New-York tribune., 1901-12-22
HISTORIC COURTS MARTIAL
p17NIsHNENTs THAT HAVE BEEN METED
OUT TO DISOBEDIENT NAVAL
OFFICERS.

OFFICERS.
Never before has so much interest peen ln0Ni
tested in the methods of legal Jurisprudence en-
nIoved in the United States military service. anu
70 no more speciic in the naval service althoush
the regulations of the army correspond SO cio'eis
TO those of the navy that they can naruiy Oe S
to differ People who never before cared a rap
what officer to be reprimanded' suspehueu VI
dronped entirely from the navy list nave gone
to libraries to other places where lIie piue
Book could be consulted. and have studleo tiie
manner of procedure against offenders Dy ooth
summary and general courts martal' anu tlIe
mowers of each. They have learned that an OH
Ger must be careful to walk in the straisht anu
narrow path. must not treat either superior vi
inferior with contempt or dfsrespect must ODeS a
order of whatsoever nature without quesuon as 10
is Iawf,1lness until after it has been obeyed and
that an officer enlisted man must not assault
his superior or inferior, challenge or accept
a challenge: that ne must. in fact, do nothing 'un-
becoming the conduct of an officer and gentle
man. And yet, II one were to consult the records
of the Navy Department. he would find that the
Regulations have been often violated, and that
many officers have been punished severely, al
though in many instances. judging from the evil
dence, the punishment did not always fit the Of
fence. One may Judge of the rigidity of discipline
from some of the acts of Congress. For instance
act relating to appointments In the navy and TO
courts martial approved May 16, 1864. read fol-
lows: That naval courts martial shall have power
TO sentence officers who absent themselves from
their commands without leave TO be reduced to
the rating of ordinary seamen." But the records
do not show that than two three were
ever punished IN accordance with this act. Secre-
tary Wees said in tried in January, 1853
The offence of disobedience of orders is one of
the most serious known to the military code, and
the person found guilty of it is liable to punish
ment by death"
That courts martial are not limited to Junior Of
fcers is shown in the case Of Commodore Thomas T.
Craven who in November 1865. was tried by general
martial, the charge being that ''on or about
March q. 1865. he. while in command of the Mag
ara then lying off the harbOr of Corunna, Spain.
failed to use any exertion make any effort
whatever TO overtake and capture or destroy as it
was his duty to have done. the rebel ram Stone
wall that out of the harbor. plainly seen and
well known by him, but remained quietly at anchor
for more than twenty-four hours after having seen
said vessel on its way out OF the bay of Corunna-
his pretext for this failure being that the odds in
her (the Stonewans) favor too great to admit
of the slightest hope of being able to infict upon
her even the trifing injury. and that, had he
/ gone INTO engagement the Niagara would GER
/ tainIy have been destroyed" and subsequently
stated in an official letter the Charge Analres
at Madrid with feelings that no one can appre-
ciate. I obliged to undergo the deep hurnilla-
tion OF knowing that she was steamins back and
forth, Haunting her flags and waiting for me to go
| out to attack. l dared not do it,. etc
The court. of which VIce-Admiral Farragut was
| president, found him guilty of the charge IN a
lesser degree-that is. "as il his duty 10 nave
| done" was stricken out. and ne was sentenced TO
be suspended on leave pay for two years Secretary
Wees. the reviewing power, declared that the hnd-
| ing was modified to an extent that was worthy OF
| criticism and sent It back to the court for re-
| vision. The court refused modify its original
finding whereat the Secretary set the proceedings
aside, ard III his Endorsement suggested that the
| final decision of the court could only be inter-
preted TO mean. DO hight if there is chance
OF defeat" rather than the converse rule, Fight
If there is chance OF victory"
y similar that of Captain Richard l.
Law, who when a lieutenant commander and IN
command OF the steamer Clifton was charged with
leaving his station off Galveston. in January 1861
without being regularly relieved and without per
mission thus failing to capture the Harriet
Lane then under the Confederate flag He was
court martialed and found guilty OF mot doing his
utmost TO capture destroy vessel which II
vas his duty encounter, and was sentenced to
be dismissed from the naval service IN view OF ms ms
previous gaantry and bravery under Farragq.; all
1nousa @ , t n,ay he punished bv death he was
pended from rank and duty for three years only,
| charge at the New-York Navy Yard in october;
1854 the specification being ina, Nv Whe9 IN a
ha ssee TO escape capture by disseminating MS pGt
suit OF her The sentence OF the court was that he
Se suspended for one year. with the loss Of s9
f,irTs ~ The court and relieved the officer
from arrest in this language: The department de-
eli c4es 10 or 10 msead the younger ocers
| navy by approving a sentence so glarinsF lhaue-
| The case Admiral McCaIa was recently al
Iuded to by Of his conspicuous galiantry IN
| the Sncnisn war and in China In lS$D ne was
| charged with inflicting cruel and unlawful pun
| ishment on persons under his command. abuse OF
| official power and oppressive and tnhuman con
| duct unbecoming officer and a gentleman lie
| yas sentenced to be suspended from rank ana
duty for three years. and to retain the number ne
+ba1 bel. on tine of commanders In the spring
Of Sao the President relieved him from suspension
| and restored him to duty. but meanwhile TWO
| comma anfers had been promoted above him.
| Another officer living. but on the retired ist
l yas in 1870 charged with conduct unbecOmlnG
an officer and a gentleman having paid 81 800 TO
secure the appointment of his midShipman
az rho Naval Academy by having the son of Walter
| F Baldwin Withdrawn from the examination \ ne ne
| charges were proved in part only, but the Oncer
| yvas sentenced to be publicly reprimanded-
an instance which navy men of the present day
! often aIlude To- and which always affords merri-
ment is that Of Captain Jacob Jones; who entered
| tho navy as rnidshipman in 1879 and died in 1850
fn rsI7 when first officer of the Philadelphia in
which ship he made the heroic fight in Tripoli, ne
4 us charged by an ensign with having struck him
When tho latter demonstrated all the satisfaction
| he rot was that II he in the first officer 8
ITay again he would be 'heaved overheard. Cap
tain Jones admitted before the court that he had