FOR THE RELIEF OF JOHN THOMAS LONERGAN (H. R. 13890)

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, June 20, 1928.

The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying further to the committee's letter of May 21, 1928, transmitting the bill (H. R. 13890) for the relief of John Thomas Lonergan, and requesting the views and recommendations of the Navy Department thereon, I have the honor to advise you as follows:

The purpose of this bill is to provide that in the administration of the pension laws or of any laws conferring rights, privileges, or benefits upon honorably discharged soldiers and sailors, John Thomas Lonergan shall be held and considered to have been honorably discharged from the naval service as a seaman, second class.

The records of the Navy Department show that the above-named man was born on October 10, 1902. On May 10, 1921, he enlisted in the Navy to serve for a period of four years and served until June 28, 1922, when he was given a bad-conduct discharge. During Lonergan's service he committed a number of offenses, such as failing to report to any other command immediately after missing the sailing of the Benham. He surrendered at the receiving barracks, Philadelphia, Pa., on November 23, 1921. For this offense he was tried by summary court-martial, sentenced to be confined in solitary confinement on bread and water with a full ration every third day for a period of 30 days and to lose $144 of his pay. Lonergan went over leave from 8 a. m., May 8, 1922, until May 31, 1922, when he surrendered himself at the receiving barracks, navy yard, Philadelphia, Pa. For this offense he was tried by summary court-martial, sentenced to lose $144 of his pay, and to be discharged from the naval service with a bad-conduct discharge. The loss of pay was reduced to $15. Lonergan's bad-conduct discharge was actually effected on June 28, 1922. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is believed that Lonergan was rightly and duly convicted of these offenses and properly discharged.

As one of the penalties of this discharge Lonergan is debarred from the rights, privileges, and benefits conferred by law upon honorably discharged sailors. Any legislation, such as this bill, restoring these rights, privileges, and benefits to a man given a bad-conduct discharge for his offense, is a partial revocation of the penalties of the discharge, and by the accumulation of cases in which such remission is accomplished by acts of Congress tends to weaken the force of the subsequent bad-conduct discharges.

The bill (H. R. 13890), if enacted, will result in no additional cost to the Navy, but it is probable that a pension charge will be involved now or in the future.

The bill (H. R. 13890) was referred to the Bureau of the Budget with the above information as to cost and a statement that the Navy Department contemplated making an unfavorable recommendation thereon. Under date of June 13, 1928, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget advised the Navy Department that this proposed unfavorable recommendation is not in conflict with the financial program of the President.

In view of the foregoing, the Navy Department recommends against the enactment of the bill (H. R. 13890).

Sincerely yours,

CURTIS D. WILBUR,
Secretary of the Navy.

A BILL For the relief of John Thomas Lonergan

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in the administration of the pension laws or of any laws conferring rights, privileges, or benefits upon honorably discharged soldiers and sailors, John Thomas Lonergan shall hereafter be held and considered to have been honorably discharged from the naval service of the United States, as a seaman, second class: Provided, That no pension shall accrue prior to the passage of this act.

О

FOR THE RELIEF OF THE LEADER OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY BAND AND THE LEADER OF THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS BAND, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (H. R. 13741)

ML13/P17-1(280515)L..

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, June 20, 1928.

The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying further to the committee's retter of May 15, 1928, transmitting the bill (H. R. 13741) for the oelief of the leader of the United States Navy Band and the leader f the United States Marine Corps Band, and for other purposes, and requesting the views and recommendations of the Navy Department thereon, I have the honor to advise you as follows:

The purpose of this bill provides that the leader of the Navy Band shall be commissioned a lieutenant in the Navy, and that the leader of the Marine Corps Band shall be commissioned a captain in the Marine Corps, and that they shall be eligible for retirement under the same conditions as other commissioned officers.

The Navy Department is of the opinion that it is not advisable to commission the band leaders while on the active list. The President's message vetoing Senate bill 750 is particularly appropriate to this case, "There is no requirement in the military service for leaders of bands to be given a commissioned status."

