AFFIDAVIT On this 5th day of March, 1927, before me, the subscriber, a notary public of the State of West Virginia, residing at Grafton, W. Va., personally appeared the above-named C. P. Cornwell, residing at Grafton, W. Va., route No. 1, who, being personally known to me residing at makes oath in due form of law that the matters and things set forth in the foregoing letter are within his personal knowledge and are true as therein set forth. Witness my hand and notarial seal. DEAR SIR: Regarding H. R. 3984. I hesitate to write to you very often in the above subject because I know you are very busy and yet my desire for verification of the above bill as to its disposal overwhelms that hesitation. It has always been my most earnest desire to see this matter straightened up, for, after all, I have been punished these nine years. My idea in so clearing this up is so that at some future date I may be able to try for a place in the Postal Service. I feel that under the circumstances as they now are, my eligibility would be greatly injured. I also feel that the crime was not so great but what I should be pardoned after nine years of discipline. Please advise me of anything you may wish me to do, and should I again write to Senators Neely and Goff. Thanking you always for your kindness and assistance, I remain, Very truly yours, C. P. CORNWELL. NAVY DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF NAVIATION, Washington, D. C., November 30, 1928. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Receipt is acknowledged of your communication of November 22, 1926, addressed to the Secretary of the Navy, and referred to this bureau for reply, concerning Charles Palmer Cornwell, who was discharged from from the United States Navy on September 5, 1919, from the receiving ship, at Hampton Roads, Va. Cornwell was tried by a general court martial at the navy yard, Norfolk, Va., being found guilty of "Absence from station and duty without leave," and sentenced to be confined for a period of six months and then to be dishonorably discharged from the naval service. Upon the record reaching the department, that part of the sentence involving confinement was mitigated to restriction to ship or station for a period of four months and the dishonorable discharge remitted on condition that Cornwell, during the period of his four months' restriction, conduct himself in such a manner as, in the opinion of his commanding officer, warranted his further retention in the service; otherwise, at the discretion of his commanding officer the dishonorable discharge was to be executed at any time during the period of restriction. Cornwell, during the period of restriction above mentioned, did not conduct himself in such a manner as, in the opinion of his commanding officer, warranted his further retention in the service, and, in accordance with the terms under which his sentence was mitigated by the department, he was awarded a dishonorable discharge from the United States Navy on September 5, 1919. The dishonorable discharge in this case having been awarded as explained above, the bureau knows of no manner in which it could be revoked and an honorable discharge issued in lieu thereof. With reference to any money which Charles Palmer Cornwell may consider due him by reason of his naval service, he should make claim for such amount on the Comptroller General, Washington, D. C. Very truly yours, Hon. CARL G. BACHMANN, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. JAY BLANELY, Acting. Mr. VINSON. Commander Wilkinson, is there anything in the record to show that at the time this blood test was ordered this man was sick? Commander WILKINSON. No, sir; there is no record to that effect. The statement is that he was in a misconduct status, under suspicion of having been affected with a venereal trouble. There was some venereal complication. With regard to the blood test, there is a statement in the record that he refused to take the blood test when in a syphiletic condition. I understand that the blood test consists merely of drawing a small sample of blood from the veins and that it is neither painful nor degrading. With respect to his absence without leave Mr. VINSON (interposing). He was on probation at the time? Commander WILKINSON. His absence without leave was almost excusable. He went home because his father was sick. When he came back, he was recommended for clemency by members of the court itself. Mr. VINSON. While on probation he refused to take this medical treatment? Commander WILKINSON. Yes, sir. Mr. VINSON. He was in the Naval Reserve. Does it make any difference whether he was in the Naval Reserve or in the regular Navy? Commander WILKINSON. No, sir; he was subject to the rules of the United States Navy. (On motion by Mr. Vinson, H. R. 3894 was ordered reported adversely.) (Thereupon the committee proceeded to the consideration of other business.) O A HEARING ON THE BILL (H. R. 16694, LATER INTRODUCED AS H. R. 16839) TO PROVIDE FOR INVESTIGATION OF SITES SUITABLE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NAVAL AIRSHIP BASE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Fred A. Britten (chairman) presiding. STATEMENTS OF HON. EDWARD P. WARNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR AERONAUTICS; REAR ADMIRAL WILLIAM A. MOFFETT, CHIEF BUREAU OF AERONAUTICS; AND REAR ADMIRAL EDWARD H. CAMPBELL, JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, UNITED STATES NAVY The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. We have before us this morning the bill (H. R. 16694) to establish a naval airship base in one of the Pacific Coast States. The Secretary of the Navy for Aviation, Mr. Warner, is with us, and Admiral Moffett, of the Bureau of Aeronautics. Mr. Secretary, will you be good enough to tell the committee why this bill should be immediately reported out and passed at the present session? Mr. WARNER. Without going extensively into past history, I think it has been, not only our judgment, but the judgment of everyone who is interested in the future of lighter-than-air operations, that the execution of the plans already set on foot for airship development is going to depend absolutely on the provision of some additional base for such operations. We have already contracted, as the committee knows, for two new airships, which were authorized nearly three years ago. They were contracted for last summer, and there will not be sufficient accommodations for those two new ships in any of the existing hangars in the United States. In order that their construction may be completed and their delivery accepted by the Navy Department, it is necessary, therefore, to make some additional provision. It appears obvious and highly desirable, on strategic and other grounds, that there should be a new base provided, rather than additional facilities at any existing base, and it is necessary that the choice and acquisition of such a base be started very promptly, in order that it may be completed by the time the ships are turned out and delivered. The last of the two ships now under construction, according to the terms of the contract, will be completed during the calendar year 1932, about the middle of the year. That is according to the contract limit of time. The CHAIRMAN. You are referring now to the last of the two new airships. Mr. WARNER. Yes. The first one will be finished in 30 months, and the second one within 15 months thereafter. Because of the fact that there has been some delay in the construction of the hangar by the contractor, we are allowing for a delay of about three months in the completion of the airships, but the second one will be delivered in 1932, and the first one will come along early in 1931. Now, it will take a considerable time, of course, to prepare the place and construct the necessary buildings for the accommodation of these airships. We feel that the actual construction of the buildings and other necessary facilities should be started by the very early part of the fiscal year 1931, which, in turn, would mean that, proceeding in the regular order, the first appropriation would have to be carried in the regular estimates for 1931, and that, in turn, would require an authorization at the present session of Congress. This is simply a question of time. We know this base will be needed, and that, I think, is the whole story. Unless we can secure other and further facilities for the operation of these airships, it will be impossible to carry out the intent of Congress to accept and operate those two new ships, which, as I have said, we have already contracted for. Manifestly, it is desirable that we should be in a position to operate the lighter-than-air craft in conjunction with the major-fleet operations which, are at present in the Pacific area. The CHAIRMAN. The hangar at Lakehurst is big enough to accommodate the Los Angeles and the first one of these new airships; is it not? Mr. WARNER. It would accommodate the first ship and the Los Angeles, yes, sir; but, even if the Los Angeles were broken up, this hangar would not accommodate these two new airships. The CHAIRMAN. That is, it is not big enough to accommodate these two new airships at the same time? Mr. WARNER. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. But it would accommodate the Los Angeles and the first one of these new ships? Mr. WARNER. It would accommodate the first one; yes, sir. So the actual physical need for this new base becomes critical upon the completion of these two new airships. The CHAIRMAN. Has the Naval General Board given its consideration to this matter, and has it made any recommendation to the Secretary with reference to this suggestion that this proposed base be located on the Pacific coast? Mr. WARNER. I can not recall, positively. The Secretary sent in a recommendation some months ago for the consideration of various officers in the Navy Department. Perhaps Admiral Campbell knows about that. Admiral CAMPBELL. I do not know whether the General Board passed upon it, or not. Mr. WARNER. That recommendation was not definite as to the location because we want to give the fullest and most deliberate possible consideration to the strategical advantages, as well as the technical advantages, of various sites. It is for that reason that, in asking this legislation, we have made it rather broad. We do not want to bind ourselves down to any individual site until all of them have had the consideration of the board that is provided for in the bill. The CHAIRMAN. The bill is a short one, and I will read it into the record. This bill (H. R. 16694) to establish a naval airship base in one of the Pacific Coast States provides as follows: That the establishment of a naval airship base at a cost not to exceed $5,000,000 on a site of 1,000 acres, more or less, in one of the Pacific Coast States, is hereby |