Recapitulation of distribution of enlisted strength United States Marine Corps

Enlisted strength of marine detachments on vessels of the United States Navy

ENLISTED STRENGTH OF MARINE DETACHMENTS ON VESSELS OF THE UNITED

NOTES ON DISTRIBUTION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL ON OCTOBER 31, 1924 Guam is shown as being 201 men short of the authorized complement. On October 15, 1924, 200 men were transferred from Guam to Cavite vin the U. S. S. Pecos in advance of replacements by order of the commander in chief, Asiatic Fleet.

Peking is shown as being 135 men in excess of the authorized complement.. This excess personnel was transferred from the U. S. S. Huron and Cavite to Peking by order of the commander in chief, Asiatic Fleet.

Expeditionary force, China, 172 men shown in this force are in China, having been ordered there from Cavite by the commander in chief Asiatic

Fleet.

En route includes 198 men originally ordered to Guam via the U. S. A. T. Thomas sailing from San Francisco, Calif., October 15, 1924, and who were diverted to Cavite by the commander in chief, Asiatic Fleet. They were still en route on October 31, 1924.

ECONOMIES NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN PRESENT FORCE ON ESTIMATE FOR 1926

Mr. OLIVER. I do not know what the action of the committee will be in reference to increasing your appropriation over that allowed by the Budget, but I am sure, in view of the statement that you have made, that if you are allowed $700,000 increase, you might maintain a force of 19,500 men, but it would likewise involve doing some things that you should not do, and leaving undone some things that you should do, that the committee would not want to be understood as advising that you keep numbers at the expense of efficiency.

General LEJEUNE. The efficiency of the corps would not be affected, Mr. Oliver.

Mr. OLIVER. You mentioned that perhaps you would have to withdraw some amounts that are now effectively used, to encourage good marksmanship.

General LEJEUNE. That is probably going to be done, anyway. The War Department is in the same situation we are and we follow them.

Mr. OLIVER. I think it would be disastrous to avoid doing things which you have found from experience, are very essential to efficiency, in order to maintain numbers.

General LEJEUNE. I do not believe, Mr. Oliver, that the efficiency of the personnel would be reduced by this proposition. It would mean that we would live more poorly and it probably would mean that we would not have the full number. But I would not for a moment agree to any proposition that would reduce efficiency. We have gotten pretty nearly down to bedrock, but there is always some way of doing the things you need, when you are up against it, just as we do in our private life, when salaries are reduced.

Mr. OLIVER. You have in the past been able to work economies that we did not anticipate, by using the marines in repair work and in construction work, etc.?

General LEJEUNE. Yes.

Mr. OLIVER. And I imagine that you may find they are more than willing to do that in the future, in order to conserve.

General LEJEUNE. Yes.

Mr. FRENCH. In that connection, Mr. Oliver, any drawing on the stores would constitute an item that would need to be replaced in another year or so, or else an item that would be constantly underkept, would it not?

to

General LEJEUNE. Yes. I might say here that some months ago we made a survey of the store situation, with a view to determing just what articles we should keep on hand for an emergency. We found that we were considerably short. So we have prepared a plan for accumulating these articles gradually over a term of years; that is, so much each year. We could eke out our appropriations get so much this year, so much next year, and so much the year following. If we were going to do it, for instance, in three years, insufficient appropriations would probably make it necessary to spend five years in doing it. When you cut down the appropriations it takes that much longer to accumulate a reserve stock.

PAY, MARINE CORPS

GENERAL STATEMENT

Mr. FRENCH. We at this point take up "Pay, Marine Corps." The item calls for $4,643,079 for 1926 as against $4,623,060 for 1925. The amount indicated is for pay of officers, active and class 1, fleet Marine Corps reserve list.

General RICHARDS. This, while $20,019 more than last year, is only one of the items of the whole appropriation, "Pay, Marine Corps," of $15,400,000 included in pages 152 to 159, inclusive. May I make a general statement now about that whole appropriation? That picture I would like to put before you as a whole.

Mr. FRENCH. Yes.

General RICHARDS. The estimate for "Pay, Marine Corps" for the fiscal year 1926 totals $15,400,000, which is a reduction of $1,082,639 from the amount appropriated for 1925. This reduction represents the difference between the aggregate of decreases ($1,182,473) and the aggregate of increases ($99,834) in the various items which go to make up "Pay, Marine Corps.

