{"character_count": 8305, "word_count": 1450, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9517999887466431], "ccnet_perplexity": [2002.9000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
raj mas appeared se IN the double character OF prosecutor
and Witness Lieut. Col Fremont instructed by his counsel
to say that the testimony he offers Keeping away
Major Gillespie or he actually prevented from attending
till after this ral was begun is both relevant and patcrai
testimony, and should be admitted by any court and above
all, by court martial.


Lieut. Col Fremont is further instructed y his counsel
TO say, that II IS objection e form Of this question be-
tasks the witness the circumstances which in
duee him 70 believe that Gen. Keary nterered etan him
IN California; aud prevent him from returning to the United
States at the same time with Lieut. Col +. lie is advised
That testimony divided into poahue and tresnpave and
that the latter founded upon circumstances always legal
and often more convincing than the former But the


ton not now upon the Gcec but upon the relevancy of
the testimony offered and under this aspect of the question,


Lieut. Col r rs advised that the question is relevant and APP
plies to that branch Of the defence which goes mpeach the
motives and the credit Of the prosecutor.


- Lieut. Col +. further says the Court that if the tes
mony Of Gillespie is admitted prove interference
from Gen. kearny through Com Bdde, keep him, Major
Gillespie away he will then and IN the wake of that glarng
attempt 10 show ohersha Of Acting 1t. Louis
McLanc of the United Navy Major in the California
battaon and one OF the commissioners in negotiating the
pituaon OF Couenga and Mdihipmqn Wilson, captain in
the same battalion both of them standing in relations be
material witnesses 1t COL F. Both Of these officers had
the promise OF Com Stockton to return both of them
entitled h justice from their long absence and hard
vice ;ant h OF them detained and to seaby Com
ny, without equal claims ask return. INDUCED 1it
that favor II the testimony of Major Gillespie is admitted,
Col Fremont will afterwards with the leave of the Court
enAeavor show circumstances which may justify probable
presumption that Messrs Mcane and Wilson also de-
aned for the purpose that Major g. was and e
ectua for being sent sea- they have not yet reached the
United States. J. G. FREMONT


g Lieut. Col. Mounted Rflemen'


The counsel for the defence being absent, the Court
about adjourn, but finally concluded take up the paper
last presented by the defence and act upon it.


Whereupon the Court cleared and remained close
session till the hour of adjournment when the doors again
opened and the Court adjourned


TUESDAY, Dec l5.-THIRTY-TnInD Day.


The Court met pursuant to adjournment; all
the members present.


10, date (tac the
Reporter understood COL Fmons paper presented yester
day Before leaving the room, however, Lieut.. COL FIRE.
mont put in the following


sMr Presidents Lieut.. Col. Fremont submits as an ad-
dtona circumstance the before the Court that of the
alleged detention Of Major Gillespie and the naval officers
mentioned il appears from testimony OF Cen keany 70 his
the 12h day of the trial. that he Gen.
had communicated TO CON- Bidde his intention TO arrest
Lieut. Col Fremont"


When the doors again thrown open


The Judge Advocate read paper as follows:


answer the argument Lieut. Col Fremont, show
why the Court ought its decision the
question which refused to allow put Capt Gillespie the
Judge Advocate respectfully submits the following


''Co Fremont proposes show facts from which
clude that certain officers III the navy detained duty by
Com Bdde the suggestion OF Gen. Kearny and thence TO
infer that the motive OF Gen. kearny IN such suggestion was to
keep away witnesses from this trial.


