|
C 0001
COURT
OF INQUIRY, 2 ‑ 8 MAY 1814
Sir,
Agreeable to your order we have
carefully examined into the state of the following Provisions now on board U.
S. Frigate Constitution and do report as follows:‑
Viz.
There are in the starboard Tank nine
Thousand, one hundred and forty three pounds of sound Beef, but not much of a
quality as is generally served out to the seaman [sic] in the U. S. Navy. We also have surveyed and condemned Eight
hundred and five pounds of Beef out of the same tank. Also [sic] seven Bbls of Flour and five of
Crout [sic].‑‑ and sixty Bbls of good Pork.‑‑
Respectfully
yr Obt
Svt
Lieut. H. E.
Ballard
Lieut B M
Winsted
U.
S. Frigate Constitution
Saml E. Hixon
Gentlemen,
The evidence given in the course of
the investigation ordered by the Honble Secretary of the Navy, renders it
necessary on my part to explain certain parts thereof that no improper
impression may remain with the Court as respects my conduct in the general
procedure and return of the Frigate Constitution to Port. It will appear by the evidence that it would
have been necessary in a short time to resort to Port for some supplies
essential to a longer continuance of the cruise.
I believe it will be admitted that
from the first of the cruise the allowance of water was as small as it ought to
have been, unless in cases of extreme necessity. It will also appear to the Court that as few
provisions were condemned on the last cruise as perhaps as perhaps on any
former, that notwithstanding the great complaints said to exist respecting beef
that few or none of them were ever heard by myself or principal Officers and
that no restraint existed on my part which led to the issuing of unsound
provisions, but full latitude was given to survey and condemn whenever
complaints occurred, and the whole quantity condemned during the cruise was
trifling, not amounting to one barrel.
That scorbutic symptoms had arisen
among the crew, is in evidence before the Court, and that those symptoms had
not arisen from any neglect in the police, or inattention of the Officers to
the cleanliness of the Ship; although these symptoms did not exist to an
alarming degree, yet a short time longer might have produced them to that
extent, when it is considered that many the greater part of the crew had
previously undergone a long confinement to a hulk or the ship before the cruise
commenced which confinement must have contributed much to the early producing
those symptoms. That the Mainmast was
seriously defective also appears in evidence to the Court, at least so much so
the latter part of our cruise as to excite in me those proper apprehensions for
the safety of the property entrusted to my care. That I was pursuing the object of our
instructions, notwithstanding the previous reasons assigned appears by the
evidence, and the Course was not changed for this coast untill [sic] the
apparent defects of the Mainmast had excited in me those apprehensions, and
decided me combined with the other reasons to return to Port. As there did not appear any external defect
in the mast, but as it seemed to complain from the neck to the fife rail
without any cause from taught [sic] stays I could not decide the precise place
where the usual remedy by fishing ought to be placed, and as I had decided to
go immediately into Port, I postponed applying the remedy until its complaints
should be more particular and the part requiring support should be distinctly
ascertained, which in all probability would have been the case had we been
delayed getting into Port or a more boisterous time occurred, but the
smoothness of our passage in rendered it unnecessary. I am persuaded, the Court combining all those
reasons (as I had done) with the favourableness of the season, which I
considered came within the spirit of the Hnble. Secretary's instructions, and
the information we possessed relative to the Enemy's forces on the American
station will be of opinion that I acted from the best motives, dictated by
reason and prudence, and that the service has not sustained any injury in
consequence or the Navy Service in any measure relaxed by the conduct of that
part of it entrusted to my care.
If expectations have gone beyond what
reason and justice towards would authorize, it is our misfortune and not our
fault that they have not been realized, if the conscious inferiority of the
Enemy's frigates has led them to avoid where they used to seek a combat with us
and the inferior sailing of our ships has not enabled us to overtake them, I
trust we are not blameable on that account, all we can do is deserve success.
I cannot conclude this paper without
observing to the Court, that the Constitution has been as long at Sea on her
last cruise as any frigate since the war without resorting to Port for supplies
and refreshments, which is considered essential to the sustaining and
contributing to the health of the Crew.
With respect to the articles thrown
overboard during the chase by the Enemy's Ships, it appears in evidence, that
my orders extended only to those which were best calculated to lighten and keep
the ship in trim, such as could most readily dispensed with, easily got at and
of the least value.
Chs Stewart
The
Honbl court of Inquiry
Navy
Department
April
21. 1814.
Sir,
The United States Ship Constitution,
under the Command of Captain Charles Stewart, having under gone [sic] a
thorough repair and reequipment of the most perfect and ample kind, with a
capacity for, and it is believed, an actual supply of, provisions and stores
for at least six months, for her proper complement, with due economy and
prudent management, and under instructions (Copy of which is enclosed) to
prolong the cruise to the utmost possible extent, sailed on the 30th of
December last and returned to Salem on the 3rd current having cruised the short
period of ninety two days.‑‑
The letter of Captain Stewart, dated
at Salem, the 4th current, (Copy of which is enclosed) giving an account of his
cruise assigning motives for his premature return, does not, in the view of
this Department, afford any substantial, or justifiable, ground for his
determination, and as it is of the utmost importance to the Character of the
navy, and the preservation of that high confidence and predeliction manifested
by the public, that the energy and effect which have been so gloriously
demonstrated to the world, by our gallant navy, Should not even be suspected of
relaxation from its wonted vigor, it is due to the Navy, to Captain Stewart
individually and to the public, that a just and strict enquiry be made into the
preparations for, and causes of the premature termination of the late cruise of
the United States Ship Constitution.
You will, therefore, Sir, together
with Captain Hull, or Captain Perry,* form a court of Enquiry to enquire into
the conduct of Captain Stewart in relation to the equipment and preparation for
the cruise of the Constitution; and into the causes of its premature
termination, to the injury of the service and contrary to the spirit &
tenor of his instructions.‑‑
You will particularly Enquire, Whether
all the space properly appropriated to the stowage of Water and provisions was
fully and advantageously occupied for that purpose.‑‑
Whether the provisions were in perfect
order, and in such vessels and packages as the regulations, usage and practice
of the navy authorize; or whether any other unauthorized mode had been adopted
by Captain Stewart.‑‑
* As may be most convenient to the service on
which they command.
For what length of time the provisions
and water on board, on the 30th of December last, were sufficient to sustain,
at full allowance, a crew, equal in number to that which had been employed on
board the said Ship on either of the two preceding cruises; and, also, for what
further time a seasonable reduction of allowance, with a view to prolong the
cruise, such as has been usual and practicable in the service, would have extended
the supply.‑‑
Whether the aggregate number of
persons on board at the time of departure exceeded the usual number, or the
number employed on board that Ship on the two preceding cruises.‑‑
Whether the quantity of any particular
species of provisions, or stores, on board, at
the time of departure, exceeded, in a material degree, that which has
been the general usage and practice of the service.‑‑
How much longer the provisions and
stores, actually on board on the day of the arrival of the Constitution, or on
the day previous to the chase by the enemy, in
What were the description and quantity
of the several articles thrown overboard during the chase, and were they such
as could be dispenses with, with the least injury to the service, and their
ejection calculated to produce the desired effect.‑‑
What were the actual State and
condition of the provisions, particularly of the salted provisions, at the
time of the arrival of the Ship?
Whether symptoms of the scurvy had
appeared on board; at what period, in what degree, and whether the cause of
those symptoms can be traced to any defect in the provisions, or the
preparation thereof; or to want of attention in those whose duty it is
particularly to guard against the approaches of that disease by those
attentions and precautions which skill and experience have devised: And,
generally, into such other matters as may be involved in the object of this Enquiry,
and report to this Department the facts, and the opinion of the Court thereon.‑‑
A copy of my letter of the 19th
current, in answer to that from Captain Stewart of the 4th current, is also
enclosed.‑‑
I am, very respectfully,
Your
W
Jones
Commo:
W: Bainbridge
To
George Sullivan, Esquire ‑‑
Whereas the Honorable secretary of the
Navy having directed me by letter dated the 21st current, to hold a Court of
Enquiry "to enquire into the conduct of Captain Stewart in relation to the
equipment and preparation for the cruise of the Constitution, and into the
causes of its premature termination to the injury of the service, and contrary
to the tenor & spirit of his instructions:"‑‑ I do hereby,
by virtue of authority as President of the aforesaid Court, appoint &
authorize you to officiate as Judge Advocate thereof; and for so doing, this
shall be your sufficient warrant.‑‑
Given under my hand, at the Navy Yard, Charlestown, this
30th
day of April 1814.
Wm Bainbridge
Navy Yard
April 30 1814
Sir,
I enclose to you an official
appointment as Judge Advocate of the Court of Enquiry, to beheld on the conduct
of Captain Stewart.
The Court will meet on Tuesday next,
at 10 o'clock A.M., at this Navy Yard.
