The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-02-17
The OAssrs ~ the Late Texas Navy.
TO THE EDITOR or THE HRaAIn

WASHINGTON, d. c., Feb. 8, 1861.
Your paper Of yesterday contains an article in
relation to "the officers Of the Texas Navy"
which requires q reply from me, because state
ments are made in it not justified by the circum-
stances OF the case, and entirely incorporating
several important facts of controversy in which
was involved many years since, with certain pro-
minent officials In the then republic of Texas,
arising out Of personal considerations, which l
would have preferred to let remain in Texas, where
they more properly belong, had they not been re-
vived by the three commanders named in the
article to which am now replying, by their pub
hshing the pamphlet that has been sent to you.
obtained possession Of it few days since, on my
return from Texas, and have now in press reply,
which will send you in day or two. BY it's Pc
rusal you will see that those three commanders
have given anything but fair view of the case.
l will now reply, as briefly as possible, to the
points stated in the article signed M First, 1t is
not true, in point Of fact, that the officers
of the Texas navy were disbaaded by the act re-
ferred to as dated 10th of January, l843. No such
act is to be found in the published laws OF Texas.
Laws Of Texas, Fifth Congress, page lO6 Sec
tion ., will show that there was permanent naval
establishment. The law is in these words:-
g Be 1t enacted, &c.-That tho naval establishment
of this republic shall be compose Of captain one
master COMMANDER eight noutonantS. ten mtd6hp-
men, with such other warrant and petty officers as
may be necessary for the meht upon the scale
provided for by this act, with sixty and
rines one lieutenant OF marines, one surgeon, one
assisssnt surgeon and two purser' Approved Jan
The above law was in full force and effect at the
time of the annexation of Texas to the United
States.
Secondly and thirdly. 1t is asserted that " dis
obeyed repeated orders to surrender the vessels"
&c. To sustain this, reference is made to that ex-
traOIdinary document, the proclamation of Presi-
dent Houston, published when was off the coast
OF Yucatan, in lS43, under the orders and sanction
OF the government, through one of the commits
siOners who were sent to New Orleans to control
my action and movements, and who brought orders
from the proper department to me, to act under,
and be governed by, his instructions until receiv-
ed further orders from the department" The COM
missioner was with me all the while. II appears
by his evidence, and the orders, that never re-
ed. The letter of Secretary Hill is also referred
TO; 1t is only repetition of the anon alOus pre-
clamation Of the President of Texas, which need
only be read TO convince any one Of The absurdity
of the allegations 1t contains.
appealed to the Texas Congress for, and OBJ
tanned trial, by means of an act passed esta bsh-
ing an especial tribunal to investigate the charges
alleged against me, in those two high handed and
oppressive documents. in which the laws of the
land were disre garded.
The court acquitted me of all the charges, six in
number, with y specifications, except four specifi-
cations under the charge of disobedence of orders
the letters ordersreferred 10 in which, were all
conditional and beyond my ability to carry out
Of these the court found me guilty, in manner
and form as set forth in the same" 1t was not
pretended by me, on the trial. that they were exc
cuted. My letters to the department, written on
the receipt of each of them, report my inability
to carry them out. They are not correctly stated
IN the document that is re.published by those
three commanders
As proof that was not found guilty, will here
insert the action of the President of Texas on the
finding of the Court
Tha preafdeut disa nnrovos tha aaA{rgs oft ha
Court in toto he assured by evidence
ofths guilt Of the accused in the Of E. W. Moore
Comm ander Of the Navy.
DEC. !, sisaa GAN AoO'ioS'
The government had entire control of the pro-
secution and the selec tion Of the Court. Comment
on such proceedings is unnecessary.
Fourthly. The veto Of President Jones June
"a, lS45) was simply OF joint resolution re.appro.
priating part OF my pay, which had been with
that had been carried out against me. 1t had no
other object or interest To carry out that perse-
cuiion, some of the charges were thus revived
unanimously acquitted by the Court; the proceed
inPs Of which having been quashed by the prede-
cessor of President Jsnes, six months previously,
as have already shown he had no right or autho-
rity to, and would not have thus revived them
against me, but for the reasons already stated.
The Congress of Texas declared that "the action
Of tine Court was final and con clusve;" and have
long since drawn the money from the Treasury OF
Texas.
regret the necessity that has compelled me to
make these matters thus public. II has become
necessary, in my defence against the mis-state.
ments made public by those three commanders, and
the article In your paper signed M They should
have informed themselves better before they made
these personal attacks.
Supreme Court, in the case of Brashear VS.. Mason
mot Brosdhead) by reference to the case, it will
be seen that that part of the opinion cited IN the
unfair view to which reference is made, is purely
iucl a q leo n
the decision Of the lower court was made.
The opinion says
msnsamas against tx secrstsry Of the navy to com
pei the payment Of srrearases Of pay which he
claimed to be due him fr TOT tn: s0ssrnnsns IS COM
After citing the constitution and laws of Congress
pre- scribing the forms under which money is TO be
drawn out OF the Treasury, the opinion OF the Court
says;-
Ia the case Of Mrs. Decatur vs. Pauldiss. "a Pit,
4e7) was bea by this court that . msndamus would
not lie from the Circuit Court OF the District to the Be-
eesry of the Navy to compel him to pay to the plain
tiH sum Of money claimed to be due her . pension
There was NO question Is to the amount due II the
plaintiff properly entitled to the pension and IL
n.as to spp.sr IN that case smr%ss..y on the
the claim. The fund also vas under the control Of
the Secretary, and the monies payable his
rant.
STILL the court refused to inquire into the merits OF
the claim Of Mrs d. to the pension or to drternine
tary the ground that the O, urt below had urs
dicton the and, therefore, the question not
properly before this Court the writ Of error.
TIE principle Of the Mrs ID IL decisive OF the
present The facts here much stronger TO Illus.
frate the In and un Of the remedy
Commander Brashear, Of the late Texas navy,
was induced TO bring the suit with the double OBJ
ject Of obtaining his pay from the date OF annexa
zion, and deciding the question legally; being also
fully aware that before he could obtain a commits
Zion in the navy OF the United States, the existing
law, limiting the number Of officers, would have TO
be modified or repealed On this point the opin-
ion Of the Court says;-
IL will not do to that the result Of the proceed
ing BY mapdamus would show the title Of the relaor
to his pay the amount, and whether there we're any
money In the Treasury applicable to the demand.
Commander BrashesT, as well as the other sur
viviDg officers OF the late Texas navy, were not
entitled to their pay officers ofhe United States
navy, because they had not been commissioned by
the President and Senate. President Polk avowed