The Charlotte journal. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1835-1851, 1840-09-10

Is The reply Of the President Why, that
he could see nothing in the case TO authorize
his interference! Do mol all men perceive
that our "Norlhern President with South
ern feelings in using these words, iacl''y
approves the use OF negro evidence against
white men1 Even il he thought 1t. Hooe
to have been properly dismissed, he m'gM
have nieriered 10 exclude negro evidence
IN future. lie might have brought the facts
before Congress, and suggested the proPrle'
| " of legislation upon the subject. lie
might have awarded new trial, and direct
ed the exclusion OF testimony which had 20
statutory or even Common Law sanction
for GO wears in which we have had Navy,
are insufficient to establish Common Law.
The President did noue OF these things, ans
by expressly declining to interfere, as ex'
pressly recognised the proprieiy OF negroes
witnessing against white men.
Here then was the grossest instance OF in.
consistency between Mr.. Van Buren's pro
fessions and acts. Here was distinct be-
travail Of his la,en. principles and secret
feelings. Here was an angarded but decs
i've proof, that he has no sympathy with the
South--thai his professions we're made TO
gull, and TO obtain Southern r0ies-that IN
his heart, Mr.. Van Buren, is now what Mr..
Van Buren, was, when he voted 10 give free
negroes suffrage, and when shoulder 10
shoulder with RUFUS King and the Northern
Federalsts, he promoted the Missouri re
stric,ions, and tried TO coop up the slave
holding population OF the Union between
the Potomac aud the Northern liml; Of
Florida--that in truth, his leaninSs are to
wards Abolition. Deny the inference whc
can. Tho conclusion is lmpTegnably toril
fed by train Of circumstances which nc
dust can conceal and no ingenuity conlute
Words, professions, assertions, are 40 proof
Whenever he has been brought 10 the ties,
of deeds, either IN the New York CUnyen
ton, or in the New lolk Legislature, OF
the Presidency, We liut him ever iucllnIng
TO place the negro aud the white nan or a
footing OF equality.
That the South has found itself dupef
and humbugged into believing the election
> eering profession tina, Mr. Van Buren, wa.
" Northern mau with Southern feelings,
has exaspera,ed the natural indignation
caused BY the PtesldeUt's conduct IN The
= case OF IL. Hooe. That conduct is con
trasted with Con. Jacksons IN the case 0
: the West Point Cadet & p.,StSs by ne
gro evidence. The mofIeni Judsh BIbt
> 80 ,kotE e. ~, , M
Jackson stopped blm and told him he f'eeC
say no morc--,hat he never would cooseu
tina, a oegro should give evidence nRalns
white man, and that the Cadet should b
reinstaied
WAsHNGrox, August, 1910.
ASH have received your letter. asking me
FOX yourself snd in behalf Of the citizens Of Mar
tia county North Carolina, 10 give YOU state
ment Of the case Of Lieutenant. Hooe Of tho Navy
with my views upon the sub rect request wiil
which do not hesitate to comply.
1" II appears from the official report Of the Gus,
made BY tire Secretary Of the Navy to Congress
, tina, Lieutenant Hooe tried By court mar
shai o. on several !harges, portions Of which wer
for causing several persons TO be logged on boar,
&C the United States ship Vand4lia IN disrcgsri
of the internal regulations Of said ship and IN q.
: .
of the navy; that be aeq Tilted upon Por
tion of the charges, and comet pom the resi
due that in the course Of his tria two col0urO,
seamen belonging TO the crew Of the vessel o.
board Of which he was serving, were offered a
witnesses to substaniilte portion Of the char
ges that they were objected - by Llcutenan
IIoce but admitted by the court .dalo,ty o
: which was composed of Southern officers tia
the proceedings OF the court martial referred
by the Secretary Of tie Nagy in the absence O.
, tho Attorney General, to tie Attorney for th,
District, native OF a slayeholding State AMI
, subsequently, TO the Attorney General himself fo
J their opinion in regard 70 tic objection, Whici
2 had been made on the trial az q the competency
! Of the colorcd witnesses; that those gentlemen
united in he opinion that iRlsmnch as the tesii
mony given by those witnesses was not ml,rril
to the question Of the guilt or innocence Of Lieu
tenant Ioce, in respect to the charges upon which
! he had been convicted that question having been
decided upon otInr testimony the objection rsis
Cd 70 their competency ought to have no influence
with the Secretary ~ passing upon the finding o.
the court; that the sentence Of the court by which
I LlsutcHant fiono VAS directed 20 be diaraisssd
g from the West lnds squadron, after having been
reprimanded in general orders b. the Secretary
OF the Navy was lhereupon approved by the Sec
rotary and that, upon appeal TO nc by Lieu
tcnau. fIooa declined to interfere with the Ge.
f cision.
, The simple question presented By these pro
ceedirgs, was whether the admission If Illegal
evidence assuming Il TO 10 sol to suhstan,iatc
parts only Of the charges ought to be al.oa cd e.
I lnyallatc the finding Of the court IN regard ia
! those charges which were established 70 the sat
isiaction Of the cont hv other and unauostioncd
evidence IN other words whether Lieut. llooe
ought to be suffered to avoid the consequences Of