You will give the necessary notice to Captain Stewart, and summons the
following witnesses, vizt.
Lieut.
Ballard /
Hoffman /
Constitution
Shubrick /
Mr. Ames, late
Sailing Master, in
Mr.
Doct. Chs
Cotton, Fr: Constitution
I am, very
respectfully,
Yr ob: Sert
Geo. Sullivan,
Esquire
Wm
Bainbridge
P.
S. You will require of Mr. Pottinger,
that he be furnished with a list of the Crew, and an account of the quantity of
provisions, on board the Constitution at the time of her departure, and on the
day previous to her entering the
State
of
Navy
Yard
To
Henry E Ballard, B. V. Hoffman and Wm B Shubrick Esquires, Lieutenants in the Navy
of the U States
Greetings
You are hereby required to attend
before a Court of Enquiry to be held at the United States Navy Yard in Charlestown
Massachusetts on Tuesday the third Day of Maycurrent at nine of the Clock
before noon: Then and there to give evidence of what you know touching the
subjects of Enquiry, then and there to be made.
Hereof fail not at your peril.
Given
under my hand and seal pursuant to order of William Bainbridge Esquire President
of said Court this second Day of May AD eighteen hundred and fourteen.
Geo Sullivan
Advocate of
said Court
District
of Massachusetts
Pursuant
to the within I have notified Henry E Ballard ‑ B V Hoffman & Wm B
Shubrick to appear at the time place & for the purpose named by leaving at
their Respective places of abode an attested copy of the Same.
Saml Prince
Depy Marshal
Fees 2,30
State
of
Navy Yard
To
Robert Pottinger purser. Charles Cotton surgeon in the Navy of the U. States
and Samuel Eames late sailing master in the service of the
Greetings
You
are hereby required to attend before a Court of Enquiry to be held at the
United States Navy Yard in Charlestown Massachusetts on Tuesday the third Day
of May current at nine of the clock before noon: then and there to give
evidence of what you know touching the subjects of Enquiry then and there to be
made. Hereof fail not at your peril.
Given
under my hand and seal pursuant to orders of William Bainbridge Esquire President
of said Court this second Day of May AD eighteen hundred and fourteen
Geo Sullivan
advocate of
said Court
District
of Massachusetts
Pursuant
to the within I have notified the persons herein named by giving Samuel Eames
an attested Copy in hand & by leaving an attested Copy at the place of
abode of Robert Pottinger Charles
Collins [sic] is not in town
Saml
Prince Deputy Marshal
Fees 1.20
(Copy
from the Record) Navy
Departmant
18
Septr 1813
Sir,
The U. States Frigate Constitution,
under your command, must ere this be nearly ready for sea, and, as it is
desirable to take the first fair opportunity after the Equinox to push into the
open Ocean, you will, by every means in your power, accelerate her equipment
and preparation for departure. As the
enemy appears to be correctly apprized of our intended operations, he will
doubtlessly ascertain the precise period of your intended departure, and
probably Blockade, or station a competent force near you. It will be prudent, therefore, to put to sea
only under circumstances of the most favorable nature, to elude his vigilance
and escape an unequal contest.
Should an attempt be made to allure
you, by a challenge, to single combat, I am directed by the President, to
prohibit strictly the acceptance, either directly or indirectly.
When you shall meet upon equal terms,
without premeditation, with your crew practised [sic] and disciplined, his
confidence in your skill and gallantry is entire, and no apprehensions are
entertained for the honour of the flag, and the safety of the precious Ship
entrusted to your care.
Having cleared
After passing through the Mona
passage, you may make your election to follow the route first prescribed, or
pass down the North side of St. Domingo and
These instructions are given with a
strong desire, that they may be adhered to, unless some unforeseen event, or
particular information you may derive in the course of your cruize, shall, in
your judgment, render a deviation indispensable, in which case, you will
exercise your own discretion, and adhere, as near to the spirit and object of
the instructions, as may be. The British
Men of War, on the
The transcripts of British Signals,
from those recently taken on board the enemy's Schooner Dominica, and sent to
Com Bainbridge, may be of the most important service to you, particularly the
Island Signals; though it will not be safe to remain long among the Windward
Islands, as the enemy's force is too formidable.
I have said you will return in the
Spring, but this is on the presumption, that your wants will render it
necessary. Should you, however, be so
fortunate, as to obtain supplies from any quarter, so as to enable you to
continue your cruize for any considerable length of time, you will prolong it
accordingly; but if those supplies are partial and sufficient only for a short
time, it will be well to return in March or April, so as to revictual, and get
out again, before the mild season shall admit of a close Blockade of our
Harbours; and New York, by way of the Sound or Hook, will in all probability be
the safest of access.
The commerce of the enemy is the most
vulnerable point we can attack, and its destruction the main object; and to
this end all your efforts should be directed. Therefore unless your prizes
shall be very valuable, and near a friendly port, it will be imprudent, and
worse than useless to attempt to send them in.
The chances of recapture are excessively great, the crew, and the safety
of the ship, under your command, would be diminished, and endangered, as well
as your own fame, and the national honour, by hazarding a battle after the
reduction of your Officers and crew, by manning Prizes. In every point of view, then it will be
proper to destroy what you capture, except valuable and compact articles, that
may be transshipped. This system gives
to one ship the force of many, and, by granting to prisoners a Cartel, as
sufficient numbers accumulate, our account on that head will be increased to
our credit, and not only facilitate the exchange, but ensure treatment to our
unfortunate countrymen, who are, or may be confined by the enemy. It has been usual in our service, when
prisoners are liberated on parole, [obscured] engagement not to bear arms
against the U. States until duly exchanged.
This leaves them at liberty to serve
against any other enemy of
As free communications from abroad are
very desirable, but very precarious, if you will adopt a Cipher [sic], and
furnish the Key before your departure, it will be duly attended to. Be pleased to acknowledge the receipt of
this, and state the expected period of your departure.
I am, very
respectfully,
Your obedient
Servant,
P.S. On the eve of your W Jones
departure,
direct your
Purser
to transmit a
correct
Muster Roll of
the
Officers and crew.
Captain
Charles Stewart
Commanding
the U. States
Frigate
Constitution,
Sir,
I have the honor to inform you, that
we arrived at this place last evening, having been closely chased by two Ships
of War of the enemy, which prevented our reaching
I regret that our cruise has been so
unsuccessful, and that we captured but four of the enemy's Vessels, (as per
list enclosed,) although we chased every thing that we saw until
yesterday. We closely pressed His Majesty's
Brig of War, Musquito, off
We cruised some time in the Gulf
passage, to intercept any thing there might be passing from the
Our supplies would have enabled us to
keep the Sea a month longer, but our keeping out that time would have rendered
our getting into the United States precarious, which if disappointed in, we
should not have been enabled afterwards to have reached a foreign Port; added
to this, scorbutic symptoms began to make their appearance, and we had certain
information from Bermuda, that most of the Ships were in provisioning and
preparing for the Spring blockade. I
therefore considered the safe return of the Ship to the United States more
important than a lengthened cruise, and that her being blockaded in the United
States, for the Summer, would be preferred to a like blockade in a foreign
port; as the officers and crew could be usefully employed in such other manner
as you deem best.
The Ship leaks considerably, which I
believe is principally in her seams.
Enclosed I hand you the periods of the
departure of the Convoys, this Summer, from the Windward Islands; but the
convoying force will be such as to leave little in the power of a single
Ship. The first fleet will, perhaps, be
the most valuable that has for many years left the
I
have the honour to be, Sir,
Very
respectfully,
Your
Obedient Servant,
Charles
Stewart
Honorable
William Jones
Secretary of the Navy
Navy Department
April
19th 1814
Sir,
Your letter of the 4th current, has
been received, and with an earnest disposition to discover, I do not perceive,
in the reasons and motives assigned, a satisfactory cause for the premature
termination of the cruise of the U. S. Ship Constitution under your command.
After a long protracted and expensive
outfit, and with a capacity to carry more provisions and stores, than that, or
any other ship in the service ever has done, and every thing that could
contribute to the sustenance and health of the crew, during a long cruise, the
importance of which was inculcated in the strongest terms in the instructions
to you from this Department; I cannot but be disappointed in witnessing the
unexpected return in three months of a Ship and crew, which had so highly
excited the public expectation and confidence.
Your supplies you say Sir would have
enabled you to keep the sea a month longer ‑‑ this however is
allowing only four months provisions at the time of your departure.‑‑ A timely reduction of one fourth the full
allowance, which is always assented to with cheerfulness, would have enabled
you to extend your cruise another month.
You must have derived considerable
supplies from the captures made, as I observe the Cargo of the Lovely Ann,
consisted of flour, fish and Lumber, part of which was thrown overboard.
