'discharged by the latter; and not one word was breathed against 'the propriety of the measure. This part of the charge being barred by the act of limitation, and deemed too ridiculous to be ' of any moment, I took for granted, that it would be thrown out of court, and therefore did not think it necessary to put General Gaines to the trouble of attending the court as a witness the court, however, in defiance of law, overruled my objections, and obliged me to plead to it. As for Mr. Lotta, he was on furlough from Colonel Brooke, and, being in want of an overseer, I em'ployed him fifteen or twenty days, before the expiration of his term of enlistment. How the court could find me guilty of so 'much of the specification as relates to Mr. Lotta, I am at a loss 'to conceive; for there was not even an effort made to support it, nor was there any evidence adduced that had the most remote 'bearing upon the fact, and I thought the prosecution had abandoned 'the charge. In both instances, those persons were taken into my employ more from a disposition to assist faithful soldiers, who 'had for years been my companions in arms, than for any other reason: to both I gave wages at which the best planters in the country could have been obtained. In giving to Sergeant Whitten (as faithful and meritorious a soldier as ever carried arms) a furlough for three months, I did only what law, and every day's custom of the army, fully warranted me in doing, and I owe no 'accountability for the act. The discharge given him was so da'ted as to take effect the day his term of service expired, and was, until then, a dead letter;-had it been withheld, he would have 'been at the expense and trouble of returning five hundred miles "to obtain it.'

2d. The next accusation is of a similar character; it ascribes 'to me abuses in relation to public money, with a view (excepting in one case) to my own pecuniary benefit. Let us begin with the exception, viz. that I ordered $30 to be paid to Sergeant Childers, who had apprehended and killed Neil Cameron. The regulations of the War Department authorize the payment of that sum, to such person as shall apprehend and deliver up a deserter. Now, that Cameron was a deserter, and that Childers apprehended him, is not denied by any one :-nor can it readily be doubted, ' that, when in the possession of a detachment of the regiment, hẻ 'must be considered also as virtually delivered. These are the 'two conditions that give title to the reward, and these were both 'performed in this case. The killing was a subsequent act, and 'done in obedience to orders, received from the officer command'ing the regiment. Whether, therefore, the orders were in them'selves right, or wrong, it was incontestably the duty of the Sergeant to obey them; and having done so, would it have been 'justifiable in me to have made that very obedience a reason for

'withholding the reward? I thought not, and therefore ordered the 'quarter-master to pay it.'

Again: In requesting this officer to pay also $500 on one oc'casion, and $1000 on another, I did nothing contravening either law or propriety; as, in the first case, I had reason to believe, 'that the money would have been advanced from the quarter-mas'ter's private funds; and as, in the second, I sought only the be'nefit of an exchange between current paper bills and hard mo'ney-the former being as good for the purposes of the public as the latter. But, besides this consideration, the transaction was 'abortive-the exchange did not take place, and of course, not a 'shilling of this hard money was received by me.'

6

The court have done me equal injustice in relation to the $1157 extra, paid to the owners of the ship General Hand. This extra sum was paid by the express order of the Government, and not in consideration of the transportation of my family and 'slaves at all, (as taken for granted by the court,) but on account of a change of destination given to the ship, for public purposes.' The last ground of conviction, under this general head, is my 'having written a letter to John B. Hogan, paymaster of the 4th infantry, on or about the 13th of January, 1819—thereby indu'cing the said Hogan, to accommodate me with $1,000 of the public money. Yet, in this very note, I do not ask Mr. Hogan to 'lend me $1,000, but only "such portion of that sum, as Nelson ' and Randolph may not be able to make up :" nor do I ask him 'to lend a single shilling of the public money. But besides these. facts, the very day after my note was written, the reason for wri'ting it at all, ceased; Mr. Nelson having declared, that " he did 'not want, and therefore would not buy any bill on Baltimore." Nor 'did he buy mine, till the 15th of February following; yet, accord'ing to Mr. Hogan's own showing, it was on the 15th of January, that the loan of $1,500 was made by him to Mr. Nelson. The

testimony of this man, though my inveterate enemy, would have put down this charge for ever; but I could not compel his attend'ance, and he would not give it voluntarily.'

