The central gazette. [volume] (Charlottesville, Va.) 1820-1827, 1825-08-27

COMMODORE poRTER,s CASE

= summary statement tthc only one which it was
I3Sn lAl6nPower to obtain) OF the sentence of the
CoqS in the case OF Commodore PoarrR.
YeWX pie u give the finding of the Court in
us ownN6S, on the several charges andSpcy
lions onNwhieh the ACCUSED tried. Tb< 81
charge was as iollovss "a
CHARcE ist Disobedience.or orders and conlucl a
u"becoming oiIcer. IN
SfEciFIcArioN.--That H.. said David Po,tes.
being IN command o: the Naval forces OF the VI s
States. III the West India Seas Gulf of Mexico SS&
did..on or about the, 18th OF November, I82i Jk
part oil sal NAVAL forces. land island OF Yb
is,co IN thcdominons OF his Catholic Majesty the
NinS OF SPAN, then and stu in amity and peace
WIN inc omted States, in orcbc and o,ic man
"er, ana IN military array, ami did then aud there
commit oiye's acts OF hostility against the sahests'
a",i property Of the said King OF Spain ~ c6tsEH
,yention OF the Constitution OF the United States
a"a OF The laws o. nations anu in violation Of the in.
t'"c''ons hom the government OF the United States
20 "in the SAID David Porter.
CHARGE 2ND.
'nsuoordinste eonduct, and conduct unbccominr
an officer. .
otEcificArtoN ist.--For that he, the said Da.
~ foi,cr DID wtite ami transmit to the Presidcn,
o the United States, letter OF an insuborinatc and
is'eSpecun' character, to wit, the seventeenth
day o! April. in the year OF our Lord one Thousand
rShC h"ndred ana twenty five; and oil also write
ana transmit to the Secretary Of the Navy at sundry
times herein ater particularly mentioned, various
letters oil an ms subordinate and dsrcsp ctu charac.
'er wv ON Tie thirieth dav of January the six.
tecnth day OF Mirci,, the thirteenth day of Anil
the iou tccnth day oil June all in the wear of our
LORD one thousand eight hundred AMI twenty five
thereby vidiatn the respect due tru IN every Officer
IN thc Navy to the Head OF Departments impai inc
the discipline o. the service, ana setting most dan,
serous and pcrni'ious example
Specifications 2ud.-- For that he the said D.,
'id Potter after Court of Enquiry had been con
Nened and directed TO investigate, and make repo,t
oil the lacts IN relation TO the embraced in
the specification OF the first charge aud after such
court had terminated its cnqui'ics had transmit,
tel its report to the Secretary OF the NAVY and b,
tore The Executive had published or authorised the
puntht'on oil the proceedings Of the said Court did
pulIsh or cause TO be Published Il pamphlet mr..
porting TO contain the proceedings of the said Court
OF Enquiry.
SPEcIricATIoN 3d.-For that he the said David
Porter, in the publication made As mentioned in the
last preceding specification, did give an incorrect
sta: ement oil the proceedings the said Court of
Enquiry.
Srsc'FcAr'oN !th For that he the said Da
vid Porter did. in the publication referred TO in the
SAID two last specifications, yatous remarks
statements and insinuations, not warranted bv the
,Se's, highly dsrespec.iult TO the Secretary Of the
navy, and TO the said Court Of Enquiry
SPECIFICATION 5th.-.For that he the said D,
wa iorter DID, in the same publication referred to
IN the said last preccGiu. specifications without ony
authority, or permission for that purpose max nuh
'ic, ohciai communications TO the government and
oiiiciai correspondence with the government. and
las on oihcr occasions between the first OF October
ih the year OF our I.od thousand cia hi hundre5
and twenty four, and tho fifteenth Gay of June in
ne year OF our Lord, one thousan eight hund, ed
md twenty five, without any authority or ne,,n;s
ION therefor made public, orders and instructions
t' ON i!Ic government, and official CORRESPONDENCE
with The government. L..
On the 10th inst the Court Martial met proceed
cd 10 deliberate "pon the charges specii atoms the
eyirnce That had been submit ed and ,yb At !, bo
alleged in behalf of tho acvuse5 and, after h,yin,
carefully and maurey wei he'd and del ibcra,ca unon
the matter the court is OF opinion that the specii
cation OF the first charge is fully proved and does
aiiudsc The accused guity of the first charge
The court is also OF opinion that the first specifi
eaton OF Toe second charge il proved in part. That
Is in'y proved SO far as regards the letter to the
PRESIDENT, OF the 18th of APRIL 1925 and the letters
20 The Secretary o! the Navy oil the Seth da nj Ia,
nary, the 18th day Of April. and the llth dnv If
JUNG, 1923, each OF which the Cont conceive to he
OF The character attributed TO tn in the said speci
tication; bnt 1T does consider the letter ~ ,b
10th day OF March. liable TO the same censnre
and therefore, so FAR as regards this last mcnionc6
me Co"', IS OF oI"on that this specification
Is not proved The court is also of opinion that the
second, third fourth and fifth specifications of tho
second charge are fully proved The Count of ~
pnion that the second charge is fully proved and
does, accordingly, a"Jndge the aScuscd guy Of the
~
In deciding upon the FIRST charge, and The specifi
cation under it, the Court however feels itself call
ed upon TO ascIibe the conduc OF the which
IS deemed ccnsurabIc to an anxious dispo,;,ion ~,
his part TO maintain the honor, and advance the in
tercsts OF the nation, and OF the service.
The Court also thinks proper to stale that in do
Gliding t'att'e third specification proved il is of
the opinion that far respects the inaccnrac;ss
pointed out by the Judge Advocate in the poper an
neNed to tho record, and mark ci No 49, this soeci
hcation is fully proved; but the Court sees no rca
son to believe that the errors andina there
IN Indicated, were the result o. design or of improper
motive That with the exception Of such errors as
have been particularly noted. the publication by the
accused, OF the ceilings of the Court of Enouiry
appears to DC correct transcript of the record
In forming its opinion upon the fourth specified
Ion the Court is satisfied that the same is fully PRO
we'd in the following particulars:
IN the Advertisement 60 Is v the conduct oF Tho
Court to which the subject rcferRed for invcst
CATION, ] was driven from its presence and prevent
cd from making the explanations on which found
cd my justification.
In the rcmarsS p. 81: 70 could not consent to
defend myself before the Court against any charge
whatever, until its legality had been decided bv com
potent authority: TN il could appear before il on
terms OF perfect equality with my accusers until
could be allowed to protect mysel in the wav which
might appear to me most proper without submit.
ting my defence to the inspection Of the Judge Adj
vocate, who had noIight to decide in NV case or
10 the control o! the Court, who would thereby
have exercised power not founded on law or Justice
and without the risk OF undeservcd reproor''
In p. %: &c But it was the duty Of The Court To
decide whether it was was not competent the de
cison as to its belief the subject on oa was all
That was required by me, and the question couId
have hecn decided by the Court as readily and AZ
wen before II after the iDSfyuct;o1, IS d. =