The National tribune., 1901-05-09
NAVAL APPRENTICES.

|
NAVAL APPRENTICES.
| EDITOR NATIONAL TRIBUNE: I have
| Just been reading the article IN IHE Ma
| TIoyAL TRIBUNE of March 2S, by j. w.
NJ, concerning the naval apprentices, and
| the rIles and regulations for the manage
ment of the framing Stations, which
prompts me to tell you some of my I'M
pressions of our Training Station at San
Francisco which l visited about year
ago for the purpose of entering a bright,
ambitious boy as an apprentice.
| found on observation and inquiry that
the conditions of the institution are about
as represented by ]. w. NJ, except that
the officers seem to use great deal OF
harsh, even severe, treatment IN the man
agement of the boys. 1t was explained
to me by one of the officers that this was
necessary, because the average OF the
BOYS enlisted are a hard lot" and can
only be governed by rigid discipline.
But the most serious objection l found
to the Training School system was this
clause, printed in italics in little pamph-
let of information that is furnished to ap-
plicants:
HE (the apprentice) cannot become
commissioned officer"
Just think how this sounds to a smart,
promising, ambitious American boy who
is desirous of entering his country's SER
vice with a hope of some day earning
commission by gallant or meritorious con-
duct.
Mr.. Editor, if you can do anything to-
ward eradicating this un-American regu-
lation, and this silly, aristocratic barrier
with which our naval officers surround
themselves, and throw open the road to
promotion to commissions to all meritori-
Gus young men, you will have rendered
your country great service.
In II will co o.
quence of the foregoing Objectionable feat
ures of the Naval Training Station sys-
TEN, my boy is not in the naval service.
II. W. PECK,
Whittier, Cal.
p. S.-When I speak of the severe
Station, remember that / am an old Reg
ular," and thoroughly understand what
proper discipline is.-P.
The objection that our correspondent
raises is a most formidable one. 1t is out
be such a regulation. 1t is not only high
Iy injurious TO tho naval service in keep
ing out of it the best element OF our
bright boys, who are ambitious of naval
career, but it is dangerous to the country.
1t tends to build up the officers of the
navy into a special caste, from which COM.
mon people are excluded. The moment
that there becomes such prevalent idea
the people will lose all interest in the navy
and demand its curtailment, if not aboli-
ton. They will not endure any aristo-
cratic institution, borro wing its organiza-
ton and ideas from the worn-out feudal
system of Europe, and maintained to give
Simpsons ornaments OF the drawing
room, his o'clock tea heroes, a pretense
for being
In place Of the army and navy being
made more exclusive and aristocratic, as
the effort now is, they must be made more
republican and democratic. They must be
institutions of the whole people, manned
by the people, offlcered by the people, gov
erned by the people. Any boy enlisting
in either one must have the same oppor-
tunity to rise to the head that he has
when he goes to work in rolling mill or
a cotton factory. This must be because
it is the only right way-the only Amer
lean way.
1t must be because 1t is the only way
to have an efficient army and navy. The
world has tried to the dreary uttermost
the experiment of having an exclusive
aristocracy officer armies and nayies. 1t
has never failed to result in shameful de-
feat and humiliation.
Great Britain's miserable showing in
South Africa was almost wholly due to
the folly of retaining so much of the aris-
tocratic element in the differing of her
armies. The only men there who have
shown any capacity for war have been
those who went in at the foot of the lad
der, as untitled nobodies. and fought their
way up to high rank. 1t has been SO al
ways in British history. The men who
have carried the meteor flag around the
world. and made British arms illustrious
on sea and land, have invariably been
commoners who rose from the lowest sta.
tions.
We cannot afford to repeat Britain's
costly blunders in our army and navy.
--
THEY are having quite warm discus
sion in the South over the authorship OF
the lines:
"He who dallies is bastard.
And he who doubts is damned"
A number think that Senator Hill, OF
Georgia, who became nationally famous
by the skinning that James G.. Blaine once
gave him, was the author. Others claim
it for other silver tongued Southern ora.
tors, among them James Hamilton, who
was Governor of South Carolina during
the Modification troubles, and largely in
strumental in plunging his State into
those troubles. One would think that
whether the phrase was used to incite the
Southerners into rebellion, either in 1892
or 1861, the consequences were so un-
pleasant that they would not hold the
author in very high esteem. The idea
Of the phrase first appears in the last
verse Of the 18th chapter of st. PauIs
Epistle to the Romans, where he is urg-
ing a larger charity in the matter Of the
smaller things Of life, and particularly
in regard to the rigid ideas of the Jews
as to eating and drinking. He concludes
by saying:
"And he that doubteth is damned il
he cat, because he eateth not of the faith.