Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. BRITTEN. I presume those same military measures would be taken on Half Moon Bay ?

Capt. Potts. I don't see how they could, unless you are going to fortify the whole coast.

Mr. BRITTEN. Don't you suppose a portable gun could be used, such as Plunkett used in Europe?

Capt. Ports. That is possible; yes.
Mr. BRITTEN. Very easily probable, is it not?
Capt. Potts. I think it is very probable and should be done.

Mr. BRITTEN. And that is done by the mere extension of a railroad track. That would solve the question of that sort of an attack, would it not?

Capt. Potts. No; not at all. If you have a vessel armed with 12 or 14 inch guns, I don't think it would solve the question.

Mr. BRITTEN. I am only mentioning the fact as a possibility. I don't suppose we would be content with one gun, do you?

Capt. Potts. No, I don't think so. I hope we would not. I only mention this fact of attack from the outside as a possibility, that is all.

Mr. CURRY. Is that all, gentlemen?
Mr. BRITTEN. That is all.

Mr. CURRY. In answer to a question of yours, Mr. Britten, I have just received word that the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. would charge the same for electric power in any Government plant on the bay, including Hunters Point, Mare Island, Alameda, and anywhere else.

Mr. BRITTEN. I think that is evident.

Mr. CURRY. Yes. There is no advantage or disadvantage to any proposed site, excepting that Mare Island makes most of her own electricity, and in fact furnishes the Pacific Gas & Electric with some that is not needed here. Also, in reference to the question of freight rates, Capt. Conard could explain that, but it is not necessary. The freight rates would be practically the same here or at any other points down the bay that you have railroad tracks laid to all points, excepting that there is a little shade in favor of Mare Island---not much, but a little--and the rates by water to Mare Island would be practically the same as it would be to San Francisco for part cargoes, and for full cargoes it would be just the same.

If you gentlemen do not wish to hear, or are not desirous of hearing any further testimony--if you think you have heard enough-we will submit the case, and submit our proposition to you on the evidence already before the committee, and we will go and partake of luncheon.

Senator BALL. The hearing is concluded.

(After conclusion of the hearing, the following letter was submitted by Capt. E. L. Beach, commandant, Mare Island Navy Yard, setting forth analyses of administrative costs at Mare Island and estimated administration costs at proposed new bases in the lower bay:)

COMMANDANT'S OFFICE,

Mare Island Navy Yard, November 27, 1920. Senator L. H. BALL, Chairman Joint Congressional Committee on Naval Base Sites,

Senate Chamber, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: Inasmuch as the data may be of interest to your commission, am forwarding herewith a copy of a letter addressed to Rear Admiral Parks, Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, and its inclosure, which sets forth an analyses of the

I

a

administrative costs as actually experienced at Mare Island, as estimated for a new base at Hunters Point or Alameda, and as estimated for the proposed Carquinez Straits Station. Yours, truly,

E. L. BEACH, Captain, United States Navy, Commandant.

NOVEMBER 27, 1920. To: Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks. Subject: Analyses of administration costs at Mare Island and estimated administra

tion costs at proposed new bases in Lower Bay. Inclosure: A. Analyses of administration costs.

1. In accordance with the chief of bureau's oral request transmitted to the public works officer at this yard through Lieut. C. L. Macrae (C. E. C.), United States Navy, there is forwarded herewith inclosure A, giving in analyzed form the actual administrative overhead costs at the Mare Island Navy Yard during the year ending June 30, 1920, as taken from the records of the accounting office; the estimated administrative overheads for a new base located either at Alameda or Hunters Point; and the estimated administrative overheads of the proposed base at Carquinez Straits.

2. The figures given in inclosure A are those upon which the public works officer based his statements made before the joint congressional commission on Thursday, November 18, and it is presumed that this is the information desired.

3. By way of explanation, the commandant desires to state that the figures in the first column are actual expenditures. The figures given in the second column, the estimated administrative overheads at Alameda or Hunters Point, are very conservative, and, if anything, are less than will result from the operation of either of these stations if they are built. On the other hand, the figures given in the third column have purposely been made as liberal as possible, and the aggregate of the estimates for Carquinez Straits undoubtedly exceed that which would actually result from the operation of such a station, unless its sphere of operation be materially enlarged over that anticipated by the Helm Board report.

4. Attention is invited to the fact that the difference between the totals of column

and column 3 is approximately $2,000,000, the figure used by the public works officer in estimating the additional administrative overheads of a Lower Bay base.

Inclosure A. Analyses of administration costs.

Item.

Actual cost, New base at

1920, other than Mare Island. Mare Island.

Additional

cost at Carquinez

Straits.

