The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-05-17

" not, as 1t was his bounden duty to do, eX-
g anime particularly into her state and con-
Z" dition."
In deciding upon this charge. the cour.
will make the following statements:
LIST. 1t appears to the court. that captain
James Barron did visit the frigate Chesa-
peake twice during the period She remained
in Hampton Roads, and before she proceed
ed to sea, that is between the fourth & twenty
first days OF June last. And as by the naval
regulations, issued by the command of the
President of the United States, the number
ut visits which the commander of 4 squadron
is directed topay to the ships of his squad
ron or division is left to his own discretion,
the court is of opinion, That captain Barron
was made the judge upon this subject him
self-aud seeing i'll the evidence, nc reasons
existing at that time, to question the proper
exercise of his discretion in this respect, the
court are of opinion, that this first specihca-
ton is not proved.
3D. 1t does not appear to the court that
when CaiJ-ain James Barron did visit the fri
gate Chesapeake, he examined particularly
into her state and condition. But as it has
been clearly established by the evidence,
that captain Barron during this period was
acting under the orders of the honorable the
Secretary of the Navy, whereby he was APP
pointed commodore or commander of a
squadron, that by other orders derived from
the same source, master and commander
had been appointed to act as captain Of this
particular ship, under'the said James Bar
ron as commedore, and that this acting cap
tain was then on board the ship, the court are
OF opinion, that it was not the bounten duty
OF commodore Barron to examine particular
ly into her state and condition, and there
fore, that this second specification is not pro-
we'd
The omission to visit the frigate Chesa-
pcake during the period she remained in
hampton Roads and before she proceeded to
sea, as often as he was in duty bound to do, &
the omission when he did visiI her, to exa-
mine particularly into her state & condition
being the only circumstances averred in the
accusation as establishing this first charge,
" tor negligently performing the duty assign
cd him :" and the court being of opinion that
he did visit the frigate Chesapeake as often
as he was in duty bound to do and that it
was not his bounden duty to examine parti-
cularly intoher state and condition, when he
did visit her, must of course decide that capt.
lanes Barron is NOT GUILTY under this
hrst charge, as limited & explained by these
specifications.
The second charge against capt. Barron,
stated III the warrant of the hon. Secretary
OF the Navy, is in these words:
For neglecting, on the probability of an en-
gagsment, to clear his ship for action
Specification"
LIST. " In that certain threats on the part Of
some commander of British vessel of war.
" that he would take by force if he could not
" otherwise obtain them, certain men from
on board the frigate Chesapeake, and that
such threats were known to or heard by the
" SAID James Barron, and still he neglected to
" clear his ship for action
I'd. " In that there were various 1,tdicati-
- ops OF a hostile disposition towards the fri
gate Chesapeake, exhibited by the British
ship OF war the Leopard, to wit her put
ting to sea after certain signals had been
seen and noticedby the said James Barron.
when there was no other vessel in sight.
" or any other object to induce her to go to
" sea but the Chesapeake the ports Of the
" said ship Leopard were triced up, and her
tomplons were out considerable time be-
tore She commenced firing upon the Che
sapeake; and still, that notwithstanding
these suspicious appearances, which were
seen q observed by the said James Barron.
he neglected to clear his ship for action"
Sd. In that by various maneuvres which
4" are set forth in the opinion of the Court of
Enquiry hereto annexed. the British shin
OF war Leopard. did manifest an intention
to FIRE upon the said frigate Chesapeake.
anu Stiii liiat Tie SalQ James barron neg
lected to clear his ship for action.''
4th In that the said ship Leopard did
approach the said frigate Chesapeake. un-
der all the appearances of being prepared
=" tor actioc, and still the said James Barron
neglected to clear his ship for action"
ath " In that the said James Barron did
receive from the commanding officer of the
Leopard, a communication clearly intima-
ting that if certain men we're not deliver.
ed up to him, he should proceed to use
force, and still the said JAMES Barron neg
lected to clear his ship for action:''
9th. "ln that the said James Barron did
verify believe from the communication he
received from the commanding officer of
" the said ship Leopard, that the said ship
" wonid hre upon the said frigate Chesa-
peaks or take by force, if they could not
be obtained by other means, any British
" deserters that could be found on board the
" Chesapeake, and still the said James Bar
:" ron neglected to clear his ship for action"
In deciding upon this charge the court will
make the following statements:
lst il does not appear to the Court, that
any threats were ever used ON the part of
any commander of British vessel of war,
that he would take by force, if he could not
otherwise obtain them, certain men from ON
board the frigate Chesapeake, (except the
TIN eats which may be considered as contain