The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-01-25

auditory OF naval officers, 1t being known that
the next witness would be Captain Dupont to whom the
epithets said to have been applied.
The usual preliminary business having been gone
through WITH Captain j. S. Dupont called to testify
for the prosecution.
Previous to the swearing of the Witness the accused
put in cautonary objection he objected to Captain
Dupont q witness, far he might be called on to
testify anything said by Com. Richie in Washington
between the LIST and 18th December-inasmuch as Capt
D. could not heard the accused say anything what
ever in relation the matter The counsel for the
cused explained that Of course the accused could not tell
what the witness might testify, but thopght proper to
introduce the objection at the outset.
Capt. Samuel +. Dupont then sworn and gave in
the following testimony
consider it not irrelevant to by stating
that for many years. since sailed together midshp-
men, Commander Richie and myself had been most
The counsel for the accused here stated that the
cuked would prefer that the witness would commence
with the testimony relating to the present affair.
The Court however, requested the witness to proceed,
and II would judge OF the reevancyof the testimony
Witness-Nothng had ever occurred to interrupt this
cordalty the month Of June, 1S56the date do not
remember-after had been apponted1a member OF the
board to carry out the law to promote the efficiency OF
the navy paid short visit of fe~ hours to Philadel-
phia; soon after arriving met Com. Richie in the
street.-the Joined me, and walked together he almost
immediately introduced the subject of the Naval Board
its probable action discovered that he seemed
apprehensive and low spirited.
The counsel for accused here interrupted the witness,
as s'this testimony wss certainly irrelevant"
Com. Rtchie-l never low spirited or apprehensive
at all
Counsel for the accusedH the Court win allow u.s.
will retire and return in few minutes with statement
of objections to this testimony.
Permission granted and the accused retired with
the COUNSEL whereupon quite stir ensued among the
members of the court.
The counsel and accused having returned the counsel
read paper containing his ooecti to the testimony
The paper states that the testimony 10 irrelevant be-
~ hat Rifnhi
insulting language to Captain Dupont at the La Pierre
House, in Philadelphia but that in Washington City,
between Dec. and Dec. Is, Com. X. openly and pub
cy declared that he had used such language to Captain
Dupont. The distinction is important That the using
sucn language an offence against naval discipline is
denied but it has not been thought proper 10 try
the accused upon such charge and all civil and mill
ta,y authorities that individual cannot be tried
for two offences in the same count or specification He
cannst be brought up be tried for offence and
then lie calico to defend himself against another
charge for whish he has prepared himself. The
acmissisn OF irrelevant testmony-giviDg military
authorities for every assertion.
The paper goes to that II the testimony OF Capt
Dupont mtted, and the accused be convicted be-
cause of It, the anomaly will be presented Of person
brought TOR trial for offence then convicted OF
that offence by testimony another. and after
wards be liable to be convicted second time for the
violation Of public opinion never operates benedcay
the solemn laws which violate public sentiment be-
ing generally dead letters on the statute book and serv
The Judge Advocate objected to this part of the paper
it seemed like holding the Court threat Of pub
lie dsapprobaton The Court did not sustain the ex.
ceion not regarding the portion Of the paper objected
TO disrespectful.
The counsel then proceeded with the reading. After
completing the train of argument alluded TO above, the
paper says-Even suppose in the absence of the rules
Of evidence how could words spoken a. the IA psrre
Der Of the Retiring Board explain language used subse
quenty at Washington City, The paper was quite long
the Court cleared and at quarter to one O'Clock,
the pepper taken into consideration.
The court being re-pened, the accused was informed
that his objection ms had been sustained.
The witness then resumed:-I wish to premise that
Com. Richie never under any circumstances of time or
Of lar, coward and scoundre do not know that can
speak to thing contained between these dates and
this specification, except that the whole conversation
alluded to in the specification turned entirely pom the
action of the Naval Board in Com. Rtchies case, AID
my supposed share in that action.
The accused again raised objection and the witness
not being permitted to proceed claimed the right plac
ing upon the. record copy OF the official letter written
ected to by the accused but the objection with
drawn with the understanding that Com Rtchie would
also addressed to the Secretary Of the Navy The letter
then read, as follows
SRI am compelled by Of duty submit the de-
psrment lis action ibe conduct of Commander Robert
RS se
orr t Gsns o % 10
rumors that Bitche had been repeating
a on ss d a
sauOn between us in Philadelphia,
touching the conduct Of that Board.
re1ues,ed friend 10 acerain from Commander Richie
the truth certainty o such and having
them desired Capt 0oldsborough who friendly
with Comr Rchie call upon him and give him the portun
ty OF such reparaon would satisfy the violated
prees Of he service and relieve himself from the
seouences official ntorposu0n OF the Deparmenthus
eyinc,np l hope, the fullest degree Of forbearanoe.
The perempory refusal Of Commander Richie leaves
no other alternative submit the case 10 the Department
have to report Commander Richie for having
various places several occae0ns within the Last
months and finally herein Washington asserted that in
yereaton with me Phladelphia he had, relative
duct 10 wards the Naval Board, called liar and
coward ana when repeating this In OF the offices OF your
DepaI tnent superAGded the word scoundrel.
Commander Eehes assertion, that he had In that CONVERSE
top used these ephets towards me- Is OF Itself military
offence whether he did did not Them but when these
opprobrious words applied 70 me In semi judicial char
ser OF member Of the Naval Board charged by In and your
appointment with carrying out great measure Of naval
crm by an who has been found TO within the
ration Of law not mistaken, unheard Of and
cedened Of that nvioaby hitherto insured
every board court whether Of the
and essential TO their independence OF action and
respectfuy submit unvscd by the summary nterpostion
of ,xecuye authority totally destructive OF every
Tee ~ ne Arm and efficient administration Of the service
A. made aware the gravity OF his offence saying he
had used OF reproach towards member OF the
Eoard Commander Richie, learn, Ia endeavorng make
annear mai be approached man. and officer
rnp IN reierepee any Official position The boarda
pusp ~ NJ Ae conservation srcJuAa sroh -