Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1840-09-03
MIR. VAN BUREN'S LETTER ON THE
IIOOE CASE.
"WAsHINGToN, August.

me, for yourself, and in behalf of the citizens
OF Martin county, North Carolina, to give
you statement of the case of Lieutenant
Hooe OF the Navy, with my views upon the
subject; a request with which do not hest
tate to comply.
cit appears from the official report of the
case made by the Secretary of the Navy to
Congress, that Lieutenant Hooc was tried by
court martial upon several charges, portions
OF which We're for caus ing several persons to
be logged on board of tne United States ship
Vandalia, in disregard of the internal regula-
tlons of said ship, and in direct violation of
the act Tor the better government of the navy |
that he was acquitted upon portion Of the
charges, and convicted upon the residue; that |
In the course of his trial two colored seamen
belonging to the crew of the vessel on board
OF which he was serving. We're offered as wit
neSses to substantlate Il portion of tue char
ges ; that they were objected to by Lieutenant
ilooe, but admitted by the court, majority
OF which was composed of Southern officers
that the proceedings of the court martial were
| referred by the Secretary of the Navy, in the
absence OF the Attorney General, TO the Attor-
ney Tor this District, native of Il Slavehold-
ing State, and subsequently to the Attorney
General himself Tor their opinion in regard to
the objection, which had been made on the
nesses; that these gentlemen united in the o.
plnlon that nasmuch rs the testimony given
by those witnesses was not material to the
question OF the guilt or innocence Of Lieuten-
| ant Iiooe, In respect TO the charges upon
which he had been convicted, (that question
| having been decided upon other testimony
the objection raised to their competency onoht
TO have no influence with the Secretary in
passing upon the finding of the court; that
the sentence the court, by which Lieutenant
Hooe was directed ito be dismissed from the
| west India squadron, after having been repri-
manded in general orders by the Secretary of
the Navy was thereupon approved by the
Secretary; and that, upon an appeal to me by
Lieutenant Hooe, declined to interfere with
the decision.''
81 he simple question presented by these
proceedings, was whether the admission of il
legal evidence assuming it to be SOY to sub
stantlate parts only of the charges, ought to
be allowed to invalidate the finding of the
court IN regard to those charges which were
established to the satisfaction of the court by
other and unquestioned evidence in other
words, whether Lieut.. ilooe ought to be suf-
! tered TO avoid the consequences of a convic-
ton upon proof admitted to DO legal, and
deemed to be sufficient, because the public
prosecutor attempted to sustain other charges
against him by proof which the accused
claimed TO be illegal. The court martial
thought not-the law officers Of the Govern
ment thought not-the Secretary of the NAVY
thought not-and l sustained their united o.
plnlon. No principle is better established in
courts OF law than that new trial will never
De granted on the ground of the introduction
OIL illegal testimony, when the verdict COM
planned OF sfully sustained by proof to which
| there was no objection; the common sense
| W oh rnl no
yious to every ingenious mind.''
Tins disposes of the case of Lieut. Hooe,
as Tar rs 1t was passed upon either by the
Navy Department ormyself. BUTT does not,
as you will perceive, touch the question as to
The legality of permitting free blacks to testi-
~ against white persons in naval courts mar
tlai. 1t Is obviously not so much the indi-
vldual case, as the general principle, which
has excited your attention, and it is therefore
due to you to give you wider view of the
subject. BY your State laws, blacks are pro-
hlblted from tesiifying against white men.
y on very naturally, as well from that consid-
Grafton as from your own feelings, look with
repugnance upon their admission as Witness
es before TIE Federal tribunals. The first
questlonis, whether the law, as it now stands.
authorizes their admission and if it does, the
next Is, whether the law ought to be- and how
1t can be, changed. There is no act of Con-
gress which prohibits the admission of color
cd persons as witnesses in courts martial. 1t
is believed that the practice of permitting
| them to testify, has been uniform, and have
not found that the question has ever before
been brought up for decision. Indeed, did
not perceive that, except by the accused, the
| illegallty OF their admission is even now OBJ
jected to In any quarter. The officers consti-
tuting the court, large majority of whom
were Southern gentlemen, Of highly respecta-
BILE standing, cogniZant of all their riohts,
and, in no sense, liable to the imputation of
being indlsposed to sustain them, did not, it
appears, hesitate as to the legality of the tes-
tlmony. The District Attorney, Mr.. Kew.
declares the witnesses TO have been competent
as the law now stands. The Judiciary Com
mlttee-ccmposed Of professional gentlemen
at least majority of whom should not be
| suspected of a disposition to screen the De-
| partment or the Executive from responsible.
| ty, If they had sanctioned an illegal act-are
silent upon the subject. and the very resolu-
tons even by which the case of Lieutenant
Hooe was brought before Congress, ALTHOUGH
denouncing the proceedings with great vehe-
mence, do not, l believe, allege that the adj
mission OF these witnesses was illegal. The
matter rests upon very simple grounds. The
able men who framed the Judiciary act of
1879, wisely adapted it, as far as practicable.
as many OF them had assisted in doing with the
Constitution itself, and as they did with most
OF the early and fundamental acts of the Gov
erninont, to the peculiar condition of the difIe-
rent States composing the confederacy in re-
speet to their local laws and domestic institu-
tons. II was to this end provided, s.that the
l,-,- &c 81 =