Gambar halaman

Clearly both Judge Advocate Generals cannot be right. I therefore earnestly request the committee to approve this simple amendment and so remove all question of doubt as well as remove discriminatory language which may even be invalid on constitutional grounds.

My interest in this proposed amendment may deserve some special explanation. It has a history of 5 years of legislative effort to rectify the twice established injustice of my wartime nonpromotion to captain USN in 1943. Repeatedly and vigorously Adm. Robt. B. Carney, 'now CNO, has spoken in my behalf.

Mr. Chairman, permit me to read a most important and significant letter from Admiral Carney to me dated August 6, 1952, some 18 months ago. It clearly reveals his magnificent sense of justice, his vigorous readiness to do battle for right, his able grasp of human values, and matchless loyalty to a deserving subordinate —"loyalty down” as we call it in the service.



August 6, 1952. Comdr. EDWARD W. RAWLINS, USN (retired),

Washington 8, D. C. MY DEAR ED: I was delighted to hear from you even though the news of your project was not favorable. I need not reassure you that I share your hope for ultimate success, and not only agree with your determination to continue to prosecute it, but urge you to do so.

I am sure, also, that I do not need to reaffirm my willingness to help whenever you need ammunition. I realize that a huge organization like the naval personnel business must sometimes operate like a soulless machine because of possible ramifications which would dangerously compromise their good policies through the medium of multifarious exceptions; however, I as an individual, and a responsible one, could never subscribe to the theory that one wrong should not be righted because it might lead to other claims.

I told Grace that I had heard from you, and she told me to be sure to include her affectionate best wishes to you both. Sincerely,


Admiral, United States Navy. On August 8, 1952, before Admiral Carney's letter of the 6th reached me I called on Rear Adm. Ira Nunn, the new Judge Advocate General of the Navy, who was a Naval Academy classmate and personal friend of mine. In the course of our talk he offered the purely unofficial personal suggestion that I submit a petition to the President for promotion to captain by Executive appointment. He said he felt certain the President had this appointive power under the Constitution. He also said unofficially that this would appear to offer a satisfactory solution to a case of long-standing.

Acting upon Admiral Nunn's unofficial suggestion I drafted a documented detailed petition to the President. Before submitting it I transmitted my draft to Admiral Carney for any comment or advice he might choose to make. Admiral Carney replied immediately with wise and valuable suggestions which I followed implicitly. My petition then was submitted under date of November 25, 1952. Much to my surprise 6 weeks later, however, I received a letter dated January 7, 1953, from the then Secretary of the Navy reading in part as follows:

“The Judge Advocate General of the Navy has informed me that, although the Constitution of the United States grants the President the authority, with the advice and consent of the Senate to appoint officers in the naval service, the President is precluded by statute (act of August 5, 1882, 22 Stat. 286, 34 U. S. C. 402) from promoting an officer on the retired list without congressional legislation."

A copy of the entire letter from the then Secretary of the Navy dated January 7, 1953, I respectfully offer for the record :


Washington, January 7, 1953. Comdr. EDWARD W. RAWLINS, USN (Retired),

Washington, D. C. DEAR COMMANDER RAWLINS: The copy of your petition to the President of the United States, which was left in my office with the request that I support it by a letter to the President, has been carefully considered.

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy has informed me that, although the Constitution of the United States grants the President the authority, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint officers in the naval service, the President is precluded by statute (act of August 5, 1882, 22 Stat. 286, 34 U. S. C. 402) from promoting an officer on the retired list without congressional legislation.

In view of this law, I am unable to recommend to the President, that he take favorable action on your petition. Furthermore, it does not appear that anything would be accomplished by a personal interview with me, since it appears that the relief sought may be secured only through an act of Congress. Sincerely yours,


Washington, January 2, 1953. Comdr. EDWARD W. RAWLINS, USN (Retired).

Washington, D. C. MY DEAR COMMANDER RAWLINS: We have carefully considered your petition of November 25, 1952, by which you ask that the President promote you to the grade of captain, United States Navy (retired).

Without expressing any view on the merits of your petition, I regret to advise you that we have reached the conclusion that the President may not appoint you to captain on the retired list of the Navy without enabling legislation authorizing him to do so. Sincerely yours,


Special Counsel to the President. It is important for the committee to know the tenor of a letter written last spring by Admiral Carney to Senator Saltonstall dated May 7, 1953. I offer a copy for the record, and time permitting wish to read extracts from it.


Naples, Italy, May 7, 1953.
Chairman, United States Senate Committee on Armed Services,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: I have just received your letter of April 24 concerning S. 1063. I am happy to be able to comment.

