The weekly Arizona miner., 1872-01-13

then, the Court believed the paper refarred to, to be the proceedings of Court of h. quiry, they certainly had 20 right to admit it as evidence in this case. The 9lst Article of War provides that Court sf Inquiry must consist of at least one officer as.d Judge Ad. vocate or Recorder, and by the 92d Article such Court can only be convened bv the President ef the United States, or upon the demand ct the accused, neither of which WAS the case Tn. this instance. But the paper re- ferred to does not embody the lroceedncs ot Court of Inquiry, nor can it be twisted into such by the most subtle course of argu- ment. It was simply a copy of copy of letter in the nature of a private report made to the Department Commander, which could not properly me made public without his consent. The nearest it comes to exoDerat- ing the accused is the remark, "that if he, (Lieutenant Whitman) erred in the past, hts habits are now cUsrect."tD As a rpor, even, it is non-committal, substantially amounting to nothing, and could only Lave been introduced here with the consent of the writer. who was Counsel sor 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 derelict.
 Some of the allegations made by the ac- cused, in support of his plea, are dis.espect- ful Ill tone and language to the authority con- vening the Court and the War Department, by whom the charges were referred to the Department Commander.
 The means by which the alleged mscon- duct was brought to the attention of the War Department, was not what the Court was ordered to investigate they were sworn "to well and truly try,' and deter mine according to eridence, the matter before them, "without partiality, favor or affection" This means, if 1t means anything, without partiality, favor or affection, towards any one, accused or accuser. There was no evi- dence presented in the case; the allegations in support of tue plea are not sustained by little of proof. The Court should have pro- ceeded 10 try and determine the guilt or in nocencc of the accused in the matter before them, according to the eridence, and their fail ure to do so stands without shadow of ex- cuse, or 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 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 composed, that these charges should be legally investigated, so that if innocent his honor might be vindi- cated, and if guilty the service be rid of an unworthy officer.
 The proceedings in the foregoing case are disapproved.
 Owing to the movement of troops, eONse- qucnt upon the transfer of the Sd Cavalry from the Department, it is impracticabls to re-asSemble the Court.
 Lieutenant Whitman will be released from arrest and restored to duty.
 1.-The General Court Martial, of which Captain James Curtis, Sd Cavalry, is Presi- dent, is hereby dissolved. |"
 GEORGE CROOK,
 Liem.-Col. 23a Intantay,
 Breret AWor General, Commanding. OFFICIAL: JOHN C. BoURKE,
 Aide-de- Cdmp