Grounds and water front.
Communication.
Fire protection.
Miscellaneous.
Supply
Transportation.
Power
Administration, general.
Clerical.
Drafting
Estimating
Accounting
Janitors, police, and watchman.
Dispensary.
Disbursing
Officers.
General supervisors.
Central tool shop.
Military:

Marine barracks.
Commissary store.
Miscellaneous..

$461,378.97 $450,000.00

16, 229.52 15,000.00
82, 578.30 80,000.00
564, 695.88 500,000.00
1,034, 646.52 1,000,000.00

721, 023.36 350,000.00
401; 355.35 200,000.00

45, 314.72 40,000.00
176, 855.85 90,000.00
152, 749.37 80,000.00
109, 909. 20 75,000.00
129, 499.25 100,000.00
101, 667.94 100,000.00

7,855. 92 7,500.00 17,038. 22 15,000.00 329,745.45 250,000.00 91, 228.54 75,000.00 6,325.89 6,000.00 3,191. 19

2,000.00 816.03

800.00 22,629.92 11,000.00 4,476, 736. 45 3, 447,300.00

$200,000.00

5,000.00 20,000.00 150,000.00 500,000.00 100,000.00 150,000.00

5,000.00 25,000.00 10,000.00 30,000.00 10,000.00 50,000.00 7,500.00

2,500.00 100,000.00 30,000.00

500.00

10,000.00

Total.

1,405,500.00

SAN FRANCISCO BAY NAVAL BASE SITES.

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1920.

SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS
ON PACIFIC COAST NAVAL BASES,

San Francisco, Calif.

VARIOUS SITES ON THE BAY OF SAN FRANCISCO.

A hearing before the Special Joint Committee of Congress on Pacific Coast Naval Bases was held at the chambers of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, in the City Hall, San Francisco, Calif., November 19, 1920, commencing at 10 o'clock a. m.

There were present the following members of the committee: Senators L. Heisler Ball and Henry W. Keyes, Representatives Fred A. Britten, Frederick C. Hicks, A. E. B. Stephens, L. P. Padgett, and Daniel J. Riordan, together with W. M. Coffin, secretary of the committee; T. E. Peeney, secretary to Senator Ball; and M. J. Bunke, clerk.

Also present, naval officers: Rear Admiral C. W. Parks, Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks; Admiral R. E. Coontz, Chief of Naval Operations; Rear Admiral W. L. Capps, of the Navy Department; Lieut. Commander H. W. Hill, aid to Admiral Coontz.

There were also present Mayor James Rolph, jr., of San Francisco; Representative John I. Nolan; City Engineer M. M. O'Shaughnessy, of San Francisco; supervisors of San Francisco, Richard J. Welch, Edward I. Wolfe, and Ralph McLeran, together with J. S. Dunnigan, clerk of the board; P. R. Thompson, of the San Francisco Bureau of San Francisco Organizations.

There were also present, representative of the interests of the San Mateo site, J. E. McCurdy, president of the San Mateo Chamber of Commerce, chairman; J. J. Dwyer; and Arthur M. Free, Representative-elect from the eighth congressional district, California; together with A. W. Lasher, engineer of San Mateo.

There were also present, representative of the interests of the Martinez site, Mr. Warren H. McBryde; and, representative of the Richmond site, Mr. H. W. Wernse; and, representative of the Alameda site, Mr. Joseph E. Caine, managing director of the Oakland Chamber of Commerce, and others.

The hearing was presided over by Senator Ball, chairman of the Joint Committee, and the following proceedings were had:

Senator Ball. The meeting will be in order. Before the hearing opens formally, if the chairmen of the various delegations representing proposed sites who desire to be heard to-day will arrange as to how their several sites are to be presented, it would, I think, expedite

[ocr errors]

165

matters. We know that we have to hear from the Richmond people and from the San Mateo people, and I think there are others. The committee is now ready to proceed with the hearing, and we will hear first from San Mateo. Mr. McCurdy is, I understand, the chairman of the San Mateo delegation. Mr. J. E. McCurdy.

Mr. J. E. McCURDY. Members of the congressional committee, we of San Mateo wish to thank you, first, for the courtesy of presenting to you our proposition for a location for a naval base at San Mateo Point. We present this for your consideration and approval, and we trust that, after we have closed our case, that the points which we shall bring to your attention will be sufficiently meritorious to warrant you, when you travel toward Monterey on next Sunday morning, to stop off at San Mateo Point long enough to give it your personal inspection. We sincerely regret the disarrangement of the plan of last Tuesday and the misunderstanding which prevented the members of the committee, under the supervision of the San Mateo committee, from looking at the San Mateo Point site. We want you to look the site over, and it can very easily be done.

I desire to present to the committee and have filed as exhibits and

part of the record in this matter the following: First, a resolution of the board of supervisors of San Mateo County.

