Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1825-08-11

have an anomalous sort OF INQUEST ar council al
ceremonies; which is to report to some superior a,
thorty. every breach OF decorum or good breeding.
from ooorish rudeness. to the slightest dsviation
from obsequious respect; by which fas,iious pride.
or apprehensive delicacy might be offended. In
that view punishment is to be inflicted by the
Judgment Of this Court; but that the case is 10 be
again reunited to the Executive, for him 10 decide
from the circumstances reported by this Court, up
on the expectancy of exerting bis power to remove
me from Office. lis further implied, If not laid
down in terms, that the Executive requires not the
opinion of this Court, whether, the facts specified
under the second charge be true; nor whether they
do. In themselves, amount to =. nsubordnate con-
duct, and conduct unbecomine officer" both the
tact and the cofollary being already established by
the opinion Of the Executive, manifested in the
exhibition OF the charge; and the function of this
Court being limited 10 report of any circum-
stances OF excuse or mitigation to be offered on roy
part-stil! the argument OF the Judge Advocate,
In answer 10 the exceptions taken by my counsel,
concludes with clear and unhcsitating opinion
that the charge and specifications are NOT only suf-
hcient In substance and form but that they do specify
offences OF military character; for which the ac-
eused may be uvdigned and tried before a court
martial. Whether punishment be understood 10
be involved In the arraignment and trial, here
spoken OF. or 10 be deferred to Executive discre-
uon; so as to reduce srraignment and trial TO a
mere inquistion Of circumstances Of excuse and
mitigation; or whether judicial power to try aud
punish, concurrent with the Executive power 10
Judge, summarily upon view and 10 punish by re-
moval from Office, be afErmed--are questions which
would be difficult TO determine oy any lights in the
preliminary exposition, that has been ELECTED, of
The principles upon which the Jurisdiction of this
court may attach itself 10 the case.
Having still 10 gropc my way through dubious
twilight, 10 a knowledge of what may constitute
me gist OF my offence and the essence OF the acc,-
sation, In point 10th OF law and fact, must pro-
coed, by the help OF authorizations and coniectures
oil The point OF attack to defend myself the best !
ma on every ground
| Though hsd yielded my conviction. with such
ABSOLUTE COZ tencc, the force and conclusiy
OF the reasons by vhict the preliminary exceptions
OF IN Counsel To the sufhciency of the 2l charge
ana It's specifications had been sustained, We, l
shouo noI Fave been In the least Disconnected nor
as In c.ned materially curaiied OF nv defence
u sich exceptions had been oyeiruled by any new
ana u expected arguments, which the learning and
aoiiries enlisted against me might have suggested
| In answer l should, without regret have given
undisputed sway TO the pathological and legal dis
QUESTIONS, which were supposed TO have furnished
sach VICTORIOUS arguments in favsr of the charse
ana specincations excepted TO. But when found
mysei assaulted by aspecies of argumenf,rna cd
honnnem, depressing into circumstances foreign TO
'he point In question; and proceeding upon the most
eA"aofo'hary misapprehensions of my language and
conduct, and OF the motives inferred from them. 7
could not forbear to DISCHARGE myself from the i'm
putaions, and dsclaim the inferences that nipb,
nave resulted from this official and recorded miscon
suuction oil my Conduct and motives
adhere, with undiminished confidence to the
| propositions of law, which have been stated and
Illustrated by my counsel, to acquit of any necess
~ 70 answer the I'd charge and its specifications
Out before advert to the grounds upon which they
tal
mit'ed to pass, very briefly. under review the COL
,"efai topics OF dsparagement, which have been
Drought IN aid OF the argument against them
l. AS an evidence OF my disposition 10 raise cap
tious and futile objections if not of nov want of cam
oor' 1t has been stated that I complained, on the
hrs day OF the court of having been served with
| copy OF the charges and specifications; and vet
the next day produced copy, with which had
been regularly served, and which differed from that
upon which, had been aragned only in f,oo letters
Inc TACT IS well remembered, that gave as rea-
son Tor demand & fresh copy Of the charges and
specifications, difference had disco bet
the copy read and that in my possession; and nv
written explanation, the next. day, which hope
forms part OF the record, infinitely explains the
difference between The TWO. Nor is the stated re-
suit OF the minute calculation, hich reduces the
variance to mere difference ofttOo letters in the
spelling OF word, by any means correct or fair
Inc variance tho matter in how many letters or
words 1t consisted) was in the date of one of nv
letters specified rsuberdinate and disrespectf,I
the letters were no Otherwise specified or identified
nan by naked reference 10 dates-the one cop
OF the specification gave letter OF one date, the
o'her cop omitted that, and gave letter of another
daie; and so the variance consisted NOT in the differ
ence De ween the speDg Of thirtieth SC thirteenth
Out In the entire letter. which constituted one of the
documents OF the charge. But If it be true as has
oeen suggested that the only Office the Court in
TINS trial. is TO offer Precipitation 10 another auhor-
ty, by which l stand already condemned upon the
sr'ct law and the TACT; how hopeless the task of
exuipaton or excuse. il the spirit, in which the
charges have been instituted be consentaneous with
mat by winch they are prosecuted to Judgment
or here am charged with litigiousness illiberay
ana wont OF candor, in my objection because had
simpIJ pointed out an important defect in the pro-
cedlre' against me, all advantage from which had
voluntarily waived, and had even conceded to the
pro. ecution an election adopt either or both OF
the letters referred 10 in the two copies OF the spe-
cificaton; only requiring that the election should
then be definitely made
e. am also represented as having appealed to
the Judge Advocate TO tDithdyd,o the I'd charge
ana even to have followed up that application with
some lntimaon sounding in menace and it is
thought necessary gravely to expound the relative
powers and duties of the Judge Advocate, from
wmeh any discretionary authority, TO tpithdrdlc
charge, is excluded. The only circumstance from
"bich am given to understand that this attempt TO
escape Tom the prosecution, either by the enity or
'ne iears OF those who were to uphold it, was sim
pie appeal made by my counsel, purely out OF the
courtesy usual such occasions to the cay,dor of
,he Judge Advocate, as the law adviser of the
court upon the validity of the exceptions 10 the
second charge
AS /, and every person present with whom |
nave compared notes, most distinctly and clearly |
understood the passage of the transaction alluded to-
my counsel was insisiingiupon the rirM Of reol,l