New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-05-03

newspapers and III cfac,a statements THE record"
said the speaker, shows That All these things have
been done. and 'xuact from The So Paul Pioneer
Press in evidence shows that tho hbeous imputatons
at least got into that paper But III the utterance or
the defamatory charges he did not rest with giving
them publicity IN OF Tia statements and TO the news
papers. but he circu and spread them orally upon
nearly every con iYable occasion. The malice OF
Colonel Stanley IN Ills consists IN his intention
TO effect the particular mischief shown by the
degrade and niure Colonyi Hazen And where an act
is voluntary injurious in its tendency and illegal in ITS
a analogy TO justify or exc himself that he offended
against the law with pure md upright motives The
his temper and disposition indicated toward Colonel
Hazen spite and ill-wili the largest sense OF the
referring to the babe Of shiloh. the Judge
Advocate reviewed briefly the evidence OF the
tenden" he said. testified that he heard great many
usnuations that General Hazen not in his proper
saw Colonel Hazcp mile from the river out az this
time the hnnC did MT 1dicate general engage ment
The speaker quoted largely from General Hazens own
testimony explaining his absence = But" said he,
{" the testimony OF General opdycke and Of
General Hazen during the engagement. should be
received with the highest consideration. These
Commanded his brigade from early morning TO and
including the time OF the charge when the brigade be
cool and COURAGEOUS None Of the witnesses testying
to their opinions and Impressions say that the conduct
of General Hazen at Snoh was dsgraeeiul Ana WINE
in fhe Language OF whitaker Your cannot keep soldiers
from talking IL manifest that the tax IN regard 10
conduct or Colonel Hazcn would undoubtedly have
been called upon for an explanation at the Tine
the Judgo-AdvOcate then considered the charges re,
specting General Hazens conduct at stone klver a1d
Pckes Mills and carefully reviewed the evidence pre-
sented on both sides s aclloh IN A M on, s
on the post-radershp business before the MILITARY Cou
ntee of the House Of Representatives was de1endeu
and the accuratOn Of deceu conduct met Oy JustIn
cation of his course as the sequel proved. o so
In conclusion he said: " colonel Stahley MAKES 10
claim or showing that has been wronged IN Thought
word or deed by the officer whose character ne thus
holds up 10 public execration ana contempt We huS
h then the sefconstutcd custodian of the standard
OF truthfulues honor and bravery IN me Army req1-
inc every one to bend the Knee before his cO0rs under
peuay Of beng proclaimed peTJureri an lpostor ahu
a coward"
ARGUMENT or GENERAL HAZEN's COUNSEL
With the permission Of the Court, the stenographer
at the request of the JudgcAdyocate, read the following
argument reviewing the legal aspects OF the case when
it was understood prepared by Mr. Merrck counsel
Of General Hazen.
The accused has been grra!med upon two charges;
!. Conduct uubecomng an officer and gentleman
@ Conduct to the prejudice Of good order and mill
tary discipline"
lis necessary in the first instance briefly to dovelope
tue attitude the before considering the issues u
law and fact that il involves. In the progress OF te
trial counsel for the accused has made repeated efforts
n the issues presented by insisting that hs
not trial for hoel and mar .le ru 80 r our gnid
a proceeding cannot be safely resorted 10 LOT our Eu
NON mus be conceded that any act in violation Of
winch would subirct party 10 lgnomnious pun
ishment such confinement in jail is an aet apru
unbeeomiug an officer and f sentei I cSsrged
with conduct unbecOming an officer ana Rehte-
man ana the specification under the charge desgnate YES
and describes an act which Is criminal ID us Tn
whether the officer Is guilty OF that particular SiH"
Now the criminal act charged in the specifications in
this case Is publication OF libel, or 10 SPEAK more
accurately according 70 the record the PuDhcal0h o.
severa. Ube-. For such an offence at common law,
courts IN the administration OF tDat system Vi Julie
prudence NAV up the convicted party IN the exercise
of their discretion. any amount ana may IN the eA-
ere Sc OF the discretion imprs0n nm Tor any
not he inprisonmcut the lifetime of the offender.
