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

cOnVlCblOnh, gave WelRnb anu COunhuoianOh
TO their opinions, and in some cases deferred,
perhaps too far, to their suggestions. In
large portion of the cases our views conceded,
but there we're instances where favoritism,
prejudice, or mistaken Judgment was appa-
rent. There we're other instances where
was in possession Of information unknown to
the admirals, and where / could put more
correct estimate than the board on services
rendered. They were, perhaps excusably,
partial to those who had served under them;
and perhaps some of them we're prejudiced
against and failed to rightly appreciate those
of other commands.
There were officers, also, who had acquitted
themselves with credit, on other than squad
ron dnty, whom / could not neglect. Nor
could with my ideas of duty, although you
seem to suppose it proper delegate to others
authority which legally devolved on me and
for which was responsible. Few more un-
pleasant duties devolved upon nae during my
administration of the department than the
delicate and difficult one of selecting and pro-
noting officers however meritorious, over
others who also had merit. have been
brought in intimate relations with naval Off
GERS of every grade in q trying and critical
period of our history, had studied and learned
the character of each, and felt a personal as
well as official obligation to those who
stood firmly by the flag and the
Union when many of their associates
deserted and others faltered. Some were
necessarily to be superseded; but l could
not willingly see any of these true and gallant
men, after years of faithful war service, suffer
| loss of rank which they would consider degra-
| dation But the proceedings and report OF
the Board of Admirals, which you represent
as satisfactory to the navy at large" took
| from nearly one-half the officers their rank
and placed them lower upon The register. For
| this the board was not blamable. 1t was an
inevitable result from an attempt to execute
the acts of April, 1864, and January, 1865,
authorizing promotions and advancements.
While the award of merit to portion of the
officers was not undeserved, the implied
censure or reflection upon the others
was cruel, and would have been felt
| by them to be unjust. Knowing the worth,
| fidelity, and patriotism of most of the
| latter, although their career may not have
| been as brilliant nor their opportunities as
| favorable as those of some of their more for
| tunate brethren, was not willing to be an
instrument to mortify or degrade them by
| carrying into effect the recommendations of
| the Board of Admirals without an effort in
| their behalf The whole subject was beset
| with difficulty and embarrassment, and such
| were my feelings towards the officers who
! would be humbled and wronged, my regard
| for the whole service, and my convictions of
| what was right, that 1 delayed action until the
| first convened early in 1S65-there was
second session some months later-but the
| promotions and advancements were not made
| until after the passage of the act of July,
| 1866, nearly one and half years later In
the meantime the Naval Committee and Con-
| gress, aftSr being made acquainted with the cir
cumstances, concurred with me as to the i'm
| policy and injustice of reducing the rank of
| faithful officers. After much and mature de-
| fba fha ~ 70 laf,
the number and regulate the appointment of
officers in the navy and for other purposes,
| approved July 25, 1866. This act, passed
morethan two years after the law ofApril, 1864,
the only law on this subject with which you
appear to be conversant, enlarged the number
of each grade, relieved the department of it's
most serious embarrassments and avoided
the degradation of a large number of worthy
officers from the rank which they had at
tanned and of which they ought not, without
| fault, to be deprived You make no allusion
to this act of 1866, and seem not to be aware
that its enlarged provisions, with the recon-
mendations of the Board of Admirals, were
the basis of my action and enabled the Gov
eminent to do justice to the whole service.
AS soon as the law of 1866 was enacted
invited Admiral Farragut to Washington. and
with him took up and revised the whole
register, having the proceedings of the Board
of Admirals and the record of every officer
before us. No other officer was summoned
on this occasion, for 1 desired to avoid all
favoritism and combinations such as have
sometimes afflicted the navy. More than
twenty years previously, when chief of q
naval bureau, had witnessed the pernicious
effects of cliques and personal favoritisms in
the service, and there were indications of q
disposition in some quarters to revive the
evil.
Admiral Farragut was at the head of the
service, and had never been connected with
any of the cliques and combinations which
had afflicted it, and which had labored with
some success to eradicate knew his impair
tiality, his devotion to the true interests
of the country and the whole navy, that he
was free from fayoritism or prejudice, aud
that he was q safe and reliable counsellor
who wanted United States navy and not a
personal navy. With him went through
the entire register, canvassed each individual
case, and it was the wish and intention of
both of us to do equal and exact justice to ALL
not that l expected to give satisfaction to
every man, for that was an lmpossibility.
AS the responsibility of the promotions was
with me- and as in some instances knew of
services rendered with which he was not ac-
quainted, acted on my own convictions, in
conformity with his expressed wish and our
mutual understanding before the register was
taken up. Whatever errors, therefore, were
committed, am responsible for, and not Ad-
miral Farragut. l mention the fact of con-
sulting that distinguished officer in the faal
revision OF the promotions because your re-
port makes no mention of it and conveys a
false impression of the whole subject l re-
gretted that the time allotted us to accom-
| fnIich fhia work after fha nf tha ~