The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1825-09-15

10 MORROW morning.
Al u General Court Martial, convened al
The Llfy Of Washington, ON the IL h day
pf August, IN the year of our Lord "nt
Thousand rishi hundred aud twenty Eve
by virtue Of prercpt, FROM the honorable
the Secretary af the Navy, hearing date the
i7th day Of August, instant.
PRESENT:
Captain JAMES BARRON, President,
Na. ". CRANF,
RoBERT T.. SPENCE,
! Jous ID. HENLEY,
JEssE ID. ELLIOTT,
STErHEN CAssIN,
JANIS RKNsHAw,
THoNAs BRoWs.
CnARLEs G.. Il. THoMPseN
ALtxAN. S. WADswoRTH,
GGonGE w. Rooms, aud
Go. &. READ, Members
and RrcuABp ,. CoxE, Judge Advocate.
This Court having fully and maturely
! investigated the matters submitted 10 1t m
! the case Of Captain Chules Stemart, and
considered The Charges and Specifications
/ the evidence and the drfrpre of The accu-
sed proceeded this thlrd day Of SePtem-
/ bcr, in the year aforesaid, ta which Time The
court had heen adjourned from day TO day
10 determine upon the same. Aud after
such deiibcrallen, il is ot opinion. that the
first and sreond Specifications Of the first
Charge are not proved that the third Sp"-
cifcation Is 81 far proved, ~ 1t alt ges, that
/ the said Captain Stewart did prevent the
/ Captain of the Peruvian brig Belgrade,
from taking aud sending III for adindlcati-
on the American ship the Canton, then en-
Il. -. ii.
the said Charles Stewart was acting IN
strict obedience to his duty, as Indicated
both 10 his Instructions and by the laws OF
nations aud that his conduct ON this occa-
sion was hi hly meritorlous and praiSe-wor-
thy. The Court ia also of opinion, thrt
the residue of the Specification is not pro-
we'd. The Court i also Of opinion, tina, the
fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and
ninth specifications are not proved. 1t IS
of opinion that the teuth specification is so
/ far proved as II alleges the purchase OF the
! articles therein mention to have been made
! from the Canton but the Court is decl-
dcdly of opinion, that there WAS no impro-
prirty in Tire act that 1t was proper and
correct, aud that the residue of the speci-
/ fca,ion Is not proved. In relation 10 the
eleventh specification, the Court is of o.
| IilllUJ iidl II - oD ldl IlI'N'h u u "
/ laies to the employment of the Carpenters
aud other persons attached to the Frauk-
. liu. in the manner stated bat il is also Of
opinion, that such employ ment was, in all
cases to which TIA" proof reaches, proper.
Cousonaut In tie practice of the service,
aud in every view perfectly unobjecllona.
/ bic aud that the resIdde of the spcciicat-
on is not proved The twelfth speclhrat
4 . = TrLn tbirI,nt,it, - e.
proved. AZ thai il is shown by the tcsllmo-
ny, that the said ElIphaIet Smith WAS on
one occasion employed az n matter of cou-
vcnirnce II Captain Stewart, and IN aid of
the public inNrcsts, TO carry a despatch,
which had ~ other than public objects,
and that this employment of Captain Smith
was designed for the public good, aud had
not the emotcst reference to, or ELECT up
ON, any other interests, aud that the resi-
due of the specification is not proved. The
Court IS also of opinion, that the i4lh, 5th
and 18th specifications are not proved. The
| 18th is 80 far proved rs it relates 10 Tia"
building ofthree small schooners with the
aid uf the carpenters. &c. of the Frankln,
| but not out of Government property that
! this was IN thf ludiciOus and faithful eXer-
else of an unquestioned right, ard that
the midi, iduals thus employed, were thus
employed by their own free choice, for
their own benefit, aud compensated for
their labor. it is also Of opinion, that the
! 18th specification is proved but the act
! therein alleged Is in conformity with the
practice OF the service. ~ tulilmeni Of one
of the duties which public vessels owe to
| the commercial interests OF the patton, and
essentially useful and necessary. In the cir
cumstances accompanying this particular
act, il was wholly unObl rcti pnable, and not
attended With any loss OF injury 10 the pub
! tie. The 10Th specification Is also proved
! in point of fact e; bat this ,h<eMi se, is deem
! ed bv the Court one of those acts ia which
! the convenience aud comfort of those en-
gagged in commerce may he essentially pro-
noted without the slightest public injury {;
! aud that in this instance 1t was wholly un-
/ objectionable. As regards The Goth, 2tst,
Q I'd, and Esd specifications, II Is the opiui-
/ on Of the Court that the SAID Weaver WAS
absent from the Franklin with a permission
/ granted ON proper aui sufficient grounds,
/ Till the arrival of the Franklin At Cailao, on
or about the FIRST Of August. 1922 that
subsequent 10 this period, he WAS absent
without leave: that the mu,ter-l oils trans
mitted To the Department did not precise
/ ~ accord With that on board the Franklin !;
bat the yarlanccs between them were Who'll
~ immaterial ; such as could not have
been designed, because not calculated TO
produce the smallest Inconvenience or in
, Jury, and which the Court believes were
| purely accidental nor can the Court per-
crivc any grounds upon which 1" attribute
this mistake. innocent aud uninportant as
! it was, To any inadycrtcnce of the accused.
! 1t is also of opinion, that the mnster-rnl
! approved in November, 1894, was APPROX
ed in regular manner, s, at II proper time;
that the entry contained in it corrcspondrd
with the fact, and with the Information
previously communicated To- the Depart
! ...---.I =. L