American watchman and Delaware advertiser. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1822-1828, 1825-08-16

necessity of having every charge OF military OIL
fence brouu bit within the terms OF some OF inc ar
tcles of war, by which all the offences, cognlzaoe
nv Court Martial are enumerated and dehned
and insisted that neither this charge nor any OF hs
specifications, come within the rule. II mao oeeh
commended by the Judge Advocate upon 'he au.no.
ty of some loose and vague phrases OF one au'hoi'
which had been construed in sense directly oppo-
sed to the most approved doctrine LAID down ~
himself and every other author who mao Healeu
Of military Jurisprudence, that Court Niar.a'' DC
sides its regular functions OF criminal luoieatore'
was court Of honor, with underlined ano oisc'euon
ary power to legislae on the character ana oenoni
inaton of military uansgressions' us ~os '"o"n
to be either total misapprehension oil the SENSE
of the author or in so far he pushed the urisoc
t;on of Courts Martial beyond the limits assignee 70
il by the argument Of Conn., P's counsel, It arose
from certain statutory provisions pecuhar W oi''n
Courts Martial and utterly nappltcaDle 10 OUT own
The defence contained some very curious osqusi-
tons upon the constitution OF Courts MARTIAL, .neir
forms OF proceeding, and the anaoe,es
and the civil courts But it would be dithcui 10
olive anv ineligible and satisfactory statement OF
these questions, in detail, withou. more critical
and difuse statement Of them than consists with the
plan of this report or the space OF time aho"eo lo
The preparation of it. We, therefore, pass on TO the
heads of the defence against the sPecihcauohs,
seriatim
4
upon its terms and phraseology. The "ansHoor.
ainate cbaracter charged upon the letters referred
to- was said TO be altogether uninteiilgibie; their
disrespectful Character TOO vague and uncertain
to produce any legal consequence. TOW, anu
wherein they we're dlsrespectiul, and even inc per
son to whom the disrespect was offered, was en III
utter obscurity. That disrespect, IN any form OF
Words written or oral, was not recognised as spe
cies Of offence in the nara as 1t was In the military
articles of war In the latter it Was defined and IL
ned by a specific enumeration oil the personages,
10 whom the offence might be offered; and from
that enumeration the Secretary oil var was eHc'uo-
ed: and there could be no possible reason why inc
feelings Of the one Secretary should be heiu any
more sacred and inyolae than the other; sun less
THAT the naval articles should have incorporated 10
them new and fancilul species OF offence, merely
Tor the sake of placing the one OF these Officers
upop footing OF pre- -eminence over the other ! ne
i naval articles it was said, punished contempt 10
superior officer, while IN the exercise OF the duties
il oil his Office no species of disrespect short OF con-
tempt so manifested, could be punishable under
il these articles Contempt implied something more
than mere words--it implied either acts or WORDS
attended by the practical consequence OF impeuinG
e or insulting superior officer in the very act OF dis
r. char cling his duty il stood next IN degree TO mut
, nous words. What should constitute disrespec
Id either in verbal written communication "a
;, altogether arbitrary: depending upon etiquette, II
e. many instances; and upon certain minute opser
vsnces wholly beneath the gravity OF judicial no!lce
g W hat might be entirely uneXcep'ionaole on one DC
n cason might be highly disrespecttnl on another
at Besides the Secretary Of the Navy, if he De intend
ne ed as the person to whom these letters were dsre
It. specfui does not stand in the relation OF Superio
he oficqr, contemplated by naval articles OF war @hc
nd evidently refer to the gradations and relations
err mere military rank. The Secretary OF the Nav
" is exclusively cirit officer without military RANK
r..t % thanz he
en- communication between the Executive aua the VI
d. fcers OF the Navy
u But, after ALL what is there disrespectfat to an
use body IN these letters? They complain OF real {
iiy supposed grievances They freely demonstrate,
n is true and when officers of the Army OF Navy ma
1ot not do that witt, mpunity, they must be abIec II
III, deed il not debased The military articles Of WI
is expressly authorize The appeal of the meanest SO
tic der. and so through all the gradations OF mai
he rank, when he thinks himself i0ron9ed. Then ar
~ officer or soldier OF the army may complain
he mrong from his immedla superior, without o
MS fence and what shall restrain an ofhccr OF II
ion Navy from complaining and demonstrating again
mi alleged injustice! The question is not now triab
ath BY this court. whether were well grounded IN n
ow complaint, but whether it were urged in indecent
full abusive language. The manner of Commodo
&c Porters recall, and the circumstances that follow
Of IT, adverted to- in detail, as demonstrating
is very sufficient cause OF compliant
Specification I'd. 1t was asked what law or WI
dis usage prohibited public report OF the proceedin
ort of any court after the judicial function or that ST
in iect had been executed, and the court dissolve
I'm The only possible mode in which an offence can
and committed by the publication in detail, OF Jude
ex proceedings, IS whilst they are pendng, and may
ton prejudiced by the publication; and IN that case
to character and degree of the offence is consem
sup OF Court, punishable as contempt ny the oenti
ties tribunal whose authority is nsued, and punisha
ace, in no other way. The proceedings Of Inc co
nate were necessarily public, but it is allowed that