The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-07-29

FEW YORK HERALD, WI
Prsgxvn - sas Iassas ~ - Wsva6Os.rt q
Inquky-vhs nvsds~es - - Lad Before
Coegres&
Whatever may be the short comings of the new
Naval Courts, they cannot be accused Of undue
precipitation in Their labors They have row
been sitting Eve months and out Of the one hun
bred and twenty nine applications for reinstate-
nent by dismissed officers only fifty cases have
been disposed Of. These one hundred and twenty
nine applications are q iarger proportion to the
Number of dismissals (two hundred and ten) than
were to be expected from the summary action of
the Naval Retiring Board. The only circum-
stance that could possibly justify the hasty de-
cisieHs of the latter, was the strongly marked
character of the cases brought before them. That
one Hundred aud twenty-nine cut of tae two hun
drea and ten dismissed officers should HOW claim
revision of these dscisions despite the obstacles
thrown in their way BY legal and Official inge-
nuity, is in itself presumption that in the great
NECESSITY of instances such condition
did not exist. That only fifty of these
cases have been archaeological in the space
OF Ave months, although the labor of
investigation has been subdivided confirms to
some extent the justice of the suspicion that
Bossa consulted raates their professional preiu-
d;ces than their cossoiences in the discharge of
the important duties entrusted to them. Such,
at least, are the conclusions whoh the pebble are
entitled to draw from the figures before them,
without taking into consideration the occasional
statements of evidence which have leaked on.
through the columns of the newspapers.
Upon the information thus seantily CLEANED we
are indisposed to make any Heightened comments,
1t will be sufficient when the facts are fully be-
| fore us to deal with them as their importance
merits One observation, however, We may be
permitted to make in regard to the general bear
ing of the evidence taken before these courts.
Strongly impressed as we were with the idea that
grievous wrong had been done to many of the
dismissed officers, we own we were not prepared
for the marked character of the rebutting teeti-
mony which they have been able to produce In
the majority of the cases re-heard it will have
been observed that the most distinguished
of our naval commanders have come forward to
testify to the professional fitness and efficiency of
the applicants That appears to be the prevail
ing feature of these inquiries; and if the reports
of the new courts get up any theory Of naval dis
qualification in opposition to these unqualified
declarations of the most competent Judges in the
service we do not hesitate to say that their pro-
ceedisgs will prove a. great farce and nullity
as those of their predecessors.
We understand that some of the members of
these courts are exceedingly angry with the pithy
| reports of their proceedings which we give from
| day to day ard threaten that if we persist in
publishing them they will lay the whole Of the
evidence before Congress. Let us remind these
] gentlemen that if there is anything in our re-
ports with which they have reason to find fault,
we are not to blame for it. When The public are
excluded from inquiries in which they take so
large an interest, it is natural that they should
watch the with suspicion, and endeavor to follow
their course by such limited opportunities as
are afforded them. The ooly way to put an cad
to the annoyance, if such it proves, is to throw
open the courts to the press and remove the re-
stsictiop on The publication of their proceedings
To threaten us with laying the evidence before
Congress is, il must be admitted, rather funny
sort Of reprisal. Why, this Is precisely what we
want-what the dismissed officers want-whst
everybody wants. We only fear that these in
dignant Individuals will not have pluck enough
to carry their menace into execution.
The importance of the public being made fully
acquainted with the evidence taken before these
courts has been rendered more apparent by the
iptimation lately thrown out, that II was con-
templated to have il epltomized by the Judge
Advocate in each case, with view to laying it
before the Secretary for his decision. Now, we
have no confidence in the fairness or propriety
Of this suggestion. A Judge Advocate may be
a very honest but very incapable person for
the condensation of suca a mass of tcsti-
mopy. Even when bis experience qualities
him for the task, his preiudices may
be allowed TO interfere with it, conscientious full
ilnent II was nanifestly never intended by
Congress that the testimony taken in these cases
Should pass through the revising hands OF an in
teIrnedisry official before it reached the depart
ment. If this plan be persisted in, we shall GER
tainly do every thing in our power to provoke
the publication Of the full evidence through the
medium Of the Congressional record The desc
may prove heavy one for the stomachs Of our
representatives, but IT is better that their diges-
ticn should be overtaxed than that a number Of
deserving public servants shouid again be made
the victims Of their laundering legislation. We
shall coutinue to keep the pubic as correctly in.
formed as We can a. TO the proceedings of these
Naval Courts in the hope-we trust not vain
one-that they will retort upon US by giving to