The Petition of M. P. Maury to the Senate and House 
 of Kepresentatives in Congress assembled, respect- 
 fully showeth : — 
 
 That he is. a Lieutenant in the Navy of the United 
 States; that he has been injured in his good name, and 
 deprived of professional franchises of great value, without 
 just cause or fair trial; and that the naval service has 
 suffered, and is likely still farther to suffer detriment by 
 reason of the mode and manner in which a Board of 
 Naval Officers has proceeded to carry out certain parts 
 of Sections 1 and 2 of the law approved the 28th of 
 February, 1855, entitled "An act to promote the effi- 
 ciency of the navy," hereunto appended, and marked A. 
 
 The Board therein called for, as it appears by a report 
 of the Secretary of the Navy — a copy of which, as pub- 
 lished in the Union newspaper of this city, is hereunto 
 appended, and marked B — assembled in this city, June 20, 
 last, and concluded its labors the 26th of July. 
 
 The law required of this Board a " careful examination 
 into the efficiency" of the officers of the grades of captain, 
 commander, lieutenant, master, and passed-midshipman, 
 numbering, according to the Navy Kegister of 1855, 712 
 persons, all told. The Board did its work in a manner 
 that was not consistent with the ends of justice, and that 
 does not comport with the dignity of the law ; for your 
 petitioner believes it can be shown that the Board went 
 1 \ 
 
through the examination of these 712 officers in less than 
 thirty working days, of about five hours each ; notwith- 
 standing it was the duty of said Board to made a search- 
 ing examination — a " scrutiny "-^-into the ability of each 
 one of these 712 officers to perform "promptly and effi- 
 ciently all their duty both ashore 'and afloat." Such 
 hasty findings could scarcely be just. 
 
 This examination was to be conducted under regula- 
 tions prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy, a copy of 
 which, as published in the Union newspaper of this city, 
 is hereunto appended, and marked C. There is reason to 
 believe that at least some members of the Board miscon- 
 ceived their duty, and took these regulations for instruc- 
 tions. If so, their findings under them were illegal. 
 
 Having completed this " careful examination," the law 
 required the Board to report to the Secretary of the 
 Navy the names and rank of all officers who, in its judg- 
 ment, should be " incapable of performing promptly and 
 efficiently all their duty both ashore and afloat;" and, 
 " whenever said Board shall believe said incompetency has 
 arisen from any cause implying sufficient blame on the 
 part of the officer to justify it, they shall recommend that 
 his name be stricken altogether from the rolls." 
 
 It is submitted that there be comparatively but few 
 officers in the navy capable of performing " promptly and 
 efficiently all their duty both ashore and afloat." Naval 
 duties are multifarious, and involve attainments of the 
 highest order in many departments of learning and know- 
 ledge; and it is rare to find any one officer a perfect 
 master of every branch of art and science connected with 
 his profession. 
 
 The law-makers, in their wisdom, foresaw and under- 
 
stood this; therefore they did not make the law to 
 require all those who might be found incapable of per- 
 forming promptly and efficiently all their duty ashore 
 and afloat, to be put on the reserved list, but only those 
 were to be so treated whom the Board should find so far 
 wanting as to be " incapable of performing the duties of 
 their respective offices, ranles, or grades" These, the 
 finding of the Board being approved by the President, 
 were to be either dropped from the rolls, or placed in the 
 order of their rank and seniority upon a list in the Navy 
 Kegister, to be entitled the Reserved List; and those so 
 placed, the law declares, shall be rendered ineligible to 
 further promotion in the naval service, but are subject, 
 nevertheless, " to the orders of the Navy Department at 
 all times for duty." Furthermore, the vacancies created 
 in the active list, by placing officers on the reserved list, 
 were to be filled from below by " regular promotion in 
 the order of rank and seniority." By this feature of the 
 law, the examiners — the members of the Board — became 
 parties deeply interested in their findings. 
 
 It moreover appears by the papers hereunto annexed, 
 and from evidence which your petitioner believes can be 
 made good, that the Board sat with closed doors, kept no 
 journal of proceedings, examined no witnesses, and gave 
 no reasons for its findings ; that its members were put 
 neither upon oath, affirmation, nor pledge of honor, to 
 act truly, fairly, and honestly; and that every one of 
 them, so far from having no motive not to do right, was 
 exposed to strong temptations to do wrong. 
 
 To the right-minded navy officer lucre is dross when 
 weighed against promotion and professional advancement. 
 And in this instance, the greater the number of officers to 
 
be found wanting, and the higher their place on the 
 Navy Register, the more were the officers on the Board 
 to be professionally benefited. This circumstance, it 
 would seem, ought to have suggested, by way of precau- 
 tion, the restraining influences of an oath or pledge ; of 
 the open light of day, as to their mode of conducting the 
 examination carefully, according to the law. It is sug- 
 gestive, also, of a faithfully kept journal, and of a record 
 of votes by ayes and noes. But for reasons unaccountable 
 to your petitioner, it appears that the members of the 
 Board neglected all these promptings of prudence. 
 
 He has also reason to believe that the Board made no 
 declaration for the guidance of members as to what 
 should constitute efficiency or inefficiency ; nor laid down 
 any other rule tending to insure even-handed justice or 
 consistency of finding, or to restrain members from cast- 
 ing votes according to arbitrary judgment. On the con- 
 trary, all the precautions and checks tending to restrain 
 prejudice, bridle envy, or curb malice, and to protect 
 those who were submitted to this cruel ordeal from injus- 
 tice, were totally neglected. Thus the door was left 
 invitingly open to arbitrary, and, therefore, tyrannical 
 findings. 
 
 Neither the law, nor any precept of the Department, 
 forbade such precautions; justice and fair dealing cer- 
 tainly required them. 
 
 The findings of the Board, standing naked and unex- 
 plained as they do, when taken in connection with these 
 facts and circumstances, are well calculated to excite sus- 
 picions, as injurious to the integrity of those officers as 
 their finding is to the reputation of your petitioner. 
 
 Every officer who should be voted incompetent would, 
 
if he were above the junior member of the Board, advance 
 or promote one or more of its members ; but if below, 
 none. Of the 362 who stood above the junior member 
 of the Board, 138 were found wanting; of the 332 who 
 stood below him in the line of promotion, only 46 were 
 found light in the scales. 
 
 It may be urged, in explanation of this startling 
 contrast, that there were above the junior member 
 two entire grades — Captains and Commanders — that are 
 composed, for the most part, of the oldest men in the 
 service, and that, therefore, it is natural that a greater 
 proportion of these should be found worn and unfit for 
 service than would be so found in the junior grades. 
 Granted. 
 
 Let us take his own grade. Of the Lieutenants above 
 the junior member of the Board, one-third were retired; 
 of those below him, one-seventh. 
 
 These facts are well calculated to excite suspicion and 
 arouse inquiry. Your petitioner is not able to point out 
 members, for a bare majority constituted "the vote — the 
 judgment of the Board" (C). The rights of the minority 
 were disregarded, and there is no clew by which due re- 
 sponsibility may be traced either to majorities or indi- 
 vidual members. 
 
 Nevertheless, your petitioner has been wronged. The 
 only clew to the motives of the Board is afforded by its 
 acts ; and when he tries its findings by his own knowledge 
 of the antecedents of officers, he is forced to the conclu- 
 sion that one or more members of the Board, to him un- 
 known, have, in their findings, yielded to the temptations 
 of irresponsible power, and pronounced arbitrary judg- 
 ment upon him; for, let your petitioner place himself in 
 
6 
 
 whatever category he may, he finds officers in an equal 
 or less favorable condition as to efficiency promoted or 
 advanced by the action of the Board, while he has been 
 set aside under its finding as incompetent. 
 
 If it be said that your petitioner was overslaughed 
 because of a broken leg, the reply is : there are other offi- 
 cers who are maimed and blind, who were not so treated; 
 nay, there was a member of the Board who had twice 
 suffered the misfortune of a broken leg. No surgical or 
 other examination, to the best of your petitioner's belief, 
 was held upon either; and yet your petitioner has been 
 officially degraded, while this member of the Board has 
 been honored with promotion. 
 
 If it be because of unemployed time, the Navy Regis- 
 ter shows that officers have been advanced by the action 
 of this Board, who have been unemployed altogether 25 
 years since they entered the Navy — more than half their 
 time. One of the Board has been idle 23, and another 
 18 years; while the unemployed time of your petitioner 
 amounts to only 7 years and 7 months. Pro rata, the 
 official roster shows that he has been more constantly on 
 duty than the Captains and Commanders on the Board 
 themselves have been, according to the allotment of 
 averages. 
 
 If want of sea-service be urged, then the register will 
 show that the ratio of sea-service to his credit is greater 
 than that of several of his brother officers who have been 
 promoted in consequence of the findings of the Board. 
 
