You have more than the normal, usual men on watch, but on this cold December day there is a strong breeze blowing, and it picks up whitecaps. If either of you Senators are familiar with the ocean, you will know that a clear, cold day, with a strong wind, makes the air clear, but the chop, the slap, of the whitecaps would make it extremely difficult to pick out a small object on the water.

Proceeding along there in clear weather, following religiously the instructions of the United States Coast Pilot, with ample lookouts, and you being, as the commanding officer of the Paulding was, one of the most efficient, competent, and experienced seamen that I have ever met, this disaster occurs.

The testimony before the naval court of inquiry clearly brought out certain very illuminating things. It brought out, in the first place, that a submarine, from its very nature and purpose-and that is an important purpose, in the defense of the United Statesis intended to see, through the seeing eyes of the periscope, and not to be seen. The whole doctrine underlying submarine operations, as I understand them, is that this vessel must see the approaching enemy, but it must not be seen.

So, as a careful mariner, having digested all that, you may have occasion to glance at the chart published by the United States Navy Department, on which you will find a legend and a picture of a submarine warning flag. Being interested in that, you might take occasion to look around. You would not, on that day, have seen any submarine warning flag.

Later you would have learned, after this unfortunate disaster happened, that a submarine tender was, at the very moment, lying in the harbor of Provincetown, and you might have thought that that submarine tender, by proceeding some three miles and anchoring, would have been where you would have seen her, and would have seen this submarine warning flag placed.

But you did not see any submarine warning flag, you did not see any tender, you did not see anything until a few moments before this disaster happened.

Now, gentlemen, blaming nobody, regretting the thing as one of those unfortunate accidents that the good God permits to happen, what would be your reaction if you were held personally responsible under those circumstances for that tragic disaster?

I repeat, sir, the master of every surface ship that floats the seas is concerned in the decision that you gentlemen see fit to render. I believe that is a general statement, Senator, and I would be very glad to develop any phase. But before you question me, may I go on to another point?

Senator ODDIE. Yes; you can place anything in the record you choose.

Admiral BILLARD. There is much made in the naval court of inquiry and in the press about the lookout on the Paulding. There were on the Paulding, at the time of this disaster, the commanding officer, who was on the bridge and who for some five seconds, as recall it, had stepped into the pilot house to look at the chart. I happen to find this which I would like to put in the record. [Reading.]

The naval court of inquiry found that it is the training and duty of a commanding officer of a submarine running at periscope depth, to keep clear of surface vessels.

On the bridge of the Paulding were the commissioned officer of the deck, the junior officer of the deck, who was a chief quartermaster with 10 years' experience in the Navy, mostly on Navy destroyers, the quartermaster, and the man at the wheel. Those first three men were keeping a vigilant lookout.

I have been in the Coast Guard for 34 years, sir. The lookout watch that was on the bridge of the Paulding was as great and as efficient as I have ever known in the service, in clear weather. I think that that covers the general statement. If you wish, I will develop any phase of it.

Senator ODDIE. There are certain fundamentals, Admiral, that I would like to see brought out at the start; the duties of the Coast Guard to-day, and in former years; the primary duty of the Coast Guard-the life saving duty for which it has been famous throughout its existence as distinguished from the prohibition enforcement duty. Are the same ships supposed to do both duties, in life saving and in prohibition work?

Admiral BILLARD. You would like that developed, sir?
Senator ODDIE. Yes.

Admiral BILLARD. The duties of the Coast Guard, Senator, from its inception, from its creation in 1790, have been, generally speaking, as follows: In time of war the Coast Guard becomes a part of the United States Navy, by statute, automatically. Therefore, in time of peace the Coast Guard vessels maintain a constant readiness for war; they have target practice, gun drill, infantry drill, quarters, and are prepared to pass into the Naval Establishment, pursuant to law, on 24 hours' notice.

In time of peace the outstanding duty of the service has been to assist life and property at sea; also to protect the customs laws with respect to illegal importations and landings.

In connection with the liquor problem, the eighteenth amendment forbids the importation into the United States of intoxicating liquors. Therefore the Coast Guard has that as one of its duties.

All Coast Guard vessels, all officers and men, perform all the duties of the Coast Guard as occasion and necessity arise. That is, there is no segregation, so that a certain part of the service does one thing and a certain other part another thing. From your question, you are doubtless interested in the status of this destroyer, the Paulding.

