Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-03-18


enquiry
NJ. J. Montgomery said, that 10 meet the OBJ
jections ofeIed by gentlemen 60 the bin on yes
terlay he had prepared amendments which he
hoped w;'uld remove every objection. Ev then
proposed ~ amendment restricting the power
of military court 10 call witnesses TO the dis.
lance of10o miles from the place where it shall
De held, thus ENGRAVING ON these courts The
principle of civil courts OF the u. = Agreed
TO without a division.
Mr. Liyermorc had no objection to give mi
htary courts the power to compel testimony f
II were so secured rs rot to be Injurious to the
citizen He thought il should never be done
but Tor - specified crime coming within the ar
hcles ofwsT. Why compel n citizen 100 miles
from his home If no end was TO be answered
By it. These charges should be supported bv
affidavit as cases submitted To n grand jurs ;
when that was the case witnesses nigh, at
tend. 10 meet Is own idea on this subject,
he moved the following proviso.
Provided a(tsags, That no summons shall IS
sue unless sonie specific charge shall be made
M Writing supported by affidavit, ofa' offence,
OF winch II the person accused should be az
forwards convicted on trial before court mar
ti.I. such person would be liable TO punish
uitu,, pain GER penalty by virtue Of the act en-
titled an act for establishing rules and ar,i-
eles Tor the government Ofthc armies of the IT,
States" made and passed the 10Th DAY OF a
prii 1906 and It which the trial and punish
Dlent Is not barred bY the SSth article Of sasd
act, or OF amy offence committed in the navy of
the U s. coGniza5le by court martial"
Eir. Bacon objected 10 this amendment IS
g,Nrg totally to exclude courts of enquiry from
tlie operation of the bill If they were consi-
dered as any thing he could not see why they
should not have the same power 20 issue com
puls0ry process courts martial. This amend.
ment WAS drafted IN such a manner rs COM
pletcly and exacdy 60 exclude the court Of en-
Q'ury now pending from exercising the gene
ral power delegated by the an whether this
was the gcntlcman's intention OF not he could
not pretend to say.
Mr.. Liverinore explained his intention 10 be
that citizens should not attend courts in cases
where their evidence could be of no avail or
IN cases Of crimes which the court could not
punish, as in the case OF those specified in
The 8o.h article Of the rules and regulations
FOR the government of the army
Mr.Vamum (Speaker) presumed his col
League was not aware s6t he construction
wbich might be given tsjl,. amendment; for il
would totally exclpue ali military offences of
which u soldier could be charged. The 99th
article barred after a term Of two years all of
fences against the United States and the CON
structi,0n of the amendment which ostens;blv
wen'r 10 require specification, would exclude
from the court the power of collecting testi-
noIy on offences barred by that act, to wit ::
on all offences established by the articles of
war
Mr.. Lirermore replied that lis intention was
merelyto specify the offence on which citi-
zen could be called upon to give testimony be-
fore military court Mr.. L made some fur
ther observations IN support of his amendment
rema sng that if an officer did not choose to
take advantage cf the limitation IN the sSth
article 20 screen bimseit from responsibility,
1 .. 4
Afford him the means Of defence.
Mr. Taylor observed that the 88ts article
had no relation to courts Of enquiry 1t was
the business OF these conrts to say whether an
offence or conduct charged on any soldier came
within the meaning OF the articles of war
Courts cfenquiry might be held on any matter
and their report would decide whether or not
affairs submitted to them were barred by the
88th article, on whether they came within tn
cognizancc of court martial With regard
20 the particular case so often alluded to, MIR
T. did not believe il would be included by this
amendment, though lac believed it totally un-
necc ssary.
Mr. Fisk observed that the house had been
often told of the necessity Of enquiry into a
particular cas-, in relation 10 crimes not of mo
dew but OF ancient date. III The case Of gen.
Wilkinson, that officer had been accused Oi
criIncs Of thirteen years anding the house
conducts the Pre- sidemt informed them that be
had ALREADY doEe 1t; the character of this
pcTson hung on this enquiry. Now in order t.,
shew whether these charges were true or
false, II bad become necessary that persons i'm
civil lie should be summoned 10 give tcstimo.
ny. FCr thc purpose Of justice II had become
ncCC 1aa.y .J ;'lIt It in the power Of each party
70 obtain means OF elimination OF defence
and nov gentlemen came forward and wished
60 limit the en7uiry to transactions Of yeas
standing
MI Rowan in some observations an reply to
d,e gentleman last up, o5scr.ed ;liat gen. w
had the means Of meeting the charges 10.
seph Hamilton DavicSs, a gentleman in tho
western country second 20 few in talents ard
reputation, had long since made these char
ges pledged himself O. the nsiion to prove
tk,m, and challenged Wilkinson 10 prosecute
him Soc making them. Was not here a fair
object for prosecution, a man Of reputation
talents and fortune Cen W having It in his
power to meet these chsrges there was no ne
costly lor lcgisialng on this subject IN deli
cacy 10 lljn But ST they did pass such law
- this TO clOthc the military with tho rights oil
civil life they should do II gu2rdcdly he
was ccrtsinly opposed to the principle, but icI
IT must pass, hc would cndcsyOi 10 make IL
as unobiectionsblc as he could For this rea-
500 he 'yas in favor Of The proyiso.
M TAILOR said, if some time ago there had
b. en- - ,illc anxiety for the devciopcment oil
the charges against thC person whose case had
been 50 pftCn cited as there appeared 70 be
now, this bin would not have fund its way
into ftc house. But che national frclins-e had