human nature not to know what would be the result of leaving it to his discretion. What would be his situation? He has already indorsed the action of the board. He has played subservient to them. He was their minister. He acted in accordance with their suggestions and dictation. For the sake of consistency he would feel that he was bound to carry out their action. If he should come to that conclusion, what redress would be granted to individuals who have received the malediction and brand of this board? What officer who has been disrated would be benefited by being commended to ihe justice or the charity of the President and Secretary of the Navy? Would not the influence of those who concurred on the board be united in constraining the President to uphold his former decision for the sake of consistency, no matter who were the sufferers? The President would feel a natural inclination to be consistent; and he has already sustained the board's action, upon the suggestion that they were constrained to act as they did, that they acted to the best of their knowledge, that they were actuated by high and honorable feelings, such as should prompt gentlemen under similar circumstances. If Congress does not render justice, no truth, however glaring and potent, will be sufficient to reverse their irreversible decrees. I know that the Secretary of the Navy has acknowledged that injustice was done to individuals; but who are to be the beneficiaries of this acknowledgment? Adopt the proposition of the Naval Committee, and it is matter of favor—it is confided to executive discretion. Think you, then, that it would extend to all who have been injured and who seek redress? Men of irreproachable and spotless character—men who were never delinquent for a moment in the discharge of their duties, and always met every requisition made upon them, have been disrated by this board, and are here asking for redress. I say it is your duty to give it to them.
Well, sir, is it disrespect to the Committee on Naval Affairs to say that a special committee shall be created for the purpose of making an impartial examination into the facts of the case of each officer whose memorial has been presented to the Senate? No, sir; it is not disrespectful. I should be disposed to think that the gentlemen of the Naval Committee would feel a delicacy in taking cognizance of any matters connected with the subject, inasmuch as they have already expressed their opinions. They have made an elaborate report, invoking every possible aid, direct and collateral, to their support; and they have quoted a succession of reports of the Secretary of the Navy, from the time of Mr. Bancroft down to the present day, speeches made in the House of Representatives, former reports made to the Congress of the United States, opinions of committees, and everything else calculated to sustain the position of the board, but nothing that would show the injustice which has been done to individuals—nothing giving any assurance that they had impartially investigated the subject. My desire is, that it shall be impartially looked into. Why? Because I have a judgment to form, and I wish to have that judgment enlightened. I wish to hear the whole case. We have heard the advocates of the board; let us hear the advocates of the memorialists. Let us compare the statements on both sides—those favorable to the board and those adverse to it—with the array of facts that can be presented on either side. That is what I desire. This can be accomplished through a select committee.
For the purpose of more perfectly understanding this subject, and obtaining all the information possible, I had the honor of introducing into the Senate,
