Mutiny on the Ulysses: Part 3-Trial of the Ulysses Mutineers
Mutiny on the Ulysses
Historical Trial Series by Eric Fryar
Part 3: Trial of the Ulysses Mutineers
In 1800, federal authorities tried five sailors for mutiny in one of the most famous trials of its day. In a virtual replay of the Mutiny on the Bounty, the sailors claimed that they had acted in self-defense against the abuse and murderous threats by the captain. On both sides of this high-profile case were the best lawyers in the county. Would the sailors hang?
Opening Statement for the Prosecution
The government then proceeded with its opening statement. The official case report says nothing of the opening statements for either side, but these would also have been short and simple. Attorneys were not permitted to argue their case in opening or to go into great detail about the facts. The purpose of the opening was to give the jury a short roadmap of what was expected to be proven and what evidence would be presented. It was the practice that when there was more than one attorney, the junior attorney would deliver the opening. Therefore, U.S. Attorney John Davis gave the prosecution’s opening statement.
The area in the courtroom between the counsel tables and the bench, and bordered on one side by the jury box, is called the well. It is sacred space. No lawyer can enter the well to approach a witness or the bench without the permission of the court. The only exception is when a lawyer is making an opening statement or a closing argument. Then the lawyer stands in the well, in front of the jury, and addresses the jury directly.
John Davis stepped from behind the table where he was sitting, entered the well, faced the jury, and began his opening statement.
“Gentlemen of the Jury, it is my painful task to lay before you the law on which the indictment is based and the evidence supporting the charges.” Davis explained that a sailor’s duty to obey and respect the captain’s authority was imposed by law, that any revolt was a violation of federal statute and punishable as a crime. Davis then outlined the facts of the case. Davis’s address was straight forward. As far as the prosecution was concerned, this was an open and shut case. The five prisoners had led the crew to revolt against their captain. They had locked him in irons, confined him to his cabin, and taken over the ship. Davis informed the jury that they would hear from Captain Lamb, seamen Robertson and Fields, Captain Rowan, and several other witnesses. He described the chronology of events, the offenses with which the defendants were charged, and what he expected the evidence to establish.
Prosecution Witnesses
Then the prosecution put on its case. The official report gives very little information about the testimony in the trial, but it is possible to make a reasonable reconstruction of what must have happened based on the reported evidentiary rulings and the summation of the evidence in the closing arguments.
Captain David Lamb - Direct Examination
The first and most important witness for the prosecution was Captain Lamb. This was the moment the captain had been waiting for ever since his own crew first stuck a pistol in his face eighteen months before. Even though Captain Lamb clearly thought he was the victim, it was humiliating to have been unable to maintain discipline on his own vessel. He was there to tell his story, to salvage his reputation, to avenge himself particularly on John Salter. Captain Lamb was dressed in his very best. He was a gentleman of the Boston merchant class, equal to or superior in social rank to the jurors and the lawyers in the courtroom. He wanted everyone to see that he was dressed appropriately.
The examination of Captain Lamb and the other witnesses would seem familiar to lawyers of today. Legal historian Lawrence Friedman wrote that “the rhythm of witnesses and cross-examination—these have remained fundamentally unaltered. … [However, w]itnesses apparently had a good deal of leeway to tell their stories uninterrupted; there was less fussing over minor points of evidence than would be true today, less shadowboxing over rules of procedure.” One minor difference: Witnesses actually stood to testify in the witness “stand,” a waist-high, three-sided wooden structure facing the lawyers next to the judge’s bench.
Captain Lamb raised his right hand, and District Clerk Goodale swore him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Harrison Gray Otis rose to begin his questioning. Otis stood behind the counsel table where he could see his notes spread out on the table and addressed the witness. On direct examination, the attorney is not permitted to “lead” the witness, to ask questions that suggest the answer, so the questions were open-ended and general. The idea was to direct the witness to tell his story in his own words.
“State your name for the Court.”
“Captain David Lamb”
“Captain Lamb, were you the master of the Ulysses on its most recent voyage?”
“I was.”
“Who were the owners of the Ulysses?”
“Myself, together with Mr. Joshua Loring, Mr. Benjamin Goddard, Mr. Robert Williams, Mr. Henry Bass, and Mr. Barzillai Holmes.”
Otis had Lamb give some personal background and summarize his career, particularly his service on the Margaret. Afterwards, he continued his questions.
“Are you acquainted with the prisoners?”
“I am.”
“Tell the Court how you are acquainted with the prisoner John Salter.”
“He was the first mate aboard the Ulysses.”
“And how are you acquainted with the prisoner John Carnes?”
“He was the second mate aboard the Ulysses?”
“And the prisoner Bruce?”
“Third mate.”
“And the prisoners Smith and Bullock?”
“Ordinary seamen aboard the Ulysses.”
“What was the object of the most recent voyage of the Ulysses?”
“We were to trade for sea otter furs on the Northwest Coast of America, then to proceed to Canton to trade for tea, and then to return to Boston.”
“Would this voyage involve the circumnavigation of the globe?”
“It would.”
“How long did you anticipate such a voyage would take?”
“Two years.”
John Salter watched the captain intently but then glanced at his lawyers. John was alarmed to see that Parsons seemed to be absent-mindedly staring at the ceiling. In fact, Parsons was fully engaged, deeply concentrating on David Lamb’s every word. He was listening for any exaggeration, any omission, any untruth that he could prove through his own witnesses. On cross-examination, Parsons would have to show the jury who David Lamb really was, a cruel tyrant, a dangerous despot who cared nothing for the lives of the sailors under his command, but his most important task would be to cast doubt on Lamb’s credibility as a witness, to chip away at the story that was being carefully laid by the prosecution.
“Is this journey considered a hazardous and difficult one?”
“Yes, very much so.”
“And how important is it to have a captain with the skill and experience such as you have for such a journey?”
“Very important.”
“And how important is it that the crew perform their duties on such a lengthy voyage?”
“It is vital.”
Otis walked Lamb through the progress of the voyage. One of the most troubling facts from the prosecution’s point of view was Lamb’s abandonment of the ship's boy, Charles Read, on St. Jago. Otis had Lamb explain that he had made it quite clear to all the sailors that the boat would leave when the water casks were filled, that he had given the lad every opportunity to return before leaving, that he was under orders from the governor to depart before nightfall on pain of being fired upon, that had he waited he might have missed the wind, and that the enormous responsibility he bore to the owners for the success of the voyage compelled him to act as he did. Another troubling fact was the abandonment of the gunner on the Falkland Islands. Otis had Lamb explain that the gunner was strongly suspected of stealing food, not only by the captain but by the crew who had complained to the captain, and that leaving the gunner on the island had been at his own request.
Then Otis turned to the degrading of John Salter. “Why did you find it necessary to turn the prisoner John Salter before the mast?”
“It was done based on his misconduct as an officer.”
“What misconduct was that?”
“I found him sleeping during his watch.”
John Salter had been forced to listen to the captain’s story in stony silence. Now every fiber of his being wanted to cry out, “Liar!” John was desperate to tell the jury his side of it. That buffoon almost wrecked the ship! That ogre abandoned crew members and threatened to do it again! John had had no choice but to take over command for the safety of the ship and crew. But John remained seated and did no more than murmur a few words under his breath.
Otis continued: “Prior to degrading John Salter, was there ever any inkling among the crew of disloyalty or disobedience?”
“Never.”
“What happened after the degrading?”
“Mr. Salter began to poison the minds of the crew against me, telling them that I would kill any man I caught sleeping on their watch and other villainous stories.”
Parsons quickly got to his feet and objected that this testimony was plainly hearsay, that Captain Lamb could not have been present when the alleged statements were made and could not know their content except through the statements of others who have not testified. Hearsay is testimony by a witness of someone else’s statement where the person who made the statement is not in court to testify and be cross-examined. If offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, hearsay is inadmissible. The Court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard the testimony.
Justice Cushing then elaborated on the ruling that it was not permitted that witnesses should testify what others said of the defendants unless the witness was present. Testimony of statements made by the defendants would be admissible, but it was not permitted to testify what others said respecting expressions used by defendants unless the witness also heard the expressions. In particular, what others said when the defendants were not present to contradict them is no testimony. But if the defendants, before the accusation, were said to have used certain expressions, which they did not deny, it is good evidence, because it is a confession that they did utter the expressions. Captain Lamb’s testimony about what John Salter allegedly said to other crewmembers was not a confession by Salter and could not be received as evidence.
“Tell the jury what happened on the 30th of April 1799.”
“On the thirtieth day of April, between the hours of three and five in the afternoon, we were within four or five leagues of the Queen Charlottes Islands on the Northwest Coast of America. I was on the quarterdeck, sitting on the starboard bulwark by the companion way, viewing of the land. Suddenly four stout men of my crew violently fixed upon me and seized me from behind round my body and arms, and the others grasped my hands. They told me I was their prisoner and no longer commander of the ship. The rest of the crew came aft at the same time. I was accordingly surprised and alarmed at this violent treatment and asked them if they knew what they were doing, and if I had given them any cause to take my ship from me. They replied they were in danger of their lives. I asked them in what respect, whether I had threatened any of them, or had had differences with them since leaving the Falkland Islands. They answered no, but that they were most insistent and again repeated that they were in fear of their lives. One said that he wanted his seven pounds of bread a week; another wanted rum; another more molasses; another more chocolate. I asked them who was going to command the ship, they answered that they had got a commander for her, upon which John Salter stepped aft on the quarterdeck. Mr. Salter had come with me as chief officer, and I had broken him from his office and turned forward among the people. The crew all told him to take command of the ship. He immediately walked to the weather side of the quarterdeck and ordered me to be instantly put in irons and said that he was a navigator and that I knew it, and that he had commanded on a bigger ship than this. I asked him then what he was going to do with the ship. His answer was that he was going to get a cargo of skins for the owners. I asked them if they would let me have the privilege of my cabin, they told me yes but that it was not yet ready, they being employed in bringing the muskets and pistols upon deck. I waited a few minutes and then went down into the cabin. John Slater followed me and two or three of the people with a pair of hand cuffs and they immediately put my hands into them. Salter said it was best to be safe as I was a very powerful man, on which they ordered me into my state room, locked the door, shut the window, and placed a Sentry over me with a loaded pistol and a cutlass. I heard Mr. Bruce order the sentry to blow my brains out if I should so much as peak out the window. They put in a bucket for me to do my occasions in, and I was most stifled in the effluvia of my own excrements. I remained in that situation four days on which I begged them to let me have the window open for the benefit of the air and the privilege of going to the necessary in the cabin, both of which were granted in this situation."
