The Admirable Servant, Occasionally Obsequious

members and certain officers of the Institute to­ward censorship on the part of the Navy Depart­ment in particular and government generally, it is informative to quote what was published in the Proceedings [in October 1923.] It is well worth repeating for the principle it sets forth, and it is helpful to call it to attention frequently.

Naval Institute Proceedings,

October, 1923

The continued value of the Institute to the service and to the country is largely bound up with the ques­tion of censorship, or departmental muzzling. This is a most delicate subject to tackle, but one that must be faced squarely and honestly. In the words of Flam- marion, “Free and loyal discussion is necessary to con­quer the Truth,” and of Voltaire (was it not?), “I wholly disagree with what you say, and shall defend to the death your right to say it.” We also must uphold

Eliminate all censorship, and don't shut up the open discussion of service and naval policy topics.

this principle. Fortunately we are removed from the days when a distinguished officer of the Navy was for­bidden to print in the Proceedings an article every state­ment of which was derived from the Secretary’s annual reports and other documents already published to the world at large; those same days when another distin­guished officer was forbidden “even to say that two and two make four.”

Relations today with the Navy Department are most cordial and sympathetic, but the future is as a curtain through which we cannot see; and in this connection, part of a letter from Admiral C.F. Goodrich may well be quoted and preserved as a guide to our successors:

“We should all clamor for the desirability of an officer’s speaking out at will. For myself, both as President [1904-1909] of the Institute (and therefore officially) and at other times, I have verbally and in writing urged various Secretaries of the Navy to remove all restriction on the Institute publications, averring that no officer would abuse the privilege by printing anything confidential in nature. ‘Encourage all, especially the youngsters, to blow off their steam,’ I would say. ‘If any individual be guilty of personal attacks or of improper language and mo­tive, punish him for conduct unbecoming an officer

and gentleman, or whatever the offense may be. But eliminate all censorship, and don’t shut up the open discussion of service and naval policy topics.’ And I added, ‘Doubtless much of this material will be use­ful only in letting a chap unburden his mind, but occasionally the Department will get a suggestion of importance which would never reach it through rou­tine channels.’”

Admiral Goodrich’s view is one that we cannot but subscribe to, all of us, and the Institute should ever tactfully and gracefully work to that end. Within re­cent memory times have arisen, and they may arise again, when we shall have to fight for this principle. Then, like Admiral Sir John Fisher, we can’t be silent, and we must not lie.

October 1948

Note the gentle, awed, and humble manner in which an organization completely independent of and separate from the Navy Department and the Government, a loyal, responsible organization that seeks only to be of service, prays that it may not be muzzled.

There is nothing delicate about that which at­tempts to suppress this great freedom. There is no reason why the Institute should “ever work tact­fully and gracefully” to avoid censorship. At its first hint of application, censorship should be halted with a warning shot across the bows which, if not heeded, should be followed by a broadside that will bring the offender to a complete stop. Those who would attempt censorship fall back upon that which is “secret and confidential,” but what they intend is the suppression of criticism, the suppression of anything that might uncover defects or falsities, expose inability in office, or bring about embarrassment for their deficiencies or attitudes. Naval officers do not need to be told that they must not speak or write of secret or con­fidential things concerning the Nation. They are steeped in obedience to the Nation’s welfare, and secret and confidential things within their knowl­edge are more vital to them individually and col­lectively than to others in the Nation who may not be a part of the actual armed forces. It is the pages of the Proceedings which give an outlet to the convictions, opinions, and ideas of those who would speak on naval and allied subjects in a me­dium that is proper, self restrained, and of high motives. . . .

The Institute has been careful to avoid com­ment or reference to anything that might be con­sidered secret, confidential, or harmful to the Nation, leaning over backwards at times and to its detriment when items of interest which it has withheld have appeared in the press of the day to ^an extent that made the Institute appear obtuse ^and undiscerning. As a forum it has for the most ^tlrne, as a guiding principle, not only permitted but encouraged opposite and conflicting opinions, so that a reader may draw his own conclusions from all the facts presented, in the confidence that the best and the truth will out if the discussion is free and vigorous. A halt has been called only when the discussion appeared to go beyond the hounds of reasonable give-and-take and to enter the field of personal antagonism and spleen. Thirty-five to 40 years ago this open discussion of ^a topic was criticized by certain officers who laid tnore stress upon current action than upon educa­tion and thought-provoking ideas; the Institute Was referred to as a debating society, because the contributors were few and recurred frequently, ^and the critics gave no credit for the good that ^Came from the exchange of conflicting points of ^view. The rapid exchange of differing opinions has disappeared to a great extent, to the detriment of the Proceedings as a forum, but the forum idea basically is there until the end of time, I trust. For with its passing, from any cause, the Institute will deteriorate into a mere industry for producing textbooks, histories, and biographies, or a sound- tog board for or echo of officialdom, which all too frequently is resentful of suggestion, counsel, or criticism from any sources except its own smug ^and self-satisfied circle. . . .

Insofar as the publication of books is concerned ^and the material assistance it has given to the Academy, the Navy, and its members, the Insti­tute has been the Admirable Servant, altogether admirable and without exception. It is on the question of forum and independence that the In­stitute has on rare occasions shown a touch of timidity that partakes of the obsequious. Its inde­pendence of the Navy Department has always lacked emphasis, so much so that in the past some naval officers of rank and authority have misguid- edly assumed that is should speak only opinions favorable to the stand they have taken or in accord with their public statements. One Chief of Bureau Went so far on one occasion as to stand his Senior

Assistant, a Captain, on the carpet and dress him down because, as a member of the Board of Con­trol of the Institute, he had permitted publication of an article which, in the Admiral’s words, “caused me great embarrassment before a naval committee.” The Admiral in his wrath went so far as to say that he had placed his assistant on the

This freedom of speech is no paltry thing to be set aside for temporary favor from higher up or as dutiful homage to one in authority. It is the great Freedom, the acme of freedom, for from freedom of speech flow all the other rights which we hold to be inalienable.

Board of Control to assure that no such article as the one which gave him discomfort would appear. The Captain, a very sturdy individual of courage and character, very calmly and firmly advised his Chief that he had been elected to the Board of Control by its members, and that the Admiral had no part in his Institute office and duties; and he further added the comment that if his Chief found the article in question embarrassing because of a stand he had taken before a Congressional Com­mittee, it could only be because he was in great error, for the article published in the Proceedings was sound, well written, and factual.

Secretaries of the Navy have sometimes been ignorant of the Institute’s freedom of action and have acted on occasion as if it were subject to the legal control and restraint of the office which the Secretary occupies. It is easy to understand how this attitude has developed. Naval officers are trained to be dutiful, to be obedient, to be re­spectful to those in authority, as they should be. In their desire to be of service, just as the Insti­tute’s mission is one of service, they have con­fused homage with help and acquiescence with assistance. Once a Secretary of the Navy de­manded that the copyright of a certain Institute publication be surrendered to the Navy Depart­ment simply because he preferred its publication to be official and its production to be an output of the Government Printing Office. Meekly the Board of Control acquiesced, with the result that there was one official printing—after which this particularly valuable contribution to training was allowed to lapse for a long period of years, despite a continuing demand for it, until the copyright was restored to its rightful ownership. This was an occasion when the Board of Control should have declined respectfully but firmly to surrender its property at the Secretary’s unwarranted de­mand; and if that did not suffice, the President of the Institute himself should then have given the Secretary a full salvo of all the heavy guns to re­mind him that there are “millions for defense but not one cent for tribute.”

The Board of Control has, at times, been overly deferential toward the Navy Department, the Administration, and the State Department, offer­ing its proposed articles for approval before publi­cation. It is well known that in many cases the approval has been given or withheld by an officer or official of far less experience or capacity than any one of the officers of the Institute.

Compliance to such an extent is not loyalty or cooperation but fatuous and blind homage, re­placing the intelligent action that may be counted upon from a loyal and alert group devoted to safe­guarding the Nation. If proposed articles were bandied about the various Bureaus of the Navy Department and ultimately failed of publication because some one official or Bureau withheld approval, the statement appearing on the Proceed­ings title page as a so-called disclaimer that “the opinions or assertions are not to be construed as reflecting the views of the Navy Department” would be far from correct, for in a negative way only that which the Navy Department viewed favorably would be printed.

The Secretary-Treasurer, Managing Editor, and Members of the Board of Control have always been experienced and responsible officers in their day and time, and their judgement of what is pub­lishable is too sound and too conscientious to re­quire checking from any other source.

As to the publication of an article, there should be only one criterion. If, in the opinion of the Institute Staff, it does not trespass upon things that are secret and confidential and does not of­fend good taste, it should be held to be publisha­ble. Decision as to what is printable should never be sought outside the Institute itself. If the mem­bers of the Staff entertain doubts that it does not comply with the criterion above, they should consign the proposed manuscript to the waste basket. . . .

This freedom of speech is no paltry thing to be set aside for temporary favor from higher up or as dutiful homage to one in authority. It is the great Freedom, the acme of freedom, for from freedom of speech flow all the other rights which we hold to be inalienable. Men have martyred themselves, have lost their hopes and lives in the ever continu­ing struggle so that we may possess the privilege of speaking our opinions and convictions without fear, and without punishment by those who differ with us and who prefer us silent and acquiescent. If other brave souls have given up their liberty and lives for that which they valued so highly, is it not mandatory that we risk a few black looks or ban­ishment from favor to maintain the birthright they have willed to us?

Stress has been laid upon this forum principle of the Institute and freedom of speech in its Proceed­ings because they were understood and planned by the charter members as a necessary and life giving outlet for ideas and progress that might be stifled or never forthcoming in the labyrinth of officialdom.

There is no intent in this recital of the Institute’s 75 years of splendid and lofty service to urge the officers of the Institute to carry “freedom of speech and freedom of its press” as a chip upon the shoulder. Rather it is hoped that it will be borne as a commission pennant nailed to the masthead and visible all around the horizon, or that it be worn as a Decoration for Valor which the President, Vice President, Members of the Board of Control, Secretary-Treasurer, and Man­aging Editor are determined to display whenever there is threat, direct or implied, of suppressing that which is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Then and only then may the Institute and its labor for the Naval Academy, the Navy, and the Nation be called wholly and without limitation “The Admirable Servant.”

Editor’s Note: A classmate of Admiral Chester W. Nimitz’s, Captain Stewart served as the U.S. Naval Institute's Secretary-Treasurer from June 1936 through May 1940.