The New York herald., 1870-01-13
The Question of Promotions of
Naval officers Plngently
Discussed.
Secretary Robeson's Annual Report
Attacked as Containing
10isstatements.
The Claim Of Economy in Expenditures
Denied

Navy, on the lst OF December 1892 Ii the following
paragraph
In tho year 1855 board composed Of admira. who
gut A. pssden by Secretary OF The Navy
s ss 81 @ H..
altar careful made report strictly aocord
believed have been sasfsctory 70 the navy at large
In and the WAS made quite idspend
sny Of their action The result is that many officers CON
exist. most undesirable in the service Some Of the
nsiion hut L is fs ,sai The real merit Of each case
can only be judged OF by those who were personally
sidsratons be lost sight OF Ia per
init OF direct action by the Department without the rsk OF
.usge:sd .ha.hs department be authorized appoint
nn S 90 a g mi e .so N
tive and Congress as TO them may proper.
This paragraph Is such perversion OF the facts
and circumstances relating to the advancement OF
the officers at the close Of the war ana beays such
an absence OF correct information on the subject
that was surprised II should have found place IN
an ofrcial document OF the character of an annual
report OF the Secretary OF the Navy. / was unw
ling to believe that you hao Intentionally and inteli
gently mlsrepresented the facrs and knew thar no
one OF the board OF admirals could communicates the
proceedings OF the board which | had convened to
assist me with their opinions except by breach OF
trust therefore came to the conclusion that you
mad not personally given the subject that attention
which II deserved and that you had been imposed
upon BY some one unworthy OF confidence.
OF Representatives called you by resolution for
the report to which you had invited their attention,
and was interested to see The response you would
make to that call. While waiting for this response
Ireceived from MIR. odiey Chief Clerk OF the Navy
Department brief nose stating that thorough
search had been made for the report IN question,
but 1t was not to be found files OF the depart
nent, and asking me II had 1t or q copy In my pos
session. replied at once that was in possession
OF neither the original nor copy but that had q
tabular statement OF the recommendations and in
formed him the Board had been convened inIorm-
N IN trnl mn
that their recommendations were not obligatory
had no legal validity were without Responsibility,
and, being merely confidential expressions OF
opinion, II was question whether tney should
go on the tiles OF the department /
expressed my surprise that you should assumed
to state in your ollca report the contents of docu
ment or documents which you had never seen and
represent what was satisfactory IN the proceedings
OF che Board and what action OF nine gave discon-
tent, when you had no knowledge on the subject,
had never read the proceedings OF the Board OF
mirals and were ignorant Of the principles on which
acted. requested him 10 submit my letter to You.
Mr. 01ley acknowledged the receipt or my letter
on the 22d OF December said he had submitted II to
you and that 1T WAS In yolr possession. The Wash
lngton correspondent OF the NEW YORK HERALD,
on the 23d OF December. the day after you had pos
session OF my letter. sent TO tht paper the foowng
statement
Several days ago the Hogse passed resolution calling upon
the board Of adpir.s appointed ago by
ss Of the Navy 70 examine and designate officers
irregnlAry manner in which This board made ss
ocss were whoa. ie to her %ar record
and other qual,aeatons The Naval Committee
propose to overhaul ths matter search made the
Navy Department for the record OF the Boards
had bsen carried o BY Secretary Weles when be
~ Mr. oey nc s Chief s1 s note
Weles setting forth that the document had by
reply oay sn 70 letter deI from n Mr. r.
" %ses wherein he soass The secretary OF the Navy
SWses) private Affairs: That record Gays weles, was
refuses surrender it, The officials al the Navy Depart
n he Say na . as a = s s M % sa s
matter view when he carried IL OF.
Now 1t is not true that carried or the report; 1t
~ not true that abused you for interfering my
private affairs: 1t s not true that have refused 10
Intentional Measurements IN the letter OF The
HERALD correspondent are very much in character
with the paragraph In your report which / have
quoted. the correspondent Of the HERALD received
his Information from some source; and as my eL-
ter, which Is referred to ana 80 much lalsIled was
IN your possession am lett III little doubt as 10 that
source.
As you have never seen the proceedings or the
board or admirals ana know not what their recon-
meDdations were, by what authority and on what
data do you say "their selections would, ii is be-
leved have been satisfactory to the navy OF largeY
by what authority do yOn say 1.-The advancement
was made quite independently OF thor actionS"
When Inform you tnat nearly one-haf the officers
would have been superseded or have lost rank by
the action or the board OF admiral5 had not other
action been taken. aud that 70 enable to carry
Into effect such OF their recommendations AZ ap-
proved without reducing others to lower position
on the register, I procured further legislation in
1880, you Wall perceive tnat neither OF your state
mentS Is correct.
From the nature OF the case, when q portion OF
the officers were TO be superseded aud large por-
made selections which would be satisfactory to the
navy At large'-lmpossible to avoid some dlscOn-
tent. On the other point, that Of making advance
ments independently OF the action OF the board |
may say, % the proceedings VIII show, that while,
as was my duty, acted on my own convictions,
gave weight and consideration to their opinions,
and some cases deferred perhaps too far to their
auggestons. In large portion OF the cases our
favoritism, prejudice or mistaken Judgment was
apparent. There were other instances where was
IN possession OF information unknown to the admi-
rails and where could put more correct estimate
than the board on services rendered. They were,
pernaps excusaby, partial to those who had served
under theln and perhaps some OF them were preju-
diced against and laed to rigntiy appreciate those
or other commands.
There were oflcers, aso who had acquitted them
selves with credit, on other than squadron duty,
whom could not neglect Nor could l. with my
ideas OF duty, although you seem to suppose IL
proper. delegate 10 others authority which legally
devoved on me and FOR which vas responsible.
Few more unpleasant dulles devolved upon me
during my administration OF the department than
tue dIflicult and delicate ono OF selecting aud pro-
noting offcers however mertorious over others
who also had merit. | have been brought IN nti
mate relations wtpnaval o1cers Of every grade In
O trying and critical period OF our history had stu
died and learned the character OF each, mad felt
I,ersona az well oHcial obligation to Those who
stood firmly By the nag ana The Union when many
or their associates deserted and Others faltered.
Some were necessarily 10 be superseded; but could
men after years OF faithful war service, suffer
loss OF rank which they would consider degradation.
But the proceedings and report OF The Board OF Ad-
mirals which you represent as satisfactory to the
navy at large,' took from nearly one-af the ocers
their rank and placed them lower upon the register.
For this the board was not blamaole. IL was an In
cyable result from an attempt 10 execute the acts
OF April 1864 and January, iS6S, authorizing pro,
motions and advancelaents. Wnle the award OF
merit portion OF the olncers was not undeserveu
the implied censure rejection upon tie others
was cruel and would have been felt by them TO be
M
Cf most OF the latter although Their career may noE
have been as Brilliant. nor their opportunities as
favorable as those Of come OF their more for
t,Inatc brethren, was not wiling 20 be an instfu-
1nept to mortlfy or degrade Them by carrying
into effect the Recommendations or the Board OF
Adn,irals without efort In their behalf. The
whole suDecy was beset with difficulty and
en- barrassment and such were my feelings towards
fhc o,icars who would be BUNDLED and wronged,
M regard for the whole service and my convictions
of wnat was right that delayed action until the oi-
LOWING wear. The Board OF Admra5 was trst con
.eneG early in IS6j-there was second session
s,tae months later-but the pronouons ana al-
yancements were not made until alter tle passag. @