Otis followed up to emphasize the individual roles of the defendants: Smith and Bullock seizing him, Bruce taking charge of him as a prisoner and threatening him with a pistol, Salter commanding everything.
Otis then introduced the document signed by the crew agreeing to the mutiny and stating their reasons. Captain Lamb identified the document as one that John Salter had presented to him and testified that the document bore the signature or mark of every crew member indicating that they had joined the mutiny. Parsons did not object, and Justice Cushing admitted the exhibit into evidence, and Otis read its contents to the jury. This piece of evidence was a double-edged sword for the prosecution. It conclusively proved the crime, but it also established the reasons why the crew had acted. Otis knew that Parsons and Ames would claim that the reasons stated on the document justified the mutiny. Otis was counting on the captain’s testimony to head that off.
“Is there any truth to the allegations stated in this document?”
“None whatsoever.”
“Are you an intemperate drinker?”
“Absolutely not.”
“Was there any basis for the crew to fear for their lives?”
“No.”
“Was there any crewman abandoned on the Northwest Coast?”
“None whatsoever.”
“Did you have any intention to do so?”
“No sir, I did not.”
“How long were you confined by your crew?”
“Eleven days.”
“During which time, were you able to perform your duties as captain?”
“No, sir.”
“Who commanded the ship?”
“John Salter.”
“How is it that you regained your freedom?”
“I remained a captive until the eleventh in the afternoon. We were in Tattiskee Harbour in company with the ship Eliza, commanded by Captain James Rowan, and the Despatch, commanded by Captain William Breck. These gentlemen came on board to see me and to accommodate matters, upon which I told them I would agree to anything that should be proposed. Upon which by Salters permission I was released from my stateroom and had the liberty and leave given me to go onto the Eliza where I found John Salter. While on board in the course of the conversation with Salter, I told him he had treated me very cruelly; his answer was that I had brought it on myself. I went down then into the cabins after being there a few minutes down came Salter and Captain Rowan. Salter then said Captain Lamb, I am a gentleman and you know it, and I will give you a gentleman’s satisfaction immediately if you will go on Shore with me about the dueling field. I replied I shall do no such thing: when you get to Boston, the law will satisfy you and if that won’t, I will. The discussion then ceased till after breakfast, when we went on deck. Salter then came to me and said: Captain Lamb, there is your ship, go and take her if you please. I have nothing more to do with her: I replied that I will not receive her in a mutinous situation. You must deliver her to me in the same situation she was in when you took her. He replied he should have nothing further to do with her, I might take her and deal with her as I pleased. He then went on board the Ulysses and soon returned on board the Eliza again. Mr. Carnes and Mr. Bruce in five minutes after also came on board of the Eliza, but no communication passed between me and them. Soon after Captain Rowan, Captain Breck, Mr. Kendrick and myself went on board the Ulysses and called the crew aft. We asked them if they had any objections to my taking the command of the ship and them doing their duty. They answered no provided they could be upon the same terms they were before the mutiny, upon which I told them they should live as well as the ship could afford. They replied they wanted no more. I then told them that they had been deceived by Mr. Salter. They said Salter was the first one to propose it and that had led them into the course and had been the first to flinch from it, or words to that effect. I asked them if I had had any differences with them since we left the Falkland Islands, they answered I had not, and they said that I should not then have treated them ill had it not been for Salter. I told them that I was very well convinced that they had been deluded by Salter, that I never had had any occasion to complain of them except at the Falkland Islands, that I freely forgive them provided they would return to their duty like good men: and never make any more disturbance on board the ship, and as a proof of my sincerity, I would come under an obligation to secure to them all the rights and privileges engaged to them in the Articles of Agreement signed in Boston. This they agreed to one and all. Upon which I took possession of the ship. I ordered them to several employments in ships duty which they willingly went about as usual in these. With the advice of the captains and officers of the ships Eliza and Dispatch, I took Salter on board the ship and confined him in the same stateroom myself was a prisoner in. Captain Rowan agreed to take one of the former officers in his vessel, and Captain Breck the other.”
Feeling that he had adequately established both the revolt and the confinement as stated in the indictment, Otis concluded his direct examination.
Captain David Lamb - Cross Examination
Mr. Parsons rose to cross-examine. Cross-examination is entirely different from direct examination. The principal tool is the leading question, which is really a statement to which the witness must answer “yes” or “no.” Through a series of leading questions the cross-examiner attempts to box the witness in and force the witness to admit a fact that is damaging to the witness’ case. Many times, the cross-examiner does not even care if the witness refuses to admit the question. The question itself is important and communicates to the jury the story the cross-examining attorney intends to tell. Parsons locked his eyes on David Lamb. He would confront Lamb with the truth. He would destroy the Lamb’s story about what happened. Lamb felt uncomfortable, but also confident that he was in the right. Parsons started with what he thought was the strongest evidence for his case, the paper signed by all the sailors stating the reasons for the mutiny.
“Captain Lamb, do you feel that a competent master should be able to preserve discipline aboard his vessel?
“I do.”
“How then do you explain that all of your officers and all of your crew should have signed an agreement that you were not competent to command the ship?”
“It wasn’t me. It was John Salter poisoning their minds until they were all worked up to sign that paper.”
“Do you deny, sir, that through your negligence or incompetence, the ship almost ran aground off Tierra del Feugo?”
“I deny that.”
“The ship did very nearly run aground off Tierra del Fuego, did it not?”
“Yes.”
“As captain, you were responsible for the navigation of the ship, were you not?”
“I was.”
“Shortly before that exigency, Mr. Salter informed you that you had miscalculated the position of the ship.”
“My calculations were carefully and expertly performed. I knew exactly what was the position of the vessel.”
“Are you saying, sir, that you intentionally sailed your ship so close to the rocks that she almost ran aground?”
“No. I’m not saying that.”
“I put it to you, sir, that your poor seamanship nearly caused the destruction of the ship.” It was common in 1800 to hurl accusations at the witness during cross-examination and force the witness to respond. This technique is still seen in English courts but rarely today in America where the theory of cross examination resists allowing the witness the freedom to answer as he pleases.
David Lamb turned a deep red in the face. No one had ever addressed him like that before. If one of his men had shown such impudence, he would have given him thirty lashes. Lamb suppressed his emotion and slowly answered: “That is not true.”
“How then do you explain the emergency?
“I was not at the helm. When I was alerted of the danger, I acted instantly to save the ship. Had it not been for me, she would most certainly have perished.”
“And yet, if the ship had not been dangerously close to the coast, there would have been no need to save her. Isn’t that true?”
“No, sir. My navigation was sound. These are dangerous waters, sir. I saved the ship.”
“Do you deny that you consume intemperate amounts of distilled spirits on board ship?”
“I deny that.”
“Will you admit that you do partake of distilled spirits aboard ship?”
“Of course, all seamen receive a daily ration of spirits, including the captain.”
“You do not dilute the spirits you drink yourself, isn’t that true?”
“Grog is for ordinary sailors, not for ships’ captains.”
“And you consume those spirits with your officers?”
“I do”
“And you occasionally consume those spirits to excess?”
“Never.”
“You know that your officers and your men have seen you drunk, don’t you sir.” Again, Lamb felt his blood boiling.
“No, sir. That is not true.”
“Do you deny threatening to abandon members of your crew amongst the savages on the Northwest Coast?”
“I deny that.”
“How then do you explain that all of your officers and crew heard you make that exact threat?”
“It was all John Salter telling villainous stories about me. I never said that.”
“And all of your officers and crew signed a document attesting that you had threatened their lives.”
“So they said.”
“You have no explanation of what that threat was?"
“I do not.”
Here Parsons thought he had the captain. The document signed by the crew proved that the threats were made. Every sailor who would testify would confirm that Captain Lamb had threatened to abandon crew members on the Northwest Coast. The captain could not deny that he had abandoned two crewmembers early in the voyage. Lamb was a liar, and Parsons would be able to show that to the jury.
Parsons then zeroed in on Lamb’s greatest weakness, the abandonment of the ship’s boy Charles Read on St. Jago. “The lad Charles Read was a young man of respectable connections, was he not?”
“Yes.”
“And he was entrusted to your care.”
“He was a seaman. He signed on to serve the ship same as any other.”
“And you left him at an immense distance from his home amongst strangers?”
“He didn’t return to the boat. I had no choice.”
“St. Jago is far distant from Boston, isn’t it sir?”
“Yes.”
“And you did leave young Read in this far distant place.”
“Yes.”
“Did Read know the language spoken on St. Jago?”
“I don’t know.”
“Did Read have money to pay for his sustenance?"
“I don’t know.”
“Your crew applied to you to return for him.”
“Yes.”
“And you neglected to mention that fact in your testimony, didn’t you?”
“I suppose so.”
“They pleaded with you, and you refused.”
“I could not go back.”