Senator ODDIE. A large part of the Coast Guard service of to-day has been created because of the prohibition enforcement duties, as I understand it.

Admiral BILLARD. I will be glad to try to explain that, sir. I have pointed out that one of the duties of the Coast Guard is to prevent illegal importations. The Coast Guard is not charged with the enforcement of prohibition. It is charged with preventing illegal importations.

Senator ODDIE. My question was a little misleading there, because I selected a term which was not strictly accurate.

Admiral BILLARD. With the large amount of illegal importation of liquor that followed the enactment of the eighteenth amendment, the Coast Guard was materially increased to enable it better to perform that function. Included in this increase was the acquisition of 25 destroyers from the Navy.

Senator ODDIE. For any particular area, or for the whole service? Admiral BILLARD. For the whole service. These destroyers have been used in finding and keeping under surveillance vessels suspected of importing liquor. They have been used to render assistance to vessels in distress. They have been used in connection with patrolling regattas and the various work of the Coast Guard. They have been used in carrying out big-gun target practice, and in being kept ready as an important factor in the national defense; and so this Paulding was one of these destroyers I have described.

Senator ODDIE. But, Admiral, the duties of these Coast Guard ships have been very materially broadened and increased since the prohibition laws have been in effect, have they not?

Admiral BILLARD. Broadened in this way, sir, that whereas before the enactment of the eighteenth amendment they were charged with preventing illegal importation

Senator ODDIE. Smuggling, in other words.

Admiral BILLARD. Smuggling, there was practically no smuggling except of aliens, and narcotics, on the coasts. With the enactment of the eighteenth amendment, there arose a great deal of smuggling. Therefore their duties have increased; in reply to your question. Senator GERRY. How many destroyers are based on Boston? Admiral BILLARD. We had, sir, a division of six destroyers based upon Boston. Senator, may I continue, as points occur to me that I would like to get in that I may have forgotten?

Senator ODDIE. Certainly.

Admiral BILLARD. Something has been said about notice of the operations of the submarines. The Paulding had no notice of submarines operating in this vicinity. There is a Coast Guard lifesaving station right at Woods End. Their information as to the operation of submarines was purely by personal observation; and I hope the committee will take occasion to look up the testimony of the man on the lookout at the Coast Guard Station at the time of the accident and read how, with glasses, and looking for a submarine, because he had seen it a little while before, he had great difficulty in keeping his glasses on the periscope.

I hope very much, sir, that the committee will carefully study the testimony of competent, experienced officers of the Navy as recorded in the naval court of inquiry as to the great difficulty of seeing a periscope under the conditions then obtaining.

I note, for instance, that Commander Desses testified in substance that under the conditions obtaining the periscope would probably have been visible about 400 yards.

Senator GERRY. Is it not a fact, though, Admiral, that the Coast Guard lookout saw it from the tower, and saw the slick?

Admiral BILLARD. I would like the committee to carefully consider that testimony.

Senator GERRY. I have.

Admiral BILLARD. I speak now from memory, and if I make an error it is unintentional.

Senator GERRY. I have read that testimony very carefully.

Admiral BILLARD. As I recall it, the man on lookout in the Coast Guard station, in an elevated tower, had seen the S-4 coming out to get ready for her run; and knowing that she was operating there, he had joccasionally thrown his glasses on her. I think he stated

that he had considerable difficulty in keeping them on the vessel— in keeping them on the periscope.

I do not recall that he testified that he had seen the periscope with the naked eye at all. I am speaking from memory of the testimony. Of course you have it here, and we have it here, if you care to read it, but I am just trying to recall from memory.

I do want, sir, for you to bear this in mind: The difference between a man in the tower of a shore station, on a stationary floor, knowing that a submarine was operating, using a telescope, following it with the telescope, and looking for it, thinking to himself, "I wonder where that sub has gone," and so on; contrast that with a vessel steaming into port without the tower elevation, with the chop of the water almost in line with the observer's eye, with no knowledge of the submarine. The parallel does not exist, if I may say so, sir. Senator GERRY. The bridge of the destroyer would put an observer standing on it at least 25 feet above the water, would it not? Admiral BILLARD. I presume so.

