Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1856-03-11

CoURr MARTIAL.-The Military and Naval
officers now in this city, are looking with
some impotence and much interest for the
finding Of Court Martial which recently sat
at Chsrlestown, Mass for the trial of Capt
Jabez C. Rich, Of the Marine Corps The
court was composed Of the following officers of
the Marine Corps Lieut.. Col. John Harris,
President Capt. Henry b. Tyler, Brevet
Major g. Ii. Terrett, Brevet Major Jacob lei
lin, Brevet Captain VIM A. r. Maddox,
Brevet Captain Robert Tanstill and first Lieut.
Israel Green. The Judge Advocate was first
Lieut. John C. Grason. The accused was as
sisted by Purser Levi d. Slamm as his counsel
in defence.
The Boston Post says, in an account Of the
case, that the charges, of which there were
two, alleged disobedience of a lawful order
The finding Of the Court will be interesting TO
our military readers, to show how far a supe.
nor military oficer can control the private
quarters of an inferior officer. Brevet Lieut.
Colonel Dulany, commanding the barracks at
Charlestown, who complained TO the Secre
tary Of the Navy, and upon whose complaint
these charges were preferred, claimed the
right to exclude a particular washerwomsn,
in the employ Of Capt. Rich, from not only the
barracks, but from bis own private quarters
Upon this point the Court was convened.
II appears that Mrs. Livos wife of a ma
rine, the woman alluded to. was, by an order
Of Lieut. Col Dulany, February 5, 1855, ex-
cluded from coming within the precincts Of
the barracks, in consequence Of her indecent
and disgrsceful language.
The defence held that the first charge Of
disobedience Of a lawful command is dis.
t. 10 e
dience on the 7th Of February, the defence
answers that he was then under suspension,
and could not have obeyed or dsobeyed an
order He states that il has not been proved
that Mrs Livos visited his quarters at the
ume charged by his order; and further, he
cites from the evidence of Commodore String.
nam, commander OF the yard, that Mrs Ii
vos should not have been excluded fro,, 81.
private quarters Of the accused; and that the
officer occupying private quarters is alone re-
sponsible for the character Of the ne,son he
may employ about his premises
Captain Rich, in his defence, saws: The nm.
relenting course pursued against this moor
woman, extending through this long period,
taking from her the employment by which
che earned her broadly excluding her from
the bsrracks-is, the accused makes bold 70
say, inconsistent with his notions Of humanity
He could not therefore, subordinate and re-
speetful he claims to be 10 bis superiOrs,
become willing participant in the persecu-
ton CT helpless woman, whose only offence
seems to have been, that she would not labor
for less than starvation prices He il conf
dent that the sound Judgment of the Court
will not by any finding it may make, Justify
the issuing Of an order, by any officer, how.
ever high mis- grade, which in its operation in
yades the ssnctity Of juniors household.
trenches upon his rights as a man, offends his
dignity as an officer, and repudiates and con-
dennis the great maxim Of the common law
that ones house is his sstle.