United States vs. Charles Florence, Boatswain's Mate, USS Cayuga

Charles Florence was to be awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions at the Battle of Forts Jackson and Saint Phillip, but it was rescinded for misconduct. Presumably this was the misconduct in question.

New Orleans, May 13, 1863

By virtue of authority vested in me by the President of the United States in accordance with the Act of Congress for the better government of the Navy of the United States approved July 17 1862, a Naval General Court Martial is hereby ordered to convene at Galveston anchorage on board the U. S. Ship Bienville on the 5th day of June 1863 or as soon thereafter as practicable for the trial of Acting Master John Ulter and of such persons as may legally brought before it.

The Court will be composed of the following Officers, any five of whom are empowered to act, viz:
Commander J. R. M. Mullany
Lieutenant Commander J. Madigan, Jr.
Lieutenant Commander R. F. Lewis
Lieutenant Commander P. C. Johnson, Jr.
Lieutenant Commander C. Hatfield
Acting Master Thomas Pickering
Acting Master Frank Smith
and Eugene Devereux Captain's Clerk is hereby appointed Judge Advocate

D. G. Farragut
Rear Admiral
Commanding W. G. Blockading Squadron

U. S. Steam Sloop Brooklyn
Off Galveston
June 5th 1863

Sir I have to inform you that I hold no charge against Acting Master's Mate John Ulter and that the court may proceed with the case of Charles Florence, Boatswain's Mate.

Very Respectfully
H. H. Bell
Commodore

To Commander J. R. M. Mullany
Senior Member of General Court Martial
U.S. Str. Bienville
Off Galveston

U. S. Steam Sloop Brooklyn
Off Galveston Bar, Texas, June 4 1863

Charges and Specifications of Charges preferred by Henry H. Bell, Commodore, U. S. Navy Commanding U. S. Naval Forces Coast of Texas against Charles Florence Boatswain's Mate on board U.S. Gun Boat Cayuga.

Charge the First: Kicking a man

Specification: That on or about the eighteenth day of May 1863, Charles Florence, Boatswain's Mate of the U. S. Gun Boat Cayuga did kick Peter Johnson Ordinary Seaman in the face while the said Peter Johnson Ordinary Seaman was lifting on a Hawse Pipe.

Charge the Second: Treating with contempt his superior officer, while in the execution of his duty.

Specification First: That on or about the eighteenth day of May 1863, the said Charles Florence while in charge of the Mater at Arms of the U. S. Gun Boat Cayuga did call E. D. Percy Acting Master U.S. Navy and Executive Officer of the U.S. Gun Boat Cayuga a "damned old shit" and threw his silver call aft at the same time telling him E. D. Percy to "stick it up his arse" or words to that effect and did call the said E. D. Percy, Acting Master, "a son of a whore" and said "I would like the pleasure of taking a shot at you."

Specification Second: That the said Charles Florence did on or about the twenty day of May 1863, while at general quarters say to Francis P. Stevens, Acting Master's Mate on board of the U. S. Gun Boat Cayuga "God damn you suck my arse" or words to that effect.

H. H. Bell
Commodore
Commanding U. S. Naval Forces, Coast of Texas

Witnesses
E. D. Percy, Acting Master and Ex. Officer
John Hanson, Acting Master
Francis P. Stevens, Acting Master's Mate
Irvin Donson, Master at Arms
William Young, Boatswain's Mate

Proceedings of a Naval General Court Martial convened on board the U. S. Steamer Bienville by order of the annexed order marked "A".

U. S. Steamer Bienville
Off Galveston Texas
10 O'clock AM June 5th 1863

The court met pursuant to the annexed order marked "A" Present:
Commander J. R. M. Mullany, USN
Lieut. Commander John Madigan Jr., USN
Lieut. Commander R. F. R. Lewis, USN
Lieut. Commander P. C. Johnson Jr., USN
Lieut. Commander C. Hatfield, USN
Acting Master Thomas Pickering, USN
Acting Master Frank Smith, USN
Eugene Devereux, Judge Advocate

The Judge Advocate presented the annexed letter, marked "B" from Commodore H. H. Bell USN stating that he had no charge to prefer against Acting Master John Ulter. The Court therefore proceeded to the trial of Charles Florence, Boatswain's Mate.

Charles Florence, Boatswain's Mate, the accused present. The Judge Advocate having read the order convening the Court, asked the accused, Charles Florence, Boatswain's Mate, if he had any objection to any member named therein, to which he replied that he had none. The Judge Advocate was then duly sworn by the Presiding Officer of the Court and the Court was duly sworn by the Judge Advocate, in the presence of the accused. The accused requested the privilege of introducing as counsel, Acting Assistant Paymaster J. W. Wiffin, which was granted by the Court. Acting Assistant Paymaster J. W. Wiffin, appeared as counsel for the accused.

The charges were read aloud by the Judge Advocate, annexed and marked "C"

The Judge Advocate then addressed the accused, Charles Florence, "You have heard the charges preferred against you, how say you - guilty or not guilty?"

