Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1825-08-11

tut, after ALL what IS there dis1especgufto any
BODY in these letters? They complain Of real or
is true, and when officers Of the Army or Navy
may not do that with impunity, they must be alb
iect indeed, if not debased The military articles
of war expressly authorize the appeal of the Sean
est soldier, and through all the gradations of mi
.litary rank, when lie thinks himself tcronged.-
Then any officer or soldier Of the army may COM
,lan of tcrong from his immediate superior, with
hut offence; and what shall restrain officer ofth
Navy from complaining and demonstrating against
alleged injustice? The question is not now triable
by this court. whether Iwere well grounded in my
complaint, but whether it were urged in indecent
Aor abusive language. The manner of Commodore
Porter's recall, and the circumstances that follow
ed il. were adverted to in detail, demonstrating
very sufficient cause of complaint.
SPECIFICATION 2p. II was asked what law,
or what usage prohibited public report of the pro-
ceedings Of any court, after the judicial function,
that subject had been executed, and the court dis
solved? The only possible mode in which an Of
fence be committed by the publication, in DETAIL
Of Judicial proceedings, is whilst they pending,
and may be prejudced by the publication; and in
that case the character and degree of the offence is
a contempt Of Court. punishable contempt by
the identical tribunal whose authority is insuted,
and punishable in no other way. The proceedings
of the court necessarily public, but il is al
low ed that the printing of detailed statements of
them, pending thetrial, is improper, because it ope-
rates practical mischief that identical proceed
ing. But when the trial is flushed. the mischief
ceases; and upon the dissolution of the court, the
only authorit- that could have taken cognzance of
the offence. lad ceased.
SPEcu CATION Sd. The argument upon
these spr fications turned so much upon minute
and critical examination of documents, and with
view to account for minute verbal differences be-
tween the printed proceedings given in Comm.
Porter's pamphlet, and the official record trans
mitted to the Navy Department, by the Judge Ad-
vocate, that it would be impossible to make any
intelligent statement Of the matter, without having
the documents themselves before The defence
in general insisted that the varances between the
printed report and the record were, with single
exception, merely verbal and frivolous f: and, in
the instance excepted, the printed copy jusi-
fed by an express order of the court, which had
directed the record to be amended precisely as it
stood in the printed copy. In numerous 9th r in
stances it was commended TO be clear, from the
force of documents, that the differences had been
produced DO changes in the phraseology of the ORR
Ginal record, without notice to Comm. Porter, at
ter the copy, from which the pamphlet was prin-
ted, had been given out 4: and in other instances,
that ne was most unreasonably charged with in
correctness, fer omissions ofcertan part ofthe pro-
ceedings, which he applied for and refused by
the Judge Advocate aud for which omission he
accounts on the face OF the pamphlet.
twas further said that this charge was frivolous
IN It's terms, still more In the proof that if
ny variance between the printed repor, and the
record, could be justly charged the mistakes oil
the former, they were wholly immaterial, and i,
was too favourable representation of them to say
they were merely verbal for they descend
cd into the mi,lutia of punctuation and orthogra-
ply, and'even OF emphasis, if such may be under
stood by the term itdtieising. The only circum-
stances that could have given any legal or moral
effect this specification, would have been to
charge substantial errors in the printed report, ma
terially varying the sense, and to have charged
them as proceeding from corrupt or maliciou.
motive.
SPECIFICATION 4rH. What is unwarranted
by fact, or what disrespectful to the Secretary oil
the Navy, in any of the remarks statements or in
situations here coD,Flein~d of, has never to this
day, been explained that complaints are made to
the Secretary OF the Navy, of acts to which he
,vss party or OF which he was the organ, is true
II is equally true, that certain proceedings of the
Court Of Inquiry remarked upon, and freely
criticised buU in terms wholly unexcep;ionable
The defence then goes into comparison between
the degree OF difference and respect due from an
officer to Court of Inquiry, when he conceiyes il
TO have acted enormously and unustly towards him
aud what is expected from military commander
toa legislative body and comparison is then
made between the language of Com. Porters PAM
phlet and Gen. Jackson's memorial to the Senate,
In which tie motives and the reasonings OF a CON-
miitee OF Inquiry were very freely canvassed and
censured Yet the Senate, after the debate and full
deliberaon, vo ed the memorial unexcep,ionable
and ordered it to be printed. And Gen. Jackson
lives in the hearts OF the nation honored men,
Der OF the very Senate which had so magnanimous-
Wy brooked the freedom of his remonstrance and
only second in the competition for tie highest hon.
ors OF the country. The defence then went into a
particular justification of the remarks in Com Por-
ter's pamphlet, the proceedings ofthe Court of In
qury.
SPECIFICATION 5.-This specification. both
as stated in terms and made out in proof, as-
snmes that is is military offence, punishable by a
Court Martisl for an officer to make public any
communication whatever, matter how innocent
or indifferent, without first obtaining leave Up
on what authority so strange position is assumed
is not explained, nor may ii easily be conjectured
II secrecy be enjoined either expressly by the terms
he communication, or implicitly by its nature
nd the injury TO the public SERVICE which dis
closure might produce, the publication of il would
be highly improper and, according to circumstan-
ces, might bring HIM the danger of the legal charge
OF scandalouS conduct But as to official com
rnunications in general, not impressed with this
special character OF secrecy, there is usually less
delicacy or reserve concerning them, than is Gus
tomary with the correspondence of private gentle
men because the former are in some sort public
documents, and the same motives Of delicacy are
not applicable to them. The correspondence here
charged as published, without leave, was thought
necessary to the exposition of some part of Com
Porter's conduct before the public and, he con-
tends, there was no possible injury TO the service
from its publication.
The defence concludes with an analysis of the
bearing OF Mr.. Monroe's deposition and Of the
motives which, il is presumed, might have prompt
ed it's production Il is supposed to have been in
troduced, without any correction relevancy to a.
ny charge OF specification but merely 10 exc out
fncA. III L. x..tIrc IL.