Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1852-01-17

nc Gun ABUSE IT, It's safest depository he considers
enis own hands For these and similar reasons think
the opinion Of the officers of the navy this subject
lepuid be taken with many grains of allowance find
aat with the independent expression of their opinions
'ls the opinion itself which propose to combat Their
lRyument is as brief to minds formida-
b They declare the lash be necessary and ndispen-
sale II they are right in this opinion there IL end
gLhe matter Necessity has law. But beg leave to
ilsufre into this alleged necessity.
lnd first ask for what offences has this Lash been SO
Irsy used Has it been inflicted for serious afro
cSs crimes which involve the honor of our flag or the
sty OF our national vesses Or rather let ask has
~ ~ been inflicted for offences which, If they had been
ennely overlooked would have injured the proper
discipline OF the navy? Has the lash ever been used in
the our OF battle in that of preparation for battle
- to suppose that coward traitor would
facct cannonball to avoid the lash 1t would SEEM
without multiplying words that so far from the IN
Unnecessary for the maintenance of discipline in the
mostmportant duty of ship of war; it never has and
ncve will be used How is it, then in regard to the
nextno5t important matter concerning the discipline Of
ma Of war; Has it been used for the suppress
sionP munny? No, sir, the law has provided for that
oese we for cowardice the punishment of death
Hayg thus briefly stated what the lash has not been
nsedior let inquire what the offences for which
1T deemed ST. absolutely necessary We may derive
some ormaion in this particular from the published
ports Of the oeces and punshments which have actual
~ occurred on oard ships of war BY reference to
the por of th Secretary Of the Navy ON this subject
you viii of the offences which it has
been usd is thath suspicion of theft One would hard
say itwas eithe necessary proper in that The
offence W which, owever there seems TO have been more
lashes inflicted tharfor all ether offences is that of drunk
enness. Now sir, he Government furnishes the liquor
for the sailor and he gets drunk upon his allowance
the itseis responsible, and the sailor ought
not TO be bgged. Ii procures it board of ship by
theft or bagan; it is evidence of laxity of discipline
for which thers responsible and for which the sailor
ought not be iogged The LASH therefore is not ne
cessary toreyent drunkenness not only for the
Just stated but because it must be universally admitted
that 1t meier has and prevent the offence of
drunkenness if he who is babitated it permitted to
have liquor
The oen of sobedeice of orders will be found fire.
auenty in ths report. Bat not informed of the
precise natur of the offence whether it is actual or con-
structive dsoedience of rders whether it is serious
or triing mater whether it is for accidentally splitting
on the deck oneglectng to cles the b light works of
ship or not nfndng his Clothes leaving his bag on
deck, or Whether positive refusal do his duty
we are theretre left TO nfer tsserouspess by the pun
lshment inhictd for it. will hazard the opinion udg
ing by that shdard, that stopping the offenders allow
of tobacco rum tea sugar and coee would have
been, in every Sse, muth reasonable and more
efficient PUNISHMENT And now, sir what has become of
this plea of necessity? will call it in this connex
the tyrants pea the officers Of the navy do deserve
such areproach rom any and especially from myself
because did when in the execute and permit to
be executed, the law Of the lash, hope did all other
laws of the service which had sworn obey and to en-
force And this should be sufficient answer those who
expect to escape from the grasp of argument and by
indulgng in individual recminaton and will be sucient
to remind them that there is difference in the posi-
ton of those who called upon make the laws anS
those whose duty ii is to execute them.
The tthcers of the nav IN my judgment entitled &
high dbmmsndation They are as class, brave, obe
generous, and patriotic and, in all the eemeas
character which constitute valuable public servants the
haveno superiors Bus however much respect NAV en-
tertn for them Glass, il is my duty which shall en-
deSor 70 perform to deal without delicac
with their arguments and the which disgrace an
rarayze the seryceto which they belong Il does appea
has resolved itself simply into a;a II nom % nee necessity
anu anJ s % y % to settle trig difficulty with
short way get confession nd the nqustion set
tied matters Of faith easily and readily But sir ther
has been grest change in the opinions mankind on th
subject and hope the change will 20 until the las
relic of barbarism shall be banshed from the world
But very little or the details of this argument
and will not detain the Senate any longer in relation
them There is one broad proposition upon which stand
1t is this That American sailor is an American cit
and that American citizen shall with my consent
be subjected TO this Infamous punishment Placing myself
upon this proposon am prepared for any consequences
L love the navy. When speak Of the navy, the
sailor well the cfncer They all my fellow
zens and yodrs and what may my voice will
be raised against punishment which degrades my
ymen t. theeve of brute and destroys all that is worth
living sor-personal honor and self-respect.
Mr. President reference has been made by these me-
moriasts to the example of the British Government With
what propriety such appeal is made by citizen Of
free republican Government to the institutions Of mo-
that the British Parliament has by statute expressly
authorized the OF the lash There is doubt that
used in the navy Of Great Britain and has been used
since the restoration Of the monarchy under the Suars
but there is evidence that the practice Of foggng
vailed in the republican fleets of the English common
wealth and it is doubted by the best authorities that
tolerated prior to the act Of 18th Charles IL
We have copied from their practice and not from their
statute-book But Congress did what British Par
lament ever didthey sanctioned it in express by
the laws of the United States And here, Mr. President
you must permit to call the attention of the Senate
most singular fact which is this Our law of April 1900
was principally copied from the statute Of Charles H. and
is openly and ayowedly and arbitrary than
the British act under the Stuarts and has remained
so until last year, although foggng punishment,
tolerated during the whole of that e and the pre-
sent moment. land in England
The act Of Charles IT. alluded was passed when the
Duke of York, afterwards James II, Lord High Ad
ma Of England and may be supposed to have been done
at his instance The English historian the Earl Of Cla
rendon tells us that when that prince entered his
duties he found the navy too republican for his taste
purposes and set about reorganzng II by getting rid Of
the republican officers In pursuance Of this policy, he
procured the passage of the act Of 18th Charles H. Al
though in express terms authorize the
Of the lash yet by virtue of clause contained in it,
the Lord High Admiral the commissioners for executing
his duties issued instructions authorizing the Of the
lash in the British navy and certainly may be cited Ia
Justify any tyranny would not have noticed the refer
ence of the me1noriasts the practice in the British
navy but that desire this subject not to leave peg
to hang doubt upon But sir, the example Of the
British Government such it is is justification for
the United States The naicton of corporeal punish
ment for certain offences has always, far as know
been sanctioned by British laws The sailor in the British
navy receives the same punishment that is inflicted upon
land in England; whereas in the United States il has