{"character_count": 7638, "word_count": 1307, "ccnet_language_score": [0.968500018119812], "ccnet_perplexity": [1943.800048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}

mander-in-chief


AnsWer. Yes.


Question Do you recolect the words and manner Of your
delivery Of the order Did you deliver that Gen. Kearny
must have received it order, merely suggestion


Ansov. carried it order in the usual respectful
way. How Gen. Kearny received it, l. of course cannot
say He did not show by his manner that it disagree
able TO him, according to the best of my recollection.


Here the witness RETIRED (but is not yet discharged


The Judge Advocate stated that the President Of the Court
had received letter from Lieut. Col Emory making app
cation be discharged from further attendance as witness


The letter read.


fence, to determine whether they would consent the
quest


The Court then Adjourned TO Monday, 10 o'clock.


MONDAY, DECEMBER l3.-THInTY-sEcosp DAY.


The Court met pursuant to adjournment all the
members in attendance.


Hon. Mr.. HAIL. M.C. asked leave to make an explana-
ton in reference 10 his testimony delivered Saturday.


Leave being granted, Mr. HALL said, looking the
report in the National Inteigencer this morning, find that
the second question there recorded is different in form from
what supposed to be when gave my The re-
port is believe correct. heqursrion put this


"Queshon, (by the Cour What did you consider to be
the purpo obectof the letter of Lieut. COL Fremont
you, particularly OF the words cannot without consider
ing myself derelct to my trust and unworthy the station
American officer yield permit my self be nterered
with by any oher until directed do by the proper
hores home predicaed full and ample dispatches that


forwarded to Washington early August of Ias year
require the cooperation, with view the important object
Of preserving the peace and tranquility of California every
American citizen and soldier in the territory p Whom did
you consider by the words any othe and
you included in the required cooperation n"


To which replied


ins7Der considered the object of the Letter be that
which stated by Lieut. Col Fremont in the der and that
he in that letter that he would permit any
Interfere with him. have idea Ehom he
by the expression 'any other supposed il merely
general expression do not know that he aided any
particular. As the expression Il require co-opera-
diprn he
never paid particular attention to it id not place any
particular construction upon it at the time"


understood the clause stated in the question to be this


cannot suffer myself to be nterfered with by Gen. Kear
ny any other" If the question had been understood
it to be- my would have been stands record
ed but, it answer, that understood the words any
other to refer to Gen. kearny.


Question. Was Gen. Kearny there at the time


Insurer He not.


Question. Do you know where he was, and whether Gov
Fremont knew where he was


AnS,cer cannot say where he any particular point
OF tme knew he had gone In vessel the coast and
expected him down in few days. It is impossible for
say whether Gov. Fremont knew not.


Question: Do you know when Governor Fremont expected
him down


Question. At what time did Gen. Kearny actually
down to San Diego


AnS,cer do think he returned to San Diego.


Lieut. Col Fremont here said he had further question
to put TO this witness And being put by the Court or
Judge Advocate Mr.. Hall thereupon discharged


The Judge Advocate submitted paper the Court in
ply to the note of Lieut. Cox Fremont presented Sa
turday, follows


"The Judge Advocate submits in answer to the note Of
Leut COL Fremont presented the Court before the close
of the session Saturday. that he does find any the
charges specifications on trial any ambiguity which can
require explanation Lieut. Col Fremont refers the Court
and Juge Advocate TO the charges generally without dstn
gushing the specifications which he tuk auosnty
plcit The Judge Advocate, therefore, generally
and says that he thinks all the specifications direct explicit
and free from any of ambiguity that the legal offence
expressed and then again defined the charge under which
the specifications laid The Judge Advocate says further
that nothing Of criminal accusation is conveyed way IN
snuated by these charges, except what precisely expressed


In regard the assumption of the Office and title Of Gov
of California BY Lieut. Col Fremont which alleged
several OF the specifications from acts done BY him IN that
capacity the Judge Advocate thinks that the legal offence
charged in these acts appears in all other be dis
tncty explained that the said assumption Of the said Of
flee of Governor in contempt resistance Of the lawful
authority OF General kearny usupaon OF his powers
aud was mutiny."


Lieut. Col Fremont said the reply was entirely satisfactory
to him. His wish had merely been shorten the time Of the
trial. and lessen the abors Of the defence His defence would
be double ground frs to the acts charged and,
cond, as to the question OF the governorship.


The Judge Advocate thereupon read further paper, as
follows


"The Judge Advocate said IS that the import Of the
paper submitted BY the defence Saturday he would say
with permission the Court he considers that such
the purchase Of land from Temple aud the order the col
lector of San Pedro further within the cognzance of
the Court than as Facts evidencng an assumption OF the unc
tons OF Governor alleged TO be in derogaon Of the authority
OF General kcay in the specifications where these acts are
referred to-"


The Court cleared On its being opened again, the
Judge Advocate stated that the Court assened this paper


Lieut. Col. Ffcmont put in the following paper


- Mr.. President Lieut.. Col Fremont wishes make his
apology the Court and that of his COUNSEL what appear
ed the Court to be dsrespect the Courts decson in
peang question which had been ruled before Il
question the Hon. Mr. Hail. and in relation Ma
Cooke aud the article signed Justice in the Missouri
Republican Lieut. Col Fremont and his counsel dsclaim
all intentional disresPect anil give Tor repeating
the question: and Tor wishing the inquiry 10 which
relates that Lieut. Col Fremont differs a his recollection
from parts OF MAJOR Cookies testimony and when he
make his statements in his general defence
feel il be due himself to that derenceespecay
mony OF Major Cooke Among those things which weaken
testimony Lieut. Col Fremont is advised that eitu
the part OF the witness one aud making publications
furious the accused is anohc aud especially when relating
the matter Of the accusations that in both these points OF
view Lieut. Col r. and his counsel believe be material
and relevant tohs defence show such the fact that Ma
jor Cooke is the author OF the article referred to-


Lieut. Col. +. also put in the following paper


Mr.. President Lieut. Col Fremont is instructed by his
counsel to that keeping witness attempting to
keep witness away from trial. offence against the al
alton of justice all courts, and may be punished
such and that in the OF prosecutions and when such Of
fence committed by the prosecutor be given ia evil
dence in impeachment of his motives aud credit


lie is advised further that the tact that MAJOR G
lepie technically witness this nj the time o
the alleged attempt keep him makes no difference
that Gen kearny knew his design TO arrest Lieut. Col
f. aud also knew that MAJOR Gillespie, from his intelligence
activity and long and Intimate connexon with Lieut. Lo r.
California necessarily be important witness Tor
him. aud the degree Of that importance incapable Of being
precated until the charges against Lieut. COL f.
should be known.
supposug il to be M offence in any case going the
of moi