OCR Interpretation

Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, January 08, 1848, Image 7

Image and text provided by Library of Congress, Washington, DC

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045784/1848-01-08/ed-1/seq-7/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for

claimant*. This was wrong. If we were now called to give
the negroes the value of the ship he would vote tor it. But
he would only add, that he desired to # n<l the case to a select
committee in order that we may have full roporta on both
aidea of the queation.
Mr. VINTON deaired to say a word or two in explanation
of what had been spoken of by the gentleman from Pennsyl
vania, (Mr. BuoutisAU.) That gentleman had aaid that it
had been the uuivetsal rule heretofore to refer to the Commit
tee of Waya and Means whatever concerned the finanrcs and
the levenuea of the country. Jn that the gentleman was cor
rect, and he would find that the first resolution proposed to
make such a reference of all such matters?not only all that
relates to the Subtreasury act, but every thing else that be
longed to the revenues of the country.
But tho gentleman from Pennsylvania said that that part of
the President's mesrnge which relates to the " operation " of
the subtreasury act ?hould not be disposed of as was pro|>os
ed by his (Mr. V.'s) resolutions. The President in his mes
sage explained in the first place the op. ration of the subtrea
sury act and the provisions of law on the subject of the re
venue. But the President said further that the subtreasury
act had had a salutary influence on the country, and on the
commerce of the countiy ; and he takes great credit to hiin
- self for its beneficial influence on the commerce of the country
in contradistinction to the revenues. The President of the Uni
ted States had thought it important to call the attention of the
House and of the country to the influence the subtreasury had
had on the' commerce of the country; the Committee on
Commerce then was surely the appropriate committee to,have
that part under investigation, for the influence of the subtrea
sury on the commerce of the country did not strictly and ap
propriately belong to the Committee of Ways and Means..
80 far as it relates to the revenues of the country it does be
long to tho Committee of Ways and Means, and no further.
If it had hud auch an influence as the President seemed to
suppose on the commerce of the country, it was proper that
the Committee on Commerce should act upon it. It was that
committee's appropriate province.
But the President does not stop there, for he says that the
tariff act of 1816 had had a beneficial influence on the agri
culture of the country. He did not understand the gentle
man from Pennsylvania to object to the reference designed for
that part of the President's message. It certainly was no
part of the duty of the Committee of Ways and Means to in
quire into the operation of measures on the agricultural inter
ests of the country, except so far as related to the rising of
revenue. In his resolutions, therefore, apportioning the Pre
sident's message, he had followed the topics in their order as
touched upon by the President, and had made such a division
as the subjects themselves suggested.
The gentleman fronj Pennsylvania also objected to the
raising of a select committee to whom shall be referred all
that portion of the President's message which relates to the
manner in which the war shall be hereafter conducted and
the policy which was to be pursued. That portion of the
President's message which relates to thib commencement of
hostilities, &c. the gentleman from Pennsylvania thought
should go to tho Committee on Foreign Affairs. But the
question was as to the manner in which the war shall here
after be prosecuted, and the policy that shall be pursued , and
every gentleman who reflected 011 that subject would see that
it was as much a domestic as a foreign question. The policy
which had been marked out by the President of the United
States involved proposals to incorporate part if not the whole
of Mexico into this Union, or that we should hold it as an in
demnity for the expenses of the war. Here, then, were great
questions, which, if carried out, would in the end have a
vastly greater influence on our domestic institutions and our
prosperity than on Mexico herself. ,
It is indeed possible, as is said in the message, that these,
great national movements may in their eflccts prove beneficial
to Mexico ; but, if such shall be the result, it will be attained,
if at all, at a greatly disproportionate cost to the United States.
I trust that a subject so great nnd so important as this, one of
the greatest, certainly, that ever has been presented by any
Executive to the American people, will be sent where it ought
to go?to a select committee?a committee of gentlemen se
lected for this especial duty. The Committee on Foreign Af
fairs, as proposed in the resolutions of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, will have a broader scope for their considera
tion and action than ever was before given to any committee
in this country.
I d > not, however, mean to discuss the subject; the time
will not permit; but I will say this, that, in .reading the mes
sage, I was impressed with the conviction, and I do now so
lemnly believe, that in that State paper there are presented a
greater number of weighty and momentous questions, more
new questions especially, on international law, than in any
Executive message that has appeared within a quarter of a
century past.
Mr. McCLERNAND rose and expressed a desire to ad
dress the committee on the subject before it; but, not feeling
able at this moment, on account of the state of his health, he
maved that the committee do now rise.
The motion prevailing, the committee rose accordingly.
. Extract from a letter from an officer at Buena
Vista, dated September 27th, 1847, to his friend in
this county:
" Quite an interesting scene occurred in the Inspector Gen
eral's office yesterday. About twenty Mexicans had been ar
rested for murdering one of the Arkansas cavalry. Not hav
ing sufficient evidence to convict any of them, Gen. Wool
ordered eight men to be selected from the crowd, two of whom
were to be shot unless they would name the murderer. Ac
cordingly they made a sort of lottery from which the Mexicans
(frew for their lives, and a curious spectacle it was to see the
poor fcltowi come up and cross themselves before drawing.
There are aeveral in the prorott guard for various offences,
and I expect some fine morning we shall have a rare time of
hanging or shooting
On the " curiosity " of the war he remarks :
"Curious trade, this war; and while one speaks of it
theie are a great many curious things about it. It is curiinss
that our Government is at war with Mexico, and it is curious
what they are fighting about. It is curious that so many fine
looking fellows should be so anxious to volunteer to fight about
something they know no'hing about, and care still lees ; and
not the I oust curious thing about it is, how the devil I came
to be out here, three thousand miles from home, and eigh
teen miles from any place, sitting in a tent writing letters
upon a table stuck up on four croaked sticks."
As to the sickliest of the troops he says :
" 7*1)6 North Carolina regiment was paid ofT the last of
August on muster-rolls made two months previous, and almost
every fifth man had died since muster. The Mississppi re
giment has nuflered still mwe. Companies that came into
tbe field eighty-five and ninely strong, some now number
scarce thirty men on parade. These things will rob war
of some of the brilliant genu with which newspaper para
graphs have decked it."
The above is but a faint sketch of a few of the evils of the
Mexican war. Our officers estimate that 20,000 men have
perished by disease and battle. Dreadful is the responsibility
of those who have caused the untimely deaths of so many of
our young men, and induced the ruin of thousands more by
broken constitutions and the bad habits often Required in a
military life. Give u* back our young men, ye false Demo
cratic spoechifiers and prophets, who said that the annexation
of Texas would pro^Oce no war ! Tbe Ions of one hundred
millions of dollars in the fruitlcM effort 'Mo conquer a peace "
is of little consequence compared with the untimely deaths of
so many of our young men, and tbe sad effect which war
generally has upon those who stirvivc.
You cannot restore those who arc dead to their heart
stricken relatives 'and friends 5 but the living ran be. In
stead, then, of urging on this " curious " and unnatural war
fare against a neighboring Republic, until twenty thousand
more human victims shall be offered up to Moloch, unite
with the friends of suffering humanity in petitioning Con
gress to put an end to this war as speedily aa possible. -
Au*rrn?? owa's I.irr. to CraccMSTAiicts.?Among
others, a frame building inhabited by a German family, at
T.iwrrnceburgh, floated from its foundation and lodged diagon
ally acros* one of the streets, where the retreating waters left
if, completely blocking up the whole street. When we were
there on Saturday, the family were in it again, apparently as
contented as you please.
