a man given a dishonorable 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 dishonorable discharges.

The bill (H. R. 13465), if enacted, will result in no additional cost to the Navy, but it is. probable that Gessler will be eligible for compensation under the Veterans' Bureau now or in the future.

The bill (H. R. 13465) 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 5, 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. 13465).

Sincerely yours,

EDWARD P. WARNER, Acting Secretary of the Navy.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROY G. FITZGERALD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, this bill is simply one of mercy and good will. It does not depend upon any rights at all, but it simply depends upon the merciful attitude of the committee. I do not know this man. I do not know that I ever saw him, although he lives in my home city. But I have been appealed to over a period of years by the American Red Cross and the American Legion in his behalf, and I have become convinced that it is a worthy case. I have a letter here which I can quote to you, or I can give you the substance of it without making the full quotation. This is a letter that the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, Admiral Latimer, wrote me in 1922. You can see from that how many years I have been struggling with this matter. I have had considerable correspondence about the case, and, as I have said, the American Red Cross and the American Legion have been interested in it. Now, in 1922, Admiral Latimer, then Judge Advocate General of the Navy, wrote me that this man had been tried by court-martial and convicted of having been absent without leave. He had enlisted in 1917, within a few days, or within a few months, of the breaking out of the war.

For about a year after his enlistment he was sick. There seems to be no denial of that fact. He was granted a little leave and went home. There he was under the care of two physicians, and he overstayed his leave. He surrendered himself voluntarily, and was very properly tried by court-martial. Now, the doctor who examined him, went before the court-martial and testified that this man was sick. He was probably under proper treatment at home, but the court-martial ignored that feature. Probably they should have done that. Probably the case should have taken that course, because, unless he was so sick that he could not even walk, he should, at least, have communicated with the service, or brought himself within the naval jurisdiction. He complained that he could not get proper treatment for his sickness on board ship. When he got this leave, he came under the care of two physicians. One of the physicians makes an affidavit here, and I think the other one is dead.

Mr. BURDICK. Have you submitted those affidavits?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, sir. I think all of the papers have been submitted and are in the files of the committee. There is a corroborating statement by the naval surgeon himself. Now, this was a case where all of that should, probably, have been taken into consideration. But if you go back to 1917, you will realize that we were all in somewhat of a hysteria. I know that, because I sat in many courts-martial myself. This offense was that of being absent without leave, and at that critical time, the man had to be made an example of. People absent without leave, of course, should have been punished. This man was sentenced to prison and to a dishonorable discharge. When the medical people got to him, they found that he was sick all the time, and they had him discharged from imprisonment, after serving about six months. The dishonorable discharge still holds, and it is from that dishonorable discharge that relief is asked in mercy from this committee.

Mr. VINSON. It appears that he went away in 1918. How many months had he served?

Mr. FITZGERALD. That I can not state exactly. I will have to check up on that to find out. It was something like six months.

Mr. VINSON. Have you any evidence showing the nature of his illness? It all depends, it seems to me, upon the nature of his illness, or the extent of his illness. That would show whether, or not, he intended to desert, or whether it was a providential cause which made it impossible for him to go back. Of course, I realize that people in the Navy and Army at that time who may have been sick and may have stayed at home should have notified the authorities. Of course it was incumbent upon this man to notify the authorities. But let us see what the evidence is on that point.

Mr. FITZGERALD. That is something I can not give you very satisfactorily, but I think that evidence is somewhere in the files of the committee. I can quote here a statement which seems to appear all the way through. It is quoted by Assistant Secretary of the Navy Roosevelt, and others, so I imagine it is in the official record. They said he had somatic complaints.

Mr. VINSON. What does the record of the court-martial show about his being at home sick?

Mr. FITZGERALD. I do not have that record.

Mr. VINSON. Do you have any evidence on that point, Commander Wilkinson?

Commander WILKINSON. There is no evidence other than the men's own testimony. There is no medical evidence. The man himself said:

I have been sick, and that is what put me in this trouble. I was sick before I joined the Navy. I doctored a whole lot; most of my life was sickness from the time I was born. I came into the Navy because they told me they had good doctors, which I do not doubt. I do not doubt it now. I thought there was a better chance for me there for treatment, because medicine outside cost so much money and we were in poor circumstances, my father being sick, which broke up my home; and naturally I joined the Navy. Well, I was sick on the ship; made two trips across, being sick 41 days out of the 65. I asked two doctors to send me to the hospital because I did not have no strength left. I could not do no work. I was on the sick list, he did not seem to take any interest in my case; therefore I was discouraged and run down. I did not realize what I was doing. I did not realize, and do not yet, what I done, and that I committed an offense and I do not realize the seriousness of it.

I reached home and my mother wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Navy, and received an answer which I have. I also have a statement from my doctor who says I was under his treatment. He pronounced me with pyorrhea of the teeth, tachycardia, and nervous disturbance; and an examination was made by Doctor Steadman [indicating Doctor Steadman, member of the court] this morning. He stated the papers were right. I also had an answer from the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, stating that my letter was received and would be held in connection with my trial. My mother is old. I am the only one she has to look to for support. She is 63 years old. She was crippled in one of her armsleft arm, and she can not do anything for herself. I am the only one she has to look to for support. I also had a letter from my lawyer, stating the doctor's paper was made out before him, this lawyer. I did not realize the seriousness of my charge, and what I did, I have been sick so much. I asked for to be taken to the hospital, and could not even get to the dentist. There I was also under the care of the dentist at home, getting treatment. I need treatment right now. My teeth are all loose.

After reaching home my people being in poor circumstances, I reported to the recruiting office where I enlisted and they said they could not do nothing there for me; the only thing I could do was to return myself. I just had to wait until I got the money to return with. My father had a hard time getting the money. He had to borrow it and pay it back a little at a time, out of his own earnings. I have a brother and three sisters; all are married, have families of their own; it is all they can do to look out for themselves. My father had an attack with his heart. He took down sick in bed the first part of November, and it was the 17th of March before he came down out of bed; and he gained strength very slowly, therefore our home broke up, and I joined the Navy for medical treatment, in order to serve the country. I received my money, my car fare back to the ship on March 20, and immediately left and reported in New York. I did not know whether my ship would be in Hampton Roads or not, so I came back to New York and surrendered myself to the authorities.

Mr. BURDICK. When he enlisted in the service he was given a physical examination, was he not?

Commander WILKINSON. Yes, sir. It seems to be a case of undeveloped mentality. When he was in prison this report was made of him:

This man has been under observation for about three months. He offers many somatic complaints, the principal one being cardiac pains and palpitation. His history shows that due to his hypochondriacal ideas he has been unable to work steadily, and he says he joined the Navy to get "doctored up." He is regarded as unfit for the Navy, and hence was found unfit for restoration to duty. If discharged, it is thought he will not be a menace to himself and others, and will not become a public charge.

Mr. VINSON. That condition probably existed before he enlisted? Commander WILKINSON. Yes, sir; very probably.

(Upon motion of Mr. Vinson the bill (H. R. 13465) was ordered reported favorably, with the usual amendment as to back pay, pensions, etc.)

Mr. FITGERALD. I wish to thank the committee for its very considerate and humane action in this case.

(Thereupon the subcommittee proceeded to the consideration of other business.)

A HEARING ON THE BILL (H. R. 9352) PROVIDING for sundrY MATTERS AFFECTING THE NAVAL SERVICE (PART 1)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,
Wednesday, January 30, 1929.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Fred A Britten (chairman) presiding.

STATEMENTS OF REAR ADMIRAL CHARLES MORRIS, SUPPLY CORPS, UNITED STATES NAVY, BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS; REAR ADMIRAL EDWARD H. CAMPBELL, JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, UNITED STATES NAVY; AND LIEUT. CARLTON R. EAGLE, SUPPLY CORPS, UNITED STATES NAVY, BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS, NAVY DEPARTMENT

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will take up the bill (H. R. 9352) providing for sundry matters affecting the naval service. This is a bill that the Navy Department is very much interested in. It was introduced as an omnibus bill by Mr. Burdick, the bill coming from the Navy Department. Admiral Morris, will you be good enough to tell the committee why we should report this bill favorably? Mr. HOUSTON. Is this in the nature of a claims bill?

The CHAIRMAN. No; this is quite different. These people mentioned in the bill have no claims, but it is simply a matter of bookkeeping in the department. It does not require the appropriation of any funds.

How do you prefer to proceed with the bill, Admiral Morris? Do you want to take up each item separately?

Admiral MORRIS. I think so. I think that would be the best way to do it.

The CHAIRMAN. The first item in the bill authorizes and directs the General Accounting Office to credit the accounts of Lieut. Commander Robert B. Huff, Supply Corps, United States Navy, in the amount of $517.55, which amount represents a charge in the accounts of one Isaac Fassett, steerage steward, United States Navy, which was raised by decision of the Comptroller General, Department Memorandum No. 220, dated February 1, 1923, and so forth. Admiral MORRIS. That has been allowed.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, that goes out of the bill.
Admiral MORRIS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How about the second section?

Admiral MORRIS. That should go out also.

The CHAIRMAN. How about the third section?
Admiral MORRIS. That is to be considered.

Mr. ANDREW. Do those other items go out because they have been provided for in private bills?

Admiral MORRIS. They were allowed by the Comptroller General. The CHAIRMAN. Has he reversed his ruling?

Admiral MORRIS. He finally removed the charge against the disbursing officer.

The CHAIRMAN. Section 3 provides

That the General Accounting Office is hereby authorized and directed to credit the accounts of Lieutenant John M. Holmes, Supply Corps, United States Navy, in the amount of $896.48, which amount represents payments made by the said Lieutenant Holmes, Supply Corps, to two men employed at the Navy supply depot as inspectors of tea purchased by the Navy Department under contract, such employment being at the instance of the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts and in accordance with awards which were based upon approved requisition. What do you have to say about that?

Admiral MORRIS. That amount represents payments to those two people, J. Harvey Swenarton and E. M. Gillett. They were employed at the Navy supply depot as tea inspectors, and were paid under requisitions approved by the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts. In this case, the comptroller decided for the first time that it was improper to employ civilian inspectors when there were in the Government service inspectors capable of performing that duty. As soon as the disallowance was known, payments to these inspectors were discontinued, and for subsequent payments due on account of these services, those two men have already been relieved through private bills.

Mr. VINSON. You say they have been relieved through private bills. Do you refer to these payments?

Admiral MORRIS. No, sir. The pay of these two men was stopped, and they were reimbursed by private bills for services rendered after the decision was received by the disbursing officer.

Mr. VINSON. Do you mean that Congress passed a bill to pay them the amount that has been charged against the paymaster?

Admiral MORRIS. No, sir. This represents what the disbursing officer paid before he received the disallowance from the comptroller. When he received the disallowance from the comptroller, he stopped the payments. Meanwhile, however, these men had performed further service, and they received relief on account of that through private bills.

The CHAIRMAN. The Government aimed to take care of this in a different way, and if it had done so, the disbursing officer would have been relieved of this responsibility, would he not?

Admiral MORRIS. These are civilians. I was referring to the two civilian tea inspectors.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you say their accounts have been cleared of any charge against them?

Admiral MORRIS. Not being in the Government service, no charge could be raised against them. These were civilians. These civilian tea inspectors performed services on account of which the disbursing officer would not pay them because of this disallowance of a previous payment made by him ot them by the Comptroller General; so they came here for relief.

The CHAIRMAN. How did they get relief?

Admiral MORRIS. Through a relief bill in Congress.