Matthew Fontaine Maury, the Pathfinder of the Seas

by Charles Lee Lewis

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”.