To which the accused, Charles Florence, Boatswain's Mate, pleaded as follows:

Of the first charge - guilty
Of the specification of the first charge - guilty
Of the second charge - not guilty
Of the specification of the second charge - not guilty

Acting Master E. D. Percy, USN, a witness on the part of the prosecution being duly sworn and the charges and specification having been read to him testified as follows:

"The accused was brought before me, as Executive Officer, to the mast. After I had ordered the Master-at-Arms to confine him, as he was going forward, he turned around to me and said "you damned big shit" at the same time he hauled his call out of his waistband and threw it aft and said "take that and shove it up your arse you damned son of a whore and do your damnest." As regards what what he said forward about his liking to "throw a shot at me" I can't say."

Question by the Court: At what time or what day of the month did the accused make use of the language you speak of?

Answer by Witness: On the eighteenth day of May about ten minutes past six P.M.

Question by the Court: how far or at what distance were you from the accused at the time he made use of such expressions as already given in your testimony?

Answer by Witness: I was standing by the Main mast and he was standing near the Engineers Hatch, about thirty or thirty-five feet.

Question by the Court: What did you say to the accused when he was brought before you at the mast?

Answer by Witness: I said you are brought to the mast for kicking a man and cursing the Officer of the Deck.

Question by the Accused: Did he address you direct calling you by name?

Answer by Witness: He did not call me by name but was looking at me.

Question by the Accused: How did he appear when he used those words?

Answer by Witness: He appeared in anger.

Question by the Accused: How far was he from the mast?

Answer by Witness: He was about thirty feet from the mast.

Question by the Accused: Was he then in charge of the Master-at-Arms

Answer by Witness: He was in charge of the Mater-at-Arms

Question by the Accused: Where did he throw the silver call?

Answer by Witness: He turned around by the Engineers Hatch and threw it aft a few feet.

Question by the Accused: Were you looking at him when he said shove the call up your arse?

Answer by Witness: I had just turned around and looked at him.

Question by the Accused: Did the accused speak quickly?

Answer by Witness: Rather quickly, a little excited.

Question by the Accused: Was he the Accused still walking along with the master-at-arms while speaking?

Answer by witness: Part of his language was while walking forward with his head turned over his shoulder but when he threw the call aft he turned partly around

Question by the Accused: who was officer of the deck when the accused used the language imparted to him?

Answer by witness: Mr. Francis P. Stevens.

The testimony was then read over to the witness and pronounced by him to be correct.

Acting Master John Hanson, USN, a witness on the part of the prosecution being duly sworn and the charges and specifications having been read to him, testified as follows:

I was officer of the Deck at the time that the accused kicked a man and used profane language on the Forecastle. I took him to the mast and I had nothing further to do with it.

Question by the Court: After you brought the accused to the mast, what transpired within your knowledge having a bearing in this case?

Answer by Witness: I saw him throw a call aft and that is all I saw. I heard him say something but what it was I cannot say.

Question by the Court: How far were you from the accused at the time he threw his call on deck, and made use of some language you say you did not understand?

Answer by Witness: I was at the companion way to the wardroom and he was underneath the Forecastle, near the capstan.

Question by the Court: Did you observe the manner of the accused at the time he threw his call on deck - if yes, please state what it was.

Answer by Witness: I did not observe it.

Question by the Court: After reporting the accused at the mast, did you remain there until he was taken below or taken away by the master-at-arms, or not? If not, where did you do?

Answer by Witness: I walked aft a little before he was taken away.

Question by the Court: You were officer of the deck when you reported the accused, were you also officer of the deck when he was put in irons and when you saw the call thrown on deck.

Answer by Witness: I was not officer of the deck, I had just been relived.

Question by Judge Advocate: Were you Officer of the Deck at the time you reported the accused, and where did you report the case fo the Executive Officer?

Answer by Witness: The man was not brought to the mast until after I was relived and I reported it in the wardroom.

Question by the Accused: Was the profane language used on the forecastle by the accused spoken in a general manner or directly to some one, and if so to or at whom?

Answer by Witness: I don't know.

Question by the Accused: Has the accused been accustomed to preform his duty in a respectful and efficient manner?

Answer by Witness: Yes Sir, he has as much as I know of.

Question by the Accused: Has the accused heretofore been respectful in his language to his superiors?

Answer by Witness: Yes Sir.

Question by the Accused: When you reported the accused to the Executive Officer, did you hear the Executive Officer make any remarks concerning the accused and if so what were they?

Answer by Witness: No sir, I did not.

The testimony was then read over to the witness and corrected by him as follows: In the first part of his testimony of striking out the words "I took him to the mast." Also in reply to the question by the Court How far were you from the accused at the time he threw his call aft." by striking out the words "underneath the forecastle."

The Court then adjourned at three o'clock PM to meet again at ten o'clock AM sixth June 1863.

10 o'clock AM June 6th 1863

The Court met pursuant to adjournment.

Present:
Commander J. R. M. Mullany, USN
Lieut. Commander John Madigan Jr., USN
Lieut. Commander R. F. R. Lewis, USN
Lieut. Commander P. C. Johnson Jr., USN
Lieut. Commander C. Hatfield, USN
Acting Master Thomas Pickering, USN
Acting Master Frank Smith, USN
Eugene Devereux, Judge Advocate

Charles Florence, Boatswain's Mate, the accused also present.

