The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-07-23
BrroRE LEE ooURr on INaUIRY, JUNE. y

charge first is for violation of paragraph 2e2 of the
General Regulations for the Army, IN having written or
urnrured 10 be written. letter signed "Leonldas, pub
hshe in the New Orleans Pcayune OF the 10th SePfen-
Der. 1877. -
charge and the prosecutor prefers the charge, 1t de-
wolves upon him TO prone a.
Wbaf then are the facts brought light by this
yesiiganon'
that was done without my knowledge procurement.
This proof OF Witness who swears positively to the
fact and strongly against his interests, and takes
anon himself the responsibility OF act for which he is
liable to forfeit his own commission, If would seem,
ought al once aoqu Of the charge Blu, the prose-
cuor having marked out hs victim, and being intent
upon his purpose, not so easily satisfied.
He attempts to mpeach the testimony OF this witness,
and relies upon the analogy existing between The Leoni
das letter and the paper marked No l. and the analogy
OF both Of these to my official report to connect me with
this letter
Ii is admitted that there is striking analogy between
the three papers in the main facts stated Indeed paper
No (which will designate the Freaner paper and
the Ieonda. letter nearly identical 10 the extent
which the former extends. The Freaner paper-whlch
admit caused to be PREPARED and delivered to MIR.
Freanerwas written by the clerk OF my adJutant gene
raj by my orders, and has inierneatons in my hand
writing In the absence of all explanatory proof, the
above circumstances might and probably would, lead to
the conclusion that had some agency IN procuring the
Leonidas letter 10 be written
What, then, are the facts Does the proof explain
this analogy upon principles consistent with my inno
cence and Is PaymasteI Burns sustained IN his test-
mony ayowing the authorship and sole responsibility Of
this letter | undertake to these questions
in the Affirmative, and to show from the proof that not the
slightest suspicion OF conneNlon with the letter al any
stage attaches to me-
We will first give the history of the Freaner paper as
appears IN proof
The witness CDR Hestand) proves that on the 23d of
August, ls47, Mr.. FTeaner, the correspondent of the
New Orleans Delta, my headquarters Mixcoac,
and asked me to furnish hun with the list of killed and
wounded of my dIvson and also to furnish him with
statement of the of the forces under my
mand upon the 18th and Goth OF August. in the battles
OF Conreras and Churubusco. This witness proves that
dire ied hun To furnish Mr. Freaner with the list of
killed and wounded, and at the same time handed him
nv rough Tor skeleton report of those actions and
directed hun 10 furnish Mr. Freaner with copy the
he did furnish the lis, of killed and wounded as he was
ordered and that he prepared the paper marked No
(the Freaner paper,) and handed it to myself or Mr.
Freaner-he could not remember which He likewise
saws that knowing Mr. Freaner to be the correspondent
of the Esa and hearing him ask for the paper that
he (witness added the caption and conclusion Chat of
etter the paper thus prepared and that all other
respects it substantial copy of my rough report 1t
has several unimporant inerllneations my hand
writing, which doubtless made before the paper
was handed to Mr. Freaner.
This paper Mr. Freaner proves he handed 10 Mr. Trist
"for safe keeping" and Mr. Tris handed it to General
Scott This the history of paper No L. as shown by
the proof II is must be at once, copy of my
rough original report, from which my official report
drawn out IN detail Being copy OF that report il
would, consequence, bear striking analogy in its
81 ement of facts, TO my detailed report amplfied and
light which additienal f.cas nsha have Afterwards
thrown upon .he subjects touched upon
Major Burns testihes that he my quarters
Mixcoac-found me absent-saw my rough report lying
upon my undetermined lt-discovered what 1t was
took copy of it-and from this copy, and his OBJ
sevaons upon the field of BATTLE upon the 18th of Au
gust, he prepared the -Leonidas' letter
1t thus appears that, without my knowledge, Paymas
ter Burns had copied the same paper OF which caused
copy be furnished Mir Freaner. Accordingly, might
have been expectedbeng both copied from the same pa
per-hese two papers almost identical in matter,
method, and language, Tar as the paper No. extends,
and both srkngy analogous to my official report TO
language modified in OF the statements of facts,
while others added entirely omitted, but all proving
common paIentage.
This is the history of the Leonidas letter. as proven by
It's author.
Thus this mysterious affair explained. Upon
the suPposon tia, shs IS Inc ue account and history
the truth Upon any other suppostion, they both
perured for they TO facts of which they profess
10 have personal knowledge, and about which they
not be mistaken. This account likewise explains the
analogy between these two papers and my official report
and all perfectly consistent with my innocence; and
therefore, if the stopped here, the prosecution has
signaly failed and might safely submit this branch OF
the TO the judgment OF the court and the opinions
Of an intelligent public But the prosecutor is not salts
fled STILL will accompany him further in the case,
and how far he is sustained in his conduct by the
mark made by him in his paper proposing to withdraw
from the prosecution al an early day. VIZ: "That in pre-
ernng the charges against that officer Gen pillow)
moved solely by the desire to preserve the discipline
and honor of the amynot having had the slightest
personal quarrel or difficulty with him"
Before entering upon the consideration OF the other tes
mony bearing upon this part of the subject would inquire
what motive has Paymaster Burns falsely about
this Transaction He ACCOUNTS me, but he crim,nates him.
self He rel,eres me by taking upon h,nsei the odum OF
writing etterrdiculed in the public press of the
try, and denounced general orders violation of
regulations, accompanied with the avowed determination
OF the n-chef to prosecute the author. Hence
will be that, independently of the moral turpItude
and legal guilt OF perjury which the witness would have
incurred by false statement upon this subject he acu
ally ieshhes strongly against his Opn interest and his
statement must, therefore, upon every principle of law
receive full credit
The witness Heistand was performing, in the acts to
which he testbes, clerical duties under my ordershad
no responsiblty-coud have no interest way the
Other and is sustained by the paper ITSELF which before
the court, IN has handwriting and being unimpeached,
Ia entitled to full credit
But independently OF these considerations, all tending
70 corroborate the testimony of these witnesses
Paymaser Burns is sustained By the original manuscript
o. The LeoBldas letter ITSELF which before the court
That letter all IN Burnss handwriting, except the inter
Ineanons, which Judge Walker proves were made by
himself after the letter reached New Orleans Nor is
inns all; Tor there is postscript (Which not publish
sul al the bottom OF the letter. the handwriting OF Maj
buns and signed with his proper and signature,
guessing ms name not to be published with the letter
In the absence OF this letter, there might have existed
some DOUBT as to the authorship, it would have rested,
IN that case, upon the testimony of Burns alone But
tne ieter ltse IN manuscript having been produced by
ne prosecutor, and It's identity having been clearly
proved by Judge Walker and Mr. Maginnis, the prose.
cator's witnesses there M ongar n,, r,r, fr
doubt -
This fact being thus establsied-yz. tina, Burns is the
author OF the ieerthe question next TO be examined is
nad any connexion with IT. any agency in procuring IL
De written Al becomes necessary examine this prop