Had you remained two or three days off
The policy of returning to be
Blockaded during the Summer, in preference to continuing the cruise, or running
the risk of being Blockaded in a foreign port, assigned by you, as a motive for
your return, I cannot comprehend. The
Blockade of the Ports of France, had you resorted thither is by no means so
strict as that of our own, nor are the Ships of the Enemy on that coast so well
manned or qualified to lay along side the Constitution, as those on our own
Coast. Indeed there are not many of the
74s such as are employed there, half manned as they are, that would have
willingly encountered you.
At
The appearance of scorbutic symptoms
is at all times calculated, to excite apprehension, but it is evident those
symptoms must have been very light, and considered by you as merely collateral
among those causes which induced your return.‑
The existance [sic] however of those
symptoms in so short a time, and in a mild dry climate, is matter of
astonishment, and indicative of a want of attention in those, who are more
immediately charged with the superintendance [sic] of the police of the Ship,
and of the provisions & culinary department[.]
Whether the number of your crew
exceeded the usual compliment [sic], sanctioned by the Department, I cannot
say, as no muster roll of your crew on the eve of your departure was
transmitted to this Depmt. though required by the positive injunction of the
XXIX article of the rules for the Government of the Navy, and by the special
order of the Department.
It is due to yourself, Sir, as well as
to the public, that an inquiry should be made into the causes which have
produced these comments, and I have every feeling personally & officially
to desire that it may result in satisfactory explanations.
I am
respectfully
Sir, Your
Obedt Servt
W
Jones
Capt
Charles Stewart
Commanding
the
Constitution
Statement and Narrative of Captain Stewart
1st Some of our supplies, according to my
judgment, would not have justified our cruising beyond the period we were out
more than one month or six weeks, and at the same time leave left on board a
Sufficient quantity to ensure our reaching a port to replenish from the place
we might be in at the expiration of that period. The mild season would then have set in, and
rendered our getting into the
2d Scorbutic symptoms having made their
appearance among the crew, became a consideration, as it must be allowed that
when that disease appears it tends to
weaken the force of a ship. I do not think this disease was in any
measure to be attributed to a want of care and attention in the Officers, or a
want of cleanliness or exercise in the men, but from what I have heard, and my
own observations on that disease, I am led to believe it originates from other
causes than are generally assigned, perhaps some changes that take place in the
blood or system not hitherto bserved. I
take the liberty of attaching to this a note.
3d Having derived information from a vessel
(we boarded on the coast of
watched by the enemy's cruisers, and the
Season having come best calculated to ensure our arriving with the least
hazard, which was forcibly pointed out by the
Honorable Secretary's instructions of the 19th
September; I deemed her safe return to port a consideration more important to
the service, than cruising an inconsiderable length of time longer, and thereby
increasing the hazard in getting in after the Season permitted a closer
blockade of our ports. These
instructions were exceedingly well calculated at the time they were given to
meet the season recommended us to return in (should our necessities require);
some delay, however, arising in completing the crew, and the vigilance of the
Enemy in watching the Constitution (which they were better enabled to do from
the mildness of the season) prevented our putting to Sea in conformity with
expectations.
4th Some of the principal sails of the
Constitution were so far worn that the ship did not derive those advantages from
her canvass [sic] which are essential to a cruising frigate.‑ All the Courses (two suits) which had been in
her on her former cruise became nearly worn out and would require in a very short time to be
indispensably replaced with new ones. Those sails were thought Sufficient at the
time and Commodore Bainbridge, who was
perfectly acquainted with their condition and in whose judgment I have every
confidence but in the quality of the canvass [sic] we may have been mistaken or they must
have worn much faster than anticipated owing to light winds.
5th The Mainmast of the Constitution on the
27th of March appeared to me very defective; whether this was
owing to decay in the materials, some hidden cause
(such as a spring in the spindle), the
manner in which it was combined, or whether a slight wound received on the neck
in the action with the Java from a shot, or a
strain from heavy pitching on the 19th
March when in chase of a Spanish schooner, I cannot say, but most likely the
latter. I am informed by Commodore Bainbridge that it stood very well during his cruise, and no defect appeared when the ship was hove down by it last summer, nor in the first part of the last cruise when the ship was as hard pressed as at any time since.
While pursuing the object of our
instructions, on the 28th of March (by our position) I felt myself called on to
decide whether we should continue out under the foregoing disadvantages, or
return while the season was most propitious, and a port near us so favourable
to our object and necessities as any other we could resort to. The reasons here assigned had not sufficient
weight to determine me to return although I considered them strong; the
defects, however, of so important a spar as the Mainmast, combined with these
reasons, decided me, for in proportion to its deficiencies the precious ship
entrusted to my care was put to the greater hazard.
If the commencement of our cruise had been
along the coast of Europe, we should have had, in all probability, an
opportunity of touching at some of the neutral ports, or islands, where we could have replenished
some articles of stores and procured refreshments without being
much delayed and hazarding a blockade; but if disappointed in getting
them our store would not have been so far exhausted as to prevent a continuance of the cruise.
That part of my letter of the 4th April to
the Honorable Secretary of the Navy (a copy of which is laid before you and is
not comprehended from its obscurity), was not intended as a reason for
terminating the cruise, but merely to show that under equal risk of a blockade
my preference was given to a port in the United States for the considerations
stated in that letter.
The Honorable Secretary of the Navy in his
letter to me of 19th April, a copy of which is laid before the Court, implies
that only one months stores were on board the Constitution at the termination
of the cruise; because I stated to him in my letter of the 4th that "the
state of our supplies would have enabled us to keep the Sea a month longer." I should not think it prudent to approach a
coast so generally blockaded and watched by the Enemy in the mild season with
less than one months supplies, for should we be disappointed getting in by
being chased off from one port, we should not be deprived of the means which
would enable us to try another, and thus ultimately effect the object.‑‑‑ "A timely reduction of one fourth the
full allowance, which is thought would be assented to with cheerfulness,"
was not found to be the case, for on the second muster after our departure it
was proposed to the Constitution's crew to reduce the allowance of bread and
Spirits only, one or two rations in a mess of eight; to this they did not
consent, but on the contrary, showed a disposition to find fault with the
allowance of water, on that head I satisfied them by promising that when we got
into warm lattitudes [sic], where they would require it the more, to allow them
their grog water in addition.
When the Lovely Ann was captured, the time
was not favourable to take much from that vessel, the day was consumed shifting
the prisoners and their baggage, and getting out the smaller articles that
could be removed with most facility.
One of our objects in going to the coast of
The blockade of the ports of France may not
be So strict as those of the United States, but as there are many more and much
larger ships for the enemy to watch there than here, I foresaw greater
probability of meeting with heavier ships of the Enemy in that quarter. Whether those ships are "not so well
manned or qualified to lay alongside the Constitution as those on our own
coast" I do not know, but it would appear to me the contrary. On that coast their seventy fours have ships
of equal and superior classes that they may be obliged to contend with, and
therefore would not be fitted in a less efficient manner than those on this
coast where there is nothing larger than frigates. That the seventy four gun
ships are much weaker than there, I think probable, for the Enemy is aware that
none of our frigates would seek an action with their seventy fours, and in
consequence, can readily spare some of their best men to strengthen the
frigates and smaller cruisers.
I think it probable, that at
The forgoing reasons decided me, Gentlemen,
to return with the Constitution to Port, on which occasion I exercised the best
of my judgment according to my reason and abilities and trust they will be
found satisfactory. In my letter of the
4th April to the Honble Secretary of the Navy I had not stated all the reasons
which weighed in my mind to induce a return of the ship to port, but such as I
thought would have been deemed judicious and satisfactory, this not being the
case, I now present them fully to your view.
Chs Stewart
The
Honble Court of Enquiry
Note
referred to.‑
It
appears to me that scurvy in seamen is more generally produced from warm and
dry than from wet and cold weather; warm weather induces indolence and
relaxation in the disposition to action and exertion. Where exertion and activity are required in
warm weather, rapid and frequent changes take place in the blood; scarcity of
water or not a free use of it, under a course of salt provisions, prevents the
necessary perspiration and produces a want of elasticity in the flesh and
swellings with ulceration ensues.
The Ship Canton of Baltimore upon her
return from China, in the month of February, came on the coast of Virginia, was
blown off, and ultimately abandoned by the officers and crew, as I have
understood, from the ravages committed by that disease; on the greater part of
the voyage she must have had warm weather.
The crews of the frigates President,
On my passage from Gibraltar to Calcutta
[ed: prior to naval service], scorbutic symptoms to a considerable degree made
their appearance in several of the crew, although the passage was only about
ninety days; there was no want of vegetables and crout [sic] during the time
and the weather was pleasant and warm.
On our passage to
47
Those are the Rations
the Men have Consented
to have Stoped [sic]
Feb 1 1814
J
Account
of Provisions &c Received
Pounds of
From
whom Received
From
whom received
Account
of Provisions &c Received
Gallons of
From
whom Received
Note The above provisions were calculated for a complement of 485 Men
R Pottenger
Provisions
thrown overboard from the U.S. Ship
Constitution,
Sunday 3 April 1814
Robert Pottenger
Purser.
