Weekly national intelligencer., 1848-04-22

das letter was not likely 10 90 through Mr. Freaner and
did you get the suggestion from Gen. Pillow from whom
A. did not sir never saw this paper knew OF it
existence, until after had sent the other letter.
a. Did the witness say that, without the specia
authority the knowledge Of Gen. Pillow he went into hi
private Office apartmen and purloed thence imporan
paper, copy of one
A. do say that did enter the Office Of Gen. Pillow with
out his knowledge, and took copy of paper have alluded
1 To in my former testimony.
O. Did Gen. Pillow, upon his having missed the paper O
learning that the witness had copied it in August last make
inquiry into il, and rebuke pardon him for doing
A. have heard of his having missed the paper
did not take Of the Office know nothing about
ter IN the remainder OF the question: and cannot it,
/ Q As the memory of the witness excellent in som,
particulars, will he try rally and the latter part
the last question
A. heard any conversation that subject do no
know that he did.
Was that paper, from which Leonidas copied, lef
by Gen. Pillow in the usual hauns Of the witness desgnedy
\ or not, in order that he nigh take copy Of it
/ A. am Satisfied it was not.
O. Was the paper found the private table Of Gen. Pill
low alone, mixed with other papers
A. took particular notice Of that fact il lying
| his private table.
Witness here requested to read paper marked No
| by the Judge Advocate.
| O. Was the paper found as heretofore stated by the wit
ness, copy with without interneaons dentically
substantially the same as paper marked No. !
A. cannot say it stated yesterday it appeared 70
be partial memorandum report of the operations Of his
mand on the 10Th or Goth Of August
@ Did the witness do more in respect TO the Leondas let
Ter than copy addess and ally the paper found in Gen. Pill
lows private apartment Office
A. Il did.
@. In whose quarters Office did the witness write copy
the Leonidas letter ,
A. Ihave stated before that in Gen. Pillows office took
partial copy Of the memorandum report
q When did the witness write copy the paper article
letter signed Leonidas and m what particulars did differ
from the paper from which he copied
A. have stated that copied in Gen. Pillows Office.
cannot point out the differences having compared the
Leonidas letter with the original from which copied it.
2. Was the witness against interruption whilst
pyng the letter in Gen. Pillows Office did he feel
against it
A. never interrupted in any way in particular
O. Who called the attention of the witness the nter-
neatons in the twin paper before the court marked l. and
were the same nerncaons in the paper that witness acc
dentally found 4
A. They not This is the first time that have
seen paper No. l.
G. The witness is again asked if the nerneations pa
per No. in the paper found in Gen. Pillows office
A. cannot say that they
O. When did the witness make the nterineations in the
Leonidas letter, or were they copied from No.
A. They copied from No. l. | have said |
never saw the paper No. until to-day; they made after
the letter written.
O. The witness that the inerIneaions made
after the letter written. No doubt; but how long after,
and at whose suggestion
A. cannot say how long AFTER but they made at no
| ones suggestion.
the inerneaons and ALL several and did he show
any one in It's progress
A. did not show it to any body believe. have no re-
collection Of it. | wrote it at different times
O. How many different pens and shades of ink did the
witness writing the Leonidas letter, nternacns in
1 eluded
A. cannot say. / sometimes wrote with steel pen,
sometimes with a Quill
z How many different handwritngs the witness write
for the body of paper, and for interning that paper
Az write several different hands. write hand sometimes
my most intimate friends tell my hand varies very
much it depends upon the pen write with
e. In wiring the Leondas letter did the witness consider
himself hisorogEapher of Maj. Gen. Pillow
| A. Gid not.
Q. Has the witness been indemnifed in advance by
promise by any army officer for acknowledging the authorship
Of the Leondas letter in the face Of the general regulation Of
| the army relative to prohibited letters, reports Sc
! A. He has not been promised any indemnity.
O. The witness says he has been promised any state
whether he has received any
A. asked any promise have received any
ndemnity If it bad been offered would have sconed II.
O. Has the Witness the printed copy Of Leondas ap
peared in this capital denied the authorship Of it, any
knowledge Of il,
A. have If have it has been in jocose way.
@. What hand has the witness had certain papers got
up signatures in the late third Pillows division, for pre-
senng sword that General in another paper in rela
ton 10 personal conflict between Mexican officer and the
said General ia the battles Of Conteras and Churubusco
in paper concerning general address the said Pillow ir
reference bis conduct those fields and Chapuepec
A. had hand in that paper drew up that paper fol
presenting sword 10 Gen. Pillow. know of paper iu
relation personal conflict between that General and
Mexican officer. know Of general address respecting
his conduct in the battles Of Mexico.
Q. Was the paper alluded to submitted to Gen Pillow
Has the witness written letter letters other than Leo
midas for publication highly laudaoy Of Mrj Gen. Pillow
and has the witness shown such letters to the
said Pillow in manuscript forwarded, open,
such letters through him for publication home with
without bis the said Pillows corrections appreciation
The witness declined the question, and appealed
to the Court.
Gen scott and said in substance The Court will
the bearing Of this question il is pertinent and
willing the Court, in the absence OF the wit
ness, the full bearing Of tie question The witness has
shown no hessncy in acknowledging the authorship Of
letter. with the regulations staring him in the face for the
benefit Of the defence.
Gen. Pillow rose and said in substance The Court has
the latitude given this examination and rise make
by that many questions have been asked the witness
be be held responsible for all letters written by
Major Burns during the campaign.
Msjor Gen. Scott then said in substance He had tc
stale the Court that his design mpcach the tes-
mony the wnes by showing that he had been in the habit
Of writing letters highly Iaudsicry Of Major Gen. Pillow, and
transmitting them open through Gen. Pillow and that Tho
probability he had done the Of this, the
important OF these letters. That this Court Of Inquiry
and required facts bearing the and he
apprehended that the would not be criminatct
by acknowledging having written several letters Of sudaory
character than y having acknowledged this one, The lie