The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-02-21

subject of an actual living sovereign, with
sons whom it is possible to see and even TO
touch, and not of an abstraction whose will
has no divine right to be obeyed. II is very
unphilosophical, no doubt but, after all, the
people who crowd to drawing-rooms in Lon
don are not savages, nor are the ladies who
risk death to kiss the Popes hand the lowest
of mankind; and there Is this to be said for
the Hindoo-he is consistent; as long as he
conceives loyalty to be due, SO long also does
he resolve to pay obedience.
SHERMAN, FARRAGUT, AND THE
STAFF DISPUTE.
From the NJ y. Times.
Admiral Farragut has given his cordial ad-
hesion to Mr.. Robeson's bill for staff rank
q bill which, it is understood, Vice-Admiral
Porter and the line in general approve; and
now General Shermans recent letter is cited
to support the same bill.
It seems to us, however, that all those who
have taken part with the line in the present
dispute commit the error of confounding
rdRb with command. If our readers will re-
call the letters on ''Naval Discipline" adj
dressed to the Times by line officer, they
will note that these letters take for granted
that the two terms frank" and command"
are Synonymous and interchangeable. The
very noticeable articles in the Washington
Chronicle, which also argues the line side of
the question, assume this same premise. One
of these articles, we remember, declared that
it was detrimental to discipline to give the
staff high rank, ," that ''a staff officer, having
no command, can perform his duties as well
without this rank as with it, and that 1T is
Every injurious to discipline to so weaken
the power and Importance of the commanding
officer" In like manner, the bills introduced
by the line into Congress, regard this inter-
dependence of rank and command as the key
point of the discussion. Such, also, it would
seem to be from the evidence taken before
the Naval Committees. And, Unlike manner,
General Sherman says, in the letter we pub
lished on Friday
81 don't want to go to sea in any vessel with more
than one captain, or when in case of accident to
him the rights and powers Of his successor are not
clearly prescribed by law or naval custom"
Here then we corse to the pivotal point in
this prolonged and bitter controversy. Is
rank equivalent to command? And does it
follow that in comforting higher rank on the
staff than they now enjoy we must perforce
give them actual control of any ship in which
they may chance to outrank line officers
If these questions must be answered affirma-
lively, obviously the staff claim must be de-
| MED, as those officers never have received
the training necessary to command a ship.
But, on the other hand, if these questions
can be answered negatively, it seems to us
| that the line argument falls to the ground,
| and the privilege asked for must be conceded.
Now, what are the facts in the case? In
the army, as General Sherman tells us, "aU
| our staff officers have actual rank. They
hold commissions from the President as gene
rails, colonels, ma iors, captains, etc." But
does this possession of rank carry with it a
command in the field? Not at all. An
Article of War expressly provides as follows
"If upon marches, guards, or in quarters, diffe-
rent corps of the army shall happen to Join or do
duty together the officer highest in rank Of the line
of the army, marine CORPS militia, by commits
sion then ON duty or In quarters, shall command the
whole"
Will it be pretended that such an arrange
ment is not equally feasible in the navy
Cannot the very regulation which confers
rank also divest the staff of command II
certainly can, and in that case the line argu.
ment vanishes.
Now, in actual practice, in our army, CSC
long as a line officer is present for duty, he
must command" General Sherman tells us
that it frequently happens" that a captain oil
lieutenant commands forces in which are
surgeons, paymasters, quartermasters, etc.,
with commissions of colonel or major, who
must obey his orders" Now, why may not
the same be true of captain or lieutenant in
the navy, who has surgeons, paymasters, en-
gineers etc., under him, with commissions
of commander or commodore? Why should
this latter rank prevent them from obeyine
his orders
General Sherman's letter, rightly inter
| preted, is not an argument for the line, but
very strong argument for the staff. He says
-'If by comforting actual naval rank on the
surgeons, paymasters, engineers, etc., thu
|, power of the captain, executive officer (frs
: ieutenant), or of the officer of the deck il
, diminished or made doubtful, 1 would con
7 slider the change very damaging to the ser
vice." But as he Immediately shows by tn
Y army rule that this diminution of power neeC
not occur, he robs his own hypothesis of al
| its force.
We repeat once more, that the staff CLAIM
is one that will bear the test of strict investi
4 cation; and it is therefore great pity that
: instead of confning themselves to stronl
I points, some of its advocates go off into un
D patriotic TRADES against the whole service.
: ANOTHER EARTHQUAKE IN SAN FRAN
2 CISCO.
Q From the ~ y. Herald.
g We had some details Saturday morning O
Q another earthquake in San Francisco and O
y various other places over large area of tn
S State of California. 1t occurred about moo
!, on Thursday last. The duration of the shoe
Q was seven seconds, and its direction was fror
It the southeast to the northwest. An instanta
e neous panic was of course created by tn
1t dreadful visitation, and there was the usui
1t unceremonious rushing of the people int
?, the streets on such occasions; but so far ther
is are no reports of any loss of life or destruC
l. ton of property from this subterranean tidi
4 wave of liquid fire.
2 Real estate, however, in San Francisco wi
5e not be enhanced in value by this unwecom
| r. - os,.Nxx go b AIenk =.