The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-12-20

may be punished with death BY the sentence Of court
martial !" and other article gives court martial urs
dcton In murder within the United States which the 2is
article withholts and denies.
Il is true the charge i here laid as oppression"
but the specification makes !, murder.
Oppression is underlined crime, recognised by the
third navy arcle-syled oppression. but not defined 10
that article or elsewhere in written law. court.
martial is left 10 gather the definition from the usage OF
he sea service, all other offences not defined BY the
act or by any express iaw but this power 10 ascertain
the definition OF the offences is merely part OF the JUDI
cia power OF all courts TO ascertain the meaning Of the
general aud ambiguous terms OF statutes. IL is not
legislative power 10 x arbitrary meaning, to create
new meaning or extend old meaning still less so TO
tend il 10 invade and override the rest Of the crimi
nal law and under petence OF defining one cline to coa-
found all crimes Because oppression is not defined,
does not follow that other crimes lose their distinct
aud long established and well settled definitions Muir.
der is still murder and IS not to be confounded with op
preston or cruelty, Il
On all these grounds pray the court to dismiss and
quash the third specification 10 the fifth charge as null
and void.
! TO all the other matters and chargeswhich affect my
integrity and honor make no exceptions and desire only
: - "'1 - 80 = THOMAS AP c. JONES,
. Late Commander o The Pacific Squadron y
WAs,psaFos; December y, isso
Upon The other charges and speci6ca,ions, to all Of
which have herein before offered my plea Of the gen.
era issue, desire now to make only single observe,
ton am advised by counsel that the matters and
things specified in them also, IT they be maintained
by proofs, would constitute crime offence within
the purvew OF the naval ARTICLES OF war, or otherwise
cognzable by this court; and need no advice 10 assure
that, whether not they constitute legally the OF
fences under which they laid competent TO sustain
tenar maintained hy the proofs Ba, thought i would
i'll become me, and III accord with the obligations owe
to the honor OF my profession 10 any matter affecting my
integrity, 10 plead technical objections, and quas and
dismiss such charges without complete and searching
inquiry into each and all OF them. | have felt deeply
wounded by these charges. have felt that they are
drawn in unusual in naval trials. There is
skful mode Of statement which carriesa the force and
power Of agument. These charges drawn as 70
exhibit in high degree this peculiar skill and art, and
proofs But do not complain Of this exertion Of profess
siona ability in the discharge OF professional duty
only desire 20 TO the facts 10 exhibit the entire
truth, and to have fair and full trial on the merits
THoS. AP c. JONES "
Dee,stoa Of The Court in regard to Plea aal
The third specification of the fifth charge assumes that
at the times therein stated the accused, then being in
mand OF the United States naval forces in the Pacific
ocean, not invested with the power conferred BY the
3oh and articles Of the OF Congress entitled "An
act for the better OF the navy OF the United
States approved 10th May, 1900. .sai5s
The specification does not seek to inquire into the facts
upon which the proceedings therein referred TO- Were
based, but denies the authority OF the accused in the
premises and charges him with the acts imputed TO him
acts OF OPPRESSION for which he had no warrant OF
The question, therefore, which this court is called upon
decide is. whether the accused had such warrant and
authority OF law or not go NJ fsr.
OF the articles above cited ssa.4s ~ 5sst agi
The court is of opinion ihat upon the true construction
of those articles the accused invested with the power
and authority OF commander Of asquadroR whs acting
out of he United Sates, and might lawfully convene
the courts and carry into execution the sentences refer
red 10 in this specification. ct E. n a.a.g Lshslss
The court is further OF opinion that the only facs spe
ciay charged in said specification amount 70 chaEe
OF murder The nfiction OF the punishment o. death
heren specified is charged TO have been unlawful, be-
cause inflicted within the United States without the
thority OF the President Buff il inflicted, hen II
is murder committed within the territorial jurisdiction OF
the United Staes and is not cognizabe by this court
The court, therefore, without inquiring into the mattsrs
Of fact alleged by way Of usthcaton (Which do not ap
ply TO an objection to the face OF the changes and. II
important would regularly be the subject Of proof upon
the trial allows the exception OF the third specification
OF the nth charge and orders the same TO be quashed
The court remarks that il finds nothing In the frame
language the charges justify the criticism which has
been made upon then especially as the language used
is the language OF the law Offences only be charged
in appropriate language But the court 10 TO be nnu-
enced by language OF chaes but the facts which
may We proved in support OF them. .ogra La
The plea Of guilty received and entered IN the
remaining charges and specifications 4 81 fNau