Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-08-10
Continued From First Page.)

waited the need for such performance.
This position proceeds upon the
theory that the Navy must choose its
own weapons to perform the functions
imposed upon it by the joint board,
an organization of high officials of
both services which was established to
co-ordiate the activities of both
branches of the national defense The
War Departments conviction that the
Navy is going right on with plans to
maintain bombers at Pearl Harbor and
Coco Solo, Panama Canal Zone, even
though this duplicates similar Army
equipment there, has not improved
matters.
Naval Fleet Criticized.
The Nays feet of VT (torpedo-
bombing) planes at these points are
not, as the Army sees them, planes "pri-
marily designed and ordinarily used for
scouting and patrolling over the seas"
as stipulated in the rules of the joint
board.
All of which brings the prompt Navy
rejoinder that while there might ap-
pear to be duplication at first glance,
since this type and the larger and
strictly scouting planes are based in
proximity, this is merely because the
Navy considers it economically unwise
to acquire and develop necessary sec
ton bases during peace.
The fact that the Army Is now fore
ing the issue indicates that line of
demarkation may be drawn, but the
limiting of functions draws such a line
and that there can be no duplication
of materials If there is no duplication
of functions. The controversy goes back
more than 10 years and has been stimu-
lated by the rivalry between naval avia-
ton and the Army Air Corps During
all that time the Navy has challenged
the constitutionality of stipulation in
the Army appropriation bill of 1921
that hereafter Army air service shall
control all aerial operations from land
bases and that naval aviation shall have
control of all aerial operation attached
TO a fleet, including shore stations
whose maintenance is necessary for
operations connected with the fleet. for
construction and experimentation and
for the training of personnel"
Constitutionality Challenged.
The constitutionality of this law was
challenged in an opinion to Secretary
Adams by the judge advocate Of the
Navy, 1t was revealed by correspondence
on the subject made available today.
1t was claimed that Congress had no
authority to restrict the President In
his supreme command of the Army and
Navy.
In his letter to Attorney General
Mitchell for an opinion settling the.
issue, Secretary Adams emphasized that
it was no more hypothetical or academic
question, but vital one touching, not
only the Constitution, but the Nays
fA~ Ia,tiI IiN,n Re ni a
training the personnel.
Although Secretary Adams wrote this
letter as long ago as June 3, 1929, 1t
was not answered finally until January
l6 1880, and 1t was not until today
that the existence of the correspon-
dence became known. There had been
no announcement of the Nays ap-
peal to the Department of Justice for
a legal opinion.
when Attorney General Mitchells re-
ply was received Secretary Adams was
on the way to London for the naval
conference. But the reply did not
merely held that for several reasons"
it would not be "expedient for me to
render an opinion" Among other
things, Mitchell pointed out that the
Navy had failed to bring to his at
tention specific case. Also, he pointed
put, Congress held the purse strings,
after all, whatever the Attorney Gen.
sral might think about the law In ques-
ton.
Both Services Push Programs.
Meantime, both services have gone
ahead with their estimates for the last
year of the five-year aviation building
program. The President, however, has
been urged to slow up this program,
calling for 1900 Army and 900 Navy
planes, partly to save money on this
years budget and partly to await
whether public money
was being wasted in this quarrel be-
tween the rival air services. About
$40 900 900 remains to be spent on this
program. including some $50 600, 900 on
the Navy side and about $50,0oo,0 900 on
the Army side.
It is in this connection that the call
ing in Of the Bureau of Efficiency has
been suggested. The President how
ever is considered reluctant to resort
to such step, even though one Of the
primary functions of that bureau, an
Government agency, is to
investigate the methods of business in
Government service, including the
duplication Of statistical and other
work
NSSACeolS huIlcy oFlSlnhl protest
to President Hoover against the Navy's
aircraft policy appears to have been
mace on February 10, 1880. On that
date, he is said to have written to the
President urging him to issue instrllc-
tons for the preparation of the new
estimate for the procurement of land
based aircraft. 1t was Hurley's first
appearance in the controversy. His
predecessor. James w. Good, had died
soon after joining with Secretary
Adams in putting the issue up the the
Attorney General.
Hurley Forces Issue.
In the absence here of Secretary
Adams, In London, some efforts to
reach common ground were made, 1t
is understood, in conferences between
Hurley and Ernest Lee Jahncke. As
sistant and then Acting Secretary of
the Navy. Apparently the two depart
ments were as far apart as ever when
Adams returned. Secretary Adams
apparently allowed matters to stand as
they were for the time being Secre-
tary Hurley, however, forced the issue
and, with President Hoover showing
an active interest in the matter, con-
ferences between these two cabinet
officers followed Hurleys complaint of
two weeks ago
Wnat neauWay they nave made, II
any, is not known, but it is essential
for the Navy to have land-based
bombers for it's off-shore operations
and, unless they are operated by naval
officers familiar with naval communi-
cations, navigation, and the character
istics of American ships, confusion and
perhaps chaos might result in the
event OF an engagement.
Secretary AdamS' Letter.
Following is the correspondence:
Washington, June 8, 1929
Navy Department,