The Cheyenne daily leader. [volume] (Cheyenne, Wyo.) 1870-1884, 1879-08-20

L( loA JIG
safety of the public property and funds
in my charge.
In the meantime, and while 1 was
a~nxiously 4aiting for a reply to my
note, Capt. Bulb appears in my camp.
to the best Of my knowledge entirely
alone and informs me that he has orders
to take my escort back to Fort Lara
mic. Capt. Bubb testifies that l made
not the slightest resistance to the exc
cution of the order, and declares in the
most positive terms that there existed
at that time no necessity uhdterer for
the use of force in the execution of the
directions of the post commander.
We now come to the fourth and last
specification of the charge.
The evidence as to the specification
is in many respects peculiar. All of
the witnesses who were listeners to this
conversation unite in saying that the
manner of the accused was disrespect-
full. None of them considered it as
highly disrespectful, and all agree, when
pressed for the reasons for their opin-
ion, in citing my reply to a particular
remark made by Col. Evans to the effect
that a paymaster could not command
his W escort.
Now l contend, gentlemen, that that
answer was, that a paymaster could not
command his escort uhen ii ua IN
charge Of a non commissioned officer.
Col. Evans, when pressed, does not
positively deny that such was the remark
in question, but thinks it was a more
general one.
l think 1 have fairly shown that if
Col. Evans cherished the opinion that,
in that particular instance, a paymas-
ter could not command his escort, he
was mistaken in his opinion. Indeed,
in the revision of his testimony, he dis
tinctly states that practically, of
course, in the case of a sergeant or cor
poral they are under the orders of the
staff officer" Col. Evans admits that
he made use of several expressions, in
the course of the conversation, which 1
submit to the court were of a charac-
ter to annoy and provoke any one
toward whom they were used. He ad-
mits that he said he could put me in
arrest, or if need be in irons, and that
at n time he ordered me to hold my
tongue.
He also testiGes that the conversa-
ton was a rery excited and angry one
throughout, n in which we (both par
ties) spoke, without much reflection
and which left but little impression ON
the mind.
Is it all remarkable that, in such an
interview, between two angry and ex-
cited persons, and in response to the re-
mark that a paymaster could not COM
mand his escort, that / allowed to es-
cape me the reply which has been re-
corded in evidence. 1t was no sooner
uttered than it was regretted, and I re-
piled to Col. Evans, 81 respect you,
sir, but 1 have no respect for that
opinion"
Col. Evans further testifes that my
remard that 81 should hold him respon-
sible" had reference to the event of
something happening to my funds while
L was necessarily absent from the camp
in obedience to his order; and also that
the only other occasion on which it was
used was in reply to his order to me ''to
hold my tongue"
l respectfully submit to the court
whether this remark, used in either
connection, can fairly be interpreted
as a threat, or, in the obscure language
of the specification, as an attempt to
threaten"
Gentlemen of the Court:-The allega-
tionsl against the accused, Major Joseph
W. Wham, pay department, U. s. A.,
are embraced in four specifications,
drawn to support one charge, viz: Con-
duct prejudicial to good order and
military discipline.
The first is that the accused was at
Fort Laramie, Wyoming, July IL, 1879,
under orders from headquarters of the
department, on a tour of duty, to pay
the troops at that post and those at the
posts %northward as far as Fort Nc
Kinney, in the Big Horn country; that
an escort, consisting of a sergeant, a
corporal and twelve privates, was duly
detailed by the post commander, Major
W. Evans, Third cavalry, to
act as escort to the accused and his
treasure, as far as the next station
N o%rthward, viz, Fort Fetterman; that
in addition to its duties thus set forth,
the escort was to take charge of and
conduct to the post last named, one
private, Sweeney, company b, Third
cavalry, then in confinement, Of which
the accused was appraised, and that the
escort so organized was to start the
following morning, but the sergeant in
charge was to report to the accused that
same afternoon for special instructions.
But when the sergeant so reported, the
accused did cause the sergeant and his
party, with their baggage, to move un-
authorizedly into his camp, and then
did refuse to receive two wagons, fur
nished for the express purpose of con-
yeying the escort back to the station,
when the party should have arrived at
Fort F~etterman, with the intention of
thus defeating the object of the post
commander, in that particular, for the
accused had been previously distinctly
informed that the escort should not 90
farther than the point named; again,
Second. That the accused, when he
learned that the prisoner, Sweeney, was
to accompany the escort, did refuse to
receive him, or to permit him to ac-
company the escort; and when he had
a written official communica-
ton from the post commander on the
subject thereof, did return the same en-
dorsed in lead pencil, as follows: "My
escort is small; transportation limited,
and / cannot consent to take the pris-
oner," which was incorrect; in fact,
evasive and calculated to deceive; for
why? The escort was as large as he
himself requested. 1t was nearly double
the size of that which had conducted
him from Fort d. A. Russell to Fort
Laramie. 1t would have been increased
If desired. Besides he had been in
formed that the prisoner would not be
troublesome; and it was n fact that
transportation was not limited, for two
wagons had been supplied al