RANK IN THE NAYY. 
SPEECH 
OF 
HON. AARON F. STEVENS, 
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 
DELIVERED 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
January 23, 1871. 
WASHINGTON, D. C. : 
JUDD & DETWEILER, PRINTERS AND PUBLISHERS 
1871, SPEECH 
The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. No. 1832) to regulate rank 
in the Navy of the United States, and for other purposes— 
Mr. STEVENS said: 
Mr. Speaker : As the gentleman from Pennsylvania does not in- 
dicate the amount of time which he wishes to occupy, I will proceed 
to state generally the provisions of the bill, and to some extent its 
history, after which I will cheerfully yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania. 
I am quite sure that the gentlemen of this House, whose attention 
I shall have the honor-to secure, will not confess themselves strangers 
to the question raised by the provisions of this bill. Nor will they, 
I think, treat it as a trivial or unimportant question, connected as 
it is with one of the principal branches of the public service. I do 
not seek to disguise the fact that within the past two years the regu- 
lation of rank in the Navy has become a question of more public 
importance than has ever been conceded to it in former times outside 
of those immediately interested in its settlement. It is but truth to 
say that no question of military organization and detail has ever, 
except in time of war, excited so much interest as that to which I 
now desire to call the attention of the House, and which this bill 
seeks to regulate and fix upon a just and permanent basis. Why is 
this? Certainly not because there is any considerable class in or 
out of the Navy that desire to disturb a well-settled and just principle 
of organization ; a principle which ought to be recognized as regular, 
equitable, and in accordance with well-established military rules. 
Experience shows that in military, as in civil organizations, just 
and correct principles and rules of action furnish the basis of acqui- 
escence and contentment; while, on the other hand, radical defects 
and unjust rules are constantly a source of irritation and friction, 
producing discord, hostility, and disturbance. It is not in the nature 
of man, nor is it in accordance with our experience or the teachings 
of philosophy, either in civil or military affairs, to find a perfect and 
correct organization cursed with intestine discord, convulsed with 
internal quarrels, or, as my friend from Maine once expressed it, 
with the hands of its honorable members at each others’ throats. 
From the fact of the bitter controversy which has arisen and been 
continued in the Navy, and which now exists there, weakening its 
efficiency and annoying the country and Congress with its com- 
plaints, I argue confidently that there must be something wrong in 
an organization which can give rise to and constantly be involved in 
this marked and disagreeable controversy. There must be a defect 
somewdiere, there must be something wrong. We may differ as to 4 
the cause, we may not agree as to the point where the blame rests, 
but I think all who have traced the history of the question, or given 
the subject even a superficial examination, will admit that it is abso- 
lutely necessary to the prosperity of the Navy and to the vindication 
of ourselves as legislators that the cause of dissension should be 
removed so far as we have it in our power to effect so desirable an 
object. 
Entertaining upon this subject views of my own, not hastily 
adopted, and entirely unconnected as I am with any personal inter- 
est or consideration in connection with the official corps of the Navy, 
I ask attention while I present them to the House in aid of the pro- 
visions of this bill. 
A MILITARY QUESTION. 
Let me say, in the first place, that this is a military question. I 
claim, therefore, the right to draw especially to its consideration the 
attention of gentlemen upon this floor who have heretofore, many 
of them, acted a prominent part in the military organization of the 
country, and I ask them frankly to listen to me, to question me, to 
criticise the provisions of the bill, to search the reasons which I may 
be able to offer in its support, to object and to amend if they shall 
find cause for such intervention ; but above all I crave their earnest 
and careful attention to the discussion and the consideration of the 
question. 
A military organization has within itself, necessarily, many ele- 
ments of exclusiveness and caste, but when to these natural tenden- 
cies is added an educational process which, taking possession of the 
boy in his tender years by a well-prepared and successive course of 
training, leads him up to rank and command, there is infused into 
his mind, and he carries with him, perhaps almost unconsciously, 
into the discharge of his duties a spirit of intense egotism and con- 
tempt for those very elements of society out of which he sprung. 
This is the natural tendency of military culture, as it is the philosophy 
of military organization. 
The schools of West Point and Annapolis are often cited as promi- 
nent instances of the fostering care which has been extended by the 
nation to these anti-republican tendencies. It is more particularly 
with the latter that I wish to deal at this time. That the school of 
Annapolis has become, par excellence, the hot-bed and nursery of 
American military aristocracy and caste I think no student of our 
progress will deny. In asserting this Ido not mean to charge the 
students of that Academy With all the results of their education at 
that institution. Ido not mean to say that the young men who re- 
ceive their military training there are at fault in this particular. It 
is the fruit of the system of the instruction and of the exclusiveness 
OUR NAVAL SCHOOL. 5 
inculcated there. Let it be remembered that it is only the officers 
of the line who are admitted and educated there. Everything else 
has been eliminated from the sacred precincts. The staff officers are 
educated in and selected from civil life. They represent the citizen 
element. They are not trained on the bounty or charity of the Gov- 
ernment. They are educated at our schools, academies, and colleges, 
while the line officer is taken at a tender age, placed in the school of 
Annapolis, and early taught that his is to be a life of authority and 
command, consecrated to exclusiveness and rank, and that all talent, 
culture, skill, experience, and age outside of the line are to be subor- 
dinated to that part of our naval organization in all time to come. 
This idea is impressed upon the young cadet in every way that in- 
genuity can devise, or authority enforce. It grows with his growth 
and strengthens with his strength. Instead of being told that they 
are to rely upon their talents and acquirements solely for usefulness 
and distinction, they are advised that their importance and success 
depend materially on maintaining the exclusiveness of their rank. 
Without rank they are nothing; with rank they are superior to all 
that do not share in its full enjoyment. They are taught to believe 
that it would be a disgrace to share that rank with those who come 
into the military service from the professions and skilled occupations 
of civil life. They are taught that a sailing ship alone can properly 
educate the sailor, and that steam and steam machinery are innova- 
tions costly and unprofessional, and to be tolerated only as a matter 
of necessity. They listen to the honorable Secretary of the Navy 
when he tells them— 
“ That lounging the watches of a steamer or acting as fireman and coal-heaver 
will not produce in a seaman that combination of boldness, strength, and skill 
which characterized the American sailor of the elder day; and the habitual ex- 
ercise by an officer of a command, the execution of which is not under his own 
eye, is a poor substitute for the school of observation, promptness, and command 
found only on the deck of a sailing vessel.” 
So it is when the cadet comes out from the school of Annapolis he 
is found, even in the early stages of his professional life, the trained 
antagonist, sometimes socially and always professionally, of his 
brother officer of the staff. He assumes his place in the official corps 
of the Navy with a sneer at the surgeon or the engineer, who has 
been educated in civil life, and whom he has been taught to call a 
“civilian,” or “ non-combatant,” though he may be in all repsects, 
except rank, his equal or superior, a first-class man in all particulars 
save in artificial distinction, a man of the highest skill, capacity, and 
intelligence; such a man as is recognized and appreciated every- 
where, and, in all military organizations except the American Navy, 
accorded rank commensurate with his age, accomplishments, and 
responsibilities. Thus the line officer, quite naturally, and perhaps 
in some instances unconsciously, as he ascends step by step to the 
higher grades which, during and since the war, have been so liber- 
ally bestowed upon his corps, he carries with himthespirit of military 
domination crystalized into a professional and social aristocracy. 6 
Now, Mr. Speaker, you may tell me that this is the spirit and the 
tendency of all military education. I admit it. Observation shows 
it, history teaches it, the world has come long since to acknowledge 
it, governments, in the progress of human affairs, have been called 
to observe and deal with it. It is the question we are dealing with 
to-day. It is a question which this Government has heretofore 
grappled with, and in its Army has modified and restrained, placing 
the official corps of that branch of the service upon a footing at once 
just, practical, and American. How has it been done? By the legis- 
lation of Congress. Such evils, sir, seldom cure themselves. They 
need the pruning-knife of legislation. Power and authority seldom 
of their own accord relinquish their hold upon any organization, 
especially a military one. Every liberal Government has found that 
out, and, with a single exception, applied the remedy; and that ex- 
ception involves the Navy of the United States. 
Let me be just, sir, Congress has inaugurated this restraining and 
remedial policy in regard to our Navy, The department has at times 
been found in sympathy with this policy, but it has been largely 
thwarted by the influence and activity of the officers of the line ; and 
now Congress is called upon to complete the woi;k. There is only 
one way that it can be done, and that is by law. 
The Navy is a military organization, with .an official body, con- 
sisting of line and staff. The latter ask Congress to give them the 
recognition of fixed, definite, and positive rank, without enhanced 
command, thus placing them on the same relative footing with the 
staff of the Army. That is their prayer. 
DUNE AND STAFF. 
In o:\'.cr to understand quite distinctly a military organization, as 
it respects line and staff, I beg leave to call the attention of the House 
to the definition which has been given by the distinguished General 
of the Army in his annual report of 1870. Under the head of “Staff 
of the Army,” he says: 
“ This term applies to those officers and men who administer to the wants of 
every military establishment, and are in our service classified as adjutant gene- 
rals, inspector generals, Bureau of Military Justice, quartermasters, commis- 
saries, surgeons, paymasters and ordnance departments, corps of engineers, and 
chief signal officers, and post chaplains. The names imply their respective duties, 
and the organic law of 1866 limits and prescribes their number.” 
From this high authority we learn with precision what symmetri- 
cal military organization is in its official relations of line and staff. 
In the Navy the staff’ departments are represented by surgeons, 
paymasters, and engineers; and it is proposed by the bill to add 
chaplains, constructors, and professors of mathematics. In general 
terms the line consists of the officers who have command, from ad- 
miral to midshipman. The intensity of the pending controversy is 
largely due to the attempt, on the part of the line, to abolish the dis- 
tinction of line and staff in the Navy ; to obliterate the latter as a 
distinctive part of its organization, and to arrogate to the line by 7 
legal enactment the entire prestige, representation, and power of its 
official classes. Within the past two years the attempt has been 
made to give the sanction of law to this ambitious scheme. In a bill 
which passed the Senate, known as the “Grimes bill,” and which 
was strongly urged upon your committee a year since by Vice- 
Admiral Porter, there was a provision to the effect that hereafter 
the designation of staff corps should not be used in the Navy, and 
the new book of regulations carefully ignores the distinction. While 
abolishing the staff as a distinctive part of the Navy, in order to 
capture and hold in the grasp of the line the entire power and control 
of the service, the “Grimes bill” provided also for a “ board of sur- 
vey,” to consist of three line officers, “not below’ the rank of rear 
admiral,” to whom the Secretary of the Navy should be subordinate 
and responsible, abolishing the bureau system and throwing a mili- 
tary protectorate over the Department, Secretary, and all. This was 
an attempt on the part of the line to place the Navy Department in 
“commission,” organizing something like the old exploded board of 
English admiralty, consisting of three officers of the Navy, and rep- 
resenting solely that portion which may be called the sailing talent 
of our marine, which was to take possession and control of the Navy, 
and under whose direction and advice it was to be organized, kept 
up, and administered, while the Secretary of the Navy was substan- 
tially to be but a figure-head, set up for the admiration of the gentle- 
men who were to walk the quarter-deck, “monarchs of all they 
survey.” We once had such a commission as that fora series of 
years. sir, it was exploded, and another system sub- 
stituted before our civil war broke out. 
