Captain HITCHCOCK. The Cantigny.

Mr. GLYNN. You understand that if you were retired to-morrow you would get an allowance of not exceeding $1,000 a year under the present law?

Captain HITCHCOCK. I do not know anybody who is getting as much as $1,000. They generally get around $60, $65, or $70. Mr. GLYNN. It would not be over $1,000.

Captain HITCHCOCK. No; that would be the limit, but to get that much we would have to purchase four years. We were not under the civil service until there was a presidential order issued four years after that act went into effect, and to get the full retirement pay we would have to buy those four years. It would cost me about $600.

Mr. WURZBACH. That is, that would be the total amount of 2% per cent of your pay per month for that time?

Captain HITCHCOCK. It would be 22 per cent for some years and now it is 312 per cent.

Mr. WURZBACH. You would have to pay that for four years?

Captain HITCHCOCK. We would have to do that if we expected to get the full retirement pay; we would have to buy those four back years, when we were not in under this law. It would cost me about $600 to buy those four years.

Mr. WURZBACH. And, of course, you could live in luxury the rest of your life under $1,000 a year.

Captain HITCHCOCK. Oh, yes; certainly.

Mr. WURZBACH. What would you think about this bill in its present form, without the word "or at the end of line 5?

Captain HITCHCOCK. If we are going to work on this bill, the word "or" certainly should be in there. According to this bill a man has to be 64 years of age and has to have served 25 years in the Army transport service and has to be physically unfit.

Mr. WURZBACH. And it would be a very simple thing for an officer to be held physically unfit if he were 64 years of age. How old are you, Captain?

Captain HITCHCOCK. I am 65.

Mr. WURZBACH. If a statement had been required, or an affidavit, when you reached the age of 64, would you have had trouble in getting a statement that you were physically unfit for service? Captain HITCHCOCK. No.

Mr. WURZBACH. You could not do it now, could you?

Captain HITCHCOCK. NO.

Mr. WURZBACH. So, without the word "or" in there, this bill would not do you any good?

Captain HITCHCOCK. Not a bit of good, until I was about ready to die.

Mr. JAMES. Why would this not take care of you?

Captain HITCHCOCK. Because I am physically fit.

Mr. JAMES. Is not part of that due to the fact that you were in the Navy? Are you covered under this bill?

Captain HITCHCOCK. I would be; yes, sir.

Mr. GLYNN. You have not been 25 years in the Army transport service?

Captain HITCHCOCK. No; not in the transport service. This bill says "the Army transport service." It should say "the Govern

ment service." I served the United States Government in various capacities, along with other men who have done the same thing. I do not see why you should pick out a man just because he happened to be in the Army transport service all his life.

Mr. JAMES. If you should say "United States Government service" a man might have served five years in the transport service and all of the rest of his time on land, and then would come under the bill.

Captain HITCHCOCK. It should not be worded, it seems to me, to cut me out of seven or eight years of Government service that was all done afloat.

Mr. JAMES. Where did you put in those seven or eight years outside of the Army transport service?

Captain HITCHCOCK. On mine planters and other boats in the Navy.

Mr. JAMES. You see, we can not amend the bill the way you have suggested without letting in men who might be on an Army transport for a year or two years and then might stay on shore, in some other branch of the Government service, and they would come in

under that.

The men we want to take care of are the men like you, who have been in the service at sea.

66

Captain HITCHCOCK. This word or would not take care of me. Mr. WURZBACH. Would this language take care of you: "Army transport service or other Government service afloat"?

Captain HITCHCOCK. That might cover it. I have time in the Navy which will not count, according to this.

Mr. JAMES. The bill we considered the last time was so broad that it would take care of two men whose names I do not know but who only served about five years on transports and the balance of the time on land. Of course, no such bill could pass the House. We want to take care of the men who sail on the sea and not the men who spend three or four years at sea and then get a job on shore. You can not use the same arguments for a bill of that kind as you can for a bill to take care of men who spent 25 years or more at sea. That kind of an amendment which was suggested the last time killed the bill.

