Prior to the war I was assistant manager of the George F. Fuller Construction Co., at Detroit, Mich., engaged in the construction of several of the largest buildings in Detroit. When war was declared I was called to Washington by the Chief of Engineers, General Black, and offered a commission as major if I would take charge of building cantonments. I refused this assignment, stating that I preferred to be a line officer, whereupon I returned to Detroit, and after attending the first officers' training camp, I was, in July, 1917, commissioned a captain of engineers and ordered to France.

From September, 1917, to March, 1918, I was depot engineer of base section 2 in France, and while on this duty I was recommended for promotion to the rank of major by Brig. Gen. Mason M. Patrick, Chief of Engineers lines of communication. For some reason unknown to me this recommendation was not acted upon by the War Department.

From March, 1918, to October, 1918, I was in charge of all engineer depots in France, serving under General Taylor, Chief of Engineers. I was thereafter recommended to promotion to major on numerous occasions, and on one occasion to lieutenant colonel. There is in the files of the War Department a cablegram in which General Pershing once requested my promotion. Despite these recommendations no promotion was granted to me by the War Department. I have a citation from General Pershing for distinguished and meritorious duty.

From November, 1918, to July, 1919, I commanded the first battalion of the Second Engineers, second division, and during this time was recommended for promotion to major by my commanding officer, but the recommendation was returned with the statement that no promotions would be made after the armistice. Since my return from France and until I was discharged in June, 1925, I have been on troop duty with the exception of two periods of six months at the University of Tennessee as instructor and six months at the Engineer School. During this period of time I had 10 efficiency reports made upon me by my commanding officers. As rated by The Adjutant General's Office, two of those reports are "below average.

In September, 1924, I was placed provisionally in class B. To combat these "below average" reports I immediately requested a court of inquiry and appeared before it in San Francisco in February, 1925.

Mr. REECE. You have had two reports "below average"?

Mr. ROTHWELL. Yes. I was on duty at the Infantry school. I was engineer instructor at the Infantry school, in command of Company A, Seventh Engineers, which company was there at the Infantry school at Columbus, Ga., for demonstration purposes. I was there almost three years.

That report was made by a major of Infantry, a staff officer of G-4, whom I reported to. For my work the year before I received a favorable report from Major Wheeler, who is now assistant engineer commissioner of the District of Columbia. I was under him in 1922 and received an "above average" efficiency report. I remained on the same job with the same company and really built them a $200,000 bridge. Yet, because of personal differences with this major of Infantry, he gave me a bad report, in spite of the fact that I built a $200,000 bridge down there.

Mr. REECE. You were in the position of being an engineer officer doing an engineer officer's work and reporting to an Infantry officer who was not qualified as an engineer?

Mr. ROTHWELL. Not only that, but he tried to show me how to build the bridge. I asked him to get off the job and let me build the bridge. I have had letters of commendation from the Chief of Infantry, from General Gordon, and from the Chief of Engineers on the building of that bridge. I built that bridge with my own company, a $200,000 bridge, which will last for at least 30 years, at a cost of $3,600. The Chief of Engineers gave me the steel, and I went out in the woods and cut the piling. All I had to do was to hire from the Central Railroad of Georgia a pile driver to drive the piles, and I did the rest of the work with the men in the company. Mr. REECE. And those two reports are the only ones that you have had of that kind?

Mr. ROTHWELL. Those are the only two bad reports I had in about seven years, including my war service. I have a favorable report made by the present Chief of Engineers, General Taylor, and I have had only two bad reports during my Army service. That is the reason I immediately asked for a court of inquiry. I was not ashamed of my record, and I was not afraid of it.

As I said, in September, 1924, I was placed provisionally in class B. To combat these "below average reports, I immediately requested a court of inquiry and appeared before it in San Francisco in February, 1925. The court was composed of one brigadier general, who was a Coast Artillery man, one colonel of Field Artillery, one colonel of Infantry, one colonel of Cavalry, and one colonel of the Medical Corps. I remained before this court for over three hours answering questions directed to me by the members. After this hearing the court was closed, and the findings are quoted verbatim as follows:

C. A. ROTH WELL,

Captain, Corps of Engineers.

President: The court will be closed.