Another house, occupied also by German*, floated down
several miles below the town, and lodged on the bank of the
river, with one end projecting some ten feet over the edge.
Here, too, the lately ousted occupants had found their former
habitation, and fire waa burning again on the hearth.
[Cincinnati Atlas.
PiTTsnma Pauvmas' Fustitai.?NartLtx B. Craio
f resided at this snmptuous entertainment on the 84th ultimo.
Among the toasta were :
" Our Country, jright or wrong?We will stand by her
when right 5 when wrong, we will try to right her."
AcctnaiiT.?A team with four persons was crossing a
bridge on the Genesee river at Angelica, Alleghany county,
<N. Y.) on the 19th, when the bridge gave way, and pre
(lpitated two of the four?young ladies named Smith and E.
King?into the river below. They were drowned. "The
horses were also lost; but the two other persons in the vehicle
escaped unhurt.
Messrs. Em to its: In one of my letters, written from Pue
bU, Mexico, I promised to explain the mystery that, up to
this time, exists as to the serious und much to be regretted
difficulty existing between the two distinguished and gallant
officers above named ; and to furnish for your valuable jour
nal the proceedings of the Court of Iuquiry demanded by
Gen. Worth, growing out of the causes thut led to this dis
To a correct understanding of ihc merits of the controver
sy it is proper to remark that the first cause of complaint on
the part of Brevet Major Gen. Worth against the General-in
chief was the unqualified disapprobation of the latter of the
terms of capitulation entered into by the former with the mu
nicipal authorities of the city of Puebla, in his advance upon
and occupation of that city. Gen. Worth, it will be recol
lected, was directed by Gen. Scott to act with his division
i the advance corps of the aimy until reaching and occupy
ing Puebla. As a matter of history, and for the purpose of
permitting every man to draw his own conclusions of the just
ness or unfairness of Gen. Scott's disapproval of the terms of
that capitulation, I deem It due to all concerned to insert a
copy of the capitulation itself. It is in these words :
'* General : If, as \p to be supposed, you are possessed
of a true and ardent love of your country, it will not appear
strange that the first sentiment which the municipality of Pue
bla manifests in addressing you be that of profound grief for
the inevitable necessity it finds itself under of regulating with
the enemy of its nation the terms least opprobrious for occu
pying the capital of this State by troops of the United States
of the Noith. It consoles itself, however, with the idea that
its immediate sacrifice has the only object in view of saving,
if not the same national rights, (which is beyond the possibility
of their attempting,) at least the very dear interests of the un
armed population which the municipality represents. Com
pelled, therefore, to this duty, truly very painful, but inevita
ble, and stimulated by the proposal which you thought pro
per to direct to it from Nopalucan, that before ariiving too
near the city you might enter into a conference with the civil
functionaries, in order to concert with them the best and most
securc measures in relation to the interests mentioned?not
withstanding that some have been adopted analogous to the
preseht case already?the municipality, the only political au
thority which has remained, in view of the defenceless state
of the city, and in virtue of your announcement of having to
occupy it in a military manner, has agreed that the commis
sion from its body, which has the honor of addressing you,
accept the guaranties offered in the following terms :
During the occupation of the capital of Puebla by the troops
of the United States they wiff inviolably respect the Ca
tholic religion, which the nation professes, the public wor
ship and morals, the persons and property of ull the inha
bitants. .
The civil local authorities will continue in the free exercise
of their functions conformably to the laws of the country. In
consequence, if the General of said troop* should consider
any other measures necessaiy besides those dictated heretofore,
especially for the maintenance of public order and tranquillity,
he will communicate his wishes on said subject to the above
mentioned authorities respectively, according to their nature,
and sustain and protect such measures.
The custody of the prisoners and officers in charge of the
municipality will continue in charge of the force which the
civil authority has allotted for it, composed of forty men of
the battalion of the free, (libus, ) allowed to go free from Vera
Cruz as a convict guard, until it be relieved by that of the
United States, when said prison guard will be allowed to re
tire with their arms.
Headquarters, Chichapa, May 15th, 1847.
Approved and granted.
W. J. WORTH, Maj. Gen. Com'g.
The second cause of complaint on the part of Gen. Worth
against the General-in-chicf, was the disapprobation of th#
latter, at a circular addressed by the former to hU division
alone, at a period when the entire force of the army, includ
ing the General-in-chief, was garrisoned in the city of Puebla,
with the exception of the small force left at Jalapu under Col.
Childs. That circular purported to convey the information to
the first division, of which (ten. Worth was the commanding
officer, that a design was contemplated by the citizens of Pue
bla to poison the fountains from whence our army drew their
daily supply of water, and in that way destroy us ; and plac
ing'them on their guard against such inhuman and nefarious
designs, if in reality there was any ground of apprehendfen
whatever that such threats had been made, or, if made,
whether there was the slightest possibility of their being put
in execution.
To the exception* taken- by the General-in-chief at these
two official acts of Gen. Worth, the latter became greatly in
censed, and, permitting his feelings to pervert his better judg
ment, became most violently and bitterly inimical to the Gen
eral-in-chief. The result was, what every reflecting officer
| in the army most deeply regretted, a rupture in those friendly
' relations which, foi upwards of thirty yeara, had existed be
, tween these two gallant and distinguished military chieftains.
The following order, published to a very limited extent by
the General in-chief after the finding of the court of inquiry
demanded by Gen. Worth, contains sufficiently explicit all
] other facts mateiial to a correct Understanding of the affiiir by
your readers ; and, by simply eelting out "in htrc verba," shall
j close this communication : ^
' General Orders, > HnmciitTinii or the Abmt,
No. 196. > Puebla, June 30, 1847.
Abstract of proceedings of a Court of Inquiry which con
! vened at this place by virtue of general orders No. 186, head
quarters of the army, and of which MsjorGen. J- A. Quitman
! is President :
1. The said Court of Inquiry proceeded in due form to in
vestigate the subjects embraced in the two papers herein cited,
viz.: First, the General Order No. 186, Headquarters of the
Army, Puebla, Mexico, June 24, 1847, as follows :
I " At the instance of Brevet Major General Worth a Court
of Inquiry will meet in the building called the Palace of thia
( city, at ten o'clock to-morrow morning, to investigate certain
matters in which that General Officer conceives himself to
I have been injured by the General-in-chief of this armv, viz :
i in the matter of the Icims granted l>y the said Brevet Major
General to the functionaries of this city, in the way of capitu
lation, as guarantees, at or about the time (May 15, 1847) of
his entrance with the advanced corps of the army into the city,
and in the matter of a circular, dated June 16, 1847, publish
ed by the said Major General to the officers of his division."
If there be other matters in the conduct of the said Brevet
Major General which he may specislly desire to have investi
gated by the said Court of Inquiry, he will submit them to the
. General-in-chief, through the Recorder, for fuither orders in
I the case.
Detail.?Major Gen. Qcitmax, Brig. (Jen. Twioos, Bre
vet Brigadier Gen. Smith, Members. Lieut. R. P. Ham
mond is appointed special Judge Advocate.
