Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1848-01-08
ARMY COURT MARITAL.
MoSpAr, JAsuAnr a-Fnrr-sIxru DAr.

When the doors opened, it announced that the
Court would hear the paper Of the Judge Advocate rea and
it read follows
The Judge Advocate submits the following in reply
the paper OF Lieut. Col Fremont presented just before the ad
tournament Of the Court the last day Of the session, and al
leging series OF irregularities in the preminaries OF the
trial. wichTeguartes he under distinct heads
l. Lieut. Col Fremont alleges irregularity that
court OF inquiry instituted investigate the matter
under trial. but that, without such preliminary proceed
ing, was sent at martial and he refers
the practice ~ the British service suggesting rule which
ought 10 be followed in ours.
The Judge Advocate supposes from Hough's book (which
is cited BY Lieut. Col Fremont that. when charges
brought before the the British service,
IS BY their practices it clearly by their law in his dis
erection whether TO send them martial order
court OF inquiry Following the citations made by Lieut.
COL Fremont in which charges directed be properly in
vestgated by the officer commanding the spot before they
ease o. an ohce ON report OF the circumstances Of the ma
ture Of the complaint &C. the COMMANDMENTS his Ex
cellency would order court of inquiry to be assembled,
adopt such other measures by directing the party be placed
in arrest and charges be preferred against him. he might
deem proper - hoagh "a. edition 81 1926, note rs
But whatever be the British rule has been the
ee in our service to of inquiry where specific
charges are preered with all the necessary specifications Of
and the proper Official OF an officer preferrng
the charges In such preliminary Of inquiry has
Away been considered useless either TO collect the proof
tain the precise ground of charge and in general the
official responsibility Of the officer preierrng the charges
been thought sufficient security against unounded and
vexatious, and malicious accusations.
If however, were thought expedent to employ of
inquiry in service according to the practice supposed by
be allowable under laws The greater number
general courts martial M indeed, except the ordered
BY the Pesiden convened under article 65 Rules
and Articles OF War; by Generals commanding armies
Colonies commanding separate departments and such officers
are not permitted to order courts Of inquiry On the
ry of inquiry their nature inqusora and
in practice dangerous service has been carefully
against them by military laws and they are prohbi,edb by
the strong language the 92d article of the Rules and Art
ces of War; unless ordered by the President of the United
States demanded by the accused In this the demand
Of the accused in the first instance was for speedy trial by
The
cation the charges Of Gen. Kearny objected the
martial had however, then been ordered And though
legally within the power of the President
Of inquiry the general practice of the service
formed to in of specific charges and martial
convened.
But whether this be in hich The President might
have employed the discretion specially conded him by law
tertaned by this Court And while conformity general
practice departure from which only permitted by as
of special discreton) be rregularty il is
clear that the whole subject out OF the jurisdiction of any
court martial.
The second irregulory suggested is that the charge
by Gen. kesrny altered by the authority OF the
War Department without the direct and personal order the
President who alone Lieut. Col Fremont suppoes had au-
tho ity to order any alteration in the charges
Not consider whether the rule which governs on this
point Of amending chargesbeng given the
form Of regulation published from the War Department.
be generally specially abrogated by the Department
would appear conclusive of this cite The decision
of the Supreme Court Of the United States The United
States Elason, captain of engineers, where is de-
claed that the Of the War Department what relates to
the army, the of the Presdenhe Department being
the official by which his acts promulgated the
my II has been supposed except the organ the
President that the Secretary Of War exercises command
government the army.
g. The third irregularity alleged the repeating the
specifications under different charges.
Thsmode of drawing charges the Court aware accord
ing the long and weestabhed service hch
has been followed and pacticed far back any
military records appeal and the Judge Advocate
aware that il has been before Questioned bs book Of con
martial orders here exhibited the Court shows such
from 1915 to 1884, which time the collection is up
The first set Of charges in this book bears date April % 1875
the aoff ,l
Nortbern frontier They signed by Martin Van Buren,
Judge Advocate appear drawn with and precision for
the trial was important The officer trial
Major General in the army, and the resting both
to the public and the Government The second charge this
ferring the 9th and 9TH OF November which specs-
lions repeated under the charge third of conduct unbe
coming officer and a gentleman"
Another case in this book, but concerning the
General be in his memoirs, in the charges
Of inquiry for his supposed connexon with the Spanish
Government Of Louisiana. These charges drawn
elaborate by Walter jones' Esq, Judge Advocate
and there the practice is followed Of laying the facts
under different charges
The fourth in this book is Of August IA, S20-Naor
Chum, third inanuy-where the acts laid under
three charges first disobedence OF orders second fraud
third neglect OF duty which revised BY the Presi-
dent OF the United States
Not multiply instances to prove rule with which all the
Court familiar cite other, which, from pr
cipcs involved interesting the army and received
special the time from the War Department and the
nynr ,ha lawful authority Of Major Worth or any oee NJ,
the engineer 20 take command at West Point This
the principle involved In the charges the
laid under charges first dsobedence
second unocerike and nsubordnate conduct. The
deliberately examined by the Secretary Of War; and his
report with the case laid before the President Mr. o.
Adams The order Of Major Worth pronounced Illegal
but neither the trial before the Court in the
ysa the proceedings by the President alleged
found the charges. Aud the practice in this
has continued in cur army this day
As regards the British service, which Lieut. COL Fremont
REFERS hardly be drawn from their service TO ours
The form Of drawing charges observed in the
wholly different Il appears not TO be customary with them,
is with lay general charge, which defines the legal
offence and under which the alleged rected spee-
hcatons They do not make, awaydo, any distinction
between charges and specifications They the
the narrative FORM giving all necessary particulars also
time place. hese allegations they call charges but they
do aege the specific legal offence involved do and
which STYLE the charge. They sometimes put general
avcrment the end OF the whole, charging /" ali which
conduct or any part be preudca good order and
scandaou infamous derogaory character betrayinx pro-
essional incapacity nc making, in what would
an ndseriminate application OF epithets.
The Judge Advocate the Court to Hough ppe ~ loo
S48 throughout the volume generally show the in
with charges framed in the British service With them
seems sufficient good charge that the acts charged be
clearly related.
Our own mode it is obvious is much in all the
requirements OF legal charge We declare the legal offence
which the acts are supposed constitute Where the
acts laid under different charges the Court determine
which charge the acts amount.
IL 10 obvious also, why, in British charges, where the
legal offence declared, the facts not repeated
with where the specification is laid under
than charge. In effect charge the acts 70 violate
such snd such article Of indicating the articles they
charge breach Of all the articles, and sll.
-