Newspaper Page Text
Vol. H. TUCSON, PIMA COUNTY, A. T., -SATURDAY, JANUAEY 13, 18T2. No. 14. ARIZONA J V CITIZEN SATURDAY. Siibsori-ptioix Kates: One Copy, one year, - - - 5 00 One Conv. six months - - 3 00 Single numbers - Aclvertisliifr Hates: ITweIve lines in this type, one sq. One square, ten lines, one time 3 00 Each subsequent insertion 150 Professional cards, per month 3 00 "JJusiness Advertisements at Jtcduccd Jtates. Ujjice xn northeast corner oj congress Hall Mock. JOim WASS02T, Proprietor. Authorized. Agents for The Citizen, L. P. Fisher San Francisco Schneider Grierson & Co Arizona City II. A. Bigelow will receive and receipt for money for inn (jitizen at f rescott Professional Cards, Adv'ts, Etc. NOTARY PUBLIC. Convcj-anccs and all Legal papers made out with correctness and dispatch. Legal Blanks and Blank Declaratory Statements alwaj-s on hand. Phcnix, A. T., Dec. 20, '71. jaO-tf J G HVT- 3D., OFFICE ON PLAZA, Opposite the Convent. aul2-tf O jET IF ICE; WEST SIDE OF PLAZA, TUCSON, A. T, OPPOSITE THE CONVENT. PA slate for calls may be found at the Drugstore. i"" COIVES BASHFOKD, -A.17TOS.ISrE "2" - AT - LAW, TUCSON ARIZONA. Will practice in all the courts of the Territory. ltf .TT03ISrBSr - - LAW, f District Attorney for Pima county. TUCf'ON, ARIZONA. Office next door to Custom-housc-ltf JOHN ANDEKSON, TTOI?.ISrE"S"-.T - LAW, TUCSON, ARIZONA. Tjl special attention given to Chattel Mort a -i gages unucr int law oi ioi. Office West side of Church Plaza. 21tf DR. J. A. MAGINLTY, DENTIST.. Office two doors north of Tully, Ochoa & DeLong's store, Main Street, Tucson. Mechanical and Operative Dentistry done with neatness and dispatch. TMscases of the Mouth, Jaw and Palate treated. All who nownccdworkof this character must call soon, as mv stay here is limited, K?- All operations warranted. no4tf PIOjVEEB NEWS D E POT AND CIGAR STORE. 0 qnHE LATEST NEWSPAPERS, PERI- JL OCUcaiS, ..Magazines ana Also, a fine assortment of Cigars, Tobacco, Pipes, Etc., Untlyonhandg. Lecinsky's block, uongress-st, Stf- Tucson, Arizona TtTCSO TsT3 ARIZONA CITY AND S AN 3IDE GO osru. s.jgi tBI-WBBKLY 1VEAIX. OUR HORSE COACHES tr- $ arrive at Tucson everv-agfe. Sunday, Wednesday and Friday Mornings; Depart at 0 p. m. on Tues days, Thursdays fc Saturdays, Until Farther Notice. TIME TO SAN DIEGO.. FIVE DAYS. This will enable the traveling public to reach San Francisco in EIGnT DAYS. Fare to Arizona City 550 " SanDiego.fiugoldcoinorits equiv alent,) f....... m JOHN G. CAPRON, Proprietor. THE ARIZONA IS PUBLISHED EVERY J.- ifi. 1JAKER, Agent, JLUC50U. J HISTORIANS AND HISTORY. Occasionally we meet with men who prefer to make infamous history rather than none. A sense of public duty impels us to assist in giving promi nence to a few such, even though it requires an exhibition of how a few moral poltroons constructed a histori cal boomerang. If a recital of facts should appear unpleasant to officers we have heretofore not only spoken but thought well of, we beg of them to bear in mind that they made the facts not us. If nublic men will persist in making bad history, they should expect that the faithful chron. icier can no more improve it than he can the characters of the makers With " these few remarks " by way of an introduction, the facts must have attention. In the latter part of 1870, Lieutcn ant Whitman came to Arizona, and al though wo knew he had been on a long spree, we didn't know that he could travel in any other condition, and pre suming he was otherwise a fair aver age officer coming here to be a friend instead of an enemy of Arizona, we kindly mentioned his arrival. He soon after went to Camp Grant, and readers of The Citizen will remem ber of hearing something about him especially in our paper of Sep teinber 2, 1871. What was then said found its way to the War Department at Washington, and by order of that branch of the Government, was refer red to General Schofield, who in reg ular order transmitted it to General Crook. The latter submitted the same to the proprietor of The Citizen for retraction or authentication, and he emphatically declined to retract, and stated that reputable witnesses stood ready to authenticate the ugly state ments. For the credit of the United States Army, and to give Whitman a chance to clear up his record, the De partment Commander convened a Gen eral Court-martial to try Whitman on their oaths, " without partiality, favor or affection " to any one. That Court consisted of the following officers Captains James Curtis, Troop I; Guv V. Henry. Troop D : Alexander Moore, Troop F ; and Gerald Russell, Troop K all of the Third Cavalry, the accused