Viewing page 226 of 270

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

operate in connection with the fleet from, temporary shore stations, because, in such cases, it is manifest that the fleet might reasonably continue to be regarded as the real base of operations.

6. The correctness of the views expressed in the last paragraph is supported both by the language of the enactment, and by its legislative history. The proviso was originally inserted in the bill by the Military Affairs Committee of the House, apparently by reason of representations made to the Committee by various witnesses, to the effect that there had theretofore been unnecessary duplication of effort and expense in the development of the two air components (House Committee Hearings, Army Bill, F.Y. 1921, p. 450, et seq.). Referring to the proviso as it was subsequently enacted, Senator Wadsworth, on the floor of teh Senate, May 24, 1920, said among other things:

"I am assured that that language covers every naval aviation activity on shore which is a legitimate part of naval aviation on shore; that it covers everything they intend to do in the future. It is true, however, that it would not permit them to do in the future some of the things which they have done in the past, and those things which they have been doing in the past which the committees of both the House and Senate want stopped are things which duplicate what the Army must do anyway.
"I refer, especially, Mr. President, to aviation patrol of the coasts. I am informed now that the Navy intends no longer to continue coast patrol with its aviation. It has been doing that in the past. We do not want to see it resumed in the future, because the Army must do it anyway. We want to see it understood that naval aviation should not be used to patrol forest areas. We want to see it understood that naval aviation should not be used to patrol, for example, inundated areas on the Sacramento River. We know that those things have been proposed. We know that there has been a great deal of duplication in the past and a good deal of it has been eliminated. As I said before, the chief of naval aviation harm whatsoever, but where we can stick a pin in without doing any harm to either service we prorpose to do it in order to save the taxpayers' monty.
- 4 -