^'>M Captai-nl^.chaT-cL W. Heaie. MM 
 Triei C-or tW Loss o/- tlie. ^HH 
 
 Sa^. Jacnito . l^tfc 
 
Qass ^-1^ 
 
DEFENSE 
 
 OF 
 
 CAPT. RICHARD W. MEADE, 
 
 TRIED FOR THE LOSS OF THE --«-^t«*^., 
 
 UNITED STATES STEAMER SAN JACINTO, 
 
 ON THE BAHAMA BANKS, JANUARY 1, 1865. 
 
 READ BY HIS COUNSEL, 
 
 JOHN W. ASHMEAD, 
 
 On THE Eighth Day of February, 1866, 
 
 BEFORE A 
 
 CONVENED AT THE NAVY YARD, 
 
 IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 -»-« ♦ » I 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 PRESS OF WYNKOOP & HALL EN BECK, 
 
 113 Fulton Stkeet. 
 
 1866. 
 
[1. \S' 
 
 MEMBERS OF THE COURT. 
 
 Captain WM. K. LATIMER, President. 
 CHARLES BOARMAN, 
 JOHN P. GILLIS, 
 OLIVER S. GLISSON, 
 COJIMANDER T. D. SHAW, 
 
 JOHN C. CARTER, 
 EDWARD R. THOMSON. 
 
O V 
 
 ^ 
 
 DEFENSE. 
 
 Mr. President and Gentlemen of tee Court: 
 
 An accusation has been preferred against me by the 
 Honorable the Secretary of the Navy, which tliis Court- 
 Martial is convened to try. It charges, that I violated 
 the seventh section of the seventh article of the rules 
 for the better government of the Navy of the United 
 States, and the manner of the violation is briefly stated 
 in two specihcations on the record, but which, in sub- 
 stance, amount to but one. It is, that when I was in 
 command of the United States Steamship San Jacinto, I 
 so negligently, culpably, and inattentively gave my 
 order for the navigation of the ship, that she was suf- 
 fered, by reason thereof, to run upon a rock, and that I 
 did not give to the execution of those orders that per- 
 sonal attention and supervision which it was my duty 
 to have done. To these charges, I have pleaded Not 
 Guilty, have produced my testimony, and have listened 
 to all that the accusing witnesses have said against me. 
 These witnesses have been examined, re-examined, and 
 cross-examined, and this court has ascertained the lull 
 extent of the knowledge possessed by each. Upon this 
 body of evidence I build my defense. I am conscious 
 of having done no wrong, and believe that I must come 
 out of this ordeal of atrial, unscathed by anything that 
 has been said or done. Instead of its having been 
 proved by the government, that I was a careless and 
 inattentive officer in the discharge of my duty, I have 
 
been shown to have been a vigilant one, always super- 
 vising personally the orders I issued, and careful to see 
 that they were never evaded or disregarded. I have a 
 deep stake in the result of this trial, as much as I well 
 can have in anything that does not affect my life. It 
 involves my regard for my .reputation, and for my hon- 
 orable character among my associate officers, as an 
 efficient, vigilant, and competent captain in the Navy 
 of the United States ; and, if you are about to visit me 
 with a judgment that shall strip me of all these things, 
 (which I so dearly cherish), I conjure you to state, on 
 the record which condemns me, strong and clear grounds 
 for your proceeding. Under any circumstances, I trust, 
 that no high-priest will be permitted by this court to 
 lay his hands upon my head — make me the scapegoat — 
 confess over me the iniquities of the men of the 
 Navy, and, putting their transgressions upon me, send 
 me away to bear them to the wilderness. 
 
 The loss of the San Jacinto was of small account to 
 the nation, so flir as her pecuniary value is concerned ; 
 but, it was a great calamity to me; for , it gave both 
 occasion and opportunity for charges to be made, that 
 I was careless and negligent in the performance of my 
 duties when in command of a ship. I have great con- 
 fidence in stating, that I will be able to show, to the 
 satisfaction of this court, I trust, that the charge and 
 specifications preferred against me are untrue, and that 
 the loss of the ship San Jacinto is attributable solely to 
 the ignorance and culpable neglect of Acting Ensign E. 
 B. Pratt, in disobeying the orders given him, directing 
 the course the vessel was to run, he being the officer of 
 the deck, and having the first vt^atch, from 8 o'clock 
 to 12 o'clock, P. M., on the night of the 31st of 
 December, fS64. Had the order to steer the ship south 
 
by west, in the manner, and for the time, directed by 
 me, been carried out, according to its letter, the ship 
 never would have been lost, and the present inquiry in 
 reference to it, never would have been necessary. 
 
 Before I proceed to state the facts that have been 
 given in evidence — comment on their bearing and effect, 
 and show how they demonstrate that I am free from all 
 blame, I will state some points, which naturally present 
 themselves for consideration and discussion. 
 
 First. — Who is responsible for the safe navigation of 
 the ship ■? This is a question which necessarily arises 
 here, and which it is important you should consider, 
 and, if possible, decide. The Court of Inquir} had it 
 directly presented for decision, but it failed to deter- 
 mine the point or express any decided judgment what- 
 ever on the subject. It suggested, that the Department 
 should settle it, by authority, to prevent further embar- 
 rassment in future cases. It represented that I was oi 
 opinion, that the responsibility rested on the navigating 
 officer, whoever he might be, while others supposed, 
 that it was upon the captain, and, some insisted, that the 
 senior officer on board the ship, (the admiral, for instance) 
 was to be held responsible, should it be wrecked by 
 improper navigation. The question, therefore, seems 
 to be an open one, which it is necessary for you to con- 
 sider. To hold, that the captain of a ship is justly 
 responsible for her loss, when caused by the disobedience 
 of proper orders given to the officer of the deck, is a 
 position, it will be difficult to maintain. Each officer is 
 rightly held accountable for the proper performance of 
 his own duties, in his own appropriate sphere, but 
 cannot be for anything outside of them, and, to visit 
 
6 
 
 the delinquencies and shortcomings of another upon 
 him, would be considered, by every one, an act of 
 injustice and oppression. For this court, therefore, to 
 establish such a principle, would be, in eftect, for 
 its members to stultify themselves, which no rational 
 man is expected to do. Indeed, to hold, that the captaiu 
 is responsible for the loss of his ship, where it has been 
 occasioned by either a willful or negligent disregard of 
 his orders to the officer, and then punish the captain for 
 the loss, would be neither more nor less than sayinir, 
 that a commander of a public vessel shall not rely upon 
 the men and means furnished him to navigate his vessel, 
 but, that he must, in addition, perpetually keep the deck 
 in person, and watch the execution of his orders from 
 hour to hour. He must be engineer, helmsman, sailinsr- 
 ^aster, and officer of the deck, and all these at all hours ; 
 otherwise, he is liable to be arraigned and convicted of 
 inattention and negligence. The officer, who ought, in 
 strictness, to be responsible for the safe navigation of 
 the ship, is the sailing-master ; for, it is his business to 
 keep the ship's place, and report to the captain, three 
 times a day, the bearings and distances of the port to 
 which she is bound, or the nearest land which it is desired 
 to make ; it being the habit of some commanders, as the 
 members of this court know, to leave the navigation of 
 the vessel wholly to the judgment of their sailing-mas- 
 ters. To assert, that a captain of a vessel is responsible, 
 under all circumstances, for her safe navigation, and to 
 have the doctrine authoritatively settled by the authority 
 of the Department, or even asserted to be true, by the 
 finding of a single Court-Martial, and acted upon, would 
 leave thereafter no case open to inquiry, but the com- 
 mander of the vessel, however innocent he might be of 
 guilt, would be either suspended or dismissed from the 
 
Navy. It woolrl be, in effect, as if a ham an govern- 
 ment were to orflain that all killing should be imarfler, 
 and that no inquiry sboald be made to ascertain whether 
 the killing was in self^Jefenae, by accident, or whether 
 the party perpetrating the deed was sane or otherwise. 
 Or, to make the resemblance still more complete, it 
 would be, as if ia the other arm of the poblic service, 
 a general commander, with dirision commanders ander 
 him, should be held responsible for the errors and dis- 
 obedience to orders committed by them, and he be pun- 
 ished in their stead. This doctrine could be held, wit:h 
 quite as much propriety in the Nary, as in the Army ; 
 for, in the one case it would be the loss of the ship, 
 and in the other the loss of the battle. 
 
 It is clear, that on the obedience or disobedience of a 
 subordinate officer in the field, the result of the action 
 may depend, and to permit the superior officer to be 
 punished for the fault of the subordinate, would be sub- 
 versive of all justice, and, in its consequences, ruinous 
 to the service. I trust, therefore, that this Court-Mar- 
 tial will not be the first to hold, that the captain of a 
 ship is, under all circumstances, responsible for the loss, 
 and that, too, in a case where he gave proper orders for 
 the navigation of the vessel, and where the loss was 
 consequent upon their being disobeyed. Such a doc- 
 trine, I trust, will not be announced, for the first time, 
 in my case, especially as it is shown by the record, that 
 the Navy Department was asked by the Court of In- 
 quiry to decide the question of responsibility more than 
 eleven months ago, and has, up to this hpur, neglected 
 to do so. The prestimption from the delay is, that the 
 Department concluded to leave the law as it now stands, 
 unchanged, suffering each case, as it may arise, to be 
 decided upon its own fects, and subjecting the party, 
 
who should be ascertained, by investigation, to be delin- 
 quent, to a just responsibility for his wrong acts. In 
 other words, the Department did not mean to make an 
 arbitrary rule upon the subject, nor, did it design to 
 punish one man for another man's transgressions ; but 
 it intended to apply punishment only to the guilty. 
 Hence, it is submitted to this court, that it is not true 
 that the captain is responsible for the safe navigation 
 of the ship, but the responsibility, as a general rule, 
 properly belongs to the sailing-master. Each case, 
 nevertheless, is dt-pendent upon its own peculiar 
 circumstances, and the party ascertained to be 
 in fault, is the one upon whom the punishment should 
 fall. 
 
 Second. — It has been suggested that I exhibited a 
 want of ordinary prudence, in giving my orders for 
 (he navigation of the ship on the night of the 3 1st of 
 December, 1S64, and that the course and distance I 
 directed to be run, from S o'clock to 12 o'clock, 
 P.M., put her in closer proximity to the shore than was 
 proper, considering that the currents were uncertain, 
 and the land but a few feet elevated above the level of 
 the sea. That tlie order was not rasli, but might be 
 prudently given, is sworn to by Mr. Frazier, a seaman, 
 probably, of all living men, the most thoroughly versed 
 in the navigation of that sea, having been employed by 
 the New York underwriters not only to visit, but almost 
 to live in the locality, in order to ascertain, if possible, 
 how to avoid the losses so constantly recurring there, 
 and for which they had so often been held responsible^ 
 A little consideration will show, that the suggestion, 
 that I ordered the ship closer to shore than I ought 
 to have done, is without the slightest foundation in 
 
9 
 
 point of fact, and it must be considered with 
 reference to the objects that directed the order, 
 ansl the purposes which it was intended to ac- 
 comphsh by it. I received my sailing orders 
 from Admiral Stribling, dated December 23, 1864. 
 They directed me to proceed, with the San Jacinto, to 
 cruise, in the vicinity of Nassau and the Bahama Banks^ 
 and to be governed by the General Instructions relating 
 to the capture of vessels attempting to run the block- 
 ade of any of the ports, then in possession of the 
 rebels. In obedience to these orders, I sailed from 
 Key West on the 27th of December, 1804. Now, it 
 must be recollected, that these sailing orders did not 
 direct me to proceed to any specified port, but I was 
 ordered to cruise, for a special purpose, in the neigh- 
 borhood of the Bahama Banks, and capture vessels 
 that might attempt to run the blockade. I had, there- 
 fore, as stated by Sailing Master Wright in his evi- 
 dence, a particular object in running for that part of 
 the coast on which the San Jacinto was lost. I had, 
 on the 31st of December, 1864, discovered and chased 
 three blockade-runners through Whale Key Passage, 
 and my desire was to be as near that passage by day- 
 light on the morning of the 1st of January, lSb5, as 
 was prudent. A vessel was then lying in the passage, 
 which had been driven there by me, and my object 
 was, that if she attempted to come out in the morning, 
 I might intercept her, and others, that were supposed 
 to be near her, and chase them off, rather than towards 
 the shore. This evidence of Sailing Master Wright, 
 was given in reply to a question propounded by this 
 court, and it states my true reasons. Even Acting 
 Ensign Pratt, respecting whose testimony I shall have 
 much to say hereafter, states, that I said something to 
 
10 
 
 him about wanting to meet blockade-runners at day- 
 light on the morning of the 1st of January, 1865, and 
 ordered him to keep a sharp lookout for them. I need 
 not assure the court, that it was my purpose, in all 
 sincerity, to carry out, with strictness, the orders of 
 the Admiral, and it was, in obedience to their spirit, 
 that I gave the orders which are called in question. 
 Had my ship been bound upon a voyage to a designated 
 port, I would have stood upon a course directly for 
 the place ; but, as the purpose of my cruise made it 
 necessary for success, that I should keep as near shore 
 as prudent, I gave the necessary orders to accomplish 
 that result. Tliat they were prudent orders, I then 
 believed, and I now believe, and had they been carried 
 out in the spirit in which they were given, the ship 
 would not have been lost. Sailing iraster Wright has 
 stated, after looking at and examining the chart, in the 
 presence of this court, that, if the ship had been run 
 upon a course south by west, for twenty miles, she 
 would have been twelve miles from the nearest land, 
 and eleven miles from the nearest point of danger. 
 My desire was to be distant from the land some eight 
 or nine miles, on the morning of the 1st of January, 
 and the courses and distance I directed to be run from 
 8 to 12, P. M., on the evening of the 31st of December, 
 would have accomplished that result. 
 
