United States vs. Patrick Dolan, 2nd Class Fireman, USS Pocahontas
USS Portsmouth
Off New Orleans
March 27th, 1865
The Court met pursuant to adjournment of Saturday - present:
Commander L. C. Sartori
Lieut. Commander John Watters
Lieut. Commander B. Gherardi
Lieut. Commander G. G. Maxwell
Lieut. Commander R. M. Meads, Sr.
and G. M. Reynolds Judge Advocate
The Court having concluded the case of Thomas Brogan, Landsman, U.S.S. Onedia, proceeded to the trial of Patrick Dolan, 2nd Class Fireman, U.S.S. Pocahontas, who being called into Court and having heard the precept read, also of official communication, also of official communications, was asked if he had any objection to any member of the Court to which he replied "he had not."
The Judge Advocate was then duly sworn by the Presiding Member of the Court and the COurt by the Judge Advocate in presence of the accused, who was asked if he had received a copy of his charges and was ready for trial, to which he replied affirmatively and stated that he had no counsel.
Witnesses being resent, the charges and specifications were then read, Witnesses having retired accused was arranged as follows:
2d Class Fireman Patrick Dolan, U.S.S. Pocahontas, you have heard the charges and specifications preferred against you, how say you guilty or not guilty, to which the accused pleaded, "not guilty."
A. Aitken, First Class Fireman, U.S.N., a witness for the prosecution being duly sworn, deposed:
Question by Judge Advocate: State your name, rate and ship?
Answer: Archibald Aitken, First Class Fireman, U.S.S. Pocahontas.
Question by Judge Advocate: State what you know of this case now before the court.
Answer: We went to muster on the 12th of March 1865, at 8 P.M., while the Pocahontas was lying off New Orleans, right after muster, myself and Robert Harrocks, 2d Class Fireman, were sitting in the forward bunker reading. Accused came in and wanted to know why Harry Ratcliff, Gunner's Mate, was in irons. I told him that at muster the Acting Ensign and Executive Officer had informed us that liquor had been brought aboard the ship and that he was going to stop our liberty until he found out who brought it and that Harry Ratcliff, being drunk stepped up and asked if the Executive Officer referred to him and the Executive Officer ordered him in irons. The accused had been down to Ratcliff trying to pacify him and both being drunk there was some noise, accused then said that "the ship (meaning the Pocahontas) should never leave the river." I then said "and you suppose that Harry Ratcliff would destroy the ship?" Accused replied "I know my own business." He then said at the first alarm you had better make your escape" The man being drunk I took no notice of these remarks. Accused then went to the Engine Room to attend to his watch. This was at 8 PM.
Question by the Court: Was there a fire on the Pocahontas, if so where did it originate and at what time?
Answer: There was a fire on the 12th between 10 1/2 and 11 PM. It originated in the after part of the shaft alley, about ten feet from the magazine.
Question by the Court: Have you seen the accused since, if so did you have any conversation with him on this subject?
Answer: I saw him during the fire. He was doing his best to put the fire out.
Question by the Court: Had any work been done in the shaft alley that day requiring any light of any kind?
Answer: No.
Question by the Court: Were any combustibles kept in the shaft alley, if so what were they?
Answer: Nothing but two bags of lampwick and one keg of dry red lead.
Question by the Court: Were these stores burned?
Answer: One bag was burned.
Question by the Court: Do you know who set fire to the ship?
Answer: I do not.
Question by the Court: Have you ever heard any other threats from accused except that you have already mentioned?
Answer: No.
Question by the Court: How long has accused been aboard the Pocahontas?
Answer: About eleven or twelve months.
Question by the Court: Was anybody besides accused on watch?
Answer: No, but Mr. Dowdy, Acting 3rd Assistant Engineer had the watch until 8 PM.
There being no further questions by the Court, Judge Advocate or accused the testimony was read to and approved by the witnesses who retired.
Robert Harrocks, Second Class Fireman, USN, a witness for the prosecution being duly sworn, deposed:
Question by Judge Advocate: State your name, rate and ship.
Answer: Robert Harrocks, 2nd Class Fireman, USS Pocahontas.
Question by Judge Advocate: State what you know of the case now before the Court.
