Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-12-31
AGREES WITH
SENATOR HALE
Ex-Secretary of the Navy w.
E. Chandler.
BROWNSON'S CONTENTION
Said to Be Thoroughly Sound and
Correct.
NO SURGEON SHOULD COMMAND
Only Parallel to Present Proposition
Was During the De Long Arctic
Expedition.
BRoWNsoN's CONTENTION
Said to Be Thoroughly Sound and
Correct.
NO SURGEON SHOULD COMMAND

Mr.. William E. Chandler, formerly
Secretary of the Navy. agrees with
Senator Hale in regard to the present
controversy between the line and staff
of the navy over the assignment of a
naval surgeon to the command of the
naval hospital ship Relief. In recent
interview Mr.. Chandler said. Il sup
pose il the President wants to assign
a surgeon to command a hospital ship
and directs that this be done 1t cannot
be avoided.
''On the other hand, ] do not blame
Rear Admiral Brownson for obJecting
to any such proposition. I think he
did the proper thing in handing in his
resignation to the President.
Brownson's Contention Sound.
In my Judgment, the contention of
Rear Admiral Brownson is thoroughly
sound. Only line. officers of the navy
should be intrusted with the command
of the vessels OF the navy. 1t Is, in
my opinion, a serious mistake to de-
part from this custom by ordering a
surgeon to such command, even the
command of a hospital Ship
There might. of course. arise emergen-
cles under which the unbroken rule of the
navy might be broken. Such emergency
might occur during war times. l believe
Rear Admiral Brownson Is too fine an OFF,
Ger to have resigned II such thing were
But this has all occurred in time of peace,
and Rear Admiral Brownson was perfect
ly right IN resigning.
1t is preposterous to think that sur
geon should be placed in command of a
hospital ship. 1t is entirely beside the
issue to explain that the ship to when
the surgeon may be ordered may have
only merchant crew and sailing mas
ter. There must be some one man in su-
preme command 'oi every vessel that goes
10 sea. How. can surgeon De in supreme
command of ship with a sailing master
ulder him also in supreme command? The
2 cSls taiLg Is preposterous. Hospital
yaps are not Nmore immune from ocean
gales than. are battleships. II a hospital
ship having a surgeon lin command" and
nayigated by a(sailing master were lost in
a storm who could be held responsible? !?
Not the surgeon. because he could de-
care surgeons are not supposed to be
navrgators; nor the sailing master, be-
cause he would say he took his orders
from the ships surgeon.
! Surgeons May Command on Shore,
~ But Not on Sea.
vi can conceive of the propriety of
placing doctors in command of hospitals
oDAshore. but of no sound reason why
ph5sicians} should be placed in command
or hospitals af1oat The nearest prece-
dent. In my mind. to the proposition to
place a. Stan oficer in command of a
ayafItrew occurred when former Engi-
nsEt1n-Chief Melville was put in COM
mand of one of the whaieboats that
Capt De Long sent out from the Jeanette
after she was wrecked in June, 1881. De
Long. who lost his life, took command
of the first boat Engineer Melville was
assigned by De Long to take command
Of the second, and Chipp was In charge
of the third. With the sailors in Mel
vllle's whaleboat was Lieut. Danenhower
OF the navy, but his physical condition
was such from the arctic hardships that
De Long placed Melville in command
over MIN and Danenhower remained In
4< boat as a passenger. There were
dinerences OF opinion between Danen-
hover and Melville over the course Of
the whaleboat 1t has been said that
Danenhower tried to take the command
away from Melville and that Melville
drew his revolver on the young lieuten-
ant. This may or may not be true, but
Melville remained in command. But that
incident occurred during an arctic emer-
gency.
"One interesting phase of this contro-
versy Is the fact that two such good
friends as the President and Rear Ad-
miral Brownson should fall out with one
another. The President is certainly un-
fortunate in having SO many friends who
differ with him.