Parsons stepped around counsel table to confront the witness. He was encroaching on the well. This was an aggressive move for which he could have been admonished by the judge. Parsons glared at Lamb: “In fact, sir, you cursed poor Read. You said that you would not go back if he were your own brother.”
“I have no memory of that.”
“How was this lad supposed to get home?”
“Ships stop in St. Jago frequently. I was sure that he could find another berth with another ship.”
Parsons then turned to the abandonment of the gunner in the Falklands. He would have forced Lamb to admit that he acted only on suspicion that the gunner was stealing food. There was no proof. The gunner did not admit to the theft. There was no formal process before he was put off the ship on the island.
“The island on which you left him is a Spanish prison?”
“Yes.”
“There are just a few soldiers and the governor aside from the prisoners?”
“Yes”
“How was he supposed to provide for himself?”
“I don’t know.”
“How was he supposed to get home?”
“Ships often stop there to obtain water.”
“What was he supposed to eat in the meantime?”
“There are cattle, ducks, and geese in abundance.”
“And did he have the means to kill a duck or capture a cow?”
“I don’t know.”
“Well, sir, did you furnish him with a firearm and powder from the ship?”
“No.”
“Then what was he supposed to eat?”
“Penguins, I suppose. I don’t know. It was what he wanted.”
“And after you abandoned the ship’s boy and the ship’s gunner on far away islands, you threatened to do the same to your other crewmembers.”
“I did not.”
“If you had made that threat, they most certainly would have believed you.”
“I don’t know what they would have thought. I never said it.”
There is little a lawyer can do when a witness is willing to outright lie in cross-examination, other than to lock him emphatically into that position and later prove the truth through other witnesses. Parsons knew that every sailor would testify that Captain Lamb did make those threats. Parsons was banking on the jury believing the sailors and coming to the conclusion that Lamb was a liar. Parsons then focused on what he believed was Lamb’s biggest mistake in his direct examination testimony.
“Mr. Lamb, you testified to my bother Otis that the crew never gave any inkling of disobedience or disloyalty prior to the degrading of Mr. Salter, correct?"
“Yes.”
“In fact, sir, you severely punished three men when the ship was at the Falkland Islands, isn’t that true?”
“Yes.”
“You failed to mention that fact in your testimony, didn’t you?”
“I was not asked about that.”
“Why did you punish the men?”
“They seemed to me to be evincing a mutinous spirit, and it was my duty to suppress that immediately.”
“So this was an inkling of disloyalty and disobedience on the part of those men, was it not?”
“Yes, but we never had any trouble after that until the mutiny.”
“And this was many days before you turned Mr. Salter before the mast, wasn’t it?”
“Yes.”
“You did not tell the truth to this court and this jury in your testimony, did you?”
“Yes, I did. I just forgot about those three men.”
Having stuck the knife into the witness, Parsons now attempted to twist it to maximum effect.” “The men you punished didn’t actually disobey one of your orders, did they?"
“No. Not specifically.”
“You just didn’t like the way they carried out your orders?”
“They were insolent. They were disrespectful.”
“And so you beat them.”
“Yes”
“Severely”
“I’ve seen much harsher punishments.”
“That is your idea of just treatment of your men.”
“My men have their duties, and I have mine.”
“Had you been drinking on that day?”
“That had nothing to do with it”
Parsons then took Lamb through the dispute between himself and Salter.
“Do you agree that Mr. Salter was competent in navigation.”
“Somewhat.”
“If he had not been competent, he would not have been hired to be chief mate.”
“I thought he was competent when I signed him on.”
“If anything were to happen to the captain, the first mate would have to be able to navigate the ship.”
“Yes.”
“And one of the reasons you hired Mr. Salter as your chief mate was his ability to navigate the ship if anything should happen to you.”
“Yes.”
“Mr. Salter was able to use navigational instruments.”
“Yes.”
“He took readings to determine latitude and longitude.”
“Yes.”
“His calculations of the ship’s position sometimes differed from your own.”
“That is not unusual.”
“Sir, I put it to you, that his calculations were more accurate than your own.”
“They were not!”
“In fact, you and Mr. Salter had repeated disagreements about the calculation of the ship’s position.”
“Yes.”
“These disagreements were voiced within the hearing of the crew.”
“Yes.”
“One of these disagreements occurred immediately after the ship nearly foundered off Tierra del Fuego.”
“Yes.”
“And the very next day is when you chose to degrade Mr. Salter and turn him before the mast.”
“Yes.”
“I put it to you, sir, that your actions were motivated by jealousy and revenge for Mr. Salter’s having been correct about the ship’s position and your having been in error.”
“That is not true. He was caught sleeping on his watch.”
Parsons ran through the episode of the mutiny in very summary fashion—the weakest portion of the case for his clients. Then he began on a new topic.
“When you regained control of the vessel, you confined John Salter below deck."
“Yes”
“In fact, sir, it was not in his cabin, as you testified. You confined in the sail room in the hold, didn’t you.”
“He was moved below.”
“You clapped him in irons.”
“Yes.”
“Hands and feet.”
“Yes.”
“You limited him to bread and water.”
“Yes.”
“You were accustomed to go down and taunt him and declare that he would hang.”
At this point, Otis rose and objected to the relevance of this line of questioning. Parsons responded that it was his intention to show the cruelty and malicious character of Captain Lamb, which motivated the conduct of the crew and on which the defense of justification was based.
Otis countered: “But this is after the captain’s reinstatement. If this might be done, it would be equally proper, to enter into his general character, through every period of his life.”
The Court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard all testimony on matters after Captain Lamb’s reinstatement.
With that, Parsons concluded his cross-examination. John Salter smiled. He believed that his lawyer had destroyed Captain Lamb. He anxiously scanned the faces of the jury. Some seemed troubled. Most gave no indication of their feelings.
Captain David Lamb - Redirect Examination
Otis immediately rose for redirect examination. He had some damage to repair.
“Was it your intention to leave St. Jago without Charles Read?”
“No, sir. It was not. He left and could not be found”
“What did you do to attempt to locate this sailor?”
“We called; we searched. I sent two sailors to look for him. I waited as long as I could.”
“Why was it necessary to leave him?”
“The success of the voyage is of utmost importance. Every man on board knows this. Every man on board has a tremendous responsibility to the owners. We were under curfew and had to return to the ship. Had we returned to the island we would have been fired on. Then the winds turned fair. The crew was in liquor. It was necessary to sail. Had we delayed another day, we would have missed the wind. We would certainly have been delayed. We might have been exposed to weather. We might have been exposed to shipwreck. The success of the voyage supersedes the importance of one member of the crew. It was my duty to proceed as I did.”
“On the Falkland Islands you administered corporal punishment to three of the crew. Why did you do that?"
“They were defiant of my authority, mutinous, disrespectful. It was necessary to maintain the discipline of the ship.”
“As captain, were you within your legal prerogatives to act as you did?”
“Absolutely. It was not only my right to punish those men, but it was also my duty.”
“Explain whether you believed the punishment was effective?”
“Yes. Discipline was restored. I had no disagreements with the crew for the next four months. It was only after John Salter went to the forecastle that the crew was deluded and led into revolt.”
“And to what do you attribute Mr. Salter’s actions.”
“Revenge, sir. Salter could not stand the fact that he had been justly disciplined and turned before the mast. He was determined to avenge himself on me. He plotted against me. He deceived the crew. Even after the mutiny was defeated, he challenged me to a duel.”
Otis kept it short. Undoubtedly Parsons had scored some points, but it was impossible to address everything. Overall, Otis felt that Lamb had weathered the cross-examination fairly well and that his case was still solid—the defendants had revolted and confined their captain.
Sailor Peter Robertson
Next Davis called seaman Peter Robertson to the stand. Robertson was one of two members of the Ulysses crew willing to testify for the captain. He had written out a statement for Captain Lamb very shortly after the captain’s reinstatement that was largely complementary of the captain and critical of Salter. On direct examination, Davis went through the story of the voyage and the mutiny. Robertson testified that Read had been told to return and had been given every opportunity to do so, that the entire crew suspected the gunner of stealing food and had threatened him, that the gunner himself had requested to be left at the Falklands, that he had never seen the captain drunk and did not believe him to be intemperate, that the captain had always treated the crew professionally, that Robertson never felt in fear for his life and did not believe anyone on the crew had reason to do so, and that after John Salter had joined the crew in the forecastle, he had relentlessly talked down the captain and stirred up to crew to mutiny.
Ames rose to cross-examine. The first thing he did was to confront Robertson with the paper he had signed that stated both that the captain was intemperate and that the crew feared for its life.
“Is that your signature?”
“Yes.”
“You agreed in this document that the captain was intemperate.”
“Yes.”
“You agreed that the captain could not guide the ship.”
“Yes.”
“You agreed in this document that you were afraid for your life.”
“Yes.”
“Those things are true, aren’t they, sir?”
“No, Sir.”
“Why did you sign this if it was not true?”
“Everyone signed it. I was afraid not to.”
Ames would have forced Robertson to admit that he, like the rest of the crew, did not agree with the decision to leave Read and that he personally was concerned about what would become of the lad. Robertson had to admit that Captain Lamb and Mr. Salter had repeated arguments in the hearing of the crew about the navigation of the ship. Robertson had to admit that he feared for his life when the ship almost crashed on the rocks off Tierra del Fuego, that the ship was obviously in the wrong place, that Mr. Salter had accused Captain Lamb of endangering the ship, and that the very next day Captain Lamb had degraded Mr. Salter. Ames insisted that Robertson had heard Captain Lamb threaten crew members with throwing them overboard or leaving them on the Northwest Coast among the savages. Robertson admitted that this was true but claimed that he had never taken these threats seriously. Ames was also aware that Robertson had given a statement to the American Consul in Canton, a statement that was strongly at odds with his testimony and more in line with what Ames knew the other sailors would testify.
