The weekly Arizona miner., 1872-01-13
LIEUTENANT WHITMANS CASE.
The Charges Against Him, &c &c'


 E.g,forc a Gens,al Court Martial which convened at Cams LswclI, 4. T., on the 4th day of December. Is7l, by virtue of para gro,b I Special Orders No S5, current series, from these Headquarters, and of which Cap tain James Curtis, 3d Cavalry, is President, was arraigned :-First Lieutenant Royal E.. Whtman, 3d Cavalry.
 CHARGE lsT "Conduct unbecoming an officer and gen. tlenan."
 Specification lst In this, that he. First Lieu
 tenant Royal F.. Whitman, 3d Cavalry. did
 show himself with his uniform on. in a state
 sf iptoIication at the "Hortun House.n a
 botep in San Diego, California, and did then
 and there conduct himself in a manner un-
 becoming an officer and gentleman. This
 at San Diego, Cal, on or about the 1th day
 of November, 1870.
 .Swcifcctioa 2d:-In this, that he, First Lieu
 tenant Royal E. Whitman, Sd Cavalry, did
 expose himself in state of intoxication.
 This at Point of Mountain, A. T., on or
 about the 24th of November, 1870. Specification 3d:-In this, that he, First Lieu
 tenant Royal E. Whitman, 3d Cavalry, did
 call for drinks for number of persons m
 the bar room of James II. Toole, at TncsOn,
 A. T., and having obtained the drinks on
 his order, did fail to pay for the same. This
 at Tucson, A. T., on or about the lst day
 of December, lS70
 .Sscifcation An In this, that he, First Lieu
 teiiant Royal E. Whitman, Sd Cavalry, dii
 lay drunk in public saloon. This at Tue
 son, A. T., on or about the lst day of De-
 ccmber, 1870.
 Specification 5h In this, that he, First Lieu
 tenant Royal E. Whitman, Sd Cavalry, did
 lay drunk in a back yard of the premises of
 Lord & Williams, with lis person indecently
 exposed. This at Tucson, A. T., on or
 about the lst day of September, 1871. Specification 6M:-ln this, that he, First Lieu
 tenant Royal F.. Whitman, Sd Cavalry, did
 attempt to seat himself in a woman's lap,
 on the feast grounds near Tucson, A. T., to
 the scandal of the service of the United
 States. This at Tucson, A. T., on or about
 the Both day of August, 1871. Sjreifcation 7M:-In this, that he, First Lieu
 tenant Royal F.. Whitman, 3d Cavalry, did
 behave himself in such an unbecoming
 manner, that an officer of his own regi
 ment refused to associate with him. This
 at Tucson, A. IT,, on or about the lst day
 of December, 1870.
 CHARGE 2D:
 "Conduct to the prejudice of good order and
 military discipline"
 Speci6cdtiOn In this, that he, First Licuten-
 ant Royal E. Whitman, Sd Cavalry, being
 disbursing officer in the service of the
 United State, did engage in a game of
 chance and did bet money at cards. This
 at Tucson, 4. T., on or about the lst day
 of September, 1871.
 To which Charges and Specification the ac- cused pleaded in bar of trial.
 The plea was sustained by the Court.
 This plea, in bar, although divided into six specifications, may be essentially reduced to two branches =
 lst:-The objection that the specifications to the charges are cumulative.
 2d:-The objection, to the alleged fact, that the charges are preferred by citizen Editor of dsloyal paper, abusive of the Army and its officers, influenced by malice; or, in short, the objection to the malice and bad character of the prosecutor.
 The Court sustained the plea substantially upon these objections, with an additional reason that Court of Inquiry had already investigated the matter and exonerated the accused.
 'The question as to the cumulative charac- ter of the specifications (to the first charge), being disconnected from any cXtraneous mat ter, and to be judged from the face of the written accusations only, may be considered separately. It may not be proper to accu- mulate or aggregate offences, which are in themselves trifling, each one of which taken (singly) would not support serious charge, but if each and every specification would of itself, if proven, support the charge, as is evi- dent in this case, there is no good reason why they should not be tried together.
 There arc often good reasons why offences committed during period, running back for any time, within two years, may have to be tried together, of which the authority con yeuing the Court, and not Me Court, is the proper judge. This is eminently the case in the present instance in which the offences charged came 10 the knowledge of the De pertinent Commander, as well as to the War Department, at one time and the same time, and were, therefore, in no sense permitted by him to accumulate.
 Now as to the second objection: It is either a good plea in bar or it is not If it be con sidercd good plea; the record is open to this fatal objection, that the plea alleges for its foundation certain facts. and that not particle of evidence is presented or taken by the Court in support of these facts. Suppose, for example, that a prisoner were to plead in bar of trial c prerio"s trial and acquittal cf tAe same oFence, (which would be good plea), surely no Court would receive the mere aSSer ton of the accused as proof of this fact, with out some sort of evidence to sustain it. The accuser, referred to, in the plea, is not even mentioned by name; upon the face of the record, which contains everything properly and officially before the Court, the only pros ccutor known to it was Captain Thomas Me Gresor, lst Cavalry, Judge Advocate. But had evidence been regularly taken in support of the facts alleged in the plea, it would have been at once patent that such evidence was purely and solely for the Defence, and not properly to be entertained before the Prose es'tie". But the second objection does not cmbody good plea in bar of trial. The iHattce, bad character, bad conduct or course 9, | 1.....