--158--
No. 359. [1st Session.
20th Congress.]
RULES ADOPTED FOR THE SELECTION OF COMMISSIONED AND WARRANT OFFICERS FOR THE NAVY.
COMMUNICATED TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 14, 1828.
Navy Department, March 12, 1828.
Sir: The Secretary of the Navy, having had the honor to receive the resolution of the House of Representatives, of the 18th February, 1828, directing him "to inform the House what rule, if any, has been adopted in his Department for the selection of the very numerous list of candidates for commissions or warrants, such as the service of these United States may require from time to time; showing, specifically, how far the honor and advantage likely to result therefrom has been or is equalized among the citizens of each and all the States; also, what additional laws or regulations are, in the judgment of the Department, wanted to enable the country to get rid of such as have been received into the service, and are waiting orders, from a knowledge of their disqualification to be trusted in the service, although their conduct may not have been such as properly to subject them to be court-martialed; also, the number of such officers and midshipmen now known to be in the service; and whether those reported as waiting orders are on whole or half pay," has now the honor to present the following report:
The resolution is understood to make four inquiries:
1st. "What rule has been adopted, in the selection of candidates for commissions or warrants, so as to equalize the honor and advantage of the appointments in the navy among the several States; and how far the same have been equalized?"
2d. "How many officers and midshipmen are now known to be in the service, and are waiting orders, from a knowledge of their disqualification to be trusted in the service, although their conduct may not have been such as properly to subject them to be court-martialed?"
3d. "What additional laws or regulations are, in the judgment of the Department, wanted to enable the country to get rid of such?" And,
4th. "Whether those reported as waiting orders are on whole or half pay?"
Previous to the 3d January, 1826, there were not satisfactory documents to show to which State the several navy officers belonged. At that date a circular letter was addressed to each, requiring him to inform the Department in what State he was born, from which appointed, and of which a citizen. Similar letters are sent with new appointments; and the answers received are the guides in preparing the annual registers, in which those circumstances are stated. To these registers reference is made for the number of officers in the several States and Territories when they were printed. The last register, which was sent to Congress at the commencement of the year, contains an answer to so much of the first inquiry as relates to the equality between the States, in the "honor and advantage" of the appointments. There is also added to this report a paper, marked A, which exhibits, at one view, the number of commissioned officers and midshipmen in each State. It shows that the officers of high rank belong principally to the Atlantic States,—Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
--159--
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina, "which is to be accounted for by two facts: 1st. That several of the States, now in the Union, had not a separate existence when these appointments were made; and 2d. That there were, at that period, very few, and, in some instances, no applications from several of the States. An equality in officers of those ranks, among the States now composing the Union, was therefore impracticable. Such equality can exist only in the lowest grade— that of midshipman. It would neither be just nor expedient now to create it, in the whole number of officers, by making all appointments from States in which there is a deficiency, until each shall have as many as its relative present population would demand.
Such a course would reward those who did not seek the service in times when the navy was a less popular resort for our citizens than it is at this day, and would, when those now appointed have risen to the highest grade, create the same inequality in their favor which now exists against them, an equality which neither policy nor justice requires should be made. It has not been the desire, therefore, to render the States equal in the whole number of officers, but in midshipmen only; and the rule adopted has been to make the appointments in proportion to the representation of the States in the two Houses of Congress. This rule has been adhered to as closely as circumstances would permit. By paper B, which is annexed, it will appear how far the effort has been successful, and which States have more, and which have less, than their proportion.
Several appointments will necessarily be made in a few weeks, which will lessen the inequality, and leave not more than four or five of the States deficient in their number. In a short time entire equality will be created; after which, unless a different rule shall be established by legislative authority, appointments will be made in exact proportion to the representation in the two Houses. But it is probable that this rule will not operate so as to keep up an exact equality in the officers: for experience has proved that those who are appointed from the interior, and far from the Atlantic, do not continue as permanently in the service as those whose residence and friends are on the seaboard; and, therefore, although as many appointments may be made, as many officers will not remain in the service from the interior States.
The consequence, however, will be that those which furnish the most persevering officers will have, eventually, the greatest number.
It is proper to remark that the aggregate number of four hundred was taken as the amount by which the calculation was made. This is greater than the average for several years past, but will, probably, fall somewhat below the number which will be in service hereafter. The remainder, however, it is thought just not to subject to the rule of geographical appointment, but to leave for general distribution, with a view to meet strong and urgent cases, and claims arising from public service and other causes. Such cases every one must be aware will sometimes occur, and it would be an unwise dispensation which would forbid the Executive to gratify them.
