The evening times., 1900-03-10

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 cath
ultinlo. 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 to 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 eminently 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 Gutter
Service. Such an innovation would be 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 it 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
aud properly care for modern vessels OF
war and their equipment. and il is believed
that the enactment Of a general provision
Of law which would operate to place cost
~ warships under the command Of men
rot specially trained for such service
would be. IN the highest degree, unwise.
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 or the bill in
question as il stands would often be to
place the younger officers of the Navy,
now in charge OF torpedo boats, and for
which duty they are we'll equipped, under
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.
TO be its duty to invite the attention Of
the committee to the fact that the bill, as
q whole is apparently intended to place
the Revenue Cutter Service in important
particulars upon the same footing as the
Navy. aud to give its officers the rates Of
pay and TO clothe them with many OF the
rights. privileges, and honors. without i'm
posing upon them the duties OF officers OF
the Navy: whether or not the privileges
of rank provided for in section OF the
bill: the Army pay authorized by section
5: the longevity pay prescribed in section
6: the stipulations as to retirement found
in section to 20 and sections 80 TO %;
those relating to promotion ia section q.
and the official hCnors and Courtesies now
extended by law and regulation TO officers
of the Army and Navy, all together or
separately. by amendatory provisions of
law, is to be extended to the Revenue Cut
ter Service. is matter for the considera-
tion Of Congress. Should this be done il
Is question whether il is wise or not to
effect II 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
6ftS and houors of naval service without
al 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, in the di-
rectlOn Of creating a separate naval estab-
lishment with its corps OF line officers and
engineers and a constructor; its rank and
rates of pay; its system of examinations
for retirement and promotion, and its mil
iJary hOnors. II is important to note that
the broad questions raised by the form in
which this bill is drawn. and by the pro-
visions its contains. Is whether or not as
4 matter of policy. this Government should /
have more than one naval organization. |
aud if more than one. how many?
The arguments adducible in favor OF /
comforting upon the Revenue Cutter Serv-
Zee the benefits embodied in Senate bill /
12S 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. /
and ii 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. 1
with their necessary staff accompaniment 1
and auxiliary machinery under the control /
of at least three separate departments OF I
the Government that the attention Of Con-
gress should be invited to the apparently /
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 at 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-
q blish 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 |
is civil. il is plain that the
officers of that service are not entitled to
the rank. honors. and privileges. and
should not be governed by the rules of the
Army and Navy. since no branch of the