페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

Admiral Coontz. The armored cruisers that still exist would be in the item 4 or 5, flagships, and are represented by the Seattle, the Birmingham, and the Rochester. There is only one armored cruiser in the estimates.

Mr. KELLEY. What is the difference between an armored cruiser and a cruiser of the first class ?

Admiral COONTZ. I call an armored cruiser one of our ships which when built was intended to take her place in the battle line. The time of that class is past. They have now battle cruisers of a more advanced type.

Mr. KELLEY. All of these cruisers are in commission that are shown on pages 95 and 96 of last year's report?

Admiral COONTZ. No, sir. That is the report of the Paymaster General showing charges. It does not indicate the status of the ships.

Nr. KELLEY. Those you are buying fuel for for the next six months, tell us which of them are included in that list.

Admiral COONTZ (reading from page 95, annual report Paymaster General, United States Navy:)

Armored cruisers: Frederick, no; Huntington, no; North Carolina, no; Huron, yes; Memphis, no; Missoula, no; Pittsburgh, no; Pueblo, no; San Diego, mined 1917, no; Seattle, no. Cruisers: Brooklyn, no; Charleston, yes; Milwaukee, sunk in 1917, no; Rochester, yes; St. Louis, no; Chicago, yes; Columbia, no—been sold; Minneapolis, no-been sold; Olympia, no; Omaha, no; Miloaukee, no-Milwaukee has been gone for a long time, sunk off the coast.

Would you like to have the third-class cruisers?
Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir.
Admiral Coontz (reading :)

Albany, no; Anniston, no; Birmingham, yes; Chattanooga, no; Chester, no; Cincinnati, no—sold; Cleveland, yes; Denver, yes; Des Moines, no; Galveston, yes; Marblehead, no-sold; New Orleans, no; Raleigh, no-sold; Salem, no; and Tacoma, yes.

There is a possibility of one other which I can check up very easily. A great many have disappeared from the roll long since.

Mr. KELLEY. Are there any other classes carried in this report that are included in any of these heads? There is a long list of ships upon which no sums have been spent up to July 1, last?

Admiral COONTz. Yes, sir; I take it because such vessels as the Leviathan are in it. I would suggest that the reports for the future will show the expenditures for the preceding year.

Capt. LEUTZE. Colliers, 5; and oilers, 8.

Mr. KELLEY. Here is a long list of fuel ships on page 121. What has become of them?

Admiral COONTZ. The Abarenda is to be sold; the Ajax must have been sold; the Alameda has been ordered to be sold; the ArethusaRobert L. Barnes is at Guam; the Brazos—I take it to be an oiler; Brutus, long off the list ; ('aesar, to go off the list; C'uyuma I think is an oiler; Hector must have disappeared years ago; Jason is a collier; Kanawha, I do not know.

Mr. KELLEY. I do not know that I want you to go into a history of each one.

Admiral COONTZ. I take it you understand that that is a charge carried on for years, as on a great many ships that have been listed.

Mr. KELLEY. It gives the expenditures for the year ending July 1, 1921.

(Admiral Coontz. I should like to have Admiral Potter explain that.

Admiral POTTER. The records run through the year, not necessarily charges against the appropriation.

Mr. KELLEY. But this report is your report on the expenditures on these ships for the current year? They are not very far back?

Admiral POTTER. No, sir.
Mr. KELLEY. How far back?

Admiral POTTER. The reports are up to date; in each case those charges are approximately correct.

Mr. KELLEY. In the main, the charges carried in this book are very close to what will be expended during the year?

Admiral POTTER. They are close. I will just mention that they synchronize with the actual apropriation in the bureau, but this year we endeavored to save and we diminished the size of the publication. I had to cut out 500 pages which would otherwise have been carried.

Mr. KELLEY. I do not quite see, from everything that has been said so far, how it could possibly cost nearly $13,000,000, as you say, for fuel.

Capt. LEUTZE. If I remember correctly, there were eight or nine hundred vessels that were included in that. I do not remember the figures. It has been a couple of months since that was done.

Mr. KELLEY. You do not mean that it would take twelve or thirteen million dollars to keep the ships that we are talking about in commission?

Capt. LEUTZE. We took the active list of ships and figured it up on the active list of ships.

Mr. KELLEY. What you mean is that if you took all of the ships that are out of commision entirely in the Navy and add to them those that are in commisison, the two would agregate $13,000,000.

Capt. LEUTZE. I do not remember that figure now.

Secretary DENBY. He did not say taking the ships out of commis sion, but only the ships in commission.

Capt. LEUTZE. At the time that calculation was made, there were some 800 ships, as I recall it-Mr. KELLEY (interposing). How many were in commission!

Capt. LEUTZE. They were all in commisison on that list as it was made up.

Mr. KELLEY. If you kept those ships running in a normal way. why would it take about twenty-seven or twenty-eight million dollars, while, if you tied them up tight, and did not run them at all, it would take $13,000,000? That does not seem very sound reasoning to me.

