Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1826-10-11

How tar that circumstance VIII wal ont 'iis ~
lust and injurious inference, that they were go
verned by envy, and that the Court could mol
have believed what, upon their oaths, they have
asserted-thal he was guilty, because they IN
| ficted upon The accused so mild punishment.
las six months suspension let any appropriated
mind determine. 1t is in vain to attempt 10
reason with any man, who, from premises So
] slender, deduces conclusions SO umomentous.-
who will charge thirteen gentlemen, OF unim'
peached honor and character, with wliiui per-
| Jury, because they formed an opinion not com,
Gliding with that Of the Editor OF the Chrohicie.
| 1t may, however, fairly be doubted, whether
this Editor has ever read the proceedings OF tue
| Court, upon which he comments with so inu.n
severity and so little justice. we shoaia DC
clad to hear where he found the TACT, tna1 inc
Court Martial, which found Commodore Porter
guilty. "pretended to be offended with ommo-
dore Porter" because he would "not fawn upon
them like a supple Spaniel, and throw himself
mon their mercy" or, indeed, for any other
canse whatsoever This is MOI on the record
! and with all its recklessness has never even
been insinuated by the Champion We should
he happy to learn, also, what determination was
formed by the people on the observation-disclosures
Il was lust in the Court to refuse to hear the
defence when il was rendered According to
the record, no such question was ever present
ed to the people; for the Court never did refuse
to hear any defence which Commodore Porter
rendered. 1t would follow, of course, thatthe
people neyer could determine whether such con-
duct was just or unjust, nasmuch as the facts
upon which such question could arise, never
existed. The defence of Commodore Porter
was heard by the Court, during two entire days,
after having allowed the accused all the time
which he had intimRted would be required Tor
its preparation, and Nfter having subsequently
extended that time aths request.
The Editor Of the Chronicle dilates upon the
personal feeling Of Mr.. Southland towards Com
modore Porter. This old and worn out accu-
sation, if it merits such name, the Editor
would have found most peremptorily contra
dcted and disproved by the evidence laid be-
fore the Court Martial. Mr.. Monroe, in his
deposition, not merely positively denies the ex-
istence of any such feeling, but AYERS that, SO
far from having had reason to believe that the
Secretary acted under the influence OF any feel
ing of unkndness, he saw In his conduct proof
of different disposition. Mr.. Monroe avows
that the orders relating to the command OF
Commodore Porter, in the West Indies, from
the commencement to its termination, and par
ticularly those at which Com. Porter took UNI
Jraee. were given al his instance, and under his
immediate inspection. Does the Editor recol-
lect, or did he ever peruse the defence OF the
accused, in which he says "the truth is, that
all my complaints Of the manner OF my recall
were addressed TO the Secretary OF the Navy as
the regular organ through which commune
Gated with the Administration; and whatever
use made of the personal pronoun In descrlo-
ing the source Of the measures complained OIL
should have been understood as speaking OF
the Administration collectively" Ii this Ian
guage be not designed TO dsavow any belief OF
any personal or peculiar hostility on the part OF
the Secretary Of the Navy, il is difficult to de-
wise its meaning: and if such was the opinion OF
Commodore Porter himself, with what pre-
tence of proprietv or reason can his gratultous
advocates now insist upon matter so unfound-
ed in fact, and SO completely disproved by the
evidence.
Ii NAV not be superfluous on this occasion,
however, to go somewhat farther, and to assign
10 the editor Of the Chronicle one among other
reasons, why, on the part Of the Secretary OF
the Navy, no very cordial feelings should exist
towards Commodore Porter independently
of the offensive language in which the Comma
dore was in the habit ofindu|ging both publicly
and privately towards Mr.. Southland, and much
of which is so apparent in the documents exhlb.
tied before the Court Martial, has the editor OF
the Chronicle forgotten, or did he ever know,
that ii was in full proof before that Court, and
never denied by the Commodore himset-that
he directed the publication Of letter, charging
the Secretary with being The author OF COM
manication in this Journal, after he had been
assured not only that his suspicion was un.
founded, but he had been offered the name OF
the author, which he refused to hear Has the
Editor Of the Chronicle any comments to make
upon this fact, or is he disposed TO be so one
sided in his feelings and judgment, as to require
that Mr.. Southland should differ so widely from
all other men, as to profess feeling OF friend
ship towards one who had been acting towards
him in the manner which has been mentioned.
In conclusion, let the Editor Of the Chronicle
read the proceedings Of the Court OF Inquiry
and of the Court Martial, with an unprecedented
mind: let him reflect that the proceedings a.
gainst Commodore Porterreceived the sanction
and were in fact directed by two successive adj
mnistratons, that his conduct received the
censure of two Courts, consisting OF nineteen
captains in the Navy; who must have commit
ted the basest perjury if they declared Commo-
dore Porter guilty, while they believed him IN
-. 49, and his friends