Now, this whole project of a board of survey was attacked, dis- 
cussed, and exploded in Congress in 18G5. Yet the line officers, with 
their usual disregard of the will of Congress, except when its action 
tends to their advancement, returned to their favorite schemes of 
placing the Navy Department in commission, and embodied their 
purpose in the “Grimes bill.” It may be profitable to recur to the 
congressional history of the attempt in 1865. I have only time to 
glance at it. 
The project, substantially that of the “Grimes bill,” was intro- 
duced into the House of Representatives by Mr. Winter Davis, and 
into the Senate by Mr. Wade, 1865. In the discussion of that bill, 
Senator Grimes denounced the identical scheme that was subse- 
quently embodied in his bill, in the following language : 
“The amendment [of Mr. Wade] means neither more nor less than this, if it 
means anything; to put the Navai Department into commission, to put It into 
leading strings, to put it in the control of some line officers who have been for a 
long time in the service; or else it means to furnish to the Naval Department a 
subterfuge by which it can at all times avoid responsibility. Either it means to 
give the control of the Navy Department to these commissioners, or else the ef- 
fect will be to furnish the Secretary of the Navy the means in the future of 
avoiding all responsibility for his ads by thrusting everything off upon this 
board of commissioners. Di you wish to divide responsibility thus ? Do you 
wish to give the Secretary of the Navy an opportunity to shuffle off all responsi- 
bility for his acts upon this board of Irresponsible officers, who hold their com- 
missions by a life tenure ? I surely do not. 8 
“ Yet, Mr. President, that will be the effect of this amendment if adopted. That 
is the effect of the British admiralty administration to-day. There is nothing 
that the members of the naval profession in England are so anxious to get rid of 
as their admiralty system, after which this amendment is modeled. They saw 
fit two Hundred years ago to put their office of lord high admiral into commis- 
sion, and it is now wielded by Just about such a board as the Senator has pro- 
posed to create here. And what is the result of it? Precisely the result that I 
predict will follow here. A British writer on the admiralty administration says : 
‘“lt is unnecessary to insist at any length on the evil of divided councils, 
which must often occur among six persons brought together by the chapter of 
accidents, without previous knowledge of each other's views, and in fact the ad- 
miralty often represents nothing so completely as the endless diversity of opin- 
ions which prevail among naval officers, a diversity which, on the other hand, 
is partly accounted for by the absence of any standard course of policy to be 
discovered in the conduct of successive naval administrations.’ 
“And he says, further : 
“ ‘ With respect to naval officers the case is not more encouraging, for the only 
one subject on which there is general agreement among them is the utter hope- 
lessness of any good result arising from a system which is felt to hang like a 
blight over the navy.’ , 
“That is a navy board, which the Senator from Ohio would induce the Ameri- 
can Senate to adopt and incorporate into our system. Sir Charles Napier, a 
great naval authority, says : 
“ ‘ Believing, as I do, that no permanent good can be done for the service 
until the board of admiralty is abolished, I shall point out what appears to me 
would be the best mode of ruling the navy, although that step has not been 
taken.’ 
“ Sir George Cockburn has said : 
“Having filed the station of confidential or principal sea lord of the admi- 
ralty for more than seventeen years, I feel that my opinion regarding the con- 
stitution of the board may sooner or later be deemed worthy of consideration 
and attention. I am induced, therefore, to place in writing the decisions to 
which my experience has brought me on this point. 
“ ‘ I have no hesitation in stating that I consider the present establishment of 
that board to be the most unsatisfactory and least efficient for its purpose that 
could have been devised.’ 
“ Mr. President, if you adopt this scheme for a board of admiralty, one or two 
things will follow, either the appointments that Avill be made under it will be 
made by the President of the United States, upon the suggestion of the Secre- 
lary of the Navy, and, therefore, you will have no more nor less than the tools, 
the pets, or the friends of the Secretary of the Navy to compose it, or the ap- 
pointments will be made independently of him and will be antagonistic to 
him, and thus you will secure divided councils. Which of the horns of that 
dilemma will the Senate prefer? Suppose that a new Secretary of the Navy 
should come into office on the 4th of March, will not the President detail or ap- 
point, for his associates in this board, men whom he will designate, with whom 
he is familiar, and with whom he is willing to co-operate? Or, if the present 
Secretary shall be continued, do you suppose the President will select men 
whom Mr. Welles will not desire to unite in his councils ? If they are not thus 
appointed, if the President does not regard the wishes of the Secretary, as I 
suppose he will, he will select men who are in opposition and in hostility to 
him, and in that case how will the Navy Department be conducted? You will 
have such confusion as no executive office in the Government was ever yet 
cursed with. 
“Mr. President, I trust that it is hardly necessary for me to say anything 
more this evening in opposition to the adoption of this amendment. I believe 
that a more disastrous measure for the Navy could not be devised. I know 
that there are some officers who are in favor of it. lam tolerably familiar with 
the sentiment of the Navy, and while some of the older officers who have spoken 
with me, and others who have not spoken with me with whom I am acquainted, 
are in favor of it. I know that the bone and sinew, the heart and muscle, of 
the Navy, the men who do the labor and who are destined to do it, the men in 
mature life, and from that down to the young passed midshipmen, are utterly 
and wholly hostile to it. 
“ Sir, what has been our experience on this subject ? We had this Navy board 
once, or something tantamount to it. As a friend said to me yesterday, when 
the proposition was introduced here, ‘ When we got rid of the old board in 1842 
we felt as Sinbad the sailor felt when the Old Man of the Sea was lifted off his 
shoulders.’ It was an incubus on the Navy, and was so regarded at that time 
by everybody except some of the old post captains who were assigned as mem- 
bers of the board. It was an inefficient organization and was so considered by 
every one whose opinion was worth anything. Every nation on the face of the 
earth that has had it or anything like it is attempting to abolish it.” 
In the House of Representatives, Mr. Rice, of Massachusetts, 
chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs, met the proposition 
Its follows : 9 
“I think the gentleman [Mr. Davis] has been unfortunate in the selection of 
the proposition which he has submitted to the House. It is, sir, nothing more 
nor less than that this Congress and the Navy Department of the United States 
shall throw away all the teachings of experience, both at home and abroad, and 
shall take a retrograde step, placing the administration of our naval affairs 
where it was nearly a century ago.” " * * * * * * * 
“ the question of the expediency of putting the Navy Department under the 
surveillance of a board of examiners, or a board of administration, the com- 
mittee proceeded to consider as soon as ihey could gain time from the pressure 
of other and more important matters; and, as 1 said before, weeks ago they 
were ready to submit their action and conclusions to this House as soon as its 
rules would permit, and, ij necessary to do so, to subjn.it the reasons for the 
decision to which they arrived. 
“ Now, I desire to say here, that the report which the committee are ready to 
make whenever they have an opportunity is adverse to the proposition sub- 
mitted by the honorable gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. Davis,] and if the 
House will indulge me I will proceed to state, with as much brevity as the cir- 
cumstances permit, some of the reasons wnich have led us to that conclusion. 
The proposition of the honorable gentl-man is substantially that the Navy 
Department of the United States shall be put under a similar kind of adminis- 
tration to that by willch the British navy is at present controlled ; and I need 
not say to any gentleman who has examined that subject, that the British 
board of admiralty is to-day, of all administrative things in England, the most 
unpopular among the people end Government of that nation. 
“ The administration of the navy of Great Britain was vested originally in 
an officer called the ‘ lord high admiral ot the British Navy,’ an office which has 
not been filled, except for a very short period, for nearly one hundred and 
eighty years, the exception being its occupation by the Duke of Clarence, in 
1827; at all other times it lias been placed in commission, as the phrase is, a 
commission consisting of two lords, four commissioners, and two secretaries, 
the incumbents being so appointed and retired as to be in harmony and sympa- 
thy with the dominant party in the Government for the time being. And what 
has been the result ? Just precisely what one would expect would be the re- 
sult of the action of an organization having no individual responsibility, and 
feeling the stimulus of no executive power.” 
After reviewing the merits of the British system, on board of 
admiralty, Mr. Rice continues: 
“Other leading men and authorities have spoken of this board in even 
stronger terms of disfavor as a feeble and unsatisfactory mode of administer- 
ing the Navy, and this in such numbers as to lead one to suppose that nothing 
but the proverbial unwillingness to make a radical change in any part of their 
governmental organization would tolerate its continuance. And let me call 
attention to the tact that it is not against the personnel of this board of admi- 
ralty that the objection lies, but against the system itself; for the board of ad- 
miralty of Great Britain has from time to time embraced some of the wisest, 
some of the most experienced, and some of the most judicious naval authori- 
ties in Great Britain. But during all the time ot its existence down to the pres- 
ent it has hardly been able promptly and efficiently to pat forth the efforts 
which were necessary to provide against the exigencies ot war which at all 
times are liable to occur. 
“As I have already shown, British authorities, who have investigated for 
themselves the subject, declare in their periodicals, reports, and speeches that 
this board ot admiralty is an organization which is defective in its very nature, 
and, therefore, it cannot be made of paramount value by the administration of 
any men, however efficient, excellent, and experienced they may be. Yet this, 
let me say, is substantially the system which the honorable gentleman from 
Maryland, (Mr. Davis,) if I understand him, desires we shall establish here; a 
system which, after a test of more than two hundred years in Great Britain, is 
more than almost anything else connected with their government in disrepute, 
both with the Government and with the people, and has singularly failed In pre- 
senting any positive advantage, as the present condition of the British navy 
shows. Tins is the system which the honorable gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Davis) dfes.ies us to institute here. This is the kind of trammel that he desires 
to put over the chief officer of our Navy Department.” 
“Now, sir, the gentleman from Maryland in proposing this measure has not 
only run contrary to the experience of France and of Kngland upon this subject, 
but he proposes to leap over the whole period of time during which this Govern- 
ment has had an existence. Why, sir, when the Navy of the United States first 
came into being, in 1775, we then had a marine committee. In 1776 we had what 
was called a continental Navy board. In 1779 we had a board of admiralty. In 
1798 a Navy Department was established, with a Secretary of the Navy. In 1815 
we had a board of Navy commissioners appointed. In 1842 all these irresponsi- 
ble boards, these debating societies organized to discuss and to settle the princi- 
ples upon which our Navy should be constructed and administered, were wiped 
out of the way, under the experience which the Government had had through 10 
this long period, and a Navy Department, substantially like that which we now 
have, was established. We got along very well from 1842 up to 1862, the second 
year of this war, under the Navy Department as it was organized in 1842. And, 
sir, what did the wisdom of Congress determine after fvvo years of experience 
amid the trials of this war, added to the long experience in a peace establish- 
ment? What did the wisdom of Congress decide was expedient to be done in 
1862, when the height of the pressure of this war was upon us, when new exigen- 
cies were arising every day, when there was a demand for the loftiest and broad- 
est wisdom and experience that the country could furnish in respect to the best 
method of administering the Navy? Why, sir, it did not establish a board of 
admiralty; it did not establish a board of commissioners; it did not run across 
the water and adopt tlm system of admiralty which the government of Great 
Britain was just then trying earnestly and laboriously to dispense with. But 
Congress did amplify the existing Navy Department, changing none of its ma- 
terial features, but enlarging it to meet the added necessities which were brought 
upon it and upon the country by this gigantic war.” 
“So, sir, we have in the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland no new 
proposition whatever, but one which we have already tried, improved upon, 
and discarded.” 
Mr. Pike, of Maine, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, op- 
posed the scheme in the following language: 
“ It is a preliminary question whether or not there is an organization that in 
the future can produce a respectable navy. The gentleman from Maryland has 
produced his plan. Here it is ; a board of naval administration, which is to be 
a panacea for all the ills under which we now suffer. I hold in my hand the 
original measure, taut which, I understand, has been modified somewhat since. 
It provides that the vice-admiral and four other officers of the Navy shall con- 
stitute a board, and that that board shall have the advising of the construction 
and management of the navy. 
“It is proposed to make this board permanent, for the smaller experiments 
which have been tried from time to time in the Navy Department, and which 
is an ordinary and almost daily means of obtaining the opinmn of an advisory 
board, will not satisfy the gentleman. He must have this a permanent board, 
under the appointment of the President and sanction of the Senate. So he 
would retire our distinguished Vice-Admiral from active service, and take him 
and four or five other distinguished officers of ihe Navy and lay them up in 
ordinary here, imposing upon them simply the duty of advising the Secretary 
of the Navy, which advice he may or may not be expected, in his discretion, to 
follow. In addition to the serious objection of retiring so many good officers, 
we can readily imagine the conflicting views which will arise, the discordant 
councils, and the balancing and shifting of responsibility from the head of the 
Navy Department to the naval board, and back again from the naval board to 
the Secretary of the Navy. Either one or the other of them must be responsi- 
ble. It will not be as it is now, where you htive provided your Secretary of the 
Navy with heads of bureaus, who shall advise him of all the details of their 
particular departments.” 
Is it not passing strange, Mr. Speaker, that after the marked and 
decisive repulse which that antiquated scheme received in the halls 
of Congress at so recent a period, the attempt should again be made 
by the officers of the line to shut up the management of the Navy 
Department in the hands of a close corporation, consisting of three 
line officers—a triune censorship, outside of which the Secretary of 
the Navy is to be but an admiring spectator? But these gentlemen 
dream on, and are still, I suspect, waiting the golden opportunity 
when their aspirations for eliminating “civilians ” from the service, 
including the heads of bureaus, shall be fully realized, and the naval 
organization, “from stem to stern,” become purely, entirely, and 
exclusively a dominant military power. And, to my apprehension, 
these desires and repeated attempts to withdraw the Navy from civil 
influence demand of Congress that it should cherish and advance 
the influence and the membership which springs fresh and vigorous 
from the ranks of piyil life, which is so largely represented by the 
staff of the Navy, 11 
This policy undoubtedly arose from a desire to arrogate to the 
line of the Navy all there might be of consideration, respect, and 
importance which can be derived from rank. Your committee 
have looked carefully to the construction and organization of other 
navies, as well as to the Army of the United States, and have failed 
to lind any existing military organization where these well-known 
and convenient distinctions of line and staff do not obtain. In 
this view, and with so strange a proposition, I can only regard it as 
one of the idiosyncrasies of the American Navy, which furnishes so 
many departures from the well-recognized rules of enlightened and 
progressive military organization, while it develops an absence of 
those changes which seem to have been demanded and adopted in 
all other branches of military service. 
Before I go further, Mr. Speaker, I ask attention to a comparative 
statement to which I shall have occasion to refer. 
I have said that the condition of the American Navy in regard 
to rank is as anomalous as unjust and inequitable. When we point 
to the organization of the Army of the United States as a body 
where the principle contended for prevails, and has been thoroughly 
tested, and, according to General Sherman, works well, we are 
answered that the Navy is a very different thing; that its official 
corps are broughtinto closer proximity and relationship, are cooped 
up together on board ships where collisions are more likely to oc- 
cur and disagreements to exist. Well, sir, grant this ; does it not 
suggest the strongest reason why men of equal strength of character 
and high attainments, though clothed with different power and 
duties, should have their official status clearly defined? More than 
this, sir; is it not absolutely required, for the good of the service, 
that there should be no such inequality in official ranks as will ena- 
ble youth to domineer over and insult age with impunity? Such has 
been the declared opinion of the highest authorities in the country 
for many years, including the most distinguished line officers of 
the Navy. 
RANK IN FOREIGN NAVIES. 
It cannot tend to the harmony and discipline of the service for 
one-half of its officers to be constantly goaded by a knowledge of 
the obvious fact that not only are they retained in a state of official 
inferiority, while their contemporaries of the Army are honored 
and promoted, but to discover, as they look over the organization 
of other navies, that they are deprived of rights, comforts, and 
privileges enjoyed by staff corps everywhere else, and that they are 
the victims of an exclusive and aristocratic principle which does 
not exist even in the navies of Europe. The self-respect of every 
staff officer in our Navy may well feel a shock when he knows, 
both by observation and study, that in the English and French 
navies the men who occupy relative positions with himself are en- 
titled to fixed and positive rank, and that, although belonging tff 12 
the same profession with himself, the honor of the higher grades of 
rank in the service are open to the talents, ambition, and merit of 
the staff officer. Why is this aristocratic principle, exploded and 
abrogated in every navy in the civilized world, retained and nour- 
ished in our little Navy? Is it for the protection of the line? Is 
there such a superiority of brains and accomplishments in the staff 
that the equality can only be preserved by exclusive rank? I trust 
not, Mr. Speaker; and yet the argument of “ discipline” proceeds 
upon this ground too often, I fear. But one thing is certain : that 
in every other navy efficiency and discipline are botli secured by 
the concession of rank, positive and fixed, and of a high grade, to 
the members the staff corps. The following table will show the 
position of the staff in foreign navies. Let the reader examine, 
and then censure, if he can, the sense of justice which asks at our 
hands a similar recognition in the American Navy : 
(<See table on next page.) 
“ In theßussian navy medical officers attain the highest military rank known: 
they receive an increase of pay every five years, and enjoy the same honors and 
pensions as the line. 
“In the British navy medical officers attain the rank of vice admiral; they 
receive the same decorations, &0., as the line, the director general of the medi- 
cal department being a K. C. 8., and seven of them are honorary physicians and 
surgeons to the Queen. 
“ In the Spanish navy medical officers attain the rank of vice admiral, (teni- 
entegeneral;) they enjoy equally with the line naval honors, rewards, and pen- 
sions, and count seven years on entering for the time occupied in studying their 
profession. 
“In the French navy medical officers attain the rank of rear admiral, (contre 
amiral.) The surgeon-in-chief of a French squadron is allowed table money, 
and messes with the commander-in-chief. 
“ In the Austrian navy medical officers attain the rank of rear admiral, (contre 
admiral;) they wear the same uniform, enjoy the same privileges, and receive 
the same re i ired pay as the line. 
“In the Dutch n vy the senior medical officer (intpecteur) has the rank of 
major general, and the dirigerend officier van gezondheid that of brigadier. 
“ In the United States army medical officers enjoy every rank, from first lieu- 
tenant to brigadier general. The Surgeon General is a brevet major general, 
and nine surgeons are brevet brigadier generals. Their rank is positive, 
well-defined, universally acknowledged, and carries with it the uniform, pay, 
right to quarters, and every other incident to rank except military command 
in the line.” 
HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY—CHARACTER OF THE STAFF. 
We thus find our Navy in its organization far behind all others 
in liberalization and improvement, with strong tendencies to go 
backward. This condition of things has for many years been felt 
and manfully struggled against by the staff. For many years in 
the earlier history of our Navy the struggle was confined to the 
medical staff. For many years they were the champions for the 
principle and policy of advancement embodied in this bill, strug- 
gling alone against their anamolous and degrading position. It is 
a matter of credit, howeve;1, to the Navy that their views received 
the support of several distinguished officers of the line, as they did 
two years ago that of the bravest of the brave,” Admiral Farra- 
gut. I would be glad, had I time, to bring to the attention of the 
House all the memorials and tributes of these brave old heroes of 13 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
GREAT BRITAIN. 
RUSSIA. 
FRANCE. 
Navy, line. 
Navy, medical 
corps. 
Navy, line. 
Navy, medical 
corps. 
Navy, line. 
Navy, medical corps. 
Navy, line. 
Navy, medical 
corps. 
Midshipman. 
Aspirant de 2de 
cfasse. 
Aspirant de Ire 
classe. 
Enselgne de 
vaisseau. 
Lieutenant de 
vaisseau. 
Assistant surge’n 
Passed asst, sur- 
geon. 
Surgeon under 12 
years. 
Pharmacien de 3me 
Sub-lieuten’t. 
Lieut, under 8 
years. 
Lieut, over 8 
years. 
Commander.. 
Captain un- 
der 3 years. 
Captain over 
3 years. 
Assistant surge’n 
under 6 years. 
Assistant surge’n 
over 6 years. 
classe. 
Medecin de 3me 
classe. 
Pharmacien de 2de 
classe. 
Medecin de 2de 
classe. 
Pharmacien de Ire 
classe. 
Medecin de Ire 
classe. 
Pharmacien profes- 
seur. 
Medecin professeur. 
Second pharmacien 
en chef. 
Second medecin en 
chef. 
Premier pharmac’n 
en chef. 
Premier medecin en 
chef. 
Inspecteur adjoint. 
Directeur de sante. 
inspecteur general. 
Lieutenant.... 
Lieutenant 
Captain lieu- 
tenant. 
Captain, sec- 
ond rank. 
Captain, first 
rank. 
Titouljarni sovetnik 
Collegsky assessor.... 
mander. 
Commander... 
Captain 
(Fleet surgeons*).. 
Surgeons over 12 
years. 
Staff surgeon. 
Deputy Inspector 
general under 5 
years. 
Deputy inspector 
general over 5 
years. 
Inspector general 
under 3 years. 
In spector gen eral 
over 3 years. 
Director general.. 
Nadvoruy sovetnik.. 
Collegsky Sovetnik.. 
Capitaine de 
Legate. 
Capitaine de 
vaisseau. 
Commodore... 
Rear admiral. 
Centre ad mi- 
Deisvitelny statsky 
sovetnik. 
Vice admiral.. 
ral. 
Vice admiral.. 
Vice amiral. 
Amiral. 
Admiral... 
Admiral 
Deisvitelny tainy so- 
vetnik. 
Kantzler. 
Admiral of 
Gen’l admiral 
1 
1 
the fleet. 
*Not a distinct grade. 
Rank of the naval medical staff, as compared with that of the line of the navies of the principal maritime nations. 14 
the sea in behalf of justice to the medical officers of the Navy. 
I regret to be compelled to add, however, that these attempts were 
resisted by the younger and less considerate officers of the line. 
Though something -was obtained out of these struggles, it fell far 
short of what was due to their standing and services. 
CHARACTER OF THE STAFF CORPS. 
Mr. Speaker, it is easy, I think, for a professional man to see why 
the medical corps of the Navy should be placed on the same footing 
of consideration and rank that is enjoyed by their brethren in the 
Army. The naval surgeon must be a man of sound mental organi- 
zation and high attainments. He must have passed successfully 
through the school of letters and of medicine. He must stand well 
in a profession whose members in civil life are the masters of ma- 
terial science. In the office to which he devotes himself he is in- 
trusted with the highest duties which can connect him with the 
welfare of his fellow man. The health and the lives of the officers 
and crewT of the ship are in his keeping. His field is a broad one, 
for it embraces every climate and zone. It is his duty to know and 
determine the most important matters relating to the physical wel- 
fare of all around him. He must be master of health and hygiene. 
