Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1847-11-13

queston being handed 10 III
writing, he requested that the Court might be cleared TWAS
cleared accordingly
On its being reopened the Judge Advocate that the
Court could admit hearsay evidence but must insist upon
the defence combining itself to the issue.
Question. In your former question in your d.
rect examination you said that to he alleged in
qury of Lieut. COL Fremont whether you would appoint
him Governor" you replied that as $ the country
should be quoted should probably organize civil gov
ernmenL and that at that time knew of no objection APP
pointing him as the Governor" Now, with you, on
the nth Of January question of probability that you
would organize civil government for the Territory after get
ing possession
The Judge Advocate Directing this question, the Court
was cleared.
After what seemed very long interval to those who were
waiting IN the cold the doors opened and the Judge Adj
vocae stated that after mature delibecn the Court had de-
cided that the question should be put to The witness
It was then read to him again, and part fit his
request, third time. He then proceeded.
Ansoer. My instructions from the President of the United
States through the Secretary of War; organize civil
government, and intended at proper time to do The
enemy had been lately defeated the 9Th and 9th Of Janu
airy, and did not consider the country sufficiently quiet
that time for civil government
Question You said in your direct examination, in giving
of your interview with Lieut. Col Fremont that
in reply to his alleged question you told him that that time
you knew of objection appointing him Governor" Was
this alleged answer if made all, after he had signed
the letter in your presence and refused to take
is specification No. l. in charge No. l. on which he is
trial for the blacklist crime in the military code and
that crime aggravated under your testimony with the foul faint
of a sordid motive y
The question having been read in the above FORM
handed back the counsel for the Defence and at the sug
gestion of the Judge Advocate the words included within
brackets dropped 1t then put the with
out them and twice read.
Ansecer. That made after the paper had been
signed in my presence and before the between
concluded intended, as told Lieut. Col. Fremont
that was willing, he should take the letter back and was
in hopes he would have done when should taken no
further notice of it.
Question Was it not after you had told him it would be
his inevitable ruin he persisted and after he had persisted
in adheng to that letter Further words added this
question: copy of which is in possession of the Reporter
but they read the Witness but we're dropped
at like suggestion before from the Judge Advocate he
has deemed it proper not to insert them in the report.
Anscer. After long pause-vI trying to remember.
After second pause, the witness said, my memory will not
serve me to that question.
Question In your coss-examination yesterday you said
that in your personal interview with Lieut. Col Fremont he
had expressed great desire that you should have inter-
view with Com Stockton that you told him you will
ling to have such interview but would ask foit Now
had you forgotten that when, the first day Of your direct
examination, you gave the Court full account of your
conversation with Lieut.. Col. Fremont
Ahscer endeavored in my testimony tell what passed
between Lieut.. Col Fremont and myself If lave omitted
thing, will with great pleasure AMI explain to
the accused any thing which may be submitted me- and
which he may remember
The Judge Advocate (reading the question again. Will
you say whether you remembered it
Gen. Keany. Is not that an answer sir
Question You have said that Lieut. Col Fremont ex-
pressed great desire that you should have personal inter-
view with Com. Stockton. Did he not appear very much
distressed about the difference between yourself and Com
SDckon
Answer. He did,
Question. When you said you willing that such an
Interview should take place but would ask it, did not
Lieut.. COL Fremont Immediately offer see Com Stockton
and arrange such an interview
AnsDer Most unquestionably he did not Lieut. Col
fremont might have effected interview between Comm
Sockon and myself perhaps there were but few others at
LIS Angeles who could have done it.
Question. Did you not leave Los Angeles at ten O'Clock
the 18th January without giving notice to Lieut. Colonel
Femont waiting for answer from Com. Stockton
AnsWer left Los Angeles the morning Of the 18th,
without giving any notice Lieut. Col Fremont of my in
nion Of doing / sent message to Com. Stockton
AID therefore could not expect to be brought
L me-
Question. Did you do your utmost suppress the muny
which Lieut. COL Fremont charged with being guilty in
your quarters and in your presence
The Judge Advocate appearing to demur this question:
M counsel Of the accused remarked that the witness need
not answer it unless he chose.
Gen. Kearny here said, repeat that there is no question
Tie accused will put which will not fully and freely
answer.
Nothing further passed between Lieut.. Col Fremont and
myself in the interview alluded to than have stated
The testimony of the witness having been read over to
hin, the Court adjourned
CoRnEcTIos.-In the letter Of the Adjutant General
Hon. T. III. Benton and VIM. Carey jones' ESQ., published
in paper Of Saturday last the word "equvoca in the
slGoned paragraph was printed by mistake Through
clerical error in the copy "unequvocal"
In relation to what took place in California before the
in which Lieut. COL Fremont acted prominent part the
Department has been made acquainted with any thing
done by him which has given atsfacon, and cannot,
therefore, be induced TO make OF charge Indeed,
his conduct this respect presented TO Congress at the
last session, with no eqroca expressions OF approval
We stated, incur report Friday weeks proceedings the
Court Martial IN the Of Lieut. COL Fremont, that the
Judge Advocate warned Gen. Kearney that he privileged
witness, TO object to answering questions impugnng the
motives OF his conduct evidence On hearing the record
read this morning perceive that our report fault