendment would require all men in the Fleet Naval Reserve to be examined?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRITTEN. They may be examined.

Mr. VINSON. They would have to be. Now, how many do you contemplate would be thrown out of the Naval Reserve because of failure to pass the physical examination?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. This does not provide for throwing out anybody at all.

Mr. VINSON. But if he can not pass the physical examination does he not go out?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. Not if he entered the reserve prior to July 1, 1925; but if he entered after that he could be thrown out. Mr. VINSON. I have in mind only safeguarding the men who entered prior to July 1, 1925, because they went in under a contract with the Navy. Now, if they will not be thrown out, even if they can not pass the physical examination, then I have no objection to the bill; but if you are going to throw out anyone because he can not pass the examination, except those who entered after 1925, I do not think the bill ought to be passed.

Lieutenant Commander FROST. We have no intention of doing that, nor does this bill authorize us to throw out anybody at all.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. Then why cause them to be examined if you are not going to throw them out if they do not pass the examination? Lieutenant Commander FROST. Because under the present plan we have these men assigned to specific ships by name, for the purpose of mobilization, and in case of mobilization we would not want to have some of these men go on duty and then find that they were not physically qualified.

Mr. VINSON. They may not be thrown out but they will lose their pay.

Lieutenant

the loss of pay.

Commander FROST. No; this has nothing to do with

Mr. VINSON. It says:

Provided further, That any pay which may be due any member of the Fleet Naval Reserve, transferred thereto prior to July 1, 1925, shall be forfeited when so ordered by the Secretary of the Navy upon the failure, under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy, of such member to report for inspection.

Lieutenant Commander FROST. If he fails to report he loses.

Mr. VINSON. That is the only instance in which he can lose his pay? Lieutenant Commander FROST. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. Suppose he fails to report for this examination, does he lose his status?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. If he fails to report, he would be subject to stoppage of his pay.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. But is it mandatory to stop his pay if he does not report?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. No, sir. Of course, he would be given several opportunities to report. This is only intended for cases where he deliberately refuses to report.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. Why not write a law that has some teeth in it; why not say that if a man does not report after three or four notices he goes out?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. This says, "Under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy." That is the exact language that was in the old bill.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »