The sun., 1917-01-21
Revised Statutes Said to
Make Confirmation of
Nominee Illegal.
BASIS OF SENATE FIGHT
Daniels Vainly Sought Opinion
of Judge Advocate General
to Support Boost.

Grayson. his youthful golf partner and
physician. confirmed as medical direc-
tor Of the United States navy. will be
attacked in the Senate as illegal. The
whole plan to deliver up the richest
plum in the navy stan corps on basis
of personal friendship Is now alleged to
be directly in violation Of sections 1474
and 1879 inclusive Of the revised statutes
Of the navy
It is contended that the navy bill Of
August 20 not only gave the President
no authority to make these staff corps
appointments but was framed in such
manner as to annul the scheme to have
these prizes left open.
Investigation by THE SUN correspond
ent to-day shows that the President.
Secretary Daniels. Senators Tillman and
Swanson and some of the direct bene-
fciaries were all active in paving the
way for the particular promotion OF DIR.
Grayson and incidentally for the promo
tions of Dr. William G. Braisted, Sur
gen General Of the Navy; Paymaster-
General Samuel McGowan and Civil En-
gineer Frederick r. Harris. There was
apparently much secrecy about the
whole plan.
Naval circles are seething with stories
of all kinds concerning how the plan in
its successive steps was worked out.
Ignoring all such reports tina. cannot be
substantiated, there would still seem to
be evidence of a promotion pork plot
that has amazed official circles.
Chief Contractors Case,
The promotion OF Chief Constructor
David w. Taylor, the only one thus far
confirmed by the Senate. was not appar-
entity part Of the scheme. Constructor
Taylor heads the list Of naval construc-
tors. In confirming him the Senate
strictly adhered to the law regarding
promotions in the staff which stipulates
that these promotions must be made by
seniority.
But the supposition that the navy bill
OF August 90 sanctioned any other form
of selection for the stan corps Is now de-
clared to be erroneous by those who
have looked into the matter. The Ad-
ministration tried to incorporate In the
law a provision for special selection to
tit a case like Graysons. but II broke
down when the bill went into confer
ence.
As the naval bill went to the Senate
from the House there was no personal
legislation in II. II was at this stage
that the first moves were made by Sec
retary Daniels and Senators Tillman
and Swanson with view to providing
special promotions" In the staff. AS a
result the bill came from the Senate
with provisions for appointments of
deputy surgeon general" deputy pay
master general" &C.
at.,sy, 20
with them the rank Of rear admiral and
were to be made permanent. The chief
OF bureaus of all the staff corps received
the rank OF rear admiral, but for terms
of four years only.
Why the Surgeon-General or the Pay
master General were to have this rank
for four years only while the deputies"
were to have this high rank and high
pay for life was a puzzle which Adminis-
tration leaders found it embarrassing to
explain when the bill went into confer
ence.
1t aroused such protest that the
measure was changed to provide merely
for additional medical directors. pay
directors. civil engineers. &C." grades
which already existed. II Is not unusual
in the navy to have officers Of two ranks
in the same grade.
seniority Rule Remained.
But the navy bill OF August 90 in per-
mittng the appointment OF additional
medical directors with the rank OF rear
admiral. examination reveals. contains
no provision offsctting the statutory law
that these appointments must be gov
erned by seniority. While the law did
provide service method of selections
for promotion in the line OF the navy, II
laf In, of tha
Grayson one. still governed by revised
statutes 1474-1479, establishing grades
for the stan corps OF the navy.
1t was also pointed out to-day that
section 1880. revised statutes. provides
that "The grades established in the six
preceding sections for the staff corps of
the navy shall be Allied by appointment
from the highest member Of each corps.
according to seniority: the new commits
sions shall be issued to the officer so
appointed, In which the title and grades
established in said sections shall be in
serted and no existing commission shall
be vacated in the said several staff corps
except by the issue Of the new commits
sions required by the new provisions of
this section. And no officer shall be re-
duced In rank or lose seniority In his
own corps by any change which may be
required under the provisions OF the said
six preceding sections"
1t Ia learned to-day that this law has
only once been challenged In modern
times. That was In 1881, when 1t was
proposed to make a promotion which
would cause stan officers to lose senior
ity. or In other words to permit the pro-
motion of another over them. The mat
ter was referred to Attorney General
Charles Devens. who promptly snufYed
out the attempt as illegal. In sending
his opinion to the Navy Department Mr..
Devens. under date OF February 25, 1881,
wrote as follows:
"rhis section I4S0. revised statutes)
contemplated, II seems to me, by the use
Of the words highest members In each
corps. according to seniority that the
promotions should be made by seniority,
and the provision that no officer shall
be reduced In rank or lose seniority &c,
contemplated also that unless this provi-
sion we're inserted changes would be
made In grades or numbers which had
been heretofore fxed. which II is not the
intention OF Congress TO disturb. The
effect OF II fs to adopt the rule. of Sc
niorlty In regard to promotions from one
grade to another In the stan CORPS"
Secretary Daniels. II was learned to-
day. asked Capt. Ridley Mclean, judge
Advocate General Of the navy, for an
opinion a. to whether the law permitted