 If this statement be true, respecting which there can 
 be no question, it will hardly be pretended that it was 
 not safe or prudent in me to approach within eleven 
 miles of the nearest point of danger. Mr. Frazier, the 
 experienced navigator already alluded to, has also testi- 
 fied, that if he had three chronometers on board his 
 ship, (the number which were on board the San Jacinto 
 at the time of her loss), and if he were satisfied of 
 
11 
 
 their accuracy, and he had reliable observations in the 
 forenoon and afternoon of the day, he would not hesi- 
 tate to run within five miles of the land with a good 
 lookout. A discrimination, of course, is to be made 
 between a steamer and a sailing-vessel, for a steamer 
 can always keep her course by aid of her steam, while 
 a sailing-vessel would be dependent for safety upon 
 having a commanding breeze. Had the order been to 
 run twenty-five miles instead of but tvven^-y miles, the 
 vessel still would have been subjected to no peril ; for 
 Sailing Master Wright swore, in answer to a question 
 put to him, that if the vessel, instead of running twenty 
 miles on the course south by west, had run twenty-five 
 miles, she would still have been entirely safe. I, there- 
 fore, assert, it is clear that I exhibited no want of ordi- 
 nary prudence when I gave my orders for the naviga- 
 tion of the ship on the night of December 31, 1S64, 
 and that I in nowise endangered her safety by putting 
 her in too close proximity with the shore, wiien the 
 purposes for which I was cruising are considered and 
 understood. I will add here, in addition, that so satis- 
 fied is Sailing Master Wright with the orders that were 
 given for the navigation of the San Jacinto on the 
 night of December 31, that in reply to the following 
 question put by this court, viz. : " With your knowl- 
 edge of the dangerous navigation in the vicinity of 
 where the ship was wrecked, would you, as a naviga- 
 tor, being in commfind of a ship of the class of the San 
 Jacinto, in the same position where that ship was at 
 8 o'clock, P. M., of December 31, 1S64, adopt the 
 same course?" — he responded, with confidence, as fol- 
 lows : " I should. Were the course given at 8 o'clock 
 adhered to, and knowing the coast perfectly clean, with 
 no dangers beyond the edge of the reef, I should feel 
 
12 
 
 myself safe within half a mile of it, provided it could 
 be seen, or I knew its position." With these remarks, 
 I proceed to the consideration of my next point. 
 
 Third. — Another preliminary matter, in respect to 
 which I desire to make a few remarks, has reference to 
 the utter want of proper precautions taken for the safety 
 of the San Jacinto, when I was ordered to cruise with 
 her in the vicinity of Nassau and the Bahama Banks. 
 I was assigned to her command on the 17th of October, 
 1864. She was rated a second-class ship, with a 
 complement of about two hundred and eighty officers 
 and men. She was then lying in Portsmouth, New 
 Hampshire, undergoing repairs, and preparing for sea. 
 •While under the command of Commodore Wilkes, she 
 had been furnished by him with an excellent set ot 
 charts, which, on her arrival at Portsmouth, were depos- 
 ited in the Navigation Office. When orders were given 
 to take her stores on board, Sailing-Master Wright made 
 apulication for these charts, but was told the ship could 
 only Iiave what was allowed any other second-class 
 vessel of the East Gulf Blockading Squadron. Con- 
 sequently, she was furnished with nothiifg but a set of 
 Bache's Coast Survey Charts, of which. Sheet No. 4, 
 representing, upon a small scale, the coast from Mos- 
 quito Inlet to Key West, together with the adjacent 
 sea, was the only one she had of that region, being even 
 denied the old Blunt working chart, by which the San 
 Jacinto had been navigated by her former captains. 
 The place where the San Jacinto was to cruise, is 
 described in Blunt's Coast Pilot, as "one of the most 
 dangerous and fatal corners on the Bahamas, and likely 
 to pick up all vessels bound southwest, when they 
 
13 
 
 happen to fall to the westward of the reckoning." The 
 truth of this is amply attested by the wreck, marked on 
 the chart, of the French frigate La Allid ; of the British 
 seventy-four Lion, the former northwest, and the latter 
 southeast of the rocks ou which the San Jacinto ran 
 neither of them fifteen miles from the scene of the dis- 
 aster in question ; and of the United States vessels Adi- 
 rondac and Courier, all upon the same i-eef, the last not 
 exceeding twenty-five miles distant from the place where 
 the San Jacinto was wrecked, and under the direction 
 of this same Mr. Pratt, as navigating officer, a fact, of 
 course, unknown to me at the time. A writer of great 
 respectability, upon navigation, after enumerating at 
 considerable len2:th the aids with which a navigator 
 must be supplied, in order to pursue his dangerous call- 
 ing with safety, says : " Finally, he must be provided 
 with the general and local charts applicable to his con- 
 templated voyage. Thus furnished, the mariner may 
 set sail with confidence ; may do so with no aids but the 
 compass, log, quadrant, a single chart and book of navi- 
 gation, and arrive in safety. But, it is less our business 
 to show with how little care a ship may be navigated, 
 than to show how she may be carried from port to port 
 with the greatest possible certainty." I have alluded to 
 this want of proper charts on board the ship, simply to 
 show,how inadequately the vessel was equipped for proper 
 navigation. I will add, let the guilt of sending this ship 
 to cruise in the most dangerous sea on our coast, with 
 one small chart, lie at the door of those to whom it is 
 due. I will demonstrate, hereafter, when I approach 
 the consideration of the facts of my case, that ii was to 
 avoid these well-known dangers, and yet carry out the 
 purposes of the cruise, that my orders were so specially 
 given to Acting Ensign Pratt, as to the course and dis- 
 
14 
 
 tance the ship was to run on the night of the 31st of 
 December, 18G4. 
 
 Fourth. — The Court of Inquiry stated, that it was 
 impossible for it to decide positively, in regard to the 
 conflicting testimony, when both parties were so seri- 
 ously interested. This is the language used by the 
 court. I had testified before it, and Acting Ensign 
 Pratt had also given his evidence. The parties intended 
 to be described as seriously interested were, no doubt, 
 Acting Ensign Pratt and myself. Here, where it is a 
 trial, and not simply an inquiry, my lips are sealed, and 
 no statement or explanation that I might be able or 
 willing to offer, can be heard from me under oath. 
 What Pract chooses to say, is here called testimony, 
 while what I may conscientiously utter, is esteemed as 
 but dust in the balance, and yet, he is directly swearing 
 for himself, and is personally most deeply interested in 
 the result of the trial. If by disobeying the order for 
 the navigation of the ship, he was instrumental in caus- 
 ing her loss, he was aware that he violated a military 
 order, for which no excuse is allowable, except inevita- 
 ble accident or overruling power. Acting Ensign Pratt 
 was conscious of all this, and in order to escape the 
 consequences, he now pretends, that the orders he 
 received from me, left it discretionary with him, 
 to sail the ship any course he chose between south 
 and southwest, when he must have known, that 
 by sailing west of the course, he would certainly run 
 upon the reef, if he recollected what had happened to 
 him, in that same, place so very recently. For this pal- 
 pable violation of the orders he received, he could not 
 even plead the poor excuse of ignorance of the dangers 
 which beset that locality, since, as has been already 
 
15 
 
 stated, the United States ship Courier had been lost 
 there, a few months before, under him, as navigating 
 officer. This court must, therefore, on this trial, 
 decide the question which the Court of Inquiry seemed 
 to avoid, and determine which of the witnesses who have 
 appeared before the court are entitled to credit, and 
 this duty there is no possible means of avoiding 
 with fidelity to the oaths you have taken. Hence, I 
 ask, that when you are considering the credit which 
 each of the witnesses is entitled to receive at your 
 hands, you will keep in remembrance, that Acting 
 Ensign Pratt is an interested witness in the proceedings, 
 and that he is swearing himself fiom blame, anxious, if 
 possible, to transfer his guilt to the shoulders of 
 another. 
 
 Fifth. — I propose, in this connection, to express some 
 views upon the subject of evidence, and state a general 
 rule, thoroughly settled to be law, and inflexibly 
 adhered to in all courts. This rule is an important one, 
 and is especially applicable to the testimony introduced 
 by the prosecution. I will siate the rule presently, so 
 soon as I shall have grouped together some facts which 
 will make it, and its application, clearly intelligible to 
 you. In this case, you will necessarily observe, that 
 there is a manifest conflict of testimony on a most vital 
 and material point, viz. ; As to the course the San 
 Jacinto was directed to be sailed after 8 o'clock, P.M., 
 on the night of the 31st of December, 1SG4. It is 
 not a conflict between the witnesses produced for the 
 defense ; for, there is entire concord and agreement 
 between them ; but, it is a conflict between the witnesses 
 produced for the prosecution. These witnesses are at 
 variance with each other, and the testimony of one 
 
16 
 
 of them cuts up the evidence of the other by the roots, 
 as effectually as where the axe is laid to the root of the 
 tree. The Judge Advocate himself surely cannot say 
 of his own witnesses, "Behold how good and pleasant 
 it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" This 
 observation has marked significance when applied to 
 the evidence given by Acting Ensign Pratt and Sailing 
 Master Wright, both of whom were sworn for the 
 prosecution. The statement of Sailing Master Wright 
 is diametrically opposed to that made by Acting Ensign 
 Pratt, and they are as opposite in their character as day 
 is from night. Human intellect is not adequate enough 
 to harmonize this evidence, and it is obvious, that both 
 of them cannot speak the truth. One or the other of 
 them, to use the mildest form of language, must have 
 testified to what is untrue, and there is no possible 
 method by which this conclusion can be avoided. It is 
 your business to determine which of them you will 
 believe. I will show you hereafter, in its appropriate 
 place, as logically and as conclusively as it is possible 
 for human argument to establish anything, that Sailing 
 Master Wright is confirmed, in all his material state- 
 ments, by every witness who has spoken in the cause, 
 and that Acting Ensign Pratt is contradicted by them 
 all, and is not sustained, in any material particular, by 
 any one of them. Besides, he contradicts himself, and 
 has made contradictory or different statements, on two 
 occasions, to two intelligent witnesses, whose evidence 
 is on your record. 
 
 Our Divine Master once said to his disciples : " If ye 
 have faith as a grain of mustard-seed, ye shall say to 
 this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place, and it 
 shall remove;" but I now say to you, that if you can 
 credit the evidence of Acting Ensign Pratt, with all the 
 
17 
 
 drawbacks that necessarily attach to it, and which 
 statement is also against all the probabilities of truth, 
 you will exercise a measure of faith much beyond what 
 is said to be necessary to remove the mountain. Prob- 
 abilities are always to be regarded by courts. Lord 
 Mansfield, in the celebrated Douu;lass case, in o:ivini]rhis 
 judgment, said : " It is an undoubted truth that judges, 
 in forming their opinion of events, and in deciding upon 
 the truth or falsehood of controverted facts, must be 
 guided by the rules o{ prohahHity ; and, as mathematical 
 or absolute certainty is seldom to be attained in human 
 affairs, reason and public utility require that judges, and 
 all mankind, in forming tiieir opinion of the truth of 
 facts, should be regulated by the superior numbers of 
 the probabilities on the one side or the other.'''' Probabilities, 
 therefore, more or less strong, are the only measure of 
 certainty that is attainable by the testimony of wit- 
 nesses, and the presumption is, that men act according 
 to svhat is most probable. The law always presumes 
 this, and considers men to be in their most natural state 
 or condition ; that is, they are always presumed to be 
 sane, not insane; innocent, not guilty; legitimate, not 
 illegitimate, and the like. Before you can convict me 
 of a violation of the seventh section of the seventh 
 article of the rules for the belter government of the 
 Navy, you are required to credit Acting Ensign Pratt, 
 whose testimony is against all human probability, and 
 believe it to be probable, that I did, v^^hen in command 
 of the San Jacinto, and when at a point within thirty 
 miles of " the most dangerous and fiital corner of the 
 Bahamas," issue a sailing order, for a cloudy night, 
 which allowed him (the officer who was to execute it) 
 the power to run the ship for five consecutive hours 
 
 directly toward the reef, rather than believe Sailing 
 2 
 
18 
 
 Master Wriglit, who states, that the course that was 
 given to tlie officer of the deck, only permitted the 
 approach toward the reef to be made by d course 
 nearly parallel witli it, and at such a rate of speed, and 
 for such time, as would bring her only within nine or 
 ten miles of the point of danger. To credit Acting 
 Ensign Pratt, you are required to believe that it is prob- 
 able, that a captain of the United States Navy, in charge 
 of a public ship, gave an order which no navigator ever 
 gave before, which would infallibly lead to the loss of 
 the ship, rather than believe, that he gave an order so 
 guarded as to render her safety almost a certainty. 
 
 Having stated the facts necessary to introduce and 
 make intelligible the rule of evidence to which I alluded 
 in my opening observations upon this point, I will now 
 proceed to state and explain it. It is this : No party 
 who introduces a witness to a court, and swears him in 
 a cause, has any right afterward, to discredit that wit- 
 ness, or even insinuate in argument, that he is not an 
 honest witness, or that he is unworthy of belief. He 
 is estopped from making any such alh^gation. The 
 mere fact, that he pL'iced the witness on the stand, is a 
 public affirmation that the witness is credible and 
 worthy of belief. There is both honesty and philosophy 
 in this legal rule ; for , otherwise a party who placed a 
 witness on the stand, could ask the court or jury to 
 believe that he was credible and honest only when he 
 swore for him ; but, if his testimony happened to be 
 against him, then he could turn round and treat the 
 witness as unworthy of belief Hence, the law has 
 established it as an axiom that no party shall ever be 
 permitted to discredit his own witnesses. Permit me to 
 ask, Whose witness is Sailing Master Wright, and who 
 
19 
 
 produced him to testify in this court? I answer, he 
 was put upon the stand by the learned Judge-Advocate, 
 and his placing him there, is a voucher, given to you, 
 that he is an honorable, upright and credible witness, 
 and fully worthy of your confidence. He cannot, with 
 any conformity to established principle, treat him as 
 otherwise. He may, I concede, legitimately argue, that 
 Sailing Master Wright is mistaken in the testimony he 
 has given, but he cannot impeach his integrity as a 
 man or a witness, or question his conscientious desire 
 to state the truth. If the obligation of an oath adds 
 force and solemnity to human testimony, this witness 
 should be credited in preference to all others ; for, he 
 has been twice sworn in this case, that the evidence he 
 would give would be the truth, the whole truth, and 
 nothing but the truth. I, therefore, leave this pointy 
 simply remarking, that I have established the fact that 
 Sailing Master Wright is a credible witness, whose 
 honesty of purpose, cannot be impeached or gainsaid 
 by the prosecution. 
 
 Sixth. — In this point, in very few words, I design to 
 refer to the log-book of the ship, simply for the purpose 
 of stating, that in the defense I am submitting, I shall 
 make no allusion to it. The witnesses on both sides 
 have sworn, that the entries made on the 31sfc of 
 December, 1864, are not correct, and they have speci- 
 fied instances in which it is erroneous. These inaccu- 
 racies have respect to the courses sailed by the ship, as 
 well as to the state of the wind, and some of them are 
 not signed by the parties who ought to have done so. 
 Acting Ensign Pratt, for instance, neglected to sign 
 the log for that day, although frequently requested to 
 do so. This lo2:-bojk would not be received as evidence 
 
20 
 
 in any court, proceeding either according to the course of 
 the common or civil law. The humblest Justice of the 
 Peace, whose knowledge would extend but little beyond 
 " crowner's-quest law," if told that it was conceded on 
 both sides not to be accurate, would refuse to permit 
 it to be read in evidence. The legal maxim, which 
 applies to witnesses, he would consider applicable to 
 it. Falsns in imo,falsns m om7n/jiis : False in one thing, 
 false in all. To this court, too, the book was apparently 
 not satisfactory ; for, some of the entries which were 
 signed were received in evidence — those not signed 
 were rejected, and parol evidence was heard to, state 
 wherein consisted the defects. For these reasons, I 
 shall make no reference whatever to this log-book, nor 
 to its contents, but I will construct my defense upon 
 the sworn evidence given by the witnesses in the case. 
 
 SevI':nth. — I desire, in this my last preliminary point, 
 to refer to the position in which my case stands before 
 this court, as contrasted with what its condition v^as 
 when before the Conrt-Martial that assembled in Brook- 
 lyn in May last. It is here, under very different cir~ 
 cumstances, with much more favorable facilities for the 
 ascertainment of truth, the testimony being materially 
 different, and very muoh enlarged by the evidence of 
 additional witnesses. The defense has introduced here, 
 the statements of five persons not heard before the other 
 court, who speak to vital and material matters, within 
 their own personal knowledge. Their names are, 
 William Richardson, Acting Master and Pilot ; Daniel 
 Dunsmore, Gunner; Henry F. Stocker, Sailmaker ; 
 Charles F. Ottinger, ordinary seaman, and Eugene A. 
 Smalley, First Lieutenant of Marines. I need not say 
 that I rely fur acquittal exclusively upon the merits of 
 
21 
 
 the case; for, the law — the testimony — and the cloud of 
 witnesses who have spoken in if, absolve me from the 
 charge and specifications vvhich have been brought 
 against me, and which you are here convened to try. 
 In your investigations you are limited by no bound- 
 eries but those of truth and fact ; for, a trial is nothing 
 more than an inquiry into the truth of facts connected 
 with or growing out of human conduct. All that I 
 expect or desire at your hands, is that you will not go 
 beyond the limits of the charge and specifications which 
 have been transmitted for trial here ; or, that you will 
 not obtrude yourselves outside of your proper jurisdic- 
 tion, but that you will confine your inquiries to the 
 limit of the points submitted to you. You will ascer- 
 tain, whether I did, on or about the 1st of January, 
 1865, negligently and inattentively give my orders for 
 the navigation of the ship, then cruising in the neigh- 
 borhood of Elbow Cay, and did unlawfully suffer her 
 to be run upon a rock ; and whether I did, through 
 culpable inefficiency, fail to make my orders for the 
 navigation of the ship, intelligible to those to whom 
 they were given, and whether I failed to give to the 
 supervision of the said order, that personal attention 
 which it was my duty to have done. This, and this 
 alone, is a legitimate and proper inquiry here. Still, 
 as the evidence which has been received, has embraced 
 an inquiry into the propriety of the order which I gave 
 on the night of the 31st of December, to Acting 
 Ensign Pratt, to steer the ship south by west for 
 twenty miles, and whether that course was a right or 
 a wrong one, I shall consider all these topics in my 
 remarks hereafter to be made. This, however, furnishes 
 no just reason for an extension of the inquiry beyond 
 what ought to be its just limits. It is, neverthe- 
 
22 
 
 less true, as said by Lord Erskirie, in his splendid 
 defense of Lord George Gordon, " that there is little 
 difference whether a man dies by the sabre, without the 
 forms of trial, or by the pompous ceremonies of justice, 
 if the crime can be made, at pleasure, by the State, to 
 fit the facts that are to be tried." With these remarks, 
 I shall now proceed to state the facts, and discuss their 
 whole bearing and extent. 
 
 The San Jacinto sailed from Key West, under my 
 command, on the 27th of December, 1864, and at noon, 
 on the 3 1st, was forty miles from Elbow Cay, Little 
 Bahama Banks. She was heading southwest by south, 
 chasing a steamer whose smoke was seen from the mast- 
 head, but which was soon lost sight of when the course of 
 the ship was changed to the northward and westward. 
 The wind was at this time variable from the westward, 
 and the ship on the starboard tack, with all fore and 
 aft sails set. At eight o'clock, P. M., Sailing Master 
 Wright calculated the position of the ship, and pricked 
 it out on the chart, and brought the reckoning to me, 
 when I expressed a wish to be as near shore by morning 
 as prudent, so as to be in shore of blockade-runners and 
 chase them off the land. He suggested to me, that the 
 ship could stand, with entire safety, on a course south by 
 west, for a distance of twenty miles, and, if she were 
 kept upon that course Elbow Cay light would be seen, 
 which would avoid all danger ; and after running a 
 distance of twenty miles the ship should tack with 
 her head to. the northward and westward, the engines to 
 be slowed down to four miles an hour. In making his 
 calculation, the navigating officer carefully took the 
 currents into consideration, having found by his personal 
 observation, that they were controlled by the winds. 
 
23 
 
 Westerly winds were then prevailing, which, in his 
 judgment, neutralized the current, and he allowed a 
 half point for them in order to be sure. I examined 
 the chart with the sailing-master, approved his sugges- 
 tions, and directed him to give the orders to this effect 
 to the officer of the deck. Sailing Master Wright 
 says it w^is his habit to carry the order from me to the 
 officer of the deck, see it executed, and then report to 
 me, and that I would immediately afterwards verify its 
 execution myself. There wns but one chart on board 
 the ship, which was No. 4 of the series of coral charts, 
 prepared by Prof. Bache, which was the smallest of the 
 scale. At eight o'clock, P.M., the shij^ wasin latitude 
 21° 8' N., and longitude 76° 4S' W., and distant from 
 the nearest point of danger, twenty-nine and a half 
 miles, and from Elbow Cay, the point for which he was 
 steering, thirty-six miles. In ascertaining the posi- 
 tion of the ship, Sailing Master Wright took especial pains 
 to be sure that his calculations were right, and he care- 
 fully took observations when it was possible, never 
 suffering an opportunity to pass unimproved. He 
 made them for longitude on the morning of the 31st of 
 December, between eight and nine o'clock, and 
 for latitude at noon, the same day, but, it was 
 not possible, on account of the cloudy weather, to 
 obtain one in the afternoon or evening. Trials 
 were made ; for, he went on deck with liis instru- 
 ments between three and four o'clock in the after- 
 noon, and tarried for some time, hoping to obtain a 
 choice sight, but could not succeed. He carefully 
 looked to see whether any star would come on the 
 meridian, the altitude of which he could get, but found 
 that none would before two o'clock in the morning. 
 Lieutenant Smallev, who was examined before this 
 
24 
 
 court, states that he was in the habit of marking time 
 for the navigating officer when he took sights by chro- 
 nometer. The weather was such, on the afternoon and 
 evening of the 31st of December, that altitudes could 
 not be taken after three o'clock. He, (Smalley,) waited 
 from about half-past three to four o'clock at the chro- 
 nometer, in order to take the sight if the nuister had 
 been able to get it. 
 
 The above narrative, I submit, is proved by the 
 witnesses who have testified in the case. It brins-s the 
 ship, and all matters that transpired upon her, down to 
 eiglit o'clock of the evening of the 31st of December, 
 1S64. Every word of what has been stated therein, has 
 been sworn to be true, by intelligent and credible 
 witnesses, and not one of them has either whispered or 
 suggested anything to the contrary. What these 
 witnesses have stated, makes the evidence in the case, and 
 upon it alone, the members of this dignified court are 
 sworn to decide it. Ic is a high privilege to me, to be 
 able to commit truth to the custody of such careful 
 guardians. 
 
 At this point, I desire to make some comments on 
 the testimony to which I have already referred, and 
 which are closely connected with the charges here made 
 against me. Every witness that has been examined, has 
 testified to my constant care, and to the great particu- 
 larity with which I gave my orders. The Chief Engi- 
 neer, George S. Bright, said, that I was very particular 
 in regard to his department, in giving orders as regarded 
 the speed of the ship, and that he noticed that my care 
 and vigilance extended to every department of it, -and 
 was unremitting during, the time he was attached to 
 
25 
 
 the vessel. The testimony given as to my vigilance, is 
 confirmed by Lieutenant-Commander J. N. Qnacken- 
 bush, Eugene A.Smalley, First Lieutenant of Marines ; 
 John Thomas Morris, the Orderly ; and Charles F. 
 Ottinger, ordinary seaman. William Richardson, Act- 
 ing Master and Pilot, says, that I was particular in 
 respect to the navigation of the ship, and in my injunc- 
 tions to keep a gooiJ lookout ; that I would watch the 
 quartermasters and the steering of the ship ; and he 
 frequently knew me to pass the greater part of the night 
 on a lounge in the room where the chart was kept, 
 without my going to bed. Henry T. Stocker, Sail- 
 maker, speaking of mv exactitude and care in oivinu- 
 ray orders, says that he frequently noticed me when I 
 came out of the cabin to the binnacle, and heard me 
 caution the quartermaster to be particular in keeping 
 his course. He added, that I was very careful and par- 
 ticular in my orders for the navigation of the ship. 
 James E. Watts, Third Assistant Engineer, testifies, 
 that he never saw a person more devoted to the interests 
 of the Government than I was during the time I had 
 command of the ship ; that my care and vigilance was 
 unremitting, and, to use his own language, he consid- 
 ered it " eminently so." Byron Triplar, Mate, states, 
 that I was particular, and took the greatest care, and 
 that he has seen me at all hours of the nijjht examininar 
 the compass. Sailingmaster Wright swears, that my 
 care and vigilance was greater than that of any com- 
 mander with whom he had ever sailed. George Ash- 
 bury, who was acting master, swears to my constant 
 habit of looking at the compasses when on deck. Even 
 Acting Ensign Pratt, on the last Court-Martial, in 
 answer to a question put by the court, condescended to 
 swear, that he had known me to notice the compass. 
 
