American watchman and Delaware advertiser. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1822-1828, 1825-08-12
and Friday, by ALBERT s. Henry Wilson,
WILMINGTON, Del. FRIDAY, AUGUST IL, 1925

ders OF commanding officer, when preparing for,
| or joining I'M or actually engaged in battle But
the 4th article conceived in terms somewhat more
comprehensive, enacts that no officer or pr, ate
shall disobey the lawful orders of his superior officer
or strake him, Sc. while in the erecntion of the
aataes OF his office" The punishment of the Of.
fence in either of its modes degrees, is death
or such other punishment as court martial shall in
fct" Then, ifby the "disobedence Of orders'' here
charged, be intended any offence known 10 the ma
val articles of war, and punishable under them, it
implies that / had received, from some superior Of
hcer, in actual command, either while engaged or
about to be engaged in battle, otherwise " in the
execution of the duties of his Office some order
which had disobeyed: and so, had brought myself
in the danger OF capital offence as every military
offence is denomnsted, which is punishable. either
with death or casherng though be left to the dis
Grafton of court martial to infct any less puaish
ment. When this general charge comes to be de-
duced into particulars, in the form Of specifications
no orders, either commanding forbdding me 10
do any act whatever, set forth, either in terms
or in substance. No commanding or superior Off
Ger, from whom they supposed to have issued is
named or described. The specification simply sets
out the naked and insulated fact Of certain inyasion
by force OF arms upon the territorial sovereignty of
Spain, accompanied by 'dtrers acts of hostility
against the subjects and the property of tina,
power;" and instead of any averment that, IN
SO doing, the orders OF my commanding, or
superior officer were dsobeyed, the conclusion
Of the specification branches out into con
travention OF the constitution Of the United States
and of the lac Of nations, and violation Of instruc
tions from the government Of the u. States Now,
whether any =" contrncention Of the constitution or
OF the tnT Of nntions.' not involved in disobc-
dience of military ORDERS be an offence cognizabe.
under this charge, by court martial whether
general Instructions from the government, be tlen-
cal with the orders Of commanding or superior
officer, and uioation of such Instructions equiva
lent to disturbance of such orders are questions
OF grave import; and will doubtless in their due or
der, receive the deliberate consideration Of the court
AT present., however, we are endeavoring to ascer
tain the essential character and terms OF the offence
actually intended to be chareed its legal attributes
| and consequences may be separately considered
As to the second member of the general charge,
"Conduct unbecoming an officer ;'-whether it be
intended to describe mere incident TO every act OF
military dsobedience; to impnte some graut-
GUS and superadded circumstance Of aggravaon, in
the mode and degree of it, in this particular instance,
and to infame the guilt of simple dsohedence, by
any wanton abuse in the manner and circumstances
attending the commission of the act, as in the " d.
vers acts OF hostility said to have been committed
"against the subjects and property of the King of
Spain - questions left in the characteristic OBJ
security and uncertainty which have yelled the head
and front of my offending" from any distinct thew
OF it, that might have enabled me to perceive, or to
divine its extent.
shall hold myself however, completely dispen-
sed from any obligation or necessity to pursue fur
Their the labyrinths into which this indefinite mem
Der Of the charge Nigh, lead Us: Since, think, if
any proposition be made clear, by human evil
dence it would be impossible for the most vndicive
accuser, to find any pretext in the facts Of this case,
for pushing the charge beyond simple departure
| lie n 0F he IF
ton supposed to have been prescribed to me- whe-
Their it be the Constitution of the United States or
the law OF nations. or my instructions, that estab
fishes the law or rule which am supposed to have
contravened" or violated'' If have offended
at all, it is in the single rapsgresson OF that law Or
rule 6 the head and front of my offending hath that
extent, more" l shall therefore leave it to the
court, without further remark k, to decide, from the
evidence whether 1t were possible to have conduct
ed military operation, neutral territory, with
more scrupulous regard to all the rights of person
and property, which such an operation could in the
nature OF things have left invoate. If the ACT were
unlawful in itself, must abide the consequence but
| it lies not, | Think within the compass of human
ingenuity or malice. to contend, that the act, be-
ing either lawful in ITSELF was stripped of its Iegal
sanctions, and had its quality of lawful changed to
unlawful; OF, as sheer trespass, that it in
famed beyond its intrinsic character and degree, by
any wanton aggravations abuses in the manner
and circumstances.
| The question, then, is presented in the simple
form Whether the act complained Of were under
the circumstances and inducements that led to it, an
infracton, either OF the Constitution OF the United
States, the La,c Of Nations, or Of my iDstruc-
tons from the Government of the United States
| and, in that order, proceed to consider it.
| Whether belligerant operation in the course Of
an authorized war, be constitutional not, is
question which if have any signi6cancy, or be ca
pable of any determina.e solution, may be consider
ed as nearly identical with the other question sug-
gested by this charge; namely whether it be censo
nant to the Law of Nations: supoosing the law here