Admiral BILLARD. Since the man died. Mr. MINOT. The appropriation for 1923 was insufficient to pay all the claims submitted. The CHAIRMAN. These payments are automatic, are they? Admiral BILLARD. Yes; the names and amounts are set forth in House Document 164. DAMAGE CLAIMS. The CHAIRMAN. We will take up the item of damage claims: To pay claims for damages to or losses of privately-owned property adjusted and determined by the Treasury Department, under the provisions of the act approved December 23, 1922, as fully set forth in House Document No. 154, reported to Congress at its present session, $657.07. Admiral BILLARD. Those are cases due to collisions and damages where it was found that the fault was that of the Government, due to negligence of employees within the meaning of the act; so that the department passed upon them. The CHAIRMAN. Let us see what process you went through to pass upon them, and what the accident consisted of. Admiral BILLARD. In everything of that sort in the Coast Guard, the matter is very carefully inquired into by a board of investigation. This is done in each of these cases. The CHAIRMAN. How many cases are there? Admiral BILLARD. There are two before you now. The CHAIRMAN. One is for $176.91 and the other for $480.16. Tell us about each one of them, who the claimant is, what the Government liability was, and the nature of the accident. Admiral BILLARD. The first case was a collision between the Coast Guard cutter Davey and a wharf at New Orleans, La. The CHAIRMAN. Then it is not likely that the wharf was at fault? Admiral BILLARD. No, sir; the wharf suffered damage to stringers, as a result of the collision. The CHAIRMAN. What was the matter with the captain of the boat? Was he off duty that day? Admiral BILLARD. No, sir; it was apparently some negligence in the matter of answering bell signals. The CHAIRMAN. You are not sure? Admiral BILLARD. The report refers to the three employees of the engine room, and Captain Jacobs tells me now that it was negligence in responding to bell signals. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how much the damage was? Admiral BILLARD. That is determined by the investigating board. The case comes to us and is very carefully reviewed and sent back if necessary. In this case we upheld the finding of the board, that the damage was due to certain negligence on the part of these men. The CHAIRMAN. What did it consist of? Admiral BILLARD. It consisted of damage to stringers on the wharf. The CHAIRMAN. Was there a bill rendered for repairs? Admiral BILLARD. I understand there was a bill rendered; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What was the amount of the claim originally? This was what you paid. How much was the claim before you settled? Admiral BILLARD. We are influenced by the findings of our board of investigation, you see. The CHAIRMAN. There must be somebody on the board somewhere or some record to show how much the claim was before you settled it. Admiral BILLARD. The board in its report on the accident is required to look into the matter and advise the department how much damage it thinks has been done. That it will do, regardless of any claim. Mr. BYRNS. The document says: The cost of repair to a certain wharf, $176.91, as evidenced by the bill presented to the board by the port of New Orleans. Admiral BILLARD. Yes; that was approved by the board. The CHAIRMAN. I did not know but what they might have made a claim for some large amount. Admiral BILLARD. No, sir; there is nothing of that sort. The CHAIRMAN. Do you generally allow everything they ask? Admiral BILLARD: Only after looking into the merits of the case. The CHAIRMAN. Let us hear of the next claim. Admiral BILLARD. There was a collision on April 28, 1923. The Coast Guard cutter Wissahickon, a tug, collided with an American steamship George G. Henry. The CHAIRMAN. How do you know the Wissahickon was to blame? Admiral BILLARD. That case was investigated by a board of investigation. It appears that the warrant officer in charge of the Wissahickon was not properly on the job at the time, and the Government tug fouled this steamer and did damage aggregating $480.16. The CHAIRMAN. What became of the warrant officer? Admiral BILLARD. I do not now recall. I know some disciplinary action was taken. I do not really recall just what it was now. The CHAIRMAN. What was the trouble between the Wissahickon and the other ship? Admiral BILLARD. It seems that the Wissahickon was going alongside this vessel to board her. The CHAIRMAN. Was the other vessel standing? Admiral BILLARD. She was under way, I think; as I recall. The CHAIRMAN. She was under way? Admiral BILLARD. And our man in command of this tug handled his boat without proper skill and damaged the vessel. The CHAIRMAN. Instead of running alongside, he ran into the boat; is that it? Admiral BILLARD. That is the idea. The CHAIRMAN. What happened to the Wissahickon? Admiral BILLARD. I do not think there was any damage to her to amount to anything. The CHAIRMAN. What was she going to board the other ship for? Admiral BILLARD. This Wissahickon is a harbor boat, on which we take customs inspectors as you know, just like in the port of New York. The CHAIRMAN. She was in command of some incompetent? Admiral BILLARD. I would not describe him as incompetent. He had a temporary lapse from competency at that time. The CHAIRMAN. Was it early in the morning or late at night? Admiral BILLARD. In our judgment, the tide caught him and he got in trouble. I do not recall what hour of the day it was. The CHAIRMAN. What do you do with these men? Admiral BILLARD. It depends; a man like this, who has a good record, simply made a little slip. This man had probably been alongside hundreds of craft, but had not judged the tide right in this particular case. Mr. BYRNS. The court said that he was not paying any attention to his duty. Admiral BILLARD. He was probably standing at the wheel with the log book lying alongside and he may have reached over to write something at the time. He was at fault; we concede that. The CHAIRMAN. There was not any question about that. Is he still running one of these boats? Admiral BILLARD. He is still in the service, so far as I know. That is the only blot on his record. The CHAIRMAN. That is all. Gentlemen, we are very much obliged to you. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1924. STATEMENT OF HON. FREDERICK W. DALLINGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dallinger, do you want to say something in connection with the application for funds for the Coast Guard in connection with prohibition enforcement? Mr. DALLINGER. I do, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be gald to hear what you have to say. Mr. DALLINGER. As a Member of Congress from Massachusetts, I am very deeply interested in the stopping of smuggling along the Massachusetts and New England coast. I feel that, no matter how people may differ as to the wisdom of the eighteenth amendment or the enactment of the Volstead Act, every good citizen must agree that the laws should be enforced, and that the authority of the United States should not be flouted as it has been. I am in favor of the largest possible appropriation that is considered necessary to accomplish this purpose. I think it ought to be granted by your committee, without in any way interfering with the ordinary work of the Coast Guard. This additional duty has been imposed upon the Coast Guard. and I feel The CHAIRMAN (interposing). It has not been imposed on them yet. Mr. DALLINGER. It certainly should be imposed on some one; and if it is to have the duty, or if any agency is to have this duty imposed upon them, it ought to have the means wherewithal to accomplish the purpose. There are those who say that you can not stop it; that if a vessel stays out beyond the 12-mile limit it is impossible to prevent the liquor from being smuggled from that vessel and landed on shore. I do not agree with that at all. I am satisfied that if the governmental authorities who are to be intrusted with this duty are equipped with motor launches that have the power and the speed that the boats that are used by the smugglers have, it can be stopped. I am absolutely satisfied of that. The CHAIRMAN. You think the motor launches would be sufficient. to do the job? Mr. DALLINGER. I think motor launches are needed; but I think that probably, in addition, destroyers could be used to great advantage along the New England coast. Torpedo destroyers were used during the war to watch for German submarines along the New England coast. The CHAIRMAN. Would you confine the use of these torpedoboat destroyers to the New England coast? Mr. DALLINGER. Oh, no; not at all. I am simply speaking with regard to New England because I am familiar with the fact that liquor is being smuggled on that coast; and while it is true, perhaps, that we do not have in our New England cities the public sale of liquor going on that occurs in some cities, nevertheless it is commonly reported that men who have the money to pay for it can order cases of liquor and have them delivered to them, and there is no question but what that liquor in that large quantity comes from these rum runners. The CHAIRMAN. All this that you are outlining has been recommended to the committee. Mr. DALLINGER. And I simply want to emphasize the fact, as a citizen of Massachusetts and a Member of Congress from Massachusetts, that I hope the committee will follow the recommendation of the President and report the appropriation. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1924 WAR DEPARTMENT. OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL. STATEMENT OF LIEUT. COL. JOSEPH I. MCMULLEN, OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL. FOR EMPLOYMENT OF EXPERTS, ETC., IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASES. The CHAIRMAN. Your item is on page 82, as follows: For the employment of such experts and other employees as may be required by the Judge Advocate General of the Army for the preparation of evidence for use in behalf of the Government in suits filed in Federal courts on account of alleged patent infringements and for necessary per diem and traveling expenses in connection therewith, as authorized by law, $35,000, to remain available until June 30, 1925. Will you be kind enough to explain what you would do with this money, if you should get it? Suppose you go back into the fundamentals of it and tell us why you come here, why this item is here; what advantage it would be to the Government if the money were appropriated, and what disadvantage, if any, would result from the failure to appropriate it. Colonel MCMULLEN. At the time the regular estimate was put in, in June The CHAIRMAN (interposing). That is, when you submitted your estimates? Colonel McMULLEN. When we submitted our estimates to the Bureau of the Budget on account of these suits pending against the Government on patents, amounting to about $400,000,000. The CHAIRMAN. Patents of American patentees? Colonel MCMULLEN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. For use by the War Department? Colonel MCMULLEN. For alleged use by the War Department during the war of American patents. The CHAIRMAN. On what? Colonel MCMULLEN. Well, it includes almost everything that we used, such as airplanes, automatic tools, cargo beams, chemical processes, etc. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean pneumatic tools? Colonel MCMULLEN. I mean automatic tools for loading shells, peeling potatoes, etc. These claims also cover patents on concrete construction, fire-fighting apparatus, fuses, gas engines, heavy guns, steel helmets, machine guns, radio, railway artillery, high explosive shells, steam engines, caterpillar tractors, wave meters, and X-ray apparatus. Since that estimate was made, and, in fact, within the past 90 days, the suits filed have more than doubled that amount, so that the amount claimed now is $1,000,000,000, in round figures. NUMBER AND AMOUNT INVOLVED IN SUITS PENDING. The CHAIRMAN. How many suits are there pending? Colonel MCMULLEN. There are 64 suits already filed in the courts and 177 filed with the War Department, making in all 241 claims. The CHAIRMAN. Representing in the aggregate how much? Colonel MCMULLEN. The claims represent in the aggregate $673,000,000. That, however, relates to only 73 claims and does not include the difference between the 73 claims and the 241 claims, in which cases the amounts are not stated. The stated amounts are $673,000,000 in round numbers. Mr. BUCHANAN. Suppose judgment is rendered against the United States in those suits in the Court of Claims. Would they belong to the class that we have been considering as final judgments, or would they be of the other class? The Court of Claims renders two classes of judgments, one of which is certified to us for payment. Colonel MCMULLEN. These claims are of that character. Mr. BUCHANAN. There are others that are not certified to us. Colonel MCMULLEN. I think that except where there is a special reference by Congress, the judgment is final, but all of their judgments are certified up here for payment. The CHAIRMAN. In some cases, the facts are certified to Congress. 87419-24- 45 |