The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1910-08-16
Rank and Title in the Navy.

A defect In the method of enacting serv-
Ice legislation is disclosed by the phrase
ology of a clause inserted in the latest
naval Appropriated act relating to the
rank. title. and emoluments OF those
naval officers who serve as chiefs OF 0u-
reau and who are eligible to retirement
after thirty years service.
The clause bears every evidence Of hay
Ing been drawn without much consider
alton Of its effect. since it is susceptible
Of a variety Of interpretations.
II was the purpose Of the authors Of
this provision TO arrange a situation by
which a bureau chief who was retired
after thirty years service would have the
same rank. title. and emoluments as those
Of chief OF bureau who was eligible 20
retirement for age It becomes a ques-
ton. however, whether this purpose will
be accomplished in all cases. and under
the operation OF the clause there will
be, at best, a very awkward situation OF
more than one officer possessing the title
Of a particular bureau chief It is not
necessary. because It is not OF Importance
in daily newspaper 10 go into the ram
ilcauons OF the legal aspects OF this
crude provision. That is a subject which
IS probably OF surprising interest 70 GER
tain officers who are, or who may be, az
fected by the new provision. and II has
already been the occasion Of an opinion on
the part OF the Attorney General 1t ia
worth while, however. to remark upon
the method by which Congress enacts
legislation which is OF vital significance
TO the service personnel
In this particular case the clause was
concocted by the House and Senate con-
ferees on the naval appropriation Dill,
and the aim was 10 protect the retiring
Paymaster General and the prospectively
retiring Chief Constructor from reduction
IN rank and emoluments should they be
transferred from the active list upon their
own application. whether or not under
duress OF higher authority. II was re-
markable state Of affairs which led to
this proceeding. and the naval authorities
had nothing TO do with, and were not con-
suited in regard 10, the extraordinary
clause. It was a species Of Congressional
rebuke OF certain phases Of the admin
istration Of the Navy Department. and
was recognized as a sort Of protest on
the part OF the House and Senate Naval
conmittees-or a majority Of the mem
bers OF those committees-against the
elimination OF two bureau chiefs who had
been active and conspicuous in resisting
the plans OF the Secretary Of the Navy
for q reorganization Of the Navy De-
partment administration and navy yard
control. Even under these circumstances,
Il would seem that there should be suf-
ncient acquaintance with service condi-
tons on the part Of the members Of the
Naval committees TO frame a clause
which would be enlightening and avoid
the necessity for expert and, perhaps,
prejudlced construction.
It IS TO that extent a defect IN legis-
intion for which there really does not
seem TO be any excuse, especially with
tho array Of legal talent which Is to be
found on any Congressional committee.
and probably in the membership Of the
House and Senate Naval committees.
When It IS considered that the authors
Of the clause had very definite object
IN view, there appears to be still less
justification for any ambiguity Of terms.