Senator GERRY. How often is that used during the year, do you suppose?

Mr. SPEAR. I could not tell that, Senator. The Navy uses it quite often. We, unfortunately, have not had much chance to use it in recent years because we have not had many submarines to build. I am taking one up there next week, a submarine we are building for Peru, and we will be doing the same thing the S-4 was. We use that course for testing all the submarines that we build on the Atlantic coast, but, as I say, we have not been fortunate enough to have many to test for the last 10 years. We have not used it very much recently except for foreign work.

Senator GERRY. 'We have asked for that information, as to how much the Navy uses it. I thought possibly apart from the Navy using it, it might be used as a trial course for other submarines.

Mr. SPEAR. We use it. As I say, we will be using it next week, making the same kind of a test that the S-4 was making.

Senator ODDIE. From your experience, do navigators use a course close to those buoys frequently?

Mr. SPEAR. Yes, in making Provincetown Harbor the average man coming in hugs those buoys fairly close.

Senator ODDIE. They are in the general line of travel?

Mr. SPEAR. Yes, the normal channel. You are probably familiar with the topography of the country there. Cape Cod looks like a fishhook and coming in from sea makes a right-angle turn and as you turn that corner and come down, here are these buoys. The normal way to come into Provincetown from the sea is to run by and follow down parallel to that course, which takes you right in the correct way to get into Provincetown. But, of course, if you happen to be coming from across Massachusetts Bay from another direction you would not run down that course at all; but if you are coming in from the sea you would normally follow that around.

Senator ODDIE. Are you familiar with diving operations?

Mr. SPEAR. Yes, but I am not a diving expert. I have had some experience, though, and I have had occasion to study it a good deal in connection with these submarine escape systems, but I should not consider myself a qualified expert on diving.

Senator ŎDDIE. From your knowledge of the weather conditions that existed at the time of the accident, what is your opinion as to the difficulties encountered in the diving operations?

Mr. SPEAR. I thought those divers did an heroic piece of work, Senator. They were diving under conditions that might be warranted in saving life, but would never be warranted in salvaging material. I consider the record those Navy divers made in the 8-4 case was a wonderful record.

Senator ODDIE. Do you feel that it would have been possible to have saved any of the lives in the S-4?

Mr. SPEAR. Not under the weather conditions that prevailed. Senator ODDIE. Would it have been possible had the accident occurred in smooth water?

Mr. SPEAR. Yes.

Senator ODDIE. It would have been different?

Mr. SPEAR. That would have been different.

Senator ODDIE. But the difference between the weather conditions existing at that time and at a time when there is smooth water

Mr. SPEAR. That was the vital reason for the loss of life in the forward compartment. It is doubtful if the men in the after compartment could have been saved, because from all the evidence available it appears that they were unconscious by the time the rescue ship reached there. A great many men were crowded into that room and the amount of air per man in the after compartment was very much smaller than it was in the forward compartment, and it is perfectly clear that those men were unconscious at the time the first diver descended; so that even had there been good weather it is very doubtful if anything could have been done for the men in the after compartment. But the men in the forward compartment, had we been able to maintain a connection, and the divers worked right straight along, I, personally, am convinced could have been removed from the ship. I think they would be alive to-day except for the weather.

Senator ODDIE. Do you think there are any men in any country of the world who could have done better work than was done by the divers who worked on the S-4?

Mr. SPEAR. I do not think so. I have the greatest admiration for those divers, the greatest admiration for them.

Senator GERRY. How do you think they would have rescued them if calm weather had prevailed? Would they have done it by raising the boat?

Mr. SPEAR. No; by getting the men out. I think that would have been the best means.

Senator GERRY. And how could they have done that on the S-4? Mr. SPEAR. We could have built, in 24 hours, a suitable tank to put in the torpedo tubes, which could have been operated by divers. We could have brought the men out with a special apparatus through the torpedoe tubes. That is one way.

Senator GERRY. Had that ever been suggested before?

Mr. SPEAR. I do not know, Senator, whether it had or not-I mean publicly suggested.

