The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-03-12
BOUTELLE TO HERBERT.
The Latter Charged with DeIegating
InIue PONers to- BlOnnt.

WASHINGTON, March u.-Representa-
tive Boutelle, of Maine, tonight expressed
his opinion on the reply of Secretary Her
bert to Mr.. Boutelles resolution asking
by what authority Mr.. Blount was placed
in charge of the naval forces at Honolulu
Mr.. Boutelle said:
1.-The Secretary's letter illustrates afresh
the seeming confusion of ideas as to the
limitations of official power that has per-
meated the present administration. In as
serting the Presidents constitutional pre-
rogatiVe as commander-in-chief of the army
and navy he appears TO lose sight Of the
fact that such authority can be exercised
only in accordance with law, and that the
discretionary power vested in the COM
mander-in-chief can no more be delegated TO
an unauthorized person than can the power
OF the President to approve bills or to veto
legislation The irrelevancy of the few al
legged precedents is also obvious as the
evidently laborious ransackng Of the rec
ordS TO find them.
'It is amusing said Mr.. Boutelle. "to
note that this administration is driven
TO find the only semblance of precedent
the famous San Domingo episode by that
Secretary of the Navy who has been the
subject OF Democratic denunciation. Sec
retary Herbert invokes for his support the
letter of Secretary Robson, in 1869, 10
Captain Batch, of the United States steam
er Albany, directing him TO receive on
board the three ENJOYS sent by the Presi-
dent to San Domingo, informing him that
Central -Babcock would have certain or
dent looseness of phraseOlogy instructed
the Captain to conform TO all his wishes
and orders, and to convey him 20 such
points as he desires TO visit While the
wOl ding Of the letter was liable to n
broader construction, the whole context and
circums tances show that the intent was TO
cause the movements OF the ship as a con-
Veyance to be determined by the wishes OF
the commissioners, and there was no sug-
gestiOn of placing the armed forces of the
navy under the orders Of a civilian for any
military purpose. as in the Blount case
Secretary Herberts careful omission
from his summary of the concluding portion
OF Secretary RobeSon'S second letter is very
significant In that letter TO Lieutenant
Commander Bunce. of the Nantasket, the
Secretary commends him for having prompt-
ly complied with the instructions of General
BabcOck, but called attention TO the fact
that the ranking officer, Captain Batch, had
declined TO give his official sanction or in
dOrsement upon the instruction of General
BabCock. This shows that Captain Batch
understood the law, and the fact that he
was the rear admiral TO whom Secretary
Hunt~sent orders in December 1881 TO sim
ply furnish a vessel for the convenience of
in Chill and Peru as they desired TO visit
is a guarantee that he recognized no mill
tary command or significance in these in
structions.
And that is all that Secretary Herbert
has been able TO find in a hundred years of
naval administration To put forward TO
justify the usurpation OF placing the abso-
lutte command OF an admiral and fleet in
the hands OF "a civilian with power to land
troops or embark them, 10 evacuate Homo
lulu. or open fire upon 1t. and who did as