The persons reieryed officers the public service,
and such within jurisdiction OF this Court and liable
Of the Government the suggestion of the
accused 1t within the power OF Gen. kearny Com
iddle to withdraw or withhold them such summons.
The suggestion that the retention OF them in this with
view deprive the accused Of their testimony on this trial
could by any legal possibility have such effect Il the
accused should require them here the detention was ~ the
regular public duty and by the act the withholding
of leaves Of absence OF superior officer act which was
wholly within his dscretonis suggestion, not supported by
legal moral presumption which the iacts carry "i
tht m. -


IfLieut Col. Fremont should show that Com Bdde de-
tanned Capt Gillespie in California il would infer nothing
Against Cen keGrny II he should show 10 believe
he should prove cOnclusyey that he detained him at
the suggestion of Cen Keany it would infer nothing rs TO the
motive Of Gen. Keany Such suggestions II they influenced
Com Bddle have been good and sufficient reasons to his
mind And how shall this distinguish between the pub
lie and honest reasons which satisfied Com Bdde and the
and corrupt which ascrbcd 10 Gen, hearny
Aud how ascertain, II both are applicable 70 the case winch
with Keany II is evident therefore, that the
only proof corrupt motives in Gen. kearny must be proof
conspiracy between him and Com. Bddle and Of that the
proof be clear and direct Ii cannot be reached IN the
way Lieut. Col proposes by showing such facts as
he suggests and which he sdpposes to raise presumption
against Gen. keary On The contrary, an te legal ana mo- 70
opposite The OF public officer IN the common du
ties OF his ofccac which lie within his proper Official DIS
creon-carry presumption oi good motives WIN ue' i"y
certainly be ;eiyed ia court OF justice as raising
prescriptions criminal motives, III this case the act offer
in proof was the act Com Bdde To conclude from II
any upt motive in Gen Keany If he had any influence in
it, the proof must be clear Of conspiracy


appear the Judge Advocate IN the same light Mid
shpmen Wilson and McLaue may not have had such


tide long and hard service to return home, as Lieut.
Col Fremont suppose They may or may not have had IN
this respect better claim than Lieut. Radord to the favor OF
CON- Bdde Sll IL these facts be granted and notwith
standing that Com Bddlc did deain Mdshpmen wilson ana
McLane with the squadron and allowed Lieut. Radord
TO home, the Court cannot ind ~ any OF nese eir
further in the circumstance referred 10 that
Lieut. Radord who has been witness on ts a IS tbe
broter-in law of Gen. kcay-auy legal or moral presump
on whatever that the official action OF Com Bdde IN these
matters had any reference this trial Both Com Bidde
and Gen X army have known, all officers IN our SER
vice know under Government TRIALS are not conduct
ed surprise aud fraud that every opportunity OF de-
fence all time for preparation every means TO col
ect moRy, always allowed As TO Tue caeuatoh as
crbed to Cen Kearny thar by keeping these witnesses
Lieut. Col Fremont either 60 70 trial unprepared or
must afford him during the necessary dea! o. prepIon te
prejudice public mind BY newspaper publications.
the Judge Advocate thinks the Court cannot hu IN suc
suggestion any ding sufficiently natural AID probable TO justify
Court in concluding thereom any evidence as 10 The p
yate motives which influenced the official action o. CON- bid
die or Gen Kearnv.


"IfLicu Col Fremont impeach Gen. kearny as Wit
this trial reasonable and legal proof e Iourt
ought donbess TO give to II all due consideration anu ~s


the Court cannot receive proof to that end, ccnm
which with them such inference OF conclusion
whatever"


Capt GILLEsPIr witness the part oithe defence, was
theeupon again called.


Lieut. Co. Fremont put in the following paPert


"Mr. President Lieut.. Col Fremont takes leave 70 say
that the main point relied upon by the Judge Advocate ~ ms
reply, TO w.t. that the public service required MAJOR 1es
pic TO be detained in California probably mistake ., INC
TACT aud possibly might be so proved upon ne $40, Y or
Gillespie. j, Z. FkEMoNi, !,


Lieut.. Col. Mountcd Rlaemen"


The decision Of the Court read to the witness VIZ that
the question offered by the defence might be put was ac
cOtdnsy again put as follows 49,


Question. Do you know OF any circumstances whch m
duccd you to believe that you detained IN CALIFORNIA ny
the interference of Gen. Kcarny


d7swcr. There circumstances which induced me 70
believe Detained in California by the interference OF Zen
a. .A. aNN nIl