Answer: On or about the 12th of March while the Pocahontas was lying off New Orleans, about 8:15 PM, I was along with Aitken, 1st Class Fireman, in the forward bunker, and accused came in and asked what Radcliff was in irons for. Aitkin to him the reason and the accused said "This ship (meaning the Pocahontas) would never leave the river and that we had better make our escape at the first alarm." I did not know what he meant, he then left the bunker and went about his business, which was to attend his watch.
Question by the Court: Was there a fire on board the Pocahontas. If so where did it originate and when?
Answer: There was a fire, it commenced in the shaft alley on the 12th of March about 11 PM.
Question by the Court: Did you see accused during the fire, if yes under what circumstances?
Answer: I did and he was doing his best to put it out.
Question by the Court: Was there any occasion to have lights in the shaft alley on the day the fire occured.
Answer: I don't know.
Question by the Court: Do you know who set fire to the ship?
Answer: No.
Question by the Court: Did you report the threat accused if yea, why?
Answer: I did not.
Question by the Court: Did you hear any other threats than those you have mentioned?
Answer: I did not.
There being no further questions by the Court, Judge Advocate or accused the testimony was read to and approved by the witnesses who retired.
Wesley Harris, First Class Fireman, USN, a witness for the prosecution, being duly sworn, deposed:
Question by Judge Advocate: State your name, rate and ship.
Answer: Wesley Harrison, First Class Fireman, USS Pocahontas.
Question by Judge Advocate: State what you know of the case now before the Court.
Answer: I was ashore on Sunday evening or about the 12th instant. I returned between 9 and 10 PM. I came down to the Engineroom and saw accused between the crank pits near the eccentric strap. I asked him what he was doing there, he replied he was going to get a coat. I went into the bunker to shift myself. Having lost some rings, I thought I would watch and see if I couldn't find them and when I came out of the bunker I blew out the light so not to be seen. I went to the condenser to get a drink of water as I passed before the shaft alley, I saw a light there. I was in the act of halloing to accused to has him what he was doing there when the accused's light went out. I went up on deck and went to the after part of the Engine room hatch and lifted the hood to see if he had brought anything out with him. I saw him come up and light the lamp at the engine room desk, from that he went to the hot valve there I lost sight of him. I went and turned in when it struck four bells, the alarm of fire was given about 25 minutes of 11 PM. The fire was in the back part of the shaft alley.
Question by Court: During this time did you see anybody else?
Answer: No
Question by Court: Did you see the accused during the fire, if yea, under what circumstances?
Answer: I did see accused. He had a bucket of water doing the best he could to put the fire out. He was the first man I saw at the fire.
Question by Court: Did you hear the accused make any threats?
Answer: No.
Question by Court: Do you know who set fire to the ship?
Answer: I do not.
Question by Court: Did you report the circumstances you have related, if yea to whom and for what reason?
Answer: I reported to the Executive Officer, Ensign McKinley and Chief Engineer Maburton. I reported the circumstances after I was asked.
There being no further questions by the Court, Judge Advocate or accused the testimony was read to and approved by the witnesses who retired.
The Court was then adjourned to meet tomorrow, Tuesday the 28th inst. at 10 1/2 AM.
USS Portsmouth
Off New Orleans
March 28, 1865
The Court met pursuant to adjournment of yesterday - present:
Commander L. C. Sartori
Lieut. Commander John Watters
Lieut. Commander B. Gherardi
Lieut. Commander G. G. Maxwell
Lieut. Commander R. M. Meads, Sr.
and G. M. Reynolds Judge Advocate
The proceedings of yesterday were read and approved.
There being no further testimony accessible or available on the part of the prosecution it here closed its case and so announced to the defense.
The accused stated that he did not desire to call any witnesses but would ask the indulgence of the Court until tomorrow to submit a written statement which time being granted, the Court adjourned until tomorrow the 29th inst. at 10:30 AM.
USS Portsmouth
Off New Orleans
March 29th 1865
The Court met pursuant to adjournment of yesterday - present:
Commander L. C. Sartori
Lieut. Commander John Watters
Lieut. Commander B. Gheardi
Lieut. Commander G. G. Maxwell
Lieut. Commander R. M. Meads, Sr.
and G. M. Reynolds Judge Advocate
The proceedings of yesterday were read and approved.