Captain HITCHCOCK. I think the bill introduced by Mr. Morin is the proper kind of a bill. That, it seems to me, is a fairer bill than Mrs. Kahn's bill.

Mr. JAMES. I do not agree with you on that.

Captain HITCHCOCK. I mean a bill Mr. Morin introduced on December 5, 1927.

Mr. WURZBACH. That bill 66 says: Who have served 25 years or more in the service of the United States Government."

Mr. JAMES. That means a man might serve about five years on an Army transport and then he could get a job under the civil service, as a letter carrirer or something else, and would still come under the provisions of that bill. Of course, that can not be.

We are trying to take care of the men in the Army transport service, and the captains with whom I talked said they did not want to see men taken care of who spend about four-fifths of the 25 years on land.

Captain HITCHCOCK. I spent all of my time afloat.

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. What is your rank?

Captain HITCHCOCK. Master or captain of the ship.

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. Who are the licensed officers of the transport service?

Captain HITCHCOCK. Captains, mates, and engineers.

Mr. GARBRETT of Texas. You mean the captain of the ship. Does he get that rank by virtue of the time he serves with the transport service?

Captain HITCHCOCK. All of our captains grew up in the service. Mr. GARRETT of Texas. Suppose a man has been a first lieutenant or a second lieutenant in the Army and goes in the transport service. Captain HITCHCOCK. He has to be a sailorman.

General POPE. A captain is a captain by virtue of being the master of a ship. We call him captain. Then there are mates, that is, men who are called mates in the ships, but whom we call officially first officers or second officers, and then there is the chief engineer and assistant engineers. The master is popularly called the captain. But it has nothing whatever to do with any Army or Navy rank.

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. These men are all in the classified service!
General POPE. They are all in the classified civil service.
Colonel SHEEN. They are all civilians.

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. Is this retirement fund made up like the retirement fund of the ordinary civil-service employees, or does it all come from the Government?

Captain HITCHCOCK. This would be a straight Government pension, that is, what is proposed in this bill.

Mr. JAMES. Except that the $60 a month that you are now getting would be deducted?

Captain HITCHCOCK. If this bill passed we would be dropped out of the other fund altogether and get back the money we have paid. The Government has now seven or eight hundred dollars belonging to me from the 22 per cent and 32 per cent contribution.

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. What retirement status would you have now, under the present law?

Captain HITCHCOCK. I suppose I would get $60 or $70 a month. Mr. GLYNN. The same as a $1,500 clerk.

Mr. WURZBACH. I was wondering whether this kind of an amendment would carry out the purpose of the sponsors of this legislation. Say, on line 5, after the words "25 years or more," insert " in Government service afloat," or who have served not less than 10 years on Army transports." That is, requiring 25 years of Government service afloat; in order to meet the suggestion of Mr. James, you might put in that amendment, and thus prevent anyone who had served just a few years on transports and then taken a job on land from getting the benefits of this bill by requiring a minimum of 10 years of transport service and a full 25 years of Government service.

Captain HITCHCOCK. There are some men attached to our service who are licensed officers and who are available at any minute to be ordered to sea who have been detailed to shore jobs.

Mr. JAMES. Which would you rather have, no legislation at all, or legislation to take care of men on Army transports, like yourself? Captain HITCHCOCK. That is an embarrassing question. I want legislation of some kind.

Mr. GLYNN. How much time have you spent on Army transports? Captain HITCHCOCK. About 13 years.

Mr. GLYNN. So the suggestion of Mr. Wurzbach would cover you? Captain HITCHCOCK. It would.

Mr. WURZBACH. The proposition is this, as I understand it: This legislation, as I understand it, was primarily intended to take care of licensed officers in the transport service. It is the opinion of some members of this committee, I think, that there ought to be a minimum requirement-I just took a period of 10 years arbitrarily for transportation service, but also providing for the entire Government service to make up 25 years' service.

Mr. JAMES. I think a man like yourself should be taken care of, but I do not think a man who has been in the Army transport service five years and who has spent the balance of his time on shore should come under this bill, because I want to say very frankly that what killed the bill last year was that kind of an amendment, to take care of a man who had served five years at sea and the balance of the time on land.

