Evening star., 1926-03-04
NORBECK BILL ASKS.
PAY PARITY IN NAVY
Measure Would Give Warrant
Officers Status Denied by
Act of 1922.

After a conference with Represent
ative johnson of South Dakota, chair
man of the veterans committee OF
The House, Senator NOrbeck, Repub
lican, of South Dakota, introduced
in the Senate yesterday a bill identi.
cal with the measure introduced by
Mr. Johnson in the House, which
would restore to the So-called com
miSSioned warrant officers of the
Navy pay parity with their brother
officers
Senator Norbeck said that an un-
Intentional injustice had been done to
nearly 1000 of these officers, many
of whom, with their families, are in
desperate financial circumstances
through the joint service pay act in
f"22, which threw them out OF a
long established pay level with en-
signs and lieutenants of like length
of service. They are the skilled
specialists Of practical experience
who have worked up from the ranks,
and who do not aspire to the high
est ranks in the Navy, but TO a
pay balance with their contemporaries
IN parallel grades, he said.
Status Explained.
In explaining this legislation Sen
at0r Norbeck said: These officers,
numbering nearly a thousand, are
commissioned officers as much so as
any others. They consist Of skilled
specialists and experienced Seamen.
commonly known as Ch ef boatswain,
chief gunner, chief radio electrician
and 50 forth They are the great
group in the Navy who have worked
up from the ranks to the warrant
grade and are promoted from the
warrant grade, after about II years
service. to a commission.
Many years ago Congress eStab-
liShed for them Il pay status on a
parity with ensignS and lieutenants
Of like length Of service. This pay
status was established Us a perma-
nent. organizational matter. Congress
provided that these officers should
have the pay ana allowances of their
brother officers not only as such pay
and allowances now exist Chat is
at the time the status was establish
edD but as they may hereafter be
allowed
"If Congress in matters of pay
could make a contract. it contracted
with these officers that whenever
their brother officers pay was in
creased, there would automatically in
nrease accordingly. They remaine@
In the service and worked for COM
missions with this promise in view.
Act Denied Increases.
"In 1922 the joint service pay act
Increased the pay Of all officers 10
meet the Increased cost of living, and
these officers should have, ana in the
absence Of nullifYing language. would
have received the increases provided
in that act for their brother officers
Of like service But that act, with
out previous discussion of the point
SO far as | am advised. in a single
obscure sentence, specially denied TO
their brother officers.
Il think this was a mistake; if their
brother officers needed the increase
because Of living conditions, 50 did
they. MY Information is that they
and their families ARE, in numerous
Instances, in real need. | under
stand that the Navy Department ad
mits that in some respects the in
crease pay act Of 1922 disCriminates
against these officers and has result
ed in some conditions that need cor
rection.
"All the inequities of that act VIII
be removed by restoration Of the pay
parity which Congress established for
these officers and promised to main
tain