Omaha daily bee., 1907-12-27
QUESTION OF AUTHORITY ISSUE
Right of Medical Officer to Command
Hospital Ship Raised.
LAW IN THE CASE QUOTED
1t is Open to Two interpretations
Hence Quarrel.
CONGRESS TO GET WHOLE MATTER
Division at This Time Likely to
JeopnrdiEe Appropriations for
the Enlargement of
the Fleets.

the Fleets.
WASHINGTON. Dec. 26.-Not since the
day preceding the passage OF the personnel
law ten years ago has the feeling between
line and stan Of tho navy been so acuts
as it is today as a result OF the refusal
Of Admiral Brownson to transmit orders
from his superior officer the president Of
/ the United States, assigning a naval sur
! geon to command vessels in the navy, In
the case Of the personnel act, Il was Mr..
/ Roosevelt then assistant secretary OF the
navy who acted the part OF pacihcator and
| succeeded in bringing the two warning fac
/ tions together in support of the legislation
which for a decade past through a make
shift, has served to maintain peace be-
tween the two factions in the navy.
In the present instance however, the
efforts OF the president to reconcile the
| surgeons and the line officers has failed.
| and it is probable that the whole con-
| troversy viii be threshed out on its merits
in congress This is much deprecated by
! conservative officers in both line and stan.
/ as likely to prove prejudicial to the navys
interest whole, for they believe that
in order to succeed in securinT the four
great battleships, the cruisers scouts and
submarines, which form part of the
years naval estimates in addition to secur-
ing legislation that win better the lot OF
naval officers personally the navy must
present a united front. which cannot be
done if just at the beginning of a session
line and staff are to engage in a fierce
1 strife
BrOVnson's Lips Are Sealed,
Through the published statement of Sur
| peOn General Rfxev he ,,pVits of the doc
tors side of the case in this instance have
been clearly set forth. Line officers be-
lieve that in common fairness they should
| also have a hearing. But they are in an
| embarrassed position in that respect. Ad-
miral Brownson preceded his resignation
by a cold, clear, logical presentation OF
his reasons why he objected to the assign
| ment of q physician to command naval
ship, even though that vessel were ex-
clusively devoted to hospital use. The
statement was submitted 10 tie president
and, notwithstanding the stan has had It's
say in print, applications at the White
House for this letter arc met with refusal.
Now it is clearly impossible for Admiral
| Brownson or any of his line officers to
make public a copy of the letter without
| incuring the risk of a court-martial on
charges of disrespect toward their superior
officer. the president of the United States.
SO they can only look for change in the
executive mind. or congressional investIga-
tion, which viii develop all the facts.
II may be stated IN the absence Of the
text OF Admiral Brownson's letter that his
objections TO the execution Of the presl-
dents order to put surgeon in command
of the hospital relief ship was two
fold In the first place, like every line
officer, he believed that the subordnation
of any line officer, no matter how low in
grade to a stan officer on shipboard. was
bad policy and subversive of naval disci-
pline. But a stronger objection in his mind
was that the proposed action was clearly
illegal, inasmuch as II is forbidden by law
or naval regulation to assign a stan officer
to command ships. II is only fair to stan
side to state that this Is debatable ground
and that it would not be difficult TO con-
strue the naval laws and regulations in
either way SO It is not TO be doubted that
when the subject comes before congress
for consideration the lawyers In that body
will find material to support either con-
tention.
Law in the Case.
Now that the legality of the presidents
proposed action in the matter Of assign
ing a stan officer in the person of Sur
geon Stokes to command the hospital ship
Relief has been called in question, Il is
proper to state that the reliance of the
line officers Is upon provision in sec
tion of the naval personnel act of
March 3, 1899. That section, among other
things, was designed to clear up doubt
that existed as TO the right Of a stan
officer to assume the title of a line off,
Ger of a corresponding grade in the mat
ter of pay and emoluments and length
of service Up to that date stan officers
had enjoyed what was called relative
rank" with which they were not satisfied.
so in section the word relative" was
struck out so that all sections of the
revised statutes which, In defining the
rank of officers or positions in the navy,
contained the words relative rank" were
amended so as to read "the rank Uf." To
this provision the following important
qualification was attached
"But officers whose rank is so defined
shall not be entitled, In virtue of their
rank, to command in the line or in other
stan corps"
Line officers understand this TO mean
that no surgeon or engineer df there shall
ever be again commissioned engneers) or
! paymaster or constructor shall be placed
in position on board ship where he may
command the movements and actions OF
any person not Of his own stan corps.
The star officers for their part hold that
this act does not I'm any sense abridge any
privilege or rank formerly enjoyed by
staff officer and a careful perusal OF the
act appears to justify the statement that
this provision is open to controversy and
that there is a reasonable ground for
difference of opinion as TO the meaning Of
. the Law. There were no developments to-
day in the controversy owing 10 the alb
sence from Washington OF the president
Los Angeles Prisoners strike.
Los ANGELES, Dec 3.-About hun