ARGUMENTS 
 
 THE JUDGE-ADV OCATE 
 
 AND OF 
 
 MR. R. T. MERRICK, 
 
 STANLEY TRIAL. 
 
 NEW YORK : 
 
 S. W. Green’s Type-Setting Machines. 18 Jacob Street. 
 
AKGUMENTS 
 
 OF 
 
 THE JUDGE-ADVOCATE 
 
 AND OF 
 
 MR. R. T. MERRICK, 
 
 PRIVATE COUNSEL FOR GEN. HAZEN, 
 
 IN THE 
 
 STANLEY TRIAL. 
 
 NEW YORK : 
 
 S. W. Green’s Type-Setting Machines, 18 Jacob Street. 
 
 1879. 
 
 u. of IU~ UB. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/argumentsofjudgeOOstan 
 
c- 4 
 
 I deem it due to myself to lay before the officers of the 
 Army and the public the arguments of Judge Advocate 
 Swain, and my own counsel, Mr. Richard T. Merrick, sub- 
 mitted to the General Court Martial, which was convened at 
 Governor’s Island on the 8th of April last, for the trial of 
 Gen. D. S. Stanley on charges preferred by me. 
 
 W. B. Hazen. 
 
 i 
 
 ARGUMENT OF JUDGE ADVOCATE SWAINE ON 
 THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL. 
 
 All the testimony cf the defence having been submitted, 
 evidence in rebuttal was offered by the prosecution. The 
 Judge Advocate being met by an objection in behalf of the 
 accused, he read to the court the following argument as to the 
 scope of the testimony thus to be offered : 
 
 Heretofore the court has decided not to receive testimony, 
 contemplated to be procured, showing the general good char- 
 acter of the prosecutor for gallantry in action, his truthfulness 
 and honesty. These traits have been seriously assailed by the 
 defence, both in argument and by the testimony introduced 
 by it, showing, or tending to show, that the conduct of the 
 prosecutor at Shiloh and Pickett’s Mills was not in accordance 
 with duty in those important battles ; that he claimed or as- 
 sumed honors that he was not entitled to. In other words, 
 the defence claimed at the outset that the prosecutor acted in 
 a cowardly or disgraceful manner at those places, and claimed 
 trophies by capture that did not justly belong to him, and as- 
 serted that the truth would be shown, but later denied that it 
 was necessary that the truth should be shown, and asserted 
 that it was sufficient to show only that Colonel Stanley believed 
 the charges were true. Had the defence in the beginning 
 simply confined itself to the claim latterly made, and aban- 
 
4 
 
 doned all claims as to ability to show the truth of the libellous 
 imputations by independent evidence, outside of the beliefs of 
 the accused, the struggles of the defence for the past eight 
 days would have been obviated, and the fact that Colonel Stan- 
 ley believed these things himself, without pretence or claim 
 that they were true, would have been admitted by the Gov- 
 ernment. It is now too late for the accused to recede from 
 his original position, after heaping upon the record every char- 
 acter of evidence tending to prove and establish the imputa- 
 tions contained in the libellous writings. 
 
 The case being thus briefly stated, what are the issues grow- 
 ing out of it ? They are as follows : First — Writing and pub- 
 lishing, and aiding and abetting in the writing and publishing, 
 of defamatory writings. Second — The truth of the defamatory 
 imputations contained in these writings. The prosecution 
 thus far has offered evidence only in proof of the publication 
 and aiding and abetting in the publication of the defamatory 
 writings set out in the several specifications to the charges, 
 which, in connection with the admissions of the accused, are be- 
 lieved to be now fully established before the Court. Upon this 
 issue alone the prosecution has been heard. Upon the second 
 branch of the proposition it has not been heard. The defence 
 was proclaimed to be that the libellous imputations were true. 
 ISTear the close of the defence, being fearful possibly that the 
 truth was not established to the satisfaction of the Court, coun- 
 sel, speaking for the accused, says : “ You must recollect that 
 it is no part of the accused’s case that these charges were true. 
 We propose to prove that these charges were correct, and 
 uttered by General Stanley in good faith.” And how could 
 he utter in good faith what was not true ? 
 
 The shifting resorted to by the defence in this case is aston- 
 ishing, and after an elaborate and painful effort on the part of 
 the defence to prove the libellous imputations, it now seeks to 
 shut the mouth of the prosecution and prevent it from reply- 
 ing ; and that, too, contrary to the principle of law stated by 
 the defence itself, that in cases where a prisoner in his defence 
 has introduced new matter, the true rule is that the prosecu- 
 tion has a right, after the prisoner has gone through his evi- 
 dence, to call witnesses for the purpose of disputing any part 
 
5 
 
 of the prisoner’s "case which could not have been anticipated 
 by the prosecutor in the first instance. That is the rule both 
 in civil and military courts. 
 
 The entire subject of the defence is new matter not adverted 
 to by the prosecution, and it was impossible, even had it been 
 necessary, in the first instance, for the prosecution to antici- 
 pate by its evidence what character of proofs the defence 
 would adduce tending to show the manner in which the con- 
 duct of the defamed party was disgraceful at Shiloh and Pick- 
 ett’s Mills, and in what manner he stood convicted before 
 those who heard him testify, and in what sense he was pursu- 
 ing a career of imposture. The Court will notice the fact 
 that the testimony of the defence tending to show these 
 things was so varied that ordinary foresight could not antici- 
 pate it. From the nature of the case, therefore, the end of 
 the defence could not be anticipated by the prosecution, and 
 the case of the defence must first be developed by it before it 
 could be met by the other side. 
 
 This is in strict accordance with the rules of law quoted in 
 Greenleaf, in his work on Evidence, volume 2, section 429, 
 with reference to this question. He states the rule briefly as 
 follows : u The usual course is to prove a libel and leave it to 
 the defence to make out his justification, after which the 
 plaintiff offers all his evidence rebutting the defence.” After 
 hearing the prosecution in reply to the new matter set up by 
 the defence, the court can base no judgment thereon ; and all 
 its labor since the defence began has been simply a vain task, 
 calculated only to further stigmatize the object of the defam- 
 atory writings by adding thereto the injurious statements, im- 
 pressions, and opinions contained in the evidence of the de- 
 fence, published and spread broadcast in the public prints of 
 the country. 
 
 In reply to the new matter presented by the defence, there- 
 fore, the prosecution proposes to introduce evidence showing 
 that General Hazen at Shiloh commanded his brigade from 
 daylight until 12 meridian, throughout the entire charge made 
 at that time, during which all its casualties occurred, amount- 
 ing to one fifth of the entire casualties of Buell’s army, while 
 it comprised but one tenth of its number, and that this brigade 
 
6 
 
 was then scattered, many of its members lost in a thick wood 
 and dense undergrowth, among whom was its commander ; 
 that he was then absent until he joined it in the afternoon be- 
 tween three and five o’clock ; that his absence was not im- 
 proper ; that there was no concealment about it ; that he at 
 once reported and explained it himself to both General Nelson 
 and General Buell, after which they commended him in high 
 and flattering terms in the battle ; that at Stone Biver his 
 brigade and other troops sent by his division commander to 
 him and commanded by himself did tight and hold from ten 
 a. m. , just before the fighting reached that point, until withdrawn 
 at four a.m. next morning, the ground where the monument 
 stands, and all the front portion of the Bound Forest ; that no 
 other general officer did personally command that portion of the 
 line for any of the period of the great battle ; and that in its 
 accomplishment and great results it stands as one of the 
 greatest achievements of the war of the rebellion ; that at 
 Mission Bidge every word in the Lossing letter will be 
 fully proven ; that his command did reach the crest of the 
 ridge while at least a large portion of General Sheridan’s 
 troops were but half way up, and that the guns were legit- 
 imate captures — but whether so or not, General Hazen had 
 no part in collecting them, either directly or indirectly ; that at 
 Pickett’s Mills Hazen was with the front line and in his proper 
 place, doing his duty in an exceptionally proper manner un- 
 til his brigade fell back ; that the series of letters written to 
 and received from General Garfield will show clearly that 
 General Hazen did not volunteer to testify about post-trader- 
 ships, but upon an entirely different subject ; that he substan- 
 tially so stated before being told, and was assured by, as he 
 supposed, competent authority that his name was not to be 
 made public in that connection, and that his action was en- 
 tirely proper ; that of the Fort Bice difficulty, General Stan- 
 ley, by telling but a part of the affair, suppressing his retrac- 
 tion, has created an impression which a full knowledge of the 
 facts would not in any manner support ; that by a voluntary 
 agreement made with General Hazen at the time, and reiterated 
 and confirmed by a letter written without condition at Fort 
 Sully in March, 1873, subsequent to the Opdycke letter, 
 
7 
 
 General Stanley agreed to cease assailing and criticising Gen- 
 eral Hazen, which agreement he has been engaged in violating 
 ever since ; that it can he shown conclusively that General 
 Stanley, by constant repetition and circulation, is the prime 
 author of the stories he said were true (but later says that he 
 only believes them to be true) and of common report. 
 
 Ample and complete testimony to establish the foregoing 
 facts is now present. Every principle of justice and right de- 
 mands that the prosecution ought to be permitted to introduce 
 the evidence just stated in rebuttal in the case of the defence. 
 The determination of the truth of grounds of belief, of the 
 truth of the imputations set up in justification in this case, is a 
 question of fact, in the ascertainment of which the parties 
 affirming as well as the parties denying the existence of the 
 same ought to be heard, and especially is this so since the 
 court has undertaken to enter into an investigation at all. 
 
 It has been insisted that the person injured by the libel may 
 seek redress through a court of inquiry. What mode has he 
 to obtain redress after the damaging testimony presented to 
 this court and published to the reading world ? Could a court 
 of inquiry redress that ? Does this court want its proceedings 
 reviewed by a court of inquiry ? The very statement of the 
 case shows the utter absurdity of the ^claims of the defence. 
 Now while in the first instance a court of inquiry might have 
 been proper had General Stanley confined his charges to official 
 channels before his publishing them to the world, the case now 
 calls for the operation of another branch of the machinery of 
 the administration of remedial justice in the Army. 
 
 An extended reply was made by counsel for the accused, 
 after which the court deliberated with closed doors upon the 
 points raised. On the reopening of the doors, the following 
 decision was announced : u For the purpose of correcting 
 statements of incidents or facts in the testimony presented by 
 the accused, competent testimony which might have been ac- 
 cessible to accused may be introduced, provided it is confined 
 strictly to the matters alleged in the specifications. ’ 5 
 
ARGUMENT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE. 
 
 Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Court : 
 
 Colonel Stanley is charged with, first, conduct unbecoming 
 an officer and a gentleman, supported by twelve specifications, 
 as follows : 
 
 The first and second specifications allege that Colonel’Stan- 
 ley wrote and addressed to General Hazen the letter therein 
 specified. This letter clearly on the face of it imputes toward 
 Colonel Hazen what is divided and separately alleged in the 
 third, fourth, and fifth specifications to this charge — that Col- 
 onel Hazen was guilty of perjury while testifying before the 
 Senate sitting as a court of impeachment in the trial of the 
 Hon. W. W. Belknap ; that his conduct was disgraceful at 
 the battle of Shiloh, and that he was pursuing the career of an 
 impostor. The sixth specification sets forth the series of charges 
 peferred by General Stanley against General Hazen. 
 
 The seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh specifica- 
 tions embody the same letter, or parts thereof, with the 
 additional allegations in specfications seventh, eighth, ninth, 
 and tenth that he caused to be published, and aided and 
 abetted in publishing the said letter in the St. Paul 
 Pioneer Press , and in the eleventh specification that he fur- 
 nished for publication in said newspaper the same letter. 
 This letter, however, as published in the St. Paul Pioneer 
 Press , varies from the letter addressed to General Hazen at 
 Vienna only in the addition of the words, “ and your shame- 
 ful exit from your command at Fort Buford.” 
 
 The twelfth specification alleges that General Stanley caused 
 and allowed to be published in the New York Times the arti- 
 cle in the issue of that paper of the 14th of March wherein 
 Colonel Hazen is directly accused of perjury and cowardice. 
 
 The second charge is conduct to the prejudice of good order 
 and military discipline, supported by three specifications set- 
 
9 
 
 ting forth that he furnished for publication and procured and 
 allowed to be published in the St. Paul Pioneer Press the let- 
 ter specified in the eleventh specification, first charge, and the 
 article quoted from the Hew York Times , set out in the 
 twelfth specification, first charge. The defamatory writings 
 were thus elaborately extended to meet every possible view in 
 which the court might consider them, and for convenience in 
 its findings. It will be seen that each specification to the 
 charge describes an offence known in the law as a libel, the 
 punishment for which in every State of the Union is fine and 
 imprisonment. 
 
