Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1825-08-11


absence Of any military virtue, or the
presence Of any military vice or trans
gression, of any sort or degree, in an
individual. If the gloss put upon it by
the Judge Advocate, that this com
pounded adjective, applied to the con-
duct Of an officer, expressed, by way OF
periphrasis, the simple idea of insub-
ordination; still the only Ineligible
meaning that could be affixed to insub-
ordination, as indicating any specific
act Of misconduct in an officer, was
diso5edience oforders, by which process
the I'd charge was reduced to the iden'
teal terms Of the first. Then which
of the FIVE specifications, it was asked,
bear any relation to such charge? 1t
was further asked, after the periphrasis
of "insubcrdinate conduct" has been
reduced to characterization, how may
that quality, in any sense Of the term,
be predicated of letters? The argument
then proceeded upon the necessity Of
having every charge Of military Of
fence brought within the terms ofsome
of the articles of war, by which all the
offences, cognizable by Court Martial
are enumerated s. defined; and insisted
that neither this charge nor any of its
specifications, come within the rule
1t had been contended by the Judge
Advocate, upon the authority Of some
loose and vague phrases Of one author,
which had been construed in sense
directly opposed to the most approved
doctrine laid down by himself, and ev-
cry other author who had treated OF
military Jurisprudence, that a Court
Martial, besides its regular functions
of criminal judicature, was court Of
honor, with underlined and discretiona-
ry power to legislate on the character
and denomination of military trans
gressions. This was shown to be Ell
Their a total misapprehension of the
sense of the author, or, in so far as he
pushed the jurisdiction Of Courts Mar
tial beyond the limits assigned to it by
the argument of Com. Porter's coun-
sci, it arose from certain statutory pro-
visions peculiar to British Courts Mar
tial, and utterly inapplicable to our
own. TIE defence contained some We
ry curious disquisitions upon the con-
stitution of Courts Martial, their forms
of proceeding, and the analosies be-
tween them and the civil courts. But
itwould be difficult TO give any intelli-
gibIe and satisfactory statement Of
these questions, in detail, without a
more critical and diffuse statement of
them than consists with the plan of this
report, or the space Of time allowed for
the preparation of it. We, therefore,
pass on to the heads of the defence a.
gains, the specifications, seriatim.
SPECIFICATION LIST, Various ssric-
lures were made upon its terms and
phraseology. The "insubordinate char
acter" charged upon the letters referred
to, was said to be altogether unintelli-
gible; their "disrespectM character"
too vague and uncertain to produce any
legal consequence. How, and wherein
they were disrespectful, and even the
person to whom the disrespect was Of
fered, was left in utter obscurity. That
disrespect, in any form of words, written
or oral, was not recognised as species
of offence in the naval as it was in the
military articles of war In the latter
it was defined and limited by aspecifc
enumeration ofthe personages, TO whom
the offence might be offered; and from
that enumeration the secretary of War
was excluded: and there could be no
possible reason why the feelings Of the
one Secretary should be held any more
sacred and inviolate than the other:
still less that the naval articles should
have interpolated in them new and
fanciful species of offence, merely for
the sake Of placing the one of these Of
fcers upon footing Of pre-eminence
ever the other. The naval articles, it
was said, punished contempt TO supe-
rior officer, while in the exercise of the
duties of his Office; no species Of disre.
spect short of contempt, so manifested,
could be punishable under these arti-
cles. Contempt implied something
more than mere words-it implied
either acts or words attended by the
practical consequence Of impeding or
insulting a superior officer in the very
act Of discharging his duty: it stood
next in degree to mutinous Words
What should constitute disrespect eth.
er in verbal or written communica-
ton, was altogether arbitrary; depend
ing upon etiquette, in many instances;
and upon certain minute observances,
wholly beneath the gravity of judicial
notice. What might be entirely unex-
ceptionable on one occasion; might be
highly disrespectful on another. Be-
sides, the Secretary of the Navy, if he
be intended as the person to whom
these letters were disrespectful, does
not stand in the relation of superior Of
fcer, contemplated by naval articles of
war: which evidently refer to the gra-
dations and relations of mere military
rank. The Secretary Of the Navy is
exclusively cirH officer without mill