Secretary DENBY. It is not unbelievable when you consider that their runing time is so much less than their time tied up.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1922.

DAMAGE CLAIMS,

STATEMENT OF MR. ALBERT E. SHOEMAKER, REPRESENTING

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY.

The CHAIRMAN. You have an item here that is not printed in the bill, but which appears in House Document No. 182, adjusted claims on account of damage occasioned to private property by collision with vessels of the United States Navy, $5,163.26. This is the document that I have in my hand, and it enumerates the cases and the amount of each. Are all of these under $500 ? Mr. SHOEMAKER. None of them are more than $500.

The CHAIRMAN. The Secretary of the Navy has the power under the law to adjust these claims.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. The Secretary of the Navy has the power to adjust these claims under the law of June 24, 1910—36 Stat. L., 607—which reads as follows:

The Secretary of the Navy is hereby authorized to consider, ascertain, adjust, and determine the amounts due on all claims for damages, where the amount of the claim does not exceed the sum of $500, hereafter occasioned by collision, for which collisions vessels of the Navy shall be found to be responsible, and report the amounts so ascertained and determined to be due the claimants to Congress at each session thereof through the Treasury Department for payment as legal claims out of appropriations that may be made by (ongress therefor.

The CHAIRMAN. All have been thoroughly examined ?
Mr. SHOEMAKER. All have been thoroughly examined.

The CHAIRMAN. How do you reach the conclusion, what sort of an investigation do you make ?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. In the first place, these collisions are investigated by naval boards, and the records of the proceedings are forwarded to the department and passed over to the Judge Advocate General's office which determines in each case what amount, if any, the Government owes, as a result of the collision, or what amount, if any, may be due the Government on account of the collision. This Document No. 182 contains the letter of the Secretary of the Navy under date of February 9, 1922, transmitting 20 of these adjusted claims.

The CHAIRMAN. Giving the details of each claim? Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, sir; that is, the amount of the claim, the name of the claimant, the name of the Government vessel doing the damage, and the name of the privately-owned property damaged, and the allowance. They are all by agreement with the claimant as to what amount should be allowed. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that a number of these claims were in excess of $500 but were reduced in order to meet the terms of the act.

The CHALRMAN. A good many of less than $500 were adjusted ? Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, sir; but none of more than $500.

The CHAIRMAN. Has everything which the law requires to be done in the settlement of these claims been complied with?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes; the law has been complied with in every particular.

Mr. Sisson. It is a final settlement in each case?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, sir; we do not settle in any other way. Sometimes they ask us to pay in part, and leave the balance for future action, but we do not do that.

Mr. Sisson. You make a complete settlement?
Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, sir.

NAVY DEPARTMENT,

Washington, February 9, 1922. SIR: This department has considered, ascertained, adjusted, and determined the respective amounts due claimants on account of damages for which vessels of the United States Navy were found to be responsible in the following-described instances:

1. The owner of the fishing boat San Michael for damages sustained by said boat as a result of collision with U. S. S. Eagle No. 54 in Cape Cod Canal on June 14, 1921, $50. The correspondence in the department indicates that the owner of the damaged boat is Antonino Gilardi, 228 Vorth Street, Boston, Mass.

2. The owner of the tug JI. Moran for damages sustained by said tug as a result of collision with United States Navy tug No. 61 at Pier 1, North River, N. Y., in August, 1921, $500. The correspondence in the department indicates that the owner of the damaged iug is the Moran Towing & Transportation Co.. 17 Battery Place, New York City.

3. The owner of Pier No. 37, located at San Francisco, Calif., for damages caused to said pier by the U. S. S. Henshaw on August 14, 1921, $57.30. The correspondence in the department indicates that the owner of the damaged pier is the Board of State Harbor Commissioners, Union Depot and Ferry House, San Francisco, Calif.

4. The owner of barge No. 323 for damages sustained by said barge as a result of collision with l'. S. S. Narkeeta at the navy yard, New York, on June 24, 1921, $207.64. The correspondence in the department indicates that the owner of the damaged barge is the ('entral Railroad Co. of New Jersey. 143 Liberty Street, New York City.

5. The owner of the steamship A. L. Kent for damages sustained br said steamship as a result of collision with the U. S. S. Trinity at Hampton Roads, Va., on May 6, 1921, $469.30. The correspondence in the department indicates that the owner of the damaged steamship is the Crowell & Thurlow Steamship ('0., Crowell & Thurlow, agents, 131 State Street, Boston, Mass.

6. The owner of a Wharf located at Martinez, ('alif., for damage (aust! t-> said wharf by I'. S. destroyer Hamilton Vo. 1.11 on April 7, 1921. $500. The correspondence in the department indicates that the owner of the damappd wharf is the Shell Co., of California, Security Building, San Francisco, Calif.

7. The owner of Pier No. 41, located at San Francisco, Calif., for damages caused to said pier by L'. S. S. Tingey No. 272 on July 12, 1921, $132.59. The usrespondence in the department indicates that the owner of the damaged pier is the Board of State Harbor ('ommissioners, l'nion Depot and Ferry Honse. Sin Francisco, Calif.