Under the act of June 10, 1922 (U. S. C., title 37, sec. 5) the pay of those persons not officers but whose pay is equivalent to that of a captain in the Army is that of the third pay period. This law governs the pay of the band leaders.

Should the proposed legislation be enacted and the leaders of the United States Navy Band and the United States Marine Corps Band be commissioned a lieutenant in the Navy and a captain in the Marine Corps, respectively, they would receive the pay of the fourth pay period on account of their length of service. This would result in an increased cost to the Government of $1,269 per annum for the leader of the United States Navy Band and of $1,359 per annum for the leader of the United States Marine Corps Band.

The bill (H. R. 13741) was referred to the Bureau of the Budget with the above information as to cost and a statement that the Navy Department contemplated making an unfavorable recommendation thereon. Under date of June 13, 1928, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget advised the Navy Department that this proposed unfavorable recommendation is not in conflict with the financial program of the President.

In view of the foregoing, the Navy Department recommends against the enactment of the bill (H. R. 13741).

Sincerely yours,

CURTIS D. WILBUR,
Secretary of the Navy.

2197-28-No. 9

(19)

A BILL For the relief of the leader of the United States Navy Band and the leader of the United States Marine Corps Band, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That hereafter the leader of the United States Navy Band shall be commissioned a lieutenant in the United States Navy, and placed at the foot of the list of that grade; and that the leader of the United States Marine Corps Band shall be commissioned a captain in the United States Marine Corps, and placed at the foot of the list of that grade: Provided, That they shall not be eligible to promotion to the next higher grade, but shall remain at the foot of the list of their respective grades: Provided further, That they shall be eligible for retirement under the same conditions as other commissioned officers of the Regular Navy and Marine Corps, respectively; and they shall be entitled to count all enlisted service as well as service as warrant and commissioned officers for the purposes of pay, and shall be entitled to all the other privileges and allowances of commissioned officers of the naval service: And provided further, That they shall not suffer any loss of pay under the provisions of this act.

О

MY DEAR MR. BRITTEN: In the matter of H. R. 9352, Seventieth Congress, first session, entitled "A bill providing for sundry matters affecting the naval service," now pending before the House Committee on Naval Affairs, and which authorizes and directs the General Accounting Office to credit certain items in the accounts of certain disbursing officers of the United States Navy, I have to call your attention to the following matters in regard thereto:

Section 1: The item covered by this section was credited in the accounts of Lieutenant Commander Huff in settlement No. M-23535-N, dated December 12, 1927.

Section 2: The reason for the disallowance of the item covered by this section is the same as that for the item in the preceding section, and direction will be made to credit this item in the accounts of Lieutenant Snead.

Sections 4 and 6: The items covered by these sections were included in sections 1 and 2 of Private Act No. 123, approved May 14, 1928. Section 10: The item covered by this section is being credited according to my direction of November 7, 1927.

Section 11: The items covered by this section will be allowed under the provisions of the acts of March 4, 1925 (43 Stat. 1270), and July 3, 1926 (44 Stat. 815).

It thus appears that sections 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, and 11 are unnecessary, and it is suggested that these sections be eliminated from the bill. Section 9 provides:

That the General Accounting Office is hereby authorized and directed to credit the accounts of Captain P. J. Willett, Supply Corps, United States Navy, in the amount of $250, which amount represents payments made by Lieutenant Commander Willett, Supply Corps, during the period from March 16, 1914, to August 8, 1914, at the naval station, Hawaii, on account of a laborer who was fraudulently carried on the yard rolls during said period, which payment was subsequently disallowed by the Comptroller General.

This item represents payments made by Captain Willett on forged pay receipts amounting to $250 which amount was disallowed. There has since been recovered from him in claims settlement for refund of taxes illegally collected $201.89, which has been applied to this indebtedness, thus leaving the balance now outstanding $48.11. If it is intended that the accounts of Captain Willett be credited the full amount of the original disallowance instead of the amount now outstanding and that he be paid the amount collected from him, it is suggested that this intention be expressly stated by amending the (21)

2197-28-No. 10