Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-05-24

senate-Thursday, january TO- 1856.


asking grant of land 10 aid in the construction
a railroad from point on the Mississippi river ii
the State of Iowa 10 the Missouri, at or near tbs
mouth Of the Big Sioux. m
Also, from James Butler 10 be allowed arrears
of pension. Itft8Es
by Mr.. HAMLIN: From Levy Robinson, ask
ing 10 be allowed fishing bounty for the schoonel
Mary Jane, and compensation for preserving ant
taking care of public property.
II Also, from Captain X. A. wainwright, asking tc
be relieved from the payment OF certain amount
OF public money stolen from his possession in the
city of Boston. 1tf nr
/ By Mr.. JAMES: From Eliza and Abby E. Peck
of Providence, Rhode Island, heirs at law of VIM
! Peck, of the Rhode Island line of the continental
/ army, asking the hafpay granted by the resou
ton of 2lst October 1850 after deducling the com
| mutation at one-eighlh of its nominal value
! Numerous memorials were withdrawn from the
! files with view TO reference. af
! MEMORIALS FROM NAVAL OFFICERS.
BY Mr. JAMES From Thomas Brownell, late
a lieutenant in the United States navy, but drop
| ped from the rolls in accordance with decision
of the late Naval Board, asking 10 be restored 10
/ By Mr. FISH: From William S. Ogden, late a
| commander in the United States navy, asking an
opportunity To rebut any charge upon which he
may have been dropped from the navy, and asking
| Congress 10 grant such redress as his case de-
mands.
/ Also, from Howard Marsh, late passed mid
shipman In the navy, complaining OF having been
dropped from the service, and asking that the ac-
ton of said Board may be investigated.
BY Mr. BRODHEAD From L. d. Shaw, a
commander in the navy, who was placed on the
retired list in consequence of the proceedings of
the late Board, together with some documents in
relation to the case OF the memorialist.
Mr.. B. briefly addressed the Senate in relation
| TO the case of Commander Shaw. Although the
action of the Board cast no imputation on him
! as man officer, still he complained. Mr..
| b. read from the report Of the Secretary of the
! Navy TO show his opinion of the action OF the
| Board, which though wise, salutary, liberal,
| and emnenty useful in promoting the effici-
ency of the navy whole, yet he thought
| in the case Of the memoralist that an uninten-
| tonal error had been committed, and Invoked the
| deliberate scrutiny Of the Committee on Naval
| Affairs in his behalf
Mr. MASON was understood 10 express the
opinion that in cases where the Board had fallen
into error would be found impracticabe for the
| committee 10 give the scrutiny required approved
as they had been by the Executive. Some of
| these cases had been brought to his particular
attention, in which all who knew the officers
believed them TO be as gallant able, and efficient
as any in the navy. Were the committee now
10 undertake TO inquire into the correctness or
| incorrectness of the action OF the Board, and
should they recommend their restoration TO their
original rank still the officers would labor under
| cloud which could not be dispeed. He thought
the Board placed in the position of that judge
| who condemns first and then hears He spoke
of the late period of the session the law reached
the Senate, and admitted that he did not give it
that deliberate scrutiny it deserved. He said he
could not help thinking that the law sufici-
emily guarded in the first place and in some
had been misnierpreted. In many cases the de-
cisons were correct, while in others il was evil
dent they were not so; admitting at the same
time it difficult and embarrassing matter.
These memorials were all referred to the Com
mittee on Naval Affairs.
Mr.. HALE said he had memorial relating 10
the same subject which he desired TO present but
he wished 10 ask difference. The one in ques-
ton came from George A. Stevens, late master
in the navy, who complained of the injustice done
him by the Naval Board and asked such redress
in the premises as Congress might be pleased 10
grant.
Mr.. H. then read the memorial al length, set
ting forth the services of the memorialist and the
manner in which, after all his services and com
plimenary notices of good conduct, he had been
dropped from the rolls of the navy. His object in
having il referred 10 the Committee on the Judi
ciary 10 elicit legal opinion 10 whether
army or navy officers had any rights, and whether
the safeguard guaranteed by the Constitution and
thrown over the humbest individual was to be
denied to them. He would make no alluson 10
the wisdom displayed by the Board in It's action,
as some Senators had done, because, in the first
place he did not believe in il, and in the second
he considered il not in good taste. Mr.. III. then
went on TO comment the services of Mr..
Stevens, and said that, while he (Stevens) was
| stemming the storms of Cape Horn and combat
ing with the enemy unvanqushed there had come
behind him some assassin-like blow. And who
had inflicted h7 Why no one but his country.
He engaged in lis service, but not that kind,
I il appeared, that led TO promotion. He had not
| been dancing quadres or figuring at masque-
| rade balls at Washington. HIS cruising ground
! had been the wide ocean, not in the purlieus of
the CAPITOL and hence he could find no favor with
the Board.
/ Mr.. H. then denounced the law as unconstitu-
| tional and went into a statement OF its action in
| dsmissing and retiring officers of higher grade,
while il was specially careful of the more subor-
dnate members of the service, from all which he
thought II might be inferred, without any extraor-
binary stretch of imagination, that the longer
| officers remained in service the more worthless
| they became. He pronounced the whole law as
wrong in It's inception, wrong in principle, and
| infinitely worse in its execution; that IL was not
| fit TO be on the statutebook and ought 10 be
oblilerated. He said if the officers that had
been made victims were called before the country
| he would pledge his life on the issue that they
were as fully competent for their stations as any
that were left, and he might go further and say n
i little more so. He expressed the opinion that il
the law was brought before the Supreme Court
II would be declared null and void. He concluded
/ by giving notice that he would on some future
occasion bring in a bill TO repeal that law.
/ Mr.. TOOMBS suggested that, as all the memo.
1 presented ndu Dten feIerftu 10 the
/ Committee on Naval Affairs, the memorial in
| question had better have the same reference. In
i his opinion TO send one 10 the Committee on the
Judiciary and others to the Naval Committee
would be unnecessarily dividing labor
Mr.. HALE'S object was TO have a legal opinion
| from the committee the Judiciary; but he
would agree TO its going TO the Naval Committee,
with instructions 10 report upon the constitution
atty of the law of the last session on the subject
! Mr.. ADAMS suggested amendment 10 the
effect "that the committee also report whether
the action OF the Naval Board is not void for the
1 want of notice to the persons retired.n
| Mr.. HALE would let it lie for the present
| until he could prepare suitable resolution.
/ Mr.. BR0DHEAD expressed fear lest il might
| be Judged from the remarks he had made and the
debate that had followed that be intended TO cast
censure on the Naval Board. Now he did not
desire TO be SO understood. II injustice had been
done, Congress was responsible for il. The law
originated in the Senate, and he did not think il
became members OF the body TO be seeking TO
shrk the responsibility. He contended the
whole that the navy had been materially benefited
and invigorated by the law, and that no good
| would grow out of its repeal
= -