26 
 
 and that he knew one particular time I was very par- 
 ticular about the compasses, trying to fix them so that 
 they would act together, a fact, which his improving 
 memr.r}^ did not enable him to remember on the present 
 occasion. On this trial, he was interrogated respecting 
 my vigilance and care as a commander of a ship, to 
 which he replied, that he did not know that he was a 
 judge. He then volunteered the remark, nowise respons- 
 ive to the question asked him, that he did not remem- 
 ber that General Quarters were ever had on board the 
 ship while he was attached to her ; a statement palpably 
 false, and contradicted by every witness who testified after 
 him. When liis prevarication ceased, he did reply, at last, 
 that I was attentive to my duties. When he stated 
 that he was not a judge, it was, most probably true ; 
 for, the sequel showed, that he was ignorant of almost 
 everything connected with a ship, and the duties of its 
 officers. He seems to have been conscious of this himself; 
 for, Sailmaker Henry T. Stocker swears, that he said to 
 him, after the catastrophe, " that he was better fitted 
 for a farmer than a sailor." In regard to my efforts to 
 save the ship after she had struck the reef — the lives 
 of the crew and officers, and the property that was on 
 board, belonging to the Government, the testimony is 
 unanimous and concurrent in declaring that I did every- 
 thing it was possible to do. The Court of Inquiry, in 
 my case, declared that the measures adopted by me, in 
 endeavoring to effect these objects, were altogether 
 judicious. What I did, showed not merely the proper 
 knowledge on my part, but, it manifested the exercise 
 of care and vigilance after the disaster. I shall not here, 
 elaborate my statement, as to what 1 did after the ship 
 was wrecked, because the Judge Advocate, in h's argu- 
 ment upon the record, against the reception of the find- 
 
27 
 
 iug or report of the Court of Inquiry in evidence, has 
 declared, that what I did after the ship struck tlie reef, 
 to save the lives of the crew, and the property of the 
 Government, cannot be inquired into here ; for, in 
 respect to those matters, there was no charge made 
 against me. So, on the evening of the 31st of Decem- 
 ber, 1SG4, when it became necessary to change the 
 course which the San Jacinto had been sailinc:, at eisrht 
 o'clock, I exercised my usual caution and watchfulness. 
 I consulted the sailing-master, the navigating officer 
 of the ship ; received from him his reckonings, had the 
 position of the ship, at that time, pricked out upon the 
 chart, and examined it carefully myself. I not only 
 received his report, but his assurance, that the ship might 
 be run, with perfect safety, south by west, for a dis- 
 tance of twenty miles — that no risk could be possibly 
 encountered by doing so ; for, if the course were kept, 
 a light would be seen ; that, after running twenty miles, 
 she should tack about, with her head to the northward 
 and westward, the engines being slowed down to four 
 miles an hour. After careful examination, I ap^^roved 
 the suggestions of the sailing-master, and directed him 
 to give the orders necessary to carry out these views. 
 At tills time, the ship was ascertained to be about 
 twenty-nine miles and a half from the nearest point of 
 danger. 
 
 I refer to these matters, in this connection, to show, 
 that at eight o'clock on the evening of the 31st of Decem- 
 ber, I exercised my usual caution. That I did not permit 
 the course which the ship was sailing to be changed 
 without carefully examining the chart, and without con- 
 sulting with the sailing-master, and that I did not conclude 
 to alter the course she was standing, until after I received 
 his usual report, is sustained by incontrovertible evi- 
 
28 
 
 (lence. Is there any exliibitioii of negligence, or any- 
 thing improper, in what I did, as captain of the San 
 Jacinto up to this tin^e ? Is there a member of this 
 court", th.at under similar circumstances, would have 
 acted differently ? In what respect would his conduct 
 have been otherwise ? The position of navigating 
 officer. u[)on a government ship, is one requiring great 
 knowledge of navigation, and is of vast responsibility, 
 and Mr. Wright seems to have been eminently fitted for 
 his place. His special charge was the navigation of the 
 ship, and he had, up to the 3 1st of December, safely 
 conducted her through the uncertain currents of the 
 latitude she was in, notwithstanding the distances 
 measured by the log are considered uncertain. It was 
 not only prudent in me, but it was my duty to regard 
 the judgnzent and advice of this navigating officer ; for, 
 had I not done so, and the ship, in consequence thereof, 
 iiad been lost, I would have assumed a fearful responsi- 
 bility, wliich no commander would be willing to take 
 upon himself. I aver, therefore, that I did, at eight 
 o'clock on the evening of the 31st of December, take 
 all the precautions for safety that a prudent man could 
 take, and this fact is established by the most positive 
 proof. No witness offers anything in opposition to this 
 statement. Who declares it to be untrue ? Can the 
 Judge Advocate put his finger on the testimony ? Can 
 any member of this honorable court do it? How then, 
 is it to be disbelieved, in the face of all the testimony 
 which demonstrates it to be true ? I, therefore, feel 
 safe in considering it as incontrovertibly established, 
 that, at eight o'clock, on the evening of the 31st of 
 December, the chart was examined, and the ship 
 was found to be in latitude 27® 8' North, and longitude 
 76'=' 4S' West ; that a consultation was had between the 
 
29 
 
 sailing-master and myself, in which the chart was exam- 
 ined, °and the position of the ship pricked out ; and it 
 was determined, in the consultation, that the ship should 
 run south by west for twenty miles, and the engines 
 slowed down to four knots per hour, and that when 
 she had run that distance, she should be put about, with 
 her head to the northward and westward. 
 
 If it were determined, nfter examining the chart, and 
 after the consultation which took place at eight o'clock 
 on the evening of December 3 1st, that the ship should 
 be steered, after that hour, twenty knots in the direc- 
 tion of south by west, the engines to be slowed down 
 to lour knots an hour, and when she had run that dis- 
 tance, to tack about, putting her head to the northward 
 and westward, the question arises, "Was the course 
 determined upon a proper one for the vess-d to run ?" 
 The object in wishing to be near shore at all, was to 
 capture, if possible, cei tain blockade-runners which had 
 been seen and chased during the day, and it was con- 
 sidered desirable to be as near land as prudent in order, 
 that if again seen, they could be chased offshore. The 
 motive, therefore, which prompted the desii'e, was at 
 least, meritorious, and manifested both zeal and anxiety 
 to effect their capture. Let us examine the evidence 
 bearing on this "point; ior, it will show conclusively, 
 that a^course south by west, was a proper one to steer, 
 under all the circumstances which surrounded the case. 
 Tlie Judge-Advocate called William G. Wright, the 
 sailing-master of the ship. He testified that, after 
 examining the chart, and fully considering the position 
 of the ship, he expressed a decided opinion tliat at eight 
 o'clock, on the evening of the 3 1 st of December,she could 
 run twentv miles on a course south by west, at the 
 rate of lour knots an hcur, and that after running that 
 
30 
 
 distance, she should tack about, putting her head to the 
 northward and westward; — that no danger could be 
 encountered by pursuing that course, for, if continued, 
 a light would be seen. This was the judgment 
 of this intelligent witness, produced, as has been said, 
 by the Judge-Advocate, and who proved himself familiar 
 with the topics about which he was speaking. His 
 position in the Navy is one of responsibility, and, being 
 placed as sailing-master on the San Jacinto, it was 
 proper that he should be consulted by me when any 
 change of course became necessary. Apart from the 
 fact, that this gentleman was qualified for his pos^, both 
 by study and experience, to dischage his duties, the 
 law presumes, and every one has a just right to act 
 upon that presumption, that a person holding an office 
 or appointment under the Government, is qualified to 
 discharge its duties, and it was, therefore, eminently 
 proper, that great reliance should be placed upon his 
 judgment. No witness has expressed, upon the record 
 of this court, a judgment contrary to that entertained 
 by Mr. Wright, but what remaining proof there is, is 
 strongly in favor of its confirmation. The opinion of 
 the Court of Inquiry, in my case, is strong and em- 
 phatic on this point; for, it expressly deternnnes, that 
 had the order given by me, to run the ship not exceed- 
 ing four knots an hoar for twenty miles, and when she 
 had run that distance, to tack about, been strictly 
 obeyed, the ship would not have been lost. It is im- 
 possible for language to be more empiiatic, and my 
 judgment, in giving the order, has received the highest 
 indorsement. Besides, Cnptain Frazer, the intelligent 
 witness who was called on my part, says, that if he 
 had been in command of the San Jacinto, with a proper 
 object in view, such as the capture of blockade-runners. 
 
31 
 
 he would have considered himself safe jn running with- 
 in five miles of the coast ; that, under all the circum- 
 stances, he considered the order given by me, on the 
 niffht of the 31 st of December, to steer south by west, in 
 the manner st ited, was a correct one. The judgment of 
 this witness is to be especially relied upon ; for, his 
 experience, as above remarked, in the navigation of the 
 Bahama Banks, in the merchant service, the Revenue 
 service of the United States, and in the employ of the 
 underwriters, was considerable. He had been along 
 the whole line of the reef> in the neighborhood where 
 the San Jacinto was lost, and was familiar with it. I, 
 therefore, respectfully submit that the order given by 
 me, to run the ship the distance, and in the manner 
 stated, was a safe and proper one, and I take it to be 
 proved without further argument. 
 
 Sufter me here to ask, What is the advantage of a 
 trial, and the examination of witnesses on this portion 
 of the case, if the proposition just stated as proven, 
 is not to be considered, by this court, as established? 
 Two most intelligent witnesses have sworn positively, 
 without any hesitation o- qualification in their state- 
 ments, that the course ordered by me to be run, after 
 eight o'clock, on the night of the 31st of December, was 
 a correct one, and in no respect improper, and that 
 if it had been carried out, as directed, the ship could 
 not have been lost. The Court of Inquiry, not merely 
 in substance, but in language, have expressed the same 
 opinion. What witness, who has been examined in 
 this court, has expressed a belief to the contrary? 
 The Secretary of the Navy, in the charge and specifi- 
 cations he has sent liere for trial, does not allude to the 
 course the ship was sailing, nor does he charge, nor 
 intimate in the specifications, that the course ordered, 
 
32 
 
 south by west, was wrong. You, as my judges, have 
 been sworn to determine my case upon the evidence. 
 How, then, with all the evidence one way, and not a 
 scintilla of proof to the contrary, can you do anything 
 but adjudicate in my favor? For me to introduce 
 further evidence, upon a point not controverted by any 
 witness, would be only adducing cumulative proof, and, 
 at best, would be a work of supererogation. If two 
 honorable, intelligent, and credible witnesses, like Sail- 
 ing Master Wright and the navigator Frazer, whose 
 reputation for truth has never been, and never can be, 
 impeached — one of them called by the prosecution, the 
 other by the defense — are not credited by you, the 
 point could not be established, though the witness 
 rose from the dead. 
 
 Having shown that the order to steer south by west, 
 in the manner indicated, was a necessary and proper 
 order, I now come to consider whether it was actually 
 given by me, and whether it was communicated to the 
 officer of the deck. 
 
 On this question there is conflict of testimony, but 
 there can be no doubt as to how the fact was when the 
 evidence respecting it is considered. My allegation is, 
 that I did give an order that the ship should be steered 
 south by west, in the manner already stated, and that I 
 did du-ect the sailing-master, who usually delivered my 
 orders, to communicate it to the officer of the d^ck, and 
 it was so communicated. Actino; Ensis::n Edwin B. 
 Pratt, who was that officer, and who bad the first 
 watch, expressly denies this allegation to be true, and 
 he positively states, that no such order was given to 
 him, but says that he was directed to steer any course 
 between south and southwest, and to run the ship 
 twenty-five miles before he called the master. This 
 
33 
 
 order he passed to Acting Ensign Charles R. Fleming, 
 who relieved hiin, and who had charge of the deck 
 when the ship went ashore. Between these two con- 
 flicting and opposite statements this court must decide* 
 and say which one of them is to be believed. The wit- 
 nesses who have testified on this point, and whose evi- 
 dence is conflicting, are witnesses for the prosecution; 
 and if their credibility were considered as equal, it would 
 not, of itself, prove that the order in question had not been 
 given, or that it had not been communicated by Sailing 
 Master \¥right to the officer of the deck, but the most 
 it could accomplish, would be to create a doubt. Where 
 a prosecution leaves a case in such a position, on its own 
 testimony, it has never yet been held sufficient to con- 
 vict the meanest culprit, much less one who has occu- 
 pied an honorable position in life, and enjoyed a hish 
 character for care -and vigilance in the management of 
 property confided to iiis charge. In ail criminal courts, 
 doubts are always thrown into the scale in favor of the 
 accused, and a government which prosecutes a citizen, 
 for any offense, is obliged to make out its case by clear 
 aflSrmative proof, free from ambiguity or doubt. Here, 
 however, it is clear, that one part of the prosecution's 
 evidence is in direct conflict with another part, and 
 their own witnesses stand in opposition to each other. 
 
 In making the foregoing observations, I do not wish 
 it, for a moment, to be imagined, that I ask for an 
 acquittal upon any such ground, nor do I wish to escape 
 just censure, if I deserve it, by the operation of any 
 mere technical rule. I stand upon a much more sub- 
 stantial basis, and rely upon evidence which will conclu- 
 sively demonstrate, that from the hour I assumed com- 
 mand of the San Jacinto, up to the unfortunate moment 
 when she was lost from disobeying and neglecting my 
 8 
 
34 
 
 orders, I did my whole duty as an officer and a man, 
 with a fidelity, zeal and watchfulness that has been 
 rarely exceeded. This will be made clear from the 
 evidence. It will show> that on the evening of the 3Lst 
 of December, I did give orders to steer the ship south 
 by west, in the manner which I have heretofore stated, 
 and that the orders were con-jmunicated to Acting 
 Ensign Pratt, the officer of the deck, notv/ithstanding 
 his positive statement to the contrary, I now proceed 
 to adduce the proof. 
 
 Acting Master and Pilot William Richardson was the 
 officer of the deck whom Acting Ensign Pratt relieved, 
 and he has stated, that when he surrendered the deck to 
 him, the ship was heading southwest by south, and her 
 engines were moving slowly. He declared on oath, that 
 when he was relieved by Pratt, at eight o'clock on the 
 evening of the 31st of December, the ship wassteerioga 
 course southwest by south, and that on being relieved 
 he went below, and came again on deck in about ten 
 minutes, when he found the course of the ship 
 had been changed to south by west. Acting Ensign E, 
 B. Pratty informed him, that the orders were to go not 
 over four or four and a half knots an hour, and that he 
 had told the engineer on watch to run as slow as 
 possible. He further mentioned, that the order that the 
 ship was to run on the course south by west, came from 
 the captain ; that he was to run in that direction 
 twenty or twenty-five miles, and then the ship was to 
 be put on the off-shore tack. Novv, it is most respect- 
 fully submitted, that this statement of Acting Master 
 and Pilot William Richardson is in direct conflict 
 with the evidence of Acting Ensign E. B. Pratt, 
 and is strongly corroborative of what is stated 
 by Sailing Master Wright. He testified as follows : 
 
35 
 
 " I inyself gave the order to Mr. Pratt to steer south 
 by west, until the ship had run twenty miles from eight 
 o'cloclv, this order being given at about fifteen minutes 
 past eight, after I had fixed the ship's position on the 
 chart, and given the position to the captain. This order 
 was given by direction of Captain Meade." Acting Master 
 and Pilot William Richardson , has also, sworn that 
 Acting Ensign E. B. Pratt told him, that the captain 
 had ordered him to run souUi by west, and that that 
 was the reason why her course had been changed from 
 southwest by south. This change was made soon after 
 Acting Master and Pilot Richardson had been relieved, 
 for, he discovered it by looking at the compass, and it 
 was that, that led him to talk to Acting Ensign E. B. 
 Pratt about it. John Thomas Morris, the Orderly, states 
 positively, that just after eight o'clock I gave him orders 
 to carry to Acting Ensign Pratt. The order was, 
 "To keep the ship's head south by west, and go four 
 knots." Azariah L. Spinney, Acting Master's Mate, says 
 that "he had the watch from six to eight o'clock ; that at 
 eight she was heading south by west ; that before I left the 
 deck I learned that the course for the nis^ht, after ei2;ht 
 o'clock, was to be south by west, and the number of 
 knots four ; she was to be put about at twelve o'clock , I 
 learned this from Acting Master's Mate Tripler, at 
 about twenty minutes past eight." Eugene A. Smalley, 
 FirstLieutenantof Marines, was also on deck from ten min- 
 utes after eight o'clock up to about half-past eight. He 
 says : " I heard Captain Meade give the order to the 
 ofilicer of the deck. Acting Ensign Pratt, to run not ex- 
 ceeding four knots an hour, and go about at one o'clock." 
 Now, it is clear that, if the course south by west had 
 been run by Acting Ensign E. B. Pratt, during his whole 
 watch, and if he had delivered the order, which he had 
 
86 
 
 received himself, properly to Acting Ensign Charles E. 
 Fleming, the accident which happened to the ship could 
 not have taken place. 
 
 How WAS THFS ORDER EXECUTED? Elijah 11. Ty- 
 
 son, the engineer of the first watch of the night of the 
 31st of December, gives the following account of the 
 matter ; " I relieved Mr. Coney at eight o'clock, P. M., 
 on the evening of. Saturday, the 31st of December. 
 He reported to me that the engines were making thir- 
 teen revolutions. Having no orders to the contrary, I 
 continued making the same. About nine o'clock, P. M., 
 Acting Ensign Pratt, the officer of the deck, spoke 
 to me, and asked me what number of revolutions I was 
 making. I told him thirteen and eight-tenths. He 
 said the ship was going at nearly six knots. At 
 five minutes before ten o'clock, he spoke to me again, 
 and said, he wanted me to make about four or five 
 knots, and to slow down the engines accordingly. The 
 fore and aft sails were set at the time. At precisely 
 ten o'clock I slowed down to ten revolutions, the same 
 speed that we always ran to make that time. Even 
 then, there was a lash on the shaft, as the sails were 
 drawing well. I continued to make ten revolutions 
 from ten, P. M., up to the time that Mr. Watts relieved 
 me." 
 
 James E. Watts, Third Assistant Engineer, who 
 relieved Mr. Tyson, swears, that " the engines were 
 making ten revolutions, and that they wished him to 
 run slow, and make between nine and ten revolutions, 
 but that he received no order about slowing the engines 
 from the officer of the deck. That at the rate of ten 
 revolutions the speed of the ship, without sails, was 
 three knots forty-nine hundredths," and he added, that 
 the fore and aft sails were set and drawino; well. 
 
37 
 
 At twelve o'clock, (midnight,) Acting Ensign E. B. 
 Pratt was relieved by Acting Ensign Charles R. Flem- 
 ing, who, on taking charge of the deck, was told by 
 Acting Ensign Pratt to run as slow as possible ; that 
 the ship had been making a south-southwest course, 
 that is, twenty-two and a half degrees west of south, 
 but had broken off south by west half west, that is, 
 between sixteen and seventeen degrees west of south ; 
 that the order was to run about twenty -five miles and 
 tack ship, and when he tacked, to call Mr. Wright, the 
 Sailing Master, and he added that she had made twenty 
 miles. To the question, which Acting Ensign Charles 
 R. Fleming asked Acting Ensign E. B. Pratt, what 
 course had been given him to steer, he answered, " No 
 course — by the wind," and that the wind was about west 
 by south and west-southwest, that is, between sixty- 
 seven and a half and seventy-eight and three-quarter 
 degrees west of south. Being told by Acting Ensign E. 
 B. Pratt, that the course " was by the wind," and hav- 
 ing learned from the man at the helm, that she was 
 heading south by west half west, Fleming says, " I 
 gave him the course to run by the wind," that is to say, 
 to run her as near as possible west, instead of steering 
 within one point or eleven and a quarter degrees of due 
 south. Add to this, that Mr. Fleming says, that he 
 found, by the log, that the ship had made twenty-one 
 miles, instead of twenty, as represented by Acting En- 
 sign Pratt ; and this additional fact, that the log repre- 
 sents the wind as west, and you will be able to form 
 some idea how my orders for navigating the ship were 
 carried out. 
 
 Thus, then, it is shown by the two officers of the 
 deck, that the distance prescribed by my order had been 
 more than accomplished at 12 o'clock, and that the 
 
38 
 
 course prescribed by me had been totally neglected 
 down to that hour, and that from that hour until she 
 struck the reef, my directions were still more grossly 
 violated. In fact, the ship's head was turned directly 
 toward the reef, which seems to have been done with 
 some labor and pains. You will recollect that, when 
 Sailing Master Wright was under examination, I in- 
 quired of him whether,in his opinion, the changing of the 
 course of the ship from south by west to south-south- 
 west did not carry the ship more directly toward the 
 land, and to consequent danger, to which he replied, that 
 it did. 
 
 I will here remark, in this connection, that Acting 
 Ensign E. B. Pratt's memory is inaccurate in regird to 
 the distance to be run before tacking to the northward 
 and westward ; for, he tells Acting Ensign Fleming, that 
 the distance to be run was to be about twenty-five 
 miles. Of the speed alone, he seems to have had a bet- 
 ter idea, as he told Acting Ensign Fleming that it was 
 not to exceed four or five knots an hour. And yet, for 
 the first two hours of his watch, he permitted the 
 ensiues to be run at the rate of thirteen revolutions and 
 eight-tenths, equal to a speed of six knots an hour by 
 the steam alone, to say nothing of the propelling power 
 of the sails, equal, as is stated by some of the witnesses, 
 to an additional speed of from one to two and a half 
 miles an hour. At ten o'clock, P. M., Pratt says, in his 
 evidence before this court, that he hove the log and 
 found that the ship was going five and two-eighth knots 
 an hour, and he says that he only logged her five knots, 
 not giving her the speed she was actually making. He 
 also testified, that at eleven o'clock he hove the log again, 
 which showed that at that hour, she was sailing five 
 knots an hour. He then adds, alluding to me, that I 
 
39 
 
 told him "I did not want to go so fast as that — that I 
 did not want to go more than four or five knots an hour, 
 or tliree or four knots an hour, I am not sure which." 
 What sort of a memory, do you suppose this man Pratt 
 has, or how are you to place any reliance upon the 
 accuracy of his testimony ? He was not sure, whether I 
 told him, I wished to so four or five knots an hour, or 
 whether it was three or four knots an hour, that I had 
 mentioned. A marvelous difference between two dis- 
 tances, only about two miles an hoar, making a variance 
 of eight miles during the four hours' duration of his 
 watch ! Common sense, however, shows what the 
 direction given w^as, or else language is without intel- 
 ligible meaning. If he told me, that the ship was mak- 
 ing five knots an hour, and I replied that the speed was 
 too fast, it surely must have been three or four knots 
 an hour that I ordered, or there would have been no 
 appropriateness in my answer. Pratt, insists that the 
 sails had no effect upon the ship, except to steady her ; 
 and this, though they were full and drawing well, and 
 caused the shaft to produce a back lash as soon as the 
 rate of the engines had been reduced to ten revolutions ; 
 though the back-lashing of the shaft, must have demon- 
 strated to him, that the ship was advancing at a speed 
 exceeding that imparted to her by the engines, after 
 their rate had been so reduced. Thus admonished that 
 the speed of the ship, even after the slowing of the 
 engines, was exceeding the limit of the order, 3'^et he 
 did not take in the sails. In fact, he manaijed the sails 
 with extreme ignorance or heedlessness, paying no 
 attention, though warned that that alone might cause the 
 loss of the ship. It is true, that no special directions 
 were given to the officer of the deck in regard to the 
 sails. Permitting them to stand, or taking them in, 
 
40 
 
 was left to his discretion. If the required rate of four 
 knots an hour, could not be obtained by reducing the 
 speed of the engine, it could have been accomplished by 
 taking in the canvas. My conclusion is from what 
 has been stated, that it is incontrovertibly established, 
 by the proof, that my orders for the navigation of the ship 
 were communicated to Acting Ensign E. B. Pratt, the 
 officer of the deck, at a few minutes past eight o'clock, P.M. 
 and that he wholly disregarded them. If the course 
 south by west had been run by him, during his whole 
 watch, and if he had delivered the order which he had 
 received himself properly to Fleming, the accident 
 which happened to the ship could not have taken place. 
 I will here remark, that there is nothing in, Pratt's 
 evidence, nor in his antecedents, as stated by hin)self, 
 that entitles him to any very distinguished consideration. 
 He is, as we shall see presently, contradicted in many 
 particulars by the other witnesses in the cause. In 
 reference to the orders for the sailing of the ship, and 
 his not having received them, he is contradicted by 
 Sailing Master Wright, by Richardson, who received the 
 statement of what the orders were from his own lips, 
 and by Spinney, by Morris, who carried him the orders, 
 and by Smalley, who heard me deliver them to him. 
 Here are five witnesses who stand opposed to him, on 
 the most vital point of inquiry before this Court-Martial, 
 and, is his credit to be esteemed higher than that of all 
 of them — vv'ho are unimpeached — and who have sworn in 
 the same transaction ? Besides, these five witnesses ara 
 wholly uninterested in the result, while Pratt is most 
 deeply concerned, and, in swearing against me, is swear- 
 ing for himself. If you can be seriously asked to credit 
 the evidence of one witness, so situated, and you act 
 upon the suggestion, and believe him in preference to 
 
41 
 
 the five other witnesses who contradict him, then, I 
 submit, that evidence is a valueless and delusive defense, 
 and that trial is a mockery of justice. 
 
 I have said, that we would presently see, that Pratt 
 is contradicted in every material statement he has made 
 by the other witnesses in the cause. I now proceed 
 to show, that the remark is true; and I particularly 
 request your attention to what I have to say. Pratt 
 swears, in his testiniony (I speak by the record, and 
 quote his exact words, and challenge any conti'adic- 
 tion), that I " came on deck but once on the night of 3 1st 
 of December. I think it was between eleven and twelve 
 o'clock. He remained on deck, at that time, between 
 five and ten minutes." Now, the proof is, that I was 
 on deck at a little past eight o'clock, and also on deck 
 again at ten and a half o'clock, and that Pratt must have 
 known tiiis fact to be true for, I was in conversation 
 with him, on each occasion ; and, yet, he has deliberately 
 sworn, that I was not on deck at either of the hours 
 specified. He could not, however, have forgotten the 
 circumstances ; ior, the transactions of that fearful and 
 perilous night, must have been impressed upon the 
 memory of each actor in the scene, as if engraved with 
 a pen of steel. Hence, I invite you to the proof: — 
 
 Sailing Master Wright says : '• I saw Captain Meade 
 on deck twice ; I do not know how often he might 
 have been there. He was on deck first, after I had 
 given the order to the officer of the deck, some twenty 
 minutes after eight o'clock ; as his custom was, to see that 
 his orders had been complied with. He was on deck again 
 between ten and ten and a half o'clock." He says that 
 the visit to the deck after ten o'clock was impressed oa his 
 mind, from the fact, of his being nervous and restless 
 from two nights duty previously. He was disturbed 
 