officer's own regiment; First Lieutenants J. L. Johnston, R. Q. M.. Twenty-first Infantry ; and Max Wesendorfi, Troop A, First Cav alry. Two other Lieutenants were or dered on the Court, but fortunately for their reputation, they were too ill to share in its proceedings, which, for the credit of the army, we think we are justified in saying have no parallel for imbecility and moral cowardice in mil itary or other court annals. Follow ing is the review of said proceedings by the Commanding General of the Department; but just in advance, it is proper to state that the counsel of Whitman, whom tho order so unen viably refers to, is Major Henry E. Mizner, Twenty-first Infantry, now commanding Camp Lowell : Headquarters Department Arizona, 1 Prescott, December 15. 1871 J General Orders No. 33. 1. Before a General Court Martial which convened at Camp Lowell, A. T., on the 4th day of December, 1871, by virtue of paragraph I, Special Orders No 85, current series, from these Headquarters, and of which Captain James Curtis, Third Cav alry, is President, was arraigned : First Lieutenant Itoyal Jii. Whit man, Third Cavalry. Charge iirst: Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gen tleman" Specification First In this, that lie.First Lieutenant Royal E. Whitman, Third Cav alry, did show himself with his uniform on, in a state oi intoxication at tnenorton House, a hotel in San Diego, California, I and did then and there conduct minseit m a manner unbecoming an olhecr and a gen- tleman. This at San Diego, Cal., on or about the 5th day of November, 1870. ! Specification Secoud In this, tint he. First Lieutenant R al K. Whitman. Third Cavalry, did c?eo-, hitng. !f ir ,t state of intoxication. i- -it Point "f sjuutain, A. T., on orahi i i-Hh of No "tr, lb0. Specification riiird In tit, tint he, First Lieutenant Royal E. ffurmi n. Third Cavalry, did call for drinks for a number of persons in the bar-room of J.iraes II. Toole, at Tucson, A. T., and ha viae ob tained the drink on his onkr, lii'lfailto pay for the same. This at Tm e n, A. T., on or about the 1st day of Decern Wt, 1870. Specification Fourth In this, tbat he, First Lieutenant Royal E. WLitnuui, Third Cavalry, did la drunk in a public saloon. This at Tucson, A. T., on or about the 1st day of December, 170. Specification Fifth In this, that he, First Lieutenant lloval E. Whitman, Third Cavalry, did lay drunk in a back yard of the premises of Lord & Williams, with his person indecently exposed. This at Tuc son, A. T., on or about the 1st day of Sep tember, 1871. Specification Sixth In this, Mat he, First Lieutenant Royal E. Whitn. hi, Third Cavalry, did a tempt to seat hinu-elf in a woman's lap, on the feast grounds near Tucson, A. T., to the scandal of the ser vice of the Uniteo States. This at Tucson. A. T., on or about the 30th dav of August. 1871. Specification Seventh In this, that he, First Lieutenant Royal E. VYhitmuu, Third Cavalry, did behave himself in such an unbecoming manner, that an ofllcer of his own regiment refused to associate with him. This at Tueoon, A. T., on or about the 1st day of December, 1870. Charge Second: "Conduct to the prejudice of grxja order and mi'ittn"! discipline Specification In this, that h First Lieutenant Royal E. Whitman, rd Cav airy, being a disbur.-ing ouleer ;fl the serv ice of the United States, did engage in a game of chance and did betmonev at cards This at Tucson, A. T., on or about the 1st day of September, ibl To which charges and specifications tho accused pleaded m bar ot trial Tho plea was sustained by the Court. This plea, in bar, although divided into six specifications, 'may be es sentially rechuvd to two branches : First Thi objection that the spec ifications to the charges an- cumu lathe. Second- The objection, to the al leged fact, that the churgei are pre ferred by a citizen editor of a dis loyal paper, abusive of the army and its ofheers, influenced by malice ; or, in short, the objection to tho malice and bad character oi tho prosecutor. The Court sustained the plea sub stantially upon these objections with an additional reason that a Court of Inauirv had already investigated the matter and exonerated the accused. The question as to the cumulative character of the specifications (to the First Chargt , being disconnected from any extraneous ma' tor, and to be judged from the face o the written accusations only, may be considered separately. It may not bo proper to accumulate or aggregate offenses, which are in themselves trifling, each one of which taken (singly) would not support a serious charge but if each and every specification would ot