The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1900-03-10

Secretary Long has sent to Senator Hale
long letter. giving his opinion on the
bill to promote the efficiency OF the Reys-
nue. Cutter Service. In his letter. the
Secretary deals at length with several OF
the questions concerning, which there has
been considerable controversy. The letter
is as follows:
Referring to your letter OF the 24th
ultinO. enclosing a copy OF the bill to
promote the efficiency of the Revenue
Cutter Service together with an amend
ment intended TO be offered by Senator
Chandler. and asking in behalf OF the
Committee on Naval Affairs whether or
not this department has an interest in any
OF the provisions Of said bill. and whether
the amendment referred to. or other
amendments. are desirable, | have the
honor 10 submit the following statement:
The amendment proposed TO the bill
above mentioned by Senator Chandler pro-
vides that whenever forces Of the Navy
and Revenue Cutter Service shall he Serv-
ing together, the combined force shall be
under the command OF the senior naval
officer present. and that no officer Of the
Revenue Cutter Service shall be given
military or other control at any time
over the vessels. officers. or men OF the
naval service This amendment is re-
gsrded as emnently proper and necessary.
and il Is believed that under no circum
stances should the officers and men. or
vessels. Of the Navy be placed under com.
mand OF officers OF the Revenue Cutter
Service. Such an innovation would he OBJ
jectionable on many grounds which need
not be enlarged upon. and would be SO
obviously prejudicial TO the best interests
OF the naval service that some action
guarding against Il by the adoption of the
amendment proposed. or by some equally
effective means. is recommended.
Officers Of the Navy. by lifelong train
ing. are specially fitted to safely handle
and properly care for modern vessels Of
war and their equipment and it is believed
that the enactment OF a general provision
Of law which would operate to place cost
~ Warships under the command az men
not specially trained for such service
would be. IN the highest degree. uDwise.
AS q practical illustration, in time Of war,
vessels Of the Revenue Cutter Service and
torpedo boats CT the Navy. by reason OF
their common light draft. would usually
operate in or from the same naval bases.
and, in such case, the effect OF the bill in
question as il stands would often De to
place the younger officers of the Navy,
now In charge OF torpedo boats, aud for
which duty they are we'll equipped under
the command Of officers OF the Revenue
Cutter Service. who are without the spe-
cisl training necessary to safely and effec-
lively deal with this peculiar class OF war
vessels
Privileges without Duties.
Responding TO the further enquiry OF
the committee respecting the provisions of
the bin generally. l have TO state that this
Department. while realizing that the meas
ure is one relating to another branch OF
the public service, deems it, nevertheless.
20 be its duty TO invite the attention Of
the committee to the fact that the bill as
whole, is apparently intended TO place
the Revenue Cutter Service In important
particulars upon the same footing as the
Navy and to give its officers the rates of
pay and to clOthe them with many OF the
rights privileges, and hOnOrs. without i'm
posing uTon them the duties OF officers Of
the Navy; whether or not the privileges
OF rank provided for in section 4 OF the
bill, the Army pay authorized by section
3; the longevity pay prescribed in section
s; the stipUlations as to retirement found
in section to 20 and sections % TO %:
those relating to promotion in section 81
and the official honors and courtesies now
extended by Law and regulation 10 officers
Of the Army and Navy. all together or
separately. by amendatory provisions OF
law. IS 10 be extended to the Revenue Cut !
ter Service, IS a matter for the oonsidera- |
tiOn Of Congress. Should this be done. il |
Is question whether il is wise or not to |
effect 10 by transferring the Revenue Cut |
ter Service TO the Navy, inasmuch as the |
officers concerned should not have con- /!
ferred upon them substantially the ben |
shtS and hOnors OF naval service without |
at the same time being subjected to its /
duties and responsibilities.
"A careful examination OF the bill in /
question shows that it is a step. and one |
covering considerable ground i'm the al /
recti0n or creating separate naval estab- |
iishment with its corps OF line officers and /
engineers and a constructor; its rank and /
rates OF pay, its system OF examinations 1
for retirement and promotion, and its mil /
irary hOnOrs- 10 is important to note that /
the broad questions raised by the form i'm \
which this bill is drawn. and by the pro-
visions its contains Is whether or not as
matter o. policy. this Government should
have more than one naval organization.
aud il more than one. how many?
The arguments addUcible IN favor OF /
comforting upon the Revenue Cutter Serv
lee the benefits embodied in Senate bill !
s2S apply with more or less force to the
officers and men Of the Coast Survey and
the Fish Commission, and TO the newly
created Transport eSrvice now a part of
the organization Of the Army.
complications Feared.
In the judgment Of this Department the
questions thus presented are far-reaching.
aud Il would appear proper. before any
further steps are taken in the direction OF
the establishment Of a number OF distinct
organizations. naval in their character.
with their necessary staff accompaniment
and auxiliary machinery under the control
OF at least three separate departments OF !
the Government that the attention OF Con-
gress should be invited to the apparently !
unnecessary complications which are /
thereby brought about. and to the patent
advantages which a unified organization
would afford in avoiding duplication. IN
Inter changeability OF duties az all times,
and In prompt mobilization in emergencies.
1T would seem an expensive and appa-
rently useless policy to develop and train
separate bodies Of officers and men under
varying systems. to command armed yes
sells In the Navy. Revenue Cutter Service.
and In the Transport Service and to es-
tablish like but distinct, and In details di-
verse. laws and regulations for each OF
such bodies. If the employment of the
Revenue Cutter Service or other like or
CARNATIONS Is civil, Il Is plain that the |
officers Of that service ara rot o,tf.toa a. ! ,