 Time and again the defence in this case has asserted that the 
 offences under trial are not libels, but were simply the unde- 
 fined military charge of conduct unbecoming an officer and a 
 gentleman ; that there can be no such offence as libel before a 
 military court. 
 
 Argument is hardly necessary to show the error of these 
 views. The 61st Article of War provides that “ Any officer 
 who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gen- 
 tleman shall be dismissed from the service. 5 ’ This article of 
 itself describes no offence, but only the penalty that shall be ad- 
 judged upon conviction of conduct that shall be found by the 
 court unbecoming the officer and the gentleman. But what 
 combination of facts shall constitute such conduct on the part 
 of an officer ? Plainly it must be something which the law 
 denounces as wrongful or criminal, which in the judgment of 
 the court, when committed by an officer, would render him 
 an unfit person to retain a commission : hence the everyday 
 practice under this article is that it must be supported by a 
 specification or specifications showing the commission of some 
 crime or offence by the offending officer. 
 
 The article under which the second charge is laid describes 
 no offence, and we must therefore resort to the ordinary rules 
 of law in the ascertainment of the conduct contemplated 
 by its provisions. Clearly a libel will satisfy the require- 
 ments of either charge, being “ any writings, pictures, or 
 other signs which immediately tend to injure the character 
 of an individual or to occasion mischief to the public.” It 
 must be with reference to this offence that O’Brien in his 
 
10 
 
 work on Military Law, at page 110, uses the following lan- 
 guage : “ Is an officer injured or insulted, the commanding 
 officer, the guardian of his honor, will require the offender to 
 make a prompt and ample apology. Is the offence more seri- 
 ous, a court-martial under the 99th Article of War will, in 
 addition to such apology, vindicate the honor of the service 
 by its censure and punishment. Is the injury of such aggra- 
 vated nature as to show the offender lost to all proper f eelings, 
 a court-martial under the 83d Article will ignominiously ex- 
 pel him from a society with which he is no longer fit to asso- 
 ciate, as having lost the characteristics of an officer and a gen- 
 tleman.” This language aptly applies in this case. An 
 officer is grievously injured and insulted by the libellous impu- 
 tations of the accused. He wholly declined to offer an apol- 
 ogy for the wrongs and injuries done when invited to do so, 
 but confidently asserts that his libels are true and that he be- 
 lieved them true. If then the court should believe that the 
 libels were not true, and, therefore, the accused not having any 
 good grounds to so believe them, the court should adopt the 
 doctrine so plainly enunciated by O’Brein as the correct prin- 
 ciple of law in the determination of this case. 
 
 In his plea to the first and second specifications, first charge, 
 General Stanley admits the writing and addressing of the letter 
 to General Hazen as alleged. In his letter in evidence (Rec- 
 ord, pp. 66, 67, 68, 69, and 70) he says : “I have not a copy 
 of my letter at present with me, but from recollection I accept 
 this as my letter. The same letter, or quotations, from it repeat- 
 ed thirteen times in the specifications following, 1 accept and 
 acknowledge the same in all the specifications. In explanation 
 of that letter I will say I have in good faith preferred charges 
 against General Hazen, and he escaped trial under those 
 charges. I wrote the letter to upbraid him, and, as the letter 
 says, to warn him. I did incautiously allow certain persons to 
 see the letter and take a copy, and perhaps I furnished a copy. 
 At any rate I was responsible that the letter got into the news- 
 papers.” Upon the introduction of this letter, however, Col- 
 onel Stanley denied that the charges referred to therein were 
 the same here on trial (Record, p. 70), but he afterwards ad- 
 mitted that the charges contained in Exhibit A were the 
 
11 
 
 charges referred to in that letter (Record, pp. 86, 94, 101, 118). 
 In the charges contained in this exhibit it will be seen that this 
 letter is set out with all the allegations of the manner and forms 
 of publication that are contained in the charges now under 
 trial. As to the publication of the defamatory article in the 
 Hew York Times we have the testimony of Mr. Hosmer, who 
 testifies that he was sent to General Stanley in his capacity as 
 reporter for that paper ; that General Stanley knew he was 
 such, and deliberately gave him for publication (the reporter 
 taking the same in longhand in liis presence), the defamatory 
 statements and imputations contained in that article. This 
 witness also testified that Stanley used the very language con- 
 tained in that article — namely, ‘ 6 He will meet charges of per- 
 jury and cowardice which I have made to his face, to the news- 
 papers, and in official statements.” This record shows that 
 all these things have been done, and an extract from the St. 
 Paul Pioneer Press in evidence shows that his libellous im- 
 putations at least got into that paper, and General Stanley so 
 admitted. But in the utterance of the defamatory charges he 
 did not rest with giving them publicity in official statements 
 and to the newspapers, as he told the reporter, but he circu- 
 lated and spread them orally upon nearly every conceivable 
 occasion. He informed Colonel McCook that he told General 
 Hazen at General Crittenden’s table at Fort Rice that he was 
 not only a coward but a liar (Record, p. 231). General Wood 
 also testifies that General Stanley informed him that he called 
 General Hazen a liar and a coward — that he denounced Gen- 
 eral Hazen as a liar and a coward, and witness don’t know 
 but he added the word “ impostor” (Record, pp. 280, 281). 
 Steele testified that Stanley said that he had a difficulty with 
 General Hazen at some point in the West, and that he told 
 General Hazen he was a liar and a coward, and that he ran 
 away from his command at Shiloh (Record, p. 456). General 
 Belknap testifies that copies of the libellous writings were sent 
 to him by General Stanley, and that he distributed the same 
 to certain officers in the city of Washington (Record, pp. 560, 
 565, 566, 567, 573). General Stanley claims that all this was 
 done in good faith and without malice, because he believed 
 that the libels were true. 
 
 U. OF ILL UB, 
 
12 
 
 The malice of General Stanley in this case consists in his in- 
 tention to effect the particular mischief shown by the writings, 
 which by their very terms tend to scandalize, degrade, and in- 
 jure General Hazen ; and where an act is voluntary, injurious 
 in its tendency, and illegal in its quality, it would be contrary 
 to all legal principle and analogy to justify or excuse himself 
 that he offended against the law with pure and upright mo- 
 tives. Malice in this case, from the nature of the writings, 
 is simply an inference of law which General Stanley might 
 have explained had he so desired. He did not do so, how- 
 ever, but the testimony of his own witnesses shows conclusively 
 that his temper and disposition indicated toward General Hazen 
 spite and ill-will in the largest sense of these terms. Except 
 as to the statements of counsel, the malice shown by the 
 writings and by the evidence remains wholly unexplained. 
 
 The defence rested solely on the ground that the libels were 
 true, and that General Stanley in good faith believed them to 
 be true, and to show the truth of the libels he introduced tes- 
 timony tending to show that General Hazen ran away from 
 his command or voluntarily and in violation of duty separated 
 himself therefrom at the battle of Shiloh ; that he did the 
 same at Pickett’s Mills ; that he caused to be erected on the 
 held of Stone River a monument to commemorate the achieve- 
 ments of his brigade at a point in the field on which his brigade 
 was not engaged with the enemy and suffered no losses ; that 
 he claimed trophies by capture at the storming of Missionary 
 Ridge, which justly belonged to the division of General Sher- 
 idan ; that he was guilty of either perjury or falsehood in his 
 testimony before the Senate of the United States, sitting as a 
 court of impeachment in the Belknap trial, — respecting the 
 reasons he assigned for the issuance of a subpoena to appear 
 and testify before the Military Committee of the House of 
 Representatives in 1872 ; that he falsely accused the Subsist- 
 ence Department of opposing the execution of the law of 
 1866, respecting the furnishing of sutlers’ supplies by that de- 
 partment ; that the Commissary-General interposed a barrier 
 to the execution of that law. 
 
 As tending to show the truth of his accusations of miscon- 
 duct at Shiloh, he introduced the testimony of a number of 
 
13 
 
 witnesses : Colonel Crittenden testified tliat he was informed 
 that General Hazen was back at the landing while the battle was 
 going on, and that he heard a great many insinuations that 
 General Hazen was not in his proper place (p. 110), bnt not 
 that he ran away (p. 112) ; Colonel McCook testified that he 
 saw Colonel Hazen on foot, and that he informed him that he 
 had lost his brigade ; General Wood that he saw him near the 
 bank of the river (pp. 240, 266). Dr. Murray says he saw 
 General Hazen a mile from the river at Shiloh ; that he said 
 his brigade was cut to pieces, and exclaimed that he was a ruin- 
 ed man ; that “ they are all scattered and I don’t know where 
 they are” (pp. 344, 345), but at this time the firing did not in- 
 dicate a general engagement (p. 346). 
 
 There is no doubt but that General Hazen became separated 
 from his brigade on this day, and the prosecution admitted that 
 fact. The only point in this connection is, did he leave in such 
 manner as to render his conduct either wrongful or disgraceful ? 
 Many of the witnesses testify that, from early morning until 
 about noon, General Hazen was present in command of his bri- 
 gade ; that up to this point the brigade maintained its part with 
 bravery and gallantry in its advance upon the positions of the 
 enemy, but suddenly meeting a superior force of the enemy in 
 its front and flank, it broke and fled in disorder ; that parts of 
 the country, if not most of it, were dense thickets, and that in 
 this condition of things General Hazen became unavoidably 
 lost in the woods, and was compelled to go to the landing in 
 order to ascertain the position of his brigade. But the man- 
 ner in which he became separated from his brigade is best 
 given in his own testimony, * which is contradicted by none, 
 and is corroborated by at least two of the witnesses. He 
 says : “ I went forward with the command in its charge and 
 during its fight, and when it was repulsed I moved back with 
 it, endeavoring to rally the men as best I could for about half 
 a mile, when I came to a field where most of the men got over 
 and crossed. Lieutenant Beebe, my aide, who was by my side, 
 leaped that fence, where it was partially broken down, with 
 his horse ; I dare not try it, fearing lie would fall from his lame- 
 ness [the witness had previously testified, u It was the first bat- 
 tle I had been in, and I found my horses entirely unmanageable 
 
14 
 
 under fire ; I had to send them to the rear and dismount a 
 bugler and take his horse, which proved to he a very unfit 
 horse for the service ”]. I turned to the left and passed around 
 to the left of the field. There were many men of the com- 
 mand who did the same. In doing that I passed into a very 
 dense thick wood, just to the left of it, and did not again get 
 the proper direction. After being in the wood for some time 
 with many of the men of my command, I became entirely 
 bewildered in regard to the direction. There was no firing on 
 this part of the line at that time ; there was firing to the left 
 and firing to the right. I mistook the firing a,t the right for 
 the firing of my own command, and moved in that direction 
 until I found General Rousseau’s brigade, at some point on the 
 map, I can hardly tell where, and I found there General King, 
 who was then Major King — John H. King. He told me 
 where he thought the brigade was. I was then in company 
 with Captain Opdycke, now General Opdycke. I endeavored 
 to get back to where I supposed the brigade had been, but 
 became bewildered in the woods as I had been before. I then 
 thought it best to take one of the roads ; there were a great 
 many roads there, the whole country was filled with roads ; 
 they all converged in one direction to the landing ; there 
 were no crossroads ; I supposed the landing was very near ; I 
 thought I would get on one of these roads to the landing and 
 get on the Hamburg road, the only one I was familiar with at 
 the time. ... In moving back, in place of being near the 
 landing, I was a long ways from the landing. 
 
 “ I met Dr. Murray when I had reached perhaps half the dis- 
 tance or two thirds of it. . . . The first people I met at the land- 
 ing were the servants of my own brigade, and they offered me 
 something to eat. I had eaten nothing for over 24 hours, and 
 I was very much exhausted and broken down. ... I was in all 
 perhaps twenty minutes or half an hour. I then mounted my 
 horse, and moved out and joined my brigade. I found Gen- 
 eral Kelson and reported every fact.” The witness is con- 
 firmed in this statement by the witnesses Opdycke and Beebe 
 — Opdycke as to the circumstance of being lost in the wood 
 and inability to find the brigade or its whereabouts at the 
 
15 
 
 time ; and Mr. Beebe as to the particular manner in which 
 General Hazen became separated from his brigade. 
 
