The Washington times., 1913-09-03
DANIELS CHARGES
BEFORE INQUIRERS
Secretary of Navy Ready to Answer Accusations Before Sen
ate Committee-Action in FIunking" Candidates for
Marine Corps Commits sions Is Under Fire.

Iowa; A. B. Kingston, Buffalo. n. Y:
H. L. Larsen. Colorado; E. T. Lloyd.
Washington, D. G: D. H. Miller. New
Jersey; L. H. Miller. Missouri; B. c.
Murchison, South Carolina; J. F. 8.
Norris, California: K. f. Rockey. New
Jersey; +. II. Rupertus, Washington.
D. G.; Ethelbert Talbot. Pennsylvania: /:
J. L: Underhill, California. and Samuel
L Howard. Washington. d. e.
The examining board recommended
that these candidates be given their
commissions. and in due course OF
events their names would have been
sent to the Senate for confirmation.
Wiped Out Subject.
When the Secretary of the Navy saw
the list and found that the names OF
Bourne, Tournage and Pagan were
missing. 1t is said he Immediately wiped
out the subject OF aptitude and prob
able efficiency from the whole exam
ination. AS this was the only thing on
which they had failed to receive the
prescr:b bed mark. they were eligible for
commissions. Because of this change
the papers of Kingston. Miller. Howard
and Talbot fell below the required gen.
eIal average OF 20 per cent.
As soon as they learned they had been
'hunked' by the Secretary OF the Navy,
after having passed the board. they
took the matter up with the Senate
Committee on Naval Affairs and filed
charges that the Secretary had exceed
ed his authority.
II is charged that the Secretary had
taken personal interest In the case
OF the three men who "bilged" from
the Naval Academy, and that the rea-
son for changing the markings was to
admit them, in spite of the fact that
IL disqualified four other candidates
for commissions.
The rules for the examination for
commissions In the army, navy, and
marine corps for persons in civil life
are made under direction Of the Pres
ident and the Senate committee Is
Secretary of the Navy had In chang
ing the prescribed form. In a circular
sent out by the Navy Department Civ
ing instructions about the examination
II is stated:
By direction of the President, the
ination Of candidates for appointment
In the United States Marine Corps are
published for the information and
government Of all concerned"
Defending his action, Secretary Dan
iels said:
1T is true that I rejected entirely the
marks given by the board for aptitude
and probable efficiency on the ground,
as ] explained to the members of the
DOdIOs Indl ILlB was a IndlteT Oh pure
conjecture. and should not outweigh the
absolute written and physical examina-
tons of the men
II became primarily interested when.
On reading the report of the board, I
found that they had placed man by
the name Of Foster as eighth on the list,
and had given him a mark of 49, Foster
was an enlisted man, who had worked
his way up and had prepared himself
to take the examinations for commits
sion.
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. Obvious
ly, l contended, he had demonstrated
aptitude and probable efficiency as
absolutely as II 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 list.