Commander JOHNSON. No, sir; I have no knowledge of this particular case.

Mr. MAGEE. Does it make any difference with regard to the effect of the powder whether the gun is exploded against or within an inch of the wound, or a foot or, say, 3 feet away?

Commander JOHNSON. Yes, sir; if the gun were held over 2 inches away, and up to possibly 15 or 18 inches away, there probably would be some powder marks and considerable branding, the branding being due to the burning of the tissues by the hot gases.

Mr. MAGEE. That would be the effect up to 18 inches?

Commander JOHNSON. Yes, sir; and possibly beyond that. Nobody could say definitely without experimenting with an individual gun and with an exactly similar cartridge. The cheaper guns are poorly made, the joints are not tight, and much of the gases leak out. They might not produce branding at such a great distance. Mr. MAGEE. Are you familiar with the type of gun used in this case?

Commander JOHNSON. No, sir; I do not know exactly the type of gun that was used.

Mr. MAGEE. The testimony shows it was a service gun. That is not one of the cheap guns?

Commander JOHNSON. No, sir; that is the highest type of gun, and with that gun, you would expect an almost complete combustion of the powder. There would be few powder marks left.

(On motion of Mr. Drane, the following recommendation of the subcommittee to the full committee was unanimously adopted:)

It is recommended by the subcommittee that testimony has been produced that would bring this case within the present rule or policy of the Navy Department, as set forth before the committee, regarding the occurrence of death in line of duty.

It is further recommended by the subcommittee that the bill (H. R. 9255) to correct the naval record of John Lewis Burns, be reported favorably.

(Thereupon the subcommittee adjourned.)

[No. 163]

TO CORRECT THE HOSPITAL RECORD OF ROBERT MCFARLAND (H. R. 16602)

MM-McFarland, Robert/P3-5(1) (270124) L.

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, March 6, 1927.

The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying further to the committee's letter of January 24, 1927, transmitting the bill (H. R. 16602) to correct the hospital record of Robert McFarland, 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, as set forth in the bill, is to correct the hospital record at the naval hospital, Pinkney, Tenn., of Robert McFarland, formerly a seaman in the United States Navy, so as to cause said hospital record to conform to the facts as to the disabilities for which said sailor was discharged.

The records of the Navy Department show that Robert McFarland enlisted in the Navy on February 13, 1863, at Cincinnati, Ohio, for two years, as seaman; that he served on the Tuscumbia and in the naval hospital, Memphis, Tenn., until September 9, 1863, when he was discharged on account of medical survey. His medical history is as follows:

Naval Hospital, Pinkney, Tenn. Admitted August 7, 1863. Diarrhea chronica. Hospital ticket dated U. S. S. Tuscumbia, August 4, 1863, states: "Was placed on sick list July 21, 1863, affected with chronic diarrhea. After his recovery, complained of severe cough which, he said, had troubled him for two years. Upon examination detected disease of lungs of a tuberculous character. There is no evidence that the disease originated in the line of duty." Discharged September 9, 1863, for discharge from service by medical survey. Disease, phthisis. The disease did not originate in the line of duty.

There appears to be no reason to doubt the accuracy of the hospital record as to the facts as to the disabilities for which McFarland was discharged. The Navy Department has no knowledge of the supposed facts that are to be substituted in any correction of McFarland's record.

The proposed legislation, if enacted, will result in no additional charge against the appropriations under the cognizance of the Navy Department, but it might result in a pension charge.

The bill H. R. 16602 was referred to the Bureau of the Budget with the above information and a statement that the Navy Department contemplated making an unfavorable recommendation thereon, and under date of February 28, 1927, the Navy Department was advised that its proposed report would not be in conflict with the financial program of the President.

In view of the foregoing and for the further reason that there is no evidence that the hospital record of McFarland is in error, the Navy Department recommends that the bill H. R. 16602 be not enacted.

Sincerely yours,

CURTIS D. WILBUR,
Secretary of the Nary.

[H. R. 16602, Sixty-ninth Congress, second session]

A BILL To correct the hospital record of Robert McFarland

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 be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to correct the hospital record at the naval hospital, Pinkney, Tennessee, of Robert McFarland, formerly a seaman in the United States Navy, so as to cause said hospital record to conform to the facts as to the disabilities for which said sailor was discharged.

EN22/EC11 (270315).

[No. 164]

HYDROGRAPHIC OFFICE

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, March 15, 1927.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN BUTLER: Another of the oft-recurring efforts to take the Hydrographic Office away from the Navy Department has just been brought to my attention and it may be found in print in the appendix to the Congressional Record of the Sixtyninth Congress, second session, dated Wednesday, March 9, 1927, volume 68, No. 72, page 5770 et seq. Therein the committee on organization of Federal public works on pages 5771 and 5781 recommend that the Hydrographic Office be not transferred to the proposed department of public works and domain. On the latter page, however, the committee saw fit to suggest the consolidation of the Hydrographic Office with the Department of Commerce and state that other studies have also thus recommended. This statement is misleading in that it makes no mention of what studies have so recommended and further fails to mention those studies which have recommended that the Hydrographic Office remain in the Navy Department.

The "careful thought" given to the Hydrographic Office, as stated on page 5781, for comparing and uniting it with the Coast and Geodetic Survey, Department of Commerce, was conducted without giving the Hydrographic Office a hearing or representatives before the committee named on page 5776; it is therefore felt that the committee's conclusions were drawn from incomplete premises.

In the report mention is made of the number of employees in the Coast and Geodetic Survey as compared to the number of employees in the Hydrographic Office, but again the premises are faulty, as no mention is made of the thousands of observers for the Hydrographic Office in the merchant marine and the hundreds of naval personnel employed on its surveys.

This committee's report emphasizes the work of the Coast and Geodetic Survey and limits the Hydrographic Office functions to those comparable to that of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. No mention is made of the paramount need of the Navy for a complete hydrographic function under its own jurisdiction for service to the fleet throughout the world under all conceivable circumstances.

The Secretary of the Navy, under the President of the United States, is responsible for the readiness of the Navy for war. If the Hydrographic Office is taken from his control, he will be dependent upon the good will of another department for the supply of charts, publications, and information without which he can not move in safety a single vessel. It is certainly a poor form of organization (885)

20038-27-No. 164