HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1 OF THE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SEVENTIETH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION H. R. 243, H. R. 231, H. R. 237 92424 WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1928 UNITED STATES WASHINGTON 1928 WAR DEPARTMENT LEGISLATION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Wednesday, January 25, 1928. The subcommittee this day met, Hon. John M. Morin (chairman) presiding. The bill under consideration is as follows: [H. R. 243, Seventieth Congress, first session] A BILL To amend the second paragraph of section 5 of the national defense act, as amended by the act of September 22, 1922, by adding thereto a provision that will authorize the names of certain graduates of the general service schools and of the Army War College not at present eligible for selection to the General Staff Corps eligible list to be added to that list Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the second paragraph of section 5 of the national defense act, as amended by the act approved June 4, 1920, and further amended by the act of September 22, 1922, be, and the same is hereby, amended to read as follows: "After the completion of the initial General Corps eligible list the name of no officer shall be added thereto unless upon graduation from the General Staff School he is specifically recommended as qualified for General Staff duty, and hereafter no officer of the General Staff Corps, except the Chief of Staff, shall be assigned as a member of the War Department General Staff unless he is a graduate of the General Staff College or his name is borne on the initial eligible list: Provided, That nothing herein shall operate to debar the name of any graduate of the Army War College, the Command and General Staff School, or the former General Staff College, General Staff School, Army Staff College, the Staff College, the School of the Line, the Army School of the Line, or the Infantry-Cavalry School, from being added to the General Staff Corps eligible list if the manner of the performance of his duties and quality of his work is such as to indicate that he has since become well qualified for General Staff duty, and he is so recommended by a board of general officers: And provided further, That the name of any National Guard or reserve officer who has demonstrated by actual service with the War Department General Staff during a period of not less than six months, as hereinafter provided for, that he is qualified for General Staff duty, may, upon the recommendation of a board consisting of the general officers of the War Department General Staff, assistants to the Chief of Staff, be added to said eligible list at any time. The Secretary of War shall publish annually the list of officers eligible for General Staff duty, and such eligibility shall be noted in the annual Army Register. If at any time the number of officers available and eligible for detail to the General Staff is not sufficient to fill all vacancies therein, majors or captains may be detailed as acting General Staff officers under such regulations as the President may prescribe: Provided, That in order to insure intelligent cooperation between the General Staff and the several noncombatant branches, officers of such branches may be detailed as additional members of the General Staff Corps under such special regulations as to eligibility and redetail as may be prescribed by the President, but not more than two officers from each such branch shall be detailed as members of the War Department General Staff” STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. CAMPBELL KING, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF, G–1 The CHAIRMAN. General King, if you will continue your remarks on the matter we have been discussing, they will go in the record. General KING. Mr. Chairman, this bill will take care of the men who graduated from the Army War College, irrespective of whether they graduated from Leavenworth or not. Some of these men were, by the exigencies of the service, because they were older men, and for other reasons, not held to be eligible; various things having kept them from going to Leavenworth. They did go to the Army War College and they graduated from the Army War College but they can not now be put on the eligible list. Among those men are some 15 general officers of the staff and of the line, and a number of them, I think more than half of them, have the distinguished service medal; I believe 67 per cent. Mr. WURZBACH. They have got to go to Leavenworth before they go to the War College? General KING. Before they can be put on the General Staff eligible list. But this bill would permit an officer to go to the War College and if he can satisfy the board of general officers that he was qualified, then he could be put on the General Staff eligible list. The CHAIRMAN. Without going to Leavenworth? General KING. Yes, without going to Leavenworth. Mr. WURZBACH. Is there any way of going to the War College without going to Leavenworth? General KING. That is not the policy. We not only require them to go through Leavenworth but we require them to have besides & high general efficiency rating. We have, however, sent officers to the Army War College who have not gone to Leavenworth, but only officers who have very high qualifications. Mr. WURZBACH. They can go to the War College? General KING. Yes, sir. Mr. WURZBACH. But that is in very exceptional cases. Mr. WURZBACH. Is there any reason why that should not be made an absolutely fixed rule? General KING. I think the War Department ought to have an opportunity to make an exception in the case of an older officer who is a distinguished officer with demonstrated ability. Instead of going through Leavenworth and then attending the Army War College, if the War Department believes that in any particular case an opportunity should be given to go direct to the War College, based upon an officer's previous record, it ought to have authority to give that opportunity. Now, that does not mean that he would be put on the General Staff eligible list, because the same board of general officers who consider the qualifications of those who have been through Leavenworth will pass upon the qualifications of this officer. Mr. WURZBACH. Now, you have some officers at the War College now? General KING. Oh, yes, sir. Mr. WURZBACH. What proportion would you say of those officers are officers who did not go through the Leavenworth school! General KING. Approximately 70 officers are normally students there. Mr. WURZBACH. I wanted to know how many of them had not been to Leavenworth, in terms of percentage. General KING. There would be very few, but I can get those figures for you. If there are any, there would be only one or two. Mr. WURZBACH. How many are there now! General KING. There are about 70 officers there now. Mr. WURZBACH. Then it would not be 2 per cent, would it? Mr. WURZBACH. If there was only one it would be seven-tenths of 1 per cent? General KING. The whole policy of the War Department, I think, would be against that. It would not be favored. But we do feel in the case of a distinguished officer, say 49 or 50 years of age, who has not had an opportunity to go through the Leavenworth school, because we have an age limit for those going to the Leavenworth school, just as we have an age limit for the War College The CHAIRMAN. What is the age limit for the Leavenworth school? General KING. Fifty years for Leavenworth and 52 years for the Army War College. Of course, that is a limit that we have to watch very carefully, and we may lower it or we may have to raise it slightly, the idea in general being that we do not want to educate a man and waste all that time on him if we are going to lose him out of the service by reason of age or something of that sort. Mr. WURZBACH. How long do they stay at the Leavenworth school and how long at the War College? What is the term at each place? General KING. In the past there has been a one-year course at Leavenworth and a one-year course at the War College. We are going to change the Leavenworth course to a two-year course, which it used to be a number of years ago; I do not know when, but we did have a two-year course at Leavenworth in times gone by and we abandoned that for the one-year course after the war in order to get more General Staff officers and speed up production, but now we feel that we can give a little more time to training. Mr. WURZBACH. Could we suggest to the General, inasmuch as the first part of his statement did not go in the record, that he submit a brief statement in writing covering those points? General KING. I have here a statement that was prepared under my direction, a series of questions and answers, that would cover all that I have stated and much more. I did not refer to it because I thought it was more than you gentlemen would want. I have a copy of it right here if you want it. The CHAIRMAN. We would be glad to have that put in the record. General KING. I am sure it will answer all questions that you may ask. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY BRIG. GEN. CAMPBELL KING, ACTing Chief of Staff, G-1, TO THE HOUSE MILITARY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1928 It was This bill was introduced in the House on December 5 by Mr. Morin. introduced in the Senate December 15 by Mr. Reed of Pennsylvania. Q. Does the proposed bill delete any part of section 5?-A. It does not. |