Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1825-10-01

seventh, eigth and ninth specifications,
are not proved. Its of opinion that the
tenth specification is SO far proved as ~
alleges the purchase ofthe articles there
in mentioned to have been made IRON me
Canton; but the Court is decidedly OF
opinion, that there was no lmpropriesy
10 the act, that II was proper and correct,
and that The residue OF the specialization
is not proved. In relation to the ele-
venth specification, the Court IS oil OPT
Mon thai it is so far proved as it relates
TO the employment Of the Carpenters
and other persons attached TO the rank
lin, in the manner stated; but 1t IS also
of opinion, that such employment was,
in all cases to which the proof reaches,
proper, consonant TO the practice oil the
service, and in every view perfectly oo-
iectionable and tina, the residue OF the
specification is not proved. The twelfth
specification is not proved. The thr.
teenth is so far proved, as that it is shown
by the testimony, that the SAID Ehphaiet
Smith was on one occasion employed, as
matter of convenience TO Captain Stew
art, and in aid OF the public interests, TO
carry despatch, which had no other than
public objects, and hat this employment
of Captain Smith was designed tor the
public good, and had no, the remolest
reference TO, or effect upon any other
interests, and that The residue OF The spe-
clfication is not proved. The Court IS
also of opinion, that the i4ih, l5th and
10th specifications are not proved. The
| 18th is SO far proved as ii relates to the
building of three small schooners With
the aid OF the Carpenters, &c. OF the
| Franklin, but not out os government
properly that this was in the Jadlcious
and faithful exercise OF an unqueanensa
right, and that the individuals thus en-
ployed, were thus employed by Their
own free choice, for their own benchl
aud compensated Tor their labor. Ii Is
also Of opinion that the l8th specification
is proved; but the act therein alleged
is in conformity with the practice OF he
service, IN iuiti iment OF one OF the duties
which public vessels owe 10 the CONNER.
cisI interests of the nation, and essential
Iy useful and necessary. IL the eircam-
stances accompany ing this particular ac',
it was wholly unohJec'ionabIe, and moi
attended with any loss or injury TO The
public. The 10Th specification is Also
| proved in point Of fact; but this, like
wses is deemed by the Court one OF
hose facts in which the convenience ana
comfort Of those engaged in commerce
may be essentially promoted, without
the slightest public INJURY; and that IL
this ms ance it was wholly unob,ectiona-
| ole. AS regards the goth, 2lst, 22d,
and 23d specifications, it is the opinion
| of the Court tina, the said Weaver was
absent from the Franklin with permits
sion granted on proper and sufficient
grounds, till the arrival OF the Franklin
al Callos, on OF about the lst of Angus,
1929; that subsequent to this period, he
was absent without leave: that the mus
ter-rolls transmitted to the Department
did not precisely accord with that Oh
board the Franklin; but the varianees
between them were wholly inmaterial /;
| such as could not have been designed,
because not calculated TO produce the
smallest Inconvenience or injury, and
which the Court believes were purely ac-
cidental nor can the Court perceivs
any grounds upon which to attribute this
| mistake, innocent and unlmporian, as ii
was, to any inadverlsnce OF the accused.
1t is also of opinion, that the muster-roil
/ 10 kar
proved in regular manner, and a, a
proper time that the entry contained IL
it correspondent with the fact, and with
| the Information previously communicated
| to the DepartsA-n.. Too Eua..i i. ''src-
wise OF opinion, that the 9th, 25tb, 26ih,
eth, 2Sth, and 29th, the only rem aiming
specific of the First charge, are not,
nor is either Of them proved: aud ii does
sdjudge and declare that the said Charles
Stewart is NOT guilty OF the frs, charge.
The Court is likewise Of opinion that
the list, Sd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 7lh speci
ications of the second charge are not
proved and taat the second speciiica-
ton is only SO far proved, as is set forth
in the opinion Of the Court upon the third
specification of the first charge: and
therefore does pronounce and adjudge
that the said Charles Stewart is NOT
guilty of the second charge.
The facts set forth in the FIRST speci.
cation Of the third charge have already
been passed upon by the Court in its
opinion upon the goth specification of
the first charge; and reference is there
fore made to the finding of the Courts
,hereupon. The second and third spe