Weekly national intelligencer., 1848-01-29

Of January, 647, Ireceiped from Lieut. Col Fremont
muncatoD Dated" &c the inference being course that
my communication voluntary the fact Ga important
too) being that drawn out by less than i'm
Fortunate letters had before received. Again. in connua-
lion OF the narration :. On The day subsequent-yiz
the 18th Januaryeut Col Fremont 10 ma quar-
is and in conversation &c the inference being Of
that my instance, whereas the fact (mos
tea and relevant and deciding the character Of the ntervew
turned out that went in compliance with the written request
OF the witness son business Again. day
81 was first MT by detachment from Com Stockton" &c.
.It came from Com. Stockton 10 gre me infor
maton &C.; the inference being that voluntarily
was sent by Com Stockton OF his notion the important
fact appearing however, when Com Stockton on the
stand three AFTER that it out, the written
requested Gen Kearny for party " to open communication
with him, &c. So in the letter making this applca
ton, he writes to Com. Stockton follows Your express
by Mr.. Carson met on the Del N0yte, and your mani
must hare reached Washington AT least ten days since"
emitting the material fact that Mr.. Carson, addition be-
ing met likewise turned back and leaving the inference
that he had Again, in his testimony the sixth
day OF the trial. speaking of his position the hill OF San Be
nardo the witness says stated the doctor and others
that we would leave next morning, which accordingly did,
Lieut. Gray, the nary, ,cih gallant command Of sailors
ana marines haring come intooaap night Prerous
voluntarily by chance into the camp the fact being that
was detachment of two hundred and fifteen from
San Diego expressly for the relief of Gen. Kearnys camp and
IN pursuance of his repeated urgent calls for
OF hemthat by Lieut. Beae Mr. Carson and the Indian
conveyed through the enemy lines and nsgent popua
on under circumstances Of devotion and courage unsurpassed
but no mention of which is found in the official report
any part of the testimony Of Gen Kearny.
give these examples taken from only two days proceed
ng of vast deal Of the of testimony running through
Gen, Kearnys examination. s
The testimony of Gen. Kearny IN relatoa to the charges
is the next point to which advert under this head of mn
fence On the sixth day of the trial Gen. Kearny tes as
follows
The charges which Lieut. COL Fremont now arraien-
ed are not my charges preferred single charge against
Lieut. Col Fremont The charges on which he is now
raigned have been changed from mine
/" Question, lby Lieut. Col Fremont Did you give any
to The person who drew the seventh specfca
ton under the trst charge IN relation to the cannon
I" .3asrver. ! DID SoT.n
This testimony promptly communicated to the War Of
flee by my counsel for the purpose of ascerainng upon
whose f not Gen. Keany nformaonthe charge had been
drawn upa matter necessary to be known, unless would
proceed my defence against unknown and
tors The Adutan General by direction of the Secretary of
War; returned for answer the emphatic assurance that the
charges and specifications produced to the Court uere based
upon the tacts alleged and officially reported TO the Depart
GES. KE4RSY and it is not kno,cn understood
that ANY CHARGE or SPECIFICATION has been introduced
based on facts DERIVED souRcR WHAT
EVER In addition 10 this positive contradiction by the De
parment the charges the Cot certified upon their
face being preferred "upOn ntordtion of Brig Gen.
s. w Kearny and myself and counsel further inform
ed by the Judge Advocate that the seventh specification of the
first charge IS copied literally from The charge furnished dy
Gen. Kearny in his olcn hand oriting
The inquiry into the charges leads naturally to the sub
ject upon which that inquiry arose, certain mountain
hoW- lost by Gen. Kearny the battle OF San Pascual,
and recovered by at the capituaon of Couenga The
inquiry was not originally made with any view or expectation
that untrue would be given to it, and hence OPP
poruny arise for contradctng the testimony of the witness
On the contrary the object of the inquiry truth;
to ascertain whether the recovery by of the cannon lost
by Gen. kearny had been reported by him TO the Depart
men; and, if not, the argument would go to the mpeach
men of his temper and motives toward for the loss Of
cannon always of modification, and its recovery
subject Of graduation and honorable report turned out that
the recovery had not been reported but to escape the infer
thus raed the witness pleaded of sufficient know
edge Of the fact This then became the point ssue and
say that this is incidental question, upon which the
Of the witness must suffice, whether true false, is to
say that he may escape from the consequences Of wrong
by committing greater that fact cannot be proved going
to impeach his motives if he chooses to deny with false
hood But il is the rule of law and justice th..ts
shall not profit by his wrong and, therefore, did not
consider myself concluded by the Of the Witness but
finding by inspection Of the charges, that the witness (who,
had understood the sole against me had had
sufficient knowledge concerning the to imPute the
harng Of il TO crime inferred that he ought TO have
had sufficient knowledge Of to report the gaining of it TO
my credit Hence continued the inquiry with the following
question
ain the seventh specification under the lst charge you
charge Lieut. Col Fremont with refusing give up two
which had been brought from Fort Leayenworh and which
then at San Gabre win you state what cannon they
how they brought from Fort eayenworh and how
they got to San Gabriel 20
And hence arose the sweeping declarations already examn
ed that these charges wee his y that they had been
changed from his y and that he did not furnish the nor
nation concerning the which the seventh specca
ton of charge first drawn up. After which, he contin-
ued his answer in these words
"The howitzers, however, referred 10, the two
hewzers brought by the dragons from Fort Leayenworth
They carried from Fort to California
Of them, previously stated lost the battle OF San
Pascual , the other took with us" &c.
Question DO know that Of those was the
one lost by you at San Pascual
:" .3nsTver. / DO NOT"
Two days after he cameinto Court with this explanation =
reading the papers morning the proceedings Of
Monday find the following question put to me by the accused
and my answer thereto, follows
q" Question. oyou know that Of those was the
one lost by You at San Pascual y.
"' fus,rer.. do not
81 have explain that had personal koeedge Of
H but had knoIvIedge Of OFFICIAL REPORT
made to my staff officer Br LIEUT.. Cor. CooKE."
Now on this point Gen. Kearny is contradced by his
own witness for Lieut. Col Cooke tesies TO having re-
ceved from Gen. Keany orders in relation to the cannon be-
fore he made any report on the subject.
This is from Major Cooke testimony chief delivered on
the fourteenth day Of the trial
s'0n the 2th March rode out from Los Angeles to the
Mission OF San Gabriel, accompanied" &c. -
called Capt Ovens at his quarters and shortly alter asked
look the artillery He showed them to in the court
Of the missions and observed mountain h01s, which
believed had been brought that country by the Dragons
had rcceiped verbal Instructions rom Gen. ked7y, by Capt
Turner, 10 hare turned 10 company Under my
command, and had before len t0ca ordered mules and
drivers to be sent after THEM"
This relates 10 occurrences Of The GATH OF March, whilst
the "verba instructions" referred toaerward asceraincd
TO be written memorandawere issued from Monterey about