The Court will give an opinion of the mrrits of ali the mat
| ters investigated by it
By command of Major Gen. Scott :
H. L. SCOTT, A. A A G.
Second. A brief statement by Brevet Major Gen. Worth,
of the matters in which he conceived himself wronged by the
Genersl-in-chief, and to which the investigation extended
under the order instituting the court, in the following terms,
1 viz:
I. In the matter of an interview had May 15th, at Chi
chapa, Mexico, lietween Brevet Major General Worth, com
mandiug 1st division of the army, and the civil authorities of
Puebla, at the instance of said Brevet Major (General?the
General in'chief (verbally and in writing) has improperly,
in manner and in matter, characterized the proceedings at
said interview to the ptejudice and wiong of said Brevet
Major General. ,
f[. In the mnAer of a circular, which wa? addrr?eed by
Brevet Major General Worth, to the lat Division, on or about
June 16th, 1847?the General-in chief, verbally and in writ
j ing, has harshly and injuriously characterized *aid circular,
j and in a manner uncalled for, and to the undeserved reproach
?if said inferior officer.
After an investigation of the above matters, the court made
the following decision in the case :
That, regarding the remaiks of the Genersl-in-chief, dated
Junt. 17th inatant, endorsed upon the translated copy of a
letter from the Mexican Judge Duran to Major General Scott,
dated the 16th of June instant, as hypothetical and applicable
only to c!aims urged by the Mexican authorities which the
General in-chief, at the time of his remarks, supposed to be j
"without authority," and which Brevet Msjor (Jen. Worth
insists were not conceded by any of hia official acts, the Court
can perceive nothing in the remarks of the Genoral-in-cliief,
to which Brevet Major General Worth coulJ properly take
The Court Is further of opinion that the terms of stipula
tion granted by Brevet Msjor General Worth to the function-1
aries of the city of Puebla upon his entrance with the advanced
corps of the army into that city on the 15th of May last, were
unneeeiuntrily yielded, improvident, and in effect detrimental
to the public acrvice. And that the grant of these privileges-!
was in contravention of the ninth and tenth paragraphs of
General Orders No. 20, published at Tampico on the ,19th
day of February last, and u<a? not warranted by the letter Of
instructions of the General-in-chief to Gen. Worth.
The Court, as required, further declares ita opinion that the
" circular" published by Brevet Major General Worth to his
division, dated Puebla, June 1?, 1847, was highly imnrojnr
and extremely objectionable in many reapecta, especially as it
might tend, by exasperating the whole Meiican nation, to
thwart the well-known pacific policy of the Lmted Stale* and,
iu view of the high source from which it emanated, to disturb
the friendly relation* of our Government with Spain, or at
least give occasion to that Power to call for explanation, or
apologies. The bjrbaroua offence against which the circular
warned the soldiers of the first division, if it eiUted at all,
equally affected the whole army. The information obtained
bv Gen. Worth, if worthy of notice, should therefore have
lit en communicated to the General-in-chief, that he might
have exercised his discretion on the means to 1* adopted lor
CO\Vith these views of the circular alluded to, the Court is of
opinion that it called for the emphatic admonition andrebukt
of the General-in-chief. ,
In conclusion, this Court deems it materia to the case to
express the opinion that in the right and (he duty of the Go
neral-in-chief, and indispensable to the preservation of proper
discipline in the army, that he should at all tunes possess ihe
privilege of freely commenting upon, disapproving, or c?n?ur
injr the ollicial acts of hi* subordinate officers.
II. The General-in-chief approves the proceedings and
01>Vl 1?' Til is order6 wi 11 not extend beyond the commanders of
divisions and brigades, and the. chiefs of the general ?taff.
IV. The Court of Inquiry, of which Major General Quit
man is president, is dissolved. ,
By command of Major Genjjal^Scott ^ ^ ^ ^ Q
I regret that the circular alluded to in the foregoing pro
ceedings has been mislaid by me, or 1 would ''kewuje have
given a copy of that. GOMEZ.
Messrs. Eorrons : I have recently fallen upon some etymol
ogies not found in any of our dictionaries, which may amuse
?ome of my fellow-readers of the National Intelligencer who
dwell along tho ancient Pawtowomeake, and therefore send
them to you. Perchance you may have space for them be
fore the month of Documents shall engross you. The autho
rities I cite are found in *' The True Travels, Adventures,
' and Observations ofCaptaine Iohs Smith, in Europe, Asia,
? Africke, and America : beginning about the yere 1593, and
? continued to this present year 1629." The author is treat
ing "of such things which are naturally in Virginia and how
they use them," pp. 121-1517.
Chincopin.?" They have a small fruit, growing on little
trees, husked like a chestnut, but the fruit most like a very
small acorn. This they call Chichinquamem."
persimmon.?"The fruit like medlais they call Putehamens^
they cast upon hurdles on a mat and preserve them as pruines.
Words in the Powhatan, denoting fruits, whether nuts,
berries, or grapes, had their termination in aniens, and a**ord
of nearly equal sound must have been used by the W ellinis,
(Illinois,) as Charlevoix (in 1721) describes tho same fruit
under the name of Piakemines or Plaquemines. So^ from
the same root the English have Persimmon and the French
have Plaquemines. The latter name is conferred on one of
the bayous of the Mississippi, and the boatmen have moulded
it. to Pluck-em in.
Hickory.?" When they need Walnuts, they breake them
betweene two stones, yet some part of the shels will cleave to
the fruit. Then doe they dry them againe upon a mat over
a hurdle. After, they put it into a morter of wood and beat
it very small : that done, they miit it with water, Uiat the
shels might sink to the bottome. This water will be coloured
as milke, which they call Pawcohiccora, and keep it for j
their use."
Tockawhoughe.?Now that is Tuckahoe, but I do not
know exactly how"it comes. Here is the extract: "Ihe
chiefe roote they have for food is called Tockawhoughe. It
groweth like a fligge in marshes. In one day a Salvage will
gather sufficient for a weeke. These roots are much of the
greatness? and taste of Potatoes. They are to cover a great
many of them with oke leaves and feme, and then cover all
with earlh in the manner of a colepit: over it, on each side,
they continue a great fire twenty-four hours before they dare
eat it. Raw, it is no better than poyson, and being rosted,
exccpt it be tender and the heat abated, or sliced and dryed
in the sunne, mixed with sorrel and meale or such like, it will
pticklc and torment the throat extrcamely; and yet in sommer
they use this ordinarily for bread." Theso roots are no longer
used in Tuckahoe, but the same characteristic abides, for the
people thereabout "do prickle and torment the throat ex
treamely with herring-bones."
Arougkeun. ?This U a puxzle until you read the following
extract : "There is a beast they call Aroughcun, much like
a badger, but useth to live on trees as squirrels doe.' J he
sound of this spelling in the days of Captain Smith would be
\rrok-koon. The first syllable is dropped now, and the name
becomes Raccoon. The second syllable is going fast, and
when the name gets to be simply 'Coon, the derivative will
not be so obvious to future acrutiny. . 1
Pone and Hominy?Noah Webber's dictionary does not
cont?in the wo d Pone, but if it did we should doubt
less find it derived from the French pain, or the Spanish
pan, or perhaps from some Sanscrit root. But I find both
Pone and Hominy in the following passsge : " Their corne
they roat in the eare green*, and bruising it in inorler
of wood with a pott, lap it in rowles in the leaves of their
corne, and so boile it for a daintie. [Perhaps that is worth
trying yet. ] In winter they esteem it being boy led with beanes
for a rare dish, they call Pausa-roicmena. Their old wheat
they first steepe a night in hot water, in the morning pounding
it in a morter. They use a small basket for their temmea,
(tammis,) then pound again the "great, and so seperating by
dashing their hand in the basket, receive the flower in a platter
made of wood, script to that forme with burning and shels.