It is also proper to state that regard had not been had to congressional districts, so as to give one to each. This was formerly impracticable, because the Department has not been informed from what districts appointments were made; nor is it the case in one of twenty applications now made, that the residence of the applicants, as to congressional districts, is stated. Besides, these divisions of territory are arbitrary and changing, and the individual selected may be in one district this year, and in another the next. All, therefore, that has been desired, is to know the State, and the general portion or division of the State, from which the appointment is made; and it is believed that this is the true rule, both as a matter of justice and policy; that any other would injuriously limit the Executive discretion, and prevent the selection of the best materials for the service; a service which cannot always be well performed by some, who might satisfactorily serve the public on the land.
It is true that in some portions of the several States there are many more naval officers than there are in other portions. This has arisen from various causes: from the want of candidates in some, there being districts from which, it is believed, no application has ever been made; from the character of the candidate—for a person of less, would not be preferred to a person of more promise, merely because he came from a particular district; and also, among other causes, probably from the proximity to the seat of government, by which the citizens were induced to apply when others did not.
The adjoining congressional district, composed of Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, is an example of this. There are from that district not less than twenty officers of the navy and marine corps, when, by its population, it is not entitled to more than three or four. This great inequality it will be the business of the Department to correct.
The average appointments for the last four years have been a little more than sixty; which would allow one to each congressional district about every four years, or to each State as many, in four years, as it has representatives. In Virginia, for example, twenty-four in four years, or six in each year.
More than this proportion has been given, and will continue to be given, to the States which have less than their share, until they are brought to the same condition as the rest.
From the preceding statement, it appears that the rule of the Department is designed to equalize, as speedily as circumstances will permit, the number of midshipmen in the several States, and then to make appointments from them, in proportion to their representation in Congress, without regard to the number which may remain in the service.
In answer to the second inquiry, it is respectfully suggested that the disqualification of officers to perform duty may arise from sickness, from want of capacity and experience, and from bad habits. Several are now on leave of absence, from the first cause, and in such a service there must be some such at all times; in most instances the sickness being produced by the very duties which they have performed. Want of capacity and experience may operate to prevent the employment of an officer in certain duties, while he is perfectly prepared and competent to discharge others; and he may be unemployed, because the services for which he is best fitted may not be required at the time. This seldom operates so as to prevent the employment of many, and of none for a long period. Bad or intemperate habits are doubtless a decisive disqualification; but of these the Department can be informed only officially. It would be an injustice, against which every citizen of the republic would protest, if the Department should act upon rumor in such cases, and punish or dismiss the accused. Whenever information is received, on which reliance can be placed, that an officer is intemperate, or has been intoxicated while on duty, no hesitation is felt in causing him to be tried. On this point great rigor has been manifested, and not a few have been compelled to leave the service within the last three years; more, probably, than at any former period of our naval history. It is due, however, to justice, to declare explicitly, and it is done with more
--160--
than ordinary gratification, that no corps of officers of equal extent, in this or any other country, has, probably, ever been more exempt from disqualifying habits than are the navy officers at this moment. Intemperance is regarded not merely as dangerous, but as disgraceful. Nor have there ever been fewer officers incompetent from any cause to discharge their duties. It is not, however, intended to convey the idea that there are none such. They are, nevertheless, few; and it is the duty of the Department, when their incompetency can be established, from any cause which impeaches their character as officers, to remove them as an unnecessary burden on the public; a duty which, it is believed, has not heretofore been neglected. It will readily be perceived that the Department is not able to state how many are disqualified, or to give a more definite answer to this part of the resolution.
It is not to be inferred that all who are noted in the register as waiting orders, or on leave of absence or furlough, at the time it was printed, are unfit to do duty, nor that they are still unemployed. Changes are constantly taking place, and what is true of the occupation of the officers to-day will not be true tomorrow. Of those whose situations and duties are mentioned in the register, four are now under suspension; three have been cashiered; five have resigned; about twenty are sick; two hundred have returned from long cruises in the North Carolina, United States, and other vessels; seventy-five have been ordered to duty; and sixty-eight were waiting for examination, some of whom have been examined and promoted, and others are now in active service. Some of the most useful and valuable officers are occasionally unemployed for short periods. Nor is it possible, in any service of any kind, that this should not be the case. It has always been deemed just that officers, when injured in health by the duties they have performed, should have leave of absence, to seek its restoration; and that those who have been constantly occupied for years, at a distance from their home and friends, should be permitted to see them, and pay some attention to their private interests. These and other causes will uniformly create what is an unavoidable necessity, that one-fourth or one-fifth should not be actively engaged in duty.
