Boon's Lick times. [volume] (Fayette, Mo.) 1840-1848, 1840-10-24
From ns.vs,ijqd, I..'!1g,oe.-, ocl %
70 THE EDITORS

"The louisville City Gagetts cites case. Gid
TO have occurred early in tie last Administration,
in which the sentence Of Court Martial o.! dismiss
son Of Cadet Mt the Miii,uty Academy was re-
,crscd. and the officers composing the Court re.
buked, because If the admission Of evidence upon
the trial showing what negro Lad said in the case.
Tho Secretary Of War, (Mr. Enlun,) it i, said, re.
..ersed the opinion of The Court, and rebnkeh the
Officers composing it, for dlsmissing young off.
Ger upon heatsay testimony, 0ld tiai tie teS'i-
'mony If a negro! He said if the negro had been
there in person. lie could not have testified against
'Csdet Drake, and much less, therefore, could his
Statement he received second-handad.'--T Ed.
tor of the Gazette calls upon US (thc Editors VI
the National InteRireucer) to procure the opinion
in this case, ard publish it,
with this request should have pleasure IN
complying, If the opinion were within oar reach.
Bat it is not. We have heard Of the case before,
and what we have heard of it corresponds Sub.
r,antially with the above statement"
On Tuesday, called at the War Department,
and, the Secretary being absent, the chief clerk
declined showing me the papers in MIR. brakes
case. without permission from the Secretary OF
War. On Wednesday, Mr.. Merrck, Of the United
States Senate, accompanied me 20 the War Depart
ment and tue result Of our interview with the
Secretary Of War will appear from the following
statement, prepared soon nher
WAsH!SG7o: Sept 90 1910.
We went this morning together 20 tie War De.
psrtment and wuitsd on the Secretary Of War. and
.-qsested him 10 let the pa lors in the case Of
Mr.Dr AXE which Mr.. Stanley lad hed for yester.
dav when the chief clerk declined exhibiting them
without permission from the Secretary.
The Secretary Of War (Nr. IOnseU) replied thai
he could not gratify US; it was against a rule Of
,he Department 10 show such papers. or 10 give
copies, unless the person interested desired 10 have
them, or unless either House Of Congress or one
of its committees desired copies. The Secretary
remarked that great injustice might be done if this
rule was not Adopted that the character Of innocent
persons might suffer by allowing extracts to be taken
from pa pers Of Courts Martial. The Secretary
then told that, for Cur present purpose, we waived
lhe demand to inspect the proceedings OF the Court;
that neither Of us desired to know any thing reiat-
ing TO the charges against Drake we only desired
TO see what was done by The then Secretary Of War,
IMuior ERtun,) understood, relative TO the
legality Of some Of the testimony taken upon that
trial. Mr. Poinselt replied, nc could no; allow us
to see this.
The Secretary was then asked if he felt at lib
cTty to state Whether The evidence Of negro, hear
say or otherwise was not taken in the case of Mr.
Drake, and whether the Secretary Of War at tia,
time had not reversed the proceedings or account Of
said negro testimony. Tie Secretary (AIr. PUia-
set) replied be could answer that question, be-
couse he might well exhibit tie papers as state
their contents.
we then said, we hold it to be The undonb,ed
right Of the People, at least of their Ke?rescn
,atves, to inspect the public proceedings Of their
functicna RES and We therefore demand 10 see the
opinion of the Secretary Of War in this case.
Tbs Secretary repeated that lie could not comply
with this demand.
This is the substance of what passed during the
interview.
WIN D. MERRICK, Of Marylonl
EDWARD STANLEY. Of \. Caro'ila
will not at present discuss tho proptitty Of the
rule adopted by the Secretary of War and whether
tic information sought BY Mr.. Merrick and myself
could not have been given without violating the
rule It w! BE observed there vas no information
desired as 10 the charges against Cadet Drake ;
The simple inquiry was, was not negro testimony
admitted was Nc. the case reversed, because some
thing negro had sGid was given in evidence ID
hitting Mr.. P9inset. to be right in refusing 10 give
information Of the proceedings which have taken
place of public character-adnitt.g for the sake
of argument be has the right 10 exclude the Rep
rssenIatiyes Of the People f:Um having access {.
the records Of his Department, surely 10 vae will
gay Mr. puinsett could with prop.cty allow others
to see CT hnOw Of such matters.
Ihope the People will contrast the account OF
tho interview between M PJinsctt, ana Mr. Mrr.
rick and myself, with The following ar;iclc from
tie G Iobc, "Look en- that picture, and on this"
From Tie Globe Of Friday Erening, Als. %.
L NEW TAcK.--We have received several letters
Of the following tenor viz:
Extract from letter dated
CUMBERLAND, (Md.) Aug. Is 1910
The Wing partyin Allegheny county Maryland,
and Hampshire comfy, Virginia, are making t.
good deal of fuss about the liOoe case. As fur my
part, believe the President acted perfectly right.
ANA stakeholder myself, and as much opposed to
negro testimony against whites as nny man on
earth, and tie law ought to be repeglca but il was
stated TO me yesterday by Wing HAT, during
General Jackson's administration, there q
charge brought against one Of the Cadets Of West
Point, and the Court Martial found higa guilty upon
negro testimony; tie mater stated to CEN raj
jackson, who Immediately examined into the mat.
ter, and rensiaiad the Cadet and gave the Court Il
severe repriInund. This information, too, was told
to this whig BY young man by the name Of Lynn,
who was a Cadet at the tine. I Do not believe
one word OF it, Ny object in wiring to Won is to
know the facts ! would wish You to give nc u
correct statement Of it. IL he Hooe case, lie was
not found guilty on negro testimony
On application to tie war Department, for the
purpose Of ueccrtainiay whether there was any
case which could he made t0 give color 10 such 0
following !el,C!, viz:
war DEr.E.HESr, Aug 22l, 1870
Sir: herewith return to YOU the letter Of '1r
---, which accompanied your note Of tie l3h
Inst.
The statement; made 10 that gentleman, as gi.er
In his letter, is not correct The case referred tc
was that Of Cadet Drake, with which lherea?pec.'
10 have been 70 direct interference on tie part o
4he then President, General Jackson.
There was no negro witness who testified before
the Court one was sought for as a witness, bur
could not he found. The decision of the Court wa.
set aside by the Secretary of war, and TO use hi,
own words because ''the party was convicted upor
hearsay testimony" Very responsibility. Your one.