Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-03-26

| CHAsdE I.-SpeesNedtsan. not guilty.; and '.so,
guilty of the charge Wv
CHARGE characterization, mot guilty" and .,,,.
guilty of the CHARGE
CHARGE III.-Speelfeatron, mot guilty." and "ro
guilty Of the charge"
The proceedings of the general court martial in m
foregoing case have been laid before tn: Secretsrv
War, and the following are the orders thereon:
WAX DEPARTMEhT, March Is, 1853
There is no dispute to the facts III this case TIL
only question lie, the conclusion to be drawn fro,
them. The verdict ofthe Court amounts to ths: ,Ss
General Harneys answer 10 the court martial at Fo,
LeaveDworth was not an "offciai natter and thai
Col. Summers letter Of the 18th February ia nn,
challenge to duel The department disspproves ,bs
| finding of the Court upon both points.
!. Gen. Harnsy's statement to the Court was mn
| volunteer. When objected to as member BY Col
Sumner, aud the cause of the challenge stated h.
Estate specifically whether he had bias or prejudice
SC. Then, Z" as to prejudice" he admitted that /.
'never had any, very littls respect for COL Sum'
ner as soldier" and " as 10 the charges" which a.
Col. Sumner had stated TO the Court, Gen. Harms
| had preferred against him. and the War ID, psr,msr
had refused TO entertain that 'he believed they Won
have been brought to trial If improper and untrr
statements had not been made TO the Secretary of
War" In this answer General Harvey wen =, y,
than was necessary ard proper. But he . csllsd
upon to state specifically hs prejudice &c. UGH in
quiry ought not to be made, unless by the accused
| who may bring out unfavorable opiuor OF birpss
to sustain bis challenge. The answer layever, mad
in good faith, is official and privileged II it poss
too far, the Court should interpose
.. Col. Summers note Of the 18th February i,
challenge, within the meaning of the article Of war
The military authorities and the decisions of Courts
Martial are clear in this regard They lay down
what s indeed, the necessary doctrine to give eff-c
to the law, that ao particular ptraseology no s.,
form, necessary TO q chahenge,'' nor formal in
vitatlon to fight but "a mere hint or suggestion
sufficient and even .such defiance as casls the bur
den on the other party" AS challenges are in VIC
l8top of law. ingenuity is not uncomm0ny exercised
TO avoid a plain expression OF their purpose. But
these articles to defeat the law. which cours Of
law will never favor. And VIXEN the meaning s 40
clear as to be ineligible to the party who receive,
the challenge it answers it's purpose, and ia inteli
gbs 10 the tribunal which tries it, In this case how
ever, tho challenge il plainly expressed, even If il
were not coDcusvely Interpreted by the rest OF tbs
correspondence, and expressly d "a demand Of ss.
sfaotion"
FPba doctrine of the findings in this case would req
der the article of void and imperative by indics
ting mode of doing without breach of the law VITA,
it is the exact purpose of the law to forbid.
rigid enforcement of strict discipline in the army
ia the most essential requisite for its honor and IL.
cheney. II the bonds OF discipline loosened, III
only question of time when the army will become
mob, and public opinion will ascrbe 10 it that char,
actsr, even before il would be fairly entitled To it,
JOHN b. FLOYD, Secretary Of War
Ill. The general court martial. Of which Br-ve,
Major General Thomas s. Jessup is President, is dis.
solved.
". Colonel Edwin V. Sumner, let Cavalry, is re-
leased from arrest and will join his regiment in Ksl
sss.
BY order OF the Secretary Of War.
s. COOPER, Adjutant General.