3d. Under this head (denials of public justice) it is proper that 'I should remark, that the death of Mason, was the result of acci'dent, and one of those unfortunate occurrences that could not be foreseen, and for which there was no remedy. This was fully established by the evidence; and being satisfied, that no crimi'nality attached to either the lieutenant or sergeant, it would have been highly censurable, to have put the service to the expense and inconvenience of a general court-martial to investigate charges, which I knew I could not support. Under this charge, as in many other instances, the court found me guilty of matters, not only unsupported by evidence, but utterly destitute of all foun

⚫dation in truth, viz. that I did refuse, although thereunto requested, to cause the investigation; and again, that totally refusing to 'do my duty, I had had both the lieutenant and sergeant released 'from arrest. I never did refuse to cause the investigation, because it never was requested; and, by reference to the evidence of Major Denkins it will be found, that Ï but informed him, that I had 'no objection to their being released, and that it was he who re'leased them. I mention these facts, to show how over anxious 'the court must have been to convict me, and not because my con' duct would have been criminal, admitting the charge in its fullest 'extent. That the superior is, in every instance, the judge of the propriety of ordering an investigation into the conduct of an inferior, you must admit; else, on what principle did the secretary ' of war, on a recent occasion, refuse to grant the arrest of a general officer, on the specific charges of a colonel in the army; or how will the President justify his refusal to cause an investigation, into the conduct of another general officer, on the applica⚫tion of the representative of a foreign power?'

'4th. We have now reached the last head of accusation, and 'that which has no doubt placed me in the disagreeable situation in which I now stand, viz. Certain orders, approving the sen'tences of regimental courts which had decreed, that lashes should be inflicted on soldiers of the 4th regiment; and certain other or6 ders, issued by me, and directing that deserters should be shot, ' when apprehended. The findings, in both these cases, are true. I did approve such sentences-I did issue such orders, and with 'the same frankness that I make the acknowledgment, I now pro'ceed to offer the motives which governed my conduct.'

'If, in inflicting corporeal punishment, I violated any law, I did 'it in common with the whole army: for there is not, in service, 'an officer of any rank, who has not been necessarily compelled to resort to corporeal punishment, since 1812-in order to restrain ' licentiousness, insubordination and mutiny; and until the Congress of the United States, in their profound wisdom, shall devise some system, for improving the morals of that class of the community, from which the ranks of the army are filled, it is folly, in 'the extreme, to think of enforcing discipline, without the fear of corporeal punishment. At this moment, if I am correctly informed, the regiments are in a state bordering on mutiny; and un'less the law which I am found guilty of having violated, be re'pealed or more liberally construed, the army, sooner or later, 'will become a burthen to the government, and a curse to every 'section of the country, in which it may be quartered. By what 'rule, that description of punishment, which is expressly authorized ' in the navy (and to which it in a great measure owes its discipline ' and success) should be prohibited to the army, I am at a loss to

'conceive; nor can any good reason be assigned, why the inflic tion of stripes, or lashes, should be exploded from the army or 6 navy, whilst it continues to be practised, under the authority of 'the civil tribunals in almost every state in the union. I am not even accused of having practised it myself, or tolerated in others, 'the infliction of corporeal punishment, to an extent, unusual to the service; and there was not, I assert without fear of contradic'tion, an officer on my court, who has not indulged, in the inflic'tion of corporeal punishment, and to an extent, far beyond what has been laid to my charge. This fact is established, by the refusal of the court to permit me to ask the President and other mem'bers, what had been the custom at the posts, at which they had served, since 1815, in relation to the infliction of stripes and lashes '-lest they should criminate themselves.'

.