8. The owner of barge No. 305, for damages sustained by said barge as a result of collision with Navy barge No. 112 at the navy yard, New York, on September 1920, $14.63. The correspondence in the department indicates that the owner the damaged barge is the ('entral Railroad ('o. of New Jersey, 143 Liberty Street New York City.

9. The owner of Pier No. 3, located at Jacksonville, Fla., for damages ( to said pier by the U.S. S. Balch on March 26, 1921, $500. The correspon d in the department indicates that the owner of the damaged pier is the (51x Steamship ('o., Pier 36, Worth River, N. Y..

10. The owner of Ceilar Point Dock, located at (edar Point, Ohio, for damage caused to said dock by l'. S. S. C. No. 886 on July 30, 1918, $.300. The corresina ence in the department indicates that the owner of the damsell dock in the Cleveland & Buffalo Transit (0., of Cleveland, Ohio.

11. The owner of Pier No. 80, located at North River, N. Y., for vlamagas1131 to said pier by the l'. S. S. Florida, the l'. S. S. Delairare, and the l'.S. S.Vur Dakota on July 22, 1921, $275. The correspondence in the department indicate that the owner of the damaged pier is the ('entral Railroad Co. of New Jerwy. who leased it to the Atlantic Transport Co., of 11 Broadway, Veir York (ity. claimant.

12. The owner of Pier No. 2, located at Jacksonville, Fla., for damages caused to said pier by U. S. Navy destroyer Laurence on June 29, 1921, $179.05. The correspondence in the department indicates that the owner of the damaged pier is the Clyde Stea mship Co., Pier 36, North River, X. Y.

13. The owner of the steamship Emergency Aid, for damages sustained by said vessel as a result of the wash of U. S. Navy destroyer Goff at Hog Island, Philadelphia, on March 3, 1921, $330.15. The correspondence in the department indicates that the owner of the damaged vessel is the United States Shipping Board, Washington, D. C.

14. The owner of a dock located at Norfolk, Va., for damages caused to said dock by U. S. Navy tug Wahneta while docking Navy lighter No. 58 on November 10, 1920, $200. The correspondence in the department indicates that the owner of the damaged dock is the Texas Co., Norfolk, Va..

15. The owner of a dolphin on east side of drawbridge at San Pedro, Calif., for damages cause to said dolphin by U. S. S. Eagle No. 39 on August 6, 1921, $20.90. The correspondence in the department indicates that the owner of the damaged dolphin is the Southern Pacific Co., San Francisco, Calif.

16. The owner of the barge Eugene B. Reynolds, for damages sustained by said barge as a result of the wash of the U. S. S. Broome (destroyer No. 210) at Eighty-second Street, East River, N. Y., on December 11, 1919, $114. The correspondence in the department indicates that the owner of the damaged barge is C. H. Reynolds & Sons (Inc.), Morgan Avenue and Meserole Street, Brooklyn, N. Y.

17. The owner of South Wharf, located at Sixteenth Street. San Francisco, Calif., for damages caused to said wharf by the U. S. S. Hogan on April 6, 1921, $232.57. The correspondence in the department indicates that the owner of the damaged wharf is the Board of State Harbor Commissioners, Ferry Building, San Francisco, Calif.

18. The owner of the motor boat Mary Powell No. 7129, for damages sustained by said motor boat as a result of collision with U. S. ammunition lighter No. 29 (L. 11, Sullivan) on July 5, 1921, $150. The correspondence in the department indicates that the owner of the dainaged boat is Harry Clifford, 982 Columbus Avenue, New York City.

19. The owner of a house boat and a motor boat, for damages sustained by said boats as the result of swells from U. S. Navy destroyer Rizal in the Columbia River on June 19, $450. The correspondence in the department indicates that the owner of the damaged house boat and motor boat is Joseph B. Medley', St. Helens, Columbia County, Oreg.

20. The owner of piling on the south side of Pier No. 43, San Francisco, Calif., for damages caused to said piling by the U. S. S. Doyen on June 30, 1921, $260.13. The correspondence in the department indicates that the owner of the damaged piling is the Board of State Harbor Commissioners, Union Depot and Ferry House, San Francisco, Calif.

I have the honor to request that the amounts found due the claimants as above set forth be reported to Congress for payment in accordance with the provisions of the act of June 24, 1910 (36 Stat. L., 607). In all, $5,163.26. Very respectfully,

EDWIN DENBY,

Secretary of the Navy. The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

PAY, MISCELLANEOUS.

STATEMENTS OF CAPT. S. W. BRYANT AND COMMANDER L. NOYES,

INCREASE OF LIMITATION ON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES.

The CHAIRMAN. You have an item under general expenses—pay, miscellaneous ?

Capt. Bryant. Yes, sir; for telegraph and telephone expense, $109,000.

The CHAIRMAN. You want to increase the allotment for that purpose?

Capt. BRYANT. Yes, sir.

« 이전계속 »