The Democratic sentinel and Harrison County farmer. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1851-1852, 1852-08-18


with him. be would carry one pistol for his
enemy and one for his General.
Such were the charges preferred against
this Winfield Scott, and upon which he was
tried, and the historian says the following is
the verdict ofthe court of inquiry:
Alter due deliberalion, &C., the Court
finds the prisoner guilty of the first charge.
but acquit him of q fraudulent intentions, and
of the second charge in speaking disrrspect-
fully Of the commanding General. but not
oflhe words charged; and sentence him to
one years suspension from mnk, pay, and
emoluments.
1t should be borne in mind that this court
of inquiry, that found Winfield Scott guilty
of the charges mentioned above, "snd sem
fenced him to one years suspension from
rank, pay, and emoluments," were commits
stoned officers OF the same grade with him,
self-men, between whom, there always ex-
ISIS the most friendly feelings one for anoth-
er, and men too who were sworn to act hon
estly and impartially in the case they we're
trying.
Now We put the question to every honest
man, and appeal to his conscience, and ask
him to say, whether he can vote to elevate a
man 10 the highest Office in the gift of the
American people, who has been found guilty
by court ofinquiry, composed of his fellow
officers, of keeping two months pay from the
poor soldiers under his command.
An officer in command of a company in
the army is placed on the same footing with
a person who is appointed guardian of or
phan children. One transacts the business
and attends to the wants of his company,
while the other sees TO the wants of the chill
dren. Winfield Scott was placed in COM
mand of company of men, and the gov
ernment entrusted with him two months pay
for his company. Now if Winfield Scott had
done as he should have, he would have paid
the money Immediately over to his men, but
he did not do it, as the record we have pub
lished above fully proves. ..s.....
Now we will bring the case nearer home:
Suppose that one of our citizens is appoint
ed guardian for one, two or three poor Or
phan children, and the little money that is
coming to those children is placed in his
hands; and when the money becomes due to
those children. he shall have gone off with
it, or does not pay it over to them, would
we vote for him to fill one of the smallest
township Offices? NO; no difference to what
party he belonged. And why? Because
man that would act so dishonest is not fit to
have any couutenance shown to him by a
free and intelligent people.
Well, this is just precisely the case with
Winfield Scott He was entrusted with the
money belonging to his company, AID instead
Of paying it over 10 the poor soldiers, he goes
off on pleasure EXCURSION, with the money
in his pocket and thus deprived his men Of
what belonged to them. Well. if We could
not vote for man for one Of the least of town
ship offices, because he had acted dishonest
with orphan children, how can we conscen-
tous vote for a NAH for President of the u
nitcd States who had kept the pay of the
poor soldiers that he was in command Of?
We a every honest, conscientious man, to
consider and reflect upon this matter well,
and put the question to himself
All the bravery that was ever exhibited
by Winfield Scott on the battle fields of Nj. |
agara. Lundy's Lane, Crrro Gordo, Contre.
reas or Churubusco. has never wiped this
tanning stain from his character, nor it new
cr will.