Alexandria Daily Advertiser

From the National Intelligencer.

OPINION
Of the Court Martial on the trial of captain
JAMES BARRON,
Concluded.

The fourth and last charge stated in the
warrant of the honorable secretary of the
navy against capt James Barron is in these
words:

"For not doing his utmost to take or
destroy the Leopard, which vessel it was
his duty to encounter."

"Specification"

1st. "In that the said ship Leopard did
fire upon the said frigate Chesapeake, and
the said James Barron did fail suitably to
repel such attack."

2d. "In that the said frigate Chesapeake
was by order of the said James Barron
surrendered to the said ship Leopard,
at a time when the injuries sustained either
on the said frigate or her crew did not
make such a surrender then necessary."

3d. In that the flag of the said frigate
Chesapeake was by order of the said Jas.
Barron struck to the said ship Leopard,
when the guns of the said frigate Chesapeake
were loaded.

4th. "In that the flag of the said frigate
Chesapeake was by order of the said Jas.
Barron struck to the said ship Leopard, at
a time when the main deck battery of the
said frigate Chesapeake was in a situation
which would have enabled the return of a
broad side in a very short time."

5th. "In that the flag of the said frigate
Chesapeake was by order of the said Jas.
Barron struck to the said ship Leopard.
without the said James Barron having consulted
any of his officers, as to whether the
said flag ought to be struck or not."

6th. "In that the flag of the said frigate
Chesapeake was by order of the said Jas.
Barron struck to said ship Leopard, before
a single gun of any kind was fired from the
said frigate Chesapeake."

In deciding upon this charge the court
will make the following statements:

1st. It appears to the court, that the
said ship Leopard did fire upon the said
frigate Chesapeake, and that her attack was
not suitably repelled. The court are therefore
of opinion that this first specification
is fully proved.

2d. It appears to the court, that the flag
of the said frigate Chesapeake was by order
of the said James Barron struck to the
said ship Leopard, at a time when the injuries
sustained either on the said frigate
or her crew did not make such a surrender
then necessary. The court are therefore
of opinion that this second specification is
fully proved.

3d. It appears to the court, that the flag
of the said frigate Chesapeake was by order
of the said James Barron struck to the
said ship Leopard, when the guns of the
said frigate Chesapeake were all loaded.
The court are therefore of opinion that
this third specification is fully proved.

4th. It does not appear to the court,
that the main deck battery of the said frigate
Chesapeake was in a situation which
would have enabled the return of a broad
side in a very short time after her flag was
struck by order of the said James Barron,
to the said ship Leopard. The court are
therefore of opinion that this fourth specification
is not proved.

5th. It appears to the court that the flag
of the said frigate Chesapeake was by order
of the said James Barron struck to
the said ship Leopard, without the said
James Barron having consulted any of
his officers, as to whether the flag ought
to be struck or not. The court are therefore
of opinion that this fifth specification
is fully proved.

6th. It appears to the court, that the
flag of the said frigate Chesapeake was by
order of the said James Barron struck to
the said ship Leopard, before a single gun
of any kind was fired from the said frigate
Chesapeake. The court are therefore of
opinion that this sixth and last specification
is fully proved.

Altho' the specifications annexed to this charge
(one only excepted) are fully proved, yet the
court are of opinion that those which are proved
do not support the charge to which they are
annexed. The attack of the Leopard was
not suitably repelled by the Chesapeake, because
it appears to the court that circumstanced
as the two ships then were, boarding the
Leopard would have been impracticable, and of
course no other means of repelling her attacks
remained but in the use of the Chesapeake's
guns. That all of these guns were
loaded, and not one of them fired before the
flag of the Chesapeake was struck is most certain.
But yet it appears to the court, that
captain Barron and the officers commanding
divisions did every thing which they could do
to get them fired, and that the colors were
not struck until all reasonable hope of succeeding
in properly repelling the attack in
this way was lost. The injuries sustained
either in the Chesapeake or her crew, did
not at that time make her surrender necessary.
Captain Barron might have waited
until she had received many more and
greater injuries, and had lost the lives and
services of many more of her crew, before he
could have been compelled by these causes to
have struck his flag. But during this interval
of certain injury, he could have had no
reasonable hope, even after he had sustained
it, of doing any thing in the annoyance of his
adversary. And in such a situation he stands
justified in the opinion of the court in striking
his flag. The striking his flag without consulting
his officers, is a circumstance which
this court consider of no consequence. It is
not the duty of a commander under any circumstances,
and in the situation in which
Captain Barron then was it would have been
highly improper to consult his inferior officers
as to the propriety of hauling down his colors.
It is the opinion of the court therefore, that
Captain James Barron is NOT GUILTY,
under this fourth and last charge, "for not
doing his utmost to take or destroy the Leopard,
which vessel it was his duty to encounter,"
as this charge is explained and limited
by the specifications annexed to it.

In giving these opinions it will be perceived,
that the court have felt themselves bound
to consider the several charges preferred as
explained and limited by the specifications
annexed to them respectively. The opinion
of the court therefore upon those charges of
which they have acquitted the accused, is to
be considered in no other way, than that he is
not guilty under these charges as so explained
and limited-No transposition of the specifications,
or any other modification of the
charges themselves, would alter the opinion
of the court as to the firmness and courage of
the accused. The evidence upon this head is
clear and satisfactory.

The court having agreed in the preceding
opinions that captain James Barron although
not guilty of three of the charges preferred
against him, is nevertheless guilty under that
wherein he is accused "for neglecting on the
probability of an engagement to clear his ship
for action," do further agree, that the said
captain James Barron, being guilty of this
charge, falls under part of the fourth article
of the rules and regulations for the government
of the navy of the United States, adopted
by an act of the congress of the United States,
passed on the 2d 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 United States," and they do
adjudge and SENTENCE the said captain
James Barron to be SUSPENDED from all
command in the navy of the United States,
and this without pay or official emoluments, of
any kind, for the period of FIVE YEARS
from this eighth day of February, in the year
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
eight.

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

LITTn. W. TAZEWELL,
Judge Advocate.

The above sentence has been confirmed by
the president of the U. States.

We understand that the proceedings in the
other cases submitted to the court martial at
Norfolk have not been yet received.