 The testimony of General Opdycke, and of Messrs. Beebe 
 and Kimberly, who were attending General Hazen at the 
 time, should be received with the highest consideration. 
 These gentlemen testify that the conduct of General Hazen in 
 handling his brigade from early morning up to and including 
 the time of the charge, when the brigade became scattered and 
 broken, was intrepid, cool, and courageous. These traits, 
 however, can hardly be said to be assailed by the defence at 
 Shiloh, but it confined itself to showing that General Hazen 
 was seen away from the presence of the brigade merely. How 
 as to the probable time the charge took place, nearly all the 
 witnesses think that it took place in the forenoon, and that the 
 brigade became scattered about noon, or shortly after. Colonel 
 McCook says that he saw General Hazen in rear of his di- 
 vision at twelve o’clock m., about two and a half or three miles 
 from the landing, inquiring where he could find his brigade ; 
 General Wood, that he saw him at the landing about one 
 o’clock ; Dr. Murray and Mr. Bush, about noon. General 
 Opdycke testifies that the charge was made about eleven 
 o’clock, General Hazen being present on the line at the time, 
 and broke the enemy’s line all to pieces ; that some time 
 after the brigade in its turn was assailed by the enemy and 
 driven back in disorder and in a complete state of disorgani- 
 zation. Kimberly says that General Hazen was with his 
 brigade till it broke, or nearly one o’clock, and Beebe says the 
 same thing. There is no doubt but that General Hazen re- 
 mained with his brigade during the entire portion of the day 
 in which it was in a condition to fight, and that his separation 
 therefrom, as shown, was purely an incident not at all affecting 
 his courage or his devotion to duty, and this incident is cer- 
 tainly no basis justifying the assertion that his conduct was 
 otherwise than correct and proper. Hone of the witnesses 
 testifying to their opinions and impressions, or to the opinions 
 and impressions of others, admitted in evidence, say that the 
 conduct of General Hazen at v Shiloh was disgraceful or even 
 wrongful, or that they heard it so criticised, but the mere 
 incident only of his being at the landing was deemed an “ un- 
 
16 
 
 favorable” incident, or, as the witness Whitaker said, “ Yon 
 cannot keep soldiers from talking. ’ ’ Corroborating the testi- 
 mony of General Hazen, Colonel Crittenden testified that 
 General Hazen’s division commander was fnlly informed of 
 the incident, and, after being fnlly advised, speaks in glowing 
 terms of the conduct of Hazen at Shiloh. How this being 
 so, was it necessary that General Hazen should enter into an 
 explanation with his inferiors in rank, or with prurient gos- 
 sipers, tale-bearers, and scandal-mongers ? 
 
 The alleged cowardice of General Hazen at Pickett’s Mills 
 is attempted to be shown by General Wood and Mr. Bowman : 
 General Wood testifies that having had occasion to send for 
 General Hazen, in reporting to him he approached from the 
 rear ; Colonel Bowman that he saw General Hazen while re- 
 tiring with his regiment passing between him and a large tree, 
 but the witness is not to be understood as saying that Colonel 
 Hazen w r as hiding behind the tree (p. 305). General Wood 
 says that Colonel Hazen might have believed with reason that 
 he (Wood) was farther to the rear, and therefore, in looking 
 for him under this belief, would naturally approach him in 
 his advanced position from that direction. I do not attach any 
 importance to the testimony of Colonel Bowman as showing 
 or tending to show any improper conduct on the part of Col- 
 onel Hazen at Pickett’s Mills ; nor to that of General Wood ; 
 for to draw an injurious inference therefrom against General 
 Hazen could only redound against General Wood himself, on 
 the ground that if General W ood had any doubts as to whether 
 General Hazen was properly exercising the direction and com- 
 mand of his brigade at the time, he could easily have ascer- 
 tained the fact from the staff officer who conveyed the mes- 
 sage to General Hazen, and from others, and inform himself 
 fully on the subject, as it was his duty to do. It is plain that 
 General Wood did not then believe, nor does he now believe, 
 but that General Hazen did perform the part of a 'brave, 
 courageous, and gallant commander, and General Wood so 
 testifies (p. 274) ; and the losses of his brigade show it. This is 
 the entire testimony of the defence justifying the libellous 
 imputation of cowardice at Pickett’s Mills, and while it does 
 not show the truth nor even the semblance of the truth of the 
 
17 
 
 slightest impropriety on the part of General Hazen at that 
 battle, let alone the disgraceful crime imputed, and therefore 
 no testimony in rebuttal necessary, still, as the conduct of 
 General Hazen in this action was attempted to be untruthfully 
 and unreasonably assailed by the defence by innuendo and 
 argument on its part, it is proper to examine the testimony of a 
 witness who was at the time a member of the staff of General 
 Hazen. I refer to the testimony of Mr. Beebe (Record, p. 
 820), who testified that he was aide de-camp to General Hazen 
 in that action ; that during the assault upon the enemy’s works 
 General Hazen was up along the line of his brigade, and from 
 fifty to seventy -five yards in its rear, where, so far as the na- 
 ture of the ground would permit, he could see the brigade or 
 the larger part of it ; that a battery of the enemy on the right 
 having opened ^n enfilading fire, the brigade fell back ; that 
 General Hazen accompanied the command and re-formed it 
 about half a mile in rear of the enemy’s works ; that he was 
 with General Hazen or near him all the time, Hazen being 
 part of the time mounted, and part of the time on foot, and 
 never saw him take shelter behind a tree or anything else. 
 Witness did not see General Wood, nor know the point of 
 the field he occupied (Record, pp. 822, 823, 824). Further 
 evidence in corroboration of this witness was offered, but the 
 court decided not to hear any more testimony on this subject. 
 The conclusion is therefore irresistible that the conduct of 
 General Hazen at Pickett’s Mills was that of an energetic and 
 gallant officer. 
 
 General Wood is the only witness who testifies respecting 
 the claims of the defence that the monument erected at Stone 
 River in commemoration of the valor and deeds of Hazen ’s 
 brigade in that action is not erected on the position held by 
 that brigade during the battle. General Wood testified sub- 
 stantially that he did not believe that Hazen ’s brigade fought 
 on the present site of the monument ; that he believes this in 
 Hew of the statement contained in the report of General 
 Rosecrans, that witness’s division held the ground on which 
 this monument is erected ; his language is, “ I believe I mav 
 state that General Rosencranz in his official report states that 
 my division occupied at nightfall of the 31st the position it 
 
 9 
 
18 
 
 held on the morning of the 31st. That being so, General 
 Hazen’s brigade could not have had any men killed where 
 that monument stands.” And in answer to the question, 
 “ Do you say positively that none of General Hazen’s men fell 
 on this ground where the monument stands, or in its imme- 
 diate vicinity?” he said, “ I did not not say so : I gave the 
 reasons for it” (Record, pp. 256, 278). While the uncertainty 
 of this witness’s testimony on this subject hardly demanded a 
 reply, his grounds of belief being based upon an incidental 
 statement contained as he says in the report of General Rose- 
 crans, not at all necessary to the general correctness of the re- 
 port itself, yet, on the other hand, we have the positive testi- 
 mony of the division commander and of officers of the bri- 
 gade, that the very ground upon which the monument stands 
 was the identical ground held by Hazen’s brigade during the 
 battle of Stone River. Grouping the proofs, therefore, on 
 this point, and in all fairness to the witnesses who testified the 
 following conclusion is justified : 
 
 The testimony of General Wood is based upon information 
 purely hearsay, historical, and vague beliefs respecting the 
 location of the monument, while the testimony of General 
 Palmer, the division commander of General Hazen, and of 
 Messrs. Beebe and Kimberly, members of the brigade staff of 
 General Hazen at the battle of Stone River, is direct and pos- 
 itive that the monument is located on the ground held by Ha- 
 zen’s brigade during that action. 
 
 If any further or additional evidence of malice be required 
 in this attempt to libel not only the' living before this Court, 
 but the heroic dead of Hazen’s brigade at Stone River, the ac- 
 cused voluntarily furnishes it in clear and unmistakable 
 terms in his graphic description and definition of impositions 
 and impostors. He stated before this Court, “ I am accused, 
 and one of the serious accusations against me is accusing Gen- 
 eral Hazen of being an impostor. There are several kinds of 
 impostors. There are impostors for a day, there are impostors 
 for a month, and there "are impostors whose impositions will 
 last to all eternity. The man who builds a monument to 
 commemorate a falsehood is the greatest impostor that the 
 world can possibly conceive of. We wish to show why this 
 
19 
 
 monument was raised, and we want to show the imposture of 
 it” (p. 252, Record). 
 
 If this language means anything it means that accused in- 
 tended to stigmatize General Hazen as the worst and most 
 dangerous of impostors, one who would not only deceive while 
 living but continue his false and deceptive claims by recording 
 them on the imperishable granite. Could this utterance of 
 the accused have been made for any other purpose than to 
 reiterate one of the gravest and severest of his libellous accu- 
 sations to give it what additional force and effect its procla- 
 mation in this presence would add to wound the feelings and 
 manhood of the victim of his slanders, and this, too, in the 
 presence of overwhelming and conclusive proof that the Stone 
 River monument is not a lie nor an imposition, but that it 
 stands, as near as human memory can locate it, on the exact 
 spot where the heroic men of that brigade so well fought, and 
 many of them so bravely fell. 
 
 What motive General Stanley could have in thus libelling 
 the ashes of the heroes sepultured at this monument is difficult 
 of solution. At all events his proofs did not in any manner 
 (even supposing his assertion to be true) point to General 
 Hazen as the founder of the monument, or that he aided in 
 founding the same. 
 
 On the Missionary Ridge battle, General Stanley intro- 
 duced in evidence the report of General Sheridan, in which 
 the following statement appears : “ General Wood, in his re- 
 port to General Thomas, of artillery taken, claims many 
 pieces which were the prizes of my division, and when told 
 by me that the report was untruthful replied that it was based 
 upon the report of General Hazen, who, perhaps, will in turn 
 base his on those of regiments ; but whether Wood, Hazen, 
 regimental or company commanders are responsible, the re- 
 port is untrue. Eleven of these guns were gleaned from the 
 battlefield and appropriated while I was pushing the enemy on 
 to Chickamauga Station. ” It is difficult to understand what 
 this is intended to prove or disprove. So far as the record 
 goes, there is nothing to show that General Hazen ever did 
 or omitted to do anything denied or affirmed by it. Mr. Kim- 
 berly testified that Hazen ’s brigade reached the crest first, 
 
20 
 
 driving the enemy before them and capturing several pieces 
 of artillery ; a captured loaded piece was trained and dis- 
 charged along the ridge, causing the enemy to give away on 
 the crest in front of Sheridan’s division, then advancing up 
 the face of the ridge. Other witnesses would have been pro- 
 duced who would corroborate the testimony of Mr. Kimberly, 
 hut the Court decided that it had all the testimony on the 
 point that it desired to hear But even if Hazen’s men did 
 assist Sheridan’s division in clearing the ridge in front of it, 
 and a number of pieces of artillery were captured by Sheri- 
 dan’s men after ascending the ridge, there might be a ques- 
 tion in such a case as to whether Hazen’s men might not be 
 considered joint captors with Sheridan’s men. Here also I 
 am at a loss to understand the motives of the accused in his 
 effort to bring General Hazen into apparent antagonism with 
 General Sheridan as assuming to claim any of the well-earned 
 laurels of that intrepid leader. 
 