42 
 
 by the striking of four bells, (ten o'clock), and turned 
 out immediately, and went on deck. Captain Meade 
 was then standing on the poop, port side, talking with 
 the officer of the deck. When the captain saw him 
 come out of the ward-room companion-way, Captain 
 Meade said to him : " How is she going along, Mr. 
 Wright ?" He looked at the compass, and replied to 
 him, " Very well." Captain Meade then addressed 
 himself to the officer of the deck, and said: " Well, Mr. 
 Pratt, we'll let her go until she has run her twenty 
 miles, then call Mr. Wright, and let me know, and we 
 will put her about with her head to the northward and 
 westward." Here is one witness, called by the prosecu- 
 tion, who contradicts Pratt, and proves, that I was upon 
 deck at a little past eight o'clock, and also at a little after 
 ten, and he narrates a conversation which I had with 
 the officer of the deck at the latter hour. A. L. Spinney, 
 another prosecuting witness, says he saw " me on deck 
 at about twenty minutes past eight o'clock, on the quarter 
 deck, in company with Mr. Pratt, the officer of the deck." 
 I. N. Quackenbush, a third prosecuting witness, says : 
 " I saw Captain Meade at his cabin door, I think as I was 
 going below, a few minutes after eleven o'clock. I saw 
 liim on deck at about eight o'clock." William Lono-swears 
 that at about ten minutes past eight o'clock he saw me 
 standing on the poop, alongside of the officer of the 
 deck, John Thomas Morris, the Orderly, saw me go 
 on deck at about ten minutes after eijjht o'clock. He saw 
 me conversing with the officer of the deck, Acting 
 Ensign Pratt, and said that I returned to my cabin at 
 half-past eight. He swears, that I came on deck again at a 
 quarter past ten o'clock, and returned to my cabin at 
 twenty minutes of eleven, and that I did not go on deck 
 again during his watch. His watch was from eiiiht to 
 
43 
 
 twelve o'clock. Eugene A. Smalley swears, tliat lie saw me 
 deck at from fifteen to twenty minutes past eight o'clock, 
 and that he saw me conversing with the officer of the 
 deck, Acting Ensign Pratt. Here, therefore, are three 
 witnesses for the prosecution, viz., Wright, Spinney 
 and Quackenbush, and three witnesses for the defense, 
 viz., Long, Morris and Smalley, making together six 
 witnesses, who positively contradict Pratt, and swear 
 that I was with him, on the deck of the ship, at a little 
 past eight o'clock, and also at a little past ten o'clock, on 
 the evening of the 31st of December, conversing with 
 him ; and yet, he has deliberately sworn that I was not on 
 deck until between eleven and twelve o'clock at night, 
 and that he was5?^7eof it. Who, then, will be believed by 
 this court — Pratt, or the six witnesses whose names I 
 have given, and whose testimony I have stated ? Apart 
 from the important consideration, that Pratt is swearing 
 for himself, you must, in order to believe him, discredit 
 the six witnesses called from both sides of this case, 
 and hold, that they have deliberately perjured them- 
 selves, and that too, without any motive. Philosophy 
 teaches us, that men never act without a motive, and 
 especially commit cime, and forswear themselves, 
 unless there be a cause strong and impelling. If, there- 
 fore, you condemn me, let not your judgment, with its 
 attendant consequences, rest upon your crediting the 
 testimony of Pratt, in opposition to all the other evi- 
 dence in the cause; but, I beseech you, for your ov^m 
 sakes, if for no other reason, place your finding upon 
 some more satisfactory and substantial basis. 
 
 Acain : Actincr Ensimi Pratt hasi testified, in answer 
 to a question put to him by this court, that I gave him 
 no orders to call me, after the ship had sailed a speci- 
 fied distance. This statement of his is contradicted by 
 
44 
 
 Sailing Master Wright with great distinctness; for, he 
 swears, that when I was on the deck, between ten and 
 half-past ten o'clock, on the evening of December 31,1 
 ar^dressed myself to the officer of the deck, and said to 
 him: ''Well, Mr. Pratt, we'll let her go until she 
 has run her twenty miles, then call Mr. Wright, and 
 let me hioiv, and we will put her about, with her head 
 to the northward and westward." The statements of 
 these two witnesses are diametrically opposed. Both 
 of them cannot be true. Which of them will you 
 believe ? 
 
 Once more : Acting Ensign E. B. Pratt, has stated, in 
 his evidence, that during his watch, the fore and aft sails 
 of the ship were set. The direction given to him, accord- 
 ing to his own statement, was to run the vessel as slow 
 as possible, so that the speed should not exceed five 
 miles an hour. To prevent the distance she was to go, 
 from being overrun, he was to have the engines elowed 
 down. Hence, it became important to know, what in- 
 fluence the sail she was carrying, had on the progress of 
 the ship. In repl}^, to a question asked him upon this 
 point, he said : " When the jib was on her, it might 
 have accelerated her speed a little ; the sails which 
 Were on her were merely to steady her, as the sea was 
 running pretty heavy." He adndts, that possibly the jib 
 might have advanced her a little, and then adds ; "1 tliink, 
 sometime between nine and ten o'clock,P.M., the jib-pend- 
 ant was carried away, and the jib hauled down." E. K. 
 Tyson, Third Assistant Engineer, states that at ten 
 o'clock, P. M., the sails were drawing well. Jeremiah 
 Callaghen, also the Boatswain's Mate, who had the watch 
 from eight to twelve o'clock, P. M., says the sails were 
 wrapped full. Bright, also, swears that the sails were 
 drawing pretty well ; and Alexander McCone represents 
 
45 
 
 them as drawing well at eight and half in the evening, 
 when he was on the deck. So, James E. Watts, the Third 
 Assistant Engineer, swears that "the sails, in his opinion, 
 creased the speed of the ship ; for the reason, that he 
 lowered the steam, as, in his judgment, would be suffi- 
 cient to run the engines at the speed which Tyson in- 
 formed him he wished to run, and while he was timing 
 the revolutions, he noticed a back-lash on the shaft, 
 which was indicative of the speed of the vessel 
 being greater than that at which the engines were 
 running." He also swears, that the ship, without 
 sails, would have been driven by the steam four 
 knots and three-tenths per hour, allowing fifteen 
 per cent, slip, and the engines making between nine and 
 ten revolutions. Robert A. Williams, agreed in opinion 
 with the other witnesses, and said, that the sails were 
 drawing well. William Long, the Boatswain, also states' 
 that the sails were wrapped full. Charles R. Fleming, 
 Acting Ensign, testifies that, in his opinion, the fore and 
 att sails advanced the speed o. the shij) about one knot 
 an hour, without the jib. Pratt, as heretofore stated, 
 swears that the jib-pendant was carried away between 
 nine and ten o'clock, P. M., and the jib hauled down. 
 That this statement was false, is shown by the other tes- 
 timony in the case ; for, Sailing Master Wright swears, 
 that he was on deck at ten and a half o'clock, and that the 
 ship was carrying the jib then. This, it will be per- 
 ceived, was one hour later than the hour at which Pratt 
 states it was carried away. Wright then adds : " I was 
 not on deck when it was taken in, but the boatswain's 
 mate reported to me that it was taken in at seven bells, 
 — half-past eleven o'clock." John Thomas Morris 
 testifies that the jib-pendant was carried away at 
 seven bells, or about half-past eleven o'clock. He 
 
46 
 
 was the Orderly on duty at the cabin door from 
 eight to twelve o'clock, P.M. His statement shows, 
 that the jib pendant was carried away two hours later than 
 stated by Pratt. Jeremiah Callaghen, Boatswain's ]\Iate, 
 also had the watch from eight to twelve, P.M., and he con- 
 firms what has been stated by Morris. He states that the 
 jib-pendant was parted about seven bells, in the neigh- 
 borhood of about half-past eleven o'clock, and adds : "I 
 gave orders to haul the jib down, and repj irted to the officer 
 of the watch, who ordered me to stow the jib." Wil- 
 liam Long, Boatswain, says : " I asked Mr. Pratt if the 
 jib-pendant was carried 'iway in his watch, who admit- 
 ted to me that it was carried away at seven bells, and 
 not, as Pratt has stated in his sworn testimony, between 
 nine and ten o'clock." Lonu: further states : *' I asked 
 him why he did not report it to me, or to the executive 
 officer. I told him it was necessary, and that probably 
 he might have lost the ship anyhow. He told me he 
 forgot it ; he did not think it of much importance — did 
 not think we would want it. On finding the jib-pend- 
 ant on deck, I reported it to the executive officer." 
 Listen to the following curious testimony of Pratt 
 respecting the sails and jib, which I have extracted ver- 
 batim from his testimony given before the Court-Martial 
 in May last. How sensible and intelligent it is ! It is 
 as clear as a London fog ! " I had some conversation 
 with Mr. Fleming after the wreck, on the island, and 
 talking with him about what sail was on the ship. I know 
 I said I knew nothing but the fore ani aft sails were on 
 when she went ashore. He said the jib was nut on her. 
 I said I thought it was. I never thought anything 
 more about it from tjjat time up till the time I 
 appeared before the Court of Inquiry, when the ques- 
 tion came through Captain Meade to me, ' if the jib 
 
47 
 
 was carried away?' I said I didn't think it was. It 
 took nie by surprise ; but I did not think it was. I 
 have been thinking about it since, and I dont know what 
 other time 3[r. Long was on deck with me when the 
 sails were set. I recollect the orders being to hoist the 
 jib, and I have thought since it must have been on that 
 morning, for I was standing alongside of him when it 
 was hoisted, and the pendant was carried away. I don't 
 know what other day it could be, for we had not been 
 only three or four days out of Key West. I think it 
 was daylight at the time, for it strikes me I could see 
 very plainly the sail. About the jib being taken in the 
 first hour of that watch, I am not positive about that. 
 It was at the first watch ; it might liave been alter nine 
 o'clock. I know it was the first watch, but it might 
 have been after the first hour, and I could not swear it 
 was that watch, but I think it was, the more I have 
 thought of it since that question was asked me." Pass- 
 ing from this elegant extract, I will remark, that this 
 court must perceive, that the witnesses mentioned in 
 the foregoing statement, deny Mr. Pratt's averments as 
 to the hour when the j;b pendant was parted, and con- 
 trovert his opinion as to the effect of the sails on the 
 speed of the ship. And yet, this is the witness whom 
 you are asked to believe, in opposition lo all the other 
 testimony in the cause. This, too, is the witness who 
 states that he received the absurd and improbable order 
 to steer the ship any course that he chose, between south 
 and southwest. An order, it may be said, that no com- 
 mander of a vessel ever gave before. 
 
 In regard to this above most liberal order, permit me 
 to remark, that it never could have been given by me, 
 and I am sure, it never was given by the sailing-ujaster 
 of the ship to Pratt ; for the reason, that the officer 
 
48 
 
 examined the position of the ship on the chart but a 
 few minutes before, and had advised me to steer the 
 ship south b}' west, and to give such order to the officer 
 of the deck. To have ordered Pratt to steer southwest 
 by south, or any course between south and south- 
 west, would have been at variance with all the master's 
 reckonings, and no one will believe, that after advising 
 me to steer one way, he would immediately go to Pratt 
 and direct him to steer in another direction. Such con- 
 duct would be at variance with all probabilities. But, 
 what proves it to be untrue, is the sworn declaration of 
 Wright himself, who states that I directed him to go 
 to the officer of the deck, as if from me, and order him 
 to steer south by v^est. But, it is evident from the very 
 nature of things, that I never could have ordered any 
 deck officer to steer a course that gave such large dis- 
 cretion us would an order to steer anywhere between 
 south and southwest have given him. It must be con- 
 sidered, from what Pratt iumself has stated, that he 
 did receive orders from Sailing Master Wright in regard 
 to his course ; for in his pretended interviews with me, 
 at an hour when the testimony of all the other wit- 
 nesses, who have spoken on the subject, declare that 
 I was not upon the deck, he states that I asked him how 
 the ship was heading, and inquired as to whether he 
 had not orders as to his course from Mr. Wright, to 
 which he states I replied yes. This pretended conver- 
 sation, admits the fact, that Pratt had received orders 
 from him, but they were not such as he alleges. The 
 proof is unanimous, and all the witnesses proclaim it, 
 that I was a vigilant and exact officer, who gave my 
 orders with marked precision, that admitted no latitude 
 for construction, and that I was especially careful about 
 the navigation of the ship. No one but Pratt, alleges 
 
49 
 
 that so loose an order, as he states, was ever given on 
 board my sliip. To have done so would have contra- 
 dicted the habit of my life. I cannot believe, that the 
 evidence of this man Pratt, will be credited in opposi- 
 tion to what the members of this court know of my 
 reputation for carefulness, and against all the positive 
 testimony that I have referred to in my favor. It should 
 be stated, in this connection, that it must be admitted 
 that the ship was wrecked in consequence of the course 
 steered by Pratt, during his watch from eight to twelve 
 o'clock; for, although she went ashore during Fleming's 
 watch,it was the result of the way which Pratt had directed 
 him to steer, Pratt, therefore, was justly censurable 
 for disobeying the order given him by Mr. Wright, and 
 running a course different from the one directed. He 
 has, therefore, a deep and abiding interest in casting the 
 blame from off his own shoulders, and throwing the bur- 
 den upon the back of any one else who can be made to 
 bear it. That he was unquestionably a negligent and 
 careless man, is manifest from wliat he voluntarily said 
 about himself before the last Court-Martiai, and the 
 loss of the sliip Courier, which was cast away on the 
 Bahama Banks on June 14, 1S64, about fourteen miles 
 south of Elbow Cay, and of which ship he was the 
 naviijatinfl:; officer. 
 
