The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-11-21

eminent unfavorably towards the partcipators
in the LOPEZ expedition, the only resort left to
our contemporary is to pour through his col
umns torrent of foul and wicked defamation.
When an ex-minister-a person who ought to
be of decent breeding, and to have mannerly
elpmates-descends to the level of the coars-
est slanderer and lbeller, it can only be because
he feels himself in dilemma from which he
has no other method of escape.
General Jackson and the Court Martinls
OF 1918.
Our contemporary of the ''sCle Democratic
organ" charges us with having done injustice
to General JACKSON. 1t accuses us of a reck-
less misrepresentation of that gentleman's con-
duct, and perversion of his language in stat
ing that he executed ARBUTHNoT and AMBRIs.
TER 'because they had encouraged and aided
hostilities against nation with which their
own was at peace" 1t alleges that we have
not hesitated Fto give garbled version of the
facts upon which General JACKSON acted, ;"
and advises us to go to the State Department
to study the difference between Mr.. FILL
MoRE's proclamation and that of Mr.. MADISON
in 1915, and TO seek the authority on which
Judge MCLEAN denounces CRITTENDEN and
his companions as pirates. The Union adds
that it reserves much that it designs to say UNI
til it can see the papers which General JACK
SON communicated to the Government upon
this subject
1t is not necessary for us. In the discussion of
this subject, to wait to see any papers which
General JACKSON or any one else communicated
to the Government in this connexion and we
cannot but think that it would have been well
for our contemporary to haye at least partially
possessed himself of the facts in the case, as
judicially proved, before undertaking to arraign
us for giving "garbled version" Of them, or
| for any assault upon the fame of General JACK
SON. 1t is not the Republic which is now as
sailing the reputation of the general. This
journal has not pretended to inquire into the
propriety of the execution of the unfortunate
men condemned and executed by his orders.
We have said nothing in regard to his conduct
upon that occasion. The blow now aimed at
him is almost parricidal, coming, as it does,
| from a quarter where his character and con-
|
as his conduct in that affair may be
to censure and elimination, we at any rate
have not sought to reopen rekindle dis
cussions which have become obsolete. Our
illusions to the matter have proceeded on
the assumption that General JACKSON acted
upon facts established before the military tribu-
nal, and which formed the basis of their judg-
ment, and thatitwas on these grounds, and upon
none else, that he confirmed the first judgment
of the court, reversed the subsequent mlder
| sentence upon AMBRIsTER, and authorized the
execution of the two hapless men. We were not
| so unjust to General JACKSON as to imagine or
| to intimate that, in an affair Of so much moment
| to those concerned, he would act otherwise
than upon evidence solemnly established, and
sentences solemnly passed by the tribunal
| having cognizance of their offences. But if it
be true, as the Union alleges, that General
JACKSON executed these men not on the ground
that we have stated, but upon other grounds
| that do not appear upon the record of the pro-
ceedings of the urt-martal-upon facts that
never came before the court, upon conclusions
derived from his own personal knowledge, upon
mere suspicion, or upon some information fur
nished outside Of the regular military examine
tion-then he was so clearly and emphatical)y
in the wrong, that no one can hope to shield his
conduct from the condemnation which it merits.
The allegation that in previous articles we
have distorted this matter, is on par with
the other fabrications of the Union. All that
has been done in these columns has been to cite
General JAcKsoN's own language as it appears
in the formal judgment of the court whose pro-
ceedings he reviewed, and whose capital SEN
fences received his most explicit sanction.
That there may be no further equivocation or
misrepresentation on the part of the Union on
this point, we give the entire judgment of the
court as it is published in Niles's Register, 18th
| December, 1918:
| HEADouARTERs, DIVISION OF THE Souri,,
| ADJUTANT GENERALS OFFICE,
Camp four miles north of St. Marks April 20,
| 1918. General Order.
| At a special court martial, commenced on the
26th instant at St. Marks, and continued until the
night of the 2Sth, of which Brevet Major General
E. p Gaines is President, was tried A. Arbuthnot,
| on the following charges and specifications, viz:
Charge lst. Exciting and stirring up the Greek
Indians to war against the United States and her
citizens, he, A. Arbuthno, being subject of Great
Britain, with whom the United States are at peace.
| Charge I'd. Acting spy aiding abetting,
and comforting the enemy, and supplying them
| with the means of war.
Charge Sd. Exciting the Indians to murder and
destroy William Hambly and Edmund Doyle, con
fscate their property, and causing their arrest
with view TO their condemnation to death, and
the seizure Of their property they being citizens Of
Spain, on account of their active and Jealous exer
4;ora oeace batwae,, Swain tha IIr;tad