New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-01-31
come n o. court would be appointed By the Pres
ident He moved the previous question.
Ma IIosa 10 Ax


said that in courts martial accused had the right
challenge the member Of court The relevancy or valid
Mr. FRYE reminded the House that the court OF IN
qury proposed differed entirely from an ordinary mil
court martial. The reputation Of Gen. Howard - IN
volved in the ndiug aud he only asked that be Shouts
have precisely the right the accused has ns
courtmarJl. lie and his friends wanted codrt OF m
nnrv bnt thew wanted il TO 10 fair 10 20 righteOus 20
6e lust They would insist on this and nothing mora
He had known Gen. Howard from MS bOJhOoi 10 tons
day and he had never known stain or shadow on his
Howard led In the army. his everyday @4k MS every
Officers. Neither Cen Howard nor his friend, shrank
the inquiry lie sent To tho CLERK desk r1
letter from Gen Howard. dated Jan 81, expressing hs
WILLINGNESS TO submit to a OF inquiry but ASKING
that he Should have the right OF Ghalie9Se. -.
kind feelings against Con. Howard. but be had
felt IL hs duty some years ago, 70 present enhiscs
against him. which charges had been referred TO com
mtec and the House on the report OF thai Commttoe
had oxonerated Cen Howard aud had presented him TO
the people OF the United states rs pure GOOD man.
Christian and soldier Gen. Howard bad said then.
he said now, that he desired inquiry and was ready ior
~ but ne had qmbbled and avoided and resorte TO al
means to prevent the truth being told 10, when ne
Secretary OF War first called gu him to explain h,
accounts, he said he was ready ior hqnrS pay 5et 40
had avoided inquiry. He would yet prevaroate and
avoid and nterpose every possible eenndeai ~ 0"Gon
10 inquiry aud the resolution reported ne tsr. noOIl
believed to be directly In the iine OF That ayoddnce
The Joint resolution would nave 70 20 10 tae oa,o 2t
It's action, and thus delay would Dc lnteIpV.o1. ne
suggested simple resolution requesting the ffesuvnt
TO convene a court OF inquiry to Try the charges.
Mr. COBURN declared that no man had greater al.
mraon for the character and services or Gen. Howard
than himself, but ne could esftDy reason
cussng his character or his merits now lie (Alr Co
burnt had confidence that the President would falry,
Justly and honestly aud kindly appoint court in
this matter The President had been tue companion in
arms OF Gen. Howard. His name wac KNIT IN common
of which the country and the Republican party vera
proud, The glory OF tho President @sD M Moro15 5
In a general sense tho President had had
the management OF the Free d ems, Bureau as
Why then, all this declaration about what Cen Howard
had donei VINO proposed to do anything uhknd. un,
INST ar mn blp
from q committee, all Of whose members were friendly
TO Gen Howard. and he would tell the House that no
longer ago than yesterday he had eonyeSed with Cen
Howard, who had told him that the resolution suited
him. and that 1t might be passed without objection lie
felt that tho proposed limitation Of the Presidents
power by giving the accused the right OF challenge was
believe be offered In that spirit its direct effect Ga
the mind Of tho country would be that i was an ex-
preston Of a lack of confidence IN the President
Mr. sPEER Dem, PennJ suggested adding proyiso
to the amendment that the sufiiciency OF challenge
shall be determined by tho Presdent On reasons pub
llcy assigned by the accused.
Mr. BUTLER (Ilep, Mass.) said he did not regard the
Amendment as an inputaon against the President any
more than the challenge OF grand juror an impu-
tation against the marshal who summoned the jury e
supposed the case of Gen Hooker, who had publicly
expressed disparaging opinions as 10 Gen. Howard,
being appointed in the court OF inquiry, and asked
whether in such the accused should not have tho
MIR HAwtEX 9ps Mo- Of t the M towars
Gen. Howard. They all wished That he should have
fair and impartial trial. aud they believed that the reso
luton offered proposed the fares aud best way Tho
only necessity for it that Increased the Court from
Mr.. DOMAIN Q.ep. Iowa., another member OF the
Military Committee. believed best for the character Of
Gen. Howard that the court should not differ from any
other court OF inquiry He therefore was opposed " thu
Mr. THORNBURGH Rep Iowa), another member OF
the Military Committee favored the investigation Of tho
charges By that Committee. and proposed to have the
matter referred back for that purpose.
