T. BRITTEN. The laying of the barrage was not a creature of the Bureau of Ordnance but it came under Naval Operations? Admiral BENSON. Yes. The bureau developed the mines we used in the North Sea, and had it not developed the particular mine we used, I doubt if the barrage would have been successful. We had experts here from Great Britain and we had reports on mines that had been used. The Bureau of Ordnance did that. The bureau got up an entirely different proposition, and it made a great success of it. Mr. BRITTEN. The Captain Belknap's activity in the North Sea barrage was almost entirely under Admiral Strauss, who had general command. Admiral BENSON. After Admiral Strauss went over there; but the organization of the whole thing, the ships and the personnel to be employed, and other details concerning the sea part of it, is due to the work of Captain Belknap. Mr. BRITTEN. Nothing has been said in behalf of Admiral Strauss at this hearing and I want the record to show his part of the laying of the North Sea barrage. Mr. ANDREW. I have seen the statement made that there was some 13 excursions made for the laying of the mines and in all but 3 of them Captain Belknap was in command. Admiral BENSON. I could not testify as to those details. I hesitate to make a positive statement, and I do not want to raise a question between the relative work of two officers. I think both officers did very excellent work. Admiral Strauss never would have been over there if Captain Belknap had not worked out the details beforehand. Mr. BRITTEN. Is it not true also that he would not have been there if the Bureau of Ordnance had not worked out the construction of those mines? Admiral BENSON. That is quite true. Mrs. HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Britten desires that full hearing as given before the investigating committee, we have the book in which Admiral Strauss said he did not come into the work until after it had been planned by Captain Belknap. Mr. BRITTEN. That is satisfactory. Mrs. HOLLAND. As a result of that court-martial Captain Belknap suffered a loss of 10 numbers. After reviewing that court-martial the Judge Advocate General of the Navy said I am not and never have been of the opinion that Captain Belknap in giving an order of the nature and under the circumstances which he did was guilty of hazarding a vessel of the Navy. That comes from the highest legal authority of the Navy. Mr. DEAL. Would it be agreeable if Mrs. Holland attaches some papers to her statement? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that would be all right. Mr. VINSON. I move that the subcommittee report the bill back to the full committee favorably. (The motion carried unanimously.) The CHAIRMAN. If there is no further business before the committee, let us adjourn. (Thereupon, at 12.35 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned.) [No. 98] FOR THE RELIEF OF PAYMASTER CHARLES ROBERT O'LEARY, UNITED STATES NAVY (H. R. 15215) 00-O'Leary, Charles R/P17-2(261216) NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 1, 1927. L The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying further to the committee's letter of December 16, 1926, transmitting the bill (H. R. 15215) for the relief of Paymaster Charles Robert O'Leary, United States Navy, 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 is to provide that hereafter Paymaster Charles Robert O'Leary (Supply Corps), United States Navy, shall be regarded as having been promoted to a pay inspector in the United States Navy on January 11, 1918, with rank as such immediately after Pay Inspector Herbert Elliott Stevens (Supply Corps), United States Navy. The records of the Navy Department show that Charles R. O'Leary was appointed an assistant paymaster in the Navy with the rank of ensign to date from September 18, 1899. He was promoted in course through the various ranks up to and including the rank of lieutenant commander, which rank he attained under date of February 20, 1910. On August 31, 1917, prior to the application of promotion by selection to the staff corps of the Navy, he was temporarily promoted in the order of seniority to the grade of pay inspector with the rank of commander. Such temporary appointment was terminated under date of December 31, 1921, by operation of the Act of Congress approved June 4, 1920 (41 Stat. 834), which required the termination. of all temporary appointments on December 31, 1921. On that date Lieutenant Commander O'Leary (Supply Corps) reverted to his permanent rank of lieutenant commander and has served continuously as such since that date. The act of July 1, 1918 (40 Stat. 718), extended the provisions of promotion by selection to the staff corps of the Navy under the same conditions as those provided for the promotion of line officers by the act of August 29, 1916 (39 Stat. 578). Under the selection law promotions to the ranks of rear admiral, captain, and commander are made from among those officers recommended by duly constituted boards appointed by the Secretary of the Navy, and the recommendations of the board must, under the law, be based on fitness alone. The record of Lieutenant Commander O'Leary (Supply