Senator GERRY. And the tower of this station would be how high? Admiral BILLARD. Do any of you officers know?

Captain GAMBLE. I imagine it is about 35 or 40 feet above the surface of the ground.

Senator GERRY. A difference of 10 or 15 feet. I am just trying to check up because you are talking about this, and it is an interesting point.

Admiral BILLARD. Yes. I find the tower of the station is about 47 feet above the water.

Senator GERRY. It is an important question whether you had a proper lookout or not and whether due diligence was used in connection with posting the lookout, and so forth. Naturally it is hard sometimes to keep a moving object in a glass, as anybody knows who has used a telescope; but using a telescope at sea, you can pick up objects with it, although sometimes after you pick them up it is hard to catch the movement.

Was there not also testimony to the effect that one of the guards patrolling the beach saw the movement of the submarine, the slick? Admiral BILLARD. I do not recall any guard patrolling the beach. There was a man on watch in the lookout tower.

Senator GERRY. I do not remember whether it was the man on the beach or the man in the lookout tower. The testimony will show. Admiral BILLARD. The statement that you are referring to, I think, Senator, is that of a man named Gracie, who was in command of the station.

Senator GERRY. Yes; I remember that, and he went into the tower. Admiral BILLARD. Yes.

Senator GERRY. And asked the guard who was on watch what he observed and what was going on.

Admiral BILLARD. Yes.

Senator GERRY. And the guard then reported to him; but I had somewhere in the back of my head also the idea that there was possibly a surfman on the beach who saw it.

Admiral BILLARD. There were only two, weren't there, Captain Gamble?

Captain GAMBLE. There were only two, Gracie and Simonds, who was lookout on watch.

Senator GERRY. I take it the lookout was stationed in the tower. Captain GAMBLE. You are quite right, sir.

Senator GERRY. And you say the tower is 35 or 40 feet high? Admiral BILLARD. The tower is about 47 feet above the water and that would put a man's eye about 53 feet above the water.

Senator GERRY. Forty feet; and the bridge of your destroyer would be between 25 and 30 feet. So the distance was very nearly the same so far as the angle of view was concerned.

Captain GAMBLE. The land would probably be 10 or 15 feet above the water, and that distance should be added to the height of the tower or rather the height of the eye of the lookout.

Senator GERRY. It can not be very high, because it is a very flat shore.

Captain GAMBLE. I do not remember the elevation of the land there.

Senator GERRY. I am sorry to have interrupted you, but it is an interesting point.

Admiral BILLARD. That is all right, Senator Gerry. I want to read, Senator, the testimony of Captain Cook of the Navy, who said that a glass may have checked up the periscope from 500 to 800 yards; and looking for it without glasses, it could have been checked up from 300 to 500 yards, if looking for it; split in half if not looking for it.

Then we read the testimony of Commander Lessing who testified that he had once seen periscopes at a distance of 700 yards under conditions similar to those existing on December 17, but was then looking for it. He would not attempt to estimate distances when not looking for it.

The testimony, of course, is full of statements by competent officers of the Navy as to the distance that the submarine could be expected to have seen the Paulding, which, as I recall, was about 5,000 yards. I just want to call your attention to the testimony of the officers of the Navy as to the comparatively short distance at which they would have expected to see a periscope if not looking for it at the time in question.

Senator Ger y, I would like to call your attention to the fact that the man in the top of the lookout tower was equipped with a long telescope, a much more powerful glass than can be used practicably from the bridge of a vessel, and that he was on a stationary floor. A long telescope on a vessel under way, swinging and rising, and so forth, can not be used practicably. Therefore the fact that the man in the Coast Guard Station had a telescope is of importance.

Senator GERRY. But, of course, they do use telescopes on vessels

at sea.

Admiral BILLARD. Quite so. The point I made was that it is not a practicable, convenient way of observing; not so good as a binocular, on account of the motion.

Senator GERRY. But they do use telescopes. Anybody who has been to sea knows that the man on the bridge uses a telescope.

Admiral BILLARD. You can pick an object up if you know where it is, and steady the telescope on it; but on board a ship at sea, you would not normally use a telescope.

Senator GERRY. You would use binoclars?

Admiral BILLARD. Exactly; that is the point.