The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1894-03-12
HERBERT'S HARD HUNTING
Found Only Shadows Of Precedent for
CIeveland's Course.

Mr.. BoutelIe Talks About the Answer to
His Hawaiian Resolution--Power
Mr.. Blount's Understanding of His
Powers.
Washington, March 11.-Representa-
tive Boutelle is not satisfied with the
answer to his Hawaiian resolution laid
laid before the House yesterday. Speak
ing on the subject tonight, he said: "The
Secretary's letter illustrates afresh the
seeming confusion of ideas as to the linz
itations of official power that have per-
meated the present administration. In
asserting the Presidents constitutional
prerogative as Commander-in-Chie of
the army and navy, he appears to lose
sight of the fact that such authority can
only be used in accordance with
law, and the discretionary
power vested in the Comman-
de r-in-C Chief can no more be delegated
to an unauthorized person than can the
power of the President to approve bills
or veto legislation. The irrelevancy OF
the few alleged prcedents is also as OBJ
vious as the evidently laborous ransack-
ing Of the records to find them. For the
first two citations, the Secretary goes
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 be taken to any other island he
should desire to visit and, in consulta-
ton with him, to carry into effect certain
specific views of the Secretary OF state
transmitted to the naval commander by
the Secretary of the Navy. This utterly
fails to furnish any sprecedent for the
Blount case. The third and fourth cita-
tions embrace orders to Commodore
Perry when on the coast OF Mexico in
1S47 to suspend hostile operations IT
Commissioner Trist notified him that he
had effected an arrangement with the
Mexican government for an armistice
and to furnish Mr.. Trist passage and
other facilities. This is entirely una
vailable as precedent for the Blount
case.
at is amusing" Mr.. Boutelle con-
tinued. "to note that this Democratic
sem mblance of precedent for its action IN
the orders issued during the famous San
Domingo episode by that Secretary of
the Navy who has been for years the
subject of Democratic denunciatlons
Secretary Fl erbert invokes for his support
the letter of Secretary Robeson in 1869
to Captain Balch of the United States
steamship Albany, directing him to re-
ceive on board three ENJOYS sent by the
President to San Domingo, informing
him that General Babcock had special
orders from the President and, with
evident looseness of phraseology, instruct
ing the captain to conform to General
Babcock's wishes and orders and convey
him to such points as he desired to visit
While the wording of the letter was
liable to broader construction, the whole
context and circumstancessaclearly show
that the intent to cause the movements
of the ship as convenance to be gov
erned by the wishes of the commission
ers was no suggestion of placing the
armed force of the navy under, the orders
OF civilian for any military purpose as
in the Blount case"
Secretary Herbert's omission OF the
concluding portion of Secretary Robe
sons second letter from his summary is
also regarded by Mr.. Boutelle as very
sionificant In that letter to Lieutenant
Commander Bruce of the NantasKet, the
Secretary commends him for having
promptly complied with the instructions
of General Babcock and calls attention
TO the fact that the ranking officer,
Captain Balch "had declined to give his
official sanction or endorsementsupon the
instucrtions of General Ba bcock-" This
shows. Mr.. Boutelle said, that Captain
Balch understood the law, and the fact
that he was the rear admiral to whom
Secretary Hunt sent orders in Decem Der,
1881, to simply furnish vessel for the
convenience of the Prescott-Blaine
mission to such points in Chill nd
Peru as they desired to visit, was
guaranty that he recognized no military
command or significance in these in
structions
"And that is ALL" added Mr.. Boutelle,
"the Secretary has been able to find in
hundred years of naval administration
to put forward to justify the usurpation
of placing the absolute command of an
admiral and fleet in the hands of
civilian with power to land troops or
EN- barkssthem, to eyacuate Honolulu or
to open fire upon it, ssand who did assume
arbitrary military control of the navy
and peremptorily ordered the flag hauled
down. That Blount understood the
difference between the privileges of con
veyance and official courtesy involved in
the cases now cited by Secretary Herbert
and the authority invested in him, is
plainly shown by his statement to the
Senate committee in reply to questions
in regard to the extent of his control
over the landing or withdrawal of armed
forces when he said: My impression
was that if had issue an order-and |
took that not upon Instructions. but
from the letter of the Secretary of the
Navy-if I had issued an order the ad-
mlral would have obeyed.'
Secretary Herbert's Reply.
Washington, March 10. - Secretary
Herbert today sent to the House of Rep
resentatives his reply to the Boutelle res
olution calling for information as to the
authority by which the Secretary Of the
Navy placed the armed naval forces at
Honolulu under the orders of Commits
sioner Blonnt.
The answer is of considerable length,
and gives seven precedents where the
forces of the United States were similar
lv placed under the control of special
agents OF the President.
The Secretary says the flag of the
United States was over the public build
ings of country with which we were at
peace and the naval forces had been
landed,
Tbarafore Admiral Skerrett was direct-