A
list of the different classes and the number of persons
in each class
composing the Crew of the Constitution on
her
sailing from
For difference see deaths reductions
&c on the Muster Roll ‑‑‑ Robert Pottenger
Pursuant to the orders of the Honorable
Secretary of the Navy communicated in his letter of the 21st day of April 1814,
hereunto annexed, calling a Court of enquiry to enquire into the conduct of
Captain Stewart in relation to the equipment and preparation for the cruise of
the Constitution, and into the causes of its premature termination to the
injury of the service, and contrary to the tenor and spirit of his
instructions, the said Court consisting of Commodore William Bainbridge and
Capt Oliver H Perry was opened on the third day of May at 10 O Clock AM at the
said Navy Yard in Charlestown. George
Sullivan Esquire officiating as Judge Advocate, appointed by the President of
the Court.‑‑
The Judge Advocate read the letter
Convoking the Court & the warrant appointing him Judge Advocate also
annexed. The members of the Court and
the Judge Advocate were then severally sworn according to law. Captain Stewart having been duly notified was
present. The Judge Advocate then read
the sailing orders of the Hon the Secretary of the Navy under date of the 19
September 1813 [sic]. addressed to Capt Charles Stewart & hereunto
annexed. The Judge Advocate then read
the letter of Captain Stewart to the Honorable the Secretary of the Navy under
date of the 4 April 1814; and the Secretary's reply also hereunto annexed.
The Witnesses summoned were then called and
Lieutenants Ballard, Hoffman and Shubrick and sailing master Eames appearing
were sworn. Capt Stewart requested
permission to open the enquiry with his statement which was assented to by the
Court; It was read and duly annexed.
Lieutenant Ballard was called by Capt
Stewart.‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart.‑‑ What are your impressions respecting the
quantity of bread on
board about the 14th March as expressed by me.‑‑‑
Answer.‑‑‑
I recollect going down in to the bread rooms.
I remember, there was some calculation made, but do not remember what my
impression was that expressed to Capt
Stewart on that head.‑‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. Were you not under the
impression that we should be obliged soon to
port, for a supply of water?
Answer. I was under the impression that in the course
of a month or six weeks we should be obliged to
resort to a port; but we should then have a sufficient quantity of water on
board to authorize our approaching a coast from which we might be driven by an
enemy.‑‑
Question
by Court. Did not this impression arise
from a conviction or belief that there was not so much water on
board as was stated by the returns?
Answer. It did; and I stated to Capt Stewart that it
was customary to make allowance for leakage & wastage.
Question
by Capt Stewart.‑‑ Did you inform me on or about the 21 of March of
several cases of the
scurvy appearing among the Crew?
Answer. I did say that Doct Cotton said to me that a
Quarter Master and a Marine appeared to have the
scurvy, the Doct mentioned no other instances; and mentioned these to Capt
Stewart only in the way of conversation.
Question
by Capt Stewart.‑‑ At the time when we came into port were not some
of the principal sails
so nearly worn out as to render it indispensably necessary to replace them in a short
time with new ones?
Answer. In my opinion there was a fore and main
course a mizen topsail and mizen staysail condemnable,
leaving a fore and main course two mizen topsails and one mizen staysail, and of
these the fore [torn] main course were half worn, the two mizen topsails two
thirds worn, and mizen staysail half worn; as reported by the sail
maker of the Ship.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Was the main mast on or
about the 27 March discovered to be defective by being bent
very much forward?
Answer. It was, the mast was in its usual position
the night before it was discovered; when discovered the main
stay had not been touched.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Was the main stay
unusually taught [sic] at the time the main mast was discovered bent or
the lower main rigging slack?
Answer. They were not.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did not the Ship give
two or three very heavy pitches on the 19 March in Chase of a Spanish
Schooner, which might have injured the main mast?
Answer.
She did give one very heavy pitch, so as to bury the Bowsprit under
water. I cannot say certainly as to
the day of the month, though it was in chase of the Schooner.
Question
by Capt Stewart. What was the allowance
of water that the Crew was put upon at the Commencement
of the Cruise?
Answer. Half a gallon a day for each person in the
Ship, and half a pint in addition for each person on pea & rice days.
Question
by Capt Stewart.‑ Was the Crew
mustered on 9 January and requested to consent to a stoppage
of one or two rations in a mess, of bread & Spirit?
Answer. Yes they were.‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart.‑ Did they shew a
willingness to consent?
Answer. At that time they did not but subsequently, 2
or 3 days after, some of the quarter masters said
the weather was so warm they could not do without their spirit, but were willing to have a stoppage of
their Beef & pork and a paper was signed by all, or
nearly all the messes, but the marines, consenting to a stoppage out of all their
rations but their Spirit.‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart.‑‑ Did not
some of the men go forward at that muster and complain of the allowance
of water?‑‑
Answer. They did.‑‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart.‑ Was not the time
we were off the coast of Georgia and So Carolina unfavorable to
a communication with the shore on account of the blowing and foggy
weather?
Answer. Very much so, we approached several days in
succession and run in to seven fathoms of water and could
not see the land, wind blowing fresh from Southward and
Eastward, the Ship under close reefed topsails and foresails.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did we not leave that
coast under strong indications of an easterly gale?
Answer.‑ We did.‑‑
Question
by the Court.‑‑ At what time
was the Ship Constitution under the command of Capt Stewart ready for Sea, as
related to her equipment, stores, and Crew?
Answer.
In my opinion, we were completely ready for Sea by the 5th November
with the exception of
wanting about 30 men and these were completed by the 8 December; but I am not
certain as to this day.
Question
by the Court.‑‑ Did it
appear to you that Capt Stewart in preparing his Ship for service did not
neglect his duty in getting her ready for Sea with all dispatch?
Answer. It did appear to be that he did not neglect
his duty.
Question
by the Court.‑ You say the Ship
was ready for Sea on or about the 8th of December, do you know
the reasons why she did not proceed subsequently to that date and prior to
the 30 December, the day she sailed?
Answer From the state of the weather which permitted
the enemy to hover near the port it was not prudent to put to sea before we did, but this opinion was
founded on the
representations of others, being myself sick on shore.‑‑
Question
by the Court.‑ When the ship
sailed from
Answer. Yes she was everywhere filled.‑‑‑
Question
by the Court.‑‑ At the time
the Constitution were the provisions in perfect order, and in such
vessels and packages, as usage and practice of the Navy adopts, or was any new
mode adopted by Capt Stewart?
Answer. The provisions were all in good order and all
stowed as usual, except Beef; the greater part of which was
stowed in tanks, immediately under the fore orlop.
Question
by the Court. How did the provisions
keep during the Cruise?
Answer. The provisions kept well, except the Beef:
some of which, the quantity I don't know, was occasionally found
defective and not fit for use.‑‑
Question
by the Court.‑ What was the actual
state & condition of the provisions, particularly the
salted provisions at the time of the arrival of the Ship?
Answer. The pork was all in good order, the Beef was
considerably complained of by the Crew, as being tainted
and unfit to eat. On investigation a
great deal of it was
found condemnable, and was condemned.‑‑ The other provisions with the exception of the flour
was good, the flour however was as good when we arrived, as when we sailed.‑‑
Question
by the Court.‑ Has any survey been
held on the remaining quantity of Beef on board since her arrival?
Answer. There has not been; but in consequence of the
respectful complaint of the Crew, one has been
asked for. ‑‑
Question
by the Court. What is your opinion of
the present state of the Beef remaining in the tanks?
Answer. From examination I am of opinion that the
greater part is unfit for men to eat. The beef in barrels kept
perfectly sweet.‑‑‑
Question
by the Court.‑ What articles were
thrown overboard during the Chase by the enemy in
Answer There was a quantity of Beef from the tanks
& pork and some dry provisions, flour and rice, thrown over
board, but I am unable to state the quantity‑‑ About 1500 Gallons of
Spirit were also thrown over as nearly, as I can ascertain‑ A fore main topsail yard
[sic], a jib boom, and a set of topgallant masts, and a number of
small spars, timber from the booms were thrown over, also a number of shooks [sic]
and iron hoops for water Casks.
Question
by the Court.‑ Do you suppose
those spars were thrown over on account of clearing the Ship from the
encumbrance to prepare the Ship for action, or to lighten her?
Answer. Solely to lighten her.
Question
by the Court. Was every proper attention
to the cleanliness of your Ship and the Crews, during the cruise
and are you of opinion that the symptoms of the scurvy which appeared amongst
the Crew did not proceed from a want of proper and vigilant
attention in that respect or to any inattention in those duties of those to
whom it particularly belongs to guard against that disease, by those whose attentions
and precautions which skill and experience have devised?
