The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1847-11-27

tion under rule announced be not put and
directed minute be entered upon the record denn
ina the rule of the Court in reference the particular
question ruled out and all that class OF secondary tes
o. At what time did you first receive from Gen. Kear
ny information of his intention to arrest Lieut. Col
Fremont
At instance of the Judge Advocate the Court was
cleared upon this modification and on the rs-opsning
the Judge Advocate announced that he had submitted
Court had approved with the further decision that 1t
Col Fremont have tbs liberty OF presenting statement
of his reasons for the question submitted.
A pause followed, pending which Lieut. Col Fremont
counsel engaged In drawing up an argument, wher
they suddenly though quietly, broken in upon BY
Com ockton and his aids, Capt Gillespie and Lieut.
Norris The Commodore almost invisible in hug
drab ovsrcoat. The Judge Advocate, however, at
ed him. and him to President Brook,
and tho Court and then the Commodore passed
the side table and shook hands cordially with Col Ben
ton, 1t Col Fremont and MIR. Jones
ton proposed read TO the Court the object as un
derstood, being to prove that while Gen kearny com
ton Of arrestog the accused kept secret from ne
accused and his party. :,
We find blank here, which we may As wen oooupy
with the remark that Of the questions put are MOI
given precise Of the record they were read
too rapidly for that; but believe We have them al
The Court was cleared and pending their protracte1
consultation, Com stockton, Col Benton, and'thef
friends ia the witnesses got into and prosecuted
most interesting conversation upon the affairs Of Call
fornis the war with Mexico, Indians buaoes civil and
religious liberty manifest destiny sailors, ships WIG
on the rsopenins, it was announced that after
ture elaboration the court decided that the question
Q When was IL first made known to you by General
Ksarny tn you were to be witness on the trial OF 1t
A. He never made 1t known to me-
@ Did any person, on his behalf make 1t known to
A No.
@. Have you made publication in any newspaper In
relation to toe events about which you are to testify
President BnooKE-You can answer that question, or
not, Major Cooke, as you think proper.
JUpoE ApvocArE-will you order the court to be
cleared, sir?
President BRooxE--It is hardly necessary, suppose
JUpoE ApvocArE-We had better clear the court,
think. Mr. President.
And the court cleared. On tina reopening the
decision Of the court announced to be, that the
question inadmssibe in its present form, without
Coz BESroN-Put those two questions together, Mr.
Judge Advocate in connection with that paper PA
ThsJudgs Advocate took up the papers, and laid them
dowr and then proceeded to read long letter. In print
dated San Diego, Feb. 10, 1917, and printed in the
Missouri Republican, In June last The letter occupies
several newspaper columns giving history OF the late
revolution in California; and the subsequent proceed
iDgs civil and military of It. Col Fremont Commodore
stockton and Gen Kearny, and others out there The
narrative represents the acts OF Gen Kearny in Cali
fornia highly prsiseworthy but Is equally decisive
against the conduct of Com stockton and Lieut. Col
Fremont.
letter. ii being supposed to be possible that some ocer
In the public service contrary to late renewed order
of the War Department growing out of the publication
written and published this and other communications
to the newspapers in reference to the doings OF the
army and the officers and men Of the army and the
leading object of the question propounded to know
whether Major Cooke the author Of the letter produced
and read to the court This publication and several
others time ago deposited with the Secretary
Of War, by Col Benton, In advance OF the arrest OF
Lieut.. Col Fremont by Gen, Kearny. 1t would appear
that Col Benton had applied to the editor OF the Ms
souri, Republican for the author OF the particular letter
In question: which the editor refused to give up Hence
it was determined by Col Benton to have trial upon
fheaa
the other side, the defence seized the occasion
of the presence Of this wtness to bring this subsidiary
The court after mature elaboration decided that
the question shall not be put but that the paper 60
upon the record with the question.
q. Did you apply for the Lieut.. Coonecy of the
Rifles; and If did you apply in person in the city OF
Washington and fso, where was then the Brevet Cap
tain Fremont!
Alter closed doors tn, decision of the court
nouuced that the question shall not be put
100 Is your letter of the 2oth March already given in
repors) your official report to Gen. kearny?
A. 1t was my Official report.
q Does 1t refer to the same events enumerated In
your testimony in chief
A.. 1t refers to the same events as my evidence in
@ Did YOU ever make any other official report to
Gen Kearny, or to any other officer for him
A. don't reoolect making any other report to him,
G. In that report you say, 6" have every reason TO
doubt that steps were taken to allow the men Of that
cd INTO service according to law and orders One of
them their adjutan he told me) said he would have
Sssn Wiling ior one ana a,sO o a. 20, %
Lopez the person or the Adutant told Of II not who is
that person
@ Did not Mr.. Lopez tell you that the Of his
being willing to be mustered In was that 1t would make
or no difference In his pay words to that effect but
that the different with the men Of the bat
talionl
A. To the best of my recollection he referred his
being officer as making difference between him and
the battalion and his having family but think he
made NO references to the subject Of pay,
@ When he told you that Ii ut. Col Fremont had
gone out attend to it, did he not tell you thai
he, Loper had
understood that the order had been taken out by
q In your ocal report you do not mention this fact
Why did yeu not state the conversation as you no"
A think it could have been inferred from my OH
oia report that 1t had been attended to by some one
having mentioned Lieut. Col Fremont by name as not
having attended to it.
O. Have you any other grounds for the doubts ex.
pressed in your ofhcisl reports; and II SO, what?
A. think was ted by the
The Judge Advocate here interposed the court was
cleared and opening again, the court had decided
Fremont to the effect that he had not used all proper Of
forts to In the California battalion according to
orders and that therefore, the question should not be
@ In your testimony in chief you say, I called on
Capt Owens at his quarters and shortly afterwards
asked to look at the artillery He showed them 10 me
In the court Of the mission and observed two noun.
tain howitzers, which believed had been brought to
the country by the dragons Now, why did you not
state that fact in your official report!
A presume did not think 1t necessary to do SO
IlQ In your report you say Whilst examining the
dersd mules to he brought out that day for the two ds
COON howitzers and In subsequent part Of the same
report you say" My God to think Of this howitzer
brought the deserts with much faithful labor by
the Dragons the howitzer with which they have four
times fought the enemy and brought here to the
of Lieut. Col Fremont and his volunteers be refused
to them by this Lieut. Col Fremont and In defiance
the orders OF his general denounce this treason
this mutiny which eopardi the safety of the coun
try, and deoes me In my legal command AMI duties -
by men, too who report and that they believe that
the enemy approaches from without aud about to
rise In arms around US Now please to state whether
the two dragon howitzers the two mountain how
itzers referred to in your direct testimony; and If
why in the last paragraph quoted Of report yo'
speak of but one?
A. did refer to the two howzers taken to that coun
try by the dragons The last paragraph quoted re
fers to but one because IL widely different from
the other-the circumstances Of the case.
Q. Will you state the difference between the tw,
cases
A One had bean Loaf in hattla; the other be