Alexandria Daily Advertiser

FROM THE WASHINGTON MONITOR.

At a general court martial assembled on board the U. S. ship the Chesapeake, in the harbor of Norfolk and state of Virginia, on Monday the fourth day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eight, and continued by adjournment from day to day until Monday the twenty-second day of February, in the same year—

PRESENT.

Captain John Rodgers, President:

MEMBERS.

Captains William Bainbridge
Hugh G. Campbell,
Stephen Decatur, jun. &
John Shaw.

Mas. Com. John Smith, &
David Porter.

Lieutenants Joseph Tarbell
Jacob Jones,
James Lawrence, &
Charles Ludlow.

The court, pursuant to an order from the honorable Robert Smith, secretary of the navy of the U. S. to captain John Rodgers directed, bearing date on the seventh day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seven, proceeded (as therein they are directed) to try John Hall, esq. a captain in the marine corps of the U. S. upon the charge "for negligently performing the duty assigned him," which is stated in the said warrant, and therein preferred against him: and having heard all the evidence, and very maturely and thoroughly considered the same, the prisoner declining to offer any defence, gave the following OPINION:

The charge stated in the warrant of the honorable the secretary of the navy, against the said John Hall, is in these words:

"For negligently performing the duty assigned him."

"Specification.

"1. In that he did not take care to have the marines on board the said frigate supplied with enough cartridges.

"2. In that he did not take care to have such cartridges as the marines had of the proper size.

"3. In that notwithstanding certain indications of a hostile intention exhibited towards the said frigate Chesapeake by the said ship Leopard, he did not report to his commanding officer the exact state and condition of the marines on board the said frigate Chesapeake, their arms and supplies of ammunition.

"4. In that he never did make to his commanding officer on board the said frigate, a full and faithful report of the exact state and condition of the marines on board the said frigate, their arms and supplies of ammunition."

In deciding upon this charge, the court will make the following statements.

1. It appears to the court that the said John Hall did not take care to have the marines on board the said frigate supplied with enough cartridges. It is unnecessary for the court to decide what is the particular duty of the officer commanding a detachment of marines on board a vessel of the U. S. in this respect, as it appears to the court that there was a great deficiency of cartridges on board the said frigate, that this deficiency was reported to the said John Hall by his sergeant, and it does not appear to the court that he took any measure, whatsoever to procure a supply. Whatever may be the duties of an officer commanding marines on board a vessel of the U. S. in other respects, it certainly is the duty of every officer on board such vessel, when deficiencies are regularly reported to him, to report immediately the information he has so received to the commander, or some superior officer to himself on board such vessel. This does not appear to the court to have been done by the said John Hall. The court are therefore of opinion, that this first specification is fully proved.

2. It appears to the court that the cartridges which the marines on board the said frigate had, although they did not exactly and tightly fit the calibre of their muskets, were nevertheless of a good and proper size. The court are therefore of opinion, that this second specification is not proved.

3 & 4. It appears to the court that the said John Hall did make to his commanding officer on board the said frigate, a true and faithful report, daily, of the state and condition of the marines on board the said frigate, but never did at any time report the state of their arms or ammunition. As to the arms of the said marines, it does not appear to the court that any defect in them existed, or was ever reported to the said John Hall. But as to the supply of ammunition, it appears to the court that there was a great deficiency in that: that this was regularly reported to the said John Hall; and it does not appear by the evidence that this deficiency was ever reported by him either to the said Charles Gordon, his commanding officer, on board the said frigate, or to any other officer thereof. The court are therefore of opinion, that these two specifications (the third and fourth) are proved in part.

The several specifications annexed to this charge which are proved, either fully or in part, are abundantly sufficient, in the opinion of the court, to establish the charge preferred against the accused. They do therefore agree that the said John Hall is GUILTY under this charge. "for negligently performing the duty as- signed him," and do further agree that the said John Hall, being so guilty of this charge, falls under part of the 20th article of the rules and regulations for the government of the navy of the U. States, adopted by an act of the congress of the U. States, passed on the 23d day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred, and entitled "An act for the better government of the navy of the U. States." The punishment directed by this law to be inflicted upon one guilty of the offence here described is left discretionary with the court. And this court, taking into consideration the unsettled practice and different usage on board of different ships in the service of the U. S. relative to the duties expected to be performed by the officer commanding a detachment of marines on board such ships, by which the accused may very probably have been deceived as to his duties on board the Chesapeake; the possibility that the accused may have reported verbally the deficiency in his supply of cartridges to the said Charles Gordon, who may have forgotten that such a report was made to him; the state of things existing at the time of the Chesapeake sailing; and, above all, that no evil consequences resulted from any of the neglects of duty charged upon the accused; do adjudge and SENTENCE the said John Hall to be PRIVATELY REPRIMANDED by the honorable the secretary of the navy, or by such person as he may think proper to appoint for that purpose, and at such time and place, and in such manner, as the said secretary shall choose or direct.

In pronouncing this opinion, the court will add, that believing the accused to be certainly guilty, they have not considered themselves as possessed of any authority to pardon, and have therefore been compelled to adjudge him some punishment. They have selected this as the least which they could select among those which are customary; but if a lesser had ever been resorted to in any case whatsoever, that would have been preferred.

John Rodgers,
Wm. Bainbridge,
Hugh G. Campbell,
Stephen Decatur, jun.
John Shaw,
John Smith,
D. Porter,
Jos. Tarbell,
Jacob Jones,
Jas. Lawrence,
Charles Ludlow.

LITTLETON W. TAZEWELL,
Judge Advocate.