WRITINGS OF SAM HOUSTON, 1856
256
evidence of that incapacity. It was not to be presumed from a mere suspicion in the mind of any member or members of the board. There were tests by which inefficiency could be deter- mined; and, I will show you that the action of the board, if it be regarded as a judgment of inefficiency, is in direct conflict with the action of the Secretary of the Navy. They have not deferred to him. At the time this "review" took place-at the time when naval efficiency was determined by the naval board, what was the condition of the officers of the Navy? No less than fifty-seven officers who were afloat or on duty at that very time were stricken down by retirement or dropping. Fifty-seven of those then engaged on duty the board said were inefficient, and not capable of performing their duties ashore and afloat. What was the conclusion of the Secretary of the Navy? He had detailed these men to discharge duty, to the number of fifty- seven, 8Jld they were actually performing duties ashore or afloat at the time when they were stricken down by the naval board, which thereby stultified the action of the Secretary of the Navy. One or the other erred in judgment as to the efficiency of these officers. These are the two horns of the dilemma. Gentlemen may swing on either-I care not which; neither is pleasant. You need not tell me that the Secretary of the Navy would detail for sea duty incompetent persons, when there are always hundreds of applicants for active service whom he cannot gratify. Can any candid man believe there was any deficiency in any of those men who were detailed by the Secretary for sea or for shore duty? To suppose so is to impugn the action of the Secretary, and to charge him with incapacity, or a want of integrity to his country. I do not care which position gentlemen assume; one or the other is the case if the action of this board can be sustained, which I do not believe. I do not think that Mr. Dobbin would have de- tailed an incompetent person for sea duty. I am not prepared to indorse his charitable notions of the board, and his laudatory comments of them, as being the soul of honor; but I perceive that their action is contradictory to his own. But, sir, the same article says further : "It is the duty of the President to keep the public force on shore and at sea in an efficient state, ready for every emergency. If men are incompetent, no matter from what cause, it is his duty to know it, to ascertain it, and to remove them either by his executive power or by legal proceedings."
,,
Powered by FlippingBook