Tempering this flower with water, they make it either in
cakes, covering them with arfiea till they be baked, and then
washing them in fsire water, they drie presently with their
owne heat ?, or el?e boyle them in water, eating the broth with
the bread which they call Pouap. The groutes and peecesof
the corne* remaining, bf fanning in a platter or in the wind
away the branne, they boil three or four houres with water,
which is an ordinary food they call Vstata ham-en
Pf^l Tobacco.?On Smilh'a map, made in 160$, we find a
town on a bay of the Potomac, called Potapara. At what
seems to be the same place on modern map* stand* the town
of Port Tobacco. I* not the latter name a transmutation of
the old Indian name Potapaea ? Curious-changes of like kind
have happened elsewhere. On the Mississippi (I wish we
could *pell this name Micisepi, aa Charlevoix doe*) there i* a
place known to the old keelboat meri a* the Bob. Iluly Bottom.
At aome future day It will doubtle** be thought that the
name was given to perpetuate the memory of aome roystering
member of the Mike Fink tribe. You will aee in it the
Boatman's dialect for Bois Brulr, a name which had been
conferred on the *pot by their Canadian predece**ora.
Urrawa, Ohio, Note???? t7, 1>*7. .
I AMP*, VHAIIIELIKM, Candelabra, Glraii
i dole* Rich China and Hohemlan <;laaa \ a?e?.
all Lantern.. *c?DKITZ, BKOTHF.KS fcc CO.,
Washington Stores, No. William slreet, New \ ork, one
door south of Fulton street, are imaafcsturing and have al
ways on hand a full assortment of articles in their line of the
following description*, which they will sell, it wholesale or
retail, at low price* fo ? cash :
Solar I .Amps?(iilt, Bronzed, and Silvered, in great vanity
Suspending Solar Lamp*, gilt and bronted
Bracket do do do
Side do do do
Solar Chandeliers do do '2, .% 4 and 6 lights
Csmidline Suspending 1 *mp?, gilt and bronzed
IVi Bracket ?'o do 1
Do Chandeliers do do i, 5, 4, and 6 lights
Girandole*? Gilt, Silvered, and Bronzed, various patterns
Candelshraa do do do
China Vaaea and Bohemian Glass \ ases, do
Kail lanterns, a large assortment, plain and stained
Stained and Bohemian Glass Lights
Lamp Wicks, Chimneys snd Shades of all kimls
Paper Shades, a large assortment of ne? patterns and styles
Oils?Sperm, Whale, and 1-ard, of the beat quality
Superior Camphlnt *t"l Burning Flmd. dec S??.?%>
,? ette street, Baltimore.
I. The most intelligent physicians of the age tavor . lagne
nathic treatment.
i. The records of public snd private medical institutions in
Europe teem with proofs of its efficacy.
A. Tire Magnepathic Journal ot Kev. W. H. Snuth con
tains testimonials from (he most respectable citizens of Mary
land, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and other Statea, showing that
h? is daily performing cures unsurpassed in the annals ? rneu
"ViaKnepathr can Ik- applied wih advantage in almost
every form of <!(???*, and can in no case injure the patient, if
,,rvMn^?-i'of Females find in Magnepathy a mild ami effi
cient rtm djN b.e ,nfirfnMT> corner of Fayette and Park
street*, opep .Tailv from 7 A M till S P M., .* fitted up for
the reception of gentlemen and ladie* *o a.> tom...re pcfmy
as well as comfort. 1ft?w4t?taw+w
Momut, Jakcabt 3 ?FoUTI-SIXTH Dat.
The Judge Advocate sluUd that be hi?d u paper to reiid in
reply to that submitted by the defence ou the last day ol Hit
ting- Whereupon the Court won ordered to be cleared.
When the doors were oper.ed, it was announced lhat the
Couit would hear the paper of the Judge Advocate rea* and
it was read as follow* ;
The Judge Advocate submit# the following note in reply to
the paper of Lieut. Col. Fremont, presented just before the uti
iournmeut of (be Court on the last day of the session, and al
iening tt series of irregularities in the preliminaries o c.
trial, which'irregularities h? treats under seven distinct heads.
1. Lieut. Col. Fremont alleges as an irregularity that a
court of inquiry was not instituted to investigate the maun
?ow under trial, but that, without such preliminary procur
ing, it was sent at once to a court martial i and he refers to
the practice in the Hritish service as suggesting a rule wine >
ouebt to be followed in ours. ... u /?,i ;?i
The Judge Advocate supposes from Hough s book (win
ia cited bv Lieut. Col. Fremont) that, when charges are
brought before the Commander-in-chief in the British service,
it is, by their practice, as it is clearly by their law, in his < is
cretion whether to semi them to a court martial or to oroer a
court of inquiry. Following the citations made by Uieuu
Col. Fremont, in which charges are directed to be properly in
vestigated by the officer commanding on the spot, ">??)
are transn.itted to the Central, it is said as lollows ? " ie
case of an officer, on report of the circumstances ol U?o na
ture of the complaint, t*c. to the commander-in-chiel, his Ex
cellency would order a court of inquiry to be assemble", 01
adopt such other measures, by directing the party to I*
in arrest and charges to be preferred ag*inst him, as he migni
deem proper. ??- Hough, f *4, edition o/ 1K'25, wtc
But. whatever be the British rule, it has never been the pn?e
tice in our service to resort to courts of inquiry where apec.nc
charges are preferred, with all the necessary specifications ol
fact, and time, and place, with a tender ol the i^cet^piroof,
and on the proper official responsibility ol an officer
the charges. In such eases a preliminary court of h"
Hlwavs been considered useless, either to collect the prool or
ascertain the precise ground of charge ; and, in generaJ, the
official responsibility ot the officer prelerring the charges has
been thought a sufficient security against mere unfounded, anil
vexatious,'and malicious accusations.
If however, it were Thought expedient to employ courts 01
iuquirv in our service, according to tl.e practice
Lieut Col. Fremont to prtvail in the British army, it would
not be allowable under our laws. The greater number of our
Irene ml courts martial (all. indeed, except the courts ordered
fv the President) are convened under article 65 of the Rules
anil Articles of War, by Generals commanding armies or
Colonels commanding separate departments, and such officers
?ire not permitted to order courts of inquiry. On the contra
ry.as courts of inquiry aw, in their nature, inquisitorial, and
in practice dangerous, our service has been carefully protected
against them by our military laws, and they are prohibited Lb;
the strong language of the 9'2d article of the Rules and Ajrti
Scsof X, unless ordered by the President of the United
States, or demanded by the accused. In this case the demand
of the accused, in the first instance, was for a speedy trial by
a court martial, though subsequently the limiting the investi
gation to the charges of Gen. Kearny was objected to; the
court martial had, however, then been ordered. And, though
it wua legally within the power ol the President to order a
court of inquiry, the general practice of the service was con
formed to in cases of specific charges, and a court martial was
But whether this ease be one in v Inch the President might
have employed the discretion socially confided to him by law,
ami have ordered a court of inquiry, isa question not to be en
tertained by this Court. And while a conformity to general
nractice (a departure from which is only permitted by law as
a matter of special discretion) cannot be an irregularity, it is
clear that the whole subject is out of the jurisdiction ol any
'T-rT'^ond irregulrrity suggested is, that the charge
preferred by Gen. Kearny was altered by the tutbonty ot the
War Department without the direct and personal order of the
President, who alone, Lieut. Col. Fremont supposes, had au
tho- ilv to order any alteration in the charges
Not to consider whether the rule which governs on this
point of amending charges-being given to our service in the
form of a regulation published trom the \\ ar Department _
may be generally or specially abrogated by the Department, it
would appear conclusive of this object ion to cite the decision
of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case United
States ft. Eliason, captain of engineers, whet* it is de
clared that the acts of the War Department, in what relates to
the army, are the acts of the President?the Department being
the official organ by which his acts are promulgated to the ar
mv It has never been supposed, except as the organ ot the
President, that the Secretary of War exercises command or
government over the array. ... <? .1
.3. The third irregularity alleged is the repeating ol the
mine specifications under different charges.
