Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1843-04-18
COMMANDER MACKENZIE AND THE soMERs.

u.
We give below the charges and specifications brought
against Commander Mackenzie, on account of the
execution of the muneers board the United States
brig Somers and we add The finding of the court
tia in all.
II will be seen that the result is an entire acqual
on every specification, and that the President Of the
IT, S. has approved of the action of The court.
CHARGE I.-Murdrr on the high seas, on board of a
United States UeSstl.
Specification first alleges that Commander Macken
ze, then commanding the U. S. brig Somers, did. on
the first of December, 1912, the high seas, in at
tude II deg "a min. % Sec, and longitude 81 deg 81
min 45 sec without form of law, wilfuy, deliberate
ly, and with malice aforcthought hang, and caused &c
be hanged by the neck, at the yard arm Of the said
brig, until he was dead, Philip Spencer mdshpman
then serving on board, thereby violating the 2lst ar
Gle Of the st section of the act of Congress- entitled
"a act for the better of the Navy OF the
u S ;" approved April 3d. 1900.
Specification second alleges same thing in regard tc
Samuel Cromwell, boatswain's mate, and
Specification third, in relation 10 Elisha Small, sea
man.
CHARGE lI.-Oppression.
Under three specifications, the the others
kept that they allege he did, without form of law
and without good and sufficient cause, oppressvely
KILL by hanging &c, &c.
CHARGE lII.-Megal Punishment.
Three specifications above, except that ihel
charge that he did, of his authority, and contrary
ed, kill, &c, &c.
CHARGE w. Conduct unJeco,ning an officer.
Speciiica.ion-In that lie used tauntlng ard insult
ing language 10 Spencer at the moment OF his execu
| ton.
CHARGE V.-Crueity and Oppression.
| Specifcation-In that he habually inflicted crue
and unnecessary punishment upon his crew.
Finding of the Court in the case Of Commander itez
ander s. Mackenzie
On the Ist charge and its specifications the Cour
finds:
That the 1st specification is not proven.
That the 90 specification is not proven.
| That the Sd specification is not proven.
| That the LIST charge is not proven.
| On the Cd charge and its specifications:
That the LIST specification is not proven
| That The Cd specification is not proven.
| That the Sd specification is not proven.
That the I'd charge is not proven.
On the Sd charge and lis specifications
That the lst specification is not proven
| That the I'd specification is not proven.
| That the Sd specification is not proven.
That the Sd charge is not proven.
| The fourth charge being waived by the Judge Advo
cate, and no testimony or evidence being offered Il
sustain it, the court took no action upon it.
The specification of the fifth charge being deemed By
the Judge Advocate too vague, was waived By him
No one having complained to the Department ofsprch
i'll treatment could not be made specific the
Department had no particular information The cour
therefore took no action
AS far as evidence was offered under the 9Th charge
the court do find proof of mstreatment of the ere
Of the Somers generally by Commander Mackenzie
of individual maltreatment, and therefore find it no
proved
The Court do therefore AcquIr Commander LEX
SLTDELL MACKENZIE of the charges and specif
cations preferred ogans, him by the Secretary theNa
Wv.