Weekly national intelligencer., 1848-04-29

and il the Office, when Capt Wecer. Assistant
10 the Chief Engineer had copy Of portion OF made anc
q. TO whom the letter written, and did you conside
il private public sAas a sH
A. II was written TO Mrs Tolien, and considered il
private letter, and confident that il stated IN the
letter. though hot this printed extract that tins portion wal
intended for the information Of the Chief Epgneers
O. Was Major General Scott at the time when You wrote
the letter made acquainted the fact either before osnce
A. Not that am aware ofhc has never been informedby
me either before since. sas
Question by Prosecution Stale what is the relation Of the
Engineer Bureau to the War Department.
A. 1t is branch of the War Department the Chief Eng
ransacs the business of the Department in the name and
under the authority Of the Secretary Of War;
Lieutenant George ". Lay called and sporn.
Witness handed slip read certain letter or
4 tract pointed out TO him.
Question BIZ Defence Please examine the paper handed to
you, and state if you member of General SCOTS per-
sona general staff and you know the author OF the
letter marked with ink
A. do not recognise the letter; may have the let
Ter 10 print have believe that can conjecture
the author from reading the have other materials
for Judging than any other officer would have my po-
siion should think il written by Major Turnbul late
Chief of Typographical Engineers is much such letter
as should have written myself, but think from internal
evidence that il not written by me- have seldom writ
ten letter did not recognise some time after.
O. Does the witness know the fact that Major Tunbull
sent by Gen. SCOTS orders reconnoire San Antonio
A. do not recolec that Major Turnbul of the party
was sent with Capt Lee to bring back report Were it
not for the other parts of the letter. should think that bad
written the passage that subject My impression is, that
Major Turnbu not of the party, unless he went of his
accord.
O. Were you in front of San Antonio when Capt Thorn
ton killed 7
A. Not at the time when he was killed. | was passing
along the road when his body brought to the The
passage part of the letter referring to the
San Antono convnces the letter he mne because
have always deferred my detailed letters my friends late
that they would attempt put them in the papers the
earliest
has since had any knowledge of the letter in question
A. am Of ever having myself had that Gen.
Scott had, any knowledge of the letter.
Examination Of the witnesses this charge and specica
tonso far the witnesses IN Mexico will admiwas here
closed on the part Of the defence.
Can't Merrill, Sd Dragons, duly s,corn
Questions by Prosecution Did the witness hear Pay
Burns make any declaration in reference the author
ship of the letter signed Leonidas If SO, what it. and
at what time
A. have It was should say about the middle Of Oc-
tobe when the Leonas letter making the greatest
element had heard that he the author of IT. and by
accident called to him. being up town. The subject Of
the Leondas letter do not know how who intro
duced the subject remarked him, believe, in these
words Major do you know you accused of writing this
letter ;" He answered, NO." and asked "by whom I"
replied, BY every body" He said g This is mistake
did write it," believe then added, "Wel, you
accused Of it," The subject here dropped, and firmly be-
eved he did write it. From that time out and all subse
quen occasions and in the presence of officers Of my
gmen also of many other persos this city hearing
that he accused Of being the author it. reiued
that assertion, and remarked that had his positive assertion
TO the contrary and also believed firmly that he did write
it until heard that he witness and had that be
had written it. That embraces all the facts.
Questions By DefenceWas the conversation, in which
Major Burns denied the authorship Of this letter. CASUAL
did witness go Msn Burns his private quarters and
was anterior subsequent TO the arrest of Major General
Pillow
A. It must have been before Gen. Pillow was arrested as
went down with the first train. He my
this city, will add that meeting acciden-
tai and a friendly
q. Have you any other copy Of that letter than the
printed in the New Orleans Picayune
A. do not recoect having any other copy. II
to that copy the conversation referred.
Questions by the ProsecuonWas not the denial Of the
authorship general did relate to particular parts Of
A. Ii generals exception made any paIt IL
nearly in the language before stated.
Gen. Pillow here rose, and said IL willing TO admit
that previously my Major Burns denied the author
ship OF the Leonidas letter"
Gen. Pillow here directed by the Court submit in
writing his admissions Gen. Scott having expressed his will
ngnes accept them in lieu Of calling the two other wit
whose evidence he believed would be substantially
the effect as that Of Capt Merrill.
Major Gen. Pillow here submitted his written admissions ;
but the point Of which they extended being only the
period OF his arrest they not entirely satisfactory TO Maj
Gen Scott Gen. Pillow arrested in the latter part Of
November whereas Gen. Scott believed his other witnesses
would testify denial having been made by Major Burns
the month of December He (Gen. s. said he would how
ever accept them they stood but Cou,t desiring
have the testimony Of the other witnesses named by General
Scott, declined accepting Gen. Pillows admissions that
subject. Adjourned
TWELFTH DAY-MARcH 30, Is4s.
Gen. PILLow called the attention Of the Court 10 paper
published in the STAR" which he believed 10 be identical
with the paper submitted by Gen. Scott In reference Major
Burns which had been partially read before this Court and
which the Court had refused place upon record As
be Of the parties interested and this might operate
pjurousy the public mind, be hoped the Court would
take prevent the publication Of such papers in
future. This Is the substance Of his remarks adding that
when the paper submitted by Gen. Worth published,
the party publishing this had distinctly repr0bated the
practice and this paper published appeared By
the reading, by bis direct sanction and this paper falls under
bis animadversions.
Cen Scorr and said That paper Cooking i) ap
pears 10 be identical with the paper presented by 10 this
Court motion 10 have the testimony tending impeach
the evidence given by Paymaser Burns taken Immediately
after his examination ~as closed yet the publication Of
not distinctly authorized by did not however, prohibit
lis publication, and Il have found is way INTO the
press On the first day, when the charges and specifications
read before this Court asked or copy Of them.
refused would sooner have of my right hand than
have furnished copy Of them Cor publication yet them
in print GeD. Pillow believe that done under the
authority Of this Court did not, however, prohibit the
publication Of tho paper referred by Major Gen. Pillow.
Z