New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1858-03-25

the Court Martial aequitting Col. T. " Sumner of
the charge Of sending q challenge TO Gen. Harney
The following are the orders thereon
WAR DEPARTxEET, March Is, 1858.
There is dispute as TO the facts in the The
only question is, the conclusion to be drawn from
them. The verdict Of the conrt amounts to this:
that General Harneys answer to the courtmartia at
Fort Leaveuworth not 'officiai matter = and
that Colonel Summers letter Of the 18th February 10
not challenge TO a duel. The department disap-
proves the finding of the court upon both points.
/. General Harneys statement to the court was not
volunteer. When objected to as o member by Col.
Sumner and the cause Of the challenge stated, he
made no until interrogated, and required to
state specifically whether he had bias prejudice"
etc. Then, "as to prejudice he admitted that he
never had any. very ittle respect for Col Sunlner
as soldier y and as TO the charges which, Col.
Sumner had stated to the court, Gen. Harncy had
preferred against him, and the War Department had
refused to entertain that "he believed they would
have been brought to trial il improper and untrue
statements had not been made 70 the Secretary Of
War; In this answer. Gen. Harney went further
i than was necessary and proper. But be was called
upon to state specifically his prejudice, etc. Such
inquiry ought not TO be made unless BY the accused
sustain bis challenge. The answer however, made
in good faith is Official and privileged II it goes
too far the court should nterpose.
2. Col. Summers note OF the 18th February is q
challenge, within the meaning of the article Of
The military authorities and the decision Of courts
martial are clear in this regard. They lay down
what s indeed, the necessary doctrine to give effect
to the law, that no particular phraseology no set
FORM is necessary TO challenge nor "formai in
vitation to fight but " mere hint suggestion" IS
sufficient, and even such a defiance casts the
burden on the other party" As challenges are in
violation Of law, ingenuity is not uncommonly exer-
cised to avoid a plain expression Of their purpose
But these are arees to defeat the law which courts
Of law will never favor. And when the meaning is
so clear as to be ineligible to the party who resolves
the challenge it answers its purpose, and is intei
gible to the tribunal which tries it. in this case
however, the challenge is plainly expressed, even il
il were not concusvey interpreted by the rest Of the
correspondence, and expressly as " demand Of sat
isfactOn."
The doctrine of the findings in this case would
render the article of void and imperative by in
dicating mode Of doing without the breach of th,
law what it is the exact purpose OF the law to forbid
, A rigid enforcement Of strict discipline in ths
army the most essential requisite for its honor ant
efficiency. II the bonds Of discipline are ioosened,
is only question of time when the army win be
come mob, and public opinion will ascribe to il tha
character even before it would be fairly entitled to it
JOHN b. FLOYD, Secretary OF War.
I'LL The general courtmartal, OF which Breve
Major General Thomas s. Jesup is President, is dis
: solved.