SENATE. 64TH CONGRESS, PROMOTION OF OFFICERS. { REPORT No. 939. JANUARY 15 (calendar day, JANUARY 16), 1917.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. TILLMAN, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. 7724.] The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 7724) to amend an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the naval service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1917, and for other purposes," approved August 29, 1916, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass. The bill has the approval of the Secretary of the Navy as will appear from the letter appended here to: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In the annual report of the Secretary of the Navy to the President, under date of December 1, 1916, I submitted the following recommendation: "Under the personnel feature of the recent act it is provided that— "Officers of the lower grades of the Medical Corps, Pay Corps, Construction Corps, and Corps of Civil Engineers shall be advanced in rank up to and including the rank of lieutenant commander with the officers of the line with whom or next after whom they take precedence under existing law.' "Under present law officers must, prior to promotion from grade to grade, be subjected to physical, mental, moral, and professional examinations. The grades in the different staff corps are not altogether identical with those in the line, and it will be noted that the rank of an officer in the staff corps is, under the above-quoted provisions, to change when his corresponding number in the line is promoted from one grade to another up to and including lieutenant_commander. In view of the provision that the pay and allowances of officers depend upon their rank and that examinations only occur on promotion from grade to grade, it follows that the above provision permits staff officers to be advanced in rank and in emoluments without examination. This is clearly illogical. Staff officers should not be advanced in rank-with its corresponding emoluments until they have, like line officers, demonstrated their fitness therefor by examination. As the law now stands, not only may staff officers be advanced without examination, but under the law if a staff officer fails in his examination for promotion, for example, from the grade of passed assistant paymaster to the grade of paymaster, his rank would nevertheless be increased with that of his running mate despite such failure in examination, and though he could not be promoted to the grade of paymaster he would continue as a passed assistant paymaster, but his rank and pay would be increased notwithstanding. It is hoped that this very undesirable feature will be changed at the approaching session of Congress so that no officer will be advanced in the staff corps until after he has established his qualifications by examination." There is inclosed herewith a draft of a bill or clause that might be included in the pending naval appropriation bill, and which, it is believed, would upon enactment by Congress, remedy the mischief pointed out in the extract above quoted from my annual report. The department hopes that legislation of this character may be enacted during the present session. Sincerely, yours, The CHAIRMAN Committee ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, JOSEPHUS DANIELS, Secretary of the Navy. United States Senate. O 64TH CONGRESS,} SENATE. HARBOR DEFENSE. { REPORT JANUARY 15 (calendar day, JANUARY 16), 1917.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. TILLMAN, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. 7330.] The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 7330) to amend section 44 of the act entitled "An act to codify, revise, and amend the penal laws of the United States," approved March 4, 1909, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass. The bill has the approval of the Secretary of the Navy and of the Secretary of War, as will appear from the letters appended hereto: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Washington, December 12, 1916. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In preparing plans for the national defense so that the country would not be unprepared upon the occurrence of any possible future hostilities, the Chief of Naval Operations has found it necessary to recommend to the Secretary of the Navy that certain authority be requested from Congress to legalize the establishment and the control and protection of harbor defenses and defensive sea areas which may become necessary in time of actual or threatened war. Should hostilities be threatened of a maritime nature, it will be necessary for the purposes of national defense to establish "defensive sea areas," and it is contemplated that the President will, when the same appears to him necessary, establish such "defensive sea areas" and announce the establishment of the same by proclamation. In such event ft will then become necessary for the commanding officers of naval districts in which such defensive sea areas may be established to control the movement of merchant vessels therein, not only for the purpose of preventing interference with the defensive appliances there located, but also for the proper protection of the merchant vessels themselves and for the protection of the lives of the crew and passengers they carry. In such sea areas there will generally be located mines, torpedo defenses, etc., and there will also be assigned thereto certain naval vessels for purposes of patrol and the government of innocent merchant traffic which may be permitted to pass through the areas by means of certain lanes preserved for the movement of such vessels. It is necessary in order that the defensive sea areas may be properly policed that the President be authorized to make necessary regulations in regard to the same and that there be a penalty attached to the violation of such regulations. S R-64-2-vol 1-18 There is inclosed herewith a draft of a bill which it is believed by the Chief of Naval Operations and the General Board of the Navy, if enacted, will accomplish the purpose in mind. I earnestly recommend to the consideration of yourself and your committee the desirability of securing favorable consideration for the proposed bill, since such legislation, while not involving any expense to the Government will greatly tend to promote the effectiveness of contemplated measures for the national defense. Sincerely, yours, The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, JOSEPHUS DANIELS, United States Senate. WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, January 23, 1917. The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. SIR: Referring to Senate bill 7330, to amend section 44 of the act entitled "An act to codify, revise, and amend the penal laws of the United States," approved March 4, 1909, introduced by you on December 13, 1916, I have the honor to state that the governor of the Panama Canal, to whom copies of this bill were referred, has recommended that the bill be amended so that offenses thereunder committed within the Canal Zone shall be cognizable in the district court of said Zone. Without some such provision, any one offending against the terms of the bill in the Zone would have to be taken to the United States for trial, inasmuch as the district court of the Canal Zone is not a district or circuit court of the United States within the meaning of the bill. I concur in the recommendation of the governor of the Panama Canal and respectfully request that the pending bill be amended as above indicated. It is thought that this could best be accomplished by substituting a semicolon for the period at the end of the bill and adding the following words: "and offenses hereunder committed within the Canal Zone shall be cognizable in the district court of said zone, and jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon such court for such purpose.' I trust that the proposed amendment will meet with the approval of yourself and of the other members of the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs, and that he necessary action may be taken by you to have the amendment incorporated in thte bill. It is noted that the bill was reported to the Senate on January 15, 1917, and it is therefore suggested that the desired amendment be offered by you when the bill is taken up for consideration by that body. It is noted that a similar bill (H. R. 19071) was introduced in the House of Representatives on December 16, 1916, by Mr. Paggett, chairman of the House Committee on Naval Affairs, and I am therefore sending a copy of this communication to Mr. Padgett with the request that a similar amendment be made to House bill 19071. Very respectfully, O NEWTON D. BAKER, AUTHORIZING THE CHANGE OF NAME OF STEAMER "FRANK H. PEAVEY" TO "WILLIAM A. REISS." JANUARY 17, 1917-Ordered to be printed. Mr. FLETCHER, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. 7779.] The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (S. 7779) to authorize the change of name of the steamer Frank H. Peavey to William A. Reiss, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it pass without amendment. The bill has the approval of the Department of Commerce, as will appear by the following letter, which is made a part of this report: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Dear SENATOR FLETCHER: I have received your letter of the 11th instant, referring to me S. 7779, S. 7780, S. 7781, and S. 7782, changing the names of certain steamers, and requesting me to furnish your committee with such suggestions as I may deem proper touching the merits of these bills and the propriety of their passage. The bills mentioned are to change the names of the following steamers: Frank H. Peavey to William A. Reiss, Frank T. Heffelfinger to Clemens A. Reiss, George W. Peavey to Richard J. Reiss, Frederick B. Wells to Otto M. Reiss. This department perceives no objection to the passage of these bills. Respectfully, Hon. DUNCAN U. FLETCHER, Chairman Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. E. F. SWEET, Acting Secretary. |