New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-06-21
NAVY ENGINEER OFFICERS NEEDED.
What the Effect of the Personnel Law of
1899 Has Been.

To the Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir; In your issue Of to-day a Washington dis
patch refers to the interruption Of the work Of the
special board OF the Navy Department. appointed
% devise n system give to the navy an
efficient body OF engineer officers. such as It had
before the nmagamation OF the engineer corps into
tho line by provision OF the personnel law OF
1sg9 No more important problem has been before
the Navy Department than this OF providing
officers for future engineering duty
As tho Washington dispatch notes. the present
condition is 4 deplorable one. What brought about
the present condition? II was the personnel law
which. framed by rs original advocates. did not
contemplate the abolition OF the engineer corps.
composed 1t OF technically educated officers.
talented engineer experts with ability to design,
construct and manage tho machinery OF our war
ships. Officers OF the service recognize then that
tho result might be a serious one. and that there
must De. sooner later, return 10 an engineer
corps. with without corps organization and In
dependence. a. the Washington dispatch states the
"mach!nist" system has not proved economical SUI
ncient efficient the conditions OF tho engineer
ing departments the ships have shown. The ma
chinists. engine drivers. good practical men.
rule. but they are not OF tho educated. trained
and competent class which the former engineer
corps personnel was.
The question might he asked; What has become
Of the former engineer corps personnel" \ refer
cuce to the Navy Register would answer this. There
and commander who. under the law, are TO per
form engineering duty only on shore only ms
ant commander and Lieutenant grade who when
they reach the rank OF commander are to perform
engineering duty only shore only Other for meT
engineer officers who qualified FOR line duty by
animation performing line duty from preference
the Register notes. Hence. II VIII be seen that
officers prefer line duty to engineer duty, and the
number OF engineer officers desired for sea duty
reduced Correspondingly. The special board Is
detailed 10 devise system which viii give the
service SUCCESSORS of such engineer officers as t.
+. sherwood. ". II. shock. James W. King.
Charlie " Ioring J. 4. 3 Smith. w. " w
". Perry, J. r Edwards and others: 70 devise a
system Of education and training OF the commits
stoned personnel by virtue OF which there viii be
preserved the the services OF certain OH
GERS competent discharge engineering duty. one
duty at sea engineers, officers who are by reason
their personal Nominations individual aptitude or
rec0suzrd fitness. deemed useful in the engineer
Ing branch send such officers to the proposed
study that will make them eligible for engineering
duty only during the remainder OF their active ca
rccr. The present situation is viewed with appre-
heusiOn 10y many officers who believe that the navy
personnel by the process OF line and engineer corps
arnalgaIna ton and who aver that II has already
resulted in great cost and confusion. and that II
may possibly cripple the efficiency OF the service
as an OF national defence and ouence unless
remedy is adopted soon
A bill is now before the House TO be considered
when Congress recouveues. which lays out scheme
10 obtain officers on engineering duty only
which provides that the officers Of the engineer
CORPS after reaching the rank OF commander. shall
not he sent 10 sea- but perform engineering duty on
shore only. II also makes other changes In the
present law which the Trainer hoped would encour-
age personal inclination for engineering duty. ana
thus furnish sufficient personnel for the purpose.
such officers to receive percentage OF extra pay.
New York. June 10. 1904. OFFICER