would not have to pay a hotel bill until he got out. The bunk was athwartship, or the bunk in which he was sleeping. It was a transom that he was sleeping on. The bunk in which Ensign HolzermerI think that was his name-was sleeping was fore and aft. Mr. DRANE. What does that mean?

Commander JONES. It means that they were at right angles to each other.

Mr. MAGEE. As I recall the statement yesterday, there was a door between.

Commander JONES. No, sir; there was no door between.

Mr. MAGEE. The pistol was hanging between the two bunks, was it not?

Commander JONES. No, sir. One bunk, or the regular bunk, was amidship, and the head of the transom was athwartship. That means that the man's head was outboard. I can demonstrate it better on a piece of paper.

Mr. MAGEE. Of course, we can not put any illustration in the record, but you may put it on paper to indicate it.

Commander JONES. This [indicating] represents the bunk that the ensign was sleeping in, and this [indicating] represents the one the gunner was sleeping in. His head was outboard, and this one [indicating] is amidship.

Mr. DRANE. Where was the other man's head?

Commander JONES. The other man's head was up here [indicating]. There is a passageway here [indicating] and the gun was here [indicating]. As I remember it, the holster of the gun was hanging here [indicating].

Mr. MAGEE. As I recall it, the testimony shows that this holster was within 6 feet of that man's head.

Commander JONES. My impression is that it was somewhere out this way [indicating].

Mr. DRANE. Something came up yesterday that did not seem to impress the other members of the committee as it did me, and that is, that this man was seen out of his bunk walking through the passage just a few minutes before this gun was fired. He had evidently gotten up during the night.

Commander JONES. I do not recall that at all.

Mr. TOLLEY. There is testimony that he was seen at 4 o'clock in the morning. That is in the record.

Mr. MAGEE. Apart from the condition of his brain, that Commander Wilkinson spoke of, showing, perhaps, continuing effects of alcoholism, there is no evidence of the excessive use of alcohol at the time this occurred, is there?

Commander JONES. There was no odor of alcohol on his breath, and, as I recall, the board investigating the case tried to determine whether the man had taken drugs or had taken any alcohol. It was proved that he had not, so far as they could determine. I am giving this entirely from recollection, and I am not perfectly clear on that. I might add that the man who performed the autopsy was Doctor Jacoby. He had been in the Navy as an assistant surgeon. He resigned and left the Navy to enter into the practice of psychiatry. He was doing work in the investigation of the mental condition of prisoners. He performed the autopsy, and he was the one, as I recall it, who stated that the condition of the brain showed evidence

of alcohol, and, possibly, of a paretic condition. It was Doctor Jacoby who performed the autopsy, and, as I said, he has gone out of the service and has entered into the practice of psychiatry.

Mr. MAGEE. The difference between the two would not be physically perceptible in an autopsy of the brain, but the condition might be due to either one or the other.

Commander JONES. Yes, sir. I simply wanted to bring out the fact that Doctor Jacoby was a specialist.

Mr. TOLLEY. May I ask Commander Jones a question?
Mr. MAGEE. Certainly.

Mr. TOLLEY. Under the present policy of the department, in a case similar to this, would you hold that his death was due to his own misconduct?

Commander JONES. In writing the health record, I would, under the present policy, place the following entry on the record: "Origin: In line of duty." As to the misconduct status, I would have difficulty in attempting to place it, and I would say, "Unknown."

STATEMENT OF COMMANDER LUCIUS W. JOHNSON, MEDICAL CORPS, UNITED STATES NAVY

Mr. MAGEE. Commander Johnson, will you tell us what you know about this death or suicide?

Commander JOHNSON. I was not a witness, and know nothing about that. I think the committee asked to have somebody come down who could answer their questions about gunshot wounds, and, particularly, with regard to powder burns.

Mr. MAGEE. You have heard Commander Jones's testimony with regard to powder burns, have you not?

Commander JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. MAGEE. That is, when the gun was held close to the head? Commander MAGEE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MAGEE. That is the generally accepted idea with regard to gunshot wounds, is it not?

Commander JOHNSON. Well, in the case of black powder, the unburned grains of powder frequently are embedded in the skin, leaving characteristic tattoo marks, but with the nitrocellulose powder used in modern arms, particularly in the standard Navy weapon, the powder is usually completely burned within the gun and leaves no mark at all on the skin. Also, if the gun is held against the skin, or within an inch or so of the skin, the gases and unburned powder will enter the wound and leave no mark on the skin; so that the absence of powder marks means very little.

