Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1825-09-10

have been made from the Canton; but
the Court is decidedly of opinion, that
there was no improperly in the act,
that it was proper and correct, and that
the residue of the specification is not
proved. In relation to the eleventh
specification, the Court is of opinion,
that it is so far proved as it relates to
the employment of the carpenters
and other persons attached to the
Franklin, in the manner stated; but
it is also of. opinion, that such en-
ploymeut was, in all cases to which
the proof reaches, proper, conso-
nant to the practice Of tn service, and
in every view perfectly unobjectionable;
and that the residue of the specification
is not proved. The twelfth speci6ca-
ton is not proved. The thirteenth is
so far proved, IS that it is shown by
the testimony, that the said Eliphalet
Smith was, on n occasion, employed
as a matter of convenience to Captain
Stewart, and in aid Of the public in
t~erests, to carry a despatch, which had
no other than public objects, and that
this employment Of Capt. Smith was
designed for the public good, and had
not the remotest reference to, or effect
upon. any other interests, and that the
residue Of the specification is not pro.
we'd. The Court is also Of opinion, tina,
the l4th, 18th, and 10th specifications
are not proved. The 18th is so far
proved as it relates to the building OF
| three small schooners, with the aid Of
the carpenters, sc. of the Franklin, blu,
not out Of government property; that
this was in the ~judicious and faithful.
exercise of an unquestioned right, and
that the individuals thus employed
were thus employed by their own free
choice, for their own benefit, and com
pensated for their labor. 1t is also o
opinion that the 18th specification i!
proved; but the act therein alledged i.
ir conformity with the practice Of thu
service, in fulilment of one of the du
ties which public vessels owe to TIT
commercial interests of the nation, ant
essentially useful and necessary. II
the circumstances accompanying thi:
particular act, it was wholly unobjec
tionable, and not attended with an!
loss or injury to the public. The letf
specification is also proved in point o
fact; but this, likewise, is deemed b.
the Court one of those acts in which
the convenience and comfort OF thos
engaged in commerce may be essen
TALLY promoted, without the slightes
public injury; and that, in this instance
it was wholly unobjectionabIe AS re
CARDS the Goth, 2lst, 22d, and 23d spe
ci6cations, ii is the opinion ofthe Cour
that the said Weaver was absent from
the Franklin with a permission grant
ed on proper and sufficient grounds, til
the arrival of the Franklin at Callao, o
or about the lst of August, 1922: tina
subsequent to this period, he was ali
sent without leave: that the muster
rolls transmitted TO the Department
did not precisely accord with that O.
board the Franklin; but the variance
between them were wholly immaterial
such as could not have been designed
because not calculated to produce tn
smallest inconvenience or injury, an,
which the Court believes were purel
accidental: nor can the Court perceiv
any grounds upon which to attribut
this mistake, innocent ana unimpor
tant as it was, to any inadvertence o
the accused. 1t is also of opinion, tina
the muster,roll approved in November
1924, was approved in a regular mar
ner. and at a proper time; that the en-
try contained in it correspondent witt
the fact, and with the information pre-
viously communicated to the Depart
ment. The Court is likewise of opini
on, that the oath, 25th, 26th, 9th, 18th
and 29th, the only remaining speci6ca
tons Of the first charge, are not, nor is
either of them proved: and it does ad
Judge and declare that the said Charlie:
Stewards NOT GUILTY of the first charge
The Court is likewise of opinion
that the lst, Sd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and III
Specifications cfthe second charge, arr
not proved; and that the second speci
fcation is only so far proved as is SCI
forth in the opinion of the Court upon
the third specification Of the frs,
charge: and therefore does pronounce
and adjudge that the said Charles Stew
art is NOT GUILTY Of the second charge
The facts set forth in the first speci'
6eation of the third charge have alrea'
dy been passed upon by the Court in
its opinion upon the Goth specification
of the first charge; and reference is
therefore made to the finding OF the
Court ~thereupon. The second and
third specifications are not proved
The Court does therefore adjudge and
declare that the said Charles Stewart is
NOT GUILTY of the third charge.
In relation to the specification Of the
fourth charge, it is the opinion Of the
| Court that the same is not proved: and
! therefore the said Charles Stewart is