The accused was here introduced and presented the written statement which was read.
The Court was then cleared for deliberation and after the matter considered on the evidence introduced, find the accused as follows:
Of the specification to charge - not proven
Of the charge - not guilty
and do therefore acquit accused.
L. C. Sartori, Commander and Presiding Officer
John Watters, Lt Commander
B. Gherardi, Lt Commander
G. G. Maxwell, Lt Commander
R. M. Meads, Sr., Lt Commander
Geo. M. Reynolds Judge Advocate, Judge Advocate
Approved
H. K. Thatcher
Acting Rear Admiral
Court adjourned to meet at 10:30 AM tomorrow March 30th 1865.
West Gulf Squadron
US Flag Ship Glasgow
New Orleans, LA
14 March 1865
By virtue of authority in me vested a Naval General Court Martial is hereby ordered to convene on board the USS Portsmouth, lying in the Mississippi Rover off New Orleans, on the fifteen day of March, one thousand eight hundred and sixty five, or as soon thereafter as practicable for the trial of Lieutenant Thomas C. Bowen, US Navy, attached to the USS Monongahela, and such others as may be legally brought before it.
The Court will be composed of the following named officers, any five of whom are empowered to act, viz:
Captain George. S. Emmons
Commanders Louis Sartori
Commander J. R. Madison Mullany
Commander Thomas H. Stevens
Lieutenant Commander John Watters
Lieutenant Commander B. Gherardi
Lieutenant Commander R. W. Meade, Sr.
and Mr. George W. Reynolds of New Orleans is hereby appointed the Judge Advocate.
H. K. Thatcher
Acting Rear Admiral
Commanding West Gulf Squadron
Charge and Specifications of a Charge preferred by Acting Rear Admiral Henry K. Thatcher, commanding the West Gulf Squadron, against Patrick Dolan, a Second Class Fireman serving on board of the USS Pocahontas.
Charge: Setting on fire public property.
Specification: In this, that, on or about the twelfth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and sixty five, the said Patrick Dolan, a Second Class Fireman, serving on board of the USS Pocahontas, then lying in the Mississippi River off New Orleans, did willfully and maliciously set on fire the said USS Pocahontas.
H. K. Thatcher
A. R. Admiral
Commanding W. G. Squadron
Witnesses:
First Class Fireman Archibald Aitken
Second Class Fireman Robert Harrocks
United States vs Patrick Dolan
Reading before a Naval Court Martial on board US Flag Ship Portsmouth
Brief for accused.
May it please the Court,
The accused in this case respectfully beg leave to submit the following remakes and suggestions in his behalf.
The accused, a fireman in the US Navy, serving on board the steamer Pocahontas stands charged with maliciously setting fire to said vessel.
Having pleaded not guilty, and having been put upon trial, it only remains to reexamine how far the charge and specification are sustained by evidence adduced.
It is shown that a fire occurred on board the Pocahontas at the time alleged, that on the evening preceding the night of the fire, accused was in a state of intoxication, and being somewhat angered in consequence of one of his shipmates having been placed in irons for bringing whiskey on board, did indulge in some remarks of a hasty and inconsequential character, partaking in some degree of the nature of threats saying in effect that the vessel would not again leave pot &c. This is attended to by two witnesses if he remembers rightly (not having the evidence before). That during the early part of the night he was put upon watch, and during the time he was upon duty he was seen to go into or near the shaft alley not too far distance from the place where the fire afterwards broke out.
One of the witnesses states that he went into the shaft alley about two o'clock (an hour and a half before the fire) and watched the accused secretly and narrowly for the purpose of ascertaining if he were not stealing or had not stolen something from him, and this is the plausible reason which this witness gives for his being in that vicinity at that time. There facts are stated to have taken place before the fire, as he understand them.
The fire was discovered in the shaft alley about 25 minutes to 10 o'clock PM and at the time accused was found to be doing all he could to put out the fire, throwing buckets of water on it &c.
