Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1855-10-11
Lieut.. Maury-NayaI Reform.

IL
novice in matters editorial and belonging to
newspapers, that am not sure shall be within
the pale of courtesy, if | ask you to allow me to
continue the discussion of the late naval reform
with you in your own paper But, as have no
object IN view except justice and the honor OF
the country, (both of which fear have been in
Jured by this miscalled reform, } beg to be allow
ed calmly and respectfully to reply to the edito-
rial in which you notice the piece sent you last
week.
In the first place enter my most earnest pro-
test against placing NAVAL and MILITARY offices
on the same footing of tenure with the offices of
| clerks, postmasters, and other civilians. Although
the tenure in theory is, that all hold at the will
of the President, it has always been widely diff
ferent in practice. 1t has sometimes happened
that Wing Presidents have elected from office
almost innumerable Democratic clerks and post
| masters. But neither Wing nor Democratic
President has dared to lay his hands the Off
GERS OF the army and navy. And why this differ
ence in practice, Messrs Editors? Simply and
solely because even in the hottest party warfare,
no man has ever before cassed the two kinds of
offices together. The cerkships, Sc, have of
late years been regarded as political Offices, and
looked TO, by both parties, the rewards of party
victory. But the naval and military offices never
| have been, and God grant they never may be SO
| regarded. | cannot conceive of anything which
would aim more fatal blow at the efficiency of
the navy and army, than to put up them too,
among the spoils of party warfare. Suppose the
know-nothing party should elect the next Presi-
dent, and he, as installed in office, should
| turn out of the navy and army, every captain,
commodore, lieutenant, and midshpman who
| could not give the countersgn of the new party,
| and supply their places with'raw Know -nothngsi
| What would you think Of the efficiency Of the
| navy and army after that reform? Yet, such
must inevitably be the effect of once placing the
| tenure of naval and military offices on the same
nla tbarr
| litical offices. Much as | love the navy, would
far rather every ship in it sunk to the bottom
| of the sea, than let its honors be made the reward
| of party service. How long would the indepen-
| dence and chivalry of the navy survive the
| ruption which would foov the faint Of political
servitudea lean think of but one worse evil of
the kind, and that would be to make the judicial
| offices the rewards of party service, and let the
President turn out every Judge who did not agree
| with him in politics.
| You say, that it ''would have been a gross
abuse ofpower, but no infraction of law, for the
| President to have struck from the roll the name
Of every officer on the retired list. Why would
it have been ga gross abuse Of power" Mr.
Editor? Is it considered gross abuse of power
| for Democratic President to turn out Wing sec
retaries, clerks, &C. Whence the difference;
| When change of the chief executive officer Of
the country occurs, every body expects the Secre-
| taries, Clerks Postmasters, &C., who are opposed
|
nowadays, few stand up to call such change
"a gross abuse of power" These civil Offices are
| professedly bestowed as the rewards Of party
| vice, and those who take them do not expect to
| hold them longer than they can keep their party
| in power. How different the case Of lad who
enters the navy at l6 years of age, midship-
mani Does he dream, think you, Of losing his
| office, and getting il back again often the
| signs of the political zodiac may change? And
how do you think his efficiency officer would
be improved by his entering the navy with such
1 thoughts'
The naval officer enlists for fe IT'S true his
commission runs cat the will of the President. y
| But he knows that the President dare not lay his
hand on him while he is faithful to his duty. The
| President has the power TO turn him out at any
| hour; but the public sentiment of the land has
made such power ga barren sceptre in his hands. J"
| He dare not use it. There is, moreover, this
palpable difference between a captain and clerk
| the former has, in many cases, right TO demand
a court martial 10 see that justice is done him.
| But when did clerk ever ask for court-martial
to say if he has done his duty TO try his fidelity
| to political creed Yet why ever have had
| court-martials at ALL if il was not intended TO
have some check on this arbitrary power Of the
| President. This power Of striking from the roll
is relic Of Kingship, and ought long ago TO have
| been abolished. II makes the President King
over the army and navy, (for he need give no
reason for what he Does and he has no business
| 10 DE Ming anywhere.
Alessrs. Editors, have a high opinion of your
| yoitical sagacity, and am you arc true
hearted patriots; but fear you have hit the Naval
service hard blow by even limiting at il, one
Of the possibilities Of the future, that naval officers
can ever be Of the political spois of the country.
You say "the act of Congress constituting the
board, does not hint at trial, in which accusers
and accused should confront each other, and
witnesses be examined This is very true,
Messrs. Editors Neither does il hint n secret
triai-nor say that the proceedings shall be icifh
closed doors-nor that journal shall be kepf--nor
that facts shall not be reported TO tho President
nor, that the accused shall not knotC they are
accused-nor, that riinesses shall not be examined
| In no one respect does the act Of Congress hint
that the trial shall be different from other trials,
least Of all that IL shall be nj variance with our
common notions Of justce-nay, in violation OF
them. Had the act limited al such proceeding,
il would never have passed Congress. The an
nails Of the country do not show any Instance in
which every element Of fair and impartial trial
has been completely violated. The case cited
by the Secretary Of the Navy, in his letter to the
President, was far different case, as the history
| Of the country will show, and had not the horr-
bic features of unfarness and injustice which
stamped on this. The act Of Congress lies before
me, and there is not word or syllable in il
about secresy, accusers or witnesses. Why, then,
should they, who had to execute the law, pre-
sumo that Congress intended them TO proceed in
an unusual and unjust manneri Might they not
as fairly have inferred from the language Of the
act, that Congress designed a usual and just
mode Of proceeding, as the one they adopted
The language Of the act is that the board "shall
make careful examination into the efficiency Of
the officers Of the said grades, SC.
| Now, Messrs. Editors, what are the elements
of careful examination? Is not testimony, sifted
and cross-examned, one Of them, and a chief
one2 Would a LAWYER think he had made a care
ful examination Of clients case by handing il
over without evidence Of any sort 10 the jury,
and telling them to decide il in secret from what
each might know Of the merits Of IL ! trow
not Would you, Messrs. Editors, If required TO
make ga careful examination" into the efficiency
Of the printers in the Uhig office, think you had
faithfully discharged your duty by requiring half
dozen workmen from the Dispatch Office 20 re-
port to you the names Of the inefficient men after
consulting among themselves in secret? Would
| Il not be rather more careful and Just, too, 70
give all parties notice of your proceedings, call
for testimony, and consider the facts Of each case
Common sense would seem TO say so. and the
common sense Of the country will say so in the
case under consideration, or / am much mistaken.
Again you say, "could the members Of the
i a