He must compass that intricate and subtile knowledge of the won- 
derful organization of man through which he becomes the master of 
that art of surgery which is the crowning glory of his profession. 
Nature will make man a good fighter, observation and experience 
may make him a good sailor; but the man wTho would successfully 
heal and cure must call to his aid the strong brain, the steady hand, 
the accomplishments of study, and the courage which knows no fal- 
tering. The medical corps of the Navy, as well as of the Army, have 
adorned and illustrated their profession, while they have devoted 
themselves with patriotism to the service of the country. 
We have also a corps of paymasters, numbering someone hundred 
and twenty-five, drawn from the mercantile departments of life, 
educated at their own expense, trusted for their integrity, their 
business habits, and qualifications, upon whom are cast a variety of 
duties, requiring exactness, promptness, and good judgment. They 
come into the.Navy as the representatives of thegreat business world, 
are clothed with large responsibilities, for the discharge of which 
they are compelled to give ample security to the Government to an 
extent which cannot fail to test and establish their good standing as 
citizens and business men in the communities from which they are 
selected. They receive and disburse the moneys of the Government; 
they discharge the dues of the Government to its officers and men; 
they make the enormous purchases which supply the demands of 
the Navy, They are at once quartermasters, commissaries, and pay- 
masters. They, also, in common with the surgeons and engineers, 
come into the Navy at mature years, representing a republican citi- 
zen element of the best character. 15 
Within thirty years the extensive introduction of steam into the 
Navy has demanded the employment and organization of a corps of 
engineers, an intelligent, educated, skilful!, and vigorous member- 
ship, essential to the successful working of the Navy. They come 
from our schools, academies, colleges, and workshops, trained in art 
and in letters, bringing with them that self-respect and force and 
independence of character which marks the educated American 
citizen.' 
In social standing, in mental capacity, and in culture, they are at 
least the equals of their contemporaries of the line, and in all that 
relates to their specific branch of the service unquestionably their 
superiors. Their early lives and education fit them by physical and 
mental training, in muscle and mind, for the delicate and arduous 
duties of their naval life. Those duties are most important and vital. 
Upon the character and efficiency of the engineers the operations 
and the safety of the ship largely depend. They control its move- 
ments in calm and in storm, by night and by day, and meet with 
calmness and courage the vicissitudes of battle and of breeze, in com- 
mon with the brave men who tread the decks or cling to the spars 
above them. With scientific and practical knowledge they deal 
constantly with one of the most subtle and terrible forces known to 
man. They guard and protect by their watchfulness and skill the 
most delicate and powerful machinery ; and while the men of their 
profession on land are unfolding the cunning devices of artizanship 
their brethren of the sea are utilizing them for their country and 
mankind. Who shall say that he who kills is greater than he who 
cures, or that he who commands is greater than he who invents and 
directs? 
In our l&rger ships the engineer has under his immediate direction 
and command hundreds of men, whose movements he must direct 
and for whose conduct he is responsible. They are with him in that 
important part of the vessel, the engine-room, whose vast and com- 
plicated machinery must be left entirely under his immediate con- 
trol, for no officer of the line is supposed to remain long in that 
department. The engineer officer must have, as a matter of neces- 
sity, a subsidiary power of command. Along with this comes a 
responsibility which the law and regulations of the Navy attempt 
to fix with exactness, and in the progress of our naval life the rank 
was conceded to the engineers, as a dignity belonging to their posi- 
tion and necessary to the discharge of their duties. 
Imperfectly as I have sketched the character and duties of the 
staff corps of the Navy, it seems to me that every disinterested man 
will admit that such a body of officials, clothed with eminent attain- 
ments and charged with high responsibilities, have the right to ask, 
and it is their duty to demand, a position of respectability and con- 
THE EIGHT TO RANK. 16 
sideration, of equality and respect, in a military organization in 
which they are such important constituents, and such as is enjoyed 
by the corresponding members of all other military organizations. 
Such position has never been secured, and cannot be attained by the 
members of a military organization without bank. iNo matter what 
may be the qualifications of the man, if he enters the Army or the 
Navy without rank he is but the enlisted man of the body, subject 
to the caprice, whim, and orders of the mere stripling who enjoys 
rank and wears shoulder straps. 
Such a proposition may seem almost absurd to the unobservant 
civilian. It is nevertheless strictly and exactly true; and I may 
confidently appeal to the experience of every one who has been a 
member of the volunteer army or navy for the truth of what I am 
saying. So uniform is the rule that I fail to call to mind any excep- 
tion in its practical operations, and its truth may be illustrated by a 
multitude of examples. With this fact known and established, what 
can be more natural and just than that the surgeon, the engineer, 
or the paymaster, who come into the naval service educated and ma- 
tured, should demand in his new relation that degree of equality, 
consideration, and comfort to which his character, his responsibili- 
ties, and his length of service entitle him ? Yet the line of the Navy, 
holding him strictly to his responsibility and to the faithful dis- 
charge of all his duties, making him amenable as an officer, declare 
he shall have no corresponding rank. Who among us would sneer 
at these aspirations or seek by words of irony to dishonor these efforts 
for rank, advancement, and promotion? Who can be surprised or 
disturbed at the fact that for many years the members of the naval 
staff have struggled to obtain it against the arbitrary and arrogant 
demands of the line ? 
OBJECTIONS OF THE BINE. 
I ask attention now to the history of this struggle, for its develop- 
ment bears materially upon the merits of the present controversy. 
As I have before said, until within the last twenty-five or thirty- 
years the surgeon alone represented the staff corps of the Navy and 
bore the burden and brunt of the battle against military caste and 
oppression. It is but justice to say that the student will find in the 
history of this controversy that the medical staff have exhibited a 
dignity of character and an ability for their task which will ever re- 
flect honor upon them both as officers and men. Their opponents 
were in many instances learned and able in controversy ; but it is a 
striking fact that while their metaphysical essays upon the question 
of rank were many and ingenious, their assumptions, arrogant and 
overbearing, forcibly illustrate the confidence of power and position, 
while the progress of events and the reform in military organizations 
have annihilated their fine-spun theories and false logic. Their as- 
sumption, taught in the text-books of the line, asserted in their me- 17 
morials to Congress, and found in the utterances of the champions 
of line exclusiveness, that command and rank are inseparable, is too 
false and glaring to merit more than a passing notice. It is dis- 
proved by a thousand circumstances and facts patent to the most 
superficial observer. Rank and command are constantly separated, 
and exist independent of each other. Officers in retirement, on 
leave, in arrest, on courts military, in the performance of clerical 
duties, on the sick list, on waiting orders, and in many other in- 
stances, are without command, yet still retain their rank. Admiral 
Porter is to-day without command. It is unnecessary to enlarge 
upon this assumed position of the line. 
A second position assumed in this controversy by the line as a 
basis of their opposition to conferring rank upon the staff, namely, 
its tendency to insubordination, has been practically and completely 
exploded ; yet the line cling to it as a drowning man catches at a 
straw ; and we find the assertion repeated by them ;n recent memo- 
rials to Congress, and in appeals through the public press, although 
they adduce no facts to prove this proposition. Though they sus- 
tain it by no argument, their repetition of this hackneyed and fan- 
ciful assertion always appears in their remonstrances against the 
claims of the staff corps. But our surprise at the announcement of 
this untenable postulate is somewhat mitigated when we recall the 
fact that these same gentlemen of the line declared that the abolition 
of the grog ration in the Navy would work the utmost disaster to dis- 
cipline, and that no subordination could be maintained on ship- 
board without flogging. These things have been swept away by 
the reformatory power of legislation, led by a distinguished citizen 
of my own State, (Hon. John P. Hale,) and we hear no clamor for 
their restoration. The Navy still lives, our ships still plow the 
seas, without rum for the stomach or the lash for the backs of our 
gallant tars. For six years the staff" held the nominal rank asked 
for them in this bill, and the records of your courts-martial will show 
no increase of the evil of insubordination and want of discipline. 
A final objection urged by the line to staff rank has been the as- 
sertion that a staff corps was not a part of the military organization 
of the Navy, but merely auxiliary or adjunct. To say nothing of 
the fanciful or metaphysical nature of this objection, it is apparent, 
from what I have already said, as well as from many other 
considerations that might be urged, that if the staff" corps of 
the Navy are auxiliary only, their duties are indispensable to 
the existence and operations of the Navy, and hence equal in im- 
portance to those of the line; and as they require for their com- 
petent discharge and accompanying responsibilities men of the 
largest capacity, of the highest integrity, and the most marked pro- 
fessional skill, it is evident that their members should be clothed 
with the same marks of distinction and respect which are conferred 
upon corresponding members of the other parts of the military or- 18 
ganization. The line itself cannot exist in such an organization 
without the staff. The construction and equipment of every ship 
that floats are the result of their labor and skill. They are the cus- 
todians of funds disbursed for the support and comfort of the line. 
They preserve health, cure disease, and heal wounds. 
They are the governors and guardians of that motive power with- 
out which our proudest ships are as helpless and harmless as a float- 
ing wreck. You can no more liminate the surgeon, the paymaster, 
and the engineer from the service, and have a Navy remaining to 
you, than you can command physical efficiency and courage with- 
out health, supplies without production and purchase, or motion 
without force. They cannot be struck out of its organization ; they 
are requisite, not auxiliarjr; their agencies are direct and indispen- 
sable, not inferential and incidental. In the division of duties and 
vocations into which the modern military organization is separated 
there is no distinction in the importance, vitality, and fundamental 
character of those imjjosed upon the line and staff. All are original 
and essential. The distinction is reduced to one of sentiment and 
education. 
In every sense, therefore, except that of general command, the 
staff are as much military men as their brethren of the line. Their 
commissions are the same, they derive their appointment from the 
same source, and are confirmed in the same manner. Theirs are 
the same vicissitudes in war and in peace ; they are subject to the 
same military law ; they are clothed with the responsibilities and 
incidents of military life, and their right to be considered military 
men admits of no question. 
Against these assumptions of the line, enforced as they have been 
by the exercise of arbitrary power, the medical corps of the Navy 
commenced the struggle at an early period in the history of the 
Navy, and soon began to develop sympathy and aid. Their claims 
to rank were advocated by the ablest of our Secretaries, who de- 
manded for them a recognition which their brethren of the Army 
enjoyed, and at an early day they found supporters among the more 
considerate and worthy officers of the line. The corps preferred its 
claim for rank soon after the close of the war of 1812. The country 
had just passed through a period of hostilities in which their ser- 
vices had been felt and appreciated, and with this recognition of 
their merits came also the recognition of the justice of their claim. 
Nearly one-half of the highest grade in the line of the Navy then 
supported their demand. The opinion of the Secretary of the Navy, 
Mr. Crowninshield, was decisively in their favor. In May, 1816, 
nine captains in the line of the Navy, then the highest grade in the 
service, addressed a communication to the Secretary of the Navy, in 
which they said; 
HISTORY—THE EARLY STRUGGLE. 19 
“We consider the medical department of such great importance to the Navy 
of our country that no reasonable measures ought to be omitted which could 
have a tendency to retain in the service the professional ability of those gentle- 
men who, by their experience, knowledge, zeal, and humanity, have procured 
the esteem and confidence of those with whom they have been associated; and 
we also beg leave to express our belief that no reasonable inducements would be 
objected to by Congress to procure for those who are engaged in a perilous ser- 
vice, and who are constantly exposed to the diseases of all climates, the best 
medical aid which the country affords. To effect this it must be obvious that 
the rank and pecuniary emolument ought to bear some proportion to what gen- 
tlemen of professional eminence would be entitled in private life.” 
