As fleet concentration for 1927 passes into naval history with the thoughts still fresh in our minds of the innumerable lessons learned in connection therewith—the gunnery, engineering, tactical and logistic problems that arose; the training and contentment of personnel in its numerous phases and the many other everyday problems of our naval lives that were settled or that were attempted to he settled in the various ward rooms and steerages of the two fleets; it seems not amiss at this time to bring forth for public discussion and perusal —one of our “family skeletons”—“The Pay Bill.” Or transposing the subject to parliamentary seagoing vernacular—Why should a married officer draw more pay than his corresponding bachelor brother officer?
For a few years following the period from June, 1922, when the present pay hill became a law, there were two sides to this question, but in later years as the provisions of the bill became better known, it is believed that the service as a whole saw the injustice done the bachelor officers by the present pay bill and it will now give its silent support to any change in this law as long as the married officers own stipend is not reduced. Rather than “rock the boat," however, a large majority of the married brethren desire the status quo to remain, thus keeping the bachelor officer out on that famous limb—or offering him the other alternative of acquiring a wife and other appurtenances, thereby entitling him to the extra $150 more or less per month.
With the recent creation of the interdepartmental hoard in Washington to investigate primarily the promotion situation in the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, it is believed that one of the many vexing problems connected with personnel that this board will have to face will be that of the inequalities manifest and still in existence in the operation of the Joint Pay Bill of 1922. It is not believed that any question of permanent service personnel legislation will have the full support of the commissioned personnel until recommendations are made to correct the provisions of the present pay bill.
The final judge of a Joint Service Personnel Bill is Congress, and no matter how laudable or just a bill is that is recommended by an Interdepartmental Board, the final approval will not be given by the legislative branch until the question, “How much will it cost?” is fully answered. The "How much will it cost” will be based, no doubt, on the present 1922 Pay Bill—which, at best, is only temporary, because it is discriminatory and class legislation and hence contrary to fundamental American principles of government.
From the above it would appear that along with a permanent personnel bill should go a permanent and non-discriminatory pay bill, because, along with dissatisfaction of commissioned personnel due to fear of stagnation in promotion for some years to come, is also the equally serious question of non-uniformity of pay. The latter is especially serious, as it concerns approximately one half of the commissioned line (2,700 out of 5,400 line officers are bachelors) and probably one-fifth of the staff officers (400 out of 1,900 staff officers are bachelors). It is admitted, however, that it affects the junior officers more than the senior officers, as it is believed a very large percentage of the senior officers do not enjoy single blessedness. For this reason, those that shape any pay or personnel legislation should have as a representative a senior officer that can speak feelingly for the bachelor element in the several services—especially for the bachelor naval officers at sea where the discrimination in pay is much greater relatively than in any other of the six branches of the government operating under the present pay bill (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Public Health Service, Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Coast Guard). P
During the winter of 1921-1922, it was the writer’s privilege to have command of the U.S.S. Palos, then stationed on the upper Yangtze River, with headquarters at Chungking, Szechuan Province, China, approximately 1,400 miles from the mouth of the Yangtze. River navigation to and from the lower Yangtze had ceased due to low water, rapids, etc., at various points above Ichang, which is about 350 miles below Chungking.
Mail for the two U. S. gunboats stationed on the upper Yangtze—the Monocacy and Palos—was very irregular and slow due to the fact that it came to Chungking from Ichang, a distance of 350 miles, by either hand pulled junks or coolie runners. These junks and runners were often delayed or robbed by various bandits or “revolutionists” en route.
However, one memorable circular “got through” to us from a certain committee of naval officers on duty in Washington who were evidently in charge of the Navy’s end of the then contemplated new pay bill. The opening or closing clause of this circular had the following “catchy” phrase which tended to cheer the spirits of the six isolated officers of the Monocacy and Palos.—“All hands should get behind the new pay bill, now before Congress. It is not exactly what the Navy wants; but it is the best we can do. Some will get more of an increase than others. But under no conditions will anyone’s pay be reduced below that of the old bill (1908).’’ I do not remember the exact wording, but the above is the substance. Thus, we did not give the matter much further thought, but hoped for the best.
Later when the smoke of battle had cleared away and the pay bill was the law of the land, what was the result to these six isolated officers aboard the Palos and Monocacy, two identical ships, as near alike as two peas in a pod and performing the same duty in the same locality?
