The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-07-23

nowhere directly eonirovertei in the changes although
Ia the sth paragraph of the first specification to thu
second charge If is asserted that ridiculous account
gwen IN the Leonidas letter, as published in the New
orleans rcayune, OF single combat SAID to have
taken place between Mexican officer and myself In
front OF the two armies al the battle of Contreras the
| 18th August, is untrue.
! never denied that the statement was untrue; and in
VAIN are the original letter of Leondas, and the paper
No 1, (Which denounced false IN the particu-
larss) searched to find this piece OF bombas..
ne court VIII no doubt remember that 1t was contain.
Ell IN The letter printed IN the Pcayune but that long
before these Charges were preferred was published 10
the world that Interpolation made by one set
OF editors m New Orleans. for the purpose OF hoarng
another Although this hoax successfully practised
upon those Tor whom was originally intended, yet the
prosecutor seems 10 have been far more completely VIC
tuzed and alter the facts had been disclosed be
ss chung to has deiusion and, spite OF the published
truth, insisted upon being hoaxed himself. As If he
determined that there should be doubt of the
with which he could be imposed upon, he accordingly
preferred grave charge against general officer, found
ed upon this ridiculous fabrication Ii is within the
objection OF this court that IN spite OF the evidence OF his
own eyes, IN his cross-examnaion of Major Burns, he
lriumphanty pointed 10 cancellations in the original
letter OF Leondas and asserted that sre this very
story when in point of fact nothing of the kind
there 10 be found.
Ridiculous the position of the prosecutor on this
point and completely his specifications in this parcu-
lar are disproyed as there is not word in reference
to the pretended single combat, either the Leonidas
letter or the paper No - YET in the latter il is stated
that shot Mexican officer with my pistol during the
course OF the actions OF the 10th and goth August, will
briefly notice the testimony in relation TO the matter
1t has been proved by every officer Of my staff thai
when passed up the road and through the teedu pon
they were all separated from me and upon duty.
Private Ayers testifes that he acting my order
y, was within few steps OF the goth August
and saw me, while the road in front of the bridge
head, shoot al Mexican officer, and saw the officer fall
from his horse He says there were several Mexican
officers together, and that they advancing rapidly
evidently intending either attack to make their
escape He saw no one else shoot at this officer. This
IS the positive testimony OF witness who swears to what
he saw,
An attempt has been made by the prosecutor to i'm
peach the testimony OF this Witness but the very officers
who were summoned by the General-in-che of the
American army from Cuernavaca to the city OF Mexico
to dscredit private SOLDIER swoe that they should give
full credit 10 his testimony in court OF justice. if
unsupported and in Itself improbable.
The very effort and failure discredit this witness
establish his testimony firmly that cannot be shaken
He is sustained by the prosecutors witnesses That
fact, therefore, being positively proven by this witness
alone, is fully established His testimony is moreover
supported by the circumstance stated by Carroll and Dr.
jordan, and even by that OF the gambler Miller, who,
shed he of the hells of Mexico to assist the
prosecutor in carrying out his intentions, does pre-
tend 10 deny the truth of the statements made By Ayers
mailer contained in the testimony of Lieut. Long
street, and IN that OF Private Carroll And the only
modes in which they be reconced, except BY the
supposlon OF perjury on the one side or the otherare,
first IN believing that Misrepresentation exists to the
identity OF the horse (rom which the Mexican officer
was shoD by Longstreet, with the one from which
Tue ollCcT ltI anu WHICH NdHOl Caught euppOSOOn
which very reasonable, the corporal who went from
Lieut. Longstreet after the horse, detained some
time, and number OF horses were running about the
field, in the belief that there is msappreh nson
10 the identity of the horses, and that Carroll
taken in supposng that ordered him to catch that horse
for me- and in fact he was not the man 10 whom gave
such direction and that he speaks Of different affair
from the referred to by Ayers.
The character OF Lieut. Longseet shields him from the
suspicion OF the alternative and the absence of all motive
for perjury on the part Of man with whom was and
still am unacquanied, renders equally unlikely that
any such conduct can be attributed to Carroll But if
set Longtreet and CarroPs testimony aside as balan-
cling each other the fact fully and clearly proved by
Ayers, whom one contradics, and whose character
the prosecutor in vain sought to npeach
Having thus shown that every con,roverted point in
this paper NO u is substantially true, come to
examine the motive and purpose charged thus spec.f
cation This said 10 have been to foresa public opin-
ION in the United States, by an early publication of the
statement.
Freane essayed to sustain this charge by tesyng that
handed him the paper and said anxious il should
appear with the first IMPRESSIONS and yet this wit
eshes the very next minute, that he asked me for
statement OF the forces under my command the 18th
and goth OF August
He further testifes that he asked me TO permit him to
take the paper Who does see in these statements
that the witness gives the lie direct his testimony,
How can the motive charged-vz that prepared this
Gen SCOTS reports-be believed when is proved by
the witness himself hat he applied for the state
nent, and al the time he took from the table, asked
let him keep it'" If the paper made out for
him, as he says, why ask me TO let him take il: The
alsehood OF the witness paipable and obvious that
II absolutely trng with this court to suppose capa-
bic of being influenced in its opinions by such testimony
Ii will be remembered that this is the redoubtable
witness who, IN conjunction with has notable coadutor
Mr. Trist, that the lnterneauons in the Leondas
letter, made by Judge Walker were IN my handwriting
But not dependent upon the statements OF this wit
alone for the means OF destroying his proof DIR.
Heisand proves positively that he heard Freaner ask
me for this statements be believed that Frea
would have remembered the circumstance of
asking for this paper, had he not known that the
fact would be proven by Heistand, whose testimony
could not be mpeached And yet this the proof upon
which the prosecution asks this find the truth OF
the motive charged in the specification, that sought to
anticipate and to forestali public opinion. If thus de-
sired TO foresia public opinion, If have shown,
by the publication of the truth. But again ask, how
be beeved tina, such my purpose, when Frea
to my quarters, and asked me for this state
ment, he himself has admitted, and Heisand posi-
lively proves This fact Is wholly irreconcilable with
the idea that sought to have published, with the
charge that prepared it for publication The caption
and conclusion, I'm the form OF letter. Heistand
proves, added by him, without any direction from
as he heard Freaner ask for the paper and knew
what be wanted with II.
In hastily running it, before handing to Freaner
of The erasures, the witness proves, made BY
himself, as he supposed.
am now done With this specification r.L
The third specification TO the I'd charge divides itself
into several parts, which shall consider the order
which they presented The first states that my Off
cia report falsely "c!aIm for myself the merit of hay
ing given, prescribed ordered the particular plan OF
the morning OF the sand 10th of August, by Brig Gen
Smith, the officers and men there and then under the
command of said Smith"
My Official report nowhere claims, SPIRIT letter,