 The next point in the series of libellous imputations is, 
 did General Hazen testify falsely on the Belknap trial ? The 
 entire testimony pertinent to this case given by General 
 Hazen is in substance as follows : He testified (on the Belk- 
 nap trial) that his attention had been called to the subject 
 of post-traders at Fort Sill ; that he communicated this 
 information to the Military Committee of the House of 
 Representatives in 1872, having been duly subpoenaed to 
 testify before that committee ; that after the publication 
 of the article in The Tribune , Mr. Belknap made no in- 
 quiry regarding the truth of the statements contained in that 
 article ; that his relations with Mr. Belknap up to February, 
 1872, were friendly ; that he had met Mr. Belknap in Wash- 
 ington ; that his communications were respecting post-traders 
 generally, but on the same subject at Fort Sill particularly ; 
 that he came before the committee in 1872 on subpoena ; that 
 he proposed to give information on post-traders to General Gar- 
 field before being subpoenaed ; that he was called primarily to 
 testify concerning French and German staff organizations, and 
 the subject of post -traders he considered as pertaining to the 
 same thing ; that he wrote to the Secretary of War, through 
 the regular channels, about the farming out of post-trader- 
 
21 
 
 ships ; that it was his duty to do so. During cross-examina- 
 tion on this testimony the letter written to the Secretary of 
 War, of September 12th, 1875, was introduced in evidence. 
 In that letter General Hazen says : “ Soon after, when Mr. 
 Coburn was chairman of the committee, I was summoned to 
 Washington to give evidence upon staff organization of the 
 French and German armies. After finishing upon these sub- 
 jects I was questioned upon the subject of post-traders. I at 
 first remonstrated on the ground that I had not reported the 
 matter to you, because I believed the Commissary Department 
 would defeat any action in that direction, and that my testi- 
 mony might be a discourtesy to the Secretary. 5 ’ During the 
 remainder of the cross-examination of the witness this day, 
 he clung to the belief that he had written to the Secretary of 
 War through the Adjutant- General regarding post-traders be* 
 fore he had testified before the committee in 1872, but did 
 not know that it had reached the Secretary, as he received no 
 reply. Next day, upon reflection, General Hazen appeared 
 before the Senate to correct his testimony given the previous 
 day, and testified as follows: “ Upon consideration, I find 
 that the letter which I referred to, the official letter which I 
 said was reported to the War Department for General Bel- 
 knap’s information with regard to post-traders was written at 
 Fort Buford, and not at Fort Hays, and that would make it 
 after I testified to the House Committee, and not before it. 
 So that I wish to change my testimony in that respect. It 
 was written after and not before , as I supposed yesterday. ’ ’ 
 General Hazen further testified on this occasion that he wrote 
 but two letters to Secretary Belknap on the subject, namely, 
 the letter of September 12th, 1875, directly and marked con- 
 fidential, and the letter he had testified to as having written 
 after he had testified before the House Committee. This last- 
 mentioned letter he sent through the regular channels, and 
 his testimony on the first day’s examination shows it, but upon 
 appearing to correct his testimony Mr. Carpenter assumed 
 that the letter was sent direct to the Secretary, and confined 
 the witness to u Yes” or “ No” whether it was so or not. It 
 was this bullying of counsel that confused the witness, and no 
 doubt created the unfavorable impression testified to here. It 
 
22 
 
 is not unusual for witnesses after refreshing their memories to 
 return and correct their testimony, and that was all General 
 Hazen has been guilty of in this instance. His testimony, as a 
 whole, is perfectly consistent and truthful. 
 
 The statement contained in General Hazen’s letter of Sep- 
 tember 12th, 1875 — “ I have tried before to get this matter be- 
 fore you, but it meets its usual barrier in the office of the 
 Commissary- General. I enclose you a case of it. The law re- 
 ferred to in that letter was a mandatory one of perfectly plain 
 construction, one in which the troops on the frontier are in- 
 terested to the extent of about two millions of dollars an- 
 nually, and the construction referred to in that letter is not 
 understood either in fact or in justice, only that it has been 
 opposed from the first by the department whose duty it was 
 !o carry it out” — is not a falsehood. General Hazen had a 
 right to so construe the action of the Commissary Department. 
 It is notorious and in evidence that the law requiring the 
 Commissary Department to keep such articles for sale to 
 officers and enlisted men as might be designated by the In- 
 spector-General has not been enforced. That law was en- 
 acted immediately upon the passage of the law abolishing sut- 
 lers, and its evident intent was that the Commissary Depart- 
 ment should supply the articles theretofore supplied by sut- 
 lers. The Commissary Department has never executed the 
 law, but has interposed the barrier to its execution that 
 no adequate appropriation was available for the purpose, 
 yet it is shown in evidence that the very year in which it 
 was to go into operation a large surplus of commissary funds 
 available for the purpose was in the treasury. General 
 Hazen, therefore, had a right to believe as he did, and I pre- 
 sume every officer on this Court will believe with him that his 
 strictures on the Commissary Department in this respect were 
 justly merited. General Hazen testified in the Belknap im- 
 peachment case, “ I proposed to give information in regard 
 to post-traders before I was subpoenaed and further on he tes- 
 tified, 66 1 wish also to say with regard to my testimony before 
 the Military Committee four years ago, that I was called there 
 principally, as stated in that letter, to testify with regard to the 
 French and German staff organizations, and the other [the 
 
23 
 
 post-traders] was a branch of the subject.” This testimony is 
 assumed to conflict with the extract of General Hazen’ s letter 
 of September 12th, 1875, referred to. General Hazen testified 
 on this point that he understood from the chairman of the 
 committee and always believed that when he testified before 
 the committee he did so under condition that his name as the 
 author of that testimony would not be published ; that he un- 
 derstood from a prominent member of the House with whom 
 he was corresponding that he had impressed upon Mr. Co- 
 burn the fact that his name should not be used in connection 
 with that testimony ; that Mr. Coburn had been enjoined in 
 that connection. General Hazen, therefore, had every reason 
 to believe that what he might testify to before the committee 
 would be confidential, as he was not informed that its political 
 complexion would interfere with this idea ; but aside from this 
 the testimony of Mr. Coburn shows that it was directly on the 
 subject of staff matters that General Hazen was called to testify. 
 He says, “ The Committee on Military Affairs was consid- 
 ering the subject of the duties of commissaries. Amongst 
 these duties there seems to be a provision of law that the 
 commissary should supply the troops and officers with such ar- 
 ticles as are usually supplied by post-traders, and the question 
 arose in the committee as to whether the commissary should 
 keep those supplies or the post-traders, and so the abuses and 
 uses of that branch of the military service were brought before 
 the committee. General Hazen was especially sent for in re- 
 lation to that matter. Upon this, however, it was not neces- 
 sary to remonstrate if the scope of the investigation was to be 
 general, and there was no reason why General Hazen should 
 remonstrate upon testifying on a subject he had written upon so 
 extensively. In answer to the question on cross-examination 
 in the Belknap trial, u Distinguish between what you said and 
 what Belknap said,” General Hazen said: “I said to him 
 that I felt that I had been unjustly construed, that I thought 
 there had been a misunderstanding growing out of my testi- 
 mony before the committee four years ago, and that I desired 
 that he permit me to address him fully on the subject. I 
 went into some detail of my testimony at the time. I will not 
 pretend to trace it now. He told me he wanted me to write 
 
24 
 
 him fully and frankly, and that was the [reason the letter was 
 written. I said to him specially that my testimony before the 
 Military Committee did not refer to himself ; but did refer to 
 the faulty system of post-traders, and their being farmed out, 
 and that I did not consider myself responsible for the gossip 
 that had grown up.” (Belknap trial, p. 723). This testi- 
 mony of both Mr. Coburn and General Hazen shows conclu- 
 sively that Hazen was not subpoenaed to testify on the sub- 
 ject of post-traders any more than he was to testify concerning 
 the staff, or more especially that branch of it known as the 
 Subsistence Department ; staff organization and administration 
 being the only subjects upon which the House committee 
 was at the time authorized to consider, and General Hazen 
 attended with that understanding. 
 
 The article in the H ew York Tribune of February 15th, 1872, 
 on the subject of post-traders and the farming out of post- 
 traderships (Belknap trial, pp. 578, 579), while taken mainly 
 from letters written by General Hazen and Lieut. Pratt on the 
 subject, as testified to by Mr. Smalley, can in no sense be said 
 to have been written by General Hazen. Mr. Smalley testified 
 that the article was written by him, that its materials were ex- 
 tracted from a letter written by General Hazen and a letter 
 written by Lieut. Pratt, not addressed to him (Smalley), the let- 
 ters having been received privately and in confidence (pp. 368, 
 369, 370). The writing and publishing of this article cannot 
 be charged to General Hazen, for there is no evidence tending 
 to show that he ever gave his consent to the same, or that he 
 was even consulted respecting it. Mr. Smalley says that he 
 voluntarily published the article without reference to Hazen 
 (pp. 369, 370). 
 
 In candor to this eminent tribunal, General Stanley 
 must admit that his proposed proofs in support of the 
 truth of his libellous writings as well as of the series of 
 charges preferred by him against General Hazen have utterly 
 failed him. Hot even the semblance of the truth of his accu- 
 sations has been shown, nor grounds to believe in the truth of 
 them. 
 
 Before closing this brief summary of the case, it is proper 
 to remark that one very significant feature of it appeals to the 
 
I 
 
 25 
 
 understanding of all men. The evidence shows that for many 
 years General Stanley has on every available occasion and op- 
 portunity made and spread broadcast these most serious and 
 damaging accusations against General Hazen, with no pretence 
 or claim, so far as we can ascertain, of any provocation what- 
 ever on the part of General Hazen. What can be said of such 
 conduct ? A case can very well be imagined where a person 
 might in a certain sense be justified and his legal responsibili- 
 ties lessened if some real or imaginary injury were done him 
 and the weakness of our nature impelled him to sin against 
 the laws by inflicting immediate chastisement to the wrong- 
 doer or supposed wrong- doer, but this case presents no such 
 feature or excuse. General Stanley makes no claim or show- 
 ing that he has ever been wronged in thought, word, or deed 
 by the officer whose character he holds up to public execra- 
 tion and contempt. We find him then the self-constituted 
 custodian of the standard of truthfulness, honor, and bravery 
 in the army requiring every one of us to bend the knee before 
 his colors, under [penalty of being proclaimed a perjurer, an 
 impostor, and coward. 
 
 ( 
 
ARGUMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. RICHARD T. 
 MERRICK, COUNSEL FOR GENERAL HAZEN. 
 
 The accused has been arraigned upon two charges : 
 
 1. “ Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.” 
 
 2. “ Conduct to the prejudice of good order and military 
 discipline.” 
 
 It is necessary in the first instance briefly to develop the at- 
 titude of the case before considering the issues of law and fact 
 that it involves. In the progress of the trial, counsel for the 
 accused has made repeated efforts to embarrass the issues pre- 
 sented, by insisting that this is not a trial for libel, and that 
 the rules governing such a proceeding cannot be safely resorted 
 to for our guidance in this investigation. 
 
 Now it must be conceded that any act in violation of the 
 rules of conduct prescribed by the common law, which would 
 subject the party to an ignominious punishment, such as con - 
 finement in a jail, is an act appropriately and technically 
 described as u conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentle- 
 man.” It therefore follows that when an officer is charged 
 with ‘ ‘ conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, ’ ’ and 
 the specification under the charge designates and describes an 
 act which is criminal in its character, the Court must try and 
 determine the question whether the officer is guilty of that 
 particular criminal act. For instance, if the act set forth in 
 the specification were embezzlement, or bigamy, or pro- 
 curing money under false pretences, or larceny, libel , or 
 any other one of the large class of criminal offences known to 
 the common law, the Court could proceed in the investigation 
 with which it would be charged in no other way than such as 
 would lead it to a satisfactory determination of the guilt or in- 
 nocence of the party on trial in respect of the particular crim- 
 inal offence described in the specification. And in such pro- 
 ceeding it could have no safer or better established and wiser 
 principles for the guidance of its investigation than those estab- 
 
27 
 
 fished for the direction of Courts in the trial of these offences 
 at common law. 
 
 Now the criminal act charged in the specifications in this 
 case is the publication of a libel, or, to speak more accurately, 
 according to the record, the publication of several libels. For 
 such an offence at common law, Courts in the administration of 
 that system of jurisprudence may fine the convicted party, in 
 the exercise of their discretion, to any amount, and may, in the 
 exercise of the same discretion, imprison him for any definite 
 period of time, except that the sentence shall not be imprison- 
 ment for the lifetime of the offender. 
 
 Therefore the question here presented under the first 
 charge is whether the accused is guilty of publishing the libels 
 set forth in the specifications, or any of them, and upon a find- 
 ing upon that issue the finding of the Court in respect to the 
 charge necessarily follows. 
 
 The defence interposed in this case is : 
 
 First — That the statements in the defamatory publications 
 that constitute the libels are true. 
 
 Second — That the accused published those statements ‘ 6 in 
 good faith and without malice, having good and substantial 
 reasons for believing what he said.” 
 
 In stating the second ground of defence, I quote the lan- 
 guage of the counsel of the accused, as reported on page 481 
 of the record. 
 
 Upon the special issues thus made under the general plea 
 of ‘ 4 not guilty, ’ ’ the first inquiry is : What is the proof 
 presented by the Judge- Advocate, in the first instance, to 
 establish the charges ? And in this connection it seems that 
 notwithstanding these defences of the truth of the publi- 
 cation, and excuse for publishing, even if the statements in 
 those publications are not true, the Court is disposed to leave 
 the accused at large under the general issue of ‘ 4 not guilty, ’ ’ 
 to deny that any publications were made. This privilege is 
 apparently inconsistent with these special defences, and I ques- 
 tion if it was ever known in any court of law that a defendant 
 in an indictment for libel could justify on the ground of the 
 truth of the defamatory publication, and at the same time 
 maintain that he never published at all. 
 