Ames asked, “Mr. Robertson, we have all heard the story you told today. What story did you tell the Consul?”
Davis objected, and the Court ruled that the question was illegal because it called for the witness to incriminate himself.
Finally, Ames asked Robertson, “Do you deny that Captain Lamb is paying for your testimony?”
“He is not.”
Ames then forced Robertson to concede that he had been taking money from the captain for the preceding three months.
On redirect examination, Davis would have established that Robertson had only been paid his living expenses so that he could afford to stay for the trial, that he was under no compulsion to testify, and that he would not otherwise have been able to stay in Boston until the trial.
Davis then sought to introduce the statement that Robertson had given to Captain Lamb to corroborate his testimony. Ames objected. The Court ruled that the statement would be admitted as to those circumstances on which the witness had testified. The Court further ruled: “Evidence to show, that a witness has given an account of a transaction, in a manner similar to what he has testified, is good corroboration of his testimony. And so vice versa.” That the Court would keep out Robertson’s prior inconsistent statement and yet admit his prior consistent statement seems most unfair, and the ruling would almost certainly be the opposite under the Rules of Evidence today, but in 1800 the privilege against self-incrimination was taken extremely seriously and sometimes engendered odd results.
Recess for the Day
It was quite late in the day on Friday by the time the testimony of the first two witnesses was complete. It was not at all unusual for courts in that day to remain in session after midnight. The Court recessed the trial until nine o’clock the following morning.
That night Parsons continued to be intrigued by the implications of Justice Cushing’s ruling on the motion for separate trial. He had read the Crimes Act of 1790 many times. He had read the Constitution of the United States countless times. He read them both again. The Constitution stated that Congress had the power to define and punish piracies and felonies on the high seas. The definition of a felony in the common law was an offense punishable by death. Revolting in an American ship under Section 8 of the Act was clearly both a felony and punishable by death. Yet the Court had ruled that the case would proceed solely under Section 12. Offenses under Section 12 were not punishable by death and were not defined as felonies. They must be misdemeanors. Yet nowhere in the Constitution was Congress given the power to define and punish misdemeanors on the high seas—only felonies and piracy. Section 12 was unconstitutional. It was a nullity. Congress had no power to define and punish misdemeanors on the high seas. The portion of the Act under which Parsons’ clients were charged was no crime. They should walk free. Parsons felt that he now had an ace up his sleeve that he would play at the appropriate time.
Sailor Benjamin Field
The next morning, Davis called Benjamin Field, another sailor on the Ulysses who was willing to testify against his shipmates. His testimony was not much different from that of Peter Robertson.
Captain James Rowan - Direct Examination
Otis then called Captain James Rowan of the Eliza to the stand.
“State your name to the Court.”
“Captain James Rowan.”
“Were you the master of the merchant ship Eliza?”
“I was.”
“Did the Eliza encounter the Ulysses on the Northwest Coast of America?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Explain to the jury the circumstances of that encounter.”
Captain Rowan explained that the Eliza was on the Coast trading for sea otter skins, same as the Ulysses, and had sailed into Kaigani Harbor on the morning of May 9, 1799, and found the Despatch together with the Ulysses. Rowan had learned that the Ulysses was in a state of mutiny and that Captain Lamb was confined to his state room.
“Did you speak to the prisoner John Salter?”
“Yes, I did.”
“And did the prisoner confirm the revolt aboard the ship?”
“Yes, he did.” “
Tell us what the prisoner said to you.”
Rowan recounted his conversations with Salter, that Salter held himself out as captain of the Ulysses and controlled access to his prisoner David Lamb.
“Explain how Captain Lamb was restored to command.”
Rowan recounted the events of the following days, his interviews with David Lamb, his negotiations with Salter, his determination to fire on the Ulysses, and the crew’s agreement to reinstate the captain. This was critical testimony for the prosecution. It not only established the mutiny but showed that the mutiny was quelled only under threat of force.
“Did you have occasion to witness Captain Lamb interacting with his crew?
“Yes, sir.”
“Did you ever witness Captain Lamb mistreat his crew or take any action beyond what was necessary to maintain discipline aboard ship?”
“I did not.”
“Tell the jury what how Captain Lamb treated his recently-mutinied crew when command of the ship was restored to him.”
“He declared a general amnesty. He pardoned every crewmember except the ringleaders.”
Otis then had Rowan explain how Salter and the other mutineers were taken into custody and transported to Canton where the United States Consul issued warrants for their arrest and had them returned to Boston.
Captain James Rowan - Cross Examination
Parsons rose to cross-examine.
“Did John Salter explain to you why the crew had deposed the captain?”
Otis had opened the door for this critical testimony. Parsons could now present to the jury the defense’s theory of justification with a witness who was not particularly hostile. Rowan explained Salter’s allegations against Captain Lamb: his drinking, his incompetence, the near loss of the ship at Tierra del Fuego, his abandonments of crewmembers, his threats against the safety of his men.
“Did Mr. Salter explain to you that Captain Lamb had abandoned Charles Read, the ship’s boy, at St. Jago?”
“Yes, he did.”
“Did Mr. Salter explain to you that young Charles Read did not speak the language, did not have any way to provide for himself, and did not have any way to get home?”
“No, Mr. Salter did not go into the details of the incident.” Of course, Parsons did not care about this answer. The jury, having heard the question, would understand that those were the facts. They would remember the grilling that David Lamb went through on those very facts. Parsons was hoping that the jury would be revolted by Lamb’s conduct, come to detest Lamb as a person, understand how his crew had felt about him, and be sympathetic to their eventual decision to revolt.
“Have you, sir, in your career as a ship’s captain ever had occasion to abandon a ship’s boy on a far away island with no way to provide for himself?”
“No, sir, I have not.”
“When you learned from Mr. Salter that this had in fact happened, did you approve of Captain Lamb’s conduct?”
“No, sir, I cannot say that I approved of it.”
David Lamb, listening to this testimony, was outraged. That man had never had to deal with the difficult situation that he had confronted. Lamb had not wanted to leave the boy. That good-for-nothing had run away. The mission of the voyage came first. What else could he have done?
Theophilus Parsons felt that he had struck the nail on the head. He now drove the point home. Through his questions, Parsons reinforced Lamb’s cruelty to his crew, reminded the jury of the second abandonment of the gunner on the Falkland Islands, and most importantly cemented in everyone’s minds David Lamb’s repeated threats to maroon other crewmembers on the Northwest Coast.
Captain James Rowan - Redirect Examination
Otis rose for his redirect examination.
“Captain Rowan, after Mr. Salter made all these despicable allegations against his captain, you still resolved to restore Captain Lamb to his command, even to the point of using force if necessary. Is that not true?”
“Yes, sir. It is.”
“Tell the jury why.”
“I did not view Mr. Salter’s allegations as justifying a mutiny against the lawful authority of a captain aboard a ship of the United States of America.”
Parsons winced, then quickly tried to hide any reaction from the jury. This, of course, was the crux of the entire case. It was only one man’s opinion, and Parsons had to hope that he had done enough damage to Captain Lamb for the jury to disagree with Captain Rowan. Otis passed the witness. Parsons asked no further questions.
Remaining Prosecution Evidence
After Rowan stepped down, Davis sought to introduce two documents, the official ship’s log and the journal that John Salter had kept during the mutiny. Ames objected to both. As to the ship’s log, Ames argued that this was the record of the captain and could not be used to prove anything against his clients. Almost certainly there were portions of the log, particularly after Salter’s arrest, that had to have been written by the captain. Davis argued that the log is kept by the first mate and may be used against Salter and is an official record of the ship. Davis had anticipated that this would be a point of contention, and Captain Lamb had arranged for two other captains, friends of his, to be waiting outside the courtroom. Davis now called each of these captains to the stand. Each of them testified that the ship’s log is kept by the first mate, that the logbook is always to be considered as a record of truth, that it is the duty of the mate to keep the log for the inspection of the owners of the ship, and that the mate is bound not to insert anything that is false, even if commanded by the captain. Davis argued that the logbook must be taken as the confession of John Salter. The Court admitted the document.
Davis’ decision to introduce John Salter’s personal journal was an interesting one. Nothing in the journal was complementary of Captain Lamb, but Davis must have thought that the clear admission of the basic facts of the revolt and confinement of the captain by the principal defendant could not be omitted. The Court ruled that the journal was admissible, but only against John Salter and instructed the jury that they must not consider the statements in the journal against any other defendant. Davis and Ames both read to the jury excerpts from the log and the journal that they believed helpful to their case.
The prosecution then had several minor witnesses to give additional background and tie up loose ends concerning the preparation of the Ulysses for the voyage, the hiring of the defendants, the care taken by Lamb and the other owners for the welfare of the crew. The prosecution called merchant Samuel Burling of Boston. The prosecution also called merchant Thomas Trot Robinson of Roxbury and wheelwright John Trash of Boston, both of whom had been subpoenaed only the day before trial. There would have been little or no cross examination of these minor witnesses, and their testimony did not warrant any comment in the closing arguments.
The prosecution did not call William Sturgis. Sturgis had been committed to sail as the first mate of the Caroline, a vessel owned by James and Thomas Lamb, shortly before trial began, and both the prosecution and the defense agreed to take his deposition and release him from his witness bond. The prosecution elected not to enter the deposition into evidence. The government rested.
