Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-09-03
CALLED TO EXPLAIN
REASON FOR, ACTION
Secretary Daniels Said to
Have Shown Favoritism in
Issuing Commissions.

Secretary Of the Navy Daniels appeared
before the Senate committee on naval
affairs at o'clock this afternoon to re-
ply to complaint which has been made
against him that he had "funked" four
candidates for commissions in the Ma
rine Corps after they had been favOrably
reported by the examining board. In or
der that commissions could be given to
three young men who had failed to pass
the examinations.
Senator O'Gorman of New York has in
terested himself in the matter. and asked
for inquiry. The young men who are
said to have been fiunked are A. B.
Kingston of Buffalo, N. Y: l. H. Miller
of Lexington. Mo-: Samuel l.. Howard of
Washington. d. c., and Ethelbert Tall
bolt. I'd. Bethlehem, Pa.
Alleged Favorites.
The three men whom Secretary Dan
iels is said to have favored are L. M
Bourne and A. III. Tournage, both of
North Carolina, the Secretary's home
state. and Louis E. Pagan of Phila-
delphia.
Senator Tillman of South Carolina,
chairman of the committee on naval
affairs. said that no formal charges
had been made to the committee. but
that the nominations of Bourne, Tour
mage and Pagan, along with many
others who are seeking admission to
the Marine Corps. were before the COM
mittee for action. having been submit
ted by the President at the instance of
Secretary Daniels. and that in pass
ing upon these nominations the mat
ter would be gone into carefully.
Defends His Course.
In statement to newspaper men this
afternoon Secretary Daniels said his ac-
ton was justifable under the circum-
stances of the case.
1T is true he said, that 1 rejected
entirely the marks given by the board
for aptitude and probable efficiency. on
the ground as l explained to the MEM
bers of the board. that this was mat
ter of pure conjecture, and should not
outweigh the absolute written and physi-
cal examinations of the men.
II became primarily interested when.
on reading the report of the board, I
found that they had placed a man by the
name of Foster as eighth on the list. and
had given him a mark of 40. Foster was
an enlisted man. who had worked his
way up and had prepared himself to take
the examinations for commission
Basis of the Markings.
Il inquired of the board upon what
basis the marking of Foster was made
and learned that they had marked him
down on aptitude and probable eff
ciency.' / told the board that this
would never do. that Foster had served
in the ranks with credit and had risen
above his fellows In earnest attention
!, to his duties and in ambition. Obvi-
ously. ] commended. he had demonstrated
J aptitude and probable efficiency as
absolutely as it could be demonstrated.
/ namely, by his past record Moreover.
: rejecting his mark on this subject.
found that on his written examination
the young man stood second on the
Hist.
Coming, then, to the cases of the
: three men who failed at the. Naval
! Academy. 1 found that they had 'bi'ged.'
as you call it, on some one subject like
arithmetic I took the position that as
: they had stood fairly well in other SUBJ
+jects at the academy. as candidates Tor
s commissions in the Marine Corps, they
probany better h equipped bs saan ns sne
drilled In his life and knew nothing OF
naval training.
]. Regarded as Unfair.
'Inasmuch, then, that they had passed
sthe written examination. but had been
marked down on aptitude and probable
efficiency simply because they had
s1.bilsed' from the academy, the marking
was not fair.
II agreed with the board that it would
probably be better not to admit men to
commissions In the Marine Corps who
had failed at the academy. but that,
contend, is a stand that should be taken
before men are permitted TO take the ex-
animation. 1t is not fair, however after
accepting their applications to funk them
solely on this ground.
I'm other words, have thrown out the
back window the test Of aptitude and
probable efficiency"