The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-07-10

upon his examination here, whom he said that in
stating ut the interview with Mr.. Anderson, in
April last, that the question was whether
an order Of the department had been disobeyed,"
he supposed that the shot had been made subse-
ouently to the regulation Of the 10Th Of January,
and that the order referred to that order only
If he had given an order, o. anything like an order,
in reference to DR.. Carmichael specifically, it is not
possible that his mind would have passed over that
order, with which the precise matter was directly
connected, to refer the dissbediense to general
regulation made long after the order of the 9TH OF
November, which had then been two months be-
fore submitted to him.
But aver that there was nothing said or done
by the Secretary at the interview with DR.. Carmi-
chael, in November, which implied, or could lead
me to CINE, that hs meant to forbid the making
Of any purchases, or ordering OF any supplies from
sion for the expression OF his wishes on that subject
1t was distinct specific application by Dr. Car
michael for a contract in redemption OF the pledge
which he alleged he had received, and aver that
| heard nothing of any other application, or any
other prstensi0n by DIR. Carmichael, treated OF or
decided by the Secretary. His decision was, that
there had been no recognition OF this pledge, and
that he would not recognise it.. | certainly so un-
derstood it, and 20 referred to it, as he himself has
testified, when next met him. But, in order that
there might be no doubt upon the subject, / put
the question distinctly, whether any other applica-
ton than the one specified was in fact made Ito
ting the arguments and persuasive suggestions
used by DR.. Carmichael, in support Of his preten-
sions; and when asked if he had ever told Dr.
Carmichael, in my presence, that the department
wa, not in want Of any shot, he could only give
his impressions qualified with the declaration that
he "would not be positive"
is this the evidence upon which an officer is to be
convicted Of "wilful disobedience of orders and in
structionsr'
Charge I'LL pass now to the remaining charge.
The first specification has been fully answered in
what has been already said: So, likewise. has the
70 sas
ecute the said contract, otherwise than through
sale or consignment"
To this allegation it is sufficient answer, that
no title proof has been offered to sustain it, but
the contrary my conduct in refusing to recognise
the transfer refutes it. IL am not deluded in my
firm conid ence that am to be tried, here at least,
not by suspicious, but BY proofs, it is waste OF time
to say more.
The third specification presents, in a solid body,
the whole array of falsehoods and receptions
charged against me; and the fourth, fifth, sixth
and Sc venth while they have the appearance of re-
inforcing it, are but reproductions Of the same
ray, in several detachments. l shall treat them
together. There is still another of these black and
hateful Offences not indeed specifically laid in the
charges, but reserved for the testimony, and per-
forming the preparatory Office of introducing me TO
you, at the Threshold Of this transaction, under
dark cloud Of guilt; not speaking, but in silence
uttering lie, and by my presence maintaining the
unfounded pretensons of another. | alude to the
circumstances, detailed by the Hon. Secretary,
touching my introduction Of DIR. Carmichael to
him, about the end of October or beginning of
November; detail which think you must have
heard, without imagining that any human being
could see more in it than common courtesy and
official duty combined, until the further testimony
of the witness disclosed to you that he indeed
thought, "'Twas strange, twas passing strange,
twas wonderful That it really and truly made
upon his mind the impression he has communi-
.s,l -. l...L L..A sL~A
similarly affect any mind not in some mode pre-
pared to think the worst Of me, cannot apprehend
That the chief Of bureau could not venture to
accede to the request Of person whose social posi-
the Secretary, in order that he might prefer claim
against which the bureau had already decided Of
record,) without mourning the obligation to inter-
rupt the conversation between them by fat denials
Of the pretensions of the claimant, at the risk Of
having his own fidelity suspected certainly never
occurred to me; still less that such suspicion
could arise when, as the Secretary himself has
stated, held the papers, and all the papers, neces-
hand before him, in such manner as naturally to
lead him TO ask at the proper moment, "General,
are these the papers - Nor can suppose it to bs
material whether instantly sprang to my feet and
ton being answered in the affirmative, he requested
me to hand them to him. This conduct, however,
the honorable Secretary has again and again
pested and reiterated, he thought singular" and
surprising" conduct, for which "he could not
account" And being asked by me nber of the
court whether there was anything in the circum.
stances authorizing him to suppose that would not
have expressed my opinion If he had not himself
reached the same conclusion upon perusal of the
papers, be answered not by specifying any such cir
cumstance, nor by expressly admitting that no
such circumstance existed, but as follows:-
The reason why my surprise at General Tai
colts silence, when DIR. Carmichael asserted that
there had been written recognition ofthe contract
by Mr.. Crawford, was increased by his remsrking,
the next day, a day or two aftsrward, that I
was right, was that had supposei it possible that
General Taleott might have agreed with DR..
CARMEL aei, in supposing that the letter Of Mr..
Crawford amounted to q recognition; but when
be sid be agreed with me, that there was no such
recognition, my surprise at his silence increased,
because did not know how to account for IT,"
From this il would seem, either that the Secretary
regarded that paper as really susceptible Of two
constructions, or that he was vacillating between
the two opinions, that / was either knave or
fool.
If have seemed to dwell too long upon thi,
point, beg the court remember, that in order to
just decision upon the remaining accusations,
which depend upon conversations between two per-
sons, one Of who is the sole witness and the other
the accused, whose statement is no evidence, IL is
Of the first importance that you should, rs far as
possible, enter into the minds Of the parties re-
spectivcy and discover with what pre- oupations,
and upon what foregone conclusions they severally
spoke. The question Is not what words were ut
uttered. Without enlargiDg upon this suggestion,
j proceed now to sbew wha: ideas occupied my
own mind on the various occasions referred TO in
The se specifications, as to which remark in passing
that If have correctly noted the testimony IL fails
short, by one, Of the number Of conversations
alleged.
Its abundantly clear upon the record, that, from
the date Of my letter to Colonel Huger, of 9th Of
November, up to the receipt Of the letter from Mr..
kemble, knew nothing Of the order given TO DIR.
Carmichael, nor had any reason to imagine that
any such order had been given. That upon the
eel t of that letter. referred IL TO Colonel Huger
then in Washington special duty, with directions
to reply to IL, az ] knew nothing Of the facts TO
which Il related That be then bist com nunic ated
10 me what he had done upon the supposed autho-
rity Of my order. That " expressed my surprise
az what be bad done. That 1 also, in reference TO
the offer Of the order for sale, told hin that the
Secretary q War would be incense l. and Justly so,
q an order for supplies should be havked about in
the market" That ! refused my assent to any
transfer Of il. That he accordingly repudiated the
pfot ose q d sfer to MIR kcmble and the subse-