Daily national Republican. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1862-1866, 1865-12-15
SECOND EDITION
FOUR O,CINOCK, u. NJ.
THE NAVAL oouRT-MARTIAL.
The Case OF Commodore Craven.

charBe was I""'"b W ns"' NV "
the Bay OF Corunna. Inc court, whioh was
presided over by Vice Admiral fARRAGuT,
| found the
(" sn.e, ae.t,,n Of tho charge proven, except In
an far n. the word, AS It was his duty 10 have
done, declare Il to have been the imperative duty
| of the accused to joiu battle with the stonewall
an the eI.h day Of March,
| I.s.n ,.,.,h, o-;,io;vr Of the Com
,I,- - ,,o...ds.
"ouo'e 'OnuuO'' 'u' ,'Ns'G a.
| "And' 'hero'ore' INC VOur' u0'n AuJuuse nm
gu'ly IN ueBree Vi 'he '"Ats' N
doth ind him guilty OF the charge In less de-
gree than charged.
"And the Court doth award the following sem
tence, viz:
THAT the accused, Commodore Thom" T.
Craven, be suspended from duty on iea'ePay lor
two years. "
This record was returned to the Court by
| the Navy Department as irregular. Where
unon tho Coprt reyised its record, which was
e.uo
lau " , -, ",n..,, =, A.. ,h.r,.
| po'n Huu 'ao ~ 80 -
pro'en' oh.eP "e mosus 60
,H'o uoAo, snu ~ uosa - y, Az. 80. r,Ii,,, :,
a',o ino,na' l. o,"'ou' VI NV s A.,
In reviewing tno Case 'ne oeoro'a'S Vi '"'
navy says:
| The importance Of this trial, the degree OF
public attention which 1t has attracted, tho high
standing Of the members OF the Court, and the
extraordinary result OF their deliberations, con
strain the Department TO express It's views OF the
case more at length than is ordinarily neces-
sary.
| The offence for which Commodore craven was
tried was one which tho law, with view no
A. lAANlA AZ Fanh Nnt
and national character In time Of war, has in
cluded among those to which the penalty oil death
Is attached.
Tho same law has enjoined 1t upon courts
martial, "in all cases OF conviction, to sdjudge
q punish ment adequate to the character and ma
ture Of the offence committed 1t leaves 1t dis.
cretionsry with q court martial to recommend
the convicted person to clemency; this clemeney,
however, to be exercised, not by the court, but
| by the revising power or the President OF the
United States who are expressly clothed with
the power to mitigate or remit punishment.
| In ali these provisions the law is clear, pre-
else, and free from ambiguity.
IL can hardly require argument - make It
| plain that punish hment which would be deemed
too mild for a trivial offence or misdemeanor-a
"nomipal lpuuishment''-caunot be adequate
punishment for an offence TO which the law has
attached the penalty of death.
Yet the court, In this case Of conviction Of q
| capital offence, has Adjudged a punishment
which ia obviously nothing more than q nominal
punishment, II It be even as much. Suspension
from duty for two years on "leave pay is, in
ITSELF nothing more than leave Of absence for
a,r. 4, :. ..mhI.nca of ysal mn pni,bmept: not even
,,n.h a. ronr,nard ssxers or otheryise.
n,hIIo a. nrix.,. sucb nu.i.bment as this no
| - -. ,,.t. t.o,a IN. nanartmant a. =.
go
Th. n.n.r,m.nt 4. tberefore forced to conclude
n., e. .,r.ra,n, this sd ppnisbmeut. the
| c., uar,,., yhi,b triad Commodore Craven
hs. a,.rsc.rdsa the law
IA NAV bs that the court. or members Of 1t
dssmsd the law under which the accused was
.,.a -. =, . b.r.b obar,,tey. lint eyen ad
t,,, ~, 4, ho a. 4, 4. s,II, law and thew were
| - H.. .aIon, obI,gstIop In administer IL an
:, st.,Js ana not TO modify Il so that II nigh,
.ecord with their own notions Of Justice. They
had No mara autbority to do 80 than to repeal tho
law
The Anal proeeadinps Of the court areNnexpli.
cab,s to The pepartment. II, after finding the
.ccnsed Ouilty OF A capital offence, they had
stated mitigating cIrcu instances as a Justification
,or .vardiDg lgbt punisbment. the Depart.
| mAnt. while considering their course as errone-
ous and in violation Of law might still have per.
cs,vod soma indication of sufacieut motive and
co,si.tant action But ipstead of pointing to nit.
Io.tIpg circum,tauces. they have prepnred and
len on record "A statement of aRgrAyatiug cir.
orn.,.pcas
Any one Of the derelictions OF duty here spec
iaed would deserve some greater punishment
, than leave OF absence for two years.
Ifuyas the duty Of the accused to encounter
, the Stonewall, and, through negligence, or any
other fault he failed in any one particular to d,
Lis duty, then he did not do his utmost to cap
ture or destroy the vessel, and is guilty Of tn,
charge preferred against him. The Court hav,
found him guilty Of 1t; and from the facts whicl
they nd proved, 1t appears that the accused, in
stead Of failing merely in single particular
failed In many respects-instead Of doing his ut
most. in fact did nothing-and was wholly ant
ipexcnsablv dsrelict. He was therefore not onl
Uuilty Of the charge, but guilty In the broades
n sense and such guilt called for adequate punish
. msnt
gueh is the necessary inference from what tn
y Court and proyed. But this Ia destroyed, aut
| the andipV Of uuilty coptradicted by what tn
Court and not proved.
: Thev saw thew dud the specification Of tn
. CHARGE proyep except the words ''as 1t was hi
drty IN bavs done
+ This orcspt,on de,troys and auuihiIates tn
d 1rorame,, OF the charge. The charge againt