An appropriate notice was served upon a responsible officer of the vessel not to permit then. to enter the United States. While the ship was in port, however, it became necessary to remove them from the vessel to a point on shore, the property of the steamship company or other private interests, for detention temporarily. They escaped, however, and have not been located, so far as known. When the matter came before the department in connection with a proposed fine, it was found that the commissioner of immigration at San Francisco had served against the steamship line a notice of intention to fine under section 18 of the act of February 5, 1917. In passing upon the case, the department assumed, from the fact that a notice of intention to fine had been served, that the aliens had applied for admission to the United States, had been excluded, and had been returned to the custody of the officers of the vessel for deportation. Therefore, it ruled that the penalty as provided in the said section should be imposed. This amounts to $300 in each case; and the sum of $1,500 was ordered covered into the Treasury as an immigration fine, which was done.

Later, however, it developed that the aliens had not applied for admission to the United States, and, therefore, had not been excluded by a board of special inquiry and ordered deported.

Section 18 provides for the imposition of a fine, under appropriate circumstances, in the cases of aliens who have been brought to the United States in violation of law. These aliens were not brought to the United States, specifically speaking. They touched, with the vessel, at a United States port, but only because they were in transit to Mexico and could not go by another route. It can not be held, properly, that an alien who is brought under the instant conditions has been brought in violation of law, as it is believed that the law intends to impose a penalty only in the cases of aliens who are brought as prospective applicants for admission, either temporarily or permanently, and not with respect to those who are not expecting to set foot upon the territory of this country at any time. These aliens would have been retained on the vessel had it not been necessary to remove them temporarily for the purpose of fumigating the vessel, or some other exigent circumstance; and it was only through this exigency that they were taken onto the territory of the United States temporarily.

When it became evident that the conditions as set forth in section 18 were not applicable, the decision rendered with regard to the imposition of the penalty was, of course, found to be in error. Under the circumstances as obtaining in these instances, it is necessary to proceed against the owner, master, agent, consignee, or other person connected with the said vessel, or against the vessel itself, under section 10 of the act of February 5, 1917. Therefore the instructions relating to fine were revoked, and the commissioner of immigration at San Francisco has been authorized to proceed under section 10 of the said act, with a view to collecting the full amount of the penalty named therein with respect to each of the five aliens.

As the previous instructions were found to be in error, for the causes above set forth, it was necessary for this department to request the Commissioner of Immigration to incorporate the amount of the fine, $1,500, in his request for appropriation, so that it might be returned to the steamship company by which it was paid.

Institution of proceedings under section 10 being entirely distinct from the administrative process of imposing fines, the outcome of the suit will have no relation to the question of the propriety or impropriety of imposing the said. fines, and need not be considered in connection with granting the request that an appropriation be made to enable the bureau to return the money, collected in error, to the depositor.

CUNARD STEAMSHIP CO.

The CHAIRMAN. The next item is [reading]:

For refund to Cunard Steamship Co. (Ltd.), New York City, of immigration fine erroneously assessed and collected in the case of the alien Michael Fargen, $25.

Mr. HUSBAND. That is a soldier case.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1924.

DAMAGE CLAIMS.

MORAN TOWING AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE.

STATEMENT OF MR. W. H. WAGNER, SPECIAL INSPECTOR.

The CHAIRMAN. You have an item:

To pay the claim for damage to privately owned property adjusted and determined by the Department of Labor under the provisions of the act approved December 28, 1922, as fully set forth in House Document No. 106, reported to Congress at its present session, $1,000.

Is that the limit of authority?

Mr. WAGNER. Yes, sir, under the provisions of the small claims act. The CHAIRMAN. Tell us about this claim.

Mr. WAGNER. This is a claim of the Moran Towing & Transportation Co. of New York. On February 5, 1921, the U. S. Cutter Immigrant, attached to the Ellis Island immigrant station, ran into the claimant's scow, No. 62, which was moored alongside of hospital island No. 2, and damaged it to the extent of $1,167.21. The Moran Towing & Transportation Co. called in the firm of MacKenzie & Vail Inc., adjusters of marine losses, who made a survey of the vessel while it was in the water, to determine the extent of the damage done. The CHAIRMAN. What did the Department of Labor do all this time?

