The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-12-20


who had located said claim said Lowe to yield to
sand owe or TO agree and COMPROMISE SLh hiso and
pay him for said cleim; and said Mxons hyipg 10
sequence OF said authority and coercion by said Mont
Eomery, raid TO sail Lowe two hundred and twenty-five
collars or his claim, nevertheless he, tue said Mont
gomeIy dfa thereater that Is to say 90 two several
cccssons, TO wit. the Let March, 1855. and the
oh April, 1865, to promote his private interests and
the interests of his associates in the Pavpee
Association, send armed party Of soldiers from the
fort and by force AID eject the said Dxon and
destroy their tenements All OF which conduct every
part thereof gross abuse Of his authority viei.
tion Of his pubic Duty and was conduct unbacoirg
officer snd gentleman.
not guilty.
FINDINGS AND SENTENCE OF THE oovRr.
case, finds the accused, Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Will
liam r Montgomery, Major I'd Infantry as foiows:-
Isl seeeat'on Guilty except the concluding words,
that Is TO say, SAL which was abuse Of his trust
violation Of bis public duty and conduct coming
sn officer and gentleman sucA Language being regard
but IL an nu s s'ia n
tended TO be drawn from the facts therein set forth;
from which facts win be the province Of the Court
opinion upon the charge.
that e. S xSss ss sas s eonosas
breach OF duty and OF official integrity and wes con1uct
unbecomirg an officer and gentleman, which words
Cd Te9fcaon Guilty, except the concluding Words
that IL 10 say, "Ard therein aforesaid. and
a grave official matter, he, the said Montgomery,
with interested and corrupt motives as aforesaid
ing an officer and a gentleman" which words
cepted for the set fo in the finding o, the
Court TO the asst specification
sicn in the third line Of the specification, and the
words ITO promote his private interest," ana the interests
concluding wordhat is to say GAN Of which conduct.
and every part thereof gross abuse Of his sutho
ry, Violation Of his public duty, and conduct
words excepted for the set forth in the find
ing to the first specification and Guily OF the charge"
grl-r
TIE Court then passed the following sentence: That
Brevet Lieutenant colonel William H. Montgomery,
jor Of The "a Regiment Of Infantry, be dismissed the
vice Of the United States
.. In conformity with The G5th Article of War, the
proceedings Of the General Court Martial in the forego
ing have been transmitted to the Secretary of War
and by him laid before the President of the United States
The following are the orders thereon:- -
WiR DER .RrNEST, Dec s, 1858.
The President has this day confirmed the proceedings
and sentence Of the General Court Martial in the of
Bevet Lieutenant Colonel William z. Montgomery, Major
I'd Infantry who ely ceases TO be officer of the
army.
The Department cannot pass without notice 1.-THE
duct of the other cers Of tho army who engaged in the
Pawnee Association TO establish town upon the military
at Fort Riley If they have Official respo.si
biiity in This ca ., they have much 70 rcprosch hs-
selves for, 10 Influencing the commanding officer to take
JEFFERSON DAVIS, Secretary of War.
Ill The following opinion Of the Attorney Genera, OF
the United States upon certain questions vo yea In The
Msjor Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Montgomery, Is
publ bed the information and government OF all cor
cerne6-
ATTORNEY C1spaL's OfrIcE, Dec. l, 1855.
su-Your communication ~ this date, transmitting
iieutepnnt Colonel Winiam r. Montgomery nv
Genesl Court Martial. requests Tpy opinion of the
ques'iors whether the dnding OF the court upon tho
Specifications connected with the finding upon the charge,
snfces to susain the Sentence and Whether the excep
TORS Of the court to OF the contents of the spech
On exauinaon Of the record appears that the trial
was had single charge with four specifications
der it, exhibited ~ order IF the War Department.
"a
gentleman
1t not necessary to The understanding of the points
law submitted to TO go all the spe;ihcafio
to repeat of them. Analysis OF the first spesd
cation viii put in view the enire subject matte. OF In
qairy.
That specification states that Brevet Lieutenant Colonel
Montgomery beirg in command ut Fort Riley, in the
color Of his cice and command which set forth in
| full and then concludes in these words:--
"An which abuse Of his trust, volati IN of
his public duiy and was conduct unaecomng an officer
| anG gentleman"
Each Of the three other specca is framed on the
same fhoory that is it ses forth the facts charged in
full End concludes with words of qualification logically
appicabe-not The same words, but words standing in
the same legal relation the concluding expression Of
| the Il rst specification.
The ccur' found the accrued guilty each specifsa-
ton nnd guilty OF tic charge but as TO the first specif
! eatop they found specially as FLOWS -
o. tie arss specification Of the charge guilty, except
abuse Of his trust violation Of bis public duty, and
vas conduct unbecoming officer and gcntloman,'
such rguagc being regarded by the forming
Necessary part Of tie specification but simply as ex-
pressing the differences II tended to be rs from the
province of ths court to draw its conclusion, when
| 1t c. mes to express an opinion upon the charge
TO their finding on the second third and fourth spec
bcaons they suhjyin qualification similar ,autdiis
mMdnds according to the substance OF each OF those
thr.e specifications.
In ccnclusiop, they say:-" or the charge guilty.
npon this case, the question: Of course, is Of the
vaicity of the proceedings of the court considered
question: Of the correctness of the exceptions taken by
he COURT and the two questions are much connected
continuous series Of observations.
Looking into The books of military law, and the pre-
Of trials even those OF the greatest Importance,
ard whore the interests at stake ndu ed searching
scrutiny Of all matters Of procedure whether in Great
Iass In or the United States, will be seen that among
necessity in which to state military accusations.
In the American service the custom is TO present a
the ssnse an
Of orders,' n,utiny in the present case con
duct 9ee and u .ss
set forth the particular acs which, IL IS concei,ed by
ordering The trial. constitute the offence designated in the
''chai ge."
In The British service the other hand there no
distinction between the charge such and the "spc
ci6catior." Each separate fact set Of facts cous
ting the after Of accusation is set forth dstinc.
charge even although there should be plurality of sub
jecs Of charge each importing variety Of the
same off nce and ther eore susceptible Of classification
uncer general heads Of charge.
Our practice has convenience po to be sure in every
case, but Ia many
IT, for instance, the crime be Of genus which Ia, but
enc species as sleeping post" tncn the 'charge"
In general but tio II to the specifca ion."
Bui In such case there may be plurality acts
q tie same offence. which IL is proper to charge al
though pr yed TO be followed by but possible SEN
tepoe for al The acts. The PROOFS in the different cases
may be Of the accusations may break down.
and iteration Of the csse circumstances Of aggrava
ton, or TIE reverse Will bear upon Interior questions of
approval or ccmnutaIon Ct fence, Of pardon.
But where the olenac is OF q genus conprehcndiug
many species, the conenian,c OF classification under
general heads Of ebargeis apparent.
a 10 ppga w1A In
cusnt, is Of plura ty CT offences, disobcdiene
Of orders" neglect Of duty'' and "muiiny," and
there is plurality Of acts leach offence Then il is
clear TO how practice tends not only to metho.
die the proceedings, but, what il important TO
methodize the clements a. decision in the minds Of the
siers and 81 The superior aory which IS 10 approve
o. dsapprove their final actsan
Meanwhile whichever tae two forms OF piaitice be
adopted whether the American the British certain II
is, in tho language 81 the latter charge" AMI
in that Of thu former, specification" does ncei
TO possess the techl zeal nicely Of indicuens Mt the