In December, 1816, four captains addressed the Secretary of the 
Navy on the same subject. They say : 
“We have heard with pleasure that it is the intention of the medical officers 
of the Navy to address a respectful memorial to you, requesting that measures 
might be taken by the Department to procure for them a definite rank in the 
service, an increase of pay, and the establishment by law of the rank of hospital 
surgeon.” 
Secretary Upshur, in his report of December, 1841, calling atten- 
tion to this question, declared that— 
“ The evils resulting from the want of a proper naval code are of the most 
serious character, and will, if not remedied, ultimately ruin the naval service 
of our country. What can be expected of a community of men living together 
under circumstances tending to a constant excitement and collision, with no 
fixed laws to govern them, and where even rank and station are imperfectly de- 
fined ? The necessary consequence of such a state of things must be disputes, 
contests, disorders and confusion; sometimes unauthorized power will be as- 
sumed, and at other times lawful authority will be disobeyed. It is impossible 
that a wholesome discipline can prevail in this uncertain condition of official 
rank and authority.” 
Mr. Secretary Henshaw, in his annual report of November, 1843, 
bore testimony to the justice and necessity of the principle in this 
language: 
“The medical department of the naval service requires talent, education, and 
moral worth, properly to fill it, of as high order as In other branches of that 
service, but the surgeons and assistant surgeons have no military rank. A 
modification of the law, by which medical officers in the naval service shall be 
entitled to rank in a manner similar to that prescribed in the Army, might be 
beneficially made.” 
In the following year Mr. Secretary Mason, in his report, spoke 
of the anxiety felt by the staff of the Navy upon this question of 
rank, declaring, as General Sherman has since, that corresponding 
officers in the Army enjoyed it without detriment to the service, 
and urged a consideration of the subject. Do you ask me why 
these repeated recommendations and urgent demands for justice 
were so long producing the desired result? We may find the an- 
swers in the fact that all peaceful reforms are marked by gradual 
progress, and that justice, when it overcomes oppression without 
violence, advances with slow though sure and unfaltering step. At 
last, however, these repeated attempts succeeded, and Mr. Secretary 
Brancroft, on the 31stof August, 1846, during the war with Mexico, 
recognized the claims of the medical corps in the following order: 
Surgeons of the fleet, and surgeons of more than twelve years will rank with 
commanders; 
Surgeons of less than twelve years with lieutenants; 
Passed assistant surgeons, not passed, next after masters. 
Commanding and executive officers, of whatever grade, when on duty, will 
take precedence over all medical officers. 
[General Order.] 20 
This order confers no authority to exercise military command and no addi- 
tional right to quarters. 
Navy Department, August 31, 1846. GEORGE BANCROFT. 
On the 27th of May, 1847, the following order was issued, confer- 
ring rank upon the pursers (corresponding to the present corps of 
paymasters:) 
[General Order.] 
Pursers of more than twelve years will rank with commanders; 
Pursers of less than twelve years with lieutenants; 
Pursers will rank with surgeons according to date of commission ; 
Commanding and executive officers, of whatever grade, when on duty, will 
take precedence of all pursers. 
This order confers no authority to exercise military command, and no addi- 
tional right to quarters. 
Navy Department, May 27, 1847. J. Y. MASON. 
Both these orders were legalized by act of Congress, approved 
August 5, 1854, and thus commenced the first reforms in relation to 
this important subject in the naval service. 
Congress, by the act of March 3, 1859, conferred rank upon the 
engineers as follows : 
“ Chief engineers of more than twelve years will rank wdth commanders ; 
“ Chief engineers of less than twelve years with lieutenants; 
“ First assistant engineers next after lieutenants; 
“Second assistant engineers next after masters; 
“Third assistant engineers with midshipmen,” 
“ Commanding and executive officers, of whatever grade, will take precedence 
over all engineer officers.” 
And also enacted that— 
It is important to notice here the standing of the line of the 
at the time these orders were legalized, and the subsequent advance- 
ment in lineal rank during the war. In 1854 there were but three 
grades in the line of the Navy, namely: captain, commander, and 
lieutenant, the title of commodore being one of courtesy only, the 
rank being unrecognized by law. But, by the act of July 16, 1862, 
Congress created tor the line of the Navy the additional grades of 
rear admiral, commodore, lieutenant commander, and ensign, thus 
increasing the higher and lower grade of the line by two. Nothing, 
however, was done for the staff of the Navy, but they were quieted 
with the assurance that their turn would come in good time. 
INCREASE OF DINEAL RANK. 
At this time, (1862,) as has been seen, the staff enjoyed but three 
ranks, namely, commander, lieutenant, and master, while at the 
same time the line contended, as they do now, that the language of 
the orders of 1846 and 1847, before cited, conferred no real and sub- 
stantial rank, but only an ambiguous, uncertain status, treated the 
claim of the staff to rank with derision, and, to use the language of 
the line itself, “looked upon their assumption of de facto rank as an 
insult to the naval profession, and no one attaches the slightest value 
to it,” thus nullifying, as was too often their custom, the laws of 
Congress. 
The injustice of this condition of things was so apparent and the 21 
demand of the staff for advancement pari passu with the line so rea- 
sonable, that Mr. Lincoln, through the Secretary of the Navy, fol- 
lowing the example of Secretaries Bancroft and Mason, issued an 
order, under date of March 13, 1863, grading the staff of the Navy 
somewhat in accordance with the action of Congress the preceding 
year in regard to the line. This was not done unadvisedly, but 
under the sanction and assistance of some of the highest and most 
distinguished line officers of the Navy, was approved by the Cabinet, 
and in pursuance of the legal opinion of Attorney General Bates, 
who sustained the authority and power of the Secretary to issue the 
order. 
The order was issued ; the staff officers served under it during the 
remainder of the war; and it continued in force until April 1, 1869, 
when it was revoked, Admiral Porter then having practically the 
direction and control of naval affairs, and being the unrelenting 
opponent of staff*rank. That revocation reduced and disgraced pro- 
fessionally more than six hundred men; as able, faithful, and de- 
voted officers as ever honored the naval service of this or any other 
country. One of the provisions of the bill now under consideration 
is intended to restore and legalize that order, and to replace the 
officers of the staff in the respective positions from which they were 
so rudely reduced and degraded by its revocation. The rank given 
by the order of March 13, 1863, was as follows : 
Surgeons, paymasters, naval constructors, chief engineers, chaplains, profes- 
sors of mathematics, passed assistant surgeons, secretaries, assistant surgeons, 
assistant naval constructors, assistant paymasters, first assistant engineers, 
second assistant engineers, third assistant engineers, clerks, carpenters, and sail- 
makers are to be regarded as staff officers, and all other officers of the service as 
line officers. The relative rank between the officers of these two classes is to be 
as follows; 
Medical department: 
Assistant surgeons to rank with masters. 
Passed assistant surgeons to rank with lieutenants. 
Surgeons to rank with lieutenant commanders for the first five years after pro- 
motion ; after the first five years, with commanders; and after fifteen years’ date 
of commission, to rank with captains. 
Surgeon of the fleet to rank with captains. 
Pay department: 
Assistant paymasters to rank with masters. 
Paymasters to rank with lieutenant commanders for the first five years after 
promotion ; after the first five years, with commanders; and after fifteen years’ 
date of commission, to rank with captains. 
Fleet paymaster to rank with captain. 
Engineer department: 
Third assistant engineers to rank with midshipmen. 
Second assistant engineers to rank with ensigns. 
First assistant engineers to rank with masters. 
Chief engineers to rank with lieutenant commanders for the first five years 
after promotion; after the first five years, with commanders ; and after fifteen 
years’ date of commission, to rank with captains. 
Fleet engineer to rank with captain. 
COMP AMATIVE STATEMENT. 
It may be well at this stage of my remarks to submit a compara- 
tive table of the several grades in the staff corps under the Welles 
order as they stood in January, 1869, before its revocation, and their 
status under the provisions of this bill, and also the rank proposed 
by the board of 1869, of which I shall speak hereafter : 22 
Under order op march 31, 1863. 
Surgeons. 
UNDER PRESENT BIRD. 
Ranking with captain 15 Ranking with captain 15 
Ranking with commander 39 Ranking with commander 15 
Ranking with lieut. commander 26 Ranking with lieutenant comman- 
Ranking with lieutenant 35 der 50 
Ranking with master 33 Ranking with lieutenant j 
Vacancies 52 Ranking with master / luu 
Total 200 
Total 180 
Ranking with captain 13 Ranking with captain 13 
Ranking with commander 80 Ranking with commander 13 
Ranking with lieutenant comman- Ranking with lieutenant comman- 
der J 36 der 50 
Assistants, ranking with lieutenant 38 Assistants, ranking with lieuten- 
Assistants, ranking with master 18 ant 30 
Vacancies 15 Assistants, ranking with master 20 
Paymasters. 
Total 150 
Total 126 
Chief engineers ranking with cap- Chief engineers ranking with cap- 
tain 5 tain 10 
Chief engineers ranking with com- Chief engineers ranking with com- 
mander 43 mander 15 
Chief engineers ranking with lieu- Chief engineers ranking with lieu- 
tenant commander 1 tenant commander 25 
First assistant engineers ranking First assistant engineers ranking 
With lieutenant 91 with lieutenant 100 
Second assistant engineers ranking Second assistant engineers ranking 
with master 112 with master... 100 
Third assistant engineers ranking 
with midshipmen 33 Total 250 
Engineers. 
Total 285 
Ranking with captain 2 Ranking with captain 2 
Ranking with commander 2 Ranking with commander 3 
Ranking with lieutenant comman- 2 Ranking with lieutenant comman- 
der . . 2 der. 3 
Assistant, ranking with master 4 Ranking with lieutenant 4 
Naval constructors. 
Total 10 
Total 12 
Chaplains. 
Ranking with captain 0 Ranking with captain 4 
Ranking with commander 5 Ranking with commander 7 
Ranking with lieutenant comman- Ranking with lieutenant comman- 
der 11 der, not more than 7 
Total 16 
Total is 
Professors of Mathematics. 
Ranking with captain 0 Ranking with captain 3 
Ranking with commander 4 Ranking with commander 4 
Ranking with lieutenant comman- Ranking with lieutenant comman- 
der 7 der 4 
Total 11 
Total 11 
Civil Engineer a. 
Without rank 5 Rank of captain 2 
Rank of commander 2 
Rank of lieutenant commander 4 
Total 8 23 
UNDER THE BOARD OF 1868. 
UNDER THE “GRIMES BIRD.” 
Surgeons. 
Ranking with captain 15 
Ranking with commander 18 
Ranking with Rent, commander 20 
Ranking with lieutenant, all others 
Rank of commodore, assimilated 1 
Rank of captain, assimilated 5 
Rank of commander, assimilated.,.. 10 
Rank of lieut. commander, assimi- 
lated 10 
Rank of lieutenant, assimilated 40 
Passed assistant, next after lieuten- 
ant, assimilated 40 
Assistant, next after master,assimi- 
lated 45 
Total ~ 53 
151 
Ranking with captain 15 
Ranking with commander 18 
Ranking with lieut. commander 20 
Ranking with lieutenant, all others 
Paymasters. 