Mr. WAGNER. The department also caused an investigation to be made. The report of our pilot was as follows:

Made

The cutter Immigrant left the barge office at 7.20 a. m., foggy weather. the Black Channel buoy at Ellis Island about 7.21 a. m. Flood tide runinng and fog bell at Ellis Island ringing. Felt way in slowly, stopping at least three times between the buoy and Ellis Island. Engine stopped for some time when the man on the lookout reported dock ahead. Pulled two bells in order to go back; plenty of time to prevent from touching anything; the bell, however, got hung up in engine room and, as the engineer claimed, struck only once.

The CHAIRMAN. That was to go ahead?

Mr. WAGNER. That was to go ahead. As a result, he crashed into the scow, breaking her line and damaging her some, and struck the dock slightly. The report of the captain of the scow was similar to the one made by our pilot.

The CHAIRMAN. He could not tell whether the bell struck once or twice?

Mr. WAGNER. No; but he claimed it was through no fault of his that the scow was damaged and felt that the Government was responsible for the accident.

The CHAIRMAN. And you agreed with that?

Mr. WAGNER. We agreed with that. The total amount of damage to the scow was $1,167.21, but the Moran Towing & Transportation Co. agreed to accept $1,000. They said they would take that amount in payment of the claim in order to bring it within the small claims

act.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not know whether they spent $1,100 or $700 or $800, do you?

Mr. WAGNER. I have the items here. The bill for the repairs is $971.31. There was a demurrage charge of $144.

The CHAIRMAN. That was for the lack of the use of the scow?

Mr. WAGNER. Yes, sir. Then there was a charge for the towage of the scow to Long Dock, $16.50; and towage from Ellis Island to shipyard, $15.40. The bill for survey was $20. And the total of all the items was $1,167.21.

The CHAIRMAN. If there was any negligence to be charged, I suppose you proved that?

Mr. WAGNER. I think this is a case of negligence on the part of the Government.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1924.

EMPLOYMENT SERVICE.

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE W. LOVE, DISBURSING CLERK.

TELEGRAMS AND TRANSPORTATION.

The CHAIRMAN. You have an item for expenses of the employment service, including the same objects specified under this head in the sundry civil appropriation act for the fiscal year 1920, $125.29. How does that happen?

Mr. Love. These bills all came in subsequent to that particular fiscal year. They were all received in our department in the fiscal year 1922. It was due largely to the fact that the payees neglected to send in their bills.

The CHAIRMAN. Would there have been money enough to pay this if it had been sent in in time?

Mr. Love. I doubt that very much. They had $400,000 for that fiscal year, with a deficiency of $400, making a total of $400,400. The CHAIRMAN. You did not know anything about these bills at the time?

Mr. LOVE. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How was it they contracted these bills in excess of the appropriation? How does that happen?

Mr. Love. Ordinarily, when they send out telegrams, they make a note of it in their ledgers and keep a copy of the contract to show that these bills are due and authorized. This amount is due and was authorized.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not due to the fact that you do not keep any liability accounts for your appropriations when you are making your contracts?

I do not

Mr. LOVE. The employment service now does that. think it was done at that time, but I am sure they do it now. The CHAIRMAN. What are these bills for?

Mr. LOVE. The majority of them are for telegrams. Here is one for $22.40 for the Western Union Telegraph Co. The others are for $19.62, $52.26, $11.70, and $1.88.

The CHAIRMAN. They are all telegraph bills?

Mr. Love. Yes, sir; with the exception of one bill which is that of the New York Central Railroad for $17.43.

The CHAIRMAN. That is for passenger transportation?

Mr. LovE. Yes, sir; from New York to Buffalo and from New York to Albany.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that authorized?

Mr. Love. It was approved by the department.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7,1924.

NAVY DEPARTMENT.

BUREAU OF NAVIGATION.

STATEMENT OF CAPT. CHAUNCEY SHACKFORD, DIVISION OF FLEET TRAINING, OFFICE OF NAVAL OPERATIONS.

GUNNERY AND ENGINEERING EXERCISES.

PRIZES, TROPHIES, ETC.

The CHAIRMAN. You have a supplemental estimate for gunnery and engineering exercises, as follows:

For prizes, trophies, and badges for excellency in gunnery, target practice, etc., including the same objects specified under this head in the naval appropriation act for the fiscal year 1924, $24,300.

