The Whistle-Blowers of 1777
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In the winter of 1777, months after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the American warship Warren was anchored outside of Providence, R.I. On board, 10 revolutionary sailors and marines met in secret — not to plot against the king’s armies, but to discuss their concerns about the commander of the Continental Navy, Commodore Esek Hopkins. They knew the risks: Hopkins came from a powerful family; his brother was a former governor of Rhode Island and a signer of the declaration.
Hopkins had participated in the torture of captured British sailors; he “treated prisoners in the most inhuman and barbarous manner,” his subordinates wrote in a petition.
One whistle-blower, a Marine captain named John Grannis, was selected to present the petition to the Continental Congress, which voted on March 26, 1777, to suspend Hopkins from his post.
The case did not end there. Hopkins, infuriated, immediately retaliated. He filed a criminal libel suit in Rhode Island against the whistle-blowers. Two of them who happened to be in Rhode Island — Samuel Shaw, a midshipman, and Richard Marven, a third lieutenant — were jailed. In a petition read to Congress on July 23, 1778, they pleaded that they had been “arrested for doing what they then believed and still believe was nothing but their duty.”
Later that month, without any recorded dissent, Congress enacted America’s first whistle-blower-protection law: “That it is the duty of all persons in the service of the United States, as well as all other inhabitants thereof, to give the earliest information to Congress or any other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by any officers or persons in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge.”
Congress did not stop there. It wanted to ensure that the whistle-blowers would have excellent legal counsel to fight against the libel charges, and despite the financial hardships of the new republic, it authorized payment for the legal fees of Marven and Shaw.
Congress did not hide behind government secrecy edicts, even though the nation was at war. Instead, it authorized the full release of all records related to the removal of Hopkins. No “state secret” privilege was invoked. The whistle-blowers did not need to use a Freedom of Information Act to obtain documents to vindicate themselves. There was no attempt to hide the fact that whistle-blowers had accused a Navy commander of mistreating prisoners.
Armed with Congress’s support, the whistle-blowers put on a strong defense, and won their case in court. And true to its word, Congress on May 22, 1779, provided $1,418 to cover costs associated with the whistle-blowers’ defense. One “Sam. Adams” was directed to ensure that their Rhode Island lawyer, William Channing, was paid.
Nearly two centuries later, the Supreme Court justice William O. Douglas, praising the founders’ commitment to freedom of speech, wrote: “The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of government suppression of embarrassing information.”
A 1989 law was supposed to protect federal employees who expose fraud and misconduct from retaliation. But over the years, these protections have been completely undermined. One loophole gives the government the absolute right to strip employees of their security clearances and fire them, without judicial review. Another bars employees of the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency from any coverage under the law. And Congress has barred national security whistle-blowers who are fired for exposing wrongdoing from obtaining protection in federal court.
It is no surprise that honest citizens who witness waste, fraud and abuse in national security programs but lack legal protections are silenced or forced to turn to unauthorized methods to expose malfeasance, incompetence or negligence.
Instead of ignoring and intimidating whistle-blowers, Congress and the executive branch would do well to follow the example of the Continental Congress, by supporting and shielding them.
Stephen M. Kohn is the executive director of the National Whistleblowers Center and the author of “The Whistleblower’s Handbook: A Step-by-Step Guide to Doing What’s Right and Protecting Yourself.”
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Tags
Who is online
242 visitors
Note:
The original article appeared as an OP/ED in the NYT in June of 2011 as a criticism of that Administration's crackdown on leakers and the
author's position is that they are whistleblowers with a rich history protected by law since 1778.
To be clear, I am not endorsing leaking. Leaking is not following the rules that have been laid out by Congress.
I don't know, depends on what is leaked. If it has to do with something serious, like treason, murder, etc... But in general, yea, leakers are bad.
most leaks are bad, some worse than others, lol
Today that wouldn't even cover a one hour consult in a large metro area.
Whistleblower identity must be protected. It's no secret trump is irate that he doesn't know who it is because he is desperate to attack their character and come up with a snappy nickname. On the larger scale, I have no doubt that the whistleblower's physical well being would be in jeopardy if trump found out who they are.
Exactly. There was a conversation on the news the other night about putting the WB and an unknown amount of family members in Witness
Protection to hide them from the POTUS and others.
It's pretty damn sad when the government has to hide whistleblowers from itself.
nicely put
Thanks, Iggy. But I'll never have your way with words.
well , i must confess, i'm not like Trump, these words just don't let me "grab them",
but i do confess, in this way, i am like Trump as i am forced to pay these words, but not at the Trump rate of $130,00 per
so as, i'm allowed to get my way with them, but, i know no other way, to weigh the impact of words, spoken and written, as my scale is often to scale of how i see words weighed,
thus, when this POS potUS states via tweet, how his removal, would/could result in Civil War,
the weight of words should now be waited upon, as this is just the tip,
that our waiter in Chief was charged with inserting into his facial orifice ,
As Put in was Putins' member him,
that mater dee who bred Trump on the breeder poll taken by Fox, out of Trumps fat ass kin to know if Trumps off spring on fall
nights, ever leave , any branches of our government not out on a limp limb,
stumped,
as i believe some can't see the gumption of D Forrest
for the Treas on that which, like in Trumps own words that he never signs the lease for. As he may not own them before or after that sp;ecific chronological
i
ncrement, that which he thought they were required, and should be treated like spies of days gone buy , bought to die for till
Death due US and he part
Meanwhile, back at the IRS, there's a rumor of an IRS whistleblower, something to do with tax returns.
I heard a sound byte about that on my am news.
The Treasury Dept has an IG who is going to investigate what happened to all of the House committees requests for different records and if they were handled properly or ignored.
Hopkins is revered for his raid on Nassau . Thus the statues.
Never the less.
Semper Fi, USMC Captain John Grannis, the first Whistleblower
This article was very enlightening. I never knew about this event, and it shows an integrity that seems to be lacking these days.
I am older than I look and have a long memory, lol.
Who's your plastic surgeon. I want his name!
Here's some of Ivanka's plastic surgeons.
Interesting story. Thanks, SP
Technically Ben Franklin is listed as the first North American Whistleblower while we were still British Colonies in 1773.
Franklin published some private correspondence he found which proved that the Governor of Massachusetts
was trying to mislead Parliament into sending more troops to the state. The Governor was fired, censured and exiled.
This was in 1773, so in reality, the Governor was correct in his assessment of what was coming.
To Franklin this was just an early political move in the grand game of chess he was playing with the King and Parliament.
Thanx for providing the historical evidence of the importance of whistle blowing.
I never knew any of this! Great article, SP. Although I always thought the first whistleblower was Paul Revere. Word on the cobbled street is that he never made it to Concord. Nor did he yell "the British are coming."
Of course, we can't forget the whistleblower's whistleblower: Linda Tripp.
Ooh, ooh! And Serpico!