court, we hasten to examine their proceedings. These divide themselves into sentences, or verdicts, of four different descriptions: those connected with alleged abuses in furloughing and discharging soldiers ;-those having relation to abuses of public money;those founded on denials of public justice, and certain corporeal punishments, to which soldiers of the 4th regiment were sentenced, in violation of law.

Under the first of these heads, the court convicts Colonel King of having furloughed Sergeant Gary, and of having employed him, during the period of his furlough, as the manager of a plantation; of having also so furloughed and employed Sergeant Lotta; of having furloughed and discharged Sergeant Whitten, three months before the regular expiration of his enlistment; and, lastly, of having frequently given to the men of the 4th regiment, furloughs for several months immediately preceding the expiration of their respective terms of service; and of giving at the same time, discharges so dated, as to take effect when the aforesaid furloughs should expire.

Under the second head, (abuses of public money) the court convicts the prisoner, of having ordered the quarter-master to pay to Sergeant Childers, thirty dollars, for apprehending Neil Cameron, a deserter, whom he did not bring back to the regiment, but fusileed on the spot where he overtook him; of having requested the said quarter-master to pay to Nelson and Randolph at two different times 1500 dollars, on his private account; of having paid 1157 dollars extra, to the owners of the ship General Hand, for transporting his family, baggage and slaves, from Baltimore to Mobile; and, lastly, of having written, on the 14th of January, 1819, a note to Paymaster Hogan, inducing him to lend Nelson and Randolph 1000 dollars of the public money.

Under the third head, (denials of public justice) the prisoner is convicted of 'failing and refusing (although thereunto requested) to investigate the cause and manner of the death of Charles Mason, a private of the 4th regiment, who was drowned in the harbour of Pensacola, while undergoing a ducking, inflicted by order of Lieutenant Lear, and executed by Sergeant Stark-without the form or authority of a court martial;'' of failing and refusing also to see justice done to Benjamin Tackwell; a soldier, who had honestly fulfilled all his public engagements, (excepting the service of a few days,) and who, in consideration thereof, had been regularly furloughed and discharged; but having, in some way unfortunately offended his High Mightiness, Lieutenant Lear, was by his order, pursued, caught, brought back, stripped, and whipped with

a The other members of the court-Majors Many, Bankhead, and Montgomery-are known to be highly repatable men.

fifty lashes, robbed of his discharge, and made to serve out the last moment of his enlistment.' And, lastly, ' of failing, refusing and neglecting to cause an immediate inquiry into the circumstances attending the death of Neil Cameron, a deserter from the 4th regiment, who was, in the most inhuman and cruel manner, put to death by Sergeant Childers; although said Cameron made no resistance, and begged to be taken back and tried for his offence, by a general court martial.'

6

Under the fourth and last head, (sentencing to certain corporeal punishments soldiers of the 4th regiment, contrary to law,) the court convicts the prisoner of approving the sentence of a regimental court martial, awarding to Corporal Roberts twenty-five lashes, and to Private Whiteley forty-five lashes, and ordering the same to be carried into effect, excepting so far as it related to Corporal Roberts; of sanctioning the proceedings of a general court martial, in the case of Private Newley, of the 4th regiment, who was found guilty of desertion, and sentenced to have his head shaved, his left ear cut from his head, to receive fifty lashes, and then to be drummed out of the service, and of enforcing said sentence, so far as related to the fifty lashes: Of approving the proceedings of a general court martial in the case of Henry Benner, found guilty of desertion, and sentenced to receive fifty lashes, and to be drummed out of the service, and of enforcing said sentence, so far as related to the lashes: and, lastly, of issuing, on or about the 1st of August, 1818, a verbal order to Lieutenant Sands, acting adjutant of the 4th regiment, then stationed at Pensacola, to select two confidential noncommissioned officers, and a suitable command for each, and to send them in pursuit of soldiers of the 4th regiment, who were reported as deserters; and, if taken within the limits of the province of West Florida, instantly to put them to death; and of continuing, and causing to be continued in force, the aforesaid verbal order, issued as aforesaid, both at the Barancas and Pensacola, during the whole period that those posts were occupied by the American troops.

Colonel King's defence, against these several charges and findings of the court, may be reduced to the following statement:

1st. Having, in March, 1819, determined to establish myself in this (the Alabama) country, as a planter, I solicited General Gaines, then here, to discharge Sergeant Gary, for the express 'purpose of making him my manager. The General declined 'granting the discharge, but authorized me to give him a furlough 'till the 6th of August following, when his term of service ex'pired. This was accordingly done, and though I immediately 'afterwards left the country, the sergeant was permitted to remain on my plantation, under the very eye of the Major Gene'ral and the Commandant of the regiment, until he was regularly

'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 Whit'ten (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.'

6

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 Chil'ders, who had apprehended and killed Neil Cameron. The re'gulations 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, he '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

6

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 pub'lic 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 attendance, 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 ex'pense 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 request'ed, 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 I 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 in'ferior, you must admit; else, on what principle did the secretary ' of war, on a recent occasion, refuse to grant the arrest of a gene'ral officer, on the specific charges of a colonel in the army; or 'how will the President justify his refusal to cause an investiga'tion, 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 or'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 com'munity, 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 in'formed, 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