Weekly national intelligencer., 1848-01-29

The first great allegations them made by Cen Kearny to
escape nom The original simple and comparatively
supposed by The inquiry concerning the cannon
uaaced IN Their whole by the official assurance of
secretary OF War; by the charges they certified by
ne 1uoge Advocate to the Court and by original daught
his subsequent explanation 10 escape from s labyrinth
by attempting to draw distinction between personal kno-
ledge and cDeai knowedge involves him IN he en,doton
on MS own otueis and ~ double contradiction with himself
and with Major Cooke, his witness
think il right think fingat this n,,ca 10 ;n,,od,c
some maxlms OF the law, which, am advised are recoe
nised in all courts
/" Where it turns that wtness's testimony - on
false y any particular, it should be entirely by he
jury" -
w,tnesss credblt being seriously mpeached by writ
ten or other plain deliberate contradictory statements y him
and not supported ought would SEEM TO be entirely re-
But where party speaks fact in reference 10 which
he cannot be presumed liable to mistake the fact turn out
otherwise is extremely difficult exempt him from the
charge OF deliberate alseood and courts of sice under
such circumstances bound upon principles Of law mo-
rai.y and Justice apply the maxim 'aisu faisusnl
feace, vol. 5, PIP. S97 and772
Mr. President The length Of this defence precudes the
necessity Of recaptuaton. omit it and go the conclu
sion with few brief reflections pertinent trust they
true.
Tconsder these difficulties in California to be comedy
lvery near being tragedy)of three FIRST in the
faulty orders sent out from this place ner in the unjus-
fable preiensions Of Gen. Kearny thirdly in the conduct OF
the Goyernmen in sustaining these pretensions And the
last of these consider the greatest Of the three
Certainly the difficulties in California ought be inquired
into But howl Not by prosecuting the subordinate but
the principals not by prosecuting him who prevented, but
him who would have made civil war. If ii was crime in
accept the governorshp from Commodore Stockton
a crime in him have bestowed il and crime or not
the Government which knew Of his intention appoint me-
and did not forbid it, has lost the right Of prosecuting either
of US.
My acts in California were all with high motives, and
desire for the public service NY scientific abos did some
ihng open California the knowledge Of nv counymen
hadha a oil honk
conques without bloodshed my civil administration
for the public good offer California during my adminsa-
ton for comparison with the most tranquil portions of the
United States offer it in to the condition of New
Gov Stockton by refusing to join Gen. Kearny against him
arrested civil against myself by consentng be depo-
at the same time, to resign my place of lieu
tenant colonel in the army.
have been brought prisoner and criminal from that
country could it, after this trial is over without
rank guards and without moesaon from the people,
cep TO be impouned for the money which the Government
owes them.
am ready TO receive the sentence of the Court
THuRsDAr, JANUARY 27-FIrTY-EIe HTH DAr.
The JUpGE ADVOCATE submits this note in reply to
point in the paper Lieut. Col Fremont read to the Court
yesterday
"Lieu COL Fremont states that himself and his counsel
informed by the Judge Advocate that the 7h specification
charge lst copied literally from the charge furnished by
Gen. Kearny.
the testimony Of the Judge Advocate taken the subject of
the authorship of this specifications the Court refused the APP
picaton and refused 10 inquire into the subject As, how
the statement of the Judge Advocate is brought before
the Court proper he should explain it, and remark upon
the application made Of to the evidence OF Gen Kearny
'The Judge Advocate said, be understood,
that that part of the specification which refers the howzers
copied from the original charge of Gen Kearny, and
ferng snce the adjournment of the Cou) 10 that original
he finds that the copy made, not literally, but without any
alteration of the The original says, " did refuse to
give up 10 the st Dragons the two howzes brought by
them from Fort Beavenworth. The specification trial
Surrender for gve up and the Judge Advocate would
explain that the copy not LITERAL though the alteration
is merely verbal, and the sense is the same.
The defence infer from this contradiction Of the evil
dence Of Gen. Kearny.
seen. Keany said in his testimony referred to by the
defence that he did kaoc that the howitze at San Ga
be the lost San Pascua and afterwards that he
had no personal knowledge OF il but knew from the report
Of Major Cooke The defence refer the testimony OF Major
Cooke to show that Gen Keamy gave Major Cooke orders
in reference TO those howzers before Major Cooke made
port him about hem and therefore that he could not have
got bis knowledge from Major Cooke. IT. however, General
kearny, Monterey, had these San Ga
bel he heard in any way that such pieces there
and gave orders in regard to hem and Major Cooke he
states, went and them and made his official report to
Gen. Kearny at Monterey then Gen. Kearny would know
officially that such there from such report and
might cite Major Cooke and his report the evidence this
point he did the original charges and in his testimony
before this Court.
I" In regard the origin of the charges which the Court
refused inquire nto and which is introduced into the de-
fence in connexon with the testimony Of General Keay
and the letter from the War Department the counsel Of
Lieut. Col Fremont which letter the Court refused to enter
tan the Judge Advocate has only say that he understands
Gen. keany TO dsown the charges because altered from his
he having preferred only CHARGE which the defence
derstand to be mutny and he further in regard
these charges that he gave information the person who
drew them That the charges drawn by order Of the War
Department. from the information officially reported by Gen.
Kearny to the Adutant Generals Office has been sufficiently
made known by the Department.
In regard the reference made in the defence the
that Capt Turner introduced by prosecution,
the Judge Advocate merely replies that he uppoes the rule
Of law and the objection Of the defence e-noducton
applied to Captain Turner The Judge Advocate certainly
could not at any time Of the trial. have thought consistent
with his duty to have suppressed any testimony and espe
ciay to have failed take the testimony of the witnesses Of
The prosecution points Of any importance in the case when
he knew suspected that their testimony would be favorable
TO the defence He would either have examined them him
self have notified the defence II the Of this Witness
he equally at the call OF either party.
The Judge Advocate submits the 10 the Court the
evidence without argument"
The following paper read to the Court by Lieut.. COL
Fremont:
'Lieu Col Fremont would state that, in referring in his
defence the non.producon Of Capt Turner TO certain
points Of evidence he had the rcmoest intention Of in
mating the Judge Advocate had intended suppress ev
dence but simply argue that his (Capt Turners)
production the inference that he could not any way
strengthen the testimony that WIS impcached."