This mode of drawing charges, the Court is aware, is accore -
?|ne to the long and well-established rule ol our service, which
has l.-en followed and practiced so far hack as we have any
military records to appeal to, and the Judge
a? >re that it has been before questioned. 1 his book of court
martial orders, here exhibited to the Court, shows such cases :
I'mm 1815 to 1844, to which time the coHeetiou is made up.
lTfii*set ofehargcH in this book bears date April ?, 18.5,
in thec.se of Gen. Wilkinson, lor conduct ,n the war on tlis
Northern frontier. They are signed by Martin \ ?
Judge Advocate, appear drawn up with care and "?
the trial was an important one. 1 he officer on trial w??
Major General in the army, and the ?se was
to die public and the Government. 1 he second charge in thu
case is " drunkennes, on dutv." with two specibcat.ons re
ferring to the 6th and 7th of November, ahich two specifica
tions are repeated under the charge third, of conduct unbe
i coming an officer and a gentleman.
A umber case, not in this book, but concerning the sartie
General, may be seen in his memoirs, in the charges sent to a
I court of inquiry for bis supposed connexion with the Spanish
I Goreniineiit ofLouisiana. Th? se charges are drawn, in..very
elaborate lorra by Walter Jones, Lsq., as Judge Advocate,
and there the same practice is tolloweilot laying the same tacts
""fcS.tT'hi. book i.of Augurt 14,-,?-M.?
Chum, third infantry?where the same acts are laid under
three Charges : first, disobedience of orders , "cond, fraud ;
third, negl. ct ol duty , which case was revised by the I resi
ded of the United Slates
Not to multiply instances to prove a rule with which all the
Court are familiar. I cite one othvr, which, from certain pnn
ciplcs involved in it. was interline to the army, and receded
special notice at the time from the War Department and th.
President It is the case ol MacKar, quartermaster, foi de
ny,ng St lawful authority of Major Worth, oraw offiec-.no
ol ihi Mrinnr corps, to take command at West 1 oiut. 1 his
was the unportant principle involved. In the cliarges the same
acts arc Is,dander two charges : first, disobedience of orders ;
second un?fficerlikc and insubordinate conduct. The case
-uiM.rate'v examined bv the SecreUry of ar, and his
TZTS&fmm, laid before the President, Mr. J. <4
aC The order of Major Worth was pron.unoed illegal 4
but aeitht r on die trial before the Court nor ^tMrejTm
vi?l of the proceedings by the President was any error alleged
or found in the charge. Aud so the practice in this matter
has continued in cur army to this day. F?.m?llt
As retards the British service, to which L?cut. Col. Fremont
rrfers^artile can hanlly be drawn fr^.he^^.oeto^
The form of drawing charges observed in the two ?ei-Tie?1
a holly different It sppears not to be cuMoma^ w.ththern
as it is with us, to lav a general clmrge, which defines the legal
offence, and under which the acts alleged aic recited as spe ci
fieetiens I he, do not make, as we al ways do, any distinction
between charges and .pacifications. 1 hey set out the act. in
the nan-alive form, gtv ing all necessary particulai s, as also
time and place. I hese allegations they call charges ; but they
do not allege the specific legal offence involved, as we do, and
wSS S.le.h.' ?h.nr Th., wmrtim-. ff.r.l
averment at the end of the whole, cf-.rg.ng all which
conduct, or anj part ol it, to be prejudicial to good order and
military discipline, aud in breach of the articles of war, or
J33LS inlamous, derogatory to character, bctmsing pro
kSSLl incapacity, ke. t" making, in ?moi^ wlmt would
seem an in.l.s^im.n.te apphcat.on ot ^ibets.
The Judee Advocate re ers the Court to Hough, pp? 4-?^l ,
348, and throughom the volume generally, to show the mode m
whi.h aharces are framed in the British service. VV ith them
sufficient to a goo?l charge that the acts charged be
'"Sue own'mode, it is obvious, is much more exact in all
requirements of a legal charge. ^ e declare the lega ntl. nee j
which the acts are supposed to constitute. Where the same
acts are laid under dill- rent charges, the Court determine to
which charge the acts amount. . i _,, .1.
It is obvious, also, whr. In British clss?rgra, >. l.er^p fws
legal offence is not declared, the same facts are not rgerte*.
as with us where the same spec.tication is laid under MTI
than ehai-ge. In effect, we charge the
such and such an article of war, indicating the articles ( tlWf
charge a breach of all the articles, one and ill.
In regard to the general principles of criminal
ed to by Lieutenant Colonel Y remowt as co."'.." ,r
mode ^f fmmiivg charges which ha. ,
the Judge Advocate supposes, the practice , ?
(ft'-v courts to be in arconlanee with all the anal g.cs
ol the common law. The common law and the m.
hw agree in principle, and the diffe-rence n ''' ? o ;
form ot the triah At common law, the same act n
tute very different offences ; the man who sppbes a torch toa
daellmg-hoe.se, and bums down the house, ^
pie in iJTenmmits murder a. well as arson, ???>?"***"' t
dieted for both crimes, and the same fcetsani
deuce would establish both. At common law he Utr^f for
the sanae act at different times, and f"'differed, i.n 1
Anel, rscaping one, ma> be convicted of the ot " ?
litary law (and this is the only difference bet 1
joins the two inelietmenta, for the same act, in ? ' *
for public convenience ; to save si parate trials 01 > . . '
to avoid spc?ial pleading and toehn.cal aeqintta 11 -
and lK-caw. ot\,er*ise-. after each trial, refcrence? mnst W
had to the officer ordering the court to order a ne
ne? 'barges a less convenient machinery than th. g J ry
and tlrt new itMlictmeuts, of which as many ni:?v ?< ?
as the tacts can warrant or tlie prosecuting attw-nev _ ?