The amount of your current appropriation for this purpose is $83,000. It appears that the amount expended during the fiscal year 1923 for the same purpose was $71,000, and the Budget estimate for the fiscal year 1925 is $95,000. The appropriation is used for the payment of prizes for excellence in gunnery exercises and engineering performances, is it not?

Captain SHACKFORD. Yes, sir; for prizes to gun crews and prizes for engineering performances.

The CHAIRMAN. You offer prizes for engineering performances, for economy in fuel consumption, etc.?

Captain SHACKFORD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How do you arrive at the amount that you will use for gunnery exercises?

Captain SHACKFORD. Do you mean the amount of money?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Captain SHACKFORD. We go over the scores for a period of two or three years, and pick out the highest scores we can. We take those scores and add a little extra to them, or increase them by a certain percentage, and then we set those scores as the standard scores. The CHAIRMAN. For the coming year?

Captain SHACKFORD. Yes, sir; for the coming year. If any vessel, gun crew, or any turret meets those scores, it is entitled to a prize. The gun crew is entitled to a prize. Prizes are also awarded for engineering exercises, and there are fire control prizes.

The CHAIRMAN. When did this prize practice begin?

Captain SHACKFORD. The records indicate that back about 1888 they first asked for prize money.

The CHAIRMAN. Who asked for it?

Captain SHACKFORD. The Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance, at that time he had charge of the gunnery exercises, but it is now under the Chief of Naval Operations. The Bureau of Ordnance asked for it in the year 1888. It was not taken very seriously, and our gunnery did not amount to much. Nobody took any special interest in it, as is indicated by the results of the Spanish American War, when we got only about 3 per cent of hits, and that principally with small guns. In 1901 the matter was seriously considered by some of our

very progressive officers, and from that time on the question of gunnery in the Navy has beeh very carefully watched and the results well analyzed. Also, conclusions have been drawn, and the result is that I feel that our gunnery to-day is at the top notch. The CHAIRMAN. What form do these prizes take?

Captain SHACKFORD. We have what is known as short-range battle practice, and this practice is at such range that a well aimed shot will always hit the size of target that is presented to the turret or gun. In other words, if the target is not hit, it is bound to be brought about by the pointer himself, or the gun crew. Now, if they reach a certain score, the pointers of those guns and the gun crew are entitled to prize money in accordance with the standards. Anyone attaining the standard or 90 per cent gets a first-class prize; one that gets 80 per cent of that, receives second prize, and one that gets 70 per cent of that, receives a third prize. The third prize amounts to $5. The CHAIRMAN. What is the first prize?

Captain SHACKFORD. $20.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any way by which you can determine or regulate the expenditure of the money appropriated so as to keep within the amount appropriated?

Captain SHACKFORD. After 1901, for four, five, or six years, prize money was not given to the ships until all of the reports of the ships had reached the department. The scores were then gone over, and prizes were allowed to those attaining certain standards, provided there were sufficient funds. Our vessels are widely separated, some in Asiatic waters, some in European waters, and some in the Pacific, and they do not all carry out the practice at the same time. The result is that oftentimes vessels that fired in August, if they were in Asiatic waters, probably would not get their records in to the department until about November. Those in the Atlantic and Pacific might not fire that same practice until April, and the result of that was that the men could never know sometimes for seven or eight months whether they had won prizes or not. Therefore, the incentive was entirely lost. Oftentimes men were transferred before the awards were made, and oftentimes in other cases men were discharged due to the expiration of their enlistments. The department had no end of trouble in finding out where those men were then located in order to pay them the prize money due. Flag officers and other leading officers of our Navy decided that possibly it would be very much better if we could work out what the scores had been for the last two or three years, add a certain percentage to them, and allow the men to try for certain high scores.

That gave the men an idea of what our standards were, of wht was demanded of them, and when they met those demands, the prizes were paid immediately after the practice. The result was that there was a great deal of keenness among the men, and incentive to the men to excel. I personally saw both methods carred out, and, in my opinion, the method we have adopted, or the last one I have just described, is by far the better one, and it really works to the best interest of the Navy and the country. The other methods did nothing more than probably give a few extra dollars once a month. The man really never did feel just what he got it for or how he got it, except that he had a little extra money. It did not encourage him to excel at all. The scores have been very carefully watched,