A HEARING ON H. R. 13658, A BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF HUGH ANTHONY MCGUIGAN

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

Tuesday, January 8, 1929.

The subcommittee this day met at 11.15 o'clock a. m., Hon. Clark Burdick (chairman) presiding.

Mr. BURDICK. The next bill for consideration this morning is H. R. 13658, for the relief of Hugh Anthony McGuigan. The clerk will read the bill and the report thereon by the Navy Department. (The clerk read as follows:)

[H. R. 13658, Seventieth Congress, first session]

A BILL For the relief of Hugh Anthony McGuigan

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States is hereby authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $313 to Hugh Anthony McGuigan, formerly a fireman, United States Navy, for expense of medical attendance and hospital treatment incurred while he was on furlough from the United States ship Cleveland.

[No. 15]

FOR THE RELIEF OF ANTHONY MCGUIGAN (H. R. 13658)

NAVY DEPARTMENT,

Washington, November 26, 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 11, 1928, transmitting the bill (H. R. 13658) for the relief of Hugh Anthony McGuigan 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 authorize and direct the Secretary of the Treasury to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $313 to Hugh Anthony McGuigan, formerly a fireman, United States Navy, for expense of medical attendance and hospital treatment incurred while he was on furlough from the U. S. S. Cleveland.

The records of the Navy Department show that Hugh Anthony McGuigan was on furlough from the U. S. S. Cleveland, granted for a period of 30 days, and that during the time he was on this furlough he was injured in an automobile accident at Manchester, N. H., and that he was taken to Elliott Hospital in that city, where he was confined for nearly a month, incurring expenses that appear from the correspondence on file to have amounted to $213.

In view of the fact that an enlisted man on leave of absence or furlough is not entitled to medical treatment at Government expense (19 Comp. Dec. 382), the claim presented to the Navy Department by McGuigan for reimbursement for such hospital expenses was disapproved.

The Navy Department referred the bill H. R. 13658 to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget with the above information and a statement to the effect that as it is understood that the injury to McGuigan has apparently incapacitated him for hard work, the Navy Department contemplates recommending that the bill be enacted if the amount named in the bill-namely $313-is changed to $213. Under date of September 13, 1928, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget advised the Navy Department that this proposed report is not in conflict with the financial program of the President.

In view of the foregoing, the Navy Department recommends that the bil H. R. 13658 be enacted, provided that the amount named in the bill-namely, $313-be changed to $213.

Sincerely yours,

CURTIS D. WILBUR,

Secretary of the Nary.

Mr. BURDICK. This is Mr. Hale's bill.

Mr. HALE. This bill is recommended by the Navy Department with an amendment as to the amount. The insertion of the sum of

$313 rather than $213 was probably a clerical error. Mr. VINSON. Commander Wilkinson, what is the status of an enlisted man on furlough?

Commander WILKINSON. He receives his full pay, but if he is entitled to special allowances such as for quarters he does not get that. There is a specific statute prohibiting the payment of hospital expense to officers while not on a duty status. There is no such specific statute covering enlisted men, but the Comptroller General has ruled that the enlisted men of the Army and the Navy are not entitled to such treatment while on furlough.

Mr. VINSON. Has the Navy Department any jurisdiction over an enlisted man while he is on furlough?

Commander WILKINSON. It has full jurisdiction over him at such a time. He may be recalled from his leave and he may be tried by court-martial for offenses committed while on leave. However, for civil offenses the men are usually tried by civil courts. That is because the witnesses are usually available at the place the offense was committed.

Mr. VINSON. The Navy may have jurisdiction over a man while he is on furlough, but it does not exercise its prerogative over any man while on furlough, does it?

Commander WILKINSON. Not unless a minor offense is involved and the Navy can protect the man by bringing him back to naval jurisdiction and trying him by court-martial rather than have him tried by civil courts and sent to jail for a minor offense.