This fact is established by all the witnesses who saw the fire - The prosecution having closed, the accused offered no evidence, and here let me address to the principal that in all trials for crime, and especially where the evidence is altogether circumstantial, the difficulty of proving a negative must be given great weight in favor of the accused
Under the circumstances it becomes necessary only to consider the testimony adduced, its character and weight, together with the established rules of evidence applicable thereto.
It may be that great stress will be laid on the pretended threats of accused.
In this connection it is important to observe,
1st the words supposed to have been declaratory of criminal intention may have been misunderstood or misremembered.
2d it does not necessarily follow, because a man avow an intention or threatens to commit a crime, that such intention really existed in the mind. The words may have been uttered in bravado, or with a view of annoying, other collateral causes or in drunken insanity. If accused threated as charged by the witnesses, he surely knew not what he said, since he has sufficient intelligence to know the effect and consequences thereof. It will be remembered that in the celebrated Parkman-Webster case, Dr. Parkman had been the object of threats to kill, from irritated tenants, yet it was from neither of the threatening parties that his death proceeded.
3d Another person really desirous of committing the offense may have profited by the occasion of the threat, to avert suspicion from himself.
A case is related in 5 Causes Celebre 437, of a women of extremely bad character and violent temper, who one day in the open street threatened a man who had done something to displease her, that she would "got his hamstrings cut across for him" He was found dead shortly afterwards with his hams cut across. This of course exacted suspicion against the woman. She was tried and on being put to the torture confessed and was executed. A person was however soon after taken into custody for some other offense, who confessed he was the murderer in the case above cited, that happening to be passing he heard the woman's threats, and conceived the idea of committing the crime, knowing that the woman's bad character and threats would tell against her.
4th, The tendency of a threat or declaration is to frustrate its own accomplishment. By threating you, a man puts you on your guard. Every man is presumed innocent until the contrary be proved, and if a reasonable doubt as to his guilt shall exist he must have the benefit of it. This is an important principal and the presumption it carries has not been set aside in this case. No one saw the setting on fore. No one knows to a certainly how or by whom the same was done. Circumstances may point to the unfortunate prisoner, but surely these circumstances do not preclude the possibility of a doubt, for the fire may have been committed to the ship by accident or by some other person as shown above. There were other persons in and about the shaft alley only an hour or so before the fire. It may have resulted from some slow match or other combustible placed there long before.
The inference to be drawn from all the facts must be a reasonable and natural one and to a moral certainly, a certain one. It is not sufficient that it is probable only, it must be reasonable and morally certain.
It has been often said that circumstances cannot lie, very true, but witnesses can and may, and how do we find out circumstances but by witnesses?
A case once occurred in Mississippi some years ago, which is reported by Wharton in his excellent work, a young man named Boynton had been stopping some days at the house of a friend on a plantation on the Mississippi river.
One morning the master of the house was found murdered in a race brake near his house, by his side were found Boynton's pistols and in Boynton's hat in the room where he was then sleeping was found a paper which was known to have been a short time before in the pocket of the deceased. On this evidence Boynton was convicted and executed, though persisting in his innocence to the last.
Not many months afterwards, a man who ad been prowling about the neighborhood at the time was tried and convicted of murder in another state and under the gallows he confessed the murder for which Boynton had suffered, that he had taken Boynton's pistols from under his pillow and placed a paper from the dead man's pocket in his hat. See Wharton p 718 and 719 for this and other cases.
It occurs to him that there is a remarkable case related in scripture showing a conspiracy to which reference may not be improper, I mean the case of Susanna and the two Elders, contained in the history of Susannah, which is of course familiar to every one. He might also cite the case of Joseph and his brothers, where Joseph privately placed a silver cup in one of the sacks of his brothers, and after they had gone a long way on the journey, pursued and arrested them as thieves and brought them back. He might cite hundreds of cases of conviction of innocent persons on circumstantial evidence but deem it unnecessary in the case at bar.
Another point he had almost passed over. It must be remembered that the accused made no effort to escape from the vessel but remained and performed important service in quenching the fire.
Hoping the Court will duly consider the many doubts which arise, the heavy penalty the accused must undergo in case of conviction, the forfeit of his life and will bear in mind that 'It is better than ninety and nine guilty ones would go unpunished not that one innocent man should sufferer, and trusting a favorable declaration, the case is respectfully submitted.
Patrick Dolan. Tweet