Mr. WURZBACH. When you say that kind of an amendment you do not mean the kind I suggested?

Mr. JAMES. No; I mean the one that I showed you. This was an amendment that somebody suggested, to take care of a man who had five years' sea duty and who has been detached. That was not in the original bill. They struck out the words "seagoing vessels." Then there was another amendment providing for a man with five years' sea duty who was then detached from such sea duty and assigned to other duties in the interest of the Government. That was the end of the bill.

Captain HITCHCOCK. Of course it is up to the committee to decide, if the committee feels those men should not be included.

Mr. WURZBACH. We feel that there is something peculiar about this transport service because of the responsibility involved. If we lose sight of that and attempt to take care of other Government employees or licensed men we are getting into the entire field-the big field of the general retirement of Federal employees; and it would look like favoritism shown to a particular class of Federal employees. Therefore, I think, in order to carry out the main thought, if we expect to have any hope of securing the passage of this bill, we should provide for a minimum of 10 years in the transport service. Mr. GLYNN. You would not object to that, would you?

Captain HITCHCOCK. No; but I do believe, according to my own. personal opinion, that those men should be taken care of. They are a part of the outfit as well as I am.

Mr. JAMES. You are thinking about these two men?

Captain HITCHCOCK. Yes.

Mr. JAMES. If this bill goes through in that way it would not only take care of those men alone but it would cover anybody who had served for five years and who had transferred. You do not know how many more would be taken care of. A bill of that kind would not only take care of those two men but would also take care of many more men in the future who had served five years at sea. We do not know how many we will be providing for.

Captain HITCHCOCK. There can never be more than two at a time because they are holding two positions.

Mr. GARRET of Texas. I do not understand what you mean by two. Suppose Mr. Wurzbach's amendment is adopted, and the bill is passed in that form, then the permanent law would take care of officers or engineers in the Army transport service who had reached the age of 64 years, who have been for 25 years or more in the service. Mr. WURZBACH. In the Government service afloat for 25 years and who have served not less than 10 years on Army transports.

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. Would the law then be that the combined service of 25 years would have to be afloat?

Mr. WURZBACH. Yes.

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. What other service is there afloat besides the transport service?

Captain HITCHCOCK. There used to be the mine planters.

Mr. JAMES. I am afraid your statement, Mr. Wurzbach, would take care of other men who want to get in under this bill-that is, men who have coast line service.

Captain HITCHCOCK. They can not get in our service.

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. It would not be a question of your service; it would be a question of the governmental service. Suppose a man is in the Revenue Cutter Service?

Captain HITCHCOCK. He is not under the civil service.

Mr. WURZBACH. He has a commission.

Captain HITCHCOCK. They have all got retirement, the Coast Guard men and the men in the Lighthouse Service. They get threequarters pay when they are retired. They go up and down the coast and pick up boats, and if it rains they go home. We do not do that; we go to sea and spend our lives at sea, with eleven or twelve hundred people aboard ship every trip we make.

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. You come under the civil-service retirement law?

Captain HITCHCOCK. Yes. As Mr. Glynn says, we get the same retirement pay as a $1,500 clerk gets.

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. What salary do you draw now?
Captain HITCHCOCK. Roughly speaking, $4,000.

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. Your retirement pay under the provisions of this bill would be three-quarters of that amount?

Captain HITCHCOCK. My ship is a sister ship of the kind the Navy has, and the officer in command of the Navy ship is getting over $7,000 a year, with not as much responsibility as I have, because those ships do not carry one-half the number of passengers we do. The officer in command of the naval ship, when he retires, will get threequarters of his $7,000 pay.

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. I am rather inclined to think you had better be careful as to how you amend this bill, because there happens to be just two or three people who might be affected by it. The chances are that if this bill is passed at this session it will have to be done by unanimous consent, and any man who is not entirely satisfied with the bill can prevent its being considered at the present session or at the next session, either.

Mr. JAMES. In the last session this committee was about ready to make a favorable report, when there were some amendments offered