||The Secretary of the Navy expresses his opinions on the matter of presidential power of military appointment, and its relation to the recent court martial of Sgt. Richard Hunt. Notes that the officers who comprised the court had received notification of appointment and each sent word of his acceptance; states his view that a commission is a sign of appointment, not the appointment itself. Believes it most ideal for proving authority that officers have their commissions in hand, but notes that this is not vital, and that many officers served in the Revolution for years without having received their commissions. Notes that the perceived issue of a lack of a 2/3 concurrence of the court upon the death sentence was purportedly caused by an omitted line in the report, not a breach in procedure, and this was added later by the president and judge advocate of the court -- believes this later addition, outside of the proceedings of the court itself, to have been illegal. Says that only the sentence as originally transmitted can be legal -- but whether that sentence was sufficiently authoritative to sentence death depends upon Army precedent in similar cases. In his opinion, all depends on whether the inclusion of a line signifying the 2/3 majority has been considered necessary or merely a formality by the army.