Answer. Every proper attention was paid to the
Cleanliness of the Ship and the health of the Crew, and I do not believe,
nay am confident, that the scorbutic
symptoms did
not arise from any inattention in those whose duty it was to guard against them.‑‑
Question
by the Court. How many Gallons of water
had you on board the day you left
Answer. 47,265 gallons.‑‑
Question
by the Court. What was the average daily
expenditure of water on board?
Answer. 250 Gallons, except on pea & rice days
when it was 280 till the first of February after
which grog water being allowed 310 gallons except on pea & rice days; when it was 340.
Question
by the Court. How many Gallons of water
were on board the day before you was chased by the enemy in
Answer. 18926 Gallons according to the returns ‑‑
Question
by the Court. Did the Ship appear weak
in any part of her hull, or work more, than Ships of War generally do
during the Cruise?
Answer I think not.‑‑
Question
by the Court. Did the Ship leak during
her Cruise?
Answer. She made about 4 1/2 inches in an hour, and
makes now the same quantity in port, and this leak was never increased by any weather we had. Her decks are open and have wanted caulking.‑‑‑
Question
by the Court. When did you discover the
defects complained of in the main mast?
Answer On the 27th of March.
Question
by the Court. Were any measures at that
time or any time afterwards during the Cruise, taken to secure
it.
Answer. There was none; the defect not requiring any
in my opinion.‑
Question
by the Court. Where were you on the 29th
March [sic] at the time you discovered the
defects in the main mast, and do you know whether Capt Stewart had previously resolved
on going into port?
Answer. Lat 32.05 No. Long. 58.25 W. by Chronometer.‑‑
Touching Capt Stewarts intention I do not know that he had so resolved; and the course we
were steering to the Northd and Eastd did not
authorize the belief that we were going into port.
Question
by the Court. Were the sails in your
opinion defective as Capt Stewart states from the bad quality of the
Canvass [sic] or from any other cause?
Answer. The sails before mentioned by me were worn
out in consequence of service in my opinion.‑‑‑
Question
by the Court. Did you fill up any of
your water by rain or any other means during the cruise?
Answer. We did not, having no opportunity.
Question
by the Court.‑‑ Was [sic]
there any provisions damaged in consequence of the leak in the Deck?
Answer. Yes, the bread rooms not containing all the
bread about 1300 pounds were put in the birth [sic] deck & damaged by a leak in the gun deck.‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart.‑‑ Were my
orders during the Chase other than as follows ‑ to start the water, when the Ship
being by the Stern, to start the Spirit and throw over some beef, in the way,
down the fore hole [sic], and the Spars in the Channels.‑‑
Answer. The orders were to this effect except in
relation to the Beef, but I am not positive, that this also was not
ordered.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did you not represent
to me that the Ship was very wet and in blowing weather leaked in
her deck and the water was heard to run in through the Side,
down in the Store room?
Answer. I did report that the gun deck leaked very
considerably and I did discover a leak in the air streak
just above the fore orlop, but this was the same in light weather, and this was heard
in the Store room.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Were the Carpenters at
any time employed to caulk the leak in the decks?
Answer. Yes ‑ the whole of the quarter Deck was
Caulked, the Water ways on the gun deck, and about 8 seams out
were caulked from aft to the Main Mast.
The Court adjourned to Wednesday 9 OClock.
The Court met according to adjournment.
Lieutenant Hoffman examined by
the Court.
Question
by the Court. Did it appear to you that
Capt Stewart in preparing his Ship for service did not neglect his
duty in getting her ready for Sea with all dispatch.‑‑
Answer. It appeared to me that he made every
preparation to get her ready for sea with all possible dispatch.
Question
by the Court. What articles were thrown
over board during the Chase by the enemy in
Answer. A variety of articles such as provisions and
spars some Beef and Pork, rice and flour, topsail yard, jib boom,
stearing [sic] sail boom, spare royal topgallant yards.‑‑
Question
by the Court. Was every proper attention
paid to the cleanliness of your Ship and the Crew during the
Cruise, and are you of opinion that the symptoms of the scurvy which appeared
amongst the Crew did not proceed from a want of proper and vigilant attention
in that respect or to any inattention in the duties of those to whom it
particularly belongs to guard against the disease, by those attentions and precautions
which skill and experience have devised?
Answer. Every possible attention was paid to the
cleanliness of the Ship and the health of the Crew. I heard nothing of the scurvy but from the
Surgeons Statement that
there were one or two cases of the scurvy on board.
Question
by the Court. When did you discover the
defects complained of in the Main Mast?
Answer. I discovered the bend forward after arrival
in
Question
by the Court. Were any measures at that
time or any time afterwards during the Cruise taken to secure
or strengthen it?
Answer. None, except to keep the rigging properly
taught [sic].‑
Question
by Capt Stewart.‑‑ At the
time when we came into Port were not some of the principal sails so nearly worn
out as to render it indispensably necessary to replace them in a short
time with new ones?
Answer. To the best of my knowledge there were
complaints every day made of them ‑‑ they were frequently
repaired. the [sic] fore and main course
[sic] were very bad ‑‑
there was another set of these about half worn, and they also were repaired, as often as
they were found defective.
Question
by Capt Stewart.‑ Was the main
mast on or about the 27 March discovered to be defective by being bent very
much forward?
Answer.
I think it was between the Mona Passage
& Charleston that Capt Stewart observed that the mast
was weak, but the precise day and place, I cannot recollect.‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. On or about the 27 March
were you one of the officers whom I called to the
main mast when making my observations on the defect of it; to whom I observed that it
was the first time that I had seen that bend in it forward?
Answer. I do not recollect that I was.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did not the Ship give
two or three very heavy pitches on the 19 March in Chase of a Spanish
Schooner which might have injured the main mast?
Answer. I recollect that she made two or three very
heavy pitches about that time and they might in my opinion
have injured the mast, but I cannot say that they did, I discovered no injury.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Was the Crew mustered
on Sunday 9 January and requested to consent to a stoppage of one or two rations in a mess, of bread &
spirit?
Answer Yes they were.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did they shew a
willingness to consent?
Answer. I do not perfectly recollect.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Was not the time we
were off the coast of Georgia & So Carolina unfavorable to a
communication with the shore on account of the blowing & foggy
weather?
Answer
Yes Sir.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did we not leave that
coast under strong indications of an easterly gale?
Answer Yes Sir.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did I give you any
orders on the 3d of April when chase relative to lightening the
Ship?
Answer Not to my recollection I received my orders
from Lt Ballard, to throw over the Spars.
Question
by Capt Stewart.‑‑ Was not
the Ship leaky, particularly upon her decks, and did you not state to me that
the water was heard in the store room to be running through her
Side?
Answer. Yes Sir.
Question
by the Court. Where was the leak?
Answer. It was near the stem probably in the wood
ends
Question
by the Court. Were any measures taken to
ascertain where the leak was and to stop it?
Answer. None, it being very difficult to get at it.‑‑
Question
by the Court. What quantity of water did
the Ship make?
Answer About 30 inches in about 10 hours in smooth
weather
Question
by the Court. Did you use the chain
pumps?
Answer Never except to try them.‑‑
Lieutenant Shubrick Examined.‑‑‑
Question
by the Court. Did it appear to you that
Capt Stewart in preparing his Ship for service did not neglect his
duty in getting ready for Sea with all dispatch?
Answer. Capt Stewart did not neglect his duty in
preparing his Ship for service.‑‑
Question
by the Court. What articles were thrown
over board during the Chase by the enemy in
Answer
I do not know; I was in the Gun deck during the Chase.‑
Question
by the Court. Was every proper attention
paid the cleanliness of your Ship and Crew during the Cruise, and are
you of the opinion that the symptoms of the scurvy which appeared
amongst the Crew did not proceed from want of proper and vigilant
attention in that respect, or to any inattention in the duties of those to whom it particularly belongs,
to guard against that disease, by those attentions and
precautions which skill and experience have devised?
Answer. Every attention was paid to the Cleanliness
of the Ship and health of the Crew; and all proper precautions
taken to guard against the Scurvy.‑‑
Question
by the Court. When did you discover the
defects complained of in the Main mast?
Answer. I perceived it was weak during the Cruise
when carrying sail, but precisely when I do not
remember. I did not while on Cruise
conceive it would be necessary to take out the mast.
Question
by Capt Stewart. At the time when we
came into port were not some of the principal sails so nearly
worn out, as to render it indispensably necessary to replace them in a short
time with new ones?
Answer. The sails were much worn thin, Courses were
bad.
Question
by the Court. Are you of opinion that
the State and Condition of the sails were such as to make it necessary
for the Ship to come into port at the time she did?
Answer No Sir.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Could the Constitution
in your opinion have cruised much longer with her principal
sails complained of without being replaced with new ones?
Answer I have already said she could have cruised
longer.
Question
by Capt Stewart.‑‑ Was the
Crew mustered on Sunday 9 January and requested to
consent to a stoppage or one or two rations, in a mess, of bread & Spirit?