28 
 
 ■ i 
 
 PROOF OF THE PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 Nevertheless, I take the case as I find it, and proceed to the 
 first inquiry, namely, 66 the proof of the publications.” 
 
 The letter set forth in, specification first, under the charge of 
 4 4 conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, ’ 5 is admitted 
 by the accused to have been written by him, and by him for- 
 warded to General Hazen at Vienna, in the Empire of Aus- 
 tria. This letter bears date September 6th, 1877, and is the 
 first libel charged against the accused. 
 
 Specification second repeats the letter, and specifications 
 third, fourth, fifth, and sixth set forth distinct and separate 
 parts of this letter. Specification seventh sets forth a publica-^ 
 tion which it alleges appeared in the St. Paul Pioneer Press 
 on or about December 1st, 1877, and which publication is sub- 
 stantially the letter set forth in specification first, and acknowl- 
 edged, as I have stated, to have been written by the accused. 
 But it is maintained that although the letter was written by 
 the accused, he is guiltless of any participation in the act of 
 its publication in the journal referred to. The specification 
 alleges that the accused ‘ c did publish and did aid and abet in 
 the publication” of said letter in the journal to which I have 
 alluded. 
 
 Now before proceeding further it is necessary to inquire 
 whether this defence is sustained by the proof It is ad- 
 mitted by the accused that he wrote the letter. And it is in 
 proof from W. W. Belknap, one of the witnesses for the de- 
 fence, that the accused sent him a copy of that letter, instruct- 
 ing him at the same time, however, not to let it get in the 
 press. Belknap says (p. 566) : “ I heard that he (the ac- 
 cused) had written such a letter. He informed me so him- 
 self. ’ ’ He then states that he requested a copy, which was 
 sent to him by mail, under the circumstances I have indicated. 
 He then goes on to state, in reply to interrogatories, that he 
 showed the letter to several parties and gave a copy of it to 
 one or two officers of the army, and kept a copy for himself. 
 He then goes on to say (p. 561) : “ I published it in no news- 
 paper, and how it got there I do not know. If I ever did I 
 have forgotten.” It, therefore, clearly appears’ that if there 
 
29 
 
 was, in fact, any injunction at all about not publishing the 
 letter in a newspaper, it was very strictly limited to news- 
 papers only, and that Mr. Belknap felt that he was entirely 
 at liberty to give it that kind of refined circulation which 
 would insure its publicity through less common instrumental- 
 ities than those resorted to by ordinary men. One thing is 
 certain, he did give it publicity, and, acccording to his evi- 
 dence, publicity among that class of gentlemen whose good 
 opinion was most valued by General Hazen, and whose es- 
 teem and respect was most necessary for him in the perform- 
 ance of his duties as an officer of the United States Army. 
 Nor is it at all surprising that this interesting paper, thus put 
 into circulation by the conjoined efforts of the accused as its 
 composer, and Belknap as its exhibitor, should find its way 
 into the columns of any enterprising journal : and the accused 
 therefore, in his letter to General Sherman presented to the 
 Court at the commencement of this case, whilst denying that 
 he actually caused the letter to be published in the St. Paul Pio- 
 neer Press , admits his responsibility for its appearance there 
 because of his own carelessness. 
 
 But there is another and yet more conclusive piece of evi- 
 dence connecting the accused with this publication, placing 
 his complicity in the transaction beyond the reach of ques- 
 tion. In his conversation with F. L. Hosmer, when he was 
 getting up the libel, which appeared in the New York Times 
 on March 14th, 1879, and which constitutes the subject of the 
 twelfth specification under the first charge, and the third 
 specification under the second charge, he made the following 
 statement, referring to General Hazen and certain of his 
 friends and legal adviser in Washington City : u I don’t know 
 what progress they’re making ; but I do know what they’re 
 afraid of ; that is, that if his name ever comes before the United 
 States Senate he will meet charges of perjury and cowardice 
 which I have made to his face, to the newspapers, and in 
 official statements. ’ ’ 
 
 This constitutes part of the third libel, which 1] shall con- 
 sider hereafter more generally. I now refer to it only for 
 the purpose of proving the publication of the second libel. 
 Mr. Hosmer stated that the words I have just read were Gen- 
 
30 
 
 eral Stanley’s words, and being interrogated by the accused, 
 testified as follows : 
 
 Q. Are you certain whether I said charges have been made 
 to the newspapers or in the newspapers ? 
 
 A. I did not notice that particular point. I wrote it down 
 exactly as you gave it to me, word for word , very slowly. 
 
 How whether the reporter in taking down the words of the 
 accused mistook the word in for to, and should have written 
 in the newspapers instead of to the newspapers, is quite im- 
 material. He could not, writing down “ exactly” and u word 
 for word” and “ very slowly,” have entirely mistaken what 
 was said, so far as to make the sentence conform to the ap- 
 parent theory the accused seemed to suggest in his interroga- 
 tory. For the sentence was a plain declaration of three things 
 that the accused had done, namely : I have made certain 
 charges— -first, to his face ; second , to the newspapers ; third , 
 in official statements. | 
 
 NARROWING DOWN THE FIELD OF PROOFS. 
 
 How, as far as this trial has developed, there has been no 
 other publication calumniating General Hazen coming from 
 the accused and appearing in any public journal in the coun- 
 try, except that mentioned in the specification as appearing in 
 the St. Paul Pioneer Press. And if what the accused said 
 to Mr. Hosmer, that he had made charges of cowardice and 
 perjury to the public press, was true, and not braggadocio 
 and abuse, then the press to which he referred was the identi- 
 cal journal designated in specification seven. If there had been 
 any other journal of which he knew that would have made 
 good his word to Hosmer, why did not he introduce it on the 
 tiral ? — for as it would not have answered the description of 
 the paper given in the specification, it could have done him no 
 ffiarm, but would, on the contrary, have done him great good 
 by extricating him from the dilemma in which he has placed 
 himself. 
 
 Specifications the eighth, ninth, and tenth, respectively, set 
 forth as having been published in the St. Paul Pioneer 
 Press the several different portions of the letter set out in full 
 
31 
 
 in specification seventh, and in each charge that the accused 
 did “ aid and abet in the publication.” Specification eleven 
 sets out the entire letter, and charges that the accused fur- 
 nished the same for publication in the St. Paul Pioneer 
 Press. 
 
 Specification twelfth contains the third of the libels consti- 
 tuting the offence of the accused, and sets forth that he did 
 “ cause and allow to be published in . . . the New York 
 
 Times certain false and malicious statements and imputations 
 concerning and against Colonel William B. Hazen,” etc., and 
 thereupon sets forth the libel in full. The proof of the par- 
 ticipation of the accused in the publication of this libel has 
 already been partly considered in discussing the testimony of 
 F. L. Hosmer, with a view to establishing the publication of 
 the second of the series of libels. 
 
 HOW THE CHARGES WERE MADE. 
 
 F. L. Hosmer testifies that he was on March 14th, 1879, a 
 reporter for the New York Times ; that he called upon the 
 accused in consequence of something he had seen in one of the 
 papers in reference to General Hazen, or General Hazen and 
 himself, to interview him for the purpose of preparing an ar- 
 ticle for the journal on which he was employed ; that the ac- 
 cused knew what his occupation was, and was informed of the 
 purpose of his visit ; and that he was in fact so informed is ap- 
 parent from an expression in the article which forms the subject 
 of the specification I am now considering. The article states 
 that General Stanley, when interrogated by the reporter, said 
 that as far as the general public is concerned he thought Gen- 
 eral Hazen had kept it pretty well informed, and it was hardly 
 necessary for him to say anything. This expression is in quo- 
 tation marks in the article referred to, and Hosmer testified 
 that everything in the article that was put in quotation marks 
 was General Stanley’s own and exact language, written down 
 at the time u word for word.” 
 
 General Stanley then, having said that the public was “ pretty 
 well informed ” — so well that it was “ hardly” necessary for 
 him to say anything — proceeds to say to that public what he 
 
32 
 
 does think it necessary he should say ; and thereupon follows 
 matter, if possible, more defamatory than in either of the two 
 preceding libels. Hosmer further states in his testimony that 
 after taking down what the accused said in longhand, and 
 “ word for wordf he read it over to him, and that it was ap- 
 proved by him as correct. And he further says that subse- 
 quent to the publication the accused explained to him that the 
 intimation therein that he had commanded a corps at Pick- 
 ett’s Mills was a mistake, and the witness, when interrogated 
 by the accused, stated that they had not read the article in the 
 same way, and agreed that in that particular there was a mis- 
 take. This, however, being the only correction made by the 
 accused, is necessarily an admission of everything not correct. 
 The only question, therefore, remaining in reference to the 
 complicity of the accused in the publication of this libel is 
 whether the facts I have stated constitute such complicity. 
 
 This question is hardly worthy the dignity of argument. 
 That the defamatory statements that constitute the substance 
 of the article were from the mouth of the accused cannot be 
 questioned. 
 
 The fact that they were taken down as he uttered them is 
 undisputed. 
 
 The fact that they were read over to him, that their accu- 
 racy might be tested, is likewise undisputed. 
 
 Neither is it disputed that he knew they were designed for 
 publication, and for publication in that particular journal in 
 which they appeared. 
 
 And that after their appearance he complained of one im- 
 material error, and thus ratified and affirmed the accuracy of 
 all the rest of the article. 
 
 LIBELLOUS NATURE OF THE CHARGES. 
 
 I might refer upon this subject to the rules of law as laid 
 down in adjudicated cases (Section 540, Starkey on Slander 
 and Libel), and I might show the difference in the rule which 
 holds a defendant in a civil case responsible for the publication 
 of a libel by procuration, and where he is held responsible for 
 a publication under similar circumstances in a criminal case. 
 
33 
 
 But surely any officer of the United States Army would blush 
 at the thought of asserting for an instant that the accused is 
 not, under the facts I have detailed, responsible for the pub- 
 lication of the libel in question, and 1 should insult any culti- 
 vated understanding by debating the question. 
 
 Having thus shown that the publications were made, the 
 next question is whether the matter contained in them consti- 
 tutes what is known to the law as libellous matter. This ques- 
 tion is answered by reading the publications. And here it may 
 be necessary to analyze them and briefly comment on their in- 
 jurious and defamatory charges. 
 
 In substance, the first and the second of the series of libels 
 are the same. The accused says that he has seen the decision 
 of the President upon certain charges he has preferred against 
 General Hazen, that “ the service would not be conserved by 
 convening a general court-martial to try you (Hazen) at this 
 time. 5 5 
 
 He then proceeds to say that he is not disappointed, and 
 writes as follows : 
 
 “ You know just as well as I do that your trial could only 
 have resulted in your conviction, and you already stand con- 
 victed before those who heard you testify. 5 5 
 
 During the progress of the trial it seems to have been re- 
 garded that these expressions were obnoxious to the law only 
 in so far as they were libellous upon General Hazen ; but 
 when looked at from a military point of view, they deserve 
 severer censure and involve greater criminality for another 
 reason. They are an open assault upon the Executive of the 
 United States for the manner in which he has discharged his 
 official duty as the Commander-in-Chief of the Army. The 
 accused had thought proper, in the exercise of what is conceded 
 to be the privilege of every officer when acting in “ good 
 faith ” and under an honest conviction, to prefer charges 
 against one of his brother officers. These charges had been 
 duly laid before the proper military authorities, and finally 
 reached the President of the United States. The Commander- 
 in-Chief had iven them that consideration which his duty to 
 the country and the army required, and it is to be presumed 
 that he conscientiously performed in the premises the obliga- 
 3 
 
34 
 
 tion imposed upon him by the Constitution of the United 
 States. Having in the performance of that duty determined 
 that a court-martial should not he convened for their trial, the 
 officer by whom they were preferred publishes to the world 
 that he is “ not disappointed ” at the fate they have met, and 
 at the same time also publishes to the world his solemn assur- 
 ances of the guilt of the party against whom the charges were 
 directed, and further says in his publication that multitudes 
 besides himself knew of this guilt. If he does not mean to 
 arraign the President for malversation in office, what does he 
 mean ? Why is he not disappointed ? Why does he continue 
 to reassert guilt ? Why does he leave the recognized channel 
 of official communication and enter the arena of public debate 
 before the people ? What other object can he comtemplate ex- 
 cept to create the impression that the object of his vindic- 
 tive malice has not been criminally arraigned to answer for 
 his guilt by the unlawful, unconstitutional, and criminal inter- 
 position of the Commander-in-Chief of the Army. 
 