Therefore the question here presented under the rst
charge whether the accused IA guilty Oh puolsuR
the lbes forth in tire specifications, or any OI lhei
aud upon fndins upon that issue tqe nnning Oh Tue
The defence interpJsed in this case Is: 81,
First-That the statements IN the deiamatory puDica
tons that constitute the nDels SIe lIge'
Secomd-Ihat the aecdsed published thGte stse d
substantial reasons for believing what he said"
PROOF or THE PUBLICATIONS.
Nevertheless take the as find 1t, and proceed
TO the inquiry namely the proof of the pubica-
lions" The letter set iith in specification nrst under
the charge of conduct unbecOming officer and
gentleman" is admitted by the accused to have been
written by him. and by him forwarded to General Hazen
nj Vienna in the Empire of Austria This letter bears
date September g. 1877 and is the first libel charged
against the accused But 1t ls maintained
that although the letter was wFS,Gn ny t y
lis publication in the journal referred to- The spccif
cation alleges that the accused di6 PuDlsh qua du N9
and abet IN the publication OF su leV1er III e JouIa
10 winch have referred. .
Now before proceeding further II is necessary 10 IN
duIre whether this defence IL sustained Dy the proof
is admitted bv the accused that he wrote le letter Auu
II Is IN proof from W. W. Beiknap one OF Tue witnesses
Tor The defence that the accused sent him copy OF tha
letter Instructing INN at the same tne ho@eEer not
70 let It get IN ne pres @ s45s ncS
He informed me so himself. he tu states IAdt hr
requested copy. which was sent TO MN 10y man. under
me circumstauGes nave indicated He then goes on
10 state IN reply irterrogatofes, that he showed tie
letter 10 several parties aud gave copy OF II TO one Or
two officers OF the Army, ana Aepl copy lVr 1.inse
He then goes to say q. 5Ol puDhsned IL IN no
newspaper ana nov ~ y, 'n ~. ~, 49,
ever Qid have forgotten IL therefore ceaIy appears
that II there was, iact any Injunction az al ABOUT
not publishing the letter III newspaper, IL
very strictly Limited 10 ne"spapers oAa5'
and that Mr. Belkndp felt Inat ne was ell
trey at liberty It that Kind Of refined crculs-
mon instrumentatCs than those res0rted 10 by Ordl
nary men one thing certain he did give II publicity
and, according 10 ms eYlaeuce puDucIty AIMING tua5
c.ss of gentlemen whose good opinion was most valued
by General Hazen, and whose esteem anu respect was
most necessary for him IN inc performance OF his
duties as an officer OF the United States Army Nor II
at all surprising that interesting paper thus put
into circulation by the c0nl0ned eHOrth OF inc accused
as s composer, and Belknap az It's eAhlWtOr should
uH l'S ~ ac,sed tbe-fore in s letter 10 General
Sherman presented 70 the Court at the commencement
OF this case whilst denying that ne actually caused the
letter 10 be published IN The S. Paul Pioneer Press
admits resi- 0ty for It's appearance there be-
OF his c0rflessuess
But there il another and yet moe conclusive piece or
evidence connecting the accused with this publication
placing his completely IN the transaction beyond the
reach OF question. In his conversation with Z. l.
Hosner. when he was getting up the libel which ap-
reared IN The NC- York Times March IA, 1879, aud
which constitutes the subject OF the tWcIh speClfcs
ton under the first charge and the third specification
under the second charge me made the following state
meut, referring TO General HdZen and certain Of his
friend. ana legal adviser in Washington City don't
know what progress they re making buT do know what
they're afraid Of that that IL his name ever
before the United etaes segals he Will ~ ct eharges
face the ueWspI ,iers, ard IN Official statements
Ths constitutes part of the third libel, which shall
consider hereafter more generally. / now refer To IL
ouy Tor purpose Of proving the publication Of the
second libel Mr. hosmer stated that the words have
lust read General Stanleys words, and being in