Weekly national intelligencer., 1848-01-29

valuation of his testimony with respect to the whole inter-
view The circumstance was an important one II was
key to the character Of the interview decided the
ter Of the interview being his instance mine. II dec
ded it be business interview and that business his and
not mine Ii precudes the idea OF coming him for any
purpose whatever fixes the fact that he sent TO for
purpose aud that one, as he invited TO
interview which was private one at his quarters Gen.
Kearny then in the crisis OF his difficulties with Governor
Stockton he making last effort to get me TO join him.
The next circumstances Of invalidaton which mention,
arising from his own testimony, is this statement He
told me that Com Stockton about organize civil gov
ernmen and intended to appoint him Governor Of the Terri
tory" Now it appears by his own letter 10 Com Stockton
Of the 10Th January, that he kuew that Gov Stockton
then engaged in appointing civil officers for the Territory
that intending to appoint me- could not have said
because had been virtually appointed since September Of
IS46 and actually commissioned the day before and finally,
that Gov Stockton had made known to Gcn X San Diego
in December that he intended appoint had
formed the Government at Washington. (Ninh days test
mony)
own swearing what he says he stated 10 reply the
quest to be appointed Governor, namely That he Gen.
K) that knew Of objection appointing him Gov
ernor when he left the country, &C. Time is the material
point in this statement and this point the witness has ort
nately made clear both by coocaon and examination
placed the end Of the interview, and after the act Of
mutiny, with all its aggravaons, had been consummaed in
his presence and the shows il to be in the
right place. This took place the ninth
day Of the trial. and shows that after the supposed crime
for which prosecuted was consummated in his pre-
that he able objection
Governor Of California. From this it results that my conduct
that day did appear be muny, that mutny
objection to his appointing me Governor Of California. In
either event. present the circumstance as nvadaing his tes
timony it is impossible reconcile the opposite opinions
my conduct which the declaration of that day and the pros
ecuton Of this day present.
The next nvaliang circumstance which draw from the
examination in the difference which exhibits to the
first days testimony in relation to this alleged application for
the gOSernorshp and the 10 it. The first days tcsti
mony processes give the interview full and complete, and
the words of each aker the cross-examnaon
the tenth day makes material variations The first days
testimony says He asked whether would appoint him
governor " That is single question, as to fact The
examination adds another TO time, BY adding and
when ~ And that led to corresponding difference in the
answer by substituting " a month six weeks for shortly
The Of the day, and Of the ninth,
also brought the fact of two material omissions in that report
of the conversation of the 7h One related to the fact Of
Lieut.. COL Fremont urging him (Gen k 10 have per-
sonal interview with Gov Stockholm and expressing the belief
that all difficulties between them could be settled in such
interview the other in bringing out the fact that appeared
be greatly distressed the differences between the two
superior officers. Neither of these mpotln facts men
toned in the direct testimony, purporng to be verbally exact
and precisely full neither less Butnot only are these
points omitted, bul told there part of the
on-o which they could be appcabeno place where they
would fit in from which the conclusion is inevitable that
whole topics, and of very different kind from those
lated forgotten in that report OF the conversation. Tobe
distressed at the state of things between the two superiors
different thing from making dssenson between them:
endeavor TO them together for the purpose OF econcia
ton, very different from committing muny against one
of them Yet these circumstances, important to the iar
and Just understanding of conduct and feelings wholly
omitted in the direct testimony, and only imperccy got out
in the examination, without the topics TO which they
belong and without showing place in the reported CONVEX
saon which they could be applicable or made to h there
by implying greater omissions than have been discovered As
if deprive of the merit which these disclosures implied
the witness added " Lieut. Col Fremont might have effect
ed interview between Commodore Stockton and myself
perhaps there but few others Los Angeles who could
have done it," certainly believed could have effected the
interview Governor Stockton had objection to it but
General Keamys sudden departure, the next morning, with
out notice TO me- frustrated any such attempt at reconcia-
tion.--( Tenth day IS testimony, near the close
The next invadang circumstance drawn from the
examination in relation the point is in not suppress
ing, endeavmng TO suppress, the alleged muiny at the
time it is charged have been committed. The eighth art
Gle of war; copied from the British mutny act imperative
that officer, commissioned officer soldier, who
being present at any muny sedon, does not his ut
endeavor suppress the same coming to the know
ledge Of any intended muny docs not without delay give
information thereof his commanding officer, shall be pun
ished by the sentence general court martial with ATH
otherwise according to the nature Of his offence. As
further TO ascertain General Keurnys opinion of my
duct that day. the following question put TO him
Did you do your utmost to suppress the muny OF which
1t Col Fremont is charged with being guilty in your quar-
tiers, and in your presence THE Judge Advocate remind
ed the witness of his privilege refuse to where he
might subject himself to penalty but the witness did not
claim his privilege and Ncthing further passed
between 1t COL Fremont and myself in the interview than
what have the day. "to the best Of
my recollecion This is clear that Gen. Kearny did
thing suppress the supposed muy, and equally clear that
he gives for not doing He was in his own
quaesm the house where his troops quartered and
he testified that he does not think Com Stockton would have
used force The inference that either he did not consider il
mutny hen that he had not ttod for not
doing his duty The former is the probable because il
corresponds with the contemporary declaration OF knowing
objections to appointing Governor and for the further
that appears from his evidence that he in
the month Of March several orders executes implying trust
and confidence and wholly inconsistent with bis duty under
the eighth article of and wholly inconsistent with militia
ry usage if he then believed be guilty OF muny For
these reasons, consider his testimony further nvadaed
upon his evidence, drawn upon his examination
witness, arising out Of his cIosscxamnaon, is what
ates the bearer Of my letter Of the 18th Of January In
his direct testimony Gen. Kearny spoke Of him being
clerk As kept clerk, and showing that Lieut. Talbot
had copied the letter, and that Mr. Christopher Carson had
brought 1t to or in anxiety the state Of things and
hope for some better understanding, went in such haste to
Gen. keany squarters receiving his invitation, 10 leave
my own letter in the hands Of copyist TO be sent after
undertook TO turn bis mind towards the right person by ask
ing who the person who brought that letter To that
question he answered, "I do not know had
him before, do know that have him since
then put the question direct: Was not that person Mr.
Christopher Casen }" To which the answer was 81 think
not This answer terminated the inerrogaores upon that
point and according to the evidence the fact established
that not only IL not Mr. Carson who brought the letter.
but that strange person whom Gen. Kearny had
before since The defect Of memory became
gang in this instance that deemed essential by my
counsel to expose IT. and something like Providence cha.