66

The court was closed and finds as to facts as follows: 'Capt. Chester A. Rothwell, civil engineer, has successfully controverted O. A. E. the adverse allegations contained in the exhibits to the proceedings of the Provisional Classification Board.

The court then, at 5.15, adjourned to meet at the call of the president.

HENRY D. TODD, Jr.,

Brigadier General, U. S. Army, President.
OASCAR A. EASTWOLD,

Major, Chemical Warfare Service, Recorder.

In June, 1925, while serving at Camp Lewis, Wash., under Major General Johnston, Senator Bingham, of Connecticut, a member of the Military Affairs Committee of the Senate, after an inspection of Camp Lewis, Wash., commended me on the efficiency of my company and requested Major General Johnston to file a copy of his letter of commendation with my next efficiency report.

At 3 p. m. on June 29, 1925, to my surprise, I received notification from the War Department that I was discharged from the United States Army. No previous warning of discharge was ever given me by the War Department or by anyone else. At reveille on June 29, 1925, I was a captain of engineers with a creditable record for efficient service. By "colors" of the same day I was deprived of my

commission and found myself out of the service. It is submitted that upon thus depriving an officer of his commission, his present means of gaining a livelihood, he is entitled to a reasonable amount of time in which to prepare for civil life. This was not accorded

me.

Major General Johnston, upon learning of my discharge, telegraphed Senator Bingham, requesting him to return to Camp Lewis, Wash., to confer in this matter. Senator Bingham did so, and after going over my military record with General Johnston volunteered to introduce a bill in the United States Senate to restore to me my commission as captain in the Corps of Engineers.

I have thus set forth my military service in the United States Army in order that the subcommittee may have before it my record of the performance of my duties as an Army officer.

It is respectfully submitted that a great injustice has been done. Despite eight years of honorable and efficient service in the United States Army as a commissioned officer, as attested by my official record, and despite the specific findings of efficiency by a court of inquiry, I was summarily discharged without cause from the United States Army upon less than 24 hours' notice.

My reasons for addressing your committee requesting support of the bill which has been introduced in my behalf are, first, to have corrected by the Congress what is clearly a great injustice to an Army officer; and, second, to enable me to serve my country to the best possible advantage, which may be accomplished by my continuing as a captain in the Corps of Engineers. If your committee will carefully consider the facts of my case, there can be little doubt but that legislation will be enacted to restore me to active duty. In view of the patent injustice which has been done by summarily taking my commission from me, I do not deem it expedient to present to you extended argument regarding the merits of my case. It is plain that an Army officer whose record shows that his duty has been efficiently performed, and who has been commended therefor many times by his superiors, does not warrant a summary dismissal for no apparent reason by the War Department.

In view of the foregoing it is respectfully requested that your subcommittee render a favorable report upon this bill, which when passed by the Congress will have the effect of restoring me to my former status as a captain in the Corps of Engineers of the Army.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that in appearing before Senator Tyson, of Tennessee, as a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Military Affairs, he requested General Taylor, the present Chief of Engineers of the Army, to appear before him and give him the data in respect to my record, and also to give his opinion of me as an officer. General Taylor not only recommended to Senator Tyson that I be reinstated, but he wrote a letter and put that in black and white. My present commanding officer, Colonel Audrey, of the Engineer Corps, of the Sixth Engineers, has also written to Senator Tyson requesting my reappointment.

As to my service in the Sixth Engineers at Camp Lewis, Wash., I received an "above average" efficiency report, and, accompanying that report, made by Colonel Audrey, I had four or five letters of commendation on my work in the preceding year.

Mr. REECE. I did not place you as having been at the University of Tennessee; but, as I recall now, the University of Tennessee requested your reassignment there for a longer period?

Mr. ROTHWELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. REECE. I think the president of the university wrote me about it.

Mr. ROTHWELL. I got into trouble with the president and the faculty of the University of Tennessee because I requested-in fact, I demanded-academic credit for the military course. President Morgan was in favor of granting it to me, but the faculty was not. Mr. REECE. The president of the university thought very well of your work there?

