[No. 20.]

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, December 4, 1908.

TO COMPLETE AND FINISH CRYPT OF THE CHAPEL AT UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY.

SIR: The department has the honor to inform the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs, House of Representatives, that the crypt of the chapel at the United States Naval Academy, selected as a permanent resting place for the body of John Paul Jones, has been left with only the foundation prepared. Appropriations heretofore made for buildings at the Naval Academy are not available for further preparing this crypt.

In the search for the body of John Paul Jones, Gen. Horace Porter, ambassador of the United States to France, expended from his private purse the sum of $35,000, and patriotically declined reimbursement for the same, generously suggesting that the amount be added to the sum of $100,000 originally proposed for the crypt, but thought to be inadequate.

In view of this public-spirited suggestion by General Porter, the department recommends that there be inserted in the estimates for naval appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1910, an item of $135,000 for completing and finishing in every respect the crypt of the chapel of the United States Naval Academy in accordance with plans obtained by the department.

Very respectfully,

TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY,

CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

Secretary.

(753)
O

[No. 21.]

NAVY DEPARTMENT,

Bureau of Supplies and Accounts,

Washington, D. C., December 8, 1908.

PRACTICE OF WAR DEPARTMENT OF PAYING CLERKS FROM LUMP APPROPRIATIONS.

SIR: Referring to your request to the undersigned to prepare you a memorandum as to the practice of the War Department on the subject of paying clerks from lump appropriations, I beg to report as follows:

An examination of the act of March 2, 1907, the army appropriation bill, discloses that as a general rule the clerks for the departments similar to the bureaus of the Navy Department are provided for appointment without limiting the number of clerks, as, for instance, Subsistence Department states as follows: "For compensation of civilians employed in the Subsistence Department." Quartermaster's Department provides for "clerks for post quartermasters at military posts;" and again for "compensation of clerks and other employees of the Quartermaster's Department, and clerks, foremen, watchmen, and organist for the United States military prison." In the Ordnance Department the appropriation "Ordnance service" calls for "current expenses of the Ordnance Department * * * prison police and office duties." The Engineer Department, appropriation Engineer depots," provides for "civilian clerks, mechanics, and laborers." Medical Department under appropriation "Medical and hospital departments" provides "for the pay of other employees of the Medical Department.'

The above is the general practice of the War Department, but I find that in the office of the Chief of Staff there is a civil establishment by which the clerks are specifically provided for, as, for instance, "6 clerks at $1,800 per annum, 15 clerks at $1,600 per annum," etc. That is the only case in the army appropriation bill approaching a civil establishment that I can discover.

Referring to Mr. Padgett's question as to whether it would be advisable to limit the salary that can be provided under the lump appropriations by the Secretary of the Navy, I can find no provision of statute law making such a limit, as I stated to him, but the following paragraph has been included year after year in the army appropriation bill under the Quartermaster's Department, and I am informed by the appointment clerk of the War Department has been considered as limiting the salaries in all departments. It is as follows:

Provided further, That the number of and total sum paid for civilian employees in the Quartermaster's Department * * * shall be limited to the actual requirements of the service, and that no employee paid therefrom shall receive a salary of more than one hundred and fifty dollars per month except upon the approval of the Secretary of War.

Coupled with this is the statement that as the Secretary of War (just as in the Navy Department) appoints and approves all clerks, that practically puts it entirely in the Secretary's hands, and the inference that the clerks are appointed by the Quartermaster-General himself is not a fact; which is equally true in the navy, as no chief of bureau makes any appointment whatever of clerks they are all controlled by the office of the Secretary.

I think that this substantiates the ground that we have taken and our proposition of limiting the sum which can be paid for clerk hire throughout the navy is still more stringent than the army has enjoyed for many years. E. B. ROGERS, Paymaster-General, U. S. Navy.

Very respectfully,