To James Madison from William Jones, 25 September 1814
From William Jones
Navy Department Septr. 25th. 1814
Sir
The papers numbered 1 @ 5 and that marked A. herewith enclosed were received from Com. Decatur by the last mail together with his letter to the Depmt. dated the 22d Inst which is also respectfully submitted; will fully explain the nature of the offensive incident which has produced his remonstrance and appeal to your decision.1 I view with extreme regret this first inroad upon the harmony and reciprocal respect which has hitherto distinguished the Land and Naval forces of the US. and deprecate the consequences of the course adopted by General Lewis.
Had the personal violence done to the Naval officer been of a private nature when not on duty, General Lewis might have referred the aggreived party to the laws of his Country with propriety, but the case is widely different. It was unquestionably a military offence and so it would appear the Court martial considered it.
Between the officers of the Navy and of the regular army this event could not have happened. It has resulted from the nondescript and amphibious character of the Corps stationed at Sandy Hook from which frequent collision may be expected whilst that and the naval force act on the same waters under distinct authorities. I am very respectfully and sincerely your obdt. Servt
W Jones
RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 45, Captains’ Letters); letterbook copy (DNA: RG 45, LSP). RC and enclosures filed with Stephen Decatur to Jones, 22 Sept. 1814. For enclosures, see n. 1.
1. In his 22 Sept. 1814 letter to Jones (3 pp.), Decatur reported that Maj. Gen. Morgan Lewis, commander at New York, had reinstated two officers who had been cashiered by court-martial for insulting a gunboat commander. Declaring himself “indignant” at Lewis’s action and certain that the gunboat officer would “have justice done him by the President,” Decatur enclosed the following documents, which Jones forwarded to JM: 1) a 16 Aug. 1814 letter from the gunboat commander, Thomas S. Easton, to sailing master John R. Leaycraft (3 pp.), reporting that while on guard duty the preceding evening near Sandy Hook, Easton had been fired upon, physically assaulted, and otherwise abused by Sea Fencible officers for threatening to stop their boat by force after hailing it repeatedly with no answer. Easton wrote that he had not initially reported the assault because he considered it a personal affront, but his fellow officers persuaded him that the incident should be officially noticed as an offense to the navy; 2) a copy of Decatur to Lewis, 19 Sept. 1814 (1 p.), asking whether reports that the Sea Fencible officers had been restored to their ranks were true; 3) an undated copy of Lewis’s reply (1 p.), which said: “My general orders speak for themselves, any officer of yours can take a Copy of them”; 4) an undated copy of the general orders (3 pp.), reprobating the conduct of the Sea Fencible officers but restoring them to their ranks, while admonishing the officer who had assaulted Easton to offer a “suitable apology” for this “personal” offense and noting that Easton “had his civil ⟨re⟩medy for the violence offered him”; 5) a copy of Decatur to Lewis, 20 Sept. 1814 (3 pp.), accusing Lewis of having further insulted Easton by referring him to the civil courts for satisfaction, and asking that he do the gunboat commander justice in “another ⟨o⟩rder equally public”; 6) a copy of Lewis’s reply of the same day (3 pp.), defending his decision, his reputation, and his record of cooperation with the navy, and implying that Decatur lacked “an ordinary share of Intellect” for considering referral to the civil courts as an insult. Also field with the RC and enclosures is an undated statement signed by Leaycraft and thirteen others (2 pp.), urging Easton to treat the assault as an official rather than a personal injury in order to obtain “more just and ample reperation”; and a 22 Oct. 1814 note from Attorney General Richard Rush to JM, returning the papers to the president, giving his opinion that “the commanding general who ordered the court martial, having … a discretionary power to mitigate or pardon the sentence as relates to both officers, and having seen fit to exercise it, the transaction, so far as regards the proceedings and sentence of the court, is at an end,” and referring JM to the sixty-fifth and eighty-ninth articles of war.