Mr. ROTHWELL. Yes, he did; but the faculty was against giving academic credit for the military course. Now it is compulsory, but I happened to start the engineer unit there as a pioneer and, of course, not having the faculty behind me, I did not care to remain at the University of Tennessee.

My other bad efficiency report was received while I was in the school. I was third from the bottom; there were 27 in the class. I am ashamed of that record; it is bad, but when I was there I was a member of the national rifle match team and I joined the class five weeks after it had started. I lost out on a lot of the work, especially the lectures on tactics and field engineering; so while I was at the school I was just five weeks behind, and I never could catch up. That work required from four to six hours study every night, so I was always behind, and the result was I finished behind.

When I started General Taylor told Colonel Woodruff that he expected me to stand No. 1 in that class. General Taylor was personally acquainted with my work in France.

The last three officers in the class were recommended either for discharge or to be put in class B.

General Taylor did explain to Senator Bingham that Captain Rothwell in his work in France had at least half a dozen fights with Colonel Woodruff. Colonel Woodruff was assistant director of construction and forestry, and I was the engineer supply officer. He made many unreasonable demands for supplies, and on several occasions came into my office and demanded that I give to his men certain supplies that belonged to other engineer departments in France. Therefore there was a very bitter feeling between Colonel Woodruff and myself.

Mr. REECE. What Colonel Woodruff was that?

Mr. ROTHWELL. That was Col. James Woodruff. Although I lived with Colonel Woodruff for six months, there was a very bitter feeling on his part, because he was a colonel and I was only a captain, and that was not the way they had been used to doing things. This was the first time I had come under Colonel Woodruff since we were in France, and he did not hesitate about giving me a bad efficiency report. General Taylor told Senator Bingham those facts. Mr. REECE. Is this bill, H. R. 9994, the same as the Senate bill? Mr. ROTHWELL. Yes; it is identical with the Senate bill. Mr. REECE. You are familiar with the proviso in this bill. The bill reads:

That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to reappoint Chester A. Rothwell, formerly a captain of Engineers, United States

Army, an officer of Engineers, United States Army, in the grade, and in the position on the promotion list, provided by the next to last paragraph of section 24A of the national defense act of June 3, 1916, as amended by the act of June 4, 1920.

With this proviso:

Provided, That said Chester A. Rothwell shall not by the passage of this act be entitled to any back pay or allowances of any kind: Provided further, That nothing contained in this act shall operate to increase the number of officers in the Regular Army now authorized by law.

Where does that place you on the promotion list?

Mr. ROTHWELL. I would go back to my original position.
Mr. REECE. That would give you your original position?

Mr. ROTHWELL. Yes, sir. Having entered the Army early during the war, I am at the head of the list of captains. In other words, I am in the first 20 per cent of captains at the present time, but there being about 3,600 captains, if I was not restored I would retire after 30 years' service as a captain on account of being so far down toward the end of the list.

Mr. REECE. The bill reads:

Provided further, That nothing in this act shall operate to increase the number of officers in the Regular Army.

Does that mean you would not be appointed until a vacancy occurred?

Mr. ROTHWELL. Not until a vacancy occurs in a captaincy. I would have to wait.

Mr. REECE. No other officer would, in fact, be deprived of any promotion, because when you were dismissed they moved up one, and this would just hold them back one number?

Mr. ROTHWELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. REECE. What would be the attitude of the War Department with regard to reappointing you?

Mr. ROTHWELL. They would oppose it bitterly. The Secretary will recommend to this committee that I be not reappointed.

Mr. REECE. The War Department does that in all cases of reappointments.

Mr. ROTHWELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. REECE. If this bill should be passed, what would be the attitude of the War Department toward recommissioning you, on account of your defective vision?

Mr. ROTHWELL. That is the point General Taylor brought up with Senator Bingham in connection with river and harbor work. If 20 years from now we should have another war, and I were not fit for field duty on account of blindness of one eye, I would be assigned to river and harbor work, thus relieving an Army engineer officer who could go to the front.

Mr. JOHNSON. As I understand it, this is a bill to put you back into the service?

Mr. ROTHWELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. So that you would go ahead as you were going before you were discharged?

Mr. ROTHWELL. Yes, sir; it would put me back in the same regi

ment.

Mr. REECE. It only authorizes it.