CHAPTER VIII

HIS TREATMENT BY THE “RETIRING BOARD”

It must not be supposed that Maury spent only halcyon days during his long period of service at the Naval Observatory. When it is remembered that his contacts with men were extremely numerous, and that the opportunities for unpleasant controversy were almost without number in view of the fact that he was such an ardent advocate of whatever question he took up, whether it was scientific, economic, or political, it is truly remarkable that there were so few who became hostile to him. But strange as it may seem, those who as a class were most unfriendly to Maury and least sympathetic toward his work were a considerable number of his brother officers in the navy. As a consequence, in the year 1855, a board of naval officers inflicted upon him painful mental sufferings and placed him in a humiliating position, at the very time when his name was being acclaimed by the scientists and many of the rulers of foreign countries.

The occasion for the display of this enmity against Maury was the passing of the Act of Congress of February 28, 1855, to “promote the efficiency of the navy”. To carry out this law, the President assembled a board of naval officers consisting of five captains, five commanders, and five lieutenants, to “make a careful examination” of the personnel of the navy and report those found “incapable of performing promptly and efficiently all their duty both ashore and afloat”. Those so reported were to be either dropped from the rolls of the navy or placed upon what was to be called the “reserved list” and receive either leave of absence pay or furlough pay, according to the degree of their disability; they were, moreover, to be ineligible for further promotion, and subject at all times to the Navy Department for duty.

The members of this board were Captains William B. Shubrick, Matthew C. Perry, Charles S. McCauley, C. K. Stribling, and Abraham Bigelow; Commanders G. J. Pendergrast, Franklin Buchanan, Samuel F. Du Pont, and Andrew H. Foote; and Lieutenants John S. Missroon, Richard L. Page, Sylvanus W. Godon, William L. Maury, and James S. Biddle. The board met on the 20th of June, and continued its sessions daily, except for Sundays and the 4th of July, until it finished its work on July 25, and the following day it reported the results of its deliberations. Its judgment was that seventy-one officers should be placed on the “reserved on leave of absence pay” list, and eighty-one on the “reserved on furlough pay” list; while forty-nine were recommended to be “dropped from the navy”.

Official announcement of these results was not made until some weeks later, and Maury did not receive notice from the Secretary of the Navy until September 17, 1855 that his name had been placed on the “reserved on leave of absence pay” list. The Secretary’s letter, however, informed him that he was not detached from the Naval Observatory, but was to continue on his present duty.

To this letter Maury at once replied, “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 public 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 Department 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?” The Secretary answered that the Board in accordance with the law simply gave names and ranks, and did not assign reasons for its decisions.

Maury felt that he had been made to suffer a grievous wrong, and began to appeal to his friends to help him to secure justice. He was particularly incensed over the fact that the Board met in secret, and that he could find out neither what his offense was nor who his accusers were. Some of the members of this “monstrous inquisition”, he declared, had publicly condemned all science in the navy, and none of the Board except Perry had made any mark upon the service that would be recognized as a reminder of their excellence when they were gone. He could think of only two reasons for their action against him. In the first place, there was a spirit of jealousy that he, a mere lieutenant, had dared to establish a reputation somewhat honorable in spite of them; and in the second place, they would attempt to offer as an excuse for the slur they had cast upon him the fact that he was lame. As to the latter reason, Maury wrote, “Mere bodily activity, in an officer of my rank, is comparatively of little value, when taken in connection with the mental activity. Officers are expected—at least, it is generally so in the upper grades—to work rather with the head than the hand, and, moreover, I am bodily as active as a majority of the Board, and if broken legs disqualify, at least one member of the Board should have borne me company, for his leg was broken twice over.... General Scott is crippled in the arm, yet it does not appear to have unfitted him for the army. Besides, this Board has left untouched other crippled officers, both above and below me”.

The action of the Board produced a very mischievous and demoralizing effect on the naval service, upon which it let loose the spirit of a hyena. Officers began to investigate the antecedents of each other, and all sorts of trouble-making scandal was unearthed. But fortunately for Maury nothing could be found prejudicial against his character and his record in the files of the Navy Department, and he exulted over the fact that he had never tripped in his youth. He became disgusted with all the accusations and insinuations that had been aroused, and declared that they were heart-sickening to a man who loved to live at peace with all the world.

