Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1825-08-23
SATURDAY AUGUST I3,h.

ed from the accused certain papers, purporting to |
be the residue of his Defence the same were read
and considered. The Court is decidedly OF opinion
that these papers vary in many respects from the
Defence which was delivered on behalf OF the &C
cused by his Counsel that, in particular, the Sc
verify OF animadv erson upon the conduct oil the |
Judge Advocate, which appears in these papers, |
did not appear in the Defence that was delivered,
and the Court deems it due to itselfo state that the
conduct Of the Judge Advocate during the trial was
in its opinion free from the imputed to it.
As, however, the Court is not in possession OF
the Defence, which, in violation OF its rule and oil
precedent, was delivered orally, and from
der the appearance OF reading it, the Court has an
nexed this document to its proceedings with this
fur Their observation, that nothing is perceived in
which in the least vary the conclusion TO which
the Court had arrived.
JAMES BARRON, President
RICHARD $. COKE, Judge Advocate.
The Court adjourned till ten O'Clock on Monday
morning.
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.
18th August, 1925.
Charges and Specifications exhibited against
David Porter, Esquire, a Captain in the Ma
py of the United States.
CHARGE lst
Disobedience of orders, and conduct unbecomiDg
an Officer.
SPEctFrcATIoN-For that he, the said David
Porter, being in command of the Naval forces OF
the United States, in the West India Seas, Gulf Of
Mexico, Sc. did, about the fourteenth day of
November, in the year Of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and twenty-four, wiha part of said
Naval forces, land the Island of Porto Rico, in
the dominions Of his Catholic Majesty the King OF
Spain, then and still in amity and at peace with
the United States in forcikle and hostile manner,
and in military array, and did then, and there, COM
nit divers acts of hostility against the subjects and
property of the said King of Spain, in contraven-
ton of the Constitution of the United States, and
| of the Laws of Nations, and in violation OF the
| instructions from the Government Of the United
States 10 him the said David Porter.
| CHARGE End.
| Insubortinate conduct, and conduct unbecoming
| an Officer.
SPECIFICATION Ist.--For that he the said Da-
vid Porter. did write and transmit to the President
of the United States, a letter of insubordnate
and disrespectul character, to wit, on the seven-
teenth day of April, in the year Of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and twenty-five; and did
also write and transmit to the Secretary of the Ma
Wy, at sundry times herein after particularly men,
toned, various letters of insuberdinate and dis
| respectful character viz on the thirteth day of
January, the sixteenth day of March, the thirteenth
day of April and the fourteenth day OF June, all
in the year of our Lord thousand eight hundred
and twenty-five, thereby violating the respect due
| from every Officer in the Navy TO the Head OF the
heparunSnt lnpArinS the uiSciPiie VI 'He SSiNiSc,
and setting most dangerous and pernicious exam
| pie.
SPECIFICATION 2nd For that he, the said Da-
vid Porter, after Court of Enquiry had been con-
vened and directed to investigate, aud make report
OF the facts in relation to the matters embraced IN
the specification of the first CHARGE and after such
Court had terminated its inquiries and had trans
mitted its report 10 the Secretary of the Navy and
| before the Executive had published or authorized
the publication of the proceedings OF said Court, did
| publish or to be published pamphlet, pur-
porting TO contain the proceedings of the said Court
OF Enquiry.
SPEc1FIcAT1oN 3D. For that he, the said Da-
vid Porter, in the publication made mentioned in
the last preceding specification, did give an incor-
rect statement of the proceedings Of the said Court
of Enquiry
SPECIFICATION 4th For that he, the said
David Porter, did, in the publication referred to in
| the said two last preceding specifications, insert
various remarks, statements, and insinuatons, not
warranted by the facts, highly disrespectful TO the
Secretary of the Navy, and to the said Court of
| Enquiry.
SPECIFICATION 5th For that he the said
David Porter, did, in the same publication referred
to in the said last preceding specifications, without
any authority, or permission for that purpose, make
| public, official communications TO the Govern
| ment; and official correspondence with the Govern
ment, and has other occasions, between the first
| OF October, in the year of Lord one thousand
eight hundred and twenty-four, and the fifteenth
day of June in the year Of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and twenty-five, without authority
or permission therefor made public, orders and in
structions from the Government, and official cor
| respondence with the Government.
THIRTY-FIFTH DAY-Tuesday, 9ueust I6.
The Court J.c' ~ 40 O'Clock, and proceeded with
the trial of 1t. Whtlock.
Mr.. ElkiIs, the Attorney for the accused, then
read the defence, in which the insuffciency of the
evidence was referred to, in the first place. Lieut..
Oellers, the prosecutor, the only witness
brought forward against the accused he was enabled
to state such facts he chose to select for the
purpose OF giving strong character to the charge
18th tnis view, the witness had stated the danger
Gus situations In which the schooner was at the time
when the accused was guilty of The alleged neglect
oil duty. Yet, according TO the statement of
this witness, it was shown that the accused had
very fa:gueing duties to perform, and very made
quate accommodations for rest and refreshment
The accused stated the hardships he had undergone
since the charges sent in against him; he had
been visited by severe sickness, had furlough
granted him, and had been put on half pay He
had in fact, received the punishment Of guilt before
The law had pronounced him guilty; and he hoped
that the long time he had been in service added to the
other considerations he had urged would weigh
with the Court to come TO that decision which |
would still leave him the opportunity of testifying
the sincerity of the attachment which he felt TO the
service and to the country. |
The Court was then cleared to deliberate on the |
sentence, and IN about an hour the doors were re-
opened, and the Court then proceeded TO the
TRIAL OF LIEUT. HUNTER.
The charge against the accused in this case, was
preferred by Com. Stewart, and consisted of a sim
gle charge, a" Neglect Of Duty, - and specification
which stated, in effect, that the arcused sone |