 With these facts, and a fair reputation, your petitioner 
 is at a loss to conceive wherefore, except by the mere 
 arbitrary will and pleasure of certain members of the 
 Board, this heavy finding has been brought against him. 
 
7 
 
 But, right or wrong, your petitioner, without being 
 informed of the nature of the charges, or confronted with 
 the witnesses against him, has been adjudged by this 
 Board to be professionally incompetent; and, according to 
 its recommendations, as appears by a letter of the Secre- 
 tary of the Navy — a true copy of which is hereunto 
 appended, and marked D — he has been placed on the Re- 
 served List, and rendered hereafter and forever by law 
 ineligible to further promotion in the Navy of the United 
 States; and he has already been exposed to official degra- 
 dation in consequence thereof, by having his juniors lifted 
 up and promoted over his head. 
 
 To disfranchise and degrade an officer without speci- 
 fying the nature of the accusation against him, is surely 
 against the spirit of American law : to cast him off on the 
 broad grounds of incompetency, is an outrage upon natural 
 justice. 
 
 What constitutes official incompetency ? Ignorance, 
 idleness, drunkenness, all sorts of immoral habits and 
 infamous practices — anything that is debasing; nay, 
 everything that is wicked or vile. An officer is rendered 
 incompetent by disaffection, treason, and cowardice, or 
 any ignoble trait or infamous conduct. The finding of 
 the Board is a warrant and an invitation for the evil- 
 minded to impute any of these to your petitioner. 
 
 He humbly submits that he has not deserved such 
 treatment at the hands of any tribunal of his country. 
 He has served it, to the best of his poor abilities, for up- 
 wards of thirty years. During all that time his career in 
 the service has been without official reproach. He has 
 never been tried for any offence or accusation ; and the 
 
8 
 
 Secretary of the Navy has stated in his place (H) that 
 other officers, like your petitioner, "of spotless character 
 and eminent service," have been treated in like manner 
 with himself, by this Board. 
 
 Spotless reputation is dearer than professional advance- 
 ment; and though the finding of the Board deprives your 
 petitioner of valuable professional privileges, and inflicts 
 the severe punishment of a living naval death, yet he 
 feels that this is light and easy in comparison to the 
 damning stigma of professional incompetency, which a 
 majority of this Board, composed of his peers, has secretly 
 and illegally passed upon him. 
 
 Your petitioner is ready for any sacrifice that the 
 public good may require of him. 
 
 Upwards of thirty years ago he took the oath and 
 pledged the abilities with which his Maker had endowed 
 him, humble though they were, yet loyal and true, to the 
 service of his country. He has ever borne this pledge of 
 his youth in remembrance, as a rule of conduct; and he 
 is ready now, as he was then, to do what a sailor may do 
 for his country's good. Therefore, if his presence hinder 
 the efficiency of the Navy — nay, if it do not add to and 
 promote it — he is willing to give place to better men, and 
 to retire to the walks of private life. But, in going, let 
 not his fair fame be tarnished or made a target for the 
 shafts of malice. His good name is very precious ; there- 
 fore he prays your honorable body to interpose with your 
 high authority, and protect him in it. 
 
 Your petitioner has resorted to and exhausted all other 
 fair and lawful means for redress. He has sought it at 
 the hands of the Executive, as the correspondence — a 
 
true copy of which is hereunto annexed, and marked 
 D — J — will show. 
 
 Failing there, your petitioner resolved to appeal to the 
 sense of justice of his brother officers who composed the 
 Board, and ask them, if not for the Board, at least each 
 for himself, to say wherefore this deep official disgrace 
 had been inflicted. 
 
 Accordingly a letter — a true copy of which is hereunto 
 appended, and marked K — was addressed to each one of 
 the fifteen. A true copy of their replies is hereunto 
 appended, and marked K 1 to K 15 . 
 
 They all, save Lieutenants Wra. L. Maury (K 14 ) and 
 James S. Biddle (K 15 ), declined to answer. 
 
 The latter, with commendable frankness, states — speak- 
 ing for himself, not for the Board — wherein he found your 
 petitioner " incapable of performing the duties of his office, 
 rank, or grade." It was, he alleges, in consequence of an 
 accident which befell your petitioner while in the act of 
 obeying orders in the year 1839, and by which accident 
 the right leg of your petitioner was fractured and other- 
 wise injured. 
 
 After the happening of that accident, a suit* was forth- 
 with instituted in the name of your petitioner, to recover 
 damages for the injury thus sustained; and the evidence 
 which has satisfied Lieutenant Biddle that your petitioner 
 is now unfit for sea-service is derived, he says, from that 
 case. It was brought in the State of Ohio 15 years ago. 
 
 Such is the character of the evidence that has governed 
 one of the judges, at least, that have weighed your peti- 
 tioner in secret. He surely must have acted under a mis- 
 
 * Maury vs. Tallmadge, 2 McLean's Reports, 15T. 
 
10 
 
 conception of the true intent and meaning of the law. 
 It required the Board to make an examination into the 
 efficiency of officers now, in 1855, not in 1840, 15 years 
 ago. Your petitioner was here on the spot, and there 
 was no lack of naval surgeons at command. A medical 
 examination as to his present bodily condition might 
 have been had for the asking; yet it was not called for, 
 but the case in the Ohio court preferred. 
 
 Your petitioner avers that he believes himself able to 
 perform efficient service at sea. He has so considered 
 himself ever since his recovery from the temporary dis- 
 ability incurred by the Ohio accident; and that, officially, 
 he has so held himself, he refers for proof to the fact that 
 he applied for service afloat during the Mexican war, as 
 the files of the Navy Department will show. And, fur- 
 thermore, your petitioner holds himself now, as he has 
 ever aimed to do, equal to the prompt and efficient per- 
 formance of any professional duty whatever, upon which 
 the government may be pleased to order him. 
 
 But as shocking as is the idea of raking up such evi- 
 dence, it is not so shocking as another principle which 
 this member avows as a rule of action for the Board. 
 According to him (K 15 ), the Board, in weighing the effi- 
 ciency of officers, could make no difference between sheer 
 idleness and the most important and useful service on 
 shore. 
 
 It sounds strangely that such notions as those expressed 
 in K 15 , should be held by one of the officers whose duty 
 it was to promote, by his counsel, the efficiency of the 
 Navy. In laying down the law, this officer intimates with 
 a significance not to be mistaken — that had your peti- 
 tioner been cleared in that secret council on the broken- 
 
11 
 
 leg count, there was still another in reserve upon which 
 conviction would have been sure, viz : " Love of scientific 
 distinction." This, though "otherwise laudible" enough, 
 had, it is intimated, induced your petitioner to prefer 
 service ashore to service afloat. On this count, it is 
 held, the Board would have had no alternative, they were 
 hound to remove from the active list " every such officer" 
 (K«). 
 
 Your petitioner earnestly and solemnly protests against 
 such doctrines. He is an officer of inferior rank, and 
 subject to the lawful orders of his superiors. He is sworn 
 to obey them. ^^iiUatf^^iiwa^i^iMiwii^Vi^ itiii (Mnmnin ■■hit i|[¥i i^ they 
 have ordered him to do duty on shore; and, notwith- 
 standing his application in the interim for sea service, he 
 has been retained on shore duty by their command, and 
 for the reason, it is presumed, that they deemed his 
 services to be of more value to the country on shore 
 than at sea. 
 
 To restrain officers from employment in any particular 
 line of duty in which their services are thought by the 
 Executive to be most valuable, would be ruinous to the 
 Navy, or any other branch of service. 
 
 It is submitted that Congress never intended to dis- 
 credit useful service, or bounden duty of officers, be it 
 performed on shore or afloat — provided it be performed 
 efficiently and well. Your honorable body, it is humbly 
 conceived, never intended to cast such a reproach upon 
 science in the Navy or its disciples, as to class the de- 
 mands of the public service upon it and them, for import- 
 ant naval duty anywhere, with downright official idleness. 
 
 The law did not authorize any such classification ; nor 
 is there any principle or practice known in the Navy that 
 
12 
 
 would authorize due credit to be withheld from an officer 
 for obeying orders, and performing to the best of his 
 abilities, the duties assigned him, be they by sea or land, 
 and of whatever nature. The law drew no distinction 
 between duty ashore and duty afloat ; and neither Lieu- 
 tenant Biddle nor the Board had any right, it is sub- 
 mitted, to give more credit for one than for the other. 
 
 Your petitioner, as appears by the Navy Kegister of 
 1855, has been employed on shore duty 12 years and 8 
 months. One member of the Board has been unemployed 
 23 years and 9 months ; and another 18 years and 1 
 mon r#v ■ J Mn?St" uffto w mm j w i i mts to titiMsfr? yet in the opin- 
 ion of the junior member, the Board would have been 
 bound to have a fling at science in the Navy, and remove 
 your petitioner from the active list. 
 
