The report signed by all of nine members of the committee, Representatives Lampert of Wisconsin, Chairman; Vestal of Indiana Perkins of New Jersey Faust of Missouri and Reid of Illinois, Republicans; Lea of California, Prall of New York, O’Sullivan of Connecticut and Rogers of New Hampshire, Democrats.
Mr. Reid, who is chief counsel for Colonel William E. Mitchell in the latter’s trial before an army court-martial, submitted a special concurring report, in which he advocated a program more in keeping with the proposals of Colonel Mitchell than is favored by the whole committee.
Text of Recommendations
The recommendations are as follows:
1. That the Federal Government cease competing with civilian aircraft industry in the construction of aircraft, engines and accessories.
2. That means be provided whereby the inventor who alleges violation of his patents by the Government may apply for relief other than by resort to the Court of Claims.
3. That procurement be separated from operation in all Government air services.
4. That one single government civil agency have sole charge of procurement of aircraft, engines and equipment, to the end that duplication in expense to be avoided, uniformity of equipment promoted and a continuous and definite policy established looking to stronger sources of supply, the maintenance of the industry, promotion of aircraft production to the capacity of the nation and the establishment of a sound policy of Government procurement.
5- That Congress immediately pass a law permitting the procurement of aircraft engines and aeronautical instruments and accessories without requiring competitive bidding, under restrictions that will promote the best interests of the Government.
6. That Congress authorize the procurement agency to recognize rights in designs of aircraft, engines and accessories.
7. That the industry be assisted in the procurement of non-commercial supplies, either through the Government as debits on procurement contracts or the grouping of purchases without the industry.
8. That the air service departments of the Government make greater use of the facilities of the Bureau of Standards for research and technical work and correspondingly reduce their own activities.
Regulation of Commercial Flying
9. That Congress provide by law for the regulation and encouragement of commercial flying through a Bureau of Air Navigation in the Department of Commerce. Provision should be made for the charting of airways, for emergency fields, aircraft facilities, night flying and a specialized weather information service. That so far as practical such developments should be preceded by essential engineering surveys.
10. Army and Navy landing fields and facilities be made available for civilian aviation, so far as practicable.
11. That Governors Island at New York City and Grand Park at Chicago be made airports for postal and civilian use.
12. That a greater number of men be trained as aviators and that more adequate equipment and facilities be provided for reserve fliers.
13. That reserve pilots receive not less than four hours training a month throughout the year and be called for active duty at air service stations for tactical training for a period of not less than two weeks each year.
14. That additional compensation necessary to obtain an adequate number of competent mechanics to maintain airplanes in efficient operation be provided; that such mechanics should be relieved of routine military duties.
15. That Congress provide remedies for the inequalities and injustices
suffered by the aviation officers of the army and navy.
16. That Congress determine immediately and settle by legislation the respective fields of operation of the army and the navy.
17. That the War and Navy Departments should survey, condemn anti destroy all obsolete and unsafe airplanes.
18. That the War Department release for general commercial use at least two-thirds of the war-built Liberty engines, now held in storage, at moderate prices.
19. That not less than $10,000,000 should be spent annually for the War Department and like sum for the Navy Department for the procurement of new flying equipment, constructed by the civilian industry. The orders should be based on a continuing program.
Five-Year Program Advocated
20. That there be established a separate and all-inclusive budget for each of the air services, the allocation of the appropriations to be by law.
21. That a five-year program of construction, education, training, appropriation and commercial encouragement should be formulated and carried out.
22. That the air services of both the army and the navy should at once be adequately represented on the General Staff of the army and the General Board of the navy by members who will firmly support the full and complete use of army and navy aviation for the defense of, the country.
23. That there be established a single Department of National Defense, headed by a civilian Secretary, specially charged with the coordination of the defenses of the country.
As to the last recommendation, the committee said:
“A single Department of National Defense, through its unity of command, would harmonize our national defense system, reduce expenditures for supplies and prevent needless duplications, promote understanding, lessen friction between our different military arms and provide a uniform and equalized system of pay, promotion and retirement. It should decrease the overhead maintenance and decrease the number of organizations and bureaus within the departments. It should promote the interchange of effort in peace and war; it should work for economy, efficiency, and strengthen our national defense.
“It would train and habituate our military organizations in peace time for that cooperation that is essential in war.”
Findings as to Existing Policies
Reviewing its activities the committee states that more than one hundred and fifty witnesses were examined under oath. With regard to air service policies it found:
That there is no uniformity of Army and Navy policy.
That the Navy system of promotion and pay deprives flying personnel of opportunity for high command and does not recognize that the aviation service is any more hazardous than the non-flying branches of the service; that the result is lowering the morale of the aviators in the Navy.
That discrimination arises as to pay and promotion of Army aviators, contributing to a spirit of discontent.
That the air defense of the country has created new and very involved problems of administration without sufficient representation of airmen on the General Staff of the Army and General Board of the Navy.