Corps) has been placed before four regularly constituted boards on selection for permanent promotion since July 1, 1918, and on every occasion the board has failed to recommend him for promotion. In addition, he failed of selection on the one occasion when his record was con(635) 20038-27-No. 98 sidered, among others, for temporary promotion to the rank of captain. In each case officers junior to him were selected for advance ment. The case of Lieutenant Commander O'Leary (Supply Corps) is similar to that of many other officers who, while eligible for promotion through length of service, have not been selected for advancement by the duly appointed boards in accordance with the laws governing selection in the higher grades of the Navy. The enactment of the bill H. R. 15215 will result in no additional cost to the Government. In view of the foregoing and for the further reasons that the proposed legislation is not for the general good of the naval service and would encourage others to seek similar legislation, the Navy Department recommends that this bill be not enacted. Sincerely yours, CURTIS D. WILBUR, A BILL For the relief of Paymaster Charles Robert O'Leary, United States Navy Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That hereafter Paymaster Charles Robert O'Leary, United States Navy, shall be regarded as having been promoted to a pay inspector in the United States Navy on the 11th day of January, 1918, with rank as such immediately after Pay Inspector Herbert Elliott Stevens, United States Navy: Provided, That said Paymaster Charles Robert O'Leary shall establish to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Navy, by examination, his mental, moral, physical, and professional qualifications to perform all the duties of said grade: Provided further, That nothing herein shall be construed to entitle Paymaster Charles Robert O'Leary, United States Navy, to any back pay, allowance, or other emoluments in this permanent rank. TO AUTHORIZE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ONE-SIXTH MILLION CUBIC FEET LIGHTER-THAN-AIR SHIP (H. R. 13458) ZZ/F1(261211)L NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 1, 1927. The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Referring to the bill (H. R. 13458) to authorize plans and specifications for one-sixth million cubic feet lighter-than-air ship, which is now pending before your committee, I have the honor to advise you as follows: The purpose of this proposed legislation appears to be to assist the Navy Department in making a start on the rigid airships authorized by the act approved June 24, 1926 (44 Stat. 764). However, the inclosed bill appears to be defective in wording and not entirely clear as to its purpose. "One-sixth million cubic feet lighter-than-air ship" is evidently an error and would better read "A rigid airship of approximately 6,000,000 cubic feet capacity. It is not clear from the wording whether the bill involves an appropriation of $250,000 or whether it merely authorizes the Navy Department to spend for plans and specifications $250,000 out of any funds which may be included in the appropriation act for the fiscal year 1928. Viewed merely from the standpoint of obtaining plans and specifications, the Navy Department considers this proposed legislation to be unnecessary. The Bureau of Aeronautics has, within the limitations of appropriations now available and about to become available, already taken steps toward procuring preliminary or "contract" plans and specifications for the contemplated rigid airships. Development from these plans and specifications can best come after construction of the airships has actually commenced. Furthermore, it appears that the appropriation bill (H. R. 15641) as passed by the House of Representatives January 7, 1927 (p. 42) for the fiscal year 1928 carries an appropriation of $200,000 toward the construction of one of the rigid airships authorized in Public Act No. 422, Sixty-ninth Congress, approved June 24, 1926. The proposed legislation was referred to the Bureau of the Budget with the above information and information to the effect that the Navy Department contemplated making an unfavorable recommendation thereon, and under date of January 17, 1927, the Navy Department was informed that this report would not be in conflict with the financial program of the President. In view of the foregoing, the Navy Department recommends that the bill H. R. 13458 be not enacted. Sincerely yours, CURTIS D. WILBUR, A BILL To authorize plans and specifications for one-sixth million cubic feet lighter-than-air ship Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Navy is authorized to enter into a contract to provide plans and specifications for one-sixth million cubic feet lighter-than-air ship at a cost of not to exceed $250,000, to become available immediately, chargeable to the appropriation provided in the Navy Department and Naval Establishment appropriation act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1928, for continuing experiments and development work on all types of aircraft, on such terms and subject to such restrictions as he may deem proper. 20038-27-No. 99 (637) |