The proceedings of yesterday were read over.

Acting Master's Mate Francis P. Stevens, USN, a witness on the part of the prosecution was duly sworn and the charges and specifications were read to him.

The Court was here cleared for discussion in relation to a paper from the counsel of the accused which being inadmissible was returned. The Court was then reopened.

The witness then testified as follows, on the first specification of the section charge: I was officer of the deck. Mr. John Hanson, sailing master came to me and asked to have Charles Florence brought to the mast. I proceeded forward and gave orders to the master-at-arms to fetch him aft. After he came to the mast, Mr. E. D. Percy, Executive Officer was sent for and inquired into the case after he found out what the case was, he ordered Charles Florence to be confined. The Master-at-Arms then took him in charge and while under the Master-at-Arms charge, he very abruptly turned around and said "you damned old shit" and when he got a little ways further forward I saw Florence at work with his handkerchief around his neck, shortly after that I heard something strike on deck with a jingling tone and I saw it was the call, but I did not see it thrown. Just as he was stepping on the Fore-Hatch I heard him say "you son of a whore" but did not hear him say any name.

The witness then testified as follows on the second specification of the second charge:

We were at General Quarters and on the order being given to secure guns, instead of Charles Florence, first Captain of the gun, remaining at his gun, left before it was secure. I turned around to look for him and I saw he was gone. I said "where is the first captain of the gun, it is his place to see it secure and report it to me as officer of the division." Very soon after that he came out of the forecastle again, to his gun. I said "Florence it is your place as first captain of the gun to remain and see it secure and report it to me." He said "You don't know where I have been, I am a prisoner" I said it made no difference, he should see his gun secure and report it to me. He then very abruptly turned around and said "suck my ass, God damn you." After saying that he went to his gun and remained peacefully and said no more to me. My second captain reported the gun secure. When the accused said that, I touched Edward Mean and John Nelson and said to them, "You heard what he said." After the gun was secured, I proceeded aft and reported it to the Executive Officer and to Captain Dana also.

Question by the Court. Where was Mr. Percy, the Executive Officer at the time the accused made use of the expression "you son of a whore" and did you notice whether or not the accused was looking towards him?

Answer by Witness: Mr Percy was standing close by me by the mast. The accused did turn his head but it was only for an instant.

Question by the Court: Do you know what he meant by the expression "You don't know where I have been, I am a prisoner"?

Answer by Witness: I don't know

Question by the Court: To whom, to the best of your knowledge and belief, was the expression "son of a whore" and used by the accused, intended for or addressed to"

Answer by Witness: I should say it was intended for Mr. Percy, as he was the last officer who spoke to him and ordered him confined.

Question by the Court: After committing the first offense, how came the accused to be at General Quarters?

Answer by Witness: We went to Quarters on discovering a strange sail, but I don't know by whose orders he was let out of confinement.

Question by the Court: At or about what time did the offense as charged against the accused and in which case you have just given testimony occur?

Answer by Witness: It was in the dog watch, from six to eight on or about the date specified in the charge.

Question by the Court: Did you hear the accused make use of the expression "I would like the pleasure of taking a shot at you?"

Answer by Witness: I did not.

Question by the Accused: How long did the accused after being in charge of the Master-at-Arms, remain near the Fore Hatch?

Answer by Witness: Not more than two or three minutes.

Question by the Accused: Where on the vessel was the accused when he threw down his call?

Answer by the Witness: Near the Pivot Gun

Question by the Accused: How far distant was Mr. Percy when the accused made use of the expression "son of a whore"?

Answer by Witness: Mr. Percy was standing at the Main Mast and the accused was at the Fore Hatch.

Question by the Accused: Did you hear the Executive Officer, at the time specified, give the order to confine the accused?

Answer by Witness: At the time he was brought to the mast, I heard him give the order.

Question by the Accused: What was the order of confinement as given by the Executive Officer?

Answer by Witness: As near as I can remember, he was ordered to be put into double irons with his feet around a stanchion.

The testimony was then read over to the witness and pronounced by him to be correct.

Irvin Donson, Master-at-Arms, a witness on the part of the prosecution, being duly sworn and the charges and specifications having been read to him, testified as follows:

After I was sent for to take the accused at the mast, Mr. Percy ordered me to confine him. I was walking forward with him, he turned his head around and said "you damned big shit" I told the man that he had better hush or he would get in more trouble than he was in, he said he "did not care a damn they could not hang him." He walked as far forward as the scuttle butt and took a drink of water, and then came back as far as the head of the fore hatch and took his call from around his neck and laid it down on the swab chest and then took his over shirt off and threw it to one of the men. He picked up his call and threw it aft and "take that you damned shit and do your damnedest"

Question by the Court: When the accused said "you damned shit" who did you suppose he was addressing?

Answer by Witness: There were two or three officers aft, but I supposed he was addressing Mr. Percy.

Question by the Court: State the specific order you received from Mr. Percy in relation to the confinement of the accused.