 Whether your petitioner's absence from the sea " arose," 
 in the language of this one of his judges, "from idleness, 
 love of ease, love of money, preference for other pursuits, 
 or even from an otherwise most laudable love of scientific 
 distinction" it could make no difference ; the fact of 
 absence from sea brought him " under the condition of 
 the Secretary's instructions as having become incompetent 
 from neglect of duty, and inattention and indifference to 
 his profession." "The plea," continues this officer, in this 
 remarkable exposition of his own views, and the duties 
 of the Board, " of not having been compelled by the Exe- 
 cutive authority to perform this service (at sea), if admit- 
 ted for one, is equally available for every instance of duty 
 neglected or unperformed. And thus one of the most 
 important objects of the Board's appointment," says he, 
 " would be entirely defeated" (K 15 ) . " The Secretary ot 
 the Navy," he adds, "discerned, acknowledged, and very 
 
13 
 
 wisely removed this source of embarrassment by his in- 
 structions to the Board" (K 15 ). 
 
 Thus the admission is made, that it would not only be 
 injurious to the Navy to class duty ashore with duty 
 afloat, as your honorable body in the law had classed 
 them ; but the very object which your honorable body 
 had in view in ordering this Board would, it is held, be 
 defeated, unless the officer lounging away his time in 
 listless idleness on shore, and he who is engaged in the 
 scientific callings of his profession on the land, were placed 
 in the same category. 
 
 It is clearly intimated, also, that the law .did not ex- 
 actly authorize such an extraordinary proceeding, for the 
 Board felt embarrassment, but happily the instructions of 
 the Secretary of the Navy wisely removed it (K 15 ). 
 
 The mischievous tendencies of the strange notions do 
 not end with the slur and the slight cast upon your peti- 
 tioner, and through him upon the cause of naval science — 
 ay, of naval progress and improvement — for these and 
 the advancement of science in the Navy are correlative 
 terms ; they broach the old exploded doctrine of routine, 
 and tend to level down, not up. 
 
 The scientific interests of the Navy were unrepresented 
 in the Board. Its members, from the nature of the 
 duties upon which they had been chiefly engaged, had, it 
 may be supposed, in the main, but little sympathy with 
 the men of science. Every officer, Lieutenant Biddle 
 holds, should do his share of sea service ; the Executive, 
 by implication, should have no authority to detail officers 
 for special service or particular duty, because of scientific 
 attainments or peculiar fitness. 
 
 Your petitioner has never had the honor of serving 
 
14 
 
 with Lieutenant Biddle ; he has heard him spoken of as 
 an officer in good standing among his fellows. But he 
 submits whether an officer who holds going to sea as the 
 most unpleasant duty of the Navy, is likely to be a very 
 good judge as to what really does constitute efficiency or 
 inefficiency. Biddle holds that every officer should per- 
 form his share of service afloat, the most unpleasant 
 duty of the Navy! (K 15 ). 
 
 With members of the Board entertaining such senti- 
 ments, no wonder that the cry in the land of unlawful 
 and unjust has been raised against their proceedings. 
 
 The practical meaning of this sentiment is: in the 
 arrangement and distribution of the duties of the Navy, 
 let the personal convenience of the officers, not the good 
 of the public, be the main object. However rare be the 
 attainments of an officer, or unrivalled his qualifications 
 for some most important professional duty on shore, he 
 must be broken out for sea in turn, because " he owes it" 
 to his brother officers to perform his share of the most un- 
 pleasant duty of the Navy, viz : Service afloat. 
 
 Would the practical application of this doctrine pro- 
 mote the efficiency of the Navy? 
 
 Your petitioner demurs : he has been brought up in 
 a different school, and where the doctrine was taught that 
 an American Navy officer owes service to the public, not 
 to his brother officers ; and that wherever his country and 
 his duty call, there, whether at sea, the " most unplea- 
 sant duty of the Navy ;" or on shore, where the " love of 
 scientific distinction" gives a zest, and lends additional 
 charms to the duty — there, and there alone, it is the busi- 
 ness of officers to be, conscious and right sure that they 
 are performing " their share" in the public service. 
 
15 
 
 The duties of the Navy, according to these new lights 
 from the Board, should be all routine, and such as one 
 officer may perform as well as another : To admit that 
 naval duty rendered in the cause of science on shore, 
 would entitle an officer to be considered as at all efficient 
 in his profession, would be the aiming of a fatal blow at 
 the Navy ! (K 15 ). Your petitioner feels these doctrines to be 
 hurtful, and believes them to be fraught with mischief to 
 the Navy. They belong to another age and country, not 
 to this. 
 
 As for this and other members of the Board throwing 
 themselves behind the Secretary of the Navy, and plead- 
 ing in excuse of high-handed proceedings what they are 
 pleased to term his instructions, that high functionary, it 
 is submitted, had no authority under the law to instruct 
 this Board. The law commanded him to prescribe regu- 
 lations for the conduct of its proceedings. This he did 
 (C) ; but he had no more right to instruct the Board than 
 he has, without express authority of law, to instruct any 
 other commission raised by your honorable body. 
 
 From the testimony — faint and glimmering though it 
 be — which the junior member has kindly given us, touch- 
 ing the secret doings of the Board, and from admissions 
 made by others of his colleagues, there is room for the 
 conjecture that he is not the only member of the Board 
 who forsook the law and adopted those fancied instruc- 
 tions of the Secretary of the Navy in its stead. Pender- 
 grast (K 6 ), Du Pont (K 8 ), and Godon (K 13 ), all allude to 
 instructions from the Secretary of the Navy as governing 
 or influencing them in some way or other in their 
 findings. 
 
 Furthermore, the very findings of the Board indicate 
 
16 
 
 that some such principle as Lieutenant Biddle announces, 
 was recognized by other members also. 
 
 Such irregular proceedings, besides being illegal and 
 unjust to individuals, are, it is humbly submitted, fraught 
 with mischief also to the public service. 
 
 Your petitioner further begs leave to state, that he has 
 not served with any member of the Board for 20 years ; 
 and that he is unable to say upon what grounds the 
 Board claims to have found him " incapable of performing 
 the duties of his office; 1 ' for his office was not inspected by 
 the Board, nor did the Board, as far as he can learn, 
 inquire into its condition, either through himself or any 
 of the officers connected with its management. 
 
 Wherefore, your petitioner charges the Board, or a 
 majority thereof, composed of individuals to him un- 
 known, with having done injury to the naval service and 
 the fair fame of your petitioner. He accuses them of 
 having passed arbitrary judgment, which is tyranny. He 
 charges them with having wantonly offended the ma- 
 jesty of the law, and with having acted contrary to the 
 true meaning and intent thereof. He charges them with 
 having abused the power intrusted to their hands, with 
 having, by their mode of procedure, ignored the usages of 
 the law, and spurned its most cherished maxims. Finally, 
 he charges them with having violated the principles of 
 natural justice, and with having done outrage to senti- 
 ments that are very dear to the hearts of all good citizens. 
 
 Believing these charges and allegations to be true, and 
 that the public service, as well as the good name of your 
 petitioner, requires them to be investigated, and the 
 wrongs done to be righted; he prays your honorable 
 body to take the matter into consideration, and cause 
 
17 
 
 inquiry to be made as to the manner in which certain 
 terms of an Act, entitled " An Act to promote the efficiency 
 of the Navy, approved February 28, 1855," have been 
 carried out by the Board of Naval Officers therein called 
 for. He further prays, that the officers who composed 
 that Board — may each in turn be confronted with your 
 petitioner, and held to answer wherefore and upon what 
 evidence they, the said members of the said Board, have 
 ventured without cause to cast a stigma upon his profes- 
 sional reputation. 
 
 And as in duty bound, your petitioner will ever pray, 
 &c. 
 
 M. F. MAURY. 
 
 Observatory, Washington. 
 January, 1856. 
 
 2 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 A. 
 
 Parts of Sections 1 and 2 or an Act to Promote the Efficiency of 
 the Navy. Approved Feb. 28, 1855. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America in Congress assembled, That as soon as practicable 
 after the passage of this act, the President of the United States shall 
 cause a Board of Naval Officers to be assembled, to consist of five cap- \ 
 tains, five commanders, and five lieutenants, which Board, under such 
 regulations as the Secretary of the Navy may prescribe, shall make a 
 careful examination into the efficiency of the officers of the grades here- 
 inafter mentioned, and shall report to the Secretary of the Navy the 
 names and rank of all officers of the said grades who, in the judgment 
 of said Board, shall be incapable of performing promptly and efficiently 
 all their duty both ashore and afloat ; and whenever said Board shall 
 believe that said incompetency has arisen from any cause implying suffi- 
 cient blame on the part of the officer to justify it, they shall recommend 
 that his name be stricken altogether from the rolls. * * * 
 
 Sec. 2. And be it further enacted. That all officers who shall be found 
 by the said Board incapable of performing the duties of their respective 
 offices, ranks, or grades, shall, if such finding be approved by the Presi- 
 dent, be dropped from the rolls or placed, in the order of their rank 
 and seniority at the time, upon a list in the Navy Register, to be enti- 
 tled the reserved list ; and those so placed on the reserved list shall re- 
 ceive the leave of absence pay or the furlough pay to which they may 
 be entitled, when so placed according to the report of the Board and 
 approval of the President, and shall be ineligible to further promotion, 
 but shall be subject to the orders of the Navy Department at all times 
 for duty ; and vacancies created in the active service list, by placing 
 officers on the reserved list, shall be filled by regular promotion in the 
 order of rank or seniority. ***** 
 
 B. 
 
