The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-08-26
Naval General Court Martial ON board the
U. Ship North Carolina.

The Court met pursuant to adournment-a the men,
bsrs present The reading of the proceedings of yeste
day dispensed with.
Nlidshipman SANFORD recalled by the Judge Advo.
cate.
JupcE ADvocArE-state how often Lieutenant Wilkes
nailed the Flying Fish, when she hoveo under the bows
A.-Three times onoe when she was off the lee quar-
ter once Oft the lee beam, and forward Of the lee
beam.
Q.-By Mr.. HAMLroS-If when the Flying Fish vas to
the leeward of the ship abreast of her mizzen rigging
yards of the ship, and the helm put hard down and
b hauled wndward could she not have hove under
Al think she would have fouled the ship.
Mr.. HowIsoS recalled by Judge Advocate.
GLOW often did Lieutenant Wilkes order the Flying
Fish to heave to- on the occasion Of her anchorng under
A.-Three times
1t. siNcLAIs called by Judge Advocate.
JUDGE ADvocATEState whether the repairs to the Fly
ing Fish at New Zealand necessary to her efficiency
and safety.
Estate what was Lieut.. wilkes's general character
for cruelty and oppression to those under his command
and for attention to his duty, and industry.
A.-Lieutenant Wilkess reputation was that of an
ceedng harsh officer and who continually nfringed
the rights of those under his command never but
one act of cruelty the part OF Mr. Wilkes. never
an act OF cruelty on the Mr. Wilkes to those under
exceedingly attentive to his duties and was indus
Gus indeed.
Q:-By CouRr-Do you know of any rights of officers
or OF individuals nfruged by Mr. Wilkes =?
AIR. Wilkes, in his cabin OCCASION threaten
ed to that he would dsrate me- and force do duty
under my juniors If ever treated my commander with
dsrepec he accused to have done with Lieutenant
Ringgold, which denied. don't know of particular in
stances towards others of my own know ledge
frequently heard such instances spoken OF in the squad
Q,was you board the Flying Fish at the time these
Al was Acting Master on board of her.
Q,-FrSm whom did you receive the appointment
A.-From 1t. Wilkes received my orders at Norfolk
was appointed in the waters Of the United States.
Cross Eraminedby Mr.. HAMILTON, through the Judge
Odd you hear the general character of Lieut.
Wilkes spoken OF before this court convened
A-Very frequently.
Al hardly think this fair question.
JuDeE ADvocArE-You are bound to answer, Mr.. Sim
: Al name myself. can hardly except an officer of
the squadron. Ihave heard Lieut. johnson, Lieut. North
Lieut. Maury Lieut. Pinckney, Drs Guilou and Gichrist
Q-Have you ever heard Mr. Couthony SO speak
A-Not til after he was detached from the squadron
do not consider Mr. Couhony officer of the squadron
have heard all the officers OF the squadron with but few
exceptions SO speak of him.
Q.-Did you ever hear Lieut. Hudson SO speak
Q.-Or Lieut. Ringgold1
A.-No, was not in familiar'inercourse with the
Q.-Dip you ever hear Lieutenant Budd or Lieutenant
Carr K speak of him
Odd you ever hear Lieutenant Toppan so speak
A-Ihave heard him speak unfavorably of Lieutenant
Wilkes general character. never heard Mr.. Peale or
Mr.. Drayton SO speak of him. l uncertain whether
have heard Mr.. Agate speak do consider
do not think should be compelled state what have
heard my brother officers say in private conversatson
regard i as a betrayal of confidence
Q-Did you ever hear Purser Wadron speak unfavora.
bly, of 1t Wilkes ]
A.-No sir, he was not one of my associates.
Al don't recollect.
Q.-Or Mr.. Dana7
Al don't recollect had very little intercourse with
Odd you hear DR.. Pickering of the scientific
corps speak untavorably of Lieut.. wilkes
ANo sir only spoke of the officers Of the squadron,
and do not consider those gentlemen officers.
Q-Was you the officer of the deck of the Porpoise,
when she into the Vncennes and carried away her
and cathead and mashed of the quarter boats
the Vncennes and not that the occasion of the in
terview with Lieut. Wilkes in the cabin of which You
spoke to the question put to YOU by the Cont
Al the officer of the deck of the Porpoise when
the vessels ouled But did not consider that that the
occasion Of the interview with Lieut.. Wilkes. That
Ringgold
The evidence Of the witness then by the
Judge Advocate
sERJEAsr BLOOM called by the Judge Advocate. and
sworn.
JUDGE ApvocArr--stste whether the marines attached
to the Exploring Expedition were reentered after their
A.Not that am aware Of Not while l was attached
to the ship
JupeE ADVOCATE. State the circumstances under
which the bounty oftwenty one dollars given.
Al do not know that the marines received any
bounty, they refused to re-enlist for the Expedition
Cross-eramined by Mr. HAMILTON, through the Judge
Advocate.
Q.-When did you leave the ship7
A.-Before the squadron sailed, week, perhaps.
Odd the marines volunteer for the Expedition,
were they drafted
Al don't know; believe they were drafted.
Q-Do you know whether Phillip Babb. George Smith,
Samuel Pensyl, Samuel Dnsman either OF them
enlisted, or received the bounty
before left the ship which in July, 1885, they
had the papers must have passed through my hands.
don't know as they received the bounty.
Odd those who volunteered to CO. volunteer for the
whole OF the cruise, or only half ofit2
Al don't know that any marine volunteered; don't
Know for how long the seamen volunteered.
The JUpeE ADVOCATE read over the evidence of the
witness and stated that he could go further with the
additional charges until the arrival of the Adjutant from
Washington and could not complete the for the pro-
secution on the other charges until the arrival of Lieut.
johnson from Washington, whom he expected would
have returned last evening
The Juper Apvoc, TIE then read Lieut. wilkes Report
to the Secretary ofthe Navy dated March H. ls4O in
the following words oceur:On the morning Of the 10Th
of January land to the southwark and eastward
with many indications of being its vicinity such
Penguns Seal and the dscooraton the water the
% barrier our approach
The charge thaland was not seen on the "leth of
January, = as stated in the report.
The JuDcE ApvocArx stated that other witnesses for
the were present and suggested that Lieut.
Wilkes should go on with the defence
Mr. Hamilton said that before going into the defence he
would call the attention Of the Court of the
in the additional charges" preferred by
Lieut.. Pnkney, wherein the same offence charged
twice Thus in charge p he was charged with neglect
Navy communication from Lieut. Pnkney, and in the
first specific of charge D. he charged with oppres
sion" for Withholding the document from the Score
ary. So also, in the second specification Of charge he
is charged with oppression in throwing the expense of
the repairs of the Flying Fish, at the Bay Of Islands, upon
Lieut. Pinkney, and the same matter is charged against
him in the fifth specification Of charge as "scandalous
conduct, unbecoming an officer and gentleman" Mr..
Hamilton contended that either the other Of those
specific should be dropped well settled
principle oflaw that could be tried twice for the
offence.
The JupeE ADVOCATE replied that the matter referred
TO by Mr.. Hamilton had been laid in this manner pre-
cisely the principle that several counts placed
in an Indictment all charging the offence that If
the accused escaped count he might be convicted
another If he should prove guilty of the accusation
Mr. HAMILTON said the Indictment cited by III,
Judge Advocate not analogous for here the
acts charged separate and distinct offences the
matter charged oppression" it could be made
neglect OF duty y principle held good the pro-
secution might bring dozen different charges against the
accused for he same