American watchman and Delaware advertiser. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1822-1828, 1825-08-16


of The court which had directed the record 10 De
amended precisely as it stood in the printed copy
In numerous other instances II was eontenaeo 70 NC
clear from the force of documents, mat Inc olner
ences had been produced by changes IN the phrase
oopy of the original record, Without notice 10 Sou
Porter, after the copy, from which inc pamph.e'
was printed had been given out and IN other IN.
s,anres thai he was most professionally charged
with inc orrectpess for omissions cl certain parts Oh
the proceedings which he applied for and was re-
fused by the Judge Advocate; and Tor whlch omis-
sion he SO accounts on the face OF the pamphlet.
1t was further said that this charge was frivolous
in its terms, still more in the proof that II every
variance between the printed report shu 'ne
could Justly be charged as the mistakes OF the TOT
mer. ihey were wholly immateral, and 1t was too
favorable representation Of them to say they were
merely verbal; for they even descended INTO inc
minutin of punctuation and orthography, and even
Of emphasis, If such may be understood oy 'he 'erm
italicising. The only circumstances mat couau
have given any legal moral effect to this specih
ca,ion would have been to charge substantial errors
in the printed report materially varying the sense,
and 10 have charged them proceeding from cor
, lrupt or malicious motive.
), Specification 4lh. What is unwarranted by tact,
or what dsrespeclful to the Secretary OF Inc Navy
lin any Of the remarks statements, or insihuatohs
here complained Of has never, to this DAY, peen eN
planned that complaints are made 10 the Secretary
of the Navy of acts to which he was party or oil
, which he was the organ, is true; It IS equally 'tue'
that certain proceedings of the Cout OF Inquiry
are remarked upon, and freely criticised oui nterms
). wholly unexceptionabe. The defence men goes
d into comparison between The degree oil dlherence
r and resuect due from an officer TO Court OF IN
curry, when he conceves il 10 have acted errone-
d ously and unjuslly towards him; and what IS eS-
;. pected from military commander to legislative
n body aud a comparison is made between the IAN
# guage OF Com. Porter's pamphlet and Gen. JACK
sons memorial to the Senate, in which the motives
y and the reasonings OF Committee Of Inquiry were
very freely canvassed and censured Yet INC senate
after debate and full deliberations voted the memo
n rial unexceponable, and ordered it TO be printed
4 And Gen: Jackson lives in the hearts OF the na
,e ton an honored member OF the very Senate which
" had so magnanmousy brookcd the freedom OF hts
IS remonstrance and only second in the competitor
10 for the highest honors of the country The defence
" then went into particular justification OF the re
rs marks in Com. Porters pamphlet, on the proceed
ne ings Of the Court Of Inquiry.
al Specification 5th. This specification, both as sta
es ted in terms and made out in proof assumes ina
= Ii is military offence, punishable by Court Mar
er ,al for an officer to make public any communication
re whatever, no matter how innocent or indifferent
DIS withou, first obtaining leave Upon Wnat authoti',
no so strange position is assumed Is not explained
:, nor NAV il easily be coniecured. If secrecy be en-
H. Joined either expressly by the terms oil the commu
c, ncaon, or implicitly by its nature and the INJURY Z
as the public service, which disclosure might pro
in duce the publication Of it would be highly lmpro
err per and according to circumstances, might nsns
-e him the danger of the legal charge OF scahdaoH
r.. conduct. But as 10 Official communications IN gen
er cral, not impressed with this special character
,d secrecy, there is usually less decacy or reserv
re- concerning them, than is customary with the cor
;or responcnce Of private gentlemen because me lot
ch mer are in some sort public documents, and the sam
of motives of delicacy are not applicable TO them.
wv correspondence here charged as pubished withot
NJ leave, was thought necessary 10 the exposition
Of some part OF Com. fofsers cohaue' ueoie ."e pu
Of lie and, he contends there was no possible inlur
10 the service from its publication
INV The defence concludes with an analysis OF II
mr. bearing of Mr.. Monroes deposition; and OF II
i motives which, i, is presumed, might have promp
oav ed its production. 1t is supposed to have been II
roduced without any correction or relevancy to al
par charge or specification but merely TO exc out Il
coll defects Of The existing charges and evidence,
~ throwing the weight OF Mr.. Monroes character al
anv opinion against the accused and that, by ippif
If up some old causes OF dissatisfaction, supposed
Of have been long ago adjusted and forgotten, the bn
m. den OF explanation and defence as to points up
ina, which he is not accused is thrown upon him. Al
able defence theh pioeeeus " . ii''ha'e
NV documentary evidence demonstrate the unabat
or and efficient activity zeal and perseverance oil So
Porter in the discharge OF his arduous duties dur
we'd the whoie Peiioo' ana upon every pu."', VIZ
IS MT. Monroes ueposiuon was p,esu,'ea - 70 "a
Porters conduct. The short correspondence
wear tween Com. Porter and Mr.. Monroe in March la
ingS after the latter had retired from public liie is ne
SUP commented on. 1t is asked why was private &C
,ea respondence, merely concerning matters of person
=. ciyy from gentleman to another deposited
y be ,hsn.s WA crime or fault Of anv kind does
the 80, :, uas 80 ;n,sndsd IN in,;mate any 20
mpt ria;n, &c IL. nrrendar nf his rorrcsnondence
4:aall - 49, =