The Whig standard. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1843-1844, 1844-03-13
COM MU MIC Alto N.
TO MARTIN VAN BUREN.-No. 7.

la my preceding number, have attempted,
and as hope, attempted successfully, to show
that you have on all occasions sustained propo
silions adverse TO southern interests.
In this communication, purpose to review IN
as condensed form as possible, the principles
and facts connected with the case OF Lleuf. i1ooe
Much indeed has been said and written IN rela-
ton to the decision of the court martial, as regarus
the admission of testimony OF tree ne roes'-
Much of vtuperaton and censure, has Deen heap-
ed upon you in consequence OF your appreciation
of the sentence of the court martial, III dismsslhg
an officer of the navy from its service, upon the
admission of incompetent Witnesses
In the examination of this case, Lmean to con-
fine myself strictly to the points at issue, and III
doing SO, may be carried beyond the limits OF an
article of this kind, and sometimes speak in the
style of argument--but it seems proper to premise
that the novelty, and the principles involved, will
furnish sufficient apology.
SYNOPSIS OF THE FACTS.
This officer, native of Virginia, was tried in
May, 1889, l,y naval court martial, on board the
national vessel Macedonian, lying in the harbor
of Pensacola, in Florida, on certain charges pre-
ferred against him by Commander Uriah B. Levy
Of the Vandalia.
10 sustain the prosecution, negro servant Of
Commander Levy was called and sworn ; Lieu
tenant Hooe objected to the testimony of this ne
gro; the court overruled Lieutenant Hooe's OBJ
lection; he protested against the decision, and
had his objections spread on tho record of the
proceedings. He declined cross examining the
negro, and had this fact also spread the records
of the court Daniel Waters, another negro. a
cook and private servant Of the prosecutor, was
also called and sworn by the prosecutor; Lieu
tenant Hooe again objected; his objections were
Overruled; he protested and declined cross-exam-
lining this negro, and had this also spread on the
record. The court martial heard the testimony
and sentenced Lieutenant Hooe to be dismissed
from the West India squadron, after having been
reprmanded, in general orders, by the Secretary,
OF the Navy. This sentence was approved by the
Secretary, J. X. Paulding. Lieut.. Hooe appealed
to the President of the United States and submit
ted the to his I" consideration and discretion"
and the President returned the papers with this
laconic endorsement: !" The President finds no.
thing in the proceedings in the case of Lieuten-
ant Hooe which requires his interference
The first point that seems to require our atten-
ton is, to fix the jurisdiction or in other words
the forum, and then, if practicable. to ascertain
the rules OF evidence that should have been ap-
piled to the case under review as you have in
genlousy insnnated, in your correspondence
with Burras, of North Carolina, that this case did
not come under the operation Of the Judiciary
act of 1859, as the trial of Lieutenant Hooe took
place on ,ard of the vessel of war Macedonian
lying in the harbor of Pensacola, and not in the
Territory of Florida. This is technical refine
ment which would occur only to learned ingenuity
Iremark upon this branch of the question, that
no principle is better understood, or more gene
rally recognized as ncontrovertbe, than this, that
an offence committed on board of vessel OF
war, is by construction, viewed as an offence per-
petrated in the territory of the United States,
and that the party committing the offence is enti-
tied to all the remedies and all the rights which
attaches 10 the jurisdiction of the country to
which the vessel of war belongs. This position
is based upon the principle that the national flag
is the representative Of the national sovereignty,
and that the vessel of war is considered consruc-
lively within the jurisdiction of the United
States, though she may be thousand m:es
vehemently controverted in the Congress of the
from our Territory. This doctrine was in 1900
United States. Ii was sustained by Chief Justice
Marshall, in one of the most luminous arguments
ever delivered in that body. 1t has ever since
been acquesced in by all learned urists to
be the settled law of the land. See Appendix
in ID Lees Reports, Chief Justice Marshalps ar
gument in the case of Jonathan Roberts.
1t is also well established that the cognizance
OF all captures, or, as it is more Familiarity phrased,
of all questions of prize and their Incidents, be-
long exclusively to the courts of the country to
whl.,h the captors belong, and from whom they
derive their authority to make captures
1t IS also clear, that though an offence be CON-
mitted in the Pacific, board of vessel of war,
the laws OF the United States prescribe the rules
for the government of the Court.
The 34th section of the act of 1889 declares
that the laws of the several States, except when
the constitution, treaties, and statutes of the
Union otherwise declare shall be recognized and
admitted as rules of decision in prosecutions
III the United States Courts. In pursuance of
the foregoing section, it has been decided by the
Supreme Court of the United States that the
Federal tribunals shall adopt and pursue the de-
csions Of the State courts
whether, then, we refer to the provisions of
the act OF 1884, to the principles repeatedly act
ed upon by Congress- and recognized by our own
courts as applicable or to the case under consid-
Grafton, there Is, apprehend, nothing which, SO
far as the present inquiry is concerned distin.
guishes it from the rights which appertaining to
captors, &c
1t now becomes important TO ascertain how