The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-05-05
Naval Court. OF Inquiry.


The late death Of Admiral NICOLAS has
furnished the London Nautical Standard with
an occasion to renew its remarks upon the i'm
policy and injustice Of these courts, not in their
proper jurisdiction, but in the abuse oft. Pre-
viously to his promotion Admiral NICOLAS
held the appointment of Superintendent of the
Royal William Victualling Yard at Plymouth,
and, during the period Of his tenure of this ap-
pointment, Captain Lord JOHN HAY, who was
his junior officer, was appointed over his head
to the rank of Commodore Superintendent Of
the Davenport Dockyard. This ungenerous
treatment CALLED the generous spirit of Ad-
miral NICOLAS; he felt degraded, and be-
lieved himself a victim of injustice, and
what even touched him more sensitively
than personal wrong-he considered that
the service had been insulted in his person.
A court of inquiry offered a most convenient
method of disposing of an officer who had dared
to stand between the will of the Board of Ad-
miralty and an act which he thought consti-
tuted an insult levelled at the service, and i'm
piled towards himself sentence of degrade
ton. 1t was in vain that Admiral NICOLAS
insisted upon his right to be tried by court
martial-it was in vain he invoked the justice
Of the Board and appealed to the constitution.
Their lordships were inexorable, the court of
inquiry was ordered-Lord JOHN HAY was ap-
pointed Commodore Superintendent at Devon
portland Admiral NICOLAS yielded up his
breath, disappointed, ill-used, and broken
hearted man.
Courts of Inquiry are of modern origin, and
were formerly confined to the legitimate pur-
poses Of collecting evidence upon matters relat-
gtodiscipine military etiquette. In this view
they have never been objected to-; but it is urged
that they have been abused, and made the instru-
ments Of tyranny, and nave, to some extent,
superseded the constitutional tribunals of courts
martial in the British service. These abuses
have led to doubts of their legality-doubts
which the Standard thinks were certainly we'll
founded, though they never extended to cases
of preliminary inquiry which involved no PEN
atty, and whereof the issue did not extend to
degradation of rank, or for future personal lib
erty or estate; in fact, such courts have none of
the attributes which belong to tribunals whose
sentences extend to forfeiture of life, liberty, or
estate; in all which cases the evidence must be
given under the sanction and responsibility of
an oath, and the witnesses must be actually
produced before the person to be affected by
their evidence, so as to afford him an oppor-
tunity of cross-examination, to test the validity
of their testimony, and, if need be, to indict
them for perjury. Now, courts Of inquiry have
none of these safeguards, and if they were per-
mitted to usurp the functions Of the court-mar-
tia, the inevitable consequence would ensue,
that they would be made, in the hands of cor
rupt Board..of Admiralty, the instruments of in
tolerable oppression for party or malicious pur-
poses, and would lead to tyranny as odious to
the service as it would be dangerous to the
liberty Of the subject. If the rights of an off
Ger could be endangered by these anomalous
tribunals, he would be entirely deprived of the
safeguards which are his birthright. Such
courts are entirely irresponsible. They have
no power to administer an oath. The accused
is not necessarily present at their deliberations,
and if he is, he has no power to control their ir-
regularities, or check their unbounded licen-
tiousness. The deliberations of these courts in
all respects partake Of the nature of er parte
proceedings, and afford to the accused neither
the means of establishing defence by the ten
der of evidence, nor the opportunity of sitting
the truth Of the accusation against him by cross
examining the witnesses. Again, as too fire.
quently happens, the evidence is actually taken
in the absence Of the accused, and, as copies
Of such evidence are invariably refused, the ac-
cused may be condemned, not only without
hearing, but be deprived of any right Of
appeal or other satisfaction for the most griev-
GUS injury which may be inflicted upon him. A
tribunal may be packed for party or malicious
purposes, and such witnesses summoned to
give evidence against an accused as have pre-
viously been ascertained to be prepared to fur
nish the most damnng evidence for his convic-
ton. The Standard alleges not only that the
present Board of Admiralty have exhibited less
tender sensibilities upon the subject of personal
liberty and other legal rights than preceding
Boards, but that cases have arisen which
would lead to the suspicion that the will Of
the Board had sometimes been brought into
direct collision with the law of the land.
ms has been manifested in its most odious
form by the alleged policy of that Board to su-
persede the constitutional system of COURTS
martial, by the unconstitutional and anomalous
tribunals known as "CoURrs OF Isou1RY,,-.
which is regarded as most fatal symptom of a
growing disposition on the part of the Govern
ment to fetter the free action and protection Of
the laws instituted for the safety of military
persons. These Courts of Inquiry, (the
Standard continues as tribunals for the trial
OF personal accusations, partake Of all the
attributes of the most hateful tyranny, and
are capable Of securing the most odious des-
potism. They may be made the instruments
Of the most cruel oppression; stife all aspira.