In reply to the third inquiry, it is remarked, that the best and safest mode "to get rid of" such officers as are "disqualified" by bad habits, is to render the organization of the navy, and the rules for its government and for the trial of offences, as plain, explicit, and efficient as is practicable. There are many defects in the system, as it now exists, which not only impede rigid discipline, but tempt to incorrect conduct, and render its punishment difficult. It does not seem necessary here to detail the views of the Department respecting the proper organization of the navy, or the code of criminal laws and regulations by which it should be governed. They have been repeatedly suggested in reports, to which reference is respectfully made, and especially to that presented to the Senate on the 12th January, 1828.
With useful rules, and tribunals wisely constituted to enforce them, there can be no serious difficulty in keeping the service free from unworthy members. Without them, no energy, within the pale of the law, can accomplish it fully. When a proper system shall be provided by the wisdom of Congress, it will be the fault of the administration of the Department if any just complaint should exist upon this subject.
It is known to Congress that many regulations have been made, and are now in operation, to prevent as far as possible incompetent and unfit persons from entering the service, or for expelling them after they shall have entered it.
None are appointed midshipmen who are not within 14 and 20 years of age, and in whose favor there is not satisfactory evidence of a sound constitution, correct habits, and good English education. It is contemplated to limit hereafter the age of admission to eighteen.
For the first six mouths in active service at sea, they are strictly on trial, and, unless their conduct be correct, and they give promise of usefulness, they do not receive warrants, but have permission to retire. This affords the first opportunity of relieving the service of such as are not likely to do it benefit. When appointed, they are mere boys, generally without experience or skill, or well established habits and character. They are not, therefore, regularly commissioned officers, but have warrants. Within the last year, a general regulation was published, which provides that their examination shall take place after they have been three years at sea, and five in the service. This examination is rigid, and those unfit, from their habits or ignorance, cannot pass it. Failing once, a second opportunity is offered, and upon a second failure, they are dismissed or permitted to resign. Having passed, they receive a new warrant, and their pay is increased until the public interest permits their promotion. It may be confidently said, that no general regulation has ever produced better effects upon the industry, habits and intelligence of any class of officers; and the result will be that, in the course of a few months, no midshipman will be in the service of older date of warrant than 1820. This examination affords a second opportunity to relieve the public from those who are unfit for advancement to the higher grades. It is not very probable, under these arrangements, that improper or incompetent persons will pass the ordeal, and become commissioned officers. Thus far, we seem to have all the necessary guards against the admission of such as are described in the resolution. But it may, and sometimes does happen, that officers, once commissioned, become careless, both in regard to their moral character and deportment, and to the acquisition of knowledge and skill in their profession. A man may be eminently qualified to enter the rank of lieutenant, and yet may not be fit for promotion to a higher grade when the service requires it. Another and a rigid test ought to be provided, of which the officers should have full warning, as well as time and opportunity to prepare for it. Such a test will be found in an examination conducted on proper principles, both as to character and skill; and however unpleasant it may be in the first instance, yet, when established, and the officers have had sufficient opportunity to be prepared, it cannot be doubted that it will produce a beneficial effect on the habits and industry of all. It will be more likely, than any other mode, to prevent the exercise of undue partiality and favoritism, both in the officers who are in command, and the Department which recommends for promotion.
The effect of these examinations has been tried, not only in the case of midshipmen, but in another most important class of officers. It was formerly the practice to appoint surgeons and surgeons' mates upon general recommendations. The Executive, as might be supposed, was often grievously deceived in the qualifications of those whom it selected, and consequences of a painful kind not unfrequently resulted to our officers and seamen.
In the month of May, 1824, the Department resolved to establish a board of old and skillful surgeons, for the examination of those who should apply for the appointment of surgeon's mate, or for promotion as surgeon, and to recommend to the President no one who had not submitted to an examination, and been declared, by that board, to be qualified for the place which he sought, by his talents, acquirements, and character. Such a board has, from time to time, been constituted, whenever appointments or promotions
--161--
were necessary, and the result has been most gratifying. The character of the corps has been elevated, and now contains men inferior to none of their age in merit and acquirement.
In answer to this third inquiry, then, it may be said that the object will be best attained by providing a proper organization of the navy; a system of rules and regulations, with well constituted tribunals for the trial and punishment of offenders; and by examinations, which will prevent those "disqualified" from being advanced in the service.
In reply to the fourth inquiry, it is observed that all officers on temporary leave of absence from duty, or waiting orders, are regarded as coming within the description in the law, "under orders for actual service," and receive full pay. Those on furlough receive half their monthly pay. This subject, and the reasoning upon it, have been heretofore presented to Congress, and need not now be repeated.
All which is respectfully submitted.
SAM'L L. SOUTHARD.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives.
A.
Table showing the number of commission and warrant officers of the United States navy appointed fromeach State and Territory.
States. |
Captains. |
Masters commandant. |
Lieutenants. |
Surgeons. |
Surgeons' mates. |
Pursers. |
Chaplains. |
Midshipmen. |
Total. |
Maine |
1 |
6 |
1 |
8 |
16 |
||||
New Hampshire |
5 |
1 |
10 |
16 |
|||||
Vermont |
1 |
7 |
8 |
||||||
Massachusetts |
1 |
1 |
20 |
3 |
5 |
1 |
18 |
49 |
|
Rhode Island |
2 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
6 |
17 |
|||
Connecticut |
2 |
6 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
15 |
29 |
|
New York |
5 |
3 |
38 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
2 |
48 |
115 |
New Jersey |
3 |
1 |
20 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
20 |
49 |
|
Pennsylvania |
9 |
4 |
25 |
6 |
10 |
7 |
1 |
38 |
100 |
Delaware |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
10 |
||
Maryland |
5 |
4 |
28 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
1 |
35 |
89 |
District of Columbia |
2 |
10 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
23 |
46 |
|
Virginia |
6 |
7 |
33 |
4 |
7 |
4 |
62 |
123 |
|
North Carolina |
1 |
15 |
16 |
||||||
South Carolina |
3 |
14 |
2 |
10 |
29 |
||||
Georgia |
3 |
1 |
9 |
13 |
|||||
Alabama |
1 |
6 |
7 |
||||||
Louisiana |
4 |
9 |
13 |
||||||
Kentucky |
2 |
1 |
11 |
14 |
|||||
Ohio |
3 |
13 |
16 |
||||||
Tennessee |
1 |
9 |
10 |
||||||
Indiana |
7 |
7 |
|||||||
Mississippi |
2 |
1 |
5 |
8 |
|||||
Illinois |
2 |
2 |
|||||||
Missouri |
4 |
4 |
|||||||
Florida |
1 |
4 |
5 |
||||||
Michigan |
2 |
2 |
|||||||
Arkansas |
|||||||||
Total |
33 |
28 |
227 |
36 |
37 |
43 |
8 |
401 |
813 |
B.
Statement showing the proportion of midshipmen to which each State and Territory is entitled, according to its representation in Congress, allowing the aggregate number to be 400, or one and a half to each representative; also, the excess or deficiency in each State and Territory.
States. |
Representation. |
Proportion. |
Number in service. |
Excess. |
Deficiency. |
Maine |
9 |
13 |
8 |
5 |
|
New Hampshire. |
8 |
12 |
10 |
2 |
|
Vermont |
7 |
10 |
7 |
3 |
|
Massachusetts |
15 |
22 |
18 |
4 |
|
Rhode Island |
4 |
6 |
6 |
||
Connecticut |
8 |
12 |
15 |
3 |
|
New York |
36 |
54 |
48 |
6 |
--162--
B.—Statement—Continued.
States. |
Representation. |
Proportion. |
Number in service. |
Excess. |
Deficiency. |
New Jersey |
8 |
12 |
20 |
8 |
|
Pennsylvania |
28 |
42 |
38 |
4 |
|
Delaware |
3 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
|
Maryland |
11 |
16 |
35 |
19 |
|
District of Columbia |
23 |
23 |
|||
Virginia |
24 |
36 |
62 |
26 |
|
North Carolina |
15 |
22 |
15 |
7 |
|
South Carolina |
11 |
16 |
10 |
6 |
|
Georgia |
9 |
13 |
9 |
4 |
|
Alabama |
5 |
7 |
6 |
1 |
|
Louisiana |
5 |
7 |
9 |
2 |
|
Mississippi |
3 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
|
Tennessee |
11 |
16 |
9 |
7 |
|
Kentucky |
14 |
21 |
11 |
10 |
|
Ohio |
16 |
24 |
13 |
11 |
|
Indiana |
5 |
7 |
7 |
||
Illinois |
3 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
Missouri |
3 |
4 |
4 |
||
Michigan |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
Arkansas |
1 |
1 |
1 |
||
Florida |
1 |
1 |
4 |
3 |