Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1894-03-12
BOUTELLE SPEAKS.
Dissatisfied with and Criticizes Sec
retary Herber.'s Answer.
Says II But More Forc,bly Shows :dminisira.
tion's Weakness on Hawaii.

tion'S weakness On Hawaii.
WASHINGTON, March I1-Representa-
tive Boutelle of Maine 10 not satisfied with
the answer to his Hawaiian resolution, laid
before the House yesterday. Speaking on
the subject tonight, he said; 1.-THE secre
| tary s letter illustrates afresh the seeming
confusion of ideas as 10 the limitations of
official power that permeated the present
administration. In asserting the Presi-
dents constitutional prerogative as COM
mander-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 discre-
tioDaIy power vested in the commander
in-chief and can no more be delegated to
an unauthorized person than can the power
of the President to approve bills or veto
legislation.
1.-The irrelevancy of few alleged prece-
dents are also as obvious as evidently
laborious ransacking of the records to find
them. For the first two citations the secre-
tary goes back II years, 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 be taken
to any other islands that he should desire to
visit, and in consultation with him to carry
into effect certain specific views of the sec
retary of state transmitted to the naval
commander by the secretary of the navy.
This utterly fails to find any precedent for
the Biount case.
THE third and fourth citations embrace
orders to Commodore M. C. Perry, when
on the coast of Mexico in ls47, to suspend
hostile operations if Commissioner Trist
shou d notify him that he had affected an
arrangement With the Mexican government
for an armistice and to furnish Mr.. Trist
a passage and other facilities. This is as
entirely unavailable as the precedent for
the Blount case.
at is amuting," Mr.. Boutelle continued,
.t) note that this Democratic administra-
tion is driven to find the only semblance of
precedent for its action in some orders is
sued during the famous San, Domingo epi-
sode by that secretary of the navy VINO has
been for years the subject of Democratic
denunciation. Secretary Herbert invokes
for his support the letter of Secre-
tary Robeson in 1869, to Captain Balch
of the U. S. S. Albany, directing
him to receive on board three
envoys sent by the President to San
Domingo, and informing him that General
Babcock would have certain orders from
the President and with an evident looseness
of phraseology, instructing the captain to
conform to all his wishes and orders and
convey him to such points as he desired to
visit
while the wording of the letter is liable
to broader construction, the whole con-
text and circumstances clearly show an in
tent to cause the movements of the ship as
4 conveyance to be governed by the wishes
of the commissioners, and there was no
suggestion of placing armed forces OF the
navy under the orders of civilian for
any military purpose as in the Blount
| case"
Secretary Herberts omission of the con-
cluding portion of Secretary Robesons sec
ond letter from his summary, is also re-
garded by Mr.. Boutelle as very significant.
In that letter to Lieutenant Commander
Bruce of Nantasket, the secretary COM
mends him for having promptly complied
.ith the instructions of General Babcock,
and calls attention to the fact that the rank
ing officer, Captain Balch, chad declinedto to
give his official sanction or endorsement
upon the instructions of General Babcock."
| "This shows" MIR. Boutelle said, "that
| Captain Balch unde rstood the law; and the
fact that be 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, was
H. ha M
| military command or significance in these
instructions.
"And that is all, added Mr.. Boutelle,
s.the secretary being able to find in 100
| years of naval administration, to put for
ward to justify the usurpation of placing
the absolute command of the admiral and
fleet in the hands of civilian, with power
to land troops or embark them, to evacuate
Honolulu or open fire npon it, and who did
assume arbitrary military control of the
navy and peremptoiily order its flag hauled
down.
"That Mr.. Blount understood the differ
ence between mere privileges of convey
ance and official courtesy involved in the
| cases now cited by Secretary Herbert, and
the authority bestowed upon him, is plainly
| shown BY bi. statemen mt to the Senate COM
mittee in reply to questions in regard to the
extent of control over the lauding or with
drawal of armed forces, when he said:
".My impression was that if had issued
the order-and took that not upon iDstiuc-
tons but from the letter of the secretary
| of the navy-if had issued the order the
admiral would obey.
1.-The secretary's letter entirely fails to
| Justify the act. and he must know that it
was in flaprant violation of the law in open
contempt of the explicit terms of navy reg
ulations and the distribution of fundament-
al principles upon which the maintenance
of good order and military discipline must
depend.
| "As q lawyer he knows even if isolated
cases could be found of an unwarranted
assumption of power by secretaries called
into office from civil life, their action would