The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1894-03-12
NR. ROU1HLES battle.
He Has Much More to Say
About Our Navy at Hawaii.
EXPLANATION OF Mr.. HERBERT
Picked to Pieces by the Congressman
from Maine-The Precedeuts Cited
Are Not at All Relevant Curious
Ground for Democracy to Take.


BD The Associated Press.
WASHINGTON. March 12.-Representa-
tive Boutelle of Maine last night ex-
pressed his opinion on the reply OF Secre-
tary Herbert to Mr.. Boutelle's resolution
asking by what authority Mr.. Blount was
placed In charge of the naval forces at
Honolulu. Mr.. Boutelle said:
THE secretary's letter illustrates afresh
the confusion of ideas rs to the limitation
OF official power that has permeated the
present administration. In asserting the
presidents constitutional prerogative 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 dis
cretionary power vested in the commander
in-chief 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
precedents is also as obvious as the evil
IDENTIFY laborious ransacking of the records
TO find them. 1t Is amusing" said Mr..
Boutelle, "to note that this administration
is driven TO find the only semblance of
precedent for its action in some orders
issued during the famous San Domingo
episode by that secretary OF the navy who
has been the subject of Democratic
denunciation.
Secretary Herbert invokes for his sup
port the letter of Secretary Robson in
1859 TO Captain Balch of u. S. S.
Albany, directing him to receive on
board the three envoys 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
structed the captain to conform TO all his
wishes and orders, and to convey him TO
such points as he desires to visit
Beyond n Civilians Power.
"While the 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 a conveyance to 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 q civilian for any
military purposes, as in tne Blount case.
Secretary Herbert's careful omission
of the summary of the concluding por-
tion Of Secretary Robeson's second letter
Is very significant In that letter to
Lieutenant Commander Bunce of the Nan
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 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 alb
solute command OF an admiral and feet
in the hands of civilian, with power to
lind 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.
A Rap at BIount.
"That Mr.. Blount understood the diff
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
fragrant 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 aud military dis
cipline must depend.
"As lawyer he knows that even IL iso-
lated cases could be found of unwar-
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 IL seems that
any one who had held any commission in
military service must understand the abb
solute necessity for restricted military
and naval command within the limita-
tious Of organized responsibility"
Secretary Herbert's reply. which
brought out the statement from Mr..
Boutelle, was to the effect that he had
obeyed the presidents orders; that his &C.
ton was necessary to prevent 4 conflict OF
authority, and that IL was the duty of the
navy department TO aid other branches of
the government He then cited n number
OF precedents 10 sustain his position.