The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1852-10-13

Maj. Gen. Worth, and Zoe sessons whish 1 wi,
briefly state he de6rs, 5oe the present as lea1e,
Y kcs0er AivHyuge.1Hnssigt luE hi0 0ins QlssAhe
charge yo'. have presented against him, The.
snsddee.'t sApws thas G~n. Worth yh deeply
asgfieved BY youf Cen Order, 30. 3a9. LIN
putations ef very scIious character were, Wy
that order, cast rpm soms ofthe osIicers under
your immediate, command, and frn,n its peculi-
ar phraseoloxy, Il waA sndsrstcod' by Gen.
Worth, or others, indicating him a. one Of The.
ofhcers ."hnnxions to The severe csnsure and re-
pr"of therein contained. With tkis vjrw Of the
import and obTct nf the order, his attempt, ~
oil proper means, to remove tI"m himsslf the.
ien"miay Of thrss nsputstions cannot be r~gar--
ded a. an <1cepaienabie course ON his part AZ,
the strokes which had. % th"uxht, deeply woun-
DID his hpnor ~ an officer, and his character ae
. man, came from ynur hand, his application.
TOR redress was properly made to you; but ~
he id n"t obtain such redress % he believed,
under ihc circun stances Of the case, was dss
=, him, he cxercised, or stte,nptrd to excrci.e,
the right Of sPpesi to snperior sskhoFity II
he wee actually aggT;sved in this matter, or be-
licved himself ~, he had IN unSnestiouabie
right to have thr subject brought to the consi-~
dera'ion OF his and your common superior, the
President Of the United Stxtes be prepared
charges against you. (sor his letter Of the iGah
oi November, To the Secretary of War, can be-
viewed IN no other ehsrscter.) and endeavore&
t. send them through you. the only channel he
could uss without violating established regula-
ion, 10 this common snperior
For the matter contained in these charges
against yourself. you have mads charge
against him, forwarded to the Pres.srnt, and
asked for his trial by . curt martial. IF the
n DDdi -ki
this case is sanctioned aud carried out, yeu can.
not bnt perceive the precedent will be NEST g.
tai to the essential right Of ssbornste officers
IT Gen Worth had been guilty Of IN offence,
by preparing and attempting 70 transmit charges
against you, 70 the President, Er wYo~gs end
injuries alleged to have been inflicted By you
"n him, IL seems IN be . necessssy cpnsc quenee
that, whatever may be the character Of the
wrongs and injuries inflicted on subordinate
officers BY the soreviors, cannot seek redress BY
appeal withaut being involved in . military Of
fence. Whstever nHy b the itjustice thoy
snfjer, the hope { remedy by sppeal world be
illusory and the right 10 appeal worse than
iueless, If by Tire mere statement Of their COM
plaint, whether in the form sf charges or other
wise, for The. anction Of common superior,
they would be liable 10 be afrest.d and tied be-
fore any, investigation has been made Of the
truth or fasity Of the matters therein sst Forth,
and"ven before the appeal had reached the au.
tho ,ty which alone could afford redress. Such
q principle as this would in It's practical opera
tions, subvert justice and withhold protection
from subordinate otherYs. If Gen. Worth can
not make an apealto the President ON scceunt
Of your conduct toward him, without commit
ing military offence, and certainly he cannot
the statement Of the matter of his complaint is,
an offence, il is difficult TO perceive how any
officer Of inferior rank can carry an appeal to
you or any other common superior. for injustice
Or injury done to him BY an officer ofa higher
rank than himself, rhough 10 appeal 10 theex-
erciss 0. a., unquesuonable right,) without sub
lecting himselfto triafby q court msrtisi; for
every appeal which 10 not frivolous upon its face
officer complained of sosne military offence, and
os the principle Of your proceed
ing against Gen. Worth, the appealing officer
would be subject to sSrest and trial for the nis.
ter confined in his spprsl. + svad b1a
"As long ~ tis possible that subordinate
officer may suffer from . superior, justice;
sound policy and the good Of the scYvlcr, re-.
quirc and demand that the svenue 70 edres.
should not be obstruoted, but obstructed il would
be in a most efectual manner, by the mode Of
procedure which you have adopted in the case
with Gen. Worth rr7
81 am not unaware Of the force or the con-
sideratons which may be urged against allowing
the Unrestricted night to subordinate officers to
make complaints and prefer charges, 10 a COM
mon superior, against those who have command
over Than. The right may be abused il may
be resorted to for the indulgence Of malicious
PASSIONS, to produce disseDsions in the army,
and to impair the rightful authority Of the
officers, but this liberality to be
perverted to mischevous purposes, is not suf--
hcient argument that It should not be sustained,
or its benefits be destroyed by the assumption, in
the first place, without any proof that the
right has not been, exercised in good faith, and
with justiiable motives, and then, upon that
assumption, to institute proceedings for mill
tary offence against the appealing and il may be-,
much injured Officer, fairly seeking the redress to
which he 10 entitled. But this right Of appeal
can rarely or never Be abused with impunity.-
The abuse Of il 10 an offence which can and
should be punished; but it 10 quite important
that the mode Of puuish,ng the abuse should
not be such as to destroy q impsir the right. To
illustrate my views BY the very case under COR.
Ifit shall appear that General
Worth has falsely snd knowingly charged yen
with "maliee sgainst him. end Of "acting in
rnanner unbecon,ing an officer and gentleman
towards him, he has IN that committed an offence
for which he may and should be punished but,
before investigating, It is no more to be assumed
that your charges sgainst him are trne, than his
against Jon are %. But law and natural Justice
require that order Of events should be pursued
in such cases. The charges which he prefers
against you should be first Disposed Of, before
proceedings can BE- instituted against him for
malice in Prrferring those charges, or Tor pre-
senting such as he did not know or believe TO be
well founded. Your charges against him 60
upon the ground that he is malicious persecu-
tor Of you, itss we'll established principle, that
no man can be proceeded against az a malicious
while the suit, which is alleged to be
malicious, is pending that must be disposed Of
before a saA for malicious prosecution can BE-
insti'u 'uted. o -o 4
"ln this view Of the case, and il is the one the
present has taken, the charge which General
Worth has presented against you must be dis
posed Of before any proceedings can be had
on that which you have presented against
him -
What will next Tuesday do for the
-s7iGg Democracy
9 ~