Defense Opening Statement
The defense case started with a brief opening statement by Ames. He would have immediately conceded to the jury that the defendants did not deny that Captain Lamb had been relieved of duty and confined to his quarters, but Ames explained, the defense in this case was one of justification. Ames stated that he expected the testimony to establish that Captain Lamb had an explosive temper, made worse by intemperate consumption of alcohol. Furthermore, Ames said, the evidence would establish that Captain Lamb had endangered the safety of the ship, that Captain Lamb had retaliated against John Salter for nothing other than being right about the ship’s position. The evidence would show, he asserted, that Captain Lamb had repeatedly threatened the lives of the crew by claiming that he would throw them overboard or maroon them on a desert island or on the Northwest Coast. Then Ames would have explained in somewhat greater detail about the defense of justification, that the defendants’ fear for their safety justified their actions toward the captain, that the fear must be reasonable, and that he expected the evidence would show that Captain Lamb’s abandonment of the lad Read and of the gunner made his threats real and credible to the crew and made their fears reasonable. Ames stated that he expected the evidence to show that the crew had little choice but to remove Captain Lamb before someone else was marooned or killed. Ames also pointed out that the evidence would show that the crew was motivated solely by this concern because they continued the voyage, traded with the Indians, and protected the interests of the owners.
Witnesses for the Defense
Under the law at that time, witnesses with a personal stake in the controversy were not deemed competent to testify. In particular, a criminal defendant could not testify in his own defense. It was believed that a person charged with a crime would say anything, even under oath, to escape conviction. John Salter had been advised by his lawyers that that he and the other defendants could not testify. John must have been thinking now how unfair that was. Lamb had lied. The jury needed to hear the truth. John needed to tell his side of the story. Salter looked anxiously at Parsons, who did not acknowledge his presence. Parsons called one of John’s shipmates to the stand.
The official report of the trial does not give the names or number of defense witnesses, but from the general description, it is almost certain that David Hemmenway, Bart Jones, Henry Hutchins, John Randall, and John Amos. These crewmembers of the Ulysses had been indicted for the mutiny in federal court in Providence, Rhode Island, executed bonds, and returned to Boston. Perhaps one or two others also testified for the defense. These sailors had remained in Boston, unpaid, for almost three months, out of loyalty to their shipmates, but they also obviously hoped that a good result in this trial would help them when they faced their own trial in November.
Before Parsons could question his first witness, however, Otis objected to the testimony of any of the crew members. Otis claimed that the other crew members were not competent witnesses because they had an interest in the outcome of the trial. “Several were concerned in this revolt. Some who were concerned, and who are under bonds to answer in another district, but who were not indicted, have been offered to testify in behalf of the defendants. They have every inducement to swear, so as to clear these defendants, in the hope of receiving a similar return of kindness.” Otis was essentially arguing that all the mutineers were in the same situation. If the defendants were not competent to testify, then none of the other mutineers should be competent to testify. The Court determined that the witnesses were competent to testify and that their probable personal interests affected only their credibility, which was a matter for the jury to determine.
Parsons and Ames then called their series of witnesses, all of whom testified similarly. They all testified that they thought the captain was an intemperate drinker and that he had endangered the ship when they nearly crashed onto the rocks off Tierra del Fuego. They all explained that they were aware that the captain and Mr. Salter disagreed on the position of the ship, that the captain had disregarded Mr. Salter’s calculations, and that the ship had nearly been lost as a result. They all claimed that the captain had degraded Mr. Salter the very next day, seemingly out of jealousy and spite. They all testified that Captain Lamb had a ferocious temper, that they were horrified by the abandonment of Charles Read and the gunner, that the captain frequently threatened to do the same to other members of the crew or to heave them overboard, that they were in fear for their lives, and that that was why they had signed the document and removed the captain. They would all have testified that John Salter and the other defendants were good men and had only acted to protect the ship and crew and that they had every intention of completing the voyage and protecting the interests of the owners.
On cross-examination, each of the crew members would have had to admit that he could not be certain that he had ever actually seen the captain drunk, that his beliefs about his intemperance were influenced by the statements of Mr. Salter. They all had to admit that they knew nothing of navigation and had no idea whether it was the captain or Mr. Salter who was in error, but that when the ship was in danger, it was the captain who had acted decisively to save her—not the conduct of a drunkard. They all had to admit that, although Captain Lamb was a violent man and used the most intemperate language, they regarded his threats as passionate words, and that none of them personally ever believed that he was actually about to be thrown overboard or abandoned on an island. Some may have admitted to seeing John Salter occasionally doze off while on watch, as all of them had done from time to time. Finally, they all had to admit that John Salter was the instigator of the mutiny, that after he was degraded, he continually talked down the captain and stirred up the emotions and anxieties of the crew, and that he had told them that the law allowed them to replace the captain on a two-thirds vote—something they now realized was untrue.
At that time, the law prohibited the use of depositions in criminal trials except by mutual consent. A deposition is a written statement, made under oath, before a magistrate or other government official empowered to administer oaths. The defense had the deposition of another crewmember that was given before he left Boston. The defense moved to admit the deposition, pointing out that the defendants had no ability to detain the deponent and that the witness was not available to testify. The Court said that if the prosecution attorneys would not agree to the admission of the deposition, then the case would have to be continued. The Court quoted a similar determination by Lord Mansfield in which he asserted that if the deposition were not admitted, the cause should be continued forever. William Murray, First Earl of Mansfield, was a highly respected English jurist of the late eighteenth century. The prosecution agreed to admit the deposition, which Ames then read to the jury.
Next the defense offered the deposition of William Sturgis. Sturgis was no longer in Boston, having shipped out shortly before trial. It is not clear from the trial record what Sturgis had to say that was helpful to the defense, but it is clear that the defense wanted his testimony in the record, and the prosecution did not. Sturgis would have been able to testify by deposition generally to the orderly conduct of Salter and the mutineers and that Captain Lamb had a violent and volatile temper and was abusive when dealing with his crew. Captain Lamb must also have been concerned about Sturgis’ testimony; otherwise, James and Thomas Lamb would not have acted to get him out of town so quickly. Sturgis was deposed before a magistrate in Boston with both defense and prosecution attorneys in attendance. Davis objected to the use of this deposition but, being reminded that the case would otherwise have to be continued, he consented. However, he pointed out that there were additions to the deposition that had been made without his knowledge, and he objected to the additional material. The Court ruled that, although the additional material might be true, Mr. Davis had not had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, and the additions would not be admitted. Parsons read the Sturgis deposition to the jury, minus the additions.
Then the defense rested.
The presentation of evidence had started on the morning of Friday, October 24, 1800. It continued all day Saturday, October 25. No court was held on Sunday, October 26. Evidence resumed Monday morning October 27 and was completed by noontime.
Closing Arguments for the Prosecution
After lunch, the Court directed the lawyers to address the jury with their closing arguments. In a criminal trial, the prosecution both opens and closes the summations.
John Davis Closing
John Davis stood and faced the jury. The court reporter wrote: “Mr. Davis, with his usual and almost proverbial candor, recapitulated the evidence for the government.” This would have been fairly short. For Davis the issues in the case continued to be cut and dried. He reminded the jury of the charges in the indictment, that the government needed to prove that the defendants had confined their captain and endeavored to incite a revolt. These facts were not in doubt. Davis went through the testimony and urged the jury that the most credible witness was Captain Lamb who neither gained nor lost by his testimony as opposed to the defense witnesses who were all guilty of the same crime and hoped by their testimony to avoid prosecution. Davis concluded: “This revolt was entirely due to the actions of the prisoner John Salter and the other prisoners who were in league with him. Salter was not motivated by a concern for the ship and crew but by his own personal animosity against Captain Lamb who had justly disciplined him for his own misconduct. Salter continually denigrated the captain to his crew and worked them up into such a state that they were willing to follow him into mutiny. This was not difficult, as Mr. Hooker [Richard Hooker, a sixteenth-century English theologian] has said, ‘He that goes about persuading men they are not so well governed as they ought to be, will never want adherents.’”
Harrison Gray Otis Closing
Otis spoke next and “with equal eloquence, and with more candor, supported the prosecution.” Otis likely anticipated the defense arguments and went into an analysis of justification. He insisted that criminal action is only justified based on a reasonable fear of an imminent threat of harm. He pointed out that the evidence did not support the existence of a reasonable fear of imminent danger from the captain. Otis went back through the facts of Captain Lamb’s leaving of Charles Read and of the gunner to show that the captain was justified and acting in the best interest of the ship. He pointed out that the dispute between the captain and Salter gave Salter a motive to incite a revolt. He argued that whatever threats Captain Lamb uttered were mere words and no one did or reasonably could have believed that there was an imminent danger of being thrown overboard or left on a deserted island. The only fear that the crew felt was fear engendered by John Salter’s constant attempts to poison their minds and persuade them to abandon their duty. This he did not do to protect the crew and the ship but for his own personal motives to avenge his sense of humiliation at losing his position. He was successful. The crew followed Salter, Carnes, Bruce, Smith and Bullock. The crew revolted at their instigation. The crew confined the captain at their instruction. Only a verdict of guilty was possible. Otis warned the jury against being swayed from the clear facts of the case by the eloquence of the eminent counsel for the defense. He ended by reminding the jury of the importance of preserving the authority of captains over sailors, that the success of commerce in general and the safety of all ships and crews depended on the subordination, obedience, and devotion to duty of the ordinary seamen. If these defendants were to be acquitted, he asked, if this crew were to be permitted to mutiny with impunity, then what captain would ever be able to maintain discipline on board his ship?
Closing Arguments for the Defense
Fisher Ames Closing
Fisher Ames then rose to speak for the defense.
“I can with pleasure leave the cause in the hands of the jury, without attempting to influence either your hearts or understandings. I readily confess the necessity of subordination among sailors, but the acquittal of the defendants will not weaken the authority of masters. An acquittal will not restrain the preserving of discipline, but merely acts of cruelty. At most, it would be but an exception from the general rule, requiring subordination. The consequence of leaving sailors to the brutal ferocity of captains, would be piracy and death; it would be more fatal to the interests of commerce, than restraining ship government within strict and definite limits.
