New-York tribune., 1879-04-29

asked permission TO introduce IN evidence eNF"OV'
from certain official reports o the battle OF shioh lie
thought that one OF the highest excuses that could DC
oarred by General Hazen for his absence was the eA
cusc of his comm andng officer. and he was confident
that there could be question to the risht oil the
prosecution to offer in evidence the report OF Gehera
Nelson.
Colonel King-Does it refer to his absence :
The Judge AdvOcate-It Is report as TO MS condnc'
at that battle. II is the report OF William Nelson bl6
adierGenera commanding the Fourth DIVISION , crrt
general NOgdes suggeS ed that IL De eau 20 Ine NV
and the question could then he decided . .
General Mcmahon said that he had no objection except
vmd!cate gentleman not ON tral In the mtahtlme
as the Judge-A dvocate very well aware. IL there
was any explanation OF General haze9s croaoI al
Buells report IL would different but he thought any
explanation OF this absence should be based on General
for hm to explain It, and this he was Wiling 10 give
him the benefit Of ,
The Judge Advocate replied that the war in the news
PAPERS 10 which counsel referred based on their
OF the trial. lie thought that there was as
much talk on the one side as on the other. ihht
was something with which neither side had anything
do "Our duty" he continued, Is 10 determine the
facts between the Government Of the United states ana
General Stanley, on trial, and nothing lur
ther and It is only ie TINS LpouaPfsS parP1sS9 'Iae We
then the Court to accept ain extracts lnarkeu
IN the reports OF General Nelson and OF Colonel Wih
aker relating To the operations OF General iazen ana
his rgade during the battle of Shiloh General NC
Mahon CLAIMED that neither OF these reports conthed
any explanation OF the absence of General Hazen.
Tho Judge Advocate said that he offered Colonel
Whuakers report to explain his testimony on the
stand.
General Vogdes-Does that report make any reference
TO General Hezen's absencef - 80,
The Judge-Advocate replied that the report dtd not
explain absence in terms After further oiscussi0n
the Court announced its decision as adyersa 10 tne
propositions OF the upon the gfOuhd at
IN report there no direct reference 10 the question
OF absence"
The Judge-Advocate then offered certain other ex-
tracts from Colonel Whtakers report 20 explain some
OF that officers testimony on the stand General NC
MahOn objected the ground that the cross-eXanlna
ton of Co Onei Whitaker should nave been maze 10
admission Of the evidence. The Judge-Advocate con
thued his offers Of various PHJraCts but Deng lhtt
each time by adverse decision OF the Court nnaly
down with the remark, Wei, then, tnK We nave
proceeded on that line as far es Vt s praeucable'
CONTEST OVER CONVERSATIONS.
James NJ. Sculy. Captain and Assistant Quartermas-
ter was the next witness.
By the Judge-Advocate-I will l-k you If you were an
officer the military service in 1871 Al was; and
was stationed At Fort Rice, Dakota Territory
Q-I Will ask you OF the conversation with General
Stanley, the accused
General Mcmahon objected Re said that If the test
mony was for the purpose of proving what General
Stanley admitted TO prove that Ie had made certain
statements abont General Hazen twas incompetent II
II offered with the idea on showrg malice eV lhlen
or bad motive. IL was too late. " The Judge-AdYocatc,
he said seemed forget that this is not civil court
irving for libel, but cOurt-morai, COMPOSED OF
officers OF the Army, trying another once me pre-
gentleman In the military service officer Is pre-
sumed TO be gentleman who owes obligations 10 his
among citizens. Therefore, WHEN put upon ta Tor an
offence not wrongful that offence IS not established Dy
any presumption OF malice. On the contrary II is pre-
suIned that being gentleman he Is acting In accord
ance with his duty officer and bis duty TO the SER
vice. ana TO make ont offence positive
proof must be furnished of malice or evil intent.
In this case the Judge Advocate prefers 10 proceed
upon the common law principle, simply offers PROOF or
what was already admitted, and supposes that the
Court would presume malice and eyl intent IN
a trial OF this character the Judge Advocate
should not be allowed > robuttal to come
In and furnish part OF tho essential elements
which should have been given on the prosecution in
chief" He then cited the case OF Lieutenant Smith
tried in 1856 for conduct uubecOnng officer and
charge. but guilty of conduct unbecomug an officer
and to the prejudice OF good order ana mill
tary discipline" In commenting on the case
the then Secretary of War held that there
no such offence known the articles conduct unbe-
coming an officer There 10 minor decOrum tAdt
the law submitted the jurisdiction OF court martial.
The Judge-Advocate replied that the publicatio
which were established showed malice on Their face.
"I" SAID he, the accused has shown in the Judgment
OF the Court, that there no malice we have rRht
10 show special malice. II the testimony of the accused
has not relieved the cha e from the legal presumption
malice which Is carried with the publications, then OF
do not ask 10 show aDy special malice Ihat
is the whole case"
After further discussion the Court announced Its de-
csOn adverse to the hearing OF the witness In regard
10 the alleged Fort Rice cCnYer5atiOn. The Judge
Advocate then said that the several adverse decisions
OF the Court had broken his line OF evidence
somewhat, and at 2:25 p. IN. he ask i an ad-
The members OF the Court lie then said that he would
lave 10 send to the Windsor Hotel for certain papers,
and hence the edngs would he delayed somewhat
The Court then adjourned mt! IL a. III. to-day