The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-09-06


lion before dssllow withdraw, evidences cahno.
,erwads he admitted contradict this testimony on iu's
eollae ri ,naer. AMI says Phillips hnnset ~ vonne
q page 72s rhust "A Witness cannot e asked ~ 10
collateral fact having no nir vaucy 20 me issue, IN or
der To draw from him sn answer which might by ONE,
evidence, be shown ,neoneci. and hefehy dscredt h'n
ObiJ, page 727 y cited where the evidence wa,
overrued "a Irrelevant, having The rcnorst influence
And 50 says Grsensai vol l. page DO But Il = a Wen
fact chch COLLATERAL atd TSeu RAJ 10 fhe sHe mercy or
he purpose Q, eq,daten4 my py pt.er nd 80
says Srke page lS9 IL IS to be here observed thHt Wit
IS be examined % distinct collateral
act, for the OF afterwards inpeachine s testimony
by coniradcung him "
9. II was moi question beside tire ease and wholly
irrelevant; but question in the case, and closely con-
necied with it, ;,
g. It was not put with view TO discredit General
Kearny by getting answer from HIN that would DIS
grace him. 1t was known that he the author OF the
Specification and was only wished 10 put that knoWl-
edge (Which every connected with the case actually
possessed upon the record and his answer was total
surprse-as much the lcat cannon had started up
from the ground andsfred of itself IN the court
a. The rule of the court was not the rule to go by
The court was bound TO go by The rules OF evidence
established by law, or by judicial decisions ihey mad
right To make rules Of evidence Tor themselves ana
the one which they did make was merely invented 10
protect kearny.
teced him again by "sr collateral rule, as they had
often done before but they did not accomplish heIf Cd
iec The testimony OF the Judge Advocate got upon lhs
record in way they did not toesee hat ohcer mas
right TO reply to the delence and 1t Is his duty 10 do SO
when he thinks the defence is bad Awaiting himself OF
that privilege under the form OF replying to solitary
word in the defence, he very honoraby and fully gave
his testimony upon the precise point ruled out by me
court saying not word in reply To any other part OF me
defence AT page 1856 he makes his reply TO the single
point which admitted of his attention. and that was The
difference between surrender and giue up" This is an
extract from his brief reply to thi lonely point
"rhe Judge Advocate submits this in reply to a
poat ID the paper OF Lieut. Col Fremont read to the court
yesterday
"Lieut Col Fremont himself and his counsel
informed by tho Judge Advocate that The seventh
spe chcaton charge fst copied literally from tho
charge furnished by Gen. Keamy.
the testimony of the Judge Advocate taken the si'bec
of the authorship of,hs specification the court refused the
however, the statement of the Judge advocate is brought
before the count, is proper he should explain IT, and re-
mark upon The application made OF 1t 10 the evidence Oh
"The Judge Advocate said or meant DO understood,
tiers IS copied from The ogina charge Of Gen. Kearny
and on referring (snce the adjournment OF the coa) 10
that original he finds that the is made not literally
but without any alteration OF the sense The original says,
did refuse to give up to the fs1 dragons the Two nov
specification trial says surrender for give up; ana
the Judge Advocate would now explain that the copy
LITERAL though the alteration is merely verbal, and the
sense is the same
Thus the fact was established, that General Kearny
furnished the whole seventh specification hnself IN his
own hand writing and that, TRANSFERRING them INTO
the formal charges the only variation from his copy was
to the word Surrender instead OF the words
give up" To that difference he is welcome, and TO all
he has betrayed, and denying the written accusation
which came from his own hand
This finishes the view proposed to take OF General
Kearnys style of testifyng-a specimen of his general
style, but by means the largest The largest was the
swearing about the governorship which Fremont want
ed to purchase from him-when he had had 1t for SIX
months! But this about the cannon, though smaller
than the other, was very perfect specimen giving all
the varieties of misconduct and unfalthiu swearing
prosecuting Fremont for his life for having the can
possession and crelitng him with recovering
from the enemy-reporing to the government Official
y that the mules away with the cannon, not know
ing ii was the same one he had osthen knowing it Of
fcialy from Philip Saint George Cookehen proved to
have given Cooke the verbal information upon which
Cooke gave him the official informaton-then abjuring
his own charges and specifications this made speci-
men, sufficient to Judge all the rest of his swearing by
and prepare all persons to hear what to 1t
also gives collateral specimen of the courts conduct
but the court is entitled to full specimen OF Its own
and shall have it
The case was this After the testimony was all over
in the Fremont al-all the witnesses exam med and
examined-the long trial drawing closethe
court, the 4th day of January sis being sixty days
after the opening of the tria-recalled Gen kearny
This recall excited the greatest SURPRISE and sharp look
out Tor something extraordinary even IN that court and
in which the event did not disappont the apprehension
The recall opens thus upon the record OF the trial. page
305:
tendance witness, (ruesday January ~ recalled by
the prosecution.
"Lieut. Col. Fremont presented the follown note
Mr Lieut. Col Fremont instructed his counsel
that is no. conormsb to practices that any on the part
Of the trial matter introduced by the de-
fence He shall therefore by advice his counsel object TO
by aa m to
they have BEEN on the m subjects and
-. G. FREMONT,
Lieutenant Colonel Mouuted Rifles
"The court then cleared, and the made the toll
'The court decides that Lieutenant Colonel Fremont
objection the proposed be pursued cannot
be entertained.
'I the course the examination of the witnesses
ppla nv the .
that any question which be obr ctionabe under
the primer pie he CITES them and Till ihen will be the
proper time for objections 10 be made and decided on by
tie court
'The then opened. Lieutenant Col Fremont
in The decision in closed session announced.
"Whereupon the adjourned minute before 3,
to meet to morrow at lO O'Clock.
"WEDNESDAY, January 5, ISlS-l0 o'clock.
1.-The court met pursuant to adjournment.
"Present; all the members and The Judge Advocate.
1.-The proceedings OF yesterday read during
which Lieutenant Colonel Fremont came into court
Lieutenant Col. Fremont presented The following note
deems be omission the minutes of the yesterday
evening he receveda rermand from the through the pres
dent in about these words
Lieutenant Colonel Fremont directed by the
form that they consider the last question offered high
h sprimand thus given by the order the court
the act Of the and proceeding and required
geher with the questions which rise tho epman
being there
Colonel Fremont respectfully asks that they be
y. c. FREMONT,
Lieutenant Colonel Mounted Rifles
"The then ordered be cleared After DELHI
Grafton, the court made the following decision:
The accused yesterday addressed question, orally, d
rect TO the Judge Advocate, inqniring whose hand
writing questions were written which he preparing for
witness
The court through s president, verbally admonshed
the accused that considers his question: thus addressed