Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-06-08
LIEUT.. KENNoN's TRIAL
(CoNTINUED.l
UNITED STATES NAVY YARD,
{, ia. Monday, Feb. oh, A. D. 1924.

UNITED STATES Navy YARD,
Cosport, ia. Monday, Feb. 9th, A. d. 1924.
The court met, pursuant to adjournment.
Members present, as on Saturday. Lieutc-
nant kcnnon, and the witness, Captain Porter,
appeared.
The proceedings being read, the counsel for
the accused, requested of the court that he
might be allowed TO read. the minute prepared
by him under their decision of Saturday, and he
was informed that it must be presented in the
usual manner, and, if deemed proper ipstrI-
Insnt, it should then be read TO the court.
TO this the counsel objected; he declined-sub-
hitting his paper for inspection before it was
read to the court.
On which, the court being cleared, it was de-
cidod that the conditions of the counsel being
contrary to the usages-of courts martial, rs well
as to the practice during the course of the pre-
sent trial, they decline admitting the paper Of
fered by him; and do direct, that the examina-
ton of the witness be resumed and limited with
in the charge and specifications before them.
The court was then opened, and the above
decision read. The counsel begged leave to
offer an explanation of the remarks made thro'
the Judge Advocate to the court; he did not
intend that his objection should be construed to
apply to the inspection of his minute by the
court; he only objected under tho impression
that the paper was 10 be subjected solely to the
inspection of the Judge Advocate, 81 received or
rejected according to the opinion he might pro-
nouncc as TO the propriety Of its reception.
And the court, III consideration of this expla-
nation, agreed that the paper should be read:
vhereupon, the court was cleared, and the pa
per, handed in by the counsel for the accused,
read.
The Judge Advocate suggested to the court,
that, in clearing Saturday for deliberation
upon the last question proposed BY the accused,
he did not understand the remark of the coun-
sci as TO the proposal of a minute in support of
that question. He communicated to the court
a remark of the counsel, that, in the eUent of the
rejection Of the question, he must file minute
upon the record. He did not understand him
to make that remark in the shape of request
to be urged before the court, as stated by the
accused in his last proposition handed in on Sa-
turday, and the court, dcibcrating on the ques-
ton, decided it should not be put to the wit
ness.
This suggestion made, the court resumed its
elaboration on the minute last presented by the
counsel and decided, that, without departing
from the rule they had adopted as TO the revi-
sion of their decisions, they were still DESTROYS to
have every channel opened to the accused; and
that, although the argument just handed in to
the court, should not be considered with regard
to the reversal of their last order upon the qucs-
ton it was intended to support, ifshould be read
in open court, and filed upon their record, for
the consideration of the reviewing and appellate
power before which their proceedings are direc-
ted TO be laid; and, at his request, the Judge
Advocate was permitted to accompany on the
record, an answer to the argument thus consi-
dcred and received, (see appendix 13 and ID. }
And the court being opened, their decision, and
the argument of the counsel, were, thcreupon,
read.
The cross-exanination of Captain Porter was
resumed.
Question by the accused. What were the
typographical errors in the ssGGorgiann pubca-
ton you speak OFF Do they alter the meaning
of the publications If they do, state errors in
detail.
Answer. In the sentence commenoiiiz
"[I-ie'ltenant kcnnon states" &c. sc. and con-
tanning the words, &c which was soon followed by
her capture" for the word 'scopture,n read
.scaptairaso and, in the sentence commencing
'sGovernor Wives accordingly undertook" and
containing ii parcnthesis, tho words (s'of Gov.
Wives letter,") for the word ''of," read "sec,''
that refers to letter Of Governor Wives, when
The contrary is stated to the words imputed TO
Lieut.. kcnnon.
Question. Did you ever attempt to correct
those typographical errors, by anyrcpublication
or statement Of crrata in the ''Georgian?n
Answer. No, the publication has not the
sanction ofmy name, and felt under obi
HallOD 10 40 5O'
Question. AS you arc able to point out The
typographical errors in the publication in the
Georgian, allow me to ask, sir, how you know
they are typographical errors, which are only
to be known by comparison of the original with
the publications.
Answer. Ilznor7 from, facts, and circumstan-
ces, and my recollection oft,e originals the facts
have just explained to the Court.
Question. ! don't wish yon 10 say If you arc
tie author of the publication, ifyen are unwiI-
ling to answer that question; but do you mean
to be understood, by your answer, as conveying
the idea that some other person was the autbor2
Answer. decline giving any answer TO that
question, under the warning have received
from the Court:
''Thc counsel respectfully submits to the
Court, that the rule laid down by the Court
does not protect the witness from answering this
question; il docs not ask bin to say whether he
IS or IS not the author, but merely to confirm OF
repel an Inference from other answers
"The rule alluded to, protects a witness only
from answering questions which irnpute scrime
TO him, or subject him eto penalty OF to pun
ssjimett, or tend to fix infamy or dishonor or
h'iI see Philips $685. cNally IVA. But lbi