I have been interested in Commander Rawlins' case from the beginning. He served with me in the Navy's North Atlantic escort operation in 1941 and 1942 and I am rather well acquainted with his history since that time.

On earlier occasions when Commander Rawlins has endeavored to obtain congressional relief in bills similar to S. 1063 I have testified in his behalf and have stated that it was my considered opinion that in comparison with all other contemporary officers of my acquaintance his character, his performance of duty, and his professional competence was such as to have qualified him for promotion with his contemporaries. I do not have here, in my personal files, copies of my earlier testimony or letters concerning Rawlins' case, but the opinions which I submitted in testimony or in documents concerning this case remain unchanged and I would be quite willing to have them made available to your committee as representing the opinions which I held then and still hold.

I cannot comment on the Navy Department report as submitted by Rear Admiral Nunn, USN, nor would I presume to comment on the aspects of S. 1063 which deal with such special matters as retroactive pay, return to the active list, etc. I can only reaffirm my opinion, based on my knowledge of his case, and also based on citations covering Commander Rawlins' wartime service, that his professional qualifications, character, and performance of duty placed him safely within the bracket of those suitable for wartime promotion. I believed then, and still believe, that his performance warranted his being promoted to the grade of captain with his contemporaries.

It was my feeling, sir, that there had been a slip in his case and if there had been an inequity it should be corrected. Although a good many years have passed since Commander Rawlins first began his efforts to regain his lineal position in the Navy, I sincerely hope that some restitution can be made if it is established to the satisfaction of the Congress that there has been inequity in this case.

I realize that the passage of time may have introduced administrative complications but I would like to reaffirm the opinions expressed in my previous testimony and letters to this case and Commander Rawlins is, of course, at liberty to make them available to your committee should they be desired. Very respectfully,

ROBT. B. CARNEY, Admiral, United States Navy.


Naples, Italy, April 4, 1953.
United States Navy (Retired),

Washington 8, D. C. MY DEAR ED: Your March 29 letter reached me at headquarters where I am only spending a couple of days between trips to Greece and Turkey. Consequently, I must be brief.

I am always interested in your battle and my good wishes for your success with your two new twin bills are undiminished.

I do not agree with your suggestion that I write to Senator Saltonstall and Congressman Dewey Short unsolicited, stating that I would be glad to appear as a witness in your favor were I in Washington. Whereas I have always reserved the right to express my own honest beliefs, regardless of party lines or popular position, I have also meticulously observed the code of official propriety; to gratuitously jump into this new battle-new in the sense of its being introduced de novo in the current Congress—would not be in accordance with my ideas of propriety. On the other hand, I say to you without reservation that I would maintain my previously stated views were I called upon to express them in connection with any hearings on the new bills. Furthermore, you are at liberty to quote me in this respect provided that you quote my views in their entirety as set forth in this paragraph.

You also have my permission to refer to any of my previous letters or testimony with the assurance that there will be no contradiction from me.

If you will reflect you will realize that it would not be proper for me to take any other position, in view of the wording of the bills; although the bills are restricted in the sense that their criteria are presumably only applicable to you and Shanahan, no names are actually mentioned. I have been, and am, quite ready to express my views concerning your own particular case, but I know nothing of any other cases which might be covered by the bill, and for that reason it would be completely out of line for me to jump into the arena in advocacy of the bills themselves. At such time as proper hearings clarify the list of people to whom the bills are applicable, then, and only then, would it be appropriate for me to speak.

New subject : Grace and I are delighted to hear the news about the addition to the family and we both rejoice and wish you all every happiness.

I am sorry that my own schedule is so jammed up that I cannot write in more detail but I am sure you will understand when I say that even on Easter Sunday I'll probably have to be plugging away in my shop. Best as always,

ROBT. B. CARNEY, Admiral, United States Navy.


December 16, 1953. Comdr. EDWARD W. RAWLINS, United States Navy (Retired),

Washington, D. C. MY DEAR ED: I have looked over H. R. 5416 and your proposed amendment.? I cannot predict the effects of attaching your proposed amendment' to the very

1 The proposed amendment mentioned above, as then drafted was considerably more farreaching than as submitted to Senator Duff's subcommittee; it would specifically have named Commanders Shanahan and Rawlins for promotion to captain with optional right to be restored to the active list of the Regular Navy.-E. W. R.

simple and straightforward bill for the relief of the lieutenants named therein, but it seems to me that some of the things you propose will prove to be of such controversial nature as to jeopardize the basic bill--and the interests of the officers named in the basic bill. While you have, as you know, my complete sympathy for your own case, I would not be willing to support it if it were to jeopardize the interests of those others. It may be that your proposed amendment will not prejudice the other cases; if this actually proves to be so, the amendment method would appear to be all right.