Mr. DRANE. What would a man naturally do in shooting himself through the head? Would he press the pistol against his head? or would that be the natural thing for him to do?

Commander JOHNSON. I imagine so. Wounds in the temple are usually regarded as suicidal until proved otherwise. That is the common place. I saw a man yesterday who had been shot by a revolver held against the chin, and there were no powder marks or burns.

Mr. MAGEE. You are testifying generally as to gunshot wounds, but you do not know about this particular case?

Commander JOHNSON. No, sir; I have no knowledge of this particular case.

Mr. MAGEE. Does it make any difference with regard to the effect of the powder whether the gun is exploded against or within an inch of the wound, or a foot or, say, 3 feet away?

Commander JOHNSON. Yes, sir; if the gun were held over 2 inches away, and up to possibly 15 or 18 inches away, there probably would be some powder marks and considerable branding, the branding being due to the burning of the tissues by the hot gases.

Mr. MAGEE. That would be the effect up to 18 inches?

Commander JOHNSON. Yes, sir; and possibly beyond that. Nobody could say definitely without experimenting with an individual gun and with an exactly similar cartridge. The cheaper guns are poorly made, the joints are not tight, and much of the gases leak out. They might not produce branding at such a great distance. Mr. MAGEE. Are you familiar with the type of gun used in this case?

Commander JOHNSON. No, sir; I do not know exactly the type of gun that was used.

Mr. MAGEE. The testimony shows it was a service gun. That is not one of the cheap guns?

Commander JOHNSON. No, sir; that is the highest type of gun, and with that gun, you would expect an almost complete combustion of the powder. There would be few powder marks left.

(On motion of Mr. Drane, the following recommendation of the subcommittee to the full committee was unanimously adopted:)

It is recommended by the subcommittee that testimony has been produced that would bring this case within the present rule or policy of the Navy Department, as set forth before the committee, regarding the occurrence of death in line of duty.

It is further recommended by the subcommittee that the bill (H. R. 9255) to correct the naval record of John Lewis Burns, be reported favorably.

(Thereupon the subcommittee adjourned.)

о

[No. 163]

TO CORRECT THE HOSPITAL RECORD OF ROBERT MCFARLAND (H. R. 16602)

MM-McFarland, Robert/P3-5(1) (270124) L.

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, March 6, 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 24, 1927, transmitting the bill (H. R. 16602) to correct the hospital record of Robert McFarland, 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, as set forth in the bill, is to correct the hospital record at the naval hospital, Pinkney, Tenn., of Robert McFarland, formerly a seaman in the United States Navy, so as to cause said hospital record to conform to the facts as to the disabilities for which said sailor was discharged.

The records of the Navy Department show that Robert McFarland enlisted in the Navy on February 13, 1863, at Cincinnati, Ohio, for two years, as seaman; that he served on the Tuscumbia and in the naval hospital, Memphis, Tenn., until September 9, 1863, when he was discharged on account of medical survey. His medical history is as follows:

Naval Hospital, Pinkney, Tenn. Admitted August 7, 1863. Diarrhea chronica. Hospital ticket dated U. S. S. Tuscumbia, August 4, 1863, states: "Was placed on sick list July 21, 1863, affected with chronic diarrhea. After his recovery, complained of severe cough which, he said, had troubled him for two Upon examination detected disease of lungs of a tuberculous character. There is no evidence that the disease originated in the line of duty." Discharged September 9, 1863, for discharge from service by medical survey. Disease, phthisis. The disease did not originate in the line of duty.

years.

There appears to be no reason to doubt the accuracy of the hospital record as to the facts as to the disabilities for which McFarland was discharged. The Navy Department has no knowledge of the supposed facts that are to be substituted in any correction of McFarland's record.

The proposed legislation, if enacted, will result in no additional charge against the appropriations under the cognizance of the Navy Department, but it might result in a pension charge.

The bill H. R. 16602 was referred to the Bureau of the Budget with the above information and a statement that the Navy Department contemplated making an unfavorable recommendation thereon, and under date of February 28, 1927, the Navy Department was advised that its proposed report would not be in conflict with the financial program of the President.