The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1858-03-19
A R M Y AND NAVY.
THE COURT MARTIAL OF COL. E.y. SUM
NER
WAR DEPARTMENT.

| THE COURT MARTIAL OF col. f. V. SUM
NER.
GENERAL ORDERs,0 WAR DEPARTMENT.
! ADJUTANT GENERALS OFFICE,
No. :. Washington, March l6 1853
|. At the general court martial which convened
at Carlisle barracks Pennsylvania pursuant to
"Speciat Orders" No. SO of March q 1858. from the
! war Department, and of which Brevet Major Gen
eral Thomas ). Jesup, quartermaster general is
president, was arraigned and tried Col. Edwin v
sumner, of the first regiment Of cavalry, on the
following charges and specifications:
CHARGE l.-Condnct to the prejudice of good order
and military discipline.
Specjfcation.-In this that he, the said Sumner
dld at Syracuse, New York, on the 18th January
1898, attempt to make personal affair with said
harney out OF an official matter-that is say, the
answer made by said Harvey to general court
martial which inquired of him in regard to his pre-
Judlce or bias against said Sumner.
CHARGE ll.-Sending challenge to another officer
tofght a d"e IN oiootiOn Of the 25h Of the articles Of
cdr.
SPecytcdtion.ln this that he, the said Sumner did
at W Washington, D. c., on the 18th February, 1855
on account of said answer by said Harney to said
court martial, send a challenge to said Harney to
fight duel, in words follows:
WAsHINGToS, D. c., February 10, 1858.
SIR:-As more than twenty-four hours have passed
since my note to you CT Yesterday, have right to
presume that you do not intend to answer it. |
have, therefore, to invite YOU to leave this city with
me tomorrow morning, to go to any place YOU NAV
designate. send this note privately, to avoid com
mitting any friend long as possible. An early
answer Is requested.
| am, with due respect,
f. V. SUMNER,
Colonel lst Cavalry
Brev. Brig. General w. S. HARXEY,
Colonel I'd Dragons
CHARGE lll.-tpbraiding another officer for retus-
tng challenge, an riotation Of the 2Sh Of the articles
Of te0r.
Speei6satiOn-In this, that he, the said Sumner,
did, at Washington, D. c., on the 10th February
1858, upbraid the said Harney for refusing to fight
a duel in words as follows:
WAsHINGrox, D. c., Feb. I6, 1858.
Sm:-l received with great surprise your note of
last evening, and have only to saw to you that
man who could insult brother officer from an off
cia covert, and afterwards refuse to apologize or
to give him that satisfaction which he had right
to demand, is utterly unworthy of any further no
E. V. SUMNER,
Col. lst Cavalry.
Brevet Brig. Gen. W. s. HARNEY, Col I'd bra
goons.
P. S.-This correspondence will be sent to every
member of the court. E. VS.
To, which charges and specifications the accused
pleaded mot guilty.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
The court, after maturcly considerinp The owl
dence, find the accused Colonel Ed,eia i. Srnner,
lst cavalry. as follows:
CHARGE I-Specifcation, '"not guilty." and e.not
guilty of the charge"
CHARGE II.-Specifcation "not guilty." and s'not
guilty of the charge"
CHARGE III.-!Specfcaion, ''not guilty." and s'not
guilty of the Charge
The proceedings of the general court martial in
the foregoing case have been laid before the Sec
retary of War, and the following are the orders
thereon:
WAR DEPARTMENT March Is, 1855
There is no dispute as to the facts in this case
The only question is, the conclusion to be drawn
from them. The verdict of the Court amounts to
this that General Harney's answer to the court
martial at Fort Leavenworth was not an ''o6tciaI
matter and that Col Summers letter of the 18th of
February is not a challenge to duel The de-
partment disapproves of the finding of the court
upon both points.
l. General Harney's statement to the Court was
not volunteer When objected to, as member by
Colonel Sumner, and the cause of the challenge
stated, he made no answer until interrogated, and
required to estate specifically ,cheter he had bias or
prejudice" &c Then, ''as to prejudice, he admitted
that he nerer had any, or rery little, respect for Col.
as Col Sumner had stated to the Court, Gen. Har-
Harney had preferred against him, and the War
Department had refused to entertain that |"he be-
tieUed they ,oould hare been brought trial If improper
and untrue statements had not been made to the Secrs
tdry Of War"
In this answer, Gen. Harney went further than
was necessary or proper But he was called upon
to state specifically his prejudice, &c. Such inquiry
ought not to be made unless by the accused who may
bring out unfavOrable opinions of himself to sustain
his challenge. The answer, however, made in good
faith, is official and privileged. If goes too far,
the court should interpose.
2. Col. Summers note of the 18th February is a
challenge, within the meaning of the article of war
The military authorities and the decisions of courts
martial clear in this regard. They lay down
what s indeed, the necessary doctrine to give effect
to the law, that ''nO particular phTaseology,
form necessary to challenge" nor ga formal IN
ration to fght," but ga hint suggestion' is
sufficient; and ''s"ch deiaace the bur
den on the other party"
AS challenges violation of law. inoanuity
is not uncommonly exercised to avoid a plain ex-
preston of their purpose. But these are articles
to defeat the law which courts of law will never IA
vor. And when the meaning is so clear as to be in
teligible to the party who receives the challenge
it answers its purpose and is Ineligible to the tr-
bunal which tries it. In this case, however the
challenge is plainly expressed, even if it were not
conclusivey interpreted by the rest of the CORES
pondence, and expressed ga demand of satistac-
tion.'
The doctrine of the findings in this case would
render the article of war void and imperative by
indicating a mode of doing without breach of the
law what is the exact purpose of the law to forbid
rigid enforcement of strict discipline in the
army is the most essential requisite for its honor
and efficiency. If the bonds of discipline are loosen
ed, it is only question of time when the army will
become mob and public opinion will ascribe 70 it
that character, even before it would be fairly en-
titled to it. JOHN B. FLOYD,
Secretary of War.
III. The general court martial of which Breyet
Major General Thomas S. Jesup is president is dis
solved
". Colonel Edwin V. Sumner. lst cavalry. is
released from arrest, and will join his regiment in
Kansas.
BY order of the Secretary of War:
S. COOPER, Adjutant General