Mr. VINSON. Then the main purpose of this legislation, as I understand you, is to enable the department to ascertain the number of able-bodied men in the Fleet Naval Reserve?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. Exactly.

Mr. BRITTEN. And to provide for their proper distribution in time of emergency?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRITTEN. I have a suggested amendment, submitted by the Fleet Reserve Association. This proviso would go at the end of the bill. Will you read it, Commander?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. It reads:

Provided further, That transferred members of the Fleet Naval Reserve found not physically qualified on reporting for inspection in accordance with this section, shall be transferred to the retired list of the regular Navy, with the pay they are then receiving, and upon the completion of thirty years' service, including naval service, time in the Fleet Naval Reserve, and time on the retired list of the Navy, they shall receive the allowances to which enlisted men of the regular Navy are entitled on retirement after thirty years' service.

I see no objection to that amendment.

Mr. BRITTEN. Would not that increase their pay?
Lieutenant Commander FROST. No, sir.
Mr. VINSON. What does it do?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. It would place them on the retired list until they have completed a total of 30 years' service, but it would not increase their pay until after the 30 years' time had elapsed. They would continue to receive the same pay that they are now receiving in the reserve, except that they would be retired men instead of reserve men; and if they are not physically qualified they might just as well be considered retired as remain on the list of reservists.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. Let us suppose that a man has been in the Naval Reserve for one year, and then he is examined and found physically unfit. According to that amendment you would retire him?

Mr. BRITTEN. He would have to be a 16-year or 20-year man first, before he could go in the Fleet Reserve?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. Yes, sir. It says:

Shall be transferred to the retired list of the regular Navy, with the pay they are then receiving

So there would be no increase in pay

and upon the completion of thirty years' service

And so forth

they shall receive the allowances to which enlisted men of the regular Navy are entitled on retirement after thirty years' service.

Mr. BRITTEN. Then after the expiration of 30 years of accumulated time, in the regular Navy and in the Fleet Reserve, what would be the minimum increased pay of the reservist over what he is getting now, under the existing law?

I

Lieutenant Commander FROST. As far as my information goes, do not think it would increase it a cent. It would have the advantage that if a man is found not physically qualified for any duty, either on sea or shore, he might just as well be removed from the reserve. We would be just building up false figures and letting the British and Japanese compare them with their navies, and having a lot of men who could not even serve on shore.

Mr. BRITTEN. Then this amendment would simply remove him from the reserve list, if he was not qualified physically, and put him on the retired list?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. That is it.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. It might cost a little more, because you would build up your retired list.

Mr. VINSON. What effect would that amendment have on enlistment? Would it help it?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. I can not see that it would have any effect one way or the other.

Mr. VINSON. You hold up the benefits of the reserve law to a man when you try to get him into the service?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. Yes, sir.

Mr. VINSON. You point it out to him; you say, "Now, you are 18 years old. You go in the Navy and you serve for 16 years, and if you get to be chief warrant officer you can go out and the balance of your life you can draw $60 or $70 a month, or whatever the amount

That is the inducement held out to him. All the legislation we pass dealing with the Naval Reserves necessarily affects the inducements of a boy to enlist in the service. Would not that help the service?

Lieutenant Commander FROST. It certainly would not harm; if anything, it would help.

Mr. UPDIKE. I move the proviso be put in the bill.

Admiral CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, this proviso is practically the same wording as one of the sections in the bill of 1925-that relating to men who come in after the passage of the act.

(The bill was ordered favorably reported.)

Mr. BRITTEN. I would like to include in the record this entire letter showing the amendment originated, as coming to the committee from the Fleet Reserve Association,

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION,

Washington, D. C., February 1, 1927. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN BRITTEN: H. R. 15212, a bill introduced by you to amend section 24 of the naval reserve act, approved February 28, 1925, is pending before the Naval Affairs Committee, and I understand is to be taken up for consideration in executive session on Wednesday, February 2.

The Fleet Reserve Association, whose membership is composed principally of the transferred members of the Fleet Naval Reserve, is interested in this measure, and I have the honor to request that the substance of this letter be communicated to the members of the Naval Affairs Committee.

I present herewith, copy of the May 1, 1926 Fleet Reserve Bulletin, which is the official organ of the Fleet Reserve Association, and wish to invite attention to the article on page 4, entitled "What the new Naval Reserve law means to a transferred member."

The underlying feature of the proposed bill is to grant to the Navy Department authority to recall for physical examination members of the Fleet Naval Reserve transferred prior to July 1, 1925, and in the case of failure of such members to report for inspection, that any pay due them shall be forfeited. An explanation of this feature may be found on page 11 of the Fleet Reserve Bulletin, which expresses the views of the association, viz:

"A member of the Fleet Naval Reserve who was transferred thereto before July 1, 1925, is, under the present law, not subject to recall for purposes of inspection and physical examination. This is, of course, a fatal defect, as reservists of all classes should be subject to recall to active duty at any time for this purpose, else there is no machinery for keeping track of their physical condition and other qualifications, and this knowledge regarding individuals is quite necessary for the

726

mobilization plans. Those who are transferred after July 1, 1925, are subject to recall for physical examination at least once during each four-year period

You will note that section 27 of the naval reserve act, approved February 28, 1925, affecting men transferred to the Fleet Naval Reserve after July 1, 1925, provides for their transfer to the retired list in case they are found not physically qualified; and since the underlying feature of the proposed bill is a periodic physical examination for members transferred to the Fleet Naval Reserve prior to July 1, 1925, the Fleet Reserve Association, in behalf of its membership, particularly the fleet reservists who are now or may hereafter become disabled, has the honor to propose the following amendment to H. R. 15212:

Strike out quotation mark at end of bill; change the period to a colon, and add the following:

"Provided further, That transferred members of the Fleet Naval Reserve found not physically qualified on reporting for inspection in accordance with this section, shall be transferred to the retired list of the regular Navy, with the pay they are then receiving, and upon the completion of 30 years' service, including naval service, time in the Fleet Naval Reserve, and time on the retired list of the Navy, they shall receive the allowances to which enlisted men of the regular Navy are entitled on retirement after 30 years' service.

