Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

[No. 125]

A HEARING ON THE BILL (H. R. 16580) TO AUTHORIZE THE SEC-
RETARY OF THE NAVY TO DECLARE THE NAVAL DISPENSARY
AT THE UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO,
CUBA, TO BE A NAVAL HOSPITAL, AND FOR OTHER PUR-
POSES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,
Wednesday, February 2, 1927.

The committee this day met, Hon. Thomas S. Butler (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. We will next take up H. R. 16580, on which Admiral Stitt desires to be heard.

(The bill under consideration is as follows:)

IH. R. 16580, Sixty-ninth Congress, second session]

A BILL To authorize the Secretary of the Navy to declare the naval dispensary at the United States Naval Station, Guantanamo, Cuba, to be a naval hospital, and for other purposes

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 hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare the naval dispensary at the United States Naval Station, Guantanamo, Cuba, to be a naval hospital, and to make the necessary alterations, extensions, and additions to the said dispensary buildings in order to enlarge and adapt them for a hospital of approximately fifty patients, at a total cost of not to exceed $50,000.

STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL E. R. STITT, SURGEON general OF THE NAVY

Admiral STITT. At Guantanamo we have a naval dispensary, which has certain buildings for the care of the sick, certain buildings for a mess hall for the enlisted personnel barracks, a small house for the female nurses, and two houses for the medical officers. This, however, is a naval dispensary, and to add to the size of this plant would require money. The Bureau of Yards and Docks, of course, would be responsible for the providing of that money if it was continued as a naval dispensary; but we are asking an authorization for the Secretary to change this from a naval dispensary to a naval hospital. The dispensary buildings have about 10 beds for medical patients and about 5 beds for surgical patients that are inclosed. There is a larger ward for venereal patients, but really for medical and surgical patients there are only about 16 beds inside the building. They can put people outside on the verandas provided the weather is good, so that they can run up to 40 patients, as they have done; but you can not count on the weather. Now, to meet this condition we have to spend about $50,000 in adding another two-story building, which would contain ward space sufficient to handle about 50 patients. The present dispensary will answer for the needs of Guantanamo station, but when the Scouting Fleet or any other fleet is in Guantanamo, unless they are accompanied by a hospital ship, the provision is (701)

20038-27-No. 125

entirely inadequate. If we provide a naval hospital with about 50 beds it would enable the department, when only the Scouting Fleet is concerned, to do away with the hospital ship and the attendant cost of the hospital ship.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. Do we own the land where the present facilities are located?

Admiral STITT. I understand it is a 999-year lease.
The CHAIRMAN. It is a long lease.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. How many men are stationed there?

Admiral STITT. The marines generally have an expeditionary force of about 500; then there are about 400 on the station besides, so that there are approximately 1,000. There is sufficient bed space for the needs of the station alone, but not for the scouting fleet. Mr. MCCLINTIC. Do you have one or two hospital ships? Admiral STITT. Two hospital ships.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. Is not one hospital ship always kept on the Atlantic coast and one on the Pacific coast?

Admiral STITT. At the present time; but the idea is to place in reserve the Mercy, which is with the Scouting Fleet, in Guantanamo. Mr. MCCLINTIC. I am in favor of giving all the facilities they need, but is it not true that we always have a hospital ship with our fleet when we have maneuvers around Guantanamo?

Admiral STITT. They expect to put the Mercy in reserve and save the personnel and the cost of operating the ship.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. Do you mean by that, that we will have our fleet. maneuvers without any hospital ship?

Admiral STITT. When they are just with the Scouting Fleet alone, yes; but of course, when the two fleets come together, then the Relief, which is our largest hospital ship, will be there.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. Then why assume a position that brings about the disuse of a ship that is necessary?

Admiral STITT. It is entirely a matter of economy.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. Why is it not best always, whenever we have a fleet maneuver, to have all those things which would be necessary in case of war? Why is it not necessary to have this hospital ship with every fleet maneuver, in order to give the nurses practical experience, and give the doctors on board ship the kind of training that they ought to have in transferring patients; just as when they send the fleet to foreign countries they carry a hospital ship along, and patients are transferred over to the hospital ship at sea? Why is it not more efficient on the part of the Navy, regardless of whether it costs more, to have the hospital ship accompany the maneuvers? Admiral STITT. It is better to have the hospital ship, but there are times when the hospital ship must go back to Norfolk or Philadelphia, to evacuate patients from the fleet, and that would be about two weeks' absence.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. Why is it necessary to be away?