Appended to the report is information under date of December 8, 1925, from Rear Admiral W. A. Moffett, chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics in the Navy Department, to Representative Lea, giving him the status of aviation in the Navy. It shows that from July 1, 1921, to July 1, 1925, a total of two hundred and sixty-seven officers completed the naval aviator’s course, and forty-eight enlisted men completed the naval aviation pilot’s course.
The number, types and condition of Navy planes is given by Admiral Moffett as follows:
Status of Navy Planes | |||
Types | Serviceable | Unserviceable | On Order |
Service | 196 | 62 | 62 |
Obsolescent | 365 | 56 |
|
Experimental | 34 | 2 | 20 |
Obsolete | 78 | 56 |
|
Summary of Army Planes | ||||
Type | First Line | Second Line | Third Line | Total |
Observation | 0 | 138 | 682 | 820 |
Bomber | 91 | 11 | 0 | 102 |
Pursuit | 25 | 165 | 9 | 190 |
Attack | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 |
Total | 116 | 314 | 700 | 1,121 |
Training planes | 471 | |||
Grand total | 1,592 |
In commission, 829 planes: in storage, 763. Built since war, 140; during war, 390; to be reconditioned at §5,000 each, 390.
Reid Raises “Free Speech” Question
Representative Reid, in his special report, criticized the failure of the committee to present an outline of how the proposed single Department of Defense should be organized. He concludes a summary of statements from a number of sources, including Colonel Mitchell, who was quoted as saying in the testimony:
“I think there is no question but what a Department of National Defense with sub-secretaries to run the air and the water and the land is necessary.” Criticism of “conservatism” in the Army and Navy are referred to by Mr. Reid, and under the heading “Free Speech” he says:
“That officers are embarrassed in testifying before Congressional committees for fear of disciplinary measures, unfavorable consideration, or loss of opportunity for advancement, or other unfavorable action, was the subject of affirmative testimony which was not refuted by other evidence. One is inclined to believe that there does exist at least a feeling of embarrassment, particularly among junior officers, in giving testimony, and this condition should not be permitted to continue.”
Mr. Reid deals with unity of command, duplication of air effort,_ coast defense, effect thereon of aircraft, procurement and production; flying as a distinct arm, flying officers in command, naval aeronautics as a naval problem, types and models of planes, airdromes, technical development, and testimony that was taken by the committee on those subjects.
No Evidence of Corruption
With the report are several appendices covering phases of the work that arc not mentioned in detail in the signed report. Appendix A reviews charges that were investigated against the methods of administering the air services under the general heading of “Manufacturers’ Aircraft Association and Save-Harmless Clause.”
“The most searching investigation on the part of the committee, it is stated with regard to charges of corruption, “discloses not the slightest ground for the charge that the air service procedure is corrupt.” It had been asserted that one-fifth of the money appropriated by Congress went in profit to aircraft builders.
“Instead of prospering on air service contracts,” continues the statement, “the industry is impoverished. A large percentage has failed and gone into the hands of receivers. In one instance the receiver got a Government contract and went into bankruptcy on it.”
It is decided that all witnesses agreed that the industry “instead of fattening on Government contracts is being steadily starved to death.”
A charge that there was an “air trust” known as the Manufacturers Aircraft Association is answered as follows:
“The committee finds that there is no ‘aircraft trust’; that there is not now and never has been a service conspiracy.”
With regard to the “cross license agreement” between Government agencies and manufacturing companies the committee finds that the manufacturers were not perpetrating a fraud upon the Government. The agreement was described as a pooling of about 200 patents, permitting each member to use all of the patents.
The committee refers to a charge that private manufacturers were permitted to steal aviation patents through what was called a “save-harmless” clause in the contracts. This clause, it is stated, was the result of a law of Congress and did not permit the stealing alleged.
Appendix B deals with “Government expenditures in aircraft and shows the cost of the Army and Navy air services for 1920 to 1924 to have been $424,234,107.90.
Censures Factory Operation
“Too much has been spent,” states the report, after reviewing the distribution of the funds, “in attempting to put the Army and Navy in the business of manufacturing airplanes, experimentation, research, and so forth, and too little has been spent in actual purchase of airplanes and engines. Both Army and Navy, instead of sticking to their job—preparing themselves to fight—have been operating large factories with thousands of employees and specialists on the payroll.”
At the two factories of the Army and Navy more civilians were found to be employed than by the entire aircraft industry and without a view to continuity of production in the industry.
“The Lassiter Board report” is discussed in Appendix C. Attention is called to the fact that the hoard of army officers recommended legislation to be prepared for introduction in Congress.
“More than two years have elapsed,’’ it is stated, “since that report. Such proposed legislation has never been presented to Congress. The Army and Navy have never agreed on a definite air policy.”
Appendix D quotes a number of prominent persons, including President Coolidge, on the “importance of aircraft”; Appendix E discusses “the aviation industry,” Appendix F deals with “competitive selection of types” °f airplanes, and Appendix G discusses “military value of present aircraft,” quoting from testimony.
Editor’s Note: To those interested in recommendations of the Special Navy Board of which Rear Admiral Hilary P. Jones, U. S. Navy, was President, are referred to page 850 of the May, 1925, Proceedings.