Pawtucket tribune. (Pawtucket, R.I.) 1890-189?, 1894-03-12
ONE MORE CHAPTER.
Further Statements on the
Hawaiian Row.
Mr.. HERBERT CRITICISED.
His Letter Of Explanation Is Consid'
cred by Boutelle as Unsatisfactory.

wAsHTNGToS, March 12.-In response to
the Boutelle resolution adopted by the
house, calling upon Secretary Herbert to
state his authority for issuing instructions
placing armed naval forces of the United
States and the use Of it's ensign under the
orders and control of Special Commis-
sioner Blount at Honolulu, March IL,
1893. the secretary says that the action
was necessary to prevent a conflict Of
authority. and that the secretary's au-
thority for issuing the order was the
president. A number Of precedents for
this act were oited.
Mr.. Boutelle has this to say concerning
Mr.. Herbert's explanation:
"The secretary's letter illustrates afresh
the confusion OF ideas as TO the limitation
Of official power that has permeated the
present administration. In asserting the
presidents constitutional prerogative as
commandsr-in-chisf 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 dis
cretionary power vested IN the commander
in-ehief can no more be delegated to an
authorized person than can the power OF
the president to approve bills or to veto
legislation. -,
"The irrelevancy Of the few alleged
prscedents is also as obvious as the evil
IDENTIFY laborious ransacking of the records
to find them. IL is amusing" said Mr..
Boutelle, ito note that this administration
Is driven TO find the only sem blance of
precedent for its action in some orders
issued during the famous San Domingo
IL 49, hat If ha wi ln
has been the subject of Democratic
denunciation.
Secretary Herbert invokes for his sup
port the letter of Secretary Robson in
1869 to Captain Balch of U. S. S.
Albany, directing him TO receive on
board the three snvoys sent by the presi-
dent to San Domingo, informing him that
General Babcock would have certain
orders from the president and with an
evident looseness of phraseology in
stvucted the captain TO CONFORM to all his
wishes and orders, and to convey him to
such points as he desires to visit
A Difference of Opinion.
"While tie wording of the letter was
liable to a broader construction, the
whole context and circumstances show
that the intent was to cause the move
ments of the ship as conveyance 10 be
determined by the wishes of the com
missioners, and there was no suggestion
of placing the armed forces of the navy
under the orders of a civilian for any
military purposes, as In. the Blount case.
Secretary Herbert's careful omission
of the summary of the concluding por-
tion of Secretary Robeson's second letter
10 very significant In that letter to
n 4 g .
tasket the secretary commends him for
having promptly complied with the in
structions Of General Babcock. but called
attention to the fact that the ranking
officer, Captain Balch, had declined TO
give his official sanction or endorsement
upon the instructions of General Bah
cock. This shows that Captain Balch un-
derstood 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
Trescott- Blaine mission to such points in
Chill and Peru as they desired to visit
Is a guarantee that he recognized no
military command or significance in
these instructions.
"And that is all that Secretary Herbert
has been able to find in hundred years
of naval administration to put forward to
Justify the usurpation of placing the abb
solute 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 IT,, and who
did assume arbitrary military control Of
the navy and peremptorily order its flag
hauled down.
Blount's Impression.
rhot VI,
ference between the mere privileges Of
conveyance and official courtesy involved
in the cases now cited by Secretary Her
bert and the authority bestowed upon
him was plainly shown by his statement
to the senate committee in reply to ques-
tions In regard to the extent OF his con-
troll over the landing or withdrawal Of
the armed forces, when he said: My i'm.
preston was that IL had issued an order,
and took that, not from the instructions,
but from the letter of the secretary Of the
navy, the admiral would obey
"The secretary's letter entirely fails to
Justify an act that he must know was in
flagrant violation of the law in open CON
tempt of the explicit terms Of the navy
regulations and destructive OF the funda-
mental principles upon which the main
tenance of good order and military dis
cipline must depend.
"As lawyer be knows that even II iso.
lated cases could be found of unwsr-
ranted assumption OF power by secretaries
called into Office from civil life, their ac-
tion would furnish no excuse for future
violations of the law. and It seems that
any one who had held any commission in
military service must understand the alb
solute necessity for restricted military
nI al a xrtf ht, the 1iu,ffa-