American telegraph. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1851-1851, 1851-03-29


thanks to those who have already given US
their encouragement and aid.
g COMMODORE JONES. Il
We have read with some care o pamphlet
published by Com. Jones, containing the opinion
of certain gentlemen learned in the law, wherein
the grounds Of error in the judgment of the
recent court-martial by which he WINS tried are
fully set FORTH and are happy to find the result
here arrived at comedies with our own precon-
ceiycd views Of the case.
The sentence must strike every unprecedented
mind as result altogether anomalous, and va
rient to the clearest principles Of justice. 10
-arraign man for murder, Ito use an illustra-
tion,) and, when his witnesses have been ex-
amined and his proof gone through with, to
solemnly pronounce q verdict of robbery, what
is this--putting out of view the injustice of the
procedure and its serious Consequences a
legal farce?
We pause not to inquire as to the probable
guilt Of the party on charges informally pre-
ferred-(for such we esteem a judgment Of facts
not alleged Jas if in apprehension of their be-
ing successfully repealed. Weregard not a YER
dict which has, as it were, been thrust in the
place Of the charge in order Of time, and is
thus brought in, somewhat as an adroit adyo-
cate does his evidence, which, when ruled out
by the court, is forced on the jury in the shape
acas negatiped; and we have charity enough to
believe that the informal, unexpected one, could,
with proper opportunity, have been as easily
demolished.
But we have no intention to enter on gen.
eral criticism of this verdict, for which we have
neither the time nor the ability. We would
simply notice what we conceive to be the prin-
cipal point of interest we mean the alleged
improper use of public money. How improper,
we ask, and in what sense used2 Has there
been a loss to the Government? Has there
been any charge of wrong against its Treasury,
or unfaithfulness in the disbursement of its
money? None Was, them the fund SO sacred
In the eye of the Court that it could not even
be touched by the officer who lepied, secured, |
and held 1t? 1t was public money, undoubt-
edly, because not private but it was not such
public money as came within the provisions of
the law relative to the public agents. TWAS not
to.be accounted for to the Treasury of the United
States, but to the President. No positive enact
ment could, therefore, be violated in handling it,
And, alless rant Of principle, some unfair deal
ing or fraud, is established there is clearly no
foundation for cerdict imputtng even breach Of
good conduct. Has any thing like this been
done? Nothing Look at the case. A great
public object is presented, and by circumstances
pressed on the attention Of the officer. To meet
the exigency he permits disbursement or in
vestment of money collected 5y himself--not re-
cetocd from the Treasury In doing this profit
results from the security Let it be carefully
borne in mind, that the mere keeping of this
fund was inseparably connected with risk and
responsibility. If negligence, for example, |
could have been shown, and loss as its conse- |
quence, the party guilty Of it would be respon-
sible for the loss In whatever condition the |
money remained, the hazard Of preserving it
rested on the party in whose legal custody it was,
whether locked in his private chest, orcrculating
on stipulated security. And, now, where was the
fraud, the unfairness the unwarranted advan-
tage? We ask any candid man if the profit should
not remain where The risk attached? And the an
swer to the inquiry, Why the Government did
not receive the premium, obviously and justly is,
because IL acas not entitled 10 ii. Government
had no claim either in law or conscience, and
hence the increase has not been demanded |
Had the speculation, as it is styled, proved an
unfortunate one, the United States might have
made the party responsible for the money lost.
The profit obtained was surely but fair offset
for responsibility and risk assumed in render
ing public service.
We have but the acquaintance reputation
gives with Commodore Jones, and, in making
these remarks, cannot be blinded by feelings of
partially 1t strikes us as hard thing, where
an old, meritorious, and ng-tried public ser
want is thus cut down. 1t is nothing in the
argument that he was tried By his "peers." OIL
conference.-the and other courts, may be said
what Abercrombie said of doctors, whom he
likened to q man striking with club in the
dark---they strike the disease sometimes and the
patient often. The "peers" of the best men in
Greece ostracised them---and posterity deifed
them
It.has been stated, and we hope truly, that
the President has not as yet approved this SEN
tence. Happily ours is system where there
are "legis sub grapiorc iegc, and if the review
ing authority shall here prove reversing one,
our expectations viii only be realized.
To-DAY's 0UTsIDE.-The engraved views we
publish of-the Patent Office will be acceptable
to the public. Believing they will attract the
attention of persons interested in Patent Office
affairs, we have given also the list Of patents
granted sc.