Under the other, and more important section of the charge, I 'am held accountable for the fate of Neil Cameron; although it 'was fully established by evidence, that the order to pursue and 'shoot him was given by Major Denkins, (when I was at this post, seventy-five miles distant)-and for which, the Major has ever 'considered himself, and not me, responsible. But waiving the question for the present, and fully admitting, that I did, in seve'ral instances, give orders to put deserters to death on the spot, (if ' overtaken in the province of West Florida) it is but due to myself 'to make known the circumstances under which I acted.'

'At the close of the Seminole and Florida campaigns, I had 'been left, with a handful of men, to defend a province just wrest'ed, by force of arms, from a foreign power. I was to all intents ' and purposes in an enemy's country,—for the territory of Spain 'had been violated-her flag trampled upon-her strong holds 'wrested from her at the point of the bayonet, and their garrisons 'sent as prisoners of war to the Havana. I was besides within striking distance of a powerful dependency of the Spanish crown, and bound, upon every military principle, to hold myself in the same attitude, as if a formal declaration of war had taken place. The Captain General of the Island of Cuba, (with ample means 'to recover from the force under my command, the Province I was 'left to defend) lay within three days' sail of me; and had he been a soldier, he would have washed out, in the blood of my garrison, 'the reflection which his master had cast upon his character for "the loss of Fernandino. In this state of things, and when the 'whole effective force within the province of West Florida, fell 'short of two hundred and fifty men, desertion prevailed to an ex'tent, rarely before witnessed in the American army. Colonel 'Brooke, commanding at the Barrancas, reported on the 22d July, that the desertion from Peters' company alone, is alarm"ing; no less than eight men have gone off in twenty days, and

“we have ten in confinement, who have been apprehended, and "whom I wish courtmartialed, as a severe example is necessary to "deter others." On the 27th of the same month, the same officer reports," I have despatched Lieutenant Minton on command, "to ensure the deserters being taken; because I believe that to be "the best possible means of putting a stop to it; and when the "soldiers become certain, that every effort will be made to over"take all deserters, the inducement to leave the service will be de"stroyed, under the idea of the impossibility of escape. I think it "highly problematical, whether a command under a non-commis"sioned officer would return to the post. I am convinced Peters' "men will desert every good opportunity." Captain Wilson, then 'the adjutant of the regiment, stated before the court, that "the men "deserted in parties of two, three, and four, with their arms in their "hands; and, that at one period, eight desertions took place from "Pensacola alone, in the space of three days." The number of men necessarily kept out in pursuit of deserters was so great, as 'sensibly to impair our strength and affect the ordinary duties of 'the garrison.'

'Under those circumstances, and at a moment when it had been ' communicated to Colonel Brooke, the officer next in command, 'by several respectable inhabitants of Florida, that a plot was actually in existence, formed by the Spanish military and others, 'for the purpose of rising upon my garrison, and attempting to recover the town of Pensacola and the fort of St. Carlos De Barancas for Spain, so soon as the American force should be sufficiently reduced by desertion to warrant the effort; and when ' it was confidently believed, that certain persons were encouraging 'the men to desert, by every means in their power, it became, I conceived, my imperious duty, to put a stop to the practice of desertion, by the application of such means as were within my reach. I therefore gave orders, to the parties sent in pursuit, to • shoot down the deserters on the spot, if overtaken within the province of West Florida, trusting that a few examples would have the ⚫ desired effect. This order I considered justifiable from the neces'sity of the case, and I went upon the broad principle, that the soldier who deserts the standard of his country, when on foreign 'service, having forfeited his life to the law, it little matters in the eyes of Justice, whether that life be rendered up at the foot of the gallows, or on the bayonets of his pursuers.'

●་

The extraordinary excitement that my order to put deserters 'to death has created, would almost lead to an opinion, that this was the first instance, in any age or nation, where a military offence had been capitally punished, on the responsibility of the 'commanding officer. But without going beyond the history of our own country, to show the stretch of power, to which a milita