months of the date of the expiration of his previous enrollment in order to retain his date of precedence. Lieutenant Lynch on September 9, 1921, addressed a letter to the Bureau of Navigation of the Navy Department requesting reenrollment; this letter was filed and no further action was taken thereon. On July 6, 1923, however, Lieutenant Lynch again requested reenrollment in his former rank and, as stated above, was reenrolled on August 8, 1923, in the confirmed rank of lieutenant (junior grade).

In view of the fact that Lieutenant Lynch requested reenrollment within four months of the date of the expiration of his previous enrollment, and that he was not reenrolled from any fault of his own, the committee feels that his request should be granted.

The bill meets with the approval of the Navy Department as shown in the following letter from the Secretary of the Navy, addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives, and is hereby made a part of this report:

WASHINGTON, January 21, 1932.

The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying further to the committee's letter of December 21, 1931, transmitting the bill (H. R. 3420) for the relief of Joseph B. Lynch, and requesting the views and recommendations of the Navy Department thereon, I have the honor to inform the committee as follows:

The purpose of this bill is to authorize the President of the United States to advance Lieut. Joseph B. Lynch, United States Naval Reserve, to a place in the list of lieutenants of the Naval Reserve to rank next after Lieut. Walter R. Hillberg, and that in the computation of service for purposes of pay the said Lieutenant Lynch shall be credited with inactive confirmed commissioned service in the Naval Reserve Force during the period from August 18, 1921, to August 7, 1923, inclusive, but that no back pay or allowances shall accrue to the said Lieutenant Lynch.

The records of the Navy Department show that Joseph B. Lynch enrolled in the Naval Reserve Force on August 27, 1917, and was appointed ensign on June 14, 1918; promoted to lieutenant (junior grade) from October 1, 1918, which grade he held until August 26, 1921, when his enrollment expired. On August 8, 1923, Mr. Lynch was reenrolled in the Naval Reserve Force as a lieutenant (junior grade) and on October 10, 1925, was appointed a lieutenant (junior grade) A-F, United States Naval Reserve, to serve during the pleasure of the President, to rank from August 8, 1923. On November 18, 1927, he was appointed to lieutenant A. F., United States Naval Reserve, to rank from August 8, 1927.

In accordance with the Naval Reserve Force regulations in effect at the time of the expiration of Lieutenant Lynch's enrollment, August 26, 1921, an officer was required to reenroll within four months of the date of the expiration of his previous enrollment in order to retain his date of precedence. Lieutenant Lynch on September 9, 1921, addressed a letter to the Bureau of Navigation of the Navy Department requesting reenrollment; this letter was filed and no further action was taken thereon. On July 6, 1923, however, Lieutenant Lynch again requested reenrollment in his former rank, and, as stated above, was reenrolled on August 8, 1923, in the confirmed rank of lieutenant (junior grade).

In view of the fact that Lieutenant Lynch requested reenrollment within four months of the date of the expiration of his previous enrollment, and that he was not reenrolled from any fault of his own, the Navy Department recommends the enactment of the bill H. R. 3420.

The bill H. R. 3420, if enacted into law, would result in an increased cost to the Government at the rate of $180 per annum until September 23, 1932, and at the rate of $1,080 per annum during the period from January 1, 1933, to January 1, 1939. These cost figures are computed on the basis of Lieutenant Lynch's continuance on active duty, his present status. If relieved from active duty the increased cost would be but a small fraction of the amounts stated. The bill H. R. 3420 is identical in language with the bill H. R. 10941 intro duced in the Seventy-first Congress.

Sincerely yours,

C. F. ADAMS, Secretary of the Navy.

O

MAILING OF SECOND-CLASS MATTER

FEBRUARY 12, 1932.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. MOREHEAD, from the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 4594]

The Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 4594) to fix the rate of postage on publications mailed at the post office of entry for delivery at another post office within the postal district in which the headquarters or general business offices of the publisher are located, reports the same back to the House with the following amendment:

In line 3, page 1, strike out "section 286 of title 39 of the United States Code" and insert in lieu thereof section 25 of the act entitled "An act making appropriations for the service of the Post Office Department for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty, and for other purposes," approved March 3, 1879 (20 Stat. 361, U. S. C., title 39, sec. 286).

So amended, the committee recommends that the bill do pass. This proposed legislation was recommended by the Postmaster General in his last annual report, and was further endorsed by the department's representative appearing before the subcommittee considering the bill.

The amendment suggested by the committee is simply for the purpose of including the proper statute reference in addition to the United States Code reference already contained in the bill.

Copies of publications other than weeklies, when mailed at offices having letter-carrier service for local delivery by the letter carriers of such offices are, under the law, chargeable with postage at the rate of 1 or 2 cents a copy, according to the frequency of issue of the publication or weight of the copies. In order to evade the payment of postage at these per-copy rates and enjoy the second-class pound rates, many publications establish branch offices at other places and secure entry as second-class matter at such offices. In some instances the publications secure entry at near-by offices, but very

often such entry is secured at offices a considerable distance from the one where the general business offices or headquarters of the publications are located. Under such conditions it is not only necessary to transport the copies over a considerable distance to the places where the publications are in the main circulated, but this service must be rendered at the low second-class pound rates of postage, effecting a heavy loss as compared with the postage which would be chargeable on the copies if mailed at the places where the general business offices of the publications are located and where the publications are mainly circulated. To prevent this abuse of the mailing privilege and the resulting loss of revenue it is believed that provison should be made under which copies of publications other than weeklies mailed at the post office of entry for delivery by letter carriers at another post office within the postal district of which the headquarters or general business offices of the publisher are located shall be chargeable with the rate of postage that would be applicable if the copies were mailed at the latter's office. In order that no hardship may be imposed upon the publications now entered and mailed as secondclass matter under the conditions referred to, it is deemed equitable to make the proposed provision applicable only to publications entered in the future.

