Evening star., 1928-02-22
Navy Court of Inquiry Find
ings Sent Back for Fur.
ther Explanation.
MELLON. HOLDS BAYLIS
is BLAMELESS IN CRASH
Leigh, Campbell and Wilbur Ask
Reasons for Placing of Acct
dent Responsibility.

In a sweeping report the court of in
quiry OF naval officers appointed to ex-
anime into the cause and responsibility
for the collision, December II, last. be-
tween the submarine S-4 and the Coast
Guard cutter Paulding, and the subse-
quent salvage operations. placed the re-
sponsibility for the collision on both
vessel commanders, and recommended
that Rear Admiral Frank H. Brumby.
commanding the Control Force, which
includes submarines, be relieved Of his
command. Admiral Brumby was in
charge Of the salvage operations.
In Endorsements just as sweeping
heads OF bureaus Of the Navy Depart
ment take sharp issue with the board
IN respect to these findings, and the
whole case has been sent back to the
court with instructions TO be more par
tlcular, and for an explanation as to
Its reasons for the recommendations.
The report and findings. made pub
lie today by the Navy Department. con-
tains also lengthy letter from Secre-
tary Mellon of the Treasury Depart
nent. in which he refuses to permit
''an experienced and capable officer In
its Coast Guard TO be blamed for q
collision for which this department has
determined. after careful Investigation.
that he was not responsible"
Court Held in Error.
Passing Lefore the several reviewing
officers of the Navy Department, the
boards findings hit its first snag when
it reached Rear Admiral E. II. Camp
bell. Judge advocate general Of the
Navy. who. finding the courts action
otherwise legal. said it erred when it
did MT 70 poar A1r.f-oI rx> q
defendant. in the light Of its adverse
recommendation as TO him.
Then Rear Admiral r. II. Leigh. chief
Of the Bureau Of Navigation. takes the
side OF the commander Of the Pauld-
ing and the Secretary Of the Treasury.
adding that the preSumptive major
responsibility rests on the commander
OF the S-4- but even goes 50 far as TO
say that he does not concur with the
court in fixing personal responsibility
on Lieut.. Comdr. Roy K Jones, the
submarine commander. Both Of these
recommendation are conctrred in by
operations. and by Secretary Wilbur.
who directed the report be sent back
for explanation as 10 reasons for its
findings in al respects.
While the failure Of the Psulding
10 sight and TO recognize as submarine
the S-4 in time to take necessary ac-
ton 20 clear her. as found by the court"
SAYS Admiral Leigh. Contributed 20
this disaster. Ii IS the opinion Of this
bureau that the prssumptive major re-
sponsioility rests properly On the S-4
for the following reasons: ID under
the weather conditions existing. there Is
strong presumption that the lockout
on the S-4 should have more easily
sighted the Paulding than the Paulding
should have sighted the periscopes cf
the S-i at q safe distance: (2l it was
the duty Of the S-4, under international
rules Of the road for the prevention Of
collisions at sea TO keep clear Of the
Paulding; and. tS} under the doctrine
governing operations cf submarines. il
Was the duty Of the S-4 70 avoid surface
craft.
Doubts Jones' Responsibility.
The bureau cannot, however. concur
IN the finding Of the court TO the eSecc
that there Is personal Responsibility
for the collision resting on the late
Lieut.. Corndr. Roy X Jones, u s Navy,
Tor. in the opinion Of the bureau. il
is not shown with the requisite definite
ness that the late Lieut.. CoIsGr. Jones
Was directly and personally responsible
Tor the share in the collision that IS
properly attributable 20 the S-4.
Under Navy regulations. q corcriani-
il,g officer Is always responsible soy the
safe conduct Of his ship. There is q
strong presumption IN this case thar the
Continued on Page 5. Column S.