 {From the Washington Union, Sept. 21, 1855.) 
 
 Navy Department, Sept. 5, 1855. 
 
 Sir : By the provisions of the " Act to promote the efficiency of the 
 Navy," approved Feb. 28, 1855, it became the duty of the Board of 
 
Naval Officers assembled in pursuance thereof to report to the Secretary 
 of the Navy the result of their proceedings. 
 
 The order notifying them of their appointment was issued June 5th, 
 1855. They assembled on the 20th of June, and concluded their labors 
 on the 26th of July last. Their report to the Secretary, in accordance 
 with the requirements of the law and the regulations prescribed having 
 been made, is herewith submitted to you for your approval or disap- 
 proval. 
 
 You have, however, informed me that you desire my views on this 
 important and delicate subject, and I shall, therefore, present them as 
 briefly as possible, with much deference, yet with frankness. 
 
 You will, no doubt, recollect that in my two annual reports I urged 
 the importance of some measure of reform by which inefficient officers 
 could be relieved and the efficient be promoted ; and suggested the 
 interposition of a Board of Naval Officers, with a view to reaching more 
 surely a correct and just result. 
 
 The great end sought to be attained by Congress was " to promote 
 the efficiency of the Navy," by removing from the "active service list" 
 all officers found incompetent to do their whole duty efficiently and 
 promptly, both ashore and afloat, and by dropping entirely from the 
 rolls such as are to blame themselves for their incompetency. Some 
 mode, then, was to be adopted, and some persons selected to " examine" 
 and make a "finding" of not only the incompetent, but also of those 
 who had become so from causes for which they were to "blame." The 
 law on this point speaks plainly and distinctly. It does not impose 
 this task upon, or intrust this delicate duty to, the Secretary of the 
 Navy, or even the President. It does, however, provide that the per- 
 sons who are to perform this work shall be fifteen " Naval officers," to 
 consist of five captains, five commanders, and five lieutenants, ordered 
 by the President. After thus selecting the persons who are to execute 
 this work, it then provides how it is to be done. This Board of fifteen 
 Naval Officers " shall make a careful examination into the efficiency of 
 the officers of the grades" specified. After this " careful examination," 
 what does the law next require ? Its terms are again plain. They 
 11 shall report to the Secretary of the Navy — not an argument to sustain 
 their conclusions — not the facts, the evidence, nor the copies of records 
 by which they formed their judgment, but simply " the names and rank 
 of all officers of the said grades who, in the judgment of said Board, 
 shall be incapable," &c. &c, and recommend those "to be stricken 
 altogether from the rolls" whenever said Board shall believe their in- 
 competency has arisen from causes implying sufficient blame. 
 
 It may not be uninteresting to call your attention to the fact that 
 this mode of proceeding is by no means novel, and on occasions when 
 Congress directed the reduction of the Army, by which many offices 
 were necessarily dropped from the service, the delicate task was per- 
 formed in a somewhat similar manner, by the President appointing a 
 Board, who, after examination, reported the names of such as, in their 
 opinion, should be retained, without assigning any reasons or facts which 
 caus'ed them to prefer some and exclude others. I have before me the 
 report of the Board on the reduction of the army under the act of 1815. 
 They report names and give merely the result of their examination, 
 without facts or reasons, and their report was adopted by the Presi- 
 dent. 
 
This finding — " tbis judgment" of the Board — is not, however, per- 
 mitted to go into execution without the sanction of the President, who 
 is very wisely authorized to disapprove of their action, by which means 
 a safeguard is provided to protect the public service from any flagrant 
 abuse of power. 
 
 At your suggestion, I have carefully examined their report. 
 
 The peculiar fitness of the officers selected for this delicate and ardu- 
 ous duty, has been conceded, with remarkable unanimity, by both offi- 
 cers and citizens. They were in session many weeks ; they applied for, 
 and had possession of the records of the Department; there were among 
 them men of age and experience, whose achievements form a part of the 
 history of the country, and young men of pride, intelligence, observation, 
 and exalted character. 
 
 And while I should be uncandid, were I to say that I should have 
 formed the same judgment and the same classification, in regard to each 
 individual, precisely as they have done, without a single variation ; yet, 
 so clear is my conviction, from my own official knowledge, of the cor- 
 rectness of their opinion in a large number of the cases, and such is my 
 deference to the judgment of the Board, and their superior knowledge 
 of what renders an officer inefficient, and what constitutes real efficiency, 
 that I cannot withhold from their report my approval, nor advise you 
 to do so, unless your better judgment shall make suggestions which may 
 have escaped me. I have reflected much, sir, on this important proceed- 
 ing, under a proper appreciation of the trying task devolved on the 
 Board, and with feelings far from indifference or insensibility to the in- 
 convenience and pain to which many may be subjected. 
 
 I transmit herewith, a copy of the regulations prescribed by the 
 Department, for the Board under the law. 
 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 J. C. DOBBIK 
 
 To the President. 
 
 C. 
 
 Navy Department, June 20, 1855. 
 
 Gentlemen: The President has "caused you to be assembled," with 
 a view to carry into execution an act approved February 28, 1855, 
 entitled "An act to promote the efficiency of the Navy." 
 
 The law directs this to be performed "under such regulations as shall 
 be prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy." 
 
 Your path of duty is marked out so plainly, and with such distinct- 
 ness, by the language of the statute, as to enable you to advance unem- 
 barrassed with technical questions, and undisturbed by difficulties, save 
 those necessarily incident to the delicate and responsible task of passing 
 upon the relative merit and incapacity of officers, attached to your own 
 honorable branch of the public service. In prescribing regulations, I 
 shall endeavor to be very brief and concise, in order to avoid trammel- 
 ling your deliberations by a multitude of rules, often more calculated to 
 confuse than to direct. 
 
 Reposing confidence in your integrity and intelligence, persuaded of 
 your competency to discriminate with justice, because of your experience 
 and your personal and official association with your brother officers, 
 
entertaining no doubt of your having the independence to discharge 
 your duty with fidelity and steadiness of purpose, however delicate or 
 painful, I have an abiding faith that the honor and reputation of the 
 service will be safe in your hands, and that I need not indulge in 
 elaborate argument, or appeals to your pride as officers, and patriotism 
 as citizens, to co-operate in causing the standard of capacity in the 
 American Navy to be maintained at an elevation commanding the con- 
 fidence and respect of the country. Considerate statesmen look to the 
 ocean as the theatre on which future national conflicts are, to a large 
 extent, to be settled ; and the commerce of the country regards the navy 
 not merely as a friendly ally, but a sure protector. Our wonderful ex- 
 pansion as a nation, the necessary multiplication of grave questions with 
 distant foreign powers, and our wide-spread commerce, have attracted, 
 with greatly increased concern, the attention of the legislative and 
 executive departments of government, to the condition of the navy, and 
 the importance of securing vigor, energy, and capacity in its personnel. 
 In order the more effectually to attain that object, and yet not do in- 
 justice from haste or ignorance, Congress has authorized the assembling 
 of a Board of officers, whose duties shall be merely of an advisory nature, 
 and as an aid to the Executive in promoting "the efficiency" of the navy. 
 The Executive has appointed you under that law, and it now becomes 
 your duty to make a "careful examination," and report in pursuance 
 thereof. And here, gentlemen, allow me to invite your attention to the 
 searching language of the law. The law requires capacity ; but it stops 
 not here, for it must be a capacity to perform " all duty," "ashore and 
 afloat." But it stops not here, for it is not content with mere capacity 
 to perform duty, but demands that it shall be done not merely 
 "promptly" but "efficiently." The law, therefore, has fixed the test. 
 You are as an advisory Board to assist in enforcing it. Your own 
 sound common sense, and acquaintance with the duties of an officer, will 
 guide you to the true practical interpretation of this efficiency, efficiency 
 — that is what is required. Inefficiency, inefficiency — that is what is to 
 be withdrawn in order to "promote" the efficient. Neither the law nor 
 the country asks for anything unreasonable. In examining as to who 
 are "incapable of performing their whole duty both ashore and afloat," 
 I need hardly suggest to you that an officer may be " incapable" either 
 mentally or morally ; for although he may possess a strong mind and 
 robust frame, yet if his moral perception of right and wrong be so 
 blunted and debased as to render him unreliable, he could hardly be 
 ranked as the capable officer, to be intrusted with the lives of his 
 countrymen, and the property and honor of his country. 
 