Rank of commodore, assimilated.... 1 
Hank of captain, assimilated 5 
Rank of commander, assimilated... 10 
Rank of lieut. commander, assimi- 
lated 10 
Rank of lieutenant, assimilated 25 
Passed assistant, next after lieuten- 
ant, assimilated 25 
Assistant, next after master,assimi- 
lated 25 
Total 53 
Engineers. 
101 
Chief engineers ranking with cap- 
tain 10 
Chief engineers ranking with com- 
mander 18 
Chief engineers ranking with lieu- 
tenant commander 20 
First assistant engineers ranking 
with lieutenant 20 
Second assistant engineers ranking 
with all others. 
Chief, rank of captain, assimilated. 3 
Rank of commander, assimilated... 5 
Rank of lieut. commander, assimi- 
lated 8 
Rank of lieutenant, assimilated 30 
First assistant, rank of master, as- 
similated 60 
Second assistant, rank of ensign, 
assimilated 74 
180 
Total 68 
Naval Constructors. 
, Ranking with captain 2 
Ranking with commander 4 
Ass’stants, ranking with lieuten- 
ant commander 4 
Assistants, ranking with lieuten- 
ant 4 
Total 14 
Chaplains. 
Ranking with captain 4 
Ranking with commander 7 
Ranking with lieut. commander, 
all others. 
Total 11 
Civil Engineers. 
Ranking with captain 3 
Ranking with commander 4 
Ranking with lieut. commander, 
all others. 
Total 7 24 
It was a great misfortune to the staff and to the service that the 
order of March 18, 1863, was not legalized by Congress, as had been 
done in the case of the Bancroft and Mason orders. The staff, 
alarmed by the assertion of the line that no legal rank was con- 
ferred by this order, and goaded by the unjust construction given 
to the language in which the law was written, sought to fix their 
status and to maintain the new position to which they had been 
assigned by appeals to the Department and to Congress. And this 
brings us to another point of importance in the history of the con- 
troversy. 
In 1864 a board consisting of line officers, Messrs. Taylor, Case, 
Rogers, and others, captains and commanders, undertook to settle 
the vexed question by regulation. By examining their report we 
shall see that they approximated the principles governing in this bill. 
They proposed to regulate the relative rank by equal lengths of ser- 
vice in the several grades, but allowing to the staffs the advantage 
of an average of six years, in which it was assumed they were pur- 
suing, at their own expense without cost to the Government, the 
preparatory studies before entering the Navy, during which six 
years the officers of the line were engaged in their preparatory 
course at the expense of the Government; thus making a common 
starting point for both line and staff. Under this proposed plan an 
assistant surgeon, paymaster, or engineer, was to be placed beside 
a master or ensign, and to be promoted with him to the higher 
grades of lieutenant commander and captain. They took the Navy 
Register of 1864, and estimating six years as the usual time passed 
at the Naval Academy by midshipmen and passed midshipmen in 
obtaining their naval education, they graded the line and staff offi- 
cers as follows: 
Captain 40 years in service would rank a staff officer of 34 years. 
Commander 30 years in service would rank a staff officer of 24 “ 
Lieutenant commander 20 years in service would rank a staff officer of 14 ,l 
Lieutenant 12 years in service would rank a staff officer of 6 “ 
This was acceptable to the medical officers, many of whom were 
over thirty years in service, but was objected to by the paymasters 
and engineers as not equally favorable to them. Since the very 
great promotions in the line by the act of 1866, however, it is more 
favorably received by them 
As applied to the Navy Register of 1869, the plan may be briefly 
summed up thus ; 
Staff officers 35 years commissioned rank with commodores. 
Staff’ officers 25 years commissioned rank with captains. 
Staff officers 15 years commissioned rank with commanders. 
Staff' officers 8 years commissioned rank with lieutenant commanders. 
This line board of 1864, in their report and communications, 
stated and enforced their conclusions, exhibiting the justice of the 
principle embraced in the pending bill. I quote the language : 
“ In the arrangement of assimilated rank, it was supposed that a master, first 
assistant engineer, assistant surgeon, assistant paymaster, <&c., had finished their 25 
preliminary studies and become pi’epared for work; and those of the same date 
were advanced together in that order to the rank of commodore* * * * 
“ that is, when the master was promoted to a lieutenant, the others had the same 
assimilated rank, and so on. 
“ For the commencement of the assimilation of rank, the board adopted the 
period when each class, line and stall', should become qualified f©r usefulness to 
the service. The midshipman having finished his probationary course, goes on 
hoard ship as an ensign, there to learn the practice of what he has been taught 
theoretically. After a period he undergoes an examination for promotion to the 
grade of master. In this new sphere he becomes, for the first time, practically 
useful and reliable as a watch officer. 
“ The young engineer having advanced through two grades, and having passed 
as a first assistant, becomes competent to take charge of an engine, and eligible 
to appointment as senior engineer of vessels of the smaller classes. 
“So with the assistant surgeon and assistant paymaster. Each has studied 
and qualified himself for the position; and each is ready, or should be, to assume 
independent duties should they be assigned to him. 
“Thus we have four young men starting upon their career at the same time, 
with equal rank assigned to each. It is not apparent that any particular favor 
should be shown to either in his advancement. On the contrary, if they run side 
by side until they reach the highest grade provided for regular promotions, it is 
conceived that a greater degree of harmony will be obtained than has existed 
since the first order for the assimilation of rank was issued.” 
The reasoning is stated in less general and more specific terms in 
a letter of a member of the same board: 
“ I think the average age of midshipmen entering the service as stated hy you 
(fifteen and a half) is too low. Some few enter between the ages of fourteen and 
sixteen; but a greater majority do so between sixteen and eighteen, a few older. 
Adding six years brings t hem up to from twenty-one to twenty-five, which cor- 
responds very closely with the ages, as shown by the records in the Department, 
of assistant surgeons when they enter the service.” 
In January, 1869, tire medical staff, apprehensive that the asser- 
tion of the line that tire Department order of March 13, 1863, would 
be revoked, and their rank and promotion taken from them, ap- 
plied to Congress for relief. Their bill, which was reported favor- 
ably by the Plouse committee, involved the principle of fixed and 
positive rank, though it differed in its details from the pending bill 
and was partial, inasmuch as it did not embrace the otherstaff corps 
in its provisions. But its introc notion and discussion were timely 
and fortunate in calling public attention to the subject, and emi- 
nently so in obtaining the indorsement of the highest authority in 
the Navy to the principle of defined and positive rank as embodied 
in the bill now under consideration. The great chief of the Navy 
was then living. He had survived the perils of ocean and battle, 
and lingered among us, the peerless sailor, brave, generous, and just. 
A long life of association had taught him the value of those services 
which had clothed the medical staff of the Navy with distinction 
and honor, and his generous heart promptly responded to their ap- 
peal for recognition. He rose above all narrow-minded professional 
rivalry and feeling, and when they submitted their bill to his inspec- 
tion and opinion he responded without hesitation or reserve. I hold 
here his original letter upon the subject, written to his brother officer. 
Dr. Palmer, his fleet surgeon at Mobile, and I gladly lay it before 
the House as an authority of the very highest character in support 
of the principle for which we are contending. I also present a letter 
from Admiral Farragut to Dr. Palmer, a professional and personal 
tribute to his brother officer: 26 
113 East Thirty-Sixth Street, 
~ New York, January 2,1869. 
My Dear Doctor : I have read with great care the bill entitled “ An act to re- 
organize and increase the efficiency of the medical department of the Navy,” 
and, as far as I have been able to discover, it appears to be drawn up in a spirit 
of fairness and justice to all, and affords to the highest officers of the medical 
corps employment on shore after having obtained a certain grade. I do not 
hesitate to say that 1 approve of the principal features of the bill, but would in- 
sert, in the third section, which refers to the employment of the different 
grades, “ except in time of war,” when all officers should be available for sea or 
other service at the discretion of the Department. 
I am, very truly, yours, 
D. G. FARRAGUT, Admiral. 
Surgeon James C. Parmer. United States Navy. 
New York, December 31, 1868. 
My Dear Doctor ; I have carefully read over the bill “ for the reorganization 
of the medical corps of the Navy,” making higher grades, &c., and I find no ob- 
jections, except that in time of war all persons should be available for duty, only 
retaining their relative rank in their own corps. Without this clause the ser- 
vices of some of the most efficient medical officers might be lost to the Govern- 
ment when most essential. lam aware that such might not be the case, as they 
would no doubt volunteer ; but while legislating it is best to provide for it on 
the face of the bill, although I am happy to say that for my own experience war 
is the time when I have always found the medical officers ready and willing to 
do their duty without regard to personal risk, and it gives me special pleasure 
to refer to your case in Mobile bay, where you, in the little Loyal, carried my 
orders around the fleet for the ships to run the ram Tennessee down, which you 
did with cheerfulness and alacrity. I sent the other note to accompany the 
bill, and this only to explain the objection to leaving the war clause out. 
Very truly yours, 
D. G. FARRAGUT, Admiral. 
TUB BOARD OF 1869. 
As was anticipated from the declared intention of the line to pro- 
cure the revocation of the Department order of March 13, 1863, the 
purpose was carried into effect in the early days of Mr. Borie’s in- 
cumbency. It is now matter of current history that his adminis- 
tration of the Department was the administration of Admiral 
Porter. Congress was then in session. The Grimes bill had passed 
the Senate. It was the pet scheme of the Admiral, board of survey 
and all. He came before the House committee with Mr. Borie and 
urged its passage. The influence of the staff of the Navy was in- 
voked in its aid, under the terrorism of the threat that if they did 
not take that bill with all its degrading incidents they should have 
nothing, and that the order of 1863 should be revoked. They de- 
clined. The blow came, the order was revoked, and, as I have said, 
one half of the official corps of the Navy was reduced and degraded. 
The intervention of Congress was invoked, and the Committee on 
Naval Affairs in the House unanimously resolved to report a reso- 
lution legalizing that order and restoring the staff to their former 
position. It was too late in the session to enable the committee to 
report in their order ; but the chairman attempted on various occa- 
sions to bring the resolution to the vote of the House. The effort 
failed, and Congress adjourned without action. 
The summer of 1869 witnessed an awakened public interest in the 
question. When Mr. Secretary Robeson came into office, in July 
of that year, he found the exciting and disturbing subject upon his 
hands, intensified as it was by the triumphant boasts of the domin- 27 
ant line and the chagrin of the staff, coupled with the determination 
of the latter to seek redress at the hands of Congress. He probably 
apprehended, as had Mr. Upshur, that it would be impossible that 
a wholesome discipline could prevail in this uncertain condition of 
rank and authority, and that while the agitation would call the at- 
tention of Congress to the dissensions in his Department, it would 
ojrerate to the prejudice of the Navy itself. At any rate, he under- 
took to settle the question by the action of a “ board.” The board 
assembled under the orders of the Secretary. It consisted of the 
heads of bureaus in the Navy Department, and of one officer of the 
line and one of the staff. Their report was made under date of De- 
cember 4, 1869, and in compliance with a call of the House on the 
14th December, 1869, transmitted to that body under date of January 
24, 1870. On the last-named day a bill emanating from the Navy 
Department was also transmitted to the House. I regret to say, sir, 
that the provisions of that bill, instead of following the recommenda- 
tions of the board, exhibited a wide departure from their conclusions, 
and embraced the most offensive features of the Grimes bill. But, 
by way of explanation, it should be borne in mind that Vice Ad- 
miral Porter was still in the Navy Department. In fact, he had 
written a letter to the Secretary, prior to the order convening the 
board, in which he substantially recommended the adoption of the 
Grimes bill. lam inclined, Mr. Speaker, to furnish a copy of that 
letter in this connection. 