itself, if proven, support tho charge, as is evident in this case, there is no good reason why they should not be tried together. There are often good reason, why of fenses committed during a period, running back for any time, within two years, may have to be tried to gether, of which tho authority con vening the Court, and not the Court, is the proper judge. This is eminently the case in the present instance in which the offenses charged came to the knowledge of the Department Com mander, as well as to tho War Depart ment, at one and tho same time, and were, therefore, in no sense permitted by him to accumulate. Now as to the second obr !."n: It is either a good plea in bar o. it is not. J it bo considered a go 1 plea ; the record is open to this fruui objection that the plea alleges for it- foundation certain facts, and that net .i particle of evidence is presented or -.iken by tho Court m support ot the- tacts, oup- , pose, for example, that i prisoner were to plead in bar of trial a previous trial and acquittal of tie same offense, (which, would be a good jAen), surely no Court would receive tho mere assertion of the accused as prooi ot this tact, without some sort of evidence to sus- j tain it. Tho accuser, reterred to m tho plea, is not even mentioned by , name ; upon the f;ice of the recoiM which contains every tnin pro ri and officially before the Court, the only presecutor Imown to it was Cap tain Thomas McGregor, First Cavalry .Tno - fl Advnm.tn. But had evidence b reffUiariy takeu in support of the , ,? ; V , .." ,-T, lacts al been at XjXULO UllCCU Xl-l Lliv jJ.v-t., v IIVU1U1U1TU once patent that such evidence was purely and solely for the Defence, and not properly to be entertained be fore tho Prosecution. But the second, olijection does not embody a good plea in Dar ot trial. The malice, bad char acter, lad conduct, or course of lustiness, of uie person originating the accusations, or first bringing them to the notice of the proper military authorities, can, in no manner, attect the truth or falsity of the charges themselves, which must stand upon their own merits; the Judge Advocate General deciding that " the validity of charges is not affected by the fact they originated with a person not actually in the military service." As to the case having been pre viously acted upon by a Court of In quiry : The paper appended in support of this, appears to be a letter addressed to the Assistant Adjutant General of the JJepartment, by an officer directed to make certain investigations; and certified to, as a true copy. The 92d Article of War expressly forbids the admission, by a Court Martial, as evidence, of the proceedings of Courts of Inquiry in cases extending to the dismissal of an officer, and by the 83d Article, this was a case in which noth ing but dismissal could have followed a finding of "Guilty of the First Charge." If then, the Court believed the paper referred to, to be tho pro ceedings of a Court of Inquiry, they certainly had no right to admit it as evidence in this case. The 91st Art icle of War provides that a Court of Inquiry must consist of at least one officer and a Judge Advocate or He corder, and by the 92d Article such a Court can only be convened by the President of the United States, or upon the demand of the accused, neither of which was the case in this instance, But the paper referred to does not embody the proceedings of a Court of Inquiry, nor can it be twisted into such by the most subtle course of argument. It was simply a copy of a copy of a letter m the nature ot a private report made to the Department Commander, which could not properly bo made public without his consent, The nearest it comes to exonorating the accused is the remark, "that if ho (Lieutenant Whitman) erred in the past, his habits aro now correct.'? (!) As a report, even, it is noncommittal, substantially amounting to nothing, and could only have been introduced here with the consent ot the writer, who was counsel lor the accused, a proceeding which should have been objected to by the Judge Advocate, who seems to have done very little towards enlightening the Court upon points wherein they appear to have been either grossly ignorant or dere lict. Some of tho allegations made by the accused, in support of his plea, are disrespectful in tone and language to the authority convening the Court and the War Department, by whom the charges were referred to the Depart ment Commander. The means by which the alleged misconduct was brought to the atten tion of the War Department, was not what the Court was ordered to in vestigate they were sworn "to well and truly try," and determine accord ing to evidence, the matter before them, "without partiality, favor or affec tion. This means, if it means any thing, without partiality, favor or af- iection, towards any one, accused or accuser. There was no evidence pre sented in. the case ; the allegations in support of tho plea are not sustained a tittle ot proof. Tho Court should hav proceeded to try and determine tlie ruilt or innocence of the accused in the matter before them, according to the evidence, and their failure to do so stands without a shadow of excuse, or lu precedent in law, or custom of the service, and in thus thwarting the object ior which they were assembled. they have placed Lieutenant E. J3 Whitman in a worse light than he before occupied. Whatever object he may have had in avoiding a trial, it was due to the officers ot his regiment, of which the Court was largely com posed, that these charges should be legally investigated, so that if in nocent his honor might bo vindicated, and if guilty the service be rid of an unworthy officer, The proceedings in the foregoing case are disapproved. Owing to the movement of troops, consequent upon tho transfer of the Thrid Cavalry from the Department, it is impracticable to re-assemble the Court. Lieutenant Whitman will be re leased from arrest and restored to duty. II. The General Court Martial, of which Captain James Curtis, Third Cavalry, is President, is hereby dis solved. George Crook. Lieut.-Col., 23d Infantry, Brevet Major General, Commanding. Official: John G. Bourke. Aide-de- Camp. However "grossly ignorant or dere lict" the aforesaid court mav havo been, we have no doubt its members will understand the erood Enp-lisli o o of the Department Commander, as wo think also will tho higher mil itary authorities with whom the now famous members of said court wiU hardly have inspired even re spectable contempt. For these reasons wo shall close this bit of history in a few more remarks to all whom it may concern. Since the appearance of the article on which the charges in the present case were based, Lieutenant Johnston, of said court, voluntarily informed the editor and proprietor of The Arizona CrnzEK', that he fully approved tho course of said paper, and that at any time the fact might be publicly stated with his conse&t which is now done ; and further in point, we now have every reason, except absolute evidence, to believe that Lieutenant Johnston acted in harmony with the ruling ele ment of that Court. If a very few drunken and otherwise bad officers, libelers of Arizona and foul blots on the Army rolls, constitute "tho army," then The Citizen pleads guilty to abusing " the army ;" but if the few such do not constitute " the army," then it pleads entire in nocence of such abuse. The pages of this paper and others we have owned and edited, are marked throughout by evidences of uniform kindness towards the army, and especially for many of its active and worthy officers. For every officer we have criticised in an unfriendly way, at least a half dozen have been mentioned in terms most acceptable to themselves; and all proper successes of the army have been reported with zealous pride and enthusiasm ; and the columns of lead ing journals, both east and west, bear witness' to tho truth of this statement. If we now mention pleasantly and encouragingly a civil or military offi cer, because we believe him of real value in his station, it is not a guar antee that we will do likewise when we find him to be a public enemy, or libeler, or disgrace to the nation that commissions and pays him. Public considerations alono induce us to un favorably criticise any officer, and then his actions form the just basis of the criticism ; and we here respect fully call attention of tho journals of the country and the higher authorities to tho Whitman case, the only ono ever brought by charges originating in our writings. We also assure them that we court a fair investigation of charges made by us in any paper. The court in this case has so far as it could, made its members co-equals in tho permanent disgrace of Whit man who, as the General's review states, occupies a worse position than before. Tho moral cowardice ot Whitman is susceptible of slight ex cuse, but that of tho court of none. To conclude this, wo emphatically declare that each and every member of that court, who approved the second objection to trial as set forth by the Commanding General, is an unmiti gated liar. A Wrasliington item says : K. C. Todd has been appointed Post trader at Fort Mohave; John S. Carr, postmaster at Arizona City, and Jame- M. Barney at Ehreuberg.