The suggested amendment above conforms to the wording of section 27 of the naval reserve act.

Very respectfully,

C. E. LOFGREN,

Director of Organization, Fleet Reserve Association.

Hon. FRED A. BRITTEN, M. C.,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

(Thereupon at 12.20 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Thursday, February 3, 1927, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)

[No. 130]

HEARINGS ON THE BILLS H. R. 6430, JOHN CRONIN; H. R. 6429,
DANIEL E. SHEA; H. R. 5881, ROBERT F. RIFE; H. R. 10290,
KENNETH M. ORR

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. We will take up for consideration some bills which Mr. Lineberger desires to call to the attention of the committee. STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER F. LINEBERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. LINEBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I have four bills here, one of which has been passed by the Senate. There is a reasonable hope of getting it through. The other three have not been passed either in the House or the Senate. But I would like to have this bill reported out favorably.

This is H. R. 6430, to correct the naval record of John Cronin.

[H. R. 6430, Sixty-ninth Congress, first session]

A BILL To correct the naval record of John Cronin

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That John Cronin, formerly seaman, United States Navy, be, and he is hereby, relieved of all disabilities attendant upon the dishonorable discharge received by him pursuant to sentence of general courtmartial, March 18, 1899, and the Secretary of the Navy is hereby authorized and directed to review the naval record of the said John Cronin and grant him an honorable discharge.

Mr. WOODRUFF. I move that all four bills be reported favorably. Mr. LINEBERGER. This bill, H. R. 6430, has passed the Senate. I have a copy of the hearing which was held by the subcommittee last year.

Mr. BRITTEN. What is the report of the Navy Department? Mr. LINEBERGER. The Navy Department reported adversely on all of them, just as they do on all these bills. There are four of them

here.

Mr. BRITTEN. Are they all private bills?

Mr. LINEBERGER. They are all private bills. I realize that there is little chance of passing three of them, but there have been hearings held on all of them.

Mr. BRITTEN. Unless they go through the hands of the subcommittee and are reported by the subcommittee, I object.

Mr. VINSON. We had an investigation in reference to this bill, H. R. 6430, a bill to remove the dishonorable discharge of John Cronin. The facts disclose that he deserted for two months while drunk. Mr. BRITTEN. I object to this now.

Mr. VINSON. We did not report favorably on the bill.

Mr. BRITTEN. Why not?

Mr. VINSON. We did not finish our hearing on it. There is some merit in the case. Of course, you are up against the proposition of removing this dishonorable-discharge record.

Here are the facts in the case: He enlisted in the Navy at Boston on October 12, 1893. He was honorably discharged from the U. S. S. Franklin as seaman on August 5, 1896. He reenlisted in the Navy October 17, 1896, and was dishonorably discharged from the U. S. S. Wabash on March 18, 1899. He says:

The offense for which I was tried by court-martial and dishonorably discharged consisted of being absent without leave for a period of about two months. The only excuse I can offer is that I was under the influence of intoxicating liquors at the time and continued so for some weeks until my money was all spent. Upon recovering I realized what I had done and voluntarily surrendered myself to the naval authorities at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. In doing so I hoped the authorities would be lenient with me on account of my previous six years' service, but they judged otherwise and I was dishonorably discharged.

Mr. BRITTEN. He is just a deserter and was drunk.
Mr. VINSON. He also says:

I served throughout the Spanish-American War and participated in the naval battle of Santiago de Cuba on the U. S. S. Brooklyn. During the World War I was engaged in the merchant marine service from August, 1914, to April, 1918, transporting supplies and ammunition for the Allies and the United States Government from New York to Liverpool.

I am now 56 years of age. I have never been in jail or prison since leaving the Navy and I have always tried to conduct myself with honor and decency.

I think in view of these facts, and having in view the fact that he served in the World War, the bill should be favorably reported.

Mr. BRITTEN. What was the character of his discharge in the World War?

Mr. VINSON. He was engaged in the merchant marine at that time. We have precedents for cases of this character.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he go back voluntarily?

Mr. VINSON. He surrendered himself.

Mr. ANDREW. Is he not eligible for a pension, if he was honorably discharged?

Mr. VINSON. No.

Mr. ANDREW. What is the object of this bill?

Mr. VINSON. He loses the benefit of his first honorable discharge by his second dishonorable discharge.

Mr. BRITTEN. This bill is really not so much for the purpose of clearing his record as to give him a pensionable status.

Mr. LINEBERGER. No.

Mr. BRITTEN. Then why not add to the bill a provision that he shall get no pension.

Mr. LINEBERGER. We have in the bill a provision that no back pension shall accrue prior to the passage of this act.

Mr. BRITTEN. If you want to clear this man's record let us simply provide here that he does not get a pensionable status because of this honorable discharge.

Mr. VINSON. Let me say this in regard to that. There is a precedent for this.

Mr. BRITTEN. We just rejected or passed over a meritorious bill which was desired by the department.

Mr. VINSON. This bill should be considered on its merits and not on favoritism. There is a precedent for it, in view of the fact that