It was necessary, however, for him to see the matter through. So he again wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, complaining that he had been given no hearing, that all action had been taken in secret, no minutes or records of any kind having been kept, and that the charge of incompetency was too vague; and therefore he asked for specific charges and for a fair and open trial according to law. The Secretary replied that the members of the Board had dispersed to their duties; but that he would reassemble them if the President so directed, adding that Maury had a “spotless character and eminent service”. Another interchange of letters took place, in which Maury said he could not see the action of the Board otherwise than as official disgrace to him; while the Secretary wrote that the President was of the opinion that the Board acted in accordance with the law and that there was no authority under it to command them to report the reasons for their recommendations.

Maury then decided to write a letter to each member of the Board and ask the following questions: “1st. What was the process of examination adopted by the Board for ascertaining whether an officer was efficient or not? 2nd. What was the standing of efficiency for the grade of lieutenant? 3rd. What difference, if any, did the Board 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 other examination as to the manner in which it is conducted? 6th. What was the character of the evidence upon which the Board pronounced its findings against me?”

All replies to these letters were unsatisfactorily evasive, but in general they agreed in considering that Maury had not been placed in official disgrace. Perry wrote, “In justice to those who have been affected by the action of the Board, I cannot but hope that steps may soon be taken by the proper authorities to develop the causes and explain the circumstances which have brought about this painful change in our common service”. But the junior member, Biddle, wrote most fully, and gave the impression that he thought that the accident to Maury’s leg had unfitted him for sea service and that on this ground he had voted for his retirement. He added that each officer should perform his part of the most unpleasant duty in the navy, service afloat, and he implied that he believed Maury had been unwilling to go to sea because of “love of scientific distinction”.

Meanwhile the press of the country had taken up Maury’s cause, and a few examples from the newspapers will show how high the feeling ran. The _Scientific American_ wrote, “To use the language of the Philadelphia _Inquirer_, we regard the action of the Board ‘as an insult upon the virtue and general intelligence of the country’.... (Maury’s) eminent services have been acknowledged by almost every government in Europe. Prussia and Sweden have struck gold medals to his honor. The Russian Ambassador has publicly thanked him by the direction of his government. England has not been sparing of her tribute of admiration in Parliament, and has adopted his plans in her own navy, while the great French Industrial Exhibition awards to his charts her highest premiums. His own country, on the contrary, declares him a clog and an incumbrance on its navy, and unworthy of promotion. We trust Congress will set this matter right. Better dispense with the services of the entire Board of ‘ten minutes inquisitors’ than of this eminent man. We understand that it had been proposed in Philadelphia, in case Lieutenant Maury retired from the Observatory, to present him with a testimonial of $50,000, as an acknowledgment of his services, and as a mark of the disapprobation of the action of the Board. We doubt not that this sum might easily be raised in our great commercial cities. Yes, twice that if necessary”.

The New York _Herald_ held the Board up for ridicule, in the following fashion: “I understand there is now in press, and will shortly appear, a history of the lives and eminent services of the late Retiring Board, entitled ‘Lights and Shadows of the Fifteen’. It will embrace all the shades in the lives of those fifteen Spartans, from their entrance into the service up to their ‘Thermopylae defeat’ of 201 brothers in arms, by which gallant action they ‘promoted themselves’. It will be the commencement of a new epoch in the naval history of the country, and will be rich, racy, and spicy”.

Further quotations from the New York _Journal of Commerce_, the _National Intelligencer_, and other newspapers might be given, in which the contention was made that, without respect to party, the sentiment was practically unanimous that Maury should be restored to his place on the active list with all the “honor and reparation due to injured merit”, and that this should be done without further delay. But two more years were to pass before justice was done. Even after both the President and the Secretary of the Navy had come to realize that Maury had been unjustly treated, there was considerable further delay while Congress formulated a plan for undoing the action of the Board in cases where mistakes had been made. Petitions had been presented by Senators for about one hundred of the officers affected, and these occasioned endless debates in the halls of Congress during the year 1856. Senator Bell of Tennessee presented the petition on Maury’s behalf before the Senate on January 21, 1856, and made several long speeches in its defense.

