{"newspaper_name": "Elizabeth-Town gazette.", "edition": "01", "page": "pNone", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 4738, "word_count": 827, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9839000105857849], "ccnet_perplexity": [1842.5999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
Your com mittee beg leave to call your
attention particularly to the case Of r. c..
Ambrister, who, alter having been SUBJ
| iected to trial before court which had
no cognizance or jurisdiction over the Of.
fences charged against him, was shot by
order of the commanding general, contra
ry TO the forms and nsages Of the army,
and without regard to the finding of that
court, which had been instituted as a
guide f& himself.


/ Your committee must here, in justice
to their own feelings, express their ex-
IRENE regret, that it has become their
duty TO dsapprove the conduct of one who
has, on former occasion, SO eminentiy
contributed to the honour and defence Of
the nation, as has major general jackson:
but the more elevated the station the
more exalted the character OF the indi-
vidual, the more necessary is it, by area
sonabIe, yet temperate expression of pub
lie opinion, through the constitutional Or
gan, to prevent the recurrence of Incl
deats g. variance with the principles of
our government and laws.


| 4tOk Ndn fOul SOtnuittCC aOA1Noh ~
Guiding in their structures the court mar
tial who sat on the trial of Arbuthnot and
Ambrister. A court martial is tribunal
invested with limited jurisdiction, having
for its guidance the same rules of evidence
which govern courts of law; and yet Ar
buthnot is refused by the court martial,
before whom he was on trial for his life,
the benefit Of the testimony of Ambrister,
who had not been put upon his trial at that
time, and whose evidence would have
been received by any court of law as legal,
ii not credible. Many other exceptions
might be made TO the evidence recorded
in these proceedings: particularly to the
question put TO the witness Hambly, viz.
Do you believe the Seminoles would
have commenced the business of murder
and depreciation on the white inhabitants,
had it not been at the instigation OF the
prisoner, Arbuthnot, and promise on
his part, Of British protection 2" Answer
- do not beIiere they would, without
they had been assured of British protec-
lion.' A leading question is expressly
forbidden to be used by court martial,
| by Macomb on Martial Law, and of which
the court must have been apprized. as it
| is a work in the army, and usually re-
ierred to by every court martial when in
session; and the question was calculated
TO elicit an expression OF opinion and be-
lief from the witness, rather than a state
ment of facts, upon which alone could the
court act. Hearsay evidence, in a case
of life and death, your committee will
venture to assert, was never before re-
ceived against the accused in any court
of this country, and yet on the face of
the record of the proceedings of the court
martial, hearsay testimony is admitted,
which had been received from an Indian,
who, If present, would not have been al.
lowed to give evidence himself.


After mature deliberation, your COM
mittee beg leave to submit the following
| resolution:


Resolued, That the House of Repre-
sentatives of the United States disapproves
the proceedings in the trial and execution
of Alexander Arbuthnot and Robert C
Amhrister."


! FMr. johnson, of Kentucky, also of the military
committee, submitted paper drawn up in the
| shape of report by that committee, which, by
majority of one vote, that committee had refused
to accept, which was read This paper is very
lengthy, and goes to justify the conduct of Gen.
Jackson. The following are the concluding para
graphs.


8 Alexander Arbuthnot was taken as a
resident among the savages, with whom
he had Identified himself, by acting as
their agent, exciting them to war, aiding,
abeting aud supply wing them with the means
of carrying ii on. Robert C. Ambrister
was taken ia their actual service, as a
| leader and commander of their forces by
which, as well as by aiding, abetting,
comforting and supplying them, ne was
also identified with the savages. Agree
ably to these principles of the laws Of ma
tions, the committee are fully OF opinion,
that Gen. jackson, as commander of the
army, had the right to exercise upon
them the law Of retaliation, without the
Intervention of court martial. However
cautiously this rule should be exercised,
and desirable as mercy always is, when
ever it can be exercised with safety, this
godIike virtue has its bounds, beyond
which its exercise gould be perversioD
Of justice; and it is presumed, that the
repeated murders which had been COM
mitied upon our citizens, the many bloody
trophies Of their cruelties found at Mick
asuky, and their persisting 10 hostility
against the repeated warnings and threats,
\ which had been held out to them, bore.
conviction to the mind Of General Jack
son, that the exercise Of the law of retail
| iation had hecome necessary to the future