The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-10-23
Has a Naval Officer a Right to a POliti-
cal OpiniOn9


cal OpiniOn3
CURIOUS instance Of the exercise Of red tape
and tyranny has been furnished by the recent
action of the Navy Department. in regard to
the oourt-martial of Engineer George F.
Sawyer. That officer was charged "with
using language disrespectful to the President
of the United States," was tried at Ports
mouth, and sentenced to be suspended for
one year, lose three -fourths of his salary, and
be publicly reprimanded by the Secretary"
The finding of the Court is confirmed, and we
have deleotable homily from the grand
dame of the Navy Department on the subject of
the duty of officers in the service. The facts
of the case, as developed by the trial, alter
somewhat the inference conveyed by Mr..
Wells, and remove much of the oulpability Of
Mr. Sawyer. 1t appears that a number Of
officers engaged in a political discussion, and
that Mr.. Sawyer, in reply to a charge
that Congress was "unjust," "tyrannical
and "usurping body" declared his belief
that Congress would fail Of its duty unless
it impeached the President" These words
were spoken in the heat of discussion, and
were in reply to equally offensive remarks by
another officer. Immediately some tale-bearer
and time-server, one of those who are ever
ready to "crook the pregnant hinges of the
knee, that thrift may follow fawning," reports
these remarks to the Secretary, who has Mr..
Sawyer court-martialled and suspended. But
was anything done to those who denounced
Congress Were the men who declared a
coordinate branch of the Government to be a
"usurping body" held to answer Not at all.
He who merely exercised citizens right to
an opinion was disgraced, while others equally
guilty were allowed to go unrebuked. Such
decision may be good on technical grounds,
but it shocks the common sense of the country
to see what is a palpable injustice go forth
with all the sanctimonious prating of that
thoroughly incompetent Cabinet officer. We
are not surprised that Mr.. Welles would like
TO have all expressions of public opinion
crushed out. lie would, doubtless, if he
could, compel us to do reverence to the Ad-
ministration, and from the very wording of
his order we see how hardly he tolerates criti-
cism. He says, with ill-concealed regret, that
he cannot interfere with all alike, that "what-
ever latitude of denunciation or abuse civilians
may choose to indulge in with regard to the
authorities of the Government, officers of the
Navy can claim no such privilege, even under
the plea that they have Alright to express their
opinions on political subjects" Not being
able, however, to deal so with "civilians,' he
vents his spleen against those who are within
his reach, and suspends Mr.. Sawyer.
But the mere fact whether or not the pun
ishment in this particular case was just, sinks
into insgnifcance when compared with the
question as to whether or not an officer in the
service of the United States has a right to
tertain political opinions 1t resolves itself
into the question whether the citizen is
merged into the soldier or sailor, and the fact
that he is serving his country deprives him of
all right to an opinion as to what is most con-
ducive to her good We do not think it does.
If an officer was to go so far as to utter dis
loyal sentiments, or even sentiments grossly
insulting to the COmmander-in-Chiefo of the
forces of the United States, we agree
with Mr.. Welles that he is "not only
wanting in the qualities Of a gentle
man, but is wholly unfit for the military SER
vice." But the present case does not fall
under any such denomination. The House Of
Representatives had referred to a committee
the question of impeachment. The subject
had Teen broached and discussed in the Hall
of the peoples delegates. 1t was before the
country, and it was not a disrespect to the
President such as would warrant trial and
conviction. 1t was merely the expression of
opinion on q subject suitable for such an ex-
preston, and on which every citizen had a
right to think as he pleased, A soldier was
a citizen before he was soldier, and in becom-
ing the latter he did not cease to be the former.
Every officer, in any department of the Gov
eminent, has clearly right to think and
speak on political topics with freedom, so that
he does not insult his superior officer. And
that the other parties to the discussion, those
who denounced Congress, were not repri-
manded, is a proof that Mr.. Welles was seek
ing to curry favor with Mr.. Johnson, even at
the expense of Justice. The Court which found
the verdict were but tools of Mr.. Welles. AS
the New York Times well characterizes the
whole proceeding, it was ga remarkable piece
of official toadyism;" and with justice. adds
that, 'if the Secretary undertakes to court
martial all officers who Speak disrespectfully
of the President in these times, he will have
his hands full"
The whole proceeding seems to us so un-
i 10 l,n CVNlVr