Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1847-12-04

ysed witness under such circumstances would be called by
the court directed by them be called for the
(see Of the Queen Bull Darlington and Payne p
aal.
rule here laid down, and the calling of the witness be
especially within province Of the court nasmuc he has
pointed out by the accuser in The case in reply 10 qes
ton OF the court the only person able testify the nor
nation sought
Accordingly Lieut. Col. Fremont respectfully makes This
request of the But the should find il
proper expedient to grant il, Lieut. COL Fremont
specially asks the privilege OF crossexamnug Lieut. Emory
Of necessity inmica him the rights
ton he called by the other party The rule very
distinctly laid down in De Harris Courts Martial, p 1918.
sWhere Witness examined in chief By Misconduct in the
box shows himself decidedly adverse the party calling him,
it is in the discretion Of the Court allow him TO be
ed if he cross-examinaton Bit Yhe stands IN
situation sVlch Of necessity makes him GduerSe 10 the party
calling him. held that Me party may, matter Of
right, eroSs-erdnu,ie him,
In addition to the facts have already stated which show
Lieut. Emory from his eonnexon with the prosecution, 10 be
properly in all respects the witness Of that side and
sary predisposed in its favor, there others which
think leave doubt in the minds OF the Court that the
rule have quoted applies to the case with great iorsg
senger of Gen Kearny Lieut. Emory began strictly part-
work when he arrived at the lshmus OF Panama. writing
over newspapers OF the United States As he
proceeded his journey simultaneous with his arrival at a
vana then New Orleans, then Louisville, aud finally at
Washington injurious statements concerning It. Col Fremont
made in those cities nmany instances in with
his and some instances he vouched the informant
Finally since his arrival in Washington, he has ayowed him.
self author Of two injurious charges against 1t Col r. and
has acknowledged to be at personal enmity with him
Lit. Col +. respectfully presents these considerations TO
the Court and will cheey abide their decision upon what
he has asked J. G. FREMONT,
ssLieut Col. Mounted Rifemen'
Whereupon the Court was cleared. When after a very
long interval the doors eopened the Judge Advocate
read the following:
The Court asked OF tn Judge Advocate explanation Of
the circumstances under which Lieut. Emory brought be-
fore the Court witness. The Judge Advocate said:
he witnesses for the prosecutions understood from
the Aduan Generals Office given in by Gen kearny
with the charge fled by him against Lieut. Col Fremont.
The military witnesses of the ordered by the
Adutant General to attend the Courts the citizen witnesses
named to from the Adutant Generals Office, and
Judge Advocate issued summonses TO them summoned
other witness for the prosecution Lieut. Emory not
required witness by Gen Keany He under orders
Mexico Lieutenant Colonel of volunteers He
summoned the part of the defence His evidence did not
appear necessary support part OF the charges lie
delivered TO Lieut. Col Fremont the order of Gen Kearny of
the 10th January but the fact of the receipt of that order
acknowledged in COL Fremonts written reply to Gen. kear
ny and further acknowledged to Gen. Keany by Col Free
in personal interview Gen Kearny prepared to
testify and has testified before this Court The prosecution,
therefore, had no OCCASION for Lieut.. Emory witness
Alter delberaon, the Court decided follows
The Court is of opinion that it does not appear to have
been incumbent the prosecution Lieut. Emory
witness; and that 1T is not the custom to bring military
persons from their duty be witnesses for the prosecution
when their testimony IS not necessary although he proseeu
ton know that such persons have knowledge OF the mat
tiers under trial.
" la relation the second request Of the accused the Court
recognises the right Of parties calling unwilling adverse
Witnesses sustained by the leading authorities, aud will not
fail then when the Of witness
calls for actions but decide beforehand the relation
OF witness to the accused as inmica or otherwise"
The Court again cleared and, when il again open
ed, Immediately adjourned TO Monday at 10 o'clock.
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29--TwESrr-sEcoSD DAY.
WILLIAM II. EMORY witness called on the part of the
defence, was duly sworn.
Question. Were you formerly terms of social intimacy
with Col Benton prior TO your going to California and, on
your RETURN did you not hotel in Louisville where he then
ip
the state of things in California, either at second hand
by message and not this in consequence Of your
personal enity Lieut. COL Fremont and of your talk
and your writings against him. all which unknown 10
Col Benton at the time
The above question being handed the Judge Advocate,
he stated that the object of the question, he understood,
to show personal anmosiy the part of the witness to-
ward the accused in order the decision of the Court
made Saturday and he hercupon requested that the
Court might be cleared in order to determine whether this
within the meaning of that decision.
The witness said that he would with great pleasure
any questions that might be put to him.
He told that il for the Court TO decide whether the
question proposed should be put to him not.
And the Court then cleared On its being reoTened
the Judge Advocate read the following the decision Of the
Court:
Aer deliberaton the Court decided that the ques
ton shall not be put and further, that the Court recognises
the rule where witness appears his demeanor and testimony
hostile TO the party calling him. that the Court in its dis
erection, allow the examination, by the party calling such wit
examination In this the Court recognises nothing in the
known official aud legal relations of Lieut. Col Emory TO
either the prosecutions the leading prosecuting Witness the
Defence justly ii in receiving him in Court adverse
reluctant witness FIR the defence II his demeaHor and
tmony shall show him be SUCH the Court will allow him
TO be Intercepted by the defence may appear necessary
elicit the truth But the examination allowed and ASST
inflated to confer on the party CALI
ing witness the right to impeaeh his yeracy character,
motives An examination that allowable to
the party calling witness except perhaps the OF
witness necessarily called to the formal proof instrument
Ihp Tho
either their application his consent, though
they may, BY another Witness dsproye particular mate
rial fact
Their examination therefore be directed TO the mat
tiers properly in issue and if those matters the witness
exhibits hostility the Defence reluctance testify, the
Court will allow such examination may be necessary
elicit the truth"
Question Did you write from the Isthmus Of Panama 10
the United States communication in which you related
tain military operations in California and, if so, is this
copy of that letter
"PASAuA, MAUcH Is, ls47.
" To tie Editor Of The Courier y Enquirer:
SIR BY the arrival of the United States ship dale this
day, am placed in possession of Tie Californian Errd,
published at Monterey January 2Sth 1917, containing letter
dated Cudad DE- los Angeles January h purpong to give
account Of the battles OF the Sh and 9th OF January.
Many copies of this paper in the mailbag OF the Dale,
intended Tor circulation in the United States
The letter in question The skill in. management
and determined courage and bravery of Commodore
'Sockton) gave all the fullest confidence Of victorious
suit OF this brilliant affair, sc.
IL also states The attending the Caornans in
their fight with Capt. MERvSE San Pedro, and afterwards
twill IunH