The daily union., 1856-04-05
ry Of the humpbacked yrant when he uttered the
orabe command:
OH win his head !
So much for Buckingham I"

So much for Buckingham y
Mr. President If 1t not for the grave and digned
character OF the performers in this drama and the deep
tragedy ofits concluding scenes should be disposed
characterize the whole proceeding absurd and Tidc
uous farce Fortyhree minutes and fifteen seconds per-
haps not thirty minutes spent in the examination of cases
involving such sacred and important rights! How cure
@ must have been the examination how eonsderGe the
Jhdgment OF this extraordinary tribunals
But sir, upon what data did the board act On what
evidence did they found their opinions From what
source did they draw the knowledge and information on
which their judgments based We know that they
examined no Witnesses and will il be pretended that they
acted upon the personal knowledge OF the members OF the
board themselves? Wiany present the absurd prop
osinon, that the character conduct and capacity Of six
hundred and nineiy-seven officers of the navy were
known personally TO the members of this board or
aay.oDe Of themf Thov proposition Is absurd its
face Gould they have been acquainted witt
the character, conduct and capacity of the two hun
dred and one officers whom they condemned II
is highly improbable, if not utterly impossible. Did
they act upon information derived from officers with
whom they conversed corresponded-from ex payte
and irresponsible statements made by their brother
ofcers2 From what has leaked in this debate, we
have reason 10 believe that much OF the judgment of the
board ~ss founded on That sort of evidence that they
We're employed in fishing up testimony on which they
might condenn their brother officers II they did, they
relied hearsay evidencehearsay evidence OF the worst
character because consisted chiefly of parte one
sided statements made by interested and preudced
nesses, which necessarily have led 10 error Did
they found their judgment the records Of the Navy De-
partmenthe charges and reports made by officer against
officer in that department? 1t is deporabe truth that
amongst the OtnceS oil the American there
l-wil, personal hostility, and wrangiing than amongst
any class profession Of people Cooped up they
are for months and years upon long voyages in the
row compass OF a war, il is naturai-n-
deed il is inevable-tha they should quarrel There is
scarcely crue of OF your ships owar but OF
the officers fall out with other and report the conduct
Of their brother officers TO the Navy Department These
complaints often unounded in truth and generally the
offspring of l-wl and personal feeling. They are re-
ceived at The Navy Department but to be road laid aside
and forgotten.
Was this kind of evidence that these officers were
condemned From all that We have secn heard, and
know in this matter, in this hurried manner with
this horse speed upon this unsafe vague unreliable
irresponsible, and distorted evidence which this whole
sale judgment OF condemnation founded.
But, Mr. President, who, looking at the premises OBJ
serving these circumstances and have TO the
conclusion that injustice has been done-we who have
been outside this Chamber the only per-
who have condemned the of this board There
is least member the board se-one of its most
honorable and intelligent members-who has spoken of its
proceedings monstrous. am authorized say,
liable authority, that Commodore Perry in letter Mr.
Parker OF the dsraed officers in terms that "he
hopes the will when ionstrous injustice that
had tern done to him Mr. Parker and others would be
corrected"
Mr. SLIDELL win my friend from Georgia permit me
10 ask him question?
Mr. lYERSUN. Yes, sir
Mr.. SLlDELL. / should like to know on what author
ity that assertion made. Has the from Georgia
that letter?
Mr. IVERSON. have not the letter itself
Mr. SLlDELL think the senator from Georgia is In
boring under m,sapprehenson the Of
Commodore Perrys letter shall send for it and be pre-
pared TO answer on that point
Mr. lVERSOS | speak the authority of Lieutenant
Bartlett The very language Of Commodore Perry B quoted
in the letter TO which refer Indeed Mr. President have
other language represented having been spoken by
Commodore Perry, condemnug the proceedings Of this
board in still seyerer terms but iorbear repeat it,
oH say, however that If have becu correctly informed
and have doubt that have becu-there is not
in the United States who has condemned the proceedings
of This board in decided language than that gallant
and distinguished who a member OF the board
and Witnessed its proCecdingsH Of which he saw and
part OF which he was
Sir IN whatever light you look al this whole object
the whole proceeding 10 my opinion, wrong from the
beginning 10 the end. The law wrong in the first
place because il created unsafe md irresponsible tribu
nal to sit judgment upon the sacred and important
personal rights he organization Of the board was
wrong because Il violated the spirit and intent OF the law
in the OF interested decide the questions
which rhey called 10 ny The proceedings Of the
board wrong, because, amongst other things they
hed their in secret because hoy relied on unsa
illegal and unreliable testimony, and because they gave
notice opportunity Of defence TO those whom they tried
and condemned,
have Faid that the organization Of the board was
wrong The law intended TO create impartial tribunal
Il provided among other things that Officers OF inferior
grade should not SIT in judgment upon those OF su-
perlor order 1t Is true that nUmuSily, this provision
carried out in the formation Of the board but
not y thsand ng that the interior officers wero not
permitted 10 III IN Judgment upon the Of their
sueror Vho Gao fail 10 perceive hat every Of those
Officers in position the roll Of his grade
below that Of many OF those whose they did
eli IN udgmen7 With all due respect the Secretary OF
the Navy, Tor whom probably on this floor has
biz regard than have-wth all due respect 10 his
better Judgment think he ought have selected the FIVE
senior officers OF each grade Those gentlemen would have
had personal interest 10 of those who below
thcm their respective gradrs and their udg gments and
decisions would least have teen free from the and
cn Of schshneys and unfurness Bot every
officer the board intercsted-drecty, pnpahy and
deeply nterested-iu cutting of many possible above
hm his own roll SO that might be made for bis
individual advancement let see bow the proceedings
of this board have operated aUd how they have Influenced
hc relative rank aud position Of these very Lieut.
Maury, in his memorial to This body presents very sr
king and significant fact lie that Of the three
hundred aud sixty officers who stood above the junior
member OF the board, hundred and hirty-eight
found wanting, aod reurd whereas of the three
hundred and thry-two (neatly many) who stood be-
low him In the line Of promotion, only forysH were re-
tired.
But sir let rs look a little further into this matter
There FIVE licutcnants he naval board. BY the
operation Of The board aod its judgments approved BY
the President and they be carried out by the Senate
there three OF these gentlemen who promoted
the rank OF mander- Missroon, Page, md Gordon
whilst other, William L. Maury, advanced from
No l3l his roll to No II and tho junior ieutcn-
this board Mr Bdde stepped up At single bound
from No 1870 70 No 30 Thus by the operations Of the
board hundred and thirty Of the heaviest pounds
that weighed upon removed from the head
and shoulders Of these euenans This is the result the
euenants three Of them promoted to the rank Of
maude and the Others stepping at least hundred
and twenty rounds upon the ladder Of promotion a
bound. let how IL operated the command
ers. There Eve commanders the board four
Of Acknowledgment Buchanan, Du PonL and Batron-
ad vanced TO the rank Of captain whilst the re-
naming commander, NF Footc transferred from
No Sc to No. l3 the roll OF commanders That was
the effect which the Judgment Of this board had on the