![Transcription Center logo](/themes/custom/tc_theme/assets/image/logo.png)
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
c. Do the statutes place upon the Army the duty of providing for and controlling 'all aerial operations from land bases' without exception or is the proviso that "naval aviation shall have control of x x x x shore stations whose maintenance is necessary for operation connected with the fleet" capable of a construction which will permit the Navy to maintain aerial forces for operations in lieu of or in conjunction with operations of a fleet from such shore stations, thus constituting an exception? Answer: As above indicated, it is my opinion that the statute places upon the Army exclusively the duty of providing for and controlling all aerial operations from land bases, without exception, and that the Navy is forbidden to maintain aerial forces at shore stations for operations in lieu of or in conjunction with a fleet, except at temporary shore stations established by fleet aviation during maneuvers or active operations under such circumstances that the fleet might reasonably continue to be regarded as the real base of the operations. 10. The letter in reference further calls for comment upon the attached opinion of the Acting Judge Advocate General of the Navy, as to what are called certain conclusions of the latter, which I quote from the letter in reference, and discuss as follows: a. That a literal construction of the enactment of June 5, 1920, would prevent joint control of Army and Navy air forces. Comments: According to its literal terms, the proviso seems to confer upon each air component, independently of the other, and independently of any higher authority, absolute control of aerial operations from certain bases or stations. The Acting Judge Advocate General of the Navy is therefore correct in his views, substantially restated above, but it should be noted that this is merely a point in his argument to his ultimate conclusion that interpretation of the statute to this effect is impossible on constitutional grounds, with which, as already indicated, I fully agree. b. That it would prevent the Commanding General of the Army charged with defending a particular sector of our coast from controlling air forces in that sector, since such control of air forces would be taken from the Army Air Corps. -8-