Morning journal and courier., 1894-03-12
RoUTRLLK Nor sArIsFIKp.

8oUTRLLK NOT sATIsFIED.
 He Says That Secretary Herberps Let ter Illustrates Anew the Confused
 Ideas or the Present Administra. | ton.
 WAsHrNaros, March l1.-Rspressnta-
 tive Boutells of Maine is not satisfied with the answer to his Hawaiian resolution which was laid before the house ysster-
 day. Speaking on the subject last night he said:
 "The seoretsry's letter illustrates afresh the seeming confusion of ideas ss to the the limitations of official power that has permeated the present administration. In asserting the presidents constitutional prerogstive as commander-in-chief of the army and navy he appears to lose aight of the fact that such authority can be exer- cised only in accordance with law and that the discretionary powers vested in the chief can no more be dele gated to an unauthorized person than can the power of the president to approve bills or to veto legislatiop. The irrslsvancy of the alleged precsdents Is also e obvious e the evidently laborious ransacking of the records to find them.
 "For the first two citations the secrstary goes back Iseventy-one yesrs to . period when large part of the present code of laws was unknown, and he only finds orders from the secretary of the navy. to the commander of the United States brig Enterprise to take on board an agent of the government to be landed at Porto Rico and to be taken to any of the other islands sultstion with him to carry into effect cer- tain specific views of the secretary of stats transmitted to the naval commander by the secretary of the navy. This utterly fails to furnish any precedent for the Blount case.
 "The thiId and fourth citations embrace orders to Commodore N. O. Perry when on the coast of Mexico in 1647 to suspend hos tile operations If Commissioner Trist should notify him he had effected su ar rangement with the Mexican government for an armistice and to furnish Mir. Trist passage and other facilities.
 f'It Is amusing to note that this demo- cratic administration Is driven to find the only semblsnce of precedent for its action in some orders issued during the famous San Domingo episode by that secretary of the navy who has been for years the sub- ject of democratic denuncistion. Score tsIy Herbert invokes for his support the letter of Secretary Robeson in 1889 to Capatin Bslch, of the United States steamer Albany, directing him to receive on board the three envoys sent by the president to San Domingo, informing him that General Babcock would have cer- tain orders from the president. While the wording of the letter was liable to broad CT construction. the whole context and circumstances clearly show that the intent was to cause the movement of the ship as conveyance, to be governed by the wishes of the commissioners, and there was no suggestion of placing the armed forces of the navy under the orders of a civilian for any military purpose, as In the Blount case"
 Secretary Hsrbert's omission of the con- cluding portion of Secretary Robeson's second letter from his summary Is also re- garded ss significant. In that letter to Lieutenant Commander Bruce of the Nan having promptly complied with the in- structions of General Babcock, but calls attention to the fact that the ranking off oer, Captain Balch, had declined to give his official sanction or endorsement upon the instructions of General Babcock.
 "This shows," Mr. Boutelle said, sithst Captain Balch understood the law, and the fact that he was the rear admiral to whom Secretary Hunt sent orders in December 1881, to simply furnish vessel for the conveyance of the Prescott Blaine mission to such points ss Chilli and Peru as they desired to visit, was 8 guarantee that he recognized no military command or signifi- canoe In those instructions. And that is o11 aII Ial hr all khak Herbert has been able to find in hun dred years of naval administration to put forward to justify the usurpstion of plso- ing the resolute command of an admiral and fleet in the hands of civilian with power to land troops or embark them to evacuate Honolulu or open fire upon 1t, and who did assume arbitrary military control of the navy and peremptorily or der its flag to be hauled down.
 "That MT. Blount understood the differ ence between the mere privileges of con- veyance and official courtesy involved in the cases now cited by Secretary Herbert and the authority bestowed upon him, was plainly shown by his statement to the sen- ate committee In reply to questions in re- gard to the extent of control over the land ing or withdrawal of the armed forces when he said:
 My impression was that If had issued an order-snd took that not upon the in- structions but from the letter of the secre- tary of the navy-if had issued an order the admiral would obey.'
 "The letter entirely fails to justify an act that he must know was fragrant viola tion of the law in open contempt of the ex- p)ieit terms of the navy regulations and destructive of the fundamental principles upon which the maintenance of good order and military discipline must depend. As a lawyer he knows that even if isolated cases could be found of unwsrranted as- sumption of power by secretaries called into office from civil life their action would furnish no excuse for future violations of the laws, and 1t would seem that any one who had held Q commission in any military service must understand the absolute pe- cessity for restricting military and naval command within the limitations of trained and organized responsibility.