Senator Mallory of Florida, who had sponsored the bill for promoting efficiency in the navy, was naturally a strong defender of the action of the Board, and when Maury’s petition was presented he said, among other things, “If the Board has erred in any case whatever, there was no error in the case of Lieutenant Maury”, for he declared that his physical disability was sufficient cause and he had repeatedly shunned sea service. There seems to have been no personal animus in Mallory’s stand, which appears to have been merely the defense of a party measure; indeed, only one year before, when it was proposed in the Senate to make a remuneration of $25,000 to Maury for the service to the country of his wind and current charts, Mallory as chairman of the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs made a long and favorable report, in which he reviewed in detail Maury’s work and quoted words of praise from the reports of Secretaries of the Navy Graham, Kennedy, and Dobbin. His report concluded with these words: “This officer has been for years in the public service, has a family to provide for, and is entirely dependent upon his annual pay; and for these reasons your Committee think that a sum of money, insignificant indeed in comparison to his services, yet sufficient to remove his anxieties and to cheer his hopes for the future of those dependent upon him, might be justly bestowed. Your Committee recommend that a sum of 25,000 dollars be thus appropriated, and report a bill accordingly”. Such a sudden turn from eloquent support of Maury to opposition to his interests was indeed remarkable, for it was a long jump from the advocacy of a measure awarding him $25,000 to one which reduced his salary from $3,500 to $1,200 a year. Mallory was supported in his defense of the action of the Board, as it affected Maury, mainly by Senators Clayton of Delaware, Benjamin of Louisiana, and Jefferson Davis of Mississippi.

Eventually, however, the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs reported a bill to amend the act entitled “An Act to Promote the Efficiency of the Navy”, which was finally passed on January 16, 1857. This provided that an officer whose status in the navy had been affected by the action of the Retiring Board could by written request secure an investigation, by regular court of inquiry, into his “physical, mental, professional, and moral fitness” for the naval service, and that the finding of this court might be submitted to the President, who was to take action accordingly.

The bill originally contained two additional sections, providing for the establishment of the rank of admiral and the organization of a scientific corps in the navy; but they were finally struck out. This scientific corps was to take charge of the Naval Observatory, the nautical almanac, the hydrographical work, and such other scientific matters as the Secretary of the Navy should prescribe; and its personnel was to consist of one captain, two commanders, ten lieutenants, and seven masters. Mallory favored the establishment of such a plan, and, about-facing again, said on the floor of the Senate, “The Committee had an earnest desire that that distinguished officer (Maury) should be at the head of the corps”. Though Maury had written at first rather enthusiastically of the scientific corps, he eventually came to the conclusion that it would not have been wise to establish it, and wrote that he was not sorry it had been struck out of the bill.

Under the main provisions of the amended act, Maury’s case was taken up by a court of inquiry, before whom it was proved by a surgeon that his leg was actually stronger than that of Missroon, one of the members of the Board; that he had not tried to evade sea service but had applied for such service during the Mexican War and had been refused; that other officers retained on the active list had a larger proportion of shore duty than he; and that he had been kept at the Naval Observatory by the various Secretaries of the Navy because of his special fitness for the work. This latter statement was proved by personal letters, of which the following from William A. Graham will serve as an example: “In answer to your inquiry, why you were not ordered to sea during my connection with the Navy Department, I have to state that I considered your services at the National Observatory of far more importance and value to the country and the navy than any that could be rendered by an officer of your grade at sea in time of peace. Indeed, I doubt whether the triumphs of navigation and of the knowledge of the sea achieved under your superintendence of the Observatory will not contribute as much to an effective Naval Service and to the national fame as the brilliant trophies of our arms”.

Resolutions in favor of Maury’s restoration to the active service list were passed by the state legislatures of Tennessee, Louisiana, Alabama, Maryland, New Jersey, Virginia, and New York. Of those passed by the last-mentioned state, he wrote, “These resolutions uttered by a great state in the manner of a free people have a charm that is lacking in these honors which, in the shape of medals, orders of knighthood, crosses, and decorations, have been conferred by the hands of strangers”.

Finally, in view of the findings of the court of inquiry and the sympathy for Maury which had been aroused throughout the whole country, the President not only restored him to the active service list but also promoted him to the rank of commander. The announcement of this promotion was as follows: “Sir: The President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, has appointed you a Commander in the Navy from the 14th of September, 1855, on the Active List. I have the pleasure to enclose herewith your commission, dated the 27th instant (January, 1858), the receipt of which you will acknowledge to the Department. I am respectfully, I. Toucey”. Thus was Maury at last completely vindicated.