Answer by Witness: Mr. Stevens was officer of the deck and ordered me to bring Florence to the mast. I carried him to the mast, and Mr. Percy ordered me to put him in double irons, with his hands and feet around a stanchion and his hands behind him. I carried him below and put his feet around a stanchion and his hands behind him. Then I went up and reported to Mr. Percy that it was an impossibility to have a man's hands and feet both around a stanchion and his hands behind him. Then he told me to keep him so until further orders.

Question by the Court: Did you release the accused from confinement to enable him to attend at his Quarters on or about the twentieth of May 1863; and if yes, by whose orders and under what circumstances?

Answer by Witness: A strange sail hove in sight and the accused was released in obedience to a general order of the commander to release all prisoners at General Quarters.

Question by the Court: Are you certain the expression that you have testified as having been used by the accused when he threw his call down on deck are the only words spoken by him at the time?

There were some other words spoken. He said "I hope to have the pleasure of throwing a shot at you, you damned son of a whore"

Question by the Court: To the best of your belief who was the accused addressing when he said he hoped he would have the pleasure of throwing a shot at you, you damned son of a whore?

Answer by Witness: I supposed he was addressing Mr. Percy

The accused had no questions to put to the witness. The testimony of the witness was then read over to him and pronounced by him to be correct.

William Young, Boatswain's Mate, a witness on the part of the prosecution being duly sworn and the charge and specifications having been read to him testified as follows:

The first I saw was when he was coming forward in charge of the master-at-arms. The man seemed excited and when he came to the fore hatch he hauled his shirt off then he hove the call aft. The words he mentioned then I can't exactly say what they were, but they were an "old shit" or something to that effect.

Question by the Court: Was the language used by the accused at the time specified abusive and to whom it was addressed to the best of your belief?

Answer by Witness: It was abusive and to the best of my belief was addressed to Mr. Percy.

The accused had no questions to put to the witness. The testimony was then read over to the witness and pronounced by him to be correct.

The Judge Advocate then stated that there was no further evidence on the part of the prosecution and announced the prosecution closed.

John Nelson, Captain of the Forecastle, a witness for the defense, being duly sworn and the charges and specifications having been read to him, testified as follows:

I know nothing about the first specification of the second charge. Of the second specification I did not hear him say such a thing to the officer at the gun. I was at the gun.

Question by the accused: Were you on the forecastle of the U.S. Gunboat Cayuga at General Quarters on or about the twentieth day of May 1863, if so in what capacity.

Answer by witness: Yes sir, I was on the forecastle. I was Second Captain of the Rifle Gun on the Forecastle.

Question by the Accused: Did you hear the accused at the time above mentioned address Francis P. Stevens Acting Master's Mate in abusive or profane language?

Answer by Witness: No Sir, I did not hear him. I was too busy around the gun securing everything.

Question by the Accused: Did you hear the accused make any remark or say anything to Mr. Stevens the officer of the rifle gun?

Answer by Witness: No Sir

Question by the Court: Did the officer in command of the gun or division at any time, during the time specified, nudge you or call your attention to any abusive language which was used by the accused to him?

Answer by Witness: No sir, he did not

Question by Judge Advocate: Did the accused at the time specified leave his station at the gun and if so for how long a time?

Answer by witness: At the time the order was given to secure the gun, the accused left his station, said he had lost some of his primers and he wanted to get them before the men left their stations. It was about five minutes time.

Question by the Judge Advocate: Did the accused make any other remarks on his return to his station?

Answer by witness: No sir

Question by the Court: Did you hear Mr. Stevens address the accused after his return to his gun?

Answer by witness: No Sir

The testimony was then read over to the witness and pronounced by him to be correct.

Edwin Mean, Landsman, a witness for the defense being duly sworn and the charges and specifications having been read to him testified as follows:

Question by the Accused: Were you on the forecastle of the U.S. Gunboat Cayuga on or about the twentieth day of May 1862 while at General Quarters, if so, in what capacity?

Answer by Witness: I was on the Forecastle acting as first sponger.

Question by the Accused: Did you notice whether the accused was at the time referred to on the Forecastle, in performance of his duty as captain of the gun?

Answer by Witness: He was on the Forecastle at the time we were at Quarters.

Question by the Accused: Did Master's Mate Francis P. Stevens call your attention to any language by the accused while at Quarters on that occasion?

Answer by Witness: He came to me and put his hand on my shoulder and said something I could not understand what it was, after the gun was secured.

Question by Accused: Did you at any time during General Quarters at the time above mentioned, hear the accused address Francis P. Stevens, Acting Master's Mate, in profane or abusive language?

Answer by Witness: No Sir

Question by the Court: Did you hear Mr. Stevens rebuke the accused for being absent from the gun?

Answer by Witness: No sir, I heard Mr. Stevens inquire for him.

Question by the Court: Did you hear the accused make any remark or remarks while he was at or near his gun, at the time specified in the charges?

Answer by Witness: I heard him say he was a prisoner.

Question by the Court: Who was he addressing when he said he was a prisoner?

Answer by Witness: I think he was addressing Mr. Stevens

Question by the Court: What called forth the remark from the accused that he was a prisoner?