(The resolution reads as follows:) Resolved by the board of supervisors of San Mateo, State of California, That whereas a congressional committee is visiting San Francisco and vicinity for the purpose of examining sites suitable for a United States naval base; and whereas, by reason of proximity to the entrance to San Francisco Bay, comparative security from artillery fire, and other advantages, the proposed site off San Mateo Bay, in the opinion of this board, presents superior arguments in its favor; and whereas said congressional delegation will inspect such site this week:

Now, therefore, said board hereby assures said committee that this board 'fully appreciates the importance of its errand and the desire of the committee that such decision be made as is best for the future welfare of the country, and also appreciates the honor rendered the local community by reason of the congressional visit, and hereby tenders to the committee any assistance which may be within local power in order to facilitate the committee's work.

This board earnestly requests of said committee careful consideration of the San Mateo County site. If, in the judgment of the committee, any special investigation or data be desired, this board assures the committee of its willingness to undertake the procurement of same and to cooperate with the committee and the other depart· ments and officials of the Government with a view to enable the Government to determine upon the best available site.

T. L. HICKNEY.
ROSALIO M. BROWN.

John MacBAIN. (SEAL.]

ELIZABETH M. Nash, Clerk. Also a resolution of the trustees of the city of San Mateo.

(The resolution reads as follows:) Resolved by the board of trustees of the city of San Mateo, State of California, That whereas a congressional committee is visiting San Francisco and vicinity for the purpose of examining sites suitable for a United States naval base; and whereas, by reason of proximity to the entrance to San Francisco Bay, comparative security from artillery fire, and other advantages, the proposed site off San Mateo Point, in the opinion of this board, presents superior arguments in its favor; and whereas said congressional delegation will inspect such site this week:

Now, therefore, said board hereby assures said committee that this board fully appreciates the importance of its errand and the desire of the committee that such decision be made as is best for the future welfare of the country, and also appreciates the honor rendered the local community by reason of the congressional visit, and hereby tenders to the committee any assistance which may be within local power in order to facilitate the committee's work,

This board earnestly requests of said committee careful consideration of the San Mateo County site. If in the judgment of the committee any special investigation or data be desired, this board assures the committee of its willingness to undertake the procurement of same and to cooperate with the committee and the other departments and officials of the Government with a view to enable the Government to determine upon the best available site.

Foregoing resolution adopted at regular meeting held November 15, 1920, by .unanimous vote, a quorum being present and voting in favor thereof.

Witness my hand and the official seal of said city. (SEAL.)

E. W. FOSTER, City Clerk. Also a resolution of the board of trustees of the city of Burlingame.

(The resolution reads as follows:) Resolved by the board of trustees of the City of Burlingame, State of California, That whereas a congressional committee is visiting San Francisco and vicinity for the purpose of examining sites suitable for a United States naval base; and whereas, by reason of proximity to the entrance to San Francisco Bay, comparative security from artillery fire, and other advantages, the proposed site off San Mateo Point, in the opinion of this board, presents superior argument in its favor; and whereas, said congressional delegation will inspect such site this week:

Now, therefore, said board hereby assures said committee that this board fully appreciates the importance of its errand and the desire of the committee that such decision be made as is best for the future welfare of the county, and also appreciates the honor rendered the local community by reason of the congressional visit, and hereby tenders to the committee any assistance which may be within local power in order to facilitate the committee's work

This board earnestly requests of said committee careful consideration of the San Mateo County site.

W. H. PEARSON, President of the Board of Trustees of the City of Burlingame. Attest.

J. R. MURPHY, City Clerk. Mr. McCurdy. All of these resolutions not only heartily indorse the project, but pledge cooperation to this committee in all its investigations in this matter and showing generally a public-spirited attitude on behalf of our citizens for the location of the naval base site.

Senator BALL. If you will hand the papers to the stenographer they will be made a part of the record.

Mr. McCURDY. Gentlemen, in presenting this site to you we do so solely as public-spirited citizens of San Mateo County. Not a single member of this committee owns a foot of land in the site that is presented for your consideration. We have no interest in this matter except as patriotic Americans, believing that this committee is interested in every site which is at all meritorious, and finally in its deliberations will decide, without political fear or favor, the most meritorious site for the establishment of this naval base.

In presenting our case to you, San Mateo is fortunate in securing the services of a man who for six years, from 1911 to 1917, was the chief executive officer of the San Francisco Harbor Commission, and as president of that commission had entire supervision of all the affairs of the San Francisco Harbor. During that period of six years the San Francisco Harbor was entirely remade, reformed, to meet the exigencies of the completion of the Panama Canal. As you know, the entire San Francisco water front is publicly owned and is State property, and during that period of years you may ascertain the magnitude of his service in the fact that $12,000,000 was spent in the improvement of San Francisco Harbor during his régime as president.

« PreviousContinue »