COMMODORE .STEV.4RT'.
{"newspaper_name": "American watchman and Delaware advertiser.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": "NAVY DEPARTMEsT,"}



SIN enclose you the judgment Of the Court Mar


a which the President of the United States has approv-
ed acquiltng you most honcaby of AL the charges which
have been made against you, and OF which the Govern
ment has been apprsed, while sou commanded the squad
ron in the Pacific. The number and nature Of the charges,
and the character Of those Who presented them SUCH
that inquiry demanded by your honor, and the
duty which the government owed to itself and the inter
estl OF the nation, The result Of the investigation has been
satisfactory to the Execntvcwl be useful To the pubc
and honorable Yourself has furnished conclusive
answer public and private accusation, and redeemed
your fame ii ON reploacha fame heretofore dear your
country and hereaf become still more precious.


sAM'L l. souTIIARD


Capt CHARLES STEWART,


United States Navy, Washington.


At General Court Martial. convened at The City oi
Washington on the NH day Of August II tie year
o Lord one thousand, eight hundred and twenty -.e
by virtue Of pteccpt from the Honorable the SEehETAnY
NAVY, bearing date the seventeenth day q August
instant, present


Captain James Barron President, Wm. NJ Crane Robert
4. Spence, John D. Henley, Jesse ID. Elicit Stephen
Cassin, James Renshaw, Thomas Brown, Charles c. b.
Thompson, AlexanlerS. Watsworh, George w Rodgers
and George G. Read, Members; and Richard 5. Coxe
Judge Advocate.


This Court having fully and naurely investigated tic
matters submitted to in the case Of Captain Chants STEW
ART, and considered the Charges aud Specifications, the
evidence and the defence OF the accused proceeded this
third day Of September il the year aforesaid to which
time the Court had been adjourned from day to day to de-
temine upon the And, after such deberatiun, it
of opinion, hat the first and second Specifications of the
first Charge not proved that the third specification
so far Proved alleges that the SAID Captain Se~ar did
the Captain OF the Peruvian brig Begfano from
taking and sending in for dndicaton the American ship
the Canton, then engaged in lawful trade; ai ID do
ing the said Charles Stewart was acting in strict onedence
his duty, indicated buth in his Instructions and BY the
laws of nations; and that his conduct on this occasion


highly meritoious and praisewurhy. The Court is also
Of opinion, that the residue Of the Specification not PROV
ed. The Court IS also OF opnion that the ourih fifth
sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth specifications net
proved It is of opinion that the tenth specification 50
far proved as alleges the purchase OF the articles therein
mentioned to have been made from the Ca ton but the
Court IS decidedly OF opinion, that there mpiopfe
y in the act that it proper and correct, and ta, h
residue OF the specification not 1yed In relation to
the eleventh specification, the Court OF opinion, that ii
so tar proved as it relates to the employment OF the
penters and other persons attached the Franklin, The
manner stated bur il is also Of opinion, that such employ
men IN all which the proof reaches, opcr
cononant to The practice OF the seryce and every view
perfectly objectionable and that the residue Of The
specification is not proved The twelfth specification i
not proved The thirteenth is far proved ttat il
shown by the testimony that the said Ephalc Smith was,
on occasion, employed matter OF convenience TO
Captain Stewart and in aid of the public interests, car
ry despatch which had no other than public objects, and
that this employment OF Captain Smith designed for
the public good and had not the reotest reference
effect upon, any other interests and that the residue OF the
specification is not proved. The Court also Of opfon
that the 18th, 18TH and 10Th specifications not proved
The 18th is SO far proved as relates to the building Of
three small schrs with the aid Of the carpenters &C. OF
The Franklin, but not out OF Government property that


this was in the udicios and faithful exercise Of unques
toned right and that The individuals thus employed, were
thus employed by their free choice, for their own
benefit and compensated for their labor. also of
opinion that the 18Th specification is proved but the act
therein alleged is in conformity with the practice Of the
service in tflmen of the duties which public YES
sells owe to the commercial interests Of the nation and
essentially useful and necessary. In the circumstances
companying this particular act it was wholly unob jecliona
blc and attended with any loss injury the puc
The 10Th specification also proved in point of fact bu,
this, likewise, deemed by the Court Of Those acts in
Which the convenience and comfort Of those engaged in
commerce may be essentially promoted without the slight
est public injury and that in this instance was wholly
unobiectionable As regards the Goth, 2st 22d and 23d
specifications, is the opinion of the Court that the said
weaver was absent from the Franklin with permission
granted on proper and Sufficient grounds till the arrival OF
the Franklin at Caao, about the Ist of August 1922
tha subsequent TO this period, he absent without eay
that the musterros transmitted to the Department did
not precisely accord with that board the Frankn but
the varances between them wholly immaterial such
could not have been designed because not calculated TO
produce the smallest Inconvenience injury and which
the Court believes were purely accidental: the
Court perceive any grounds upon which to attribute this
mistake, innocent and unmportant it was, any mad
verence ct the accused 1t also of opinion, that the
muster roll approved in November, 1924, approved in
regular manner, and at proper time that tic entry
contained in it corresponded with The fact and with the
information previously communicated to the Department
The Court IS likewise OF opinion that the 2sth, 25th e@
27h 28th and 29th, the only remaining specifications Of
the frs Charge not norris either of them proved and
It does sdudge and declare that the said Charles Stewart
NOT GUILTY of the first charge.
The Court is likewise of opinion that the 1st Cd 4th
5 6ih and 9TH specifications of the second charge are
not proved and that the second specification only far
proved as is set forth in the opinion Of the Court upon the
third specification of the first charge and therefore does
pronounce and adudge that the said Charles Stewart is
GUILTY vt the second charge.


The facts forth the first specification or Tho 4;r3
charge have already been passed upon by the Cour, in it's
opinion upon the goth specification of the first charge and
reference is therefore made the finding of the Court
therennon. The second and third specifications are NOT
proved The Court does therefore sdjudge and decre