American watchman and Delaware advertiser. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1822-1828, 1825-08-02


ness declined, when the Court being about to be
cleared in order deliberate whether he should be
coerced 10 answer, Comm. Porter admitted that he
himself had published the correspondence and
said he should, without hesitation, have ayowed it if
the Secretary had called on him instead Of the
Editors.
Peter Force, sworn and Intercepted by the Judge
Advocate, to the publication of another CORES
pondence, between Comm. Porter and the Secretary
of the Navy, in the National Journal Of the 10Th
June.
| Some other witnesses were examined, on the sub
ject of the copies Of the proceedings of the Cou,
of Inquiry, published by Comm Porter.
Nat. Intel.
Jury 26.-Lt. J. r. Richie sworn and examined,
to the copies of the proceedings Of the late Court
OF Inquiry published by Comm Porter.
~. ". .Seaton was called by Comm. Porter, for
cross examination: and inerrogated as to the au.
thorshp OF publication in the lnelligencer she5h
May, on the subject of some proceeding before the
late Court of Inquiry on Commodore Porter. The
Judge Advocate objected to the question, and called
upon The counsel OF the accused, TO explain the Oh
lect OF the testimony: and written explanation Of
the points to which it applied and showing how it
was material to the defence was given in. The
Court. being cleared, decided that The question was
proper, and might be put to the witness. But the
witness, when interrogated on the subject, again
on TO disclose the authors OF anonymous pubiica-
tons. The Court, being cleared, decided that the
question did not appear necessary TO the defence,
as to induce the Court 10 its power to coerce
an answer. ID.
jury 97.-Comm. Porter offered to the Courta
petition, in wiring, stated to be on the subject Of
calling upon the Secretary of the Navy to answer
the same question which Mr.. Seaton had declined
answering yesterday.
1t was suggested tbut whether originally by the
Judge Advocate or the President Of the Court, was
not distinctly undersiood) that the paper should first
be submitted 10 the Judge Advocate that he might
see whether he had objection to it, and if he had
any such objection. then that paper might be read
and considered, with closed DOORS Against this
mode OF proceeding, the accused and his Counsel
strenuously demonstrated
The Court decided that the petition should be
read openly by the Judge Advocate, and his object
ions IT any, stated in open Court.
The petition was then read, praying that the Sc
cretary OF the Navy might be summoned: or, what
would be equally agreeable TO the accused, that the
questions which had been put to Mr. seaton yester-
day, and left unanswered might be transmitted to
the Secretary for his answer in writing. The petit
uon then sci forth the reasons why the evidence was
deemed material; and designated the points of the
defence TO which it was applicable. The Judge
Advocate objected, that the course hitherto pursued
had been to apply to him for summonses for the
witnesses, which he had never failed to grant when
asked; and that he was ready to issue one for the
Secretary of the Navy whenever required tina, no
commission could properly issue, but for the exami-
nation oil absent witnesses. The Court. being clear
ed, decided, that no order was necessary to be taken
on the petition; which was directed to be returned
TO the party.
A letter from ". ". .seaton TO the Judge Ad-
Vocate was read, stating, in substance that in decli
n n III Hpfa rfiotyt
was the authority of the Editors of The National
ntelligencer for statement published in that paper
OF the 9th OF May, he was not Influenced by be-
ilef that the gentleman concerned would feel him.
sell aggrieved by disclosure of his name but by q
regard to principle affecting his own conduct as
one OF the Editors OF public journal that il was
due TO the gentleman who communicated the state
ment questioned, 10 acquaint the Judge Advocate
with the fact that, having heard OF Mr. ,Spaton's
refusal to give up his name, he Immediately address
sed to Mr.. 5. note unequivocally desiring that he
shouG not be restrained by any consideration of de-
Ilcacy towards him from giving his name to the
Court, &C.; that this statement of TACT was due TO
That gentleman, although he (NIr. 81 did not, by
me permission thus given, feel himself absolved
from the obligation which regulated his answer Of
yesterday.
MIR. Harrison was examined by the Judge Al.
vocase about the method pursued in copying the
record OF The Court of Inquiry from the minutes.
july 28-The Court this day resumed the ex-
animation OF Mr.. G.. Harrison, the person employ.
ed 10 lranscrbe the minutes of the Court. a, taken
Gown by the Judge Advocate. for the Navy Depart
ment Il appeared that the first draft Of these min
ues had received many corrections, and the object
OF The examination seemed to be to ascertain
whether these had been made before or after the
transcription of the record by Commodore Porter,
WITH view to show whether any, and, if so, what
Ihe diurpa - Al
me Court and the account published in Commodore
fOrfeTs parnphlrt. were in any denree channaahle