The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-02-20
STAFF RANK IN THE ARMY AND
THE NAVY

DURING the controversy that has been carried
on with regard to the claims of the staff
officers of the navy to positive rank, much
has been said about the difference that exists
between the positions of the staff of the navy
and that of the army. The following extracts
from the "Act to increase and fix the mill
tary establishment of the United States"
approved July 26, 1866, will show how the
law stands in the matter of staff rank in the
army
"Section II. And be it further enacted, That the
consist of one surgeon general with the rank, pay,
and emoluments OF brigadier- general one
&c W Win ae Tank pay Ss Snd
medical purveyor and five assistant medical purvey-
Ors with the rank, pay, and emoluments OF leuten-
ant-colonels of cavalry: sixty surgeons, with the
rank, pay, and emoluments OF majors OF cavalry;
one hundred and fifty assistant surgeons, with the
rank pay and emoluments OF neutenants of cavalry,
for the first three years service and with the rank,
pay, and emouments OF captains of cavalry after
'section 1s And be it further enacted, That the
pay department. OF the army shall hereafter consist
emoluments OF a brgadler- general; two assistant
paymasters general, with the rank, pay, and enolu
General l. with the e. rank. pay3 and efnoIaments Of
ieutenant-coones OF cavalry and sixty paymasters,
with the rank, pay, and emoluments of majors OF
"Section 10. And be it further enacted, That the
corps Of engineers shall consist OF one chief OF
engineers, with the rank, pay, and emoluments OF
brigadier general; six coonels, twelve lieutenant
colonels, twenty-four majors, thirty captains,
who shall have the pay and emouments now pro-
vided by law for officers of the engineer corps"
General Sherman, when appealed to by
Admiral Porter for his opinion concerning
staff rank, said emphatically that the above
mentioned arrangement worked we'll in the
army. If it works well in the army it will
also work well in the navy, for the naval staff
officers ask nothing more nor less than the
same rights and privileges that are enjoyed
by their army brethren. The bill introduced
by Mr.. Stevens, of New Hampshire, which
was passed some weeks ago in the House of
Representatives by large majority, places
the staff officers of the navy upon precisely
the same footing as those of the army, and if
it becomes law it will put an end to a dis
graceful squabble and make it worth while
for educated gentlemen to enter our naval
service as surgeons, engineers, and pay
masters.
The Senate Naval Committee, however, at
the promptings of aclique of arrogant line Off
GERS of which Admiral Porter is representa-
tive, have altered this bill so that if it passes in
its present shape the staff officers of the navy
will be practically in the same position as they
are now and will be at the mercy of their
brethren of the line. 1t is obvious that the
dissensions which now disturb the harmony
of the navy and which greatly impair its eff
cheney cannot be remedied in this manner.
The passage of the bill as reported
by the Senate Naval Committee
will have the effect of driving large num-
Der of the staff officers from the service in
disgust, of preventing educated gentlemen
from entering any of the staff corps, and of
indefinitely proloDging a contest that should
have been closed defnitively long ago. The
staff officers of the navy would stultify them
selves if they accepted this Senate bill as
satisfactory, and it is the duty of the Senate
not only to consider public sentiment in this
matter, as expressed by nearly every journal
from one end of the land to the other, but to
do impartial justice to deserving class of
officers who are essential to the efficiency of
the navy, and to put an end to a system that
has brought anything but credit upon the
navy.