Mr. HAWLEY rep, Conn.,, another member OF the
Military Committee, was opposed TO that COMMITTEE
exoueratej Cen Howard. his would be unsettled
then now. large portion OF the people would be-
heve it was case OF political whitewashing. go
Mr. LAMAR Dem. MissJ said that he neither the
friend foe OF Gen. Howard, but that II would be
the charges with u calm, serone sesustaining demand
for public trial. rather than by rhetorical laudatots
OF his past career He believed that IN the absence VI
any special regulations, accused person had the right
Of challenge before court Of inquiry It was part OF
that public law which enveoped all investigations un-
less there was some special prohibition.
NJ. TOWNSEND ReD. Pa) replied to Mr. Woods re-
marks IN last investigation OF the Howard
charges and declared that all Institutions against the
fairness and mpartaty Of the Committee on that oeoa
Mr. ALBRIGHT rep, PENN, another member OF tho
Military Committee. favored the amendment, declaring.
however that he had originally been III favor vi an In
vestigation by the Committee.
Mr. YOUNG Dem.. Gal another member OF the Mill
taIy COMMITTEE regarded tho amendment a. lmputA-
on the President and on the officers OF Sue army
and ne sent to the Clerks desk and had read dispatch
u telegram from him, stating that It was held Dy AL
authorities that the accused had the right TO challenge
| the members in a court Of inquiry.
Mr.. BUTLER (sep.. Mass)-what harm, then. in max.
Mr.. YOUNG-It is a reflection on the Chief Executive
| Mr., BUTLER lin lower tone)-That ia our business
Mr.. SPEER Dem, PENN thought 1t bad taste on the
part of Gen. Howard and his friends TO have met tho
Charges not with procsations OF innocence but with
the Widest r6apsodes about GEN Howsrd's past life
1t was an old. familiar trek with criminal pieaders
who had other defense to throw the good character
Of their client into the jury box.
MI WOOD dem, n " repeated his assertion as to
Gen. Howards case in 1871, and said that important
witnesses against Gen. Howard had been excluded from
the cOmmttee-room and not examined
Mr. y \.
Der of that Committee repelled Mr. Woods allegations:
the time OF the Committee three days had been allowed
so Gen Howard. and then Mr.. Wood desired to reopen
brought from South Carolina. Gen. Howard, he SAID
had pleaded the statue OF limitations for anything
| MI WOOD retorted yupon Mr. Hoar By stating that
that gentleman had been the friend he counsel sns
| had engineered the case OF Gen. Howard. 49,
AS soon the word trckster" was pronounced tue
Mr. GARFIELD rep. Ohio) called Mr.. Wood to order.
the SPEAKER decided that tho expression was I'M
Mr. WOOD withdrew the word trckster."
Mr. RANDALL Dem, PENN moved that Mr.. WOOD
BIO allowed to proceed order The motion was agreed
Mr. WHEELER Gsep, N. Villas not the hour to
which the gentleman from Indiana tMr Coburn) was en-
The sPEAKER-,Just this moment.
Mr. wHEELER-Then call for the regular order OF
MI WooD-I hope my colleague will no. Interfere.
Mr.. WHEELER-I insist on the regular order ,
amendment. and twas sdoptedc:Ysss ia. Naysst
The Joint resolution as amended was then passed.
PRIVATE BILLS.
The House then proceeded to the consideration OF pr
vste bills.
private bill involving and important principle
gave considerable discussion 1t was the case Oh
trading vessel, the Norman, which was pressed INTO
the service during the last and which WAS esptured
by the enemy the master and crew being thrown into
military prison. where the master died The bill gives 70
his widow Penelope Head OF Massachusett) the PEN