Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1857-09-19
WASHINGTON NEWS AND GOSSIP

readers in erfeRSo, as it should be published, if
at all, would preclude US from publishing aught
else. We will not print sketch reports Of it,
because in so doing we must necessarily do in
justice to the applicants or the public interests.
Every such report of the testimony given be-
fore either of those Courts has amounted, for
the most part, only to a hear-say account of it,
derived from the conversation or brief memo
randa concerning it, furnished by spectators
whose prejudices are keenly excited for or
against the doings of the Retiring Board, whose
action is no less practically under investigation
than the fitness of the parties being tried, for
the naval service. While this is necessarily so,
the Stars sensible readers, we are very sure,
will commend US for retaining from complica-
ting and disappearing what transpires before
the Courts in question, by creating impressions
concerning the cases not warranted by the
whole actual testimony in each
Wewant no better proof of the wisdom of the
standing regulation of all Courts Martial and
Courts of Inquiry which discourages the pro-
mitigation of testimony taken before them
during the pendencyO of the trial, than the gross
Misrepresentation of the facts involved in these
cases so for published, in the New York Herald
for instance, under the guise of reports of the
proceedings, the evidence of the witnesses in no
case being rendered as adduced. Any one who
has drawn conclusions of the merits of the cases
from such publications only, has of course
drawn wrong conclusions.
But our design is now rather to introduce a
communication relative to the controversy upon
the subject appearing in the columns of a
Washington contemporary:
A Washington journal of the 18th inst contains
the following statement, viz: "The third Naval
Court OF Inquiry, protested to-day against allow
ny the reporter of the States to take suitable
notes OF the testimony for publication at the
[ me threatening him with his expulsion from
said Court If he persisted in taking notes or pub
fishing them in the event of having taken any
Oar reporter protested, - &c; and the editor Wis
its his wrath upon the Court for attempting this
. censorship of the press" Now, it so happen,
that this statement is entirely erroneous The
facts are as follows. Viz: The senior officer
present politely stated to the said reporter that he
could not consent 10 the reporting, of the evidence
Tor publication from day to day during the pen-
deHcy Of the tHreSfi Sation-that he had no obec-
ton whatever to his reporting the evidence to
be published on the conclusion of the eyamina
ton OF the witnesses in each case. The said re-
porter expressed himself satisfied with this ar
rangement, and retired He twice told that
there was no objection to his reporting the evil
dence then, or whenever he thought proper Ii
g he
progress. that was objected to-
There was no threat of expulsion, and the re-
porter did not protest, but acquiesced; stating
that he would procure report of the evidence
When The examination OF the witnesses should he
completed. So much for the correctness of the
statement. Every gentleman then present knows
that IL is utterly incorrect.
Now, what offence did the Court commit to
merit the very strong language employed by the
newspaper in question in its comments uDon this
subject, 1t is a well known rule of law relating
to Courts Martial and Courts of Inquiry, that
witnesses shall he examined separatcly-that
those who have not been examined shall not he
present during the examination of their predeces-
sors. Whether this rule is a wise one or not, is
not the question; for the Court did not mai il
Ii was doubtless as apparent to this editor as TO
every other person, that the daily publication of
the evidence defeats the design of the law Now
the Court desired that effect might be given To
the law. that its aims NIGH not be defeated NV
the meddling of those who are in no way inter
ested in its Investigations. This is the head ard
front OF the Courts offending 1t did not like 10
see the laws by which its proceedings are gov
erned trampled on and set at defiance with its i'm
piled consent. What a tremendous - csusOrshiD
Of me press" is this! The newspaper in ques-
ton * no less jealous of its own rights than for
getful OF the rights of others The press under
such circumstances, is itself the ''censor.n and
supreme in its despotism, often assuming the un-
worthy task OF attempting to drive the Courts
into latitude of decision and construction inter-
ly Inconsistent with the public veal, from mo-
tives best known TO those who have thus prosti
tu;ed il to evil purposes.
The journal To which refer taught the public
a lesson some DAYS ago. polite request from
member of one of the other Courts, reminding its
editor of the improperly of its proceeding. and
desiring IL To deSist, aroused his terrible indpna-
ton. and evoked 4 storm of denunciatiOn. IL was
an attempt "tO control the press" and IL there
fore sounded the alarm, and called upon all the
other presses to resist this nonstrOus invasion Of
its high prerogative. Responsive to its call the
pure and spotless Herald takes up the song. and
plays itupon ''its harp of a Thousand strinysD so
comprehensive is their wrath, that il encompass
es the entire Navy, and the loving twain consipn
all 10 infamy, except their dear friends-the vic
tins, martyrs, sants-and for what! Because
the presiding officer of one of the Naval Courts
dared to suggest that, by making public the evil
deDCe as 1t IS bsing giren, il, in effect defeats
and utterly nullifes a rule of evidence recognised
10y all the leading authorities relating to courts of
this description. A SPECTATOR