The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1855-09-21
THE NAVAL RETIRED LIST.

We have read with much interest the list
which is said to be an official copy of the re-
tired list and dropped officers of the Navy,
reported by the Board of Naval Officers, re-
Gently convened in Washington by order of
the President, in accordance with the act Of
Congress passed at its last session. Having
some acquaintance personally and by repu
tation with many officers in the naval service
we cannot but feel much surprised at seeing
some of the names which have been retired
on furlough pay. We doubt not that as a
general thing, the Board have done justice,
but we certainly see names on the furlough
list which we never expected to find in such
aplace. We do not of course refer to those
who are dropped altogether; nor to those re-
tired on leave, which latter does not involve
the idea of incapacity or misconduct; but to
those placed on furlough pay, which, the
general impression seems to be, is the next
thing to being dropped. Among these nj mes
We find a gallant Virginian, one of the best
officers in the American or any other service,
who has lately returned from long cruise in
the Mediterranean, as first lieutenant of the
u 3. ship St. Louis. He was the executive
officer of that ship under the gallant Ingra-
ham, and in case of battle with the Aus
trians, it would have been his duty, as first
lieutenant to have fought her, a duty which
all who know the man, know he would most
skilfully and calamity have performed The
first ieutenantcy, it is known, is the most ar
duous and responsible Office ON board ship.
Now, if Capt. Ingraham had such confidence
i'll this officer that, among all the Navy, he
selected him as his first lieutenant, how
comes it that the Nav Board have put him
on furlough pay? Knowing that the law Or
ganiAipg this Board requires them in deciding
the position of officers, to take into their es.
innate the amount of sea service they have
rendered, we have examined the Naval Reg
lister, and find that the gentleman to whom
We allude has been in the Navy thirty-two
years and half, of which seven years and
three months have been employed in sea ser.
vice, and six years on shore duty, making to-
tai employment twenty three years. leaving
but nine years unemployed. We have not
had time to examine the Register fully with
reference to other officers who have been
retained, or we believe we could establish
the fact that the sea service performed by
the officer alluded to is fully up to the aver
age sea service performed by his grade
Why. atthe first glance, we see one lieutenant
who has been in the Navy twenty nine years
whose sea service is IL years, shore duty four
years, and who has been unemployed thir
teen years, yet he is retained and will be pro.
NOTED, whilst the other is turloughed WHY
the distinction? Here too, separated by
only two names from the retained officers ia
another who has been in the Navy twentv.
nine years, of which 10 only have been PASS
ed IN sea service. and three on shore dutv
leaving fourteen years unemployed such
cases, we have no doubt, might be mult;
piled indefinitely. Why is this? The Board
owe it to the country and the service to mako
known the reasons which have governed
their action in every case. We will here add
that this article is written without the know.
ledge of the officer alluded to and purely from
the dictates of Dur own sense of Justice.