 You will perceive that there are two distinct classes, and that one of 
 those classes is subdivided. You are required to report the names of 
 officers who should be, in your judgment, placed on the "reserved list," 
 and then designate those of the " reserved" who, in your opinion, for 
 service rendered, and for fidelity in the discharge of dutj^ should receive 
 full "leave-of-absence" pay, and those who should merely receive furlough 
 or half "leave-of-absence" pay. 
 
 You are required to advance a step further in your examination, and 
 report the names of such officers as you " believe" have become incom- 
 petent, from any cause implying sufficient blame on the part of the 
 officers, to justify your recommending them to "be stricken altogether 
 from the rolls." And on this point I venture to suggest the opinion 
 
that an officer is to " blame" if he has become incompetent from neglect 
 of duty, and inattention and indifference to his profession, as well as 
 from dissipation and immoral indulgence. 
 
 I fear a misapprehension may exist in the minds of some in regard to 
 the position before the country of officers placed on the reserved list, 
 on full leave- of-absence pay. It is no degradation; it is rather a high 
 compliment. The pay is liberal, and amply sufficient to the comfortable 
 support of the officer and his family. Indeed, it is the generous act of 
 a government saying to the meritorious officer — "You have served with 
 fidelity, and now, as you have become incompetent to the severe duties 
 of naval life, you can rest from the labors of your profession, without 
 care or anxiety as to your support, as we have provided for it." Nor, 
 gentlemen, do I consider that it will be necessarily a degradation, or a 
 mark of governmental displeasure, for an officer to be placed on furlough, 
 which is half leave-of-absence pay, because he may have become really 
 incompetent to the discharge of his duties, and yet may not have served 
 so long and faithfully, and with such credit, as to entitle him to the 
 highest compensation to the reserved. 
 
 According to my conceptions of the spirit of this law and justice to 
 officers and the government, the standard of merit and service should be 
 high, to enable an officer to be placed on the reserved list, with full 
 leave-of-absence pay. 
 
 A question having arisen as to the true interpretation of the proviso 
 to the first section, the opinion of the Attorney-General was requested ; 
 from which I give you the following extract : — 
 
 "I think, therefore, that the effect of the proviso is to require the 
 Board to be subdivided in the process of its action, and to make three 
 distinct sub-reports, which, together, shall constitute the general report. 
 That is to say, the entire body will sit together, deliberate and deter- 
 mine, and, by proper means, authenticate their conclusion as to lieu- 
 tenants, masters, and passed midshipmen ; after that, the lieutenants will 
 have to retire, and the captains and commanders will act in regard to 
 all officers of the rank of commander; when the commanders must retire, 
 and the captains will act as to officers of that rank. All the examina- 
 tions having thus been made, and the proper judgments reached, in the 
 manner contemplated by the law, the sum total of the opinions will be 
 certified to the Secretary, in such form of authentication as he, in his 
 regulations, shall see fit to prescribe." 
 
 The records and files of this department are at your service, and shall 
 be freely submitted to you, to assist in your examination. 
 
 I esteem it but proper to say to you that, notwithstanding every effort 
 to avoid them, both my predecessors and myself may have committed 
 mistakes in issuing orders to officers who, "in the judgment of the 
 Board," may not be competent, according to the spirit and meaning of 
 the law. You will not allow such cases, if there be any, to cause you 
 the slightest embarrassment. A calm, conciliatory spirit in your delib- 
 erations, will do much to prevent discord, irritation, and heart burnings. 
 All that you are expected to do, is to contribute your opinion — your 
 judgment — to aid the Executive, under the provisions of this liberal 
 statute, in relieving the service of the inefficient, and thereby "promote 
 the efficiency of the navy." 
 
 I transmit herewith, for the information of the Board, copies of the 
 act under which it is convened. 
 
6 
 
 1st. You will, therefore, assemble, deliberate, and determine, after a 
 ''careful examination," in pursuance of the law, as to passed midshipmen, 
 masters, and lieutenants, during which deliberation, the junior lieutenant 
 will act as Secretary of the Board. Whereupon, the said Secretary will 
 make a record, in the nature of a sub-report, of the "judgment of the 
 Board" as to each grade separately, and, after certifying to its correct- 
 ness, shall deliver the same to the senior officer, who shall attest it; and 
 the lieutenants will then retire, but not consider themselves as detached 
 from duty. 
 
 2d. After the retirement of the lieutenants, the captains and com- 
 manders will assemble, deliberate, and determine, after a "careful ex- 
 amination," in pursuance of the law, as to commanders, during which 
 deliberation the junior commander will act as Secretary. Whereupon, 
 the said Secretary will make a record, in the nature of a sub-report, of 
 the judgment of said captains and commanders as to the grade of com- 
 manders, and, after certifying to its correctness, will deliver the same to 
 the senior officer, who shall attest it; and the commanders will then 
 retire, but not consider themselves as detached from duty. 
 
 3d. After the retirement of the commanders, the captains will assem- 
 ble, deliberate, and determine, after a "careful examination," in pur- 
 suance of the law, as to captains, during which deliberation the junior 
 captain will act as Secretary. Whereupon, the said Secretary will make 
 a record, in the nature of a sub-report, of the judgment of said cap- 
 tains as to the grade of captains, and after certifying to its correctness, 
 will deliver the same to the senior officer, who shall attest it. 
 
 4th. When action shall thus have been taken, under the regulations 
 prescribed in reference to all the grades enumerated, the senior officer, 
 for and on behalf of the Board, shall make a general report to the Secre- 
 tary of the Xavy, embodying the records and sub-reports aforesaid, and 
 the results of their deliberation, according to the law under which the 
 Board convened. 
 
 5th. The concurrence of a majority of those entitled to examine and 
 report upon the grade under consideration shall be necessary to consti- 
 tute the vote "the judgment of the Board." 
 
 6th. As the deliberations and proceedings of the Board will be incom- 
 plete until the approval or disapproval of the President, all information 
 touching the same will be confined exclusively to the Board and the 
 executive department of the government. 
 I have the honor to be, 
 
 Yery respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. C. DOBBIN. 
 
 Captains William B. Shubrtck, Matthew C. Perry, Charles S. 
 McCauley, C. K. Stribling, Abraham Bigelow ; Commanders 
 G. J. Pendergrast, Franklin Buchanan, Samuel F. Du Pont, 
 Samuel Barron, Andrew H. Foote ; Lieutenants John S. Mis- 
 roon, Richard L. Page, Sylyanus W. Godon, William L. Mau- 
 ry, James S. Biddle. 
 
 Naval Board, Washington, D. C. 
 
Navy Department, September It, 1855. 
 
 Sir : The Board of Naval Officers, assembled under the " act to pro- 
 mote the efficiency of the navy," approved February 28, 1855, having re- 
 ported you as one of the officers who, in their judgment, should be placed 
 on the " reserved list," on " leave-of-absence pay," and the finding of 
 the Board having been approved by the President, it becomes my duty 
 to inform you that, from this date, you are accordingly removed from 
 the " active service list," and placed on the " reserved list," on leave-of- 
 absence pay. 
 
 You are, however, not detached from the naval observatory. I 
 avail myself of the authority of the law to direct that you continue on 
 your present duty. 
 
 I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. G. DOBBIN. 
 
 Lieutenant M. F. Maury, 
 
 TJ. S. Navy, Washington, D. C. 
 
 E. 
 
 University of Yirginia, September 20, 1855. 
 
 Sir : I received yesterday your communication of the day before, 
 informing me that the President, acting under the advice of "the Board 
 of Naval Officers, assembled under the act to promote the efficiency of 
 the navy, approved February 28, 1855," has commanded that I be re- 
 moved from the active service list of the navy, and be " placed on the 
 retired list, on leave-of-absence pay." 
 
 This announcement has taken me by surprise. 
 
 I have been in the navy upwards of thirty years. During this time, 
 I have aimed, in every station to which I have been called, to serve my 
 country truly and well ; with what success, the department and the pub- 
 lic can judge better than I. Suffice it to say that I am not aware that 
 any charges or accusations, or even any complaint of duty neglected or 
 badly performed during this long period, has ever reached the Depart- 
 ment against me ; nevertheless, in the judgment of the Board, I should 
 be, and have been placed under official disgrace. 
 
 This is a severe blow ; and I feel it as a grievous wrong. May I not, 
 therefore, be permitted to know what is the accusation against me, and 
 who my accusers were before the Board ? 
 
 As soon as health and the miasma of the Observatory will permit, or 
 sooner should you desire it, I propose to return to the Observatory, and 
 to enter upon the discharge of duty there in the new relations to which 
 your communication has consigned me. 
 