 Do not fail to carry in your recollection, the fact, 
 that Acting Ensign Pratt was navigating officer of the 
 ship Courier. In every position which he has occu- 
 pied on board a ship, he seems to have been ignorant, 
 slothful, and negligent in the performance of his duties. 
 He was dismissed from the public service for negligence^ 
 an offense precisely in the line of the one he committed 
 on board the San Jacinto, on the evening of the 3ist 
 of December, when he neglected to comply with 
 4 
 
50 
 
 the orders which were given to him for the sailing of 
 the sliip. Negligence seems, indeed, to be his besetting 
 sin ; and you will see how graphically he sketches his 
 own character as an officer, in the following account 
 which he gives of his dismissal from the service, and of 
 the loss of the ship Courier. I give his own language : 
 " I was very much surprised at my dismissal. I 
 was dismissed from the service for negligence in the per- 
 formance of my duty as navigating officer to the Courier. 
 I kept the reckoning of the ship, but I did not consider 
 myself a navigating officer. I never saw the cliart, or 
 gave a course while I was in the ship. What I suppose 
 they dismissed me for, in the Courc of Inquiry, was, 
 they asked me if I worked out the position of the ship 
 the night before she struck. I told them I did, but did 
 not give it to the captain. They never asked me why. 
 I believe they asked me why I did not give it to the 
 captain that night. They did not ask me why I did 
 not work out the position of the ship every night. After 
 leaving Boston I worked out the position of the ship 
 every night, and gave it to the captain, and as soon as 
 the ship was clear of the land he did not pay any 
 attention to it. One night the lights were blown out, 
 and he had turned in. I told the executive officer of the 
 ship that the captain paid no attention to my reckoning, 
 and, in future, I told him, I should not work out the 
 position of the ship, until in the neighborhood of land, 
 as he did not seem to want it. And the night before 
 the ship struck, the captain sent for Bowditch's Navi- 
 gator, or asked me for it, and I supposed he worked out 
 the position himself. I also worked it out, but aid not 
 give it in to him." 
 
 It thus appears, from the statement of Mr. Pratt, that 
 he wrecked the ship Courier, almost within siglit of 
 
51 
 
 where he had wrecked the San Jacinto. Had I known, 
 that he was the navigating officer of the Courier at the 
 time of her loss, I never would have permitted him to 
 act as the officer of the deck on any vessel commanded 
 by me. Knowing nothing to his prejudice, I had a right 
 to presume, and I did presume, that he was fully com- 
 petent for his place. But, what seems to aggravate his 
 case is, that the disgrace into which he had fallen, worked 
 no change in his habits or conduct. He curried it with 
 him on board the San Jacinto, and soon found oppor- 
 tunities to exhibit its effects. It was not only shown 
 l>y his disregard of the orders given him by Sailing 
 Master Wright on the evening of the Slat of December, 
 1 864, and her consequent loss, but was also shown in 
 smaller matters, such as attended the parting of the jib- 
 pendant of the San Jacinto during liis watch on the same 
 Bight. He did not report its loss to Fleming, who 
 relieved him as officer of the deck, nor did he enter it 
 on the log-slate, nor cause it to be inserted in the log- 
 book. This w_.s most manifestly his duty, and any faith- 
 ful officer or sailor would have done so. When Long, 
 the Boatswain, inquired of him why he had not entered 
 its parting on the log-slate, and also reported it to the 
 executive officer of the ship, he coolly answered, he had 
 forgotten it — considered it of little importance, and 
 believed it would not be wanted. The evidence is, that 
 it is customary to enter all such matters as the parting 
 of the jib-pendant upon the log, and Pratt well know- 
 ing the rule, if faithful to his trust, ough'', strictly to 
 have complied with it. 
 
 I must, in this connection, call your attention to an- 
 other instance of the utter disregard of truth shown by 
 Pratt in his evidence given before this court, upon the 
 subject of the log-book, and his alleged reasons for not 
 
52 
 
 signing it. It is a most singular circumstance, that in 
 almost every instance where he makes a statement, and 
 other witnesses speak of the same transaction, he is con- 
 tradicted by them all. Indeed, I know of no one facfc 
 spoken of by him in which he is corroborated by any one, 
 except the fact that he was on board the ship, with the 
 other parties when she was lost. The log-book, during 
 Ms watch on the night of the 31st of December, was 
 not signed by him. It was necessary, that he should 
 have an excuse. What do you suppose it was ? I will 
 give it in Pratt's own language: "It was the rule to 
 sign the log-book every day ; I do not recollect of ever 
 being told officially to sign the log of that watch ^ I was 
 too sick to sign it at No Name Cay ; the log-book wa» 
 sent to me just before I started for Key West, I think 
 about five minutes before I left the beach; i'; was senfc 
 in by the captain, as I understood it ; I had a bad bead- 
 ache, and fainted away in camp ; I vomited, and was 
 so weak that I could hardly walk. I could have written 
 in a case of emergency." In opposition to this evidence 
 of Pratt, Charles F. Ottinger, whose business it was to 
 act as the copyist of the log-book^ states : " It was my 
 duty to act as copyist of the log-book ; I took it daily 
 from the cabin to procure the signature of the watch 
 officers to it ; I requested Acting Ensign Pratt to sign 
 the log for his watch for the 31st of December, 
 1S64 ; I requested him on two occasions j the excuse 
 he made on one occasion was that he had not the time 
 just then to attend to it ; at the other time, he told me 
 he would see to it, that it was all right. On the 12th 
 of January I carried the book to the officers\ tent for 
 the officers to sign, who were about to leave the island ; 
 Mr. Pratt complained of being sick at the time ; I lett 
 the log-book there in Mr. Ashbury's charge, who was 
 
then lying sick in his cot ; he signed up the log as far 
 as he had to sign it ; I did not request Mr. Pratt on 
 that da}^ to sign it, 'out he saw me bring the log-book 
 in ; he was standing close over to the marine tent ; he 
 was not doing anything at the time." In reference to 
 the log-book, there was a special order given by me, 
 through Sailing Master Wright, as is proven by him, 
 directing, after t!ie ship was wrecked, that the officers 
 should go to my tent every dav and sign their remarks 
 on the log. 
 
 It is needless to make any commentary on the above 
 testimony respecting the log-book, and why Mr. Pratt 
 neglected to sign it. His evidence is contradicted by 
 Ottinger, who, from the necessity of his position, must 
 have known all about it. He was, as he states, the 
 copyist of the book, and if there were any official 
 request necessary to procure the signatures of the offi- 
 cers to it, the request of Mr. Ottinger was as much offi- 
 cial as was necessary. He says, that he twice carried 
 the book to Pratt, and on both occasions asked him to 
 sign it; on one of them, Pratt excused himself, stating 
 he had not time to attend to it, and on the other, he 
 replied he would see to i*:, that it was all right. Ottin- 
 ger, afterward, to wit, on the morning of the twelfth of 
 January, 18G5, carried the book to the officers' tent, to 
 procure the signatures of some of the watch officers who 
 were about to leave the island. Pratt was included in 
 the number. George Ashbury at that time was lying 
 sick in his cot, but he signed his remarks. Mr. Pratt 
 did not,and excuses himself here by saying that he was 
 that day too sick, he had had a headache, had vomited, and 
 was so weak that he could hardly walk. He then adds, 
 sneeringly, " I could have written in a case of emer- 
 gency." 
 
5i 
 
 Now, I ask this court to notice, that Ashbuiy, who 
 was more ill than Pratt, and who was confined to his 
 cot, actually did sign the log, while Pratt, who was 
 able to walk, aldiough it might have been with diffi- 
 culty, neglected to do so. He would have signed his 
 name, had it been an emergency, but he supposed that 
 none had arisen. I should like to. know what, in his 
 judgment, would amount to an emergency, if the wreck- 
 ing of a ship on a reef, in the dead hour of the night, 
 with hundreds of souls on board, did not amount to 
 one? The emergency was increased, in so far as he 
 was personally concerned, when he recollected, as he 
 ought to have done, that he was the officer of the deck, 
 through whose heedlessness and disobedience of orders, 
 the calamity was caused. He must have known, even 
 with his moderate amount of capacity, that the loss of a 
 national vessel, and the facts and circumstances which 
 attended it, would become the subject of a most search- 
 ing and rigid inquiry, and, that nothing would be 
 so important in making it, as a knowledge of the 
 courses and distances which were run by the ship 
 through the night of the loss. Yet, Pratt treats the 
 log of that night, and its entries, so far as they con- 
 cerned his watch, with the utmost indifference, and 
 quitted the island without giving to the book the poor 
 authentication of his own signature. By what name 
 will you call all this? Is negligence a hard one to apply 
 to it? Was it not his duty to sign that log, and by 
 omitting to do so, did he not commit a breach of it ? 
 And yet, you are asked to credit Mr. Pratt, whose 
 whole career on shipboard, so far as it is made known 
 to this court, has been one of continued and repeated 
 negligence and omission of duty. He was neglige7it 
 when he lost the Courier, and was dismissed from the 
 
55 
 
 service for that cause. He was negligent when he did 
 not report, to tlie proper officer, the parting of the jib- 
 pendant, which occurred during his watch on the night 
 of the disaster to the ship, although it was his duty to 
 have done so, and then assigning, as a reason for his 
 neglect, that he did not think it important to do so. 
 He was again ncgligcjit, in omitting to sign the log con- 
 taining the courses he had run during the night, which 
 it was his duty to have done as officer of the deck. 
 Will you not, then, naturally believe, that Acting Ensign 
 Pratt does not state the truth when he alleges that he 
 was ordered to steer, on the night of the 31st of Decem- 
 ber, during his whole four hours' watch, a course tliat 
 was dangerous in the extreme, and would inevitably 
 lose the ship, and which course, he says, allowed him 
 a discretion to run anywhere he chose between south 
 and southwest ? 
 
 Again : let me refer you once more to the mis- 
 repesentations and untruths of Pratt, and to his tend- 
 ency to utter falsehoods, even when they are unneces- 
 sary to his purpose. He was asked by me, on cross- 
 examination, whether my care and vigilance was not 
 unremitting, and whether it did not extend to every 
 part of the ship. Instead of answering the question, 
 according to his best knowledge on the subject, he 
 replied, that he did not know that he was a judge, and 
 then volunteered the remark, that General Quarters 
 were never had on board the ship while I was attached 
 to it. The answer was in nowise responsive to the 
 question, and his voluntary remark was untrue. There 
 can be no doubt about this. Every witness who was 
 examined after Pratt, and who was interrogated upon 
 the point, stated, that the fact was otherwise. Sailing 
 Master Wright stated that General Quarters were had 
 
56 
 
 on board the San Jacinto while I was attached to her. 
 He added : " I do not recollect the date of any one, but 
 on or about the tenth of December, 1864, we were at 
 General Quarters in the harbor of Key West. I men- 
 tion this special occasion, from the fact that it was 
 more thorough than any one on board the ship. The 
 yards were properly slung, and the fishes were got out 
 and triced up by the lower-mast, ready for lashing." 
 Charles F. Ottinger says, " We had G-eneral Quarters 
 very often." The gunner, Dunsmore, also swore, that 
 General Quarters were had on the ship while I was 
 attached to her. 
 
 In reference to the matter of General Quarters, I will 
 content myself with bar^'ly remarking that there are 
 three witnesses who flatly contradict his statement. 
 Can you refer me to o.ie witness who confirms him? 
 Do you not perceive, how aptly the legal maxim, " Fal- 
 sus in uno,falsus in omnibii'i,''^ applies to him ? 
 
 I now intend to leave further comment on the ques- 
 tion as to the credit that ought to be accorded to Pratt, 
 and will pass on to consider other points of more import- 
 ance. It has been suggested, that I was justly censura- 
 ble for desiring to keep the vessel closer to the shore 
 than common prudence would have dictated, espacially 
 where the currents were uncertain, and the land but a 
 few feet above the level of the sea. This point I have 
 already considered, and will make but a few additional 
 remarks upon it here. It is an accusation easily made, 
 and apparently plausible upon its face, but it finds no 
 warrant in any portion of the testimony given to this 
 court. Whether such an allegation be true or false, can 
 only be determined, like all other questions of fact, by 
 the proof that has been given. The order that Wright 
 swears he gave to the officer of the deck, was to run but 
 
57 
 
 twenty miles on the course indicated by liim, but he 
 says in his evidence, that if the shij> iiad run twenty-five 
 miles on the same course, it would have placed her ten 
 and a half miles from the reef. That if she were twenty- 
 nine miles from the nearest land on the evening of 
 December 31, and the current was running northwest 
 at the rate of four knots an hour, and the ship was run- 
 ning south by west by the compass, having made five 
 knots an hour for four consecutive hours, she would 
 have been sixteen miles northwest of the point at which 
 she would have been had there been no cm-rent, and 
 would have been twelve miles from the land. By adding 
 one hour more, she would have been nine miles from 
 the land. 
 
 It must be recollected by this court, that the order I 
 gave, directed that after the ship had run twenty miles, 
 she was to tack about to the northward and westward. 
 Had this order been strictly carried out by the officer of 
 the deck, she would have been ten and a half miles from 
 the reef at the time she was to be put about. This was 
 the distance I desired to keep from the shore when I gave 
 the order designating the course and distance to be run. 
 No witness in the case, taking even the uncertain cur- 
 rents into consideration, and the flict that the land was 
 but a few feet above the level of the sea, has said that 
 to approach within ten and a half miles of the shore 
 would involve the slightest risk to the ship, or that I 
 would have put her in dangerous proximity to it. The 
 judgment of my sailing-master, whose opinion I was 
 bound to regard, considered it prudent for me to give 
 the order I did. What witness that has been examined 
 on this trial has said that such a distance from the shore 
 was either imprudent or hazardous to the ship ? The 
 opinion of Wright is fully confirmed by the testimony 
 
58 
 
 of Captain A. V. Frazer, about whose position and char- 
 acter I have already spoken, who was examined as an 
 expert, and who is familiar with the reef, and its dangers, 
 upon which the San Jacinto was wrecked. He testified, 
 that if he were the commander of a ship, wuth a proper 
 object in view, such as the capture of blockade-runners, 
 he would run within five miles of the coast, and would 
 consider himself perfectly safe. The order I gave, if 
 obeyed, would have kept the San Jacinto double the 
 distance from the shore that was stated to be safe by 
 Captain Frazer. Surely there can be no force in the 
 allegation that I ventured imprudently near the shore ; 
 and I trust I may safely leave its refutation to the con- 
 clusive testimony given by the witnesses. 
 