Monocacy Palos Difference
(All (A Pay Per
Married) Bachelors) Yr.
Total Pay Total Pay
Per Yr. Per Yr.
Lieutenant-Commander, 15 Yrs. Service $5,607 $3,969 $1,638
Lieutenant, 8 Yrs. Service 4,038 2,859 1,179
Lieutenant (MC), 7 Yrs. Service 4,038 2,859 1,179
Total $13,683 $9,687 $3,996
The Monocacy officers (whose corresponding rank and service were the same for pay purposes as those of the Palos) were receiving a total of $3,996 more a year than those on the Palos, because they happened to be fortunate enough to be married. Incidentally, the three officers on the Palos were each contributing from $75-$125 a month toward the support of dependents (other than mother or child); but by the provisions of the pay bill they were not entitled to any allowances.
To return to the circular letter.
“But under no conditions will anyone’s pay be reduced below that of the old bill (1908).” Let’s see how the Paymaster figures.
Bachelors Lieutenant-Commander, 18 Years
1908 Bill:
Base Pay ........ | $1,000 |
| |
30% Fogey ..... | 000 |
| |
10% Sea Pay .. | 390 |
| |
Total........... |
| $4,290 | |
1922 Bill: | |||
Base Pay ..... ....... |
|
| |
Assistence............. |
|
| |
Total........................ |
| $4,89 | |
Difference................ |
| $ 171 | |
1922 Bill reduced by $171 per year the bill of 1908.
Lieutenant, 12 Years
1908 Bill:
Base Pay ........................ $2,400
20% Fogey......................... 480
10% Sea Pay...................... 288
Total................................. ....... $3,168
1922 Bill:
Base Pay......................... $2,880
Subsistence ...................... 219
Total................................. ....... $3,099
Difference......................... $ 69
1922 Bill reduced by $69 per year the bill of 1908.
The two self-explanatory examples could be further augmented, but instead a general statement will suffice to illustrate my point, viz.: Bachelor officers with twenty years’ service or less at sea are now (since June 30, 1922) receiving less money than they would have under the old 1908 pay bill; this, because the present loss of sea pay (10 per cent of the old base pay plus longevity) is not offset by the subsistence allowance bachelors are at present receiving ($219 per year).
In the case of bachelor officers with over twenty years’ service this is not generally the case; their pay at sea under the 1922 pay bill being more than under the 1908 bill.
This is due to the fact that the 1922 bill increased longevity pay up to as high as 50 per cent of the base pay while the 1908 bill only increased it up to approximately 40 percent of the base pay.
Similar examples could be given to show that in many instances bachelor officers on shore duty with less than twenty years’ service receive less than they did ashore under the old 1908 schedule since the present combined rental and subsistence allowance for officers ashore without dependents is less than that they received ashore under the 1908 schedule (Commutation of quarters, heat and light).
Referring again to the Paymaster’s figures (paragraphs above) let us see how the 1922 pay bill affects the married officer— as compared to the 1908 bill. For purposes of illustration a lieutenant commander with eighteen years’ service and a lieutenant with twelve years’ service are again used.
Married
Lieutenant-Commander, 18 Years 1908 Bill:
Base Pay........................ $3,000
30% Fogey........................ 900
10% Sea Pay ..................... 390
Total..................................... 54.290
1922 Bill:
Base Pay ....................... $3,ooo
30% Fogey ....................... 900
$5,767
$1,477
Allowances ..................... 1,867
Total................................. .......
Difference........................
Increase of $1,477 Pcr year.
Lieutenant, IS Years
1908 Bill:
Base Pay ....................... $2,406
20% Fogey....................... 4®°
$3,168
10% Sea Pay ..................... 288
Total................................. .......
1922 Bill:
Base Pay ....................... $2,400
20% Fogey........................ 480
$4,278
$1,110
Ashore $ 43-42
4342
26.75
76.50
76.50
- 38.25-76.50
38.25
38.25
Allowances ..................... 1,398
Total................................. .......
Difference........................
Increase of $1,110 per year.
In other words, the 1922 Pay Bill increased by $1,477 Pcr year the pay of married lieutenant commanders with eighteen years’ service; and at the same time decreased the pay of the bachelor lieutenant commanders by $171 per year over the old 1908 hill
Likewise, the 1922 Pay Bill increased by $1,110 per year the pay of married lieutenants with twelve years’ service; and at the same time decreased the pay of bachelor lieutenants by $69 per year over the old 1908 schedule 1 Generally speaking the same figures can be used for any grade.