Admiral STITT. To evacuate patients.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. Could they be sent in the sick bay of some other ship?

Admiral STITT. Yes, sir.

Mr. VINSON. Then some other ship would have to go.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. But the hospital ship is fully equipped with beds and physicians.

Admiral STITT. The Mercy would be in reserve, so that in two weeks they could put abroad the complement and send it down to Guantanamo, if there was any need. That has been the policy of the Office of Operations.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, it provides a roof over the heads of the sick men?

Admiral STITT. That is it, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And when weather is favorable they can be taken out under the blue sky, but if it is unfavorable there is no place to put them in except where conditions are crowded; and this will give you the relief you desire?

Admiral STITT. Yes, sir. Now, Admiral McVeagh, the Budget officer, says that we will save $200,000 by putting the No. 2 hospital ship that is, the Mercy-in reserve.

Mr. VINSON. The Budget is going to put it out of commission? Admiral STITT. How is that?

Mr. VINSON. You say Admiral McVeagh, the budget officer, insists that the Mercy be put in reserve or out of commission? Admiral STITT. No, sir, but if there is some way in which we can provide adequately for the sick of the scouting fleet, as provided in this bill, without the hospital ship, it was thought that that would be the measure of economy.

Mr. VINSON. But you are driven to ask for $50,000 on account of the policy of the Budget in putting the Mercy out of commission, or in reserve for the time being?

Admiral STITT. Yes; if the Mercy was there, we would not need this.

Mr. BRITTEN. That is only one of the reasons, Admiral?
Admiral STITT. Only one of the reasons, yes, sir.

Mr. BRITTEN. This hospital will provide means for putting the Mercy in reserve and save probably $200,000 a year, and the Mercy might need extensive repairing.

move that the bill be favorably reported.

(The question was put, and the bill was ordered favorably reported. Thereupon the committee proceeded to the consideration of other business.)

[ocr errors]

[No. 126]

A HEARING ON THE BILL (H. R. 12813) FOR THE RELIEF OF THE BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION (LTD.)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,
Wednesday, February 2, 1927.

The committee this day met, Hon. Thomas S. Butler (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now take up for consideration the bill H. R. 12813, and we will hear from Mr. Neagle, the solicitor of the Judge Advocate General's office.

(The bill under consideration follows:)

[H. R. 12813, Sixty-ninth Congress, first session]

A BILL For the relief of the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress in Congress assembled, That the Comptroller General of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to adjust and settle the claim of the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited, on account of a judgment rendered in the case of the West and Dodge Company versus The Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited, in the United States District Court at Boston, Massachusetts, which claim grew out of the contract of December 6, 1917, between the Secretary of the Navy and said corporation for the construction of torpedo-boat destroyers.

STATEMENT OF PICKENS NEAGLE, SOLICITOR, OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY

Mr. NEAGLE. In December, 1917, the department made a contract with the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation for building 40 destroyers, and the contract contained a provision that orders for material placed with subcontractors should be approved by the compensation board. The ships were to burn oil for fuel, and the subcontractors placed with a company in Boston, the West & Dodge Co., the order for the burners. The compensation board approved the placing of the order but did not approve the price immediately and had the work go ahead, so that the vessels would not be delayed. The work proceeded, and after a while a representative of the board at Quincy, where the shipbuilding company had a plant, approved the price. The material was all delivered and all of the price paid except for five ships, about $16,100. Then the compensation board received information that convinced it that the price approved for the subcontractor was too high, and it revoked that price and fixed another price, a lower price, and ordered the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation not to make any more payments to the subcontractor. The subcontractor brought suit against the Bethlehem Corporation to recover the withheld amount. It was a cost-plus contract, and the department was obligated to pay the costs that the Bethlehem Corporation incurred. In the action that was brought it was maintained that the subcontractor must look to the contractor and not

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »