contrary, it is believed that Newman was rightly and duly convicted of these offenses and properly discharged.

As one of the penalties of this discharge, Newman 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 Vongress tends to weaken the force of the subsequent bad-conduct discharges.

The bill H. R. 11746, 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. 11746 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 May 18, 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. 11746.

Sincerely yours,

CURTIS D. WILBUR,
Secretary of the Navy.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH W. MARTIN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Martin, tell us what are the extenuating circumstances in this case, if you know of any.

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, this is a bill, as you will see, to clear the record of Arthur Daniel Newman. This boy enlisted in the Navy at the age of 16 years, and was assigned to service in the submarine division. The submerging of the boat affected him very seriously, and he requested to be transferred to some other branch of the naval service. He made two or three different requests to be transferred, but they were not granted. He found it impossible to continue in this service, and that was the reason for his desertion from the Navy on several occasions. Outside of the submarine service he was perfectly satisfied with the Navy. He is coming before Congress at this time asking that his record be cleared up so he can reenlist and go back and serve a term in the Navy, in some other branch besides the submarine service.

Mr. BURDICK. You say he was 16 years old when he enlisted? Mr. MARTIN. He was 16 years of age when he enlisted, and was 17 years of age when he deserted.

Mr. VINSON. How long did he remain in the service?
Mr. MARTIN. About a year.

Mr. VINSON. Where are his letter to the Navy Department stating that he wanted to be transferred on account of his inaptitude for submarine duty?

Mr. MARTIN. Under date of March 8, 1928, Mr. Arthur H. Maines, clerk of committees, city of Fall River, Mass., wrote me as follows: The information that you desired in regard to Arthur D. Newman, of 138 Tecumseh Street, is as follows:

(1) My reason for being absent without leave was because of my fear for submarines, as after each dive I was in a state of fear that was awful, after trying on at least two occasions for a transfer.

(2) My reason for wanting to enter the service is to clear myself of the stain that is now on my shoulders and I promise that I will do my utmost to render valuable service to show that at the time of my previous enlistment I did not use

any judgment, and now that I realize that I made a mistake that I want to rectify the same.

There is one thing that I want to rectify, and that is that at the time of my discharge I was a seaman, second class, having been reduced from a coxswain. Any more information that you desire I will be glad to furnish the same.

The above letter bears the following attestation:

BRISTOL, 88:

FALL RIVER, MASS., March 8, 1928.

Then personally appeared Arthur D. Newman, 138 Tecumseh Street, Fall River, Mass., and made oath that the reasons as contained in the above letter are true.

Before me,

ADELARD J. GAUTHIER,

Justice of the Peace.

I submit two other communications, as follows:

FALL RIVER, MASS., March 23, 1928.

To whom it may concern:
This is to certify that I have known Arthur Daniel Newman for the past 12
years. Educated in the public schools, he graduated from the eighth grade.
It gives me pleasure to state that I know him to be honest, sober, and industrious.
WILLIAM S. CONROY,

70 Eighteenth Street.

MARCH 23, 1928.

To the COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

State House, Washington, D. C.

To whom it may concern:

I, Arthur H. Maines, would be glad of the opportunity of recommending Arthur Daniel Newman as a youth of high character and one whom I would be glad to employ if the opportunity ever presented itself. I have known this youth for the past six years and I have been in close relations with his family for at least 30 years, and I know of no reason why any person or neighbor would not recommend this youth for any favor he desires from your honorable committee. His reputation to my knowledge is spotless, otherwise I would not be one to state the same to your honorable committee. Any further information that you desire I will be glad to give you upon request. With kind personal regards, I am,

ARTHUR H. MAINES,
Clerk of Committees.

Mr. BURDICK. He is 20 years of age now. It appears that he was born in February, 1909.

Mr. MARTIN. Yes.

Mr. VINSON. And he had a bad-conduct discharge?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes.

Mr. VINSON. And you want to remove the bad-conduct discharge and permit him to reenlist so that he can get an honorable discharge? Mr. MARTIN. The real purpose is to get him back into the Navy so that he can get an honorable discharge.

Mr. VINSON. You say he wants to get back into the Navy?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes.

Mr. VINSON. You do not need any legislation to get him back into the Navy, do you?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes. He has attempted several times to enlist, but they will not take him with this record.

Mr. VINSON. If that is the purpose, then why does not the bill provide for the removal of his bad-conduct discharge for the purpose. of permitting him to reenlist in the Navy?

Mr. MARTIN. That is satisfactory to me, because that is what he wishes to do.

Mr. BURDICK. It appears from this statement that he deserted on September 15, 1926; that he surrendered on September 27, 1926; that from May 14 to May 15, 1927, he was absent without leave, and that he was declared a deserter again on June 22, 1927. The report states, further, that he was absent without leave on August 12, 1927.

Mr. MARTIN. He came back each time, did he not?

Mr. BURDICK. No; not the last time. He was delivered to the naval authorities. What does your record show, Commander Wilkinson, about his application for a transfer?

Commander WILKINSON. I have made a search of his record and find no evidence that he applied for a transfer. It is possible that his commanding officer told him it would not be approved.

Mr. BURDICK. He received a bad-conduct discharge?

Commander WILKINSON. Yes, sir; a bad-conduct discharge.

Mr. BURDICK. What objection would the department have to his reenlistment?

Commander WILKINSON. From his record, aside from his fear of submarines, it is evident that he was thoroughly unreliable, and I think the department would certainly not be anxious to take him back again.

Mr. MARTIN. You referred to his record. What is his record? Commander WILKINSON. It is the record that is quoted there in the report on the bill.

Mr. MARTIN. Was not this whole record due to the fact of his youth and his fear of submarines?

Commander WILKINSON. That is quite possible.

Mr. MARTIN. There was nothing malicious about his record. Commander WILKINSON. There is no statement of that sort in this record. He ran away time and again.

Mr. MARTIN. Absolutely; because of his fear of submarines.

Mr. BURDICK. Assuming that this bill were enacted, permitting this man to reenlist, do I understand that the department, in all probability, would not let him reenlist after the bill passed?

Commander WILKINSON. I think very probably; yes, sir. The department would probably not wish to reenlist him.

Mr. BURDICK. When a boy enlists in the Navy, he is supposed to take any sort of service that he is assigned to.

Commander WILKINSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURDICK. Although he can express a preference, I suppose. Commander WILKINSON. Yes, sir. The submarine service has been manned entirely by persons who volunteer for it on enlistment. Though I find no evidence of it here, I think there is every reason to believe that this man volunteered for the submarine service. Of course he did not know what he was going into, and when he got into it, and did not like it, he had some difficulty in getting out of it. For that reason he probably ran away. That would be evidence of instability of character.

Mr. HALE. Is there any evidence as to the effect of this submarine experience on him?

Mr. MARTIN. I have none except his statement. He states that he was in a state of fear that was awful after each dive. I am afraid

the Navy does not take into consideration the fact that a boy 17 years old is not likely to be staple in his habits, anyway. What could you expect of a lad of that age. I do not think they should condemn a boy arbitrarily, as the department appears to be inclined to do in this case.

Mr. BURDICK. If we passed this bill, providing that he again enlist in the Navy, and the Navy does not want him, of course, they would not take him.

Mr. VINSON. All that he wants is an opportunity to reenlist?
Mr. MARTIN. That is all.

Mr. VINSON. Then, of course, if the Navy does not accept him, that is a matter for the Navy. When we grant everything he wants, we give him an opportunity to reenlist, and when the Navy Department says, "Your record is such that we do not want you to reenlist, or will not accept you," that will be a matter for their determination. Mr. BURDICK. Would it be satisfactory to make that provision, provided he is again in the service of the Navy

Mr. VINSON (interposing). He would not get his bad-conduct discharge removed until they took him back into the Navy.

Mr. HALE. Would not that automatically remove his bad-conduct discharge?

Mr. VINSON. If he should reenlist, the bad-conduct discharge would be removed. That would serve to automatically remove it. Mr. MARTIN. Of course, the main thing the boy wants is a chance to retrieve his past misconduct.

Mr. BURDICK. He might be able to show the Navy Department that he is a different type of boy.

Mr. MARTIN. Yes. They seem to take the arbitrary stand, however, that the boy was not what he should be. Of course, he was only 17 years old, and I do not think the department should take that arbitrary position.

Mr. VINSON. I suggest that we amend the bill and remove his bad-conduct discharge provided the Navy accepts him for reenlistment. Of course, if the Navy does not accept him, he still has his bad-conduct discharge against him, so that the bill would not help him one particle.

Commander WILKINSON. There is a further question here: The bill provides that he be discharged as a coxswain. That is a form of noncommissioned officer that is two grades above the actual rank he had at the time he was discharged.

Mr. VINSON. I suggest that we prepare an amendment, and then let the department report back to the subcommittee whether it is in proper legal form, for the purpose of permitting the removal of the bad-conduct discharge by reenlistment in the Navy. That would be the result if the Navy accepted him. If they did not accept him, then the bad-conduct discharge would not be removed. It would not be removed unless Congress directed that it be removed.

Mr. BURDICK. In other words, he would have to convince the Navy Department that he was a different boy from what he was.

Mr. HALE. What has he been doing since he was discharged? Mr. MARTIN. I do not know. I never saw the boy personally. The city officials of Fall River have given me all the information I have in regard to him.

Commander WILKINSON. I might say that a bad-conduct discharge does not by any means carry the stigma that a dishonorable discharge does.

Mr. VINSON. Would he get any gratuity from the Government? Mr. MARTIN. He would not get a gratuity.

Mr. VINSON. If we removed the bad-conduct discharge, he might. Mr. MARTIN. He is not entitled to that.

Mr. VINSON. He may not be entitled now, but some time in the future he might make a claim on account of some disability incurred in the naval service.

Mr. MARTIN. I am not seeking that.

Mr. BURDICK. In the course of time, when he is 80 years of age, he might be pensioned by a private bill. He would not be entitled to have a pension if he had a bad-conduct discharge.

Mr. MARTIN. I do not think anybody would give him a pension. Mr. BURDICK. The Navy Department will prepare an amendment, and will see to it that it meets all the legal requirements.

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

C