Mr. BYRNS of Tennessee. Then, the money that is estimated for this particular purpose has been used for some other purpose under the appropriation? Captain SHACKFORD. It has been used for prize money. Mr. BYRNS of Tennessee. I was interested in the question that the chairman asked awhile ago as to why the Navy Department did not take into consideration the fact that they had only a certain amount to be expended, and why the department did not originally take steps to see that the appropriation was not exceeded in the offering of prizes. What was the total amount of the appropriation for 1923? Captain SHACKFORD. It was $93,200, but about $20,000 of that was for printing. Mr. BYRNS of Tennessee. So that your appropriation for these purposes was really about $73,000? Captain SHACKFORD. Yes, sir. Mr. BYRNS of Tennessee. Was all of it expended? Captain SHACKFORD. Very nearly so. balance. There was a very small Mr. BYRNS of Tennessee. The appropriation this year is $83,000. Captain SHACKFORD. Yes, sir; it is $10,000 more. Mr. BYRNS of Tennessee. And you are now asking for $24,300, making your appropriation for this year more than $107,000, which would be an increase of $34,000. Captain SHACKFORD. About that; yes, sir. Mr. BYRNS of Tennessee. That would be an increase of $34,000 over the amount appropriated for 1923. Captain SHACKFORD. Yes, sir. Mr. BYRNS of Tennessee. That is, taking into consideration the fact that $20,000 of the appropriation for 1923 was for printing? Captain SHACKFORD. Yes, sir. Mr. BYRNS of Tennessee. Has the marksmanship of the Navy increased to that extent? Captain SHACKFORD. Yes, sir. Mr. BYRNS of Tennessee. Then, it must be practically 50 per cent over what it was in 1923. Captain SHACKFORD. It has increased, as I have stated. Take, for example, the destroyers at San Diego, 38 in number, and the average performance of those 38 destroyers was equal to that of the vessel that stood seventh out of 102 destroyers in the previous year. Now, if anyone could have foretold of any such advance in gunnery as that, It would have been very surprising. It is hard to see how it could have been done. Mr. BYRNS of Tennessee. Was your standard this year higher than it was in 1923 ? Captain SHACKFORD. The standard this year was about the same, owing to the fact that the scores last year did not come anywhere near meeting the appropriation. Mr. BYRNS of Tennessee. You say that it was owing to the fact that they did not come anywhere meeting the appropriation. You do not make the standards to meet the appropriation do you? Captain SHACKFORD. They did not come near to meeting the standard we had set. I did not mean to say the appropriation. For that reason, we were not justified in raising the standards. In other words, if we had raised the standards when practically none of the vessels had reached the standards already set, the people in the service would have said, "There is no use in trying to meet that standard; we did not meet it last year, and we certainly can not be expected to meet a higher standard the present year. For that reason the department did not raise the standards. The standards are changed only about every two or three years, or when we begin to see an improvement in the gunnery. Then we begin to raise the standards a little. Mr. BYRNS of Tennessee. In submitting this supplemental estimate for something over $24,000 you can not say just what amount will be required. Of course, it can not be anything more than an estimate as to what you think you will require. Captain SHACKFORD. Yes, sir; that is true. Mr. BYRNS of Tennessee. How did you arrive at this estimate? Captain SHACKFORD. I arrived at it in this way: Looking into what the results have been up to date, since July 1, and considering the big improvement that has been made, and then considering the practices yet to be held for which prize money must be awarded, it appears now, all things considered, as if the improvement will be the same in all the different practices, or in a proportionate ratio of increase, and if that is true this amount of prize money will be required. Mr. BYRNS of Tennessee. Of course, you adopt your standards at the beginning of the year, and you can not change them during the year. Captain SHACKFORD. That would not be a good idea. It would not be fair, because certain of the ships have fired their practice under certain standards, while other ships have not fired as yet. Of course, you could not raise the standards for the same practice when all the ships have not fired. The CHAIRMAN. You have not created any deficiency so far? Captain SHACKFORD. We have not, but I feel that