Answer by Witness: I don't know sir.

Question by the Court: Did you hear the accused make use of any other language or expressions to Mr. Stevens than what you have already stated whilst at Quarters and at the time specified?

Answer by Witness: No sir

Question by the Court: Did the accused remark "I am a prisoner" when the crew first mustered at quarters or was it after the order was passed to secure the gun.

Answer by Witness: It was after the word was passed to secure the gun.

Question by the Court: When Mr. Stevens put his hand on your shoulder and said something you did not understand, what reply did you make to him?

Answer by Witness: I made no reply, I turned around to ask him what he said, when he was gone.

The testimony was then read over to the witness and pronounced by him to be correct.

The court adjourned at ten minutes past three o'clock PM to meet again at ten o'clock AM on Monday eight of June 1863.

10 o'clock June 8th 1863

The Court met pursuant to adjournment.

The proceedings of Saturday June 6th 1863 were read over.

Charles Florence, Boatswain's Mate, the accused also present.

Charles Palmer, Landsman, a witness for the defense, being duly sworn, testified as follows:

Question by the Accused: Were you on the Forecastle of the U.S. Gunboat Cayuga on or about the twentieth day of May 1863 while at General Quarters?

Answer by Witness: I was at Quarters on the Forecastle

Question by the Accused: How far, while securing the gun, on that occasion, were you stationed from the Captain of the Gun?

Answer by Witness: I was stationed at the compressor. I was about four feet.

Question by the Accused: Did you hear the accused on that occasion use abusive or profane language to Master's Mate Francis P. Stevens?

Answer by Witness: Yes Sir, I heard the Captain of the Gun tell the second Captain that he had dropped some primers and that he was going down to pick them up, before the men left their quarters so they would not explode. Mr. Stevens asked him where he had been, he told him he was putting his arms away. Mr. Stevens asked him again where he had been been and he told him, he was going below, that he was a prisoner - that was all I heard.

Question by the Court: You state that the accused used abusive or profane language to Mr. Stevens, what language was that?

Answer by Witness: I do not know.

Question by Judge Advocate: How do you know the language was abusive?

Answer by Witness: I do not know whether the language was abusive or not.

Question by the Court: Did you notice whether or not, whist at Quarters, during the time specified, Mr. Stevens called attention to any of the guns crew, of any expression made use of by the accused to him?

Answer by Witness: No sir

The testimony was then read over to the witness and pronounced by him to be correct.

Re-examination of the Witness.

Question by the Accused: in your answer to the first question, do you intend to say that you heard the accused use profane language to Mr. Stevens, that is, that you heard the accused curse or otherwise abuse Mr. Stevens?

Answer by witness: No sir, I did not.

William Beckett, Ordinary Seaman, a witness for the defense being duly sworn and the charges and specifications having been read to him testified as follows:

Question by the Accused: Were you stationed on the Forecastle of the US Gunboat Cayuga at general quarters on or about the twentith day of May 1863. If so, in what capacity?

Answer by witness: I was powder man at the gun.

Question by the Accused: Did you hear the accused curse or otherwise abuse Acting Master's Mate Francis P. Stevens on that occasion?

Answer by witness: No Sir

Question by the Accused: Would you have probably heard or taken notice of any unusual profane or abusive language such as cursing, used by any one upon that occasion on the Forecastle?

Answer by Witness: Yes sir, I think I would if it was spoken any ways loud.

Question by Judge Advocate: Did you carry powder for the gun?

Answer by Witness: No sir, The gun had a charge in it, and when I went after one, I came back, they were securing the gun.

Question by Judge Advocate: When did you return the passing box?

Answer by Witness: I got none from the magazine.

Question by the Court: did you leave your gun at any period during the time specified and if yes, how long were you absent from it, and for what purpose.

Answer by Witness: I was absent for about five minutes for powder.

The testimony was then read over to the witness and pronounced by him to be correct.

Second Assistant Engineer James M. Harris, USN, a witness for the defense being duly sworn and the charge and specifications having been read to him testified as follows:

Question by the Accused: Were you on or about the eighteenth of May 1863, present, when the accused was brought to the mast before E. D. Percy, Executive Officer of the US Gunboat Cayuga.

Answer by the Witness: I was on the port side of the vessel in the gangway

Question by the Accused: Will you please state as near as you can, where on the vessel you were at the time referred to, also the position of the executive officer and of the accused when he began to utter profane words.

Answer by Witness: I was standing in the port gangway at the time. The Executive Officer stood on the starboard side six or seven feet from the main mast, aft. The first I heard the accused utter anything was at the Fore Hatch about to go down the ladder with the Master-at-Arms.

Question by the Accused: Did you see the accused throw down his silver call?

Answer by witness: I did.

Question by the Accused: When the accused threw down his call, where and how far distant was the Executive Officer, Mr. Percy?

Answer by Witness: Mr Percy, Executive Officer was standing on the starboard side opposite the ward-room hatch, nearly a hundred feet I should think.

Question by the Accused: When the accused threw down his call, were they any officers or men between him and Mr. Percy?

