The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-01-14

HARTFORD, Jan. 10, 1S70-Hon. George nj.
Robeson, Secretary of the Navy-Sir:-In
your annual report as Secretary of the Navy,
on the 1st of December, 1869, is the follow
ing paragraph
In the year 1865 board, composed of admi-
rails who had commanded squadrons during the
war, with Admiral Farragut as President was
convened by the Secretary of the Navy, 10 re-
port the names of such officers as they deemed
worthy of advancement under the act of April
81, 1864. The board, after careful consideration,
made report strictly according to the letter of
their Instructions and their selections would, 1t
lie believed, have been satisfactory to the navy
at large. The recommendations of the board
were, however, not acquesced in, and the adj
vancement was made quite independently OF
their action. The result is that many officers
consider themselves unjustly treated and a feel
ing of discomfort exists most undesirable in the
service. Some of the cases affected by this
action have already been acted on by the ad-
ministration. But IL is felt that the real merit
of each case can only be properly judged of by
those who were personally cognizant OF all its
circumstances, and that too many considerations
would be lost sight of in the lapse of time to per-
init of direct action by the department without
the risk of further mistakes.
1t is suggested that the department be autho-
rized to appoint board of officers removed by
high rank from all personal interest on this
question, to examine the cases complained of
and TO report their conclusions for such action
by the Executive and Congress as to them may
seem proper.
This paragraph is such perversion of the
facts and circumstances relating to the adj
vancement of the officers at the close of the
war, and betrays such an absence of correct
information on the subject, that was sur
prised it should have found place in an
official document of the character of an annual
report of the Secretary of the Navy. l was
unwilling to believe that you had intention
ally and intelligently misrepresented the
facts, and knew that no one of the Board of
tha in
of the board which had convened to assist
me with their opinions, except by breach of
trust. 1 therefore came to the conclusion
that you had not personally given the subject
that attention which it deserved, and that
you had been imposed upon by some one un-
worthy of confidence
did not regret to learn soon after that the
House of Representatives called on 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 l re-
ceived from Mr.. Offley, Chief Clerk of the
Navy Department, brief note stating that
thorough search had been made for the report
in question, but it was not to be found on the
files of the department, and asking me if l
had it or copy in my possession. replied
at once that was in possession of neither the
original nor copy, but that 1 had tabular
statement of the recommendations, and in
formed him the board had been convened in
formally and confdentially to assist, not to
control me, that their recommendations were
not obligatory, had no legal validity, were
without responsibility, and, being merely
confidential expressions of opinion it was
a question whether they should go
on the files of the department. L
expressed my surprise that you should have
assumed to state in your official report the
contents of document or documents which
you had never seen, and represent what was
satisfactory in the proceedings of the board
and what action of mine gave discomfort,
when you had no knowledge on the subject,
had never read the proceedings of the Board
of Admirals, and were ignorant of the princi-
pies on which 1 acted. 1 requested him to
submit my letter to you. Mr.. Ofliey acknow-
lodged the receipt of my letter on the 22d of
December; said he had submitted it to you,
and that it was in your possession. The
Washington correspondent of the New York
Herald, on the 23d of December, the day
after you had possession of my letter, sent to
that paper the following statement
Several days ago the House passed a resolu-
tion calling upon the Secretary of the Navy for
the record of the proceedings of the Board Of
Admirals appointed two or three years ago by
the Secretary of the Navy to examine and de-
signate officers of the navy for promotion. 1t
seems there was some irregularity about the
manner in which this board made its reeommen-
datl0nS, ana tnere is great deal or complaint
that officers were promoted without regard to
their war record and other qualifications. The
Naval Committee of the House propose to over
haul the matter. Search was made at the Navy
Department for the record of the boards
proceedings, but it could not be found.
Finally 1t was ascertained that it had been car
ried off by the late Secretary Welles when he
made his exit from the department Secretary
Robson directed Mr. Offiey, the Chief Clerk, to
address q note to Mr.. Welles, setting forth that
the document had been called for by resolution
of Congress, and asking him to return it. In
reply to this Mr.. Offiey to-day received a letter
from Mr.. Welles, wherein he abuses the present
Secretary of the Navy in round terms for inter-
fering with what he calls his (WellesD private
1t was never intended to be made public, and he
refuses to surrender it. The officials of the
Navy Department say that it was as much part
of the files and records of the department as an
order is, and that Mr.. Welles had no right to
remove it. 1t is supposed that he had some
personal matter in view when he carried it off.
Now it is not true that 1 carried off the re-
port; it is not true that / abused you for
interfering in my private affairs; it is not true
that have refused to surrender the proceed
ings. These gross, palpable, intentional mis-
statements in the letter of the Herald cores
pondent are very much in character with the
paragraph in your paper which 1 have quoted.
The correspondent of the Herald received his
information from some source; and as my
letter, which is referred to and so much falsi-
fed, was in your possession, I am left in
little doubt as to that source.
AS you have never seen the proceedings OF
the Board of Admirals and know not what
their recommendations were, by what autho'
rity and on what data do you say ''theii