The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-06-25

Passed Midshipman J. F. Stenson, detached from
photographed Office, and waiting orders
NAVAL GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL.
JUNE "a, 1S45.
A court-martia under a new precept, was as
sembled at Colemans Hotel, on Tuesday, for the
trial of Captain Philip F. Voorhees,, on charges dis
hnct from those relating to the transactions while off
Montevideo, in South America.
The new court is composed Of Captain John
Downes, president; Captain Stephen Cassin, Cap
tain Henry E. Ballard, Captain Lawrence Kearney,
Captain George w. Storer, Captain David Geisen-
ger, Captain Chas s. McCauley, Captain Silas H.
Stringham, Captain French Forrest, members; and
B. F. Hallett, esq, of Boston, judge advocate.
| The court was convened this day, and organ
! lied; the members being sworn by the Judge advo-
cate, and the latter by the president and then adj
journed.
JUNE IS.
The court met to-day, and the Judge advo-
cate read the charges and specifications, to which
the accused was called on to plead. The counsel
of the accused, Richard s. Coke, esq, then pre-
scented an elaborate paper, Directing the accused
being held TO answer to these charges now, or at any
future time, upon the construction he put upon the
3Sh article of the act for the government Of the
! Wy, which provides that all charges on which an
application for general court martial is founded,
shall be exhibited in writing to the proper officer,
and the accused shall be furnished with true Copy
at the time he is put under arrest shall any other
charge charges than those so exhibited be urged
against the person to be tried before the court,
less it appear to the court that intelligence of such
charge had not reached the person demanding the
court, when the person to be tried was put under
arrest that some witness material to the support
of such charge, who was at that time absent, can
be produced in which case, reasonable time shall be
given to the person to be tried to make his defence
against such new charge"
| The counsel commended that former trial, on
other and distinct charges, deprived this Of ju
rsdiction over the whole matter, unless il aver
red in the charges that they were not known at the
time the former charges were preferred; and that
this could not be now supplied
| The court took recess of an hour; and, on COM
ing together ogain the judge advocate replied. in
writing, that this was court held under distinct
precept, and could take cognizance of the doings
of another court, unless trial by said court of the
same matters now charged were pleaded in bar
that the provision ofthe 3sth article applied only to
eo charges brought against the same person, before
the same court-that even then, the objection could
not be taken to the jurisd lotion, it being not a
ground for plea to jurisdiction, nor for excusing
the party from pleading; but if it has any bearing,
it was to be given in evidence, under the general
issue, against the new charge being urged-that the
prosecution before this court could aver the pro-
ceedngs Of another court, and was not bound to
show that the charges were not known, when
former court held for another and distinct trial
of the party there charged upon other and distinct
matters; and that the rule the same, whether
the former court held last week or last year.
The judge advocate also stated that, at the proper
time, which was not at this stage, he prepared
to show, should it be deemed requisite, before new
and distinct court (Which he denied that but one of
the charges known to the department at the time
the charges before another court were preferred viz
the disobedience Of orders to proceed in the Con-
gress frigate to Norfolk, by proceeding to Annapo
lis. And he read letter from Capt. Voorhees,, OF
May co. ls45, to the Secretary Of the Navy, re-
questing, favor that the above charge might not
be connected with the charges relating to his acts
off Montevideo, which involved national questions
but, iftred at ALL might be reserved for separate
trial
| 1t was also shown that all the charges now pre-
sented, except one, were exhibited to Capt. Voor-
hees on the 4th of June, to be tried additional
| charges--all but one of which were unknown when
the other charges were preferred; and that Captain
Voorhees, in writing, then proposed new and dis
tnct trial, and gave list of witnesses The Judge
| Cd n1ad nj the talf
was in pursuance of the request, and to accommo-
date the accused; and, neither in law nor equity,
could be taken advantage of by him to refuse to
plead to the arraignment; and he moved that he be
required TO plead.
The counsel of the accused rejoined, that the
consent of the party could not give jurisdiction to
the court and that he was entitled to the benefit Of
the plea the spirit of the law being designed to pro-
tect a party against accommodating charges held back
and afterwards urged
| The Judge advocate held, that in event could
it be made plea to the jurisdiction; and, therefore,
this rule did not apply and that the question of ju-
risdiction was clear and complete.
The court was cleared to deliberate; and, on being
| opened, the Judge advocate announced that he was
instructed to inform the accused that the objections
were overruled, and that he was required to plead
The accused then gave notice of summons to
the Secretary of the Navy to appear as witness;
and the court was adjourned until ten o'clock to-
morrow morning.
Upon requesting of the judge advocate copy Of
the charge he stated to his regret at not being
able to oblige the gentlemen Of the press; but that
he had been requested by Captain Voorhees, not to
furnish copy at present. and ne felt bound in cour-
tesy, to comply with his request. Those who heard
the charges read state that they relate to going to
Annapolis when ordered to 60 to Norfolk; to illegal
modes of INJECTING punishment, and illegal author
ty given to subordinate officers to punish the men;
and to incorrect account given by the accused Of
the reasons that induced him to go Annapolis but