Answer by Witness: None that I know of, there may have been men but no officers.

Question by the Accused: When the accused threw down his call did he address or seem to address any particular person?

Answer by Witness: He did not by name.

Question by the Accused: In what light did you at the time, view the language of the accused after he had proceeded in charge in of the Master-at-Arms to the fore hatch?

Answer by Witness: I should have viewed it in a passion. The man was in a passion. It was not addressed to any particular person by name.

Question by the Accused: Were you present, when the accused was reported to Mr. Percy?

Answer by Witness: I was, it was in an unofficial manner at the tea table.

Question by the Accused: Have you at any time heard Acting Master's Mate Francis P. Stevens speak of giving evidence against the accused?

Answer by Witness: I have.

Question by the Accused: Will you state as near as you remember the expressions, Master's Mate Francis P. Stevens, used when he spoke of giving evidence against the accused?

Answer by Witness: As near as I can recollect I heard him say, he would be damned "if I don't swear against the accused, on his, the accused, mother's grave, but what I will correct him." Also that he was so told that his evidence was as good as any five men forward.

Question by the Accused: During the time you have known the accused, what has been in his character in regards to bravery, performance of duty, respect to superiors and general deportment on board the vessel?

Answer by Witness: Very good as far as I know of.

Question by the Court: Where was the accused standing at the time he threw his call on deck?

Answer by Witness: He was on the starboard side of the shop near the fore hatch, about to go below with the master-at-arms.

Question by the Court: To whom to the best of your knowledge was the language used by the accused at the time he thew his call on deck addressed to?

Answer by Witness: I could not say, there were three officers on the starboard side of the quarter deck aft.

Question by the Court: Did you regard the language and deportment of the accused when at the fore hatch as a mere outburst of an irrepressible passion without being directed against any one in particular or did you not feel morally certain that it was directed at Mr. Percy?

Answer by Witness: I did not particularly.

Question by the Court: Do you think the language was addressed to you?

Answer by Witness: It was not.

Question by the Court: What reason have you for not supporting it was addressed to you?

Answer by Witness: In the first place, the officer of the deck was standing there, Mr. Hanson was standing there and the Executive Officer was there.

Question by the Court: State the circumstances under which Mr. Stevens remarked that he would be damned if he would not swear against the accused?

Answer by Witness: Mr. Stevens was sitting on the steerage hatch, port side, in conversation with Mr. Aston, Mr. Mary, Mr. Young and I think one or two other gentlemen. The remark arose from some conversation among these gentlemen about the Court Martial.

Question by the Court: How do you know that the report made to Mr. Percy was unofficial?

Answer by Witness: From the manner in which it was made as I heard it.

Question by the Court: Will you state the manner in which an official report is made, in contradiction to an unofficial one?

Answer by Witness: It is necessary for an officer to report a man, to make a direct report, without saying he had a great mind to, as Mr. Hanson said at the table.

Question by the Court: Did Mr. Stevens in the conversation you heard him engage in about the anticipated Court Martial, express in that conversation any apprehension or doubts as to the change of the accused not being convicted?

Answer by Witness: He did not to my knowledge.

Question by the Court: Do you wish to convey the idea to the court that Mr. Stevens determined to swear falsely rather than not to convict the accused?

Answer by Witness: I do not particular any more than that he made that remark.

Question by the Court: Did Mr. Stevens remark create that impression in your mind?

Answer by Witness: It created no further impression than that it was an improper remark.

Question by the Court: You say that the accused did not curse you, he having no reason for so doing. Do you to the best of your knowledge and belief think that the accused was laboring under the conviction that he had been unjustly dealt with at the mast by the Executive Officer or officer of the deck?

Answer by Witness: I think the accused was laboring under that impression.

Question by the Court: Do you not think therefore since you say the accused believed himself wronged, to the best of your judgment, believe that the words made use of by the accused were intended to apply to one or more of the three officers then at the mast?

Answer to Witness: Certainly it was to one of those officers at the mast.

Question by the Court: Under such circumstances then, who was it more likely the language used by the accused to the best of your knowledge intended for?

Answer by witness: I am unable to answer that question, I cannot say.

Re-examined by the Accused.

Question by the Accused: You say that the accused was laboring under the impression that he had been unjustly dealt with, what reason have you to think such was his impression?

Answer by Witness: No more than that the man was in a passion, and had already stated at the mast that he had not damned the officer.

Question by the Accused: Why in your opinion did Mr. Hanson, when about to report the accused, say that he had "a great mind to report him?" State what in your opinion finally induced him to officially report the accused.

Answer by Witness: I don't know, he seemed to be in doubt. Mr Percy replied to him "you report him, I have been laying for him for sometime, I have been wanting to catch him"

The testimony was then read over to the witness and corrected by him as follows: in reply to the question by the court did you regard the language and deportment of the accused when at the fore hatch, as a mere outburst of an irrepressible passion &c? by inserting the words "I regard it as an outburst of irrepressible passion. Who his language was addressed to I can unable to say"

Third Assistant Engineer Ralph Aston, a witness for the defense, being duly sworn and the charge and specifications having been read to him testified as follows:

Question by the accused: Were you present on deck of the US Gunboat Cayuga on or about the eighteenth of May 1863 when the accused was brought to the mast before E. D. Percy, Executive Officer?