 AN OUTLET FOE VINDICTIVE MALICE. 
 
 But whether this publication, in the aspect in which I am 
 now considering it, be regarded as libellous upon the Com- 
 mander-in-Chief of the Army or not, one conclusion must fol- 
 low from the subsequent parts of this letter, when taken in 
 connection with that part I have been discussing, and that con- 
 clusion is that the accused, having exhausted all legitimate 
 means of attacking General Hazen, derived from the failure 
 of his designs new vigor and intensity to his vindictive malice,, 
 and determined that since he could not ruin his enemy by law 
 he would destroy his character by defamatory libels. If the 
 officers of the Army are willing to assert in solemn adjudica- 
 tion that conduct such as this is ‘ ‘ becoming an officer and a 
 gentleman,” it is to be hoped that civilians will never seek 
 for enlightened rules to restrain the latter class in the code 
 that governs the former. 
 
 The latter clause of the letter is as follows : 
 
 “ I now give you fair warning that I am fully informed of 
 your disgraceful conduct at Shiloh, and when the proper oc- 
 
35 
 
 casion offers will use the information to stop your career of 
 imposture. 5 5 
 
 The specifications which follow the first, subdivide this par- 
 agraph of the letter, and by innuendo allege that “ disgrace- 
 ful ” conduct was intended to signify cowardice, and that the 
 words “ career of imposture” were intended to signify that- 
 General Hazen, to whom they referred, was an impostor. 
 
 Some question arose in the progress of the trial in reference' 
 to the use in certain of these specifications of words of tech- 
 nical signification. For instance, in the third, after averring 
 that the accusation therein contained is ‘ 6 unfounded, false, and 
 malicious,” the specification continues, “ and was wickedly 
 devised by the said Stanley.” And it was asserted by the 
 defence that it was only necessary to be shown, on behalf of 
 the accused, that he did not devise the charge, thereby meaning 
 that he did not originate it, and that he was not the author of 
 it, and consequently that any accusation against General Hazen 
 of the character contained in the libel of the defendant, and 
 which might have been at some time rumored about among some 
 people, would be a sufficient defence under which to protect the 
 accused. Such is by no means a just construction of the lan- 
 guage of the specification. The accused himself devised the 
 libel, and rumor is no justification ; but this 1 shall have occa- 
 sion to consider hereafter. My design now is simply to say 
 that whatever rumors may have been offered in proof as to 
 acts of General Hazen, there was no statement or rumor what- 
 ever that his conduct at Shiloh had ever been pronounced by 
 anybody as “disgraceful.” General McCook and other 
 officers testifying for the accused, stated that they had seen 
 General Hazen on the day of the battle, absent from his 
 brigade. Bnt the distinguished officer I have mentioned stated 
 that he had never pronounced an opinion upon his conduct, 
 nor was there one, of all the witnesses summoned by the de- 
 fence to bear testimony to this circumstance, who ventured to 
 say that he had characterized the conduct of General Hazen 
 by any such term as “ disgraceful,” or by any other term de- 
 rogatory to his character as a “ soldier and a gentleman. 5 ’ It 
 was left for the accused, who was not at the battle, to “ de- 
 vise” the judgment he pronounced when he accused General 
 
36 
 
 Hazen of “ disgraceful conduct,” a judgment which the testi- 
 mony in this case has shown to be so entirely erroneous that 
 it can be accounted for only upon the ground of an unwise if 
 not an insane vindictiveness. 
 
 As to the charge that Hazen was an impostor, that this was 
 devised by the accused there can be no question. 
 
 MISSTATEMENTS IN ANOTHER CHARGE. 
 
 This analysis of the libel contained in the first specification 
 is applicable to the charge contained in the eleventh specifica- 
 tion, namely, the publication of the letter in the St. Paul 
 Pioneer Press ; and I, therefore, pass to the libel contained 
 in the twelfth specification, and which will enlighten us as to 
 that contained in both the first and the eleventh. In this libel 
 the accused states as follows, referring to General Hazen and 
 his friends at Washington : 
 
 “ I don’t know what progress they are making, but I do 
 know what they are afraid of : that is, that if his name ever 
 comes before the United States Senate he will meet charges of 
 perjury and cowardice which I have made to his face, to the 
 newspapers, and in official statements. ’ ’ 
 
 The libel further says : “ General Stanley asserts that Gen- 
 eral Hazen was reported to him for cowardice at the battle of 
 Pickett’s Mills and other places. At that time General Stan- 
 ley commanded the Fourth Corps of the Army of the Cumber- 
 land, while General Hazen was in command of a brigade in 
 the third division of that corps.” 
 
 I have already called attention to the fact that the statement 
 that General Stanley commanded a corps at the battle of 
 Pickett’s Mills was an error of which he complained to the 
 reporter after the article appeared, and which was explained 
 in court by him. 
 
 It is proper to remark in this connection, however, that 
 the accused did command the Fourth Corps of the Army of 
 the Cumberland from July, 1864, till the summer of 1865, and 
 that during part of that time G eneral Hazen was an officer 
 serving in that corps and under the accused, in order to give 
 application to the expression I have quoted from the libel, 
 that Hazen was reported to the accused for cowardice. 
 
37 
 
 It is also proper to remark in this connection that F. L. 
 Hosmer in his testimony says as follows : “ I simply meant 
 that he (Hazen) was reported to him (Stanley), and that he 
 could take no action in the premises or he would have done 
 so. I did not mean officially reported.” But it is quite im- 
 material whether the expression in the libel meant, or was in- 
 tended to mean, that the report that came to the accused was 
 official or unofficial. He has published as a fact that General 
 Hazen was reported to him for cowardice at Pickett’s Mills 
 and other places. How, whether this report was official or 
 unofficial, it must have been made by some individual if made 
 at all. But further than this there must have been more than 
 one individual in the general transactions referred to in the 
 libel, for the report was not only as to conduct at Pickett’s 
 Mills, and not only as to some one other place, but as to other 
 places. Who made these reports to the accused ? Where is 
 the evidence ? He certainly knows who the individuals are 
 who made the reports to him, if any such exist. He has had 
 ample time to get his testimony. The power of the Govern- 
 ment, reaching on all sides to the extreme limits of the Re- 
 public, has been at his command to bring before this court any 
 witness he might desire to call. Where are the individuals 
 who bore him the reports he alleges he has received ? That 
 he has published as a fact that reports thus injurious and dam- 
 aging to General Hazen were made to him is no longer open 
 to question. The inquiry now is whether that statement is 
 true or false. As to this narrow question there is no room for 
 the defence that he believed it to be true, and had grounds 
 for such belief. He knows whether it is true or not, and 
 there are others, according to his own statement, who must 
 know the same thing. Where are they ? Why has he not 
 called them here ? Why has he willingly rested under the 
 imputation that the statement was untrue, unless he knew that 
 it was untrue ? 
 
 RECAPITULATION OF THE LIBELS. 
 
 This analysis of the several libels develops the following as 
 the charges against General Hazen that have been published 
 by the accused : 
 
38 
 
 First. Perjury as a witness in the trial of W. W. Belknap 
 before the Senate of the United States. 
 
 Second. Cowardice at Shiloh. 
 
 Third. That he is an impostor. 
 
 Fourth. That the accused has charged him to his face, in 
 the newspapers, and in official communications, with perjury 
 and cowardice. 
 
 Fifth. That he was reported to the accused for cowardice 
 at Pickett’s Mills and other places. 
 
 Graver and more serious accusations could not be brought 
 against an officer of the army, and the publication of such 
 charges, unless justified, is one of the highest crimes known 
 in any civilized community, and places the accuser and the 
 accused in the attitude of meriting the severest penalty ac- 
 cording to the determination which may be reached as to 
 whether the charges are true or false. * 
 
 At common law the criminal offense is complete by the 
 simple publication of charges of so grave a nature, and the 
 truth is not allowed to be given in evidence as a protection of 
 the accused. But in this proceeding, as I understand it, it 
 was designed that the accused should have the protection of 
 the truth to its fullest extent, if he could establish it in his 
 vindication. 
 
 He has availed himself of that defence, and accompanied it 
 with such expressions as render the conclusion inevitable that 
 his publications and conduct were instigated by the most vin- 
 dictive malice, unless the Court should believe that the evi- 
 dence adduced clearly and distinctly establishes the guilt of 
 General Hazen as to the several matters charged against him 
 by General Stanley. 
 
 The accused in his letter to General Sherman, on file in the 
 records of this case, in speaking of the libel set forth in the 
 first specification, says : “ I further avow that all the sub- 
 stance-matter in the letter is true, and therefore not libellous. 
 
 I confidently expect to bring out such evidence in 
 my defence as will, if it does not wholly debar Colonel Hazen 
 from associating with gentlemen, at least close up effectively 
 all pretensions on his part to honors or promotions in the 
 Army. ’ ’ 
 
39 
 
 Now what is the proof offered ? The testimony of General 
 Hazen given on the impeachment of W. W. Belknap has been 
 presented by the defence to the Court as sustaining and justi- 
 fying the charge of perjury. In the specifications under the 
 charges preferred by the accused against General Hazen, all 
 of which relate to the subject of the trial of Belknap, the tes- 
 timony is unnaturally torn one part from another, and so col- 
 lated as to give an incorrect view of what the evidence really 
 was. When read together the evidence of General Hazen will 
 be found entirely consistent in every part, and entirely in 
 harmony with the confidential letter he addressed to General 
 Belknap from Fort, Buford, September 12th, 1875. Accord- 
 ing to the testimony of Mr. Coburn and General Hazen, the 
 latter was summoned to Washington in 1872 to testify ip re- 
 gard to matters relating to the staff of the Army, and he was 
 examined as to post-traderships in connection with the duties 
 of the Commissary Department (p. 195). Previous to that 
 time General Hazen had a correspondence with General Gar- 
 field, and inclosed to him a communication received from an 
 officer at Fort Sill disclosing certain abuses in the post-trader- 
 ;Ship system. This letter from General Hazen, and its in- 
 closure, General Garfield handed to Mr. Coburn, the then 
 chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs in the House, 
 and it was agreed between them that General Hazen’ s name 
 should not be mentioned as volunteering statements about the 
 abuses of post-traders. (See Coburn’s testimony, 635 and 636.) 
 
 THE COMPACT ABOUT SECRECY BEFORE THE MILITARY COMMITTEE. 
 
 General Flazen came on to Washington in obedience to the 
 summons of the committee, having been informed of this ar- 
 rangement between Garfield and Coburn that his name should 
 not be disclosed as giving information upon the subject referred 
 to. General Hazen states in his evidence, under oath, on 
 this trial, that in conversation with Mr. Coburn, before testi- 
 fying, he spoke of not having his name disclosed in connec- 
 tion with this matter. Mr. Coburn has no recollection of 
 that conversation, but thinks it possible it may have taken 
 place, and it is apparent, from the fact of the arrangement 
 
40 
 
 between Mr. Coburn and Mr. Garfield to the same effect, that 
 such a conversation would take place in the ordinary course of 
 events. General Hazen very naturally as an officer of the 
 Army did not wish to involve himself in a difficulty with the 
 Secretary of War, although he did not at that time certainly 
 know how deep and virtuous was the interest of that high 
 functionary in the delicate subject with which he was dealing. 
 Being thus ignorant he was not conscious of how wise his 
 course had been in not making a report on the subject directly 
 to the Secretary of W ar in person. And it is to such personal 
 report that he refers in his letter of September, 1875, when 
 he says, ‘ ‘ I had not reported the matter to you. ’ ’ His position 
 is well explained by himself in the second paragraph of the 
 letter referred to (page 233, Congressional Record , offered in 
 evidence). He says as follows : “ Seeing that we were de- 
 feated, and the Army again encumbered with the old system, 
 which is nothing less than a system of leeches applied to the 
 pockets of the Army (although personally the present sutlers, 
 are not objectionable men), and that the objections of the 
 Commissary Department would block any action in the mat- 
 ter and defeat any attempt through the Army itself looking 
 toward correction, I endeavored to call the attention of Con- 
 gress to the subject, through my old friend and schoolmate, 
 General Garfield. I naturally gave the worst instances of the 
 workings of the law I knew of, and these were instances of 
 farming out licenses at heavy rates, which were, of course, a 
 tax to that amount upon the garrisons. ’ ’ 
 
 E. Y. Smalley confirms what General Hazen states in this 
 letter as to the manner in which he obtained the information 
 that formed the basis of his article published in The Tribune 
 in 1872. Although Hazen was ignorant of the Secretary’s 
 personal interest in farming out licenses, it was perfectly nat- 
 ural, after the publication in The Tribune, that the Secretary 
 should feel indignant, as he says he did, and that this indig- 
 nation should grow and develop in a manner he is utterly 
 unable to explain in his testimony. 
 