“I lay it down as a principle, that when men act from honest motives, they cannot be considered as criminals; and, if the defendants were really in fear of their lives, it sufficiently justified their conduct. That fear might be ill-founded; but its reality was their justification. Self-defense is a supreme law of nature. It is written in the heart and cannot be obliterated. If men make laws to restrain it, their voice will not be heard in the moment of danger.”
The court reporter wrote: “Mr. Ames recapitulated the evidence, but I thought imperfectly. His observations were in some instances more uncandid, than his duty to his clients required.” Ames would have recounted Captain Lamb’s barbarous acts in abandoning Charles Read, a mere lad, on a distant island where he did not know the language, had no means of providing for himself, and had no way to get home, and in marooning the gunner in the Falkland Islands, on a nearly deserted island where there was nothing to eat and little hope of rescue. Then, Ames argued, this monster continually threatened the crew that they would suffer the same fate, that they would be abandoned on a deserted island to starve and die, or on the Northwest Coast to be killed and devoured by savage cannibals, or that they would be simply heaved overboard to drown. How could the crew not but believe in the earnest of his threats?
“The crew accused Lamb of intemperance. [The court reporter noted: “But of this there was not sufficient proof.”] An intemperate use of rum has various effects on different constitutions. It deprives some of the powers of their body; some it makes loquacious, unlocking the secret recesses of the mind; it makes some very foolish, and others ferocious, adding to their nerves, strength, and to their intellects, fire. It converted Lamb into a tiger. When he came from his cell, he resembled an Eastern despot, who delighted only in scattering fears, and in inflicting torture. Lamb was like a giant, whose twisted nerves and black countenance would appall the stoutest heart.
“The crew complained of the want of provisions. You know the effects of hunger. It keeps the mind in a constant state of irritation. An uninterrupted series of small vexations, which individually require no magnanimity, will, in the course of time, humble and conquer the greatest spirit. The crew complained of the want of rum, to deprive sailors of which has always been considered as depriving them of the rights of man.”
Ames eulogized sailors, as “the most sincere and heroic of men. Among them, the purest and most exalted friendship subsists, and almost only among them. Their whole life is on the scale of heroism, and it is only because it is common, that they are insensible of their heroic character. The character of the sailors of New England is superior to that of those of any other nation. During the war, few of them ever entered on board an English vessel of force, without soon deserving and receiving an honorable commission.” Ames concluded that such heroic men would not desert their duty unless they feared for their very existence at the hand of a violent tyrant. He encouraged the jury to acquit the defendants, which would be the right and honorable thing to do.
Ames was given to long and eloquent speeches, much longer than we can reconstruct from the official trial report. Ames was talented in turning a phrase, but many of the rhetorical flourishes of his closing argument have been lost. As the court reporter confessed, “The preceding are heads of Mr. Ames’ argument. It was addressed principally to the feelings. I could not preserve its exact order, or correctness, or beauty.”
Theophilus Parsons Closing
Theophilus Parsons rose to address the jury. Parsons walked into the well and faced the jury directly. In contrast to Ames, he spoke plainly and simply to the jury. He engaged with each man on the jury and spoke directly to him. As Webster wrote of him, “When Parsons intends to make a learned observation, his eyebrow sinks; when a smart one, … it rises.”
Parsons decided to start with a learned observation, and he played his ace: “I wish to speak of our federal constitution. I have been accused of the wish to elevate that power on the ruins of the state government. This I disavow. I consider the state governments the pillars, on which the federal arch stands, and the federal constitution as the keystone of the arch: they mutually impart strength and beauty. But this constitution defines the powers of Congress, beyond which they have no power. This prosecution is founded on a law of congress, but I do not fear the accusation of want of attachment to the federal government by asserting, that the clause of the act, on which the indictment is founded, is unconstitutional. The Constitution grants Congress the powers to define and punish piracies and felonies on the high seas. Is the offence, with which the defendants stand charged, a felony? If so, it must be either by common law, or by the statute. It is not by the common law, because that code extends not to offences committed on the high seas. If it had been meant to be felony by the statute, it would have been so expressed. I do not know that we have a right to supply the omission of congress, even if it were their intention to declare this offence felony. Laws ought to be clear. Congress has power, by the constitution, to define and punish all piracies and felonies on the high seas. If this offence is neither piracy nor felony, congress had no jurisdiction, and therefore this clause is unconstitutional, and what the defendants are charged with is no crime.”
It was not unusual at this time to argue purely legal points to the jury. Technically, questions of law belong solely to the judge, and the judge instructs the jury what law must be followed. But lawyers were given broad latitude in closing arguments, and the jury had the absolute power to declare guilt or innocence. Because the jury could disregard the judge’s instructions, legal scholars often commented that it was the jury who ultimately decided what the law was. Of course, lawyers had to be careful not to urge the jury to ignore the judge. Parsons believed that if he could convince the jury that the law was unconstitutional, then they were more likely to acquit—even if the judge did not agree. Besides, no one had objected to Parson’s argument.
Parsons now moved to his second observation—a smart one, perhaps too clever: “The defendants are accused of endeavoring to make a revolt.” Parson returned to his position at counsel table and opened a thick book. What is a revolt? Let us turn to Mr. Johnson’s Dictionary on this word: ‘Revolt: ‘desertion; change of sides.’ Mr. Johnson quotes Raleigh’s History of the World, ‘He was greatly strengthened, and the enemy was much enfeebled by daily revolts.” It signifies a departure from one power and going over illegally to another. But to whom did the sailors go over? If to Mr. Salter, to whom did he revolt?”
Then Parsons turned to his real argument. Parsons walked toward the jury box. He looked at each juror. He spoke softly but intently, like he was confiding in a close friend. “Admitting that the defendants did in fact revolt, I ask with what intention did the defendants confine Captain Lamb and make this revolt. It is the felonious intention which constitutes the crime. A man may kill another, but if it is by accident, or if from self-defense, and in a justifiable cause, the guilt of murder cannot attach to him. If the defendants had acted with a felonious intention, wherein, I say, the guilt of the offence consists, they would either have perpetrated murder, or run away with the property. They committed no murder. If they had run away with the property, it would have been piracy, and of this they are not accused. But from their conduct, we may infer the purity of their intention. They pursued the voyage, and traded with the natives of the country, with the express view of doing for the owners, as they would have done, had they been present. It is a correct rule, that where certain facts exist, we are to consider the probable cause of their existence. This will assist our investigation of the true cause. It is clear, they could not act without some motive, and it is equally certain, they had neither murder nor theft in their hearts. It must then have arisen from necessity, from a sense of imminent hazard of their lives, from the right of self-defense, which is imprinted in the heart, and which is superior to all law.”
Here was the heart of the defense case. The jury had to determine the intent of the defendants. Why did they do what they obviously did? Daniel Webster observed Parsons’s approach to such questions: “Facts which are uncertain, he with so much art connects with others well proved, that you cannot get rid of the former, without disregarding the latter.” The one indisputable fact was that the defendants continued the voyage. They did not steal or destroy. They traded with the Indians and got valuable skins for the owners. If they weren’t motivated by greed, then why would they have relieved the captain? The only possible answer was that they were motivated by fear of the captain. If they acted out of fear, to protect themselves, then this was a case of self-defense. Parsons would now hammer on what made the sailors so afraid of their captain.
“On Captain Lamb’s testimony, it is true, in one sense, he neither gains nor loses by the event of this trial, and on that account is a competent witness. But, has not a character to gain or lose, or is he a bankrupt in reputation? Has he not the strongest human feelings of resentment and revenge to gratify? Almost every active motive, which influences human conduct, impels him to color his evidence, and to effect the conviction of the defendants. Besides, when a man is under the influence of strong feelings, he easily persuades himself to believe, that that is true, which is most for his interest to be true.” Parsons then ripped into David Lamb’s credibility as a witness. He reviewed Lamb’s testimony, pointing out his omissions of important matters, his exaggerations, his outright lies. Parsons also described with disgust Lamb’s attempts to influence the witnesses Robertson, who he had supported for some time and supplied with money.
“Leaving Charles Read at St. Jago, discovered the greatest cruelty in Captain Lamb. A youth of respectable connections, without experience, committed to the care of Captain Lamb, who was bound both by feeling and duty, to protect him, was left at an immense distance from his native country, among strangers, with whose language he was unacquainted, without the power of making himself known, and without the means of subsistence. The young men of New England, who engage in this hard life, are generally of respectable connections, of good education, and hope, in the course of time, to rise to respectability in their profession, and to political eminence among their fellow citizens. Of this number was young Read, left in this desolate condition, his fair and honest hopes cut off in their very birth. Had Captain Lamb been a parent, what would have been his feelings; had Read been his son, what would have been his indignation! The crew of the ship applied to Captain Lamb for permission to bring Read on board: but to this application he only returned language, the fit offspring of such a heart! He damned Read, and swore, that he would not send for him, if he were his brother. Can it surprise us, that this conduct inspired the crew with fear and detestation!
“Putting the gunner in irons on suspicion merely, was regarded as a severe punishment, even had he been really guilty, and showed Captain Lamb's temper to be ferocious, delighting in inflicting pain. He is a despot, being both a judge and executioner, examining without deliberation, and punishing with the utmost violence.”
For a lawyer reputed to be plainspoken, it is noteworthy that the court reporter wrote: “Mr. Parsons defended the prisoners with the most energetic eloquence.”
Theophilus Parsons urged the jury to find the defendants not guilty, thanked the jury, and returned to his seat.