The objections which Lieut Col. *i-emont urge'? s^a!In*
joining two olfcnces in th^ same indictment wimh m
tural reason to apply equally to offences of the sam _genu? ?
l?? ofTenoci whollv differing in kivnl. The cU*s* ?
fences'in this reVpect, in regard to the admsu.strat.on ot on
minal justice, would seem to be a purely'_arll?i(Irsrv '
of law. Mureler and manslaughter are .n then cr.niina1 es
sence as distinct as murder and theft ; and murilei J
able homicide, though the same act may Const, tute cithy.erc,
in the criminal eliaposition and intent which constitutes the
crime, further ?-parateel than lareeny is from if. The
injtistiae of confounding crimes, which Lieut. Co . I -
illustrates in his argument, is certa.nly equal, whether they j
be of the nme fgtnlit or wholly mlwmit it*. kiiuU
There i* another difference in lite f irm of trial* at common '
law and the military law, not referred to by Lietit. Col. Fre
mont, but which raise* no inference that the military rule it
illegal. In common-law courti, ditTerent indictment* for dif
ferent crime* are not tried all at once?a* larceny, h ighway
robbery, and murder. Hut in military court* we try all at
once any number of charge* against the aaiue person ; and
thi* never has been questioned, and the Judge Advocate sup
pose* i* not now questioned, wlitre different act*, as constitut
ing different offences, are charged.
; bo that if the stri<^ practice of the common-law courts is
to subvert our practiK in the one case, it w ill in the other. If
we cannot put the same acts under different charge*, we
saimot try at the same time differeot charges for different act* ;
and every aourt martini that ever sat in Great Britain or the
United States ha* been irregular and illegal.
4. The fourth irregularity suggested is an alleged duplicity
in the specifications, which charge certain actsas done in usur
pation of the office of governor, See. The Judge Advocate
does not rccoguise any lejjal duplicity in any of these specifi
cations. The act is specified, and then the legal offence is
pointed ou? in the act, without which ingredients it* the act it
would be innocent. For example, the general charge is mu
tiny. Under tltit are several specifications ; each specification
sets out oue overt act, such as the order to Wilson, which is
rt tiled at length; then the specification declares wherein the
order is an act of mutiny, because therein he declares himself
commander or governor, and raises troops in defiance of Gen.
Kearny. In tins is no duplicity ; it is a single charge and a
single act. It is merely like the conclusion of an indictment.
It adds nothing to the specification ; and the specification
would in ordinary cases he good without it, where the offence
is evident in the act itself; as some writers have said (Hough,
page 4'2, note 108) that an indictment would be good without
the ftrniHl conclusion, " against the peace and dignity," ike.,
though the better opinion and the invariable practice is other
wise. Duplicity is wheu there are two or more offences in any
j oue count. For example, says Hough, "one count caunot
charge a murder and a robbery."?(Hough, page 40.)
The Jud^e Advocate proposes here to the Court to take the
second specification to the fn'st charge, (which L,ieut. Colonel
Fremont object* to,) and compare it with a charge in Hough
, at page 1348. This second specification, after reciting the or
der to Wilson, concludes thus :
"Thereby raising, and attempting to raise, troops, in viola
tion and contempt of the lawful command aforesaid of his su
, peri or officer, Brigadier General Kearny, dated January 16th,
1HI", thereby acting openly in dcfiauce ot, and in mutiny
against Ui* superior officer aforesaid, by railing and attempt
ing to rai*? troops, and by proclaiming himself to be, and as
suming to act, as commander of the United States forces iq
The following will be found in Hough, as a charge or speci
fication, at page 34S : y
'? 5th. That the said Major General P. did not, on the said 5tl?
day of October, either prior to or subsequent to the attack by the
enemy on the utid division on the day, make the military dis
position best adapted to meet or resist the said attack ; and that
during the action, and after the troops had given way, he did
not make any effectual attempt in his twn person, or other
wise, to rally or encourage them, or to co-operate with and
support thy Indians, who were engaged with the enemy who
were on the right, the tuitl Major General P. having quitted
the field soon after the action commenced; such conduct on th*
part of .Major General I', betraying great profe*ai0tal i'icu
fiacity, tending to the ilejeat and dishonor of hi* Jrlajestij's arm*;
to the tacrifice of the division of the army committed to his
charge, being in violation of his iliity ; and unbecoming and ?o?
gracrjid tt> his character as an officer, prejudicial to good ortler
and military discipline, and contrary to the articles of tear.
This is a case which may be quoted as authority in the
British army for the form ol military charges., It was the trial
of an officei' of high rank. The proceedings went to the
Crown?were reviewed by the Prince Regent, and his opinion
returned through the Adjutant General ol the British army to
the General commanding in Canada. .
Now, it this be a good military charge,, how can the second |
specification of this fu st charge on this trial be bail ana in |
which is the duplicity ' The one (the specification here) ,
?lieges a single act, and two ingredients of that act, as amount- '
i ins to mutiny. The British authority allegesifour distinct acta
or omissions ; am ng them the general undefined allegation ol
I " not making the best tlisfiositions'"?from which follow, as dc- j
fining the legal offence constituted by the acts, six general
allegations, such as we call charges ;_and, in addition to these, ]
alleging a breach ol all the articles ol war.
Lieut. Col. Fremont thinks the tenth specification to the
first charge more obnoxious than the reft to this objection ot
duplicity. 'The Judge Advocate thinks the charge is single,
viz. usurping the functions and sitting aside the lawful autho
ritv of his superior officer, of which four distinct acts ot the
same kin<l are given, calling and approving general court*
martial and discharging officers. These acts are recUed
lately and distinctly as several couuta. It would only have |
varied the form and not the substance to have put the legal
inference from the acts after, instead ol before them. But
look at the British practice, as given jus( before in the case ot
Major General P., and tins is conformable to the general
principle and rule as Hough lays it down hi the eorai.ienee
ment of his treatise, at page 4U, where he says: "Laying
several overt acts in a court fir high treason is not duplicity,
because the charge consists of compassing, btc. and the overt
acts are merely evidence of it; and the same as to conspiracy.
And he adds, in note 158, "thus in mutiny."
5. The fifth irregularity Lieut. Col. Fremont attributes to
a form of expression used in the specifications which he con
sider* i>s charging an act, and presenting the usurpation as re
sulting from the act instead of the act resulting Irom tt?e
n . ? i a i 1'... il.i.t flia eharw
SUilllie IH'UI ti?c p?.v w" -?? , .
usurpation. The Judge Advocate replies that the charge ,
is mutinv and the specifications are acta m which lieu
tenant Colonel Fremont assumed the office ot governor,
fctc., and it appears to the Judge Advocate to present the
same meaning, to any legal interpretation and grammatical
? . l .1 U k.? <ni.l tl.ut thf n(haf WMI UlUlDfrt lli
same meaning* w ,,,wr-w; - ? ^
I construction, whether it be said that the office was usurped in
doing tin: act, or that he did the act and thereby usurped the
office, lu either mode of expression the meaning seems tree
Irom ambiguity. ,, . . - . . ,
f>. The sixth alleged irregularity is attributed to the re*"*1
in the specifications of the letters and documents on which the
charges are founded. The Judg. Advocate supposes this to
be so far from an irregularity, as to be strictly conformable to
i tli? best and moat exact practice in framing i barges lor a mill rj
court, and to be essentia1 to proper and precise specih cations
The objection is, that the document! are evidence, an?I
i ought no!, therefore, to be in the indictment s and the princi
ple is supposed by Lieut. Col. Fremont to b., that when a pa
per writing is the gist, constitutes the oHcnce prosecuted,
then, and uot otherwise, can it be put in the uidylrowit. The
Judge Advocate cannot speak with confidence ol the practice
in common law courts He supposes, boa ever, that in an in
dictment for lorgery, though the act ?? forgery be only tht
false signature, yet the whole instrument must bs set out. o
too for a w ritten challenge to fight a duel. '1 ,,c W,'\l,nK ll ??
the act, nor the crime, which is attempting to take III*, yet the j
challenge must go in the indictment.
