greatly improved by holding out to them the possibility of earning, by good service, a commission as professor in the Naval Academy, with retirement for age. Recommendations.-3. That civilian professors and instructors be provided with quarters or the commutation now allowed to officers performing like service, and to give them the privilege of purchasing coal and wood at Government rates. 4. That after good service for a term of years civilian instructors receive commissions as professors at the Naval Academy with retirement for age. REPORT OF 1905. Recommendations.-5. That civilian professors and instructors be provided with quarters or commutation therefor as now allowed to officers performing like service; that they have the privilege of purchasing coal and wood at Government rates, and that provision be made for their promotion and increased compensation as they progress in experience and efficiency. We regard the foregoing as a requirement of simple justice to an accomplished and deserving number of civilians who are rendering efficient and valuable service in the training and developing of officers for the Navy. At present they have no hope of promotion or increase in compensation as an incentive to excel in their work, such as obtains in every other branch of the civil service. REPORT OF 1906. Recommendations.-13. Commutation for quarters for civilian professors and instructors, with the privilege of purchasing coal and wood at Government rates. 14. Longevity pay for professors. REPORT OF 1907. Recommendations.-7. That civilian professors and instructors should have privilege of purchasing coal and wood at Government rates and should receive an allowance for quarters and an increase of pay commensurate with the length of their service at the academy. REPORT OF 1908. Recommendations.—The board recommends that civilian professors and instructors shall have the privilege of purchasing coal and wood at Government rates, and that they shall all be allowed commutation for quarters. REPORT OF 1910. Recommendations.—In justice to the civilian professors and instructors, who have rendered many years of efficient service to the academy and have grown old in its service, the board earnestly recommends that suitable provision be made by appropriate legislation to care for them in their old age. REPORT OF 1911. Recommendations.-Same as 1910. MEMORANDUM CONCERNING CIVILIAN INSTRUCTORS AT THE UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY. A. The following arguments have been made in favor of substituting line officers for civilian instructors in English, mathematics, and foreign languages at the Naval Academy: 1. "To instill a military spirit in the midshipmen." The military drills and exercises at the academy are under the exclusive control of what is called the discipline department, composed of a dozen officers. That department also inflicts all punishments. Officers of that department come in constant contact with midshipmen and accompany them to the very doors of the recitation rooms. The remaining naval officers, some 85 in number, as well as the civilian instructors, some 27 in number, have nothing to do with military exercises. (a) These naval officers and the civilian instructors have the following duties to perform: To report all infractions of the school rules (called regulations), such as those against smoking, drinking, absence without leave, etc. But it must be noted that both these naval officers and the civilians have little opportunity to observe the midshipmen outside of classroom, as they rather rarely come into contact with them. (b) Again, these officers and the civilian instructors have the following duties, which may be construed as military, but which are certainly very simple-so simple that they are not always enforced by the naval officers themselves: (1) For example, the order is that the midshipman must stand at attention when reciting. (2) Must not cross his legs when in the classroom, etc. A few more simple little rules that a child can understand comprise the whole military part of the classroom work. As may be seen, the civilian instructor, having had on the average 10 or more years' experience in teaching midshipmen, has a great advantage over the line officer who comes back to teach for two years some 5 to 10 years after graduating. The civilian instructor is better able to exact obedience to the classroom regulations, being a teacher and accustomed to disciplining boys, than is the naval officer who neither knows how to discipline boys nor realizes, not being a teacher, what classroom discipline is necessary. It is a well-known fact that few of these officer-instructors care for the disciplinary or military side of the school. They feel that that is something they can leave to the discipline department. The officer has his commission and is independent of others, and feels that teaching is outside of his profession. The civilian instructor, being a teacher, is willing to carry out any instructions which the head of the school may give as to classroom discipline. It will be seen, therefore, that the civilian instructor is really a military man of long experience in classroom discipline. Of course, many of the civilian instructors have had other military experience, either in the National Guard or in foreign armies, teaching in military schools, etc. Finally, to put an officer to teaching a subject that he does not know not only does not 'instill a military spirit in midshipmen," but excites criticism, contempt, and even insubordination in them. The civilian teacher, knowing his subject, is treated with more respect than the line officer, who does not. A man who knows his business and attends to it easily and well commands respect. He who does not, must expect on the part of pupils a certain insolence justified by his own weakness. The naval officer has his profession, where he is supreme, but he can not hope to compete, for example, in the foreign-language classroom with the trained teacher and linguist. 66 2. The second reason assigned for the proposed change is to keep pace with progress in the fleet." This is not a case in point. There is no connection between progress in the fleet and the classrooms, for example, in foreign languages. Hence there is no argument. 3. In the third place, it is said that from an aesthetic standpoint the change would be desirable. It must be admitted that there is something in this point, but one must remember that appreciation of the æsthetic is very largely in the eye of the beholder. It is doubtless clear that a certain minimum of æsthetics must often, in practice, be sacrificed to plain usefulness and efficiency. B. Frank discussion with naval officers has suggested the following motives for the proposed change: (1) To have only uniformed officers in authority, even in the class room. (2) To increase the social brilliance of this station; since officers spend more time and money socially than civilians. (3) To help new personnel legislation by increasing the shortage of officers, particularly in grades of lieutenant and above. According to Admiral Andrews's report, 1912, page 10, the service requirements call for 554 additional officers in the grades of lieutenant and above. (4) To have more shore duty for line officers. C. The authors of the proposed change ignore the following facts: (1) Civilians form only 22 per cent of the teaching staff of the academy. They have never been less than 13 per cent of it. (2) Officers have far less than a college education in English and foreign languages. (3) Officers have no experience in teaching these subjects. (4) Officers for teaching are not specially selected, for, since the fleet and navy-yard work is considered more important and is preferred by officers, the academy gets second or third choice of personnel. (5) Shore duty is naturally regarded by the naval officer as more or less vacation and holiday time. It is unfair and impracticable to expect him to learn a new profession in two or three years ashore. Moreover, he will not sacrifice his evenings and other spare time to learn nonprofessional subjects for which he does not care. (6) The teaching of these subjects by officers is universally disapproved by educators, including ex-President Elliot, etc. (7) Instruction by officers at West Point has proven superficial and unscientific, according to President Pritchett, of the Carnegie Foundation. (Atlantic Monthly, Nov. 1908.) (8) In the naval and military schools of England, Germany, France, Italy, etc., nonmilitary branches are always taught by civilians. In the royal naval colleges of England, even the head masters and heads of departments are civilians, and the director of naval education is a civilian, (See British Navy List, p. 557, ff.) The CHAIRMAN. Then, I have a letter from Prof. B. L. Gildersleeve, acting president of Johns Hopkins University, who submits a protest. The letter referred to by the chairman follows: Hon. L. P. PADGETT, THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, PRESIDENT'S OFFICE, Baltimore, Md., December 31, 1912. Chairman of the House Committee on Naval Affairs, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In the necessary absence of the president of the Johns Hopkins, I have been requested as the senior member of the faculty to give expression to what I believe to be the unanimous opinion of our academic body that a change in the method of appointing teachers for the Naval Academy by restricting such appointments to officers in the Navy would be highly detrimental to the best interests of the service. Didactic faculty and scientific attainments are rare enough at any rate, and to limit the choice of instructors to men who have never had an opportunity of practicing or showing their powers of imparting knowledge, and have never themselves been scientifically trained in the branches they are expected to teach, would be a policy sure to be reprobated by all who are interested in educational problems. Very sincerely, yours, BASIL L. GILDERSLEEVE, Francis White Professor of Greek Capt. GIBBONS. This anonymous statement and the accompanying letters from distinguished college professors, while interesting as a plea for retaining six instructors whose services are no longer required, lack authority when presuming to outline a policy for "the best interests of the naval service." The only reason for employing civilian instructors in any large number has been the lack of seagoing officers available for duty at the Naval Academy. In 1906 there were only three heads of departments who were seagoing officers, and this was criticized by the Wainwright Board as follows: The absence of such officers from the faculty must gradually tend to a loss of that close connection with the service that has always been the strong point of the academy *. Besides, the small number of seagoing officers that come in contact with the midshipmen has a tendency to make their military training less efficient. There has been no deviation in this policy, and under present service condition the number of civilian instructors at the academy is considered too large. There has never been held out to these instructors any promise that their employment would be permanent. The conditions that necessitated their employment have passed. This is shown by the fact that these instructors now have before Congress a bill that provides That professors who have or shall hereafter have served twenty-five years at the Naval Academy may, on the recommendation of the Secretary of the Navy, be commissioned as professors of mathematics with the rank of lieutenant commander, to be additional to the number allowed by existing law: Provided, That for pay and other purposes service as an instructor or professor at the Naval Academy previous to being commissioned shall count as service in the Navy: Provided further, That twenty-five years of completed service at the Naval Academy shall be taken as fulfilling all legal requirements for appointment and commission, and that for the purposes of this act limitations as to age at the time of appointment shall not apply, nor shall age constitute a claim for retirement. To fill the retired list of lieutenant commanders with professors of languages, doctors of philosophy, astronomers, and mathematicians can hardly be justified on the ground of economy in naval admin istration. Mr. TRIBBLE. Captain, Army officers are not sent to sea for sea duty? Capt. GIBBONS. Some of them go on transports-quartermasters. Mr. TRIBBLE. There is no such thing as sending an Army officer to sea for sea duty? Capt. GIBBONS. I think not. Mr. TRIBBLE. Understand, I am not trying to trap you or anything like that. You have plenty of naval officers on shore duty to fill all of the positions at the Naval Academy which are necessary to fill. Would it be too much trouble for you to put in the record the number of naval officers on shore duty during the year 1912, where they were located, and what they were doing? Capt. GIBBONS. The Bureau of Navigation in the Navy Department keeps all that data. Mr. TRIBBLE. It is frequently charged by the newspapers, and I charge it to-day, that there are a number of naval officers on shore duty who do not do anything, that they are right here in Washington. Capt. GIBBONS. That charge was made against Capt. Cole on the floor of the House. It is not true. Mr. ROBERTS. When was that charge made? Capt. COLE. Mr. Tribble made that charge. Mr. ROBERTS. I want to ask whether you have quarters at the Naval Academy for all the commissioned officers detailed there? Capt. GIBBONS. No; not by any means. Mr. ROBERTS. Some of the present officers have to get commutation and live outside? Capt. GIBBONS. Yes, sir. Mr. ROBERTS. If you do away with the civilian instructors and put naval officers in their places, it would simply add to that complícation, and you would, perhaps, have more officers drawing commutation? Capt. GIBBONS. To a certain extent. In the case of the civilian instructors, many were living in the officers' mess building, the quarters for unmarried officers, when I went there, and the naval officers were living in town. I therefore promptly proceeded to fill those quarters with unmarried officers. Mr. ROBERTS. The civilian instructors do live outside? Capt. GIBBONS. They do now. Mr. ROBERTS. They get nothing for commutation? Capt. GIBBONS. A good many lived inside before I assumed command. Mr. ROBERTS. But their employment did not contemplate any quarters in the academy, their compensation was flat $1,800, and if they did not get accommodations in the academy they had to go outside and pay for them out of the $1,800? Capt. GIBBONS. Yes, sir. Mr. ROBERTS. If you increase the number of officers at the academy, if you are not able to provide them with quarters, they will by law be allowed commutation? Capt. GIBBONS. We hope in time, with the liberality of Congress, to quarter them at the academy. Mr. ROBERTS. But I am speaking of present conditions? Capt. GIBBONS. We can not quarter them under present conditions. Mr. HOBSON. I would like to ask whether you have a plan or scheme for increasing the officers' quarters? Capt. GIBBONS. There is a plan which contemplates the acquisition of two city blocks. That has been before the department for many years. Mr. BATHRICK. It has been stated before the committee that about one-third of the retired naval officers were available for duty in the case of emergency, I presume in the case of war. knowledge of that? Capt. GIBBONS. I have not. Have you any Mr. BATHRICK. It was stated here by one of the admirals. Capt. GIBBONS. I think there was a law and it was modified. Mr. BATHRICK. I understand that one-third of the retired officers are available for duty? Capt. GIBBONS. Possibly; I am not familiar with that. Mr. BATHRICK. If that be true, and you are short of your complement of officers to man the ships, which I believe is true, have you ever considered the proposition of using retired naval officers at the academy? Capt. GIBBONS. It has been done. I think it has been done in times of war, when they detached active officers. At the outbreak of the Spanish War most active officers on shore duty were relieved by a retired officer. When war breaks out every officer on the active list is anxious to go to sea, and at that time it has been the custom to detail retired officers to the duties performed by active officers. Mr. BATHRICK. Do you know of any retired officers now filling positions in some of the departments of the Government? Capt. GIBBONS. I do not. I think the idea was to relieve them all on the 1st of last July. The CHAIRMAN. We amended that act in the last appropriation bill, which became law on the 22d of August, allowing the employment of retired officers, by their consent. It was in the appropriation bill of last August, the last appropriation bill. Mr. HOBSON. Can you tell us whether the heads of departments at the academy generally approve of the proposition of substituting officers for civilians? Capt. GIBBONS. They do. Mr. HOBSON. The heads of the departments involved? Capt. GIBBONS. Possibly mathematics does not. Mr. HOBSON. Who has charge of mathematics? Capt. GIBBONS. Professor of mathematics, H. E. Smith, a graduate. Mr. HOBSON. Who has charge of English? |