Answer by Witness: I was on deck at the time this affair occurred.

Question by the accused: Did you observe the accused at the time above mentioned, did you see from the manner or action of the accused while at the mast anything which, indicated contempt of the Executive Officer?

Answer by Witness: I saw him most of the time. I did not have my eyes on him all of the time, I saw nothing while I was observing him that I took note of. I saw nothing more than usual with all men put in irons. He went along peacefully with the master-at-arms.

Question by the Accused: after the accused had proceeded forward in charge of the master-at-arms, was his manner that of contempt to the executive officer?

Answer by witness: I did not observe that it was so.

Question by the accused: Did you hear the accused while forward at the time above mentioned, speak or mutter any profane or abusive language.

Answer by witness: I heard no language that I could distinguish. The man muttered something to himself.

Question by the Accused: In what light would you view the language of the accused while he was forward and when he threw down his call?

Answer by Witness: As I did not hear him make any remarks, I don't know that I could put any light on the subject more than to suppose that he was in a rage at the difficulty or the manner of his punishment.

Question by the Accused: Will you state where on the vessel you were when the accused at the time mentioned went forward in charge of the master-at-arms?

Answer by witness: I was standing in the port gangway.

Question by the Court: Are you dull of hearing or conscious of any defect in the organ of hearing.

Answer by witness: No sir, I am not.

The testimony was then read over to the witness and pronounced by him to be correct.

Second Assistant Engineer James M. Harris, USN was then re-called.

Question by the Court: Please state whether the relation that exist between yourself and the Executive Officer Mr Percy are one of an amicable nature, and also with Mr. Stevens Acting Master's Mate.

Answer by Witness: They are so, as far as I know anything to the contrary.

The defense having no more witnesses to produce, was closed. THe accused then asked for time to prepare his final defense, which was granted by the Court. The Court then adjourned to meet again at 10 o'clock AM.

10:25 AM June 9th 1863

The Court met pursuant to adjournment.

The proceedings of yesterday were read over.

Charles Florence, Boatswain's Mate, the accused also present.

The accused, Charles Florence, Boatswain's Mate, presented the written defense, marked "D", appended to these proceedings, which was read by his counsel.

The statements of the parties being thus in possession of the Court, the Court was cleared for deliberation, and having maturely considered the evidence adduced, find the accused, Charles Florence, Boatswain's Mate, as follows:

Of the Specification of the First Charge: Guilty
Of the First Charge: Guilty

Of the 1st Specification of the Second Charge: Guilty
Of the second Specification of the Second Charge: Guilty
Of the Second Charge: Guilty

And the Court do therefore sentence the said Charles Florence, Boatswain's Mate, to be reduced to seaman, to be kept in confinement at hard labor, in any penitentiary within the control of the authority of the United States for the term of two years, to loose all pay whilst in such confinement, and to be dishonorably discharged at the expiration of his imprisonment.

J. R. M. Mullany
Commander, USN and Senior Member of Court

John Madigan Jr.
Lieut. Commander, USN

R. F. R. Lewis
Lieut. Commander, USN and member of Court

P. C. Johnson Jr.
Lieut. Commander, USN and member of Court

Chester Hatfield, USN
Lieut. Commander, USN and member of Court

Thomas Pickering, USN
Acting Master, USN and member of Court

Frank Smith
Acting Master, USN and member of Court

Eugene Devereux
Judge Advocate

Approved
D. G. Farragut
Rear Admiral
Commanding West Gulf Blockading Squadron

Defense

The accused, who has been arraigned before the Honorable Court, desires, before judgment be passed to respectfully submit the following suggestions of defense.

The defense begins with the second charge, ad its several specifications. This is an instance of an error magnified into a serious offense. An instance of ill advised meaningless and irresponsible mutterings of half repressed passion, taken up and construed into an insulting address to Authority. The circumstances and the evidence will sustain the remark. The Accused is reported for kicking a man - is brought to the mast - receives sentence of punishment - returns in silence and shame in charge of the Master at Arms, to the fore hatch, before descending to the berth deck, throws aside his sailor call and says "take it" - shame and anger annexing into a muttering matter, vulgar expressions. Let us first determine from the evidence whether these expressions were anything more than mutterings. The second witness for the Prosecution, Mr. Hanson, saw the Accused throw his call aft - heard him say something but was unable to 'say' what it was. Mr. Hanson was at the time of the occurrence within a few feet of the Ex Officer Mr. Percy. The last witness for the Defense Mr. Aston was at the port gangway heard the Accused mutter something but was unable to distinguish his language. Boatswain's Mate William Young was on deck but did not hear the Accused sufficiently distinct to remember what was said. Such is the evidence of the principal witnesses on this point. The point is considered proved. Now what was this muttered language. Certainly it was sailors' slang, the current language of their tongue. But what was its import, what its object, what its meaning. It is very difficult to interpret thoughts. Hence conscience only can deal with those things which are not expressed. Now a word, an expression or a sentence without preface and without application, is almost as intangible as an unexpressed thought. Mr. Aston a calm and disinterested spectator witnessed what he observed the Accused while at the Mast, saw him proceed forward, but noticed nothing of contempt in his manner. The indistinct muttering for his could distinguish no language he considered as the natural half repressed feelings of passion. Harris viewed the same mutterings or language as the irrepressible outburst of passion without any special application.