 The gravamen of the charge against General Hazen is that 
 his testimony, as given, is in conflict wfith the letter referred 
 to ; but a close analysis of the two will show plainly that no 
 
n 
 
 such conflict exists. It is also alleged that his statement to the 
 effect that the Commissary Department opposed and obstructed 
 the operation of the law of 1866, providing that that depart- 
 ment should furnish soldiers with a certain class of stores 
 which had been theretofore provided by sutlers, was not well 
 founded. But one important and controlling fact upon that 
 subject stands out to view — viz., that while the Inspector- 
 General of the Army, who by the law was required to furnish 
 the list of stores to be provided by the Commissary Depart- 
 ment, has invariably and faithfully performed his duty in that 
 regard, the law has remained practically unexecuted. It can- 
 not be doubted for a moment but that a co-operation with the 
 Inspector-General of the Army on the part of the Commissary 
 Department would have accomplished the faithful execution 
 of the law. Independent of this fact, the official records and 
 evidence before the court show that General Hazen was en- 
 tirely right in®his belief and in his expressions of that belief. 
 
 GENERAL HAZEN AT SHILOH. 
 
 Much the greater portion of the large mass of evidence be- 
 fore the court presented by the accused relates to the conduct 
 of General Hazen at the battle of Shiloh. It appears from the 
 testimony of several witnesses that General Hazen was at one 
 period of the day absent from his command at that battle, and 
 at a certain time, not more definitely fixed by any of those 
 witnesses than about noon, was seen at Pittsburg Landing. 
 They also represent that this subject was commented upon or 
 spoken of at the time, but, as I have before said, there is not 
 one of them who undertook to condemn General Hazen for 
 the act or testified that others had condemned him. Further 
 than this single fact the accused has offered no evidence what- 
 ever to sustain or justify his libel upon General Hazen in 
 which he has charged him with ‘ ‘ disgraceful 5 5 conduct at that 
 battle. 
 
 How has the Judge Advocate met this testimony ? 
 
 He has brought before the court those officers of General 
 Hazen ’s brigade whose military duty made it necessary that 
 they should be with him, and other distinguished officers serv- 
 
42 
 
 ing in his command whose undoubted courage and brave 
 achievements at that battle, and throughout the war, have 
 secured to them a lasting reputation in the history of their 
 country. General Emerson Opdycke testifies that with the 
 dawn of the morning General Hazen formed his brigade, led 
 it on as the advance of Nelson’s division, and therefore as the 
 advance of the army, on that famous field, pushing the enemy 
 before it, until, finally drawn up in one extended line of battle, 
 General Hazen gave the order to charge, went forward with 
 his men wherever resistance was to be encountered or danger 
 invited the soldier. Finally, driven back by an overwhelming 
 force, they retreated, whilst General Hazen at every step was 
 endeavoring to rally his men. The brigade was broken and 
 scattered in the thickly wooded country, dense with under- 
 growth, and the General and Opdycke were both lost. They 
 parted at one o’clock. Opdycke rejoined the colors of the 
 41st Ohio about an hour afterward, about which had rallied a 
 few of his scattered regiment. 
 
 Robert L. Kimberly, Acting Assistant Adjutant-General, 
 bears testimony to the same facts with Opdycke up to the 
 period when he was wounded in the advance, which he fixes 
 at about one o’clock. W. M. Beebe, an aide to General 
 Hazen, testifies that Hazen called his brigade to arms with the 
 first dawn of the light, formed them in two lines for the ad- 
 vance, moved forward on the enemy, and, after some severe 
 fighting, ordered a charge upon the Rebel lines. Generals 
 Buell and Nelson were at the time this order was given imme- 
 diately in the rear of the brigade, and some confusion in the 
 6th Kentucky Regiment having occurred, Captain Wright, of 
 General Buell’s staff, with General Hazen, rode to the front, 
 organized and rallied the men, and General Hazen charged 
 with them upon the enemy. During the charge they drove 
 the enemy from his guns, passed beyond his battery, met his 
 second line, when from front and either flank a deadly fire was 
 poured upon the brigade, and, unsupported and encountering 
 overwhelming numbers, they fell back scattered and disor- 
 dered. General Hazen was there seen with the men who had 
 advanced the furthest, and it is proper to remark here that this 
 point was the furthest in the direction of the enemy’s lines 
 
43 
 
 that had been reached by any of the Federal troops at this 
 time. 
 
 He accompanied General Hazen in the retreat, and after 
 being parted from the command they became separated from 
 each other by the thick undergrowth. He again saw General 
 Hazen about four o’clock, when he was in command of his 
 brigade. The 41st Ohio and 6tli Kentucky were baoly broken 
 and scattered, but a comparatively small portion of the men 
 had gathered before nightfall, and they were coming in 
 throughout the night. 
 
 Captain Charles D. Gaylord, one the staff of General Ha- 
 zen, tesxified to the forming of the brigade in the morning, its 
 advance, its encounters, its final charge, and bears witness 
 that all the time up to the very last moment when it had 
 passed beyond the enemy’s batteries and been checked by his 
 second line and an enfilading fire General Hazen was in his 
 place cheering on his soldiers, and performing the duties of a 
 brave and gallant man ; and that in the retreat he was endeav- 
 oring to rally them for another attack, inducing them to 
 stand wherever he could, although they were pursued by a 
 deadly fire. In this retreat, having occasion to dismount, he 
 lost sight of his general. He saw him next about four o’clock 
 of that same afternoon, probably not more than two hours 
 and a half after he had parted with him, when he was again 
 with that small portion of the brigade that had rallied, and 
 he was then in command of it. 
 
 Lieutenant Gross, of the 9th Indiana, says that he saw Gen- 
 eral Hazen at the furthest point reached in the charge ; that 
 his regiment went in with 450 men, and such was the disaster 
 and disorganization consequent upon their fearful encounter 
 that there was not left more than from 80 to 125 ; that the 
 41st Ohio and the 6th Kentucky were badly broken and scat- 
 tered ; thattlft men continued to join the brigade during the 
 night, and even the next morning. 
 
 These witnesses all concur in the statement that the charge 
 was some time after twelve o’clock, the entire previous part of 
 the day having been occupied in fighting up to the point 
 where this final dash was made. The charge lasted probably 
 thirty minutes or more. The brigade had been decimated. 
 
44 
 
 With the final charge, its work for that day was done. That 
 work had been well and bravely done, under brave and gal- 
 lant leadership, and he who would soil the fair fame won on 
 that bloody field deserves the reprobabtion of every officer in 
 the service of the country. I will not speak of General Ha- 
 zen’s own testimony accounting for his absence. The testi- 
 mony of others establishes his gallantry on that day so clearly 
 that it raises the necessary presumption that any absence 
 when the fight was done was the result of inevitable accident. 
 His own testimony accounting for this accident was so di- 
 rect, so calm and modest, that any discussion would only be 
 calculated to lessen its legitimate and proper force. 
 
 What next shall I discuss to meet this rambling attack of 
 vindictive malice upon a distinguished soldier ? 
 
 THE EVIDENCE ABOUT PICKETT’S MILLS. 
 
 Pickett’s Mills follows Shiloh naturally in the order of the 
 charges. It was at that battle also that General Hazen is 
 alleged to have acted in a cowardly manner. 
 
 Robert L. Kimberly, who was his adjutant at Shiloh, was 
 the Lieutenant- Colonel of the 41st Ohio at Pickett’s Mills. 
 He testifies that General Hazen was in his proper place. In- 
 deed there is no testimony to the contrary worthy of consid- 
 eration in regard to that battle. 
 
 W. M. Beebe, who was on the staff of General Hazen at 
 Pickett’s Mills, as he had been at Shiloh, testifies that the 
 brigade consisted of nine regiments ; that during the entire 
 day General Hazen was in his place at a distance of fifty to 
 seventy-five yards to the rear, where he could see the opera- 
 tions in the field. The brigade was driven back ; General 
 Hazen accompanied and re-formed it. He further says he 
 was with the General nearly the entire day, and was carrying 
 orders from him to the right of the brigade, and was never 
 longer absent from him than was necessary to deliver the 
 order and return to his post. 
 
 At Mission Ridge, Robert L. Kimberly, the Adjutant- Gen- 
 eral at Shiloh, was Colonel of the 41st Ohio. He testifies that 
 at the signal of six guns the whole line advanced to the foot of 
 
45 
 
 the ridge and attacked the rifle pits of the enemy, rested for 
 a few moments in the shelter of the abandoned pits, and then, 
 under the order of Hazen, shouted repeatedly along the line, 
 scaled the ridge. It is proper here to remark that General 
 Hazen, in his letter to Lossing the historian, gives to his bri- 
 gade the credit of that dashing movement, and says in sub- 
 stance that his order to advance w'as only in response to that 
 enthusiasm which had impelled them forward before the order 
 was given. Kimberly says that this brigade was the first to 
 reach the crest of the ridge, where they found a number of 
 guns from which they drove the enemy. The enemy re- 
 mained at the guns until the brigade got within fifty paces of 
 his breastworks, and finding one of the guns still loaded, it 
 was trained to point along the crest of the ridge, and fired by 
 some of Hazen’s command. Hazen was there present with 
 the first that reached the guns. Some question has arisen as to 
 who captured those particular guns. If Colonel Kimberly is 
 to be believed (and no one questions his veracity or his honor), 
 the men of Hazen’s regiment found the enemy in their posses- 
 sion and drove him away ; consequently if he had been driven 
 away before he must have regained his lost possession — hardly 
 a probable supposition. Overwhelming testimony in confir- 
 mation of Kimberly’s statement would have been offered had 
 not the Court, deeming the evidence on this and kindred sub- 
 jects amply sufficient, declined to hear further testimony. 
 
 THE STONE RIVER MONUMENT. 
 
 The most extraordinary feature of this case is the claim set 
 up by the accused in reference to the location of the monu- 
 ment erected at Stone River, to the memory of the soldiers of 
 Hazen’s brigade, on the spot where they fell. The evidence 
 upon this subject was introduced by the accused under the asser- 
 tion that he would show a fact which would justify him for hav- 
 ing, in the libels complained of, made the charge against General 
 Hazen of being an impostor. The counsel of the accused in 
 this first instance stated the object of the evidence, but the ac- 
 cused, apparently not satisfied with so modest a presentation 
 of his claim, rose in court, and said (p. 251) : “ Ho, let me 
 
46 
 
 state it. I am accused, and one of the serious accusations 
 agairnt me is of accusing General Hazen of being an impostor. 
 There are impostors for a month and there are impostors whose 
 impositions will last to all eternity. The man who builds a 
 monument to commemorate a falsehood is the greatest im- 
 postor the world can conceive of. We wish to show why this 
 monument was raised, and we want to show the imposture of 
 it. The inscription to which we want to call attention is this 
 on the east side : ‘ Erected, 1863, upon the ground where they 
 fell, by their comrades.’ ” I have quoted this language of the 
 accused in order that he might have the full benefit of the 
 position he has assumed, and at the same time that he might 
 not escape the responsibility of the attitude in which he has 
 placed himself. A man who erects a monument to perpetuate 
 a falsehood may be, according to the definition of the accused, 
 an impostor. But he that would attempt to tear down by a 
 libel upon both the dead and the living that which has been 
 erected by the survivors a memorial to perpetuate the glory 
 of their comrades who fell in battle is worse than an ‘ ‘ im- 
 postor. ’ ’ 
 
 The accused has presented the issue plainly, and he has at- 
 tempted to sustain his assertion by the testimony of General 
 Wood that the monument is not erected upon the exact spot 
 where the dead of Hazen’s brigade fell on that bloody day ; but 
 all that this witness could say who was there upon the field of 
 battle, was, that he did not believe that the monument was on 
 the spot occupied by the brigade in question, although he did 
 not positively know that it was not. Subsequent testimony 
 plainly shows that General Wood, brave and efficient offi- 
 cer as he may be, was somewhat confused in his ideas 
 as to the location of troops and the happening of transac- 
 tions on that day. Colonel Kimberly, who at Stone River 
 occupied the same position that he did at Shiloh, of Adjutant- 
 General to General Hazen, testifies that the monument 
 is on the identical ground occupied by Hazen’s brigade. 
 Captain Beebe, who was on General Hazen’s staff, testifies 
 emphatically to the same effect. He says that early in the 
 morning General Hazen ordered him to ride in the direction 
 from which there came the sound of heavy firing, and to as- 
 
