The committee recommends the passage of the bill with the two committee amendments for the reasons stated.

The report of the War Department explaining the legislation is as follows: JULY 30, 1929.

Hon. W. FRANK JAMES,

Chairman Committee on Military Affairs,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. JAMES: I am pleased to comply with your request of June 21, 1929, for a report on H. R. 3592, a bill to further amend section 37 of the national defense act of June 4, 1920, as amended by section 2 of the act of September 22, 1922, so as to more clearly define the status of reserve officers not on active duty or on active duty for training only.

The applicable provisions of existing law upon this subject appear in sections 37 and 38 of the national defense act of June 4, 1920, as amended, which establish the Officers' Reserve Corps and provide that all persons appointed therein shall be commissioned in the Army of the United States.

The proposed legislation, H. R. 3592, meets deficiencies in existing law which does not clearly define the civil status of reserve officers who are not on active duty or who are on active duty in time of peace. Reserve officers who are members of the bar are therefore in some doubt as to their status in litigation in which the Government may be involved. Many other reserve officers who are interested in the civil affairs of their own States are similarly in doubt as to their status under State constitutions many of which deny State offices to citizens who are officials of the Federal Government.

The War Department favors the enactment of legislation which will meet the deficiencies just described. While H. R. 3592, as drafted, would accomplish this end, careful study in the War Department seems to show that textual amendment as follows may be desirable:

"A BILL To further amend section 37 of the national defense act of June 4, 1920, as amended by section 2 of the act of September 22, 1922, so as to more clearly define the status of reserve officers not on active duty or on active duty for training only

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 37 of the national defense act of June 4, 1920, as amended by section 2 of the act of September 22, 1922 (Fortysecond Statutes, page 1033; [section] sections 351, 352, 353, 356 and 360, title 10, United States Code), be, and the same is hereby, amended by adding thereto another sentence as follows: 'Reserve officers while not on active duty, [or while on active duty for instruction or training only,] shall not, by reason solely of their appointments, oaths, commissions, or status as reserve officers, or any duties or functions performed or pay or allowances received as reserve officers, be held or deemed to be officers or employees of the United States, or persons holding any [office] place of trust or profit or discharging any official function under or in connection with any department of the Government of the United States."

The reasons leading the War Department to suggest these changes are given below:

(a) The reference to section 356, title 10, United States Code in lines 5 and 6, page 1 of H. R. 3592, is believed to be incomplete as the citation therein given evidently refers to section 2 of the act of September 22, 1922, in its entirety.

(b) The bill H. R. 3592 defines the status of reserve officers so broadly that the well-established and desirable relation of these officers to our military law would be disturbed in time of peace. Thus reserve officers might be held ineligible to sit on military courts or boards in time of peace and the legality of the orders issued by reserve officers on active duty for training purposes might be successfully questioned.

It is believed that the amendments herein given would overcome the difficulties just mentioned while insuring the intent of the proposed legislation. The War Department therefore favors the enactment of the amended draft. The proposed legislation will be without cost to the Government.

If any additional information from the War Department is desired, I shall be pleased to furnish it. Should hearings be held upon the proposed legislation. suitable witnesses will be designated to appear.

Sincerely yours,

JAMES W. GOOD, Secretary of War.

О

SR-71-2-VOL 2- -85

71ST CONGRESS 2d Session

}

SENATE

{

REPORT No. 1103

TABLET TO MEMORY OF GARRISON AT FORT SUMTER DURING SIEGE, 1861

JUNE 26, 1930.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. REED, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 11409]

The Committee on Military Affairs, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 11409) to authorize the erection of a tablet in the Fort Sumter Military Reservation to the memory of the garrison at Fort Sumter during the siege of 1861, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that it do pass.

The merits of the bill are set forth in the House report thereon, which is made a part of this report, and reads as follows:

The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 11409) to authorize the erection of a tablet in the Fort Sumter Military Reservation to the memory of the garrison at Fort Sumter during the siege of 1861, introduced by Mr. Wainwright, having considered the same, report thereon with the recommendation that it do pass.

The history of Fort Sumter and the part played by its gallant command in the Civil War are outstanding, and it has generally been accepted as the beginning of that conflict. While the official records of the War Department and every authentic history of the United States contain accounts of the actions at Fort Sumter, no provision has ever been made by the Government for a tablet or marker on the reservation giving the names of all the members of the garrison at the time of its historic defense and surrender. In view of the political importance of this event, your committee recommends favorable action.

The report of the Secretary of War gives an explanation of the legislation and is made a part of this report, as follows:

Hon. W. FRANK JAMES,

Chairman Committee on Military Affairs,

WAR DEPARTMENT, June 4, 1930.

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. JAMES: Careful consideration has been given to the bill H. R. 11409, a bill "To authorize the erection of a tablet in the Fort Sumter military reservation to the memory of the garrison at Fort Sumter during the siege of 1861," which you transmitted to the War Department under date of April 8, 1930, with a request for information and the views of the department relative thereto.

There are no applicable provisions of existing law on this subject, except the act of May 11, 1928, authorizing the erection at private expense of a flagstaff and memorial to Gen. Robert Anderson.

The history of Fort Sumter and the part played by its gallant command in the Civil War are outstanding, and the engagement resulting in its surrender has generally been accepted as the beginning of that great conflict. While the official records of the War Department and every authentic history of the United States contain accounts of the actions at Fort Sumter, no provision has been made heretofore by the Government for a special tablet or marker on the reservation giving the names of all of the members of the garrison at the time of its historic defense and surrender.

In the opinion of the War Department, a tablet or marker of the character proposed by the bill would serve as a means of honoring these gallant men and likewise perpetuating their names.

In view of the action of Congress in enacting the law approved May 11, 1928, for the erection at private expense of a flagstaff commemorating the defense of the fort by Gen. Robert Anderson, it would seem appropriate to provide a tablet or marker showing the names of the members of the garrison. For the above reasons the War Department recommends that the bill be enacted into law.

71ST CONGRESS 2d Session

}

SENATE

{

REPORT No. 1104

TO SUPPLY WATER TO RESIDENTS IN MARYLAND ADJACENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JUNE 26, 1930.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. CAPPER, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 9408]

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 9408) to amend the act of March 3, 1917, an act making appropriations for the general expenses of the District of Columbia, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

The purpose of the bill is to allow the supply of water to residents in Maryland in the vicinity of Forty-seventh and Fessenden Streets. The bill is approved by the District Commissioners and by the Bureau of the Budget. It involves no expense on the part of the District, as all costs are to be paid by Maryland.

The House report on the bill is appended hereto, as part of this report.

[House Report No. 1853, Seventy first Congress, second session]

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom the bill H. R. 9408 was referred, and which amends the act of March 3, 1917, an act making appropriations for the general expenses of the District of Columbia, having considered the same, reports back to the House with the recommendation that the legislation do pass with the following amendment:

Page 2, line 15, strike our the words "Forty-ninth and Chesapeake" and insert in lieu thereof the words "Forty-seventh and Fessenden".

The purpose of this bill is to make it possible to supply water to Maryland residents adjacent to the District in the vicinity of Forty-seventh and Fessenden Streets.

The act of March 3, 1917, provides that the District water mains may be tapped at certain specified points, named in the act, for the benefit of Maryland residents, but no provision was made for the tapping of the mains in the vicinity of Western Avenue. This measure is to take care of the residents in that locality, and the expense in connection with the project is to be borne by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission.