Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1858-03-19
ARMY INTELLIGENCE.
The Court Martial of Col. f. y. Sumr

The Court Martial of Col. T.. v. Sumner.
e'n'Es5 Mo- oos!ds' Aa;sia nG5s.a5Hsf9 Gs,
Washington, Mar. Is, 1883
!. At the general court martial which con-
vened at Carlisle barracks, Pa, pursuant to
Special Orders" No. 33 of March 2, 1853, from
the War Department, and of which Brevet Mai.
Gen Thomas S. Jesup, Quartermaster General,
was president, was arraigned and tried Col
Edwin V. Sumner, ofthe first regiment of ca val
ry, on the following charges and specifications.
Charge I.-Conduct to the prejudice of good
order and military discipline.
Specifcation.-In this, that he, the said Sum-
ner, did, IT Syracuse, New York, on the 18th
January, 1888, attempt to make a personal af-
fair with said Harvey out of an official matter
that Is to say the answer made by said Harvey
to a general court martial which inquired of
him in regard to his prejudice or bias against
said Sumner.
Charge II-Sending challenge to another
officer to fight duel, in violation of the 25th of
the articles of war.
Specification. In this, that he, the said sum
ner, did, at Washington, u. c., on the 18th of
February, 1883, on account of said answer by
said Harney to said court martial, send n chal-
lenge to said Harvey to fight duel, in words
as follows, &c:
Charge III.-Upbraiding another officer for
refusing challenge, in violation Of the 2Sth of
Tue dFCclec OF war
Specifcation.-In this, that he, tie said
sumner, did, at Washington, d c., on the 10th
February, 1858, upbraid the said Harvey for
refusing to fight duel, as follows, &c:
10 these charges and specifications the ac-
cnsed pleaded g not guilty.
The court, after maturely considering the
evidence, found the accused as follows:
Charge l.-Specifcation, . not guilty." and
- not guilty of the CHARGE"
Eho- =.
and " not guilty of the CHARGE"
Charge III.-Speci6cation, "not guilty -
and . not guilty of the CHARGE"
The proceedings of the general court-mar,ial
in the foregoing case have been laid before the
Secretary of War, and the following orders
thereon have been issued:
WAR DEPARTMENT, March IS, 1858.
There is no dispute to the facts in this
case The only question is, the conclu sion to
be drawn from them. The verdict of the court
amounts to this that General Harney's an
swer to the court martial at Fort Leavenworth
was not an " official matter" and that Col
Summers letter of the 18th February is not
challenge to duel. The department disap
proves the finding of the court upon both
points.
1. General Harney's statement to the court
was not volunteer. When objected to as a
member, by Col. Sumner, and the cause of the
challenge stated, he made no answer until in
terrogated. and required to state specifically
whether he had bias or prejudice" &C. Then
. as to prejudice, he admitted that he "neyer
had any or very little, respect fer Col. Sumner
ms soldier; and " as TO the charges" which,
as Colonel Sumner had stated to the court
Gen. Harney had preferred against him, and
the War Department had refused to entertain
that he believed they would have been
brought to trial if improper and untrue state
ments had not been made to the Secretary of
War In this answer, Gen. Harvey went
further than was necessary and proper. But
he was called upon to state specifically his pre-
JudIce, &c. Such inquiry ought not to be made
unless by the accused, who may bring out un-
favorable opinions of himself to sustain his
challenge. The answer, however, made in
good faith, is official and privileged If it goes
too far, the court should interpose
z Col. Summers note Of the 18th February
Is n challenge, within the meaning Of the arti-
Gle OF war. The military authorities and the
decision of courts martial are clear in this re-
gard. They lay down what is, indeed, the ne
ceSsary doctrine to give effect to the law, that
" no particular phraseOlogy, no set form, is ne
cessary to challenge nor " formal invita-
tion to fight" but a mere hint or suggestion
is sufficient, and even such defiance as casts
the burden on the other party" As challenges
are In violation of law, ingenuity is not un-
commonly exercised to avoid n plain expression
OF their purpose. But these are artifces To
defeat the law, which courts of law will never
favor. And when the meaning is 80 clear as to be
intelligible to the party who receives the chal-
lenSe, 1t answers its purpose, and is ineligible
to the tribunal which tries it. In this case, howl
ever, the challenge is plainly expressed, even
If 1t were not conclusively interpreted by the
rest of the correspondence, and expressly as a
- demand Of satisfaction
The doctrine of the findings in this case would
render the article Of war void and imperative
by indicating mode of doing without breach
OF the law what it is the exact purpose of the
law to forbid
A rigid enforcement of strict discipline in
the army Is the most essential requisite for its
honor and efficiency. If the bonds Of discipline
are ioosened, 1t Is only a question of time when
the army will become a mob, and public Opin
ion will ascribe to it that character, even be-
fore 1t would be fairly entitled to it,
JOHN B. FLOYD, Secretary of War.
LII. The general court-martial, of which
Brevet Ma jOr General Thomas S. Jesup is
president, is dissolved
~. Colonel Edwin " Sumner, Ist cavalry.
is released from arrest, and will Join his regi-
mcnt in Kansas.
BY order of the Secretary of War:
5. COOPER, AdjutAnt General.