Daily evening star. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1852-1854, 1853-08-01
Warrington Nsx,.

u IArosrANr TO rHH ARxYs-The following
t uponItke subject Of The p.y5of soldiers while
Fconfned by the cisil authorities for offence
against theAlaw, oficers' transportation ass
counts, and the rights of the accused before
courts martial will be everywhere read with
interest: III ~ ~ Atlgt T.
GENERAL ORDERS, WAR DEPARTMENT,
N, ., ADJUTANr GENERALS OFFTcE,
w. Ni Washiaston July q, 1853.
I. The following regulations have been re-
ceiycd from the War Department and are pub
lished to the Army. F va. IA "
l. Soldiers confined by civil authority, are
not entitled to pay during such confinement,
unless discharged therefrom without trial or
by trial and acquittal, and commanders OF
companies and detachments are required to
state explicitly upon the muster rolls Of their
companies or detachmente the periods of such
confnements, and whether the soldiers so
confined were discharged without trial. and If
tried whether they were acquitted or con-
victed ~.
2. The transportation of an officer engaged
upon any service for which there is regular
appropriation or other fund, must he charged
to such appropriation or fund, and not to the
appropriations for the current military SER
vice.
II. The following remarks in relation to the
proceedings of the General Court Martial con-
vened at Fort LeavenwOrth, pursuant to Or
ders No. 2, dated February /, 1853, from the
Head Quarters of the Western Division, have
been received from the War Department, and
arc published to the Army.
AT a General Court Martial held at For t
LeavenwOrth for the trial Of Major Howe. I'd
Dragons, an erroneous decision was made, to
which the attention Of the service should be
II ko1 vi tho<n slyao ha in
future, avoided.
The accused challenged a member for ''bias,
prejudice, and malice The member q then
stated that he had no prejudice or bias against
the accused which could in the remotest de-
gree interfere with his doing justice in the
| case" but being challenged, he requested
to be relieved from sitting on the court; y
| which the court refused and overruled the
| challenge. The accused then requested that
the member might be put on his voir dire in
order that he light examine him as to the ex-
tent Of any prejudice he might entertain )"
| which application the court refused.
The ground of the decision is not expressed.
Whether it was that the court considered that
the member ought not to be examined, and
that the cause of challenge must be shown by
| other proof; or whether. they thought the ex-
PLANTATION already made by him sufficient.
| 1t was never doubted that a juror may be
examined as 10 his bias or prejudice. or his
opinions in the matter for trial except that it
was at one time held that opinions formed and
expressed, as they may be proved by extrinsc
evidence, ought to be so proved.
| But that distinction is not now maintain ed
in the courts of this country and an accused
| is now allowed in all cases, for the better Sc
| curity of an impartial trial, to show the mind
! of the juror by examining him before the
| court; and the only exception is, where the
cause of challenge goes to the disgrace or dis
credit of the juror. ..,-.....
In regard to the sufficiency of the explana-
ton made by the member, the court ought to
have considered that it was not a denial but
in some degree an admission of bias and pre-
judice. qualified by the members opinion that
it could not influence his judgment in the
trial. This, however, was the matter of which
the court were to judge after enquiring into
the nature and grounds of his feelings to-
wards the accused. And as to the proof in
this regard, the law allows the accused the
testimony of the member in the mode he de-
manded
The refusal Of the court to allow the accused
the benefit of the necessary legal evidence to
prove his cause of challenge would have set
aside the trial, had the verdict been of con-
viction.
By ORDER: s. COOPER