By way of reaffirming what I said to you the other day, I stand on my previous testimony and statements concerning your case. The final decision of the position of the Navy Department will, of course, rest with the Secretary of the Navy but I wish to reassure you that he will have my views available to him when your case is brought to his attention for decision. Sincerely,

Robt. B. CARNEY, Admiral, United States Navy,


Washington, July 5, 1949. Commander E. W. RAWLINS,

United States Navy, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR ED: I was interested in the record of the hearing on your bill' and sorry that the thing was diverted into a blanket matter which, by normal administrative tempo, is something which will take a long time to adjudicate. Whatever the next step may be in the process, you may still count on me to speak in your behalf.

I am sending the various and sundry documents back to you with this.
Best regards, as always.

Vice Admiral, United States Navy.

Perhaps it is also important for the committee to know that back in 1946 Senator Saltonstall very properly took vigorous action to effect the long overdue wartime promotion of Commander Warren S. Parr, United States Navy, to the grade of captain. Commander Parr was then junior to me.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, my amendment if enacted will give to the Secretary of the Navy the same instrument by which he can, through Presidential appointment with Senate confirmation, rectify promotion injustices such as the five retired lieutenants named in H. R. 5416—the same instrument that the Secretaries of the Army and of the Air Force possess with respect to the retired lists of their own services. Since it appears that the disputed language of the old 1882 act has been used, perhaps even misused, in a manner hardly either contemplated or intended by Congress at the time of its enactment; since that language is clearly discriminatory against the Navy only; since that language may well be held to invade the appointive powers of the President under the Constitution; since an amendment to repeal that specific language would appear to be right and just; and since the chief counsel to the House Armed Services Committee has authorized me to say that he will recommend House committee concurrence in such an amendment if the Senate should attach it to H, R. 5416—I very respectively request and urge that the proposed amendment which I here present to you be favorably considered and accepted. If the committee believes it to be necessary I am certain that Admiral Carney will be glad to appear to give his views regarding this proposed amendment to remove this discrimination against the Navy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kindness and courtesy in permitting me to address this committee in behalf of an amendment to promote fair play, justice, and right.

1 Bill mentioned here was S. 780 (of 81st Cong.), as amended in committee; the committee amendment to S. 1063 (83d Cong.), is identical with old S. 780 (81st Cong.), as amended.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Mr. DARDEN. The next bill, and I believe the last one, is S. 2040, which appears on page 8 of the committee print.

(S. 2040 is as follows:)

[S. 2040, 83d Cong., 1st sess. ]

A BILL To define service as a member of the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps as active

military service under certain conditions Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That title I of the Women's Armed Services Integration Act of 1948 (ch, ,449, 62 Stat. 356), as amended, is further amended by adding a new section 111 as follows:

"Sệc. 111. (a) Active service in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps on or after May 14, 1942, and before September 30, 1943, shall be deemed for all purposes except as limited by subsection (b) hereof to be active military service (1) in the status of a commissioned officer in the Army of the United States for the period during which a person held an appointment as an officer in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps and (2) 'in the status of an enlisted person of the Army of the United States for the period during which a person was enrolled as a member of the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps: Provided, That active military service in the armed forces is performed before or after the effective date of this Act.

(b) No back pay or allowances shall be paid by reason of subsection (a) of this section, nor shall anything contained in this section be construed as providing service credit for promotion purposes in addition to that otherwise provided by law."

Mr. DARDEN. The staff feels that there are some matters of policy involved in this bill that are deserving of a careful look for the subcommittee, and before I make any presentation, may I say that representatives of the Army have seen the staff's comment in this committee print and feel that it does not present the bill in its best light, and would like to attempt to elaborate on the presentation that I am going to give.

Senator DUFF. Is this the last bill?
Mr. DARDEN. This is the last bill.
Senator DUFF. They can elaborate all they want up until 10 o'clock.

Mr. DARDEN. Perhaps the committee would want to hear from them first, before I make any presentation.

Senator SYMINGTON. I would like to hear from you first, if the chairman would approve.

Senator DUFF. So would I, very definitely.

Mr. DARDEN. This bill is recommended by the Department of Defense and introduced by Chairman Saltonstall by request.

Senator SYMINGTON. By whose request?
Mr. DARDEN. By the request of the Department of Defense, sir.

The Department has opposed this type of bill in the past, and this is the first year that they favor it.

Senator DUFF. Do they favor it at this time?

Mr. DARDEN. They do favor it; yes, sir; and the letter appears in the committee print.

The purpose of the bill is to credit service in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps as active military duty in the case of those persons who subsequently served in one of the women's components of the Armed Forces.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »