The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-07-06

in which even er accusers unknown, and therefore
their motives undecided"
This criticism IL hardly consistent with those "hgh-
minded honorable and liberal sentiments, that honorable
independence Of character and frahnes which he attributes
to naval officers body. 1t inconsistent with justice
fairness and sense and the zeal Of its advocates
will be lust in proportion to their fear of getting into that
aons mouth" retirement lF3
We believe too that there will be found unexpected
obstacle to the salutary operation of this invidous clause in
the which officers themselves must feel 10 De MADE
spies and normer against their professional brethren The
most cvslrc aud conscientious minds among them VIII re-
coil from the odous duty Of censorship which this regulation
calls upon them to perform and the result VIII DC TINS
they cannot see thing favorable, they will probably
sue discreet honorable silence upon dement's ascribed
their associates which, perhaps, have no foundation ex
cept prejudice That many officers will take
this do not doubt and We believe all would be
justified by the laws of honor if not legally in declining to
opinions upon vague and underlined charge
netcency ofwhich quality perhaps no two men have pre-
csely the conception.
But this the Whatever faith the officers of
may repose in each others honor it is natural to
suspicious all and irresponsible methods of nves
tgaon and nothing will tend to excite msrust than
law of this kind Confidence and that hearty and cordial
spirit Of companonsip and cooperation which exist,
will b. lost, and every officer will keep wstchfu and dis
rusul eye upon his brother. nlblood will be fomented,
fatal consequences will ensue and it to be feared that the
navy will gradually sink from its high tone of honor and gen.
emulation and become theatre for the display of
mean jeaouses and undignifed passion
How any man. assuming to inform the public upon the
probable operation of this measure far fairly mis-
construe it, is somewhat difficult to understand ar
they cannot anything favorable, they will probably
pursue discreet and honorable silence upon dement's
cribed their associates which, perhaps have founda
ton except in prejudice
Now strange may appear to the writer this dis
and honorable silence upon dement's is precisely
what the bill provides for he will perceive he will
only read III and he will find that what he condemns is
not in the BILL but in his imagination and that what he
approves is not in his mind, but is in the bill
Strange as it may appear the writer proposes no other
method of retiring officers and it is probable that
method be devised which will not be open to gravcr
objections than those which he has suggested
He as much mistaken in speaking Of the secre and
irresponsible methods Of investigation" for retirement
he is his other criticisms None such provided for
contemplated by the bill and in fact possible
exist for officers conceament Of his opinion that
others of his grade competent to perform all their duties
He called upon Judge of the unworthy but of the
worthy and his Judgment is not final but subject to the
approval Of the Secretary aud the President
AS some friends of the service prefer board of officers
to consist Of from three to thirteen members determine
upon those be retired will in conclusion say word
upon this point. G.s
Suppose such board consisting of the largest number
thrteen-to be convened: what creria should guide the
Judgment of its members in designating officers for retire
ment? Would age health, service, professional
private character determine it? would combination of
all or any two of them determine it OF these
qualifications age and service alone may be asceraned
from the registers but neither of them constitutes qnalf
cation ~ disqualification. a3t
Some men are old and worn out at forty-fve while
Others physically competent at seventy years of age
and of the most distinguished officers of the navy,
Wilkes and Manry have seem comparatively, but little sea
service With the exception of these two elements OF
correct Judgment the ability Of the officer to perform all
his duties and the propriey of retaining him in active
service be determined by the opinions of his
grade Why not them refer at to his grade instead
| of requiring a board to do so .5s
Upon mixed board Of thirteen there could not be
than three ieutenants and they would be principally
called upon determine the competency of the remaining
three hundred and twenty-five ieutenants Can it be sup
posed that their judgment would be correct
satisfactory than the Judgment of the entire corps?