The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-12-06
PRESIDENT ASKS Authority
On His Own Initiative TO Dismiss Naval
Oftcers for Gross Misconduct.

0fficers for Gross Misconduct.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 5.-President Roose-
welt sent a message to Congress to-day
asking that authority be given to the Presi-
lent TO dismiss IN officer Of the Navy. The
message follows:
ITO the Senate and House OF Representa-
tires.
Il feel it my duty to call your attention
TO he fact that, under the provision OF
Articles 80 and 81 Of the articles for the
government of the Navy, the President has
no longer the authority to dismiss an officer
of the Navy in time of peace unless in pur-
suance of a sentence Of a general court
martial, and even in time OF war his right
Of dismissal is practically subject to review
by a oourt-martial TO be assembled within
six months If the accused officer demands
this court. The articles in question are in
the terms following;
Article 30. No officer shall be dis
missed from the naval service except by the
order Of the President or by sentence Of a
general court-martial, and in the time Of
peace no officer shall be dismissed except
in pursuance of the sentence of a general
court-martial or in mitigation thereof.
Article 81. When any officer dismissed
DY OTueE VI t1b ITtslucnL SluCt "dICh o.
1865, makes in writing an application for
trial, setting forth, under oath, that he has
been ~wrongfully dismissed, the President
shall. as soon as the necessities Of the service
may permit, convene a court-martial to try
such officer on the charges on which he shall
nave been dismissed. And il such court
martial shall not be convened within SIX
months from the presentation Of such appli-
cation for trial, or il such court, being con-
vened, shall not award dismissal or death
as the punishment OF such officer, the order
Of dismissal by the President shall be void
This condiUion of the law was called
to my attention by a recent painful and
humiliating incident. On May 0, 1905,
an officer OF the navy was accused of be-
havior so indecent and disgusting as TO
show clearly his unfitness, il guilty as
charged, to hold a commission or associate
with officers and gentlemen.
THE nature OF the alleged misconduct
and the lack Of compulsory power in naval
courts to enforce the attendance of civilian
witnesses, as we'll as the locality where
the offence was said to have been committed,
caused q long and very unfortunate, al
though quite unavoidable, delay in his
trial by court-martial, which did not occur
until Jan. Is, 1905. He was then convicted,
but the court, while imposing a severe
penalty, to my surprise, as well as that
Of the Navy Department, did not sentence
the offender TO dismissal from the service.
THE failure of the court TO rid the navy
of one 80 clearly unfit to form a part of IL
was commented upon in appropriate terms
by the department, but it was then, and has
been since, a source OF profound regret to
me that the law as above set forth made
il impracticable for me TO afford a remedy
for this failure. Moreover, il is to be re-
membered that, owing to the inability of
naval courts, as above explained, to CON-
peI the attendance of civilian witnesses,
and the further fact that they have no
authority to receive az evidence the depo-
sitions Of absent witnesses, while the ex-
iuencies of the service may often cause off,
GERS and men cognizant OF the facts TO be
employed in distant places at the time of
the trial, there il great danger lest offences
OF the nature charged against his man
should go altogether unpublished.
Elm this case it was found very difficult
To overcome the natural reluctance Of
some OF the witnesses to attend and testify.
I am convinced that the President should
have the authority, upon his own initiative
and responsibility, 10 dismiss any officer
whom he thinks unworthy TO remain in
the service.
Il think there is no danger that
such danger exists at all, il IL 80 slight
as TO be altogether outweighed by the
considerations Of public policy which re-
uuire this authority to be vested in the
constitutional commander-in-chief OF the
Navy. therefore strongly recommend
that article 80, as h~ereinbefore given. be
amended by emitting all OF il after the
words general c~ourt-martial" where those
words first occur therein, n that Article
81 be repealed.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT