Page images
PDF
EPUB

in illegal work of this character and discharge their contraband cargoes at points remote from authorized ports of entry or the headquarters of any Federal official in a position to exercise any check upon their operations.

It is hardly necessary to point out how radically different conditions are at the present time. The country has a large and constantly growing Navy. There has been developed a very complete system for the registry and enrollment of all vessels engaged in marine transportation; for keeping track of their movements, through requirements regarding the entrance and clearance from ports; for reporting vessels sighted; and, generally, for keeping fully and currently informed regarding the existence and movements of sea-going vessels. The country and coast are now studded with settlements. Means of communication have been developed, and the methods of dispatching information through the telegraph, telephone, wireless, and other systems have reached a high state of development. And, finally, the increase in the activities of the Government has necessitated the establishment of Federal offices or stations along the coast at practically every point where goods by cargo may be landed, and the officers in charge can give information promptly regarding illegal work carried on in their localities.

As a result of these changed conditions, the same need for a coast patrol of a military character and for efforts looking to the prevention of smuggling by cargo no longer exists. The commission understands that this is practically admitted by the Treasury Department, but that the department is still of the opinion that there is need for a patrol of the coast by armed vessels on account of the deterrent effect produced, if for no other reason. The commission is willing, for the purposes of the present report, to admit that the Treasury Department is correct in its contention and that some need for a coast patrol in the interests of the customs service still exists. Especially may this be the case in respect to the coast of Florida and adjacent States where there may be some danger of smuggling by cargo from the West Indies. The commission does, however, hold that the need for a service of this character is slight in comparison with that which existed in times gone by, and, in so far as it does exist, can be met by the Navy Department, and if need be, one or more craft may be detailed whenever occasion may require.

In opposition, the point may be urged that the Naval Establishment should not be intrusted with the duty of enforcing laws regarding civil affairs. Objection on this ground, however, can be overcome by devising some system of cooperation which would be satisfactory to both departments.

If further evidence is required that the work of the cruising cutters is peculiarly of a character to be effectively performed by naval vessels, that evidence can be found in the fact that the Revenue-Cutter Service itself is organized upon a purely military or naval basis. The service has been in fact most insistent throughout its history that its work was of such a character that it should be given the status and character of a naval establishment; that its officers should have military rank and enjoy all of the special privileges, perquisites, etc., of the naval service. In this contention the service has achieved such success that it is now organized and conducted wholly on a military or naval basis. In view of this it is difficult to see how the position

can be successfully maintained that the work being done is not such as can be done by vessels of the Naval Establishment proper.

Coming now to duties that are performed in harbors and on land, the problem has to do with a very distinct class of duties, and with essentially different questions of organization and administration. It will be seen, by reference to the enumeration of duties under this head, that use is made of the personnel and the harbor cutters as agents to assist in the enforcement of the navigation, quarantine, and immigration laws; to perform certain special duties in relation to the anchorage of vessels at four specially designated ports; and to assist in the administration of the affairs of the Life-Saving Service. The first significant fact to stand out prominently in relation to these duties is that, whatever may be the argument in favor of having the service that mans and operates cruising cutters organized and run on a military system, no valid argument can be brought forward in favor of giving a military character to the service performing these harbor and land duties. To do so makes for poor economy and bad administration, and requires the employment of an expensive type of organization and administration.

Apart from this consideration the commission believes that the duties of the class now under consideration, not only logically should be performed by the services to be benefited thereby, but can be performed by the latter services more economically and efficiently than under the present arrangement.

For example, what can be more illogical, more inefficient, or worse practice than the present arrangement according to which an important part of the actual work of administering the affairs of one service the Life-Saving Service is performed by officers of another independent service the Revenue-Cutter Service?

Here is presented the case of one captain and nine other officers of the Revenue-Cutter Service filling the position of inspector and assistant inspectors of life-saving stations-two captains filling the position of superintendents of construction and repair of life-saving stations, and one captain filling the position of superintendent of construction of lifeboats and apparatus. These men are all selected, trained, and educated for service of a military character as officers of the Revenue-Cutter Service. They receive the higher pay of military officers and the additional emoluments in the way of travel, quarters, and other allowances, and their salaries are paid from appropriations for the Revenue-Cutter Service.

This practice is indefensible and constitutes a serious defect in the present organization of the service. There is no objection to the practice of having officials of one service detailed for the performance of special work in another service, when such work is of a temporary character. The permanent detail in this manner of officers from one service to another, however, can not be defended. It results in divided responsibility, conflict of authority and jurisdiction, confusion of accounts, with the result of not showing all the expense to the Government in operating the Life-Saving Service, and other administrative difficulties.

A special objection to this practice is the certainty that numerous changes will take place in respect to the persons performing the work by detail. It is not likely that persons belonging to one service will be permanently detailed to other services. If such a detail

represents work of an advantageous and congenial character, there will be a feeling in the service that all of the officers eligible for the detail should be given equal opportunities. If the work is uncongenial the feeling will be equally strong that it would be unfair to keep the same persons permanently on such detail. Apart from the constant shifting of personnel that is thus likely to result, there is the further disadvantage that the persons detailed have been selected and trained for the performance of other work and their interest is likely to lie in such other work. The service to which the detail is made can not select men with a sole view to their qualifications for the work to be performed, or to retain permanently those who prove themselves especially competent in respect to the duties to be performed.

In the present case there is no technical reason why the LifeSaving Service should not be conducted wholly by its own officials. The only explanation of the fact that it is not so conducted lies in the circumstances under which the service came into existence. Its organization was brought about by the active interest of the head of the Revenue-Cutter Service in life-saving work. It was natural that in the absence of a perfected organization the law should at the outset authorize the utilization of the personnel of an existing service. This was accomplished through the enactment of the provisions of the act of March 3, 1873, now constituting 424 of Revised Statutes, which provided: "That all life-saving stations hereafter created shall be erected under the supervision of two captains of the Revenue (Marine) Service to be designated by the Secretary of the Treasury and to be under his direction," and the further enactment of section 8 of the act of June 18, 1878, providing:

That the Secretary of the Treasury may detail such officer or officers of the Revenue Marine Service as may be necessary as inspector and assistant inspectors of stations, who shall perform such duties in connection with the conduct of the service as may be required of them by the general superintendent.

Now that the Life-Saving Service is firmly established, there is no justification for its affairs being administered by officers of another service. The condition is not that of officers of one service rendering assistance to another, but of actually administering its affairs.

From the standpoint of the Revenue-Cutter Service, one or the other of two things takes place either the service is deprived of the services of officers of whom it has need for its own work, or it is permanently provided with a larger force of officers than it needs.

From the standpoint of the Life-Saving Service, use is made of officers who receive a higher compensation in the way of salary and allowances than is received by other civil officials doing the same grade of work; who have subjected the Government to a considerable preliminary expense for their special education and training for other duties; who are constantly shifting, with the result that scarcely have they fully mastered the requirements of their posts than they are supplanted by others who may be wholly new to the work to be done; whose interest in the work is only temporary, their permanent interests being in the affairs of another service, and who, by filling these important positions, close the door to advancement on the part of the permanent personnel of the service, and thus affect injuriously the whole tone, or esprit de corps, of such service.

This statement of the evils of the existing system represents merely the unavoidable conclusions that must be reached by any

person making a critical study of the organization and methods of the two services.

The undesirability of present conditions is testified to in no uncertain terms by the head of the Life-Saving Service, who, in a communication to the Secretary of the Treasury, under date of March 25, 1911, says:

Another important duty assigned to the Revenue Marine officers in the beginning was that of drilling the crews, who, although expert surfmen, were entirely unac customed to disciplinary government. The superintendents were also equally untrained in methodical means of handling organized bodies. The training which the Revenue Marine officers had received in their own corps was of very great use in this respect, although they themselves had to acquire from the life-saving crews a familiarity with the art of handling boats in the surf, an art which is not part of the profession of a sailor, whose business it is to conduct vessels from one port to another and to keep as far away from the dangers of the surf as practicable. They also had to learn the method of handling the wrecked ordnance, so unlike any then used on shipboard. Owing to the fact that now-as has been the case for nearly a quarter of a century-promotions to the positions of station keeper in the Life-Saving Service are made from the ranks of the surfmen, and those to the position of district superintendents from the keepers, by merit, these officers have become fully as competent to drill the crews as the Revenue Cutter officers, whom, as a matter of fact, upon their first assignment to this duty they have to instruct. So it will be seen that the service itself possesses among its keepers, and, it might be said, even among surfmen, an abundance of men who are entirely competent to discharge the inspection duties now performed by the assistant inspectors detailed from the Revenue-Cutter Service.

In respect to the other services assisted-the navigation, immigration, and quarantine services-the commission has already pointed out that on the one hand it is better that these services should directly perform the work to be done through their own agents and boats, and, on the other, that these services are, at the present time and to a considerable extent, maintaining and operating harbor craft for the performance of the same work done in part by the harbor cutters of the Revenue-Cutter Service, or in performing work so analogous in character that they could readily be employed for doing the work now being done by the boats of the latter service.

The recommendation of the commission is that, with the abolition. of the Revenue-Cutter Service, the harbor cutters of the latter service be transferred to the services for whose benefit the boats are now being operated.

In this connection the commission believes that a detailed study could be made with advantage of the special problem of boat service in harbors for all the branches of the Government with a view of determining the extent to which more economical and efficient means might be provided for doing this work. In all of the less important ports, if the use of any boat at all is necessary, the best arrangement would seem to be that of furnishing the collector of the port with a boat, and providing that use should be made of it by other services as they have need for boarding vessels or moving about the harbor. In the more important ports it may well be the case that the work of certain of the services is of sufficient value and importance to make it a matter of economy and efficiency in administration that they should have their own boats. This is a problem, however, which it is not necessary to examine in detail at this time. The point here at issue is that there is no necessity for an independent service with the duty of rendering services of this character. If one service is to act for or furnish facilities for other services, more effective use can be made of some services, such, for example, as the customs service, the maintenance of which is obligatory.

DUTIES OF THE SERVICE AS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY LAW.

Still another point bearing on this matter should receive considertion. In the history of the Revenue-Cutter Service contained in the appendix there is given not only an account of the development that has taken place in the scope of activities of the service, but also a reproduction of the provisions of law under which this enlargement of duties has taken place. A reading of these provisions brings out one point not yet mentioned that is of importance in connection with the recommendation of the commission that the duties now being performed by the Revenue-Cutter Service be hereafter discharged by other branches of the Government.

This point is that, as the law now stands, the Revenue-Cutter Service is not specifically required to perform more than a part of the duties that are enumerated by it as constituting its functions. In the majority of cases the laws bearing upon the duties enumerated simply require that use shall be made of the "vessels" of the United States, without enumerating those belonging to any particular service, or that some official, such as the President or the Secretary of the Treasury, shall cause to be done the act specified, without stating the agencies to be employed.

The failure specifically to impose these duties upon the RevenueCutter Service is evidently intentional on the part of Congress. It is clear, in reference to such duties as the suppression of the slave trade; the enforcement of the neutrality laws; the protection of merchant vessels from piratical attacks; the assistance of vessels in distress; the enforcement of certain immigration laws; the protection of seal fisheries and sea-otter hunting grounds in Alaska; the suppression of illegal traffic in firearms, ammunition, and spirits in Alaska; the protection of game in Alaska; and the protection of timber reserves of the United States against depredations-in respect to all of which no specific mention is made of the Revenue-Cutter Service-that Congress had in mind that these duties should be performed either primarily by vessels of the Navy, or by any vessels of the United States adapted to the work.

The foregoing is of significance, since without any change in the law it is now possible to have these duties performed by the naval establishment or other branches of the Government service. Furthermore, the enumeration of these duties as among those pertaining to the Revenue-Cutter Service, without recognition of the fact that their performance by it is not specifically required by law, would tend to magnify improperly the apparent necessity that exists for the continued existence of such service. Had Congress from time to time deliberately provided that the RevenueCutter Service was the branch of the Government which should discharge these duties, the historical argument in favor of the continued existence of the service would be much stronger than it is. If due consideration is given to the point previously dwelt upon (that many of the duties listed by the service as among the classes of work to be done by it are of nominal rather than actual importance), the position taken by the commission is, it is believed, strongly supported by the character of the legislation now existing regarding the service as well as by the facts regarding the work to be done.

« PreviousContinue »