The CHAIRMAN. Under existing law, when an officer is ordered beyond the continental limits of the United States for duty his wife and dependent children may go with him at Government expense, in so far as the item of transportation is concerned. On the other. hand, when an officer goes to sea his wife and dependent children. may be transported by the Government, without expense to the officer concerned, to the home port of his vessel. It occurs frequently, I suppose, that when an officer is ordered to, say, Panama, his wife and children desire to remain in the United States for scholastic purposes they do not desire to go to, say, Panama or the Philippines, but they desire to go to their home within the United States. In the latter event the officer concerned has to pay the transportation of his wife and dependent children.

This proviso aims to give the officer a credit so far as the money will go toward paying the cost of transporting his wife and dependents to their home within the United States, and then when the officer returns to the United States this act would allow him transportation for his wife and dependents to his new station here, just as if they were coming from, say, Hawaii to the United States. The only objection I can see in the bill is the word "prospective." A person might have a home in Chicago and not intend to go there. He might want to go to San Diego as a prospective home. I think the word "prospective" might well be changed to "legal" or some other appropriate word in connection with residence. How about that, Admiral? Admiral CAMPBELL. Commander Wilkinson is here in behalf of the Bureau of Navigation, and I will ask him to talk about this subject. The CHAIRMAN. Very well, Commander, you tell us about this. Commander WILKINSON. The statement of the chairman is entirely correct. The intent of the bill is the convenience of both the officer concerned and the Government-the Government because this bill would save money, in that the dependents will be going to a place within the continental limits of the United States and thereby save the expense of a longer trip to a home port or station aboard. This proposal could not act to the disadvantage of the Government, because the expense of transportation may not exceed the amount necessary to transport the dependents to the station beyond the continental limits of the United States. That is, the expense can not exceed the already legally authorized expense.

Mr. VINSON. The cost under H. R. 12986 can not exceed the cost of transportation for the dependents to the station beyond the continental United States where the officer is being sent for duty?

Commander WILKINSON. That is correct. It if should exceed it, the officer himself would have to pay the additional sum.

Mr. VINSON. If an officer is ordered, say, to Managua, from Washington, D. C., and his home is in Cincinnati, the officer under this proposed measure can not collect from the Government money to pay transportation the whole distance from Washington to Managua? He would receive free transportation for the dependents from Washington to Cincinnati only?

Commander WILKINSON. If the dependents should go to Cincinnati, the officer would receive transportation for them to that point only.

Mr. VINSON. That is my understanding. It will not be possible for an officer to make any money out of this bill?

Commander WILKINSON. It will not be possible to make any money out of the bill. In fact, as I have said, the Government itself would save money.

Mr. MILLER. How about the families of enlisted men accompanyng the men? Is not that in the interest of the welfare of the Navy? Commander WILKINSON. Yes, sir; that is authorized under existing law; but, as the chairman well said, when the head of the family is ordered to some station that does not have proper scholastic facilities, the family usually desires to remain at home in the United States.

Mr. MILLER. Provided there are no school facilities or unhealthy surroundings, this law may become operative. Do you not think it is well for the families of officers and men to accompany them to wherever the officers and men are assigned?

Commander WILKINSON. Subject to local conditions.

Mr. MILLER. Is it not the general policy of the Navy to encourage such?

Commander WILKINSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLER. That has been the policy of the Navy for a hundred years, has it not?

Commander WILKINSON. Yes, sir; except under unusual conditions. Mr. MILLER. Now this [indicating] proposed law is brought in here and offered as an inducement to separate the enlisted men from their families by giving the families certain traveling advantages by way of free transportation. That is the principle of the law?

Commander WILKINSON. Yes, sir; but as a convenience for proper living and schooling, not an inducement to separation.

Mr. MILLER. Let us take the case of a man in the Marine Corps. He is assigned, let us say, to Honolulu, and he does not want to take his family there, and the family decides it wants to go to Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, or Chicago. If it were not for this proposed law, or under existing law, they could not do that.

Commander WILKINSON. That is right. However, they could take the ticket for Honolulu, use it so far as they wanted to go, and tear up the remainder of it.

Mr. MILLER. But the wife would have to accompany the husband to Honolulu, would she not?

Commander WILKINSON. No, sir; she could stop at San Francisco and then destroy the remainder of the ticket for Honolulu.

Mr. MILLER. But suppose she wants to go somewhere else?
Mr. VINSON. She may only go to a prospective home.

Mr. MILLER. It gives the privilege of traveling at public expense for the wives and families of the officers and enlisted men that they have not had heretofore.

The CHAIRMAN. It is in the interest of the Government.

Mr. MILLER. But it is said the dependents might stop short of a destination shown on a ticket and then destroy the remainder of the ticket.

Commander WILKINSON. And the dependents might stop off and take a side trip.

Mr. MILLER. But if an officer is assigned at Baltimore and ordered to Panama, the dependents can not go to San Francisco now.

Mr. VINSON. Take the case of an officer or enlisted man living in Baltimore. His wife is living there. If he is ordered to Panama she could not then say her old home was in San Francisco, just to get the transportation to that city.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to know the reason for the words "prospective residence" rather than "official residence."

Commander WILKINSON. A number of the older officers have no regularly established home except the place they may be on duty. They may have had a home registered at the Navy Department but they have probably abandoned it when they went to a new place of duty. They have their families there and if the families go to their "official" homes, the act may mean nothing. The word "prospective" will enable the family to choose the place best suited for the family, and still be within the limits of expense to the Government. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose an officer going outside the continental limits of the United States should designate the District of Columbia as his prospective home while on duty in New York, and after a year or two he returned to the United States; would the department assume that was his official residence, or could he in two years designate another prospective home?