Final Argument of Harrison Gray Otis
Harrison Gray Otis rose to close the proceedings: “In relation to the first position, taken by Mr. Parsons, the crew did make a revolt; this necessarily includes the endeavor to make one. They departed from the legal authority of their commander and went over to the dominion of their unlawful and uncontrolled will. The revolt consisted in the departure from their duty.
“Upon the second point, felony has a popular and a technical signification. In the former, it is an offence committed with a corrupt, malignant, and evil intention. Congress undoubtedly had the right to use this expression in either sense. They were describing offences against the United States, and undoubtedly considered this offence as felonious. In this same act, they speak of theft on the high seas, but omit the term ‘felonious.’ If a person, charged with theft on the high seas, were indicted, and the term ‘felonious' omitted, would that omission be sufficient cause to quash the indictment? This whole act is a transcript of the British statute, in which this very offence is felony, and punished with death. Because Congress meant to lessen the offence, and meliorate the punishment, could they mean to make it no offence? For if it is not felony, it is not within the powers of Congress; and, being out of the reach of the common law, it cannot be punished. On the contrary, Congress had the power to punish this crime, and Congress having power to define and punish felonies on the high seas, it was to be supposed, that when legislating on this offence, they were legislating on a felony.”
Parsons rose and exclaimed: “That is, because congress is legislating on an offence, it is felony. It is a pernicious doctrine.”
The Court interrupted: “I agree that Brother Otis’ argument is strained, but this discussion shall stop because it properly belongs to the court. It would be ground for a motion in arrest of judgment and ought not to be addressed to the jury.”
Otis continued: “The felony consists in the very act of confining the master, and making the revolt. The law says it is an offence, and they may not make a revolt, even with the intention of pursuing the voyage. Their asserting it to be their intention to pursue the voyage, does not authorize their conduct. We grant, that fear is a sufficient justification, but not every fear. To justify this crew, it must have been lawful for them, not only to confine the master, but, in case of resistance, to put him to death. “Upon the fourth point discussed by Mr. Parsons, I acknowledge that Captain Lamb must be under the influence of strong passions, but perhaps, not more so than the witnesses in behalf of the defendants. They were all engaged in one common cause; they had a fellow feeling. Their interest and their reputation were engaged equally with Captain Lamb’s. Captain Lamb had not designedly omitted anything. If he had omitted facts, it arose from the negligence of his counsel, who had omitted to interrogate him, and not from his crafty design. His evidence had been confirmed in all its principal parts. It was not pretended, that he was not a warm man, imprudent, and perhaps a rigid disciplinarian: but it did appear, from all circumstances, that the defendants were equally warm, imprudent, and perhaps violent.
“In relation to leaving the lad at St. Jago, the situation of Captain Lamb and the circumstances of the crew at the time amply justify his conduct. The Ulysses had stopped at St. Jago for water. This Read knew. The water was procured, the boats were taken in, and the wind was fair: the crew were in liquor, and when they applied to Captain Lamb, it was late in the evening. It was an order of the governor of St. Jago, that no boat should come on shore in the evening. Whoever infringed this law would be fired upon. Captain Lamb had the charge of a valuable cargo worth $40,000. Had he stopped till morning, he might have lost the opportunity of a fair wind, he might have been exposed to shipwreck, and thus, the hopes of a valuable voyage would have been ruined. Captain Lamb acted, then, as every prudent and good man ought to act.
“In regard to the treatment of the gunner, the captain acted upon the suspicion of the whole crew, as well as his own. He was engaged in a long voyage; it was necessary to preserve strict economy; and if an individual committed depredations on the provisions, he would deserve the most severe punishment. It was not to be expected, that legal forms were to be observed. There were circumstances which justified the suspicion which fell on the gunner. Perhaps Captain Lamb was too severe, but it was a necessary severity.
"Much was said on the conduct of Captain Lamb at the Falkland Islands, where it is acknowledged, he was guilty of excess. But it is denied, Salter discovered any incapacity in the captain, or did not deserve to be degraded. It was proved that he had been found sleeping on his watch. It is clear, that Salter, excited by disappointment, and revenge, stimulated the crew to mutiny. He told them, that he knew the laws of America, and that when two-thirds, of a crew agreed, they might depose their captain. Some of the crew, in their evidence, confessed, that though Captain Lamb was a violent man, using most intemperate language, and threatening to heave some overboard, and to leave others on some desert island, or on the Northwest coast among the natives; yet, they regarded them merely as words of passion, and never feared, that he would attempt to realize his threatenings. They claim to have signed the paper from motives of personal safety. But there was no reasonable danger. If they truly believed that there was danger, they ought to have stopped till Captain Lamb should attempt to leave them on shore, or to throw them overboard.”
Otis urged the jury to convict and sat down.
Instruction of the Jury
It was late in the day by the time closing arguments were finished. The lawyers were seated, and Justice Cushing turned to address the jury and would have instructed the jury as follows: “Gentlemen of the Jury, after I have given you your instructions, this cause will be committed to you for your deliberation and verdict. The prisoners have been indicted under an Act of Congress with confining the master of the ship and endeavoring to make a revolt on the high seas. That the conduct described in the indictment happened on the high seas is beyond question. The prisoners dispute that the conduct constituted a revolt. This argument strikes the Court as not well taken. The evidence is clear and undisputed that the crew of the Ulysses voted to depose their captain, and each member of the crew signed a paper to that effect. They put Captain Lamb in irons and confined him in his stateroom under armed guard. During that period, Captain Lamb was prevented from commanding the ship or otherwise performing his duties. Instead, Mr. Salter assumed command of the vessel. He did so without the consent of the master of the ship or of its owners and without any lawful authority whatsoever. Each of the prisoners participated in this action, and the evidence seems clear enough that it was largely done at the instigation of Mr. Salter and the other officers. You will have to decide whether this conduct constituted a ‘revolt.’ In the opinion of this Court, it did.”
In 1800, it was the established practice of the courts for the judge to restate the relevant evidence and make comments on the evidence. Legal historian Lawrence Friedman characterized the “instruction” that judges of this period gave to juries as “looser, freer, more colloquial, more tailored to the particular case” than the “jury charge” typically given today. Modern lawyers would be shocked and horrified by such a practice in the modern courtroom, where the dictates of a fair trial preclude the court from commenting on the evidence or otherwise seeking to influence the jury. But in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, this was the practice. Trial judges were free to influence the jury, almost to the point of directing their verdict.
Justice Cushing would then have turned to the defense of justification: “The prisoners do not deny their conduct; they claim legal justification as a defense. The law does recognize the defense of justification, but not every justification is a defense. Self-defense would be a defense to the charge of murder. One may lawfully kill another; however, according to the authorities, it is a defense only if he is subjected to an unprovoked attack that threatens imminent injury or death to which he responds with a reasonable degree of force and has a reasonable fear of injury or death. Resistance must not exceed the bounds of mere defense and prevention. The defender must not himself become the aggressor. The prisoners claim that the confinement of Captain Lamb was done to protect the crew from unprovoked and imminent danger of being thrown overboard or cast away in an uncivilized land. You will need to consider whether the danger to which they claim to have responded was truly imminent, whether their fear was truly reasonable, and whether the actions of the prisoner exceeded mere defense and prevention.” Cushing then went through the evidence carefully. Because the defendants did not deny the act but relied on the defense of justification, Justice Cushing instructed the jury that the defendants bore the burden of proving the defense.
“Gentlemen, the prisoners have had a fair and patient hearing, and you have paid close attention to the evidence and the arguments which have been addressed to you. It is a question of evidence, and you are the sole and exclusive arbitrators. It is also a question to be settled by the judgment, and not by the feelings. The appeal that has been made to your sensibility might cause you to regret the obligations imposed upon you; but as jurors, the oath of God is upon you. Gentlemen, you have a duty to do, which would be criminal in you to omit.”
The court reporter noted that Justice Cushing addressed the jury for about ten minutes, and “with great impartiality noticed everything of importance. He seemed to consider the charges in the indictment supported, and that the justification was not sufficient.”
Justice Cushing then said: “Gentlemen of the jury, the case is now closed. You will please retire and agree upon your verdict.” The jury rose, exited the courtroom, and went upstairs to the jury room. After about an hour, Justice Cushing dismissed the jury for the day and instructed them to return the following morning, Tuesday, October 28, at 9:00 a.m.
In 1800, most criminal trials, even capital murder cases, rarely took more than half a day. This had been an extremely long trial. The defendants and the lawyers were all exhausted.
The Verdict
The jury returned bright and early the next morning. They deliberated for about an hour then informed the court that they had reached a verdict. The judges, lawyers, and prisoners all resumed their places in the courtroom. The jury came downstairs and filed back into the courtroom where the prisoners and attorneys were anxiously waiting.
Clerk Goodale said: “Gentlemen of the jury, have you agreed upon a verdict?”
The foreman rose: “We have.”
“Who will speak for you?”
The jury answered in unison: “The Foreman.”
Goodale turned to the prisoners and instructed them to stand and face the jury. Parsons and Ames stood with their clients. “Mr. Foreman, rise and look upon the prisoners. Prisoners, look upon the foreman. Mr. Foreman, what say you? Is John Salter, one of the prisoners at the bar, guilty or not guilty?”
“Guilty.”
Goodale repeated the same question for each of the defendants. The answer was the same: "Guilty."
Justice Cushing thanked the jury and dismissed them. Everyone in the courtroom stood as the jurors walked out. John was crushed. What did this mean? Was he going to hang? He searched his lawyers’ faces for some clue as to what to think.