The section of existing law to which the language of the bill H. R. 4594 is to be added is shown below in the first column, and the proposed addition in the second column.

EXISTING LAW

Section 25 of the act of March 3, 1879, 20 Stat. 361 (U. S. C., title 39, sec. 286):

"That publications of the secondclass, one copy to each actual subscriber residing in the county where the same are printed, in whole or in part, and published, shall go free through the mails; but the same shall not be delivered at letter-carrier offices, or distributed by carriers, unless postage is paid thereon at the rate prescribed in section 13 of this act: Provided, That the rate of postage on newspapers, excepting weeklies, and periodicals not exceeding two ounces in weight, when the same are deposited in a lettercarrier office for delivery by its carriers, shall be uniform at one cent each; periodicals weighing more than two ounces shall be subject, when delivered by such carriers, to a postage of two cents each, and these rates shall be prepaid by stamps affixed."

о

PROPOSED ADDITION TO EXISTING LAW

The following is added to section 25 (appearing in first column) by the bill, H. R. 4594.

"Copies of a publication, other than a weekly, hereafter admitted to the second class of mail matter, when mailed by the publisher or registered news agent at a post office where it is entered, for delivery by letter carriers at a different post office within the delivery limits of which the headquarters or general business offices of the publisher are located, shall be chargeable with postage at the rate that would be applicable if the copies were mailed at the latter office, unless the postage chargeable at the pound rates from the office of mailing is higher, in which case such higher rates shall apply, but this provision shall not be applicable to publications already entered as secondclass matter which retain their entry at the post office where now entered."

ARTHUR L. HACYKELL

FEBRUARY 13, 1932.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed

Mr. COYLE, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 3601]

The Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 3601) for the relief of Arthur L. Hacykell, having had the same under consideration, report favorably thereon, without amendment, and recommend that the bill do pass. An identical bill for the relief of Arthur L. Hacykell passed the House in the Seventieth Congress and was again reported to the House in the Seventy-first Congress.

Chief Machinist Hacykell was appointed a machinist in the Navy in 1914; he was temporarily advanced to the ranks of ensign, lieutenant (junior grade), and lieutenant during the period of the late war. In March, 1920, he appeared before a naval retiring board, which found him not incapacitated for service by reason of a disability which was not considered permanent if further operation should be performed; was sent to naval hospital. He was subsequently in May, 1921, examined physically preliminary to transfer to the rank of lieutenant, permanent grade regular, but was found not physically qualified because of the above-mentioned disability, June, 1921, in naval hospital at San Diego, Calif. Subsequently returned to duty. August, 1921, requested retirement in accordance with the act of July 12, 1921; no action taken. In November, 1921, again requested to be placed on the retired list or that all physical defects be waived and he be given his promotion. December, 1921, appeared before medical examining board; found not physically qualified for promotion because of said disability.

December 31, 1921, Mr. Hacykell's temporary appointment as a commissioned officer terminated by operation of the law, and he reverted to his permanent status as machinist, and after that date he was not eligible under the law for retirement in his temporary rank. In March, 1922, ordered before retiring board and found permanently disabled on account of the above-mentioned disability

HR-72-1-VOL 1-43

which was found to have been incurred in line of duty, and as the result of an incident of the service, and retired in the grade of chief machinist.

The committee feels that all the medical evidence taken together shows that Mr. Hacykell had the same disability in August, 1921, that he had in March, 1922, when he was retired. The committee therefore feels that he was entitled to have been retired at the time he made application in August, 1921.

The department recommended legislation covering this and other cases in the omnibus legislative bill in the Sixty-eighth Congress, but the committee feels that these cases should be covered by private bills and not by general legislation.

In reporting on that proposed legislation the department said:

This section is proposed in order to provide for the retirement in the temporary rank held by the officers concerned in the cases of several officers who have been retired since the termination of their temporary appointments and who incurred physical disability during the period of time they were serving under the higher temporary appointments. It is believed that the proposal is equitable because of the fact that many other officers were retired in the higher ranks under similar conditions prior to the termination of their temporary appointments.

In these cases the officers concerned appeared before retiring boards in 1921, but action was delayed owing to doubt as to whether the incapacity was permanent. Subsequently it became apparent that such incapacity was of a permanent nature, and the officer was retired. The retirmenet, however, did not become effective until after December 31, 1921, and the officer necessarily was retired in the lower rank. Had retirement been effected on the first occasion of the meeting of the retiring board, these officers would have been retired in their temporary rank.

The following-named retired officers will probably be entitled to the benefits of this legislation, and it is possible that one or two may not come within its provision:

The following letter from the Secretary of the Navy addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives sets forth the attitude of the Navy Department in the case:

WASHINGTON, January 21, 1932.

The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying further to the committee's letter of December 21, 1931, transmitting the bill (H. R. 3601) for the relief of Arthur L. Hacykell, and requesting the views and recommendations of the Navy Department thereon, I have the honor to inform the committee as follows;