Documents that were filed in the Navy Department—and of which the chairman of that board assures us "free use" was made, running back for a long lapse of years, in some cases from fifteen to twenty years—were brought before the board. The archives of the Department were ransacked, and charges that had lain in the musty pigeon-boxes of the Department were raked up, and officers were adjudged on such evidence.
Sir, who was here to examine into the charges preferred against Captain Pendergrast? Who was there on that board to examine the charges filed against various members of it, and upon which they had never been arraigned? If they arraigned officers on actions of the past, it was an ex post facto proceeding, violative of the Constitution and the chartered rights of every American citizen, whether in public or in private station. The law could have no operation upon such events. Why? Because they had transpired before the enactment of the law. But, sir, were officers adjudged by such considerations? Yes; and by rumors that had long gone by. They were not arraigned on facts in reference to their present condition in the navy. The charges against them were not of recent date, for the board went back for a quarter of a century, and with the address of scavengers imputations were brought up by them against the character of their brother officers. They were not heard on the subject; no intimation or suggestion was given to them that they were to be tried on these matters susceptible of explanation; but they were condemned by men against whom flagrant offenses and delinquencies had been charged, and those charges still stood on the files of the Navy Department. Sir, can you call these proceedings just? Was it in the contemplation of the officers of the navy, when they entered the service, that these were to be the criteria by which the character and claims of gentlemen and officers and their places in the navy of the United States should be determined? I think not.
Under these circumstances, is it possible that the Senate can sanction such inquisitorial proceedings and such condemnatory acts as grew up under influences of this character? They were never contemplated by the law. It is to remedy these evils that we urge the appointment of a special committee—and for what purpose? To ascertain the facts. Will not the members of that committee be doing what they can to promote justice? As gentlemen, selected from this body for the impartial investigation of the subject, they will, of course, do all they can to bring forth the facts. By their examinations, the truth can be elicited; the imputations, reports, rumors, and hearsay, on which officers were stricken down, can be compared, analyzed, and dissected by the Senate, and a just judgment deduced from the evidence which may be brought forward.
But, sir, it has been suggested that the appointment of such a special committee will be a reflection on the Committee on Naval Affairs. I do not think so. The gentlemen of that committee have already had sufficient employment in the investigation of this subject. The elaborate report which they have made, and the investigations to which they have devoted themselves, have already consumed a sufficiency of their time and absorbed their minds. They have made a report to the Senate, and I believe they are unanimous in their conclusions, that no specific redress ought to be granted to individuals, except to a partial extent, under the discretion of the President of the United States. I do not intend to cast the slightest reflection on him, for it is not necessary to the impartial investigation of this subject; but we are all too well acquainted with