Answer. They were mustered shortly after we
sailed. I cannot say precisely the day
and this stoppage of rations was proposed.—
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did they shew a
willingness to consent?
Answer. They made no answer but appeared unwilling.‑‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart.‑ Did not some of
the men go forward at that muster and complain of the allowance
of water?
Answer I do not remember that they did so at that
time, but recollect that some of the Crew complained when then or
afterwards that they had not the allowance of grog water usual on long
cruises.‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart.‑ On or about the
27 March were you one of the Officers whom I called to the Main
Mast, when making my observations on the defect of it, to whom I observed it
was the first time I had seen that bend in it forward?
Answer No Sir, I was not.‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did you at any time at
Sea observe the main mast standing in an unusual position different
from what a spar of its dimensions ought to stand?
Answer Yes Sir, I observed the head of the mast was
l[torn] forward, the mast appeared to be weak in the neck, but I discovered no spring in it, I did not
look.‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. Was the main stay
unusually taught [sic] at the time the
mast was discovered bent,
or the lower rigging slack?
Answer. No Sir
I dont think it was.‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did I give you any
orders on the third of April when chased relative to lightening the
Ship?
Mr James Eames sailing master was
examined by the Court.‑‑
Question
by the Court.‑ When the Ship
sailed from
Answer I believe she was so far as I had any
knowledge I went on board a few
days only previous to
her sailing.
Question by the Court. How did the provisions keep during the
Cruise?
Answer. Generally well, a Small quantity was damaged
but not more than would have been, if the Beef had been in barrels instead of tanks.‑‑
Question
by the Court. What were the actual
condition [sic] & State of the provisions, particularly of the salted
provisions at the time of the arrival of the Ship?
Answer. All good except the flour which was probably
not good when bought.‑‑
Question
by the Court. How many gallons of water
had you on board the day you sailed from
Answer. I cannot say but by reference to the log
book, which was correctly kept, and is now before the Court.‑‑‑
Question
by the Court.‑ What allowance of
water was the Crew on during the Cruise?
Answer. Half a gallon & grog water allowed in
warm weather as specified in the log Book.
Question. What was the daily expenditure of water on
board?
Answer. I refer to the log Book.
Question
by the Court. How many gallons of water
were on board the day before you were chased by the Enemy in
Answer. 18926 Gallons as by log book.
Question
by the Court. Did the Ship appear weak
in any part of her hull or work more than Ships of War generally
do, during the Cruise?
Answer. No Sir, she leaked more than Ships of War
generally do; but it appeared to be a steady leak.‑‑
Question
by the Court. When did you discover the
defects complained of in the main mast?
Answer I do not recollect the day precisely, it was
sometime in March we discovered a weakness in the main topmast in a gale, about the first of March, the
log book will show the
day, & in staying the main topmast we
discovered a bend in the main mast forward.
Question
by the Court. Were any measures at that
time or at any time after wards during the Cruise taken to secure and
strengthen it?
Answer. The three after shrouds were set up, the mast
was examined, there appeared some cracks about the hoops; but it was not deemed necessary to set up
any fishes.‑
Question
by Capt Stewart.‑ At the time when
we came into port were not some of the principal sails so nearly
worn out as to render it indispensably necessary to replace them in a short
time with new ones?
Answer Several of them were so worn that it will be
necessary to replace them before she goes to sea.‑‑
Question
by the Court. Will you state the
Condition of the Sails?
Answer. One of the foresails was two thirds worn, the
others worn out. One main sail two thirds worn the others
half worn, two main topsails were half worn the others two thirds worn,
all the foretopsails half worn, one mizen [sic] topsail worn out, the others two third
worn.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Was the main mast on or
about the 27 March discerned to be defective by being bent very
much forward?
Answer. I cannot say the day but think it was.
Question
by Capt Stewart. On or about the 27
March were you one of the officers I called to the Main Mast,
when making my observations on the defect of it to whom I observed it was the
first time I had that bend in it forward?
Answer I was and you made the observation you
state. Mr Ballard and Mr Hoffman were also there; but I do not know that Mr
Hoffman heard you ‑ It was Mr Shubricks watch on deck.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Was the main stay
unusually tight at the time the mast was discerned bent, or the lower
main rigging slack?
Answer No Sir
It had not been set up since we left
Question by Capt Stewart. Did not the Ship give two or three very heavy
pitches on the 19 March in
Chase of a Spanish Schooner which might which might [sic]
have injured the main
mast?
Answer. She did make some heavy pitches which might
have injured the main mast we did not discern any injury at that time.‑‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. Was not the time we
were off the coast of Georgia and So Carolina unfavourable to a
Communication with the Shore on account of the blowing and foggy weather?
Answer.
It was, it would have been hazardous to
have had any Communication with the Shore by boats.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did I give you any
orders on the third of April, when chased, relative to lightening the
Ship?
Answer. None, I was acting as pilot.‑‑
Mr Hixon being sworn was examined
by the Court.‑‑‑
Question
by the Court. In what capacity were you
on board the Constitution previous to her sailing?
Answer. Acting master.
Question
by the Court.‑ When the Ship
sailed from
Answer. She was well stowed and full.‑‑‑
Question
by the Court. At the time the
Constitution sailed were the provisions in perfect order and in such Vessels and
packages as the usage and practice of the Navy adopts or was any new mode
adopted by Capt Stewart?
Answer. The only difference was that the beef was all
stowed in tanks, except a few barrels; there were about
278 barrels contained in the two tanks.
Except what had
been used in port all the provisions were in good order.
Question
by the Court. How did the provisions
keep during the Cruise?
Answer. Some of the bread was spoiled, about 1500
pounds stowed in the birth [sic] deck, and damaged by a
leak in the gun deck and water coming down the hatches.‑‑
Question
by the Court. What were the actual state
and Condition of the provisions particularly of the
salted provisions at the time of the arrival of the Ship?
Answer The Pork was very good, the beef also was
good and the other provisions generally were good.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did you hear any
Complaint at any time from any of the Crew that the provisions
were bad?
Answer. None.‑‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. Was the Crew mustered
on Sunday 9 January and requested to consent to a stoppage of one or two rations, in a mess, of bread
& spirit?
Answer. Shortly after sailing they were, but I cannot
say precisely the day.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did they shew a
willingness to consent?
Answer. They did not, particularly as respects the
rations of bread & Spirit.‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did I give you any
order on the third of April when chased relative to lightening the
Ship?
Answer. I received orders only from Mr Ballard.‑‑
Mr Eames re examined.‑‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did you hear any
complaint at any time from any of the Crew that the
provisions were bad?
Answer. None.‑‑‑
Mr Ballard was rexamined [sic].‑‑
Question
by the Court. Through what Channels did
you hear complaints of the Crew respecting the quality of
the provisions.
Answer. By the pursers steward, the Captain of the
fore castle and quarter masters, and the men themselves complained
personally and the purser has requested a survey.
Question
by Capt Stewart.‑‑‑ On
or about the 27 March were you one of the officers whom I called to the main mast, when making my observations on the
defects of it, to whom I
observed that it was the first time I had seen that bend in it forward?
Answer. Yes Sir I was and you made the observations
you state.‑‑
The [sic] The Court adjourned to Thursday
May 5. 1814.‑‑‑
The Court met according to adjournment.‑‑‑‑
The [sic] Sampson Shaw being sworn was
examined.
Question
by the Court.‑‑‑ In
what capacity were you on board the Constitution in her last Cruise?
Answer Ships steward.‑‑
Question
by the Court. Was [sic] you one of the
officers who attended to throwing over board the salted provisions,
when Constitution was chased?
Answer. I took an account at the forehatch of part of
it as it was thrown over. I attended also at the
spirit room to take an account of the Candles that were thrown over, of which
there were about 51 boxes but I cannot say precisely the number.
Question
by the Court. In what state was [sic]
the provisions then in, particularly the beef which came out of the
Tanks?
Answer The Pork was very good but the Beef I believe
was bad; because the Beef usually served out and what I saw was worse, than provisions usually
served out on board
that Ship or any others in which I have been.‑‑
Question
by the Court. Have you heard the men
complain that the Beef from the tanks was not good or fit to eat?
Answer. Yes Often, daily as it was served out.‑‑
Question
by the Court.‑‑ What is the
state of the Beef now in the tanks?
Answer. I saw it yesterday what is under the pickle
appears to be good. What is not is generally bad and unfit for
use, but I was unable to examine particularly, the air is so bad a candle will
not burn there more than half a minute, the candle I had went out and I came up
the air being too offensive to remain below.‑‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. When the beef during
the Cruise was complained of, was there not a survey held on
it and condemned?
Answer. The Master surveyed it and directed me to
take an account of it, it was generally condemned
and thrown over there were not more than two barrels condemned.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did I enquire of you at
any time during the Cruise the state of the beef in the
tanks?
