The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1845-05-11
Circuit Court of the District of Columbia for
Washington County.
TRIAL OF CAPTAIN W Xxx
Concluded.

Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, for
Washington County.
Trial OF CAPTAIN WILKES.
Concluded
THURSDAY May |, 1915.
The space occupied with the evidence in this cause
forbds the most meagrc outline OF the addresses
On the meeting of the Court, Mr. May, for the plain
us, spoke for two hours, with cearness OF argument
upon the mehodcal arrangement OF the law and the tes
tmony, seldom surpassed Captain Wilkes not pre-
sent he would have trembled, he did before
The learned counsellor presented most revolving pic
ture OF the miserable fort-the chans-thc ilthhe
and rotten tishthc verminhe savage companions and
maseral the details Of the confinement at Oahu, OF the
plaintiffs. He contended that the law was founded upon
humanythat it designed for the protection of the
weak against the aggressons OF the stronghold 1t for
bade the treatment OF brute beasts those prisoners had
been treated The OF Mosn and Fabricus in which
native Of inorca recovered OF English captain $4,000
damages, cited and dwelt upon. The punishment OF
red to exhibiting the nigh obligation of the laws to the
rights OF the humbles citizen The defendant was de-
nounced yrannca malicious and disregardful Of the
rights and comforts OF the paintfs-he had detained
without authority-he had imprisoned them with
out the jurisdiction OF his flag and had consigned them to
the keeping OF canniDals Sc 1t the duty OF
defendant to keep his ship in state Of dsciplnet was
his duty not only to observe humane regard for the
comfort of his men but to their malt BY
others No evidence had been adduced that the plaintiffs
were Iautnous disaiccted, not single expression
had escaped them to warrant such assumption They
had been scourged with three times twelve stripes in
stead of twelve the limit of the law II their offence had
been dsobedience of orders, complained Of the plain
but TO the decision OF Court Martial There was no
exigcncy for the detention of these men-no excuse
When these and similar from the law ana
the evidence and from the acknowledged obligations OF
humanity the learned advocate for the plaintiffs referred
the jury to the first series OF instruction from his Honor
the Judge presiding and appealed to them as they valued
the rights OF the citizen in all situations to render ver
dict accordingly
MIR. May is young man. but his tact, sagacty and
watchflncss and the evidences furnished Of Industrious
research and application independent Of his natural gifts
and abilities, Will ensure him. he continue faithful TO
ing milf nnata nf
profession.
Mr. Bradley, an older lawyer one whose reputation
such secured MIN the conduct of this for the de-
PENDANT, followed next after recess, masterly argu
ment OF five hours duratonior the defendant lie main.
tanned the justice of discretionary authority with the
defendantthe necessity of combining the plaintiffs on
shore to prevent the coneon Of disalecon in the ship
He complimented his learned friend the disgusting
picture of the prisoners and the fort which he had SO
skiliully drawn but insisted that the suterngs OF the
prisoners were Of their own seeking and could have
been ended in moment their return to duty lie
defended the conduct Of the commander and represent
cd from his journal, his frmness, devotion to duty
and nheSihe resolution TO carry it out He siited the
discrepancies in the testimony OF Pensy compared
with that OF Carr and others. He left stone unurned
He showed the necessity of the retention of these
rine from the fact that discharge of number OF
seamen whose terms OF service had expired fifty island
substituted But there substitute to be
had for marines, and their services indispensable
to the objects OF the expedition. Mr. Bradley argued
for the supremacy Of the aw-of disciplneof orderin
the navel service, as paramount considerations lie con-
tended that these plaintiffs held out against their duty
from mistaken notion Of the expiration OF their terms
subject to the discretionary authority OF the defendant
as they would have only been subject to court martial
for fragrant disobedence of orders He enforced upon
the jury the latter clauses of the instructions under
which they would be discharged to return verdict Sc
Mir. MAY made general reply, in removing the legal
impedments thrown in his way by his learned adverse
ry, when at o'clock, NJ. the jury discharged
with the following instructions, with permission to adj
Journ and meet IN the morning.
| INSTRUCTIONS BEHALF OF THE PLAIN.
TIFrs THESE
l. That if the jury believe, from the evidence afore
said that the defendant could have securely kept and
confined the plaintiffs Dinsman and Baab board the
said ship Vncennes on board the said ship Peacock
with safety to the said ships, their officers and crews
then the defendant had right to mprison them in said
fort the island of Oahu and the jury may give such
damages therefor as upon the whole evidence aforesaid
the said jury shall find said ships vncennes and
Peacock together at the time Of said Imprisonment
in the said harbo of Honolulu and were under the com
mand OF the defendants and that said imprisonment in said
fort caused and continued by order of the defendant
. That fthe jury believe from the evidence aforesaid
that the oggngs and imprsonmens OF the plaintiffs,
board the SAID snip Vincennes alleged declarations
in these causes, immoderate, excessive
able in degree and dsproportioncd to the alleged Of
fences; and that such punishment in degree
than the rules and regulations for the government Of the
navy Of the United States or the laws and customs in
such cases at sea authorizes then the plaintiffs may
cover such damages therefor upon the whole evidence
the jury think they ought have provided the jury
shall find that the said hoggngs and mprisonmcnts
inflicted by order of defendant; which instruction the
court gave which instruction the defendant
by his counsel excerpts, and this bill of exceptions is
B. That the jury believe from the evidence aforesaid
that the detention of the plaintiffs alleged in the de-
clarations in these causes either Of them after the
term OF their entmcns in the marine corps had fully
expired not essential to the public interests then
tied to such damage therefor in the opinion of
the jury from the whole evidence they ought to have
detained by order of defendants which instruction the
court gave as praycd to which instruction the defendant
! by his counsel, excerpts, SC.
ron THE DEFENDANT.
Tho oy,d afn a,urx- ebau11
find that the plaintiffs respectively made the contract and
received the said bounty but that they were previous
the said alleged grievances enlisted marines on board
the said United States ship Vncennes public vessel Of
the United States navy, employed on foreign service,
dant the commander of the expedition which she
was employed, and the time and times Of service of
the said plaintiffs respectively enlisted aforesaid
PRED while they board the said ship foreign
service and their detention respectively the opn-
ion Of the jury essential to the public interest then it
lawful for the said defendant aforesaid to
detnin the said plaintiffs respectively board the said
ships and the SAID plaintiffs thereby made subject
the laws and 10, ation the government of the navy
Of the United States Graned, but exception made by
Mr.. May
If from the evidence aforesaid the jury shall be of
opinion that the plaintiffs respectively signed the said
contract Aforesaid marked (A) and received the
bounty therein specified, and remained and served
board said ship Vncennes under the command of the de-
PENDANT and received wages therefor until their
the United States and while the island Oahu in the
Pacific ocean, during the said cruize, tho said plaintiffs
respectively and with other marines collectively refused
to do duty and If they shall further find that the
the said refusal by the said plaintiffs it would have
been dangerous to the vessel the master, the crew
the objects Of the voyage to have kept the said plaintiffs
board the said ship then the duty of said
PENDANT commander aforesaid to sound dis
erection in regard the place and mode Of Imprisonment
Of the said plaintiffs and if the defendant had
or probable cause to apprehend the said spirit Of nsubor
dnaion might spread among the marines of tho
other ship under his command he auho rzcd to inn
prison them on shore in the fort the sand and il
the jury shall further find that such imprisonment in said
fort continued only long the said of appIc
hension continued and they then agon brought
board the said ship then in tho absence of all evidence
of malice in the said defendant against the said Plaintiffs