The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-07-11
GENERAL NAVAL COURT MARTIAL,

For the trial Of Captain Philip r. Voorhees, on'fea
States napg begun at Washington, II. y, June =,
and continued 70 june "a, 1876 Commodore chsrse'
SiesOart president; charge q alsoosa'enoe q Or
ders 10 observe strict neutrality, ~ the several acts
of capf,ing an armed schooner, (he SGncaia, cap
f,,i,g he .argerins squadron biockading Monte
video releasing their prisoners disehmging .4neriean
,eons,,, and breaking up the blockade Of .Monsvidso,
In September and October, 1874.
OPENING STATEMENT m OF THE JUDGE ADYo'
The Judge advocate deems il duty Of his Office,
under the important general aspect Of this case 70
present TO the court an opening statement WIN rel
erence to the facts expected to be proved and her
application to the points Of law that may arise UNI
der the several specifications Of charge. lie adopts
this course (which, if somewhat unusual, is IN ac-
cordance with the wesettled rights Of his office)
because the present is distinctly different from
ordinary trials before courts MARTIAL for personal
offences in violation of the rules and discipline Of
the service or those which affect merely the indivd
ua character of the accused.
peror officer but the specifications Of that disobe-
dence involve the rights of belligerents, the claims
of parties to civil war TO be regarded as such, the
duties of neutrals, the extent of power and discre-
ton Of a naval commander of the United States,
upon whom that duty is enjoined toward friendly
powers, and parties at war with each other;all Of
these being questions of international law, and af
fecting the public faith abroad, and the peace at
home, Of the United States, which now demand,
and viii most unquestionably receive, the grave
consideration Of the court guided by the established
rules that should govern the intercourse between
friendly powers, and which essentially distinguish
civilized from barbarous nations. If the accused
shall be found to have knowingly and unlawfully
violated these duties, enjoined upon him in his IN
sructons his acts will fall under the charge of dis
obedience of orders.
These rules, regarding the conduct Of sovereign
States toward each other, are not positive law,
binding on nations by force Of superior authority,
as in the case of municipal laws prescribed by a
government for the rule of action of its subjects or
citizens; but they have their origin and force in what
may be called the public opinion of nations. II is the
common law of nations, founded on common consent
and here can be appeal for the party wronged
from the decisions made by any tribunal or govern
ment under it, but rar, its faithful administration in
all questions affecting the relations Of Independent
States is of the highest importance the interests
of humanity, the preservation Of peace, and the ad
vancement of civilization.
The acts of the accused, In the present case, are
to be tried mainly by these rules and principles ap
piled TO the proof under the several specifications o.
disobedence Of orders; and it may be permitted t.
congratulate him and the country, that grave an
issue is submitted to tribunal Of his peers, com
posed of officers all holding the highest commission
known to the service, and kcenly alive to the
glory fther country, as nation distinguished fol
justice toward all others, they sensitive tc
tnelr own ana inc n0nOr OF u DrOtnef Omcer.
Bound by their sense of honor, even more thar
by their oath, to ''truly try the cause depending
without prejudice or Partially" the accused has the
highest guarantee of fairness and Justice in the form
trial which secures to him judges selected from
his own rank, profession, and personal association
but neither can they give, he claim any favor OF
immunity for that cause, against the just conse
quences Of his own acts, if proved to be deserving
condemnation or ccnsure.
The first maxim to be enforced, in government
like ours in regard to acts of naval military com
manders, when called in question, as affecting oul
relations to other governments, or to our own citi
zens, is, that the military is always to be held sub
ordinate to the civil power And especially is the
subordinate in military service, to be held subject &c
the orders of his superior.
The strength Of the American navy rests on
well-founded popularity; and the permanency o.
that popularity depends, not merely upon the bra
very but the prudence the JUSTICE the discreton
the forbearance of wrong of its officers.
In the present case, the single charge to be triet
falls under the 14th article Of the act for the bette
fcer or private in the navy shall dsobey the Lawful
orders of his superior officer, or strike him, o
draw or raise any weapon against him, while il
the execution of the duties of his office, on pain
Of death, or such punishment as court MARTA
shall infict'
Under the general charge, there are FIVE spccifca
tons, all tending to the same point viz: the unau
thorized and wrongful violation of the rights o
other States and powers, with which the United
States was at peace.
First, by the unlawful capture of schooner-of
war, called the Sancala.
Second, by the unlawful capture of squadron o
armed vessels, belonging to government at peace
with the United States.
Tard by the wrongful release of prisoners o
war, and prizes captured by that squadron.
Fourth, by the forcible taking from said squadron
seamen employed in It's service; and
Filth, by resisting and suspending, as to Amer
lean merchant vessels, lawful blockade.
Each of these acts, alleged affects the rights o
sovereignty of foreign government, and IS mat
ter for adjustment between the government Of tn
United States, and the government or government
which complain.
Each of them, if committed on one nation BY
another, without justifabe excuse, and without re
Dress constitutes sufficient cause of war, as recog
Missed by civilized nations; and one Of them, in ou
own history, has led to that alternative, in war will
the most powerful nation of the earth, in which
aurels still green, were won by some of the distin
guished members of this court.
In this case, also, in two others, not wholly
dssmilar, the investigation and trial have the
origin in the complaint made to the government o.
the United States, by a friendly foreign power, o.
violations of their national rights by American ma
val commanders. The cases alluded to, are--that o
Captain Daniel Turner, April 4 1880, for cutting
out the Buenos Ayrean privateer "Federal" from
neutral harbor in st. Bartholomew, induced
American vessel, and the refusal of the neutra
power TO deliver her up; and the other that of Com
modore David Porter, June Sd, 1925, for his attack
Foxardo, in the island Of Porto Rico, where hi
landed, and compelled the Submission of the loca
authorities for having imprisoned Lieut. Plat
whom Com. Porter, while in pursuit Of pirates has
despatched there to detect supposed stolen goods
IN both these cases, though of strong inducemen
and propagation, the invasion Of national rights me
with conformation and rebuke from the government
Of the United States.
Two Of the members Of this present court wer'
members Of the court that tried Captain Porter;
the president Of this court president of the
of inquiry in the case Of Capt Turner.
Under somewhat similar, but much stronger cir
cumstances, representations have been made, will
much ability and force of argument by the Argen
tine confederacy, and by Gen. Oribe, claiming 10 bt
the legal President of the Oriental republic Of Uru-
quay, complaining OF the alleged acts Of Capt PHILIP
+. Voorhees,, the accused to the government of The
United States; and this court has been called to in
vestigate the conduct of that officer, as connected
IL