Answer I dont remember.‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. Have I enquired of you
the state of the beef in the tanks since our arrival here?
Answer You have Sir, and I observed that which was
out of the pickle was bad and shew [sic] you one or
two pieces, and that which was under the pickle was full as good as I have before
stated.‑‑
Question
by the Court. Did the Crew complain of the Beef that was cooked for them,
or only of that which was
condemned?
Answer. That which was cooked for them.‑‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did you not state to me
about the 2 May inst, when I made the enquiry, that the beef
was very good in the tanks except some pieces which lay next the
planks and not covered by pickle?
Answer My observation was as I said before, that the
Beef not covered was bad, that under was good as I have before stated.
You asked me why it was not all under pickle, to which I
replied, I had not seen the Beef before since we had come in none had been
served out, the Crew being furnished with fresh Beef on Beef days‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. Was any beef served to
the people, that was bad as being tainted or unfit to eat?
Answer.‑‑ There was.‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart.‑‑ To whom
did the Crew complain of the badness of the Beef?
Answer. To myself and I reported the same to the
master ‑ some of the warrant officers, Mess Adams, Cander & Long, at one time represented the Beef
as unfit to eat, and
I carried it to the ward room and shewed it to Mr Ballard.‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. Was Lieutenant Ballard
satisfied that the Beef then shewed him was bad, & was other
Beef served in its place?
Answer He said the Beef was rather bad, it would be
better after it was boiled ‑ none was served in its
place.‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. Was any survey held on
the Beef upon your representations to the master when the Beef
was complained of.
Answer. I remember once that beef was carried on the
quarter deck by some of the Crew, it was sent back
by Lieutenant Ballard with orders that other beef should be served in
its place and other beef was served.‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. Were not the complaints
of the Crew always attended to by the officers when represented
to them?
Answer. When they complained of the Beef. I told them they must go to the Quarter Deck, they generally
replied they would sooner go without beef than be running to the quarter
Deck. But when the Crew did go to the
quarter deck it was sent
back and other beef ordered to be served.
Mr John Cander being sworn was
examined.‑‑
he [sic] stated he was masters
mate.‑‑
Question
by the Court. What was the state &
condition of the Beef when thrown over during the Chase in Boston
Bay.[sic]
Answer I was stationed at the forehatch while the
Beef was passing up, and it was generally bad having a bad
smell, but appeared to be solid.‑‑
Question
by the Court. How was the Beef generally
on the Cruise [sic]Answer It had a bad smell soon after going out,
which increased after being at Sea, about 80 pounds were condemned on the
1st of February.
Question
by Capt Stewart. From what cause was the
bad smell in the beef?
Answer.
I believe from the leakage of the Tanks, but whether both leaked I know
not, the larboard tank
did and I was informed the starboard did also, but dont know ‑‑‑
Mr
Pottinger being sworn, was examined. He stated he was Purser on board the
Constitution the last cruise.‑‑‑
Question
by the Court.‑‑ At the time
the Constitution sailed were the provisions in perfect order, and in
such Vessels & packages as the usage and practice of the Navy adopts or was any new
mode adopted by Capt Stewart.‑‑‑
Answer. The Provisions were in good order but a
greater part or all of the Beef, was put in tanks, a mode not usual.
Question
by the Court. How did the provisions
keep during the Cruise?
Answer. They kept very well I think from the small
quantity that has been condemned.‑
Question
by the Court. What were [sic] the actual
state & condition of the provisions, particularly the salted
provisions the day before the Ship was chased in Boston Bay and the time the arrival of
the Ship?
Answer. I believe they were in good condition, since
our arrival I have head [sic] the Beef was not good but I
did hear of this complaint before.
Question
by the Court. Did the Crew complain of
the Beef from the tanks during the Cruise?
Answer. I did not hear any.
Question
by the Court. What is the present state
of the Beef?
Answer. I cannot say there not having been a survey,
but I am told some of it is not in good condition.‑
Question
by the Court. What length of time would
the provisions you had on board the 30 December last, have
sustained your Crew at full allowance, and how long by a reduced of 1/4 the
allowance.‑
Answer. About six months on full allowance with the
exception of some perishable articles such as cheese
and butter, but of other articles we had a full supply for this time for more particular
explanation I would refer the Court to my account now laid
before them.
Question
by the Court. What length of time would
the quantity of provisions you had on board the day previous to the
Chase have lasted your Crew at full allowance.‑
Answer.
The most important articles would have lasted three months as by
reference to my account
will appear.
Question
by the Court. Did you ever receive a
list of the mens names who were willing to have their allowance
stopped, have you that list and at what time did you receive it?
Answer. I have Sir.
I received it February 1st: it shows that some were willing to make reduction of their rations of
Bread & Beef. Capt Stewart observe
[sic] that this would
make no essential difference in the Cruise & I need not attend to it.‑‑ for
particulars I would refer to papers laid before the Court.‑‑
Question
by the Court. Lay before the Court a
muster roll of your Crew on the day the Ship sailed from
Answer I will lay before the Court a muster roll,‑‑
touching the quantity of provisions I would refer the Court to my
account.
Question
by the Court. You have stated that you
heard no complaint of the Beef on the Cruise, were you in the ward
room when Mr Shaw brought beef to the ward room and shewed it to Lieutt
Ballard.‑‑
Answer. I do not remember that I was, or that
circumstance. Occasionally there
have been small
quantities of provisions condemned, but I never heard of any general
complaint. I think I was so situated
that I should have heard of such complaints if there had been
any. I do not remember that my Steward
ever stated any such
complaints. I have heard conversation on
the mode of packing our beef, but I do not remember any
Statement that our Beef was unfit for use.‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. Was there any beef
surveyed and condemned.‑
Answer. A small quantity was, say 177 pounds as by
the logbook some other trifling articles were also
condemned.
Mr Hixon was rexamined [sic].‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did I not frequently
enquire of you during the Cruise, the state of the Beef in the
tanks‑‑‑
Answer. Yes.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did the tanks leak.‑‑
Answer. The larboard did a little at first, but I do
not think it did afterwards.‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. Were any measures taken
to preserve the Beef in consequence
of this leak?
Answer. There were, previous to our sailing we got
salt from the shore, took some of the Beef up and dry salted
it, and as the pork was used packed it in the pork barrels ‑ and covered
the surface of the Beef in the tanks with dry salt.‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart.‑‑ Was the
beef thrown over when Chased?
Answer. That which was unpacked in the Pork barrels
from the tanks and all that had been so repacked was, and
about as much more from the tanks.‑‑
Question
by the Court. Did you personally examine
the Beef in the tanks during the Cruise?
Answer. I did about a fortnight before our arrival
and the Beef appeared sound.‑
Question
by the Court ‑‑ Was pickle at any time put into the tanks after the
Beef was first
stowed?
Answer. There was about 280 Barrels besides the first
pickle but none was put in at Sea.
Captain Henderson was called in by Capt
Stewart being sworn was examined.‑‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. Was the Crew mustered
on Sunday 9 January and requested to consent to a stoppage of one or two rations in a mess, of Bread &
spirits?
Answer. The Crew were mustered about that time but I
do not recollect precisely that day and this proposition was
made.‑‑
Question
by Capt Stewart. Did they shew a
willingness to consent.
Answer. I can answer positively only for the marines,
these were unwilling and I believe the Crew were also.
Doctr Cotton being sworn was examined.‑‑‑
Question
by the Court. [Obscured] did any
symptoms of the scurvy appear?
Answer. These did.
Question
by the Court. How many persons did you
discover affected with that disease?
Answer. Three with scorbutic ulcers, and symptoms of
scurvy in two others.‑
Question
by the Court. Are you of opinion that
these symptoms of the scurvy which you have stated made their
appearance on board the Constitution, proceeded from a want of due and proper
attention to the cleanliness of the Ship and Crew, or to the culinary materials on
board or to the neglect of any one whatever whose duty was concerned therein?
Answer. They did not.
the [sic] scurvy arises often from privation of fresh provisions, and change of climate; and I
am of opinion that the instances mentioned arose from these causes‑‑
Question
by the Court.‑‑‑ Are
you of opinion that there was from the general state of the health of the Crew an
alarming apprehension of the disease of the scurvy spreading among them
generally?
Answer. The only means which we had as a remedy was
the vegetable acid or lime juice with the usual remedies at Sea,
and I was not apprehensive that it would generally affect the
Ships Company but felt apprehensive for those who were affected by it.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Had I a conversation
with you on the Quarter deck on or about the 22 March
respecting the Scorbutic appearances stating that Lt Ballard had informed
me there were some and on my observing that I presumed they
were all right you answered no, there were some that were with serious
ulcerations.‑‑
Answer I do not recollect precisely the time nor
place.
Question
by Capt S. When scurvy takes on board a
Ship of war after being at Sea a long time and the vegetables
generally carried are exhausted is not the disease likely to spread
rapidly afterwards?
