, 1840-09-19
LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT.

LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT.
Our readers will find in another column Of
to,day's paper, an article from the Globe
exposing some of the base tricks resorted &c
by the Wings of North Carolina, TO operate
on the late elections in the State, which had
lis effect; hut we now have the pleasure Of
LAYING before our readers an able letter from
the President himself, explained the whole
matter commenced with this most miserable
of ali ~humbugs which have been gotten up,
the Hooe-case. The letter is written at the
request of a gentleman of North Carolina.
WAsmNGroN, August, 1910
SIR: | have received your letter, asking
me for yourself, and in behalf of the citizens
OF Martin county North Carolina, to give you
a statement of the case of Lieutenant Hooe
of the navy, with my views upon the subject;
a request with which | do not hesitate to
comply.
1t appears from the official report of the
case made by the Secretary of the navy to
Congress, that Lieutenant Hooe was tried by
a court marshal upon several charges, por
tons of which were for causing several per.
sons to be hogged on board of the United
States ship Vandalia, in disregard Of the in.
ternal regulations of said ship, and in direct
violation Of the act for the better govern.
ment of the navy; that he was acquitted
upon a portion of the charges, and convicted
upon the residue; that in the course Of his
trial two colored seamen belonging to the
( A. ,o..l ~ lo,,l Tb.aI L. ,-,o
serving, were offered as witnesses to SUBJ
stantiate a portion of the charges; that they
were objected to by Lieutenant Hooe, but
admitted by the court, 4 majority of which
was composed Of Southern officers; that the
proceedings of the court martial was referred
by the Secretary of the Navy, in the alb
sence of the Attorney General, to the Attor-
ney for this District, a native of a slavehol-
ding State, and subsequently to the Attorney
General himself. for their opinion in regard
to the objection, which had been made on the
trial as to the competency of the colored
witnesses; that these gentlemen united in
the opinion that in as much as the testimony
given by those witnesses was not material
to the question of the guilt or innocence of
Lieutenant Hooe, in respect TO the charges
upon which he was convicted, THAT question
having been decided upon other testimony
the objection raised to their competency
ought to have no influence with the Secreta-
nv Is M ssing upon the finding of the court,
that the sentence Of the court, by which
Lieutenant Hooe vas I" to be dismissed from
the West India squadron, alter having been
reprimanded in general orders by the Secre.
tary of the navy" was thereupol approved
by the secretary; and that, upon appeal to
me by Lieutenant Hooe, | declined to inter-
fere with the decision.
The simple question presented by these
proceedings, was whether the admission of ille-
gal evidence assuming it to be SOY TO SUBJ
s~tantiate 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.. Hooe ought to be
suffered to avoid the consequences OF a con-
viction upon proof admitted to be legal, and
deemed to be sufficient, because the public
prosecutor attempted to sustain other charges
against him by proof which the accused claim
ed to be illegal. The court martial thought
not--the law officers of the Government
not-the Secretary Of the Navy thought not
land l sustained their united opinion. No
principle is better established in courts OF
law than that a new trial will never be gran
ted on the ground Of the introduction of lille
gal testimony, when the verdict complained
Of is fully sustained by proof to which there
was no objections; the common sense and
justice of which rule will be at once obvious
to every ingenious mind.
This disposes Of the case Of Lieut.. Hooe,
as far as it was passed upon either by the Ma
Wy Department or myself. But it does not,
asyou will perceive, touch the question as to
the Legality Of permitting free blacks to testi-
fy against white persons in naval courts mar
gal. Its obviously not so much the in
fiyIdual case, as the general principle, which