But could the expressions have been aimed at the Ex Officer. No they could not have been intended for his ear. For they were spoken in a low tone, so low that Mr. Hanson failed to hear. William Young could not understand so as to remember and Mr. Aston did not distinguish what was said. Now the Accused has a clear and powerful voice, and had he intended any words for the ear of the Ex Officer, the words would have reached not Mr. Percy only but also every officer near. And such words as are specified in the charge when once heard are not soon forgotten. Now if the expressions were not intended for the ear of the Ex Officer, if the Ex Officer was not even mentioned in connection with them, if they were merely the outburst of passion without application, the mutterings of anger without meaning and when supposed to be beyond the hearing of any superior, upon what foundation can it be established that they were expressions of contempt for Mr Percy.

But the charge of contempt remains and the several specifications. Hence the Accused will proceed to view them in another light. For this purpose it is necessary to examine and compare some of the evidence for the prosecution. Mr Percy, the prosecutor and the first witness, in reply to the question put by the court where on the vessel he was and where the Accused, when he threw down his silver call. Answered I was standing near the main mast and he was standing near the Engineer's Hatch about 30 or 35 feet. The Court understood that the Accused was near the Engineer's Hatch. Now this hatch is just ten feet from the main mast. The father end of the Hatch is just twenty. It was here, according to this witness, while the Accused turned to look at Mr. Percy that the language specified was used. This would be sufficient to convict. But the second witness Mr Hanson affirmed that the accused when he threw down his call was standing near the capstan. The capstan is more than a hundred feet from the main mast. But Mr. Stevens answered that the accused when he threw down his call was near the pivot gun. This gun is about sixty feet from the main mast. Here are three diverse statements over a most important point. Now from the subsequent evidence we are forced to the conclusion that these three officers witnesses for the prosecution are in error.

The Master at Arms distinctly states that when the accused threw down his call, he was near the fore hatch. The boatswain's mate William Young states the same thing. Mr. Harris Senior engineer also answers that the accused was near the fore hatch when he threw down his call. He also adds that Mr. Percy was at this time near the Ward Room Hatch. Now if Mr Percy could make such an error in distance and in the position of the Accused when he threw down his call - might he also not mistake in respect to the language of the Accused and might he not also misapply that language. But had the accused spoke while he was near the Engineer's Hatch, how could those witnesses who were at the port gangway have failed to hear. But Mr Percy such is the evidence had for some been laying for the Accused and wishing to punish him. The opportunity occurred. He seized it. And of his own authority ordered the accused to be put in double irons, his hands behind his back, and both hands and feet bound around a stanchion. A position according to the Master at Arms which was impossible. Here is an order for a man to be confined in a torturous position. Yes and the same feelings the same impulse which induced this order and which induced that lying in wait caused the imagination to please the accused when he threw down his call - where he was not to hear language from a spot from which no language was spoken. And to apply language to a name which was not mentioned in connection with that language.

But the Master-at-Arms affirms that to the best of his knowledge and belief the Accused intended his language for Mr Percy. The Master-at-Arms and accused walked side by side. The accused was silent until he reached the fore hatch. Here be began to mutter. He imagined that he could not be heard. He did not think his words would be reported, explained, enlarged and their meaning exaggerated. To the master-at-arms that muttered seemed plain talk. And forgetful that anger thrusting itself away from superior authority, might, without thought or evil intentions use many vulgar and ill chosen expressions - imagined each word was intended for the Ex Officer. But other witnesses of more enlarged understanding and more philosophical minds and who observed the manner of the Accused, saw therein nothing of contempt but a great deal of natural, though blind passion. In consideration of this testimony and other circumstances the Accused thinks that he must be found not guilty of the second charge as regard the first specification.

The second specification of charge second. The language specified is said to have been used on the forecastle while at Quarters. Mr. Stevens, the Accused and five men were present. Mr. Stevens called the attention of two men to what was said. Those very men heard nothing profane, nothing abusive on the occasion. Two other men, who were sworn heard no such language used as in charged. If none of the gun's crew heard profane or abusive expressions, then the presumption must be that such expressions were not used. For it would be impossible for such language to be addressed to the Officer without even one of the men hearing it. And this ends the second specification.

The accused has been acquainted with the duties and requirements of the naval service for over nine years. He has long known that respect and implicit obedience to authority was the first duty of a sailor. And he has ever endeavored to fail not in this duty. In the attack upon Forts Jackson and St Phillip and taking of New Orleans in April 1862, he was one of four mentioned with praise for his conduct by his commanding officer. In conclusion the Accused humbly requests the Honorable Court not to view too harshly those excited and uttered expressions without thought and were said without any intention of contempt.

Charles H. Florence

[Return to Courts Martial and Courts of Inquiry index]