Mr. VINSON. At the time McGuigan was injured he was in a pay

status?

Commander WILKINSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. VINSON. If this accident had happened while the man was on duty he would have been sent to a Government hospital, would he not? Commander WILKINSON. Yes.

Mr. VINSON. If the Navy had jurisdiction over this man while he was injured, why not pay this bill?

Commander WILKINSON. The bill would pay it. He was injured at Manchester, N. H., and, obviously, we could not take a naval hospital to Manchester and the injured man could not be moved to a naval hospital.

Mr. VINSON. If the Navy had jurisdiction over the man while he was on furlough, it seems to me that this is an obligation of the Government and this bill should be paid.

Commander WILKINSON. The department is recommending that the Government bear the expense involved.

Mr. VINSON. Then I move that the bill be favorably reported, in accordance with the recommendation of the department. Mr. BURDICK. Without objection, it is so ordered.

A HEARING ON H. R. 3162, A BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF ROBERT BRYAN SOMERVILLE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

Tuesday, January 8, 1929.

The subcommittee this day met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Clark Burdick (chairman) presiding.

Mr. BURDICK. The first bill for consideration this morning is H. R. 3162, for the relief of Robert Bryan Somerville. The clerk will read the bill and a report thereon by the Navy Department. (The clerk read as follows:)

[H. R. 3162, Seventieth Congress, first session]

A BILL For the relief of Robert Bryan Somerville

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in the administration of any laws conferring rights, privileges, or benefits upon honorably discharged soldiers Robert Bryan Somerville who served in the United States Navy from April 23, 1921, to January 9, 1922, shall hereafter be held and considered to have been honorably discharged from the naval service of the United States.

[No. 88]

FOR THE RELIEF OF ROBERT BRYAN SOMERVILLE (H. R. 3162)

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, December 31, 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 December 8, 1927, transmitting the bill (H. R. 3162) for the relief of Robert Bryan Somerville, and requesting the views and recommendations of the Navy Department thereon, I have the honor to advise you as follows:

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to provide that in the administration of any laws conferring rights, privileges, or benefits upon honorably discharged soldiers, Robert Bryan Somerville, who served in the United States Navy from April 23, 1921, to January 9, 1922, shall be held to have been honorably discharged from the naval service.

The records of the Navy Department show that the above-named man enlisted in the Navy at Little Rock, Ark., on April 23, 1921, to serve for a period of four years. During this period of enlistment his record was clear until September 9, 1921, when he was declared a deserter. He was returned to naval jurisdiction, tried by summary court-martial and sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge. The bad-conduct discharge was executed on January 9, 1922.

The bill is objectionable in that, if enacted, Somerville will be considered as having been honorably discharged, when as a matter of fact he was discharged on January 9, 1922, with a bad-conduct discharge. It seems to the Navy Ďepartment manifestly unfair and detrimental to the best interests of naval discipline to place a man who through his own misconduct has brought about his bad-conduct discharge on a parity, as far as the benefits of an honorable discharge are concerned, with a man whose service has been honorable.

The bill H. R. 3162 was referred to the Bureau of the Budget with the information that the proposed legislation will not involve any charge against the appro

priations under the cognizance of the Navy Department but, if enacted, the bill would probably place Somerville in a pensionable status, and that the Navy Department contemplated recommending disapproval of the bill. Under date of December 22, 1927, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget advised the Navy Department that this bill was in conflict with the financial program of the President.

In view of the foregoing, the Navy Department recommends that the bill H. R. 3162 be not enacted.

Sincerely yours,

Mr. BURDICK. Let us now hear Mr. Carter.

CURTIS D. WILBUR,
Secretary of the Nary.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT E. CARTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. CARTER. The facts in this case, as I have them, are these: Somerville enlisted in the Navy on April 23, 1921, for four years. At the time of his enlistment he was told by the recruiting officer that he would be privileged to study marine engineering. He entered the Navy with that understanding and purpose, because he very much desired to study marine engineering.