A stronger case is the passing ol a counterfeit bank n ,
knowing it to be counterfeit. The crime is in (tasting ,
the whole i>a?e must be described and recited in the in 1 -
ineiit, even to the ornamental (tarts, the capitals, and numerals
in the margin. , ? .? .
But then: letters and orders in these speciticat cms ewne
w ithin the rule as Lieut. Col. Fremont defines it. I hey r >- j
stitute the act of offence charged. 1akc the letter l.? Mr.
Hall. The letter is the act of asurpation, resistance, or mat ^
It'has^'always been held before a
charging a disobedience of a written order, he order must be
exhiM in the specification. TV .accused has he rgrtto
require il?to know what order he is * r
ing. So too in regaril to letters?where the offence is wrsUitg
r.M|nthtf particularity and detail onlv tends to
?ion. It cannot aggravate charges ai fty the ?ise ge
descriptive language, and is lavorable to the ? ' ^ '
posing on the prosecution the necess ty ol a jitetaer F??
establishing evirv averment. So it, tlie esse o Col_FfWa<S< s
alleged re(tort o( his battalion to Gen. Kearny. T he allega
lion was weakened by exhibiting the letter, and Us apparent
informal char.ieter, in the specification. , i,_
Charges sent to court, martial lor trial
professional person., The. are not usoalht*
skilful technical critic am. \l has been consul,r. <1 that B?Ul
tart charges are good and sufficient when he. are eW?r and
free from ambiguity, and give tlie accused
of what is charged against him. Such is cons?dW?f?i I
of a good charge before a court martial. ? , . ..
7. The seventh objection to the regularity o this trial is tlie
"apjiareiit want ol a prosecutor on
The charges are officially presented 10tht
tered on The record, as -charge. l-?^'1 fl ?1'
War Department, on information ol Brig. G??. K?*niT
the Department having limited the chargus to the matters offi
cially reported by Gen. Kearny.
The Court was then again ordered taW cleared.
After it was opened, the following lectston was announced
?? The Court having beanl read a paper pre I tm nary to the
defence ol th. aceuv.,1, upon which no MtU rtjs
i _ui-i. tln.-seni? some matters to the Court over
wtch they hairnTjunsdictio*, and having likewise heard
p<-?d a reiilv to the said paper by the Judge Advocate, directs
that the paper, be not entered on the record, but be put in the j
appendix to their proceedings." ^
The Court adj >utned to t -morrow, 10 o clock
Tir.ansr, Ji*tr*aT 4?Fo*TT-a?T?iiTM Dst.
The Court mt t pttrsuanl to adjournment.
I leut cwl Fremtnt presented ihe following paper s
\|p President: Li. ut. Col. Fremont, by advice of his
eniiiiw'l ore sent s herewith a list of tlie remaining witnesses,
ffonrteen in number,) summoneil on the part of the defence,
fSh-V that \u " % he called and examined, should the
r?.rt ?r ilie Juda'e Advocate have ahy interrogatories to p**o
S m W witnesses we?e, most of them, sum
CTd h W ?? ? ? known upon what charges Lieut. Col.
moned heforr it_w a^ Jg|| mare before it ws. known
toThi't'lim.tsof testimony he would be restrict e?l. Inwme
ed would make them Itelter witnesses, but who have been kept
>w.r ?r ?hear attendance the concealment Irom Lieut. Col.
Fremont of hi* intended arrest and trial preventeil him from
?... . tl tn fiiaf ifv uMi nefKnlutS 1ft I ?<> 1111 S
ri> B The* are all able to testify, nevertheless, to |?oints ,
il^tlieiit. Col'. Fremont is instrweted by his eounsel are
SriLtlfHieeint to the ease, ami material to the defence ; hut
.. the; an- mostly (a ints which the Court has overrid. -'. ^r
others'having tl?e same or similar bearing, Liewt. Col. fre
mont will not in the present positiou ol th? trial, preM his
riX of iiSrV H? dewres, h .wever, that the witnesses
th ,11 bdfceverally called ami sworn, an as to be open to exam- j
ination either b> the Court or the Judge Advocate, and that
they be not di^Lrged until the final result oMh^trjaf
Lieut. Col. Mounted Riflemen.
After some time ta cloae ??-aaion, Major Taom** S^oan.
a w.tnn. on Ifco part of the proaecut.on, was.called
Major 8. was examined by the Judge Advocite and l;> tin
Coutt', and cross examined by the defence. The *u?r of
the examination wa* the alleged taking, by officer* of
lien. Kearny'* command, of a number i>f horse* and mulea,
tor which Lieut. Col. Fremont was responsible, without giv
ing receipts. We have not a report of the examination.
Lieut. Col. Frrmont then presented the following docu
! mentary testimony, with the accompanying papei :
M r. President . Lieut. Col. Fremont submits a series of
papers, marked from A to E, inclusively, to be used as pre
i sumptive evidence, in addition to positive evidence heretofore
adduced, to establish that persons standing in a relation to him
to be material wilnessi/t have beeu kept away by Gen. Kear
ny, through Com. liiddle.
I he lirst ot these napers is from Midshipman Wilson to
the Secretary ol the Navy, dated Monterey, (of Calfornia,)
June IHh, 1847, in which he sets forth his right to return, and
1 asks the Secretary to give such an order us will induce the
| commander on that station to would allow him, the said Mid
I shipinan Wilson, to return to the United Statea. He states
| that he has been on duty constantly since the year 18-41 ; is the
j only; midshipman of ill's first put of that date then ou that
i station ; refers to Com. Stockton as iici/iiuiiited ivith the cir
I cmntluncet of hit detention, and who had endeavored to in
duce Com. Iliddlc to allow him to return, but without success.
Lieut. Col. Fremont states that Midshipman Wilson was
an officer in the California battalion, that he is mentioned in
the specifications, and was present at the scene at Monterey,
i and from his situation must have been a material witness tot
Lieut. Col* Fremont. The paper ottered is a certified copy
! of the original in the Navy Department.
The paper U is an extract from a despetch from the Secre
tary of the Navy, dated October 25, 1847, ant! directed to
Com Jones, directing him to permit to return to the United
| States the midshipmeu of the classes of 18+0 and 1841, of
, whom Mr. Wilson was one, and expressly stating that it was
i ??juut " that they should be allowed to return to the United
Suites to liave the opportunity of standing their examination
for promotion ; the detention of Mr. Wilson being, in the
opinion of the Secretary of the Navy, an act which authorized
the interference of the Department, and authorizes the pre
sumption that he was detained for some extraordinary and un
known cause.
The paper C i? an extract of a despatch addressed to Com.
Shubrick, dated August 21, 1846. It directs Com. Shubrick
to send home for examination the midshipmen whose term of
' service commenced in the first and second quarters of 1841,
by the first public vessel that might return, that they might
prepare themselves for their examination.
1 he paper marked D is an official certificate from the re
! cords ot the Department, show ing, fret, that Lieutenant Wm.
Radford sailed from New York for the Pacific Ocean the l'Ji/i
of October, 1843 ; secttmlly, that Passed Midshipman Louia
McLane sailed from Norfolk for the same station on tl* 4tk
of September, 1843 ; and*, thirdly, that Midshipman John K.