Of the net decrease-that is, $1,082,639-the sum of $379,251 is due to the normal reduction in the amount required provided there was no change made in the strength of the corps, and is principally due to the fact that the saving clause contained in section 16 of the act of June 10, 1922, is gradually becoming inoperative, the pay rates of enlisted men now being rapidly adjusted to those provided in section 9 of that act. The balance of the reduction ($703,388) is due to the fact that the Director of the Bureau of the Budget has reduced the amount originally estimated by that amount on the promise that the strength of the corps for the fiscal year 1926 will not be in excess of an average of 18,000. This reduction was based upon reduction of $61,738 was made on the premise that savings to the a reduction factor for 1.000 men ($427,767) prepared by this office, making a total of $641,650 deducted on this account. A further reduction of $61,738 was made on the premise that savings to the appropriation on account of enlisted men being in a nonpay status, due to absence without leave and absence coming within the purview of article 554, Navy Regulations, 1920, would equal that amount.

The original estimates for 1926, as in previous years, were, with the exception of the item for "Mileage," purely a mathematical calculation of the amounts which would be required for the maintenance of a strength of 1,022 commissioned officers, 156 warrant officers and pay clerks, and 19,500 enlisted men, including the members of the Marine Band, under pay laws now in force. These figures, of course, have been reduced on a percentage basis in accordance with the method above outlined. The estimate of $125,000 for "Mileage" (which includes, in addition to the regular mileage allowance of officers, estimates for actual and necessary expenses. per diem and transportation officers traveling under orders) is based on expenditures for previous years, having also in view the restriction in the number of naval transports, which will naturally make greater demands upon this item.

PAY OF OFFICERS, ACTIVE AND RESERVE LIST

Mr. FRENCH. At this point, General, would you insert the table that you have heretofore handed the committee, showing the pay of officers, active and reserve list, the allocation of the moneys, the amounts expended for 1924 and appropriated for 1925 and estimated for 1226, together with the probable increases and decreases.

General RICHARDS. Yes, sir. The increase, now, you have mentioned under the item "Pay of officers, active and reserve," is $20,019. This is largely explained by an increase of 20 second lieutenants over the number appropriated for the fiscal year 1925. The Marine Corps has been for years actually short of the legal allowance of second lieutenants, that shortage has been 73 second lieutenants. We have omitted heretofore estimates for appropriations for pay for that number. This year, however, we are providing in these estimates to reclaim 20 of these lost second lieutenants. There is pay under this item for 20 more second lieutenants than you appropriated for, for the year previous.

General LEJEUNE. That is due, Mr. French, to a gradual increase. We have been estimating for 1,002 and we actually have now about 1,020.

Mr. FRENCH. Was that question involved in discussions with the Budget looking to prospective reductions?

General LEJEUNE. Yes.

Mr. FRENCH. And they felt, so far as they were concerned, the desirability of building up an officer strength?

General LEJUNE. Yes. That is in accordance, I think, with the general policy of the department, the administration, and the committee.

PAY OF OFFICERS ON RETIRED LIST

Mr. FRENCH. We now take up the item of retired officers on retired list. You are asking for $493,180 for 1926 as aganist $451,157 for the current year. At this point will you insert the table that you have handed to the committee indicating the allocation of the money?

General RICHARDS. Yes.

General RICHARDS. The increase of pay to be asked for here is in order to pay the officers who are now retired or have since last year's estimates been retired, and those we anticipate who may be retired during the next fiscal year. It also includes a contingent sum for retirements we can not now anticipate. There will be 26 more officers for 1926 on the retired list than there were for the year 1925. All these officers were placed there or will be so placed in accordance with the provisions of law applicable to their particular cases, they are all either retirements by reason of age, by reason of disability, or for length of service.

Mr. BYRNES. Is that an unusually large increase for a year? General RICHARDS. I do not think that it is any extraordinary increase, Mr. Byrnes.

Mr. TABER. It has been getting larger every year?
General RICHARDS. Yes.

Mr. TABER. How do you get 26 increase? This table shows 16 retirements during the year. There is nothing to show how many deaths there were amongst the retired officers but I do not see how you get 26 increase out of 16 retirements.

General RICHARDS. I will give you the details of particular cases; the table you refer to I have no knowledge of.

SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES

Mr. FRENCH. There is an item for subsistence allowance for 1926, $486,399, approximately the same as for 1925. As I understand it, that allowance is fixed by law.

General RICHARDS. It is in the pay of officers' active list and fixed by law; it is called a subsistence allowance but in reality it is pay. Mr. FRENCH. And the number of rations in each case is fixed by law?

General RICHARDS. Yes, sir.

OFFICERS ON RETIRED LISTS, STATEMENT OF

Mr. TABER. This table shows that there were 16 officers in the Marine Corps retired during the year, but it shows nothing about deaths. I can not see where you get the 26 increase.

General RICHARDS. The retired list consists of officers and warrant officers, and the total number is 195. That table was not the basis