The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1840-09-05
EPOLITICAL.
WASHINGTON, August, 1910: !,

Si-I have received your letter, asking
me, for YOURSELF and in behalf the cltizehs
Of Martin county, North Carohna' 10 give
Won a abatement of the case of Lieutenant
Hooe Of the Navy, with my views upon the
subject; a request with which DO not hes-
itate to comply.
It sppears from the official report of the
case made by the Secretary of the Navy to
CONGRESS, that Lieutenant Hooe was tried
hv 3 court martial upon several charges,
nortious Of which were for causing several
persons TO be fogged on board of the Uni.
ted States ship Vandalia, i'm disregard Of
the internal regulations of said ship, and
in direct violation of the act for the better
government of the navy that he was &C.
quitsed apon portion of the charges and
convicted upon the residue; that IN ihe
course of his trial two colored seamen be.
longing to the crew of the vessel on board
of which he was serving, were offered as
witnesses to substan,iate portion OF the
charges that they we're objected to byy,
lieutenant Hooe, but admitted ny the
court, q 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, 10 the Attorney Tor
this District, native of slaVeholdlhg
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 tha, inasmuch as the testimony
given bv those witnesses was not material
to the question of the guilt or innocence
of Lieutenant Hooe, in respect to the
charges upon which he had been convic,
ted, THAT. question having been decided
uponio,her testimony, the objection rals-
ed to their competency ought 10 baVe no
influence with the Secretary in passing
upon the finding of the court that the
sentence of the court, by which Lieutenant
Hooe wasdirected "to be dismissed from
the West India squadron, after having
been re reprimanded in general orders by the
Secretary ofthe Navy" was thereupon
approved by the Secretary; and that, up
on an appeal to me by Lieut.. Hooe, l de-
clined to interfere with the decision.
The simple questions presented by these
proceedings, was whether the admission Of
illegal evidence (assuming it to be so) 10
substantiate parts only of the charges,
ought to be allowed to invalidate the find:
ing of the court in regard to those charges
which were established to the satisfaction
of the court by other and unques:ioned ev-
idence in other words, whether Lieut..
IIooe ought to be suffered to avoid the con-
sequences Of a. conviction upon proof ad-
mitted to be legal, and deemed to be suth-
cient, because the public prosecutor al
tempted to sustain other charges against
him by proofwhich the accused claimed 10
be illegal. The court martial thought not
-the law officers of the Government
thought not-the Secretary of the Navy
thought not-and sustained their united
opinion. No principle is better establish
ed in courts of law than that new trial
will never be granted on the ground Of the
introduction Of illegal testimony, when
the verdict complained of is fully sustain
ed by proofto to which there was no objec.
tion; the common sense and justice OF
which rule will be at once obvious TO every
mind.
This disposes of the case Of Lieutenant
Hooe, as far as it was passed upon either
by the Navy Department or myself. But
i does not, as you will perceive, touch
the question as, to the legality of permit
ting free blacks to testify against white
persons in naval courts martial. 1t is OBJ
yiously not so much the individual case, ast
the general principle, which has excited
your attention, and it is therefore due to
you to give wider view Of the subject.
By your State laws, blacks are prohibited
from iestifying against white men. You
very naturally, as well from that consider.
alton as from your own feelings, look with
repugnance upon their admission as wit
nesses before the Federal tribunals. The
first question is, whether the law, as it
now stands, authorizes their admission
and if it does, 1.-The next is, whether the law
oaghtto be, and how it can be, changed.
There is no ctof Congress which proi'b-
itsahe admission Of colored persons as
witnesses in courts martial. 1t is believ-
ed that the practice Of permitting them to
testify, has been uniform, aud l have not
found that the question has ever before
been brought up for decision. Indeed
did no. perceive that, excertby the accu7s
sed, the illegality of their admission is even
now objected TO in any quarter The otflF-
GERS constituting the court, large major.
ity of whom were Southern gentlemen, OF
highly respectable standing, cognizant OF
all their rights, and, in no sense, liable to