Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-12-20
CANNOT DISMISS THEM
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
MIDsHIPMEN LIMITED.

Secretary Bonaparte has found that hs
has no power to dismiss Midshipnen Coffir
and Van Deveer, charged with hazing ano
| completely In hazing Midshipman Kim
brough. That information has been con
veyed to him 10y Attorney General Moody
A few days ago Secretary Bonaparte sub
mitted to the Attorney General the abstrac,
quest on as to whether midsh pman mus
be tired by court-martial as condition
precedent to his dismissal from the acad-
envy. He did not name the two midship-
men above referred to. but he did state
that case had recently arisen at the acad.
eny wherein two midshipmen had hazed
another. In reply the Attorney General told
| the Secretary that his conc,us on was adj
verse to the asserted right of the Secre-
tary to dismiss midshipman and he prom
ised 10 supply an opinion in full legal form
within short time
It is now the duty of Rear Admiral Sands
superintendent of the Naval Academy, to
ORDER Coffin and Van Deveer before a
court-martial, under the terms of an act OF
1854, and IT they are convicted of haz.ng
they must be dismissed from the ACADEMY,
he viii be Instructed to that effect as soon
as the Attorney Generals formal op. N on is
received at the Navy Department Secre-
tary Bonaparte Is seeking legislative au-
thor1ty to make dismissals himself in such
cases, but such leg Station would net be re-
|
> Secretary Bonaparte's Letter.
He has sent the following letter to SEN
aecr -Aale and Representative Foss, chair
man, respectively, of the Senate and House
committees on naval affairs.
learn from the Attorney General that
IN his opinion, of which he showed me
through draft, he will hold that the art Of
iSoS does not repeal that Of 1874 relating to
fha A y
penalties imposed by the later act. like
those imposed by the earlier can he In
nicted upon midshipmen found guilty by
court, martial of the offenses named He
Will mold further that the act of 1874 is
mandatory in requiring the superintendent
OF the academy to convene a court-ma rtial
whenever he is Informed of facts indicating
that any of the midshipmen have been
guilty or the practices mentioned in the
act, and 1t necessarily follows that no dis
erection is vested either in the court. the
superintendent of the academy or the Sec
rotary or the Navy as to the punishment
10 De inflicted. This opinion will, in my
Judgment, make 1t very difficult to deal
satisfactorily with these Objectionable prac-
tices. The necessity of establishing, beyond
reasonable doubt. the guilt of the parties
accused, by evidence satisfactory to a.
court martial, will cause great uncertainty
and delay in enforcing the law, and the term
'hazing. as defined in previous opinions
of Attorneys General, includes ofYenses
naiity that punishment which might be
inadequate for some would seem to any
dspassionate person excessive and unreal
sonably harsh to others In my judgment
1t is essential to the proper discipline of the
academy, and especially necessary for the
eradication of these abuses, that discre-
ttonary power of summary dismissal of
Inidshipmen be vested in the Secretary of
the Navy. 1t is true that he has been gem
orally held to have the power, and it has
been frequently exercised by my predeces-
sors. and in at least one instance by my
self. As stated In my annual report, how
ever. 1t has recently been questioned In a
suit now pending in the Court of Claims,
by reason of the provisions of two sections
of the Revised Statutes, to which / there
call attention, and of certain decisions of
the Supreme Court. in which the legal
status Of a midshipman is considered in
connection with questions of pay. More
over under the construction which the
Attorney General places upon the acts of
1874 and 1908. it will probably be held
that this discretionary power, If it exist
for other offenses against. discipline and
good order, Is taken away when the of
oh, t., ho1t