The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-19 00:00:00

receive

The Court, after two hours' deliberation, it being four
o'clock, adjourned.

THE COURT-MARTIAL ON LIEUTENANT
PERRY.

If there be the slighest sense of shame left in the officers
of the 46th Regiment, any lingering remnant of that feel-
ing which ordinary men call honesty—for of the chivalric
feeling of honour there is no question —they must be ting-
ling to the ends of their fingers at the rebuke they have
received from the lips of Lieutenant Perry. We have
not the slightest hesitation in saying that before any ordi-
nary court of justice in these kingdoms the young gentle-
mon who has been so cruelly misused and male the victim
of so vindictive anti unprincipled a combination would be
triumphantly acquitted. The evidence for the prosecution
has turned out in part worthless ; in part it has broken
down. The charges against this officer, although four in
number, resolve themselves practically into two. The first
is a question between him and his commanding officer ; the
second a question between him and a certain Capt. Nieholas.
The gist of the first is, that Lieutenant Perry asserts, and
Col. Garrett denies, "that Colonel Garrett reproached and
called Lieutenant Perry a fool for his pains after he had
reported to him, and that he (Lieutenant Perry) threat-
ened to appeal to the General of the District upon the
subject of the ill-usage he had received." The second
question, which refers to Captain Nicholas, is that Lieu-
tenant Perry asserts, and Captain Nicholas does not deny
—for ho is very judiciously kept out of court—" that
Captain Nicholas had ill-treated officers on joining, and
generally that he had ill-treated young officers." Be it
remembered that the youth who has been kept for the last
month upon the sellette virtually before three courts-martial
did not come forward as an accuser out of mere wanton-
ness, but that the statements attributed to him were made
upon the advice of his legal assistants in the course of his
defence—he, in fact, not being responsible for anything
but the truth of the facts.

From the form which this prosecution has assumed it is
s
not in Mr. Perry's power to meet oath with oath. Ii
adversary is admitted to the privilege—if the termbenot
in such a case misapplied—of calling Heaven to wi
? Colonel Garrett speaks—" Ido not recollect ever
having called Mr. Perry a fool. I don't think I erer did.
This exemplary commanding officer, when asked at a sub-
sequent period of the inquiry if ho had ever used reproach-
ful language to any other officer who had beentiopu pulled
Now,dout
of bed, begged to decline answering that question.
ofn.
ofcers
in support of the charge are produced a number
who boldly assert that they never heard the Colonelcalling
the subaltern a fool, On the other hand, Lieutenant
Perry positively as •erts that hsitsioCnoolonntehledoidooaapsipolnynteomheitin
the opprobrious epithet in i.
Even so far the parties areiunoet upon an equality. Lieu-
tenant Perry remembers a fact whiim, chishloikt ewenhoiouhghetoolnhoaveel
Garrett may
made a deep impression
finnur
it convenient h
convenient to forget. The
point, howeveerr,maisy not
not left there. From the nature
of
the case the colonel cannot produce a witness who would
much help his case,i save he could show that Lieut. Perry
could not. physically speaking, have conversed with him
in private on the day named.. Lieut. Perry, however, on
his side, can heap up probabilities. A third person might
have been present at the interview. This, unfortunately,
was not the oase—at least, as far as any one with a memory
is concerned—but, most fortunately, throughout Lieut.
Perry was acting under the advice of another officer of the
regiment in May, 1853, a few weeks after he had joined.
Lieut. Perry produced this officer to show that he was
acquainted with the system of persecution to which he
had been exposed. Paymaster Corcoran—this is the name
—was produced to prove that at the time he had told
Lieut. Perry how to act, that he had advised him to write
through the colonel to the general of the district, that
Lieut. Perry told him he had done so, and that be had,
moreover, reoorted certain officers to Colonel Garrett, and
been called by Cob nel Garrett a fool for his pains, and
told that he was like a child escaped from his mother's
apron-strings, and that the upshot of it all was that Lieut.
Perry came to him much excited and in tears, and com-
plained to him of the treatment he had received from his
commanding officer. Lieut. Perry, in the course of his
defence, put it very fairly to the court that it was not
within the limits of credibility that he should have got up
this scene as a piece of comedy more than a twelvemonth
back, where there was no prospect of the recent inquiries.
The evidence of Paymaster Corcoran was confirmed by
that of another officer, who showe that the gentle rebuke
administered by the colonel to the young subaltern was the
common talk of the regiment, although all the officers have
now found it convenient to fall back upon defective
powers of memory. "I hope you've had enough
of reporting," said one of these riotous, unmannerly
boys, to the unfortunate youth who made to
sultject of their brutality. Colonel Garrett. has forgotten
also all about the letter which Pa aster Corcoran advised
Lieutenant Perry to write to the General of the D.
__gistric_it,
and whiv/i Lintemt Pau iutonuedhiaa be had asag'`
.

J ..