Answer. It is more likely generally a few patients
discover that a scorbutic taint does exist in a Crew.
Lieutenant Hoffman reexamined.‑‑
Question
by the Court. During the Cruise or since
did you hear any complaint against the Beef in the tanks?
Answer. Not any to my recollection.
Lieutenant Shubrick reexamined.
Question
by the Court. During the Cruise or since
did you hear of any complaints against the beef in
the tanks.
Answer. I did not hear any particular complaints
against the Beef in the tanks, some of the beef was complained of and a small
quantity was condemned.‑‑‑
The Court adjourned to Friday 9 OClock.‑‑‑
The Court met according to adjournment.
Mr
Ballard was reexamined and stated that the quantity of Beef referred to in his
answer to the sixth question by the Court was 177 pounds.‑‑
2. Being referred to his answer to his answer to
the 7 question he stated that from the frequent mention of the badness of the
beef that he was under an impression that the quantity was much greater than it
now appears to have been.‑‑
Question
by the Court. Did you communicate the
complaints mentioned in your former answers to Capt Stewart at
the time they were made, and what was the nature of these complaints?
Answer I did, and Capt Stewart directed that surveys
should be made, and an account taken of it by the proper officers and he would give an order for it
when it should
amount to a considerable quantity‑ as to the nature of these
complaints, the men did
not come in a body to complain, but often as I have been passing along, the men have said then
beef was not good, was very bad, and I think I am justified in saying that
reports were made to me in the ward room from the officer of the Deck of beef as
being defective as many as half a dozen times.
Question by the Court. Had you any other order to throw over beef
than has been before mentioned in Capt Stewarts question to you?
Answer I do not recollect any but Mr Hixon stated to
me yesterday that he came to me during the Chase and stated that there was some beef in the tanks which
must be thrown over and
would lighten the Ship materially and that thereupon I turned to Capt Stewart
and mentioned it, when Capt Stewart immediately ordered the beef to be
thrown over but I do not recollect this myself ‑ Capt Stewart being present assented to the
truth of this statement and admits that he gave orders to throw the
beef over.
Doctor Cotton was reexamined.
Question
by Capt Stewart. Was there any
difference in the health of the Crew at the latter part of the Cruise
from what there was at the first.‑‑
Answer. There was, when we first went to sea there
were about 18 or 20 on the sick list, when in the West
Indies there were about 16 and none confined to bed but two and both these by accident ‑‑
off Charlestown [sic] there were about 30 several of whom were
confined to bed when we came in there were upwards of thirty the greater number
of the sick were confined to their hammocks [.] The disease was principally
typhus fever and arose in my opinion from a want of fresh vegetables and from damp or wet
weather off
Question
by the Court. What number were confined
?
Answer. There were 8 men and Mr Fields a midshipman.
The Court adjourned to Saturday 9
OClock.
The Court met according to
adjournment.
The
survey of the beef hereunto annexed was laid before the Court Lieutenant Richard
[sic: William] Mason Hunter one of the surveyors was called and being sworn was
examined touching his said survey, and thereupon stated that the 805 pounds
condemned were very bad; but that which is represented as sound is good and fit
for use, though it smells and is not fit to go to sea again. The smell probably arises from so large a
quantity being together.
Mr Hixon was examined touching the survey
of beef abovementioned, and stated that the beef which is represented as
condemned was very bad, that the [sic] reported as sound had a strong rank
smell, but upon being cut appeared good inside.‑‑‑
The Court then adjourned on the request of
Capt Stewart who desired opportunity to superadd a further statement in his
defense ‑ to meet on Monday the 9th current at 9 OClock.‑‑‑
The Court met according to
adjournment. Capt Stewart read his
statement hereto annexed and thereupon the Court being cleared this declared
opinion and the result of their enquiries as follow
The Court having closed the examination of
the Witnesses and having deliberately considered the same as also the narrative
and statement laid before it by Captain Stewart state the following as the
result of its enquiry.
It does appear from the evidence before the
Court that Capt Stewart in the equipment and preparation of the Frigate
Constitution for her last cruise did not neglect his duty.
It does appear to the Court that all the
space properly appropriated to the stowage of water and provisions was fully
and advantageously occupied for that purpose except the space under the fore
orlop being taken up with tanks for beef which the Court does not think was
properly or advantageously occupied.
It does appear to the Court that the
provisions were in perfect order and were stowed in the usual packages of the
navy except the beef which was stowed in
two large tanks. This Court cannot say
that this mode is unauthorized by the rules and regulations of the Navy as
these do not specify the particular kind of packages for the stowage of
provisions; but is decidedly of opinion that it was very injudicious in Capt
Stewart to have made an experiment on so large a quantity of so important an
article.
It does appear to the Court that the
Frigate Constitution when she sailed from Boston the 30th December last had a
sufficient quantity of provisions on board to have sustained her crew on full
allowance for six months and that this quantity on the reduction frequently
practised in the navy would have lasted between seven and eight months. But it has been proven to the Court that Capt
Stewart did propose to his crew a reduction of their allowance; to which they
did not show a willingness to consent at that time. Afterwards on the 1st of February the greater
proportion of the messes consented to a
stoppage of one ration of bread and two rations of beef in each mess;
and the remainder consented to a stoppage of only one ration of bread and beef
in a mess. Therefore in the opinion of
the Court the calculation for the duration of the provisions ought to be made
on full allowance. As the reduction of
the greater part of the component parts of the ration was not assented to, it
would have become necessary to have resorted to port on these being
expended. On this calculation of full
allowance appears to the Court that the Frigate Constitution had on board the
Day previous to being chased provisions sufficient to have sustained her crew
for three months. But she had not water
for more, than two months at the usual allowance.
It does appear to the Court that the total
number of persons on board did not exceed the usual number employed on board
the ship on the two proceeding [sic] cruises.
but for the agregate [sic] comparison the Court refers to the
lists annexed to these proceedings.
It appears to the Court that the articles
of stores on board at the time of the preparation did not exceed the general
usage and practise [sic] of the service; but that the quantity of bread and
beef was considerably greater, than Frigates are generally able to carry. The Court cannot consider this extra‑quantity
as the object intended by the directions for the enquiry ‑ but they
merely state the fact.
It appears to the Court that the following
articles were thrown over‑board during the chase viz ‑ 60 1/2
barrels of Beef 51 bbls pork 16 bbls Flour 334 lbs Cheese 367 lbs butter 14
kegs 510 galls peas or beans (2 tierces & 13 bbls)‑ 480 Galls rice
131 molasses 62 vinegar 1907 1/2 spirit 128 sour crout (4 barrels) 56 boxes
spermaceti candles 3 barrels sugar 2 kegs tobacco, belonging to R Pottinger.
In answer to the latter part of this order
of enquiry this Court has to observe that when a vessel is pursued by a
superior force, with which it would be improper to contend, it is the opinion
of this Court, the duty of the Commander to use his utmost exertions according
to his judgment to avoid the danger in the best way, he possible
can. And as the safety of his ship ought
to be his primary object, he should not for small considerations add to a
possibility of hazard. The Court
presuming that no Commanding officer in the American Navy would wantonly
destroy public property must be of opinion that the articles which were thrown
over board were ejected from the best motives; and it may happen that articles
which might appear to have been unnecessarily ejected when judging from
representation at a distance, which yet may have been properly thrown over upon
judgment at the time.
It does appear to the Court that at the
time of the arrival of the Ship the provisions were in good order except the
salted Beef in the tanks, which it appears from the evidence before the Court
and more particularly from a survey held on it during the settng [sic] of the
Court, was not as good during the cruise, as beef generally served out on board
the U States Frigates, and that a considerable quantity is now very bad.
It does appear to the court that five of
the crew were affected with the scurvy, and that those symptoms did not proceed
from a want of proper attention to the cleanliness of the Ship and crew or of
due attention to the culinary materials, or to the fault or neglect of any one
on board.
The Court being directed to enquire into
the causes of the premature termination of the cruise, and being ordered to
express an opinion thereon, observes that from an examination of the evidence
and documents contained in these proceedings it appears, the Captain Stewart at
the time of his return to port had provisions on board to sustain his crew at
full allowance for three months and water for about two months on the usual
allowance. Therefore in the opinion of
the Court Captain Stewart might have remained, in obedience to his sailing
orders and instructions some time longer at sea. And the reasons assigned by Captain Stewart
in his narrative and statements before the Court do not appear to this court to
comprise a sufficient cause for his return at the time he did. Yet the Court believes that Capt Stewart
considered these reasons sufficient to justify his return; and if he has erred
it is the opinion of the Court that it was an error of judgment. It has been clearly established before the
Court that at the time Captain Stewart was off the southern part of the coast
of the
Wm Bainbridge
President
Geo
Sullivan
Judge Advocate
Source: RG45, M273, Roll 7, Case 162, DNA.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|