Wilson sailed from Norfolk for the same station on the Xtt of
jVovember, 1841, aod that he was, under the regulations of the
Department, entitled to his examination in July, 1847.
Paper E is the letter of the Secretary of the Navy, dated
December 1C, 1846, and shews the wishes of the Department
in regard to the midshipmen of the class of 1841, of whom
Mr. Wilson was one, and that the justice of his return was
fully conceded. '
Lieut. Col. Fremont asks that the foregoing papers be re
cieved as circumstantial and presumptive evidence, to go with
other evidence already given, and to be taken in connexion
with it, to establish that Messrs. McLane aud Wilson were
detained by Com. Diddle, through the interference of General
Kearny, he (Gen. Kearny) having at that time the secret in
tention (known to Com. Biddlej te arrest Lieut. Col. Fre
mont in relation to his conduct in California, of which Mtssrs.
McLane and Wilson, from their intimate service with him in
the California battalion, must have been known to have been
well acquainted, and also tri<fidly to him.
Lieutenant Colonel Mounted Riflemen.
The Coqrt was then ordered to be cleared. When the
doors were opened the following decision was announced :
|' The Court decides that the paper* cannot be received in
evidence as raising; any presumption that witnesses were kept
from the trial by Gen. Kearny. The Court further remark
that Midshipman Wilson's letter refers to Com. Stockton as
acquainted with the circumstances of his detention, but which
lie (Midshipman Wilson) does not indicate. Whatever this
letter is offered to prove presumptively, Com. Stockton can be
called to prove directly, if the defence desire it."
* The Judge Advocate announced that he desired to reintro
duce Gen. Kearny.
Whereupon Lieut. Col. Fremont offered the following
piper :
Mr. President: Lieut. Col. Fremont is instructed by hit
counsel that it is not conformable to practice that any witness
on the part of the prosecution should be introduced or rein
troduced at this stage of the trial, except upon new matter in
troduced by the defence. He shall, therefore, by advice of
his counsel, object to any witnesses of the prosecution being
reintroduced, until he is informed precisely upon what points
it is proposed to interrogate them, and i/nlil he shall liave had
time afterward to examine whether they have previously beeti
iriterrogited on the same subjects, Au whether the matter ia
ne */ matter brought in by the defence.
Lieut. Col. Mounted Riflemen.
The Judge Advocate then read several questions, which La
said were what he^propoaed to propound to Gen. Kearny.
Lieut. Col. Fremont, by advice of his counsel, then in
quired in whose handwriting were the questions just read by
, the Judge Advocate }
A fin a pause a member moved that the Court be cleared
for the consideration of the paper presented by Lieut. Col.
When the doors were opened, the following decision waa
announced :
"The Court decides that Lieut. Col. Fremont's objection to
the course proposed to be pursued cannot now be enter
tained. If in the course of the examination of the witnesses
recalled by the Judge Advocate the accused should conceive
that any question which may be put is objectionable under the
principle he cites, then, and not till then, will be the proper
time for objections to be made and decided on by the Court."
The President of the Court then addressed Lieut. CaU
Fremont as follows:
?? Lieut. Col. Fremont, I am directed bv the Court to in
form you that thty consider the last question put by you as
highly improper."
[This refers to the inquiry as to whose handwriting th?
questions proposed to be put to Gen. Kearny were in. The
reason of the question is understood to be, thst the defence
suppose them to be in the handwriting of Oen. K. himself.]
The Court adjourned.
Wcn*KSDAT, Ja*. S.?Fobtt-iichth Dat.
The Court met pursuant to adjournment. After
the reading of the Journal?
Lt. Col. Fkbmovt read the following paper t
Mr. President : Lieut. Col. Fremont perceives what he
deems to be an omission in the minutes of the Court. On yes
ten lay evening he received a reprimand from the Court,
through the President, in about these words :
" Lt Col. Fremont, 1 am directed by the Court to inform
you that the}- consider the last question put by you as higtdy
i mpropcr."
This reprimand, thus given by the order of the Court, be
comes the act of the Court, and a part of its proceedings, and ia
required, together with the question which gave rise to the
reprimand, to be entered on the minutes of the Court. Nut
being there, Lieut. Col. F. respectfully atks that they may be
enters d. J. C. FREMONT,
Lieut. Col. MgyAted Riflemen.
The Court was ordered to he cleared. Whan the doors
were opened, the following decision wss announced :
" The aeeused yesterday addressed a question orally, diraat
to the Judge Advocate, inquiring in wh->se hand-writing ques
tions were written which he wss preparing for a witness.
" The Court, through its President, verbally admonished
the accused that it considered his question, thus addressed,
i highly improper. The Court considered an informal admo
nition to the accused sufficiei,! notice, of what it trusted was
an inadvertence, without making a formal reprimand upon ita
i The record of yesterday will stand."
Lt. Col. Fremont read the following paper s
Mr. President : Lt. Col. Fremont is instructed by his coun
sel to say that there is reason to tielieve (hat the quest ions read
on yesterdav by the Judge Advoeate, together with many
other questions proposed by him te he put to Gen. Kearny,
were brought to this Court in tlie handwriting ol Gen. Kearny
himself. Lt. Col. F. was advised by his counsel that it waa
proper to bring this circumstanee, before further proceedings,
to the notice of this Court, which he did in as delicate and in
offensive a manner as the case allowed of. He is advised that
a witness cannot interrogate himself, and shall not be permit
ted to arrange his own course of interrogatories, to make them
square with the answers lie wishes to give. He is advised that
the interrogator, upon either aide, cannot put leading or sug
gestive questions, and this when witnesses are nnimpeachad
?nd uncontradicted i and with far more reason in n case like
the present, where the witness has repeatedly had the benefit
of explanation, after giving teatimony as fully at he desired
through a long course of examination and crt>ss-examination.
Under inch circumstaneet, if a witness be allowed to reappear
at all, it should be in entire ignorance of the course of exami
nation to which he would be subjected, with the questions
framed in the strictest conformity to the rulet of evidence, and
afterwards delivered over to the most searching and lifting re
cross examination.
Lt. Col. Fremont it further advited that it it the legal pre
sumption in'courts martial that the witness is ignorant of what
it testified by others ; and, although the hu t may be otherwise,
yet the legal presumption remains, and this Cmirt can iet upon
nothing Iwit the legal presumption ; and under the tilenae which
tint legal presumption tupposes, ami makes obligatory, even if ,
other rules were not to the same effect, it would be impossible
for one witness to arrange qoeitiont and antwert with a view
to what other witnesses had said.
Lt. Col. Fremont is therefore instructed by hia counsel t?
say, that, in their opinion, he has a right to know whether the
witness (Gen. Kearny) drew up the questions, or any of them,
for himself to antwer ; and, if to, that the feet goes so strongly
to his credit, and the credit of what he may twear, and to vi
tallv concerns the purr administration of justice, that not one
of the quettiont to framed by Gen. Kearny for himaelf shall be
allowed to be put to him.
The Court was ordered to be cleared. When the doors
were opened, the following decision waa announced
" The Court directi that the examination of witnettet be
proeeeded with."
Gen. Kiaunt, a witness for the prosecution, was then re
Examined in chief by the Judgt Adrocaie.
Question. Did you apply to Com. Biddle to detain Capt.
Gillespie at Monterey, in California f
Lt. Col. Fremont objected to this question, as follows'.
Mr. President: Lt. Col. Fremont objects to that question

xml | txt