Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1856-05-21

:
said of the motives of the board their envy or ma
lightly they acted under the law and the regulations
prescribed by the Secretary. If the Secretary had
the power, and has adopted regulations inconsistent
with justice and propriety, or has failed to perform
his duty in limiting the board within proper sphere
of INQUIRY. by which the avowed wishes of Con-
gress have been disregarded the beneficial effects
Of an important reform contemplated by the legsla-
tive department have been prevented, then, indeed,
Senators may not be expected to deal in honeyeo
phrases" 1t would be monstrous for any execu-
tive officer thus to act, to defeat the will OF Con-
press. and prevent that reform in the service so
loudly and imperatively called for by the country
But, first, would inquire, is there any diseret.o"
vested in the Secretary? The law says, under
such regulations as the Secretary of the Navy may
prescribe" Can any doubt be entertained tina! tncso
regulations under this power were lett d'scret'onoy
with him? He has exercised the power dccorasng
to his discretion he has prescribed regulations;
and is it not absurd-legally consdered-to SER,
ousy contend that because he has not Prescr'oeo
the regulations that the Senator from hcntucky'
with his idea Of the necessary appmcatom Ot;oms
case Of our Anglo-Saxon and common'iaw not'ons
of Justice" would have directed, that hererore oil
the proceedings under the statute are void?
II jurisdiction prescribing definite powers had
been created by the law-not an executive power OF
removal under the Constitution-and an officer pro-
Tossing to execute the law had exceeded his urisdc
ton then it might be contended that his acts were
void But certainly this is not case like that
Assume that the President had no power but by the
provisions of the law and did you not vest the Sec
retary with discretion in prescribing the regula.
tionsp and NAV not at least challenge refutation
of this proposition? If the Secretary, in the exer-
else of that discretion not did violate the Consttu-
tion then his regulations were lawful, and all the
acts in pursuance thereof valid; and you have now
q statute legally executed. suppose it will not be
seriously urged that the regulations prescribed were
a violation of the Constitution; the most that is
commended for is that the spirit of justice has been
disregarded. In my judgment, there is no power in
Congress that can place the officers in the same po
sition they occupied before the execution of the
statute 1t is true the President, with the concur
of the Senate, may appoint the officers retired
to supply the vacancies but this would be the ex-
ercse of an executive and not legislative power
repeal of the law, therefore, would do more than
to deprive the retired officers on the pay list from
receiving what had, by the law, been most literally
provided for them. The fact is the foundation OF the
Senator's complaint arises from msconception OF
the character of the board. 1t was not court, civ
il, military, or naval 1t did not take the character
of a court of inquiry. The law created a board,
whose personal aggregate judgment was invoked to
advise the President who to retire from the Navy
That judgment was to be formed from personal
knowledge, by free interchange of opinion among
themselves from the lights afforded by official docu
ments in the archives of the Navy Department, and
the result of that judgment was to be reported
The Secretary to prescribe the rules ofproceed-
ing in recording that judgment, as directed by the
statute in authenticating and reporting it.
1t is well known that upon the passage of the
statute the objection that the board to hold its
proceedings in secret was distinctly made; and, af
ter full discussion, Con- expressly decided in ia
yor of the mode of proceeding prescribed by the
Secretary. Now, suppose the Secretary had at
tempted by regulation, to reverse the decision Of
Congress, ana in defiance of its authority and ex-
pressed will had required the board to hold its pro-
ceedings in public, would not this Chamber have
sounded with eloquent denunciation of executive
usurpation. and would not the Secretary have been
visited with merited rebuke and censure? While l
am strongly inclined against all secret associations
in this country, and consider the principle of "se
cret societies." general one, repugnant to the
spirit and genius of our institutions, yet from the
necessity of the case. We are compelled, in the adj
mnstration of the Government, to not only admit,
but sometimes command, our officials to observe
crecy in their official conduct. Our negotiations
with foreign Governments are generally conducted
in secret and ought to be. The councils of the
President and his Cabinet are not exposed 70 the
public. The President, according to the Constitu-
ton, to precedent and practice, from the foundation
of the Government, removes officers, and never
gives reasons for removal. This body acts in secret
on all executive business including the appointment
of officers: and the reason for action is
spread on the record and communicated to the pub
lie and the grand juries of country are sworn
to keep their proceedings secret. Here was board
constituted to pass their judgment upon their pro-
fessional peers, in advising the President what per-
sons to retire from the active hist of the Navy. The
idea of holding this consultation in public so that
every remark discreet or indiscreet-so that every
inquiry and answer might be heard by, or reported
to- the public-is to my mind supremacy preposter-
GUS and certainly this objection is very unexpec-
ted and passing strange to como from the Senators
from Texas and Kentucky. Imagine now to your
selves this board assembled in room the report.
ers Of the press at their desks; the public not only
authorized to be present. but invited by the interest
excited in personal friends enemies who are to be
passed upon by the board. The name of an officer
is called; one member remarks I" 1 have heard he
is an habitual drunkard;" another responds 81
know him intimately; he was at ono time somewhat
incorporate; but for many years he has been an
entirely sober man." One says: s. have under
stood he has chronic disease that renders him in
efficient; another replies He has recovered from
that disease" An inquiry is made whether that
matter and his Incorporate habits have not been the
subject of court of inquiry, or court-martial.-
One member suggests that such inquiry or court
was held too long ago; another insists that if not
too long, the evidence upon the finding was corrupt
or partial. These, with the thousand variations of
inquiries and remarks, that different cases might
provoke, in the free interchange of inquiry and opn
ion, to arrive at honest conclusion as to the re-
suit is to be heard by or reported to the public cui
bono? Would it induce the board to deal frankly
and faithfully? Would it insure that careful exam
ination and scrutiny which was contemplated p
Would it be refreshing to the officers their friends
whose faults or crimes were thus exposed? Would
it promote the sacred principles of justice, about
which we have heard so much? If the proceeding
partook of any of the characteristics of court Of
common law, the result of whose Judgment was the
imposition of fine or penalty, then the forms of
such court ought to be observed Cioiz officers
are daily removed without notice or trial-without
exposing to the public the grounds of removal In
principle there is distinction, In practice, in
consequence of the peculiar circumstances and sac
r'hces attending military and naval officers differ
ent rule has obtained in this-that the President