New-York daily tribune., 1858-03-19
THE COL. SUMNER COURT MARTIAL.
THE DECISION.
GENERAL ORoERS.
WAR DEPARTNrNr.

ADJUrANT -GgNERN's OFFICE
No2 WASHINGTON March i6. 1888.
|. AT the general Couft Martial which convened az
Carlisle Barracks Penn lysnis, pursuant to Spets'
Orders" No 33 Of March . 1888 from the War De-
partment, and of which Breyet Major-lenera Thos.
S. Jessup, Quartermas'er General, Is President was
arraigted and tried Col. Edwin '. Sumner of the
Fret Regiment Of Cavalry, ON the following charges
Cn.kcr I~COnduct to the prejudice OF good orler and mill
Specidcafion ,h. that he tie .sd Sumner dd syr.
New York the 18Th OF January 1853 s,temp to makes
personal affair with said Hsrney out Of oihcs Atter-hs is
10 say the made by sand lisrney 70 General Cont Mar
is which inquired OF him in regard to h' prejudice or Was
II sending chdlease to smother oeer to fsht'
tI that se the ''d S ssHHsI @ QUO q " ..
sn,wer BY said Haey sd Court Mar,ia enaa challenge TO
hight dlel in words as follows: ~ = r.A 3, 1870
ss As more than twenty horrs have passed since my
mote to you Of ytsEdsy have , to Ps'Sms 1S , SGS DO
hi; city With me TOW %Ss " 60 to sy pSs %a
friend ;n 1"s s 'Ss: ass set A4 'H'Ts 'sa%:;
Brey. Bri. General w. S. H,RxrY.
Colonel I'd Dragons.
CHARGE 1I-Upbraid.s sncher officer for refusing cn.
SpecscGton In this that he the .sd sumner did Wash.
ingon c. 6 February 1885, upbrsid the sad Hauey
WASHINGTON, D. c, Fob. l6. 1853.
aud bave only TO to you that man who could insults
brother officer from official covert and aerward refuse to
nSnd ps,ey asSM,NSER Coone I9 i Csy.r
Breyet Brig Gen. w s. HARsEY. Colonel ID Dragons.
the Cont. Evs.
To which charge and specifications the accused
pleaded lot guilty.
FINDINGS OF TIE COURT.
The Cont, after ma.urely considering tie evidence
frd the accused, Colonel Edwin V. Sumner lst Cav
airy as follows
mai i'tv nj mt OF
CH.Res IIspechcaton, mot guilty. rra not guilty of
ca.Eeh IL-specidcsiion not guilty. and not guilty of
The proceedings Of the General Court Martial in the
foregoing case have been laid before the Secretary Of
War and the following are the orders thereon
WAR DEPARTMENT, March IS, 1853.
There s no dispute to the facts in this case. The
only question is, the conclusion 10 be drawn from
them. 1heyerdct of the Court amounts TO this: That
Gen. Harney's answer to the Court tmartisl at Fort
LeayenwOIth was not an Official natter" and that
Col Summers letter of the 18th February, is not a
challenge TO duel. The department dsapproyes the
finding the Court upon both points
/. Gen. HarDeys statement TO the Court was not
volunteer. When objected to as member by Col.
Sumner, ard the cause of the challenge stated, he
made no answer until nterros gated aud required to
state specifically whether he had bias prejudice,
&c. Then, "as to prejudice" he admitted that he
"neyer had any, or very little, respect for Col sum
u
Col Sumner had stated to the Couit, Gen Harvey had
preferred against him, and the War Department had
refused 10 entertain, that he believed they would
"haye been brought to trial if improper and untrue
" statements had not been made to the SesSetary Of
"War.' In this answer Gen. Harvey went further
than was necessary and proper But he called upon
to state specifically his prejudice &c: Such IN
quiry ought not TO be made, unless by the accused
sustain biz challenge. The answer, however made in
good faith is official and privileged. If it goes TOO
lar the court should inteIpOse.
III CO.. Summers note of the 18th February Is q
challenge, within the meaning Of the article Of war
The military authorities and the decision OF courts
martial are clear in this regard They lay down what
is indeed the necessary dGetrIe 70 give ehect TO the
law that "no particular phraseoogy, no set form, Is
"necessary to challenge, nor a formal incitaton
/" to fight" but "a hint or suggestion" 10 subj
cent and even such defiance As casts the burden
on the other party" As challenges are in violation
of law ingenuity is not upcommonly exercised to avoid
a plain expression Of their purpose. But these are
articles to defeat the law which courts OF law VIII
favor And when the meaning is 90 clear 81 70
be ntegble 10 the party who receives tie challenge,
answers its purpose AMI is Ineligible 10 the trbu-
pal which tries it. In this case however, the chai-
ense ia plainly expressed, even If Il were not c9nclu-
sysy interpreted BY the Ie9 of tue
The docribe Of tue findings IN this case would rem
g. The article Of war void and imperative by ndica-
ting mode of doing without orese9 d ot tne Ia" Nha'
il IL the exact purpose CT tie law 10 iorDld.
rid enforcement Of st.ict discipline in the Army
ia The most essential requisite for It's honor and eff
nov II the bonds OF discipline are lcosened, it is
Only question Of time when the Amy ny viii become
''' JOHN 3. FLOYD Secretary Of Wn
iii. The General Court Martial Of which Brevet
Msior General Thomas Jesup is President, is dis.
solved.
". Colonel Edwin V. Sumner, lst Cavalry is re-
leased from arrest and will join his regiment in
Kansas.
b. order Of the Secretary Of wU,
:. COOPER, Adi1t,at. .Oeaera.
AsRE.r or A CoCSTERFEITER.-Ohice McCord
lsst evening arrested q eoored man, who gave his
name George Garrison for passing counterfeit -