Commander WILKINSON. He could not do that until such a time as he received a second change of duty, which would allow him to take his family to the new station. If the words "official home" were used, an officer could, say, two weeks before making a change in station request the department to change his official home to Kalamazoo or some other place.

Mr. VINSON. Even if an officer or enlisted man should select a I prospective home, the compensation by reason of travel could not exceed the cost of transportation to the place the officer or enlisted man is going. For instance, if an officer or enlisted man were stationed in Baltimore, that was his home, and be ordered to Panama, and he should say his home was in San Diego. Such could not benefit him, because he would be entitled to transportation for those dependents to Panama, which is a longer distance than is Baltimore from San Diego. This bill, as I see it, can not cost the Government anything.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose an officer who is attached to a vessel at the Philadelphia Navy Yard and his family is with him in Philadelphia, and he is ordered to Panama on his ship. Suppose he should select Seattle as his home. Would the fare to Panama be computed on the basis of going to Panama on a transport?

Commander WILKINSON. Under the terms of the bill they could not go except by Government transport if such is available.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you say a transport is available from Philadelphia?

Commander WILKINSON. Such is available from New York.

The CHAIRMAN. The case would be computed by the Navy Department as railroad fare from Philadelphia to New York and Government transportation from New York to Panama?

Commander WILKINSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Therefore there would be the necessity for an officer reimbursing the Government?

Commander WILKINSON. He would get pay $20 for each dependent and the fare to Seattle would be $150, and he would reimburse the Government $130 for each.

Mr. MILLER. Suppose an officer is assigned to some station in Alaska and the wife says she will not go to Alaska with him. She says she is going to San Diego and the Government is going to pay her fare.

The CHAIRMAN. At the request of the officer.

Mr. MILLER. I don't know about that.

Commander WILKINSON. The transportation would issue on request of the officer only. It must be at the officer's request. Mr. MILLER. Where is that provision in the bill?

Mr. VINSON. The cost of transportation to San Diego could not under this bill be more than the transportation to Alaska would cost. The Government could not lose.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not the point.

Mr. MILLER. Suppose the wife says, "I will not go to Alaska; I am going to San Diego." Where is the provision in the bill that if the wife does not accompany the husband the husband has the power to determine where she shall go?

The CHAIRMAN. That is not the point. The question was as to who would make the request on the Government for transportation. Commander WILKINSON. The officer himself must make the application for transportation for dependents. It is the officer entitled to transportation for his dependents and not the dependents entitled to transportation on account of the officer. He must make the request.

The CHAIRMAN. Is any further information desired by gentlemen of the committee. (After a pause.) Apparently not.

Mr. DARROW. I move that the bill be now favorably reported. Mr. VINSON. I second the motion.

(The motion carried unanimously.)

Thereupon at 11.15 o'clock a. m., Thursday, January 10, 1929, the committee proceeded to other business.

HEARING ON THE BILL (H. R. 5487) TO AMEND SECTION 6° OF
THE ACT APPROVED FEBRUARY 28, 1925, ENTITLED "AN ACT
TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION, ORGANIZATION, ADMINIS-
TRATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF A NAVAL RESERVE AND A
MARINE CORPS RESERVE"

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,
Thursday, January 10, 1929.

The committee this day met at 11.45 o'clock a. m., Hon. Fred A. Britten, chairman, presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. We have with us this morning Rear Admiral Edward H. Campbell, United States Navy, Judge Advocate General of the Navy. Admiral, which is the next bill for consideration?

Admiral CAMPBELL. H. R. 5487, to amend section 6 of the act approved February 28, 1925, entitled "An act to provide for the creation, organization, administration, and maintenance of a Naval Reserve and a Marine Corps Reserve."

(The bill in question and a report thereon by the Navy Department read as follows:)

A BILL To amend section 6 of the act approved February 28, 1925, entitled "An act to provide for the creation, organization, administration, and maintenance of a Naval Reserve and a Marine Corps Reserve

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 6 of the act approved February 28, 1925 (Forty-third Statutes at Large, pages 1081 and 1082), entitled "An act to provide for the creation, organization, administration, and maintenance of a Naval Reserve and a Marine Corps Reserve," is hereby amended by inserting the clause "or, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Navy, when sentenced by the civil authorities to confinement in a State or Federal penitentiary," after the word "act" appearing in line 10 of said section, and by striking out the words "enlisted, enrolled, and assigned" appearing in line 12 thereof.

To AMEND SECTION 6 OF THE ACT APPROVED FEBRUARY 28, 1925, ENTITLED "AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION, ORGANIZATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF A NAVAL RESERVE AND A MARINE CORPS RESERVE" (H. R. 5487)

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, November 29, 1927.

The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: There is inclosed herewith a copy of a letter together with a copy of a proposed bill "To amend section 6 of the act approved February 28, 1925, entitled 'An act to provide for the creation, organization, administration, and maintenance of a Naval Reserve and a Marine Corps Reserve, this day forwarded to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Sincerely yours,

CURTIS D. WILBUR,

Secretary of the Navy.

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, November 29, 1927. Washington, D. C.

The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I have the honor to transmit herewith a draft of a proposed bill "To amend section 6 of the act approved February 28, 1925, entitled 'An act to provide for the creation, organization, administration, and maintenance of a Naval Reserve and a Marine Corps Reserve.""