Senator GERRY. No; but was that a known method of making a rescue?

Mr. SPEAR. It was known in our minds that that sort of thing could be done in an emergency.

Senator GERRY. I was just wondering why a tank like that had not been built, then.

Mr. SPEAR. Well, I suppose, Senator, that the proper combination of circumstances to produce action on it never arose. I, for instance, never took it up with the Navy Department. I do not know. We never seemed to concentrate attention on it.

Senator GERRY. There has been a great deal in the testimony with regard to lifting eyes on submarines-is that it?

Mr. SPEAR. Yes.

Senator GERRY. So that the pontoons can be more easily connected or more quickly connected to the submarine than could be done by passing chains underneath her?

Mr. SPEAR. Yes.

Senator GERRY. What do you think about that?

Mr. SPEAR. I do not think very much of that, Senator. I think that is going about it in the wrong way. I do not believe we are ever

going to save lives by salvage operations. That is a salvage operation to raise the whole boat.

Senator GERRY. As a salvage operation, is it a practical thing?

Mr. SPEAR. It is not worth while, as a salvage operation. It attaches too much weight to the submarine. You give up too much for pure salvage operations. It would not be justified.

Senator GERRY. Does it increase the weight of the submarine? Mr. SPEAR. Yes.

Senator GERRY. And change the construction very materially? Mr. SPEAR. It increases the weight quite materially.

Senator ODDIE. It affects the buoyancy?

Mr. SPEAR. Oh, yes; anything that increases the weight affects the buoyancy.

Senator ODDIE. Submerged bouyancy, I mean.

Mr. SPEAR. No; not submerged buoyancy; that has to be the same no matter what happens.

Senator GERRY. Are those lifting eyes used in foreign navies?
Mr. SPEAR. No; except in very small boats.

Senator GERRY. Only on very small boats?

Mr. SPEAR. That is all.

Senator GERRY. Where the weight is not so great?

Mr. SPEAR. In the early days they used to be thought practical and I think it was practical in the early days of the small submarine to fit lifting eyes on them; and in the early days some navies built special ships for the purpose of raising them. Two were built in Germany, one in France, one in Italy, one in Spain, and then there was another one built in Italy for Brazil, but those were abandoned years ago because of the size of the submarine. It is not a suitable scheme for a large boat; and, as an historical fact, not one of those special ships has ever saved a life, not a one.

Senator GERRY. Were those special salvage ships, in your opinion, very useful?

Mr. SPEAR. No, sir.

Senator GERRY. The Falcon performs the duty as well.

Mr. SPEAR. Just as well.

Senator GERRY. In other words, you think for salvage purposes it is better to use pontoons?

Mr. SPEAR. Yes, sir; I do.

Senator GERRY. I think that the testimony we have had before the committee shows that the principal argument for the lifting eyes was the facility of making fast.

Mr. SPEAR. Yes. I think that is correct; it does facilitate securing. Senator GERRY. And that it can be done more quickly than passing chains under the bottom?

Mr. SPEAR. Yes.

Senator GERRY. As I understand your testimony, you do not feel that you can save life by salvage processes?

Mr. SPEAR. That is correct.

Senator GERRY. But because it always takes so long to get the pontoons adjusted, to get the chains in place, and by the time the submarine is raised life would be extinct due to lack of air?

Mr. SPEAR. Yes.

Senator GERRY. That goes to another point I would like to ask you about. A question has been brought out about the air valve.

I understand on the S-4 they had one continuous line running fore and aft, but that the later boats have it to each separate compartment. Is that right?

Mr. SPEAR. That is correct; yes, sir.

Senator GERRY. Could such a modern system have been put in the S-4?

Mr. SPEAR. I think that would be possible. I do not know exactly what reserve weight the S-4 had, you see, because we did not build her; I do not know how much ballast she had, but I think she probably had enough so that you could have done that. Running the air line fore and aft, there is danger that the very collision that causes the trouble will break the line, whereas if you have an individual one in each compartment the danger is greatly lessened.

Senator GERRY. That happened here, did it not, the air line broke due to the collision?