Navy Department, 
Washington, November 10, 1869. 
Sir ; I hope you will excuse the liberty I take in addressing you on a matter 
that perhaps you have well considered, namely, the subject of assimilated rank 
in the Navy. My position in the Department has prevented my approaching 
you on this subject, as I do not wish in any way to influence you in a matter 
where, as a line officer, I might be considered personally interested. 
My desire is to bring about a spirit of harmony in the Navy, and to have regu- 
lated by law assimilated rank between the line officers and the civil officers of 
the service, and to establish a law of “ precedence with and after ” which will 
suit the wants of the Navy. 
The subject of rank and precedence is one that will admit of exhaustive argu- 
ments without satisfying the parties interested. Therefore, I deem it out of 
place to enter into any argument in relation to the subject. I think the wants 
of the service should be considered before anything else, and ihe sooner the 
matter is settled one way or the other the better it will be for the Navy. 
I should recommend a mixed board to settle this matter were it not that I 
had been addressed by a party professing to represent the wishes of the civil 
officers of the Navy, who have presented to me the following as the outline of a 
bill with which they would be pleased. 
I am quite sure that the line officers of the Navy are willing to accede to any- 
thing that would not conflict with the discipline of the service, which, in their 
estimation, is paramount to everv other consideration. 
I have read many arguments on the subject of rank, published in the public 
prints, none of which have convinced me of the necessity of establishing such 
high rank among the civil officers as has been hitherto claimed for them. 
There is, and always has been in the Navy, an honorary distribution of rank, 
assimilating in a measure to that higher distinction of line rank which has al- 
ways been considered an indispensable attribute of high discipline. 
This honorary rank, very properly, lacks the power of command, and has 
been conceded for the purpose of establishing the status of civil officers on board 
ship. 
“The parties who receive it are quasi civil officers with quasi civil duties; but, 
in order to identify them with their surroundings and give propriety to 
their presence, they are favored with the compliment of rank.” 
Notwithstanding that this is the only position that civil officers on board ship 
should hold, the line officers of the Navy would generally be pleased if the bill 
now before Congress would become a law, with the following amendments, 28 
which I have been led to believe would be perfectly acceptable to the civi 
officers of the Navy. I take great pleasure In giving it my support. 
DaviD K. Porter, 
Vice Admiral. 
Hon. George M. Robeson, 
Secretary of the Navy. 
Vice Admiral Porter had his way. The “ board ” did not. 
At the commencement of the next Congress the bill which we 
are now considering was introduced into this House and referred to 
the Committee on Naval Affairs; and it is no exaggeration to say 
that its consideration engaged their attention, study, and discussion 
at regular and special meetings during the entire session of 1869-70. 
I think no provision or feature, either of the general subject or of 
the bill, has escaped the most searching analysis. There has been 
an earnest desire to probe the matter to the bottom, and the commit- 
tee have not been without aid from all sides of the question. I think 
they have succeeded, or that they at least have come to understand 
what the controversy between line and staff means. This bill is 
the result of the deliberations of two years on the part of your com- 
mittee. 
Let us look now at the details of the bill. As I have said, it has 
been prepared with much care and after a most extended examina- 
tion, and with a view to the best interests of the whole service and 
justice to all its constituent parts. The subject is so largely involved 
in professional and legal technicalities that nothing less than the 
most assiduous and careful consideration of your committee could 
bring them to a satisfactory conclusion. And I find it now almost 
impossible to explain in these general remarks all its minute details 
or its intricate relations to the service. And you will permit me to 
say very frankly that it is one of those measures which in its details 
must in a very great degree commend itself to the House only 
through the labor and recommendation of the committee. But 
having endeavored to state generally the principles of military or- 
ganization on which it rests, I may allude now more particularly to 
the scope and provisions of the bill itself. It looks to the organiza- 
tion of the Navy as the basis of its revision of the grades. In its 
relation to that organization it restores the grades of captain and 
lieutenant commander, which was the characteristic of the Depart- 
ment order of March 13, 1863; and while it gives to the heads of bu- 
reaus the rank of commodore, as in that order, it provides that retired 
officers of the staff who have served faithfully forty-five years, shall 
have the rank of commodore; (these are the fleet officers of the 
war;) and that officers retired at sixty-two years under the existing 
laws, who have served forty years faithfully, shall also have the 
same rank. 
DETAILS OF THE BILL. 
It apportions to the different grades the number of officers which 
on full examination the committee have from all the sources of in- 29 
formation at their command believed to be demanded by the inter- 
ests of the service, reducing the aggregate in each corps. The 
number of the medical corps is reduced twenty, that of the paymas- 
ters twenty-five, while the number of engineers, heretofore uncertain, 
is now limited to a number which it is believed will be sufficient for 
the present demands of the service. 
The bill provides in clear and distinct language, adopting the 
phraseology of the regulations, that no staff officer shall exercise 
command or authority in the line of the Navy or in any staff corps 
or department except that to which he belongs ; that they shall have 
no additional right to quarters on account of their rank ; and that 
in processions on shore, on courts-martial, courts of inquiry, boards 
of survey, and all other boards, line and staff officers shall take pre- 
cedence according to rank, as in the Army. These provisions of the 
bill answer completely and with force of law that pretended objec- 
tion to the bill which asserts that it gives authority to staff officers 
to command vessels, posts, &c., the fact being that no staff officer 
can exercise such command in the presence of a line officer. The 
bill is a measure of reform, not only in its military features but also 
in relation to the pay of the Navy. Compared with existing laws 
its provisions will reduce the pay of the Navy from seventy-five to 
one hundred thousand dollars per annum. 
CONSTRUCTION. 
There has been much discussion in your committee and elsewhere 
upon the phraseology by which rank is conferred and the terms 
“positive,” “assimilated,” and “relative” rank. The difficulty is 
one of words and construction only, and it has arisen entirely from 
the novel, forced, and unjust construction placed upon them by 
officers of the line. Without.this there would have been no differ- 
ence or cavil. It must be remembered that the line officers have the 
unrestricted opportunity to dictate a construction and an unlimited 
power to enforce it and punish its violation. In all this they are 
supreme. They declare on the quarter-deck what the law means. 
They issue orders based on their construction of it. They detail and 
organize the courts-martial that are to settle it. They hold a re- 
visory power over their judgments, and they approve or reject, they 
punish or pardon, according to their own will. It is to the line an 
unlimited power, and it would be contrary to the experience of 
mankind to find such power exercised without partiality and preju- 
dice. The history of the Navy illustrates most forcibly the truth of 
this. The case of Dr. Green, who was court-martialed and found 
guilty of disobedience of orders in refusing to erase the name of 
John Simmons, a seaman on board the steamer Nipsic, when his 
head had been cut open by a cutlass in the hands of an officer, from 
the sick list, at the order of Commander Selfridge, wTas a case of 
construction and discipline. Plere the judgment, oath, conscience, 30 
and prescribed duties of the surgeon were subordinated and sacxfi- 
fieed to the will of the commanding officer of the line; and, strange, 
as it may seem, this high-handed outrage against humanity and 
good conscience, against the law and regulations of the Navy, was 
sustained through all the stages of prosecution, and the surgeon 
punished as for a breach of duty. 
Now, let us see how tine line have brought this power and disposi - 
tion to bear upon the construction of the acts of Congress regulating 
staff rank. The language of the statute is, that staff officers are “to 
rank with'11 certain grades of the line. The line officers contend that 
these woi’ds do not confer x’ank. They do not tell us what Congress 
did intend by this language, but ixxsist that it did not ixitexxd to give 
rank. From this illiberality and unfairness has arisen much of the 
difficulty which this bill seeks to remedy ; axid it becoxnes xiecessary, 
in view of the tendency of the line to render the staff the victims of 
a forced and unfair construction of law, to axxnounce their pux’pose 
in clear and decisive phraseology, so as to exclude the forced con- 
clusions, of which too many examples exist. 
We have therefore made the language clear axxd distinct and the 
irxtention incapable of misapprehension by the use of the imperative 
woi'ds “ shall have the rank of',” a phraseology which will be fouxxd 
in the statute givixxg staff rank in the army. Congx’ess has found it 
necessary in many ixxstances to be imperative with the Navy, and it 
cannot afford in this case to clothe its legislation in ambiguous laxx- 
guage. 
The advocates of the line tell us that there is no virtue or benefit 
in rank when separated from “command.” Will these ardent ad- 
mix'ers of exclusiveness, inequality, and caste tell us why old men, 
no longer able to command, unfitted by age and disqualified by law 
for that duty, cling with such tenacity to their rank. Is it not be- 
cause without it they would be the mei'est nonentities that society 
holds ? Why does this class of axxcient mariners of whom I speak 
press your committees for an ixxcrease of rank after the capacity for 
command has gone to the “ tombs of the Capulets?” At the very 
last sessioxx these men came here and asked to be “ retired” with 
the rank of rear admiral instead of commodore, axid the grades be- 
low them pressed up with hot haste to take their places in the suc- 
cessive grades of advancement. What means the terrible struggle 
of the Vice Admiral to push his way into the vacant place of the 
glorious old dead hex’o, Farragut. The necessity of command, for- 
sooth ! Sir, it is the baldest, sheerest humbug to pretend that such 
advancement gx’ows out of the necessities of the service or the duties 
of command. 
VALUE OF RANK. 
It is honor ; honor, the great reward for a life devoted and conse- 
crated to the service of the country; honor, a reward for long years 31 
of isolation, danger, and duty performed ; honor, the goal of am- 
bition, the soul of military organization, which shines attractive 
above the stern form of its exclusiveness and despotism, which is 
sought and struggled for through all vicissitudes and obstacles, and 
which no class, either in military or civil life, in this country have 
a right to claim as exclusively their own. And yet the advocates of 
caste claim that rank has no value save in name, and that, in mili- 
tary circles even, it is an empty bauble. Sir, it would seem that 
that which all desire and seek must indeed be valuable. Those 
who sneer most maliciously at the efforts of others to attain it, are 
the most ardent in its pursuit, and, having compassed its posses, 
sion, cherish it most fondly. They come from the remotest corners 
of the earth to the shadows of the capital to clamor for it. They 
obtain it. They accept it; and in its enjoyment arrogate to them- 
selves as the favored class all its consideration and benefit, and 
sneer at their peers in accomplishments and merit who respectfully 
ask the same justice at the hands of Congress. 
Of what benefit is rank to the staff officer ? 
1. It gives him a certain and fixed status in the organization. 
This is imperatively demanded for his mental and physical 
comfort. 
2. It makes him an officer in fact as well as in name and official 
rank, enables him to perform his duties with greater ease and effi- 
ciency, as it gives him respect and consideration with all his asso- 
ciates, both above and below him. 
3. It takes away that sentiment of inferiority which so long an- 
noyed the staff of the Army. That was extinguished by the law of 
1849, since which time the completest harmony has existed there on 
this question, and its discipline has been improved without any de- 
terioration of authority or privilege from the line of the Army. 
4. It relieves him from the continual taunt of the younger line 
officers, that he is not entitled to official respect because he has no 
rank. 
5. If he has “ actual rank,” as General Sherman happily terms it, 
they share with the line in a common honor to which none have an 
exclusive right. 