 It has been further suggested, though without any 
 just reason, that want of care and neglect were exhib- 
 ited by the sailing-master of the ship, in taking no observ- 
 ation for longitude, after nine o'clock on the morning of 
 the 31st of December, and that owing to this neglect, 
 the longitude of the ship had to be computed by the log 
 alone. The fact, that there was no observation taken 
 for longitude during the time stated, is undoubtedly 
 true, but the answer to the charge is a conclusive one, 
 thut the state of the weather was such, that it could not 
 be taken. The testimony of the witnesses on this point 
 is incontrovertible, and there is no conflict between 
 them in regard to it. Not a single witness expresses 
 the opinion that it was possible to take an observation 
 tor longitude after nine o'clock in the morning up to the 
 time that the ship went ashore. Frequent and con- 
 tinued attempts were made to do so. Wright, whose 
 business it was to take them, states that it was too cloudy 
 to permit any observations for longitude to be made 
 between the periods specified, and that it was impossible, 
 
59 
 
 at any time during the evening of the 31st, to take one. 
 He carefully looked to see whether any star came on the 
 meridian, the altitude of which he could get. but he as- 
 certained that none would come before two o'clock in the 
 morning. During the afternoon of the 31st of Decem- 
 ber, Wright went upon the deck at a quarcer past three 
 o'clock and remained there until after four, but tliat during 
 all that time, he was unable to get one. He dechired 
 that it was not possible for him to have taken an altitude 
 by the North Star on that evening, for the reason, that 
 the northern heavens were very obscure. He observed 
 that circumstance, in particular. Now, this is clear and 
 distinct evidence, fully answering the objection that 
 there was negligence, in not taking the usual and neces- 
 sary observations for longitude, but proving every pos- 
 sible attempt was made. No witness controverts the 
 truth of this statement, but all who speak of the weather 
 confirm it. Fleming proves that the weather was slightly 
 overcast during his watch, and to use his own language, 
 a heavy bank was to southward. He says he does not 
 know that it was possible to obtain the altitude of a star 
 dui-ing his watch. The night, he adds, was overcast and 
 partly cloudy. Long testifies, that the weather was cloudy 
 from four o'clock in the afternoon up to midnight, and 
 Williams says, that when he came on deck he could not 
 see either moon or stars. So, Lieutenant Smalley gives 
 evidence to the same effect, and swears, that after three 
 o'clock in the afternoon no sights could be taken, and he 
 would particularly remember the flict, because he was 
 in the habit of marking time for the sailing-master. 
 Surely all this consistent testimony of a positive charac- 
 ter, ought to be deemed conclusive of the fact, that no 
 observations for longitude could have been taken durinir 
 the omitted time, or they would have been taken by 
 
60 
 
 Sailing Master Wright. How can the honorable court 
 find that observations ought to have been taken, when 
 no witness proves that it was possible to do so, and when 
 what is actually proved, shows that they could not be 
 obtained ? I therefore ask this court. How it is possible, 
 that I can be censured for negligence in not taking 
 observations, when the proof is positive that it could 
 not be done ? 
 
 But, it has been further objected against me, that, 
 considering uncertain currents were known to exist, and 
 that the distance measured by the log is always more 
 or less uncertain, that greater prudence should have 
 been exercised, and greater vigilance shown, to have 
 my order to run the ship only twenty miles from eight 
 o'clock, P.M., strictly attended to. On what ground 
 can such a charge possibly be sustained 1 What sin of 
 omission did I possibly commit? Everything that I 
 said and did in regard to the order given to Pratt, 
 manifested in its preparation extraordinary care, and I 
 took pains to provide for its literal execution, and that 
 no mistake could arise in regard to it. Every move- 
 ment that I made at eight o'clock, and after that hour, on 
 the 31st of December, proves the exercise jf caution 
 and of much consideration, and shows that ray thoughts 
 were exclusively given to the subject. What did I do, 
 in every step of my proceedings ? I sent for Wright, 
 the sailing-master, and received from him the reck- 
 onings of the ship, up to eight o'clock, and required him 
 to prick out, for me, upon the chart, her exact position 
 at that hour. I examined the chart with him, con- 
 sulted and conversed as to the course that should be 
 steered. Mr. Wright, in this interview, assured me 
 that I might safely run a course south by west for 
 twenty miles, and then tack about, and put the ship to 
 
61 
 
 the northward and westward. Her engines were to be 
 slowed down to four knots an hour. During the day 
 we had been chasing blockade-runners, but, toward the 
 approach of night, they evaded our pursuit, and their 
 snioke was no longer visible. For that reason, I desired 
 to be as near the land by morning as was prudent, so 
 that if they were again seen, they could be chased off 
 shore. I approved the course it was proposed to run 
 the ship, and acquiesced in the suggestions made by 
 Sailing Master Wridit. I directed him to have the 
 order, to run the ship soutli by west, communicated to 
 the officer of the deck. Wright reported to me that he 
 had given the order to Pratt, and had taken every pre- 
 caution to avoid all danger. I went on deck a few 
 minutes after eioht o'clock, and ac-ain at fifteen minutes 
 after ten. While there, the navigating officer came on 
 deck, and I asked him how the ship was heading. 
 He answered. *' South by west." I then turned to the 
 officer of the deck, and said : " Mr. Pratt, you will let 
 her go as she is going, south by west, until she 
 has gone her twenty miles, and then call 
 Mr. Wright and myself, and we will turn 
 her about." Wright heard me give this order 
 to Pratt, which was the same that Wright had 
 given to Pratt at eight o'clock, or a few minutes after, on 
 the evening of the 31st of December. Several other 
 witnesses also testify, that they saw me on deck m con- 
 versation with Pratt, whose testimony I have stated 
 elsewhere on a preceding point. So, Engineer Bright 
 swears I told him I wanted the engines slov/ed down as 
 much as possible. These facts prove that I did exercise 
 the greatest vigilance to have the order to run the ship 
 only twenty miles from eight o'clock, P.M., most strictly 
 attended to. My only purpose in remaining on deck 
 
62 
 
 was to make it certain that the officer of the deck fully 
 understood the course he was to run. So, my talking 
 to the engineer, was to make it sure that my order to 
 slow the engines was properly apprehended by him. I 
 did not go below until I was satisfied on these points ; 
 and then I did not retire, but threw myself down, with 
 my clothing still upon me, for the purpose of temporary 
 repose. It was known to all on shipboard, that I had 
 been up the two previous nights, and my physical con- 
 dition was exhausted and needed some repose. Still, I 
 did not abate my care and anxiety for the safety of the 
 ship ; and, had my directions been faithfully obeyed, all 
 would have gone right. I knew that each man was 
 stationed at his appropriate post, witli orders that I had 
 reason to believe were fully understood, and I had con- 
 fidence in the capacity and fidelity of the officers of my 
 ship. Each one had his own sphere of duty, and I 
 expected that each one would perform it. I had aright 
 to act on that presumption, and rest satisfied that both 
 the sailing-master and the officer of the deck understood 
 theii duty, and would perform it. I exercised a general 
 supervision over the persons under my command ; but 
 it was the special duty of the sailing-master to navigate 
 the ship; and if she were lost, the blame would be more 
 immediately imputed to him, whoever he might be. Nor 
 did the fact that uncertain currents were known to exist 
 make any reason why my prudence should have beeti 
 greater than it was. These currents were taken into 
 the calculation made by the navigating officer, and he 
 made an allowance for the current of a half point west. 
 This is positive proof, that I omitted no caution, but 
 exercised all the vigilance that was possible in the case. 
 From the summary of the f:'cts, in my case, thus 
 briefly stated, I conclude that it is imp ssible that I ca.i 
 
63 
 
 be found guilty of omitting the exercise of due care and 
 vigilance. The proof is overwhelming, that my attention 
 extended to every part of my duty, and was unremitting. 
 I never took off my clothes, and vvas never in my bed 
 from the time I left Key West until the occurrence of 
 the unfortunate disaster which lost the ship. When 
 I left the deck, as I have already stated, I saw that my 
 orders were executed. Wfien I came on deck amiin, at 
 somefifteen minutes after ten o'clock I repeated the order 
 for steering the ship, if Sailing Master Wright is to be 
 believed, and at that hour the engine had been slowed 
 down to ten revolutions so that there was nothing to 
 excite my suspicions that my orders wer not under- 
 stood. This, I say, upon the supposition that you believe 
 the order was given, as is stated by Mr. Wright and 
 sworn to by the other witnesses. Now, am I to be 
 censured for v^^ant of vigilance, after the disaster? 
 Here, again, the testimony is perfectly concurrent, and 
 it shows that by extraordinary perseverance, and at 
 great risk of personal safety, I saved everything that 
 could be removed from the ship, amounting in value to 
 $30,000, exclusive of the great guns, which were, every 
 one of them, preserved. 
 
 To believe me guilty of inattention or negligence, 
 you must be prepared to disbelieve the whole, and 
 every part of Mr. Wright's testimony. If you believe 
 any part of it, no valid reasons can be assigned for not 
 believing it all. But, can any unprejudiced man j)re- 
 tend to doubt the credibility of these witnesses? If he 
 can, than he must hold : 
 
 That he did not ascertain the position of the ship, at 
 eight o'clock on the evening of the 31st of December: 
 
 That her position, at that hour, was not twenty-nine 
 and a half miles from the nearest point of danger : 
 
64 
 
 That he did not form in his own mind a project of 
 the niiiht's rnn : 
 
 That he did not propose or suggest the same to me, 
 
 That he did not prick out the position of the ship 
 on the chart, and show it to me : 
 
 That he did not suggest to me, that the ship could 
 safely stand south by west twenty miles, before encoun- 
 tering any danger : 
 
 That after running this distance, she should be tacked 
 and headed northward and westward : 
 
 That she should run this distance in five houry, at the 
 rate of four knots an hour : 
 
 That I did not, after hearing his suggestions, cause 
 him to go over his work in my presence, and that I did 
 not verify the calculations by overlooking them, and 
 seeing their correctness in person : 
 
 That I did not direct him to give the order, in 
 accordance with his su2:s?estions to the officer of the 
 deck : 
 
 That no such order was given to Mr. Pratt : 
 
 And, setting aside each and every part of these posi- 
 tions, you must be prepared to maintain, in order to 
 convict we of the negligence and inattention laid to my 
 charge, tluit the order to Pratt was : 
 
 To steer the ship by the wind to any part of the com- 
 pass between south and southwest, for fivo hours at 
 the rate of five miles an hour. 
 
 If, therefore, you can disbelieve Mr. Wright, under 
 the circumstances stated, and credit the evidence of Mr. 
 Pratt, I can entertain no hope from the result of your 
 deliberations, 
 
 One word more and I have done. I have endeavored 
 — nay, I have shown my perfect innocence of all fault 
 
65 
 
 respecting the charges made. I have demonstrated, that 
 my only care was for the safety of the vessel committed 
 to my keeping. That the habits of my life, formed in 
 youth, and continuing to my present age, are in opposi- 
 tion to the charge now brought against me, and in an 
 hour such as this, I trust the value of a good character 
 will be appreciated by you. I have been sustained on 
 every hand, even by the evidence produced by tlie prose- 
 cution, and Pratt, who in this proceeding seeks to shift 
 the result of his own incapacity upon me, is left alone 
 and unsupported in his charge, contradicted in ever}^ 
 essential paiticular by every witness that has been 
 examined in the case. Therefore, in great confidence, 
 knowing my innocence of all fault, I surrender my case 
 into the hands of this honorable court, feeling assured 
 that the truth has been made manifest, and tliat its 
 decision will leave me free from taint, and nntariiished in 
 my character and honor. 
 
 Thanking you for the patience exhibited in my case, 
 and the kindness extended to my connsel and myself, I 
 now resign my case into your hands. 
 
 I am, Mr. President and gentlemen of the court, 
 
 Most respectfully, 
 
 R. W. MEADE, 
 
 Captain. 
 

 lEFe '13 
 
DEFEjSTSE 
 
 CAPT, HfCflARD W. MEADE, 
 
 TRIED FOR THR LOSa OP THE 
 
 UNITED STATES STEAMER SAN JACINTO, 
 
 ON THE BAHAMA BANKS, JANUARY 1, 1865. 
 
 READ BY Hia COrN9EL. 
 
 JOHN W. ASHMExlD, 
 
 0>r THE Eighth Day op Febrctart, 186(5. 
 
 BEPORE A 
 
 CONVENED AT THE NAVY YARD, 
 
 Df THE C ITT OF PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 NEW YOEK: 
 
 P R E S 3 OF W T N K P * H A L L E N' B E C K 
 
 113 FCXTOS iStreet. 
 
 1 «r,f'. 
 
X 
 
 LBFe'13 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS