Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-05-17

sapeake. But when the court adyerts 4
10 the relations between Great Britain
and the L. S. at that time, to the ST.
suation OF the British squadron which I
had been laying in Chesapeake Bay
tor many months preceding this, AID
TO the state of the wind and weather
at this period, the court cannot consi.
der the putting to sea of one of that
squadron, in consequence OF signals
made to her, or the triced up ports OF
q two decker, in warm weather and a
smooth sea, as indications of hostile
disposition towards the frigate Chesa
peake, whether any other vessel was
in sight at that time or not.
What was the probable object ofthe
Leopard in putting to sea, the history
of that day enables the court now to
conjecture with some certainty. Butt
at that time, and in her situation, there
were such variety ofinnocert objects
equally probable to be then held in
view by her, that this court cannot
impute to capt. Barron any blame what
soever for not divining her real intcn-
tions at that time.
1t appears to the court that the TOM
Pions of the Leopard were out some
time before she commenced firing up
on the Chesapeake, and this the court
considers as an indication Of a hostile
disposition. But as it appears to the
court also from the evidence upon
this head, that SO soon as captain Bar
ron was informed Of this fact, he or
dercd his men to quarters the court are
of opinion that no part of this second
specification is proved.
Sd. This court having heard ali the
Testimony relative to the various ma
noeuvres of the Leopard after she put
10 sea, must form its opinion from the
facts established by this testimony, and
not from the opinion of the court of
Enquiry, on which they do not consi-
der themselves bound in any manner
TO decide. Judging of these manoeu-
vres from these facts, the court are oil
opinion, that there were nc Intentions
to FIRE upon the frigate Chesapeake
manifested by the British ship of war
Leopard, at any time before an officer
OF the Leopard, was. sent on boart,
he Chesapeake, and therefore that this
fhird specification is not proved.
4th. 1t does not appear to the court,
that the said ship Leopard did ap.
proach the said frigate Chesapeake
under any of 'he appearances of being
prepared for action, and therefore the
court are of opinion that this fourth
Specification is not proved.
5th. 1t appears to the court, that
capt. Barron did rel eive from the COM
manding officer of the Leopard, a COM
munication clearly intimating, that ii
certain men were not delivered up to
him, ne should proceed to use force ;
and that the said James Barron yet
neglected to clear his ship for action.
The court are there fore of opinion that
this nth specification is fully proved.
9th. 1t appears to the court from
Fart OF the communications Of captain
James barron to the honorable the
Secretary of the Navy, and from the
evidence of witnesses with whom the
SAID James Barron conversed upon
TINS subject, that he did verify believe
from the communication received
from the commanding officer of the
SAID ship Leopard, that ne would take
by force it they could not be obtained
by other means, any British desert
ers that could be found on board the
chesapeake, and still that the said
James Barron neglected to clear his
ship for action--- he court are there.
lore of opinion that this sixth speci6.
cation IS fully proved.
Part of the facts specified in the ac-
cusation as establishing this second
charge being thus fully proved, and
the court being Of opinion that the
facts so proved are sufficient of them.
selves to support this charge, decide
thas the said James Barron is guilty
under this second charge " for neglect
ing on the probability of an engage
ment to clear his ship for action.5
The third charge against capt. James
Barron, as stated in the warrant of the
non. the Secretary of the Navy is in
these words:
" For failing to encourage in his own
person his interior of6cere and No., 81