The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1856-08-21
Colonel Fremonrs Antecedents--
His dismissal from the Army.

publican candidate for the Presidencywasson
account OF the grossest misconduct, cashier
ed and dismissed from the United States
Army. He was tried by the following gen. /,
tlemen. comprising acourt martial of the
best officers in the army.
Brevet Brigadier General G. MsBroOks,
Colonel Fifth Infantry.
F. Colonel s. Churchill, Inspector Cen
eral. .s.,.,.
Colonel A. B. Crane, First Artillery.
Brevet Colonel NJ. M, Payne, Fourth Ar.
tllery.
Brevet Colonel s. H. Long, Corps TOPo-
graphical Engineer.
Lieutenant Colonel ]. p. Taylor, Subsist-
ence Department.
Lieutenant. Colonel R. E. DeRusey,
Corps Engineers.
Brevet Lieutenant Colonel H. K. Craig,
Ordnance Department.
Major J. L. Graham, Corps TOPogrnPhi-
cal Engineers.
Major R. Delefeld, Corps of Engineers.
Brevet Major G. A. Mccall, Assistant
Adjutant General.
Major E. w. Morgan, Eleventh Infant
ry.
Captain John F. Lee, Judge Advocate.
After fair and impartial trial, the Court
came to the following conclusion:
"Charge l.-Mutiny. And guilty of the
charge.
"Chargs 2-Disobedience of ORDERS
And guilty of the charge.
"Charge S-COnduct prejudcial to good
order and military discipline. And guilty
Of the charge"
1t will be seen that the grounds upon
which such respectable court of his broth
er officers dismissed Fremont from the SER
vice were that he had been guilty of"mu
tiny" "tisob bedience of orders," and "con-
duct prejudicial to good order and military
discipline" Certainly these afforded ex-
cellent reasons why he should be dismissed
from the army, and ought to tell strongly
against him since he aspires, by virtue OF
the Office Of President, to the chief COM
mund in the very service where he was ad-
Judged unworthy to hold subordinate po-
sition. In passing the sentence the Court
took occasion to say: .....
"SENrENcE.-And the Court does there
fore sentence the said Lieutenant Colonel
John C. Fremont, of the regiment ofmount-
ed riaemen, United States Army, to be dis
missed from the service.
! "The Court deems it proper, in view Of
! the mass of evidence on the record, to re-
mark that the Court has been unwilling to
confi1He the accused to strict legal defense,
which appeared to be within narrow limits.
considering the gravity of the charges,
the Court has allowed the defense the full
est possible scope in its power to develop
the instruction of the Government, and all
circumstances relating to the alleged mis-
conduct, as we'll as to impeach the leading
witness for the prosecution. The Court has
even irdulged the accused in course un-
usual, and without appreciation in the final
defense, of using indiscrimin0tely matter
which had been objected or admitted in evil
dence. ...
"With all this latitude of evidence, and
the broader latitude of defense, the Court
has found nothing conflicting in the orders
and instructions of the Government--noth-
ng impeaching the testimony on the part tof
the secuton--nothing, in fine, to qualify,
in legal sense, the resistance to authority,
of which the accused stands convicted.
"The attempt to assail the leading wit.
nesses for the prosecution has involved
points not in issue, and to which the prose-
cution has brought no evidence. In the
judgement of the court his honor and char
, acter are unimpeached. aE
'The whole proceedings of the general
court martial in the foregoing cnse, have
been laid before the President of the United
States"
, President Polk approved Of the finding Of
the Court, but political influence being
brought to bear, and majority of one in.the
court recommending him to mercy, he re-
mitted the penalty OF dismissal from the
service. But Fremont, with the stigma Of
the verdict resting upon him, soon resigned
his commission. ........... .. -......