HIS TREATMENT BY IHE "RETIRING BOARD" 111 



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 per- 

 forming 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 un- 



