Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The Phoenix Sewer & Drainage Co. has operated the present sewer system for a period of four years and has expended thereon, from time to time, the sum of $16,088.39 in addition to the original purchase price of the system. The present system is such that additions can be made thereto without impairing the old system and still give sufficient sewer service. No part of the old system need be removed. The new work can be easily added thereto, and thus give an adequate sewer system to the entire city, which, in the judgment of your committee, is much needed at this time.

[ocr errors]

CONGRESS

SUSPENSION FROM PROMOTION OF OFFICERS OF THE

NAVY.

JUNE 6, 1911.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

Mr. PADGETT, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, submitted

the following

REPORT.

[To accompany S. 2004.)

The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred a bill (S. 2004) to amend section 1505 of the Revised Statutes of the United States * * * relating to suspension of officers of the Navy who, upon examination for promotion, are found not professionally qualified, having had the same under consideration, report the bill back to the House with the unanimous recommendation that it do pass.

The following letter from the Secretary of the Navy to the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives fully states existing law and the many hardships that are suffered under it, and explains fully the effect of the bill and its operation should it become a law.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

Washington, May 1, 1911. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I have the honor to invite your attention and that of the committee to section 1505 of the Revised Statutes, which reads as follows:

"Sec. 1505. Any officer of the Navy on the active list below the grade of commander, who, upon examination for promotion, is not found professionally qualified, shall be suspended from promotion for one year, with corresponding loss of date when he shall be reexamined, and in case of his failure upon such reexamination he shall be dropped from the service."

The l-year period of suspension provided by the foregoing for failure upon examination for promotion is found to be unnecessarily long and in many cases to work a hardship that evidently was not contemplated when the law was originally framed. Thus, the large classes of midshipmen lately commissioned as ensigns consist of over 100 members and several classes contained nearly 200 members.

These ensigns are eligible for promotion to the next higher grade, that of lieutenant (junior grade), after three years' service, and upon becoming lieutenants (junior grade) they are promoted in accordance with law at a minimum rate of 40 a year to the grade of lieutenant. If an ensign should fail, as a few of them do each year, upon his examination for promotion to lieutenaat (junior grade), he would drop back a year, thus allowing a class of from 100 to 200 in number to pass above him, and as these are only advanced at a rate of about 40 a year to the grade of lieutenant it will be seen that the officer has in reality lost from two to four or five years in the time of his promotion, instead of only one year as section 1505 originally contemplated, thus seriously affecting his entire career in the Navy.

Such a loss of numbers as is possible under the law now in force is very much more severe than would usually be adjudged an officer by the sentence of a general courtmartial for offenses which are serious but still not grave enough to warrant dismissal. It might, indeed, safely be said that if an officer were to commit an offense against naval discipline of sufficient gravity to justify a loss of numbers equal to that now suffered in some cases for failure on professional examination such oflicer would be dismissed from the service.

The conditions resulting from these suspensions in the cases of ensigns, especially those who have been examined within the past few months, are particularly severe, as some of them now stand to lose about 200 numbers. For this reason it has been deemed proper to suggest in connection with the proposed modification of the law, as inclosed herewith, an added proviso in order to save these young men from so severe a penalty.

The provision of law under consideration has to do only with professional failure and does not at all involve the question of misconduct; the moral qualifications are first passed upon by the examining board and are reported upon in connection with the examination as a whole. If the misconduct shown by an officer's record is such as to require an adverse report as to his moral qualifications, then the following provision of law from the act of August 5, 1882 (22 Stat., 286), applies:

“Whenever on an inquiry had pursuant to law, concerning the fitness of an officer of the Navy for promotion, it shall appear that such officer is unfit to perform at sea the duties of the place to which it is proposed to promote him, by reason of drunkenness, or from any cause arising from his own misconduct, and having been informed of and heard upon the charges against him, he shall not be placed upon the retired list of the Navy, and if the finding of the board be approved by the President, he shall be discharged with not more than one year's pay.

So that is an officer be found morally disqualified, then, whether or not he be found professionally qualified, if the finding of the board be approved by the President the officer is discharged with not more than one year's pay. Attention is invited to the fact that in such case, i. e., in case of a finding of moral disqualification, the discharged officer is given a year's pay, although in the case of the officer whose record is irreproachable but who fails upon his professional reexamination he is discharged without any further pay whatever. In view of this apparently adverse discrimination against the officer in the case of a final professional failure it has been thought only just to add a similar provision in the proposed modification of the law, a draft of which accompanies this letter.

The foregoing considerations are deemed sufficient to indicate the necessity for a change in the provisions of section 1505, Revised Statutes, and a modification thereof is suggested as shown on the inclo ed draft of a bill which reduces the loss of numbers to a six-months' period based upon the average promotions during the preceding five years, which bill is commended to the committee's favorable consideration. Faithfully, yours,

G. v. L. MEYER. The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

House of Representatives.

