The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-02-06
OPPOSED TO THE SYSTEM
Secretary Long on Advancement
in the Naval Service.
Relieves the Present Method Operates
In an objectionable Manner-Dis-
cusses the Matter of Rewards for
the officers and Men Who Served
at the Battle of Santiago.

The discussion in the Senate over Sec
rotary Longs letter to Senator Morgan
charging Congress with failure to do its
part toward comforting rewards on the
naval officers who participated in the Bat
tie of Santiago was the principal topic of
conversation yesterday among naval Off
GERS on duty in Washington. Some of
those who had talked with Mr. Long about
the matter said ne was not hurt over what
had been said in the Senate, but, on the
contrary, was rather glad that his letter
to Senator Morgan had attracted so much
attention, as it might serve to bring about
renewed interest in regard to rewards
and result in action which would enable
the Government to discharge the debt it
owed to those who participated in he
destruction of Cerveras feet and COM
PEELED Spain to sue for peace.
To reporter Secretary Long said that
in his last two annual reports he had
discussed the subject of rewards and urged
that something be done to show the Gov
ernment's appreciation of the gallant and
meritorious services OF officers and men
who took part in the battle In his last
annual report, dated November II, 1860,
he said that the system of rewarding Of
hcers for exceptional services by ad-
vancement through nomination to the SEN
ate had been found to be unsatisfactory,
since in its practical workings it oD-
Grated unjustly, and in some instances
defeated, the purposes for which it was
devised.
Such a system was bad. he said. not
only because it operated to reward some at
the expense of others, but for the most
important reason that in a prolonged war
1t would result in inextricable confusion.
He therefore believed that a satisfactory
remedy for the evils growing out Of this
inadequate and Objectionable system was
TO be found in either of two measures
which were put before Congress at its last
session.
Both these bills were prepared at the
Navy Department.
One of them, introduced in the Senate
al the first session Of the present Con-
gress, provides simply that the advance
ment in rank Of officers Of the navy and
Marine Corps snail not interfere with the
regular promotion of those otherwise en-
titled TO promotion. The other, to which
Mr.. Long invited attention particularly,
was presented in the House in the frs.
session of the present Congress. 1t au-
thOrizes the Secretary of the Navy to
bestow lpCn officers and men deserving of
special recognition honor medals. courage
medals, and service medals. This bill is
regarded by the Navy Department as be-
ing better than the other measure, in that
1t provides q satisfactory method OF re-
wardng enlisted men and marines.
Secretary Long, in conversation with a
reporter, raised an interesting question
having a direct application to the criti-
cisms directed at his statement in his
letter TO Senator Morgan that 1t is more
than two years now since the President
sent in nominations for promoti rs, and
these nominations have never been acted
upon by the Senate" Mr. Long said:
Are you quite sure that as to the nom
nations for promotion sent by the Presi-
dent to the Senate more than two years
ago and which have neither been con
hrmed nor rejected by the Senate, 1t has
not been and is not now in the power of
the Senate to take them up at any time.
without renewal of them by the Presi-
dent? The Senate is a continuous body
AS to the confirmation of treaties and
nominations II acts not as a part OF Con-
gress, but as an Independent body w4icn
is continuous. 4 treaty once submitted
to it car be acted upon at any time unttl
confirmed or rejected or Withdrawn. In
deed, treaties have remained in the Sen
end OF that period, never having been
Withdrawn or resubmitted.
DO not the rules Of the Senate recog-
nize this and provide that proceedings On
treaties in one Congress shall be resumed
at the commencement OF the next? Why
is not the same true Of nominations
What is the distinction in principle? Il is
true the Senate has the power, and. in
deed has exercised the power. to limit
itself in this respect by its own rules.
providing that ia certain cases where
nominations are neither confirmed nor re-
iected they shall not be again considered,
unless renewed by the President But this
is limitation which is in its own hands
and from which il can relieve itself at
any time By a suspension OF its own rule
imposing it, And why make the rule if
without il the result Is the same?
IN other words, are not the nOmina-
tons all the time before the Senate until
they are confirmed or rejected or with
drawn"
Mr. Longs statement that treaties sent
to the Senate do not lapse with the end
ing Of the Congress in which they are
presented, but may be taken up for con
sideration in any subsequent Congress
without being resubmitted by the PTesi-
dent. was ascertained by the reporter to
be correct The reporter learned on casual
enquiry that the extradition treaty with
Russia. sent to the Senate on February
o. 1889. was not confirmed until February
s. 1893 nearly four years later. This
treaty remained before the Senate during
that time. and was never withdrawn or
resUbmitted.
THE WAR REVENUE BILL.