The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-08-11

fectually relieve their regulations from the stig-
ma inflicted upon them by their decisions. Were
the interests Of these officers alone to be consid-
ered II is plain that no obstacles would be OPP
posed to the passage Of the bill. Some measure
Of the sort had been loudly called for by the con-
servatiye feeling Of the country, and some mea
sure 1t became necessary to adopt. On the bill
being sent to the House, however, it was soon
seen that strong efforts would be made to defeat
its main provision, Invested Of which it would
be yalueless in the eyes Of those who
had substantial grounds of complaint. The
result of their efforts was the subst-
tute reported by General Bocock, chairman
of the Naval Committee, which does away with
the Court Of Inquiry, and gives to the execu-
tive the power Of restoring to the service any Of
he officers affected by the decision Of the Board,
whose cases he may think deserving of favorable
consideration. The object OF this modification
is either to Illustrate the ends Of justice by ena-
bling the President to restore officers whose
conduct is not likely to bear re-investigation,
and to leave cases OF just complaint ey-
actly as they stood before; or it is intended TO
throw cloak over the insufilcency of the evil
dence on which the decisions Of the Naval Board
were founded. 1t may he either, or it may be
both; but in whatever light we view il, we can
not but regard it as a shameful perye sion Of
the objects of the original bill.
If the N.fal Board are not afraid that the
grounds Of their decisions should see the light
they should feel anxious for the success of the
Senate bill. Ii affords them the only opportu-
L. 4l.s. 10 r4a.y - t1a,,o zf
setting themselves right with the country. 1t is
alleged that they decided upon erlparte evidence,
or rather, upon no evidence at all. However
this may be- ii is certain that no minutes OF that
evidence are to be found in the department. The
only case in which anything like formal testi-
mony has as yet been brought forward to justify
the action Of the Board is that which was adduced
in the case Of Lieutenant Washington A. Bart
lett. This officer, like many others, felt ag-
grieved at the action Of the Navy Board which
struck him from the rolls Of the Navy, and he
loudly complained that he was treated unjustly,
dismissed illegally, and was entitled to have his
commission restored to him. The Senate com
nittce Of which Mr.. Bell, of Tennessee, was
Chairman, made a report upon the case and as
III lr " Ol Tue COuuuCl u tue DOdIu,
they are in all fairness entitled to its benefit In
common with The Independent press we expressed
our disapprobaton of many Of their proceedings,
and had reason to conclude that favoritism. self
interest and secret prcjudices had much to do
with their decisions But in the case Of Mr.. Bart
lett there il no ground whatever for suspecting
The existence OF such motives While il is adj
mtlcd he possessed intelligence physical capa-
city and temperate habits, with fair degree Of
professional skill, and was attentive 10 duty, yet
there was moral delinquency which called for
the action OF the Board
Three charges were relied upon a. ,uflsient
cause for his removal
1t. The Illicit landing and sale of shawl at
Monterey.
I'd. The landing free from duty, and the sale
OF quantity Of merchandise at San Francisco,
under prctence that il was intended for the use
az Tho srsSs 90 shs Unitod States schooner Ewing
then under his command.
ID. Fraudulent and dishonest conduct in the
discharge OF duties voluntarily assumed as ca
terer OF the wardroom mess of the United States
ship Portsmouth.
The frst charge Wa. substantiated by the testi-
mony Of Parscr Watmough and the confession
Of Mr.. Bartlett TO Commander Missroon II APP
pcaied he sold seven dollar shawl to a lady on
shore for ten dollars, having Struggled the article
under his uniform. On being charged with tue
act he took the shawl back. thu, recognizing the
improprieiy Of the action.
The second was substantiated by the most posi-
tive proof that Mr.. Bartlett purchased q quanti-
~ Of goods al Valparaiso: that he landed them
free Of duty at san Francisco; that they were
consigned to q house with which he was con-
ncclcd, aud were sold for his account the pro-
cceds being passed to hi, credit
The third charge was al-o supported by the
testimony of the officers Of the mes. who testi-
led that h. ovcrchargod them in his accounts:
vas in The habit Of selling clcthe.. segars, aud
other articles. like huckster. receiving money
ior mes accounts which was not used in the
rur,ba~c Of supplies. aud % specializing on
small library b. had voluntarily brought on ship
board to DC hired ont to officers aud seamcn.
Another charge, though not brought forward
W the committee. Wa hi. conduct abroad while
on duiy for the Lighthouse Board. His accounts
were irregular cSorbiant and illegal: beyond
the sum which be knew he wa to receive. in
cludcd the expenses Of his family aud servants,
and charges for unauthorized services. These
accounts he had the opportunity of Withdrawing
hut he insisted on them. and they were refused.
II also appeared that his general conduct had lost
him the good opinion Of hi shpmates who
placed him in Coventry for his misconduct
The defcnces made by Mr. Bartlett were deem.
I'd unsatisfactory. and he was dismissed
No doubt If Investigations were carefully made
in relation TO other dismissals, equally good
grounds would Ne discovered for their iustifca.
ton. The navy has now bad warning Of what
il has TO expect IL further delinquencie. ever
take place, and il i to he hoped for the honor OF
our flag, no more will take place. No branch Of
The nullic scrxicn L. % dear 10 Inc Arnnr,nnr,