After serving about four months of his enlistment he applied for this schooling and it was not granted him. This, it seems, discouraged him and worried him to such an extent that it adversely affected his health, especially because it was his earnest desire to learn marine engineering that caused him to enlist. He was granted leave of absence and while in that status he became discouraged and overstayed his leave, for which he was court-martialed and discharged the service. After he had left the naval service and had time to think over his act he, as I am informed, returned to naval jurisdiction. However, the length of his absence was such as to cause him to be marked as a deserter. I do not know just how many days he was absent. Somerville was as a result of his court-martial granted a bad-conduct discharge.

During the time he was in the Navy, according to the report of the Secretary of the Navy, his record was clear up to the time he left without leave. While in the service he was made orderly to the chief petty officer.

I am informed that when he was read off at Pensacola, Fla., he was sent to San Francisco unaccompanied by a guard to be discharged, as the naval authorities had faith in his character and word, and that while at Goat Island he was allowed to go about unaccompanied.

Again, I am advised that while in the naval service Mr. Somerville was commended for bravery exhibited in attempting to rescue a boy who was drowning and Somerville went under twice in an endeavor to save the boy's life.

This is, as it seems to me, the case of a young man enlisting in the service of his country with the idea of gaining a knowledge of marine engineering and when that opportunity, which was promised him before enlistment, was denied him he became despondent and while in that condition he deserted.

I know Somerville and members of his family. I have here [indicating] this morning several communications from my worthy constituents concerning the character and reputation of Somerville. I

shall, with the permission of the committee, place these letters in the record of proceedings.

Mr. BURDICK. Very well. How old is this man?

Mr. CARTER. I think he is about 28 years old. I will freely admit that he is a man who should have known better than do what he did. Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Carter, you do not think that we should encourage such conduct by clearing the record of one who is guilty of such conduct?

Mr. CARTER. I do not think you should do so unless there are extenuating circumstances.

Mr. VINSON. Tell us the extenuating circumstances in this case. Mr. CARTER. Somerville entered the Navy because he desired to learn marine engineering, which opportunity was promised him by the naval authorities, and after he entered the service he was denied the opportunity.

Mr. VINSON. But he could have received that desired training if he had remained in the service long enough. Every boy who enters the service has opportunity to learn a useful trade in due course. Somerville was in the service only six months when he deserted.

Mr. CARTER. It is true that he was not in the service very long; but he applied for this marine engineering work and it was not granted him.

Mr. VINSON. He had hardly gotten out of the training station. before he deserted.

Mr. CARTER. It is true that he had not been in the service a great length of time before he left. He evidently had been in the service long enough to learn that he was not going to be given that which had been promised him before he enlisted, and he became discouraged. I do not know for what period a recruit is held at a training station, although I have a naval training station in my district at Goat Island. However, my impression is that recruits are kept at a training station for only a few weeks before they are sent to duty.

Mr. DRANE. My experience tells me that a prospect can get any promise he desires from the average recruiting officer.

Mr. CARTER. I have no knowledge as to that; but I do know that in this particular case Somerville thought he was never to obtain that which he had been promised, and by reason of that conclusion he took this means, a very unfortunate means, to get out of the service. The course he took is regretable, but it is, I believe, only a case of being disappointed and discouraged. If he had been less ambitious he might had said, "Well, what's the difference?" Mr. DRANE. Where is this young man?

Mr. CARTER. He is working for a manufacturing concern in my district, which concern gives him a letter of indorsement. I shall make that letter a part of the hearing to-day. He is working in the city of Oakland, Calif.

Mr. BURDICK. What you desire to do by this bill is to clear his

record?

Mr. CARTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. VINSON. In other words, what Somerville wants is an honorable discharge.

Mr. CARTER. No; he does not ask that.

Mr. VINSON. That is what your bill calls for.