Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1857-06-20
WASHINGTON NEWS AND GOSSIP

The NAVAL Courts OF INoUIRY.-The New
York Herald of the 25th ultimo contains an ar.
ticle entitled illegal Action of the New Courts
OF Inquiry, in which the writer takes occasion
to denounce-frst, the action of the late Naval
Board, assuming that it was wrong, but offer
Ing no proof In support of that assumption; and
secondly. the action of the Naval Courts of In
| curry In the admission of evidence on part of
the Government of the conviction of some of the
applicants, of grave offences, by Courts Martial.
A pressure on the Stars columns has prevent
ed us from subjecting that article sooner to Just
criticism, which we now proceed to do. The
-Hsrald'S argument is as follows:
" The policy of the principle that no man shall
be twice punished for the same offence. reouires
| no enforcement at our hands I'm military fepis
lation it has been acknowledged by express en-
actments, and is sanctioned by numerous de-
clSlons In the military code there is even rule
which prohibits the Introduction as evidence of
any offence committed more than two wears pre-
vlously. It is. therefore, properly ruled that an
ably exposed to the malice and yindictiveness of
his enemies" "a
This argument is, in effect, that because mill
tary courts have established rule of Iimita-
ton, prohibiting the trial of an officer upon
charges preferred more than two years after the
alleged offence shall have been committed. there
fore the Courts Of Inquiry are not to carry their
investigations to point anterior to that period
Nor are they to inquire into any offence COM
mltted even ~'thin that period; because that
would amount to double punishment for a
single offence.
What, then. should the Courts investigate
Is will be- remembered that they are not Courts
Martial, but Courts Of Inquiry; whose simple
and ss4e duty is, in obedience to the act of Con-
gress 10 give effect to which they have been in.
stitutcd, to investigate the ply steal, mental.
moral. and professional fitness of the several
applicants for the naval service and in cases of
unfitness for service, to decide whether they
shall receive leave Of absence or furlough pay.
They have not the power, and it is presumed
that they have not the disposition either to con-
vict or to punish The rule in Courts Martial,
if effect should be given to it in these inyesti.
cations, would, in great majority of the cases,
utterly defeat the object of the statute. For
how is the question Of fitness to be determined
without evidence Of the character of the appli-
cants naval life p? and especially, how is the
question as to the right of the applicant to an
increase Of pay to be satisfactorily decided.
without evidence showing how he performed his
official duties! If the record of his naval life
shows him worthy, no better evidence can be
offered of his claim to increased pay; even
though unfit, from age, or other cause for ac-
tive duty. While, upon the other hand. if the
history Of his official career shows him unwor
thy of the high position he held in the Navy.
such evidence bears directly, not only upon the
question Of his fitness for such position, but
also upon the question of increased or dimin-
ished pay.
If the consequence of its introduction be to
defeat the applicants design, it is misfortune
that he shares in common with most men who
fail to preserve spotless reputation; and one
that he should have anticipated when he SUBJ
mitted his claims to investigation. He comes
into court claiming, as a right, to be restored
to bis former position or, at least an increase
OF pay. He predicates this claim upon the
service he has rendered. The question occurs
at the very Threshold Of the Investigation
What was the character of such service? Was
1t credit or a disgrace to the Navy? If the
courts were to confne the inquiry within two
years preceding the investigation, their deci-
sions would afford very little satisfaction either
to themselves or to the public for in most cases.
there must, from necessity, be an utter absence
OF proof upon either side, under such a liInita-
ton. 1t is sufficient upon this point to add
that statutes and rules of limitation were never
| designed for Courts of Inquiry. They are
sometimes called statutes of repose. However
pleasant it might be for the Naval Courts to
| repose upon such evidence as may have turned
up within two years last past, it is believed
that, in so doing, they would come very far
short of the duty enjoined upon them by the
act Of Congress, which requires them to inves-
tigate, &c, and prescribes no limit whatever,
In respect to time, in such investigation.
1t should be remembered that these Courts of
Inquiry are not courts of appeal, having power
to review the proceedings and decisions of the
late Naval Board. They have no appellate ju-
rlsdiction. The proceedings in them are en-
ufeiy ae moro, and are clearly defined by the
ACT OIL Congress before mentioned. The appli.
cah' ofihgs into court, not part, but his entire
moran anu professional character; and claims
Ina' upon THIS he is entitled to all he demands
Illus IL pecoihes the very matter of inyestga-
ton ana ne, surely, should not complain if il
will not abide the test to which he thus subjects
! it. The effect OF such evidence, of course like
that of all other evidence, depends unon ,;r-
| cumstancss; and the courts, doubtless. o;ve 10
it no other effect than that to which it is levt;-
mately entitled. Its admissibility is believed
to be beyond doubt or questionable sweeping
denuncations of the Herald to the contrary
Notwithstanding. If any doubt does exist, to
entitle it to respect or consideration, it should
be founded upon n better reason than either of
those relied upon by the Herald. That paper
adds: These courts have now been sitting
nearly Eve months, and have, as yet, disposed