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


rrod for toord" he read It over him. and that 1t was
approved by hum correct And he further SAYS ths
him that the utmation therein that he bad cDmManucu
corps at Piekett's NJ Ills was mistake ana the 80
when Intercepted by the accused. stated thai lcy u
read the article in the same way ana agretu .h.'
IN that particular there was mistake Ihls
being the only correction made by the accused Is neces
sarily admission Of everything not correct Inc guy
question: theeiore remaining IN tsstenct e, pt libel 1.
whether the facts have stated constitute such coh-
pciy A., ,,,. ~, ,-c,
men That the deam ltory statements that constitute
the substance Of the article were from the Hou'n u" ~
accused cannot he questioned .,....
The TACT that they taken down he uttered them
The fact that they were read TO him. that their
accuracy might be tested. is likewise undisputed
Neither is il disputed that be knew they designed
FOR nubcation and for publication in that particular
Journal in which they appeared. ,.,,,
that after their appearance he complained on one
immaterial error and thus ratified and affirmed the
accuracy OF all the rest OF the article
Having thus shown that the publications were inade.
the next question whether the matter contained ia
them constitutes what is known 10 the law as nDeons
matter. This question answered by reading tue pun
During the progress OF the trial It to have been
regarded thar these expressions obnoxious to the
law ony in so far az they were bellous upon General
Hazen but when looked at from military point o.
view they censure and involve greater
crminaty for another reason. They are an open ~
upon the Executive OF the United states t0t 's
manner in which he has discharged his olicaI uy ~
the Comnander-inChief OF the Army. II ne does NO.
mean arragn the President for malyersatlon VI
what does he mean Why Is he not dlsappolhteu
Why does he continue 70 roassert guiltf why uots NC
leave the recognized channel OF Hhcal communicative
and enter the arena OF public debate before the people
WhaJ other object can he contemplate except 10 cIo
the impression that the object Of bis yndleye MANS ne
has been crimlnaily arralgned 10 ahsWel W rs
guilt by the unlawful unconstitutional and criminal III
terpostion of the Commander-n-Chiefo OF the Army
AN OUTLET FOR vINDICIIvE MALICE.
But whether this publication IN the aspect Id Which
am now considering IT, be regarded IA hbeious upon
the CommanderlnChiefO OF the Army or not one c0ncu-
sion must follow from the subsequent parts OF TINS leu
ter when taken in connection with that part nave oeeh
discussing and that conclusion Is that the ac-
cused, having exhausted the means Oh az
lacking General Hazen which were recognized py 'ne
laws derived from failure of his designs new vsor
and intensity his vindetive malice,and determined
since he could ruin his enemy by law ne "oulu uo
stroy his character by defamatOry hDels. -, .,., t
Some question arose IN the progress OF me ttlai
words OF technical sIgnIhcatiOn FOR instance III tno
third as 20 the allegation therein contalheu dl.C ,
averrtng that il il "unfounded. false and malicious
the specification continues, and was Wckeuy uto'Stu
fnc tIt il was only NECESSARY to be shown behalf
of the accused that he did not devise the ehatEe,
thereby meaning that he dld not originate II, ma ~
was not the author of it, and consequently tn laco
that any accusation against General naZen W oT
might have been at some time ruinOfed aoyul
among people would be sufficient deIeAce u1'a
which TO protect the accused such IL Dy no h hs
lust cons ructon OF the language. The accused minister
devised the libel and rumor no Justincauon Dut sls
DOW simply say that whatever rumors may nav
offered proof as TO acts OF General Hazen tne
was no statement rumOr whatever that bs conuuc
Shiloh mad ever been pronounced by anybody as us
graceful" General McCOok and other officers testtyhS
for the accused stated they had General Hale
on the battle, absent from HIS Drigade, but
the Guished officer have mentioned stated tnat ne
mad never opinion upon his Conduct nor
was there OF all the witnesses summoned Dy the
defence 20 bear testimony TO this circumstance, VINO
ventred TO say that he had characterized the c0ndnc
OF General Hazen by any such term as dlegracelul'
or by any other term derogatory To his character AZ
vino was not at the battle to devise the Judgment
he pronounced when he accused General Ha1en OF
disgraceful conduct" Judgment which the testimony
IN thls shown t. 10 entirely erroneous tdt
ID can he accounted for only the ground Oh an uh
wise. If not an insane vindictiveness.
As 10 the charge OF being an lmpostOr that ths wac
devised BY the accused there Can be no question
The argument will be concluded this morning at 10
o'clock and will be followed by short surrejoinder
from General Mcmahon. Judge-AdvOcate swain will
probably close case restricting himself briefly TO the
points Of the surrejonder.