 Respectfully, &c, 
 
 M. F. MAURY. 
 
 Hon. J. C. Dobbin, 
 
 Secretary of the Navy, Washington. 
 
8 
 
 F. 
 
 Navy Department, September 24, 1855. 
 
 Sir : Your letter of the 20th instant, has been received. 
 The Naval Board, in accordance with the law under which it was as- 
 sembled, merely reported the names and rank of the officers, who, in its 
 judgment, were affected by the law, without assigning the reasons for 
 its action. 
 
 The Department is unable therefore, to furnish you any copy of their 
 reasons. 
 
 I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. C. DOBBIN. 
 
 Lieutenant M. F. Maury, 
 
 U. S. Navy, University of Virginia. 
 
 G. 
 
 U. S. N. Observatory and Hyd. Office, 
 
 Washington, Oct. 1, 1855. 
 
 Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communica- 
 tion of the 24th ulto. stating that the late Naval Board reported no 
 reasons for its action, and that therefore the Department is unable to 
 comply with my request to be furnished with the accusations, and the 
 names of the accusers that were brought before it against me. 
 
 A grievous wrong has been done ; and in appealing to you to inter- 
 pose with the authority of the Department to help me to right, it is 
 proper that I should state the grounds of my complaint, and indicate 
 the extent of the redress I crave at your hands. 
 
 My complaint is, that I have been tried and condemned by my peers 
 without a hearing, and that notwithstanding the law did not require of 
 them secret judgment in the premises, yet they proceeded so secretly in 
 my case, that they not only reported no reasons for their finding, but I 
 am given to understand that they preserved no minutes of the accusa- 
 tion against me, made no memorandum of the evidence, kept no record 
 of their votes, nor returned a list of accusers or witnesses. 
 
 Nor is this all ; I complain of the cruelty of the sentence that they 
 have pronounced against me ; and I think you will agree with me that 
 the punishment is excessive. 
 
 Their sentence deprives me of valuable professional privileges ; it 
 casts a stigma upon my name, and it inflicts naval death ; for being 
 tried without a hearing, I am found incompetent to do the duties of my 
 profession, and pronounced to be now and forever unworthy of any naval 
 preferment whatever. 
 
 Is there anything, I beg to know, either among the files of the Depart- 
 ment, or anywhere else within your knowledge, to sustain such an 
 imputation ? If there be, I challenge its production, and ask a lawful 
 trial. 
 
 The law requires specific charges ; but these are vague and the finding 
 of the Board is cruelly so. What is the ground of this "incompetency" 
 for which it has adjudged me to be overslaughed, or rather what is it 
 not ? It is drunkenness ; it is disaffection ; it is moral turpitude ; it is 
 everything that can be brought within the category of military crimes, 
 
and misdemeanors ; it is anything that envy, hatred, and malice may 
 invent. 
 
 May I not know the nature of this secret accusation, and be confronted 
 with the witnesses against me ? 
 
 The right not to be condemned unheard, is very dear to every Ameri- 
 can heart ; and charges without specifications are most abhorrent to it. 
 I am persuaded that all the rightful authority of the Department will be 
 most readily exercised by you in homage of these great first principles 
 of justice, and that you will be most happy to assist me by all lawful 
 means in your power to secure this right. 
 
 Seeing therefore, that the Board which did this wrong, did it privily, 
 and kept no record, I consider it a most fortunate circumstance that all 
 its members are Navy Officers subject to your immediate orders ; that 
 the accusations and witnesses are fresh in their minds, and at your 
 bidding I may know from them my offences and accusers. I therefore 
 earnestly request that you will cause the precept of the Department to 
 issue, commanding the officers who composed that Board, to make known 
 the accusations against me, with the names of accusers and wituesses, 
 that charges with proper specifications may thereupon be framed, and I 
 be brought to fair and open trial according to law. 
 
 Respectfully, &c, 
 
 M. F. MAURY. 
 
 Hon. J. C. Dobbin, 
 
 Secretary of the Navy, Washington. 
 
 H. 
 
 Navy Department, October 25, 1855. 
 
 Sir: I am in receipt of your communication of the 1st instant, in which 
 you complain of the action of the Board of Naval Officers, who, under 
 the law of Congress, reported that, in their judgment, you should be 
 placed on the reserved list on leave-of-absence pay, without setting 
 forth in their report their reasons ; and you request the department to 
 cause a precept to "issue commanding the officers who composed that 
 Board, to make known the accusations against you, with the names of 
 the accusers, that charges with proper specifications may thereupon be 
 framed, and you be brought to a fair and open trial according to law." 
 
 The act required them to report the "names and rank" of the officers 
 whom they deemed incompetent. The report of the Board was, under 
 the law, to be acted upon by the President. It was to be approved or 
 disapproved by him, and not by the Secretary of the Navy. It was sub- 
 mitted to and by him approved. You are aware that the Board have 
 many weeks ago been dissolved, and the officers composing it have left 
 and gone to their respective duties. I will, however, submit your ap- 
 plication to the President, and should he conclude to order a reassem- 
 bling of the Board, in accordance with your request, I will immediately 
 inform you thereof. 
 
 I cannot conclude without one further remark. You speak of "accu- 
 sations," " accusers," and charges. Now, under the law, if the Board 
 had concluded that you were to " blame," they were bound to recom- 
 mend you to be "stricken from the rolls." They did not attach blame 
 to you, therefore, because they placed you on the reserved list, with full 
 
10 
 
 leave- of-absence pay — the position in which they felt it their duty, under 
 the law, to place other gentlemen well known, like yourself, for spotless 
 character and eminent service. 
 
 I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. C. DOBBIN. 
 Lieutenant M. F. Maury, 
 
 U. S. Navy, Washington, D. C. 
 
 I. 
 
 TJ. S. N. Observatory, Washington, Oct. 29, 1855. 
 
 Sir : I had the honor last Friday to receive your communication of 
 the 25th in reply to mine of the 1st instant. Your official statement 
 that my character is "spotless" affords me no small degree of gratifica- 
 tion ; and it is a source of regret that I cannot understand the law as 
 you expound it, nor view the action of the Board otherwise than as im- 
 posing official disgrace. You say that the Board did not attach 
 "'blame' to me, because if they did, ' they were bound' under the law, 
 to recommend me to be ' stricken from the rolls.' " 
 
 The law, according to my poor comprehension, required the Board to 
 make a careful examination into the efficiency of certain officers, to 
 separate the competent from the incompetent, and to report the latter 
 to you ; and the Board was required to recommend the name of an offi- 
 cer to be stricken from the rolls only, when, in their opinion, the cause 
 of his incompetency implied sufficient blame to justify it ; and the Board, 
 I infer, did not feel authorized to recommend me to be so dealt with, 
 only because the cause of my alleged incompetency did not, in their 
 opinion, imply blame sufficient on my part to justify such an extreme 
 measure. As to the degree or nature of the blame that was sufficient 
 to justify such a recommendation, each one has to guess at that as best 
 he may from his own knowledge of the antecedents of officers on the 
 active as well as on the reserved list. When he examines the latter, he 
 is surprised that any should have been left for the former ; and when 
 he considers the former, his surprise is none the less great that any 
 should have been put on the other. 
 
 As for my own case, I have not been able to regard the finding of 
 the Board in any other light than that of a judgment intended to cast 
 official disgrace ; and when I consider the mode of proceeding — that it 
 was in secret, and, as I understand, without the obligation of an oath ; 
 the character of the examination which the law enjoined — it was to be 
 so careful and close as to amount to scrutiny, and yet the Board called 
 for no witnesses, nor examined any; — when I consider the nature of 
 their finding against me, its vagueness, and the debasing practices and 
 immoralities that render an officer " incompetent" and unworthy of pro- 
 motion, the sentence pronounced against me does grate upon my feelings 
 with all the harshness and the horror of foul wrong, tyrannical cruelty 
 and injustice. Whatever others may think, I feel it as such ; as such I 
 protest against it ; and therefore it is that I am bold to appeal so 
 earnestly for the sacred privilege of facing accusers, and confronting 
 witnesses, and knowing the precise nature of my offence. It may be 
 that I am incapable of performing the duties of my office, and ought to 
 be retired. I have nothing to say against that. But the Board has 
 proceeded against me in a manner that shocks all our ideas of justice, 
 
11 
 
 and that was warranted neither by the law nor the regulations prescribed 
 by yourself ; and I hope, therefore, you will solicit early action from the 
 President in the case. 
 
 Respectfully, &c, 
 
 M. F. MAURY. 
 Hon. J. C. Dobbin, 
 
 Secretary of the Navy. 
 
 J. 
 
 Navy Department, November 9, 1855. 
 Sir : In ray last communication I informed you that I would lay 
 before the President your application to the Department, to issue an 
 order to the officers of the late Naval Board, to report the reasons upon 
 which their action was based in regard to yourself. The President is 
 of opinion that the law merely contemplated that they should report 
 their judgment, their " finding," without the facts or reasons upon which 
 that finding was based ; and, that there is not any authority under the 
 law to command them, in accordance with your wishes, to report reasons 
 for their opinions and recommendation. 
 
 I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. C. DOBBIN. 
 
 Lieutenant M. F. Maury, 
 
 TJ. S. Navy, Superintendent Naval Observatory, &c. 
 
 K. 
 
 TJ. S. N. Observatory, Washington, Nov. 8, 1855. 
 
 Sir : On learning that I had been placed in official disgrace by the 
 late Navy Board, of which you were the President,* I addressed a com- 
 munication to the Secretary of the Navy, requesting to be informed as 
 to the nature of my alleged " incompetency," and the evidence of it. I 
 learn in reply that the Board reported the "names and rank of officers" 
 only, and gave no reasons for its action. 
 
 I therefore appeal to your sense of justice, and request that you will 
 be so good as to answer me at your earliest convenience, the following 
 questions, which are numbered for the convenience of your reply. 
 
 1st. What was the process of examination adopted by the Board, for 
 ascertaining whether an officer was efficient or not? 
 
 2d. What was the standard of efficiency for the grade of lieutenant ? 
 
 3d. What difference, if any, did the Board, in weighing the efficiency 
 of lieutenants, make between duty ashore and duty afloat? 
 
 4th. Wherein was I found incapable of performing the duties of my 
 office, rank, or grade? 
 
 5th. Did the Board inspect the Observatory, or make any other ex- 
 amination as to the manner in which it is conducted ? 
 
 6th. What was the character of the evidence upon which the Board 
 pronounced its finding against me ? 
 
 Should you have any objections to speak for the Board in reply to 
 these interrogatories, I hope you will have no objection to speak for 
 
 * A copy of the above letter was addressed to each member of the Board. 
 
12 
 
 yourself, and to answer them, at least so far as your own votes and 
 action as a member of the Board are concerned. 
 
 Respectfully, &c, 
 
 M. F. MAURY. 
 Commodore W. B. Shubrick, 
 U. S. X., Washington, D. C. 
 
 H St. Washington, D. C, 9th November, 1855. 
 
 Sir : I have received your letter of the 8th inst., commencing as 
 follows : " On learning that I had been placed in official disgrace by 
 the late Navy Board, &c. &c." 
 
 My surprise is as great as my regret that you should have taken such 
 a view of the position assigned you by the late Board ; the distinguished 
 names found on the list of officers " retired on leave-of-absence pay" 
 most emphatically forbids it, and I am sure that if it had been supposed 
 by the Board that any inference in any way unfavorable to your high 
 character could be drawn from their action, there would not have been 
 one voice, no not one, for placing you there. 
 
 The Board, of which I was the senior and presiding officer, having 
 discharged the duty assigned to it by the act of Congress, by reporting 
 the names of such officers as, in its judgment, should be removed from 
 the active list of the navy, the President having approved the report 
 and directed its recommendations to be carried out ; and the Board 
 having been dissolved by the authority by which it was appointed, and 
 having ceased to exist, it is not competent to any individual member, in 
 my opinion, to speak for it. 
 
 Having no authority or competency to speak for the late Board, it 
 only remains for me to say that for myself I decline to make any reply 
 to your very extraordinary interrogatories, and I do so neither from 
 want of a "sense of justice" to which you appeal, nor from a wish to 
 avoid any responsibility that may rightfully attach to me as a member 
 of the late Board, but solely because I could not reply to them without 
 a violation of what I believe to be the proprieties of the service to which 
 we both belong. 
 
 Respectfully, &c, 
 
 W. B. SHUBRICK, 
 
 Captain, U. S. Navy. 
 
 Lieutenant Matthew F. Maury, 
 
 Superintendent of Naval Observatory, Washington. 
 
 K*. 
 
 New York, Nov. 12, 1855. 
 My dear Sir : Your letter of the 8th instant is at hand. Whatever 
 may have been my opinion, or course of action, in respect to " the late 
 Navy Board," of which I was a reluctant member, I feel myself con- 
 strained to reply to you, as I have to others making similar inquiries, 
 that an implied obligation of confidence deters me from imparting the 
 information you desire. Though, in justice to those who have been 
 affected by the action of the Board, I cannot but hope that steps may 
 
13 
 
 soon be taken by the proper authorities, to develop the causes, and ex- 
 plain the circumstances which have brought about this painful change 
 in our common service. 
 
 Respectfully and truly, your obedient serv't, 
 
 M. C. PERRY. 
 
 Lieut. M. F. Maury, 
 
 U. S. Navy, Naval Observatory, Washington. 
 
 K*. 
 
 Washington, Nov. 9, 1855. 
 
 Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communi- 
 cation of yesterday's date, and, in reply thereto, beg leave to express 
 my regret that I cannot furnish you with the information which the 
 queries contained in your note call for. 
 
 I am, respectfully, your most ob't serv't, 
 
 C. S. McCAULEY. 
 
 To Lieut. M. F. Maury, 
 National Observatory. 
 
 Washington City, November 10, 1855. 
 Sir : I received yesterday your letter of the 8th instant. The follow- 
 ing is the only answer I feel at liberty to give under existing circum- 
 stances. 
 
 The President having approved the recommendations of the Board, I 
 do not consider it proper to answer such questions as you propose, 
 unless called upon officially, or legally, to do so. 
 
 Very respectfully your ob*t serv't, 
 
 C. K. STRIBLING. 
 Lieut. M. F. Maury, 
 
 Sup't IT. S. Obs'y, Washington. City. 
 
 K 5 . 
 
 Navy Yard, New York, Nov. 14, 1855. 
 
 Sir: I have received your communication of the 8th inst., requesting 
 me to answer certain interrogatories, with reference to the action of the 
 late " Navy Board," of which I was a member. 
 
 In reply, I can only say that I do not feel at liberty to 'give you the 
 information you desire. 
 
 I can say, however, that I am confident that the Board, in giving 
 their collective opinion, as required by law, with reference to dropping 
 officers from the active list, did not intend to " place" such officers in 
 11 official disgrace." 
 
 It certainly was not viewed in that light by myself. 
 
 Respectfully, &c, 
 
 A. BIGELOAY r . 
 Lieut. M. F. Maury, 
 IT. S. Navy, 
 
14 
 
 K 6 . 
 
 Washington City, Nov. 10, 1855. 
 Sir: I have received your letter of the 8th inst., and, in reply, beg 
 leave to decline answering, either for myself or the Board, your six in- 
 terrogatories. Whilst compelled thus, from a sense of duty, to refuse 
 your request, I feel constrained to offer a few remarks on that portion of 
 your letter in which you state that you have "been placed in official 
 disgrace by the late Navy Board." I apprehend that Congress, when 
 enacting the law under which officers of irreproachable character were 
 reported as subjects for the honorable reserved list on leave pay, could 
 hardly have supposed that it would inflict "official disgrace." The 
 Secretary of the Navy did not so regard it in his letter of instructions. 
 The Board, in discharging its onerous and painful duty, did not so view 
 it, and, lastly, in your particular case, the Executive has shown that he 
 attaches no such consequences to it ; for, whilst he approves of your 
 removal from the active list, he has paid you the high compliment of 
 retaining you in your present honorable and distinguished position at 
 the Naval Observatory, with all its advantages and munificent provisions 
 unabridged. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, your ob't serv't, 
 
 G. J. PENDERGRAST. 
 
 Lt. M. F. Maury, 
 
 U. S. Navy, Naval Observatory, Washington, D. C. 
 
 " The Rest," near Easton, Md , Nov. 11, 1855. 
 Sir : By the mail of yesterday, I received your communication of the 
 8th instant, propounding to me certain interrogatories relating to the 
 action of the late "Navy Board," of which I was a member. Asa 
 member of that " Board," I cannot answer any interrogatories relating 
 to its action. 
 
 Respectfully, &c, 
 FRANK. BUCHANAN, Captain. 
 
 Lieut, M. F. Maury, 
 
 XJ. S. Navy, Washington. 
 
 K 8 . 
 
 Washington, November 16, 1855. 
 
 Sir : Your favor of the 8th instant, containing certain interrogatories 
 in relation to the action of the late Naval Board convened by the Presi- 
 dent, in conformity to the act of Congress, approved February 28, 1855, 
 to promote the efficiency of the navy, was duly received. 
 
 To those interrogatories, you will pardon me for saying I can give 
 you no further answer than that I, with the other members of the Naval 
 Board, were the instruments of the law, and did what, in our judgment, 
 the law made it our duty to do. The action of the Board was submitted 
 to the revision of the Executive, and approved ; and* the law neither 
 makes us responsible for the results its execution involved, nor directs 
 
15 
 
 or authorizes a response to your interrogatories. Excuse me also for 
 saying that ray individual vote is not a fit matter for inquiry. 
 
