, 1840-07-18
This question:, in regard to the competen-

did not come up for the decision of the de-
partment or the President. The charges
upon which Lieut.. Hooe was convicted,
were established upon the specifications, in
regard to which the testimony Of the colored
sailors was moi taken. The whole case was
submitted by the Department, for the ,opin-
ions both Of the Attorney General of the
United States, and the District Attorney, and
both distinctly show that the Presiden, could
not set aside the sentence of the court on
the ground of objections made on the trial
to the seamen of color as witnesses, because
that sentence was passed on Specifications
proved by other witnesses. We annex the
opinions of the two law officers of the Gov
eminent, which shows that nothing was left
to the decision Of the President, but the SIM
pie question, whether he would set aside a
conviction. founded on allegations sustained
by undisputed testimony, because disputed
testimony was admitted as to some other
specifications. This point, on which alone
the Presidents decision turned, is kept out
of view altogether IN the case, as presented
by Mr.. Botts-and he hurries it of in this
form, in, we are told at least an hundred thou
SAM handbills before the Secretary, in an
swer to the call Of the House, could send in
the record showing the whole and true state
of the case. From garbled state of the case
as sent abroad by Mr.. Bolts and his Abolition
brethren of the committee, il would seem
that the President had determined that he
would not interfere TO set aside a judgment.
founded on the testimony of five persons Of
color, sailors, enlisted into the service of the
United States; when, in fact, he decided that
he would not interfere to set aside a judg-
ment, founded On the testimony Of FIVE per.
sons Of color, sailors. enlisted into the serv-
ice Of the United States; when in fact, he
decided that he would not interfere to set
aside a conviction passed upon allegations es-
tablished by competent white witnesses.
Globe.
rE1trac, from the United State. District Attorneys letter
2Slh June. lsa0l
In this case, however. it seems quite I'M
necessary TO consider this objection Ito the
evidence Of the free colored %slilors.1 For
the testimony thus objected to may be entire
ly rejected without affecting the sentence of
the court. They were examined rs to the
second charge, and of that the accused was
acquitted.
They were examined on the fourth spcci-
~ica,ion of the first and third charges. and
on NJ other specifications Of either of those
charges. The accused was found guilty Of
those specifications to some extent, but there
was other evidence under those specifications
as full and particular as that Of the two COL
ored witnesses. But it is still more plain.
that The accused suffered nothing from their
evidence. because he was found guilty Of
both the first and third charges, on other spe-
cifcations in relation to which neither Of
these witnesses gave any evidence whatever;
so that he has been found guilty by the court
on both these charges, without resorting to
the objected testimony OF the colored wit
nesses. have observed nothing irregular
or illegal in any other proceedings Of the
court.
[E.trac, from tho Attorney Generals letter Of the 26,h
Of April. ls40.l
In reply to your request for nv opinion
on the point submitted by Mr.. Taliaferro
that the proceedings and judgment Of the
court martial ought TO be set aside on the
ground that it admitted tho testimony O.,
two negroes serving on board the vessel
who were produced and examined as wit
nesses, Notwithstanding an objection made
thereto, ] have to say, that on a careful exam
nation Of the record, | find the testimony
objected to is in no respect material to the
finding of the court. That testimony rela-
ted to the second charge Of which the &c.
cused was entirely acquitted; and also to
the fourth specification in the first and third
charges, the finding in regard to which was
fully sustained in all particulars by other
witnesses. whose competency was not de-
MED. Indeed, the only fact found by the
court, under any portion Of the charges to
which this testimony relates, is the punish
ment of a person on board the ship by direc-
ton of Lieut.. Hooe-a fact mentioned by
many witnesses and not at all denied in the
defence, which rests, not upon the fact itself,
but the authority of the accused to direct
the punishment. II, therefore, we adopt the
well established and reasonable rule laid
down in regard to similar applications in
common law proceedings. that " where, upon
the whole case, justice has been done and
a verdict is substantially right, no new trial
will be granted, even though there may
have been some mistakes committed" SUI.
fcient justification for asserting to the pres
emf application will not be found. This