Arizona citizen., 1872-01-13

was purely and solely for the DefenCe, and not properly to be entertained be- fore the Prosecution. But the second objection does not embody a good plea in bar of trial. The malice, 6ad char- dcter, bad conduct, or course of business, of the person originating the accusations, or first bringing them to the notice of the proper military authorities, can, in no manner, affect the truth or falsity of the charges themselves, which must stand upon their own merits; the Judge Advocate General deciding that the validity of charges is not affected by the fact they originated with a person not actually in the military service" !"
 As to the case having been pre- viously acted upon by Court of h. quiry:
 The paper appended in support of this, appears to be letter addressed to the Assistant Adjutant General of the Department, by an officer directed to make certain Investigations; and certified to, as a true copy. The 92d Article of War expressly forbids the admission, by Court Martial, as evidence, of the proceedings of Courts of Inquiry in cases extending to the dismissal of an officer, and by the S3d Article, this was case in which noth- ing but dismissal could have followed a finding of "Guilty of the First Charge" If then, the Court believed the paper referred to, to be the pro- ceedings of Court of Inquiry, they certainly had no right to admit it as evidence in this case. The 91st Art icle of War provides that Court of Inquiry must consist of at least one officer and Judge Advocate or Re- corder, and by the 92d Article such a Court can only be convened by the President of the United States, or upon the demand of the accused, neither of which was the case in this instance. But the paper referred to does not embody the proceedings of Court of Inquiry, nor can it be twisted into such by the most subtle course of argument. It was simply copy of a copy of letter in the nature of a private report made to the Department Commander, which could not properly be made public without his consent. The nearest 1t comes to exonorating the accused is the remark, that If he (I1eutenant Whitman) erred in the past, his habits are now correct Q As a report, even, 1t is noncommittal, substantially amounting to nothing, and could only have been introduced here with the consent of the writer, who was Counsel for the accused, a proceeding which should have been objected to by the Judge Advocate, who seems to have done very little towards enlightening the Court upon points wherein they appear to have been either grossly ignorant or dere Iict.
 Some of the allegations made by the accused, ill support of his plea, are disrespectful in tone and language to the authority converting the Court and the War Department, by whom the charges were referred to the Depart ment Commander.
 The means by which the alleged misconduct was brought to the atten- tion of the War Department, was not what the Court was ordered to in- vestigate--they were sworn "to well and truly try" and determine accord ing to eoidence, the matter before them, "without partiality, favor or affec- tion." This means, if it means any thing, without partiality, favor or af- lection, towards any one, accused or accuser. There was no evidence pre- sented in the case; the allegations in support of the plea are not sustained by title of proof. The Court should have proceeded to try and determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the matter before them, according to the evadence, and their failure to do so stands without @ shadow of excuse, or a precedent in law, or custom of the service, and in thus thwarting the object for which they were assembled. they have placed Lieutenant R. E. Whitman in 8 worse light than he before occupied. Whatever object he may have had in avoiding & trial, it was due to the officers of his regiment, of which the Court was largely con- posed, that these charges should be legally investigated, so that if in nocent his honor might be vindicated,