“Some pay bill 1’’ says the bachelor officer. To pursue our study a bit further the below mentioned greater amounts are received per month by the different grades because they are married, (allowances) except in cases where combined pay and allowances exceed $7,200 per year in certain senior grades with nearly thirty years’ service.
At Sea
Admiral .......... $.... 123.42
Vice Admiral and Rear Admiral (Upper) .. 123.42
Rear Admiral (Lower) 106.75
Captain .... 138.25-156.50
Commander 136.25-156.50
Lieutenant Commander 136.50-156.50
Lieutenant............ 78.25-136.50
Lieutenant...... (j.g.) 78.25- 98.25
Ensign ............ 40.00- 78.25
In all cases the base pay and longevity pay of married officers and bachelor officers of the same rank and service are the same. The increase to the former is in the allowances as shown above.
Statistics today show that it takes $1.72 to purchase what $1.00 would buy in 1912 and facts show that most of the bachelor officers in the Navy are actually receiving less money in 1926 than they did in 1912.
Other actual cases of the peculiar workings of the present pay bill come to mind :
A rear admiral (bachelor) or captain (bachelor) with thirty years’ service, at sea, receives $6,219 a year; a lieutenant (married) at sea with the same service receives $6,357—a year more than his division commander or captain!
A certain bachelor captain in command of a Navy transport that I happened to be on was receiving less pay and allowances than all his individual heads of departments (lieutenants and lieutenant-commanders) and also less than three of his watch officers (thirty year lieutenants).
A self-explanatory table of sea pay of officers of the Navy, married and single, is shown in the annual Navy Directory. Study it closely; it is an eye opener.
It seems to me that along with the many ward room topics of discussion included under the caption of “What is wrong with the Navy” “Old Friend Pay Bill” should be placed “Front and Center.”
Admitted then that the present pay bill is unfair and discriminatory—in addition, almost socialistic and therefore un-American, what remedy suggests itself?
The ideal solution, of course, would be to eliminate the present allowances for those with dependents and add these amounts to the corresponding present base pay of the several grades, and all hands (with or without dependents) receive the combined amounts as pay, at sea and ashore. This would increase the item “Pay” of the six branches of the government now being paid under this bill somewhat. It is believed, however, that this would be about offset, by eliminating clerks and other officials now employed in various branches of the government, whose time is utilized in rendering decisions and writing letters on just who is and isn’t a dependent.
By increasing the Pay, the amount of the “Present Allowance” for dependents would automatically, if not legislated otherwise, increase the pay of the retired list which should in justice be done. The last pay bill was a compromise—I understand it was the present bill or going back to the old 1908 Bill—and from the bachelor standpoint it would have been better to stand on the old bill—but somebody had to be sacrificed, no doubt—hence the present Pay Bill of 1922.
The second best solution would be to give the “present allowances with dependents” to all hands both at sea and ashore on active duty, thus putting all officers on a parity. The retired pay, of course, would then remain the same as at present and the only increase would be the small increase in the allowances for bachelors. While this would right our wrong, it would be manifestly unfair to the retired list.
In the study of the present pay bill it is noted that there is no distinction made in the pay of enlisted men of corresponding rating and length of service due to their martial status. Why was this invidious distinction made then in the case of officers? Why not give a married chief petty officer at sea more than his single shipmate and thus be consistent?
Does, for example, the National City Bank or the Standard Oil Company of New York, pay its presidents and other executives a salary based on whether or not they are married; or according to what they consider their services are worth to their respective companies? Does the paying teller or cashier in any bank receive a larger salary than the president if said president happens to be a bachelor?
Unfortunately in this country, in addition to rank and station, the dollar appears to be the bench mark. Fortunately, however, for the Navy, this dollar bench mark has never permeated our lives. Most of us in the service put all ideas of wealth and financial success behind us when we raised our right hand. When that right hand went up, however, it was our understanding of the contract that our modest remuneration should be for naval duty performed and responsibility assumed, which was to march side by side with rank and length of service and not for raising a family—the latter a laudable undertaking but a secondary consideration in a profession where men “needs must go to sea in ships.”