Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-12-22

II
bunal before which they We're arraigncd
Our courts martial have no lawful .rris-
diction, beyond that, which is given them
| by the Acts Of Congress establishing the
rules and articles OF war: and II will
hardly he pretended, that these have vest
ed iu them any cogrizance over crimes of
the nature OF those imputed 10 these UNI
happy mrn
! IL The jurisdiction be admitted. the SEN
! iehce against both of them rs unjust in
LAW AMI The sentence against ATbetinct
MAS unjust in point ot fact.
| Arbnilnot was found guilty by the
court martini, un two charges: Isl, of
incit.ns The Greek Indians Ia war against
the t,li'.'l States, he himself being IA Bril-
tisil suhjeci and ms nation AT peace with
OURS 2nd, OF aiding, abeiiing and corr
| inriing Tie enemy, supplying them with
the means of war. Ii will hardly be be-
lieveh, thai the only proof aiduccd, APP
piicable 10 The FIRST at these Two charges,
MAS, the evidence of John Winslct, de-
! failing The contents of letter the witness
| had Interpreted for an Indian Chief called
Little Prince, which The witness said MAS
! signed by a Mr.. Arbuthnot, without stat,
| ing that il was sigsed by the Arbutlinot'
y. no stood accused, thouyl il appears he
| was acquainted with his hand writing;
and the evidence of William Hauibly
! (Arbuiinoi's known and mortal enemy
that the witness had been told 6y the In
| di0aS, thar Arbuihnot lad insigaied them
to war against the United States, and TO
the murder and plumber OF our citizens.
| When The public is informed, that The
rules at evidence are the same in courts
| martial, as those that prevail in courts of
law, II will be a, no loss 10 make a fair es-
nj - sf.f
| As To the second charge (tliscarding the
hearsay evidence fi!ie same w. tiamblO
| the principal proofoftlie charge Was drawn
from The prisoners own correspondence,
and some other documents. ] say, con
| Sdenlly, tha, those papers contain not
| The l"ast proui, that he ever melted The
| Indians 10 offensive war, or aggression OF
any X nd, agansi the United States or
their citizens they relate 10 measures of
defence and prevention against agrees
sioms upon The Indians. Far from. insti-
| eating them 30 war, he manifesily con-
sidered their utter ruin as the certain con-
sequence Of a WARMTH the u. States. He
iabors, therefore, 10 impress upon their
minds, uponihe British minister at Wash
| ing,ou, and on other correspondents, that
| the encroachmenlS of our citizens were
mt countenanced bv The President. In
his whole correspondence there is not 10
| be found one word stronger than the
following letter TO our Indian Agent,
General Mitchell, OF January 10, ISlS:-
In taking the liberty of addressing
"you, sir, in behalf of the unfortunate
indians, believe me have no wish
." but 10 see an end put TO war,
which if persisted in, foresee must
eventually be their rum; and, as they
are MOI the aggresSors, If i'll The height
Of their rage they have committed
:" any excuses, that you will overlook
" them, AS The just ebulliilons ofan mdig-
nant spirit against an invading foe" Ii
Is true, lie was the organ or the instrument
of the Indian appeals 10 the officers of his
own and the Spanish governments, of
their applications for protection i'll " hat
they deemed their just rights, and of their
remonstrances 10 our own Indian agents,
| against past or anticipated injury aud OPP
preston. Ii Is possible too, that he sup
pied them with some scanty munitions
OF war; though "a merciiul court would
iave inferred, that nine kegs OF pow der
and 500 pounds OF lead, were imported by
an Indian trader, as a supply for hunting,
notion war. Thai lie took a deep interest in
the affairs of this devoted race thar he
deplored their miserable condition that lie
regarded them as his fellow creatures; and
was DESTROYS and active 10 save them
from utter extlrpalion OF these tmchriS-
tan crimes Gas Gen. Jackson considers
them, he was certainly guilty. The
General regards him as a secret agent OF
The British government, and thinks that
government was well advised of his pro
ceedings.@ think it very probable
But HAT would prove not his guilt but
his Innocence. II would prove that it was
not the individual, but the British govern
ment that had wronged us, if any wrong
had been done. Its subject could be
guilty OF no fault in following lis orders.
Every subject or citizen owes obedience
10 his government except, indeed, the
officers OF Gen. Jackson's own Division
Of tie South.
| Ambrister was convicted, lst, of fading,
abeiiing and comforting The enemy, sup
plying them with the means of war and
IDLY, ofleading and commanding The Greek
Indians in war against the United States:
he being British subject, and his coun-
try at peace with ours. II is needless 10
discuss the evidence adduced III support
OF the first charge, as the accused CON
| iessed the second, which is lar The strong
er ct the two. II is, sir, unaccOuniable
10 me, how the court martial, conyicfing
this man oil these charges, should in his
case, have COMMITTED the punishment OF
death for that ofslrlpes and imprisonment,
aud should not have recalled The sentence
otdeatli ~ pronounced against Arbuihnot.
Is il iiot clear, that, upon their own prin-
ciplrs, AmDrister was tlie more hejnous
criminal
Bul il, sir, the guilt Of these men, with
every imaginable aggravaiion, be admit
ted, The question would still remain. whe-
Their, according TO the laws of nations and