 Lest you might infer, if I failed to notice it, that I assented to the 
 remark of your having been placed in " official disgrace," I desire to add 
 that, in my opinion, neither the law of Congress, the instructions of the 
 Navy Department, nor the action of the Board, authorizes any such con- 
 struction. 
 
 Respectfully, &c, 
 
 S. F. DUPONT. 
 Lieutenant M. F. Maury, U. S. N., 
 
 Superintendent U. S. N. Observatory, Washington. 
 
 K 9 . 
 
 Washington, November 10, 1855. 
 
 Sir : Your letter of the 8th instant is received. I do not feel myself 
 at liberty to answer your interrogatories either for myself or the Board. 
 
 I regret to find that you consider your separation from the " active 
 list" of the navy, and being placed on the " reserved list," with full 
 " leave-of-absence pay," an "official disgrace." Congress did not so 
 view that feature in the law whilst it was under discussion. The Secre- 
 tary of the Navy gives a far different interpretation to it ; and the Presi- 
 dent, in continuing you as the Superintendent of the Naval Observatory, 
 pays a well-merited compliment to your scientific attainments, and the 
 faithful discharge of your duties in the situation which you have filled 
 with such distinguished credit to yourself, and approbation of the country. 
 
 Respectfully, &c, 
 
 S. BARRON. 
 
 Lieutenant M. F. Maury, 
 
 TJ. S. Naval Observatory, Washington. 
 
 K 10 . 
 
 New Haven, November 10, 1855. 
 Sir : Your letter of the 8th instant, requesting an answer to several 
 questions proposed in reference to the action of the late Naval Board, 
 &c, has been received. In reply, permit me to state that, with every 
 disposition to comply with your wishes, I consider that the Board, hav- 
 ing discharged the duties for which, under the law, it was organized, its 
 decisions having been recorded and approved by the President, and the 
 Board dissolved, any further action by individual members explanatory 
 of the proceedings, or of their own votes or action, would be unauthor- 
 ized and irregular. 
 
 I am respectfully your obedient servant, 
 
 ANDREW H. FOOTE. 
 Lieutenant M. F. Maury, 
 
 Sup. Nat. Obs., Washington, D. C. 
 
.16 
 
 K". 
 
 Boston, November 12, 1855. 
 
 Sir : In reply to your letter of the 8th, I beg to say that the law 
 under which I was required to act upon the late Board, prescribed, and 
 limited my duty merely and entirely to the expression of an opinion in 
 each individual case of officers in certain grades. Therefore, I do not 
 feel at liberty to deviate from its specific requirements without more 
 mature reflection, and perhaps advice ; otherwise, individually, I should 
 have much pleasure in replying to your interrogatories. 
 
 I do not concur in the view you were pleased to take of your position 
 in your communication to the Department to which you allude ; neither 
 the interpretation of the law, nor the intention and opinion of the Board, 
 as expressed, placed you in "official disgrace." 
 
 Respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. S. MISROON. 
 
 Lieutenant M. F. Maury, 
 
 U. S. N. Observatory, Washington. 
 
 K ,a . 
 
 Navy Yard, Norfolk, November 10, 1855. 
 
 My dear Maury : Your communication of the 8th inst. is received. 
 I do not feel myself at liberty to answer your questions, otherwise, I 
 would do so with pleasure. I should be extremely sorry to think that 
 one I esteem so highly, had, in any sense, been placed in " official dis- 
 grace." 
 
 Very truly your friend, 
 RICHARD L. PAGE. 
 Lieut. M. F. Maury, 
 
 Supt. Nat,' Obs'y, Washington, D. C. 
 
 K 13 . 
 
 Philadelphia, November 13, 1855. 
 
 Sir : I have received your communication of the 8th inst. In reply 
 I have to say that, individually, I do not consider myself authorized to 
 express the views of the late Navy Board, of which I was a member. 
 I can say for myself, however, that in every case that presented itself to 
 my mind, as coming under the law of Congress which established the 
 Board, and the ample instructions of the Secretary of the Navy, which 
 governed its actions, I fully concurred in the report submitted to the 
 Secretary. 
 
 Neither the law of Congress, nor the instructions of the Secretary of 
 the navy, according to my ideas, "placed in official disgrace" an officer 
 who, by the Board, was retained on the full retired pay list. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, &c, 
 
 S. W. GODON. 
 
 Lieutenant M. F. Maury, 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
17 
 
 Bowling Green, Va., November 14, 1855. 
 Sir : Your communication of the 8th inst. has been received. 
 In reply to your 1st, 2d, and 3d questions, I have to state that I can- 
 not answer for the Board. 
 
 To the 4th, 5th, and 6th, I can only say that I did not inspect the 
 observatory, but cannot answer for the Board, nor say why you were 
 retired. 
 
 I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 W. L. MAURY, 
 Lt. of U. S. Navy. 
 Lieut. M. F. Maury, TJ. S. N. 
 
 Supt. U. S. N., Obs'y, Washington. 
 
 Philadelphia, November 15, 1855. 
 
 Sir : I have received your letter propounding to me six formal 
 interrogatories as to the action of the late Naval Board, to which you 
 desire answers. 
 
 The official report of that Board was duly submitted to the Secretary 
 of the Navy, and received his approval, and that of the President of the 
 United States. No further call for information has been made from any 
 official source, and I do not feel disposed to submit myself to examina- 
 tion, in the form proposed by you, at the demand of every individual 
 who may assume the right to catechize me upon the subject. 
 
 I might here close my reply to your letter ; but whilst I have no 
 authority or inclination to speak for the Board, I will not decline, in 
 your case, to give the information which you seek, as to my own opin- 
 ions and votes. 
 
 The fact that you, some years since, met with an unfortunate accident, 
 disabling you for service at sea, is notorious. Your claim for damages in 
 a civil suit was partly based upon the fact that you were thus disabled. 
 Since the year 1840, you had not performed any duty at sea, and your ser- 
 vice in a man-of-war dates still further back. A physical disability to per- V 
 form the duties of Lieutenant at sea, was clearly a case for retirement, 
 under the law. Upon that ground, I voted for your being reserved 
 on leave pay. I trust this is satisfactory, and I cannot refrain from 
 expressing my astonishment that the Board should be charged with 
 placing an officer in "official disgrace" by classing him with Commo- 
 dores Stewart and Conner, Commanders Shields and Saunders. Lieu- 
 tenants Palmer and Decatur, and the rest of the "reserved list on leave 
 pay." That list was intended by Congress to be one of perfectly hon- 
 orable retirement, and the Board were scrupulously desirous it should 
 be so. They would have acted very strangely if they had gone about 
 to disgrace an officer by putting him where their official instructions 
 expressly informed them they were to consider it "a high compliment" 
 to be placed. 
 
 The question of relative weight to be assigned to "duty ashore and 
 duty afloat," it will be perceived, does not enter into the case of an offi- 
 cer physically disabled for the latter. It could only arise where no such 
 
 \ 
 
LADrvni-v 
 
 18 
 
 0029 714 187 9 
 
 disability existed. But I may say, in general, that for ___ 
 
 conceive that every officer owes it to his country, to his profession, and 
 to his brother officers, to perform his share of the most unpleasant, yet 
 the most important duty of the Navy, namely, service afloat; that to 
 underrate that branch of the profession, whether by individuals or by a 
 Navy Board, is to aim a fatal blow at the efficiency of the Navy; and 
 that long desuetude may incapacitate for this, as well as for any other 
 occupation. Whenever cases presented themselves to the Board, of offi- 
 cers physically able, but morally unwilling, to perform that duty, I con- 
 sider they were bound to remove such persons from the active list — no 
 matter whether that unwillingness arose from idleness, love of ease, love 
 of money, preference for other pursuits, or even from an otherwise most 
 laudable love of scientific distinction. Such persons came under the 
 condition of the Secretary's instructions, as having " become incompe- 
 tent from neglect of duty, and inattention and indifference to his (their) 
 profession." The plea of not having been compelled by the Executive 
 authority, to perform this service, if admitted for them, is equally avail- 
 able for every instance of duty neglected or unperformed. And thus 
 one of the most important objects of the Board's appointment would be 
 entirely defeated. The Secretary of the Navy discerned, acknowledged, 
 and very wisely removed this source of embarrassment in his instructions 
 to the Board. 
 
 Such being my conscientious convictions — they were my guide in my 
 own course upon the Board — are at all times freely expressed by me, and 
 will furnish, I presume, a sufficient answer to your inquiries upon that 
 head. 
 
 Respectfully, &c, 
 
 JAMES S. BIDDLE. 
 
 Lieut. M. F. Maury, 
 U. S. Navy. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 III 
 
 029 714 187