47 
 
 certain the cause and to report to him. When he returned and 
 reported he found that the brigade had moved across the 
 turnpike, and was resting between the turnpike and the rail- 
 road, with its right on the turnpike and its left on the rail- 
 road ; that it continued to occupy that line between the turn- 
 pike and the railroad until the enemy made his appearance 
 upon the flank. Change of front to rear on the left subdivi- 
 sion was ordered, which carried the brigade facing at right 
 angles to its former position and behind the railroad embank- 
 ment. At that point he was wounded. “ The monument is 
 built,” he continues, “ on the ground occupied by the bri- 
 gade at that time, and in that position between the turnpike 
 and the railroad where the monument stands the brigade lost 
 the most of its men.” But if any further evidence were 
 needed to establish the truth of the inscription upon this mon- 
 ument erected to commemorate the deeds of the gallant dead, 
 and thereby stimulate the living to rival their glory, it is fur- 
 nished in the testimony of that accomplished soldier and 
 highly distinguished citizen, General John M. Palmer. He 
 says that observing the gallant fight of Hazen’s brigade, he 
 rode up to them, and during a lull in the battle thanked the 
 41st Ohio for their conduct. u That regiment,” he says, 
 “ was under the more immediate supervision of General Ha- 
 zen. They were holding the most important position, the 
 maintenance of which was necessary to the preservation of the 
 army.” General Palmer says, “ The killed and wounded 
 were strewn thickly around. ‘I recollect very well seeing 
 Beebe, of Hazen’s staff, wounded near the railroad ;” and he 
 continues, “ The point of which I speak was between the rail- 
 road and the pike. I cannot speak accurately as to the loca- 
 tion of the monument, but this I know, it is nearer the posi- 
 tion occupied by Hazen’s bridgade than to the position occu- 
 pied by any other troops I saw on that field. It is just in 
 front, I think, of where the line formed during the real strug- 
 gle.” 
 
 How then stands the issue the accused has made as to the 
 truth or falsehood of the inscription on that monument ? 
 
 Now the evidence of^ the falsity of that inscription is the 
 only evidence he has offered to justify or excuse the libel he 
 
48 
 
 has published upon his brother solider, denouncing him to the 
 world as an impostor. 
 
 The shelter of the truth under which the accused has sought 
 protection for the libels he has published having been torn 
 down and demolished by even the limited amount of evidence 
 allowed to be introduced to rebut his case, his counsel seek to 
 defend him upon the ground, to use his own language, that if 
 he “ in good faith and without malice made these charges, 
 having good and substantial reason for believing what he said” 
 (p. 481), then the accused is entitled to acquittal, although the 
 charges may be false. 
 
 THE FUTILE PLEA OF GOOD FAITH. 
 
 In regard to the defence just indicated, it is proper to re- 
 mark that no evidence whatever has been offered showing 
 that any statement made by any person derogatory to General 
 Hazen has ever reached the ears of the accused. And it 
 seems a mockery of the term, in view of the testimony in the 
 case, even to aver a pretence that he acted “ in good faith.” 
 Good faith don’t mean whimsical belief ; it don’t mean sus- 
 picion, colored by malice ; it means the honest conviction of 
 an honest mind, honestly desiring to know the truth. Now, 
 before the accused published his first libel charging General 
 Hazen with cowardice at Shiloh, he had before him the writ- 
 ten statement of General Emerson Opdycke, as honorable a 
 man as ever lived, informing him that he, Opdycke, of his 
 own personal knowledge, knew that Hazen’s conduct at Shiloh 
 was that of a gallant solider, and was without reproach. Why 
 did he not give credit to this statement, and if he did not 
 choose to give credit to it, why hasn’t he out of all the army of 
 the United States, that survived that day, brought some one 
 here to prove that he had told hinqa different story, and im- 
 pressed upon his mind a conviction that Opdycke ’s statement 
 was not true ? 
 
 And as I have asked before, I ask again, if anybody ever 
 reported Hazen to him officially or otherwise for cowardice 
 at Pickett’s Mills or anywhere else, why has he not brought 
 that man here to testify ? And why has not he consulted the 
 
49 
 
 records of the department in which are the reports of com- 
 manding and subordinate officers alike, out of which are made 
 the history of the country ? And if he has searched these 
 records and found anything in them to justify the belief he 
 has expressed and vindicate his claim to the 44 good faith” as- 
 serted for him, why has he /not brought that record here and 
 produced it before this Court ? When those records were 
 offered by the Judge- Advocate and their admissibility claimed 
 upon the ground that it was testimony 44 accessible to the ac- 
 cused,” and that he ought to have examined them, his counsel 
 promptly replied that he had examined them, and proposed to 
 show that those records were not correct. Can the plea of 
 4 4 good faith” so extend itself as to meet a case like this ? 
 
 But, says the counsel of the accused, laying down the law, 
 and I accept it, 44 there must not only be good faith in the 
 accused, but he must have had good and substantial reasons 
 to believe the truth of the charges that he made.” Had he 
 good grounds to believe that this distinguished officer, who 
 had gone through the war, and of whose record this Court 
 will take judicial cognizance as it is written in the history of 
 the country, had really been guilty of cowardice at Shiloh, 
 Pickett’s Mills, and other places ? Was he deaf to the honest 
 fame that the object of his animosity had achieved at Chatta- 
 nooga, Chickamauga, in East Tennessee, and the Atlanta cam- 
 paign, at Jonesboro, McAllisters and Bentonville, or did his 
 undisciplined spirit, filled with malignity, turn a deaf ear to 
 all that was good and kindly and brave and generous, but 
 catch with the sensitive hearing of animosity every breath of 
 evil, however putrid the atmosphere in which it stirred ? As 
 an essential element of his vindication his counsel has stated 
 that there must not only be 44 good faith” in him, and that he 
 must not only have had good and substantial reasons for be- 
 lieving that the charges he made were true, but that. he must 
 also have been without malice in making them. Unfortu- 
 nately for him, the case furnishes conclusive evidence of the 
 most vindictive malice. 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 GENERAL STANLEY^ PERSISTENT MALICE. 
 
 It is a settled principle of law that yon may find malice in 
 the libel itself, and we know that modes of expression, and 
 especially needless repetitions of defamatory charges, compel 
 ns to the conviction that vindictiveness and animosity stimu- 
 late the accused. The accused in this case, in September of 
 1877, addresses a libellous communication to General Hazen 
 at Vienna. This alone, according to the criminal law, was 
 sufficient publication. Shortly afterwards he exhibits it to 
 General Belknap and gives him a copy, which is industriously 
 circulated. In the following December this same communi- 
 cation very slightly modified appears in a public journal of this 
 country. In March of the present year he publishes by pro- 
 curement similar defamatory statements in reference to Gen- 
 eral Hazen in one of the leading journals of the United States. 
 Why was this ? What was his motive ? Can any one acquaint- 
 ed with human nature assign any other cause for it than the 
 vicious influence of those sentiments which men call vindic- 
 tiveness and malice ? But the extraneous evidence strengthens 
 the conclusion that these were the sentiments by which he 
 was impelled. In his conversation with General McCook in 
 this city some years since, he speaks of General Hazen in 
 terms of severity. In another conversation with General 
 Wood and Colonel Steele at the Centennial, in 1876, he speaks 
 of General Hazen in the most defamatory and abusive terms, 
 and declares it to be his purpose to arrest his career. 
 
 THE HONOR OF THE ARMY IN QUESTION. 
 
 The counsel for the accused has during the progress of the 
 trial repeatedly urged upon the Court that this case should in 
 no way be regarded as one in which, by the judgment to be 
 pronounced, General Hazen should obtain any vindication of 
 his injured character. I am not very familiar with military 
 jurisprudence, but it seems to me that General Hazen’s char- 
 acter is not only at issue in this case, but that to a greater or 
 less extent the character of the Army of the United States and 
 
51 
 
 of its system of j urisprudence are also at issue, as well as the 
 guilt or innocence of the accused. If there is any class of men 
 in our country with whom principles of honor should be re- 
 garded as more obligatory than mandates of law, it is that 
 class known as the Army of the United States : if there is any 
 class of men among whom unfounded defamatory and injur- 
 ious accusations can work mischief to individuals and detri- 
 ment to the public service, it is the Army of the United 
 States. Within itself, according to the order of priority, ready 
 obedience is essential and personal respect is necessary to a 
 cheerful subordination. In its relation to the private citizen 
 its officers are seldom permitted to reside sufficiently long in 
 any one locality to establish upon a solid basis an individual 
 and personal character among the people. They are accepted 
 everywhere as gentlemen by reason of their position in the ser- 
 vice of their country. Whether, therefore, we regard the 
 officers of the army in their relations to one another, or in 
 their relations to civilians, you cannot fail to appreciate that 
 disastrous consequences must follow unjust aspersions, and 
 consequently you cannot hesitate to recognize that the dignity 
 of your serivce may sometimes require severe though painful 
 remedies. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The learned counsel for the accused seems to have some the- 
 ory, which I confess I am unable to understand, as to the right 
 of officers of the army to be exempt from those rules of pre- 
 sumptive evidence which are applied to the acts of ordinary 
 men. His own ideas on the subject are apparently not per- 
 fectly clear. He maintains that every officer must be pre- 
 sumed to be a gentleman, therefore that whatever he does 
 must be presumed to be right. This is the substance of his 
 theory, and supposing, in deference to him, there may be 
 some ground for the rule he has laid down, how does it 
 apply to a case between two persons both of whom are officers 
 and in which one of them must necessarily be wrong? The 
 rule must operate equally and alike as to all who are members 
 of the exceptional class. If, therefore, a charge should be 
 made against an officer that he published an accusation of in- 
 
famous conduct against another officer, the presumption 
 would be that the charge of having made such a publication 
 was false. But if it should be established by the evidence that 
 he had made such a publication, then the presumption would 
 be that the accusation was false. It will be thus seen that the 
 rule of presumption would operate equally in favor of the one 
 and the other, according to their respective relations to the 
 acts done. The extraordinary paper signed by the accused and 
 read by his counsel as his defence, confirms every word that I 
 have said in reference to his deep, vindictive, and aggressive 
 malice. In that paper he not only reaffirms his conviction 
 of the truth of the defamatory charges he has heretofore made 
 against General Hazen, but apparently defies the Court to 
 convict him, notwithstanding the evidence adduced, and an- 
 nounces his purpose to act toward any other officer whose 
 character and conduct do not meet his notions of what they 
 ought to be in the same manner in which he has acted toward 
 General Hazen. If this Court thinks he should go forth to 
 purify and purge the Army of the United States in the exercise 
 of undisciplined passion, he certainly should be allowed a char- 
 ter for that purpose in a judgment of acquittal. 
 
 But this paper in its relation to the case contains a yet more 
 serious statement, and solemnly asserts that there is now on 
 file in the department at Washington an application by Gen- 
 eral Hazen that he should be appointed Quartermaster- Gen- 
 eral. Is it in accordance with the proprieties of this trial and 
 consistent with the dignity of this Court that such a statement 
 should be made at this stage of the proceedings ? If such an 
 application is on file in Washington, why did not the accused 
 produce a certified copy of it as evidence in the case ? Why 
 did he wait to make such an accusation until presenting his 
 argument in defence, when, to the reason of any thinking 
 man, it can have no other effect than to excite the belief that 
 he is endeavoring to delude the Court by the assertion of that 
 which he did not dare to assert under oath, and which he 
 knew he could not establish by proof ? This extraordinary 
 statement can only be accounted for on the ground that his 
 vindictiveness has entirely overcome his prudence and subju- 
 gated his understanding. But something further must be said, 
 
53 
 
 as due to public justice and to honor and truth. I am author- 
 ized to state on behalf of General Hazen that no such applica- 
 tion has ever been made or filed by him or by his authority or 
 with his connivance, consent, or knowledge, and, so far as he 
 knows, the statement that any such application is now or ever 
 was on file in the department at Washington or elsewhere, is 
 , unfounded and untrue. 
 
 Respectfully asking from the’ Court that it will seriously 
 consider how far officers of the United States Army are to be 
 protected and justified, under our system of military jurispru- 
 dence, in adopting a the methods pursued by General [Stanley 
 in libelling and defaming one another, and whether these 
 methods are in harmony with the principles of right, justice, 
 and honor that distinguish the profession of the soldier, I sub- 
 mit the case.