we will. Reports must come from Asia and from Europe, and in the event we get the reports that are expected, I feel that we will have a deficiency. I think there is no doubt that a deficiency will be created. Mr. BYRNES of South Carolina. For the next fiscal year you ask $95,000? Captain SHACKFORD. Yes, sir. Mr. BYRNES of South Carolina. After July 1 you intend to change your standards? Captain SHACKFORD. Yes, sir; we will materially raise them. Mr. BYRNES of South Carolina. You say that you can not do that now because you feel that you will be breaking faith with the men after having set certain standards for the ships? Captain SHACKFORD. Yes, sir; that is true. Mr. BYRNS of Tennessee. You can do one of two things-break your promise to them or ask for a deficiency? Captain SHACKFORD. Yes, sir; that is the whole thing in a nutshell. Mr. CRAMTON. In this work you are referring to there is a certain part of it that you can foresee, such as the expense of conducting the tests, etc. That you can foresee, but the thing that you fear you can not foresee accurately is the amount of prize money that will be required on account of the greater improvement that comes. The greater the improvement the greater will be the amount of prize money required. You say that the improvement has been so great that an unanticipated amount of prize money will be required. Is that correct? Captain SHACKFORD. Yes, sir; the improvement has been unprecedented. AMOUNT EXPENDED IN 1923 FOR PRIZE MONEY. Mr. CRAMTON. How much was actually expended in 1923 for prize money? Eliminating everything else except the prize money, what was the total expenditure? Captain SHACKFORD. $44,645. Mr. CRAMTON. That was the actual amount of the prize money? Captain SHACKFORD. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMTON. How much did you estimate or anticipate would be spent in 1924 for prize money? Captain SHACKFORD. $50,700. Mr. CRAMTON. How much do you now figure will actually be spent on account of prize money during 1924? Captain SHACKFORD. We have actually spent to date $63,249. Mr. CRAMTON. How much are you counting on for the balance of the year, just for prize money? Captain SHACKFORD. $22,000. Mr. CRAMTON. That will be $35,000. Now, of that $35,000, you will absorb $11,000 by cutting down other expenditures. In other words, you are running $35,000 above your original anticipation? Captain SHACKFORD. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMTON. And you are asking $24,000 as a deficiency, so that $11,000 is being absorbed in other items of expenditure? Captain SHACKFORD. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMTON. As I understand it, when they obtain a higher standard of excellency, you raise your standards. Do you ever reduce those standards again if the situation should drop back again? Captain SHACKFORD. They never have been to my recollection. It has not been done for the past 12 or 15 years, since this present system has been inaugurated. Mr. CRAMTON. The greater the advance in certain years in excellence, the more difficult it becomes in the succeeding years to score a further advance, generally speaking? Captain SHACKFORD. Yes, sir; that is correct. Mr. CRAMTON. The situation, then, is, not only that the estimate that is before us is strictly for prize money, but the increase in the prize money has resulted in your holding other expenditures in connection with this work below the appropriations? Captain SHACKFORD. That is correct. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1924. STATEMENT OF MR. ALBERT E. SHOEMAKER, OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL. DAMAGES TO OR LOSSES OF PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY. The CHAIRMAN. Your item is on page 53, as follows: To pay claims for damages to or losses of privately owned property adjusted and determined by the Navy Department under the provisions of the act approved December 28, 1922, as fully set forth in House Documents Numbered 115 and 119, reported to Congress at its present session, $46,465.78. That is a tremendous sum for that purpose. Mr. SHOEMAKER. I think that must cover both documents, Nos. 115 and 119. The CHAIRMAN. Tell us what it is about. Mr. SHOEMAKER. These claims, numbering 50, are covered in Document No. 115. The CHAIRMAN. They are all set out? Mr. SHOEMAKER. The adjustments are set out in numerical order in this document, with the amounts determined to be due the claimants. The CHAIRMAN. Do any of them exceed the amount authorized by law? Mr. SHOEMAKER. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What was the total amount claimed before the adjustment was made? Mr. SHOEMAKER. I am unable to answer that, but the total amount claimed was considerably more than the amount allowed. The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would put in the record a statement showing the aggregate amount of the claims and the aggregate amount of the allowances. Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, sir; I will be glad to do that. (In compliance with the chairman's request, Mr. Shoemaker supplied the following information:) There are presented here 50 claims adjusted under the act of December 28, 1922, Public, No. 374, Sixty-seventh Congress, and set out in Document No. 115. These 50 claims as adjusted aggregate $40,149.04. They average $802.98. The total amount claimed by the 50 claimants was $49,648.28. The difference between the aggregate amount claimed and the aggregate amount allowed is $9,499.24. In Document No. 119 are set out 23 claims adjusted under the act of December 28, 1922, Public, No. 375, Sixty-seventh Congress. These claims are for reimbursement for loss of or damage to personal property due to negligence of men in the naval service. The 23 claims as adjusted aggregate $6,316.74. They average $274.64. The aggregate amount claimed by the 23 claimants was $7,524.70. The difference between the aggregate amount claimed and the aggregate amount allowed is $1,207.96. METHOD AND PROCESS OF ADJUSTING CLAIMS. The CHAIRMAN. How are these claims adjudicated, or what is the process? Mr. SHOEMAKER. The claims listed in Document No. 115 are claims arising out of damages caused by naval vessels either to privatelyowned vessels or to docks, wharfs, and property of that kind. The CHAIRMAN. What period of time do these claims cover? Mr. SHOEMAKER. They are of various dates, some of them running back to war times, and some of them are claims that have arisen during the year. Since the act of December 28, 1922, was passed, a number of claimants who had submitted their claims previously, but were unable to have them adjusted under the old act, for the claims were in excess of $500, presented their claims under the act that was approved December 28, 1922, increasing the amount to $3,000. The CHAIRMAN. They transferred their claims within the period prescribed by law? Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, sir; they have all been presented since April 6, 1917, and all of them arise since that date. The CHAIRMAN. What I wanted to find out was how you adjusted them. What is your authorization for that purpose? Mr. SHOEMAKER. These collisions are subject to investigation in the first instance by a Navy Board convened generally immediately after the accident. The CHAIRMAN. Does the same naval board investigate all of them? Mr. SHOEMAKER. No, sir; there is a different board in each case. The CHAIRMAN. Appointed by whom? Mr. SHOEMAKER. It is convened, if it occurs in or near a naval district, by the commandant of the district, and if it occurs at sea, it is convened by the senior officer present. The CHAIRMAN. What does the board consist of? Mr. SHOEMAKER. It usually consists of three naval officers. The CHAIRMAN. Do they ever turn any claims down? Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Do they always find the Government liable? The testimony is transcribed. The CHAIRMAN. The testimony is taken down? Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, sir; it is taken down stenographically and transcribed. Several copies are made under the regulations. The CHAIRMAN. And they are sent to whom? Mr. SHOEMAKER. The original copy is sent to the department-to the Judge Advocate General's office where it is reviewed. Then it is referred to the Bureau of Navigation, which passes upon it. The CHAIRMAN. The head of that bureau is an admiral? Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Does he look at the record? Mr. SHOEMAKER. I assume so. The CHAIRMAN. Does he look at them, or does he have a clerk to do it! Mr. SHOEMAKER. He has assistants, but he signs the indorsement. Then it comes back to the Judge Advocate General's office, and it is finally acted upon by him and by the Secretary of the Navy. Mr. BUCHANAN. While on that point, is there any board or set of men here in the department that really goes into these things, or are they just approved as a matter of formality, after the naval officers have approved them at the place where the accident happens? In other words, do they really go into the facts of these case? Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, sir; by all means. The CHAIRMAN. Where is that done? Mr. SHOEMAKER. We have an admiralty section, of which I am in charge. |