Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1864-02-10

order Id charge Of an Officer. did fail AN,
neglect to obey that orders T7s7'Rai sd !
This at or near Beverly, West virginia
on or about the eighth day of Octobsr
eighteen hundred and sixty.three, and a
various tines slgt4s -
sReesEFeatton E 3d.w77iIn this, that he, th
said Col Geo. r, Letham,5 I'd Regimen
west Va. Infantry, having been ordered /,
prefer charges against Capt. Billinqsissyy
I'd Va. Mounted Infaatry, did fail and neS
lect to obey said order. ',ls-s.. a .
This at or near Beverly, West. Va. q,
or about the Sd day of October, 1868. n
Essa VIZ. W. AyRRRLL,,g =
r'srt =jss Brig. Geu'l Commanding,
51tsss .sf- sei +-r-7 .stlt1 III. -.
THR coLoEEL's .AReUMRNT or SPINNING mp
Vthe Court Please: s5s i-9-F7e.
Although do not deem 1t necessary fol
my acqnitlal 70 oiireview the charges auG
testimony In this case, yet beg your in.
anlgenee while Lirefer to them briefly.
Ehe41rst specification 10 The first charge
was abandoned by the prosecution upon
tue examination OF their own witnesses, (
+ there ls7nol testimony before the court
under the second specification to the first
GpaFge. General Orders No, 40, i from
brigade headquarters is 10, evidence, bu,
know not what for My testimony be-
tore tue general court. martial in the case
of Chaplain LYDIA is also in evidence, bni
Is not connected with the case in any way,
as there was not even an, effort mads 70
prove the furnishing of General Orders
No., Toto me, or my regiment. er...,. I
The attempt 10 prove the third specif
cation to the FIRST charge by Mnjor Slack
was too ridiculous to be pravely comment,
ed upon.
The only evidence TO sustain the fourth
specification to the frst charge, and, the
hrst specification to the fourth charge, is
tne testimony OF Major Lang. The deliv-
cry of Special Orders No. 75 to the regi.
ment, IN time to cover these specifications,
Is not proYenj but, for the sake OF tho ar
gument, grant it. BY this order, reyeille
roll call was to take place at $3.50. A. NJ,
and breakfast at Z A. NJ. Between reyeille
and breakfast the horses were TO be
groomed one hour, and fed, and the men
to wash and get ready for breakfast. The
'hour for stable call in the COPY. of the
order in evidence is blank, and the order
provides that it should be designated by
the reglmental commander. The hour so
designated by me is not in evidence, The
time between reveille roll call and break
last Is one hopr and thirty minutes. To
groom! the horses one hour, feed in ten
minutes, aud wash in I've, would REQUIRE
that stable call be at least fifteen minutes
before six, "A. NJ. But to begin at the
other end of the eqautiOn: the order re-
qulres all the buglers to be kept together
from reVeille until stable call, while the
reports OF the company commanders are
being received. -. ,,s,,--5
Now 1t is reasonable to suppose that the
Stable call WnnlH no
reyeille as practicable, that the buplers
might disperse. Would these reports re-.
quire over ten minutes2 Working from
either end of the equation we cannot place
stable call later than forty, or at farthest
torty. hive minutes after Eve o'clock, A, 81,
Now Major Lang testified that he reached
my camp at or about six O'Clock, A. NJ,
on the morning on the eighth of. October,
1853, which is shown to be not only after.
the nour for reveille, but after the hour for
stable call. ReVetlle at this hour would
have been violation and contempt of the
order, and yet he testifes that there was
no reVellle roll call in my regiment on that
oayi when the probability is that at the
hour for reveille he was still in bed-my
camp being, as shown, only half a mile from
Brigade, headquarters Truly. it must
require ready witness to. testify to such
facts under such circumstances. The wit.
ness did not state, neither have the prose.
cution shown, what the regiment was doing
Mhen ne arrlVed-whether in bed or at
thelr proper work. The latter must be
presumed until otherwise proved 4 did,
not supply these omissions, by cross .ex-
animation, 2 for the very simple reason that
! never Cross examine such witnesses; and
otu 1ot cali others for that purpose be,
cause It was unnecessary. j, ana. t.5,,s5,,',
WIN regard to specification 9th to
charge first, aud Specification 2d ID cha srge
4th, relating to disorderly riding, the evis
dence against me shows, that the horses of
my regiment were watered in a CisordsrIv
manner on the afternoon of the 9th of Oct,
1853; First, in my tayor,r it is not shown.
mat was present; second it was shown
that was much engaged about that time
soperlntendtng The construction of defeuces
on tns 'front.' and endeeyored, 70 show TO
tue court mat all my men equipped for duty
were absent, but. the court decided the
question improper, and itwas withdrawn;
third, it is shown that three months previ, (,
Gus 70 the issuing of Special Orders No.
70, by my accuser, issued a strinvent
reglmental order, which WAS ,subseouently
republIshed in the form of q tcircular S
covering this'very ground; that 1 had en-
iorcea these orders ri2idlY, and that viola.
Tors Of them were pre--emptorily punished.
confess. am at a loss to account for
thefdtsorder reported aud I think the lepal
presumption TO- beidrawn from the fact isl
that the most of the reRimentian, nTseIf
were absent, and thatathe BuhLmsysS had
gotten looselai E!sb gtu si y siiiS1sIBt
The other Emktters tcontained in ltbA re-
port of Captain Rife are foreign to- tbV
case; and even if the report is eSfdenes.
are .tully answered by the testimony CfoF. tte
defence. nrss Nsa eti{ - as.GcsS allifsI1S
The 9Th specification to- the Is, CHARGE
Was abandOned by the prosecntion witb5St
evidence! st2ass5 ads Gi5s 7GEIf - 5sSsfss
5In the second charge aud Its isbeeifiral
tion, am charged with sObedie6rei az
orders amounting to IEfnsuBurdibate com:
duct on etieldl of battis at Rocky Can
lM:nFah " on the 26th day eof August, 1858!
II Is exceedingly ungsneFous In nv accuser
for him toHAtfernnt n Coot a. ...