[ocr errors]

1st Session.

No. 45.

TO REDUCE THE DUTIES ON WOOL AND MANUFAC

TURES OF WOOL.

JUNE 6, 1911.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of

the Union and ordered to be printed.

Mr. UNDERWOOD, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted

the following

REPORT.

[To accompany H. R. 11019.]

The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 11019) to reduce the duties on wool and manufactures of wool, having had the same under consideration, report it back to the House without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

EARLY HISTORY OF WOOL MANUFACTURES IN THE UNITED STATES.

The wool manufacturing industry in its different stages is intimately interwoven with the history of the United States from colonial times to the present day, and to understand its position in the economic growth of the country, together with its present status, necessitates a short review of its development from the beginning.

a During the colonial period and in the years immediately following the Revolutionary War all woolen goods not made in households were imported from England. These household manufactures constituted practically, the entire consumption of the country, and for many years following the introduction of machinery they continued to be the larger portion of those in use.

The first effort to manufacture woolen goods in commercial quantities is said to have been at Ipswich, Mass., in 1792, but no machinery appears to have been used in this undertaking. It was in 1794 that machinery was first applied to this manufacture, it having been introduced by English workmen, as was the case in cotton manufacture. This machinery for manufacturing woolen goods was exclusively for carding and for dressing the goods. Spinning and weaving were performed as before on the spinning wheel and the hand loom. The great obstacle in this early progress in the manufacture of woolen goods was the deficient supply and poor quality of wool. This difficulty was overcome by importations of inerino sheep from Spain, which being begun in 1802, was supplemented in 1909 and 1810. The manufacture received a great stimulus from the general industrial progress which began in 1808, and the value of woolen goods made in factories is said to have increased from $4,000,000 in 1810 to $19,000,000 in 1815.

As stated in United States Tariff History, by J. Alexander Lindquist:

The embargo and the War of 1812 stimulated the woolen as it did the cotton industry. Carding and spinning machinery was introduced at this time, but the weaving still continued to be done on the hand loom. Great progress, however, was made, and the annual product of the mills amounted to $19,000,000 about 1815.

The duty on woolen goods imposed by the act of 1816, when compared with those now in force, was extremely low; but the industry, though it suffered in common with all others from the currency crisis of 1819, continued to flourish, and by 1928 was firmly established.

In 1828, 13 woolen manufacturers testified before the Committee on Manufactures of the House of Representatives as to the situation and work of the industry. Six of these had begun manufacturing before 1815, while the remaining 7 had started since. Spinning machinery was in use in all, but some used power and others hand looms. Sereral expressed the opinion that, so far as the mere cost of manufacturing was concerned, they could compete with the English manufacturers, but they were forced to pay more for their wool. Thus, by 1828, when the duties upon wool and woolens were for the first time made excessive, the industry had gained a strong foothold. But the high duties on wool in the tariffs of 1824-1832 confined the industry to render such coarse products as could be made from domestic wool.

TARIFF HISTORY.

At the close of the Revolutionary War all the leading States passed acts imposing duties on imports, and from this time until 1789, when the national government came into existence, new laws regulating commerce, navigation, and trade were enacted by all but one of the States. The duties were on imports from foreign countries and the States agreed that all goods, wares, and merchandise of the growth, product, or manufacture of the United States or any of them should be, with only a few insignificant exceptions, admitted into each State free of duty. All of the independent State tariffs were abolished by the Constitution as adopted by the convention in 1787. The first national tariff law was passed by the First Congress, and went into effect on July 4, 1789; it was strictly a revenue tariff, though some of the leading men of that Congress argued for protective duties. It was only intended to be a temporary and partial measure. No duty was imposed on raw wool, and 71 per cent was agreed upon for clothing, ready-made, hats of beaver, fur, wool, or mixture of either, and other articles of clothing. This tariff of 1789 was superseded on January 1, 1791, by the act of August 10, 1790, which was likewise a revenue tariff, but was a complete tariff law covering all classes of merchandise, and continued to be the basis of all the subsequent measures passed by the Congress down to April 27, 1816, the intervening tariff's being but amendments covering special articles. The tariff of 1790 left raw wool free of duty and taxed “clothing and stuffs" at 7 per cent, which rate was increased by the amending act of June 7, 1794. All duties were increased 100 per cent by the act of July 1, 1812. The act of February 5, 1816, increased all duties 42 per cent above those imposed by the act of July 1, 1812.

The above-mentioned acts were imposed on the whole for revenue and increased from time to time as the needs of the Treasury demanded. The tariff of April 27, 1916, was principally for revenue, with incidental protection. The protective movement grew and

« AnteriorContinuar »