The advantages secured by (he bill are— 
1. That it remedies an anomaly in the military organization of 
the Navy, and brings it into conformity with all other military 
organizations. 
2. It settles a long-existing controversy in our Navy, which to-day 
antagonizes six hundred and fifty officers of the staff against six 
hundred and fifty officers of the line. 
3. It restores the staff of the Navy to the position given them in 
consideration of their services in the recent war, of their attain- 
ments, and character, and nature of their duties; a position from 32 
which they were degraded by the revocation of the order of March 
13, 1863. 
4. It gives to the surgeons, paymasters, and engineers of the Navy, 
without interference with the command of the vessel, that position, 
consideration, comfort, and social recognition, without which high 
professional culture and talent cannot be secured in any military or- 
ganization. 
5. It enlarges and liberalizes the spirit of the organization, and re- 
moves that exclusiveness and aristocracy in our Navy, which in time 
of peace render it obnoxious and unpopular with the country. 
6. It brings harmony to this branch of the public service, by elimi- 
nating from it a radical and vicious defect; one by which brains, 
culture, and professional experience are subordinated to the artifi- 
cial distinctions of rank, without regard to age, length of service, or 
responsibility. 
7. It settles for the Navy distinctly that well-defined line between 
line and staff which exists in all other military organizations, and 
which the line officers, under the lead of Admiral Porter, have 
sought to ignore and destroy. 
8. It is carrying out the policy of former Congresses in promot- 
ing and advancing staff officers pari p>assu with those of the line, 
within the limits of military usage. 
9, By its moral effect it tends to enhance the comfort and secure 
the good treatment of the enlisted men of the Navy, by increasing 
the respect and usefulness of a class who, not being in command, 
naturally discourage the cruel treatment and unlawful punishment 
too frequent in the Navy. 
10. By eradicating a false, proscriptive, and oppressive principle 
in military organization it relieves the service of a source of discon- 
tent and bitterness which is sure to arise where such principle exists. 
11. It fixes the status of the officers of the Navy by law, the same 
as in the Army, thus taking the question out of the reach of the 
uncertainty and caprice of hostile regulations, made from time to 
time by irresponsible power. It gives it a firm legal basis. 
12. It gives substantially what one year ago was conceded by a 
mixed board of the line and staff officers appointed for the purpose 
of settling the question, but which was suppressed by hostile influ- 
ences. 
13. It settles the false and unmilitary division into “combatants” 
and “ non-combatants ” set up by the line, and elsewhere exploded* 
The records of the war show that more of the staff than of the line 
of the Navy, in proportion to their numbers, were killed and 
wounded in battle. 
14. It will prevent the resignations and vacancies in the staff 
which are the result of the degradation and persecution visited by 
the line upon the staff. 
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the present settlement of this 33 
question on the ground of justice to the staff corps of the Navy can- 
not be postponed without detriment to the harmony of the service, 
to the just principles of American military organization, and econ- 
omy in legislation. It is in the very nature of things that this con- 
troversy can have no end until this anti-American slavish distinc- 
tion, which has no counterpart in other military bodies, is stricken 
from the Navy. In the improvements that have taken place in 
military organizations our Navy seems to have had but very little 
share. In its body still lurks this remnant of caste and slavery, 
which seeks to subordinate a portion of its members and to draw 
between them, without warrant, the line of military and civil dis- 
tinction, and refuses to share equally the honors of its rank accord- 
ing to military custom. 
That distinction is most offensively put by Vice Admiral Porter 
in his letter to the Secretary of the Navy, and, though denounced 
by the immortal Farragut, is still cherished with all the ardor of 
professional caste by the school of Annapolis. This same contro- 
versy arose and ■was settled years since in the British army and 
navy, at the instance and intervention of the Duke of Wellington 
and Sir John Parkington, and upon the principle of positive rank 
for the staff. It is time that it was settled in this country. Its set- 
tlement under the provisions of this bill recognizes, by the honor of 
fixed and positive rank, the value of professional services, and the 
merit and importance of that skilled labor and mechanical art which, 
under the fostering care of our free institutions, are contributing so 
largely to the wealth, the power and prosperity of our country. 
The intelligent and active men representing these great interests 
will never be content with an unjust and unnecessary subordina- 
tion. The staff is proud of the Navy, of its history, and the great 
achievements, in which they have borne their full share, and while 
they cheerfully concede to its great commanders the glory of its 
many victories, they justly claim their heritage of honor attendant 
upon long, arduous service, and dangers shared with their brethren 
of the line. 
Mr. Stevens yielded the floor to Mr. Scofield, Mr. Hale, and. 
Mr. Myers, who severally addressed the House; after which— 
Mr. STEVENS resumed the floor. 
Mr. MAYNARD. Will the gentleman allow me to offer an amend- 
ment? 
Mr. STEVENS. I cannot yield for any amendment. In reply to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Myers,] I will say that this 
law, which was passed some six years ago, placed the rights of the 
warrant officers in the hands of the President of the United States. 
It is most fortunate that the President is a military man, who under- 
stands these subjects ; and the application to him by these gentle- 
men, if they will make it, as they have not yet done, will be received 
with favor, or certainly with due consideration. 34 
Now I desire to say that so far as the representatives of the me- 
chanical skill of the country are concerned, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Scofield] has done great injustice to the pro- 
visions of the bill and to its authors. This is the first and only bill 
that has been presented here giving the mechanical interest of the 
Navy a certain fixed and positive rank. I think there is some little 
confusion, however, in regard to this matter. The warrant officers 
of which the gentleman speaks do not represent the mechanics of 
the country. Properly speaking, they represent the sailors. The 
constructors and engineers do, however, represent in an eminent 
degree, the skilled mechanics of the country, and this bill recognizes 
them, and gives them actual, positive rank. 
Now, sir, I do not propose to continue this discussion at further 
length. I will, however, allude to what the gentleman said upon 
the question of granting honors and conferring rank in the military 
organizations in this country. The gentleman says that it is uncon- 
stitutional, but I think he will fail to find in the Constitution any 
clause or provision sustaining his position. His allusion to the clause 
against orders of nobility will hardly sustain it, and the practice of 
the Government, from its earliest foundation, is the practical an- 
swer to this theory. I think his difficulty may be found in his 
drawing no distinction between society and civil service, where 
rank is properly and wisely excluded, and privileged orders un- 
known, and the military service of the country where rank has 
thus far been found by all Governments quite as necessary as power 
and authority, and where martial law is substituted for civil juris- 
prudence. 
The gentleman says also that this bill gives command to the en- 
gineer or to the surgeon over the line officer. Sir, by military law, 
by the regulations of the Na\y, and by the provisions of this bill, a 
staff officer can have no command except over the subordinates of 
his own corps; and this command, so absolutely requisite to the 
efficiency and discipline of the service, is given in all military bodies, 
and is by present law ai.d regulation an incident in our naval ser- 
vice. An engineer, for instance, can have command only over 
subordinate engineers and assistants in his department. I ask the 
gentleman to show a single instance where a staff officer ban have 
command when a line officer is present. 
Mr. HALE. Will the gentleman allow me to ask a question right 
in point? 
Mr. STEVENS. Yes, sir. 
Mr. HALE. Will the gentleman state what would be the result 
on board of a ship if the head of the surgeon corps and the com- 
mander of the ship came to loggerheads about a subject-matter in 
that corps ? And what would be the result if added to that the head 
of the pay corps in the ship came to loggerheads with the com- 
mander of the ship about a subject-matter in that corps ? And so in 35 
relation to the engineer department. And would not the matter be 
all the more complicated if all those officers had the same relative 
rank ? 
Mr. STEVENS. If the gentleman will reflect upon what consti- 
tutes military rank and military command, I think he will admit 
that no such circumstance could ever occur as a surgeon, an engineer, 
and a paymaster having control independent of the captain of a ship. 
Mr. HALE. Then why the force of the exception, if 
Mr. STEVENS. I beg pardon of the gentleman ; lam answer- 
ing his question. The captain of a ship has sole and unlimited 
power. And if an admiral was on board that ship as a passenger, 
not under orders, he could not take the control of the ship away 
from the captain. If the gentleman will turn to the regulations ex- 
isting iii the Navy for many years past he will find that your com- 
mittee have incorporated in this section which gentlemen are now 
attacking the very language of those articles regulating command 
of staff officers. And yet gentlemen, in order to antagonize them- 
selves to this bill, say that that law, which has stood in the Navy 
in the form of regulations for many years, regulating command, now 
takes command away from the captain of the ship! Somebody is mis- 
taken ; either the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Scofield] 
and the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Hade] or the Navy Depart- 
ment of the United States, which has had these regulations, word 
for word, standing on their books for years. 
Mr. Speaker, so strongly, indeed, is this bill fortified by those prin- 
ciples of necessity and equity which lie at the foundation of all the 
military organizations known to the civilized world, that in order 
to strike a blow at its integrity the gentleman is compelled to carry 
his effort to great length ; so far, indeed, as to seek to overthrow 
those incidents of military authority and dignity which have been 
sanctioned by the experience of centuries, and which are as wide- 
spread as civilized governments. It is a most extraordinary posi- 
tion, indeed, to ignore honor and distinction, which is the goal of 
human aspirations, in many cases stronger than the love of letters, 
stronger than avarice, and oftentimes than all other sentiments and 
affections ; a principle so all-pervading, so universal in its applica- 
tion, and so well recognized that nothing has ever been found equal 
to its eradication. Not even the lied Eepublicanism of France, 
which sought to merge all distinctions and grades in a common 
citizenship, went further than the principle contended for. 
Mr. Speaker, we must take things as they are. We must look 
upon society as we find it. In the organization necessary to the ex- 
istence and protection of the Navy we must have due regard to those 
sentiments of the human character which constantly incite men to 
fortune and to fame. We cannot ignore it in civil life, and the ex- 
perience of the whole world and all ages teaches us the folly of at- 
tempting to suppress it in military organizations. This Jove of 36 
distinction, which brings with it consideration, comfort, and respect,, 
enters largely into the incentives and the reward of military action- 
We hold out to the young man just entering upon the active duties 
of his occupation or profession the advancing grades and stages 
where he may rest, proud in the consciousness of what he has 
achieved, proud in the power of his intellect and influence, holding 
up before him the golden prize, which is the reward of effort, intel- 
ligence and duty performed. In all military organizations RANK 
is the designation of that position. So in the Army we find that 
through the various stages the lieutenant passes to the rank of Gene- 
ral, and in the Navy the midshipman works or fights his way up to 
the proud position of Admiral. 
Let me say, with all due respect, to the gentleman whose philos- 
ophy has been so severely tested to find arguments against this bill, 
who has been carried back almost to'a state of nature, in which he 
finds less distinction and less observance of these marks of great- 
ness, in order that he may find arguments against rank and promo- 
tion, that he is battling against the experience of centuries and tilt- 
ing against the acknowledged necessities of military organization. 
Is it not, sir, a fight against the wind-mills? Is it not an attempt 
to grasp the millennium while all around him is bristling with the 
ardor of progress and the air is full of strife and contention ? I shall 
not pursue this subject further, but leave the gentleman to find in 
those communities of Fourierism and phalanxes of transcendental- 
ism which are scattered here and there throughout our country the 
fruition of those hopes which seem to animate him in his endeavors 
to strike out of existence all designations of military rank and mili- 
tary orders.