Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1812-03-12

'hSo ou oPpiStCioiuu billt DuTT WOulu
10 some desperate act ifhe failed. The ex-
,ressions are, II will demand from your
boon, in its influence and effects
with the Union---a boon, per-
haps on which the Union may much de- |
pend"
1t is in evidence before this court, that in |
the month of October, 1906, subsequent to
this last and Intellectual effort to serve Col
Burr, but twelve months before any discove-
ry was made by any other person, General
communicated to one of the Heads
of Department his suspicious that Mr. Burr
" was about something, whether internal or
externalhe could not discover, but he thought
he ought to keep an eye upon him." These
facts seem to be irreconcileable with any
views hostile to the peace, order and integ-
rity of these u. States.
Respecting the fifth charge it ought to be
remembered, that General Wilkinson was,
by the order OF government, at the head Of
an avowed expedition against the Spaniards,
at the very time he is thus charged with be-
ing concerned in a secret and criminal one;
and it is self evident that he had it in his
power, by single sti-mish only, to have car
ried such a scheme int the most complete
effect, with the aid Of the public force under
his command, and with the probability of
receiving the fruition of all his views in case
OF success; with = certainty also, of suffer-
ing neither loss nor blame, in case of failure
But it is in evidence before this court, that
from the time of his leaving St. Louis. tn the
concluding convention near the Sabine Gen.
Wilkinson was zealously and nccssantly
employed in effecting an honorable peace /;
and particularly so, after the criminal views
of Aaron Burr were discovered by him at
Nachitoches it is, besides, contradiction
IN terms, to say that General Wilkinson ia
vored these views, when it is avowedly ow-
ing to him, that they were discounted.
From the evidence adduced on the sixth
charge and its specification, both for and "a
ganst the accused, the court isofopinion, that
the written orders and Instructions from the
War Department, bearing date April 3Oth,
1909, relative to the removal of the troops
from New-Orleans to the high grounds in the
rear of Fort Adams and Natchez, were sufii,
GENTLY explicit and imperative to have au-
thorisedan expectations aprompt obedience
had they reached New-Orleans prior to the
removal of the troops from that place to Ter
re az D9nJ; but as there is no evidence that
said orders and instructions arrived at New
Orleans, antecedent to the 18th of June, 1909,
which was subsequent to said removal, the
court acquits Brigadier General James Will
kinson OF the said sixth charge, and of the
specification attached to the same.
After full examination of the evidence,
both for and against the accused, OH the Sc
venth charge, and after the most mature de-
liberation thereon, the court finds the accused
not guilty of the said charge, nor of any of its
three specifications, and does accordingly ac-
quit him OF all and each of them.
On considering the great mass of testimo-
ny which has been produced to this court re-
lative to this charge, there appears deci-
sIve preponderanCe in favor of the attention,
activity and humane exertions of Brigadier
General Wilkinson; and whenit is consider
ed that the troops consisted mostly of new le-
vies; that the climate on both sides of the
river Mississippi, to very great extent, is
at best insalubrious; and that the summer
and autumn of 1909, were unusually sickly !;
the court is OF opinion, that the msfortunes
alluded to in the second specification are am
ply accounted for.
On the eighth charge, and its three speci-
hcauons, (atter hearing all the evidence, both
for and against the accused, and due delibe-
ration being had thereon) the court is of OPT.
mon, that Brigadicr General James Wilkin-
son is not guilty of said charge, nor any of its
specifications, and therefore acquits him of
all and each of them.
The court deems it necessary to offer few
remarks inexplanation of the above decision,
especially as it regards the two first specif-
cations to the eighth charge.
The transportation of the baggage of Gen.
Wilkinson by the public, appears not to be
prohibited by the "Act fixing the military
peace establishment of the United States, !"
nor by the rules and articles of war; II is
therefore, presumed, that his claim to trans
portation is as equitable as that of other Off
GERS; and In this view Of the subject, the or
der tor the payment of transportation, as
mentioned in the first specification, cannot be
considered by the court as military crime
more especially as the sum paid by the assis-
tant military agent at Pittsburg, appears to
have been debited to General Wilkinson as
long ago as 1905, or the books of the Ac-
countant of the Department of War
The Court cannot perceive that the public
sustained any injury from the short halt of the
detachment on the Ohio, to take on board the
horses Of Gen. Wilkinson; nor does it an
pearthat the public sustained any injury from
the transportation of said horses, i'm bubble
boats, to New-Orleans.
u does not apear, in evidence, that Gene
raj wilkinson directed said horses on their
passage down the river, to be fed at the pub
lic expense; but it does appear in evidence.
that Gen. Wilkinson saved q quantity of pub
lie corn, which was sunk in the Mississippi.
ON board If a public boat in front of his quar-
tiers at New Orleans out of which, after he
caused it to be removed on shore and dried
he detained two hundred and three -four bar
rels full of said corn in the ear-and for
which quantity lie afterwards sent his recent
to Colonel Russell, under whose charge said
corn was transported from the Ohio to New
fuli,