New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-12-11


efficient, have been suggested and failed. For
he last ten or fifteen years barely session oil
Congress has passed without an attempt at leeisa-
ticn upon this subject The act under which the
Retiring Boa d was constituted was passed at the
last session by vote of ZIG to 40 in the House
and with but two dissenting votes in the Senate,
IND was generally bailed by the country as an
excellent measure Fears were entertained By
many. however, that it would result in mere
wli'e.wsshiIg process, ard that the Navy would
continue 70 be burdenec with inefficient officers
in dre time the Board was appointed, and those
best acqusir'.d with the service pronounced the
selections good tie result OF their lsbors is we
think equally commendable
Much has been said about disposiug of officers
" thCut trial But what would be the condition
of the country if ofce holders generally could not
be removed without formal trial and conviction
The act of Congress constituting the Board says
rothirg Of trial and in fact such procedure
would have been impossible. An officer could not
be tried upon the charge of "incompetercy to
perform bis duties efficiently both ashore and
afoat." (such we believe, is the language of the
sct) for il 10 too general to be disposed of in that
way. The Army has been subjected to this pro.
cess Of publication BY Board once, if not twice,
aud with excellent re.ults, but the Navy never
until now. Particular cases have been quoted as
int olyug great hardship, among them those of
Comm, dore Stewart aud Lieutenant Maury
The eminent services Of these officers cannot be
denied but as little can il be denied that both their
cases inevitably tell uIder the operation of the
law. Commodore Stewart is nearly if not quite
eighty Jes's of sge. 1t is currently stated in
naval circles and has never to obr knowledge been
eontradicted, that he declined the command Of
the squadri upon the coast Of Mexico during the
late war with that country, upon the ground
of bis age and infrmites. The Board was there
fore con PEELED b. the law under which it acted
70 de sill ate him for the retired list The country
was lrati6eo, however, that the Secretary of the
Navy prompt, avsiled himself of a provision of
the law ,,hich enabled him to continue this vet
eran affcer in the command which he holds of the
Navy Yard at Philadel phia He is already the
senior officer Of the Nsvj, and his position is in
wi.e char ed by the action Of the Board, except
that bis naue will hert after appear upon the re-
tired list, while his place upon the active list j.
filed By al efficient officer.
It is, perhaps, not generally known that many
Year, stree lieut. Maury met with an accident in
stage coach which crippled him for life. He brought
an action against the stage prOprletOrs and recov-
cred dan ages, upon the ground that he was inca
pactated for the active duties Of his profession By
the Nav register it appears that he has not been at
sea for fifteen years. but he has been usefully and
bonorsbly empo! ed az Superintendent Of the Naval
Observatory. where under special legislation he
tas received a salary of $4,000 per annum, for
years past, and has very handsome furnished
residence in Washington, which with other perqui-
sites makes his position worth at least $4,000 or
81, coo year. and that, too, without eDcountering
the hard, hips incident to the active duties of the
naval profession or being separated day from his
family The Board compelled, under the law,
10 de.jgnate him for the retired list while the Sec
Rotary of the Navy 10 consideration of his eminent
services continued him in his present position.
Can any yersOn of common sense aud common jug
tice aintain that there is any cause of complaint
in his case, or any reason why his place in the
active list should not be supplied by an officer who
has been tDcounterpg all she ardshps of sea ser
vice, while MIR. Maury has held his comfortable
and honorable position On shore
Other cases have been cited as involving peculiar
hardship, but we incline to the belief that the
Board acted upon good and substantial reasons in
all Of them The careers Of the officers Of the
Navy are carefully watched by the public Ifcer-
tain officers have been tried repeatedly by Court
Martial, or it, whenever they were assigned to i'm
portant and responsible service they alwsys be-
came involved in difficulties, in our judgment they
were fit subjects for the action of the Board
The country has reason to rejoice that such
cases are disposed Of Again, we hold it to be
little better than murder to assign to sea service
an officer known to be addicted to intenpera.e
drinking, for the lives of hundreds may depend
upon bis coolness and judgment at q moment
when lie is utterly destitute Of either quality.
That the country has been disgraced abroad, and
III der most mortifJ ing circumstances, by the in
temperance of her naval representatives. is per
ftctly we'll knoan, and we rejoice that this
vice is at last rebuked in the Navy ia terms not
to be misunderstood. 1t lie by no means impossible
that the Board might have gone further in this
respect with advantage to the service.
We are of opinion that this most necessary re.
fam has met with entire success, and do not see
how Congress can by any possibility disturb it,
The clsmor of few disappointed individuals
should not shake the public confidence 10 the pro-
ceedipgs of the Board. The retired officers have
been subjected to no loss, either of honor or emol
umebt; but are merely deprived Of the chance