Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1819-01-15

outlaw and subjected himself TO an igno- j
ninious death, had he fallen into the hands
of the English. Or,can il be believed that
one voice would be heard in Justification OF /
Spain, il she were TO execute such OF our
countrymen as she may make prisoners,
while fighting in the armies OF the South A !:
merican patriots? And if these cases should
not be considered ofsuch nature as to war
rant resort TO SO severe measure, while
they occurred with people in state OF re- :
volution, and considered by the parent
countries to be in state ofrebellion, much
less could these men (Arbutbnot and Am
.brister,) be considered liable to it, who
were acting with a power, acknowledged
and treated as sovereign and independent
by us.
Yosr committee beg leave to call your
attention particularly to the case OF II. Z.
Ambrister, who, after having been subject
ed to trial before court which had no
cognizance or jurisdiction over the offences
charged against him, was shot by order OF
the commanding general, contrary to the
forms and usages of the army, and without
regard to the finding Of that court, which
had been instituted as guide for HIM
self.
Your committee must here, in justice to
their own feelings, express their extreme
regret, that it has become their duty to dis
approve the conduct OF one who has, on
former occasion, so eminently contributed
10 the honor and defence of the nation, as
has major general Jackson; but the more
elevated the station the more exalted the
character Of the individual the more neces-
sary is it, by reasonable. yet temperate
expression of public opinion, through the
constitutional organ, 10 prevent the recur-
renee of incidents at variance with the prin-
ciples of our government and laws.
Nor can your committee forbear inclu-
ding in their structures the court martial who
sat on the trial OF Arbuthnot and AmbrIster.
A court martial is tribunal invested with
limited jurisdiction, having for its guidance
the same rules of evidence which govern
courts of law and yet Arbuthnot is refused
by the court martial, before whom he was
on trial for his life, tie benefit OF the testi-
mony of Ambrister, who had not been put
upon his trial at that time, and whose evil
dence would have been received by any
court of law as legal, if not Credible. Ma
ny other exceptions NIGH be made to the
evidence recorded in these proceedings:
particularly &c the question put TO the wit
ness Hamb;y, viz. "Do you beliepe The
Seminoles would have commenced the bust
ness of murder and depreciation on the
white inhabitants, had it not been at !he in
stigatioh of the prisoner ArbHhnot,l and
promise on his part, of British projection %
Answer: 81 do not 6etiers they would,
without they had been assured of British
protection A leading question is express
ly forbidden TO be used by court martial,
by Macomb on Martial Law, and of which
the court must have been appraised, as it is
work common in the army, and usually
referred to by ev ry court martial when in
session and the question was calculated to
elicit an expression of opinion and belief
from the witness, rather than statement Of
facts, upon which alone could the court act.
Hearsay evidence, in case of lie and
death, your committee viii venture to as
sert, was never before received against the
accused in any court OF his country. ard
yet on the face OF the record of the pro-
ceedings OF the court martial, hearsay testi-
mUny is admitted, which had been received
from an Indian, who if present, would not
have been allowed to give evidence him
self.
After mature deliberation, your commit
tee beg leave 10 submit the following reso-
luton:
Resolred, That the House of Represen-
tatisesof the United States disapproveS the
proceedings in The trial and execution OF
Alexander Arbuthnot and Robert c. AM
brister'
Mr.. Johnson, of Kentucky, also OF the
military committee, submitted paper
drawnup in the shape of report by that
committee, which, by majority of one
vote, tist committee had refused to accept
and the said paper was read as follows:
The Committee, to whom was referred