Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1825-07-30
Wednesdav, Mly 81.

UedneSddy, JHy II.
Com. Porter offered to the Court a
petition in writing, stated to be on the
subject of calling upon the Secretary
Of the Navy to answer the same ques-
ton which Mr.. Seaton bad declined
answering yesterday.
twas suggested (but whether origi-
nally by the Judge Advocate or the
President Of the Court was not distinct
ly understood) that the paper should
first be submitted to the Judge Advo-
cate that he might see whether he had
objection to it: and if he had any such
objection, then that the paper might
be read and considered, with closed
doors. Against this mode ofprocecd-
ing, the accused and his counsel SIRE
nuously demonstrated.
The Cou.t decided that the petition
should be read openly by the Judge
Advocate, and his objections, if any,
stated in open Court.
The petition was then read, praying
that the Secretary Of the Navy might
be summoned: or, what would be e.
qually agreeable to the accused, that
the questions which had been put to
Mr.. SEAToN yesterday, and left unan-
swered, might be transmitted to the
Secretary for his answer in writing
The petition then set forth the reasons
why the evidence was deemed mate
rial; 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; that no
commission could properly issue, but
for the examination Of absent witness
es. The court, being cleared, decided,
that no order was necessary to be taken
on the petition; which was directed to
be returned to the party.
A letter from w. w. SEAToN to the
Judge Advocate was read, stating, in
substance, that in declining yesterday
to give the name Of the person who
was the authority of the Editors of the
National Intelligencer for statement
published in that paper of the 5th of
May, he was not influenced by belief
that the gentleman concerned would
feel himself aggrieved by disclosure
of his name, but by a regard to prin-
ciple affecting his own conduct as one
of the Editors Of public journal i;
that ii was due to the gentleman who
communicated the statement question
ed, to acquaint the Judge Advocate
with the fact, that, having heard of
Mr.. SEAToN's refusal to give up his
name, he Immediately addressed to Mr..
S. a note unequivocally desiring that
he should not be restrained by any con-
sideration of delicacy towards him
from giving his name to the Court, &c.;
that this statement of fact was due to
that gentleman, although he (Mr. S.
did not, by the permission thus given,
feel himself absolved from the obliga-
lion which regulated his answer Of
yesterday.
Mr.. HARRISON was examined by the
Judge Advocate about the method
pursued in copying the record Of the
Court of Inquiry from the minutes.
National Lntelhgencer.
Nineteenth Day Thursday, July %.
The Court met at 10 o'clock.
The examination Of Mr.. Harrison,
who had been employed by the Judge
Advocate to copy the record of the pro-
ceedings of the Court Of Inquiry, from
his original minutes, was continued
the witness being cross-examined by
the counsel for the accused. The OBJ
ieet of this cross-examination was to
discover by whom certain interlinea-