Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1863-08-13
THE CASE OF CAsHELL.


limo, in rebuke of General Court Martial for
heir finding in the case Of Hazel b. Cashell,
bitixen Of Maryland, arraigned before them on the
barge of "giving intelligence to the enemy"
n In commenting on this "order" we do not de-
ign to- snimadvert ON the temper by which it
sems to have been inspired, or on the acerbity of
lae tone held towards the members Of Court who,
\ Idventured to render verdict which, it must be
Presumed, they supposed to be justified by the law
ind the facts Of the case, but which, it appears,
Iras not modulated according to the Secretary's
!. Conceptions Of military justice. The style of the
.fdep, though much more remarkable for its pas
ION than its force is important only for the light
Il sheds on the spirit and temper with which the
sw has been construed and applied by the review
hg authority in this case.
1 Wepropose to confne ourselves entirely to brief
Examination of the legal aspects presented by the
'rcretary's review Of the sentence rendered by
/ " Count. And in order to give precision to our
: aquiry, we waive all question in this article as to
.he right Of General Court Martial to take juris
Fiction Of an offence committed by citizen of
Maryland, which, the Secretary holds, was Lawfully
,sticisble under the act Of Congress approved July
liz, 1862. The. confusion of the times has led to
strange confusion Of ideas as to the relations Of
he civil and military tribunals which are charged
sth the administration Of "justice" at the pre-
\ ent day.
II Every member of the Court Martial which is SO
I-crely rebuked by Mr.. STANTON took the fol-
}uing cath:
I"You do that yon will well and truly try and de-
rmine according to evidence the matter before you, be-
Tween the United States Of America ard the prisoner TO
ID tried and that you will duly administer justice accord
liz to the provisions of act establishing rules and
Eles for the government of the armies Of the Unit-d
oates, without partiay favor or affection and If any
dbt shall not explained by sad articles, according
your conscience the best your and the
tstom of war in like cases"
Cashell, citizen of Maryland, was arraigned
kder the 57th of the "Rules and Articles for
That article is as follows
N Whosoever shall be convicted of holding correspon-
lace with giving intelligence TO the enemy, either d.
Ectlv or indirectly shall suffer death, such other pun
bment shall be ordered by The sentence Of the Court
| PARTIAL"
The members of the Court Martial in this case,
Insisting Of Major Gen. Hitchcock as President,
\ I'd Of Brigadier Generals Morel, Abercrombie,
htch, and Meredith, found, on their oaths, that,
Lording to the evidence as they understood it,
shel, while guilty of the literal charge and sps-
ications alleged against him, had not given in
Eligercs to the enemy " with that criminal de-
IN which the law contempates as the animus of
preach of the 57th article of war;" and, In consi
ration of this modifying fact, the court, as they
preciated the evidence, very properly refused &c
TX the penalty of death to an offence which, as
NV believed lacked the element of criminal in-
lat, and simply ordered the prisoner to be "ad-
,nshed," as, with their views, they not only had
Wight to do, but as it was their sworn duty to do,
lder the 57th article, which authorized them to
bte out any other punishment" They were
kde the judges of the law and evidence in the
be, and to have found otherwise than they un-
lstood the bearings and purport of each would
I've been to convict themselves Of perjury. And
h, for falling to find otherwise than they did,
Dir "action" is subjected by the Secretary of
lar, the reviewing officer, to an "expression of
cng disapproval; J" and 10 further most signif,
ht token Of his displeasure, the General Court
Lrtal which, according to bis notions, had fallen
far below its duty, was summarly dissolved
bsser insult was never put upon honorable men,
the necessary implication is that they had been
Vninaly derelict in the performance of their
Tor functions as both judges and jurors in a
fitary tribunal.
IT is not for US to pronounce any opinion on the
bits Of the verdict rendered by the Court Mar
in the case of Cashell. We did not hear the
dence. We have not the record before us. We
her befotoN heard of the mans name. But, if
assume that the court did not rightly apply the
or duly appreciate the evidence in the ca 9,
twas the first and only duty Of the Secretary
War as the reviewing ofcery We purpose to
cot our inquiry to this simple question of law
of obvious military propriety.
We remark, then, that if, in the judgment Of
Secretary, the members Of this Court-Martial,
spite of the carefalncss inspired by the solemn
ctions under which they were called to act, fell
IN erroneous viey of the case aud rendered
isidn "unWarranted by the law and the testi-
py," it was his duty to send their proceedings
4 to them for revision, and not to assume at
% that their failure to take has view OF the case
ang from culpable maladministration of mil,
justice. 1t is perfectly competent for the re-
vinp officer to order su oh reconsideration, and