Mr. SPEAR. No, it did not. The line was intact to the forward torpedo compartment.

Senator GERRY. But they thought it had been broken?

Mr. SPEAR. They thought it had been broken.

Senator GERRY. Because water came through?

Mr. SPEAR. Because water came in.

Senator GERRY. Is that correct?

Mr. SPEAR. Yes.

Senator GERRY. Could they have attached a line on to that and given them air?

Mr. SPEAR. They did attach to that line. That is the first thing they did.

Senator GERRY. But they did not use it because water came through it.

Mr. SPEAR. They did not use it because water came through first and they concluded that the line was broken.

Senator GERRY. If they had used it do you think they could have saved life possibly?

Mr. SPEAR. Not with those weather conditions, because they could not have maintained their communications. You see they would have to have another line, which they subsequently put on the S-C tube. You have to be able to vent the compartment as well as supply air to it, or else you have to do it alternately, but in order to be of help the weather must have been such that they could maintain this connection, and keep in position and keep this going constantly. The weather was such that they could not.

Senator GERRY. Under normal weather conditions they could? Mr. SPEAR. Under normal weather conditions they could. Senator GERRY. Then, of course, you would also have to take into account the question of cold.

Mr. SPEAR. Yes, sir; exposure, cold, and lots of things.

Senator GERRY. Still they probably could have saved some of the

men.

Mr. SPEAR. They certainly could have kept them alive longer. There is no doubt about that.

Senator ODDIE. We will take a recess at this point until 2.30.

(Thereupon at 12 o'clock m. the committee adjourned until 2.30 o'clock p. m.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The subcommittee reconvened at 2.30 o'clock p. m., pursuant to the taking of the recess, Senator Tasker L. Oddie (chairman) presiding.

Present, Senators Oddie and Gerry.

STATEMENT OF WALTER N. DAVIS, MANAGER OF THE SALVAGE DEPARTMENT, MERRITT, CHAPMAN & SCOTT

Senator ODDIE. Mr. Davis, will you proceed?

Mr. DAVIS. I have been in the employ of the corporation Merritt, Chapman & Scott and its predecessor companies since 1897.

Previous to that I was master of a sailing vessel and of a steamer for a little over two years in the West India trade.

Before that I went to sea as a sailor and mate.

Since being with Merritt, Chapman & Scott I have been navigator, mate, diver, master of salvage steamers, salvage officer, and the last four years as manager of the salvage department, with the exception of a little over a year when I was on leave; and I was in the Naval Reserve in the salvage division during the World War.

Senator ODDIE. Mr. Davis, we will appreciate it if you will give us a statement of what you know of the accident to the S-4, and any suggestions you have to make as to the efficiency or the lack of efficiency of the Navy in conducting the life saving and the salvage operations.

Mr. DAVIS. I have not any criticism to make on the efficiency of the Navy. I think that under the weather conditions that existed, they did everything that could be done; that no human power could have saved the lives of the people on the S-4; and as to the salvage operations, why, it took able men, men of resolution, to carry them to a successful termination throughout the winter months.

Senator ODDIE. You have had experience in diving operations yourself?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes; for years I did a lot of diving, first as a diver, and then later, to satisfy myself, occasionally, as to a wreck's location on the bottom, making examinations to see how a wreck was lying on the rocks, and that sort of thing, and I know pretty well what a diver can do and can not-what the capabilities of divers are. We have 23, and among them are four or five of the best divers in the world, I think.

Senator ODDIE. Are you familiar with the weather conditions and the condition of the sea at the time of this accident?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes; from second-hand information. I talked with some of the United States Navy divers, for instance, that went up there, and they told me the conditions; and on the second day a diver who was in our employ, a Naval Reserve man, arrived there, and he told me of the conditions.

Senator ODDIE. What was his name?
Mr. DAVIS. James Ingram.

Also, on the Tuesday following, two of our steamers with derricks in tow arrived there, and they told me what the conditions were then.

Senator ODDIE. What did they tell you regarding the conditions under the surface?