The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-04-23
FOR THE HONOR or THE NAVY.
Admiral Chadwick Uphoids Win Author.
ny the MaIigned. Temperate service.

To THE EDITOR OF THE SUN---Sir:
should like to say something on some
invidious remarks In connection with al
coholc drinks from various people re-
spectIng the profession in which ! passed
nearly forty-fve active years I VEN
ture to do this as II seems to be taken
for granted by many of the public that
naval officers are a set of drunkards.
can say from my long experience and
knowledge of the navy that there Is no
error greater than to suppose naval off,
GERS to be an incorporate class OF men.
can affirm with what / believe to be
a rather more extended knowledge than
Is usual of men OF all classes that
there IL no body OF men 80 abstemious.
The idea so prevalent Ia traditional only,
and dates back to Frederick Random A"
That there were hard drinking men In
the earlier days is undoubtedly true, but
go there were ashore II Is well said
by Admiral Sir Vesey Hamilton and
John Knox Laughton In their introduc.
ton to the "Rccollections Of James An
thony Gardner:
II Is. Of course. Familiarity known that
| during the later years OF the eighteenth
| century such drunkenness was almost more
common on shore than ahost; and when
more than half the peeragc and the most
/ distinguished statesmen were "habituai
! drunkards' there was. from the moral point
Of view. some excuse for the many Of
| GARDENERS messmates.
Just az the British peerage and British
and American statesmen OF to-day are
not drunkards, neither are the officers
Of the American and British navies OF
to-day.
There was lately land this Is my par
ticular reason Tor writing ths) in one
or your contemporaries an article. re-
/ printed in it's weekly literary edition.
dealing with this subject and Illustrating
events at the beginning of the civil war
as II the rakings OF the worlds merchant
service exhibited the character Of the
man-of-war's man. even of that period.
The article gives an account OF the trials
pf the contractor for one Of the monitors
before she passed out of his hands. and
mentions tho consumption by the guests
OF "156 bottles OF spir,tuous LIQUORS." the
apparent inference being that the con-
suniers were nava, officers. venture
20 say that there was not n naval officer
aboard excepting the few ordered as "A
board To attend and report upon the ques-
ton OF the vessels acceptance. That Off
GERS upon such duty should have been
guilty OF ouch misconduct Is impossible
Such statements without explanation are
an insult to the service. The consumers
Of these i56 bottles were civilian guests
not naval officers. nearly all of whom
We're On the blockade. of such loose talk
is public sentiment made.
There i In American clubs greatly and
In mos, enormously. more drinking pro-
portiOuately than in any American man.
! of-war and I'm the latter 4 IL confined
by law OF Congress to wines and beer
distilled liquors being forbidden on hoard
ship. II an officer transgresses by hav-
ing such surrepti.iously Il is at his Ersa,
risk venture to say that drunken
captain or drunken officer OF the deck
(, is to-day unknown nothing would be
more swiftly or severely dealt with than
such a de-e,lc,!on. Is II to be supposed
that naval officers do not understand
what /; means They have too much
regard FOR their own lives and those OF
, the ships company 10 brook such things
apart from the safety OF the snip itself
or the honor and dignity OF the service.
| II must he remembered that II an officer
/ be reported for drunkenness the action
originates from his shipmates and not
! IN the Navy Department. and nearly all
such cases arise from convlvial!ty ashore
practically never aboard. There IA p
/ wis. safeguard TOO against any excess
/ IN the careful, scanning By the captain
every month OF the wine mess accounts
! II is thus impossible for any officer 10
show want of moderation at mess, where
any wine or beer being drawn. without
such wan, OF moderation being known
/ 10 the captain.
It IL true that Immediately after the
civl war. now nearly half "A century past
there was a good deal OF scandal, but
! much IL to be pardoned men who had
| just gone through years of war ard four
years of b!ockaiug duty. II should be
| remembered. too. that the very large IN
crease, enormous indeed is the better
word. Of the navy brought temporarily
| into the ward rooms many men from
the merchan; marine service. some OF
| whom. while there were shining excep-
! lions, were Of very rough training
| Looking back over the old navy, who
| will say that Prcble, Decatur, Hull.
| Bainhrldge. the two Perrys. Dupont, the
| Rodgerscs, Porter, Foote. Charles Henry
| Davis. Farragut. Drayton, Melancton
Smith, Sampson and scores Of others
might name could have been brought up
! IA a drunken society OF men? To name
such men carries the answer. But let the
former days have been as they may. the
! present Is remarkably free from scandal
The life OF the naval officer Is too ardu-
Gus, his duties too onerous the ships
committed 10 his care too valuable and
important for such a thing as intoxlca.
ton afoat 10 be tolerated BY naval OIL
GERS themselves The navy has in fact
made itself temperate by its own force
% character.
Whether the navy he "prohlbition''
organization or whether it remain with
the limited prohibition which has cx-
listed for 50 many years. one may rest
assured that tho officers may he trusted
10 ac, as becomes the service The osprit
ana sense OF honor OF the navy are
based upon n sounder foundation than
upon any sunlptuary question. Tho wholo