tions as well as could have been done, in the light of the knowledge and equipment available at the time?

Mr. SPERRY. Senator, I will try to answer that question. My mind works along such a practical line that I always surround myself with a picture of the environment down to the minutest details of what was attempted, and the atmosphere of suppressed excitement under which intensive work of that kind must be conducted. I feel that in view of all of the conditions that prevailed, the unexpected arrival of a heavy storm at the time, and in the absence of equipment that could cope with it, our officers did everything they could. They may have made errors, but I think taking everything into consideration, they did wonderfully well.

They had very able men there, and I feel that everything was done that could be done under the circumstances. I feel that we are going to be able to do better in the future as the result of this accident.

Senator ODDIE. Do you feel that in the light of the knowledge possessed at the time, and of the equipment that the Navy had at its disposal, it could, under any circumstances, have saved any of the lives on that submarine?

Mr. SPERRY. I have heard that discussed pro and con, as we all have, but I am sympathetic with the awful conditions that prevailed at the moment on the spot, and there are certain things that can not be done with the equipment that we now have. One of them is to operate under the conditions that were suddenly superimposed all unexpectedly; and under the circumstances, I think they did well, indeed I do. I have thought about it a great deal, and have heard, as I say, numerous criticisms right and left, but I do not think that those that find it in their minds to criticize, were in possession of sufficient facts to justify an adverse criticism.

Senator ODDIE. That is all, Mr. Sperry. The committee is under great obligations to you for the valuable testimony you have given us. Mr. SPERRY. That is very cordial; I am sure I appreciate it. (Thereupon, at 1.30 o'clcok p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until to-morrow, Saturday, May 26, 1928, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)

INVESTIGATION OF SINKING OF THE SUBMARINE "S-4"

SATURDAY, MAY 26, 1928

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10.30 o'clock a. m., in the room of the committee in the Capitol, Senator Tasker L. Oddie presiding.

Present: Senators Oddie (chairman) and Gerry.

STATEMENT OF LIEUT. COMMANDER JOHN S. BAYLIS, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Senator ODDIE. I have requested Mr. Savoy to secure from the Treasury Department for insertion in the hearings the record of Commander Baylis. It is in justice to him that it should go in the record.

(The statement of the Treasury Department is as follows:)

The record of Lieut. Commander John S. Baylis from his entrance into the Coast Guard has been most excellent. His training as a seaman consisted of three years on the St. Marys as a cadet; a trip around the world on a British four-masted bark; two cruises on the St. Marys as instructor in seamanship and navigation; three years a cadet in the Coast Guard, making three cadet cruises; 20 years a commissioned officer in the Coast Guard, three and a half years as superintendent of the New York Nautical School, commanding their training ship on three cruises; three years in command of the Paulding. During the war he held the highly responsible confidential detail of routing officer at New York under Admiral Usher and Admiral de Steiguer. No officer of his years and rank has a higher reputation as an officer and seaman and the fine qualities that must go with such a record.

109

Senator ODDIE. Commander Baylis, I will ask you to make your statement in your own way. Any points you want to bring out you can give to the reporter. The history of the accident has been covered from various angles in these hearings. You are familiar with what has been put in the record?

Commander BAYLIS. Yes.

Senator ODDIE. We want you to have the opportunity of placing in the record anything that you desire.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Did you want Commander Baylis to make a statement. I could ask questions so as to bring out certain points; for instance, with reference to the nonshatterable glass in the windows of the Paulding..

Senator GERRY. Mr. Chairman, my understanding was that the Coast Guard asked that the commander be allowed to appear here and make a statement, and the committee was very glad to hear him. I think he had better make his statement.

Senator ODDIE. If you can suggest something, perhaps it would be better for you to do so.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I can suggest some things that I think will be of advantage in expediting the hearing. For example, Commander Hoover referred to the nonshatterable glass in the windows on the bridge of Navy destroyers, and he said his impression or understanding was that that was the sort of glass that was used on the bridge of the Paulding, and he called attention to the fact that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to see out of that glass. Now the question arises as to whether that was the same kind of glass that was used on the bridge of the Paulding.

Senator GERRY. I would like to make a correction there. I do not think that Commander Hoover said it was very difficult or impossible to see out of that glass. That is not my recollection of the testimony. I may be wrong, I think he made the point that it was more opaque than ordinary glass; but on the face of it, you would not use glass on a destroyer that was opaque or very difficult to see through. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. He stated that it did not afford perfect vision. I may have overstated a little what he said..

Senator ODDIE. What kind of glass is used on the bridge of destroyers?

Commander BAYLIS. The glass that had been used by the Navy was taken out when I took over the destroyer in Philadelphia and was replaced by very heavy plain glass. That whole section of glass was removed and the old glass broken up, because it was full of flaws, and was discolored, and changed color at different angles, which made it very hard to see through.

Senator ODDIE. That makes the record clear on that point. Now, will you make your statement?

Commander BAYLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have no particular statement to make; but I thought that I was down here to help clear up any matters that may be in question by the committee.

Senator GERRY. I think the committee has covered the points. pretty thoroughly; only the Coast Guard made a request that you be allowed to come before the committee.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I had that in mind, with a view to clearing up certain things in the record.

Senator GERRY. I think you had better ask the witness questions on the points you want to clear up, and then we will get what you have in mind.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. All right. I would like to show the committee a photograph of the bridge of the Paulding. I am sure it will be of interest to them, because it has been specially designed so as to enable those on the bridge to keep a sharp lookout from the bridge itself [Exhibiting photographs to the committee.]

Commander BAYLIS. As far as I remember, the naval court seemed to infer that the bridge itself was so constructed that you did not have an unobstructed view. It is just an ordinary pilot house that you see on all Sound steamers and ferry boats, and things of that sort, with plain glass.

Senator GERRY. It is just the ordinary pilot house with a place on either side that is not covered, where you can put a man. The ends of the bridge are not covered by the pilot house. There is an open place there on each side.

Commander BAYLIS. There are open spaces on both wings on the bridge itself, and the other part is a very small area where some people have to get out to let the others in.

Senator ODDIE. Now you may proceed.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The following extract from your testimony before the naval court of inquiry was placed in the record before this committee. This is from page 150. [Reading:]

24. Q. Is there a lookout stationed on these days when you are on patrol? A. It is according to the conditions, if it is hazy or foggy we are required; that is, the law requires a lookout and also at night, a lookout is not required during the day.

25. Q. Was there a lookout assigned on this day as such? A. There was no lookout on this day assigned as such. I do not remember whether on this particular day we had been giving instructions to the men or not.

What did you mean when you said there was no lookout on this day assigned as such?

Commander BAYLIS. I meant there was not a man placed in the bow, as is ordinarily done at night and in thick weather. The watches are three to four men, and they were all on the bridge at this time. The lookout was kept from there, instead of stationing a man, as is frequently done, or as is done at night and in thick weather, on the bow.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Why do you station a lookout on the bow in thick weather or fog or at night?

Commander BAYLIS. The law requires a man to be stationed in the forward part of the ship in fog or thick weather to see under the fog or mist.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The testimony introduced by Commander Hoover of the Navy gives the impression that the lookouts on the Paulding were doing nothing but identifying vessels at the time of the collision. I want to clear that up. Were any vessels being identified at the time of the collision?

Commander BAYLIS. No, sir.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. How long before the collision occurred had a vessel been identified?

Commander BAYLIS. About six minutes-five or six minutes.. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. What was the last vessel identified before the accident occurred?

Commander BAYLIS. A fishing auxiliary schooner, the William Landry.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. How far from the point of the collision did that identification take place?

Commander BAYLIS. It was about 2 miles.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. When you were engaged in identifying the William Landry, was anyone maintaining a lookout ahead?

Commander BAYLIS. Yes; there were two or three keeping a lookout ahead.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. On page 151 of the typewritten transcript of the proceedings of this committee, you are quoted by Commander Hoover of the Navy Department as having stated before the naval court of inquiry that you spent 5 or 10 minutes in identifying the vessel. Is that correct?

Commander BAYLIS. That is an error. It may have been 5 or 10 seconds; just a passing glance, as you would probably observe

104672-28-20