New-York tribune., 1883-06-06

Tator has replied to criticisms upon cei."n
Ea.on n'' tho Civil Service Commission.
n,ssA Tss "ass Of Captain Caleb, imprisoned Ii
MOO On a charge of smuggling, has eac'cu
;ntarest at the State Department. Inc 0eoio-
torv Of the Treasury has issued Instructions
with regard to drawbacks on sugar.
NORFOLK NAVY YARD ABUSES.
.nxnopp MAKES SPECIFIC CHARGES AGAINST
THE MANAGEMENT-A NAVAL coo"i
,u.s,yoroN June 5.-Judging by presehV III
dcations the first prosecution 10 .es' 'no ,r.
~ the Civil Service law will not be IN civii 0Ou
INIT before naval court is.o~os.od
Dezeudorf has been close anu oeepi! s,.a;,,st
au % tbe investigation of his charges against
~ aeso;a,. Of tho Norfolk Navy Yard ana he nus
wy .. tho conclusion that such an investlgatioh,
A. ha honest. thorough and productive Oh useiu'
.s.,,ts must be made by officers who are ho' III |
,,,;oated in any of the alleged VIOLATIONS u
low and regulations and by tribunal oe1oro "i0n
the subordinate officials and the employees VI .,'o
N.rv Yard can appear and freely testify. with 'he
o.grronce that they will suffer no harm by SO doing
Al.hongb Mr.. Dezendorf was the author OF specinc
charges against the Bureaus of CONSTRUCTION anu
Renair and Equipment and Recruiting ne was
summoned by Captain Beardslee, VINO Is channi"i
n
n.ar and "lay before the aforesaid Board any in-
tor,nat;on or knowledge" he might have bearing
rron the matter under investigation, which was
asSrs5 in the summons to be "the administrator
80 .bo Rpreau Department of Yards and DOCKS IN
tb,s ward with view of discovering and reporting
anv violations of law and regulations therein eAls|
ING between the dates of May l, 1882 anu ''"' -A
1883 both dates inclusive"
Th;s snmmons appears to be plain evasion ana
contempt of the instructions Of the Secretary OF INC
Navy. and he will probably so regard 1t.
Mr.. Dezendorf evidently regarded 1t as suincleh'
evidence that Commodore Mayo and his assistants
are determined to stifle the inveshgaton' II prac-
t;cable and to prevent the truth from being known
He therefore did not go before the Board, ana ne
has sent letter to the Secretary of the Navy on the
.uh;ect This letter is dated June l, and reads In
part as follows
Ihaye the honor TO inclose herewith copy OF e''ef
received by me on the 3lst utno pd io c 70 which
have made no The TACT that am ssheu " ny
before Board snoTsnt Of the Norok Navy Yard
against which have made specific CHARGES while,
whcn % I have made specific charges have been inyes
gated without notice having osea gwen e q that
am led to believe 1t has been supplied by master
workman Of course without your o tbe ne"seS
charges and specifications which pow prefer agnSSt
William X. Mayo Commodore u 3; NJ nd ana Xliam ~
~. W % % Naval Constrnctor u NJ in charge Of the
Department OF nan ana he sVs companed OF
should be ferreted out and the guilty parties
s this nurpose should not for obvious reasons include
sny officer at present stationed at this and ne wiz
poyed ssS in the yard, have your assurance tina,
they be removed or dismissed iron %
IN public order oyer your SIGNATURE, 70 oo grd en
Ct muster in all neeraS tine epsdn of yonr gwen
me in your favor of the 18th utmo have iormnatedd
against the officers referred TO- which seems 70
should receive your consideration: anu th hnnor of
the Administration and the good OF the country ak uc
mand that these abuses should be ihoroughy anu pt W.
court martial composed of officers not now on this station
may be convened for that purpose
Mr.. Dezendorfs first charge against Commodore
Mayo is that he violated article of the articles tor
The government of the Navy, and section 1,545
Revised Statutes, IN that about April 21 he gave a
written order to Civil Engineer p. A. Asscrson, In
charge of the Department of Yards and Docks, to
give one Littleton Owens, per diem empioye' oho
weeks leave of absence 10Th pay.
The second charge is a violation of paragraph .
of section OF instructions to commanding oincers
of navy yards. Tho specification Is
that Commodore Mayo, at the request OF senator
Mahone as expressed in a communication from the
Chief of the Bureau of Equipment aud Recruiting,
ordered the employment of Littleton Owens and
ment of Equipment and Recruiting well
knowing that their services were not required
The third charge is conduct prcudical to the good
government of the Navy Yard and violation OF
secuon 546 of the Revised Statutes and OF the
Civil Service act approved January 10, 1883. The
specification is that Commodore Mayo, from time TO
time between September l. 1882, and November O.,
1882. aud between April IA, lss3' ana May
"a 1883. gave leave of absence 70 former
and other employees under his control wei knowing
that their time was to be devoted 10 poltica pur-
poses for interference in elections and permitting
fhomas M Hodges TO solicit q contribution from
the employees of the yard to be used Tor politcai
purposes 10 defray the expenses OF the eiecuon Id
Norfolk County.
THE CHARGES AGAINST vARNEY.
Tho charges against Naval Constructor Varncy
are seven in number. The specification appended to
the first charge is that varney approved
The payroll for the last half Of October
1882 upon which Z. d. Holloman's
name appeared as having worked full time,
when he knew that Hollomsn had been continuous
" absent canvassing Norfolk County In the Con-
sressional campaign, and that Holloman received
full pay for the half month The specification To
{he second charge is that VarDey know
inS,v and wilfuliy permitted the chef clerk
and the time clerk, Robinson and Manning
oksep Hoo%an on the S; rCs Sos mita time eas ts politics
and aso the Civil Service law. The specncation 70
this charge contains these allegations;
That yarpey has repeatedly Disseminated against ex
Union soldiers sailors account OF their got@lSa @
opinion; that in the month OF NovemDSr Too, i ius
Or discharged from employment as ship keepers r.
IOokns. Scott Harringto and - Albert ali exOnioI
soers or saors that he failed 20 obey the order oI
their reinstatement given by the chief OF the Bureau o.
Construction aud Repairs and placed them In posiiioh
other than ordered and in May 1882 just before ,ns
May election Lookns and Harrington, having 1alled
contribute the campaign fund.- were again discharged
end men retained who never served III the Army oi
Navy.
atvarney, 10 April, 1883. discharged f. d. Hooman
Thomas H. Brooks and Peter Comick, three co0red mel