Post-Trial Motions for the Defense
As soon as the jury was gone, Theophilus Parsons immediately turned to Justice Cushing: “May it please the court, the prisoners move to arrest the judgement on the grounds that the clause in the statute on which the indictment is based is unconstitutional. The Constitution plainly specifies that Congress shall have the power to define and punish piracies and felonies on the high seas. Piracies and Felonies! As this Court has already ruled, this is not a capital case. The crime of which the prisoners stand convicted is no felony; therefore, it must be a misdemeanor. There is no mention in the Constitution of a power to punish misdemeanors. Congress exceeded its authority in seeking to punish a misdemeanor, the clause in the statute is unconstitutional, and the charge on which the conviction stands is no crime. Therefore, this Court should arrest the judgement and dismiss the case.”
This was a highly dangerous argument. In arguing the unconstitutionality of punishing misdemeanors, Parsons might have convinced the judge that the case involved a felony after all. Parsons’ argument proved too much. He was banking on Justice Cushing remaining consistent with his pre-trial rulings. Now that the verdict had been delivered, it was possible that the judge might change his mind.
Otis was hoping that the judge would do just that and would have argued: “Your Honor, my Brother Parsons is making much ado of nothing. Section 8 of the Act of 1790 plainly states that any seaman who is convicted of making a revolt in the ship shall be deemed a pirate and shall be put to death. There is no reason to suppose that Section 12 is not a felony, just because Congress lessened the punishment to imprisonment. The Constitution’s plain language empowers Congress to define and punish both piracies and felonies. The prisoners were indicted for a felony, they have been convicted of that felony.”
Justice Cushing was having none of that: “Brother Otis, it is the ruling of this Court that the crime of which these prisoners have been convicted is no felony but a misdemeanor. It is further the order of this Court that the term ‘felony’ shall be blotted out in the indictment.”
On the question of whether Congress had the power to punish misdemeanors on the high seas, Justice Cushing was more hesitant. He recessed the court, and Justice Cushing and Judge Lowell went back upstairs into chambers to discuss the issue.
The decision as to whether a law passed by Congress and signed by the President was unconstitutional was a weighty matter. No court would venture to declare a law unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable without serious deliberation. Parsons had argued that a federal court had the authority to invalidate, or at least ignore, a federal statute if it determined that the law exceeded the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution nor in the Judiciary Act expressly granted such authority. Nothing in the Constitution or in federal law provided who will be the final arbiter of the constitutionality of United States statutes. The Supreme Court, in the celebrated 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, would ultimately hold that it is the Supreme Court that makes the ultimate determination on the constitutionality of statutes and that the Supreme Court (and by necessary implication, all federal courts) had the power to declare the constitutionality of statutes at issue in cases before them and had the duty not to enforce or apply unconstitutional laws. But Marbury v. Madison would not be decided for another three years. At the time Parsons argued that the court should declare a portion of a statute unconstitutional, no court had ever done so. However, neither Otis nor Davis argued that the court lacked the power to consider the constitutionality of federal laws, and neither of the judges ever had the slightest doubt in their authority to do so. As Harvard law professor Akhil Reed Amar has written (with some slight exaggeration): “Despite what high-schoolers are now taught, judicial review was not remotely a new idea or practice in 1803. Rather, it was old hat.” Theophilus Parsons was not the first lawyer to argue that a United States court should rule a federal statute unconstitutional. That argument had been raised (unsuccessfully) in several cases prior to Marbury v. Madison. Still Parsons’ argument was bold and creative and gave the judges a serious matter to consider.
Cushing and Lowell reemerged from chambers after lunch. Justice Cushing called the court back in session and stated: “The Court acknowledges that there is no explicit power to punish misdemeanors on the high seas in the United States Constitution, but we do not believe that resolves the issue. Congress is also given the power to take care of foreign commerce and to make all laws necessary for that purpose. It is the opinion of this Court that the power to regulate commerce must necessarily include the power to define and punish misdemeanors committed in the course of foreign commerce. Therefore, the clause of the law on which the indictment is based is not unconstitutional.”
Although the argument made by Parsons might be considered on the cutting edge of the law for that time, the opinion of the Court stated by Cushing was far ahead of its time. It would not be until 1819, when the Supreme Court decided McCulloch v. Maryland, that it was recognized that the Constitution granted implied powers to Congress, in addition to the explicit grants of power. It would not be until 1824, when the Supreme Court decided Gibbons v. Odgen, that the term “commerce” in the Constitution was defined to mean, not just buying and selling, but all commercial intercourse, including navigation. And it would not be until more than a century later, when the Supreme Court decided a series of cases upholding New Deal legislation, starting with National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. in 1937, that it was recognized that the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” is a broad grant of power, one on which most congressional legislation today is based.
Justice Cushing again addressed the attorneys: “Now, gentlemen, we come to the issue of sentencing. The Court would appreciate it if counsel would address this issue.”
Parsons now tried to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and to use the court’s rulings to his advantage: “This Court has ruled that the offense is a misdemeanor and ordered the word felony struck from the indictment; yet the defendants have been convicted on the erroneous indictment. This Court may not sentence the defendants on a misdemeanor when they have been convicted only of a felony. The defense moves to arrest the judgment and dismiss the prisoners.”
Otis was furious and immediately countered: “This Court has ruled that section twelve of the act is a misdemeanor. The defendants were indicted under section 12. They have been convicted of that crime. The Act provides for three years in prison and a one thousand dollar fine. That is the sentence that the Court should impose.”
Cushing was silent for a few moments, then began slowly: “Brother Otis, I am inclined to disagree with you and to agree with Brother Parsons. This Court is not entirely confident that the indictment on which the conviction is based properly stated the offense. This Court would entertain a motion for arrest of judgment; but Brother Parsons, I feel it necessary to point out that the result of granting such a motion would not be the release of the prisoners. This Court would hold them over for a second prosecution under a revised indictment. Now please tell me, sir, is it truly your wish to urge this motion?”
A second prosecution, possibly before a different judge, might mean a charge properly stated under Section 8 and a felony conviction and perhaps the death penalty. Ames quickly leaned over and whispered emphatically in Parsons’ ear, and Parsons quickly stated: “The prisoners withdraw the motion.”
Cushing smiled ever so slightly: “Well then as all parties are therefore agreed that the conviction is proper, this Court shall pass sentence on the misdemeanor. We want to give this matter some careful thought. Sentences will be pronounced at 9:00 in the morning Saturday next. This trial is recessed until that time.”
Justice Cushing banged his gavel and dismissed the parties and their attorneys. John and the other four prisoners were taken to cells in the Gaol to await sentencing. The four lawyers packed up their papers and exited the courtroom.
For Ames and Parsons, the outcome of the long trial was bittersweet. They had lost badly, but their clients, convicted mutineers, would not face the gallows, and the penalty for a misdemeanor would almost certainly be a light one.
Cushing and Lowell then called the next case. They would have a busy week. They were at least two days behind schedule on their lengthy docket because of the long and tedious trial they had just completed.
Sentencing
At shortly before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, November 1, 1800, the five prisoners and the four lawyers were all in the courtroom. The prisoners’ families were in the back of the courtroom. Everyone was standing. Every one of them, particularly the prisoners and their families, were anxious. Cushing and Lowell took their places at the bench and instructed the courtroom to be seated.
Justice Cushing asked, “Is there anything to be considered before this Court pronounces sentence?”
Parsons and Otis rose and almost in unison said, “No, Your Honor.”
Cushing said, “Very well, then.” Justice Cushing placed two pages in front of him and read the court’s judgement, a portion of which, in Cushing’s neat, compact handwriting, survives in the National Archives:
[T]he said [attorneys] now being [brought] to the bar and having offered why judgment should not be rendered upon said Indictment & Verdict severally pray that their judgment be thereupon may be arrested whereupon the record being duly inspected & considered & the [defendants] being fully heard upon this motion & also the [attorney] for the United States, and the defendants waiving all objection to the form of the indictment, it appears to the Court that the defendants are not guilty of felony. It is therefore considered that the defendants be discharged of the crime of felony and it further appears to the Court here that the defendants are guilty of a misdemeanor. It is further considered by the Court here and the Court do award that [the defendants shall pay costs of court and receive the following sentences:]
Cushing turned his attention to the prisoners in the dock. “John Salter.” John stood and faced the judge. Ames and Parsons also stood.
“John Salter, you are hereby sentenced to pay a fine in the amount of $200.00 and to serve a term of six months in jail.”
John sat down. He had been hoping for less, but this was doable. Six months was much less than he had already spent in custody, and he felt certain that he could scrape together the $200.00.
Each of the prisoners was in turn called and given his sentence. Carnes was sentenced to two months in jail and was ordered to pay a $100.00 fine. Bruce, because of his greater role in the mutiny, was sentenced to three months in jail and a fine of $100.00. Bullock and Smith were each fined $40.00 and sentenced to two months in jail.
Justice Cushing then addressed the lawyers, “Is there anything further in this matter for the Court?”
“No, your honor.”
“This case is adjourned.”
The prisoners were led out of the courtroom by United States Marshal Bradford and back to the Gaol to begin serving their sentences. The two judges remained at the bench and called the next matter on the docket. Davis and Parsons went back to their respective offices and started work on their next cases. Ames rode back to Dedham to rest and recuperate. Otis made plans to travel back to the nation’s capital in Philadelphia.
John Salter’s friends and family considered the outcome of the trial to be a travesty of justice. However, David Lamb as well as much of the merchant community were also outraged by the result. Shortly before the trial, James Lamb III had written of the defendants, “I have no doubt they will meet with the punishment due their crimes.” Shortly after the trial, Boston merchant Sullivan Dorr wrote, “Poor Lamb has been exceedingly unfortunate. It appears to me that Salter and Bruce merited our Law’s death. They are Scoundrels.”
Read Part 1: Voyage of the Ulysses
Read Part 2: The Ulysses Mutineers Prepare for Trial
If you have read this far, your feedback is incredibly important to me. Please leave a comment below.
I believe the defendants in this case should not have been finded and let off on time served
ReplyDelete