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

wears ten wears or ten daysi Suppose, for illus
tration he kad prescribed three years % the limit
81 that time an officer, by previous vicious ana m
tenr rate course ofconduct had not only deranged
his mind for tho timc being but had brought on dis
ease that totally disqualified him for the eff1cent ds-
charge of his duties; but for two years past ne has
been apparently q reformed man IN mino ana ,oony.
The board was required to examine into MS e!ncen'
cy, running back three years. One, personally 1n-
aconainted with tho officer, might doubt whether
the reformation of two years duration was perma.
nent. and could be relied on another knew that this
officer had many years ago reformed like previous
habits but had relapsed. The board having person
al knowledge and other reliable information recon-
mend tho dismissal of the officer. The board might
saw in justification, that three years ago was uni.
versally admitted that the officer was inefficient and
the Secretary's instructions required to go that
far back The dismissed officer now appears before
Congress apparently reformed and efficient. l ask
if in such the Secretary would not have been
subjected to severe apprehension for the arbitrary
and despotic rule of three years that he had pre-
scrbedg The board were, however, to examine as
to the efficiency of the officer at the time Of the a'a-
quiry, and cannot conceive the propriety OF any
limitation of time.
But notice ought to have been gwen and record
kept! A notice, repeat, was useless, unless the
officer was to be heard in his defense Who was to
be the accuser and prosecutor? Would you have
the Judges to assume that character? According to
the idea of some, the forms of court of law ought
to have been observed; public examination had
The court must notify the party; and if trial is to
take place. the charges must be preferred and pros.
ecuted and the officer admitted to defend by wit
nesses and counsel. Now, imag CINE the board con-
Quoting their deliberations thus, and from the ne
cessity of the case, some one or more members ex-
aiming and cross-examining the witnesses against
and for the accused and then what of the board
shall argue the case against the defendant? Would
not such scene properly command the indignant
anathemas of eloquent Senators? And then how
long, think vou it would have taken to dispose of
the two hundred and one cases retired, to say moth
ing of the six hundred and ninety-seven officers
whose efficiency had to be examined into.
And here it is as we'll to aude to an argument
agains: the action of the board, arising out of the
time employed by them. Senators have divided the
time into minutes and seconds, and have apportion-
ed in that way few minutes only to each case
The Senator from Georgia. Mr. Iverson,] in his es-
innate, makes applicable to each one CT the two
hundred and one cases, forty.three minutes and f-
teen seconds This it is said, is not careful ex-
animation" and therefore the proceeding is vitated
What length of time, them would be sufficient p
Are we to test the legality of the act by the time
consumed? 1t is certainly fair to assume that there
were but few of the cases that required much time
for discussion or consultation.
read from the report of the committee:
"In the examination which your committee have
given to the proceedings of the board, they find that
of the two hundred and one officers removed from
the active. service list, hundred and fifty were so
removed by the unanimous votes of their peers;
that is, where one of these one hundred and fifty
was midshipman, master, or lieutenant, he was re.
moved by vote Of the fifteen members; where he
was commander he was removed by vote OF ten;
and where a captain by vote of five. Of the re-
naming fiftyonc, thirty three were so removed by
vote Of over two-thirds, and the remaining eigh-
teen by vote, some OF two-thirdS, and some ex-
cecding majority.
Your committee deem it proper to say that they
have carefully examined the org and provisions of
the law creating the reserved list and they find that
in the committee who reported it, in all the argu-
ments sustaining it in Congress- in the judgment Of
the Secretary of the Navy, as evinced in his annual
report, and his regulations as we'll in the judy
ment of the board ITSELF throughout its delibera
tons, it was regarded as an honorable retirement
provided by grateful country, in remembrance of
past public service"
One hurtfed and fifty retired by unanimous
vote, and nearly all the others by two-thrd vote!
Now to the debatable according to the ca!cu
laton of the Senator to the time employed) there
was devoted more than half day to each case. l
admit this would not be sufficient time il they
to be governed by the rules and practice of of
law, and Gel tainly would be greatly insufficient in
this body, which has been edited and occupied for
hours, days, and weeks upon Gerry fep of the cases.
But suppose you apply the same rule as to timc
and try the in a court of law. Would it be
unreasonable to devote, in preerring and hearing
the charges, in the examination Of witnesses and
argument of counsel, fifteen hours to each case, or
three days of five hours each, (Which is the mode
of calculation adopted by the Senator,) and then
have an aggregate of six hundred and three work.
ing days; period of nearly two years before the
cases could have been decided. l apprehcnd some
of the cases would have required nearer week than
three days. And will this be called the execution of
the law in good faith to effect the reform conelnpla
ted by Congress?
BY the act of Congress of 1900, courts-martial
and courts of inquiry were authorized and their
powers and duties defined. By that act the man
ner of summoning witnesses and the penalties for
non-attendance prescribed. The legislative pow
necessary to give authority to these courts to
compel the attendance of witnesses. The Secretary
however, say Senators, ought to have prescribed
such regulations to have given the retired officers
fair hearing. Then he must have adopted rules
for summonng witnesses and prescribed penalties
for non-attendance The law was silent. Suppose
he haG. Is it not palpabe that such regulations
would have been usurpation of judicial power, sub.
jecting him to the severest animadverson, and en-
tirely in contraventon of the planest principles Of
republican liberty which separate the powers of the
different departments of Government? The inquiry
might we'll then have been made: upon what meat
doth this Secretary of the Treasury feed?
repeat, the board had no essential element in
its construction analogous to courts of common law
1t was to make careful examination and report to
the Secretary the names and rank of all officers who
in thejudgment Of tho board" shall be incapable
of performing promptly and efficiently all their du.
ty, both ashore and afoat; and whenever the board
IS shall believe that sufficient blame for his incom
potency attaches to the officer they are to recon-
mend his name to be stricken from the rolls. Sup
pose record of the reasons is to be kept it GER
tany could not be perfect Without spreading out all
the reasons of euery member of the board for his
judgment. Would not such book present the
queerest specimen of record that ever was made
up in any court? No such record was contem-
plated, and it is incomprehensible to me why such
a record should be called for.
But, Mr.. President, the object Of the law is very