The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-07-27
Military Despotisni.

We have recently been made acquainted with ths
iacts OF most outrageous case Of persecution
against gallant young officer of our army Lieu
tenant Brower, OF this city, who was dismissed the
service by sentence of Court Martial, held at New
Mexico. Independent Of Lieutenant Brewer being
citizen appointment, and the son Of Captain Nj
cholas Brewer, who, during the struggle of l776,
gave his DOCKS boats, &C., on the Hudson river
and raised and equipped company 10 New York at
bis own expense, the meritorious services of Mr..
Brewer, rs Lieutenant in the volunteer regiment,
commanded by Colonel Ward B. Burnett, duriug
the war with Mexico there are, in our opision,
prominent facts connected with his trial which
should induce the President and Secretary Of War 70
review the decision already had, ana renstats Mr..
Brewer in the service
The charges-all preferred by one officer, who va.
the principal witness for the prosscn.ionwere 6ys
IN number, supported Dy seventeen specifications,
Ct which Rnumber the court found NJ. Bro wer not
guilty OF eleven On the facts being known, as no
crlminaty way attached thereto This Of itself
would show that the pryierrer of the charges AMI
The witness 70 sustain them, the tIo being one.
was DESTROYS Of making the most out OF inc of
terees (scveHl Of them pcrsonaD OF Mr.. Bro yer,
and presents the witness and prefsreS of the charges
~ the attitude ola oyecwiiing witness.
~ the chtrge OF positive and wilfa, d,sobe-
eienco Of ordes" tho Court found Mr. Brewer
mot guilty or charge Of conducs prejudi-
al 10 Sood order and military discipline, Mr..
Brewer was found guilty: bur the specifications
themselves do not show conduct 50 prandicial 10
good order and military discipline to Justify SO
severe punishment a; &ismssion from the service;
aid the Secretary Of War himself, 10 General Or
dcrs No. ~, alludirg to the gross and insulting
language of Major Howe towards Mr. Brewer re-
marks IL is not surprising tina, breaches Of dis
cipline should occur in the command Of an officer
who sets so bad example to his junior officers
The charge of "neeiect of duty" os which Mr..
Brewer was found guilty, is not supported by such
specifications as TO make IT possible thnt the Court
based its sentence OF dsnission FROM the service on
this charge. The sentence of the Court was doubt
less, passed on the two remaining charges to wit,
viz =" Breach Of arrest" and "ccnduct unbe-
coming an officer and gentleman either Of which
affects bis character ard when proved units him to
hold commission in the service. Did we believe
that Mr.. Brewer, with dshonorable intent, had
committed either of these offences, his appeal to u,
to interest ourselves in his behalf. would have beea
in vain 1t will be perceived by reference to Gene
raj Orders No. AZ, that the fnding Of the Court in
reference to charge itb, " Breach Of Arrests, was
not confirmed by the President. The Secretary Of
War says: The evidence leaves some doubt about
the finding on the 4th charge, but the sentence ad
Judged by the Court being such the law directs.
for the offence OF which Lieut.. Brewer is convicted
under another CHARGE the President confirms the
proceedings and sentence Of the court martial"
VI the seven specifications to support the charge
OF conduct unbecomipg an officer and GENTLE
man," the Court found Mr.. Blower guilty Of but
congratulations third and fifth. How are these
Specifications third and fifth susta;ued BY the tes-
timony OF Major Howe, given subsequent to Janu-
airy 10, Is2i, OF conversations he rccoilected he
bad had with Mr.. Brewer, on the 9th day of June
1850, August y, 1850, and September 18th. We
reject the idea that Anjor Howe, during TOUR OF
five months, was in the habit of engaging a Junior
officer III private conyers ition, and making memo
randa 81 parts thereof, with the intent and purpose
Of accommodating facts which to base charges.
such practice u.s. we believe forbidden by the rules
OF the service. Indeed, what nun under such a
system OF espionage would be safel This idea W.
reject aud this whole charge is based on tho accu
ihcy OF Major llowos memory in relation to private
conversations happening months before. We simply
suggest that Mr.. Brewer might nave preferred
charges OF a similar character against Major Ho We
based on his recollection Of the conversations.
Under all these crcums auces, the character of Mr..
Brewer should have been taken into account, par
ticulaly as no motive has been shown, object to
accomplished, as an melting cause TO account for
the alleged variance from the truth.
Believing, we 10. hat MIR. Bowers faults arc
OF OF the heart, and being unwilling 10 present him
the attitude of attempting to prop up bad cause
y eAfancous considerations; il is with reuctanoe
that we mention services rendered while in the
unteer regiment OF Col Burnett His services
were such as TO commend him to tho favorable con-
sideraton of Generals Shields, Quitman, Worth anil
Pillow, Col. Burnett, the commanding officer CT
Mr.. Brewer, ard other distinguished officers, which
procured for him u commission in tho Third lnftn.
try:
10 show that the Court was preiuliced against
Lieut. Brewer, the Judge Advocate objected to Ma
or Morris of the Third Infantry, sitting the Court
because he previous to the trial, had said that Ma
jor Howe was prosecuting Lieut. Brewer, and get.
ting him IN difficulty. Major Morris was tho oldest
member detailed on the Court, is an old army officer.
and has had great experience in courts martial. 1t
is TO be hoped that the President will thoroughly
investigate this case, for with him rests the power
to ieinstate. We know that this has been
amined by some OF the highest military officers and
ourselves, do sincerely think thnt il justly deserves
the clcmency Of the executive.
TIE CHOLERA AT MrrsLrNrowN-lt is stated
-. a